Where Anne-Sophie Mutter got it wrong
mainThe German violinist argued yesterday that concert halls should be given the same privileges as churches during the Covid period.
She said: ‘We have a basic right to freedom of art and freedom of religion. I cannot understand that religion is given priority over art, because this basic right is food and not luxury. Art gives us hope and a view into another beautiful dimension and a shared sensual experience, as of course does a church service.’
The flaw in her argument is one of perspective. Places of worship have reopened because of an urgent public need to pray, to commune, to remember the loved ones we are all losing. The clergy and the the political authorities have responded to that pressure on both humantiarian and mental health gounds.
There is no comparable urgency to reopen concert halls. The public is prepared to wait until they are safe, as they have shown throughout the Covid year. The older segment of the audience has abstained altogether. The priority of audience members is safety above art.
It is the musicians who need concert halls to be open and, while no-one should belittle the validity of their need, it is not yet matched by popular demand for a resumption of live performances. Politicians will not act until there is real public noise.
Ms Mutter was speaking as a musician. She was not listening as a citizen. That’s why, I’m afraid, he case will fail.
It is absolutely not true that the older generation has abstained from attending concerts. My proudest achievement this autumn as artistic director and promoter of a series of chamber concerts has been to create a format that gave very many very elderly and/or clinically vulnerable people the confidence to attend. Live concerts and safety are not mutually exclusive if done right.
Frau Mutter was most probably speaking to her own government. The answer was “Germany goes into lockdown over Christmas”. That’s the end of that. And it is as it should be. I am sure Germans enjoy Frau Mutter’s music… but would rather not be governed by her during a pandemic.
Hm…maybe art, like philosophy, is about individualism and reflection on the nature of mankind as such whereas religion, like politics, is about herd instinct of the masses and blind faith in the unnatural (medicine) or supernatural (god).
I’m not sure I buy the notion of “herd instinct.” I think people are making their own decisions. We are faced, here, with a situation new in our lifetime — a worldwide pandemic whose properties and consequences we are learning on the wing. (And by “we” I include the doctors and the scientists, who are doing their best with something so difficult.
And the (responsible) politicians are taking their advice on the sensible notion that those people know more about it than they do. The glaring exceptions, like Trump and Bolsonaro, are seeing their countries and the people they profess to care so much about going down like ninepins, without doing a damned thing about it.
Yes, mistakes will be made. And the costs have already been high. They may get much higher. But in the great scheme of things, I am afraid that the re-opening of concert halls falls relatively low on the totem pole. Some companies and venues and some remarkable artists have made the best of a tough situation and found alternative ways to manage, and music continues to be available in a variety of forms. Is it ideal? Of course not.
But neither is seeing one shop after another shuttered, many for good. Or people required to wear masks, which I, for one, find uncomfortable after a short time, before entering one of the open shops we are allowed to use. But I for one want to be able to enter one of those concert halls once they reopen, and I would like to see travel eased up again and shops unshutter and resume trading, providing employment again and providing some of the less than essential goods and services our developed societies have allowed us to enjoy for so long.
I endorse NL’s posting entirely.
God is above all. Music cannot be above it.
“God is above all.”
And Zeus above all the other gods. My mistake, you obviously were talking about Zeus!
And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:1-3
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.
Psalm 86:8-10
For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.
Psalm 96:4-5
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:9-11
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Colossians 1:16-17
“Among the gods there is none like unto thee” / “he is to be feared above all god” etc.
Zeus, yes, we’ve established that. But thanks for helping my argument.
And now, my fellow sinner:
“You shall keep my statutes. […] You shall not […] wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”
Leviticus 19:19 (ESV)
You wouldn’t want to anger Zeus now, would you?
Leviticus 19 is addressed to Israel after they were delivered out of Egypt. What you quoted is an example from the Old Testament Law / The Law of Moses that regulated most aspects of Jewish life. When Christ came, God established a new covenant. The moral and ethical laws still apply (e.g. the Ten Commandments), but Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament ceremonial laws concerning diet, sacrifices, etc. as they were fulfilled when Christ died on the cross.
