Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 April 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 25

Perceptions of Maurice Ravel as a spanish composer

I while back I was reading an interview from Yasunori Mitsuda and he says this

" He’s from Spain, so his melodies have this unique, smoldering Spanish soul to them. It’s classical, but it somehow feels like folk music. I like earthy, “rustic” music… "

Here is a link to the interview and I cannot vouch for the credibility of the Japanese translation (https://shmuplations.com/yasunorimitsuda/)

My curiosity was, in Ravel's day, what was the perception about his music? Im aware of his Basque lineage and Swiss father, that is clear in his music, so did people then view his pieces a bit in that light, more so than a more traditional French composer like Faure? I understand Ravel's "affiliation" with the state of France and his contributions to the war and such. However, he also was inspired by traditional Basque tunes and wrote a few pieces from them. Obviously with Japanese woodcuts, Algerian brothels, and the Spanish music popular with French composers, (Serenade Impromptu, Alborada de Gracioso, and Issac Albeniz's Iberian influence), things from "farther lands" were commonplace in France at the time. Regardless, I would appreciate any relatively contemporary insight to the perception of Ravel's musical heritage.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7830:DE40:F959:51D5:D652:44AB (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Paul Rosenfeld wrote an essay about Ravel in 1920. This is a chapter headed "Ravel", but he actually talks about "Ravel and Debussy" the whole way through as if they were conjoined twins, and probably the most enthusiastic and purple paragraph is about Debussy (in which we learn that his soul is made of stuff including "the angry gleam of sunset on wet leaves", wild and headlong gipsy rhythms, moonfire, shimmering stuffs and flashing spray, the garish lights and odors of the Peninsula - because Debussy wrote a movement called Ibéria - rain on flowerbeds, the melancholy march of clouds, the golden pomp and ritual of the church, the pools and gardens and pavilions reared for its delight by the delicate Chinese soul, and earth's thousand scents and shells and colors). Some observations Rosenfeld makes about the pair of them, though, including Ravel, are:

• genius of France
• influenced by Haydn and Mozart
• their music is of few strokes, and recalls the pictural art of Japan
• influenced by Russian music
• like many other French musicians, "kindled" by the bright colors of Spain

Then of Ravel on his own, "No doubt there is a certain almost Hebraic melancholy and sharp lyricism in Ravel's music which gives some color to the rumor that he is Jewish." He also mentions "pungent naturalism" and concludes by calling Ravel "one of the most delightful and original musical geniuses that have been nourished by the teeming soil of France." Switzerland doesn't get a mention.  Card Zero  (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

ill look into it, the descriptions are my cup of tea, but just a quip on the matter, is there some rumour than ravel was jewish that I never came across or is some sort of insult I didn't grasp?

thank you 2600:1700:7830:DE40:F959:51D5:D652:44AB (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A fantastic etymology of Ravel as a so-called Jewish name deriving from Rabbele [sic] was apparently invented by Roland-Manuel as a joke and was long afterward repeated by gullible biographers. [1]

Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ravel is obviously French, not Spanish, but 1) he was born in Ciboure which is right on the border of Spain; and 2) his two most famous compositions (arguably) are the Boléro and Pavane pour une infante défunte, both inspired by Spanish culture. But then again, there are plenty of French composers who have found inspiration in Spanish music (Debussy is mentioned above, but also George Bizet, with Carmen, to name just two), and he also composed many other famous work with no connection to Spain whatsoever (e.g. L'enfant et les sortilèges, Daphnis et Chloé). So at most, one can say that he was very familiar with Spain and that there are some strong Spanish influences in his work. Xuxl (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the family moved to Paris when Maurice was three months old, the influence of Ciboure by itself may have been minimal, but our article Maurice Ravel states (without citing a source) that his mother's Basque-Spanish heritage was a strong influence on his life and music. The claim can also be found in The Cambridge Companion to Ravel.^[2]  --Lambiam 19:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

thank you for all your helps 2600:1700:7830:DE40:2115:A6EE:553A:DAB9 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about federal pardons in the United States

