June 30, 2018

"Adolf Hitler adored the Ninth Symphony. Musicians waiting for their deaths in Nazi concentration camps were ordered to play it..."

"... metaphorically twisting its closing call to universal brotherhood and joy into a terrifying, sneering parody of all that strives for light in a human soul. More than four decades later, Leonard Bernstein conducted several performances to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall, substituting the word 'freedom' for 'joy' in Friedrich Schiller’s 1785 poem to which Beethoven’s movement was set. And Emmanuel Macron chose this music as the backdrop for his victory speech after winning the French presidential election last year. Western classical music usually thinks of itself as being apolitical. But the Ninth is political. Beethoven saw it as political when he wrote it in the early 1820s. And his fellow Germans, looking for a sense of identity, embraced it with fervour. Beethoven’s Ninth became the musical flag of Germanness at a time when nationalism was a growing force in all of Europe. It also became a Romantic monument to the artist (Beethoven, in this case) as a special creature worthy of special treatment...."

From "'Ode to Joy' has an odious history. Let’s give Beethoven’s most overplayed symphony a rest" by John Terauds in The Star (where it is billed as "the first instalment of The Heretic, a series in which our writers express a wildly unpopular opinion"). I got to that article via a tweet from Terry Teachout, who said, "How utterly tired I am of such art-hating philistinism.."

255 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 255 of 255
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I see Michael Special K's up early and regurgitating the usual stuff.

Look what I read! Look what I read!

Amazing that Althouse tolerates an unoriginal right-wing troll like that.

Quaestor said...

France was probably more responsible for WWI than Germany but it is very hard to sell that to someone who has not studied the subject a lot.

I agree. To saddle Germany with the entire war guilt requires one to ignore the machinations of the other Powers. From about 1890 until virtually the outbreak of general war William II attempted to solve the great conundrum of Europe by weaning Russia away from her anti-German alliance with France. He even got so far as to persuade Nicolas II to sign on to his "dreikaiserbund", only to have the whole episode repudiated by the Russian foreign ministry.

French revanchism was more responsible for the disastrous web of alliances, and thus the Great War than any policy of the German Empire except the mobilization policy of the Großer Generalstab, which launched the bulk of her forces toward France via Belgium when the actual imminent threat was coming from Russia. However, since that mobilization policy directly grew out of the existence of the Franco-Russian alliance, it follows that had William's diplomacy succeeded, had Russia forsworn her fatal alignment with the Third Republic, the rationale of the Schlieffen doctrine would not have existed. While it is true that Izvolsky's notion of Austrian acquiescence in the matter of Russian ambitions toward the Dardanelles was a fantasy, it is also true that French support was an ignis fatuus. The Franco-Russian axis cost the Romanov's their empire and their lives, and gave nothing in return, whereas a "league of three empires" could have forestalled or even prevented a general war.

Ralph L said...

Saki in "When William Came" posits many rich Jews in the occupation elite. And lots of Oompah bands.

Should I be upset that I largely share Inga's pedestrian music taste? I put in a vote for The Pearl Fishers' duet for those who prefer male voices.

My beef with Figaro is too much recitative between the immortal arias.

William said...

In one of Kissinger's books he pointed out that Bismarck had in instituted a form of government and system of alliances that only he was clever enough to manage. I think Bismarck worked to limit rather than magnify the Junkers role in government. The Kaiser was junkier than the Junkers.......Perhaps in the long arc of history, the Social Democrats would have won out over the Junkers, but I'm not so sure that the long arc of history bends toward justice in Germany.......Ludendorff and Hindenburg can take credit for enabling the regimes of both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. Not to mention leading their own country into a catastrophic defeat. Teamwork, guys. That's how you get things done.

Quaestor said...

Michael K. wrote: I don't know that I would consider Max Hastings "pro-German."

And well you should. Watch Max Hastings present the pro-intervention argument regarding the question, "Britain should not have fought in the First World War."

rcocean said...

As for "Who was responsible for WW 1?"

I've never got too worked up about it - because the answer is "Everybody".

1) A-H was determined to attack Serbia - even if it mean war with Russia.

2) Germany backed up A-H.

3) Russia was determined to stand by Serbia - even if it meant war with A-H.

4) France backed up Russia.

Peeps have talked about Germany "picking a fight" because of Russian program of Railway expansion that would've allowed Russia to mobilize as fast as Germany by 1917. Well, if that's the case, then why didn't Russia DELAY war until 1917?

