Most Intelligent Composers

[head-case]

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?

I have not committed Wagner's work to memory, but having listened to Walkure recently I would say large swaths of Act II are utterly redundent, consisting of long monologues that tell in gory detail us things we already know.  Particularly dull is the scene where Wotan narrates the action of Rhinegold to Brunhilde (all of which we have already seen with our own eyes).  I find it self indulgent because it seems to be there because Wagner is in love with his invented mythology and fears that us dim-wits won't get it unless it is spelled out for us.  Act III certainly has it's brilliant moments, particularly the beginning and the end, but what of the enormous scene in the middle where Wotan the schoolmaster has to explain to Brunhilde why he is mad at her (as if we didn't get it the first time, in Act II)? 

[head-case]

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).

I'd say Hanslick's prose is an order of magnitude more lucid than Wagner's, which is an elaborate rationalization of his theories of racial superiority.  How many words are necessary to say the Mendelssohn's works are pleasant and well crafted, but not the most profound?  It is a reminder that to listen to Wagner we must confront the characters he concocted to represent the "degenerate races."  The tonic is to remember that, if you consider the character of the composer, he himself was the "Nibelungen."

[karlhenning]

I have not committed Wagner's work to memory, but having listened to Walkure recently I would say large swaths of Act II are utterly redundent, consisting of long monologues that tell in gory detail us things we already know.  Particularly dull is the scene where Wotan narrates the action of Rhinegold to Brunhilde (all of which we have already seen with our own eyes).  I find it self indulgent because it seems to be there because Wagner is in love with his invented mythology and fears that us dim-wits won't get it unless it is spelled out for us.

I would give Wagner the benefit of the doubt, in that such a passage is justifiable when the audience has not seen the first opera.  If that is his rationale, though, then one argues that he composed it in such a way, that actually he doesn't wish the four operas to be presented in succession.  The solution which seems to me obvious, is that he could have written the passage as optional, in the event of independent production of the one opera;  one imagines the possibility of writing the optional passage as a module, which might be omitted and the music to either side might be joined in some artistic way.  In fairness to Wagner, this is perhaps too modern a way to think of it . . . and he was very exercised about The Right Way To Be Realistic In Opera, and he keenly wished his way to be the right way which would render all other opera somehow inferior: he was writing the Music of the Future, you see.  He did not consider the idea that operas of times past had context, and that ideas of staging were in flux;  did not consider that his ideas were not, in fact, going to become immutable dramaturgical law.

[head-case]

I would give Wagner the benefit of the doubt, in that such a passage is justifiable when the audience has not seen the first opera.  If that is his rationale, though, then one argues that he composed it in such a way, that actually he doesn't wish the four operas to be presented in succession.  The solution which seems to me obvious, is that he could have written the passage as optional, in the event of independent production of the one opera;  one imagines the possibility of writing the optional passage as a module, which might be omitted and the music to either side might be joined in some artistic way.  In fairness to Wagner, this is perhaps too modern a way to think of it . . . and he was very exercised about The Right Way To Be Realistic In Opera, and he keenly wished his way to be the right way which would render all other opera somehow inferior: he was writing the Music of the Future, you see.  He did not consider the idea that operas of times past had context, and that ideas of staging were in flux;  did not consider that his ideas were not, in fact, going to become immutable dramaturgical law.

That would make sense if the action being described had any direct bearing on what little action takes place in the scene:  Wotan wants Brunhilde to kill Siegfried and she doesn't, so he has to do it himself.  And it all has to do with the dwarf that stole the gold from the nymphs, but I stole it back, but I had to give it to the giant who built my house, be he got killed anyway, but now his brother has it, whatever you do don't go in that forest, and I had to give the gold away to get my wife's sister back, and now my wife won't let me hear the end of it, if only I hadn't listened to the clever Loge.  Therefore you have to kill Seigfried?!  Actually, maybe we need to hear it three times.

[(poco) Sforzando]

That would make sense if the action being described had any direct bearing on what little action takes place in the scene:  Wotan wants Brunhilde to kill Siegfried and she doesn't, so he has to do it himself.  And it all has to do with the dwarf that stole the gold from the nymphs, but I stole it back, but I had to give it to the giant who built my house, be he got killed anyway, but now his brother has it, whatever you do don't go in that forest, and I had to give the gold away to get my wife's sister back, and now my wife won't let me hear the end of it, if only I hadn't listened to the clever Loge.  Therefore you have to kill Seigfried?!  Actually, maybe we need to hear it three times.

Siegmund, Siegmund! 

[karlhenning]

Ok, let's backtrack here a little. This is what James said: . . .

You got off on something of a mistaken footing. In fact, I don't understand how you wound up, where you wound up.

I agreed with James that part of the legacy of accumulated consensus, is an acknowledgement of genius.  But I don't see genius as something quite 'measurable' or 'exchange-rate-able'.  A claim that Saint-Saëns was "less of a genius" than Beethoven, in your hands, seems essentially a matter of front-loading the idea of genius with criteria which favor Beethoven, your tendentious mention of the Ninth Symphony being a case in point.  Set aside for a moment your religious adoration of the Beethoven Opus 125; yes, people went "wow" at it from the first performance (and rightly so).  The audience went "wow" at the premiere of the 'Organ' Symphony, too (a piece which, by the way, was commissioned by England's Royal Philharmonic Society, so I do not find it difficult to imagine that some members of the commissioning body regarded Saint-Saëns as in some high degree a genius). So, how do we compare the genius factor, what's the exchange rate on the "wow"?

A more pertinent (in my view) comparison between Beethoven and Saint-Saëns would be in, say, piano concerti.  I really don't think it any "slam-dunk," to find either composer's set of five "more genial" than the other.

[karlhenning]

. . . Therefore you have to kill Seigfried?!  Actually, maybe we need to hear it three times.

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

Yes, but since i had the same exact reactions as Wagner when i first heard Felix's compositions, i have no reason to assume his criticism of Mendelssohn wasn't genuine and not colored by prejudice. If anything, the "prejudice" part comes later, by ascribing Mendelssohn's lack of inspiration to his ethnic upbringing rather then relying to the usual excuses, that Mendelssohn led a pampered life, that he achieved success without real challenge and so forth.

Furthermore, his assessment of Mendelssohn is far from being venomous or mean spirited. To the contrary, he refers to him as a noble and honest character, and he paints a completely sympathetic and tragic figure. If this is the extend of Wagern's anti-semitism then i'm throughly unimpressed.

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

I took it as a matter of course that his prose was the standard mode of expression in the 19th century. It's a bit contorted, but no that much worst then some of the Schopenhauer i read, and i assume the latter was considered good prose in his day.

[head-case]

Siegmund, Siegmund! 

Siegfried, Siegmund?  Whichever one that had sex with his sister.

Obviously I need to hear it again.

[karlhenning]

If this is the extend of Wagern's anti-semitism then i'm throughly unimpressed.

Sure, me too.

But then, there's more to that tract, isn't there? So what business have we praising Wagner for being so magnanimous to the Jewish Mendelssohn?

[karlhenning]

Whichever one that had sex with his sister.

Oh, you're thinking of that wonderful piece (by the composer of intelligence and genius Sibelius): Kullervo 

[karlhenning]

BTW, I really enjoy the typo Wagern (truly).

[jochanaan]

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: ...As an example, here's what he has to say about Mendelssohn: ...I think he is right, at least in his criticism of Mendelssohn's music...

1. One example does not make a general case.
2. Technical ability on Mendelssohn's level is not to be despised.  It's a real gift, and there are many who just can't develop it no matter how many hours a day they practice.
3. Simple joy can be as profound as the most intense drama.
4. I would take issue, as indeed most other musicians of the time did, with this characterization of Mendelssohn.  While I am not Saul , I do not hear shallowness in Mendelssohn's music, nor "mere craft," but rather a potent music that, while perhaps not as intense as Beethoven or Wagner, yet without apparent effort reaches deep into my heart.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Siegfried, Siegmund?  Whichever one that had sex with his sister.

Obviously I need to hear it again.

Siegmund had sex with his sister Sieglinde. If Siegfried had had sex with his mother Sieglinde, he would have f**ked a corpse.

[Josquin des Prez]

You got off on something of a mistaken footing. In fact, I don't understand how you wound up, where you wound up.

I agreed with James that part of the legacy of accumulated consensus, is an acknowledgement of genius.

The same "accumulated consensus" which regards Beethoven as a genius is the same consensus which declared Saint-Saens as the "greatest" among second rate composers. You agreed with the "consensus" argument in it's positive mode but you deny it when it moves to the negative, yet, the principle it's exactly the same.

A claim that Saint-Saëns was "less of a genius" than Beethoven, in your hands, seems essentially a matter of front-loading the idea of genius with criteria which favor Beethoven, your tendentious mention of the Ninth Symphony being a case in point.  Set aside for a moment your religious adoration of the Beethoven Opus 125; yes, people went "wow" at it from the first performance (and rightly so).  The audience went "wow" at the premiere of the 'Organ' Symphony, too (a piece which, by the way, was commissioned by England's Royal Philharmonic Society, so I do not find it difficult to imagine that some members of the commissioning body regarded Saint-Saëns as in some high degree a genius). So, how do we compare the genius factor, what's the exchange rate on the "wow"?

I seriously hope you are not pretending that the reception of the "Organ" Symphony is in anyway in the same league as the earth shattering impact the 9th had on the entire 19th century. Sorry, but they are not even in the same universe. I think you are better off disregarding James argument altogether as the correct measure to determine "genius" at this point. For the record, i "wowed" far more to the 9th then i did to the organ symphony, and that's good enough for me.

A more pertinent (in my view) comparison between Beethoven and Saint-Saëns would be in, say, piano concerti.  I really don't think it any "slam-dunk," to find either composer's set of five "more genial" than the other.

I don't think the comparison is pertinent at all. Even if you could make a case that Beethoven's concertos aren't as obviously superior to those of Saint-Seans, the string quartets, piano sonatas and symphonies clearly are, so why bother?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I have not committed Wagner's work to memory, but having listened to Walkure recently I would say large swaths of Act II are utterly redundent, consisting of long monologues that tell in gory detail us things we already know.  Particularly dull is the scene where Wotan narrates the action of Rhinegold to Brunhilde (all of which we have already seen with our own eyes).  I find it self indulgent because it seems to be there because Wagner is in love with his invented mythology and fears that us dim-wits won't get it unless it is spelled out for us.  Act III certainly has it's brilliant moments, particularly the beginning and the end, but what of the enormous scene in the middle where Wotan the schoolmaster has to explain to Brunhilde why he is mad at her (as if we didn't get it the first time, in Act II)? 

Well, you're thinking of the Ring in terms of recordings, head-case.

But the Ring was originally conceived as a theater work, spanning four successive days.

I imagine Wagner used flashback to reacquaint audiences with what went on the day before. Nothing more. We see the same thing today in two-part TV sitcoms...

And as far as Wotan's narrative to Brünnhilde: so his child has to be told twice she's done something wrong. What child doesn't? It's just good parenting to explain to a child just why they're being punished. 

However, you've got the sequence wrong, here. The Wotan/Brünnhilde exchange rounds out act 3! (and the opera as a whole). Which is the very thing you point to as being great!!

[Josquin des Prez]

But then, there's more to that tract, isn't there?

Yes, there is, but i never denied that Wagner wasn't prejudiced against the Jews, only that he wasn't entirely nonsensical about it, and at any rate he strikes me more as a bona fide xenophobe in line with the sentiments expressed by his contemporaries then a raving Nazi. Face it, the only reason why people are even bothered by this is because of the Holocaust. Mozart was no less critical of Italians and nobody seems to care. What's the difference?

As for me, anybody capable of writing something as deeply and genuinely felt as Tristan and Isolde (the only Wagner opera i'm truly familiar with) can't possibly be the monster everybody paints him out to be. I just can't accept that.

[karlhenning]

You agreed with the "consensus" argument in it's positive mode but you deny it when it moves to the negative

Good, you understand that much.

. . . yet, the principle it's exactly the same.

Balderdash.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, you're thinking of the Ring in terms of recordings, head-case.

But the Ring was originally conceived as a theater work, spanning four successive days.

I imagine Wagner used flashback to reacquaint audiences with what went on the day before. Nothing more. We see the same thing today in two-part TV sitcoms...

And as far as Wotan's narrative to Brünnhilde: so his child has to be told twice she's done something wrong. What child doesn't? It's just good parenting to explain to a child just why they're being punished. 

However, you've got the sequence wrong, here. The Wotan/Brünnhilde exchange rounds out act 3! (and the opera as a whole). Which is the very thing you point to as being great!!

First, Wotan does not scold Brünnhilde twice. She knows that by saving Siegmund she's impulsively committed an act that is likely to get her punished, but that's at the very end of Act Two, and Wotan doesn't find her among her fellow Valkyries under Act Three is under way.

Second, as for the flashbacks and reminiscences: these are not necessarily literal recaps of the previous night's action. Wotan's long monologue in Walküre Act II both reprises some of the Rheingold story and provides much new "information." But more important, in this monologue Wotan re-interprets and synthesizes his reactions to the action in a new way, having been outsmarted by Fricka when he realizes his grand scheme to use Siegmund to reclaim the ring is doomed to failure because Siegmund is not truly a free agent. And this is true of virtually all of Wagner's lengthy retellings of events we've seen the night before: they are not present to take up space or waste the audeince's time, but because they provide opportunities for a character to understand his or her prior experiences in a wholly new and significant way.

[Mark G. Simon]

Probably you just fell asleep, like I did.

Sorry bud, but you're wrong. First of all you assume I'm talking about a single hearing of the work, which is apparently the sum total of your experience with this music. Wagner doesn't give up his secrets that easily. You've got to listen carefully and often, just as with any other difficult but worthy music. Intelligent composers require intelligent listeners.