# Down the Drain...



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Composers who wrote great works and no one cares for them. But instead today people embrace drivels like Ligetti Etudes, and Schoenberg, Mahler, John Adams and the rest of the 'Classical Chutzpah Camp".

Poor old Anton Rubinstein and Hummel who wrote Great Piano concertos, yet the world couldn't care less.

So the point is why should composers care to produce real beautiful classical music today, when all the listeners today dig modern atonal back warded pointless drivel type of music?

Perhaps real talented composers should be doing something else, perhaps, Skiing or Tennis playing?

Anton Rubinstein: Piano Concerto No. 4, 3rd movement






Hummel Piano Concerto 3 in b minor op. 89 4/4


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Composers who wrote great works and no one cares for them. But instead today people embrace drivels like Ligetti Etudes, and Schoenberg, *Mahler*, John Adams and the rest of the 'Classical Chutzpah Camp".
> 
> So the point is why should composers care to produce real beautiful classical music today, when all the listeners today dig *modern atonal back warded pointless drivel type of music*?


Mahler?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> Mahler?


The number one drivelist of them all.

Yes.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Mahler?


I guess he hates him because Mahler betrayed Judaism with his 2nd symphony.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I guess he hates him because Mahler betrayed Judaism with his 2nd symphony.


Well Mendelssohn was dragged By his Father Abraham to the Lutheran Church and Baptized him, but Mendelssohn still remains my favorite composer.

So you're wrong.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Rubinstein did not write "great piano concertos." They're fun but mediocre. They weren't even respectable at the time. 

Hummel wrote some music that is actually good, but why would you listen to him over early Beethoven?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Rubinstein did not write "great piano concertos." They're fun but mediocre. They weren't even respectable at the time.
> 
> Hummel wrote some music that is actually good, but why would you listen to him over early Beethoven?


Mediocre?

If that's true, then all of the music that was written after those concertos are below drivel.
they're pointless.

Now what's lower then pointless?

Perhaps horrible, but I 'll save that for the next argument...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> If that's true, then all of the music that was written after those concertos are below drivel.


Your own music was written after Rubinstein's concertos.

So you're saying that:

1) my music is drivel

2) your music is below drivel

works fine for me

but at the other hand my music is also from post-Rubinstein period

so it's both drivel and below drivel

so what's better: both drivel and below drivel or only below drivel music?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I'm surprised that you love that particular movement from the Rubinstein concerto and yet in another thread say that Prokofiev was one of the worst composers ever. The Prokofiev piano concertos are similar to it in a way, but so much better.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> I'm surprised that you love that particular movement from the Rubinstein concerto and yet in another thread say that Prokofiev was one of the worst composers ever. The Prokofiev piano concertos are similar to it in a way, but so much better.


Rubinstein was following a clear classical structure and spirit, unlike Prokofiev who decided to wonder to unknown territories.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Your own music was written after Rubinstein's concertos.
> 
> So you're saying that:
> 
> ...


The vast majority of music that was written after 1900, was indeed drivel, and I think its fair to say that we are both included in that. Its time to face the truth and admit what is obvious. We don't come anywhere close to the greats.

But we should be allowed to be creative whether we produce great music or not.

LOL the loads of fun I had when I was talking to a piano teacher from Juilliard who said that some of his friend composers in the school had given him some of their works for review, he told me that even though they follow all the laws of composition, still their music is worthless, and in fact is a drivel.

No great composers today, you can count on that.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Rubinstein was following a clear classical structure and spirit, unlike Prokofiev who decided to wonder to unknown territories.


Maybe you should listen to Brahms instead of Rubinstein.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The vast majority of music that was written after 1900, was indeed drivel


Just like the vast majority of music written before 1900.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Just like the vast majority of music written before 1900.


That's also true, lots of wasted paper and ink before 1900.
The classical music world had its great moment in time, some Greats did appear among a sea of pointless composers, and after the 1900 things turned to the worst, where not one single really Great composer emerged.

