# If you found out something about your favorite composer that made him a monster...



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

(or her) .. Something like they were a rapist or serial killer and there was irrefutable proof. I know this is a ridiculous hypothetical but how would it change your opinion of this, the creator of a music you love was or is a reprehensible, inhuman devil. :devil:

I have to say for myself I think it wouldn't bother me and I would still listen but knowing would definitely influence my deciding when his music should be played (or if using that music in a context).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Well, this thread's going to get Godwin'd pretty quickly I'm sure...

For me, the composer and the music are sufficiently separate. There's obviously the question of how much of any composer's personality or character is actually audible in their music, and how much is projection on the listener's part - could there be any way of genuinely telling that a composer's a horrible person from his music? Some people seem to get very defensive when a favourite composer's personal flaws are raised and I think this is understandable, but by and large such flaws are irrelevant to the music itself and don't need to be raised in the first place (let he who is without sin etc etc); but anyway so be it: if a composer was wicked or unpleasant we just have to accept that fact. 
And there's the question of distance, too - there's not much any of us can do about the fact that some long-dead person committed unspeakable crimes. For a living composer it would be different I suppose.
Actually I do have a specific example, though of a conductor, not a composer: Robert King spent several years in jail recently for sexual assault, and though that's inevitably at the back of my mind whenever I see his name it didn't stop me from getting (and enjoying) one of his "comeback" albums.

Also, let's turn the question round: If you found out that a composer whose music you can't stand was a wonderful person who performed many humanitarian acts, how would this affect you?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

No, it wouldn't affect me at all.

First, I'm very well aware that in the world of Music, there will be on average a similar percentage of "monsters" (and of "angels", or any other possible categorization of human beings) than in the world of Medicine, or of Gardening.

Second, knowing that Carlo Gesualdo was a killer, doesn't distract me from enjoying his madrigals. Same as knowing Louis-Ferdinand Céline was an Antisemitic pamphleteer, doesn't prevent me from rejoice in the reading of _Voyage au bout de la nuit_.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Fugue Meister said:


> (or her) .. Something like they were a rapist or serial killer and there was irrefutable proof. I know this is a ridiculous hypothetical but how would it change your opinion of this, the creator of a music you love was or is a reprehensible, inhuman devil. :devil:
> 
> I have to say for myself I think it wouldn't bother me and I would still listen but knowing would definitely influence my deciding when his music should be played (or if using that music in a context).


I think there are many fans of Gesualdo here.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Is this a continuation of the Wagner topic? 

I am not sure what I would think if something like that was found out. Probably I would not trust the "investigators" much anyway: too many people nowadays want to make money on cheap sensationalism. And then there are also those who would deliberately spread false accusations hoping to turn people off high art. However, what I know for sure, is that none of those great masters who I admire were either "reprehensible, inhuman devils" or even "failed human beings".


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Is this a continuation of the Wagner topic?


Why, was Wagner of questionable character?

Oh, crap. And I liked his music so much.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Is this a continuation of the Wagner topic?


First name to spring to mind after reading the OP, eh?

NOT THAT IT WOULD MEAN SOMETHING!


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> (or her) .. Something like they were a rapist or serial killer and there was irrefutable proof. I know this is a ridiculous hypothetical but how would it change your opinion of this, the creator of a music you love was or is a reprehensible, inhuman devil. :devil:


Wouldn't affect me one single bit. Same goes with political or social views. I keep the art separate for what it is. If it's art that I enjoy, I go on enjoying it. This is why I can't stand when these actors are invited to present an award, and then get on their soap box as if they are running for political office. It's rude and classless. I don't care if it's an issue I agree with. You were invited to present an award, so do it, and be done with it.

I think everyone should separate the art from the artist as much as possible. If you enjoy their art, then continue enjoying it. If the artist turns out to be a wonderful human being, bonus! We all have flaws because we're all human. This desire to have those we admire, be it artists, politicians, teachers, etc be these flawless, god-like creatures is something I'll never understand.

Hitler loved peaches and strawberries. Are you going to stop eating peaches and strawberries now?

V


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It would bother me initially, but if the quality of the composers' music was very high, the music would win out.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I'll admit I would feel a little uncomfortable. 

It is of course no longer socially acceptable to listen to Gary Glitter or the Lost Prophets now that their heinous crimes have been exposed. (Not saying that it was ever acceptable to listen to these musicians in the first place, lol...). I also felt rather uncomfortable upon learning that one of my favourite conductors of early music, Phillip Pickett, was being accused of several rape charges. (EDIT: should point out no verdict has been made on Pickett yet!!)

I can overlook un-PC political views, for example, but there are some crimes (e.g. the above) which might hinder my enjoyment of the music somewhat.

I suppose temporal distance also has something to do with it. It is easier to forgive the crimes of Gesualdo and Caravaggio on the grounds that "it was a different time back then" etc. It is probably a lot harder when we are talking about someone who is alive today and whose crimes are more vivid to us moderns.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> I'll admit I would feel a little uncomfortable.
> 
> It is of course no longer socially acceptable to listen to Gary Glitter or the Lost Prophets now that their heinous crimes have been exposed. (Not saying that it was ever acceptable to listen to these musicians in the first place, lol...). I also felt rather uncomfortable upon learning that one of my favourite conductors of early music, Phillip Pickett, was being accused of several rape charges. (EDIT: should point out no verdict has been made on Pickett yet!!)
> 
> ...


Agreed. My introduction to Handel operas and oratorios was the old Vanguard recordings conducted by Johannes Somary. Then I read one day that he'd been accused by multiple male students of having an interest in them that was, shall we say, something beyond pedagogic. I still enjoy his recordings when I listen to them, but as I'm pulling them down off the shelf, for just a moment, I remember what I read...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Well, this thread's going to get Godwin'd pretty quickly I'm sure...


Post #10 - not bad...


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I think it would affect my enjoyment of the music if I knew the composer or artist had committed some heinous crime. The problem I see is being sure of what they did. It is impossible to judge the actions of those long dead when much is at best speculation and we are looking back on a society that had much different values to today.
That said if someone was a serial paedophile or killer then I could not see how they could compensate in my eyes for that by other good deeds or wonderful music. Don't think I can separate the artist from the man so to speak.


----------



## sdtom (Jul 7, 2014)

I can say this about a film director Roman Polanski. I assume we all know the situation about sex with a minor and not being allowed to set foot on American soil without being arrested. I've never watched his films ever since. Now if he ever went to prison and served his time I would then watch them.
Tom


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

We are all compromised to some degree, even if unwittingly so, because much of what we consume - food, clothing, electronic goods, household chemicals, music, art, TV, you name it - has either been produced through a morally dubious process (rape of the environment, exploitation of labour etc) or by morally dubious people (some greater sinners than others, perhaps) or both.

Why would classical music be any different, unless you're going to argue for a greater degree of virtue among classical composers, performers, distributors etc etc?

You pays your money and you takes your choice (of compromise(s)).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

To tell you the truth, there aren't many examples of composers who were murderers or rapists. Usually it's "softer" crimes like racism, homophobia and the like. And even then it doesn't affect much. The religion (or lack thereof) of the composer can be an interesting thing to study, especially if it affected their compositions. For example, the discovery that Prokofiev converted to Christian science in the middle of his life was not only shocking but enlightening. His new beliefs made him have different ideas behind his music, take for example, Romeo and Juliet (read up on that story).


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

As long as people aren't bothered by how their food was produced (it was produced by abusing, torturing and slaughtering conscious, experiencing beings), then I would see this sort of discussion as kind of obscenely anthropocentric. Like, are we even financing murder if we listen to music by people who were murderers? That depends, but we're certainly financing inhumane conditions and acts when we buy dairy and meat.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Stravinsky had an appetite for freshly deceased corpses -- the vulture.


----------



## Lovemylute (Jul 17, 2014)

If I were to discover something like this about a favourite composer, I might be inclined to hear (or to listen for) some "darkness" in the music that I had not previously noticed (or to give greater relevance to any darkness that I had noticed). But I do not think that I would appreciate the music any less, if it is truly great music, even if I henceforth heard it rather differently.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> As long as people aren't bothered by how their food was produced (it was produced by abusing, torturing and slaughtering conscious, experiencing beings), then I would see this sort of discussion as kind of obscenely anthropocentric. Like, are we even financing murder if we listen to music by people who were murderers? That depends, but we're certainly financing inhumane conditions and acts when we buy dairy and meat.


Most people in the age of the great composers cared more about their own survival and that of their families than about that of animals. Besides, they had to strain themselves physically a good deal more than we do (they did not have air-conditioned offices and automobiles to carry them around while sitting in a comfy chair) and you can't survive on grass while working physically.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Stravinsky had an appetite for freshly deceased corpses -- the vulture.


LMAO!!!! Brilliant Lope!

V


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> As long as people aren't bothered by how their food was produced (it was produced by abusing, torturing and slaughtering conscious, experiencing beings), then I would see this sort of discussion as kind of obscenely anthropocentric. Like, are we even financing murder if we listen to music by people who were murderers? That depends, but we're certainly financing inhumane conditions and acts when we buy dairy and meat.





SiegendesLicht said:


> Most people in the age of the great composers cared more about their own survival and that of their families than about that of animals. Besides, they had to strain themselves physically a good deal more than we do (they did not have air-conditioned offices and automobiles to carry them around while sitting in a comfy chair) and you can't survive on grass while working physically.


Just to be clear, I believe Chordalrock was pointing a finger, not at dead composers, but at us.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I don't expect my musical heroes to be saints, they are my *musical *heroes and not where I get my ethical or moral guidance. I have zero qualms with listening to a Wagner overture even though he was a pretty hateful person.

The fact that Beethoven mistreated his nephew and his sister-in-law harshly does not and will never change the fact that he's my favorite composer. In fact, in Beethoven's case, having read two of biographies (Suchet, Thayer), I find there are plenty of reasons to understand Beethoven's behavior, which makes it easier to "forgive" him, but that's a topic for a different post so I won't continue with that.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Indeed, I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that in a concert Beethoven stopped the music and cursed out the performers for playing poorly!


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Stravinsky had an appetite for freshly deceased corpses -- the vulture.


Interesting fact about Stravinsky, during WWII he wrote a letter to the German minister of culture complaining that they didn't play his music in Germany, in which he included the comment 'I don't like jews either!', to get on their side I assume.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

sdtom said:


> I can say this about a film director Roman Polanski. I assume we all know the situation about sex with a minor and not being allowed to set foot on American soil without being arrested. I've never watched his films ever since. Now if he ever went to prison and served his time I would then watch them.
> Tom


Sex with a minor? Monster? Not that long ago, hillbillies the length of the Appalachians _married_ minors. Jerry Lee Lewis was a bit behind the times... . I ain't been keeping track, but last I knew the 'age of consent' varied considerably among the states of the United States del Norte, and even more so among the countries of the world at large. Rape is one thing, consent of the nubile is another, political/societo-religious thing.

[The above polemic has nothing much to do with Polanski; I have succeeded in ignoring Polanski.]


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Jobis said:


> Interesting fact about Stravinsky, during WWII he wrote a letter to the German minister of culture complaining that they didn't play his music in Germany, in which he included the comment 'I don't like jews either!', to get on their side I assume.


He also said:
No one supports Mussolini more than I...

There were some nasty aspects to his character for sure.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Finding out bad things about artists does sometimes put me off, but if I already really love the art or the music, I usually go on loving it. I love the poet Donne, despite discovering that though he himself married for love, when he was dean of St Paul's, he married his young daughter off to Edward Alleyn, a much older actor who got a lot of his money from owning brothels. 

And I still love the music of Lully, despite the story that he kicked a pregnant dancer so that she would lose her baby and continue to dance. 

I continue to be shocked, however.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

No, humans are deservedly evil creatures that deserve no pity even if they create sublime works of art!

/ptr


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> He also said:
> No one supports Mussolini more than I...
> 
> There were some nasty aspects to his character for sure.


Cheers to honesty and to straight-shooting. . . which brings me to a journal entry of Nietzsche's: "Persian maxim: Ride hard. Shoot straight. Tell no lies."

-- Not that that has anything to do with Stravinsky. . . great as he admittedly is. _;D_

Incidentally, check out the epistolary correspondence between Coco Chanel and Stravinsky; where she obviously wears the financial pants and he begs her for money.

I'm sorry. Dish on great artists just fascinates me.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> He also said:
> No one supports Mussolini more than I...
> 
> There were some nasty aspects to his character for sure.


_"At the same time he had a disregard of his social inferiors: Robert Craft was embarrassed by his habit of tapping a glass with a fork and loudly demanding attention in restaurants."_

He was certainly a piece of work.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Shostakovich signed an absolutely execrable denunciation of Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn during the "thaw" and made enemies of much of the Soviet intelligentsia. Today, who knows that? And why should it matter? Let's pay attention to our own moralistic gardens; there's plenty of work to do there.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> ...you can't survive on grass while working physically.


Tell that to the cattle. To the buffalo and the oxen and so forth.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> _"At the same time he had a disregard of his social inferiors: Robert Craft was embarrassed by his habit of tapping a glass with a fork and loudly demanding attention in restaurants."_
> 
> He was certainly a piece of work.


To this day, in Germany, the practice of raising your hand in the air and snapping your fingers, without looking to make any eye contact, is the norm for summoning a waiter in a restaurant. Some of what seems outrageous behavior is not at all outrageous, or considered at all rude or condescending within its cultural context.... Many such incidents depend very much on the cultural context of those who report them


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> _"At the same time he had a disregard of his social inferiors: Robert Craft was embarrassed by his habit of tapping a glass with a fork and loudly demanding attention in restaurants."_


Stravinsky sometimes put his superior behavior to good use. in 1962 he made a well-publicized return visit to the USSR, where he had been tarred for years as a lackey of capitalism and imperialism. He was at one point introduced to one of those who had written about him. Instead of his hand, he held out his cane to be shaken, thus (in Shostakovich's words) proving who was the lackey.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> To this day, in Germany, the practice of raising your hand in the air and snapping your fingers, without looking to make any eye contact, is the norm for summoning a waiter in a restaurant. Some of what seems outrageous behavior is not at all outrageous, or considered at all rude or condescending within its cultural context.... Many such incidents depend very much on the cultural context of those who report them


Indeed. My middle son was taking a German class in high school and came home one day grumbling about his teacher. I asked him a few questions. (I generally sided with my kids on everything, but I also like to be fair.) His answers took me straight back to my sophomore year of college studying in Germany. I laughed and said, "She's not mean or rude or curt or unfeeling. She's German. There are patterns of behavior that we interpret as rudeness, we here in the US. But they're not. They're just German patterns. She's probably a very nice person."

She was, of course. And my middle son had no more trouble liking her and liking the class and doing well in it. And when my youngest started taking Latin from her, she was easily his favorite teacher. And she stayed on an extra year after she had planned to retire just to make sure that my son had his last year of Latin with her. (OK, it wasn't that simple. But it was a factor.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Highest art is essentially sacred, in that is an expression of our subjective 'inner' identity, the one we are connected to 'the sacred' with.

Our social identity, or 'outer identity,' which we receive from without, is not a part of the sacred.

George Bush Jr. did not agree with this when he went ahead and allowed the woman in Houston, Tx to be executed, after she was convicted for killing 3 people in a robbery, and later converted to Christianity in prison.

So, your 'inner' sacred identity does not matter to anybody but yourself and God, if you believe in God.

Only your outer social actions and identity matter, to other people.


----------



## Lovemylute (Jul 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> ...Only your outer social actions and identity matter, to other people.


Really? Doesn't it depend on what it is about the other people that matters to us? I mean, perhaps with an artist/composer, what we admire or love about them is only their outer identity, and the kind of person they are on the inside is not as relevant. But what about our friends, the loves of our lives, (some of) the people that we admire and/or look up to _as_ people? Isn't the "inner identity" of those people important to us? Don't we sometimes say that we love/admire someone because of _who_ they are, and doesn't that include their inner identity? Of course, sometimes we can be wrong about a person's inner identity, and that can cause us pain, if we are deeply disappointed by what we learn about someone, if we originally thought them to be a different (and "better") person, and if that mattered to us (as it sometimes does!). Just a few thoughts...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Hard question to answer. My prime example is the conductor Robert King whose Handel recordings I very much loved. King was convicted of pedophile activity and spent a couple of years in prison. He's now back in the musical scene and making recordings. I still haven't decided if I'll acquire any of them.


----------



## muzik (May 16, 2013)

I would still listen to the music but I probably won't give it material support i.e. buy it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Highest art is essentially sacred, in that is an expression of our subjective 'inner' identity, the one we are connected to 'the sacred' with.
> 
> Our social identity, or 'outer identity,' which we receive from without, is not a part of the sacred.
> 
> ...


I can get the idea that we might have an 'inner' identity, but what's this about our outer identity being 'received from without'? Yours might be, but mine isn't.

As for connection to the 'sacred'...what?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> (or her) .. Something like they were a rapist or serial killer and there was irrefutable proof. I know this is a ridiculous hypothetical but how would it change your opinion of this, the creator of a music you love was or is a reprehensible, inhuman devil. :devil:
> 
> I have to say for myself I think it wouldn't bother me and I would still listen but knowing would definitely influence my deciding when his music should be played (or if using that music in a context).


Well then the composer is my favorite inner devil.


----------



## Picander (May 8, 2013)

Let's suposse that Einstein was a 'monster'. Would be e=mc2 false for that reason?

I think it's a good idea to separate the person and his/her opus.

Please excuse my English.


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I think there are many fans of Gesualdo here.


Wasn't Gesualdo the one that killed his wife & lover, hanging their heads outside his residence for villagers to see?

If so...I am guilty of finding his music haunting and challenging.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I can get the idea that we might have an 'inner' identity, but what's this about our outer identity being 'received from without'? Yours might be, but mine isn't.


Your 'outer social identity' is how people see you. For example, if you are male, what ethnicity or race, if you're short, if you are ugly, if you are a drug addict or prostitute, etc. This all ties-in with Christ, and the verse "Man looketh on the outside, but God looketh on the heart."



MacLeod said:


> As for connection to the 'sacred'...what?


 See above.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If Wagner's music came from his connection to the sacred, which is his 'inner' identity, then that's why it's good music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Your 'outer social identity' is how people see you. For example, if you are male, what ethnicity or race, if you're short, if you are ugly, if you are a drug addict or prostitute, etc. This all ties-in with Christ, and the verse "Man looketh on the outside, but God looketh on the heart."
> 
> See above.


Nobody gives me _my _identity - it's my own. How people see me - that's their own affair, though ideally, close correspondence between the two makes social relations more honest.

Neither of these have anything to do with 'sacred' - at least insofar as I know what you mean by the term. It's a concept that you still use frequently, casually, in all kinds of contexts without any solid definition.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Nobody gives me _my _identity - it's my own. How people see me - that's their own affair, though ideally, close correspondence between the two makes social relations more honest.
> 
> Neither of these have anything to do with 'sacred' - at least insofar as I know what you mean by the term. It's a concept that you still use frequently, casually, in all kinds of contexts without any solid definition.


This is interesting... Are you disagreeing with the spiritual connotations millionrainbows is alluding to with "sacred".

I see what your saying about your identity being your own but surely saying "how people see you is their own affair" is somewhat short sighted. I mean to say yes how people see you is partly their own affair but your inner self controls how you are in front of people as well and that is a huge part of it too. We all do things because of social routine, there are just certain ways we behave when in the presents of others and this ultimately plays into out identity as perceived by others. That is to say yes your own identity is your own but no one but you will ever truly experience that identity but you (yes and I'm sure for some that may extend to one other person in this life for them but I believe that is a rare occurrence and not the norm) and when your gone all that's left are other peoples own ideas about what your identity was to them collectively. Am I right?

But if your an artist the work you left behind is another way we see someones identity in addition to the public record or history on that artist... I suppose we could argue as to which is the better representation, history or the art itself. So having come to this cross roads I think I sort of see how millionrainbows looks at this... if someone was fairly horrible in life but produced good art or music that must have come from a positive or balanced place and if you don't want to attribute it to God that's fair enough but perhaps sacred refers to a deeper communion with the human collective (for lack of a better phrase) some place of goodness as opposed to the messiness of the other aspects of being human.

I'm not saying an artists' sufferings don't play a (totally crucial) part in their art but if they are gifted with talent, (the kind of talent that comes with a sort of immortality in the sense that your ever presently being discussed and admired) then that gift must come from some place... well sacred. I think I can get behind that.

