Margaret Mikulska <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>It's a pity that you allow only your ears, and not your mind, be the judge.
>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.

>People love myths and apocryphal anecdotes probably because most of them
>don't require any intellectual (or musical, if music is involved) effort
>whatsoever to "understand" them.

Auh!  How poorly a hurted intellectual heart sings an the ansight of the
tool of peoples of thousands of years wisdom.  When I read one -tiny-
source that claims that Alexander of Makedonia solved the Knot of Gordium
with hacking it in two pieces and another -tiny- source claiming that
Alexander of Makedonia solved the Knot of Gordium with pulling out a stick
from the web of ropes, I have no chance to know which of them is tellign
the truth - if any of them.  I can't even claim I have particulary good
evidence that he even solved the Gordite Knot at all, or if there even was
a Gordiite Knot.  But what I know is that the myth is there and that is
telling me many things, far more interesting than that Alexander cut
through a giant knot or solved it elleshow.

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.

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

>It also takes a tiny bit of intellectual effort to find out if the composer
>in question could have been familiar with the work in question.  This is,
>however, beyond many people's ability.

No.  It is beyond historywritings ability.  Works very well from say
1935 and onwards, but for the time that was before historywriting claim
to be able to tell much more that it can (or cannot).  The systems most
significant shortcoming is that it is shortcome due to its claim not to
do.  I don't say that the victims of the Holocaust shall not be respected
and remembered but it has created a hype that caused the very meaning of
"history" in it referent form too loose its old function.  That is in fact
- and rattle in your grave now Spengler!  - a threat against the western
culture.  Meanwhile this is the cause of the bad consciousness for the
Nazi-Era, modern history writing seems to have adopted the hype to take up
the goal to prove that the leading Nazists (or read:  Hitler) can't be hold
directly responsible for the murdering (in lack of written sources!!) and
that the desicions were of utterest need taken on lower levels.

>ANd, more importantly, willingness.

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!

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]