van Beinum Mahler 7th

[Randy Lane]

I have heard of the existance of a broadcast recording of the Mahler
7th with van Beinum conducting teh RCOA (I believe from 1948), but
have never found an LP, tape, or CD of it myself. From what I've been
told, the recording is very very poor.
It is being rleased on CD:

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-1860-1911-Symphonie-Nr-7/hnum/2293360

Anyone here familiar with the recording I speak of?

[Randy Lane]

On Feb 13, 4:17 am, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard of the existance of a broadcast recording of the Mahler
> 7th with van Beinum conducting teh RCOA (I believe from 1948), but
> have never found an LP, tape, or CD of it myself. From what I've been
> told, the recording is very very poor.
> It is being rleased on CD:
>

> http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-1860-1911-...

>
> Anyone here familiar with the recording I speak of?

I write asking the questyion because the recording being release says
it was made in 1958, not 1948 as I had previously understood, so this
could be an entirely different affair.

[Roland van Gaalen]

It's not listed in this discography:
http://gustavmahler.net.free.fr/us.html

Apparently, there were two performances of Mahler 7 in June 1958 with Eduard van Beinum conducting.

One of those was given on June 4th.

The last time this work had been played by the Concertgebouw Orchestra was in the 1934/35 season.

That's all I know.

Sources:
_Historie en kroniek van het Concertgebouw en het Concertgebouworkest_, vol. 2, Walburg Pers, Zutphen, 1989, pp. 40 and 60.
_Mahler in Amsterdam - van Mengelberg tot Chailly_, THOTH, Bussum, 1995, pp. 77 and 126.

--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

[herman]

On 13 fév, 18:04, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> Apparently, there were two performances of Mahler 7 in June 1958 with Eduard van Beinum conducting.
>
> One of those was given on June 4th.
>
> The last time this work had been played by the Concertgebouw Orchestra was in the 1934/35 season.
>

Now that's an orchestra with a Mahler tradition....

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Monday, February 13, 2012 5:36:46 PM UTC+1, EM wrote:
> Randy Lane <randy...@gmail.com> - Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:19:20 -0800
> (PST):

>
> > I write asking the questyion because the recording being release says
> > it was made in 1958, not 1948 as I had previously understood, so this
> > could be an entirely different affair.
>

> <http://www.radio4.nl/pip-uitzending/haffmansmooiste/10283/>
>
> Click on the "LUISTER TERUG" icon. After about 30 min. Eduard van
> Beinum's Mahler 7 (Scherzo, Nachtmusik).
>

Thanks for this information

For those who understand Dutch, the following information is from
http://www.gustavmahlerstichting.nl/#


<< CD Gustav Mahler Symfonie VII o.l.v. Eduard van Beinum

Een unieke CD is verschenen, met daarop de zevende symfonie van Gustav Mahler, onder leiding van Eduard van Beinum. Het betreft een radio opname van 4 juni 1958.
De CD is op 5 februari 2012 in het programma Discotabel op Radio 4 besproken en op 9 februari 2012 bij Haffmans'mooiste. Deze laatste is terug te luisteren via
http://www.radio4.nl/pip-uitzending/haffmansmooiste/10283/

De CD kan worden besteld door een e-mail met de verzendgegevens te sturen aan [SEE WEBSITE] onder gelijktijdige overmaking van € 15,00 op bankrekening [SEE WEBSITE] onder vermelding CD Mahler VII. >>

WEBSITE=
http://www.gustavmahlerstichting.nl/#

[Roland van Gaalen]

Exactly my thought, at least with respect to the 3rd, 6th and the 7th symphonies.

At the other extreme are symphonies 1 and 4, however, which used to be performed more or less every year until the war.

[phlogiston]

>
> > > The last time this work had been played by the Concertgebouw Orchestra was in the 1934/35 season.
>
> > Now that's an orchestra with a Mahler tradition....
>

Did many orchestras play Mahler 7 much more than that before 1960?

P

[Alan Cooper]

Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:31550067.2053.1329155328809.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbc
l10:

> WEBSITEhttp://www.gustavmahlerstichting.nl/#

Thanks, Roland. If only those orders via bank transfer were as simple for US folk
as they are in the EU. The new book promoted at the top of the web page (_Gustav
Mahler in Nederland_) looks interesting and worthwhile as well. Have you seen it?

AC

[M forever]

On Feb 13, 1:39 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2012 7:11:40 PM UTC+1, herman wrote:
> > On 13 fév, 18:04, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apparently, there were two performances of Mahler 7 in June 1958 with Eduard van Beinum conducting.
>
> > > One of those was given on June 4th.
>
> > > The last time this work had been played by the Concertgebouw Orchestra was in the 1934/35 season.
>
> > Now that's an orchestra with a Mahler tradition....
>
> Exactly my thought, at least with respect to the 3rd, 6th and the 7th symphonies.
>
> At the other extreme are symphonies 1 and 4, however, which used to be performed more or less every year until the war.
> --
> Roland van Gaalen
> Amsterdam
> r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

Is there a database about Mahler performances by the orchestra
somewhere? I couldn't find one online. I looked in the info section on
their homepage to see if they have an archive, but apparently not. I
did learn though that the bass player Guibert Vrijens just died. Sad.
I knew him personally.

[Roland van Gaalen]

There may be a database somewhere, but I don't have it.

As regards the Mahler "tradition" of the Concertgebouw Orchestra up to the 1950s, my sources are a few books I happen to own:

_Historie en kroniek van het Concertgebouw en het Concertgebouworkest_, 2 volumes, Walburg Pers, Zutphen, 1989.

_Mahler in Amsterdam - van Mengelberg tot Chailly_, THOTH, Bussum, 1995 (especially the table on p. 126)

Donald Mitchell (ed.), __New Sounds, New Century - Mahler's Fifth Symphony and the Royal
Concertgebouw Orchestra, THOTH, Bussum, 1997 (especially pp. 120-124)

_Willem Mengelberg - Gedenkboek - 1895-1920_, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1920 (especially pp. 273-278).

[Roland van Gaalen]

No unfortunately I haven't and I don't know anything about it.

[M forever]

On Feb 13, 6:48 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

Is that a summary of performances since the days of Mengelberg?

[Roland van Gaalen]

It's a just little table indicating for each of the Mahler symphonies 1-9 as well as Das Lied von de Erde, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen,Kindertotenlieder and "various songs" whether or not they were performed in any given season (1920/21 ... 1940/41).

Dates, number of performances and conductor names are not included.

[maready]

On Feb 13, 7:17 am, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard of the existance of a broadcast recording of the Mahler
> 7th with van Beinum conducting teh RCOA (I believe from 1948), but
> have never found an LP, tape, or CD of it myself. From what I've been
> told, the recording is very very poor.
> It is being rleased on CD:
>

> http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-1860-1911-...

>
> Anyone here familiar with the recording I speak of?

Thanks for bringing this to our attention --- I'll certainly be
ordering a copy. I had no idea that an Van Beinum Seventh existed and
even in medium-dire sound am excited to hear it. I've always had good
service from JPC (I'm in New York,)

[M forever]

On Feb 13, 7:48 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

That would still be interesting to see - or could you summarize the
info?

[Roland van Gaalen]

Will do as soon as I have a few minutes.

[M forever]

On Feb 13, 8:05 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

:-)

[webm...@mahlerreviews.com]

On Feb 13, 1:17 pm, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard of the existance of a broadcast recording of theMahler

> 7th with vanBeinumconducting teh RCOA (I believe from 1948), but

> have never found an LP, tape, or CD of it myself. From what I've been
> told, the recording is very very poor.
> It is being rleased on CD:
>

> http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-1860-1911-...

>
> Anyone here familiar with the recording I speak of?

