GMG Classical Music Forum

This is a minor peeve of mine. Occasionally I run across a claim (or assumption) that a certain style (genre, piece, etc.) is important because it reflects certain political or religious values. Often there seems to be an underlying assumption that the ideology of the piece is more important than the artistry that went into it. This is especially annoying if the piece has no discernable ideology behind it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3752

I frequently see this attitude on conservative sites - they seem to believe that if you are conservative politically (or religiously), you won't like anything more radical than Brahms or Rachmaninoff. In fact, you have a duty to like "conservative" music! Dissonance is equated with liberalism or radicalism.

One sees how insipid this attitude is when considering that such modernist "radicals" included figures like Schoenberg (monarchist, patriot, German cultural chauvinist) and Stravinsky (monarchist, Orthodox Christian, anti-Bolshevik).

In short: there is no such thing as a musical genre or style that is inherently liberal, conservative, socialist, Catholic, traditionalist, or anything else; and people who assume that there is are more interested in ideology than in art.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Very interesting subject! I have thought about the same. I always thought that the school repetoire of musical developement is often based on works that shows best an ideology, fx Stravinsky and Bartok are considered more important composers than Prokofiev and Balakiev, but probably just because they work better as school examples of styles.

Also I have the impression, that many composers are mixing the subject theory up with their music. I see theory as a natural disciplin for composers as a state that comes entirely before the single musical idea. Theory can be solving certain kinds of problems, but it can also be very abstract as a particular subject, that the composer finds interresting, fx astrology, evolution, quantum physics etc. In both cases the idea with theory is to open up ones perspective to the world in which he will find inspiration. That means, that any musical inspiration must always come after the theory has been done, since if you already got the inspiration, the whole idea with theory mixed into it, wouldn´t make any theoretical sence. The theory is the aim of solving problems with music in general, and composition is solving problems in music. The same can be said for theory as for religion, politic and culture, in my opinion those factors are all just included in theory of music.

As a composer I have been fascinated of the question, what distances/values/durations has the greatest probability among short and long, high or low? My idea is, that it would help me in the future to search for inspiration without getting too stuck with musical habbits. But I would consider it exagerated to write a piece that shows the very ideology, an etude on distance/value/duration. Which I think many does! One of my friends recently wrote a piece called evolution, it was like a transcription of evolution on individual elements. If I was interrested in evolution, I would only use it to force my daily work and behavior forward in order to become a better composer.

You are often taught be teachers that this composer or work is better to study than another, because there is more than just musical interrests in it. The problem is, that music gets avant-garde-like in that way. I never write radical music, I only think and work radically.

I certainly don't think that there is a one-to-one, and, as you say, an inherent, connection, but, as you point out in your post, some folks will seek out and "acquire a taste" for  a kind of music that is sanctioned as the one that best fits their worldview/class. An example can be seen in how kids in high school may want to be identified with a group that has its music, language, way of dress.

And if some folks align their tastes according to their ideology, self-identity, politics, etc., you can find plenty of examples of music  deliberately written to reflect an ideology, either in text, structure, or syntax  -- Ives, Cardew, Rzewski, de Volharding. And there is music that followed rules that were strictly prescribed to reflect the will of say, the Council of Trent. So, whether that ideology is "inherent" in such music, is hard to say, since, over time, the context in which music is written leeches away and the music itself, like words, takes on different meanings.

I have encountered political and social conservatives who like Ives because of all of the hymn tunes and marches, and most of the folks I sit with in concerts of Palestrina or Josquin are not Catholics, and Mick Jagger is now Sir Mick.

'

Madame Dax maintains that in the world of television music, there are such things as medical rhythms, police melodies and communist chords.

So here's the opening of Ervin Schulhoff's oratorio The Communist Manifesto.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/b4dxxh

Quote from: Dax on December 28, 2009, 06:04:12 AM
Madame Dax maintains that in the world of television music, there are such things as medical rhythms, police melodies and communist chords.

So here's the opening of Ervin Schulhoff's oratorio The Communist Manifesto.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/b4dxxh

I have wanted to infiltrate the music dep't of a southern high school and "compose" their school song to the tune of "The Internationale," and see how long it would take anyone to notice.

...
  So classmates all, come rally
And every fight we'll face
  With Bobcat pride and honor
Our school will win the race

'

Quote from: Velimir on December 28, 2009, 02:10:31 AM
In short: there is no such thing as a musical genre or style that is inherently liberal, conservative, socialist, Catholic, traditionalist, or anything [...]

This opening statement of yours would be my conclusion of the whole thing.  8)

The problem to me seems to be that the use of terms "conservative" and "progressive" to describe both political positions and styles of music. One feels that to be consistent, one must be progressive or conservative in all areas.  Many composers who are liberal politically can be conservative musically. Bernstein comes to mind,   though why his music should be called conservative when the music of someone like Babbitt is "progressive" is problematic to me, since Babbitt's aesthetic requires a strict adherence to as many rules as tonal composition. (For the record, I prefer Babbitt. And off the top of my head I can't name any politically conservative living composers.) Perhaps it is simply that one is thought of more as forward looking and the other as backward looking, though all music, to be original, must be to a certain extent forward looking, just as all music (at least art music) must take part in the tradition to be regarded as music at all.

My favorite example of the paradox is the "conservative" Brahms, whose music was beloved of liberal German parliamentarians in the 19th century, vs. the "radical" Wagner, who was taken up by the most reactionary, antisemitic, and, let's face it, awful elements of the fin de siecle, both German and Austrian.

Strange, though, how cultural conservatives seem to get wired about stuff that was radical two hundred years ago ...

Quote from: Joe Barron on December 28, 2009, 10:37:36 AM
Strange, though, how cultural conservatives seem to get wired about stuff that was radical two hundred years ago ...

That's always struck me as funny. Figures like Beethoven get held up as exemplars of "conservative taste," even though they were regarded as uncouth radicals in their own time.

Another irony: the cultural conservative approach is very like that of Stalin-era socialist realism: healthy, "uplifting" subject matter; established forms; and no nasty dissonances to befuddle the masses.

Quote from: Joe Barron on December 28, 2009, 10:34:13 AM
The problem to me seems to be that the use of terms "conservative" and "progressive" to describe both political positions and styles of music. One feels that to be consistent, one must be progressive or conservative in all areas.  Many composers who are liberal politically can be conservative musically. Bernstein comes to mind,   though why his music should be called conservative when the music of someone like Babbitt is "progressive" is problematic to me, since Babbitt's aesthetic requires a strict adherence to as many rules as tonal composition. (For the record, I prefer Babbitt. And off the top of my head I can't name any politically conservative living composers.) Perhaps it is simply that one is thought of more as forward looking and the other as backward looking, though all music, to be original, must be to a certain extent forward looking, just as all music (at least art music) must take part in the tradition to be regarded as music at all.

My favorite example of the paradox is the "conservative" Brahms, whose music was beloved of liberal German parliamentarians in the 19th century, vs. the "radical" Wagner, who was taken up by the most reactionary, antisemitic, and, let's face it, awful elements of the fin de siecle, both German and Austrian.

I feel exactly like that, and I´m often getting misunderstood as a person because of my musical taste. I hate culture and people and see myself as a complete anarchist, and I sympathize most for the criminals, but at the same time the classical tradition is for me the most holy in music.

Quote from: ' on December 28, 2009, 04:14:57 AM
And if some folks align their tastes according to their ideology, self-identity, politics, etc., you can find plenty of examples of music  deliberately written to reflect an ideology, either in text, structure, or syntax  -- Ives, Cardew, Rzewski, de Volharding. And there is music that followed rules that were strictly prescribed to reflect the will of say, the Council of Trent.

Which is a critic, that Im sorry to hear about Ives. I agree that he demonstrated experiments in his music, but I have always tried to think that it was ´just appearing´, and that his songs fx are also very focussed on the sound and excitement of the complexity as more clean musical thought than just "examples of what a composer should not do", as he describes. The composed errors in Ives songs also appear to be not as frequent as one could imagine, but perhabs he was doing this in order to make them sound even more like real mistakes. Fx in Grülle Nacht you have several minuttes of strictly romantic lied style before it is suddently crashing totally into mud. One could also imagine that inside Ives head, this was how music should naturally sound, as most things in the world are not that nice at all, so it is a rational musical language rather than experiments.

Also if you have a theory about how music should sound, it is a fine ballance how much it influences your music, since the musical idea on the one hand should not be formed of anything else but it self, which is impossible to avoid completely. We will always base our imagination of how structures works and what possibilities the music have from what we know about the world, from the music that opens up our eyes especially. We can only try to make the musical idea arise through unconscious imagination, which is somehow linked to the conscious one, and both are limitted. What I hate is, that when most people listen to music of any time, they often seem to value it for more than musical qualities.

Can't really make sense of your comments on Ives.

Apart from anything Grülle Nacht isn't a song by him - I guess you mean Ich grolle night? It's just 3 minutes long, and there's no real disjunct in style - its a late romantic song and is entitle to chromaticism after all! But it certainly doesn't crash into anything at the end - there an energetic episode about 3/4 of the way through but it quickly calms down again...

There's lots of material around (best of all in the Jan Swafford biography of him) which explain his political, religious and humanistic leanings and how these are expressed in the music.

that´s what I mean, the song is more romantic than modern, but it really does crash around 3/4 shortly in a very harsh way. My point is, that many of his songs doesn´t sound experimental but musical. I don´t want to call it a musical taste but a universal progress. But then of cause the same can be said about every single composers on the planet. Well, ok, I like the word Ideological Predisposition  ;D

Quote from: Guido on December 29, 2009, 09:36:41 AM
I guess you mean Ich grolle night?

Nicht nacht, nicht.
I also was puzzled by the comment, but I am not sure I was parsing your sentences correctly, Mikkel. Will seek clarification later. 

Not characteristic Ives --  count it as a student work.  I do like, or am at least amused by,  how Ivesrepeats "Ich grolle nicht" as in "doth protest too much," and that rare ornament in the first measure (piano and then in the voice). Hard to find such in Ives -- and the occurrence in the Piano Trio seems like either a reference to, or unconscious evocation of the romanticism of the song.
'

Quote from: ' on December 29, 2009, 10:04:16 AM
Nicht nacht, nicht.
Not characteristic Ives --  count it as a student work.  '

But all his songs are quite different. I also remember there was a beautyful christmas carol!  :o So isn´t it normal for Ives to write things that doesn´t even sound like himself? Fx compare his first and last symphonies.  :P I thought Grolle Nicht or Nacht was a typical and wellwritten Ives piece.

Quote from: mikkeljs on December 29, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
But all his songs are quite different. I also remember there was a beautyful christmas carol!  :o So isn´t it normal for Ives to write things that doesn´t even sound like himself? Fx compare his first and last symphonies.  :P I thought Grolle Nicht or Nacht was a typical and wellwritten Ives piece.

Yes, you are absolutely correct about the songs all being quite different, but there is a class of student pieces where one senses that he isn't given a free rein. Those German songs were a class project (I _think_ that all of them were), and I remember that he was complimented on one  (Ich Grolle Nicht I think) by a composer visiting Parker's class (who? Chadwick?) for showing something that Schumann hadn't. Sorry, sketchy here. Someone less so will likely swoop in before I am home with time to confirm or correct.

First Symphony also was a Yale composition, and for a lot of this music he was on a shorter leash studying with Horatio Parker.

And that little Christmas Carol is a lovely thing, with its little shifted beats: "Little town of Bethlehem, do we see thee..."

'

I just remember the Ich Grolle Nicht had some really disturbing chords that sounded like they were not really leading in any direction at all. Maybe it has been a spell mistake in the notes, I double checked it.

