Classical music is un-American, effete, elitist etc.

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Edward Dimitri Kennaway

unread,
Jan 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/7/98
to

Brian Newhouse wrote:

And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for
such an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
sure can't.

Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net
******************************************************************

Being non-American - as opposed to un-American - I hope I will not
incite any resentment by throwing my hat into the ring!

Firstly, it seems to me that the phrase 'un-American' may evoke some
very unpleasant memories of McCarthyism and J.Edgar Hoover in many
people. I take it that the only logical interpretation of it would be
that it refers to anything of an unconstitutional nature (not unlike
the above-mentioned persons themselves?!). Presumably, there is
nothing unconstitutional about classical music, either in America or
any other free countries (nor in many not-so-free countries). It also
seems to me that, when America declared independence in 1776,
'classical' music was actually current and that, apart from indigenous
music of the American Indians and folk idioms brought by immigrants,
it was the mainstream form (Haydn and Mozart were still alive and LvB
was only six at the time!). It follows, obviously, that at any given
time, classical music was current and, until the 20th century,
probably the most 'popular' music. This would hardly qualify it as
being elitist - although, of course, much of it is, even as far as
classical musicians are concerned - and quite why it should earn the
dubious distinction of being called un-American, or un-anyotherplace,
is a mystery. If anything, this concept would seem, in itself, to be
inherently un-American in that it appears to suggest an infringement
of liberty by trying to tell the citizens what is good for them and
what isn't (somewhat like the former Iron-Curtain countries?!). Then
there is the issue, touched upon by others, of whom or what may be
considered a model of Americanism. So, if you could isolate a
relatively small percentage of the US population (250,000,000 people
when I last heard), say 100,000, and found that they all ate the same
breakfast cereal, chances are that they wouldn't all drink the same
beverage with it. If you then throw in one or two other variables, it
is more than likely that 100,000 Americans (or Brits or Aussies etc.)
would, in fact, break up into endless different groups. This would
prove equally true of tastes in music. It could be argued that music
of 'quality' - be it classical OR popular - is elitist in the sense of
being less commonplace than bad or undistinguished music. In that
case, Gershwin, Kern, Porter and Bacharach - among many others - could
also be termed 'un-American' because their music was often highly
sophisticated and shared many qualities with the miniature masterpieces
of the classical composers.

I'm certainly no judge of what Americans consider to be un-American
but I'm willing to bet that, for every citizen, it means different
things, even where opinions overlap sometimes. I know that my own,
many, American cousins encompass a fairly wide range of tastes and
views, and why not?

Finally (for now, at least), I would offer the speculation that the
Gershwins' wonderful "The Man I Love" is somewhat more elitist than,
say, Beethoven's "Fur Elise" or Chopin's "Minute Waltz", so where does
that leave your initial contention?

All the best,
EDK

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/7/98
to
..my memories of "McCarthyism" aren't"unpleasant"....we were at war and
Sen. McCarthy helped root out a legitimate subversive threat by the
communists..no Gallup poll of the period ever listed "McCarthyism" as a
problem...Sen. McCarthy was establishment enough to date one of the
Kennedy girls and play touch football with RFK & JFK & clan...sadly, the
revisionist liberal historians have done a number on both him and J.
Edgar Hoover,a great American public servant if there ever was one...
also,how you can include Bacharach in a list with those other composers
is beyond me...cheers,gb

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/7/98
to

Jeremy Berman wrote:
>
> In <34B419...@erols.com> "G. Brown"

> <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> writes:
> >
>
> >..my memories of "McCarthyism" aren't"unpleasant"....we were at war
> and
> >Sen. McCarthy helped root out a legitimate subversive threat by the
> >communists..
>
> Oh, puhleeze! The man ruined the lives of many innocent people. Much of
> his "proof" was printed on the equivalent of blank pieces of paper. By
> the end of the fifties the FACT his reputation was blackened forever
> isn't the result of liberal revisionism. It was tarnished for good
> reason. The man almost got the country to turn against itself, alot of
> it based on lies. Thank God this man was stopped by forces of fairness.
> Maybe your memories might not have been as unpleasant if you were on
> his list.
>
> Jeremy
I don't think I would have qualified...people have said all kinds of
nasty things about me-but I don't think I have ever been suspected of
being a communist sympathizer....your response is high on hyperbole and
histrionics, but short on supportive facts...communist agents were at
work throughout the US and UK(England's record of traitors is
particularly appalling...and remember WE were perceived by the USSR as
it's primary threat)...the Rosenbergs,Hiss and their fellow treasonous
cronies were just the tip of the iceberg....if a few Hollywood pinkos
had to find honest employment as a result of Sen. McCarthy's hearings,
so be it....the problem with revisionist liberals of that period is that
they spew all their venom on"Joe" McCarthy while conveniently over-
looking the barbarous atrocities of "Joe" Stalin and his KGB henchmen.
a case of selective amnesia......cheers,gb
ps:may I suggest you subscribe to NATIONAL REVIEW for a year?..it might
just have a much-needed purgative effect on your politics...

Jeremy Berman

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

John S Mamoun

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Edward Dimitri Kennaway (ken...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: any other free countries (nor in many not-so-free countries). It also
: seems to me that, when America declared independence in 1776,
: 'classical' music was actually current and that, apart from indigenous
: music of the American Indians and folk idioms brought by immigrants,
: it was the mainstream form (Haydn and Mozart were still alive and LvB
: was only six at the time!). It follows, obviously, that at any given
: time, classical music was current and, until the 20th century,
: probably the most 'popular' music. This would hardly qualify it as

What do you mean by popular? In order to hear Mozart or Haydn's
music, people had to go to live concerts, and many didn't have the
money to do that. Outings to the concert were more the provinces
of the rich or elite. It also takes a certain level of sophistication
to care about such music, and the audiences then simply weren't
as sophisticated as they are now, so they had less of an inclination
to trudge out to concert halls to hear such music, save for an elite
percentage of the general population. In both absolute and
relative terms, far fewer people paid attention to Haydn or
Mozart's music then they do today, since audiences today are more
sophisticated and they have easier access to cheap music, via tapes,
CDs, etc. Then as now, most people listened to rustic or folkish
music, rather than music that expanded their thought processes.

Steve Wolk

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

G. Brown wrote:
>
> Edward Dimitri Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > Brian Newhouse wrote:
> >
> > And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for
> > such an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
> > sure can't.
> >
> > Brian Newhouse
> > newh...@mail.crisp.net
> > ******************************************************************
> >
> > Being non-American - as opposed to un-American - I hope I will not
> > incite any resentment by throwing my hat into the ring!
> >
> > Firstly, it seems to me that the phrase 'un-American' may evoke some
> > very unpleasant memories of McCarthyism and J.Edgar Hoover in many
> > people. I take it that the only logical interpretation of it would be
> > that it refers to anything of an unconstitutional nature (not unlike
> > the above-mentioned persons themselves?!). Presumably, there is
> > nothing unconstitutional about classical music, either in America or
> > any other free countries (nor in many not-so-free countries). It also
> > seems to me that, when America declared independence in 1776,
> > 'classical' music was actually current and that, apart from indigenous
> > music of the American Indians and folk idioms brought by immigrants,
> > it was the mainstream form (Haydn and Mozart were still alive and LvB
> > was only six at the time!). It follows, obviously, that at any given
> > time, classical music was current and, until the 20th century,
> > probably the most 'popular' music. This would hardly qualify it as
> ..my memories of "McCarthyism" aren't"unpleasant"....we were at war and
> Sen. McCarthy helped root out a legitimate subversive threat by the
> communists..no Gallup poll of the period ever listed "McCarthyism" as a
> problem...Sen. McCarthy was establishment enough to date one of the
> Kennedy girls and play touch football with RFK & JFK & clan...sadly, the
> revisionist liberal historians have done a number on both him and J.
> Edgar Hoover,a great American public servant if there ever was one...
> also,how you can include Bacharach in a list with those other composers
> is beyond me...cheers,gb

gb, you never cease to entertain us. I love it when you say such
outrageous things, even if I disagree with 99% of it. But don't forget,
there are many in the former USSR today who feel about the NKVD and
Joe Stalin just as you do about Tail-Gunner Joe and the Hoover in a blue
dress. So, while you're at it, how about eliminating child-labor laws,
the EPA, the FDA and universal suffrage? Who knows, you might even be
able to bring back sweatshops, Pinkertons and segregated lunch-counters.

