Discussion:
That Wagner was not a N---
Add Reply
Bob Harper
2010-04-12 15:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
An excellent article by Simon Heffer from saturday's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Dont-be-afraid-of-Wagner.-Hes-not-a-Nazi.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d

Makes lots of sense.

Bob Harper
wagnerfan
2010-04-12 16:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Don...
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
Bob Harper
I can also recommend "Aspects of Wagner' by Bryan Magee - one of the
shortest and most valuable books about the subject. Unfortunately,
Bob, no matter what evidence or rationale is presented , many people
have made it up in their minds that Wagner is inexorably linked, or
even caused Naziism and it is an utter waste of time to get them to
see reason. Most unfortunate and sad . Wagner fan
Rich
2010-04-12 16:17:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wagnerfan
I can also recommend "Aspects of Wagner' by Bryan Magee - one of the
shortest and most valuable books about the subject. Unfortunately,
Bob, no matter what evidence or rationale is presented , many people
have made it up in their minds that Wagner is inexorably linked, or
even caused Naziism and it is an utter waste of time to get them to
see reason. Most unfortunate and sad .  Wagner fan
In a concert review, Virgil Thomson, not an admirer of Wagner's music,
wondered where R found the time to compose all that music. Wagner was
always fleeing from creditors, fussing over clothes and interior
decoration, fighting with everyone, and just being an all-around world-
class shit. Was he a fast orchestrator? People are always uncovering
fascinating details about that little man-like his meeting with
Ulysses S. Grant.

Rich
SG
2010-04-12 16:23:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich
In a concert review, Virgil Thomson, not an admirer of Wagner's music,
wondered where R found the time to compose all that music. Wagner was
always fleeing from creditors, fussing over clothes and interior
decoration, fighting with everyone, and just being an all-around world-
class shit.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wb6Ii9MgRkQJ:www.amazon.ca/What-Nose-Knows-Science-Everyday/dp/140008234X+richard+wagner+perfume&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I love the "product description" part:

• How many smells are there? And how many molecules would it take to
create every smell in nature, from roses to stinky feet?

• Who was the bigger scent freak: the perfume-obsessed Richard Wagner
or Emily Dickinson, with her creepy passion for flowers?

• By scenting the air in stores, are retailers turning us into
subliminally controlled shopping zombies?

• Were Smell-O-Vision and AromaRama mere Hollywood fads or serious
technologies?


By the way, thank you, Bob H., a Wagner/Nazi thread was everything we
were missing.

Look at Israel to be introduced in discussion by post 17... neah...
make that 4.
Bob Harper
2010-04-12 17:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Apr 12, 9:23 am, SG <***@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)> By the way, thank you, Bob H., a Wagner/Nazi thread was
everything we
Post by SG
were missing.
Look at Israel to be introduced in discussion by post 17... neah...
make that 4.
Ouch. I would have hoped this was a corrective. That at least was my
innocent intention

Bob Harper
SG
2010-04-12 17:27:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"That at least was my innocent intention."

There is no innocence in this world - you of all people should know
that. ( :

As for Wagner, of course that blaming him for Nazism in general would
be both asynchronous and non-causal. To my knowledge, very few do that
today, and naturally with little success.

On the other hand (and speaking as somebody who does listen to Wagner,
occasionally), it is hard to deny that Wagner's anti-Semitism wasn't
of the garden variety category -light-hearted xenophobic banter and
such of which most not-saintly people make themselves guilty of at
some point in life - but so poisonous, intense and obsessive as to
become impossible to ignore.

To which extent that colors one's reaction to Wagner as a whole is a
matter of personal reaction. I have yet to encounter a point of view
not to be controversial and usually controverted.

regards,
SG
Bob Harper
2010-04-12 19:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SG
"That at least was my innocent intention."
There is no innocence in this world - you of all people should know
Alas, having now read this thread only through message 11(in Google
Groups), I see that you are right. Sorry.

Bob Harper
SG
2010-04-12 19:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by SG
There is no innocence in this world - you of all people should know
Alas, having now read this thread only through message 11(in Google
Groups), I see that you are right. Sorry.
Nothing to be sorry about - in fact the article you linked was not
uninteresting, and thanks for mentioning it.

As for Wagner... by now you should know I am personally opposed to
artists being held to some impossible standards of rectitude and moral
beauty... notice my consistent over decades defense of Furtwaengler
and of Shostakovich (differences and nuances observed).

Wagner is a harder case: claiming he is the equal of Hitler and that
he directly caused or endorsed the gassing of millions of people is
patently absurd (and I can hardly think of people claiming that to
begin with). Claiming that listening to Wagner is immoral and should
be forbidden is equally absurd.

