Shockhausen
Jan Depondt
greatest work of art of all times''.
I could not find an English report of this interview.
(in Dutch:)
http://www.standaard.be/Nieuws/cultuur/snelnieuws.asp?ArticleID=NFLC18092001
_003
Confirmation (in German:)
http://www.musikhalle-hamburg.de/data/news/content_neu.php3
--
Jan Depondt
Matthew B. Tepper
"Jan Depondt" <jd...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
news:9o8cjv$bvclq$1...@ID-79646.news.dfncis.de:
> Karlheinz Stockhausen has called the terrorist attacks in the USA ,,the
> greatest work of art of all times''.
>
> I could not find an English report of this interview.
>
> (in Dutch:)
>
>
http://www.standaard.be/Nieuws/cultuur/snelnieuws.asp?ArticleID=NFLC1809200
1 _003
>
>
> Confirmation (in German:)
>
> http://www.musikhalle-hamburg.de/data/news/content_neu.php3
>
>
> --
> Jan Depondt
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Steven Lindberg
from the German Press Agency that sounds like it was translated by
babelfish:
"What happened there is - now you must readjust your brain - the biggest
artwork of all times. That spirits achieve in a single act what we in
music cannot dream of, that people rehearse ten years long like mad,
totally fanatical for a concert and then die. This is the biggest
artwork that exists at all in the whole universe... I couldn't match
it. Against that, we - as composers - are nothing."
Asked by a jorunalist whether he identified art and crime, Stockhausen
replied: "It's a crime because the people were not consenting. They
haven't come to the 'concert'. This is evident. And nobody had announced
them that they could die in its process. What happened there
spiritually, this leap from security, from what's ordinary, from life,
that sometimes happens poco a poco in art. Or else it is nothing."
The Financial Times Germany quotes Stockhausen's colleague Gyorgy Ligeti
with the following reaction: "Stockhausen has taken the side of the
terrorists. [...] If he thinks this atrocious mass murder is an
artwork, I am sorry that I have to say that he should be locked up in a
psychiatric hospital".
Go, György!
Stockhausen's site is claiming he was misquoted:
http://www.stockhausen.org/reply_to_bild.html
Not very plausible denial, though, since it gives three different,
not very compatible, explanations.
"Jan Depondt" <jd...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:9o8cjv$bvclq$1...@ID-79646.news.dfncis.de...
Matthew B. Tepper
right one to have Schmuckhausen locked up!
As the punch line goes, "Look who thinks he's nothing!"
"Steven Lindberg" <NOcrif...@home.com> wrote in
news:vPSp7.3574$oD.26...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com:
--
Scott Kurtz
other hand, so were Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Stockhausen's "Momente"
in the late 1960s seemed to be some kind of wondrous, explosive expression
of a new universe opening before us--at least in its one-hour version it
seemed almost like a credo for the flowering of a conceptual universe
without bounds, as far from the backward looking tunnel vision of simplistic
dogmatic religious fundamentalism as it was possible to get. Maybe we are
reading about what Stockhausen said through the distorted reportorial lens
of an opportunistic journalist. I don't know. Ligeti's reaction seems to
suggest otherwise. At the very least in responding publicly to the awful
events of September 11, Stockhausen was to some extent guilty of a callous
egomania. Maybe he shouldn't be locked up, but he should certainly see a
psychiatrist. Stockhausen studied with Olivier Messiaen. What would Messiaen
have thought of his former student's remarks?
Matthew B. Tepper <oyţ@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wZSp7.7116$Md5.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
REG
what "context" would have made sense for the comments.
Also. Ligeti apparently felt the response was genuine enought that it could
stand on its own feet.
"Scott Kurtz" <kur...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qfTp7.1251$3d2....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Scott Kurtz
what he said more problematic to deal with than what Robertson and Falwell
said. I am appalled by what he said and am ready to condemn him utterly and
totally, but I don't think we know enough about was said to be absolute
about it as yet.
REG <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:grTp7.27508$n5.35...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Ward Hardman
[snip]
: At the very least in responding publicly to the awful
: events of September 11, Stockhausen was to some extent guilty of a callous
: egomania. Maybe he shouldn't be locked up, but he should certainly see a
: psychiatrist.
In Orwell's "1984" they had something called "thoughtcrime"?
Nowadays the idea of "hate crime" seems to be based on what the perpetrator
was *thinking* at the time of the crime (a difficult thing to determine).
Stockhausen seems to be talking about the crashes from an *aesthetic* point
of view, devoid of considerations of humanity, everything reduced to
spectacle, if he considers it a "work of art."
If he thinks that such "found art" is beautiful, and has no desire to create
such works himself or to encourage others to do it, then there isn't a basis
for "locking him up." There is basis for considering him heartless, but
that's not a crime yet... it's just thinking. (Nasty thinking, though!)
Creative people are often weirdos you wouldn't want to associate with, like
Wagner. (Was Stockhausen considered in Henze's league when it came to
leftist sentiments in the '60s and '70s?)
As for having him see a psychiatrist, that would be something you could
force on him only if he's a danger to himself or others. (I don't know
how the "treason" statutes might apply, now that we're "at war," but he's
outside our jurisdiction anyway.)
--Ward Hardman
"Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever.
You might dodge successfully for a while, even years, but sooner or
later they were bound to get you."
- George Orwell, "1984"
Christopher Green
<kur...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>We are reading his comments through the veil of translation, which makes
>what he said more problematic to deal with than what Robertson and Falwell
>said. I am appalled by what he said and am ready to condemn him utterly and
>totally, but I don't think we know enough about was said to be absolute
>about it as yet.
Trust me, they're equally appalling in German. And he was not quoted
out of context, unless the reporter made up several paragraphs out of
whole cloth.
The remarks made by Falwell and Robertson are every bit as depraved,
but having heard them many times, I have come to expect no better from
them.
--
Chris Green
Thomas Muething
> Karlheinz Stockhausen has called the terrorist attacks in the USA ,,the
> greatest work of art of all times''.
Stockhausen apologized on Tuesday, saying he only wanted to emphasize the
connection that exists between art and destruction. This did not sufficiently
pacify the organizers of the Hamburg Musical Festival however, who persist in
their cancellation of all four Stockhausen-conducted concerts at the festival.
Thomas
PK
What's more, you WOULD expect something better from an artist and and
intellectual. And then again, reading what some of them have been saying
lately, maybe not.
PK
A. Brain
news:9o953f$mrt$2...@gondor.sdsu.edu...
> Scott Kurtz <kur...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> : At the very least in responding publicly to the awful
> : events of September 11, Stockhausen was to some extent guilty of a
callous
> : egomania. Maybe he shouldn't be locked up, but he should certainly see a
> : psychiatrist.
>
> In Orwell's "1984" they had something called "thoughtcrime"?
>
> Nowadays the idea of "hate crime" seems to be based on what the
perpetrator
> was *thinking* at the time of the crime (a difficult thing to determine).
> Stockhausen seems to be talking about the crashes from an *aesthetic*
point
> of view, devoid of considerations of humanity, everything reduced to
> spectacle, if he considers it a "work of art."
In fact, all crimes are to some extent "thought crimes" because it is
essential that the prosecution prove criminal intent. There is nothing
about so-called "hate crimes" that is different from traditional
differentiations of culpability. For example, first degree murder requires
proof of premeditation--the more evidence of planning, deliberation,
reconsideration, redetermination, etc. the stronger the case. The reason
for the differentiation is for punishment considerations--there is a higher
penalty for conduct shown to be the product of
mentation as opposed to impulse or passion.
That is among the reasons I still think that the terrorists, including the
mastermind(s) ought to be hunted and taken alive. It is much more effective
to have a public trial in a world court, elicit all the evidence of
criminality and then find that someone who was posing as a man of god is in
fact simply a murderer.
And when you add in that the terrorists were apparently trading on the stock
market to make money based on their knowledge of what was about to happen, I
think you can make them look pretty bad. The alternative, killing him and
making him an instant martyr for the ignorant masses to admire, would be a
serious mistake.
>
> If he thinks that such "found art" is beautiful, and has no desire to
create
> such works himself or to encourage others to do it, then there isn't a
basis
> for "locking him up." There is basis for considering him heartless, but
> that's not a crime yet... it's just thinking. (Nasty thinking, though!)
There is no basis for locking him up, but the court of public opinion is
sometimes more powerful than the law courts. If I ran a restaurant in L.A.,
I don't think I would want to take a reservation called in for a "Mr.
Simpson". Unless it's for Homer or Bart.
>
> Creative people are often weirdos you wouldn't want to associate with,
like
> Wagner. (Was Stockhausen considered in Henze's league when it came to
> leftist sentiments in the '60s and '70s?)
The problem I see is that the absurd statements, assuming they are correctly
reported, tend to play into the suspicions of some people that artists are
effete apologists for anything that comes out of the third world, including
terror. Remember when Vanessa Redgrave danced around for the cameras while
holding a machine gun?
>
> As for having him see a psychiatrist, that would be something you could
> force on him only if he's a danger to himself or others. (I don't know
> how the "treason" statutes might apply, now that we're "at war," but he's
> outside our jurisdiction anyway.)
I say just boycott his music. With the exception of that Pollini recital
at Carnegie in October 1999, where Pollini also played the Beethoven
Hammerklavier, I have been "boycotting" Stockhausen's music since the first
sample I heard on a DGG LP thirty years ago.
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
>
Raymond Hall
news:3BA850D0...@t-online.de...
The organisers of the Hamburg Music Festival have shown great consideration
to decent ordinary citizens. Let Fockhausen and his fokkers go to Islambad,
and go fock themselves. Scuse the Irish in me.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release Date: 18/09/01
PK
>
> In article <3BA8566E...@noos.fr>, PK <pro...@noos.fr> wrote:
> # What's more, you WOULD expect something better from an artist and and
> # intellectual. And then again, reading what some of them have been saying
> # lately, maybe not.
>
> Definitely not. Have you read the comments of Martin Amis
No. Thanks, but no thanks.
> or Susan Sontag?
Yes. And you don't read the French press, happy man. Nor some of the
German "progressists", as you can find out in the Spiegel. Mr Gregor
Gysi, "former" communist, and many French current communists (who, at
the times when USSR financed and supported terrorism all over the world,
were living off the same, bloody money), giving America lessons in
morality.
As a friend of mine used to say : "you cannot eat as much as you feel
like throwing up".
PK
Michael Krawczak
cancel four concerts of his work. However, Stockhausen immediately
apologized for his stupid remark during the press conference at which he
first made it. He also asked the media not to publicize his statement.
But, there we are.
"Jan Depondt" <jd...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:9o8cjv$bvclq$1...@ID-79646.news.dfncis.de...
Nicolas Hodges
>In article <3BA8566E...@noos.fr>, PK <pro...@noos.fr> wrote:
># What's more, you WOULD expect something better from an artist and and
># intellectual. And then again, reading what some of them have been saying
># lately, maybe not.
>
>Sontag?
Where are they to be found?
--
Nic
Simon Roberts
>
>There is no basis for locking him up, but the court of public opinion is
>sometimes more powerful than the law courts.
I suspect that even had he not made these ludicrous remarks most of that
rather small section of the public which has heard of him probably already
agreed with Beecham.
Simon
James Kahn
Sontag's "wisdom" is in the latest (black cover) New Yorker. The
usual idiotic blather suggesting some equivalence between the U.S.
actions in Iraq and the blowing up of the WTC towers.
Someone earlier had ridiculed me for suggesting that such Chomskyesque
views are held by a sizable number of people. Exhibit no. 1.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Lawrence Mitchell
> Steven Chung <s...@Radix.Net> writes
>>Sontag?
> Where are they to be found?
The Martin Amis article I think Steven is referring to was in the
Guardian yesterday, to be found at
<URL:http://www/guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4259170,00.html>
Not sure about the other though.
--
Lawrence Mitchell <wenc...@newald.homeip.net> | \\\\__. | Hedgehog?
<URL:http://wence.newald.homeip.net/> | \\\\'/ | It's a porcupine.
Matthew B. Tepper
Good!
And I forgot to say before -- many thanks to Jan Depondt and others for
publicizing this here.
Akira Allen
led to the latter. In terms of numbers (if it has to be reduced to
that) I would imagine that the civilian casualties in Iraq must be in
four figures by now.
FWIW I find Stockhausen's comments incomprehensible.
--
Alex
alex....@NOSPAMbradford.gov.uk
James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:9oa8md$gge$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> SNIP
Eric Grunin
wrote:
>Karlheinz Stockhausen has called the terrorist attacks in the USA ,,the
>greatest work of art of all times''.
>
>I could not find an English report of this interview.
http://www.andante.com/magazine/article.cfm?id=14256
A slightly fuller account, though embedded in a dull-witted editorial:
A. Brain
characterize "contemporary" music, but what is it?
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn3vs9qh5...@pobox.upenn.edu...
Simon Roberts
>Simon, you must be referring to some remark that Beecham used to
>characterize "contemporary" music, but what is it?
The story goes (I hope it's true, but you never know) that when Beecham
was asked what he thought of Stockhausen he replied "I think I stepped in
some once."
Simon
Thomas C Lay
: Simon, you must be referring to some remark that Beecham used to
: characterize "contemporary" music, but what is it?
Q: Have you ever heard any Stockhausen?
Beecham: No, but I believe I stepped in some once.
Perhaps apocrophal, though.
Tom
: --
REG
around. I am also not allergic to poison ivy.
"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:9oa8md$gge$1...@panix3.panix.com...
REG
suppose Iraq is developing poison gas and biological weapons as defensive
tools as well.
"Akira Allen" <akir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9oain0$a5v$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
David7Gable
>was asked what he thought of Stockhausen he replied "I think I stepped in
>some once."
A far cry from Klemperer's response to Stockhausen's music (not to mention
Rosbaud's). And Klemperer, unlike Beecham, knew whereof he spoke. In any
case, dismissing something as shit is hardly clever. School boys do it every
day. Rossini did this sort of thing much better, telling his disciples after
hearing Lohengrin for the first time that forming an opinion of difficult new
music requires the kind of deep experience only repeated listening will allow .
. . "and since I never intend to listen to that again, you'll never know what I
think."
You'll never convince me that anybody has ever written anything better than
three or four of Stockhausen's pieces. Not the kinky ones, of course. For the
record, Gruppen, Carre, and Punkte would most emphatically make the cut.
Anything Cage-y from the 60's would not.
-david gable
PK
Most of all, it's not very clever to proclaim : "you'll never convince
me that...". Good strategy would be to pretend you can be convinced with
the right kind of arguments (while mentally chuckling, of course).
PK
Simon Roberts
>A far cry from Klemperer's response to Stockhausen's music (not to mention
>Rosbaud's). And Klemperer, unlike Beecham, knew whereof he spoke. In any
>case, dismissing something as shit is hardly clever. School boys do it every
>day.
Like the schoolboys' comment, Beecham's isn't especially clever, but
unlike the schoolboys' comment it's elegant.
>You'll never convince me that anybody has ever written anything better than
>three or four of Stockhausen's pieces. Not the kinky ones, of course. For the
>record, Gruppen, Carre, and Punkte would most emphatically make the cut.
>Anything Cage-y from the 60's would not.
It's not entirely clear why you treat the repetition of a flippant remark
as an attempt at an argument, let alone at persuasion.
Simon
Sudhir Kadkade
There is no evidence (at least that I am aware of) to suggest a
linkage of the attack on the WTC and the Petagon. So in my
opinion, any writers making such a connection have other
agendas they are pursuing. Often, this comes from an anti-Israel
stance or other times from the unbearable guilt of a comfortable
and secure life in the first-world.
These writers often conveniently elide over many facts.
The number of Iraqi citizens killed by the effects of the embargo
pales in comparison to the numbers killed in Saddam's pogroms
against the Kurds and in the disasterous war against Iran; never
mind the horrible manner in which these deaths occurred (i.e
use of poison gas, human wave attacks, etc.).
As far as the responsibility for the deaths due to the embargo,
don't you think the dictatorship in Iraq has some responsibility for
them? They have never completely used up the oil quotas allowed
them by the U.N. They show no signs of cooperating with the
various weapons inspection regimes that the U.N. put in place.
If you are including the Iraqi deaths during the Gulf war, I would
assume citizens of countries invading other countries can expect
the other country or its allies to strike back. That was war,
declared not by the US but by Iraq.
Regards,
Sudhir
Akira Allen wrote in message
<9oain0$a5v$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net>...
samir golescu
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Sudhir Kadkade wrote:
> These writers often conveniently elide over many facts.
> The number of Iraqi citizens killed by the effects of the embargo
> pales in comparison to the numbers killed in Saddam's pogroms
> against the Kurds and in the disasterous war against Iran; never
> mind the horrible manner in which these deaths occurred (i.e
> use of poison gas, human wave attacks, etc.).
>
> As far as the responsibility for the deaths due to the embargo,
> don't you think the dictatorship in Iraq has some responsibility for
> them? They have never completely used up the oil quotas allowed
> them by the U.N. They show no signs of cooperating with the
> various weapons inspection regimes that the U.N. put in place.
Oh, God, I wonder why such COMMON SENSE things even need being said
(you said them well)?!
Another thing: U.S. would be "responsible" in Yugoslavia, why?, because
the Serbs increased their operations of ethnic cleansing after the NATO
bombings. So, to be clear: not the Serbs that were perpetrating the
crimes were responsible -- no, they were only doing what U.S. "made",
"compelled" them do!! This kind of perverted thinking passes for
"balanced" and "rational" these days, in the enlightened circles I am
proud not to be part of....
regards,
SG
PK
And proud rightly you should be.
PK
David7Gable
>me that...".
But unlike Beecham and Rossini, I'm not trying to be clever. I'm baldly
stating my passionate belief in about two hours worth of music by Stockhausen.
-david gable
David7Gable
>as an attempt at an argument, let alone at persuasion.
Oh, I didn't think anybody was trying to persuade me. I responded because I'm
offended by Beecham's ignorant remark. Unlike Klemperer and Rosbaud, he never
bothered to investigate a repertory he flippantly dismissed.
-david gable
Margaret Mikulska
David7Gable wrote:
[...]
> You'll never convince me that anybody has ever written anything better than
> three or four of Stockhausen's pieces. Not the kinky ones, of course. For the
> record, Gruppen, Carre, and Punkte would most emphatically make the cut.
> Anything Cage-y from the 60's would not.
Whatever he said and meant - and since he's been talking nonsense for
several years now, it's hard to tell if he's in touch with reality -
he's still one of the greatest contemporary composers. I don't know
which of his works are "kinky" for you, but on my short list there are
also "Gesang der Jünglinge", "Trans", "In the sky I am walking", and,
first and foremost, "Licht" - a cycle of astonishing masterpieces.
-Margaret
Margaret Mikulska
I didn't think I would disagree with Simon and agree with David, but I
find Beecham's remark stupid and vulgar, and showing absolutely nothing
else but blatant prejudice (and a very lame attempt at being witty).
(The one about harpsichord is merely silly.)
-Margaret
David7Gable
Margaret said of Stockhausen:
> he's been talking nonsense for
>several years now
Slight correction: several decades.
-david gable
David7Gable
>> crimes were responsible -- no, they were only doing what U.S. "made",
>> "compelled" them do!!
When did anybody ever claim ethnic cleansing by the Serbs was motivated by the
United States? This is the first time I've heard this one. (And suggesting
that this, that, or the other course of action by NATO or the United States
might have been more effective is NOT the same thing as claiming the U.S.
motivated ethnic cleansing.)
-david gable
Nicolas Hodges
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:26:54 GMT, Margaret Mikulska
><miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>David7Gable wrote:
>>[...]
>>> You'll never convince me that anybody has ever written anything better than
>>> three or four of Stockhausen's pieces. Not the kinky ones, of
>>>course. For the
>>> record, Gruppen, Carre, and Punkte would most emphatically make the cut.
>>> Anything Cage-y from the 60's would not.
>>
>>Whatever he said and meant - and since he's been talking nonsense for
>>several years now, it's hard to tell if he's in touch with reality -
>>he's still one of the greatest contemporary composers.
>
>was not for his bizarre comments, he'd still be an obscure asterisk in
>the dustbin of mid-century musical "revolutionaries." I believe his
>15 nanoseconds of infamy are already over.
That presumably is why whenever he does a concert the hall is packed?
Not that the numbers mean that he is 'good', but it's clearly not true
to say he doesn't have fans. He does. Many.
The last Stockhausen concert I was involved in had an audience of 2500,
and was broadcast nationally. Hardly 'a paltry few'.
--
Nic
samir golescu
On 21 Sep 2001, David7Gable wrote:
> >So, to be clear: not the Serbs that were perpetrating the
> >> crimes were responsible -- no, they were only doing what U.S. "made",
> >> "compelled" them do!!
>
>
> When did anybody ever claim ethnic cleansing by the Serbs was motivated
> by the United States?
Please don't play with words now. It was repeatedly said that because of
NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the operations of ethnic cleansing have
augmented. IMO this is as justified as saying that because FBI followed
a serial murder, he killed victims to a faster pace, which in turn would
make FBI responsible.
regards,
SG
David7Gable
Only those deeply familiar with his music have a right to an opinion of it.
His music may never have a large following, any more than Emily Dickinson's
poetry has. But it's statistical popularity is of absolutely no relevance, and
your argument is a purely statistical argument. To paraphrase your claim, only
a statistically insignificant number of people like this music. Therefore it
is worthless. In other words, the greatest music is the biggest selling pop
hit of the moment. That also means that La Boheme is greater music than the
Late Beethoven Quartets. It undoubtedly has a broader appeal.
Here's another kind of argument, one made by Charles Rosen: "The musical canon
is not decided by majority opinion but by enthusiasm and passion. A work that
ten people love passionately is more important than one that ten thousand do
not mind hearing." The sad thing is, you literally don't know what you're
missing.
>I believe his
>15 nanoseconds of infamy are already over.
It is performers who determine what survives. There are more conductors
interested in performing Stockhausen's Gruppen (composed in the late 50s) today
than at any previous time in history, including Abbado, Rattle, Oliver Knussen,
Chailly, and David Robertson. As long as conductors are passionately committed
to performing it, it will be performed.
You are right about one thing, though. The sorting out by "history" has
already been done. Out of the dozens of members of the so-called "Darmstadt
school" of the late 50's and early 60's, which has now receded into history as
surely as the Viennese Classical Style or Impressionist painting, there are
still people passionately committed to only a handful. Stockhausen is one of
them.
-david gable
samir golescu
> In other words, the greatest music is the biggest selling pop
> hit of the moment. That also means that La Boheme is greater music than
> the Late Beethoven Quartets.
Yes, that is actually a largely known fact. What's *new*?
( :
Nicolas Hodges
>In his music courses at Harvard dealing with 20th-Century
>music, Reinhold Brinkmann considers Stockhausen to be the weakest of
>the total serialists, especially contrasted with Babbitt, Nono and
>Ligeti.
And that proves what exactly? Weak in what way?
--
Nic
I reserve the right to use irony and obscure forms of humour without warning
Nicolas Hodges
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:14:37 +0100, Nicolas Hodges
><n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Robert Reeves <NULLSPA...@hushmail.com> writes
>>>In his music courses at Harvard dealing with 20th-Century
>>>music, Reinhold Brinkmann considers Stockhausen to be the weakest of
>>>the total serialists, especially contrasted with Babbitt, Nono and
>>>Ligeti.
