Reggie rehearsing Tristan in 1981

[Prommer]

This thread has wandered off again in to politics, since I last looked at it months ago.

The Lucas biography is good, and not unsympathetic overall - he is married to Anne Evans, whom Goodall coached for Isolde among other things.

It is undeniable that Goodall was a fascist sympathiser before the war, as some people had been, and that he seems to have found it difficult to wind down from his previous opinions even in the teeth of a war and what it revealed. Who can speculate as to why? Ignorance, denial, stubbornness, or ongoing sympathy either for racial politics or everything German...?

The most appalling consequence of this was in his apparent denial of Bergen-Belsen, though I am not sure anyone can credibly claim that he remained a Holocaust denier in the 1980s, unless there is evidence for this that I have missed. We have all become much more knowledgeable about these things as the years have gone by, though Richard Dimbleby's work was there to watch from 1945 onwards. (Though it is fair to point out that RG may not have seen it as television ownership was limited, at least at the time.)

A comment about Earls Court etc is not evidence as such of racism, let alone holocaust denial. It does reveal a common view of the time against immigration, and its effects on culture and society. People who espoused these views were not all racists, and certainly not all fascists.

None of these things stop me from admiring his artistic work, though this admiration is not unqualified due to the cognitive discomfort (as with Richard Wagner) occasioned by their political/racial opinions at one time or another.

[Beef Oven!]

It's not like it's even relevant. Who really cares anyway?

[Richard Barrett]

It's not like it's even relevant. Who really cares anyway?

Clearly plenty of people care. I think it's a sign of (in this respect at least) a slightly more enlightened society that it's a lot less likely these days that an artist who puts about (for example) racist views is going to get much of an audience. No amount of artistic excellence is an excuse for such views of course. It seems to be a common opinion (enshrined in the house rules of this forum indeed) that discussing politics in the same context as art is somehow distasteful. The problem as far as I can see is not that such discussion "has no place" but that people aren't accustomed to encountering others whose views are different from their own (in a context such as this where many choose to be anonymous) and actually having a conversation about them without losing their composure, bearing in mind that such discussions can help to clarify one's thoughts even when they don't change one's mind. Personally I think it's better not to ban certain subjects but to try to learn how better to talk about them. Many of us here (including myself) have much to learn in that regard.

[Conchis]

This thread has wandered off again in to politics, since I last looked at it months ago.

The Lucas biography is good, and not unsympathetic overall - he is married to Anne Evans, whom Goodall coached for Isolde among other things.

It is undeniable that Goodall was a fascist sympathiser before the war, as some people had been, and that he seems to have found it difficult to wind down from his previous opinions even in the teeth of a war and what it revealed. Who can speculate as to why? Ignorance, denial, stubbornness, or ongoing sympathy either for racial politics or everything German...?

The most appalling consequence of this was in his apparent denial of Bergen-Belsen, though I am not sure anyone can credibly claim that he remained a Holocaust denier in the 1980s, unless there is evidence for this that I have missed. We have all become much more knowledgeable about these things as the years have gone by, though Richard Dimbleby's work was there to watch from 1945 onwards. (Though it is fair to point out that RG may not have seen it as television ownership was limited, at least at the time.)

A comment about Earls Court etc is not evidence as such of racism, let alone holocaust denial. It does reveal a common view of the time against immigration, and its effects on culture and society. People who espoused these views were not all racists, and certainly not all fascists.

None of these things stop me from admiring his artistic work, though this admiration is not unqualified due to the cognitive discomfort (as with Richard Wagner) occasioned by their political/racial opinions at one time or another.

Having just finished a second listen to Goodall's Covent Garden Parsfial, I'm less enamoured than ever of his music making: there is a sentimetnality and indulgence in his approach to this score that I find, at times, repulsive. This has nothing to do with my view of the man.

A shame, because Jon Vickers gives a great performacne in the title role.

[Richard Barrett]

Jon Vickers

Now you've really put me off, I find it very difficult indeed to listen to that man's voice!

[Barbirollians]

This thread has wandered off again in to politics, since I last looked at it months ago.

The Lucas biography is good, and not unsympathetic overall - he is married to Anne Evans, whom Goodall coached for Isolde among other things.

It is undeniable that Goodall was a fascist sympathiser before the war, as some people had been, and that he seems to have found it difficult to wind down from his previous opinions even in the teeth of a war and what it revealed. Who can speculate as to why? Ignorance, denial, stubbornness, or ongoing sympathy either for racial politics or everything German...?

The most appalling consequence of this was in his apparent denial of Bergen-Belsen, though I am not sure anyone can credibly claim that he remained a Holocaust denier in the 1980s, unless there is evidence for this that I have missed. We have all become much more knowledgeable about these things as the years have gone by, though Richard Dimbleby's work was there to watch from 1945 onwards. (Though it is fair to point out that RG may not have seen it as television ownership was limited, at least at the time.)

A comment about Earls Court etc is not evidence as such of racism, let alone holocaust denial. It does reveal a common view of the time against immigration, and its effects on culture and society. People who espoused these views were not all racists, and certainly not all fascists.

None of these things stop me from admiring his artistic work, though this admiration is not unqualified due to the cognitive discomfort (as with Richard Wagner) occasioned by their political/racial opinions at one time or another.

To suggest people should stay in their own countries would have been considered racist in the 1980s ! Making excuses for his abhorrent opinions is unjustifiable . As Richard's post fairly makes the point it is a different question as to whether that should affect one's opinion of an wrtist's work .

[Conchis]

Now you've really put me off, I find it very difficult indeed to listen to that man's voice!

He seems to be a polarising singer, just as he was a polarising personality in life.

I've always liked his voice. I don't hear the 'crooning' that some people complain of.

