Riefenstahl

[jordan newman <jznewma...>]

--- lipkowitz (at) aa(dot)edu wrote:
> Riefenstahl is a liar.  She knew exactly what Nazism
> was about and what it
> was up to.  

So if she's a liar, then it's not art?  Or is this
only the case when applied to Nazism?  (if there
really wasn't a little bird sent from God who dictated
melodies to Pope Gregory on his shoulder, does that
invalidate all of Gregorian Chant?)

> Music is different.
> Music (free of words) does
> not lend itself as easily to ideological
> interpretation. 

(Lots of music does have words!) Untexted music is
different, I agree, but I think it's because it lends
itself even MORE to ideological interpretation, after
all, there are no words stapling it down.  This is no
banal thing; many have died based on someone else's
interpretation of their music (see socialist realism
and again, nazism).  

Think of how much of the classical music we celebrate
today from the former Soviet Union (Shostakovich and
others) has only survived because Stalin thought of it
as ideal socialist music--upholding socialist ideals,
appealing to the masses, etc.  Can't we call this
music--to use your words--"high quality" communist
"propaganda?"  And if so, then is it any less valuable
as art?  (and isn't any kind of religious music
propaganda to some degree?) 

Just questions!
Jordan


______________________________________________________________________ 
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+