Nazis and Violins
David Hurwitz
during the war still played like crap. Still, I'm sure it afforded the masters
of the Reich some satisfaction to know where they came from. I wonder what
Furtwangler thought about the provenance of the instruments used by his beloved
Berlin Phil. when he conducted Beethoven's Ninth before Hitler and Goebbels?
CHICAGO (AP) - During the Holocaust, the Nazis seized top-quality violins in a
secret operation to collect the world's best musical instruments, according to
declassified U.S. military documents and other records.
The centuries-old violins include dozens of priceless Stradivari, Guarneri and
Amati, as well as lesser-known models prized by collectors, dealers, musicians
and investors.
In its Sunday editions, the Chicago Tribune reported its research into the
seizure through documents including declassified U.S. military records, German
documents and post-Holocaust claims at the National Archives.
The coveted violins taken by the Nazis could be the next area of inquiry by
those seeking reparations for Holocaust-era losses.
``This is right now in the earliest phase of our work, but it may be one of the
most fascinating areas of exploration,'' said Elan Steinberg, executive director
of the World Jewish Congress, a New York-based organization to protect Jewish
lives and property during the Holocaust. The group has been at the forefront of
negotiations regarding Holocaust-era lootings.
But attempts to recover the stolen instruments or their value will be
complicated by museums slow to acknowledge works procured under questionable
circumstances, the Tribune reported.
Violins are also more difficult to identify than works of art, which have
titles, dates and subjects. But in recent years art museums from Chicago to
Berlin have created Web sites detailing the history of works that may have been
looted during the Holocaust.
The details of the Nazis' thefts of antique violins were buried in classified
documents for decades. Adolf Hitler's chief ideologue, Alfred Rosenberg, created
a task force in 1940 to collect the best musical instruments and scores. The
campaign ran for five years.
Musicologists followed the Nazis as they invaded Europe, cataloging and
preparing the instruments for transport to the Music Office in Berlin.
``I used to play a wonderful Italian Gagliano violin,'' said Chicago Symphony
Orchestra violinist Francis Akos, who in 1939 won use of the instrument in a
competition.
With the outbreak of WWII, Akos, who is Jewish, was sent to a Nazi concentration
camp.
``When I came back ... I tried to find my friends,'' said Akos, 79, referring to
the benefactors who had provided him with the violin. ``None of them survived
the war. And their instruments disappeared somewhere, too. Everything was
gone.''
AP-NY-08-19-01 2243EDT
Matthew B. Tepper
news:9lpvu...@drn.newsguy.com:
> Just think: all those great instruments to choose from, and German
> orchestras during the war still played like crap. Still, I'm sure it
> afforded the masters of the Reich some satisfaction to know where they
> came from. I wonder what Furtwangler thought about the provenance of
> the instruments used by his beloved Berlin Phil. when he conducted
> Beethoven's Ninth before Hitler and Goebbels?
Maybe part of their scheme was to sell the instruments (in Switzerland,
perhaps) to finance their war machine?
I was delighted beyond belief, almost to dancing a jig, some years ago when
the government of Iran was deprived of its title to a bunch of valuable
instruments which they had seized from the rightful owners. They wanted to
sell these on the international market in order to finance *their* ongoing
war with Iraq. After those bastards had made a great show of throwing
Western instruments into bonfires after their revolution, they ceded any
rights to such treasures forevermore, say I (obviously not a lawyer).
--
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
Eric Nagamine
The complete article and the fascinating associated articles are
available on the Chicago Tribune website. The Nazis weren't the only one
who stole violins according to the stories
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0108190236aug19.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed>
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0108190254aug19.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed>
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-010617violins.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed>
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-010617violin-sbr.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed>
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-010617violin-sbr2.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed>
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
J. Teske
Heydrich was a fairly accomplished violinist and used to have chamber
music soirees. I also read that he possessed a Stradivari violin,
courtesy of his wife's money. The book in which I read that [long
forgotten] did not have any further explanation or footnotes to back
up that statement and I don't recall reading about it in any of the
other references on Heydrich that I read. I was too busy writing
papers to follow up further on this as it was not the thrust of my
research at the time. Does anyone have any further information on
this?
Jon Teske
On 19 Aug 2001 20:24:53 -0700, David Hurwitz
Jarl Sigurd
David Hurwitz wrote
>Just think: all those great instruments to choose from, and German
orchestras
>during the war still played like crap.
I would take issue with that statement. The BPO' performance
on the Furtwangler conducted wartime Bruckner 5th and 9th
rank among the greatest orchestral performances ever recorded.
The same goes for Furtwangler's wartime Beethoven performances.
Germany can be criticized for a lot of things during those wartime
years, but the quality of it's orchestras is certainly not one of them.
Quite frankly, I think Mr Hurwitz should switch gears and become
a rock and roll critic, instead. He just doesn't seem to have what
it takes to appreciate good classical music performances when
he hears them.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to six heavy metal songs composed by Jarl Sigurd
visit: http://www.ampcast.com/search/band.php?id=9098
Edward A. Cowan
Knopf, 1946, pp.73-74, _Thema und Variationen_, Frankfurt: S. Fischer
Verlag, 1973, repr. of 1947 edition, p.111) that, in his youth, he had
encountered in performances of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ a musically
uncouth tenor named Bruno Heydrich, father of Reinhard Heydrich. So the
latter did come from a musical family. I think I've seen one photograph
of Reinhard Heydrich playing a violin, but I can't locate it just now.
FWIW, a certain German-speaking but Czech-descended colleague of mine,
now deceased, who, as an American-born Czech with a German name, had
found himself as a student in Prague during the German occupation in
WWII, claimed that Heydrich had been assassinated because he was too
popular with the Czechs. (I have no idea whether that was so...)
In Jan Kaplan and Krystyna Nosarzewska, _Prague: The Turbulent Century_,
Köln: Könemann, 1997, p.234, there are photographs of properties the
occupying Germans had confiscated from Czech Jews (and others) and
stored in warehouses. Among those shown are pianos and violins (photos 2
and 6, respectively). So the confiscations are at least documented from
the time, and by the Germans themselves! (They documented everything, it
seems...)
J. Teske <chac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
--
E.A.C.
Edwin Kammin
Edward A. Cowan <eac...@anet-dfw.com> wrote in message
news:1eyfncs.1v3ybjxhlmmgwN%eac...@anet-dfw.com...
> Bruno Walter recalls in his memoirs (_Theme and Variations_, New York:
> Knopf, 1946, pp.73-74, _Thema und Variationen_, Frankfurt: S. Fischer
> Verlag, 1973, repr. of 1947 edition, p.111) that, in his youth, he had
> encountered in performances of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ a musically
> uncouth tenor named Bruno Heydrich, father of Reinhard Heydrich. So the
> latter did come from a musical family. I think I've seen one photograph
> of Reinhard Heydrich playing a violin, but I can't locate it just now.
Another great fan of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, was, from what I have
read, a fairly proficient violin player. I fully expect that some archive,
some day, will yield a performance of the Bach Double Concerto with the two
of them.
Ed K.
Rob Holzel
> Quite frankly, I think Mr Hurwitz should switch gears and become
> a rock and roll critic, instead. He just doesn't seem to have what
> it takes to appreciate good classical music performances when
> he hears them.
Or rather, he can't appreciate good classical music performances when
*you* hear them. :-)
Rob
samir golescu
<<German orchestras during the war played like crap>>
Another stone on the tomb of one's "professional credibility".
The trouble with him ever emitting an intelligent thought is that it would
die of loneliness.
samir golescu
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> I was delighted beyond belief, almost to dancing a jig, some years ago when
> the government of Iran was deprived of its title to a bunch of valuable
> instruments which they had seized from the rightful owners. They wanted to
> sell these on the international market in order to finance *their* ongoing
> war with Iraq. After those bastards had made a great show of throwing
> Western instruments into bonfires after their revolution, they ceded any
> rights to such treasures forevermore, say I (obviously not a lawyer).
So says me. Have you seen "The Red Violin"? The scenes from the Chinese
"Cultural [what a blasphemy!] Revolution" are more telling than I can say.
(Also "Farewell to Concubine" includes some horripilating scenes on the
same)
They include symbolical burnings of "decadent", "Western" instruments.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
news:NJag7.76976$b_3.8...@news0.telusplanet.net:
Rotsa ruck; I'm still trying (without success) to find out if there even
exist sound recordings of Albert Einstein playing the violin.
One review of Harvey Sachs' _Music in Fascist Italy_ was accompanied by a
photograph of Mussolini with a fiddle pinned under his capacious chin.
That picture does not, alas, appear in the book itself.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.010820...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu:
As a matter of fact, I just saw "The Red Violin" on cable (thereby not
causing any particular sum of DVD rental or purchase money to go to Peter
Gelb) hours before I wrote that remark, and the image of the Cultural
Revolution, as portrayed in my film, were strong in my mind. The Iranian
idiocy, as well as the horrors now taking place in Afghanistan, are
constant reminders that this sort of thing can still happen in our time.
And guess what? It ain't Bill Clinton's fault!
As for Peter Gelb -- whom I regard ever the thorn in the side of musical
culture in these United States, if not also elsewhere -- I wonder if his
cheapening of the "classical music" rubric could be considered, in its own
small way, a "cultural revolution," utilizing the force of commerce and PR
rather than guns.
Mr. T
even exist sound recordings of Albert Einstein playing the violin.>>
Wasn't there an amateur recording of Albert Einstein playing violin with
Bohuslav Martinu at the piano? Maybe I'm imagining this... Not that I
would have high expectations, given that Martinu was the professional
violinist. [Old joke about wrong instruments omitted.]
Regards,
MrT
D Krause
news:NJag7.76976$b_3.8...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> Another great fan of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, was, from what I have
> read, a fairly proficient violin player.
I've seen kitschy wartime Fascist propaganda showing Mussolini playing the
violin, and extolling the sensitive and artistic qualities of his
performance. Consider the source.
Brendan R. Wehrung
> Bruno Walter recalls in his memoirs (_Theme and Variations_, New York:
> Knopf, 1946, pp.73-74, _Thema und Variationen_, Frankfurt: S. Fischer
> Verlag, 1973, repr. of 1947 edition, p.111) that, in his youth, he had
> encountered in performances of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ a musically
> uncouth tenor named Bruno Heydrich, father of Reinhard Heydrich. So the
> latter did come from a musical family. I think I've seen one photograph
> of Reinhard Heydrich playing a violin, but I can't locate it just now.
> FWIW, a certain German-speaking but Czech-descended colleague of mine,
> now deceased, who, as an American-born Czech with a German name, had
> found himself as a student in Prague during the German occupation in
> WWII, claimed that Heydrich had been assassinated because he was too
> popular with the Czechs. (I have no idea whether that was so...)
>
> In Jan Kaplan and Krystyna Nosarzewska, _Prague: The Turbulent Century_,
> Köln: Könemann, 1997, p.234, there are photographs of properties the
> occupying Germans had confiscated from Czech Jews (and others) and
> stored in warehouses. Among those shown are pianos and violins (photos 2
> and 6, respectively). So the confiscations are at least documented from
> the time, and by the Germans themselves! (They documented everything, it
> seems...)
>
Of course. They wanted posterity to see their foot (jackboot) on the neck
of the rest of Europe.
Has anybody asked how many confiscated instruments were "liberated" by the
Soviets?
Brendan
Matthew Silverstein
> So says me. Have you seen "The Red Violin"? The scenes from the Chinese
> "Cultural [what a blasphemy!] Revolution" are more telling than I can
> say. (Also "Farewell to Concubine" includes some horripilating scenes
> on the same)
"Farewell *My* Concubine" (at least as translated into English)--a superb
movie.
Matty
samir golescu
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Samir wrote:
>
> > So says me. Have you seen "The Red Violin"? The scenes from the Chinese
> > "Cultural [what a blasphemy!] Revolution" are more telling than I can
> > say. (Also "Farewell to Concubine" includes some horripilating scenes
> > on the same)
>
> "Farewell *My* Concubine"
Let it be *Your*, if you wish so..... ( :
> . . .(at least as translated into English)--a superb movie.
Indeed.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
Martinu did write a set of Madrigals (for violin and piano?) for Einstein,
and my understanding is that they gave the premiere together. But a sound
recording? If there is one, I'd like to find it. Years ago I checked _The
Discopaedia of the Violin_, and Einstein was not listed in it, suggesting
that there has been no commercial release.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>
>
>> The complete article and the fascinating associated articles are
>> available on the Chicago Tribune website. The Nazis weren't the only one
>
>
>Indeed, but the one who comes here complaining about other people's agenda
>has no other business in life than disseminating his own little
>stupidities. You see, the point was not that Nazis stole violins, but to
>take another cheap shot at Furtwangler, in an effort to taint the memory
>of a great conductor, according to the logical scheme:
>
Only someone so totally blinded by mindless hero-worship could assert the above
claim. That fact is that Furtwangler was morally and ethically tainted by his
associations with the Nazis. Period. This is as undeniable as is his greatness
as a conductor. Not all artists, however wonderful they might be in their chosen
field, are "great men" or "saints." Not all make smart choices. The reason I
raised the issue in this context was not to take a "swipe" at Furtwangler,
though he provides a convenient example that most here will be familiar with,
and a topical one too, given your persistent efforts to beatify him whenever his
name comes up (to say nothing of the herd mentality that prevails on this and
certain other topics in this ng).
Rather, the article raises the always interesting question of (a) what really
went on during the period, and (b) what circumstances or facts the artists who
participated in the cultural glorification of the Third Reich (Furtwangler first
and foremost among them) really could have or should have known, however much
they may have despised the regime or claimed to have been coerced or otherwise
unwilling participants. Despite the sarcasm that colors my reference to
Furtwangler in the original post, I make no claim to judgment on this last
point. I don't know the answer in his case. None of us do, or ever will, because
he's dead and spent the last years of his life more or less wallowing in
self-pity and feelings of victimization (as did many famous, well-intentioned
Germans who did not realize the enormity of the evil to which they lent their
support and prestige).
Still, I see no reason to hide my scepticism in the face of the post-War denials
and grumblings of men such as St. Wilhelm and other artists whose attempts to
distance themselves from the regime, despite the evidence of their clearly
documented actions, leaves ample room for a discusion of (b) above. It's a valid
question, and certainly worthy of discussion here. You might note that with the
single exception of you and Jarl Sigurd, your confrere out there on the
Furtwanglerian lunatic fringe, everyone else who has posted to this thread
understands and addresses this broader issue is some way.
I understand perfectly well that your reaction to a perceived slight against
your hero will result in the usual gouts of windy vituperation. What's really
funny is your pathetically arrogant assumption that an artist of Furtwangler's
caliber needs someone like you come to his defense. I can't think of any more
telling evidence of the insecurity and fundamental lack of self-esteem at the
heart of your hero-worshipping mentality. Greatness in music endures however
morally compromised the artist may be. It was true of Wagner, and will certainly
be true of Furtwangler, irrespective of what anyone has to say about his
character (or lack thereof), and despite the advocacy of self-proclaimed true
believers such as yourself.
