Classical music is un-American, effete, elitist etc
Eohmar
>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
>can't.
>
>Brian Newhouse
>newh...@mail.crisp.net
My affection for classical music is merely one facet of my musical tastes. As
a person who has travelled all over the world since the age of four, and
having lived in Germany, France, Japan, Thailand and New Zealand, I have
experienced and I enjoy a wide variety of music, from zydeco to soul to folk to
techno-industrial pop. I am an American citizen. But I don't feel I need to
bend to the image of what an "American" should be, or even concern myself with
it. To do so, would be un-American. I.e., the most un-American thing, IMHO,
is to expect fellow Americans to be a certain way. I'm an AMERICAN,
goddamnit!! I'll like whatever music I like, be it European,
Mississipian-by-way-of-African, Chinese opera, or "American Pie" by Don McLean
(which should, by the way, replace the "Star Spangled Banner as our national
anthem).
Charles Eggen
And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for
such an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
sure can't.
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net
If you really knew anything about classical music, you would not make
such a foolish statement.
Ask Wynton Marsellis if it is un-American or effete. Spend some time
reading about Leonard Bernstein and listen to his music.
Have you heard anything by Philip Glass, John Adams, Steve Reich,
John Corigliano, George Gershwin, Howard Hanson, Virgil Thomson,
Aaron Copland, Samuel Barber or Charles Ives? If you haven't, I then
rest my case. If you have, then your posting is a troll.
Chuck
G. Brown
a partially tongue-in cheek posting from Mr. Newhouse.
as to your points....I have never sensed any overwhelming commitment
to the classical repertory from Maestro Marsellis...seems like it is
just a way to expand his repertory and gain some added revenue and high
brow respect...the record company obliges by throwing celebrity albums
like the one with Kathleen Battle his way....
Maestro Bernstein is a genuine giant who,following his celebrated tenure
with the NYPO,seemed more interested in conducting the much maligned(on
these pages) Vienna Mens' Philharmonic...hardly a ringing endorsement of
American contributions to classical music....
as to the composers you name...only Gershwin and Copland achieved any
popular acclaim...the average Joe on the street wouldn't have a clue
who the other were...this wouldn't seem to reinforce your point about
American Classical music being non-elitist....cheers,gb
ps-try not to be too nasty in your rejoinder:I am a very sensitive
guy...
piper
>>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
>>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
>>can't.
>>
>>Brian Newhouse
>>newh...@mail.crisp.net
Is this tongue-in-cheek? If you're serious, why would you post to a
newsgroup called "rec.music.classical"?
G. Brown
Caius Marcius wrote:
>
> In <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net> pi...@interport.net (piper)
> writes:
> >
> >>>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for
> such
> >>>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
> sure
> >>>can't.
> >>>
> - CMC
...Beavis & Butthead might take offense at that.....
Caius Marcius
Brian Newhouse
In article <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
(piper) wrote:
> >>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
> >>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
> >>can't.
> >>
> >>Brian Newhouse
> >>newh...@mail.crisp.net
>
> Is this tongue-in-cheek? If you're serious, why would you post to a
> newsgroup called "rec.music.classical"?
Yes, I'm serious--all too serious. And yes, I feel quite justified in
posting to rec.music.classical; it isn't as if I haven't posted here on
more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that I'm
not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
and of course relevant (or at least topical)...I'm happy to know that
there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
even the Ives symphonies?
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net
G. Brown
you should have been,though....seriously,why give a damn about people
who try to define what is "American"? Maybe they should read up on
something called pluralism.......and who gives a FF at the moon
what some cheap politician like Roosevelt(Mt. Rushmore be damned)liked
to listen to?.....I'm beginning to think that you and this Piper fellah
may deserve each other....! cheers,gb
Jeremy Cook
Brian Newhouse wrote:
>
> In article <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
> (piper) wrote:
>
> > >>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
> > >>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
> > >>can't.
> > >>
> > >>Brian Newhouse
> > >>newh...@mail.crisp.net
> >
> > Is this tongue-in-cheek? If you're serious, why would you post to a
> > newsgroup called "rec.music.classical"?
>
> Yes, I'm serious--all too serious. And yes, I feel quite justified in
> posting to rec.music.classical; it isn't as if I haven't posted here on
> more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that I'm
> not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
> about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
> of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
> popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
> and of course relevant (or at least topical)...I'm happy to know that
> there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
> interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
> even the Ives symphonies?
Ya convinced me, pardner! Startin' today, I'm gonna cuss freely in
fronta the ladies, scratch mah self inappropriately in public, spit
tobacky juice, and ride off into the sunset like the Marlboro man, with
them Spice Girls goin' full blast on the walkman. And if I see some
sissy lis'nin to that there Wolfpack "Ah'm a Daisy" Moosehead feller
along the way, I'll plug the varmint plum full o' lead! Ah gots no
tolerance for them un-American types! :-D
Yosemite Cook - Tumbleweed, Connecticut
Jeremy Berman
In <newhouse-070...@t1-48.crisp.net> newh...@mail.crisp.net
(Brian Newhouse) writes:
>Yes, I'm serious--all too serious. And yes, I feel quite justified in
>posting to rec.music.classical; it isn't as if I haven't posted here
on
>more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that
I'm
>not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
>about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the
face
>of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough,
vital,
>popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile,
violent,
>and of course relevant (or at least topical)...
