Classical music in PBS's "The War"

[A. Brain]

Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.

Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...

Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.


Those I recognized:

Copland: concerto for clarinet, viola, harp, etc
Dvorak: Cello concerto
Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano,
played very slow, and hugely effective)
Faure: Elegie


Some I did not recognize:

Walton: "Death of Falstaff"
Messiaen: Quartet
Ligeti: Trio


I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

[Simon Roberts]

In article <jQ1Pi.660014$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, A.
Brain says...

Post by A. Brain
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.

Do you mean a greater variety or classical instead of the non-classical music
used or classical when no music is used? I could have done with a bit more
variety, but otherwise thought it was pretty effectively used.

Simon

[A. Brain]

Post by Simon Roberts
In article
Brain says...

Post by A. Brain
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.

Do you mean a greater variety or classical instead of the
non-classical music
used or classical when no music is used? I could have done with a bit more
variety, but otherwise thought it was pretty effectively used.

I wanted more variety, but I never tired of the Elgar
excerpt--though I seem to have missed another.

Of course the film was from an American perspective,
but I felt that there should have been some reference
to the assassination attempt on Hitler in July of 44.

And why not throw in some clips from that chilling
video "Great Conductors of the Third Reich",
most of it "Meistersinger"?

At first I thought that Burns should have addressed
more directly the subject of what ordinary Germans
knew about the death camps, but now I think his
somewhat subtle treatment may be just right.

[Paul Goldstein]

In article <jQ1Pi.660014$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, A.
Brain says...

Post by A. Brain
Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.
Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.

[snip]

Post by A. Brain
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

I completely agree with you that the use of the piano version of Nimrod was very
effective, as was the Dvorak VC concerto. I thought the film itself was
riveting though more because of the subject matter than any creativity brought
to it by the directors.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Simon Roberts
Brain says...

Post by A. Brain
Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.
Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.

[snip]

Post by A. Brain
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

I completely agree with you that the use of the piano version of Nimrod was very
effective, as was the Dvorak VC concerto. I thought the film itself was
riveting though more because of the subject matter than any creativity brought
to it by the directors.

I applaud it on all counts. (The 5 DVDs are available for under $80 at
Amazon.com, where I bought my copy.)

[b***@comcast.net]

On Oct 10, 7:37 am, Paul Goldstein <***@newsguy.com> wrote:
(snip)

Post by Paul Goldstein
I completely agree with you that the use of the piano version of Nimrod was very
effective, as was the Dvorak VC concerto. I thought the film itself was
riveting though more because of the subject matter than any creativity brought
to it by the directors.

I agree that the film was riveting, but I think Burns and his team
deserve more credit than I sense you're willing to give them. It was
interesting to read the carping from academic historians, who
completely missed the point of what Ken Burns was doing here (and what
he's always done): viewing historical events through the lens of the
personal. The BBC series The World at War did the job for the big
picture. That series, together with the Burns film, would be at the (A/
V) center of my curriculum for high school students studying the
period.

Bob Harper

[Paul Goldstein]

Post by b***@comcast.net
(snip)

Post by Paul Goldstein
I completely agree with you that the use of the piano version of Nimrod was very
effective, as was the Dvorak VC concerto. I thought the film itself was
riveting though more because of the subject matter than any creativity brought
to it by the directors.

I agree that the film was riveting, but I think Burns and his team
deserve more credit than I sense you're willing to give them. It was
interesting to read the carping from academic historians, who
completely missed the point of what Ken Burns was doing here (and what
he's always done): viewing historical events through the lens of the
personal.

I welcome that approach, and I certainly give Burns et al. credit for persuading
so many WWII vets to speak frankly about their experiences. I did feel,
however, that the film was not particularly interesting as a visual experience.
An awful lot of time was filled with stock footage of exploding bombs and
gunfire-into-the-jungle. Many images were presented without any explanation of
what they represented. Maybe Burns did the best he could with the material
available to him. Still, I found the film much more compelling for its verbal
content than for its visual content. Interestingly, I did not have the same
problem with his Civil War film, despite the fact that still photographs were
pretty much all he had available for that film.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Paul Goldstein

Post by b***@comcast.net
(snip)

Post by Paul Goldstein
I completely agree with you that the use of the piano version of Nimrod was very
effective, as was the Dvorak VC concerto. I thought the film itself was
riveting though more because of the subject matter than any creativity brought
to it by the directors.

I agree that the film was riveting, but I think Burns and his team
deserve more credit than I sense you're willing to give them. It was
interesting to read the carping from academic historians, who
completely missed the point of what Ken Burns was doing here (and what
he's always done): viewing historical events through the lens of the
personal.

I welcome that approach, and I certainly give Burns et al. credit for persuading
so many WWII vets to speak frankly about their experiences. I did feel,
however, that the film was not particularly interesting as a visual experience.
An awful lot of time was filled with stock footage of exploding bombs and
gunfire-into-the-jungle. Many images were presented without any explanation of
what they represented. Maybe Burns did the best he could with the material
available to him. Still, I found the film much more compelling for its verbal
content than for its visual content. Interestingly, I did not have the same
problem with his Civil War film, despite the fact that still photographs were
pretty much all he had available for that film.

I can certainly see that; perhaps it's that we've all seen the images of
WWII before, so it's difficult to come up with anything new. With the
Civil War it was another story. And I do agree that the interviews were
the most moving parts of the whole thing: the Crow war chief, the fellow
who survived the Bataan Death March, the woman who was interned in
Manila as a young girl, the infantry lieutenant who went across
Europe--shoot, all of them--were authentic, including the lady from
Mobile who could have been the reincarnation (attitudinally) of my
recently deceased great aunt from Memphis.

