GMG Classical Music Forum

****

I can only tell you how I feel, probably not the same as "other GMG'rs". I think Mozart's operas are unsurpassed. Also, I don't think it is a real competition, since Wagner claimed not to be writing opera. But all the ones you name are pretty much Late Romantics. So let's say fairly that you prefer Late Romantic opera to Classical. As far as Classical opera goes, Mozart is King.

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Cherubini Symphony - Zurich CO / Griffiths - Cherubini Symphony in D 1815 2nd mvmt

Absolutely not.

Wagner did not compose operas, therefor the title of your thread is irrelevant.  :)

Quote from: uffeviking on January 11, 2008, 03:51:30 PM
Wagner did not compose operas, therefor the title of your thread is irrelevant.  :)

interesting perspective, and know you from previous postings you are knowledgable in this genre.
I'm at the moment explosring Wagner's operas, well the only three I like.
One of the 3 is  the Ring ,2 recordings from 52, and one from 53. Gonna take some months to work through the Ring.
Parsifal was wonderful, never knew "part" (humbly confess) of my life was cast in an old legend that captivated generations for centuries in all sorts of variations.

Wagner to be of interest, one needs to know and appreciate myth, legends and history. My interest is a  psychological sense. There's deep ideas going on here and I mean to know what they are. Thus the music which may appear to others with little interest other than just the music, may find sections of the Ring and Parsifal a bit wearing on the patience. Whereas for me, the 12 cd Ring is all good, ner a  dull moment. Its all about how one interacts with the meanings of any muisc which determines the values we attach to the music/opera.

Now as for Mozart. if you are not experiencing Mozart's operas from the recordings years 1949 (Furtwangler;s 1st recording) through say 1961, then you are not hearing the glories of Mozart's operas. IOW you are missing out on Mozart's true genius for spectacular beauty and stunning thrills. Nothing like Mozart in the entire operatic genre, thansk to the artists of the Fabulous 50's. and Liz Schwarzkopf and Furtwangler and of course Karl Bohm.

Not to say there are some recordings in later yrs to be heard,  but definetly NOT TO BE MISSED  recordings of the 50's.

Wagner, the first modern, Debussy being handed  the torch from the hand of  Wagner.
Mozart, stands unique like no other composer.
Neither can be compared against each other, but both are represenative of high genius in the CM genre.

Quote from: Operahaven on January 11, 2008, 04:15:44 PM
But let's stay focused on the topic.....  :)  

Hey ...... we want to discuss Norse Mythology .........

Quote from: Operahaven on January 11, 2008, 04:15:44 PM
Hi Paul,

I could not disagree more with this statement.

In no way does one have to appreciate the 'literary side' of Wagner - librettos or myths - to be absolutely spellbound by his art... 

But let's stay focused on the topic.....  :)  

Hi Operahaven
Well if thats not good nuf
try this one.
IF there were not the few recordings I found acceptable in Wagner's only 3 great operas, Its doubtful I;'d have such a  high opinion as i do.
IOW Wagner only works for me due to the greatness of the artists. Its not the most exciting music you know, only in parts. I'm enthralled  more by the incredible artists on the 3 Rings, more so that "his art".
Hows dem cookies?

What are we to do if we enjoy both?

This "poll" effectively ties our hands.

Is it possible for people posting to this forum to devise questions that would encourage some degree of valid musical insight?

Quote from: donwyn on January 11, 2008, 07:07:00 PM
What are we to do if we enjoy both?

This "poll" effectively ties our hands.

Should not exclude, but i suspect there are more faithful to one, and some fans the other composer. Both composers material is quite different in approach and structure, can't argue one over the other.
Notice the poll says "Wagner's mature operas surpass"
I can see reason there, i really only apprecaite 3 of Wagners operas, Not sure if 2 are from his late phase, Tristan and Parsifal. And of course the Ring, which I listening to next several weeks.
Whereas I love all Mozart's operas, all offer great rewards.  But then again if we look at volume of output,  the Ring is like 4 operas, so in terms of output both are well proven  in the operatic form.

Quote from: Operahaven on January 11, 2008, 03:39:01 PM
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.

You are not lacking in "aesthetic perception". You are lacking in "basic intelligence" for making such silly statements. You can like and dislike whatever you want, why does it always have to be "the greatest" or why does this has to be "greater" than that? This comparison is just total nonsense.

Quote from: Operahaven on January 11, 2008, 03:39:01 PM
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....

So what? Maybe you will "get" them later. Maybe never. Who cares? Are you the measure of all things? What you don't "get" can't be "great"? I don't "get" a lot of stuff either. Yet somehow, I don't feel the need to declare what I don't "get" can't be as "great" as what I do "get".

Quote from: Sforzando on January 11, 2008, 07:23:21 PM
Is it possible for people posting to this forum to devise questions that would encourage some degree of valid musical insight?

Do you really expect people to take this thread seriously?

Are Oranges Greater Than Apples?  :P

Quote from: paulb on January 11, 2008, 07:28:26 PM
the Ring is like 4 operas

It's not just "like 4 operas," the Ring is 4 operas. (And yes, I mean "operas.") You go to the opera house on four separate nights to hear each of the four operas from the Ring Cycle. If you like you can call the Ring Cycle a tetralogy, or if you prefer you can call it a trilogy with a prologue. Either way, it's four operas.

Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2008, 07:32:39 PM
Are Oranges Greater Than Apples?  :P

Yes.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 11, 2008, 07:34:39 PM
It's not just "like 4 operas," the Ring is 4 operas. (And yes, I mean "operas.") You go to the opera house on four separate nights to hear each of the four operas from the Ring Cycle. If you like you can call the Ring Cycle a tetralogy, or if you prefer you can call it a trilogy with a prologue. Either way, it's four operas.

thanks for the clarification. I'm new to Wagner and much reading to do.
I'm gald to know this info, as I explore the Ring the next few weeks.
I have 1 Rings from the year 1952 and 2 from 1953.
All 3 real gems in all respects.

No reason to compare. But when we consider the operatic literatue, Mozart and Wagner stand at the very pinnacle of greatest in this genre.
Whose to argue that point.
Oh go ahead and bring up old Verdi if you wish, supreme dulls-ville.

How the hell can you compare them? It's just like saying, "Is Beethoven a greater counterpoint writer than Bach?"

Stupid competition threads. Just stop these, they just provoke flame wars. If you like Wagner you listen to him if you like Mozart you listen to him. It's that simple, people.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 11, 2008, 07:23:21 PM
Is it possible for people posting to this forum to devise questions that would encourage some degree of valid musical insight?

Maybe it is, though I'm not a musician and cannot say everything I think in English. I don't understand why you didn't like my reply about beef-stakes, they are GREAT!  ::)
The question - what's greater...but it is obviously ridiculous, asking what's greater - Mozart or Wagner, Da Vinci or Micelangelo, isn't it?
Wagner, of course, did his own world of music, using his own language, system of symbols, keynotes, making  great libretti twisted with the music canvas. So what's that? It's more like thinking, noting all those signs...it's great, especially when you know all this, you'll enjoy.
Mozart didn't get much into such a complications, though some of his operatic music is written for those who have "long ears", but even a beginner will gladly listen to them, understand and receive a bouquet of emotions. Of course, for me Wagner also gives a bunch of them, but the fact is that not everybody is deep in classical music and listen to it a lot. The statistics says there are 2-3 percent in the entire World...so do you expect most of the people be fond of Wagner and listen to him all free time? No. I'm not sure. And as for Mozart it doesn't matter if you are a beginner or an expert or someone else, each category of listeners will get their own. Of course you can say - Wagner can bring it too! yes, he may, but the percentage would be smaller.
Arguing about what is greater/more unique/more excellent/more exciting is a waste of a time. Go, listen to the music, enjoy it! That should be wise. Of course there are some points that are solid and undeniable, but we are human, and thing we consider to be great are just thing that we like.
And Britney Spears is greater that both Mozart and Wagner for somebody else, it's their choice and I don't blame them. It's natural.

Quote from: 復活交響曲 on January 11, 2008, 07:44:33 PM
How the hell can you compare them? It's just like saying, "Is Beethoven a greater counterpoint writer than Bach?"

Stupid competition threads. Just stop these, they just provoke flame wars. If you like Wagner you listen to him if you like Mozart you listen to him. It's that simple, people.

i just gave some reason to consider both in one topic. as both stand at the pinnacle of greatness in the operatic genre. No other composer comes close..
''EDIT

when I take Wagner's   3 great operas, Tristan, Parsifal, Ring cycle I arrive at 20 cds worth of high operatic art.
And taking into account Mozart's best operas, I arrive at 15 cds of pure high creativity.
No other composers come close.  So there you have it, both stand as equals, with no peers. And all these other objections  saying no method of comparison could done.
the only other opera I know that matches this high standard of excellece is Puccini's Turandot. ( I finally spelled it correctly)

Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2008, 07:32:39 PM
Are Oranges Greater Than Apples?  :P

Quote from: M forever on January 11, 2008, 07:40:53 PM
Yes.

But raspberries are even greater than oranges. The greatest fruit however, is the banana. I also like saying that word.

"Ba-na-na"

In German, banana is Banane. "Bah-naah-ne". That sounds even funnier.

(http://www.bananaburp.com/images/dancing_banana.gif)

Quote from: Sarastro on January 11, 2008, 07:47:01 PM
And Britney Spears is greater that both Mozart and Wagner for somebody else, it's their choice and I don't blame them. It's natural.

I am not sure Britney Spears is entirely natural.

Mozart is greater so far.

Quote from: M forever on January 11, 2008, 07:51:57 PM
But raspberries are even greater than oranges. The greatest fruit however, is the banana. I also like saying that word. "Ba-na-na" In German, banana is Banane. "Bah-naah-ne". That sounds even funnier.

Amazing! a german banane is identical to the french banane  (Ba-NAnn) -  hopefully without the insulting sub-meaning 0:). And french champignons are germane to the Germans. Wonders never cease. Any other bombs like that?

Oui. "Friseur" is "Friseur" in German. And "Bouillabaisse" is "Bouillabaisse"!

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on January 11, 2008, 08:04:10 PM
(Ba-NAnn)

The same in Russian! And Butter Brott is sandwich in Russian.  0:) champignons too, and some Spanish words either.  ;D The World is small, isn't it?

I bet opera is also the same in different languages.  :)

Quote from: Sarastro on January 11, 2008, 07:47:01 PM
Maybe it is, though I'm not a musician and cannot say everything I think in English. I don't understand why you didn't like my reply about beef-stakes, they are GREAT!  ::)
The question - what's greater...but it is obviously ridiculous, asking what's greater - Mozart or Wagner, Da Vinci or Micelangelo, isn't it?
Wagner, of course, did his own world of music, using his own language, system of symbols, keynotes, making  great libretti twisted with the music canvas. So what's that? It's more like thinking, noting all those signs...it's great, especially when you know all this, you'll enjoy.
Mozart didn't get much into such a complications, though some of his operatic music is written for those who have "long ears", but even a beginner will gladly listen to them, understand and receive a bouquet of emotions. Of course, for me Wagner also gives a bunch of them, but the fact is that not everybody is deep in classical music and listen to it a lot. The statistics says there are 2-3 percent in the entire World...so do you expect most of the people be fond of Wagner and listen to him all free time? No. I'm not sure. And as for Mozart it doesn't matter if you are a beginner or an expert or someone else, each category of listeners will get their own. Of course you can say - Wagner can bring it too! yes, he may, but the percentage would be smaller.
Arguing about what is greater/more unique/more excellent/more exciting is a waste of a time. Go, listen to the music, enjoy it! That should be wise. Of course there are some points that are solid and undeniable, but we are human, and thing we consider to be great are just thing that we like.
And Britney Spears is greater that both Mozart and Wagner for somebody else, it's their choice and I don't blame them. It's natural.