The God of Abraham is the one true God. He is the Creator of the universe and is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is not a created being; He is eternal. He is one God in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is just, loving, compassionate, holy, truthful, merciful, gracious, and forgiving. He is unchanging.
As an imperfect human being, I sin, but I have been saved by grace through faith alone and cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Don’t kill the Hermes, bro. Take that up with the Greek.
Very easy to quote the Bible like a parrot!
Above all of them the spaghetti monster! Blasphemy! Burn them!
“Gott ist tot!”
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Psalm 14:1
Nietzsche killed him, with a book. So, it does not seem to have been that difficult.
(‘Thus spoke Zarathustra’)
Nietzsche learned the truth on August 25, 1900. He will appear before God at the Great White Throne Judgment and his knee will bow and his tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
God and Nietzsche only exist in books.
The difference is that Nietzsche wrote his own books.
That is not true: God dictated the Jewish prophets, Mohamet, Christ, the apostle Johannes with the apocalyps, and a number of Christian Saints just before they got beheaded, crucified, cooked, burned, etc. So it’s almost as good as writing.
God is the Author of the Bible. He used men to physically write it down as they were guided and controlled by the Holy Spirit.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
2 Timothy 3:16
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
2 Peter 1:21
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
Psalm 12:6
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
John 17:17
“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
Isaiah 55:11
“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you”
1 Peter 1:25
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Nietzsche ist tot.
Imagine the reaction of Bach and Mozart if they heard that art gives us hope. Hope is not a commodity and is certainly not a transferable thing. You either have it or you don’t. I’ve never been so desperate as to try to purchase it from a violin bimbo.
And all music and life comes from God or whatever you want to call God or a higher power. Also our gifts as musicians are there to share. We come to this life with nothing and we leave with nothing. Her argument sadly says more about her than either God or music.
Maybe going to live concerts is essential for some people, but I have to say that I’ve been enjoying my large cd and dvd library very much and really haven’t missed concerts at all. The Berlin Philharmonic’s Digital Concert Hall has been excellent, too.
Greetings from 2020! How is Perestroika coming along? I will not tell you how it ends. Enjoy the surprise!!!
How many CDs do you have? I have over 10,000 and I still miss concerts. I need my concerts. I need them bad!
Well, Muti called La Scala a temple.
John Williams cited the Musikverein who refer to their Grosse Saal as being a temple for music.
John Williams’s appearance in Vienne has been compared to a visit from God.
The boundaries between culture and religion seem to be blurring.
But it is still not clear why religion is getting a special treatment.
I hear from my friends in Vienna that indeed on two occasions a nicely glowing halo was seen above Williams’ head, one time during rehearsel and the other time over a meal at the Fabio’s.
Fundamentally I agree with N.L.’s analysis, and criticism, of Mutter’s remarks. And I write that as someone who is not religious, although the Christmas cards have been mailed and the trees are in the garage awaiting setup and decorating, but for whom both music and art are important and for whom concerts and exhibitions are sorely missed.
I have many friends who are deeply believing Catholics (some in fragile health) and the local Archbishop has called it a “grave sin” to deliberately not attend Sunday mass, pandemic or no pandemic. I don’t know where “grave sin” ranks on the hierarchy of sins, but it sounds pretty bad, and if you believe in that (and let’s not get into whether such faith is wise or foolish) then in your heart and mind and in the like minds of many, the stakes are high, the ultimate in height. Even if you dislike Mass or fear the exposure, what you believe with all your heart and mind directs and orders you to go if possible. Art has no such status because it has nothing to threaten you with for doing otherwise. It is not a grave sin to not be able to catch this season’s “Nutcracker.”
Moreover, the deepest art and music lover has alternatives. Making your own art and music is one of them. And not a few of those deepest art and music lovers have come to dislike the trappings of the public concert or the wine and cheese art opening. They actively prefer the alternatives.
Again I write this as someone who himself is not much of a believer and who would dearly love to go to concerts and art museums and exhibitions again. And, as someone who is acutely aware that the clock is ticking for my opportunities to hear Mutter and other great artists again during my four score and ten. (Or, as one of my violin teachers put it, “Dave, I’m playing the back nine ….”).
Bravo.
