# Verdi, Wagner and Puccini



## Enformedepoire (Jul 29, 2013)

Ever since I first began my love of opera, I have noticed an interesting trend, one that I have been dying to confirm for years: almost invariably, when I am reading an article which discusses Verdi and Wagner together, Wagner is held superior and Verdi inferior - Wagner is so much more innovative, concerned with deeper issues, his art is a higher art, while Verdi is a mere tune-smith, a crowd-pleaser, his operas are dramatic but ultimately his art is not as high as Wagner's. 

But wait! Here's an article about Verdi and Puccini! How, I wonder, are the two compared? Well of course, Verdi revolutionized Italian opera, he is concerned with deeper issues, his art is a higher art, while Puccini is a mere tune-smith, a crowd-pleaser, etc. You see where this is going.

Has anyone else noticed this? What are we to glean from this, that Wagner is great, Verdi is less great, and Puccini is a puddle of filth? As a lover of Wagner, Verdi, AND Puccini, I love them each for very different reasons, as their skills and styles were each very different, and they each employed them very effectively (though of course there are minute overlaps between the work of all three), and I find this tendency to hold one up as better than the other and then do an about-face to use the very one who was beaten before as the cudgel for beating the next to be a fruitless and tiresome endeavor. Let us rather understand the differences, the skills, and the individual shortcomings of each composer, as well as the complex relationships between them, without having to point the finger of rejection at any. Wagner and Spohr? Perhaps, but Wagner and Verdi? Unnecessary. 

I will admit to a partiality in favor of Wagner, but that is purely a matter of personal taste, and I do not let my adoration for Wagner cloud my enjoyment of Verdi and Puccini. I should also mention that the apparently scathing tone of my comments regarding the "value judgement critics" was more in a spirit of amusement, as many a critic will attest, and I humbly invite any and all challengers, supporters or neutral observers to speak up without fear of rude rejoinder. But I may call you a "silly head."


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

Actually I've found that the trend of late has been to acclaim Wagner and Verdi as equals, which annoys me no end because it's so plainly tosh. As far as I'm concerned, Wagner wrote great music drama, Verdi wrote very good romantic opera, and Puccini wrote crude but entertaining melodramas. Certainly all three were blessed with different talents, but Wagner used his to produce transcendent works of art and Puccini, pap. To say otherwise without the support of a careful argument is just evasive.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

As to the deeper question of why we should bother with the whole value judgement game: I just think it's fundamental to the business of art and life. Why bother with opera at all? It's not merely for pleasure - we can get that any which way. We turn to opera, as we turn to art in general, to return ourselves by distinctive, irreplaceable paths to some of the fundamental sources of human value. If we cease to exercise our critical faculties, we'll find it increasingly hard to discern and follow those paths. And even if we don't care for ourselves, someone has to keep the paths clearly marked for the benefit of future generations: no one in the modern world could hope to find all the best of what has been thought and said (or played) single-handed. If everyone shies away from the dirty business of discrimination, a time may come when Andrew Lloyd Webber is performed at Covent Garden, without anyone batting an eyelid.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Enformedepoire said:


> Has anyone else noticed this? What are we to glean from this, that Wagner is great, Verdi is less great, and Puccini is a puddle of filth?


If it makes Puccini feel better, G&S are the run-down sidewalk upon which Puccini's puddle magnificently resides, in addition to various dog excrement and spit.

As his writings attest, Wagner was rather obsessed with revolution, and that's exactly what he did, both in opera as a form and music itself, with profound impact. Puccini and Verdi have their merits but I don't see the point in disingenuous historical "re-evaluation" pretending Puccini and Verdi were as important to music. I don't see the Verdi in Parsifal, but it's not hard to see the Wagner in Otello. Likewise Wagner's influence permeates much of Puccini's work.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

aisia said:


> We turn to opera, as we turn to art in general, to return ourselves by distinctive, irreplaceable paths to some of the fundamental sources of human value.


I don't mind admitting that I don't turn to opera for that reason. I don't listen to opera in order to find paths to fundamental human values (least of all Wagner's values, nor Puccini's for that matter). I can't prove it but I would wager that the Wagner camp is more likely to use the royal "we" when it comes to making statements about music (the "we" is, after all, a staple of musical philosophizing, and few composers philosophized about music more than Wagner), and the inability to identify with that "we" probably explains why I don't adhere to the Wagner-Verdi-Puccini hierarchy. Couchie is quite right that there's no disputing the greater influence Wagner had on most composers, but from a purely listening standpoint the extent of a composer's historical influence factors in very little into my musical tastes.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

Eschbeg said:


> I don't mind admitting that I don't turn to opera for that reason. I don't listen to opera in order to find paths to fundamental human values (least of all Wagner's values, nor Puccini's for that matter). I can't prove it but I would wager that the Wagner camp is more likely to use the royal "we" when it comes to making statements about music (the "we" is, after all, a staple of musical philosophizing, and few composers philosophized about music more than Wagner), and the inability to identify with that "we" probably explains why I don't adhere to the Wagner-Verdi-Puccini hierarchy. Couchie is quite right that there's no disputing the greater influence Wagner had on most composers, but from a purely listening standpoint the extent of a composer's historical influence factors in very little into my musical tastes.


Well, do you believe in any hierarchies in opera? If you do, what exactly is it about the Wagner-Verdi-Puccini hierarchy that you object to? If not, do you think your own preferences could serve as any basis for advising others? How are they able to do so?


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't actually care at all about such articles. But I do love opera. I think paying too much attention to articles is a sign that you need more opera in your life!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> As his writings attest, Wagner was rather obsessed with revolution, and that's exactly what he did, both in opera as a form and music itself, with profound impact. Puccini and Verdi have their merits but I don't see the point in disingenuous historical "re-evaluation" pretending Puccini and Verdi were as important to music. I don't see the Verdi in Parsifal, but it's not hard to see the Wagner in Otello. Likewise Wagner's influence permeates much of Puccini's work.


Interesting you say that. In a recent TV series and a book on the history of music, musicologist and composer Howard Goodall made the opposite point. He reckons that the influence of Wagner is greatly exaggerated and that most composers that came after tried to get away from his influence in what they wrote. He also made the point that Wagner's dream of revolutionising the theatre with a new art form was actually superseded by the invention of the cinema.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

aisia said:


> Why bother with opera at all? It's not merely for pleasure - we can get that any which way.


oh, it is for pleasure all right! the pleasure of the human voice stretched to some amazing limits. You (or, at leas, _*I*_) really can't get that from any other musical genre, let alone from something else altogether.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

aisia said:


> As to the deeper question of why we should bother with the whole value judgement game: I just think it's fundamental to the business of art and life. Why bother with opera at all? I*t's not merely for pleasure - we can get that any which way. We turn to opera, as we turn to art in general, to return ourselves by distinctive, irreplaceable paths to some of the fundamental sources of human value. If we cease to exercise our critical faculties, we'll find it increasingly hard to discern and follow those paths.* And even if we don't care for ourselves, someone has to keep the paths clearly marked for the benefit of future generations: no one in the modern world could hope to find all the best of what has been thought and said (or played) single-handed. If everyone shies away from the dirty business of discrimination, a time may come when Andrew Lloyd Webber is performed at Covent Garden, without anyone batting an eyelid.


Interesting thoughts! However, I turn to opera for pleasure purely. In my work I contront ideas of fundamental sources of human value every day in my profession. Opera is a pleasant diversion from such weighty matters for me. Which is not to say I disagree that art can and does do that.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

what does "irreplaceable paths to some of the fundamental sources of human value" actually mean?


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Yeah, what he said. I want to know too.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Interesting you say that. In a recent TV series and a book on the history of music, musicologist and composer Howard Goodall made the opposite point. He reckons that the influence of Wagner is greatly exaggerated and that most composers that came after tried to get away from his influence in what they wrote. He also made the point that Wagner's dream of revolutionising the theatre with a new art form was actually superseded by the invention of the cinema.


If most composers after Wagner were trying to "get away from his influence", then that is a strong testament to the enormity if his influence, methinks. Composers were thinking of their music relative to Wagner's, ie the "Anti-Wagnerism" of Satie and Debussy. I don't think "Veridian" and "Anti-Verdianism" were terms used all that often in the 19th/early 20th centuries.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> If most composers after Wagner were trying to "get away from his influence", then that is a strong testament to the enormity if his influence, methinks. Composers were thinking of their music relative to Wagner's, ie the "Anti-Wagnerism" of Satie and Debussy. I don't think "Veridian" and "Anti-Verdianism" were terms used all that often in the 19th/early 20th centuries.


But Goodall made that very point - Wagner's influence was to cause people to write different music. Was it because Wagner encouraged an almost messianic following (which he encouraged) that other composers reacted against it because they wanted their own voice? Or was it (as Goodall implies) that Wagner was actually the end of an era rather than the beginning of a new one? 
Or did the invention of cinema put pay to Wagner's attempts to create the total art form? Probably the answer is infinitely more complex.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I must confess to liking all of these composers equally when I'm in the mood. They are all great entertainers in the best sense of the word. Let's face it, the Verdi Requiem is the most purely entertaining piece of 'sacred' music (written by an unbeliever) ever composed. And how many hankies have been wrung out by that frozen tiny hand? And the Valkyries riding? Great stuff! 

No doubt Verdi and Puccini would take that as a compliment, but I see Richard bristling!


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

aisia said:


> Well, do you believe in any hierarchies in opera?


It depends on whether you're talking about historical importance or personal taste. In terms of historical importance, yes, I believe an approximate hierarchy could be constructed and Wagner would be pretty indisputably close to the top. In terms of personal taste, no, I rarely bother to order my tastes into top 10 lists and hierarchies as others are fond of doing on this forum. All I can say is that there some opera composers I enjoy more than others, and Verdi and Puccini are closer to the "more" end while Wagner is, relative to them, closer to the "less" end.



aisia said:


> If you do, what exactly is it about the Wagner-Verdi-Puccini hierarchy that you object to?


In and of itself, the hierarchy elicits no strong objection from me. No hierarchy does; I usually don't find statements of one's musical tastes affronting enough to warrant an objection. What I objected to was the way this particular hierarchy was based on notions of what "we" look for in opera.



aisia said:


> If not, do you think your own preferences could serve as any basis for advising others? How are they able to do so?


Anything is possible, I suppose. How they are able to do so, however, is something you'd have to ask the others I would hypothetically be advising.


----------



## Enformedepoire (Jul 29, 2013)

Couchie said:


> If it makes Puccini feel better, G&S are the run-down sidewalk upon which Puccini's puddle magnificently resides, in addition to various dog excrement and spit.


My favorite comment in this thread so far, simply because it is hilarious.

But getting down to business:

Let me first clarify the main point I was trying to make, which I did not state strongly enough in my first post: all value judgements between Wagner, Verdi and Puccini aside, the thing I take exception to is the wavering view of Verdi. In one article you will find Verdi described as a tune-smith and a populist, while in another he is deep, complex, even political and literary, while Puccini is the tune-smith and the populist. The very skills Verdi was divested of in his comparison with Wagner are now magically attributed to him when compared with Puccini. Which are we to believe? Is Verdi like the Scarecrow who, not having a brain in the company of Wagner, takes a trip down the Yellow Brick Road to visit Puccini, in whose presence he acquires the brain he had not before? He is literally said to possess skills when compared with Puccini that he is said not to possess when compared to Wagner. I suppose the situation would be more damning if the same scholar wrote two such articles, but I'm not sure one person has perpetrated both views: I still find this critical "blind spot" with regard to Verdi to be a bit disturbing, a small canker on the field of music criticism.



aisia said:


> Certainly all three were blessed with different talents, but Wagner used his to produce transcendent works of art and Puccini, pap. To say otherwise without the support of a careful argument is just evasive.


Well, if you were to pull my leg (and I consider my leg to be firmly pulled), I would say without a flinch that yes, Wagner is without a doubt greater than the other two, in fact greater than most other composers: not only was his impact one of the biggest craters left in musical tradition, but he is one of the few composers apart from, say, Beethoven and John Cage to have had a significant impact on the other arts. But that's a whole other can of worms - new thread: musicians who have had a significant impact on the other arts. Hmmm...

However, I personally find the issue of who is greater between Verdi and Puccini to be no sure matter. You want a careful argument? I appreciate your challenge! Looking at Puccini, let's first tackle the obvious: so you don't like all the gushing melodies with the incessant octave doubling, homophonically chordal accompaniment and diatonic/modal melodic material. Fair enough, but I feel that elements such as those are really just a matter of opinion - I've heard people decry Wagner's overblown vocal caterwauling, bombastic rhetoric and orchestration, motivic redundancy and insufferably boring lengths. Sounds pretty bad when described that way, doesn't it? But you and I both love Wagner, because it's our opinion.

Instead, let's look at some things which can (at least a little) more easily be used as yard sticks by which to measure quality: technical skill, musical and dramatic. Wagner clearly has this covered, I'm just comparing Verdi and Puccini. So by the time Verdi was in his mid-fifties (Don Carlo), he really had all his skills under his belt. Before then, something like Rigoletto could just as well bear quite similar descriptors as applied above to Puccini: gushing melodies, simple accompaniment, formulaically diatonic harmony. But by 38 (La Boheme), and only his fourth opera in, Puccini had completely mastered his technique, and would only continue to make it richer and more varied. Taking a look at a Puccini score, there are some things which may be surprising, things that most recordings and performances (unfortunately) tend to hide: from Debussian parallel fifths in Tosca to an entire scene built on the whole-tone mode in Act III of La Fanciulla del West, to harsh polytonality, richly layered orchestration and dense cluster chords in Turandot. Cluster chords?! Yes, they are buried in the trombones and tuba during much of the processional music, emphasized by a large Chinese gong. Only the recording by Zubin Mehta seems to bring out these novelties at all from what I've heard, but they are there in the score for all the world to see (and continue to ignore). Puccini may not have been anywhere near the innovators of his day (Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Cowell), but he kept his music freshly modern while managing to subsume each new complexity seamlessly into his own style - it's all still Puccini (to the point where conductors seem afraid to ruin the "Puccini" by bringing out the "oddities" he wrote). Verdi, on the other hand, also renewed his style, adding complexity and depth, but did he ever assimilate any real innovations into his style? Even Otello and Falstaff make use of nothing more progressive than an augmented chord or an 11th chord, both old hat by 1887, at his most advanced in structure and dramaturgy he is generally held to have merely caught up to what Wagner had been doing since the 1850s. I even feel that Puccini's grasp of dramatic form was a little greater than Verdi's - while Verdi struggled to bend the rules of formula in his early operas and began to try a more Gounod, and then Wagner-influenced continuity, Puccini had an innate grasp of theatrical pacing and effect. Puccini is one of the few composers whose work differs vastly for me between listening to a CD and seeing it on stage. I prefer any opera live, but with Puccini the effect of the staging plus the music is so well calculated that the experience is markedly different. With late Verdi there is always a sense of powerful drama, but with Puccini there is a certain magic he works which can only happen on the stage, and which requires a sense of theatricality inherent in the music.

Don't get me wrong, I adore the best of Verdi, but I hope that with all this gum-flapping (or finger bending) I have at least cast some doubt on whether we can so easily cast Puccini aside as less great than Verdi. I feel that their quality is too close to warrant a judgement between them: in my book, it's Wagner, then Verdi+Puccini together.



aisia said:


> If everyone shies away from the dirty business of discrimination, a time may come when Andrew Lloyd Webber is performed at Covent Garden, without anyone batting an eyelid.


And here we get back to my primary point: I completely agree with the spirit of what you are saying here. There must certainly be guardians of public taste, or great art would be confined to the gutter while vapid material played in the concert halls. There will always be light, popular, arguably vapid art for people to enjoy, there's no reason to stamp it out - we must simply ensure a prominent place for great art. However, we are talking here about Wagner, Verdi and Puccini, all three great composers. This is what I meant when I said, in my previous post, "Wagner and Spohr? Yes, but Wagner and Verdi? Unnecessary." Now that I've said Wagner is indeed greater than Verdi, I should find a better example; however, to preemptively avoid being called inconsistent, I will point out once again that Wagner is exceptional among composers. I would even venture to call him greater than Mozart or Bethoven, simply because of his supreme impact on art in general. So let's raise him above music and look at the composers we have: to say that "Verdi is greater than Mercadante" or "Verdi is greater than Flotow," fine, but to say "Verdi is greater than Puccini," I feel that the value judgement is unnecessary. They are both great composers - we are hardly talking about musicians like Andrew Lloyd-Webber or Cindy Lauper. Does the public really need to be protected from Puccini? I simply feel that both Verdi and Puccini, with their operas, along with those of Mozart and Wagner, forming the backbone of the operatic repertoire, need not be distinguished in terms of quality. Now as for Gilbert and Sullivan... don't slip in the mud!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> But Goodall made that very point - Wagner's influence was to cause people to write different music. Was it because Wagner encouraged an almost messianic following (which he encouraged) that other composers reacted against it because they wanted their own voice? Or was it (as Goodall implies) that Wagner was actually the end of an era rather than the beginning of a new one?
> Or did the invention of cinema put pay to Wagner's attempts to create the total art form? Probably the answer is infinitely more complex.


1. Wagner spawned an obvious and direct inheritance of major composers: Strauss, Mahler, and Bruckner.

2. Most trace the line to Schoenberg's atonal innovations directly from Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde_.

3. Though the impressionists may have liked to believe they had their own reactionary voice, Debussy et al.'s aesthetic mantra is founded in the 2nd act of _Parsifal_.

4. Max Steiner (ie. the "father of film music") directly attributed his influence to Wagner, and as apparent in films like _Star Wars _and_ Lord of the Rings_, Wagner has written much of the film music of the last 100 years.

What more does Goodall expect? I suspect he is just being a contrarian.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> I don't mind admitting that I don't turn to opera for that reason. I don't listen to opera in order to find paths to fundamental human values (least of all Wagner's values, nor Puccini's for that matter). I can't prove it but I would wager that the Wagner camp is more likely to use the royal "we" when it comes to making statements about music (the "we" is, after all, a staple of musical philosophizing, and few composers philosophized about music more than Wagner), and the inability to identify with that "we" probably explains why I don't adhere to the Wagner-Verdi-Puccini hierarchy. Couchie is quite right that there's no disputing the greater influence Wagner had on most composers, but from a purely listening standpoint the extent of a composer's historical influence factors in very little into my musical tastes.


Yes agreed! Opera is not the way to find paths to great fundamental human values. Certainly I would not wish to adopt Wagner's or Puccini's values in my own life. So why do we feel the need to philosophise about them and make them more than they are? Opera is great entertainment; it can at best move our emotions and stir our soul. But the path to enlightenment? I think not!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

*Opera is great entertainment; it can at best move our emotions and stir our soul. 
But the path to enlightenment? I think not!*



DavidA said:


> Who is the grail?


That cannot be said;
but if you yourself are called to its service
that knowledge will not remain withheld. -
And see!
I think I know you aright;
no earthly path leads to it,
and none could tread it
whom the Grail itself had not guided.



DavidA said:


> I scarcely tread,
> yet seem already to have come far.


You see, my son,
time here turns to space!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> *Opera is great entertainment; it can at best move our emotions and stir our soul.
> But the path to enlightenment? I think not!*
> 
> That cannot be said;
> ...


There's also sad people who look for the number plate of James Bond's car!


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Yes agreed! Opera is not the way to find paths to great fundamental human values. Certainly I would not wish to adopt Wagner's or Puccini's values in my own life. So why do we feel the need to philosophise about them and make them more than they are? Opera is great entertainment; it can at best move our emotions and stir our soul. But the path to enlightenment? I think not!


Interesting comment. What are the paths to enlightenment... opera has certain of those avenues. The final choral moments in Nozze (after the Count and Countess reconcile) are transcendent, numinous. Whether they lead to enlightenment, I can't say. Perhaps they simply open a door that you will later explore in another way.

For example, drawing on my physics background, I began to read rather extensively into quantum theory and cosmology, just for a bit of mental recreation and study. This in turn led me to examine aspects of "scientifically-based" religion and personal study into books by theologian-scientists such as the famed Jesuit (what else?) scholar and theoretical physicist Robert Spitzer. Which led me to reassure and deepen my faith.

Now, whether "enlightenment" is religious, spiritual, or totally humanist, it can be triggered by many sources (opera here for example), those not necessarily numinous in themselves, but so powerful that they open doors in the mind that may lead to discoveries in other venues that then in turn provide enlightenment. In another part of the music forum I wrote of the immense power and energy felt when listening to Wanda Landowska, on harpsichord, playing the immortal Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue (BWV 903), You can find this on YouTube and you'll see what I mean -- the power of that music moves the mind (or spirit or soul, as you wish) to levels not normally experienced in our daily lives.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

deggial said:


> what does "irreplaceable paths to some of the fundamental sources of human value" actually mean?


Excellent question.

Here are some sources of human value:

1. Play. The sheer joy of suspending our commitments to the everyday world and revelling in a new one to no practical end is a source of value.

2. Beauty. The satisfaction we derive from apprehending order in things, from forms and patterns that are balanced and harmonious, is a source of value.

3. Understanding. Seeing the conflicts of our lives and the world around us in a new light, asking new questions and considering new possibilities, is a source of value.

Opera connects us directly to these sources of value. Indirectly, it also connects us to many other sources of value by representing them to us: romantic love, for instance.

That's why I say that a good opera offers a path to sources of human value. What I mean when I call those paths distinctive and irreplaceable is as follows. Great art allows us to connect with these sources of value in complex and satisfying ways. Different sources of value are explored to different degrees and in different ways in different works of art, which makes the rewards of each work unique. There are important things we can get out of a Keats sonnet that we can't get out of a Milton sonnet, and vice versa. But with a competent pop song or sitcom, you can replace one example with another without losing anything of importance. They're interchangeable entertainments. Which is not to say that the experience of one sitcom is just like the experience of another; it's just that, unless they're truly great sitcoms, the differences haven't much to do with the fundamental sources of value as I characterised them above.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

katdad said:


> Interesting comment. What are the paths to enlightenment... opera has certain of those avenues. The final choral moments in Nozze (after the Count and Countess reconcile) are transcendent, numinous. Whether they lead to enlightenment, I can't say. Perhaps they simply open a door that you will later explore in another way.
> 
> For example, drawing on my physics background, I began to read rather extensively into quantum theory and cosmology, just for a bit of mental recreation and study. This in turn led me to examine aspects of "scientifically-based" religion and personal study into books by theologian-scientists such as the famed Jesuit (what else?) scholar and theoretical physicist Robert Spitzer. Which led me to reassure and deepen my faith.
> 
> Now, whether "enlightenment" is religious, spiritual, or totally humanist, it can be triggered by many sources (opera here for example), those not necessarily numinous in themselves, but so powerful that they open doors in the mind that may lead to discoveries in other venues that then in turn provide enlightenment. In another part of the music forum I wrote of the immense power and energy felt when listening to Wanda Landowska, on harpsichord, playing the immortal Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue (BWV 903), You can find this on YouTube and you'll see what I mean -- the power of that music moves the mind (or spirit or soul, as you wish) to levels not normally experienced in our daily lives.


Broadly speaking, I would agree with this. . Sources of value are not 'values' in the sense of moral principles. Rather, they are whatever helps to make life worthwhile. You don't have to be directly enlightened by opera, in the sense of accepting correct moral instruction from composers. But great opera should make you reflect; as Katdad says, it should open a door behind which enlightenment may or may not lie. 
The idea that to philosophise about operas is to make them 'more than they really are' is ridiculous. Great opera really does philosophise. Don Giovanni is about being committed to one's own idea of the good, come what may; The Magic Flute is about the value of reason and the ideals of the Enlightnement; Fidelio is about freedom, justice, and the personal courage it takes to fight for them; Parsifal is about compassion, service, and community. If we consider them as mere entertainment, and so don't trouble ourselves to think about these issues, then we are turning our backs on significant aspects of those works. The alternative approach could hardly be further removed from making a note of Bond's number plate. Nothing hangs on what those numbers are. But, as Socrates once said to Thrasymachus, this is not a trivial question: how should one live?


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

You make a neat case for Puccini, and when I next listen to him I will strive to do so with new ears. But I will say this. When I listen to Verdi, there's almost always something going on which strikes me as being worth my while listening to. I don't usually feel that way about Puccini. As far as I can hear, he can do the gushing melodies well, but not much else. Perhaps I've just been inattentive. But on the other hand, just because he uses innovative techniques doesn't mean he uses them well. My other main objection to Puccini (or, more fairly, his operas) is the drama. Sure, I'll grant that he has a great knack for constructing a compelling spectacle. But his characters really are cardboard. Take Tosca. What actually happens to her through the course of the drama? What does she learn, and what do we learn about her? Nothing, as far as I can see. She merely suffers beautifully for our satisfaction, and then throws herself off the battlements. She tells us that she lives for art, and she makes a few overt displays of religiosity, but neither of these traits seems to feed significantly into the choices she makes (for example, she isn't at all phased by the fact that suicide is supposed to be a sin). Her whole interest is that she's pathetically situated. Compare Violetta. She starts out content to pursue an endless round of her own pleasures, but by the end she has come to believe in the importance of relinquishing her own pleasures for the good of others. She, unlike Tosca, undergoes an interesting development.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

Enformedepoire said:


> My favorite comment in this thread so far, simply because it is hilarious.
> 
> But getting down to business:
> 
> Let me first clarify the main point I was trying to make, which I did not state strongly enough in my first post: all value judgements between Wagner, Verdi and Puccini aside, the thing I take exception to is the wavering view of Verdi. In one article you will find Verdi described as a tune-smith and a populist, while in another he is deep, complex, even political and literary, while Puccini is the tune-smith and the populist. The very skills Verdi was divested of in his comparison with Wagner are now magically attributed to him when compared with Puccini. Which are we to believe? Is Verdi like the Scarecrow who, not having a brain in the company of Wagner, takes a trip down the Yellow Brick Road to visit Puccini, in whose presence he acquires the brain he had not before? He is literally said to possess skills when compared with Puccini that he is said not to possess when compared to Wagner. I suppose the situation would be more damning if the same scholar wrote two such articles, but I'm not sure one person has perpetrated both views: I still find this critical "blind spot" with regard to Verdi to be a bit disturbing, a small canker on the field of music criticism.


