# Wagner vs. Every Other Person Who Has Ever Existed



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Select one of the options above.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Haha Couchie. Still going on about Wagner.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Itullian! I cannot deny my disappointmemt!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Forget playing around on TC, there are bigger fish to fry. You like Wagner, Couchie? You love him? Well better gather funds and start to design a monument to his glory the size of the famous Hermann Monument. Stop foolin' around here. Get out there and build the biggest, ugliest mother of a thing. A gargantuan eyesore worthy of the music of you-know-who. Where is your Protestant work ethic, dammit? We want evidence of your total allegiance. We want it BIGGER THAN MOUNT RUSHMORE.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

At the moment id vote for Tolstoy, but dont worry - he's the Wagner of the literary world. Both artistically and philosophically.

IMO


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I really do like Wagner, he is one of my favourite opera composers. But *Ligeti* is better.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Forget playing around on TC, there are bigger fish to fry. You like Wagner, Couchie? You love him? Well better gather funds and start to design a monument to his glory the size of the famous Hermann Monument. Stop foolin' around here. Get out there and build the biggest, ugliest mother of a thing. A gargantuan eyesore worthy of the music of you-know-who. Where is your Protestant work ethic, dammit? We want evidence of your total allegiance. We want it BIGGER THAN MOUNT RUSHMORE.


Currently on the lookout for a 100 ft by 500 ft capable printer so I can print a giant picture of Wagner's face and hang it from the Eiffel tower. Underneath in big letters it will read "Meyerbeer who, *****es?"


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Forget playing around on TC, there are bigger fish to fry. You like Wagner, Couchie? You love him? Well better gather funds and start to design a monument to his glory the size of the famous Hermann Monument. Stop foolin' around here. Get out there and build the biggest, ugliest mother of a thing. A gargantuan eyesore worthy of the music of you-know-who. Where is your Protestant work ethic, dammit? We want evidence of your total allegiance. We want it BIGGER THAN MOUNT RUSHMORE.


You know Hermann the German? That where all the Nazis like to gather.
Plus at the Externstein nearby.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Currently on the lookout for a 100 ft by 500 ft capable printer so I can print a giant picture of Wagner's face and hang it from the Eiffel tower. Underneath in big letters it will read "Meyerbeer who, *****es?"


That's a start. Maybe you can do the same thing in Times Square, and insert in it Philip Glass. Or maybe Down Under, plaster Richard's face all over Uluru (the big red rock in the middle of the continent) and put Dame Edna's name in there (I heard currently s/he is working on an opera more tedious than either Wagner, Meyerbeer or Glass could dream to come up with).



moody said:


> You know Hermann the German? That where all the Nazis like to gather.
> ...


Well, I honestly didn't know that connection. I just think the Hermann Monument is the biggest in Germany, that's why I whimsically put it in. Can see what you're getting at - the helmet and sword (the whole warrior thing) does speak to Nazi ideology.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> That's a start. Maybe you can do the same thing in Times Square, and insert in it Philip Glass. Or maybe Down Under, plaster Richard's face all over Uluru (the big red rock in the middle of the continent) and put Dame Edna's name in there (I heard currently s/he is working on an opera more tedious than either Wagner, Meyerbeer or Glass could dream to come up with).


With a bit of dynamite, it shouldn't be too difficult to turn Abraham Lincoln into Wagner on Mt. Rushmore


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Now that's going too far. But as I said your monument has to bigger than Mt. Rushmore, and it has to be bigger than that plus the Sphinx of Egypt and Hermann all put together. If you do not carry out my orders, you will be damned to listen to all of Brahms' works on a continuous loop for eternity.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Terraforming the bright side of the moon into Wagner's likeness to look down over earth for eternity?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Good but scary. I'm sorry opened up this whole train of thought. I should have done my usual anti Wanger rant lol.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The moon bit might be prohibitively expensive and difficult. I'll get plastic surgery so I'm a splitting image of Wagner. I also need to get a cravat, velvet suit, and beret.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Don't forget to grow the incredibly silly chin strap beard.

I was going to vote Wagner but then Every Other Person Who Has Ever Existed made a comeback


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Hmm. I just worry about the people who are tone deaf. They are part of the 'every other person' portion. I often get to stand near one of them in church. They usually like singing LOUDLY and have absolutely no idea how awful they sound. I think I prefer Wagner to those individuals. 

On the other hand one doesn't have to pay to hear the tone deaf crowd.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)




----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Select one of the options above.


I guess you've been sunk without trace!


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

There should be an "Other" option.


----------



## TheBamf (Apr 21, 2012)

All this fuss about Wagner, and my noob ears have barely been graced with his melodic presence.. Makes me wonder if any of you could reccomend me your favorite Wagner recording ?: )

Sorry if this request is out of place but my curiosity sparked : )


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

*Wagner*: 5
*Everyone Else*: 22

As things stand I am pleased and I didn't even have to bribe anyone this time.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

TheBamf said:


> All this fuss about Wagner, and my noob ears have barely been graced with his melodic presence.. Makes me wonder if any of you could reccomend me your favorite Wagner recording ?: )
> 
> Sorry if this request is out of place but my curiosity sparked : )


The Furtwangler/Philharmonia Tristan und Isolde with Flagstad et al.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I might have missed the point of the poll, but I'm thinking Wagner vs Bruce Lee in an Ultimate Fighting match. 10 seconds after the bell sounds Wagner's down and the ref stops the fight.

Wagner - 0
Every Other Person Who Has Ever Existed - 1

That and Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk (May 9, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> The Furtwangler/Philharmonia Tristan und Isolde with Flagstad et al.


yes. and, though few of us would put the Solti Ring up on our favorites it is great starter material.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk (May 9, 2011)

TxllxT said:


>


10/10 would recommend.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

So this thread actually exists... lol


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

When it comes to opera, definitely Wagner. But consider the category.....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

No one writes better piano music than Wagner. Fact.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Shouldn't we just rename this thread "Richard Wankner vs. Every Other Person"?


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Love the Ring, but Wagner is no Beethoven.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Ironically , Tolstoy hated Wagner, and said all kinds of truly asinine things about him and his music ! But he was a total philistine when it came to music .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gardibolt said:


> Love the Ring, but Wagner is no Beethoven.


Love _Fidelio_, but Beethoven is no Wagner.

So what?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Love this poll, but humanity at large is no Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Love this poll, but humanity at large is no Wagner.


Some said that Wagner at large was no human.

Superhuman, maybe.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Some said that Wagner at large was no human.
> 
> Superhuman, maybe.












Nietzsche's definition of a great culture was to arrive at a few shining exemplars of higher humanity. . . and then to get around them.

Well, no one's really 'got around' Wagner.

No man that is.

A woman did though. _;D_


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> At the moment id vote for Tolstoy, but dont worry - he's the Wagner of the literary world. Both artistically and philosophically.
> 
> IMO


According to Nietzsche it was Victor Hugo. He called them great actors in a decadent world evoking great enthusiasm.


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I really do like Wagner, he is one of my favourite opera composers. But *Ligeti* is better.


Haha, nobody likes Wagner. Either you worship him or you hate him. No quarter between "us" and "them" here


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

solkorset said:


> Haha, nobody likes Wagner. Either you worship him or you hate him. No quarter between "us" and "them" here


Nietzsche loved and hated him at the same time. No quarter between Nietzsche and Nietzsche?


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Well, I honestly didn't know that connection. I just think the Hermann Monument is the biggest in Germany, that's why I whimsically put it in. Can see what you're getting at - the helmet and sword (the whole warrior thing) does speak to Nazi ideology.


Helmet + sword = nazi ?? You must be american. Ever read Tolkien? King Arthur and Percival? Beowulf? Shakespeare? Anything old and thoroughly european? Do the "nazis" have a monopoly on Europe's past?


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> *Wagner*: 5
> *Everyone Else*: 22
> 
> As things stand I am pleased and I didn't even have to bribe anyone this time.


Now it's 14 : 47. He's got a fair 23 % score against the whole world throughout time!! Who else could attain such a score? I for one rushed to his side with helmet and sword drawn.


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

gardibolt said:


> Love the Ring, but Wagner is no Beethoven.


Was that meant as a compliment or an insult?


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Ironically , Tolstoy hated Wagner, and said all kinds of truly asinine things about him and his music ! But he was a total philistine when it came to music .