As for your local archbishop: when the Pope has been encouraging remote Mass attendance (which obviously means being able to partake in, but not of, the Eucharist), the archbishop’s statement seems extreme.
With regard to “grave sin” In the U.S. most if not all Catholic diocese had a televised mass for “shut ins” for decades prior to Covid.
Deacons would come to the homes of those who could not get to church to distribute communion but I understand that it is only necessary for a Catholic, even one in good standing, to take communion twice a year.
I remember reading in Catholic newspapers, again long, long before Covid questions as to whether a Catholic could give confession by phone.
There are ways to avoid getting into a state of “grave sin” without attending mass physically.
If, unlikely as it may seem, you believe in god, or gods: you do not need to go to a large building to communicate with others. You can communicate easily with him, or her, in the safety of your own home. Anne S-M is right in querying why people can assemble in places of worship, but not in concert halls.
Christianity and Judaism are communal religions; worship is a communal activity. To forbid gathering is to attack their very nature (unlike, say, Buddhism, which is more individual).
In the New Testament, Christ informed his audience that locking yourself up in your room and pray was as good as visiting the temple.
“The public is prepared to wait until they are safe, as they have shown throughout the Covid year.”
Speak for yourself. Plenty of us are utterly fed up with this interminable and unsustainable regime of restrictions and closures.
“The older segment of the audience has abstained altogether.”
Manifestly untrue — I have noticed plenty of elderly people at live concerts. Please refrain from making sweeping assumptions about an age-group (young or old).
“The priority of audience members is safety above art.”
Except that the concept of “safety” is always qualified by a degree of “acceptable risk”. Any activity carries some risk of harm, and an individual is constantly weighing-up what degree of risk he/she is willing to take. Society imposes laws and customs framed around a *collective* “acceptable risk” because each individual’s actions have an effect on the risk of harm posed to others. That is why we have speed limits on the roads and, during a pandemic, restrictions on public gatherings.
But such rules must be proportionate and take account of the context — thus, we impose a 20mph speed limit in many village/town/city centres, but not on the motorway. Where a rule is manifestly causing more harm than it is preventing, we make exceptions to it, loosen it, or even repeal it entirely: for instance, we permit emergency-service vehicles to break speed limits in some circumstances.
It is my belief that, at the present time (unlike in late-March 2020), the anti-COVID-19 restrictions are causing significantly more harm than they are preventing (even if we disregard economic and artistic interests, the fact remains that the restrictions have caused enormous damage to mental wellbeing and resulted, and continue to result, in far too many deaths arising from people obtaining inadequate medical attention in respect of serious non-COVID-19 ailments), and they must therefore be revised significantly in a looser (and/or more carefully focussed) direction.
The strange thing is that infection rates and deaths are much greater now than they were in March, so that, if anything, restrictions need to be stricter now than then. Should the vaccines prove as effective as they appear, and as lasting as we hope, then we may be closer to relaxing restrictions than we dared hope several months ago.
But do crude, sweeping restrictions actually work? If you are proposing such drastic measures, you need compelling evidence that the hypothetical harm they will prevent outweighs the actual harm they will cause. You also need to consider carefully the optimal length for such restrictions, taking into account that the harm they cause increases exponentially (i.e.: 2 months of ‘lockdown’ is significantly *more* than twice as harmful as 1 month).
It is not acceptable to impose such severe restrictions just in order to be “seen to be doing something”. It is not acceptable to underestimate the massive death toll that ‘lockdowns’ cause as a result of cancelled operations, undiagnosed cancers, untreated cardiac arrests, and overlooked mental-health deterioration.
And, by the way, deaths in the UK attributed to COVID-19 during the current ‘wave’ are still far below what they were in April (when the restrictions *were* more severe). I cannot comment on other countries.
One reason this is pandemic is ongoing, is because it has been mishandled egregiously, especially (but not limited to) the United States.
If people had stopped spreading the virus, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in today.
If governments had initiated stringent contact tracing, the virus could have been slowed down.
If the Orange Enemy of the People had not tried to pretend it away, we wouldn’t have something like 300,000 dead in the U.S. and more dying every day.
If more people would just do something as simple as not congregate indoors in large crowds, and if they would wear masks, then things would not be as bad as they are now.
