Eric Kisch:

>In one part, IIRC, he cites the critic/philosopher Adorno as saying
>that an artist (composer?) is responsible for the uses to which his
>art/music is put, even after his death.

to which Don Satz replies:

>That's one messed up notion.  I don't even think that an artist has this
>responsibility while alive.  Artists and all others are responsible for
>what they do, not what others do with their creations.

Interesting.  I tend to agree with Don's pseudo-existentialist view, above.
When I was a liquor store clerk after college I was appalled by the notion
that I was co-responsible for criminal actions of people to whom I had
sold booze.  I mean really.  Why not sue Jack Daniels? [I will refrain
from offering a host of Platonic/Socratic arguments to defend this point,
unless prompted of course.]

I'm reading (on & off) a book by Hindemith, "A Composer's World" I think
it's called.  (It is very interesting BTW.) He has many interesting
notions and insights.  He did, however, seem to think that one of the main
considerations of a composer should be what purpose the music serves.  I
have to disagree with him on this point; I am much more of a purist, "L'art
pour l'art" as Wilde would have it.

Bob K.