Brian,
OK. This second post explains your opinion better for me. So, let me
explain mine...as another American classical music lover.
First off, for me, being an American is different than someone who
calls themself "British" or "Norwegian." Unlike the majority of
inhabitants of these countries (and most of other European countries),
the U.S. is alot more homogenous, a combination of people from all
around the world. So, "American" isn't so centralized a term. For this
reason, I find no problem with loving the music of another part of the
world (even though I also like, on occasion, "American" music by
Copland, Gershwin, Rorem and Bernstein). Because our country due to its
multi-cultural nature (and I DON'T use that word in its current guise)
isn't purely American in the way something or someone might be
considered purely Austrian (for instance).
I've never bought this elitist argument, so I'm not going to speak to
that part of your post. And finally, even if there was such a thing as
PURE American music (I suppose Native American music is the only pure
American music. Jazz isn't purely American, it's influences, like R & B
and rock, are from third world countries), why would I HAVE to like it
or feel guilt over liking something that wasn't purely American? Why
not enjoy things from all cultures?
Jeremy
Eohmar
> But ask yourselves: what
>interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
>even the Ives symphonies?
Why should I even _begin_ to care what T.R. would've thought of the Beethoven
4ts?
Alan.
lanza
Very curious thread. First, what IS an American? Second, what IS
"classical" (i.e. "concert") music? BTW, what IS American food? An
American? Is she Lucille Ball? Is he Rocky Marciano? Is he Pee Wee
Herman? Is he Leonard Bernstein? I she Whoopi Goldberg? Is he William
Saroyan? Danny Thomas? Sammy Davis Jr.? Van Cliburn? Van Johnson?
Van Heflin? Muhammad Ali?
--
********************************************
"Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand."
--LUCAS JACKSON
********************************************
HenryFogel
>From: lanza <la...@mail.ncku.edu.tw>
>Date: Wed, Jan 7, 1998 03:49 EST
>Message-id: <34B341...@mail.ncku.edu.tw>
Not to mention, what is "effete", what is "elistist"? Classical music is not
"effete" just because a person says it is. I find that a very odd description
for much of the music I know.
Henry Fogel
HenryFogel
>
>Yes, I'm serious--all too serious. And yes, I feel quite justified in
>posting to rec.music.classical; it isn't as if I haven't posted here on
>more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that I'm
>not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
>about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
>of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
>popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
>interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
>even the Ives symphonies?
>
>Brian Newhouse
>newh...@mail.crisp.net
><
While I see the point you are raising, I guess that to me it actually misses
some important points both about classical music and about being "American,"
whatever that might mean. What is wonderful about the USA is its diversity and
the variety of backgrounds of the people who make it up. I don't except that
Teddy Roosevelt represents what being an American is, any more than James
Baldwin does. The fact is they both do.
I also don't believe that the music is "effete" (and I still object to that
adjective) or "elitist". But I do agree that the music business has surrounded
itself throughout the history of this country with trappings that merit those
adjectives. I have written about that before on this newsgroup. I think
many in the music world are now trying to change that, but they worked so hard
to establish that image (because there was a time in America when it was far
more acceptable to be class conscious and to use the arts to separate the
classes, unfortunately) that it will take time, because they did a good job.
Henry Fogel
Catherine Motuz
In answer to the question: what makes music American?, look at
a book of Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts (I forget
the exact title) where he answers this in a chapter. It is a
shortish, simplish answer as it is directed towards teenagers,
but it does answer the question with enough evidence and conviction
to releive the idea that Classical music is "Un-American". As
As a Canadian, I would venture to say that Classical
Music is Canadian too! I beleive Leonard Bernstein also defines
what id Classical Music and this helps.
^
Catherine Motuz
--
Jose Oscar Marques
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 04:58:41 GMT newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian Newhouse)
wrote in article <newhouse-070...@t1-48.crisp.net>:
>I find it hard to believe that I'm
>not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
>about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
>of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
>popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
Hey, that's exactly how Brazilians machos like to picture themselves...
I think morons exist everywhere - they aren't an American exclusivity.
As for "elitist", it always surprises me how pejorative Americans find
that word. Every attempt to equal classical music with elite is met with
the most hot denials. Well, I have nothing against elitism, much to the
contrary!
I'm happy to know that
>there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
>interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
>even the Ives symphonies?
--
Jose Oscar Marques
(to reply by e-mail remove the "X" from my address)
Dan Szymborski
In article <34B2F1...@erols.com>, G. Brown says...
> Caius Marcius wrote:
> >
> > In <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net> pi...@interport.net (piper)
> > writes:
> > >
> > such
> > >>>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
> > sure
> > >>>can't.
> > >>>
> > - CMC
I personally enjoy being an elitist. Nothing's more fun on a nice warm
day (like we've had in Baltimore lately) than sitting on top of your
shiny glass tower and throwing turnips at your serfs. You also can't
beat rolling down all your windows and blasting some Robert Volkmann out
from your Lincoln Town Car (which is the name I've given my Ford Tempo,
Ralph just didn't raise his self confidence) while I yell 'Fop! Fop!' at
the ignorant droves of peasants as they wheel their rhubarbs to the
market, hoping to acquire enough shillings to hire someone to read the
local paper to then.
