This thread has made me think very hard about music and politics.  I think what got me started was actually a few posts on other threads, in particular some of hh's.  I'm thinking of martle's performance course thread, hh's "Is it music or is it notes?" thread, and eru's masterclass thread.

These would have been excellent to post after Richard's #120 and #122, but tinners and George made points so more succinctly than I could have.  (I do agree with tinners' view that to not investigate this music may be complacent.  Better to know your enemy and all that....)

I think where my thoughts had got to may help this recent apparant clash between Baz and Turfers.  It centres on Turfers' question about whether the character of the composer necessarily makes its way into the music....

So, from all those other threads, I got thinking about my duty/role as a performer.  For me a good interpretation is to be faithful to what the composer wanted.  At the very least, that is being faithful to the instructions on the score.  But surely it's a bit more than that?  Why do authentic performances (or HIP if you like) have appeal?  Is it because they are more faithful to the experience the composer would have had?  Well, why not take it further?  Why not try to get right into the composers head?  Why not try to convey the emotions (s)he wanted? - many a performer would actively strive to do this.  Why not try to convey the intellectual concepts the composer stood for? - ah, now you are getting into trouble....

All this made me feel very uncomfortable about Trunk, whatever way I thought about listening to his music:

Let's suppose that Trunk was definitely a Nazi - so to have a very good interpretation of Trunk's music would mean it embodied something of Nazism.  I may feel content with it on judgement of the performance grounds, and may even get to a judgement of whether as a composition aesthetically it was a good representation of Nazism, but it would be a repellent work.

So, let's suppose that Trunks Nazism was fake, and that the inner beliefs he had whilst composing were entirely acceptable.  A decent performance would convey this fake aspect of the man, the inherent cowardice, and so on.  Again, it would be an unpleasant experience.

Finally, let's suppose the performance is not ideal.  It is not an accurate representation of what Trunk was experiencing.  If you like, it is as far from faithful to Trunk as some of the Bach performances of the 1950s were to Bach.  Perhaps you would not be able to detect any hint of Nazism in those performances?  But could you say that it was really Trunk?  Or would you be listening to X's poor interpretation of Trunk?  I think the latter, and the fact that I was listening to a non-faithful performance would be unpleasant.

I know it is deliberately stretching the point, but without the essence of the man, can you say that the music is really his?  And the essence of the man is surely heavily influenced by Nazism (or his cowardly reaction to it, if you cannot believe he was genuinely pro-)

Whilst that stream of thought and questioning may be directed more to Baz, there is then the aspect about "So what?  Music is supposed to convey pleasant and unpleasant things."  Whilst Nazism or some aspect of being a fake and being a coward may be implicit in Trunks music, does that make it bad music?  It it very accurately portrays a repellent thing, can we appreciate something about the skill of the composer whilst being emotionally disgusted by the subject he portrays?  Here I am closer to George's words.

A ramble, sorry.  I have learnt a lot from this thread, so I am glad Syd posted it, whatever his intentions.

Tommo

I think the fuss is not about RT specifically any more, but about the more general situation of whether an ideology of a composer is necessarily reflected in their music (admittedly using RT as an example).

Tommo

Baz, I have just re-read this thread, and perhaps you would benefit from doing the same. You will find that my position has remained consistent.

To summarize: I find Mr Trunk to be a revolting individual. Regardless of the 'objective' merits of his music, I know that listening to it will make me ill.

The subtext that you are deducing does not come from my posts. If my professional obligations compelled me to listen to this man's music (let's suppose for example, that I have a colleague whose research on this topic I must evaluate), then I will not refuse to do so, nor would I question a priori the validity of my colleague's purpose. If he/she then told me that listening to this music was extremely pleasureable, then I'm afraid I'd find that utterly incomprehensible.

Carted off to the pedantry thread. 

I have to say*, Baz, that I think your own Reply 128 was the grossest example of this, as well as being wildly illogical**.   

And as far as I can see from reading chunks of the thread again you are now arguing against a position which no one here has actually taken, and missing the point of the one that they have.


* Well I don't have to, come to think of it, but I thought I would.

** Not that I have anything against the Mothers' Union whose members are I'm sure neither gross nor illogical. And probably not very wild either from my limited observations.

I don't understand this thread any more. hh's spelling of 'retching' was fine. Baz's spelling of 'concensus [sic]' was not.

I don't think any of the comparisons and analogies Baz has drawn are particularly fit for purpose. But sometimes he brings something up (like the 'political correctness' comment after posting 3 pages from Kater), and his later explanation of what he meant is so far from what I imagined he might have meant by it that I really don't know what to think. Which is a pity, because I sometimes think he has some points which are worth making.

 

HH mentioned the Naxos subscription feature. Unfortunately, the clip of Ms. Ponselle singing Trunk's Heine Setting was not available, so my elephant ears will have to flap in vain.