why the germans?
The Essential Ape
germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly polka?
my professor told me germans felt a degree of cultural inferiority
regarding the french and the english, but what french or english
composer can even be compared with the germs?
and what link is there between german music and german philosophy? you
know, like nietszche or nietzsche?
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
vertigo
First, don't conflate the two cultures. You might as well lump French and
Italian cultures & boast of how much wine they produce! Louie was German;
so was Wagner; and Brahms. Berg wasn't; Mahler wasn't; Bruckner wasn't;
Schubert wasn't; The Beatles weren't, although, like Brahms, they started
in Hamburg.
Second, there's nothing very strange about regional hegemony for a
certain period in certain areas. I've already mentioned the wine
cultures. What about the hegemony of Italian theatre music, or American
theatre music ("da mooscial")? What about Elizabethan drama, or later
English poetry. Who could believe that England would produce, in short
succession, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Keats, Wordsworth, Coleridge,
Milton, Blake, Shelley, Byron, etc.? Or that America could produce, in
even shorter succession, Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, Twain, Poe, Longfellow
(unfortunately neglected today), Whittier, and so many other lesser
luminaries? Then, of course, in short succession, American music, after
going through a 19th Century identity crisis, where, the best we could come
up with was McDowell (good, but still European), would produce the likes of
Gerswhin, Arlen, Berlin, Rodgers, the glorious Kern, Youmans, Lenny, Stevie
Sondheim in Alley music, then, at the same time, give the world a literal
cornupian jazz dynasty virtually genealogical since Louie (oh, there goes
that purple prose again!); and, AT THE SAME TIME STILL, give us an
embarrassment of riches in the realm of Rock & Soul musics that, like
Johnnie's glorious waltzes from the last century, has captivated the world?
So, please, when you talk about German genius, remember that Italians
produced an indestruble dynasty of bel canto geniuses the like of which the
world has never heard, from Bellini to Donizetti to the more grand Joe
Green (Guisseppe Verdi in Italain), &, onto verismo and the Pooch, down to
Giannini & Much Ado About Nothing, which may be the theme of this post
after all (please bear with me, I'm waiting for my coffee to perk!).
And what about the Hollywood cinema; here we're talking literally
hundreds of classics every year (not, anymore, of course, since the
dissolution of the studio system, but in the Hollywood "classic age").
--
********************************
"Let us now praise famous men,
and our fathers that begat us.
Such as found out musical tunes,
and recited verses in writing."
ECCLESIASTICUS
********************************
Samuel Vriezen
different. Berlioz, Faure, Chausson...
"The Essential Ape" <azago...@hotmail.com>:
Ed Foote
>
>>why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
>>germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
>>produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
>>mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly polka?
Greetings,
It helps to realize that 18th century Germany was caught between two major
influences and the music that resulted is a hybrid.
At the beginning of the 1700's, the French neo-classisist movement, (which
expected music to merely provide a vehicle for the intellectual message, thus
making instrumetal music inferior to vocal music) was quite different from the
Italian style of music for music's sake. The former was on a mission from God,
the latter was regarded as "ear tickling" and no more.
The effects in the German compositional style was a synthisis of these two
philosophies.
Regards,
Ed Foote
Precision Piano Works
Nashville, Tenn. USA
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
Abelard2
composers came out of austria and
>and what link is there between german music and german philosophy?
It is generally the case that the philosophers lead the artists, and this is no
exception. To find out why the flourishing of music was so strong in Germany,
in particular, you must look at two men: Moses Mendelssohn, and Friedrich
Schiller.
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/davidsbuendler.htm
Thomas J. Wood
The Essential Ape wrote:
> why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
> produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly polka?
The Germans are great because the Germans SAY they're great. In the 19th
century they developed an extensive network of nationalistic music
education and criticism that consciously promoted the superiority of German
music. And the German bias was exported successfully to Britain and
America. And thus great Italian composers are seen as somehow inferior
because they didn't write weighty fugues and symphonies and tone poems.
But, objectively, is Rossini inferior to Schumann? I don't think so.
Schumann couldn't write a great Italian opera any more than Rossini could
write a great German symphony.
--
Tom Wood
SherMus
[....]
1. I like how you think.
2. I like how you say it.
3. I like your taste.
Todd Michel McComb
The Essential Ape <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
>germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank
>that produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
>mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
>polka?
It was a simple matter of timing. Germany didn't come together
culturally until relatively late, after France, England, Spain,
Italy had all had their day in the sun. Once one builds a national
tradition to a certain level, as happened in France as early as
the 12th century, it becomes more difficult to forge new styles
due to various elements of inertia. German music had borrowed
forms and idioms from other countries for centuries, and then the
time it came together on its own terms was also the time of the
explosion of the middle class with its consequent growing demand
for popularly-oriented "classical" music, meaning that it stayed
in the repertory since then. To continue the thought, Eastern
European music peaked after Germany, etc.
If you were a medievalist like me, "why the germans?" would be the
last question on your mind. Where was the German Perotin, Machaut,
Dufay et al.? He didn't exist of course.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
D.G. Porter
>
> The Essential Ape wrote:
>
> > why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> > germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
> > produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> > mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly polka?
>
> century they developed an extensive network of nationalistic music
> education and criticism that consciously promoted the superiority of German
> music. And the German bias was exported successfully to Britain and
> America.
Ives repeats the story in his "Essays" about the musician who went to
visit Max Reger, and Reger dismissed him with, "What? A musician and not
speak German??"
Samuel Vriezen
> "The Essential Ape" azago...@hotmail.com asks:>why was it that so many great
>composers came out of austria and
>>germany? ...
>>and what link is there between german music and german philosophy?
>
>It is generally the case that the philosophers lead the artists, and this is no
>exception. To find out why the flourishing of music was so strong in Germany,
>in particular, you must look at two men: Moses Mendelssohn, and Friedrich
>Schiller.
If that is _generally_ true I bet it's in _special cases_ almost
always false... really, what makes you say that? would you be willing
to give the philosophical background to all great art or give the
artistic followup to all great philosophy or is there another thing
that makes you think this?