Geez...considering this is my first post to rec.music.classical in a
year, I could've found something with more value to say...
--
Dan Szymborski--Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
Wanted to Sell: One experienced GM. Comes equipped with Joe Carter and
Doug Drabek. Free to good home. Will pay for shipping.
Grant
Brian Newhouse wrote:
> In article <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
> (piper) wrote:
>
> > >>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
> > >>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
> > >>can't.
> > >>
> > >>Brian Newhouse
> > >>newh...@mail.crisp.net
> >
> > Is this tongue-in-cheek? If you're serious, why would you post to a
> > newsgroup called "rec.music.classical"?
>
> Yes, I'm serious--all too serious. And yes, I feel quite justified in
> posting to rec.music.classical; it isn't as if I haven't posted here on
> more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that I'm
> not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
> about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
> of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
> popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
> and of course relevant (or at least topical)...I'm happy to know that
> there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
> interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
> even the Ives symphonies?
>
> --
> Brian Newhouse
> newh...@mail.crisp.net
I don't give a damn what kind of music Teddy Roosevelt liked. I only care about
what kind of music I like. That's the true American spirit is it not?
Independence of thought and all that. Besides there's no reason I can't like
rock, jazz, or bluegrass (all of which I do). How many Presidents have had
classical music stars give command performances at the White House. Quite a few
I think. Classical music is only elitist to the so called elite who think they
like it.
Grant
--
_____________________________
Grant
gran...@nr.nospam.infi.net
_____________________________
Remove the "nospam" from above to reply
BernieT
Dan Szymborski wrote:
>
> In article <34B2F1...@erols.com>, G. Brown says...
> > Caius Marcius wrote:
> > >
> > > In <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net> pi...@interport.net (piper)
> > > writes:
> > > >
> > > such
> > > >>>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
> > > sure
> > > >>>can't.
> > > >>>
> > > - CMC
> > ...Beavis & Butthead might take offense at that.....
>
> I personally enjoy being an elitist. Nothing's more fun on a nice warm
> day (like we've had in Baltimore lately) than sitting on top of your
> shiny glass tower and throwing turnips at your serfs. You also can't
> beat rolling down all your windows and blasting some Robert Volkmann out
> from your Lincoln Town Car (which is the name I've given my Ford Tempo,
> Ralph just didn't raise his self confidence) while I yell 'Fop! Fop!' at
> the ignorant droves of peasants as they wheel their rhubarbs to the
> market, hoping to acquire enough shillings to hire someone to read the
> local paper to then.
Very funny ! I love it. What a sense of humour ! This NG needs some
enlightened silliness ! Good fun .........
BT
fiddleaway
Brian Newhouse wrote
> > >>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for
such
> > >>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
sure
The thing I find most ironic about those who acuse other Americans of being
un-American is that their justification for saying so is usually
downright....well....un-American.
--
-dnc-
to reply, change 'dnc' to 'dcollins' in email address
slidge
In article <newhouse-070...@t1-48.crisp.net>, newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian Newhouse) wrote:
>In article <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
>
>> >>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
>> >>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
>> >>
>> >>Brian Newhouse
>> >>newh...@mail.crisp.net
>>
>> Is this tongue-in-cheek? If you're serious, why would you post to a
>> newsgroup called "rec.music.classical"?
>
>Yes, I'm serious--all too serious. And yes, I feel quite justified in
>posting to rec.music.classical; it isn't as if I haven't posted here on
>more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that I'm
>not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
>about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
>of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
>popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
>and of course relevant (or at least topical)...I'm happy to know that
>there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
>interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
>even the Ives symphonies?
>
I really have a hard time accepting two points that you make in this article.
Firstly, the idea that you are having qualms that your tastes are not
"properly" American is one that I find, with no offense to you, to be patently
ridiculous. Why limit yourselves to a bizarre nationalistic concept that,
according to you, has been created by people who feel that "American" is
rough, vital, popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile,
violent, and of course relevant (or at least topical).
First off, what country you come from does NOT dictate what your tastes should
be. Granted, environmental factors are such that some concepts of taste are
thrust upon you, but in the long run, your tastes are developed because you
LIKE something, not because somebody says, "You know, that string quartet just
isn't virile enough. You shouldn't listen to it".
I also find it somewhat ironic that your definition of what makes something
"American" was practically a word for word description I heard from a music
teacher about one of Charles Ives' symphonic works. As Roosevelt might have
said, "Bully for Ives!! We need more music like that!"
But no, I do not feel that listening to "classical" music is un-American. I
do feel that making claims that things are un-American is un-American.
lanza
One final note: Howard Hanson, the neo-romantic American composer, once
stated that ANY music an American composer writes is American composer;
and this pretty much sums up my own position. Try to understand,
America is really a CONFEDERATION of states and the plural copula was
used up until the Civil War ("these states ARE," etc.). This pluralism
is reflected in almost everything American, from America's music
(Bluegrass, ballads, jazz, country, spirituals, ragtime, rock, rhythm
and blues, soul, new age, etc. etc. etc.) to America's food or political
beliefs (ranging from diehard capitalists to diehard communists).
--
********************************************
"Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand."