Dave Hurwitz
ulvi
>
> "Mr. T" <m...@norspam.duma> wrote in news:3B8171...@norspam.duma:
>
> ><<Rotsa ruck; I'm still trying (without success) to find out if there
> > even exist sound recordings of Albert Einstein playing the violin.>>
> >
> > Wasn't there an amateur recording of Albert Einstein playing violin with
> > Bohuslav Martinu at the piano? Maybe I'm imagining this... Not that I
> > would have high expectations, given that Martinu was the professional
> > violinist. [Old joke about wrong instruments omitted.]
>
> Martinu did write a set of Madrigals (for violin and piano?) for Einstein,
> and my understanding is that they gave the premiere together. But a sound
> recording? If there is one, I'd like to find it. Years ago I checked _The
> Discopaedia of the Violin_, and Einstein was not listed in it, suggesting
> that there has been no commercial release.
I heard a story that when Einstein once played his violin for Kreisler,
Kreisler told him to stick to physics.
Anybody know if there is any truth to this, or is it one of those
physics jokes?
--
Ulvi
ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov
REG
"ulvi" <ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:3B81D56F...@jpl.nasa.gov...
Bob Lombard
> From: "David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.recordings
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Nazis and Violins
>
> [snip]
>
> given your persistent efforts to beatify him whenever his
> > name comes up (to say nothing of the herd mentality that
> prevails on this and
> > certain other topics in this ng).
> >
>
> Ah, the 'herd mentality'. DH is showing restraint here by
> avoiding reference to 'the mindless mob'. I actually prefer
> the latter (alliterate when the opportunity presents
itself).
>
> David, herds are organized groups that must be led (mobs
don't
> require it). You seem to have fixated on Samir as the
dynamic
> leader of this herd. Do you really conceive of Samir as a
> Dynamic Leader? Because if reflection makes that concept
> unlikely... maybe there isn't a herd.
>
> bl
benjo maso
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> schreef in bericht
news:9lsd6...@drn.newsguy.com...
It's extremely unlikely that the most precious intruments stolen by the
Nazi's were distributed among the string section of the Berlin Philharmonic.
The Nazi's didn't steal them to improve the sound of the German orchestras,
but to get rich. But even if some of the spoils found their way to the BPO,
it's even more unlikely that the members of the orchestra - or its
conductor - did know anything about their provenance. So you're remark on
Furtwängler was a bit far-fetched.
A small comment on your remark on "the post-War denials and grumblings of
men such as St. Wilhelm and other artists whose attempts to distance
themselves from the regime, despite the evidence of their clearly documented
actions". Furtwangler didn't take his distance from the nazi's only after
but also during the war. In your original posting you were referring to an
occasion when he conducted Beethoven's Ninth before Hitler and Goebbels. You
probably mean the concert of April 19, 1942 when F. was forced to conduct
the concert on occasion of Hitler's birthday. He did, but even then he
refused to bring the official "Deutscher Gruss", i.e. the Hitler-salute.
Whatever you may think about F.'s behaviour during the Nazi-regimne, you
can't deny him some courage.
Benjo Maso
samir golescu
On 20 Aug 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> > > I wonder what Furtwangler thought about the provenance of the
> > > instruments used by his beloved Berlin Phil. when he conducted
> > > Beethoven's Ninth before Hitler and Goebbels?
> >Indeed, but the one who comes here complaining about other people's agenda
> >has no other business in life than disseminating his own little
> >stupidities. You see, the point was not that Nazis stole violins, but to
> >take another cheap shot at Furtwangler, in an effort to taint the memory
> >of a great conductor, according to the logical scheme:
> >
> >Davko Huruwitz's neighbor stole the communal cow from the other
> >village.
> >
> >He sold the milk to Davko Huruwitz's grandma.
> >
> >Davko Huruwitz's grandma cooked pareve with the stolen milk.
> >
> >Therefore, Davko Huruwitz is a cow-thief.
> Only someone so totally blinded by mindless hero-worship could assert the
> above claim.
You are really funny, astonishingly so. I did not assert that "Davko
Huruwitz" *was* a cow-thief, I just showed how stupid YOUR claim was.
> That fact is that Furtwangler was morally and ethically tainted by his
> associations with the Nazis. Period.
Is that a "fact"? Give me a break. YOURS IS SUCH A SIMPLE MIND THAT YOU
CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONLY "FACT" IS THAT THIS IS A HIGHLY
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, IN WHICH IN NO WAY YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUS ASSERTION IS
ACCEPTED AS A FACT, not more so than your other "facts": that "German
orchestras played like crap" in a period, that Golovanov is an "amateur"
etc.
> This is as undeniable as is his greatness as a conductor.
Bullshit.
> the article raises the always interesting question of (a) what really
> went on during the period,
Yes.
(b) and what circumstances or facts the artists who participated in the
> cultural glorification of the Third Reich (Furtwangler first
> and foremost among them)
Now "first and foremost"? Get some books, old man, you are making a fool
of yourself.
> really could have or should have known, however much they may have
> despised the regime or claimed to have been coerced or otherwise
> unwilling participants.
We had this discussion about two thousand times in rmcr. Nobody ever
addressed a couple of little questions: what is the source and the
substance for the claims that artists, more than other social strata take
political attitudes in politically evil regimes? why should an artist
necessarily leave his country because it is led by "bad people"? who gives
a pompous nobody the right to assert, on coordinates of a dominant present
political view, the precise way in which an artist should have acted in a
previous (past) era? why is the Nazi era the ONE AND ONLY era to which
certain behavioral standards (he had to immigrate etc.) are applied.
> Despite the sarcasm that colors my reference to
> Furtwangler in the original post, I make no claim to judgment on this last
> point. I don't know the answer in his case. None of us do, or ever will, because
> he's dead and spent the last years of his life more or less wallowing in
> self-pity and feelings of victimization (as did many famous, well-intentioned
> Germans who did not realize the enormity of the evil to which they lent their
> support and prestige).
Give me a break with this pompous propaganda. In all countries, in all
regimes, art is made. In democracy, in dictatorship. Some artists have not
what I deem the right perspective. So what? Van Cliburn claimed he's
"friend of the Russians". Van Cliburn drank "Bruderschaft" with "Nikita"
[Hrushchev] and explained American people how wonderful Russians are,
apparently unable to distinguish at the time between the threats of
the Soviet monster and the Russian culture. So what? Will I say a pompous
idiotic phrase like "Van Cliburn lent his support and prestige to the
enormously evil Soviet Union"? No I will not because I am neither
brainwashed nor swamped in a uni-dimensional agenda that claims that the
ONLY evil regime in which artists HAD to leave/not perform/kill themselves
was the Nazi one. I do not need to "forgive" with superiority Van
Cliburn's perceived political flaws.
> You might note that with the
> single exception of you and Jarl Sigurd, your confrere out there on the
> Furtwanglerian lunatic fringe,
I think Sigurd is at times a mono-obsessional weirdo but, having a choice,
I'd prefer his company to yours.
> everyone else who has posted to this thread
> understands and addresses this broader issue is some way.
I did too but you're incapable to read.
> [....] to say nothing of the herd mentality that prevails on this and
> certain other topics in this ng [....]
That is really interesting. I read PLENTY of different opinions and
controversies in rmcr. "Herd mentality" refers, it seems, to people
refusing to acknowledge you as the Supreme Authority, the Superior
Professional who tells them that enjoying the work of a conductor they are
"hallucinating".
Note: when I asked other contributors to kindly not quote anymore your
insipid reviews and create lengthy and inevitably repetitious discussions
around them, I thought I was doing the right thing. Immediately after, you
came *here* and started launching your usual provocations. There is
something sick about continuously launching this kind of provocation,
craving for attention and posing in the only enlightened,
free-thinking martyr, being abused for "telling the facts". This is
pathetic. You should stick to writing your listener[instead of
performance]-focused "reviews", instead of coming here and hurling insults
at the totality/majority of rmcr members who obviously in your opinion
have a herd mentality are inferior in every way to your unique grasp of
"musical and moral" facts.
> What's really funny is your pathetically arrogant assumption that an
> artist of Furtwangler's caliber needs someone like you come to his
> defense.
What is really arrogant is your attitude of musical and, now, moral
superiority in front of artists you are not worthy to open your mouth
about.
You are simply unable to understand that artistic gift is God- (or
Nature-)given and that your entire being, bearings and bowel-leveled
thinking are incompatible with and inferior not only to supreme
accomplishments of musical geniuses (THAT is a fact, as well as that your
shallowly "factual" and "rational" musical assessments have the color and
consistency of worthless ideatic urine), but also inferior to the simple,
unpretentious, devotional act of a musical amateur who, in the privacy of
his home, plays Fur Elise or Saint-Saens' Swan. It is he who "understands"
music, when he modestly thinks he doesn't, it is you who live uselessly
and understand absolutely nothing, when you think you understand
everything. You can continue to molest the computer's keyboard with
perspired fingers throwing poison to musicians you (should) have a feeling
of inferiority in front of, you can turn your scores up and down, that
will not give you more musical insight than what a Furtwangler had by
simply breathing together with his musicians, before the WWII, during the
WWII, and after the WWII.
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
[snip]
> > to say nothing of the herd mentality that prevails on this and
> > certain other topics in this ng).
[snip]
<<Ah, the 'herd mentality'. DH is showing restraint here by
avoiding reference to 'the mindless mob'. I actually prefer
the latter (alliterate when the opportunity presents itself).
David, herds are organized groups that must be led (mobs
don't require it).>>
You didn't get it, did you? People acclaiming Hurwitz's "grasp of the
facts", his "moral authority", his "superior expertize", are reliable,
free-thinking, discerning individuals. People who don't form the herd.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
>men such as St. Wilhelm and other artists whose attempts to distance
>themselves from the regime, despite the evidence of their clearly documented
>actions". Furtwangler didn't take his distance from the nazi's only after
>but also during the war. In your original posting you were referring to an
>occasion when he conducted Beethoven's Ninth before Hitler and Goebbels. You
>probably mean the concert of April 19, 1942 when F. was forced to conduct
>the concert on occasion of Hitler's birthday. He did, but even then he
>refused to bring the official "Deutscher Gruss", i.e. the Hitler-salute.
>Whatever you may think about F.'s behaviour during the Nazi-regimne, you
>can't deny him some courage.
>
>Benjo Maso
>
that he was not devoid of courage does not make him a moral beacon either, nor
does it absolve him of (at best) extreme naivete in not taking into
consideration the perception of what, to cite your example, conducting the
Berlin Philharmonic in Beethoven's Ninth in honor of Hitler's birthday said to
the world at large about the regime's pretense to cultural legitimacy. You can't
argue that he was used against his will by the Nazis for propoganda purposes,
since he new perfectly well that he was being so used and went ahead and
conducted anyway. Refusing to conduct that concert--that would have been
courage. What Furtwangler did was "accomodation," not with protest, but his
courage was of a pretty minimal sort.
Dave Hurwitz
samir golescu
On 21 Aug 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> I don't deny him some courage. I believe he detested the regime, but the
> fact that he was not devoid of courage does not make him a moral beacon
> either,
Who is "the" moral beacon? David Hurwitz?
> nor does it absolve him of (at best) extreme naivete
Why should Furtwangler be "absolved" by you? Who are you? What did you do
for humanity? What lives did you save? Where and how did you protest
against the injustices perpetrated today all over (most of) the world? How
much of your income have you ever donated to help people in need? When did
you put your physical security at stake to help threatened people?
> in not taking into
> consideration the perception of what, to cite your example, conducting the
> Berlin Philharmonic in Beethoven's Ninth in honor of Hitler's birthday
> said to the world at large about the regime's pretense to cultural
> legitimacy.
Another Hurwitzian idiocy. A double one.
-- In 1942, the "world" did not care of what music was made in Berliner
Philharmoniker. Shortly after the world was to bomb its building.
-- There is no such concept of "cultural legitimacy" of a regime. The
cultural legitimacy is of an artist, of a nation, of a culture.
> You can't
> argue that he was used against his will by the Nazis for propoganda purposes,
> since he new perfectly well that he was being so used and went ahead and
> conducted anyway.
The hell he can't argue. What you're basically implying is that the Nazi
regime was of such an evil nature that the only option was for all
cultural activities to stop, because any kind of cultural activity was
"propaganda". Utter Hurwitzian B-S. First of all the Nazi regime, as
unspeakably ugly and criminal as it was, was not the first nor the only to
be so. Second, YOU are politicizing the very notion of culture, claiming
that culture could be only used FOR or AGAINST a political regime, with
nothing in the between or outside a Manichaean concept I am familiar with
from my childhood, from the Communist agitators. You are acting like a
cultural Gestapovist or Stakanovist, from the perspective of a political
correctness you ignorantly confuse with facts.
> his courage was of a pretty minimal sort.
Feel free to do better than to be on the "blacklist" of a Himmler. Why
don't you go and write musical reviews in Afganistan, for instance?
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, benjo maso wrote:
> It's extremely unlikely that the most precious intruments stolen by the
> Nazi's were distributed among the string section of the Berlin Philharmonic.
> The Nazi's didn't steal them to improve the sound of the German orchestras,
> but to get rich. But even if some of the spoils found their way to the BPO,
> it's even more unlikely that the members of the orchestra - or its
> conductor - did know anything about their provenance. So you're remark on
> Furtwängler was a bit far-fetched.
Oh, you mean that not only did Davko not steal the cow, after all,
but he did not even eat the pareve?....
> A small comment on your remark on "the post-War denials and grumblings of
> men such as St. Wilhelm and other artists whose attempts to distance
> themselves from the regime, despite the evidence of their clearly documented
> actions".
Not to mention the perfidious malignance of the word "actions", like
conducting an orchestra during the Nazi regime and beating prisoners in a
camp would be equatable "clearly documented actions"!
> Furtwangler didn't take his distance from the nazi's only after
> but also during the war. In your original posting you were referring to an
> occasion when he conducted Beethoven's Ninth before Hitler and Goebbels. You
> probably mean the concert of April 19, 1942 when F. was forced to conduct
> the concert on occasion of Hitler's birthday. He did, but even then he
> refused to bring the official "Deutscher Gruss", i.e. the Hitler-salute.
> Whatever you may think about F.'s behaviour during the Nazi-regimne, you
> can't deny him some courage.
