you can always buy his albums second hand (used)... you can enjoy his art without spending a cent that goes to him!!Originally Posted by Hal...
Has Axl Rose been mentionned yet?
you can always buy his albums second hand (used)... you can enjoy his art without spending a cent that goes to him!!
Has Axl Rose been mentionned yet?
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
But few as seriously corrupt as this from Roy Harper:
Baby, won't you play with me ?
Games that no one else can see ?
Leanin' over out my window
Flashing me your mini flower show
Steal away from mummy, oh there's my little girl
On the pillow of my tummy give my hair a curl
Run your fingers under and over, make us a little pool
And don't forget about tomorrow in the same place after school.
Baby, make me calm your fears
Let me hold your thirteen years
In between the silky love-nest
Race my heart and let my tongue rest
Oh baby I can feel you, see my thunderburst
Melting us together in the flames of magic thirst
We can be forever and ever, watching the water fall
Floating in the lake of all peace after love and after all.
We can be forever and ever, watching the water fall
Floating in the lake of all peace after love and after all.
Does it matter that this waste of time is what makes a life for you?
^How about 'The Infant Kiss' by Harper fan, Kate Bush?
Yeah, although Kate always wrote using different personae whereas Roy was generally just Roy.
Does it matter that this waste of time is what makes a life for you?
I hear your position on that, on the idea of further supporting and artist who you find out has abhorrent qualities. I think you're right that this poses a different level of consideration, because that money will, in theory, go into the artists pocket. I think this is the real edge case, and this is where it's going to come down to a person's assessment of the situation, and different people will come to different conclusions. I absolutely respect your not watching Woody Allen films. Had he been tried and convicted of a crime, I'd be there with you. But there is tremendous ambiguity in his situation. I don't say this because I'm a fan of his films, but rather because I know in cases like this (speaking of the molestation charges) the truth is often very difficult to ascertain. His relationship with Soon-Yi Previn is unusual, to say the least, but there is no evidence it started when she was underage, and the marriage has proven resilient for 20 years. I guess it's just my personality that I don't always believe "where there's smoke, there's fire." I need to see the fire before making a judgment. Others have a different threshold, and that's fine, but I'm just saying that it isn't cut-and-dried, and that people of good conscience who have looked at the situation can come to differing conclusions.
But this is also why I keep bringing up people who are fans from way back and had never heard the controversies until recently. What are people like that supposed to do, throw away all their old Magama albums? What real purpose would that serve? What really is the purpose now of not listening to Wagner or reading Heidegger? They are dead and buried so they're not getting any money (there's probably not enough of an estate for either to worry about any more). Someday Christian Vander will be dead, and future listeners will be presented with the same dilemma, assuming they believe the accusations against him and the evidence used to support it. So at some point, the separation of art and artist question will come into play without the issue of direct financial support being a factor. Assuming the art itself is not actively and overtly promoting hate or violence, and that it has positive characteristics that make it continually appealing, what then?
Bill
So, I do have some tales to tell. My introduction to Pat Metheny was when he was young and in Gary Burton's band. I was working the show and sitting in the ready room with Gary, Steve Swallow, Mick Goodrick, Danny Moses and Pat, and Steve was kind enough to let me play his bass. I was just riffing on it when Metheny sort of took it from me and went off playing some scales and such. I though he was a class jerk. I have a friend who teaches guitar- Marc Silver- who has a very different take on him. As to Jarrett, the show we put on with him had him literally throwing cymbals at the wall out of anger at the sound check being late. And Mingus- we were terrified of him for the show he put on but he was a true gentleman. No other real jerks of those whose shows I worked- Dizzy, Sonny Rollins, Buddy Guy and Junior Wells, Anthony Braxton (the word "cerebral" comes to mind, Art Ensemble folk (though Lester Bowie was a bit prickly), Liebman and Beirach, etc. But Metheny and Jarrett stand out. Met Vander and he was fine.
I'm not lazy. I just work so fast I'm always done.
I'd be terrified at Mingus too. A man with a finite amount of patience.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
i was just talking about that asshole at dinner. won't listen to his shit eitheryou can always buy his albums second hand (used)... you can enjoy his art without spending a cent that goes to him!!