Thanks to the reformers and the modernists of course.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'll have to agree that Rubinstein is a great composer, or at least highly enjoyable. He was not considered mediocre in his time (not sure where that idea came from), but instead was considered a kind of second Beethoven, even looking a bit like him. 

Personally I like the melodic 5th piano concerto more than the 4th, but both are nice. His symphonies are enjoyable too, but he is clearly in his element with the piano concertos.

Poor Hummel was completely overshadowed by the giant Beethoven. I find his work palatable, but not especially moving. 

Even if you consider these mediocre, is that a crime? Mediocre means average, which is not necessarily bad. Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" on the other hand is just plain bad, but I'll wager it's been recorded more than these "average" works.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Maybe you should listen to Brahms instead of Rubinstein.


I listen to both.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Weston said:


> I'll have to agree that Rubinstein is a great composer, or at least highly enjoyable. He was not considered mediocre in his time (not sure where that idea came from), but instead was considered a kind of second Beethoven, even looking a bit like him.
> 
> Personally I like the melodic 5th piano concerto more than the 4th, but both are nice. His symphonies are enjoyable too, but he is clearly in his element with the piano concertos.
> 
> ...


Weston,

Thank for understanding exactly what this thread is all about.

Cheers,

Saul

And BTW, again wonderfully put and presented.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Actually, Saul, I think it's tenuous to say that the likes of Rubinstein followed "a clear classical structure" while Prokofiev did not.

A pretty good argument can be made that classical structures had already begun dying out not in 1900 but in the 1820s, when Beethoven died. I mean, Chopin's mazurkas, Schumann's character pieces, Brahms's intermezzi, Liszt's symphonic poems, Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words - these are not classical forms. At least Prokofiev's piano concertos are recognizably "piano concertos" and not some entirely new form.



Weston said:


> I'll have to agree that Rubinstein is a great composer, or at least highly enjoyable. He was not considered mediocre in his time (not sure where that idea came from), but instead was considered a kind of second Beethoven, even looking a bit like him.


He wasn't seen as a second Beethoven because of his compositions. He was seen as a second Beethoven because he was a great pianist and because he _really, really_ looked like him. Perhaps it's an exaggeration to say his work was considered mediocre during his lifetime, but it faded into obscurity almost instantly and was obviously not particularly treasured.



Weston said:


> Even if you consider these mediocre, is that a crime? Mediocre means average, which is not necessarily bad. Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" on the other hand is just plain bad, but I'll wager it's been recorded more than these "average" works.


Nothing wrong with recording them, or listening to them, but they're not better than Mahler!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Actually, Saul, I think it's tenuous to say that the likes of Rubinstein followed "a clear classical structure" while Prokofiev did not.
> 
> A pretty good argument can be made that classical structures had already begun dying out not in 1900 but in the 1820s, when Beethoven died. I mean, Chopin's mazurkas, Schumann's character pieces, Brahms's intermezzi, Liszt's symphonic poems, Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words - these are not classical forms. At least Prokofiev's piano concertos are recognizably "piano concertos" and not some entirely new form.
> 
> ...


Classical form in the context of actually sounding like classical music. Not the drivels we are made to listen today.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Composers who wrote great works and no one cares for them. But instead today people embrace drivels like Ligetti Etudes, and Schoenberg, Mahler, John Adams and the rest of the 'Classical Chutzpah Camp".
> 
> Poor old Anton Rubinstein and Hummel who wrote Great Piano concertos, yet the world couldn't care less.
> 
> ...


Or alternatively - why should real talented composers confine themselves to an outdated dogma when the entire realm of expression through sound has been opened to them?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> That's also true, lots of wasted paper and ink before 1900.
> The classical music world had its great moment in time, some Greats did appear among a sea of pointless composers, and after the 1900 things turned to the worst, where not one single really Great composer emerged.
> 
> Thanks to the reformers and the modernists of course.


Ahem, what about Stravinsky? There are countless others but you will merely dismiss them with your subjective judgement.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Ahem, what about Stravinsky? There are countless others but you will merely dismiss them with your subjective judgement.


Stravinsky had some weird ideas about music, but I will tell you that he too along side Prokofiev was probably one of the worst composers of all time.

The Firebird for example is a well known drivel, and his Petrushka thing even worse.

I fail to understand how people give him the time and day, but then again, one has to confess how much 'hype' had to do with it all.

Take for example Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet, actually the last thing I can visualize in my mind is some kind of a Romantic love affair between anyone.

BTW here's an interesting remark Stravinsky once made *:" My music is best understood by children and animals"*.

Now if you want to listen to real music, there you go:


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Do you like Wagner?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Do you like Wagner?


I hope he burns in hell, and I think he does...

Does this answer your question, or you need more tidbits...?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Well, I meant his music, not the person.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

How about his music then?

EDIT: beaten to it


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> drivels like Ligetti Etudes, and Schoenberg, Mahler, John Adams and the rest of the 'Classical Chutzpah Camp".


Wow - if someone were to post a comment like this regarding your works over in one of your threads, you'd be denouncing them to the high heavens and railing against the worthlessness of critics. I don't care for Ligetti or Schoenberg, and I haven't heard Adams, but Mahler definitely deserves better than your cursory dismissal. This is the type of criticism you absolutely hate directed against you. The hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

While I don't mind some of Hummel's works, Mahler had a lot more interesting things to say in his music. And I think history is bearing this assertion out.

The whole point of this thread seems like nothing better than useless trolling. If you like Hummel and Rubinstein, you can state that without taking a swipe at others. I suspect you knew the controversy your cheap shot would create. Mahler and Schoenberg and Ligetti and Adams aren't drawing interest away from Hummel and Rubinstein - most people who listen to classical music find they are quite capable of listening to and enjoying more than one composer. Some of us can even like composers from multiple periods and styles.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

I can never separate the man from his music, just like I cant separate his hand from his body.
But I know that this opens a totally new can of worms...

Actually to even suggest separating Wagner's music from who he was as a man would be highly offensive to him.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

The sad fact is that Bach, living when he did, was probably far more racist and anti-Semitic than Wagner.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Wow - if someone were to post a comment like this regarding your works over in one of your threads, you'd be denouncing them to the high heavens and railing against the worthlessness of critics. I don't care for Ligetti or Schoenberg, and I haven't heard Adams, but Mahler definitely deserves better than your cursory dismissal. This is the type of criticism you absolutely hate directed against you. The hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.
> 
> While I don't mind some of Hummel's works, Mahler had a lot more interesting things to say in his music. And I think history is bearing this assertion out.
> 
> The whole point of this thread seems like nothing better than useless trolling. If you like Hummel and Rubinstein, you can state that without taking a swipe at others. I suspect you knew the controversy your cheap shot would create. Mahler and Schoenberg and Ligetti and Adams aren't drawing interest away from Hummel and Rubinstein - most people who listen to classical music find they are quite capable of listening to and enjoying more than one composer. Some of us can even like composers from multiple periods and styles.


Actually I have already stated that I don't care for criticism on my music, that's my personal stance. But I think that we can talk about other composers' music, trust me they wouldn't care, don't believe that they come here to listen to what we have to say about them.

But I don't know why you can't see the extreme fascination and concentration of today's classical music audience towards modernism...

I find it odd, in light of the low quality of music that these modernists have produced, while at the same time, the spot light is been diverted from those who actually deserve it.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Actually I have already stated that I don't care for criticism on my music, that's my personal stance. But I think that we can talk about other composers' music, trust me they wouldn't care, don't believe that they come here to listen to what we have to say about them.
> 
> But I don't know why you can't see the extreme fascination and concentration of today's classical music audience towards modernism...
> 
> I find it odd, in light of the low quality of music that these modernists have produced, while at the same time, the spot light is been diverted from those who actually deserve it.


Well No. 1 - a larger audience is drawn to the annual Matthaus Passion than to the premier of Willem Jeth's Scale.

No. 2 - To say it is low quality is entirely subjective. I say modernism can be of high quality and has been in the past and I dont think im a fool.

No. 3 - The spot light has been on Bach for hundreds of years, he is dead, his music is no longer relevant. It is like a museum artefact no matter how beautiful it is, perhaps it is time to pay attention to the world we currently live in.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Just wondering, Saul: What exactly is low-quality music? And why is it all right for you to go all apeshit when someone critiques your own work, but you don't have any problems denouncing just about every major composer born after 1900 and saying their work is "below drivel"?


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Classical form in the context of actually sounding like classical music. Not the drivels we are made to listen today.


What the hell does "actually sounding like classical music" mean? Bach doesn't sound like Tallis. Beethoven doesn't sound like Bach. Schubert doesn't sound like Vivaldi. Brahms doesn't sound like Haydn. You have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand - and I'm not sure what authority you rely on to justify your particular line - and declare anything beyond that drivel. Claiming that Stravinsky and Prokofiev were two of the worst composers of all time? Really? How do you figure? I have seen numerous listings of top classical compositions, and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring always ranks fairly high. But then, it is pointless to dwell on these ridiculous comments of yours, because they seem merely the vain pronouncements of someone who sure seems to enjoy dishing out harsh criticism of actual acclaimed composers while lashing out at those who criticize his own output. Perhaps we could drag in some quotes here from your other threads regarding musical critics?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> The sad fact is that Bach, living when he did, was probably far more racist and anti-Semitic than Wagner.


If Bach was anti Semitic, it had to do with him been exposed to the Christian teachings like John and Paul, who are full of anti Semitic writings. He was a deeply religious man, so he was presented with the twisted caricatured picture of the Jew, while been completely oblivious to the reasons why the Jews killed Jesus, and didn't accept him as a prophet.

If Bach was exposed to some Great Rabbi's explaining to him in great detail and context of what took place some 2000 years ago in the Land of Israel, he wouldn't have been anti Semitic.

But Wagner?

He initiated anti Semitism for no other reason then pure jealousy and hate, he propagated this hate, and he poisoned others with his false ideas and bigotry.

Now that's not someone I would listen to.

He somehow resembles the infamous German reformer, Martin Luther who was more responsible for poisoning German minds against the Jews then any other German in history besides Hitler.

Too bad that these 3 losers and idiots who had nothing in their hearts but hate against the children of Israel, forgot that the Jewish people were living in Germany since the time of the 12 tribes of Israel have entered the Land of Israel and settled there. One thousand Jews from the Tribe of Benjamin have relocated and settled in Germany after the civil war that broke out between the Tribe of Benjamin and the rest of the 11 tribes of Israel, as its mentioned in the bible.

So Jews live in Germany for over 3000 years, this is totally amazing and is a groundbreaking historical fact.

Many of these Germans who decided to hate the Jewish people because of racial issues forgot that Jews lived in Germany centuries if not thousands of years before some Germans who claim to be natives even came to Germany. Take for example Felix Mendelssohn, he was hated by the Germans for not been a real German. I wonder can anyone prove to me that Wagner's family didn't originate from a different European country? While Wagner's family tree may or may not be rooted in Germany for thousands of years, Jewish presence in Germany is a well known fact, its an uninterrupted community that lived there for more then 3000 years, and now add all the converts that decided to Join the Jewish religion and intermarry with the Jews. Can any German be 100 percent certain that somewhere down the trees of family ancestry, one or two of his forefathers didn't have Jewish blood?

No they cant.

So what was the hate that engulfed Germans against the Jews?

