[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakeride74 Look I was only trying to say musicians should keep music and politics separate, be a musician or a politician not both. This thread was really not put up to debate our electoral process or preference of news source, so out of courtesy for the one who posted it lets give this a rest or feel free to PM me if you want to debate.

Agreed (although I am kind of argumentative and could debate this all day). To me, politics in music just pollutes the music, even if it's politics I would tend to agree with. And as for the personal politics of the person making the music, I could generally care less, although it can be hard to separate someone's art from someone you can't stand--time usually helps with that. Virgil was basically a propogandist for a fascist Roman dictatorship, but 2000 years later I can see that he wrote some great poetry. I think it would be harder to appreciate even a great poet writing about how great Stalinist Russia was.

 

[10068]

Maybe they are writing about how great Stalin was simply to mess with people

There HAVE been art movements like that, especially in the early 1900s (or was it 1800s? Doh!) where they drew awful stuff simply to get extreme reactions out of people. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakeride74 If that's the case why don't we use popular vote instead of electoral? Answer: because popular vote is not a fair process and only works in theory.

Actually, you really have gotten that wrong! The founding fathers didn't establish the electoral college in order to be fair. That was pretty far from their minds. The founding fathers really didn't expect the electoral process to include everyone. There were restrictions on who could vote according to sex, race, wealth, education, etc. States had what is termed poll taxes (now illegal), literacy tests, and all manner of ways of keeping certain segments of the population from voting.

Also, you have to understand how electoral college votes are assigned and how they are cast. The number of electoral votes equals the number of congressman each state has (varies according to population), plus the number of senators (always 2). Thus, electoral votes are proportionate to population, but with slightly more weight given to the less populous states. If this were the whole deal, then there would not be much of a problem but, and this is the main problem with the electoral college: just about each state tallies up its popular vote and then votes all of its electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote in that state. That means that it is possible for a candidate to have very close elections in some states and lose all of the votes of that state while amassing the majority of popular votes after all the votes are counted in all states, as happened to Al Gore in 2000. No one thinks this is fair because it results in the effective disenfranchisement of whole groups of people. Take this example as well, if there is an African American minority (or any other minority) in a state and they are consistantly outvoted by the white (or other) voters in that state, their votes end up being counted for the candidate they voted against.

The issue of fairness having been addressed, you also have to understand the limits of technology of the 18th and 19th century as well. Without telegraphs, telephones, railroads, and other forms of high speed travel and communication, it took much longer to count and certify votes from various regions that were more geographically isolated and distant. Having a group of men (electors) who represented the voters in each state then come together approximately a month after the popular election date to cast their votes (according to the vote of the residents of each state) with that vote then sent to the president of the senate to read and announce, and thus keep the process honest was the solution the founding fathers came up with. If they had realized that the process would result in so much inequity, they might have put on their thinking caps and devised another solution. Their first idea about who should be vice president was changed as well. They believed that who ever received the second highest number of popular votes (the opposing candidate) should become vice president. That idea did not survive the sedition of Aaron Burr.

So, that's our electoral process, and fair it is not. And because it gives more weight to the majority party in very close elections, it never will be changed and that isn't fair either.

BTW wakeride 74, if that classroom were set up the way the electoral college is set up, that poor girl wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[redshifter]

thanks wakeride74 for steering this thread back on topic.

thanks (most) all of you for your thoughtful replies. this is an issue that has been on my mind for a long time.

first of all, sduibek, did you actually call me a "sort of music nazi" for asking the question? you are free to express your opinions but keep the personal insults to yourself, please.

second, i am a huge wagner fan. i have seen the entire ring cycle live. his operas are among my favorites. to say the operas are devoid of anti-semitism is not entirely true. the character "alberich" perhaps wagner's image of the "evil jew". does this diminish my enjoyment of his music? sadly, yes. but i love it too much to ignore it. i love it in spite of the darker side.

the conductors bohm and furtwangler are my favorites. to find out that bohm was a nazi was a real let-down for me. perhaps i am selfish and shallow, but i'm going to try my best to not let his past interfere with my enjoyment of his recordings.

i've often thought that if i ever met my personal hero, lv beethoven, that i might not end up liking him. i've read thayer's 2 volume "life of beethoven" and beethoven was a selfish, self-pitying, abusive man, but at the same time had titanic spirit and genious, and a deep love for humanity. in fact, knowing his personal flaws has brought me closer to his music.

