Quote from: britishcomposer on Wednesday 19 September 2012, 15:49
BTW, wasn't there a lady a few decades ago who wrote down works which dead composers 'dictated' her from beyond? So I think we should try to find such a medium and ask her if she could coax our favourite composers to stream a few masterworks via the aether. ;D
This lady was criticised because she could offer only small piano pieces. If Bruckner cared to give us further samples of his genius wouldn't he choose something more spectacular? Finishing his 9th symphony perhaps?
Her name was Rosemary Brown and I once had the pleasure of meeting her. Without saying that she was definitely not a fake, she went a long way to convincing such people as Richard Rodney Bennett, Hephzibah Menuhin, Ian Parrott, Humphrey Searle and Peter Katin. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...
Well, Bruckner's Ninth Symphony has been completed several times now without the help of Rosemary Brown (whose identity has already been mentioned elsewhere in this thread). I was a student of Searle and his take on Brown's work as expressed to me when I asked him about it was equivocal, to say the least - and, given the results of her rather hopeless endeavours, it's no wonder! I don't think that she set out to hoodwink anyone either for money or for other cynical reasons but, notwithstanding that, there can surely be no doubt either that her labours produced outcomes that had scant connection with the composers whose work they purported to represent or that the "after-life" must be a deeply degenerating experience in which one dissolves into some kind of creative dementia; for what anyone may or may not think it to be worth, my money's on the former.
Tee hee, I remember (just) seeing Rosemary Brown on the television (in the mid 1960s?) and I think I recall that no less than Philips issued a LP of her playing unwritten pieces by Schumann, Schubert, Rachmaninov, Greig, Beethoven, Liszt et al that these long deceased composers had dictated to her in her dreams. (Which just goes to show that music really is an international language since how else could Ms Brown have understood what was said to her?)
I succumb to nostalgia. I think the lady made one or two appearances on the BBC series 'Face the Music' chaired by Joseph Cooper and where the likes of Robin Ray (who dazzled all with an encyclopaedic knowledge of opus numbers), Joyce Grenfell, Bernard Levin were often panel members? Gosh, we had innocent pleasures in those days. And am I right in remembering Ms Brown telling all that Liszt often accompanied her in trips to the shops and was much worried by the steadily rising price of vegetables?
I too remember seeing Rosemary Brown on television in the 1960's. What puzzled me then and now is what language did she speak with them in. She was never asked that question and I doubt that she was multilingual, there was also no probing at the time about whether she saw the composers or they just spoke to her. It would be interesting to see the programme again if it still exists.
Friends may want to follow this link for more information...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Brown_(spiritualist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Brown_(spiritualist))
One of the problems here is that Brown, who had scant musical experience or technical expertise of any kind, might be classified by some alongside the likes of Eric Fenby, who had plenty of each, despite the obvious differences that Brown claimed her work to result from "communications" from deceased composers whereas Fenby's needed to make no claims for itself and resulted from communications from the alive but ill and dying Delius. I wonder what Fenby thought about Brown and her work. I would not wish to argue with Richard Rodney Bennett, but I cannot help but question how what Brown did came about and, whatever the answer to that might have been (and it could well have emerged as a consequence of some as yet insufficiently researched neurological condition of not inconsiderable interest), it certainly wasn't ever any kind of direct contact with the deceased composers themselves and, if it had been, one would have little option but to despair about the Alzheimer-like symptoms that would appear to befall composers following their demise...
Quote from: giles.enders on Thursday 20 September 2012, 12:10
I too remember seeing Rosemary Brown on television in the 1960's. What puzzled me then and now is what language did she speak with them in. She was never asked that question and I doubt that she was multilingual, there was also no probing at the time about whether she saw the composers or they just spoke to her. It would be interesting to see the programme again if it still exists.