One major reason was the emergence of the Christian faith, which is a religion that is based solely on anti-Semitism. If you will take 'Anti Semitism' from the base of Christian theology, this religion will crumble and fall.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Well, point taken, but how about Bruckner, then? Rightly or wrongly, his music is often grouped with Mahler's, but he lived before 1900: before the point at which you think music went wrong. What do you think of _him_?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Well, point taken, but how about Bruckner, then? Rightly or wrongly, his music is often grouped with Mahler's, but he lived before 1900: before the point at which you think music went wrong. What do you think of _him_?


I have not listened to his music sufficiently in order to make an honest opinion about him.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

DrMike said:


> - most people who listen to classical music find they are quite capable of listening to and enjoying more than one composer. Some of us can even like composers from multiple periods and styles.


Precisely. Thank you for clearing that up. I was beginning to question my own tastes in enjoying Rubinstein. I would never dismiss Stravinsky or Ligeti as drivel. I wouldn't even dismiss Schoenberg (as long as I'm not expected to listen to him).


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Weston said:


> Precisely. Thank you for clearing that up. I was beginning to question my own tastes in enjoying Rubinstein. I would never dismiss Stravinsky or Ligeti as drivel. I wouldn't even dismiss Schoenberg (as long as I'm not expected to listen to him).


Well we are exchanging opinions here.

I may think that their music is a drivel, and you many not think so, but then we can all walk away in peace and dignity, respecting each other's opinions, for that's what they are, opinions.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> If Bach was anti Semitic, it had to do with him been exposed to the Christian teachings like John and Paul, who are full of anti Semitic writings. He was a deeply religious man, so he was presented with the twisted caricatured picture of the Jew, while been completely oblivious to the reasons why the Jews killed Jesus, and didn't accept him as a prophet.
> 
> If Bach was exposed to some Great Rabbi's explaining to him in great detail and context of what took place some 2000 years ago in the Land of Israel, he wouldn't have been anti Semitic.
> 
> ...


Christianity is based solely on anti-Semitism? The first Christians were Jews. And initially it was Christians that had more to fear from Jews than the other way around. Lest we forget, prior to his conversion, Paul/Saul was officially charged with the task of hunting down and persecuting those who professed a belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

But not only does this post reveal your inherent prejudices against Christians, but it also reveals your small mindedness. Christian doctrine does not preach anti-semitism. And I love how you argue that anti-semitism could be wiped out if people would only listen to reason about why it was necessary to kill Jesus. Hating Jews is bad, but killing Jesus, well, that was just a religious expediency. If the Jewish religion justifies the killing of Jesus and persecuting early Christians, why would killing and persecuting Jews be wrong in the name of Christianity (again, requiring belief in your statement, which I don't, that Christianity is based solely on anti-semitism)? Christians today don't actually try to justify anti-semitism, and certainly not with Christian doctrine - Christians today are some of the most ardent supporters of the modern state of Israel. Yet you are more than willing to say that the killing of Jesus was fully justified, and were we to all give a thoughtful ear to rabbinical wisdom, we'd all become convinced of that.

Just as Wagner's views have tainted your opinion of his works, your views of Christians have tainted my opinion of your works, and I can't imagine myself wasting another second listening to your compositions. In the spirit of your boycott of Wagner, I would invite all Christians here to completely dismiss your compositions.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree 100% with Dr Mike's earlier post - many classical listeners (including many here & myself) can enjoy the music of ALL eras, from early music until now. You don't have to choose between one and the other. I can get just as much out of a mass by Byrd as a string quartet by Tippett or Carter. Or the music of contemporary Australian composers like Brett Dean.

I think the premise of this thread (as most others created by the OP) are pure drivel and BS. I mean, seriously, how could the music of the likes of Mahler, Stravinsky, Ligeti, Prokofiev, etc. be drivel when the top orchestras of the world, like the Berlin Philharmonic, the New York Philharmonic, the London Symphony, etc. have been performing them for many decades? Why do top musicians and composers study not only J. S. Bach and Beethoven, but also the techniques of Schoenberg or Stockhausen? Because there is inherent value in them about what they say about the nature of music, for just one thing.

I think it's better for us to just totally ignore the drivel and negative bile that Saul leeches on these threads - he was doing it on another classical forum until recently, and now he's come over here to spread his "wisdom."


----------



## classidaho (May 5, 2009)

I love at least 1/2 of A Ll Webber's music which is probaly a higher percentage than any other composer. Also consider about 1/2 as garbage...... Where did this come from?


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

> Composers who wrote great works and no one cares for them. But instead today people embrace drivels [sic] like Ligetti Etudes, and Schoenberg, Mahler, John Adams and the rest of the 'Classical Chutzpah Camp".


...





Come on folks, why are we feeding this.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Christianity is based solely on anti-Semitism? The first Christians were Jews. And initially it was Christians that had more to fear from Jews than the other way around. Lest we forget, prior to his conversion, Paul/Saul was officially charged with the task of hunting down and persecuting those who professed a belief that Jesus was the Messiah.
> 
> But not only does this post reveal your inherent prejudices against Christians, but it also reveals your small mindedness. Christian doctrine does not preach anti-semitism. And I love how you argue that anti-semitism could be wiped out if people would only listen to reason about why it was necessary to kill Jesus. Hating Jews is bad, but killing Jesus, well, that was just a religious expediency. If the Jewish religion justifies the killing of Jesus and persecuting early Christians, why would killing and persecuting Jews be wrong in the name of Christianity (again, requiring belief in your statement, which I don't, that Christianity is based solely on anti-semitism)? Christians today don't actually try to justify anti-semitism, and certainly not with Christian doctrine - Christians today are some of the most ardent supporters of the modern state of Israel. Yet you are more than willing to say that the killing of Jesus was fully justified, and were we to all give a thoughtful ear to rabbinical wisdom, we'd all become convinced of that.
> 
> Just as Wagner's views have tainted your opinion of his works, your views of Christians have tainted my opinion of your works, and I can't imagine myself wasting another second listening to your compositions. In the spirit of your boycott of Wagner, I would invite all Christians here to completely dismiss your compositions.


I don't hate Christians no matter what you say, I have nothing against them.

Please read some of my thoughts about Jesus and Christianity, and later on I want you to *read the exchange of letters between a Lutheran and an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi*, for I believe they are relevant to our discussion here:

Some of my thoughts:

Jesus was an Orthodox Jew who was a student of the Great Tana Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Perhchia.
Got himself kicked out from Yeshiva by his Rabbi after insulting him. Jesus sent messengers to persuade his rabbi to accept him back as a student.
Three times he had sent, and the Rabbi refused to get him back.
Therefore Jesus decided to get back at his Rabbi by turning all the greatness, Wisdom, and Spirituality he had mastered from his Rabbi, against him and against the Jewish religion.
He began creating ideas that were considered heretic in Judaism and began claming that he was the Messiah. All of the Jewish people rejected him, and knew that he was a liar and a false prophet.
The Talmud even says that regarding his Rabbi :"One hand should push back and the other should bring back', which means that it would have been better for his Rabbi to forgive him and accept him back as a student.

This is the truth of what happened. The entire Christian faith was created as a 'get back' of one Jewish student against his Rabbi.

This Christian faith in its early beginnings was a Jewish heretic sect, much like the Tzadokim and the Baytuseem, who were Jews that only accepted the written Torah and not the Oral one.
They were so crazy in their twisted beliefs that they made their young children fast on Yom Kippur, and many have died because of that. The Written Torah says that one should fast on Yom Kippur, but the Oral Torah explains who is required and who is exempt, for God says that he gave us these laws so that we may live and not die. The Torah without its oral teachings and traditions, can't be observed. Judaism can't work without both the written and the oral Torahs.

In its beginning the Christians were following Jewish Law and were lead by Jesus' brother, James. He wanted all the Christians to be observant Jews, but with the anti Jewish belief that Jesus was the son of god and the Jewish messiah as written in the Tenach. Paul also in the beginning wanted to follow the Jewish Law, but since he saw that the entire Jewish community flatly and totally rejected this new heretic Christian movement, he then decided to make Christianity 'international'. The best way for him to achieve this was to preach for neglecting the Jewish law, and only 'believing' in Jesus as a means to achieve salvation. Another essential ingredient for the internationalization of their sect was anti Semitism. Paul used the hate that the gentile world had for the Jews to his advantage, by portraying the Jews as worst then devils, god killers and treacherous. Without anti Semitism and the demonization of the Jews, Christianity couldn't have survived or expanded.

Essentially, these two camps of James and Paul carried two versions of Christianity. James was leaning towards Judaism by trying to keep the Law of the Torah, and Paul by inserting heretic and pagan motifs within this sect, to make it international.

When the Romans came and waged war against the Jews, these two camps were also attacked by the Romans. Virtually all of James' camp was wiped out and destroyed. But Paul's camp survived, and that is why today his version of Christianity remained, more pagan by its very nature, more anti-Semitic, more heretic and more distant from Judaism.

Here is a link to the Letters:

*The Letters*


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Religious discussions within this forum have, in the past, created some very undesirable results ... ad homs, flaming, infractions being issued, and then temp bans here and there ... I've seen it happen here and believe me, it gets very ugly, very fast ... and ... accomplishes absolutely nothing. 

If you wish to discuss music, great ... if you have an "opinion", that's great too, but it's just "your" opinion, nothing more, nothing less ... it is your right to disagree, but to state "you're wrong!" is not acceptable ... rather it could be "I disagree with you on that ... " and then state your opinion. 

Back to the music discussion, please. Off topic posts could be deleted at the discretion of the forum staff.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Ok let's save this thread from going 'down the drain' by coming back to music...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The number one drivelist of them all.
> 
> Yes.


I was going to post a few, but this made me leave the thread.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Falstaft said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because it's what the internet is for right?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm starting to belive that Saul_Dzorelashvili is devoted Wagner fan who wants to make people agree with his writing on Judaism in music by giving us worst imagineable picture of Jewish person full of extreme hypocrisy, even more extreme disrespect towards great artists that he doesn't understand and outflowing with frightening hatred and negativity difficult to stand.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I'm starting to belive that Saul_Dzorelashvili is devoted Wagner fan who wants to make people agree with his writing on Judaism in music by giving us worst imagineable picture of Jewish person full of extreme hypocrisy, even more extreme disrespect towards great artists that he doesn't understand and outflowing with frightening hatred and negativity difficult to stand.


:lol: Agree. I'm in between flights at the moment, during the holiday season and from what I managed to quickly glean from his threads, have just about lost all inclination to explore his (Saul D.) music, based on the bizzare series of opinions that surfaced. Bizzare.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

By the way, I think this thread, like its title, has gone down the drain.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I'm starting to belive that Saul_Dzorelashvili is devoted Wagner fan who wants to make people agree with his writing on Judaism in music by giving us worst imagineable picture of Jewish person full of extreme hypocrisy, even more extreme disrespect towards great artists that he doesn't understand and outflowing with frightening hatred and negativity difficult to stand.


I hate Wagner. Can I be more direct and clear then that?

As to giving you the worst picture of a Jewish person...

Why am I giving that picture?

I cant stand modern music, there are millions like me who are not Jewish that feel the same way.

My comments about Judaism, Christianity and religion in general are absolutely correct, and I have not heard until now anyone who proved my comments to be wrong.

Yes I am very much aware that some people cant stand the truth and they therefore begin to hate the person who speaks it, but I'm not going to march the tune, and dance according to popular wrong opinion, just so that I would be liked by you or anyone else.

For me truth is the most important thing.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"Not a single great composer emerged after 1900"? Unbelievable that any one could make such a preposterous statement. Stravinsky.Bartok.Schoenberg.Berg.Webern. Hindemith.
Copland.Ives. Elgar.Britten.Debussy.Ravel. Vaughan Williams. Roussel. Janacek.Martinu.Szymanowski. Barber. Shostakovich. Tippett.Walton. Messiaen.Carter.Lutoslawski. Henze.Boulez.Stockhausen. Schnittke.Gubaidullina. Maxwell Davies.
Adams. Birtwistle.Penderecki. Ligeti. Berio.....


