MusicWeb and National Socialism
fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com
(by Kevin Sutton):
'a glorious reflection of a bygone era, a time in which art and beauty
held much more value than they do today. Ah, blessed memory.'
The recording in question? Strauss and Pfitzner, recorded in Dresden,
1939-1944.
(http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2007/Apr07/
Pfitzner_Strauss_PH07010.htm or http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ezcvv ).
Am I alone in finding these remarks (and the whole review) in somewhat
doubtful taste?
Bob Lombard
<fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1177081393.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ah yes, the Good Old Days. Reads like Mr. Sutton got Swept Away on the
Wings of Empty Rhetoric. Is he an MP in his day job?
bl
Simon Roberts
The opening sentence of the second paragraph is enjoyable too, for slightly
different reasons.
Simon
Paul Ilechko
> In article <132hmnm...@corp.supernews.com>, Bob Lombard says...
>> Ah yes, the Good Old Days. Reads like Mr. Sutton got Swept Away on the
>> Wings of Empty Rhetoric. Is he an MP in his day job?
>
> The opening sentence of the second paragraph is enjoyable too, for slightly
> different reasons.
Kevin "Strauss Orchestra" Sutton, is that ?
... but really, does anyone take any of the MusicWeb reviewers
seriously? The quality of the writing is pretty dismal.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:1177081393.109701.110490
@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Just take it as having been written in the same vein as this line from Tom
Lehrer's "I Wanna Go Back to Dixie": "Old times there are not forgotten,
whuppin' slaves and pickin' cotton."
--
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
Harrington/Coy is a gay wrestler who won't come out of the closet
Walter Traprock
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:qrrh235a44hj91osu...@4ax.com:
> fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com - 20 Apr 2007 08:03:13 -0700 in
> rec.music.classical.recordings:
>
>> Am I alone in finding these remarks (and the whole review) in somewhat
>> doubtful taste?
>
> And who are you, a resistance fighter in his 90s?
And what would be wrong with that if he were?
aleksios
said:
> [...] Am I alone in finding these remarks (and the whole
> review) in somewhat doubtful taste?
Doubtful taste? No doubt. The Mr Kevin (aka "Strauss orchestra")
Sutton could use a better copy editor -- and some honing of his
writing skills. But to jump thence to "National Socialism" is a bit
much -- unless he has some track record I'm not aware of. Not
everything done under the Nazis was Nazi; Strauss and Pfitzner
themselves, while guilty of the usual cowardice (the latter more than
the former) were not Nazis, and never joined the NSDAP. (By comparison
Shostakovich did join the Communist Party; and you'll have to work
very hard to prove to me that the Reds were more wholesome than their
brown-shirted ideological twins.)
Mr Sutton's "glorious reflection" may reflect nothing more than an
absence of skill.
--Alex (the even-handed philistine)
aleksios
said:
> EM:
>
> > fromgoogle:
> >
> > > Am I alone in finding these remarks [...]
> > > in somewhat doubtful taste?
> >
> > And who are you, a resistance fighter in his 90s?
>
> And what would be wrong with that if he were?
Or, for that matter, if he weren't.
--Alex (the subjunctive philistine)
Paul Ilechko
> Mr Sutton's "glorious reflection" may reflect nothing more than an
> absence of skill.
He does write for MusicWeb, after all ... skill has never been a
pre-requisite.
fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com
> fromgoogle.1.ludwig...@spamgourmet.com - 20 Apr 2007 08:03:13 -0700 in
> rec.music.classical.recordings:
>
> > Am I alone in finding these remarks (and the whole review) in somewhat
> > doubtful taste?
>
>
No, just someone who prefers not to see the Nazi era romanticized.
Incidentally, I tried posting my concerns to the MusicWeb message
board,
http://members2.boardhost.com/MusicWebUK/ , last weekend. Somehow or
other, the message seems never to have made it through moderation.
Perhaps Len Mullenger, if he is reading, would care to explain why.
Paul Goldstein
I'd go a bit further, and say the last paragraph is one of the
stupidest things I've ever read - assuming, that is, that the author
does not genuinely pine for the Dresden of 1944. If that is the case,
it's something other than stupid I suppose.
her...@yahoo.com
If you're really hopelessly clueless, if you can't string two words
together with any kind of meaning; if you can't tell the difference
between a manipulated "Joyce Hatto" recording and the original (or
rather, if you prefer the fake version); and if you're not aware it's
a little funny to wax poetic about Hitler-era Germany -
you may be MusicWeb Material!
Just contact Len Mullenger - he doesn't know what he's doing either!
Herman
pgaron
> Well, let's be positive. There's some Good News in this, too.
>
> If you're really hopelessly clueless, if you can't string two words
> together with any kind of meaning; if you can't tell the difference
> between a manipulated "Joyce Hatto" recording and the original (or
> rather, if you prefer the fake version); and if you're not aware it's
> a little funny to wax poetic about Hitler-era Germany -
>
> you may be MusicWeb Material!
In "The Producers," Mel Brooks demonstrated that you can be a little
funny in waxing poetic about Hitler-era Germany -- and make a ton of
money! "Springtime for Hitler..."
pgaron
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> In "The Producers," Mel Brooks demonstrated that you can be a little
> funny in waxing poetic about Hitler-era Germany -- and make a ton of
> money! "Springtime for Hitler..."
>
> pgaron
>
said, 'The Devil is a proud spirit, and cannot bear to be mocked.' I
just wish someone would do for (to?) Stalin and Mao what Mel Brooks did
to Hitler.
Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:v4adnZANlYc_urTb...@comcast.com:
> pgaron wrote:
> (snip)
>>
>> In "The Producers," Mel Brooks demonstrated that you can be a little
>> funny in waxing poetic about Hitler-era Germany -- and make a ton of
>> money! "Springtime for Hitler..."
>
> And thereby achieves sweet revenge. I believe it was St. Thomas More who
> said, 'The Devil is a proud spirit, and cannot bear to be mocked.' I
> just wish someone would do for (to?) Stalin and Mao what Mel Brooks did
> to Hitler.
Well, Monty Python *sort of* made fun of Mao (and other Communist icons) in
one of their sketches:
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode25.htm
Scroll down to "WORLD FORUM".
Len of MusicWeb
<fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1177081393.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
This is disingenuous. I did receive an enquiry via the bulletin board about
this review and passed it to Kevin Sutton who sent what seemed to me to be
an appropriate and satisfactory reply. The reader had misinterpreted the
review - perhaps deliberately. I say that because he obviously did not like
the reply so started this thread.
Here was the reply he was sent
.... If the poster is implying that I have some nostalgia for Nazism, he's
certainly mistaken. The comment was intended to reflect the past BEFORE the
time of Hitler; a time which Strauss longed for deeply at the end of his
life, especially after the destruction of Dresden. Perhaps the reader missed
the sentence in the first paragraph in which I lamented the destruction of
the Frauenkirche in the terrible fire bombing in 1945. Mr. Jackman has
grossly misinterpreted my thoughts. The blessed memory would be for a
Dresden that was a center for art and music. I regret that he would assume
that I had any sentiments for any totalitarian regime. To know me at all
would refute any such assumption to the core.....
If the reader had been more honest he would have made that response known.
Len Mullenger
sechumlib
> .... If the poster is implying that I have some nostalgia for Nazism, he's
> certainly mistaken. The comment was intended to reflect the past BEFORE the
> time of Hitler; a time which Strauss longed for deeply at the end of his
> life, especially after the destruction of Dresden. Perhaps the reader missed
> the sentence in the first paragraph in which I lamented the destruction of
> the Frauenkirche in the terrible fire bombing in 1945. Mr. Jackman has
> grossly misinterpreted my thoughts. The blessed memory would be for a
> Dresden that was a center for art and music. I regret that he would assume
> that I had any sentiments for any totalitarian regime. To know me at all
> would refute any such assumption to the core.....
Some people have agendas that condition them to read a specific item
into anything you say. The OP seems to be that way about Nazis.
I fully agree with you, especially about Strauss. His great work
Metamorphosen was a nostalgic wish for the old days to return, and
bring back the destroyed concert halls of Europe and especially
Germany. I sometimes have the same wish.
Ralph
> .... If the poster is implying that I have some nostalgia for Nazism, he's
> certainly mistaken. The comment was intended to reflect the past BEFORE the
> time of Hitler; a time which Strauss longed for deeply at the end of his
> life, especially after the destruction of Dresden. Perhaps the reader missed
> the sentence in the first paragraph in which I lamented the destruction of
> the Frauenkirche in the terrible fire bombing in 1945. Mr. Jackman has
> grossly misinterpreted my thoughts. The blessed memory would be for a
> Dresden that was a center for art and music. I regret that he would assume
> that I had any sentiments for any totalitarian regime. To know me at all
> would refute any such assumption to the core.....