Arg cant believe I got it wrong when I was correcting it! Of course it's Nicht!

Anyway, the German song that Ives was praised for was Feldeninsamkeit which is probably the best of the German language songs - Parker grumbled about it modulating too much, but the visiting professor Chadwick (Parker's own teacher) said that it was in its way as good as Brahms (or something to that effect) and also that it was as good as anything that Parker could have written (much to Ives' delight I am sure).

This is all remembered from the Swafford biography which is not with me at the moment, so I can't be sure if I'm right....

Sorry, quite off topic now.

I figured it was a fingerslip, but who could resist the nicht knock?

Thanks for sorting out the story; I had forgotten that Chadwick's comment was also a dig at Parker.

(Still holding out hope for Ha-Ho Chorales).
'

Quote from: ' on December 29, 2009, 03:14:49 PM
(Still holding out hope for Ha-Ho Chorales).
'

(Me too!)

Ideological predisposition does not foster an open musical mind.  And musical curiosity tends to cross ideological barriers.  At least, that's been my experience. 8)

Quote from: Christo on December 28, 2009, 06:37:39 AM
This opening statement of yours would be my conclusion of the whole thing.  8)

I agree with you both 100%. A Rose is a Rose is a Rose so to speak, a listener can make what ever meaning they want from a piece.

Keep in mind the musical "taste" of the totalitarian regimes in e.g.  Russia, Germany, and China.

Socialist Realism says it all.

Quote from: Cato on January 04, 2010, 05:49:52 AM
Keep in mind the musical "taste" of the totalitarian regimes in e.g.  Russia, Germany, and China.

Socialist Realism says it all.

Such idealogy (socialist realism, "Praise" music, etc) does not ensure that the result will be crap, but it certainly increases the likelihood.'

Quote from: Velimir on December 28, 2009, 02:10:31 AM
This is a minor peeve of mine. Occasionally I run across a claim (or assumption) that a certain style (genre, piece, etc.) is important because it reflects certain political or religious values. Often there seems to be an underlying assumption that the ideology of the piece is more important than the artistry that went into it. This is especially annoying if the piece has no discernable ideology behind it.

As much as I love music and art, I think it is wishful thinking to believe that it is somehow an entity unto itself. Like pretty much anything else, it is not immune from politics, ideology, or religion. A few artists do a good job at sometimes appearing immune, but no one is totally unbiased.

Music is simply a reflection of who we are, and it will show up to some degree in our collective worldviews and faiths, or in the state of our societies or culture at any given time.

QuoteI frequently see this attitude on conservative sites - they seem to believe that if you are conservative politically (or religiously), you won't like anything more radical than Brahms or Rachmaninoff.

How can one know for sure how some conservatives feel or believe about these things if they are not one themselves? For some liberals, anything goes, and more is never enough, but conservatives can set limits, and still be happy. I can easily spend the rest of my life listening and studying to the core classical repertory alone, and not be left feeling unfulfilled, not that I don't enjoy other styles as well.

There are some kinds of music I myself love in a carnal way, (I'm talking about rock/pop here) but deep down I know it's not good for me in the long run, and I wouldn't want my children being influenced by it in the way I was (with all the accompanying problems), so I do my best to avoid it. The artistic merit of the music doesn't always automatically trump my beliefs, no matter how good it is.

Also, I think that most people view classical music in general as being conservative (especially those that don't listen to it) at least when compared to other popular forms of music today.

QuoteIn fact, you have a duty to like "conservative" music! Dissonance is equated with liberalism or radicalism.

Ultimately, we have a duty to follow our own consciences. I don't always agree with other conservatives on the topic of music, but they can always make suggestions or state there cases. This doesn't offend me.

QuoteOne sees how insipid this attitude is when considering that such modernist "radicals" included figures like Schoenberg (monarchist, patriot, German cultural chauvinist) and Stravinsky (monarchist, Orthodox Christian, anti-Bolshevik).

Agreed here. Although I don't know much about of their personal lives, from what you say I can't see why anyone would view them as radicals in a political sense.

QuoteIn short: there is no such thing as a musical genre or style that is inherently liberal, conservative, socialist, Catholic, traditionalist, or anything else; and people who assume that there is are more interested in ideology than in art.

I'd have to disagree here. Some musical styles, like punk/rap/metal and even soft rock, obviously stand poles apart from more conservative styles, both artistically and ideologically.

Thank you for the interesting article! :)

Quote from: Velimir on December 28, 2009, 02:10:31 AM
Stravinsky (monarchist, Orthodox Christian, anti-Bolshevik).

Now I know why I love Petrushka: ideological affinity. :)

Not related to music, but somehow on topic: I am a staunch conservative yet I like leftist writers such as Garcia Marquez, Alejo Carpentier or Jose Saramago.

    What is the ideology of soft rock? Has it something to do with dentists offices?

    I don't usually see music as expressing an ideology but sometimes it's intended to, so that might factor in. However, you could take the example of Bruckner whose music is intended to express a particular ideology, yet while that way of interpreting it is available it isn't natural to me. I tend to hear his music not much differently than if he had written it as a purely aesthetic project. I see no reason not to do this since composers frequently produce music for ideological purposes they don't share. In either case there's little chance of missing something I need to get. By pretending  that the music serves only musical ends, I'm probably giving myself and the composer the benefit of the doubt. Artists are not often thinkers, so it's better not to dwell on what they do poorly when they're so good at what they do best.

My observation is that conservative people prefer "pathetic" music, i.e. Bach and Beethoven - Rachmaninoff.
Mozart, Haydn and parts of Mendelssohn's music is not being taken serious by those people, because it is to "leightweight".
Does anybody share my view?

Quote from: rappy on January 05, 2010, 01:42:26 AM
My observation is that conservative people prefer "pathetic" music, i.e. Bach and Beethoven - Rachmaninoff.
Mozart, Haydn and parts of Mendelssohn's music is not being taken serious by those people, because it is to "leightweight".
Does anybody share my view?

I can offer me as a counter-example. :)

Quote from: rappy on January 05, 2010, 01:42:26 AM
My observation is that conservative people prefer "pathetic" music, i.e. Bach and Beethoven - Rachmaninoff.
Mozart, Haydn and parts of Mendelssohn's music is not being taken serious by those people, because it is to "lightweight".
Does anybody share my view?

No, and like Florestan I am also a counter-example!   $:)

And since when are Mozart and Haydn and Mendelssohn "lightweight"?!   :o

Quote from: Cristofori on January 04, 2010, 11:09:33 PM
As much as I love music and art, I think it is wishful thinking to believe that it is somehow an entity unto itself. Like pretty much anything else, it is not immune from politics, ideology, or religion.

Then you can help me out a great deal, here!

With exactly what politics, ideology or religion is JS Bach's C Major Prelude & Fugue from Book I of the Well-Tempered Clavier freighted?  And how do we know this?

TIA.

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2010, 01:20:05 AM

Quote from: VelimirStravinsky (monarchist, Orthodox Christian, anti-Bolshevik).

Now I know why I love Petrushka: ideological affinity. :)

Hah!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 05, 2010, 04:16:08 AM
Then you can help me out a great deal, here!

With exactly what politics, ideology or religion is JS Bach's C Major Prelude & Fugue from Book I of the Well-Tempered Clavier freighted?  And how do we know this?

TIA.

A1: The Virgin Mary.
A2: Gounod tagged it.
Actually, Schencker might use it as an example for his claims about god and that flavor on tonal syntax.
'

I like your sense of humor!

My point of course is that Cristofori's assertion that music "is not immune from politics, ideology, or religion" is in obvious error.  The fact that some music is apparently political, ideological or religious, does not mean that all music must be political, ideological or religious.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 05, 2010, 05:45:52 AM
I like your sense of humor!

My point of course is that Cristofori's assertion that music "is not immune from politics, ideology, or religion" is in obvious error.  The fact that some music is apparently political, ideological or religious, does not mean that all music must be political, ideological or religious.

But not being immune doesn't imply being infected, and certainly much of Bach's music clearly is, and some of it, maybe even WTCI:1 may be idealogical in that sense the Schenker wrote about. Or in that sense of Norman O. Brown's comment "syntax is the arrangement of the army"
'

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 05, 2010, 04:16:08 AM
Then you can help me out a great deal, here!

With exactly what politics, ideology or religion is JS Bach's C Major Prelude & Fugue from Book I of the Well-Tempered Clavier freighted?  And how do we know this?

TIA.

Since Bach was a devout Christian, and signed most of his works Solo Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone), we can assume that he dedicated them to God. Just because the work has no religious text doesn't necessarily matter to the Christian, who might follow this principle:

1 Corinthians 10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Of course, I can't read minds, and your right, we can't always know what was intended for any given piece of music, But we can sometimes get a good glimpse into the composers by what we do know, and the way they behaved, and the things they said and did.

Just like a grinding, wrenching, heavy instrumental from Metallica can reveal their composers characters, worldviews and attitudes, so I believe religion or some other worldview can play a small part in the creation of a piece, even if it's a minor wordless one.

Now if your talking about a composer merely trifling about or writing something comical or that is only intended to be instructional, well then yes that music can be meaningless or neutral.

But that's not serious heartfelt composition.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 05, 2010, 05:45:52 AM
I like your sense of humor!

My point of course is that Cristofori's assertion that music "is not immune from politics, ideology, or religion" is in obvious error.  The fact that some music is apparently political, ideological or religious, does not mean that all music must be political, ideological or religious.

OK, I'll grant you that. Not ALL music must be political, ideological or religious, or ANTI any one of those things, but much of it is to a certain extent. To make the argument in the opposite extreme is also an erronous one.

I'm just generally opposed to the idea that all music is somehow neutral, or is to be only judged or accepted solely on artistic or musical merit alone.

Quote from: Cristofori on January 05, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
...Just like a grinding, wrenching, heavy instrumental from Metallica can reveal their composers characters, worldviews and attitudes, so I believe religion or some other worldview can play a small part in the creation of a piece, even if it's a minor wordless one...

In the 1980s there was a band called Stryper who were just about as "heavy metal" as Metallica--but whose members were born-again Christians who would end their concerts by throwing Bibles into the audience. ;D Resurrection Band (sometimes called Rez Band) was another heavy-metal Christian band, a little earlier and sounding more Led Zeppelin than Metallica. 8)

You really can't judge a musician's character by the kind of music s/he plays and loves. :)

Quote from: Cristofori on January 05, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Since Bach was a devout Christian, and signed most of his works Solo Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone), we can assume that he dedicated them to God. Just because the work has no religious text doesn't necessarily matter to the Christian. . .

We may be able to assume certain things about Bach and his attitude toward his music from his biography, but that has nothing to do with the listeners throughout the ages who have heard his music and reacted to it according to their own tastes.  In my experience, ideology and religion have little or nothing to do with one's attitude toward Bach.  People of all ideologies love his music, and one need not be Christian to appreciate the magnificence of the Mass in B Minor.  It sometimes astounds me that people with whom I disagree on almost all of the burning cultural and political issues of the day are in complete agreement with me about the music of Bach (and other composers).   Perhaps that is a hallmark of truly great music--it transcends the ideologies of composers, performers, and listeners alike and brings us (not everyone, of course, but some of us) to a new realm where the old divisions no longer signify.

By the same token, ideology and religion are no guarantors of musical taste.  I know many Christians whose taste runs much more toward Amy Grant than Anna Magdalena.  Now, Anna Magdalena, there's a sad story and an object lesson in the limited success of applied Christianity in practice, but that's another topic altogether. . .

