# Nationalism in music



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Having a few conversations with esteemed forum member Starry has promted me to bring this discussion to the fore on nationalism in music.

Two questions: 

Is musical nationalism a good or bad thing? National pride or just dangerous?

Does the country in which a composer is born have any affect on his music? Could Dvorak have composed the Slavonic Dances if he were born in Argentina? Could Liszt have written the Hungarian Rhapsodies if he was born in Mozambique? Are composers in no way a product of their environment and their sound is never dictated by any national/ethnic influence?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

hahaha

It doesn't have to be a bad thing I suppose. I think for me it's more not about the composers as about how some musicologists or listeners want to take ownership of the music away from the composers.

And really your examples are rather simplistic and funny. The question more is would such composers have composed music (particularly classical music) outside of those countries you mention. The answer I think would be yes they could have composed music elsewhere assuming they had the right encouragement (maybe from parents or friends or whatever). It's not a question whether composers have no influence from their environment (I never said that), it's about how some want to make out this is the only major influence on a composer. A composer does not simply represent a country or society, he represents himself. Things are more complex than some would wish to think.

And I was specifically talking about modern classical music before too. To bring Mozambique into it isn't comparable. You might as well compare such a country to a neighbouring African country (to show regional over national influence). You could say with Liszt would he have been a composer had he been born in Poland? It's quite possible he would have been, and quite possibly just as good a pianist.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

starry said:


> And really your examples are rather simplistic and funny.


Why thank you!

I will agree with you that a composer is ultimately the creator of the music he or she pens. And it is very likely that, no matter where a certain composer is born, the natural, in-born inclination to write music would probably manifests itself no matter what.

But how do some musicologists try to take ownership away from composers? I don't think I have ever encountered this. Do you mean they try to say that Norway composed Grieg's music, but not Grieg?

Anyway, I don't think anyone in this forum would try to say that a composer like Grieg would not have composed music had he not been born in Norway. He likely would have. Have you seen folks in this forum make such a claim?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

starry said:


> hahaha
> 
> It doesn't have to be a bad thing I suppose. I think for me it's more not about the composers as about how some musicologists or listeners want to take ownership of the music away from the composers.
> 
> And really your examples are rather simplistic and funny. The question more is would such composers have composed music (particularly classical music) outside of those countries you mention. The answer I think would be yes they could have composed music elsewhere assuming they had the right encouragement (maybe from parents or friends or whatever). It's not a question whether composers have no influence from their environment (I never said that), it's about how some want to make out this is the only major influence on a composer. A composer does not simply represent a country or society, he represents himself. Things are more complex than some would wish to think.


I think a composer represents themselves and this should always be the case, however, you can't escape the sounds that have impacted you either directly or indirectly. There's nothing wrong with promoting composers who are American, Spanish, English, French, Russian, etc. It's apart of who they are and any self-respecting composer knew they couldn't escape it. Like American composers, for example, have a certain sound that's inborn and that distinguishes where they're from. You can hear hear this in early American classical music that kind wide-open sound that only an American would write. There's something about the string writing in conjunction with the brass, woodwinds, and percussion that makes the music American.

I'm proud to have been born in the United States. Whatever problems arise in my country, this will forever be apart of me. Wherever someone goes they carry their birthplace with them or at least I think they do whether they realize it or not.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Maybe nobody has directly said that, but then I didn't directly say some of the things you were implying either.

It's more a question of how important is simply the style of music from a country, compared to the style of music from a particular period. I tend to feel that the latter is more important and is a much bigger differentiation between composers than simply the fact that someone happened to be born on one side of a border rather than on the other.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

starry said:


> Maybe nobody has directly said that, but then I didn't directly say some of the things you were implying either.
> 
> It's more a question of how important is simply the style of music from a country, compared to the style of music from a particular period. I tend to feel that the latter is more important and is a much bigger differentiation between composers than simply the fact that someone happened to be born on one side of a border rather than on the other.


I have to admit, with all due respect, I am having trouble following what you are trying to say.

I understand that you are saying the period in which music is written is influential on a composers sound.

But take a composer like Leifs who was born in Iceland. He openly admitted to using irregular rhythms and the harmonic device of the parallel 5th throughout his music because he learned that from the folk music of his own country. How can this not have been a consequence on his sound?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

starry said:


> Maybe nobody has directly said that, but then I didn't directly say some of the things you were implying either.
> 
> It's more a question of how important is simply the style of music from a country, compared to the style of music from a particular period. I tend to feel that the latter is more important and is a much bigger differentiation between composers than simply the fact that someone happened to be born on one side of a border rather than on the other.


I'm really enjoying creating these "American Composer Corner" threads, because they seem to irritate you for some reason, which encourages me to create more of them.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I have to admit, with all due respect, I am having trouble following what you are trying to say.
> 
> I understand that you are saying the period in which music is written is influential on a composers sound.
> 
> But take a composer like Leifs who was born in Iceland. He openly admitted to using irregular rhythms and the harmonic device of the parallel 5th throughout his music because he learned that from the folk music of his own country. How can this not have been a consequence on his sound?


I don't really follow Starry's logic either, because it doesn't really make whole lot of sense.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I think a composer represents themselves and this should always be the case, however, you can't escape the sounds that have impacted you either directly or indirectly. There's with promoting composers who are American, Spanish, English, French, Russian, etc. It's apart of who they are any self-respecting composer knew they couldn't escape it. Like American composers, for example, have a certain sound that's inborn and that distinguishes where they're from. You can hear hear this in early American classical music that kind wide-open sound that only an American would write. There's something about the string writing in conjunction with the brass, woodwinds, and percussion that makes the music American.


I'm sure there's other American composers who have a different sound to what you describe. Also I noticed elsewhere you said that the American composers you look at are all very individual. Isn't that a huge contradiction? You are making a big thing of them being American but then you say they are all actually very individual. Or are you saying that being individual is particularly American and therefore composers from other places are not individual?  Also elsewhere you said these were the great American composers. Why just pick out some you like? If you want to look at something that links all American composers surely you have to look at the really derivative ones too whose music could have been composed somewhere else very easily. That would indicate that the better composers also (like most good composers anywhere) would also absorb outside influences into their music.



Mirror Image said:


> Wherever someone goes they carry their birthplace with them or at least I think they do whether they realize it or not.


Yeh they may carry their birthplace...like the city they born, or region they are from. Those things may be stronger than any nationalistic tie. It depends on the individual. Some people may even move many miles from where they are born and feel more of a connection elsewhere. It's possible.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I have to admit, with all due respect, I am having trouble following what you are trying to say.
> 
> I understand that you are saying the period in which music is written is influential on a composers sound.
> 
> But take a composer like Leifs who was born in Iceland. He openly admitted to using irregular rhythms and the harmonic device of the parallel 5th throughout his music because he learned that from the folk music of his own country. How can this not have been a consequence on his sound?


That may have had an influence on his sound. I don't really know his music well, not sure if I've even heard him, but no doubt there were other outside influences on his music too. I suppose the question is how significant is this stylistic aspect of his music that you mention, and also whether other folk musics elsewhere might use similar devices anyway. If born elsewhere would he have been drawn to using aspects of folk music there too? Some of that might depend on the availability or exposure of such music to him wherever he lived.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

starry said:


> I'm sure there's other American composers who have a different sound to what you describe. Also I noticed elsewhere you said that the American composers you look at are all very individual. Isn't that a huge contradiction? You are making a big thing of them being American but then you say they are all actually very individual. Or are you saying that being individual is particularly American and therefore composers from other places are not individual?  Also elsewhere you said these were the great American composers. Why just pick out some you like? If you want to look at something that links all American composers surely you have to look at the really derivative ones too whose music could have been composed somewhere else very easily. That would indicate that the better composers also (like most good composers anywhere) would also absorb outside influences into their music.
> 
> Yeh they may carry their birthplace...like the city they born, or region they are from. Those things may be stronger than any nationalistic tie. It depends on the individual. Some people may even move many miles from where they are born and feel more of a connection elsewhere. It's possible.


I still fail to understand your logic as it makes no sense at all. Sorry, but you're way off on this one my dear Starry.

Yes I did say all the American composers I listen to are very individualistic and have their own styles, but this doesn't change where they come from and the fact they have that inborn American sound.

Look at Ravel, Saint-Saens, and Debussy. All where born in France and have different styles, but they still sound like French composers. There's a common thread that connects all composers who were born in the same country whether we notice this or not.

It's not about "Nationalism" it's about recognizing a common thread in composers from the same countries, which the American composers, no matter how different their inherent styles are, still have that feeling in their music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

starry said:


> That may have had an influence on his sound.


It may not have, it did.



starry said:


> I suppose the question is how significant is this stylistic aspect of his music that you mention, and also whether other folk musics elsewhere might use similar devices anyway. If born elsewhere would he have been drawn to using aspects of folk music there too? Some of that might depend on the availability or exposure of such music to him wherever he lived.


I think the folk aesthetic in his music is significant. It helps define his sound. And it was obviously significant enough to the composer to want to use it and admit to using it.

Would other folk musics have similar aesthetics to Icelandic folk music? I am sure there must be similarities elsewhere. But I doubt anything but Icelandic music influenced the composer who identified himself Icelandic. After all, he said so himself.

Another great example of a nationalist is Ifukube, whom I have mentioned. Here is a quote from him regarding the aesthetics of his Ritmica Ostinata for Piano and Orchestra:

"Ritmica Ostinata' means a rhythmic figure that is persistently repeated throughout a composition.

"Japanese traditional music is based on rhythmic patterns of even-numbered beats (an equivalent of simple duple or quadruple meter in western music); on the other hand, the basic premise of Japanese poetry is 5-7 or 7-5 syllables.

"In this composition, I adopt rhythmic motives derived from Japanese poetry and a hexagonic mode (6-note scale), similar to those common in Japanese music.

"By combining those two different artistic elements and repeating them persistently, I intend to reveal our collective unconscious as a nation."

I agree that Ifukube, had he been born elsewhere, probably still would have had an inclination to write music. But again, here is a man who sought to become a composer to expres something "Japanese" in his music. Thus, a Japanese identity, a Japanese "sound" was very much a part of his modus operandi as an artist. Of course, the music comes first and foremost from his brain, from his own creativity. But one cannot deny there are certain qualities of his music that make him sound different from other composers, and certainly, there are aspects of his music that cleary have a basis in the traditional music of Japan. I would say the Japanese cultural influence is not incosequential to this composer's sound.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Yes I did say all the American composers I listen to are very individualistic and have their own styles, but this doesn't change where they come from and the fact they have that inborn American sound.


'Inborn' American sound? I don't really understand that. No way were they born with a sound, they would have been influenced in their composing by whatever they liked. Their styles may actually have changed over their lives.



Mirror Image said:


> Look at Ravel, Saint-Saens, and Debussy. All where born in France and have different styles, but they still sound like French composers. There's a common thread that connects all composers who were born in the same country whether we notice this or not.


'All' composers? That's a sweeping statement.

No doubt some composers who knew each other as they were close could influence each other. That doesn't make this sound necessarily specifically French. It was a sound of this particular period too, part of the impressionist style. This style might be used by other composers elsewhere (Scriabin, Delius, Tcherepnin, Griffes). Some French composers might use other styles. You make it sound like their can be only one style in a country, or that composers in different places can't influence each other.



Mirror Image said:


> It's not about "Nationalism" it's about recognizing a common thread in composers from the same countries, which the American composers, no matter how different their inherent styles are, still have that feeling in their music.


It doesn't have to be about nationalism but they way you look at it sounds nationalistic to me.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

starry said:


> 'Inborn' American sound? I don't really understand that. No way were they born with a sound, they would have been influenced in their composing by whatever they liked. Their styles may actually have changed over their lives.
> 
> 'All' composers? That's a sweeping statement.
> 
> ...


All composers styles can traced back to the country they were born in. Delius, was born to German parents, but was born in England, but this still doesn't change the fact that his music is still English. It may not be on the surface, but it's in there and a deeper listening will reveal this. Go listen to "In A Summer Garden" and tell me that doesn't have an English lyricism to it.

Forget the term "nationalistic" that doesn't mean anything to me. What does mean something and what is a fact is all composers have an inborn sound that echoes back to their birthplace.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Is musical nationalism a good or bad thing? National pride or just dangerous?


At best, nationalism as expressed through music can embody the ideals of the culture surrounding that nation, so if a nation promotes strength and vigor, the composer will attempt to emulate this in his music. Usually, the result is unnoticeable, as music is too abstract to directly communicate pride in a nation, obviously. It occasionally can evoke powerful relational elements, but so can any belief or experience particular to the composer. What's most important is to define a musical motivation, stick with what's realistic and/or indefinite, examine the extant forms available for use, then adapt and innovate where necessary.

Regardless of what you may think of nationalism in principle, consider the context of your statements. How would the nationalist music of, say, ancient Greece be of any consequence to any extant nation? Music should strive for longevity, using the culture or nation moreso as a pivot for transcending the mundanities of life than as an end goal.



> Does the country in which a composer is born have any affect on his music? Could Dvorak have composed the Slavonic Dances if he were born in Argentina? Could Liszt have written the Hungarian Rhapsodies if he was born in Mozambique? Are composers in no way a product of their environment and their sound is never dictated by any national/ethnic influence?


I think there are both memetic and genetic components; that is, both nature and nurture play a role in the formation of any individual's experiences. Would Liszt have composed anything like the Hungarian Rhapsodies if he were born a thousand years earlier? In form, no, but given the same biology, it wouldn't surprise me if his will -- his innate biological drive to express and impact -- was not only in tact, but actively imposing itself upon reality in some way, whether through music or something else.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Leifs: But I doubt anything but Icelandic music influenced the composer who identified himself Icelandic. After all, he said so himself.
> 
> Ifukube:"By combining those two different artistic elements and repeating them persistently, I intend to reveal our collective unconscious as a nation."


Ok if some composers want to make big nationalistic claims for some of their music then they can do that. But other composers might not say such things. And for the listener...they will listen to the music in a way that works for them. I find Ifukube's statement rather inflated.  Also Leifs surely if he composed in the western classical style must have been influenced by other things apart from Icelandic folk music, same with Ifukube. Maybe they wanted to downplay those other influences for some reason.

Surely what matters ultimately with the music is just the craft of a piece anyway. What for example if you have a composer who has quite controversial political views and he said these views helped shape his music. Would we take that as meaning we only accept the music if we like his views? I don't think so, most I think would just look at the music on it's own merit.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

starry said:


> Ok if some composers want to make big nationalistic claims for some of their music then they can do that. But other composers might not say such things. And for the listener...they will listen to the music in a way that works for them. I find Ifukube's statement rather inflated.  Also Leifs surely if he composed in the western classical style must have been influenced by other things apart from Icelandic folk music, same with Ifukube. Maybe they wanted to downplay those other influences for some reason.
> 
> Surely what matters ultimately with the music is just the craft of a piece anyway. What for example if you have a composer who has quite controversial political views and he said these views helped shape his music. Would we take that as meaning we only accept the music if we like his views? I don't think so, most I think would just look at the music on it's own merit.


Obviously the concept of western art music influenced both Leif and Ifukube, as they chose to write music in that style. But they were influenced by other musics too, and sought to create music espousing several elements. As it turns out, the music that these two looked to to augment the "western classical" element were aesthetics from the traditional/fol music of their native countries.

I do not find Ifukube's statements about his own art inflated, but insightful to what drives him as an artist, in particular, as an artist highly interested in the native arts of Japan.

Anyway Starry, you have a very interesting take on the usage of nationalist/folk elements in classical music. I disagree with it and find it interesting that you are so outspoken on a topic that is well accepted in classical music scholarship when the discussion of "nationalist" composers arises (Dvorak, Mussorgsky, Grieg, etc.)

Anyway, I wish you much luck in the promotion of your cause and theory, although I do not subscribe to it myself.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Anyway Starry, you have a very interesting take on the usage of nationalist/folk elements in classical music.


More about classical music in general rather than simply about folk/political elements in some of it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> on a topic that is well accepted in classical music scholarship when the discussion of "nationalist" composers arises (Dvorak, Mussorgsky, Grieg, etc.)


And even this was part of an international movement towards the end of the 19th century to try and incorporate folk music into classical. It was not specific to a particular country and was a historical style of the period. Scholarship would actually agree with me on this.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Allow me to clarify my opinion on this matter, every composer, despite of the their inherent style and various influences, have an inborn sound in them and this all comes down to where they were born and what the conditions of their lives were in that country they were born in. Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Gliere, Shostakovich, Rachmaninov are all VERY different composers, but they are all share one thing in common: their unmistakably Russian aesthetic. It's something that is just inborn in them and whether the composer denies or accepts this doesn't matter, it's in their blood forever.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

starry said:


> And even this was part of an international movement towards the end of the 19th century to try and incorporate folk music into classical. It was not specific to a particular country and was a historical style of the period. Scholarship would actually agree with me on this.