The reviewer could of easily indicated the "before the time of Hitler"
but of course he didn't write that in the review. His ire is raised at
the bombing of Dresden, and nothing about the destruction of humanity
and culture brought about by Germany. If he was "misinterpreted", maybe
he should be a bit more careful with his two-steps.
Ralph
fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com
> <fromgoogle.1.ludwig...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
Like many other posters, I do not use an active email address to post
on web forums. Consequently no reply reached me, and I would ask that
Mr Mullenger retract the unpleasant allegations made above.
He may also consider responding to my question, why my original
posting (not an 'enquiry' as he calls it, but a posting) was censored,
if (as he thinks) his critic has nothing to be ashamed of. Are only
laudatory postings allowed through to his 'bulletin board'?
Readers may judge for themselves whether the reply now posted is
satisfactory. It seems to me that a critic who states 'The recording
stands as a ghostly voice of a glorious past' must be taken to refer
to, or at least include, the time when the recording was made. If he
in addition repeatedly condemns an action taken by the Allied forces
against Germany (and also takes the opportunity to regret the
misfortunes suffered by an organist in Communist times) while never so
much as mentioning the word 'Nazi', one's impression of a disgraceful
whitewashing of the Hitler era is only confirmed. I would suggest
that an apology is in order.
Paul Ilechko
> This is disingenuous. I did receive an enquiry via the bulletin board about
> this review and passed it to Kevin Sutton who sent what seemed to me to be
> an appropriate and satisfactory reply.
Did Mr. Sutton also explain to your satisfaction why he believes that he
is known as the Strauss Orchestra ?
Len of MusicWeb
<fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1177107484.5...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I do apologize as I had not realised that you had not received the reply. I
do try amd make a judgement as to whether a posting sent to me desrves a
personal reply or is of wider significance. In this case I felt you were
under a misapprehension which we cleared up so it was not necessary to put
it on the bulletin board. I feared you had an agenda and the postings on
rmcr appeared to bear me out.
If you look at the bulletin board it is not full of laudatory comments about
musicweb.
Len
Roland van Gaalen
> the sentence in the first paragraph in which I lamented the destruction of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Frauenkirche
<< It was decided not to reproduce a facsimile of the Silbermann organ. The
decision resulted in the Dresden organ dispute ("Dresdner Orgelstreit"),
that was partially based on the misunderstanding that the new organ would be
entirely "modern". A 4,873 pipe organ was built by Daniel Kern of
Strasbourg, France and completed in April 2005. The Kern organ contains all
the stops which were on the stoplist of the Silbermann organ and tries to
reconstruct them. Additional stops also are included, especially a fourth
swell manual in the symphonic 19th century style which is apt for the organ
literature composed after the baroque period. >>
By the way I very much like and recommend the following inspiring website:
http://www.stadtbild-deutschland.de/rubriken/rekonstruktion/rekoliste/index.php
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl
Michael Schaffer
Nazinazinazinazinazinazi...I hope that is enough for you for now. You
seem to be quite obsessed by that. It's probably also the only thing
you know about German history.
While I have to agree Mr Sutton's review was clumsily and kitschily
worded, I think it's quite clear what he meant and that the "glorious
past" he is referring to isn't the immediate time around the
recordings, but the many elements of an era that came to a close
during the years of the 3rd Reich (the Nazis themselves contributed a
lot to damaging German culture, too, no matter if they posed as
"Nationalists" or not - they weren't, not even from a national centric
point of view, they totally fucked up the country) and many elements
of which were terminally destroyed by the widespread destruction of
German cities during WWII, including and especially Dresden, the
firebombing of which just before the end of the war was indeed a
totally pointless and barbaric act of revenge, nothing else.
Most people have apparently no idea to what extreme extent Germany was
destroyed during the war, and it is highly interesting that many
nations which had dictatorships are commonly "excused" as victims of
those dictatorships while it is always stressed how much the 3rd Reich
was every single German's fault (and apparently that of their
descendants today as well), so they "deserved what they got".
Why is that? It's not just uninformedness. It's also because some
people apparently still can't live with the fact that the allegedly
"good guys" in that war weren't so good after all, in reality fading
colonial empires in which a lot of the same racist and nationalist
views were as widespread as in Germany at the time, and which
contributed (note: "contributed") a lot to creating the settings in
which such an extreme dictatorship as the National Socialists could
come into power.
The reality is that Germany, which had the second largest population
in Europe after WWI and which had been by far the most industrially
advanced country even before that, was something these late colonial
nationals could not live with, so they abused the fact that the county
rid itself of empirical rule and that the new democratic government
surrendered simply because they just wanted the senseless killing to
stop, everybody to just go home and rebuild, and for themselves to
shape the new Germany.
Countries which still saw themselves as superior to everyone else in
every respect had a very massive bend put into their nationalist self-
image when the Wehrmacht rolled through France and drove the British
forces into the sea at Dunkirk hardly a generation later, and they
were just saved from the same fate they had wished on Germany by the
intervention of the US. Attacks like the firebombing of Dresden were
nothing but revenge for that humiliation, and they did wipe out
centuries of cultural achievements forever.
Now, several generations later, it is interesting to read that an
Englishmen (among many others) like Mr Sutton can appreciate that and
lament these events, and to see how much interest he finds in this
audio document, and how aware he is of the *larger* historical
context of what it represents.
And as someone who can appreciate these cultural achievements, he
writes "the recording stands as a ghostly voice of a glorious past,
and an eternal reminder of what warfare can steal from the world's
culture". Note that he says "the world's culture", meaning in this
case Germany's contributions which many more people than just Germans
appreciate. He isn't just talking about the destruction of some local
buildings (or rather, a whole city which was regarded as one of the
architectural marvels of the world).
Or such treasures as the Silbermann organ which, BTW, had been there
for centuries. It wasn't a "Nazi organ" which is probably what *you*
think.
One would assume that the informed reader *today* should be able to
grasp the larger context from within which Mr Sutton writes.
But some, informed or not, apparently can't or won't. That is very
interesting, too.
aleksios
said:
> This is disingenuous. I did receive an enquiry via the
> bulletin board about this review and passed it to Kevin
> Sutton who sent what seemed to me to be an appropriate and
> satisfactory reply. The reader had misinterpreted the review
> - perhaps deliberately.
If the reader misinterpreted the review, he was not alone; and the
review was a bad one, which simply cried out for misinterpretation.
> If the poster is implying that I have some nostalgia for
> Nazism, he's certainly mistaken.
Mr Sutton needs to spend some quality time with a dictionary (hint:
"imply" != "infer").
> The comment was intended to reflect the past BEFORE the time
> of Hitler; a time which Strauss longed for deeply at the end
> of his life [...]
What time was that, exactly? When was the "time in which art and
beauty held much more value than they do today"? The time when members
of the BPO were taking 40% salary cuts? When 80% of musicians earned
less than the average blue-collar worker, and their unemployment rate
was twice the national average? (The figures are from Kater's "The
Twisted Muse: Musicians and Their Music in the Third Reich".)
> Perhaps the reader missed the sentence in the first
> paragraph in which I lamented the destruction of the
> Frauenkirche in the terrible fire bombing in 1945.
And perhaps the writer missed the fact that 1945 was the regime's
Daemmerung, not its Rheingold.
> [...] I regret that he would assume that I had any
> sentiments for any totalitarian regime. [...]
How unsentimental of Mr Sutton! He must be fraught, irregardless of if
or whether he could proactively care less about such a fully complete
dearth of reverberantly echoing shimmers of affective effects. Ah,
blessed -- of course.
Joking aside, I must confess I can't make up my mind. Who is
disingenuous here? Mr "Strauss orchestra" Sutton, who needs to add to
his other titles to fame "inaccurate aim and delivery" of words, as
well as of "darts and golf clubs"? Mr Mullenger, who perhaps should
make time to read the reviews before they're posted to MusicWeb?
Both?
But here's what I find a tad disingenuous: mentioning twice the
bombing of Dresden and once the dreaded East German Communists (how
come the Stasi didn't make the review, I wonder?), but omitting even a
single whisper about the ambiguous relationship of Strauss and
Pfitzner with a criminal regime. After all, the nostalgic Strauss was
for two years president of the RMK; and Pfitzner -- that late epigone
of 19th c. Romantic nationalism so little known today -- prostituted
himself to the extent of writing a special piece for the concerts
organised in Cracow by personal friend and noted humanitarian SS-
Obergruppenfuehrer Hans Frank, governor of occupied Poland and war
criminal.