Quote from: secondwind on January 08, 2010, 07:09:30 AM
We may be able to assume certain things about Bach and his attitude toward his music from his biography, but that has nothing to do with the listeners throughout the ages who have heard his music and reacted to it according to their own tastes.  In my experience, ideology and religion have little or nothing to do with one's attitude toward Bach.  People of all ideologies love his music, and one need not be Christian to appreciate the magnificence of the Mass in B Minor.  It sometimes astounds me that people with whom I disagree on almost all of the burning cultural and political issues of the day are in complete agreement with me about the music of Bach (and other composers).   Perhaps that is a hallmark of truly great music--it transcends the ideologies of composers, performers, and listeners alike and brings us (not everyone, of course, but some of us) to a new realm where the old divisions no longer signify.

Excellent post.

Quote from: jochanaan on January 03, 2010, 02:58:56 PM
Ideological predisposition does not foster an open musical mind.  And musical curiosity tends to cross ideological barriers.  At least, that's been my experience. 8)

       The reason it sometimes appears that ideology does not act as a barrier is because you're looking at a very special population. Musical curiousity among the irreligious art cultists* causes us to explore all kinds of music regardless of the predilections of the composer or the ostensible purpose of the work. Is everyone similarly open-minded? No, the art cult is its own ideology with its own habits and practices. The behavior of composers is instructive. They go along, as many listeners do, using the stories and symbols of a culture they live in, understanding it in their own way. Whitman can only be adapted so many times (many, but not many more). Listeners and artists that are both free to make use of what they find and desire to do so have a flexabilty of mind and disposition that isn't found everywhere. Most people have no ability to "transcode" messages like this. They think what they believe is true like gravity and art cultists are either degenerate or idolatrous. They're wrong, actually. Art cultists are really demonstraing they're not idolatrous by broadly sampling music produced by different belief systems. You have to have a special understanding of ideologies to translate them. It's not the usual way.

      _{* I mean irreligious in the operational sense, not avowed atheist/agnostics.}

Tonality Is God

It's possible to construe that the system of tonality itself, based on an hierarchy of sonance in relation to a single tonic note, as the harmonics of a fundamental note relate, is a "sacred" concept, since it relates every diverse harmonic function to a tonic, which becomes the "great note,' metaphorically representing God, "the one."

These harmonic functions of Western tonality are based on the division of the octave into 12 notes, which was derived from the Pythagoran (imperfect) cycling of the 2:3 perfect fifth, with its inverted counterpart, the 4:5 perfect fourth.

Fifths are a value of 7 semitones, and fourths are 5 semitones. These are the only two intervals which do not coincide within the octave or divide it evenly until many cycles of projection are completed; in the case of fifths, 12 x 7 = 84, and for fourths this is 12 x 5 = 60. These are the main harmonic stations of traditional tonality, which is based on root movement by fifths as being most closely related.

12 is not divisible by either of these intervals, so an 'outside the octave' common denominator must be used. This makes these intervals "outgoing" by nature.

The other basic intervals (of the 6 possible basic intervals, not counting inversional counterparts) can be divided into 12:
1 (m2)
2 (M2)
3 (m3)
4 (M3)
6 (tritone)

These are intervals which coincide in their cycles or projections within the octave, and divide it symmetrically, so I call these "inward-going" intervals.

Conversely, systems which are not tonal (based on harmonic models), but use local tone-centers and small divisions of the octave (geometric systems), like Bartok and most modern systems which diverge from harmonic-based hierarchies, are "inner-directed."

These two different systems represent what I have earlier called "Western" (outward-directed, objective), and "Eastern" (inward-directed, subjective).

If we continue to stretch this metaphor, we can see that each system represents a different way of conceiving a religious system, or approach to the sacred.

The Western represents an objective, outer system which must be approached in a receptive (and many times literal) belief in a God 'out there' which is part of the objective scheme of things. If anything, we are merely small extensions of this great oneness, if that. Until we establish a connection, we are separated.

The Eastern represents a 'going within,' a diametric reversal, where we are connected internally with the sacred. For me, this is a more inclusive model, as every being is assumed to have an inner connection with the sacred, with no recognition of external symbols necessary. For me, this precludes the establishment of 'objective' belief systems of religion.

On a number line, these two approaches, the inner and outer, can be seen as two directions to infinity (God): The Western going to the right, in ever-increasing numbers, from 1 into infinity; The Eastern going to the left, from 1 towards zero, in ever-decreasing degrees of fractions.

Both are based on the starting point of "1," the big note, or the octave.

Taking this metaphor further, tonality can be seen as the embodiment of a Newtonian universe, a universe based on "gravity" and in keeping with a church-based view of Man, that God is the center of all things.

Atonality, or serialism, can be metaphorically seen as the dissolution of the Newtonian universe, and of gravity, into a relativistic, Einsteinian universe, in which Man is insignificant by comparison to the stars. Historically, this reflects the diminishing power of the church, and increasing secularism and a new scientific realism which now pervades.

On behalf of the many GMGers who enjoy and appreciate non-Common-Practice music, I want to thank you for your selfnessness in making yourself so amusing – by beginning with your own musical prejudices/limitations, conflating those with Universal Artistic Truth, and your subsequent repeated attempts to spin some sort, any sort, of dogma which suits the conclusion you've already formed.  The fact that you busy yourself with spamming multiple threads, many of which you have resurrected for the purpose, underscores what shallow agitprop your endeavor is.

So, again: thanks for the chuckles!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 16, 2017, 02:55:52 AM
The fact that you busy yourself with spamming multiple threads, many of which you have resurrected for the purpose, underscores what shallow agitprop your endeavor is.

See my signature line.  :D

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 28, 2009, 02:10:31 AM
This is a minor peeve of mine. Occasionally I run across a claim (or assumption) that a certain style (genre, piece, etc.) is important because it reflects certain political or religious values. Often there seems to be an underlying assumption that the ideology of the piece is more important than the artistry that went into it. This is especially annoying if the piece has no discernable ideology behind it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3752

I frequently see this attitude on conservative sites - they seem to believe that if you are conservative politically (or religiously), you won't like anything more radical than Brahms or Rachmaninoff. In fact, you have a duty to like "conservative" music! Dissonance is equated with liberalism or radicalism.

One sees how insipid this attitude is when considering that such modernist "radicals" included figures like Schoenberg (monarchist, patriot, German cultural chauvinist) and Stravinsky (monarchist, Orthodox Christian, anti-Bolshevik).

In short: there is no such thing as a musical genre or style that is inherently liberal, conservative, socialist, Catholic, traditionalist, or anything else; and people who assume that there is are more interested in ideology than in art.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

If -- from the linked article -- you're not actually offended by {fugue} being  "this odd musical form sprung from the tensions of the religious wars," {one of those great claims, because like faith itself, it can not be proven; stating it as fact is ridiculous:-) then you are wiping away the tears that resulted from the gales of laughter produced by reading such seriously pretentious, made up pseudo-intellectual piles of steaming horse dung.

Of course, if there are actual ideologies 'embedded in music,' I've never been one to pay much attention to them, in that, excepting the inclusion of text or a title more than a little giving away intent, "just notes" are just too abstract to deliver the ideological / literary goods.

That a piece is "Socially Significant," is another topic of gravely dubious worth and distinction that pretty much repels me.  (There are valid historic and social contexts that have and do 'affect' the mindset of the artists of an era, but for me, there is only so far that can be taken -- not very far at all -- before it becomes a subject overtaking the subject of the music itself.)

So, yeah, imo a lot one finds on these topics, the premises, are basically a barrel of laughs from the nusically and intellectually impaired.


Best regards

Quote from: Florestan on May 16, 2017, 03:22:24 AM
See my signature line.  :D

0:)

Oh, but I like non-common practice music!

In tonal music, tonality is god. This means, God as as separate deity, and Man as his chosen subject. Very traditional. God is "out there" and we are still ourselves, with our ego and will.

The more Webern moves away from tonality, the closer he is to actually becoming "one" with god, more in the Eastern sense of "god is within us."

Thus, the alienation some feel when faced with the (to some) incomprehensible, mysterious later works: Webern's music no longer has any tonal meaning; he has reached the peak of the mountain. The atmosphere is thin, rarified; hostile to the comfortable confines of the mere human ego.

The closer we get to 'the light,' the more we disintegrate. Our egos begin dissolving; we are subsumed into the magnificent awesomeness of God.

To some this invokes fear and confusion; you must submit in order to see, to be; you must 'die' the death of the ego, to be reborn into a pure state of being. "You" do not matter anymore; "you" are an irrelevant speck in the vast scheme of things.

Schoenberg has touched on this as well, especially in Moses und Aaron, where the name of god is unpronounceable, and his image cannot possibly be shown. This is mystery, not meant for the mind of Man.

Then submit, ye tonal heathens: humble yourselves before the magnificence of the atonal god, if you want to 'get' the later works of Webern.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 16, 2017, 02:55:52 AM
I want to thank you for your selfnessness in making yourself so amusing – by beginning with your own musical prejudices/limitations, conflating those with Universal Artistic Truth, and your subsequent repeated attempts to spin some sort, any sort, of dogma which suits the conclusion you've already formed. 

Hey, did Sean come back under a different name?

(* chortle *)

Schoenberg's journey into the 'abstraction' of serial music allowed him to create a music which supported and expressed no outward ideology or nationalistic tradition, but only the inner experience of its creator. Serialism became its own ideology.

The repercussions of WWII resonated well into the 1950s, when a new generation emerged and expanded on the methods and aesthetic of Schoenberg and Webern. The bombast of nationalism had almost destroyed Europe, and these new composers were disillusioned with all such notions of nationalism and state power; and the spectre of the hydrogen bomb still loomed. Thus serialism was the perfect vehicle; it had no traditional baggage of nationalism and was subject to no ideology other than its own.

Thus, although Schoenberg and the serial composers who followed acted out of artist concerns, with no overt political considerations or motivations other than general post WWII trauma, their retreat into the inner realm of abstraction, and into a receding, hermetic world of self-generating forms free of tradition, had political implications all the same, because of the inherent inner, individualistic nature of abstraction freed from tradition and nationalism.

What is the root impetus of a Western-based strictly academic definition of tonality? I think the fact that Western classical music evolved from rituals and ceremonies of the Catholic Church has something to do with it.


I feel this "exclusiveness" of a Western-based strictly academic definition of tonality is also


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude modernism and serial music from the canon;


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude or reject Minimalism from the canon (Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, immersed in world cultures and Eastern religion);


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude or reject John Cage as a legitimate composer (Eastern influence, Zen); and


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude or reject broad definitions of tonality as "not tonal;"


...which excludes monophonic "world" musics as "non-tonal," as well as any music which does not adhere strictly to an academic definition of tonality based strictly on major/minor scales, triads, and functionality of these triads.


So what did, and does a Western-based, strictly academic definition of tonality represent?


It represents an exclusive, Christian-derived culture of music which was, at that time and perhaps still, a "good ol' boys" club with exclusive membership, which has excluded almost every other type of approach to tonality and culture except its own Western-style.

Tonality is God. Get it?

