How much do you need to like an artist in order to listen to him/her?

[Cosi bel do]

This is a controversial subject, but I thought it might be worth discussing. Some recent news (Anna Netrebko posing with the Ukrainian "secessionist" flag, the debate about the Wiener Philharmoniker), and a few things I saw on the forum playlist led me to think about it again.

The basic questions would be:
- how do you feel, or do you feel anything at all, when listening to artists whose political ideas or
- do you need to personally disculp a person in order to respect his/her work ?

For instance, the following examples, and what you feel or think about them, are interesting:

- Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg: antisemitic work or not? Should modern stagings edulcorate the character of Beckmesser, or tackle Wagner's antisemitism?
- Furtwängler, Karajan, Böhm: does the attitude of one or all of these prevent you to appreciate some of their work? Which of these attitudes do you find respectable (Furtwängler's "Innere emigration"? Karajan's temporary affiliation to the Party for probably purely opportunistic reasons? Böhm's official neutrality but personal durable endorsement of nazi ideas?)
- Valery Gergiev, Anna Netrebko: these two figures have publicly supported Vladimir Putin, in his most questionable actions. Does that make you think twice when thinking about buying a CD or a seat?
- On the contrary, would you avoid a concert by Boulez or Pollini, or a performance of works by Berio or Nono, for their sympathies with the left, or even past affiliation to the communist party?

There are also other examples than purely political:
- Robert King: do you feel like listening to someone who has been convicted for sexually abusing young boys (but who is certainly a very fine conductor and scholar)? If yes, does conviction make a difference, as opposed to strong suspicions, then lifted, for instance in the case of Mikhail Pletnev?
- Or, on a different matter, what about the events (mass murders/suicides) of the Order of the Solar Temple, in which the conductor Michel Tabachnik was a guru, only to be cleared of charges after 10 years of procedure? Would that be a source of unease for you, if you had an opportunity to see him in concert for instance?

[Cosi bel do]

Of course I'll answer to my own questions myself.

- Regarding political ideas, I consider that as long as my money doesn't go in the pocket of a living artist, I won't avoid him on such grounds. But I don't think any excuses should be made around figures like Furtwängler, Karajan or Böhm. The three of them had questionable attitudes, even if Böhm was probably the most detestable of the three. The same thing could actually be said about Mravinsky, who used his political ties with the Soviet establishment as much as he could, and generally avoided scores that could be critical against the regime.

- It's different with current artists. I'll avoid seeing Gergiev in concert, and buying his CDs (of course, that's also because I consider him a bad conductor, whose career was actually built on his political ties, not unlike Mravinsky's even if they are in very different leagues in artistic terms). Same thing with Netrebko now. I just don't want to be part of their audiences, if they consider these to be an endorsement of their ideas.
Paradoxically, I still consider that an artist should declare what his ideas are, and defend the causes he finds good. I prefer to deal with someone openly fascist, than with someone who says nothing but has nonetheless opinions I would not like.

- I avoid Robert King and Tabachnik. There are other sufficiently good artists not to have to listen to them in general. Would I go see them if they performed something very rare, unique ? I don't know. 
Also, I never heard Pletnev in concert, but I don't know if I'd avoid him. Because that means I would consider I know better than judges on matter on which I know nothing (of course that would also apply to Tabachnik).
This kind of moral issues creates kind of a grey zone. But I don't want not to deal with them either.

[kishnevi]

I have only one red line:  no recordings of performances from the Third Reich.  Furtwangler 1950 fine.  Furtwangler 1944 never.
Everything else is case by case.

[Brian]

Also, I never heard Pletnev in concert, but I don't know if I'd avoid him. Because that means I would consider I know better than judges on matter on which I know nothing (of course that would also apply to Tabachnik).

May I ask, sincerely: why do you know you would avoid Tabachnik, but you do not know about Pletnev?

I agree with you on Pletnev: maybe he did those things, but the Thai police are also notorious for corruption and, basically, kidnapping. To me there is reasonable doubt of Pletnev's guilt, so I will assume he is innocent. But Tabachnik was found not guilty by two courts. Do you think they were wrong?

I have no issue admiring the artwork of un-admirable people. I watch Polanski films, read Alice in Wonderland, listen to Saint-Saens, and occasionally enjoy Wagner. But the enjoyment of their art is different from forgiveness for their acts.

The great thing about art is that people can create works which are far better and more important than their creators. This is a sort of magic.

[Fagotterdämmerung]

   It's always a question of "Who benefits?"