--LUCAS JACKSON
********************************************
Dimitri Dover
Jose Oscar Marques wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 04:58:41 GMT newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian Newhouse)
> wrote in article <newhouse-070...@t1-48.crisp.net>:
>
> >not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
> >about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
> >of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
> >popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
>
>
> I think morons exist everywhere - they aren't an American exclusivity.
I agree--like the impression some teenagers (and I am still barely one of those) have
gotten in American schools that all Asians are "smart" and play a string instrument.
There is inevitably a certain expectation of what members of a certain ethnic group,
nationality, etc are supposed to act like or do. I think that apart from this being
fallacious, anyone with any knowledge of people in countries other than their own will
recognize it as such.
As for being un-American for loving classical music--I don't care. (But then, Jazz is
surely an "American" music but is not nearly as popular as the slop playing over most
airwaves)
Dimitri
>
> As for "elitist", it always surprises me how pejorative Americans find
> that word. Every attempt to equal classical music with elite is met with
> the most hot denials. Well, I have nothing against elitism, much to the
> contrary!
>
> I'm happy to know that
> >there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
> >interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
> >even the Ives symphonies?
>
Constantin Marcou
Eohmar wrote:
> > But ask yourselves: what
> >interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
> >even the Ives symphonies?
>
> Why should I even _begin_ to care what T.R. would've thought of the Beethoven
> 4ts?
A rather intense one, I would surmise. Contrary to the propaganda, Teddy was a
highly cultivated, intellectual ("effete," if you will) man educated in the Ivy
League (I forget which one). The rough and ready outdoorsman image was
calculated and deliberately adopted to appeal to the American electorate, for
political advantage. (Besides, if you had heard any accounts of his African
"safaris," you'd realize that tea at the Ritz is "roughing it" by comparison.)
--
Best regards,
Con
*****************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists."
- Artur Schnabel
*****************************************************************
Please remove * from address to reply.
D.G. Porter
slidge wrote:
>
> In article <newhouse-070...@t1-48.crisp.net>, newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian Newhouse) wrote:
> >more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that I'm
> >not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
> >about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
> >of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
> >popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
> >there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
> >interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
> >even the Ives symphonies?
> >
>
> Firstly, the idea that you are having qualms that your tastes are not
> "properly" American is one that I find, with no offense to you, to be patently
> ridiculous. Why limit yourselves to a bizarre nationalistic concept that,
> according to you, has been created by people who feel that "American" is
[snip]
> I also find it somewhat ironic that your definition of what makes something
> "American" was practically a word for word description I heard from a music
> teacher about one of Charles Ives' symphonic works. As Roosevelt might have
> said, "Bully for Ives!! We need more music like that!"
Well since you bring up Mr. Ives, le me tell you what he said on the subject (am I the
only one who's reasd this book????):
"If local color is a natural part (that is, a part of substance), the art-effort
cannot help but show its color -- and it will be a true color, no matter how colored....
A true love of country is likely to be so big that it will embrace the virtue one sees
in other countries, and in the same breath, so to speak. A composer born in America,
but who has not been interested in the "cause of the Freedman," may be so interested in
"negro melodies" that he writes a symphony over them. He is concious (perhaps only
subconcious) that he wishes it to be "American music." He tries to forget that the
paternal negro came from Africa. Is his music American or African? That is the great
question that keeps him awake! .... If a middle-aged man, upon picking up the "Scottish
Chiefs," finds that his boyhood enthusiasm for the prowess and noble deeds and character
of Sir William Wallace and of Bruce is still present, let him put or try to put that
glory into an overture, let him fill it chock-full of Scotch tunes, if he will. But
after all is said and sung he will find that his music is American to the core (assuming
that he is an American and wishes his music to be)....
"Again, if a man finds that the cadences of an Apache war-dance come nearest to his
soul -- provided he has taken the pains to kow enough other cadences, for eclecticism is
part of his duty; sorting through potatoes means a better crop next year -- let him
assimilate whatever he finds highest of the Indian ideal so that he can use it with the
cadences, fevently, transcendentally, inevitably, furiously, in his symphonies, in his
operas, in his whistlings on the way to work, so that he can paint his house with them,
make them a part of his prayer-book -- this is all possible and necessary, if he is
confident that they have a part in his spiritual consciousness. With this assurance,
his music will have everything it should of sincerity, nobility, strength, and beauty,
no matter how it sounds; and if, with this, he is true to none but the highest of
American ideals (that is, the ideals only that coincide with his spiritual
consciousness), his music will be true to itself and incidentally American, and it will
be so even after it is proved that all our Indian tribes came from Asia."
[from "Epilogue"]
I. Neill Reid
In article <newhouse-070...@t1-48.crisp.net>, newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian Newhouse) writes...
>In article <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
>(piper) wrote:
>
>> >>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
>> >>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
>> >>can't.
>> >>
>> >>Brian Newhouse
>> >>newh...@mail.crisp.net
>>
>> Is this tongue-in-cheek? If you're serious, why would you post to a
>> newsgroup called "rec.music.classical"?
>
>Yes, I'm serious--all too serious. And yes, I feel quite justified in
>more than enough subjects in the past. I find it hard to believe that I'm
>not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some qualms
>about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the face
>of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough, vital,
>popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile, violent,
>and of course relevant (or at least topical)...I'm happy to know that
>there's some support for the other side. But ask yourselves: what
>interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
>even the Ives symphonies?