Hello everyone,

The Van Beinum CD will be released internationally very shortly. I
already had the pleasure to listen to this wonderful CD and have
written a review on the following page:

http://www.mahlerreviews.com/mahler_7_beinum_concertgebouw_gmsn.html

Of course the sound quality is not great, this being a radio air check
of more than 50 years ago. But the performance is simply electrifying.
I have uploaded a sample of the Rondo-Finale from this recording. It
can be found on this page:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/FriendsOfGustavMahler/message/108

It should give you an idea of how the sound quality and the playing
is!

Greetings from The Netherlands!

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 9:09 am, "webmas...@mahlerreviews.com"

<webmas...@mahlerreviews.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:17 pm, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have heard of the existance of a broadcast recording of theMahler
> > 7th with vanBeinumconducting teh RCOA (I believe from 1948), but
> > have never found an LP, tape, or CD of it myself. From what I've been
> > told, the recording is very very poor.
> > It is being rleased on CD:
>
> >http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-1860-1911-...
>
> > Anyone here familiar with the recording I speak of?
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> The Van Beinum CD will be released internationally very shortly. I
> already had the pleasure to listen to this wonderful CD and have
> written a review on the following page:
>
> http://www.mahlerreviews.com/mahler_7_beinum_concertgebouw_gmsn.html

How was the Concertgebouworkest "war-scarred"? Did they lose a lot of
members during the war?

[webm...@mahlerreviews.com]

> members during the war?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They lost, typically, several jewish musicians. In fact, almost every
European orchestra was war-scarred.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 10:23 am, "webmas...@mahlerreviews.com"

Not necessarily. The Berliner Philharmoniker lost "only" 6-7 or so
Jewish musicians, every one a personal tragedy, but they were also all
lucky, because unlike many other Jews, they all got out and were able
to build themselves new existences elsewhere. After the war, they
kicked out another half dozen or so, namely those who were in the
NSDAP and who had used that to their advantage, so overall, they lost
only a dozen or so members.
How many did the Concertgebouworkest lose?

[webm...@mahlerreviews.com]

> How many did the Concertgebouworkest lose?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't have the exact number, but it's known Mengelberg was apathic
about the expulsion of several jewish orchestra members. But even if
they only lost 1 jewish member, the orchestra is scarred, being ever
so minimal.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 10:39 am, "webmas...@mahlerreviews.com"

It would be interesting to know some more details about this subject.
What I don't understand though is how then did van Beinum
"rehabilitate" the "war-scarred" orchestra when he himself had been a
Nazi collaborator, if maybe a quieter one than Mengelberg? He was co-
principal conductor of the orchestra, and it doesn't look like he
protested against the removal of Jewish musicians either. It looks to
me like much about that period in the Netherlands hasn't really been
openy processed yet, beyond the symbolic lynching of a few selected
public figures like Mengelberg, in order to distract from the fact
that many collaborated or just kept quiet.

[Randy Lane]

On Feb 14, 7:39 am, "webmas...@mahlerreviews.com"

> so minimal.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The experience in general was very different for musicians in the
occupied lands, like the Netherlands, than it was for those in The
Fatherland, such as the Berliners used as a comparison. I see no sense
in using the Berlin musicians' experience as a barometer of the
experience of musicians in lands the Germans conquered, subdued, and
enslaved. Jewish or not, all citizens in the lands invaded by Hitler's
armies were "war-torn", regardles of occupation/vocation or race.

[M forever]

Not necessarily. Many in the Netherlands suffered, but many also
arranged themselves nicely with the occupiers and didn't do too badly.
Many shared the racist views of the Nazis anyway. See, for instance,
what the poor occupied, enslaved Netherlanders did right after the war
- they went back into Indonesia to try to get their colonies back,
killing off maybe 100,000, maybe as many as 200,000 Indonesians.
You are right though, my comparison with the musicians in Berlin
wasn't a very good one since in Amsterdam, they aranged themselves
with the occupiers and got through the war pretty well until they were
liberated, while the musicians in Berlin went through the nearly total
destruction of their city and the post-war division of the city and
the whole country.

[Roland van Gaalen]

It seems to me that your information is not quite correct, but maybe you know more than I do.

Mengelberg was no resistance hero, but neither was he an actice collaborator, Nazi, or antisemite.

In fact, he did protest the expulsion of the Jewish musicians from the orchestra in 1941, sixteen in number.

Thirteen of these survived the war, three did not (S. Fuerth, S. Gompertz, J. Muller); I don't know how they died.

It appears that Mengelberg and a few other orchestra officials deserve credit for intervening with the authorities (in particular Reichskommissar Seyss-Inquart) on behalf of the Jewish musicians and their families.

My impression is that Mengelberg was not only an outstanding conductor, but also a embarrassingly silly person, and that his political judgment, to the extent he cared about politics, was terrible.

I also believe that the contrast between Mengelberg "the bad guy" and Van Beinum "the good guy" is extremely misleading.

Should Mengelberg have spoken out publicly against the Nazi policies?

Was he a coward?

For me it is easy to say yes and join the resistance -- after the war.

The pius disavowals of Mengelberg by the Dutch authorities and others after 1945 were not acts of heroism, in my opinion.

(*) I wasn't there (born 1958), I am not a historian and I have no truly authoritative references. My main source (which I have not even read thoroughly) is the orchestra's own chronicles:

_Historie en kroniek van het Concertgebouw en het Concertgebouworkest_, vol. 1, Walburg Pers, Zutphen, 1989, pp 211-253.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 12:28 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Did van Beinum also protest against the expulsion of Jewish players?
Or did he stay elegantly in the background?

What do you mean when you say Mengelberg appears to have been an
embarrassingly silly person?

[webm...@mahlerreviews.com]

On Feb 14, 6:28 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Perhaps I'm not as informed on this subject as I would like to be, my
knowledge about jew-expulsions is based on knowledge by others, I'm
not a historian, just an amateur-reviewer. It is the Beinum/M7
recording that inspired my review, and I still do believe VB
rehabilitated the orchestra to its glorious self. I do know VB was
reprimanded for giving concerts for the Germans. But even that is
'hearsay'...

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 1:08 pm, "webmas...@mahlerreviews.com"

But how did van Beinum "rehabilitate" the orchestra "to its glorious
self"?

[Roland van Gaalen]

> recording that inspired my review, ...
> ...

Fair enough. I read your review with interest.

Judging from the parts I have heard so far (on radio 4 as well as your excerpt), there is a family resemblance with the other historical Mahler recordings by the Concertgebouw Orchestra.

(Symphony #1/Walter; #2/Klemperer; #3/Van Beinum; #4/Mengelberg; #5/Kubelik and adagietto/Mengelberg; #6/Van Beinum; Das Lied von der Erde/Schuricht; Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen/Mengelberg)

To my completely untrained ear, these performances have something in common, besides have been recorded in mono.

Am I imagining things when I think that the old-fashioned sound of the orchestra so familiar from the prewar recordings didn't really change all that much until Van Beinum's death at the end of the 1950s and by Bernard Haitink's succession?

In one way or another, the old style sounds more flexible, more alive, more expressive than Haitink's restrained good taste might permit.

I tend to like Haitink's recordings very much, but when I hear something like this (the newly discovered #7 by Van Beinum) I am tempted to think an admittedly indefensible thought: "This is the real thing."

