I reply to Steve Schwartz who replied to me who (you know what I mean):

>>And I am alway a little suspicious of apologies for vain people.
>
>Okay, vain but not evil.

Vanity can easily lead to being evil.

>I mean, you're dismissing the man (although I hope not the music) because
>he was vain.  By that criterion, you also dismiss quite a few other
>composers (although not Schubert).

Vanity is not a crime in itself.  But when it hinders your reacting in
the right way to a dictatorship I loathe it.

>>that Strauss was driven to his shameful working for the Nazis out of
>>fear of the camps - I think he just liked to be powerful and comfortable
>>and liked.
>
>Golly, so would I, given the chance that no one has offered me.  I don't
>think Strauss was worried for himself, but, as I've said, for his
>daughter-in-law, his grandchildren, and her family.  This was a REAL
>threat -- one that was made to him by officials of the Reich.  Even vain
>people have genuine concerns, after all.

The problem is: there is absolutely no hint that he really was so concerned
- but there are a lot of hints that he was concerned about his money
(see the dispute with Goebbels about money for classical composers).

>Yeah.  And he wrote the Olympic Hymn to glorify Aryan athletes at the
>expense of athletes of "inferior races." Again, what I've read in Del
>Mar leads me to conclude he did it to get the Party off his back.

That is your conclusion. My conclusion is different.

>Was it brave?  No. But a refusal might have had consequences for people
>he wanted to protect.

The usual line of arguing.  Now we all know that Strauss was a rich man,
famous.  He could have emigrated with the people he wanted to protect.
Other composers acted so, he did not.  He preferred to stay in a country
which made a travesty of human rights.

>>There was always the honourable way of leaving this country.  He chose
>>to stay and thus get involved with this regime.
>
>First, you're talking in hindsight.  A lot of people did leave, but a
>lot of people were politically more astute than Strauss.

Sorry but in times of tyranny it is a sin not to be politically astute.
By the way, "youre talking in hindsight" is one of the typical lines of
arguing against critics of Nazi Germany.  I know since I am German.

>Second, he accepted the mostly-figurehead position in the early days
>of the regime.  He very quickly regretted it, although not enough to
>antagonize that regime.  Even so, his private letters were read, and
>he was warned.

Dont you think that it was relatively free of danger for him to resign
from this post?  And dont you think that the regime was pretty nasty
even in its early days?  No, Strauss was driven by vanity and naivety
to accept this post and never corrected this mistake.

>>The problem is that we have to believe him.  I wonder if he, vain as he
>>was, really just composed this stuff to get them off his back.  I doubt
>>that he felt flattered.
>
>Do you mean "I do not doubt"?  That would be more consistent with your
>view of him so far.

Yes, a typing error.

>Actually, we don't have to believe just him.  It was customary of the
>Gauleiters to ask wealthy residents in their districts for financial
>contributions to the Party.  Strauss's Gauleiter went to his door for
>such a contribution, only to be met by Pauline: "My husband has already
>composed for you his Olympic Hymn." Then she shut the door in his face.

Oh, how very brave by the wife of a famous composer.  Again: other
composers have been gassed!  I simply refuse to see this fact and
nevertheless see a victim in Strauss.

>Ullmann didn't have a choice.  An heroic act implies a choice.  I can
>think of other heroic acts Ullmann carried out, but being shipped off
>to the camps to be killed wasn't one of them.

I didnt mean to see a hero in Ullmann (I dont believe in heroism). I
wanted to say that Orffs "ordeal" (three days questioning) has to be
seen in perspective (gas chamber).

>>Orff composed a medding march as a substitute for Mendelssohns which was
>>forbidden.  I dont feel that much pity for people who stayed in Germany,
>>enjoyed privileges and then got into minor trouble.
>
>Excuse me, implication in a plot to assassinate Hitler and interrogation
>by the Gestapo is minor trouble?

Compard with the gas chamber three days of interrogation IS minor trouble.
And it is a bold exaggeration to see Orff as a member of the resistance.
He simply wasnt, he was never deeply implicated in the plot against
Hitler, not even the website of the Orff-Zentrum, naturally highly in
favour of Orff, says so.

>If he had been killed, would that have been better?

This is not the only alternative. I say it again: emigration.

>>>Furthermore, he also got into trouble for the plot of Die Kluge (an
>>>irrational tyrant is brought low), and the Nazis took the step of banning
>>>the work.
>>
>>Again: minor trouble.
>
>See above.  The opera was banned.  Recordings of the opera were siezed.

Minor trouble compared to the gas chamber.

>Possession of such recordings was a punishable offense.  All this in a
>state not particularly known for legal protections of human rights.
>Artists and writers were killed because of what they created (as well
>as because of who their parents were).  I think you're trivializing the
>situation.

Sorry but I think that you do the very thing you accuse me of.  I am
talking about the killing of composers because of their very "race" -
and you are talking about the minor inconvenience of having an opera
banned.

>I think this incredibly simplistic.  In other words, because you like
>the music, you seem willing to overlook personal flaws.  I'm willing to
>give Schubert's personal character a pass, but what about Mozart's
>arrogance, Wagner's arrogance (and worse), Beethoven's arrogance?

They are in their music - but Mozarts, Wagners and Beethovens arrogance
are pretty different.  I dont think that you really can compare them.
This would be - simplistic.

>According to you, this must be in the music as well.  If you're simply
>telling me that Strauss and Orff wrote some bad, boring pieces, I'll
>agree, but why judge artists by their worst?  What's the point?  And,
>if we do that, we should extend that practice to Mozart, Beethoven,
>Wagner, and Schubert.

I simply (again simplistic) dont see that much bad quality in Mozart,
Beethoven, Wagner and Schubert as I see (and hear!) in Strauss and Orff.

Robert