I doubt anyone would deny that nationalism became popular internationally towards the latter end of the 19th century.

Yes this was a pan-national phenomenon, but nationalism in music was not necessarily an expression of itself. It was the spreading of the idea that one could portray/promote the aesthetics of their own country for an international stage.

Again Starry, good luck with your theory.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Is musical nationalism a good or bad thing?


Good, of course. Fortunately there is not only one "world culture" yet, people and music are still diffrent everywhere. I love Grieg because his music is filled with scandinavian spirit, Tchaikovsky because of his russian tunes, Chopin because of his "Great Emigration" melancholy and so on. All those composers wouldn't write such magnificent music without their roots. Maybe that's one of reasons why music is in so bad condition today. Maybe it's because the whole world is about to become one, great America. Unitet States of The World, how does it sounds?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Aramis said:


> Good, of course. Fortunately there is not only one "world culture" yet, people and music are still diffrent everywhere. I love Grieg because his music is filled with scandinavian spirit, Tchaikovsky because of his russian tunes, Chopin because of his "Great Emigration" melancholy and so on. All those composers wouldn't write such magnificent music without their roots. Maybe that's one of reasons why music is in so bad condition today. Maybe it's because the whole world is about to become one, great America. Unitet States of The World, how does it sounds?


I agree, Aramis! And you are right, there is not one world culture. All cultures have art, music, customs, etc., that are different from each other, and the expression of pride in one's heritage I think is natural and decent. As long as it is not used to harm others, of course, I think it can be a beautiful thing.

Especially apt as we approach the 4th of July here in the States. While the US is a flawed and imperfect place, I am proud to be an American and proud of our independance.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I agree, Aramis! And you are right, there is not one world culture. All cultures have art, music, customs, etc., that are different from each other, and the expression of pride in one's heritage I think is natural and decent. As long as it is not used to harm others, of course, I think it can be a beautiful thing.
> 
> Especially apt as we approach the 4th of July here in the States. While the US is a flawed and imperfect place, I am proud to be an American and proud of our independance.


But you hardly talk about American composers. This is where one of your favorite labels, Naxos, are doing good my friend. Checkout their American Classics line of recordings.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> But you hardly talk about American composers. This is where one of your favorite labels, Naxos, are doing good my friend. Checkout their American Classics line of recordings.


I haven;t really heard too many American composers that I'm really gaga over, though! I have not explored Naxos's series to any great length, I will admit.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I haven;t really heard too many American composers that I'm really gaga over, though! I have not explored Naxos's series to any great length, I will admit.


Of course I love Barber and Copland, but I'm slowly being won over by George Frederick McKay, David Diamond, Paul Creston, John Alden Carpeter, Roy Harris, William Grant Still, Virgil Thomson, George Whitefield Chadwick, Edward MacDowell, etc.

You should definitely consider looking into some of these composers, Tapkaara. I think you would be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm not too big on Barber and I certainly do not care for Copland much. But maybe a few of the composers you've mentioned could offer something to me that I would like...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I'm not too big on Barber and I certainly do not care for Copland much. But maybe a few of the composers you've mentioned could offer something to me that I would like...


Yeah, I think there's something you will like in these composers.

Not everybody's a fan of Barber, but I was a fan of his the first time I heard him like we were talking about in "Favorite Sibelius Symphony" thread. He hit me emotionally and from there it was all about listening and absorbing the other qualities of his music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I doubt anyone would deny that nationalism became popular internationally towards the latter end of the 19th century.
> 
> Yes this was a pan-national phenomenon, but nationalism in music was not necessarily an expression of itself. It was the spreading of the idea that one could portray/promote the aesthetics of their own country for an international stage.
> 
> Again Starry, good luck with your theory.


I don't think I need luck. Use music to promote places politically on an international stage? Argh! that's what I hoped I had escaped from in coming to this forum. What about a society then which is ethnic nationalist and uses race as a means of discrimination and oppression, what would you think about that being promoted internationally through art? I've seen that happen myself.

Yes cultures can be different from each other in some ways, but there can also actually be similarities and connections. Music itself is a major link between many places, not really a barrier. This is even more obvious with instrumental music (music without the language barrier) which is what much of classical music is.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

starry said:


> I don't think I need luck. Use music to promote places politically on an international stage? Argh! that's what I hoped I had escaped from in coming to this forum. What about a society then which is ethnic nationalist and uses race as a means of discrimination and oppression, what would you think about that being promoted internationally through art? I've seen that happen myself.
> 
> Yes cultures can be different from each other in some ways, but there can also actually be similarities and connections. Music itself is a major link between many places, not really a barrier. This is even more obvious with instrumental music (music without the language barrier) which is what much of classical music is.


Again, your logic doesn't really make any sense. Please refer to post #20 for clarified and logical opinion.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Is musical nationalism a good or bad thing? National pride or just dangerous?


There seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread which may be because 'musical nationalism' is confused with 'national influence'.

It's obvious (imho) that any composer will be influenced by his or her upbringing and therefore by the surroundings of this upbringing. In this sense, the question



Tapkaara said:


> Does the country in which a composer is born have any affect on his music?


answers itself. There may be the occasional exception. For example, there was a discussion recently about Delius, who grew up in England, but then left and never returned. I don't believe a consensus was reached as to whether English culture was a prime influence on Delius. He may be an example where his country of upbringing had a weak influence. Dvorak, Grieg, Bartok .... may be examples where the influence was particularly strong.

Musical nationalism is quite different from national influence. In a sense the two are inverses of each other. Musical nationalism is an overt attempt to promote nationalism (national pride, national superiority) through music.

In general, great composers did not engage in musical nationalism. This is because music is a 'language of the emotions' and emotions do not change at boundaries drawn on a map. When composers did write 'nationalistic music', it was usually for one of two purposes.

a) Sibelius' 'Finlandia' became a rallying call for Finns who were struggling to establish themselves as a nation. Of course, there is nothing reprehensible in this. In fact, quite the reverse because, I believe most people would agree, the cause was politically and socially just. There are probably examples in this class, however, where music has been written actively in support of a cause that is less obviously just.

b) Elgar struggled as a young man to gain traction as a composer. At the turn of the 19th century Elgar was already in his forties, virtually unknown, nationalism was very big in England. Can one hold it against Elgar that he succumbed to this to promote his career and finally make that big breakthrough?

Sometimes themes from great works, conceived in purely musical terms, were later adapted as the basis of patriotic songs. A good example is the 'Jupiter' theme from Gustav Holst's 'The Planets' which was subverted as the patriotic song 'I vow to thee my country...' in order to deflect the attention of generations of Britains from the awful truth about the carnage of the First World War. To the extent that Holst collaborated in this (and I guess he must have held copyright), he is culpable, though to be fair, he probably had no clue about the political undertones.

In the US, Aaron Copland probably did not absolutely need the commission to write 'Fanfare for the Common Man' during the Second World War. However, the fanfare surely did not hurt his career as a major American composer.

Of course, many composers have written music intended overtly to appeal to base national pride. I think most of these are extinct, or destined for extinction.

Nations rise and fall, great music lasts forever.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Yosser said:


> There seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread which may be because 'musical nationalism' is confused with 'national influence'.
> 
> It's obvious (imho) that any composer will be influenced by his or her upbringing and therefore by the surroundings of this upbringing. In this sense, the question
> 
> ...


Nationalism is a bogus term in my opinion. It really doesn't mean that much.

Samuel Barber is an American composer, but his works aren't "nationalistic," but he's celebrated as an American composer worldwide. Do you know why? Because his music is American, even through that Romantic lyricism, it's still in his music whether he realized it or not.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Nice commentary, Yosser.

And I see your point about national influence being different that nationalism.

Finlandia is a prime example of a nationalist work, and I agree, there is nothing evil or nefarious about it.

Off hand, I cannot think of any composers who wrote nationalist music as a tool of evil or repression, but I'm sure there must be something out there. I see the bulk of the nationalist movement as promoting a place, more than ramming it into the face of a subjugated person.

Take Balakirev, perhaps the quintessential Russian nationalist composer. His symphonies and tone poems with this Russian tunes and aesthetics. What was his point in writing music like this? I'm sure not to harm anyone, just to put to the fore a sampling of music from his country in the context of a high-art symphony. One also senses pride in this music (like in the tone poem Rus aka Russia), which I am sure someone like Balakirev had for his country. Again, I find this fairly harmless.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Forget the term "nationalistic" that doesn't mean anything to me. What does mean something and what is a fact is all composers have an inborn sound that echoes back to their birthplace.


I think that this statement is far too broad. It doesn't apply to many composers.

For example, I've just listened to some of the works of Swiss composer Frank Martin, and there seems to be nothing regional about them at all. His music has more to do with the trends of modernism, neo-classicism and serialism which swept Europe at the time. Maybe he can be thought of as a European composer, but that's about it.

Then there's Alan Hovhaness. He was such an eclecticist, you can hear many influences in his music, from Middle Eastern to East European (his Armenian ancestry), to even Indian. I think he could have been born in some places outside the USA, although I do admit that that country has always been a big melting pot of many cultures, which Hovhaness' music represents to a degree.

So I agree more with Starry. Classical music has been more about trends and styles than regional influences, although these obviously have played a part. Like I've read (on this site!) that the composer Ifukube, mentioned above, was heavily influenced by current musical trends in Europe. Even I can hear the imprint of Prokofiev & Orff on his music.

And I don't really think of Liszt or Dvorak as quintessentially 'nationalistic' composers.

Liszt's _Hungarian Rhapsodies _were not really influenced by 'real' Hungarian folk music, but more by gypsy popular music he heard in taverns and the like. Bartok & Kodaly would develop music based on much more authentic Hungarian roots, but they were also heavily influenced by then current trends in international music. Did anyone know that a major influence on Bartok's piano technique of using tone clusters was the American Henry Cowell? Anyway, getting back to Liszt, composing faux folk music was a trend in musical circles generally, look at the _Hungarian Dances_, by the decidedly non-Hungaran Brahms...

& as for Dvorak, he was heavily influenced by Beethoven & Brahms at the outset. Just listen to his underplayed _Piano Concerto _- it bears the imprint of both of those composers. As for his symphonies, to me they don't sound more 'Czech' than a Beethoven or Brahms symphony sounds 'German.'

Even composers in my own far off Australia, like Sculthorpe & Kats-Chernin have admitted major influence by international composers. In the former's case, you can hear the influence of Varese & Messiaen, Balinese & Japanese music. In the latter's case, she is an anomaly to who again this theory of inborn traits doesn't apply, she grew up and trained in Russia, but her music doesn't sound Russian at all...

Maybe I am sceptical about Nationalism in music, not only because I believe that international trends are always stronger, but this ideology was used by the Nazis to glorify 'their' culture. Look at how they idolised Beethoven, Bruckner & especially Wagner. It was no fault of the composers, but was just an example of a way that music can be used as a tool of oppression, as Starry suggests, in the wrong hands. So I'd emphasise international, maybe regional trends, but not 'inborn traits' as that has been proved to be of the segregationist, 'us & them' mentality (?)...


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

It's all subjective. Some composers are affected by both nature and nurture, other only by nature, and some, unfortunately, only by nurture.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Very good post Andre!

One thing to keep in mind here, at least in regard to my feeling on this, is that while composers may absorb local/enthnic aesthetics into their idiom, they are still composers in the western classical tradition.

Again. we go back to Ifukube. Despite being a Japanese composer with nationalist tendancies, Andre mentions he hears Orff, Prokofiev and other "classical" influences. Sure! Ifukube is first and foremost a "classical" composer, so he (as an example) has certainly absorbed many influences from other composers. So it not ALL about Japanese music.

But the Japanese music aspect of his sound is what makes him sound DIFFERENT from Prokofiev and Orff. And it is certainly an "ethnic" influence.

So, I just want to be clear in saying composers like Dvorak, Grieg and the like are much, much more than the local music they portray in their greater concert works. But the influence of a ethnic aesthetic IS there, and cannot be denied.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Samuel Barber is an American composer, but his works aren't "nationalistic," but he's celebrated as an American composer worldwide. Do you know why? Because his music is American, even through that Romantic lyricism, it's still in his music whether he realized it or not.


For this to make sense to me you'd have to explain to me what 'American music' is. IMHO American classical composers are struggling to find a tradition, which is all too understandable, because, first, they started very late, and second, the main contribution of Americans to music is the introduction and evolution of jazz, in all its variants.

It's going out on a limb, I'm sure, but I'm not aware of an American-born classical composer who wrote music better than Brubeck's 'Take Five', or other offerings of the Modern Jazz Quartet. This is music that is jazz based, but has been written down, so there is no reason to distinguish it from other forms of classical music. This includes the 'third stream music' of the 60's which combined the tension of a string quartet with the relaxation of a jazz ensemble. IMHO there is some very fine music in this region that has, as far as I'm aware, largely disappeared from view.

I'm not knocking Samuel Barber, and I really like Copland's Appalachian Springs, but neither composer ranks high on anyone's 20th century list. Possibly Dave Brubeck would, if the classical establishment would embrace him.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Yosser said:


> I'm not knocking Samuel Barber, and I really like Copland's Appalachian Springs, but neither composer ranks high on anyone's 20th century list. Possibly Dave Brubeck would, if the classical establishment would embrace him.


In your opinion of course. Maybe you don't hear anything, because you choose not to listen to American composers? It's easy to turn a blind eye to your own country. Jazz is apart of the American music tradition, but we're not talking about jazz are we? We're talking about classical music. Perhaps in your mind you don't hear anything great or new, because you're too busy judging against another composer's work, which in my opinion is shameless.

Who cares about innovation? Who cares if it's not groundbreaking? You should lighten up and go listen to some Chadwick and leave your pre-conceived notions lying at the doormat. Music doesn't have to innovative or belong to a "school of thought" to be good.

I think many times people analyze things too much instead of just listening to the music. "Hmmm...that sounds like Sibelius. Hmmm....that sounds like Bartok..." I mean are people just that critical of composers? Get over it that's what I say. Sit back, clear your head, and enjoy something for what it is. If something is not your cup of tea you keep searching for something that is.

I'll never understand why people just can't explore music and listen to something for what it is not what it should've or could've been.

I think I made my point crystal clear for you.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'd have to say that I agree with what Tapkaara has said above. All classical music sits within the Western classical tradition. Within this, there are (of course) regional influences on a composer. But I still think that the general 'international' trends in classical music have always been very strong, whatever era you look at...


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

In my view Yosser was fully correct to point out the vital distinction between the quite separate concepts of "musical nationalism" and "national influence". However, I can't think of all that much classical music of a type which has achieved much fame and notoriety that might fit the description of being inspired by "musical nationalism". I guess that works like "Finlandia" and some of Elgar's marches might fit that description, but these are quite rare instances. On the other hand, I can think of many generally well-regarded works which have a nationalistic flavour. 

In fact, I would have thought that nationalistic rivalry (for want of a better word) has been one of strongest features in the history of western classical music, at least up to the mid 20th C. Up to the early part of the 18th C classical music was dominated by Italian composers and to a lesser extent the French. The centre of gravity shifted firmly towards Germany and Austria throughout the remainder of the 18th C, and by the time of late Haydn, Beethoven, Weber and Schubert it had probably reached its zenith. The Italians (Rossini) made some progress in regaining lost ground during the first part of the 19th C, and the French (Berlioz) too made some progress in regaining lost ground. Despite this, German influence remained very strong (Mendelssohn, Schumann) for much of the early to mid part of the 19th C and beyond that (Brahms, Wagner).

It was during the second half of the 19th C that a pretty strong effort was made by some composers consciously to write music to express their national character, with some of them borrowing heavily from folk music of their native people. Examples here include Smetana whose main works, “the Bartered Bride” and “The Moldau”, clearly were inspired by visions of his native Bohemia. Dvorak continued the trend. 

A similar process tool place in Russia under a group pf composers first led by Glinka. There flowed a whole range of tone poems and other works which reflected the Russian scene: In the Steppes of Central Asia, Prince Igor, Night on Bald Mountain, Russian Easter Festival etc.

While all this was going on Russia similar developments were taking place elsewhere. Examples are Norway, Grieg’s “Peer Gynt”; Finland, Sibelius “Kullervo”; Spain, Albéniz “Iberia”, and Falla “'Nights in the Gardens of Spain”, “El Amor Brujo”. In France Saint-Saens and Faure and Chabrier did their bit to try to promote a new French style and to free it of German influence. In England the likes of Butterworth, RVW Holst, RVW and Finzi were active in developing the English national style. Americans composers came rather later on the scene but some of their better composers wrote in what is generally regarded as a fairly characteristic American style, e.g. with Ives being strongly influence by American folk and some pop music.

