Is Mozart Greater Than Wagner in Opera ?

[M forever]

These are my opinions.

Only up to a certain point.

Which is here:

hack

Unfortunately, at the point, it turns a little silly and devalues what you said before from a strong personal opinion to a rant. Because whatever one might think about Wagner and his music or however one might react to it, calling him a "hack" is simply wrong. He knew exactly what he was doing and he was one of the most inventive and original composers. His inventions, innovations, or adaptations in various areas including formal and harmonic solutions as well as orchestration are pretty revolutionary in many respects. Which is something a lot of musicians have recognized and admired. The list of these is very long. So he also was a very "influential" composer.

And I wish you hadn't written this:

There are no songs, only a lot of tuneless shrieking that goes on much too long

But you did, unfortunately...

[Valentino]

Mozart appeals to a  much wider range of people. What no Magic Flute? Mozart is the most popular operatic composer, with no one even close to his accomplishments.

I'm a selective type of guy.

Wagner appeals  to a   more selective group.

Bull alert.

[marvinbrown]

Do you think that one day people will give up their interests in Wagnerian?

  That's highly unlikely!  I say this with a great degree of certainty as Wagner's influence on virtually every composer that came after him is undeniable....even Stravinsky whose anti-Wagnerian stance is a form of tribute in and of itself.  More has been written about Richard Wagner than any other composer, a controversial figure both as a persona and as an "opera" composer. That in itself is enough to keep future listeners interested in his music.  Plus I found this link which pretty much sums up who's the GREATEST:

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-opera.html

  Take a look at who towers above everyone else!

  marvin

[marvinbrown]

I don't like Wagner.  Although I think he wrote some lovely music, there's just not enough of it to sustain my interest in his ponderously overlong and preposterously pompous plots that are as turgid as sinkholes in the desert and just as lively.  The characters aren't human, but archetypes--about as uninteresting and one-dimensional as the characters in children's Run-and-Gun computer games.  There are no songs, only a lot of tuneless shrieking that goes on much too long with lyrics that only reiterate the sophomoric self-importance of a narcissistic hack.  They are cold-hearted and judgmental.

  I am now convinced that you are unable to connect with , relate to  nor understand Wagner's artistic musical expression.  Your comments remind me of a remark the conductor Daniel Barenboim said: "those who can sing beautifully as they would an Italian Aria completely miss the musical expression in Wagner's music", I believe this also applies to listeners such as yourself who can not appreciate music beyond the typical Italian Aria.

  marvin

[longears]

Unfortunately, at the point [of referring to him as a "hack"], it turns a little silly and devalues what you said before from a strong personal opinion to a rant. Because whatever one might think about Wagner and his music or however one might react to it, calling him a "hack" is simply wrong. He knew exactly what he was doing and he was one of the most inventive and original composers. His inventions, innovations, or adaptations in various areas including formal and harmonic solutions as well as orchestration are pretty revolutionary in many respects. Which is something a lot of musicians have recognized and admired. The list of these is very long. So he also was a very "influential" composer.

Darn!  I thought it turned silly long before, with "preposterously pompous plots."  As for the term "hack," I applied it specifically to the libretto.  Even when poking a needle into the pretensions of one or two fellows who take themselves and little Dickie a bit too seriously (and I don't mean you, M, for your wit and humor are much appreciated), I would not deny Wagner's accomplishments and influence as a composer of music.  That is not to say that I, along with others far more illustrious than myself, do not regard him as a flawed dramatist, much of whose work seems silly at best and at worst is just a crashing bore.

  I am now convinced that you are unable to connect with , relate to  nor understand Wagner's artistic musical expression.  Your comments remind me of a remark the conductor Daniel Barenboim said: "those who can sing beautifully as they would an Italian Aria completely miss the musical expression in Wagner's music", I believe this also applies to listeners such as yourself who can not appreciate music beyond the typical Italian Aria.

Thanks for sharing, Marvin!  You seem like a very nice fellow, but your sense of humor could use a tune-up.  Just to explain, the post you object to was presented as a slightly facetious illustration of how one could present strong opinions while recognizing them as just that--opinions.  I would have thought the throwaway line from my wife would have made that perfectly clear. 

[paulb]

Plus Boulez' wasn't "a French style" Ring. It was basically "Boulez", nothing specifically "French", whatever that may mean in this context.

Yes thats clearer, I did not express that properly. Someone else made the comment that Boulez being french, maybe he does not have what a  good german conductor can bring to the score. As I say I;'m very impressed with almost everything Boulez recorded, but can he bring the excellence to the Ring as I;ve found in the results from various other german conductors ?
Its possible,I;'ll try to find some clips  