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net>:
>
> >Thomas J. Wood wrote:
> >>
> >> The Essential Ape wrote:
> >>
> >> > produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> >> > mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly polka?
> >>
> >> The Germans are great because the Germans SAY they're great. In the 19th
> >> century they developed an extensive network of nationalistic music
> >> education and criticism that consciously promoted the superiority of German
> >> music. And the German bias was exported successfully to Britain and
> >> America.
> >
> >Ives repeats the story in his "Essays" about the musician who went to
> >visit Max Reger, and Reger dismissed him with, "What? A musician and not
> >speak German??"
>
> wanted to study with Berg. On one of the first lessons Berg offered
> him a cigar, or cigarrette and the young man refused because he didn't
> smoke. 'What?' said Berg, 'And you want to be a composer?'
Well, now, if he had also offered him a coffee and he had refused ...
"What, no coffee and you expect to be able to compose???"
Samuel Vriezen
van...@my-deja.com
Mozart got quite a few Austrian/German hackles up by injecting Italian
opera.
Yes, timing, utilization, creativity. Bach, Mozart, Haydn,
Beethoven,...one helluva beginning.
Where'd it end? R. Strauss, Hindemith?
Regards
In article <7tamon$4u1$1...@machaut.medieval.org>,
mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article <SgYJ3.3120$%62.5...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> The Essential Ape <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> >germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank
> >that produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> >mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
> >polka?
>
> It was a simple matter of timing. Germany didn't come together
> culturally until relatively late, after France, England, Spain,
> Italy had all had their day in the sun. Once one builds a national
> tradition to a certain level, as happened in France as early as
> the 12th century, it becomes more difficult to forge new styles
> due to various elements of inertia. German music had borrowed
> forms and idioms from other countries for centuries, and then the
> time it came together on its own terms was also the time of the
> explosion of the middle class with its consequent growing demand
> for popularly-oriented "classical" music, meaning that it stayed
> in the repertory since then. To continue the thought, Eastern
> European music peaked after Germany, etc.
>
> If you were a medievalist like me, "why the germans?" would be the
> last question on your mind. Where was the German Perotin, Machaut,
> Dufay et al.? He didn't exist of course.
>
> Todd McComb
> mcc...@medieval.org
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Samuel Vriezen
>In article <SgYJ3.3120$%62.5...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
>The Essential Ape <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
>>germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank
>>that produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
>>mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
>>polka?
>
>It was a simple matter of timing. Germany didn't come together
>culturally until relatively late, after France, England, Spain,
>Italy had all had their day in the sun. Once one builds a national
>tradition to a certain level, as happened in France as early as
>the 12th century, it becomes more difficult to forge new styles
>due to various elements of inertia. German music had borrowed
>forms and idioms from other countries for centuries, and then the
>time it came together on its own terms was also the time of the
>explosion of the middle class with its consequent growing demand
>for popularly-oriented "classical" music, meaning that it stayed
>in the repertory since then. To continue the thought, Eastern
>European music peaked after Germany, etc.
>
>If you were a medievalist like me, "why the germans?" would be the
>last question on your mind. Where was the German Perotin, Machaut,
>Dufay et al.? He didn't exist of course.
Or if he was any bit wise he moved to Paris...
MWindi4108
drawer composers of the renaissance and early baroque who predated schiller and
Moses Mendelsohn.
For examples and you might have to include North German/Low Country in my
definition of Germans e.g (and I name only a few) Ockeghem, Obrecht, Gafori
(theorist), Busnois, Willaert, Isaac, Johannes Gallicus of Namur.
Then moving on a few years
Schuetz, Schein, Scheidt and then Tunder Haendel, Bach family.
Many of these were top composers of their day.
My question is how many of these had read Schiller or Moses Mendelssohn?
Mark Windisch
Always keen to learn.
Todd Michel McComb
MWindi4108 <mwind...@aol.com> wrote:
>For examples and you might have to include North German/Low Country
>in my definition of Germans e.g (and I name only a few) Ockeghem,
>Obrecht, Gafori (theorist), Busnois, Willaert, Isaac, Johannes
>Gallicus of Namur.
None of these composers were really German though. Some were Dutch.
Most wrote nothing in German, some wrote a little in Dutch. Some,
like Busnois were simply French (Walloon, albeit), and don't belong
in any such list.
They are more or less the beginning of a Germanic contribution to
European music... as far removed as it is, but they are the pioneers,
if not especially German.
>Then moving on a few years Schuetz, Schein, Scheidt and then Tunder
>Haendel, Bach family.
Sure, now we get very much into Germans. The 18th century then
has many important Germans.
Regarding the premise of your reply, how about Erasmus in the
Netherlands? He is clearly linked to the emergence of the former
group. Beyond that, and we are out of my specialty....
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Abelard2
>
>If that is _generally_ true I bet it's in _special cases_ almost
>always false...
Well, I certainly won't argue with that.
> really, what makes you say that? would you be willing
>to give the philosophical background to all great art or give the
>artistic followup to all great philosophy or is there another thing
>that makes you think this?
>
A couple of examples: first, what we know about the history of the Renaissance,
which, as another poster noted, spread at uneven rates throughout Europe, and
reached its last and arguably highest expression in Germany (hence this
thread); it was clearly a new and different image of man, one where man
participated with God in the continuing creation of the universe (as
exemplified by the debate over the "filioque" part of the Nicene Creed -- that
the holy spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also "from the son"):
the idea of Man, participating in the progress of a beautiful, purposeful
universe, revolutionized the arts.
Now, for another, less happy but equally instructive example: toward the end of
the last century, we saw the early glimmerings of what has become known as
Existentialism, which posits a universe that is neither beautiful nor
purposeful, and Man's role in it is questionable at best. Is it fairly obvious
how this affected the arts? Think of Edvard Munch's painting, "The Scream", and
what it portends.
Abelard2
>I'm not going to argue with your premise but how does this explain the many
>top
>drawer composers of the renaissance and early baroque who predated schiller
>and
>Moses Mendelsohn.
>For examples and you might have to include North German/Low Country in my
>definition of Germans e.g (and I name only a few) Ockeghem, Obrecht, Gafori
>(theorist), Busnois, Willaert, Isaac, Johannes Gallicus of Namur.
