Originally posted by ahinton
View Post
It just had to happen, didn't it? Because it so happens (I nearly wrote "as it 'appens" but then wisely and swiftly desisted) that the Savile business has finally been exposed just recently (although its continued investigations and repercussions will inevitably run on for many months or indeed possibly years to come) and it also happens to he the start of the Britten centenary year, the characters, behaviour and sexual proclivities of the two men must be dissected side by side for the benefit of the demi-monde of tabloid journalism. If only the Savile scandals had been exposed many years ago when they could and should have been (and, had they been, their duration would have been far less than was the case), I suspect that this futile sensationalism that is the attempted drawing together of Britten and Savile might never have occurred to anyone.
As many commentators have noted with due chagrin, Britten has been dead for almost 36 years and no one has ever come forward with evidence of sexual abuse on his part; it is this lack of evidence that perhaps sticks in the craw more than anything else when confronting the subject and it appears to be the distasteful and unjust legacy of the phenomenon of male homosexuality perpetuated as somehow inevitably synonymous with pædophilia (why? on what grounds? based upon what specific incontrovertible physiological / neuroscientific evidence?) that has provided the unfortunate backdrop for the Daily Wailings on the subject.
I do not usually take to Lebrecht's writings but, short of a handful of examples of his customary clever-clogs soundbitten catchphraseology and his shying away from due criticism of the chips off the Carpenter's block, he does write at least some good sense here in trying to put matters into perspective in terms both of Britten's musical legacy and the immense energies that he invested (often at the expense of his own health) into the practical applications of his generosity of spirit where the work of other composers was concerned (although I could have done without NL's insufficiently well thought out remarks about some of Britten's stage works).
Dutilleux wrote for boys' voices too (though obviously not as often as Britten) but, of course, he isn't homosexual so even the Daily Fail would presumably refrain from publishing assumptions about his sexually predatory nature towards boys.
I knew Britten, though not at all well, when a young man rather than a boy; not only did I fail to glean the remotest impression of him as the kind of man who might have had some inclination to take an unhealthy interest in boys, let alone commit acts of sexual predation upon them, I also found his musical broadmindness considerably greater than I had anticipated. At the time, I was a pupil of Searle and under influences of almost no English composer at all other, perhaps, than Byrd and Bridge) - a considerable distance, then, from the Britten milieu; this clearly interested him rather than met with his consternation and his enthusiastic remarks at that time about , for example, Chopin and Tippett were as welcome to the ear as they were somewhat surprising to encounter.
Britten's persona was indeed plagued with no shortage of insecurities, but neither that fact nor anything else about him or indeed his work as a composer, conductor, pianist, writer or promoter of the work of others constitutes an excuse for the kind of cheap tabloid jibes and muck-rakings that are too salacious and evidence-lite even to qualify to be dignified by the descriptor "journalism".
I wonder what kinds of unenlightening garbage the gutter press will try to dig up about Verdi, Wagner and Alkan who each share a bicentenary with Britten's centenary?...
As many commentators have noted with due chagrin, Britten has been dead for almost 36 years and no one has ever come forward with evidence of sexual abuse on his part; it is this lack of evidence that perhaps sticks in the craw more than anything else when confronting the subject and it appears to be the distasteful and unjust legacy of the phenomenon of male homosexuality perpetuated as somehow inevitably synonymous with pædophilia (why? on what grounds? based upon what specific incontrovertible physiological / neuroscientific evidence?) that has provided the unfortunate backdrop for the Daily Wailings on the subject.
I do not usually take to Lebrecht's writings but, short of a handful of examples of his customary clever-clogs soundbitten catchphraseology and his shying away from due criticism of the chips off the Carpenter's block, he does write at least some good sense here in trying to put matters into perspective in terms both of Britten's musical legacy and the immense energies that he invested (often at the expense of his own health) into the practical applications of his generosity of spirit where the work of other composers was concerned (although I could have done without NL's insufficiently well thought out remarks about some of Britten's stage works).
Dutilleux wrote for boys' voices too (though obviously not as often as Britten) but, of course, he isn't homosexual so even the Daily Fail would presumably refrain from publishing assumptions about his sexually predatory nature towards boys.
I knew Britten, though not at all well, when a young man rather than a boy; not only did I fail to glean the remotest impression of him as the kind of man who might have had some inclination to take an unhealthy interest in boys, let alone commit acts of sexual predation upon them, I also found his musical broadmindness considerably greater than I had anticipated. At the time, I was a pupil of Searle and under influences of almost no English composer at all other, perhaps, than Byrd and Bridge) - a considerable distance, then, from the Britten milieu; this clearly interested him rather than met with his consternation and his enthusiastic remarks at that time about , for example, Chopin and Tippett were as welcome to the ear as they were somewhat surprising to encounter.
Britten's persona was indeed plagued with no shortage of insecurities, but neither that fact nor anything else about him or indeed his work as a composer, conductor, pianist, writer or promoter of the work of others constitutes an excuse for the kind of cheap tabloid jibes and muck-rakings that are too salacious and evidence-lite even to qualify to be dignified by the descriptor "journalism".
I wonder what kinds of unenlightening garbage the gutter press will try to dig up about Verdi, Wagner and Alkan who each share a bicentenary with Britten's centenary?...
Comment