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

Yeah, so keep it up people: can't wait for it to be closed ;)

Plainly ignoring the crap that's been flourishing here, I'll just share a quotation that has always made me smile, from Bengt von T

hehehe, I was already sold when you started quoting Sibelius (my hero), but that quote just added to my love for him (Sibelius, not Wagner).

This really IS one of the more heat intensive threads we've had here.

Strange that it's about a dead person and not something important.

Yeah, sorry for adding to that :musicwhistle:....

Why are you implying that dead people aren't important, though :huh:? Or do you just mean Wagner :P?

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:

With nothing in regards to music, I think the comment about Mozart's opportunism is incredibly true. And I don't mean opportunism like, steals money from an old granny. I mean Mozart wanted to experience everything he possibly could, because of a perceived lack of parental love in his childhood -- it was his neuroticism. People like this usually lack a profundity of experience. People make comments about Mozart being the "adult child", and I find this to be true - an in an age where adults never mature, where they stay before their childhood shrines their whole life and never pass on into a post-adolescent state of being mentally, so the composer who was always a child is adored. As we all agreed upon, hardly anyone really cares about the profound meaning of anything beyond their own material existence and emotions.

Plainly ignoring the crap that's been flourishing here, I'll just share a quotation that has always made me smile, from Bengt von T

...just my amateur analysis of what seems to be the prevailing mindset.

and in these underlined words lies the crux of the problem with this entire discussion.

you wrap your words in a sort of pedantic omniscience, as though everything you are saying is somehow a "truth" that no one else (either here or in this larger world you allude to) is capable of understanding.

Let us put a few things to rest right here and now:

1. there ARE musicologists who believe that Wagner is the greatest musical mind known to man
   
2. there are ALSO musicologists who disagree with that position
   
3. there are singers who love to sing Wagner's music
   
4. and there are singers who would rather take a bath in iodine after rolling around in razor blades than sing a note of his
   

I can assure you that to my reading of everything you've written here, you lack a thorough reading of musical history and theory. Not because I either like or dislike Wagner's music, which is neither here nor there. I say this because of the breezy way you dismiss other opinions on music.

Some of your comments in this thread ARE treading on dangerously thin ice in relation to forum rules. As I said earlier, tone down the rhetoric.

In my opinion, no other composer was so self obsessed as Wagner. His entire existance revolved around the agrandizement of his, admitedly monumental, Ring tetralogy. His obsession with demonstrating some "universal truth" through his opera blinded him to so much. His was not a philosopher. He was not a particularly great dramaturge, demonstrated by the awkward pacing of his operas and the clumsy manner in which he preached his beliefs through them.

I am the first to admit that he did something phenomenal to common-practice musical theory with his extreme treatment of extended tonal relationships. However, he is also single-handedly responsible for the early to mid 20th century's radical rejection of tonality.

Therefore: Berlioz rules, Wagner drools. :happy:

In my opinion, no other composer was so self obsessed as Wagner. His entire existance revolved around the agrandizement of his, admitedly monumental, Ring tetralogy. His obsession with demonstrating some "universal truth" through his opera blinded him to so much. His was not a philosopher. He was not a particularly great dramaturge, demonstrated by the awkward pacing of his operas and the clumsy manner in which he preached his beliefs through them.

:whistling:

hehehe, I was already sold when you started quoting Sibelius (my hero), but that quote just added to my love for him (Sibelius, not Wagner).

In that case, you ought to look for the book I mentioned. Bengt von T

I do so love YC's arguements. I could read them all day...:musicwhistle:

And such self-glorification isn't present in Christianity, which Wagner certainly endorsed?

And what is all of ours? Who are we? What great wisdom is it that you alone possess? Besides divine understanding and appreciation of Wagner.

I probably should not even say anything on this, for sake of breaking the forum rules.

I don't know much about Christianity, but from what I do know alot of Christians seem to feel that they know how to acheive salvation, and one of the first things most people think of when they feel that way is, to tell other people. Anti-semitic people, may have the reasoning that Jews allegedly feel "You worship God in your way, I'll worship God in his", as if salvation is only for them. I don't claim to feel this way but that is perhaps Wagner's reason for his philosophical clash.

Ah.... I too have forgotten the simple joys of a simple YC discussion turning into a religious debate. Only on the internet.... only on the internet....

I probably should not even say anything on this, for sake of breaking the forum rules.

I don't know much about Christianity, but from what I do know alot of Christians seem to feel that they know how to acheive salvation, and one of the first things most people think of when they feel that way is, to tell other people. Anti-semitic people, may have the reasoning that Jews allegedly feel "You worship God in your way, I'll worship God in his", as if salvation is only for them. I don't claim to feel this way but that is perhaps Wagner's reason for his philosophical clash.

I would love to discuss this with you, but wrong topic. But why are you guys getting so upset over the fact that some of us dislike Wagner?

let us put an end to the religious turn this discussion is taking by remembering a fact of life:

Religion is like a farts - only other peoples' stink.

Now, back to Wagner.

Well said.

I think we could say the same for music.

How on earth did I miss this thread?????!?!?!???

A pity and it's already at page 7!

I.

Is anyone having a deja vu like maybe... Saul being here? Mendelsson rulez!

II.

Why is Wagner a bit unappreciated at these times?

why it's SO simple:

Wagner wrote ONLY operas. Only vocal music. Which means that in order to play Wagner you need to be at least a (super) singer, and have a pianist along. You cannot do it alone.

On the contrary Bach (for just an example), wrote tons of stuff for keyboard, and thus all pianists (who are hugely more in numbers than tenors, globaly) have played Bach, from the 1st Bach, to Preludes and Fugues.

Staging an opera is hugely expensive, and especially the Wagner operas are a rare treat! But it is kinda difficult for the normal person to go on a 4 hour opera, never mind a 12 hour one. ;) On the contrary a 1 1/2 solo piano recital is much easier digested, and well... Chopin, Rachmaninov etc is easier to listen and you can relax a bit. Plus you can afterwards go home and play what you heard (in some cases) where with Wagner this is rather... impossible.

III.

This IS a funny thread I have to admit.

Thank you for that Wagner (the member, not the dead composer :D)

Religion is like a farts - only other peoples' stink.

You just made my day.

I realize my comments about Wagner's harmony are biased and ridiculous, but I don't see how the philosophical component can be taken as unreflected and eccentric. And I still uphold the assertion that Mozart's vocal writing itself, is pathetic, and, along with Rossini Coloratura, doesn't do anything to characterize the insignificant, trivial characters.

I realize I am amusing you all, but I get just as good a laugh out of you.

"I can sing a D2 and an F4...it's fine!"

"Any comment that Strauss is anti-semitic is unfounded"

"The purpose of art is to portray an aspect of life...we should all follow this example!"

And what is all of ours? Who are we? What great wisdom is it that you alone possess? Besides divine understanding and appreciation of Wagner.

I never addressed this question.

I would never profess to know more about music than professional composers, or more about history and religion than people who are educated far beyond the scope that I would ever care to be. Thus, I rarely attemt to argue on a factual objective level, which I am ridiculed for (and I knew I would be).

The reason I make declarations that have the appearance of nullifying the logical, intelligent, and educated, is because of one reason alone - and that is that they, the vast majority of the time, only acknowledge tragedy as the truth. And there are many roads to this one plight, just as, all happy families are happy for the same reasons, but the dysfunctional ones are all different. Science brings it out in people the most for the obvious reason of logic. Much more rarely it is seen in all those deep-thinking philosophers who eventually come to the conclusion that civilization is inherently dark-sided, oppressive, and does not fulfill the needs of the spirit, so they decide to go live off the land or something. And, with the most relevance to composers, those people who feel that the most meaningful thing in the universe is humanity, who can only acknolwedge comedy in the form of satire because of what they have seen from birth onward, that the happy fairy-tale ending is just a delusion of childhood and the gift of hope to the unfortunate. This viewpoint dominates modern art and literature.

Wagner exalted the ancient Greeks as hailing the music-drama as a spiritual experience, and fittingly, the Greeks considered comedy to be much deeper than tragedy, and not a contradiction to the truth, but instead, an incredible realization of the invincible springing from everything, including the "tragedies", and the good/evil dichotomy.

Any story that is a tragedy, is not the whole story. Any realization that realizes only tragedy, is not the whole realization.

Wagner is the composer who most unambiguously attempted to show this, and obviously, he failed miserably.

Wagner's music is available everywhere, so it doesn't really matter that the operas aren't staged alot. You can probably find his scores and vocal scores at any sheet music place. The reason for his unpopularity is beneath the surface of the mind.

Sorry man... but I just have a hard time buying what you're saying. With all that doublespeak you sound like politician.

You yourself admit to making statements that "have the appearance of nullifying the logical, intelligent, and educated". I'd say that's the most accurate and REAL thing you've said so far in this topic. Almost everything else is hearsay.

The only reason you're being ridiculed for "arguing on a factual level" is because you're NOT and yet you claim you are.

Cheers.

The reason I make declarations that have the appearance of nullifying the logical, intelligent, and educated, is because of one reason alone - and that is that they, the vast majority of the time, only acknowledge tragedy as the truth. And there are many roads to this one plight, just as, all happy families are happy for the same reasons, but the dysfunctional ones are all different. Science brings it out in people the most for the obvious reason of logic.

Just to check if I'm reading you correctly, are you saying that "the logical, intelligent, and educated [...] only acknowledge tragedy as the truth"? This feels to me (correct me if I'm wrong) fairly similar to the good old religious person's complaint about how atheist and materialist world-views somehow bring pessimism, with the implied assertion that there are other ways of thinking that serve us better. I could attempt to refute this somehow (as you may have guessed, I disagree) but I see little point until it's actually motivated somehow and not just stated. If I'm misreading you, sorry, but this is about all I can read into your post, which I'm having a hard time making heads or tail of.

Ok.

I will have a tiny bit of fun, on top of Wagner (the member, not the composer) here.

I'm greek, so when anyone comes along and starts saying things about ancient greeks etc... well I and Manos, know better! (Bob as well, but well... he lives in london... :D :D)

So...

Greek didn't see the drama (which comes from the word δραμα which means action, thus δραση!) as something spiritual. Nope. They did have Dionisos, who was really really close with... grapes and wine, and guess what? They LOVED WINE! As well as being homosextual with young male children. This was Ancient Greece (ahem, Athens, probably... Corynith and Sparta was not like this... let's carry on).

Now...

And for further Greek lessons (and take it from a Greek, right?)

Tragedy is the word τραγωδία, which ok is a word, but Tragos, or τράγος, or GOAT in English, is the... Goat (already said it). And since Dionisus was selebrated in all with goat head worn by artists and actors (only males, btw), it's plain obsious where this came from.

In all, it is really more interesting to have problems, than don't have any. Especially in theater, film, music, etc. I mean who the gently caress cares if you're happy? While, if you're sad, your kid has raped your mother and killed you (Idipous) it's more... interesting, to say the least. Funny how the same principals can apply 2,500 years later with soap operas!

In all Wagner, can you really explain in any musical terms where you stand with Wagner, and how he is the greatest?

In short: I have huge feelings about composers, and personal feelings about amazing people! In all the truth, I've never felt SO unique, like when I was listening to Bartoks music for strings and percussion and celesta, or ACTUALLY AND HONESTLY QCCs violencello concerto! But I know that it's personal. It's my every second in this world, that makes it be like that.

with my (vast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D buahahaha!) knowledge of music, I can give proper arguements over certain things, believe me. But in all Wagner is not totally popular, and it's his fault. Not the crouds fault that does not understand him. This is bullshit!

Thank you!

The only reason you're being ridiculed for "arguing on a factual level" is because you're NOT and yet you claim you are.

Cheers.

What I said is that I do not argue on a factual, objective level.

Eldkatt: For whatever reason, alot of people only acknowledge the tragic as real, and thus can only see pathetically insignificant things as having importance, these are the only things that can move them (like human emotion or whatever, or "the hatred of Rigoletto for the duke", or the exultation over some ephemeral thing.) The greatness of Ring will not hit them, the recognition of eternity and the heroic in everything means nothing to them.

Probably you were most affected by the assertion of science as a perpetrator. I like science, I just think the conclusions people draw from it are almost always false. Follow a logical chain of events until you get to one that must defy logic itself. Of course science proves concretely how fast the galaxy is moving, why the apple falls from the tree. The mistake I accuse it of, is that it makes is to draw an everlasting conclusion - as Heraclitus said, in opposition to Einstein's famous quotes, "Time is a child moving counters in a game; the kingly power is a child's."

Regardless of whatever you said Nikolas, the ancient greeks recognized the story with the satisfying "ending", (not that it is devoid of problems - by comedy I basically mean story with a happy but often ambiguous ending), as being a deeper realization than tragedy.

Eldkatt: For whatever reason, alot of people only acknowledge the tragic as real, and thus can only see pathetically insignificant things as having importance, these are the only things that can move them (like human emotion or whatever, or "the hatred of Rigoletto for the duke", or the exultation over some ephemeral thing.) The greatness of Ring will not hit them, the recognition of eternity and the heroic in everything means nothing to them.

A little reflection here: Would the reconcilement of the houses of Montague and Capulet be as significant and powerful without the preceding feud, or the tragic events that led to this resolution? The way I see it, these things are essential to drama, and ignoring that is like writing music without tension. Listen to the final bars of Beethoven's fifth symphony. Now imagine that passage coming at the end of a little lullaby, or even a national anthem, and the effect is almost comical. The intensity (or, if you want to be dramatic, tragedy) of the entire rest of the symphony is absolutely necessary to justify such a triumphant finale. Even Wagner recognized this, I presume.