Perhaps I'm just arguing back and forth with myself but there are some interesting notions to both sides.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I think I know what MILLION RAINBOWS (MR) is speaking about. It's what I've been saying for years and what I've mentioned here on TC a few times in other threads. To put it another way:

We have our "feelings" (ie: our "heart" - what MR refers to our "inner-self") and then how the world or everyone else perceives us ("Outer-self").

I have said in the past (most recently on "What advice you would give to a young person" thread) that outside those who are closest to you (ie: loved ones, close friends and family - what "LOVEMYLUTE" refers to above), no one cares how you view yourself, your "feelings," your "inner-self." The ONLY thing the world can judge you on are your actions, what you DO, or your "Outer-self."

I'm sure that Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot didn't go to bed at night thinking, "I am a monster and an evil person." I'm sure they thought themselves as good and decent people doing necessary and important work (their "inner-selves").

But we (the world) can see them for the monsters they actually were (their "outer-selves").

And THIS is why I'm always wary of someone who talks about how their morals and values are based upon "their own heart." More to the point, most people who do very bad things and cause pain and suffering in others hardly ever view themselves as "bad" people. Many of them would say, "I know in my heart I'm a good person." Unfortunately it doesn't make it necessarily so.

V


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Nobody gives me _my _identity - it's my own. How people see me - that's their own affair, though ideally, close correspondence between the two makes social relations more honest.


How you are seen by other people is what I am calling your "outer" or "your social identity."



MacLeod said:


> Neither of these have anything to do with 'sacred' - at least insofar as I know what you mean by the term.


I don't know about you, but I consider the fact of my existence to be a sacred thing. This is universal to being human...So if Wagner's music moves me and Daniel Barenboim and James Levine, it is because we all sense a connection to Wagner's sacred nature as a human, not his outward 'ego' and his 'outward persona' with all its opinions and flaws.

If people wish to reject Wagner on the grounds of his "outward" social identity, then that's their choice.

If Wagner's music came from his connection to the sacred, which is his 'inner' identity, then that's why it's good music; because it communicates with us on a subjective human level, which is our shared, universal, inner connection with the sacred.



MacLeod said:


> How people see me - that's their own affair, though ideally, close correspondence between the two makes social relations more hones.


Boy, have you got a big surprise coming later.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't know about you, but I consider the fact of my existence to be a sacred thing. This is universal to being human...So if Wagner's music moves me and Daniel Barenboim and James Levine, it is because we all sense a connection to Wagner's sacred nature as a human, not his outward 'ego' and his 'outward persona' with all its opinions and flaws.
> 
> If people wish to reject Wagner on the grounds of his "outward" social identity, then that's their choice.
> 
> If Wagner's music came from his connection to the sacred, which is his 'inner' identity, then that's why it's good music; because it communicates with us on a subjective human level, which is our shared, universal, inner connection with the sacred.


Are you sure it's not just because listening to his music satisfies your urge to conquer over other people and perhaps even subconsciously quells your repressed primal bloodlust? :lol:

This was all a sick joke btw... Wagner's music is the triumph of the will... (Sorry I can't seem to help myself) 

But in all seriousness millionrainbows, do you believe there is an aspect of the divine involved with the creative human mind, or rather talent in artists?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> This is interesting... Are you disagreeing with the spiritual connotations millionrainbows is alluding to with "sacred". [etc]


Yes, I am. I'm a materialist, so what others refer to as 'spiritual' I recognise as a physical response. I've never accepted million's loose use of the term 'sacred': it has connotations (such as with religion) that would prevent me using it at all.

All that you raise re my 'shortsightedness' is covered in my line about 'correspondence between how I see myself and how others see me'. Of course I know that the way I behave towards others has an impact, for good or ill, on how they behave towards me. But since the only person's behaviour I can control is mine, I have to try to give up the idea of worrying about what others think, and get on with the business of being me.

It's hard. I don't claim to get it right, nor can I claim that I _don't _worry. But aspiration and reality are always out of step, aren't they?



millionrainbows said:


> How you are seen by other people is what I am calling your "outer" or "your social identity."
> 
> I don't know about you, but I consider the fact of my existence to be a sacred thing. This is universal to being human...So if Wagner's music moves me and Daniel Barenboim and James Levine, it is because we all sense a connection to Wagner's sacred nature as a human, not his outward 'ego' and his 'outward persona' with all its opinions and flaws.
> 
> ...


Have I? Where from? Who's going to give it to me?

I don't have a social identity that's separate from my "inner identity". I am who I am, and who I choose to be at whatever time of the day. If I want to be a shy retiring type in certain situations, it's because that's already part of who I am.

As for the 'sacred' thing, see my reply above.

With composers, I either like the music or I don't, but as I've already claimed elsewhere, I can't help but think that the personality of the composer comes through the music, though I'm not being definitive about that. There's a reason I prefer the company of Debussy and Haydn to the company of Wagner and Tchaikovsky. That makes Debussy 'good' to me, and Wagner 'not' - to me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

[removed irrelevant post ]


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I suppose if a living composer did something really nasty and I found out about it, I might listen to her/his music on youtube rather than shelling out cash for it. 

I have my principles, after all.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Can posters please address the OP and not make comments on posting style or other irrelevant matters.

A number of inappropriate posts have been deleted.

Please be civil to your fellow members. If you wish to disagree do not resort to personal remarks.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Are you sure it's not just because listening to his music satisfies your urge to conquer over other people and perhaps even subconsciously quells your repressed primal bloodlust?


No, I have better impulse control than *Woody Allen,* who once jokingly said that Wagner made him want to "invade Poland."



Fugue Meister said:


> But in all seriousness millionrainbows, do you believe there is an aspect of the divine involved with the creative human mind, or rather talent in artists?


Yes, I do, if the art reflects that connection to the sacred or divine, and communicates that sense to me and others. The aesthetic experience trumps everything else.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, I am. I'm a materialist, so what others refer to as 'spiritual' I recognise as a physical response. I've never accepted million's loose use of the term 'sacred': it has connotations (such as with religion) that would prevent me using it at all.


I'm not talking about religion; I'm just saying that we are so lucky to be alive that i consider every moment of my existence to be sacred.



MacLeod said:


> But since the only person's behaviour I can control is mine, I have to try to give up the idea of worrying about what others think, and get on with the business of being me.


But what other people think about you controls your social interaction with them, and our "inner" identity is shaped by our social interactions with others and how they see us, whether we like it or not; because we are social creatures, and need to feel "connected". That's why prison and solitary confinement are 'punishments.'



MacLeod said:


> It's hard. I don't claim to get it right, nor can I claim that I _don't _worry. But aspiration and reality are always out of step, aren't they?


Yes, and soon enough the difference will hit you hard. At least, that's my experience, as I get older.



MacLeod said:


> Have I? Where from? Who's going to give it to me?


You will see it as an aspect of yourself, I promise you.



MacLeod said:


> I don't have a social identity that's separate from my "inner identity". I am who I am, and who I choose to be at whatever time of the day. If I want to be a shy retiring type in certain situations, it's because that's already part of who I am.


Whatever...



MacLeod said:


> With composers, I either like the music or I don't, but as I've already claimed elsewhere, I can't help but think that the personality of the composer comes through the music...There's a reason I prefer the company of Debussy and Haydn to the company of *Wagner and Tchaikovsky. *That makes Debussy 'good' to me, and Wagner 'not' - to me.


But Tchaikovsky was only gay when he was having sex, not when he wrote music. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not talking about religion; I'm just saying that we are so lucky to be alive that i consider every moment of my existence to be sacred.
> 
> I know you're not talking about religion. Nor am I. I simply object to the word 'sacred' because of its religious connotations. I agree that we're lucky to be alive, and that every moment of our existence should be treasured...though this is an ideal that is far from the reality of too many people's lives, including my own.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your detailed reply to my post.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's always cryptic, it always sneaks up on you. That's why they call it the shadow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> It's always cryptic, it always sneaks up on you. That's why they call it the shadow.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)


Well, thanks for the link...a quick skim suggests that Jung's ideas are by no means irrefutable truths about the human mind.

As he himself said, the unconscious is unconscious...so it can't be directly studied, we can only offer a hypothesis.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Well, thanks for the link...a quick skim suggests that Jung's ideas are by no means irrefutable truths about the human mind.
> 
> As he himself said, the unconscious is unconscious...so it can't be directly studied, we can only offer a hypothesis.


But can the unconscious be brought into consciousness... If so, how?


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> But can the unconscious be brought into consciousness... If so, how?


My interest in this psychology is limited. I'm reminded of those who worry about 'hidden agenda'. If it's hidden, you can't see it, so how on earth can you control it? You can only influence what is visible to you. Consequently, we can make choices on whether we behave this way or that, consistent or not with who we think we are.

Now, remind me how we got here from the OP...?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> But Tchaikovsky was only gay when he was having sex, not when he wrote music. :lol:


But it's possible Tchaikovsky drew on his inner turmoil and torment when he wrote music, and that some of that was attributable to his being gay in a homophobic society.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

amfortas said:


> But it's possible Tchaikovsky drew on his inner turmoil and torment when he wrote music, and that some of that was attributable to his being gay in a homophobic society.


So, it appears that you allow that there is a 'tension' between our 'inner' and 'outer' (social) identities. Apparently, "normal" people don't see this, because everything they do is correct and good. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> My interest in this psychology is limited. I'm reminded of those who worry about 'hidden agenda'. If it's hidden, you can't see it, so how on earth can you control it? You can only influence what is visible to you. Consequently, we can make choices on whether we behave this way or that, consistent or not with who we think we are.
> 
> Now, remind me how we got here from the OP...?


 It seems very relevant, in the case of a "Jekyl and Hyde" personality, which Jung calls a 'dense shadow.' If you found out, etc. etc. remember the OP? Sheesh. _Stretch for those metaphoric connections! I wanna see some hustle!
_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> But can the unconscious be brought into consciousness... If so, how?


It's a matter of recognizing unpleasant aspects of yourself, and not projecting them on to others, like some people do. Around. Here.

Heerza book.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

on the whole, I think it would spark the sociology student in me finding the situation quite interesting! I would not approve, just eager to study the phenomenon! 

/ptr


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> It's a matter of recognizing unpleasant aspects of yourself, and not projecting them on to others.