Correct. Hesitation doesn’t play out well in a pandemic. The speedy response of countries like Taiwan and South Korea has paid dividends.
@NL: But you use the same line of argument. I could argue that I (or rather: others) need large family gatherings, sporting events, etc. in the time of need.
The problem also is the same: It’s a bad idea right now.
I really have difficulties understanding why some people would go to such lengths and try to justify why in their case mass gatherings are cool and/or essential. Except, well, money. In this case: Please just say so.
If safety is truly a priority, then restrictions should be based on science and not on emotions or politicians’ personal preferences. When it is allowed to have a large number of people spending an hour or two indoors for religious services, then it should also be allowed to have the same number of people spending the same amount of time for whatever is essential for them including live classical music performances. Let people themselves decide what level of risk is acceptable for each one of us. If however it is deemed too dangerous to assemble large gatherings, then it should be forbidden for any reason including religious. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know there is no prohibition in the Bible of online praying via zoom. Many religious organizations have been doing that for up to nine months already.
“Let people themselves decide what level of risk is acceptable for each one of us.”
There is an inherent flaw in this ethos.
Person A may decide that the risk tolerance is acceptable to him. He gets infected. He is taken into the hospital at the same time that I enter the hospital for an unrelated medical need. He infects me.
He decided that it was okay to put me at risk. I had no say in this.
Entirely correct reasoning. People taking the coronie ‘easily’, are antisocial and a danger to others.
You have taken that one sentence out of context of my comment. To clarify: the statement with which you disagreed referred to the first part of my comment only – not to the second half of it. What I meant was that each person should be able to decide which of the two or more kinds of activities is important enough for them to participate in if the risk is scientifically shown to be equal in both or all of them.
I wanted to emphasize that point, since many people ignore or disparage it.
William, you’ll be protected by your mask. Also, I promise you I’ll never go to a hospital for seasonal flu. I’ll treat myself by lots of vitamins, hot water, lemon, ginger and Hennessy. Way better than the slow strangulation death on a ventilator. The latter therapy I recommend to those who sold their souls to tptb. PS. There is no provision in US Constitution for pandemics, especially fake ones.
Troll.
Dear Mr. Lebrecht!
Well put. You are spot on!
Thank you!
In a sense, I disagree with both you and Ms. Mutter.
For a moment, let’s remove the words “music” and “religion” from the discussion.
We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic, that is spread through the air. That is a fact, the deniers and poo-pooers notwithstanding.
Being indoors together increases the likelihood of creating a superspreader event.
Certain additional activities can hasten the transmission of the virus:
-Being in close proximity to others
-Singing together under these conditions
-Playing certain musical instruments, e.g. flute.
Wearing a mask helps to a limited degree.
The pandemic is spreading. Infections are increasing rapidly. People are infecting each other. People are getting sick. People are being injured by the virus, possibly permanently. People are dying. We know all of this.
Our health care systems are being stretched to the breaking point, and beyond. Not only is this bad for the next COVID patients on line who cannot be treated because the hospital is past 100% of capacity, but it is also bad for everyone who needs medical care for anything other than COVID but can’t receive it, or who get infected when they seek treatment.
Don’t forget that the health care workers themselves are getting sick, and thus are often unable to care for patients. A doctor I know was infected just last week, almost definitely at the hospital where he works.
It will take months, possibly years, to inoculate the population of each country.
Not everyone will be able to be inoculated, for health reasons. They will be dependent on the rest of us to do our duty by being inoculated.
It is too late to stop the spread of the disease. The Orange Enemy of the People forfeited the fight, when he sat on his tiny hands for months while the pandemic spread unseen in the U.S. It also spread sight-unseen elsewhere in the world.
Since it’s too late to stop it through steps such as contact tracing, what are steps that we can take to slow down the progress of the disease, until we can all be inoculated?
-Self-isolate
-Avoid large crowds, especially when indoors
-Avoid being in close proximity to others
-Avoid engaging in activities that hasten the aerosolization of the virus, such as singing.
Testing that is simultaneously highly reliable, instantaneous, affordable, and readily available, does not yet exist.
So, what are the sorts of activities and locations that put us, both individually and as a society, at greater risk?
