Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[Mr Pee]

Oh give it a rest for God's sake. Why start yet another thread on this?

You could have just made this a new post on the other homophobia thread, but no, you had to launch a new one.

[ahinton]

Oh give it a rest for God's sake. Why start yet another thread on this?

You could have just made this a new post on the other homophobia thread, but no, you had to launch a new one.

Mr Pee, why don't YOU "give it a rest"? "Yet another" suggests that there are already plenty, which is clearly not the case. You didn't have to read the post if you didn't want to but, since you have done so and somehow felt impelled to respond to it as negatively as possible, does it not occur to you that the particular thrust of the subjectg here is the sexuality of artists in general and perhaps composers in particular in the context of the proposed new legislation in Russia and tht the general emphasis is somewhat different to that of the "other" thread? No, I suppose not, otherwise you'd have responded more constructively or not at all.

Personally, I remain to be convinced of Jayne's comment about Tchaikovsky's sexuality in terms of its effect on his composition (apart, of course, from the simple fact that to deny the facts is in any case rather silly), but it's a subject well worthy of serious consdieration for all that. My own view happens to be that one cannot tell simply by listening that the music of Tchaikovsky, Szymanowski, Tippett, Henze et al is the work of a homosexual composer any more than one can tell that a Maconchy Quartet, a Bacewicz concerto or a Gramatté piano sonata is the work of a woman simply by listening, but I don't have to write as you do to make such a point; there is such a thing as civility and it's nice to find it anywhere, even on this forum!

[Mr Pee]

Mr Pee, why don't YOU "give it a rest"? "Yet another" suggests that there are already plenty, which is clearly not the case. You didn't have to read the post if you didn't want to but, since you have done so and somehow felt impelled to respond to it as negatively as possible, does it not occur to you that the particular thrust of the subjectg here is the sexuality of artists in general and perhaps composers in particular in the context of the proposed new legislation in Russia and tht the general emphasis is somewhat different to that of the "other" thread? No, I suppose not, otherwise you'd have responded more constructively or not at all.

Personally, I remain to be convinced of Jayne's comment about Tchaikovsky's sexuality in terms of its effect on his composition (apart, of course, from the simple fact that to deny the facts is in any case rather silly), but it's a subject well worthy of serious consdieration for all that. My own view happens to be that one cannot tell simply by listening that the music of Tchaikovsky, Szymanowski, Tippett, Henze et al is the work of a homosexual composer any more than one can tell that a Maconchy Quartet, a Bacewicz concerto or a Gramatté piano sonata is the work of a woman simply by listening, but I don't have to write as you do to make such a point; there is such a thing as civility and it's nice to find it anywhere, even on this forum!

We have just had a long thread on the subject of gay rights in Russia; Amateur for one manages to reference his sexuality whenever he can; it is a subject that polarises opinion, and now JLW has launched yet another thread on the subject, when she could easily have simply continued the existing one.

I am getting fed up with the way that a small minority seek to push this subject onto the messageboards at every opportunity; although I suppose one could equally say the same about the gay lobby in wider society.

[ahinton]

We have just had a long thread on the subject of gay rights in Russia; Amateur for one manages to reference his sexuality whenever he can; it is a subject that polarises opinion, and now JLW has launched yet another thread on the subject, when she could easily have simply continued the existing one.

OK, so you implicitly admit to your inability to perceive the difference of emphasis between these two threads; well, that's an issue for you, I suppose.

I am getting fed up with the way that a small minority seek to push this subject onto the messageboards at every opportunity; although I suppose one could equally say the same about the gay lobby in wider society.

Your implication here is that there are many threads devoted to such subjects on this forum and you must be far more observant that I, for I've seen very few such; what's more important and obvous from your statement here, however, is that you simply do not like public discussions of homosexuality. Well, you put your cards on the table but do remember that they're your cards and your table...

[mercia]

I was thinking of starting a thread with the heading "how does your sexuality affect the way you listen to Radio 3 and/or music in general ?" but since my own answer to the question would probably have to be "as far as I'm aware it doesn't", I thought better of it.

"do gays make better musicians?" might be interesting. :smiley:

[ahinton]

I was thinking of starting a thread with the heading "how does your sexuality affect the way you listen to Radio 3 and/or music in general ?" but since my own answer to the question would probably have to be "as far as I'm aware not at all", I thought better of it.

Mr Pee will doubtless be momentarily relieved to hear it.