I definitely think it's a possibility. But it's a wonder if there's a level to reach were there is absolutely no unconscious. Everything is done in your awareness. Instead of all these compulsive, blind behaviors. But I agree that there's a stage of projecting our problems onto others until we can handle looking at them inside of ourselves. Many are at that stage right now.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> My interest in this psychology is limited. I'm reminded of those who worry about 'hidden agenda'. If it's hidden, you can't see it, so how on earth can you control it? You can only influence what is visible to you. Consequently, we can make choices on whether we behave this way or that, consistent or not with who we think we are.
> 
> *Now, remind me how we got here from the OP...?*


Haha, what an offshoot, eh? But I find it to be an extremely interesting topic. I think that is to be the true evolution in our species... becoming more conscious of all the aspects of ourselves. And not allowing our primitive compulsions to hurt others and ourselves anymore.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> It seems very relevant, in the case of a "Jekyl and Hyde" personality, which Jung calls a 'dense shadow.' If you found out, etc. etc. remember the OP? Sheesh. _Stretch for those metaphoric connections! I wanna see some hustle!
> _


You do know that Jekyll and Hyde was fiction?

(And I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence.)



millionrainbows said:


> It's a matter of recognizing unpleasant aspects of yourself, and not projecting them on to others, like some people do. Around. Here.
> 
> Heerza book.


I can't see any unpleasant aspects, and I don't believe I'm projecting anything on to anyone...but maybe it's too dark around here for me to see properly!



Vesuvius said:


> I think that is to be the true evolution in our species... becoming more conscious of all the aspects of ourselves. And not allowing our primitive compulsions to hurt others and ourselves anymore.


Unfortunately, there seem to be too many instances where our primitive compulsions - especially tribalism - are formalised and given state approval. We're a long way from the true evolution that we need.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I suppose if a composer I loved came out with a Concerto in B Major for Violin, the "Zyklon B" Concerto, it would give me pause.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

To the OP, have you listened to a lot of Anton Bruckner lately?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Serge said:


> To the OP, have you listened to a lot of Anton Bruckner lately?


Not really, why do you ask? If he's some sort of monster I was unaware to this...


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

In a word, yes. At least they say so.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> Not really, why do you ask? If he's some sort of monster I was unaware to this...


I believe he is talking about Bruckner's obsesion with young virgins. He actually sought to marry one up until his death.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Serge said:


> Shortly, yes. At least they say so.


He kept a book of female students he was interested in marrying (into his later life), had an odd fascination with the dead bodies of those he admired on an artistic level, and a bit of an OCD interest in counting things.

That's really about it. As "creepy old man" as the book thing comes off, it doesn't really make him a monster.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

To me, a composer is a little different from a performer like an actor or a singer; I find it hard to "read" a composer's real personality by listening to his music. Apparently, Bellini could be vain, and Verdi had a foul mouth -- but it's not as though I can hear those qualities in their music. Mendelssohn said unflattering things about Donizetti, yet I still enjoy Mendelssohn's music, as well as Donizetti's. So yes, I'm generally able to separate the composer's personality from his music.

I think the only thing that _might_ put me off is if a contemporary composer committed a heinous crime like murder or rape.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> He kept a book of female students he was interested in marrying (into his later life), had an odd fascination with the dead bodies of those he admired on an artistic level, and a bit of an OCD interest in counting things.
> 
> That's really about it. As "creepy old man" as the book thing comes off, it doesn't really make him a monster.


So he was just an old creep. Glad we straightened that out. 

But I kid really. I don't care who he was for as long as he didn't hurt anybody.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> He kept a book of female students he was interested in marrying (into his later life), had an odd fascination with the dead bodies of those he admired on an artistic level, and a bit of an OCD interest in counting things.
> 
> That's really about it. As "creepy old man" as the book thing comes off, it doesn't really make him a monster.


That sounds pretty disturbing to me. I think all men (and women) have issues with lust because it's in our nature. The problem arises when an individual willfully feeds these potentially destructive desires. Human sexuality is something that must controlled and beat into submission, otherwise it becomes a perversion. We all have the innate capacity to commit horrific acts in order to satisfy unhealthy cravings. Bruckner did himself a disservice.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> He kept a book of female students he was interested in marrying (into his later life), had an odd fascination with the dead bodies of those he admired on an artistic level, and a bit of an OCD interest in counting things.
> 
> That's really about it. As "creepy old man" as the book thing comes off, it doesn't really make him a monster.


Wow I had no idea, Bruckner is someone I have yet to form a deep connection with (with his music at least) but to tie into the OP, oddly enough learning this makes me want to go read up on him and listen to one of his symphonies again, does that make me a creep? I'm just fascinated by the glimmers of the human id... Bruckner huh, I never would have thought that of him...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

To me, *a composer is a little different from a performer like an actor or a singer*; I find it hard to "read" a composer's real personality by listening to his music. Apparently, Bellini could be vain, and Verdi had a foul mouth -- but it's not as though I can hear those qualities in their music. Mendelssohn said unflattering things about Donizetti, yet I still enjoy Mendelssohn's music, as well as Donizetti's. So yes, I'm generally able to separate the composer's personality from his music.

I assume you meant "a composer is little different from a performer like an actor..." in which case I fully concur. Oscar Wilde, who was rarely wrong about anything (this is the guy who astutely observed that "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.":lol: ) famously wrote, "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim." We, unfortunately, live in the era of Post-Romantic/Post-Freudian confusion of the artist's biography with the artist's artistic achievements. In this "cult of personality" many naively assume that art is always a mirror of the artist's inner being and deepest beliefs and values... when it is just as likely as much an illusion as the work of an actor or singer.

I remember reading somewhere... I believe it was in one of Andre Malraux's brilliant essays on Art... that no artist can rise above his or her highest values/beliefs. In other words, Mozart may have been a twit and wagner may have been an antisemitic prick... but in their art at least they rose well above the worst aspects of their personalities... or at least brilliantly put forth the illusion of having done such.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Another thought: do we admire an artist or performer more simply because he or she is a good, morally upstanding guy/gal?

Is this more important than the art? Is this relevant at all?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Another thought: do we admire an artist or performer more simply because he or she is a good, morally upstanding guy/gal?
> 
> Is this more important than the art? Is this relevant at all?


I believe the art is the more important thing... after 200 years the only thing people see really is the art until they get enthralled enough by that artist to want to know more about him and I for one think it's too late by then.. if you like or love that artists work I believe you will alway like it in some capacity or another. Maybe I'm wrong but to answer my OP, I feel that if I found out Beethoven was some murderer or worse, I still don't think I could ever free myself from the wealth of musical expressions that have entranced me for the last 2 decades of my life.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Another thought: do we admire an artist or performer more simply because he or she is a good, morally upstanding guy/gal?
> 
> Is this more important than the art? Is this relevant at all?


No. It doesn't concern me for a second that Bach was so deeply religious.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> To me, *a composer is a little different from a performer like an actor or a singer*; I find it hard to "read" a composer's real personality by listening to his music. Apparently, Bellini could be vain, and Verdi had a foul mouth -- but it's not as though I can hear those qualities in their music. Mendelssohn said unflattering things about Donizetti, yet I still enjoy Mendelssohn's music, as well as Donizetti's. So yes, I'm generally able to separate the composer's personality from his music.
> 
> I assume you meant "a composer is little different from a performer like an actor..." in which case I fully concur. Oscar Wilde, who was rarely wrong about anything (this is the guy who astutely observed that "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.":lol: ) famously wrote, "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim." We, unfortunately, live in the era of Post-Romantic/Post-Freudian confusion of the artist's biography with the artist's artistic achievements. In this "cult of personality" many naively assume that art is always a mirror of the artist's inner being and deepest beliefs and values... when it is just as likely as much an illusion as the work of an actor or singer.
> 
> I remember reading somewhere... I believe it was in one of Andre Malraux's brilliant essays on Art... that no artist can rise above his or her highest values/beliefs. In other words, Mozart may have been a twit and wagner may have been an antisemitic prick... but in their art at least they rose well above the worst aspects of their personalities... or at least brilliantly put forth the illusion of having done such.


I fail to see how either approach must be mutually exclusive. Composer's life histories and personalities can be a valid and interesting factor, and I think it's arguable that that kind of information very well can form a better picture of the music. Then again it can very well be misleading. Oh well, right? Wilde is great, but when he comments on music he seems to create just as many quirky paradigms in his head as he debunks.

Maybe we ought to let the artists just make art and let the philosophers debate. We always seem to jump into practically existential crises like "no, it's this", "that's just an illusion", or "your experience isn't as genuine". It takes some humor and healthy self depreciation to say you don't really know, and this is art, not Plato's _Cratylus_ or Aristotle's _Posterior Analytics_, after all. We sure like to split hairs instead of merely listening to the perspective of another and saying "oh, that's nice".


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Jim Gordon murdered his mother with a hammer, but I still listen to Derek and the Dominos.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

My musical collection would be much smaller if I delegated it strictly to artists whom I find to be angels. Their personal lives aren't of tremendous interest to me. A little documentary here and there is cool, but I'm not into art so I can study biographies.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Jim Gordon murdered his mother with a hammer, but I still listen to Derek and the Dominos.


He was also an undiagnosed schizophrenic.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> That sounds pretty disturbing to me. I think all men (and women) have issues with lust because it's in our nature. The problem arises when an individual willfully feeds these potentially destructive desires. Human sexuality is something that must controlled and beat into submission, otherwise it becomes a perversion. We all have the innate capacity to commit horrific acts in order to satisfy unhealthy cravings. Bruckner did himself a disservice.


I'm not saying it's not bad or wrong, and that he didn't have hangups that he should have gotten over, I'm just saying that calling that kind of behavior "monstrous" leaves us no room for talking about the people who do commit acts such as rape and abuse and murder.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Another thought: do we admire an artist or performer more simply because he or she is a good, morally upstanding guy/gal?
> 
> Is this more important than the art? Is this relevant at all?


Without cavil or qualification?-- no.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> I believe the art is the more important thing... after 200 years the only thing people see really is the art until they get enthralled enough by that artist to want to know more about him and I for one think it's too late by then.. if you like or love that artists work I believe you will alway like it in some capacity or another. Maybe I'm wrong but to answer my OP, I feel that if I found out Beethoven was some murderer or worse, I still don't think I could ever free myself from the wealth of musical expressions that have entranced me for the last 2 decades of my life.


Might it depend whether there was a link between the murder and the art? Or is the consumer so completely amoral that he is entitled to demand the product, regardless of how it's been produced?



Lope de Aguirre said:


> Human sexuality is something that must controlled and beat into submission, otherwise it becomes a perversion. We all have the innate capacity to commit horrific acts in order to satisfy unhealthy cravings.


Speak for yourself!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Might it depend whether there was a link between the murder and the art? Or is the consumer so completely amoral that he is entitled to demand the product, regardless of how it's been produced?


Let's say, just for fun, that it turns out Beethoven was a vampire. And he wrote the manuscript of the 7th Symphony in a victim's blood. Would you enjoy the music less? Would other people? Or would there be a surge in sales?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Let's say, just for fun, that it turns out Beethoven was a vampire. And he wrote the manuscript of the 7th Symphony in a victim's blood. Would you enjoy the music less? Would other people? Or would there be a surge in sales?


Yes. Yes and No. Probably.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> That sounds pretty disturbing to me. I think all men (and women) have issues with lust because it's in our nature. The problem arises when an individual willfully feeds these potentially destructive desires. Human sexuality is something that must controlled and beat into submission, otherwise it becomes a perversion.


I think beating it into submission would be the perversion.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I think beating it into submission would be the perversion.


Yes, pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers would agree with your statement. Aren't we already doing enough to pervert and ultimately destroy human minds by sexualizing everything under the sun? Media bombards us with filth every single day and you don't think that has a negative impact on our perception of healthy sexuality? Even food is sexualized. When did food become 'sexy'? What a joke.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Yes, pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers would agree with your statement.


The problem with those people is that they're committing heinous crimes. Their issues go a bit deeper than whether they touch themselves in the dark. What's more, the statistics I've heard about imply that they are less often criminal when they can relieve their sexual urges in legal ways. There was just a piece of news about rape rates going down in Rhode Island after people realised prostitution had been accidentally legalised:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index...ith-legal-prostitution-sharply-cut-rape-cases

The things you learn if you care about facts...

For ordinary people who aren't narcissists incapable of empathising with others, being some sort of Buddhas and "beating their sexuality into submission" just because that would make people with obsolete ideas respect them more would be an act of heroism that nobody truly needs. It would be a battle with only losers. In fact, those too weak to do it would only increase the likelihood of developing a psychosis or something. Just read up on Medieval sexuality some day.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well if he did something really horrendous.... but then I found out he graduated from either Curtis or Juilliard with honors, I suppose I could forgive him.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Like when I found out Tchaikovsky was one of them queerosexuals?

#kidding #don'thateme

In all seriousness, I won't lie and say that if I found out a favorite composer of mine had been a rapist or a murderer, that it would affect by ability to like his music to some degree. But ultimately I do tend to separate the music from the man in most cases. Sometimes knowing the man helps me appreciate the music more, but it's very rare that it will cause me to like the music less. That might not be consistent, but that just seems to be how it works for me.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> The problem with those people is that they're committing heinous crimes. Their issues go a bit deeper than whether they touch themselves in the dark. What's more, the statistics I've heard about imply that they are less often criminal when they can relieve their sexual urges in legal ways. There was just a piece of news about rape rates going down in Rhode Island after people realised prostitution had been accidentally legalised:
> 
> http://theweek.com/speedreads/index...ith-legal-prostitution-sharply-cut-rape-cases
> 
> ...


'The things you learn if you care about facts...' How ironic.

_"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive. -1 Corinthians 10:23 _

Human nature has never changed, friend. We need to govern ourselves accordingly. Permissiveness is certainly not the attitude we need to adopt. Look around you--we inhabit an oversexualized, violent and degenerate world where narcissism is not only permitted, but encouraged. But you know what? Let us freely embrace the filth peddled by mainstream society with abandon and see where that takes us, let's encourage people to use pornography and sleep with prostitutes to satisfy their frustrated sexual urges. Let's watch with glee and delight at how Hollywood continues to sell young (and younger) girls with pouty lips as obscene sexual objects, I mean we're already on our way, are we not? You and I should get together 15-20 years from now and assess the kind of world we'll find ourselves living in.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> You do know that Jekyll and Hyde was fiction?
> 
> (And I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence.)


Yes, but Jung himself used that book as an example because it illustrates the idea so well. He also used mythology and fairy tales.



MacLeod said:


> I can't see any unpleasant aspects, and I don't believe I'm projecting anything on to anyone...but maybe it's too dark around here for me to see properly!


 Ha ha!



MacLeod said:


> Unfortunately, there seem to be too many instances where our primitive compulsions - especially tribalism - are formalised and given state approval. We're a long way from the true evolution that we need.


I don't know...I'd kinda like a tribal situation, with island girls, etc...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Oscar Wilde, who was rarely wrong about anything (this is the guy who astutely observed that "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.":lol: ) famously wrote, "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim." We, unfortunately, live in the era of Post-Romantic/Post-Freudian confusion of the artist's biography with the artist's artistic achievements. In this "cult of personality" many naively assume that art is always a mirror of the artist's inner being and deepest beliefs and values... when it is just as likely as much an illusion as the work of an actor or singer.
> 
> I remember reading somewhere... I believe it was in one of Andre Malraux's brilliant essays on Art... that no artist can rise above his or her highest values/beliefs. In other words, Mozart may have been a twit and wagner may have been an antisemitic prick... but in their art at least they rose well above the worst aspects of their personalities... or at least brilliantly put forth the illusion of having done such.


Shakespeare was able to create those evil characters...surely, he was somehow tapped-into the dark side of his psyche, and didn't deny it. Was he a good guy who put all the darkness into his art, or was he really embracing his own dark side? How did he do this, and was he in danger of succumbing to the darkness? What about Nabokav and Lolita?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Shakespeare was able to create those evil characters...surely, he was somehow tapped-into the dark side of his psyche, and didn't deny it. Was he a good guy who put all the darkness into his art, or was he really embracing his own dark side? How did he do this, and was he in danger of succumbing to the darkness? What about Nabokav and Lolita?


Lolita should be banned and all its copies destroyed. Nabokov was quite talented, though.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

My mom just read Lolita; said it was excellent. Made me curious; I know we have a little Nabokov collection here.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Tristan said:


> My mom just read Lolita; said it was excellent. Made me curious; I know we have a little Nabokov collection here.


I have a Nabokov collection as well, but not Lolita. Never read it, never will. Not interested in pedophilia, no matter how beautiful the mask.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Lolita should be banned and all its copies destroyed. Nabokov was quite talented, though.


Didn't Lope de aguirre said in the film that he would marry with his daughter and in that way establish a new and pure lineage? :devil:

Also, Kinski's daughter accused him of raping her when she was a child!!!

Your crusade against depravation in art is quite (arbitrarily) selective, Lope.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Didn't Lope de aguirre said in the film that he would marry with his daughter and in that way establish a new and pure lineage? :devil:
> 
> Your crusade against depravation in art is quite (arbitrarily) selective, Lope.


Point taken. But I do not support Aguirre's/Kinski's incestual ambitions. I liked the fact that Aguirre was not a hypocrite (at least in the film). He was transparent about his desires and made no apologies. That's much better than pretending to be civil and yet living like a Godless animal. The Pharisees were such a lot--God _hated_ them, or to be more precise, He hated their hypocrisy.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Our favorite composers weren't gods. They could be self-centered, obnoxious elitists whose brilliant music was hard to reconcile with their personalities. Who among them was perfect?


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Another thought: do we admire an artist or performer more simply because he or she is a good, morally upstanding guy/gal?
> 
> Is this more important than the art? Is this relevant at all?


We can admire the artist or performer more if they are a good and moral person, but it may have nothing to do with how good or bad their art is. That's just a "human" element if you will, just like we can admire anyone regardless of profession or hobby if they are a good and moral person.

It's relevant as a human being, but I believe it's as relevant to being an artist as being an accountant.



Chordalrock said:


> *For ordinary people who aren't narcissists* incapable of empathising with others, being some sort of Buddhas and "beating their sexuality into submission" just because that would make people with obsolete ideas respect them more would be an act of heroism that nobody truly needs. It would be a battle with only losers. In fact, those too weak to do it would only increase the likelihood of developing a psychosis or something. Just read up on Medieval sexuality some day.


Well unfortunately, that segment of society (what I bolded) is growing in leaps and bounds. Part of it's indication is a mentality that one can and/or should indulge in the satiating of any appetite so long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else, completely ignoring the age old wisdom that self-control is one of the greatest virtues one can have. But maybe that's just another "obsolete idea." 



millionrainbows said:


> Shakespeare was able to create those evil characters...surely, he was somehow tapped-into the dark side of his psyche, and didn't deny it. Was he a good guy who put all the darkness into his art, or was he really embracing his own dark side? How did he do this, and was he in danger of succumbing to the darkness? What about Nabokav and Lolita?


Did he create those evil characters from the dark side of his own psyche or did he create them from the observation and knowledge that these type of evil people have always existed?

I could come up with some vile characters in a story who do unbelievable acts of horror and evil because of what I know, seen, read, or heard. Not necessarily because I have those thoughts as well (not saying I don't have the occasional evil thought here & there :devil.

V


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Varick said:


> I could come up with some vile characters in a story who do unbelievable acts of horror and evil because of what I know, seen, read, or heard. Not necessarily because I have those thoughts as well (not saying I don't have the occasional evil thought here & there :devil.
> 
> V


It's all inside of you. Some simply have stronger compulsions toward certain thoughts. The 'devil' and 'god' rage inside of me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The open forums are not for religious discussion. There is a forum section for discussion of religion and politics _in relation to classical music_, but that is not this section and much of the recent discussion here is religious without a musical relationship. Several posts have been deleted due to inappropriate content. Please return to the thread topic and leave religious discussions to the groups.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> The open forums are not for religious discussion. There is a forum section for discussion of religion and politics _in relation to classical music_, but that is not this section and much of the recent discussion here is religious without a musical relationship. Several posts have been deleted due to inappropriate content. Please return to the thread topic and leave religious discussions to the groups.