As a non-American I may not be in a position to define "what is truly
American", but it seems to me that your association of Americana with
rough, vital, violent and populist elements has a lot more to do
with the later 19th century and 20th century than with those founding
fathers (to whom Americans seem to turn so often for advice). The
18th century rationalism personified by Jefferson and Franklyn laid
a much greater emphasis on the sciences and humanities than was apparent
in later era of western expansion, particularly post-civil war.
So if you feel psychologically discomforted by your apparent lack of
bad taste, then take heart - you're following the charter laid out by
the architects of the constitution, and is that not the ultimate goal
of all Americans (at least between mexico and the 49th parallel)
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
>
>--
>Brian Newhouse
>newh...@mail.crisp.net
piper
>Brian Newhouse wrote:
>>
>> In article <34b2c40a...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
>> (piper) wrote:
>>
>> > >>And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for such
>> > >>an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I sure
>> > >>can't.
>> > >>
>> > >>Brian Newhouse
>> > >>newh...@mail.crisp.net
>> >
>> > Is this tongue-in-cheek? If you're serious, why would you post to a
>> > newsgroup called "rec.music.classical"?
>>
>> Yes, I'm serious--all too serious.
>>But ask yourselves: what
>> interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets? Or
>> even the Ives symphonies?
Benjamin Franklin liked classical music, and in fact was an amateur
composer. It's amazing that French Presidents say that they're really
writers first while in this country, Adlai Stevenson could never win
because he was an "egghead".
But seriously, there's no need for me to justify liking and performing
classical music. Nor do I have to justify the fact that my politics
are way to the left of the political mainstream in the U.S. It's
actually kind of ridiculous to feel that your views, likes and
dislikes should resemble those of the majority, or otherwise have to
be justified. We're not talking about treason here!
Drop your guilt feelings and enjoy the music!
Michael
Caius Marcius
>On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 04:58:41 GMT newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian
Newhouse)
>wrote in article <newhouse-070...@t1-48.crisp.net>:
>
>>I find it hard to believe that I'm
>>not the only American classical music lover who hasn't had some
qualms
>>about whether his tastes are properly American, particularly in the
face
>>of those who define what is truly "American" as something rough,
vital,
>>popular (even populist!), vulgar, unrefined; preferably virile,
violent,
But ask yourselves: what
>>interest would Theodore Roosevelt have had in the Beethoven quartets?
Or
>>even the Ives symphonies?
You seem to be imputing some degree of honest vulgar
anti-intellectualism to Theodore Roosevelt, in order to oppose the
allegedly effete and elitist American listeners of serious music. I'm
not sure where you derived your image of Theodore Roosevelt - from
John Milius movies, perhaps? Certainly TR was vigorous and virile -
but he was a sickly and asthmatic child, and became a avid lifelong
reader due to confinement in bed. As he grew older, his health
improved, and he became quite athletic, but he was also one of the most
intellectual men ever to occupy the White House. No President was a
more prolific author (JQ Adams finishes second), or wrote about a wider
range of subjects; in addition to the obligatory autobiography, and the
expected political advocacy, he also wrote British and American
history, biography, travelogues, literary criticism and natural history
(both before and after his Presidency). According to William Harbaugh
in his biography Power and Responsibility: The Life and Times of
Theodore Roosevelt
[BEGIN QUOTE] Here was a statesman whose [reading] interests were more
catholic than all but a handful of his country's men of letters and and
probably most of its college professors.... Roosevelt's breadth was
incredible. He knew, often in the original, Villon, Ronsard, Mistral,
Körner, Goethe, Dante, Dumas, and hundreds of others. He was versed in
the minor Scandinavian sagas, the Arabian tales, the core of Rumanian
literature. And he even earned the honorary presidency of the Gaelic
Literature Association by anticipating the revival of interest in
Celtic literature.
Here also was a statesman who had read the bulk of his own nations's
literature and knew personally perhaps a majority of the nation's best
writers. A rare quality in a man of action , this was a unique quality
in a President. There had been Presidents before who were
intellectuals...There were a few others who were receptive to
intellectuals. But there was no modern President save TR who had such
deep bonds with an unaffected interest in the nations's writers....One
has only to contrast the cultural vacuum that the apotheosis of the
businessman by some Presidents made of the White House to the virile
intellectualism that filled its corridors and flowed out onto its lawns
under Roosevelt to appreciate this.
Admittedly, TR's boyish exuberance for all things made him a somewhat
deserving foil for aesthetes like brooding, cynical Henry
Adams......Yet the central fact remains: Roosevelt stimulated, and even
inspired, dozens of young authors over the years.. If he did not
discover, he nevertheless exposed to the public eye the genus of Edwin
Arlington Robinson, whom he appointed to a minor government post with
the admonition "to think poetry first and Treasury second".
..."As I think of him," Robert Frost said [in 1958], "I remember him as
the only President I ever met, as the only President who ever took that
much of an interest in a poet...TR was our kind. He quoted poetry to
me. He knew poetry. Poetry was in his mind; that means a great deal to
me."