Overall I would unhesitatingly say that it was a very good thing that these international rivalries on the classical music scene over the past three centuries or so took place, because it has clearly led to a much wider and richer variety of styles than might otherwise have been the case, and which we can now enjoy. This variety can only be a good think because it clearly gives classical music a greater chance of being liked. Vive la difference.

One final point. I would suggest that the primary explanation for these developments was the perceived need by the composers themselves to write music that fitted the requirements of the musical market as they saw it, with a view to promoting their own careers having regard to their comparative advantage in music writing. It had nothing to do with any so-called innate calls of nature to write music that was in their blood based on country of birth.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I just got back from a trip to Norway where i met some of my black metal heros but also visited the old house that Grieg and his wife used to live in.

I must say that the Nationalism that grieg had is a very beautiful thing, he created a sound for his country and he is adored by almost everyone there - a hero.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> I just got back from a trip to Norway where i met some of my black metal heros but also visited the old house that Grieg and his wife used to live in.


 Black metal heroes? Oh dear...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> Elgar struggled as a young man to gain traction as a composer. At the turn of the 19th century Elgar was already in his forties, virtually unknown, nationalism was very big in England. Can one hold it against Elgar that he succumbed to this to promote his career and finally make that big breakthrough?


I don't think this is an accurate way to look at the question of nationalism in Elgar. There's a strong thread of what one might call a chivalric mystical ideal running through Elgar, and it influenced him in different ways. Elgar's Imperialism/nationalism had its roots in that. (One finds it, for example, in the late 'Arthur' suite - music from which would have been used in his 3rd symphony, had he lived to complete it himself.) His nationalism isn't a simple thing. He didn't switch it on as a good career move. He _believed_ in it - not as jingoism or misplaced pride, but as a potential source for good, and freedom, in the world. To begin to understand Elgar's nationalism, listening to _The Spirit of England_, rather than the Pomp and Circumstance marches, will get you closer to what he was really about.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I don't think this is an accurate way to look at the question of nationalism in Elgar...... He didn't switch it on as a good career move. He _believed_ in it - not as jingoism or misplaced pride, but as a potential source for good, and freedom, in the world.


I'm sure you know much more about the man than I do but what is the point of a forum if one does not argue these things out, even from a position of relative ignorance?

IMHO in Elgar's best work --- which, one assumes, is most revealing of his innermost feelings --- there is evidence of national influence, but no nationalism whatsoever. To declare myself, I believe the Cello Concerto and the Introduction and Allegro for Strings, possibly Enigma are masterpieces. Maybe Gerontius is, too. It's not my kind of music. Around the world, these are the works that are associated with the fine composer Elgar indisputably was. I feel sure it would please him to know this.

In England, Elgar is famous mainly for nationalistic crap. 'Land of Hope and Glory' et al. I do not think he would be happy about this.

The picture I have of Elgar is of a rather unworldly, insecure guy, prone to fits of depression and, like many artists, susceptible to praise, acceptance, honors, standing in society (Alice may have had a word or two to say there). You may be right that he really perceived British Nationalism as a source for good. But Elgar was a commoner, not an aristocrat, and he cannot have been unmoved by what happened to the cannon fodder in the First World War. So I find it very hard to believe that British Nationalism as a 'source for good' was a solid personal conviction that lasted very long. Maybe he convinced himself that he believed it, for a while.

Of course, my image of the man may be utterly false.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> In your opinion of course. Maybe you don't hear anything, because you choose not to listen to American composers? It's easy to turn a blind eye to your own country. Jazz is apart of the American music tradition, but we're not talking about jazz are we? We're talking about classical music. Perhaps in your mind you don't hear anything great or new, because you're too busy judging against another composer's work, which in my opinion is shameless.
> 
> Who cares about innovation? Who cares if it's not groundbreaking? You should lighten up and go listen to some Chadwick and leave your pre-conceived notions lying at the doormat. Music doesn't have to innovative or belong to a "school of thought" to be good.
> 
> ...


Hey, man. Get cool! First, read your post and ask yourself if you have really made 'your point' crystal clear. When you've got over your rant and realized that you have made no point whatsoever, then please make one and let us establish a basis for discussion.


----------



## UniverseInfinite (May 16, 2009)

There is no "country" in this matter. There is only "region"/ "places" in this subject if one has to bring it up... DUDES.
How the hell can one "draw lines" for "region" / "places"?


----------



## UniverseInfinite (May 16, 2009)

Further, if a person changes living "region" / "places" numerous times in this person's life time, that will be very interesting...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Yosser said:


> Hey, man. Get cool! First, read your post and ask yourself if you have really made 'your point' crystal clear. When you've got over your rant and realized that you have made no point whatsoever, then please make one and let us establish a basis for discussion.


The point I made is that YOU don't have a point. You have no idea what you're even talking about. When you're done over-analyzing music, then you'll be able to enjoy it for what it is.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Yosser said:


> I'm sure you know much more about the man than I do but what is the point of a forum if one does not argue these things out, even from a position of relative ignorance?
> 
> IMHO in Elgar's best work --- which, one assumes, is most revealing of his innermost feelings --- there is evidence of national influence, but no nationalism whatsoever. To declare myself, I believe the Cello Concerto and the Introduction and Allegro for Strings, possibly Enigma are masterpieces. Maybe Gerontius is, too. It's not my kind of music. Around the world, these are the works that are associated with the fine composer Elgar indisputably was. I feel sure it would please him to know this.
> 
> ...


Here's another example of over-analyzation. Listen to music for what it is, not what it should or could be. Listen to music on it's own terms, not yours.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> IMHO in Elgar's best work --- which, one assumes, is most revealing of his innermost feelings --- there is evidence of national influence, but no nationalism whatsoever.


We know that Elgar was an Imperialist. He believed in chivalry, the noble heroic ideal, and the British Empire as a power for good; of course the influence of that belief on his music varies from one piece to another, and indeed there's no overt nationalism in the pieces you mention; neither is there in the great chamber works, etc. But the idea that the 'real' Elgar is the English pastoralist, and that he wasn't really an Imperialist at all, is a myth that was promoted in the 1960s when his faded reputation was being re-examined. We've moved on a lot in understanding the man since then.



> In England, Elgar is famous mainly for nationalistic crap. 'Land of Hope and Glory' et al.


Don't be misled by the use of 'Land of Hope and Glory' as a second national anthem; that's quite a separate thing to the genuine appreciation of his music which goes on just as much here in the UK as anywhere else. (Indeed, one of the comments one often encounters is that Elgar's music doesn't travel well into other countries.) Any visitor to Elgar's Birthplace Museum, for example, will find a thriving establishment which successfully presents all aspects of Elgar's music, and a very balanced picture is presented there.



> The picture I have of Elgar is of a rather unworldly, insecure guy, prone to fits of depression and, like many artists, susceptible to praise, acceptance, honors, standing in society (Alice may have had a word or two to say there).


That's a broadly accurate picture.



> You may be right that he really perceived British Nationalism as a source for good. But Elgar was a commoner, not an aristocrat, and he cannot have been unmoved by what happened to the cannon fodder in the First World War.


This is why I suggested listening to that woefully neglected masterpiece _The Spirit of England_ in my previous post. Half an hour listening to that will tell you far more about Elgar's attitude to his country than anything I might say.



> So I find it very hard to believe that British Nationalism as a 'source for good' was a solid personal conviction that lasted very long. Maybe he convinced himself that he believed it, for a while.


You may find it hard to believe, but I assure you it was part of the fabric of the man. Not nationalism in the jingoistic sense of false pride - but nationalism as an expression of a mystical, noble, heroic, chivalric ideal of honour and freedom. Take a listen to the ending of _Caractacus_ - a work that he was deeply proud of, and the composing of which was very personal; the words may shock you. Truth is, he was a very complex character, and there isn't an exact pigeonhole in which to place him. It's not enough to say that Elgar was or was not a 'nationalist' - we have to understand the character of his own personal understanding of British Imperialism _as an ideal_, and that isn't a simple thing.

I've written more extensively on this aspect of Elgar, with a couple of book recommendations, in this thread.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

UniverseInfinite said:


> There is no "country" in this matter. There is only "region"/ "places" in this subject if one has to bring it up... DUDES.
> How the hell can one "draw lines" for "region" / "places"?


Ya man, that's where it's at!

(my turn to rant - a big IMHO!!)

And who and why were these lines drawn anyways? Was it culture, or was it power lust? Many of these lines throughout the world were drawn by colonial powers that did not give 2 hoots about the authentic culture of the land.

African map of 1812. Looks a little different now, doesn't it! And it would have looked vastly different a hundred years earlier. (same with everywhere).

View attachment 579


(frankly, I think countries are for the most part silliness. Perhaps a modern necessity - it's hard to say. But there once was a time, not that long ago, when there were no passports! imagine that - free to move around. now i need a bloody passport to get into the US!! craziness)

Folk music is not about countries, and Nations. This is mostly modern propaganda - real culture is usurped by the state, consciously or not, to give a sense of nation identity - this is what Yosser is trying to say (I think). Even saying jazz is "american" is disingenuous. It came from New Orleans, and was mostly formed by people who were forced to be there, and did not have rights as citizens. They weren't American. Not until the 60's.

Culture is much more vast than what a map would show you. In Canada, there are multiple cultures - quite distinct - but we only have 35 million people. How could an American be so sure about what their supposed American culture is? Even just one city, like New York, has a massive variety of culture within it.

So, when we look at cultural reference to classical music, to associate it with a Nation doesn't give it distinction, it reduces it's distinction - it dulls it. There could very well be trends in certain regions (and in particular, around languages). But, more likely within a group of like minded people who were influenced by each other. Rejecting or rethinking the strong influence of certain Germanic composers did not make "French" music. It just spurred on new heights of creativity within the blanket of the larger context of the classical tradition. Classical music is an "uber" culture that transcends anything that a Nation can define (like Mathematics).

Jeeze, I do go on and on....

MI, you have made 2 mistakes in your arguments.

1. How can one just listen to music for it's own sake alone? This is not possible, or, perhaps it is how a computer would listen to music. We all bring our baggage to the table. If you choose to listen without conscious critical thought, so be it. But don't be fooled to think that you don't have all kinds of biases that shape your perception of the music. It has much more to do with you then the music, especially if you choose not to confront your baggage.

2. Ravel isn't French. He is from Basque, which is technically part of Spain.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Ravel isn't French. He is from Basque, which is technically part of Spain.


Ravel was indeed born in the Basque country and he used from time to time in his music melodies characteristic of the Basque culture.

However, while bearing in mind that there still exists a sizable Separatist Movement (though this seems to have ceased blowing people up in Madrid, possibly in return for enhanced autonomy of the Basque region), the Basque country is mostly in Spain, but is divided, with a small part in France. This is the part where Ravel was born. So, his nationality was French, but his cultural heritage was Basque.

Long ago I was in the area and was surprised to find no indication whatsoever as to Ravel's place of birth. Shortly later, I happened to run into the Basque Culture Minister at a conference. I asked him why there was no memorial of any sort to Ravel, or whether there was, and I'd missed it. I mean, says I, how many towering genius' you guy's got to hang out for the world to see?

It turned out the Minister himself did not even know that Ravel was a Basque!

The Ministry is of course in San Sebastian, on the Spanish side, and I guess for those guys the part of the Basque community that is across the border in France does not really count!


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Yosser said:


> Ravel was indeed born in the Basque country and he used from time to time in his music melodies characteristic of the Basque culture.
> 
> However, while bearing in mind that there still exists a sizable Separatist Movement (though this seems to have ceased blowing people up in Madrid, possibly in return for enhanced autonomy of the Basque region), the Basque country is mostly in Spain, but is divided, with a small part in France. This is the part where Ravel was born. So, his nationality was French, but his cultural heritage was Basque.
> 
> ...


Ravel's mother was Basque, but don't forget his father was Swiss.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> We know that Elgar was an Imperialist. He believed in chivalry, the noble heroic ideal, and the British Empire as a power for good; of course the influence of that belief on his music varies from one piece to another, and indeed there's no overt nationalism in the pieces you mention; neither is there in the great chamber works, etc. But the idea that the 'real' Elgar is the English pastoralist, and that he wasn't really an Imperialist at all, is a myth that was promoted in the 1960s when his faded reputation was being re-examined. We've moved on a lot in understanding the man since then.


I followed the links to the earlier thread and it's obvious you've read widely about the man. I guess my problem is thinking myself back into the time: believing that anyone with a grain of intelligence could have bought into that stuff. Obviously many did.

I didn't mean to imply that the 'real' Elgar is an English pastoralist, though, rather that he tried to write what was in his soul. I understand you to be saying this is true, but that this contained a goodly chunk of British Imperialism, so one has to accept the ouvre as it is, from the soul, warts and all.

This is naturally quite different from my original suspicion that the P&C stuff was not from his innermost being, but what a composer had to do to get recognition. I accept your view that this is not the case, but, strangely, I nevertheless wish my version were true!

I have no problem if a composer panders to popular sentiment in order to get freed up to write what he really wants to write. I do have a problem with a commoner who writes P&C because he actually buys into the Imperialist jingoism by which the Aristocracy promoted collective insanity amongst the people. It's still going on today. What is the 'Last Night of the Proms' if not window dressing that attempts to con people into believing the good old British Establishment is more important than it actually is.



Elgarian said:


> Don't be misled by the use of 'Land of Hope and Glory' as a second national anthem; that's quite a separate thing to the genuine appreciation of his music which goes on just as much here in the UK as anywhere else. (Indeed, one of the comments one often encounters is that Elgar's music doesn't travel well into other countries.)


Apologies. My comment about how Elgar is viewed in the UK was off the mark. I'm sure his serious compositions are performed regularly. However, when one reads in Wiki that he is 'best known for Pomp and Circumstance', one could possibly be excused if one gets the wrong idea. (Not that Wiki is an authoritative source.)

As for Elgar's music not traveling well, this is surely true of P&C, but, as I noted in an earlier post, not necessarily of his 'serious works'. In fact, I had cause some time ago to check the schedule of the San Diego Symphony and discovered that a staple of this year's (or last year's) season was the 2nd Symphony. Furthermore, where I am currently at, on travel, a continent away, I note that the last concert of the season at the local Symphony is 'Gerontius'. I am still trying to figure out whether I can fit it in. I think Enigma is also a staple of the repertory in many countries. It would seem that through his finer works, Elgar is alive and well, not only in the UK but elsewhere.



Elgarian said:


> This is why I suggested listening to that woefully neglected masterpiece _The Spirit of England_ in my previous post. Half an hour listening to that will tell you far more about Elgar's attitude to his country than anything I might say.


OK. When I get back home, I'll see if I can get hold of a CD. As an aside remark, you only have to glance at the title to understand why this work is 'woefully neglected'. I'd never heard of it. Would you be awfully interested in a piece by, say, Max Reger, called 'The Spirit of Bavaria'?

In reading your posts in the previous thread, I think we may perhaps disagree about Elgar's overall standing as a composer. He wrote several undisputed masterpieces. The Cello concerto, in particular, is imho rivaled only by Dvorak's. But other works you have described as masterpieces (that I'm familiar with e.g. the violin concerto) are very fine, but imho fall just a tad short of the ultimate accolade. But that's stuff for a different thread.

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain in such detail the complex nature of Elgar's relationship to nationalism.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Ravel's mother was Basque, but don't forget his father was Swiss.


I didn't know that. Ta for info. Am I correct that he was born in and spent his early years in the Basque Country?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Yosser said:


> I didn't know that. Ta for info. Am I correct that he was born in and spent his early years in the Basque Country?


Yes, he was born in Basque Country and of course this had an affect on him growing up.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> I do have a problem with a commoner who writes P&C because he actually buys into the Imperialist jingoism by which the Aristocracy promoted collective insanity amongst the people.


May I make a couple of points about this? The first is that we can't sensibly project our present cultural values back into the past, and judge the past according to those values. If we try to do so we make a kind of chronological distortion. We're all born in our time, and experience a certain kind of cultural conditioning as a result of that, and we can't escape it. (We may not even be aware of it.) Elgar couldn't help being affected by the spirit of his age, any more than anyone else could, living at that time. (Or any more than we can, living in our time.)