Bob Harper

[A. Brain]

Post by Bob Harper
I can certainly see that; perhaps it's that we've all seen the images
of WWII before, so it's difficult to come up with anything new. With
the Civil War it was another story. And I do agree that the interviews
were the most moving parts of the whole thing: the Crow war chief, the
fellow who survived the Bataan Death March, the woman who was interned
in Manila as a young girl, the infantry lieutenant who went across
Europe--shoot, all of them--were authentic, including the lady from
Mobile who could have been the reincarnation (attitudinally) of my
recently deceased great aunt from Memphis.

Everyone I talked to about that lady fell in love
with her. Many remarked that she was lovelier
when old than in the photos of her youth. That's
quite a trick.

I kept wondering when we would meet Eugene
Sledge, author of poetic observances read from
his journals. As the series progressed, I realized
that he would either die in combat or had died
before Burns began the film.

[A. Brain]

Post by b***@comcast.net
I agree that the film was riveting, but I think Burns and his team
deserve more credit than I sense you're willing to give them. It was
interesting to read the carping from academic historians, who
completely missed the point of what Ken Burns was doing here (and what
he's always done): viewing historical events through the lens of the
personal. The BBC series The World at War did the job for the big
picture. That series, together with the Burns film, would be at the (A/
V) center of my curriculum for high school students studying the
period.

So are you saying that there are high school students
studying the period? One of the reasons Burns
determined to make the film was the ignorance
of young Americans.

I need to look into that BBC film.

[Bob Harper]

Post by A. Brain

Post by b***@comcast.net
I agree that the film was riveting, but I think Burns and his team
deserve more credit than I sense you're willing to give them. It was
interesting to read the carping from academic historians, who
completely missed the point of what Ken Burns was doing here (and what
he's always done): viewing historical events through the lens of the
personal. The BBC series The World at War did the job for the big
picture. That series, together with the Burns film, would be at the (A/
V) center of my curriculum for high school students studying the
period.

So are you saying that there are high school students
studying the period?

Believbe it or not, there actually are, although they tend to be in AP,
IB, or other similar programs. The teaching of history in American high
schools is a national scandal.

One of the reasons Burns

Post by A. Brain
determined to make the film was the ignorance
of young Americans.
I need to look into that BBC film.

Indeed you do; it's excellent.

Bob Harper

[O]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by A. Brain

Post by b***@comcast.net
I agree that the film was riveting, but I think Burns and his team
deserve more credit than I sense you're willing to give them. It was
interesting to read the carping from academic historians, who
completely missed the point of what Ken Burns was doing here (and what
he's always done): viewing historical events through the lens of the
personal. The BBC series The World at War did the job for the big
picture. That series, together with the Burns film, would be at the (A/
V) center of my curriculum for high school students studying the
period.

So are you saying that there are high school students
studying the period?

Believbe it or not, there actually are, although they tend to be in AP,
IB, or other similar programs. The teaching of history in American high
schools is a national scandal.

I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

Post by Bob Harper
One of the reasons Burns

Post by A. Brain
determined to make the film was the ignorance
of young Americans.
I need to look into that BBC film.

Indeed you do; it's excellent.

If these were the ones on TV, then I thought they were rather dry too.
If I was going to teach students a history of WWII from film, I'd
probably pick "Band of Brothers."

-Owen

[James Kahn]

Post by O

Post by Bob Harper
The teaching of history in American high
schools is a national scandal.

I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

No reason to limit your statements to history. Practically everything
but math and the harder sciences (physics) is a scandal.

And there were some issues with math too, as I recall. Story problems
that were deemed politically incorrect and had to be rephrased.

[O]

Post by James Kahn

Post by O

Post by Bob Harper
The teaching of history in American high
schools is a national scandal.

I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

No reason to limit your statements to history. Practically everything
but math and the harder sciences (physics) is a scandal.
And there were some issues with math too, as I recall. Story problems
that were deemed politically incorrect and had to be rephrased.

Math problems like:

If two black guys are taking the train southbound from Harlem going
thirty miles an hour and two white guys are taking a train uptown from
the Battery going twenty miles an hour, which pair is more likely to be
arrested?

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

Post by O

Post by James Kahn

Post by O

Post by Bob Harper
The teaching of history in American high
schools is a national scandal.

I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

No reason to limit your statements to history. Practically everything
but math and the harder sciences (physics) is a scandal.
And there were some issues with math too, as I recall. Story problems
that were deemed politically incorrect and had to be rephrased.

If two black guys are taking the train southbound from Harlem going
thirty miles an hour and two white guys are taking a train uptown from
the Battery going twenty miles an hour, which pair is more likely to be
arrested?
-Owen

The only acceptable answer is, "one black guy and one white guy."

[Simon Roberts]

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.

Simon

[Allen]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.
Simon

The best teacher I had in high school was my American history teacher,
who was blind. I have great respect for that man; in spite of that
handicap, he chose a field that required a great deal of reading and
mastered it. Perhaps some of our politicians would have benefited from a
teacher of his caliber and might even have remembered some of the
mistakes of the past. I took American history as a sophomore, at a time
which was the midpoint of US involvement in WWII. I had the pleasure of
reading to this man my last two years in high school, mostly for test
grading and to read the weekly "newspaper" (I wish I could remember its
name) that went to all history students. Recently I met a woman who had
taught honors American history in the high school my daughter attended.
I asked my daughter if she had her; her whole face lit up and she said
"the best teacher I ever had, including college". Not all teaching of
history (or of other subjects) is bad. That daughter's husband teaches
Advance Placement calculus and Advance Placement statistics in high
school, and is now running a program to improve performance in AP math
courses in our school district's low-performing high schools. Back in my
school days, calculus was a sophomore-level college course, and
statistics was strictly a college course, taught to business students in
their junior year and was an elective for math majors. Now my
14-year-old granddaughter is studying the Iliad (in translation, of
course); this caused me to think back and realize that I had not one
single work of literature not written in English as required reading
until I got to college. Sorry about the length, but I wanted to unload
this.
Allen

[Doug McDonald]

Post by Allen
iness students in
their junior year and was an elective for math majors. Now my
14-year-old granddaughter is studying the Iliad (in translation, of
course); this caused me to think back and realize that I had not one
single work of literature not written in English as required reading
until I got to college.

In 9th and 10th grade we read literature in Latin. Not necessarily
the original Latin you understand, though the originals were
Latin classics, often simplified Latin, but still Latin.
This was late 1950's Ft. Worth TX.

Doug McDonald

[O]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.

Maybe I'll tempt fate here and extemporize:

Being somewhat of a war buff, when I was helping my son, in eigth grade
at the time, with his history homework, I read a bit of his textbook
and what questions they were asking for homework.

As an example, there was more column space devoted to the role of black
soldiers in the Civil War than to the rest of the war combined. Now,
I'll freely admit that black soldiers took part in at least two major
battles (the one portrayed in the movie "Glory" and the other the
battle of Crater near Petersburg), but this participation in no way
should have gotten more column inches than Gettysburg, Appomatox
Courthouse or Bull Run together, which it did. Having read this text,
you could come away with an entirely wrong impression of the war.

Not to mention the fact that the text was so infused with not wanting
to offend, that it was horribly boring, and anyone who's read Shelby
Foote or seen Burns's Civil War would know that the opposite was true
-- there are more amazing stories coming out of the American Civil War
than any other war.

We've gone from history as a collection of dates to history as a way of
teaching against prejudice, both at the cost of learning real history.

-Owen

[ansermetniac]

Post by O
there are more amazing stories coming out of the American Civil War
than any other war.

I have a question about the Civil War. If both sides had repeating
rifles, would there have been any survivors?

Abbedd

[O]

Post by ansermetniac

Post by O
there are more amazing stories coming out of the American Civil War
than any other war.

I have a question about the Civil War. If both sides had repeating
rifles, would there have been any survivors?

Union General Benjamin Butler purchased twelve Gatling guns and used
them successfully at Petersburg.

The Civil War was an example of technology leapfrogging tactics.

-Owen

[unknown]

Post by O

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.

Being somewhat of a war buff, when I was helping my son, in eigth grade
at the time, with his history homework, I read a bit of his textbook
and what questions they were asking for homework.
As an example, there was more column space devoted to the role of black
soldiers in the Civil War than to the rest of the war combined. Now,
I'll freely admit that black soldiers took part in at least two major
battles (the one portrayed in the movie "Glory" and the other the
battle of Crater near Petersburg), but this participation in no way
should have gotten more column inches than Gettysburg, Appomatox
Courthouse or Bull Run together, which it did. Having read this text,
you could come away with an entirely wrong impression of the war.
Not to mention the fact that the text was so infused with not wanting
to offend, that it was horribly boring, and anyone who's read Shelby
Foote or seen Burns's Civil War would know that the opposite was true
-- there are more amazing stories coming out of the American Civil War
than any other war.
We've gone from history as a collection of dates to history as a way of
teaching against prejudice, both at the cost of learning real history.

And I suppose you in your infinite wisdom know what "real history" is?

At any rate, whatever sort of history they teach kids at that age
probably matters not at all - I don't remember any of it, and it was
all short-term memorization done to pass tests. I don't think I know a
single person who remembers anything of it they were taught at that
age. Part of the reason is that kids instinctively realize that all
history education is essentially propaganda of one kind or another, and
is worthless to them personally. And it has little cultural worth,
either. After all, as we all know, you can get to be president without
really knowing much about US history.

wr

[O]

Post by unknown

Post by O

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.

Being somewhat of a war buff, when I was helping my son, in eigth grade
at the time, with his history homework, I read a bit of his textbook
and what questions they were asking for homework.
As an example, there was more column space devoted to the role of black
soldiers in the Civil War than to the rest of the war combined. Now,
I'll freely admit that black soldiers took part in at least two major
battles (the one portrayed in the movie "Glory" and the other the
battle of Crater near Petersburg), but this participation in no way
should have gotten more column inches than Gettysburg, Appomatox
Courthouse or Bull Run together, which it did. Having read this text,
you could come away with an entirely wrong impression of the war.
Not to mention the fact that the text was so infused with not wanting
to offend, that it was horribly boring, and anyone who's read Shelby
Foote or seen Burns's Civil War would know that the opposite was true
-- there are more amazing stories coming out of the American Civil War
than any other war.
We've gone from history as a collection of dates to history as a way of
teaching against prejudice, both at the cost of learning real history.

And I suppose you in your infinite wisdom know what "real history" is?

Do you think the "real history" of the civil war is primarily the role
of black soldiers? This textbook did. There's lots of good history
out there, Shelby Foote's three volume set is far more fascinating even
in its 3000 pages then the three pages in this text devoted to the
civil war.

Post by unknown
At any rate, whatever sort of history they teach kids at that age
probably matters not at all - I don't remember any of it, and it was
all short-term memorization done to pass tests. I don't think I know a
single person who remembers anything of it they were taught at that
age.

I know I remember my ninth grade history class.

Post by unknown
Part of the reason is that kids instinctively realize that all
history education is essentially propaganda of one kind or another, and
is worthless to them personally. And it has little cultural worth,
either. After all, as we all know, you can get to be president without
really knowing much about US history.

Maybe we agree here. If you're not really going to teach history, then
give the kids a study period.

But I disagree with your statement "all history being propaganda, and
is worthless to them personally."

-Owen

[unknown]

Post by O

Post by unknown

Post by O

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.

Being somewhat of a war buff, when I was helping my son, in eigth grade
at the time, with his history homework, I read a bit of his textbook
and what questions they were asking for homework.
As an example, there was more column space devoted to the role of black
soldiers in the Civil War than to the rest of the war combined. Now,
I'll freely admit that black soldiers took part in at least two major
battles (the one portrayed in the movie "Glory" and the other the
battle of Crater near Petersburg), but this participation in no way
should have gotten more column inches than Gettysburg, Appomatox
Courthouse or Bull Run together, which it did. Having read this text,
you could come away with an entirely wrong impression of the war.
Not to mention the fact that the text was so infused with not wanting
to offend, that it was horribly boring, and anyone who's read Shelby
Foote or seen Burns's Civil War would know that the opposite was true
-- there are more amazing stories coming out of the American Civil War
than any other war.
We've gone from history as a collection of dates to history as a way of
teaching against prejudice, both at the cost of learning real history.

And I suppose you in your infinite wisdom know what "real history" is?

Do you think the "real history" of the civil war is primarily the role
of black soldiers? This textbook did.

No, I don't. I don't think there is such a thing as "real history".

Post by O
There's lots of good history
out there, Shelby Foote's three volume set is far more fascinating even
in its 3000 pages then the three pages in this text devoted to the
civil war.

So, why don't you ask the school why they are using that text? And/or
write the publisher and ask for an explanation? You might get an
interesting answer.

Post by O

Post by unknown
At any rate, whatever sort of history they teach kids at that age
probably matters not at all - I don't remember any of it, and it was
all short-term memorization done to pass tests. I don't think I know a
single person who remembers anything of it they were taught at that
age.

I know I remember my ninth grade history class.

That's just weird.

Post by O

Post by unknown
Part of the reason is that kids instinctively realize that all
history education is essentially propaganda of one kind or another, and
is worthless to them personally. And it has little cultural worth,
either. After all, as we all know, you can get to be president without
really knowing much about US history.

Maybe we agree here. If you're not really going to teach history, then
give the kids a study period.
But I disagree with your statement "all history being propaganda, and
is worthless to them personally."

I can't figure out a way that anyone (or a committee) could write
history that is not slanted in one way or another. Even an agenda to
not have an agenda is hopeless, I think.

BTW, I said "history education" was worthless to kids personally, not
plain "history". I think reading about history on one's own at any age
can be profoundly worthwhile.

wr

[O]

Post by unknown

Post by O
Do you think the "real history" of the civil war is primarily the role
of black soldiers? This textbook did.

No, I don't. I don't think there is such a thing as "real history".

Given that "history" in whatever form is taught in schools, I would
think it would be best to

Post by unknown

Post by O
There's lots of good history
out there, Shelby Foote's three volume set is far more fascinating even
in its 3000 pages then the three pages in this text devoted to the
civil war.

So, why don't you ask the school why they are using that text? And/or
write the publisher and ask for an explanation? You might get an
interesting answer.

It's been about ten years or so - maybe they've improved.

Post by unknown

Post by O

Post by unknown
Part of the reason is that kids instinctively realize that all
history education is essentially propaganda of one kind or another, and
is worthless to them personally. And it has little cultural worth,
either. After all, as we all know, you can get to be president without
really knowing much about US history.

Maybe we agree here. If you're not really going to teach history, then
give the kids a study period.
But I disagree with your statement "all history being propaganda, and
is worthless to them personally."

I can't figure out a way that anyone (or a committee) could write
history that is not slanted in one way or another. Even an agenda to
not have an agenda is hopeless, I think.

Every history has some kind of bias or slant, but most aren't this bad.

Post by unknown
BTW, I said "history education" was worthless to kids personally, not
plain "history". I think reading about history on one's own at any age
can be profoundly worthwhile.

In that case, let's toss all the "history education" textbooks and have
the kids read history books. Have them read "Flyboys," "Citizen
Soldiers", or even "Killer Angels" (and that's not a book I
particularly liked). If they can read Shakespeare and Dickens, they
can probably handle your typical history book.

-Owen

[O]

Post by O

Post by unknown

Post by O
Do you think the "real history" of the civil war is primarily the role
of black soldiers? This textbook did.

No, I don't. I don't think there is such a thing as "real history".

Given that "history" in whatever form is taught in schools, I would
think it would be best to

...er....

best to portray something as accurately as possible.

-Owen

[Simon Roberts]

Post by O

Post by O

Post by unknown

Post by O
Do you think the "real history" of the civil war is primarily the role
of black soldiers? This textbook did.

No, I don't. I don't think there is such a thing as "real history".

Given that "history" in whatever form is taught in schools, I would
think it would be best to

...er....
best to portray something as accurately as possible.

Well, yes, but you know what the next question is.... I doubt the text book
you're complaining about does the equivalent of misidentifying the capital of
Spain.

Simon

[O]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O

Post by O

Post by unknown

Post by O
Do you think the "real history" of the civil war is primarily the role
of black soldiers? This textbook did.

No, I don't. I don't think there is such a thing as "real history".

Given that "history" in whatever form is taught in schools, I would
think it would be best to

...er....
best to portray something as accurately as possible.

Well, yes, but you know what the next question is.... I doubt the text book
you're complaining about does the equivalent of misidentifying the capital of
Spain.

To boldly assume what the next question is: Where did the textbook in
question fail to be accurate in its history of the war?

It was not inaccurate in its immediate facts, but in its portrayal.
One can give undue weight to certain facts that are not incorrect in
themselves, but by emphasizing them out of proportion to other facts
from the same event, you can present a skewed history out of proportion
to the actual event. My previous metaphor was a good example, writing
a history of WWII that emphasized the Battle of The Coral Sea and
giving only passing attention to other battles would not present a
proper representation of WWII.

-Owen

[Simon Roberts]

Post by O

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O

Post by O

Post by unknown

Post by O
Do you think the "real history" of the civil war is primarily the role
of black soldiers? This textbook did.

No, I don't. I don't think there is such a thing as "real history".

Given that "history" in whatever form is taught in schools, I would
think it would be best to

...er....
best to portray something as accurately as possible.

Well, yes, but you know what the next question is.... I doubt the text book
you're complaining about does the equivalent of misidentifying the capital of
Spain.

To boldly assume what the next question is: Where did the textbook in
question fail to be accurate in its history of the war?

Actually, my next question would have been: accurate by what standard? But
yours is a nice one, which happens to make the problem plain.

Post by O
It was not inaccurate in its immediate facts, but in its portrayal.
One can give undue weight to certain facts that are not incorrect in
themselves, but by emphasizing them out of proportion to other facts
from the same event, you can present a skewed history out of proportion
to the actual event.

But that's the issue: you imply that the weight that's "due," the "proper
portion," what constitutes "skewing," is some objective, or at any rate,
widely-agreed-on, neutral fact....

Simon

[O]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
It was not inaccurate in its immediate facts, but in its portrayal.
One can give undue weight to certain facts that are not incorrect in
themselves, but by emphasizing them out of proportion to other facts
from the same event, you can present a skewed history out of proportion
to the actual event.

But that's the issue: you imply that the weight that's "due," the "proper
portion," what constitutes "skewing," is some objective, or at any rate,
widely-agreed-on, neutral fact....

I doubt very much you'd find any historian who would say that the
participation of black soldiers in the fighting was a major facet in
the Civil War. It certainly did happen, and did lead to interesting
things, like the failure of the mine explosion at the Crater in the
Battle of Petersburg, and the annihilation of the black troops in the
incident depicted in the movie "Glory." There was also the fact that
confederate soldiers would be much more likely to kill a captured black
soldier than take him into captivity.

Other than that, there were no other remarkable circumstances about
black soldiers in the Civil War that I can recall. So to devote more
attention to them than to any other facet of the war seems remarkably
amiss from proper reporting of the war, especially in light of the
battles of Gettysburg, Bull Run and Appomattox Courthouse, and the only
purpose I can devine for doing so, except for sheer incompetence, would
be for some type of attempt to be politically correct.

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

Post by O

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
It was not inaccurate in its immediate facts, but in its portrayal.
One can give undue weight to certain facts that are not incorrect in
themselves, but by emphasizing them out of proportion to other facts
from the same event, you can present a skewed history out of proportion
to the actual event.

But that's the issue: you imply that the weight that's "due," the "proper
portion," what constitutes "skewing," is some objective, or at any rate,
widely-agreed-on, neutral fact....

I doubt very much you'd find any historian who would say that the
participation of black soldiers in the fighting was a major facet in
the Civil War. It certainly did happen, and did lead to interesting
things, like the failure of the mine explosion at the Crater in the
Battle of Petersburg, and the annihilation of the black troops in the
incident depicted in the movie "Glory." There was also the fact that
confederate soldiers would be much more likely to kill a captured black
soldier than take him into captivity.
Other than that, there were no other remarkable circumstances about
black soldiers in the Civil War that I can recall. So to devote more
attention to them than to any other facet of the war seems remarkably
amiss from proper reporting of the war, especially in light of the
battles of Gettysburg, Bull Run and Appomattox Courthouse, and the only
purpose I can devine for doing so, except for sheer incompetence, would
be for some type of attempt to be politically correct.
-Owen

But surely it's possible that an event can be fairly insignificant in one
context yet immensley so in another. For example, is it possible that the
contributions of black soldiers in the Civil or later wars contributed to
the success (such as it is) of the civil rights movement?

[O]

Post by Frank Berger
But surely it's possible that an event can be fairly insignificant in one
context yet immensley so in another. For example, is it possible that the
contributions of black soldiers in the Civil or later wars contributed to
the success (such as it is) of the civil rights movement?

No. In fact, you could easily make the opposite assumption, as the use
of black soldiers in the US Army was relatively unchanged from the
Civil War up into WWII - there were still segregated units, and blacks
were regularly denied the opportunity for combat (much as what happened
at the Crater).

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any context that would justify a
a schoolbook history text to devote the majority of their coverage of
the Civil War to the participation of black troops, other than the two
I have previously mentioned (incompetence and politically correctness).
The crux of my argument is that there is no other context that I can
possibly conceive of that would make the event significant at all in a
quick overview of the war (which is what it was).

-Owen

[Bob Lombard]

Post by O

Post by Frank Berger
But surely it's possible that an event can be fairly insignificant in one
context yet immensley so in another. For example, is it possible that the
contributions of black soldiers in the Civil or later wars contributed to
the success (such as it is) of the civil rights movement?

No. In fact, you could easily make the opposite assumption, as the use
of black soldiers in the US Army was relatively unchanged from the
Civil War up into WWII - there were still segregated units, and blacks
were regularly denied the opportunity for combat (much as what happened
at the Crater).
As a matter of fact, I can't think of any context that would justify a
a schoolbook history text to devote the majority of their coverage of
the Civil War to the participation of black troops, other than the two
I have previously mentioned (incompetence and politically correctness).
The crux of my argument is that there is no other context that I can
possibly conceive of that would make the event significant at all in a
quick overview of the war (which is what it was).
-Owen

-------------
I think you are right on, Owen. The participation of black soldiers in the
Civil War should be covered, both in general and in detail, but only
fleetingly in "a quick overview of the war".

There was also a black soldier presence in the Spanish-American War, with
interesting details which were apparently ignored in 'higher echelons' in
subsequent decades.

bl

[Simon Roberts]

Post by O

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.

Being somewhat of a war buff, when I was helping my son, in eigth grade
at the time, with his history homework, I read a bit of his textbook
and what questions they were asking for homework.
As an example, there was more column space devoted to the role of black
soldiers in the Civil War than to the rest of the war combined. Now,
I'll freely admit that black soldiers took part in at least two major
battles (the one portrayed in the movie "Glory" and the other the
battle of Crater near Petersburg), but this participation in no way
should have gotten more column inches than Gettysburg, Appomatox
Courthouse or Bull Run together, which it did. Having read this text,
you could come away with an entirely wrong impression of the war.

"Entirely wrong" judged by what standard? It's a matter of perspective, not to
mention what was actually said in those competing column inches. To the extent
that the Civil War is regarded as being at least in part about slavery and
segregation, the role played by blacks may well seem more interesting or
significant or important than details of battles. Or by "entirely wrong" do you
mean that the author(s) got the facts about black participation wrong?