Stephen Vincent Benét felt much as Frost did. "I do not mean in the
least to say that [TR's] judgment of books was infallible - no man's
is..." Benét wrote. But he added, Roosevelt had "a love for the thing
itself."....Hamlin Garland recalled Roosevelt exclaiming excitedly at
lunch one day during World War I: "Do you know that the rhythms of
archaic French are much finer and manlier than the rhythms of modern
French?" Whereupon, he quoted with immense gusto and dramatic force a
page or two from the Song of Roland and followed it up by the quotation
of a poem by a modern French writer"....... "If ever there was
obviously a man of genius," said Brooks in a judgment that TR himself
never accepted, "it was Theodore Roosevelt" . [pp. 428-29]
Roosevelt was also passionately interested in the visual arts, though
his appreciation for contemporary art was quite limited (he relegated
the Cubists and Futurists to the "lunatic fringe" in a 1913 article for
Outlook). The biographies that I consulted have nothing to say,
unfortunately, about TR's musical interests, though JT Howard & GK
Bellows in their 1957 A Short History of Music in America wrote that TR
invited composer Arthur Nevin (younger brother of Ethelbert Nevin) to
the White House in 1907 to give an illustrated lecture on his opera
Poia (based on a legend of the Blackfeet Indians). The same authors
also make reference to legislative action by Roosevelt that still has
beneficial repercussions for today's musicians:
[Begin Quote] In his message to Congress in December 1905, President
Theodore Roosevelt wrote in part: "Our copyright laws urgently need
revision. They are imperfect in definition, confused and inconsistent
in expression; they omit provision for many articles which, under
modern reproductive processes, are entitled to protection". It was more
than three years later that Congress finally took action and the
general revision of our copyright laws was enacted on the last day of
Roosevelt's administration in 1909.
The clause in Roosevelt's message about "modern reproductive processes"
referred to phonograph records. Prior to 1909 no phonograph record
manufacturer had to pay anything to the copyright owners of the songs
and pieces they recorded. The new law provided for a two-cent royalty
per record, with the stipulation that once the copyright owner has
licensed one manufacture to record a composition, he must issue similar
licenses for that composition, on the same terms, to all other
manufacturers who desire it". (p. 201).
So in conclusion - I doubt that Ives would have been to TR's liking,
given his dislike of Modernism in general. However, the two certainly
had in common their emphasis on virility and masculinity. I have the
feeling that TR at least respected Beethoven - hopefully I can find
biographical confirmation of this in the near future.
And that's my two-cents worth.........
- CMC
PS. Someone else on this thread, in response to Brian's "question" on
TR, replied something to the effect that "who cares what some goddamn
politician thinks". A delegation of Teddy Bears will be arriving at
his doorstep momentarily to discuss the matter with him ("If you go out
in the woods today/You'd better go in disguise").
G. Brown
Gddecker wrote:
>
> Many people forget the love with which Thomas Jefferson picked up and played
> the classics on his violin. He may not have been all that good but some say
> that he was damned good on it!! He had the music of many great European
> baroque and classical composers in his collection and loved it all. Anyone
> that thinks that Thomas Jefferson is un-American because he loved the great
> classical music -- and contemporary to him(!) -- is smoking dope!!
>
> Geoffrey Decker
Hey,get with it-you right wing reactionary pig...Thomas Jefferson was
a politically incorrect slave owner...don't throw TJ's name around on
this enlightened NG......gb
D.G. Porter
Spoken with all the "wit" of Wally George or even Rush, whose ratings
appear to be dropping so much he's actually taking calls from people who
diassgree with him....
Gddecker
G. Brown
D.G. Porter wrote:
>
> G. Brown wrote:
> >
> > Gddecker wrote:
> > >
> > a politically incorrect slave owner...don't throw TJ's name around on
> > this enlightened NG......gb
>
> Spoken with all the "wit" of Wally George or even Rush, whose ratings
> appear to be dropping so much he's actually taking calls from people who
> diassgree with him....
...but please keep everyone informed on what "Rush" is up to if it makes
you happy(I heard him once and found him a bit of a bore)...cheers,gb
ps-haven't a clue who "Wally George"is....
Matt
Ah, there we have it, GB tying classical music to slavery and advocating it!
Cool! I knew there was more to this troll than meets the eye!
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Featured addresses: a...@NEXEN.COM pkmrg...@aol.com r...@ERINET.COM
lu...@ERINET.COM ri...@PUZZLE.COM ingr...@hotmail.com j...@RUNWAY.NET
Eric Schissel
D.G. Porter (dgpo...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>G. Brown wrote:
>>
>> Hey,get with it-you right wing reactionary pig...Thomas Jefferson was
>> a politically incorrect slave owner...don't throw TJ's name around on
>> this enlightened NG......gb
>Spoken with all the "wit" of Wally George or even Rush, whose ratings
>appear to be dropping so much he's actually taking calls from people who
>diassgree with him....
I would have thought Thomas Jefferson would be on G. Brown's hitlist too,
given his (Jefferson's) prophetic anticipation of the dangers of corporate
capitalism... we're talking selective memory here.
Well, at least we needn't worry that G. Brown will praise MLK while
forgetting his (MLK's!) anti-Vietnam War, pro-social/economic justice
speeches from his last years (you know, the ones they never air on
national television when celebrating MLK Day- an entire period of several
years just go missing).
