Is Mozart Greater Than Wagner in Opera ?

[paulb]

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.

That is somewhat nicer than what I would have said.

PSmith, you've lost me in your quintessential post. You cover alot of ideas in such a  short comment. You know your music. I don't wish to get into the subect of Mozart vs Beethoven, only to say that Beethoven-isque composers are least of among my favorites. Schumann and Schubert follow more Beethoven than they did Mozart. Which is why i feel you hit the nail on the head about "sooner or later, Wagner is connected deeply with Mozart". Wagner's early/mid operas clearly have strong Beethoven-ish modalities, structure. His last 3 great operas ( i am afraid i do not know Miestersinger) seem to clearly depart from that powerful musical spirit of Beethoven.
Wagner was the first to initiate departure from the Beethoven model and even from pure romanticism, yet he was writing right in the midst of that ramantic cloud. Many of the powerful sweeping gorgeous passages in Tristan and Parsifal imparted new ideas and images to the young Debussy and also Ravel. Ravel never ceases to astound  that he wrote this music early 20th C. His music breaks so far from romanticism at times, yet is clearly imbedded with that late tradition. The music of Ravel is so ethereal , even moreso than of Mozart strikes me as something of eternity. Read that as a  euphemism is you wish. Those that do read it as such, should bear in mind that in the highest standard highs schools bring their best students to read the greek classics, which are now some 2500 yrs with us, which can garner the respecful aphorism "for all time". Its In this sense that Ravel impacts my musical sensibilities.

Off topic, apologies, just carrying forth the idea that Wagner and Mozart will always be held in such high esteem in that operatic style which both achieved supreme high art status.

[marvinbrown]

Off topic, apologies, just carrying forth the idea that Wagner and Mozart will always be held in such high esteem in that operatic style which both achieved supreme high art status.

  Easily the most accurate and sensible statement I have read on this thread! Thanks for posting that paulb. 

  marvin

 

[Rod Corkin]

  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

I think Handel is the King of ALL opera composers (excepting Fidelio, which is unsurpassed but one opera does not an opera composer make). 

But Wagner's writing is some of the funniest text ever set to music, Die Walküre in particular is hilarious. For that he deserves a peak of his own!

[marvinbrown]

I think Handel is the King of ALL opera composers (excepting Fidelio, which is unsurpassed but one opera does not an opera composer make). 

But Wagner's writing is some of the funniest text ever set to music, Die Walküre in particular is hilarious. For that he deserves a peak of his own!

  LOL  ...on a more serious note I think you were on to something with that whole "twin peaks" comment.  I am not sure though if the poster of this thread meant to imply that Wagner and Mozart are the only two towering peaks in opera.  I am sure Verdi, R. Strauss and Handel just turned in their graves if this was the implication behind this thread!

  marvin

[longears]

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.

  Oh my, excuse me for laughing, I really should feel pity for you but this statement is just...too...damned...funny! Mozart--melodically weak and unmemorable--ROFL!

edited to dismember unmemborable typo

[PerfectWagnerite]

But Wagner's writing is some of the funniest text ever set to music, Die Walküre in particular is hilarious. For that he deserves a peak of his own!

Die Walküre? Which part of that opera do you find funny? It may be longwinded at spots but the libretto is not a showcase for humor. Have you ever listened to that opera in its entirety? Ride of the Valkyries alone  doesn't count.

[M forever]

But Wagner's writing is some of the funniest text ever set to music, Die Walküre in particular is hilarious. For that he deserves a peak of his own!

Woher willst *Du* das wissen? Du verstehst höchstwahrscheinlich keine fünf Worte deutsch, ich denke daher nicht, dass Du Dir darüber eine Meinung bilden kannst.

[lukeottevanger]

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 definitely 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'd disagree only slightly - I think Pelleas (which I can whistle big chunks of, as if happens!) is precisely about 'the big tune' - one of them! The whole thing seems to turn on that almost-an-aria that Pelleas starts to sing to Melisande - 'On dirait que ta voix a passe sur la mer au printemps'. Uniquely, it's even signposted like an Italian aria - with a pause on a dominant chord, for heaven's sake! - but it keeps breaking off into typical parlando fragmentation; eventually, of course, it does hit an aria-like climax ('je t'ai trouvee...').