Re: Federal pardons in the United States. When can the sitting US President pardon a criminal? There seem to be only two restrictions on the president: (1) he cannot pardon in cases of impeachment; and (2) he can only pardon in cases of federal -- not state -- crimes. A third scenario -- can he pardon himself? -- seems to be less clear and (essentially) legally untested. And a fourth scenario -- a pre-emptive pardon (e.g., Ford's pardon of Nixon "for any crimes that Nixon might have committed") -- also seems legally sound. So, other than these "odd" scenarios, can the president simply pardon anyone for anything, whenever he feels like it? Are there no other "stops" or "checks and balances" on this power? Why would the framers "allow" or provide for such an absolute, sweeping power (especially given the whole point of the Constitution, the American Revolution, the animosity toward the unchecked power of the monarchy in Britain, etc.)? So, as a more concrete example, Joe Biden ... he can simply pardon his own son, Hunter, ... and there is nothing that anyone can do about it? This is a hypothetical example ... although not 100% so. I understand that another limitation might be "political pressure" ... so, for example, a President who issues an unwise pardon may/will incur the wrath of his party and/or the electorate. But, I am asking -- really -- about the legal status. Another somewhat related question. Can the US Supreme Court be invoked to decide legal questions of presidential pardons, or is that off the table (due to the SCOTUS's restrictions from intervening in political questions and controversies)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 20:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This describes the limits on Presidential pardons. [3]. Of note, the President cannot pardon crimes not yet committed, but that's different than Ford's pardon of Nixon, which was for crimes which may have been committed, but not yet charged with. --Jayron32 10:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from pardoning anyone convicted of a federal crime. Hence, he himself must be convicted of such a crime in order to be eligible for a Presidential pardon. However, a sitting president is impeached, not tried in court. Therefore, it does not seem possible for a sitting president to pardon himself for crimes committed after he takes office. Under the broad theory of separation of powers, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over anything related to presidential pardons. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for crimes that he had not only not been convicted of, but which were not even enumerated in the pardon itself. Whether this was constitutional or not was never tested in court. If some prosecutor had decided to charge Nixon notwithstanding the pardon, then I suppose the Supreme Court might at least have had an opportunity to say whether or not it thought it had jurisdiction. What do you do if rules that it does have jurisdiction, but you don't think it was entitled to decide that question in the first place? This is where you get constitutional crises from, I guess. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So, what was the general thinking / rationale of the Framers ... to provide such a broad, sweeping, important power ... that has the potential for much political abuse ... but yet remains unencumbered by any checks and balances? Seems very contrary to the whole idea / objective / spirit underlying the Constitution ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it was carried over from Royal prerogative of mercy? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, the right of pardon is seen itself as a "check and balance" on the courts. While the courts have the exclusive right to convict someone of a crime, the President has the ultimate right to pardon them for it. There cannot be an infinite series of checks and balances, at some point the buck has to stop, and in this case, it stops with the President. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? It can't be turtles all the way down. There has to be an unwatched watchman. I suppose the best you can say is that the check and balance on the President is the ballot box. Presidents who abuse their power in ways that are unpalatable to the people can be not voted for during the next election.--Jayron32 11:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Which, among other things, is why Ford was voted out of office. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Most political scientists and historians seem to agree that Ford's pardon of Nixon only played a minor role in his failure to win re-election. In more general terms, the Republican Party had fallen out-of-favor due mostly to the Watergate issue in general, in addition the changing nature of the political parties at the time meant that, while the Democratic Party had started to swing decidedly to the left, Southern Democrats still had a large proportion of the conservative vote, "squeezing" the Republicans (see Fifth Party System and Sixth Party System for context). Ford was seen as weak on national defense (he had made several confounding speeches in which he was seen as being overly conciliatory towards the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, for example). However, in general Ford's campaign almost pulled off a stunning comeback. Most polls had him down by over 30 points during Convention season, but he only lost the general election by like 2 percentage points on the popular vote; less than 10000 votes in 2 states (Hawaii and Ohio) would have swung the election to Ford. Ford was not entirely unpopular, but was instead seen as something of a bumbler, not harmful so much as inept, though the choice of the relative political neophyte in Carter was not necessarily seen as much of an upgrade in terms of competence. See 1976 United States presidential election. --Jayron32 11:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this all makes sense. But, in general, wasn't the nation seething with anger at Nixon (and at Ford) because "Nixon got away with murder"? I can't imagine there was much public sentiment on Nixon's side ... and, by extension, on Ford's side, for his letting Nixon off the hook. Also, if I remember ... it wasn't the crime, it was the cover up. No? The "crime" (stealing files from a political office) was probably "par for the course" political shenanigans ... the caveat being "just don't get caught, while you're doing it". Then Nixon lied, covered-up, and tried to hoodwink the nation, the judges, and the courts. I thought it was that cover-up that was the real problem? Not the (vaguely innocuous) crime itself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that the Watergate break-in was "par for the course" in politics. But it turned out to be "par for the course" in the way Nixon ran his presidency. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I assume it was indeed "par for the course". Meaning, simply, typical political shenanigans and chicanery ... that happens all the time ... but, they usually get away with it, because they're usually not caught. Then, in the few cases where they do get caught (pretty much red-handed), they just offer lots of word salads, obfuscate the issue, and claim plausible deniability. All that is what I meant by "par for the course". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If a US President's agreeing to breaking and entering their opponents' premises or offices and stealing confidential material, for no other reason than to cling to power, is typical political shenanigans and chicanery that happens all the time and is considered par for the course, then the situation is even more dire then I thought already.  --Lambiam 07:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Uhhhhh ... just take a look around. Biden's (alleged) laptop. Hillary's (alleged) emails. Hillary's (alleged) Russian disinformation dossier. Obama's (alleged) spying on Trump. Jim Comey's (alleged) sweetheart deal with Hillary. Loretta Lynch's (alleged) meeting on the tarmac. All "alleged", of course. It's all around. And, I assume, has been for ages. Just -- once in a blue moon -- they get "caught". And, even then, nothing happens. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten Trump's various "alleged" shady stuff. And keep in mind that Nixon was caught on tape saying the stuff he was accused of saying. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. As I said, it's all over the place ... regardless of political party. That's why I called it "par for the course" and typical political shenanigans and chicanery. I think it'd be (at least somewhat) naive to think otherwise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Watergate break-in is actually part of a greater culture of political sabotage found in the Republican party of the 1960s and early 1970s. See ratfucking for more background. Which is to say, while it isn't normal, it was also not unique to just the Watergate breakin. It also included numerous other activities, including famously certain underhanded political attacks against Daniel Ellsberg, famous for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. Indeed, in that case the ratfucking tactics backfired; because of them much of the evidence against Ellsberg was dismissed in his subsequent espionage trial, and he was exonerated. Also, there was the forged Canuck letter that sunk Muskie's campaign in 1972. They were also responsible for leaking Thomas Eagleton's private health records, which caused him to drop out of the race for VP late in the 1972 race. See also Donald Segretti and Dwight Chapin. But no, such behavior is not normalized, even in politics. --Jayron32 12:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)