Steve

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to
I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.
Sorry it had to be you,SW....As to your other points,I DO think things
would improve in this country if only property owners were allowed the
vote....cheers,gb

Brendan R. Wehrung

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

John S Mamoun (js...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) writes:
> Edward Dimitri Kennaway (ken...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:

> : any other free countries (nor in many not-so-free countries). It also

> : seems to me that, when America declared independence in 1776,
> : 'classical' music was actually current and that, apart from indigenous
> : music of the American Indians and folk idioms brought by immigrants,
> : it was the mainstream form (Haydn and Mozart were still alive and LvB
> : was only six at the time!). It follows, obviously, that at any given
> : time, classical music was current and, until the 20th century,
> : probably the most 'popular' music. This would hardly qualify it as
>

> What do you mean by popular? In order to hear Mozart or Haydn's
> music, people had to go to live concerts, and many didn't have the
> money to do that. Outings to the concert were more the provinces
> of the rich or elite. It also takes a certain level of sophistication
> to care about such music, and the audiences then simply weren't
> as sophisticated as they are now, so they had less of an inclination
> to trudge out to concert halls to hear such music, save for an elite
> percentage of the general population. In both absolute and
> relative terms, far fewer people paid attention to Haydn or
> Mozart's music then they do today, since audiences today are more
> sophisticated and they have easier access to cheap music, via tapes,
> CDs, etc. Then as now, most people listened to rustic or folkish
> music, rather than music that expanded their thought processes.


Talk about effete snobs! There were no concerts to speak of in Colonial
America, and music was the province of whomever could play it.
Proficiency on a musical instrument was a social asset. and while
possession of a harpsichord or that new device, the piano, may have been
restricted to the better-off, many a home's prized possession was their
scores of Handel or Mozart. It is our loss (probably aided by the
ubiquitous presence of recorded media) that the home-performance tradition
has been largely lost. The same goes for home singing, which required
only a sense of pitch and a little bit of musicality. A pity this guy
thinks so little of our ancestors. I wonder what they'd think of him?

Brendan

Eohmar

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

>What do you mean by popular? In order to hear Mozart or Haydn's
>music, people had to go to live concerts, and many didn't have the
>money to do that. Outings to the concert were more the provinces
>of the rich or elite.

In Britain, a Proms season ticket in 1915 cost 2 pounds 50 -- about five or six
pennies a concert. Even back then, this was CHEAP. The opera houses and
concert halls of Vienna and London were always filled with peasants, half-drunk
and shouting at the singers to repeat the good tune they just heard. I
imagine, in places like New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, things were pretty
much the same: sure, there were rich folks in boxes, but below them lurked a
large, fiesty crowd that just got off work.

Steve Wolk

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

G. Brown wrote:
> I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
> unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.
> Sorry it had to be you,SW....As to your other points,I DO think things
> would improve in this country if only property owners were allowed the
> vote....cheers,gb

Since we are both men of property, you are no doubt right that things
would improve for YOU (and me, even though we would vote differently).
However, I doubt they would improve for the less fortunate of our
society, and they are the ones with whom my sympathies lie. GB, it is
my fervent desire to share the wealth AND the cd's, especially if it's
your wealth and your cd's. :)

Steve (an old, unreconstructed knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal)

Steve Wolk

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Yes, there were rich folks in boxes in Philadelphia, but the folks below
them were rich too. In the old days (and GB will back me up on this),
they didn't allow peasants into the Academy of Music.

Steve

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com

G. Brown wrote:

>
> Jeremy Berman wrote:
> >
> > In <34B419...@erols.com> "G. Brown"
> > <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> writes:
> > >
> >
> > >..my memories of "McCarthyism" aren't"unpleasant"....we were at war
> > and
> > >Sen. McCarthy helped root out a legitimate subversive threat by the
> > >communists..
> >
> > Oh, puhleeze! The man ruined the lives of many innocent people. Much of
> > his "proof" was printed on the equivalent of blank pieces of paper. By
> > the end of the fifties the FACT his reputation was blackened forever
> > isn't the result of liberal revisionism. It was tarnished for good
> > reason. The man almost got the country to turn against itself, alot of
> > it based on lies. Thank God this man was stopped by forces of fairness.
> > Maybe your memories might not have been as unpleasant if you were on
> > his list.
> >
> > Jeremy
> I don't think I would have qualified...people have said all kinds of
> nasty things about me-but I don't think I have ever been suspected of
> being a communist sympathizer....your response is high on hyperbole and
> histrionics, but short on supportive facts...

Look who's talking.

> communist agents were at
> work throughout the US

Name one that McCarthy uncovered.

> and UK(England's record of traitors is
> particularly appalling...and remember WE were perceived by the USSR as
> it's primary threat)...the Rosenbergs,Hiss and their fellow treasonous
> cronies were just the tip of the iceberg....

McCarthy had nothing to do with the Rosenbergs or with Hiss. Nor
was Hiss 'active' in the postwar era. Or do you have some evidence
that others do not?

> if a few Hollywood pinkos
> had to find honest employment as a result of Sen. McCarthy's hearings,
> so be it....

McCarthy had nothing to do with the Hollywood blacklists, either. Do
you know *anything* about the period? (He wasn't even in the House of
Representatives; how could he have had anything to do with HUAC?)

As for the Congress meddling in private companies, I don't think
you'd want to have to sign loyalty oaths in order to work, would you?

HUAC, etc. were *acting like Stalinists* in demanding loyalty,
self-incrimination, etc.

> the problem with revisionist liberals of that period

Look who's a revisionist! You're just making the stuff up.

>is that
> they spew all their venom on"Joe" McCarthy while conveniently over-
> looking the barbarous atrocities of "Joe" Stalin and his KGB henchmen.

A lie. Who does that?

Besides, Stalin wasn't elected to the US Senate. Tailgunner Joe
was. And he used his bully pulpit to destroy the lives of people
who had commited no wrongs.

> a case of selective amnesia......cheers,gb

Amnesia means you've forgotten something. You've never known this
stuff in the first place.

> ps:may I suggest you subscribe to NATIONAL REVIEW for a year?..it might
> just have a much-needed purgative effect on your politics...

It has a purgative effect on me whenever I read it. But I don't
generally need emetics. Tell me again about Joe Sobran...

Roger

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com

G. Brown wrote:
>

> I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
> unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.

No, it's been corroborated by dozens of others. And the evidence of his
criminal behavior as FBI chief is utterly beyond dispute. Bill Buckley
will tell you the same thing.

> Sorry it had to be you,SW....As to your other points,I DO think things
> would improve in this country if only property owners were allowed the
> vote...

Sure. We'd have class war. Unless, of course, you'd also ban the rest
of the people from owning firearms...

Roger

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to
Now they put the peasants way,way,up in the nose-bleed section...unless
they can afford $80 a pop for a matinee orchestra seat.....gb

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to Eohmar

Eohmar wrote:
>
> >What do you mean by popular? In order to hear Mozart or Haydn's
> >music, people had to go to live concerts, and many didn't have the
> >money to do that. Outings to the concert were more the provinces
> >of the rich or elite.
>
> In Britain, a Proms season ticket in 1915 cost 2 pounds 50 -- about five or six
> pennies a concert. Even back then, this was CHEAP.

And how many people from the East End could afford even that? (Besides,
the Proms were a fairly special case.)

> The opera houses and
> concert halls of Vienna and London were always filled with peasants, half-drunk
> and shouting at the singers to repeat the good tune they just heard.

