shostakovich's 100
the furor
Christopher Culver
> great excuse to listen to all of his stuff. a genius among geniuses.
A second- or third-pressing of Mahler.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dale Houstman
Christopher Culver wrote:
> "the furor" <aegi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>great excuse to listen to all of his stuff. a genius among geniuses.
>
>
> A second- or third-pressing of Mahler.
>
Mahler is the greater of the two I'd wager also. One has to remember
that Shostakovich had to operate under Stalin, and he was often very
close to getting his feathers clipped for being not quite celebratory
enough. I imagine the constraints he had to work under didn't aid his
creative development much.
dmh
David Oberman
>Mahler is the greater of the two I'd wager also. One has to remember
>that Shostakovich had to operate under Stalin, and he was often very
>close to getting his feathers clipped for being not quite celebratory
>enough. I imagine the constraints he had to work under didn't aid his
>creative development much.
No, they didn't. He & Prokofiev were both forced to compose
nationalistic or goofy stuff like folk songs & marches. They had to
write the equivalent of the agriculture paintings showing the
musclebound field workers with sickle & scythe.
But tonight Bill O'Reilly chastised Paris Hilton for her new video
showing foxy teacher & teenage boy, saying she had a responsibility
"to the United States of America," especially in this age of
pedophilia (?) & crime, to show more positive, morally upright images.
Christopher Culver
> Mahler is the greater of the two I'd wager also. One has to remember
> that Shostakovich had to operate under Stalin, and he was often very
> close to getting his feathers clipped for being not quite
> celebratory enough. I imagine the constraints he had to work under
> didn't aid his creative development much.
So if one can acknowledge that Shostakovich was creatively stunted,
why celebrate his music, especially this year? Or are we supposed to
praise the triumph of the human spirit or whatever context accompanies
the work even if the music itself sucks?
Anne Budgell
----------
In article <d2gph25hq3fv8s6os...@4ax.com>, David Oberman
<dobe...@IGNOREsocal.rr.com> wrote:
Man, I never ever thought I'd find myself feeling a sense of solidarity with
Paris Hilton.
GMW
Dale Houstman
Jeez: I was just expressing MY personal opinion. Obviously others (like
many programmers on public radio, and not a few Russians) feel
differently. I'm not celebrating his music, this year or any other. But
I never said his music "sucked" at any rate: I just believe that his
work - overall - is a less magnificent oeuvre than Mahler's.
dmh
*Anarcissie*
There is no need to celebrate anyone's centenary; in the
case of a composer, the point is to listen to the music,
rather than engage in silly public ceremonies based on
the digits in a date.
The idea that Shostakovich is inferior to Mahler is
ludicrous. However, there is much in his orchestral
works that is uninteresting because his bosses wanted
the sort of broad conventionalities of gesture and
rhetoric which had become the staple of bourgeois
entertainment in the 19th century -- later supplied by
the movies -- and he had to please them if he wanted
to say out of trouble. They got the symphonies. If you
want the music pure, go to the string quartets. But I
suppose people who think Mahler is better than
Shostakovich probably don't listen to string
quartets. No drums! No bugles!
delc...@mail.ab.edu
*. If you
> want the music pure, go to the string quartets.
Or the amazing set of 24 Preludes and Fugues for piano, or his other
chamber music.
His last work, Op. 147, Sonata for piano and viola, is a sublime
valediction.
J. Del Col
Peter T. Daniels
It's certainly a much, much bigger one, so there was far more
opportunity for peaks and valleys.
the furor
in a way, i think stalin inadvertantly did him a favor. shostakovich
composed serious music for The People, which is different than serious
music for a small number of pompous dorks or pop music for the unwashed
masses. without stalin, shostakovich might have made music for only an
increasingly small, elitist, avant garde bunch of intellectuals.
serious art for the people... that's like john ford, kurosawa, alfred
hitchcock, david lean, griffith(at his best), fellini, eisenstein,
konchalovsky(of siberaide)etc. nothing to be ashamed of.
why can't art be both accessible and serious? we allow that for
movies, but other artforms have been taken over by either esoteric
aesthetes or dogmatic ideologues.
indeed, so much of today's 'serious art' world is so dominated by
esotericists and ideologists that an artist MUST be 'difficult'--within
the confines of political correctness--in order to draw attention,
receive grants, and win awards(since his art means nothing to the
people, the artist increasingly depends on the small circle of the
artsy in-crowd to win recognition thru which he can access the money
and support of rich bourgeois types who wanna be 'cultural' during
their off hours--notice that alot of curators at museums are wives of
rich men).
in other words, if you are a great sculptor in the representational
mode, forget it in the artworld; but if you stack some junk into a
corner of a room and call it installation art, critics swoon over you
and recommend you for 50,000 dollar grant from NEA and other
foundations. sure, stalinism was much worse cuz it killed people.
but, the control that today's artsyfartsers have over much of art world
is also oppressive and intolerant.
this isn't to say there shouldn't be room for great serious difficult
works of art--resnais, bergman, and such, but the idea that art is
compromised unless it's meaningful to only the few and initiated is a
bad idear.
i unnerstand there is a need for stuff like finnegan's wake, but to
dismiss a great novel like 'grapes of wrath'--a sort of national
epic--as 'socialist realism aint right.
alot of great filmmakers in hollywood had to compromise with their
bosses and pander to mass tastes. but, despite that reality--and
perhaps because of it for adversity leads to greater ingenuity--great
artists like ford, hitchcock, and welles were still able to make great
films. shostakovich managed to do the same. yes, he was forced to
make music for the people. so he decided to make great music for the
people.
the furor
David Oberman wrote:
> Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> >Mahler is the greater of the two I'd wager also. One has to remember
> >that Shostakovich had to operate under Stalin, and he was often very
> >close to getting his feathers clipped for being not quite celebratory
> >enough. I imagine the constraints he had to work under didn't aid his
> >creative development much.