The second is that Elgar was emphatically _not _jingoistic. The kind of nationalism I'm talking about is the kind associated with King Arthur (a figure that interested Elgar) - involving an ideal of nationhood, justice, freedom, chivalry, brotherhood, and truth. Those are admirable things by any standards, and _that_ is what inspired Elgar. Not Imperialism 'because we're British'; but Imperialism as a noble endeavour of fellowship and honour. Not insanity, but high aspirations. It's really important to go back and discover, through scholarship, exactly what Elgar thought about these matters - otherwise we do him a terrible injustice. As you rightly point out, he was a highly sensitive and intelligent man. His love of an Imperialist ideal didn't stop him from being sensitive and intelligent - it was a different kind of expression of it.



> As an aside remark, you only have to glance at the title to understand why this work is 'woefully neglected'. I'd never heard of it. Would you be awfully interested in a piece by, say, Max Reger, called 'The Spirit of Bavaria'?


 Yes, I understand that. But it's terribly neglected here in the UK also, and it's very difficult to understand why. It's hardly ever performed, but it is a very deeply moving work.



> other works you have described as masterpieces (that I'm familiar with e.g. the violin concerto) are very fine, but imho fall just a tad short of the ultimate accolade. But that's stuff for a different thread.


As you say, that's for a discussion elsewhere, if you like. But if I may respond to your specific point, I've been listening to, and thinking about the violin concerto for a very long time now; I still can't get to the bottom of it; it's a deeply personal work - it doesn't give up its mysteries easily. And gradually, over the years, I've come to regard it as one of the greatest works of art I know. My point is, here, that it's a slowly growing piece of music, and I found progressively more in it as my knowledge and understanding of Elgar himself grew. That doesn't prove anything of course - I just mention it as my own experience.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that some of the previous posters have highlighted how nationalism in music was really prevalent in the C19th & early C20th (prior to WWI). Countries like Italy & Germany became unified at that time, and many other countries (like Finland and virtually all of Eastern Europe) were still dominated by various empires. So composers like Verdi, Wagner, Dvorak, Smetana, Sibelius, Liszt responded to these conditions in some of their works.

I really agree that there's a difference between nationalism & national influence. So many composers were influenced by their national culture, but they weren't using it as a vehicle for extra-musical (political) aims like some of the above composers. Composers like Bartok, Vaughan Williams, Ravel (when he referred to composers like Couperin or Rameau) & Stravinsky (_Petrushka_) were actually using tradtional idioms as a response to the general crisis of tonality that occured around WWI. They were answering the question as to 'what is music' in their own way, by referring to old regional/national traditions. Other composers like Schoenberg & Varese made a complete departure, choosing paths that would be seen as more 'international.'

& I'm interested in the debate about Elgar. I think that the issue with him is that, as Elgarian points out, he had an idealised view of the British Empire. Maybe this is because he never went to the colonies overseas. So how could he know that the whole thing was just a cynical economic/political exercise? I don't think that many intellectuals who were actually on the ground in the colonies were really big fans of what the British were doing, even the elites. Just look at how the leaders of the independence movement in India like Nehru were against the British Empire, even though they were partly educated in the UK.

...But I do know that Elgar became rather disillusioned with the whole thing, particularly after WWI, and I venture to say that the _Cello Concerto _was written partly in memory of those who had died in that war.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Y'all should hear Ifukube's stuff during WWII. Very nationalistic. After Japan's defeat, he became depressed and vowed never to compose again. But, one day, on the radio, he heard his BALLATA SINFONICA, which he dedicated to his brother who died during the war. He interpreted this as a sign from his brother to keep composing, so he did just that.

His BALLATA SINFONICA from this period is especially striking.

(I have been enjoying Johnnie Walker all afternoon.)


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Y'all should hear Ifukube's stuff during WWII. Very nationalistic. After Japan's defeat, he became depressed and vowed never to compose again. But, one day, on the radio, he heard his BALLATA SINFONICA, which he dedicated to his brother who died during the war. He interpreted this as a sign from his brother to keep composing, so he did just that.


People are scared of exploring classical music, Tapkaara. They're not comfortable outside of their "box," which I think is disappointing. That's why nobody talks about composers outside of the mainstream very much, because perhaps it's their assessment that they think just because a composer is "unknown" they somehow composed "inferior" music. It's shame that many of the very composers I have come to appreciate during my discovery are sadly neglected and have been during and after their deaths.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andre said:


> But I do know that Elgar became rather disillusioned with the whole thing, particularly after WWI, and I venture to say that the _Cello Concerto _was written partly in memory of those who had died in that war.


At the risk of over-repetition, I'll say again that the piece above all others that tells us how Elgar thought about the devastation of the war is _The Spirit of England_. We don't have to guess about it, because it's explicit in Laurence Binyon's words, and in every note of Elgar's profoundly felt music. In that music, the noble ideal meets the tragic reality in the most heartbreaking (and yet still inspiring) way.

I don't think he did become disillusioned with the ideal _itself_. The writing of the _Arthur_ suite, and his proposed use of some of its music in the 3rd symphony suggests that it was still a potent source of inspiration.

My own opinion about the later pieces, is that the cello concerto, the chamber music, the 3rd symphony, are the music of a man who's been changed by the experience of the war, but aren't in any overt sense commentaries on it - by which I mean that there's nothing in them that's quite so clearly-stated as Vaughan William's 'Last Post' musical reference in his third symphony, say.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> May I make a couple of points about this? The first is that we can't sensibly project our present cultural values back into the past, and judge the past according to those values. If we try to do so we make a kind of chronological distortion. We're all born in our time, and experience a certain kind of cultural conditioning as a result of that, and we can't escape it. (We may not even be aware of it.) Elgar couldn't help being affected by the spirit of his age, any more than anyone else could, living at that time. (Or any more than we can, living in our time.)


I can agree with this. However, accepting it makes it very difficult to excuse the way in which anglo-saxons treat Germans who had the misfortune to come of age in the Nazi era and who were not jewish. (Just for form's sake, I'm not German.)

However you bend and twist it, Elgar's music has been used (and you seem to suggest was intended by the composer to be used) to promote the notion that British culture is especially noble and uplifting. It supports the view, still prevalent in the UK, that there is something rather special about being British.

Contrast this with the view of Hindemith, who imho was an extraordinarily inventive composer, or very possibly the greatest conductor there has ever been, Feuchtwanger, even von Karajan. Contrast also with many anglo-saxon reviews of e.g. Prokofiev's Shostakovitch's music.

In the UK it seems perfectly ok to trash as 'politically tainted' the music of composers who lived through the Nazi or Stalinist era, but not ok to apply the same standard to the enablers of the 'British Empire'.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Yosser said:


> However you bend and twist it, Elgar's music has been used (and you seem to suggest was intended by the composer to be used) to promote the notion that British culture is especially noble and uplifting.


Also, isn't it true that the Pomp and Circumstance being transformed into "Land of Hope and Glory" had nothing to do with Elgar, and he was quite put off by the lyrics?


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Yosser said:


> I can agree with this. However, accepting it makes it very difficult to excuse the way in which anglo-saxons treat Germans who had the misfortune to come of age in the Nazi era and who were not jewish. (Just for form's sake, I'm not German.)


This is a very powerful statement, and I really appreciate you making it.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Also, isn't it true that the Pomp and Circumstance being transformed into "Land of Hope and Glory" had nothing to do with Elgar, and he was quite put off by the lyrics?


According to Wikipedia, this is not true. Furthermore, Wiki implies that Elgar was knighted not because of any serious music he wrote but because of 'Land of Hope...'. If this is true, he could have registered his disapproval by not accepting the knighthood. (Amongst others, Harold Pinter did this in order to register discontent with the ruling order.)

Well, we have an Elgar expert on the forum, so we do not need to rely on Wiki! He has informed us that Elgar truly believed in the 'values' the propaganda machine pumped out as regards the 'British Empire'. Assuming this to be true, it is easy to imagine how Elgar caught the 'Zeitgeist' in England. It happened to a lot of people so it would not be fair to excoriate Elgar for this.

It's possibly a coincidence that the most outstanding works of his ouvre (imho) are the early Introduction and Allegro for Strings and the late Cello concerto. My theory would be the first was written in youthful innocence re- the propaganda, the last reflected his disillusion with the establishment.

Possibly, probably, this is rather simplistic.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Right, I should have looked it up. It was for a coronation!

But, I did read this:

wiki: "He himself grew to hate his 'Pomp and Circumstance' March No.1 with its popular tune (identified as 'Land of Hope and Glory' when the words were later added), which he felt had been made into a jingoistic song, not in keeping with the tragic loss of life in the war" 

I must say, though, that I do quite like the Enigma Variations. That is my favorite of his - I think the format serves his composing style well. But that is another topic...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> wiki: "He himself grew to hate his 'Pomp and Circumstance' March No.1 with its popular tune (identified as 'Land of Hope and Glory' when the words were later added), which he felt had been made into a jingoistic song, not in keeping with the tragic loss of life in the war"


I could see why he would hate "Pomp and Circumstance." It's a pretty weak Elgar composition, especially compared to "Cello Concerto," "In The South," "Symphonies 1 & 2," "Sea Pictures," and "Enigma Variations."


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> I can agree with this. However, accepting it makes it very difficult to excuse the way in which anglo-saxons treat Germans who had the misfortune to come of age in the Nazi era and who were not jewish. (Just for form's sake, I'm not German.)


This has nothing to do with Elgar. He was not a jingoist. He loved Germany. He went on holidays there. He loved Wagner's music. He had German friends (including Hans Richter). One of the most distressing things for him about the war was that it was a war with _Germany_ - a country and a culture he admired.



> However you bend and twist it, Elgar's music has been used (and you seem to suggest was intended by the composer to be used) to promote the notion that British culture is especially noble and uplifting. It supports the view, still prevalent in the UK, that there is something rather special about being British.


I'm not bending or twisting anything, I promise you. The bending and twisting has been done by those who have no understanding of cultural history, and who inappropriately project _modern_ cultural values back into earlier times. It's important not to confuse Elgar's conception of his music with the use that others have made of some of it. Please remember what I said above - that Elgar's was a complex personality, and it's very easy to misunderstand the character of the ideal that he believed in. I can't possibly summarise it adequately here, but I did give well-researched, reliable references (_NOT_ Wikipedia!!) in my earlier posts.

But consider this: _of course_ there is something rather special about being British - just as there is something special about being German, about being French, or Russian, or American. Elgar did indeed love the specialness of being British (but he also loved the specialness of being German - as I pointed out in my previous paragraph). There's nothing wrong or even unusual in that kind of love for one's country, one's roots - it's about a sense of belonging, and of certain shared values.

When you suggest that Elgar wanted to promote "the notion that British culture is especially noble and uplifting", I think you have the emphasis in the wrong place with the use of the word 'especially'. Certainly Elgar thought there were noble and uplifting aspects to British culture. I've described them above: chivalry, freedom, brotherhood, honour, justice, and so on. Elgar valued British Imperialism not primarily because it was British, but
_because he believed in an ideal that promoted those values_ - which surely we can agree are good in themselves (even if Elgar's belief was misplaced)? To understand Elgar properly in the context of this discussion, the focus needs to be on the values, not the Britishness. And above all, we need to try to understand what it must have been like to have such ideals, and witness the desperate tragedy brought about by the war that seemed the ruination of all hope. That's why I keep suggesting that we listen to _The Spirit of England_, which will help us to understand the anguish of a man trying to preserve the nobility of his ideals in the face of such abominable slaughter.



> In the UK it seems perfectly ok to trash as 'politically tainted' the music of composers who lived through the Nazi or Stalinist era, but not ok to apply the same standard to the enablers of the 'British Empire'.


I can see you have some particular issue of your own here about this; but you don't have those issues with me, nor indeed with Elgar. I'm concerned here only with setting the cultural history record straight, and have no interest in 'trashing' any kind of music, and certainly not for political reasons.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> It's possibly a coincidence that the most outstanding works of his ouvre (imho) are the early Introduction and Allegro for Strings and the late Cello concerto. My theory would be the first was written in youthful innocence re- the propaganda, the last reflected his disillusion with the establishment.
> 
> Possibly, probably, this is rather simplistic.


With respect - I do think this is, as you suggest yourself, far too simplistic. But this thread on nationalism isn't a good place to discuss it.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Elgarian said:


> But consider this: _of course_ there is something rather special about being British - just as there is something special about being German, about being French, or Russian, or American. Elgar did indeed love the specialness of being British (but he also loved the specialness of being German - as I pointed out in my previous paragraph). There's nothing wrong or even unusual in that kind of love for one's country, one's roots - it's about a sense of belonging, and of certain shared values.


This is well put, Elgarian.

As I said in an earlier post: I believe pride in one's country is a natural sentiment, and that it is something that is good thing. Pride in one's country does not have to be chauvanistic, nor does it have to equal hatred for other countries. There seems to be an element of distaste in this thread for this concept, which makes me think that PC thinking has definitely seeped its way into the discussion.

While I am no Elgar expert, what I have read on the man suggests he was a good man, not interested in using music to terrorize the world with British imperialism. I agree with Elgarian that he saw British values as a good an uplifting concept and he wanted to promote such concepts in his music. As horrible as this may seem to a modern-day, more enlightened commentator, I think it can be assessed that Elagr really meant no harm in works like the Pomp and Circumstance marches; he simply wanted to promote all that was great about Britain, as simplistic as that may seem.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

"Pride in one's country" has always sounded kinda nonsensical to me. I would be proud only about my own achievements. My country's achievements are not my achievements.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Cmaj7 said:


> "Pride in one's country" has always sounded kinda nonsensical to me. I would be proud only about my own achievements. My country's achievements are not my achievements.


Of course not. It is like the regard you have of your parents, they may be not perfect, but they are the ones who cared about it. And the country is very important to the formation of every single person, wheater like the country or not. And this goes far beyond the traditional stereotypes of each country.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Elgar valued British Imperialism not primarily because it was British, but _because he believed in an ideal that promoted those values_ - which surely we can agree are good in themselves (even if Elgar's belief was misplaced)? To understand Elgar properly in the context of this discussion, the focus needs to be on the values, not the Britishness.


I understand what you are saying, but my view through the kaleidoscope is a bit different from yours. The 'values' were just window dressing designed to make appear noble the brutal subjugation of peoples. Since you have obviously researched this in depth, I accept your assertion that Elgar did not realize this, as most people at the time did not. (How many Brits to this day know that the 'concentration camp' was the brainchild of Winston Churchill?)



Elgarian said:


> I can see you have some particular issue of your own here about this..


It's not just 'my own', but is shared by a good majority of the populations that the Empire subjugated. (Just ask around.) Unfortunately, whether we wish to admit it or not, Elgar was party to the propaganda machine that drove an evil empire forward. As I noted previously, to this day the 'Old Establishment' in the UK uses P&C to promote backwards looking sentiments. I think this is highly detrimental to the future of the UK.

Naturally, it would be absurd to blame Elgar for this. There's no shame in not being able to see through extremely effective propaganda. For example, even Eric Blair, aka George Orwell, was himself a policeman in Burma, representing the Empire. Until he saw through it. His story 'Shooting an Elephant' is a rather brilliant description of how the light dawned on him.

If the 'Spirit of England' is Elgar's epiphany, maybe it's the musical equivalent to Orwell's 'Elephant'.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think nationalism in music, as in other forms of art, is quite a complex issue, as the posts highlight above. Times change, the world changes, people change. This happened to Orwell, as Yosser above describes.

I think that there are different types of nationalism. One type has tried to assert national identity which was under threat of being engulfed by a foreign invader. This can be detected in works of Dvorak, Sibelius, Erkel (C19th Hungarian composer of the first operas in Hungarian). Other types of nationalism were more to do with the rise of republicanism and national unity, such as many of Verdi's operas (& Erkel's for that matter). But there is also a type of nationalism that veers towards jingoism & imperialism. I suppose the best example of this has to be Elgar's _Pomp & Circumstance March No. 1 'Land of Hope & Glory.'_ Whatever his original positive sentiments, this type of music was used to drive agendas like those behind WWI.

Of course, people already know about the rotten offshoot of nationalism in the C20th, which was fascism. Thankfully, no musical pieces that glorified the horrible regimes of Fascist Germany, Spain or Italy has survived to this day. Unlike the other types of nationalism, which has some lasting artistic value, the music and art that these regimes produced was merely a tool for oppression & thus died with them...


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> As I said in an earlier post: I believe pride in one's country is a natural sentiment, and that it is something that is good thing. Pride in one's country does not have to be chauvanistic, nor does it have to equal hatred for other countries. There seems to be an element of distaste in this thread for this concept, which makes me think that PC thinking has definitely seeped its way into the discussion.