-Eric Schissel
Gddecker
In article <34BD8E...@erols.com>, "G. Brown"
<sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> writes:
>Hey,get with it-you right wing reactionary pig...Thomas Jefferson was
a
>politically incorrect slave owner...don't throw TJ's name around on
this
>enlightened NG......gb
Your disgusting name-calling is beneath those that might or could consider
themselves "enlightened". Thomas Jefferson DEFINED in the Declaration of
Independence what it was to be an American and struggled his entire life with
the hypocrisy of owning slaves yet proclaiming that "all men are created
equal". Yes, it was wrong to hold slaves and Jefferson held them. He
regretted depending on slave labor all his adult life. I cannot correct the
fact that he was a slaveholder but I will tell you that I will defend the honor
of Thomas Jefferson to my dying day regardless of what ignorant, supposedly
"enlightened" individuals like YOU believe.
You are beneath contempt sirrah and, if you want to call me a pig, I suggest
you do it to my face!
Geoffrey Decker
Matt
Come on, don't fill the whole newsgroup with Nathan---errr, Arnie.
John Bicketts
>I would have thought Thomas Jefferson would be on G. Brown's hitlist too,
>given his (Jefferson's) prophetic anticipation of the dangers of corporate
>capitalism... we're talking selective memory here.
Actually, during the McCarthy era someone quoted Jefferson ("a little
rebellion now and then is a good thing", I think), and one Senator
said that he ought to be locked up for saying something so
un-American....
G. Brown
Patrick Davitt
Gddecker wrote:
>
> Anyone that thinks that Thomas Jefferson is un-American because he loved the great classical music -- and contemporary to him(!) -- is smoking dope!!
How about 'casue he kept slaves and had illegitimate children with at
least one of them?
Just wondering from Canada.
Cheers
PD
Matt
Gddecker
In article <34BEF7...@erols.com>, "G. Brown"
<sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> writes:
>uh,I guess you are one of those people who take EVERYTHING literally...
Are you saying that you were being sarcastic? If so, I'm sorry I didn't pick
up on it. I'm sarcastic too but this certainly took me by surprise. More or
less, what you said could only be taken literally.
Geoffrey Decker
G. Brown
being fought on numerous fronts)....could you refresh my memory? thanks,
gb
Gddecker
>How about 'casue he kept slaves and had illegitimate children with at
>least one of them?
He did have slaves and, as I wrote before, struggled with the problem of owning
slaves (because they were, unfortunately, his livelihood) and having written in
the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". He regretted
owning slaves to his dying day and freed them in his will just as Washington
indicated he wanted done with his slaves once Martha died. In the latter case,
they were freed and pensioned and this was probably true of Jefferson's slaves.
Don't get me wrong here! I don't advocate slavery in ANY WAY! I simply wish
people would understand that these men were stupidly trapped into owning them
but both did the best they could with the situation. Neither men would allow
slave families to be broken up by the sale of a slave and Washington referred
to one of his slaves as his "son" -- he was not a biological illegitimate son
either!! He was a devoted servant to GW and both loved the other dearly.
The great "me" generation of the 1960s revised history and continue even today
revising our American History to suit their political correctness, much to the
expense of truth. Why not ADD to the history books as we discover more about
our past rather than supplant??!!
As far as Thomas Jefferson's illegitimate slave children and his supposed
affair with Sally Hemmings are concerned, most real historians and biographers,
black and white alike, believe this to be totally fabricated. As I read in the
news this past week, there is a geneticist that will soon take DNA from a
living descendant of Jefferson's through his daughter Patsy's line and will
compare it to that of one of the supposed Sally Hemmings/Thomas Jefferson
descendants. Given the very excellent accuracy of this test, it will tell us
once and for all whether or not they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson.
Many "historians" say that Washington slept with his slave women too. What a
bunch of crap we try to sling at our American heroes anymore! There are many
cases where male visitors to Mount Vernon assumed they would have their pick of
the slave women for concubines. There are documents in which it is indicated
that Washington made it very clear that this was NOT allowed at Mount Vernon.
If he believed so strongly that it was immoral for his guests, why would he
ever stoop to such behavior? He was a man of excellent character and this is
substantiated by the writings of his many esteemed colleagues, John Adams,
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.
Please stop trying to deface the great men (and women) of our past!
Concentrate more on knowing them rather than just digging up dirt on them.
It's in very poor taste and totally un-historical!
Geoffrey Decker
Gddecker
In article <69od70$14h$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
writes:
>Did Thomas Jefferson really smoke dope?
No!! No!! The message was poorly snipped. Anyhow, the only President that's
admitted smoking dope and is, therefore, the only one to have been know to
smoke dope, is our current one. He's part of the "me" generation too!
Geoffrey Decker
Eric Schissel
Gddecker (gdde...@aol.com) wrote:
>The great "me" generation of the 1960s revised history and continue even today
>revising our American History to suit their political correctness, much to the
>expense of truth. Why not ADD to the history books as we discover more about
>our past rather than supplant??!!
Sorry, but that claim is just silly. And how could a "me" generation
organize protests? I think you're thinking of the 1980s if you have to
apply .that. label somewhere. Moreover the bit about "political
correctness" is a canard, a substitute for thought... how about refuting
or addressing the particular claims made and the evidence for them or lack
thereof, not simply wishing them away?