>
> No, they didn't. He & Prokofiev were both forced to compose
> nationalistic or goofy stuff like folk songs & marches. They had to
> write the equivalent of the agriculture paintings showing the
> musclebound field workers with sickle & scythe.
socialist realism isn't necessarily bad. there's good and bad
everything. what's bad is only allowing one official style of art.
but, if a state only allowed abstract art, that would be a bad policy
too. in today's 'serious music' world, one has to make goofy ugly
atonal crap to garner the attention of 'serious' critics and scholars
who make or break careers.
now, i'm not making a case of moral equivalence between stalinism and
western artsyfartsery cuz one is still free to do anything in the US
and no one gets shot. but, if you want a serious career in many fields
of art, you have to toe the aesthetic or anti-aesthetic and/or
ideological line to be admitted to key institutions.
the 'best' english departments in the US will not welcome scholars who
discuss literary merit. you have write about Theory.
the 'best' music departments will not embrace you if you compose
accessible music; but, if you make alot of crippity crappity bleeps and
blaps, you will be hailed as a great new talent.
and theatre is run by a bunch of campy gayboys as john simon said.
now, some of shostakovich's stuff is indeed trivial or bad. but
consider stuff like sym 4, 5, 8, 10, 11. they are great music for the
people. was it really a case of artistic compromise? perhaps, but i
see it as artistic triumph over and thru adversity. it's music for the
people and even against the people cuz shostakovich even at his most
accessible best was a challenging, bold, and exciting artist. and to
an extent, stalinism was an expression of the will of the masses not
only because stalin was very popular--at least in urban areas--but
because mass psychology can be just as brutal and oppressive as tyranny
by a few(indeed in the modern world, they often go together); so,
shostakovich worked for and against stalin and the people. that's why
his music is so filled with great tension and power. we sense the
great energy, ingenuity, and creativity always walking the tightrope
between personal expression and national/ideological aspiration--and
still managing to perform all sorts of acrobatics. you can even do
stuff you don't wanna do your way. it wasn't jesus's idear to carry
the cross but he did his way--though a negro helped some. and he died
in his own way too, at least in spiritual terms. and shostakovich
'compromised' in his own way. that was the ONLY way he could work in
that society, and though the adversity somewhat restrained his art, in
a way it also ennobled and complex-ified it.
anyway, shostakovich didn't just let the listener sit back and feel
good. he took the listener on a rollercoaster thru tragedy, horror, and
utter darkness as well as thru glory and pride.
as for prokofiev, music for alexander nevsky and ivan the terrible may
indeed nationalistic or folksy but they are great. i'll take that over
some modernist blippity blap anyday, just as i'll take siberiade, the
leopard, and searchers over 'meshes in the afternoon' or 'jeanne
dielmann' anyday.
i dare say john williams and jerry goldsmith are more worthy composers
than most serious composers out there who create alot of atonal
blippity blaps.
and, gimme the beatles over all them esoteric rock groups that
consciously make music against mass tastes. i aint saying one must
pander to mass taste but the opposite isn't necessarily better--often,
it's worse cuz it not only lacks artistic merit but even the stuff that
is appealing to the average person.
a bad hollywood movie might still have some conventional stuff that's
goody.
but, a bad work of serious art not only fails to engage our intellect
or emotion but it offers el zero in terms of simple amusement. jeanne
dielmann, the horror among horrors.
>
> But tonight Bill O'Reilly chastised Paris Hilton for her new video
> showing foxy teacher & teenage boy, saying she had a responsibility
> "to the United States of America," especially in this age of
> pedophilia (?) & crime, to show more positive, morally upright images.
you see, stalin wasn't all bad. send hilton to a gulag.
*Anarcissie*
> in other words, if you are a great sculptor in the representational
> mode, forget it in the artworld; but if you stack some junk into a
> corner of a room and call it installation art, critics swoon over you
> and recommend you for 50,000 dollar grant from NEA and other
> foundations.
Your ideas about how the plastic arts are marketed and sold are
somewhat uninformed. You should check out some galleries (in
a civilized area, if you can find one) some time and see what's
actually going on.
> sure, stalinism was much worse cuz it killed people.
> but, the control that today's artsyfartsers have over much of art world
> is also oppressive and intolerant.
But it's the putative Common Man and Joe Stalin who have the
same tastes and are supposedly rigorously unforgiving of any
deviation. So what does that tell you about oppressive and
intolerant?
Paul Ilechko
> So if one can acknowledge that Shostakovich was creatively stunted,
> why celebrate his music, especially this year? Or are we supposed to
> praise the triumph of the human spirit or whatever context accompanies
> the work even if the music itself sucks?
>
Perhaps the music doesn't suck? Yes, there are a few failures like the
2nd, 3rd and 12th symphonies, but in general he was a truly great
composer. His string quartets are exceeded only by Bartok in the 20th
century, and his Preludes and Fugues for solo piano take up the mantle
of Bach with surprising effectiveness. Even among the more hit-and-miss
symphonies there are several works of significant quality, such as the
5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 13th and 14th. Not to mention various concertos,
sonatas, songs ...
Paul Ilechko
> His last work, Op. 147, Sonata for piano and viola, is a sublime
> valediction.
Yes. As is the slightly earlier sonata for piano and violin.
Peter T. Daniels
the furor wrote:
> in other words, if you are a great sculptor in the representational
> mode, forget it in the artworld; but if you stack some junk into a
> corner of a room and call it installation art, critics swoon over you
> and recommend you for 50,000 dollar grant from NEA and other
> foundations.
The NEA hasn't given grants to individuals in years -- thanks to
reactionary legislators who accused them of funding pornography (and
worse).
David Oberman
>socialist realism isn't necessarily bad. there's good and bad
>everything. what's bad is only allowing one official style of art.
>but, if a state only allowed abstract art, that would be a bad policy
>too.
I don't think it's any of the state's business what kind of song I
write or how I record it.
