"Benjamin Britten at 100 - time for a new appraisal?"

[Mary Chambers]

You have a very vivid imagination, LT, but not quite as much real information

He was not the only pupil at Gresham's to opt out of military training. They had to argue their case, but if they were convincing the school seems to have accepted that they had a genuine moral objection. Admirable for the times. Gresham's also had no corporal punishment.

[Lateralthinking1]

You have a very vivid imagination, LT, but not quite as much real information

He was not the only pupil at Gresham's to opt out of military training. They had to argue their case, but if they were convincing the school seems to have accepted that they had a genuine moral objection. Admirable for the times. Gresham's also had no corporal punishment.

Hmmm. I am usually described as having an imagination. Over-active is often put before that word. I don't know what to say about real information. What do you have in mind? Hearing Pears speak about "The Turn of the Screw" was the low point on DID for me.

Do I take the point about the military training? Not sure. I was in the CCF and as far as I am aware I wasn't likely to be sent off to war. A lot of it was a waste of time. I learnt a few things. Music festivals many years later turned out to be a far better form of military training and I was more prepared then to find my way around. I'm not entirely sure whether their objection was valid. They weren't saying no to killing in battle but rather a bit of discomfort and discipline. I doubt that was good. It was unfair on others.

[ahinton]

You have a very vivid imagination, LT, but not quite as much real information

He was not the only pupil at Gresham's to opt out of military training. They had to argue their case, but if they were convincing the school seems to have accepted that they had a genuine moral objection. Admirable for the times. Gresham's also had no corporal punishment.

I'm pleased that you're contributing as much as you are in this thread; it needs some balanced good sense arising from actual knowledge to counterbalance certain prejudices, suspicions and disproportionalities of approach. On the occasions when I met Britten - even on the first of them - he soon became quite unbuttoned and open and generous in his speech, the sheer extent of which surprised me; he even played to me - a most wrong-note-ful yet passionately committed G minor Ballade of Chopin - from memory - from which I discovered his fascination with Chopin of which I'd previously been entirely unaware. This and all else in our conversations brimmed over with generosity of spirit; I never found him "difficult" at all. I say this not to undermine what others have noted about difficulties in his persona (which of us is free of those?) but to try to restore some balance. At the time, he was well at variance with what Tippett was doing, especially in his Third Symphony, yet when Tippett came up in the conversation (as was perhaps inevitable at some point), he spoke of him with immense warmth and gusto and urged me to get to know as much of his music as possible, add that whenever he (i.e. Britten himself) composes, me makes sure as far as possible that he knows just what he's going to do and how, yet Michael often doesn't seem to do that - but look at the results! I paraphrase somewhat (I obviously didn't record the conversation!), but this is the gist of his comments.

The rules and school uniform argument is also one that's close to the heart here; I was no rebel by nature when at grammar school but I did protest about being expected to wear a school uniform and went to the headmaster to register this. He asked for my reasons. I argued that not only was it not only unnecessary but misleading to display some kind of corporate identity to the outside world but, worse still, it was callously misrepresentative of the school to have a uniform upon which was emblazoned the motto Finis Coronat Opus when it was phasing out the study of Latin. He accepted my comments and agreed that I may be exonerated from wearing school uniform provided that I always attended school dressed in a decent suit or jacket and trousers and that my sartorial presentation would be regarded as a credit to the school. I'm not sure in retrospect which of the two of us was being the more pompous! Anyway, that was the last time I wore the stuff.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not quite sure how this works though. Who have I met? Harold Macmillan, Glenda Jackson and Dana among others. All were extremely pleasant to me but my main knowledge of them as people isn't based on those meetings. 99% of it is based on other things. What do other people know about Britten the individual that I should know other than the impressions he gave them? Probably not a lot. The character I have described is largely confirmed even by supportive biographers. He hated Brahms, was dismissive of Ireland, the list is almost endless. How was I to know that the woman in the sports car singing a sunny song in a downpour would be just to the left of Attila the Hun? She stopped, smiled and chatted. Absolutely lovely - and charm itself.

[Parry1912]

The line that makes me sceptical about this particular oeuvre is:

"and [Britten] was initially aghast at the idea of wearing checked trousers."