Post by O
Not to mention the fact that the text was so infused with not wanting
to offend, that it was horribly boring

Are you sure it was horribly boring because of the author(s)' desire not to
offend rather than because of the rather mundane fact that text-book writers are
terrible bores? (I don't recall any textbooks that weren't horribly boring when
I was in school in Australia and England the 60s and 70s.) What chances to
offend did they bypass?

Post by O
We've gone from history as a collection of dates to history as a way of
teaching against prejudice, both at the cost of learning real history.

Why aren't both parts of "real history"? History has always been written
selectively (back when it was all about dates, it was still only about a rather
small class of dates - those that mattered to monarchs and social/political
elites).

Simon

[O]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I think the teaching of history in schools is horrible because of the
horrible textbooks. They bend over backward to be politically correct
so that they miss the whole point.

It would probably be best not to tempt fate and ask what "the whole point" is.

Being somewhat of a war buff, when I was helping my son, in eigth grade
at the time, with his history homework, I read a bit of his textbook
and what questions they were asking for homework.
As an example, there was more column space devoted to the role of black
soldiers in the Civil War than to the rest of the war combined. Now,
I'll freely admit that black soldiers took part in at least two major
battles (the one portrayed in the movie "Glory" and the other the
battle of Crater near Petersburg), but this participation in no way
should have gotten more column inches than Gettysburg, Appomatox
Courthouse or Bull Run together, which it did. Having read this text,
you could come away with an entirely wrong impression of the war.

"Entirely wrong" judged by what standard?

By mine, of course! It may be entirely right by some school board
standard.

Post by Simon Roberts
It's a matter of perspective, not
to
mention what was actually said in those competing column inches. To the extent
that the Civil War is regarded as being at least in part about slavery and
segregation, the role played by blacks may well seem more interesting or
significant or important than details of battles.

Given that the role played by blacks was limited to two somewhat minor
battles, the emphasis placed on this role was entirely out of
proportion. It would be similar to placing the emphasis on the Battle
of the Coral Sea vs. all other battles in WWII, just to show a battle
that the Japanese won.

While there may be some who will feel more comforted knowing that
blacks did contribute to the Civil War in a positive way to assist in
their freedom, it had very little to do with the actual war, nor the
prosecution thereof.

Post by Simon Roberts
Or by "entirely wrong" do
you
mean that the author(s) got the facts about black participation wrong?

No, they got the facts correctly.

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
Not to mention the fact that the text was so infused with not wanting
to offend, that it was horribly boring

Are you sure it was horribly boring because of the author(s)' desire not to
offend rather than because of the rather mundane fact that text-book writers are
terrible bores? (I don't recall any textbooks that weren't horribly boring when
I was in school in Australia and England the 60s and 70s.) What chances to
offend did they bypass?

Probably the fear of "leaving someone out," but I really don't know the
motivation. There are so many really good history books that this one
was so wretched as to be practically unreadable. Maybe I'm too far
from my schoolboy years, and while my textbooks weren't exactly models
of excellent writing, I don't recall them being that bad.

You can learn more about WWII history from reading James Bradey's
"Flyboys" than almost any other book.

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
We've gone from history as a collection of dates to history as a way of
teaching against prejudice, both at the cost of learning real history.

Why aren't both parts of "real history"? History has always been written
selectively (back when it was all about dates, it was still only about a rather
small class of dates - those that mattered to monarchs and social/political
elites).

Of course, they're all a part of "real history," but history is
essentially about story telling, and in this they sorely lacked.

-Owen

[Simon Roberts]

In article <121020071657025914%***@denofinequityx.com>, O says...

[snip]

history is essentially about story telling [snip]

Well, we don't agree there, either!

Simon

[O]

Post by Paul Goldstein
[snip]

history is essentially about story telling [snip]

Well, we don't agree there, either!

As opposed to amassing a collection of facts?

When you think of the old adage, " ...else we are bound to repeat
it...," and given that drives the teaching of history, doesn't that
imply interpretation of the facts?

By it's nature, history is anecdotal.

-Owen

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by O
By it's nature, history is anecdotal.

And punctuation is optional.

[O]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by O
By it's nature, history is anecdotal.

And punctuation is optional.

Damn. I try to get that one right. Good thing we weren't talking
about English class.

-Owen

[td]

Post by b***@comcast.net
(snip)

Post by Paul Goldstein
I completely agree with you that the use of the piano version of Nimrod was very
effective, as was the Dvorak VC concerto. I thought the film itself was
riveting though more because of the subject matter than any creativity brought
to it by the directors.

I agree that the film was riveting, but I think Burns and his team
deserve more credit than I sense you're willing to give them. It was
interesting to read the carping from academic historians, who
completely missed the point of what Ken Burns was doing here (and what
he's always done): viewing historical events through the lens of the
personal. The BBC series The World at War did the job for the big
picture. That series, together with the Burns film, would be at the (A/
V) center of my curriculum for high school students studying the
period.

Agreed.

TD

[Dana John Hill]

Post by A. Brain
Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.
Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.
Copland: concerto for clarinet, viola, harp, etc
Dvorak: Cello concerto
Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano,
played very slow, and hugely effective)
Faure: Elegie
Walton: "Death of Falstaff"
Messiaen: Quartet
Ligeti: Trio
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

I, too, appreciated the music, especially the Elgar (even if they did some
clever editing to make Nimrod last longer than normal) and Copland, which
was an ideal choice.

Outside of the classical genre, I think the absoulte best choice they made
was "American Anthem". What a heartbreaking song:

[Kalman Rubinson]

RCA sent me a CD "Songs without Words: Classical Music from The War."
If you want it (and are in the CUSA), send me your postal address by
email.