I don't find this quite so problematic. What's wrong with saying that, in comparison with Wagner, Verdi possesses faults which Puccini displays to an even greater degree; or that, in comparison with Puccini, he possesses merits which Wagner displays to an even greater degree. For example, one might dislike Verdi for being too tune-oriented in comparison with Wagner, but fault Puccini further for being still more tune-oriented. On the other hand, you might admire Verdi for being intellectually substantive when compared with Puccini, but prefer Wagner for being more intellectually substantive still. That's roughly how I consider the matter. 
As to the issue of making the discriminations, I think it's an all or nothing thing. Either we're in the business of discrimination, or we're not. If we're not, then we're in trouble for the reasons we agree on. If we are, than it's right and proper to go around saying things like 'well, Verdi and Puccini may be considered artists of approximately comparable quality for these reasons' or 'for these reasons, Puccini may be considered an excellent purveyor of melodramas, but for these reasons Verdi offers us much more'.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

aisia said:


> Excellent question.
> 
> Here are some sources of human value:
> 
> ...


aisia, thanks for the exceptional postings, very coherent and lucid.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

aisia said:


> Excellent question.
> 
> Here are some sources of human value:
> 
> ...


Huh. Thanks for the explanation. I couldn't disagree more completely - I think the only source of human value is in how we treat one another - but I didn't get it straight from God, so you may be right!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aisia said:


> Broadly speaking, I would agree with this. . Sources of value are not 'values' in the sense of moral principles. Rather, they are whatever helps to make life worthwhile. You don't have to be directly enlightened by opera, in the sense of accepting correct moral instruction from composers. But great opera should make you reflect; as Katdad says, it should open a door behind which enlightenment may or may not lie.
> The idea that to philosophise about operas is to make them 'more than they really are' is ridiculous. Great opera really does philosophise. Don Giovanni is about being committed to one's own idea of the good, come what may; The Magic Flute is about the value of reason and the ideals of the Enlightnement; Fidelio is about freedom, justice, and the personal courage it takes to fight for them; Parsifal is about compassion, service, and community. If we consider them as mere entertainment, and so don't trouble ourselves to think about these issues, then we are turning our backs on significant aspects of those works. The alternative approach could hardly be further removed from making a note of Bond's number plate. Nothing hangs on what those numbers are. But, as Socrates once said to Thrasymachus, this is not a trivial question: how should one live?


The problem is that the creators o these works did not set much store by the enlightenment you say their operas teach. Was Wagner's life an example of compassion, service and community. I don't think so! So your problem is philosophising on values that the composer himself didn't live by. So it means they were not very important to him. Any more than the number plate of James Bond's car!

Frankly to find great philosophical meaning in opera I think one must be fairly short of things to philosophise about!


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> The problem is that the creators o these works did not set much store by the enlightenment you say their operas teach. Was Wagner's life an example of compassion, service and community. I don't think so! So your problem is philosophising on values that the composer himself didn't live by. So it means they were not very important to him. Any more than the number plate of James Bond's car!
> 
> Frankly to find great philosophical meaning in opera I think one must be fairly short of things to philosophise about!


That's not a problem in the least. They clearly were important to him, otherwise he wouldn't have written a whole opera about them. The fact that one particular propounder of a principle hadn't the strength or discipline to live by it has no bearing on that principle's philosophical significance; to assume otherwise is to fall foul of a well known informal fallacy. Of course, if you could make a cogent case that _anyone_ would find a principle too difficult to live by, you might have good reason to think it suspect. But it's not obvious just how good a reason that is, and besides, once you've got that far you've already started reflecting on the principle philosophically. Great operas interrogate the issue of how one should live, and that, unlike the issue of James Bond's number plate, is no trivial question.

Frankly it had never occurred to me to defer to your opinion on what is or is not philosophically interesting. Perhaps I should make a point of consulting you more frequently on such matters in future. It should not prove so very burdensome, given how little I clearly have to philosophise about.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aisia said:


> That's not a problem in the least. They clearly were important to him, otherwise he wouldn't have written a whole opera about them. The fact that one particular propounder of a principle hadn't the strength or discipline to live by it has no bearing on that principle's philosophical significance; to assume otherwise is to fall foul of a well known informal fallacy. Of course, if you could make a cogent case that _anyone_ would find a principle too difficult to live by, you might have good reason to think it suspect. But it's not obvious just how good a reason that is, and besides, once you've got that far you've already started reflecting on the principle philosophically. Great operas interrogate the issue of how one should live, and that, unlike the issue of James Bond's number plate, is no trivial question.
> 
> Frankly it had never occurred to me to defer to your opinion on what is or is not philosophically interesting. Perhaps I should make a point of consulting you more frequently on such matters in future. It should not prove so very burdensome, given how little I clearly have to philosophise about.


I think philosophising about opera is usually pretty superficial because opera by its nature does not allow for great philosophical statements although Wagner, quite wrongly, thought his were. In opera of genius the characters and their emotions are displayed by the music. Mozart was obviously the master of this. We see this in all the mature operas although the plots are sometimes lacking. In (eg) Cosi we see this at an advanced stage. No other composer matched him in this although aversion came close at times.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I think philosophising about opera is usually pretty superficial because opera by its nature does not allow for great philosophical statements


A rather sweeping claim. Care to defend it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aisia said:


> A rather sweeping claim. Care to defend it?


Sure! By its nature opera is an entertainment. You also don't get that many words as the whole point of it is to listen to music. So any philosophical bits built into it must be by nature quite superficial. What opera at its best to show us is the exposition of situation and character in the libretto by the music. We can certainly be moved by opera and the situations it presents especially under the influence of some great music. As to making major philosophical points about the meaning of life, then it just doesn't do it.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Sure! By its nature opera is an entertainment. You also don't get that many words as the whole point of it is to listen to music. So any philosophical bits built into it must be by nature quite superficial.


What is the minimum required number of words for a "real" philosophical insight and how do you know when it's "real" and not "superficial"?

The idea that the whole point of opera is to "listen to music" is demonstrably false. It is quite plainly more than music. If true, nobody would bother with sets, acting, a libretto, or any coherent dramatic narrative whatsoever for that matter. We would not expect any critical analyses of librettos - and yet they exist.

You seem to know a lot of the intrinsic "nature" of opera. How did you come by this knowledge?



DavidA said:


> What opera at its best to show us is the exposition of situation and character in the libretto by the music. We can certainly be moved by opera and the situations it presents especially under the influence of some great music. As to making major philosophical points about the meaning of life, then it just doesn't do it.


Whether _you _deem major philosophical points have or haven't been made in the operas to date is rather irrelevant to your previous remark that opera in its nature is _incapable _of philosophical insight.

In that case, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche certainly wasted time writing about Mozart and Wagner's operas.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> What is the minimum required number of words for a "real" philosophical insight and how do you know when it's "real" and not "superficial"?
> 
> The idea that the whole point of opera is to "listen to music" is demonstrably false. It is quite plainly more than music. If true, nobody would bother with sets, acting, a libretto, or any coherent dramatic narrative whatsoever for that matter. We would not expect any critical analyses of librettos - and yet they exist.
> 
> ...


I said by its nature opera is incapable of deep philosophical insight. Let's face it when you read what Kierkegaard says about Don Giovanni then he is reading something into it was purely the composer didn't intend to put there. Da Ponte did not write the libretto as a philosophical work and he presented it to Mozart as it was the only material he had available at the time. Mozart appears to have written it quickly - legend has it he even forgot the overture! The fact that the sheer genius of Mozart produced one of the greatest operas ever written, that he woos us with his music and convinces us that these characters and impossible situations are somehow real while we are listening under his spell, should not distract us from the fact it was written to please audiences and make money. It was not written as a great philosophical work.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> I said by its nature opera is incapable of deep philosophical insight. Let's face it when you read what Kierkegaard says about Don Giovanni then he is reading something into it was purely the composer didn't intend to put there. Da Ponte did not write the libretto as a philosophical work and he presented it to Mozart as it was the only material he had available at the time. Mozart appears to have written it quickly - legend has it he even forgot the overture! The fact that the sheer genius of Mozart produced one of the greatest operas ever written, that he woos us with his music and convinces us that these characters and impossible situations are somehow real while we are listening under his spell, should not distract us from the fact it was written to please audiences and make money. It was not written as a great philosophical work.


The quality of a work must be assessed based on the work itself, not the intentions behind the work. _Intending _to write a great philosophical work does not mean that the work produced will be anything other than great philosophical work. _Not intending_ to write a great philosophical work doesn't mean the work produced is somehow prevented by nature from the possibility of having great philosophical qualities.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> The quality of a work must be assessed based on the work itself, not the intentions behind the work. _Intending _to write a great philosophical work does not mean that the work produced will be anything other than great philosophical work. _Not intending_ to write a great philosophical work doesn't mean the work produced is somehow prevented by nature from the possibility of having great philosophical qualities.


I think you are clutching at straws here. It is great music, great drama - but great philosophy - no! Except as a warning to womanisers!


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I think you are clutching at straws here. It is great music, great drama - but great philosophy - no! Except as a warning to womanisers!


I think you might be the one who is clutching at straws here, defending a completely general claim about the nature of opera by committing the intentional fallacy with respect to just one opera in particular. Even if we granted you Don Giovanni, which we shouldn't, you yourself admitted that Wagner intended his work to carry philosophical import. What's your defence here? Just that the nature of opera, which nature of course you have intuited while we and Richard Wagner have not, prevents it.

Let's examine your argument more closely.

1. _Opera is entertainment. _ Care to explain a) what entertainment is b) why opera's being entertainment precludes it from being philosophical and c) why we should accept that opera really is entertainment, rather than something very like entertainment but more congenial to philosophy?

2. _You don't get many words. _ How many are many? How many are needed? Descartes only needed a paragraph to set out his principal argument for mind/body dualism. Wittgenstein's Tractatus is famously terse, and F. P. Ramsey managed to deliver what is generally agreed to be a non-superficial critique of the whole thing in just 14 words.

Moreover, it's well known that Wagner agreed with you to some extent. He believed that the traditional forms of opera restricted the verbal expression of complex turns of thought. Which is why he changed the nature of his own work the better to suit his partly philosophical purposes.

And so you are left to bluster 'great philosophy - no!'. Why on earth should I take your word for it? What special competence have you to judge?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aisia said:


> I think you might be the one who is clutching at straws here, defending a completely general claim about the nature of opera by committing the intentional fallacy with respect to just one opera in particular. Even if we granted you Don Giovanni, which we shouldn't, you yourself admitted that Wagner intended his work to carry philosophical import. What's your defence here? Just that the nature of opera, which nature of course you have intuited while we and Richard Wagner have not, prevents it.
> 
> Let's examine your argument more closely.
> 
> ...


I am not blustering but I rather think you are! In any case, what competence do you yourself have?

Wagner indeed thought of his works as philosophical. The problem is he didn't believe his own philosophy, to judge by his lifestyle.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I am not blustering but I rather think you are! In any case, what competence do you yourself have?
> 
> Wagner indeed thought of his works as philosophical. The problem is he didn't believe his own philosophy, to judge by his lifestyle.


Listen. Assertions buttressed by exclamations marks? That's bluster. Identification and criticism of your main assumptions? That's argument.

The very fact that I understand this basic distinction while you do not is sufficient evidence that my philosophical competence greatly exceeds yours.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aisia said:


> Listen. Assertions buttressed by exclamations marks? That's bluster. Identification and criticism of your main assumptions? That's argument.
> 
> The very fact that I understand this basic distinction while you do not is sufficient evidence that my philosophical competence greatly exceeds yours.


If you rely on Wagner as a philosophical guide, then what does that say?


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> If you rely on Wagner as a philosophical guide, then what does that say?


I don't rely on Wagner as a philosophical guide. And what exactly is the mere fact of your scorn supposed to say about whether Wagner is a reliable philosophical guide or not?
Meanwhile, do you have anything substantive to say in defence of your thesis that opera is by its nature incapable of deep philosophical thought?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aisia said:


> I don't rely on Wagner as a philosophical guide. And what exactly is the mere fact of your scorn supposed to say about whether Wagner is a reliable philosophical guide or not?
> Meanwhile, do you have anything substantive to say in defence of your thesis that opera is by its nature incapable of deep philosophical thought?


And you have said absolutely nothing to convince me that opera is by its nature capable of deep philosophical thought. It simply isn't so please discontinue this debate.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> And you have said absolutely nothing to convince me that opera is by its nature capable of deep philosophical thought. It simply isn't so please discontinue this debate.


Well I'd have thought the onus was on you to show that all opera is incapable of philosophical thought by its very nature, but I can articulate the obvious if you insist.

Words are (I imagine you'll agree) capable of expressing philosophical thought. I can take some words which express a philosophical thought, insert them into a libretto, and set the whole to music. That way, I'd have an opera expressing a philosophical thought. Let's say I wrote an opera on the early years of Wittgenstein. In one scene, Wittgenstein could sing a few passages from the Tractatus, closing with proposition 7. At this point the accompaniment could fade out, leaving only a whistle behind, and then silence. Frank Ramsey responds 'But what we can't say, we can't say, and we can't whistle it either'. Behold, an opera expresses philosophical thought!

And just for future reference: 'here's my opinion, I don't need to do any work defending my opinion, my opinion is definitely correct, I'm ending this discussion now' is not a particularly effective (or personally endearing) dialectical strategy.


----------



## REP (Dec 8, 2011)

I enjoyed this thread a great deal, particularly aisia's insightful posts. I had a great interest in philosophy and logic as a teenager but unfortunately never followed up on it. This discussion reminds me of what I missed out out on.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

REP said:


> I enjoyed this thread a great deal, particularly aisia's insightful posts. I had a great interest in philosophy and logic as a teenager but unfortunately never followed up on it. This discussion reminds me of what I missed out out on.


Alas, it seems you aren't the only one to have missed out! If you're looking for a good place to pick up again, might I recommend Nagel's _Mortal Questions_, or Blackburn's _Think_. Blackburn followed _Think_ up with _Truth_ and _Being Good_ - _Truth_ being a particularly helpful resource for occasions such as these. Anyway, thanks for the kind words, and also thanks to Katdad, who was similarly complimentary a while back.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

For all of the endless descriptions of the amazing and profound philosophical truths to be found in Wagner's works, nobody ever seems to ask whether the truths to be found there are good or bad. Sure, _Tristan und Isolde_ is quite obviously (and not very subtly, despite what critics keep saying) about desire. We all know the drill: the Tristan Chord represents unfulfilled desire, and it isn't until the two of them are united in death that their desire is satiated and the chord is resolved.

What is the moral here? If I desire a ham sandwich with all my heart and soul, I should stab it with a kitchen knife, then commit suicide with that dread blade to be united with it in my incorporeal stomach. I hate to say this this bluntly, but I think that the moral of this opera is a bunch of adolescent drivel that is blown out of proportion by art critics jumping on the elite bandwagon. I do not mean to disparage Wagner's music: the Liebestod is agonizingly beautiful and glorious. But the "philosophical" point that Wagner is making? It's useless in my mind. He's telling us to give up on the world and life, and to be ruled by desire alone. In his own life Wagner wanted the the woman that would die the Love Death for him. What about somebody that will live for you? The message is against individual freedom (if we are controlled by our desires alone, so much so that we give up our lives, then how can we possibly be free?), and glorifies the night over the day. But we need both halves.

Wagner was a man with incalculable musical genius who thought that it applied to everything else too. It did not. Only his _Parsifal_ (which is an erroneous spelling) has some redeeming insight into the human condition. And I say this because I agree with aisia that opera can, like any work of art, be truly transformational. But we obviously disagree on what we should be transformed into. While I agree with you that _Tosca_ features very little real character development, I think that the opera is meant to be a drama of opposing nature (Tosca's Dionysian nature vs. Scarpia's Apollonian nature) rather than one of developing nature. But if you prefer the latter, try _La fanciulla del west_. The philosophical themes of redemption, true love vs. desire, personal freedom and maturity, and forgiveness as opposed to revenge are explored expertly and with great detail, while the opera simultaneously provides every bit as much drama and vocal excitement as _Tosca_. And the moral here is quite beautiful: Minnie grows into a powerful individual, and then uses her new found power to redeem the miners of their desire for revenge against Johnson. Or try _Il tabarro_, where Puccini examines poverty and depression, and how it changes a peaceful man into a murderer. Or try _Turandot_, the most philosophical of all the Puccini operas, where a mythic conflict is overcome by love, and balance is restored to our human consciousness (if only Puccini had lived).

I won't try to say that Puccini had a bigger influence on music than Wagner, as that would be ridiculous. But is a composer measured just by how big of an influence they were? I don't agree with that. There are a number of books about Puccini that illustrate his musical skill, which is largely hidden in his works. He uses dissonance to create a rich sound, not a dissonant one. What's wrong with that? It's a stylistic choice, but one that he was lambasted for because of his era and his nationality. And he was attacked by Italians for being effeminate. But I find both charges ridiculous (and the latter offensive). Puccini illuminated the world of the human heart more effectively than any composer I know of, a pursuit which I think is equally as valuable as illuminating the mind. We are head, hear, and hand after all... (For works on Puccini as a modern composer, I suggest Recondite Harmony: The Operas of Puccini by Deborah Burton, which is available online for free as a pdf through Boston University.)


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

There are times when I feel slightly out of place here because I, unlike many of you, didn't "come to" opera via a classical-music background; I came to it via a love for theatre and musical theatre (i.e. Broadway musical theatre) in particular.

Many people here, who are more musically educated than I am (I get the sense David A. is a good example), seem to view opera primarily as a musical form, with the music primary and the plot secondary if not inconsequential. I, on the other hand, have always seen opera as _music drama_, with the two elements equal in importance. (Just to clarify: For me an opera plot doesn't have to resemble "real life"; it just has to be an entertaining story with inherent conflict and emotion.) David A. writes of forgetting the plot and losing oneself in the beauty of the music.* But I don't think "Cortigiani" from _Rigoletto_ would sustain my interest for very long -- even as a musical composition -- if I didn't know what the words meant or how it functions in the drama. I especially find the part about "You're all against me" in the middle-section ("tutti contro a me") very affecting, _and not simply because of how those words are set to music, but because of Rigoletto's situation_: because he's made himself so unpopular with his mockeries of others, etc, he's trapped -- he has no one to help him when he most needs help. What the music, with its "broken" quality, tells me is that by this point Rigoletto is exhausted, feels hopeless, and is weeping or close to weeping.

Verdi, Wagner, Puccini... I'm going to leave out Wagner simply because I lack familiarity with him. I'd say I prefer Verdi to Puccini, because I find the conflicts in Verdi's operas (usually, between personal desires and societal expectations), and especially the father-daughter relationships, extremely moving. And I don't think it's _just the music_ that makes them moving; I think they'd also be moving in another context -- for example, in a novel (provided the novel was well-written). What the music does (for me) is add dimensions to the conflicts/relationships that might be hard to verbalize in a written synopsis or analysis.

On a purely musical level, I've always been attracted to rhythm, and I think this is part of the reason I love Verdi's music so much. I like his cabalettas, which are almost aggressively rhythmic, and even the lyrical passages have an underlying tautness that I like. That's not to say I dislike Puccini. I do notice that his stories are more "personal" and less "monumental" than Verdi's. For instance, _La Boheme_ is simply the story of what happens to a group of friends; I don't sense many "larger implications" in it. But they're good stories, and the music is beautiful, though maybe I don't "relate to it" quite as naturally as I do to Verdi's music.

**Edited to add:* I've done some rereading and think I might have misrepresented David A's view. Apparently, it's not that he thinks one can just forget about the plot while watching an opera, but that one shouldn't try to find "meaning" in opera plots or take one's values from them. I wouldn't say I take my values from opera, so maybe I'm partly in agreement with David in that I view opera primarily as entertainment. But it seems I'm more interested in the plots than David A is, or consider them to be more important or intriguing than he does.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> For all of the endless descriptions of the amazing and profound philosophical truths to be found in Wagner's works, nobody ever seems to ask whether the truths to be found there are good or bad. Sure, Tristan und Isolde is quite obviously (and not very subtly, despite what critics keep saying) about desire. We all know the drill: the Tristan Chord represents unfulfilled desire, and it isn't until the two of them are united in death that their desire is satiated and the chord is resolved.
> 
> What is the moral here? If I desire a ham sandwich with all my heart and soul, I should stab it with a kitchen knife, then commit suicide with that dread blade to be united with it in my incorporeal stomach. I hate to say this this bluntly, but I think that the moral of this opera is a bunch of adolescent drivel that is blown out of proportion by art critics jumping on the elite bandwagon. I do not mean to disparage Wagner's music: the Liebestod is agonizingly beautiful and glorious. But the "philosophical" point that Wagner is making? It's useless in my mind. He's telling us to give up on the world and life, and to be ruled by desire alone. In his own life Wagner wanted the the woman that would die the Love Death for him. What about somebody that will live for you? The message is against individual freedom (if we are controlled by our desires alone, so much so that we give up our lives, then how can we possibly be free?), and glorifies the night over the day. But we need both halves.
> 
> ...


Another nice argument in favour of Puccini, thanks for this. I'm rather dubious of your interpretation of Tosca, but I mean to see the Met Turandot at the cinema in a few days, so I will try going into it with a more charitable attitude. As for Wagner, well first of all I take it that you do think opera is capable of expressing philosophical ideas, which is a good start. I've already made this point, but it is worth reiterating given the sorts of things you and Bellinilover have said: I don't believe we should go to opera (or art in general, or philosophy for that matter) for instruction. The point for me is not to imbibe doctrines or values, but to encounter ideas - to see problems raised, thoughts fleshed out, and then to reflect on them afterwards. So if I decided that the particular views an opera was propounding were false or not useful, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against that opera. But I suppose the views would have to be interesting, and reflecting on them would have in some sense to be worthwhile. As it sounds like you would deny that this is the case for Tristan and Isolde, I will try to explain why I think it is worth reflecting on.

What is the philosophy of Tristan and Isolde? Well, as you say, it concerns desire. But Wagner is not telling us 'to be ruled by desire alone' - according to the philosophy of the opera, any such advice would be redundant. We are all of us already ruled by desire. Tristan says of the Act III shepherd's song that it is an ancient tune: he heard it before he ever met Isolde, and his parents had heard it before that. Through all that, time, however, the song's meaning had remained constant: that the listener's lot is to yearn. Even when we abstract away the particular circumstances of Tristan and his desire for Isolde, in other words, the human condition is fundamentally one of yearning. It is also a condition of delusion. We are deceived into believing that we are separate, individual selves, able to pursue our own separate sets of interests, and so eventually satisfy ourselves. Thus Tristan had believed that he could satisfy his desire for worldly honour by claiming Isolde as a bride for Marke, without considering whether she wanted the union or not. But he is deceived: the actions that harm Isolde also harm himself, firstly in the obvious sense that he desires Isolde for himself, and so it is against his interest to hand her over to Marke, but more fundamentally because his love for Isolde means that her interests are also his interests, and she does not want to marry Marke. So why the un-Schopenhauerian glorification of erotic love, apparently the most agonising and deceptive of desires? Well, according to Wagner it actually enables us to break free of our most fundamental delusions. The lovers completely identify with one another ('I Tristan, no longer Isolde' etc), correctly intuiting that, despite appearances, they are not separate selves with separate interests. Finally, Tristan is able to come to the realisation mentioned above, that all life is yearning. The terrible yearning of love then leads both to escape the cycle of yearning by the only foolproof method: dying.