This whole love-scene is one of the most exquisite things in opera, not just 'exquisite' in an Pink Harp-ian sense, but in Debussy's supremely penetrating and acute understanding of the marriage of music and word - the fact that Melisande's entrance (unaccompanied) is sung at the same pitch as Pelleas; a little later, that she follows his (unaccompanied) 'je t'aime' with a 'Je t'aime aussi' at an even lower pitch (also unaccompanied); their eventual embrace is set to a silent bar (all this the opposite of Wagner, but how incredibly powerful in its restraint). Debussy eschews all the tricks of orchestral overload and climactic high notes to which a lesser composer would resort, and in doing so, in the subtlest and simplest of ways he underscores character - Pelleas, (relatively) impulsive in the mid-high register, Melisande, mysterious and inward at the bottom of her voice, both of them alone in the world, with the exception of each other. In the meantime, the music is groping towards 'aria', almost as if that is the idealised state of bliss which P+M are seeking, and which the whole opera, in its gorgeously undemonstrative way, has so far avoided. In it's own way, this love music is as powerful as anything in Tristan, though a good deal more restrained and, dare I say it, with much more human understanding (an area in which Wagner seems deficient to my mind). But the aria itself can't help but be interrupted, and it is quickly swept away by the appearance of Golaud, from which point things move swiftly. The whole thing shows a bold awareness of the power of musical types, and the avoidance of 'the big tune' is thus very much to the point.

None of this, of course, makes Mike's point any the less valid! But the 'tunelessness' of P+I is one of its chief virtues, so I thought I'd make the point.

Whilst I'm here, and before I bow out of the thread - apropos this, paul:

Janacek? has 2 operas, a  few Puccini-esque great moments, most often the operas  slouch  along, screechy arias at times..

Janacek wrote 9 operas, not 2, and slouching is the one thing a Wagnerian should not complain of! In fact, they are as fleet-footed as one could imagine, not overburdened orchestrally or by complexities of plot, and with a blunt directness that sweeps away the merest hint of slouching. The whole point of Janacek opera is to penetrate to the human heart of the matter (again, an area Wagner is not as strong in, but one Mozart also understood perfectly), not to become overburdened in philosophizing or orchestral gargantuanism, to which purpose he strips his operas down to the leanest state, House of the Dead being the most extreme and greatest example. I can't quite understand how anyone could fail to respond to music which is so searingly human....well, I have my ideas, but they aren't for here!

Besides his best part in Kata is taken (or is it Jenufa) right out of Puccini.

I like this too - where did you read it? There is one single passage in Katya that is almost a quotation of Butterfly, but it's really a matter of key rather than motive, and not especially audible (much more obvious when comparing scores); the two works are very different in all other respects (and Katya is more thoroughly unified from beginning to end - Butterfly peaks in the middle, it seems to me, though that's a very high peak). Seems like your attempts to find something to disparage - we know you seek to trim down the world's composers to one single clutch of paul-approved figures - will stop at nothing!

You are right, however, that Janacek is 'folk opera', indeed to the greatest extent that such a thing is possible, even in an 'urban' work like Makropulos or a fantasy like Broucek. He'd be proud of such a designation, for certain, as he considered that this was the best way to create music and characters which were honest and human. I can't quite see why you use the term (also for Dvorak etc) pejoratively. 

[M forever]

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.

No, the plots often *are* pompous, so I let you get away with that. But I wouldn't get too hung up about that either. The plots - and texts - of most operas can't really be taken entirely seriously anyway. I mean, the whole idea of people singing instead of reciting texts is pretty strange if you think about it. But it's fun. You could say that the plot and text of "Die Zauberflöte" are pretentious nonsense, too, but it's still a wonderful opera (or play with music, rather). People often give it the benefit of the doubt because it is seen as a "naive", "innocent" piece, but I think some people were really very, very serious about the freemason and mysticism stuff in there at some point.

Same about the Wagner operas. Yes, they were meant to be very, very "serious" works, but I see them pretty much as fairy tale operas, too, kind of like "Die Zauberflöte", only with winged helmets and some *really* evil guys. You should see Wagner's works in the historical context, and yes, that also applies to a lot of the nonsense he declared about this and that, including his often discussed anti-semitic rants. A lot of people from former periods in history would strike you as hopelessly, even dangerosuly behind in their thinking about a lot of subjects if you met them today - and they would be, because they did actually live in the past. Only not all of them were as vocal as Wagner.

Especially people from the 19th century, a very complicated and conflicted age - a lot of them were seriously mentally disturbed and torn characters, but they wrestled some very impressive works of art with a lot of depth and very elaborate craftsmanship from their confused souls. And we benefit from that enormously today, being able to look back at and involve ourselves with all that cultural heritage, with all its contradictions and conflicts, its visions and errors.

The world had begun changing more dynamically than ever before, and nobody knew or could have guessed where that would eventually lead, I don't think anyone would have been able to imagine the gigantic conflicts of the first half of the 20th century which were the result of all these developments. But at least, they tried to understand the world and its course, and Wagner was one of those people who tried to learn from history and the cultural heritage and create works of art which expressed a comprehensive world view. That that is a little over the top you can't really hold against him. Thatwas just the spirit of the times. And to be honest, we don't know much more about where we are heading today either. So we shouldn't bee too judgmental about people from former epochs but see them, their thinking, and their works of art in the historical context they fit in.

[M forever]

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 ?

Maybe. Or maybe not. In any case, that doesn't necessarily have much to do with where a musician comes from. While it is true that coming from a certain environment in which a given musical culture is alive and that musicians growing up in and into it typically gain a much deeper and more thorough understanding of that musical culture than those who don't have that environment, it is not guarenteed either that they automatically do have that kind of understanding. Or that somebody from a different environment can not gain it by immersing himself into that musical culture - and often, people who do that bring interesting new angles to their work. That is one of the reasons why, for instance, there were/are so many good Italian conductors of German/Austrian symphonic music.

In any case, since you neither understand French nor German music culture but only have a few superficial cliché ideas about either, you shouldn't waste your time worrying about stuff like that.

[lukeottevanger]

I mean, the whole idea of people singing instead of reciting texts is pretty strange if you think about it.

Sorry to extract this one sentence from your lengthy post, which I admit I haven't read through yet, but, even though you are engaged in a different discussion to the one I was just taking part in, I thought this line of yours was very apposite! 'People singing instead of reciting' is strange, no getting round it - the concept of operatic singing as a sort of 'heightened speech' is a way around it, but even so the contrast between one and the other is so great that it can't help but appear odd. This is where P+M succeeds, it seems to me - the bulk of the opera's vocal writing is so musically diffident, for want of a better term, that it deliberately hovers very much on the borders of speech - a truly musically heightened speech, with a foot in both camps. This is what makes it so convincing and psychologically effective when the music gently swings towards a more 'heightened' state, i.e. in the direction of 'aria' at the point I described above. Of course, it never quite achieves it this more heightened state, which is frustrated in a way in keeping with the opera.

Of course, the relationship between music and speech is also fundamental in the operas of Janacek, and in Mussorgsky, amongst others. Britten is another who succeeds, I think, though in a different way, and so is Bartok in Bluebeard. The success of these composers in overcoming this inherent 'strangeness', in pitching the music-speech relationship perfectly, is one reason why I think their works are amongst the greatest achievements of opera.

[knight66]

Luke, Thanks, I always learn from your posts. I am not about to disagree. You are familiar with the guts of the piece. I am thinking more of the comparison between P&M and lots of Verdi. The latter was sufficiently popular that organ-grinders made money out of playing his tunes in the street. I cannot think of a single recital disc that contains an extract of P&M. I agree it has tunes, but they do seem fragmentary and I will listen out for what you described. But to the run of the mill opera goer.....P&M is esoteric. I am entirely referring to reasons for popularity here, not quality.

Turning to Wagner libretti; they are often tedious with things stated three times, as though the listener is stupid; but as pointed out, there are very few libretti that would survive without their music. We don't often look to Opera to enjoy poetry; art-song provides that. That is not to imply it is all trash, by no means. Just one off the top of my head; Peter Grimes. An opera for adults with an excellent libretto.