Kal

Post by A. Brain
Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.
Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.
Copland: concerto for clarinet, viola, harp, etc
Dvorak: Cello concerto
Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano,
played very slow, and hugely effective)
Faure: Elegie
Walton: "Death of Falstaff"
Messiaen: Quartet
Ligeti: Trio
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

[Frank Berger]

Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano, played very slow, and hugely
effective)

But overused, I thought. I was sick of hearing it after a while. A little
more variety would have been nice. One day, prior to "The War," the PBS
station in Dallas ran a documentary entitled "The Perilous Fight: America's
World War II in Color." It affected me more than did "The War," for some
reason. And I am a huge admirer of Burns' Civil War and Baseball
documentaries, but "The War" left me a little flat, despite the fact that my
father and my mother's first husband (who didn't make it through the war,
fortunately for me) were WWII vets.

[O]

Post by Frank Berger

Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano, played very slow, and hugely
effective)

But overused, I thought. I was sick of hearing it after a while. A little
more variety would have been nice. One day, prior to "The War," the PBS
station in Dallas ran a documentary entitled "The Perilous Fight: America's
World War II in Color." It affected me more than did "The War," for some
reason. And I am a huge admirer of Burns' Civil War and Baseball
documentaries, but "The War" left me a little flat, despite the fact that my
father and my mother's first husband (who didn't make it through the war,
fortunately for me) were WWII vets.

I feel likewise, and I'm something of a WWII buff. The whole effect
was depressing, particularly the music. Both the Nimrod and the Cello
music just seemed to sap the energy out of the story. And not only was
there numerous artillery shots into the jungle and unknown planes being
shot down (all of which were just presented without comment, for the
most part, about the particular shot), Burns repeatedly showed the same
shots, the same burning planes, the same artillery load and fires, all
with obviously post-production added sound. There's so much footage
around that recycling it several times, along with the "Ken Burns
Effect" on stock phots, really was unnecessary.

If the premise of following real people and their exploits through WWII
is what you like, I'd heartily recommend HBO's series: Band of
Brothers, which, though dramatized rather than narrated, conveyed a
better idea of the actual war conditions.

I haven't seen the last two episodes of "The War" yet, they're sitting
on my DVR waiting for a time when I've imbibed enough caffeine to make
it through them.

What I did find humorous was PBS's non-commercial commercial tagline:
"The War was made possible by a grant from ..."

-Owen

[Simon Roberts]

Post by O
I feel likewise, and I'm something of a WWII buff. The whole effect
was depressing, particularly the music.

Quite so - but isn't that the point?

Post by O
"The War was made possible by a grant from ..."

Yes; I was half expecting a quip about Haliburton....

Simon

[John Wilson]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I feel likewise, and I'm something of a WWII buff. The whole effect
was depressing, particularly the music.

Quite so - but isn't that the point?

Post by O
"The War was made possible by a grant from ..."

Yes; I was half expecting a quip about Haliburton....

and Blackwater.

John

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by John Wilson

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I feel likewise, and I'm something of a WWII buff. The whole effect
was depressing, particularly the music.

Quite so - but isn't that the point?

Post by O
"The War was made possible by a grant from ..."

Yes; I was half expecting a quip about Haliburton....

and Blackwater.

and the RNC.


J

[O]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
I feel likewise, and I'm something of a WWII buff. The whole effect
was depressing, particularly the music.

Quite so - but isn't that the point?

Maybe it was Burns's point, but an unnecesary one, unless he's trying
to "Full Metal Jacket" WWII. (Or maybe "The Thin Red Line?") He
didn't adopt that tone in his "Civil War," there was far more of a
sense of wonder of the times that this epic is sadly lacking. Of
course, WWII has been gone over so, so many times that there isn't a
whole lot more to say, particularly when you're attempting the wide
view that he is, but many more cinema masterpieces have handled it
without just being a complete bummer, man, such as Clint Eastwood's two
films on Iwo Jima, the older movie "The Big Red One," and even "Saving
Private Ryan."

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by O
"The War was made possible by a grant from ..."

Yes; I was half expecting a quip about Haliburton....

I half expected to hear "...the military/industrial complex."

-Owen

[A. Brain]

Post by O
I feel likewise, and I'm something of a WWII buff. The whole effect
was depressing, particularly the music. Both the Nimrod and the Cello
music just seemed to sap the energy out of the story. And not only was
there numerous artillery shots into the jungle and unknown planes being
shot down (all of which were just presented without comment, for the
most part, about the particular shot), Burns repeatedly showed the same
shots, the same burning planes, the same artillery load and fires, all
with obviously post-production added sound. There's so much footage
around that recycling it several times, along with the "Ken Burns
Effect" on stock phots, really was unnecessary.
If the premise of following real people and their exploits through WWII
is what you like, I'd heartily recommend HBO's series: Band of
Brothers, which, though dramatized rather than narrated, conveyed a
better idea of the actual war conditions.
I haven't seen the last two episodes of "The War" yet, they're sitting
on my DVR waiting for a time when I've imbibed enough caffeine to make
it through them.
"The War was made possible by a grant from ..."

The NYT seemed not to like the series;
I recall their reviewer suggesting that
its timing was poor in that it might tend
to lend support or to rally enthusiasm for
the current mess in Iraq.

The New Yorker dismissed it as dull.

Newsweek seemed to like it a lot,
and found its subtext to be anything
but favorable toward the Iraq
misadventure. On the talk shows,
Burns has barely concealed his
contempt for the current administration.

Here's the Newsweek review:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/23bkve

[O]

In article

Post by A. Brain
The NYT seemed not to like the series;
I recall their reviewer suggesting that
its timing was poor in that it might tend
to lend support or to rally enthusiasm for
the current mess in Iraq.

I'd disagree. It's far too tedious to rally anything.

Post by A. Brain
The New Yorker dismissed it as dull.

Agreed.

Post by A. Brain
Newsweek seemed to like it a lot,
and found its subtext to be anything
but favorable toward the Iraq
misadventure. On the talk shows,
Burns has barely concealed his
contempt for the current administration.

