Karajan

[Quijote]

Agreed.

No more politics from me.

Wrong, Maurice. See my posting(s) above.

[Quijote]

Apologies - my poor IT skills are to blame for this non-message. Please see after.

[Quijote]

Imagine if a great painter created a fantastic work but that it turned out the paints used were mixed with a child's blood. Should we still admire the work, unreservedly? (Sorry for the gory analogy, but I hope the point is understood).

An excellent point, PDG. There are two questions in play here : was the blood taken with the child's agreement, and is it aesthetically relevant either way? There are of course corollaries : there are (or were) two works on display in the Tate Modern, one an image of a child-murderer (the name escapes me - Myra Hindley?) painted using the imprints of children's hands, the other a 'painting' of the Virgin Mary employing cow dung. The question has already been raised above in this thread, namely, can one separate the work (or materials) from the artist? This , I think, is what Preston was trying to ask. Which leads me to my final comment. Please see my following posting.

[Quijote]

Preston, thank you for raising this fascinating thread, which has 'morphed' into some pretty interesting areas. I must, however, chide you for your syntax which at times borders on the incomprehensible. As I mentioned to Maurice Colgan above, you would expect a performer to faithfully 'read' the score of music, and so I must urge you to pay close attention to your writing style. If, however, you are not a native English speaker, I offer my apologies for my presumption.

[Maurice Colgan]

Philip, you are so funny. I know very well I am right, so go and cook something better up. :-) Where are you hanging out these days so I can come and improve your understanding of the real world.

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

[Quijote]

Philip, you are so funny. I know very well I am right, so go and cook something better up. :-) Where are you hanging out these days so I can come and improve your understanding of the real world.

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

Another non-response from you, Maurice, my dear boy. Engage with the issues you have raised, if you please. You still owe me money (from another forum). But I am neither grasping or Hasidic. And I still intend to give you a thorough caning for your spelling. Talking of which (I know, I'm fussy), you need a question mark at the end of your sentence above.

[Maurice Colgan]

Philip, the issue is closed here.

I'm too tough for a cane to have any impact. You could verify that by asking my 1950s sadistic teachers, when you meet them, in hell. :-) A place I do not believe in. So cannot be anti-youknowwhat. Understand?

[Quijote]

Philip, the issue is closed here.

I'm too tough for a cane to have any impact. You could verify that by asking my 1950s sadistic teachers, when you meet them, in hell. :-) A place I do not believe in. So cannot be anti-youknowwhat. Understand?

Not sure I understand. You have 5 clauses in your posting above. Your question relates to which one? Clarity is such a skill, don't you find?

[Maurice Colgan]

It's as clear as day to me, Philip. Language developed before grammar.

James Joyce's famous/infamous book, "Ulysses", has about 60 pages without any punctuation at all. It's quite easy to understand.

When you have been around Dublin blocks a few times. :-) Goodnight!

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

[Quijote]

Where are you hanging out these days so I can come and improve your understanding of the real world.

Hmm. Is that a threat, Maurice? Such convincing arguments you have.

[Quijote]

It's as clear as day to me, Philip. Language developed before grammar.

James Joyce's famous/infamous book, "Ulysses", has about 60 pages without any punctuation at all. It's quite easy to understand.

When you have been around Dublin blocks a few times. :-) Goodnight!

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

Nonsense, Maurice. Any language has, ipso facto, a "grammar". I understand 'grammar' to mean syntax, morphology, phonology and semantics. And this before writing comes into play. So, what point are you struggling to raise here with me?

[Maurice Colgan]

Philip, What is it about, "Goodnight!", that you do not understand?

Nonsense indeed!

Goodmorning! I'm off to bed.

[PDG]

An excellent point, PDG. There are two questions in play here : was the blood taken with the child's agreement, and is it aesthetically relevant either way? There are of course corollaries : there are (or were) two works on display in the Tate Modern, one an image of a child-murderer (the name escapes me - Myra Hindley?) painted using the imprints of children's hands, the other a 'painting' of the Virgin Mary employing cow dung.

Even if the ficticious child gave its consent, the child is not legally empowered so to do, so to speak, and so the question does not arise. Aesthetics become irrelevant when the suffering of an innocent may have been involved.

'Twas indeed Myra Hindley at the Tate (and shame on all involved).

FYI (since you chide young Preston so): "Child Murderer" = two words; not one, hyphenated.

PS. Phil. I think you emailed me a while back. I'm sorry, but I think I deleted you by mistake!

[Preston]

I respect his conducting capabilities and things like that. Although, he was apparently a strong Nazi! He also seems to be to proud of his capabilities, IMO.

I can hardly watch him because of these reasons.

Should have never brought this up, it seems to me, , .

[Peter]

Peter, politics and music are inseparable, and you know very well that music does not exist autonomously. To relate politics to music, we need only think of the so-called 'Battle Symphony', or even works such as Der glorreiche Augenblick, op. 136, written expressly for the Congress of Vienna. The Karajan-Nazi-Jewish-Wagner equation is but another manifestation of that musico-political reality, and to deny it its place on this forum is misjudged, frankly.

Hello Philip - I'm afraid it's your response that is misjudged. I agree politics and music are linked and I have engaged in the debate if you read my earlier posts. However I do not think it relevant to discuss anti-semitism per se (or any other ism) on this forum without any connection to music which is where we were going and where Maurice agreed not to go further - other forums exist for these issues. Unfortunately not one of your posts on this thread has any reference to music what so ever and I would have found it more interesting to have had your views on Karajan, Strauss, Bohm and Wagner.