Bohemian Rhapsody

[adgloriam]

But we do not know what Mr Mercury’s spiritual condition was

Actually I always thought his interviews were of a lovely charitable person, he didn’t strike me as proud, arrogant or full of himself - like so many artists today. I have read about his personality and it seems he was an entertainer type thus his personality and profession aligning perfectly.

That much also goes with his private choices, an in-depth analyses of his particular personality type reveals a person who’s personality is so dominant that some psychologists describe that type as “the persons most likely to walk up to God and ask for an autograph.”

Freddy left us his quite intelligent (eclectic - as you’d expect from him) auto-biography in “bohemian rhapsody” with the second-to-last “Quatrain” containing references to the “Via Crucis” preceded by his battle and temptation with a demon, in turn preceded by a reference “Bismillah” to the Qur’an (giving an inter-religious outlook on human faith). Before this a reference to his own youth and upbringing, a foreign youth from Zanzibar in the UK preceded, again, by Galileo in reference to the church and homicide of himself through his choices in conflict, he does seem to dedicate the song to a maternal figure -his parents were Zoroastrian-…Still, to avoid drama the whole thing is a rhapsody, bohemian at that.

 

[LilyM]

Help me out here. So yesterday, to pick a random example, imagine you listened to and loved “Peggy Sue” by Buddy Holly, not knowing anything about the artist.

Today you find out that Buddy was an absolute dog of a human being. Hypothetical example - I really know very little about him.

And somehow you convince yourself that that song that yesterday you thought was brilliant, today has become so worthless that you can no longer listen to it?

To me it doesn’t compute. To me music and art are like gemstones. A low-down jewel thief can sell you a valuable precious sapphire or ruby just as well as an upstanding reputable jeweller can. The value and quality of the gem has nothing to do with the moral character of the salesperson.

 

[MarthaSo]

Yes, it’s happened that I stopped enjoying an artists music when I found out about something about their lives such as they are staunch pro abortion activist. It does compute. I’ve actually witnessed this with a few people and the same artist. I hear his band now and I have no interest. A work of art is someone who is not sinless, we’re all sinners, but whose life is beautiful as they strive for sainthood. Not just one part of themselves. I think people with terrible voices who are kind every day to others while being hurt inside, are a work of art. I just can’t agree no matter how baffled it leaves people for the sake of agreeing. Judge away. This topic is losing its luster to me so I may no longer respond. God bless everybody!

 

[LilyM]

Last year I went to Northern Australia. I saw aboriginal rock paintings that were thousands of years old. Very little is known about the individuals who painted them, certainly nothing about the state of their souls.

By your logic it seems these rock paintings can’t then have any worth as art, since they apparently have no meaning apart from their creators. Who can’t apparently create good art without being in a state of grace?

Give me a break. ‘Peggy Sue’ is the same song - the same art - yesterday today and tomorrow. Its value does not depend on Buddy Holly being a good person or not.

By the way I agree holy people are beautiful. So is the Mona Lisa. So is Beethoven’s Fifth. And the beauty of the latter doesn’t depend on the moral character of da Vinci or Beethoven.

 

[MarthaSo]

No. IF I appreciate them and find out that the rock painter did xyz horrific act something in me stops appreciating.

Give yourself a break! You keep judging my views. Art is altered for me if the artist is severely tainted by something terribly offensive they’ve done towards God for example.

I don’t think the Mona Lisa is beautiful at all.

 

[LilyM]

Pick your favourite painting, not the point.

A painting is a bunch of paint spread over canvas. Music is a bunch of notes and rhythms played by instruments or sung by a voice.

It’s hardly a literal manifestation or expression of someone’s soul. If it were, every saint would be naturally capable of producing great music, art or literature.

Great art depends on technique - which is learned or practiced and mechanical - as much or more so than on soul or character.

The physical thing - the technique - doesn’t change. For that matter what there is of soul or character in the art doesn’t either.

The thing that you thought was great yesterday is the exact same thing - and still just as great - today. It has an existence and therefore a value of its own.

That is exactly why - as you yourself said - you can at least start to ‘appreciate’ something before you learn - or sometimes without ever knowing - squat about the artist.

 

[MarthaSo]

Ok. I see your point. My initial point was though that yes, fine, someone can be a superb artist but if that person displeases God by continually living a lifestyle (not talking about Queen) that is pro abortion (for example) to me, their superb art is of hardly any importance because it is not what’s paramount to God which is someone living in a state of grace. But I see your point, I’m tired and my phone is dying. I hope i’m explaining this well.

 

[LilyM]

Yes you are

No-one ever said it was more important than living in a state of grace, certainly. If knowing about Mr Mercury’s private life - or anybody’s - stops YOU livng in a state of grace, or even appreciating their work, then by all means avoid it.

But songs or other art, even when done by sinful people, can elevate. To get back on topic, Queen wrote ‘We are the Champions’, which has great lyrics about persevering to the end in the face of hardship and oppression. An entirely worthy and Christlike sentiment.

 

[DarkLight]

Also, speculations on the spiritual state of dead people is rarely of value, nor is speculation on that of public figures that none of us really know.

 

[LilyM]

To be fair, at least these days plenty of public figures capitalise on their scandalous private lives and cheerfully blab details all over their social media.

 

[Catholicman-maryland]

I don’t know if I should wade into this mess, but I’ll stick my toe in anyway…
I thought Mercury was a rare rare talent, amazing voice, but even when I was young I found We Are The Champions to be a bit narcissistic, self glorifying. “No time for losers.” I say this, even though I really liked the song.

I have no problem at all with people losing interest in the “art” of someone who has disappointed in some way. I doubt if Cosby reruns are very popular any more. Many stopped rooting for Tiger Woods as a favorite after his failings were exposed (not an artist, but I think the same principle applies to entertainers/athletes of all sorts). I actually think this is a completely normal human thing. Memories, emotions, what makes us feel good, what fundamentally drives us - all these things factor in to how we can enjoy art or various forms of entertainment. If a child was abused by someone who always played Sinatra, they might hate hearing Sinatra the rest of their life. If someone had a favorite song that always made them happy, only to find out later that the singer was a child rapist, I can completely get why hearing that song might not bring about the same joy as before. While some people can be overly scrupulous certainly, and perhaps miss out on some things they don’t need to, it’s also just as true that others can be TOO casual at times in guarding what they are exposed to, and can allow themselves to become a bit numb to or accepting of things that they really shouldn’t be.

 

[Hope1960]

To be fair, at least these days plenty of public figures capitalise on their scandalous private lives and cheerfully blab details all over their social media.

To his credit, Freddie was a very private person.