# Do you like Wagner? If so, why?



## peeyaj

Do you like Wagner? If so, why? If not, why?










_Heartless sterility, obliteration of all melody, all tonal charm, all music. This revelling in the destruction of all tonal essence, raging satanic fury in the orchestra, this demoniacal, lewd caterwauling, scandal-mongering, gun-toting music, with an orchestral accompaniment slapping you in the face. Hence, the secret fascination that makes it the darling of feeble-minded royalty, of the court monkeys covered with reptilian slime, and of the blasé hysterical female court parasites who need this galvanic stimulation by massive instrumental treatment to throw their pleasure-weary frog-legs into violent convulsion. The diabolical din of this pig-headed man, stuffed with brass and sawdust, inflated, in an insanely destructive self-aggrandizement, by Mephistopheles' mephitic and most venomous hellish miasma, into Beelzebub's Court Composer and General Director of Hell's Music - Wagner!_

*J.L. Klein, Geschichte des Dramas (1871), p.237*

_Is Wagner a human being at all? Is he not rather a disease? He contaminates everything he touches - he has made music sick._

*Friedrich Nietzsche, Der Fall Wagner (1888)*

_I like Wagner's music better than any other music. It is so loud that one can talk the whole time, without people hearing what one says.
_
*Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
*
and:

_Perhaps the greatest genius that ever lived._

*WH Auden*

_There is Beethoven and Richard, and after them, nobody._
*
Gustav Mahler*
_
Most of us are so helplessly under the spell of his greatness that we can do nothing but go raving about the theatre in ecstasies of deluded admiration.
_
*George Bernard Shaw*


----------



## Mahlerian

I consider Wagner one of the greatest composers of all time. Not just of operas, but of anything. Although he had roots, in the Grand Opera of Meyerbeer, (far trashier than anything Wagner ever wrote), the very Germanic opera of Weber, the Symphonies of Beethoven and the tone poems of Liszt, his music and his conception of drama were all his own. He had an excellent sense of what worked and would not work in the theater, and his libretti raised the standard for future opera composers to match (although none since who have dared to write their own libretti have been as successful).

Tristan, in its entirety, is a masterpiece, and I believe one of the supreme works of 19th century Romanticism. It is unfortunate that his instrumental music doesn't match his dramatic music in quality, but his mature operatic works more than compensate.


----------



## Kieran

Mahlerian said:


> I consider Wagner one of the greatest composers of all time. Not just of operas, but of anything.


Hey buddy,

How can he be one of the greatest composers of "anything" when he only wrote opera? Surely he lacks any instrumental stuff for us to elevate him on that score?


----------



## Mahlerian

Kieran said:


> Hey buddy,
> 
> How can he be one of the greatest composers of "anything" when he only wrote opera? Surely he lacks any instrumental stuff for us to elevate him on that score?


Sorry...I meant "one of the greatest composers, period."


----------



## DavidA

'Wagner's music is better than it sounds' - EW Nye, quoted by Mark Twain

Every time I listen to Wagner, I get the urge to invade Poland - Woody Allen

I love Wagner, but the music I prefer is that of a cat hung up by its tail outside a window, trying to stick to the panes of glass with its claws. - Charles Baudelaire

One simply can not judge Wagner's 'Lohengrin' after a first hearing. Pity I don't intend hearing it a second time. - Gioacchino Antonio Rossini

The prelude to Wagner's 'Tristan und Isolde' reminds one of the old Italian painting of a martyr whose intestines are slowly unwound from his body on a reel. - Eduard Hanslick

I grant you that the 'Nibelungen Ring' is funny, although mythical, but it is not a patch on the story of the coming into being of the Sydney Opera House. - Anna Russel

The leitmotiv system of the 'Ring' strikes me as a sort of vast musical city directory. - Claude Debussy

The principle of the endless melody is the perpetual becoming of a music that never had any reason for starting, any more than it has any reason for ending. - Igor Stravinsky

Wagner's aunt was so musical that when she came to a five-barred gate, she stopped and sang the spots on her veil. - Beachcomber

One of the most engaging spectacles in the world is a Wagner opera force marching on to the stage, with its music braying and its banners flying.” - Mark Twain


----------



## Blancrocher

Mahlerian said:


> Tristan, in its entirety, is a masterpiece, and I believe one of the supreme works of 19th century Romanticism.