>>
>>And that proves what exactly? Weak in what way?
>
>notoriety, twitching briefly in obscurity due to his recent
>absurdities. If you wish to engage in further discourse on the
>subject of serialism and related matters, you have my email address.
Stockhausen is not dead (despite his recent attempts to get himself
assassinated), actually or artistically. If you don't like his music,
that's fine by me, but please don't mix that up with providing some
absolute judgement of his career, as you are attempting to do.
>>I reserve the right to use irony and obscure forms of humour without warning
>
>Of course, there's always the possibility your irony and humor is much
>too obscure for the likes of me. I've never been too vain to utter a
>few "I-don't-get-its."
Me too, but it doesn't apply to my postings in this thread...
--
Nic
REG
September 20 that:
"Well, within less than 24 hrs of the attack on the WTC our very own REG was
advocating that the US govt go in and take out Arafat, who obviously was not
responsible for the attack on the WTC."
That's an example of how much of a blatant lier you are. But that wasn't
enough to give you a thrill, and later that same day you said, in response
to the question by another poster, "How many in the West want the complete
destruction of Islam?
" Only our very own REG."
Come on David, admit that you have no principles at all. It won't be a shock
to us.
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010921090303...@mb-fb.aol.com...
David7Gable
>Please don't play with words now.
I am not playing with words. You are. To question the efficacy of NATO action
is not the same thing as "blaming" NATO for Serbian ethnic cleansing. Surely
you grasp the distinction. (I am doing neither.)
> It was repeatedly said that because of
>NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the operations of ethnic cleansing have
>augmented.
Who said this? Never saw it myself. I would still insist that everyone has a
right to second guess NATO and everyone else. The world is not a better place
when we complacently accept whatever our leaders do. The world is a better
place when we constantly question what they do.
-david gable
REG
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010921145729...@mb-da.aol.com...
David7Gable
>And David, you're a blatant lier yourself, aren't you?
REG, you need a dictionary. Liar is spelled with an "a" not an "e."
-david gable
David7Gable
>constitute passionate adherence.
This statement suggests that you deny even the possibility that 20th century
music of certain stripes could even have passionate adherents. It does, and
they include precisely the conductors I mentioned.
> Reinhold Brinkmann considers Stockhausen to be the weakest of
>the total serialists, especially contrasted with Babbitt, Nono and
>Ligeti.
Good for him. I have enormous respect for Brinkmann, but I do not agree with
his estimate. In speaking of Stockhausen, though, it is imperative that the
specific body of works under discussion be specified. Personally, I can't
stand most of the music Stockhausen has written. So if Brinkmann is dismissing
Stockhausen on the grounds of the more extremely improvisatory works of the
60's from Klavierstueck 1 and Kontakte on, I am in complete agreement with him.
-david gable
David7Gable
Not at all. I am not entitled to an opinion on advanced theoretical physics.
I know nothing about it, and my opinion counts for nothing. I am not entitled
to an opinion whether a patient needs heart surgery or what specific procedure
a patient with heart trouble needs. I am entitled to an opinion about certain
Stockhausen pieces with which I am deeply familiar.
-david gable
REG
with which you disagree. I am reposting it immediately below so that it can
be clear how much else you agree with.
"And David, you're a blatant lier yourself, aren't you? You claimed, on
September 20 that:
"Well, within less than 24 hrs of the attack on the WTC our very own REG was
advocating that the US govt go in and take out Arafat, who obviously was not
responsible for the attack on the WTC."
That's an example of how much of a blatant lier you are. But that wasn't
enough to give you a thrill, and later that same day you said, in response
to the question by another poster, "How many in the West want the complete
destruction of Islam?
" Only our very own REG."
Come on David, admit that you have no principles at all. It won't be a shock
to us."
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010921194052...@mb-cc.aol.com...
Bob Lombard
> >
>
> Who said this? Never saw it myself. I would still insist
that everyone has a
> right to second guess NATO and everyone else. The world is
not a better place
> when we complacently accept whatever our leaders do. The
world is a better
> place when we constantly question what they do.
>
> -david gable
Don't know about that 'constantly' bit, David. Also don't know
that it's better to bitch to the wide, wide world instead to
your representatives in Congress. Guess it depends on what
your shooting for.
bl
samir golescu
On 21 Sep 2001, David7Gable wrote:
> > Please don't play with words now.
>
> I am not playing with words. You are.
Mr Gable, please calm down. I am not your "enemy" and grant me just as
much a presupposition of good-will as you seemingly do grant Kadaffi and
Arafat. We will discuss music in rmcr for many years to come, with God's
help. You have a lot to share about music and that did not change (Not
that much about Kadaffi, if I may express myself euphemistically. ( :)
> To question the efficacy of NATO action
> is not the same thing as "blaming" NATO for Serbian ethnic cleansing.
> Surely you grasp the distinction. (I am doing neither.)
Yes, I do.
> >It was repeatedly said that because of
> >NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the operations of ethnic cleansing have
> >augmented.
>
> Who said this? Never saw it myself.
You have never seen the rain of assertions that "NATO only made things
worse" in Kosovo, as if NATO, and not the Serbs (and, yes, more recently,
others there), "have made things worse"?
What about:
<<The ministers and their officials continue to justify the air
strikes on the grounds that the bombs were necessary to stop ethnic
cleansing and atrocities, despite all the evidence that by far the bulk
of the ethnic cleansing took place after the bombing not before it. It
was the bombing that triggered off the worst of the ethnic cleansing.>>
(James Bisset, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia)
You can find enough of such assertions, in all shapes, colors
forms and sources, following the links given at
http://www.romnews.com/a/142-99.html
> I would still insist that everyone has a right to second guess NATO and
> everyone else. The world is not a better place when we complacently
> accept whatever our leaders do. The world is a better place when we
> constantly question what they do.
No disagreement about that. But everyone has also the right to judge
for oneself when such second guesses are deserved or not.
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
"Bob Lombard" <hill...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:tqnnhvc...@corp.supernews.com...
know
> that it's better to bitch to the wide, wide world instead to
> your representatives in Congress. Guess it depends on what
> your shooting for.
>
> bl
>
bl
David7Gable
>much a presupposition of good-will as you seemingly do grant Kadaffi
I don't suspect Khadaffi of good will so much as I suspect him of pragmatism
and a new maturity. The best thing for his country, as he has no doubt
discovered, is a good economy and trade with the U.S. In short, he's now a
Republican. In any case, Khadaffi is the leader of an Islamic country who has
expressed sympathy for the U.S. in the wake of the attacks on the WTC at a time
when Bush has been hoping for just such an eventuality. Would you prefer that
he expressed support of Bin Laden?
>"NATO only made things
>worse"
No matter how many times you say it is, Samir, this is NOT the same thing as
blaming NATO for ethnic cleansing. As for what I've read personally, the only
things I've seen are the very detailed and balanced assessments that have
appeared in The New York Review of Books, not one of which could be summarized
with this sentence: "NATO only made things worse." Quite the contrary. In the
case of all such quagmires, of course, second guessing is all too easy. I
still think it should be done. How else correct mistakes? It is not the duty
of the citizen of a democracy to be part of a cheering squad for the
government. It was clear that the "right" agrees with me on this when Clinton
was in office.
<<The ministers and their officials continue to justify the air
> strikes on the grounds that the bombs were necessary to stop ethnic
> cleansing and atrocities, despite all the evidence that by far the bulk
> of the ethnic cleansing took place after the bombing not before it. It
> was the bombing that triggered off the worst of the ethnic cleansing.>>
As for this statement that you ascribe to James Bisset, I don't know if it's
true, although I don't know why Bissett would lie, and he should be in a
position to know. Which makes it all the worse if he is lying. If I knew this
statement to be true, I would have no objection to it. If it's false, that's
another matter. But your stated objection is not that Bisset is lying. You
seem to be saying that you would object to this statement even if it were true.
That I simply don't understand.