There will ever and always be attempts to mold music into the ideological shape of the listener.  One of the most obnoxious American examples of this is political activist Lyndon LaRouche, still alive if less active, who while in prison wrote much that was utterly bogus about LvB.  One's first impression is to regard him merely as another nutter, but like a toxic spill he can pollute many a musical stream.  This, from Wiki about him:

"1989: Musical interests and Verdi tuning initiative

LaRouche and his wife have an interest in classical music up to the period of Brahms. A motto of LaRouche's European Workers' Party, is "Think like Beethoven"; movement offices typically include a piano and posters of German composers, and members are known for their choral singing at protest events and for using satirical lyrics tailored to their targets.[146] LaRouche abhors popular music; he said in 1980, "Rock was not an accidental thing. This was done by people who set out in a deliberate way to subvert the United States. It was done by British intelligence," and wrote that the Beatles were "a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division specifications."[147] LaRouche movement members have protested at performances of Richard Wagner's operas, denouncing Wagner as an anti-Semite who found favor with the Nazis, and called a conductor "satanic" because he played contemporary music.[148]

In 1989 LaRouche advocated that classical orchestras should use a concert pitch based on A above middle C (A4) tuned to 432 Hz, which the Schiller Institute called the "Verdi pitch," a pitch that Verdi had suggested as optimal, though he also composed and conducted in other pitches such as the French official diapason normal of 435 Hz, including his Requiem in 1874.[149]

The Schiller Institute initiative attracted support from more than 300 opera stars, including Joan Sutherland, Plácido Domingo and Luciano Pavarotti, who according to Opera Fanatic may or may not have been aware of LaRouche's politics. A spokesman for Domingo said Domingo had simply signed a questionnaire, had not been aware of its origins, and would not agree with LaRouche's politics. Renata Tebaldi and Piero Cappuccilli, who were running for the European Parliament on LaRouche's "Patriots for Italy" platform, attended Schiller Institute conferences as featured speakers. The discussions led to debates in the Italian parliament about reinstating Verdi's legislation. LaRouche gave an interview to National Public Radio on the initiative from prison. The initiative was opposed by the editor of Opera Fanatic, Stefan Zucker, who objected to the establishment of a "pitch police," and argued that LaRouche was using the issue to gain credibility.[150]

It's too overt to call Wagner antisemitic. It's better to say that he was an example of the 19th century notion of the Nietzscheian "ubermensch," which inspired all sorts of egomaniacs.

Quote from: millionrainbows on May 16, 2017, 10:47:28 AM
It's too overt to call Wagner antisemitic. It's better to say that he was an example of the 19th century notion of the Nietzscheian "ubermensch," which inspired all sorts of egomaniacs.

Or we could be honest about it, and say he was anti-Semitic. Just go read what he wrote, the truth is evident.

Quote from: millionrainbows on May 16, 2017, 10:47:28 AM
It's too overt to call Wagner antisemitic. It's better to say that he was an example of the 19th century notion of the Nietzscheian "ubermensch," which inspired all sorts of egomaniacs.

Actually he was both.  Being one does not mean one can not be the other.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 16, 2017, 11:37:49 AM
Actually he was both.  Being one does not mean one can not be the other.

Indeed.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote from: millionrainbows on May 16, 2017, 10:47:28 AM
It's too overt to call Wagner antisemitic.

Not too overt to call this sanitizing.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on May 16, 2017, 11:59:51 AM
Everyone was racist back then

Really everyone?

Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on May 16, 2017, 12:09:27 PM
I'm generalising but yes, it was more common than sliced bread.

Now you're generalising the generalisation.  ;D

Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on May 16, 2017, 12:09:27 PMWagner just isn't special or unique in that regard

He's kind of special:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Wagner_Das_Judenthum_in_der_Musik_1869.jpg)

Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on May 16, 2017, 12:22:08 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone that knows Wagner's name knows about that already but what can I say, that's probably generalising too  >:D

I'll respond later

The point is that not everyone wrote anti-Semitic screeds like Dick.  That takes real commitment.  I love his music, but he was a real piece of shit.

At first I really liked Wagner, but then he screwed my wife.

Quote from: millionrainbows on May 16, 2017, 12:54:32 PM
At first I really liked Wagner, but then he screwed my wife.

That is just "expanded" fidelity.

Expanded tonality = expanded fidelity.

With Wagner the question is whether (some of) his music is connected to e.g. antisemitism. Some people have claimed that the portrayals of Mime and Beckmesser contain elements of contemporary Jewish caricature/antisemitic archetypes. Be that as it may, I don't think there is an overall ideology in Wagners works. They are too diverse and e.g. in the case of the Ring it can be argued that the "ideology" contained developed from a quasi-Marxian (at least "left-Hegelian") historic to a Schopenhauerian (renunciation, pseudo-Buddhism) perspective. The overall dominant themes, quasi-religious redemption, renunciation whatever might have strange undertones but not political-ideological ones.

The only opera that has nationalist undertones is Meistersinger and it is far less obvious there than in "national" operas of slavic composers and the chauvinism is mainly in the field of art (Even if the Holy Roman Empire collapsed in dust there remains our holy German Art). I am pretty sure that we would hardly bother with Wagner's antisemitism, even less look for ideology in his music if there had not been a nazi regime. Although nationalists loved some Wagner already in the late 19th century German Empire (cf. Heinrich Mann's "Der Untertan"), there is very little of this obviously in the music. Brahms's Triumphlied is worse (granted, that's never been considered a major piece) and as said there is far more nationalist/patriotic music by Smetana, Elgar, almost any (late) romantic composer.

Quote from: Jo498 on May 17, 2017, 11:32:55 PM
With Wagner the question is whether (some of) his music is connected to e.g. antisemitism. Some people have claimed that the portrayals of Mime and Beckmesser contain elements of contemporary Jewish caricature/antisemitic archetypes. Be that as it may, I don't think there is an overall ideology in Wagners works. They are too diverse and e.g. in the case of the Ring it can be argued that the "ideology" contained developed from a quasi-Marxian (at least "left-Hegelian") historic to a Schopenhauerian (renunciation, pseudo-Buddhism) perspective. The overall dominant themes, quasi-religious redemption, renunciation whatever might have strange undertones but not political-ideological ones.

The only opera that has nationalist undertones is Meistersinger and it is far less obvious there than in "national" operas of slavic composers and the chauvinism is mainly in the field of art (Even if the Holy Roman Empire collapsed in dust there remains our holy German Art). I am pretty sure that we would hardly bother with Wagner's antisemitism, even less look for ideology in his music if there had not been a nazi regime. Although nationalists loved some Wagner already in the late 19th century German Empire (cf. Heinrich Mann's "Der Untertan"), there is very little of this obviously in the music. Brahms's Triumphlied is worse (granted, that's never been considered a major piece) and as said there is far more nationalist/patriotic music by Smetana, Elgar, almost any (late) romantic composer.

Very interesting, Jo498. A pleasure to read.

I would say, though, that the most overtly nationalistic (in the traditional, cliché way) Wagner opera is Lohengrin, more so than Meistersinger (where, as you rightly point out, it's "holy german art" that counts). And yes, a work like Meistersinger is a wonder of cospmpolitanism when compared to, say, Triumphlied or even the German Requiem.

Furthermore, an intersting point is that it can be argued that "Wagnerism", as a cultural phenomenon that took Europe by storm in the late 19th century, orginated in France rather than in Germany.

Regards,

I don't really get the nationalism of Lohengrin; it is only a few scenes with the King and while it could be seen as "pan-germanic" it is not really central for the plot. The immense popularity (it is the focal piece of a famous scene of the Mann novel I mentioned) seems to prove the national aspect but I personally don't really get it.

With the Ring it is also interesting that Wagner did not use the better known high medieval treatment of the material. (As the playwright Hebbel did in the 19th century.) The anonymous Nibelungenlied was considered something of a national epos in the 19th century and it ends with a big suicidal fight against the huns: "Kriemhild's revenge". Kriemhild is the name of the Gutrune character in that treatment, Siegfried's wife and Brunnhilde's opponent. After Siegfried's murder (which is Brunnhildes revenge in that version) she marries Attila the hun and Hagen, Gunther and all their retainers finally die when a visit at the court of the Hun's goes awry) But that later part is very different from Wagner. When as a kid before I ever listened to Wagner (except maybe the popular choruses from Holländer, Lohengrin and Tannhäuser) I read the description of Wagner's Ring in an opera guide I was severely disappointed because it lacked the "best part", namely all that battles with the huns.

I disagree wrt "Ein Deutsches Requiem". Unless one counts having Lutheran churches organized nationally using the vernacular language as nationalist, there is nothing "German" about it. It is similar to Schütz' "Musikalische Exequien in Form einer teutschen Begräbnis-Missa" a generalized funeral service (of course the Deutsches Requiem could hardly be used in a real service as it is far too long but the same holds for Verdi's Requiem mass) in the German language.

Quote from: Jo498 on May 18, 2017, 12:22:29 AM
I don't really get the nationalism of Lohengrin; it is only a few scenes with the King and while it could be seen as "pan-germanic" it is not really central for the plot. The immense popularity (it is the focal piece of a famous scene of the Mann novel I mentioned) seems to prove the national aspect but I personally don't really get it.
....

Well, I suppose these lines by the King are the ones that reflect the "traditional" (or cliché) German militaristic nationalism IMO:

"Soll ich euch erst der Drangsal Kunde sagen,
die deutsches Land so oft aus Osten traf?
In fernster Mark hiesst Weib und Kind ihr beten:
"Herr Gott, bewahr uns vor der Ungarn Wut!"
Doch mir, des Reiches Haupt, musst es geziemen,
solch wilder Schmach ein Ende zu ersinnen..."

But I agree, they are not central to the plot...

Quote
With the Ring it is also interesting that Wagner did not use the better known high medieval treatment of the material. (As the playwright Hebbel did in the 19th century.) The anonymous Nibelungenlied was considered something of a national epos in the 19th century and it ends with a big suicidal fight against the huns: "Kriemhild's revenge". Kriemhild is the name of the Gutrune character in that treatment, Siegfried's wife and Brunnhilde's opponent. After Siegfried's murder (which is Brunnhildes revenge in that version) she marries Attila the hun and Hagen, Gunther and all their retainers finally die when a visit at the court of the Hun's goes awry) But that later part is very different from Wagner. When as a kid before I ever listened to Wagner (except maybe the popular choruses from Holländer, Lohengrin and Tannhäuser) I read the description of Wagner's Ring in an opera guide I was severely disappointed because it lacked the "best part", namely all that battles with the huns.
...

Most interesting. I am not familair with Hebbel, but this strangely fits in with my perception that dramatically, Götterdämmerung is the weakest part of the Ring. Suddenly, all the drama that's been building up in the previous three installments comes to a dénouement, is resolved in what I see a hurried way.  ::). You can sense that the libretto of the Ring was written backwards...

Quote
I disagree wrt "Ein Deutsches Requiem". Unless one counts having Lutheran churches organized nationally using the vernacular language as nationalist, there is nothing "German" about it. It is similar to Schütz' "Musikalische Exequien in Form einer teutschen Begräbnis-Missa" a generalized funeral service (of course the Deutsches Requiem could hardly be used in a real service as it is far too long but the same holds for Verdi's Requiem mass) in the German language.

It's exactly that, this elevation of the religious phenomenon to a national one. I'm not a religious person at all, but come form a Latin, Catholic culture for which religion (Christiansm in this case) is not bound by any national components, but is rather universal (catholic, in the ethymoligical sense of the word).

Cheers,

Quote from: ritter on May 18, 2017, 01:21:19 AM
Well, I suppose these lines by the King are the ones that reflect the "traditional" (or cliché) German militaristic nationalism IMO:

"Soll ich euch erst der Drangsal Kunde sagen,
die deutsches Land so oft aus Osten traf?
In fernster Mark hiesst Weib und Kind ihr beten:
"Herr Gott, bewahr uns vor der Ungarn Wut!"
Doch mir, des Reiches Haupt, musst es geziemen,
solch wilder Schmach ein Ende zu ersinnen..."