Now I don't believe this philosophy, and I would certainly prefer that other people didn't believe it either. But it's much more sophisticated than you had suggested. Furthermore, reflecting on it is worthwhile. Our encounter with these ideas leads us to ask important questions. Am I living under any delusions? Am I spending my time struggling to meet desires that can never be satisfied? Am I trying to pursue my own self-interest in ways that actually harm myself or others? Given that, as I believe, suicide is not the only appropriate response to the human condition, why is it not - what, in other words, are the sources of value in human life? These are all questions worth asking, and it is greatly to the credit of Tristan and Isolde that it prompts us to confront them.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

aisia said:


> Another nice argument in favour of Puccini, thanks for this. I'm rather dubious of your interpretation of Tosca, but I mean to see the Met Turandot at the cinema in a few days, so I will try going into it with a more charitable attitude. As for Wagner, well first of all I take it that you do think opera is capable of expressing philosophical ideas, which is a good start. I've already made this point, but it is worth reiterating given the sorts of things you and Bellinilover have said: I don't believe we should go to opera (or art in general, or philosophy for that matter) for instruction. The point for me is not to imbibe doctrines or values, but to encounter ideas - to see problems raised, thoughts fleshed out, and then to reflect on them afterwards. So if I decided that the particular views an opera was propounding were false or not useful, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against that opera. But I suppose the views would have to be interesting, and reflecting on them would have in some sense to be worthwhile. As it sounds like you would deny that this is the case for Tristan and Isolde, I will try to explain why I think it is worth reflecting on.
> 
> What is the philosophy of Tristan and Isolde? Well, as you say, it concerns desire. But Wagner is not telling us 'to live by desire alone' - according to the philosophy of the opera, any such advice would be redundant. We are all of us already ruled by desire. Tristan says of the Act III shepherd's song that it is an ancient tune: he heard it before he ever met Isolde, and his parents had heard it before that. Through all that, time, however, the song's meaning had remained constant: that the listener's lot is to yearn. Even when we abstract away the particular circumstances of Tristan and his desire for Isolde, in other words, the human condition is fundamentally one of yearning. It is also a condition of delusion. We are deceived into believing that we are separate, individual selves, able to pursue our own separate sets of interests, and so eventually satisfy ourselves. Thus Tristan had believed that he could satisfy his desire for worldly honour by claiming Isolde as a bride for Marke, without considering whether she wanted the union or not. But he is deceived: the actions that harm Isolde also harm himself, firstly in the obvious sense that he desires Isolde for himself, and so it is against his interest to hand her over to Marke, but more fundamentally because his love for Isolde means that her interests are also his interests, and she does not want to marry Marke. So why the un-Schopenhauerian glorification of erotic love, apparently the most agonising and deceptive of desires? Well, according to Wagner it actually enables us to break free of our most fundamental delusions. The lovers completely identify with one another ('I Tristan, no longer Isolde' etc), correctly intuiting that, despite appearances, they are not separate selves with separate interests. Finally, Tristan is able to come to the realisation mentioned above, that all life is yearning. The terrible yearning of love then leads both to escape the cycle of yearning by the only foolproof method: dying.
> 
> Now I don't believe this philosophy, and I would certainly prefer that other people didn't believe it either. But it's much more sophisticated than you had suggested. Furthermore, reflecting on it is worthwhile. Our encounter with these ideas leads us to ask important questions. Am I living under any delusions? Am I spending my time struggling to meet desires that can never be satisfied? Am I trying to pursue my own self-interest in ways that actually harm myself or others? Given that, as I believe, suicide is not the only appropriate response to the human condition, why is it not - what, in other words, are the sources of value in human life? These are all questions worth asking, and it is greatly to the credit of Tristan and Isolde that it prompts us to confront them.


Thanks for your response! I'm not an expert on Wagner (as much as I appreciate his music, I just don't enjoy it as much as that of others, including Verdi and Puccini), but it seems to me that he was a man who was comfortable with making polemical statements. He wrote various tracts, which I would hesitate to call philosophical, expounding his philosophy on a range of issues from vivisection (a point on which I agree with him) to vegetarianism (which he supported, even though he ate meat) to dieting (an all cheese diet to cure disorders of the bowel; ehh), and his infamous writings on Judaism. So on the one hand he is a musician, an artist, and on the other hand he is an opinionated layman and armchair philosopher (a pink, satin armchair). I think he's a fascinating, albeit highly unsavory, character.

Now as to _Tristan_, I would say that I agree with you off the bat that my depiction of the philosophy of the opera is simplistic. It is somewhat intentionally so, because I think that there is somewhat less there than people generally attribute to the opera. But your point about reflecting on philosophies we don't agree with is well taken. If we do not engage with new ideas, even unpalatable ones, how can we trust what we do believe? I think that my frustration enters in less at this point and more at the point where Wagner is considered a great philosopher as well as musician, and people like Puccini are considered vapid.

Part of this frustration is that I find the ideas brought forth by Wagner's works to be, as I said before, rather adolescent. Adolescence is a time when we are all, rather literally, ruled by our hormones, the biological agents of desire. I think that many people would agree with a statement (myself not entirely included) such as, "Adolescents have no free will". Of course there are many ideas about what constitutes free will, but usually people mean freedom of choice. Teenagers that are not self aware often have (to them) quite logical explanations for their irrational behavior. As _Tristan_ says about humanity as a whole, one could say in a qualified way about those teenagers: they are under the delusion that they have a will of their own, when in fact they are totally ruled by desire (once again, this is generalization that isn't always true, but it reflects how a lot of people think about this time of life). But life doesn't end here. We grow up. And often we find that real life is far more painful than our dreamy (and angsty) adolescences. I suppose my point here is that not only do I object to the philosophy of _Tristan_, but I don't find it as profound as others do. It isn't terribly original either (not a damning sin, by any means, but from some things I've read by critics you'd think Wagner predated Schopenhauer and Buddhism, and inspired them both).

The most interesting philosophical aspect of the opera that you noted is for me the idea of us as a unified consciousness that does not recognize its own unity. This I think one could make a case for, and many Buddhists certainly do. A good description of this mode of thought is to be found in Schroedinger's _My View of the World_, a generally enjoyable read. I suppose my own position here would best expressed by the metaphor of an operatic concertato. It is a single whole in which each voice both constitutes a part that makes up the whole, and is made meaningful by its harmonic counterparts. It's the tension between the lines that makes it interesting, as it is the tension between the poles of individuality and community that make us whole. Not a perfect analogy, but it's what I came up with on the spot.

As I said earlier, my biggest frustration is that Wagner's works are not simply examined for their own benefit, but are often used to bash other composers as inferior. You, thankfully, haven't been guilty of this so far, but I've read many comparisons between Wagner and Puccini that describe the former as an innovator and the latter as an idiot. And with respect to Verdi, I think that this is what causes the 'wavering' of opinion with respect to him. Next to Wagner, they say he's a song peddler, but next to Puccini he's a master. I respect Verdi as a master composer. But I think that Puccini is actually a better orchestrator, and a better dramatist.

Now as regards _Tosca_, I think my interpretation is a stretch, yes, but not a huge one. Tosca is a woman of the theatre, a fiery, impetuous, emotional woman who has all the characteristics of a maenad once she has a knife in her hand. Scarpia is a figure order, who uses cunning and deceit to do the terrible thigns that he believes will preserve that order. But both ends of the dichotomy are attracted to each other as well as repulsed. As Zefferellii says, Tosca loves Scarpia, and we know that Scarpia "loves" Tosca. Also, consider Tosca's last line. Her lover is dead, and she commits suicide. But her last words aren't 'I'm comin' baby!', they're 'Scarpia, we meet before God!' She is clearly stating that the conflict between them isn't over, and will now be fought in the supersensible realm beyond death. It's a cosmic opposition of natures, and a classic one. Now, did Puccini intentionally write an opera about Apollo and Dionysus? No, of course not. But was he fully ignorant of the nature of the drama? Probably not. He was a far more well educated man than most people give him credit for. Of course what he was most interested in was making his characters suffer. I've often heard it said that Puccini's characters don't learn, they just suffer and die. I think that that's true of his early works. He was a very melancholy person, and I imagine that he had a similar outlook on life when he was young. He went through great hardship and penury in his early adulthood, and, like many people, he nearly gave up. But after the Manfredi Affair and other events in his life, he seems to have changed, both in his style and in his outlook. His later works (from _Fanciulla_ until the end) are all dynamic, and all feature real character development and profound thematic writing. I think the real problem (for critics) is that he never changed who he was writing about. As one reviewer said of _Fanciulla_, 'Such grand music for such ordinary people'. But the _entire point_ of Puccini's output is the democratization of human value. Education, art, and philosophy aren't just for the elite anymore. They are for everyone. that's why Puccini intentionally used new harmonic techniques in the manner he did: he wanted to be able to speak to everybody, not just the world of art intelligentsia.

I hope that you enjoy _Turandot_. I'm not convinced that the singers the Met currently has are up to the task. But they have a good orchestra. I would also point out that you shouldn't trust the house translations if you don't speak Italian; if you don't, get a recording and read through the libretto, which is very poetic. The fact that opera is usually read as a gender conflict is saddening to me. To me it is quite clearly about the conflict between night and day consciousness, and the ending was meant by Puccini to signify that these forces have been united rather one being victorious. Alfano had no idea what he was doing. Also, listen for those bracing bitonal chords at the beginning of the opera, and then listen to how they come back at the beginning of act three, softer, but far more menacing.

Good debating with you aisia! I can't wait for your response.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Good debating with you aisia! I can't wait for your response.


And wonderful reading both of your contributions:tiphat:.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> my biggest frustration is that Wagner's works are not simply examined for their own benefit, but are often used to bash other composers as inferior.


I concur and I've often felt that from Wagner fans (noit necessary in this thread - often in real life) - as if Wagner is some pinacle you reach after getting aclimatized via easier listening composers  you either like his stuff or you don't, as with any other composer. Doesn't mean one has never pondered philosophical concepts if one isn't wowed by Parsifal. It just means one isn't wowed by Parsifal.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

deggial said:


> Doesn't mean one has never pondered philosophical concepts if one isn't wowed by Parsifal. It just means one isn't wowed by Parsifal.


And with the exception of the Prelude, I'm not.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

Thank you, Sir Humphrey, I'm enjoying debating with you too, and I'm sorry for letting you wait so long for my response! And might I also add how I appreciate your directness and clarity of expression, much in contrast with your namesake. 

To business:


HumphreyAppleby said:


> Part of this frustration is that I find the ideas brought forth by Wagner's works to be, as I said before, rather adolescent. Adolescence is a time when we are all, rather literally, ruled by our hormones, the biological agents of desire. I think that many people would agree with a statement (myself not entirely included) such as, "Adolescents have no free will". Of course there are many ideas about what constitutes free will, but usually people mean freedom of choice. Teenagers that are not self aware often have (to them) quite logical explanations for their irrational behavior. As Tristan says about humanity as a whole, one could say in a qualified way about those teenagers: they are under the delusion that they have a will of their own, when in fact they are totally ruled by desire (once again, this is generalization that isn't always true, but it reflects how a lot of people think about this time of life). But life doesn't end here. We grow up. And often we find that real life is far more painful than our dreamy (and angsty) adolescences. I suppose my point here is that not only do I object to the philosophy of Tristan, but I don't find it as profound as others do. It isn't terribly original either (not a damning sin, by any means, but from some things I've read by critics you'd think Wagner predated Schopenhauer and Buddhism, and inspired them both).


I would agree that the Buddha/Schopenhauer/Wagnerism of Tristan is adolescent insofar as it is particularly appealing to the teenage temperament. It satisfies tendencies to pessimism(yearn and die!), egotism (most people are deluded, but I've seen through the deception), and a penchant for grand simplifying theories that are prevalent among adolescents. Perhaps it is a better analysis of teenage life than adult, but I don't think it's markedly better. The main philosophical, as opposed to psychological, appeal of the idea I take to be something like this (something similar could also be said about the appeal of utilitarianism): it spins a comprehensive worldview out of a plausible (but, importantly, simplifying, and ultimately rather trivial) generalisation about human motivation. Why do we do such and such? Because we desire that such and such occur. But since we're always doing something or other, it seems we're always desiring something or other. Now, given that you associate the concept of desire with such big and obviously problematical cases as the desire for sex, wealth, power, the regard of others etc, rather than the duller instances (such as desire for a warm, soothing beverage) which in fact drive most of our day to day activity, you might start to be alarmed. Suddenly it seems that we're desiring machines, ruled by ravenous, destructive urges with no hope of escape. In fact, we just like tea, and that's nothing to write a dreary cor anglais solo about. Anyway, that's the way I think it seems plausible, and the way I think it goes wrong. But I don't think we should dismiss the theory entirely, because it does contain significant elements of truth: we often act on harmless desires, but sometimes we're driven by the big bad boys mentioned earlier, and we should always be trying to keep them in check.



HumphreyAppleby said:


> Now as regards Tosca, I think my interpretation is a stretch, yes, but not a huge one. Tosca is a woman of the theatre, a fiery, impetuous, emotional woman who has all the characteristics of a maenad once she has a knife in her hand. Scarpia is a figure order, who uses cunning and deceit to do the terrible thigns that he believes will preserve that order. But both ends of the dichotomy are attracted to each other as well as repulsed. As Zefferellii says, Tosca loves Scarpia, and we know that Scarpia "loves" Tosca. Also, consider Tosca's last line. Her lover is dead, and she commits suicide. But her last words aren't 'I'm comin' baby!', they're 'Scarpia, we meet before God!' She is clearly stating that the conflict between them isn't over, and will now be fought in the supersensible realm beyond death. It's a cosmic opposition of natures, and a classic one. Now, did Puccini intentionally write an opera about Apollo and Dionysus? No, of course not. But was he fully ignorant of the nature of the drama? Probably not. He was a far more well educated man than most people give him credit for. Of course what he was most interested in was making his characters suffer. I've often heard it said that Puccini's characters don't learn, they just suffer and die. I think that that's true of his early works. He was a very melancholy person, and I imagine that he had a similar outlook on life when he was young. He went through great hardship and penury in his early adulthood, and, like many people, he nearly gave up. But after the Manfredi Affair and other events in his life, he seems to have changed, both in his style and in his outlook. His later works (from Fanciulla until the end) are all dynamic, and all feature real character development and profound thematic writing. I think the real problem (for critics) is that he never changed who he was writing about. As one reviewer said of Fanciulla, 'Such grand music for such ordinary people'. But the entire point of Puccini's output is the democratization of human value. Education, art, and philosophy aren't just for the elite anymore. They are for everyone. that's why Puccini intentionally used new harmonic techniques in the manner he did: he wanted to be able to speak to everybody, not just the world of art intelligentsia.


A lot of interesting stuff here. One thing that strikes me is how very much like Wagner your presentation of Puccini sounds. The suffering and dying, of course, is just what Tristan and Isolde do, and Wagner was a melancholy man who experienced hardships. Wagner's characters, though, try to make sense of their suffering, try to take responsibility for their situations, and they also develop, which I believe makes them much more dramatically compelling than characters like Tosca.

As for your interpretation of Tosca, I'd have to take a closer look, but I can certainly see where you're coming from. There appears to be at least something of what you describe there, as I remember it. But also, as I remember it, there doesn't appear to be all that much. Scarpia struck me, for the most part, as an uncomplicated bully; Tosca, as a stereotype hysterical woman. Maybe that's unfair, but it is how I remember it. Again, your Puccini reminds me of Wagner. Wotan and Brunnhilde could similarly be said to embody Apollonian and Dionysian natures. But, to use Wagner to bash Puccini (apologies!), I think the Ring is much more interesting in this regard. I think Wagner could have done more, especially in Das Rheingold, to establish Wotan as (at least in Wotan's own mind) an enlightened despot. But throughout the whole cycle, that theme is certainly present. In their Siegfried meeting, Erda appeals to Wotan as a defender of the right, and even in Rheingold Wotan makes the point that his authority is a bulwark against violence and barbarism by placing his spear between the giants and Donner's hammer. I don't recall any similar instances where Scarpia shows serious concern for a cause beyond his own interests. And Scarpia's apparently easy employment of torture to achieve his ends just isn't interesting to me as all the pleading and bargaining and self-deception that Wotan gets up to in Das Rheingold. As far as I can see, it's a villian being villianous set against a would-be hero becoming increasingly unheroic. Then there's the love between Wotan and Brunnhilde, which is deeply and sincerely felt on both sides. I couldn't see much more than lust on Scarpia's part and pity on Tosca's. That's why I think the Tosca conflict isn't especially interesting.
Finally, I watched Turandot last night, and will follow up with a discussion of it.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

So, Turandot.

Music: I did think well of it for the most part, though there's much operatic music I prefer. The song to the moon and the finale of the first act, the throne room scene in the second, and of course Nessun Dorma in the the third all struck me as being very fine. 

Ideas: yes, the myth did seem to contain interesting and valuable content. The 'moral' that most struck me was the importance of allowing ourselves to be vulnerable, and of not closing ourselves off from others for fear of vulnerability. I feel I could learn a fair bit from that. 

Drama: here, however, my praise must end. I detested the work as drama. Turandot could easily be an anti-feminist propaganda figure, the mother of all ballbusting feminazis who still manages to be broken by a man's kiss. Then there's Calaf, who risks his life - a decision not only stupid as far as his own interest goes, but downright cruel when his father and Liu are considered - because he is physically attracted to a woman whom he has ample evidence to determine is a massive b***. Not that Puccini can be held directly responsible here, what with his dying and all, but the finale strikes me as the most egregious example of musical manipulation I've ever encountered. I suppose there is plenty to celebrate at the end - notably, the fact that the lead soprano is no longer clinically sociopathic - but it is hard not to interpret the music as celebrating first of all Calaf and Turandot's love. And that love isn't worth celebrating in the least. 

So finally, Liu. When she died, I wasn't moved so much to cry as I was to harangue Puccini and his librettists. The idea that she should lay her life down, bleating all the while about devotion, because a heartless oaf like Calaf, who is entirely responsible for his own predicament, once smiled at her is beyond my capacity to bear. Again, I am reminded of Brunnhilde, who also chooses a terrible death out of love (for a dubiously worthy man). Her death, however, is psychologically much better motivated. We understand what Brunnhilde's life was about: she was a valkyrie who enjoyed the divine splendour of Valhalla. She accepted the loss of that life on one condition, that the only man for her be sprung of Wotan's line. When the last of that line dies, we can see that she has literally nothing left. All that she lived for has passed away. Add to that her guilt over Siegfried's death and her earlier refusal to relinquish the ring, and Brunnhilde's death makes sense in a way that Liu's does not. When Brunnhilde tells us that she expects bliss, the music and the drama conspire to make me believe her. When Liu tells us that her torments are sweet, on the other hand, I don't believe her for a moment. I hear only desperation, deception, and almost a kind of perversion, distributed uncomfortably between the characters, their authors, and the audience.


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

Timur and Liu are the two human protagonist in Turandot.
The cold princess and the all-conquering prince are just two diety , or puppets if you wish, in the fable inspired by Carlo Gozzi.

Also Nessun dorma is overrated.
Liù! Liù! sorgi! is better IMO.


----------



## aisia (Jul 28, 2013)

Bardamu said:


> Timur and Liu are the two human protagonist in Turandot.
> The cold princess and the all-conquering prince are just two diety , or puppets if you wish, in the fable inspired by Carlo Gozzi.
> 
> Also Nessun dorma is overrated.
> Liù! Liù! sorgi! is better IMO.


As far as I could see, they just mope around waiting for the other two to make them miserable. Most of the human interest seemed to be confined to Ping, Pang, and Pong, and I don't think they provided enough to make the whole bloody venture worthwhile.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bardamu said:


> Timur and Liu are the two human protagonist in Turandot.
> The cold princess and the all-conquering prince are just two diety , or puppets if you wish, in the fable inspired by Carlo Gozzi.
> 
> Also Nessun dorma is overrated.
> Liù! Liù! sorgi! is better IMO.


Nessun dorma is fantastic!

The problem with Turandot is that most singers capable of managing the role definitely do not look like the most beautiful woman in the world! Better to stick to audio only, I think, so not to destroy the illusion!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

All 3 men were giants. Wagner more so.
To me its easy.
I get tired of listening to Verdi and Puccini.
I don't get tired of listening to Wagner's operas.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

It was worth the wait, aisia. 

Yes, there certainly was an affinity between Wagner and Puccini's personalities: brooding, solitary, idiosyncratic. And Puccini would probably be the first to agree with you Wagner was the greatest of all of them (as would Humphrey, I wager). After his death three pictures were found in his study "guarding" his manuscript of _Turandot_: Wagner, Beethoven, and Rossini. But where Wagner was arrogant and boastful, Puccini was diffident and shy (except with women). Unfair as it is in some ways when discussing his music, I must admit to being put off by Wagner's personality (though I won't pretend that Giacomo was a saint). It's a bit ironic that the man who could have used the advice that you gave the most was the man who wrote the opera from which you gleaned it. Then again that is the case quite often, isn't it (in fact just the other day I was exhorting a friend not use too many parenthetical statements)?

As to _Tosca_, I agree that it's hardly a complex work. It's pure passion, a tempest fomented by opposing natures and uncontrollable desires. And that's about it. I suppose my point is not that _Tosca_ is the deepest thing you'll ever see, it's just not (as many have intimated (damn, I did it again!)) the shallowest. I can't argue with you on the Ring, as I'm not familiar enough with it. I know _Tristan_ well enough, but my knowledge of the Ring is pretty shaky.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

aisia said:


> So, Turandot.
> 
> Music: I did think well of it for the most part, though there's much operatic music I prefer. The song to the moon and the finale of the first act, the throne room scene in the second, and of course Nessun Dorma in the the third all struck me as being very fine.


It's very much a number opera. I find that interesting that he writes his most modern score for the same opera in which he reverts back to traditional operatic form. There are old forms all over this thing: concertato, commedia dell'arte, and a gran scena for Liu. Personally, my favorite musical passages are 'Mai nessun m'avra' from 'In questa reggia', 'Liu! Liu! Sorgi!', and absolutely everything to do with Ping, Pang, and Pong. A bit, um, politically incorrect perhaps, in their names, but I must admit to finding them completely hilarious, especially their music. Their humor is very cynical, but dry... and about administration. They remind me of someone, but I can't put my finger on who... 



> Ideas: yes, the myth did seem to contain interesting and valuable content. The 'moral' that most struck me was the importance of allowing ourselves to be vulnerable, and of not closing ourselves off from others for fear of vulnerability. I feel I could learn a fair bit from that.


Hmm. To me the myth is all about consciousness, and its forms: night and day. Perhaps I'm over-analyzing (it's been known to happen), but to me the moral is balance: the night is empty without the day, and the day isn't bright without the night.

I have about fifty pages more to say, but it's late and I want to express myself properly. I'll post more tomorrow.


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

I think people really underestimate Verdi's musical genius. Not only did he use very beautiful leitmotifs brilliantly (Otello "Kiss theme", or "friendship" in Don Carlo), but his use of the chorus was quite revolutionary. Before him, the chorus was just background, and used for purely musical purposes. Verdi used the chorus brilliantly, to set the seen, and demonstrate the feelings circling around the opera. He used it to portray the feeling of the people, and show their suffering. For example, Nabucco, of course, but also Don Carlo, and Un Ballo in Maschera. 
Also he managed to create memorable tunes, but didn't sacrifice complexity in the music, and reused the tunes throughout the opera, to demonstrate ideas, for example "La Donna e Mobile" in Rigoletto.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ma7730 said:


> I think people really underestimate Verdi's musical genius. Not only did he use very beautiful leitmotifs brilliantly (Otello "Kiss theme", or "friendship" in Don Carlo), but his use of the chorus was quite revolutionary. Before him, the chorus was just background, and used for purely musical purposes. Verdi used the chorus brilliantly, to set the seen, and demonstrate the feelings circling around the opera. He used it to portray the feeling of the people, and show their suffering. For example, Nabucco, of course, but also Don Carlo, and Un Ballo in Maschera.
> Also he managed to create memorable tunes, but didn't sacrifice complexity in the music, and reused the tunes throughout the opera, to demonstrate ideas, for example "La Donna e Mobile" in Rigoletto.


Although Verdi might have developed the use of chorus, it is a mistake to think yhat before Verdi it was 'just background'. I mean, what better conveys the sufferings of humanity than the Prisoners' Chorus in Fidelio?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Must confess that Verdi and Puccini move me far more than Wagner. I just cannot feel sympathy for hardly any of Wagner's characters so while I admire the music I am not moved by the dramatic situation of the characters. So I'm far more concerned about Mimi and Gilda and Butterfly far more than Isolde and Brunnhilde. I must also confess at being moved to tears watching rossini's Cenerentola in a way I never have been watchng the Ring.


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Although Verdi might have developed the use of chorus, it is a mistake to think yhat before Verdi it was 'just background'. I mean, what better conveys the sufferings of humanity than the Prisoners' Chorus in Fidelio?


That is a good point, though an exception. Of course not all choruses were entirely background in operas before Verdi, but even Fidelio did not use the chorus to the extent of Nabucco, or Don Carlo, or even Un Ballo in Maschera, where the chorus is truely a main character.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

When people speak of being "moved" by art, they may mean quite different things. I find that all three of these composers' works can move me greatly, but to an immense, and fascinating, variety of states of mind and feeling. Puccini's Mimi or Butterfly can quickly bring tears to my eyes, as the obvious pathos of their innocent love, their awful situations, their wasted young lives, and Puccini's intense, heart-on-sleeve music make their pain personal, immediate and all-encompassing. Verdi's characters are apt to be embedded in more complex situations of divided loyalties, moral conflicts, and mixed emotions, which he expresses in music of more classical frame and less raw immediacy. I'm less likely to be moved to tears by his operas, but more apt to be moved to reflection and a feel for life's complexities and tragedy, as well as a sense of what I can only call nobility, which I think is a response, not only to the actions and consciousness of the characters, but to a musical aesthetic: less realistic, more formal, more ideal. Rarely does Verdi milk the pathos of a single character's situation throughout an opera as does Puccini, and this is as much a matter of musical idiom as of dramatic choice. The most notable exceptions to this are probably Violetta and Otello, but the moral dimension of the former sets her well apart from the passively tubercular Mimi, dignifying her suffering, and the heroic dimension of the latter - even if it's a broken heroism - confers a similar impression of strength. We remember these characters as more than pathetic victims, and are left with something beyond our tears.

Wagner is very different, and more complex. His characters are apt to have a mythical, larger-than-life quality, and their meaning and effect derive as much from their function in the unfolding of a dramatic theme, a grand symbolic or allegorical action, as from their personalities and predicaments. They are always very clearly characterized in the music they are given, which makes them individually strong and memorable; but Wagner's music often seems to be telling us less about their immediate feelings than about things larger than they are - things of which even the characters may be unaware, things which may lie hidden in the characters' unconscious minds, or else may be impinging on them from without and sweeping them irresistibly to their fates. Wagner's psycho-mythological dramas can move us to complex feelings far removed from the everyday (unless we spend our everydays in dreams, mystical states, and studies of comparative mythology!). And yet the deep human pathos of Wotan's farewell to his favorite daughter has few parallels, as poignant as "real" life but raised to supernatural grandeur by the whole context and setting of Wotan's godly predicament and, of course, Wagner's immense musical imagination. Wagner's characters rarely move me to tears over their fates, and yet his music, as it streams through and around them, often does; there are many moments in which its harmonic power seems to penetrate hidden vaults in the soul and open me to states of consciousness which those worldly Italians could never imagine.

