Wagner moments

[Brian]

As far as I'm concerned, there's no competition with this great Wagner moment.

[Haffner]

As far as I'm concerned, there's no competition with this great Wagner moment.

Now here is a wise man!

[longears]

As far as I'm concerned, there's no competition with this great Wagner moment.

Amen to that, with a hallelujah or two for good measure!

[jochanaan]

Amen to that, with a hallelujah or two for good measure!

Somehow "Amen" and "Hallelujah" don't seem quite appropriate or sufficient.  No, the only proper response to such a great moment is:  HOJOTOHO!

[max]

Re. Rossini's remark about Wagner. Rossini apologized to Wagner when he met him for having made a stupid remark. As Rossini claimed, he just trying to be witty and didn't really know what he was talking about.

As for the likes of Wagner, Beethoven, Bach or Mozart being compared to Shakespeare is more than fair and actually would do Shakespeare honor. As great as Shakespeare was, he also wrote a whole bunch of crap which isn't just my opinion.

Shakespeare himself was indifferent to his plays except as money-makers. He wasn't even impressed enough to preserve them for posterity. That was left for others to do who had some idea of their value for which we must be grateful otherwise they would certainly have been lost forever.

I'm not trying to denigrate Shakespeare in any way but I won't make him into a God either like Harold Bloom. I've read almost all of his plays and I must say with some once was enough! Others, I can read over and over again more so than any other writer with the exception of Milton who to my mind is equal to Shakespeare in verbal power.

The point is, Shakespeare never was or will be the be all and end all of artistic genius and sometimes comparisons can be made without Shakespeare always sweeping everyone away even by those who can't quote ten lines from any of his plays.

[Larry Rinkel]

As for the likes of Wagner, Beethoven, Bach or Mozart being compared to Shakespeare is more than fair and actually would do Shakespeare honor. As great as Shakespeare was, he also wrote a whole bunch of crap which isn't just my opinion.

- Please tell us exactly which ones are crap and why.

Shakespeare himself was indifferent to his plays except as money-makers. He wasn't even impressed enough to preserve them for posterity. That was left for others to do who had some idea of their value for which we must be grateful otherwise they would certainly have been lost forever.

- This was not an attribute of Shakespeare's personality as implied. The idea of preserving works for posterity simply didn't exist in his time; and if a play was needed, he could always write another. Shakespeare saw fit only to publish some of his poetry, and while some of the plays were published as quartos during his lifetime, about half were only collected by the actors who compiled the First Folio after his death. But it was extremely unusual for a writer like Ben Jonson to have published his collected "works." We can't apply 20th-century ideas about the importance of one's personal intellectual property to work that was done before this concept ever emerged.

I'm not trying to denigrate Shakespeare in any way but I won't make him into a God either like Harold Bloom. I've read almost all of his plays and I must say with some once was enough!

- Again, your evaluations are solicited. (I've read the entire Shakespearean cycle three times over myself, and I've read or seen many of the plays far more often than that.) There are some less than transcendent works - Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, Henry VI, Merry Wives, others - but it doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that when he produced Hamlet, As You Like It, Henry IV, Antony, Lear, The Tempest, and quite a few others, he blew every other writer out of the water, living or dead.

Others, I can read over and over again more so than any other writer with the exception of Milton who to my mind is equal to Shakespeare in verbal power.

- I'm pleased to hear this. And this being the case, why come out with your next sentence?

The point is, Shakespeare never was or will be the be all and end all of artistic genius

- Your Macbethian allusion notwithstanding, yes he is, all other candidates at least in literature falling short. Your position seems to be that since not all of Shakespeare is transcendent, he "never was or will be the be all and end all of artistic genius." But no great genius is always at the top of his game, or emerges like Minerva from the head of Zeus as a finished artist from the start of his career. And this applies to Bach and Beethoven as well as Shakespeare.

and sometimes comparisons can be made without Shakespeare always sweeping everyone away even by those who can't quote ten lines from any of his plays.

[Lethevich]

Please tell us exactly which ones are crap and why.

Indeed... if anything, Shakespeare was freakish in his consistent greatness - seemingly never rattling off a piece of rubbish just to satisfy a commission...

[Anne]

Does anyone know how long it took Shakespeare to write Hamlet or some of his other plays?

[Larry Rinkel]

Does anyone know how long it took Shakespeare to write Hamlet or some of his other plays?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Renaissance_theatre#Performances

See the topic "Writers."

It is always possible that some of Shakespeare's plays took many years to gestate. We just don't know. But since he generally worked without collaborating, he probably wrote about 2 plays a year.

[jochanaan]

*whew* For a moment it sounded like "Is not!  Is too!"  I thought we were going to have to knock some heads together!