Well, it seems that she was asked that question..... see:
http://nell-rose.hubpages.com/hub/Music-From-The-Beyond-The-True-Story-Of-Rosemary-Brown-And-her-Musical-Spirit-Compositions (http://nell-rose.hubpages.com/hub/Music-From-The-Beyond-The-True-Story-Of-Rosemary-Brown-And-her-Musical-Spirit-Compositions)
This site includes photos and video clips and is really rather fascinating, especially to me, a hard-nosed materialist! ;D
Claims to be channelling new works from dead composers is not uncommon. Didn't one famous concert pianist claim to be doing that with Beethoven? I thought it was John Lill, but that doesn't seem quite correct....?
Quote from: ahinton on Thursday 20 September 2012, 21:28
...it certainly wasn't ever any kind of direct contact with the deceased composers themselves...
Quite so.
Nor, for that matter, any indirect contact!
Absolutely not!
I think that only leaves two possibilities...
So given the logical assumption that they are in fact not pieces channeled from dead composers....just who actually wrote them anyway?
In my view the two possibilities are:
1. That RB had some sort of extraordinary mental condition yet to be explained. This would no doubt be the modern psychological/psychiatric explanation.
2. That RB, as a medium herself, was in fact in contact with discarnate entities (which inhabit the spiritual world), posing as dead composers for the purpose of deception. This would be the historic Christian explanation.
Interesting and rational thoughts both, although I incline towards the first of them, despite that seeming to be a kind of cop-out. Something caused her work to be possible and, whatever that may have been, bringing her and the work itself under the microscope all those years ago did little if anything to reveal it; it's just unfortunate - especially in terms of the implications of fantasising and fraud on her part (the former of which seems somewhat unfair and the latter wholly unjustified) - that the names of certain well-known composers got dragged into it, for the results, which would have done none of them any favours, accordingly did Brown herself few favours! Why was it only Chopin, Liszt, Schubert, Beethoven and the others with whom she presumed herself to be in contact? The Nell Rose piece opens with a reference to Stravinsky, who was, I think, the only 20th century composer who found his innocent way into this collection of Brown communicants, yet I'm not aware that she ever tried to "receive" any new works from him.
Easy as it might be for some to dismiss her and her work as mere fakery, these can surely be little doubt that something as yet undiscovered and not yet understood was going on from time to time, but the prospect that Beethoven, Liszt et al were in any sense behind it or indeed involved in it in any way whatsoever is not only absurd but might also discourage any bona fide neuroscientific research into whatever phenomenon it may have been, which would be unfortunate. That at one time or another H Menuhin, Kentner, Searle and Bennett seemed to some degree to be taken in by it (is there any record of Y Menuhin's thoughts on it?) still seems odd - Searle's especially, perhaps, given that he was one of the previous century's most distinguished Liszt scholars...
FWIW, I think the latter explanation is the correct one. Commentators on contacts with various sorts of discarnate entities (such as religious apparitions, encounters with aliens, etc.) note that they always have one thing in common, namely deception. Thus, depending on the context, they may pose as a particular religious figure (work this out for yourself!), or as a visitor from outer space, or (in RB's case) as a composer. In my locality - a small seaside town with an elderly population - we have a lot of mediums who visit claiming to be able to put the bereaved in touch with their deceased relatives. They may be sincere, as no doubt RB was, but they are in fact themselves being deceived and are perpetrating deception upon others.
I note with interest from the Wikipedia article that RB's family was involved in mediumistic practices...
Fascinating thread which deserves to continue to be discussed. I will not join in as I could rattle on for ages on the subject.
For the record, I have never been in touch with a deceased composer, but after a hypnotic regression session, it appears I did fight for Cromwell at the Battle of Naseby in 1645 and got a pike in the shoulder for my troubles.
Clearly nonsense as given the choice I would be for the King.
Thal
So you'd rather have been "Wrong but Wromantic", Thal, than "Right but Repulsive"? Sorry for the digression...
OK - please allow me one step further along the digression! :)
My view is naturally that there is a psychological explanation. The human brain is capable of the most astounding things. In the course of my work, I've met people who can't tie their shoelaces but can instantly tell you the day of the week of any given date in history, or multiply numbers faster than a calculator; people who suddenly develop amazing artistic or musical skills after suffering a brain injury; people of average intelligence who have photographic memories or who can recall a piece of music perfectly after a single hearing, and play it perfectly - at least to the best of their ability; people who seem normal in all respects but who are convinced they are inhabited by aliens, constantly monitored by the CIA, or terrified they will flood the world if they urinate! What's so amazing about composing a few piano pieces after all that? ;D
Quote from: Alan Howe on Friday 21 September 2012, 10:25
FWIW, I think the latter explanation is the correct one. Commentators on contacts with various sorts of discarnate entities (such as religious apparitions, encounters with aliens, etc.) note that they always have one thing in common, namely deception. Thus, depending on the context, they may pose as a particular religious figure (work this out for yourself!), or as a visitor from outer space, or (in RB's case) as a composer. In my locality - a small seaside town with an elderly population - we have a lot of mediums who visit claiming to be able to put the bereaved in touch with their deceased relatives. They may be sincere, as no doubt RB was, but they are in fact themselves being deceived and are perpetrating deception upon others.
I note with interest from the Wikipedia article that RB's family was involved in mediumistic practices...
Who knows? You may be right about this, entirely or in part and, as such, it could even be that both answers apply here. Certainly your last statement above is correct and cannot sensibly be denied. I remain puzzled, however, as to what really did happen and how.
Quote from: semloh on Friday 21 September 2012, 14:34
My view is naturally that there is a psychological explanation. The human brain is capable of the most astounding things.
...and, of course, we must be open to this explanation. It's certainly a very real possibility. But so is the spiritual explanation. And the place to start is surely RB's activities as a medium...
If I may be allowed a philosophical aside: a totally material, atheistic worldview is forced to seek an explanation within the human psyche; a theistic worldview, on the other hand, allows the possibility that not everything has to be nor can be explained in that way and that there exist certain forces which can act upon the human psyche from outside.
By golly - I cannot recall such a chain of posts before about a non-composer, romantic or otherwise!
In the days when I had to earn my crust of bread I taught, among other things, a final year undergraduate course on philosophy of religion. Using that I could stretch out this thread forever - but I shall spare everyone from such a fate!
But two pertinent questions which haven't been answered. First, how did Ms RB understand what was being supposedly 'communicated' to her given a language barrier? For example, if she got some bit of Schubert 'wrong' how would Schubert tell her? Or, how did she know she was right / correct? And if notions like 'right' or 'wrong' don't have application here, then is there any reason at all to even begin to take this stuff seriously?
Secondly, and I ask rather tongue in cheek, why is it that all composers allegedly somehow in contact with RB are, broadly speaking, 19th century 'romantic' composers (and European)? Isn't that a bit odd? Wouldn't we take a bit more notice if RB suddenly produced pieces of music 'communicated' to her by, for example, Charles Ives or Bela Bartok? Or, what would be the response if she produced unfamiliar pieces which she claimed were now lost works of Algernon Ashton or Percy Sherwood? Wouldn't you rather scoff? So why bother attend to her claim that she was producing posthumous works by Liszt or Rachmaninov?
If the answer lies in the activities of discarnate entities, their objective would be above all to deceive RB and, through her, other people. It's far more likely, therefore, that RB would be deceived by these entities posing as familiar, rather than unfamiliar composers. As for the language barrier, well, that would presumably be all part of the deception - after all, they would probably say that everyone spoke the same language 'on the other side'. As for knowing whether what had been communicated was right or wrong, well, what does it matter? If you're deceived, whatever comes out is going to be deemed correct.
Bottom line: RB's compositions aren't by certain dead composers. They're either the productions of an undiagnosed mental or psychological disorder, or dictations from discarnate entities. The former is a fascinating possibility; the latter a major cause for concern with regard to the lady's spiritual condition, especially if she had been into mediumistic practices all her life.
Just came across this interesting exchange:
http://www.piano-tuners.org/piano-forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9810 (http://www.piano-tuners.org/piano-forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9810)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Friday 21 September 2012, 08:15
In my view the two possibilities are:
1. That RB had some sort of extraordinary mental condition yet to be explained. This would no doubt be the modern psychological/psychiatric explanation.
2. That RB, as a medium herself, was in fact in contact with discarnate entities (which inhabit the spiritual world), posing as dead composers for the purpose of deception. This would be the historic Christian explanation.
I certainly agree with the second possibility.
In my view, the two possibilities are:
1) RB was a charlatan.
2) RB was deluded and thought she heard voices.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Friday 21 September 2012, 08:15
In my view the two possibilities are:
1. That RB had some sort of extraordinary mental condition yet to be explained. This would no doubt be the modern psychological/psychiatric explanation.
2. That RB, as a medium herself, was in fact in contact with discarnate entities (which inhabit the spiritual world), posing as dead composers for the purpose of deception. This would be the historic Christian explanation.
Quote from: Balapoel on Friday 21 September 2012, 21:06
1) RB was a charlatan.
2) RB was deluded and thought she heard voices.
I think No.1 has been effectively ruled out. Nobody who met her thought she was intentionally out to deceive anyone.
No.2 raises the same question: were the voices in her head or did they come from elsewhere? Depends on your worldview...
Well, as a scientist, I tend to prefer hypotheses that are consistent with the observable world. Of the two presented here, (1) hallucinatory voices in someone's head, an observable phenomenon played out in countless psychiatric cases, or (2) actual voices from 'beyond', which have never been demonstrated, and actually would be inconsistent with mountains of empirical evidence (e.g., when parts of the brain are damaged, these have real repercussions in the sense of self; the mind is what the brain does; etc.), one might be preferred.
Tests could be constructed. If the second is correct, then the 'medium' could be able to demonstrate knowledge not known by the medium. These could then be checked independently. To my knowledge, this type of knowledge has never been demonstrated.
Quote from: Balapoel on Friday 21 September 2012, 22:11
Well, as a scientist, I tend to prefer hypotheses that are consistent with the observable world.
...in which case your worldview (scientific materialism) has already predetermined not only the parameters of your investigation, but the possible results too; whereas mine (Christian theism) allows for the possibility of a psychological explanation, but also permits the possibility of one rooted in mediumistic practices involving contacts with discarnate entities beyond the reach of purely scientific enquiry.
Fair enough. But my view is not 'scientific materialism'. In fact, I would follow Noam Chomsky in his criticisms of such. In this manner, deism could be possible (and scientific inquiry would have no purchase), whereas theism (as evinced in literal readings of certain writings) can be shown to be inconsistent with historical and other evidences. So, for instance, we could not disprove that such a thing as 'ghosts' exist, but you could certainly test (Ms. Brown for instance) in theory, in such a way as to determine if she was undergoing psychotic episodes. Chemical imbalances and MRI data (and others) would be independent means to determine if this were the case.
So, I would disagree that this type of phenomenon would be outside scientific inquiry. But we can respectfully agree to disagree.
I think we're probably at the outer limits of this discussion as we're now likely veer off into a discussion of the consistency of Christian theism with historical and other evidences. I therefore accept your invitation to agree to disagree about RB!
Was just looking up Ian Parrott (to see if he was in the archived sections of this site...), though, since he died a few weeks before anything in this thread was written...
hrm! *blink*
I would propose a third possibility: that Rosemary Brown was accessing the Akashic Records. Having read Brown's book, she does seem genuine as others have said.
If you do not remember the autistic savant Daniel Tammet, do look him up. There were articles in the papers seven or eight years back, and I recall he featured in a TV programme about savants. Incredibly he could solve difficult mathematical problems effortlessly without having studied the subject. He saw shapes in his mind's eye which coalesced into an answer somehow. It isn't a huge leap to imagine that a similar process could bring a composition together.
For those who don't know "the akashic records are described as containing all knowledge of human experience and the history of the cosmos." Genuine may negate 'fraud', but not 'deluded'.
I'm not sure if the comparison to savant syndrome is apt. It would merely mean she was developmentally challenged but excelled at a single art: music. This does not seem to be the case here.
