Most Intelligent Composers

[karlhenning]

Bruckner is a special case.  As far as I can determine--and who can really know what goes on in another's mind, especially one as complex as Anton's?--Wagner indeed was an object of near-idolatry, yet along with that, Bruckner loved the Lord God with all his heart and soul and would never have considered giving to a mere man the devotion he gave to the Almighty Godhead.

An incisive distinction, jochanaan.  And in partial defense of Marvin, historically the English word worship is used for different degrees of deep respect, hence one of the polite forms of address in the age of Shakespeare was your worship.

[marvinbrown]

I made it quite clear I considered Wagner's treatment of Beckmesser a blemish on the dramatic construction of the libretto. Blemish = flaw, right? In your (I'm afraid) apparent Wagner idolatry, you were unwilling to concede my point.

 Blemish??Wagner meant to humiliate Beckmesser- I'd hardly call that a flaw, considering Beckmesser was to represent Hanslick who was notoriously critical of Wagner's work but let's not get into that shall we?

 

 marvin

[Haffner]

 Blemish??Wagner meant to humiliate Beckmesser- I'd hardly call that a flaw, considering Beckmesser was to represent Hanslick who was notoriously critical of Wagner's work but let's not get into that shall we?

 marvin

Point taken, Marvin. But I have read alot of different interpretations re Beckmesser. Many scholars believe Beckmesser was more of an amalgamation of different of critics, or of critics en masse.

For what it's worth, I love that opera, Marvin.

[karlhenning]

 Blemish??Wagner meant to humiliate Beckmesser- I'd hardly call that a flaw, considering Beckmesser was to represent Hanslick who was notoriously critical of Wagner's work but let's not get into that shall we?

What if Hanslick was right, Marvin? 

[Haffner]

What if Hanslick was right, Marvin? 

laughing

[marvinbrown]

What if Hanslick was right, Marvin? 

  OH no Karl please do not go there!

  marvin 

[Josquin des Prez]

I don't know a lot about Wagner on account of my sparse interest in opera, but this past couple of weeks i've reading some of his writings (including his infamous rant against Jewish musicians) and he actually makes sense more often then not:

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/index.htm

As an example, here's what he has to say about Mendelssohn:

By what example will this all grow clearer to us—ay, wellnigh what other single case
could make us so alive to it, as the works of a musician of Jewish birth whom Nature had
endowed with specific musical gifts as very few before him? All that offered itself to our
gaze, in the inquiry into our antipathy against the Jewish nature; all the contradictoriness of
this nature, both in itself and as touching us; all its inability, while outside our footing, to have
intercourse with us upon that footing, nay, even to form a wish to further develop the things
which had sprung from out our soil: all these are intensified to a positively tragic conflict in
the nature, life, and art-career of the early-taken FELIX MENDELSSOHN BARTHOLDY.
He has shewn us that a Jew may have the amplest store of specific talents, may own the finest
and most varied culture, the highest and the tenderest sense of honour—yet without all these
pre-eminences helping him, were it but one single time, to call [94] forth in us that deep, that
heart-searching effect which we await from Art (24) because we know her capable thereof,
because we have felt it many a time and oft, so soon as once a hero of our art has, so to say,
but opened his mouth to speak to us. To professional critics, who haply have reached a like
consciousness with ourselves hereon, it may be left to prove by specimens of Mendelssohn's
art-products our statement of this indubitably certain thing; by way of illustrating our general
impression, let us here be content with the fact that, in hearing a tone-piece of this composer's,
we have only been able to feel engrossed where nothing beyond our more or less
amusement-craving Phantasy was roused through the presentment, stringing-together and
entanglement of the most elegant, the smoothest and most polished figures—as in the
kaleidoscope's changeful play of form and colour (25) —but never where those figures were
meant to take the shape of deep and stalwart feelings of the human heart. (26) In this latter
event Mendelssohn lost even all formal productive-faculty; wherefore in particular where he
made for Drama, as in the Oratorio, he was obliged quite openly to snatch at every formal
detail that had served as characteristic token of the individuality of this or that forerunner
whom he chose out for his model. It is further significant of this procedure, that he gave the
preference to our old master BACH, as special pattern for his inexpressive modern tongue to
copy. Bach's musical speech was formed at a period of our history when Music s universal
tongue was still striving for the faculty of more individual, more unequivocal Expression:
pure formalism and pedantry still clung so strongly to her, that it was first through the [95]
gigantic force of Bach's own genius that her purely human accents (Ausdruck) broke
themselves a vent. The speech of Bach stands toward that of Mozart, and finally of
Beethoven, in the relation of the Egyptian Sphinx to the Greek statue of a Man: as the human
visage of the Sphinx is in the act of striving outward from the animal body, so strives Bach's
noble human head from out the periwig. It is only another evidence of the inconceivably
witless confusion of our luxurious music-taste of nowadays, that we can let Bach's language
be spoken to us at the selfsame time as that of Beethoven, and flatter ourselves that there is
merely an individual difference of form between them, but nowise a real historic distinction,
marking off a period in our culture. The reason, however, is not so far to seek: the speech of
Beethoven can be spoken only by a whole, entire, warm-breathed human being; since it was
just the speech of a music-man so perfect, that with the force of Necessity he thrust beyond
Absolute Music—whose dominion he had measured and fulfilled unto its utmost
frontiers—and shewed to us the pathway to the fecundation of every art through Music, as her
only salutary broadening. (27) On the other hand, Bach's language can be mimicked, at a
pinch, by any musician who thoroughly understands his business, though scarcely in the sense
of Bach; because the Formal has still therein the upper hand, and the purely human
Expression is not as yet a factor so definitely preponderant that its What either can, or must be
uttered without conditions, for it still is fully occupied with shaping out the How. The
washiness and whimsicality of our present musical style has been, if not exactly brought
about, yet pushed to its utmost pitch by Mendelssohn's endeavour to speak out a vague, an
almost nugatory Content as interestingly and spiritedly as possible. Whereas Beethoven, the
last in the chain of our true music-heroes, [96] strove with highest longing, and
wonder-working faculty, (28) for the clearest, certainest Expression of an unsayable Content
through a sharp-cut, plastic shaping of his tone-pictures: Mendelssohn, on the contrary,
reduces these achievements to vague, fantastic shadow-forms, midst whose indefinite
shimmer our freakish fancy is indeed aroused, but our inner, purely-human yearning for
distinct artistic sight is hardly touched with even the merest hope of a fulfilment. Only where
an oppressive feeling of this incapacity seems to master the composer's mood, and drive him
to express a soft and mournful resignation, has Mendelssohn the power to shew himself
characteristic—characteristic in the subjective sense of a gentle (29) individuality that
confesses an impossibility in view of its own powerlessness. This, as we have said, is the
tragic trait in Mendelssohn's life-history; and if in the domain of Art we are to give our
sympathy to the sheer personality, we can scarcely deny a large measure thereof to
Mendelssohn, even though the force of that sympathy be weakened by the reflection that the
Tragic, in Mendelssohn's situation, hung rather over him than came to actual, sore and
cleansing consciousness.

I think he is right, at least in his criticism of Mendelssohn's music. I wouldn't necessarily argue that the reason for this incapacity for true expression is a product of belonging to a Jewish ethnic background which, according to Wagner was too alienated from the European, and particularly German cultural pool to draw inspiration from it. This isn't as absurd as one would think, considering that culture does have a role in the channeling of artistic pursuits. Consider England for instance, which for the longest time was called the country without music, and with reason. At no point does he argue that Jewish composers are incapable of musical expression because they are racially inferior to Europeans.

Of course, the existence of Gustav Mahler throws a monkey wrench at the whole idea, not to mention Joachim Raff, a non-Jew who's "inexpressivity" was far lower then that of Mendelssohn, but that came later i guess, when Jews were much more involved in German culture.

[karlhenning]

That's "making sense," is it?

Draw me a diagram, please:  How does the following have anything to do with Mendelssohn's being Jewish? TIA

Mendelssohn, on the contrary, reduces these achievements to vague, fantastic shadow-forms, midst whose indefinite shimmer our freakish fancy is indeed aroused, but our inner, purely-human yearning for distinct artistic sight is hardly touched with even the merest hope of a fulfilment.