And of course, England and Italy couldn't wait to get into the war, so they could pick up some territory (italy) or swipe Germany's Fleet and colonies.

No heroes or villains in this one.

Ralph L said...

The 20th century would likely have been much better if Wilhelm's arm had been normal. Think of all the Third World domination and exploitation we missed!

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

The Junkers were quite clever at waging war, at least in the tactical sense, but they were remarkably stupid about most other human endeavors. Zimmerman, of Zimmerman Telegram fame, could have claimed that the telegram was a clever fraud of the perfidious British. Instead, he bragged about sending it....... In the east, where Germany won, they imposed huge territorial losses on Imperial Russia. Well and good, but then they had to garrison those huge areas they conquered. Net net, they actually lost manpower because of the garrison duties their soldiers had to perform......Ludendorff lost all five of his stepsons in the conflict. He loved those children dearly. Some days he would sit at his desk and sob openly. Then he would pull himself together and put together another battle plan to send thousands more to death and dismemberment.......There was plenty of stupidity to go around, but the Junkers were tops.

rcocean said...

The real question is:

Why after the war reached a stalemate in 1915, wasn't there a compromise peace?

And the answer is: The guys making the decisions, didn't care how many millions of average boobs got killed. So what if a a million goobers got killed? The most important thing was picking up Belgium or getting Alsace Lorraine back.

Which is one reason, why my ancestors high-tailed it from Europe and moved to the USA. Little did they realize, the same kind of dumb-ass "We have to fall in line, and follow our leaders" types existed in the USA.

Ralph L said...

A-H was determined to attack Serbia - even if it mean war with Russia.

How stupid could they be? Was Franz Josef still in control and in his right mind?

The funny thing to me is that the Brits greatly feared the growing number of German capital ships, which were barely a factor in the war. Thank goodness Hitler wasted sweat, money, and steel on them, the fool.

rcocean said...

The German High Command thought that Germany was sunk in December 1916. The only hope was submarine warfare, which the German Navy had guaranteed would succeed.

And the USA? who cared about the Yankees? Even if they could put together an army, it'd have to cross the Atlantic and get past the U-boats. And even if they could do that, it would be in 1918. And if Germany didn't do anything, the war anyway.

So, the Kaiser declared unrestricted sub warfare.

And the USA declared War. And then Lenin took Russia out of the war.

Whoopsie.

mockturtle said...

Some wiki editor has replaced "anti-capitalist" with "capitalist". How like wikipedia, where no political topic is reliable.

Alas, chuck, it's not only Wiki. People: Hang onto your books! Your hard copies, especially history. I have personally seen evidence of errors in sources from the National Archives in DC. While they were not politically motivated, it made me wary of anything electronically stored and especially concerned about future intentional altering of historic documents.

Calling Roughcoat! Have you experienced any errors in electronic transcription of historical sources? I was able to convince a historian with whom I had a brief correspondence regarding the writings of John Adams. He admitted that the archived sources did, indeed, have errors.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

rcocean, I'm sorry you thought Belgium was too negligible to be "picked up," and Alsace-Lorraine too trivial to quibble about. It might be mentioned that the Germans disagreed with you strongly on both points.

Belgium was Germany's short road to France in the next war as well. IMO, the only good reason for the EU capital to be in Brussels. Someone needs a reminder not to invade Belgium again.

rcocean said...

Germany still could have had a decent peace in Jan 1918, or July 1918.

But the German High Command were confident they could do what the Allies had never done. Break the stalemate on the Western Front and achieve Military victory.

They came close - but no cigar.

Even after August 8, 1918, the "Black Day" the krauts still could've had an Empire in the east, if they'd been willing to give up Belgium and Alsace Lorraine, but Ludendorff thought they could still hold. Then, after the Allies broke through the Hindenburg line, the Krauts panicked and asked for peace at any price. The end result: the Versailles treaty.

The moral: Never listen to a German General when it comes to strategy.

rcocean said...

rcocean, I'm sorry you thought Belgium was too negligible to be "picked up," and Alsace-Lorraine too trivial to quibble about. It might be mentioned that the Germans disagreed with you strongly on both points.

That's why my ancestors left England and Europe. They had no desire to get killed over who controlled Belgium.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Drill SGT,

I thought of Vivaldi. I have recordings of well over half the concertos, which are emphatically not one concerto 555 times, whether it was Stravinsky who said it or someone else. Actually, they are remarkably varied. Still, Telemann is better. Yet more variety, certainly more ingenuity, more unexpectedness.

Ralph L said...

Someone needs a reminder not to invade Belgium again.