-david gable
David7Gable
>David - I really appreciate that you pointed out the only item in my posting
>with which you disagree. I am reposting it immediately below so that it can
>be clear how much else you agree with.
REG, you could easily exculpate yourself by quoting everything you posted here
about Arafat in the 24-hr period following the attacks on the WTC. Why don't
you do that?
-david gable
samir golescu
On 22 Sep 2001, David7Gable wrote:
> > grant me just as
> >much a presupposition of good-will as you seemingly do grant Kadaffi
>
> I don't suspect Khadaffi of good will so much as I suspect him of pragmatism
> and a new maturity. The best thing for his country, as he has no doubt
> discovered, is a good economy and trade with the U.S. In short, he's now a
> Republican.
Oh, it's that simple? Then you found the solution: find out if the good
Colonel has brothers and let's have George Bush place one to lead every
Islamic country -- all our problems solved!
> In any case, Khadaffi is the leader of an Islamic country who has
> expressed sympathy for the U.S. in the wake of the attacks on the WTC at
> a time when Bush has been hoping for just such an eventuality.
The only reason the hardcore Islamic leaders have expressed sympathy was
that the pants was trembling on their arses at the thought of sudden
American retaliation, had they been connected to the attacks!
> Would you prefer that he expressed support of Bin Laden?
What happened to your usual argumentative brilliance?
> >"NATO only made things
> >worse"
>
> No matter how many times you say it is, Samir, this is NOT the same thing
> as blaming NATO for ethnic cleansing.
Yes, playing with words, as I told you. That they made the ethnic
cleansing worse is not blaming them for ethnic cleansing.
> As for what I've read personally, the only
> things I've seen are the very detailed and balanced assessments that have
> appeared in The New York Review of Books, not one of which could be summarized
> with this sentence: "NATO only made things worse." Quite the contrary. In the
> case of all such quagmires, of course, second guessing is all too easy. I
> still think it should be done. How else correct mistakes? It is not the duty
> of the citizen of a democracy to be part of a cheering squad for the
> government. It was clear that the "right" agrees with me on this when Clinton
> was in office.
What has right and left to do with this? When probably close to 10000
Americans have been killed, I *should* have hoped that Americans forgot
for a moment who was Democrat and who was Republican. Or I shouldn't
have....
> <<The ministers and their officials continue to justify the air
> > strikes on the grounds that the bombs were necessary to stop ethnic
> > cleansing and atrocities, despite all the evidence that by far the bulk
> > of the ethnic cleansing took place after the bombing not before it. It
> > was the bombing that triggered off the worst of the ethnic cleansing.>>
>
> As for this statement that you ascribe to James Bisset, I don't know if it's
> true, although I don't know why Bissett would lie, and he should be in a
> position to know. Which makes it all the worse if he is lying. If I knew this
> statement to be true, I would have no objection to it. If it's false, that's
> another matter. But your stated objection is not that Bisset is lying. You
> seem to be saying that you would object to this statement even if it were true.
> That I simply don't understand.
You are much too intelligent to say you don't understand. I told you:
a serial murderer kills once a month. Hounded by FBI, he starts killing
weekly for a month, until he is caught. Then, say, Michael Moore or
Rev Fallwell comes and says: "do you see, FBI only made things worse!".
The David Gable comes and tells with defying nonchalance he doesn't
understand what I'd have against such statement. I think he does.
regards,
SG
REG
by you are not matters of opinion, but matters of fact. That is, they were
lies. I invited you initially to substantiate your lies, hoping that you
would take the time to withdraw your comments. You did not do so. I could
easily post what I wrote, but when I am faced with such a knowing and clear
lie from someone, and I have given them a chance to withdraw their comment,
I do not need to go further in "exculpating" myself. There is nothing to
exculpate. As has been noted, your libel has iteself diminished your
credibility, as it should. More to the point, your dishonesty goes directly
to your pretended concerns about integrity in others...if you cannot bother
to correct a knowing lie made by you, you cannot really be believed to be
concerned in any mature way with the integrity of others either, and it is
then clear, I think, that your "concerns" about our government, and its own
integrity, are really only your own displaced self hatred, and your own
pathetic need for attention. Why the war has brought out more strongly than
before these weaknesses of yours is not clear, but it is obvious, and sad
for you. Ultimately you must be a very ineffective person, and a bitter one.
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922003542...@mb-cu.aol.com...
REG
besides you and the mouthpieces for dictators, would ever consider that
Kadaffi now demonstrates a new maturity, just because he makes a few general
statements. You are just ridiculous in the eyes of others. And who really
cares whether he expresses support for us or Bin Laden? You really are in a
hell of your own making, and frankly you deserve it...perhaps you can go
over there and teach music...I think it would be a great thing for you
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922003221...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Andrys Basten
Eric Grunin <a@b.c> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:00:37 +0200, "Jan Depondt" <jd...@wanadoo.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>Karlheinz Stockhausen has called the terrorist attacks in the USA ,,the
>>greatest work of art of all times''.
>>
>>I could not find an English report of this interview.
>
>http://www.andante.com/magazine/article.cfm?id=14256
>
>A slightly fuller account, though embedded in a dull-witted editorial:
>
>http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/docmain.asp?rub={B1311FFE-FBFB-11D2-B228-00105A9CAF88}&doc={9AAB5942-82A2-4473-B785-E9152E751301}&width=1600&height=1172&agt=explorer&ver=4&svr=4
Thanks. William Osborne sent around a piece about this,
quoting nearly all of what was said and then trying to explain
the unhealthy mindset behind it.
Translation probs? Remember that it was the Germans who
heard it in German who were the first ones so offended.
Here's the translated text for those who don't find it easy to
cut and paste together the long search-string-URL.
--- Start of article ---
Monstrous Art
Julia Spinola
Four concerts featuring music by the German avant-garde
composer Karlheinz Stockhausen have been cancelled, following
the composer's distasteful, tactless comments concerning the
terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The concerts
were to have formed the thematic focus of the Hamburg Music
Festival, which started last Saturday and continues through
this Saturday.
Asked at a press conference on Monday for his view of the
events, Stockhausen answered that the attacks were "the
greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos."
According to a tape transcript from public broadcaster
Norddeutscher Rundfunk, he went on: "Minds achieving something
in an act that we couldn't even dream of in music, people
rehearsing like mad for 10 years, preparing fanatically for a
concert, and then dying, just imagine what happened there. You
have people who are that focused on a performance and then
5,000 people are dispatched to the afterlife, in a single
moment. I couldn't do that. By comparison, we composers are
nothing. Artists, too, sometimes try to go beyond the limits of
what is feasible and conceivable, so that we wake up, so that
we open ourselves to another world."
Asked by a journalist whether he equated art and crime,
Stockhausen replied: "It's a crime because those involved
didn't consent. They didn't come to the 'concert.' That's
obvious. And no one announced that they risked losing their
lives. What happened in spiritual terms, the leap out of
security, out of what is usually taken for granted, out of
life, that sometimes happens to a small extent in art, too,
otherwise art is nothing."
Before the press conference was over, Stockhausen had already
distanced himself from these comments, a spokeswoman for the
Hamburg Music Festival said. On Tuesday, the composer formally
apologized for his remarks, explaining that he simply wanted to
remind people of the role of destruction in art. Stockhausen
asked the forgiveness of anyone who felt hurt by what he said
at the press conference.
In a circular letter sent out by e-mail, the Italian playwright
and Nobel laureate Dario Fo also stated his opinion on the
attacks: "Big speculators joyfully splash about in an economy
that lets millions of people die every year in misery. What are
20,000 dead in New York by comparison? ... Regardless of who
carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate
daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane
exploitation."
While Fo's statement is evidence of a cynical anti-Americanism,
Stockhausen's words appear as the monstrous result of radical
artistic egocentrism. To the victims of terrorism, both the
composer's mental descent into hell and the aging left-wing
writer's stale, calculating spite must seem like hideous
mockery.Sep. 18, 2001
(c) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000
---- End of article ----
- Andrys
REG
"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9ohgqo$hvj$1...@news.panix.com...