On the other hand, being uncomfortable with relativizing Wagner's
public, profound, explicit, obsessive, politicized, and never repented
anti-Semitism seems to me an understandable point of view. I hope I
made myself a little more clear.

regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
2010-04-12 19:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SG
On the other hand, being uncomfortable with relativizing Wagner's
public, profound, explicit, obsessive, politicized, and never repented
anti-Semitism seems to me an understandable point of view. I hope I
made myself a little more clear.
regards,
SG
LOL. Well, that's better, but still too many adjectives; any two would
have done the job.

bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
SG
2010-04-12 19:46:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"that's better, but still too many adjectives; any two would have done
the job"

I'm generous with adjectives. Always been, always will be.
Egregiously, bountifully, unlimitedly, extravagantly so.

It's where mullah is concerned that I start having second thoughts.
TareeDawg
2010-04-13 00:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SG
Post by Bob Harper
Post by SG
There is no innocence in this world - you of all people should know
Alas, having now read this thread only through message 11(in Google
Groups), I see that you are right. Sorry.
Nothing to be sorry about - in fact the article you linked was not
uninteresting, and thanks for mentioning it.
As for Wagner... by now you should know I am personally opposed to
artists being held to some impossible standards of rectitude and moral
beauty... notice my consistent over decades defense of Furtwaengler
and of Shostakovich (differences and nuances observed).
Wagner is a harder case: claiming he is the equal of Hitler and that
he directly caused or endorsed the gassing of millions of people is
patently absurd (and I can hardly think of people claiming that to
begin with). Claiming that listening to Wagner is immoral and should
be forbidden is equally absurd.
On the other hand, being uncomfortable with relativizing Wagner's
public, profound, explicit, obsessive, politicized, and never repented
anti-Semitism seems to me an understandable point of view. I hope I
made myself a little more clear.
regards,
SG
Who really cares what kind of shit the man was - his music alone is the
epitomy of long-long-long-winded crassness. Oh for the concision of
something like the Sibelius 7th .. but then again ... maybe we are
talking different genres.

Ray Hall, Taree

Ray Hall, Taree
Mr. Mike
2010-04-12 17:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
• Who was the bigger scent freak: the perfume-obsessed Richard Wagner
or Emily Dickinson, with her creepy passion for flowers?
Considering Wagner was a pussy magnet, I'm sure this is to be
expected...
David Oberman
2010-04-12 19:04:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:02:15 -0700 (PDT), wagnerfan
Post by wagnerfan
I can also recommend "Aspects of Wagner' by Bryan Magee - one of the
shortest and most valuable books about the subject. Unfortunately,
Bob, no matter what evidence or rationale is presented , many people
have made it up in their minds that Wagner is inexorably linked, or
even caused Naziism and it is an utter waste of time to get them to
see reason. Most unfortunate and sad . Wagner fan
Is Harold Schonberg's description of Wagner in "The Lives of the Great
Composers" relatively accurate? That's probably the only biographical
matter I've read about Wagner.


_______

Cocaine -- the other white meat.

-- Edmund Wilson
bpnjensen
2010-04-12 16:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Don...
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
Bob Harper
Indeed, a great article, I love it. It logically places the cart
AFTER the horse where it belongs, and shows the the horse to be
rightfully innocent of what the cart's driver forces the horse to do
(not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea). Moreover, it makes me
want to go and read the reference(s) he suggests.

Bruce Jensen
td
2010-04-12 17:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Don...
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
LOL

This horse won't run, Bob.

TD
Mr. Mike
2010-04-12 17:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Gee, I thought this was going to be about how Wagner was not a
"nigger" (sort of like the speculation that Beethoven was black)...
Paul Goldstein
2010-04-12 18:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <da0ca077-5469-47e9-aeb0-***@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Bob Harper says...
Post by Bob Harper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Dont-be-afraid-of-Wagner.-Hes-not-a-Nazi.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
No, it is just a piece of journalism. It is impossible to discuss the subject
of Wagner's influence on Hitler and Nazism meaningfully in a book review. Not
even a Daily Telegraph book review.

I haven't read the book under review here, but I also tend to doubt that the
above-mentioned subject is adequately addressed in a Faber Pocket Guide to
anything.

If you want to try to think seriously about the subject, read Saul
Friedlaender's book Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol. 1 (Harper Perennial 1998),
especially pages 87-90. As Friedlaender shows with reference to the relevant
primary sources, Wagner espoused a mystical brand of anti-Semitism that called
for the elimination of what he called "the Jewish spirit" from Europe. Many
years later, the Nazis sought to translate this aspiration into practical
reality. Houston Stewart Chamberlain and others in the post-Wagner Bayreuth
circle helped to mediate this transition from Wagnerian mysticism to Hitler's
Endloesung.