   For an example, I'm a fan of the somewhat obscure composer Florent Schmitt. There is a good deal of evidence he was a virulent anti-Semite, yet I can't think of a single work of his in which this is even hinted at. As he himself is dead and reaps no benefit from my patronage, I have no issues supporting and even promoting his body of works as the enjoyable collection of music it is.

   With living artists, it is definitely different. There are some people whose opinions and connections would prevent me from supporting them ( to not let this derail into a discussion of them, rather than my approach to their output, I'll not name names ).

   With works that send a message I disapprove of, yet whose creators are deceased, it becomes more complicated. I believe as a society we should be mature enough to realize the values of the past are not our own, and be able to take what's worthwhile artistically from these works while acknowledging their inherent flaws. Perhaps that's overly idealistic, but I don't believe censoring of modifying them is the route to go: let's get comfortable talking about what makes them uncomfortable for modern audiences.

[Cosi bel do]

May I ask, sincerely: why do you know you would avoid Tabachnik, but you do not know about Pletnev?

I agree with you on Pletnev: maybe he did those things, but the Thai police are also notorious for corruption and, basically, kidnapping. To me there is reasonable doubt of Pletnev's guilt, so I will assume he is innocent. But Tabachnik was found not guilty by two courts. Do you think they were wrong?

Well, that's the thing: there's less chances that Tabachnik's actions, as described by different investigations, are entirely false than in the case of Pletnev. And the details of the Tabachnik case are appalling. He was cleared of charges because he did not kill anyone, but he professed murder as a guru (to say it simply). So, really, can I consider him innocent? In regards with the law, maybe, but morally?

But when saying "I'm not sure in case it is exceptional/rare/etc.", I was including both Pletnev and Tabachnik.

I have no issue admiring the artwork of un-admirable people. I watch Polanski films, read Alice in Wonderland, listen to Saint-Saens, and occasionally enjoy Wagner. But the enjoyment of their art is different from forgiveness for their acts.

The great thing about art is that people can create works which are far better and more important than their creators. This is a sort of magic.

Yes. But on the case of Wagner, the Meistersinger are openly antisemitic. And I'd like that to be tackled for once by someone. I mean, it's fine to put nazi uniforms in any other Wagner opera, or in Tosca or La traviata, but when Die Meistersinger is staged, this aspect always has to be erased. Which is a way to make this opera acceptable out of an unacceptable basis, and not a fine way to deal with history.

[Wakefield]

I have this political principle in Arts which was admirably stated by Oscar Wilde in the very first line of his preface to "The Picture of Dorian Gray":

"The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."

Other people can choose other principles, but they will probably have to accept some not very pleasant partners on the path. 

[Brian]

And the details of the Tabachnik case are appalling. He was cleared of charges because he did not kill anyone, but he professed murder as a guru (to say it simply).

Oh, thank you for posting that. English language articles about Tabachnik posted by BBC News did not explain his defense or the evidence presented at trial.

[Cosi bel do]

I have this political principle in Arts which was admirably stated by Oscar Wilde in the very first line of his preface to "The Picture of Dorian Gray":

"The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."

Other people can choose other principles, but they will probably have to accept some not very pleasant partners on the path. 

But does this general stand is valid whoever the "artist" is, and whatever the circumstances? I mean, going to a performance by Anna Netrebko today would be financing, even if not directly, the Putin regime and the secessionist in Eastern Ukraine. If one doesn't openly support that "cause", I don't see how can one say "I don't care, it's none of my business, I just come for the artistic performance".

[jochanaan]

But does this general stand is valid whoever the "artist" is, and whatever the circumstances? I mean, going to a performance by Anna Netrebko today would be financing, even if not directly, the Putin regime and the secessionist in Eastern Ukraine. If one doesn't openly support that "cause", I don't see how can one say "I don't care, it's none of my business, I just come for the artistic performance".

Maybe one should go--but bring a sign.

[Sammy]

The only person on the OP's list that weighs on me is Robert King who was convicted of molesting boys; the fact that he denied the charges makes me think even worse of him.

This wouldn't be of any musical significance to me except that I've found King the best conductor of Handel's vocal works.  Anyways, King is now out of jail and making recordings again.  To my surprise, I haven't acquired any of those new recordings and doubt I ever will.  I just can't bring myself to click on "Buy".

[The new erato]

I must to admit regarding Tabachnik that, whatever his guilt or not, I would never listen to him due to the fact that I could not take him seriously as an artist believing in that twaddle.

[kishnevi]

Well, that's the thing: there's less chances that Tabachnik's actions, as described by different investigations, are entirely false than in the case of Pletnev. And the details of the Tabachnik case are appalling. He was cleared of charges because he did not kill anyone, but he professed murder as a guru (to say it simply). So, really, can I consider him innocent? In regards with the law, maybe, but morally?