Indeed. I even feel less apologetic than that. Furtwangler deemed himself
an apolitical artist and he behaved as one, within the limits of what a
dictatorial regime did allow. The simple fact that, in 12 years of Nazism,
his posthumous detractors have to point out at two or three occasions when
Furtwangler could not exonerate himself from conducting in more or less
"official" occasions, speaks for itself, speaks for the scarcity of
Furtwangler's participation in such capacity. His TRULY "clearly documented
actions", besides conducting, were his saving [estimated as] 100 lives. I
wonder if the musicians who could leave Germany safely in the eleventh
hour thanks to Furtwangler's interventions did ever say: "I do not want
your help, Herr Furtwangler, I prefer to die, because your name shall be
forever tainted etc. etc."? I surely think not. So basically what do we
have? A man who did not owe his career to Hitler, but chose to continue
his professional activity, in his country, under a regime he knew -- or
hoped for it -- to be ephemeral. We have a couple of minimal compromises,
the most publicized of which (having conducted a Beethoven Ninth, on April
20th 1942, in Hitler's presence, in the middle of the war) had no external
propaganda implications whatsoever, insofar Germany was at war already and
the British or the Americans did not care who was conducting what and when
in Germany. We have NO documents on a single person (Furtwangler's
inquisitors made a lot of effort to find some) to have been directly
harmed by Furtwangler's actions. We have documents on many victims of Nazi
persecution having been directly, discreetly and selflessly helped by
Furtwangler's actions. These are the "facts". The accusation that without
Germans like Furtwangler to "confer respectability" to the Nazis, the Nazi
regime would have been affected is pure, essential, high-grade Hurwitzian
B-S, as trustworthy as the idea that, by performing music in the Soviet
Union, David Oistrakh "conferred respectability" to the Soviet regime.
Dictatorial regimes are tolerated, dealt with, even (formally)
"respected" WHEN AND BECAUSE they are strong, strong not in symphonic
orchestras or in spiritual treasures, but in military equipment and
manforce. Stalin, when deriding the Pope, did not ask: "who plays a
recital this evening in Vatican?" but did ask, rhetorically, "HOW MANY
TANKS does the Pope have?" I don't hear a lot of discussion these days
about Charles Lindberg, the famous American aviator, who, without any of
the complex political pressures the director of Berliner Philharmoniker
had to stand, talked, in U.S., in Hitler's favor, while Furtwangler was
sending letters of protest to German newspapers. AFAIK, until the WWII
started, democratic leaders discussed with, diplomatically praised,
tried to satisfy and even -- horror of horrors! -- physically shook hands
with Adolf Hitler. WHY? Because they tried to avoid war, because the
militarized Germany was becoming stronger and more threatening. Why should
Furtwangler, who was a civilian, a German, and an artist, have HAD to take
MORE courageous stances than he already had? What gives the right to every
schmuck raised in the comfort of American democracy to judge people like
Furtwangler and to give full-of-hatred sentences not only on their life
but, attemptedly, on their posterity as well? Nothing, except for
ignorance, hatred, presumptuousness and the worst imaginable kind of
arrogance.
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
> Note: when I asked other contributors to kindly not quote anymore your
> insipid reviews and create lengthy and inevitably repetitious discussions
> around them, I thought I was doing the right thing. Immediately after, you
> came *here* and started launching your usual provocations. There is
> something sick about continuously launching this kind of provocation,
> craving for attention and posing in the only enlightened,
> free-thinking martyr, being abused for "telling the facts". This is
> pathetic.
Perhaps, but it is equally pathetic to snap the bait every single time . . .
> What is really arrogant is your attitude of musical and, now, moral
> superiority in front of artists you are not worthy to open your mouth
> about.
Are such artists really on such an exalted platform? Are they superior human
beings--beyond criticism except from persons who are just as superior?
> You are simply unable to understand that artistic gift is God- (or
> Nature-)given and that your entire being, bearings and bowel-leveled
> thinking are incompatible with and inferior not only to supreme
> accomplishments of musical geniuses (THAT is a fact, as well as that your
> shallowly "factual" and "rational" musical assessments have the color and
> consistency of worthless ideatic urine), but also inferior to the simple,
> unpretentious, devotional act of a musical amateur who, in the privacy of
> his home, plays Fur Elise or Saint-Saens' Swan. It is he who "understands"
> music, when he modestly thinks he doesn't, it is you who live uselessly
> and understand absolutely nothing, when you think you understand
> everything. You can continue to molest the computer's keyboard with
> perspired fingers throwing poison to musicians you (should) have a feeling
> of inferiority in front of, you can turn your scores up and down, that
> will not give you more musical insight than what a Furtwangler had by
> simply breathing together with his musicians, before the WWII, during the
> WWII, and after the WWII.
Oh, now I get it . . .
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> You didn't get it, did you? People acclaiming Hurwitz's "grasp of the
> facts", his "moral authority", his "superior expertize", are reliable,
> free-thinking, discerning individuals. People who don't form the herd.
Moo.
Matty
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Samir wrote:
>
> > Note: when I asked other contributors to kindly not quote anymore your
> > insipid reviews and create lengthy and inevitably repetitious discussions
> > around them, I thought I was doing the right thing. Immediately after, you
> > came *here* and started launching your usual provocations. There is
> > something sick about continuously launching this kind of provocation,
> > craving for attention and posing in the only enlightened,
> > free-thinking martyr, being abused for "telling the facts". This is
> > pathetic.
>
> Perhaps, but it is equally pathetic to snap the bait every single time . . .
Equally? I don't think so. I kind of made a pact with myself not to "snap
the bait" when Hurwitz keeps going on the "hallucinating listeners" at his
website. However, I will not leave his interventions here unanswered,
even if I am aware of the percentage of sick provocation that colors them.
> > What is really arrogant is your attitude of musical and, now, moral
> > superiority in front of artists you are not worthy to open your mouth
> > about.
>
> Are such artists really on such an exalted platform? Are they superior human
> beings--beyond criticism except from persons who are just as superior?
It is interesting to notice that the logician you are does not grasp
the constitutional contradiction between:
--claiming that great artists are NOT on an exalted platform, are NOT
superior human beings, are NOT beyond criticism
and
--claiming that the same great artists should be held responsible at a
superior level in what regards the moral implications of their actions,
their simply "doing their job" having stronger implications than a baker
or a doctor doing theirs.
In other words, Furtwangler WOULD be not, by the nature of his profession
& gifts, a "moral beacon", but he SHOULD have behaved like one.
regards,
SG
Bob Harper
samir golescu wrote:
(snip)
Hurwitz: his courage was of a pretty minimal sort.
>
> Feel free to do better than to be on the "blacklist" of a Himmler. Why
> don't you go and write musical reviews in Afganistan, for instance?
I've no doubt Samir is right. Mr. Hurwitz does not seem to understand that
protesting a totalitarian regime, in time of war, no less, is rather a different
thing than, say, Leonard Bernstein protesting the Vietnam War. There's little
doubt in my mind that Furtwangler, had he refused to conduct, would simply have
disappeared into the machine. That might make him 'more courageous', but I cannot
believe that it is a result anyone here would applaud--not even David Hurwitz.
Bob Harper
Matthew Silverstein
> It is interesting to notice that the logician you are does not grasp
> the constitutional contradiction between:
>
> --claiming that great artists are NOT on an exalted platform, are NOT
> superior human beings, are NOT beyond criticism
>
> and
> --claiming that the same great artists should be held responsible at a
> superior level in what regards the moral implications of their actions,
> their simply "doing their job" having stronger implications than a baker
> or a doctor doing theirs.
Do bakers and doctors lend cultural legitimacy to a government in the same way
that prominent (indeed, world famous) artists can? If not, then the analogy is
not relevant.
Matty
Bob Lombard
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.010821...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu
...
>
> [snip]
>
> <<Ah, the 'herd mentality'. DH is showing restraint here by
> avoiding reference to 'the mindless mob'. I actually prefer
> the latter (alliterate when the opportunity presents
itself).
>
> David, herds are organized groups that must be led (mobs
> don't require it).>>
>
> You didn't get it, did you? People acclaiming Hurwitz's
"grasp of the
> facts", his "moral authority", his "superior expertize", are
reliable,
> free-thinking, discerning individuals. People who don't form
the herd.
>
> regards,
> SG
>
an inconsistency in his 'herd' appellation. I think you're the
guy who didn't get it - he seems to be labeling you an
insensate fool and a dynamic herd leader at the same time.
Perhaps his perception of you is in flux?
bl
David Hurwitz
>> > superiority in front of artists you are not worthy to open your mouth
>> > about.
>>
arrogance and foolishness in arrogating to yourself the right to determine just
(a) who these great artists are, and (b) who is and is not worthy to discuss
them? On what authority or evidence do you claim this ability? Merely on the
basis of your personal infatuation, and nothing more. It is this desperate need
to place these people on a pedestal (and by accepting them as your personal Gods
to join them there) that forms the essence of the hero-worship mentality. Of
course, you take care to ostentatiously display the same hypocritical "humility"
of the born again believer: while professing your own unworthiness before the
object of your obsession, you nevertheless claim an absolute ability to judge
all others who offer the slightest challenge to your own blind faith. As in all
such cases, such mind-numbing, fundamentalist absolutism can't help ultimately
undermining the cause you purport to uphold. Furtwangler would have avoided you
like the plague. You are nothing more than a celebrity stalker with cultural
pretentions. That's all.
Dave Hurwitz
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
Matty, since when does the legitimacy of a government depend on that
country's artists performing or not??!! Did Homer legitimate slavery, did
Vergilius legitimate Roman imperialism, was Bernstein the one who
legitimated the Vietnam war, did Palestrina legitimate the inquisition,
does Li Ming-Qiang legitimate the Chinese aggression in Taiwan etc. etc.?
I cannot believe how is that people otherwise reasonable take as granted
concepts like the "Social Involvement of the Artist" which were more
likely born with Romanticism and were "perfected" in post-WWII period?
> If not, then the analogy is not relevant.
Irrelevant is only the concept of "legitimating culturally a political
regime".
regards,
SG
samir golescu
> I don't suppose you see the arrogance and foolishness in arrogating to
> yourself the right to determine just (a) who these great artists are
I didn't establish that, poor old man. Furtwangler is an artist beyond
what you or I say. He will be so long after us.
> and (b) who is and is not worthy to discuss them? On what authority or
> evidence do you claim this ability?
You demonstrated it plentily without the contribution of my abilities.
> Furtwangler would have avoided you like the plague.
I am not sure he would have. He liked being admired.
He probably would have thought twice before having had dinner with you, so
you could have one more "loony" to gossip about.
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
> Oh, I did 'get it': I'm not *that* dense.
I know. That was rhetorical.
regards,
SG
samir golescu
Matty:
> > Do bakers and doctors lend cultural legitimacy to a government in the
> > same way that prominent (indeed, world famous) artists can?
Also: do you think that having seen and liked a Chinese movie (be it
'Farewell My Concubine' or another) subjected you to Communist Chinese
propaganda, and made you believe in the "cultural legitimacy" of the
Chinese government? Wouldn't you feel offended, had I told you that the
simple fact of your enjoying "cultural products" created in a totalitarian
country transformed you in an undiscerning victim of their propaganda?
Don't you think that adult people should be entrusted with being able to
distinguish between Beethoven and/or Furtwangler and NDSAP, and those who
choose not to do so are doing it because of their own prejudices, not
because of a "factual" fault of the artist? Also, to be consequent with
your life of thought, do you really think that the solution for
overthrowing a totalitarian regime would be for all cultural activities to
stop completely until the totalitarian government, covered with shame,
would finally advance its resignation? Do you think that, say, the Czech
nation was more upset at the Western democrats of the day having made
deals with their territory over their head, or at Furtwangler remaining
and performing in Germany? Do you think the Polish nation was more upset at
Furtwangler conducting in Germany and conferring "cultural legitimacy" to
the Nazi regime, or at the Western allies conferring DE FACTO legitimacy
first to the Nazi then to the Soviet invading and destroying their
country? Do you think that Oistrakh (and God forbid, I am not bashing the
great violinist, just pointing out a parallelism), by accepting the
Soviet Union People's Artist medals and the like, conferred cultural
legitimacy to the Soviet regime? Do you think that Richter, by performing
on occasions Stalin was present (and to Stalin's funeral, a disgusted
account of which is given in his Conversations book) conferred "cultural
legitimacy" to Soviet Union? Do you know that friends of mine who had
victims in their family made by Soviet soldiers accuse me of being a
"Rusophile" because I enthuse over Russian culture as much as I do over
German one, and because I am guilty of distinguishing between the great
Slavic cultures and the criminal regimes that destroyed, with effects to
be seen to our day and beyond, half of Europe? Do you know that before
WWII there were many Jews who were not allowed to immigrate in democratic
countries, because the "quotas" were filled, they stayed in Germany and
were eventually killed? Do you think Furtwangler would have done
a good deed by taking advantage of his celebrity status and taking even
ONE "immigration place" of an anonymous human being who would have been
consequently refused the immigration privilege and, most probably,
assassinated later (not to mention the dozens of persons who would have
had other fate, had, say, Bohm been the chief of BPO during the Nazis)? I
have many more question but the real question is: do I have to ask them?
regards,
SG
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bob Harper wrote:
[...]
> There's little doubt in my mind that Furtwangler, had he refused to
> conduct, would simply have disappeared into the machine.
[...]
These things did happen. It was a difference between 1933, when a
personality like Furtwangler could still sneak in a protesting press
article, and 1942, when the "traitors" were VERY broadly defined and
killed in no time. We know today about that young gifted pianist who only
expressed doubt that Germany should win the war -- he was denounced by a
zealous neighbor, arrested and hanged. A peak of cynicism, the family got
a bill with the costs of the execution. The desperate family had asked for
Furtwangler's intervention, he tried, but the time he could do anything had
passed, moreover, he was making himself his way to the top of Himmler's
list of highly-suspectable personalities.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
Matthew B. Tepper
> On 21 Aug 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
>
>> I don't deny him some courage. I believe he detested the regime, but
>> the fact that he was not devoid of courage does not make him a moral
>> beacon either,
>
> Who is "the" moral beacon? David Hurwitz?
Arturo Toscanini.
benjo maso
Why do you think his courage was of a pretty minimal sort? Refusing to give
the Hitler-salute in the presence of the Führer, or refusing to contribute
to a pamphlet entitled "We stand and fall with Adolf Hitler" after the
failed attempt on Hitler's life on 20 July 1944 (and he was the only one who
did) seems to me pretty courageous. People were sent to Dachau of Buchenwald
for lesser offences. Besides, dissociating himself openly from Hitler during
a concert was most likely more harmful to "the regime's pretense to cultural
legitimacy"
than not making an appearance.
Benjo Maso
benjo maso
"samir golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> schreef in bericht
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.010821...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, benjo maso wrote:
> It's extremely unlikely that the most precious intruments stolen by the
> Nazi's were distributed among the string section of the Berlin
Philharmonic.
> The Nazi's didn't steal them to improve the sound of the German
orchestras,
> but to get rich. But even if some of the spoils found their way to the
BPO,
> it's even more unlikely that the members of the orchestra - or its
> conductor - did know anything about their provenance. So you're remark on
> Furtwängler was a bit far-fetched.
Oh, you mean that not only did Davko not steal the cow, after all,
but he did not even eat the pareve?....
No, I mean he did eat a pareve (although it isn't quite sure which one), but
he probably didn't know there was milk in it ...