>Then moving on a few years
>Schuetz, Schein, Scheidt and then Tunder Haendel, Bach family.
>Many of these were top composers of their day.
>My question is how many of these had read Schiller or Moses Mendelssohn?
Well, it seemed clear to me that the original poster wanted to know why there
was such an extraordinary flowering beginning with J.S. Bach. Moses Mendelssohn
and his network were important in preventing Bach's work from fading into
obscurity (Moses' grandson, Felix, played a big role in that effort, too.)
But the work of Schiller (who was deeply influenced by Moses Mendelssohn) was
eagerly studied by Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, and others -- plus,
they set his poems.
tlst...@tpgi.com.au
"The Essential Ape" <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
> produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly polka?
>
> my professor told me germans felt a degree of cultural inferiority
> regarding the french and the english, but what french or english
> composer can even be compared with the germs?
>
> and what link is there between german music and german philosophy? you
> know, like nietszche or nietzsche?
Great composers have come out of just about EVERY country!
--
Cheers!
Terry
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
JHenry1975
>Where'd it end? R. Strauss, Hindemith?
Rihm?
Joseph Henry
JHenry1975
>First, don't conflate the two cultures.
What two cultures are those?
>Louie was German;
>so was Wagner; and Brahms. Berg wasn't; Mahler wasn't; Bruckner wasn't;
>Schubert wasn't;
This statement I find confusing. When Schubert was alive, there was no
"Germany" to distinguish from Austria. (I assume from your examples that this
is the distinction you are making.) Beethoven therefore wasn't "German" so
much as he was Hessian. And Wagner was from Saxony. If the 19th century had
played out alittle differently, Austria might *well* have ended up part of a
united Germany; I doubt the cultural differences (yes, there are differences in
dialect, and Austrians tend to be Catholic, but Bavaria is still "German") are
as different as those between France and Italy.
Then again, neither are the differences between Croats and Serbs.
Joseph Henry
vertigo
4. Thanks.
--
*****************************************
"My sole concern has been to save myself,
by work and faith. And if I relegate
impossible salvation to the prop room,
what remains? A whole man, composed of
all men, and as good as all of them, and
no better than any."
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE,
THE WORDS
*****************************************
vertigo
Believe me, I've no problem with making these issues more complex than they've been
made. But that would be part of my point too. The same, by the way, goes for the
"Italies" (remember to whom Verdi dedicated his Requiem!). Even "America" is not
that simple, since, up until Jimmy Carter, one can argue that it was TWO different
countries, really, culturally, geographically, religiously, etc. Nonetheless,
conventionally Mozart is considered an Austrian composer & Bach a German composer,
to give just two examples. Beethoven hovers between the two; and an Austrian
friend assured me that Austrians consider him an Austrian composer. I consider him
Austrian only when I listen to the Pastoral: now THAT sounds Austrian! But the
Fifth? Third? Ninth? Or the other symphonies for that matter? They sound
quintessentially German!
Archer070
vertigo
> It's the beer.
Reminds me of explanations for the success of Elvis in the mid-50s:
"It's the sneer."
--
******************************************
"My sole concern has been to save myself,
nothing in my hands, nothing up my sleeve,
by work and faith. And if I relegate
impossible salvation to the prop room,
what remains? A whole man, composed of
all men, and as good as all of them, and
no better than any."
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE,
THE WORDS
******************************************
Abelard2
>It's the beer.
This would help to explain the extraordinary proficiency of the Bohemians (aka
Czechs) as composers; while we are contemplating the unusual concentration of
musical talent that abounds in German history, it is worth noting that the
greatest undiscovered masters are to be found among the Czechs.
Nathan Alexander Simington
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Should you live in France, your perspective would have been slightly
> different. Berlioz, Faure, Chausson...
Chausson was Belgian. But whatever happened to Debussy on this
list? (=
Best,
Nathan
Nathan Alexander Simington
Abelard2 wrote:
> A couple of examples: first, what we know about the history of the
> Renaissance, which, as another poster noted, spread at uneven rates
> throughout Europe, and reached its last and arguably highest
> expression in Germany (hence this thread); it was clearly a new and
> different image of man, one where man participated with God in the
> continuing creation of the universe (as exemplified by the debate
> over the "filioque" part of the Nicene Creed -- that the holy
> spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also "from the son"):
> the idea of Man, participating in the progress of a beautiful,
> purposeful universe, revolutionized the arts.
While this is eloquent, it ducks the issue. How do you know that
philosophy caused the artistic revolution and not the reverse?
How do you know which aspect of society "leads" the others (if
such a thing is even possible?)
> Now, for another, less happy but equally instructive example:
> toward the end of the last century, we saw the early glimmerings
> of what has become known as Existentialism, which posits a
> universe that is neither beautiful nor purposeful, and Man's
> role in it is questionable at best. Is it fairly obvious how
> this affected the arts? Think of Edvard Munch's painting, "The
> Scream", and what it portends.
Maybe you're trying to be subtle, but the effect is lost on me.
What exactly does "The Scream" 'portend?' Am I supposed to be upset
that the effete bourgeouis formalism* of XIXth-century academic
art is dead today?
You can't meaningfully attack a philosophy by calling it
discomforting, anyway. That's analogous to demanding a return to
geocentric Aristotelian physics because it's pleasant to believe
in the Prime Mover watching us benevolently. So what if modern
philosophy doesn't posit a "purposeful" universe? People should
stand up and make their own purposes, for pity's sakes, and stop
puling for the good old days when the nobles ran roughshod over
everybody while the cynical clergy chanted pious phrases over them.**
* I don't actually believe this, but it's as defensible as the
preceding "criticism" of Munch (and by implication, Kierkegaard,
Nietzsche, et al.)
** Exaggerated for rhetorical purposes.
Regards,
Nathan
Hanns Krehbiel
> >why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> >germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank
> >that produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> >mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
> >polka?
>
..........
May I add a tentative collateral explanation?
The German reformator Martin Luther was a musical man. (I am not discussing
his other personal traits.) He played the lute and composed hymns. In his
writings and in personal talks he advocates music-making for religious
edification, to foster a sense of religious community, or just to fight
depressive moods.