Well we're getting a bit off topic here, but I can't let this post stand without comment. First, pride in one's country of upbringing is almost always 'chauvinistic' and almost always carries with it the connotation of superiority to other countries. For example, I lived in Sweden for a while, spent quite a bit of time in Finnland and a bit less in Norway. In each country I listened to the same joke, the only difference being which nationality was the butt of the joke!

Imho 'pride in one's country' is nothing more than a security blanket. If you get out and about, live in different countries, experience different cultures, you come to realize that the assumptions that were inculcated into you when you were young are mostly false. They are designed to make you feel good about yourself, without cause.

I view nationalism, therefore, as a means whereby a community talks itself up, irrespective of facts, in order to feel 'superior' to everyone else. This is a massive obstacle in the jagged path that leads from tribalism to a truly cosmopolitan world.

There is nothing whatsoever about my view that is 'PC' -- meaning dictated by an absurd creed or fad. It is based on my personal experience and observation.

Of course, I accept the evidence of my experience, which is that nationalism is alive and well and, if anything, is enjoying a renaissance. I find this retrograde, and it saddens me, but it does not prevent me from calling it the way I see it.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Yosser said:


> .. pride in one's country of upbringing is almost always 'chauvinistic' and almost always carries with it the connotation of superiority to other countries. For example, I lived in Sweden for a while, spent quite a bit of time in Finnland and a bit less in Norway. In each country I listened to the same joke, the only difference being which nationality was the butt of the joke!


May I ask what is your nationality?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Yosser said:


> Well we're getting a bit off topic here, but I can't let this post stand without comment. First, pride in one's country of upbringing is almost always 'chauvinistic' and almost always carries with it the connotation of superiority to other countries. For example, I lived in Sweden for a while, spent quite a bit of time in Finnland and a bit less in Norway. In each country I listened to the same joke, the only difference being which nationality was the butt of the joke!
> 
> Imho 'pride in one's country' is nothing more than a security blanket. If you get out and about, live in different countries, experience different cultures, you come to realize that the assumptions that were inculcated into you when you were young are mostly false. They are designed to make you feel good about yourself, without cause.
> 
> ...


Well, I just don't know what to say. Nothing I can say to you will sway you in any particular direction; you are obviously set in your thinking.

For the record: pride in one's country a security blanket? Always chauvanistic? I could not disagree more.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Well, I just don't know what to say. Nothing I can say to you will sway you in any particular direction; you are obviously set in your thinking.
> 
> For the record: pride in one's country a security blanket? Always chauvanistic? I could not disagree more.


Why would you sway someone into sharing your same opinion? I'm glad Yosser doesn't share my opinion and I fully respect his regardless if I disagree with it or not.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> The 'values' were just window dressing designed to make appear noble the brutal subjugation of peoples.


I would just like to make it clear that they were not 'window dressing' for Elgar. Whatever political distortions occurred in practice (as indeed they occur today, and in any age, and in all countries), the ideals of justice, freedom, brotherhood, and so on are noble, worthy ideals; and it is those ideals that lie at the heart of Elgar's music.

I understand your political cynicism. I share it. But please let's not use it as a weapon to attack Elgar's music with. Rebuke the politics, not the genuinely noble ideals of a great artist.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> Why would you sway someone into sharing your same opinion? I'm glad Yosser doesn't share my opinion and I fully respect his regardless if I disagree with it or not.


I think the part of any exchange of opinions, or perhaps debate, is to bring someone to understand you side, or even make them change their stance in some capacity. If someone told me 'I don't like Sibelius because of XYZ,' I may try to lead them in a direction to better appreciate his works. If someone tells me being proud of one's country is a disgusting thing, I may try to convince them to the otherwise, as I think it's not.

But it's fine Yosser's take on pride in one's country is different than mine, and I realize any attempt on my part to convince him pride in one's country is not a bad thing would be futile.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think the part of any exchange of opinions, or perhaps debate, is to bring someone to understand you side, or even make them change their stance in some capacity. If someone told me 'I don't like Sibelius because of XYZ,' I may try to lead them in a direction to better appreciate his works. If someone tells me being proud of one's country is a disgusting thing, I may try to convince them to the otherwise, as I think it's not.
> 
> But it's fine Yosser's take on pride in one's country is different than mine, and I realize any attempt on my part to convince him pride in one's country is not a bad thing would be futile.


I don't understand why pride in one's country would be a bad thing?  If this is how Yosser feels, then that's fine, I certainly disagree with him, but I'm not going to try to convince that he's wrong. I learned a long time ago that you can't change people's minds, especially if they feel very strongly about something.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> I think the part of any exchange of opinions, or perhaps debate, is to bring someone to understand you side, or even make them change their stance in some capacity. If someone told me 'I don't like Sibelius because of XYZ,' I may try to lead them in a direction to better appreciate his works. If someone tells me being proud of one's country is a disgusting thing, I may try to convince them to the otherwise, as I think it's not.
> 
> But it's fine Yosser's take on pride in one's country is different than mine, and I realize any attempt on my part to convince him pride in one's country is not a bad thing would be futile.


I've been watching this character Yosser for the past week or so. What I'm trying to find is why he is so blatantly using the cover of musical criticism to make a number of adverse comments about Britain's Imperial past, e.g. his reference to the UK's "Evil Empire", and suggesting that Churchill invented "concentration camps". If you look back at most of his posts in this thread it is quite apparent that he has it in for the UK, and won't let go of the issue by coming up with more and more crap about Elgar. I have asked for his nationality but am still awaiting an answer.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andy Loochazee said:


> I've been watching this character Yosser for the past week or so. What I'm trying to find is why he is so blatantly using the cover of musical criticism to make a number of adverse comments about Britain's Imperial past, e.g. his reference to the UK's "Evil Empire", and suggesting that Churchill invented "concentration camps". If you look back at most of his posts in this thread it is quite apparent that he has it in for the UK, and won't let go of the issue by coming up with more and more crap about Elgar. I have asked for his nationality but am still awaiting an answer.


I admit I find it interesting too. I'd venture to guess (and it is only a guess) that he is a Briton who feels quite a bit of shame for being British.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> I don't understand why pride in one's country would be a bad thing?  If this is how Yosser feels, then that's fine, I certainly disagree with him, but I'm not going to try to convince that he's wrong.


Neither am I!


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I suppose you are distuingishing between pride and love for one's country, right?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dim7 said:


> I suppose you are distuingishing between pride and love for one's country, right?


Since when is pride a bad thing? Pride for a great accomplishment? Pride for a job well done? Pride in one's family? Pride in one's community? See, this is what I mean by "PC thinking." Nowadays, it's bad to have pride for accomplishment.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Seriously, WTF? Where did I say pride was a bad thing? I said on the fifth page of this thread that I would be only proud of my own achievements but not my country's; I did not say that pride in general was bad. 

But I'll ask again: love for one's country and pride for one's country, are defenders of "national pride" in this thread defining them as the same thing?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dim7 said:


> Seriously, WTF? Where did I say pride was a bad thing? I said on the fifth page of this thread that I would be only proud of my own achievements but not my country's; I did not say that pride in general was bad.
> 
> But I'll ask again: love for one's country and pride for one's country, are defenders of "national pride" in this thread defining them as the same thing?


But why is pride for your country's achievments a bad thing if pride in other areas is OK? For example, should Americans not be proud of landing a man on the moon? Or should we be disgusted with ourselves because we robbed another country of making that accomplishment?

How can you love your country and not be proud of it at the same time? If you have no pride in your nation, why would you love it to begin with?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Why should an american that himself had nothing to do with the man landing on the moon be proud of it? Just because somebody who lived in the same geographical area achieved it? Makes no sense to me. The crucial difference here is what you achieve yourself and what just someone who shares an arbitrary characteristic with you like nationality achieves. Those who actually themselves landed on the moon or helped in the process should've been proud of it if they thought it was something important.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dim7 said:


> Why should an american that himself had nothing to do with the man landing on the moon be proud of it? Just because somebody who lived in the same geographical area achieved it? Makes no sense to me. The crucial difference here is what you achieve yourself and what just someone who shares an arbitrary characteristic with you like nationality achieves. Those who actually themselves landed on the moon or helped in the process should've been proud of it if they thought it was something important.


Well, I think your comments speak for themselves.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Family is to some degree different thing though. How parents raise their children obviously has an effect on them, and they can reasonably be proud or ashamed of that effect. But nations... I have very little do with some random finn, not really anymore than any random american for that matter, so I feel neither pride or shame of their actions. Also, all else being equal I don't really feel any more solidarity towards either of them.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I admit I find it interesting too. I'd venture to guess (and it is only a guess) that he is a Briton who feels quite a bit of shame for being British.


I have first to apologize for dragging this thread off topic. However, having done this, and given some of the posts I just read, I probably owe you guys some personal stuff which may or may not help you make sense of my posts.

You're half right, Tapkaara, but I don't feel shame about the country where I came of age. Quite the contrary. That's perhaps part of the problem. I lived for quite a while in Germany and my daughter, whatever her passport says, is essentially German. So I'm well placed to contrast the English and German attitudes to nationlism.

If one grew up in England when I did, one sang the songs 'Oh did those feet, in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green....'. 'I vow to thee my country....' As a kid it melts into you, becomes part of you, especially if you're musically inclined. To this day I break up when they pass the hankie around on the last night of the Proms. I left England, for good, when I was 22 (a goodly while back), but England never wholly left me. I am today almost as English as I was then. 'Pride in my country' was inculcated into me without me knowing it, and seeped away only very slowly over the years, as one illusion after the other was dispelled. Today I feel gratitude to the country that gave me an education. I still read two English Newspapers every day, though what I read does not exactly suggest that the word 'pride' might be appropriate.

German attitudes to nationality are beginning to change, but Germans of my generation are almost all utterly messed up about it. They associate nationalism with national socialism, about which they are (naturally) very defensive. That this period lasted 12 years, while the British Empire lasted, what, a hundred and fifty? plays no role. Well, considering the damage National Socialism did, perhaps integrated over the time there is something like equivalence. But you would not think this from the opposite attitudes to nationalism in the two countries.

The British are particularly good (or were particularly good) at propaganda. When you think about it, 'Oh did those feet....' is plainly absurd, not to mention '...Mother of the free!' But if you've sung them enough times as a kid they become, well, a security blanket. You don't ask whether this makes any sense because these are warm and fuzzy tunes and lyrics. They make you feel good.

I understand and accept that many people need all the help they can get in life, whether from religious or nationalistic sources. But I don't. My (current) adopted country, the US, is not as suffocating as England because it is so diverse. But it is not 'home'. Nowhere is 'home', for me. There is a trade-off. If you have a 'home', this requires adapting to norms that are sometimes absurd. But 'home-folks' don't see them this way. If you've been around as much as I have, you see them all, different absurdities in each society.

All this started with Elgar, and poor old Elgarian has had a tough time trying to explain to us how Elgar held to the ideals that he believed the Empire was built on, even though they were not. I can buy this without protest. But he still wrote 'Land of Hope and Glory', and this still rings out loud and clear as an echo of a distant past that today is irrelevant, and yet is broadcast all over the world. Why? What image does one think this projects?

Someone remarked that I seem to have it in for Brits. That's a very reasonable, even astute, interpretation in view of what I have written in this thread. But it is not quite right. What I feel is more a profound sadness that Britian's pre-occupation with, and especially its glorification of its past, prevents the country from moving forward. There is a very simple reason why Germany forged ahead in the second part of the 20th century while the Uk stagnated. Germans looked forward (backwards was too painful), Brits looked backwards.

This is a response to Tapkaara, who is (I believe) a Finn. I think Finnish nationalism has a different nature from British, French or even Swedish nationalism because Finns were for so long a colonized people.They had to fight hard for freedom, which was achieved in full only after the collapse of the SU. So it's natural that one should feel pride that one's immediate ancestors forged the nation from the web of empires that had engulfed it.

However, Tap, you live in Lakeside, SD. If you live there for long enough, you may not find it so easy to 'fit in' when you visit your homeland. You have seen the world from a different perspective, and your old friends, relatives have not. Gradually, your experience of societies other than your home base will cause you to question some assumptions that have to be blindly taken as fact if you are to be accepted by the group.

It's important to note that the Nation State is a relatively modern system of government. We do not have to do it this way and, in fact, I believe that in the 21st century those societies will prosper most that foster integration of peoples and cultures rather than the reverse. (I recognize that this runs counter to the Zeitgeist and is probably a minority opinion.)


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Yosser, thank you for a very thoughtful and honest post. I read every word, and I think it is very insightful to your previous posts, and how we should interpret them.

I am actually not a Finn, nor even of Finnish decent. I am an American (of mixed European decent...but no Finnish!) born in Los Angeles who has lived most of my 30 years in southern CA, mostly in the San Diego area. I know I must give of a certain "Finnishness" due to my devotion to Sibelius and my knowledge of Finland, a country I have studied about half my life. Perhaps, then, in some way I am a little "Finnish" by virute of the fact I have been involved with Finland for so long. Anyway, that's another story.

I don't think anyone would disagree that nationalism CAN be a bad, even evil thing. You mentioned Germany and the concept of nationalism as national socialism. This is the most dangerous type of nationalism, and I'm sure everyone here knows a thing or two about what that led Germany to do in the Second World War. I'll spare everyone the history lesson!!

But nationalism can also be a good thing, if by nationalism we mean pride in one's country. And pride in one's country does not have to be a bat with with we bludgeon others. But when it becomes a bat, so to speak, then there is obviously issue that can be taken.

As for Elgar, again, I am not an expert on this man, nor his political beliefs. But again, it seems to me any expression of nationalism/national pride in his oeuvre was not meant to hurt anyone but promote an ideal he belived in. Whether or not his music DID hurt anyone, I'm sure, was not the composer's intention.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Dim7 said:


> Family is to some degree different thing though. How parents raise their children obviously has an effect on them, and they can reasonably be proud or ashamed of that effect. But nations... I have very little do with some random finn, not really anymore than any random american for that matter, so I feel neither pride or shame of their actions. Also, all else being equal I don't really feel any more solidarity towards either of them.


I assume you write this as an American citizen?

I have come across a similar attitude among other Americans on other music boards. Many American citizens appear to have a problem with their cultural identity, typified by your personal observations above. Possibly part of the explanation is that they don't have a clear racial identity as such, being a mish-mash of all types from all corners of the world. They also have a terrible record on racial integration. Nor do they have much cultural history, and what little there they have is immature. This lack of racial and cultural identity leads to a constant requirement to remind themselves what their assumed role is in the world, as if they are not really sure. Hence they tend to rally around the flag and liberty etc. Some, like you, can't even identify with either of these, and take pride only in themselves (which incidentally is called "vanity" where I come from) and/or their immediate family. It sounds very sad indeed to live in such a society.

In the UK, attitudes about national pride are generally different, although I fully accept that it has been watered down by hordes of largely unwanted immigrants from alien cultures over recent decades. This is routed in the fact that Britain ran one of the most successful Empires the word has ever seen. It ran it for a long while too, and spread its culture, values, law, language, technology all around the world, most often with generally beneficial effects. Given the size of the UK, and the inevitable emergence of other world powers in due course, this military/political superiority could not last for ever. It was finally brought to an end by the huge, irreparable damage caused by its decision to take on Hitler in 1939 after his armies had trampled across parts of Europe and was set to trample across more.

On the other hand, when it comes to fighting wars in the name of freedom, Americans generally have a terrible record. They did nothing to fight Hitler until their own back-yard was attacked. They are the only country ever to use a true weapon of mass destruction (re Hiroshima & Nagasaki). Nor do I understand that they have ever won any major war on their own devices without significant help fro other nations. All this is made far worse because, since the end of WWII, they have sometimes pursued an antagonistic, interfering and often dangerous foreign policy, culminating in the extreme folly of Bush taking on Iraq on completely false pretences. How the Americans ever elected such a complete plonker as Bush, who conned you all into believing all that nonsense, is astonishing. If it's any consolation, we had the same treatment here in the person of Blair, but at least he presumably believed there were WMD, whereas with Bush the motives were more sinister, probably being manipulated by various Neo-Con forces for quite different ends.

To our ex-Brit colleague, who apparently now lives in the USA and who finds favour in American culture to the detriment of things British, all I can say is that you are welcome to it. Having lived in the USA myself for several years, I know it quite well but found myself constantly yearning for a return to "… England's green and pleasant land". To be fair there were some aspects of life in America which I enjoyed, but there was much more that I didn't: awful design of cities, vast areas of ugliness, poor social services for the less well off, a complete lack of society due to the many unresolved racial/ethnic divides, many fat and obnoxious people, immaturity of culture, over reliance on religion, citizens having an over-optimistic faith in themselves and being clueless about history other than their own, and generally possessing proudly a considerable ignorance of the outside world, and the list goes on.

