5 Worst Composers Ever!!

[karlhenning]

I had no idea that Chopin was a pamphleteer on the order of Wagner! The things I learn on this thread . . . .

[Scarpia]

Yes, I am a chopinist of sort. Well, no longer, actually.. 

Chopin, as I understand it, wrote unkind things about Jews in numerous private letters.  No Pamphlets.  Now Henry Ford, there was an enthusiastic pamphleteer.  He wrote a series of anti-Semitic pamphlets, which were cited as an inspiration by Hitler himself.  He gave it up, I take it, when it became apparent they were bad for business.

[Josquin des Prez]

There's always the chance some of them were justified...

[Bulldog]

There's always the chance some of them were justified...

Hey Adolf,

You would have received excellent performance appraisals as an employee in a Nazi death camp. 

[Scarpia]

Hey Adolf,

You would have received excellent performance appraisals as an employee in a Nazi death camp.

Nah, he would have been the slacker off in the beer hall arguing over whether Hitler or Goebels was the real genius.

[Josquin des Prez]

Hey Adolf,

You would have received excellent performance appraisals as an employee in a Nazi death camp.

What makes you think i'm a Nazi? I'm just asking a pertinent question. We don't know what made Chopin or Dostoevsky run afoul with the Jews. We know why Mozart hated Italians, and i'm actually inclined to agree with his reasoning, at least to a degree, all though i'm Italian myself. Do we know why Chopin didn't like Jews? What about Dostoevsky? I'm sure they didn't simply target the Jews out of the blue, just for the fun of it. There must be a reason. Those men weren't Nazis after all.

[Bulldog]

What makes you think i'm a Nazi? I'm just asking a pertinent question. We don't know what made Chopin or Dostoevsky run afoul with the Jews. We know why Mozart hated Italians, and i'm actually inclined to agree with his reasoning, at least to a degree, all though i'm Italian myself. Do we know why Chopin didn't like Jews? What about Dostoevsky? I'm sure they didn't simply target the Jews out of the blue, just for the fun of it. There must be a reason. Those men weren't Nazis after all.

You just don't get it.  If you consistently judge an individual based on his/her group identity, you are a racist and bigot. 

I'd like to help you out, because I do believe that you possess some fine traits.  However, unless you honestly admit to your unsavory views, the cause is hopeless.

Concerning Chopin and any other person, there is no acceptable reason for disliking an entire group of people.  That kind of illogical and dysfunctional thinking leads to discrimination, violence and genocide.

[Josquin des Prez]

You just don't get it.  If you consistently judge an individual based on his/her group identity, you are a racist and bigot. 

I'd like to help you out, because I do believe that you possess some fine traits.  However, unless you honestly admit to your unsavory views, the cause is hopeless.

Concerning Chopin and any other person, there is no acceptable reason for disliking an entire group of people.  That kind of illogical and dysfunctional thinking leads to discrimination, violence and genocide.

Granted, but not everybody who falls into the habit of disliking certain groups has genocidal tendencies (as we all understand in the case of the antipathy Mozart felt for the Italians), which is pretty much the first thing that comes to mind when the faintest shadow of criticism is directed at Jews as a group. Dostoevsky in particular saw himself and the Russians in general as a victim. He actually saw the Jews as a potential oppressor. He is a tough case for those who would like to dismiss him as a mere anti-Semite considering he was one of the greatest moralists who ever lived, and perhaps the greatest novelist of all times. Most people have long since rationalized that the greatest artists can also be great scoundrels, and that there is nothing incompatible between the two. I propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels, and thus my job is to exonerate their sins. That's how my little venture started in the first place, btw.

[Verena]

I propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels, and thus my job is to exonerate their sins.

So Gesualdo who killed his wife and her lover is not a "scoundrel" by your definition? Actually, he is, or was, much worse, namely a murderer. Or perhaps he was not a great artist? (Because great artists cannot be scoundrels? That would be circular reasoning). And certainly, Gesualdo is not the only example that springs to mind.
There is no reason why great artists cannot be scoundrels, other than an idealistic pre-judgment of the issue, which is either self-refuting (see the example) or circular (simply define an artist as someone who cannot be a scoundrel, then every possible example will simply be discarded in virtue of your idiosyncratic re-definition of artist - but redefining a term is not an argument but undermines the very possibility of arguing for or against a point)

[Josquin des Prez]

So Gesualdo who killed his wife and her lover is not a "scoundrel" by your definition? Actually, he is, or was, much worse, namely a murderer. Or perhaps he was not a great artist? (Because great artists cannot be scoundrels? That would be circular reasoning). And certainly, Gesualdo is not the only example that springs to mind.

I see you have conveniently ignored the years he spent in guilt and harsh penitence for his crime. I never said a great artist cannot act in the manner of a scoundrel. We are all human after all, and some are more human then others. But there is a difference between acting like a scoundrel, and being genuinely evil.

There is no reason why great artists cannot be scoundrels

If they were truly rotten on the inside they would never be able to produce works of genius. Anyone who believes eitherwise understands nothing of great art.

[Josquin des Prez]

BTW, since we're on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ1u9Fno3jU

[Verena]

If they were truly rotten on the inside they would never be able to produce works of genius. Anyone who believes eitherwise understands nothing of great art.