Huh? Where did you get that idea? The Hofoper filled with peasants? Covent
Garden? Drury Lane? When was this 'always'? I'd like to know.

> I
> imagine, in places like New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, things were pretty
> much the same: sure, there were rich folks in boxes, but below them lurked a
> large, fiesty crowd that just got off work.

No. The halls weren't that large, to begin with; and the tickets were
pretty expensive.

Roger

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to
> Since we are both men of property, you are no doubt right that things
> would improve for YOU (and me, even though we would vote differently).
> However, I doubt they would improve for the less fortunate of our
> society, and they are the ones with whom my sympathies lie. GB, it is
> my fervent desire to share the wealth AND the cd's, especially if it's
> your wealth and your cd's. :)
>
> Steve (an old, unreconstructed knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal)
yes,as numerous jury damage settlements have shown-it is EASY & FUN
giving away someone else'e money...SW,I am going to report you to my
friends at the tobacco companies...there is NO way they are going to let
you on any of the jurys in the upcoming "stick it to smokers" trials...
cheers,gb(only an occasional Habana when the market goes up...)

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Roger L. Lustig wrote:

>
> G. Brown wrote:
> >
>
> > I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
> > unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.
>
> No, it's been corroborated by dozens of others. And the evidence of his
> criminal behavior as FBI chief is utterly beyond dispute. Bill Buckley
> will tell you the same thing.
>
> > Sorry it had to be you,SW....As to your other points,I DO think things
> > would improve in this country if only property owners were allowed the
> > vote...
>
> Sure. We'd have class war. Unless, of course, you'd also ban the rest
> of the people from owning firearms...
>
> Roger
Roger,calm down...I was just having a little fun with SW-but I seem to
have really lit your fuse....
..I do think it is a little extreme to say that HUAC was "acting like
Stalinists"...can you name anyone they had summarily executed?...and
in which state was the American Gulag?...I think I'll go there instead
of Disneyland on my next vacation....
...also isn't it amazing what people feel free to say about someone
AFTER he is dead ,and can't fire back...those same critics of JEH would
have wet their pants if he had given them a cross look while alive...I
stand by my "unsubstantiated slander" claim....don't think you can prove
otherwise...cheers,gb....
ps-oh,yes,in time of war(hot,cold or luke-warm)I would be most willing
to swear an oath of allegiance to my country....how about you?

Constantin Marcou

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to


Roger L. Lustig wrote:

> [big snip]


>
> Besides, Stalin wasn't elected to the US Senate. Tailgunner Joe
> was.

That's precisely the problem. Stalin's acts can be characterized as those of
an unauthorized bully. McCarthy, on the other hand (like Hitler) was elected
by people who presumably felt he represented their political views or
mentality. So was it really him? Or was it the tenor of the times and the
majority's genuine fear of subversion?

There was an interesting interview with him in Esquire magazine many years ago,
by a very well-known writer (I forget who and when), in which it became
apparent that all McCarthy's campaign against Communists had been a matter of
posturing and grandstanding and jumping on a political bandwagon, and did not
reflect any of his personal convictions. After his downfall, he couldn't
understand people's animosity toward him; he had never meant any of it. To me,
this was the most disgusting aspect of the whole affair.


--
Best regards,
Con

*****************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists."

- Artur Schnabel
*****************************************************************

Please remove * from address to reply.

Gerrit Stolte

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Constantin Marcou <conm...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Roger L. Lustig wrote:

>> [big snip]
>>
>> Besides, Stalin wasn't elected to the US Senate. Tailgunner Joe
>> was.

>That's precisely the problem. Stalin's acts can be characterized as those of
>an unauthorized bully. McCarthy, on the other hand (like Hitler) was elected
>by people who presumably felt he represented their political views or
>mentality. So was it really him? Or was it the tenor of the times and the
>majority's genuine fear of subversion?

I guess you have a point here, nonetheless it should be evident that
democracies shouldn't use an unelected dictator as a yardstick. If we
want freedom, democracy and human rights, we should make sure to clean
our own houses first.

>There was an interesting interview with him in Esquire magazine many years ago,
>by a very well-known writer (I forget who and when), in which it became
>apparent that all McCarthy's campaign against Communists had been a matter of
>posturing and grandstanding and jumping on a political bandwagon, and did not
>reflect any of his personal convictions. After his downfall, he couldn't
>understand people's animosity toward him; he had never meant any of it. To me,
>this was the most disgusting aspect of the whole affair.

Of course, those were different times, but we should remember that
McCarthy was just elected by the majority of voter in one state
(probably not even half of all eligeble voters). Hitler recieved
roughly a third of the votes cast. That he took over the executive had
more to do with backroom dealings among political parties.

Gerrit

To reply via e-mail, remove "nospam*" from my adress


D.G. Porter

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

G. Brown wrote:
> ...also isn't it amazing what people feel free to say about someone
> AFTER he is dead ,and can't fire back...those same critics of JEH would
> have wet their pants if he had given them a cross look while alive...

Hey, G.! I remember articles coming out against Hoover in 1968 in the
mainstream press. The typical response? One letter to the editor from
"one of the masses" sticks out in my memory: "You have shown your true
colors -- RED and YELLOW!" I assume that beside s the Communist
allusion, the writer was engaging in a bit of bigotry again the Chinese.

> I
> stand by my "unsubstantiated slander" claim....don't think you can prove
> otherwise...cheers,gb....

I've seen the picture of him in a dress. He looks like a typical
(steretype) dowdy Russian housewife!

> ps-oh,yes,in time of war(hot,cold or luke-warm)I would be most willing
> to swear an oath of allegiance to my country....how about you?

Sure -- against people like Ollie North, John Poindexter, John Singlaub,
etc. etc.
But only if the war was a legitimate one, in my mind -- not that Gulf
Farce started by George "Out-of-the-loop."

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

G. Brown wrote:
> Now they put the peasants way,way,up in the nose-bleed section...unless
> they can afford $80 a pop for a matinee orchestra seat.....gb

When "Sweeny Todd" was playing in Los Angeles, we bought the cheapesyt
tickets available, because we were in on a well-known secret: The house
was so empty every night (a real shame!) that the house personnel would
direct us to seats three floors closer to the stage before curtain time.

DAMN, was that whistle loud!

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

G. Brown wrote:...sadly, the

> revisionist liberal historians have done a number on both him and J.
> Edgar Hoover,a great American public servant if there ever was one...

<???> You mean, like, TIME Magazine, the organ of Henry Luce, who
directed their writers to to a "hatchet job" on Ralph Nader in the
'60s?? Now, I know a lot of people find TIME to be liberal because
their idea of "centrist" is US Snooze and Weird Report, but that's only
in their limited scope of thought. To them, The Nation is probably a
commie rag (even though CNN has finally started putting its contributors
on their pundit shows), and Insight magazine is a ray of golden sunshine
when all about is darkness (sort of like a stream of bat-piss in a
cave). Anyway, back on topic, TIME ran an expose` of Hoover soon after
his death in '72. Hardly wil accusations, and backed up with solid
research.

Edward Dimitri Kennaway

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

On 8 Jan 1998 04:13:56 , John S Mamoun wrote:
>Edward Dimitri Kennaway (ken...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
>: any other free countries (nor in many not-so-free countries). It also
>: seems to me that, when America declared independence in 1776,
>: 'classical' music was actually current and that, apart from indigenous
>: music of the American Indians and folk idioms brought by immigrants,
>: it was the mainstream form (Haydn and Mozart were still alive and LvB
>: was only six at the time!). It follows, obviously, that at any given
>: time, classical music was current and, until the 20th century,
>: probably the most 'popular' music. This would hardly qualify it as
>
>What do you mean by popular? In order to hear Mozart or Haydn's
>music, people had to go to live concerts, and many didn't have the
>money to do that. Outings to the concert were more the provinces
>of the rich or elite. It also takes a certain level of sophistication
>to care about such music, and the audiences then simply weren't
>as sophisticated as they are now, so they had less of an inclination
>to trudge out to concert halls to hear such music, save for an elite
>percentage of the general population. In both absolute and
>relative terms, far fewer people paid attention to Haydn or
>Mozart's music then they do today, since audiences today are more
>sophisticated and they have easier access to cheap music, via tapes,
>CDs, etc. Then as now, most people listened to rustic or folkish
>music, rather than music that expanded their thought processes.
>.