These are historically verifiable facts. and they remain facts regardless of
one's response to Wagner's music.
wagnerfan
2010-04-12 19:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
Bob Harper says...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Don...
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
No, it is just a piece of journalism.  It is impossible to discuss the subject
of Wagner's influence on Hitler and Nazism meaningfully in a book review.  Not
even a Daily Telegraph book review.
I haven't read the book under review here, but I also tend to doubt that the
above-mentioned subject is adequately addressed in a Faber Pocket Guide to
anything.
If you want to try to think seriously about the subject, read Saul
Friedlaender's book Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol. 1 (Harper Perennial 1998),
especially pages 87-90.  As Friedlaender shows with reference to the relevant
primary sources, Wagner espoused a mystical brand of anti-Semitism that called
for the elimination of what he called "the Jewish spirit" from Europe.  Many
years later, the Nazis sought to translate this aspiration into practical
reality.  Houston Stewart Chamberlain and others in the post-Wagner Bayreuth
circle helped to mediate this transition from Wagnerian mysticism to Hitler's
Endloesung.
These are historically verifiable facts. and they remain facts regardless of
one's response to Wagner's music.
I'm not sure why three pages in the book you reference has any more
relevance than the pocket guide initially discussed- the bottom line,
is that Wagner never ever called for the "extermination" of the Jews -
in no writings, no pamphlets and treatises.
He did not care about their blood or race, quite the opposite since
what he wanted the Jews to do was assimilate "properly" into German
culture. Outside music Wagner not an especially coherent thinker and
something of a crank but his dislike of the Jews was based largely
on cultural grounds. The Nazi party drew their anti-semitism from
many sources but not even remotely from Wagners writings, still less
his music. The reputable histories of the Nazi era hardly mention
Wagner at all, most to dismiss him. Contrary to impressions Wagner was
not any kind of influence on the Nazis; they did not play his music at
their rallies or draw on him on any other way. They were not inspired
by him - they were merely too stupid to appreciate him and preferred
creepy bombastic marches. Wagner performances diminished sharply under
the Nazis and one opera Parsifal ended up banned altogether. Hitler
himself liked Wagner when he was young but was not influenced by him
in any way anybody can find; indeed wheh Hitler was in his most
Wagnerian phase, he didn;t seem to be anti-semitic at all - at anyrate
he was in love with a Jewish girl. By the time, he was in power he was
fond or fonder of the Lehar operettas -and nobody blames Lehar for
Naziism.
Wagner, in common with many other people who should have known better
including W.B.Yeats,Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot,G.K. Chesterton and many
others had some anti-semitic views. Unlike them, Wagner grew up in
early 19th century Europe in which anti-semitism was widespread, even
usual, he had much more excuse than they did. And he was lot less
extreme than they were ; he had Jewish friends and assistants, some of
whom lived with him as part of the family and were devoted to him--and
he likewise it seems. This alone puts a huge gulf between him and the
Nazis.
The Nazis would have been there just the same if Wagner had never
existed. Germany was ripe for persecuting Jews and it brought about
the Holocaust without Wagners help.

Hope I didnt go on too long and its probably for naught since
prejuduces against this composer are so deepy ingrained. But, once in
while, its proper for facts and reason to prevail. Wagner fan
David Oberman
2010-04-12 20:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:23:39 -0700 (PDT), wagnerfan
and nobody blames Lehar for Naziism.
I sometimes do: "From Bavarian Creme Puff to Bergen-Belsen"
Rich
2010-04-12 21:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Does anyone remember Tony Palmer's film Wagner? I thought Richard
Burton was pretty good as the Wizard from Bayreuth. Franco Nero was
funny as Liszt. High point of that 5 hour epic: After Nietzsche left
Wagner's inner circle, Wagner showed his appreciation for his former
admirer by spilling the beans: "Nietzsche? He masturbates you know. He
told me" Nietzsche may have been a great stylist, but he didn't show
much sense when he confided in RW. After the break with RW,
Nietzsche tried to interest Brahms in a composer -philosopher
relationship. Brahms basically told him to piss off.

