The hyper-sensitive among us should turn away now, for this may not be
pretty.  I've read this increasingly nonsensical BS for a couple of weeks
now, and it's time to make a few salient points as various listmembers
appear to be losing their grip on reality.

This past year my 19-year-old niece has been living with us.  She has
over this time become a huge - I mean rabid - N*SYNC fan.  (For those who
might not know, N*SYNC is one of those manufactured boy bands whose members
just sing or strum a guitar and look good - all the music is written by
others.  Not bad for teen pop dance music, but it's not more than that.)
She spends all her time listening to their CDs, watching their videos, and
countless hours on-line "discussing" the band.  What I've noticed is that
her involvement is almost completely emotional.  That is, there's no
intellectual basis for her feeling that this music is so great.  This comes
out immediately if you question her about the quality of the music.  All it
takes is a critical remark about the band, and the criticizer is done for.
Their criticisms are simply deemed invalid, without any actual support
offered for why this is so.  A singer for a rock band that my niece also
likes recently made a critical remark about the artistry of N*SYNC.  The
next day I had MTV on briefly, and a video for this rock band came on.
She just about went nuts, grabbing for the remote and saying she forbid
them to be heard in the house.  Turns out she had sold all of their
albums that day at the used CD store.  My point being that her emotional
involvement creates a near paranoia where a simple difference of opinion
- on a highly arguable point, I might add, much as the quality of a
movie might be arguable - becomes blasphemy.  And all of this creates a
powerfully anti-intellectual climate.  The N*SYNC chat rooms are about
the most insipid, vacuous, and maudlin forums you'll ever come across.
But everyone talks nice, and everyone agrees.  It makes me nauseous.

A similar feeling came over me when I read some of the responses in this
thread, especially what Robert Peters has written, including:

>I know that I can be harsh but the amount of sometimes really nasty private
>mail ...

OK, enough of the childish whining.  If it was truly nasty, you should
be contacting me directly.  If they simply disagreed with you and were
pointing out the multitude of obvious weaknesses in your approach and your
argument, which I strongly suspect was actually the case, then this is
dishonest.

>But I confess that I maybe answered nasty myself, so it's tit for tat.

But then if you recognize this, why continue?

>But there is one thing mentioned in one of these posts I still keep
>thinking about: the notion of a kind of inner circle of classical music.
>The members of the inner circle are practising artists (and scholars?).

Of course.  This just occurred to you? There's an inner circle in any
profession or specialty.  The are the people who - through the power
of their ideas, the scope of their deeds, the importance of their
accomplishments - have gravitas and the attendant authority.  I can't,
and don't, believe that you are just now recognizing this basic fact.

>Uncomprehending people like Shaffer, don't belong to this circle and thus
>talk nonsense about classical music and classical composers.

Here the dishonesty comes again.  No one ever said this.  It's a backhanded
and totally unfounded stab at other participants in the discussion.

You have it backwards.  Let's get this straight, once and for all - and I'm
going to go ahead and speak for all the practising artists and scholars you
sneer at here - Peter Shaffer is not, and probably never will be, a part of
the inner circle because he spouts nonsense about classical music and
classical composers.

>I think this is a most dangerous idea because it makes us classical music
>lovers look like a bunch of elitist people.

So, anyone who won't admit that Shaffer knows is Mozart is an elitist.  See
what I mean? Anti-intellectual ...

>I studied literature and languages, teach German and English, write
>reviews on plays for a German internet-newspaper, write poems and poetic
>translations myself, do theatre workshops with teenagers, hold seminars at
>the university in my hometown.

All of which is well and good, but means nothing here.  Just as anyone's
credentials in this sense are meaningless here.  All that matters is
what you write, and to a lesser extent how you write it.  This requires
investment, an investment Robert and apparently many others haven't even
thought to make.  It also requires the common sense to know that simply
because you have an opinion doesn't make it worth anything.  You gain
authority through what you write - you don't simply have authority because
you can write.

Throughout the discussion, Robert and others have displayed their
knowledge, or lack of it.  That's all well and good, and it's the way it
should work.  Something else has also happened that is very bad and hinges
on this idea of elitism.  Let's take an example.  Robert has been claiming
the high quality of Shaffer's Amadeus, vacillatingly between finding the
movie a good representation of Mozart, and it being a effective and moving
fantasy about the nature of genius, God, art, etc.  Whenever called on
points related to one or the other idea, Robert shifts.  Robert has so far
displayed not a shred of understanding of the critical process, and this
can be found in the constant shifting in position and debate tactics.  When
it's pointed out that the writing in Amadeus is poor, his response: is
not.  Queried about a certain aspect of Shaffer's dramatic development,
Peter asks for a detailed analysis.  When presented with a more detailed
analysis of a scene, he calls the criticism invalid.  He doesn't explain
why, only that it moved him and others and therefore must be good.  Clearly
this just an emotional response.

>Very often people who are no "experts" have fantastic ideas and more love
>for literature than people from the socalled inner circle.

Very often? I think not.  What a bizarre idea.  Is this more evidence that
Robert is out of touch with reality, or is it just a desperate political
slogan to protect emotional real estate? Though amateurs may display a
greater emotional involvement in a subject, true contribution happens only
very rarely.  They tend to be spectacular when they do happen, but that
doesn't make them any less rare.

>And it is my desire to interest people in literature, not to tell them:
>sorry, this club is only for members.