More problems with my mailer, I think, so I'll try to remember my
reply to your comments above:

By 'popular' I mean music that was presented on a formal and regular
basis for public consumption, as opposed to the rustic or folkish
music you refer to, however widely performed or appreciated. I accept
that this may seem a personal and arbitrary definition but I consider
it relevant as it concerns music intended for the public arena, rather
than music in the home. It could equally be argued, however, that by
the end of the 19th century, a great deal of classical music was
performed and enjoyed in the home too, if not so much in Mozert's day.

(Hope I remembered correctly - it's substantially the same).
EDK

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to
Well,that is a new one!Hoover criticized for being soft on the
Ruskees and Red Chinese....when my pal Steve Wolk hears about this he is
going to want to organize other dyed -in-the-wool liberals to defend
JEH from such charges....
funny thing about pictures...they can be doctored quite easily...
..and about that "Gulf Farce"...just shows that you should respect other
peoples' customs(are you listening VPO bashers)...if GB(I am ashamed I
share his initials!)hadn't tried to make a point by sending a female to
be Iraq's ambassador the whole foolishness might have been avoided.....
apparently she was unable to get our determination on the issue across
...maybe because the Iraquis weren't used to listening to her kind....
chers,gb

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

D.G. Porter wrote:
>
> G. Brown wrote:
the house was full on Broadway the night I saw it...but it emptied out
quickly at the intermission....cheers,gb

Edward Dimitri Kennaway

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

On 8 Jan 1998 00:12:40 , Steve Wolk wrote:
>G. Brown wrote:
>>
>> Edward Dimitri Kennaway wrote:
>> >
>> > Brian Newhouse wrote:
>> >
>> > And how do you fellow-Americans out there justify your affection for
>> > such an un-American, effete, elitist enterprise as classical music? I
>> > sure can't.
>> >
>> > Brian Newhouse
>> > newh...@mail.crisp.net
>> > ******************************************************************
>> >
>> > Being non-American - as opposed to un-American - I hope I will not
>> > incite any resentment by throwing my hat into the ring!
>> >
>> > Firstly, it seems to me that the phrase 'un-American' may evoke some
>> > very unpleasant memories of McCarthyism and J.Edgar Hoover in many
>> > people. I take it that the only logical interpretation of it would be
>> > that it refers to anything of an unconstitutional nature (not unlike
>> > the above-mentioned persons themselves?!). Presumably, there is
>> > nothing unconstitutional about classical music, either in America or
>> > any other free countries (nor in many not-so-free countries). It also
>> > seems to me that, when America declared independence in 1776,
>> > 'classical' music was actually current and that, apart from indigenous
>> > music of the American Indians and folk idioms brought by immigrants,
>> > it was the mainstream form (Haydn and Mozart were still alive and LvB
>> > was only six at the time!). It follows, obviously, that at any given
>> > time, classical music was current and, until the 20th century,
>> > probably the most 'popular' music. This would hardly qualify it as
>> ..my memories of "McCarthyism" aren't"unpleasant"....we were at war and
>> Sen. McCarthy helped root out a legitimate subversive threat by the
>> communists..no Gallup poll of the period ever listed "McCarthyism" as a
>> problem...Sen. McCarthy was establishment enough to date one of the
>> Kennedy girls and play touch football with RFK & JFK & clan...sadly, the

>> revisionist liberal historians have done a number on both him and J.
>> Edgar Hoover,a great American public servant if there ever was one...
>> also,how you can include Bacharach in a list with those other composers
>> is beyond me...cheers,gb
>
>gb, you never cease to entertain us. I love it when you say such
>outrageous things, even if I disagree with 99% of it. But don't forget,
>there are many in the former USSR today who feel about the NKVD and
>Joe Stalin just as you do about Tail-Gunner Joe and the Hoover in a blue
>dress. So, while you're at it, how about eliminating child-labor laws,
>the EPA, the FDA and universal suffrage? Who knows, you might even be
>able to bring back sweatshops, Pinkertons and segregated lunch-counters.
>
>Steve
>.

Firstly, regarding Bacharach, I believe he found a genuinely personal
musical style, in which non-symmetrical rhythms played a vital and
unusual role, compared with 'pop' music more generally. He also had a
keen gift for melody and, I would say, was among the pre-eminent
songwriters of his generation and one of the rare originals in a
fairly cliche-ridden genre. By the way, his musical background is also
interesting in that he studied composition seriously (not a guarantee
of greatness, I realise), with a distinguished European composer who
taught in America (and whose name escapes me for now). By including
him in my shortlist, I offer no comparisons with the others mentioned
but simply wanted to incorporate a more recent reference.

As to McCarthy - and speaking as an outsider - the impression is one
of an insidious paranoia which often provided the means for people
with ulterior motives to rat on their fellow countrymen, even if their
were no basis for it. As to the matter of being at war and the issue of
the British traitors, mentioned elsewhere, it is quite true that we
had such problems, HOWEVER, I think it important to draw an essential
distinction between those guilty of treason and those who, quite
openly, espouse alternative political doctrines. Here in Britain, the
British Communist Party did not give rise to the kind of problems that
arose in America during the McCarthy era, largely because we trusted
the ballot box and, thus far, have been proved - in the main - to be
correct. During the post-War era, we have been a mainly two-party
country and Communism was, I believe, never regarded as much of a
threat, other than in the Iron-Curtain countries themsleves, of
course. However widely Communism may have been endorsed in America, it
seems to me altogether unlikely that it would ever have gained
ascendancy there and that 'witchhunts' were not the best way to deal
with the problem - real or imagined. I repeat, I am an outsider but it
seems that there are many Americans who share this view.

About JEH, he seems to have conducted a reign of terror not unlike
that of the former KJB - and I base this entirely on information
originating from within the States. Clearly, however, opinion is
divided which means, I guess, that not all Americans think the same
way about this, OR classical music ( - by George! I nearly forgot -
this is a classical music NG!).

All the best,
ED -'longwinded' -K

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to
it wasn't just a question of communism gaining ascendancy in this
country...that could never have been achieved democratically;this was a
movement dedicated to the overthrow(violently if necessary)of the United
States govt.
remember, we were at war...there were nuclear secrets involved that
threatened the security of every living organism on this planet with the
possible exception of a few cockroaches...and the communists had
significant success in infiltrating the nuclear dis-armament movement,
and the anti-Viet Nam war movement which resulted in a great
POLITICAL(as opposed to military) defeat, that left thousands of
Vietnamese at the mercy of a butcherous, totalitarian regime(read up on
the suffering of the boat people)...to compare J. Edgar Hoover's FBI to
the KGB is so outrageous and obscene that I will pretend I didn't read
it....Bacharach certainly showed "promise"(no pun intended there)...but
then he seemed to drop off the face of the earth...what happened to
him?....cheers,gb

Edward Dimitri Kennaway

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to
>.