David7Gable
>As has been noted, your libel has iteself diminished your
>credibility, as it should.
So YOU say. Give me a break. What you said about Arafat in the wake of the
attacks on the WTC was both reckless and inexcusable. As for my remark that
you wish for the destruction of the Islamic world, I said it to infuriate you,
to get your goat. But it would be easy to extrapolate from your venomous
remarks that you do in fact secretly harbor such a wish. Glad to see that you
don't.
-david gable
Frank Berger
David7Gable wrote:
I believe is only you that do so, David. Think about it.
REG
to lie your way out again? That certainly has happened in the ng before with
you. And how paranoid are you really, David? ("It would be easy to
extrapolate from your venemous remarks that you do in fact secretly harbor
such a wish"). Obviously, David, it is your self-hatred that you perceive in
others. Let me just post below the single reference I made to your friend
Arafat in the "wake of the attacks on the WTC". (By the way, Davey,
hundreds of people were killed at the Pentagon and by the terrorists on the
airplanes the same day, but you seem to have ignored that - I wonder why).
You are obviously a dishonest person, and a coward, but perhaps with your
self-hatred you have to be.Perhaps you are not even very smart.
Here's what I posted in response to a comment to Samir, and Samir's comment
which prompted the posting. Samir was talking about who was responsible for,
and whom we should consider responsible for, the dancing in the streets that
occured in "Palestine" after the killing, without warning, of over 6,000
innocent civilians. That was the issue under discussion. He had taken the
position in an abstract sense that they were not individually responsible,
and I was arguing that they were - in the alternative, if they were not
responsible for their actions, if must be, arguendo, Arafat and the
Palestinian Authority, who were responsible for brainwashing them to
celebrate in the streets. Nothing I wrote about either vaguely suggested
that I thought Arafat responsible for the bombings, as you libeled me (and
it's a serious matter if I choose to make it so, David; it's not within
academic freedom), or that anything should happen to Arafat. My entire
posting was to say that we should not consider Arafat and the Palestinians
as potential partners and/or colleagues, as the post directly says. But
obviously, because you are so filled with self-hatred, you were motivated
to misread it. You really are pathetic.
MY COMMENT :
"Samir - with all due respect, and much respect is due, this is precisely
the
kind of apologetics that created the vulnerability of this country to this
type of terrorism. You want to excuse their responsibility by saying they
are "indoctrinated" and "brainwashed", but even if they are simply blank
slates on which someone (who? Samir - it must be Arafat and the so-called
Palestinian Authority - ) writes the tune, the fact that they lack even the
most basic elements of a moral sense disqualifies them to be able to govern
themselves. IF you think that I am wrong, and they are simply victims of
their masters, then surely it is the masters, like Arafat, who must be
eliminated from any reasonable consideration. There is no excuse any
longer - and there was not, in my view, for a great while before - to give
these people (or their masters, if you consider them brainwashed and
indoctrinated) redibility as "partners" or colleagues."
SAMIR'S POSTING TO WHICH I RESPONDED:
"samir golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.010911...@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Richard Loeb wrote:
>
> > What I am having a problem with and I'm not being facetious in any way
is
> > the sight of thousands of Palestinians on television cheering and
laughing
> > at the loss of innocent life. Is this the way a rational thinking being
> > acts?
>
> Since when did indoctrinated crowds think rationally?....
>
> > Is it some kind of mass hysteria?
>
> Yes, brainwashed hatred expressed in whatever direction fits their anger.
> Far from being characteristic to (some) Palestinians alone, make no
> mistake, gentlemen, this is the present level of
> "civilized-individualized-rational-responsible-tolerant" thinking of the
> vast majority of people filling the Earth. And it is overall probably the
> best in history yet.
>
> But I have to admit that the sight of the children joining in that
> dirty expression of mad joy added some extra appeal to the otherwise
> predictable show....
>
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922105753...@mb-fm.aol.com...
David7Gable
I made the factual statement:
> Khadaffi is the leader of an Islamic country who has
>> expressed sympathy for the U.S. in the wake of the attacks on the WTC at
>> a time when Bush has been hoping for just such an eventuality.
And Samir replied:
>Oh, it's that simple? Then you found the solution: find out if the good
>Colonel has brothers and let's have George Bush place one to lead every
>Islamic country -- all our problems solved!
This is certainly the most fantastic gloss on what I wrote imaginable. Who
said a single statement by Khadafi would solve all our problems? That view
cannot reasonably be extrapolated from what I actually wrote.
>What has right and left to do with this? When probably close to 10000
>Americans have been killed, I *should* have hoped that Americans forgot
>for a moment who was Democrat and who was Republican.
What has this got to do with the issue that you raised, the issue that I was
addressing when I mentioned "the right," NATO and the Serbs?
>You are much too intelligent to say you don't understand. I told you:
>a serial murderer kills once a month. Hounded by FBI, he starts killing
>weekly for a month, until he is caught. Then, say, Michael Moore or
>Rev Fallwell comes and says: "do you see, FBI only made things worse!".
But your analogy to the FBI and a hypothetical killer is not a propos. Bisset
does NOT say that NATO made the situation worse. He says that NATO bombing was
not effective in preventing an escalation in the ethnic cleansing. He does not
say that the escalation in ethnic cleansing occurred BECAUSE of NATO. He says
that it occurred DESPITE NATO bombing. This is not playing with words. These
are very different charges. Moreover, when Bisset made this statement, he was
only doing his job. If Bisset is correct when he says that the bulk of the
ethnic cleansing took place after the bombing, it is important that this
information be known. Why continue to waste lives and money on a course of
action that is not effective? Your objection is not that Bisset is lying.
Your objection is that he has had the temerity to tell the truth. Once again,
I do not understand. Finally, it cannot be extrapolated from what Bisset said
or from what I have said here that we object to NATO's attempt to stop ethnic
cleansing by the Serbs. It also cannot be extrapolated from Bisset's statement
or from what I have said here that we are determined to blame NATO at all
costs.
I obviously can't speak for Bisset, but I was in favor of the U.S. and NATO
sending in ground troops long before anybody actually did anything. In all
such circumstances, I think it is better for a multi-national organization like
NATO to act rather than for the United States to act alone, unilaterally. That
makes it clear that the action is police action directed at behavior that the
international community considers criminal by consensus. Which is precisely
why Bush is trying to gain international support for whatever actions the U.S.
will now take against Bin Laden.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Who, David,
>besides you and the mouthpieces for dictators, would ever consider that
>Kadaffi now demonstrates a new maturity, just because he makes a few general
>statements.
Is it better for Khadaffi to be for us or against us? For us, of course. Is
the U.S. safer if Islamic rulers side with us against Bin Laden or side with
Bin Laden? Side with us, of course. Is it better if Libya wants to normalize
relations with the U.S. or remain an enemy? Normalize relations, of course.
>.perhaps you can go
>over there and teach music
Yes, either I should blindly agree with every jingoist viewpoint of REG or I
should leave the country, which is so weak that dissenting voices have to be
stifled lest it collapse. I thought it was dictatorships rather than
democracies that had to stifle dissent for fear of collapsing.
-david gable
REG
smart enough or important enough to be a dissenting voice that anyone,
including me, cares about. You are probably about where you should be and
stay right now. Going to Kadaffi-land would be good for your education, if
that's possible. The only person you are a threat to is yourself.
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922113743...@mb-fm.aol.com...
Frank Berger
David7Gable wrote:
> >Who, David,
> >besides you and the mouthpieces for dictators, would ever consider that
> >Kadaffi now demonstrates a new maturity, just because he makes a few general
> >statements.
>
> Is it better for Khadaffi to be for us or against us? For us, of course. Is
> the U.S. safer if Islamic rulers side with us against Bin Laden or side with
> Bin Laden? Side with us, of course. Is it better if Libya wants to normalize
> relations with the U.S. or remain an enemy? Normalize relations, of course.