But I agree, they are not central to the plot...

And it was actually true in the 10th century when the Empire was still weak and not yet up to any expansionism and raids from the east or southeast were not uncommon.

Quote
Most interesting. I am not familair with Hebbel, but this strangely fits in with my perception that dramatically, Götterdämmerung is the weakest part of the Ring. Suddenly, all the drama that's been building up in the previous three installments comes to a dénouement, is resolved in what I see a hurried way.  ::). You can sense that the libretto of the Ring was written backwards...

The Hebbel is only a 19th century dramatization. The anonymous medieval epos is probably based on the older stuff Wagner also used (Völsungasaga? and others) but takes the migration period roots (like the huns) into a medieval scenario. No Germanic gods, the whole background is left out and the conflict is mainly from Gunther's wooing of Brunhilde when Siegfried helps him with the Tarnhelm. This leads to a conflict between the queens Kriemhilde (Gutrune) and Brunhilde which leads to the plot to murder Siegfried and Hagen who is no half-dwarf but just an important warrior at Gunther's "Burgundian" court also somehow manages to steal Siegfried's (the Nibelung's) hoard. The murder is covered up but everybody knows what really happened. Later Kriemhild marries Attila (called Etzel) the Hun and when years later Gunther, his brothers, Hagen etc. visit their sister things escalate and all the Burgundians are killed (while themselves killing scores of enemies). Last of all Hagen who until the end declines to reveal the location of the hoard and is killed by Kriemhild (who is in turn slain by an old knight because Hagen might have been an asshole he still did not deserve to be killed by a woman...) So in the end, all are dead and according to legend the hoard is still hidden on the bottom of the Rhine near Worms.

I would signal this

https://academic.oup.com/british-academy-scholarship-online/book/28528

and add two considerations

Most powerful communist composer was Luigi Nono member of praesidium of italian communist party

hans eisler did a disservice to the musical avant-garde by employing modernist techniques portraying the nazis in his score "Hangmen also die" while partizans were described from czech folkmusic

interesting
https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/1034

I was struck, reading a book called The Great Composers, at just how many famous composers were deeply involved in politics (both left and right).  So this doesn't quite get to your point but I think we have to start with a recognition that most well known composers have been deeply involved in the politics of their day (of various hues).  Classical music can really be said to have been the accompaniment to nationalism in the 19th century. Now perhaps it is the music of globalism (I don't feel qualified to say, but it is obviously entwined with big sponsor commercialism).

Quote from: Roy Bland on February 25, 2023, 07:01:36 PMI would signal this

https://academic.oup.com/british-academy-scholarship-online/book/28528

and add two considerations

Most powerful communist composer was Luigi Nono

Cornelius Cardew I think. And indeed his art thoroughly embodied his values, in The Great Learning. There's also Fred Rzewsky to consider. And Xenakis. These may be covered in the book - I don't have access.

You can't be a communist composer and produce work for opera houses and international concert halls.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 25, 2023, 09:32:43 AMYou can't be a communist composer and produce work for opera houses and international concert halls.

Tikhon Khrennikov and Dmitri Kabalevsky.  ;D

Quote from: Mandryka on May 25, 2023, 09:32:43 AMYou can't be a communist composer and produce work for opera houses and international concert halls.

I believe H.W. Henze tried to do a good bit of this kind of thing too.

Alan Bush,Theodorakis,Roy Harris,Aaron Copland,Marc Blitzstein,Erik Satie,Bartok

Quote from: Roy Bland on May 25, 2023, 06:23:27 PMAlan Bush,Theodorakis,Roy Harris,Aaron Copland,Marc Blitzstein,Erik Satie,Bartok

I can find no source supporting the claim that Bartok was a Commnunist.

There were/are so many of them that "Salon communist" (or similar) is a word. ;)

I am not really sure if *most* composers were deeply involved politically. Of course, in some times it was almost impossible not to be to some extent.
But even in the 20th century, Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky were not strongly involved; Prokofiev fled the revolution but eventually returned, so he was apparently flexible enough to get along with the Stalin regime.

Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2023, 09:19:06 PMI can find no source supporting the claim that Bartok was a Commnunist.

He was invvolved with Bela Kun's workers republic
https://www.socialist.ca/node/4088

http://www2.arnes.si/~lstefa/Clanki/Elusive%20contents.pdf

I can't agree entirely (F.L.Wright architecture, Armory Show and Ives had no CIA fund)
however it could be a starting point for discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/03/rockers-and-spies-how-the-cia-used-culture-to-shred-the-iron-curtain

IMHO is interesting  that Furtwangler  contrasted Schoenberg with the childish Shostakovich

https://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/en/stories/arnold-schoenerg-premiere-op-31/

Quote from: Roy Bland on March 23, 2025, 07:20:31 PMIMHO is interesting  that Furtwangler  contrasted Schoenberg with the childish Shostakovich

https://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/en/stories/arnold-schoenerg-premiere-op-31/

Thank you, it was interesting read. "He saw in the "efforts of an Alban Berg, Schoenberg et al." the counterpart to the "modern infantilism of a Shostakovich", and was always at pains to defend the inventor of twelve-tone music against his narrow-minded followers."

https://www.lhistoire.fr/beethoven-et-hitler

https://mccs-journalism.gold.ac.uk/wp/polyphony/inside-putins-war-on-classical-music/

https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/3b9c655d-a698-4d39-8396-9fbb64703194/content

https://van-magazine.com/mag/putin-shostakovich-leningrad-symphony-propaganda/

...

Quote from: AnotherSpin on June 10, 2025, 01:03:38 AMhttps://mccs-journalism.gold.ac.uk/wp/polyphony/inside-putins-war-on-classical-music/

https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/3b9c655d-a698-4d39-8396-9fbb64703194/content

https://van-magazine.com/mag/putin-shostakovich-leningrad-symphony-propaganda/

...

Every ruler/empire/dictator in history has used the Arts as a way of projecting soft power.  This is in no way a revelation or exclusive to the former Soviet Union/current Russian state.  It would be more surprising, given the rich cultural heritage of all of the countries that formed the former Soviet Union, if they did not exploit their legacies.

BTW - the article about the Leningrad is behind a paywall - bloomin' Western Capitalism for you.

Quote from: Roasted Swan on June 10, 2025, 01:19:14 AMEvery ruler/empire/dictator in history has used the Arts as a way of projecting soft power.  This is in no way a revelation or exclusive to the former Soviet Union/current Russian state.  It would be more surprising, given the rich cultural heritage of all of the countries that formed the former Soviet Union, if they did not exploit their legacies.

BTW - the article about the Leningrad is behind a paywall - bloomin' Western Capitalism for you.

Note of the Moderation: Once again, hostile statements against the listening habits and musical tastes of fellow members (even if in "blanket form") have had to be deleted. And they will continue to be deleted, to be very clear. The vast majority of members of GMG have expressed their sympathy with the Ukrainian people for the tragedy inflicted on them, but the moderation team will not tolerate statements implying that members are somehow accomplices to barbaric actions because they listen to music by Russian composers.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on June 10, 2025, 01:34:28 AMNote of the Moderation: Once again, hostile statements against the listening habits and musical tastes of fellow members (even if in "blanket form") have had to be deleted. And they will continue to be deleted, to be very clear. The vast majority of members of GMG have expressed their sympathy with Ukranian people for the tragedy inflicted on them, but the moderation team will not tolerate statements implying that members are somehow accomplices to barbaric actions because they listen to music by Russian composers.

no worries

QuoteNote of the Moderation: Once again, hostile statements against the listening habits and musical tastes of fellow members (even if in "blanket form") have had to be deleted. And they will continue to be deleted, to be very clear. The vast majority of members of GMG have expressed their sympathy with Ukranian people for the tragedy inflicted on them, but the moderation team will not tolerate statements implying that members are somehow accomplices to barbaric actions because they listen to music by Russian composers.

Thanks for this.

Quote from: Roy Bland on March 23, 2025, 07:20:31 PMIMHO is interesting  that Furtwangler  contrasted Schoenberg with the childish Shostakovich

https://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/en/stories/arnold-schoenerg-premiere-op-31/

Similarly to Furtwangler, I like some of Schoenberg but have difficulty appreciating much 12-tone music. It is interesting to me some of the notions people had around this music at the time. People like Schoenberg and Boulez really seemed to look on it as 'music of the future'. To me it sounds like the rotted corpse of Romanticism. I think it drains vitality out of any musical style it is mixed with. Perhaps it can have a kind of a macabre appeal, but it's expressive range to me seems quite limited. I'm surprised it became as influential as it did. Just my perspective.

Quote from: atardecer on June 10, 2025, 02:51:13 PMSimilarly to Furtwangler, I like some of Schoenberg but have difficulty appreciating much 12-tone music. It is interesting to me some of the notions people had around this music at the time. People like Schoenberg and Boulez really seemed to look on it as 'music of the future'. To me it sounds like the rotted corpse of Romanticism. I think it drains vitality out of any musical style it is mixed with. Perhaps it can have a kind of a macabre appeal, but it's expressive range to me seems quite limited. I'm surprised it became as influential as it did. Just my perspective.

Of the Grösser Dreikomponisten of the "Second Viennese School", Berg was far more able to express emotion than Schönberg and Webern in twelve-tone mode. Schönberg comes off best in his earlier period, and in the later compositions in which he didn't stick so firmly to his principles.

Quote from: JBS on June 10, 2025, 04:29:02 PMOf the Grösser Dreikomponisten of the "Second Viennese School", Berg was far more able to express emotion than Schönberg and Webern in twelve-tone mode. Schönberg comes off best in his earlier period, and in the later compositions in which he didn't stick so firmly to his principles.

The point you raise about Berg probably has something to do with the composer's allusions to tonal music. His Violin Concerto is a great example as he uses quotations from a Carinthian folk song and a Bach chorale. Also, there are implications of the triad in many of his 12-tone rows. I'm not terribly knowledgable about music theory like many of our more esteemed members here who actually studied music at the university level, but I can read some music notation and, of course, I can pick things apart with my ears.

Quote from: atardecer on June 10, 2025, 02:51:13 PMSimilarly to Furtwangler, I like some of Schoenberg but have difficulty appreciating much 12-tone music. It is interesting to me some of the notions people had around this music at the time. People like Schoenberg and Boulez really seemed to look on it as 'music of the future'. To me it sounds like the rotted corpse of Romanticism. I think it drains vitality out of any musical style it is mixed with. Perhaps it can have a kind of a macabre appeal, but it's expressive range to me seems quite limited. I'm surprised it became as influential as it did. Just my perspective.

I meant to point out something different while Zhdanov saw in Shostakovich the underhand propagandist of the musical avant-garde on the contrary Furtwangler judged him infantile

Quote from: JBS on June 10, 2025, 04:29:02 PMOf the Grösser Dreikomponisten of the "Second Viennese School", Berg was far more able to express emotion than Schönberg and Webern in twelve-tone mode. Schönberg comes off best in his earlier period, and in the later compositions in which he didn't stick so firmly to his principles.

You may be right, but I suspect that is because Berg never went as far into atonality as the other two, I think he stayed closer to the liminal area. I enjoy some of the music of all three, Webern has some pieces I find excellent but there is a certain threshold where the music becomes less compelling to me.

Quote from: Roy Bland on June 10, 2025, 07:02:51 PMI meant to point out something different while Zhdanov saw in Shostakovich the underhand propagandist of the musical avant-garde on the contrary Furtwangler judged him infantile

There are a number of interesting subjects one could point out from that article. Furtwangler like many musicians formed his own strong opinions on things, some I may agree with others I may find questionable. As far as the Shosty comment I don't really understand what reason he had for making it, or what exactly he meant. There isn't a lot of context for it there. 