[Josquin des Prez]

Sorry, but that's precisely my own personal reaction to most of his music, expressed here by Wagner with a frightening accurate eloquence. I may not agree with him that Mendelssohn's cultural background robs him of his inspiration, but i don't think that the argument is entirely illogical, particularly back then.

[marvinbrown]

  Newcommers to Wagner should read his essays on Opera and Drama where he discusses his ideas of creating a new art work that incorporates music, drama, visual spectacle all tied together in what he termed Gesamkunstwerk "Total Artwork".  Also read up on his remarkable use of the leitmotif which appears in his Ring to a mindblowing effect!! All a testament to his intelligence! 

  marvin

 

[Mark G. Simon]

Where are these sections in Wagner that are "just awful"? I haven't heard any. What I have heard are magnificent works of overpowering musical/dramatic impact (and remember that music in opera is not just music, it has a dramatic purpose). As in all great opera, the combination of words with music adds up to something greater than the sum of its parts, so that considering the libretto or the music by itself will not produce an accurate picture of what the composer has achieved. Like Milton's Paradise Lost, we can say that "no one ever wished them longer", however in Parsifal at least, Wagner wrote music of such narcotic power that time doesn't seem to be a factor. That is, it alters one's perception of time. Wagner actually makes good on Gurnemanz' assertion that "here time becomes space". When I listen to the last act, I am not aware that any time has passed at all, I just know I've experienced something mighty big.

Just letting you know how I experience it, lest certain posters here think their opinion bears any resemblance to objective fact.

[Haffner]

Where are these sections in Wagner that are "just awful"? I haven't heard any. What I have heard are magnificent works of overpowering musical/dramatic impact (and remember that music in opera is not just music, it has a dramatic purpose). As in all great opera, the combination of words with music adds up to something greater than the sum of its parts, so that considering the libretto or the music by itself will not produce an accurate picture of what the composer has achieved. Like Milton's Paradise Lost, we can say that "no one ever wished them longer", however in Parsifal at least, Wagner wrote music of such narcotic power that time doesn't seem to be a factor. That is, it alters one's perception of time. Wagner actually makes good on Gurnemanz' assertion that "here time becomes space". When I listen to the last act, I am not aware that any time has passed at all, I just know I've experienced something mighty big.

Just letting you know how I experience it, lest certain posters here think their opinion bears any resemblance to objective fact.

I'm admiring of your expression of what Parsifal means to you, and I completely feel you in regard to the power of that opera. It might just be the finest thing he ever wrote overall. His crowning achievement, so to speak.

But there are many folks whom just aren't particularly crazy about Wagner's music as a whole. (I realize I'm stating what you already know).

I thought (in the beginning of my experience with Wagner) that perhaps alot of people just got kind of intimidated by the length of his operas, because that's how I started out. These days I realize that there's just something about his music that turns people off/bores-the-hell-out-of-them/add-your-own-epithet.

Of course that can't take away from how much Wagner's music means to us. I've learned from this board also that sometimes the opposition experienced in regard to one's specific musical tastes can make one love something even more. I just got a whole shebang of wonderful music from George yesterday, and yet after reading some of the posts here, I just had to listen to Act III of Die Meistersinger. The mournful, resigned quality of the prelude speaks so much without words...

[karlhenning]

Sorry, but that's precisely my own personal reaction to most of his music, expressed here by Wagner with a frightening accurate eloquence. I may not agree with him that Mendelssohn's cultural background robs him of his inspiration . . . .

And yet, that's the context, isn't it?  None of us will ever know what Wagner might have thought of Mendelssohn's music, barring the former's anti-Semitism.  And to say that he would weigh the music exactly the same, is unfounded speculation.

Coincidentally, if I had ever written such turgid prose, my teachers would have laughed me out of class.

Separately . . . so what if some of us say, "sorry, but Hanslick's is precisely my own personal reaction to much of Wagner's music"?

[Haffner]

And yet, that's the context, isn't it?  None of us will ever know what Wagner might have thought of 's music, barring the former's anti-Semitism.  And to say that he would weigh the music exactly the same, is unfounded speculation.