Let's make no mistake. Neither Strauss nor Pfitzner (merely a proto-
Fascist and old-style anti-Semite, according to Kater) were Nazis, and
neither had an easy relation with the regime. But if we are going to
be nostalgic about some "bygone era", let's make sure we understand
exactly what it is we are nostalgic about.
IMHO, Mr Sutton -- if his expression of regret is sincere -- needs to
revise the piece, not only to excise the occasional linguistic
infelicity, but also to make sure it does say what he thinks it says.
Then Mr Mullenger (or a competent copy editor) needs to review it
before re-posting it.
--Alex (the ingenuous philistine)
Michael Schaffer
> In article <132hmnm6hlen...@corp.supernews.com>, Bob Lombard says...
>
>
>
>
>
> ><fromgoogle.1.ludwig...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
What's so funny about that, except for the less than elegant wording
which for some seems to imply that Mr Sutton is known as "the Strauss
orchestra", although it says 'known as...*it* enjoyed...".
I guess you guys here are all Pultizer price winning writers.
Apart from that, he is quite right, the orchestra is *the* Strauss
orchestra. After all, 9 of Strauss' operas were premiered there (and
many of the people who took part in such major premieres as "Elektra",
"Salome" or "Rosenkavalier" were still in the orchestra when those
recordings were made), among other things because of the high regard
in which the composer held the band for which he wrote and to which he
dedicated his "Alpensinfonie". Although there are many places with a
deep Strauss tradition in Austria and Germany, the special connection
the orchestra had and has retained in its unique playing style with
that composer's music is widely admred and accepted without envy. In
fact, it was my old bass teacher who was in the BP for over 4 decades
who first pointed me to the recordings with Kempe and who told me I
had to listen to them because "they just play that music a tick better
than we do".
Paul Ilechko
> What's so funny about that, except for the less than elegant wording
It's not less than elegant; it's bad, and it's wrong.
> which for some seems to imply that Mr Sutton is known as "the Strauss
> orchestra", although it says 'known as...*it* enjoyed...".
"Some", in this context, presumably meaning people who are able to parse
English sentences. The wording doesn't "imply" that Mr Sutton is known
as "the Strauss Orchestra"; his twisted prose actually says that he is.
The "it" doesn't save him, I'm afraid.
> I guess you guys here are all Pultizer price winning writers.
Not yet, but probably rather more capable as a writer than the
unfortunate Mr. Sutton. I do at least proof read what I have written,
certainly when I am writing seriously (as opposed to just chatting over
the electronic garden fence here on RMCR.)
sechumlib
> I guess you guys here are all Pultizer price winning writers.
What's the price of a Pultizer?
Michael Schaffer
It's a spelling bee contest.
Michael Schaffer
All true, but I say "let he who is without grammatical error cast the
first stone".
I don't know how "serious" a site musicweb is supposed to be, or if
the people writing there are "just" part time "amateur" contributors
who share their views with online readers, but even if it is supposed
to be really serious and highly professional and all that, what people
are making such a fuss about here isn't the fact that that review is a
little kitschy and not very elegantly worded. It's that the author
expressed appreciation for the cultural products of a bygone era in
German history (all the Strauss works are *decades* older than the
3rd Reich) and that he also took the opportunity to express his regret
for the fact that such a cultural center as Dresden was almost nearly
completely wiped out (by "his" people, no less).
We all know - or should know - the larger contexts of these events,
and I don't think it is such a horrible thing if he doesn't spend
several paragraphs clarifying that all those bastards really deserved
the nice firebombing they got - you love the smell of Napalm in the
morning, don't you? - but that he concentrates on expressing
appreciation for the long-lasting cultural achievements Germans in
general (and here, Strauss in particular) have contributed to "the
world". The German dictatorship is long gone, German music is still
here, and it looks like it is here to stay.
The appreciation of other peoples' cultural achievements is very
important, and it never is entirely "unproblematical" if you look at
it from that point of view.
Can I express appreciation for, say, English literature, or French
music without in the same beath making clear that I do not admire the
horrible things these countries have done as colonial powers? Does it
make me an anti-semite when I say I appreciate Roman art and
literature without mentioning that I do not endorse the fact that they
razed the temple in Jerusalem (I mean, apart from the fact that I am
just automatically an anti-semite because I come from Germany)?
jrs...@aol.com
Actually, I found that sentence disturbing enough to quit reading
right there, and not because of the grammar. Anyone who prefaces a
well-established, widely held view with "I have often contended" is
probably just writing to stroke his own ego.
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
Wow, what a mean asshole you are! The author can't mention the fact
that the musician suffered oppression under the communists without -
what? Making clear that that organist deserved what he got from the
communists because he played the music of somebody like Strauss?
>, but omitting even a
> single whisper about the ambiguous relationship of Strauss and
> Pfitzner with a criminal regime.
So, we can't discuss, say, Toscanini or Koussevitzky without every
time stressing the fact that they made splendid careers in a country
which had racial legislation at the time? We can't talk about, say,
Elgar without stressing that we think he was a damn coward for
composing music instead of devoting his life to fighting a regime
which subjugated and exploited entire subcontinents? Can I still waych
French movies from the 50s, or is that somehow not OK because they
fought bloody colonial wars in "Indochine" and Algeria at the same
time?
> After all, the nostalgic Strauss was
> for two years president of the RMK; and Pfitzner -- that late epigone
> of 19th c. Romantic nationalism so little known today -- prostituted
> himself to the extent of writing a special piece for the concerts
> organised in Cracow by personal friend and noted humanitarian SS-
> Obergruppenfuehrer Hans Frank, governor of occupied Poland and war
> criminal.
>
> Let's make no mistake. Neither Strauss nor Pfitzner (merely a proto-
> Fascist and old-style anti-Semite, according to Kater) were Nazis, and
> neither had an easy relation with the regime. But if we are going to
> be nostalgic about some "bygone era", let's make sure we understand
> exactly what it is we are nostalgic about.
Then we can't be "nostalgic" about *anything*. In fact, we should
discard the entire cultural heritage of mankind so far because from
what it looks, history so far has been mostly slaughter and
oppression, everywhere, all the time. Let's just delete and raze it
all. Start over. We can't even kep what we have today, because while
we are typing here, atrocities still go on in many places. Atrocities
in which the countries we are sitting in are deeply involved.
Since you have so much criticism for Mr Strauss, what kind of a
peacefighter and resistance hero are you? Do you devote your life to
fighting the things that aren't OK in the world you live in?
Michael Schaffer
Aren't we all? 97.7% of the writings in this newsgroup alone are not
about facts and subjects, they are about people bathing in the juice
of their own uninformed "opinions".
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:58t7svF...@mid.individual.net:
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
>
>> I guess you guys here are all Pultizer price winning writers.
>
> Not yet, but probably rather more capable as a writer than the
> unfortunate Mr. Sutton. I do at least proof read what I have written,
> certainly when I am writing seriously (as opposed to just chatting over
> the electronic garden fence here on RMCR.)
One of my professors won (some years later) the Pulitzer Prize in Music; does
that count for anything?
Matthew B. Tepper
in news:1177122414.4...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> Actually, I found that sentence disturbing enough to quit reading
> right there, and not because of the grammar. Anyone who prefaces a
> well-established, widely held view with "I have often contended" is
> probably just writing to stroke his own ego.
I have often contended that that is indeed the case.
jrs...@aol.com
No. You all are here to stroke *my* ego. ;-)
97.7% of the writings in this newsgroup alone are not
> about facts and subjects, they are about people bathing in the juice
> of their own uninformed "opinions".
The difference is obvious, as you put. It is one thing to bathe in
one's own opinions and believe they are facts. It is another to bathe
in *other* people's opinions and believe they are one's own facts. The
latter is what the reviewer did. Few people are that far out of touch
with reality, blinded by their own egos.
--Jeff
jrs...@aol.com
> jrsn...@aol.com appears to have caused the following letters to be typed
> innews:1177122414.4...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Actually, I found that sentence disturbing enough to quit reading
> > right there, and not because of the grammar. Anyone who prefaces a
> > well-established, widely held view with "I have often contended" is
> > probably just writing to stroke his own ego.
>
> I have often contended that that is indeed the case.
Which brings up one of my favorite grammatical axioms: that "that"
that that sentence includes is too much.
--Jeff
jrs...@aol.com
Egads. It's an electric fence?....oh...I see what you mean. Nice
metaphor!
You know, even capable writers are usually lousy proofreaders of their
own work.
--Jeff
Bob Harper
(snip)
especially Dresden, the
> firebombing of which just before the end of the war was indeed a
> totally pointless and barbaric act of revenge, nothing else.
>
Michael, if you'd simply made that statement and left the rest alone, no
one could argue with you. The destruction of Dresden was a war crime, no
doubt about it. Having been perpetrated by the winners, it wasn't
punished as such, but it still was.
