Most Intelligent Composers

[karlhenning]

That sounds like a description of Sibelius 7 to me.....and Sibelius in general....I wouldn't change a single note.

As far as I'm concerned, Greta, this is a sign of musical genius:  not a note out of place, nor any superfluous note.

[karlhenning]

     They weren't just enjoying Wagner artwork they were worshipping it, being influenced by it! They were trying to learn from it! 

The "worship" is the potentially imbalanced part, Marvin.

[(poco) Sforzando]

You sure read a lot into my brief comment, none of which is there.

I'll let the other members come to their own conclusions.

[ChamberNut]

The "worship" is the potentially imbalanced part, Marvin.

What if Marvin worshipped Nielsen, Carter or Barber?

[karlhenning]

What if Marvin worshipped Nielsen, Carter or Barber?

(a)  I don't know of anyone who does; do you?

(b)  That would be imbalance, too.  At least, though, none of those three expected to be worshiped 

[karlhenning]

yea there are many degrees of it.

All right, so how do we 'measure' the degrees of genius without essentially reflecting one's own scale of preference?

[karlhenning]

What if Marvin . . . .

And you know, it seems that Marvin would actualy take the fact that Wagner was such an egotist, that he thought worship was somehow his "due," as a bizarre 'indication' that Wagner was entitled to worship! And that Nielsen and Carter are not worthy! Bwa-ha-ha-haaaa! 

[(poco) Sforzando]

(a)  I don't know of anyone who does; do you?

(b)  That would be imbalance, too.  At least, though, none of those three expected to be worshiped 

I personally know two Carter worshippers. No Nielsen or Barber worshippers, although I know a few people who can tolerate Barber.

[karlhenning]

I personally know two Carter worshippers.

Well, there you go.  I'd be interested to meet them.

Reminds me of a cynical Frenchman's remark, "Anything that two people agree on, is the truth."

[marvinbrown]

The "worship" is the potentially imbalanced part, Marvin.

  Really...well why don't you tell that to Bruckner who named his 3rd Symphony "Wagner" and dedicated it to him.   Wagner advanced music beyond the realm of Beethoven in a way that Brahms could never do.  That's a fact that you Karl and every anti-Wagnerian on this forum are just going to have to live with. 

  marvin

[lukeottevanger]

That's not the same as worship, though, is it?

[Don]

That's not the same as worship, though, is it?

That's right - it's not the same, and I thhink it's perverse for any human to worship another.

[marvinbrown]

That's not the same as worship, though, is it?

  It is!  The whole "sound world" of the symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner show very strong Wagnerian influences more so than Brahms or any other composer for that matter.

  marvin

[Josquin des Prez]

All right, so how do we 'measure' the degrees of genius without essentially reflecting one's own scale of preference?

Didn't you just say that the principle expressed by James does work in the affirmative? Seems to me you are now implying i does not work at all.

[karlhenning]

  It is!  The whole "sound world" of the symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner show very strong Wagnerian influences more so than Brahms or any other composer for that matter.

Marvin, I think you are unclear as to the meaning of worship.  "Very strong influences, more so than other composers" is not worship.

[karlhenning]

Didn't you just say that the principle expressed by James does work in the affirmative?

I did, and I stand by that.

Seems to me you are now implying i does not work at all.

Not a bit of it.

[marvinbrown]

Marvin, I think you are unclear as to the meaning of worship.  "Very strong influences, more so than other composers" is not worship.

 come on you didn't real believe that I meant that Bruckner and Mahler were praying to Wagner as if he were some god.  

 Look we are talking about intelligence as it relates to composers.  I have argued the case for Wagner that he was an intellectual who read philosophy, that his artwork required great skill and intelligence to compose. So  what do I get in return: arguments from anti-Wagnerians that intellectuals who read philosophy are dumb, that Wagner's librettos and music are drastically flawed and the greatest insult of them all that Wagner did not compose masterpieces.  I'm not deaf I assure you.  I used to play the clarinet and piano so I have some musical background.  I can honestly tell that there is great genius in Wagner's work. It is a real shame that others are incapable of appreciating this man's work.

 marvin  

[(poco) Sforzando]

 come on you didn't real believe that I meant that Bruckner and Mahler were praying to Wagner as if he were some god.  

 Look we are talking about intelligence as it relates to composers.  I have argued the case for Wagner that he was an intellectual who read philosophy, that his artwork required great skill and intelligence to compose. So  what do I get in return: arguments from anti-Wagnerians that intellectuals who read philosophy are dumb, that Wagner's librettos and music are drastically flawed and the greatest insult of them all that Wagner did not compose masterpieces.  I'm not deaf I assure you.  I used to play the clarinet and piano so I have some musical background.  I can honestly tell that there is great genius in Wagner's work. It is a real shame that others are incapable of appreciating this man's work.

 marvin  

Of course there is great genius in Wagner's work. At the same time, of all the major composers, I can't think of another whose work is (to my mind) as deeply flawed in a number of ways. I spent considerable time arguing my case about the ending of Meistersinger on another thread. No question that all the works from Rheingold on are masterpieces. No doubt in my mind that there are problems in some of these works that I don't hear in some other major composers. But some of the most ambitious undertakings are not necessarily "perfect"; their very ambitiousness almost makes it inevitable that there will be some flaws.

[karlhenning]

The old cliche is that there is sometimes a fine line between genius and madness; Wagner, is an example of a great composer who teetered that line.

Balderdash. Wagner was nowhere near madness.  He was in large part a loathsome, despicable character, yes, but that is a matter entirely distinct from madness.

[ChamberNut]

Balderdash. Wagner was nowhere near madness.  He was in large part a loathsome, despicable character, yes, but that is a matter entirely distinct from madness.

Schumann, on the other hand.....

Actually, Schumann was likely "depressed", which back then, you'd be considered "mad".