Or is it now two birds with one stone?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

rcocean,

Fast forward a decade or two and it's "Why die for Danzig?"

(Aside: When the editor of MGG -- "Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwalt," Germany's version of the UK's "New Grove Dictionary" -- visited Cal, my Polish-Jewish colleague innocently asked him why MGG had an entry for Danzig, but none for Gdansk. Flummoxed silence.)

Michael K said...

Blogger Quaestor said...
Michael K. wrote: I don't know that I would consider Max Hastings "pro-German."

And well you should. Watch Max Hastings present the pro-intervention argument regarding the question, "Britain should not have fought in the First World War."


Interesting. I shocked a British friend of mine, a retired Colonel in the RAMC, by saying one time that we should not have gotten into WWI. I added, when he was obviously shocked, "you should not have gotten in either."

Had Britain stayed out and they were very ambivalent in 1912, it would have been a second Franco-Prussian and we would live in a very different world.

The French considered going through Belgium, too.

The author of "Sleepwalkers" is a British academic.

Andrew said...

The history nerds hijacked a thread of classical music geeks. Sad!

rcocean said...

"The history nerds hijacked a thread of classical music geeks. Sad!"

Well, maybe the classical music nerds should say something interesting and "un-hijack" it.

But some people just complain -no matter what.

Michael K said...

Why not both ? Germany was Beethoven's home.

It just slid over into another interesting topic.

Bring up a music comment, not a complaint.

Ralph L said...

Bet the Viennese claim Beethoven, too, since he could also speak Austrian.

stevew said...

Late to this comment party I will say this about the writer of the referenced article: insufferable. I'm not willing to allow Hitler and the Nazis to determine how I experience a beautiful piece of music.

-sw

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

Lighten up people. I was only kidding. I love classical music, and was a history major in college. I meant no offense. I'm not Chuck, Trumpit, or Inga, so be kind to me. Carry on.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

OK, rcocean. One thing my "top three" composers share, besides (of course) being awesome, is a love of hemiola and other rhythmic complexities. In Brahms it can get nearly out of control. At a music camp reunion the other week, a bunch of us took a stab at Op. 88, which I hadn't actually tried to play in a couple of decades, and certainly not as first viola. It starts straightforwardly enough, but ... later Brahms is like that. The other string quintet, the clarinet quintet, even the third string quartet. All of which I love, but it doesn't make them especially amenable to sight-reading.

With Mv it's mostly straight hemiola, although there are places (e.g., in "Chiome d'oro") where it gets rather complicated. As for Haydn ... the number of feints, surprises, and pure fake-outs in his music is too great to count. If you doubt me, listen to the finale of Symphony No. 80 sometime. Or the minuet of Op. 20/4.

Zach said...

England and Germany were much more natural allies than England and France, or Russia and Germany.

Perhaps Churchill could have kept his precious empire. I wonder, if he knew how the war would come out, the the Americans and Russians, the two revolutionary great powers in ascendence, if he would have listened a little harder to Hitler. I am not suggesting that it would have been a good thing, it’s just one of those “what if” questions.


I'm talking about the leadup to World War I. Germany as a (peaceful!) liberal democracy with a constitutional monarch in the Queen Victoria mode would be a very good match for England. You'd have a strong continental power paired with a strong naval power. Germany had no colonies to speak of, and could have made a convincing case against other powers' colonial systems.

The problem is that German politics made every bad decision possible between about 1870 and 1990. You can't ignore the decisions they actually made when you look at what actually happened, but there's a strong counterfactual case that they should have done something else, instead.

rcocean said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson - great comment - although I only understood 10 percent of it.

I just like the pretty music.

It reminds me of friends who've told me they didn't like the concert because the Symphony orchestra misplayed blah, blah note at the 42 minute mark.

And I'm like: whaa?

Michael said...

Michelle Dukakis Thomson
If you are still around. Have you experience with the Baryton trios? Very curious instrument.

Michael K said...

The problem is that German politics made every bad decision possible between about 1870 and 1990.

The problem was that everyone was making bad mistake in that era. The competence problem is what is so striking about "Sleepwalkers."

Remember, England and Prussia were allies against France only 45 years before.

Hitler was a consequence of WWI and Versailles. The French were the worst at Versailles.

narciso said...

I haven't read sleepwalkers, I found no all Ferguson's pity of war more convincing on the topic, the Byzantine alliance system suggested there would be an eventual conflict.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Michael,

I not only have played a few of the baryton trios, but own what I think is the only complete recording of them. Of course, when I say "played," I don't mean we had a baryton player. It was viola and two cellos, which left out all the trios involving plucking the sympathetic strings.