"do gays make better musicians?" might be interesting. :smiley:

I wonder what the answer might have been had anyone put such a question to Leonard Bernstein...

[french frank]

I think I shall merge this thread with the previous one.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

it is a subject that polarises opinion

Is it? A quick glance at the contributors (I think 15* - including Alpie and Karafan) to this (merged) Thread suggests no such "polarization" - but for your own contributions*, there is remarkable unanimity of opinion.

*EDIT: This is, of course, wrong. There have been 32 "positive" contributers, and three (Mr Celt and HS escaped my recollection) "anti"s.)(

I am getting fed up with the way that a small minority seek to push this subject onto the messageboards at every opportunity; although I suppose one could equally say the same about the gay lobby in wider society.

Ah! The "Gay Lobby" - so well furnished, don't you think?

There is an even smaller minority who seek(s) to silence people from sharing their views, even though (t)he(y) is drawn irresistably to the subject like a moth to a light - make of that what you will.

There are other minorities posting subjects onto the Forum at every opportunity - the Sports Threads, or those dreadful, persistent advertisements for the Murdoch empire, for example. The way I avoid getting all polarised is just to ignore them and let them get on with chatting about what concerns them (and it is terrible of teamsaint for one to "reference" his affiliations whenever he can): what I wouldn't dream of suggesting is that I was getting fed up of them and demanding that they stop.

[ahinton]

We have just had a long thread on the subject of gay rights in Russia; Amateur for one manages to reference his sexuality whenever he can; it is a subject that polarises opinion, and now JLW has launched yet another thread on the subject, when she could easily have simply continued the existing one.

I am getting fed up with the way that a small minority seek to push this subject onto the messageboards at every opportunity; although I suppose one could equally say the same about the gay lobby in wider society.

OK, so two (not a plethora) thread on linked topics have now been merged; are you now a happier Mr Pee as a result? Does your apparent view that, in this instance, at least, two threads aren't better than one make any material difference to the various arguments that would presumably have continued to be put forward with or without this merger?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Has there been a survey showing gay people are more intelligent than straight people?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is it? A quick glance at the contributors (I think 15* - including Alpie and Karafan) to this (merged) Thread suggests no such "polarization" - but for your own contributions*, there is remarkable unanimity of opinion.

I do sense a relentless opportunism which can become tedious. This is a Radio 3 forum and I would far rather hear Bryn praising Roger Norrington or JLW on the merits of high resolution downloads than issues better debated elsewhere.

[Serial_Apologist]

Has there been a survey showing gay people are more intelligent than straight people?

Ah yes - Intelligent Design. Some people believe in that. [wink]

[doversoul1]

I do sense a relentless opportunism which can become tedious. This is a Radio 3 forum and I would far rather hear Bryn praising Roger Norrington or JLW on the merits of high resolution downloads than issues better debated elsewhere.

Wholeheartedly seconded. Even MrGG going about Xenakis and sonic what-not.

Incidentally, I accidentally heard this composer’s work on Edinburgh Festival live broadcast today, and to my surprise, I rather enjoyed it (only the shorter work. The main work was still somewhat beyond me)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038y599

[Richard Barrett]

I'm wondering why people object so much to the presence on the forum of threads on subjects that (purportedly) don't interest them. Nobody is being forced to read them, let alone contribute. What exactly is the problem?

[jayne lee wilson]

I do sense a relentless opportunism which can become tedious. This is a Radio 3 forum and I would far rather hear Bryn praising Roger Norrington or JLW on the merits of high resolution downloads than issues better debated elsewhere.

A little surprised at that... if a country with such a rich and diverse musical and artistic culture, such a dramatic & tragic rollercoaster of political history as Russia, now chooses to conceal the truth about one of its greatest composers (as a consequence of making prejudicial judgments and legislations about human nature) I would think that a "Radio 3 forum" would be as good a place for discussion as any.

If you want to "just listen to the music" and discuss that, there's plenty of opportunity here. But R3 was always (or once) about going further - deeper into an understanding of the forces at work on a creative artist, and the biological and psychological "givens" that he or she brings into that world. It matters more in some cases than others; in Tchaikovsky's case, it's not that one can somehow decode his sexuality from his music - more that its extremity and beauty were at least partly a result of the conflict his sexual nature caused him, both within himself, and in his private and very public life.

When a government pressurizes a film-maker to conceal significant truths about Art and Humanity, to misrepresent History in any area, it is an act that goes far beyond its immediate context. Ever heard of the thin end of the wedge?