I do not deny for a moment that infiltration was a key part of the
Cold-War era as,indeed, it is in all wars. Nor do I deny that there is
a real need for democracies to defend their liberty. However, it seems
to me that things got pretty out of hand during the time in question
and I wonder seriously if all those with whom Communist doctrine found
favour were genuine activists and spies - after all, in an open,
democratic society freedom of thought is as vital as that of speech.
As far as JEH is concerned, my understanding is that he had secret
files on countless people, many of whom were highly-ranked government
officials. This would seem to me dangerous, since it means that an
appointed - as opposed to an elected - official could tamper with the
business of government as, I gather, was sometimes the case. No doubt.
somebody has to keep an eye on elected officials but I think that is
best left to the people who elect them. The idea that one unelected
official could conduct some kind of secretive, alternative government
by any means at his disposal - in this case very considerable means -
is surely a chilling thought and, moreover, I gather that Hoover was
able to maintain his position as Director of the FBI for such an
absurdly long time, precisely because of his 'power' over goverment
officials. Is it not reasonable to suggest that, if you have
Presidential elections every five years and the maximum period in
office is two terms for a President (I believe), then anyone occupying
a post as head of an intelligence agency should have similar
limitations imposed upon them. I believe this is valid, even if Hoover
had been a saint - it's a safety mechanism. So, I am not suggesting
that the avowed intention of the FBI is in any sense comparable with
the KGB - simply that one man was in control for too long and did not
always exploit his excessive powers to the good. Tell me I'm wrong
(which I expect you will!).

About Bacharach: yes his star did fade a long time ago but it would
seem that this is a problem for many popular composers - however
resourceful and gifted - owing to the constantly changing,
trend-oriented, nature of 'pop'. I suppose there is always a limit to
the amount of music in a given popular style, which can be supported
by such a commercial market. However, it would be nice if each new
generation produced something special but, I fear, this is not the
case any more. By the way, it seems that Bacharach's classic songs are
enjoying something of a renaissence just now.

All the best,
EDK

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com

G. Brown wrote:
>
> Roger L. Lustig wrote:
> >
> > G. Brown wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
> > > unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.
> >
> > No, it's been corroborated by dozens of others. And the evidence of his
> > criminal behavior as FBI chief is utterly beyond dispute. Bill Buckley
> > will tell you the same thing.
> >
> > > Sorry it had to be you,SW....As to your other points,I DO think things
> > > would improve in this country if only property owners were allowed the
> > > vote...
> >
> > Sure. We'd have class war. Unless, of course, you'd also ban the rest
> > of the people from owning firearms...
> >
> > Roger
> Roger,calm down...I was just having a little fun with SW-but I seem to
> have really lit your fuse....
> ..I do think it is a little extreme to say that HUAC was "acting like
> Stalinists"...can you name anyone they had summarily executed?...and
> in which state was the American Gulag?...I think I'll go there instead
> of Disneyland on my next vacation....

Better go to school, or just a bookstore for a dictionary. One doesn't
need to execute people to be a Stalinist; we had Stalinists in this
country, too, at one time.

But these people put on show trials, demanded loyalty of thought,
demanded betrayal of others, ruined careers and lives of many who
had not even been *accused* of crimes. In short, HUAC was pretty
good at those un-American activities itself.

> ...also isn't it amazing what people feel free to say about someone
> AFTER he is dead ,and can't fire back...those same critics of JEH would

> have wet their pants if he had given them a cross look while alive...I

Speak for yourself. Plenty of people criticized him while he was alive.
But then, his stock in trade was blackmail and fear-mongering, so what's
your point?

> stand by my "unsubstantiated slander" claim....don't think you can prove
> otherwise...

Why not just let us know what you've read about Hoover?

Roger

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com

G. Brown wrote:
>
> D.G. Porter wrote:
> >
> > G. Brown wrote:
> > > ...also isn't it amazing what people feel free to say about someone
> > > AFTER he is dead ,and can't fire back...those same critics of JEH would
> > > have wet their pants if he had given them a cross look while alive...
> >
> > Hey, G.! I remember articles coming out against Hoover in 1968 in the
> > mainstream press. The typical response? One letter to the editor from
> > "one of the masses" sticks out in my memory: "You have shown your true
> > colors -- RED and YELLOW!" I assume that beside s the Communist
> > allusion, the writer was engaging in a bit of bigotry again the Chinese.
> >
> > > I
> > > stand by my "unsubstantiated slander" claim....don't think you can prove
> > > otherwise...cheers,gb....
> >
> > I've seen the picture of him in a dress. He looks like a typical
> > (steretype) dowdy Russian housewife!
> >
> > > ps-oh,yes,in time of war(hot,cold or luke-warm)I would be most willing
> > > to swear an oath of allegiance to my country....how about you?
> >
> > Sure -- against people like Ollie North, John Poindexter, John Singlaub,
> > etc. etc.
> > But only if the war was a legitimate one, in my mind -- not that Gulf
> > Farce started by George "Out-of-the-loop."
> Well,that is a new one!Hoover criticized for being soft on the
> Ruskees and Red Chinese....when my pal Steve Wolk hears about this he is
> going to want to organize other dyed -in-the-wool liberals to defend
> JEH from such charges....

Learn to read, bozo. The *responses* to the articles called the *writers*
that.

> funny thing about pictures...they can be doctored quite easily...

Sure! Hoover did a lot of that. So did McCarthy. And, yes, the
evidence is there.

> ..and about that "Gulf Farce"...just shows that you should respect other
> peoples' customs(are you listening VPO bashers)...if GB(I am ashamed I
> share his initials!)hadn't tried to make a point by sending a female to
> be Iraq's ambassador the whole foolishness might have been avoided.....

Um, no. If the State Department had bothered to *pay attention*
things might have gone a little better.

> apparently she was unable to get our determination on the issue across
> ...maybe because the Iraquis weren't used to listening to her kind....

So he failed to give her the proper support. Your point?

Roger

po...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Incidentally, I did some research in school on HUAC and remember coming
across someone's graduate thesis that seemed to suggest that nailing
people as subversives for listening to classical music is not that far
out. HUAC, according to this fellow's research, would routinely compile
dossiers on people who were merely associated with the arts. One HUAC
document implicates an investigatee as a subversive because he was known
to own several pieces of abstract art. Oooo, them gad damn
inter-lecturals.

Michael Berlinner, the head, no less, of the supposedly freedom loving
Ayn Rand institute also has recently come out in staunch support of
McCarthyism and HUAC in an opinion piece in the LA Times. Apparently
it's becoming chic in conservative circles to bolster the memory of HUAC,
McCarthy and the sorry history of anti-communism in general.

Remember that the next time you hear one of these jerks whine about how
terrible political correctness is. You haven't experienced real
political correctness until you have had your name smeared, your career
ruined and been dragged before the committee to name names. And remember
this the next time you hear a Libertarian tell you that he doesn't want
to "initiate force" (aww, that's sweet).

ciao,
John

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com

G. Brown wrote:
>
> it wasn't just a question of communism gaining ascendancy in this
> country...that could never have been achieved democratically;this was a
> movement dedicated to the overthrow(violently if necessary)of the United
> States govt.

Name some names, pal. McCarthy couldn't. Who was committed to
violent overthrow among those he smeared?

Then tell us which of the Hollywood Ten, etc. were committed to
violent overthrow. Tell us how you know.

> remember, we were at war...

No, we were at 'police action', and that only after 1950. HUAC
was doing its thing before then.

> there were nuclear secrets involved that
> threatened the security of every living organism on this planet with the
> possible exception of a few cockroaches...

....which had nothing to do with anything McCarthy was after, or HUAC.

> and the communists had
> significant success in infiltrating the nuclear dis-armament movement,
> and the anti-Viet Nam war movement which resulted in a great
> POLITICAL(as opposed to military) defeat, that left thousands of
> Vietnamese at the mercy of a butcherous, totalitarian regime(read up on
> the suffering of the boat people)...

Give it a rest. The antiwar movement didn't lose any war. We killed
a million of the enemy, dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we had on
Europe in WWII, and couldn't convince the people of Vietnam that the
government we were propping up had their interests at heart. The
antiwar movement didn't do a damn thing to that.

> to compare J. Edgar Hoover's FBI to
> the KGB is so outrageous and obscene that I will pretend I didn't read
> it....

He used many of the same immoral, illegal, un-American methods.