Yeah. Rachmaninov once sought him to ask his advice about his newly composed 2. piano concerto. Was it any good? Tolstoy: How can you imagine that anyone would care to listen to that?


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Love this poll, but humanity at large is no Wagner.


Very true. What a wonderful world it would have been! Maybe I'm mad, but my love of Wagner redeems everything. Ecce Homo!


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Nietzsche loved and hated him at the same time. No quarter between Nietzsche and Nietzsche?


Oh no, he didn't hate him. He worshipped him like God in Heaven. Parsifal was the work he considered most decadent and repugnant. Yet he said that he "understood" it and that he could have written it himself. It was a revolt against a father figure. He tried to defeat his "birth of tragedy" with his "gay science", i.e. his religious life with intellect. But he defied himself and never believed in it.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Eh. I'd put Schoenberg's Moses und Aron or Stockhausen's Dienstag or Lachenmann's Das Madchen etc. over any of Wagner's later operas. Or of course Feldman's Neither


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

solkorset said:


> Oh no, he didn't hate him. He worshipped him like God in Heaven. Parsifal was the work he considered most decadent and repugnant. Yet he said that he "understood" it and that he could have written it himself. It was a revolt against a father figure. He tried to defeat his "birth of tragedy" with his "gay science", i.e. his religious life with intellect. But he defied himself and never believed in it.


I think he did hate him, with the galling hatred one can only feel toward someone one loves. Nietzsche hated Wagner _because_ he worshipped him, and because he hated the idea of Friedrich Ubermensch Nietzsche worshipping anyone.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Eh. I'd put Schoenberg's Moses und Aron or Stockhausen's Dienstag or Lachenmann's Das Madchen etc. over any of Wagner's later operas. Or of course Feldman's Neither


"Over" in what respect?


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> "Over" in what respect?


The music is far more gripping, interesting, and powerful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> The music is far more gripping, interesting, and powerful.


In other words, you like it better.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> In other words, you like it better.


Yep!

Whether Wagner or the other guys are _objectively_ greater, I have no idea. We could debate whether objective greatness means "popularity amongst the common people", or "popularity amonst the experts", or "historical influence", or "complexity of neurophysiological reaction activation in the brain of a typical human audience member", or "spiritual content", or "entropy (?) of the notes and structures on the sheet music", or "universality amongst cultures".

But I don't want to do that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yep!
> 
> Whether Wagner or the other guys are _objectively_ greater, I have no idea. We could debate whether objective greatness means "popularity amongst the common people", or "popularity amonst the experts", or "historical influence", or "complexity of neurophysiological reaction activation in the brain of a typical human audience member", or "spiritual content", or "entropy (?) of the notes and structures on the sheet music", or "universality amongst cultures".
> 
> But I don't want to do that.


Maybe it's the sum total of all those things - and more, such as originality, density of thought, ability to grasp, synthesize and manipulate a complex musical language, range and specificity of expressive gesture, structural ingenuity and strength, theatrical effectiveness, and philosophical and cultural resonance. All those things exist and can be analyzed with varying degrees of objectivity, and meaningful comparisons and judgments can be made.

But I don't want to debate the merits of Wagner and Lachenmann either. I would only point out that "gripping," "interesting," and "powerful" are words which refer to nothing specific or objective in the music or operas themselves. But you know that already.

As for those "other guys..."


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe it's the sum total of all those things - and more, such as originality, density of thought, ability to grasp, synthesize and manipulate a complex musical language, range and specificity of expressive gesture, structural ingenuity and strength, theatrical effectiveness, and philosophical and cultural resonance. All those things exist and can be analyzed with varying degrees of objectivity, and meaningful comparisons and judgments can be made.
> 
> But I don't want to debate the merits of Wagner and Lachenmann either. I would only point out that "gripping," "interesting," and "powerful" are words which refer to nothing specific or objective in the music or operas themselves. But you know that already.
> 
> As for those "other guys..."