Dale Houstman
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Christopher Culver wrote:
>
>>Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com> writes:
>>
>>>Mahler is the greater of the two I'd wager also. One has to remember
>>>that Shostakovich had to operate under Stalin, and he was often very
>>>close to getting his feathers clipped for being not quite
>>>celebratory enough. I imagine the constraints he had to work under
>>>didn't aid his creative development much.
>>
>>So if one can acknowledge that Shostakovich was creatively stunted,
>>why celebrate his music, especially this year? Or are we supposed to
>>praise the triumph of the human spirit or whatever context accompanies
>>the work even if the music itself sucks?
>
>
> There is no need to celebrate anyone's centenary; in the
> case of a composer, the point is to listen to the music,
> rather than engage in silly public ceremonies based on
> the digits in a date.
>
> The idea that Shostakovich is inferior to Mahler is
> ludicrous.
Certainly not. Debatable yes. Ludicrous? No. It's merely an opinion
educated by years of listening. Mahler simply sounds better to me. Not
much more to it.
dmh
Paul Ilechko
>
>
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>> The idea that Shostakovich is inferior to Mahler is
>> ludicrous.
>
> Certainly not. Debatable yes. Ludicrous? No. It's merely an opinion
> educated by years of listening. Mahler simply sounds better to me. Not
> much more to it.
>
I would say that Mahler is clearly a better symphonist. However,
Shostakovich wrote his best music in other genres, so it's hard to do a
head to head comparison.
Mahler is truly exceptional because he was one of the greatest ever
composers of symphonies - I would put him in the top four with Haydn,
Beethoven and Bruckner. I'm not sure Shostakovich ever quite scales the
same heights, but it hardly matters as he wrote a great deal of
wonderful music.
the furor
oh my, what a blow to art for are not doling $80,000 grants to great
artists who piss on the crucifix or take photos of gayboys sucking
eachother.
Dale Houstman
No argument. Frankly, I prefer Mozart to both - as a matter of simple
personal taste.
dmh
the furor
true, but suppose the state made it its business. would you give up on
music altogether or would you try to somehow work within it, thru it,
even subtlely against it?
shostakovich didn't have a choice. he worked thru it and transcended
the parameters of socialist realism.
few artists are truly totally free. even artists in the west work in
accordance with what is hip, 'relevant', and profitable. go to any
contemporary art gallery, and guess what? current works all fall into
certain broad categories. everyone conforms somehow in order to fit
in, accepted by the people and institutions that set the standards.
no one should be forced to conform at the point of a gun, but most
artists have to compromise with reality--political, social, economic.
that doesn't mean his art must suck.
lennon tried his ultra personal avant garde music with stuff like 'two
virgins'. who knows, maybe that's what he really wanted to do. but, no
one bought it, in order to remain relevant and make the kind of dough
to support his lifestyle, he had to go back to making hits for the
masses.
but, a hit song that everyone likes can still be a great song, a
personal song. no shame there. i think shostakovich's music for the
people is great music. much of it anyway. he did do some halfhearted
hackwork.
Michael Haslam
"for are not doling" - what does that mean?
--
MJHaslam
Remove accidentals to obtain correct e-address
Peter T. Daniels
Haydn over Mozart? Bruckner over Brahms?? Well, there's no accounting
for taste.
Peter T. Daniels
Kindly cite an example of either?
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> Mahler is truly exceptional because he was one of the greatest ever
>> composers of symphonies - I would put him in the top four with Haydn,
>> Beethoven and Bruckner. I'm not sure Shostakovich ever quite scales the
>> same heights, but it hardly matters as he wrote a great deal of
>> wonderful music.
>
> Haydn over Mozart?
As a symphonist, definitely. It's not even close.
> Bruckner over Brahms??
ditto
> Well, there's no accounting
> for taste.
>
obviously.
ious ion istic ish ily iful ible
abigail schwartz's 'angry jewess pisses on jesus' and duk sun poon's
'he sucked my dick'.
and don't forget the dung mary painting in brooklyn.
David Oberman
>Haydn over Mozart? Bruckner over Brahms?? Well, there's no accounting
>for taste.
I wouldn't even put Bruckner over Vaughan Williams, let alone Brahms.
Peter T. Daniels
does not exist, does not exist
> and don't forget the dung mary painting in brooklyn.
it was nothing of the sort. It was Giuliani being an ass. And the NEA
had nothing whatsoever to do with that; it was created in England and
was part of a private collection (Saatchi & Saatchi) that was being
shown in Brooklyn.
ious ion istic
bruckner may have been somewhat obvious in his musical ideas but he was
very consistent and solid; grand and profoundly deep.
brahms was maybe greater but the fool only composed four symphonies.
williams was good but not in the same league with the great germs.
ious ion istic
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> ious ion istic ish ily iful ible wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > the furor wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > the furor wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > in other words, if you are a great sculptor in the representational
> > > > > > mode, forget it in the artworld; but if you stack some junk into a
> > > > > > corner of a room and call it installation art, critics swoon over you
> > > > > > and recommend you for 50,000 dollar grant from NEA and other
> > > > > > foundations.
> > > > >
> > > > > The NEA hasn't given grants to individuals in years -- thanks to
> > > > > reactionary legislators who accused them of funding pornography (and
> > > > > worse).
> > > >
> > > > oh my, what a blow to art for are not doling $80,000 grants to great
> > > > artists who piss on the crucifix or take photos of gayboys sucking
> > > > eachother.
> > >
> > > Kindly cite an example of either?
> >
> > abigail schwartz's 'angry jewess pisses on jesus' and duk sun poon's
> > 'he sucked my dick'.
>
> does not exist, does not exist
it's a composite of the sort of thing that exists.
>
> > and don't forget the dung mary painting in brooklyn.