Has Axl Rose been mentionned yet?
"Alienated-so alien I go!"
whatever roy thought he was.
"Alienated-so alien I go!"
swastikas do not always imply nazism. in fact, the italian fascists did not use a swastika. the swastika is a very ancient symbol that universally was benevolent until hitler and his band of homicidal maniacs made the scene and is still used in areas as a beneficial symbol, especially in buddhism and hinduism.
"Alienated-so alien I go!"
The swastika is an ancient religious symbol used in the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and Southeast Asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
How the world loved the swastika - until Hitler stole it
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591
All this is absolutely true. However, I don't think one can deny the intent of the image on Kobia is to specifically evoke Nazism. The question, as aith01 points out, is context. In the context of that picture, it looks to me like the Nazis are being swept up and destroyed just like everyone else. There are images of buildings that look like the Kremlin, stars reminiscent of the American flag and other stars that vaguely recall the Chinese flag. They're all being crushed by the giant talon, which I assume is symbolic of the Kobians, and all are fleeing. I'm really not well-versed in the Magma-mythology, but that's my reaction to the cover, knowing what little I know.
So to me, this image, even in the context of the other accusations, does not make a particularly good case for Magma or Vander being Nazi sympathetic, as Nazism is not being depicted as "triumphant," and in fact seems to be presented as just another part of the chaos of the world that is getting wiped away. If the talon had a big swastika on it, I might feel differently.
Bill
I dont think its possible to figure out what goes on in CV's mind. And since he refuses to go into the matter, we will never know.
If he loves the symbols and architecture of the third reich, or gets a hard-on when he sees marching idiots, it doesnt prove him a nazi. Lots of artist have been fascinated by totalitarian ideologies, or their estetics.
Cant imagine Vander being a fan of endlösung, lebensraum or Germans as the highest breed on earth.
If he had lived in those days, his music would most likely have been forbidden as 'entartete', and quite a number of his musicians, including his wife and daughter, would have been eradicated. Cant really imagine he is stupid either, but twisted, yes.
Perhaps send in the shrinks, not the PC-police.
Personally, I don't think the Swastika on the front cover of the debut is, of itself, particularly relevant. I believe it was pointed out that in some previous conversation here I alluded to it with some level of depth, but I don't recall that at all. I suspect I'm being confused with someone else.
For me, the statements from peers, other imagery (Bobino), the JG quote (Trianon) let alone fan accounts (which we haven't even gone into) are far more telling.
I'm perplexed that anyone would think we need to be "educated" about the history of the swastika, but whatever its intention on the debut, I think it safe to say it was clearly not being used as a symbol of peace. Such an assertion would be asinine. Guru Guru did do this on their fourth album, and the artistic elements of what the symbol once represented were allowed to shine.
The allegations surrounding Vander are an entirely different matter. The bottom line is that people will come to individual conclusions. In my own case I did not WANT to believe it, and instead tried to form rationalizations and find evidence that it was somehow untrue. Upon first hearing of it, I found the idea utterly ridiculous, whereas now I find the idea that some people are still trying to find ways to dance around what's going on with Vander to be what's actually ridiculous. Like I said, the music is incredible and peerless, so I can understand people having difficulty letting it go. It's just that I feel the day we hold highly creative people to different standards (" ... oh, he's brilliant, so you know ... he must be disturbed ...") is a dangerous one. Sadly, I think we're already there. People will defend almost anything. And we're approaching the point where "almost" can be removed from that last sentence.
If CV himself in an interview said or wrote: I am a big Hitler fan because..., or Hitler didn't mean it ..., or national socialism is the answer to etc., or footage from a concert.. then it would be a different discussion about his person (except his music is still brillant), but all we have is 'von hörensagen'. CV himself is an oyster.
The circumstances when CV's (eventual) remarks fell (after how many beers...), the relationship with the guys he eventually said it to , etc., is he a conspiration monger, is he a grumpy old fart pulling their legs or what... or is it because these guys got fed up with CV as boss, and thus interpreting rubbish... I would have liked to be a fly on the wall.
