I can only state what I believe. At TOP he has in the past often changed his login name, but has never managed or even attempted (mostly because of his singular literary style) to conceal his identity. I am unaware on this MB of any poster other than the one signed "Sydney Grew" offering messages that use this particular style of presentation and syntax.

Baz

Much of Syd's game is based on pushing the Grewish fallacy: a syllogism along the lines of 'standards in taste are absolute, my taste in x is so-and-so, therefore anybody who thinks differently has no taste....' His espousal of beauty as the deciding virtue of music's qualities is chimeric: just as with human beings, beauty is only skin deep, and not infrequently merely a façade for a vacant interior: in his case, it leads directly to a reverse fallacy, which is that music he considers 'ugly' is rendered at a stroke immediately 'worthless', since he has obviated the need to accept that there is anything below its surface.
Were one to replace the two selections I have italicised with intellectual quality and for the ears of one who espouses absolute standards of taste, and replace the composer's name with, say, a twentieth century Russian symphonist, the nature of the game would perhaps become even more obvious.

The (deliberate?) choice of a virtually unknown figure whose music is all but unavailable for general audition rather reinforces the general conception that the whole thread is a 'wind-up'. The fact that it encroaches on territory which has created trouble in the very recent past makes its tenor appear all the more mischievous. However, since it appears quite obvious from recent replies that many members are not only of this same opinion, but happy to state so openly (in a variety of ways), it rather looks like a case of Mr G being hoist with his own petard.

I tend to agree with all of that. Nevertheless, at the risk of getting into difficult water, I do think that the thread has not resolved some aesthetic questions:

-   Can you separate a composer’s life and political views from his music?
-   If not, how do you deal with composers who have views which are either abhorrent absolutely (Herr Trunk may be in this category), or which are
             more a reflection of the time and circumstances in which they lived (examples are some of the names already quoted in this thread).
-   How do you ensure that you have accurate, objective biographical facts, if these are indeed a part of the aesthetic judgement?

Within a purely aesthetic context, I tend to think that the author is separate from his text, or work, or music, once it has been created. I tend to avoid reading literary biographies because they seem to lead to tendentious judgements of an author’s work, which are mutable over time, but that doesn't mean I ignore facts which are abhorrent.

The issues go way beyond aesthetics.  The Nazis’ inhumane and abhorrent ‘research’ into the effect of extreme cold, different poisons and other trauma on the human body is still used today in medical and military circles, and has almost certainly saved lives. Can you say that this should not be used, even if people would die today without that knowledge being used? (I don’t know the answer to such a difficult and uncomfortable question, by the way, but it puts in the shade a proscription on listening to certain music on political grounds, and revolves more around the nature of consciousness, knowledge and morality).

Important points, indeed, Tantris, though it would appear from Mr Grew's input subsequent to his opening post that they are of considerably less interest to him than making judgemental comments regarding the personal appearance of a cited source (thereby reinforcing anew others' suspicions that the main intent of the thread may be discord quite as much as discourse). 

  Nevertheless I do so agree with Tantris. It is a pity we cannot leave aside the machinations of S.G and address the subject his post raised. The question of Nazi experiments is relevant but nearer to home I would like to site the case of Cardew. Today I have taken a great deal of pleasure form listening to a md recording of  H&N  in which it was stated that the Cardrew's three late piano pieces (beautiful works) were written in support of the Irish Republican Movement. It was also stated that the composer supported "Armed Struggle" so it is reasonable to suspect he supported the actions of the IRA or, had he lived, the Real IRA. I imagine Loyalists would have as much prejudice against the composer as many here today have against Trunk. What would we think of Cardew if his expressed allegiance had been with the UDF also a "liberation movement" ? In the same way would the very moving work of Dave Smith "In Support of the Intifada" sound any different had it been entitled "In Support of Mossad"? I ask this in all seriousness and I assure you I mean no disrespect to anyone. If you are a left-wing Christian who has just been bowled over by the poetry of Roy Campbell do you renounce the work when you discover he went to Spain and supported Franco and very right-wing Catholics?  Do his lines loose their beauty?

I'm a little surprised to see how worked up people get about this, and I have to say I also find the whole business of talking about Mr Grew as if he weren't in the room rather rude (that's not an issue of ethical conduct, by the way, just basic politeness - probably irrelevant, but it makes the whole discussion feel a little odd to me).

We can speculate that the reasons for starting and indeed for continuing (flogging a dead horse, as Richard's image suggested) with this thread are mischievous, but we can't know; and there's nothing in what Mr Grew has actually written that oversteps acceptable boundaries. Commenting on Michael Kater's appearance may have reminded TF of all sorts of unpleasant and indeed racist attitudes, but disapproving of unruly facial hair and lack of a tie is not the same as saying someone's eyes are too close together, or their nose too small, or their skin too dark. I don't wear a tie myself and my facial hair is distinctly uncontrolled at times, and I don't pass judgment on others with respect to those sorts of issues, but I personally find it quite possible to believe that Mr Grew, while I don't doubt some of his posts are written with an ironic twinkle in his eye, is for the most part in earnest and just happens to have a different outlook and a different set of values from what many of us are used to. Would you all be this censorious if he was your uncle or grandfather?

In any case, why he writes what he does is irrelevant unless we think he's a troll, which I certainly don't, and so I respectfully suggest that we take the subject matter of the discussion and some of its implications a little more seriously and the personalities foibles of individual members a little less seriously. It's hardly the first thread Mr Grew has started about an early-twentieth-century writer of long-forgotten symphonic poems; most of those threads receive very little attention, and I don't really see why this one should have been any different, unless people intend to take the moral/aesthetic issues seriously - which as Tantris, Ted and Tommo have pointed out, doesn't really seem to have been the case.

Boo hoo. Poor Sydney Grew! A stroke of luck he's got people to stand up for his wretched, sorely misunderstood self. You're a true hero, tinners.

I do take seriously the issue of a man's music vs that man's politics. But I've already said what I had to say. The rest of you can bash it out amongst yourselves.