_La Boheme,_ _Don Carlo,_ and _Parsifal_ bring us radically different worlds of perception and feeling. It's good to have all three composers around when we need them.

Postscript: This strikes me as an outstanding thread, thanks largely to a very eloquent member named "aisia." Anyone know what happened to him?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ma7730 said:


> That is a good point, though an exception. Of course not all choruses were entirely background in operas before Verdi, but even Fidelio did not use the chorus to the extent of Nabucco, or Don Carlo, or even Un Ballo in Maschera, where the chorus is truely a main character.


I would say the chorus n Fidelio is a main charter in the Prisoner's and final Choruses. However you ma be right in saying Verdi developed the art.


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I would say the chorus n Fidelio is a main charter in the Prisoner's and final Choruses. However you ma be right in saying Verdi developed the art.


Perhaps, but nonetheless, it is still revolutionary. But there's no denying that Verdi's choral work was extraordinary, and far superior to Wagner's, and Puccini's.

Also, people say that Wagner created "high art". He most certainly did, and it's amazing, but I think that it isn't correct to dismiss Verdi as "low". Verdi dealt with very important and controversial topics, not only including the Spanish Inquisition in Don Carlo, but also fought censors on almost all of his operas, and Nabucco is a pretty thinly disguised call for Italian independence.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ma7730 said:


> Perhaps, but nonetheless, it is still revolutionary. But *there's no denying that Verdi's choral work was extraordinary, and far superior to Wagner's*, and Puccini's.
> 
> Also, people say that Wagner created "high art". He most certainly did, and it's amazing, but I think that it isn't correct to dismiss Verdi as "low". Verdi dealt with very important and controversial topics, not only including the Spanish Inquisition in Don Carlo, but also fought censors on almost all of his operas, and Nabucco is a pretty thinly disguised call for Italian independence.


Far superior? To the incredible spookiness of the Dutchman's crew breaking in on the festivities of the Norwegian sailors? To the languorous, distant siren calls in the Venusberg, or the lonely solemnity of the pilgrims' chorus, or the entrance of the guests into the Wartburg? To the sighting of Lohengrin approaching over the water, or the majestic procession to the cathedral? To the offstage sailors in _Tristan_ and the thrillingly dramatic entrance of King Mark aboard ship? To the extraordinarily diverse choral work throughout _Die Meistersinger,_ ranging from a chorale worthy of Bach to a town going mad to a double fugue? To the gathering of the valkyries in _Die Walkure_ and the gathering of the vassals in _Gotterdammerung?_ To the sublime temple scenes in _Parsifal?_

A remarkably varied, dramatically apposite, and musically impressive use of the chorus, I think.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Verdi is actually absolutely perfect in the game that he's playing. Now, Wagner, it might be argued that he's actually (at least partially) _failing_ in the game that _he_ is playing (and if he is, it's a glorious failure! Greatest since the Thermopylae!). But the thing is: the game that Wagner is playing is much, much more advanced than the game that Verdi is playing. Not that Verdi's game is bad - far from it! But Wagner's game is magnilorevolutiocosmicalidocious.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> Verdi is actually absolutely perfect in the game that he's playing. Now, Wagner, it might be argued that he's actually (at least partially) _failing_ in the game that _he_ is playing (and if he is, it's a glorious failure! Greatest since the Thermopylae!). But the thing is: the game that Wagner is playing is much, much more advanced than the game that Verdi is playing. Not that Verdi's game is bad - far from it! But Wagner's game is *magnilorevolutiocosmicalidocious.*


Is this what happens when the rules of Finnish word-formation are applied to English? Or have you been watching Mary Poppins? Well, even though I can't pronounce it, I agree with you.

Wagner is one of those artists who attempted the impossible. Actually, I think sometimes that he is the only artist who was mad/sane enough to attempt the impossible, at least on a continuing basis. There really is no way to get one's mind around either the succession of mountains he chose for himself to climb, or the slightly lesser but still unreachable-by-anyone-else heights he actually - at least intermittently - attained. Like Verdi himself (see his appraisal of _Tristan und Isolde_ below), I have always found Wagner somehow unbelievable, and I tend to set him aside as an anomaly when discussing composers, whether in the context of opera or simply of music as such. His size and scope, his place in determining the musical, and the larger cultural, character and destiny of western civilization, has no parallel in the work of any other composer.

My favorite comment on Wagner comes from Verdi himself, who knew a thing or two about music and opera. Late in his life he said to the journalist Felix Philippi: "The work which always arouses my greatest admiration is _Tristan_. This gigantic structure fills me time and time again with astonishment and awe, and I still cannot quite comprehend that it was conceived and written by a human being. I consider the second act, in its wealth of musical invention, its tenderness and sensuality of musical expression and inspired orchestration, to be one of the finest creations that has ever issued from a human mind." Verdi was perfectly confident in his own art -confident enough to learn from Wagner without compromising his own artistic identity and spirit - but he understood perfectly well that Wagner's game was one that no one else could play.

I suppose I would only disagree with you that Verdi played his own game "perfectly." Perhaps he did in the end - _Falstaff_ is rightly considered a miracle of his old age and would be hard to criticize - but his operas are not without flaws of structure and unevenness of inspiration. Verdi lived a long life and produced twenty-six operas, as compared to Wagner's thirteen. He was, in his own way, a great force for the development of the art, and he learned, by trial and error, a great deal along the way.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Must confess that Verdi and Puccini move me far more than Wagner. I just cannot feel sympathy for hardly any of Wagner's characters so while I admire the music I am not moved by the dramatic situation of the characters. So I'm far more concerned about Mimi and Gilda and Butterfly far more than Isolde and Brunnhilde. I must also confess at being moved to tears watching rossini's Cenerentola in a way I never have been watchng the Ring.


It's just the other way for me. Mimi dies of consumption, Butterfly commits suicide after being betrayed by her lover - these stories have all happened in everyday life and continue to happen. Wagner's heroes and their passions are epic in scale. As Woodduck has put it so well before me, there is nothing "everyday" about them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's just the other way for me. Mimi dies of consumption, Butterfly commits suicide after being betrayed by her lover - these stories have all happened in everyday life and continue to happen. Wagner's heroes and their passions are epic in scale. As Woodduck has put it so well before me, there is nothing "everyday" about them.


Of course not. That is the whole point. I can feel moved by real characters or characters that mirror at least some part of real life. You can only be really moved by that you can identify with. I can't feel moved by something that is so unreal to me. And (in many ways) so unsympathetic.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

In a way that's true. Wagner's characters are complex and force us to think about situations.
Right from the start. Do you feel sorry or contempt for Alberich?
Sorry or contempt for Fasolt? What do we feel for Wotan? ETC

That's the greatness of Wagner. We have to reach and think.
And marvel at amazing music with universes in each bar.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> In a way that's true. Wagner's characters are complex and force us to think about situations.
> Right from the start. Do you feel sorry or contempt for Alberich?
> Sorry or contempt for Fasolt? What do we feel for Wotan? ETC
> 
> ...


Frankly I feel dislike for nearly all the characters in the Ring. They are all a bunch of unlovelies!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Frankly I feel dislike for nearly all the characters in the Ring. They are all a bunch of unlovelies!


They're are flawed. True. Amazing isn't it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> They're are flawed. True. Amazing isn't it?


Not just flawed. Horrible!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Not horrible. Caught up in situations that lead to their destruction.
That's Greek tragedy.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> They're are flawed. True. Amazing isn't it?





DavidA said:


> Not just flawed. Horrible!


This is off-topic and possibly against the forum rules to discuss, but I find the imperfect, but always striving for greater wisdom, mortal but courageously facing his destiny Wotan of Wagnerian opera and Germanic myth to be more worthy of worship than infinitely holy and infinitely distant Jehova. Too bad he is not real either.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

No one knows for sure.

You're right. Another topic.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

They were all good and all of them composed several operas that are amongst the most popular. There is no reason to compare who was best or not.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Surely we can drop Puccini to second tier


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Apples and oranges, as they say.

Each of these composers were good at what they did. Wagner for his orchestration, Verdi for his melodies, Puccini for his drama. They all brought something delicious to the table and any attempt at comparison is utterly absurd.

But Wagner was better.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Celloman said:


> But Wagner was better.


I would say Wagner was more special.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Wagner >>>> Puccini >> Verdi


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Wagner >>>> Puccini >> Verdi


Wagner lead to Puccini, who in turn lead to Verdi? I don't think that's right.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Not just flawed. Horrible!


Even Bruenhilde?

That's why I love the Ring, characters I can identify with, interestingly this is something Verdi shares with Wagner.

N.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Wagner lead to Puccini, who in turn lead to Verdi? I don't think that's right.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater-than_sign


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Celloman said:


> Apples and oranges, as they say.
> 
> Each of these composers were good at what they did. Wagner for his orchestration, Verdi for his melodies, Puccini for his drama. They all brought something delicious to the table and any attempt at comparison is utterly absurd.
> 
> But Wagner was better.


From an accademic viewpoint I would agree, however there is no "accademic" way to explain the depth of Verdi's melodies. I am sure studies have shown why certain characteristics of Verdi melodies are so effective, but there is still something mysterious about the complete emotional depth of some of his melodies.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Even Bruenhilde?
> 
> That's why I love the Ring, characters I can identify with, interestingly this is something Verdi shares with Wagner.
> 
> N.


I can't take to women who kill you with a look!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Wagner >>>> Puccini >> Verdi


Whatever, Mozart tops the lot for me!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I can't take to women who kill you with a look!


Remind me not to introduce you to my mother in law, then.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

"No great composer induces passion the way Richard Wagner does. Knowledgeable opera goers seem to be divided into warring camps, vigorously campaigning for and against the art of the egomaniac of Bayreuth. In 50 years of opera going I have endured harangues beyond number intended to convince reluctant audiences that Wagner’s music is great and that they should surrender to its greatness. It’s the castor oil approach to art. It may taste bad, but it’s good for you. Or as Mark Twain (Bill Nye might have said it first) said, “Wagner’s music is better than it sounds.” Nobody finds it necessary to proselytize for Mozart or Verdi. This bipolar reaction to Wagner is incredible!"
(Ned Kutzmann)


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

Celloman said:


> Apples and oranges, as they say.
> 
> Each of these composers were good at what they did. Wagner for his orchestration, Verdi for his melodies, Puccini for his drama. They all brought something delicious to the table and any attempt at comparison is utterly absurd.
> 
> But Wagner was better.


See that's what I love about Verdi. Not only did he have great, rich orchestration, he also had great drama, and without sacrificing anything also included great melodies.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> "No great composer induces passion the way Richard Wagner does. Knowledgeable opera goers seem to be divided into warring camps, vigorously campaigning for and against the art of the egomaniac of Bayreuth. In 50 years of opera going I have endured harangues beyond number intended to convince reluctant audiences that Wagner's music is great and that they should surrender to its greatness. It's the castor oil approach to art. It may taste bad, but it's good for you. Or as Mark Twain (Bill Nye might have said it first) said, "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." Nobody finds it necessary to proselytize for Mozart or Verdi. This bipolar reaction to Wagner is incredible!"
> (Ned Kutzmann)


This is silly on all counts.

Mark Twain was actually immensely impressed by Wagner, attended many performances of his operas, and did not say that the music is better than it sounds. He did, actually, quote someone else as saying it, no doubt finding it an amusing remark (which of course it is).

Wagner is in no more need of proselytizing than Mozart or Verdi. Differing opinions of Wagner are no more "bipolar" than differing opinions of anything (cheap insult). His music inspires passionate enthusiasm in some, dislike in others. Is this a problem for anyone? (It's relevant to point out that some of the dislike arises from non-musical considerations, which any follower of the topic on this forum knows only too well.)

Mr. Kutzman's comparing Wagner's music to castor oil is beneath comment. Wagner's music may taste bad to him, but who on earth cares about Mr. Kutzman?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Actually, Wagner does seem to arouse greater passion from his admirers and greater vitriol from his haters than Mozart, Verdi or Puccini.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Actually, Wagner does seem to arouse greater passion from his admirers and greater vitriol from his haters than Mozart, Verdi or Puccini.


And a great deal of that has nothing to do with his operas as such. The part that does is a natural and predictable response to the complexity of the musical style and to the unusual dramatic substance of the works. Wagner is more multi-leveled and challenging than most opera, and exciting in a special way to those who "get it." Those who loathe Wagner generally end up talking biography and politics, not music and drama - or they try to reinterpret the music and drama to conform to their "image" of the composer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Actually, Wagner does seem to arouse greater passion from his admirers and greater vitriol from his haters than Mozart, Verdi or Puccini.


Mozart needs no advocating from anyone. He is simply the best!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

What you hear from me most of the time is not advocating - it is a declaration of eternal love and loyalty


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> What you hear from me most of the time is not advocating - it is a declaration of eternal love and loyalty


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Shakespeare - Hamlet)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Mozart needs no advocating from anyone. He is simply the best!


Mozart's an angel but Wagner's a god.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Mozart's an angel but Wagner's a god.


Like one of those gods in his operas? Donner? Maybe!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1. I wasn't aware that Mozart was a participant in this competition, which is entitled "Verdi, Wagner, and Puccini."
2. I wasn't aware that this was a competition.
3. Volunteering, on a thread entitled "Verdi, Wagner, and Puccini," that "Mozart needs no advocating from anyone. He is simply the best!", is as blatant a form of advocating as I can imagine.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Nice to see you back, Marschallin!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Shakespeare - Hamlet)


How now? Doth the gentleman insult the lady?

Methinks the lady hath spoken well.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Nice to see you back, Marschallin!


Hi SiegendesLicht! Thanks for noticing, Darling.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Like one of those gods in his operas? Donner? Maybe!












I was thinking of Wagner more along the lines of a 'meta-god'- that is to say: a 'god' who creates 'lesser gods'- like Wotan.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Mr. Kutzman's comparing Wagner's music to castor oil is beneath comment. Wagner's music may taste bad to him, but who on earth cares about Mr. Kutzman?


Wagner?- check.

Beethoven- check.

Mozart- check.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. . .

Where 'is' that monument erected to 'Mr. Kutzman'?

Maybe KenOC knows.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Mozart's an angel but Wagner's a god.


The proselytizing of the _claqueurs_ who have drunk the Kool-Aid is precisely what Kutzman was getting at.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

To the subject of this thread, Verdi is clearly the most sophisticated, expressive, and artistically mature of the three with Puccini a close second. Wagner was a master of orchestration but unfortunately felt a need to delve into mythological opera. I can forgive a composer for lack of talent, but not for bad taste.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> The proselytizing of the _claqueurs_ who have drunk the Kool-Aid is precisely what Kutzman was getting at.


A more ungenerous assessment of Mozart fans I can scarcely imagine.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Just curious: why is preoccupation with mythology bad taste?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> To the subject of this thread, Verdi is clearly the most sophisticated, expressive, and artistically mature of the three with Puccini a close second. Wagner was a master of orchestration but unfortunately felt a need to delve into mythological opera. I can forgive a composer for lack of talent, but not for bad taste.


Some of us likes mythological opera.
Verdi also composed Attila.
Attila is an important character in the sources that The Ring cycle is based on so Verdi had a bad taste too.
Puccini also composed Turandot and if he had lived longer he would probably have made more operas based on myths and legends since that is what many Italian operas of the time was based on.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Actually, Wagner does seem to arouse greater passion from his admirers and greater vitriol from his haters than Mozart, Verdi or Puccini.


And how, if I may ask, did you measure that passion before making such far-fetched conclusion? People travel to see Verdi live as much as other people travel to experience Wagner, same for any other activity that could be taken for a proof of devotion for given composer. Yes, Wagnerians do have kind of special, very loud and inflated way of expressing their fondness (and lack of fondness for anybody who would dare to be compared to the "master" in any way), of which you are perfect example. But this is merely a way of manifestating your passion, not the highest degree of passion itself. Nice of you to share your passion for Wagner, much less nice to disregard ability of others to feel passionate about something else, just because, in your view, your "master" is so wonderful that it's unthinkable that any other artist could arouse, in anybody, ever, anything close to how you feel about him.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Just curious: why is preoccupation with mythology bad taste?





Sloe said:


> Some of us likes mythological opera.
> Verdi also composed Attila.
> Attila is an important character in the sources that The Ring cycle is based on so Verdi had a bad taste too.
> Puccini also composed Turandot and if he had lived longer he would probably have made more operas based on myths and legends since that is what many Italian operas of the time was based on.


I meant no connection between mythology and bad taste in general. I have nothing against myths or mythological opera. I regularly re-read Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Ovid -- they represent some of the greatest artistic achievements man has produced. And opera based on myths can be done extremely well as evidenced by Berlioz's _Les Troyens_, Milhaud's _L'Orestei d'Eschyle_, and Stravinsky's _Oedipus Rex_.

Wagner's bad taste is _sui generis_. As his supporters often point out, his narratives do not follow the traditional mythology, but rather he imbues them with his own pseudo-philosophical ideas and _petit bourgeois _values. It is not to my taste.

He was a fine composer, however. There are extraordinary orchestral moments in his operas that are simply breathtaking. But they are breathtaking for the music itself, not for the banal morality play being supported.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> I meant no connection between mythology and bad taste in general. I have nothing against myths or mythological opera. I regularly re-read Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Ovid -- they represent some of the greatest artistic achievements man has produced. And opera based on myths can be done extremely well as evidenced by Berlioz's _Les Troyens_, Milhaud's _L'Orestei d'Eschyle_, and Stravinsky's _Oedipus Rex_.
> 
> Wagner's bad taste is _sui generis_. As his supporters often point out, his narratives do not follow the traditional mythology, but rather he imbues them with his own pseudo-philosophical ideas and petit bourgeois values. It is not to my taste.
> 
> He was a fine composer, however. There are extraordinary orchestral moments in his operas that are simply breathtaking. But they are breathtaking for the music itself, not for the banal morality play being supported.


_"Wagner's bad taste is sui generis. As his supporters often point out, his narratives do not follow the traditional mythology, but rather he imbues them with his own pseudo-philosophical ideas and petit bourgeois values."_

That's an interesting characterization. I don't think I've ever come across someone calling Wagner's music dramas "pseudo-philosophical" or claiming that they are imbued with "_petit bourgeois_ values."

Could you expound on that?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Wagner's bad taste is _sui generis_. As his supporters often point out, his narratives do not follow the traditional mythology, but rather he imbues them with his own pseudo-philosophical ideas and petit bourgeois values. It is not to my taste.


You know it is not necessary to notice Wagners philosophical ideas or values to enjoy his operas. The story and the music is enough. Yes he had his own fantasies and thoughts but he made the myths come to life in a way that never had been done before or ever since.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Balthazar said:


> As his supporters often point out, his narratives do not follow the traditional mythology, but rather he imbues them with his own pseudo-philosophical ideas and petit bourgeois values.


I have no problem with somebody not liking Wagner but this explanation seems very strange, almost like the polar opposite of Wagner. Are we talking about the same composer at all? He was very well read on classical literature, the philosophers of his age, and was an influence to Nietzsche. He was a political radical and took part in the uprisings of 1848. You may not like his ideas and his values, but "pseudo-philosophical" and "petit bourgeois" do not describe him or his works at all.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Sloe said:


> You know it is not necessary to notice Wagners philosophical ideas or values to enjoy his operas. The story and the music is enough. Yes he had his own fantasies and thoughts but he made the myths come to life in a way that never had been done before or ever since.


I wholeheartedly agree that Wagner's operas can be enjoyed for the music itself. And that is how I enjoy them. I don't find the "deep truths" in his narratives that others apparently do. And that should be ok. Many find Donizetti's _La Sonnambula_ completely absurd, but I just posted in another thread that it has one of my favorite duets.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> I have no problem with somebody not liking Wagner but this explanation seems very strange, almost like the polar opposite of Wagner. Are we talking about the same composer at all? He was very well read on classical literature, the philosophers of his age, and was an influence to Nietzsche. He was a political radical and took part in the uprisings of 1848. You may not like his ideas and his values, but "pseudo-philosophical" and "petit bourgeois" do not describe him or his works at all.


This is a topic for another thread. His obsession with money and his creepy gender fixation do not jibe with me at all, for starters. But I would rather not derail this thread on Verdi, Puccini, and Wagner.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Balthazar said:


> This is a topic for another thread. His obsession with money and his creepy gender fixation do not jibe with me at all, for starters. But I would rather not derail this thread on Verdi, Puccini, and Wagner.


Fair enough, let's cut it. Meanwhile, let me suggest some reading material. _Mein Leben_ sums up his relationship to money quite comprehensively, and Emslie in _Richard Wagner and the Centrality of Love_ explores Wagner's attitude towards the roles of men and women, with notes to German idealism and Goethe's concept of the "eternal feminine". Wagner's own _Oper und Drama_ is a somewhat cryptic but inspired text that explores his views of the genders and their symbolism in relation to music-drama. Again, if you don't like what you see, fine, but you'll have to see first.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> Fair enough, let's cut it. Meanwhile, let me suggest some reading material. _Mein Leben_ sums up his relationship to money quite comprehensively, and Emslie in _Richard Wagner and the Centrality of Love_ explores Wagner's attitude towards the roles of men and women, with notes to German idealism and Goethe's concept of the "eternal feminine". Wagner's own _Oper und Drama_ is a somewhat cryptic but inspired text that explores his views of the genders and their symbolism in relation to music-drama. Again, if you don't like what you see, fine, but you'll have to see first.


Thanks for the references. I will look into them. :tiphat:


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Many find Donizetti's _La Sonnambula_ completely absurd, but I just posted in another thread that it has one of my favorite duets.


I have never heard of that opera but I like Bellini´s La Sonnambula.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Balthazar said:


> This is a topic for another thread. His obsession with money and his creepy gender fixation do not jibe with me at all, for starters. But I would rather not derail this thread on Verdi, Puccini, and Wagner.


But does this affect your enjoyment of his music? Many composers had selfish personalities and quirky habits, but their music stands or falls on its own merit. The fact that Beethoven had a very bad temper does not in any way detract from the quality of his music. I would say the same thing for Wagner.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I was thinking of Wagner more along the lines of a 'meta-god'- that is to say: a 'god' who creates 'lesser gods'- like Wotan.


Yes, history reveals there was certainly a lot of Wotan in him with his egomania, womanising, etc.. In fact I know more than one commentator who has said he modelled Wotan n himself! The history of his family certainly reads something like the Ring! And his desire to build his 'Valhalla' at Bayreuth even though it nearly bankrupted a king!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Yes, history reveals there was certainly a lot of Wotan in him with his egomania, womanising, etc.. In fact I know more than one commentator who has said he modelled Wotan n himself! The history of his family certainly reads something like the Ring! And his desire to build his 'Valhalla' at Bayreuth even though it nearly bankrupted a king!


I don't think ego and womanizing are unique to Wagner among superstar musicians.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I don't think ego and womanizing are unique to Wagner among superstar musicians.


Not at all. But it appears from history that Wagner was rather more adept at them than most! Let's face it, Puccini was no saint either. Just that Wagner outshion them all in these departments.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Not at all. But it appears from history that Wagner was rather more adept at them than most! Let's face it, Puccini was no saint either. Just that Wagner outshion them all in these departments.


Maybe, who knows?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Maybe, who knows?


Read the history books!

This one is a rattling good read!









For a review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/books/review/Riding-t.html


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Celloman said:


> *But does this affect your enjoyment of his music?* Many composers had selfish personalities and quirky habits, but their music stands or falls on its own merit. The fact that Beethoven had a very bad temper does not in any way detract from the quality of his music. I would say the same thing for Wagner.


The music alone, no. But it certainly does impact my understanding and enjoyment of his operas for which, of course, he wrote the libretti. He chose to express his personal ideology and worldview in his operas, and it is one that I find by turns sophomoric and distasteful. As a literary text, it is reasonable and appropriate to analyze and interpret his libretti in the context of the vast entirety of his writings and his life. (In the same way that, for instance, many read Verdi's _Nabucco_ as an allegory for Italian independence.)

So in general a composer's character and actions have no impact on my appreciation and enjoyment of his music, but it can impact my view of his operas, particularly if he had a hand in writing the libretto. Beethoven's personality does not influence my appreciation of his music, but if someone had totalitarian leanings, I could understand why he might not enjoy _Fidelio_. Similarly, the fact that Gesualdo committed brutal murders does not affect my enjoyment of his music, but if he had written an opera extolling the rights of the nobility to act above the law I might not like it so much.

This goes to my point that I wish Wagner had written more instrumental works. He would have been the master of the tone poem. Unfortunately, when it comes to his operas, I find that the whole is less than the sum of the parts.

And to wind back to the OP... that contributes to my preference for Verdi and Puccini.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I have never heard of that opera but I like Bellini´s La Sonnambula.


Doh! Good catch. :tiphat:


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Doh! Good catch. :tiphat:


Easily done, and I remember from a past Sonnambula discussion that you certainly know your Bellini! Personally- I'm always getting them confused and so every time I refer to Bellini or Donizetti I have to double check that I've got the right one!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

In the interest of accuracy and fairness, the word "womanizer" does not correctly characterize Wagner's relationship with women. He was not a Don Juan, and he did not "sleep around." Wagner's first marriage, to Minna Planer in 1836, was not a match made in heaven: he was complex and temperamental, she had not the intellect or sensibility to understand him, and she ran off with another man early on - twice. Wagner in turn had a brief affair with one Jessie Laussot. When, in Mathilde Wesendonck, he found a woman who he felt understood by, she was inconveniently married already and chose to remain faithful to her husband Otto. It is not known whether she and Wagner were ever physically intimate; there is no evidence of it, and Wagner remained friendly with Otto. Wagner and Minna lived apart but did not divorce; he sought a reconciliation with her, but although this was not successful, he supported her financially for years until her death in 1866.