>
> it was nothing of the sort. It was Giuliani being an ass. And the NEA
> had nothing whatsoever to do with that; it was created in England and
> was part of a private collection (Saatchi & Saatchi) that was being
> shown in Brooklyn.
okay, so private collectors are now funding that sort of thing. and why
was giuliani being an ass? suppose i made a painting called shi*
martin king. first of all, would any gallery display it? no. even if
it did, think of the controversy.
also, if liberal arts community is sooooooo courageous, how come it
kowtows to any muslim demand?
if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
that includes muhammad's head.
*Anarcissie*
Don't give them idea. No press is bad press.
> also, if liberal arts community is sooooooo courageous, how come it
> kowtows to any muslim demand?
> if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
> germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
> threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
> canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
> that includes muhammad's head.
But what about all the Germans who _didn't_ cancel operas because
of Muhammad's head?
As for Giuliani, he wasn't being an ass but a politician. Giuliani
is a Republican and would like to get on in the Republican Party,
but he has the almost fatal attributes of being known to talk to
Queers and to not be a rabid, froth-flecked anti-abortionist. What
could be done? How about a reactionary fuss about an otherwise
unremarkable piece of art? It was supposed to make all the
upstate bigots and the folks out in Televisionland USA feel all
warm and fuzzy, like he was one of their own. Most people in
New York City read this one correctly; I don't know how it went
over out of town. I think America's Mayor will have to do more
to remove the taints if he craves higher office among the
Republicans, however.
Peter T. Daniels
ious ion istic wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > ious ion istic ish ily iful ible wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > the furor wrote:
> > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > the furor wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > in other words, if you are a great sculptor in the representational
> > > > > > > mode, forget it in the artworld; but if you stack some junk into a
> > > > > > > corner of a room and call it installation art, critics swoon over you
> > > > > > > and recommend you for 50,000 dollar grant from NEA and other
> > > > > > > foundations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The NEA hasn't given grants to individuals in years -- thanks to
> > > > > > reactionary legislators who accused them of funding pornography (and
> > > > > > worse).
> > > > >
> > > > > oh my, what a blow to art for are not doling $80,000 grants to great
> > > > > artists who piss on the crucifix or take photos of gayboys sucking
> > > > > eachother.
> > > >
> > > > Kindly cite an example of either?
> > >
> > > abigail schwartz's 'angry jewess pisses on jesus' and duk sun poon's
> > > 'he sucked my dick'.
> >
> > does not exist, does not exist
>
> it's a composite of the sort of thing that exists.
No, they are not.
> > > and don't forget the dung mary painting in brooklyn.
> >
> > it was nothing of the sort. It was Giuliani being an ass. And the NEA
> > had nothing whatsoever to do with that; it was created in England and
> > was part of a private collection (Saatchi & Saatchi) that was being
> > shown in Brooklyn.
>
> okay, so private collectors are now funding that sort of thing. and why
> was giuliani being an ass? suppose i made a painting called shi*
> martin king. first of all, would any gallery display it? no. even if
> it did, think of the controversy.
I realize you're an ignorant troll, but this happened quite a while ago
now, so maybe some people seeing this would like to know what you're
trying to talk about.
The Brooklyn Museum, which receives some funding from the City of New
York (and whose new director is about to utterly destroy it as an
important cultural institution by dismissing most of the curatorial
staff and decreeing that its principal purpose is putting on
blockbuster exhibitions), hosted the New York showing of a private art
collection of contemporary artworks.
One of the pieces was a portrait of the Madonna painted by a devout
Christian from Nigeria, that incorporated a material that is sacred to
the people of his native region: cattle dung. Perhaps you've never been
on a farm, so perhaps you're not aware that "cow patties" are
inoffensive clumps of vegetal matter.
Giuliani (who at the time was one of the least popular mayors in the
history of the world) saw a description and, in an attempt to pretend
to be a devout Catholic (despite his very public divorces and
adulteries), denounced the painting (without ever seeing it) as a
desecration of the Blessed Mother.
It was, of course, nothing of the sort.
For those who consider the use of cow patties in an artwork bizarre,
how about the widespread Western practice of _eating_ rotten cow's (or
sheep's or goat's) milk? (It goes by the name of "cheese.")
> also, if liberal arts community is sooooooo courageous, how come it
> kowtows to any muslim demand?
For instance?
> if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
> germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
> threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
> canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
> that includes muhammad's head.
Or maybe because some radical extremist might choose to car-bomb the
theater?
Do you not recall the fuss (well, maybe you don't -- maybe you're 12
years old) when the Irish singer Sinead O'Connor tore in half a
photographic portrait of Pope John Paul II on live television (Saturday
Night Live)? Her US career was severely damaged. When that show was
rerun, they substituted her dress rehearsal performance, in which she
tore up some other picture. (I didn't then and don't now know what
point she was trying to make.)
More recently, do you not recall the fuss when a Dixie Chick (whatever
that is) said something uncomplimentary about the present "president"
of the United States? Her group was banned from many radio stations so
that their income was severely impacted.
So ... you wanna run that thing about "kowtowing" by us again?
Larisa
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> > if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
> > germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
> > threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
> > canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
> > that includes muhammad's head.
>
> But what about all the Germans who _didn't_ cancel operas because
> of Muhammad's head?
What about them? And what will happen next time, now that the Muslim
community knows full well that they can actually force an opera to
close? Will the art museums be next? Concert halls? Universities?
Say goodbye to Western civilization - it was fun while it lasted.
LM (going to listen to my recording of "Idomeneo" tonight...)
delc...@mail.ab.edu
Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> Mahler is truly exceptional because he was one of the greatest ever
> composers of symphonies - I would put him in the top four with Haydn,
BRUCKNER?! You must be joking. I had to endure one of his
interminable, aimless efforts at the Proms a couple of seasons ago in
London. It was a purgatorial experience.
J. Del Col
Paul Ilechko
Maybe you'll learn to love him when you're older.