As long as I've been haunting GMG, there has been a discussion of greatness, what it is or isn't, and who has it.  It hasn't been resolved yet.  I'm not holding my breath. The most we can say is that we've all had some great experiences listening to, or watching, certain dramas, concerts, recordings, etc.  Shakespeare's verbal sharpness and human insight number him among the greatest--but there are other great ones too, including several in the present and just-past centuries.  As for opera composers, I would certainly include Wagner among the very greatest--but of course, there are other greats, many of them great by different standards than Wagner's.  (I would certainly include Benjamin Britten among these! )

[Anne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Renaissance_theatre#Performances

See the topic "Writers."

It is always possible that some of Shakespeare's plays took many years to gestate. We just don't know. But since he generally worked without collaborating, he probably wrote about 2 plays a year.

Thanks, Larry.  I was thinking about the poetic language and how difficult it must be to write it.

[Larry Rinkel]

1) Shakespeare's verbal sharpness and human insight number him among the greatest--but there are other great ones too, including several in the present and just-past centuries.

2) (I would certainly include Benjamin Britten among these! )

1) Such as who?
2) I wouldn't! 

[max]

[quote LR] The idea of preserving works for posterity simply didn't exist in his time;

Only half true. It certainly did not exist IN the way it does now. Nevertheless, Chaucer was very aware of leaving a literary legacy 200 years before Shakespeare. So was Sir Philip Sidney or Edmund Spenser who also expected to be remembered for their works. It was after all The Renaissance and the lights were on as far as ‘Remembrance of Things Past’ was concerned.

What matters is the fact that when he produced Hamlet, As You Like It, Henry IV, Antony, Lear, The Tempest, and quite a few others, he blew every other writer out of the water, living or dead.

…precisely the kind of hyperbole I’m referring to. As stated, I’ve read these works many times – I prefer to read them as compared to watching them because I can then go back a line, a verse or a page and really let it soak in sometimes to the point where I can recite without having consciously memorized.

But what is it in these works that can blow every other writer out of the water, living or dead, assuming that the great works of different times can even be compared since they may operate within vastly different contexts? Case in point: for two hundred years after his death the common judgement was that he was ONLY a gifted poet at best. He started becoming a God in the 19th century. The time was ripe for the kind of individuality Shakespeare expressed.

The monuments of an age are equally the monuments of time or as Jonson succinctly mentioned for all time in Shakespeare’s case. Nevertheless, THAT age was ONLY ONE of those seminal times. There were very great literary accomplishments before Shakespeare as there was after him.

Please tell us exactly which ones are crap and why

…crap is definitely overstated. A better term would have been Will Durant’s ‘powerful nonsense’ when mentioning certain of Shakespeare’s plays.
As to which ones and why. Do you seriously think that there can ever be ANY agreement discussing this matter regarding Shakespeare in the semi-divine way you and others do? That would be futile. The usual response is – as always – to each his own.

[David Zalman]

But what is it in these works that can blow every other writer out of the water, living or dead, assuming that the great works of different times can even be compared since they may operate within vastly different contexts? Case in point: for two hundred years after his death the common judgement was that he was ONLY a gifted poet at best. He started becoming a God in the 19th century. The time was ripe for the kind of individuality Shakespeare expressed.

You need to read up on your Shakespeare if you imagine that "for two hundred years after his death the common judgement was that he was ONLY a gifted poet at best."  That's absolute rubbish.  One has only to read what his contemporary, the great playwright Ben Jonson, had to say about him in his preface to the posthumous publication of the First Folio of Shakespeare's works to see just what rubbish your comment is, not to speak of what almost every other great writer, from S's death on, had to say.  As to what it is in Shakespeare's works that marks him absolutely as the greatest writer who ever lived, bar none, I point you to the brilliant scholar and literary critic Harold Bloom's book, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human.

[max]

You need to read up on your Shakespeare if you imagine that "for two hundred years after his death the common judgement was that he was ONLY a gifted poet at best."  That's absolute rubbish.  One has only to read what his contemporary, the great playwright Ben Jonson, had to say about him in his preface to the posthumous publication of the First Folio of Shakespeare's works to see just what rubbish your comment is, not to speak of what almost every other great writer, from S's death on, had to say.  As to what it is in Shakespeare's works that marks him absolutely as the greatest writer who ever lived, bar none, I point you to the brilliant scholar and literary critic Harold Bloom's book, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human.

...as you mention Jonson was contemporary and I've already quoted him accordingly and agreed with his assessment of Shakespeare in spite of the fact that Jonson's view was not the general view at the time. Is there a difference in your mind between the meaning of contemporary and 200 years subsequent? Also what I said is a matter of history! He was not always regarded in the same semi-divine light he is now. That was an invention of the late 18th century proceeding in full force into the 19th, etc., in short, a romantic invention! No further comment!

Most Shakespeare fanatics quote Bloom - a man in definite danger of losing credibiltiy even by his peers - who thinks Walt Whitman is equal to or greater than Goethe. After that, what can one say!

Anyone who claims that Shakespeare is the greatest writer who ever lived, bar none needs an education - especially after quoting Bloom.

