It seems to me that this composer is not very appreciated by people of the now.

First of all, on the vocal comments, Wagner's music is only hard to sing because the orchestra is so big. If you were to just sing it with a piano accompaniment, it is probably the best for the voice. He uses each part of the range so that each end refreshes the other. Most other composers, especially Mozart, I would consider complete numbnuts when it comes to vocal writing. Wagner's vocal scores do not include "G6's" or "D2's", or the florid vocal lines in Rossini or whatever.

Mozart is most definitely not a numbnut at vocal writing, and Rossini's corolatura serves as a way of characterization and not a shameful display of technique. Mozart never used G6, he used F6. In both cases with those extremely high and low notes, they served as a way of describing the character which most musicologists nowaday consider masterful.

Frequently, the word "majestic" is used to describe his music. And this doesn't necessarily mean it sounds good - Wagner said something to the effect of "Wagner - the man whose music is better than it sounds." Wagner and Liszt did away with the concept of a poetic idea as music, and instead wrote music that inspires self-remembrance, the way a "majestic" figure in nature would remind you how small you are in comparison to the vast and infinite universe. His music is the beginning of harmony that has an element of the cosmic in it, as opposed to insignificant ideas about human emotion, or some other ephemeral, cosmopilitan thing. That alot of his music does sound really good is besides the point.

So now if your music doesn't sound good, it doesn't matter, because it's so huge? :huh:

Besides, I don't see what's so insignificant about human emotion: it's about who we are. There are more people that care about human emotion than about the majesty of the Universe.

Probably most importantly is his use of the mythology ingrained in the subconcious, as the way to self-remembrance. In one of the many archetypes that his harmonies suggest in the subconcious, this musical/mythological symbol can give you the feeling of "Yes..that's me!", and ANYTHING you do can be related to this center of truth, of this primal mythology - although this is sort of contradictory since it can't be conceptualized. The myth/music points past itself, into a ground of meaning, that is one with your conciousness. More importantly, through his cosmic harmony and mythology gives the potential for realization of the mystery dimension. This, I feel, is where self-remembrance comes from.

True, though not for everybody.

OF COURSE Wagner isn't liked by people currently. What do we live in? A globally materialistic society that lacks anything past economic concerns. That last thing anyone is concerned with, is how magnificent the universe is. They want the stock market, they read about murder and scandal and upsets and politics, the only thing they strive for is their OWN salvation through material ends. They are excited about what team wins the football game -- what car they can afford, what college they can get into. The spiritual dimension has been rejected.

Haven't you simply considered the fact his operas last from four to six hours, and that isn't exactly an interest turn-on, even for serious classical musicians and singers?

Not that this is a bad thing, it's just why Wagner isn't liked as much as music that gives immediate pleasure, like Mozart.

There are shreds of the Wagnerian ideas still alive today though - we see it in Star Wars and stuff - the reason people like Star Wars, is why Wagner is so incredible - it brings the subconcious into view, and makes you aware of the mystery dimension.

Wagner is above all of you.

I don't think giving immediate pleasure is a bad thing at all. Mozart was a brilliant dramatist and theatreman. Wagner had great ideas and some pretty amazing music too, but he couldn't keep the pace of an opera.

And no, the reason people like Star Wars is because it has cool special effects, robots and fighting scenes. The mystery dimension is all fine, but people like to witness and to feel things that relate directly to them, and does so in a human and not a grand majestic otherwordly way, hence Verdi's and Puccini's popularity. Verdi and Puccini also knew how to keep people interested on what's going on on the stage, which is hardly Wagner's case. No matter how good your music is, if you have your characters describe their feelings for 45 minutes in a row, the audience is not going to remain focused. And that way, Wagner won't get his point across, neither will the audience be enlightened.

The conductor Joana Carneiro, I believe, summed it up pretty well, in regard of the Verdi vs. Wagner dispute: ""As a man of the theatre, Verdi was not inferior to Wagner, but posessed another dramatic style. He didn't intend to make philosophic music neither did he care about the intellectual message his music might give. He described his own sense of drama with clarity: "If art isn't spontaneous, natural and simple, it is no longer art." Not everyone will be able to communicate with Wagner's lofty ideals, neither are they working for too much work on Philosophy when watching an opera.

now i don't even listen to Wagner that much, but no one can deny what a revolutionary force he was...he singlehandedly brought about the decay of tonality into chromaticism, expanded the orchestra, and "heavied up" opera...there's a fine line leading from Wagner, to Franck, to Bruckner, to Strauss, to Mahler, and finally to Schoenberg...and he definitely holds influence today from movie scoring and to epic heavy metal...next to Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg as one of classical music's most revolutionary figures

I can't believe Mozart is considered a genius of vocal writing...

If you are a bass, and have to sing an F4 and a D2 in the same aria...that is ridiculous.

As for why people like Star Wars, of course hardly anyone can conciously say why they like it, - and, fighting (opposition) is part of self-remembrance. The light sabre duels are not just meaningless bouts to make 7 year olds go "ALRIGHT!" - as Heraclitus said, "War is the father of all things."

He also said "Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."

Nevermind that the ring cycle, on many levels, is the same thing as Star Wars. What has captivated people about Ride of the Valkyries is what has captivated people about the Force theme; in some mysterious way, it seems to come near-unfiltered from the subconcious, to give a sense of incredible meaning. That seemed to Wagner's goal in writing music, whereas composers whom my subjective opinion sees as lesser such as Puccini, Mozart and Verdi, strove to portray whatever emotion or poetic idea without any sense of connection the infinite.

THe relationship between Wotan and Siegfried is the same as Darth Vader and Luke, the conflict of a son who has learned to master the self, who has been reborn, against a tyrant father who is afraid of loss but subconciously wills his own destruction. This concept is related to the rise and fall of everything.

Wagner's music and mythology DOES relate to them in the most profound way conceivable.

No, Wagner is not the only composer who realized the self-remembrance through music and story. As I said, Strauss, Holst, Puccini, Mahler, Bruckner, Liszt, acknowledged Wagner's idea of presenting eternal truth through such a medium, and his musical genius, as being life-altering for them.

Puccini said something to the effect of, "What are the rest of us but mandolin strummers compared to him?"

I would totally expect a hedonistic person like you, Tumbaba, to not like Wagner. Yes, Cosmic harmony.

Just pointing one thing out quickly: Mozart always wrote for specific singers - he would not have written that if the bass could not sing it, and tough luck to all following singers!

And uses of extreme registers does not make one a bad composer for voice... especially when the singers HAD that range!!!

I can't believe Mozart is considered a genius of vocal writing...

If you are a bass, and have to sing an F4 and a D2 in the same aria...that is ridiculous.

A good bass can do that perfectly well. I have pratically no vocal training and I can do an aria with those two notes tons of times. If Mozart wrote those notes, they were needed.

As for why people like Star Wars, of course hardly anyone can conciously say why they like it, - and, fighting (opposition) is part of self-remembrance. The light sabre duels are not just meaningless bouts to make 7 year olds go "ALRIGHT!" - as Heraclitus said, "War is the father of all things."

He also said "Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."

Then heck, apply that to any movie involving violence. I no longer see the point.

Nevermind that the ring cycle, on many levels, is the same thing as Star Wars. What has captivated people about Ride of the Valkyries is what has captivated people about the Force theme; in some mysterious way, it seems to come near-unfiltered from the subconcious, to give a sense of incredible meaning. That seemed to Wagner's goal in writing music, whereas composers whom my subjective opinion sees as lesser such as Puccini, Mozart and Verdi, strove to portray whatever emotion or poetic idea without any sense of connection the infinite.

So what about the connection to the Infinite? Ride of the Valkyries sounds cool, so it has captivated people. I don't see how art is instantly superior because it tries to evoke something grand and universal: Wagner might have suceeded in doing that, but he did so in a boring way. Composers are not any less good because they don't explore things on a larger scale. People will relate themselves more with Violetta's crisis of moral in "La Traviata" or Rigoletto's conflicting feelings of hatred for the courtisans and love for his daughter in "Rigoletto", than with the destruction of the Gods, especially if it's done in a way that captures their interest with good dramatic pace.

THe relationship between Wotan and Siegfried is the same as Darth Vader and Luke, the conflict of a son who has learned to master the self, who has been reborn, against a tyrant father who is afraid of loss but subconciously wills his own destruction. This concept is related to the rise and fall of everything.

Wagner's music and mythology DOES relate to them in the most profound way conceivable.

Except that George Lucas managed to make entertaining material out of those ideas. Wagner's librettos are extremely dull - he does nothing to advance a plot which really isn't that present to begin with. If Wagner lacked anything the most, it was dramatic sense.

No, Wagner is not the only composer who realized the self-remembrance through music and story. As I said, Strauss, Holst, Puccini, Mahler, Bruckner, Liszt, acknowledged Wagner's idea of presenting eternal truth through such a medium, and his musical genius, as being life-altering for them.

Puccini said something to the effect of, "What are the rest of us but mandolin strummers compared to him?"

I would totally expect a hedonistic person like you, Tumbaba, to not like Wagner. Yes, Cosmic harmony.

Puccini, indeed, was a great fan of Wagner. However, he admired him for musical and not operatic reasons, if you get my point. Puccini portrayed emotions, not philosophy. Him and the italian opera composers were not spiritual or trying to communicate a higher meaning, because it's not what most people care about. As to Mozart, and with all due respect, you have said nothing but BS about him so far. He is considered to have been the one who so far most perfectly captured the essence of Humanity, not in their relationship to the metaphorical higher powers or the grand meaning of Existence, but in all the human individual's qualities and flaws.

Like Verdi said, Wagner tries to fly when it is much easier to walk.

Just pointing one thing out quickly: Mozart always wrote for specific singers - he would not have written that if the bass could not sing it, and tough luck to all following singers!

And uses of extreme registers does not make one a bad composer for voice... especially when the singers HAD that range!!!

He didn't have to think about the following singers because his operas were written for one time productions with a set cast. He also revised vocal parts when needed if another cast was to sing.

Point 1: I've never choked twice with my saliva while laughing.

Point 2: I am unable to believe the mind who portrays Mozart, THE Mozart, as a poor vocal writer AND inferior to Wagner. That's just...

...

P.S. -

Like Verdi said, Wagner tries to fly when it is much easier to walk.

And he keeps crashing. :P

A good bass can do that perfectly well. I have pratically no vocal training and I can do an aria with those two notes tons of times. If Mozart wrote those notes, they were needed.

I will just quote an interview with a famous basso:

"BD: Is there something special about how Wagner wrote for the voice in general and the bass voice in particular?

EH: It's very Italianate like the basso cantante actually, particularly in these parts like Gurnemanz. It's like a voice lesson. Wagner was very wise about how he wrote for the voice. It's absolutely beautiful to sing."

Obviously I overlooked that, Mozart wrote for what singers were available and apparently knew an amazing bass who was not troubled by his writing.

That does not change that Wagner's vocal writing is, in relevance to singers everywhere, better. It must be a trend among composers now to look in some textbook, see the vocal range and incorporate nothing about the notion of tessitura. That could be one of the many lessons the next great composers could learn from Wagner, about tessitura.

Obviously, no one here shares my recognition of Wagner's genius, and very few of you understand much about voices.

Wagner was, definitely, a genius. Almost everyone in here will tell you that.

Only you're putting his genius too high above what it really was.

All of these other composers you people talk about aren't bad composers. But Wagner is sensational.

username Wagner has made very realistic points on improbable matters, which is completely fine. I agree with him. Wagner's vocal writings are superior to basically anyone I've heard.

His soul in music is defined by the theories of the subconscious which not all of these famous composers can really succeed at once attempting to appraise.

Not that Mozart did. He was a good guy and everything, and a genius of the spirit of music. He's one of my favorite composers and I treasure his work. But I can't go about studying his music more now that Wagner has made his debut to the world.

You see, Mozart is one of those composers that live in the moment, that should be treasured, and not neccessarily studied. Because everything about his music is very well known.

Wagner is corporeal. By that I mean that his ideas live deep within the brain. I takes a true soul to dig them out and treasure them. Only time will reveal everything.

It's a true gift, Wagner's perception. I'm always astounded by Wagner. His theories will go on forever learned and someone will gradually continue the leviathan onto a greater means than he has.

I don't agree that Wagner should be understated.

People these days go about thinking they know so much: about music, and that they can take a little bit from different areas in time and complete a big picture. Not that Wagner knew everything, but he comes in 1st place in the music competition. Imagination creates reality. So destroy the big picture and build back the little things. You might have better arguments in the future soon that you'll know your origins.

It's called music, not rocket science.

I'm so envious of you :(. All smart and stuff, being able to understand Wagner's music, while us lesser beings go around listening to Mozart and Verdi and crap :(......

I can already tell you haven't even tried to understand Wagner's music. Most of you just like to whine while the little percentage of us make points. Not that I care. My article was written for the people who understand Wagner, and not those who hate music.

I will just quote an interview with a famous basso:

Obviously I overlooked that, Mozart wrote for what singers were available and apparently knew an amazing bass who was not troubled by his writing.

That does not change that Wagner's vocal writing is, in relevance to singers everywhere, better. It must be a trend among composers now to look in some textbook, see the vocal range and incorporate nothing about the notion of tessitura. That could be one of the many lessons the next great composers could learn from Wagner, about tessitura.

Obviously, no one here shares my recognition of Wagner's genius, and very few of you understand much about voices.

Okay, let's put opinions aside for a second. Do you not see how you're coming off here?

You're basically telling us that Wagner is this unstoppable universal omnipotence that we should bow down before or be struck down by his fury from beyond the grave. Do you not see why we have a hard time empathizing with your position?

I mean, you sound like a religious fanatic.

Wagner would have liked you, Tumababa.

I can already tell you haven't even tried to understand Wagner's music. Most of you just like to whine while the little percentage of us make points. Not that I care. My article was written for the people who understand Wagner, and not those who hate music.

Silly person.....listen, my point was that you deemed yourself as better by saying that you understand Wagner's music (and are continuing to do so...that, to me, is just plain funny :laugh:).

I actually DO like Wagner's music, and respect it even more so. I, hate music :angry:...how dare you say that. To that, I have a strong urge to say "gently caress you". But I won't.....:laugh:......:glare:

Sorry if I offended you, but I never said you didn't like Wagner's music. And I never said that you hated music. Why are you babbling?

Good thing you like Wagner's music.

Anyway, like I said it's obvious that you don't understand Wagner's point... :thumbsup:

:rolleyes:....I have nothing to say to you.

Except.....(tee hee)....that, yes, you did say I hate music ("you don't understand Wagner....those who don't understand Wagner hate music"...therefore I somehow hate music). That's not only stupid, but incredibly ridiculous.

So, in response to your last post, I DO say "gently caress you". You, I think, are actually quite stupid.

You're senseless... I never once said that anyone who doesn't understand Wagner hates music. What kindof rediculous comment is that?

And you already said you liked Wagner, so theres no point to what you just said in the last post...

I have a good suggestion. Stop posting on this topic because none of your posts make any sense.

Mozart is one of those composers that live in the moment, ... everything about his music is very well known.

Do you realise what you just said?

Anyway, again why can your statements apply (in this case negatively) only to Wagner?

If Mozart's music is "very well known", then why not Wagner's? Are you suggesting the 100 years between them has not given people a chance to catch up? That in 100 years since Wagner, we don't understand his harmony? :rolleyes:

I have a good suggestion. Stop posting on this topic because none of your posts make any sense.

Have you perhaps considered the fact that he's mocking you? :rolleyes: Your statements are absurd (though not the cool, imaginative kind) at best, and warrant absurdity in return.

To both of you Daniel and Anders, you're asking the wrong questions. There's no need to bring up a few things I just discussed and try to get out of it a different answer from me.

What are trying to pull on me, an A flat?

My article was written for the people who understand Wagner, and not those who hate music.

I'm assuming you meant to say "hate HIS music"?

Relax man. Have a grape soda or something.

We're not offended at your loving Wagner. That's fine. We're offended at you guys telling us we're somehow inferior because he's not our in our cd players 24/7.

So relax. I'll listen to Part and you can listen to Wagner. Can't we get along?

Hey man, I gotcha... I'm relaxed. And yes I have my "dr pepper berries and cream" from the picture, don't worry about me. :thumbsup:

The purpose of "and" has no comparison structure in the English language. So frankly I do not understand you being mistaken by me creating a list of recommendations for reading my article. I think you misread and or assumed I was saying something that I wasn't.

Maybe just read it over and it might come to you finally. There's no problem.

In any case...

We're offended at you guys telling us we're somehow inferior because he's not our in our cd players 24/7.

Ha ha. Wagner doesn't need to be in your C.D. player. Did not you read all of what I said in this topic? Wagner's deep within your thick skull, man! Get a clue!

No offense though of course.

Oh, and here's another no brainer...

Like Verdi said, Wagner tries to fly when it is much easier to walk.

Evidently Verdi doesn't know what a mountain is.

Use your head. I think it's there for a reason.

The reason I thought you made a typo is because the statement you made that I quoted in the post above seems to imply that you think everyone except Wagner lovers hate music.

There must be a miscommunication there.

Surely that's not what you meant?

You also have a very condescending tone that is starting to offend me.

No offense though of course.

Hey man. Grab a Dr. Pepper and join the club.

/PUTS MODERATOR HAT ON

This discussion is starting to take a turn for the ugly.

I am going to ask the participants, particularly Rkmajora, to cool the rhetoric.

If this thread continues with personal attacks it will be closed.

/MODERATOR HAT OFF