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:02:01 PM UTC+1, Roland van Gaalen wrote:

> until Van Beinum's death at the end of the 1950s and by Bernard Haitink's succession?

remove "by"

[Gerard]

Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> typed:

>
> Judging from the parts I have heard so far (on radio 4 as well as
> your excerpt), there is a family resemblance with the other
> historical Mahler recordings by the Concertgebouw Orchestra.
>
> (Symphony #1/Walter; #2/Klemperer; #3/Van Beinum; #4/Mengelberg;
> #5/Kubelik and adagietto/Mengelberg; #6/Van Beinum; Das Lied von der
> Erde/Schuricht; Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen/Mengelberg)
>
> To my completely untrained ear, these performances have something in
> common, besides have been recorded in mono.
>
> Am I imagining things when I think that the old-fashioned sound of
> the orchestra so familiar from the prewar recordings didn't really
> change all that much until Van Beinum's death at the end of the 1950s
> and by Bernard Haitink's succession?
>
> In one way or another, the old style sounds more flexible, more
> alive, more expressive than Haitink's restrained good taste might
> permit.
>
> I tend to like Haitink's recordings very much, but when I hear
> something like this (the newly discovered #7 by Van Beinum) I am
> tempted to think an admittedly indefensible thought: "This is the
> real thing."

Do you mean that "the real thing" disappeared after Van Beinum?
For example: is Mahler's 7th by the Concertgebouw Orchestra conducted by
Kondrashin not "the real thing"?

[Bob Harper]

(snip for brevity)

Note that *all* of Michael's replies in this thread have (as always) the
purpose of insisting that no especial guilt accrues to the actions of
Germany during the period in question, and that the nationals of other
countries (including those overrun and enslaved by Germany) were guilty
of equally reprehensible behavior.

As Someone said,

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
(KJV)

None of us is guiltless, of course, but there are some who bear a
heavier share.

Bob Harper

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 6:35 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> (snip for brevity)
>
> Note that *all* of Michael's replies in this thread have (as always) the
> purpose of insisting that no especial guilt accrues to the actions of
> Germany during the period in question,

Complete nonsense.

> and that the nationals of other
> countries (including those overrun and enslaved by Germany) were  guilty
> of equally reprehensible behavior.

Complete nonsense.

This has nothing to do with any of that, nor does it follow from
anything I said, even by a very wide stretch.

But I do think that the assignment of blame to Mengelberg vs van
Beinum after the war may not have have entirely fair to the former.

> As Someone said,
>
> "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
> shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
> (KJV)
>
> None of us is guiltless, of course, but there are some who bear a
> heavier share.

I don't bear any "shame" at all when it comes to that period. I was
born decades later. In the time and place I grew up and lived in, none
of the above was going on anymore. Several members of my family
resisted the Nazis and paid for that with their lives. But that
doesn't bring me any glory either.

But in the time and place you grew up and lived in, people were still
being discriminated against on racial grounds. For that, you bear
shame until the rest of your days.

[Benjo Maso]

"M forever" schreef in bericht
news:dee24dff-381c-48e0...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

>
> Perhaps I'm not as informed on this subject as I would like to be, my
> knowledge about jew-expulsions is based on knowledge by others, I'm
> not a historian, just an amateur-reviewer. It is the Beinum/M7
> recording that inspired my review, and I still do believe VB
> rehabilitated the orchestra to its glorious self. I do know VB was
> reprimanded for giving concerts for the Germans. But even that is
> 'hearsay'...

Van Beinum gave only one concert in Germany (Dresden, 1941). And yes, he was
reprimanded.

Benjo Maso

[Roland van Gaalen]

I don't understand your notion of "gulit accruing to actions."

If you mean collective guilt in a moral sense, I reject that notion.

You say "none of us are guiltless" -- very nice, but who are those "some who bear a heavier share" of guilt?

I suppose you are not alluding to "original sin," but historical events that took place before most of "us" were born.

--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam

r.p.gaalenATchello.nl

[Benjo Maso]

"M forever" schreef in bericht

news:64292fdb-00ee-4c3f...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> Did van Beinum also protest against the expulsion of Jewish players?
> Or did he stay elegantly in the background?

For a short time he was involved in a resistance group, helping Jews to get
forged identity cards, vouchers, etc. On the other hand, like most artists
he became member of the Kulturkammer, 'to save the orchestra'.

Benjo Maso

[Frank Berger]

Bob, as official representative of world Jewry, I declare you absolutely
innocent of any wrongdoing in the matter of the Holocaust. Rest easy.

[Roland van Gaalen]

> Did van Beinum also protest against the expulsion of Jewish players?
> Or did he stay elegantly in the background?

This question has been answered by Benjo Maso.

>
> What do you mean when you say Mengelberg appears to have been an
> embarrassingly silly person?

It's only an impression, based on various things I have read about the man over the years.

For starters, just look at his pictures!!!

By the way, the black-and-white photos don't reveal that he was, in fact, red-haired!!!

And de did not particularly like the music by Bruckner.

That's almost as bad!!!

Moreover, although he was undoubtedly a great Mahler conductor. he performed the sixth symphony only a few times (in 1916 and in 1920).

Now, who can understand that?

Apparently he was a very domineering person, a little dictator (yes he was short, too!!), but one who was easily intimidated by anyone wearing a uniform.

On one occasion the only way to force him to end a late-night rehearsal was to bring in a uniformed cab driver (or was he a janitor?) who happened to be wearing a cap that made him look like a somebody.

There are many more facts establishing "professor" Mengelberg's silliness beyond any reasonable doubt.

But he was a very good conductor.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 7:05 pm, "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> "M forever"  schreef in berichtnews:64292fdb-00ee-4c3f...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>
> > Did van Beinum also protest against the expulsion of Jewish players?
> > Or did he stay elegantly in the background?
>
> For a short time he was involved in a resistance group, helping Jews to get
> forged identity cards, vouchers, etc. On the other hand, like most artists
> he became member of the Kulturkammer,  'to save the orchestra'.

For a short time? How short? How much did he really do? Is it true
that Mengelberg protested openly against the removal of Jewish
musicians and even tried to intervene with German authorities? Did van
Beinum do that, too?

[M forever]

How nice of you. Of course Harper wasn't there, so he couldn't have
contributed to the holocaust anyway.

Unfortunately, Harper is a completely voluntary member and outspoken
supporter of an organization which has contributed more than any other
to demonizing and persecuting Jews over many centuries, to preparing
the mental soil for the holocaust, and which - as an organization
which claims representation of the divine - has shamed itself
eternally by turning a blind eye when the holocaust occurred, and
which has even helped many Nazis get away afterwards.
He is a member of that same organization by choice, and
enthusiastically so. No, I am not talking about the NSDAP. That is
long gone. I am, of course, talking about his Catholic Church.

[Steve Emerson]

In article
<26210481.2555.1329249721829.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbve17>,

Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In one way or another, the old style sounds more flexible, more alive, more
> expressive than Haitink's restrained good taste might permit.
>
> I tend to like Haitink's recordings very much, but when I hear something like
> this (the newly discovered #7 by Van Beinum) I am tempted to think an
> admittedly indefensible thought: "This is the real thing."

I come and I go with the redoubtable Haitink -- but that digital Mahler
7 of his is a hugely intelligent and compelling performance of this
elusive work. Obviously there are matters of judgment and interpretation
that overlap with the question of temperamental restraint, etc.

Of course I'll be more than interested in Van Beinum's; he strikes me as
every bit as intelligent as Haitink.

SE.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 3:02 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

Based on that one short excerpt posted in that Yahoo group?

[Roland van Gaalen]

That as well as the much longer excerpt from radio 4 pointed to in EM's post:

(from EM's post:)

http://www.radio4.nl/pip-uitzending/haffmansmooiste/10283/
Click on the "LUISTER TERUG" icon. After about 30 min. Eduard van
Beinum's Mahler 7 (Scherzo, Nachtmusik).

[Benjo Maso]

"M forever" schreef in bericht

news:efb5e185-a7a1-440d...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 14, 7:05 pm, "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> "M forever" schreef in
> berichtnews:64292fdb-00ee-4c3f...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Did van Beinum also protest against the expulsion of Jewish players?
> > Or did he stay elegantly in the background?
>
> For a short time he was involved in a resistance group, helping Jews to
> get
> forged identity cards, vouchers, etc. On the other hand, like most artists
> he became member of the Kulturkammer, 'to save the orchestra'.