But when saying "I'm not sure in case it is exceptional/rare/etc.", I was including both Pletnev and Tabachnik.

Yes. But on the case of Wagner, the Meistersinger are openly antisemitic. And I'd like that to be tackled for once by someone. I mean, it's fine to put nazi uniforms in any other Wagner opera, or in Tosca or La traviata, but when Die Meistersinger is staged, this aspect always has to be erased. Which is a way to make this opera acceptable out of an unacceptable basis, and not a fine way to deal with history.

I know the argument that Beckmesser is an antisemitic caricature, but covertly.  I don't really agree with it.  The true problem is Sach's oration in praise of true German art, so called, and productions have been facing up to that...or not...for decades.  Being Jewish, I tend to note antisemitism, but I do not really see it there.  If it were, it would not be one of my favorite operas.

If you want a piece that is antisemitic, then what about the St. John Passion, based on the gospel most hostile to Jews?the one used to justify Christian hate of Jews for centuries?

[Todd]

I don't care about artists' political views or personal habits when listening to, looking at, or watching their works.  I care about the art.  My life would be less enjoyable if I limited myself to only nice guys and gals.  I mean, were I to adopt a morals clause of sorts, in addition to skipping the artists already mentioned, I'd have to forgo gazing at Picasso's works because he beat women, or watching Roman Polanski's movies because he raped a girl.  I accept that some artists are reprehensible people.

[Brian]

I must to admit regarding Tabachnik that, whatever his guilt or not, I would never listen to him due to the fact that I could not take him seriously as an artist believing in that twaddle.

Do you avoid movies with Scientologist actors? Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies.

Tabachnik had crazy and dangerous ideas about other things, but that is different from his ideas about music. Same for Alexander Scriabin.

[Moonfish]

I have only one red line:  no recordings of performances from the Third Reich.  Furtwangler 1950 fine.  Furtwangler 1944 never.
Everything else is case by case.

What about performances from Stalin's Soviet Union? Wouldn't they fall in the same tier as the Third Reich recordings in your book?

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't care about artists' political views or personal habits when listening to, looking at, or watching their works.  I care about the art.  My life would be less enjoyable if I limited myself to only nice guys and gals.  I mean, were I to adopt a morals clause of sorts, in addition to skipping the artists already mentioned, I'd have to forgo gazing at Picasso's works because he beat women, or watching Roman Polanski's movies because he raped a girl.  I accept that some artists are reprehensible people.

Ditto.

I don't care about the artist, whether it is composer or performer. I only care about the art.

[Jo498]

The praise of German Art in Meistersinger is not really referring to anything specifically German, although "welscher Tand" is denigrated and we might think that this should mean Italian and French Opera. But the main point seems to be that Art and Culture are more important to "national identity" than the political structures (Even if the Holy Roman Empire fell, there would still remain the Holy German Art). This may be nationalist, but it seems simply true.

I don't know, but it seems that Beckmesser and his singing style (also Mime) follow certain antisemitic tropes of Wagner's time and I have even read the claim that their singing was supposed to ridicule synagogal chant. But apparently all this is not obvious to 21st century audiences and of course nothing in the opera  gives any indication that Beckmesser is not German. (With the antisemitism of the 16th century it seems very unlikely that a Jew would be admitted to such an important office.) If we did not know about Wagner's antisemitism I doubt that anyone would declare any of his operas "antisemitic". And the only one which is openly nationalist is Meistersinger. Do we have qualms about Smetana and Elgar  who were probably more nationalist than Wagner as well?

With the St. John Passion it is the fault of the Gospel of John. What was Bach supposed to do? You don't just leave out bits of scripture when setting such a piece.

[Purusha]

I don't have a problem enjoying Mozart, even though he hated Italians. 

[kishnevi]

What about performances from Stalin's Soviet Union? Wouldn't they fall in the same tier as the Third Reich recordings in your book?

1) The Holocaust casts a long shadow if you are Jewish. (Everyone in my grandparents's families who remained in Europe died at some point during the Holocaust, except one group of cousins whose survival story included hiding in nrighbor's oven and a treck mostly on foot from Moldava to Shanghai).  Putting aside Furtwangler himself and the other musicians involved, at least some of the people in that audience were actively helping the campaign to kill Jews as part of their day jobs.  The problem was not so acute in the 50s.
2) As a practical matter, I have few recordings from the Soviet Union, and none from the Stalin years.  Dislike of historical sound and Soviet sonics is the real reason.  What I do have is almost completely Shostakovich, and some Tchaikovsky.