Oh, BTW, do you know that it was mostly the Germans who made Shakespeare into a European phenomenon, gave him his due far more than the English! But I guess I'm writing rubbish again!

[Larry Rinkel]

...crap is definitely overstated. A better term would have been Will Durant's 'powerful nonsense' when mentioning certain of Shakespeare's plays.
As to which ones and why. Do you seriously think that there can ever be ANY agreement discussing this matter regarding Shakespeare in the semi-divine way you and others do? That would be futile. The usual response is – as always – to each his own.

"Crap" was your word. Which plays are crap, and why?

And there's nothing "semi-divine" in my reaction to Shakespeare. As Hamlet says of his father, "He was a man. Take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again." I have already listed several plays that even the most ardent Shakespeareans agree are far from his best. Yes, Titus Andronicus with all its blood, guts, amputations, and cannibalism is a preposterous early exercise by a talented young author who soon wised up and got serious about his life's work. Merry Wives is a tired use of a glorious comic character, redeemed mainly by its becoming material for Verdi centuries later. The Two Noble Kinsmen, insofar as they're Shakespeare's, may be noble but they're not nearly as interesting as the Chaucerian original. Etc.

But as for you, first you say, "he also wrote a whole bunch of crap which isn't just my opinion;" then you backtrack by stating, "to each his own." Please stop evading the issue.

[marvinbrown]

  I seem to cause nothing but trouble on the GMG threads, I make one harmless  comment about Wagner  0:) being the "Shakespeare of opera" if that analogy can be made and Rossini "the Stephen King of opera"  to which I  respectfully and apologetically withdrew and suddenly, I have inadvertently sparked a heated debate about "Literature" of all topics!!!!!!   Why just the other day I unintentionally hijacked the "Recordings you are considering" thread and turned into a Tchaikovsky "post your favorite Complete Symphonies Karajan Recording FIESTA".  I am terribly ashamed of myself,  I lack discipline  .


  with apologies  0:),

marvin 

[jochanaan]

1) Such as who?

Hmmm...George Bernard Shaw; Federico Garcia Lorca; Arthur Miller; Tennessee Williams.  And those are just the playwrights.
2) I wouldn't! 
[/quote]
Your loss.

[Larry Rinkel]

1) Hmmm...George Bernard Shaw; Federico Garcia Lorca; Arthur Miller; Tennessee Williams.  And those are just the playwrights.
2) I wouldn't! 

Your loss.

1) All well worth reading. None remotely equal Shakespeare.
2) On the contrary, I've heard a good deal of Britten and like some of it. But he's not that hot.

[max]

…last post on the subject. PROMISE!

But as for you, first you say, "he also wrote a whole bunch of crap which isn't just my opinion;" then you backtrack by stating, "to each his own." Please stop evading the issue.

I wasn’t trying to make it into an issue in the first place. I only responded because I don’t think of Shakespeare as the OVERLORD of every writer or composer who ever lived. I regard that as pure bunk! Out of all the people ever born, he wasn’t the only cultural super-achiever. There are those who quite easily can be compared to Shakespeare without this hardwired hangup that it can’t be done. The incomparability and unimpeachability of Shakespeare is almost a neurosis in some.

My own assessment of Shakespeare has always been that he is the greatest WRITER in the English language and ONE of the greatest writers of all time. That to me is indisputable regardless of what I think of a whole number of lines or certain plays. A higher assessment than that is ludicrous. It’s already far beyond anything Shakespeare himself would have imagined. It took a few hundred years for his value to become recognized and even then it was mostly among the elite, that is, among writers, composers and artists, less so among critics.

Even Jonson said the he wished Shakespeare had “blotted” a thousand lines from his plays. It’s too bad you can’t ask him which lines he would find objectionable. It was furthermore Jonson’s plays which continued to be performed in the following years far more than Shakespeare’s who was considered uncouth, vulgar, barbaric and chaotic.

But you really seem to have the urge to pick bones dry. I already ‘back tracked’, since that’s the word you used when I said “Crap is definitely overstated”. In the past, it would have been one of the more polite terms. For example, consider Voltaire’s verdict that Shakespeare was "a savage, a man who wrote like a drunken brute".

It took a long time for Shakespeare to be acknowledged but that fame has NOW become clearly bloated: he blew every other writer out of the water, living or dead and such like hyperboles. Harold Bloom himself is completely unbalanced in that respect. Nevertheless, it’s become a common view even by those who read 2 plays of his in High School. So be it, again, to each his own. If you and those like you consider Shakespeare to be the greatest colossus of all then nothing more can or need be said. I won’t argue with a Jehovah’s Witness about God either.

As for your quote from Hamlet, "He was a man. Take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again." Is very appropriate and balanced being equally valid for a whole host of others don't you think?

…but since you’re hot on the trail of something to dig your heels into – I wouldn’t want to evade the issue – I could choose, among other things, quite a few lines from Romeo and Juliet that would cause me to put a couple of fingers in the back of my throat!