Question: I am from the Baltimore office. My question is on the issue of the music work. Now, it's easy to say, okay modern music, like rap, or hip-hop, or all these other kind of things are bad, you know, because you have this Tavistock Institute, the Frankfurt School. But I want to actually take it back, like say, for example, during the time of Beethoven, Mozart, why was music political? And I ask, because when young people come around, and we have other organizers that say, [melodramatically] "Don't listen to rock music! It's bad! It'll destroy your mind!" But, there isn't enough actually presented to people, the relationship between the political side of Classical music, and actually how we, as young people, can actually look at things from a more political standpoint, than just saying, "We're living in a messed-up culture! You know, our culture is messed up!"

So, I wanted to ask you how we should approach the music work, in a more political way. You know, why was there a big fight, over whether or not Beethoven and other people could perform certain pieces?

LaRouche: Generally, the problem is the way people use the word "Classical." Now, people assume that "Classical" is a specialized, culturally specific, way that some things are done by some people. And assume that "Classical" is only one of many alternate forms of composition and performance. That is not true, and that's where the problem comes from.

Classical represents the only correct way of human communication, that actually qualifies as human, in a full sense of the term. Therefore, the question is not whether the music is Classical in form, the question is whether the music is composed in a way, which meets the underlying standard for all Classical composition, whether in science or art.

Now, the root of this lies in the difference between man and the beast. So generally, the difference between Classical and non-Classical composition, and non-Classical performance of Classical composition, such as today's typical stage performance of Shakespeare or Schiller, or so forth: It's an abomination; disgusting; immoral; makes you puke, huh? At least, if you have any good taste, it makes you puke. (Or, some people swallow anything; some of us won't.) But, the essential thing, is the difference between man and the beast. That's what the term Classical signifies.

In societies prior to the 15th-Century Renaissance, generally, most people were treated by some people as human cattle--human cattle, which were hunted down, like wild cattle; or cattle which were herded, used, and culled, as animal cattle are. So therefore, the argument has been--for example, let's take the case of the crisis of educational policy, in the post-Civil War United States, as it applied particularly to the question of the recently freed Americans of African origin. The general argument was, that you should not try to over-educate a person of African origin, because they would have no reason to know anything of this sort. Because they were going to have simple lives; their expectations for thinking and living would be limited. And if you over-educated them, they would not be content, with being cheap labor on somebody's post-Confederacy plantation. And therefore, you had these policies of education: Don't educate people above the status which you expect them to enjoy in late-adolescent and adult life.

In other words: "dumb 'em down, boys!" "Get 'em down to the level of cows, where you want to keep them!"

So therefore, you had cultures which developed, or forms of cultural expression, which developed, or tended to develop, on the basis of the relative bestialization, of those destined to be members of one of the stratum of the so-called "lower classes," generally considered the animal herd-type human cattle. So, we have a lot of culture of that form. We also have, in the so-called "upper classes," who are also morally degenerate, they are offended by any use of culture--Classical art, and so forth--which offends them, by pointing out that they're supposed to think cognitively, and they don't.

So, what you have, therefore, is forms of culture which are based on sexual and similar types of passions. Animal passions. As for example, the rock music today, or all the varieties of rock: These are based on the animal sexual passions--passions like, "rave" dancing, which reduces a person to a psychotic beast, at least for the time they're going through that particular kind of sexual experience, whatever it is. I don't know how many sexes there are out there, raving around, but that's what we get; that's what we're up against.

Okay. In a real human communication, we have the same criteria in art, that we do, in physical science. In physical science, as opposed to the empiricist varieties, which are commonly taught and believed, in centers of superstition called "universities," today, humanity is defined by the ability to discover and prove and use, a principle of the universe, which is not detectable directly by the senses. That is, something you can not see, hear, taste or smell--though you may get a scent of a smell indirectly, from something.