Roger Lustig

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I did some research in school on HUAC and remember coming
> across someone's graduate thesis that seemed to suggest that nailing
> people as subversives for listening to classical music is not that far
> out. HUAC, according to this fellow's research, would routinely compile
> dossiers on people who were merely associated with the arts. One HUAC
> document implicates an investigatee as a subversive because he was known
> to own several pieces of abstract art. Oooo, them gad damn
> inter-lecturals.
Golly,what a dirty trick...kind of like checking up on what videos Judge
Bork's family had rented in an effort to smear him....but Bork really
doesn't count,does he?...he's on the other side....
> Michael Berlinner, the head, no less, of the supposedly freedom loving
> Ayn Rand institute also has recently come out in staunch support of
> McCarthyism and HUAC in an opinion piece in the LA Times. Apparently
> it's becoming chic in conservative circles to bolster the memory of HUAC,
> McCarthy and the sorry history of anti-communism in general.
"sorry history of anti-communism"...hey,Pooh,WE WON THE COLD WAR...or
were you too busy putting down your government to notice......
> Remember that the next time you hear one of these jerks whine about how
> terrible political correctness is. You haven't experienced real
> political correctness until you have had your name smeared, your career
> ruined and been dragged before the committee to name names.
or been dragged from your home in the middle of the night and shot in
the back of the head....you think it was bad HERE in the 50s.....
cheers,gb
ps-tell your pal Roger I'll dispatch him after I've had a couple of
whiskys.
pps-have enjoyed listening to Ashkenazy's DSCH 9th tonight(an effort
to keep on topic)

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Brian Newhouse wrote:

>
> In article <34B541...@erols.com>, sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com wrote:
>
> > D.G. Porter wrote:
> > >
> > > G. Brown wrote:
> > > > ...also isn't it amazing what people feel free to say about someone
> > > > AFTER he is dead ,and can't fire back...those same critics of JEH would
> > > > have wet their pants if he had given them a cross look while alive...
> > >
> > > Hey, G.! I remember articles coming out against Hoover in 1968 in the
> > > mainstream press. The typical response? One letter to the editor from
> > > "one of the masses" sticks out in my memory: "You have shown your true
> > > colors -- RED and YELLOW!" I assume that beside s the Communist
> > > allusion, the writer was engaging in a bit of bigotry again the Chinese.
>
> [snip! snip!]

>
> > Well,that is a new one!Hoover criticized for being soft on the
> > Ruskees and Red Chinese....when my pal Steve Wolk hears about this he is
> > going to want to organize other dyed -in-the-wool liberals to defend
> > JEH from such charges....
>
> Er, I believe it was the reporters of the mainstream press coming out
> against Hoover who were denounced as soft on the Russians and Red Chinese.
You are correct...I skipped over 'The typical response?"...mebbe I
should getta rebate from that speed-reading course I took?...
...calling reporters of the period soft on communism was just stating
the obvious.....
> Interesting how political disputes like these generally evoke far more
> passion and make for far longer threads than almost anything on music...
oh,I don't know...it seems like Roger and friends are capable of blowing
a gasket over any picayune thing...cheers,gb
ps-I'm off for some imbibing-if there are any conservative types out
there who want to take up the fight against some of these fruitcakes...
be my guest....

dtritter

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to D.G. Porter

Mr. Brown's neanderthal political views seem to animate his every
posting and hardly merit a response, save to note that if he regards J.
Edgar Hoover as a great American, he's welcome to that pernicious sexual
aberrant. I suppose he likewise reveres Roy Cohn and that worthy's
godfather, the unlamented Joseph R. McCarthy. If you lived through that
charnel house pantheon, as I did, then it's not easy to read Brown's
praise without a bedpan handy.


dft


This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.

Jeremy Cook

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to

Jicotea wrote:
>
> G. Brown <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> wrote in article
> <34B57A...@erols.com>...
> > po...@hotmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> <snip>
> <snip.snip.snip>
> <snip>
>
> "Ein ehrlicher Zank, da stelle ich meinen Mann! ....Doch dies Gemiaule
> macht mich ungesund."
>
> --Ferruccio Busoni, _Arlecchino_

Well, my German is a bit rusty, but here's my best attempt to translate:

"Though your opinion stinks, you still my main man! .... Ducks flying
south also make a mighty racket."

I'm sure my word order is a bit off, but you really need to hear it in
the original German to get the full impact, anyway.

Jeremy Cook - Newtown, CT

Constantin Marcou

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to


G. Brown wrote:

> Steve Wolk wrote:
> >
> > gb, you never cease to entertain us. I love it when you say such
> > outrageous things, even if I disagree with 99% of it. But don't forget,
> > there are many in the former USSR today who feel about the NKVD and
> > Joe Stalin just as you do about Tail-Gunner Joe and the Hoover in a blue
> > dress. So, while you're at it, how about eliminating child-labor laws,
> > the EPA, the FDA and universal suffrage? Who knows, you might even be
> > able to bring back sweatshops, Pinkertons and segregated lunch-counters.
> >
> > Steve

> I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
> unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.

[snip]

What about the photographs of the orgies with the naked little boys? Is she
responsible for those too?

Constantin Marcou

unread,
Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98
to


Constantin Marcou wrote:

> G. Brown wrote:
>
> > Steve Wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > gb, you never cease to entertain us. I love it when you say such
> > > outrageous things, even if I disagree with 99% of it. But don't forget,
> > > there are many in the former USSR today who feel about the NKVD and
> > > Joe Stalin just as you do about Tail-Gunner Joe and the Hoover in a blue
> > > dress. So, while you're at it, how about eliminating child-labor laws,
> > > the EPA, the FDA and universal suffrage? Who knows, you might even be
> > > able to bring back sweatshops, Pinkertons and segregated lunch-counters.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
> > unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.
>
> [snip]
>
> What about the photographs of the orgies with the naked little boys? Is she
> responsible for those too?
>

P.S. And don't accuse me of defaming the defenseless dead. I made similar
cracks when he was very much alive, and they've never resulted in any visits
from the men in black.

Brian Newhouse

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

> D.G. Porter wrote:
> >
> > G. Brown wrote:
> > > ...also isn't it amazing what people feel free to say about someone
> > > AFTER he is dead ,and can't fire back...those same critics of JEH would
> > > have wet their pants if he had given them a cross look while alive...
> >
> > Hey, G.! I remember articles coming out against Hoover in 1968 in the
> > mainstream press. The typical response? One letter to the editor from
> > "one of the masses" sticks out in my memory: "You have shown your true
> > colors -- RED and YELLOW!" I assume that beside s the Communist
> > allusion, the writer was engaging in a bit of bigotry again the Chinese.

[snip! snip!]

> Well,that is a new one!Hoover criticized for being soft on the
> Ruskees and Red Chinese....when my pal Steve Wolk hears about this he is
> going to want to organize other dyed -in-the-wool liberals to defend
> JEH from such charges....

Er, I believe it was the reporters of the mainstream press coming out
against Hoover who were denounced as soft on the Russians and Red Chinese.

[snip!]

Interesting how political disputes like these generally evoke far more
passion and make for far longer threads than almost anything on music...

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net

Brian Newhouse

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

In article <693f19$2m6$1...@irk.zetnet.co.uk>, ken...@zetnet.co.uk (Edward
Dimitri Kennaway) wrote:

>[snip]


>
> By 'popular' I mean music that was presented on a formal and regular
> basis for public consumption, as opposed to the rustic or folkish
> music you refer to, however widely performed or appreciated. I accept
> that this may seem a personal and arbitrary definition but I consider
> it relevant as it concerns music intended for the public arena, rather
> than music in the home. It could equally be argued, however, that by
> the end of the 19th century, a great deal of classical music was
> performed and enjoyed in the home too, if not so much in Mozert's day.
>

But a fair amount of "rustic or folkish" music was and is intended for
public consumption. Think of the various religious festivals and
processions. Think of wedding and funeral music--weddings and funerals
were if anything more part of the public sphere in pre-modern societies
than they are today. Think of court ceremonies. Think of bards
improvising their epics for an audience. You really should read a bit of
ethnomusicology.

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net

Jicotea

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Edward Dimitri Kennaway

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to
>.