From a recent blog post by Alex Ross:



> If a universal deluge were consuming my record collection and all recordings on earth, I would probably reach first for the Furtwängler Tristan.


http://www.therestisnoise.com/2013/08/wagner-lists.html


----------



## starry

Kieran said:


> Hey buddy,
> 
> How can he be one of the greatest composers of "anything" when he only wrote opera? Surely he lacks any instrumental stuff for us to elevate him on that score?


There are good instrumental orchestral sections in his operas, the criticism may be more the relative lack of chamber music.


----------



## moody

I can't believe it! Here we go again, all you have to do is transfer all the posts from the Wagner thread currently running.


----------



## DavidA

If a universal deluge were consuming my record collection and all recordings on earth, I would probably reach first for the Furtwängler Tristan.

I think Handel's Water Music might be more appropriate!


----------



## Arsakes

Here ... We ... Go ... Again...

Dem overtures.


----------



## Petwhac

Is this TC or TW?

There's been enough hot air blown over this composer recently (including my own-admittedly) that we're in danger of accelerating climate change.

Still, I don't want to be a party pooper so do carry on. Just don't mention you know what!!


----------



## Xaltotun

Wagner combines the passion of a French medieval knight (or: revolutionary on the barricades) with the intellectual courage of a German philosopher (or: reformer). Wagner destroys, Wagner creates, Wagner preserves. Wagner stabs the heart with a knife and forces the brain to strange places. Wagner juggles concepts like a neo-platonic Zeus. Wagner combines the virtues of the Catholic and the Protestant. Wagner's music is dangerous, because it does not want to stay in the neat box called 'music', rather, it spreads towards life and society, making them shiver with fear.

It is very difficult to like Wagner moderately or mildly!


----------



## DavidA

Xaltotun said:


> . Wagner combines the virtues of the Catholic and the Protestant. ly!


What?? Whatever our opinion of Wagner there was nothing virtuous or Christian about him or his works!


----------



## Blancrocher

DavidA said:


> What?? Whatever our opinion of Wagner there was nothing virtuous or Christian about him or his works!


Uh oh--someone had probably break the news to Tolkien. I don't have the heart, myself.


----------



## DavidA

Blancrocher said:


> Uh oh--someone had probably break the news to Tolkien. I don't have the heart, myself.


You needn't bother. He took the misconception with him.


----------



## Blancrocher

DavidA said:


> You needn't bother. He took the misconception with him.


I suppose I can handle Tolkien, actually--he seems a gentle soul. But I'm leaving Shaw to you!


----------



## Xaltotun

Nothing Christian in _Lohengrin_ or _Parsifal_?? Also, a lecturer pointed out to me once, that even the mostly-pagan _Ring_ has some Christian overtones. But I agree that Tolkien didn't really understand Wagner or what he was about.


----------



## realdealblues

Do you like Wagner? Yes, I like Wagner.

Why? No deep musical reasoning, his music just sounds good.


----------



## RobinG

Musically, yes, his music was powerful and full of emotion, you just have to listen to the Valkyries to discover that. As for his political ideology that should if possible be kept out of the equation. I do not agree with his thoughts in that direction, but if we held that against people we would find fault with every great composer. For example look at Mozart and The magic Flute, steeped in Freemasonary, again not everyone's cup of tea but no doubting the music greatness of the man.


----------



## DavidA

Xaltotun said:


> Nothing Christian in _Lohengrin_ or _Parsifal_?? Also, a lecturer pointed out to me once, that even the mostly-pagan _Ring_ has some Christian overtones. But I agree that Tolkien didn't really understand Wagner or what he was about.


Note I am talking about New Testament Christianity, not romantic fantasy.


----------



## science

What I like most about Wagner is the orchestration. He might've been the first composer who really knew what the brass and winds could do. Of course the harmony is the thing everyone focuses on, but if the Tristan chord hadn't been so well orchestrated, it wouldn't sound nearly so good.


----------



## moody

starry said:


> There are good instrumental orchestral sections in his operas, the criticism may be more the relative lack of chamber music.


I wouldn't really think so!


----------



## Celloman

For me, Wagner is a master of Time. You've been listening for forty-five minutes or so, when you suddenly realize that all the music you have already heard was one, long crescendo to the climax that you're sitting on. It's an exhilarating experience, like standing on top of a mountain. Wagner can make an hour seem like five minutes, better than any composer I've heard. (And five minutes seem like an hour, if you're really bored!) When I listen to his music, if I'm concentrating very hard, I lose my grasp of time. That's an experience I get more with Wagner than anyone else.

For me, Richard Strauss has a similar ability using smaller-scale forms. Mahler and Bruckner have it, too.


----------



## Aries

Kieran said:


> Surely he lacks any instrumental stuff for us to elevate him on that score?


His operas include many pure instrumental parts.


----------



## Itullian

Love his music because I never get bored with it. I always discover something new.

I can't say that about other opera composers although I love Mozart and Strauss.

AND his music is just beautiful. Endless wonderful melody.


----------



## Couchie

I like the music and the singing.


----------



## superhorn

Wagner is probably the most misunderstood composer in the history of music . So much nonsnese hs been written about him it's impossible to know where to begin . Most of the adverse criticism simply misses the point and faults his muswic and libretti for not being what they were never intended to be .
Some hate the music because Wagner was such a egotistical, self-centered , ruthless man, not to mention deadbeat and a serial adulterer etc, although this has nothing to do with the quality of his works .
And then there's the whole can of worms about his connection with Hitler and the Nazis , depite the fact that he died six years before Hitler was born and was an outspoken anti-semite . But this is all guilt by association .
Wagner + Hitler = Nazi music . Wrong !!!!! Wagner was an anti-semite, it's true . But he never even came remotely close to being as extreme as Hitler . Unlike Hitler, he never adovocted genocide against the Jews or any other people. His hostility toward the Jews was more in having a low opinion of them as creators of art than about genocidal fury . And as the old cliche goes, some of his best friends were Jews .
Is the Ring an anti-semitic tract ? Does it glorify the triumph of the pure Aryan over the despicable Jew?
Not in the least .On the contrary , it is the story of how greed and lust for power and riches destroys everything .Wotn and the gods do not triumph ; they perish in an awesome cataclysm .
The Ring tkes place in a mythical pagan teutonic world where Jews and Judaism are non-existent .
Wagner's music "lacks melody " ? And chocolate cake has no calories . His plots and characters are ridiculous ? Far less ridiculous than many other conventional operas . 
Wagner's music is "loud and bombastic "? In fact, the quiet passages outnumber the louder ones by far.
This makes the louder passages all the more effective .
I could go on indefinitely . To understand Wagner, you need to see through all the nonsense that has been written about him and let yourself submit to the music and the drama .


----------



## KenOC

Celloman said:


> For me, Wagner is a master of Time... Wagner can make an hour seem like five minutes, better than any composer I've heard.


Others, of course, may have a different experience. "Parsifal is the kind of opera that starts at six o'clock and after it has been going on for three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6:20." -- David Randolph


----------



## opus55

I like Wagner for his great orchestrations. I just find most operas to be too long.


----------



## Selby

DavidA said:


> Every time I listen to Wagner, I get the urge to invade Poland - Woody Allen


That made me chuckle.

On a side note - why does the community think there are more threads started about Wagner than probably any other composer?


----------



## Itullian

Like Bruckner, his works are too short.


----------



## Couchie

KenOC said:


> Others, of course, may have a different experience. "Parsifal is the kind of opera that starts at six o'clock and after it has been going on for three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6:20." -- David Randolph


Conducting that many Messiahs would grind anybody's appreciation for music to dust.


----------



## Bradius

I love Wagner for the drama and intensity and beauty of his music. In fact, The Ring is the only opera that I actually love. His stuff is just magic. I just can't comprehend why his music is controversial.


----------



## Guest

> Do you like Wagner? If so, why? If not, why?


As with most other threads of this type, I'll keep it simple (and assume you want to know my opinion of the music, not the man!).

No. I don't like opera.


----------



## DavidA

superhorn said:


> Wagner is probably the most misunderstood composer in the history of music . So much nonsnese hs been written about him it's impossible to know where to begin . Most of the adverse criticism simply misses the point and faults his muswic and libretti for not being what they were never intended to be .
> Some hate the music because Wagner was such a egotistical, self-centered , ruthless man, not to mention deadbeat and a serial adulterer etc, although this has nothing to do with the quality of his works .
> And then there's the whole can of worms about his connection with Hitler and the Nazis , depite the fact that he died six years before Hitler was born and was an outspoken anti-semite . But this is all guilt by association .
> Wagner + Hitler = Nazi music . Wrong !!!!! Wagner was an anti-semite, it's true . But he never even came remotely close to being as extreme as Hitler . Unlike Hitler, he never adovocted genocide against the Jews or any other people. His hostility toward the Jews was more in having a low opinion of them as creators of art than about genocidal fury . And as the old cliche goes, some of his best friends were Jews .
> Is the Ring an anti-semitic tract ? Does it glorify the triumph of the pure Aryan over the despicable Jew?
> Not in the least .On the contrary , it is the story of how greed and lust for power and riches destroys everything .Wotn and the gods do not triumph ; they perish in an awesome cataclysm .
> The Ring tkes place in a mythical pagan teutonic world where Jews and Judaism are non-existent .
> Wagner's music "lacks melody " ? And chocolate cake has no calories . His plots and characters are ridiculous ? Far less ridiculous than many other conventional operas .
> Wagner's music is "loud and bombastic "? In fact, the quiet passages outnumber the louder ones by far.
> This makes the louder passages all the more effective .
> I could go on indefinitely . To understand Wagner, you need to see through all the nonsense that has been written about him and let yourself submit to the music and the drama .


The problem is that you ignore the unpalatable truth. Barry Millington in his new book shows how, although the works are not overtly anti-semetic, the anti-semitism is subtly woven into the fabric of the works. Let's face it, Kingslor was initially portrayed as a Jew or an Arab on stage!
It was Wagner, was it not, who once suggested Jews should be gathered in a theatre and incinerated?
Wagner is controversial but not misunderstood. We know what sort of man he was.
Interesting that While Bayreuth presented a useful front for Nazi culture, and Wagner's music was used at many Nazi events, the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas and resented attending these lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence.


----------



## KenOC

....... (deleted by author!)


----------



## moody

Mitchell said:


> That made me chuckle.
> 
> On a side note - why does the community think there are more threads started about Wagner than probably any other composer?


It probably seems that way because of all the ruckus that goes with theses threads,thank God I am forced to keep out through lack of knowledge---'though that doesn't seem to deter many people.


----------



## Mahlerian

(Post deleted in deference to KenOC deleting the post I responded to.)


----------



## Vesteralen

No, I don't think I really like Wagner. I'm convinced he really killed Natalie Wood, and if he didn't, he knew who did.


----------



## Couchie

Mitchell said:


> On a side note - why does the community think there are more threads started about Wagner than probably any other composer?


Wagner is very multifaceted, lots to discuss. However there is a certain masochistic faction on the site who seeks to turn every thread into the same Nazi discussion. DavidA is their leader.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> As was Beethoven's music, and perhaps even more so. The conclusion being...?


Ken! Please note the context of what I was saying. You have only put half the quote in.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Ken! Please note the context of what I was saying. You have only put half the quote in.


Oops! Right you are. Sorry! I deleted the post.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Wagner is very multifaceted, lots to discuss. However there is a certain masochistic faction on the site who seeks to turn every thread into the same Nazi discussion. DavidA is their leader.


If you quote me where I am wrong then please do so. I am just sharing the opinions of respected scholars and authors. And a few of my own, as well, of course. if you look I am just replying to what I consider are misconceptions which don't stand up to criticism. If doing that is being masochistic then I plead guilty!


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Oops! Right you are. Sorry! I deleted the post.


Thanks Ken! Appreciate the courtesy!


----------



## astronautnic

Wagner? One of the most overrated and boring composers ever! Tristan chord, harmonies, Leitmotiv? So what if the music is just an endless , pathetic "anthem". Had he been a different man, say in the vein of "papa Haydn" I wouldn't appreciate the music more.


----------



## Vesteralen

Well, love him or hate him - the man's dead. He can't be touched. Whether you buy his stuff or refrain - he gets no more royalties and he's in no danger of bankruptcy. If his music lives on, it's okay. One might wish that at least his philosophy on "race" died with him. Unfortunately, it didn't. But, it's really not the music that keeps it alive.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I love everything about Wagner, at least everything there is to love about a man who was both a genius composer and a brilliant poet. 

The operas, that just like Mahler's symphonies, contain the whole world, and every human condition and emotion is found in them: love, hate, envy, selflessness, compassion, jealousy, loneliness, faithfulness, treason, joy, suffering, parental affection, faith, hope, worship, guilt and pangs of conscience and many many more. 

The music, every note of it, from the wild, bombastic, intoxicating joy of Die Meistersinger Prelude to the solemn, contemplative slowness of Parsifal, from the fierce Valkyries' Ride to the tender moments of Tristan und Isolde. 

