the Art of Classical Music Today

[sacateca]

Waldstein, your comments on Karajan and the subjectivity of art are very interesting also.

The question at the forefront of my mind is, with your call for subjectivity in art, does it make a difference to you which version of his symphony for example Sibelius thought the best? i mean, is it a virtue to Karajan in your opinion that Sibelius considered Karajan the best interpreter of his works?

(i won't write an essay length argument for this right now, but to me subjective and objective exist only in the realm of the intellect, just as all other opposites - that is, reality calls for both at the same time - a state which is neither subjective or objective, but both. )

My own opinion on the matter is hard to pinpoint, i started this thread by talking about the spirit of the piece, but now that i have thought more about it i think i am very much inclined to your way of thinking in the matter. This is a complex topic for sure, and necessarily for me is tied to abstraxions also. In the end perhaps i will this time sit on the fence on this one and say who knows, let me listen to the piece in question!

[Deleted]

Yes Alexander and sacateca, the quotes are Jan Sibelius.

You can find it on p. 387 of Osborne

[sacateca]

Thanks tjh212. Can you tell me which year's recordings he is in fact talking about? The ones i have are from the 60s with BPO but it says on the booklet Karajan had recorded them also earlier. (And i can't recall when Sibelius died...)

Waldstein, the reason you can't follow my arguments is probably my fault - no one needs to tell me i'm a poor writer (and to be honest, it is to me always a bit daunting to write in response to your gifted texts.) Also i may take all sorts of leaps in my explanations which to me are obvious but which leave other people entirely confounded as to how i got from point a to point d all of a sudden - alas, i'm totally blind to these myself. Join those two together and you have the mess of my ramblings. Well, in addition it may also be true that my explanations of my own reflections don't count as arguments.

But as luck would have it, i finished reading Jung's biography last night (accompanied by Karajan's Sibelius 5th symphony). Jung has always been a man after my own heart, and this is the quote that i think is pertinent to our discussion about objectivity vs. subjectivity and your cynicism (and comes close to explaining what i tried to refer to as consisting both, subjectivity and objectivity, being neither):

Prohibited though it may be from an objective point of view to make statements out of the blue - that is, without sufficient reason - there are nevertheless some statements which apparently have to be made without objective reasons. The justification here is a psychodynamic one, of te sort usually termed subjective and regarded as a purely personal matter. But that is to commit the mistake of failing to distinguish whether the statement really proceedds only from an isolated subject, and is prompted by exclusively personal motives, or whether it occurs generally and springs from a collectively present dynamic pattern. In that case it should not be defined as subjective, but as psychologically objective, since an indefinite number of individuals find themselves prompted by an inner impulse to make an identical statement, or feel a certain view to be a vital necessity [...] In other words it is not the personal human being who is making the statement, but the archetype speaking through him. If these statements are stifled or disregarded, both medical experience and common knowledge demonstrate that psychic troubles are in store.

i could not say anything more inspiring to you. (Except maybe to recommend you read the whole biography - "Memories, Dreams, Reflections.")

What it comes to the egotism in our example of empathy, it's funny you should make that observation when earlier you were boldly stating that egotism isn't even a problem at all as long as the results are desirable. i mean, then, what should it matter if empathy rises from egotism?
Nevertheless it seems to me that here we are again tittering in the field of semantics. Egotism can be understood in many different ways, and if it can in this particular instance be attributed at all, of which i am not so certain, then it still has little in common with egotism that snatches the few coins from the can of the beggar with his back turned - or passes him by with a contemptuous look. No, i must say these cases have nothing in common, though at present i'm not obliged to make an argument to this effect.
Couple this with the fact that it is according to zeitgeist that we should look at everything through the prism of mechanical materialism - which is a monstrosity of self-misreflection, of self-denial really, and i'm afraid something only fools fall into (my point is, people would never think of it themselves, but voila, a couple of well-worded arguments from authoritative sources and people are willing to give up their humanity altogether - when younger and a great admirer of H. P. Lovecraft, i also fell under its spell, at least superficially) at the command of so-called authorities who have an agenda of their own. (Jung's biography is a strong antidote to materialism of any flavour.)

The concept of wisdom of remaining in the state of twenty years of age when in fact double or triple the age is a peculiar one. The argument should simple. At twenty years of age one has seen and heard and experienced, in a word accumulated, a certain amount of data, which one has had a certain amount of time to process. At the age of 40 that mass has doubled, at 60 tripled, at 80 doubled further from the age of 40. Also the time to process the data has similarly grown. Is it then not likely that many things which at twenty years of age look of certain kind, have later on been forged a different countenance altogether by the passage of time?
For me, at least, this is also verified in practice by my experiences. (i would be ashamed to tell you of things i was lured into when around twenty years of age. Quite similarly, people exposed exclusivelly to the doctrines of Darwinism are more keen to adopt it as their pet-religion, than people who have been exposed to that, the writings of Jung, the writings of Tolstoy, and thoughts of their own, by way of a limited list of examples. It is only lack of perspective and alternative references that make Darwinism popular today...it is not offered a meaningful alternative in the mainstream. You will not find books of Jung displayed prominently in major bookstores (they are hidden in some section where only few dare to dread, if indeed they are present at all), but most of them have almost an altar for the works of "Mr." Darwin - of course, at a cheap price so everyone can get them.)