Quote from: JBS on June 10, 2025, 04:29:02 PMOf the Grösser Dreikomponisten of the "Second Viennese School", Berg was far more able to express emotion than Schönberg and Webern in twelve-tone mode. Schönberg comes off best in his earlier period, and in the later compositions in which he didn't stick so firmly to his principles.

I think my tastes often cause me to have different responses to music. For example people say that Chopin is more emotional compared with Bach, I can see what they mean in the sense that Chopin's music is more emotional in an extroverted sense. Yet Bach's music stirs emotions in me more so than Chopin, so this big revelation some find in Beethoven and Chopin relative to earlier music I don't relate to. (And I disagree with Furtwangler's opinion on Chopin and Bach being equals).

Similarly, I don't connect with Berg emotionally more so than Schoenberg or Webern.

I am not sure I understand the comment on Shostakovich either.
But I would not be surprised if Furtwängler shared the conservative stance of Schönberg (also, at least partly of Adorno as a "theoretician" of modern music) that like Stravinsky Shostakovich "evaded" the task to continue the "organicist ideal" from Bach through Beethoven to Brahms and Wagner in favor of "denying" a lot of tradition or using it as an eclectic toolbox (this would fit better with neoclassical Stravinsky and some Shostakovich). (Recall that Schönberg called Stravinsky "little Modernsky" and pictured him as a child with a toy drum.)
And of course there was (but this was probably more in the post 2nd WW war period) the rejection of DSCH as a "Soviet composer" (but this would not fit infantilism).

I have no idea how much and which Shostakovich Furtwängler would have known in the late 1940s? or whenever he made such a remark. Probably not very much and not a very good/representative sample which could easily lead to a very skewed impression.

I try to lighten  tone of the discussion he was probably referring to Beatles

Politically, economically and culturally I'm a pragmatic liberal; socially, a moderate conservative.

My Top 5 composers are Haydn, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Chopin. .

I doubt that the latter statement can be derived from the former or vice-versa.

Quote from: Florestan on June 13, 2025, 09:18:00 AMPolitically, economically and culturally I'm a pragmatic liberal; socially, a moderate conservative.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: "liberal" above should be taken in its European meaning, not the US one. In strictly European terms, I'm a centrist Christian Democrat. In strictly US terms, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I am. To the best of my knowledge, I might fit in a certain section of the Democratic Party as well as in a certain section of the Republican Party. One thing I know for sure, though: I strongly reject both MAGA and woke ideologies. 

So, the takeaway here, dear Florestan, is that holding sensible political views is not incompatible with having dubious musical taste, right?  :laugh:

Quote from: ritter on June 14, 2025, 11:38:23 AMSo, the takeaway here, dear Florestan, is that holding sensible political views is not incompatible with having dubious musical taste, right?  :laugh:

Or the other way around, depending on perspective.  :laugh:

Quote from: Florestan on June 13, 2025, 09:18:00 AMPolitically, economically and culturally I'm a pragmatic liberal; socially, a moderate conservative.

My Top 5 composers are Haydn, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Chopin. .

I doubt that the latter statement can be derived from the former or vice-versa.

From now on, I will consider these five composers to be extremely right-wing, nationalist, whatever. Because: no Low-Saxons among them. ;)

Quote from: Christo on June 18, 2025, 10:33:13 AMFrom now on, I will consider these five composers to be extremely right-wing, nationalist, whatever. Because: no Low-Saxons among them. ;)

To paraphrase Saul Bellow: show me the Mozart and the Rossini of the Low Saxons and I'll gladly listen to their music.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on June 19, 2025, 02:49:14 AMTo paraphrase Saul Bellow: show me the Mozart and the Rossini of the Low Saxons and I'll gladly listen to their music.  ;D

You already do, for the better part of the life. Technically, all composers born & bred above the Benrather Linie are Low Saxons, from Telemaqnn to Brahms. I guess you heard of them. :)

Quote from: Christo on June 19, 2025, 02:59:06 AMYou already do, for the better part of the life. Technically, all composers born & bred above the Benrather Linie are Low Saxons, from Telemaqnn to Brahms. I guess you heard of them. :)

Ha ha, I saw it coming. :D

I'm a traditionalist meaning for me true art has to be "moral" (so to speak) or it isn't really art.

"Ugly" art is inherently anti-art for me, which means a lot of contemporary works are inferior to the "classics".

Art that elevates an individual to more noble or higher states of being or consciousness is what true art is for me. The more deviated or repugnant an art work the more odius it becomes to me, and the less it seems like art in the higher sense of the word (in a purely technical sense all art is art but not all art is GREAT art).

I don't know if this has anything to do with politics per-se though. Politics are kinda all over the place and i don't see there bieng any particular meaning in the kind of ideals that fall under the various political labels. Like, what do economic policies have to do with art anyway. Whether one is for capitalism or socialism has more to do with what one believes is beneficial for the material well being of individuals residing in a society i don't see how notions of beauty or greatness enter into it.

At best, art can be philosophical, and politics do often reflect some kind of philosophical idea but its mostly secondary and politics just seems to be more about practical concerns rather than abstract ideals, or at least they ought to be. In fact, politics that become world views or carry some philosophical ideal seem to be no longer politics. A conservative is supposed to be someone who wishes to "converve" a particular status quo or social organization but if one looks at a lot of conservative policies they often happen to be quite modern or radical in nature. Capitalism is a product of modernity and the modern form of it is a consequence of the industrial revolution, and bears little affinity to the kind of social order religious societies have established in the past. Yet religion and capitalism both falls into this category of "conservative" which to me seems kinda of arbitrary. As Orthodox Christian is bound prefer theocracy over a system ruled by an economic oligarchy, and which is supposed to be conservative then?

As a traditionalist i also happen to be an ambientalist. I believe nature is sacred and a kind of theophany. Yet, all ambientalist political movements are supposed to be of the "left" so what polticis am i supposed to have?

As for the question raised by the OP of this thread, this contrast between "message" and artistic merit, i would say the two have to go toghether. Without the right "message" art becomes ugly and deviated, and without the artistic "merit" the message is violated and falsified. Most ancient Christian art was didactic in nature, but what it sought to teach was the MEANING of theology, a way to convey the essence to unread people. The artistic merit of such art was not incidental but NECESSARY or the entire point of it was lost entirely.

And religious art is not the only example. The subjects of a work by a Thomas Kinkade are of a kind that ought to be beautiful by their very nature and yet his rapresentation end up falsifying them. The lack of "merit" in his works desprive the subjects he rapresents of their meaning or essence. Compare that to a traditional Japanese landscape, which may appear to be crude and primitive by comparison and yet it conveys this "mystery" which is not shown but is left "unspoken" for fear that a more explicit depiction would violate it.

So like i said, for me true art is both message and merit. It has to be both take away one or the other and the value of the art is defiled. Again as a Christian i'm supposed to agree with the "message" of a lot of contemporary Christian media but to me it's like the example of Thomas Kinkade. The lack of merit in this media defiles the message. Take all of those "Christian" movies that are just sentimental slop, and contrast any of that with this scene which to me is one of the most profound rapresentations of what it truly means to maintain the flame and light of faith in the desert that is earthly existence:

Quote from: Opus131 on October 06, 2025, 03:29:43 PMI'm a traditionalist meaning for me true art has to be "moral" (so to speak) or it isn't really art.

"Ugly" art is inherently anti-art for me, which means a lot of contemporary works are inferior to the "classics".

Art that elevates an individual to more noble or higher states of being or consciousness is what true art is for me. The more deviated or repugnant an art work the more odius it becomes to me, and the less it seems like art in the higher sense of the word (in a purely technical sense all art is art but not all art is GREAT art).

I don't know if this has anything to do with politics per-se though. Politics are kinda all over the place and i don't see there bieng any particular meaning in the kind of ideals that fall under the various political labels. Like, what do economic policies have to do with art anyway. Whether one is for capitalism or socialism has more to do with what one believes is beneficial for the material well being of individuals residing in a society i don't see how notions of beauty or greatness enter into it.

At best, art can be philosophical, and politics do often reflect some kind of philosophical idea but its mostly secondary and politics just seems to be more about practical concerns rather than abstract ideals, or at least they ought to be. In fact, politics that become world views or carry some philosophical ideal seem to be no longer politics. A conservative is supposed to be someone who wishes to "converve" a particular status quo or social organization but if one looks at a lot of conservative policies they often happen to be quite modern or radical in nature. Capitalism is a product of modernity and the modern form of it is a consequence of the industrial revolution, and bears little affinity to the kind of social order religious societies have established in the past. Yet religion and capitalism both falls into this category of "conservative" which to me seems kinda of arbitrary. As Orthodox Christian is bound prefer theocracy over a system ruled by an economic oligarchy, and which is supposed to be conservative then?

As a traditionalist i also happen to be an ambientalist. I believe nature is sacred and a kind of theophany. Yet, all ambientalist political movements are supposed to be of the "left" so what polticis am i supposed to have?

As for the question raised by the OP of this thread, this contrast between "message" and artistic merit, i would say the two have to go toghether. Without the right "message" art becomes ugly and deviated, and without the artistic "merit" the message is violated and falsified. Most ancient Christian art was didactic in nature, but what it sought to teach was the MEANING of theology, a way to convey the essence to unread people. The artistic merit of such art was not incidental but NECESSARY or the entire point of it was lost entirely.

And religious art is not the only example. The subjects of a work by a Thomas Kinkade are of a kind that ought to be beautiful by their very nature and yet his rapresentation end up falsifying them. The lack of "merit" in his works desprive the subjects he rapresents of their meaning or essence. Compare that to a traditional Japanese landscape, which may appear to be crude and primitive by comparison and yet it conveys this "mystery" which is not shown but is left "unspoken" for fear that a more explicit depiction would violate it.

So like i said, for me true art is both message and merit. It has to be both take away one or the other and the value of the art is defiled. Again as a Christian i'm supposed to agree with the "message" of a lot of contemporary Christian media but to me it's like the example of Thomas Kinkade. The lack of merit in this media defiles the message. Take all of those "Christian" movies that are just sentimental slop, and contrast any of that with this scene which to me is one of the most profound rapresentations of what it truly means to maintain the flame and light of faith in the desert that is earthly existence:

Since the collapse of the traditional world and the rise of the liberty, equality, fraternity, music has undergone a long decline, a gradual erosion of its sacred and hierarchical meaning, replaced by the logic of profit and the illusion of universal accessibility. The old order, for all its apparent rigidity, sustained a stable vertical structure of significance in which art served God, monarchy, and metaphysics. The composer was not a producer but a mediator between heaven and earth.

With the destruction of this order and the triumph of those who controlled the flow of money, art became "free," which in practice meant abandoned to the whims of the market. The revolutionary slogan, once a cry for justice, in the realm of culture brought about the leveling of taste, the standardization of perception, and the loss of depth. Equality of access did not bring equality of understanding, and fraternity without hierarchy dissolved into chaos.

Music, deprived of its sacred patronage, fell under the control of industry, where value is measured not by truth but by sales. Thus came the simplification of form, the disappearance of polyphony, the dominance of rhythm over melody, and emotional manipulation in place of spiritual experience. Capitalism, inheriting the revolutionary ideals, carried them to their logical extreme: liberty turned into the freedom to consume, equality into sameness in banality, and fraternity into a marketing slogan. Art, having lost its vertical axis, became horizontal, flat, noisy, and distorted. Ugly, like all that rests upon money instead of the soul.

