Mats Norrman to Margaret Mikulska:

>Margaret Mikulska <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I call it a myth because it's impossible - beyond a reasonable doubt, which
>>is the best one can do outside mathematics - that LvB ever heard or seen
>>Bastien, and extremely unlikely that he even knew about its existence.  If
>>he didn't know the work, how could he borrow from it?
>
>What is extreme unlikely is above all one thing: and that is that we have
>Beethovens life so well documented in sources that we can tell so sure as
>Mrs. Mikilska does about what Beethoven knew and not.

Mrs. Mikulska may speak for herself, but as far as I knowm he wrote
"unlikely", not "surely".

>Since the Holocaust of WWII all historywriting in all fields have just
>circulated around one issue: collect all sources and prove everything
>scientific, and if if can't tell you anything in that way the source
>is worthless.  And POOF you have a fine degree and meanwhile modern
>historywriting sharpen our knowledge of historys body, we loose the sight
>of its soul.  This comes clear in the history of Art and music as well as
>in the Art itself.

No, this doesn't comes clear anywhere.  That's just an exageration.
I concede that many historians sometimes offers very little or poor
arguments at his speculations, but they demands them fiercely at other
colleague's speculations.  But you can say seriously that a guy like
Eric Hobsbawm, for example, looses "the sight of the soul" of anything.
Concerning art history, you could state that some investigations of,
say, Robert Stevenson are a waste of time, due to his high degree of
specialization.  But read the work of a generalist as Enrico Fubini (who
probably took profit of Stevenson's investigations) and tell me if he
lost the sight of the soul of Western music.

>My dear ladies and gentlemen: Sokrates didn't need to write anything.  HE
>knew that - was his greatest wisdom?

Big deal!!.  He had a fool at his back writing (supposedly) everything he
spoke.  Who needs to write, having such disciples?.

>Who cares if Beethoven listened to Bastien & Bastienne once or twice or
>if he had it in his headphones all days long, or if he ever looked in the
>partiture (which he bought from Breitkopp & Haertel for 2,50 Gulden),
>or...? Etc.  Rather uninteresting information don't you think? But I
>guess such is called "knowledge".  HAHA!  let me laugh!

Well, some people calls "discovery" to the fact of simply having heard
four notes and later telling "Beethoven surely took them from here".
Uninteresting information is useful sometimes in order to refutate some
other.

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]