The influence of artists' ideologies or non-musical behaviors

[San Antone]

Not necessarily zealotry. Maybe somewhat hyperbolised poetry.

https://youtu.be/TKeJifOXAnA

Bob Marley's song has a message that needs repeating again and again and Sinead O'Connor was unfairly attacked after her protest (tearing the photograph).

[AnotherSpin]

Bob Marley's song has a message that needs repeating again and again and Sinead O'Connor was unfairly attacked after her protest (tearing the photograph).

The whole episode of this concert celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of Bob Dylan's career is extraordinarily moving. A fragile woman under a storm of whistles from an audience of many thousands in the MSG with very different song instead of planned Dylan's number. And her look at the end, the look of triumph.

https://youtu.be/3HwWDOQoCBM

[Florestan]

Comparing St. Constantine the Great with Charlemagne is ridiculous. The former was a legitimate Roman emperor who fostered the unity of the Church. The latter was a parvenu and an usurper who subminated Church unity, a Frankish warlord crowned "emperor" by the Patriarch of Rome who had no more authority to create an emperor than Charlemagne had to create a supreme spiritual authority in the Church. Charlemagne usurped the imperial title and the Patriarch of Rome usurped the collegial authority of the other four Patriarchs, among whom he had been just primus inter pares, not the supreme authority. The so-called Holy Roman Empire was conspicuously neithet holy nor Roman. The one, true and only Roman Empire was ruled by the Basileus in Constantinople (Byzantine is an ideologically motivated misnomer for what was never officially called anything else than Basileia ton Romaion, the Empire of the Romans). The last legitimate Roman emperor was Constantine XII Palaiologos, missing in action during the Fall of the Roman Empire in 1453.

[AnotherSpin]

Comparing St. Constantine the Great with Charlemagne is ridiculous. The former was a legitimate Roman emperor who fostered the unity of the Church. The latter was a parvenu and an usurper who subminated Church unity, a Frankish warlord crowned "emperor" by the Patriarch of Rome who had no more authority to create an emperor than Charlemagne had to create a supreme spiritual authority in the Church. Charlemagne usurped the imperial title and the Patriarch of Rome usurped the collegial authority of the other four Patriarchs, among whom he had been just primus inter pares, not the supreme authority. The so-called Holy Roman Empire was conspicuously neithet holy nor Roman. The one, true and only Roman Empire was ruled by the Basileus in Constantinople (Byzantine is an ideologically motivated misnomer for what was never officially called anything else than Basileia ton Romaion, the Empire of the Romans). The last legitimate Roman emperor was Constantine XII Palaiologos, missing in action during the Fall of the Roman Empire in 1453.

And, Constantine's niece Sophia Palaiologina became the second wife of Prince Ivan of Muscovy after the fall of Constantinople. Since that time, the Muscovy rulers began to call themselves tsars (a derivative of "Caesar"). This marriage became an important moment in the formation of the concept of "Moscow, Third Rome" and Moscow's claim to the succession of ancient Rome and a special imperial role in the world, the consequences of which we can witness today.

[Florestan]

And, Constantine's niece Sophia Palaiologina became the second wife of Prince Ivan of Muscovy after the fall of Constantinople. Since that time, the Muscovy rulers began to call themselves tsars (a derivative of "Caesar"). This marriage became an important moment in the formation of the concept of "Moscow, Third Rome" and Moscow's claim to the succession of ancient Rome and a special imperial role in the world, the consequences of which we can witness today.

The Roman Empire had no legitimate heirs. Russian claims in this respect are entirely a figment of their inagination.

[Opus131]

The whole episode of this concert celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of Bob Dylan's career is extraordinarily moving. A fragile woman under a storm of whistles from an audience of many thousands in the MSG with very different song instead of planned Dylan's number. And her look at the end, the look of triumph.

https://youtu.be/3HwWDOQoCBM

I dislike Bob Dylan as much as i dislike this woman so i was doubly non-plussed by this.

I'm not into being "moved" in such a way. Sentimentalism is another aspect of the modern world that i simply cannot suffer, and the worst thing is that it has become the dominating force in religion.

[Opus131]

Comparing St. Constantine the Great with Charlemagne is ridiculous. The former was a legitimate Roman emperor who fostered the unity of the Church. The latter was a parvenu and an usurper who subminated Church unity, a Frankish warlord crowned "emperor" by the Patriarch of Rome who had no more authority to create an emperor than Charlemagne had to create a supreme spiritual authority in the Church. Charlemagne usurped the imperial title and the Patriarch of Rome usurped the collegial authority of the other four Patriarchs, among whom he had been just primus inter pares, not the supreme authority. The so-called Holy Roman Empire was conspicuously neithet holy nor Roman. The one, true and only Roman Empire was ruled by the Basileus in Constantinople (Byzantine is an ideologically motivated misnomer for what was never officially called anything else than Basileia ton Romaion, the Empire of the Romans). The last legitimate Roman emperor was Constantine XII Palaiologos, missing in action during the Fall of the Roman Empire in 1453.

It is the prerogative of the Orthodox to see things this way (and i tend to think the Orthodox are simply a purer form of Christianity than either Catholicsm or Protestantism) but for me it is unequivocal that Charlemagne was a true champion of western Christedom, and his greatness was such that it inspired friendship even from a Muslim caliphate who was equally notable for his eroic qualities within the Muslim world.

Without Charlemagne, western Christedom would have been swept away entirely, and western Europe would have fallen to the Arians or remained within the grips of a decadent paganism.

[AnotherSpin]

I dislike Bob Dylan as much as i dislike this woman so i was doubly non-plussed by this.

It wasn't about Bob Dylan either. But, no problem

[AnotherSpin]

The Roman Empire had no legitimate heirs. Russian claims in this respect are entirely a figment of their inagination.

Which of their claims is not imagination? But, it is purely rhetoric, any claim is a product of imagination.

[Florestan]

It is the prerogative of the Orthodox to see things this way (and i tend to think the Orthodox are simply a purer form of Christianity than either Catholicsm or Protestantism) but for me it is unequivocal that Charlemagne was a true champion of western Christedom, and his greatness was such that it inspired friendship even from a Muslim caliphate who was equally notable for his eroic qualities within the Muslim world.

Without Charlemagne, western Christedom would have been swept away entirely, and western Europe would have fallen to the Arians or remained within the grips of a decadent paganism.

One could certainly see the hand of God in the fact that the Franks were the only Germanic tribe that adopted Nicene Christianity instead of Arianism, which ultimately secured the supremacy of Roman Catholicism in Western Europe for centuries. On the other hand, I fail to see the catastrophy that would have befell on Europe if Arianism would have got the upper hand. The differences between Nicene and Arian Christianity were of interest and import for theologians; the people were much less, if at all, interested in such Christological subtleties --- and the Romance people were Nicene Christians anyway, it's only the political and military elite of the Germanic kingdoms that were Arian. In terms of practical life, there would have been all the same if Arianism would have asserted itself as the dominant version of Christianity instead of Catholicism. You picture Arian Christians as particularly dangerous for civilization but nothing warrants such a view.

Besides, your claim that Charlemagne saved Western Europe from either Arianism or Paganism is not supported by chronology. Both Arianism and Paganism had been exhausted long before Charlemagne's birth. The last Arian king in Europe, Garibald of Lombardy, died in 671. As for Greco-Roman Paganism, it was already history in the times of Justinian. The only Pagans Charlemagne fought were the Saxons, but to claim they were a terrible menace for the whole Western Europe is greatly exaggerated.