Alas, modern life is not at all conducive to reflection. Modern life is like going through different departments of a factory until one's death. Indeed, the time of mass-man is upon us, and has been for some while.

This is now too long to continue about definitive interpretations.

[sacateca]

By way of a quick reply: it is only intellectually most people condone of murder in case of war. In reality, this is not talked about in movies and books glorifying war, or in accounts of people favourable to war (psychopaths), most people become shell-shocked after a small time in the battlefield (war, contrary to propaganda literature, is not at all a natural occurrence), and many people do not fire a single shot against the enemy but simply die instead (it is only with the rise of modern unnaturally aggressive (and base) culture that this has actually changed - but this was true still in times of both world wars). Only a small minority, i forget the figure but it could be 10 or 20 or 5 percent, actually survive a war (and these people have psychopathic tendencies to begin with - they like control.)

Wars also are never fought for the reasons, or lies, given to the public. For the most part, their purpose is economical. And also their purpose is to change culture of both sides (i think it was professor Carroll Quigley, the historian of CFR, who said that - actually i try and try think who it was and i'm almost certain it wasn't him - it could have been even Lenin. Well, it is a long time since i read their books - remembering of details has always been one of my most serious shortcomings.)

Oh yes, the important point i neglected to make in my previous post is that your demeaning of yourself, your resignation in the face of what you call genius, is to me not natural. i mean, it has nothing to do with acknowledging that someone is better at some particular thing, or has a particular gift or talent - or indeed that someone is even more intelligent. The resignation of one's self to a lower status as a human being than someone else seems to me necessarily an attitude that can't develop organically, but must be created artificially. Nature doesn't, so to speak, create losers. To nature, an ant is no less than a human being. And the ant itself doesn't consider it lesser than a human being. The ant has simply different attributes - it may recognise a human being is stronger or bigger, but it raises itself to try defend itself when in fear of being crushed. i find that extremely beautiful, and promising. (And no, i don't kill even ants as much as i can avoid it. i find myself loving everything living, not for the sake of abstraxion of life, but for the sake of their inherent beauty, the facet of God they reflect, and indeed are a part of.) "Vicarious existence is a [beeping] waste of time."

Had i the inclination of being a conductor, Karajan's existence would not deter me in the least in my attempt of creating something i felt compelled to. i could recognise his superiority in some aspects, if i found it so, but i certainly wouldn't resign and give up the pursuit of my life's journey.

But so much for my quick reply.

As for Jung's biography, it's in part dictated by him and partly written by him - but it's all in his very words. There are parts in it that are over my head, also, in totally unfamiliar territory, and thus some of his conclusions have a feel of utter strangeness, but 80% i am with him in complete agreement. Perhaps you will find it easier to understand him in untranslated German edition. The "recorder and editor" of the book is Aniela Jaffe.

As for you needing concrete examples instead of mere abstract concepts - it is important to gather enough data before starting to make conceptual suppositions, or flit about in their world, and this practice alone is good evidence of your sound mind. (God, i know how this makes me sound, yet at the risk of sounding like this i let the written stand - i do have a few years over you, but not too many.) The problem is that at some time a point is always reached when a single example can never illumine a whole concept, and then abstraxions must be used - which in turn must look overwrought when trying to apply them to any single instance.

[sacateca]

i wish i had had the good sense to say that, ha-ha. i'll just say that your remark about nature and losers is not much more than a good collexion of cliches picked up on the way. Cliches that wouldn't be too hard to at least present alternatives to - and with your graceful exit i will of course seem rather ludicrous, or fanatical, or both, if i even suggest to venture a reply.

But you do me the good favour of reminding me why i haven't bothered with discussions in internet-forums in a long time. They never lead anywhere because strangers are so easily dismissed as if they were not even human beings. Whereas in real life few people have the guts even to escape the most commonplace discussions with strangers by saying the truth, even if they really would not have time or interest in them - i think i prefer the way of the real life.

Be that as it may, i do thank you for the discussion and especially of your generous and unselfish sacrifice of your time for my benefit - it seems you have done me a favour by humoring me and i admit this was of use to me.

PS: i have never heard not a single person say they do not value honesty above all - to be sure, it seems ridiculous even to imagine a person saying that. Alas, few indeed exhibit the attribute in practice. But i am sure the timing of your exit is just a coincidence and you simply truly lost interest and time.

[Deleted]

www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?hpw

[Deleted]

www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/05/14/arts/20100515-rainforest-slideshow.html

[Deleted]

www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/19/cd.digital.sales/index.html?hpt=C1

Wonder if K were alive would he go download.

[Deleted]

NYPO searches junkyard:

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/arts/music/05junk.html?hp