As to this 'greatest" issue,
Agree only the individual can make a  value judgement. Example: The music of Beethoven  has no meaning for my life. However on the level of historic cultural aspect, Beethoven was one of the greatest of composers. Who can deny this, neither did Debussy. But Ravel I'm not so sure, as he was much more outspoken on  his un-appreciative of Beethoven than was Debussy.
With Mozart, he was one of the greatest, unsurpassable. Wagner in his operas, again of the greatest, unsurpassable.
Now its left for the individual to form his own value judgement. How the epochs of future generations of classicphiles re-adjust the valuation of composers of the past, as yet can't be determined. Concerning germany's greatest symphonist, at the moment its Beethoven, stands at the pinnacle. But now fast forward 100 yrs,  as we know values change very slowly, <van Gogh sold for pennies in his day, and recently fetched $60 M for JUST ONE Sunflower painting, clearly mankind is slow to wake up to true genius, man is like a   tortiose, slow  moving> so now its the year 2108. No one can say for sure if Beethoven will continue to rank as supreme symphonist from germany. And its doubtful thatBrahms will nudge into that spot, whose syms are more or less continuations of Beethoven's modalities. So who else is there to consider as being germany's greatest symphonist? In russia we see that  Shostakovich NOW has to begin sharing top spot with Alfred Schnittke as russia's most significant symphonist.
I am trying to look far ahead, and from my vantage point ( I;m at the top peak in My Zion National park, Utah)..I do believe i can make out the name KA Hartmann, with his masterly symphonic cycle of 8 masterworks as being the most important symphonist from germany.   None of us will be around to know for sure if my hunch proves true. Beethoven will always be recognized, but in 100 yrs, not to the extent as he has been.
Wagner's place in the operatic form , especially as a  art of expressing ancient germanic myths and legends, will maintain that staus as 'greatest", as will Mozart in bella canto and coloratura style opera, always, forever be considered as 'the greatest" in that style.
Its in this sense that greatness needs to understood. Both on the individual basis and also the objective general social concern. Both viewpoints are valid.

Yeah I'm still up to making bold, maybe even hilarious claims.
You guys need to start a  topic tilted "Dare to say it". Like we have over at amazon.
On that topic  one is free to express w/o fear of attack, to say any Philistinic comment, or downright "hell bound heresy". I get to say just about anything i want over there , on that thread on any other for that matter, and have yet to get my back stabbed, throat cut. Its been great!, No fear of snides  , insults, rock throwing  my way. In the first few weeks i had some attacks made my way, but of late its been all breezy.
So lets get a  "Confess you Philistine and all other heresy" topic going. It'll be fun.

[The new erato]

So yes, as far as appealing "to a more selective group" this would really apply only to Debussy's opera.

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13.msg128354.html#msg128354

Wow. I'm selective!

[PSmith08]

Even when poking a needle into the pretensions of one or two fellows who take themselves and little Dickie a bit too seriously (and I don't mean you, M, for your wit and humor are much appreciated), I would not deny Wagner's accomplishments and influence as a composer of music.

Poke away. I, for one, would never want to go without either Tannhäuser or Figaro. I am also startled by the epithet of "Italian aria." It seems that the more-aggressive Wagnerians have forgotten that, without Mozart, Wagner's development of the music-drama would have taken longer, as the limits of opera would not have been reached and rehashed with grand opera. Indeed, without Mozart there is no Wagner.

How anyone could turn their back on something like "Il mio tesoro intante" or "Se all'impero, amici Dei" is both beyond me and a sign of something bigger than just a fixation on Richard Wagner. 

[paulb]

Poke away. I, for one, would never want to go without either Tannhäuser or Figaro. I am also startled by the epithet of "Italian aria." It seems that the more-aggressive Wagnerians have forgotten that, without Mozart, Wagner's development of the music-drama would have taken longer, as the limits of opera would not have been reached and rehashed with grand opera. Indeed, without Mozart there is no Wagner.

How anyone could turn their back on something like "Il mio tesoro intante" or "Se all'impero, amici Dei" is both beyond me and a sign of something bigger than just a fixation on Richard Wagner. 

"W/o Mozart, Wagner may not have been as successful"  If you;ll excuse my interject.
Yes i can agree with that. And futher, in spite of what the history books, and general belief is, that Wagner was much more influenced by Beethoven , than he was by Mozart, I am with Smith that it was Mozart whichWagner studies.
Its true as a  young man Wagner did say of Beethoven's syms "The most musical experience of my life". Yet in the end we see it was Mozart who brought the creative instinct alive with passion in Wagner.

[knight66]

How anyone could turn their back on something like "Il mio tesoro intante" or "Se all'impero, amici Dei" is both beyond me and a sign of something bigger than just a fixation on Richard Wagner. 

Yes, tin ear syndrome; I am with those who see no need to choose. Thank goodness for both.

Mike

[The new erato]

Thank goodness for both.

Mike

Thes two composers are so different with their approach to opera (let alone the stylistic difference) that how anybody feels the need to choose at all is beyond me.

[PSmith08]

"W/o Mozart, Wagner may not have been as successful"  If you;ll excuse my interject.
Yes i can agree with that. And futher, in spite of what the history books, and general belief is, that Wagner was much more influenced by Beethoven , than he was by Mozart, I am with Smith that it was Mozart whichWagner studies.
Its true as a  young man Wagner did say of Beethoven's syms "The most musical experience of my life". Yet in the end we see it was Mozart who brought the creative instinct alive with passion in Wagner.

