ILL REPUTE

posted by James Reel

    In an interesting post about conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler and new music, the blogger known as Pliable includes in passing an unfortunate line: “Today Wilhelm Furtwängler’s name is irrevocably linked to the Nazis.” Well, that’s just not true. Furtwängler, though he did get himself into some compromising positions, had nothing to do with the Nazis except insofar as they imposed themselves on him; plenty of people know that now, despite smear efforts in America right after World War II. To his credit, Pliable gives a link to an excellent article on this subject by Peter Gutmann, who explains:

From the very outset, Furtwängler saw two Germanies: the permanent, cultural one of which he remained a proud member, and an irrelevant, political one which was a temporary nuisance. To Furtwängler, there was no such thing as Nazi Germany, but rather a Germany raped by Nazis. Furtwängler truly believed that by maintaining his artistic convictions he would succeed in resisting Hitler and upholding the everlasting purity of great German culture.

    It seems a bit disingenuous of Brits like Pliable to keep mentioning Furtwängler’s “irrevocable” link to Nazism—irrevocable only through unthinking repetition of discredited notions—since the Brits were all too willing after the war to lionize card-carrying Nazis like Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Herbert von Karajan (who joined the party twice). Of course, those two artists signed up out of career ambition rather than ideology, but still, their links are far more irrevocable (and opportunistic) than Furtwängler’s.
    Meanwhile, Kyle Gann has embarked on a little campaign to rehabilitate the reputation of his favorite composer, Charles Ives. That maverick musical aesthetician and insurance executive is often denigrated as a right-winger and homophobe; Gann argues that both charges are ridiculous, particularly the allegation of homophobia, which stems from misunderstandings of some of Ives’ spirited remarks. Gann points out that Ives did not at all abandon fellow composer Henry Cowell once the latter was sent to prison on a morals charge, and Ives’ denigration of his weak-eared critics as “sissies” and “pansies” shouldn’t be construed as outright homophobia in the context of Ives’ own time and culture. In this latter instance, Gann argues from experience and common sense rather than from actual evidence, which is a shaky way to prove a point, but his defense of Ives rings true.
    In the end, though, would homophobia or its absence make any difference in the music itself?