They include, but are not limited to, workplaces; schools; sports arenas, whether as an athlete, employee, or a spectator; restaurants and bars; parties, weddings, funerals, baby showers, bar mitzvahs, confirmations, and other private group activites; and other such places and situations.
They also include indoor worship services, and live indoor concerts.
*That* is the primary issue when it comes to both music and worship services: they put everyone at greater risk. They are not the only activities that do so, but they are prominent ones, and one of them is directly relevant to the raison d’être for this blog.
Excellent and entirely TRUE comment.
William, do you get 50cents per post or an entire $?
Troll.
To say people demand open places of worship, but no open concert halls, is simply not true.
It’s a straw man argument.
Art is real, religion is an irrational belief in a supernatural being that most probably does not exist.
That is true, only what can be seen or touched or heard by the senses and which can be confirmed and proven to exist by science can exist.
Supernatural beings like gods don’t exist since there has not been the slightest concrete evidence of their presence. Also, astronomic research has not produced the slightest sign of supernatural beings in the universe, or in the stratosphere of the earth.
Therefore, music as experienced by audiences does not exist because the only thing there is, are waves travelling through the air of a closed space, including its reverberations. What audiences claim to experience are mere emotional projections into the patterns of wave lengths, projections defined by their own perceptive framework with its various subjective limitations. This also means that the entire field of musicology does not have any value since it deals with something that is mere audience projection and nothing more. Hence, there is no difference between the music of old composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and the rest of the business, and modern sound artists – they all combine sound wave patterns and the rest is irrelevant audience projection.
But there is so much more that, when seriously and rationally considered, does not exist.
For instance, justice. This is merely a social construct to keep the masses more or less on the rails so that commodities and services can be handled without too many disturbances. It is rules of behavior, and they are adapted to temporary needs.
Then we have friendship and love. Do not exist, have never been proven scientifically. Friendship is merely a mutual agreement to mutual benefit, saturated with emotional, irrelevant projections of needs and motivations. Love is an animalistic need to mate, driven by evolution to make sure the species will continue to exist. Everything around it: faithfulness, loyalty, taking care of ‘the other’, are mere disguises of entirely ego-driven needs and projections. Look at the mating age: in their most fertile life period, people look at their best, in terms of physical attractiveness, to make mating and procreation quick and effective. As soon as the natural task has been dealt with, physiques sag and health falters, because the rest of the life span is irrelevant. The entire culture around ‘love’ is a clever way to cover-up the blatant truth for all of us to see, if we only dare to see it.
Take evil: does not exist, because if justice is a mere social construct, its violations are easily interpreted as only a different construct. Thus, the holocaust was simply a logical social construct entirely defensible from the nazi’s vision of how society should function. And the nazis were democratically elected, with a couple of tricks, that is true, but these tricks were entirely compatible with the nazi’s ideology, with the nature of their social construct.
Etc. etc….. the problem is man’s consciousness of the fact he will die. So, he invents all that stuff to delay the moment he has to face his annihilation, when the brain that produces consciousness falls apart. Consciousness itself does not exist, because the only thing that can be detected are neuron networks firing electricity: THAT is consciousness.
So, it is quite easy to keep to the only reality that counts, by simply thinking-through our sorry existence.
(With thanks to Arthur Schopenhauer.)
“Art is real, religion is an irrational belief in a supernatural being that most probably does not exist.” Here is another useful quote:” I am freeing men from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge; from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a chimera called conscience and morality”. The author of this was an art connoisseur and one of the greatest atheists in history. PS. Atheism is an irrational belief held by infantile criminal minds that cops don`t exist. The reason why today the majority of artists are atheists is because they are petty criminals selling fakes of the cheapest kind.The only reason they choose arts as their profession is that selling fake art is legal.The legal status of this scam leads most of them to believe that they will never get caught. It`s true that cops don`t have time to bust people for another mindlessly played sonata. It`s not the cops that deal with such misdemeanors, it`s the torture of spending their entire atheistic lives being compared to those artists who believed. Atheistic musicians` hell is here, the supernatural being doesn`t need to waste his attention on such petty atheistic offences. One Horowitz CD takes care of this situation.