But to go on from there to whine about the supposed victimization of all
Germans is silly. We don't hate you, we don't think you're a Nazi, and
we don't blame you or your contemporaries for the crimes committed by
the gangsters who ran your country from 1932 to 1945. Nonetheless, those
crimes were committed by that set of gangsters, with the participation,
active or passive, of many 'ordinary' German citizens, and they were far
worse than anything done by the colonial powers (principally England and
France), though certainly NOT worse than what was done by Stalin and his
gang. If you want to examine something that doesn't make any sense, you
should ask yourself why there is not as large a literature about the
Gulag as there is about the Holocaust.
Just don't try to play the victim card; it's tiresome and inappropriate.
Bob Harper
Len of MusicWeb
"Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177121507.2...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
..... I don't know how "serious" a site musicweb is supposed to be, or if
the people writing there are "just" part time "amateur" contributors
who share their views with online readers, .....
All MusicWeb contributors are exactly that - part-time amateurs writing for
their own pleasure from their own enthusiasms. I am the only person who
spends all his time working on it. Reviewers have day jobs as do the
editors. Yes, we do have editors. The CD reviews are all edited by Rob
Barnett who starts at 4am and works for about three hours before going to
his office. He will continue in the evening. Under that sort of pressure it
is not surprining that some infelicities of English Language slip by.
Amateur they may be, in the sense that they are unpaid, but they are totally
"serious" in their committment to music. It also means we are quite
independent and not subject to any pressures. Can you say that about
Gramophone or Classics Today who are extremely selective in what they
review? MusicWeb tries to review every disc that comes its way. The only
limitation is that 10 reviews a day are all that we can manage unless we can
find a second me.
Len
--
......................................................................
Len Mullenger
Founder: MusicWeb-International
The Internet CD review site
32,000 reviews read every day
www.musicweb-international.com
mobile: 07913 999009
You click with us and you may find we'll click with you.
-------------------------o0o--------------------------
Sol L. Siegel
>In "The Producers," Mel Brooks demonstrated that you can be a little
>funny in waxing poetic about Hitler-era Germany -- and make a ton of
>money! "Springtime for Hitler..."
Let's not forget that no fewer than three members of the cast of
"Hogan's Heroes" - Werner Klemperer, Robert Clary and John Banner -
suffered (terribly in the case of Clary and Banner) because of the
Nazis. Klemperer supposedly made the specific demand that Klink
should *never* win, as if that were ever going to happen. In this
case, revenge was a dish best served with a healthy dose of ridicule.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
"It may take a village to raise a child - but it only takes one idiot
to burn down the village."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sol L. Siegel
wrote:
>And who are you, a resistance fighter in his 90s?
That's two admirable attributes in one sentence!
Sol L. Siegel
>Anyone who prefaces a
>well-established, widely held view with "I have often contended" is
>probably just writing to stroke his own ego.
Hey, most people write at least in part to stroke their egos. (Yes,
that includes me. And I'm going to keep writing, too.)
I once took a criticism class with Daniel Webster, than the Philly
Inquirer's lead music critic. The one thing I remember clearly is his
statement that the only real purpose of a critic is to write about new
music: "The rest is autobiography."
Paul Ilechko
>
> I don't know how "serious" a site musicweb is supposed to be, or if
> the people writing there are "just" part time "amateur" contributors
> who share their views with online readers, but even if it is supposed
> to be really serious and highly professional and all that, what people
> are making such a fuss about here isn't the fact that that review is a
> little kitschy and not very elegantly worded.
Well, I think you need to clearly distinguish between being a fan and
being a reviewer. Musicweb tries to position itself as a place to find
serious writing about classical music. If that's the case, then the
writers there should be able to write. It's that simple. Now, if Len
wants to tell us that it's just a site the he hosts where fans of
classical can share their enthusiasm, then that's a different story, but
that's not the image they try to present.
> It's that the author
> expressed appreciation for the cultural products of a bygone era in
> German history ... <snip>
I think that whole discussion is a byproduct of someone unable to
express themselves clearly. I find it very unlikely that Mr. Sutton is a
Nazi.
sechumlib
> Which brings up one of my favorite grammatical axioms: that "that"
> that that sentence includes is too much.
Sort of like the railroad station master who was asked how long the
train stopped at the station, and answered "Two to two to two two"?
sechumlib
> Let's not forget that no fewer than three members of the cast of
> "Hogan's Heroes" - Werner Klemperer, Robert Clary and John Banner -
> suffered (terribly in the case of Clary and Banner) because of the
> Nazis.
I believe that Klemperer was also the son of the conductor Otto.
Paul Ilechko
> One of my professors won (some years later) the Pulitzer Prize in Music; does
> that count for anything?
>
I don't know. Does it ?
I guess it means that he's as credible as John Corigliano, for whatever
that is worth.
Paul Ilechko
> Egads. It's an electric fence?....oh...I see what you mean. Nice
> metaphor!
>
> You know, even capable writers are usually lousy proofreaders of their
> own work.
Yes, I agree. Which is why, before I submit any of my writing, I usually
put it away for a while and re-read it again (and again...) Even then,
errors slip through.
Editors are, of course, supposed to help. Sometimes, though, they make
things worse.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:462a0aab$0$9953$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
He was.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:462a0a71$0$9953$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
To tutor two tutors to toot.
sechumlib
> sechumlib <sech...@liberal.net> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:462a0a71$0$9953$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
>> On 2007-04-20 23:21:42 -0400, jrs...@aol.com said:
>>
>>> Which brings up one of my favorite grammatical axioms: that "that"
>>> that that sentence includes is too much.
>>
>> Sort of like the railroad station master who was asked how long the
>> train stopped at the station, and answered "Two to two to two two"?
>
> To tutor two tutors to toot.
Indeed! Haven't heard that one from anyone but myself for a LONG time.
Michael Schaffer
> On 2007-04-20 23:21:42 -0400, jrsn...@aol.com said:
>
> > Which brings up one of my favorite grammatical axioms: that "that"
> > that that sentence includes is too much.
>
> Sort of like the railroad station master who was asked how long the
> train stopped at the station, and answered "Two to two to two two"?
I don't get it. Please explain.
Michael Schaffer
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
>
> (snip)
> especially Dresden, the> firebombing of which just before the end of the war was indeed a
> > totally pointless and barbaric act of revenge, nothing else.
>
> (snip)
>
> Michael, if you'd simply made that statement and left the rest alone, no
> one could argue with you.
I think a lot of people would argue about that. As we have seen, it is
still customary for may people not to fess up to "their own" crimes,
not even tolerate the mentioning of that without in the same breath
making clear that "but still, the Nazis were worse, so that *was*
somehow OK".
> The destruction of Dresden was a war crime, no
> doubt about it. Having been perpetrated by the winners, it wasn't
> punished as such, but it still was.
>
> But to go on from there to whine about the supposed victimization of all
> Germans is silly.
I didn't say anything like that. I know from previous discussions that
you are not able to see things as differentiated as I do, and I know
that there is no way of explaining these very complex things to you in
a way you can understand. That may be for lack of background
knowledge, or because you are stuck in an outdated form of tribal
thinking, or both, so you can't see what I am really saying. But
that's not my fault.
> We don't hate you, we don't think you're a Nazi, and
> we don't blame you or your contemporaries for the crimes committed by
> the gangsters who ran your country from 1932 to 1945. Nonetheless, those
> crimes were committed by that set of gangsters, with the participation,
> active or passive, of many 'ordinary' German citizens, and they were far
> worse than anything done by the colonial powers (principally England and
> France),
See, here it comes again. A very convenient excuse for a lot of
history, all in one package. Somebody who kills 10 people may not be
"as bad" as somebody who kills 15. But he is still pretty bad.
Pointing out that the other guy "did" more doesn't excuse anything.
> though certainly NOT worse than what was done by Stalin and his
> gang. If you want to examine something that doesn't make any sense, you
> should ask yourself why there is not as large a literature about the
> Gulag as there is about the Holocaust.
>
> Just don't try to play the victim card; it's tiresome and inappropriate
I don't. And I don't feel like a victim either. But why
"inappropriate"? Because Germans are always automatically the "evil
guys", never the "victims"? See, you did it again. It's so deeply
ingrained in you that you simply can't help it. That is why I call you
a racist. Think about it. It may be very difficult, but it's never too
late to rethink and change. Or maybe for some people it is.