Thus music was from the beginning an essential element of German Protestant
religious live. Every church was to have its "Cantor". He provided sort of
a musical education for the general population.
No Bach without Luther, don't you agree?
Tmo it _did_ matter for the history of music that Karl Marx was short of
tone-deaf.
krehbiel
DB
Nathan Alexander Simington a écrit :
>
> Chausson was Belgian. But whatever happened to Debussy on this
> list? (=
>
No, Chausson was definitely French. You must be confused with Franck or
Lekeu. But even saying that Franck was Belgian may be confusing as he went
to France quite early and had all his career there.
Amicalement de Paris, DB.
Samuel Vriezen
>In article <19991004182032...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
>MWindi4108 <mwind...@aol.com> wrote:
>>For examples and you might have to include North German/Low Country
>>in my definition of Germans e.g (and I name only a few) Ockeghem,
>>Obrecht, Gafori (theorist), Busnois, Willaert, Isaac, Johannes
>>Gallicus of Namur.
>
>None of these composers were really German though. Some were Dutch.
Most came from present-day Belgium. I don't know, is Dutch used as an
academic term including what Belgium was in the middle ages?
Samuel Vriezen
>Tmo it _did_ matter for the history of music that Karl Marx was short of
>tone-deaf.
Adorno was more than happy to fill the niche. (although in a nasty
mood I could think him tonedeaf on the evidence of his string quartet
as well...)
John Carter
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote in message
news:7tamon$4u1$1...@machaut.medieval.org...
> In article <SgYJ3.3120$%62.5...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> The Essential Ape <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> >germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank
> >that produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> >mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
> >polka?
>
> culturally until relatively late, after France, England, Spain,
> Italy had all had their day in the sun. Once one builds a national
> tradition to a certain level, as happened in France as early as
> the 12th century, it becomes more difficult to forge new styles
> due to various elements of inertia. German music had borrowed
> forms and idioms from other countries for centuries, and then the
> time it came together on its own terms was also the time of the
> explosion of the middle class with its consequent growing demand
> for popularly-oriented "classical" music, meaning that it stayed
> in the repertory since then. To continue the thought, Eastern
> European music peaked after Germany, etc.
>
> If you were a medievalist like me, "why the germans?" would be the
> last question on your mind. Where was the German Perotin, Machaut,
> Dufay et al.? He didn't exist of course.
>
> mcc...@medieval.org
> Todd I think gets very near to the actual explanation, if one such is
needed. At times a certain set of conditions co-exist that produces such an
explosion of cultural innovation. It is not always the same conditions .In
fact sometimes a degree of conflict is helpful..What we might say is that as
in the Italian City States and in the minor Germanic Kingdoms there must be
room for diversity so that different ideas and styles can evolve.However
communications must be such that these ideas can spread. I also suspect that
there must be a suitable educational system for the art form. In music as in
science we start standing on the shoulders of these who went before.Also the
technical craft has to be learned. The second stage must be the development
of a tradition, though in mostcases a still shortly established one. Other
factors are economic.there must be a society willing to support artists,
musicians or poets which the Germanic states and the Austro Hungarian Empire
provided, muchas the great Lords of England supported the English Musical
Revolution more than a century before. This role later fell to an educated
and increasingly wealthy middle class who would build concert halls etc.
Great national wealth or power is not a factor.Britain at its height simply
imported composers as did America at one period. There has to be something
of unrest in the air, a certain tension.The German initial unification, the
rise of nationalism, in Bohemia and Russia, social unrest.
The Golden age of the French baroque born on a sea of nationalism ebbed
during the revolution and the post Imperial era only to reappear as the
continental power of France declined.Then people asked questions, both as
Frenchmen, artists and composers The same might be said of post Empire
Britain.
If there is an association with philosophy it is only that it to is ruled by
these same creative influences.Nietzsche is I think a red herring.Freud and
the introspective Schiller are far more typical of German and Austrian
thought than Nietzsche.There is nothing of German spirituality in his
work.Spirituality and introspection are strong creative factors in
GermanAustrian music from beforeBach through Bruckner to Mahler and Berg.
Nietzsche at his best represents a sort of pantheistic cruel evolutionism
we see sentimentalised in Pfitzner by romanticism. In truth Nietzsche is
more of a romantic than he admitted and from which came maybe his appeal
to Wagner and Delius.He proclaims not the Superman, but Walter Mitty.
John Carter Barsoom.
Nathan Alexander Simington
No, I was definitely thinking Chausson, but I was confused about
his location; as a violinist, I automatically associated Chausson
with Ysaye, and it was all downhill from there.
Thanks for straightening this out for me,
Nathan
Abelard2
considered rebuttal to my comments:
>Abelard2 wrote:
>
>> A couple of examples: first, what we know about the history of the
>> Renaissance, which, as another poster noted, spread at uneven rates
>> throughout Europe, and reached its last and arguably highest
>> expression in Germany (hence this thread); it was clearly a new and
>> different image of man, one where man participated with God in the
>> continuing creation of the universe (as exemplified by the debate
>> over the "filioque" part of the Nicene Creed -- that the holy
>> spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also "from the son"):
>> the idea of Man, participating in the progress of a beautiful,
>> purposeful universe, revolutionized the arts.
>
>While this is eloquent, it ducks the issue. How do you know that
>philosophy caused the artistic revolution and not the reverse?
>How do you know which aspect of society "leads" the others (if
>such a thing is even possible?)
>
Well, in the crudest sense, you check to see which came first, chronologically.
And, of course, in the ideal sense, artists should be philosophers and vice
versa (as was the case with Schiller), which renders the point moot.
>> Now, for another, less happy but equally instructive example:
>> toward the end of the last century, we saw the early glimmerings
>> of what has become known as Existentialism, which posits a
>> universe that is neither beautiful nor purposeful, and Man's
>> role in it is questionable at best. Is it fairly obvious how
>> this affected the arts? Think of Edvard Munch's painting, "The
>> Scream", and what it portends.
>
>Maybe you're trying to be subtle, but the effect is lost on me.