I suppose the Karajan Walkure presents you with the opposite problem to me, as you like Janowitz and I don't. :)

[Richard Barrett]

I suppose the Karajan Walkure presents you with the opposite problem to me, as you like Janowitz and I don't. :)

You can't have everything!

[french frank]

It seems to be a common opinion (enshrined in the house rules of this forum indeed) that discussing politics in the same context as art is somehow distasteful.

As those who remember the history of the debate will know, that was never the case. Politics in the sense of 'UK party politics' was the problem. Criticism of policies can be discussed by all sides; attacks on rival parties/politicians are only indulged in.

[Richard Barrett]

As those who remember the history of the debate will know, that was never the case.

By "in the same context as art" I meant on this forum, so yes indeed it was the case. My principal point, however, is that it should be possible to discuss anything at all, including however "sensitive" issues might be brought up, and that the suppression of such discussion, not just on a forum like this, but generally in "polite society", is a strong factor in leaving many people unprepared to deal rationally with such things. It was not a complaint about the forum but a more general observation: the main reason so many people seem unable or unwilling to discuss such issues civilly is not that those subjects are somehow uncivil but that they are often regarded as such and thus avoided, so that when they do come up people lose their civility. What's needed is more "training" in the rational discussion of difficult subjects rather than less discussion of them, just as was the case regarding sex in the Victorian period.

[Beef Oven!]

Clearly plenty of people care. I think it's a sign of (in this respect at least) a slightly more enlightened society that it's a lot less likely these days that an artist who puts about (for example) racist views is going to get much of an audience. No amount of artistic excellence is an excuse for such views of course. It seems to be a common opinion (enshrined in the house rules of this forum indeed) that discussing politics in the same context as art is somehow distasteful. The problem as far as I can see is not that such discussion "has no place" but that people aren't accustomed to encountering others whose views are different from their own (in a context such as this where many choose to be anonymous) and actually having a conversation about them without losing their composure, bearing in mind that such discussions can help to clarify one's thoughts even when they don't change one's mind. Personally I think it's better not to ban certain subjects but to try to learn how better to talk about them. Many of us here (including myself) have much to learn in that regard.

But what makes you think this thread is discussing politics? It's just a collection of banal observations that Sir Reggie's views on politics were misguided (but we all know that), with some outrage thrown in for good measure.

I don't get the sense of anything educating or enlightening going on in this thread. And look at post #139. Conchis is saying he's taking a perfectly objective view of the music, independent of all the hate he's spewed about Reggie and is almost surprised to find, without any bias, that he doesn't like the music and is repulsed! - it's one thing for Conchis to be deluding himself, but to expect us to take him seriously on this is quite another ......

[Richard Barrett]

But what makes you think this thread is discussing politics?

I wasn't particularly commenting on this thread; it just set off a train of thought which led me to the half-formed musings I posted. I guess it was wishful thinking. I would like it to be possible to talk about Wagner's music, or Reginald Goodall's opinions on immigration, or for that matter the current state of the Tory party, without things getting personal and tempers being lost!

Plus, while I'm here, I wish you and Conchis would just get on with one another, or ignore one another if you must.

[vinteuil]

I wasn't particularly commenting on this thread; it just set off a train of thought which led me to the half-formed musings I posted. I guess it was wishful thinking. I would like it to be possible to talk about Wagner's music, or Reginald Goodall's opinions on immigration, or for that matter the current state of the Tory party, without things getting personal and tempers being lost!
.

... or indeed the current state of the Labour Party.

Thank you for the excellent #138 and #145. Yes, whole-heartedly.


.

[Beef Oven!]

I wasn't particularly commenting on this thread; it just set off a train of thought which led me to the half-formed musings I posted. I guess it was wishful thinking. I would like it to be possible to talk about Wagner's music, or Reginald Goodall's opinions on immigration, or for that matter the current state of the Tory party, without things getting personal and tempers being lost!

Talking about Wagner or the Tory party should be unproblematic. But the relentless, banal musings over some stupidity on Reggie's part is another matter.

Why oh, why do we have to suffer it every time Goodall is mentioned? What motivates these people to do it?

I can only be thankful that the people who go on about Goodall, Karajan et al know nothing about the musings and/or views of Goffredo Petrassi, Carl Ruggles, Edgard Varèse et al ................

[aeolium]

By "in the same context as art" I meant on this forum, so yes indeed it was the case. My principal point, however, is that it should be possible to discuss anything at all, including however "sensitive" issues might be brought up, and that the suppression of such discussion, not just on a forum like this, but generally in "polite society", is a strong factor in leaving many people unprepared to deal rationally with such things. It was not a complaint about the forum but a more general observation: the main reason so many people seem unable or unwilling to discuss such issues civilly is not that those subjects are somehow uncivil but that they are often regarded as such and thus avoided, so that when they do come up people lose their civility. What's needed is more "training" in the rational discussion of difficult subjects rather than less discussion of them, just as was the case regarding sex in the Victorian period.

I agree wholeheartedly, though the problem in the past on the forum has been that people often did lose their tempers (and in a few cases never recovered them) and resorted to ad hominem comments, etc.

One thing I would like to see more of is the questioning of the assumptions behind the positions people adopt. I think this has been done quite successfully - at least from the programmes I have heard - by Michael Sandel who has had quite a few "lectures" on R4 in the past in which, rather than provide his own viewpoint, he invites members of the audience to indicate their views on particular moral and political questions, but also to try to explain why they hold that particular position. Sandel then summarises the position and the justification and invites others to counter it, in a sort of dialectical approach. I think this is useful in forcing you to examine your own reasons for holding particular positions, and you might perhaps find that those positions are on shakier ground than you thought.

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2012/apr/08/observer-profile-michael-sandel