> Bob Harper
Michael Schaffer
No, it's not. The article may not be very "brilliant", and there may
be a few clumsily worded spots. But there are bazillions of less than
shakespearily worded articles floating around. The way people jump at
this and make a huge fuss out of it, with a bombastically pompous
title like "MusicWeb and National Socialism" (come on people, get a
fucking grip) clearly shows that there is a very deep need for this
that has just been triggered by the way the author out one or two
things.
aleksios
> Nazinazinazinazinazinazi...
Chill, Mikey.
You have a lot on your mind, but this is not about any of that. This
is about a review so poorly worded it shouldn't've been posted in the
first place. Look over it calmly, and you'll see it can be very easily
read as expressing nostalgia for a regime you claim to detest as much
as any of us. Indeed, it is almost bound to be read that way,
especially by those who have an interest in the subject and are aware
that Weimar (especially the last years) was not a particularly good
time for professional musicians.
Being human (and therefore flawed) we make a bit of fun poking at the
author. Being by and large nice people, we'd rather assume that the
problem is lack of skill, and not a closet admiration for an ugly
past.
Mind you, none of this need have happened. In a better world, LM, upon
receiving fromgoogle's post, would have said, "Lor' love a duck! How
did that one get past me?!", and would have fired off a message to the
reviewer. "Ken, bro, you gotta do somethin' about this." In his turn,
KS would have re-read the review, and he would have slapped his
forehead saying, "Gorblimey! I knew I shouldn't've written it on St
Patrick's Day! Or was it Robbie Burns Day?" And he would have revised
it, and that would have been the end of that.
This not being a better world, MusicWeb chose to follow what might be
described as the Bush/Rumsfeld Doctrine: If you're not with us, you
have a hidden agenda. Which is regrettable, but, hey, I did tell you
this wasn't a better world, didn't I?
--Alex (the better philistine)
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
(more whining)
Aaarrgghh! There you go again.
I don't believe many intelligent people today would defend the
firebombing of Dresden. Why on earth can't you accept that rather than
obsessing about the possibility that some fool may call you a Nazi or
defend the action by saying the equivalent of 'so's your old man'?
Your victim complex is not the complex matter you seem to think it is.
Rather it is your standard response to anyone who chooses to challenge
your assumption of your superiority.
Are you denying that appalling crimes were committed by the Nazis, all
too often with the (active or passive; I really don't know which)
complicity of ordinary German citizens? If you are, then we DO have a
problem.
You can deny feeling like a victim, but your constant whining betrays
you. Germans aren't 'always the "evil guys"'; I have never said that and
don't believe it. As for 'racism', it seems to me that you have a
considerably larger problem in that arena than I.
Grow up (you've got some way to go).
Bob Harper
Ian Pace
"Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4-SdnQ45NPBic7fb...@comcast.com...
> Are you denying that appalling crimes were committed by the Nazis, all too
> often with the (active or passive; I really don't know which) complicity
> of ordinary German citizens? If you are, then we DO have a problem.
>
directly involved with or complicit in the crimes of the Nazis; the
'totalitarian' model that was adopted by some historians right after the end
of WW2 hardly holds up any longer. But it's questionable whether this
represented the majority. The Nazis only ever got 43.9% of votes in free
elections, and that was some time before their worst actions had begun. But
immediately upon taking power, they took measures to crush opposition,
Communists and Social Democrats being their first victims. There's been a
strain of revisionist history (Daniel Goldhagen, and in milder forms Robert
Gellately and Eric Johnson and Karl-Heinz Reuband) that tries to portray the
events of 1933-1945 as essentially the collective will of the German people
which the NSDAP merely gave voice to and enacted. This stuff has been well
answered by Richard J. Evans in his recent work on the Third Reich (there is
a lecture on this one can listen to online, but I can't find the link at
present), documenting the extent to which the Third Reich was indeed a state
run by terror on many levels.
Ian
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > In article <1177206265.373357.288...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ms1...@gmail.com says...
> version of the stationmaster's answer would be "From two minutes before
> two o'clock until two minutes after two o'clock."
>
> wr
I have never heard anybody say "two two" or similar in English. "Two
minutes past two", even just "two past two", but never "tootoo".
Michael Schaffer
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
>
> (more whining)
>
> Aaarrgghh! There you go again.
>
> I don't believe many intelligent people today would defend the
> firebombing of Dresden. Why on earth can't you accept that rather than
> obsessing about the possibility that some fool may call you a Nazi or
> defend the action by saying the equivalent of 'so's your old man'?
>
> Your victim complex is not the complex matter you seem to think it is.
> Rather it is your standard response to anyone who chooses to challenge
> your assumption of your superiority.
I don't have a victim complex. I don't have a superiority complex.
However, reading your posts gives me a strange sudden feeling of vast
intellectual and moral superiority over its biased and bigoted author.
These idiotic attacks are nothing like your racism and prejudices in
another guise.
>From now on, when you have to say something about German history or
culture to me, I expect you to write in German. Let's see if you can
even put together a few sentences in the language of the culture you
think you know so much about. If I can talk about that subject to you
in your language, then you should be able to do so the same.
> Are you denying that appalling crimes were committed by the Nazis,
In dozens of discussions about this and related subjects, have I ever
"denied" these crimes? On the contrary, I have always pointed out how
much aware we are in Germany today what horrible things happened.
Now you come with this cheapest of rhetorical shots again. You just
can't get that out of your system. Whenever you run pout of arguments,
you make these insinuations. That betrays a lifetime of prejudice
which I am now sure you will never be able to overcome.
What a sad provincial ignorant hatefilled piece of shit you are.
sechumlib
> I have never heard anybody say "two two" or similar in English. "Two
> minutes past two", even just "two past two", but never "tootoo".
Well, EXCUSE ME for having made such an inexcusable boo-boo (I'm a poet
& don't know it!)
Or rather, don't excuse yourself for being such a literalist idiot.
sechumlib
> I don't. And I don't feel like a victim either. But why
> "inappropriate"? Because Germans are always automatically the "evil
> guys", never the "victims"? See, you did it again. It's so deeply
> ingrained in you that you simply can't help it. That is why I call you
> a racist. Think about it. It may be very difficult, but it's never too
> late to rethink and change. Or maybe for some people it is.
Boy, are you hyper! Have to see an insult to Germans everywhere you turn.
I have 100% German heritage, and I have more brains than to follow your
lost wanderings.
Gerard
>
> So, we can't discuss, say, Toscanini or Koussevitzky without every
> time stressing the fact that they made splendid careers in a country
> which had racial legislation at the time? We can't talk about, say,
> Elgar without stressing that we think he was a damn coward for
> composing music instead of devoting his life to fighting a regime
> which subjugated and exploited entire subcontinents? Can I still waych
> French movies from the 50s, or is that somehow not OK because they
> fought bloody colonial wars in "Indochine" and Algeria at the same
> time?
Why should you want to discuss all those things in a newsgroup about
_recordings_ of classical music?
Maybe a few are interested, of course. But for many all these 'discussions' are
just newsgroup pollution.
You seem to like it a lot.
Bob Harper
(still more bluster)
As I said, grow up. And you've still got a long way to go.
I'm done...for now.
Bob Harper
Steve de Mena
> On Apr 22, 12:04 am, Wayne Reimer <wrdslremovethis濃pacbell.net>
Me neither. "two-oh-two" is possible.
Steve
Bob Harper
Nor I, but it would ruin the joke to insert the 'oh'.
Bob Harper
sechumlib
My goodness! Forget classical music. This NG should be retitled
"rec.music.classical.pick-at-everything-they-say".
Michael Schaffer
sechumlib wrote:
> On 2007-04-22 16:18:02 -0400, Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> said:
>
> > Michael Schaffer wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>>> In article <1177206265.373357.288...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> ms1...@gmail.com says...
> >>>> On Apr 21, 7:58 am, sechumlib <sechum...@liberal.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2007-04-20 23:21:42 -0400, jrsn...@aol.com said:
> >>>>>> Which brings up one of my favorite grammatical axioms: that "that"
> >>>>>> that that sentence includes is too much.
> >>>>> Sort of like the railroad station master who was asked how long the
> >>>>> train stopped at the station, and answered "Two to two to two two"?
> >>>> I don't get it. Please explain.
> >>> It IS a bit oblique, and depends on several elisions. A fully stated
> >>> version of the stationmaster's answer would be "From two minutes before
> >>> two o'clock until two minutes after two o'clock."
> >>>
> >>> wr
> >>
> >> I have never heard anybody say "two two" or similar in English. "Two
> >> minutes past two", even just "two past two", but never "tootoo".
> >>
> >
> > Me neither. "two-oh-two" is possible.
>
> My goodness! Forget classical music. This NG should be retitled
> "rec.music.classical.pick-at-everything-they-say".
It's not nitpicking. It's just that the joke doesn't quite work if it
doesn't use actually spoken English, in contrast to the "that that
that" example given above.
