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

[Mary Chambers]

.
Honestly Lat, I am struggling to see what your argument is

So am I. Genuinely baffled.

[Anna]

Quite clearly Anna you haven't bothered to read my posts. You simply want to turn it into some sort of accusation of homophobia. I find that misrepresentation of me, also put forward by Flosshilde, completely reprehensible. There must be some sort of reason why several people on the forum will turn seemingly every discussion into the idea that people are being anti gay.

Yes Lat, I have read all your posts. What I am struggling with is why it is so important to you?

[Lateralthinking1]

Now come on, Lats! We simply don't know. Though yes, he was influenced by both Auden and Isherwood.

I don't understand what you mean about Britten's 'supporters'. I suppose I could be counted as one of them in many ways, but I am simply not interested in whether he was 'nice' or 'nasty'. I'm sure that like most people he was a mixture of both. What I am interested in is what made him tick, and resulted in all that wonderful music.



According to Kildea, Pears could have been one of the 'many symptomless' carriers of the disease. It doesn't always progress. But we'll never know.

Yes Lat, I have read all your posts. What I am struggling with is why it is so important to you?

I have a degree in history. You don't get far in that discipline if you don't believe that it can be subject to opinion. Without having direct or indirect access to source material, it is probably not a good idea to put forward an argument. The stronger the source, the less it is conjecture. In many situations, some will dispute the strength of the source and some the source itself but there can also be an acceptance that any source may not prove an opinion conclusively. That is not to say opinion should not be expressed.

The best one can do is gather the facts together and come to conclusions. I am satisfied for now that this is what Kildea has done. I will be interested to discover what he has in mind when he links the illness to Pears. I have simply noted what he has had to say about the medical assessments, the usual time course of the illness, the timing of Britten's periods of relative freedom, his associations then and his conservative lifestyle after the war. My interest is in accuracy, which can often take many years to establish with much ebbing and flowing, and completeness. Books are sold. That's the world. It isn't just kept in universities.

The other aspect is that I decided to learn more about classical music a while ago. A part of it was reading about the composers who I was listening to more. Inspired by the thread on British composers, that was a particular interest. The fact that this is Britten's centenary meant that there was a lot of discussion on him. I was aware that he was a composer whose work has a large number of reference points to his own life. While finding some of the music a little difficult, I didn't want to dismiss it because of ignorance but rather to enjoy the programmes on R3 later in the year. I don't dismiss music that often needs some working on!

Threads were opened about his relationships with children and the way in which he died. Both led to many contributions. It seemed important to me to ensure that I was comfortable with him, especially if he were frequently portrayed in his music. Learning more, I have decided that I am not comfortable with him and the censorious ways of some who are. The widespread instinct in others for closure on umpteen points has been so alarming it has removed my open-mindedness towards him and his music. It suggests to me that questioning is valid whereas had there been an essentially measured discussion my conclusions might have been different.

[Mary Chambers]

Here's a very interesting article on Kildea's syphilis theory, quoting medical opinion and more facts than Kildea had access to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/22/benjamin-britten-syphilis-condition-unlikely-cardiologist

[ahinton]

Were the Lat stance is to acquire some kind of benchmark status in terms of how we might all be supposed or expect to address and respond to the Britten centenary, I worry for what might have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the arena about Witold Lutosławski in order somehow to satisfy what appears to be the prurience or something of those who seem for some reason determined to seize upon a composer's centenary as some kind of excuse to focus on something, sometimes purely speculative but always quite other than what he/she actually produced and gave to us all (and both Britten, whom I met but to most of whose music I happen to find it hard to get close and Lutosławski, whom I never met but to much of whose music I have to make little effort to get close, were immensely generous in what they provided to us all as a legacy).

[Richard Tarleton]

I'm waiting for Lat to start on John Dowland

[Flosshilde]

Gesualdo would provide a fruitful field, or Caravaggio if he wants to turn his attention to the visual arts - lots of boys in his paintings

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article7936457.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/pg-34-caravaggio-2.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/6/x/mmc_scuderie_quirinale_04.jpg

[Richard Tarleton]

Gesualdo would provide a fruitful field, or Caravaggio

- yes, I was only thinking of composers with anniversaries....

[Flosshilde]

Gesualdo died in 1613

[Richard Tarleton]

Gesualdo died in 1613

Aaaarrrgh

Well at least it might give poor Mary a rest

[Lateralthinking1]

Here's a very interesting article on Kildea's syphilis theory, quoting medical opinion and more facts than Kildea had access to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013...y-cardiologist

While it is Lat who has been subjected to insult, misrepresentation and criticism for things that he has never done or said, it is 'poor Mary' who should have a rest. Lat has never written a War Requiem and is hence not permitted the same level of respect as the Almighty one. My apologies to Mary if she feels harangued by comments not about her but an overrated composer. This response to the article is for anyone who wishes to read it. Anyone who doesn't is not being forced against their will to do so.

The article has been noted for its inaccuracies and contradictions. Can I just begin by repeating that I have never had syphilis, not that there would be shame in it, to prevent it becoming the official forum position that I have irrespective of the facts.

Beng Goh is absolutely incorrect that "Sweating and hallucination are most unlikely to be symptoms of secondary syphilis." The overwhelming majority of specialists would disagree with him. You can discover that yourselves if you have access to an internet.

Petch, who was very young and relatively inexperienced in the mid 1970s, says (a) syphilis is "not impossible" and (b) the notion that Ross could have covered up his suspicions of syphilis in the operating theatre is "rubbish": "It takes 14 people to do a heart operation. It would have been impossible to have kept it secret." Intelligent observers will note the blatant contradictions in those two statements. Furthermore, many in Whitehall would find it incredible that 14 people cannot keep a secret. We could be run by terrorists now if they couldn't. Thank the lord GPs aren't ruling over the country. The hippocratic oath is at least one letter wrong.

The then relatively junior put in charge of welfare appears keen on the "absolutely preposterous" style put down. With a dismissive wave of the hand, it's all "rubbish". That language, Britten's own anti-style, or no style, which lives on throughout his current regiments, suggests clampdown, particularly in a man who also says that others should be more "balanced". Actually, orders rather than says. Petch, who believes in the authority of his own assumptions, is keen to step way outside his own territory and tells us what biographers should or should not say: "My belief is that the original story about Britten's death should be allowed to stand".

Well, it does stand. It stands alongside every other so what does he mean? That we should all be told to accept only his contradictions, his "belief", oh and that oh so establishment might: "He might have been discreet – he might have asked the specialist not to visit the National Heart hospital for example. But Ross would have let me know, and so would have Hayward."

He would Miss. He weally would. That's science, is it? The absolute diktat of mere assumptions. Even the Guardian has decided to redact some of his statement - see para 5 - while the key man is too ill to be available. That's convenient. It's whitewash and how the nation's bigwigs feel the need for it. The wheels of action, so speedy, and the tone of it are such that someone might be forgiven for believing he caught the illness from a Royal. Hitler had Wagner. Britain has never got over it. Thou shalt have Britten.

[Richard Tarleton]

Lat, how do you see this thread ending?

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat, how do you see this thread ending?

Is that the ominous shadowy air so adored?

[johnb]

Please, I beg everyone not to continue this discussion.

[Barbirollians]

Heeding john b's point