From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Orff: a few facts
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:16:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <CB.92Aug17170849@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>Roger Lustig writes:

>   >I've read somewhere 
>   >that a lot of the controversy about Orff comes
>   >from the fact that he did not disavow the politics of his time in
>   >his country like many other contemporary artists and scientists did.

>   Many?  Aside from those who were actually persecuted or banned by the
>   regime, I wonder who those "many" were.

>This is a difficult, often unanswerable, question.  As Arendt
observed,
>the only ones you can be sure didn't compromise are the ones who were
>killed.  

I'm not interested in suspecting everybody.  The historicl arecord is
fine with me.  On the other hand, I object strongly to its
falsification.

>I've heard (somewhere--sorry) that Hindemith strongly resisted,
>as well as defending Jewish musicians.  

Not at first.  He'd been pretty radical in his early years, but when the
Third Reich called, he was there.  He conducted his Boston Symphony in
'33, and Furtwaengler premiered the _Mathis_ symphony, which became a
prime export article for the new regime almost immediately.  He was
criticized for his earlier stuff, but for a year and a half, he did well
by the Nazis.  Eventually the ideologists prevailed, but not before
Furtwaengler had tried to intervene for him.  
(Prieberg, pp. 61-70.)  His case really attrracted foreign attention as
much as the firing of all the Jews had; only then, says Prieberg, did
people realize what kind of barbarians were at work in Germany.  
Yet he didn't actually resign his job until 1937, or emigrate until
1938; and Schott was buying everything he wrote until he left, including
the Trauermusik for George V!  Even after he left, even during the war,
when he was living in the USA, publication continued.  

To be sure, he had not gotten along with the regime for years; the rift
of 1934-35 had made him useless for propaganda purposes and the like.
But he started out by playing along, and left only when there was no
hope of continuing in Germany.  Factions within the government and the
press made it impossible.

>But it could be argued that he
>was himself one of the persecuted since he was classified as "modern"
>and so forth; so he wouldn't qualify in the terms of your question.

Yes and no.  Most of the music he wrote in 1933-36 or so fit in just
fine with most ofthe National Socialist cultural ideals.  The early
stuff, however, classified him as a Cultural Bolshevist.

>Thomas Mann took an anti-Nazi stance, possibly to compensate for his
>embarassing cheerleading circa 1914.  I assume he would have been safe
>otherwise, so maybe he qualifies.  But I can't remember if he left the
>country.  

Very early, in fact.  He spent a year or two in Princeton, and then
moved to Santa Monica.  I've seen home movies of him (wearing his hat)
and Schoenberg having afternoon tea.

Actually, Mann would probably have had some trouble--remember, even a
Nobel Prize didn't save Carl von Ossietzky's hide.  He wrote of
decadence and the like, and wasn't much of a nationalist.  After the
war, he came in for heavy criticism for having left, btw; it was against
him that the myth of "inner emigration" (staying in Germany, but not
having one's heart in it -- a very convenient pose, especially when
struck after the fact) was concocted.


>In the books you (Roger) cite, is there an attempt to assess
>many people's behavior during this era?  I'd be interested to hear any
>striking findings revealed in them.

Prieberg alone is 400 pages; he covers a lot of ground.  Why don't we
limit ourselves to this or that composer as we go?

Roger
>
>Chris Brewster
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical