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

Bob as well, but well... he lives in london... :D

Liverpool actually...

If I lived in London I'd be round at your house annoying you every day...:toothygrin:

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

You SAY that, yet here you are arguing about what is and what isn't.

In response to Eldkatt's post you quote Einstein and you argue with nikolas about what the greeks actually believed.

I can see your point about a chain of logical conclusions that lead to one that is eventually false but I'll still take a chain of logical conclusions over a string of illogical conclusions such as some you've made here.

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.

Okay, I must be doing a bad job of explaining it. The point is that the death of Romeo and Juliet is not the end - the resolution is a happy one, (but even that is still not the end) - as opposed to just, Romeo and Juliet die and that is it. The death of Romeo and Juliet gives birth to a new world, which will eventually fall victim to some other calamity and have to be reborn again.

As opposed to pure tragedy, where only death prevails in the end. That is why I like Wagner, over other people who stop short at some place, like the human spirit/ emotions or science. As I said before, any story that is a tragedy, is not the whole story. Any realization that realizes only tragedy, is not the whole realization.

Perhaps that is a better explanation.

Tumbaba: What I am arguing is that nothing isn't but impossibility itself. It is the pure tragedy that acknolwedges impossibility - it is logic. I didn't quote Einstein, I quoted Heraclitus, thereby declaring my opposition to pinning down the entire universe in logical, coherent terms. As far as my argument with Nikolas, he commented on the behavior of the ancient greeks, how I was wrong in making comments about their spirituality. But the most influential figures in mythology will agree with me that tragedy was seen as the joke, as opposed to comedy (and I don't mean humorous comedy - I mean it in the same sense as Dante's Divine Comedy) - a dramatic story in which there are many ordeals but the end is satisfactory. And even if me and the mythology buffs are wrong on the Greeks, it doesn't change that comedy is more than tragedy. An infinite world is more than one with limitations.

Okay, I must be doing a bad job of explaining it. The point is that the death of Romeo and Juliet is not the end - the resolution is a happy one, (but even that is still not the end) - as opposed to just, Romeo and Juliet die and that is it. The death of Romeo and Juliet gives birth to a new world, which will eventually fall victim to some other calamity and have to be reborn again.

Wait. Did you just agree with me? Confusion waxes. So what do you mean with "pure tragedy"? Could you cite literary examples? Is Wagner beyond "pure tragedy"? Is Shakespeare? Is Wagner beyond Shakespeare? These are honest questions, requesting clarification, because I still can't figure it out.

(and I don't mean humorous comedy - I mean it in the same sense as Dante's Divine Comedy)

AFAIK in the linguistic context of Dante and his contemporaries, commedia simply meant a play for the theatre (as in commedia dell' arte). I doubt you intend such a broad definition. If you don't mean humorous comedy, which is what most modern people would think you mean without clarification, I'd very much appreciate if you explained what, exactly, you mean.

Hmm. A pity I missed most of this thread.

My feelings aboot Wagner are pretty straightforward and I shall quote the Great Hands on this:

"Wagner is an anti-semitic scallopface. I poop in his figurative cereal."

His music is too... big for me, being a former classicist. There's too much going on for the ear to comprehend. That doubled with the fact that Wagner was an a-hole.

Wait. Did you just agree with me? Confusion waxes. So what do you mean with "pure tragedy"? Could you cite literary examples? Is Wagner beyond "pure tragedy"? Is Shakespeare? Is Wagner beyond Shakespeare? These are honest questions, requesting clarification, because I still can't figure it out.

AFAIK in the linguistic context of Dante and his contemporaries, commedia simply meant a play for the theatre (as in commedia dell' arte). I doubt you intend such a broad definition. If you don't mean humorous comedy, which is what most modern people would think you mean without clarification, I'd very much appreciate if you explained what, exactly, you mean.

I really can't say anymore - famous figures who would probably acknowledge my viewpoint are Heraclitus, Lao Tzu, Ikkyu, Sosan, Hildegard von Bingen, Wagner, Rasputin, Gurdjieff. Maybe if you want to know where I am coming from, you should look more into them, if you don't already know. You will perhaps find that, people with this viewpoint, feel it is the lack of knowledge or logic that brings knowledge and power, who feel that enlightenment is an illusory concept, and always have the magnificence of the universe in the back of their minds, choosing to go a benevolent or malevolent route to play a role in what they see as a dramatic, eternal, ever-changing and growing universe. These are the Chancellor Palpatines or Yodas of our planet at least, I feel, though Wagner the least of them.

Someone said "so Wagner is the only spiritually intouch composer"?

Well, no -- but Wagner was not an artist. How I define artist here is someone who feels little self-worth so they devote their lives to the expression of their own emotion; they may feel a pointlessness to the universe as a whole. Wagner had this to a degree otherwise he would have not made music. However, he was probably as self-obsessed as QC said he was - instead of showing his own psyche to people, he, realizing full well it would be susceptible to this and that interpretation based on peoples own fixed ideas, showed them their own subconcious one, for the sake of changing the world in some way, as his neuroticism dictated.

Star Wars could be an example, Ring could be an example, Dante's Divine Comedy, of what I think of as comedy.

I just made up the term "pure tragedy", but it works for my purposes so I'll continue to use it.

Salome is a pure tragedy, perpetrated by someone who I would probably view as a nemesis of mine, Oscar Wilde. (Although the music Strauss set to this and Elektra is IMO incomparable). Rigoletto is a pure tragedy. These are worlds where, there is no such thing as salvation, it is the realization only of logic, which does not allow for such a concept. For the beholder of these, joy can only be found in contemplation of the human condition. It certainly hits people emotionally, and they enjoy suspense - but I question its ability to inspire self-remembrance.

Romeo and Juliet is just a tragedy, because salvation is prevalent, through their deaths they redeem Verona or whatever - but the problem is there are no protagonists. Yeah, you could say that technically it is r & j, but they visit no level of perceived realization and conciously bestow no fruit from their struggle upon anyone. I would not call it a comedy outright for that reason but it has alot of the same elements.

Just don't forget that the portrayal of human feelings and situations isn't selfish or nihilistic - what Wagner transmits is subjective. What Verdi transmits is objective. The origin of the Universe or the meaning of life or the conclusion of Humanity are not in the origin of drama and are not the most striking thing about it. Wagner's philosophy was great, and he had great musical ideas as well, but when it comes to rating works in terms of dramatic content, Verdi's work is undoubtly superior.

By the way, the notion that tragedy is incomplete or in any way short of the 'real deal' because it doesn't feature salvation is not only subjective as it can be taken as completely false. Salvation itself is not a real thing.

By the way, the notion that tragedy is incomplete or in any way short of the 'real deal' because it doesn't feature salvation is not only subjective as it can be taken as completely false. Salvation itself is not a real thing.

I agree that salvation isn't real; as I said in my earlier post, the figures that I adore, know enlightenment to be the one of the most illusory concepts! There is only one more that is perhaps more illusory, and that is death - which is why tragedy stops short of the real deal, if you believe in life after death.

What tragedy doesn't feature is rebirth and acknowledgement of the infinite. It's the representation of the mundanity and pointlessness with which humans view the world beyond the tip of the nose, as they were mostly programmed to so they would not be gaping in awe at the universe.

Obviously you in particular don't even care to grasp my post, since you overlooked the most obvious sentence I have said this whole thread, you were solely concerned with debunking it, but that's still okay, it's only my fault for presenting you with such contradictions.

I think the others are commendable for trying to make sense of my grand, sweeping statements, regardless of how futile it is to change the innate within them that accounts for the diversity between me and say, Tumbaba, and between every other thing.

I get your point perfectly - I debunked it because death is objective while rebirth and the infinite aren't. When it comes to Humanity, tragedy is not incomplete. If you're applying Philosophies, then that's another story.

Alright :) Sorry for being so belligerent.

Why apologize? Your name IS Wagner, after all :P....

I really can't say anymore - famous figures who would probably acknowledge my viewpoint are Heraclitus, Lao Tzu, Ikkyu, Sosan, Hildegard von Bingen, Wagner, Rasputin, Gurdjieff. Maybe if you want to know where I am coming from, you should look more into them, if you don't already know. You will perhaps find that, people with this viewpoint, feel it is the lack of knowledge or logic that brings knowledge and power, who feel that enlightenment is an illusory concept, and always have the magnificence of the universe in the back of their minds, choosing to go a benevolent or malevolent route to play a role in what they see as a dramatic, eternal, ever-changing and growing universe. These are the Chancellor Palpatines or Yodas of our planet at least, I feel, though Wagner the least of them.

OK. We've probably reached the conclusion here. To me, the idea that "the lack of knowledge or logic [...] brings knowledge and power" is nothing but nonsense, gibberish and an utterly meaningless play on words. Peter, Luther and pals were right to conclude that reason is the enemy of faith, but to me that does not speak in favour of faith. They happened to bet on the other horse, and so, it seems, do you (although your convictions differ from theirs, naturally). And that's it. If Luther's ticket turns out to pay off, I'll get my comeuppance when the race is over, but in this life I couldn't care less. The only thing that brings knowledge is an honest search for knowledge, using honest tools like reason or the scientific method. Yoda is awesome, but he never existed.

kthx

I think the others are commendable for trying to make sense of my grand, sweeping statements, regardless of how futile it is to change the innate within them that accounts for the diversity between me and say, Tumbaba, and between every other thing.

Yeah. I think if you and I ever met in real life we would have to fight to the death or something.

I realize that my english lit. classes are pretty far behind me now, but I DO remember being taught that what differentiates comedy and tragedy, in the classical literary sense, is purely the death of a main character.

Comedy does not need to be "funny". To fulfil the requirement of "comedy" a piece of literature need only have no deaths of major characters.

Meanwhile, by the same strict definition, a "tragedy" could be quite humorous, as long as one of the main characters dies.

In comedies the characters get married, and in tragedies they all die :P....

OK. We've probably reached the conclusion here. To me, the idea that "the lack of knowledge or logic [...] brings knowledge and power" is nothing but nonsense, gibberish and an utterly meaningless play on words. Peter, Luther and pals were right to conclude that reason is the enemy of faith, but to me that does not speak in favour of faith. They happened to bet on the other horse, and so, it seems, do you (although your convictions differ from theirs, naturally). And that's it. If Luther's ticket turns out to pay off, I'll get my comeuppance when the race is over, but in this life I couldn't care less. The only thing that brings knowledge is an honest search for knowledge, using honest tools like reason or the scientific method. Yoda is awesome, but he never existed.

kthx

Good for you that science is the only real way for you to know, but I consider its conclusions just as meaningless as you consider mine -- mine being that there are no conclusions.

Heraclitus once said, "Although this truth is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it, Not only before hearing it but even after they have heard it.

What he speaks of could be explained by his contemporary Lao Tzu, who said My teaching is very easy to practice, yet no one understands it, and no one practices it; it is this -- the sage wears a tattered coat and carries jade within his breast.

As I said about science, I appreciate its ability to explain observed phenomena. But how do I feel about its conclusiveness?

Heraclitus said it best: You cannot step twice in the same river. Everythiing flows and nothing abides. Everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.

The truth, is no truth but everyone's falsehoods, and that includes science. Thankfully people's brains make them incapable of this realization, otherwise they would not survive, and simply be in awe of the universe.

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.

How can someone not be a philosopher? In everything you do your philosophical aspect comes into play. Everyone has a perspective. Wagner's was particularly mystic, Edlkatt would have disliked him.

Someone who doesn't have a perspective, understands perfectly the quotes I have made.

As Sosan said, When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised.....Indeed, it is due to choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things....Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in inner feelings of emptiness.......Stop talking and thinking and there is nothing you will not be able to know.

Yesterday I was attempting to study for the SAT's, and one of the sentence comprehension thingies said something like, "The Early Greek Philosophers made statements that had an apparent ------, but upon closer inspection are dogmatic and -------."

The answer was "liberality; doctrinaire". That really shows most people's perspective....and yes, I have to tie it in, why they dislike Wagner.

The responses to this thread remind me of a Far Side cartoon...

"blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah Ginger"

The responses to this thread remind me of a Far Side cartoon...

"blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah Ginger"

HAHAHAHAHA

and the sequel with the cat?

those are two of my most favourite cartoons ever.

narf!

As I said about science, I appreciate its ability to explain observed phenomena. But how do I feel about its conclusiveness?

In defence of science, what do you really mean by its conclusiveness? As I see it, science doesn't in any way claim to be conclusive. No good scientist tries to pass any conviction or fact off as true. What they can accomplish is a decent approximation of truth. What we would call a scientific fact or truth is merely a very good approximation that manages to make very accurate predictions, and also fits in with all the other decent approximations.

In all honesty I think the world as a whole, and much of the stuff in it, is far too strange for us to understand. No matter how accurate models we may develop of gravity or atomic nuclei, we will never really understand how gravity really works, or what the elementary particles are really like. When faced with this apparent inaccessibility of truth, you have, as I see it, two alternative ways of dealing with it. One is to revel in the mysteriousness of it all, put on our magician's robes and proclaim that there is no truth and no truth is truer than any other truth. The other is to look past that little hurdle, and do our best to find what we can find about how it might possibly work, and marvel at the coherence and complexity. I've always gained so much pleasure from understanding how things work--or at least appear to work, or might work--be it science, music or language, that the pick is easy to make for me.

(I've found it somewhat enjoyable to write this stuff here, but I'll probably try to gracefully start leaving this thread, if nothing else in respect of the principle of staying on topic, even though it's probably too late for this thread to go anywhere else. Religion or spirituality or Hitler.)

Puccini admired Wagner for musical, not operatic reasons, prioritizing emotions over philosophy. Mozart's ability to capture the essence of humanity is widely recognized, focusing on human qualities and flaws. Verdi's analogy of Wagner trying to fly while it's easier to walk highlights their differing approaches.

I have never listened Wagner, but I am very familiar with romantic music. What of his works should I listen to get a good introduction to his style?

Orchestral highlights from the Ring.

I recommend Dorati .

On 3/6/2024 at 8:56 PM, Rich said:

Orchestral highlights from the Ring.

 

I recommend Dorati .

 

That is an excellent suggestion.

I hate Wagner as a person but I love him a a composer!