I did mean by 'genuine' that my impression is that she was not a fraud, but then I would have to be an open-minded sceptic (see My big TOE by Thomas Campbell) on who is really deluded: her or those who believe her to be.
I should have expounded more on my point about savants: if it is possible at all to display such incredible abilities because of a neurological disorder, might it not be possible for some individuals to do this by some other means, and having psychic abilities might be an aid to this? RR Bennett did spot the fingerprints of some of Brown's composers in the music she produced, so something similar seems to be going on - both may be accessing akashic records as clearly in either case there has been no study of each discipline.
Quote from: Jim on Sunday 30 September 2012, 18:27
I should have expounded more on my point about savants: if it is possible at all to display such incredible abilities because of a neurological disorder, might it not be possible for some individuals to do this by some other means, and having psychic abilities might be an aid to this?
I would suggest that the difference between heightened musical ability as a result of a neurological disorder and actually hearing the spirits of the dead is vast. To be taken seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as far as I know, these types of claims have nearly none.
Regarding 'akashic records', what evidence do we have that such an asserted entity exists?
Well, it could mean that she was a 'savant' in the sense that she was able to write all that music somewhat imitating various composers' styles without realizing she was doing it herself, as it were.
I have merely added another postulate. I don't need evidence for one of those, if I had some it would be called a theory. Science starts at points such as this does it not?
So we have:
1) Fraud
2) Real communication with discarnate entities
3) Delusion - it is a neurological disorder triggering savant syndrome
4) The ability is a result of communication with the Akashic records
What we need is to hear some of the music. Can anyone help?
Actually, science would not start with 2 or 4.
I still think we have to start with RB the medium as science is not going to get anywhere with this one. Trouble is, that's likely to be fraught with spiritual dangers.
Christian theology maintains that the spiritual world is populated by discarnate entities - either angels, who are true messengers of God (such as Gabriel), or demons, who rebelled against God under the leadership of Lucifer/Satan. Theology also maintains that the dead cannot be contacted and that any attempted communications will actually be with demons intent on deception by impersonating the dead (whether composers or Great Aunt Flo!) These demons have immense knowledge and could without any doubt communicate musical compositions good enough to deceive even experts.
However, this activity is extremely dangerous and is not to be encouraged. My own advice as a practising Christian would be to steer well clear.
The standard Christian answer explained at greater length is to be found here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/demonic-activity.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/demonic-activity.html)
Quote from: Balapoel on Sunday 30 September 2012, 19:24
Actually, science would not start with 2 or 4.
Now, I did not specify which postulate you might
begin investigating, only that science has to start with a postulate or theory. From what we know about RB, fraud doesn't seem likely. There is no evidence to suggest that the music was ghost-written
(you know what I mean! as opposed to ghost-dictated LOL), and Rosemary Brown had never studied style-composition, neither had she advanced pianistic ability. A scientific materialist approach would then consider investigating 3), but then RB was ordinary in every respect except mediumship. So do you then reject 3 & 4 because it does not fit in with your world-view? If so, I concur with Alan's earlier point that your world-view then dictates the possible outcomes.
Composers have often described the creative process as being a kind of channel, receiving the music from elsewhere. And when one of the native singers of English folk-song was asked where the wonderful melodies came from, he replied, 'If you can get the words, the almighty sends you the tune' This common inner experience leads me to postulate that the Akashic Records could be a very real possibility.
This debate is going to remain pretty academic since the lady herself is dead and her activities cannot be investigated at first-hand. I really do think that this thread has run its course and is unlikely to get much further.
As for the so-called Akashic records, well that's going well into the realms of the esoteric, not to say occult anyway...
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/JesusNAM.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/JesusNAM.html)
Yes, this has been an interesting thread but I too think that it's got to the stage where it ceases to be about music and so there it should end.
It would be nice to round off this thread with some music, so here goes:
Grübelei by Rosemary Brown's Liszt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sLqPFw1rU4
The lady herself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpxV-zu7LnY&feature=relmfu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyEgYgy6OLQ
OK. Enough, now.