Wagner

I don't know if that is really an aria...Mime sings in it just as much as Siegfried. But it's definitely one of my favorites. My very favorite aria, is Elektra's first monologue It's so awesome! Worship it. King Marke's monologue in Tristan might be my next favorite. To alot of people its sort of boring but I think it is very sensitive. I don't know if you can consider it an aria, but Hans Sachs monologue at the end of Meistersinger is great. 1. Elektra's first monologue 2. Hans Sachs final monologue 3. Marke's monologue.

Any viewpoint regarding the quality of anything, on absolutely any grounds, is subjective.

What happened to "Sheet Music Fox"? All the files have been de-actived.

I thought it was just as eloquent, necessary and perceptive as your remark.

I did not mean it wasn't worthy of being studied or that it would not be liked by cosmopolitan gays who like to point out perceived inadequacies so they feel like social and intellectual superiors, but that, by Stravinsky's own philosophy, was not intended to be sophisticated in the sense of the word that gianluca was using it.

Can we really separate music into different ontological categories? I.e., this is deep and meaningful, this is shallow. Or does that sound like those goofy philosophers who try to ascertain ultimate reality amidst a perceived sea of illusion and say "This is real, this is true and the rest of the universe is crap!" Didn't Stravinsky once say, "Music is incapable of expressing anything but itself"? What is harmony? Surely it exists outside of human activity, even that which is believed to have been conceived by human activity. Do you believe music is the essence of things like Wagner, and then, to insult a harmony, would be to insult some other things in the universe that emits that harmony with their vibration? Or are these the same things that the philosophers put in a separate ontological category from ultimate reality? I think these are questions you should ask yourself, if you deem pop or any music unworthy. I say I like this and I don't like that, for the sake of having an argument, not because I fervently believe in the objective superiority of Wagner and Strauss' music It is you who are painfully naive and humanistic, if you hold a true opinion for or against a harmony. Are you sure? I know an awful lot about Wagner; he was found of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart but I never read or suspected Schubert, whom one of his earlier "enemies", Schumann, exalted. Chopin, perhaps, through Liszt, but I doubt Schubert. Secondly, can we really call Wagner and early Stravinsky sophisticated? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the Forging Song or Firebird Suite? I believe that, depth is not found in sophistication - it is found at the very center, downward and into, rather than up and away from. I was saying, that brilliance = elegance, which is opposite primal.

I come from a vastly different perspective than you; but I agree. Only the pathetic will feel that their heroes are objectively better than anyone else. As THe Emperor said, "Good is a point of view". Personally, I feel that Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Haydn, Brahms, Handel and Tchai, are all very dry. Furthermore, I feel that refinement and elegance is the opposite of depth...brilliance is a high-spinning thing, the opposite of primalness.

Huh, I agree with that, even the generalization that everyone likes people with ADD. I think there is some logical/ mathematic facility that has a symbiotic relationship with "ADD" - for some reason it seems as if lots of the mathematically inclined kids at my school possess it to some degree. Everybody likes people with ADD, because their lack of penetrating, holistic thought makes them innocent, as opposed to... OCD Wagnerians - the people in which there is no logic. For some reason we are the most hated wherever we go and whatever we do. OCD can be a really unusual and hard condition to have, but I doubt there is any other pathology that opens the potential for illogical thought as a whole.

Alright, don't believe a word I say (You justifiably never do) but here's what I have to say. But, about 10-15 years into the future, I think education is going to become much more systemized and they will take kids with "talent" and give them a very specialized education (in public schools)...one of the areas it will be most apparent is music. Music scouts will be just as prevalent as they are in baseball, scoping out the young talent and all. It's unlikely that anyone who is not identified by the education system as musical has any sort of chance at being a musician, since education otherwise will be rigorous and there will be little chance for them to develop such abilities. Also, after this gets going you're going to see a distinct attraction to music as sheer beauty, as opposed to experimental stuff. It will sort of go hand in hand with the explosive discoveries in science, and a general appreciation for pattern-like phenomena.

Could you please elaborate on what his ideas are that his disciples attempt to impose on the musical world?

What the heck was his philosophy that all you guys are talking about? I know he said something like "The world trade center attacks a great work of art" or something, is that what y'all are talking about? I really want to know.

I don't know much about Stockhausen beyond what I looked up in a wikipedia article. Could you explain?

I concur with everything you said, but I didn't know Wagner had formal harmony lessons with Liszt, as opposed to just generally sharing ideas? I thought he learned from a local cantor.

How about the actual operas themselves - Salome, Elektra, Daphne, Ariadne auf Naxos, and to a lesser extent IMO, Der Rosenkavalier are all incredible.