 

[wakeride74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Actually, you really have gotten that wrong! The founding fathers didn't establish the electoral college in order to be fair.

I never stated the reasoning behind the founding fathers establishment of the electoral college. I am only making the argument that it is a better balanced process than the popular vote... geez what a can of worms I opened!

Bad analogy, races don't vote in in unity for the same person and the investigation has been beaten to death on the disenfranchisement thing with no evidence to prove this was the case (as far as the 2000 election is concerned).

I understand the process and think it is good and could be more so if it were defined further (i.e. grouping counties together to pool the states electoral votes in a small number of pools). On a side note it sure is interesting that there was no complaining about disenfranchisement or the unfair process when Clinton was elected twice...hmmm

Couldn't disagree more, I think we just have to agree to disagree my friend.
Happy listening!

 

[wakeride74]

Sorry Redshifter.... Damn politics!
"If you look for the bad in mankind you are sure to find it" - Abraham Lincoln
If you dig deep enough you are bound to find dirt on your favs, I'd just say don't obsess over it and as long as it is not in your face "down with America, kill the Jews" crap enjoy what you can.
Happy listening my friend and my apologies for the political detour (at least we didn't talk about religion too)

 

[Doc Sarvis]

Here's the bottom line on Wagner IMO:

1. He was one of the greatest musical geniuses that ever lived - period. It would be insane not to appreciate his work on that level.
2. His antisemitism was wildly inconsistent and variable, along with other aspects of his personality. He was a deeply flawed person, a fact that manifests itself in other elements of his life as well (for example, he stole the wife of one of his closest friends). Like Beethoven, he was a very unpleasant man.
3. Having said this, his antisemitic views must be taken in the context of the era in which he lived (for example, "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens is similarly antisemitic - think about the fact that "Scrooge" rhymes with "Jews" and you will see what I mean). It is a mistake to view the actions of the past through the lens of the present.
4. Wagner was appropriated by the Nazis, similar to the way that the US founding fathers are appropriated by political movements today; e.g., as a symbolic figurehead. The Nazis used the emotional power of his music for propaganda purposes, pure and simple. Hitler was a Wagner fan, but it's a mistake to put too much emphasis on Wagner's supposed "influence" on him, except in a general nationalistic sense.
5. Carl Orff (Carmina Burana) was an actual Nazi - Wagner was not.
6. Just as many people have argued that there is no antisemitism in the Ring Cycle, as have argued that there is.

Just my opinion.

 

[snow44]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade Virgil was basically a propogandist for a fascist Roman dictatorship, but 2000 years later I can see that he wrote some great poetry.

I don't think you are being quite fair to Virgil. His main works, the Georgics, Eclouges, and of course the Aeneid, were not really propoganda. The Georgica and Eclogoues especially tended to glorify Roman farm life, but that was fairly appropiate to the style of the time. I've always though Livy was more of the propogandist for Augustus. His magnum opus (I couldn't resist) Ab Urbe Condita (The Founding of the City) is filled with very poetic hyperbole of the glory of Rome. If our history textbooks were written the same way, we would be told how George Washington flew across the deleware and exterminated 100,000 red coats with his fire breath. To be fair my caveat (alright I tried really hard to inject that in) with this paragraph is that i haven't read the entirety on any of the works i've mentioned (I read Latin fairly slowly).
Now as for the topic at hand, I also am a Jew and my opinion on the matter is that this is really a personal issue. I know many jews who will never buy a german car not for revenge or any silly thing like that, but just because they don't feel comfortable; it's too hard for them. I don't have that as an issue and in fact i have quite an affinity for BMWs and Porsches. It's the same deal with Wagner. If you don't have a problem with his music don't feel guilty for liking it, but don't get angry or frustrated at others who can't get past his Nazism.

 

[Fenwik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blip Also, I find his racism rather suprising because Nietzsche had such a thing for him. In general, from what I remember, Nietzsche considered racists to be weak idiots. Something that I will have to study at futher length sometime.

Just to interject quickly: Nietzsche did have a very big thing for Wagner, but it didn't last. After Nietzsche heard the first performance of Ring des Nibelungen in 1876 he fled Bayreuth dissapointed. This was the begining of N's split with Wagner which would be total, with N. eventually calling himself Wagner's "antipode" in The Case of Wanger which he completed in June of 1888.

Thats it in a nutshell, anyway.

 

[Doc Sarvis]

If anyone's interested in this topic (Wagner) there are many great books on the subject from a varierty of viewpoints. One of my favorites, that interjects a fairly balanced view, is called "Wagner Without Fear" by William Berger.

 

[Doc Sarvis]

Maybe the real "takeaway" from this thread is that much great music includes nationalistic and/or political content, from Wagner to Shostakovich to Sibelius and Copland - even Beethoven. While it's easily to let our own experiences and opinions cloud our perception of the music, perhaps it's best to look at art for its own sake rather than the circumstances in which it was created, and by whom.

All I know is that I find nationalistic art to often be very powerful and inspirational. Beethoven said that muisic has the power to take us into the mind of the composer - I agree with this, but I think it's ultimately a deeper level of emotional and intellectual connection, not necessary related to the circumstances of a work's creation. In other words, Beethoven wrote the Eroica with one thing in mind (very specific to his era); when we hear it the circumstances are irrelevant but the emotion remains. Same with "The Ring" for me, and for Shostakovich' 11th Symphony (which commemorates a 1905 communist uprising).

I will tell you this much: "The Ring" and Wagner's other operas are too wonderful to be cast aside as a result of their composer's personal repulsiveness. He's gone, but the genius of his music remains. And, the fact that it was effectively used as propaganda by a long-gone political movement (the Nazis) should not consign it to the trash-heap of history. I think most would agree, including James Levine, probably the greatest living Wagner interpreter (who happens to be Jewish).

An awesome thread - which can teach us something about the power of music as well.

 

[adhoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 Sduibek: I see your point, but you saying that sin is sin is really silly. You are saying that stealing is as bad as murder? I don't buy that at all.

agreed.

sure, few of us may have consciences that are snow white, but fewer have pitch black ones - most of us are shades of gray.

 

[kunwar]

I believe that most discussion here has focussed on the greater evil which was publicised a lot more than other significant events. namely Nazi Germany. I have met germans and have several good freinds among the local australian populace with german, austrian and Italian ancestry. Believe me, they are hard working and genuinely polite and nice.

It is well known that Karajan kissed Nazi Leader's butts to move his career forward.
It is also well known that Furtwangler kissed butt to ensure the survival of the music created by gr8 german composers from Nazism and its influences.
It is also well known that Furtwangler staunchly supported his jewish cast in the orchestra and even took on Hitler in that regard. That took courage in a police state where one's rights are non-existent.

Finally it is well known that the gr8 heritage that is present in Violin and Piano music has benefited to an enormous extent from Jewish musicians contribution.

What I want to say is that in the back of my mind, Karajan will always be the eternal prick who had his selfish goals and worked towards them and he was a Nazi.
Furtwangler will forever be the gentleman conductor, who was enormously misunderstood and only after his death sadly did people realise what he had done for the world of classical music and his humanitarian outlook toward the oppressed and hunted Jewish populace in Germany.
Lastly, I am eternally thankful for all the geniuses that have turned out of the passion for musical excellence from the Jewish part of the world community especially violinists.(Heifetz,Oistrakh, Perlman, Rabin, Gil Shamam, Mintz, Menuhin, Milstein and any others that i have forgotten to mention).

 

[Svperstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakeride74 Not that I don't have confidence in your source princeton.edu but I would consider Fox News and USA Today (my source) to be more accurate and reliable.

.... umm ....

You think that Fox News is more reliable than one of the most prestigous learning institutions in the history of mankind.

I can't even think of anything to say to you.

 

[nickchen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Svperstar .... umm .... You think that Fox News is more reliable than one of the most prestigous learning institutions in the history of mankind. I can't even think of anything to say to you.

Guess, at least he has the president he aspired.