The libretti, the heavy charm of the alliterative verse of the Ring that conjures up a vision of a world far more primitive and barbaric than ours, and yet beautiful, a world of endless forests, cold waters and steel-grey skies, where the gods live side by side with men.

The archaic language ( someone in the disliking-Wagner thread complained of it being too archaic, but I feel it fits perfectly both Wagner's stories and the very notion of operatic art) and the very sound of the German language sung. 

The larger-than-life characters (as is befitting an opera, for an opera which is too realistic and down-to-earth would be a waste of talent!) with their epic struggles and passions. The stories whose origins transcend Wagner himself and go deep into the centuries (and some of those stories I knew and loved even before I ever heard about Wagner). The particular attitude behind Wagner's decision to take up the exploration of his native history and myth (and those of the neighboring Germanic nations) and to reverently reawaken them to a new life.

Now, if I have forgotten anything, may the Meister himself forgive me


----------



## Rapide

With the exception of _Rienzi_, posterity has been kind to the man's music in that editorial problems with the text and score have survived quite well. We never know, one day maybe a more or less complete _Rienzi_ score might be discovered.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

It is a sad sign that this thread has only go to four pages' length, while the "Why do you dislike Wagner?" and "Wagner and the Jews" threads quickly get to over thirty. Of course, I admit to helping them along too, but still....


----------



## AClockworkOrange

SiegendesLicht said:


> It is a sad sign that this thread has only go to four pages' length, while the "Why do you dislike Wagner?" and "Wagner and the Jews" threads quickly get to over thirty. Of course, I admit to helping them along too, but still....


Sadly, it is easier to draw attention to negative views and flaws than acknowledge and praise the positive. Wagner was not a perfect human being (who amongst us is perfect?) and unfortunately it is this which is focused upon rather than the music.

As for the topic, I have always loved music with a sense of narrative and if there is one thing you can say about Wagner's music - it has narrative.

What particularly pulled me into Wagner was Der Ring Des Nibelungen. Not the most accessible introduction perhaps but with perseverance I was rewarded. Narrative, mythology, powerful yet flawed characters and powerful music which supports the libretti as wonderfully and effectively as Schubert's piano does his lieder.

I agree with SiegendesLicht's post (#47), paragraphs 2-4 & 6 and since I cannot word the sentiments any better (nor quote the from my iPad) I refer back to those.


----------



## gellio

KenOC said:


> Others, of course, may have a different experience. "Parsifal is the kind of opera that starts at six o'clock and after it has been going on for three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6:20." -- David Randolph


I love this quote.


----------



## Copperears

DavidA said:


> .....It was Wagner, was it not, who once suggested Jews should be gathered in a theatre and incinerated?


So _that's_ where Quentin Tarantino got the idea for that scene in "Inglorious Basterds!" -- thanks. What a brilliant movie, btw.

I'm a "pure music" kind of person, I never got into the drama or theatre of opera, although I respect all the visual/theatrical work that goes into putting on such productions, along with the costumes, etc. -- it all just looks like Halloween to me and thus distracts me from being able to listen to the music.

What I love in Wagner's music, separately from any of the historical or narrative context (which I consider comic-book-level, at best; sorry, am a snob, prefer Proust, Faulkner, Henry James, Bulgakov, Thomas Pynchon for narrative), is simply the ambition of it all.

I do like Italian opera better than German, it feels closer to popular song, at least the popular song my ears are attuned to, and thus seems more "beautiful" to me. At least, up to Verdi and Rossini.

But German opera, be it Mozart or Wagner, is musically more experimental, takes more risks, thus fails clearly in the process sometimes, and thus while less memorable to me nevertheless has sustained musical interest.

The less I know about what is being "said" in music, the more I can enjoy it; the more ideological it gets, the less possible it is to hear the music itself.

Also, Wagner's great for testing the quality of your sound system, forgot to mention that.


----------



## Couchie

I always keep a copy of Proust in the bathroom, just in case I run out of toilet paper.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Couchie said:


> I always keep a copy of Proust in the bathroom, just in case I run out of toilet paper.


I assume you keep a copy of the Ring libretto under your pillow?

A bit off-topic, but "Inglorious Basterds", like most of Tarantino's late work, is sick and twisted torture porn, violence for the sake of violence. Comparing it to the Ring is.. well... far-fetched.


----------



## trazom

SiegendesLicht said:


> I love everything about Wagner, at least everything there is to love about a man who was both a genius composer *and a brilliant poet.*


That's a bit of a stretch, but I agree with the rest.


----------



## Copperears

SiegendesLicht said:


> I assume you keep a copy of the Ring libretto under your pillow?
> 
> A bit off-topic, but "Inglorious Basterds", like most of Tarantino's late work, is sick and twisted torture porn, violence for the sake of violence. Comparing it to the Ring is.. well... far-fetched.


Not at all! But that's a whole 'nother discussion.


----------



## Copperears

Couchie said:


> I always keep a copy of Proust in the bathroom, just in case I run out of toilet paper.


Same for me but with Nietzsche.


----------



## Blake

SiegendesLicht said:


> I love everything about Wagner, at least everything there is to love about a man who was both a genius composer and a brilliant poet.


He was also a Jew-hating, pig of a man. But I'm assuming you don't love that part....


----------



## Blake

superhorn said:


> Wagner was an anti-semite, it's true . But he never even came remotely close to being as extreme as Hitler . Unlike Hitler, he never adovocted genocide against the Jews or any other people. His hostility toward the Jews was more in having a low opinion of them as creators of art than about genocidal fury . And as the old cliche goes, some of his best friends were Jews.


Wagner wrote to Ludwig II of Bavaria (1881): "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it."

I'm not saying don't enjoy the music... I'm simply keeping perspective. He was a filthy human being.


----------



## EDaddy

Wagner makes me wanna slap my mama! I don't know, there's nothing subtle or... nuanced about it for me. Everything is so grand in scale and over the top. That, and I think all those classic Bugs Bunny episodes I grew up watching might have ruined it for me. 

"Kill the wabot! Kill the wabot!" 

Maybe I need to get hypnotized to forget any previous associations... and give Tristan a listen with fresh ears.


----------



## Copperears

Vesuvius said:


> Wagner wrote to Ludwig II of Bavaria (1881): "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it."


Typical mama's boy, spending his whole life anxious and horrified by his internalization of her smothering presence....


----------



## Blake

He definitely had a complex. It's a mystery how someone with so much hate could produce music so beautiful. I haven't come across any other artist with such bi-polar extremes.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Vesuvius said:


> He was also a Jew-hating, pig of a man. But I'm assuming you don't love that part....


No, I do not love that part. He had a lot of love for his fellow Germans though, and it is that sentiment, not his attitude to the Jews, which shines through in his work. I find that sentiment to be a beautiful one, and I prefer to judge Wagner on the basis of it. Furthermore, I do not consider one's attitude to Jews to be the ultimate standard of morality. Not liking them does not make one into a "pig of a man" yet. Neither does not liking Germans or any other nation, for that matter.


----------



## Blake

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, I do not love that part. He had a lot of love for his fellow Germans though, and it is that sentiment, not his attitude to the Jews, which shines through in his work. I find that sentiment to be a beautiful one, and I prefer to judge Wagner on the basis of it. Furthermore, I do not consider one's attitude to Jews to be the ultimate standard of morality. Not liking them does not make one into a "pig of a man" yet. Neither does not liking Germans or any other nation, for that matter.


It appears you haven't done much research on his personal ideology... or even read the quote I posted. Yes, he was a pig of a man who wrote beautiful music.


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> It appears you haven't done much research on his personal ideology... or even read the quote I posted. Yes, he was a pig of a man who wrote beautiful music.


A tiresome subject. We should pay more attention to our own shortcomings than those of the distant past. Yes, Wagner was anti-Semitic to an extent that sometimes embarrassed his friends. But he's dead, and his friends are dead. Was he more anti-Semitic than, say, Tchaikovsky? As I say, a tiresome subject.

You can read his thoughts here, if you really care to.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/wagner-on-judaism-in-music


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Vesuvius said:


> It appears you haven't done much research on his personal ideology... or even read the quote I posted. Yes, he was a pig of a man who wrote beautiful music.


I think you have not read my post either. Like I said, I do not consider attitude to Jews to be the ultimate measure of one's goodness or badness. One's attitude to one's own people that one lives among, is more important. I know the Old Testament says the only righteous Gentiles (non-Jews) are those that have sworn loyalty to Israel, but I do not subscribe to that. This is getting quite tiresome, honestly.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, I do not love that part. He had a lot of love for his fellow Germans though, and it is that sentiment, not his attitude to the Jews, which shines through in his work. I find that sentiment to be a beautiful one, and I prefer to judge Wagner on the basis of it. Furthermore, I do not consider one's attitude to Jews to be the ultimate standard of morality. Not liking them does not make one into a "pig of a man" yet. Neither does not liking Germans or any other nation, for that matter.


Wagner had a sort of nationalism which spawned xenophobia. He believed that the Germans were the master race and everybody else was inferior. His writings on the subject are demented. It is his towards others that make him a pig of a man. Whatever his music was all wasn't he himself was a monster of ingratitude and selfishness. Any reading of an unbiased biography will tell you this.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Wagner had a sort of nationalism which spawned xenophobia. He believed that the Germans were the master race and everybody else was inferior. His writings on the subject are demented. It is his towards others that make him a pig of a man. Whatever his music was all wasn't he himself was a monster of ingratitude and selfishness. Any reading of an unbiased biography will tell you this.


Uh, OK. But he's dead. Long dead. Formally, completely, and incontrovertibly dead. What does all this have to do with his music? If you want to get all moralistic, I suggest you look to yourself first, where such deficiencies may be curable. Of course, you may be a paragon of perfection, in which case, my congratulations.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Uh, OK. But he's dead. Long dead. Formally, completely, and incontrovertibly dead. What does all this have to do with his music? If you want to get all moralistic, I suggest you look to yourself first, where such deficiencies may be curable. Of course, you may be a paragon of perfection, in which case, my congratulations.


That is a pretty facile statement if you don't mind me saying. Just where did I say I was a paragon of perfection myself? You do not have to be a paragon of perfection to realise that that Wagner was an absolute toe rag as a man. Just read history. His character does of course shine forth in the music. Just look at Siegfried, his hero!


----------



## tahnak

I like the music of Wagner because it simply means PASSION for me.
My foray into this great Master's Music was with Siegfried Idyll and then I heard the entire Ring before getting into his other music dramas. What can I say?His music flushed my cheeks and sent ripples up my spine.


----------



## Aramis

DavidA said:


> Just where did I say I was a paragon of perfection myself?


You didn't, but I think that the reference to one's self might help understand that if you would be a person of Wagner's magnitude and your life and views would become a subject of numerous publications and discussions, some of your imprefections could superficially grow to enormous extent and make people of the future call you a rag or pig on internet forums as well.

I'm pretty sure you have made some nasty remarks on somebody in you life - everybody did. So, we imagine you're great artist and you say "John is such a *******, I feel like tearing him apart!" when you're angry. This gets recorded. Wasn't big deal for you when you said it, and most of people didn't care either. Then, some year later, you die. Then John gets murdered and your remark gets new context. And you come off the hateful, evil rag of a person. But is that the truth about you?


----------



## Celloman

Oh no, slippery slope...here we go again...









*Train Wreck #3*
(or is it #6?)


----------



## Guest

It's one thing for a 'newcomer' to a thread to endorse another member's viewpoint (thus leading to some 'echoing' if not actual repetition). It's much less acceptable, IMO, for an individual member to make the same point in the same way in several posts.

Moving on, I wonder whether anyone would care to persuade those sceptical of the merits of Wagner's music that he is worth an extended listen? Why, for example, might I stop my current exploration of Debussy and Shostakovich and begin an exploration of RW instead?


----------



## DavidA

Aramis said:


> You didn't, but I think that the reference to one's self might help understand that if you would be a person of Wagner's magnitude and your life and views would become a subject of numerous publications and discussions, some of your imprefections could superficially grow to enormous extent and make people of the future call you a rag or pig on internet forums as well.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you have made some nasty remarks on somebody in you life - everybody did. So, we imagine you're great artist and you say "John is such a *******, I feel like tearing him apart!" when you're angry. This gets recorded. Wasn't big deal for you when you said it, and most of people didn't care either. Then, some year later, you die. Then John gets murdered and your remark gets new context. And you come off the hateful, evil rag of a person. But is that the truth about you?


Your post is the antithesis of logic. The artistic merits (or not, depending on your point of view) of Wagner's music have absolutely nothing to do with the fact of him being a pretty awful egoist who behaved abominably to anyone who treated him with anything less than unquestioning devotion. Just read the histories of his life and you will find out. There is no need to magnify his personal imperfections as they speak for themselves.
The romantic view that artists are necessarily people of moral integrity is just not true. There is no need to excuse Wagner to be able to enjoy his music any more than it is necessary to excuse Beethoven's rages to enjoy his.


