Steve Schwartz wrote:

>Robert Peters replies to me:
>
>>>There were lots of paeans to liberty in democratic societies at the
>>>time.  It was something in the air in both Europe and North America.  The
>>>difference is that none of them were written by composers of Beethoven's
>>>caliber.  In fact, there's a lot of celebratory talk in the US right now
>>>about "liberty and freedom," much of it from the people doing their best
>>>to limit it.  Thus, talking about Beethoven's *motives* (he "felt the
>>>need") seems to me a bit curious.
>>
>>I cant see it.  If an American composer composes an Ode to Freedom right
>>now it is because of his or her *motives*, that is that he or she lives
>>in a society where freedom is limited.
>
>How about an American composer who wrote an ode to freedom just after
>the American Revolution?  That happened.  Several times.

Yes because of the still very vivid memory of living in a society without
freedom.

>>>I've got a wonderful father, and I used to write Kafka-esque stuff,
>>>mostly because I admired Kafka and wanted to see if I could make something
>>>like that.  I couldn't, but I doubt it was the accident of my particular
>>>father.  It was probably because I wasn't as good a writer.
>
>>No, it was because it was just a kind of hobby - not an existential need
>>like it was for Kafka.
>
>This makes no sense at all.  The only thing this argument does is
>congratulate the person who makes it.  You can't ask Bach, for example,
>about his existential need because he's dead and he wrote nothing about
>his motives.

Sorry but this is nonsense. We may not be able to ask Bach about his
existential need but we sure have pages and pages of Kafkas diary full
with his existential need and angst and whatever. So we know pretty
clearly which motive made Kafka write like he did - and it was not to
have a fancy hobby.

>I could have the greatest need in the world to write something wonderful
>and still come up way short.  It seems to me the norm, rather than the
>exception.  After all, a genius at the level we're talking about is
>fairly rare.

But, Steve, we were not talking about the mystery of talent, this cant
solved by you or me.  We talk about the motives - and it is part of the
mystery why Bach was such a brillant composer that composing was not
just a pastime for him.  I bet all I have that Bach without his need to
compose would not have become such a great composer.

>Has more to do with *talent* rather than need.  More people *need* to
>do it than have the talent or craft for it.

But the need to do is an essential part of the talent.

>There are lots of people with bad fathers who are neurotic who aren't
>Kafka.  So you've got to do without motive in deciding about the aesthetic
>worth of a piece.  Otherwise, you merely reason in circles -- to wit,
>"this piece is good because the artist had an existential need and because
>the piece is good, the artist must have had an existential need." And
>in the meantime, what of value does this tell us about the lucky work
>itself?  Practically nothing.  Samuel Johnson once wrote something to
>the effect that only a fool never wrote for money -- an existential need
>of sorts, I suppose.

Of course.  But you are not quoting my arguments correctly.

Robert