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> My comments about Judaism, Christianity and religion in general are absolutely correct, and I have not heard until now anyone who proved my comments to be wrong.


*Ahem ... last warning on this ... we are NOT going to get into a debate on Christianity, Judaism or any religion on this board. *

This thread is about MUSIC ... kindly stay on topic or the thread will be closed, permanently.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> but I'm not going to march the tune, and dance according to popular wrong opinion, just so that I would be liked by you or anyone else.


Actually there are much more people thinking that contemporary music is unlistenable and that best works were written before XXth century than people who enjoy modern composers. So you are in majority, repeating very popular cliche statements.



> I hate Wagner. Can I be more direct and clear then that?


Yet you are supporting his opinions with your behavior.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Actually there are much more people thinking that contemporary music is unlistenable and that best works were written before XXth century than people who enjoy modern composers. So you are in majority, repeating very popular cliche statements.
> 
> Yet you are supporting his opinions with your behavior.


Actually today more people like modern music then real classical music.

I am not supporting anything of Wagner's vituperative and anti Semitic venom by me stating my candid opinions on music, and on other subjects.

If you really believe that I do, you need to examine yourself and your intolerable feelings.
All your doing is pandering to his hateful empty rhetoric, that's all.

And I also don't believe that you need Wagner on anyone else for that matter in order to hate, so stop blaming everyone else.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Actually today more people like modern music then real classical music.


You should search for some statistics and compare how many people bought CDs with Mozart and how many with Schoenberg in recent times.



> I am not supporting anything of Wagner's vituperative and anti Semitic venom by me stating my candid opinions on music, and on other subjects.


Well, I'm sure that seeing someone refusing to take a little of bit harsh critic for his compositions and claiming that such critic is worthless and visious and then making even more extreme and simply rude criticism towards great and famous composers can make people think "I never had anything against Jews, but if Wagner was dealing with dudes like this one I guess I can understand where he was coming from".


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Aramis said:


> You should search for some statistics and compare how many people bought CDs with Mozart and how many with Schoenberg in recent times.
> 
> Well, I'm sure that seeing someone refusing to take a little of bit harsh critic for his compositions and claiming that such critic is worthless and visious and then making even more extreme and simply rude criticism towards great and famous composers can make people think "I never had anything against Jews, but if Wagner was dealing with dudes like this one I guess I can understand where he was coming from".


Its absolutely my God given right not to seek any criticism for my work. And I also believe that I can criticize other composers if I choose, but had they demanded that I shouldn't, then I would have respected their wishes.

And anyways, I have heard anti Semitic undertones coming from you at the very beginning of my more involved participation in this site, even before I laid out my opinions on faith.

So please don't kid yourself, you try to turn this around and blame me for making you hate, well that's not the truth at all. You had previous problems with intolerance, even before I joined this forum, so stop with the diversions, please.

Am I blaming you for been anti Semitic?

To a degree yes. I wish that you will change your mind and stop with your hate, but I don't think anyone can help you until you will begin to help yourself.

Jews just like every other people have great varieties of personalities, and to take one person from an internet forum that rubs you on the wrong side, and then copy all that to an entire community is anti Semitic.

I have met both awful and good Christians, but I judge each and every person individually, not on the basis of stereotype.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Am I blaming you for been anti Semitic?
> 
> To a degree yes.


That's pretty silly to blame me for it considering that there is not even a little bit of anti-Semitism in me, obviously you're oversensitive and that's the main reason of whole mess in your threads and probably your obsessive hatred towards some composers.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I've closed this thread because otherwise I fear that someone will say something that will make it necessary for us to start penalizing people. I'm truly sorry, but it's for your own good.


----------