Perhaps he had an aversion to Rupert the Bear!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

He hated Brahms, was dismissive of Ireland, the list is almost endless.

You're treading on very thin ice indeed, Lats, if you want us to judge a person's character from the composers s/he doesn't like!

[Mary Chambers]

Hmmm. I am usually described as having an imagination. Over-active is often put before that word. I don't know what to say about real information. What do you have in mind?

You seem to me to have said or implied quite a few inaccurate things about BB and PP, which imply that you haven't read very widely on the subject. 'A lot of the ghastly lurking in corners'? What's that supposed to mean? You are entitled to think what you like, of course, but I do think it should be based on some sort of evidence. Letters and diaries are far better sources than commercial biographies, which usually have some sort of agenda or a journalistic desire to make a good story.

Your statement that 'they weren't saying no to killing in battle but rather to a bit of discomfort and discipline' seems to me to be ill-informed and absolutely incorrect.

I am not saying that Britten was not a complex, and in some ways difficult, man. Of course he was. Geniuses usually are.

PS I think I have spent enough time on this thread for the time being. Contrary to all appearances, I do have other things to do.

[Lateralthinking1]

You seem to me to have said or implied quite a few inaccurate things about BB and PP, which imply that you haven't read very widely on the subject. 'A lot of the ghastly lurking in corners'? What's that supposed to mean? You are entitled to think what you like, of course, but I do think it should be based on some sort of evidence. Letters and diaries are far better sources than commercial biographies, which usually have some sort of agenda or a journalistic desire to make a good story.

Your statement that 'they weren't saying no to killing in battle but rather to a bit of discomfort and discipline' seems to me to be ill-informed and absolutely incorrect.

I am not saying that Britten was not a complex, and in some ways difficult, man. Of course he was. Geniuses usually are.

PS I think I have spent enough time on this thread for the time being. Contrary to all appearances, I do have other things to do.

Well, they would not have been in battle at age 14. They would have marched up and down a playground with a rifle with no greater military obligation than those who never did so. Orienteering for two days every 18 months at Crowborough as the scouts might do somewhere. A bit of car mechanics in a shed and that would be about their lot. Regrettably, you bow out on a sour note. You have not substantiated some of your comments which are echoed by ahinton. I believe only one of my comments on PP was inaccurate unless you can advise otherwise. That was because I listened to what he said himself. I quoted him but then that very clearly indicates a key problem. If you can't believe what one of them said, what can you believe? They were distinctly shadowy.

I am not won over by the argument that they were victims. Many gay people had a terrible time until the late 1960s. They were both given every opportunity to live the life of riley. There was no real reason for them to feel hard done by. Everyone fawned.

On Britten, you don't support your argument that I have made several errors. You did appear to confirm that I was right on the invented rheumatic fever. I questioned his early pacifism and conceded on that point but my instinct is to backtrack. I think he wanted to be treated as special, was frequently not prepared to meet people halfway and looked wherever possible for the easy life while ordinary people faced up to their obligations. There is certainly at least one example of a child who said he had been mistreated. He could easily have been a Savile for all anyone knows. He enjoyed getting children to perform work with a wholly inappropriate adult-child theme. I think that there is some evidence to suggest that he was deceitful on his own health matters. The loving marriage with Pears was nothing of the sort from the 1950s - they largely lived in separate rooms. I simply don't trust him. I don't think anyone can say that I have dismissed him out of hand without thinking but I do find him ghoulish in the extreme.

[amateur51]

Just check out this - look out for the black & white stove-pipe trousers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VIq4oDAfPw

Hysterical! - quite literally

[amateur51]

Don't give that link to scottycelt!

It was like a 1951 version of the Chippendales - the dachshund was evidently not impressed !

Well perhaps it was one of the Britten-Pears dachsies

[Bryn]

Hysterical! - quite literally[SIC]

Well I suppose the audience was comprised mainly of women.

[amateur51]

I am not won over by the argument that they were victims. Many gay people had a terrible time until the late 1960s. They were both given every opportunity to live the life of riley. There was no real reason for them to feel hard done by. Everyone fawned.