I could accept the fact that Wagner needed Beethoven more than he needed Mozart, but that brings us to the point where Beethoven needed Mozart for his own innovations. It seems that Wagner's musical genealogy comes back, sooner or later, in the major line, to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I don't see the problem in that, either. If you want to be Wagner-centric, as some folks seem to, then you can say that Western music was hurtling toward Wagner with each successive generation. If you want to be broad-minded about it, then you can say what people have always said, which is that music is a sequential, constructive process.

Yes, tin ear syndrome; I am with those who see no need to choose. Thank goodness for both.

That is somewhat nicer than what I would have said.

[longears]

Pelleas et Melisande  has never been popular in the sense that the operas of Mozart, Verdi, Wagner or Puccini are popular. It is too refined, too lacking in red blood. These attributes are, of course, the very things that attract the minority who consider Pelleas et Melisande the most subtle and atmospheric opera ever written...."

 
So yes, as far as appealing "to a more selective group" this would really apply only to Debussy's opera.

So are "too refined, too lacking in red blood" and "appealing to a more select group" code for "too gay?"

[PSmith08]

 
So yes, as far as appealing "to a more selective group" this would really apply only to Debussy's opera.

So are "too refined, too lacking in red blood" and "appealing to a more select group" code for "too gay?"

Only if you subscribe to certain stereotypes.

[The new erato]

 
So yes, as far as appealing "to a more selective group" this would really apply only to Debussy's opera.

So are "too refined, too lacking in red blood" and "appealing to a more select group" code for "too gay?"

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13.msg128354.html#msg128354

Wow. I'm selective!

Not in my case I'm sure....

[knight66]

Now, we are rehashing old arguments here. But in case we now have anyone who missed the last round of this discussion.

Although I admire Pelleas, my opinion as to why it is not as popular as Verdi or Wagner is its lack of obvious tunes. Can you whistle any of it? NO! The overall soundworld and some orchestral textures lodge in the brain, but no tunes.

Of course, Debussy could write tunes if he wanted to, this opera is definately not about 'the big tune'. But that is the reason it is not so popular, not its extreme, exquisite refinement...code for homo-sexualist (or however the word was constructed).

Mike

[PSmith08]

Now, we are rehashing old arguments here. But in case we now have anyone who missed the last round of this discussion.

Although I admire Pelleas, my opinion as to why it is not as popular as Verdi or Wagner is its lack of obvious tunes. Can you whistle any of it? NO! The overall soundworld and some orchestral textures lodge in the brain, but no tunes.

Of course, Debussy could write tunes if he wanted to, this opera is definately not about 'the big tune'. But that is the reason it is not so popular, not its extreme, exquisite refinement...code for homo-sexualist (or however the word was constructed).

Mike

I never thought about that before, but, by George, I think he's on to something. Even Parsifal is not bereft of easily grasped and reproduced tunes. Indeed, it's full of them. Never underestimate the need for a good tune: it seems to be the Plimsoll line between success and not-success.

Oh, and let's agree never to speak of words like "homo-sexualist" again. Such words, which take up a lot of space to communicate essentially no meaning, only serve to get my blood up. I'm all for cutesy euphemisms and high-falutin' ways to express a pretty basic human function, indeed, the human function at some level or another, but they should express something, other than the user's opinion of him- or herself.

[knight66]

Oh, and let's agree never to speak of words like "homo-sexualist" again. Such words, which take up a lot of space to communicate essentially no meaning, only serve to get my blood up.

I promise never again to let it pass any orifice over which I have control. But I may need to quote it in order to revile it. See...I like it both ways; so to speak.

I do agree with the tracing of the pedigree back from Wagner to Mozart, in fact, include Debussy who was influenced by Wagner, even if in revolt.

Mike

[Rod Corkin]

This topic interests me greatly. In all of my discussions with opera lovers over the years it has been implied that I was 'lacking in aesthetic perception' for claiming that Wagner was the infinitely greater opera composer. Folks, I have tried, really tried with Mozart but I just can't get excited about his operas. At times I am truly mystified at why his works are considered the summit of operatic achievement....

For me the finest works of Wagner, Debussy, late Verdi, Puccini and Richard Strauss come way before Don Giovanni, Le Nozze de Figaro, Cosi fan Tutte, Die Zauberflote and others....

So I am wondering how GMG'rs feel about this.

I've found the Mozart operas I've heard (and I've heard a few live too), very boring indeed. Weak especially on the melodic level - this is not what I'd call memorable music for the most part. Wagner is longwinded, unfocused and often overblown, even when he has a potential hit on his hands he messes it up. But I fail to see the connection with Wagner in this context. What is the logic here? Are you assuming these are the twin peaks of operatic composition??

[marvinbrown]

I've found the Mozart operas I've heard (and I've heard a few live too), very boring indeed. Weak especially on the melodic level - this is not what I'd call memorable music for the most part. Wagner is longwinded, unfocused and often overblown, even when he has a potential hit on his hands he messes it up. But I fail to see the connection with Wagner in this context. What is the logic here? Are you assuming these are the twin peaks of operatic composition??

  You forgot a 3rd peak...VERDI!  and a 4th peak with verissimo opera.... Puccini and if you are into baroque operas HANDEL  ....that is where you were going, am I right?

  marvin