I am sure CV should have handled a lot of things differently.
Manuel Borghi has revealed quite a bit about what goes on in his mind as regards Vander's admiration for Adolf Hitler. Given that Borghi's comments are not exactly "on an island" I think the notion that he was "disgruntled" and concocted this stuff about Vander is not only a stretch, but just wishful thinking of epic proportion.
Maybe the use of term "we" should be "I" here?
Personally, I think we can sugarcoat this, but here's most any public figure when accused of admiring Hitler:
(Press Conference)
(MICROPHONE) TAP, TAP ... "Yeah, is this on?" Ok, thank you for coming. Uh, yeah, it's come to my attention that the idea that I admire Adolf Hitler has surfaced. Let me just say, uh ... ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS?! May that piece of garbage continue to rot wherever he may be. I am no Nazi. This is completely untrue. Thank you."
(/Press Conference)
So he has to be an outright Nazi for you to take the matter more seriously?
Because nobody ever said the guy was a flat-out Nazi. He's nuts, but not THAT nuts. He's got a product to sell, a business to run and, like most people, a living to make.
I think you have fundamental misunderstanding of the situation to think being or not being "PC" relates to admiring Adolf Hitler.
His own wife has confirmed quite clearly that Christian Vander believes that history was falsified. And that the two of them disagree about the matter but she has come to understand a bit about how he arrived at his conclusions.
It's interesting how you come up with every possible explanation but the most one which is most obvious.
I confess I am somewhat amazed that Vander's career continues as strongly as it does after this stuff all peaked around 2009, but I'm sure soon we will have a nice little fluffy "puff piece" documentary about Magma. In which the topic of Vander's admiration for Hitler going all the way back to the beginnings of Magma will be completely avoided. Fans will continue to buy records, wear the gear and so on ...
What was Stella's understanding about how he arrived at his conclusions?
She didn't expound.
I pasted the interview a page or two back. I think it's evident that the topic is uncomfortable for her.
Ahh, I see now. Thanks.
A few weeks ago there was a "news" story on the Fox News homepage (I like to compare homepages of various news sites to contrast their take is on what they seem to think are the biggest stories of the day) with a headline that made it sound like Hitler wasn't such a bad guy because he liked children and animals (the next day the headline had changed and you had to dig around to find the story). So I hope everyone stopped visiting their site and watching their network since then.
<sig out of order>
I NEVER watch them anyway but not because of their opinion of Hitler - because of their opinion of me - as they used to say in Glasgow - 'they obviously think my head zips up the back'.
I don't think it's a question of holding Vander, or any of the artists mentioned in this thread, to a different standard. If they are guilty of abhorrent views, or guilty of a crime, then they should be dealt with appropriately just like anyone else. The question is, what about their work?
With Woody Allen, or Bill Cosby, there is recourse in the courts, and if there is enough of a case, then that avenue should be pursued. If these artists are convicted, or vindicated, then they are being dealt with appropriately. But in many cases, their work may stand apart from their personal lives. This is why I keep going back to Heidegger and Simone de Beauvoir. In each of their cases, there was some punishment, either ostracism or losing a professorship. But in neither case did people stop reading their works in the longer term. Their work is judged separately, and deemed by many to be of value despite these troubling details of their personal lives. Do we let those issues stop us form benefiting from what was good about these people at the expense of things that were bad about them that found no, or perhaps minimal expression on their actual work?
The judgment, on balance, seems to be no. That doesn't mean we don't decry what these people did wrong, but what value is there in throwing away the good with the bad? Lots of very well educated, well meaning people have come to this conclusion. They separate the work from the creator, and let other systems deal with the personal issues in these people's lives.
The problem in Vander's case is that ostracism is the only recourse, and the only way to effectively ostracize him is to stop buying his music. But if the music resonates with you, and your interpretation of that music does not recognize the elements you find distasteful, is there a moral imperative to do that? It's certainly your prerogative to do so if that's how you feel, but as you said, I think it comes down to a personal choice. I don't think the issue is black and white. Even if you accept the "evidence" against Vander, I'm not sure the conclusion that you not listen to the music is so cut and dried. It will probably depend on either your revulsion at the positions Vander holds, or the sense you have that those ideas are actually being expressed in the music. But I can see someone being revolted by Vander's vies, but not finding enough presence of those in the music to justify not listening.