It is pretty damn toy-jihd (Bugs Bunny voice).

[karlhenning]

It is pretty damn toy-jihd (Bugs Bunny voice).

Yet, I suspect the author felt it was a work of soo-oo-oo-oo-per gee-ee-ee-ee-nius (Wile E. Coyote voice).

[Haffner]

Yet, I suspect the author felt it was a work of soo-oo-oo-oo-per gee-ee-ee-ee-nius (Wile E. Coyote voice).

_^dying Now there's a classic!

[Mark G. Simon]

For a little perspective, here is a sample of Hanslick's prose:

The arabesque, a branch of the art of ornamentation, dimly betokens in what manner music may exhibit forms of beauty though no definite emotion be involved. We see a plexus of flourishes, now bending into graceful curves, now rising in bold sweeps; moving now toward, and now away from each other; correspondingly matched in small and large arcs; apparently incommensurable, yet duly proporitioned throughout; with a duplicate or counterpart to every segment; in fine, a compound of oddments, and yet a perfect whole. Imagine now an arabesque, not still and motionless, but rising before our eyes in constantly changing forms. Behold the broad and delicate lines, how they pursue one another; how from a gentle curve they rise up into lofty heights, presently to descend again; how they widen and contract, surprising the eye with a marvelous alternation of quiescence and mobility. The image thus becomes nobler and more exalted. If, moreover, we conceive this living arabesque as the active emanation of inventive genius, the artistic fullness of whose imagination is incessantly flowing into the heart of these moving forms, the effect, we think, will be not unlike that of music.

What if Wagner and Hanslick were cut from the same cloth? What if turgid prose was endemic to Germans writing in the 19th century?

[head-case]

In Parsifal at least, Wagner wrote music of such narcotic power that time doesn't seem to be a factor. That is, it alters one's perception of time. Wagner actually makes good on Gurnemanz' assertion that "here time becomes space". When I listen to the last act, I am not aware that any time has passed at all.

Probably you just fell asleep, like I did.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm not sure I like the use of the term "flaw."  Flaw implies a well defined defect.  You could say there is a flaw in a student's composition of a dissonance didn't resolve properly, or if a fugue subject was not compatible with a certain kind of counterpoint that the composer tried to subject it to, or if the orchestration is too thick in a certain section to allow a soloist to be heard.  In Wagner I find long sections which are just awful.  They're boring.  They are there to indulge the composers vanity.  Maybe some people think Wagner is magnificent from beginning to end, but I can't imagine it.  That's a more vaguely defined problem than a "flaw."

My use of "flaw" in reference to Die Meistersinger was precisely to imply a well-defined defect. Could you please however provide a list of all the long sections which are just awful, and an explanation of how you know they are there to indulge the composer's vanity?

[karlhenning]

For a little perspective, here is a sample of Hanslick's prose:

The arabesque, a branch of the art of ornamentation, dimly betokens in what manner music may exhibit forms of beauty though no definite emotion be involved. We see a plexus of flourishes, now bending into graceful curves, now rising in bold sweeps; moving now toward, and now away from each other; correspondingly matched in small and large arcs; apparently incommensurable, yet duly proporitioned throughout; with a duplicate or counterpart to every segment; in fine, a compound of oddments, and yet a perfect whole. Imagine now an arabesque, not still and motionless, but rising before our eyes in constantly changing forms. Behold the broad and delicate lines, how they pursue one another; how from a gentle curve they rise up into lofty heights, presently to descend again; how they widen and contract, surprising the eye with a marvelous alternation of quiescence and mobility. The image thus becomes nobler and more exalted. If, moreover, we conceive this living arabesque as the active emanation of inventive genius, the artistic fullness of whose imagination is incessantly flowing into the heart of these moving forms, the effect, we think, will be not unlike that of music.

What if Wagner and Hanslick were cut from the same cloth? What if turgid prose was endemic to Germans writing in the 19th century?

Most illustrative, thanks, Mark.  Maybe it's a matter of translation, but your Hanslick excerpt reads rather better than Josquin's Wagner excerpt (I mean from a simply technical angle, without getting into the question of Wagner's content).