Haydn was amenable to weird instruments. In addition to the 160 (!) baryton trios, there are several larger ensembles with one or two barytons, and then all the music for lire organizzate (very basically, a fingered hurdy-gurdy). In both cases, it was a patron with the strange enthusiasm.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Michael, I should've commented on "Michelle Dukakis Thomson." That is either a simple mistake or "Ow! It burns!"

rcocean, I wasn't trying to be abstruse, or to impugn anyone's performance but my own, because I did get totally tied up in knots in Op. 88. Part of my point in writing this was just to say that "classical music" is not "symphony," though everyone who isn't a classical musician assumes it is. Symphony and opera, that's it, and you have to get all dressed up for the gala. Believe me, there is a lot more out there.

Shall I tell you how I was introduced to Monteverdi's "Chiome d'oro"? I was invited to a fundraiser for Katya Komisaruk, who had just broken into a local nuclear weapons facility while everyone was at lunch. (No, really -- can't make this stuff up.) We were a bunch of musicians raising funds for her defense. Actually, I wasn't especially interested in her defense, though I was charmed to hear that she'd left fresh cookies on the workers' desks. But lots of musician friends were there, in an empty storefront opposite The Starry Plough in North Oakland.

So a violinist and pianist improvised (she was afterwards divorced and a militant lesbian, but at the time they were married), and my boyfriend got up and played some solo Bach, and then a lutenist handed out "Chiome d'oro" -- just the ritornelli, with instructions on where to play each of the three of them. It was No. 2 that had the incredibly flummoxing rhythms. And at the end we all sang "Jailhouse Rock." Not that Komisaruk went to jail; she went to Harvard Law.

Michael said...

Michele Dukakis Thomson

I have listened to a recording this evening with a baryton being played on trios 45,97, 109 and 113. I assume the odd bass is the baryton. Never heard of the instrument until I found the recording on Spotify. The album has a baryton on its cover, odd instrument. Balazs Kakuk is on the baryton with a cello and viola.

Michael said...

Goddamn autocorrect insists your middle name is Dukakis. Sorry. Did it again.

mockturtle said...

My very favorite piece of music is Bach's Concerto for Two Violins in D Minor.

Michael said...

I see now that the baryton is the size of a small cello. Plucking strings. Now I get what I an hearing. I think. Lol

eddie willers said...

Lighten up people. I was only kidding. I love classical music, and was a history major in college. I meant no offense. I'm not Chuck, Trumpit, or Inga, so be kind to me. Carry on.

I got your joke. High class discussion with music and history. Quite different from the norm. (notice ritmo made a comment and nobody responded?)

But since Michelle Dulak Thomson said... At a music camp reunion the other week,, I'll bring us to a much lower level with the following movie quote:

"One time, in band camp..."

Quaestor said...

The real question is: Why after the war reached a stalemate in 1915, wasn't there a compromise peace?

All the warring Powers were invested in victory. A peace that could not be shown to have garnered advantages worthy of the loss of life and treasure already expended since 1914 could not be made politically viable. Everyone was vulnerable to catastrophic political change — Britain could lose Ireland. The Hapsburgs could lose their empire (the possible ruptures are too numerous to list). Russia could fall (and did fall) to Karensky's socialists. The kind of upheaval that happened in 1871 was always just under the surface in France. The Hohenzollerns could fall (and did fall) to Germany's socialists. Once committed to battle, no one could afford to walk away without a plausible claim to victory.

By his declaration of war Wilson gave the Allies a war aim, nebulous though it might have been, which made persistence to the end possible.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Michael K is boring.

buwaya said...

Youtube recommendation -
The "Great War" series, by Indy Neidell.

He has been producing a 10-minute show for each week of WWI, on its anniversary, plus numerous extras on various subjects and especially little bios for a hundred or so persons of significance, plus battlefield visits and etc. Its an interesting format, which works remarkably well to keep the big picture in mind, and not get obsessed with the "great battles", especially on the Western Front, focus of many histories. He also does a great job covering the otherwise overlooked players like the Greeks, Rumanians, etc. By now its an immense body of work.

Jual Vimax Obat Pembesar Penis said...

CHLOROFORM DI TANGERANG
CHLOROPHYLL DI TANGERANG
LIQUID SEX DI TANGERANG
TRIVAM DI TANGERANG
SLEEPING BEAUTY DI TANGERANG

Ralph L said...