Benjo Maso
David Hurwitz
>Why do you think his courage was of a pretty minimal sort? Refusing to give
>the Hitler-salute in the presence of the Führer, or refusing to contribute
>to a pamphlet entitled "We stand and fall with Adolf Hitler" after the
>failed attempt on Hitler's life on 20 July 1944 (and he was the only one who
>did) seems to me pretty courageous.
To you, maybe.
People were sent to Dachau of Buchenwald
>for lesser offences. Besides, dissociating himself openly from Hitler during
>a concert was most likely more harmful to "the regime's pretense to cultural
>legitimacy"
>than not making an appearance.
>
Somehow, I doubt it. Besides, we're not talking about a single concert; that was
just an example. When Furtwangler resigned from all of his posts after the
Hindemith affair, that was making statement. After that, however, he
backpedalled and from then on it was accomodation pure and simple; grudging,
perhaps, and not without the occasional symbolic gesture of protest, and I
concede that even these took courage, but it was still accomodation. That's how
I see it, and of course others may interpret his action differently. I respect
that; there will always be thoughtful disagreement in this regard. But what I
cannot and do not respect is the contention that because he was, in the eyes of
some, a "great artist" that his actions are beyond criticism or even discussion.
Dave Hurwitz
Dave Hurwitz
Matthew Silverstein
> Matty, since when does the legitimacy of a government depend on that
> country's artists performing or not??!! Did Homer legitimate slavery, did
> Vergilius legitimate Roman imperialism, was Bernstein the one who
> legitimated the Vietnam war, did Palestrina legitimate the inquisition,
> does Li Ming-Qiang legitimate the Chinese aggression in Taiwan etc. etc.?
A couple of points, Samir. First, I never said that the legitimacy of a
government *depends* on that country's artists. I agree that this is an
outrageous suggestion. What I did say is that certain artists (especially
world-famous artists) might *contribute* to the legitimacy of a government.
This is a much less outrageous suggestion.
Second, I think that your comments on this matter are very insightful, and I
fully acknowledge just how complex and multifaceted these issues really are. I
am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch. I am
merely suggesting that he might be more blameworthy (and this is not to say
that he is very blameworthy) than the average baker or doctor that you
mentioned, given especially given visible and influential position. There are
strong arguments on both sides, and I have not made up my mind on the matter.
I think that you dismiss the charges (overstated that they are) too quickly,
and I think that others condemn him too quickly.
> Irrelevant is only the concept of "legitimating culturally a political
> regime".
Perhaps. I think more needs to be said about it in any case.
I am trying not to be antagonistic. I hope that I am succeeding.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Somehow, I doubt it. Besides, we're not talking about a single concert; that
was
> just an example. When Furtwangler resigned from all of his posts after the
> Hindemith affair, that was making statement. After that, however, he
> backpedalled and from then on it was accomodation pure and simple; grudging,
> perhaps, and not without the occasional symbolic gesture of protest, and I
> concede that even these took courage, but it was still accomodation. That's
how
> I see it, and of course others may interpret his action differently. I
respect
> that; there will always be thoughtful disagreement in this regard. But what
I
> cannot and do not respect is the contention that because he was, in the eyes
of
> some, a "great artist" that his actions are beyond criticism or even
discussion.
A very reasonable post, but have you considered the following? While Samir
clearly believes that Furtwängler was a great artist, his defense of
Furtwängler's actions revolves around his contention that Furtwängler should
not be judged differently from any baker or doctor who continued to work in
Germany during the Third Reich. Meanwhile, your criticisms of Furtwängler rely
on your claim that, because he was a "great" (or at least very well-known)
artist, he had some sort of special responsibility to act in certain virtuous
ways.
For the purposes of this discussion, it might be best to distinguish Samir's
"hero-worshipping" from his arguments on Furtwängler's behalf. He has
presented arguments--good ones, at that--and they are powerful whether or not
they are presented by someone who also happens to idolize Furtwängler. In
other words, try to keep the issues separate.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Don't you think that adult people should be entrusted with being able to
> distinguish between Beethoven and/or Furtwangler and NDSAP, and those who
> choose not to do so are doing it because of their own prejudices, not
> because of a "factual" fault of the artist?
One can hold Furtwängler responsible for some relatively small moral failings
without making grand claims like the one above. You are assuming that I hold
Furtwängler (and Furtwängler alone) responsible for various crimes. That is
not the case.
> Also, to be consequent with
> your life of thought, do you really think that the solution for
> overthrowing a totalitarian regime would be for all cultural activities to
> stop completely until the totalitarian government, covered with shame,
> would finally advance its resignation?
Of course not. But this does not imply that Furtwängler would not have done
more good than harm had he refused to conduct on Hitler's birthday. (Sorry
about the double negative. All I am saying is that perhaps Furtwängler should
have refused to conduct for the Third Reich. What his decision to conduct
something worthy of moral outrage? No. Was it perhaps the wrong thing to do?
Maybe. Should he be condemned as a tyrant? Of course not, but there are
degrees of moral culpability between demon and saint--and even between demon
and average decent person. Perhaps in his decision Furtwängler fell just short
of what an average decent person would have done. Perhaps not. Either way, the
questions you are posing are all overstated and off-topic.)
Again, I want to stress that I find this question to be incredibly thorny.
There are many different issues at stake. What frustrates me about your
responses is that you seem unable to acknowledge the possibility that
Furtwängler may have done some things that he should not have done, but that
this need not amount to any great moral crime. I am not saying that you should
agree with this position, but you should at least acknowledge that there is
room between DH's position and your own.
Matty
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Samir wrote:
>
> > Matty, since when does the legitimacy of a government depend on that
> > country's artists performing or not??!! Did Homer legitimate slavery, did
> > Vergilius legitimate Roman imperialism, was Bernstein the one who
> > legitimated the Vietnam war, did Palestrina legitimate the inquisition,
> > does Li Ming-Qiang legitimate the Chinese aggression in Taiwan etc. etc.?
>
> A couple of points, Samir. First, I never said that the legitimacy of a
> government *depends* on that country's artists. I agree that this is an
> outrageous suggestion.
I am relieved.
> What I did say is that certain artists (especially
> world-famous artists) might *contribute* to the legitimacy of a government.
> This is a much less outrageous suggestion.
Yes, but it is highly speculative, as long as it is based on that artist's
professional activity and not on activism. Had Furtwangler glorified
Hitler in long poems, had he expressed his admiration for the
"accomplishments" of Nazism to the benefit of Nazi propaganda, I wouldn't
try to "defend" him.
> Second, I think that your comments on this matter are very insightful, and I
> fully acknowledge just how complex and multifaceted these issues really are. I
> am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch. I am
> merely suggesting that he might be more blameworthy (and this is not to say
> that he is very blameworthy) than the average baker or doctor that you
> mentioned, given especially given visible and influential position.
One of my points was that, in whatever his position was different
(somewhat "socially stronger" through his fame and status), Furtwangler
demonstrably used it to do good, not evil. After all, nobody can accuse
him for being famous because being a great artist!
regards,
SG
benjo maso
> >
> >Why do you think his courage was of a pretty minimal sort? Refusing to
give
> >the Hitler-salute in the presence of the Führer, or refusing to
contribute
> >to a pamphlet entitled "We stand and fall with Adolf Hitler" after the
> >failed attempt on Hitler's life on 20 July 1944 (and he was the only one
who
> >did) seems to me pretty courageous.
>
> To you, maybe.
Not to you? You know without doubt that after the failed attempt on Hitler's
live many thousands Germans were rounded up, hanged, shot and sent to
concentration camps on the mere suspicion that they weren't too
enthousiastic about the regime. I don't think that I am the only one to
think that refusing to express one's trust in Hitler is pretty courageous.
>
> People were sent to Dachau of Buchenwald
> >for lesser offences. Besides, dissociating himself openly from Hitler
during
> >a concert was most likely more harmful to "the regime's pretense to
cultural
> >legitimacy"
> >than not making an appearance.
> >
> Somehow, I doubt it. Besides, we're not talking about a single concert;
that was
> just an example. When Furtwangler resigned from all of his posts after the
> Hindemith affair, that was making statement. After that, however, he
> backpedalled and from then on it was accomodation pure and simple;
grudging,
> perhaps, and not without the occasional symbolic gesture of protest, and I
> concede that even these took courage, but it was still accomodation.
Yes, it was accomodation, but it certainly wasn't pure and simple.
>That's how I see it, and of course others may interpret his action
differently. I respect
> that; there will always be thoughtful disagreement in this regard. But
what I
> cannot and do not respect is the contention that because he was, in the
eyes of
> some, a "great artist" that his actions are beyond criticism or even
discussion.
But isn't that setting a strawman up to shoot him down? There is no
classical musician whose actions have been so much critizised and widely and
hotly debated as Furtwangler's. I've followed a lot of them, but I can't
remember anybody claiming the contention you're referring to. On the
contrary, many believe that just because he was a famous and widely revered
artist he had more responsabilties than Germans in general.
Benjo Maso
Charles
news:9lu7c...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> Of course, you take care to ostentatiously display the same hypocritical
> "humility" of the born again believer: while professing your own unworthiness
> before the object of your obsession, you nevertheless claim an absolute
> ability to judge all others who offer the slightest challenge to your own
> blind faith.
I must say your remark in its general sense is remarkably insightful.
> As in all such cases, such mind-numbing, fundamentalist absolutism can't help
> ultimately undermining the cause you purport to uphold.
That too!
Regards
Charles
(Not taking sides, BTW)
Charles
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.010821...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
> Give me a break with this pompous propaganda. In all countries, in all
> regimes, art is made. In democracy, in dictatorship. Some artists have not
> what I deem the right perspective. So what? Van Cliburn claimed he's
> "friend of the Russians". Van Cliburn drank "Bruderschaft" with "Nikita"
> [Hrushchev] and explained American people how wonderful Russians are,
> apparently unable to distinguish at the time between the threats of
> the Soviet monster and the Russian culture. So what? Will I say a pompous
> idiotic phrase like "Van Cliburn lent his support and prestige to the
> enormously evil Soviet Union"? No I will not because I am neither
> brainwashed nor swamped in a uni-dimensional agenda that claims that the
> ONLY evil regime in which artists HAD to leave/not perform/kill themselves
> was the Nazi one. I do not need to "forgive" with superiority Van
> Cliburn's perceived political flaws.
> I think Sigurd is at times a mono-obsessional weirdo but, having a choice,
> I'd prefer his company to yours.
> Note: when I asked other contributors to kindly not quote anymore your
> insipid reviews and create lengthy and inevitably repetitious discussions
> around them, I thought I was doing the right thing. Immediately after, you
> came *here* and started launching your usual provocations. There is
> something sick about continuously launching this kind of provocation,
> craving for attention and posing in the only enlightened,
> free-thinking martyr, being abused for "telling the facts". This is
> pathetic. You should stick to writing your listener[instead of
> performance]-focused "reviews", instead of coming here and hurling insults
> at the totality/majority of rmcr members who obviously in your opinion
> have a herd mentality are inferior in every way to your unique grasp of
> "musical and moral" facts.
> What is really arrogant is your attitude of musical and, now, moral
> superiority in front of artists you are not worthy to open your mouth
> about.
> You are simply unable to understand that artistic gift is God- (or
> Nature-)given and that your entire being, bearings and bowel-leveled
> thinking are incompatible with and inferior not only to supreme
> accomplishments of musical geniuses (THAT is a fact, as well as that your
> shallowly "factual" and "rational" musical assessments have the color and
> consistency of worthless ideatic urine), but also inferior to the simple,
> unpretentious, devotional act of a musical amateur who, in the privacy of
> his home, plays Fur Elise or Saint-Saens' Swan. It is he who "understands"
> music, when he modestly thinks he doesn't, it is you who live uselessly
> and understand absolutely nothing, when you think you understand
> everything. You can continue to molest the computer's keyboard with
> perspired fingers throwing poison to musicians you (should) have a feeling
> of inferiority in front of, you can turn your scores up and down, that
> will not give you more musical insight than what a Furtwangler had by
> simply breathing together with his musicians, before the WWII, during the
> WWII, and after the WWII.
Do I detect your rhetorical use of the argumentum Ad Hominem?
Regards
Charles
benjo maso
"Matthew Silverstein" <matthew.s...@attglobal.net> schreef in bericht
news:3b82d...@news1.prserv.net...
Furtwängler had always managed to evade performing at official Nazi events,
taking care he was managed elsewhere or getting medical excuses from his
doctor. In 1942, however, Goebbels wouldn't accept any excuses and forced F.
to conduct. Of course, it wouldn't have happened if F. would have presented
objections of principle. In that case he would have been put in prison. But
now he was forced to do something because he had tried to avoid taking a
moral stance. I don;t think he fell short of what an average decent person
would have done. But if F. should have been a moral beacon, he certainly had
failed. No doubt.
Benjo Maso
Mr. T
have the balls to stand up for Jewish musicians. Schnabel says he
confronted Furtwaengler publicly about this. The situation is
complicated, of course. Schnabel left, Furtwaengler stayed. I don't
think it's right to be so hard on an elderly musician who had a lifetime
investment in his orchestra, and who, privately, did help many people.
I say let's stop the sloganeering and the sensationalism and try to
understand history, not such a simple matter after all.
Regards,
MrT
samir golescu
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Samir wrote:
>
> > Don't you think that adult people should be entrusted with being able to
> > distinguish between Beethoven and/or Furtwangler and NDSAP, and those who
> > choose not to do so are doing it because of their own prejudices, not
> > because of a "factual" fault of the artist?
>
> One can hold Furtwängler responsible for some relatively small moral failings
> without making grand claims like the one above.
That's fine. Furtwangler probably did have many small moral failings. Who
doesn't? Who ever said he was a saint, except for the straw-men
puppeteers?
> > Also, to be consequent with
> > your line of thought, do you really think that the solution for
> > overthrowing a totalitarian regime would be for all cultural activities to
> > stop completely until the totalitarian government, covered with shame,
> > would finally advance its resignation?
>
> Of course not. But this does not imply that Furtwängler would not have done
> more good than harm had he refused to conduct on Hitler's birthday.
No gesture should be judged in isolation. If you'll read Shirakawa's
and Prieberg's books, as well as other sources, you'll see on how many
occasions Furtwangler did refuse, with various benign complicities, to
involve himself in concerts that could have carried political
connotations. On that occasion he could not (see Benjo Maso's answer for
details -- no use repeating them).
> All I am saying is that perhaps Furtwängler
> should have refused to conduct for the Third Reich.
Furtwangler was a German conductor who conducted in Germany. He was BPO's
conductor since Nikisch's death, in 1922. He continued to conduct in
Germany after what I call the "inner invasion" of Germany, its being
politically conquered by the "barbarian within" (isn't it astonishing when
some of the strongest, most esteemable cultures give birth to
barbarians?....) I am still waiting for someone to define how the
conductor of the premier German orchestra could have conducted in Germania
without having conducted AT ALL for the Third Reich. Furtwangler separated
the two as much as it was humanly and realistically possible. Never were
German culture and German politics in a deeper divorce, but they still had
to occupy the same land.