*Anarcissie*
I guess we must have a bugaboo. Amazingly, no one paid any
attention to this one until a few years ago. In fact, the bugaboo
was _encouraged_ by our great leaders because it was supposed
to be a vexation to the Soviet Union. But now, it's a mighty
monster, poised to destroy Western Civilization.
There is no end to hokum.
smw
Larisa wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
>>>if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
>>>germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
>>>threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
>>>canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
>>>that includes muhammad's head.
>>
>>But what about all the Germans who _didn't_ cancel operas because
>>of Muhammad's head?
>
>
> What about them? And what will happen next time, now that the Muslim
> community knows full well that they can actually force an opera to
> close?
What community are you talking about? Do you have information the BND
would like to hear about?
Will the art museums be next? Concert halls? Universities?
> Say goodbye to Western civilization - it was fun while it lasted.
>
> LM (going to listen to my recording of "Idomeneo" tonight...)
Sand severed head, I suppose.
delc...@mail.ab.edu
When senility sets in?
J. Del Col (nearing his sixth decade)
delc...@mail.ab.edu
Larisa wrote:
> *>
> LM (going to listen to my recording of "Idomeneo" tonight...)
Better listen to --The Abduction from the Seraglio-- and --L'italiana
in Algeri.-- too, before some mullah demands their excision.
The cravens who struck --Idomeneo-- ought to lose their heads, so to
speak.
J. Del Col
Paul Ilechko
There is no mention of Muhammad in the libretto. It would appear that
this was deliberately provocative. Not there is anything wrong with
that, of course ...
smw
delc...@mail.ab.edu wrote:
Blather. If Harms hadn't canceled the production (not the opera, but a
specific interpretation of it) and something had happened, everybody
would have demanding, er, her head. The woman's responsible for the
house and everything and everyone in it. How comfortable would you be
risking not only your own life but a few thousand others alongside?
smw
Paul Ilechko wrote:
Provocative, but not of Islam, specifically -- the severed heads
belonged to Buddha, Poseidon, Jesus and Mohammed. Not that you'd be able
to tell from the US coverage.
Paul Ilechko
>
>
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> There is no mention of Muhammad in the libretto. It would appear that
>> this was deliberately provocative. Not there is anything wrong with
>> that, of course ...
>
> Provocative, but not of Islam, specifically -- the severed heads
> belonged to Buddha, Poseidon, Jesus and Mohammed. Not that you'd be able
> to tell from the US coverage.
>
Well, I did know that, so it must have been mentioned somewhere ...
probably in the NYT.
PJF
So the 7th doesn't rate even a mention? Guess, Toscanini wins out after
running over Stokowski at NBC for the opportunity to premier it in the U.S.
"Paul Ilechko" <pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:4o54kcF...@individual.net...
> Christopher Culver wrote:
>
> > So if one can acknowledge that Shostakovich was creatively stunted,
> > why celebrate his music, especially this year? Or are we supposed to
> > praise the triumph of the human spirit or whatever context accompanies
> > the work even if the music itself sucks?
> >
>
> Perhaps the music doesn't suck? Yes, there are a few failures like the
> 2nd, 3rd and 12th symphonies, but in general he was a truly great
> composer. His string quartets are exceeded only by Bartok in the 20th
> century, and his Preludes and Fugues for solo piano take up the mantle
> of Bach with surprising effectiveness. Even among the more hit-and-miss
> symphonies there are several works of significant quality, such as the
> 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 13th and 14th. Not to mention various concertos,
> sonatas, songs ...
Marko Amnell
A better solution would have been not to cancel the production,
but to increase security. Did Harms do everything she possibly could
to improve security? As far as I know, she didn't, but just cancelled
the production. I think that's wrong, because it encourages more
threats against works of art.
Peter T. Daniels
Also NPR and AirAmericaRadio.
smw
Marko Amnell wrote:
> smw wrote:
>>
>>Blather. If Harms hadn't canceled the production (not the opera, but a
>>specific interpretation of it) and something had happened, everybody
>>would have demanding, er, her head. The woman's responsible for the
>>house and everything and everyone in it. How comfortable would you be
>>risking not only your own life but a few thousand others alongside?
>
>
> A better solution would have been not to cancel the production,
> but to increase security.
Absolutely -- however, at that point, the LKA (Landeskriminalamt)
refused to give an estimate of impending danger.
Did Harms do everything she possibly could
> to improve security? As far as I know, she didn't, but just cancelled
> the production. I think that's wrong, because it encourages more
> threats against works of art.
I think Schaeuble's suggestion to attend the production together with
the leaders of the Muslim civic organizations was the finest yet.
Larisa
smw wrote:
> Larisa wrote:
>
> > *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >
> >>>if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
> >>>germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
> >>>threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
> >>>canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
> >>>that includes muhammad's head.
> >>
> >>But what about all the Germans who _didn't_ cancel operas because
> >>of Muhammad's head?
> >
> >
> > What about them? And what will happen next time, now that the Muslim
> > community knows full well that they can actually force an opera to
> > close?
>
> What community are you talking about? Do you have information the BND
> would like to hear about?
The increasingly vocal and growing Muslim community in Europe in
general and Germany in particular.
> Will the art museums be next? Concert halls? Universities?
> > Say goodbye to Western civilization - it was fun while it lasted.
> >
> > LM (going to listen to my recording of "Idomeneo" tonight...)
>
> Sans severed head, I suppose.
Alas, couldn't find one on such short notice.
LM (where does the severed head come up in the libretto, anyway?)
Larisa
Exactly - there *is* nothing wrong with that. There *should* be
nothing wrong with that. If they were brave enough to include a
severed head in the libretto, they shouldn't have chickened out at the
last minute.
And surely, the Islamic community is no stranger to deliberate
provocation? They seem to do plenty of it themselves...
LM
ious ion istic
> The Brooklyn Museum, which receives some funding from the City of New
> York (and whose new director is about to utterly destroy it as an
> important cultural institution by dismissing most of the curatorial
> staff and decreeing that its principal purpose is putting on
> blockbuster exhibitions), hosted the New York showing of a private art
> collection of contemporary artworks.
99.9% of contempory art deserves contempt. they are con and
temporary, not timeless lasting art.
>
> One of the pieces was a portrait of the Madonna painted by a devout
> Christian from Nigeria, that incorporated a material that is sacred to
> the people of his native region: cattle dung. Perhaps you've never been
> on a farm, so perhaps you're not aware that "cow patties" are
> inoffensive clumps of vegetal matter.
who cares what some stupid negro thinks? suppose i say my tribe
consider vomit and piss to be sacred and we make an ugly portrait of
martin king or gandhi or muhammad out of them--ostensibly out of
respect. what gallery would display it?
besides, i saw the painting. it was childish. it looked like what
kindergarteners do with crayon. now, why did a museum display some
stupid smelly artwork by a stupid childish negro whose culture thinks
cowdoogie is sacred?
>
> Giuliani (who at the time was one of the least popular mayors in the
> history of the world) saw a description and, in an attempt to pretend
> to be a devout Catholic (despite his very public divorces and
> adulteries), denounced the painting (without ever seeing it) as a
> desecration of the Blessed Mother.
he was offended not as a devout catholic but as a decent new yorker.
art galleries routinely trash christian and conservative figures and
values.
now, suppose a pro-nazi artist painted something anti-semitic. you
think any gallery would show it?
yet, if you're a commie and make some anti-christian painting, museums
will compete to show your art.
>
> It was, of course, nothing of the sort.
>
> For those who consider the use of cow patties in an artwork bizarre,
> how about the widespread Western practice of _eating_ rotten cow's (or
> sheep's or goat's) milk? (It goes by the name of "cheese.")
i wouldn't care if some african ate cow dung. i just don't want it
hanging in a museum paid for by US taxpayers.
as for cheese, people buy it with their own money. tax payers don't
foot the bill for someone who wants to eat stink cheese.
also, i would complain if some art gallery showed a painting out of
stink cheese. i mean it would stink up the whole place for one thing.
so, let's not confuse food with art unless you routinely make a meal
out of painting oils and chemicals, which would explain your loopy
sense of logic.
also, there is a difference between rotten and fermented. your brain
is rotten. mine is fermented.
>
> > also, if liberal arts community is sooooooo courageous, how come it
> > kowtows to any muslim demand?
>
> For instance?
you know full well that a drama in england was closed cuz of muslim
protest against its controversial topic which showed crazy muslims. or,
was it hindus? same difference.
you know full well that if an artist drew a funny painting of muhammad
whacking off, no museum would show it.
you know full well that no hollywood studio would make a muhammad
version of last temptation of christ.
you know full well that the people who allowed south park to make fun
of jesus banned any funning around of muhammad.
from art world to pop culture, everyone is scared of muslims.
the very fact of the paucity of anti-islamic art is proof that art
world will not tolerate that sort of thing. i mean where is 'piss
muhammad'?
>
> > if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
> > germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
> > threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
> > canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
> > that includes muhammad's head.
>
> Or maybe because some radical extremist might choose to car-bomb the
> theater?
but, if some nazi made such a threat, they would still go on with the
show. you know it, i know it. the art world would COURAGEOUSLY stand
up to nazi threat. but when it comes to islamic threat, the art world
acts like neville chamberlain in the 30s.
>
> Do you not recall the fuss (well, maybe you don't -- maybe you're 12
> years old) when the Irish singer Sinead O'Connor tore in half a
> photographic portrait of Pope John Paul II on live television (Saturday
> Night Live)? Her US career was severely damaged. When that show was
> rerun, they substituted her dress rehearsal performance, in which she
> tore up some other picture. (I didn't then and don't now know what
> point she was trying to make.)
>
> More recently, do you not recall the fuss when a Dixie Chick (whatever
> that is) said something uncomplimentary about the present "president"
> of the United States? Her group was banned from many radio stations so
> that their income was severely impacted.
>
> So ... you wanna run that thing about "kowtowing" by us again?
ha, you kill me. first of all, sinead o' connor started the war first.
the pope and catholics didn't pick a fight with her but vice versa.
she shi*faced catholics so catholics shi*faced her. i see that you
liberals can't take it as well as you dish it out.
you like to shi* on christians but the minute they shi* back, you get
all weepy and ask, 'gee, why do you get soo upset?'
same with the dixie chicks. they are a bunch of boneheads and they
started the political fight. no one asked these bimbos for the
opinions. instead, they began to shi* on bush and patriotic americans.
so, they should take it as well as they dish it out.
but, you leftists are so wimpy. you wanna bitch and whine but when
people talk back, you get all pissy pussy wissy wussy.
besides, the backlash against baldie o connor and dixie twits was BY
the people. the people said 'fuc* you bitch'. it was people power
whereas art world decisions are made by a small number of elitist snobs
who take tax money from the people to fund anti-people and
anti-american crap.
the PEOPLE told baldie o connor and dixie twits to go to hell. and
why? cuz baldie o connor and dixie twits insulted the people first. o
connor wasn't just shi**ing on the pope but all catholics. and dixie
twits were shi**ing on all patriotic americans. now, they have a right
to do so. no one is saying they should be jailed or censored.
but, the people have a right to talk back too. you have a problem with
that? you don't think people have the right to boo baldie o conor?
are you saying people should be like sheep when baldie o connor shi*s
on the pope or rips the american flag? maybe you like to be a pussy
american of the moveon.org kind who think US is an imperalist power and
we deserve abuse from leftists and skanks around the world. but
patriotic americans have pride and stand up for their dignity, unlike
your starbucks coffee sipping pussyass self.
so, you go listen to baldie o connor and wallow in nigerian cow dung in
the name of art.
good americans will continue to boo stupid idiots like o connor and not
buy their cds.
smw
Larisa wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>Larisa wrote:
>>
>>
>>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
>>>>>germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
>>>>>threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
>>>>>canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
>>>>>that includes muhammad's head.