Wagner met Cosima Liszt von Bulow in 1857. The following year she visited him and literally threw herself at his feet in tears, proclaiming her adoration (which rather baffled him). Nothing happened between them until 1863, however, when it became clear to them that each was what the other needed. Hans von Bulow was aware of the relationship for some time (though Wagner and Cosima tried to hide it), was reluctant to grant his wife a divorce, but finally wrote to her and conceded that she had found a "superior being." In 1876 Wagner had a brief fling with Judith Gautier, a French poet and novelist, of which Cosima and Judith's husband were aware. However, the couple remained welcome guests at Bayreuth, despite the dalliance. 

That Wagner was fascinated with the subject of human sexuality is obvious in his prose writings, letters, and operas. There is nothing perverse, unusual, or surprising about this, particularly in a period when sex and romantic love were subjects of increasingly intense artistic and scientific interest (really, what else are most late 19th- and early 20th-century operas about?) Besides, he was not spending his nights frequenting red-light districts. Wagner's productivity, in addition to his 13 operas and a number of other musical works, included his directorship of the Dresden opera, 9 volumes of prose writings, many thousands of letters, the conducting of concerts, the training and coaching of singers, and the establishment of the theater and directorship of the festival at Bayreuth. He also read and studied voluminously, and maintained an active social circle when his fluctuating circumstances made that possible. He was not preoccupied with seeking or having affairs, and it's rather too easy to be flippantly moralistic about the personal habits of a man of deeply serious mind, ambitions, and attainments, however we choose to judge him. I should think that the number of his sexual relationships would have little bearing on our appreciation of his work.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

^Can't give this enough likes Woodduck. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Read the history books!
> 
> This one is a rattling good read!
> 
> ...


It continues to elude some of us why the adventures of Wagner's descendents should be urged upon us as important to the appreciation of his art, why you keep bringing it up, and why you are now recommending this "rattling good read" in which, according to the very review you refer us to, the qualities of Wagner's work which make it worth our attention are not even discussed.

I'm sure Wolfgang and Nike and Gottfried and what's been going on at Bayreuth are interesting, at least to those to whom they are interesting. But how will reading about their intrigues and squabbles affect in the slightest anyone's understanding of musical works composed before 1883?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I have 0 interest in the Wagner clan. 000000


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It continues to elude some of us why the adventures of Wagner's descendents should be urged upon us as important to the appreciation of his art, why you keep bringing it up, and why you are now recommending this "rattling good read" in which, according to the very review you refer us to, the qualities of Wagner's work which make it worth our attention are not even discussed.
> 
> I'm sure Wolfgang and Nike and Gottfried and what's been going on at Bayreuth are interesting, at least to those to whom they are interesting. But how will reading about their intrigues and squabbles affect in the slightest anyone's understanding of musical works composed before 1883?


Why such vitriol directed toward a book recommendation on a composer's family?

Woodduck, you yourself recently expressed an interest in Wieland Wagner's productions at Bayreuth. SiegendesLicht recently posted, "if the world was right, the Wagners would have been treated like royalty." Clearly, Wagner's progeny and the management of Bayreuth are of interest to at least some of those interested in his music as a quick search of this site will reveal.

Have you read the book? If so, what do you think of it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fascinating piece of chuckle-worthy information from the book "Settling Scores" by David Monod:
In 1948 an American official was dealing with a request to re-open a music festival for a composer called Wagner in what he understood to be a town called 'Beulah'. 
"What about this fella Wagner?" he asked. "Was his music banned by the Nazis?"


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Fascinating piece of chuckle-worthy information from the book "Settling Scores" by David Monod:
> In 1948 an American official was dealing with a request to re-open a music festival for a composer called Wagner in what he understood to be a town called 'Beulah'.
> "What about this fella Wagner?" he asked. "Was his music banned by the Nazis?"


What's 'fascinating' is how incorrigibly neurotic Teutono-phobes think that they can diminish Wagner's genius by _ex post facto_ fallacies.

Well. . . . . . 'less-than-fascinating.'


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Why such vitriol directed toward a book recommendation on a composer's family?
> 
> Woodduck, you yourself recently expressed an interest in Wieland Wagner's productions at Bayreuth. SiegendesLicht recently posted, "if the world was right, the Wagners would have been treated like royalty." Clearly, Wagner's progeny and the management of Bayreuth are of interest to at least some of those interested in his music as a quick search of this site will reveal.
> 
> Have you read the book? If so, what do you think of it?


Do you think my questioning the rationale for bringing up this book is vitriolic? I am impatient with attempts to associate Wagner and his works with people and events which came after his death. It is the typical and oh so tired tactic of those whose contempt for Wagner is such that it will transgress all bounds of reason and fair play.

This recommendation was made specifically as a response to a conversation about Wagner's egomania and "womanizing" (which I've addressed in another post). It went as follows:

You brought up his "obsession with money and his creepy gender fixation." Someone responded "But does this affect your enjoyment of his music? Many composers had selfish personalities and quirky habits, but their music stands or falls on its own merit." Someone then said "Yes, history reveals there was certainly a lot of Wotan in him with his egomania, womanising, etc." Someone said to that "I don't think ego and womanizing are unique to Wagner among superstar musicians," to which the response was "Not at all. But it appears from history that Wagner was rather more adept at them than most! Let's face it, Puccini was no saint either. Just that Wagner outshone them all in these departments," followed by the recommendation of this particular book on the Wagner clan, with the admonition "Read the history books!"

You may be unaware of the substantial industry devoted to digging up dirt on the Wagner family - which is legitimate enough in itself, though the line between worthwhile history and gossip-mongering tends to grow vague. But almost invariably this veers off into flippant, uninformed, and biased commentary on what Wagner and his works are "all about." I have seen quite a bit of this "package dealing" on this forum, and have read a good bit of the irresponsible vitriol - and here the word really fits - directed at a very great, and very dead, artist by those with moral, political, and ideological axes to grind (not to mention money to be made from the scandal-hungry). It is simply my desire to protest this poisonous guilt-by-association, which does not aid our understanding and only perpetuates prejudice and ill-will.

Wagner was a flawed human being (like all the snickering little moralizers who delight in rehearsing his faults), but some seem to need reminding that he is not responsible for the behavior of his descendants or for genocidal atrocities enacted on the stage of history half a century after his death - and that these things are not the subjects of his operas. There is more than enough information available about the man himself to satisfy anyone interested - and he was far more interesting than the tabloid-style caricatures of him would suggest. His operas stand on their own considerable merits.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> What's 'fascinating' is how incorrigibly neurotic Teutono-phobes think that they can diminish Wagner's genius by _ex post facto_ fallacies.
> 
> Well. . . . . . 'less-than-fascinating.'


How on earth is that 'Teutono-phoebe'? or neurotic? I just thought it funny! (The joke's on the American official, by the way!)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> How on earth is that 'Teutono-phoebe'? or neurotic? I just thought it funny! (The joke's on the American official, by the way!)


Envy's the most anti-social of the passions- it really makes me blush when people try to camouflage it.

Monod should give Nietzsche's _ressentiment_ a ring some time- for a little 'self-reckoning.'

- Others too, of course.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Envy's the most anti-social of the passions- it really makes me blush when people try to camouflage it.
> 
> Monod should give Nietzsche's _ressentiment_ a ring some time- for a little 'self-reckoning.'
> 
> - Others too, of course.


Whose being envious? Not of Nietzsche for certain!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

An interesting comment from Solti's autobiography:

"I adore Verdi's modesty and his concern for his fellow human beings. His correspondence with Boito, his last librettist, remains among the great documents in music history. Even though Verdi became much wealthier than Wagner, his exact contemporary, it is hard to imagine Wagner [and Solti might have added Puccini], under any conditions, building our hospital for local peasants, creating a rest home for old musicians or taking a keen interest in the running of a farm."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Whose being envious? Not of Nietzsche for certain!


If only Fritz had those twelve boyfriends of his to help him out when he was cursing fig trees in the sanatorium perhaps he would have been immortalized in a Monty Python skit.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> An interesting comment from Solti's autobiography:
> 
> "I adore Verdi's modesty and his concern for his fellow human beings. His correspondence with Boito, his last librettist, remains among the great documents in music history. Even though Verdi became much wealthier than Wagner, his exact contemporary, it is hard to imagine Wagner [and Solti might have added Puccini], under any conditions, building our hospital for local peasants, creating a rest home for old musicians or taking a keen interest in the running of a farm."


Of course, if both Verdi and Wagner just emulated Mother Theresa full time they would have been greater artists unquestionably.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> If only Fritz had those twelve boyfriends of his to help him out when he was cursing fig trees in the sanatorium perhaps he would have been immortalized in a Monty Python skit.


I'm not entering a slanging match!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

There is really no need to defend Wagner. His detractors are born, write their bile about him, and then die. They come and they go, and long after these bottom feeders have left the earth, Wagner prevails. Humanity has spoken, and Wagner's music speaks to them. Mud slinging never rises to compromise the beauty of his work, it only fertilizes the appreciation of future generations by calling even greater attention to it. The greatest threat to a legacy is that one's work becomes stale, outdated, and boring, and people stop caring about it. Wagner then is quite lucky to have a steady stream of detractors dedicated to keeping the controversy about him as fresh today as it was during his own time!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Of course, if both Verdi and Wagner just emulated Mother Theresa full time they would have been greater artists unquestionably.


I can't see how this logically follows from what Solti said.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I can't see how this logically follows from what Solti said.


I was being _cas-CAD-ing-ly_ sarcastic, David.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'm not entering a slanging match!


How about a kissing match?: To see who can say the 'nicest' things about King Richard.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You may be unaware of the substantial industry devoted to digging up dirt on the Wagner family - which is legitimate enough in itself, though the line between worthwhile history and gossip-mongering tends to grow vague. But almost invariably this veers off into flippant, uninformed, and biased commentary on what Wagner and his works are "all about."


Are you saying _The Wagner Clan_ falls into this category? If you ever get around to reading it, I would be interested to hear your informed thoughts on the book. My local public library has a copy - yours may as well. 
:tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> How about a kissing match?: To see who can say the 'nicest' things about King Richard.


King Richard 1, 2 or 3 ?? We've had three of them over here! :tiphat:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> King Richard 1, 2 or 3 ?? We've had three of them over here! :tiphat:


Even my beloved Strauss defers to the genius of Richard I- so 'Wagner' it is.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Even my beloved Strauss defers to the genius of Richard I- so 'Wagner' it is.


Wagner admired Strauss (J)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Wagner admired Strauss (J)


Wagner never wrote a _Rosenkavalier_ either- nobody's perfect.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Wagner never wrote a _Rosenkavalier_ either- nobody's perfect.


He never wrote an Alpine Symphony either - even though he lived for a long time in the shadow of the Alps.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> What's 'fascinating' is how incorrigibly neurotic Teutono-phobes think that they can diminish Wagner's genius by _ex post facto_ fallacies.
> 
> Well. . . . . . 'less-than-fascinating.'


I am going to add the word "Teutono-phobes" to my vocabulary from now on


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Woodduck's points about Wagner are well taken: it's easy to criticize, hard to understand, and still harder to be an artistic genius responsible for a revolution (for better or worse) in your field. Martin Luther King Jr. had penty of affairs, but we don't go around saying that that somehow invalidates either the Civil Rights Movement or his pacifist philosophy. The former because, while King was certainly a leader, it was ultimately made up of many people we've never heard of and never will organizing together and risking everything for what's right. They would have been there with or without King. (This will be relevant in a moment.) The latter, because anyone who studies philosophy, or thinks things through for a moment, knows that the character of the person making the argument, even if it is such that they don't even do what they say, has no actual bearing on the strength of their argument. Even if King had a few times resorted to violence, he would still be right that non-violence is best. The same should be true of art: even if someone doesn't match the beauty of their works in their personality, that doesn't really affect their works. Sometimes people say: So should we enjoy Nazi propaganda because it's really well made? That's a ridiculous question. The function of the works themselves is to advocate for a vile ideology and criminals. Do Wagner's works do the same? If not, we should stop pretending that he has any responsibility for what people did with his works.

That being said, that isn't the only strain of the conversation to which I have an objection.


> Rarely does Verdi milk the pathos of a single character's situation throughout an opera as does Puccini, and this is as much a matter of musical idiom as of dramatic choice. The most notable exceptions to this are probably Violetta and Otello, but the moral dimension of the former sets her well apart from the passively tubercular Mimi, dignifying her suffering, and the heroic dimension of the latter - even if it's a broken heroism - confers a similar impression of strength. We remember these characters as more than pathetic victims, and are left with something beyond our tears.





> It's just the other way for me. Mimi dies of consumption, Butterfly commits suicide after being betrayed by her lover - these stories have all happened in everyday life and continue to happen.


I object to the necessary implication of the above that Mimi's suffering is not dignified, or that she is intended to be taken as a singular, one-off sob tale that's not really about anything other than making us cry. People make these kinds of remarks about Puccini's works constantly, and it represents _the_ fundamental misunderstanding of his work. Furthermore, I think it is symptomatic of the attitude of the people who declare themselves enlightened by art in general, an attitude which, in my experience (though I possess no statistical data to prove it), is even more pronounced among fans of Wagner. As a fan of Wagner, it irritates me. As a human being, it angers me.

Are you actually claiming that _Mimi'_ was the passive one? Really? Musetta found her dying in the streets and nobody (else) cared, or even stopped to help her. Wealthy men in their carriages rode by, scarcely glancing back at the eyesore taking up space on the cold cobblestones. The viscount who supposedly loved her didn't spare an iota to look after her health. And _she_ is the passive one? You see, what Puccini's art has to deal with is precisely the notion that so-called unimportant people are actually unimportant. Mimi' is the kind of person who, but for Puccini, Giacosa, and Illica, nobody today would have ever heard of. The proof of it is, people die like that all the time. Still. We don't know their names, we don't see their suffering, and we even justify it based on the necessity of some "higher" reasoning. We are complicit in a deadly passivity that condemns a certain segment of the population not only to death, but to the denial of the dignity of their lives, and therefore their deaths. This is why a courtesan's death is more noble: not because of any moral predicament, but because she was at least connected to the elite classes. People compare her with Mimi' all the time, but it's really no comparison. Mimi briefly dated a viscount, while Violetta lived a life of luxury in the beds of powerful men. Isn't it obvious who is more important, more dignified?

Now, the critics, self-declared members of the elite, do pity poor Mimi'. They may cry a tear or two over her final gasp, but it is a feeble drop from a reservoir that has long since run dry for the plight of the living poor. They say she died for love, but that isn't completely true: she died because she was too poor to live. Because people like the people shedding shallow tears for her at the end refuse to admit that they not only maintain an execrable bargain with the world - let me have mine, and I'll make no trouble - but profit from it, and believe in it. Perhaps the shallowness of any tears shed at _La boheme_ reflect on the the one who sheds them, not the one they are supposedly shed for.

I know that I don't cry at the end of this opera. I cry at the end of act one. I cry because Puccini here states with exquisite tenderness in two arias and a duet the case of hope. "Ma quando vien lo sgelo, il primo sole e' mio" expresses with as much dignity as any aristocratic proclamation about honor or values the profoundly human aspirations of the demonized poor who are dishonored and devalued. That hope is her only possible activity in the face her condition, just as it is the "many-hued phantom" that circles the dreams of the oppressed. What the world looks like after that hope, embodied by Mimi' herself (a "mere" seamstress my ***) and her flowers that move only human hearts and not their senses, has died, is the subject of _Il tabarro_, another opera dismissed as a "thriller" or "shocker". It may do both of those things, but what should really shock us about it is depth of the hell it makes us privy to: not an afterlife, but a life in which we have abandoned all hope. The artist, the song peddler, tells us right at the beginning that Mimi' is dead. Furthermore, she died abandoned and alone, a signal to the characters in this opera that their worst fears are true: the things they cling to to maintain some last perception of unity in an absurd world will disappear, and the ones they love will always abandon them. No matter how hard they try, they will always, always, be washed away in the current of the river of despair. Nihilism will infect their souls and hollow them out until they are nobody, and then, one by one, they will turn each other into nobody. Tinca drinks to not think. Luigi screws Giorgetta to "steal some life" for himself. Michele murders him to make him share his chain, one that runs from the depths of the river and shackles him, making him a bound Tantalus, Giorgetta's love and affection just out of his reach.

These are the conditions that the opulent minority, who never tire of reminding us of their refinement and values, or the depth of their spiritual experience of art, perpetuate. Luigi won't "get ahead" if he works harder; you _can't_ work harder than him. But because his tragedy is lifelong, ongoing, "every day", it can't have any _real_ significance for the so-called educated person.

So taking a step back to _Boheme_ we see the real significance of what happens here. The world of _La boheme_ is an exquisitely crafted fantasy in which objects are vivified by music and the poetic imagination of youth. Poems, pens, bonnets, keys, candles, chairs, furnaces, and gloves are transformed from mere objects into meanings. They mingle with the mock heroes who still have the gall, or perhaps ignorance, to believe that their lives are either important or their own. Rodolfo, Marcello, Schaunard, Colline, Musetta, and Mimi are not realistic, but they are archetypal in their aspiration for a full human dignity, but necessarily also in their unimportance and their delusion that perhaps they might matter because they are human beings with hopes and dreams and the desire to be more than tools of wealthier and more refined men. They haven't had their own self-respect beaten out of them by the utter contempt of of their own fellow human beings and of fate. To come to the point, I must agree with the critics: Mimi's death doesn't really matter, and it doesn't mean a goddamn thing. And that's the point. All we are left with on the stage is the young poet who has realized thought can't burst into real flame, and the coldness of the world, but especially of the noble heart, cannot be thawed by his hope alone, and the innocence of the entire world dead in his arms. But look around the at the noble audience and their quick tears. I think it died long ago. (Please note, Woodduck, that much of this is not directly particularly to you. While I feel your comment fits into a certain type of remark often made about Puccini's works, I don't presume to subscribe all of the views of the people who usually make those remarks to you.)



> Wagner's characters rarely move me to tears over their fates, and yet his music, as it streams through and around them, often does; there are many moments in which its harmonic power seems to penetrate hidden vaults in the soul and open me to states of consciousness which those worldly Italians could never imagine.


I feel the same way about the soaring love of the duet in _Butterfly_, the duality of her poetic love and his prosaic passion breaking my heart at the same time that it is convinced, just for a moment, by Puccini, that this is real. I feel the same way about her sacrifice at the end of the opera. She takes her life in a certain state of soul, one that is exalted, and the music is equal to it. I also feel the same way about _La fanciulla del west_, in the final enemble, in which Minnie, another girl who is "oscura e buona a nulla", but who carries within the strength and dignity of the human race, such as it possesses. Her victory, one obtained ultimately ending by her resistance to the evil in the miner's hearts and healing it in a loving embrace, reveals at the core of the artistic worth of Puccini. He very eloquently described his aim thus: "in the adaptation of such violent source material I brought the inspiration of a vibrant and refined idealism , toward the end of encircling those catastrophic human events in a dreamlike atmosphere. In Belasco's drama, for example…little emphasis was placed on the redeeming quality of the protagonist: it was I who had the librettists develop this to a greater extent, and thus this desire for purification, this pained cry for peace gained through love and hard work, became more clear and truthful." All of Puccini's works are imbued with the same idealism, the same thought and human compassion. It is utterly unsurprising to me that the critics, who regard the characters of his operas with contempt, fail to see the depth and power of his message about their intrinsic worth.

The ending to _Turandot_ would have produced a similarly transcendental experience, despite critics' claims that he was somehow incapable of such a feat. His normal work procedure was to compose prolifically, then despair for a year or two, then finish it better than ever. Right as he was coming out of his despair, he was diagnosed with throat cancer. But he was clear about his plans for the ending of the opera. It is funny to see people who don't like Puccini talking about how he had finally written an opera on a mythical subject and a higher plane (because it doesn't feature unimportant people that they don't care about - or so they think). This is because he did not write _Turandot_ in order to finally overcome his previous inferiority of subject, and therefore of artistry. No, _Turandot_ was to be _the great vindication of everything that Puccini had ever stood for_. Instead of finally drawing archetypal characters, Puccini was actually affirming the archetypal character of his previous works. He put it this way: "[the ending should be] the key - but it should have something about it of the grand, the bold, the unexpected, and not leave things where they began"; *"These two beings, who stand...outside the world, are transformed into humans through love, and this love must take possession of everybody on the stage in an orchestral peroration"*. You see, Puccini was trying to write a work that would finally break through the prejudice, self-centeredness, and corruption of so-called nobles and elites, refined men, and fashionable liberals. To move them to a place where they not only cry shallowly for Liu', then claim later to have been manipulated, but to where they recognize that Turandot's torture of Liu' is their responsibility. She, a princess, exercises totalitarian control, treats those beneath her with contempt, and begs for her own dignity, while utterly disregarding that of Liu' or the slaves (read, 99% of society). Calaf is also a noble, also rather immune to the pleas of the many, and ultimately snaps at Liu' the moment he thinks it is to his advantage. He doesn't understand her as much as Turandot herself doesn't. But they are both about to. Liu's self-sacrificial love awakens in them what has been buried, what rationalization and blind prejudice, coupled with an enervation of their creative energies, has caused to wither away. Look at how Calaf finally wins her: by allowing himself to be at her mercy, which she then shows for the first time in her life. Look also at the final declaration of Liu', penned by Puccini himself: "You who are encased in ice/ vanquished by such a flame/ even you will love him." This could be a direct statement to the elite.

Puccini may not have left us books of self-aggrandizement making his intentions obvious to everyone, but he left us a few hints of his transcendental designs. Except his transcendence is not about elevating a few to heaven at the expense of the many. It is about bringing heaven, unity and peace, and their profoundest human expression, love, to earth, to be shared, as love _must always be shared_. Art is about neither the perfectly realistic depiction of reality nor an empty escape. It is about this unity, this rebellion against both the absurdity of the world and the master-slave madness which has dominated our society for so long, in so-called free and unfree countries alike. The maxim of world order is that "The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must" (Thucydides, _History of the Peloponnesian War_). Puccini's art is a rebellion, one that says "No!" to the orders of the masters that are still breaking humanity in two, and yes, lovingly, to the master. It is perhaps best described in the words of another artist about his own work, which is now, sickeningly, traded like a commodity and - the claim infuriates me - admired by the very classes that spat in his face all his life:

"What am I in the eyes of most people - a nonentity, an eccentric, or an unpleasant person - somebody who has no position in society and will never have; in short, the lowest of the low. All right, then - even if that were absolutely true, then I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart. That is my ambition, based less on resentment than on love in spite of everything..." *Vincent van Gogh*

For the sake of the future and soul of humanity, I hope people learn to really listen to what Puccini has to say. It's essential. (How many of you thought you'd ever read someone write _that_?)

P. S. Woodduck, _Parsifal_ was Puccini's favorite opera, and he played it often on his piano and attended performances of it. Even if you reject my analysis, you should accept that Puccini had some idea of the states you say Wagner brings you to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

As much as I have always admired your articulate passion on behalf of your favorite opera composer, Humphrey, I just don't feel the essentially naturalist aesthetic of most of Puccini's works to lend itself to the transcendental and archetypal effect that it evidently does for you, or find that some of the deeper meanings you extrapolate from his stories are actually carried out musically.

Reading _La Boheme_ as a sociological statement just doesn't accord with its essential qualities as I perceive them, and the suggestion that the opera is some kind of lesson about the plight of the lower classes or whomever seems a stretch to me. You may choose to view the opera through that lens, but neither the libretto (as I recall it) nor Puccini's music makes anything much out of it; the opera chooses a particular social milieu, and then focuses on the personal joys and sorrows of young people living that sort of life. That's all it does musically, and all it seems to want to do, and there's nothing wrong with that. Certainly, a production could focus on the social milieu, and that would bring out that dimension of the story, which is certainly present. But the music remains intimate, personal, and romantic, and from that derives its pathos. Dickens seems far away.

I hear Butterfly's death as unmitigated disaster. An exalted state of soul? Not to my ears. Yes, hari-kiri is a method for reclaiming one's dignity after intolerable humiliation. But that is hardly exaltation. In a dark and lugubrious minor key I feel the lifeblood draining from her body as she drags herself over to her child, "trouble"; it's harrowing and pathetic, and the final chord of the opera is a stark cry of shock and pain. There's nothing transcendental here, no visions, no enlightenment. I find it just unbearably sad; she, skewered like the butterfly she's named for, and her conscience-stricken, come-too-late killer having to live with this for the rest of his life.

Whatever Puccini attempted or had in mind for _Turandot,_ I don't find that he succeeds in turning the chilling ugliness of the title character, or the foolish fixation of Calaf, or the shocking torture and suicide of the pathetic little Liu, into a glorious myth about transfiguration. The story is disturbing and unpalatable if we try to impute any psychological realism at all to the characters - but if we don't, it amounts to little more than an exotic fairy tale with a sort of twisted, happily-after-ghastly-doings ending. I suspect most people just surrender to the enchantment of the score and try not to think too much about the inexplicable and upsetting things they're seeing. I know you've said a lot about the mythical aspects of this work elsewhere, but for me Puccini doesn't succeed in making them convincing, much less lovable. Would his final scene have done the trick, had he lived to write it? I'm doubtful. In _Boheme_ and _Butterfly_ and others of his operas, the pathos of the suffering is the final word; in this one, we're asked to snap out of it after a very long, drawn out (too drawn out, I think) musical lamentation for the only character in the opera who can actually touch our emotions. I don't get over things that easily.

I don't quite understand why you are angry just because other people don't respond to Puccini as you do, or read into his plots the symbolism you say you find. Or do I misunderstand your feelings? Puccini's human portraits, so strong and sympathetic, are compelling enough in their own right, as is his superb and moving music. Surely that's what's most salient about his work, and what most people appreciate it for. About other meanings we might find in it, it's legitimate to disagree. No one is attacking Puccini here (well, I'm not anyway); most certainly, no one is devoted to sliming him personally - and his operas by association - in the way that a seemingly incorrigible contingent of the self-righteous compulsively slime Wagner and his work.

I do know that Puccini esteemed Wagner. I believe he said, "Beside him, we are all poor mandolin players." He was excessively modest. He was a splendid mandolin player!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> He never wrote an Alpine Symphony either - even though he lived for a long time in the shadow of the Alps.


. . . and even Wagner bent the knee to the cross with _Parsifal_- something Strauss would never do with his _Alpine Symphony_, which was originally subtitled the "Antichrist" symphony.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . and even Wagner bent the knee to the cross with _Parsifal_- something Strauss would never do with his _Alpine Symphony_, which was originally subtitled the "Antichrist" symphony.


Nietzsche accused him of bending the knee, but I don't believe he really did that. He was a free mind who explored various belief systems: Christianity, Buddhism, the Nordic tradition - but never entirely subscribed to any of them. Some lines in _Parsifal_ are quite blasphemous.

As for the Alpine Symphony - after visiting those very mountains Strauss looked at while composing this piece (I've been for a while in Garmisch-Partenkirchen where Strauss had made his home, and I have come back a full-blown heathen), I can understand why he would have the "Antichrist" idea in mind. The overwhelming beauty of _this world_, the life-giving and life-taking powers of nature, the sense of struggle against it and oneness with it...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Are you saying _The Wagner Clan_ falls into this category? If you ever get around to reading it, I would be interested to hear your informed thoughts on the book. My local public library has a copy - yours may as well.
> :tiphat:


No, I wasn't referring to the contents of that specific book in that particular statement. I was talking about a pattern which the _citation_ of this particular book, in the context of a specific conversation in progress here, exemplifies. If we want to understand Wagner, we ought to study Wagner, not "the Wagner clan." There are by now innumerable studies of him which might not be such delightful bathroom reads, but which will help us understand the artist and his work, and the artist _through_ his work. (There have also been many interesting threads on Wagner on this forum. They have brought us many unsupported assertions about his operas, and a goodly amount of in-depth discussion.) I'd recommend Brian Magee's _Aspects of Wagner_ and Michael Tanner's _Wagner_, two fairly short but pithy studies which focus on the essentials of Wagner's art and avoid both gossipy sensationalism and polemics. Magee's _The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy_ is a good explanation of Wagner's thinking and how it influenced his art, and gives us a strong portrait of the seriousness of his intellectual pursuits and his powerful influence on Nietzsche.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Fascinating piece of chuckle-worthy information from the book "Settling Scores" by David Monod:
> In 1948 an American official was dealing with a request to re-open a music festival for a composer called Wagner in what he understood to be a town called 'Beulah'.
> "What about this fella Wagner?" he asked. "Was his music banned by the Nazis?"


That was only sad.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Nietzsche accused him of bending the knee, but I don't believe he really did that. He was a free mind who explored various belief systems: Christianity, Buddhism, the Nordic tradition - but never entirely subscribed to any of them. Some lines in _Parsifal_ are quite blasphemous.
> 
> As for the Alpine Symphony - after visiting those very mountains Strauss looked at while composing this piece (I've been for a while in Garmisch-Partenkirchen where Strauss had made his home, and I have come back a full-blown heathen), I can understand why he would have the "Antichrist" idea in mind. The overwhelming beauty of _this world_, the life-giving and life-taking powers of nature, the sense of struggle against it and oneness with it...


A great example of worshipping the creation and not the Creator.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I am going to add the word "Teutono-phobes" to my vocabulary from now on


please remember that name calling is not an argument!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Nietzsche accused him of bending the knee, but I don't believe he really did that. He was a free mind who explored various belief systems: Christianity, Buddhism, the Nordic tradition - but never entirely subscribed to any of them. Some lines in _Parsifal_ are quite blasphemous.
> 
> As for the Alpine Symphony - after visiting those very mountains Strauss looked at while composing this piece (I've been for a while in Garmisch-Partenkirchen where Strauss had made his home, and I have come back a full-blown heathen), I can understand why he would have the "Antichrist" idea in mind. The overwhelming beauty of _this world_, the life-giving and life-taking powers of nature, the sense of struggle against it and oneness with it...


"_Nietzsche accused him of bending the knee, but I don't believe he really did that. He was a free mind who explored various belief systems: Christianity, Buddhism, the Nordic tradition - but never entirely subscribed to any of them. Some lines in Parsifal are quite blasphemous_."

You are of course right- Wagner was the Supreme Artist and would not bend the knee to anyone.

His genius consists in making (to me at any rate) 'pedestrian things' "fascinating"- kind of analogously-speaking like how unrivaled essayists like Thomas Carlyle or T.H. Huxley can ingeniously illuminate just about any topic under the sun- but Wagner of course is on a much greater plane of genius than even these two first-rate minds.

The original point I was trying to make in a fun and anti-authoritarian way, was that Wagner would not shy away from making 'redemption' one of his subjects in his opera. That is to say: a 'redemption' by a sort of Divine intervention- which suggest the very 'un-Romantic' idea that man ultimately does not have the power of choice to choose his goals and to direct his life, nor does he have the power to achieve them all by himself- for he is a plaything of forces beyond his control.

To Strauss this is silly- and to me as well. . .

Okay, I'm getting out of my summer hot pants and into my asbestos suit right now in anticipation of Woodduck's arrival. . .


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> please remember that name calling is not an argument!


Nor are _ad hominem_ slurs against great artists.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Nor are _ad hominem_ slurs against great artists.


But not recommending biographies of them!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> But not recommending biographies of them!


If they're 'biographies' and not Teutono-phobic 'pathographies'- sure.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> If they're 'biographies' and not Teutono-phobic 'pathographies'- sure.


I haven't seen too many Teutono-phobic 'pathographies' on the bookshelves in the store or on Amazon. As I say, calling out names is not an argument!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> No, I wasn't referring to the contents of that specific book in that particular statement. I was talking about a pattern which the _citation_ of this particular book, in the context of a specific conversation in progress here, exemplifies. If we want to understand Wagner, we ought to study Wagner, not "the Wagner clan." There are by now innumerable studies of him which might not be such delightful bathroom reads, but which will help us understand the artist and his work, and the artist _through_ his work. (There have also been many interesting threads on Wagner on this forum. They have brought us many unsupported assertions about his operas, and a goodly amount of in-depth discussion.) I'd recommend Brian Magee's _Aspects of Wagner_ and Michael Tanner's _Wagner_, two fairly short but pithy studies which focus on the essentials of Wagner's art and avoid both gossipy sensationalism and polemics. Magee's _The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy_ is a good explanation of Wagner's thinking and how it influenced his art, and gives us a strong portrait of the seriousness of his intellectual pursuits and his powerful influence on Nietzsche.












And as an ancillary post script, I gleaned a lot of insights from (another academic British philosopher, just like Bryan Magee) Roger Scruton's exegesis on _Tristan: Death-Devoted Heart_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I haven't seen too many Teutono-phobic 'pathographies' on the bookshelves in the store or on Amazon. As I say, calling out names is not an argument!


So we're in perfect agreement then.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> And as an ancillary post script, I gleaned a lot of insights from (another academic British philosopher, just like Bryan Magee) Roger Scruton's exegesis on _Tristan: Death-Devoted Heart_.




Thanks for reminding me of that one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for reminding me of that one.


I actually learned of the book's existence from another one of your posts- _merci beaucoup_.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Morimur said:


> A great example of worshipping the creation and not the Creator.


_"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another... Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."_

(Anyone who knows his Bible would recognize that "because of this" refers to Morimur's quote about worshipping the creation instead of the Creator)

Strange, somehow I don't feel any homosexual impulses in me at all, which would be the next step on the road to damnation. Maybe a little more tolerance, and less desire to judge other people's morality, but that is all.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> _"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another... Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."_
> 
> (Anyone who knows his Bible would recognize that "because of this" refers to Morimur's quote about worshipping the creation instead of the Creator)
> 
> Strange, somehow I don't feel any homosexual impulses in me at all, which would be the next step on the road to damnation. Maybe a little more tolerance, and less desire to judge other people's morality, but that is all.


Why worship anyone to begin with? To worship another is to degrade yourself.

Doesn't 'anyone' listen to the _Alpine Symphony_ and read Nietzsche anymore?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why worship anyone to begin with? To worship another is to degrade yourself.
> 
> Doesn't 'anyone' listen to the _Alpine Symphony_ and read Nietzsche anymore?


"When I became a man I put away childish things!"


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> "When I became a man I put away childish things!"


_"The philosophers mocked St. Paul and called him a babbler."_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _"The philosophers mocked St. Paul and called him a babbler."_


And he is read today all over the world whereas they are forgotten.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> "_Nietzsche accused him of bending the knee, but I don't believe he really did that. He was a free mind who explored various belief systems: Christianity, Buddhism, the Nordic tradition - but never entirely subscribed to any of them. Some lines in Parsifal are quite blasphemous_."
> 
> You are of course right- Wagner was the Supreme Artist and would not bend the knee to anyone.
> 
> ...


No blow torch at the ready today, Dear Marschallin. Just a little match to light a candle.

If Wagner were writing realistic novels about happy, healthy, well-bred, well-educated, affluent young people engaged without internal or external impediment in the enterprises and projects of everyday life - delivering newspapers, earning degrees, building houses, running railroads, inventing metal alloys - you might have a point (or half of one) in talking about man having the power to choose and achieve his goals "all by himself." But that is not the kind of story Wagner is telling.

Wagner's characters embody human traits - very human traits - but do so with a specificity and concentration that makes them, not individuals, but symbols of the inner life of Man, of separate but interwoven functions of that inner life, of the passions of the soul struggling to find its integrity, its fulfillment, and its peace. It is not the needs, goals and activities of daily life that Wagner presents, but the development and problems of the human psyche, facing as it typically does obstacles and burdens which, at many stages of its development, its experience does not give it the tools to understand or overcome, or the knowledge of how to use such tools as it has. Growing up - as a quick glance around at those who have superficially done so will prove - is a chancy endeavor, fraught with Capes of Good Hope to sail round, Ortruds and Telramunds to defy, Tristans and Isoldes to yearn for, Fafners to slay, Kundrys to resist, and Holy Grails which we cannot hope to find until we are ready to hear and respond to their call.

The journey of the soul is a journey never taken before, through an unknown country, toward a horizon which cannot be seen except in glimpses, and which constantly recedes as we approach it. No one makes that journey "all by himself," and no one makes it without falling into illusion, with consequences which can be tragic. Wagner portrays the pitfalls of the journey, its tragedies, and its hope. He begins at the beginning - in the depths of the Rhine or the arms of Herzeleide - shows us the constant and perilous potential for error in the process of losing our innocence, and takes us through the agonies and ecstasies of the search for the "second innocence," the redemption from the illusions into which we fall. Redemption is indeed the theme of his works, but not in any doctrinaire theistic sense of "divine intervention." His characters are seeking not "God," not some separate and transcendental otherness, but the lost and unknown parts of themselves. Redemption is healing and wholeness, and each of Wagner's operas, created at successive stages of his life, presents a stage in his understanding of the quest for it. It's fascinating to see and hear the progression of that quest as his dramatic conceptions and musical expression evolve.

As for what is "Romantic": is there anything more profoundly Romantic than the fervent quest of a soul for itself?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> And he is read today all over the world whereas they are forgotten.


Actually, it was the rediscovery of Aristotle and thereby of scientific secularism that lead to the Renaissance and to the rise of the West itself- you know: that utter 'rejection' of Augustine and of medievalism.

The rise of the West happened. . . . . ._ in spite of _that dysangel Paul.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why worship anyone to begin with? To worship another is to degrade yourself.
> 
> Doesn't 'anyone' listen to the _Alpine Symphony_ and read Nietzsche anymore?


I do both.

From Wiki on the meaning of the word "worship": The word is derived from the Old English weorþscipe, meaning worship, honour shown to an object,[2] which has been etymologised as "worthiness or worth-ship"-_to give, at its simplest, worth to something_.

It is a recognition of the fact that there are things in this world greater than 'I'. The Alps have been there for a million years before me, they will remain for a million years after I am gone. They may be "civilized nature" - with hotels and ski resorts and highways all around, but there is still much grandeur and power left there, and they can still kill you if you are not careful. Wagner's and Strauss' music will remain long after both they and I are gone - in fact, I think creating a lasting legacy such as art is the only sure way to get close to immortality. And all these things are a source of wonder, awe and joy.

By the way, in case anybody cares, I've been to the Rockies too: Breckenridge, Colorado. Lots of beauty there. But the impression they left on me is nowhere as strong - partly because of a different mindset I had back then, partly because I saw them mostly out of the car window.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Actually, it was the rediscovery of Aristotle and thereby scientific secularism that lead to the Renaissance and to the rise of the West itself- you know: that utter 'rejection' of Augustine and of medievalism.


Actually that is a lie put about by secularists. The scientists of that age were actually men who believed what Kepler said in 'thinking God's thoughts after him." Actually the scientists rejected Aristotle's view of the universe.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I do both.
> 
> From Wiki on the meaning of the word "worship": The word is derived from the Old English weorþscipe, meaning worship, honour shown to an object,[2] which has been etymologised as "worthiness or worth-ship"-_to give, at its simplest, worth to something_.
> 
> It is a recognition of the fact that there are things in this world greater than 'I'. The Alps have been there for a million years before me, they will remain for a million years after I am gone. They may be "civilized nature" - with hotels and ski resorts and highways all around, but there is still much grandeur and power left there, and they can still kill you if you are not careful. Wagner's and Strauss' music will remain long after both they and I are gone - in fact, I think creating a lasting legacy such as art is the only sure way to get close to immortality. And all these things are a source of wonder, awe and joy.


I'm laughing, SiegendesLicht.

How right you are.

You remind me of when my best friend first played me _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_. Before putting the cd on, he turned around to me, paused for dramatic effect, and then said: "This is Richard Strauss. You must 'worship' him."

_Brava. _


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Actually that is a lie put about by secularists. The scientists of that age were actually men who believed what Kepler said in 'thinking God's thoughts after him." Actually the scientists rejected Aristotle's view of the universe.


Aristotle's cosmology is as wrong as the flat-earth Bible's- sure.

What's valuable about Aristotle is his logic, his Primacy of Existence metaphysics, his individualism, and of course his insatiable scientific curiosity.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

deleted wthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I think Nessun Dorma is a bit boring I prefer the rest of Turandot including the ending. I wonder if Wagner had died before finishing Parsifal or any other of his operas if someone could have finished it Like Alfano could finish Turandot.
> I agree that most Turandots make the suspension of disbelief a bit difficult.


Alfano didn't really "finish" _Turandot_. He just took Puccini's tunes and wrote an ending. As music it's pretty good and it certainly ends things on a happy note (if we don't think about what happened to Liu a few minutes earlier), but we know that Puccini really wanted to surpass himself in a grand final duet. Alfano's original version of the ending was a bit longer and even more exciting musically, but Toscanini didn't approve and cut it down to size. So, in the end, we don't have a proper conclusion to the opera.

Nobody but Wagner could have composed satisfactory final scenes for his operas, though they might have done it "like Alfano could finish Turandot." Wagner's endings are among the most inspired endings in opera: think particularly of _Walkure, Tristan, Siegfried, Gotterdammerung_, and _Parsifal_.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Alfano didn't really "finish" _Turandot_. He just took Puccini's tunes and wrote an ending. As music it's pretty good and it certainly ends things on a happy note (if we don't think about what happened to Liu a few minutes earlier), but we know that Puccini really wanted to surpass himself in a grand final duet. Alfano's original version of the ending was a bit longer and even more exciting musically, but Toscanini didn't approve and cut it down to size. So, in the end, we don't have a proper conclusion to the opera.
> 
> Nobody but Wagner could have composed satisfactory final scenes for his operas, though they might have done it "like Alfano could finish Turandot." Wagner's endings are among the most inspired endings in opera: think particularly of _Walkure, Tristan, Siegfried, Gotterdammerung_, and _Parsifal_.


And Rheingold, Tannhauser, Lohengrin, Meistersinger , Dutchman


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Al.


Yes you are right I mostly felt for writing something to bring back the discussion to Verdi, Wagner and Puccini I answered post 58 because the former post in this thread was written 58.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> And Rheingold, Tannhauser, Lohengrin, Meistersinger , Dutchman


Well let's not get carried away...


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Well let's not get carried away...


You don't think they have great endings?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> You don't think they have great endings?


They most definitely do


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Itullian said:


> And Rheingold, Tannhauser, Lohengrin, Meistersinger , Dutchman


Whatever I don´t think Verdi or Puccini could make me cry over German art and I don´t think Verdi and Puccini could turn a death by jumping in the cold water into something that seems like a glorious victory.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> You don't think they have great endings?


Sure they do. I just picked the ones that I think blow all other operatic endings composed by everyone out of the water.

We Wagnerites must strive to be fair, lest someone remind us for the gazillionth time that Mozart did everything better than everyone else.

Oops. I get the feeling it's about to happen anyway.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Aristotle's cosmology is as wrong as the flat-earth Bible's- sure.
> 
> What's valuable about Aristotle is his logic, his Primacy of Existence metaphysics, his individualism, and of course his insatiable scientific curiosity.


You are of coursel wrong about the Bible as you are about the scientists of the Renaissance. They were mostly believers and what motivated them was to find out about God's creation and how it worked. 
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." (Isaac Newton)
But leave it at that. We're talking about opera!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Whatever I don´t think Verdi or Puccini could make me cry over German art and I don´t think Verdi and Puccini could turn *a death by jumping in the cold water into something that seems like a glorious victory*.


Wow! Try it some time! :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You are of coursel wrong about the Bible as you are about the scientists of the Renaissance. They were mostly believers and what motivated them was to find out about God's creation and how it worked.
> *"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." (Isaac Newton)*
> But leave it at that. We're talking about opera!


Yes, but had Newton lived in 1859- that pivotal year- and not in the early eighteenth century, he most assuredly would have been talking about "descent with modification" and not 'opposable thumbs.'

Science never sleeps. . .

But you're right: back to glorious Wagner, Verdi, and Puccini and all of the aesthetic things that truly matter.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yes, but had Newton lived in 1859- that pivotal year- and not in the early eighteenth century, he most assuredly would have been talking about "descent with modification" and not 'opposable thumbs.'
> 
> Science never sleeps. . .
> 
> But you're right: back to glorious Wagner, Verdi, and Puccini and all of the aesthetic things that truly matter.


Most assuredly? You think Newton's thoughts for him no doubt! :lol:

BTW as a trained scientist I do know science never sleeps!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Most assuredly? You think Newton's thoughts for him no doubt! :lol:
> 
> BTW as a trained scientist I do know science never sleeps!


David, at your post #196 above, you said that you wanted to ". . . leave it at that. We're talking about opera."

Now here you are getting off topic again.

I have nothing against unchecked interventionist spirits, but please, let's hear no more of this nonsense.

If this Forum allowed _carte blanche_ exchanges- this would be all to the good- _and I'd tell you what I really think._

But that's in an alternate universe.

- So Verdi, Puccini, King Richard, and Divina it is.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> David, at your post #196 above, you said that you wanted to ". . . leave it at that. We're talking about opera."
> 
> Now here you are getting off topic again.
> 
> ...


Yes but then you added something which needed a reply.

Anyway, back on topic. I have just added to my Verdi with Tebaldi's Forza with del Monaco and Gobbi's Simon Boccanegra. I have enough of dear old RW for a bit but I am finding a liking to Rossini so I also have Tell and that Italian lass in Algeria. Callas' Aida is on order as is her Turandot. Must find the time to listen to them! :lol:

No wonder Newton found the time to write Principia Mathematica - he didn't have to listen to opera!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> *Yes but then you added something which needed a reply. *
> 
> Anyway, back on topic. I have just added to my Verdi with Tebaldi's Forza with del Monaco and Gobbi's Simon Boccanegra. I have enough of dear old RW for a bit but I am finding a liking to Rossini so I also have Tell and that Italian lass in Algeria. Callas' Aida is on order as is her Turandot. Must find the time to listen to them! :lol:
> 
> No wonder Newton found the time to write Principia Mathematica - he didn't have to listen to opera!


_Tu quoque_. . . _an infinitum_. . _ad nauseam_.

- Yes, back to operatic masterpieces and not unintelligible things expressed in terms of the not-worth-knowing.

I was just telling a TC friend in a PM how I'm going to order that _Simon Boccanegra_ you just mentioned for the stellar cast if not the conducting. I have the Abbado with Freni, but I absolutely 'must have' De Los Angeles doing it.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Verdi. perhaps his characterizations weren't quite as moving as the other two, but his vocal lines were so much more interesting, and he had that perfect balance of lyric vs dramatic, delicate vs powerful, high vs middle vs low and intricate coloratura vs flowing, lyrical lines.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Verdi. perhaps his characterizations weren't quite as moving as the other two, but his vocal lines were so much more interesting, and he had that perfect balance of lyric vs dramatic, delicate vs powerful, high vs middle vs low and intricate coloratura vs flowing, lyrical lines.


\
I find Verdi's characterisations far more convincing than Wagner's. Puccini's too. The characters are somehow more believable and one can identify with them. Of course that is a personal point of view.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> An interesting comment from Solti's autobiography:
> 
> "I adore Verdi's modesty and his concern for his fellow human beings. His correspondence with Boito, his last librettist, remains among the great documents in music history. Even though Verdi became much wealthier than Wagner, his exact contemporary, it is hard to imagine Wagner [and Solti might have added Puccini], under any conditions, building our hospital for local peasants, creating a rest home for old musicians or taking a keen interest in the running of a farm."


I'm a little late on this.

Now I bow to few on my love of Verdi's music but I think it's fair to say on this evidence Solti didn't look too deeply to see if there was more than the kindly side of Verdi's nature. In additon to all above, someone better acquainted with the life might reflect on his treatment of Streponi and his servants (on at least one documented occasion) before painting quite so rosy a picture of the Bear of Bussetto. The point I wish to make is that he was a human too, even if his character stands up pretty well in this company


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> I'm a little late on this.
> 
> Now I bow to few on my love of Verdi's music but I think it's fair to say on this evidence Solti didn't look too deeply to see if there was more than the kindly side of Verdi's nature. In additon to all above, someone better acquainted with the life might reflect on his treatment of Streponi and his servants (on at least one documented occasion) before painting quite so rosy a picture of the Bear of Bussetto. The point I wish to make is that he was a human too, even if his character stands up pretty well in this company


A human tendency is to oversimplify and caricature things, especially people. We particularly like moral oversimplification. One never hears that Verdi had flaws or did anything reprehensible, just as one never hears that Wagner had virtues or did anything admirable. Pointing to heroes and villains is a nice way of establishing our own moral stature without having to do anything to demonstrate it, and we can appear all the more credible if we're talking about people who are dead.

The most grotesquely embarrassing exhibition of this I've ever seen - and this is specifically with reference to Verdi and Wagner - is this so-called debate about the relative merits of the two composers:






One naturally goes into this expecting an interesting discussion of the composers' work, but what one gets is a decent discussion of Wagner's work by Philip Henscher and a pretentious, moralistic rant by Norman Lebrecht which sets out to prove only that Verdi was a nice fella while Wagner was a despicable jerk.

Guess what Lebrecht ends up looking like?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

^And the worst Wagner singer ever by Tomlinson. ugh


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> ^And the worst Wagner singer ever by Tomlinson. ugh


Way over the hill. I guess he was all they could afford.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Way over the hill. I guess he was all they could afford.


Yes, I liked his Wotan with Barenboim.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Henscher made some interesting points, I thought.
Like the multi dimensionality of Wagner's characters.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> *A human tendency is to oversimplify and caricature things, especially people. We particularly like moral oversimplification. One never hears that Verdi had flaws or did anything reprehensible, just as one never hears that Wagner had virtues or did anything admirable*. Pointing to heroes and villains is a nice way of establishing our own moral stature without having to do anything to demonstrate it, and we can appear all the more credible if we're talking about people who are dead.
> 
> The most grotesquely embarrassing exhibition of this I've ever seen - and this is specifically with reference to Verdi and Wagner - is this so-called debate about the relative merits of the two composers:
> 
> ...


Please note that Solti's statement was an aside in a somewhat short autobiography. It wasn't a scholarly treatise on Verdi or Wagner. One does in fact hear about the flaws in Verdi's character if you read deeper although they still emerge as somewhat less obvious than Wagner's. 
As to Lebrecht, surely no-one takes him too seriously anyway?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Belowpar said:


> I'm a little late on this.
> 
> Now I bow to few on my love of Verdi's music but I think it's fair to say on this evidence Solti didn't look too deeply to see if there was more than the kindly side of Verdi's nature. In additon to all above, someone better acquainted with the life might reflect on his treatment of Streponi and his servants (on at least one documented occasion) before painting quite so rosy a picture of the Bear of Bussetto. The point I wish to make is that he was a human too, even if his character stands up pretty well in this company


That's fair enough although Solti was just commenting as an aside. Even given Verdi's darker side, I still think it is hard from what we know of them to imagine Wagner [or Puccini], under any conditions, building our hospital for local peasants, creating a rest home for old musicians or taking a keen interest in the running of a farm.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Please note that Solti's statement was an aside in a somewhat short autobiography. It wasn't a scholarly treatise on Verdi or Wagner. One does in fact hear about the flaws in Verdi's character if you read deeper although they still emerge as somewhat less obvious than Wagner's.
> As to Lebrecht, surely no-one takes him too seriously anyway?