> What his decision to conduct something worthy of moral outrage? No. Was
> it perhaps the wrong thing to do? Maybe.
Yes, very mabye....
> Should he be condemned as a tyrant? Of course not, but there are
> degrees of moral culpability between demon and saint--and even between demon
> and average decent person. Perhaps in his decision Furtwängler fell just
> short of what an average decent person would have done. Perhaps not.
If you think Furtwangler falls short of the "average human decency", let
me guess that there are many, very many ugly surprises waiting for you in
life, from our fellow human beings.
> Either way, the questions you are posing are all overstated and
> off-topic.)
No, they are most succinctly-stated and on-topic, mostly.
You cannot decide they are off-topic only because you find them (I hope
you do) disturbing. They are either addressing: -- the double standard used in
the judgment of Furtwangler (one standard for him, another one for
practically anybody else) -- the historically and morally inconsistent way
of particularizing Furtwangler's "actions" as blameworthy.
> Again, I want to stress that I find this question to be incredibly thorny.
> There are many different issues at stake. What frustrates me about your
> responses is that you seem unable to acknowledge the possibility that
> Furtwängler may have done some things that he should not have done, but that
> this need not amount to any great moral crime.
Matty, what is that "he should not have done"? There are things which are
obviously "not to be done": raping a woman, for instance. As long as the
matters we are talking about are far from the clarity of that type of
moral condemnation, why do you think you know what Furtwangler "should
have done"? I've never said Furtwangler did the only or the best possible
thing (which I honestly don't know which would be). I've never said people
are not entitled to have opinions on this matter. What I protested to was
only and alone the notion that Furtwangler's actions would have placed him
outside human decency, when the context he lived in is to be taken into
account. Again: why is Furtwangler asked to give account for his actions
like he would have been a superman, or a martyr compelled to die to make
a point?
I also had to protest against a vicious association of Wagner
and of Furtwangler. It is, in my moral book, a great difference between
Furtwangler, about whom the most that can be said, by way of speculation,
is that he, somehow, drown in a veil of vagueness, contributed to the
musical life of Germany in a dark moment of its history, and an
individual (be him also a musical genius as I think Wagner was) who
*chooses* to, privately and publicly, profess all sorts of ugly creeds,
to spread animosity and even hatred.
Otherwise, the idea that Furtwangler was infallible, a saint or a moral
beacon, never crossed my mind (really!). Neither do I think a great
musician should be one. I am pleased, however, to know that he was a good
man, who faced fate and history as well as he could, in a "no-win"
situation.
regards,
SG
samir golescu
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Charles wrote:
> Do I detect your rhetorical use of the argumentum Ad Hominem?
Yes, you do. The language of rudeness is the only one Mr Hurwitz has ever
listened to, in rmcr. Whenever someone addressed him nicely, made an
attempt to pacify the waters and to have a reasonable dialogue, he was the
one to recur to ad hominem. Speaking Mr Hurwitz's own language is only
a form of courtesy from my part I indulge in, in order to make sure he
gets the point.
I surely hope, as long as you declare that "you do not take sides", that
you do read his postings too and detect the use of "argumentum" Ad Hominem
in passages like:
<<What's really funny is your pathetically arrogant assumption that an
artist of Furtwangler's caliber needs someone like you come to his
defense. I can't think of any more telling evidence of the insecurity and
fundamental lack of self-esteem at the heart of your hero-worshipping
mentality.>>
<<Furtwangler would have avoided you like the plague. You are nothing more
than a celebrity stalker with cultural pretentions.>>
or, an older true gem bespeaking the stylistic heights of elegance an
American musical reviewer can accede to, when stimulated by the musical
ignorance of a rebellious herd, ungrateful in front of his offers to lead
it toward the still waters and green pastures of the Factual Truth:
<<toss in some crappy ensemble, a few brass flubs, mistuned timps and
inaudible percussion, then capture it in typical German WWII broadcast
sound and misattribute the result to Oswald Kabasta, and you'll have folks
around hear wiping the sperm off of their keyboards in a race to sing its
praises.>>
regards,
SG
Sarir Khamsi
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <9lug9...@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <9lpvu...@drn.newsguy.com> <3B80A18A...@hawaii.rr.com> <Pine.GSO.4.31.010820...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> <9lsd6...@drn.newsguy.com> <9ltro0$b4kb4$1...@ID-75468.news.dfncis.de> <9lttt...@drn.newsguy.com> <9lueeo$7tsgd$1...@ID-75468.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-621.newsdawg.com
X-Newsreader: Direct Read News v2.80
Path: news.microsoft.com!netscanc3!msrnewsc1!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!pacifier!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
Xref: news rec.music.classical.recordings:141125
> Somehow, I doubt it. Besides, we're not talking about a single concert; that was
> just an example. When Furtwangler resigned from all of his posts after the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please list other examples that you know. This type of unsubstantial
misleading statement bothers me a lot.
Hat NYC 62
Arturo Toscanini. >>
Hear, Hear.
Lenya Ryzhik
Would the esteemed gentlemen kindly comment on the following September
releass from MDT:
BEETHOVEN Violin Concerto in D major MOZART Violin
Concerto No.4 in D, K.218 Joseph Szigeti, British SO/ Bruno
Walter, LPO/ Beecham (Rec. 1932-1934) Naxos Historical £4.26
MOZART Piano Concerto No.20 BEETHOVEN Piano Concerto
No.3, Rondo Sviatoslav Richter, Vienna SO/ Sanderling, £7.23
Warsaw PO/ Wislocki DG Originals
Who did the transfer for these two?
PROKOFIEV Piano Concerto No.3, Suggestion Diabolique,
Visions Fugitive, Gavotte Sergei Prokofiev, LSO, Pireo
Coppola. (Rec. February-March 1935) Naxos Historical £4.26
SCHUMANN Papillons Op.2 BEETHOVEN Sonata No.23
(Appassionata), Piano Concerto No.5 (Emperor) Cor de
Groot, Concertgebouw Orchestra/ Willem Mengelberg APR £7.23
Are the solo pieces by de Groot worth it?
ESPANA ANTIGUA Hesperion XX/ Jordi Savall Virgin 8cds £15.32
What could be inside?
BACH Bach's Testament Le Concert des Nations, Hesperion XX,
Jordi Savall Alia Vox 3cds UKP £19.57
What's this?
Thanks,
Lenya
ches...@mindspring.com
Hat NYC 62 wrote in message <20010821190613...@mb-dd.aol.com>...
><< > Who is "the" moral beacon? David Hurwitz?
>Arturo Toscanini. >>
>
Hat NYC 62 wrote:
>Hear, Hear.
I wholeheartedly agree. This does not take anything away from Furtwangler,
who was not in a position to be a beacon.
Neil Brennen
Correspondence Chess News
http://ccn.correspondencechess.com
samir golescu
Nice attempt to remind us what this ng is for.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lenya Ryzhik wrote:
> Would the esteemed gentlemen kindly comment on the following September
> releass from MDT:
>
> BEETHOVEN Violin Concerto in D major MOZART Violin
> Concerto No.4 in D, K.218 Joseph Szigeti, British SO/ Bruno
> Walter, LPO/ Beecham (Rec. 1932-1934) Naxos Historical £4.26
At
I can see that Mark Obert-Thorn is doing the transfers for this. The
performances are, IMO, among the best ever received by this pieces, with
an ever-so-slightly sloppy orchestral playing (probably they did not get
a lot of rehearsal time...) but the violin playing is out of this world --
Szigeti at his best, in excellent technique and with his way of being an
"intellectual musician" not at all detrimental to musical values. His
Beethoven Cto is amazingly coherent. It is traditional ("beautifully
sung") and modernly challenging (the way Szigeti subtly "fragments" the
lines to bring out a modulation or a motivic filiation) in the same time.
> MOZART Piano Concerto No.20 BEETHOVEN Piano Concerto
> No.3, Rondo Sviatoslav Richter, Vienna SO/ Sanderling, £7.23
> Warsaw PO/ Wislocki DG Originals
>
> Who did the transfer for these two?
M O-T for the former CD, as said, I guess it doesn't matter that much
about the latter, as long as they are tape-based recordings. I never heard
that Beethoven, and I am not a big fun of this Mozart recording, but of
course Richter's standards are very high even when one doesn't like it.
> PROKOFIEV Piano Concerto No.3, Suggestion Diabolique,
> Visions Fugitive, Gavotte Sergei Prokofiev, LSO, Pireo
> Coppola. (Rec. February-March 1935) Naxos Historical £4.26
Also M O-T transfers. I rather like "Prokofiev's Prokofiev" -- I find it
subtler and more musical (unexpectedly lyrical in places) than some
"hammered" modern recordings, but I know pianophiles who don't care that
much for it.
> SCHUMANN Papillons Op.2 BEETHOVEN Sonata No.23
> (Appassionata), Piano Concerto No.5 (Emperor) Cor de
> Groot, Concertgebouw Orchestra/ Willem Mengelberg APR £7.23
> Are the solo pieces by de Groot worth it?
This is new for me and, I dare guess, for anybody else (excet perhaps for
Michael Glover or Farhan Malik.... (-:). Judging by the Emperor, I will
get the CD and report back.
> ESPANA ANTIGUA Hesperion XX/ Jordi Savall Virgin 8cds £15.32
>
> What could be inside?
>
> BACH Bach's Testament Le Concert des Nations, Hesperion XX,
> Jordi Savall Alia Vox 3cds UKP £19.57
>
> What's this?
I have a feeling that I should better defer the answer to this to other
contributors..... (-:
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
I agree with this completely, but understanding of history will never come if
all of the facts are viewed through the rose-colored spectacles of personal
adulation for the artist in question. The fact that Furtwangler's personal
choices and actions may in some respects have been suspect does not diminish my
respect for his musical achievements at all. As I've said about a million times,
music is not a zero sum game, and the greatness of his achievement as a musician
will endure whether or not he was a saint or a scoundrel. But the fact that he
may have been a great musician does not MAKE him a saint, nor does it place his
actions (or those of any similar public figure) beyond the pale of discussion,
criticism, investigation, or debate.
Some here would contend otherwise, on the grounds that none of us are "worthy"
to discuss these issues given Furtwangler's superiority to mere mortals--simply
because of the way he got up and waved his hands around in front of an
orchestra. I hope that the merits of that contention speak for themselves. I
find it laughable. Furtwangler was also, I note, not the principal subject of
this thread, which was the Nazi program to collect musical instruments, and
whether or not prominent artists active in Germany at the time could have
benefitted from it or might have known about it. There was then, and is now, no
lack of opportunism in the arts, and given this fact, the question seems to me
an interesting one.
Dave Hurwitz
samir golescu
On 21 Aug 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> . . . but understanding of history will never come if
> all of the facts are viewed through the rose-colored spectacles of personal
> adulation for the artist in question.
It's kind of funny when you're talking about spectacles. Every word
written by you about Furtwangler in this thread has been based on hearsay,
half-truths, lack of documentation, and personal prejudice, both against
Furtwangler and against those who admire the artist (your attempts to
dismiss them all as "undiscerning adulators" having been a constant
outstanding failure).
> As I've said about a million times,
> music is not a zero sum game, and the greatness of his achievement as a
> musician will endure whether or not he was a saint or a scoundrel. But
> the fact that he may have been a great musician does not MAKE him a
> saint,
Million times, yes: who said he was a saint, an infallible human?
> nor does it place his
> actions (or those of any similar public figure) beyond the pale of
> discussion, criticism, investigation, or debate.
Your idea of "discussion, criticism, investigation, or debate" was
expressed a long time ago: "Furtwangler got exactly what he deserved".
This is the most you could produce on the subject.
> Some here would contend otherwise, on the grounds that none of us are "worthy"
> to discuss these issues given Furtwangler's superiority to mere mortals--simply
> because of the way he got up and waved his hands around in front of an
> orchestra.
Very professional way of desacribing the merits of a conductor.
> Furtwangler was also, I note, not the principal subject of
> this thread, which was the Nazi program to collect musical instruments
Yes, indeed, and you could have refrained yourself from one of your usual
ordinary provocations.
REG
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9lu7c...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> > What is really arrogant is your attitude of musical and, now, moral
> >> > superiority in front of artists you are not worthy to open your mouth
> >> > about.
> >>
> Ah, but now we come to the crux of the matter. I don't suppose you see the
> arrogance and foolishness in arrogating to yourself the right to determine
just
> (a) who these great artists are, and (b) who is and is not worthy to
discuss
> them? On what authority or evidence do you claim this ability? Merely on
the
> basis of your personal infatuation, and nothing more. It is this desperate
need
> to place these people on a pedestal (and by accepting them as your
personal Gods
> to join them there) that forms the essence of the hero-worship mentality.
Of
> course, you take care to ostentatiously display the same hypocritical
"humility"
> of the born again believer: while professing your own unworthiness before
the
> object of your obsession, you nevertheless claim an absolute ability to
judge
> all others who offer the slightest challenge to your own blind faith. As
in all
> such cases, such mind-numbing, fundamentalist absolutism can't help
ultimately
> undermining the cause you purport to uphold. Furtwangler would have
avoided you
> like the plague. You are nothing more than a celebrity stalker with
cultural
> pretentions. That's all.
>
> Dave Hurwitz
>
Bob Lombard
wrote in message news:3b82d...@news1.prserv.net...
>
> Again, I want to stress that I find this question to be
incredibly thorny.
> There are many different issues at stake. What frustrates me
about your
> responses is that you seem unable to acknowledge the
possibility that
> Furtwängler may have done some things that he should not
have done, but that
> this need not amount to any great moral crime. I am not
saying that you should
> agree with this position, but you should at least
acknowledge that there is
> room between DH's position and your own.
>
> Matty
>
easy for DH to express disdain for Furtwängler's actions from
beyond Hitler's reach. I consider DH to be a moralist when his
morality is not balanced against his life. It is one thing to
state what Furtwängler did or didn't do; it's another thing to
state what he *should* have done, without also stating what
you would have done (you think) in those circumstances. If you
don't put yourself on the line, you're just another barking
dog.
bl
Max Schmeder
>
> > Matty, since when does the legitimacy of a government depend on that
> > country's artists performing or not??!! Did Homer legitimate slavery, did
> > Vergilius legitimate Roman imperialism, was Bernstein the one who
> > legitimated the Vietnam war, did Palestrina legitimate the inquisition,
> > does Li Ming-Qiang legitimate the Chinese aggression in Taiwan etc. etc.?
>
> A couple of points, Samir. First, I never said that the legitimacy of a
> government *depends* on that country's artists. I agree that this is an
> outrageous suggestion. What I did say is that certain artists (especially
> world-famous artists) might *contribute* to the legitimacy of a government.
> This is a much less outrageous suggestion.
>
> Second, I think that your comments on this matter are very insightful, and I
> fully acknowledge just how complex and multifaceted these issues really are.
> I
> am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch.
From your phrasing, it sounds like you are in the process of getting
ready.
Really, to hold it against Furtwangler for not martyring himself in
front of Hitler is just hideous.
Max
David Hurwitz
It is one thing to
>state what Furtwängler did or didn't do; it's another thing to
>state what he *should* have done, without also stating what
>you would have done (you think) in those circumstances. If you
>don't put yourself on the line, you're just another barking
>dog.
>
>bl
>
surprisingly, in your eagerness to make your point you haven't been paying very
close attention. For the record, here it is:
Furtwangler was not a Nazi.
Furtwangler despised the regime and to a limited extent opposed its worst
excesses as they impinged on his musical life.
Furtwangler nevertheless came to an accomodation with the regime in order to
continue working and because he convinced himself that he was fulfilling a
"higher" purpose in remaining in Germany, knowing full well that his prestige
and reputation would be used as a propaganda tool.
Furtwangler subsequently endured some embarrassing and (in his mind at least)
offensive and harrassing inquiries into his behavior resulting from his
professional activities during the Third Reich.
Furtwangler was then restored to all of his former positions, enjoyed recording
contracts with both EMI and DG, and died precipitously.
Furtwangler got what he deserved; praise and honors for his musical
accomplishments, and a mixed report card on his activities as a musical
figureheard of the Nazi regime.
Furtwangler was, nevertheless, a great conductor.
That's it, Bob. I have no strong opinion at all about what he "should" have
done, other than my reply to one question about what would have, in my opinion,
constituted "courage" in one situation. I never said that he ought to have done
what I suggested; I only offered an example of what I believe would have been an
unambiguously courageous gesture (and to the extent it could have led to an
equally unambiguous martyrdom--something asserted but hardly likely in my
opinion--I hardly condemn him for not making it!).
It's also very simplistic of you to assume that my critique of Furtwangler is
based on what you obviously take to be my claim that he "should" have been able
to get out of conducting Hitler's birthday concert. That's not what I wrote, and
how you got to that point beats me. On the contrary, what I take issue with is
the entire decision-making process that put him on that podium in the first
place, a series of actions and decision which began years before.
In short, my entire position on this matter stems precisely from simple
observation of what he did or did not do. Nothing more. Notwithstanding which, I
reject completely your "If you weren't there you can't judge" vision of
morality. Of course, Bob, particular circumstances matter in cases where there
is a substantial degree of ambiguity. But for you to demand a personal statement
of moral principles prior to making any critcism is as ingenuous as it is
unnecessary.
I could very easily claim that my own actions in similar circumstances would be
morally irreproachable, but that's meaningless because no one can say with
absolute certainty what they would do until they find themselves in that
situation. Now THAT's arrogance. This does NOT mean however that those who did
find themselves in that situation and acted in certain ways are beyond the pale
of criticism simply because we weren't there. If that were true, any crime at
all would be excusable simply on the basis of a claim that "those who weren't
there couldn't possibly understand."
I also disagree with your apologia on behalf of the citizens of totalitarian
regimes. It is true that in some cases, a tiny minority controls the vast
majority. But it is also equally true that no government exists for long without
the consent, whether implicit or explicit, of the governed. Never forget that
while the Nazi regime became a totalitarian one, it came to power in legally
contested elections with the support of approximately 33% of the German
electorate, and with its party platform in full view.
In fact, one of the most important lessons that the experience of the Third
Reich teaches us is precisely that "You weren't there and therefore you can't
judge" is no excuse. It's right up there with "I was just following orders" and
"I didn't know what was happening." The issue, Bob, is not that we are incapable
or otherwise ill-equipped to pass judgment on the deeds of others committed in
circumstances we cannot readily imagine. I believe we can do it, do in fact do
it, and that quite often we must. If you've ever sat on a jury in criminal
trial, this is precisely what you are called upon to do as often as not. What
really matters is that the standards chosen be consistent and fairly applied. As
I said, I believe that Furtwangler got what he deserved; he was treated fairly,
and I believe strongly in the judgment of history in this respect, which from my
perspective seems to have made of him (non-musically at least) a controversial
and morally ambiguous character as a result of his actions during the War.
But understand one thing: whatever I think about Furtwangler's behavior
personally, this has nothing to do with my estimation of him musically. I
support playing Wagner in Israel, as you may have seen on another thread, for
example, and I ultimately believe, as I have said time and time again (and
several times in this thread), that greatness in music endures, irrespective of
the character of the composer/performer because in the final analysis they are
just people too, like all of us, with normal human failings and weaknesses. No
better, no worse. And it's up to every audience to decide for itself, from time
to time, just how much crap it's willing to put up with from its musical heroes
for the sake of hearing great music.
Dave Hurwitz
Matthew Silverstein
> Furtwangler was a German conductor who conducted in Germany. He was BPO's
> conductor since Nikisch's death, in 1922. He continued to conduct in
> Germany after what I call the "inner invasion" of Germany, its being
> politically conquered by the "barbarian within" (isn't it astonishing when
> some of the strongest, most esteemable cultures give birth to
> barbarians?....) I am still waiting for someone to define how the
> conductor of the premier German orchestra could have conducted in Germania
> without having conducted AT ALL for the Third Reich.
Perhaps refusing to conduct at Hitler's birthday bash would have been a start.
Again, I stress the "perhaps." My mind is not at all made up on this matter
(and probably never will be). I just think that Furtwängler's appearance is
something that calls for explanation and justification. You and others have
already provided a good deal of both in this thread. I may not be *entirely*
persuaded, but I certainly acknowledge the force of your arguments.
Of course, if we decide that Furtwängler was no more culpable than any other
citizen continuing to work in Germany, we raise the old and difficult question
of just how responsible the German (and Austrian) people are for the crimes of
their government. This is, I think, an even thornier issue, and I don't
pretent to have any answers . . .
Matty
David Hurwitz
<I am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch.
Neither am I. I never have. The problem, Matty, is that any criticism at all,
however minor or tossed off 'in passing' immediately becomes a war between two
extremes because of Samir's position at one fanatical end of the spectrum. My
view on Furtwangler is very close to yours. I don't believe that in observing
what I take to be a condradiction between what he said (that he hated the Nazis)
and what he did (reached a sort of working accomodation with them and allowed
himself to be used by them for propoganda purposes), he is thereby rendered a
moral leper. All I have ever maintained is that there are issues here, and I
make no disguise of the fact that I find the compromises he made morally
questionable. But as I've said elsewhere, I also think that he got what he
deserved as a result of the choices he made.
The problem, really, is that this always becomes a situation in which, because
Samir enjoys his position at one extreme, ANYONE with an alternate view or
difference of opinion immediately gets perceived as being at the opposite
extreme. This isn't true. The opposite extreme would be that Furtwangler was an
amoral opportunist who, if he didn't support the regime openly, at least gave
his tacit approval of its cultural policies by remaining in Germany and lending
the regime his prestige. I don't maintain for one minute that this was ever the
case. I believe I mentioned once that I wrote a Master's thesis on Der Fall
Hindemith (the famous "Hindemith Case,") and I got both from eyewitness
testimony and documentary evidence a very good sense of what Furtwangler's
position was with respect to the regime. He was certainly no Nazi. I just think
that, in the final analysis, he made a very bad choice in staying in Germany and
allowing himself to be used accordingly. That does not make me
"anti-Furtwangler," either personally or musically.
I do wish that everyone would stop assuming that this is the case, just because
Samir starts his usual wacko groupie ranting, with all that garbage about
"worthiness" to even mention the great man's name, etc, etc, ad nauseum, every
time anyone suggests that Furtwangler's character might not have been as white
as driven snow.
Dave Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
>A very reasonable post, but have you considered the following? While Samir
>clearly believes that Furtwängler was a great artist, his defense of
>Furtwängler's actions revolves around his contention that Furtwängler should
>not be judged differently from any baker or doctor who continued to work in
>Germany during the Third Reich. Meanwhile, your criticisms of Furtwängler rely
>on your claim that, because he was a "great" (or at least very well-known)
>artist, he had some sort of special responsibility to act in certain virtuous
>ways.
No, this isn't exactly true. I don't believe he had any special responsibity at
all as a result of being famous. I believe he should be judged exactly as he in
fact was: as an extremely high level employee of the Nazi regime whose career
and stature made him one who dealt with the highest echelons of the government
directly. The difference between Furtwangler and a doctor or baker is that
nothing that they do in the normal course of their lives attacts any special
notice or attention, they are not answerable directly to the regime in the
pursuit of their daily trade, and they do not have the option of packing up and
moving secure in the knowledge that they will be able to find work and retain
their careers and standard of living in a foreign land. The issue, Matty, is not
fame, per se, or the obligations this may or may not impose on one's conduct,
but rather the options he had and the decisions he made with respect to his
direct involvement with the regime. In this respect, don't see that he was
judged any differently from anyone else, given his position. The argument that
he should be treated "just like any other guy" runs oddly counter to Samir's
contention that he was of such greatness as to make all of us unworthy to utter
his name with anything other than a blessing on our lips.
>
>For the purposes of this discussion, it might be best to distinguish Samir's
>"hero-worshipping" from his arguments on Furtwängler's behalf. He has
>presented arguments--good ones, at that--and they are powerful whether or not
>they are presented by someone who also happens to idolize Furtwängler. In
>other words, try to keep the issues separate.
>
>Matty
>
I agree, we should keep them separate, except that I am not the one who is
mixing the two. Without the hero-worship component, I don't think Samir would
have taken exception to anything I said at the beginning of this thread. No one
else did, after all. They addressed the substance of the article I posted.
Dave
ulvi
> I suspect I lot of people would have said the same thing to Kreisler
>
> "ulvi" <ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
>
> > I heard a story that when Einstein once played his violin for Kreisler,
> > Kreisler told him to stick to physics.
> >
> > Anybody know if there is any truth to this, or is it one of those
> > physics jokes?
I don't quite know what you mean: are you saying Kreisler was a
lousy violinist, or are you saying a lot of people would have told
him to stick to violin (as opposed to physics etc)?
At any rate, I never came across a direct or indirect review of Einstein's
musical (violin or not) abilities, positive or negative, and have always been
curious about that.
--
Ulvi
ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov
ulvi
> I am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch.
Did Furtwangler have any realistic option of immigrating to the United States
during the war, like many other European conductors did?
--
Ulvi
ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov
REG
lack of a certain facility...I know nothing about Einstein's violin playing,
but there is a famous story about someone visiting him in Princeton after
the war, and Einstein asking "Would you like to see my violin?" The guest,
honored, said he would...and then waited for half an hour while Einstein
went to find the violin....a worm-eaten, insignificant instrument........but
probably worth quite a bit at auction now as a curio.
"ulvi" <ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:3B833B6C...@jpl.nasa.gov...
Hat NYC 62
amoral opportunist who, if he didn't support the regime openly, at least gave
his tacit approval of its cultural policies by remaining in Germany and lending
the regime his prestige. I don't maintain for one minute that this was ever the
case >>
This sounds closer to Bohm, Karajan or Knappertsbusch to me.
vaneyes
>
>
>> I am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch.
>
>Did Furtwangler have any realistic option of immigrating to the United States
>during the war, like many other European conductors did?
Yes he did, according to Peter Gutmann's Furtwangler notes viewed at...
http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html
Worthwhile reading, apart from some pro-Furt/anti-HvK slant that from
time-to-time gets in the way. Re HvK, Gutmann should consider updating some of
his claims, perhaps with the help of Paul Moor's thorough research and writings
on the subject.
Regards
Bob Lombard
> >>
It seems silly to quote your post all over again, so I will
excerpt from it where I can. I know you dislike that approach,
but...
> >
There. A clear summation of your stance.
>
> That's it, Bob. I have no strong opinion at all about what
he "should" have
> done, other than my reply to one question about what would
have, in my opinion,
> constituted "courage" in one situation. I never said that he
ought to have done
> what I suggested; I only offered an example of what I
believe would have been an
> unambiguously courageous gesture (and to the extent it could
have led to an
> equally unambiguous martyrdom--something asserted but hardly
likely in my
> opinion--I hardly condemn him for not making it!).
I can't excerpt from that paragraph without leaving it intact
for reference.
[...] "I only offered an example of what I believe would have
been an unambiguously courageous gesture" does not gibe with
your doubt that "it would have led to an equally unambiguous
martyrdom". You are saying that the "gesture" would result in
Hitler not inviting him for cocktails?
[...] Notwithstanding which, I
> reject completely your "If you weren't there you can't
judge" vision of
> morality. Of course, Bob, particular circumstances matter in
cases where there
> is a substantial degree of ambiguity. But for you to demand
a personal statement
> of moral principles prior to making any critcism is as
ingenuous as it is
> unnecessary.
You have managed to skew and misquote my statements there, to
make it easier for you to dispose of them. Standard 'formal
debate' methods, I guess. Of course you can 'judge', if that
means you can contrast the man's actions to those *your* moral
integrity would require of you in those circumstances. What
other basis for your moral judgement are you using? In simple
fact, you make "a personal statement of moral principles" each
time you criticisize another person's morality.
> I could very easily claim that my own actions in similar
circumstances would be
> morally irreproachable, but that's meaningless because no
one can say with
> absolute certainty what they would do until they find
themselves in that
> situation. Now THAT's arrogance. This does NOT mean however
that those who did
> find themselves in that situation and acted in certain ways
are beyond the pale
> of criticism simply because we weren't there. If that were
true, any crime at
> all would be excusable simply on the basis of a claim that
"those who weren't
> there couldn't possibly understand."
Another paragraph I can't excerpt from. The whole paragraph is
self-contradictory and logically absurd, so much so that no
comment should be necessary.
>
[...] The issue, Bob, is not that we are incapable
> or otherwise ill-equipped to pass judgment on the deeds of
others committed in
> circumstances we cannot readily imagine. I believe we can do
it, do in fact do
> it, and that quite often we must. If you've ever sat on a
jury in criminal
> trial, this is precisely what you are called upon to do as
often as not.
I have sat on a jury in a criminal trial. What you describe is
*not* what a jury is "called upon to do". You didn't listen to
the judges instructions?
In general, Dave, you have done here what I posted in the hope
that you would. You have stated - in one missive - your
position re Furtwängler, both moral and musical. Probably
because you weren't responding to Samir, your invective was
minimal.
It is highly unnecessary that I agree with your conclusions. I
am glad that you took the time to express them again.
Thanks
bl
Edward A. Cowan
Not a bad analogy. We all know about Karajan, alas! (Joining the Nazi
party *twice*!) I'm not sure about Karl Böhm, but he does seem to have
harbored pro-Nazi sentiments but did not really suffer because of those
sentiments. Kna was always an individual and was frequently in trouble
with the Nazi authorities because of his caustic witticisms about them.
All three were great conductors -- not that I necessarily like the
musical results of *all* their recorded efforts! FWIW, I did hear both
Böhm and Karajan conduct at the Met. Despite the fame of HvK, I recall
that it was Böhm who received more rapturous ovations from the Met
audiences.