>>>>
>>>>But what about all the Germans who _didn't_ cancel operas because
>>>>of Muhammad's head?
>>>
>>>
>>>What about them? And what will happen next time, now that the Muslim
>>>community knows full well that they can actually force an opera to
>>>close?
>>
>>What community are you talking about? Do you have information the BND
>>would like to hear about?
>
>
> The increasingly vocal and growing Muslim community in Europe in
> general and Germany in particular.
>
Which has what to do with this case, exactly? The leaders of the German
Muslim community have unanimously recommended NOT to cancel the opera
and have agreed to attend a production together with Schaeuble. The
production was canceled in response to ONE anonymous phone call of
unknown origin.
>> Will the art museums be next? Concert halls? Universities?
>>
>>>Say goodbye to Western civilization - it was fun while it lasted.
>>>
>>>LM (going to listen to my recording of "Idomeneo" tonight...)
>>
>>Sans severed head, I suppose.
>
>
> Alas, couldn't find one on such short notice.
>
> LM (where does the severed head come up in the libretto, anyway?)
Nowhere -- it's a feature of the production, not the opera.
anima...@yahoo.com
> 99.9% of contempory art deserves contempt. they are con and
> temporary, not timeless lasting art.
Wow.... that's a lotta art, and you've seen it all, and you
know that it's bad. When were you appointed God?
Larisa
smw wrote:
> Larisa wrote:
>
> > smw wrote:
> >
> >>Larisa wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>if neo-nazis threatened violence against certain art or performance in
> >>>>>germany, the art folks would go on with the show and defy any neo-nazi
> >>>>>threat. but, ever fearful of and sensitive to muslims, germans are
> >>>>>canceling a certain opera cuz muslims might be offended with a prop
> >>>>>that includes muhammad's head.
> >>>>
> >>>>But what about all the Germans who _didn't_ cancel operas because
> >>>>of Muhammad's head?
> >>>
> >>>> >>>What about them? And what will happen next time, now that the Muslim
> >>>community knows full well that they can actually force an opera to
> >>>close?
> >>
> >>What community are you talking about? Do you have information the BND
> >>would like to hear about?
> >
> >
> > The increasingly vocal and growing Muslim community in Europe in
> > general and Germany in particular.
> >
> Which has what to do with this case, exactly? The leaders of the German
> Muslim community have unanimously recommended NOT to cancel the opera
> and have agreed to attend a production together with Schaeuble. The
> production was canceled in response to ONE anonymous phone call of
> unknown origin.
So if it's one little anonymous phone call by one crazy person, why
cancel an entire production? Either there was something more to it, or
the director is a coward. And it is entirely possible to sound
reasonable and "recommend not to cancel" the opera in German while
inciting fanatics in Arabic (or Turkish?)
LM
smw
Larisa wrote:
I can see that facts will have no bearing on your state of mind, so I
won't trouble you any further.
Kater Moggin
> Say goodbye to Western civilization - it was fun while it lasted.
"An old bitch gone in the teeth" ca. 1920, earlier a sharp
toothed, sharp dealing young man wreaking world-round hell.
Which is to say much like history's other excuses for civilized
life unless you'd prefer to agree with Adorno that history
hasn't begun, in which case those with enough time and patience
can wait to see what it thinks up.
-- Moggin
Marko Amnell
Maybe Larisa has been reading, or would enjoy reading,
_Eurabia_ by another like-minded Jewish woman, Bat Ye'or.
Her book was the subject of the most entertaining footnote
in Timothy Garton Ash's recent review essay in the NYRB,
"Islam in Europe":
"Europe's difficulties with its Muslims are also the subject of
hysterical oversimplification, especially in the United States,
where stereotypes of a spineless, anti-American, anti-Semitic
"Eurabia," increasingly in thrall to Arab/Islamic domination,
seem to be gaining strength. ...
Originally the title of an obscure journal, the term "Eurabia"
seems to have been popularized by a writer called Bat Ye'or.
The jacket copy of her Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 2005) summarizes its thesis:
"This book is about the transformation of Europe into 'Eurabia,'
a cultural and political appendage of the Arab/Muslim world.
Eurabia is fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-Western,
anti-American, and antisemitic." Much of Ms. Ye'or's
argument, which has a strong element of conspiracy theory,
is built around the alleged secret guiding influence of an
organization called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD).
Here is an example of her fair and balanced tone:
"Is the European Union's covert war against Israel, through its
Palestinian Arab allies, the secret Schadenfreude fulfillment
of an interrupted Holocaust?" She describes the United Nations
as "an international antisemitic tribunal, seeking to impose on
Israel the Islamic condition of dhimmitude." Bruce Bawer, in
While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West
from Within (Doubleday, 2006), uncritically repeats Ye'or's
thesis, going on to suggest that "Europe may simply persist
in its passive ways, tamely resigning itself to a gradual transition
to absolute sharia law and utter dhimmitude." Despite these
dubious antecedents, the word "Eurabia" recently gained the
ultimate seal of transatlantic respectability-to be used on an
Economist cover. See The Economist, June 24-30, 2006."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19371
Come to think of it, didn't Aaron Gross, aka The Other, also
speak of the "Islamization of Europe?" Did he use the word
"Eurabia"? Can't remember.
smw
Marko Amnell wrote:
> smw wrote:
>>Larisa wrote:
...
>>>So if it's one little anonymous phone call by one crazy person, why
>>>cancel an entire production? Either there was something more to it, or
>>>the director is a coward. And it is entirely possible to sound
>>>reasonable and "recommend not to cancel" the opera in German while
>>>inciting fanatics in Arabic (or Turkish?)
>>
>>I can see that facts will have no bearing on your state of mind, so I
>>won't trouble you any further.