Whether anyone takes Lebrecht seriously isn't my concern. I certainly don't. He merely provided a particularly cringe-inducing example of the sort of glib, simplistic and self-righteous moralizing that substitutes for useful analysis and shows an embarrassing smallness of mind.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> That's fair enough although Solti was just commenting as an aside. Even given Verdi's darker side, I still think it is hard from what we know of them to imagine Wagner [or Puccini], under any conditions, building our hospital for local peasants, creating a rest home for old musicians or taking a keen interest in the running of a farm.


Frankly, who cares whether Wagner or Puccini or Beethoven or anyone else would have done the things that Verdi did? Heck, I have no plans to do any of it myself. Does that have any significance whatsoever? Did Verdi write books on conducting or music or drama, or create a theater of revolutionary design, or influence composers, poets, and novelists to create new forms of art? What do Verdi's or Wagner's dark sides, or light sides, have to do with it? We all have very different lives, different missions in this world, and provided our business here isn't destructive business, it's all good and comparisons are pointless. It doesn't take a musical genius to build a hospital, and lucky for us the geniuses didn't all spend their time tending farms.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> *Frankly, who cares whether Wagner or Puccini or Beethoven or anyone else would have done the things that Verdi did? *Heck, I have no plans to do any of it myself. Does that have any significance whatsoever? Did Verdi write books on conducting or music or drama, or create a theater of revolutionary design, or influence composers, poets, and novelists to create new forms of art? What do Verdi's or Wagner's dark sides, or light sides, have to do with it? We all have very different lives, different missions in this world, and provided our business here isn't destructive business, it's all good and comparisons are pointless. It doesn't take a musical genius to build a hospital, and lucky for us the geniuses didn't all spend their time tending farms.


I care. I believe that words and ideas matter. I believe that actions matter. I believe that people who strive to alleviate suffering and make the world a better place matter. I also believe that such words, ideas, and actions inform their artistic creations. It is not too difficult to see.

Perhaps that is the root of our differences.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> I care. I believe that words and ideas matter. I believe that actions matter. I believe that people who strive to alleviate suffering and make the world a better place matter. I also believe that such words, ideas, and actions inform the artistic creations of such people. It is not too difficult to see.
> 
> Perhaps that is the root of our differences.


Well, perhaps it isn't - whatever differences you may be looking for the root of. 

We're talking about individuals here. Individuals have the right to choose how they'll spend their lives, do they not? Who are you or I to assert the superiority of one life path over another, or of the person who chooses one over another? Would Beethoven have met with greater approval from you if he had given up composing and spent his life working in an orphanage? And are you saying that because he spent virtually all his time on earth turning out great masterpieces which posterity cherishes, he didn't do enough to "make the world a better place"?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Frankly, who cares whether Wagner or Puccini or Beethoven or anyone else would have done the things that Verdi did? Heck, I have no plans to do any of it myself. Does that have any significance whatsoever? Did Verdi write books on conducting or music or drama, or create a theater of revolutionary design, or influence composers, poets, and novelists to create new forms of art? What do Verdi's or Wagner's dark sides, or light sides, have to do with it? We all have very different lives, different missions in this world, and provided our business here isn't destructive business, it's all good and comparisons are pointless. It doesn't take a musical genius to build a hospital, and *lucky for us the geniuses didn't all spend their time tending farms.*




By the look of his output Verdi didn't spend all his time tending his farm. I think you miss the point, Woodduck in that although we appreciate musical genius, we also appreciate those who have 'made it' seeking to make the world a better place by charitable works providing for the poor, etc. Whether or not it makes any difference to Verdi's music I'm glad he did what he did. Bill Gates recent efforts at charitable work don't effect the outcome of Microsoft on my computer but I am glad he is trying to make the world better.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Well, perhaps it isn't - whatever differences you may be looking for the root of.
> 
> We're talking about individuals here. Individuals have the right to choose how they'll spend their lives, do they not?


Of course they do. And they are also responsible for those choices.


> Who are you or I to assert the superiority of one life path over another, or of the person who chooses one over another?


That is almost a textbook definition of values. If one has values, one does those very things.


> Would Beethoven have met with greater approval from you if he had given up composing and spent his life working in an orphanage? And are you saying that because he spent virtually all his time on earth turning out great masterpieces which posterity cherishes, he didn't do enough to "make the world a better place"?


This is sloppy logic. It is not a question of writing a symphony OR building an orphanage. I never said someone should be denigrated for not doing X. I said it matters to me if someone takes positive action to alleviate suffering and make the world a better place.

If that is irrelevant to you, that's fine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Of course they do.
> 
> That is almost a textbook definition of values. If one has values, one does those very things.
> 
> ...


Before you accuse _me_ of faulty logic, you need to clarify the relationship between your statements, and explain exactly what it is you're coming in here and preaching about. You say:

_"I never said someone should be denigrated for not doing X. I said it matters to me if someone takes positive action to alleviate suffering and make the world a better place."
_
This may make perfect sense to you, but it doesn't to me. If it "matters to you if someone takes positive action to alleviate suffering," it must also matter to you if they don't. But then you say you don't "denigrate" them for not doing X. I didn't use the word "denigrate." You did. And what is this X you don't "denigrate" people for doing or not doing? And if what you do isn't denigrating them, what is it? And why should they, or anyone else, care?

Just what is it acceptable to you for a person to do or not do with his life? Who are you standing in judgment of? Who are you looking down on? You are obviously looking down on somebody for not doing something, or you would not have found it necessary to object to my post in which I merely asserted that people are individuals with different lives and that one person is not to be condemned, or praised, or compared in any way, for not making the same choices as another. We are not talking about lives of crime here, for God's sake. We're talking about the immense variety of productive lives that people can lead. It looks as if you want to set yourself up as some sort of moral arbiter and rank other people's lives according to how well they meet your own personally chosen life goals.

If that's what you're doing, good luck! I repeat my initial question: who cares? And why should anyone care? Why shouldn't people just mind their own ***-****** business?


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Before you accuse _me_ of faulty logic, you need to clarify the relationship between your statements, and explain exactly what it is you're coming in here and preaching about. You say:
> 
> _"I never said someone should be denigrated for not doing X. I said it matters to me if someone takes positive action to alleviate suffering and make the world a better place."
> _
> ...


Wow. I think I was pretty clear in my earlier posts. I guess we see things differently.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> I think I was pretty clear in my earlier posts. I guess we see things differently.


Why did you feel it necessary to object to my post at all? I asked a simple question: "Who cares whether Wagner or Puccini or Beethoven or anyone else would have done the things that Verdi did?" I asked it to make what I think is the obvious point that there are innumerable worthy pursuits in life and that people are not to be judged superior or inferior because they choose different ones. Why does this occasion a moralistic lecture, which is exactly what I was at pains to forestall? How does it entitle you to make assumptions about my personal values and the "root of our differences"? How do you know what importance I place on "making the world a better place"? Talk about presumptuousness!

Few things are more obnoxious than moral soapboxing. But it seems there are some people around here who just can't resist it, especially when the subject is Wagner. The poor man is dead! Let it go! It is infinitely tiresome and boring.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Why did you feel it necessary to object to my post at all? I asked a simple question: "Who cares whether Wagner or Puccini or Beethoven or anyone else would have done the things that Verdi did?" I asked it to make what I think is the obvious point that there are innumerable worthy pursuits in life and that people are not to be judged superior or inferior because they choose different ones. Why does this occasion a moralistic lecture, which is exactly what I was at pains to forestall? How does it entitle you to make assumptions about my personal values and the "root of our differences"? How do you know what importance I place on "making the world a better place"? Talk about presumptuousness!
> 
> Few things are more obnoxious than moral soapboxing. But it seems there are some people around here who just can't resist it, especially when the subject is Wagner. The poor man is dead! Let it go! It is infinitely tiresome and boring.


I repeat -- Wow. I guess we see things differently.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If that's what you're doing, good luck! I repeat my initial question: who cares? And why should anyone care? Why shouldn't people just mind their own ***-****** business?


Having travelled to various parts of the world and seen appalling suffering, such as children trying to feed themselves off the municipal rubbish tip, I was glad to see there were people there who cared enough about it to try and alleviate that suffering. They could, of course, have just minded their own business! In the same way I'm glad Verdi, whatever his faults, cared enough to establish a charitable foundation.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

We are veering back towards the whole life vs the work debate.

Earlier in this thread the always articulate HumphreyAppleby posted

“anyone who studies philosophy, or thinks things through for a moment, knows that the character of the person making the argument, even if it is such that they don't even do what they say, has no actual bearing on the strength of their argument.”

I.e. he then goes on to ask that we treat the life and the ideas in the works independent and therefore one isn’t be relevant to the other. I have to agree but…one wouldn’t be human if we didn’t take an interest in this and be intrigued by the inconsistency we often find. It’s part of maturing to accept that this is the way of the world.

However having agreed it does makes it harder to believe in an argument if you know the character of the person to be suspect. I know I was amazed to read in the Phillips-Matz biography of Verdi that she believed Strepponi was likely to have given up a child by Verdi anonymously at a foundling hospital. Was this the action of the man who had lost his own children and first wife and wrote so many compelling scenes between father and daughter? Could it really be true? Should I just ignore the life? Am I just operating at the level of a scandal sheet by contemplating this? If nothing else it makes me think about how much I really understand human nature, which of course does feed back to how I accept ideas presented to me. 

I realise that essentially here I’m treating ‘stories’ in the same way as ideas or beliefs and that’s a weak point in itself. Perhaps that's where the analogy fails? An idea stands alone and a story has a creator.

Woodduck I don’t wish to put words in your mouth, but you appear to be taking the high ground and dismissing the biography industry, yet you do know the facts of the life. Is there an inconsistency there? Where does the interest in the facts lie if it’s doesn’t relate in some small way to our understanding of the works?

I would be interested to read about the Wagner clan, but even employing “Regie” directors is summed up by a Latin phrase meaning that what comes later does not change the original fact and if only I’d paid attention at school this sentence would be a lot shorter!

NB Once again it seems like I have downer on dear Joe. Not so, Solti could have added he was a good friend to many, supported more than one charity and I do consider him to have been a “Great Man”. I'm just waiting for someone to say I need to read the second edition or X paper where the whole abandoned baby idea is discounted.

PPS sorry if I ramble, I’m just sorting these things in my head.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Belowpar said:


> Earlier in this thread the always articulate HumphreyAppleby posted
> 
> "anyone who studies philosophy, or thinks things through for a moment, knows that the character of the person making the argument, even if it is such that they don't even do what they say, has no actual bearing on the strength of their argument."
> 
> .


It might not discount the philosophy necessarily, but it does discount the person who holds it if they don't actually live according to the philosophy they propagate. In addition it shows they didn't really believe in the philosophy in the first place, at least strongly enough to have it effect their lifestyle.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It might not discount the philosophy necessarily, but it does *discount the person* who holds it if they don't actually live according to the philosophy they propagate. In addition it shows they didn't really believe in the philosophy in the first place, at least strongly enough to have it effect their lifestyle.


Oh these street-corner preachers! I go to bed last night thinking that this useless excuse for a discussion has played itself out and that we'll all be back to talking about opera - remember opera? - in the morning and - _kapow!_ More moralistic posturing, pontificating and soapboxing with my morning coffee! And this coffee was tasting soooooooo good! 

So now we're _"discounting people"!_ Marvelous phrase! One I could never have thought up myself! So who is it this time? Who are we sending to perdition today? In which circle of hell will we locate whom? On my tour of the inferno, at which level do I stop to say hello to Verdi, Wagner, or Puccini? I'm sure they're all there somewhere - and Mozart and Beethoven must be there too - since they must all have failed to live up to their "philosophies," whatever those were. But if we're in doubt about that we can surely read their biographies and discover the lapses and flaws in their "lifestyles," and look for reasons to "discount" their works as well. Now that would be a real achievement, wouldn't it? Can we actually learn to hear "womanizing" or "egotism" or "prejudice" as we listen to Butterfly or Brunnhilde or Otello singing to us? How come I've never realized that before? Why did it never occur to me that we can't just listen to a composer's music without thinking about how nasty he was to his nephew or mistress or illegitimate children? 65 years on this planet, and I never dreamed it could be so satisfying to point my righteous little finger at dead artists and prove that I'm so wise and compassionate and pure that I can tell them how they could have straightened out their depraved and misdirected lives and actually made themselves useful to humanity!

I think all of us here on TC should take a moment out of our busy day to give thanks on bended knee for the enlightened among us who've been called to bring the rest of us selfish and erring music lovers - and especially us aspiring composers - the truth, and save us from making the same awful mistakes as those dead geniuses who didn't spend enough of their time on earth ministering to the sick or rescuing starving children or preaching the gospel.

Bloody ****! Give us a break!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Wow. I think I was pretty clear in my earlier posts. I guess we see things differently.


you can see things however you like; however, the implied topic of this thread is that we are comparing Verdi the _musician_, Wagner the _musician_ and Puccini the _musician_. Wooduck is right that you are bringing an an off topic flavor of moral high ground into the mix.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> you can see things however you like; however, the implied topic of this thread is that we are comparing Verdi the _musician_, Wagner the _musician_ and Puccini the _musician_. Wooduck is right that you are bringing an an off topic flavor of moral high ground into the mix.


BalalaikaBoy, my first comment in this recent exchange was a response to a direct question asked by Woodduck in Post #214. After two brief posts, I calmly tried to bow out of the discussion which was, indeed, in danger of veering off topic. If Woodduck chooses to interpret any disagreement with his worldview as either (i) moralistic preaching; (ii) a personal attack; or (iii) part of a nefarious, cabalistic conspiracy to unjustly defame his favorite composer, that is his prerogative. But perhaps it is a good idea not to ask a question in a public internet forum if you don't want an answer.

In any case, to the OP, I agree with you that Verdi was the finest composer of the three for the reasons you gave upthread and more.

I will calmly bow out once more.

Edit: (Note for post below: by "worldview" I simply mean one's opinions, divers and sundry.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> BalalaikaBoy, my first comment in this recent exchange was a response to a direct question asked by Woodduck in Post #214. If he chooses to interpret any disagreement with his worldview as either (i) moralistic preaching; (ii) a personal attack; or (iii) part of a nefarious, cabalistic conspiracy to unjustly defame his favorite composer, that is his prerogative. But perhaps it is a good idea not to ask a question in a public internet forum if you don't want an answer.


My "worldview" is not in question here, Balthazar. No member's "worldview" should be the topic of unsolicited remarks by other people on a music forum.

My "direct question" was "Who cares whether Wagner or Puccini or Beethoven or anyone else would have done the things that Verdi did?" The question was very specific and narrow in its focus. It was not a question about anyone's "worldview," much less an attempt to assert one. You didn't give a direct answer to my question. What you did give was a little testimonial about how much you care about suffering humanity and "making the world a better place," along with the very presumptuous statement that your concern about these things and my assumed lack of concern might be "the root of our differences."

I would humbly suggest that you not concern yourself with trying to guess what my "worldview" or "our differences" might be. My "worldview" is my own business and your personal remarks about what you think it is are unwelcome.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Oh* these street-corner preachers!* I go to bed last night thinking that this useless excuse for a discussion has played itself out and that we'll all be back to talking about opera - remember opera? - in the morning and - _kapow!_ More moralistic posturing, pontificating and soapboxing with my morning coffee! And this coffee was tasting soooooooo good!
> 
> So now we're _"discounting people"!_ Marvelous phrase! One I could never have thought up myself! So who is it this time? Who are we sending to perdition today? In which circle of hell will we locate whom? On my tour of the inferno, at which level do I stop to say hello to Verdi, Wagner, or Puccini? I'm sure they're all there somewhere - and Mozart and Beethoven must be there too - since they must all have failed to live up to their "philosophies," whatever those were. But if we're in doubt about that we can surely read their biographies and discover the lapses and flaws in their "lifestyles," and look for reasons to "discount" their works as well. Now that would be a real achievement, wouldn't it? Can we actually learn to hear "womanizing" or "egotism" or "prejudice" as we listen to Butterfly or Brunnhilde or Otello singing to us? How come I've never realized that before? Why did it never occur to me that we can't just listen to a composer's music without thinking about how nasty he was to his nephew or mistress or illegitimate children? 65 years on this planet, and I never dreamed it could be so satisfying to point my righteous little finger at dead artists and prove that I'm so wise and compassionate and pure that I can tell them how they could have straightened out their depraved and misdirected lives and actually made themselves useful to humanity!
> 
> ...


Sorry Woodduck! Name calling is not an argument. I think it's best not to argue like this.


----------



## Diminuendo (May 5, 2015)

This thread really is heated. The best and the worst this forum can do to you.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Getting back to the subject of the music, I must say I am finding Verdi tremendous at the mement with his uncanny knack of drawing you into his world. I'm listening to Otello at the moment. Iago's Credo is quite terrifying - just like the Dies Irae in the requiem (only, of course, an anti faith statement). And the love duet must be some of the most beautiful music he wrote. I've just had Callas' Aida arrive today so looking forward to that!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> This thread really is heated. The best and the worst this forum can do to you.


Hahaha! You're right. Exchanges here really can crescendo, diminuendo, and it seems the more off-topic they stray the bigger the crescendo gets. Let's hope for a morendo on the moralizing and a swift return to the subject of opera. What matters about these three geniuses is the musical and theatrical grandeur and magic they left us - an immense gift of joy to humanity which is probably more than any of us, or all of us together, will ever contribute to the world.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Diminuendo said:


> This thread really is heated. The best and the worst this forum can do to you.


I can´t see how this thread can become so heated. It is an argument of which out of three great composers who were best at composing operas. It is nothing to be angry about. I agree too that arguments such as Verdi was good and Wagner was evil are not valid. We will not meet either Wagner or Verdi or have anything to do with them so how they were as persons is nothing that is relevant to us or their music.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Funny,
on the thread asking if the character or personal life of composers, artists affected their listening everyone said no.
But for Wagner................
hmmmmm


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Sloe said:


> I can´t see how this thread can become so heated. It is an argument of which out of three great composers who were best at composing operas. It is nothing to be angry about. I agree too that arguments such as Verdi was good and Wagner was evil are not valid. We will not meet either Wagner or Verdi or have anything to do with them so how they were as persons is nothing that is relevant to us or their music.


And it's all opinion.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

> Reading La Boheme as a sociological statement just doesn't accord with its essential qualities as I perceive them, and the suggestion that the opera is some kind of lesson about the plight of the lower classes or whomever seems a stretch to me.


Of course it isn't a sociological statement. Puccini wasn't ideological. It's not about bringing about the glorious revolution, or teaching the audience something, it's about taking the time to look at a life many people don't consider important enough to look at in a way that many people think is giving it too much weight. I realize the highly political manner in which I couldn't help but make my remarks may have blurred this point, but I do not interpret La boheme as some kind of message theatre piece. I do, however, stand by, and am willing to defend at much greater length and detail, my claim that it is essentially about hope, particularly the hope of the young and "unimportant". This interpretation is not even original to me, it's made in a number of places by authors who are both dismissive and lauding of Puccini, and I think it is well in evidence. In addition, I think the coldness of the world that is repeatedly emphasized in the story and text, as well as depicted in the music, is a metaphor for the complex and uncaring adult world that slowly encroaches on the Bohemians. Part of that is the oppressive poverty in which they live, and in Act 3 Rodolfo blames his poverty, his cold garret specifically, for the rapid deterioration of Mimi''s health. The way that meaning is assigned musically and poetically to ordinary objects once again underscores the composer's interest in both the quotidian (persons, things, and events) and the poetic life force underlying them that slowly fades into a bleak world of adult consideration (the selling of Colline's coat, music which reappears at the very end of the opera as the last statement on the Bohemians, and the coldness that eventually seeps through the muff that Musetta brought her and makes her hand forever frozen). So while Puccini isn't saying "Look! Poor people! You all suck!", he's actually doing something much more important: he's telling stories about them that have real depth and that are of universal significance to human beings. Again, if this is an insufficient argument, I will be happy to expand it in a separate thread.



> I hear Butterfly's death as unmitigated disaster. An exalted state of soul? Not to my ears. Yes, hari-kiri is a method for reclaiming one's dignity after intolerable humiliation. But that is hardly exaltation. In a dark and lugubrious minor key I feel the lifeblood draining from her body as she drags herself over to her child, "trouble"; it's harrowing and pathetic, and the final chord of the opera is a stark cry of shock and pain. There's nothing transcendental here, no visions, no enlightenment. I find it just unbearably sad; she, skewered like the butterfly she's named for, and her conscience-stricken, come-too-late killer having to live with this for the rest of his life.


I leave room, of course, for other interpretations. But I encourage you to reread the libretto for the aria "Tu tu piccolo iddio", and to reexamine the music at this moment. True, this music is incredibly sad. But do you not believe her own words when she says that she dies not for any reason to do with Pinkerton, but because she doesn't want her child to be burdened by a mother who abandoned him. She transcends her own condition in her complete love for her child. She can no longer care for him, no longer live for him, but she cannot bring herself to live without him. She gives him up, selflessly, that he may live a good life. And she then takes it upon herself to have what in her culture is an honorable death. So, in a sense, I agree with your depiction of the very end of the opera: her death itself is pain and pathos. But it's her final words to her child that give her some measure of transcendence: "Va, gioca". Play: create, make a life, a new life far removed from a suffering mother, take the gift of a new land and grow into what I could not. (To be clear, I'm not hinging the interpretation on this one line; the entire text of the aria supports me, I think.) In giving her child up to this future, and not clinging to him and to her life as many people would, she shows not only her love, but her courage and strength. It's a complex moment, but I certainly that her music at "Guarda ben, amore addio" moves beyond mere grief.



> In*Boheme*and*Butterfly*and others of his operas, the pathos of the suffering is the final word; in this one, we're asked to snap out of it after a very long, drawn out (too drawn out, I think) musical lamentation for the only character in the opera who can actually touch our emotions. I don't get over things that easily.


I find this criticism odd, if not downright baffling, coming from a Wagnerian. While I agree with comments of yours that say that Wagner intends us to take Tristan and Isolde as a young couple in love, not giants, surely part of the allure of the Ring is its grandeur, its fantastical nature, and its godly characters. None of the Ring's protagonists are much warmer than Calaf, though there are a few who aren't as deeply frozen as Turandot. Distance is a characteristic of all mythic heroes. They are apart from us, and that's the way they should be for the sake of the mythiness of it all. But, as I said, Puccini's attempt to bring the mythical down to the level of the human was incomplete - he died before he could do it, so I don't see much point in declaring the opera flawed when it isn't even finished. Say Homer died before writing the last two books of the Iliad (assuming it was actually written down by a single person). Achilles would come out looking not a whole lot better than Turandot does. Turandot never got to cry her tears with Priam, at least not by Puccini's hand. And if Achilles' hadn't but by the pen of a greatly inferior poet, the Iliad would be a great start, but "problematic" and probably incapable of being finished in a way that undoes his disturbing behavior.



> I don't quite understand why you are angry just because other people don't respond to Puccini as you do, or read into his plots the symbolism you say you find. Or do I misunderstand your feelings?


Indeed. I take no quarrel with people who just don't like Puccini for whatever reason, or who have a well thought out critique of him. I've read them. They're out there. But what grates my cheese is when people become dismissive of him. When people like the forum member aisia start off this thread by referring to Wagner as "transcendental works of art" and Puccini as "pap". When people make no attempt to understand something and simply accept the conventional wisdom surrounding it. And when the value of the people he writes about is denied, as is any possible greater significance to their lives, and to his works.

You must realize how condescending and even cruel (though I do not think this was your intent) a comment like this might seem:


Woodduck said:


> No adolescent poetasters blubbering over the bodies of sad little seamstresses who've coughed themselves to death.


 especially to someone like me who is a part of "the lower classes or whomever", suffers from chronic illness, and who identifies with that seamstress because of it.

My other stated objection was to the characterization of Mimi' as passive and by implication undignified. Again: what does being too poor to live in our society have to do with indignity? How is Mimi''s passivity greater than Violetta's? They both had chronic, incurable illness. That tends to take away one's impetus for action. The real difference is that Mimi' died after a life marked by privation and anonymity. Well, Puccini made the name of that girl immortal. That's important. To me, and, I think, the world.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I agree with Humphrey Appleby in this. Puccini's characters really move me. Of course it was the habit of grandees to say they were sentimental, but in fact they move me far more than Wagner because I can believe in them. I have met the Butterfly's of this world (albeit in a different culture) and so can believe in them. I have met poor people like Mimi and Rudolfo and heard stories not akin to Tosca from people in WW2. While I can admire Wagner and be excited by his music I am never terribly moved because the characters are somehow so distant, in another world. It's this transcendental sense that removes them from my world which is not inhabited by gods, dragons and Knights. Obviously this is a personal view and I know others think differently. (Different opinions on these things are often down to different personality types, my wife tells me!)
Puccini also had tremendous skill as a composer which has not been appreciated until fairly recently. Hence he needs a great conductor, just as much as Wagner (and Verdi too). I recently listened to Boheme conducted by Beecham and then by Votto. Where Votto is competent Beecham is revelatory, enabling us to appreciate Puccini's wondrous score. Karajan also brings out the wonders of Puccini's orchestration in his conducting of the operas. One wishes Beecham had recorded more for us.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Puccini also had tremendous skill as a composer which has not been appreciated until fairly recently. Hence he needs a great conductor, just as much as Wagner (and Verdi too). I recently listened to Boheme conducted by Beecham and then by Votto. Where Votto is competent Beecham is revelatory, enabling us to appreciate Puccini's wondrous score. Karajan also brings out the wonders of Puccini's orchestration in his conducting of the operas. One wishes Beecham had recorded more for us.