Britain by comparison is no Nirvana but it's not the backward-looking dump that some have alleged, e.g. still mired in the traditions of "land of Hope and Glory". Come on, who do you think you are kidding? We were not all born yesterday. Except possibly in a few tiny social pockets, all that nostalgia went out of the window decades ago. As for the UK's relative prosperity, which is another area of misunderstanding, things changed enormously some 30 years ago with the arrival of Mrs Thatcher's government. Britain is now currently ranked No 7 in the World in terms of GDP (on a ppp basis). Apart from Germany (which has a much larger population) the UK's GDP is the largest of the European Union, which itself now has a larger GDP than that of the USA.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Actually I'm a Finn. It's funny that you find my idea of what to be proud of sad. To me it feels completely self-evident. I have this weird idea of linking pride and shame with responsibility. Which brings to my mind: doesn't being proud of one's country's positive achievements imply being ashamed of its negative deeds as well? To deny this would be like adding to just one side of the equation.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> If one grew up in England when I did, one sang the songs 'Oh did those feet, in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green....'.


Thanks for giving such a detailed and thoughtful explanation of the origins of your own attitudes to all this, which I think I now understand.

I don't want to comment on that, but - as you'll have come to expect - to set certain facts straight. 'And did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green' has an origin very different to what many people imagine. It's a kind of Prelude to a long 'prophetic' poem (_Milton_) by William Blake, and was inspired by the myth that Joseph of Arimathea had visited Britain and indeed, in some versions of the legend, even Jesus himself. Blake was a mystic and a revolutionary who was appalled by the Britain of his day, but inspired by his vision of what it could be: 'Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, till we have built Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land'. That song is not at all about how wonderful England is; it's about how far short we have fallen, considering what we've been given, and how determined we should be to make it better. Its message is the very opposite of nationalistic pride.

I don't want to spend any more time exonerating Elgar, and I am by no means a fan of 'Land of Hope and Glory', but I would draw attention to this passage in its lyrics (not, of course, written by Elgar, who wrote only the music): 'By Freedom gained, by Truth maintained, Thine Empire shall be strong'. We today have the benefit of hindsight (that perfect science), but for Elgar, living in his time, and believing in the ideals of freedom and truth, it's not difficult to see how this vision of a benevolent Empire would be something he felt he could support, however far short we now know it may have fallen in practice.

I say again - if we project our modern knowledge and cultural values into the past, we will discover not the truth, but a grotesque distortion of it.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Dim7 said:


> It's funny that you find my idea of what to be proud of sad. To me it feels completely self-evident. I have this weird idea of linking pride and shame with responsibility. Which brings to my mind: doesn't being proud of one's country's positive achievements imply being ashamed of its negative deeds as well? To deny this would be like adding to just one side of the equation.


I am afraid that I find your response to be nit-picking. I would say that the way most people interpret "national pride" is as a composite term covering the value of former generations' contribution to the making of the nation as it is today, taking account of all the good and any wrong doings in one fell swoop. They don't go around evaluating separately each of the good and bad bits separately. It must also be said that "wrongdoings" are difficult to evaluate because what might be considered as such today were probably not considered wrong in times gone by.

OK, so you are telling me that you feel no national pride. I bet you are highly exceptional. I have met Finns who are just the opposite to you. I don't know how old you are but I suspect this may be part of the issue, as you possibly haven't had time to evaluate your country's past achievements and former glories. For a start, you could feel pride in "Sibelius".

Other things being equal most people would prefer to live in a country whose past achievements they can feel proud of. Despite what I said earlier, the USA deservedly has a generally proud reputation, although my point was that some citizens may not appreciate it. Countries of the British Commonwealth all have proud reputations. They came to assist England in its hour of greatest need in two World Wars. Various "resistance" countries in Europe also deserve meritorious mention in this regard.

However, it would be highly two-faced of me to pretend that all our European neighbours have proud reputations. Some have some very horrible stains upon their record. One in particular fell prey to the most ghastly, monster regime in the history of the world, based on racial superiority and which went on to extol and practise genocide on a massive scale. And don't tell me that ordinary citizens of the day were unaware of what was going on. They were complicit and should have done far more to put an end to it, long before a solution was forced upon them. Another regime in the Far East was equally evil and had to be put down. It took millions of innocent deaths from people of far more enlightened countries to put paid to these horrors.

My point is that kind of disgusting behaviour would not have happened here, because the UK does not have, and has never gone in for, barnstorming military style regimes supported by crooked propaganda machines, etc. Instead we are highly civilised country with appropriate checks and balances to prevent such abuses of power which are routed in our laws, education system, sense of fair play etc. This took centuries to evolve. It gave rise to Britain becoming the first country to industrialise in a major way and to establish foreign trade links all around the world which brought huge benefits and was then followed by establishment of Empire ("Trade before the Flag").

The sacrifices that my parents, grandparents etc made during the World War years of the 20th C I am truly indebted to. In addition, instead of living in some tin pot shack speaking some ghastly language and smelling of god-knows what, I live in a modern society, enjoy a high standard of living, benefit from the rule of law to protect both me and my possessions. I have access to a wide cultural base, receive the benefits of a good social support infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals). Personally I did nothing to achieve any of these things. My own personal achievements are but nothing compared with the vast wealth I have inherited by virtue of being born British. These institutions and infrastructure were created largely by my forebears, through their foresight and sacrifices.

I greatly enjoy these benefits and blessings, and that's why I feel very proud to be British. That's why a tear comes to my eye when I hear Land of Glory at the Last Night of the Proms. But it doesn't mean that I yearn for a return to those olden days.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> I am afraid that I find your response to be nit-picking. I would say that the way most people interpret "national pride" is as a composite term covering the value of former generations' contribution to the making of the nation as it is today, taking account of all the good and any wrong doings in one fell swoop. They don't go around evaluating separately each of the good and bad bits separately. It must also be said that "wrongdoings" are difficult to evaluate because what might be considered as such today were probably not considered wrong in times gone by.
> 
> OK, so you are telling me that you feel no national pride. I bet you are highly exceptional. I have met Finns who are just the opposite to you. I don't know how old you are but I suspect this may be part of the issue, as you possibly haven't had time to evaluate your country's past achievements and former glories. For a start, you could feel pride in "Sibelius".


I see evaluating separately the achievements of your country and evaluating them as "whole" is a meaningless dichotomy here; in any case you have to take the individual bits in count and thus evaluate them. To be frank it seems to be you who is nitpicking, not me. Plus, people in this thread at least have talked about being proud of individual achievements of your country (Tapkaara implied that Americans should be proud of landing on the moon, you implied I could be proud of Sibelius' music).
Of course we can't necessarily expect the exact same kind of moral standard from our ancestors, who were possibly ignorant and under different social pressure, but the vast majority of people would agree that for example Holocaust was wrong. Should Germans today be ashamed of Holocaust? That seems clearly absurd claim since they are not guilty of it but I don't see how it is any less logical than me being proud of music of Sibelius (even if I liked it), or how my ancestor defended this country against USSR.



> The sacrifices that my parents, grandparents etc made during the World War years of the 20th C I am truly indebted to. In addition, instead of living in some tin pot shack speaking some ghastly language and smelling of god-knows what, I live in a modern society, enjoy a high standard of living, benefit from the rule of law to protect both me and my possessions. I have access to a wide cultural base, receive the benefits of a good social support infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals). Personally I did nothing to achieve any of these things. My own personal achievements are but nothing compared with the vast wealth I have inherited by virtue of being born British. These institutions and infrastructure were created largely by my forebears, through their foresight and sacrifices.
> 
> I greatly enjoy these benefits and blessings, and that's why I feel very proud to be British. That's why a tear comes to my eye when I hear Land of Glory at the Last Night of the Proms. But it doesn't mean that I yearn for a return to those olden days.


Isn't "grateful" better word here than "proud"? Pride implies boost in self-esteem as far as I understand and at least I wouldn't consider myself any better person for being born into a prosperous country. If we are are talking about simple gratitude for the help and solidarity of your society and attachment to your homeland then yeah, I'm "proud" to be Finn. But my sense of self-worth is completely independent of what people who share my nationality have done.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> To our ex-Brit colleague, who apparently now lives in the USA and who finds favour in American culture to the detriment of things British, all I can say is that you are welcome to it.


If 'our ex-Brit colleague' be oi, then 'eh, you! If you're going to quote someone, please refer to what was written, not some grossly exaggerated version of it.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I say again - if we project our modern knowledge and cultural values into the past, we will discover not the truth, but a grotesque distortion of it.


Again, from your posts, I think I understand what you refer to.

Someone once said that statesmanship is 'Taking decisions in the absence of the information necessary to take those decisions'. When events crowd upon us we see 'through a glass darkly'.

As a generality, one may with equal validity compose a sentence that is almost the opposite of yours. It is only with historical perspective that events of the past can be stripped of emotional baggage and evaluated with clarity.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

In my language, the word "nationalism" has a strictly negative connotation. When greeks want to refer to a "pride for one's country" they use not "nationalism" but "patriotism". So a modern greek nationalist is first and foremost a patriot, but also a racist, sexist and 99,9% of the times a neo-fascist.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Yosser said:


> If 'our ex-Brit colleague' be oi, then 'eh, you! If you're going to quote someone, please refer to what was written, not some grossly exaggerated version of it.


I do not believe I have misquoted you at all. Your posts are there for everyone to see. They are riddled with slurs against Britain's past, and they were getting worse and worse before I stepped in.

You even accused Churchill of inventing "concentration camps". You see, contrary to your presumption that members here might be unaware of this "fact", I did know about it and have debated it previously on other forums with similar Britain haters like yourself who like to bring it up in discussions involving aspects of WWII. It is a completely silly statement, as the concentration camps you refer to bore no resemblance whatsoever to Hitler's concentration camps, but that did not suit your argument so you kept quiet about it.

I trust you will take note that we're not all a bunch of gullible fools on this Forum, ready to accept whatever adverse propaganda you put out against your country of birth, e.g. by referring to it as the "Evil Empire".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

danae said:


> ...When greeks want to refer to a "pride for one's country" they use not "nationalism" but "patriotism"...


I agree that there's a difference between nationalism & patriotism...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> Again, from your posts, I think I understand what you refer to.
> 
> As a generality, one may with equal validity compose a sentence that is almost the opposite of yours. It is only with historical perspective that events of the past can be stripped of emotional baggage and evaluated with clarity.


Your second paragraph suggests that I still haven't made my point clearly here. There are two quite different issues.

The point you're making, correctly, is that there are situations where today, with far more information at our fingertips, we get a clearer perspective on the events of history. For example, we now know a good deal more about the abuses of British Imperialism than Elgar or most of his contemporaries could possibly have known at the time. This is the historical perspective that you speak of, which allows us to see more clearly.

But the point I'm chiefly making is a different one; it's that we, too, are of our age. We carry our own cultural baggage. When we look back at people in history, we must take great care that we are not superimposing _our_ cultural values upon them, and judging their behaviour according to those values. It's absurd to try to make moral judgements on people 100 years ago because their attitudes to Imperialism were different to ours. Elgar did not _and could not_ see Imperialism as we do today. If we're to understand what we might think of as Elgar's 'Imperialist' music (_Coronation Ode_, the finale of _Caractacus_, etc), we have to try to see Imperialism as _he_ saw it, not as _we_ see it.

For an extreme (and absurd) example - think how ridiculous it would be for an intolerant modern Protestant critic to take Dante to task for the Roman Catholic concepts expressed through his poetry, rather than what the critic regarded as more acceptable Protestant ethics. _Dante had no choice!_


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Does the country in which a composer is born have any affect on his music? Could Dvorak have composed the Slavonic Dances if he were born in Argentina? Could Liszt have written the Hungarian Rhapsodies if he was born in Mozambique? Are composers in no way a product of their environment and their sound is never dictated by any national/ethnic influence?


Actually Dvořák wrote his two most famous works using American melodies, without having been born in America. Liszt was born in Hungary but lived very soon everywhere else. His mother was not Hungarian and I think he didn't speak Hungarian. Apart of that his Hungarian Rhapsodies have nothing of Hungarian but their title. (The title was of course tantamount to a political or national manifesto.) As to Bruch, let's quote Wikipaedia: " Bruch also wrote Kol Nidrei […] its subtitle is "Adagio on Hebrew Melodies for Violoncello and Orchestra". This piece was based on Hebrew melodies, principally the melody of the Kol Nidre prayer, which gives the piece its name. The success of this work has made many assume that Bruch himself had Jewish ancestry, but there is no evidence for this. " The same assumption was made of Brahms; now if this is true you must say that his Jewish descent didn't prevent him from writing A German Requiem. At any rate Hungarian was he not and "even so" he wrote Hungarian Dances. (True, they are not much more Hungarian in style or spirit than Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies.) Bach wrote an Italian Concerto and Mendelssohn - with proven Jewish ancestry, by the way - an Italian and a Schottish Symphony, Schumann a Spanish Song Book, Tchaikovski an Italian Capriccio.

Kodály and Bartók did write works in a real Hungarian folklore-style; they did so consciously, out of some principles more musical than political. I think they were not alone: you had Enesco, Janáček and others. Folkloric music stood then in the limelight, not without connection with nationalistic movements of this period, but Bartók himself, as to his political convictions, was the least nationalistic of all, in sharp opposition to the strong nationalistic, indeed chauvinistic current of his country.

If Liszt were born in Mozambique he would most probably have not written any music at all, at any rate not piano concertos nor symphonic poems.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> For an extreme (and absurd) example - think how ridiculous it would be for an intolerant modern Protestant critic to take Dante to task for the Roman Catholic concepts expressed through his poetry, rather than what the critic regarded as more acceptable Protestant ethics. _Dante had no choice!_


I am not so sure about that. Karl Popper wrote a whole volume in order to take to task Plato, "the greatest philosopher of all times" as he puts it, for having created the ideological foundation of the totalitarian state, and this book is not ridiculous at all, on the contrary, he performed a deadly serious deed by writing it. He argues with Plato so passionately as if they were contemporaries…


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Efraim said:


> I am not so sure about that.


You think Dante could have been a Protestant, do you?


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Elgar did not _and could not_ see Imperialism as we do today.


I understood this is what you meant, and agree that one must be extremely careful in making moral judgments about the actions of individuals on the basis of hindsight.

As to the _could not_, I would agree with this in the strict 'as we do today' sense. However, other artists of Elgar's generation did perceive Imperialism with a more skeptical eye and although we cannot blame Elgar for being caught up by the Zeitgeist in England, so we should not believe that it was impossible for an artist of his generation to have views that departed from the mainstream.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Gee, I seem to have lit someone's blue touchpaper!



Andy Loochazee said:


> You even accused Churchill of inventing "concentration camps". You see, contrary to your presumption that members here might be unaware of this "fact", I did know about it ...


Erm Lemme see. You're flaming me for writing something that you know to be true!?

This is politics, ethics whatever and has nothing directly to do with music. I'd be happy to debate you on past and present actions of british politicians, but that would not be appropriate in this forum.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yosser said:


> I understood this is what you meant, and agree that one must be extremely careful in making moral judgments about the actions of individuals on the basis of hindsight.
> 
> As to the _could not_, I would agree with this in the strict 'as we do today' sense.


That's the only sense in which I meant it. Clearly individuals will respond differently to the prevailing cultural winds of their day. The task of the cultural historian is to discover and clarify what those prevailing winds are; and part of the discipline is to distinguish between contemporary responses to those winds, and our modern ones.

I think at the end of this discussion, we actually understand each other's viewpoint pretty well. That feels like a minor triumph!


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> You think Dante could have been a Protestant, do you?


I meant: I am not sure that something like this (taking to task somebody who lived several centuries ago) would necessarily be ridiculous.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Efraim said:


> I meant: I am not sure that something like this (taking to task somebody who lived several centuries ago) would necessarily be ridiculous.


I think this is drifting too far from the context of the original theme of the discussion, so I won't pursue it. I'm not talking about whether it might, or might not be sensible to have an imagined discussion with a long dead figure. I'm talking about a basic principle of cultural history: we won't accurately understand the past if we aren't alert to our tendency to project our own cultural values into it, and take care to exclude that wherever possible.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> ... I'm not talking about whether it might, or might not be sensible to have an imagined discussion with a long dead figure. I'm talking about a basic principle of cultural history: we won't accurately understand the past if we aren't alert to our tendency to project our own cultural values into it, and take care to exclude that wherever possible.