Of course! It could be fairly argued that nearly all music is intended
for public consumption - a fact which is, at times, unfulfilled for the
composers, and sometimes, agonising for the public. However, I don't
follow your assertion about all the above arenas: a great deal of
music for weddings, funerals and, especially, court ceremonies was
classical. And what about the Church more generally - surely an
enormous amount of religious music falls into the category of
'classical' music ( both generically and chronologically speaking ).
As to reading up on ethnomusicology, if I ever get away from perusing
this NG again, I would be happy to brush up. However, I still do not
see that you have said anything to reinforce your argument that
classical music is 'un-American'! (That was you wasn't it? The thread
got somewhat buried underneath Hoover, McCarthy and HUAC - partly my
fault, I fear, but the connotations of 'un-American' were strongly
associated with such people and their times).

Cheerio, EDK

Matt

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Matt

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to


If you were looking for the American gulag you might go back a few
years to Manzanar.

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Roger L. Lustig wrote:
>
> G. Brown wrote:
All right,RLL,I'm back on-line...been drinking 12 year old rum instead
of whisky...so if I go easy on you-thank the higher sugar content of
Jamaica's third best export...(the dope and coffee probably rank #1 &#2
respectively,dontcha think?)

> > it wasn't just a question of communism gaining ascendancy in this
> > country...that could never have been achieved democratically;this was a
> > movement dedicated to the overthrow(violently if necessary)of the United
> > States govt.
>
> Name some names, pal. McCarthy couldn't. Who was committed to
> violent overthrow among those he smeared?
>
> Then tell us which of the Hollywood Ten, etc. were committed to
> violent overthrow. Tell us how you know.
hold on...I said "the movement" was dedicated to the overthrow (violent
if necessary)of the govt....and the American Communist party was...they
were,after all, just stooges for the powers that were in the Kremlin;no
offense meant to any former members(I suspect there are a few)on this
NG....
I never said anybody who appeared before Sen. McCarthy conspired to do
anything...but there you go again setting up straw-men(you really are
rather good at it,you know)...you ask me to "name...names"and then you
go ahead and name them yourself..the "Hollywood Ten"....no,THEY didn't
pass nuclear secrets to our sworn enemies;they weren't privy to
them.....I suspect they were there because of the "show" business
connection....they were really pretty harmless despite any communist
sympathies they harbored...and it wasn't the good senator who
"blacklisted" them but their fellow weasels out in la-laland...
> > remember, we were at war...
>
> No, we were at 'police action', and that only after 1950. HUAC
> was doing its thing before then.
not Korea ,Roger,the COLD war.....remember?
> > there were nuclear secrets involved that
> > threatened the security of every living organism on this planet with the
> > possible exception of a few cockroaches...
>
> ....which had nothing to do with anything McCarthy was after, or HUAC.
regarding Hollywood,maybe....but communist infiltration was insidious
and widespread...ANY attempt to uproot it was also an attempt to
maintain national security in the face of a very viable threat of
nuclear holocaust
> > and the communists had
> > significant success in infiltrating the nuclear dis-armament movement,
> > and the anti-Viet Nam war movement which resulted in a great
> > POLITICAL(as opposed to military) defeat, that left thousands of
> > Vietnamese at the mercy of a butcherous, totalitarian regime(read up on
> > the suffering of the boat people)...
>
> Give it a rest. The antiwar movement didn't lose any war. We killed
> a million of the enemy, dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we had on
> Europe in WWII, and couldn't convince the people of Vietnam that the
> government we were propping up had their interests at heart. The
> antiwar movement didn't do a damn thing to that.
You really should wait till those of us who were alive at that time
croak before you begin re-writng history in such a ludicrous manner...
the "Cleopatra was Black" crowd seem positively Thucydidesian compared
to your propaganda...the anti-war movement ended on college campuses the
day Richard Nixon ended the draft...so much for your vaunted altruism...

> > to compare J. Edgar Hoover's FBI to
> > the KGB is so outrageous and obscene that I will pretend I didn't read
> > it....
>
> He used many of the same immoral, illegal, un-American methods.
...taking pictures of the "Reverend" u-no-hoo sleeping with various
women other than his wife is not QUITE the same thing as carting him &
his followers off to the wastelands of Siberia....your attempts to
portray America in the 1950s as some kind of Orwellian nightmare just
won't cut it,Roger....we are going to stand up to you and tell the truth
...political correctness be damned!cheers,gb
ps...you ask in another post to cite some sources on Hoover...how about
my NATIONAL REVIEW subscription?...I suggest you sign up too...
pps...is it just me or does Ofra Harnoy wear too much make-up?(attempt
to stay on topic)...I like her romantic spin on many pieces,btw
> Roger Lustig

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Constantin Marcou wrote:
>
> Constantin Marcou wrote:
>
> > G. Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Wolk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > gb, you never cease to entertain us. I love it when you say such
> > > > outrageous things, even if I disagree with 99% of it. But don't forget,
> > > > there are many in the former USSR today who feel about the NKVD and
> > > > Joe Stalin just as you do about Tail-Gunner Joe and the Hoover in a blue
> > > > dress. So, while you're at it, how about eliminating child-labor laws,
> > > > the EPA, the FDA and universal suffrage? Who knows, you might even be
> > > > able to bring back sweatshops, Pinkertons and segregated lunch-counters.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > I knew SOMEBODY would bring up the libel about the dress...an
> > > unsubstantiated slander by a woman with many reasons to hate JEH's guts.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > What about the photographs of the orgies with the naked little boys? Is she
> > responsible for those too?
> >
>
> P.S. And don't accuse me of defaming the defenseless dead. I made similar
> cracks when he was very much alive, and they've never resulted in any visits
> from the men in black.
> Best regards,
> Con
well,Con,I see you spent a lot of time in fantasy land on your last trip
to Anaheim...I am not interested in pictures of naked little boys...but
in THIS case I will make an exception....please post these purported
shots on the internet...or tell me where I can find them...cheers,gb

Opus47

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

I discovered Shostakovich in 1984. The Soviet Union still existed as a
communist state. My best friend was Polish-Ukrainian and his mother spoke
Polish and it was learned in their family especially to hate the Soviet Union.

The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the greatest
liberating experiences for me to come out of the closet. And now my friend
can hate Shostakovich not because he was a product of the Soviet Union, but
because he hates the music.

Fred.....Citizen of the world residing in the United States.


G. Brown

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

dtritter wrote:
>
> Mr. Brown's neanderthal political views seem to animate his every
> posting and hardly merit a response, save to note that if he regards J.
> Edgar Hoover as a great American, he's welcome to that pernicious sexual
> aberrant. I suppose he likewise reveres Roy Cohn and that worthy's
> godfather, the unlamented Joseph R. McCarthy. If you lived through that
> charnel house pantheon, as I did, then it's not easy to read Brown's
> praise without a bedpan handy.
> dft
..You wouldn't think it possible...but this psychopath actually makes
Roger L. Lustig seem................................balanced. cheers,gb

Steve Wolk

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

G. Brown wrote:
> " (snip)

> Well,that is a new one!Hoover criticized for being soft on the
> Ruskees and Red Chinese....when my pal Steve Wolk hears about this he is
> going to want to organize other dyed -in-the-wool liberals to defend
> JEH from such charges
> (snip)

Because I am so liberal, I would defend YOU, GB - but JEH? No way!
By the way, while all those commie types were infiltrating us, weren't
we doing the same thing to them? Sure, you can't compare Hoover to
Lavrenti Beria (sp?) but Hoover's idea of America was not the kind we
represent to the rest of the world.
By the way, nobody brought up the KGB until you did. I mentioned the
NKVD in my original post. As an old cold warrior, I'm sure you know the
difference. :)

Steve

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to
I am familiar with the People's Comissariat for Internal Affairs..they
make what came after(Kgb)seem like pusseycats....(no offense,Jaune Tom)
cheers,gb

Brian Newhouse

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

In article <6940t3$3g1$1...@irk.zetnet.co.uk>, ken...@zetnet.co.uk (Edward
Dimitri Kennaway) wrote:

[snip]

> >But a fair amount of "rustic or folkish" music was and is intended for


> >public consumption. Think of the various religious festivals and
> >processions. Think of wedding and funeral music--weddings and funerals
> >were if anything more part of the public sphere in pre-modern societies
> >than they are today. Think of court ceremonies. Think of bards
> >improvising their epics for an audience. You really should read a bit of
> >ethnomusicology.
> >
> >--
> >Brian Newhouse
> >newh...@mail.crisp.net
> >.
>
> Of course! It could be fairly argued that nearly all music is intended
> for public consumption - a fact which is, at times, unfulfilled for the
> composers, and sometimes, agonising for the public. However, I don't
> follow your assertion about all the above arenas: a great deal of
> music for weddings, funerals and, especially, court ceremonies was
> classical. And what about the Church more generally - surely an
> enormous amount of religious music falls into the category of
> 'classical' music ( both generically and chronologically speaking ).