That is indeed an intriguing distinction: being a scoundrel and acting like one. What are your criteria for drawing that distinction? If one repents, one isn't a scoundrel any more, or has never been one? Perhaps, but then the characterisation of someone as a "scoundrel" is very much preliminary - who knows, the person in question might genuinely repent at some stage - or does he have to repent at once, or shortly after  the crime (what does shortly mean, here?). Or, had that imaginary person lived a little longer, (s)he might have repented, but as it so happens, (s)he died before (s)he had the opportunity to repent .. I guess by that criterion, no one deserves the tag "scoundrel" any more. Mitigating circumstances can always be found, if one is a little creative. Which of course in a way confirms your initial claim - no artist can be a scoundrel - but then that claim becomes senseless, because the term "scoundrel" becomes inapplicable: there are no true scoundrels.

However, the main point does not relate to this particular example, but to the sweeping and entirely general claim you made about the incompatibility of great artistry and being a scoundrel.
If you say that "Anyone who believes otherwise understands nothing of great art." you again re-define a concept: persons who are knowledgeable about art are those persons who grant your point about great artists not being scoundrels. That's exactly the same line of reasoning as before - undercutting the very possibility of argument by re-defining concepts. If we do not share the same concepts, we cannot argue any more. Case closed.

Quite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

[Scarpia]

That is indeed an intriguing distinction: being a scoundrel and acting like one. What are your criteria for drawing that distinction? If one repents, one isn't a scoundrel any more, or has never been one? Perhaps, but then the characterisation of someone as a "scoundrel" is very much preliminary - who knows, the person in question might genuinely repent at some stage - or does he have to repent at once, or shortly after  the crime (what does shortly mean, here?). Or, had that imaginary person lived a little longer, (s)he might have repented, but as it so happens, (s)he died before (s)he had the opportunity to repent .. I guess by that criterion, no one deserves the tag "scoundrel" any more. Mitigating circumstances can always be found, if one is a little creative. Which of course in a way confirms your initial claim - no artist can be a scoundrel - but then that claim becomes senseless, because the term "scoundrel" becomes inapplicable: there are no true scoundrels.

However, the main point does not relate to this particular example, but to the sweeping and entirely general claim you made about the incompatibility of great artistry and being a scoundrel.
If you say that "Anyone who believes otherwise understands nothing of great art." you again re-define a concept: persons who are knowledgeable about art are those persons who grant your point about great artists not being scoundrels. That's exactly the same line of reasoning as before - undercutting the very possibility of argument by re-defining concepts. If we do not share the same concepts, we cannot argue any more. Case closed.

Quite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

Verena,

Welcome to CMG.  It appears that you have not been around here long enough to appreciate the fruitlessness of getting into these arguments with JdP.   He alone has been vouchsafed the ability to distinguish true genius, and that is all there is to it.   

[Verena]

Verena, Welcome to CMG.  It appears that you have not been around here long enough to appreciate the fruitlessness of getting into these arguments with JdP.   He alone has been vouchsafed the ability to distinguish true genius, and that is all there is to it. 

Thanks. Yes, indeed, I have not been around here for a long time. But my learning curve right now is rather steep..

[Bulldog]

Verena,

Welcome to CMG.  It appears that you have not been around here long enough to appreciate the fruitlessness of getting into these arguments with JdP.   He alone has been vouchsafed the ability to distinguish true genius, and that is all there is to it.   

Not totally.  This is the first time he's broadcasted to us from the Twilight Zone.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Dostoevsky in particular saw himself and the Russians in general as a victim. He actually saw the Jews as a potential oppressor. He is a tough case for those who would like to dismiss him as a mere anti-Semite considering he was one of the greatest moralists who ever lived, and perhaps the greatest novelist of all times. Most people have long since rationalized that the greatest artists can also be great scoundrels, and that there is nothing incompatible between the two. I propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels, and thus my job is to exonerate their sins.

Dostoevsky is not a good example to cite of a non-scoundrel artist. He wasn't just an anti-Semite; he also basically hated everyone who wasn't an Orthodox Slav. His personal conduct was often revolting, and there is strong evidence that he spent much of his life teetering on the edge of insanity, without quite going over it.

Face it: the guy is proof that one can be a genius while being totally screwed up at the same time.

[Florestan]

Dostoevsky is not a good example to cite of a non-scoundrel artist. He wasn't just an anti-Semite; he also basically hated everyone who wasn't an Orthodox Slav.

Yet from all the venom and hate he, according to you, was filled with, sprang forth some of the most compassionate, humane and philantropic literary monuments the world has ever known.

His personal conduct was often revolting,

As is often the conduct of human beings, be they Dostoievsky, Velimir or Florestan.

and there is strong evidence that he spent much of his life teetering on the edge of insanity, without quite going over it.

You undermine your own argument with that: insanity exonerates anyone from any responsibility.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Yet from all the venom and hate [etc]

I don't disagree with you. I'm objecting to the point of view expressed by "Josquin," who posits a simple-minded view that geniuses cannot be bad people by definition.

[abidoful]

Yes, I am a chopinist of sort. Well, no longer, actually.. 

Well, but how is it evident in he's music? I don't think it is...

[Florestan]

Chopin- whom you mentioned- wrote also some nasty things about Jews.

Chopin, as I understand it, wrote unkind things about Jews in numerous private letters. 

Any meaningful discussion of Chopin's alleged anti-semitism should begin with what he wrote about Jews and why he wrote it. So, could you please let us know what he actually wrote in those private letters and enlighten us as to the reasons that prompted him to do so? TIA.