I don't know, man. "Originality", "density of thought", and "ability to synthesize a complex musical language with theatrical effectiveness", "structural ingenuity and strength", and "range and specificity of expressive gesture" seems to be not very different from "gripping", "interesting", and "powerful". All of these phrases seem to be pretty subjective. For example, I think it's pretty clear that people can disagree heavily on "range and specificity of expressive gesture". I would rate Schoenberg, Webern, Feldman, and Lachenmann; as well as Cage and Lopez as extremely high on "range and specificity of expressive gesture" and beyond that of common practice music. But it seems like you wouldn't, from what I've seen of your previous posts. And either opinion is fine.

But who's right _objectively_? The only way this can be settled, I think, is some sort of popularity, perhaps by weighting the opinion of the classically-informed public and the opinion of various composers, performers, and professors. And that probably would put Beethoven and Wagner above Stockhausen and Xenakis. But honestly, that matters little to me. And indeed it shouldn't matter to anyone, especially those composing today. Can you imagine how shackled a major contemporary avant-garde figure like Ferneyhough would be if he were crushed by the weight of Beethoven "objectively" being better than the second-Vieneese or Darmstadt composers, and by extension better than Ferneyhough himself? He instead operates by synthesizing his musical, technical, poetic, and philosophical sense into making music that people like me and various others deeply enjoy. He doesn't care about appealing to some sort of collective standard of greatness. He just composes the music that resonates inside of him.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

solkorset said:


> Yeah. Rachmaninov once sought him to ask his advice about his newly composed 2. piano concerto. Was it any good? Tolstoy: How can you imagine that anyone would care to listen to that?


How can you imagine that anyone would take Tolstoy's aesthetics seriously to 'begin with'?

He denounced Wagner's operas as counterfeit art and his favorite novel was _Uncle Tom's Cabin_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Nietzsche loved and hated him at the same time. No quarter between Nietzsche and Nietzsche?


_Thus Spoke ZaraParsee._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I don't know, man. "Originality", "density of thought", and "ability to synthesize a complex musical language with theatrical effectiveness", "structural ingenuity and strength", and "range and specificity of expressive gesture" seems to be not very different from "gripping", "interesting", and "powerful". All of these phrases seem to be pretty subjective. For example, I think it's pretty clear that people can disagree heavily on "range and specificity of expressive gesture". I would rate Schoenberg, Webern, Feldman, and Lachenmann; as well as Cage and Lopez as extremely high on "range and specificity of expressive gesture" and beyond that of common practice music. But it seems like you wouldn't, from what I've seen of your previous posts. And either opinion is fine.
> 
> But who's right _objectively_? The only way this can be settled, I think, is some sort of popularity, perhaps by weighting the opinion of the classically-informed public and the opinion of various composers, performers, and professors. And that probably would put Beethoven and Wagner above Stockhausen and Xenakis. But honestly, that matters little to me. And indeed it shouldn't matter to anyone, especially those composing today. Can you imagine how shackled a major contemporary avant-garde figure like Ferneyhough would be if he were crushed by the weight of Beethoven "objectively" being better than the second-Vieneese or Darmstadt composers, and by extension better than Ferneyhough himself? He instead operates by synthesizing his musical, technical, poetic, and philosophical sense into making music that people like me and various others deeply enjoy. He doesn't care about appealing to some sort of collective standard of greatness. He just composes the music that resonates inside of him.


I don't entirely disagree. The element of taste can never be removed, nor should it. But the idea that there are no objective criteria whatever for evaluating artistic excellence is also wrong. If it were, there wouldn't be such widespread agreement about the quality of so much of the world's art, and it wouldn't be possible to say so much that's meaningful about it. You may want to call this mere "popularity," but even that is not a wholly arbitrary thing without objective basis in human psychology, perception and cognition.

I fully agree that no artist should sit up nights thinking about the great masters of the past competing with him. He might, of course, humbly learn from them.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

To weigh music objectively you must first reduce it down to a set of lowest common denominator facts and statistics. After having done so, and plotting the outputs of your analysis, would anyone then claim they have meaningfully assessed the music? Without even having heard it?

I hold in higher regard the subjective opinions of any enthusiastic listener than the most scholarly "objective" analysis of any musicologist.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> To weigh music objectively you must first reduce it down to a set of lowest common denominator facts and statistics. After having done so, and plotting the outputs of your analysis, would anyone then claim they have meaningfully assessed the music? Without even having heard it?
> 
> I hold in higher regard the subjective opinions of any enthusiastic listener than the most scholarly "objective" analysis of any musicologist.