>What exactly does "The Scream" 'portend?' Am I supposed to be upset
>that the effete bourgeouis formalism* of XIXth-century academic
>art is dead today?
>>* I don't actually believe this, but it's as defensible as the
>preceding "criticism" of Munch (and by implication, Kierkegaard,
>Nietzsche, et al.)
>
Well, I think I can answer that. As I recall Percy Shelley saying, "Poets are
the unacknowledged legislators of mankind," and where the artists lead, the
politicians often follow. When I think of "The Scream", I think of fascism.
There is a beautiful poem by Schiller called "The Artists", which is, in a
certain sense, addressed to artists; it includes this admonition:
"The dignity of mankind is placed in your hands;
Defend it! It sinks with you! With you it shall ascend!"
>You can't meaningfully attack a philosophy by calling it
>discomforting, anyway. That's analogous to demanding a return to
>geocentric Aristotelian physics because it's pleasant to believe
>in the Prime Mover watching us benevolently. So what if modern
>philosophy doesn't posit a "purposeful" universe? People should
>stand up and make their own purposes, for pity's sakes, and stop
>puling for the good old days when the nobles ran roughshod over
>everybody while the cynical clergy chanted pious phrases over them.**
>
>** Exaggerated for rhetorical purposes.
>
I don't recall using the expression "discomforting;" and if there are no
universals, if people "stand up and make their own purposes," you are generally
going to find that some of those people are going to prefer to be the new
"nobles who run roughshod over everybody"; you get "Triumph of the Will."
It is useful to remind ourselves, however, that the "old nobles" never left;
they still prefer Aristotle over Plato (Sir Karl Popper's name has come up,
from time to time, in this newsgroup); they hated the "effete bourgeouis
formalism of the XIXth-century", founding something called the "Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood" to combat it; they still employ the cynical clergy (and let us not
forget, cynical academics) to chant pious phrases. "Modernism" is not so
modern.
Todd Michel McComb
Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Most came from present-day Belgium. I don't know, is Dutch used
>as an academic term including what Belgium was in the middle ages?
The two were considered together at the time, but the only distinction,
if there is to be one, is that some of the composers in this area
spoke French and some spoke Dutch. I refuse to consider nationalism
at all, aside from language. Of course, most wrote only in French
(or Latin) until rather late in the period, at which point some
Dutch songs appeared from the Franco-Flemish school.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
anthon...@my-deja.com
tlst...@tpgi.com.au wrote:
> In article <SgYJ3.3120$%62.5...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "The Essential Ape" <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> > germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
> > produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> > mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
polka?
> >
> > regarding the french and the english, but what french or english
> > composer can even be compared with the germs?
> >
> > and what link is there between german music and german philosophy?
you
> > know, like nietszche or nietzsche?
>
> Great composers have come out of just about EVERY country!
>
> --
this is a more pro'diversity' statement and yes, many nations have
given us fine composers, though what great vietnamese music there may
be, i know not.
and my question didn't suggest that only germans had been great.
rather, i was amazed by the sheer disproportionate representation of
german and germanic composers on the roster of the greats.
why didn't britain produce the same kind and level of musical genius
whereas in literature britain is very well represented?
paul forsdick
German composer
<anthon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7tdc5m$832$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <tlsterry-051...@war-ppp-078.tpgi.com.au>,
> tlst...@tpgi.com.au wrote:
> > In article <SgYJ3.3120$%62.5...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> > "The Essential Ape" <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> > > germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
> > > produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> > > mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
> polka?
> > >
> > > my professor told me germans felt a degree of cultural inferiority
> > > regarding the french and the english, but what french or english
> > > composer can even be compared with the germs?
> > >
> >
>
Todd Michel McComb
>why didn't britain produce the same kind and level of musical genius
>whereas in literature britain is very well represented?
The two peaks of English music, from the perspective of international
influence and artistic range, are in the wake of the Hundred Years'
War and the control of Burgundy, and in the (post-)Elizabethan age.
The latter corresponds directly to the oft-cited literature.
Suggesting that Dunstable or Byrd are not proper "musical geniuses"
is silly indeed, and so what you need to be asking is "Why did old
music cease falling out of the repertory in the 18th century?"
The answer is, as I suggested before, linked directly to the economic
shifts of that time and the rise of the middle class. German music
had its peak coincident with this decisive shift to the modern
concert stage, and so it is German music you know best. It is no
big mystery.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
SherMus
>It's the beer.
And the schnitzel.
brrrraaaaaappp!!!!!
Sounds like Wagner don't it?
<hee hee>
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
vertigo wrote:
> Believe me, I've no problem with making these issues more complex than they've been
> made.
Well, at least you acknowledge the complexity of the issues (which probably means you
have some knowledge of history.) But let me remind you that Anschluss was voted by a
vast majority of Austrians (was it 90%?), and Mozart refers to himself in his
correspondence as "wir Deutsche". German nationalism has crossed borders for
centuries, and the only thing that kept all German speaking countries from unification
was the struggles of ruling families to retain power over their little fiefdoms (and
perhaps the King-Emperor's Hungarian subjects). The fact that Habsburgs and
Hohenzollerns were unwilling to cede power in the interest of ethnic unity does not
alter the ethnic character of the people. If you had asked Mozart what his citizenship
status was, he would have told you that he was born in Salzburg or the Salzkammergut ,
a subject of the Prince-Archbishop or the Holy Roman Emperor. If you had asked what
his ethnicity was, he would have answered "Teitsch".
> But that would be part of my point too. The same, by the way, goes for the
> "Italies" (remember to whom Verdi dedicated his Requiem!).
Oh, there's a great example: the man whose very name was used by his people as acronym
code for unification in the face of the enemy: "V ittorio E mannuele R e D ' I
talia". I think Verdi considered it his proudest accomplishment that he was a symbol
of Italian nationalism. And what was Garibaldi? Sicilian, wasn't he? Or was he
Savoyard?
> Even "America" is not
> that simple, since, up until Jimmy Carter, one can argue that it was TWO different
> countries, really, culturally, geographically, religiously, etc.
What exactly did Southerners consider themselves before Jimmy Carter? Antarcticans?