--
E.A.C.
samir golescu
On 21 Aug 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> No, this isn't exactly true. I don't believe he had any special
> responsibity at all as a result of being famous. I believe he should be
> judged exactly as he in fact was: as an extremely high level employee of
> the Nazi regime
You are again full of it. "Employee of the Nazi regime"? Starting with
what level was anybody employee of the Nazi regime, as opposed to the
German state? Was Golovanov, as director of Bolshoi, "employee of the
Soviet regime", or a musician working in his native country?
> The difference between Furtwangler and a doctor or baker is that
> nothing that they do in the normal course of their lives attacts any special
> notice or attention,
So there we go.... guilty because art implies "show" and because an artist
is famous.
> they are not answerable directly to the regime in the
> pursuit of their daily trade,
BS. A doctor is himself part of a health system, led eventually at some
"superior echelon".
> and they do not have the option of packing up and
> moving secure in the knowledge that they will be able to find work and retain
> their careers and standard of living in a foreign land.
BS. Many doctors, many of them Jewish, did immigrate and found work.
> The issue, Matty, is not
> fame, per se, or the obligations this may or may not impose on one's conduct,
> but rather the options he had
....and among which you know which would have beemn the best
> and the decisions he made with respect to his
> direct involvement with the regime.
This is all abstract, vague, witchhunty and mccarthish, like everything
else ever repproached to Furtwangler's "politics".
> In this respect, don't see that he was judged any differently from
> anyone else, given his position.
Why should a man who did not harm anyone BE judged at all, by you, who
pollute the Earth's atmosphere night and day?
> The argument that
> he should be treated "just like any other guy" runs oddly counter to Samir's
> contention that he was of such greatness as to make all of us unworthy to utter
> his name with anything other than a blessing on our lips.
As your contention that he was just a "mere entertainer" runs oddly
counter to your contention that "his position" should make him the subject
of a "special judgment".
David Hurwitz
>
>[...] "I only offered an example of what I believe would have
>been an unambiguously courageous gesture" does not gibe with
>your doubt that "it would have led to an equally unambiguous
>martyrdom". You are saying that the "gesture" would result in
>Hitler not inviting him for cocktails?
I'm have no idea what you mean by "does not jibe." I offer the example, and I
don't believe that had he acted accordingly he would have been killed--that was
an assertion made by someone else. That's all. But if he felt he was running
that risk, then I understand him not making the gesture. As I said, this was
only a single example of a specific incident, whereas I note you omit the major
point, which is that my criticism of him does NOT stem from this single
incident, but from the entire pattern of his behavior and decisions of which
this was a small part.
>
>
>[...] Notwithstanding which, I
>> reject completely your "If you weren't there you can't
>judge" vision of
>> morality. Of course, Bob, particular circumstances matter in
>cases where there
>> is a substantial degree of ambiguity. But for you to demand
>a personal statement
>> of moral principles prior to making any critcism is as
>ingenuous as it is
>> unnecessary.
>
>You have managed to skew and misquote my statements there, to
>make it easier for you to dispose of them. Standard 'formal
>debate' methods,
You should know. You use them with equal enthusiasm.
>Of course you can 'judge', if that
>means you can contrast the man's actions to those *your* moral
>integrity would require of you in those circumstances. What
>other basis for your moral judgement are you using? In simple
>fact, you make "a personal statement of moral principles" each
>time you criticisize another person's morality.
Very well then. If that's the case, you have no basis to take me to task for NOT
making a "personal statement of moral principals" previously, because if they
are inherent in my criticism of Furtwangler then you know what they are. And I
agree with you on this point. To say to somebody "I think you are wrong"
(morally) always implies that your accept as your moral standard the opposite of
that which you claim is 'wrong.' I do not, incidentally, believe that
Furtwangler was immoral; rather that he made a series of poor decision which he
could have certainly avoided making, and these resulted in his reputation being
forever tarnished. It's a very sad story, but he is nonetheless responsible for
the consequences of the decisions he made.
>
>> I could very easily claim that my own actions in similar
>circumstances would be
>> morally irreproachable, but that's meaningless because no
>one can say with
>> absolute certainty what they would do until they find
>themselves in that
>> situation. Now THAT's arrogance. This does NOT mean however
>that those who did
>> find themselves in that situation and acted in certain ways
>are beyond the pale
>> of criticism simply because we weren't there. If that were
>true, any crime at
>> all would be excusable simply on the basis of a claim that
>"those who weren't
>> there couldn't possibly understand."
>
>Another paragraph I can't excerpt from. The whole paragraph is
>self-contradictory and logically absurd, so much so that no
>comment should be necessary.
>>
Seems pretty clear to me. Actually, it's your own position which is
self-contradictory, as witnessed by your own statement above.
>
>[...] The issue, Bob, is not that we are incapable
>> or otherwise ill-equipped to pass judgment on the deeds of
>others committed in
>> circumstances we cannot readily imagine. I believe we can do
>it, do in fact do
>> it, and that quite often we must. If you've ever sat on a
>jury in criminal
>> trial, this is precisely what you are called upon to do as
>often as not.
>
>I have sat on a jury in a criminal trial. What you describe is
>*not* what a jury is "called upon to do". You didn't listen to
>the judges instructions?
Hmmmm. A jury is asked to rule solely on the evidence, Bob, and on which side
has met its burden of proof, not on empathy or their ability to imagine what the
circumstances surrounding the crime must have been, or mitigating factors
because they personally were not present and therefore are not empowered to
render judgment. I have never heard a judge give instructions differently (and
coming from a family of lawyers, I've sat through plenty of trials in my day).
That was my point. What's yours?
>
>In general, Dave, you have done here what I posted in the hope
>that you would. You have stated - in one missive - your
>position re Furtwängler, both moral and musical. Probably
>because you weren't responding to Samir, your invective was
>minimal.
My invective was non-existent, Bob. It doesn't even rise to the level of yours
in calling one of my points "self-contradictory and logically absurd." I'll keep
the above statement in mind next time you get on your own high horse and start
calling others pompous and arrogant.
>
>It is highly unnecessary that I agree with your conclusions. I
>am glad that you took the time to express them again.
>
>Thanks
>
Your welcome.
Dave
samir golescu
On 21 Aug 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> <I am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch.
>
> Neither am I. I never have. The problem, Matty, is that any criticism at all,
> however minor or tossed off 'in passing' immediately becomes a war between
> two extremes because of Samir's position at one fanatical end of the
> spectrum.
Oh, I am the "fanatical" and you are the "moderate" one. Please give me a
break with this continuous BS. There is nothing fanatical in claiming, as
I do, that the entire process of Furtwangler instrumented by Hirschmann,
Hurwitz, and their ilk, is based on deeply flawed premises and on the
arrogance of their considering they know "how Furtwangler should have
acted", "what was the right thing to do", even that "because Furtwangler
would have been received in another country, he *should* have left his".
> The problem, really, is that this always becomes a situation in which, because
> Samir enjoys his position at one extreme, ANYONE with an alternate view or
> difference of opinion immediately gets perceived as being at the opposite
> extreme.
People with your "difference of opinion" (who, BTW, do NOT represent the
"judgment of History", as you claim, there is no ONE "History" out there
to impart singular judgments) ) haunted Furtwangler's last years of life
and there were many who opined these professional "FALSE Nazi-hunters" (no
connection whatsoever with the early activities of Wiesenthal and others),
making a profession out of cajoling their own self-righteous mediocrity
with imparting sentences on people like Furtwangler, the only guilt of
which was that they were famous and they were there at the wrong moment,
so these mccarthist beasts like yourself hurried Furtwangler's death.
> I just think that, in the final analysis, he made a very bad choice in
> staying in Germany and allowing himself to be used accordingly.
Really? Who should have left Germany then? All "decent" Germans? Only
Furtwangler? All musicians? All artists? Where would have they gone? Who
would have received them? What would have they done? Was Furtwangler
especially compelled to do the "good" choice of leaving Germany only
because he would have found work?
> . . .every time anyone suggests that Furtwangler's character might not
> have been as white as driven snow.
Based on the evidence of your writing here, I can guess you are a much
more evil, contrived, egocentric, flawed person than Furtwangler ever was
(except for his capacity to attract women like butterfiles on the lamp --
I seriously doubt you would have 1/10000 of that kind of sex-appeal). So
what? Should we arrange a little trial for you? No. Why not? Not
because you are not important and famous, but because your personal
flaws shouldn't interest us. Nobody ever (except for yourself) said
Furtwangler was a saint and you make again a fool of yourself by declaring
otherwise.
Norman M. Schwartz
"samir golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.01082...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
> Why should a man who did not harm anyone BE judged at all, by you,
who
> pollute the Earth's atmosphere night and day?
Is it known if HvK, B, F. or K. contributed germplasm to Lebensborn?
samir golescu
Mr Lombard,
Your later dialogue partner, Mr Hurwitz, wrote:
<<I have no strong opinion at all about what he "should" have done>>
but, oops, just two postings later, he also wrote:
<<I just think that. . . he made a very bad choice in staying in Germany>>
That much about consistency within ten minutes -- the consistency he asks
from Furtwangler in a lifetime.
Again to you:
<<.... other than my reply to one question about what would have, in my
opinion, constituted "courage" in one situation. I never said that he
ought to have done what I suggested; >>
after he wrote, two postings earlier:
<< [Furtwangler] not taking into consideration the perception of what, to
cite your example, conducting the Berlin Philharmonic in Beethoven's Ninth
in honor of Hitler's birthday said to the world at large about the
regime's pretense to cultural legitimacy. >>
a claim the stupidity of which I've already demonstrated
To you again:
<< I only offered an example of what I believe would have been an
unambiguously courageous gesture >>
.... of course obscuring the much-cited instances Furtwangler risked
himself in "unambiguously courageous gestures"....
<<. . . (and to the extent it could have led to an
equally unambiguous martyrdom--something asserted but hardly likely in my
opinion >>
. . . this after historic arguments have been brought in favor of such a
gesture, as late as 1942, HAVING been dangerous enough as to periclitate
one's life.... to which I could add Friedelinde Wagner's (an
anti-Nazi Wagner family member) testimony to Furtwangler having been
earlier threatened with being sent to a camp by Hitler, with Furtwangler
retaliating "I'd have good company there".
<<. . .--I hardly condemn him for not making it!).>>
How generous. Why should you be in the position to "condemn" him in the
first place?
Again Hurwitz to you:
> On the contrary, what I take issue with is
> the entire decision-making process that put him on that podium in the first
> place, a series of actions and decision which began years before.
Oh, he "takes issue". The fundamental thing being that he "knows"
Furtwangler "shouldn't have" performed in the Nazi Germany.... without
having ever addressed the larger issue of whether any artist is entitled
to pursue his artistic endeavors in any totalitarian regime or not.
> . . .I reject completely your "If you weren't there you can't judge"
> vision of morality.
Here it comes the perfidious change of topic. Please notice, Mr Lombard,
how Mr Hurwitz switches the focus from *your* common-sensical observation
(allow me to rephrase it as "it is hard for a decent person to judge
another decent person's decisions in a very complex context, without
having been in that context oneself") to *his* focus: "Furtwangler made
criminal decisions and, as such, I, the "Immaculate Virgin Reviewer", am
entitled to take him at task and to judge him as in a criminal court of
law.". Presumed guilty, that is.
> I could very easily claim that my own actions in similar circumstances
> would be morally irreproachable,
BS. I could very easily claim that if the lousy website business would get
better with some extra paid ads, he would kiss the feet of any Chinese,
North-Korean, Iranian, and Afgan officials would grant an extra buck.
> This does NOT mean however that those who did find themselves in that
> situation and acted in certain ways are beyond the pale
> of criticism simply because we weren't there. If that were true, any crime at
> all would be excusable simply on the basis of a claim that "those who weren't
> there couldn't possibly understand."
You see, Mr Lombard, here it goes. The poker player got a moment of lack
of attention from the others and switched the cards. He already assumed
there *is* a crime there to be judged. Actually his assumption implies
that tomorrow I could judge you, Mr Lombard, for having voted XXX as a
president, for having gone Sunday to church (or for not having done so!),
for having subscribed to NYT or not. As long as the parameters of what
constitutes a crime (or an infraction or even -- let's be kind -- a
misdemeneaour) are not clearly defined, everybody can "judge" everybody
for everything. This actually happens all the time, but what bothers me is
giving such gossips of frustrated nobodies like our truly the weight of
"judgment of History", "court-of-law-like" discussion etc. etc.
> I also disagree with your apologia on behalf of the citizens of totalitarian
> regimes. It is true that in some cases, a tiny minority controls the vast
> majority. But it is also equally true that no government exists for long without
> the consent, whether implicit or explicit, of the governed.
You know what, this is the first true thing uttered by Mr Hurwitz in this
thread. Unfortunately it is so vague and general, addressed such an
extraordinarily broad historical, geographical and political point, that
it is simply meaningless to apply it precisely to Wilhelm Furtwangler,
among literally dozens of billions of men and women who lived throughout
history under totalitarian regimes.
> The issue, Bob, is not that we are incapable or otherwise ill-equipped
> to pass judgment on the deeds of others committed in circumstances we
> cannot readily imagine. I believe we can do it, do in fact do
> it, and that quite often we must. If you've ever sat on a jury in criminal
> trial, this is precisely what you are called upon to do as often as not.
What I said.
> What really matters is that the standards chosen be consistent and
> fairly applied.
This is really ridiculous. It has been shown with abundance, not to say
excess, the lack of *any* fairness and consistency in the "chosen
standards".
> As I said, I believe that Furtwangler got what he deserved; he was
> treated fairly and I believe strongly in the judgment of history in
> this respect, which from my
> perspective seems to have made of him (non-musically at least) a
> controversial and morally ambiguous character as a result of his actions
> during the War.
How silly to talk about a unified "judgment of history". If Mr Hurwitz
would have in his library more than the phonebook and the Greyhound
schedule, he would know that his so called "judgment of history",
stronger (but by no means generally accepted) in U.S., is different
in Europe -- not in Germany alone, but in France and Italy as well....
the dominant public view on Furtwangler in the '80s, as well as I could
grasp it in dozens of books and magazines, was much different. With every
and each year passing, there are more people to find out the complex
truth about Furtwangler's motivations and good deeds, and with every and
each year passing the "judgment of History", if any, gets closer and
closer to Moshe Menuhin's, Yehudi's wise father judgment:
<<Wilhelm Furtwangler was a victim of envious and jealous rivals who had
to resort to publicity, to smear, to calumny, in order to keep him out of
America so it could remain thier private bailiwick. He was a victim of the
small fry and selfish and punny souls among concert artists, who, in order
to get a bit of national publicity, joined the band wagon of the
professional idealists, the professional Jews and the hired hands who
irresponsibly assaulted an innocent and humane and broad-minded man, all
because by association, by birth, he was a German. [...]>>
> And it's up to every audience to decide for itself, from time to time,
> just how much crap it's willing to put up with from its musical heroes
> for the sake of hearing great music.
Mr Lombard, He spoke the truth here! It is hard though to put up with an
exceeding amount of crap coming from sources who don't even have any
special gift, nor do they have any chance of becoming "heroes", musical or
otherwise.
regards,
SG
samir golescu
> Is it known if HvK, B, F. or K. contributed germplasm to Lebensborn?