Michael Schaffer
> On 2007-04-21 21:55:40 -0400, Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > I don't. And I don't feel like a victim either. But why
> > "inappropriate"? Because Germans are always automatically the "evil
> > guys", never the "victims"? See, you did it again. It's so deeply
> > ingrained in you that you simply can't help it. That is why I call you
> > a racist. Think about it. It may be very difficult, but it's never too
> > late to rethink and change. Or maybe for some people it is.
>
> Boy, are you hyper! Have to see an insult to Germans everywhere you turn.
No, you idiot, the guy who started the thread sees Nazis everywhere he
turns, even in hapless music reviews on English websites.
> I have 100% German heritage, and I have more brains than to follow your
> lost wanderings.
It's not "in the blood", it's a culturally acquired thing. Besides,
there are lots of idiots in Germany just like everywhere. So you could
also be a descendant of those. Basic intelligence is probably passed
on genetically, so judging from your contributions here, that seems
likely. And since you don't speak German and probably don't know very
much about the country and its cultural heritage either, your
"heritage" is more around 0%. And yes, I know, "you took German in
high school", but that hasn't helped much beyond "eek sprayke ine
bissken doitsh", and no, that doesn't really count either.
Michael Schaffer
You are not done. You have to immediately attack sechumlib because he
claims his heritage is "100% German" based on where his ancestors came
from. In other words, he claims what I never claimed but for which you
have attacked me countless times, namely that cultural heritage is
transported "in the blood". While I always said it's a culturally
acquired thing and has nothing to do with genetics and ancestry.
So go on, attack him, insult him, turn everything he says into a
racist diatribe, like you like to do.
What do you say to dogs in English to trigger them? "Grab"?
"Grab, Bobbie, grab!"
Michael Schaffer
That's why I start stuff like that all that time, you are right. Wait
no, I don't start stuff like that. But some people do. Some people
call me a Nazi everytime I disagree with them, every time I say
something about traditional playing styles, and some people see Nazis
everywhere, like the idiot who actually started this thread.
Why don't you go and tell those people to stop their nonsense?
fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com
> I don't believe many intelligent people today would defend the
> firebombing of Dresden.
The case is not as simple as some have made it out to be. See for
example Frederick Taylor, Dresden : Tuesday, 13 February 1945 (publ.
2004), or the summary of his arguments at
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yufvbk (London Times).
But I wouldn't necessarily expect a MusicWeb reviewer to be familiar
with the latest scholarship on the bombing of Dresden, and in any case
I don't wish to argue the case either way. What's chiefly
objectionable about Mr Sutton's effort is that on the most obvious
interpretation it appears to represent the Nazi era as an
unambiguously glorious time. I am quite prepared to believe that Mr
Sutton doesn't feel that way, but he should certainly have chosen his
words more carefully in that case. I do find it quite remarkable that
this was not picked up at some stage in the editorial process.
Bob Lombard
<fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1177295896.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
All of this equivocation seems unnecessary. The guy specifies 1939-1944.
bl
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> <fromgoogle.1.ludwig...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177295896.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 12:13 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I don't believe many intelligent people today would defend the
> >> firebombing of Dresden.
>
> > The case is not as simple as some have made it out to be. See for
> > example Frederick Taylor, Dresden : Tuesday, 13 February 1945 (publ.
> > 2004), or the summary of his arguments at
>
> > But I wouldn't necessarily expect a MusicWeb reviewer to be familiar
> > with the latest scholarship on the bombing of Dresden, and in any case
> > I don't wish to argue the case either way. What's chiefly
> > objectionable about Mr Sutton's effort is that on the most obvious
> > interpretation it appears to represent the Nazi era as an
> > unambiguously glorious time. I am quite prepared to believe that Mr
> > Sutton doesn't feel that way, but he should certainly have chosen his
> > words more carefully in that case. I do find it quite remarkable that
> > this was not picked up at some stage in the editorial process.
>
> All of this equivocation seems unnecessary. The guy specifies 1939-1944.
>
> bl
Tat's when the recordings were made. But the musical elements captured
in the recording go back many decades, in the case of the Silbermann
organ even 3 centuries. Maybe the reviewer mistakenly assumed that
people who read a review about this kind of music would know that.
Apparently, and to me not surprisingly, given how badly and
superficially informed a lot of the people who post here are, he was
totally wrong about that.
Even though the Pfitzner piece may be contemporary to the Nazi period
(and to be honest, Pfitzner doesn't interest me at all, only for
historical reasons), the main interest here are the Strauss pieces
which are far older, the tradition of the "Strauss orchestra" which is
as authentic as anything when it comes to that literature (and which
in itself is centuries old), the organ by a master baroque organ
builder which was destroyed during the war, and it is not surprising
that seeing all this and that it is all gone except for the musical
style which survived the destruction of Dresden in the form of the
orchestra itself, the author expresses regret for the losses wars in
general bring. He doesn't need to stress the fact that the evil Nazis
actually started the war. Educated readers already know that. Stating
that he finds it sad that so many of these cultural monuments were
lost in the war has absolutely nothing to do with "justifying" or
"celebrating" that.
That's like saying I feel sorry for the many American soldiers who
were killed or disabled during the Vietnam war. That doesn't mean that
I deny the fact that that war was started by the US and that those
people (more or less) willingly went there or were led to believe that
it made any sense to do that. It doesn't mean that I deny that the
other side suffered terrible losses, too.
It simply means looking beyond the historical and political aspects
and seeing the human catastrophy that was caused by that. In that
respect, it doesn't matter why and how and who and why not and
whatever, it simply means, from a human point of view it's a tragedy.
I think the author of the article looks at this from the same point of
view and says, it's a tragedy how many cultural achievements were
lost, and this recording captures some of them just before they and
their environments were destroyed. In this context, it doesn't matter
either why and how and all that. We already know all that (or should,
discussions like these reveal time and time again how badly informed a
lot of people really are). But that's not what is being discussed in
this context. Culture is. And since cultural achievements can (and in
this case) transcend national and time boundaries, it is a loss for
everyone interested in such things.
The point of view the autor is taking is actually a very humanist one,
not at all a NS point of view. It may be a bit "naive", but it is
somewhere at the opposite end of the spectrum from NS ideologies or
similar.
That that is hard for a lot of people here to grasp shows not what his
attitude is like, it shows how many people who make such assumptions
based on a few unelegantly chosen words still think. It shows how
primitive and tribal they think and act, that they aren't able to look
beyond the historical context about the human aspects of that big war
(and therefore, any other wars). It shows they still haven't
understood that people everywhere aren't just "good or bad", and that
they aren't part of "the good guys", no matter how they point their
fingers at other people in other places and times.
Bob Harper
bloviations to yourself, you just keep digging (to mix metaphors). I
wouldn't dream of attributing your personality disorder to your German
heritage. As to whether it's 'a culturally acquired thing' I wouldn't
know. I just hope it isn't contagious.
Bob Harper
aleksios
> There were certainly large numbers of ordinary German citizens
> either directly involved with or complicit in the crimes of the
> Nazis; the 'totalitarian' model that was adopted by some
> historians right after the end of WW2 hardly holds up any
> longer.
"Totalitarianism" refers to a society in which the state controls (or
tries to control) every sphere of social activity. As it was used by
Arendt & al. after WWII, it was a concept which stressed the
fundamental similarity of Fascist (including Nazism) and Communist
dictatorships. It does not imply citizen participation, willing or
otherwise. It did indeed became unfashionable in Western academia;
but, IMHO, it was not due to its lack of explanatory power. Western
academic spectrum consists of a broad band of left-wingers, a thin
stripe of right-wingers, and a tiny lunatic fringe. The lefties and
the lunatics disliked the concept both for equating Communism and
Fascism, and for its implicit liberal apologia. (I did not meet a real
Marxist, i.e., someone who actually believed in Marxism, until I came
to the West.)
For many Eastern Europeans of my generation, the totalitarian model
has lost none of its explanatory power; on the contrary, it is reality
as we lived and experienced it. For us, it was as if every book on
Nazi Germany had on its frontispiece the motto, "De te fabula
narratur!"
> [...] the Third Reich was indeed a state run by terror on many
> levels.
Much depends on how one defines terror. If it's immediate threat of
death, then yes and no. In some respects, yes -- for instance, while
the Germans executed in WWI fewer than 100 of their own soldiers
(i.e., fewer than either the Brits or the French), in WWII they
executed between 10,000 and 15,000. But in many other respects, no.
The course of the euthanasia programme shows that opposition to Nazi
policies could be effective when enough Germans cared strongly about
an issue (see "Action T4" entry in Wikipedia).