> For a short time? How short? How much did he really do?

I don't know.

> Is it true that Mengelberg protested openly against the removal of Jewish
> musicians and even tried to intervene with German authorities?

AFAIK Mengelberg never protested openly, but he tried to convince the German
authorities that the removal of the Jewish musicans would be fatal for the
orchestra. Ther rusult was that three string players and a trombonist could
stay a few month longer that the others.

> Did van Beinum do that, too?

Van Beinum asked an appointment with Seyss-Inquart, but in vain.

Benjo Maso

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:46:55 AM UTC+1, M forever wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 3:02 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I tend to like Haitink's recordings very much, but when I hear something like this
> > > (the newly discovered #7 by Van Beinum) I am tempted to think an admittedly
> > > indefensible thought: "This is the real thing."
>
> > Based on that one short excerpt posted in that Yahoo group?
>
> That as well as the much longer excerpt from radio 4 pointed to in EM's post:
>
> (from EM's post:)
>
> http://www.radio4.nl/pip-uitzending/haffmansmooiste/10283/
> Click on the "LUISTER TERUG" icon. After about 30 min. Eduard van
> Beinum's Mahler 7 (Scherzo, Nachtmusik).

I see. Regarding your earlier question, if the sound of the orchestra
changed after van Beinum, judging from recordings, that is not my
impression. The very characteristic sound of the orchestra is very
much in evidence still in recordings with Haitink well into the 70s
and 80s. When I heard them with Jochum (with Bruckner 7, shortly
before his death) in Berlin in the mid-80s, the sound was still quite
distinct.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 10:00 pm, "Benjo Maso" <benjo.m...@upcmail.nl> wrote:
> "M forever"  schreef in berichtnews:efb5e185-a7a1-440d...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

Sounds a little like "he wanted to be a hero, but he didn't get to
it", doesn't it? Mengelberg may not have acted particularly cleverly
during the period, but I don't think he gained anything for himself by
cooperating to whatever degree he did with the occupiers, and the
vehemence with which he was punished after the war - especially given
his half century of highly distinguished work with the orchestra - is
a little puzzling to me. They banned him from conducting for life (at
first), took away all his earlier decorations, his pension, even his
passport (so I guess he couldn't travel to and work in other
countries) - all that seems more than a bit much given that he did
negotiate with the NS authorities to help Jewish and other Dutch
musicians, held on to his Jewish musicians as long as he could, even
performed Mahler several months into the occupation.
My impression here is that they wanted to make a highly public example
of him to distract from the fact that many had willingly cooperated,
and many more willingly than him and with more to gain.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 7:46 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

I see. Yes, I guess, he does come across as a little silly by modern
standards, but I think many people, especially artists, from that era,
do. I think one has to take into account that during those times which
were much more conformist than our times, being an artist was one of
the few socially acceptable ways one could be a little "different",
and many artists relished and emphasized that - just like some do
today, although given that our present-day societies are so much more
non-conformist, that sometimes strikes me as all the more silly (e.g.
people like Peter Sellers with his silly hairdo) since that is really
not necessary anymore.
You said that "his political judgment, to the extent that he cared
about politics, was terrible", and that is probably true, too, and it
reminds me of something that I said here a while ago. Just like being
an artist allowed a person back then to be a little more different
than the conformist mass of people, I think artists and intellectuals
generally considered themselves outside and above of such mundane
matters as politics. In Germany, where artists and scientists enjoyed
an enormously high reputation during the late Empire and the Weimar
Republic, people like Furtwängler, Planck or Mann considered
themselves something like an intellectual/artistic elite, almost like
cultural royalty, and I think to many of them it simply didn't occur
at first that any political party would dare to question that status
and touch them. Mann saw the light, or rather, the darkness, very
quickly, and so did some others, but Furtwängler, for instance,
didn't, and it is obvious from his behavior during the first years of
the NS regime that he simply didn't "get it". There was a strong
element of vanity there, too, but that had been catered to for all his
life, and people like Goebbels were very clever in exploiting that and
manipulating people like Furtwängler. When he and others with a
similar mindset finally figured out what was really going on, it was
too late. I also think that people like him who were mentally still
rooted in the late 19th/early 20th century never really came to terms
with the fact that that world had vanished forever.

[Gerard]

M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:

You have written so a dozen of times before.
Nothing has changed since.
Must be an obsession of yours.

[Gerard]

Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> typed:

> (snip for brevity)
>
> Note that *all* of Michael's replies in this thread have (as always)
> the purpose of insisting that no especial guilt accrues to the
> actions of Germany during the period in question, and that the
> nationals of other countries (including those overrun and enslaved by
> Germany) were guilty of equally reprehensible behavior.
>

He has done so different times before.
Picturing the people in occupied countries as collaborators (Mengelberg
excepted), and the Germans as some kind of victims of the war. He seems to hate
the Dutch specially, always saying that they - after their collaboration - went
to Indonesia to kill everyone. This time he forgot to mention that they like to
play the music by German composers.

[Gerard]

Steve Emerson <eme...@n-n-nospamsonic.net> typed:

> In article
> <26210481.2555.1329249721829.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbve17>,
> Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In one way or another, the old style sounds more flexible, more
> > alive, more expressive than Haitink's restrained good taste might
> > permit.
> >
> > I tend to like Haitink's recordings very much, but when I hear
> > something like this (the newly discovered #7 by Van Beinum) I am
> > tempted to think an admittedly indefensible thought: "This is the
> > real thing."
>
> I come and I go with the redoubtable Haitink -- but that digital
> Mahler 7 of his is a hugely intelligent and compelling performance of
> this elusive work. Obviously there are matters of judgment and
> interpretation that overlap with the question of temperamental
> restraint, etc.
>

Which of the (at least) two digital recordings of Mahler 7 are you referring to?
(I think the one with the Concertgebouw Orchestra.)

[herman]

On 15 fév, 08:56, "Gerard" <ghendri_nospam-k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Emerson <eme...@n-n-nospamsonic.net> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <26210481.2555.1329249721829.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbve17>,

> >  Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In one way or another, the old style sounds more flexible, more
> > > alive, more expressive than Haitink's restrained good taste might
> > > permit.
>
> > > I tend to like Haitink's recordings very much, but when I hear
> > > something like this (the newly discovered #7 by Van Beinum) I am
> > > tempted to think an admittedly indefensible thought: "This is the
> > > real thing."
>
> > I come and I go with the redoubtable Haitink -- but that digital
> > Mahler 7 of his is a hugely intelligent and compelling performance of
> > this elusive work. Obviously there are matters of judgment and
> > interpretation that overlap with the question of temperamental
> > restraint, etc.
>
> Which of the (at least) two digital recordings of Mahler 7 are you referring to?
> (I think the one with the Concertgebouw Orchestra.)

must be the Concertgebouw. The BPO is not as compelling.

[Angelotti]

Maybe you can find some answers here:
http://www.wo2-muziek.nl/en/Musicians%20and%20artists/Willem%20Mengelberg%20%281871-1951%29%2C%20A%20Celebrated%20Musician%20in%20Free%20Fall
Hvdlinden

[herman]

On 15 fév, 05:14, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it
> reminds me of something that I said here a while ago. Just like being
> an artist allowed a person back then to be a little more different
> than the conformist mass of people, I think artists and intellectuals
> generally considered themselves outside and above of such mundane

> matters as politics. ith the fact that that world had vanished forever.

No matter how many times you say this it bears questioning.

The past looks more sameish than the present, but I think it wouldn't
be that hard to argue that contrary to what you say today's world is
vastly more conformist than the 1870 - 1939 period.

Today, across the world, regional differences have been vastly
diminished. People wear the same damn jeans everywhere and want to buy
the same damn iPhone, and their aspirations are virtually identical
- or so it seems. Since the fifties the model of the nuclear family
has been enforced everywhere, and the only significant change since
1970 is that women get to work for the man, too.

On the other hand the strange fact that an aknowledged weirdo like
Adolf Hitler could become head of state says something about the
tolerance for deviancy in the early 20th century. A man who liked to
sleep late, discuss long gone opera performances and Walt Disney
movies and modelled himself after melodramatic actors leading a major
industrial nation.

[M forever]

On Feb 15, 3:32 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 15 fév, 05:14, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it
> > reminds me of something that I said here a while ago. Just like being
> > an artist allowed a person back then to be a little more different
> > than the conformist mass of people, I think artists and intellectuals
> > generally considered themselves outside and above of such mundane
> > matters as politics. ith the fact that that world had vanished forever.
>
> No matter how many times you say this it bears questioning.
>
> The past looks more sameish than the present, but I think it wouldn't
> be that hard to argue that contrary to what you say today's world is
> vastly more conformist than the 1870 - 1939 period.
>
> Today, across the world, regional differences have been vastly
> diminished. People wear the same damn jeans everywhere and want to buy
> the same damn iPhone, and their aspirations are virtually identical
> -  or so it seems. Since the fifties the model of the nuclear family
> has been enforced everywhere, and the only significant change since
> 1970 is that women get to work for the man, too.

I don't think that's true. Yes, we have more globalization today, but
that also means that you have a whole lot more choices than you ever
had before. "Before" being, say, before the 60s or so. But that means
choices as a consumer, and you are talking about things which mostly
concern material culture. I think that's an entirely different
subject.
As individuals, we have a whole lot more personal freedom, at least in
most of the so-called western world, than people had 50 years or more
ago. Back then, it was a big deal even if you had long hair or a
Beatles haircut. I don't see how and where the "model of the nuclear
family" is generally enforced on people these days either.
Whether or not people chose to use all that personal freedom or not is
a different story. People are group animals, and they often seek to
conform themselves to group identities, but even in that they have
choices today than they had "back then".

> On the other hand the strange fact that an aknowledged weirdo like
> Adolf Hitler could become head of state says something about the
> tolerance for deviancy in the early 20th century. A man who liked to
> sleep late, discuss long gone opera performances and Walt Disney
> movies and modelled himself after melodramatic actors leading a major
> industrial nation.

Most dictators were and are really weird people who act a role. Hitler
didn't become the "Führer" because he liked to sleep in and watch
musicals and people thought that was cool. He became the "Führer"
because he acted that role, and that role was the leader of an
extremely conformist ideology which sought to streamline and align
every aspect of society. They called that "Gleichschaltung". The whole
ideology was all about conformism and aligning the individual with the
group. A bracket term for that is "fascism", from the Latin word for
"bundle". It doesn't get any more conformist than that, with the
paramilitary organization of every aspect of society, uniforms,
marching in formation with standards and to the beat of drum corps.
That whole world view was a strong counter-reaction to the upcoming
individualism of the time.

[Roland van Gaalen]

webm...@mahlerreviews.com wrote:

> http://www.mahlerreviews.com/mahler_7_beinum_concertgebouw_gmsn.html
>
> Of course the sound quality is not great, this being a radio air check
> of more than 50 years ago. But the performance is simply electrifying.
>

I received the CD in the mail today and I have heard the whole thing twice now.

Here are my first impressions.

Obviously, all Mahler, Van Beinum, and Concertgebouw Orchestra completists should buy this.

I know the Seventh (not my favorite Mahler symphony) only from recordings by Haitink, Chailly, Kondrashin, and Klemperer. In comparison, this spirited live performance sounds pleasantly quick, expressive and lively.

It's far from boring, but not that special either.

The timings are approximately as follows:
[i] 20:11 [ii] 14:07 [iii] 8:45 [iv] 10:25 [v] 16:09
Total 69:37

The sound of this mono recording varies between mediocre and fair. It's certainly not good by 1958 standards, even for live recordings.

I can't read scores, but I hear nothing particularly unusual, except perhaps somewhat more string portamento than in the other recordings I know. This could be a remnant of Mengelberg's influence, I suppose.

It is of course tempting to believe that this 1958 performance reflects the Concertgebouw Orchestra's pre-war Mahler tradition. Maybe they used Mengelberg's notes, but don't forget that this orchestra had not performed this symphony since 1934/35.

All in all, I am glad I bought this CD, and I recommend it to people taking a special interest in Mahler's 7th symphony (not everybody's cup of tea), Van Beinum's recordings, or historical recordings.

However, I am not inclined to recommend it to anyone else, because in my opinion it is not quite in the category of those indispensable, revelatory, hair-raising & breathtaking historical recordings.

Of course I am grateful to the Dutch Mahler society: the tape is a wonderful discovery, the CD is nicely produced, the service was prompt, and the price (EUR 15 incl packaging and postage within the Netherlands) is very reasonable. Bravo!

Ref.:
Mahler - Symphony No.7
Concertgebouw Orchestra, Eduard van Beinum conducting
Live recording of 4 June 1958, not previously issued
GMSN-001 released 2012 by Gustav Mahler Stichting Nederland
www.gustavmahlerstichting.nl

[Steve Emerson]

In article <585e5$4f3b653f$5356543a$11...@cache70.multikabel.net>,

Yes, that. I thought it was clear from the context (VB vs. Haitink), but
of course it wasn't.

SE.

[M forever]

I think they are pretty much the same musically. Obviously, they sound
a little different because the two orchestras and halls sounded
different, the BP Sound is just a little weightier, but musically,
they are - not surprisingly, given Haitink's consistency in his
approach - very similar. Both are equally well played and very well
recorded, with the sound from Amsterdam a little "nicer", "darker" and
"warmer", and from Berlin a little brighter and more "analytical".
Philips did a really good job recording in Berlin and making good use
of the clarity provided by the acoustics of the Philharmonie without
making the recordings sounds as bright and harsh as some of DG's
productions from the same hall.
Apparently, the DVD version of the BP/Haitink is actually a different,
live performance from the one on the Philips CDs, recorded in concerts
just preceding the studio sessions, but I have never watched/heard the
former.

[M forever]

> Maybe you can find some answers here:http://www.wo2-muziek.nl/en/Musicians%20and%20artists/Willem%20Mengel...
> Hvdlinden

Thanks. The "psychological analysis" by Het Volk is very interesting,
and, probably, fairly close to the truth. Equally interesting is the
article about the "Central Music Honor Council" because it explains
how Mengelberg and others were actually judged and banned - tribunal
style, originally with no lawyers and no right to appeal the verdict.
Looks like they learned from the Gestapo. That's pretty disturbing.

[M forever]

On Feb 15, 2:27 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> - Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:35:24 -0800:

>
> > "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
> > shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
> > (KJV)
>

> People who criticize the non-heroic behaviour of ordinary citizens in
> the occupied countries, or for that matter in Germany, during WW2
> should ask themselves how they would have acted in the face of Nazi
> terror.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. And that is exactly what I
am doing. Or more specifically, in this case, I am asking why one man
was the big devil who was so harshly punished and another, who doesn't
seem to have been any more "heroic" himself got away with just a
"reprimand" and he is even said to have "rehabilitated" the reputation
of the orchestra the other man destroyed or tarnished.

> Of course, we already know that 'M forever' is a self-effacing
> hero and a fearless resistance fighter, a true legend in his own
> imagination.

That is a completely nonsensical comment which has nothing to do with
anything I ever said about this subject. On the contrary, I have often
pointed out that we should be careful about judging people who lived
under far more difficult circumstances than we do today.

So what motivated this pointless attack of yours? Are the questions I
am asking here too uncomfortable?