Thanks, bro. Now, back to the subject: can anyone think of very many good examples of composers whose pathologies actually made them better? I mean, aside from typical names like Beethoven.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I have a Nabokov collection as well, but not Lolita. Never read it, never will. Not interested in pedophilia, no matter how beautiful the mask.


Perhaps if you read the book, you might in a better position to justify your idea of banning it.



Lope de Aguirre said:


> I do not support Aguirre's/Kinski's incestual ambitions.


Yet you watched the film. Why not afford Nabokov the same courtesy before deciding?



Vesuvius said:


> It's all inside of you. Some simply have stronger compulsions toward certain thoughts. The 'devil' and 'god' rage inside of me.


Seriously? Shakespeare was able to create his evil characters because he himself carried that evil?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps if you read the book, you might in a better position to justify your idea of banning it.


If our friend would have read Lolita, maybe he would have recognized that it doesn't necessarily condone pedophilia at all. Actually, it is told from the perspective of the main character as he gives a piteous effort trying to justify monstrous actions. "Lolita", as he nicknamed her, doesn't get her own voice in the novel which is poignant to note. One of the main questions of the novel that I'm sure Nabokov provoked some thought with, is "what does she think".


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I think all men (and women) have issues with lust because it's in our nature. The problem arises when an individual willfully feeds these potentially destructive desires. Human sexuality is something that must controlled and beat into submission, otherwise it becomes a perversion. We all have the innate capacity to commit horrific acts in order to satisfy unhealthy cravings.





Lope de Aguirre said:


> Aren't we already doing enough to pervert and ultimately destroy human minds by sexualizing everything under the sun? Media bombards us with filth every single day and you don't think that has a negative impact on our perception of healthy sexuality? Even food is sexualized. When did food become 'sexy'? What a joke.





Lope de Aguirre said:


> Look around you--we inhabit an oversexualized, violent and degenerate world where narcissism is not only permitted, but encouraged. But you know what? Let us freely embrace the filth peddled by mainstream society with abandon and see where that takes us, let's encourage people to use pornography and sleep with prostitutes to satisfy their frustrated sexual urges. Let's watch with glee and delight at how Hollywood continues to sell young (and younger) girls with pouty lips as obscene sexual objects, I mean we're already on our way, are we not?


Yes, we live in a highly sexualized society. Some of us seem more thrown off balance by it than others.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> It's a matter of recognizing unpleasant aspects of yourself, and not projecting them on to others.





MacLeod said:


> I can't see any unpleasant aspects . . .


Ask the people closest to you.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Earlier, I said



> I can't see any unpleasant aspects


prompting amfortas to write



amfortas said:


> Ask the people closest to you.


Perhaps I should have made clearer... I'm not claiming to be wholly virtuous - I was referring to any unpleasant aspects that I might have been projecting on to others...but as I was making a joke anyway, it didn't seem necessary.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Thanks, bro. Now, back to the subject: can anyone think of very many good examples of composers whose pathologies actually made them better? I mean, aside from typical names like Beethoven.


Why "very many"? I would guess composers were usually able to keep their troubles to themselves. Who knows what they really thought about things or what crimes they committed. Back in Mozart's time it was child's play to poison someone without getting caught.

What if there's one composer who stands out as one of the greatest in history and what if his greatest music would never have been if he hadn't been a troubled person? Would that give us a clue or at least a counter-example to the idea that it's only "good people" who can compose great music? I'm of course referring to Gombert. He was a child molester and you can hear him trying to redeem himself through his wonderful and unique music. He was a good person of course, he just so happened to be a bad person at the same time.

Rather than demeaning their music, isn't it their troubles and unfulfilled longings and deep sorrows that give meaning and depth to their art that would otherwise be hollow and meaningless and just entertainment with nothing true to it? Like watching a powerful movie as just pure entertainment. How sad would that be?

There would be no great art in paradise, just pretty things that complacent ever happy, vain and shallow people would enjoy out of boredom and that's all.

Did you ever hear of a Buddha who was a great composer? Or even just a hermit? I never heard of one.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> 'The things you learn if you care about facts...' How ironic.
> 
> _"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive. -1 Corinthians 10:23 _
> 
> Human nature has never changed, friend. We need to govern ourselves accordingly. Permissiveness is certainly not the attitude we need to adopt. Look around you--we inhabit an oversexualized, violent and degenerate world where narcissism is not only permitted, but encouraged. But you know what? Let us freely embrace the filth peddled by mainstream society with abandon and see where that takes us, let's encourage people to use pornography and sleep with prostitutes to satisfy their frustrated sexual urges. Let's watch with glee and delight at how Hollywood continues to sell young (and younger) girls with pouty lips as obscene sexual objects, I mean we're already on our way, are we not? You and I should get together 15-20 years from now and assess the kind of world we'll find ourselves living in.


You've been talking about how bad things are. Do you have any specific recommendations to address the problems you have identified?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Seriously? Shakespeare was able to create his evil characters because he himself carried that evil?


Yep. It's all potentials inside every human.
..............


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Yep. It's all potentials inside every human.


That suggests that the way peoples' lives turn out is entirely random. I don't believe this is so. At any given point in time, a person's life is more likely to take some turns than others, and given that a combination of nature and nurture have set up some courses as more likely than others, not all behaviours are equally likely.

Consequently, I don't see that the same potential exists in all people.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> That suggests that the way peoples' lives turn out is entirely random. I don't believe this is so. At any given point in time, a person's life is more likely to take some turns than others, and given that a combination of nature and nurture have set up some courses as more likely than others, not all behaviours are equally likely.
> 
> Consequently, I don't see that the same potential exists in all people.


That doesn't suggest that at all. You're going too far off on a tangent here. I'm saying every human has potentials for extreme wickedness or extreme holiness... and everywhere in-between. Which potentials get energy to manifest is the individuals choice... or if they're not conscious enough to choose, then their environmental conditioning delegates it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> That doesn't suggest that at all. You're going too far off on a tangent here. I'm saying every human has potentials for extreme wickedness or extreme holiness... and everywhere in-between. Which potentials get energy to manifest is the individuals choice.


And I'm saying they don't, and that it's not simply down to choice.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> And I'm saying they don't, and that it's not simply down to choice.


I agree it's not all up to their choice. You responded too fast before I could add to my post. I did so anyway....

"or if they're not conscious enough to choose, then their environmental conditioning delegates it."


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> Why "very many"? I would guess composers were usually able to keep their troubles to themselves. Who knows what they really thought about things or what crimes they committed. Back in Mozart's time it was child's play to poison someone without getting caught.
> 
> What if there's one composer who stands out as one of the greatest in history and what if his greatest music would never have been if he hadn't been a troubled person? Would that give us a clue or at least a counter-example to the idea that it's only "good people" who can compose great music? I'm of course referring to Gombert. He was a child molester and you can hear him trying to redeem himself through his wonderful and unique music. He was a good person of course, he just so happened to be a bad person at the same time.
> 
> ...


You're way off base, bro. Bach was considered very devout, as were other great names like Buxtehude and Liszt. They were human beings too and had just as much to offer emotionally.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> You're way off base, bro. Bach was considered very devout, as were other great names like Buxtehude and Liszt. They were human beings too and had just as much to offer emotionally.


Gombert was devout too. Your point?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Yes, we live in a highly sexualized society. Some of us seem more thrown off balance by it than others.


Not only 'some of us' but quite a few. All one needs to do is read/watch the news and observe the world to come to the conclusion that we are not functioning well as a society. If it was only 'some of us' human trafficking would not be a problem.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> Gombert was devout too. Your point?


Buddha could have composed music just as great. Bach did tons of musical productions for charity, and never did anything terrible like Gombert. Liszt decided to live a monastic life, which I guess sounds pretty boring according to you, even though his late works are held in pretty high regard as they were fantastic, emotionally mature, and way ahead of their time.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Not only 'some of us' but quite a few. All one needs to do is read/watch the news and observe the world to come to the conclusion that we are not functioning well as a society. If it was only 'some of us' human trafficking would not be a problem.


Read/watch the news and get a distorted view of the world. What proportion of people make it on the news? What kinds of people get into the news - the people making it, of course. The regular Joes and Joans who don't commit murder or lead a celebrity lifestyle are just getting on with stuff.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Not only 'some of us' but quite a few. All one needs to do is read/watch the news and observe the world to come to the conclusion that we are not functioning well as a society. If it was only 'some of us' human trafficking would not be a problem.


There are likely numerous reasons why society may not be functioning well. You appear to be placing most of the blame on sexuality.

By the way, I'm still interested in your recommendations to address the poor job society is doing to curb sexual appetites.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Read/watch the news and get a distorted view of the world. What proportion of people make it on the news? What kinds of people get into the news - the people making it, of course. The regular Joes and Joans who don't commit murder or lead a celebrity lifestyle are just getting on with stuff.


Yeah, ok. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. Have you or anyone you know had their life destroyed by being sexually abused as a child? Have you ever spoken to woman who was sold into sexual slavery? Are you aware of the sheer amount of doctors, lawyers, priests and police officers, people from all walks of life who have been arrested for pedophilia in the US alone? You go ahead and 'get on with stuff' in your little slice of heaven.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Buddha could have composed music just as great.


Pure speculation.

I personally find it hard to believe, as no one seems to have composed music as emotionally charged during the Renaissance as Gombert. Not "Buddha", not anyone.



Lukecash12 said:


> Bach did tons of musical productions for charity, and never did anything terrible like Gombert. Liszt decided to live a monastic life, which I guess sounds pretty boring according to you, even though his late works are held in pretty high regard as they were fantastic, emotionally mature, and way ahead of their time.


Liszt was rumored to be a womaniser. And I don't know where you get your idea that his late music is widely considered great. Liszt himself thought that it was sorely lacking in depth of expression, as you can read in Walker's three-volume biography. His earlier music is a lot more popular but even that isn't on the same level as the music of troubled souls like Beethoven and Gombert.

Bach I'm not terribly familiar with, but from what I've heard he comes across as egotistical, like interested in humiliating the royalty level egotistical. Wouldn't surprise me if pieces like "Ich ruf zu dir Herr" had more than pretension to them, I mean I wouldn't be surprised if he thought of himself as actually shouting out to Christ for help in saving his soul from evil thoughts or something with that piece.

You simply don't know what went on in these people's heads or even what crimes they may have committed (adultery or worse) that you simply never hear about because they didn't get caught or were considered so special that all evidence was destroyed or something.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Yeah, ok. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. Have you or anyone you know had their life destroyed by being sexually abused as a child? Have you ever spoken to woman who was sold into sexual slavery? Are you aware of the sheer amount of doctors, lawyers, priests and police officers, people from all walks of life who have been arrested for pedophilia in the US alone? You go ahead and 'get on with stuff' in your little slice of heaven.


Ignorance? Where did that come from? I didn't say that you shouldn't watch the news, just don't rely on it for a complete picture of humanity. For every pair of countries not currently at war, I'd guess there's a least a pair that aren't. Stats say that 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce. That means that 2 in 3 don't. Not all children who are sexually abused have their lives destroyed...

...and finally, given that sex is a fairly significant component in human existence, it's hardly surprising that it can go wrong, be misused, abused...and also be enjoyed, fulfilling, purposeful, loving...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> Pure speculation.
> 
> I personally find it hard to believe, as no one seems to have composed music as emotionally charged during the Renaissance as Gombert. Not "Buddha", not anyone.


And that's your opinion, nothing more. What if Gombert doesn't do it for me? Then that already disproves your theory.



> Liszt was rumored to be a womaniser. And I don't know where you get your idea that his late music is widely considered great. Liszt himself thought that it was sorely lacking in depth of expression, as you can read in Walker's three-volume biography. His earlier music is a lot more popular but even that isn't on the same level as the music of troubled souls like Beethoven and Gombert.
> 
> Bach I'm not terribly familiar with, but from what I've heard he comes across as egotistical, like interested in humiliating the royalty level egotistical. Wouldn't surprise me if pieces like "Ich ruf zu dir Herr" had more than pretension to them, I mean I wouldn't be surprised if he thought of himself as actually shouting out to Christ for help in saving his soul from evil thoughts or something with that piece.
> 
> You simply don't know what went on in these people's heads or even what crimes they may have committed (adultery or worse) that you simply never hear about because they didn't get caught or were considered so special that all evidence was destroyed or something.


1. You "simply don't know" that it's necessary for someone to do or think terrible things in order for them to create very emotional music.
2. Bach wasn't interested in humiliating Frederick, it was allegedly the other way around but that much isn't clear. The Prussian king simply gave him a long and difficult line to improvise on, which may very well have been a compliment as it was challenging and elements like the minor seventh at the beginning and the chromatic descent were typical of Bach's tradition. The king liked galant style music, so maybe he was making fun of Bach as if he couldn't come up with great improvisations using such a long motif, however it may very well have been a compliment to the older style as Frederick was a friend of Bach's son. At least I assume you were talking about The Musical Offering.
3. Many Liszt lovers like myself would beg to disagree with him. Composers can be their own harshest critic and I think it certainly is a case of that. I mean, Schubert was hard on himself with his 8th, and his unfinished symphony blows me away. And rumors are what they are: rumors. Even if it was true I refer you back to #1.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> And that's your opinion, nothing more.


Nah, I read it in the liner notes.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> Nah, I read it in the liner notes.


So then it's an empirical fact that Gombert is the most emotionally charged? Otherwise it's just someone's opinion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Pure speculation.
> 
> I personally find it hard to believe, as no one seems to have composed music as emotionally charged during the Renaissance as Gombert. Not "Buddha", not anyone.
> 
> ...


There's a great deal of speculation in the above comments, and speculation is worth very little.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> There's a great deal of speculation in the above comments, and speculation is worth very little.


I don't think you understand what speculation means.

If Bach DIDN'T compose "Ich ruf zu dir Herr" out of some deep need for godly help, then it's a pretentious work. Very pretty music, but still pretentious. It would then be the case that a troubled listener could have a deeper experience with the music than Bach ever did.

That's not speculation. It's psychology.

Or maybe Bach did have a darker side? That's not speculation either. It's highlighting an uncertainty and pointing out an area of ignorance that you seem to have trouble admitting exists.

Liszt had a difficult life, so I'm not sure why anybody who knows anything about him would even drag him into this conversation except on my side.

Gombert was very exceptional, that's not speculation. It's an empirical fact that I've seen a number of Renaissance music experts (or close) point out. If you have the perceptual framework for evaluating such things with expertise, you can tell. You can also pretty much tell that there is an autobiographical aspect to his music as with Gesualdo and it's pretty unlikely that a saint would have composed such music. That's not speculation, it's called nuanced understanding.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> I don't think you understand what speculation means.
> 
> If Bach DIDN'T compose "Ich ruf zu dir Herr" out of some deep need for godly help, then it's a pretentious work. Very pretty music, but still pretentious. It would then be the case that a troubled listener could have a deeper experience with the music than Bach ever did.
> 
> ...


1. No offense, but you are betraying a certain level of ignorance about Lutherans. It's not at all an odd idea for Bach to be that contrite and for that contrition to be seated in genuine religious fervor. After all, Luther was known for flogging himself. It was a different world my friend, you can't just use your amateur ideas of psychology to perform an anachronism and assume that Bach did something terrible he was repentant for.

Sure, Bach very well could have had serious issues. Saying that he did is without a doubt mere speculation, because when we stop performing anachronisms we realize that Bach wrote in a manner that was perfectly normal for Lutherans. Those were the convictions of his faith.

2. You're going to have to define empiricism for me if you think that constitutes empirical fact. My point is: here you are dismissing out of hand the idea that there could have been plenty of great composers who didn't think or do anything all that bad (it's not exactly the hardest idea to accept), yet you want to say it's an absolute fact that Gombert was the most emotionally charged composer of the Renaissance. What does empiricism have to do with any of that? Nothing. Then what do we have? What we have is you categorically stating that people without serious troubles like Gombert just couldn't make music like him.

Furthermore, when you cite experts to give credulity to a value judgment and then state it to be empirical fact, not only are you mistaken on the nature of empiricism but you are performing a basic fallacy. If we were to accept that a large group of experts having an opinion equals the truth, then we would live in quite a paradoxical reality because experts are obviously known to disagree. What we have here is a specific form of argumentum ad populum: common opinion does not equal truth. The two bear no direct relationship, because truth has it's own specific criteria which common opinion isn't subject to. Expert opinion is no different, because if we are going to say that expert opinions meet the same criteria then we are saying that round squares exist.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I don't think you understand what speculation means.
> 
> If Bach DIDN'T compose "Ich ruf zu dir Herr" out of some deep need for godly help, then it's a pretentious work. Very pretty music, but still pretentious. It would then be the case that a troubled listener could have a deeper experience with the music than Bach ever did.
> 
> ...


First of all this thing about Gombert... you alluded to him being some sort of child molester in post #117 (sorry too lazy to quote it)... where do you get this information?... If this is the case I must have missed seeing it somewhere... I'd like to know more about this out of curiosity. As for your fondness of Gombert I absolutely concur and there is no quarrel with your thoughts on him being "very exceptional", for the renaissance period I too think him a master.

But now onto where we differ...

Let me preface the rest with I am not trying to needle you, giving you the benefit of the doubt I feel as if you don't know very much about Bach (info wise that is, biographies, references, personal firsthand accounts referenced in history)..

That being said imho you are most assuredly wrong about JSB... You may feel his, Ich ruf zu dir Herr "pretentious" but that would only be the case if he wrote it to impress people but he didn't. As a church cantata it's one of a series of church pieces written expressly for the greater glory of God. Bach himself once said, "The final aim and reason of music is nothing other than the glorification of God and the refreshment of the spirit". On all his church music he notated each score with the latin phrase "ad maiorem Dei gloriam", or "For the greater glory of God"... Yes the music may seem showy, flashy, overtly complex and layered or "pretentious" as you'd have it but he was trying to be as perfect in his art to please God, especially his church music.

Perhaps it crossed your mind to use the latter part of his quote, ".. and the refreshment of the spirit" as a means to draw correlation to your idea that "maybe Bach had a dark side" , that is to say "... and the refreshment of the spirit" you interpret to mean as a way to exorcise his darker side's inclinations and therefore an uncertainty. However, I find the logic of saying it's an absolute uncertainty to be the conclusions of someone unfamiliar with the man, his life, and quite frankly his music. Bach was a fervent believer and read the good book everyday to boot (he was also a lone lutheran in a predominantly catholic Germany, and those guys really took it seriously). Anyone who is as sincere as Bach was about his spirituality doesn't really have a darker side or villainous desires, they follow God's word to the letter as I am positive Bach did.

Bach loved God and strived to be the best person he could be. I'm not disputing he too was human and of course we all have our flaws but true believers as Bach was, don't become entangled in the trappings of wickedness. If you read more into his life you will see he exuded his passion for God to everyone that knew him, its well documented... I find it an impossible notion that Bach ever really did anything remotely horrible (in terms of the OP) The theory of yours that it's somehow using psychology to understand someone deeply, deeply religious is off because psychology doesn't allow for spirituality.

Anyway sorry to carry on so long, again my aim here is not to prod you into an angry line for line dissection of this post but merely to set you upon a new way of thinking of JSB and his music. If you listen to his work and know that it absolutely is all love letters to his God than I think you will start to see that it is anything but "pretentious", who knows you may even join the fold... I kid, I kid..
But seriously if you like any of his music I'd urge you to find out more about the man and his life. He surely was one of the greatest men (and one of the few geniuses) the world has ever known. Looking forward to your thoughts. 

Oh and if your interested I have a wonderful essay for you to have a look at (in addition to mine :lol: ) :

http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/Article/356061,deconstructing-the-genius-of-bach.aspx

"I play the notes as they are written, but it is God who makes the music" - J. S. Bach


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. No offense, but you are betraying a certain level of ignorance about Lutherans. It's not at all an odd idea for Bach to be that contrite and for that contrition to be seated in genuine religious fervor. After all, Luther was known for flogging himself. It was a different world my friend, you can't just use your amateur ideas of psychology to perform an anachronism and assume that Bach did something terrible he was repentant for.
> 
> Sure, Bach very well could have had serious issues. Saying that he did is without a doubt mere speculation, because when we stop performing anachronisms we realize that Bach wrote in a manner that was perfectly normal for Lutherans. Those were the convictions of his faith.
> 
> ...


Wow I took to long and Lukecash12 beat me to the punch... by the time I finished my dissertation his was already up.. :lol:


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

When we're looking at a composer of a dead genre and time, his aesthetic quality is no longer relative, it no longer shifts and changes depending on what new appears to compete with him, because nothing does. So it merely takes experts to determine the facts about his aesthetic quality. If the experts disagree, then either some of them are making some sort of a mistake or we live in a world where aesthetic quality of such a composer isn't objective, and that would be an odd world full of its own paradoxes.

I'm not saying experts might not make mistakes - they might have a bad day or jump to a conclusion without putting in enough effort. But I am saying that in this case, expert opinion is a path to a fact and it's probably the only path. 

You can cite a fallacy that seems relevant to you but you could also try to think in a less conventional manner for a while and realise that I'm writing about something slightly different than what you think. Something slightly new that you need a new understanding for.

As for Bach, let's stop speculating then. I've said my thing and I'm not interested in elucidating endlessly.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> As for Bach, let's stop speculating then. I've said my thing and I'm not interested in elucidating endlessly.


Excellent. It's good to know that your Bach speculating has come to an end.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> When we're looking at a composer of a dead genre and time, his aesthetic quality is no longer relative, it no longer shifts and changes depending on what new appears to compete with him, because nothing does. So it merely takes experts to determine the facts about his aesthetic quality. If the experts disagree, then either some of them are making some sort of a mistake or we live in a world where aesthetic quality of such a composer isn't objective, and that would be an odd world full of its own paradoxes.
> 
> I'm not saying experts might not make mistakes - they might have a bad day or jump to a conclusion without putting in enough effort. But I am saying that in this case, expert opinion is a path to a fact and it's probably the only path.
> 
> ...


I wasn't speculating my friend I was dropping pure truth bombs... :devil:

I'm kidding around.. but in all honesty I don't know what you mean by:



> You can cite a fallacy that seems relevant to you but you could also try to think in a less conventional manner for a while and realise that I'm writing about something slightly different than what you think. Something slightly new that you need a new understanding for.


What are you trying to write about then?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I would be more upset if I found a cockroach in my Cheerios than by an atrocity committed by any composer whose music I adore.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I would be more upset if I found a cockroach in my Cheerios than by an atrocity committed by any composer whose music I adore.


You think that's bad try drinking a glass of milk and when you pour the last of it down your throat a dead spider washes into your mouth (and I'm talking about a biggish spider with crunchy parts)... Now I just don't drink milk.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> You can cite a fallacy that seems relevant to you but you could also try to think in a less conventional manner for a while and realise that I'm writing about something slightly different than what you think. Something slightly new that you need a new understanding for.


Your less conventional manner=round squares.



> When we're looking at a composer of a dead genre and time, his aesthetic quality is no longer relative, it no longer shifts and changes depending on what new appears to compete with him, because nothing does. So it merely takes experts to determine the facts about his aesthetic quality. If the experts disagree, then either some of them are making some sort of a mistake or we live in a world where aesthetic quality of such a composer isn't objective, and that would be an odd world full of its own paradoxes.


Aesthetics is by it's very nature subjective. A value judgment is being made about a purely physical phenomenon, one that we personally supply all the meaning of. So what are the experts doing? They are giving their opinions. Once again, there can't be round squares, so simply because experts have an opinion doesn't make it gospel truth.



> I'm not saying experts might not make mistakes - they might have a bad day or jump to a conclusion without putting in enough effort. But I am saying that in this case, expert opinion is a path to a fact and it's probably the only path.


There is no path to a fact. You can't prove a value judgment in aesthetics without resorting to fallacious reasoning. It seems that you might be seriously undereducated about what empiricism is that you would make a reference to it while talking about aesthetics.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Your less conventional manner=round squares.
> 
> Aesthetics is by it's very nature subjective. A value judgment is being made about a purely physical phenomenon, one that we personally supply all the meaning of. So what are the experts doing? They are giving their opinions. Once again, there can't be round squares, so simply because experts have an opinion doesn't make it gospel truth.
> 
> There is no path to a fact. You can't prove a value judgment in aesthetics without resorting to fallacious reasoning. It seems that you might be seriously undereducated about what empiricism is that you would make a reference to it while talking about aesthetics.


I'm not undereducated about philosophy. It could rather be said that I'm overeducated about it and tire quickly of newbie comments like yours. Like Wittgenstein, I feel like punching you instead of elucidating at this point.

You think aesthetics is subjective, so you think the value difference between Beethoven's 9th and Mozart's 9th is purely a matter of opinion. That's fine. It's a ridiculous position to take, but you're entitled to take ridiculous positions.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Excellent. It's good to know that your Bach speculating has come to an end.


I did it just to annoy you.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> I wasn't speculating my friend I was dropping pure truth bombs... :devil:
> 
> I'm kidding around.. but in all honesty I don't know what you mean by:
> 
> What are you trying to write about then?


What about me don't I get a response?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm not undereducated about philosophy. It could rather be said that I'm overeducated about it and tire quickly of newbie comments like yours. Like Wittgenstein, I feel like punching you instead of elucidating at this point.
> 
> You think aesthetics is subjective, so you think the value difference between Beethoven's 9th and Mozart's 9th is purely a matter of opinion. That's fine. It's a ridiculous position to take, but you're entitled to take ridiculous positions.


It's not a ridiculous position: it's clinically accurate. That something is merely an opinion doesn't trivialize it, it just means that it is what it is.

And "newbie comments"? Hahahahahaha, that's classic. If we're talking tenure, which doesn't really matter, I've been around a few more years than yourself. If we're talking new to the idea of philosophy, that's nearly as laughable. All I did was point out something demonstrable. If you really think there is empirical evidence for an aesthetic concept then you apparently don't understand either empiricism or aesthetics. You can say all you like about your level of education, but 2+2 does not equal 5, no offense.

And what is this new juicy exhibit we have in this post? None other than an appeal to emotion fallacy, aka argumentum ad ridiculum. "Your position is ridiculous". That's not an actual argument, and neither is telling me you want to punch me in the face an argument. If you're so educated then tell me how there are round squares. Gentlefolk defend their arguments politely when politely engaged by their interlocutor, because they don't have to resort to argumentum ad ridiculum and vitriol, as that kind of stuff is honestly just plain boring.

Your position would be fascinating if it had a coherent argument to go with it, it's not my fault that you think two different areas of philosophy that are at odds with each other are somehow consistent with each other. I mean, it's not that hard for you to appeal to Rationalism or Romanticism, but you apparently think it's a demonstrable, testable, and corroborated fact (empirical) that aesthetic value judgments can be made.

Now, back to square one: you still haven't established why it is necessarily true that people need serious issues like Gombert, in order to make exceptional music. Seeing as you've decided to stop coming up with highly contrived and speculative theories about Bach, he stands as a great example to the contrary, after all: "experts consider" him to be the greatest composer of the Baroque period.

Now from our friend the Meister:



> What about me don't I get a response?


Heh, I always have had a penchant for getting people riled up with my formality and rigid logic.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Fugue Meister said:


> You think that's bad try drinking a glass of milk and when you pour the last of it down your throat a dead spider washes into your mouth (and I'm talking about a biggish spider with crunchy parts)... Now I just don't drink milk.


Ewwwwww!!!!

If that happened to me, I would *definitely* stop listening to my favorite composer!


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

Well, well, here's something that might refocus this thread:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/to...dden-sides-of-the-great-composers-tom-service


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> Well, well, here's something that might refocus this thread:
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/to...dden-sides-of-the-great-composers-tom-service


to answer the OP - No, there is nothing here that impedes my taste for the music of Mozart, Beethoven, R Strauss, Wagner, Stravinsky etc. I also like the paintings of Caravaggio, the madrigals of Gesualdo etc etc etc


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> _"At the same time he had a disregard of his social inferiors: Robert Craft was embarrassed by his habit of *tapping a glass with a fork and loudly demanding attention in restaurants*."_
> 
> He was certainly a piece of work.


I do that regularly. It's okay for non-composers.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

If this hypothetical composer were still living and creating music, I would no longer support them and stop pursuing their music. Would I continue to listen to the music I already owned? I don't know. If the composer were dead: probably still listen, though it would perhaps turn me away from exploring a new composer.

I'd be much more distressed if an associate, relative, or say my doctor turned out to be this hypothetical monster though.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> Well, well, here's something that might refocus this thread:
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/to...dden-sides-of-the-great-composers-tom-service


Interesting article thanks for the post. 

If Mozart was a rapist (and he wasn't) I'd probably still listen. The art is separate from the man.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I not only separate composers beliefs from their art, I tend to separate most aspects of anyone's life because people are very good at compartmentalizing for one. For another, the most famous (or infamous) thing about a person isn't the only aspect of that person.

I have no problem saying that Hitler had pretty good taste in music or that Charles Manson has said some pretty true things, despite what they're often thought of for.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> I not only separate composers beliefs from their art, I tend to separate most aspects of anyone's life because people are very good at compartmentalizing for one. For another, the most famous (or infamous) thing about a person isn't the only aspect of that person.
> 
> I have no problem saying that Hitler had pretty good taste in music or that Charles Manson has said some pretty true things, despite what they're often thought of for.


I've got another: Stalin had a beautiful tenor voice and was fond of singing Georgian songs! _Yaaaaaay Stalin!_ :clap::clap::clap:

Oo


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

I found out that one of Beethoven's favorite foods was the abomination known as macaroni and cheese, but I still think he's a good composer.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Stargazer said:


> I found out that one of Beethoven's favorite foods was the abomination known as macaroni and cheese, but I still think he's a good composer.


Macaroni and cheese is great, especially if made right with a lot of cheese and baked with a nice crust! Beethoven was no dummy.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I don't think B was referring to Kraft macaroni and cheese.... You can actually have a quality dish of some cheese and macaroni.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I've got another: Stalin had a beautiful tenor voice and was fond of singing Georgian songs! _Yaaaaaay Stalin!_ :clap::clap::clap:
> 
> Oo


And, according to Barenboim, Mozart's KV 466 was his favorite piece of music.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

^^^^ I could see that being of just Mozart but his favorite works were in Handel's music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Stargazer said:


> I found out that one of Beethoven's favorite foods was the abomination known as macaroni and cheese, but I still think he's a good composer.


Alongside cooking or serving milk with meat, the eating of shellfish, and the eating of meat from mammals with cloven hooves, Mac & Cheese is even mentioned as an abomination in the old testament, isn't it?


----------