The people who will slog through this will not be applying it to Iraq.

-Owen

[td]

On Oct 10, 1:58 pm, "Frank Berger" <***@dal.frb.org> wrote:
And I am a huge admirer of Burns' Civil War and Baseball

Post by Frank Berger
documentaries, but "The War" left me a little flat, despite the fact that my
father and my mother's first husband (who didn't make it through the war,
fortunately for me) were WWII vets.

I am so sorry to hear about your mother's first husband.

In fact, I am totally cut up about her loss. And our - ahem - gain?

TD

[Bill Anderson]

Elgar's Sospiri was used with great effect as well.

[n***@comcast.net]

Post by A. Brain
Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.
Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.
Copland: concerto for clarinet, viola, harp, etc
Dvorak: Cello concerto
Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano,
played very slow, and hugely effective)
Faure: Elegie
Walton: "Death of Falstaff"
Messiaen: Quartet
Ligeti: Trio
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

Yes. Nimrod is one of Elgar's most inspired creations. I have an organ
transcription of Nimrod that I think is more interesting than either the
orchestra or the piano versions. It's on a Gothic CD called "The
Transcriber's Art". It's a very large organ with a tremendous dynamic range
employed to good effect.

Norm Strong

[J***@msn.com]

Post by n***@comcast.net

Post by A. Brain
Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.
Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.
Copland: concerto for clarinet, viola, harp, etc
Dvorak: Cello concerto
Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano,
played very slow, and hugely effective)
Faure: Elegie
Walton: "Death of Falstaff"
Messiaen: Quartet
Ligeti: Trio
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

Yes. Nimrod is one of Elgar's most inspired creations. I have an organ
transcription of Nimrod that I think is more interesting than either the
orchestra or the piano versions. It's on a Gothic CD called "The
Transcriber's Art". It's a very large organ with a tremendous dynamic range
employed to good effect.
Norm Strong- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Ken Burns, ......yecchhhh! Hauser

[b***@gmail.com]

On Oct 10, 3:29 am, "A. Brain" <***@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
<snip>

Post by A. Brain
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

Someone called Maria Garzon also recorded the piano transcription.


J

[J***@msn.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
<snip>

Post by A. Brain
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

Someone called Maria Garzon also recorded the piano transcription.
J

A little tome worth everyone's reading who defined History above:
What is History by Edward Hallett Carr! Still Also, I had trouble
with Mr. Burns in all his documentary's - even the highly touted Civil
War and Baseball. But the most galling of all was his Jazz series -
seriously glossing over major players like Armstrong and Ellington -
the 2 key figures in "jass". Then, the damned voice overs constantly
interrupting the musical segments over and over again - maddening!
Hauser

[A. Brain]

Post by J***@msn.com
What is History by Edward Hallett Carr! Still Also, I had trouble
with Mr. Burns in all his documentary's - even the highly touted Civil
War and Baseball. But the most galling of all was his Jazz series -
seriously glossing over major players like Armstrong and Ellington -
the 2 key figures in "jass". Then, the damned voice overs constantly
interrupting the musical segments over and over again - maddening!

One more thing I would like to have seen
covered in the Burns series was the
question of filming and photographing
graphic scenes from the death camps.
As I recall, there was some controversy
about this. I believe it was Eisenhower
who insisted that films and photographs
be taken because if they were not,
later on, there would be claims that
the systematic executions had not occurred
or that the conditions reported had been
exaggerated.

There's a new book out called
THE YEARS OF EXTERMINATION
by Saul Friedlaender. At 870 pages,
it no doubt would seem likely to
be a comprehensive treatment. Yet
one reviewer complains that the book
does not discuss what he claims nobody
else has discussed either--the issue of
what Soviet forces might have been able
to do to disrupt the system.

[Paul Goldstein]

In article <PqkQi.676781$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, A.
Brain says...

Post by A. Brain
There's a new book out called
THE YEARS OF EXTERMINATION
by Saul Friedlaender. At 870 pages,
it no doubt would seem likely to
be a comprehensive treatment. Yet
one reviewer complains that the book
does not discuss what he claims nobody
else has discussed either--the issue of
what Soviet forces might have been able
to do to disrupt the system.

It does discuss that to some extent, but the main focus of the book from a
political perspective is the failure of various forces, particularly the
churches, to attempt to influence Nazi Germany's policies regarding "the Jewish
question."

[vhorowitz]

Post by A. Brain
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.
--
A. Brain

By a coincidence I had just discovered an online source for the score
to the solo transcription of the Elgar here:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Variations_on_an_Original_Theme_%28%27Enigma%27%29%2C_Op.36_%28Elgar%2C_Edward%29


Lots of other goodies there too!

[Jeremy Meyers]

check out Songs Without Words: Classical Music from the Second World
War
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TGUUGE?ie=UTF8&tag=masterworks-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000TGUUGE

for some additional material from the show.

j

Post by A. Brain
Unlike many critics, I thought this was a wonderful
series. I shared thoughts nightly with my 88 year
old mother, who lost her only brother/sibling in
the "Battle of the Bulge". That last-ditch effort
by Hitler may have been an unnecessary engagement,
I think, just as some of the others were, which is
perhaps the most powerful point made in the film.
Uh, some of the generals thought it was a bad idea...
Anyway, the film could have used more classical music.
Copland: concerto for clarinet, viola, harp, etc
Dvorak: Cello concerto
Elgar: "Nimrod" from "Enigma" (solo piano,
played very slow, and hugely effective)
Faure: Elegie
Walton: "Death of Falstaff"
Messiaen: Quartet
Ligeti: Trio
I like Elgar a lot and liked the piano
version of "Nimrod" so much, I went
out and bought the first recording I
could find. Naxos.

--
Jeremy Meyers
Manager, Digital Sales and Editorial
SONY BMG Masterworks / SONY BMG Commercial Music Group
550 Madison Avenue #1622, NYC 10022
e: ***@sonybmg.com