# Wagner, a real composer or a put on?



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is a half-serious parody of the following thread, but with some added anger -

http://www.talkclassical.com/17758-stockhausen-real-composer-put.html

Okay, here's the low down. These are the reasons I nominate Wagner to be the WORST composer in all history -

- His operas provided the soundtrack for the invasion of Poland

- The megalomania of _Parsifal _was based upon distortions of Enlightenment thinking - the pseudo scientific racialist theories of de Gobineau and  Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

- His operas have some interesting bits but are long winded and boring - to quote Rossini: _"Wagner has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour."_

- His music does not repay repeated listening, it just gets worse and you get sucked in by his cheap tricks and megalomania - again, to quote Rossini -_ "One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time."_

- His music, if one can call it that, is overly heavy and like a 20 course meal. Over-consumption results in becoming like Mr. Creosote. (warning, this is pretty disgusting).

In conclusion, Rossini is a far superior composer than Wagner - the Italian was using leitmotifs when Wagner was just a toddler - and his music is wonderful in total and does repay repeated listening (it's true cos I think it's true, and that is the end of that! :lol: ). But the thing about leitmotifs is a fact - Wagner was not the first to use those, not even just in opera.

Also, one of the greatest opera singers of the cartoon world, Bugs Bunny, sang _The Barber of Seville_ (but he also sang Wagner, I think, but since that does not fit in with my argument, I'll just shove it under the carpet...).

Nobody can refute my wholly objective logic, a few facts spread amongst mere opinions. So, _On with the Motley_...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

This thread is the best thread.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Well thanks. I'm the fall guy for all the people on this forum who've had enough of these kinds of _assumptions_ I'm lampooning. I'm like_ Tannhauser_ on a quest for...I don't know what...just let out all the anger...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

No, Tannhäuser was stupid, this is at least funny.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

I once had a good time at a Wagner opera, Der Fliegende Hollender.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I think the problem not only stems from your underexposure to Wagner's works, but frustration at your inability to process such complex, large scale works due to your underdeveloped attention span and lack of musical training. Let's discuss your overinflated ego. You put on a facade of championing egalitarianism so you do not have to confront your own mediocrity. This is all motivated by a deeply repressed fear of the reality that you are, in fact, Wagner himself, suffocating with envy in Meyerbeer's shadow. Where Wagner let himself fall into the stink of anti-Semitism, you have fallen to anti-Wagnerism. You will stop at nothing to demote Wagner from his undeniable position as the greatest composer in history, including the dilution of the appreciation of music itself by reckless promotion of bull**** non-composers like Stockhausen and Cage. Your frivolous hangup on who did something resembling a leitmotif first is further testament to the poverty in which you appreciate and understand music, ie. you can't see the forest for the trees. Revelations speaks of a beast out of the sea who will deceive the world and lead it astray from the truth of the Redeemer. Go back to the sea, Sid.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> I think the problem not only stems from your underexposure to Wagner's works, but frustration at your inability to process such complex, large scale works due to your underdeveloped attention span and lack of musical training. Let's discuss your overinflated ego. You put on a facade of championing egalitarianism so you do not have to confront your own mediocrity. This is all motivated by a deeply repressed fear of the reality that you are, in fact, Wagner himself, suffocating with envy in Meyerbeer's shadow. Where Wagner let himself fall into the stink of anti-Semitism, you have fallen to anti-Wagnerism. You will stop at nothing to demote Wagner from his undeniable position as the greatest composer in history, including the dilution of the appreciation of music itself by reckless promotion of bull**** non-composers like Stockhausen and Cage. Your frivolous hangup on who did something resembling a leitmotif first is further testament to the poverty in which you appreciate and understand music, ie. you can't see the forest for the trees. Revelations speaks of a beast out of the sea who will deceive the world and lead it astray from the truth of the Redeemer. Go back to the sea, Sid.


Good points, but Stockhausen and Cage _are_ composers. I could basically say similar things you were saying about Wagner but apply it to Stockhausen etc.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Very droll

*"One of the most beautiful edifices in sound ever raised to the glory of music."*
Thus spake Debussy about Parsifal.

And *Beethoven* said this... "Rossini would have been a great composer if his teacher had spanked him enough on the backside."

Nuff said


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Good points, but Stockhausen and Cage _are_ composers. I could basically say similar things you were saying about Wagner but apply it to Stockhausen etc.


One can argue just about anything when it comes to art. It all depends on how much bull**** you are willing to wade through to get there.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I can't say much as one of the people I've most respected in life, well...his favorite was Wagner...as for me, I don't care who said what about anybody; I know what I like and it is not him...you can call me what you will, Shrek, but it will never make me feel any different. Do I sound like a little b**** like that when someone talks bad about Gould?


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

This thread does not repay repeated reading.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

kv466 said:


> I can't say much as one of the people I've most respected in life, well...his favorite was Wagner...as for me, I don't care who said what about anybody; I know what I like and it is not him...you can call me what you will, Shrek, but it will never make me feel any different. Do I sound like a little b**** like that when someone talks bad about Gould?


I only care about where your soul goes in the afterlife, kv466.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

It's really fashionable bashing Wagner....... hmmm


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Sid James said:


> - His operas provided the soundtrack for the invasion of Poland
> 
> - The megalomania of _Parsifal _was based upon distortions of Enlightenment thinking - the pseudo scientific racialist theories of de Gobineau and  Houston Stewart Chamberlain.


These two sentences are enough for me to despise this thread so that I will not even try to object to the rest.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> His operas provided the soundtrack for the invasion of Poland
> 
> In conclusion, Rossini is a far superior composer than Wagner
> 
> Also, one of the greatest opera singers of the cartoon world, Bugs Bunny, sang _The Barber of Seville_ (but he also sang Wagner, I think, but since that does not fit in with my argument, I'll just shove it under the carpet...).


The first two sentences are the funniest thing I've read in ages.

And as for the last...........................KILL DA WABBIT KILL DA WABBIT... Elmer Fudd to the tune of The Ride Of The Valkyries.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

*Put on definitely. *

Mahler was an idiot for admiring him, so was Bruckner and Dvorak, they must be even worse, more fake composers, since they were derivative of the original fake!

Berg? Derivative of the derivative of the fake! Berg is a thousand miles away from real music. Schoenberg and Webern too, since atonal music was impossible without Tristan. Atonal music is ultimately derivative of Tristan and Parsifal (see Boulez' analysis) in harmonic expansion instead of developmental expansion.

Fake, definite. And everyone after him save Stravinsky and Ravel were even more fake, fake to the 2nd power (Mahler, Dvorak, Bruckner) or third power (Schoenberg) or fourth power (Berg) or fifth power (Stockhausen).

Let's listen to Bach, guys.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

****'s gettin' real in here


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> *Put on definitely. *
> 
> Mahler was an idiot for admiring him, so was Bruckner and Dvorak, they must be even worse, more fake composers, since they were derivative of the original fake!
> 
> ...


Bach just ripped off Buxtehude. Purcell- now that's the real deal!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> This is a half-serious parody of the following thread, but with some added anger -
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/17758-stockhausen-real-composer-put.html
> 
> ...


Lenin loved Beethoven's 23rd Sonata and Stalin's favorite music was Mozart's 20th piano concerto; all the communists loved the 9th, Mao even, it was "revolutionary"; if association with tyrannical murderous regimes detract from a composer's merit Mozart and Beethoven are far more guilty.



> - The megalomania of _Parsifal _was based upon distortions of Enlightenment thinking - the pseudo scientific racialist theories of de Gobineau and  Houston Stewart Chamberlain.


Enlightenment thinking is distortionist.



> - His operas have some interesting bits but are long winded and boring - to quote Rossini: _"Wagner has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour."_


Rossini said that in order to understand Tannhauser you needed to have listen



> - His music does not repay repeated listening, it just gets worse and you get sucked in by his cheap tricks and megalomania - again, to quote Rossini -_ "One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time."_


Um, that quote makes no sense because Rossini didn't relisten, he couldn't have known what a relisten would yield because he never relistened.



> - His music, if one can call it that, is overly heavy and like a 20 course meal. Over-consumption results in becoming like Mr. Creosote. (warning, this is pretty disgusting).


No, other people just have weak stomaches.



> In conclusion, Rossini is a far superior composer than Wagner - the Italian was using leitmotifs when Wagner was just a toddler - and his music is wonderful in total and does repay repeated listening (it's true cos I think it's true, and that is the end of that! :lol: ). But the thing about leitmotifs is a fact - Wagner was not the first to use those, not even just in opera.
> 
> .


Except no one loves Rossini at much as Wagner except people with bad taste and he never shows up on top 10 lists or even top 30 lists. Plus he wasn't influential at all and his popularity has waned since his death.



> Also, one of the greatest opera singers of the cartoon world, Bugs Bunny, sang _The Barber of Seville_ (but he also sang Wagner, I think, but since that does not fit in with my argument, I'll just shove it under the carpet...).
> 
> Nobody can refute my wholly objective logic, a few facts spread amongst mere opinions. So, _On with the Motley_..


But I just did refute your logic.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Oh my, I told you this was half serious and an angry rant. So why get on your high horses? At least I exposed my biases (& yes, I do hate Wagner).

Anyway, the quote about the invasion of Poland I think was applied to Wagner by Woody Allen in some movie, but originally it was said about Beethoven (which shows you can set up false dichotomies between any two composers you pick!) -

_"The point is... a person feels good listening to Rossini. All you feel like listening to Beethoven is going out and invading Poland. Ode to Joy indeed. The man didn't even have a sense of humor. I tell you... there is more of the Sublime in the snare-drum part of the La Gazza Ladra than in the whole Ninth Symphony."_
- Thomas Pynchon, in his novel _Gravity's Rainbow _(1973)

Other reasons why _objectively_ (in other words, according to my opinion) prove Rossini to be better composer than Wagner:
- Rossini had a collection of 7 toupees (wigs), one for every day of the week
- Rossini published numerous cookbooks, and even had a recipie named after him
- Rossini invented a musical technique, named after him, the _Rossini crescendo_
- Rossini was one of the richest composers of his time, he was evidently a good financial manager, he could retire in his thirties

So there you go.

& re this -



Petwhac said:


> Very droll
> 
> *"One of the most beautiful edifices in sound ever raised to the glory of music."*
> Thus spake Debussy about Parsifal.
> ...


Yeah but Debussy later said he consciously sought to avoid Wagner's influence when composing his only opera, _Pelleas_. It can be said to be, as a result, the antithesis of Wagner's operas. That quote must have been much earlier, around when Debussy was in his early twenties, the usual fanboy stuff.

& Beethoven privately acknowledged Rossini's _Barber of Seville _as the best comic opera of that time. Politics was part of this, for when Rossini was conquering Vienna with that, not much people were interested in Ludwig van's late quartets and piano sonatas. It was a case of sour grapes basically, that public announcement, that little tantrum Herr Beethoven was prone to do.

Sorry I don't have quotes as _proof_, but they're out there somewhere. But what is this with all these quotes to _prove_ things, a court of law?



> ...Nuff said


Rossini is DE BEST.

Nuff said indeed.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Anyway, the quote about the invasion of Poland I think was applied to Wagner by Woody Allen in some movie, but originally it was said about Beethoven (which shows you can set up false dichotomies between any two composers you pick!) -
> 
> _"The point is... a person feels good listening to Rossini. All you feel like listening to Beethoven is going out and invading Poland. Ode to Joy indeed. The man didn't even have a sense of humor. I tell you... there is more of the Sublime in the snare-drum part of the La Gazza Ladra than in the whole Ninth Symphony."_
> - Thomas Pynchon, in his novel _Gravity's Rainbow _(1973)


Just goes to show writers and comics no nuffing 'bout music.



> Yeah but Debussy later said he consciously sought to avoid Wagner's influence when composing his only opera, _Pelleas_. It can be said to be, as a result, the antithesis of Wagner's operas.


Ah yes Pelleas, I remember sleeping through most of it at Covent Garden quite some years ago. It was like Tristan without the good bits. He didn't quite manage to escape Wagner's influence after all.



> & Beethoven privately acknowledged Rossini's _Barber of Seville _as the best comic opera of that time. Politics was part of this, for when Rossini was conquering Vienna with that, not much people were interested in Ludwig van's late quartets and piano sonatas. It was a case of sour grapes basically, that public announcement, that little tantrum Herr Beethoven was prone to do.


Fair enough, LVB was out of fashion by the end of his life but hey, people are fickle and fashion is temporary.

Didn't Rossini invent the orchestral crescendo?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Just goes to show writers and comics no nuffing 'bout music.


Dead right, about not knowing how to do good music _criticism_ at least, but neither do some great composers, if they are under the cloud of some type of ultimately self-promoting dogma -

_"Bruckner?" *Brahms* once wrote: "That is a swindle which will be forgotten in a year or two after my death. Take it as you will, Bruckner owes his fame solely to me, and but for me nobody would have cared a brass farthing for him."

*Hugo Wolf *...[wrote] "One single cymbal clash by Bruckner," he once declared, "is worth all the four symphonies of Brahms - with the serenades thrown in."_

& if these guys could not remove their dogma-tinted spectacles, what about certain people touting the superiority of their composer-idols, whether it be Wagner or others? (although let's face it, Wagner has more than one big fanboy around here, and what I've had a gutful of is their equally ridiculous assumptions put forth as some sort of objective fact).

Anyway, read the whole of Brahms' massive anti-Bruckner rant here, which comes from an academic source, so I guess it's pretty solid (I didn't know that he had such venom, but I know he liked what he'd heard of Bruckner's 6th symphony, so it's quite startling reading this).

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=14130


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Other than an oft-nominated for one of the sillier sets of libretti in all of opera-dom, I don't think Wagner was setting out to 'put us on.' 

Now, to cajole and get funding out of poor deranged King Ludwig for the Bayreuth Festpielhaus, and productions, there was more than a bit of 'putting on,' but many an artist has 'supped with the Devil using a long spoon' in order to get funding for their work 

Do I care for it (Wagner) -- barely a whit. 

As to 'putting us on,' -- I'm not self-centered enough to think that a living composer who does not know me from zipp, let alone a composer who lived over a century ago - are or were trying to 'put me on.' not a jot.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Lenin loved Beethoven's 23rd Sonata and Stalin's favorite music was Mozart's 20th piano concerto; all the communists loved the 9th, Mao even, it was "revolutionary"; if association with tyrannical murderous regimes detract from a composer's merit Mozart and Beethoven are far more guilty.
> 
> Enlightenment thinking is distortionist.
> 
> ...


I would love to know if you have a sense of humor, and what you think humor is


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Moira said:


> I once had a good time at a Wagner opera, Der Fliegende Hollender.


could have been your date, and the drinks between acts


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> No, Tannhäuser was stupid, this is at least funny.


Yeah, well he doesn't get the girl and they both die in the end. & this type of thing is called _catharsis_ or something? I just call it a depressing ending. & after all that, the _Pilgrim's Chorus _giving me hope that it'd turn out well in the end? It's false hope, so typical of Wagner.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BTW, a general announcement (& NOT inviting discussion of this) - I just saw that Couchie was banned. I had nothing to do with it. I did not report him for his rant earlier on this thread or anything like that. In any case, I found out too late, after the fact.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Moira said:


> I once had a good time at a Wagner opera, Der Fliegende Hollender.


That's not Wagner, that's an Andre Rieu album & he's a_ real _Dutchman -










...now I'm inviting the wrath of the Gods...Wotan will kill me with his thunder or whatever...I better shut up now...such lowbrow image on a thread about the mighty R.W...sacrilege, heresy...


----------



## Sator (Jan 23, 2011)

Some of you may be interested to know that I have just published a major post on my blog on the subject of the overblown myths about Wagner:

www.thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2012/04/book-review-joachim-kohler-wagners.html

BTW I am *NOT* getting drawn into an in depth discussion on this subject here. The reason I blog about it is because there is way too much religion and politics in it. And, as anyone knows, it just leads to a major debacle when you discuss these matters on internet discussion fora. Been there, done that, once too often (just not on this forum).


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I would love to know if you have a sense of humor, and what you think humor is


I'm being blasphemous, it's a bloody mix of parody, ridicule, humor, etc.

There's always irony of course but there are also literal arguments strewn in, and written in such a way that it's impossible to distinguish which from which and if I'm caught off guard and accidentally type something I can't defend or don't want to defend I could always write it off as ironic or sarcastic, but if it's a point I do want to defend then I can interpret it as literal, thus forcing my opponents to go on the defensive because their irony *is the same type of careless writing* as I am doing, but I am merely doing it *up a notch.*

In short I'm ventriloquizing Hamlet, if Hamlet were a 21st century fan of Wagner.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Why does Couchie get banned for something that is obviously humor?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> *Put on definitely. *
> 
> Mahler was an idiot for admiring him, so was Bruckner and Dvorak, they must be even worse, more fake composers, since they were derivative of the original fake!
> 
> ...


Bach was a fake, too, lifting all done before him, including Monteverdi and his near contemporary Vivaldi, just re-assembled the same ole same ole. Counterpoint? Guillaume de Machaut had done it all before the old Thuringian, in the 1300's! What a sham.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> Why does Couchie get banned for something that is obviously humor?


Literalists are infinitely without humor, that's why. Why a Fetish thread, involving any angle of sexuality, was allowed to go on for two seconds is only a question to be answered by the powers that be. If one is thinking that minors are on here, and you believe they need to be 'protected' from adult talk, that thread shouldn't have been up longer than a moment to begin with. They're human, there are probably only a few of them.

Too, there is only so much 'answering' part of a thread to simply amuse oneself vs. actually contributing something. A fine line, here, where some banter and humor is allowed, and more more more than welcome, at least on my part. Lines, no matter 'how impartial' are still made up by a person


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> ...
> There's always irony of course but there are also literal arguments strewn in, and written in such a way that it's impossible to distinguish which from which and if I'm caught off guard and accidentally type something I can't defend or don't want to defend I could always write it off as ironic or sarcastic, but if it's a point I do want to defend then I can interpret it as literal, thus forcing my opponents to go on the defensive because their irony *is the same type of careless writing* as I am doing, but I am merely doing it *up a notch.*...


I think the issue is that things have gone down the path of a court of law on this forum. The adversarial approach, me against you, the winner is the best man to paint his opponent black, etc.

I'm just sick of this approach which I see as a sham. & unlike a court of law there are no rules of evidence. The only rule seems to be is that a person is superior in their tastes, whether they listen to 4 hour operas or so-called genre of noise music. I don't buy that kind of one-size-fits-all approach. I'd say it's below the basic intelligence of everyone on this forum to play these kinds of games.

But I'm doing this with *humour. *The false dichotomy of doing such things with any composers, be it Wagner versus Rossini or whoever else, exposes all similar woolly thinking here.



Cnote11 said:


> Why does Couchie get banned for something that is obviously humor?


Better not discuss this here in public. A thread was made about it and locked already. Better if you talk privately with other members involved, by PM. I am not interested why Couchie was banned, I was just saying that I was no part of the reason, I was not involved as I said, had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Well I am interested. Couchie was one of my heroes.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> - His music, if one can call it that, is overly heavy and like a 20 course meal. Over-consumption results in becoming like Mr. Creosote. (warning, this is pretty disgusting).


:lol: I remember that scene. Very funny. All a big joke. Just like so many threads of late here at Talk-Classical. Oh the shame of it all!

I can enjoy Wagner's operas. As for Rossini, I think I do actually prefer Rossini's operas than Wagner's partly because Rossini wrote so many and of more variety/contrast.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> Well I am interested. Couchie was one of my heroes.


Couchie and several other members are enjoying ourselves at another site dedicated to opera. Natural civility appears to be the norm there, unlike here.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

What site is this? People keep talking about alternative sites and I am not aware of them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Funny, it seems Rossini was similar to Mr. Creosote, but not as bad. His parties in Paris were renowned for their _haute cuisine_. These were big social events of the city, reported in the newspapers, many celebrities dined with the Italian maestro. Wagner and Rossini actually did meet, I know they met in 1860 (but I don't know if that was their only meeting). I don't know what they talked about when they met.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Bach was a fake, too, lifting all done before him, including Monteverdi and his near contemporary Vivaldi, just re-assembled the same ole same ole. Counterpoint? Guillaume de Machaut had done it all before the old Thuringian, in the 1300's! What a sham.


Bach's counterpoint is better. His melodies are better. His development is better.

But I'm doing this with humour. The false dichotomy of doing such things with any composers, be it Wagner versus Rossini or whoever else, exposes all similar woolly thinking here.

I'm doing "this" *with "humor"* also.

I think the issue is that things have gone down the path of a court of law on this forum. The adversarial approach, me against you, the winner is the best man to paint his opponent black, etc.


Why I'm covered with it! It's flooded me up to the ear!


I'm just sick of this approach which I see as a sham. & unlike a court of law there are no rules of evidence. The only rule seems to be is that a person is superior in their tastes, whether they listen to 4 hour operas or so-called genre of noise music. I don't buy that kind of one-size-fits-all approach. I'd say it's below the basic intelligence of everyone on this forum to play these kinds of games.

Really? No rule of evidence? Because I provide evidence and the evidence is handily dismissed because my opponent recoils to platitudes along the lines of "all taste is subjective".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Funny, it seems Rossini was similar to Mr. Creosote, but not as bad. His parties in Paris were renowned for their _haute cuisine_. These were big social events of the city, reported in the newspapers, many celebrities dined with the Italian maestro. Wagner and Rossini actually did meet, I know they met in 1860 (but I don't know if that was their only meeting). I don't know what they talked about when they met.


I think I could sit down at the same table and enjoy a fine Italian dinner with Rossini. Though I would not be over stuffing my face with food!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid/Andre... I was thinking of you with regard to Wagner and Stockhausen after recently reading through the "Stockhausen... Real Composer...?" thread (or whatever it was entitled). I found myself wondering about you thoughts concerning Stockhausen's never-ending opera, "Licht" considering your repeated portrayals of "The Ring" as something over-blown, inflated, and reeking of pretension as result of its length.

Personally, I have no problem in admitting that Stockhausen was undeniably a composer. I quite like his _Stimmung_ and a few other pieces, while at the same time I will admit that "Licht" far exceeds the limits of what I am willing to sit through... especially considering the limited return in terms of pleasure that I find in most of Stockhausen's music. As for the Helicopter Quartet... well even Mozart and Beethoven composed jokes... Mozart's often of a scatological nature. The problem is critics without a sense of humor who take such nonsense seriously.

Wagner has no need of any of us to come to his defense. His position in the history of music is assured no matter what any number of us as individuals think. Personally, I love his music. He remains one of my favorites... along with Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, Schubert, Haydn, Debussy, Richard Strauss, and many others. I actually love Rossini as well. I find that he has been long ignored or under-rated. His Barber of Seville made TC's top 100 operas list... but then nothing else... and yet he had such a wealth of worthy operas. On the other hand... nothing by Rossini has moved me... or obsessed me to the degree of Wagner's music.


----------



## Sator (Jan 23, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I think the issue is that things have gone down the path of a court of law on this forum. The adversarial approach, me against you, the winner is the best man to paint his opponent black, etc.
> 
> I'm just sick of this approach which I see as a sham. & unlike a court of law there are no rules of evidence. The only rule seems to be is that a person is superior in their tastes . . .





HarpsichordConcerto said:


> C. and several other members are enjoying ourselves at another site dedicated to opera. Natural civility appears to be the norm there, unlike here.


Folks. Trust me, this is in the nature of the beast when it comes to internet discussion fora. I've been playing the game for over a decade, and no matter what forum it is, things end up being the same. I have even seen cases where online adversaries have literally taken each other to court (however financial matters were also involved there).

The bigger the forum, the rowdier it gets. Two's company three's a crowd. Everyone gets sick of the rowdiness. They all go off to a smaller forum they think is "more civilised". That forum gets crowded too and it starts all over again.

I used to be a prolific poster on another internet music discussion list ten years ago. I've done my share of moderation and admin work too. It's hard work. So don't make it harder for the mods here!!!

As for me, I only blog my major viewpoints now. It's a lot less unpleasant.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What site is this? People keep talking about alternative sites and I am not aware of them.

There are any number of other music forums. I believe links to them are frowned upon, but I know any number have been mentioned in the past in passing. Among these there's Brightcecilia.com which I know tends to be far less active than TC... Much of the talk focuses upon "older" music: Baroque, Renaissance, and Medieval... thus the name. Then there's GMG Classical Music Forums (GMG= Good Music Guide). I was a member/participant there... but found myself spending too much time between the two sights, and thus chose TC as the more "friendly" and open to new members. There are numerous opera forums. There were a few that I participated on that were so active and obsessive (fierce arguments concerning singers from c. 1915) that I quickly vacate the premises. Opera Lively is one of the best that I have found and includes many members from TC. Overall... I have found TC to have been the best site devoted to classical music. It is quite active, open to new members, inclusive of those of all degrees of musical expertise and experience, and open to the broadest array of what can be termed "classical music.":tiphat:

If mentioning other sites is considered a conflict of interest, please feel free to remove this post.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> I think the problem not only stems from your underexposure to Wagner's works, but frustration at your inability to process such complex, large scale works due to your underdeveloped attention span and lack of musical training. Let's discuss your overinflated ego. You put on a facade of championing egalitarianism so you do not have to confront your own mediocrity. This is all motivated by a deeply repressed fear of the reality that you are, in fact, Wagner himself, suffocating with envy in Meyerbeer's shadow. Where Wagner let himself fall into the stink of anti-Semitism, you have fallen to anti-Wagnerism. You will stop at nothing to demote Wagner from his undeniable position as the greatest composer in history, including the dilution of the appreciation of music itself by reckless promotion of bull**** non-composers like Stockhausen and Cage. Your frivolous hangup on who did something resembling a leitmotif first is further testament to the poverty in which you appreciate and understand music, ie. you can't see the forest for the trees. Revelations speaks of a beast out of the sea who will deceive the world and lead it astray from the truth of the Redeemer. Go back to the sea, Sid.


Sorry to hit you when you're down dearie, but we all do hope you'll be back soon.

_"inability to process such complex, large scale works due to your underdeveloped attention span and lack of musical training."_

Whoo, hoo. You mistake length for complexity: There is nothing really complex about 'a musical telephone directory,' What may be required to enjoy it is a complete literal tie of music to theater, a belief one of the silliest of libretti (the ring) is worthwhile, be able to project layer upon layer of psychological motivation and Freudian symbolism upon said libretto, and be able to be seduced by 'the first film composer' and all the works-well-on-the-average-guy bombast and theatrics of the grander parts of the score. None of that has anything to do with lack of intellect, concentration, or continued exposure. A corny movie, and its corny score, do not, often, get less corny upon a second, third, or fourth sitting.

One also has to disabuse all previous and later notions that music, like people talking, actually breathes, is not 'endless,' and hosts of other anti-musical premises to tolerate the taffy-pull that is Wagner's syntax. To his credit, I hear that "Tristan" is one hell of a wringer, in action, in the theater, as many think it is his masterpiece. Pity it was nearly at the front of his output :-(


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Sator said:


> Folks. Trust me, this is in the nature of the beast when it comes to internet discussion fora. I've been playing the game for over a decade, and no matter what forum it is, things end up being the same. I have even seen cases where online adversaries have literally taken each other to court (however financial matters were also involved there).
> 
> The bigger the forum, the rowdier it gets. Two's company three's a crowd. Everyone gets sick of the rowdiness. They all go off to a smaller forum they think is "more civilised". That forum gets crowded too and it starts all over again.
> 
> ...


Well to be fair, this forum isn't too bad. I have had experience too which was worse. This is a smaller membership here but dedicated. Thanks for sharing your experiences. So I guess my analogy of the court of law was not far off the mark? But I was reflecting on how people use various types of _proof_ to put others down. It's not on.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sid/Andre... I was thinking of you with regard to Wagner and Stockhausen after recently reading through the "Stockhausen... Real Composer...?" thread (or whatever it was entitled). I found myself wondering about you thoughts concerning Stockhausen's never-ending opera, "Licht" considering your repeated portrayals of "The Ring" as something over-blown, inflated, and reeking of pretension as result of its length.
> 
> ...


Reflecting back and on people's responses, it's not strictly about that thread of _Stockhausen, a real composer of a put on?_ but just about attitudes in general.

I used humour but Wagner was my target, not Couchie or anyone else. But I must admit that when you get things rammed down your throat, you begin to hate them. I could have the finest ice cream three times a day, for all meals, but in the end I will end up sick of it, it's overkill.

I have same criticism of anything pushed in my face. I will send up anything. Nothing's sacred. Indeed, I've done threads in anger aimed at modernist ideology of the hard core kind. I do like contemporary music, but not some of the woolly thinking attached to it. But this was in anger, not meant to be funny -

http://www.talkclassical.com/17717-throwing-out-baby-bathwater.html



brianwalker said:


> ...
> Really? No rule of evidence? Because I provide evidence and the evidence is handily dismissed because my opponent recoils to platitudes along the lines of "all taste is subjective".


YOU PUTTIN WORDS INTO MY MOUTH? :lol:

Objective versus subjective is another one of those perennial brick wall debates on TC. Don't ya love 'em? Entertaining for two seconds, until someone does the same old same old thing. I listen to this and you don't so you're a so-and-so....is that_ real _debate or _mere _entertainment? YOU GOTTA ANSWER THIS FULLY OBJECTIVELY OR I'LL SEND THE BOYS AROUND!


----------



## Sator (Jan 23, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I must admit that when you get things rammed down your throat, you begin to hate them.


Alas, 'tis the nature of the beast on internet fora. It doesn't matter what the subject matter or who runs the forum.



Sid James said:


> Objective versus subjective is another one of those perennial brick wall debates on TC.


No it's not. It's the perennial brick wall of ALL internet music fora. It has been for the last 12-13 years I've been participating.

BTW has anyone posted this on _*this*_ forum yet?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Bach's counterpoint is better. His melodies are better. His development is better.
> But I'm doing this with humour. The false dichotomy of doing such things with any composers, be it Wagner versus Rossini or whoever else, exposes all similar woolly thinking here.
> 
> I'm doing "this" *with "humor"* also.
> ...