>
>
> Maybe Larisa has been reading, or would enjoy reading,
> _Eurabia_ by another like-minded Jewish woman, Bat Ye'or.
> Her book was the subject of the most entertaining footnote
> in Timothy Garton Ash's recent review essay in the NYRB,
> "Islam in Europe":
Ah yes, fun stuff, that. How did we do so long without an identifiable
enemy, anyway? Rather dead than red will become what? Islam is too damn
difficult to rhyme. Will Richard Harter give it a try?
Mackie
"Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159813257.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Maybe Larisa has been reading, or would enjoy reading,
> _Eurabia_ by another like-minded Jewish woman, Bat Ye'or.
Not just simply Jewish, but an Egyptian, a Jewish lady who grew up in
Egypt--try that sometime, Hotshot, and then you would not look so silly
for thinking you're so smart.
> Her book was the subject of the most entertaining footnote
> in Timothy Garton Ash's recent review essay in the NYRB,
> "Islam in Europe":
>
> "Europe's difficulties with its Muslims are also the subject of
> hysterical oversimplification, especially in the United States . . .
You can sit there all day apathetically preening your pseudo-liberal
peacock feathers, drinking the snot gimlets you mix of your
predispositions, getting no more than a Cliff's Notes Eye View, reading
not books but idealistically biased reviews -- and this parade of
pretense to knowledge you trot is . . . just that.
> where stereotypes of a spineless, anti-American, anti-Semitic
> "Eurabia," increasingly in thrall to Arab/Islamic domination,
> seem to be gaining strength. ...
>
> Originally the title of an obscure journal, the term "Eurabia"
> seems to have been popularized by a writer called Bat Ye'or.
> The jacket copy of her Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Fairleigh
> Dickinson University Press, 2005) summarizes its thesis:
He summarizes nothing but his own Panglossian puke, and that passage
from her book lifted from context of all the preliminary groundwork of
documentation she lays leading to such a passage of description as to
what, in essence, it all really does come to--well it just comes to
this: such reviewing as you cite here is trash: falsification and
misrepresentation of the worst order.
In other words: stop indulging in low gossip, my child, and read the
book for yourself. Short of doing that you know nothing about it.
Nothing.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
"Nothing can be more contemptible than to suppose Public Records to be
True. Read them & judge, if you are not a Fool," -- William Blake,
*Marginalia*
And a note to SMW: Read Oriana Fallaci, and then you will be qualified
to own an opinion on the subject. And also dig this, babe: if it came
to you as Bachelorette #2, sitting between Paglia and Fallaci--and the
choice for a date, for a night out with a real dame with real guts and
the hottest kind of wit, was to be mine? Let me tell you cutie--you'd
be left sitting there wondering how the competition could have been so
unfair. And no, it would not have helped had you a varicose vein or
two peeking through the straps of your Birkenstocks, in your favor.
Forget it.
Marko Amnell
Mackie wrote:
> "Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159813257.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Maybe Larisa has been reading, or would enjoy reading,
> > _Eurabia_ by another like-minded Jewish woman, Bat Ye'or.
>
> Not just simply Jewish, but an Egyptian, a Jewish lady who grew up in
> Egypt--try that sometime, Hotshot, and then you would not look so silly
> for thinking you're so smart.
>
> > Her book was the subject of the most entertaining footnote
> > in Timothy Garton Ash's recent review essay in the NYRB,
> > "Islam in Europe":
> >
> > "Europe's difficulties with its Muslims are also the subject of
> > hysterical oversimplification, especially in the United States . . .
>
> You can sit there all day apathetically preening your pseudo-liberal
> peacock feathers, drinking the snot gimlets you mix of your
> predispositions, getting no more than a Cliff's Notes Eye View, reading
> not books but idealistically biased reviews -- and this parade of
> pretense to knowledge you trot is . . . just that.
All of Mackie's postings remind me of the very beginning
of Monty Python's "Argument Sketch" where the man
first accidentally walks into the "Abuse" room...
M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or
were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only
eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with
just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me
puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going
to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!
smw
Mackie wrote:
> "Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159813257.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Maybe Larisa has been reading, or would enjoy reading,
>>_Eurabia_ by another like-minded Jewish woman, Bat Ye'or.
>
>
> Not just simply Jewish, but an Egyptian, a Jewish lady who grew up in
> Egypt--try that sometime, Hotshot, and then you would not look so silly
> for thinking you're so smart.
>
>
>>Her book was the subject of the most entertaining footnote
>>in Timothy Garton Ash's recent review essay in the NYRB,
>>"Islam in Europe":
>>
>>"Europe's difficulties with its Muslims are also the subject of
>>hysterical oversimplification, especially in the United States . . .
>
>
> You can sit there all day apathetically preening your pseudo-liberal
> peacock feathers, drinking the snot gimlets you mix of your
> predispositions, getting no more than a Cliff's Notes Eye View, reading
> not books but idealistically biased reviews -- and this parade of
> pretense to knowledge you trot is . . . just that.
Possibly so -- at the same time, growing up Jewish in Egypt is not much
of a qualification for commenting on the relationship between Germans
and Muslims in Germany, especially where Turkey and its EU aspirations
are concerned (you may or may not know that the majority of Muslims
living in Germany are Turkish). I just spent six weeks in Berlin, a city
in which 46 percent of school-age children have a "migration background"
as official usage now has it. Bat Ye'or's dead wrong, if the quotes are
representative.
But perhaps you'd like to chip in with your own impressions garnered on
your no-doubt extensive travels through the old countries.
dtritter
well, at least the monty python gang was funny. macki'e messer is more
than a little dull and rusty.
Jeffrey Quick
smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote:
I'd tell the cast, "Here's what we're up against: anyone afraid to
perform, let me know." And I'd tell the same thing to the audience.
Whatever happened to individual responsibility? It's not like Harms was
threatening to kill anyone.