And if you were a musicologist obsessed with the notion of objective greatness in music.....I'm just going to guess....the answer to the equation is Wagner, right? Just a stab in the dark. How accurate am I?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> To weigh music objectively you must first reduce it down to a set of lowest common denominator facts and statistics. After having done so, and plotting the outputs of your analysis, would anyone then claim they have meaningfully assessed the music? Without even having heard it?
> 
> I hold in higher regard the subjective opinions of any enthusiastic listener than the most scholarly "objective" analysis of any musicologist.


The trouble with the subjective/objective dichotomy is that it simplifies, and thus fails to describe accurately, human cognitive processes. When "subjective" refers only to personal tastes and emotions, and "objective" is identified with the evidence of the senses and logical, "scientific" deductions, the realities of both aesthetic and moral perception are left out of the discussion. The most significant experiences of life, and the whole body of knowledge we call "wisdom," are neither subjective nor objective in this simplified sense and cannot be understood according to the scientific paradigm.

There are excellent reasons why the world at large asserts that Bach is a greater composer than Raff, and I can assert it confidently even if I prefer to listen to Raff. Those reasons take into account, but transcend, both empirical evidence available to anyone and any individual's emotional constitution, and reside in a kind and degree of perception which is by no means arbitrary or whimsical and is not equivalent to a preference for shrimp over oysters.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The trouble with the subjective/objective dichotomy is that it simplifies, and thus fails to describe accurately, human cognitive processes. When "subjective" refers only to personal tastes and emotions, and "objective" is identified with the evidence of the senses and logical, "scientific" deductions, the realities of both aesthetic and moral perception are left out of the discussion. The most significant experiences of life, and the whole body of knowledge we call "wisdom," are neither subjective nor objective in this simplified sense and cannot be understood according to the scientific paradigm.
> 
> There are excellent reasons why the world at large asserts that Bach is a greater compose than Raff, and I can assert it confidently even if I prefer to listen to Raff. Those reasons take into account, but transcend, both empirical evidence available to anyone and any individual's emotional constitution, and reside in a kind and degree of perception which is by no means arbitrary or whimsical and is not equivalent to a preference for shrimp over oysters.


We 'know' more than we can ever 'say'- certainly with respect to aesthetic judgments and in every day problem solving as any cognitive scientist will tell you.

Sir Karl Popper (the late Professor of Logic and Scientific Method at the London School of Economics) and Sir John Eccles (a Noble Laureate neuroscientist in medicine) co-authored a book called _The Self and Its Brain._










Its a wonderful book that mixes epistemology and neuro-physiology.

It describes in great detail how, although we all are individuated and of course 'trapped' in our own conscious thought processes, we can communicate this to others via verbal and written language- which 'objectifies' our thoughts and makes them criticizable to others.

Yes, nothing revelatory here as far as the premise of the book goes- but the ramifications are sobering.

All of us can learn of an objective world 'out there' better by the constant intelligent feedback of others.

We know what 'beauty' or 'complexity' is- or what it means to be able 'to ride a bike'- but it is tacitly and not expressly grasped. We all have a piece of the experiential epistemic puzzle- but we constantly learn how to fine-tune our own experiences by and through the vicarious experiences of others.

The lessons of life cannot be formulated or encapsulated into a neat-and-clean definition or rule because it encapsulates too much detail for a mere definition.

'We know more than we can say' with tacitly-discerned knowledge.

We can know 'why' Bach is a better composer than the song-writers for One Direction- but its hard to formulate 'precisely' why- although by a long and laborious disquisition it can certainly be hinted at.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Couchie said:


> I hold in higher regard the subjective opinions of any enthusiastic listener than the most scholarly "objective" analysis of any musicologist.


Very well then: 




Analogical compilation of people receiving Beyreuth tickets, plox.

Otherwise Wagner loses in Wagner vs. Five Other Persons Who Do Exist Right Now.


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I think he did hate him, with the galling hatred one can only feel toward someone one loves. Nietzsche hated Wagner _because_ he worshipped him, and because he hated the idea of Friedrich Ubermensch Nietzsche worshipping anyone.


Hmm. Pretty close to the mark, maybe. Methinks he realized that either he break away from Wagner and transcend him, or he remain his captive fan accomplishing nothing of his own. He decided to strike out on his own and try to make something of himself.

But I also think that Wagner was the only joy life ever afforded him. He was humbly grateful to him for this. He loved Wagner dearly in spite of himself.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Aramis said:


> Very well then:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I ever got tickets to Bayreuth, I'd certainly react like that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Steatopygous said:


> If I ever got tickets to Bayreuth, I'd certainly react like that.


If ever I got tickets to Bayreuth I'd consider it a punishment considering the nonsense going on there today!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> If ever I got tickets to Bayreuth I'd consider it a punishment considering the nonsense going on there today!


Now that's something we can agree on!


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Now that's something we can agree on!


I think anyone in their right mind can agree on that.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I'd go if Thielemann was conducting.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I have this little dream of mine: that maybe some day, fifty years or so from now, things will change, and I will go to Bayreuth, as an old woman, to see a Wagner opera. And I will sit in a performance of Die Meistersinger with my man's hand in mine, and with the first blasts of the prelude will be transported back to these very days, the days of my youth, of love and hope and Wagnerian passion. But before that happens, a lot will have to change, and not in Bayreuth alone.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It's good to have dreams, but in all likelihood it's probably never going to be better than it is now, quite the opposite. As you likely know, Castorf pushed very hard to be allowed to slice and dice the music, not just the stage direction. Who knows how long the Wagner clan will be able to resist such desecrating endeavours in the name of "innovation".

Not to mention that 50 years from now, Germany will be singing Wagner in Arabic. Or some reactionary Wagnerian will have determined that the Festspielhaus needs a cleansing fire and will have burnt the place to the ground. Go now! Before its too late! :lol:

Like the Hajj to Mecca, nobody gets into Valhalla without having heard the Bayreuth acoustic in person at least once. Just bring a sleeping mask and you're fine.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Hey Couchie, you are not American, where does this schadenfreude come from? 

I have faith in the Germans. They have been able to do amazing things with their country before, and Bayreuth is a part of it of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> It's good to have dreams, but in all likelihood it's probably never going to be better than it is now, quite the opposite. As you likely know, *Castorf pushed very hard to be allowed to slice and dice the music, not just the stage direction. Who knows how long the Wagner clan will be able to resist such desecrating endeavours in the name of "innovation".
> *
> Not to mention that 50 years from now, Germany will be singing Wagner in Arabic. Or some reactionary Wagnerian will have determined that the Festspielhaus needs a cleansing fire and will have burnt the place to the ground. Go now! Before its too late! :lol:
> 
> Like the Hajj to Mecca, nobody gets into Valhalla without having heard the Bayreuth acoustic in person at least once. Just bring a sleeping mask and you're fine.


This reminds me that even Wieland Wagner, for whom I generally have great respect for his ability to bring innovation and modernity to Wagner productions without violating the essence of the works, cut the evocative little scene near the end of _Gotterdammerung_ where Gutrune awaits fearfully the arrival of the slain Siegfried, and the outcry was (properly) such that he had to reinstate it. Cuts in Wagner were nothing new, of course, but Bayreuth is not the place for them.


----------



## whupth (Jun 28, 2015)

Yo, who chose "Another Person"? What gives?


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Over the top poll but


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Ah ha cage didn't loose this one


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

This thread is so old that the first post on this thread was approved by Wagner himself.


----------



## Morton (Nov 13, 2016)

Not too old for me to give Wagner one more vote though


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ what a shame hey


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I really think this thread would be much more enlightening if more of us actually knew personally every other person who has ever existed. The thread has been running for over five years, but, speaking for myself, that isn't enough time for me to expand my social network quite that far. I voted for Wagner mainly out of a fairly secure conviction that I would die before meeting a person I actually like, and so never be able to vote for anyone at all, which would potentially have consequences too ghastly to contemplate. Too many people I know didn't vote, and look what we ended up with in the white house instead of any, and I mean any, other person who has ever existed. Wagner at least had interesting sartorial tastes. In the end it's all a terrible compromise, but if Richard reads this I feel sure he'll call me to say he forgives me for saying so. If only I could forgive myself!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Very informative


----------