The most amazing thing to me about WWI is that young men continued to enlist and serve in huge numbers despite the carnage (also true about the Civil War). Were there draft riots or anti-war marches? What percentage would flee their country nowadays? We're more afraid of death than they were, I guess.

Andrew said...

@mockturtle: That's one of my favorites too. Have you seen and heard the version with Oistrakh and Menuhin? I could listen to this repeatedly for hours and days on end. Pure and transcendent,
https://youtu.be/LZ48G9UziRs

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ralph L,

There were draft riots. But it took Britain two years just to introduce conscription. At the beginning, it was indeed amazing how eager Britain's young men were to throw themselves into the abbatoir.

The most amazing thing to me remains that the 1918-19 influenza epidemic somehow managed to kill even more people than four years of sustained, unprecedented industrial-scale carnage did.

Quaestor, point taken about everyone having something to lose. But the Germans really, really screwed up by basically dragging Wilson kicking and screaming into the fray. Between unrestricted U-Boat warfare and Germany's stoking war between the US and Mexico (!), what was the poor man to do? Curl up and die? (Of course, that's practically what he did do, which is why I still maintain that Edith Bolling Galt Wilson was our first and so far only female President ... but I digress.)

About the French quarrel over Alsace-Lorraine being "revanchiste": Surely we know by now, from Palestine if nowhere else, that you don't just lop off a couple of another nation's provinces for spite, go home feeling all chuffed with yourself, and assume the other side will forget all about it. Alsace-Lorraine was something that absolutely had to be remedied at Versailles, even if nothing else was. The starvation of Paris in 1870 ought never to have garnered (! Ann !) such rewards.

I note that in the run-up to the Great War, there were any number of books positing some sort of German attack on England; evidently the British already knew, and the Germans knew they knew, that it wasn't all about "a scrap of paper" after all. The one that sticks in my head is The Riddle of the Sands, written in 1903 by an Irishman, Erskine Childers, who was afterwards executed in 1922 for being on the wrong side of the Irish Free State.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Michael,

Yup, that's a baryton all right. About the size of a half-size cello, but with sympathetic strings that can be plucked if you like. (I'm assuming from the name that that's the single-disc recording on Hungaroton. What I've got is the by-golly-every-last-one recording on Brilliant. Though I have some competition in the form of a Ricercar disc for the quintet and a couple of the octets.)

It takes some doing to approach having recordings of all of Haydn, but I'm close. Still missing the early Scherzandi for orchestra (well, most of them), and those flute/oboe double concertos he made from some of the lire concertos for London, and the early string trios. But symphonies, quartets, piano trios, masses, oratorios, operas, solo piano works, miscellaneous choral works, insertion arias, operatic scene, concertos for piano, violin, cello, trumpet ... plus the aforementioned baryton trios and all the Scottish and Welsh folksong settings, along with the Lieder and the English canzonettas. Did I leave anything out? Oh, right, vocal quartets. Got those. But not the canons. There used to be a Hungaroton recording, but while I think it's still in print, you now need actually to go to Hungary for it. :-(

mockturtle said...

@mockturtle: That's one of my favorites too. Have you seen and heard the version with Oistrakh and Menuhin? I could listen to this repeatedly for hours and days on end. Pure and transcendent,

Yes, Andrew. I think I have most of Oistrakh's recordings. He was my late husband's and my favorite violist.

mockturtle said...

MDT asserts: I still maintain that Edith Bolling Galt Wilson was our first and so far only female President

She was indeed.

Andrew said...

Can I just say what a beautiful and wonderful thing that a post on Beethoven, which led into the topics of classical music and German history, received 250 comments?

Ralph L said...

Yes, you can pat yourself on the back today, Andrew.
Not being (entirely) sarcastic.

Andrew said...

@Ralph L: Thanks. I wasn't tooting my own horn. It's just nice to see cultural/historical posts get as much attention as political ones. I appreciate commenters sharing what pieces of music means something to them. For example, I had never heard Handel's Dominus Dixit before. Whoever mentioned that, thank you!

Now to politicize it. I grew up in the 80's. And "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go" was one of the things that turned me away from my youthful liberalism. If you're going to insult and tear down Western civilization, which of course includes Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, then baby, you'll have to count me out.

Michael said...

Michele Dulak Thomson

The secular canons are available on Spotify.

eddie willers said...

If you're going to insult and tear down Western civilization, which of course includes Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, then baby, you'll have to count me out.

Or if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 255 of 255   Newer› Newest»