Depends on the price, don't you think?
samir golescu
On 22 Sep 2001, David7Gable wrote:
> I made the factual statement:
>
> > Khadaffi is the leader of an Islamic country who has
> >> expressed sympathy for the U.S. in the wake of the attacks on the WTC at
> >> at a time when Bush has been hoping for just such an eventuality.
>
> And Samir replied:
>
> >Oh, it's that simple? Then you found the solution: find out if the good
> >Colonel has brothers and let's have George Bush place one to lead every
> >Islamic country -- all our problems solved!
>
> This is certainly the most fantastic gloss on what I wrote imaginable. Who
> said a single statement by Khadafi would solve all our problems? That view
> cannot reasonably be extrapolated from what I actually wrote.
Cher Mr. Gable, your ISP provider has to have big troubles, because, you
see, when you reply to my postings, something funny happens -- you quote
other portions from your own messages than those I have quoted. For
instance, what I replied to with
[Samir]
> >Oh, it's that simple? Then you found the solution: find out if the good
> >Colonel has brothers and let's have George Bush place one to lead every
> >Islamic country -- all our problems solved!
was your paragraph (that your ISP provide must have furtively substituted
when you wasn't paying attention)
[Mr Gable]
> I don't suspect Khadaffi of good will so much as I suspect him of
> pragmatism and a new maturity. The best thing for his country, as he
> has no doubt discovered, is a good economy and trade with the U.S. In
> short, he's now a Republican.
OF COURSE, being a reasonable man, you'll agree that this is NOT "the most
fantastic imaginable gloss" (even if, admittedly, a dram of irony and
hyperbole was there)
> >You are much too intelligent to say you don't understand. I told you:
> >a serial murderer kills once a month. Hounded by FBI, he starts killing
> >weekly for a month, until he is caught. Then, say, Michael Moore or
> >Rev Fallwell comes and says: "do you see, FBI only made things worse!".
>
> But your analogy to the FBI and a hypothetical killer is not a propos.
> Bisset does NOT say that NATO made the situation worse. He says that
> NATO bombing was not effective in preventing an escalation in the ethnic
> cleansing. He does not say that the escalation in ethnic cleansing
> occurred BECAUSE of NATO. He says that it occurred DESPITE NATO
> bombing.
Um, in his own words, he says: <<IT WAS THE BOMBING THAT TRIGERRED OFF THE
WORST OF ETHNIC CLEANSING>>
I will let at the reader's judgment what he actually meant with this
statement, what I say or what you say.
With all respect, Mr Gable, calm down for a moment and try to be rational,
as I know you can be. Your attempts to show that Bisset said not what he
said, but what you say, are, how shall I put it, a waste of time.
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
news:cj2r7.35208$A5.59...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
[...] you are not nearly
> smart enough or important enough to be a dissenting voice
that anyone,
> including me, cares about.
'REG', you seem to have stepped fully formed from the pages of
'1984' (Orwell's novel, not the year). Until you are Commisar
of Commisars, you don't speak for me.
bl
David7Gable
>
Yes, that's true. But what's the price? Khadafi is not in a position to make
any demands and he hasn't made any.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Cher Mr. Gable, your ISP provider has to have big troubles, because, you
>see, when you reply to my postings, something funny happens -- you quote
>other portions from your own messages than those I have quoted.
Sorry, Samir, but this is simply not possible. I don't ever bother to go back
to my original posts, which I delete once they appear. Anything I quoted came
from YOUR post.
>OF COURSE, being a reasonable man, you'll agree that this is NOT "the most
>fantastic imaginable gloss" (even if, admittedly, a dram of irony and
>hyperbole was there)
One man's dram of irony is another's most fantastic imaginable gloss.
>Your attempts to show that Bisset said not what he
>said, but what you say, are, how shall I put it, a waste of time.
My one and ONLY source for what Bisset said was you. It is only now that you
have added:
<<IT WAS THE BOMBING THAT TRIGERRED OFF THE
>WORST OF ETHNIC CLEANSING>>
I would have to know much more about Bisset's remarks and their context and
what he means by this to comment. On its face this remark seems preposterous.
-david gable
Frank Berger
vis a vis Israel, do you?
samir golescu
Dear Mr Gable,
> >Cher Mr. Gable, your ISP provider has to have big troubles, because, you
> >see, when you reply to my postings, something funny happens -- you quote
> >other portions from your own messages than those I have quoted.
>
> Sorry, Samir, but this is simply not possible. I don't ever bother to go
> back to my original posts, which I delete once they appear. Anything I
> quoted came from YOUR post.
Mr Gable, because I knew you for years and I always found you an honest
man, it is your health that concerns me now, NO IRONY INVOLVED. This is
not about "winning" an argument, but about your ability to follow what you
yourself said. I would prefer to know you were simply dishonest for once,
but still in the fullness of use of your prodigious intellectual
qualities.
"Anything I quoted came from your post", you say? Here is MY POST,
containing both your phrases and mine:
_____________________________
David Gable:
> I don't suspect Khadaffi of good will so much as I suspect him of
> pragmatism and a new maturity. The best thing for his country, as he
> has no doubt discovered, is a good economy and trade with the U.S. In
> short, he's now a Republican.
Samir:
> Oh, it's that simple? Then you found the solution: find out if the good
> Colonel has brothers and let's have George Bush place one to lead every
> Islamic country -- all our problems solved!
END QUOTE FROM SAMIR POST
________________________________________
Now here is YOUR responding post:
I [David Gable] made the factual statement:
> Khadaffi is the leader of an Islamic country who has
> expressed sympathy for the U.S. in the wake of the attacks on the WTC
> at a time when Bush has been hoping for just such an eventuality.
And Samir replied:
>Oh, it's that simple? Then you found the solution: find out if the good
>Colonel has brothers and let's have George Bush place one to lead every
>Islamic country -- all our problems solved!
END QUOTE FROM DAVID GABLE POST
_________________________________________
In fact the phrase you're quoting, and characterizing as "the most
fantastic imaginable gloss" was uttered by me in response of other of your
phrases, not of the one you have quoted. What is so difficult to
understand?
Mr Gable, now:
> >Your attempts to show that Bisset said not what he
> >said, but what you say, are, how shall I put it, a waste of time.
>
> My one and ONLY source for what Bisset said was you. It is only now that
> you have added:
>
> <<IT WAS THE BOMBING THAT TRIGERRED OFF THE
> >WORST OF ETHNIC CLEANSING>>
IT IS ONLY NOW THAT I HAVE "ADDED"? What is the matter with you, dear
friend? There is only one Bisset quotation I gave, INCLUDING the phrase
you claim I have added "only now" -- "It was the bombing that triggered
off the worst of the ethnic cleansing".
These tragic events have affected many of us in different ways. Mr Gable,
you were and are one of the valuable rmcr contributors, your musical
knowledge inspires only respect and, have to say, I found you most
times a man who tries to be fair, who loves truth and an honest
discussion. I can only conjecture (and I am NOT being ironic, patronizing,
or malicious) that the named events have temporarily affected your usually
shining lucidity and the coherence of your thinking. Please take good care
of yourself and be David Gable again.
best wishes,
Samir
Andrys Basten
Nor me.
This thread mirrors the ugliness that begets the righteous war
and death-machines of any land.
- A
REG
"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9ok262$cij$1...@news.panix.com...
PK
>
> >So, to be clear: not the Serbs that were perpetrating the
> >> crimes were responsible -- no, they were only doing what U.S. "made",
> >> "compelled" them do!!
>
> When did anybody ever claim ethnic cleansing by the Serbs was motivated by the
> United States? This is the first time I've heard this one.
This preposterous argument (US standing for NATO, or NATO for US,
whatever) has been and keeps being used by all the brown/red alliance
and associates in Europe and elsewhere.
PK
Dan Koren
>
> You are right about one thing, though. The
> sorting out by "history" has already been done.