Rich
Paul Goldstein
2010-04-12 22:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <01a90362-b00d-4078-aeba-***@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Rich says...
Post by Rich
Does anyone remember Tony Palmer's film Wagner? I thought Richard
Burton was pretty good as the Wizard from Bayreuth. Franco Nero was
funny as Liszt. High point of that 5 hour epic: After Nietzsche left
Wagner's inner circle, Wagner showed his appreciation for his former
admirer by spilling the beans: "Nietzsche? He masturbates you know. He
told me" Nietzsche may have been a great stylist, but he didn't show
much sense when he confided in RW. After the break with RW,
Nietzsche tried to interest Brahms in a composer -philosopher
relationship. Brahms basically told him to piss off.
I didn't know about Brahms. I do remember Nietzsche praising Carmen lavishly in
one of his later anti-Wagner works, as if tweaking his nose at his former idol.
Rich
2010-04-12 22:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I didn't know about Brahms.  I do remember Nietzsche praising Carmen lavishly in
one of his later anti-Wagner works, as if tweaking his nose at his former idol.
Was that in Richard Wagner in Bayreuth or Ecce Homo? Can't
remember....In the late works, Nietzsche criticizes Wagner, but in his
letters he still pines for the Master's music.

Rich
Paul Goldstein
2010-04-12 23:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <68007597-69d6-4ba8-98fd-***@c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Rich says...
Post by Paul Goldstein
I didn't know about Brahms. =A0I do remember Nietzsche praising Carmen la=
vishly in
one of his later anti-Wagner works, as if tweaking his nose at his former=
idol.
Was that in Richard Wagner in Bayreuth or Ecce Homo? Can't
remember....In the late works, Nietzsche criticizes Wagner, but in his
letters he still pines for the Master's music.
The passage I was thinking of is Section 1 of Der Fall Wagner (The Case of
Wagner): "Ich hoerte gestern - werden Sie es glauben? - zum zwanzigsten Male
BIZETS Meisterwerk . . ."
Bob Lombard
2010-04-12 22:55:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
I didn't know about Brahms. I do remember Nietzsche praising Carmen lavishly in
one of his later anti-Wagner works, as if tweaking his nose at his former idol.
I think you have the wrong nose there, unless you meant 'thumbing'.
You'll be confusing Gerard.

bl
wagnerfan
2010-04-12 22:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Does anyone remember Tony Palmer's film Wagner?  I thought Richard
Burton was pretty good as the Wizard from Bayreuth.  Franco Nero was
funny as Liszt. High point of that 5 hour epic:  After Nietzsche left
Wagner's inner circle, Wagner showed his appreciation for his former
admirer by spilling the beans: "Nietzsche? He masturbates you know. He
told me"   Nietzsche may have been a great stylist, but he didn't show
much sense when he confided in RW.   After the break with RW,
Nietzsche tried to interest Brahms in a composer -philosopher
relationship.  Brahms basically told him to piss off.
Rich
Fischer-Dieskau wrote a very interesting book about the Wagner-
Nietzsche relationship. Wagner fan
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 04:06:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Dont-be-afraid-of-Wagner.-Hes-not-a-Nazi.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
Bob Harper
According to this:

- I believe that ultimately Wagner would have recoiled from the Nazi movement because he would have seen in it the triumph of the world-destructive will of Hagen, son of Alberich.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22i+believe+that+ultimately+Wagner+would+have+recoiled+from+the+Nazi+movement+because+he+would+have+seen%22
HT
2018-08-28 08:58:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
- I believe that ultimately Wagner would have recoiled from the Nazi movement because he would have seen in it the triumph of the world-destructive will of Hagen, son of Alberich.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22i+believe+that+ultimately+Wagner+would+have+recoiled+from+the+Nazi+movement+because+he+would+have+seen%22
Nonsense. Cosima would have kept him from recoiling.

Henk
Jerry
2018-08-28 14:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also negatively impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.