They may not agree with the extent or pervasiveness of the Federal system, but they
pride themselves on producing the soldiery that maintains it. I'll admit that history
creates some confused ethnic identities (e.g. Mahler's "thrice an outcast" comment),
but just because I answer that I am from Los Angeles and do not like grits or pork
rinds does no make me exclusively Californian as opposed to American. I think you are
confusing regionalism with national identity here.
> Nonetheless,
> conventionally Mozart is considered an Austrian composer
By Austrians, who have only this century decided to view themselves as something apart
from Germans and/or the Holy Roman Empire.
> Beethoven hovers between the two; and an Austrian
> friend assured me that Austrians consider him an Austrian composer.
Ditto above
> I consider him
> Austrian only when I listen to the Pastoral: now THAT sounds Austrian! But the
> Fifth? Third? Ninth? Or the other symphonies for that matter? They sound
> quintessentially German!
Well, now we get down to the real issue: subjective perception of ethnicity. What did
Beethoven consider himself? What did he consider himself when Napoleon pounded on his
door (figuratively speaking)? What did he consider himself when, in 1797 -- in Austria
-- he composed "Ein grosses deutsches Volk sind wir"? But if you "consider" him to be
certain things, I doubt there is much anyone can say to alter your perception (which is
not meant as a personal criticism -- you sound like a nice person -- but is meant
rather as an observation on basic human nature and how national identity is formed).
--
Best regards,
Con
--
To reply, please remove anti-spam asterisk from return address
**************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists"
-- Artur Schnabel
**************************************************************
Ken
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
jan winter
<conm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And what was Garibaldi? Sicilian, wasn't he? Or was he
>Savoyard?
He was from Nizza, since 1860 the French Nice (which amply illustrates
the point you made, I suppose).
regards, jan winter
Nathan Alexander Simington
Abelard2 wrote:
> Nathan Alexander Simington propounds, in a considered rebuttal
> to my comments:
> >While this is eloquent, it ducks the issue. How do you know that
> >philosophy caused the artistic revolution and not the reverse?
> >How do you know which aspect of society "leads" the others (if
> >such a thing is even possible?)
> Well, in the crudest sense, you check to see which came first,
> chronologically. And, of course, in the ideal sense, artists
> should be philosophers and vice versa (as was the case with
> Schiller), which renders the point moot.
While artists should be perceptive and 'philosophic' (in a more
Chinese than Western sense,) it's not at all clear that artistic
ability implies technical knowledge of philosophical issues and
problems. Artistically sensitive people often lack the time or
resources to study other subjects in depth, because studying art
is such a big job. In my case, after my first year of university,
I picked music over science, because I couldn't manage to do both
well at the same time.
> >Maybe you're trying to be subtle, but the effect is lost on me.
> >What exactly does "The Scream" 'portend?' Am I supposed to be upset
> >that the effete bourgeouis formalism* of XIXth-century academic
> >art is dead today?
> >>* I don't actually believe this, but it's as defensible as the
> >preceding "criticism" of Munch (and by implication, Kierkegaard,
> >Nietzsche, et al.)
> Well, I think I can answer that. As I recall Percy Shelley saying,
> "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of mankind," and where
> the artists lead, the politicians often follow.
While Shelley's "Defense of Poetry" is interesting reading, it is
hardly a technical philosophic work. In any case, the line cited
does not refer to literal governance by poets. Shelley seems to
have been quite aware that governments could ignore or oppose
the wishes of the poets.
> When I think of "The Scream", I think of fascism. There is a
> beautiful poem by Schiller called "The Artists", which is, in
> a certain sense, addressed to artists; it includes this
> admonition:
> "The dignity of mankind is placed in your hands;
> Defend it! It sinks with you! With you it shall ascend!"
When I think of Munch (and Schoenberg, and Joyce, and a lot of
other modernists) I think of _resistance_ to fascism, while the
conservatives were busy cheering on Franco. Remember, expression-
istic art was "Kulturbolschewismus" under Hitler.
> >You can't meaningfully attack a philosophy by calling it
> >discomforting, anyway.
[ snip ]
> >People should stand up and make their own purposes, for pity's
> >sakes, and stop puling for the good old days when the nobles ran
> >roughshod over everybody while the cynical clergy chanted pious
> >phrases over them.**
> I don't recall using the expression "discomforting;" and if
> there are no universals, if people "stand up and make their own
> purposes," you are generally going to find that some of those
> people are going to prefer to be the new "nobles who run
> roughshod over everybody"; you get "Triumph of the Will."
By "discomforting," I mean "denying our comfortable fictions
because of unavoidable, ultimate reality." As well, I disagree
with your equation of existentialism with nihilism. When you
consider the historical record, it becomes clear that fascism
was not 'modernistic;' if anything, it was a reaction against
modernism, Heidegger notwithstanding.
> It is useful to remind ourselves, however, that the "old
> nobles" never left; they still prefer Aristotle over Plato
> (Sir Karl Popper's name has come up, from time to time, in
> this newsgroup); they hated the "effete bourgeouis
> formalism of the XIXth-century", founding something called
> the "Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood" to combat it; they still
> employ the cynical clergy (and let us not forget, cynical
> academics) to chant pious phrases. "Modernism" is not so
> modern.
It is a Marxist truism that the middle class perpetually replaces
the upper class. This is not an indictment of modernism. While
you can find ridiculous academics to defend virtually any position
today, this has always been true (think Thrasymachus.)
Regards,
Nathan
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
vertigo wrote:
> CONSTANTIN MARCOU wrote:
>
> > vertigo wrote:
> > What exactly did Southerners consider themselves before Jimmy Carter? Antarcticans?
> > They may not agree with the extent or pervasiveness of the Federal system, but they
> > pride themselves on producing the soldiery that maintains it. I'll admit that history
> > creates some confused ethnic identities (e.g. Mahler's "thrice an outcast" comment),
> > but just because I answer that I am from Los Angeles and do not like grits or pork
> > rinds does no make me exclusively Californian as opposed to American. I think you are
> > confusing regionalism with national identity here.
>
> I think the issues here are far more complex than you make out.