> > None of us is guiltless, of course, but there are some who bear a
> > heavier share.
>

> And there were amoral opportunists who used the period under
> discussion to further their careers. I presume that many people would
> do the same, i.e. 'colleagues' who stick knives in backs, financial
> gangsters etc.

But you wouldn't, of course!

[Gerard]

M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:

> On Feb 15, 2:27 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> - Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:35:24
> > -0800:
> >
> > > "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
> > > and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
> > > brother's eye." (KJV)
> >
> > People who criticize the non-heroic behaviour of ordinary citizens
> > in the occupied countries, or for that matter in Germany, during WW2
> > should ask themselves how they would have acted in the face of Nazi
> > terror.
>
> I couldn't agree more with this statement. And that is exactly what I
> am doing. Or more specifically, in this case, I am asking why one man
> was the big devil who was so harshly punished and another, who doesn't
> seem to have been any more "heroic" himself got away with just a
> "reprimand" and he is even said to have "rehabilitated" the reputation
> of the orchestra the other man destroyed or tarnished.
>
> > Of course, we already know that 'M forever' is a self-effacing
> > hero and a fearless resistance fighter, a true legend in his own
> > imagination.
>
> That is a completely nonsensical comment which has nothing to do with
> anything I ever said about this subject. On the contrary, I have often
> pointed out that we should be careful about judging people who lived
> under far more difficult circumstances than we do today.

You did only so insofar as the Germans and Mengelberg were concerned.

[Bob Harper]

On 2/15/12 11:27 AM, EM wrote:
> Bob Harper<bob.h...@comcast.net> - Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:35:24 -0800:

>
>> "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
>> shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
>> (KJV)
>
> People who criticize the non-heroic behaviour of ordinary citizens in
> the occupied countries, or for that matter in Germany, during WW2
> should ask themselves how they would have acted in the face of Nazi

> terror. Of course, we already know that 'M forever' is a self-effacing

> hero and a fearless resistance fighter, a true legend in his own
> imagination.

Brilliant! I confess a big smile crossed my face and I nodded my
enthusiastic agreement while reading this.

Bob Harper
(snip)

[M forever]

On Feb 15, 9:55 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/15/12 11:27 AM, EM wrote:
>

> > Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net>  - Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:35:24 -0800:

Except that it has nothing at all to do with anything I ever said
about this subject. In fact, it's a complete and willful distortion
and misrepresentation of what I explicitly said about it. It actually
takes exactly what I often said about this and turns it around as if I
had said the opposite.

So why do you need to grossly misrepresent what I say? That's obvious,
I think: for you, it's all about snipping&sniping and provoking. It
doesn't even matter if you need to falsify what I say to reach your
objective.

And why? Because I caught you lying, twisting facts and just being a
total hypocrite numerous times, and you just can't handle that.

So what did you contribute to the discussion of this subject here?
Absolutely nothing, as usual.

I didn't expect anything else from you, but I have to admit I am
disappointed that our many Dutch friends here have proven themselves
so completely incapable of reviewing their own history critically like
we do so intensely in Germany, even in such a relatively trivial
matter as this; that is probably why they have extremists like Geert
Wilders in positions of great political influence today, and we don't.

[Bob Harper]

On 2/15/12 7:06 PM, M forever wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:55 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/15/12 11:27 AM, EM wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> - Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:35:24 -0800:
>>
>>>> "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
>>>> shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
>>>> (KJV)
>>
>>> People who criticize the non-heroic behaviour of ordinary citizens in
>>> the occupied countries, or for that matter in Germany, during WW2
>>> should ask themselves how they would have acted in the face of Nazi
>>> terror. Of course, we already know that 'M forever' is a self-effacing
>>> hero and a fearless resistance fighter, a true legend in his own
>>> imagination.
>>
>> Brilliant! I confess a big smile crossed my face and I nodded my
>> enthusiastic agreement while reading this.
>
> Except that it has nothing at all to do with anything I ever said
> about this subject.

No, it has everything to do with everything you've ever said here about
anything! 'A true legend in [your] own imagination' fits you to a T, at
least in this newsgroup. Others have said you're a nice fellow in
person; I hope, indeed I trust, that's true. But not here. Too bad.

Bob Harper

[Gerard]

M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:

Who cares?

> that our many Dutch friends here have proven themselves
> so completely incapable of reviewing their own history critically like
> we do so intensely in Germany, even in such a relatively trivial
> matter as this; that is probably why they have extremists like Geert
> Wilders in positions of great political influence today, and we don't.

Well, talking about extremists, you had the Führer.
No one can beat that.

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:36:25 AM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 2/15/12 7:06 PM, M forever wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 9:55 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/15/12 11:27 AM, EM wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> - Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:35:24 -0800:
> >>
> >>>> "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
> >>>> shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
> >>>> (KJV)
> >>
> >>> People who criticize the non-heroic behaviour of ordinary citizens in
> >>> the occupied countries, or for that matter in Germany, during WW2
> >>> should ask themselves how they would have acted in the face of Nazi
> >>> terror. Of course, we already know that 'M forever' is a self-effacing
> >>> hero and a fearless resistance fighter, a true legend in his own
> >>> imagination.
> >>
> >> Brilliant! I confess a big smile crossed my face and I nodded my
> >> enthusiastic agreement while reading this.
> >
> > Except that it has nothing at all to do with anything I ever said
> > about this subject.
>
> No, it has everything to do with everything you've ever said here about
> anything! 'A true legend in [your] own imagination' fits you to a T, at
> least in this newsgroup. Others have said you're a nice fellow in
> person; I hope, indeed I trust, that's true. But not here. Too bad.
>
> Bob Harper

Excuse me, but you suggested that "some of us" bear a bigger share of the guilt for the horrors of World War II than others.

No one is belittling those horrors, but it is not clear to me who "some of us" are.

As regards the Mengelberg trial after the war, clearly "some of us" deplore the hypocrisy, opportunism and holier-than-thou mentality that was clearly involved there on the side of the prosecution.

Is that why you are offended?

You seem to be more anti-Nazi than thou.

Otherwise your comments don't make any sense.

--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC+1, EM wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> - Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:06:28 -0800 (PST):

>
> > I didn't expect anything else from you, but I have to admit I am
> > disappointed that our many Dutch friends here have proven themselves
> > so completely incapable of reviewing their own history critically like
> > we do so intensely in Germany, even in such a relatively trivial
> > matter as this; that is probably why they have extremists like Geert
> > Wilders in positions of great political influence today, and we don't.
>

> Tell us, which Dutch publications have you read, assuming you know
> Dutch well enough to understand books and articles in that language?
>

EM, I believe there has been a misunderstanding.

Nothing M Forever wrote indicates that he disagrees with your comment that

<< People who criticize the non-heroic behaviour of ordinary citizens in
the occupied countries, or for that matter in Germany, during WW2
should ask themselves how they would have acted in the face of Nazi
terro >>

In this discussion, Boh Harper is at fault.

[Kip Williams]

EM wrote:
> M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> - Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:06:28 -0800 (PST):
>

>> I didn't expect anything else from you, but I have to admit I am
>> disappointed that our many Dutch friends here have proven themselves
>> so completely incapable of reviewing their own history critically like
>> we do so intensely in Germany, even in such a relatively trivial
>> matter as this; that is probably why they have extremists like Geert
>> Wilders in positions of great political influence today, and we don't.
>

> Tell us, which Dutch publications have you read, assuming you know
> Dutch well enough to understand books and articles in that language?

I'm concerned that he may not watch enough Dutch movies.


Kip W

[Bob Harper]

On Feb 16, 6:25 am, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't think so, but perhaps I have not been clear. My objection is
Michael's constant resort to the 'tu quoque' fallacy whenever any
discussion approaches the subject of Germany's actions in the mid-20
Century. It never fails, and I don't accept it. YMMV.