Only in urban or otherwise affluent areas, and in the case of church music
only among certain liturgically elaborate denominations. When you are
talking about, for instance, the more remote regions of Sicily or
Transylvania or Ireland (not to mention most of the non-Western world!),
the music involved is likely to take the folk rather than the classical
music of its day as a point of departure.

> However, I still do not
> see that you have said anything to reinforce your argument that
> classical music is 'un-American'!

You know how those threads are. Somebody brings up one topic, which leads
to another, and next thing you know you have fifteen different unrelated
conversations all over cyberspace. I wasn't even addressing my original
argument.

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net

Dudley Brooks

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, G. Brown wrote:

> Roger L. Lustig wrote:
> >
> > G. Brown wrote:
> > >

> > > and the communists had
> > > significant success in infiltrating the nuclear dis-armament movement,
> > > and the anti-Viet Nam war movement which resulted in a great
> > > POLITICAL(as opposed to military) defeat, that left thousands of
> > > Vietnamese at the mercy of a butcherous, totalitarian regime(read up on

> > > the suffering of the boat people)...
> >
> > Give it a rest. The antiwar movement didn't lose any war. We killed
> > a million of the enemy, dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we had on
> > Europe in WWII, and couldn't convince the people of Vietnam that the
> > government we were propping up had their interests at heart. The
> > antiwar movement didn't do a damn thing to that.
>
> You really should wait till those of us who were alive at that time
> croak before you begin re-writng history in such a ludicrous manner...

I was alive at that time (and don't plan on croaking for quite a while),
and Mr. Lustig is correct.

> the anti-war movement ended on college campuses the
> day Richard Nixon ended the draft.

That would seem to be evidence for Mr. Lustig's position.

> we are going to stand up to you and tell the truth

Is that the editorial "we", the royal "we", or the megalomaniac "we"? It
certainly doesn't seem to be the *plural* pronoun, at least not in this
newsgroup.

-- Dudley Brooks
Run For Your Life!...
...it's a dance company!
San Francisco
http://www.best.com/~voices/


Per Erik Rønne

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

G. Brown <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> wrote:

[snip]

I'm just mystified by this debate on McCarthy in relation to serious
music.

When I first read the initial article, I considered the phrase
'un-American' something that alluded to the fact that the USA has always
been a cultural province of Europe. That the Americans eat roast pork
with ketchup [to a Dane it is the litmus test of Cultural Barbarity] and
have always had to import its greatest Artists and Scientists from
Europe:-).

And lots of people use this joke as the starting signal of a Joseph
McCarty debate - a man who lived in the middle of the last century [in
two years, that is :-)]

--
Per Erik Rønne
E-mail: xer...@diku.edu.dk
Homepage: http://www.diku.dk/students/xerxes
Remove '.edu' before e-mail [anti-spam]

Per Erik Rønne

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

D.G. Porter <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> When "Sweeny Todd" was playing in Los Angeles, we bought the cheapesyt
> tickets available, because we were in on a well-known secret: The house
> was so empty every night (a real shame!) that the house personnel would
> direct us to seats three floors closer to the stage before curtain time.

Oh, and in Copenhagen, Denmark, you cannot even get a ticket for the
Royal Opera, unless you are a subscriber. Everything is sold out before
the begining of the season. Always full house ...

Fortunately, I'm a subscriber ...

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

In article <1d2lcnu.1l8...@ppp69.alb.tele.dk>,

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_Erik_R=F8nne?= <xer...@diku.edu.dk> wrote:
>G. Brown <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>I'm just mystified by this debate on McCarthy in relation to serious
>music.
>
>When I first read the initial article, I considered the phrase
>'un-American' something that alluded to the fact that the USA has always
>been a cultural province of Europe. That the Americans eat roast pork
>with ketchup [to a Dane it is the litmus test of Cultural Barbarity] and
>have always had to import its greatest Artists and Scientists from
>Europe:-).

Let us not forget that mitochondrial DNA testing shows that Europe
imported all the stock that became the basis for its culture from
Africa. Let us also not forget that the US immigrants who left europe
were, for the most part, deemed not worthy of European residency.

>
>And lots of people use this joke as the starting signal of a Joseph
>McCarty debate - a man who lived in the middle of the last century [in
>two years, that is :-)]
>

G. Brown

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

Clovis Lark wrote:
>
> In article <1d2lcnu.1l8...@ppp69.alb.tele.dk>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_Erik_R=F8nne?= <xer...@diku.edu.dk> wrote:
> >G. Brown <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >I'm just mystified by this debate on McCarthy in relation to serious
> >music.
> >
> >When I first read the initial article, I considered the phrase
> >'un-American' something that alluded to the fact that the USA has always
> >been a cultural province of Europe. That the Americans eat roast pork
> >with ketchup [to a Dane it is the litmus test of Cultural Barbarity] and
> >have always had to import its greatest Artists and Scientists from
> >Europe:-).
>
> Let us not forget that mitochondrial DNA testing shows that Europe
> imported all the stock that became the basis for its culture from
> Africa. Let us also not forget that the US immigrants who left europe
> were, for the most part, deemed not worthy of European residency.
....and the slaves who arrived in America were the LOSERS in tribal wars
& the dregs of African "society"...we all know who founded Australia!..
....California was settled by low-lifes from the east who couldn't cut
it in New Yawk...the American Indians weren't hardy enough for Siberia
and had to head "south" to North Dakota...
...hey,Clovis!...this is a fun game....your turn now....gb

Gabriel Kuper

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

xer...@diku.edu.dk (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_Erik_R=F8nne?=) writes:

> Oh, and in Copenhagen, Denmark, you cannot even get a ticket for the
> Royal Opera, unless you are a subscriber. Everything is sold out before
> the begining of the season. Always full house ...
>
> Fortunately, I'm a subscriber ...

Really? When I was there (last September, for Maskerade, in between 2
of the Ring operas in Aarhus) I had no problem getting in: just show
up at the box office a few hours before, wait in line, and get a
reasonably priced ticket: there aren't very many tickets for sale on
the day, but there are usually some.

Copenhagen does have an amusing system for running the queue for
tickets. There is a machine that issues numbers automatically, and
the box office calls people by number. Problem is, the machine is only
turned on a few minutes before the box office opens. So instead of
lining up for the box office, there is a line of people waiting for
the machine....

Gabriel Kuper

Jicotea

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to


G. Brown <sibe...@die-spammer.pig.erols.com> wrote in article

<34B5BE...@erols.com>...
dtritter wrote:
<black hole of a snip>

Have you people no jobs to go to?

John Wiser

po...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98
to

In article <01bd1d68$6eabd080$ad8f82d1@candacew>,

"Jicotea" <jic...@frontiernet.com> wrote:
> "Ein ehrlicher Zank, da stelle ich meinen Mann! ....Doch dies Gemiaule
> macht mich ungesund."

I resent that. I've never been more gesund in my life. I'm the most
gesund man in all the Russias.

:)ciao,
John

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

po...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98