This is a very odd view of things, Lat. The case of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu demonstrates that being well-connected and an hereditary peer did not mean an easy life for a man attracted to other men. I'd say that it is only since the new millennium that gay men in Britain have been able to have anything like a life unencumbered by a sense of shame about who they are. I'came out' the year that Britten died and I know for certain that it was not a happy society in which to grow up gay.

[Flosshilde]

Lat, your latest post is distasteful to say the least. It is full of inuendo & smear, which would not be out of place in one of the worst tabloids.

Well, they would not have been in battle at age 14. They would have marched up and down a playground with a rifle with no greater military obligation than those who never did so. Orienteering for two days every 18 months at Crowborough as the scouts might do somewhere. A bit of car mechanics in a shed and that would be about their lot.

I went to a school that had a CCF - it was very difficult to go against the stream & opt out.

. If you can't believe what one of them said, what can you believe? They were distinctly shadowy.

More tabloid-speak - 'the shadowy world of the homosexual'

There is certainly at least one example of a child who said he had been mistreated.

Who? How?

He could easily have been a Savile for all anyone knows.

I think this has been fairly conclusively dealt with. Those in the best position to know have been quite definite. You are simply introducing it again as a vile smear.

He enjoyed getting children to perform work with a wholly inappropriate adult-child theme.

Unlike many, many, directors from Hollywood? Children can act & understand that they are involved in a fiction; they are also able to absorb what they understand but at the same time ignore, or not absorb, what they don't understand, or file it away until they do understand it. David Hemmings doesn't seem to have suffered any ill-effects from performing in Turn of the screw.

The loving marriage with Pears was nothing of the sort from the 1950s - they largely lived in separate rooms.

That says nothing about their relationship, & I think it was fairly common among couples of a certain class at that time (and now).

I do find him ghoulish in the extreme.

I think that says more about you than it does about BB (or PP)

[Lateralthinking1]

This is a very odd view of things, Lat. The case of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu demonstrates that being well-connected and an hereditary peer did not mean an easy life for a man attracted to other men. I'd say that it is only since the new millennium that gay men in Britain have been able to have anything like a life unencumbered by a sense of shame about who they are. I'came out' the year that Britten died and I know for certain that it was not a happy society in which to grow up gay.

Yes but with respect the fact that Montagu was a Lord and still found life difficult shows just how privileged Britten and Pears were. I have alluded to Thorpe and Heath before. Who could be added from, say, the arts field? Williams, Edwards, half of the comedy circuit probably, and plenty in literature and drama. Many found things very tough. And yet until the 1950s, BB and PP lived as easily as Terry and June and if afterwards they didn't, that was solely because of them. There was no external pressure.

I am not saying that life should have been more difficult for them. Of course I am not. What I am saying is that the argument that life was difficult for them is not convincing. How was it difficult? Can you think of any gay people who had it so easy that you can truly say BB and PP had it awful by comparison? I think an argument that they had it tough is very harsh on those who had it tough. Many committed suicide. And it matters if it is put forward to excuse the indefensible which seems to happen often.

One sees how the reflexes go. As soon as children are mentioned, the subject suddenly shifts to one about gay men - I don't doubt it is decent and well-meaning - or there is that age old stance of "you don't know what you are talking about". Well let us say that those who question what Britten was in truth are actually representing the child. It is rather like saying to a child who has something seriously valid to say "what a lot of ill-informed rubbish". Childline would know all about that kind of thing because it is absolutely classic stuff. I am not saying that is intentional. It is probably well-intentioned too. Nor I am saying Britten was dodgy.

But what I am saying is that there is a very big question mark, neither those who know a bit about him or those who have read every last word about him actually knows, and that any direct accusation or a complete dismissal of the very notion are equally inappropriate stances. That doesn't require the knowledge of what he had for breakfast or his inside leg measurement. It requires judgement, basic common sense and a true understanding of proportion. That's how I feel. Others may disagree. I know I'm right.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It requires judegement, basic common sense and a true understanding of proportion!

Indeed. But, with the best will in the world, Lats, I cannot find these qualities in a statement such as "[Britten] could easily have been a Savile for all anybody knows".