Bob Harper

[M forever]

I never - ever - said anything like that. Like most Germans today, I
am extremely willing and open to discuss our history unapologetically.
I never make the kind of silly relativizing comparisons you claim I
made. That is a plain lie on your part.

This discussion wasn't even about the German invasion and occupation
of the Netherlands. That is a given fact, and one which no one doubts
or wants to "excuse" or make appear less severe than it was, least of
all me. Once again, you saying that I did is just a shameless lie on
your part.

This discussion wasn't about any of that. It was about how people in
the Netherlands handled their own involvements in the occupation after
the liberation, how they apparently quickly dispatched some people as
scapegoats while others were just "reprimanded" and not only allowed
to carry on as before, but even celebrated as "rehabilitating war-
scarred" institutions. It appears to me as if a really honest
processing of the unpleasant topic of cooperation with the occupiers
has never really taken place.

The same appears to be true when it comes to the colonial behavior of
the just recently liberated Netherlands in Indonesia. That has
*nothing at all* to do with the German occupation, and the fact that
Germany occupied the Netherlands and many other countries is not an
excuse *at all* for them trying to re-impose colonial rule on other
people in their turn. Babbling about Nazis and about borderline racist
concepts of collective guilt borne by people several generations later
doesn't have anything to do with this subject *at all* either.
It is just a cheap and low diversion tactic.

Once again, you have inserted yourself into a discussion contributing
nothing of substance at all, just as an opportunity to serve your own,
very personal and very small agenda which in reality doesn't have
anything to do with the subject under discussion.

[Angelotti]

On 15 feb, 00:35, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> (snip for brevity)
>
> Note that *all* of Michael's replies in this thread have (as always) the
> purpose of insisting that no especial guilt accrues to the actions of
> Germany during the period in question, and that the nationals of other
> countries (including those overrun and enslaved by Germany) were  guilty
> of equally reprehensible behavior.
>

> As Someone said,

>
> "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
> shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
> (KJV)
>

> None of us is guiltless, of course, but there are some who bear a
> heavier share.
>

> Bob Harper

Can you please exactly specify where in this thread (words ot
sentences) you have read what you are implying?
Thanks.
Hvdlinden

[Gerard]

M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:

Your repeated babbling about Indonesia has nothing to do with ANY discussion in
this ng.

>
> Once again, you have inserted yourself into a discussion contributing
> nothing of substance at all, just as an opportunity to serve your own,
> very personal and very small agenda which in reality doesn't have
> anything to do with the subject under discussion.

It's all about your nationalistic babbling.

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:40:51 PM UTC+1, M forever wrote:

> ....
> ..... how people in

> the Netherlands handled their own involvements in the occupation after
> the liberation, how they apparently quickly dispatched some people as
> scapegoats while others were just "reprimanded" and not only allowed
> to carry on as before, but even celebrated as "rehabilitating war-
> scarred" institutions. It appears to me as if a really honest
> processing of the unpleasant topic of cooperation with the occupiers
> has never really taken place.
>
> The same appears to be true when it comes to the colonial behavior of
> the just recently liberated Netherlands in Indonesia. T

I think this pretty much true and consistent with a number of opinion articles that have appeared in leading Dutch newspapers in recent years.

[M forever]

On Feb 16, 3:06 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Meaning they finally started addressing this subject, or that it still
is a taboo?

[wagnerfan]

[wagnerfan]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:53:16 -0800 (PST), Angelotti
<lind...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's no where - Harper reads what he wants to read in a message
regardless of what is actually there but lately he has gotten much
worse - I really think he has splinters in the windmills of his mind.
Wagner fan

[Roland van Gaalen]

I don't know.

I should emphasize that I also don't know what historians have writen or are writing in their academic journals; I'm not a historian.

One thing is clear: debates In the public arena tend to be strongly influenced, if not dominated, by special interests and hidden agendas.

(Examples: the regulation banks and pension funds; national education policy; the Srebenica debacle; global warming and climate policy).

Politicians are good at posturing. Their social skills are excellent and they have expert "communication" advisors.

I should stop here.

[wagnerfan]

I'm not sure if any country has undergone the depth of self-analysis
after the war that Germany has. Since the end of the war an incredible
amount of material has been produced analyzing the whys and wherefores
of the pre-war and war period. The discussion goes on to this day. The
amount of material in bookstores, the number of lectures, and teaching
in schools is proof that the subject continues to be discussed and
analyzed. Wagner Fan

[M forever]

On Feb 16, 3:44 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:16:26 PM UTC+1, M forever wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 3:06 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:40:51 PM UTC+1, M forever wrote:
> > > > ....
> > > > ..... how people in
> > > > the Netherlands handled their own involvements in the occupation after
> > > > the liberation, how they apparently quickly dispatched some people as
> > > > scapegoats while others were just "reprimanded" and not only allowed
> > > > to carry on as before, but even celebrated as "rehabilitating war-
> > > > scarred" institutions. It appears to me as if a really honest
> > > > processing of the unpleasant topic of cooperation with the occupiers
> > > > has never really taken place.
>
> > > > The same appears to be true when it comes to the colonial behavior of
> > > > the just recently liberated Netherlands in Indonesia. T
>
> > > I think this pretty much true and consistent with a number of opinion articles that have appeared in leading Dutch newspapers in recent years.
>
> > Meaning they finally started addressing this subject, or that it still
> > is a taboo?
>
> I don't know.
>
> I should emphasize that I also don't know what historians have writen or are writing in their academic journals; I'm not a historian.
>

I didn't mean what historians write about in publications mainly
intended for scientific discussion. I meant, what are those articles
about which you mentioned? Are those topics - widespread cooperation
with the German occupation, the lack of honest review of what really
happened and who did what during the occupation, the scapegoating of
select few, the colonial catastrophe visited upon the Indonesian
people right after the Netherlands' liberation - are those topics
which are openly and honestly discussed in the public, taught in
schools, reviewed in books, movies, articles etc - or are those still
taboo topics today?

As you no doubt know, the public discussion of the past, especially
the NS era, is massive, unapologetic and ongoing in Germany, and has
been for at least 4 decades, with the result that most people are very
well informed about the what happened, and why, and why we can't let
it happen again etc.

It seems to me that few other countries have done that kind of
"homework" - with the result that history keeps repeating itself.

> One thing is clear: debates In the public arena tend to be strongly influenced, if not dominated, by special interests and hidden agendas.
>
> (Examples: the regulation banks and pension funds; national education policy; the Srebenica debacle; global warming and climate policy).
>
> Politicians are good at posturing.  Their social skills are excellent and they have expert "communication" advisors.
>
> I should stop here.

Why? Are you afraid you will be "shouted down" for mentioning taboo
subjects? You shouldn't be. It is important to process the past.

[Gerard]

M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:

It has been addressed many times. It's just you who says that it's a taboo.

[Gerard]

M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:

Really?
How many neo-nazis are there in that country?

[Angelotti]

You are saying, suggesting in Germany the political situation is the
same as, let us say, 80 years ago?
Even from you it is a rather stupid remark.
Hvdlinden

[Oscar]

On Feb 16, 7:07 am, Kip Williams wrote:
>
> > Tell us, which Dutch publications have you read, assuming you know
> > Dutch well enough to understand books and articles in that language?
>
> I'm concerned that he may not watch enough Dutch movies.

LOL

On Nov 19 2011, 10:06 pm, M forever wrote:
>
> You are right, I forgot that apart from American mainstream movies,
> you also have an encyclopaedic knowledge of cartoons. Of course,
> American cartoons only.
>
> Please understand - unfortunately, I don't have insights to share
> which are as deep as yours.
>
> BTW, I wasn't kidding, you should really try to watch a "foreign
> movie" now and then. It really doesn't hurt, and it *might* actually
> widen your horizon, at least a tiny little bit.