Maybe the issue becomes less acute when Vander is dead and time can pass that will help separate the art from the artist. My guess is that Magma will continue to be listened to and be influential among a cadre of musicians and fans. I see no evidence that any of them are converting to Nazism or hold beliefs that are any way in line with Fascism. So where, ultimately, is the harm in enjoying Magma today, even if you accept that Vander holds some unsavory beliefs?
Bill
I certainly made no argument that there is "harm" in listening to Magma. What I said was that -- and I think there is a significant distinction -- in this specific case to argue that the artist is separate from the art does not appear to be true. We have visual connections with Nazism, we have lyrical connections with Nazism, and while I know some fans probably don't wish to believe it could be true, components of the music itself which are inspired by Nazism. Specifically, Vander's vocal "outbursts" would seem to at least sometimes be connected with a deep-rooted admiration of Hitler.
And while you may not hold Vander to a different standard, I simply don't agree that this doesn't commonly take place in our society and this thread certainly depicts that in my view. We're seeing all kinds of "explanations" but rarely direct addressing of points at hand.
I should clarify that I personally don't think Magma's music poses the danger of Nazism. Rather, any "danger" is that its continued appeal (specifically to people who know of these issues, not those who don't) demonstrates a certain level of disconnect from core human values and principles. It's always easier to do nothing. Always easier to say nothing.
I, for one, am thankful to Manuel Borghi for not falling into line in this fashion. And to Daevid Allen for speaking about it; even if Allen's comments were sort of betwixt an explanation as to why Vander's Nazism didn't prevent Gomelsky from appreciating Magma's art.
I suspect that most of us speak from gut instinct on some levels. Mine tells me that this is a very hard truth for some folks. The consistently pathetic rationales make that abundantly clear. As if someone who married a Jewish woman or had Jewish friends couldn't also hold these viewpoints. I've seen Vander's racist after-concert rant in Paris a few years back defended again and again upon the basis that he admires John Coltrane or Elvin Jones, so he could not possibly hold these views. It's simply mind boggling to me that some people are not able to consider that contradiction is a part of these types of people's DNA. Besides ... Vander is human, after all.
Well, to you perhaps, but I'm not sure that's universally the case. I think one could listen to Magma's music, hear Magma's "lyrics" (which are unintelligible without "translation") and see Magma's album covers, and not discern any connection with Nazism/Fascism, etc. Yes, the Speer cover is pretty overt, but what is the meaning of that cover, and what impact does it have? If you never knew the building was designed by Speer, what difference does it make? It takes the additional information provided by Borghi and others to connect those dots. OK, so Vander fooled everyone by cloaking his Fascism so cleverly that no one could recognize it without a "insider's" translation and perspective. If that is true, then does the work really embody those elements, or is it open to other interpretations?
I'm not "explaining" anything. For the sake of argument, I'm accepting 100% that Vander holds these views, just as Heidegger did. I'm not letting him off the hook for those beliefs. I'm asking a different sort of question related to his work, which may have value beyond his own personal beliefs, and even beyond whatever cryptic influence those beliefs may have had on that work.
And yet many people have done and said things against Heidegger's and Wagner's abhorrent beliefs, yet still read their books or played their music. You seem to be saying it's not possible to do both. The evidence is contrary to this.
I'm making none of those arguments. I'm not even a Magma fan. I own nothing by them, and have no plans to change that. I'm not defending him in any way. I'm simply unwilling to condemn anyone who continues to listen to Magma because of this issue. I think people are able to see information/revelations like this and make their own judgement about it, and that if they choose to continue listening, it doesn't represent some kind of de facto rationalization of the bad stuff. I think it's possible to acknowledge the bad stuff, but also acknowledge the good, and make a call based on their assessment of the relative values of each.
Bill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks