the Art of Classical Music Today

[sacateca]

Sometimes i wonder where the world is going today. And this question is pertinent also in the field of classical music. Commerciality (totally differently than in Karajan's time) and populism (similarly) are rampant, and true artistry seems difficult to dig up from the masses of artificial super-stars. Karajan didn't pander to the masses like a true populist, i think his success was based in delivering artistry and quality, that were appealing to the higher denominators in the masses, whereas today the commercial machine attempts to appeal to the lower denominators (what for? the higher ones exist too!).

i listen to a lot of live recordings and it is rare indeed to hear a much-hyped "artist", or super-star, to deliver a performance of anything than themselves (and this 'themself' is totally inadequate for my taste). To name a couple, take for example Lang Lang and Gustavo Dudamel (yes, sorry, i don't mean to insult their fans, just presenting a differing opinion.)

i saw on television Dudamel conduct Mahler's 1st, and to my astonishment the performance got enthusiastic reviews everywhere. It's of course a work Karajan didn't conduct at all, but i've heard a few versions of it, it's a symphony very close to my heart, and like Abbado's version best (yes, much better than Kubelik's or Bernstein's). However, Dudamel's version was something i could've not imagine hearing before it happened. Sorry, but i have to say that as a conductor he's as wonderful as Lang Lang as a pianist. i think both are totally commercial products, as are so many others. Both have nothing to do with the classical spirit of classical music, with the intentions of the composers - if classical music is being reinvented to some monstrosity with their help, perhaps so, but it shouldn't then be said to be classical music. i for one think Mahler had more and more significant things to say than Dudamel, so could mr. Dudamel please conduct in the spirit of Mahler? i'm afraid not, since i don't believe he understands it. (Sorry, as you can perhaps see, the performance got on my nerves.)

Last night along with Karajan's Beethoven symphonies i watched Abbado conduct Rachmaninov PC no. 2 with Helene Grimaud. It wasn't a total disaster, but only a little above mediocre - her playing was adequate but not a bit more than that. i could enjoy that sometime for the sake of novelty, though it is no match for Karajan/Weissenberg (my favourite rendition of the piece.) My point with this is that this is the best of this bad lot of which i'm talking about, and it is not at all sufficient.

On the other hand, an entirely different sort of example would be Svetlana Ponomareva, a Canada-based Russian pianist. True artistry without showmanship or self-promotion through other people's works. Why isn't she on a major label? Why doesn't she have the acclaim of Lang Lang, or Helene Grimaud? Or even Lise de la Salle? Why hadn't i even heard of her before totally randomly seeing her name in a favourable context in a review in Amazon? Why does the CBC refuse to even play her recordings?

So, my question is: what do others think? i can think of no better place to ask this question than this board.

And what then when the old guard of conductors is gone? Abbado (whom i admire greatly), Haitink (who already takes part in very suspicious activities in the field of opera, i've learned from here), i'll even put Rattle on the list. Are we then totally at the mercy of the new guard, like Dudamel?

Also : any recommendations on contemporary performers i should be on the lookout for? Pianists, violinists, conductors?

Maybe someone thinks i'm over-reacting and should move on with the times, but sorry, no thanks.

Well, tonight i'll listen on web-radio to James Levine conduct, for the first time, Beethoven's 4th with the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Am not expecting too much, but will be interesting. i've heard a few recordings from mr. Levine and ... well, they are not the worst, but not the most inspired, either. Tame, perhaps.

PS: How could i forget? What about composers? Today it sounds to me like we'll, or at least me'll, have to contend ourselves forever with composers before 21st century. i can not listen to the likes of Augusta Read Thomas or John Williams without suffering, much as i've tried.

[Deleted]

I still don't understand the criticism on too much beauty of sound

[Deleted]

Alexander, Do you speak German? I recall Rosy's comments about having a Verdi advantage due to her native Italian. I assume the "Opera in English" series are not acceptable to you.

I really wish records exist of K's Belshazzar's Feast (VSO, 1948), War Requiem (Fischer-Dieskau 1964), and Child of Our Time (Schwarzkopf 1953).

[sacateca]

Dear Alexander, once again you cut through the chase to the very heart of the matter. And i suppose your message is, what do we care about the state of modern classical music when we have our Beethoven and Karajan already?

First of all, i am mostly in complete agreement with you...actually, you even read between my cautious lines perhaps. When i saw Karajan Or Beauty As i See It, i immediately took a liking and admiration to Herbert von Karajan. It was obvious to me here was a man of outstanding intelligence and sensitivity and also energy, vitality. First recording of his i acquired was Scheherazade, which always was one of my favourite pieces, and i was interested how different it could be in hands of someone like him.

i was not disappointed - to be honest, for me his treatment took the piece to a new level and i became an instant fan and knew that i would love just about anything he has done (it is a question of his approach and character). My approach to everything in life, at least attempts to be holistic. When i see Lang Lang play, i know without hearing anything i will not like his rendition, because the kind of person he is, the way he conducts himself. (Unfortunately, my objectivity and integrity in this regard is impaired by beautiful young women, usually pianists...but that's a small matter - i always get over it upon hearing what they play.) Don't mistake this for a superficial judgment of the cover of the book, i try to consider the essence of the person instead.

Now what it comes to a real interpretation or a scientific rading of the piece...of course, an interpretation is to be desired, but before that the artist in question must understand the intention of the composer, the spirit of the piece. And most artists today do not even care about the spirit of the piece, they care about caressing their own ego. And this to me suggests that they indeed are very immature individuals (which impression is confirmed by their renditions), who do not strive for higher things in life, as Karajan so obviously did. As i said in my original post about aiming for the lowest common denominator.

Before one can play a piece meaningfully, it needs to be understood. And this is what makes Karajan's renditions stand apart from those of, say, Dudamel. Karajan first understood the music deeply, as he understands himself and had the courage to really be himself - this is necessary -, and then went on to create a version of it with all the backing of his understanding and life experiences. Thus enhancing the piece, instead of turning it into immature adolescent mush (as what Dudamel did to Mahler's 1st.)

Regarding many versions of a piece i also agree. i have, however, gotten acquinted with a few of the most famous works just so as to get perspective and learn about classical music - and to affirm my theories for myself. To be honest, i don't need other versions than Karajan's at all for real (i'm sorry if i sound like a fan-boy.) i dislike Bernstein as much as i disagree with his character and way of conducting and style in general, of Kubelik i know very little but his renditions of Mahler don't speak to me at all - there may be technical mastery there, or not - i don't know, nor care. Haitink is good but lacks usually something (perhaps strength of character!)

Anyway, whilst i can live without new versions, i would like to have different perspectives (this is not to say Karajan's are insufficient in any way) that i would like. i mean, i am looking for the likes of Karajan, and coming up very short of a full hand indeed. Other geniuses who have something mature and intelligent to say - not virtuosos.

Karajan/Weissenberg Rachmaninov 2nd PC is the deepest version i've heard, and it's not necessary to have more, but it would be nice if there were others, especially new ones - maybe even hearing/seeing them live one day would be wonderful. It would be nice if such classical music wasn't totally dead.
(By the way, what it comes to the rendition of this piece by Abbado (who is another conductor i always like, though i guess less than HvK) and Helene Grimaud as soloist, despite her slightly confused playing, what made it bearable for me was again her character - that is, she didn't turn the piece into mush, i would've been very disappointed had she done that, as i saw that documentary about her and her wolves, and though not perfect, there was much about her character that i found agreeable.)

Mrs. Ponomareva has something new to say, a new perspective, and the ability to express it, and i'm very glad to have found her. The question is, why are people like Lang Lang and Dudamel in the forefront of modern classical music, and not people like her? Of whom there must be more, equally in the shadows of the stars.

There must be, simply must, statistically it's impossible to be otherwise, a new Karajan somewhere. But where? Or does it really take too much effort these days to pave one's own way, as he did, without sacrificing to the commercial aspects, that they don't bother anymore?

To me there are so few relevant renditions of classical works, that even with Karajan's myriad versions of Beethoven's symphonies there still is room for more (as much as i like Immerseel's work, it's hard to get profoundly excited about it, as he is focusing on the scholarly aspects.) Is time of greatness over? If so, then why? Even in this day and age, some individuals must still prevail who haen't succumb to the very worst aspects of what mass culture has to offer - who haven't sold themselves before even knowing what it means.

This is a bit of a messy topic, again - my head is full of tangents and i hope i was able to choose the mainlines and express them sufficiently. (It's a long time since i've written essays or even substantial forum posts so i have grown a little bit undisciplined and find gathering my thoughts and focusing them a little bit daunting to present them in written form sufficiently.)

EDIT: What it comes to complaints about Karajan's beauty of sound, i think they are as nonsensical as accusations of his coldness. Mere malevolent lashings out - trying to find any possible crack through which to start chipping away. i don't find his renditions cold at all, they only lack the immature emotionality of hollywood which always is devoid of true feeling. Emotions are never there when they are over-expressed. Mature feelings are quite a different breed altogether than some sort of replacement of real feelings with emotional masturbation. This is not to mean at all that feelings never could be strongly expressed or underlined, but maturity does it differently than immaturity. i hesitate to point at Bernstein (he really wasn't that bad), so i point again at Lang Lang instead.

[sacateca]

Well, i would venture out on a limb here and state that i believe the super-stars of today are absolutely nothing but products of marketing campaigns, and simple pushing - without any merit of their own that would separate them from other non-entities equal to themselves. One must only look at the case of Mrs. Ponomareva to get supportive evidence for this. The CBC's program which supposedly is meant for promotion of Canadian artists, just such as herself, refuses patently to play her offerings, refuses to consider argumentation etc. but keeps pushing Helene Grimaud's severely flawed Bach-renditions - obviously at least for commercial purposes and benefit of Grimaud's major label. This alone is not proof in itself, of course, but just indicative. It is when these sorts of indications amass to an insurmountable block, that together they form a solid proof.
Apparently mrs. Ponomareva even issued a challenge to the station, to play her and Grimaud's Bach one after the other - a challenge that of course was totally ignored. (In case someone doesn't know, CBC is Canada's government owned/controlled station, same as England's BBC and Finnish Yleisradio.)

It's my belief that it is people who are controllable that are chosen for stardom by the establishment of classical music industry, whatever that may be. And people who are not controllable, who by this attribute alone exhibit their superiority, are not given the time of day. (i see no reason to doubt that the classical music industry as a whole would be any different from pop music industry - and there are real reasons as to why they are called industries - people who don't become lifeless automatons serving the industry will simply not be considered.)

i don't know how Karajan rose to his stardom, or what that stardom actually consisted of (it seems to me he was such as much vilified in his heyday as today, whereas today's superstars are only criticized by few lone voices far from mainstream media - a marked difference! i haven't seen a negative mention of Lang Lang's performances or recordings anywhere in the mainstream media!), but he clearly wasn't a talentless, weak-willed, unknowing, uncomprehending, unvisionary, artless fool - so his case must be different by that very evidence. (Irony: the same mr. Lebrecht who tried to hack Karajan to pieces, actually praised Ponomareva's CD - perhaps an attempt to gather some credibility?) The times were totally different. The industries were just being established and were by no means the powerful machineries they are today.

At any rate, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The super-stars don't deliver - thus their stardom must be for some other reason than any virtue of their own.

As for time, i don't expect too much from it. As the song goes, "...and the fifty-two daughters of the revolution turn the gold to chrome...mother russia rain down down down!" i have a feeling Lang Lang will be revered in history books just the same way as the Beatles and Shakespeare. On another forum, before finding this one, i actually read a thread that said Dudamel is the next Karajan. i didn't even bother offering my (lone) objection but simply decided to leave the forum.

Will have to get Schonberg's book - thanks for pointing that out to me, sounds very interesting.

[thitch]

Thank you Waldstein for this insightful post which so mirrors my own thoughts. Several years ago on a CBC Classical review show (back when CBC Radio 2 was still good) a new Chopin disc by Lang Lang was under discussion. The host of the program Rick Phillips, said basically that when it comes to this particular music, you are better off not being influenced by the packaged super-star promotion just because they are the latest fad, but sticking with the older recording by Rubinstein ... and probably for less money. I've saved your comment as a Word document for my files.

Tim.

[Deleted]

Bravo Alexander. Very good comments.

I believe though, a significant portion of Karajan detractors are based on his musical style, not his personal traits. But, interestingly, these two are related.

Yet, on the other hand, many of the musician detractors mentioned in Osborne's book seem to come from the non-musical angle.

I heard criticisms on Lang's Rach 2 1st mvt ending (too slow?). To me it sounds fine (not a particularly difficult passage to pull off). Can some one shed light on this?

[sacateca]

Whether one understands the composer's ideas or not is a bit of a hard one of course to talk about, but perhaps to approach the question from a slightly different angle would do some good.

To my mind, a good conductor would perform the piece as is, keeping to the text. A brilliant conductor takes that and adds to it his own spirit, his own interpretation which actually serves the original and heightens it, creating something transcendent. And a bad conductor (or a musician) is below the good one, infusing the piece with his own ego, histrionics and idiosyncracies that are counter-productive to the piece aesthetically and morally. Of course everyone's mileage may vary, and necessarily does to a certain degree (except that of the facile, futile and totally blind - the irrelevants, or the sheep), but there is a certain level of consensus amongst people of certain kind that clearly isn't merely coincidental.

However dangerous or difficult to pinpoint it is, there is for example such a thing as banality, and as much as no one sees it quite like another, consensus exists to a high degree among people of similar traits (i would call these traits thus 'moral' in nature.) Just because they are difficult to define or intangible/conceptual in nature, or that talking about them is unfashionable, or politically incorrect, doesn't by any means imply that they don't exist or could/should be ignored. These concepts are no different from those of justice, good taste, or God, or good vs. bad - indeed any intangible concepts.

To my mind, if Lang Lang was at first more literal-minded in his approach, without taking liberties at too tender an age (what you referred to in your earlier post), he might actually learn from the piece and strive for higher things - and through that his interpretation would then mature and gain weight (perhaps he would for example start disassociating in his own mind classical music from the cartoons he watched as a child!). It is an extremely good point you make about Karajan's age when he actually became a superstar. It is essential to have a good grounding in life and an idea of oneself before such a thing can be endured even by the strongest of mind.

The pushing of the prodigies as geniuses and superstars does no good but only much damage to them (and from what i can see, this is not only done in the field of classical music, but even in the field of medicine! And all other fields imaginable), stunting their growth altogether. Will Lang Lang ever think differently than he did when he was 15? Why should he learn to do so when everyone has been telling him how wonderful he was when immature? This not a natural state of affairs be.

[sacateca]

Ahh, but i am not concerned with objectivity at all. Life itself is anything but objective, and anyone's inner reality is known only to himself. We judge others according to our own standards - and to be sure, our judgment may lead us astray, but our own mind is still the only thing we have to go on with, and thus we must rely on it. Ultimately we must rely not even on our eyes, but what we judge to see with them.

However, i stress the point that there are consistencies within people's impressions regarding these intangible concepts. Many people for example consider murder immoral in most instances.

Also, when listening to other people's opinions, we must always take into account that they may be lying, either to us or themselves, or their perceptions may be distorted by whatever it is that has made them grow astray. Even in their cases, of course, it is their own responsibility and no one else's to steer through their lives, and none should interfere with them. i think for example mr. Lebrecht is not honest in his opinions, but his crime, or lack thereof if i'm wrong, is not my concern. My concern is solely what it does to my inner reality. (i simply can not take seriously people who criticise Karajan for the common reasons, but that is my very own take on it. i can talk about it, defend it, justify it, explain it, but everyone of course will make their own mind up about it. It's sad though that most people adopt opinions of so-called authorities or experts instead of acquiring their own - indeed, it is a tedious process for those not used to such hard work as living.)

It would be best if all people thinked for themselves, but we know that they don't. This again makes the opinions of great many people entirely irrelevant to me. For myself i can only vouch for myself, and no one else can vouch for me, either. Nor should they. If someone thinks i'm lying or have an agenda or am mistaken, they have the choice of doing what they want about it. If they think i lie, they may ignore my opinion and warn others about it, if they think i'm mistaken they may try to educate me. Or they may simply ignore me and move on. Same vice versa.

The other people, however, who are warned about my alleged lies, agenda, or mistakes, must then judge for themselves whether or not they see the case the same way. Maybe they wouldn't. Either way, ultimately the opinion of any one person about me should be irrelevant to anyone else.

Etc.

Objectivity exists only in the most irrelevant things, and maybe even then it could be questioned. To me life is an individual journey through which we must pass and learn. Others are at liberty to disagree, and thus doing pursue their own path.

[sacateca]

Thank you for your kind compliment.

But i do not share your cynicism - for me there is no futility. For example, you have already affected me and my axions. You probably mean futility as in an attempt to reach the truth, but if truth is something humanely unobtainable, which i don't believe it is, i think truth is merely subjective, then i would say out with the truth. Truth is not some traitor hiding from us (regardless of what mystery-schooled philosophers would have us believe), but rather all around us - by some route obscure and lonely, even in lies (in the very least, there is then the reality of the lie). No?

Feb 22, 2010 19:40:24 GMT 1 @waldstein said:

...about all people thinking for themselves. I think that, if not all, certainly the great majority certainly do and are occupied exclusively with themselves, and with others only as far as they themselves are concerned. Maybe that's where the problem is.

Well, it's a funny thing - because i think both are correct in a sense, that people don't think for themselves, but are only occupied with themselves - even if easily one could be mistaken to think that both accounts are mutually exclusive.

For example, one aspect of this not thinking for themselves i mean is that people accept the opinions of authorities or experts about Karajan. Some people accept he's great because he's so popular, some people accept he's a total villain because much has been written against him. Now an honest person would have to look into the life and works of Karajan himself to make up his mind, and until having done so, suspend his judgment. Anyone who dislikes him for being accused of being a Nazi or likes him because he is popular has already given up his sovereignity.

Another good example of not thinking for oneself is simply religion/spirituality. People accept religion simply because it is given to them. They don't even understand that had they been born in another country, they would just as well believe in the religion they now detest because it is not theirs but someone else's. Now, anyone who accepts a religion as it's given to them - i do not waste my time on them or their opinions on any topic (of course, in practice it is not quite like this, but this is the theoretical starting point, which is then affected by a multitude of realities), because only this one aspects proves that in the most important case of all, they have forfeited their independence. It's hardly better for people who abandon as a rebellious gesture their native religion and adapt to another one invented by another authority. (Now i know some people would consider culture being a factor that muddles the issue, but to me culture is merely an excuse not to think for oneself. i at least have never encountered a culture that would reflect me.)

As for being occupied only with themselves, i have a feeling we do agree on that without needing to study the phenomena more. And this is getting rather far from the art of classical music today (not that i care.)

i'll refrain from commenting on the Maugham quote.

[Deleted]

"I have always been a great admirer of Mr v. Karajan, and his magnificent recording of my works has given me the keenest satisfaction. Esp in the 4th Symphony, his great artistic line and the inner beauty have deeply impressed me."

"..excellent recordings of my 4th and 5th Symphony. I have now heard them many times and can only say that I am happy."

[thitch]

Hello Alexander and sacateca; This is a very interesting discussion and am very grateful for its inception.

Here in Vancouver, our local Maestro Bramwell Tovey has just announced his commitment to guide the Vancouver Symphony for a further five years, making him the longest-serving conductor in this city's history, passing that of Irwin Hoffman (1952-64), and Kazuyoshi Akiyama (1972-85.) The fact that Karajan, as per the recent discussion, demanded a "life" appointment with Berliner Philharmoniker seems incredibly rash when we look at the fact of a North American music director's stint of 12 or 15 years as a "big deal." But as we know, Maestro von Karajan once said that (to the effect) we've been together now for 25 years and we can finally start talking about harmony (!) ... and I think this is true. Detractors that proclaim with joy the end of the "era of the autocratic conductor" are not especially people whose opinion on this matter I would agree with.

The 'prodigy" is an interesting idea, and I always come back to Yehudi Menuhin as a prime example of this. He was a performer in this category, but one who was not 'manufactured' by a record label ... in fact it was a case of being manufactured by his parents, if nothing else ... which I think is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the prodigies of today. He eventually went on to become an institution in his own right, and I would have to say that I admire him for reasons almost secondary to his musicianship. David Oistrakh and Christian Ferras are people I admire more as musicians and violinists.

I feel this whole Nazi Party thing is really a red herring, since everyone from Alexis Weissenbeg to Glenn Gould have never had problems performing or collaborating with him. As Alexander said, his whole LIFE was a work of art, and must be seen in toto, warts and all. Thank goodness art is a subjective thing, allowing us to judge a person or performance/recording on its own merits. Sure, I consider the Karajan name on a recording to be an assurance of quality while others may not, but then again, he was the conductor whose recordings I picked up first and was influenced by back in the 1970s when I first started listening to Classical music seriously, but I'm not blind to other musicians and orchestras as as I enjoy the experience of listening to music. That being said, I still consider Karajan to be the gold standard in many things, not just musical. He was an aesthete, and I've found his judgments in many areas worth considering.

Thanks again,

Tim.

[sacateca]

What Maugham says in that quote is just as cynical/fatalistic as you seem to be, and i do think that the attitude is rather artificial, or at least adopted, than an organically developed one. i'm not sure denying obvious reality is a natural state of affairs, but a purely intellectual one.
When that poise is taken to it's inevitable extreme, it stops natural sympathy and leads to rampant egotism/ego-syntonicism/hedonism. No? What i mean is, that however beautiful and alluring the attitude is, it's consequences can't be said to be rooting oneself in life.
i'm also not sure why the acceptance of dreams as significant, or even as alternate reality, gives physical reality consequently illusionary/ethereal quality, instead of merely accepting dreams as differently, maybe even equally, significant. Why does there have to exist a denial of one for the benefit of the other? (i have never read Maugham, but i've given this subject some thought starting from Poe's "is all that we see or seem just a dream within a dream.")

i'm sure you know that your question on happiness is largely a semantic one. It depends on the definition...happiness is such a vague and overused term it may be meant to signify anything at all. Most of the time it refers to some sort of stagnant existence of perpetual comfort and pleasure. Is that happiness? Is there no happiness in hard toil, sorrow, pain? i mean, in totality of life. Pain always ends in joy, does it not? And joy in pain.

What it comes to geniuses, one thing that truly saddens me in this world is the absolute waste of lives. Waste in both egotism and denial of self. Waste in front of the television, at work, in sports arenas, in meaningless "hobbies", in meaningless social relationships and niceties, et al. What i'm trying to get at is that whether or not there is a Karajan in every single person of the world is neither here nor there (didn't Nietzsche say that genius is not all that rare, but circumstances in which it may blossom and reach a certain status are rare?), the world needs a limited number of such luminaries, in smaller scale there is a genius in every person. Ultimately i don't think genius depends on even touching other people to a significant degree, but what you refer to with making a work of art of one's own life. That is the key to it. It must be. One central idea of my whole existence is that everyone would be capable of everything. In our system only few people first of all have the strength to realise themselves and even fewer have the chance to become acknowledged for having done so (and with artificial/contrived super-stars coming along, i'm not sure it is any more at all possible for anyone real to make an impact.)
A person can only be lesser than another from a certain point of view which has pre-determined standards, you see. Usually the standard everyone uses is how much a person is able to please themselves.

Is it too far-fetched to say that the whole superstar thing is entirely artificial? Even in the case of people like Karajan. (i am not taking anything away from their achievements - and indeed as things are, people like him are needed.) That is, it requires resources that are not naturally in existence. Had we not electricity and cd-players, we would have to make our own music, and we would be dependent on people around us. We would have to more fully realise ourselves, and we would be dependent on other people around us realising themselves. i for one am not certain that as things are they are for the better - but as they are, we must then make the use of the artificial means when the natural one's are not at our disposal.

Drifting farther and farther away...

tjh, i was wondering about the same thing - if those quotes are from Sibelius?

[sacateca]

Thanks Tim, nice to see also other people taking part in this discussion.

Back in the 90s when i first time bought a few classical CDs for myself from a second-hand store, the first CD i picked up was Karajan's Beethovens 5th and 6th, Karajan Gold series. (i said earlier Scheherezade is the first of his works i got, and it's true, too in a sense, as i wouldn't count my casual listening of this CD in question as anything - classical music didn't much move me at the time.) i chose that one first because i was somehow impressed with the picture of him in the cover, i remember thinking something to the effect that this man looks like a serious conductor (i guess good marketing on DG's part!). Ha-ha. But i think that's why the name stuck with me and when some while back when i started actually understanding classical music and liking it more, i just for curiosity's sake got the documentary on him (Beauty), cause i remembered the name. Only last december i found the CD again!

You're point about the Nazi thing is very true (i didn't know before Weissenberg was Jewish) - and wasn't Menuhin also Jewish (haven't heard anything by him, but he was in the documentary shortly with Karajan)? Interesting what you say about him, that his parents raised him up for his profession...that has nothing to do with fake super-stars of course, but isn't that a bit sad still?

What do people think is wrong with having a good/great conductor for a long time? i think it should be counter-productive to let one go...

(On the subject of life as art, Jim Morrison said that one should lead as interesting a life as possible, so that if after death we are forced to watch our life as in cinema it wouldn't be a terribly dull affair - the point of which i quite appreciate.)

[sacateca]

To be honest with you, Waldstein, though i am sure that you are intellectually honest when you say you don't know, i have a hard time believing you are being spiritually, or holistically, honest (by the way, my disagreements are never meant as moral castigations on your way of life or attitude, please don't think that - even if i thought it's a shortcoming, it is a small one, even compared to my shortcomings, and to me entirely irrelevant as such - as it is, our disagreements merely give chance for some interesting discussions as it seems we have just as much, or even more, in common.) Or it might be that you are simply timid and a fence-sitter? Be that as it may, i'm not convinced that gives you much trouble in real life...or does it? i mean, in making decisions as to what you should do? (i'd really be interested to know.)

It's not too deep a thought, but i think there's some truth to it in some sense, that "evil can only win when good men do nothing."

But, there is another facet to this, namely that Jung did a wonderful job at categorising people into certain psychological types (mine happens to be INTP). That suggests that people truly have if not inherently different spiritual aspirations, at least different spiritual starting point, and the means to reach them - which in turn suggests more fundamentally that the same God, or truth, can be seen from different angles - and it is not intellectual results we attain that are important but the impressions our life makes upon the soul (that is to say, it is not at all important to spend one's time in ramblings such as these, indeed to be this cognizant of the subject could even be a handicap - but a benevolent fool may reflect God far better than someone else, just by way of example (ability for empathy seems to me to be a vital thing, at least i have grown towards that direxion whereas younger i had less of it)).
Another way to look at the personality types would be to think of each one of them on a different moral level, but since that would give rise to a possibility of developing moral categories of people and naming who's higher than who, i would stop investigating that possibility - especially since there can be no objective standard from which to start, but instead Free Will is a more appealing concept even intuitivelly.

What i mean with pain leading to joy is the joy of learning. Even in cases like the loss of a loved one - i think naturally it is a time for growth, and though the pain may be even always carried along, there should be a transcendence. One doesn't see much of this happening today, but to be direct, most people are immature. Can you oppose this: most people do not change from when they are twenty years old. Their interests and opinions stay largely the same. A teenager engrossed in sports will be so for the rest of his life - whereas one would think such a thing should be grown out of at some point as one matures.

The reason i would think the fat pig in your example is wasting his life is that he doesn't know what real joy or life can be. i truly can not agree with you that he would be just as well off as long as he feels he is happy. He would have traded the miracle of his life for a pittance indeed (and if you ask me, most people have.) The totality of his life, the incredible journey, would be used for that. And you will actually never make me believe that you absolutely believe that. You may opt out by saying that you don't know - yet i would call your attention to the little voice inside of you that says you do know (if i am taking liberties here, i apologise.) Psychologically i would suggest that it is easier for you not to know, so you may even muffle that sound.
i think he would benefit if someone at least explained to him what life can be about - that there are better and more rewarding things to achieve than what his chosen pastime produces. Of course it's up to him what to do about it.
However, there is the real moral question of the women he obviously exploits to fulfill his so called life. It is true that some women may work in the pornographic industry voluntarily, but the real question is would they do so if they had a real choice about it. Anyone can scoff this question with 'oh they could get an honest job' but that's nonsense and disregards the realities of life, maintaining some kindergarten view of how the society works. It also bypasses the question how the whole system uses people, but that certainly isn't in the scope of this thread.

The best proof for what i say regarding the happiness of his existence or lack thereof comes simply from looking inside myself. i can very well see how i would succumb to such a sorry state. i can very well see within myself the potential for all the possible imaginable degradation. And i compare the depths i could reach with where i am today, and by this i can tell that if i settled for the happiness of such a state, i would greatly be mistaken about life's offerings.
It's very true people can grow morally lax, let their own character grow weak. Some people recognise this in themselves, some don't have the necessary tools of self-reflexion to understand it. (Another core-tenent of my life is that all people are essentially entirely similar...that is, their structure is the same. If it weren't so, i don't see how anyone could even communicate with someone else.)
Anyone who looks at a beggar in the street and doesn't feel empathy for the very reason that it could just as well be him, knows nothing about life. Absolutely nothing.

As mankind i would say we are interdependent (and please do not confuse this with anything proposed by marxism/socialism - i mean in the sense that all men are brothers) - that is, our deeds affect those around us (as so well portrayed by Leo Tolstoy), and their axions affect us. If this simple truth was truly realised by majority, i think it would do miracles for our world. Under any political system - hell, it might even break every political system.

My question would be, what has caused this man engrossed in pornography sell out his life? What has been done or said to him that has frightened him so that he has lost the will to strive for anything more? My answer would be most probably the system itself - the way people behave because of the system.

Pornography is psychologically equivalent to hard drugs - the highs get lower and the lows get lower, and in the end what is needed is the fix to keep the beast at bay. On the other hand, classical music does at least to me give real pleasure, real transcendent ineffable and intangible experiences in the realms of the spirit where one can not otherwise reach - at least in the waking life.
Escapism or not? i say no, those parts of the psyche that are not reached intellectually or with words, are accessible via music. After listening to music, it simply allows me to view the world in new colours, showing me a little bit more of it.