You sound like a sensible person, and so I hope you can understand the difference between the original question and one like the following:

"Given that Mozart and Wagner have both been highly esteemed by a large majority of people devoted to opera, what can we say about their successes in light of their very different approaches towards structuring a musical action, creating characters, using the orchestra, developing recitatives and arias, and so forth? How is it that two composers exhibiting such radically different musical styles and techniques can both succeed so well in creating works that are convincing musical dramas?"

Quote from: M forever on January 11, 2008, 07:53:37 PM
I am not sure Britney Spears is entirely natural.

No less natural than an animated GIF of a dancing banana.

Vive la bouillabaisse!

I'm afraid your friseur will not be curling hair with my wife's coiffeur, or my barbier. I've never seen a french friseur. But raseur is definitely a very popular category!

The word friseur does not exist in French? That is strange. Apparently it is a "pseudo loan word". There is even the equivalent female word "Friseuse" (instead of "Friseurin" or something like that, because in German -in typically denotes the person is female). "Friseuse" is also a word which is used as an insult for stupid girls, kind of like "blonde".

I remember that word when I was learning German. I think it was borrowed from French in the old times when people would go to the friseur to get their hair done. Friseur basically means "someone that curls your hair".

Quote from: Sforzando on January 11, 2008, 08:18:49 PM
You sound like a sensible person, and so I hope you can understand the difference between the original question and one like the following:

"Given that Mozart and Wagner have both been highly esteemed by a large majority of people devoted to opera, what can we say about their successes in light of their very different approaches towards structuring a musical action, creating characters, using the orchestra, developing recitatives and arias, and so forth? How is it that two composers exhibiting such radically different musical styles and techniques can both succeed so well in creating works that are convincing musical dramas?"

Excellent and relevant perspecive,
Mozart and Wagner (his 3 best efforts) though written in the 18th and 19th C, yet are alive with power and meanings in 2008, Few operas from either generation can be said to enchant as they did back then as they do today.

Verdi, blah. Good luck resurrecting Verdi from the ashes maestro Levine!

Mussorgsky? He never completed Boris, If it was not for Rimsky to the rescue, we might not have the opera on record. In spite of Rimsky's best efforts, the opera fizzles out in the second half, just barely wobbling along. The first part is gloroius. Wish the Paris 2005 production of Shostakovich's Boris would make it to cd. Now we're talking  a  Boris to hear!!

Puccini?
Turandot a  supreme masterpiece.

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

Not sure who i am missing as far as truly great operatic creations.
I do not know Prokofiev;'s War And Peace and should order, on my wish list for too long.

There you have it, no one comes even close.
Thats the reason to recognize both as offering the pinnacle in excellence of the operatic  genre.


See its posts like this that  tend to get myself in hot water. But hey that means they have the hangup.
When some one gets all bent out of shape over a  opinion that does not personally offend, they are hiding something. They project their issues within their minds onto others.

I see nothing harmful in saying Verdi is  antequated out of date boring music, that has no place on the modern stage. Its the truth.

Quote from: Morigan on January 11, 2008, 08:49:30 PM
I remember that word when I was learning German. I think it was borrowed from French in the old times when people would go to the friseur to get their hair done. Friseur basically means "someone that curls your hair".

Wikipedia.de says you are right about the provenance of the word!

I remember Frisur - haircut, even just simply hair, hairstyle.

Schau auf meine Frisur
Und auf meine Figur
Ohne Schlankheitskur
Mit dem keine Spur
Trotz Milliarden von Jahren
Kein Grau in der Haaren
etc..
(not to be applied to me, just a quotation from a school musical)

Quote from: Sforzando on January 11, 2008, 08:18:49 PM
You sound like a sensible person, and so I hope you can understand the difference between the original question and one like the following:

"Given that Mozart and Wagner have both been highly esteemed by a large majority of people devoted to opera, what can we say about their successes in light of their very different approaches towards structuring a musical action, creating characters, using the orchestra, developing recitatives and arias, and so forth? How is it that two composers exhibiting such radically different musical styles and techniques can both succeed so well in creating works that are convincing musical dramas?"

I don't want to disappoint you, as being so stupid not to understand the difference, but I'm still amused.
You ask "how it is that...etc." The matter is how it is that they are both very popular, that's the reason I think. Salieri and Paisiello were super-popular in their times too, but what about nowadays? So...the fact is that we just like both Wagner and Mozart, through the ages, now. Why do we? Why do people like them?
And why do some people like green, some - yellow, why do some people like tangerines, others - apples, why?? It is just it, we like and no matter what is about it. I don't know how to explain, and that's probably a rhetorical question...something like to be or not to be...who can answer that? Everyone will have his own unique choice and reason for it.

Quote from: M forever on January 11, 2008, 07:51:57 PM
(http://www.bananaburp.com/images/dancing_banana.gif) (http://www.bananaburp.com/images/dancing_banana.gif) (http://www.bananaburp.com/images/dancing_banana.gif)

Q 8)

Quote from: paulb on January 11, 2008, 08:57:41 PM
Mussorgsky? He never completed Boris, If it was not for Rimsky to the rescue, we might not have the opera on record.

Not true.  Mussorgsky in fact completed two different versions of Boris.  The opera he didn't complete was Khovanshchina.

I won't even address the whole calling Turandot a masterpiece while dissin' Verdi and Janáček issue.   ::)

Oh, yeah.  Back to the topic.  I do think it's an apples vs. oranges issue.  Or sunsets vs. warm puppies.  Or a great meal vs. great sex.  Or....

Quote from: Operahaven on January 11, 2008, 03:39:01 PM
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.

You know how we feel about this, Eric.  You bring up the same two topics over and over.  You are welcome to think whatever you want and to like whatever pleases you.  You are also welcome to claim that you have special knowledge due to heightened intelligence and sensitivity and the brain implants installed when you were abducted by aliens.  And if others are offended by these claims, or your corollary claims that those who disagree are insensitive morons, they are welcome to express their feelings just like you.

If not for your narcissism, rather than being "mystified at why his [Mozart's] works are considered the summit of operatic achievement," you would be mystified at your inability to appreciate their quality.

Quote from: paulb on January 11, 2008, 07:50:50 PM
i just gave some reason to consider both in one topic. as both stand at the pinnacle of greatness in the operatic genre. No other composer comes close..

Welcome back, Paul.  Older but no wiser, eh? 

Is anyone else amused by the constant need of some Wagnerophiles to try to force others to share their preferences?  There is a delightful irony in that sort of "artistic fascism," especially when one considers that fans of other composers hardly ever do so. 

Here, guys...this one's for you:
(http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/10/1546/monkey_banana.jpg)

Quote from: Wendell_E on January 12, 2008, 08:24:19 AM
Not true.  Mussorgsky in fact completed two different versions of Boris.  The opera he didn't complete was Khovanshchina.

I won't even address the whole calling Turandot a masterpiece while dissin' Verdi and Janáček issue.   ::)

Oh, yeah.  Back to the topic.  I do think it's an apples vs. oranges issue.  Or sunsets vs. warm puppies.  Or a great meal vs. great sex.  Or....

i have the Gergiev Philips, offering both the 'Original Mussorgsky version" and the Rimsky.
The 'original completed" from M is such a let down, completely unacceptable compared to Rimsky's more than just mere touch ups.
If it was not for Rimsky and Ravel, M would just bea   name in the history books.


Janacek has highlights, there's so much thats filler, un-involving. Janacek was folk opera, nothing what so ever to do with operatic genre. Besides his best part in Kata is taken (or is it Jenufa) right out of Puccini. Jancek, minor composer.
Verdi is Beethoven cast as opera.

Hi Longeras,
good to be back, yes the same fool as before. But even more brash opinons than before, , Lately I  have seen even more false doctrines that need to be torn down among the super hyped misleading propagandists.
Like in the preposterous idae that M completed Boris. Go listen for yourself in Gergiev's. M's is a  totally failure next to Rimsky's, just a  shell of the opera.
If it was not for the efforts of Rimsky and ravel in the Pictures, I would even care to know the composer.
M's opera Khovanshchina, is all rehashed Boris, nothing original. Lets get real here, why the fluff.

  I voted no, quelle surprise huh?.  If that Ring Cycle is not the most ambitious, most daring, most astounding collection of sequential operas ever conceived by one man I do not know what is!  When it comes to the Ring Cycle alone I have heard it argued that "what defies explanation is that one man can have in him, the totality, the complexity, the total immensity of that design".  I think in that regard no opera composer can compete with Wagner.

  marvin       

Quote from: paulb on January 12, 2008, 09:00:29 AM
i have the Gergiev Philips, offering both the 'Original Mussorgsky version" and the Rimsky.

Wrong again.  Gergiev's Philips recording offers two versions, but they're both by Mussorgsky (his original 1869 version, and his revised 1872 version).  The Rimsky-Korsakov dumbed-down version didn't appear until 1896.

QuoteLike in the preposterous idae that M completed Boris.

It's not an idea, preposterous or otherwise, but a simple fact.  Now you're certainly entitled to prefer RK's version to the composer's but that doesn't change the fact that Mussorgsky did finish the opera.

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 12, 2008, 09:19:30 AM
When it comes to the Ring Cycle alone I have heard it argued that "what defies explanation is that one man can have in him, the totality, the complexity, the total immensity of that design".  I think in that regard no opera composer can compete with Wagner.

I doubt that you can completely grasp any of the Mozart operas either - no one really can -, so that is a moot point. The outer dimensions of the Ring are certainly very impressive. But that doesn't necessarily mean "more is better". Nor does it mean it isn't. Again, the whole comparison is just total banana.

Quote from: M forever on January 12, 2008, 09:35:20 AM
I doubt that you can completely grasp any of the Mozart operas either - no one really can -, so that is a moot point. The outer dimensions of the Ring are certainly very impressive. But that doesn't necessarily mean "more is better". Nor does it mean it isn't. Again, the whole comparison is just total banana.

  Yes I totally agree with you that comparisons between the two with the aim of determining who is greater is meaningless (I wouldn't want to be without Mozart's operas either!), that said after viewing the results (pro-Mozart) of the poll I just felt compelled to vote no and defend my man Wagner- which technically does not imply that Wagner is greater but hey, I'm human, and not immune to prejudices as it were.

  marvin 

Well, as it has been pointed out, Wagner would likely say "Yes, Mozart is greater than me in opera." It does not really need, though it shall receive it, repeating that Wagner was writing music-dramas, which are discrete entities that have some things, but not all things, in common with opera as Mozart would have understood it.

Despite the cheering of my fellow Wagnerians, such as it is, I would say that - if you compare Wagner's grand operas, the only things remotely comparable to Mozart's mature output, and even then not entirely analogous, to Mozart's later works - it's a tossup. Taking recourse to Der Ring des Nibelungen and Parsifal in this situation doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd have to compare Tannhäuser, Lohengrin, and/or Der fliegende Holländer. In those terms, and even then, he was pointing toward his new directions, so you'd have to throw Rienzi into the mix, I don't think a clear winner emerges. Mozart and Wagner both did great things, but they weren't really trying to do the same thing.

The premise of the poll isn't sound to my mind, and the attempts to bring mature Wagner to bear on mature Mozart strike me as more unsound, if that is possible.

The only operas I really need is Cosí, Figaro and Don Giovanni.
Besides, Wagner is not my cup of tea.

So: In my opinion the answer to the question in the title is yes.


(Edited for late night cross-eyed typos.)

Quote from: Valentino on January 12, 2008, 03:42:32 PM
The only operas relly I need is Cosí, Figaro and Don Giovanni.
Besides, Wagner is not my cup of tea.

So: In my opinion the answer to the question in the title is yes.

Yes, I tend to agree.  I've tried The Ring, Fidelio, Rusalka, Carmen, Madame Butterfly, La Boheme, and others and I always end up going back to Mozart's operas for the greatest satisfaction.

Quote from: Valentino on January 12, 2008, 03:42:32 PM
The only operas relly I need is Cosí, Figaro and Don Giovanni.
Besides, Wagner is not my cup of tea.

So: In my opinion the answer to the question in the title is yes.

You have chosen well.
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.
Wagner appeals  to a   more selective group. I am drawn to Wagner for its mythological, psychological implications, as much as the music.
Not sure if my german ancestory comes in to play here. It would be interesting to see which countries are most fond of Wagner and which take less interest. Obviously in germany Wagner is enormously popluar. The french I  suspect is not all that interested in Wagnerian opera.

Quote from: paulb on January 12, 2008, 04:03:38 PM
It would be interesting to see which countries are most fond of Wagner and which take less interest. Obviously in germany Wagner is enormously popluar. The french I  suspect is not all that interested in Wagnerian opera.

Russian theaters frequently had Wagner in repertoire, though some time ago, and Mariinsky theater (or Kirov - as it's known abroad) has its own Ring Cycle.

Quote from: paulb on January 12, 2008, 04:03:38 PM
The french I  suspect is not all that interested in Wagnerian opera.

Well, I mean, that would be the case if you discounted the fact that Pierre Boulez, who has had quite a run at Bayreuth, say what you will of his style, is quite French. Wagner also had some influence on other French composers.

Quote from: Sarastro on January 12, 2008, 04:10:30 PM
Russian theaters frequently had Wagner in repertoire, though some time ago, and Mariinsky theater (or Kirov - as it's known abroad) has its own Ring Cycle.

Thanks for the info. I had a  hunch the russians would take to Wagner, and even to having their own Ring Cycle regularly performed. Would it be facinating to hear those deep russian baritones cast in the Ring, deep heavy dark voices. WOW!!

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 12, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
Well, I mean, that would be the case if you discounted the fact that Pierre Boulez, who has had quite a run at Bayreuth, say what you will of his style, is quite French. Wagner also had some influence on other French composers.

Boulez is quite exceptional in most every thing he recorded. But a  french style Ring, , not sure how that would come out.
I should now mention the other 2 Rings that i have found over the years that closely equal the Furtwangler RAI, in fact do most often. They are Kielberth 1952 and the 1953. The 53 just nudges out the incredible 52. Its doubtful I'd take much of an interest in Boulez, as much as I love his conducting.

Wagner's Tristan made a  powerful impression on Debussy and I would guess Ravel felt the same. I read that somewhere in this book i have on Memoirs of Debussy.

Quote from: paulb on January 12, 2008, 05:06:44 PM
Thanks for the info. I had a  hunch the russians would take to Wagner, and even to having their own Ring Cycle regularly performed. Would it be facinating to hear those deep russian baritones cast in the Ring, deep heavy dark voices. WOW!!

I know even some russian sopranos did sing Brunhilde, Sieglinde, Senta and some other.

Quote from: Operahaven on January 12, 2008, 05:50:48 PM
it's not everyday that you run into a "hardcore Pelleastrian". We are a rare breed.

Tis a pity ..........

Wagner 's operas are great and wonderful, but I really doubt of their immortal positions in the world of opera. 
Do you think that one day people will give up their interests in Wagnerian?

Quote from: Operahaven on January 12, 2008, 05:50:48 PM
We are a rare breed.

That sounds terribly and offensive. First step. Next is "we are white", and then - let's kill the Jewish! ;D We are all human, I'm certain about that, and everyone is unique. It's not a moralization, it's simply the truth.

If I had been a little smarter I would have said nothing.  ::)

Quote from: Sarastro on January 12, 2008, 06:16:52 PM
That sounds terribly and offensive. First step. Next is "we are white", and then - let's kill the Jewish! ;D We are all human, I'm certain about that, and everyone is unique. It's not a moralization, it's simply the truth.

:o

Quote from: Sarastro on January 12, 2008, 06:16:52 PM
If I had been a little smarter I would have said nothing.  ::)

:)

Quote from: Operahaven on January 12, 2008, 05:50:48 PM
O.k., so I may be a little eccentric when it comes to my operatic pronunciamentos.... O.k., so I believe that concert performances of operas are often a good thing......O.k., so I believe that Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande is the finest of all operas (despite several weak spots here and there).

Are these such bad things ?

Not at all. Again,

Quote from: M forever on January 11, 2008, 07:28:53 PM
You can like and dislike whatever you want, why does it always have to be "the greatest" or why does this has to be "greater" than that? This comparison is just total nonsense.

Quote from: Operahaven on January 12, 2008, 05:50:48 PM
But you're right, maybe I should learn to be more reserved about these things.

I didn't say that. You are completely free to express your enthusiasm. Nobody wants to suppress that. And, again,

Quote from: M forever on January 11, 2008, 07:28:53 PM
You can like and dislike whatever you want, why does it always have to be "the greatest" or why does this has to be "greater" than that? This comparison is just total nonsense.

That seems to be awfully hard to understand. Let me just say that once more:

Quote from: M forever on January 11, 2008, 07:28:53 PM
You can like and dislike whatever you want, why does it always have to be "the greatest" or why does this has to be "greater" than that? This comparison is just total nonsense.

Quote from: paulb on January 12, 2008, 05:13:26 PM
Boulez is quite exceptional in most every thing he recorded. But a  french style Ring, , not sure how that would come out.

It came out quite successfully, rest assured! Maybe you can borrow at your local library the video of the 'Centenary Production' of the Bayreuth Ring performance, directed by Patrice Chéreau and conducted by Pierre Boulez; the historical performance, causing protests at the first performance and then met with the greatest enthusiastic applause the next time around.

Quote from: Gustav on January 12, 2008, 06:55:21 PM
:o

That was a little nice unobtrusive joke...so unobtrusive that I didn't really understand it myself.  :o I swear I would do it no more.

PS: But still I don't like people speaking in such a way.

Quote from: uffeviking on January 12, 2008, 07:39:40 PM
It came out quite successfully, rest assured! Maybe you can borrow at your local library the video of the 'Centenary Production' of the Bayreuth Ring performance, directed by Patrice Chéreau and conducted by Pierre Boulez; the historical performance, causing protests at the first performance and then met with the greatest enthusiastic applause the next time around.

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

I like Mozart.  By my standards, many of his late operas are artistic triumphs, satisfying (and then some!) in virtually every respect:  The stories are entertaining, with plots driven by the character of all-too-human characters, accompanied by glorious music supporting memorable song, with wit and grace and tunefulness.  They are warm-hearted and forgiving.

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.

These are my opinions.  You don't have to share them or even consider them.  As my wife is fond of saying, "You can agree with me...or you can be wrong."  ;D

(BTW--some of my best friends like Wagner.  I'm sure some of my predilictions are as puzzling to them. 8) )

Quote from: longears on January 12, 2008, 11:21:10 PM
These are my opinions.

Only up to a certain point.

Which is here:

Quote from: longears on January 12, 2008, 11:23:14 PM
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:

Quote from: longears on January 12, 2008, 11:26:51 PM
There are no songs, only a lot of tuneless shrieking that goes on much too long

But you did, unfortunately...

Quote from: paulb on January 12, 2008, 04:03:38 PM
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.

Quote
Wagner appeals  to a   more selective group.

Bull alert.

Quote from: wagnernn on January 12, 2008, 06:05:52 PM

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

  Take a look at who towers above everyone else!

  marvin

Quote from: longears on January 12, 2008, 11:26:51 PM


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

Quote from: M forever on January 12, 2008, 11:32:51 PM
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.

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 13, 2008, 06:46:47 AM
  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. 

Quote from: M forever on January 12, 2008, 08:31:45 PM
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.

Quote from: Operahaven on January 13, 2008, 05:18:55 AM

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

Wow. I'm selective!

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 08:51:18 AM
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. 

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 13, 2008, 09:19:47 AM
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.

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 13, 2008, 09:19:47 AM

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

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 09:27:04 AM
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.

Quote from: paulb on January 13, 2008, 09:26:29 AM
"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.

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 09:27:04 AM
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.

Quote from: Operahaven on January 13, 2008, 05:18:55 AM

Quote from: Harold Schonberg
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?"

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 09:59:35 AM
 
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.

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 09:59:35 AM
 
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?"

Quote from: erato on January 13, 2008, 09:19:08 AM
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13.msg128354.html#msg128354 (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.... ;D

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

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 10:04:47 AM
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.

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 13, 2008, 10:12:32 AM

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

Quote from: Operahaven on January 11, 2008, 03:39:01 PM
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??

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 13, 2008, 10:42:39 AM
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

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 13, 2008, 09:54:03 AM
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.

Quote from: paulb on January 13, 2008, 11:12:38 AM

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

 

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 13, 2008, 11:09:59 AM
  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).  ;D

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!

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 13, 2008, 11:48:02 AM
I think Handel is the King of ALL opera composers (excepting Fidelio, which is unsurpassed but one opera does not an opera composer make).  ;D

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

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 13, 2008, 10:42:39 AM
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.

(http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/r/rofl.gif)  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! (http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/r/rofl.gif)

edited to dismember unmemborable typo

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 13, 2008, 11:48:02 AM
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.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 13, 2008, 11:48:02 AM
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.

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 10:04:47 AM
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:

QuoteJanacek? 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!

QuoteBesides 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. 

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 08:51:18 AM
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.

Quote from: paulb on January 13, 2008, 09:09:19 AM
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.

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 01:07:40 PM
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.

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

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 01:29:26 PM
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!  :)

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 12:40:46 PM
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!

Quote from: lukeottevanger on January 13, 2008, 12:45:57 PM
I like this too - where did you read it?

;D >:D

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 12:28:44 PM
(http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/r/rofl.gif)  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! (http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/r/rofl.gif)

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

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 01:29:26 PM
...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.

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 01:29:26 PM
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...?

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 01:07:40 PM
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. 

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 13, 2008, 10:42:39 AM
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.

QuoteWagner 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.

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on January 13, 2008, 01:20:37 PM
Sorry to extract this one sentence from your lengthy post, which I admit I haven't read through yet

Well, you should, because it's really good and deep and all that  0:)

Quote from: lukeottevanger on January 13, 2008, 01:20:37 PM
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.

But they are still singing rather than speaking in a "normal" way, so that doesn't really matter. It's still not speaking, it's just a different style of singing. Besides, singing instead of speaking may be a little strange, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and that it's not a lot of fun and can't express a lot of things that can't be expressed in merely spoken words. So that certain styles of vocal writing are closer to spoken texts doesn't necessarily make that "better" or "greater". It's just a different style of expression.

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 01:50:22 PM
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. 

I knew you were going to say that! I could have said that myself - it would have seemed logical in that context - but it's not really true. I decided to leave that out and let you step into the trap. Yes, that's how mean I am.  :)

The reality is, no he didn't foresee anything really. The whole idea of Götterdämmerung, indeed the idea that the world will eventually collapse in some kind of gigantic final conflict, predates Wagner by millenia. We don't even know who first came up with that.

Sure, it appears convenient to read what happened afterwards into his work. And it is the nature of all complex works of art that they contain content beyond their immediate context - they are vague and speculative anyway. But Wagner didn't really foresee that much either. Reading that into his work is just as wrong as blaming him for Nazis and all that.

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 01:54:49 PM
Well, you should, because it's really good and deep and all that  0:)

Yeah, I did. It was profound in the extreme.  ;D

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 01:54:49 PMBut they are still singing rather than speaking in a "normal" way, so that doesn't really matter. It's still not speaking, it's just a different style of singing.

It's a kind of half-way house, and so has a particular expressive potential, that was my point.

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 01:54:49 PMBesides, singing instead of speaking may be a little strange, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and that it's not a lot of fun and can't express a lot of things that can't be expressed in merely spoken words. So that certain styles of vocal writing are closer to spoken texts doesn't necessarily make that "better" or "greater". It's just a different style of expression.

I hope my post didn't suggest that I would disagree with any of that - not at all. But I would suggest that one area which opera has the greatest potential in exploring is human character, and so exploring this line which has speech at one end and full-blown aria at the other, with all the implications that entails, is rewarding. Of course, the divisions of (say) Italian opera - with its recits, ariosi, arias, cabalettas and so on - are geared towards moving forwards and back along this line too, but in a different way to that effected by Debussy etc.

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 13, 2008, 01:51:33 PM


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.

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.

Nice post, well expressed.
Thats the thing i've heard too often in the past, when asked the LP store salesman should I try Wagner "Well yeah , but keep in  mind  with the Ring you gotta sludge through all the less interesting passages which can strain the nerves". That may have been my reaction even as 6 or 7 yrs ago, but lately I've matured and now I have no such feelings about any part of Ring. Music strikes the listener at different levels. Being that i takea   interest in psychology, Wagner brings up issues , which M and others< longears, 'industrial revolution, Twlight Of The Gods> have touched upon, that affects us even today.  These myths, legends that Wagner weaves his own take  and sets them in operatic form, are still alive in man's consciousness today. I am reading  the complete libretto of The Ring right now. Pretty amazing stuff in there.  Ideas that we should best be paying attention to. Niethzsche is still out of most average man's intellectual reach, so he's not a  practical source of accessible insight.

Quote from: paulb on January 13, 2008, 02:10:46 PM
Niethzsche is still out of most average man's intellectual reach

Indeed, as is the correct spelling of his name.

Quote from: paulb on January 13, 2008, 02:10:46 PM
Thats the thing i've heard too often in the past, when asked the LP store salesman should I try Wagner "Well yeah , but keep in  mind  with the Ring you gotta sludge through all the less interesting passages which can strain the nerves". That may have been my reaction even as 6 or 7 yrs ago, but lately I've matured and now I have no such feelings about any part of Ring.

That's the thing. Wagner's "less-interesting passages" would be longueurs if he were writing traditional operas. The drama, in this case, an archetypal drama played out on a cosmic scale, is an equally important part of the work. Indeed, the music and the drama work together so beautifully and so seamlessly as to make music-drama after Wagner unnecessary. There is little upon which to improve. For example, Siegfried, which is not everyone's favorite evening of the Ring, is extremely dramatic and contains a lot of important action, as it is all needed to get from Walküre to Götterdämmerung. That is, to borrow the language of mathematics, a highly non-trivial operation, as it's fairly non-obvious how Siegfried - existing unseen inside Sieglinde - and Brünnhilde's imprisonment lead to the return of the Rheingold to the Rheintöchter and the end of the world. In other words, if Wagner were writing traditional operas - think Rigoletto (which I still love very much) or Aida - he would have written works that are so bloated as to be failures, assuming that he would have written the same works in the same way. As it stands, given Wagner's intent, he was tremendously successful.

Now, I could make a similar case for Mozart's operatic supremacy, working in the context of opera as opposed to music-drama, along many analogous lines.

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 12:40:46 PM
Woher willst *Du* das wissen? Du verstehst höchstwahrscheinlich keine fünf Worte deutsch

Oh come on, you don't know that for sure, now you are speculating.
(Sorry, I can only read a little but can't put a complete sentence in German together).

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 01:54:49 PM
Well, you should, because it's really good and deep and all that  0:)

But they are still singing rather than speaking in a "normal" way, so that doesn't really matter. It's still not speaking, it's just a different style of singing. Besides, singing instead of speaking may be a little strange, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and that it's not a lot of fun and can't express a lot of things that can't be expressed in merely spoken words. So that certain styles of vocal writing are closer to spoken texts doesn't necessarily make that "better" or "greater". It's just a different style of expression.

Yep.  Everything about the stage is artificial.  Dialogue is neither conversation nor speechmaking.  Much of the artistry in successful representational art lies in making the artifice disappear, unless calling attention to itself serves a purpose.  Wagner, of course, was not trying to write dialogue nor to imitate conversational speech.  The Ring, for instance, was very self-consciously dramatic and artificial, to add weight and the other-worldliness of myth to his allegory.  The artifice of P&M may have a very different underlying sensibility, but clearly follows the Ring in its effort to establish and maintain an aura of other worldliness.

Both of these works are very different in intent and method from the operas of Mozart or Verdi or Puccini.  To judge them all by the same standards is a category error.  As works of art they must be judged by their own internal standards--and to some extent, especially since each of these composers were so innovative, by the standards of success relative to their creators' aims (at least insofar as those aims are knowable).  As M suggested, it will not do to judge the merits of a mid-19th Century central European artwork solely from the vantage point of, say, a 21st Century Escondido, CA high school student whose worldview is conditioned almost exclusively by iTunes and YouTube.

By the way--thanks Luke & M & Knight & PSmith & others for joining in and raising the level of discourse in this thread to something far more interesting that the banal mudslinging the OP had in mind.

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on January 13, 2008, 02:34:21 PM
Oh come on, you don't know that for sure, now you are speculating.
(Sorry, I can only read a little but can't put a complete sentence in German together).

What's more, if that's the case, then he'll have no idea the he's just been called out in German.

(Confession: I had to look some of it up myself. Latin's my thing.)

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on January 13, 2008, 02:34:21 PM
Oh come on, you don't know that for sure, now you are speculating.

Nee, das ist ziemlich offensichtlich. Herr Corkin schreibt sowieso eine ganze Menge totalen Schwachsinn über Dinge, von denen er offensichtlich nicht die allergeringste Ahnung hat. Manche Leute sind einfach sehr leicht zu durchschauen.

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 02:36:24 PM
By the way--thanks Luke & M & Knight & PSmith & others for joining in and raising the level of discourse in this thread to something far more interesting that the banal mudslinging the OP had in mind.

There is nothing wrong with a little mudslinging here and there, though. It can be quite fun, too.

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 02:01:43 PM
I knew you were going to say that! I could have said that myself - it would have seemed logical in that context - but it's not really true. I decided to leave that out and let you step into the trap. Yes, that's how mean I am.  :)

The reality is, no he didn't foresee anything really. The whole idea of Götterdämmerung, indeed the idea that the world will eventually collapse in some kind of gigantic final conflict, predates Wagner by millenia. We don't even know who first came up with that.

Sure, it appears convenient to read what happened afterwards into his work. And it is the nature of all complex works of art that they contain content beyond their immediate context - they are vague and speculative anyway. But Wagner didn't really foresee that much either. Reading that into his work is just as wrong as blaming him for Nazis and all that.

Oh, really?  It's not the idea of Armegeddon that I'm referring to.  I referred specifically to the influence of industrialization and the social, moral, and economic changes it was bringing and would bring to the old order.  I'm sure no Wagner-weenie, but his antipathy toward industrialization is no secret, and the underlying subtext in the Ring is pretty clear.  That the rampant materialism of a rising capitalist middle-class would wreak spiritual havoc in the world as the new Golden Rule supplanted the old ("He who has the gold makes the rules"), and that the end of the rule of the Gods and their Valhalla (how did Ludwig see Neuschwanstein, by the way?) would eventually come to pass, seems like a pretty straightforward and self-evident reading of the text, even without any knowledge of the creator's life or intentions.

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 02:43:09 PM
There is nothing wrong with a little mudslinging here and there, though. It can be quite fun, too.

Of course!   ;D  It's the banal mudslinging to which I object.  And the self-righteous, pompous, humorless, drearily repetitive mudslinging, too.   8)

Yes, M but a little goes a long way.

Now, perhaps someone can put me right on this on. I was under the impression that the way Debussy set P&M is distinctly conversational. Clearly not replicating normal conversations, but certainly emulating the speech rhythms of French and moving often at a conversational speed.

Now I have thought about it; there are quite a few intelligent libretti; Bluebeard's Castle is certainly one of them.

Mike

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 03:01:07 PM

Now, perhaps someone can put me right on this on. I was under the impression that the way Debussy set P&M is distinctly conversational. Clearly not replicating normal conversations, but certainly emulating the speech rhythms of French and moving often at a conversational speed.

Absolutely. It tends to patter along on repeated notes, often oscillating in thirds and triads, and with great sensitivity to verbal rhythm. Of course, at this point, mention ought to be made of Mussorgsky and (particularly) Janacek's even more 'scientific' exploration of this area, but I've already mentioned it, and the horse is looking well-enough flogged.  ;D

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 03:01:07 PM
Now I have thought about it; there are quite a few intelligent libretti; Bluebeard's Castle is certainly one of them.

Tippett's much-maligned libretti are an interesting case - often used as a stick with which to beat him, as they are not great poetry, but they are deeply intelligent and original. What is missed by their critics is that they were never designed to be poetry, but rather to work when sung, specifically when sung to Tippett's own music. Seen from this POV, the composer-as-libretist, writing words for his own music, is a peculiarly powerful combination. BTW, Tippett followed TS Eliot's advice in writing his own libretti, and in the way he approached them, and advice doesn't come from a much better source!

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 12:40:46 PM
Du verstehst höchstwahrscheinlich keine fünf Worte deutsch

Er weiss nicht. Andere wissen aber. :P

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 12:40:46 PM
Nee, das ist ziemlich offensichtlich. Herr Corkin schreibt sowieso eine ganze Menge totalen Schwachsinn über Dinge, von denen er offensichtlich nicht die allergeringste Ahnung hat. Manche Leute sind einfach sehr leicht zu durchschauen.

Das war jetzt nicht sehr höflich.  :P Aber Ich bin einverstanden.  ::)

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 02:43:09 PM
There is nothing wrong with a little mudslinging here and there, though. It can be quite fun, too.

Yeah we all had those free-for-all mud fights aftera   hard rain when we were kids. Man that was a  blast! We'd even stop the flinging and just start smearing globs of mud in each others face. Yall know those days.
But last time I was here the soft mud turned clay, then pebbles, then it got so bad rocks were heard whizzing over my head, took a  direct hit and
I knew that was the time to scram.
Not that i didn't ask for it. ;D ,,,but now I'm back and  i've got this heavy armor suit on, feel free to fire away, i need to test it out :P


LUKE you havea   much broader understanding of Janacek, I said nothing in comparison.disregard my comments.
The passage I was refering to was in Jenufa, where the 3 main characters come together and sing in unison, like in Puccini's Turandot.
Does Janacek get the idea from Puccini.
When i said Janacek has 2 operas, i meant the best 2 of his operas. His others i find a  bit weak = attention strays.

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 10:04:47 AM
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!

Only because I'm a really bad whistler.  I can, however, hum quite a bit of it.

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 01:54:49 PM
Well, you should, because it's really good and deep and all that  0:)

But they are still singing rather than speaking in a "normal" way, so that doesn't really matter. It's still not speaking, it's just a different style of singing. Besides, singing instead of speaking may be a little strange, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and that it's not a lot of fun and can't express a lot of things that can't be expressed in merely spoken words. So that certain styles of vocal writing are closer to spoken texts doesn't necessarily make that "better" or "greater". It's just a different style of expression.

nice post. But really, there's not this dull monotone vocal parts in Wagner as some would assume. I mean how mnay operatic stars are there in this modern world that can perform like the casting on the Furtwangler 53, Keilberth 52/53 ? I'd seriously doubt if Bayreith assembled its ideal cast from the stars of today, it would  not match these 3 recordings. Which attests to the tremendous demands of the vocal parts along with   a  larger than usual  assembly of singers. Since the vocal parts are not as bellacanto, this places even more deamnds on the vocalists. Wagner's Ring is a  puts to the supreme test any would be opera star.

Now as to Wagner;'s Ring not as consistently exciting , riviting  as say Puccini's Turnadot,  a  case can be made. Had the subject matter of Wagner's Ring been something other, like Verdi or Janacek's themeatic material, a  story  about everyday life of a  broken  love affair, its doubtful the music would sustain my interest. The mythological material of the Ring lives is an ever living reality,  and the Ring may have hinted at the future political  conditions which would overtake germany.
Refer to longears introspection on the subject matter involved in the Ring, speaking about the effects of the industrial age upon modern society.

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 12, 2008, 12:33:06 PM
Well, as it has been pointed out, Wagner would likely say "Yes, Mozart is greater than me in opera." It does not really need, though it shall receive it, repeating that Wagner was writing music-dramas, which are discrete entities that have some things, but not all things, in common with opera as Mozart would have understood it.

I know you want to make a distinction between "opera" (as apparently practiced by Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, et al.) and "music drama" in the Wagnerian sense, but I prefer to use the word "opera" to refer to the works of all the above composers. Yes, Wagner attempted a synthesis in which music, words, and staging were to be co-equal, and he turned away from the spectacular grand operas of Meyerbeer and the coloratura warblings of the Italian bel canto composers like Bellini. But remember that the terms "music drama" and "Gesamtkunstwerk" were Wagner's own, and we are in no way bound to accept Wagner's terminology at face value. As D.H. Lawrence said, "never trust the teller, trust the tale." My problem with ascribing music drama only to Wagner while other composed produced only "opera" is that this implies that drama can be achieved only through Wagnerian methods. But the idea of "dramma per musica" was present in opera from the beginning; and there are other means of achieving music drama than the Wagnerian synthesis with its Leitmotivs and orchestra-as-commentator. Gluck, too, conceived of himself as a reformer, reacting against the vocal excesses of the 18th-century opera seria. And Gluck even anticipated some of the devices most characteristic of Wagner. Certainly as well a proto-Wagnerian use of the orchestra can be found in Oreste's arioso, "Le calme rentre dans mon coeur" from Iphegnie en Tauride, where Gluck's orchestra with its pulsating viola syncopations demonstrates that Oreste's heart is in fact anything but calm.

The other point to consider is whether Wagner in fact remained true to his own theories, as expostulated primarily in "Opera and Drama." I would say that in some respects he did not. Although among Wagner's innovations were to dispense with choral singing, ensembles, and separable numbers, Wagner quite obviously relaxed these strictures as he came to compose Tristan and Die Meistersinger. Already in Tristan and Act 3 of Siegfried we find Wagner allowing his tenor and soprano to sing together, and Meistersinger (with its glorious quintet) also returns to the role of the chorus as commentator and has many numbers that can be easily extracted from the whole. Shaw enjoyed pointing out that Goetterdaemmerung returned to many of the conventions of Meyerbeerian grand opera, and in his "Richard Wagner and the Synthesis of the Arts" (1960), Jack Stein of Harvard University argued that in the later theoretical writings Wagner reverted to a concept of opera in which music was no longer co-equal but the dominant element.

I would not assume either that "dramma per musica" can be achieved only through Wagnerian means, and is absent in the work of non-Wagnerian composers. Mozart's operas are predominantly comic rather than epic as in Wagner, and he uses the vocabulary of late 18th-century classicism. Yet within this vocabulary he is able to create stunning dramatic characterizations (as for example in the distinctions he draws in Don Giovanni between the haughty and aristocratic Donna Anna, the intense and slightly unbalanced Donna Elvira, and the peasant minx Zerlina), and he is able to develop deft shifts in relationships between characters - an outstanding example of this being the sextet in Act 3 of Figaro, where he uses a miniature sonata form to construct a dramatic action in which the relationships among all six characters are permanently transformed. And in much less time than it would have taken Wagner in one of his music dr operas.

Quote from: knight on January 13, 2008, 01:29:26 PM
Turning to Wagner libretti; they are often tedious with things stated three times, as though the listener is stupid;

I disagree with this as well. One of Wagner's great innovations in the Ring, Tristan, and Parsifal is that his characters live largely in their minds. If Wotan takes a huge chunk of time in Act Two of Die Walkuere to review events we have already experienced the night before in Das Rheingold, he does so not because he's afraid we missed the earlier opera but to re-evaluate these events in light of his subsequent experiences. Wagner's dramatic technique serves not only to get the stories told, but to follow the psychological journeys his characters take to understand themselves and develop. Perhaps the outstanding example of this is Tristan's long monologue in Act Three of his opera, where he develops from being nearly suicidal to serenely accepting his choice to pursue his illict love with Isolde.

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 02:56:56 PM
That the rampant materialism of a rising capitalist middle-class would wreak spiritual havoc in the world as the new Golden Rule supplanted the old ("He who has the gold makes the rules"), and that the end of the rule of the Gods and their Valhalla (how did Ludwig see Neuschwanstein, by the way?) would eventually come to pass, seems like a pretty straightforward and self-evident reading of the text, even without any knowledge of the creator's life or intentions.

Nice try, but you are totally overlooking that Wagner was very anti-authoritarian and therefore did not exactly celebrate the rule of the old classes. That's why he had to go into exile, remember? He just used the mentally ill Ludwig as a cash cow.

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 02:56:56 PM
the end of the rule of the Gods and their Valhalla (how did Ludwig see Neuschwanstein, by the way?)

He wanted it to be "like a true old German fortress". That doesn't have much to do with Walhalla. I think the design is based on the Wartburg. Ludwig proved to be much more visionary in that than Wagner, after all he predicted Disneyland.

Quote from: paulb on January 13, 2008, 05:03:48 PM
The mythological material of the Ring lives is an ever living reality,  and the Ring may have hinted at the future political  conditions which would overtake germany.
Refer to longears introspection on the subject matter involved in the Ring, speaking about the effects of the industrial age upon modern society.

Longears' introspection about the effects of industrialization, whether he is right or not, has nothing to do with "future" political conditions in Germany. Nothing of what happened decades after Wagner's death is "predicted" in his work. That is just a totally simplistic way of looking at history and the history of art. I like to watch the History Channel, too, but it shouldn't be your only source of information about history.

Quote from: paulb on January 13, 2008, 04:43:49 PM

The passage I was refering to was in Jenufa, where the 3 main characters come together and sing in unison, like in Puccini's Turandot.
Does Janacek get the idea from Puccini.

Jenufa was composed about 20 years before (Puccini's) Turandot.

Interesting thread, isn't it, Brian! I am so glad it brought you actively back to GMG. Stick around a bit, please. Missed you!  :-*

Quote from: Sforzando on January 13, 2008, 06:28:38 PM
I know you want to make a distinction between "opera" (as apparently practiced by Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, et al.) and "music drama" in the Wagnerian sense, but I prefer to use the word "opera" to refer to the works of all the above composers. Yes, Wagner attempted a synthesis in which music, words, and staging were to be co-equal, and he turned away from the spectacular grand operas of Meyerbeer and the coloratura warblings of the Italian bel canto composers like Bellini. But remember that the terms "music drama" and "Gesamtkunstwerk" were Wagner's own, and we are in no way bound to accept Wagner's terminology at face value. As D.H. Lawrence said, "never trust the teller, trust the tale." My problem with ascribing music drama only to Wagner while other composed produced only "opera" is that this implies that drama can be achieved only through Wagnerian methods. But the idea of "dramma per musica" was present in opera from the beginning; and there are other means of achieving music drama than the Wagnerian synthesis with its Leitmotivs and orchestra-as-commentator. Gluck, too, conceived of himself as a reformer, reacting against the vocal excesses of the 18th-century opera seria. And Gluck even anticipated some of the devices most characteristic of Wagner. Certainly as well a proto-Wagnerian use of the orchestra can be found in Oreste's arioso, "Le calme rentre dans mon coeur" from Iphegnie en Tauride, where Gluck's orchestra with its pulsating viola syncopations demonstrates that Oreste's heart is in fact anything but calm.

I take your point, and I suppose it is both an occupational hazard and a personal choice to adopt the Wagnerian program of music-drama as the only (or, at least, the primary) valid source of dramma per musica. I think the problem with ascribing full-blown music-drama status to those other works, as opposed to mere precursor rank, is that they do what they do struggling against the conventions of the form. That is to say, Gluck (to some degree, though I am less familiar there) and Mozart (to a much greater degree) are so extraordinary in their ability to affect this sort of quintessentially Wagnerian fusion of music and text to create drama because they were fighting the conventions of their time. Indeed, Mozart's oeuvre shows us that he still had to grapple with audience expectations. Don Giovanni and Die Entführung aus dem Serail both have pretty big solo numbers, which were likely dropped in for the sake of appeasing star tenors and sopranos as well as what the audience wanted. To my mind, they might have achieved dramma per musica, but they did so in spite of their form, not because of their form, if you follow me. Wagner achieved his ends not only through his own work but because his form lent itself to those ends.

QuoteThe other point to consider is whether Wagner in fact remained true to his own theories, as expostulated primarily in "Opera and Drama." I would say that in some respects he did not. Although among Wagner's innovations were to dispense with choral singing, ensembles, and separable numbers, Wagner quite obviously relaxed these strictures as he came to compose Tristan and Die Meistersinger. Already in Tristan and Act 3 of Siegfried we find Wagner allowing his tenor and soprano to sing together, and Meistersinger (with its glorious quintet) also returns to the role of the chorus as commentator and has many numbers that can be easily extracted from the whole. Shaw enjoyed pointing out that Goetterdaemmerung returned to many of the conventions of Meyerbeerian grand opera, and in his "Richard Wagner and the Synthesis of the Arts" (1960), Jack Stein of Harvard University argued that in the later theoretical writings Wagner reverted to a concept of opera in which music was no longer co-equal but the dominant element.

As to Siegfried and Götterdämmerung, I view them as symptomatic breakdowns in the Wagnerian program, as opposed to failures of the program. The argument has been made (not by me originally, but subscribed to by me) that there is a dramatic flaw at the heart of Der Ring des Nibelungen. Siegfried is the theoretical (de jure, for lack of a more felicitous phrase) hero of the cycle. He is not, however, the de facto hero of the cycle. That is Wotan. Between the two, Wotan is a classical Greek tragic hero with a hamartia, who suffers - in a series of blows worthy of Sophocles or Aeschylus - a major reversal. Those reversals add up to a figurative and literal (in the Ring-world) katharsis. What does this even mean? Well, my argument is this: confronted by such a major flaw, which is to say that the hero isn't the hero anymore, and isn't even interesting in the same way that the 'new' hero is, Wagner's music-drama breaks down a little bit. It's actually broken down quite a bit, but Wagner had enough talent to carry it through to the conclusion. So, when you find slips in the music-drama form in Siegfried and Götterdämmerung, you're seeing symptoms of the larger problem at the heart of the story. As to Tristan and Meistersinger, as there are no such large-scale errors, I can only suppose that Wagner didn't conform to his own rules because he recognized that, for different reasons in both cases, the action required the rules to be broken. A love story without some sort of love-duet is a bit of a problem, owing to the expectations of his audience, and Meistersinger is just weird, if you'll pardon the infelicity, placed in Wagner's oeuvre. He also wasn't working with the same sort of cosmic drama as he was in some other works.

QuoteI would not assume either that "dramma per musica" can be achieved only through Wagnerian means, and is absent in the work of non-Wagnerian composers. Mozart's operas are predominantly comic rather than epic as in Wagner, and he uses the vocabulary of late 18th-century classicism. Yet within this vocabulary he is able to create stunning dramatic characterizations (as for example in the distinctions he draws in Don Giovanni between the haughty and aristocratic Donna Anna, the intense and slightly unbalanced Donna Elvira, and the peasant minx Zerlina), and he is able to develop deft shifts in relationships between characters - an outstanding example of this being the sextet in Act 3 of Figaro, where he uses a miniature sonata form to construct a dramatic action in which the relationships among all six characters are permanently transformed. And in much less time than it would have taken Wagner in one of his music dr operas.

Again, I take your point, though I would still assert that the Wagnerian program is the most consistent by which you can hope to achieve music-drama without straining the limits of form.

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 12:28:44 PM
(http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/r/rofl.gif)  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! (http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/r/rofl.gif)

edited to dismember unmemborable typo

I've said this many times, and it is true, that there is more memorable music in the first act of Giulio Cesare than all of Mozart's put together. This is not a radical position, I know quite a few CM fans who find Mozart's operas weak.

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 13, 2008, 12:20:21 PM
  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

I was being deadly serious Marvin! But only superfans of Mozart and Wagner would regard them as the twin peaks of opera, and I doubt there are too many people who are superfans of both of these composers. For me Handel and Beethoven are the twin peaks, and Beethoven isn't even an opera composer compared to the others. But B and H are much closer artistically than M and W!

Quote from: M forever on January 13, 2008, 06:55:02 PM
Nice try, but you are totally overlooking that Wagner was very anti-authoritarian and therefore did not exactly celebrate the rule of the old classes. That's why he had to go into exile, remember? He just used the mentally ill Ludwig as a cash cow.

Nice try but that has no bearing on the allegorical nature of the work.

QuoteHe wanted it to be "like a true old German fortress". That doesn't have much to do with Walhalla. I think the design is based on the Wartburg. Ludwig proved to be much more visionary in that than Wagner, after all he predicted Disneyland.

Did you ever see a TV game show called Family Feud?  "Good answer!" ;D

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 14, 2008, 03:22:12 AM
I've said this many times, and it is true, that there is more memorable music in the first act of Giulio Cesare than all of Mozart's put together. This is not a radical position, I know quite a few CM fans who find Mozart's operas weak.

Absolutely not a radical position--it doesn't address the root of anything.  As for visitors to your website who think Mozart's operas are weak:  it just goes to show that you get what you pay for!  ;D  (And confirms the suspicion that there's little of interest or merit to be found there.)

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 13, 2008, 08:03:50 PM
I take your point . . .

But I don't think you truly do, having locked yourself into assumptions that favor the Wagnerian approach above all and downplay the successes of other composers who have created valid musical drama without all the Wagnerian baggage. What matters are not the conventions in play at any point in history, but the individual composer's ability to structure a dramatic action and create memorable characterizations within the language available to him. And these successes have been realized by such "precursors" to Wagner as Monteverdi, Handel (yes), Rameau, Gluck, Mozart, and Beethoven, each in their own way. Compared to some of the postings on this thread, yours are considerably more articulate and knowledgeable, but you still seem to be falling into the same kinds of traps exemplified by Mssrs. ___ and ___ and ___  - namely, a kind of "my composer can lick your composer" attitude that sacrifices flexibility of outlook and substitutes rigid dogmatism.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 14, 2008, 03:27:06 AM
I was being deadly serious Marvin! But only superfans of Mozart and Wagner would regard them as the twin peaks of opera, and I doubt there are too many people who are superfans of both of these composers. For me Handel and Beethoven are the twin peaks, and Beethoven isn't even an opera composer compared to the others. But B and H are much closer artistically than M and W!

To contradict this idea that Mozart has weakness in his operas, you could assemble just about any level of casting and come forth with a performance that would delight any crowd. The operas possess charms, delights, surprises throughtout, ner a  lull or dull. Very listener-friendly, performer-friendly.
Now Wagner, especially the 4 Ring operas, require high such a  high standard to bring about results that hold the attention. The vocalists do not have the strong support from the music as Mozart provides for his performers. The singers in the Ring are pretty much on their own. man thats SUPER-high art when you hear a  grand performance/recording of The Ring. You are in the presence of genius, something rare now-a-days.


Interesting about Handel and Beethoven as related, I'm not fond of either. Now I do believe Bach and Mozart are related as spiritual father to son.
So this is all making sense, what Bach is to Mozart, Handel is to Beethoven.

Wagner though taking on influences from Beethoven first, then later on in his life from Mozart, yet his operas rise above both to become something totally different from either. Well i am refering to his late phase only, His early phase has too much Beethovenish modalites for me to ever like them.

It seems that the subject matter of myths , the legends of The Great Ring Cycle, have so griped the soul of Wagner that the life blood of the germanic soil rushes up and overtakes Wagner to the point that the muisc itself is now dictated by the stories themselves. This is obvioulsy true in all high art, but especially when folk inspired stories are involved.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 14, 2008, 03:27:06 AM
But only superfans of Mozart and Wagner would regard them as the twin peaks of opera, and I doubt there are too many people who are superfans of both of these composers.

Quite the contrary. The easiest refutation to such a statement is to look at what operas are most often performed in actual opera houses. Of course we all know that Handel's operas were not seriously revived until several decades ago, but if one looks at the database of the Metropolitan Opera in New York, for example, one sees that the most performed composers of opera include Puccini, Verdi, Mozart, and Wagner. The notion that there are only a few "superfans" of these super-popular composers will not stand up to any scrutiny.

http://66.187.153.86/archives/frame.htm
(click Repertory Report)

Quote from: Sforzando on January 14, 2008, 05:34:59 AM
But I don't think you truly do, having locked yourself into assumptions that favor the Wagnerian approach above all and downplay the successes of other composers who have created valid musical drama without all the Wagnerian baggage. What matters are not the conventions in play at any point in history, but the individual composer's ability to structure a dramatic action and create memorable characterizations within the language available to him. And these successes have been realized by such "precursors" to Wagner as Monteverdi, Handel (yes), Rameau, Gluck, Mozart, and Beethoven, each in their own way. Compared to some of the postings on this thread, yours are considerably more articulate and knowledgeable, but you still seem to be falling into the same kinds of traps exemplified by Mssrs. ___ and ___ and ___  - namely, a kind of "my composer can lick your composer" attitude that sacrifices flexibility of outlook and substitutes rigid dogmatism.

Well, my position is neither normative nor intended to convince in the sense that, after reading it, I expect you "to see the light." Once again, I find the Wagnerian program the most consistent in achieving dramma per musica; indeed, as I have said, I believe that Wagner's form leads to that music-drama naturally in a way that a traditional operatic form does not. YMMV.

I voted "no", but I have to take it back. Wagner's "Operas" really aren't operas are they? More like how he described them, "Music Dramas".

Unless one wishes to count the pre-Ring Wagner works as "Operas". In that case, Mozart and Verdi both have Richard beat, in my most humble opinion.

I always felt that Wagner both transformed and advanced what was known as "opera" at the time because he had greats like Monteverdi, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven as past phenomenons to be inspired by.

Not to mention the fact that having Verdi around (writing the greatest Italian Operas ever) probably made Wagner push even harder toward breaking completely from Italian Opera.

Quote from: Haffner on January 14, 2008, 07:25:38 AM
I voted "no", but I have to take it back. Wagner's "Operas" really aren't operas are they? More like how he described them, "Music Dramas".

Asked and answered already in my post #123. I would strongly suggest a reading of Joseph Kerman's "Opera as Drama" for anyone convinced that operatic drama is limited to the mature works of Richard Wagner.

Quote from: Sforzando on January 14, 2008, 07:52:53 AM
Asked and answered already in my post #123. I would strongly suggest a reading of Joseph Kerman's "Opera as Drama" for anyone convinced that operatic drama is limited to the mature works of Richard Wagner.

Ah.

Quote from: longears on January 14, 2008, 05:21:26 AM
Absolutely not a radical position--it doesn't address the root of anything.  As for visitors to your website who think Mozart's operas are weak:  it just goes to show that you get what you pay for!  ;D  (And confirms the suspicion that there's little of interest or merit to be found there.)

Who was talking about my website (but thanks for promoting it for me)? That's only been going 3 months, I'm talking about my experience over 20 years. But contrary to what you say there is plenty of merit and things of interest at my site, but unless you register you will only have access to one of the nine forums. So your current review can hardly be judged as a well considered one.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 14, 2008, 01:29:06 PM
Who was talking about my website (but thanks for promoting it for me)? That's only been going 3 months, I'm talking about my experience over 20 years. But contrary to what you say there is plenty of merit and things of interest at my site, but unless you register you will only have access to one of the nine forums. So your current review can hardly be judged as a well considered one.

I don't know about that.

In any event, some substantiation for your claims that there are a number of serious music fans who do not appreciate Mozart's opera would be nice. What am I saying? An argument of any sort concerning Mozart's style from any person would be nice, and I don't mean "more memorable music"-type arguments. You can argue clear fallacies from a subjective foundation.

Maybe we'll compare 30 second clips of various works.

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 14, 2008, 01:51:13 PM
I don't know about that.

In any event, some substantiation for your claims that there are a number of serious music fans who do not appreciate Mozart's opera would be nice. What am I saying? An argument of any sort concerning Mozart's style from any person would be nice, and I don't mean "more memorable music"-type arguments. You can argue clear fallacies from a subjective foundation.

Maybe we'll compare 30 second clips of various works.

I have never compared 30 sec clips, not once. but whole arias etc yes, but that is not allowed here. If you think Mozart's music can stand it you know where to go for a showdown. Actually I've already got a baroque opera showcase topic at my site with lots of Handel tracks, I'm going through them chronologically, I'm up to Flavio at the moment, Gulio Cesare, Rodelina etc next in line. Mozart was not a 'hit' writer like Handel, nor as good a dramatist, but regardless I think Handel's method was perfect for this form of music.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 14, 2008, 02:25:42 PM
I have never compared 30 sec clips, not once. but whole arias etc yes, but that is not allowed here. If you think Mozart's music can stand it you know where to go for a showdown. Actually I've already got a baroque opera showcase topic at my site with lots of Handel tracks, I'm going through them chronologically, I'm up to Flavio at the moment, Gulio Cesare, Rodelina etc next in line. Mozart was not a 'hit' writer like Handel, nor as good a dramatist, but regardless I think Handel's method was perfect for this form of music.

dude, Seriously, say you love Handel all you want, why do have to dis Mozart? Especially after that we all know that you obviously know nothing about Mozart's music. So please, stop. Aren't you even a little embarrassed about what you have said?

Quote from: longears on January 13, 2008, 02:36:24 PM
By the way--thanks Luke & M & Knight & PSmith & others for joining in and raising the level of discourse in this thread to something far more interesting that the banal mudslinging the OP had in mind.

Well, too late now, Mr Corkin has returned and dragged the thread down to his level. Why do people feed the trolls?

Quote from: M forever on January 14, 2008, 04:32:34 PM
Well, too late now, Mr Corkin has returned and dragged the thread down to his level. Why do people feed the trolls?

Because it's funny? If you can't engage with their arguments, having none with which to engage, then you can always have some fun.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 14, 2008, 02:25:42 PM
Mozart was not a 'hit' writer like Handel, nor as good a dramatist, but regardless I think Handel's method was perfect for this form of music.

If you say so.

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 14, 2008, 06:53:19 PM
Because it's funny? If you can't engage with their arguments, having none with which to engage, then you can always have some fun.

Is this your idea of fun:

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 14, 2008, 06:53:19 PM
If you say so.

Although I don't think I could have come up with a better reply to the statement you replied to either. That is just too silly, silliness on an epic scale. That is so hollow and meaningless that it threatens to suck your brain out through your eyes when you read it. Especially since it says absolutely nothing. There is no content there, just attitude and posing. There must be some kind of powerful mental vacuum in Mr Corkin's head, like a black hole. Pretty dangerous, actually, if you think about it.

Quote from: M forever on January 14, 2008, 07:07:43 PM
Is this your idea of fun:

Sure. I mean, why not? It's not a lugubrious task to "engage" with our correspondent's "ideas." Not by a long shot.

QuoteAlthough I don't think I could have come up with a better reply to the statement you replied to either. That is just too silly, silliness on an epic scale. That is so hollow and meaningless that it threatens to suck your brain out through your eyes when you read it. Especially since it says absolutely nothing. There is no content there, just attitude and posing. There must be some kind of powerful mental vacuum in Mr Corkin's head, like a black hole. Pretty dangerous, actually, if you think about it.

It's actually anti-content, since it doesn't make linguistic sense. What he has more or less said is, "Fact A, Fact B, and in spite of A+B, Opinion 1." That is to say, he treats his statements of Handelian superiority like objections to his final statement. That makes it a contradiction, since Facts A and B support his Opinion 1. In other words, the statement collapses in on itself, making it a content black hole. Confronted with something with such a powerful pull, one can only resign and accept that nothing is going to change an information singularity.

Quote from: Gustav on January 14, 2008, 03:39:47 PM
dude, Seriously, say you love Handel all you want, why do have to dis Mozart? Especially after that we all know that you obviously know nothing about Mozart's music. So please, stop. Aren't you even a little embarrassed about what you have said?

This whole topic is a bit crazy if you ask me, but it is pitting Mozart against Wagner, so you shouldn't really complain about people being critical, the topic almost demands it. But here if you are critical of Mozart you get called an idiot. Sorry, but I know a good aria from a bland one, even is some other people dont.

This forum is full of topics like this, too many even for me!

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 14, 2008, 07:53:23 PM
It's actually anti-content, since it doesn't make linguistic sense. What he has more or less said is, "Fact A, Fact B, and in spite of A+B, Opinion 1." That is to say, he treats his statements of Handelian superiority like objections to his final statement. That makes it a contradiction, since Facts A and B support his Opinion 1. In other words, the statement collapses in on itself, making it a content black hole. Confronted with something with such a powerful pull, one can only resign and accept that nothing is going to change an information singularity.

Yes, you described that very well. Anti-content=anti-matter.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 03:04:32 AM
This whole topic is a bit crazy if you ask me, but it is pitting Mozart against Wagner, so you shouldn't really complain about people being critical, the topic almost demands it.

But you must consider the source.  "Wagner rules, Mozart drools" is an option that would scream "agenda-pushing crank" even if you didn't know Pinky. But perhaps you didn't notice, since his agenda substantially overlaps yours. 

Quote from: CorksterBut here if you are critical of Mozart you get called an idiot.

Nah, only the idiots would call you an idiot for that (there are one or two about).  I think most folks here welcome criticism--in the grown-up sense of informed analyses and evaluations.  In fact, many if not most come here primarily to seek classical music criticism from lay sources.  We might not find much, but many of us stay for the floor show.

Quote from: CorksterSorry, but I know a good aria from a bland one, even is some other people dont.

Now this is the sort of statement that gets people called "idiots." Perhaps not if it were backed up by informed comments supporting its validity, but in this case, since it refers directly to your earlier comments describing Mozart's arias as "unmelodic & unmemorable," it's clearly false--and absurdly so, considering the weight of two centuries of informed opinion.  What's more, your aggressiveness in pushing an agenda steeped in such displays of benighted arrogance virtually assures that you will be personally rebuked and ridiculed, rather than compassionately guided out of the black hole of ignorance in which you presently reside.

The good news is that you are not condemned to this sorrowful condition, for you are your own jailer, and you have the key to release yourself.  All that's required is to take a big gulp of humble pie, wash it down by swallowing your pride, and then admit that you really don't know very much at all.  In a heartbeat your world will change.  When you empty your cup of the half-baked ideas you mistake for knowledge, you make room for real knowledge to be poured in.

Quote from: longears on January 15, 2008, 05:33:23 AM

The good news is that you are not condemned to this sorrowful condition, for you are your own jailer, and you have the key to release yourself.  All that's required is to take a big gulp of humble pie, wash it down by swallowing your pride, and then admit that you really don't know very much at all.  In a heartbeat your world will change.  When you empty your cup of the half-baked ideas you mistake for knowledge, you make room for real knowledge to be poured in.

The good news is I am not bound by the fascistic tendencies that permeate this forum! I've paid good money to hear Don Giovani and Cosi live not so long ago. and have heard a good few CDs or extracts thereof over the years. If I don't like it I don't like it. If I said Handel's operas were rubbish nobody would raise an eyelid here, what hypocrisy. If I prefer Handel's operas to Mozart's and Wagner's nobody here is qualified to call me an idiot.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 06:06:40 AM
The good news is I am not bound by the fascistic tendencies that permeate this forum!

Thanks for the laugh!  Always welcome of a morning, Corkster!

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 06:06:40 AM
The good news is I am not bound by the fascistic tendencies that permeate this forum! I've paid good money to hear Don Giovani and Cosi live not so long ago. and have heard a good few CDs or extracts thereof over the years. If I don't like it I don't like it. If I said Handel's operas were rubbish nobody would raise an eyelid here, what hypocrisy. If I prefer Handel's operas to Mozart's and Wagner's nobody here is qualified to call me an idiot.

But you don't simply state a preference for Handel's operas.  For some perverse reason, you feel it necessary to dump on other famous composers of opera to buttress your subjective views.  In doing this, you give the appearance of being an idiot.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 06:06:40 AM
The good news is I am not bound by the fascistic tendencies that permeate this forum!

You're either confused about the definition of fascism, or just making a silly rhetorical point. Either way, I should dismiss the point out-of-hand. I won't, though. There is no central administration and control of opinion. There certainly isn't a centralized ideology expressed by an authority figure. It's the free market, old chum, and the consumers are just not buying your product. Those are the breaks.

QuoteI've paid good money to hear Don Giovani and Cosi live not so long ago. and have heard a good few CDs or extracts thereof over the years. If I don't like it I don't like it.

At least you're consistently subjective. I can't fault you for that, unless you're trying to pass your subjectivity off as absolute fact, as though you have some sort of claim to arbitrate artistic quality in absolute, objective terms.

QuoteIf I said Handel's operas were rubbish nobody would raise an eyelid here, what hypocrisy. If I prefer Handel's operas to Mozart's and Wagner's nobody here is qualified to call me an idiot.

The preference isn't the problem. It's like Don said. It's not enough for you to say, "Gee, I really like Handel." No, you have to say, "Gee, I really like Handel and Mozart was a hack." When you express your preference in such terms, you're going to run into trouble. I'm not surprised that you express your views like that, or even that you run into opposition. No, what surprises me is your surprise when you meet some resistance, as though you really don't think that folks might take exception to your method of argument.

Quote from: Don on January 15, 2008, 06:17:46 AM
But you don't simply state a preference for Handel's operas.  For some perverse reason, you feel it necessary to dump on other famous composers of opera to buttress your subjective views.  In doing this, you give the appearance of being an idiot.

I'm not dumping on anything, have you actually read the title of this topic Don? Have you seen the poll options? I've already said this is a crazy subject. If I appear as an idiot to you that is something I can live with.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 06:28:46 AM
I'm not dumping on anything, have you actually read the title of this topic Don? Have you seen the poll options? I've already said this is a crazy subject. If I appear as an idiot to you that is something I can live with.

Understood.  I don't expect you to stroke out no matter how foolishly you present your views.

Quote from: Don on January 15, 2008, 06:32:55 AM
Understood.  I don't expect you to stroke out no matter how foolishly you present your views.

I thank you.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 06:06:40 AM
The good news is I am not bound by the fascistic tendencies that permeate this forum!

Oh, now everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "fascist". Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt here because there is a good chance you don't even know and understand what that is. And what a nasty insult that is. But you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I have to apologize for calling you an idiot. But not to you, to the real idiots. People who are just harmless idiots don't deserve to be thrown together with a piece of crap like you. You used to be involuntarily funny, then boring, now you have become just sickening.

Some of these posts remind me of the following.

A long time ago, when I was a young manager, I had a group of people three of whom happened to be called John Smith. Sitting working, I happened to hear the daftest of the trio, and frankly, it was a close run race, say; 'So that's why they called the month October.' I then asked what they were chatting about.

JS the Egregious 'Well, hundreds of years ago, there was this plague of octopus. They called it the year of the octopus. But once the year was ended, they were so sad, they decided to rename one of the months, so they would never forget the plague. So they ended up with October.'

I pointed out that October was the eighth month of the Roman calender. Immediately JS shot back; 'Nah, it is the 10th month, so that's rubbish....look, Octopus the word starts, O-C-T-O. October, the word starts O-C-T-O.......I rest my case.

I decided that such stupidity was almost treasureable, I just smiled; we all got back to the task and for all I know John Smith The Egregious still believes his fairy story.

There are some people you cannot help.

I rest my case.

Mike

Quote from: knight on January 15, 2008, 10:13:05 AM
Some of these posts remind me of the following.

A long time ago, when I was a young manager, I had a group of people three of whom happened to be called John Smith. Sitting working, I happened to hear the daftest of the trio, and frankly, it was a close run race, say; 'So that's why they called the month October.' I then asked what they were chatting about.

JS the Egregious 'Well, hundreds of years ago, there was this plague of octopus. They called it the year of the octopus. But once the year was ended, they were so sad, they decided to rename one of the months, so they would never forget the plague. So they ended up with October.'

I pointed out that October was the eighth month of the Roman calender. Immediately JS shot back; 'Nah, it is the 10th month, so that's rubbish....look, Octopus the word starts, O-C-T-O. October, the word starts O-C-T-O.......I rest my case.

I decided that such stupidity was almost treasureable, I just smiled; we all got back to the task and for all I know John Smith The Egregious still believes his fairy story.

There are some people you cannot help.

I rest my case.

Mike

That is the funniest thing I have heard all week. At least your correspondent was harmless.

Sometimes even a stupid question can cause a fancy discussion which is so nice to read!

Quote from: M forever on January 15, 2008, 09:13:45 AM
Oh, now everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "fascist". Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt here because there is a good chance you don't even know and understand what that is. And what a nasty insult that is. But you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I have to apologize for calling you an idiot. But not to you, to the real idiots. People who are just harmless idiots don't deserve to be thrown together with a piece of crap like you. You used to be involuntarily funny, then boring, now you have become just sickening.

You forget all I do is offer my musical opinion here, I do not insult or shout down anyone else or use spamming techniques to push comments out of view (another thing that sometimes goes on here). It is the consistent reaction here are the local Mafia that is 100% fascistic. This is just something that is a fact of life here at GMG, whether you accept it or not. Indeed it appears you are a part of it. But the Management has to take some blame for allowing this culture to exist. Put it this way, despite the title there's much less mayhem at my site than there is here, and people can say what they like at my place! Things that have caused riots and chaos here!

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 01:40:15 PM
You forget all I do is offer my musical opinion here, I do not insult or shout down anyone else or use spamming techniques to push comments out of view (another thing that sometimes goes on here).

Because calling things "100% fascistic" is high praise? Because "local Mafia" is a term of endearment?

You're well beyond the point where you can say, with a straight face, "all I do is offer my musical opinion here."

As to your insistence on throwing "fascist" around at the slightest (deserved) provocation, to quote the great film, The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 15, 2008, 01:46:45 PM
As to your insistence on throwing "fascist" around at the slightest (deserved) provocation, to quote the great film, The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

No, it doesn't, in fact Mafia in the sense of organized crime and fascism have always proven to be mutually exclusive. History, I guess, is yet another subject Mr Corkin doesn't know too much about.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 15, 2008, 01:40:15 PM
people can say what they like at my place! Things that have caused riots and chaos here!

You?

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 14, 2008, 03:27:06 AM
I was being deadly serious Marvin! But only superfans of Mozart and Wagner would regard them as the twin peaks of opera, and I doubt there are too many people who are superfans of both of these composers. For me Handel and Beethoven are the twin peaks, and Beethoven isn't even an opera composer compared to the others. But B and H are much closer artistically than M and W!

  Oh Rod,  I regret to inform you that in the opera world most opera fans would tell you that the  the "holy trinity" of opera are - MOZART, WAGNER and VERDI!   It is simply not true that only superfans of Mozart and Wagner would regard them as the twin peaks of opera.  It is generally accepted in the opera world that Mozart and Wagner are two of the "holy trinity" of opera.  I would even argue that the following ranking accurately depicts what most opera fans consider to be the GREATEST operas and opera composers in the history of music:

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

      While I admire your passion for Handel I regret to inform you that you are in the minority who believe that Handel as an opera composer towers above Mozart and Wagner and Verdi.

  marvin
     

Quote from: Sforzando on January 14, 2008, 06:09:15 AM
Quite the contrary. The easiest refutation to such a statement is to look at what operas are most often performed in actual opera houses. Of course we all know that Handel's operas were not seriously revived until several decades ago, but if one looks at the database of the Metropolitan Opera in New York, for example, one sees that the most performed composers of opera include Puccini, Verdi, Mozart, and Wagner. The notion that there are only a few "superfans" of these super-popular composers will not stand up to any scrutiny.

http://66.187.153.86/archives/frame.htm
(click Repertory Report)

  Thank you for posting that Sforzando.  It further bolsters my post in response to Rod's perception that "only superfans of Wagner and Mozart reagrd them as the twin peaks of opera".  Rod's perception is simply not true.

  marvin

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 16, 2008, 02:17:30 AM
  Oh Rod,  I regret to inform you that in the opera world most opera fans would tell you that the  the "holy trinity" of opera are - MOZART, WAGNER and VERDI! 

You think I don't know this? But I don't agree with any of the established 'Holly Trinities'. This opera trinity is outdated from a Handellian perspective, because it is only in the past decade or so that the quality of Handel's operas has become appreciated. But if you want to remove one of the 3 above and insert Handel in his place I would be content.
 

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 16, 2008, 02:17:30 AM
      While I admire your passion for Handel I regret to inform you that you are in the minority who believe that Handel as an opera composer towers above Mozart and Wagner and Verdi.

  marvin
     

I am happy to be in that minority Marvin, if the average CM fan agreed with me I'd start to have doubts about whether I was right. The thing is everyone has heard many of Mozart's, Wagner's and Verdi's operas, myself included. But on record, at least, I have heard in addition about 30 Handel operas. Can any member here match that? Handel's second most popular opera at the time was 'Ottone', who here has heard this other than myself? My decision is based on a level of comparative assessment that maybe others here cannot quite emulate?

I'm not saying there is no room for M, V and W, simply that whatever they have done has been done before by Handel in one way or another far more efficiently and effectively and with far better tunes for your dollar.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 16, 2008, 03:02:49 AM
You think I don't know this? But I don't agree with any of the established 'Holly Trinities'.

Oh no, are you really 71 dB in disguise ?

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 16, 2008, 03:02:49 AM
You think I don't know this?

Corkin on 1/14: "But only superfans of Mozart and Wagner would regard them as the twin peaks of opera, and I doubt there are too many people who are superfans of both of these composers."

Quote from: Sforzando on January 16, 2008, 04:12:07 AM
Corkin on 1/14: "But only superfans of Mozart and Wagner would regard them as the twin peaks of opera, and I doubt there are too many people who are superfans of both of these composers."

The trinity does not mean that opera lovers love all 3 in equal measure, it means that they are regarded as the 3 most important opera composers. That is something totally different. I still would be surprised is Wagner fanatics loved Mozart equally!

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on January 16, 2008, 04:03:35 AM
Oh no, are you really 71 dB in disguise ?

Maybe 71db is ME in disguise...

Remember the total pandemonium I created here when i suggested Handel should replace Bach in the 'general' Trinity (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart)? It was like the forum went into mass hysteria! Ah those were the days...

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 16, 2008, 03:02:49 AM
You think I don't know this? But I don't agree with any of the established 'Holly Trinities'. This opera trinity is outdated from a Handellian perspective, because it is only in the past decade or so that the quality of Handel's operas has become appreciated. But if you want to remove one of the 3 above and insert Handel in his place I would be content.
 
I am happy to be in that minority Marvin, if the average CM fan agreed with me I'd start to have doubts about whether I was right. The thing is everyone has heard many of Mozart's, Wagner's and Verdi's operas, myself included. But on record, at least, I have heard in addition about 30 Handel operas. Can any member here match that? Handel's second most popular opera at the time was 'Ottone', who here has heard this other than myself? My decision is based on a level of comparative assessment that maybe others here cannot quite emulate?

I'm not saying there is no room for M, V and W, simply that whatever they have done has been done before by Handel in one way or another far more efficiently and effectively and with far better tunes for your dollar.

  Rod, opera happens to be my favorite "genre" of music and in the interests of understanding you better I would like to ask you why you believe Handel as an opera composer, and only as far as opera is concerned, has been neglected?  Is it not possible that a lack of appreciation of Handel's operas is in some way a reflection on their quality?

  marvin

   

  marvin 

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 16, 2008, 06:15:52 AM
  Rod, opera happens to be my favorite "genre" of music and in the interests of understanding you better I would like to ask you why you believe Handel as an opera composer, and only as far as opera is concerned, has been neglected?  Is it not possible that a lack of appreciation of Handel's operas is in some way a reflection on their quality?

  marvin 

This is why established perceptions are completely and utterly wrong. Handel operas are filling houses all over Europe and the US these days because performing editions have become available only recently. I suspect the Establishment obsession with Bach is linked to what can only be described as the suppression of Handel's music for 100 years. Even Handel's greatest work, Theodora, did not have a performing edition in the modern era until about 1990. Imagine that happening to the St Matthew?? No chance! Many of the Handel opera recordings I have are world premieres and they have only been recording in the 90's and this century. See what I mean? It is you guys who are behind the times. you wipe the cobwebs of your Callas albums, it is Handel's music is now at the cutting edge of modern opera performance, because for the first time in centuries they can actually hear it, and hear it performed as it should be.

But enough of this, I've had my fill of this topic you'll be relieved to read, you can go back to Mozart and Wagner now. If you want to talk about Handel, and hear all this stuff I'm talking about, you know where to go.

Adios.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 16, 2008, 06:31:49 AM
This is why established perceptions are completely and utterly wrong. Handel operas are filling houses all over Europe and the US these days because performing editions have become available only recently. I suspect the Establishment obsession with Bach is linked to what can only be described as the suppression of Handel's music for 100 years. Even Handel's greatest work, Theodora, did not have a performing edition in the modern era until about 1990. Imagine that happening to the St Matthew?? No chance! Many of the Handel opera recordings I have are world premieres and they have only been recording in the 90's and this century. See what I mean? It is you guys who are behind the times. you wipe the cobwebs of your Callas albums, it is Handel's music is now at the cutting edge of modern opera performance, because for the first time in centuries they can actually hear it, and hear it performed as it should be.

But enough of this, I've had my fill of this topic you'll be relieved to read, you can go back to Mozart and Wagner now. If you want to talk about Handel, and hear all this stuff I'm talking about, you know where to go.

Adios.

There was no "suppression," and no "Establishment obsession." Handel's operas and oratorios had been published in Friedrich Chrysander's edition in the last four decades of the 19th century; these editions were not always accurate, but anyone interested in performing a large Handel vocal work could have easily used one of these scores. Brahms, who knew a thing or two about music, subscribed to both the Chrysander Handel edition and the Bach Gesellschaft edition, which was similarly engaged about this time in publishing the complete works of Bach. When a Bach volume arrived, Brahms would drop everything to study it. When a Handel volume arrived, Brahms would say, "It is certainly interesting, and when I have a chance I will look at it."

Worth reading:
http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/story/0,,2050995,00.html

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 16, 2008, 03:02:49 AM
I'm not saying there is no room for M, V and W, simply that whatever they have done has been done before by Handel in one way or another far more efficiently and effectively and with far better tunes for your dollar.

I think you really are the silliest poster we ever had here. Some other experts, like 71dB and Saul (where is he, BTW? we miss him!) are at least original and entertaining, in a way. You are just totally limited. To even begin comparing these wildly diverse composers in such a way instead of just appreciating their very different works for what they are, I think one has to be extremely limited in on's musical outlook and understanding.

I have a request: can you post your picture here? Basically every poster here has his picture in the "What do you look like?" thread, so we know what face we have to associate with what poster.

BTW, the guy in your picture on the left isn't actually Händel, it's Beethoven.

BTW2, I can understand your desperate advocacy for Händel to a certain degree because I know that English music lovers suffer heavily from the fact that they don't really have any "great" composers. So they have a tendency to cling to Händel. But Händel was actually German, too. Sorry, dude.

Quote from: M forever on January 16, 2008, 08:33:27 AM

BTW2, I can understand your desperate advocacy for Händel to a certain degree because I know that English music lovers suffer heavily from the fact that they don't really have any "great" composers.

Well they have a few: Britten, Purcell, and Vaughan Williams. So maybe they don't have Bruckner or Mahler but composers on that level you can count on one hand.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 16, 2008, 03:02:49 AM
Handel's second most popular opera at the time was 'Ottone', who here has heard this other than myself?

I'm confident that plenty of folks have heard Ottone; I've had it from Hyperion for over 10 years now.  Your error here is in assuming that other people don't find Handel as great an opera composer as Wagner/Mozart/Verdi because of lack of exposure to his operas.

Personally, I find Handel's operas highly enjoyable, and yes, the tunes are wonderful.  But that doesn't lead to a put-down of other composers, just being placed on an equal footing.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on January 16, 2008, 04:28:49 AM
Maybe 71db is ME in disguise...

Remember the total pandemonium I created here when i suggested Handel should replace Bach in the 'general' Trinity (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart)? It was like the forum went into mass hysteria! Ah those were the days...

You sure do exaggerate.  There was no total pandemonium, just a bunch of members letting you know that your comments were unreasonable and often stupid.  I remember that I was the guy who was having fun giving you an up to date count of your stupid statements. 8)

There was no mass hysteria either; in terms of membership, very few people got involved and if there was any hysteria, it was of the laughing variety.

Mike

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on January 16, 2008, 08:43:14 AM
Well they have a few: Britten, Purcell, and Vaughan Williams. So maybe they don't have Bruckner or Mahler but composers on that level you can count on one hand.

Depends on how many fingers you have on one hand. Let's see, just the "usual" suspects, Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Strauss, Mahler, Hindemith, that's already 15, maybe +- 2 or so - man, how many fingers do you have on one hand? 15? Do you use all of them for typing? If you start counting composers comparable in influence to Britten or Vaughan Williams, you will easily reach 30+. Just on one hand.

Quote from: Don on January 16, 2008, 08:47:43 AM
You sure do exaggerate.  There was no total pandemonium, just a bunch of members letting you know that your comments were unreasonable and often stupid. 

Man, that is so mean of you to say, after all, that is Mr Corkin's only source of self-confidence, that he "dares" to challenge opinions held by and defended by a vicious "fascist mafia". You are totally pulling the rug from under his feet! But then you are right, too.  ;D