Jerry
Frank Berger
2018-08-28 15:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also negatively impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jerry
It's interesting that although Strauss and Bruckner can evoke such
feelings it is only Wagner's music that is customarily not played at
public concerts in Israel. I don't know if his music was actually heard
more during Nazi period or used more by the regime, or just because of
Wagner's overt, and well-known, antisemitism during his lifetime.
weary flake
2018-08-28 15:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also negatively
impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
Frank Berger
2018-08-28 17:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also
negatively impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
It's hard to react to this remark without vomiting. And yes, I know you
are being sarcastic. That you would lack sympathy for someone whose
emotional response to what they or their family went through in WWII is
to find Bruckner or Strauss painful to listen to is unfortunate for you.
m***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 18:10:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also
negatively impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
It's hard to react to this remark without vomiting. And yes, I know you
are being sarcastic. That you would lack sympathy for someone whose
emotional response to what they or their family went through in WWII is
to find Bruckner or Strauss painful to listen to is unfortunate for you.
Yes I would never question the anti-Wagner attitudes of someone whose family perished during World War II and doesn't like the music of Wagner. There are too many associations of a very sensitive nature, I would be wasting my time to think I could convince them that's Wagner's music in itself has nothing to do with the Nazis and it would just be a waste of time and effort on both sides. Its important to realize that often the emotional reactions run too deep.
Frank Berger
2018-08-28 18:50:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Frank Berger
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also
negatively impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
It's hard to react to this remark without vomiting. And yes, I know you
are being sarcastic. That you would lack sympathy for someone whose
emotional response to what they or their family went through in WWII is
to find Bruckner or Strauss painful to listen to is unfortunate for you.
Yes I would never question the anti-Wagner attitudes of someone whose family perished during World War II and doesn't like the music of Wagner. There are too many associations of a very sensitive nature, I would be wasting my time to think I could convince them that's Wagner's music in itself has nothing to do with the Nazis and it would just be a waste of time and effort on both sides. Its important to realize that often the emotional reactions run too deep.
A case could be made to boycott Wagner's even without the Holocaust
having occurred, just on the basis of his virulent antisemitism.
Nowadays we are taking down Confederate related statues because of the
association of the Confederacy with racism and slavery without
consideration of the personal views on race of the toppled soldier.
m***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 19:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Frank Berger
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also
negatively impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
It's hard to react to this remark without vomiting. And yes, I know you
are being sarcastic. That you would lack sympathy for someone whose
emotional response to what they or their family went through in WWII is
to find Bruckner or Strauss painful to listen to is unfortunate for you.
Yes I would never question the anti-Wagner attitudes of someone whose family perished during World War II and doesn't like the music of Wagner. There are too many associations of a very sensitive nature, I would be wasting my time to think I could convince them that's Wagner's music in itself has nothing to do with the Nazis and it would just be a waste of time and effort on both sides. Its important to realize that often the emotional reactions run too deep.
A case could be made to boycott Wagner's even without the Holocaust
having occurred, just on the basis of his virulent antisemitism.
Nowadays we are taking down Confederate related statues because of the
association of the Confederacy with racism and slavery without
consideration of the personal views on race of the toppled soldier.
Well a case can always be made until the matter is looked at rationally and sensibly. For example the separation of Wagners musical output from his often preposterous writings (the man did like to expound on just about everything). But again there are so many extra musical considerations about the man which have coloured everything he did and said that such rational thinking goes out the window - understandably.
m***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 18:11:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also negatively
impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
Sorry I do not understand that sentence
weary flake
2018-08-28 18:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also
negatively> > impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
Sorry I do not understand that sentence
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
HT
2018-08-28 19:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by weary flake
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
The difference is that Beethoven (unlike Nietzsche and Wagner) didn't have one or more admirers of Hitler in the family. The difference between Nietzsche and Wagner is that the former (in his specific brand of anti-semitism) believed that anti-semites should be expelled because they opposed jewish assimilation.

https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4441-nietzsche-and-the-jews-judaism-and-anti-semitism

Henk
m***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 19:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by weary flake
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
The difference is that Beethoven (unlike Nietzsche and Wagner) didn't have one or more admirers of Hitler in the family. The difference between Nietzsche and Wagner is that the former (in his specific brand of anti-semitism) believed that anti-semites should be expelled because they opposed jewish assimilation.
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4441-nietzsche-and-the-jews-judaism-and-anti-semitism
Henk
Yes whereas Wagner wanted complete assimilation of Jews into German culture so they in effect disappeared
Frank Berger
2018-08-28 20:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by HT
Post by weary flake
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
The difference is that Beethoven (unlike Nietzsche and Wagner) didn't have one or more admirers of Hitler in the family. The difference between Nietzsche and Wagner is that the former (in his specific brand of anti-semitism) believed that anti-semites should be expelled because they opposed jewish assimilation.
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4441-nietzsche-and-the-jews-judaism-and-anti-semitism
Henk
Yes whereas Wagner wanted complete assimilation of Jews into German culture so they in effect disappeared
Sort of what Reform Judaism wanted also (ducking for cover).
dk
2018-09-03 20:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by HT
Post by weary flake
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
The difference is that Beethoven (unlike Nietzsche and Wagner) didn't have one or more admirers of Hitler in the family. The difference between Nietzsche and Wagner is that the former (in his specific brand of anti-semitism) believed that anti-semites should be expelled because they opposed jewish assimilation.
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4441-nietzsche-and-the-jews-judaism-and-anti-semitism
Henk
Yes whereas Wagner wanted complete assimilation of Jews into German culture so they in effect disappeared
Sort of what Reform Judaism wanted also (ducking for cover).
You clearly don't understand
shit about Reform Judaism!