O.K., take my comment as if added in brackets. Anyway you or we already have got far from the initial topic: to what extent a composer is influenced by his cultural and emotional environment. - I completely agree with your sentence I underlined: we won't understand the past the way you describe. Nevertheless, understanding is one thing and expressing a moral feeling and judgment is another. We live in one world and it is not hermetically compartmentalized by temporal distances. Of course our judgments ought to be balanced and as little simplified as possible. As to British imperialism, it is only too true that many very objectionable things were committed in its name. But I can't help feeling that what many people morally judge or reject is not the very objectionable things but the word "imperialism", which is today an ugly word. I am not a British subject (unfortunately…); if I were I would probably feel uneasy about those objectionable, sometime ugly deeds, but without exaggeration. After all, not so long ago, the British imperialism, together with the American "imperialism", saved the world from a far worse imperialism… Only strong empires could achieve that.

Somebody wrote in this forum:

_… the UK does not have, and has never gone in for, barnstorming military style regimes supported by crooked propaganda machines, etc. Instead we are highly civilised country with appropriate checks and balances to prevent such abuses of power which are routed in our laws, education system, sense of fair play etc. This took centuries to evolve. It gave rise to Britain becoming the first country to industrialise in a major way and to establish foreign trade links all around the world which brought huge benefits …_

I agree with this proud Englishman.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Efraim said:


> _… the UK does not have, and has never gone in for, barnstorming military style regimes supported by crooked propaganda machines, etc. Instead we are highly civilised country with appropriate checks and balances to prevent such abuses of power which are routed in our laws, education system, sense of fair play etc. This took centuries to evolve. It gave rise to Britain becoming the first country to industrialise in a major way and to establish foreign trade links all around the world which brought huge benefits …_


People who believe this rubbish obviously don't know about how the Brits subjugated India, which was quite an advanced industrial country, comparatively speaking (India had a huge textile industry). They destroyed such industries in India & made the country reliant on them. Under the British, India became a primary producer whereas before, they were much more than that. Of course, they had many political & social problems, but so what, so did the British. & you obviously don't know about the Indian mutiny of 1858, where scores of Indians were brutally slaughtered because they dared to confront the British imperial regime. So the British Empire was far from benign, it was quite the opposite, in mine & perhaps many other historians' opinion...


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Efraim said:


> After all, not so long ago, the British imperialism, together with the American "imperialism", saved the world from a far worse imperialism… Only strong empires could achieve that.
> 
> Somebody wrote in this forum:
> 
> ...


Wow! Not even the slightest effort to be remotely moderate... Your comment is interesting, in a wierd way: its complete lack of political correctness is almost pleasant, in a terryfying and twisted way...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

And then there were the appalling French, subjugating Europe in the Napoleonic wars; and the shocking Romans - what an evil thing the Roman Empire was, eh?; and the Greeks before them - and while we're at it let's have a go at the ancient Egyptians, and their ruthless subjugation of the independent states along the Nile ... 

We seem to have strayed an awfully long way from the point of this thread, which is not about whether this or that Empire was evil according to modern value judgements, but about understanding the attitude of an artist to the country he lives in. (Or are we next going to castigate those ancient Egyptian artists who so crassly painted and carved scenes of military triumph?)


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Andre said:


> Efraim said:
> 
> 
> > … the UK does not have, and has never gone in for, barnstorming military style regimes supported by crooked propaganda machines, etc. Instead we are highly civilised country with appropriate checks and balances to prevent such abuses of power which are routed in our laws, education system, sense of fair play etc. This took centuries to evolve. It gave rise to Britain becoming the first country to industrialise in a major way and to establish foreign trade links all around the world which brought huge benefits …
> ...


You seem to be confused about who wrote what in this thread. Efraim was quoting a small part of one of my earlier posts, and apparently agreeing with at least that part of it which he quoted.

Your comment suggests to me that your knowledge of certain aspects of both British colonial history and economics is highly questionable. On the history side, the British East India Company most certainly did not destroy India's industries (such as textiles, as you allege), but on the contrary provided an important outlet for them in European markets. It thus did exactly the opposite of what you claim. As for the Indian Mutiny of 1857, this was confined to northern India and resulted mainly from a rebellion by a bunch of overpaid Indian troops who were unhappy about the prospect of their over indulgent privileges being taken away by the British employers, and replaced by cheaper defence resources.

On the economic side, have you not heard of the "gains from trade" which is an elementary but important economic concept by which countries gain from specialising in those activities in which they have a comparative advantage? Rather than me explain it to you, may I suggest that you toddle along to your local bookshop and pick up an economics primer from which you might aim to seek out the relevant theory in order to learn about these issues before you making more claims about so-called British Imperial exploitation of third world labour, etc.

As to the wider issue of whether the British were any good at running an Empire, of course we were very good at it. Over the period from the mid-18th century to the early 20th, we exercised greater influence over the world than any nation in history. As I said previously, overall we did it benignly. No one would argue that Britain sometimes got it wrong during its colonial days, as clearly over a 150-year period some errors of judgement were inevitable. I was making a broad overall claim about the benefits brought about by British trade, colonisation and subsequent rule.

Britain's Empire was not created merely for the sake of military conquest, or for "regime change", or to impose our culture on an unwilling local community for religious or racial grounds. It most often followed in the wake of trade that benefited all participants, as noted above. Some kind of colonisation followed, and eventually defence and policing forces became necessary to protect the infrastructure and human resources. There was nothing remotely sinister about any of that. Britain was thus able to introduce the rule of law to largely uncivilised places, which had never experienced such things, as well as technology in the form of roads, rail, canals etc. It also gave these people the benefits of English Language, which has been of great assistance in their later development, a fact which many of them now recognise.

As I mentioned previously, Britain used its power in the cause of freedom against tyranny in many instances. For example, without Britain's huge effort, large parts of Europe would have been taken over by Hitler in 1939. Is that what you would have preferred? The Americans would have arrived far too late, if they arrived at all and they very probably would not have done so. They only got involved after their own back yard was attacked. In other words, without the might of the British Empire stepping into challenge Hitler, the World would have taken a ghastly different shape. Just imagine what Europe would be like now if the Nazis hadn't been stopped in their tracks.

More recently, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain has done far more (on a per capita basis, and given our resources) than anyone else to protect and promote liberty, aside from the Americans who clearly must bear the heaviest burden given their superpower status. As President Obama recently acknowledged, today the UK stands more vulnerable to the threat of terrorist attack in our homeland than most other nations due to our relatively high profile role in fighting evil regimes such as the Taliban and such other murdering and backward scum in that part of the World.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Elgarian said:


> And then there were the appalling French, subjugating Europe in the Napoleonic wars; and the shocking Romans - what an evil thing the Roman Empire was, eh?; and the Greeks before them - and while we're at it let's have a go at the ancient Egyptians, and their ruthless subjugation of the independent states along the Nile ...
> 
> We seem to have strayed an awfully long way from the point of this thread, which is not about whether this or that Empire was evil according to modern value judgements, but about understanding the attitude of an artist to the country he lives in. (Or are we next going to castigate those ancient Egyptian artists who so crassly painted and carved scenes of military triumph?)


I thought the USA was the Great Satan, not the UK!

I agree with Elgarian here. The trhead has strayed a bit from its original intention. BUt my 2 cents: Britain may have been involved in less than favorable practices in its time, but just about every other nation on earth has too. The fact of the matter is we all live in a place where land has been taken from someone else, a minority group has been subjugated, etc. There is not such thing as the nation with the 100% track record in human rights. So this singling out of the UK seems extremely unfair, nor does it have much to do with the concept of this thread.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> I thought the USA was the Great Satan, not the UK!


Not according to the opinion expressed in post # 73, where Britain was portrayed as having run an "Evil Empire", and its wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill was branded as having invented "concentration camps". It was this irrelevant post which side-tracked the thread and which sparked a reaction from me.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks to Tapkaara for his sensible words.

To try to get this thread back on track: I spent a bit of time today reading the introduction to _Oh, My Horses: Elgar and the Great War_, published by the Elgar Society and edited by Lewis Foreman. It's a well-researched, scholarly volume, and the first chapter ('Elgar's War' by Andrew Neill) is interesting both for the perspectives it gives, and for some of the information that emerges. For instance he writes about what Elgar, at the age of 57, confronted when the war began:

"Elgar faced a challenge which, if not dangerous, was nonetheless a demanding one. He had to provide what was required and expected of a major artistic figure during a catastrophe unprecedented in his lifetime and that of his fellow countrymen." That role is one Elgar would take very seriously. The catastrophe was now upon the nation whether he or anyone else liked it or not, and he would see it as his responsibility to respond accordingly.

Neill (rightly, I think) thinks of _The Spirit of England_ as Elgar's requiem, and writes quite a bit about the background to its composition. It was based on three poems by Laurence Binyon, and the project looked uncertain: another composer had already begun to set the words to music and Elgar was reluctant to tread on his toes. But Binyon tried to persuade Elgar that he had a higher duty - and it's interesting to see how he expressed it, in the letter he wrote:

"Think of the thousands who will be craving to have their grief glorified and lifted up and transformed by an art such as yours. ... Surely it would be wrong to let them lose this help and consolation."

I think it's really interesting to see the approach Binyon used here - playing on the idea that Elgar's music would be of help and consolation to people whose lives had been broken by circumstances beyond their control. There's no notion of jingoism - just the concept of attempting to provide the only support he could. Elgar agreed to go ahead, of course, and the result was one of his greatest works. Neill writes of:

"_The Spirit of England_, the music of the war that he had been destined to write. The public could hear his reaction to a changed world. His response is both angry and sad for the waste, horror and carnage that would destroy the life he knew. Although for 'England', these pieces are for any country and its dead."

This is the truth about Elgar's 'nationalism'. It's based on a deeply-felt sympathy for the sorrows and agonies of his fellow man in the face of catastrophe. I've only dipped into this book a little, so far - but just look at what is emerging from it. I've said it before - but if you want to know the truth about Elgar and nationalism, set aside all the ignorant rubbish that's churned out about 'Land of Hope and Glory', and listen to _The Spirit of England_. It will break your heart.










If you're tempted, this is _by far_ the best version to buy, at under a fiver on Amazon.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

danae said:


> Wow! Not even the slightest effort to be remotely moderate... Your comment is interesting, in a wierd way: its complete lack of political correctness is almost pleasant, in a terryfying and twisted way...


It seems to me that "being moderate" means sharing your opinion. In this case, I admit not being prepared to be moderate, though I am prepared to discuss with you provided you are prepared to drop your slightly insulting way of speaking.

I did mentioned "objectionable" and "ugly deeds" but obviously this is not harsh enough for your moderation. You seem to forget or never to have known that "political correctness" is an ironic term meaning "fashionable simplified and uniform political talk" and characterizing the aggressive stance of leftist pundits who obtrude their convictions upon the world through cleverly manipulated mass media. Eg criticizing America whatever it does is correct, criticizing America 's enemies whatever they do is incorrect. (This will possibly change with Obama...) Attacking western civilization is correct, censuring leftist aggressiveness or Third World jingoisms is incorrect. Mao, Che Gevara yes, Churchill no. Indeed I suspect your one-sided aggressiveness and your hatred of Britain is leftist in origin. I might be wrong, of course.

If I am not, I would like to propose you a deal: if you are ready to condemn Muslim terrorism; further, if you are ready not only to condemn Soviet imperialism and communism in general, but to condemn it, without seeking excuses for it, more harshly and passionately than you condemn British imperialism, proportionately to the number of people each of them has massacred per year, consequently several thousand times more, and proportionately to the measure of aggressiveness with which they behaved toward various civilized nations - Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Finns, Tatars as well as toward Russian workers and peasants themselves, and toward India, respectively - so if you are ready to do that I will shout with you against British imperialism exactly as it deserves. I mean, if you see the proportions and refrain not only from condemning the one and praising the other but also from not seeing any difference between imperfect earth and pure totalitarian inferno.

If you are not under the spell of leftist propaganda, so I would say this: Athenian democracy was for a while imperialistic, which was not a nice thing. At the same time the world is enormously indebted to its achievements. Alexander's Empire was imperialistic, the roman Empire was far more so, but the world still owes them something. For some 150 or 200 years Britain was imperialistic; many inexcusable crimes were committed among other things, good, bad and neutral. What our "proud Englishman" wrote is independent from those crimes and is rubbish only for biased eyes: it is simply true. In fact the world is far more indebted to Britain than Proud Englishman writes and than the world is ready to acknowledge it. India, China and other victims of British imperialism are not, or are only as fare as they are part of the world. By the way, the notoriously selfish exploitation of colonies is far from being unambiguous: there are otherwise "moderate" historians who wonder whether colonies were ever assets or liabilities… and in WWII two millions Indian volunteers fought under British colours. Some historical processes are simple, but some other are too complicated to be explained away with preconceptions and slogans.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Well, I did my best....


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Yeah, I'm not even reading these long-winded, off-topic posts anymore.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> Britain's Empire was not created merely for the sake of military conquest, or for "regime change", or to impose our culture on an unwilling local community for religious or racial grounds. It most often followed in the wake of trade that benefited all participants, as noted above. Some kind of colonisation followed, and eventually defence and policing forces became necessary to protect the infrastructure and human resources. There was nothing remotely sinister about any of that. Britain was thus able to introduce the rule of law to largely uncivilised places, which had never experienced such things, as well as technology in the form of roads, rail, canals etc. It also gave these people the benefits of English Language, which has been of great assistance in their later development, a fact which many of them now recognise.


"Uncivilised" in your definition/value judgement. The way you argue, one would think that the Indians pleaded to the British to colonise them! What rubbish. No-one asked Britain to set up colonies anywhere, for good or for worse. They just did it to expand their political, economic & military power globally. I'd say that, apart from the development of the railway system & their promotion of moving away from the caste system, British colonisation was a big negative for India. & no I am not making suppositions, I studied this history at university.

About the current war in Afghanistan, which you mention, again, the Afghanis didn't ask anyone to invade them. The west just did this to further their own agendas as usual. & what's the result? Most part of the country is still ungovernable, apart from the capital. So what's the point? It's just the same old colonialist/paternalist approach to things the West has taken far too many times over the course of history, in my opinion...

Anyway, others are right, this issue is beyond this thread, it's more political. But I think I have to correct the clear untruths in your approach...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Yeah, I'm not even reading these long-winded, off-topic posts anymore.


Me neither. In fact, I come on this thread every now and then to see if anything is actually written about music and SURPRISE....it's not.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Yeah, I'm not even reading these long-winded, off-topic posts anymore.


O.K. so let's come back to music, though each of us had to say a lot more about our far-gone off-topic issue, and a lot more concrete things, than about music. I guess few of us are professional or even amateurish musicians. So I would ask every one of you how it happened that he or she became addict to classical music and which works were his first favourites. I am sure there are interesting stories. After all classical music is less easily and less immediately enjoyable than folkloric or entertainment music.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Efraim said:


> So I would ask every one of you how it happened that he or she became addict to classical music and which works were his first favourites. I am sure there are interesting stories. After all classical music is less easily and less immediately enjoyable than folkloric or entertainment music.


There's a already a thread devoted to this very topic. It's called "How did you discover classical music."


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Perhaps it is inappropriate on this site, but I did enjoy reading the various opinions on Nationalism, whether relating to music or not.

Shouldn't discussions of art lead to discussions on all aspects of life?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> Perhaps it is inappropriate on this site, but I did enjoy reading the various opinions on Nationalism, whether relating to music or not.
> 
> Shouldn't discussions of art lead to discussions on all aspects of life?


Sure, but there also seems to be quite a bit of political nation bashing that is going on in this thread which I find strays just a little too much from the thread. After all, this is nationalism as it applies to music, not the evil wrong doings of the United Kingdom.

Quite honestly, I think political discussions are not a good idea on this forum. I have seen some people make political comments that I personally find offensive, but I otherwise enjoy talking to these people for their musical knowledge. I think if we can leave politics at the door and keep our discussion focused on music, that will make for a lot less tension among our members. There's enough tension in here as it is.


----------



## Houshintida (Jun 3, 2009)

nice, i like this thread..i have learned out of it..thanks to all of you for the nice post...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Perhaps it is inappropriate on this site, but I did enjoy reading the various opinions on Nationalism, whether relating to music or not.
> 
> Shouldn't discussions of art lead to discussions on all aspects of life?


I think many of these posts are way off topic as they have nothing to do with Tapkaara's topic and on top of that they have nothing to do with music.

Political agendas aren't apart of this thread. What this country does to another country is getting way off topic. It seems that the music has taken a backseat in this thread, which is why I haven't replied much.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Shouldn't discussions of art lead to discussions on all aspects of life?


Yes, and I think there is a lot of interesting stuff in the thread. But it became untenable when it degenerated into a moratorium on the British Empire.

This came about because a discussion of the role and responsibilities of a composer in relation to the politics and sociology of his age came to focus on Elgar rather than, say, Prokofiev, Shostakovich etc.