Norman might have emphasized more the political pressure on politicians, re opening churches. These come from fanatical single-issue constituencies — not excluding the clergy, for which this is an existential issue — which together make this a battle not worth fighting, public health considerations to the contrary.
Politicians after all have to survive too . . .
My understanding is not about the quote but about the situation we live in. It is not about religious or artistic rights but about how the virus spreads. The reality of covid is the fundamental issue and has nothing to do with religion or the arts. Based on the science we need to separate from each other (social distancing) and wearing a mask so the virus is not spreading. The problem starts when any groups of people is given the right to forfeit those guidelines. That is when the comparison starts!
I think it’s rather simple.
If someone believes in the existence of gods she is clearly delusional. If practising this believe by going through some ritualistic movements helps her in some way that’s fine but in no way should this be privileged.
Other people, maybe more rational or clear thinking, have other routines to cope with the complexities of life and as lives are equally valuable there should be no positive discrimination for religious clubs.
Actually it is rather annoying to see that it is allowed for people to gather in small basement churches or mosques or similar club houses here in Austria and at the same time disallow concerts where every precaution is taken to prevent contagion. The arrogance of religous people is really amazing.
Religion has been around since the beginning of organised society. You do not have to endorse it, but billions do, many with the deepest conviction and the utmost sincerity.
To refer to churches, temples, mosques and the like as “clubs” is just deliberately offensive. Very.
I am sorry if I offended you, but you are proofing my point exactly. Religious people feel special, claim a special relationship to some all-powerful being and think their practises are totally different from everyone else’s. If one doubts this their religious feelings (which are of course very special feelings totally different from non-religious feelings) are hurt and they are offended or even start killing people.
I am not a musician, but concerts and music are very important to me. Could you try and imagine that they are as important and valuable to me as your religious claims and practises are to you?
And yes religious clubs are just clubs, just as prophets are just political leaders and not sons of gods or someone a god has spoken to.
My point was actually simply semantic. It seems offensive to me to equate the organising principles of societies for many centuries with the weekly tee-off or a building in which to get dinner and a drink and a read of the paper with others who have paid the fees and passed the membership requirements.
I would reckon few adherents of any faiths have any wish to kill anyone. Those who do operate from a different imperative. But that is a historical, political, psychological discussion for other fora.
“If someone believes in the existence of gods she is clearly delusional. If practising this believe by going through some ritualistic movements helps her in some way that’s fine but in no way should this be privileged.”
I always thought that religious delusions were the typical female territory. No man in his right mind would ever fall for such childish nonsense, it’s just another way of the females to get privilege, as if all the privileges they already enjoy across society aren’t enough. They want to have it all: husbands who work for her livelihood, and romance, religion, book clubs and tupperware parties, opera performances with dying sopranos, concerts with maestros with as long hair as they themselves have, colourful dresses and high heels, emotional indulgences, make-up, complex hairdo’s – all the things WE have to sacrifice for HER enjoyments.
It is unnecessary to judge the veracity of religion, to recognize that this pandemic is spread in enclosed spaces packed with people, and therefore it is hazardous to our health to meet in such ways right now.
Churches are now re-opened in my city. I imagine all of them are doing what mine is — requiring online booking and ticketing, and masks. It is a very large church, and seating is quite limited.
They were closed for a very long time.
Leopold Godowsky when asked if there were any big talents in Vienna, replied that big talents do not exist. He was a Talmudic scholar besides being the greatest piano mind of all time. Religion has very little to do with praying. It’s the ability to see logic, patterns and signs of intelligent design everywhere where atheists see chaos and innumerable coincidences. Atheistic artist sounds akin to eunuch gigolo. Atheists make good lawyers and pharmaceutical reps.
I do not think that A.-S. Mutter is entirely wrong. This Virus got a quadrillion of different opinions from medical doctors, scientists, politicians and the general public that the confusion caused is detrimental to human lives. The real fact is that nobody is 100% sure of what it is and how to deal with it. With that in mind, Ms. Mutter only tries to state the case for classical music and musicians who suffer unproportionately! And she is absolutely right about that.
This reminds me of a quote:
“[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
― Isaac Asimov
We now know much more about this pandemic than we did at the beginning of the year.