> Out of the dozens of members of the so-called
> "Darmstadt school" of the late 50's and early
> 60's, which has now receded into history as
> surely as the Viennese Classical Style or
> Impressionist painting, there are still
> people passionately committed to only a
> handful. Stockhausen is one of them.
>
Have you ever been to Darmstadt? I suppose not.
If you had, you would probably realize that no
art could possibly come from that garbage dump.
It is by far the worst place I've seen in my
entire life.
dk
Margaret Mikulska
Dan, I participated in the Darmstadt Ferienkurse für Neue Musik twice
and I don't understand why you call it a garbage dump. A great lot of
truly great music came out of there. A great lot of outstanding
composers taught and learned there. Thank goodness there are still
composers committed to writing original, interesting music instead of
that tepid puddle-water of neotonality that is being splashed on us
nowadays.
And the city isn't bad, either.
-Margaret
Dan Koren wrote:
Matthew B. Tepper
news:c1c5ead9.0109...@posting.google.com:
> Have you ever been to Darmstadt? I suppose not. If you had, you would
> probably realize that no art could possibly come from that garbage dump.
> It is by far the worst place I've seen in my entire life.
You've obviously never been stranded overnight in Fremont, Ohio.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Nicolas Hodges
>Dan Koren wrote:
>> Have you ever been to Darmstadt? I suppose not.
>> If you had, you would probably realize that no
>> art could possibly come from that garbage dump.
>> It is by far the worst place I've seen in my
>> entire life.
>
>and I don't understand why you call it a garbage dump. A great lot of
>truly great music came out of there. A great lot of outstanding
>composers taught and learned there. Thank goodness there are still
>composers committed to writing original, interesting music instead of
>that tepid puddle-water of neotonality that is being splashed on us
>nowadays.
Hear hear.
--
Nic
Jan Depondt
"Steven Chung" <s...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:9oo55g$d15$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
| Apparently not wanting to leave Stockhausen as the only composer to
make
| loony remarks about the massacre, Corigliano sees this as an
occasion to
| attack serialism...
|
| http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/23/arts/music/23CORI.html
|
| S.
To see the page I have to sign in. The form asks me to select my
country.
Choice 1: United States
Choice 2: Afghanistan
After that: the rest of the world.
--
Jan Depondt
Margaret Mikulska
Jan Depondt wrote:
>
> | http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/23/arts/music/23CORI.html
> |
> | S.
>
> To see the page I have to sign in. The form asks me to select my
> country.
> Choice 1: United States
> Choice 2: Afghanistan
> After that: the rest of the world.
That seems to reflect the current political situation as seen from the
US.
On the other hand, Afghanistan is pretty close to the beginning of the
alphabetical list of all countries, so it seems to be a sort of negative
serendipity.
-Margaret
Matthew B. Tepper
news:3BB01138...@silvertone.princeton.edu:
Aha, the *real* reason Afghanistan is trying to get rid of the USA. They
want to be first on all the lists!
A. Brain
news:zHTp3cDt...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk...
> Margaret Mikulska <miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu> writes
> >Dan, I participated in the Darmstadt Ferienkurse für Neue Musik twice
> >and I don't understand why you call it a garbage dump. A great lot of
> >truly great music came out of there. A great lot of outstanding
> >composers taught and learned there. Thank goodness there are still
> >composers committed to writing original, interesting music instead of
> >that tepid puddle-water of neotonality that is being splashed on us
> >nowadays.
>
> Hear hear.
> --
> Nic
I don't think I have ever been to Darmstadt, but there are a lot of really
lousy places in America's "heartland" (or is it "homeland" now?). Try
southeastern Missouri, for example. Or that awful stretch of interstate
highways 80/90 just southeast of Chicago going east-west. There's nothing
like
that in Europe that I have ever seen.
But going back to the topic at hand, and as a "consumer" of music and not a
professional, dare I ask what the "splash of tepid puddle water" consists
of?
The piece that John Corigliano wrote published in the NYT 9/23 that more or
less complained of the musical counterpart of "political correctness" within
the
"composition community" struck a chord, so to speak, with me. What exactly
is "Neotonality" and what is "wrong" about it? Who are the "guilty"?
In the latest _Fanfare_, there is a review of a recording of some chamber
works by George Rochberg and Elliott Schwartz. I know of some Rochberg and
recall hearing a friend who is a composer contemptuously remarking--years
ago--that he (Rochberg) is "rewriting Brahms". (Who wouldn't trade some of
the modern works of the last forty years for some of the music that Brahms
threw out? is what I think, but then I am just a dilettante--and possibly a
reactionary).
Anyway, it's fairly clear that the Fanfare review is unfavorable toward
the music, but calling the composers "distinguished members of the chameleon
school of composition--anything and everything is grist for their mill" and
describing the music as "adumbrating the style of late Beethoven, late
Mahler, and Bartok," or "polystylistic" begs the question.
Of course we know that the incomplete music of say, Mozart, is nevertheless
realized at its optimum, and that those composers who died young long ago
would never have written anything else worthwhile, and that those first rate
composers who threw out some of their works were right to do so, so anyone
who engages in "polystylistic" experiments should be roundly condemned.
Right?
I know little of Corigliano's music, but recently heard a piece by him, and
I found it coherent, comprehensible, and entertaining in a way that most
contemporary music is not. And while his remarks about music are perhaps
misdirected in the current crisis, "orthodoxy" in art and a different kind
of "political correctness" are things I worry about as I see that the
seventh inning stretch at baseball games now features videos of President
Bush's remarks about God being on our side, followed by the singing of "God
Bless America" rather than "Take me out to the Ballgame". (And that
"homeland security" term for a new cabinet office is a little scary too).
And it seems that concert programs are being altered in light of the current
world situation. At the Houston Symphony this week, a fine work by a modern
composer--Aaron Jay Kernis' "Musica Celestis", was subsituted because the
original work programmed, "New Era Dance" was deemed "inappropriate" for its
"very aggressive high spirits". (Why wouldn't very aggressive high spirits
be okay for audiences now? Is this the reaction to "God Bless America" five
blocks away?)
I think that what sometimes happens in modern composition is comparable
to what happened at my law school's graduation ceremony one year, the year
before I graduated. The guest speaker, a Federal judge, facing an audience
of a few hundred students and many more family and friends, delivered a talk
about the future of "diversity jurisdiction" (an arguably archaic system
whereby suits between citizens of one state and those of another are
entitled to be heard in federal court, with some restrictions, and the law
applicable to the cases
heard depends on several variables). Even a first year student would
understand the subject, and possibly enjoy the speech. But anyone who had
never studied law would find it bewildering and boring.
This may or may not be an apt comparison, and it is not to say that
contemporary music should aDUMBrate other styles
that are familiar to the audience, but it should be interesting, coherent,
and comprehensible to the public, not just the academy.
Okay, I am probably dead wrong about the Darmstadt group, right? So how
about some recommended recordings of their worthy works? We are unlikely to
hear them in concert, I presume. And to those in the ng
who are professionals, are Rochberg and Elliott among the "splashers" and
why?
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
Mr.T
alphabetical list of all countries, so it seems to be a sort of negative
serendipity>>
Margaret, I award you a "first" for "negative serendipity". You can put
it on your resume, next to your knighthood.
Regards,
MrT
Marcus Maroney
did mention his Pulitzer. I would think the Oscar *much* harder to
win for a 'concert' composer and much more high profile. Perhaps the
Pulitzer is considered more academically impressive, the Oscar more
commercial...with that in mind, wouldn't this citation directly oppose
the discussion set forth above it by Mr. Corigliano?
Incidentally, I wouldn't want to be without Berg's Violin Concerto,
Berio's O King, or Boulez's Rituel (for three B's....) in times of
mourning, all of which involve some use of serialism.
Only the greatest composers can communicate in any given language, be
it serialism or neoromanticism. Is Coriglian one of them? I can't
say, but none of his works has moved me quite like the two mentioned
above, or countless other 'serial' or avant-garde works.
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
http://www.geocities.com/marcus.maroney