This is an extremely important point. So often conductors just steamroll right over the intricacies and hidden jewels in Puccini's scores. Karajan's _Butterfly_ is incredible, and I love his _Tosca_ with Carreras and Ricciarelli for its sonority.

On the first point (seems I'm doing them backwards - oh well), I was playing the opening of Vissi d'arte on the piano a few weeks back and my friend, who is an excellent musician, was quite surprised by some of the chords, and asked me how influenced Puccini was by jazz. Another friend who is an opera singer laments to me every time I see her that _Gianni Schicchi_ which she is singing right now is more difficult than the crazy modernist scores she's dealt with over the past few months. It sounds easy, but it's quite a challenge to sing (something to do with the accents on beats you wouldn't expect, etc.).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> This is an extremely important point. So often conductors just steamroll right over the intricacies and hidden jewels in Puccini's scores. Karajan's _Butterfly_ is incredible, and I love his _Tosca_ with Carreras and Ricciarelli for its sonority.
> 
> On the first point (seems I'm doing them backwards - oh well), I was playing the opening of Vissi d'arte on the piano a few weeks back and my friend, who is an excellent musician, was quite surprised by some of the chords, and asked me how influenced Puccini was by jazz. Another friend who is an opera singer laments to me every time I see her that _Gianni Schicchi_ which she is singing right now is more difficult than the crazy modernist scores she's dealt with over the past few months. It sounds easy, but it's quite a challenge to sing (something to do with the accents on beats you wouldn't expect, etc.).


Karajan was a great Puccini conductor (in spite of the sneers of some critics) because he understood the importance of Puccini's orchestration. Just listen to his Turandot. So, of course, was de Sabata who Karajan admired greatly. HvK actually said that Sabata had secrets in conducting Tosca that he didn't! A tragedy this great conductor didn't make more recordings. Among modern conductors Pappano gives good value. His Tosca is a thrilling ride!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Of course it isn't a sociological statement. Puccini wasn't ideological. It's not about bringing about the glorious revolution, or teaching the audience something, it's about taking the time to look at a life many people don't consider important enough to look at in a way that many people think is giving it too much weight. I realize the highly political manner in which I couldn't help but make my remarks may have blurred this point, but I do not interpret La boheme as some kind of message theatre piece. I do, however, stand by, and am willing to defend at much greater length and detail, my claim that it is essentially about hope, particularly the hope of the young and "unimportant". This interpretation is not even original to me, it's made in a number of places by authors who are both dismissive and lauding of Puccini, and I think it is well in evidence. In addition, I think the coldness of the world that is repeatedly emphasized in the story and text, as well as depicted in the music, is a metaphor for the complex and uncaring adult world that slowly encroaches on the Bohemians. Part of that is the oppressive poverty in which they live, and in Act 3 Rodolfo blames his poverty, his cold garret specifically, for the rapid deterioration of Mimi''s health. The way that meaning is assigned musically and poetically to ordinary objects once again underscores the composer's interest in both the quotidian (persons, things, and events) and the poetic life force underlying them that slowly fades into a bleak world of adult consideration (the selling of Colline's coat, music which reappears at the very end of the opera as the last statement on the Bohemians, and the coldness that eventually seeps through the muff that Musetta brought her and makes her hand forever frozen). So while Puccini isn't saying "Look! Poor people! You all suck!", he's actually doing something much more important: he's telling stories about them that have real depth and that are of universal significance to human beings. Again, if this is an insufficient argument, I will be happy to expand it in a separate thread.
> 
> I leave room, of course, for other interpretations. But I encourage you to reread the libretto for the aria "Tu tu piccolo iddio", and to reexamine the music at this moment. True, this music is incredibly sad. But do you not believe her own words when she says that she dies not for any reason to do with Pinkerton, but because she doesn't want her child to be burdened by a mother who abandoned him. She transcends her own condition in her complete love for her child. She can no longer care for him, no longer live for him, but she cannot bring herself to live without him. She gives him up, selflessly, that he may live a good life. And she then takes it upon herself to have what in her culture is an honorable death. So, in a sense, I agree with your depiction of the very end of the opera: her death itself is pain and pathos. But it's her final words to her child that give her some measure of transcendence: "Va, gioca". Play: create, make a life, a new life far removed from a suffering mother, take the gift of a new land and grow into what I could not. (To be clear, I'm not hinging the interpretation on this one line; the entire text of the aria supports me, I think.) In giving her child up to this future, and not clinging to him and to her life as many people would, she shows not only her love, but her courage and strength. It's a complex moment, but I certainly that her music at "Guarda ben, amore addio" moves beyond mere grief.
> 
> ...


My remark about Mimi and _La Boheme_ was meant only as gentle satire, and I do apologize if it relates to your personal situation in a way I couldn't have known. I love parodies of opera - of Wagner too - and have actually written a few myself. In fact few things make me laugh harder than looking at Wagner's mythical characters and situations as if they were realistic, as Anna Russell does in her classic _Ring_ sendup. Could you have missed the fact that this little joke about B_oheme_ was embedded in a post devoted to poking fun at Wagner in exactly this way? Here it is:

_"All of Wagner's operas have happy endings. Can you imagine Tristan and Isolde married, sitting at the dinner table discussing that 'susse wortlein und' and which set of grandparents would take the children if it disappeared and there was 'nicht mehr Tristan, nicht mehr Isolde'? Or the Dutchman, never knowing whether Senta really loves him enough to dive off a cliff and maybe she's still receiving pictures of Erik in the altogether on a secret web site? Or Elsa, not knowing for fifty years what name to ask for when she calls her husband at his job at the swan farm ('Yes, the one in shining armor. Tell him it's his wife. Yes, of course I've prayed fervently!')? Or Brunnhilde, trying to get that dolt Siegfried to stop retelling that story about the dragon, stop talking to birds, and take her out for bear ribs and a mead espresso? No, of course you can't. Wagner's instincts in these matters was infallible. Death wasn't just some misfortune that happened to you. No adolescent poetasters blubbering over the bodies of sad little seamstresses who've coughed themselves to death. Wagner's couples gallop into oblivion a-whoopin' and __a-hollerin'! I hope I can go like that when the time comes."_

Opera in general tends to teeter on the edge of absurdity, doesn't it? The line between the sublime and the ridiculous is often a fine one, and I feel that the most serious things are defined partly by their resiliency, which is often delightfully tested by parody. I'm a fanatical fan of Ira Siff and his glorious stage persona, the "traumatic soprano" Vera Galupe-Borszkh. His/her _Tosca_ act two and amazing rendition of "In questa reggia" can almost put me on the floor.

But that brings me to _Turandot_. I must say that your assertion that "none of the _Ring_'s protagonists are much warmer than Calaf" doesn't get to the difficulty I have with Calaf or this opera, and misses the essential point about Wagner's characters too. "Warmth" is only one quality that might make a character engaging, emotionally or intellectually. Tristan is hardly "warm," but his melancholy nature, his sad if mysterious origins, his conflict between his human needs, filial loyalty, and the demands of a rigid society which requires that he be a "hero," the self-inflicted and incurable (and symbolic) wound from which he suffers, and his harrowing self-examination, culminating in a beatific vision of Isolde and then his inevitable death - these are powerful and memorable. I might take Wagner's characters one at a time and point up their particular complexities, resonances and piquancies. But the really distinctive thing about Wagner's characters (which I've commented on at some length in discussions of _Parsifal_) is their interpenetration, their synergy: to an increasing extent in his works, characters function not as individuals but as aspects of a sort of "ueber-person" moving through a process of interactive development and growth in search of integration - fragments of a personality who, on a deep level, are seeking redemption from their separateness in a process that feels uncannily like psychotherapy. It's a unique dramatic model - Wagner's own invention, as far as I can tell, though obviously an extrapolation from mythical archetypes - which reaches its highest point of evolution in _Parsifal_. I understand why people who don't resonate with Wagner's characters say they can't "identify" with these people who, taken as individuals, do indeed not resemble their friends and neighbors. The mythical realm they inhabit is not the outer world but the inner one, and they express, with concentrated intensity and often trenchant insight (specifically _musical_ insight), the actions and destinies of different aspects of the human personality, each of them embodying some constructive and integrative, or destructive and disintegrative, force within the whole. (I should add that there are other ways of looking at Wagner's characters and dramaturgy, but this particular perspective has been of great interest to me since I read Robert Donington's _The Ring and its Symbols_ years ago.)

I'm not sure that Puccini's stab at "myth-making" in _Turandot_ has much in common with Wagner's approach. There's no reason why it should, I suppose; but if it is indeed intended to, I can't feel that it succeeds. Wagner's success lies in his ability to give intense character and life to his symbolic figures: we can see and feel their motivations quite strongly, whether those are noble or perverse, and they make sense psychologically. My problem with Calaf is not that he isn't "warm," but that he hardly seems to have a character at all. He doesn't feel "archetypal," though we're told he's a prince; his origins and motivations are incomprehensible; we don't know where he's coming from, literally or figuratively. His only clear characteristic is his obsession with possessing the "beautiful" Turandot, which, inexplicable on a personal level, is apparently supposed to be symbolic of a longing for some ideal. But what a bizarre ideal is Turandot! I have to share Liu's bafflement over the whole situation - but then, I can't really comprehend Liu either, following wherever he roams this maniacal man who just happens to have smiled at her once. As for Turandot herself, if she hates men and doesn't want to be possessed by one - something which ought not to be too difficult for a princess to arrange - she has chosen a rather excessive way of expressing that sentiment. Wagner's _villains_ are more lifelike and lovable than this horrible, frigid heroine: Alberich and Klingsor, in their hatred for a world which has repudiated their misguided pursuit of love (their attempt to take it by force), are more comprehensible, sympathetic, and human, even grand in their perverse aspirations - and their still deeper significance emerges as we realize that they are the dark alter-egos of Wotan and Titurel.

Calaf may be an extreme case, but Puccini's men in general strike me as far less dramatically substantial than his women. The "political revolutionary" Cavaradossi doesn't seem much of a person alongside Tosca and Scarpia, or the callow Pinkerton alongside Butterfly, or the good-hearted outlaw Dick Johnson alongside Minnie (my favorite Puccini heroine). Puccini's men seem largely to be "instruments" for enabling the soprano to undergo her trials and emote magnificently. Interestingly, though, I find Scarpia to be the most compelling character in _Tosca_: he's there in the opening chords, and there in Tosca's final words, his grip on the proceedings inescapable even after his death. And what is Scarpia? A sociopathic rapist without apparent motive, excuse, or one redeeming quality - and yet perhaps Puccini's most potent male character! I really don't know what to think of that. In any case I find no comparison between any of these men - who may admittedly absorb from Puccini's romantic music some degree of "warmth" - and the Dutchman, Tannhauser, Telramund, Alberich, Wotan, Tristan, Sachs, Gurnemanz, Klingsor, Parsifal, and Wagner's other embodiments of inner conflict, struggle, and aspiration, whether noble or perverse, toward redemption, love, power, or enlightenment. Wagner's myths are resonant because these characters are grandly-scaled and concentrated foci of basic human character traits, motivations, and emotional predicaments, intensely expressed and constantly developing in the changing perspective of dramatic events. Puccini may have wanted Calaf to develop _into_ something, but I'm afraid there is not much there for him to develop _out_ of - and nothing comes from nothing. His hapless hanger-on, Liu, is, unlike everyone else, very sympathetic, very "warm" - and, wouldn't you know, the poor kid ends up a sacrifice to Turandot's viciousness and Calaf's heedless obsession. Only Turandot herself, in this opera, is potentially complex and interesting; but I don't hear much of that potential complexity expressed in the music associated with her, and Puccini's death left her without a convincing musical expression of the quasi-Wagnerian redemption he wanted to give her. Personally, I don't think he had laid an adequate foundation for such a radical transformation. How could he "humanize" such strange creatures in one scene? Would we really believe it? Could we accept the torture and suicide of Liu as the proper and inevitable price, which she was forced to pay by the weird obsession of the man she loved for a being who has never been seen to do anything but destroy those who pursue her - and could we then accept the embrace of these two unappealing characters as some sort of sacred marriage? Looking at the opera as it stands, and assuming that no major revisions were planned for the majority of what we have, I don't think there is a basis in the psychology of Calaf and Turandot for their intended "new birth" to occur, and I'd even go so far as to suggest that Puccini himself might have realized this. As it is, the only thing that makes this strange fantasy appealing (aside from its fantastic strangeness!) is Puccini's original, atmospheric, and often ecstatic music, which does indeed, at certain moments, suggest something glorious beyond the horror of the tale. But if I had written music for it, it would have been much darker and more disturbing, with less pinging, panging, and ponging, and no Billboard top-ten hit for the three tenors.

Changing the subject: your comments about Butterfly, based on the words of the final scene, are compelling. I have to agree that in those words she achieves a dimensionality that the music alone does not suggest to me. I haven't read the libretto for many years, as I find Cio-Cio San's cruel fate, and Puccini's music, unbearably sad and find I no longer want to endure the emotional ordeal. I agree with Wagner's contention that it's in music, and what it says to us, that the deepest meaning of an opera must be embodied and sought, and the music of _Madama Butterfly_ conveys to me a personal pain so overwhelming that I'm not left in very good shape for contemplating any higher significance the piece may be intending to convey. So I do appreciate your many detailed remarks on Puccini's works, and I've come to see some of the operas from different points of view, but I don't always feel that the deeper meanings you intuit are carried out in specifically musical terms in a way that quite convinces me of their necessity or centrality. An opera is ultimately about what its music makes us _feel_ that it's about, and Puccini's suffering young women don't leave me with the kinds of feelings I find especially bracing or edifying. I hesitate to call Puccini "sentimental," and do not agree with those who call him "manipulative" or "sensationalist"; I don't doubt his sincerity or artistic integrity. But I confess that - depending on the opera and my mood - such notions do hover on the edge of my mind, as they never do with Wagner or Verdi.

My favorite Puccini operas are now _Fanciulla del West_, _Gianni Schicchi,_ and _Il Tabarro._ I find them all musically interesting, and I can enjoy them all without a box of Kleenex at the ready!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

All three composers wrote nice tunes, didn't they? I personally like Wagners nice tunes better than Puccini's nice tunes and in turn I like Puccini's nice tunes better than Verdi's. Others may think otherwise but they are wrong!? For the hard of thinking that last remark was a joke!! Lighten up people, it's a Vida Breve indeed. Let's try and make it a merry one.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> All three composers wrote nice tunes, didn't they? I personally like Wagners nice tunes better than Puccini's nice tunes and in turn I like Puccini's nice tunes better than Verdi's. Others may think otherwise but they are wrong!? For the hard of thinking that last remark was a joke!! Lighten up people, it's a Vida Breve indeed. Let's try and make it a merry one.


No, La Vida Breve is by Falla, not Wagner, Puccini or Verdi. 

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course it's a matter of taste which we prefer. I've just listened to Mimi's tiny hand being frozen because I'm on the mood. Last night it was Violetta's problems. Or if I'm feeling strong I might listen to Siegfried discovering that Brunnhilde is no man and listening to the rapturous duet. All three of these composers were operatic geniuses. Not quite at the exalted level of Mozart, but pretty good!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just to add a point. If you listen to Mimi's tiny hand being frozen in Votto's version she needs a pair of gloves. With Beecham it's a pair of thick fur mittens. With Karajan she definitely needs treatment for frostbite! :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Conte said:


> No, La Vida Breve is by Falla, not Wagner, Puccini or Verdi.
> 
> N.


Non! Sacre bleu. I'm stunned. My musical world view is completely shattered. I must retire to a monastery and contemplate my utter folly and downfall. The world will hear no more from Barbebleu!!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Conte said:


> No, La Vida Breve is by Falla, not Wagner, Puccini or Verdi.
> 
> N.


Is that Richard, Giacomo or Giuseppe Falla?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

They are almost impossible to compare aren't they? Only because each one of them does what they do so well. Wagner and his overwhelming quests for integration and reconciliation, Verdi with his noble and invigorating humanism, Puccini's striking and affecting pathos. Personally I find Wagner's dramas to be far more challenging, gripping, and profound than the operas of the other two, but I wouldn't hesitate to call any of them great.

I also have to say that while HumphreyAppleby certainly makes a compelling case for Puccini in so many regards, I ultimately find myself agreeing with Woodduck's thoughts. When critically evaluating a work of art one has to base it on what one feels when experiencing it, and while I find Puccini to be incredibly moving and seductive, I feel very little to no transcendence in my experience of Puccini's art. And that's not meant as any sort of slight at all.


----------



## rbaer (Oct 23, 2015)

Enformedepoire said:


> But by 38 (La Boheme), and only his fourth opera in, Puccini had completely mastered his technique, and would only continue to make it richer and more varied. Taking a look at a Puccini score, there are some things which may be surprising, things that most recordings and performances (unfortunately) tend to hide: from Debussian parallel fifths in Tosca to an entire scene built on the whole-tone mode in Act III of La Fanciulla del West, to harsh polytonality, richly layered orchestration and dense cluster chords in Turandot. Cluster chords?! Yes, they are buried in the trombones and tuba during much of the processional music, emphasized by a large Chinese gong. Only the recording by Zubin Mehta seems to bring out these novelties at all from what I've heard, but they are there in the score for all the world to see (and continue to ignore). Puccini may not have been anywhere near the innovators of his day (Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Cowell), but he kept his music freshly modern while managing to subsume each new complexity seamlessly into his own style - it's all still Puccini (to the point where conductors seem afraid to ruin the "Puccini" by bringing out the "oddities" he wrote).


That was very well said (years ago, I just bumped into this thread)! What I find most perplexing is that for some reason I cannot explain, Puccini's music never sounds formulaic or trivial to me, even though I expect this to happen after listening to Puccini's music over so many years ... maybe because Puccini ensured sufficient harmonic variety and rather sparse repetition of his melodies and snippets/leitmotivs. His music for Turandot is superb and I wonder what he could have accomplished in his next opera (forgetting about the unfinished 3rd act for a moment ) with another couple years of health. I am also always positively surprised by the pacing of Puccini operas which seems to be perfect - there is no unintentional inertia.

On the other hand, I felt that Verdi's music seems to lack any complexity - street organ music as some have said, although I like parts of Aida and maybe should listen to Otello given the enthusiastic comments by others. But there was rarely any Verdi that I heard and felt: this is fantastic - I have to hear more of this.

Wagner IMHO reached the highest points of musical achievement among the three (large parts of Meistersinger, most of Tristan), but there are long stretches of the Ring cycle and Parsifal that are relatively unexciting if not dreadful, both muscially and dramatically ... my native language is German and I know quite well that Wagner, despite his dramatic skills, overdid it by inserting too much detail and philosophy into his librettos (and his operatic German is, unfortunately, pompous-ridiculous). I think the huge investment in time, words and notes paid off best for Hans Sachs (and only somewhat for Wotan). To be blunt, it remains to be seen whether the 5+ hour Wagner operas, especially the Ring cycle and Parsifal, will, in their entirety, find an audience decades from now, given the fact that works of art/entertainment tend to compete more and more in terms of access - needed time/effort and disgestibility.

It is possible that Verdi wrote more interesting, rich operas from a dramatic/psychologic perspective, and I do believe that Wagner wrote often far superior music than both Puccini and Verdi, but in terms of combining drama and music to form a convincing unit, Puccini in his mature phase seems to have hit the sweet spot.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

rbaer said:


> ... my native language is German and I know quite well that Wagner, despite his dramatic skills, overdid it by inserting too much detail and philosophy into his librettos (and his operatic German is, unfortunately, pompous-ridiculous).


Now, German is not my native language, so I most likely do not have the same feeling for it as you do, but really.... pompous-ridiculous? It is archaic, yes, but beautifully archaic and quite appropriate to his operatic subjects, especially the Ring.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

rbaer said:


> That was very well said (years ago, I just bumped into this thread)! What I find most perplexing is that for some reason I cannot explain, Puccini's music never sounds formulaic or trivial to me, even though I expect this to happen after listening to Puccini's music over so many years ... maybe because Puccini ensured sufficient harmonic variety and rather sparse repetition of his melodies and snippets/leitmotivs. His music for Turandot is superb and I wonder what he could have accomplished in his next opera (forgetting about the unfinished 3rd act for a moment ) with another couple years of health. I am also always positively surprised by *the pacing of Puccini operas which seems to be perfect *- there is no unintentional inertia.
> 
> On the other hand, I felt that Verdi's music seems to lack any complexity - street organ music as some have said, although *I like parts of Aida and maybe should listen to Otello given the enthusiastic comments by others. * But there was rarely any Verdi that I heard and felt: this is fantastic - I have to hear more of this.
> 
> ...


Puccini's operas are indeed beautifully paced. I know of no operas more keenly theatrical. Effectiveness is not necessarily indicative of depth, however, and a powerful (in the right performance) little melodrama like _Tosca_ may keep us on the edge of our seats yet leave us little enriched after the heroine has screamed over her lover's body and thrown herself into the Tiber. Puccini's art is, as you've (perhaps unintentionally) intimated, perfect for a culture that values constant stimulation, simple emotions, and instant gratification ("access" and "digestibility"). But that is exactly why a more expansive, meditative, allusive and layered art such as Wagner's (or Shakespeare's) is needed, and why it will continue to have no difficulty finding an audience capable of appreciating, or at least sensing, what we are otherwise very largely missing.

Your statement that "there are long stretches of the _Ring_ cycle and _Parsifal_ that are relatively unexciting if not dreadful, both musically and dramatically" says more to me about what you are seeking in an artistic experience than it does about about the artistic worth of the works in question. For some of us _Parsifal_ is a work of superb musical and dramatic integrity with not a dull moment or an extraneous note, but it is a work of an utterly different kind from _La Boheme_ or _Turandot_, a work which exemplifies (as do _Tristan_ and the _Ring_) entirely different dramatic premises.

I will leave the matter of Verdi to others, save to say that, yes, you should listen to _Otello._


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

rbaer said:


> That was very well said (years ago, I just bumped into this thread)! What I find most perplexing is that for some reason I cannot explain, Puccini's music never sounds formulaic or trivial to me, even though I expect this to happen after listening to Puccini's music over so many years ... maybe because Puccini ensured sufficient harmonic variety and rather sparse repetition of his melodies and snippets/leitmotivs. His music for Turandot is superb and I wonder what he could have accomplished in his next opera (forgetting about the unfinished 3rd act for a moment ) with another couple years of health. I am also always positively surprised by the pacing of Puccini operas which seems to be perfect - there is no unintentional inertia.
> 
> On the other hand, I felt that Verdi's music seems to lack any complexity - street organ music as some have said, although I like parts of Aida and maybe should listen to Otello given the enthusiastic comments by others. But there was rarely any Verdi that I heard and felt: this is fantastic - I have to hear more of this.
> 
> ...


Welcome to the group, an interesting first post. I value this thread more than most because people have written so knowledgeably and with passion in support of the Art of Puccini. I freely admit that I haven't the musical training that you do and that over the years my listening preferences have been the exact opposite to yours as regards these 3. Your point about Puccini's perfect pacing may help explain why I am always satisfied watching his stage but can find the recordings predictable in the way the music pulls my emotions around seemingly mechanically.

I am currently spending a lot of time listening to Callas and Wagner (ever since I discovered this site) but the thread has convinced me that I need to listen again to Puccini with open ears as I feel that there's every likelihood I have been missing a lot.

Fine command of English btw.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> This is why a courtesan's death is more noble: not because of any moral predicament, but because she was at least connected to the elite classes. People compare her with Mimi' all the time, but it's really no comparison. Mimi briefly dated a viscount, while Violetta lived a life of luxury in the beds of powerful men. Isn't it obvious who is more important, more dignified?


They are French women dying of tuberculosis in Italian operas one can´t help to make the association.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Verdi was far from a "crowd pleaser". he was famous for blatantly ignoring critics during his time, and even rebuked a few who praised performances of his work which he thought were dreadful.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

_Traviata_ and _Boheme_ were my introductions into opera. That was 20 years ago. Since then, all my other great discoveries tossed Verdi and Puccini to the sidelines. I recently got the Verdi: The Complete Works boxset, and man did I miss this guy. It's been so fun revisiting old favorites _Traviata_ and _Don Carlo_, discovering a massive new love _Trovatore_ and finding many new works to enjoy _Atilla_ and _Il Corsaro_, which I just love.

Puccini, I find tiresome. I don't know if I will ever get back to a point where I appreciate Puccini again. I guess I still do (in a small way), because I love _Turandot_ but _Boheme_ and _Butterfly_ bore me to death.

Wagner is one of my main loves, but I wouldn't rate him higher than Verdi. Mainly, I love _The Ring_ and _Tristan_. It's funny I complain about the length of many of his works, lord is _Meistersinger_ long, yet _The Ring_ could be twice as long and I'd still love it.

Verdi and Wagner - two of the greatest, for sure. Puccini, eh.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

gellio said:


> _Traviata_ and _Boheme_ were my introductions into opera. That was 20 years ago. Since then, all my other great discoveries tossed Verdi and Puccini to the sidelines. I recently got the Verdi: The Complete Works boxset, and man did I miss this guy. It's been so fun revisiting old favorites _Traviata_ and _Don Carlo_, discovering a massive new love _Trovatore_ and finding many new works to enjoy _Atilla_ and _Il Corsaro_, which I just love.
> 
> Puccini, I find tiresome. I don't know if I will ever get back to a point where I appreciate Puccini again. I guess I still do (in a small way), because I love _Turandot_ but _Boheme_ and _Butterfly_ bore me to death.
> 
> ...


Bellini, Donizetti must be one you list to.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

gellio said:


> _Traviata_
> Verdi and Wagner - two of the greatest, for sure. Puccini, eh.


I like all of them and listen to their operas every day.


----------