Today, some of the confusion comes from the lingering dregs of initial speculations, when scientists were at the beginning of learning what the facts are.
Another source of confusion is from the repeating of initial policies that were meant for conditions that are no longer relevant. For example, if an authority figure recommended in March that we not wear masks, it was because they were in short supply and medical workers needed them, not because they were ineffective. That is no longer relevant (or, perhaps, mostly not relevant–I am not an expert on mask production and distribution).
We do not have 100% knowledge, because we will never have 100% knowledge. However, we do know much more today than we did earlier this year, and we will know more next year than we do this year.
This knowledge includes the recognition that superspreader events are associated with groups of people in enclosed spaces in close proximity to each other. The spreading of the virus is exacerbated by activities that foster the aerosolization of the virus, e.g. singing.
All very true.
Whew! There sure are some people here with anger issues against religion.
Since one of my uncles who was a vicar murdered his wife and departed for South America with the local church’s annual budget, I hate religion. Also the staff of the RC church have ridiculous garments, must be quite smelly underneath & St Peters church in Rome is outrageous with all the kitsch and pomp and ugly wall coverings.
Sally
Using your uncle’s situation to generalize against all religion. Ok. Pomp and funny, smelly garments to be against religion. Works for me:)
I wouldn’t even necessarily go so far to start talking about the “opium” of the masses, because and although music is made out to be exactly that, as if it’s an escape from reality, rather than where you can process life.
And I really don’t see that music is less of a place where one can find a home for all of the emotions one has to deal with that one has to deal with. In fact “religion” might very well get in the way, when music embraces it. How much in a “religious” setting does: the “urgent public need to pray, to commune, to remember the loved ones we are all losing” turn into offering an escape from actually dealing with it, instead offering the addiction of ritual, and beyond that some generic “Heaven” that one only enters after “suffering” enough to gain credit enough to enter “there”. As if enjoying life is a sin, and anyone not taking part in self righteous suffering and indoctrination is preventing anyone from “enjoying” life. Or the Westernized habit of expressing how much you suffer when you miss those who you would hope have entered that “Heaven,” which somehow again is supposed to add up to the entrance fee, as long as you suffer enough missing them. And it’s actually quite insulting to religion to drape it with such a guise, an image that deceives people, the same as stating that music is only “entertainment.”
We might all be in trouble did “religion” actually hold the keys to “Heaven.” or “Prayer….” or “Community……..” Which is an old story. You might find the answer easier in something as simple as music..
The ‘Danse Sacrale’ of Stravinsky’s ‘Sacre du Printemps’ gives the answer very clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNt0mvjoS08
I like Bejard, but heh, that choreography is rather static and formalistic.
Also, when you put &fmt=22 or &fmt=16 or &fmt=18 you get a higher resolution of sound, and stereo from youtube.
I can see that might depict this riot called religion: all the convulsing too, as people try to grip something that you can’t take hold of or you’d lose it, but they keep trying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvVKWapctX4&fmt=22
I never actually really thought of that as having anything to do with religion. *ahem*
Sorry, I didn’t finish this sentence: “when you put &fmt=22 or &fmt=16 or &fmt=18 you get a higher resolution of sound, and stereo from youtube, and you put that at the end of the address, which youtube doesn’t automatically do.”
She gets it wrong far more than she does right. Such an arrogant woman.
I wasn’t making my prior points harshly. I do understand Mr. Lebrecht’s points, and agree with them to a certain extent. I was offering counterpoint. Of course one can’t just expect a whole tradition, and how it has become custom, and what it has come to represent in people’s minds, one can’t destroy the haven of custom that has become for them, and the comfort it gives them; neither is that at all what Anne-Sophie was saying or suggesting.
But…If “religion” really is all of those things, then its history would have been quite different. I don’t really see men fighting wars in order to glorify Beethoven’s ninth symphony. Or that Bach’s church has become the holy ground various factions are fighting for, none of them having a deed to the property to begin with. And then there are other composers where one wouldn’t even thinking of such antics.