What a sad and morose life must one have, seeing/seeking around them only ugliness and evil, incessantly lamenting the good old days...

The big irony is that they do all that while fully enjoying the safety, comfort and freedom that the modern world made possible. Not to mention that they have at their disposal the artworks of those good old days, one click away --- and this was also made possible by the modern world.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 12:14:44 AM

He excludes himself from "the people", of course. He's an elite human being, far and above the retarded multitudes and therefore he has the right and the duty to dictate to "the people " what they should think and do and how they should behave, because he knows what's best for them and they don't.

And thus we come to the core of the so-called "traditionalism": the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might think and behave differently than oneself and the bitter regret that there's no more a supreme authority to dictate and enforce the correct thinking and behavior, which incidentally are exactly those that one espouses.

Quote from: Opus131 on October 06, 2025, 03:29:43 PMAs Orthodox Christian is bound prefer theocracy over a system ruled by an economic oligarchy, and which is supposed to be conservative then?

Excuse me? I'm an Orthodox Christian and I would have none of it. But if you prefer living in a theocracy, there's Iran and Saudi Arabia. I volunteer to pay the price of your one-way ticket to Teheran or Riyadh.

QuoteAs a traditionalist i also happen to be an ambientalist. I believe nature is sacred and a kind of theophany.

This belief directly contradicts Orthodox Christianity.

Remember, Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh/Chandra Mohan Jain was a terrorist.  His words have as much merit and value as those of Osama bin Laden.  It is true that some people follow the words of these "men".

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 06, 2025, 07:02:56 PMSince the collapse of the traditional world  <snip>  music has undergone a long decline, a gradual erosion of its sacred <snip>  meaning, 

This is what Wagner tried to remedy with the Gesamtkunstwerk.

Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2025, 03:46:20 AMRemember, Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh/Chandra Mohan Jain was a terrorist.  His words have as much merit and value as those of Osama bin Laden.  It is true that some people follow the words of these "men".

I heard about this chap who lived a couple of thousand years ago, and by today's standards, he'd surely be branded a terrorist. And for merely having a bit of a chat, they went and nailed him to a post.

Quote from: Mandryka on October 07, 2025, 04:03:54 AMThis is what Wagner tried to remedy with the Gesamtkunstwerk.

Bringing up Wagner seems more than fair to me. He was one of the few, and there are even fewer of them about these days.

It depends what one means with "theocracy". Western Christendom was never a theocracy in the narrow sense. In fact, compared to today's total bureaucratic states most medieval times were pretty close to anarchy with only loosely enforced local order.

The bible has some of the best "anti-state" messages, e.g the warnings the prophet Samuel gives the people of Israel when they insist that they also want a king like the surrounding peoples. But it has also St. Paul admonishing Christians to obey earthly powers (at least in general and if not directly against the faith) and this was at a time when a certain Nero was Emperor in Rome... So I doubt one can derive from mere Christianity that the current shysters and bean counters are the worst and most antichristian government one could have (although I share the impression that they must be close, discounting the likes of Nero)...

Like all liberations the splitting of the unity of faith, culture, art (that was the norm not only in European christendom but in most cultures in history) in early modernity and the liberation of the arts made great things possible that were rare or nonexistent before but it also liberated us towards all kinds of bad things.
As we live at the time we live there is very little we can do about such things that seem to have been changed irreversibly 250, probably already 500 years ago.

The first European to lament "the collapse of the traditional world" was Hesiod, around 700 BC.

In 1324, Pope John XXII issued the bull Docta Sanctorum Patrum, in which he inveighed against polyphony in no uncertain terms. The paragraph is worth quoting in full:

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 04:43:24 AMI heard about this chap who lived a couple of thousand years ago, and by today's standards, he'd surely be branded a terrorist. And for merely having a bit of a chat, they went and nailed him to a post.

There is no record of the person you refer to engaging in bioterrorism.  Osho engaged in bioterrorism in The Dalles, Oregon.  751 people were poisoned.  That is a documented fact.  Osho was a terrorist. 

Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2025, 05:03:58 AMThere is no record of the person you refer to engaging in bioterrorism.  Osho engaged in bioterrorism in The Dalles, Oregon.  751 people were poisoned.  That is a documented fact.  Osho was a terrorist. 

No legal charges were brought against Osho for the bioterror attack, and there is no documented evidence that he ordered or directly participated in it.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 05:26:07 AMNo legal charges were brought against Osho for the bioterror attack, and there is no documented evidence that he ordered or directly participated in it.

Cult members always obey and protect cult leaders.  The same applies to terrorists and their leaders.  Osho was both a terrorist and a cult leader. 

Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2025, 05:33:43 AMCult members always obey and protect cult leaders.  The same applies to terrorists and their leaders.  Osho was both a terrorist and a cult leader. 

You may call Osho whatever you please and describe him however you wish. Your words may say something about you, and need not concern Osho in any way.

Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2025, 02:10:48 AMExcuse me? I'm an Orthodox Christian and I would have none of it. But if you prefer living in a theocracy, there's Iran and Saudi Arabia. I volunteer to pay the price of your one-way ticket to Teheran or Riyadh.

This belief directly contradicts Orthodox Christianity.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define theocracy, but i think the example of the Byzantine empire shows exactly what the ideal form of goverment ought to be.


A system in which a finantial oligarchy rules over an heavily propagandized population where religion is "pushed" on the margins and is only seen as a "private" matter is not what the Orthodox Church ever had in mind. 

Quote from: Opus131 on October 07, 2025, 05:47:18 AMI suppose it depends on how you want to define theocracy, but i think the example of the Byzantine empire shows exactly what the ideal form of goverment ought to be.


A system in which a finantial oligarchy rules over an heavily propagandized population where religion is "pushed" on the margins and is only seen as a "private" matter is not what the Orthodox Church ever had in mind.

The reason why religion is pushed onto the margins is that it's based on unjustifiable ontological and ethical assertions.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 05:41:35 AMYou may call Osho whatever you please and describe him however you wish. Your words may say something about you, and need not concern Osho in any way.

My words, the words of the victims of his terrorism, and the words of law enforcement who had to address his terrorism.  Osho was, objectively, a terrorist and a cult leader, and he is not unique among terrorists and cult leaders in having followers who defend him and his actions. 

Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2025, 05:00:31 AMThe first European to lament "the collapse of the traditional world" was Hesiod, around 700 BC.

In 1324, Pope John XXII issued the bull Docta Sanctorum Patrum, in which he inveighed against polyphony in no uncertain terms. The paragraph is worth quoting in full:

But some disciples of a new school, while they apply themselves to measuring time, they attempt to invent their own melodies with new notes instead of choosing to sing the ancient ones, ecclesiastical canticles are sung in semibreves and minims, are riddled with grace notes. For they sunder the melodies with hockets, loosen them with descants, trample them sometimes with three-part polyphonies and motets in the vernacular to such a degree that, now and then, they despise the fundamentals of the Antiphonary and the Gradual, ignore the foundation upon which they are building, disregard the modes, which they do not reckon, but which rather they confuse, when, owing to the multitude of these very notes, the modest ascents and the moderate descents of plainchant, by which the modes themselves are distinguished from one another, are obfuscated. For they run, and they rest not; they fill their ears with impertinence, and they relieve them not; they imitate with gestures that which they have mustered, by which gestures devotion that is to be desired is contemned, and lasciviousness that is to be shunned is made manifest. Boethius himself certainly has not spoken in vain: A lascivious mind takes pleasure in the more lascivious modes or is often softened and moved upon hearing them.

The implication here seems to be that because this sentiment has appeared many times throughout history, it demonstrates how this attitude was always foolish, "old men yellow at clouds" appearinbg periodically through out an history which i guess is seen as constituting a single continuity or progression.

In reality, everything in the universe moves in cycles, and human cultures and civilizations are not excempt from this rule. That's why you can find many instances of people "bemoaning" the collapse and degradation of their respective culture, becuase that's exactly what it was happening and in my opinion most of the time they were correct in their assessment.

Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2025, 06:01:01 AMMy words, the words of the victims of his terrorism, and the words of law enforcement who had to address his terrorism.  Osho was, objectively, a terrorist and a cult leader, and he is not unique among terrorists and cult leaders in having followers who defend him and his actions.

I daresay that if there had been even the slightest hint of evidence, Osho would have been taken to court in your country. Still, the fact remains that Osho was never accused of terrorism. Do stop spreading falsehoods and lies.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 06:18:54 AMI daresay that if there had been even the slightest hint of evidence, Osho would have been taken to court in your country. Still, the fact remains that Osho was never accused of terrorism. Do stop spreading falsehoods and lies.

It is no lie.  Osho was a terrorist.  The very best that equivocating can achieve is this: Osho created a cult and the environment within that cult was such that a small group of people, within an already small group of people, concocted and executed an act of evil.  Osho created an environment rife with evil.  The only logical conclusion, based on the objective fact that he was a terrorist or the false construct that he was merely a cult leader, is that Osho was evil.

From Wikipedia: "He also gained public notoriety for amassing a large collection of Rolls-Royce cars, eventually numbering 93 vehicles."

However, I remember this conversation happening last year on another thread, and it is certainly no longer on the topic here.

Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2025, 06:42:23 AMIt is no lie.  Osho was a terrorist.  The very best that equivocating can achieve is this: Osho created a cult and the environment within that cult was such that a small group of people, within an already small group of people, concocted and executed an act of evil.  Osho created an environment rife with evil.  The only logical conclusion, based on the objective fact that he was a terrorist or the false construct that he was merely a cult leader, is that Osho was evil.

If we follow the logic that Osho was a terrorist for creating an environment in which his followers committed a bioterrorist attack, then a similar argument could be applied to the United States. For instance, in the case of torture at Abu Ghraib, the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme, or the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the American government may not have issued direct orders in each instance, but it fostered climates where evil became possible, even routinised.

Osho did not personally command the poisoning of salad bars, he cultivated a closed, ideologically charged atmosphere in which it occurred. If that makes him evil, then by the same reasoning, a state that enables systemic crimes becomes evil too.

Yet such a chain of reasoning, from environment to culpability and from culpability to moral condemnation, oversimplifies the complexity of human systems and leads to a totalitarian logic of collective guilt, where charisma or authority is equated with criminality regardless of direct involvement.

This was not the first time a spiritual figure has been branded a threat. Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the gods. Jesus was crucified for inciting unrest under Roman rule. Giordano Bruno was burned for heresy. Gandhi, though a pacifist, was imprisoned for sedition by the British Empire.

History is littered with examples where power, feeling threatened by spiritual or philosophical dissent, resorts to the language of criminality to silence it. Nothing new.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 07:50:22 AMIf we follow the logic that Osho was a terrorist for creating an environment in which his followers committed a bioterrorist attack, then a similar argument could be applied to the United States.

True.  But the topic is Osho.  Osho was a terrorist and evil.

Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2025, 07:51:16 AMTrue.  But the topic is Osho.  Osho was a terrorist and evil.

As you wish. In your world, Osho is evil. In my world, he is a beautiful human being.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 07:56:13 AMAs you wish. In your world, Osho is evil. In my world, he is a beautiful human being.

That explains everything, actually.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 07, 2025, 07:50:22 AMIf we follow the logic that Osho was a terrorist for creating an environment in which his followers committed a bioterrorist attack, then a similar argument could be applied to the United States. For instance, in the case of torture at Abu Ghraib, the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme, or the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the American government may not have issued direct orders in each instance, but it fostered climates where evil became possible, even routinised.

Yes, almost all American leftists would agree with this (along with other groups on the fringes of the American political scene).

Quote from: Opus131 on October 07, 2025, 05:47:18 AMthe example of the Byzantine empire shows exactly what the ideal form of goverment ought to be.

Ah, yes, the ideal Byzantine government, the marvelous symphony of Church and State, emperors blinding their own sons and viceversa, bishops and metropolitans being deposed and blinded by emperors or giving their blessing to the deposing and blinding of emperors, mob rule making or unmaking emperors, religious civil wars and persecutions waging for more than a century! Indeed, mankind has never known a better, more Christian, intelligent, benevolent and effective system of government. Its return is to be heartily desired and vigorously pursued.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 07, 2025, 04:57:35 AMLike all liberations the splitting of the unity of faith, culture, art (that was the norm not only in European christendom but in most cultures in history) in early modernity and the liberation of the arts made great things possible that were rare or nonexistent before but it also liberated us towards all kinds of bad things.
As we live at the time we live there is very little we can do about such things that seem to have been changed irreversibly 250, probably already 500 years ago.

I have two comments.

1. The much vaunted unity of faith, culture and art in Christendom was wishful thinking rather than reality.

2. Every society is imperfect, every society has its shortcomings and bad things. The modern world is no different than the traditional one in this respect. The latter, though, is gone forever, whereas we live in the former. Don't you find anything worthwhile or at least tolerable about it?

Quote from: Opus131 on October 07, 2025, 06:03:27 AMyou can find many instances of people "bemoaning" the collapse and degradation of their respective culture, becuase that's exactly what it was happening and in my opinion most of the time they were correct in their assessment.

So Pope John XXII was correct in his assessment of polyphony as representing the collapse and degradation of sacred music.

As a black living in the USA, I've yet to see this great culture in all of my years alive - 42 thus far, and I will die, almost assuredly, without being recognized as a full human by a significant portion of the population of the USA, so I suspect I will never see this great culture.

The evolution of the universe in expressing through the human mind has produced many varied ideas, philosophies, religions, works of art, music and associated rules. In looking for a world view, and soundtrack, compatible with one's experience it makes sense to consider history in its entirety, not just the currently dominant phenomena. Careful selection and filtering may well enable one to create a comfortable niche of one's own.

Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2025, 08:35:22 AMAh, yes, the ideal Byzantine government, the marvelous symphony of Church and State, emperors blinding their own sons and viceversa, bishops and metropolitans being deposed and blinded by emperors or giving their blessing to the deposing and blinding of emperors, mob rule making or unmaking emperors, religious civil wars and persecutions waging for more than a century! Indeed, mankind has never known a better, more Christian, intelligent, benevolent and effective system of government. Its return is to be heartily desired and vigorously pursued.

You can make any civilization look terrible if you just cherry pick all the bad parts. In fact, much of what we know of history is essentially just a collection of events that were considered to be important enough to write down, which would include a lot of terrible things since those tend to stand out. If they were as "common place" as you seem to suggest here, they wouldn't even be recorded at all. A lot of history is essentially "black chronicle" in this sense. Peace usually doesn't make it to the annals of history, and so it goes unrecorded, giving in the impression nothing at all happened in the past except terrible things. This is all the more true when it comes to Byzantium since this is a civilization that lasted over a thousand years, which is a LOT of history.

I mean, consider what one could write about the history of America starting from the turn of the 20th century up to today. Just look at all the wars they have engaged in. What would people say about things like the invasion of Iraq, which was launched under a false pretext and lead to the death of over a million people? An outline of the "major" historical events punctuating American history from 1900 to today would probably paint a far more bleak picture than what anybody who has lived in America during this century probably experienced, and even so i'm not sure all the wars and destruction wrought in the world by the American goverment would necessarely be an indictment of its system of goverment and civil structure (a civil structure which does not eschew the idea of a central authority. When it is said that the "law" is king, that's not an euphemism or mere turn of phrase), since bad "actors" can appear under any system.

To me, what justifies traditional civilizations like Byzantium and its social system is not the "absence" of abuses (which is just a consequence of our fallen human nature), but the fact such civilizations tended to model themselves after sacred and divine principles. Essentially, traditional civilizations were "good" in principle, though not always so in fact, while modern society is evil in principle, though it does have a few advantages and good things in practice. That's an important distinction. Under Byzantium, Christianity was able to unfold itself out of the "catacombs" to flower into a full blown sacred tradition that penetrated the whole of the society, and the emperors had a decisive role in this, starting with Saint Constantine. It was under Byzantium that the ecumentical councils convened. It was under Byzantium that the canon of scripture and all the finer theological points of Christianity were decided.

Meanwhile, i can't think of a single culture that has succeded into turning a majority of people AWAY from God than modern secular civilization, with their supposedly "free" systems of goverments which however are clearly under the iron boot of a finantial oligarchy, which is just autocracy under a different name.

Quote from: Opus131 on October 08, 2025, 01:25:57 AMEssentially, traditional civilizations were "good" in principle, though not always so in fact, while modern society is evil in principle, though it does have a few advantages and good things in practice. That's an important distinction.

And who decides these principles?

Btw, Byzantium/Byzantine Empire is an ideologically-loaded term. They were simply the Roman Empire. The emperors, all of them, from St. Constantine to Constantine XII, never called themselves anything other than "Emperor of the Romans" and never called their state anything other than "Empire of the Romans"; the inhabitants never called themselves anything other than "Romans".

Quote from: Opus131 on October 08, 2025, 01:25:57 AMi can't think of a single culture that has succeded into turning a majority of people AWAY from God than modern secular civilization, with their supposedly "free" systems of goverments which however are clearly under the iron boot of a finantial oligarchy, which is just autocracy under a different name.

Here's a question for your consideration: if the "traditional" civilization was so good, just and benevolent, if the Christian principles so deeply permeated all its strata, from king to peasant, from bishop to cobbler, how come that it was possible to turn people away from it, in the first place? Certainly, one doesn't turn away from something they strongly consider good both in principle and in practice. That's like saying that in midwinter you can succeed in turning people away from a well-heated, well-furnished and well-stocked house.

Look, I don't claim that modern civilization is perfect. No civilization is. All are flawed in one way or another. None is purely good or purely evil. I don't live in the past, though, but in the here and now. And from my point of view, the good things of the here and now offset against the bad ones.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 07, 2025, 09:04:34 AMI will die, almost assuredly, without being recognized as a full human by a significant portion of the population of the USA

I should point out that only Black Africans have 100% Homo sapiens DNA, the rest being found to have interbred with other related species, such as Neanderthals, that diverged from humans proper earlier in prehistory.

Quote from: steve ridgway on October 08, 2025, 04:34:41 AMI should point out that only Black Africans have 100% Homo sapiens DNA, the rest being found to have interbred with other related species, such as Neanderthals, that diverged from humans proper earlier in prehistory.

Lol, trust me, that irony is not lost on me.

Also, I've seen above folks talking about cherry picking - I don't need to cherry pick; I just need to exist.

Quote from: steve ridgway on October 08, 2025, 04:34:41 AMI should point out that only Black Africans have 100% Homo sapiens DNA, the rest being found to have interbred with other related species, such as Neanderthals, that diverged from humans proper earlier in prehistory.

I can't even begin to fathom what that is even supposed to mean.

I kindly remind members that the adjective musical appears in the thread title as established by the OP almost sixteen years ago now. I see no reference to music in the recent posts.

Please keep this thread on-topic. Thanks!

The most interesting thing about this thread is that there are users from 17 years ago that I remember, even though they made a very small number of posts (and are still registered).

Quote from: Opus131 on October 06, 2025, 03:29:43 PMI believe nature is sacred and a kind of theophany.

I am probably not far away from you there, although have come to it through trying to put together the most inclusive possible picture of science, personal experiences of meaningful coincidences, trying to imagine what sort of universe I'd want if I had the power to create one, what purpose I'd have for it etc. Variety, differentiation, randomness, surprises, unexpected beauty are all important parts of it for me so I find music composed in accordance with strict rules limited to too small a subset of the possibilities.

As the connection of this thread to matters musical has all but disappeared, it belongs in The Diner, not the main board.

Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2025, 08:56:23 AMSo Pope John XXII was correct in his assessment of polyphony as representing the collapse and degradation of sacred music.

It depends. I'm not saying reactionaries don't exist, but i'm thinking of the general development not only of Christian art but western Christedom as a whole during the high middle ages and the changes in music were just part of a general change in the culture.

The latin west during this period seems to have veered more towards a kind of warrior spirit. This was the age of the gothic, which compared to the romansque felt more dramatic, almost frightful. It was an era of crusades, priestly warrior orders and even warrior popes (or at least one of them was). It was the era where the papacy begun to see itself not only as a spiritual authority but even a temporal one. Even in philosophy something like a form of conceptual combat was introduced with the new found influence of Aristotle (Plato for me always felt more like a priestly figure, with his metaphysical presuppositions and frequent references to myth) and the rise of scholasticism. And in polyphony one finds a shift towards a more cosmological conception, as if the focus went from God more towards creation, a process which of course ended reaching earth during the Renaissance and Baroque, music becoming more secular and "human".

Now i'm not saying medieval art in this period is "bad" if one looks at it from an art for art's sake point of view but i can see how those decrying the cultural changes of this era probably had a point because this shift in latin Christianity had some serious consequences. Many of the developments in the west, from the rise of secular humanism to the advent of Protestantism were a direct consequences of the cultural changes of the middle ages (and to answer your question as to how Byzantium could fall, the latin west had something to do with that, along with the rise of Islam).

It's also interesting how several medieval composers were actually almost veering towards modernism, which to me is a clear sign the trajectory of the high middle ages was one of implosion, and we don't have to speculate about that since the culture of the middle ages did in fact die out, so Pope John XXII was definitely on to something there.

Quote from: Opus131 on October 08, 2025, 11:32:01 PMIt's also interesting how several medieval composers were actually almost veering towards modernism,

Who/what do you have in mind here?

Quote from: Opus131 on October 08, 2025, 11:32:01 PMAnd in polyphony one finds a shift towards a more cosmological conception, as if the focus went from God more towards creation, a process which of course ended reaching earth during the Renaissance and Baroque, music becoming more secular and "human".

I just note that there is no shortage of secular and human music from the Middle Ages.

Quote from: Mandryka on October 09, 2025, 12:13:28 AMWho/what do you have in mind here?

I'm talking about the Ars subtilior composers:

Quote from: Mandryka on October 09, 2025, 12:13:28 AMI just note that there is no shortage of secular and human music from the Middle Ages.

True but there's a certain "mythical" or "dreamlike" quality to medieval secular art. When the sacred dominates the whole of the society is oriented towards the eternal to some degree, and even secular life adopts a kind of "timeless" character. Medieval people obviously enjoyed life like anybody else, all those songs about dance and merriment, wine and song, love and romance, but it doesn't feel self-centered. Like i said it feels like someone is living in a myth:



By contrast, by the time the late Renaissance rolled in it feels like the "human" element is much more pronounced. The secular world no longer feels like it is subordinate to the sacred, but rather it becomes almost dominant to the point even religious music essentially starts to sound secular. Likewise for the art. All of the religious artwork of the Renaissance masters feel more pagan than they feel sacred to me.

@Opus131


Re Ars Subtilor, I've never understood the link to modernity -- but I've heard it said before, but I've never heard it fleshed out or argued for.

What I have heard argued is that early music is primarily concerned with small phrases and details, rather than long ideas and phrases, and that that's something which it has in common with modern music. This came up in a conversation with someone who was part of the Hilliard Ensemble no less, and he used it as an explanation of why  many performers of early music also perform contemporary music.

I'll think about what you say about myth and secular medieval music.