This sort of straw man building is fundamentally dishonest.  No one has
writing anything like this or your other elitist claims during this discussion.

>So, who gives out the tickets for the inner circle of classical music?

No one (what a stupid idea).  You earn it.  I'll repeat it as there seems
to be a great amount of difficulty with this concept.  The are the people
who - through the power of their ideas, the scope of their deeds, the
importance of their accomplishments - have gravitas and the attendant
authority.  People listen to them because they generally know what they
are talking about, and it's pretty much as simple as that.

>Obviously an active playwright who did a lot of study work on Mozart
>doesn't belong to it.

Sorry, study work on Mozart doesn't cut it, and I can't believe anyone
would think it could.  In any case, you seem to be uninformed on Shaffer's
actual relationship to this material.  Shaffer himself labeled this a
fantasy on Mozart and Salieri's relationship, and therefore we have to
conclude it has no historical or musicological weight at all.  To claim
more for the play or the film without other support is ludicrous.

>What about practising artists who do classical music AND popular music?

What about them.  I see no connection to what's being discussed.  No wait.
I see.  You've got it backwards again.  Simply engaging in activities
related to popular culture means nothing unless it directly distracts
from other efforts.  For example, if a classical guitarist was spending
all of his time playing blues, then this is bound to have an impact on the
guitarists classical studies.  If someone believes that because a classical
artist also enjoys and participates in other genres the artist loses
authority is as big a fool as the person at the other end of the spectrum
who believes that simply because something is popular it is important.

>And what if people who are not in the inner circle dare to talk about
>Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, dare to write plays about them using popular
>legends (knowing that these are legends)? Shocking!  They have to be told
>that they are uncomprehending, by the Central Committee of Classical Music.

Good Lord, man, where do you live? Not on this planet, at least not in
this century.  No, it's not in the least "shocking".  Anyone who takes
on a complex subject in a dramatic venue, especially one dealing with a
subject that many people have devoted lifetimes to for two centuries now,
sure as heck better be ready for, and accepting of, criticism when it comes
their way.  It is abundantly clear from the copious amount you have written
on the subject that you are not ready for criticism, probably because an
emotional attachment to the play and movie precludes clear exposition and
examinations of ideas on the subject.  At least that is what has been
exhibited in this discussion so far.  The position is simple.  The movie
is good, period.  Accept or be dismissed as an elitist.  Now which stance
is the more totalitarian?

>Everyone is an expert about his feelings and his love and his dislike
>towards classical music.

Sure, and that's important.  But it's also important to remember that
your feelings are just that: yours.  If you want them to be more than
that, then you have to discuss and be open to the ideas, and that includes
criticisms, of others.  If you are not ready for this, then you will
probably be happier keeping silent.

>The people with more information should humbly serve the people with less
>information but should not play the gurus and popes of classical music.
>They harm the art form they pretend to love.

Oh, this is just perverted populist nonsense.  Of course we need gate
keepers.  We need authorities.  We need people willing to put in the time
to distinguish fact from fiction and myth.  We need people with the breadth
and depth of knowledge and experience necessary to help us understand art
and our reactions to it.  If I want more detailed knowledge of a subject,
I don't ask just anyone, I ask an expert or at least someone with more
experience than me.  I go from there.  Of course on matters of taste,
authorities only carry weight in proportion to the resonance of their
judgements.  But for the most part we need to recognize that we've become
a fad-driven society worldwide, and that's where the heart of Peter's
argument seems to dwell.  The play and film not only affected him, but
obviously others were moved as well, ergo it must be great.  That's
dangerous ground.  Not that popularity precludes quality, it's just is not
a reliable indicator of quality, as we can easily see.  If it were, we'd
be discussing N*SYNC and not Mozart.

In the end, for most anyone who gets out at all, Amadeus is a manifestly
mediocre movie.  The few moments of impact in the film are largely brought
about using cliched and simplistic emotional effects.  The plot and
character development are too thin to claim that these moments are entirely
genuine.  I don't know the play, so I won't comment on it, but I have seen
the film many times.  It's infuriating that it makes such a crass simpleton
of Mozart.  It's obnoxious that it plays fast and lose with history.  But
during a few moments in the film I can take the images and milieu created
on-screen and what I know of Mozart and the times, and synthesize a
powerful effect for myself.  I've owned it on VHS, and it was one of the
first movies I bought on DVD. It's easily the best Mozart movie I know,
and one of the best composer movies, and that in and of itself makes it
an important movie for now.  This probably says more about what makes it
to the screen than it does about the quality of Amadeus.

So, why have I so viciously attacked Robert and all the common folk who
just like classical music? Well, of course I haven't.  What I have done
is challenged the ideas that Robert choose to offer for discussion.  This
is what I expect from a forum that aspires to be more than an N*SYNC chat
room.  I only have time for aspirations, and no time at all for obsequious
chat.  This list had better be elitist in all the best senses of that word,
and there are many, or I have better things to do.  We should all aspire to
better and wider understanding, and not simply seek reinforcement of our
fantasies or prejudices.  As such, this list is not for everyone.  If you
cringe at the sight of disagreement, if calling nonsense nonsense and then
discussing why bothers you, there are many other forums that might be a
better fit.

As further posts in this thread have not added anything beyond the
emotional, and nothing new at that, this thread is now complete.  If you
would like to discuss any of these ideas in a different thread, please do,
but this group will not be used to cheer for the anti-intellectual.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/