Not, as far as I know, but do not worry, even if you benefitted, there is
no guarantee that your children would have had musical talent.
samir golescu
On 22 Aug 2001, Steven Chung wrote:
> Well, now I'm certainly enlightened.
Glad to have contributed.
Sarir Khamsi
>
>In article <3B833C0B...@jpl.nasa.gov>, ulvi says...
>>
>>
>>> I am not ready to damn Furtwängler as a horrible man or moral wretch.
>>
>>Did Furtwangler have any realistic option of immigrating to the United States
>>during the war, like many other European conductors did?
>
>
>Yes he did, according to Peter Gutmann's Furtwangler notes viewed at...
>
>http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html
I guess you refer to the NYPO episode. Quote from Gutmann's notes:
"The perverse efficiency of the Nazi propaganda machine was displayed
in 1935, when Furtwängler was offered the helm of the New York
Philharmonic upon Toscanini's retirement. His candidacy came with a
seemingly ironclad guarantee of success -- the insistence of the
Maestro himself, acknowledged by an adoring American public to be the
world's greatest conductor, that only Furtwängler was worthy to
succeed him. The timing of the offer was propitious, as Furtwängler
was upset with the Nazi regime and this once was sorely tempted. But
as the heir apparent savored his options, Prime Minister Göring
announced that Furtwängler's rehabilitation was complete and that he
would resume his duties at the Berlin State Opera. With that, the
damage was done: despite Furtwängler's attempts to clarify his
position, both the New York press and the Philharmonic subscribers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
now would have nothing to do with bringing an officially reconfirmed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nazi to their shores. Furtwängler tried to bow out graciously with a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
telegram "postponing" his US appearances "until the public realizes
that music and politics have nothing to do with each other," but this
was hardly a message apt to placate an isolationist America alarmed
over reports of Nazi outrages."
you call this a realistic option.
Bob Lombard
> >
> >[...] "I only offered an example of what I believe would
have
> >been an unambiguously courageous gesture" does not gibe
with
> >your doubt that "it would have led to an equally
unambiguous
> >martyrdom". You are saying that the "gesture" would result
in
> >Hitler not inviting him for cocktails?
>
I note you omit the major
> point, which is that my criticism of him does NOT stem from
this single
> incident, but from the entire pattern of his behavior and
decisions of which
> this was a small part.
Ah. He led himself down the garden path. He was a German who
decided to stay in Germany. After that, I wonder what he could
have done differently that would have pleased you.
> >I have sat on a jury in a criminal trial. What you describe
is
> >*not* what a jury is "called upon to do". You didn't listen
to
> >the judges instructions?
>
> Hmmmm. A jury is asked to rule solely on the evidence, Bob,
and on which side
> has met its burden of proof, not on empathy or their ability
to imagine what the
> circumstances surrounding the crime must have been, or
mitigating factors
> because they personally were not present and therefore are
not empowered to
> render judgment. I have never heard a judge give
instructions differently (and
> coming from a family of lawyers, I've sat through plenty of
trials in my day).
> That was my point. What's yours?
Amazing. I thought that was *my* point. It seems increasingly
possible that we speak versions of English that have
insufficient word meanings in common for any useful discussion
beyond the basics ("That loaf of bread costs $1.49, pay at the
counter.")
By the way - although you stated that invective was
nonexistent on your part, I noticed "ingenuous", "pompous",
"arrogant". Those are all descriptions that cannot be
objectively evaluated by the recipient, so I have to let them
ride. None of them apply to you, of
course.....................:-)
bl
benjo maso
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> schreef in bericht
news:9lvdi...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> >A very reasonable post, but have you considered the following? While
Samir
> >clearly believes that Furtwängler was a great artist, his defense of
> >Furtwängler's actions revolves around his contention that Furtwängler
should
> >not be judged differently from any baker or doctor who continued to work
in
> >Germany during the Third Reich. Meanwhile, your criticisms of Furtwängler
rely
> >on your claim that, because he was a "great" (or at least very
well-known)
> >artist, he had some sort of special responsibility to act in certain
virtuous
> >ways.
>
> No, this isn't exactly true. I don't believe he had any special
responsibity at
> all as a result of being famous. I believe he should be judged exactly as
he in
> fact was: as an extremely high level employee of the Nazi regime whose
career
> and stature made him one who dealt with the highest echelons of the
government
> directly.
Wrong. Furtwängler resigned from all his offcicial posts in 1934 and never
accepted official appointments again. When he came back from retirement in
'36 he only performed as a guest conductor. F. took also care that the
Berliner Philharmoniker never officially represented the Nazis when he
conducted. The orchestra also financed its own tours with F. as a private
company.
Benjo Maso
vaneyes
golescu says...
>
>among literally dozens of billions of men and women who lived throughout
>history under totalitarian regimes.
Yup, there are some who say even Eve constituted a totalitarian regime...
http://www.prb.org/wf/quickfacts/everlive.htm
Regards
samir golescu
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, vaneyes wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.01082...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu>, samir
> golescu says...
> >
>
> >among literally dozens of billions of men and women who lived throughout
> >history under totalitarian regimes.
>
>
> Yup, there are some who say even Eve constituted a totalitarian regime...
Dunno about Adam, but for Seth's wife (from wherever she might have
come) that's for sure!
regards,
SG
vaneyes
Obviously the longer he remained in Germany the less realistic immigrating was.
Actually I was thinking of the first few paragraphs of "The War Years" when his
colleagues urged him to join them. What years were these urges made? That's
unclear. Was it post-1935? Over several years? If so, that should indicate they
were still willing to support him even though factions of the NYPO and NY Press
didn't. Was the NYPO lack of support total, or was it a few players speaking to
the press? Was it the NY press in total, or one paper? Furt had Toscanini's
support, so it seems to me that would've meant something. As we know, Toscanini
was very outspoken about the Nazis. What was the date of Goring's utterance?Did
Toscanini withdraw that support after Goring's utterance? From what Gutmann
writes, or doesn't write, I can't tell.
Furt scared off by the press and players? When later in Gutmann's notes we read,
"Even as late as May 1945, Furtwängler did not seem to fully grasp the
consequence of Nazi racism." Well if he didn't grasp it at that late date, why
would he put much faith in other people grasping it in 1935?
Numerous reasons are given for Furt's staying in Germany throughout the notes.
One that gets a lot of play is that he wanted to protect what was left of German
art. I don't have a problem with that one reason. I do have some difficulty with
a bunch or reasons aired because researchers or writers just don't know. It
gives the impression that they're throwing them all up in the air and seeing if
one can stick longer. Furt's being naive is another favorite, adding to a Mr.
Magoo persona.
Regards
David Hurwitz
period; that's how he started, and you know perfectly well that his "comeback"
was only possible with the express permission of the cultural authorities, who
approved everything that he did, and with whom he necessarily had regular
contact. It was also perceived as a capitulation by many in his inner circle of
friends, as well as internationally. And during the War itself, all cultural
activities, including Furtwangler's concerts and radio broadcasts, were funded
and managed entirely by the government. I never claimed that he intentionally
"represented the Nazis"--whatever that means. That's what the Nazi's claimed,
and it's what he allowed to happen to him. The fact that he never took on
another official post under the Reich and did his best to separate music from
politics is a mark in his favor, but relevant only in terms of semantics; by his
deeds he cemented the impression of close ties to the regime, and it is that
closeness that became the major issue, not the technicalities of his job
description. One of the most powerful people in France during the reign of Louis
XIV was his mistress. She had no official title either, but you could never
claim that she wasn't in contact with the highest levels of government and
accepted its patronage. Furtwangler may not have been the king's whore, at least
not intentionally, but the results where much the same both for his career and
for his art.
Dave Hurwitz
samir golescu
On 22 Aug 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> >Wrong. Furtwängler resigned from all his offcicial posts in 1934 and never
> >accepted official appointments again. When he came back from retirement in
> >'36 he only performed as a guest conductor. F. took also care that the
> >Berliner Philharmoniker never officially represented the Nazis when he
> >conducted. The orchestra also financed its own tours with F. as a private
> >company.
> >
> >Benjo Maso
> >
> You are absolutely correct. I never said that he was an employee for the entire
> period; that's how he started, and you know perfectly well that his "comeback"
> was only possible with the express permission of the cultural authorities, who
> approved everything that he did, and with whom he necessarily had regular
> contact.
In every totalitarian regime, the authorities stick their nose in
"civilian" affairs to a greater extent than in a democracy, what a
novelty!
> And during the War itself, all cultural
> activities, including Furtwangler's concerts and radio broadcasts, were funded
> and managed entirely by the government.
Are you kidding us? Next thing you'll say will be that the British,
instead of funding the concerts, were bombing the concert hall!
> I never claimed that he intentionally
> "represented the Nazis"--whatever that means. That's what the Nazi's claimed,
> and it's what he allowed to happen to him.
I see.... so if Sadam Hussein will ever claim he took inspiration from
classicstoday.com, we'll know who to blame!
> The fact that he never took on
> another official post under the Reich and did his best to separate music from
> politics is a mark in his favor, but relevant only in terms of semantics;
let's the wrong use of the word "semantics" pass......
> by his
> deeds he cemented the impression of close ties to the regime, and it is that
> closeness that became the major issue, not the technicalities of his job
> description.
"Impression of close ties"... indeed something to be used in the
court-of-law.....
> One of the most powerful people in France during the reign of Louis
> XIV was his mistress. She had no official title either, but you could never
> claim that she wasn't in contact with the highest levels of government and
> accepted its patronage.
> Furtwangler may not have been the king's whore, at least
> not intentionally, but the results where much the same
> both for his career and for his art.
***********************************
***************
One should be really grateful for this impotently pernicious phrase,
because it is the last (un)necessary argument in discarding whatever you
ever said -- and will ever say -- about Furtwangler's art in what you call
your "professional" quality.
Speaking of which, Furtwangler must have had indeed some prowesses in
common with Madame de Montespan, as long as, even almost 50 years after
his death, the frustrating reality of his greatness is enough to screw
even today the mediocrities' mind (if I may use the word*).
_____________
*mind
vaneyes
says...
As I recall, from Paul Moor's research and writings (Schwann publication, a
couple of years ago), HvK *joined* the Nazi party *once*, some two months after
Hitler came to power. There are records of two membership cards with separate
#'s. A second was issued for geographic and administrative reasons, not because
HvK *joined* the party *twice*.
I only mention so that the HvK-bashers pants-warmings may be diluted a wee bit.
Regards
David Hurwitz
>
>In article <9lvbk...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
># Samir's position fanatical Samir extreme Samir usual wacko groupie
># ranting garbage etc, etc, ad nauseum,
>
>In response to this, samir golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in
>article <Pine.GSO.4.31.01082...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu>:
># continuous BS Hurwitz, arrogance self-righteous mediocrity mccarthist
># beasts like yourself evil, contrived, egocentric, flawed person 1/10000
># of that kind of sex-appeal you make again a fool of yourself
>
>Well, now I'm certainly enlightened.
>
LOL! It's no contest in the invective department. I yield to Samir.
Dave Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
>objectively evaluated by the recipient, so I have to let them
>ride. None of them apply to you, of
>course.....................:-)
>
>bl
>
Dave
benjo maso
Furtwängler was chief conductor of the Berliner Staatsoper (together with
Kleiber) when the Nazis came to power 1933, so technically he was until he
resigned next year he was an employee of the Nazi's. But characterizing him
as "extreme high level employee of the Nazi regime" (without mentioning any
restriction of time) is not only very suggestive, but also incorrect (he
might have been pretty near the top in the Oper (although he wasn't the
general manager), but in the German power hierarchy he was on a pretty low
level.
and you know perfectly well that his "comeback"
> was only possible with the express permission of the cultural authorities,
who
> approved everything that he did,
They approved, which didn't mean they were happy about it.
and with whom he necessarily had regular
> contact. It was also perceived as a capitulation by many in his inner
circle of
> friends, as well as internationally. And during the War itself, all
cultural
> activities, including Furtwangler's concerts and radio broadcasts, were
funded
> and managed entirely by the government. I never claimed that he
intentionally
> "represented the Nazis"--whatever that means. That's what the Nazi's
claimed,
> and it's what he allowed to happen to him. The fact that he never took on
> another official post under the Reich and did his best to separate music
from
> politics is a mark in his favor, but relevant only in terms of semantics;
by his
> deeds he cemented the impression of close ties to the regime, and it is
that
> closeness that became the major issue, not the technicalities of his job
> description.
So the fact he wasn't a member of the mafia was only relevant in terms of
semantics, the only thing that counts is that people had the impression he
might be close to it?
>One of the most powerful people in France during the reign of Louis
> XIV was his mistress.
None of the four mistresses of Louis XIV - La Vallière, Montespan, Ludres
and Fontanges - ever mingled with politics. Maintenon possibly did, but she
was secretely married to the king, so she doesn't count
>She had no official title either,
Yes, she had: "maîtresse en titre"
but you could never
> claim that she wasn't in contact with the highest levels of government and
> accepted its patronage.
That's a beautiful euphemism. Clinton should have used it in the Monica
Lewinsky case
>Furtwangler may not have been the king's whore, at least
> not intentionally,
I'm afraid you cements the impression that you made your tortuous and ill
informed comparison only as an excuse to formulate this phrase.
>but the results where much the same
> both for his career and for his art.
I'm afraid I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. How can Furtwängler's
career and art be compared with those of Louis' mistresses?
Benjo Maso
Norman M. Schwartz
"vaneyes" <van...@nospamexcite.com> wrote in message
news:6MUg7.11044$2u.8...@www.newsranger.com...
> As I recall, from Paul Moor's research and writings (Schwann
publication, a
> couple of years ago), HvK *joined* the Nazi party *once*, some two
months after
> Hitler came to power. There are records of two membership cards with
separate
> #'s. A second was issued for geographic and administrative reasons,
not because
> HvK *joined* the party *twice*.
> I only mention so that the HvK-bashers pants-warmings may be diluted
a wee bit.
As I recall from one of those Bernstein biographies, Lenny told
Felicia , (referring to HvK) tonight I'm going to introduce you to one
of the nicest Nazis you will ever know. From what I recall of Paul
Moor's writing he just loves (loved) *everything* German, including
Hvk (Nazi; once, twice or never).
samir golescu
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, benjo maso wrote:
> >One of the most powerful people in France during the reign of Louis
> > XIV was his mistress.
> None of the four mistresses of Louis XIV - La Vallière, Montespan, Ludres
> and Fontanges - ever mingled with politics.
I suspect Mr Hurwitz mixed up his Louises, and thought of the indeed
politics-mingling Marie-Antoinette (Louis XVI's wife, not mistress).
Anyway, you should give dear Mr Hurwitz a C- for the effort.
regards,
SG
vaneyes
M. Schwartz says...
As I recall, there are more than enough salon titillations about Lenny, but
what's the point....and dear boy, you really should discuss Moor's love life
with him.
Regards