I swore I wouldn't get into this thread, BUT Kim Patrick Chow replies to me:

>>Probably not.  After all, many anti-Semitic composers are played in Israel
>>without such acting out.  In fact, if you were to exclude anti-Semitic
>>composers from your listening, you'd have very little left from the 18th
>>and 19th centuries (and probably the first half of the 20th).
>
>So what? This issue is not about other anti Semitic composers..  This was
>about Wagner.

Yes, but the question remains why no protests against Chopin, Balakirev,
Brahms, or Mussorgsky.  Why is Wagner singled out for this kind of
nonsense? Oh, you answer this below.  I should read faster.

>The link to the Nazi's and Wagner's descendants support of
>the Nazi's and Nazi nationalism of music is I think the key difference.

Yes, but this isn't Wagner himself.  So the sins of the sons (or daughters)
are to be visited on the fathers -- an interesting Biblical twist.  The
point is that Wagner has become a whipping boy for a bunch of ill-informed
and irrational if well-meaning people.

>Obviously for many of the Israelis, they feel the same way.

Actually, I wonder how many.  After all, the paper reports that the
protests in the hall were few.  It seems to me that what we have is a few
hindering the many.

>They understand this distinction and it is neither hypocritical or
>unreasonable in my opinion.

Exactly how reasonable is it and why? I don't really care if someone never
listens to Wagner, since it's none of my business.  I may even feel that
the wounds are entirely self-inflicted, since Wagner is dead and therefore
beyond such petulance.  However, when someone takes it into his head to
keep Wagner from others, that seems to me not only wrong, but the teeniest
bit self-aggrandizing.

>>As for the Israel controversy, it never ceases to amaze me how many people
>>are eager to determine what you should read, think, watch, or listen to.
>
>Well, I dislike censorship too.  But you know being being sensitive and
>thoughtful can go a long way in the healing process.

Doesn't seem to have done much good so far.  In fact, one may be prolonging
the neurosis by catering to it.

>Dare you to play
>Dixie on a Harlem street and whine about censorship.

I don't play Dixie on a Harlem street because I'm sensible and want to avoid
getting beat up.  But, no, such an unofficial ban strikes me as equally
ill-informed and unreasonable.  I can understand why someone has such a fear
(because fear is what it amounts to) without seeing the need to cater to it.

>This process is
>something the Israeli music community and concert goers have to sort out
>themselves.

Of course.  Nothing I say will have any effect.  In fact, nothing I say has
much of an effect in my own country, so I'm not surprised.  On the other
hand, the Israelis seem to be making such a wonderful job of sorting things
out, including imposing little acts of self-criticism on Barenboim, where
he's supposed to beat his breast before a specially-selected group of
Holocaust victims merely because he played a piece of music that no
reasonable person finds morally objectionable.  Oooh, just like the Chinese
Cultural Revolution!

There's always a reason for this kind of ugliness, often one that appeals
to our better natures.  But the result usually shows up the reason.  There
was nothing in Barenboim's behavior that was insensitive to the feelings of
others.  Before playing the Wagner, he allowed people to leave the hall.
No one *had* to listen.  As I understand it, no musician even had to play
the piece.  So that alone invalidates your Harlem analogy.  What is being
objected to is that he played it at all, despite the wishes of the
musicians and most of the audience.  To hell with this sensitivity.

Steve Schwartz