Imho a thread like this can only get to grips with the essential issue if discussion is dispassionate. Once national or racial pride gets involved on an emotional level, it's a lost cause.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

I dunno, to me, nationalism in music is an awkwardly inappropriate word. I guess it sounds OK in English, but I cannot imagine translating this phrase into my mother tongue, because it would automatically imply the worst of things. I cannot see how using folk melodies makes 'musical nationalism'. I mean, nationalism is a thoroughly political word and it clashes dissonantly with the notion of music as perhaps the highest form of art. Patriotism and nationalism also aren't very much alike. Nationalism is nasty, very nasty.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lisztfreak said:


> I dunno, to me, nationalism in music is an awkwardly inappropriate word. I guess it sounds OK in English, but I cannot imagine translating this phrase into my mother tongue, because it would automatically imply the worst of things. I cannot see how using folk melodies makes 'musical nationalism'. I mean, nationalism is a thoroughly political word and it clashes dissonantly with the notion of music as perhaps the highest form of art. Patriotism and nationalism also aren't very much alike. Nationalism is nasty, very nasty.


In English, "nationalism in music" or "Nationalist music" is generally used to describe the phenomenon of composer who injects the local color or his/her country into their musical works. Wikipedia. has a decent article on it:

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

It's a legitimate and accepted term, and I think is used PRIMARILY to describe what Wikipedia says: Musical nationalism refers to the use of musical ideas or motifs that are identified with a specific country, region, or ethnicity, such as folk tunes and melodies, rhythms, and harmonies inspired by them. Musical nationalism can also include the use of folklore as a basis for programmatic works including opera.

It appears to me that, for the most part, the nationalist movement was fairly benign. Composers sought to "promote" or "showcase" the sounds of their countries (or even other countries) as an excercise in color or exoticism as opposed to being politically motivated. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but for the most part, I don't see it as a dangerious movement in the Romantic period.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> It appears to me that, for the most part, the nationalist movement was fairly benign. Composers sought to "promote" or "showcase" the sounds of their countries (or even other countries) as an excercise in color or exoticism as opposed to being politically motivated. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but for the most part, I don't see it as a dangerious movement in the Romantic period.


As I said, the wording in English sounds too grave and bombast to my Croatian ears... but I understand the difference completely.

The only ones who could have viewed it as dangerous were members of the ruling classes. The Austrian Court in the Austrian Empire, the Russian Tsar in Finland, the Danish King in Norway and so on.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Perhaps it is inappropriate on this site, but I did enjoy reading the various opinions on Nationalism, whether relating to music or not.
> 
> Shouldn't discussions of art lead to discussions on all aspects of life?


I think so too, after all it is in the nature of chat that it may lead everywhere. On music proper almost everybody said here far less substantial things than on our erratic topic.

If nationalism in music, in the sense it is given in Wikipaedia (which was quoted toward the end of the discussion on it instead of being quoted in its beginning) is not exactly an epiphenomenon in musical art, it is nevertheless not in the core of it. Music is far more international than national (and is far more international than is literature or than once was painting). Certain people passionately hate some nations and passionately like its composers.

I never understood why a musician or an orchestra feel compelled, when playing abroad, to put on their program works from their country, eg Smetana or Janáček, when they are Czech, or Bartók when they happen to be Hungarian etc. Perhaps people think they play them necessarily better than non-aborigines. This sounds obvious but more often than not is absolutely untrue. Smetana's Quartet in E Minor is very good with the Czech Smetana quartet, which is one of my favourites, but I liked it even more with the Guarneri Quartet (which is otherwise not one of my favourites). What do you think about this? I guess not everybody will agree with me. No problem, I won't get angry… 
:angry:


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Efraim,

Some interesting points.

I like the Emerson recording of Bartok better than the Hungarian Quartet (which is still very good, mind you). But some of the best Bach on flute I have ever heard was by a Hungarian!

As a Canadian, almost everything we play is not from our country. And most Canadian composers would have a very hard time saying what "Canadian" is - which us very cool in my opinion. There are just simply some great composers that have been born here, but nothing really inherently Canadian about them...or perhaps, this is what makes them Canadian. 

I have often thought the best thing about this country is it's lack of Nationalism!! (ha ha) 

But, when Canadian ensembles travel, they usually take a Canadian work. But, it is most often newly composed for the group - this is different than I think what you are implying, and quite valid I think.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Efraim said:


> I never understood why a musician or an orchestra feel compelled, when playing abroad, to put on their program works from their country, eg Smetana or Janáček, when they are Czech, or Bartók when they happen to be Hungarian etc. Perhaps people think they play them necessarily better than non-aborigines. This sounds obvious but more often than not is absolutely untrue. Smetana's Quartet in E Minor is very good with the Czech Smetana quartet, which is one of my favourites, but I liked it even more with the Guarneri Quartet (which is otherwise not one of my favourites). What do you think about this? I guess not everybody will agree with me. No problem, I won't get angry… :angry:


Well, I understand why they do. It's only natural that you want to present your nation's culture and artistic achievements when playing abroad. You feel obliged to give the world a chance to experience the spirit of your country - because you are proud of it, no matter how it is. Personally, if I were a conductor, for example, I'd include at least one Croatian work in each of my concert tours, even though otherwise I'd concentrate mostly on English and French repertoirs.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Yosser said:


> However, accepting it makes it very difficult to excuse the way in which anglo-saxons treat Germans who had the misfortune to come of age in the Nazi era and who were not jewish.


They're just trying to obscure the fact the UK is a dying regime. That place is collapsing so quickly it's amazing. Maybe they should have listened to Hesse, or even just had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding Poland? At least it would have kept them out of another meatgrinder war.

It seems to me that a lot of people in the Anglo world love to hate Germans. We perceive them as clever but cold, and therefore, not quite in line for our "happiness, capitalism and diversity" parade. Anglos seem more willing to accept Eurasians (Russians) than Germans.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I love the fact that this thread has gone way off the deep end. Good job, guys. What a way to totally sink a thread that's supposed to be about music: talking about how people from one culture dislikes people from another culture.

There are some of us that actually enjoy talking about music. Too bad there's nobody that does in this thread.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> I love the fact that this thread has gone way off the deep end.


It's better than some of the routine nastiness going on.

I guess I've never had a problem with nationalism in music, and think it's beautiful. In fact, I tend to prefer nationalism to patriotism.

Then again, it's hard to claim I can understand other cultures fully, just gain insights into them through their music.

Of course, if you can enjoy both the Germans and the Italians, you've got a broad spread there... the only people I can't get into are the Slavs, but then again, I find the Slavic mentality hopeless.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I think nationalism in music is great. You get to hear interesting tunes, rythyms and harmonies inspired by the various folk traditions of our planet. I guess I am a sucker for ethnic exoticism.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think nationalism in music is great. You get to hear interesting tunes, rythyms and harmonies inspired by the various folk traditions of our planet. I guess I am a sucker for ethnic exoticism.


I guess, ultimately the problem for me is that I do not consider using folk music materials to be Nationalism. I think it is a semantic issue, as I love the way folk musics have interacted with the western classical tradition as well, but am adverse to music Nationalism.

Also, some of the best uses of folk music are done by composers who borrow from other lands. This is what it is about - being inspired by certain sonic concepts, and using them in the composition. It really, to me, has nothing to do with Nationalism.

I think it is artistically limiting to impede oneself with Nationalist preoccupations. In my opinion, this is a problem in China. The composers are being strangled by this attitude.

But many come to Canada, keep much of their traditions, but work creatively on the interaction between cultures. It is not Nationalistic, but rather working with the familiar - working with the native instruments - the unique timbres etc. This has led to some very fascinating results for both Western and Eastern based musicians. A natural, unforced collision of traditions.

Yes, I did read the Wiki. But am only partially convinced by the entry.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> Yes, I did read the Wiki. But am only partially convinced by the entry.


The concept of the "Nationalist period" is not unique to Wikipedia. It is an established term that appears in any text on the history of western music.

But like you said, it is really a case of semantics. You are not the only person who has expressed discomfort with this term. But is is an accepted term, and I think some folks, you included, are projecting something more serious and sinister onto the term that was never intended.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Nationalism shows up in many art forms because the artists are proud of who they are, their origins and their culture.

And if you ask me, I trust culture a lot more than the options -- bureaucracy and raw economics.

Are the various "black pride" references in jazz any less nationalism than the pro-Nordic rhetoric in Wagner?

Is it wrong for the French to be proud of being French?

If anything, nationalism is a positive angle on what makes this world so mundane -- everything the same as if administered by a bureaucracy.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> The concept of the "Nationalist period" is not unique to Wikipedia. It is an established term that appears in any text on the history of western music.
> 
> But like you said, it is really a case of semantics. You are not the only person who has expressed discomfort with this term. But is is an accepted term, and I think some folks, you included, are projecting something more serious and sinister onto the term that was never intended.


I cited the Wiki because you did as well.

Yes, yes, Nationalism in music is in the books. And I've been inundated with it at school as well.

Nationalistic ideas have led to some rather serious and sinister events, like genocide and war. It still goes on, and I sometimes worry we are on the verge of another huge Nation vs. Nation war. I'm sorry if this seems a bit over done. It is my opinion that art plays a role in the debate.

And if we simply want to get into aesthetics, I don't think it did any good for those Nationalist composers - Cui...who knows, he could have been great, but he was blinded by Nationalist fervor. I will do this and not this because I am a Russian! No, dude, you are a human, you are an artist. You speak a language, and have a culture that is deeper than the borders of your nation. It is in you, you don't need to force it. Be inspired by great folk music, not obliged.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> I cited the Wiki because you did as well.
> 
> Yes, yes, Nationalism in music is in the books. And I've been inundated with it at school as well.
> 
> ...


AAAAAAAAAAGAIN, this thread is continuing to spiral down an unintended path.

This thread is not about EVIL NATIONALISTS for the sake of discussing EVIL NATIONALISTS. This is not a thread about genocide, it's not a thread about national socialism, it's not a thread about the original Evil Empire aka the UK. It's about nationalist music; that is to say, the use of a Russian folk tune in Mussorgsky or the use of a peculiar folk-inspired harmony in Bartok, etc.

As far as I know, these composers have never commited genocide, nor has their music been used as a tool to invade other countries and rape its women.

To an extent, talking politics in this thread seems appropriate (for example, Sibelius's Finlandia as an anthem of liberation), but all of this talk of evil countries and how they have screwed up the world has more to do with world history more than it has to do with nationalist composers like Grieg.

If someone can prove a specific instance where a "nationalist" work has caused damage to another country, another person, etc., I think it's appropriate for this thread because it is still in a musical context. But just talking about how this country has done this bad thing to this country has nothing to do with music...and it is not appropriate for this thread.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> But just talking about how this country has done this bad thing to this country has nothing to do with music...and it is not appropriate for this thread.


I think we're fighting a losing battle, sadly.

The fundamental character of Sibelius's nationalism isn't being understood here (by some of the contributors) any more than Elgar's is. To explain: one of the things that attracts me to Sibelius's music is its _nationalism_ - that is, his passionate evocation of the landscape and culture of his country and his roots, through music. I'm not a Finn myself, but I'm able to revel in _his_ Finnishness. Nationalism in the sense we're talking about here is part of the quiddity of who we are; how we came to be who we are; what culture shaped us. It's perfectly possible to enjoy Sibelius's nationalism, Elgar's nationalism, and any other composer's nationalism on that basis, regardless of what nationality we may happen to be, and all this talk of political one-upmanship is about propaganda, not music. There's no reason why that shouldn't be discussed - but why not start a new thread for it instead of ruining this one?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I think we're fighting a losing battle, sadly.


I'm not arguing with anyone who has some kind of political agenda and wants to continue making a thread, that's supposed to be about musical nationialsim, into a session for bashing countries for their mistakes.

I think when you make things personal like what many people have done in this thread, then it's a lost cause. Music is what this thread is supposed to be about, not what should've, could've, or would've happened had a country did this or that.

This thread has taken a nasty turn and has been morphed into a personal war against countries.

Less insults and more musical commentary. That's what I would like to see.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Elgarian said:


> I think we're fighting a losing battle, sadly.
> 
> The fundamental character of Sibelius's nationalism isn't being understood here (by some of the contributors) any more than Elgar's is. To explain: one of the things that attracts me to Sibelius's music is its _nationalism_ - that is, his passionate evocation of the landscape and culture of his country and his roots, through music. I'm not a Finn myself, but I'm able to revel in _his_ Finnishness. Nationalism in the sense we're talking about here is part of the quiddity of who we are; how we came to be who we are; what culture shaped us. It's perfectly possible to enjoy Sibelius's nationalism, Elgar's nationalism, and any other composer's nationalism on that basis, regardless of what nationality we may happen to be, and all this talk of political one-upmanship is about propaganda, not music. There's no reason why that shouldn't be discussed - but why not start a new thread for it instead of ruining this one?


And, sadly, I agree with you.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Having a few conversations with esteemed forum member Starry has promted me to bring this discussion to the fore on nationalism in music.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> ...


Tapakaara, this was the start of the thread. Why do you get so upset by people expressing their opinions on the matter? Some people think that Nationalism in art is to varying degress, a bad thing. Are we not allowed to say this, even though you ask the question?

There is such a weird kind of melodrama around here.

Perhaps, if you care to actually read what I have written, you will see that hardly any of your accusations are true about what I said, and that I did indeed relate my ideas to art and music. Maybe, just maybe, you could try and comment on what I have said (not what others have said) when you quote me. That would be pleasant.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> Tapakaara, this was the start of the thread. Why do you get so upset by people expressing their opinions on the matter? Some people think that Nationalism in art is to varying degress, a bad thing. Are we not allowed to say this, even though you ask the question?
> 
> There is such a weird kind of melodrama around here.
> 
> Perhaps, if you care to actually read what I have written, you will see that hardly any of your accusations are true about what I said, and that I did indeed relate my ideas to art and music. Maybe, just maybe, you could try and comment on what I have said (not what others have said) when you quote me. That would be pleasant.


Your comments on Cui, I think, are actually valid to the thread and I should have commented on that. I think it does contribute to the intended discussion on the thread. My apologies.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> There is such a weird kind of melodrama around here.


Yeah, I know, it's it wonderful?


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Lisztfreak said:


> Well, I understand why they do. It's only natural that you want to present your nation's culture and artistic achievements when playing abroad. You feel obliged to give the world a chance to experience the spirit of your country - because you are proud of it, no matter how it is. Personally, if I were a conductor, for example, I'd include at least one Croatian work in each of my concert tours, even though otherwise I'd concentrate mostly on English and French repertoirs.





> (*Scott Good*) : But, when Canadian ensembles travel, they usually take a Canadian work. But, it is most often newly composed for the group - this is different than I think what you are implying, and quite valid I think.


In this sense I agree with both of you, but composers like Smetana or Bartók are in no need to be introduced to the world.

To Scott Good:

I never heard the Emersons. I have Bartók's Quartets with the Hungarian, Juilliard, Parrenin and Novák Quartet (the latter reissued on Philips in 1994) and the 4th with the Slovakian Qu., but Slovaks are half Hungarian. The Hungarian Quartet lived in the west but its members are or were real Hungarians, the Nováks are Czech. Now the formers play Bartók in an extremely cultured, elegant way, while the Nováks more savagely and with a less overpolished, more earthly sonority. I sometimes felt such a difference with respect to different interpretations of other Bartók's work too. The explanation might be this: The world likes or at least once liked to regard Hungary as an exotic, not really European and somewhat savage country, about what the Hungarians were not happy at all, they wanted to be regarded as fully integrated in Europe, even though their image in the West made them interesting in foreign eyes. So a non-Hungarian ensemble could easily be inclined to stress more the eruptive violence, which is one of the prominent features of Bartók's music, while Hungarians want to present the intellectual, deeply and theoretically thinking Bartók.

2. Nationalism is repulsive when it is aggressive or contemptuous or foolishly bumptious, but feeling oneself as a part of a sound community is a nice thing. Is the Canadian nation not one (or at most two) community/ies with a sense of sharing a common life experience?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'd say nationalism was definitely part of music in the C19th & early C20th, but now (thinking of Australian composers in particular here) I think that a sense of regionalism is stronger. It's not about being bound musically to one nation, it's more about an interest in the region a composer lives. In the case of Australia, it's Oceania & East Asia & you can definitely hear these influences in the music of composers like Peter Sculthorpe, Barry Conyngham & Ross Edwards.

But I also think that classical music now has really gone global, especially since WW2. There have been many composers, like Varese, Carter, Ligeti, etc. who do not even make any regional references in their music...


----------