Mike

[lukeottevanger]

Luke, Thanks, I always learn from your posts. I am not about to disagree. You are familiar with the guts of the piece. I am thinking more of the comparison between P&M and lots of Verdi. The latter was sufficiently popular that organ-grinders made money out of playing his tunes in the street. I cannot think of a single recital disc that contains an extract of P&M. I agree it has tunes, but they do seem fragmentary and I will listen out for what you described. But to the run of the mill opera goer.....P&M is esoteric. I am entirely referring to reasons for popularity here, not quality.

Absolutely, I don't disagree with you at all, and I can see and agree with exactly the point you are making. To tell the truth, I was really using your post as an excuse to shoehorn in my feelings about P+M, and particularly the love scene (Act 4 scene 4), one of my favourite moments in opera! 

[longears]

Woher willst *Du* das wissen? Du verstehst höchstwahrscheinlich keine fünf Worte deutsch, ich denke daher nicht, dass Du Dir darüber eine Meinung bilden kannst.

Ja...nein...Bier...Scheiss...und...Schwachsinnige!

[longears]

I like this too - where did you read it?

[Siedler]

  Oh my, excuse me for laughing, I really should feel pity for you but this statement is just...too...damned...funny! Mozart--melodically weak and unmemborable--ROFL!

Yes, that ranks among the evergreen quotes such as "Calling Mahler's music complex is weird".  

[lukeottevanger]

...I cannot think of a single recital disc that contains an extract of P&M. ...

FWIW, Debussy himself recorded a piano-accompanied extract (Mes longs cheveux) with the original Melisande, Mary Garden, in 1904, along with three of his Ariettes Oubliees. It's available on Pierian, but it's a curiosity really - the main appeal of that disc is his Welte-Mignon recordings of his solo piano music. Very special.

[longears]

Luke, Thanks, I always learn from your posts. I am not about to disagree. You are familiar with the guts of the piece. I am thinking more of the comparison between P&M and lots of Verdi. The latter was sufficiently popular that organ-grinders made money out of playing his tunes in the street. I cannot think of a single recital disc that contains an extract of P&M. I agree it has tunes, but they do seem fragmentary and I will listen out for what you described. But to the run of the mill opera goer.....P&M is esoteric. I am entirely referring to reasons for popularity here, not quality.

Turning to Wagner libretti; they are often tedious with things stated three times, as though the listener is stupid; but as pointed out, there are very few libretti that would survive without their music. We don't often look to Opera to enjoy poetry; art-song provides that. That is not to imply it is all trash, by no means. Just one off the top of my head; Peter Grimes. An opera for adults with an excellent libretto.

Perhaps Britten--like Mozart, Stravinsky, Strauss, and so on--knew where his talents lay...?

[longears]

The world had begun changing more dynamically than ever before, and nobody knew or could have guessed where that would eventually lead, I don't think anyone would have been able to imagine the gigantic conflicts of the first half of the 20th century which were the result of all these developments.

Actually this is something for which I'm happy to give Wagner credit, for I think he was far more prescient than most and foresaw rather clearly the probable legacy of industrialization.  "Twilight of the Gods," indeed. 

[PSmith08]

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.

Well, Mozart, by and large, avoided downright pandering to the cheap seats, though he certainly knew how to thrill a crowd, so I suppose that could be called weak on a melodic level. I also suppose, based on that statement, that you've never heard Figaro, Don Giovanni, Zauberflöte, or Entführung, which have - as major parts - works that can not only be whistled or hummed by the man on the street, but almost demand to be whistled or hummed. Do yourself a favor, and ask - at your other board - for someone to post "Singt dem großen Bassa Lieder" from Die Entführung aus dem Serail. The whole Singspiel is chock full of music that screams to be wildly popular, but that particular chorus is one that seems like it would have brought the house down in Vienna.

Wagner is longwinded, unfocused and often overblown, even when he has a potential hit on his hands he messes it up.

Yeah, no. That post tacitly avers to a fairly grievous misunderstanding of Wagner's intent, which was to surpass the Italianate form of opera (with a heavy emphasis on clear arias, recitative, and choruses) and arrive at a comprehensive setting of drama to music. He wasn't writing "potential [hits]," so the fact that he doesn't succeed by your standards should surprise no one. Despite the fact that some of his works are extremely catchy, that is.

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??

Well, Mozart and Wagner seem to have earned for themselves, regardless of other opinion, the position of twin peaks. Dale Cooper has done quite a bit of work on the subject.