Oh, and by the way, I (a belated product of that 1960s generation, about
as "left" as you'll find on .this. newsgroup) have very great respect for
Jefferson, but your claim that he was trapped into owning slaves .almost.
invites ridicule. What it certainly, not almost, invites is a demand for
clarification: in what sense was he so trapped? What evidence do you have
for this curious state of affairs?
-Eric Schissel
Simon Roberts
Gddecker (gdde...@aol.com) wrote:
: He did have slaves and, as I wrote before, struggled with the problem of owning
: slaves (because they were, unfortunately, his livelihood) and having written in
: the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". He regretted
: owning slaves to his dying day and freed them in his will just as Washington
: indicated he wanted done with his slaves once Martha died. In the latter case,
: they were freed and pensioned and this was probably true of Jefferson's slaves.
: Don't get me wrong here! I don't advocate slavery in ANY WAY! I simply wish
: people would understand that these men were stupidly trapped into owning them
: but both did the best they could with the situation.
[snip]
Why wouldn't, say, freeing them while they were alive and giving them the
option of staying on as servants have been a better option? If it would,
they didn't do "the best they could."
Simon
G. Brown
hypocrites in the northern states specialized in(and not just with
Negroes)...I have always felt that the biggest mistake the C.S.A. made
was not freeing the slaves before Ft.Sumter...they could have adopted
the North's labor policies...and in the meantime-with the slave issue
out if the way-coaxed Great Britain in on their side.The Royal Navy
would have overpowered the North's blockade...and the rights of states
to determine their destiny would have prevailed.....ah,what might have
been.....gb
Matt
In article <34C381...@erols.com>,
G. Brown <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> wrote:
>...sounds like you are talking about"economic"slavery-something the
>hypocrites in the northern states specialized in(and not just with
>Negroes)...
Spoken like a true Marxist! Shee!
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
Featured addresses: M...@CARIBSURF.COM hostm...@EARTHLINK.NET
srm...@JAVANET.COM water...@mailcity.com v...@WHOWHERE.COM
D.G. Porter
No, Willy Nelson claims to have smoked a reefer with a former pres on
the white house roof. Another reason the fanatics had to get him out?
Matt
In article <69od70$14h$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>>Gddecker wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone that thinks that Thomas Jefferson is un-American because he loved the great classical music -- and contemporary to him(!) -- is smoking dope!!
>>
>>least one of them?
>>
>>
>>Cheers
>>PD
>
>
Let me rephrase this. I understood Mozart was spotted talking
with Elvis in Big Boy's, but Thomas Jefferson spotted smoking
dope? Recently?
G. Brown
Gddecker wrote:
>
> In article <34c34...@news2.lightlink.com>, schi...@light.lightlink.com (Eric
> Schissel) writes:
>
> >Oh, and by the way, I (a belated product of that 1960s generation, about
> as
> >"left" as you'll find on .this. newsgroup) have very great respect
> >for
> Jefferson, but your claim that he was trapped into owning slaves
> >.almost.
> invites ridicule. What it certainly, not almost, invites is a
> >demand for
> clarification: in what sense was he so trapped? What evidence do
> >you have
> for this curious state of affairs?
>
> argument if you have an open mind; you obviously do not.
>
> The generations that fought the Second World War and all the wars before, both
> on the homefront and in battle, were not "me" generations. They were selfless
> in their sacrifice for their country and for the free peoples of the world.
> Throughout our history it has unfortunately cost lives to maintain the freedom
> that you and I have to get on this newsgroup or any other newsgroup and tear
> down our government, our president, our whatever.
>
> The "me" generation of the 1950s and 1960s, although they'll be the first to
> worship John F. Kennedy and his "Ask not what your country can do for you! Ask
> what you can do for your country!" line (lifted, by the way, directly from
> Ralph Waldo Emerson), thought only of themselves and what they could get out of
> the 1960s America without any effort or cost to themselves while they practiced
> free love (aka free sex), shot LSD, smoked dope until their brains fried, etc.,
> etc.
>
> I suggest you read Willard Sterne Randall's "Thomas Jefferson: A Life"
> regarding Jefferson's feelings about slaveholding. It was something that
> disturbed him deeply.
>
> The facts are that expendable cash was not easily had by either George
> Washington or Thomas Jefferson. It is a fact that Washington had to borrow
> cash from a friend to get to New York for his inauguratio! Their wealth was
> tied up in land and their farming capital. Without the slaves they held, they
> could not have farmed and might have gone broke. Of course, they could have
> share-cropped after they freed the slaves but we see how much that did for
> freed slaves that stayed in the south after the Civil War. They would not have
> been able to maintain their lifestyles, right or wrong. Additionally, as
> wealthy landowners in Virginia, they would have lost all the respect of their
> families and fellow landowners if they'd have freed their slaves.
>
> Although it still does not make it right, their slaves were well treated.
> Jefferson, at his own expense and in danger of being arrested by officials,
> personally smuggled the seeds of a new variety of rice over the Italian Alps on
> the back of a donkey. This new type of rice could be raised in conditions more
> conducive to the health of the slaves working in the rice fields. Apparently,
> the former type of rice was raised in conditions that induced more disease and
> was very unhealthy to the slaves working in them.
>
> Geoffrey Decker
...very well stated post...I am reminded of the words of Oliver Wendell
Holmes:"Between two groups of men that want to make inconsistent kinds
of worlds I see no remedy except force....It seems to me that every
society rests on the death of men." ...gb