dk
Frank Berger
2018-09-03 21:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by dk
Post by Frank Berger
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by HT
Post by weary flake
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
The difference is that Beethoven (unlike Nietzsche and Wagner) didn't have one or more admirers of Hitler in the family. The difference between Nietzsche and Wagner is that the former (in his specific brand of anti-semitism) believed that anti-semites should be expelled because they opposed jewish assimilation.
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4441-nietzsche-and-the-jews-judaism-and-anti-semitism
Henk
Yes whereas Wagner wanted complete assimilation of Jews into German culture so they in effect disappeared
Sort of what Reform Judaism wanted also (ducking for cover).
You clearly don't understand
shit about Reform Judaism!
dk
You may be right.
Frank Berger
2018-09-03 21:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by dk
Post by Frank Berger
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by HT
Post by weary flake
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
The difference is that Beethoven (unlike Nietzsche and Wagner) didn't have one or more admirers of Hitler in the family. The difference between Nietzsche and Wagner is that the former (in his specific brand of anti-semitism) believed that anti-semites should be expelled because they opposed jewish assimilation.
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4441-nietzsche-and-the-jews-judaism-and-anti-semitism
Henk
Yes whereas Wagner wanted complete assimilation of Jews into German culture so they in effect disappeared
Sort of what Reform Judaism wanted also (ducking for cover).
You clearly don't understand
shit about Reform Judaism!
dk
My understanding is that early reform leaders wanted to basically make
themselves just like Christians in ways that would remove the social
separation and end discrimination against them. So they dropped kosher
so they could eat with them, dropped strict Sabbath observance so that
they could socialize with them more, dropped traditional Jewish clothing
for the same reason including discarding the skullcap. They changed toe
definition of who is Jewish to that they could intermarry with them.
Particularly revealing was the desire of some Reform leaders to move the
Jewish Sabbath to Sunday. So saying they WANTED to disappear, which is
what I said, was really a metaphor for modifying customs in a way that
would make it likely they WOULD disappear. Some year ago Temple Emmanuel
in New York, one of the biggest Reform congregations, had a 100th
anniversary and wanted to invite, as special guests, descendants of the
founding families. There were no descendants of the founding families
found that considered themselves Jewish. It has been argued that Reform
Judaism is a way station out of Judaism. This does not mean that there
aren't, at any given time, hundreds of thousand (?) Reform Jews who get
spiritual and social value out of the practice of religion. But don't
bet that many of their descendants will identify as being Jewish in a
hundred years. Not that everyone thinks there's anything wrong with that.

I understand that one can explain these changes that define reform
differently. Feel free to so. Maybe you can convince me.
dk
2018-09-03 21:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by dk
You clearly don't understand
shit about Reform Judaism!
My understanding is that early reform leaders wanted to basically make
themselves just like Christians in ways that would remove the social
separation and end discrimination against them. So they dropped kosher
so they could eat with them, dropped strict Sabbath observance so that
they could socialize with them more, dropped traditional Jewish clothing
for the same reason including discarding the skullcap. They changed toe
definition of who is Jewish to that they could intermarry with them.
Particularly revealing was the desire of some Reform leaders to move the
Jewish Sabbath to Sunday. So saying they WANTED to disappear, which is
what I said, was really a metaphor for modifying customs in a way that
would make it likely they WOULD disappear. Some year ago Temple Emmanuel
in New York, one of the biggest Reform congregations, had a 100th
anniversary and wanted to invite, as special guests, descendants of the
founding families. There were no descendants of the founding families
found that considered themselves Jewish. It has been argued that Reform
Judaism is a way station out of Judaism. This does not mean that there
aren't, at any given time, hundreds of thousand (?) Reform Jews who get
spiritual and social value out of the practice of religion. But don't
bet that many of their descendants will identify as being Jewish in a
hundred years. Not that everyone thinks there's anything wrong with that.
I understand that one can explain these changes that define reform
differently. Feel free to so. Maybe you can convince me.
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism

dk
Frank Berger
2018-09-04 00:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by dk
Post by Frank Berger
Post by dk
You clearly don't understand
shit about Reform Judaism!
My understanding is that early reform leaders wanted to basically make
themselves just like Christians in ways that would remove the social
separation and end discrimination against them. So they dropped kosher
so they could eat with them, dropped strict Sabbath observance so that
they could socialize with them more, dropped traditional Jewish clothing
for the same reason including discarding the skullcap. They changed toe
definition of who is Jewish to that they could intermarry with them.
Particularly revealing was the desire of some Reform leaders to move the
Jewish Sabbath to Sunday. So saying they WANTED to disappear, which is
what I said, was really a metaphor for modifying customs in a way that
would make it likely they WOULD disappear. Some year ago Temple Emmanuel
in New York, one of the biggest Reform congregations, had a 100th
anniversary and wanted to invite, as special guests, descendants of the
founding families. There were no descendants of the founding families
found that considered themselves Jewish. It has been argued that Reform
Judaism is a way station out of Judaism. This does not mean that there
aren't, at any given time, hundreds of thousand (?) Reform Jews who get
spiritual and social value out of the practice of religion. But don't
bet that many of their descendants will identify as being Jewish in a
hundred years. Not that everyone thinks there's anything wrong with that.
I understand that one can explain these changes that define reform
differently. Feel free to so. Maybe you can convince me.
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism
dk
I did. Way too much detail. To me a religion is a construct (man-made
or divine) that through tradition and ethical precepts and theology
causes people (or tries) to behave better than they might otherwise. It
should be a challenge to adhere properly to your religion, because none
of us are perfect. My feeling is that Reform Judaism (and I prefer to
call it just Reform because it is almost unrecognizable to me as having
much in common with traditional (Orthodox) Judaism. It looks to me like
people wanted to be like the Gentiles for the obvious reasons and
changed the rituals/practices accordingly and then cloaked the whole
think in made-up theology. I know very well that that secularist make
that kind of charge against all religions. To each his own.
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-04 00:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by dk
Post by Frank Berger
Post by dk
You clearly don't understand
shit about Reform Judaism!
My understanding is that early reform leaders wanted to basically make
themselves just like Christians in ways that would remove the social
separation and end discrimination against them. So they dropped kosher
so they could eat with them, dropped strict Sabbath observance so that
they could socialize with them more, dropped traditional Jewish clothing
for the same reason including discarding the skullcap. They changed toe
definition of who is Jewish to that they could intermarry with them.
Particularly revealing was the desire of some Reform leaders to move the
Jewish Sabbath to Sunday. So saying they WANTED to disappear, which is
what I said, was really a metaphor for modifying customs in a way that
would make it likely they WOULD disappear. Some year ago Temple Emmanuel
in New York, one of the biggest Reform congregations, had a 100th
anniversary and wanted to invite, as special guests, descendants of the
founding families. There were no descendants of the founding families
found that considered themselves Jewish. It has been argued that Reform
Judaism is a way station out of Judaism. This does not mean that there
aren't, at any given time, hundreds of thousand (?) Reform Jews who get
spiritual and social value out of the practice of religion. But don't
bet that many of their descendants will identify as being Jewish in a
hundred years. Not that everyone thinks there's anything wrong with that.
I understand that one can explain these changes that define reform
differently. Feel free to so. Maybe you can convince me.
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism
dk
I did. Way too much detail. To me a religion is a construct (man-made
or divine) that through tradition and ethical precepts and theology
causes people (or tries) to behave better than they might otherwise. It
should be a challenge to adhere properly to your religion, because none
of us are perfect. My feeling is that Reform Judaism (and I prefer to
call it just Reform because it is almost unrecognizable to me as having
much in common with traditional (Orthodox) Judaism. It looks to me like
people wanted to be like the Gentiles for the obvious reasons and
changed the rituals/practices accordingly and then cloaked the whole
think in made-up theology. I know very well that that secularist make
that kind of charge against all religions. To each his own.
The following on religion may be of interest:

- Traditional societies have been shaped by the principles of a moral order, usually of a religious nature. The transition to modernization in most such traditional societies has involved a gradual trend toward a more secular basis for government, especially as different interests emerged among the people as the result of social and economic development. In time such interests found it necessary to contend with each other and to make demands on government for policies favorable to them. A transition to a political order based on a balance of conflicting interests would follow. In a very fundamental sense successful modernization has thus meant replacing a state-society system in which the state enforces the NORMS of a traditional moral order with a system in which the legitimacy of the state depends upon the dynamics of politics--that is, politics as a process involving the COMPETING INTERESTS of a diversified and complex society. NORMS of behavior are no longer dictated by political leaders who are presumed to be a moral elite. Instead it is a society and its interests that determine public life and politics. Stability comes out of the interplay of forces in the society and from government's responses to the demands of participating citizens who seek to shape their destinies rather than being told how to behave by government.