>From my own experience, I can tell you that, once the totalitarian
state is established, terror is not really necessary, certainly not on
any significant scale. The vast majority of the people will do the
ugliest deeds with very little prompting -- and with few, if any,
regrets.
Not that any of this has anything to do with this thread...
--Alex (the irrelevant philistine)
Gerard
It only should cause more pollution.
You could do something too, by ignoring those idiots. It does not help defending
yourself after every post in which somebody calls you a nazi.
Michael Schaffer
It's not about defending myself. It's about educating. These were
horrible, horrible times and events, and that should not be forgotten
or trivialized, and they should not be invoked lightly, especially to
gain the upper hand in silly arguments or simply to insult somebody.
For instance, every time our "Ansermetniac" calls anybody who points
out that he is not an engineer, but a total fake, if he calls people
"anti-semite" for that, every time he pisses on the memory of the real
victims of real anti-semitic terror. A lot of people don't know
anything about that time and the NS dictatorship except for a few
clichés, and that is very dangerous. Many people continue to think in
the same ways the Nazis did, and yes, that includes people who have
simple black and white enemy pictures and who think, for instance,
that all Germans are automatically Nazis. That is basically the same
unhealthy and dangerous thinking, only in a slightly different guise.
Some things are simply not funny.
Bob Lombard
"Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177301355.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Love you too.
What you have made clear is that your mind is in a persistently confused
state, overwhelmed by the fragrance of your own notions. Try to remove your
nose from the source of that fragrance long enough to read the review.
bl
Gerard
>
> It's not about defending myself. It's about educating.
I doubt this newsgroup is filled with participants who want to be educated.
Really.
> These were
> horrible, horrible times and events, and that should not be forgotten
> or trivialized, and they should not be invoked lightly, especially to
> gain the upper hand in silly arguments or simply to insult somebody.
> For instance, every time our "Ansermetniac" calls anybody who points
> out that he is not an engineer, but a total fake, if he calls people
> "anti-semite" for that, every time he pisses on the memory of the real
> victims of real anti-semitic terror. A lot of people don't know
> anything about that time and the NS dictatorship except for a few
> clichés, and that is very dangerous. Many people continue to think in
> the same ways the Nazis did, and yes, that includes people who have
> simple black and white enemy pictures and who think, for instance,
> that all Germans are automatically Nazis. That is basically the same
> unhealthy and dangerous thinking, only in a slightly different guise.
> Some things are simply not funny.
Agreed.
But I don't think those posts will change anything.
Many people don't come here to learn something.
More likely they come to tell you "their truth".
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
What makes this so nauseatingly perverse is that the author of the
review has long ago (here in the form of a quote provided by Len)
clarified that and stressed that he didn't mean things they way they
were understood by some. That in itself should be enough.
Right now, what I have in my nose is the stench from all the shit that
people like you like to fling around. Why does it make you feel better
to accuse a hapless music reviewer of such nasty things, even after he
has clarified his statements? Why do you feel this need to accuse
other people of things they never meant in that way? Does it distract
you from your own pathetic existence?
BTW, people don't read with their noses.
Michael Schaffer
I know. But one should still speak out against such things and such
people. I one doesn't, look what can happen. One has to realize that
those people have the potential for such horrible things in them.
Well, we all do, but people who reveal their racism and tribal
thinking as readily as they do here just need the opportunity, and
they wouldn't hesitate if it presented itself to them. Remember, most
of the Nazi criminals were apparently "normal" people, too.
aleksios
<ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> said:
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
>
> > [...] A lot of people don't know anything about that time and
> > the NS dictatorship except for a few clichés [...]
>
> Agreed. [...]
How very curious. I wonder how I missed it -- could you please provide
a few instances of posts in this thread or this n.g. showing their
authors knew nothing except cliches about the subject?
> > [...] Many people continue to think [...] for instance, that all
> > Germans are automatically Nazis. [...]
>
> Agreed. [...]
Who are these people? Any of them in this n.g.? Could you please
provide specific examples of posts showing such thinking?
(Always excepting a certain gentleman not unrelated to the clergy, of
course. He's in a special category, which I would hesitate to include
among "people".)
--Alex (the curious philistine)
Bob Lombard
Oops! I was too subtle. Well, never mind.
bl
Michael Schaffer
Not too subtle. On the contrary. Your attempt at poetic metaphors
crashed much more violently and completely than Mr Sutton's unluckily
worded review which amkes you so upset. But now you really have no
reason anymore to inflate yourself about his writings.
sechumlib
I'd be very curious to know what sort of experience Schaffer thinks one
has to have to "know anything" about Nazism, and what kind HE has.
I was born in 1935, and lived through the entire period of WWII - in
the US, it's true, and as a child, it's true. But I noted then, and can
remember now, the horrors caused by the war - including the rescue of
the still-barely-living skeletons from the death camps, and the
devastation that covered most of Europe. If that devastation was worse
in Germany than some other places, so be it; the Germans started the
war, and they certainly trashed neighbor countries including Poland and
Czechoslovakia.
When was Schaffer born, I wonder? Does he have ANY direct experience to
rely on?
Ian Pace
"aleksios" <alex...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177308750....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>From my own experience, I can tell you that, once the totalitarian
> state is established, terror is not really necessary, certainly not on
> any significant scale. The vast majority of the people will do the
> ugliest deeds with very little prompting -- and with few, if any,
> regrets.
>
> Not that any of this has anything to do with this thread...
>
message that you were otherwise quoting.
Ian
aleksios
> [...] where does that piece of text come from? [...]
As the poet says, "an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own".
The piece of text comes entirely from my own pen (er, keyboard). You
will notice that only the first line appears as quoted. I must have
inserted inadvertently a quote character where it didn't belong. A
lapsus claviaturae, if I may be permitted the barbarism.
--Alex (the quotable philistine)
Gerard
> On 2007-04-23 09:35:42 -0400, "Gerard"
> <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > Michael Schaffer wrote:
> >
> > > [...] A lot of people don't know anything about that time and
> > > the NS dictatorship except for a few clichés [...]
> >
> > Agreed. [...]
>
> How very curious. I wonder how I missed it -- could you please provide
> a few instances of posts in this thread or this n.g. showing their
> authors knew nothing except cliches about the subject?
>
> > > [...] Many people continue to think [...] for instance, that all
> > > Germans are automatically Nazis. [...]
> >
> > Agreed. [...]
>
> Who are these people? Any of them in this n.g.? Could you please
> provide specific examples of posts showing such thinking?
Why should you restrict your questions to this n.g.?
There are lots of 'lot of people' and 'many people'.
>
> (Always excepting a certain gentleman not unrelated to the clergy, of
> course. He's in a special category, which I would hesitate to include
> among "people".)
>
I have no idea what this means.
aleksios
<ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> said:
> Why should you restrict your questions to this n.g.?
Because otherwise I might be asked:
"Why should you want to discuss all those things in a newsgroup about
_recordings_ of classical music? [...]"
We would all like, from time to time, to rail against the whips and
scorns of time, the pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, or the
insolence of office; but, as you so ably pointed out, this n.g. is
hardly the place.
So, once again, what posts, specifically, display the cliche-ridden
ignorance against which rails our learned interlocutor? And what
posts, specifically, say or imply that "all Germans are automatically
Nazis"?
And, if no such posts can be found, then may it not be wiser to
suggest to the person with whom you agree so well to take his valiant
struggle to those newsgroups where such posts are to be found?
> > Always excepting a certain gentleman not unrelated to the
> > clergy, of course. [...]
>
> I have no idea what this means.
No matter. If you stumble upon the gentleman in question -- possibly a
remote descendant of one "grave, not double-tongued, not given to much
wine, not greedy of filthy lucre", I'll let you know.
--Alex (the oblique philistine)
Gerard
> On 2007-04-23 14:02:31 -0400, "Gerard"
> <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > Why should you restrict your questions to this n.g.?
>
> Because otherwise I might be asked:
>
> "Why should you want to discuss all those things in a newsgroup about
> _recordings_ of classical music? [...]"
>
> We would all like, from time to time, to rail against the whips and
> scorns of time, the pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, or the
> insolence of office; but, as you so ably pointed out, this n.g. is
> hardly the place.
>
> So, once again, what posts, specifically, display the cliche-ridden
> ignorance against which rails our learned interlocutor? And what
> posts, specifically, say or imply that "all Germans are automatically
> Nazis"?
I don't think that was said. Iagred with Michael's "These were
horrible, horrible times and events, and that should not be forgotten
or trivialized, and they should not be invoked lightly, especially to
gain the upper hand in silly arguments or simply to insult somebody.