[There follow long, rambling musings]
> (and
> you can see how "dizzy" Vertigo has become
Oy! Consider the rest of us! :-)
> We call the city Los Angeles, not The Angels! Minor point? Not really. Major
> point really. Only an historical revisionism makes "Los Angeles" sound effortlessly
> English to our ears!
Actually, we call it LaLa land (and the Latino/Anglo issue is, indeed very thorny -- even from
an ethnographic point of view. There are people in the Southwest who are born in the U.S.,
consider themselves American, and speak no English.)
[snip]
> Another example of historical revisionism. You know Voltaire's famous quip about the Holy
> Roman Empire: it was a perfect name except for 3 things: it wasn't holy; it wasn't Roman;
> and it wasn't even an empire!
That was just Voltaire being flip. I don't think he got much agreement from Maria Theresa or
Joseph II -- or even from the Electors.
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
Hanns Krehbiel wrote:
> > The Essential Ape <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> > >germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank
> > >that produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> > >mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly
> > >polka?
> >
>
> ..........
>
> May I add a tentative collateral explanation?
>
> The German reformator Martin Luther was a musical man. (I am not discussing
> his other personal traits.) He played the lute and composed hymns. In his
> writings and in personal talks he advocates music-making for religious
> edification, to foster a sense of religious community, or just to fight
> depressive moods.
>
> Thus music was from the beginning an essential element of German Protestant
> religious live. Every church was to have its "Cantor". He provided sort of
> a musical education for the general population.
>
> No Bach without Luther, don't you agree?
>
> Tmo it _did_ matter for the history of music that Karl Marx was short of
> tone-deaf.
>
> krehbiel
I'm going to put on my asbestos suit and add my own oversimplified, sophomoric
(yea, bordering unto the moronic) stereotyped explanation: I think it's
because the Germans have difficulty communicating emotions verbally or
directly. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, other peoples dissipate their art in
conversation.
vertigo
> vertigo wrote:
> What exactly did Southerners consider themselves before Jimmy Carter? Antarcticans?
> They may not agree with the extent or pervasiveness of the Federal system, but they
> pride themselves on producing the soldiery that maintains it. I'll admit that history
> creates some confused ethnic identities (e.g. Mahler's "thrice an outcast" comment),
> but just because I answer that I am from Los Angeles and do not like grits or pork
> rinds does no make me exclusively Californian as opposed to American. I think you are
> confusing regionalism with national identity here.
I think the issues here are far more complex than you make out. And there's a lot of
historical revisionism going on here. Don't forget, the plural verb ("copula") used to be
used for the United States up until the post-Civil War period (I believe Whitman was one of
the first to use the single verb form, "is" rather than "are"). Revisionistically,
Americans retrospect as if America was always neatly and simply American! Not so. There
is absolutely NO reason to suppose that it is outrageously imaginative that America might
have entered the modern world as two or even more separate nations. For that matter, there
was nothing inevitable about American identity anyway; one has only to read that famous
comment in Adam Smith's book, where in the introductory pages he refers to (paraphrase)
"the temporary conflict with the colonies" (!). And I think your reduction of the
differences between North and South is far too simplistic. Believe me, as recently as the
1960s Easterners that I knew viewed Southerners as virtually part of another country. And
that's the 1960s (imagine the 1860s!). Historical revisionism always simplifies historical
events towards its own ends. As the famous quip has it, those who win the wars get to
write the histories! Consider the entire solecism of the Judaeo-Christian tradition,
whereby the Hebrew Bible becomes the "Old Testament." Consider that Christianity itself
emerged centuries later, in historically revisionist terms (the "Chrstians" were perceived
as an heterodox Jewish sect by Roman authors such as Marcus Aurelius, or writers such as
Josephus). Moreover, Jesus maintained a prophetic continuity with Hebrew genealogy & this
is clearly the intent of evangelists such as Matthew, with that celebrated genealogy that
begins the Matthew Gospel and links Jesus, Davidically, in line with conventional Davidic
assumptions of the time. But, this is only a relatively minor point. Jesus never tires of
linking himself with the entire Hebrew tradition, right up to his death when he cites the
22d psalm. Of course bibliologists can fill up reams of continuities, many of them
retrospectively to antitypically conceived, such as the the 3 Isaiahs, esp. the 2d Isaiah,
Jeremiah, etc. For music lovers, all we have to do is consult Handel's work, which is
rather ironic; since, although the Messiah is the ONLY Christian oratorio among H's 20,
much of the text uses Hebrew Scriptures rather than specifically Christian scriptures (and
you can see how "dizzy" Vertigo has become, since even those terms "Christian" and the
distinction of those terms are essentially meaningless except in an historically
revisionist manner. I would sum up by saying that all history is revisionist history by
definition. Here again, biblical scriptures are paradigmatic in their redactions, etc.
As for your more or less flippant reference to Los Angeles, don't forget even THERE
issues are not as flippantly easy as you may suggest. Consider the interminable Spanish
names. We call the city Los Angeles, not The Angels! Minor point? Not really. Major
point really. Only an historical revisionism makes "Los Angeles" sound effortlessly
English to our ears!
> By Austrians, who have only this century decided to view themselves as something apart
> from Germans and/or the Holy Roman Empire.
Another example of historical revisionism. You know Voltaire's famous quip about the Holy
Roman Empire: it was a perfect name except for 3 things: it wasn't holy; it wasn't Roman;
and it wasn't even an empire!
Abelard2
>For that matter, there
>was nothing inevitable about American identity anyway; one has only to read
>that famous
>comment in Adam Smith's book, where in the introductory pages he refers to
>(paraphrase)
>"the temporary conflict with the colonies" (!).
This is by no means surprising, since the American Revolution was fought
against the ideas of Smith.
> And I think your reduction
>of the
>differences between North and South is far too simplistic.
The British continued to have designs on the South, until Czar Alexander sent
his fleet to New York and San Francisco, and informed the Brits that he would
fight on the side of the Union, if they joined the Confederacy.
And then, there was Gingrich...
Abelard2
>
>When I think of Munch (and Schoenberg, and Joyce, and a lot of
>other modernists) I think of _resistance_ to fascism, while the
>conservatives were busy cheering on Franco. Remember, expression-
>istic art was "Kulturbolschewismus" under Hitler.