"China: An Introduction",4th ed.[1991,Pye]
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-09 03:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by weary flake
Beethoven is more likely to be an N-word than Wagner.
The difference is that Beethoven (unlike Nietzsche and Wagner) didn't have one or more admirers of Hitler in the family. The difference between Nietzsche and Wagner...
(Recent book on N. and W.):

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/nietzsches-intense-friendship-with-wagner-forms-the-core-of-sue-prideauxs-excellent-new-biography/
Frank Berger
2018-08-28 18:56:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also negatively
impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
Sorry I do not understand that sentence
Since weary flake apparently won't explain what he meant, let me give it
a shot: One might as well boycott (or hate or something) Jews because
of their "association" with the Holocaust as one should boycott Wagner
because of his. In other words it is absurd to boycott Wagner or Strauss
or Bruckner because their music was used by the Nazis (ignoring Wagner
blatant antisemitism). This is obviously true on an intellectual level,
but doesn't recognize or is insensitive to the emotional trauma suffered
by people who went through it or whose relatives were murdered.
m***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 19:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
Post by Jerry
The ex-post-facto “association” with National Socialism also negatively
impacted others.
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Jews are associated with Nazism so are of suspicious character.
Sorry I do not understand that sentence
Since weary flake apparently won't explain what he meant, let me give it
a shot: One might as well boycott (or hate or something) Jews because
of their "association" with the Holocaust as one should boycott Wagner
because of his. In other words it is absurd to boycott Wagner or Strauss
or Bruckner because their music was used by the Nazis (ignoring Wagner
blatant antisemitism). This is obviously true on an intellectual level,
but doesn't recognize or is insensitive to the emotional trauma suffered
by people who went through it or whose relatives were murdered.
Yes I agree
Mr. Mike
2018-08-29 05:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry
I still recall an article in High Fidelity in which a resident of one of the
occupied countries shared his revulsion of Bruckner because his music
was associated (in his mind) with the horrors of World War II.
Here it is:

https://tinyurl.com/yc7tbtzy
m***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 15:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Bob Harper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Dont-be-afraid-of-Wagner.-Hes-not-a-Nazi.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
Bob Harper
- I believe that ultimately Wagner would have recoiled from the Nazi movement because he would have seen in it the triumph of the world-destructive will of Hagen, son of Alberich.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22i+believe+that+ultimately+Wagner+would+have+recoiled+from+the+Nazi+movement+because+he+would+have+seen%22
He would have recoiled from the Nazi movement because he would have been horrified at the consequences/ At the very least he would have thrown them out of Wahnfried as being too lower class and common.
MickeyBoy
2018-08-28 21:05:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
He would have recoiled from the Nazi movement because he would have been horrified at the consequences/ At the very least he would have thrown them out of Wahnfried as being too lower class and common.
Many Germans thought Hitler was very low class and common. Examples are Furtwangler and Friedrich Reck. I have read that Goebbels's favorite composer was Mozart. Hitler enjoyed Wagner and Lehar, sparing the latter's Jewish wife. The Nazis did make a very big deal of Bruckner. Perhaps someone here could say why.
j***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 21:17:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MickeyBoy
Post by m***@gmail.com
He would have recoiled from the Nazi movement because he would have been horrified at the consequences/ At the very least he would have thrown them out of Wahnfried as being too lower class and common.
Many Germans thought Hitler was very low class and common. Examples are Furtwangler and Friedrich Reck. I have read that Goebbels's favorite composer was Mozart. Hitler enjoyed Wagner and Lehar, sparing the latter's Jewish wife. The Nazis did make a very big deal of Bruckner. Perhaps someone here could say why.
According to Victor Klemperer, many Germans thought Hitler was going to Make Germany Great Again, and his anti-Semitic talk may have been a bit extreme, but it was just political talk, a phase that would soon pass. (See the chapter "I believe in him" from LTI.)
m***@gmail.com
2018-08-28 21:32:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by MickeyBoy
Post by m***@gmail.com
He would have recoiled from the Nazi movement because he would have been horrified at the consequences/ At the very least he would have thrown them out of Wahnfried as being too lower class and common.
Many Germans thought Hitler was very low class and common. Examples are Furtwangler and Friedrich Reck. I have read that Goebbels's favorite composer was Mozart. Hitler enjoyed Wagner and Lehar, sparing the latter's Jewish wife. The Nazis did make a very big deal of Bruckner. Perhaps someone here could say why.
According to Victor Klemperer, many Germans thought Hitler was going to Make Germany Great Again, and his anti-Semitic talk may have been a bit extreme, but it was just political talk, a phase that would soon pass. (See the chapter "I believe in him" from LTI.)
That was the mistake back then as it could also be now
dk
2018-09-03 20:32:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MickeyBoy
The Nazis did make a very big deal of Bruckner.
Perhaps someone here could say why.
Because everything Bruckner
wrote is really BIG!

dk
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-11 23:29:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Dont-be-afraid-of-Wagner.-Hes-not-a-Nazi.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
Bob Harper
Wagner family (1999 tv program):

https://www.c-span.org/video/?123755-1/history-legacy-wagner-family
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-12 02:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7575769/Dont-be-afraid-of-Wagner.-Hes-not-a-Nazi.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5eln2d
Makes lots of sense.
Bob Harper
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/1BJxlQyNK0I
Loading...