For instance, every time our "Ansermetniac" calls anybody who points
out that he is not an engineer, but a total fake, if he calls people
"anti-semite" for that, every time he pisses on the memory of the real
victims of real anti-semitic terror. A lot of people don't know
anything about that time and the NS dictatorship except for a few
clichés, and that is very dangerous. Many people continue to think in
the same ways the Nazis did, and yes, that includes people who have
simple black and white enemy pictures and who think, for instance,
that all Germans are automatically Nazis. That is basically the same
unhealthy and dangerous thinking, only in a slightly different guise.
Some things are simply not funny."
>
> And, if no such posts can be found, then may it not be wiser to
> suggest to the person with whom you agree so well to take his valiant
> struggle to those newsgroups where such posts are to be found?
>
If you like such posts to be found, be lucky with searching them.
Bob Lombard
"Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:462d1afa$0$8949$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> aleksios wrote:
>>
>> And, if no such posts can be found, then may it not be wiser to
>> suggest to the person with whom you agree so well to take his valiant
>> struggle to those newsgroups where such posts are to be found?
>>
>
> If you like such posts to be found, be lucky with searching them.
>
>
'Good Grief'', Gerard. Possibly even 'Leapin' Lizards'. The standard 'Fap'
response to incomprehension is inadequate here.
bl
Ian Pace
"Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:462d1afa$0$8949$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>
> horrible, horrible times and events, and that should not be forgotten
> or trivialized, and they should not be invoked lightly, especially to
> gain the upper hand in silly arguments or simply to insult somebody.
> For instance, every time our "Ansermetniac" calls anybody who points
> out that he is not an engineer, but a total fake, if he calls people
> "anti-semite" for that, every time he pisses on the memory of the real
> victims of real anti-semitic terror. A lot of people don't know
> anything about that time and the NS dictatorship except for a few
> clichés, and that is very dangerous. Many people continue to think in
> the same ways the Nazis did, and yes, that includes people who have
> simple black and white enemy pictures and who think, for instance,
> that all Germans are automatically Nazis. That is basically the same
> unhealthy and dangerous thinking, only in a slightly different guise.
> Some things are simply not funny."
>
Ian
Frank Berger
"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:WsaXh.10327$J64....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Actually, I think you'll find Jeffrey is quick to call people who disagree
with him on engineering matters idiots or morons. He is a tad more reserved
about using the anti-semite label. There's often at least some basis for
it.
aleksios
> Also agreed on all counts.
Count 1: "A lot of people don't know anything about that time
and the NS dictatorship except for a few clichés"
Count 2: "people who [...] who think [...] that all Germans are
automatically Nazis."
Same question: Specific examples in this n.g. of people and posts for
either count. (With the same proviso as before.) If there aren't any,
what the heck is this rant doing here, how is it relevant to the
thread (let alone the n.g.), and what other terrible iniquities are we
going to rant about next? (I suggest the impeachment of the President
of Romania -- an issue of burning immediacy for us: I'm told he loves
CM, and, as Sir Peter pointed out, we can't have enough politicians
like that.)
--Alex (the immediate philistine)
Michael Schaffer
> On 2007-04-23 09:56:34 -0400, aleksios <alex0...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On 2007-04-23 09:35:42 -0400, "Gerard"
Luckily no, since I was born in 1968, and neither do you. Give us a
break. You were *10* when the war ended which happened on the other
side of the world. Or did you volunteer to fight at the age of 6 and
take part in D-Day at the ripe age of 9?
You may have seen footage of KZs around that time, but guess what,
those films and pictures are still there, and when you grew up in
Germany as I did in the 70s and 80s, you got bombarded with those as
well as with information about the period. Of course, it also "helped"
to be there in one of the central places where it actually all
happened and where memories and scars of the war were still alive and
visible everywhere, where you could go and visit the sites (that were
left) and travel to concentration camps (which we did in school, and I
went to visit a few more later). Plus it helps if you speak the
language and grow into the culture which produced this dictatorship.
That helps a lot to understand how it happened and where it fits into
the "bigger picture".
And the most important resource was obviously that there were still a
lot of people around who *had* actually lived through the period, and
I talked to many, many of them, "ordinary" people as well as those who
had actively supported the system. Some of them wouldn't speak about
it, some would. And suriviors of Nazi terror, from Jews to communists
to people from other groups who had ben persecuted.
An interesting source of information was also my own family, from my
uncle and grandfather who had the pleasure of being drafted into the
Wehrmacht to go off and fight in faraway places during their best
years to members of the family who had lived through the horror of the
arrest by the Gestapo (they were drawn out of their beds and taken
away late at night, like in the movies) and execution of two family
members who had contacts to the Protestant resistance circles in
Berlin (they hanged them on hooks under the chin, like pig halves in a
butcher shop) to my father who as a very young man had been a member
of the olympic field hockey team for 1936 and a chemistry student. He
was "invited" to join the SS but declined the "honor" and that led to
him getting kicked out of both his team and college, and he had to go
work as a lowly lab tech somewhere in the deepest province. In a
strange twist of fate, that led to him being politically totally
"clean" after the war, so he was certified by both US and Soviet
services after the war and worked for both trading goods from the
Eastern to the Western occupation zones and the other way around. He
was also a coordinator for the Berlin airlift.
So there were decades worth of stories and testimony to be heard by
someone like me who is very interested in culture, in addition to
direct access to all the sources and being in the middle of the
extremely open and relentless discussion of the NS era called
"Vergangenheitsbewältigung".
It was also additionally interesting to grow up in a walled-in city
occupied by three foreign armies (although these were not really seen
as occupiers but allies due to the changed realities of the cold war)
with the Eastern Block just around the corner.
So I also got a very good and immediate look at what the communist
system was like. Plus we got their TV which was 2 channels full of
propaganda, so we also got to hear "the other side" and how they saw
things, about the war, about the world in general. But not just
propaganda. They also had great movies from the Eastern countries,
including the most wonderful Czech and Russian fairy tale movies. You
have no idea what you missed as a child growing up just with the
disneyfied versions of this part of European cultural heritage.
We also went to several of the Eastern Block countries several times,
so I got a good look at the realities there.
I guess one could say that growing up in West Berlin during those
years was the best place on earth to be exposed to all those elements
from the past and present and get a fairly good and immediate or very
close look at many of the elements which shaped the violent history of
the last century.
When the Eastern Block collapsed and that part of the world was
finally free, I was 21 and had spent my entire life being exposed on a
daily basis to all those things.
Let's see, what were you really exposed to in your time.
When you were at that age, there was still widespread racial
legislation in the US. Man, you were almost as old as I am now when
Martin Luther King was shot (in the year I was born)! Incredible. When
you were at the age I am now, your country was still involved in a
massive post-colonial war against a small third world country. And
funny, they are at it again as we type. And they are no more in
control of the situation now than back then. How many people died so
far on both sides? How many Americans and Vietnamese got killed during
your day?
The one element of WWII you must have directly experienced was the
racist persecution of Japanese Americans and the incredible propaganda
against Japanese in general. I couldn't believe it when I saw some of
that stuff.
"This is the enemy who attacked us, and this is why we fight them"?
No. They were protrayed as little rats, obviously racially inferior to
the (white) Americans, little rats that needed to be exterminated.
Did they come and take away any of your Japanese American friends when
you were in school, to put them into internment camps?
Or did you have no such friends because your parents didn't allow you
to play with those "little yellow bastards"? Did they also tell you to
stay away from "niggers" as well?
You have no more direct experience of WWII than I do, and probably
less than a few % of the direct information about it than I do, but
you do have decades of experience living in a state with racist laws
and practices, and you lived in a country which started several
aggressive wars during your lifetime.
You also have direct experience of the McCarthy era when political
enemies were hunted with a zeal which could have made the Gestapo look
like beginners.
Those are indeed first-hand experiences I don't have. The country I
grew up in didn't have any racial legislation during my time, and it
didn't start any wars. And there were no massive persecutions of any
political groups. But it was extremely active discussing the then very
recent past. Which in turn is an experience you don't have, since the
unpleasant aspects of your own history are still not that widely and
openly discussed.
So I could learn *a lot* from you about what was like to live in a
place where some people had to sit in the back of the bus (or weren't
allowed on or into some places at all) because they had the "wrong"
skin color, where your life could instantly be destroyed because of
some "inopportune" political affiliations and interests - or even the
hint of it, even when that was many years before -, where large-scale
wars against small countires were waged. Did it make you feel good and
patriotic to see the atomic bombs dropped or the burnt victims of
Napalm attacks?
Ian Pace
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:132qd8r...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> Actually, I think you'll find Jeffrey is quick to call people who disagree
> with him on engineering matters idiots or morons. He is a tad more
> reserved about using the anti-semite label. There's often at least some
> basis for it.
(Schaffer, Lemken, etc.) he'll pull out that label whenever the chips are
down.