And mind you, I don’t even agree completely with Jesus regarding the need for institutions, albeit the ghost of 2000 years ago and the hearsay left from the very little cave he could try to express himself, like the shadow from a lamp; and thus the bleak years, and the escape. Not that that’s the partner I have now, as little little as any tree bares the same fruits as last years, which have already been consumed. The earth changes, men’s hearts also. And every time we let go of what we would judge, we allow it to be from forever, and never wasn’t there to be bought or fought for or defended that the other needed to have lost it. That’s what all of them were trying to teach: Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha; but also mere artists, who created works of beauty where everything is beautiful, even what in “real life” would be considered horrible, criminal, vile, dangerous, unacceptable, etc.. There’s something on the other side of the page, you just have to turn it. No one is born with evil in their heart, but a society that invests in violence as a means to an end, whether it’s for justice or criminal excuse, or good or bad; none of that can exist in Heaven or Forever, because then it could be destroyed needing such “defense” and it wouldn’t be Heaven or Forever, were that the case that it could be destroyed.
It’s hard to believe that the spirit of man is so great that he can let go of such belief in defenses and seeing beauty in everything create a whole different working condition, but that is the truth. In fact reality couldn’t exist, otherwise. Nor could life. Maybe the ego thinks it can see what’s life and what isn’t, but even that couldn’t exist were there nothing beyond it. Otherwise Jesus would have died, instead of being resurrected, and otherwise it couldn’t even have pointed out that he deserved better, or truly couldn’t deal with um, how little a person is allowed to follow their own thoughts rather than be an institution. But art, art allows that. It removes the veil, the garment.
I wasn’t satisfied with this comment, and wouldn’t expect anyone else to be, and so changed it a little:
I wasn’t making my prior points harshly. I do understand Mr. Lebrecht’s points, and agree with them to a certain extent. I was offering counterpoint. Of course one can’t just expect a whole tradition, and how it has become custom, and what it has come to represent in people’s minds, one can’t destroy the haven of custom that it has become for them, and the comfort it gives them, taking that away just causes more fear for what offers comfort beyond that; neither is that at all what Anne-Sophie was saying or suggesting.
But…If “religion” really is all of those things, then its history would have been quite different. I don’t really see men fighting wars in order to glorify Beethoven’s ninth symphony. Or that Bach’s church has become the holy ground various factions are fighting for, none of them having a deed to the property to begin with. And then there are other composers where one wouldn’t even thinking of such antics.
And mind you, I don’t even agree completely with Jesus regarding the need for institutions, albeit the ghost of 2000 years ago and the hearsay left from the very little cave he could try to express himself in, like the shadow from a lamp; and thus the bleak years, and the escape. Not that that’s the partner I have now, as little as any tree bares the same fruits year after year after year after (hold on we’ll get to two thousand and some), fruits which have already been consumed by people or the mother earth. The earth changes, men’s hearts also. And every time we let go of what we would judge, we allow it to be from forever, and never wasn’t there to be bought or fought for or defended that the other side of a conflict needed to have lost it. That’s what all of them were trying to teach: Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha; but also mere artists, who created works of beauty where everything is beautiful, even what in “real life” would be considered horrible, criminal, vile, dangerous, unacceptable, etc.. There’s something on the other side of the page, you just have to turn it. No one is born with evil in their heart, but a society that invests in violence as a means to an end, whether it’s for justice or criminal excuse, or good or bad; none of that can exist in Heaven or Forever: then it could be destroyed needing such “defense” and it wouldn’t be Heaven or Forever, were that the case that it could be destroyed.
It’s hard to believe that the spirit of man is so great that he can let go of such belief in defenses and seeing beauty in everything create a whole different working condition, but that is the truth. In fact reality couldn’t exist, otherwise. That the creative powers of the Universe need any kind of defense, or have the need to oppose something, changes both concepts of creative and power into something that never could have created the Universe. And they’re not going to change, they couldn’t. Nor could life. Maybe the ego thinks it can see what’s life and what isn’t, but even that couldn’t exist were there nothing beyond it. Otherwise Jesus would have died, instead of being resurrected, and otherwise it couldn’t even have pointed out that he deserved better, or truly couldn’t deal with um, how little a person is allowed to follow their own thoughts rather than be an institution. But art, art allows that. It removes the veil, the garment. There are other branches that will grow yet, and more fruit…