<end>

[Oscar]

On Feb 16, 1:07 pm, M forever wrote:
>
> Why? Are you afraid you will be "shouted down" for mentioning taboo
> subjects? You shouldn't be. It is important to process the past.

You could have just as easily said 'understand the past', and it would
have been more accurate. If anyone else here said something about
'processing' the past, you would accuse him of talking 'psychobabble
nonsense'. We're not talking about how cheese is made http://tiny.cc/frowf
Are you seeking 'closure', too?

[M forever]

That still holds true. I only know a few Dutch movies - De Lift,
Amsterdamned, Zwartboek, Soldaat van Oranje, Turks fruit, the Flodder
movies (unfortunately - LOL), Spoorloos. Spoorloos was great, one of
the scariest movies I have ever seen. Much better than the remake for
the dim American audience (people like you). Those are all I can think
of right now. But I am always open to recommendations. Do you have any
for me?

[M forever]

On Feb 16, 5:28 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:07 pm, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why? Are you afraid you will be "shouted down" for mentioning taboo
> > subjects? You shouldn't be. It is important to process the past.
>
> You could have just as easily said 'understand the past', and it would
> have been more accurate.  If anyone else here said something about
> 'processing' the past, you would accuse him of talking 'psychobabble

> nonsense'.  We're not talking about how cheese is madehttp://tiny.cc/frowf

> Are you seeking 'closure', too?

Yes, very funny, "closure", I get it. But, no - why would I, either
way, emotionally or rectally?

I prefer to use the term "processing the past" because it more closely
reflects the German terms "Vergangenheitsbewältigung" and
"Geschichtsaufarbeitung".
"Understanding the past" is a very complex task, and more of a process
than the - relatively - simple task of learning facts about the past
and putting them into context to gain a coherent understanding of
historical events, especially when it comes to figuring out one's
relationship to the history and cultural heritage of the place one
comes from.

[Oscar]

On Feb 16, 2:44 pm, M forever wrote:
>
> That still holds true. I only know a few Dutch movies - De Lift,
> Amsterdamned, Zwartboek, Soldaat van Oranje, Turks fruit, the Flodder
> movies (unfortunately - LOL), Spoorloos. Spoorloos was great, one of
> the scariest movies I have ever seen. Much better than the remake for
> the dim American audience (people like you). Those are all I can think
> of right now. But I am always open to recommendations. Do you have any
> for me?

Duh. http://tiny.cc/8o5xq

[M forever]

On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> - Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:52:39 -0500:

>
> >  I'm not sure if any country has undergone the depth of self-analysis
> > after the war that Germany has.
>

> No other country has committed such atrocities

That's actually historically incorrect, but we aren't comparing and
ranking here, and we aren't using those rankings to excuse "smaller-
scale" atrocities, like the actually not so small ones committed by
your small country, including the ones committed right after its
liberation from German occupation. That, and other crimes committed by
Germany - or any other country - doesn't excuse or make your own
bloody colonial past any better.

Don't you get that? Don't you get that pointing at the evil Germans
forever doesn't excuse anything about your own dirty past?

> and almost destroyed a
> whole continent, all begun by more or less democratically elected
> politicians. After the war Nazis got important positions in the
> police, the courts of justice, the civil service, education, the
> economy and politics in West-Germany (and perhaps the GDR as well).
> Numerous war criminals weren't prosecuted and could live normal lives.
> In the sixties young people began to question the role of their
> parents during the Nazi era and gradually a larger scale self-analysis
> began in West-Germany.

Exactly. That began over 40 years ago. Apparently, your country hasn't
done anything like that. You guys are still stuck in the "we were
victims of the evil Germans, so nobody can talk about our own colonial
crimes" mantra.

> BTW, shouldn't the US and Canada give North America back to the
> indigenous people? Just wondering.

Let's talk about your own dirty history first. You can wonder about
Canada and the US once you have done your own homework.
Or do you think that their history excuses the crimes committed by
your own country?

[M forever]

On Feb 16, 7:41 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> - Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:17:24 -0800 (PST):

>
> > Exactly. That began over 40 years ago. Apparently, your country hasn't
> > done anything like that. You guys are still stuck in the "we were
> > victims of the evil Germans, so nobody can talk about our own colonial
> > crimes" mantra.
>

> Wrong. Tell us, how and where do you follow developments and debates
> in The Netherlands?

I am just responding to what you said. Don't be so dramatic and
pompous, please, just stand up for your own opinions, OK? Even your
own compatriots have told you that you were wrong in your reaction to
and distortion of what I said. That you did that is telling enough.
Of course, you can always admit that you made a mistake, that you were
mislead by Harper, and apologize.

[Bob Harper]

So, Roland, do you understand the charge of 'tu quoque' now? In
Michael's mind, the heroic German people (himself being a modest
example) have faced up to the past and condemned the actions of, well,
of whoever was responsible. This now leaves him free to chastise anyone
from another country which has not lived up to his standards of
self-flagellation. Never mind that the persons he's attacking are no
more guilty of the acts in question than he is of the acts of his
grandparents' generation. Nor that the acts in question, while terrible
in themselves, pale almost to insignificance beside those for which his
forebears were responsible. It is enough that they haven't covered
themselves in sackcloth and ashes to the degree *he* thinks is
necessary. Well, I say it's spinach, and I say to Hell with it.

Bob Harper

[M forever]

There is nothing to "understand now". You twisted and distorted,
actually outright lied about what I had said earlier, you have been
called on it by a number of people, more twisting and distorting can
not change that.

> In
> Michael's mind, the heroic German people (himself being a modest
> example) have faced up to the past and condemned the actions of, well,
> of whoever was responsible.

It's not about that. For you, it is all about assigning guilt, about
casting stones, and then moving on. But that's not what this is about
at all. It is obvious that you don't understand at all what we are
actually talking about here. I don't think you can actually understand
that with your primitive tribal mindset and black&white simplistic
world view.

> This now leaves him free to chastise anyone
> from another country which has not lived up to his standards of
> self-flagellation.

Being informed and critical about the past has nothing to do with
"self-flagellation". I don't need to "self-flagellate" myself for
something I had no part in. There you go again with your collective
guilt obsession.

> Never mind that the persons he's attacking are no
> more guilty of the acts in question than he is of the acts of his
> grandparents' generation.

Never mind that I am not attacking anyone for any of that. That is
100% your invention. But people who are unwilling to be open about the
history of their own country and who hide behind diversion rhetoric
instead need to be called on that.

> Nor that the acts in question, while terrible
> in themselves, pale almost to insignificance

150,000-200,000 innocent people dead because the Netherlands wanted
their colonies back is "insignificant"? Is that because they were just
little brown Asian people, you racist fuck?

> beside those

There you go again, relativizing, excusing, pointing at the Nazis as
an excuse for anything else.

> for which his
> forebears were responsible.

My personal forebears weren't responsible for any of that, sorry to
disappoint you. But the fact that several of them resisted the regime
and paid for it with their lives doesn't make me a resistance hero
either. You just can't get this primitive tribal mindset out of your
head, can you?

> It is enough that they haven't covered
> themselves in sackcloth and ashes to the degree *he* thinks is
> necessary. Well, I say it's spinach, and I say to Hell with it.

I say, fuck you, you hypcocrite asshole and shameless liar. You have
been caught making up things I never said and you have been called on
it by several people.

Who do you think you are kidding? Do you think your swollen Nazi
rhetoric can distract from that? I guess you really think that.
Because it comes out of you as a kneejerk reaction. You just can't
help it.

[wagnerfan]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:04:49 -0800 (PST), M forever <ms1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

He really is a total loser - an asshole even!!!! Wagner fan