But all taste IS subjective. The only way to keep it subjective and a bit 'within your court of law' premise is to set up an agreed-upon set of criteria, near impossible to do with those few more interested in displaying verbal constructs and their brilliant logic and intellect than wanting, truly, to get down to a list of criteria. Once all have agreed upon that list of criteria, then you might be able to 'line up' the accused and judge them, LOL.

I think those more earnest about themselves, perhaps, or believing it Truly Important to Prove or Rank Composer A over B, or Romanticism over Modernism, etc, are in for the biggest hurts in a forum such as this. Rarely, no matter how brilliant the discourse, how logical the argument, is anyone going to change any other persons mind about Wagner, Boulez, or name your composer.

The fact that there are, (sorry,) loonies who cannot abide the fact someone may like Wagner and also like Boulez, or those who are same-acting about someone who like both the most avant garde and DeFalla's Nights in the Gardens of Spain ARE NOT DISCUSSING MUSIC. They must be looking for, what? control; recognition as authority; God Knows What.

It would help more if those who are fans of Wagner and Bach were far less obsessive, and as repetitive about those subjects to the point of repeated bludgeoning. Why Wagner or Bach should be brought up at all in many other threads where they were not at all the topic or point, is beyond many to understand.

If you are secure in your likes, or beliefs, like 'faith,' nothing against will really shake or offend so much. It is like the Wagnerites and Bachites are all realllllly insecure in their belief those are the greatest composers. The other face outwardly seen by many users, is that is all those fans want to talk about - so, if that is the case, go to the Wagner only and Bach only sites and have the feast.

*Wagner is here 'the topic,' sort of. The main drift -- no one has mentioned -- is how polite should anyone be to a supposed post where the 'agenda' is announced in the question, "Is Stockhausen a real composer or a put-on?" I mean, really, to what degree of very rude is that; how earnestly should anyone take that question?

Who in their right mind would think there was NOT AN ANNOUNCED and FIXED OPINION and AN AGENDA embedded in that question? I would pull it as a violation, with a warning if the OP cannot even frame a question politely, you really don't deserve to be on the forum at all. Talk about the rules of a court of law....
*
I'm sure the OP here chose Wagner specifically because the Flame-War reaction from the Wagner fans is sure-fire predictable, sadly so.

And, if there is not a little room for humor, parody or a bit of lampooning satire on this site, I'm outta here. Music, and a sense of humor, to me, are two essentials to oil the often enough less than pleasant machinery of life. One by one, I'm taking note of those with a seeming lack of any sort of humor at all - those who seem to have to prove to all their intellectual supremety as if they are writing a thesis upon which their degree depended, for one. Intellectual display with no fruit borne is another complete waste of time and more of a turn-off. DOADOE - Dead On Arrival Display Of Education - vanity of vanities, and pointless. It seems it is all some people have - an intellect, a high IQ, but nothing really, to do with it. How interesting is a well-written squib from an 'intellect' if it has no real content, are we to admire 'the style,' without substance?

By the way, all these great composers either being extolled to the stars or damned to the abyss have been doing just fine, for hundreds of years, or currently, without any of us  "We are not needed." Ergo, what are any of us doing here, and why is a very good question. To share information, to 'invite' the new to explore that which we love and admire, or to jerk each other around in some petty and forgettable salon argument....


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

PetrB said:


> But all taste IS subjective. The only way to keep it subjective and a bit 'within your court of law' premise is to set up an agreed-upon set of criteria, near impossible to do with those few more interested in displaying verbal constructs and their brilliant logic and intellect than wanting, truly, to get down to a list of criteria. Once all have agreed upon that list of criteria, then you might be able to 'line up' the accused and judge them, LOL.
> 
> I think those more earnest about themselves, perhaps, or believing it Truly Important to Prove or Rank Composer A over B, or Romanticism over Modernism, etc, are in for the biggest hurts in a forum such as this. Rarely, no matter how brilliant the discourse, how logical the argument, is anyone going to change any other persons mind about Wagner, Boulez, or name your composer.
> 
> ...


Is there a reason some of your text is green? Is there a difference between the green and black text? Because I used blue text as a quoting mechanism.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Yeah, well he doesn't get the girl and they both die in the end. & this type of thing is called _catharsis_ or something? I just call it a depressing ending. & after all that, the _Pilgrim's Chorus _giving me hope that it'd turn out well in the end? It's false hope, so typical of Wagner.


Isn't almost all opera boy meets girl, they fall in love, it goes well, then it doesn't, then one or both of them die?


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

This thread is a put on.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

tgtr0660 said:


> This thread is a put on.


Then that perforce makes the thread starter a ..... ?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Is there a reason some of your text is green? Is there a difference between the green and black text? Because I used blue text as a quoting mechanism.


Green? Nope. Maybe hit the wrong key on my ever-so-tiny keyboard.

It seems we are actually in agreement -- if you don't find that offensive -- on the basic rudeness of "Is ______ a real composer or a put-on?" which started the whole debacle.

If the mods won't take something like that down, I'm going to resist any response to similar in future, it is that out of line and repulsive. Not that I feel a need to 'defend' composer Xxxxxxx in the alleged 'question,' but any question about any composer on a forum such as this should not be allowed if framed like THAT!

There was obviously not a real willingness to listen to any points on the 'real composer' side of the construct, though I bit the bait and answered the one on Stockhausen. I'll know better next time.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Then that perforce makes the thread starter a ..... ?


Joking Penelope?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Then that perforce makes the thread starter a ..... ?


...an ANGRY person. Anyway, I intend now not to write on this forum about Wagner, for good or ill, or for a joke.

The whole thing, as Sator's posts suggest, a symptom of online discussions, probably not only about music, but about anything.

I've probably spent too much time here.

Basically it boils down to this whole thing being like a surreal tragi-comedy. It's a bit like Harold Pinter's_ The __Birthday Party _or Ken Kesey's _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_ or Beckett's_ Waiting for Godot_.

My fault for trying to question such absurdity which is the stuff of fictional plays, not any firm sense of lived and experienced reality. But so what?

Deep and meaningfuls over.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Stockhausen is an amazing composer.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Stockhausen is an amazing composer.


He amazes me constantly. Every moment amazes me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Stockhausen is an amazing composer.


Stockhausen is one of my favourite composers. I love him and Wagner equally.
Stockhausen is also an alien.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> Stockhausen is an amazing composer.


So is Wagner, to a greater degree.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I can enjoy Wagner's opera. Also Rossini and also Stockhausen. But it is no doubt that history so far has shown Wagner to be perhaps greatest out of these three names. Silly comparison I agree.


----------



## ikafka (Apr 21, 2012)

Wagner is the gateway drug of classical music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ikafka said:


> Wagner is the gateway drug of classical music.


My gateway drug into classical music were the Brandenburg Concertos


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

This is like asking "Shakespeare, a real playwright or a put on ?" Or

Pablo Picasso, a real painter or a put on ?

Albert Einstein, a real scientist or a put on ?

Tolstoy, a real novelist or a put on?

Michael Jordan, a real basketball player or a put on ?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

superhorn said:


> This is like asking "Shakespeare, a real playwright or a put on ?"


That's a fair question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

ikafka said:


> Wagner is the gateway drug of classical music.


Vivaldi is the gateway drug of classical music. Wagner is a kilo of pure, uncut Nicaraguan cocaine.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Omg, it's Couchie. Polednice can come back now.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Omg, it's Couchie. Polednice can come back now.


Couchie hacked Krummhorn's account and unbanned himself. I know.


----------



## TheComposer (Apr 22, 2012)

I don't think Wagner was meant for the opera. Seriously, Wagner was a true symphonist, just listen to the overtures of most if not all of his operas, they develop so 'symphonially' ...too bad he had that silly ambition of 'Gesamtkunstwerk'.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

TheComposer said:


> I don't think Wagner was meant for the opera. Seriously, Wagner was a true symphonist, just listen to the overtures of most if not all of his operas, they develop so 'symphonially' ...too bad he had that silly ambition of 'Gesamtkunstwerk'.


Well have you heard his symphony in C major? It's his worst work!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

TheComposer said:


> I don't think Wagner was meant for the opera. Seriously, Wagner was a true symphonist, just listen to the overtures of most if not all of his operas, they develop so 'symphonially' ...too bad he had that silly ambition of 'Gesamtkunstwerk'.


I think Wagner was meant for Hollywood. It's a pity he did not live until the movie era, another 50 years and his idea of a synthesis of music, acting and visual art could have been fully realized on the screen.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sid knew how to write them. Just need Couchie to bite...... again..................:lol:


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

TheComposer said:


> I don't think Wagner was meant for the opera. Seriously, Wagner was a true symphonist, just listen to the overtures of most if not all of his operas, they develop so 'symphonially' ...too bad he had that silly ambition of 'Gesamtkunstwerk'.


I think opera was meant for Wagner.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Sid James said:


> - His operas provided the soundtrack for the invasion of Poland


At least he never composed an opera about an invasion of Poland unlike Verdi who did compose an opera about an invasion of Ethiopia.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sloe said:


> At least he never composed an opera about an invasion of Poland unlike Verdi who did compose an opera about an invasion of Ethiopia.


Hey your not Couchie in disguise Sloe, just checking or are you channeling?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Hey your not Couchie in disguise Sloe, just checking or are you channeling?


No I am not.
Of course the perfect opera to serve for soundtrack for going to war against Poland is A Life for the Tsar by Michail Glinka.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well have you heard his symphony in C major? It's his worst work!


He composed it when he was 19 and it was one of his first compositions. His first operas are no masterpieces either.
I am happy he wrote operas because I like singing and settings.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sloe said:


> No I am not.
> Of course the perfect opera to serve for soundtrack for going to war against Poland is A Life for the Tsar by Michail Glinka.


Just checking all good then................. You and Couchie would make a good team.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Any dude who could write "Das ist kein Mann" and expect us to take it seriously can't be all bad.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ikafka said:


> Wagner is the gateway drug of classical music.


Wonder how poster is doing, to much Wagner?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Wonder how poster is doing, to much Wagner?


Too much is never enough, don;t you think?

Although poster only managed 2 posts, so maybe too much...........


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I was unaware of the reality of this thread.

After reading through it I'm still none too sure.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Too much is never enough, don;t you think?
> 
> Although poster only managed 2 posts, so maybe too much...........


Got it in one Mr Eddie .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

.........................................................


----------