Okay. So, these are principles, like the principle of gravitation, which you can not taste, you can not see it, you can not hear it; it doesn't have any particular flavor--but it's there. And, human beings are capable of discovering these principles and using them to increase man's power in and over the universe. We can also communicate, in terms of these discovered principles, even though none of our physical senses can ever directly sense one of these principles. But, human existence, as distinct from animal existence, depends entirely upon these principles.

In Classical art, this takes this form: In Classical art, the Classical artist, the Classical composer, and the audience, share an experience with a composition on the level of the imagination, not the physical senses. If you see the actor, as the player, as a part; if you see the person on stage, literally as the part; if you think the physiological attributes of the actor, and so forth, are actually determining what you see, you're in the wrong place, in the wrong theater, or in the wrong seat. In an actual performance, of Classical drama, of music, of poetry, you do not actually hear or see what's going on, on stage. What you see, and think, in the imagination, is what that inspires in you, what inspires you to see, on the stage of the imagination.

For example, when you're trying to communicate a physical principle, you realize that what the evidence you're using, to define the physical principle, is a shadow of the impact, on the senses, of the principle, which is unseen. In other words, you never directly see the principle, but you see the shadow of the principle's action. You don't see the man who's walking, but you see his footsteps in the mud. And you would never, of course, assume that a footstep in a mud was the man. But, the presence of the footstep in the mud can, under certain circumstances, indicate to you the existence of the man you didn't see! Similarly, in physical science, we look for the principle, which we don't see, but which leaves the footprint. If we can cause those footprints to appear, by our act of will, by discovering a principle, still without seeing the man, but seeing the footprints being generated by something we don't see, while they're being generated, under our will, we say, "We have discovered a universal physical principle."

The same thing is true, with the great Classical art: you use a principle developed, for artistic composition, to transform the audience's perception, of a mere shadow of reality--the footprint of the actor on stage, for example--and transform the audience's attention to the unseen man, whose walking is generating those footprints. On the field of the imagination, the human mind is capable of seeing the walker--but not with the senses. Therefore, culture means developing the ability to see the walker, who is invisible to the senses, in terms of your ability to control the effects, i.e., the footsteps of the walker.

Any art, or science, which conforms to that standard of accomplishment, qualifies as Classical. Any form of art, which does not, does not conform to Classical. For example, let's take the case of Franz Liszt: Franz Liszt was a person who was trained by Carl Czerny. Carl Czerny had been associated with Beethoven, and Beethoven despised him, as a criminal, in art. Czerny brought young Franz Liszt to see Beethoven; Beethoven witnessed the boy's performance, and said, "The boy is talented, but that criminal Czerny will destroy him." And, Liszt was destroyed. Liszt became quite capable and quite facile at the keyboard, and otherwise, in producing works, which seemed to imitate Classical composition, but weren't. They were based on a principle of sex-like sensuality. Like Wagner, sex-like sensuality, like a sexual experience, which you see not in the mind, but in the pants, huh? And that sort of thing.

This is called Romanticism. And then, Romanticism no longer tried to imitate Classical composition. But then, you had Modernism, which tried to parody Romanticism. Then you had Post-Modernism, which tried to parody Modernism; and things like that.

So, what we have, in the popular entertainment today, in the United States, especially the changes that have occurred over the past 40 years, represent a moral and intellectual degeneration of the population. But, people say, "I like them." They say, "People I know like this!" But that's not natural! It's not natural: It's a sickness. But, it's a sickness induced, by some dirty people, who wish to reduce the population, to the level of human cattle, who, as long as they're getting mounted twice a day, think they're happy. And, that's the problem.

So, the word "Classical" should be defined properly, to mean the power to communicate ideas, in an efficient way, which corresponds to the distinction between man and the beast. The problem we have, is that, the systems in society which try to degrade most of the population to cattle status, in the way post-Civil War educational reforms tried to reduce the ex-slaves, to the mental condition of cattle. This is what's called "popular culture." This is Elvis Presley, wiggling his fanny for posterity. And I guess there are some people who feel they can see him.

But, that's the difference. That's what the issue is.

-30-