>
...and Hitler banned the performance of Schiller's plays, for reasons that are
perhaps a bit more obvious. To my way of thinking, you don't effectively
"resist" fascism by putting forth, in the arts, an ugly, pessimistic image of
Mankind; that smacks of the Bettelheim Syndrome.
> As well, I disagree
>with your equation of existentialism with nihilism. When you
>consider the historical record, it becomes clear that fascism
>was not 'modernistic;' if anything, it was a reaction against
>modernism, Heidegger notwithstanding.
I contend that fascism and modernism are both kindred forms of rejection of the
Renaissance view of Man. And -- some of the most dangerous fascists are those
who claim that the Classical ideal is "authoritarian" (this brings to mind Sir
Karl Popper's attack on Plato; think also of Heidegger's lover, Hannah Arendt).
When I look upon a painting by Rembrandt, or listen to a late Beethoven
quartet, I think to myself, "Civilization may someday reach maturity. Humans
are essentially good."
Steve Forrest
CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conmarcou*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I'm going to put on my asbestos suit and add my own oversimplified, sophomoric
>(yea, bordering unto the moronic) stereotyped explanation: I think it's
>because the Germans have difficulty communicating emotions verbally or
>directly. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, other peoples dissipate their art in
>conversation.
Nietzsche said of his own composing of music
that he did it in order to help him master
his feelings.
-Steve
vertigo
> Nathan Alexander Simington Nathan.A....@lawrence.edu said, in part:
>
> To my way of thinking, you don't effectively
> "resist" fascism by putting forth, in the arts, an ugly, pessimistic image of
> Mankind
Orson Welles remarks somewhere that the artist's duty is precisely to imagine
against the chaos of the times. Generalizations are odious, as Johnson once told
Boswell, but it is hard to imagine that people raised, for example, on the novels
of Kafka are better off to confront the challenges of the world than people raised
on the stories of Greek mythology or the Bible. Kafka tells us we can't win; the
story of David & Goliath tells us we CAN win. I am reminded of a neglected verse
from Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land":
As I went walking
One fine morning
I saw a sign saying, "No trespassing."
But on the other side
It didn't say nothing:
That side was made for you and me!"
Abelard2
>
>Nietzsche said of his own composing of music
>that he did it in order to help him master
>his feelings.
Having listened to some of his compositions, I would say that they are less
objectionable than his philosophy, so perhaps he was, to some extent,
successful. Imagine what he might have composed, if his feelings were not so
repellant!
JHenry1975
>And then, there was Gingrich...
What about that Pennsylvania Yankee? (I just hate it when he refers to "the
Amurrican People.")
Joseph Henry
poo...@my-deja.com
that, the French and Italians dominated music. As near as I
can tell the 20th century has been more multicultural, for lack
of a better word. Germans have not dominated the century, although
they've contributed to it. American music made quite an impact,
as did British, Russian, Polish and so on.
J
In article <SgYJ3.3120$%62.5...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"The Essential Ape" <azago...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> why was it that so many great composers came out of austria and
> germany? what was in german culture or in the water they drank that
> produced such heavyweight contenders and champions as beethoven,
> mozart, wagner, brahms, haydn, bach, strauss, and the beerbelly polka?
>
> my professor told me germans felt a degree of cultural inferiority
> regarding the french and the english, but what french or english
> composer can even be compared with the germs?
>
> and what link is there between german music and german philosophy?
you
> know, like nietszche or nietzsche?
> --
> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
>
>
--
John E. Harrington
"On an occasion of this kind, it becomes more
than a moral duty to speak one's mind. It becomes
a pleasure." -- Oscar Wilde
Bill Jackson
Abelard2 wrote in message <19991006014724...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>This is by no means surprising, since the American Revolution was fought
>against the ideas of Smith.
Hmmm........... as long as we're so far off topic, if the Revolutionists
fought against Adam Smith's free enterprise philosophy, they lost. The
original question had to do with Austrians, Germans - Hessians included I
assume - and musical excellence. Why did the Japanese excel at martial
arts? I suppose it depends what field and era you're interested in, but
maybe a cultural expectation of excellence is part of the answer.
>
Bill Jackson
Abelard2 wrote in message <19991006223612...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>
>Having listened to some of his compositions, I would say that they are less
>objectionable than his philosophy, so perhaps he was, to some extent,
>successful. Imagine what he might have composed, if his feelings were not
so
>repellant!
>
compositions?
(He was a sick man, wasn't he . . . but fasinating in an incomprehensible
kind of way. I hope his music is a little less dark, even if it doesn't
make the list alongside Beethoven's.)
vertigo
> vertigo wrote:
> > And what about the Hollywood cinema; here we're talking literally
> > hundreds of classics every year (not, anymore, of course, since the
> > dissolution of the studio system, but in the Hollywood "classic age").
> >
>
> I followed you up til here.... and then I lost you....hundreds of
> classics every year? None since the "classic age"?
>
> But that's another newgroup....
>
> av
Poor antecedence, in my case. Since, as you say, this information properly
belongs on ANOTHER newsgroup, I didn't wish to get too specific in this
area. Essentially, what I meant was that the Classic Hollywood studio
system used to produce hundreds of films every year. Look at some of those
filmographies of studio actors, such as Jimmy Stewart; many of them acted in
sometimes four films a year. Amazingly, most of those films were of high
caliber; in many cases, today we call them "classics." Now the poor
antecedence was in the subsequent remark, "not anymore." What I meant was
not that we have no contemporary film classics, but that we no longer
produced as many films as we did. But this is always the hazard of romantic
freedom. Arthur Miller, in Timebends, regrets that he was not part of a
repertoire theatre, claiming his productivity would have been much higher,
compelled, as he would have been, to meet a constant demand for new work.
In an interview, Jimmy Stewart remarked about the old days that actors were
constantly busy; moving from one stage set to another, learning how to fight
under horses without getting hurt, then returning to another stage set in a
romantic comedy, etc. Ah, the Golden Age!
--
********************************
"What do? Where to? What for?"
Jack Kerouac
ON THE ROAD
********************************