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> A tiresome subject. We should pay more attention to our own shortcomings than those of the distant past. Yes, Wagner was anti-Semitic to an extent that sometimes embarrassed his friends. But he's dead, and his friends are dead. Was he more anti-Semitic than, say, Tchaikovsky? As I say, a tiresome subject.
> 
> You can read his thoughts here, if you really care to.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/wagner-on-judaism-in-music





SiegendesLicht said:


> I think you have not read my post either. Like I said, I do not consider attitude to Jews to be the ultimate measure of one's goodness or badness. One's attitude to one's own people that one lives among, is more important. I know the Old Testament says the only righteous Gentiles (non-Jews) are those that have sworn loyalty to Israel, but I do not subscribe to that. This is getting quite tiresome, honestly.


This is my first time talking about such things, so I'm not tired....

By the way, the thread is titled "Do you like Wagner? If so, why?" What in the hell do you think is going to be talked about in here? I wouldn't say these things in a "I love Wagner" thread, but this topic is a different animal. It's inviting a more dynamic discussion. If you're tired of certain features of the dynamo, then don't participate in threads welcoming these discussions.


----------



## Aramis

DavidA said:


> Your post is the antithesis of logic


Well, at least in my next job interview, when they ask me about my achievements, I can say: I've created the antithesis of logic! They should be impressed.


----------



## Copperears

The problem is the literal-mindedness of our own time.

We have to create an ad hominem connection between the person and the work done. This is of course more seemingly natural in art, and in art taken as ideological in conception and intention.

If, however, you take that ideological contamination of the work as distraction that a lesser composer (whom I consider Wagner to be) gets caught up in, in lieu of concentration on the work of production of the art itself, you simply replicate the same mistake said lesser artist is making, and get dragged down into the pit of mediocrity with them.

Wagner manages to climb out of that pit despite himself, sometimes, that's what I like about him. Like there's something better fighting to crawl up from out of the mud, no matter what the circumstances.

Too many people simply get dragged down into the mud, one way or the other, and end up wallowing in it, hating it or praising it.


----------



## Blake

Copperears said:


> The problem is the literal-mindedness of our own time.
> 
> We have to create an ad hominem connection between the person and the work done. This is of course more seemingly natural in art, and in art taken as ideological in conception and intention.
> 
> If, however, you take that ideological contamination of the work as distraction that a lesser composer (whom I consider Wagner to be) gets caught up in, in lieu of concentration on the work of production of the art itself, you simply replicate the same mistake said lesser artist is making, and get dragged down into the pit of mediocrity with them.
> 
> Wagner manages to climb out of that pit despite himself, sometimes, that's what I like about him. Like there's something better fighting to crawl up from out of the mud, no matter what the circumstances.
> 
> Too many people simply get dragged down into the mud, one way or the other, and end up wallowing in it, hating it or praising it.


Very nicely put. :tiphat:


----------



## Copperears

Or, as Clive Barker put it (cf. 



) once: "the enemy of art is why."

Like that, it's simple!


----------



## Winterreisender

I might as well give my two cents worth. I love Wagner and his innovative approach to opera. Personally, I find it hard to become fully engrossed in a lot of pre-Wagnerian opera. Granted, many earlier operas contain excellent moments but these are often dispersed among moments of lesser quality (e.g. recitative or bland filler passages). By contrast, I enjoy the way that Wagner grabs the audience's attention from the word go and never really loses it. His pieces hold together as solid entities which refuse to be butchered into smaller passages. 

I suppose the whole Leitmotif thing is pretty important to this. Sometimes he tantalises the audience with a half complete leitmotif and keeps us waiting three hours until it reaches a resolution. I just love the suspense! I think of the huge climax at the end of Tristan & Isolde. Or perhaps the way the different themes come together at the end of Die Meistersinger for an explosive finale (one of my favourite moments in all of music). As other posters have already mentioned, you really feel as if you are being absorbed into another world.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Vesuvius said:


> This is my first time talking about such things, so I'm not tired....
> 
> By the way, the thread is titled "Do you like Wagner? If so, why?" What in the hell do you think is going to be talked about in here? I wouldn't say these things in a "I love Wagner" thread, but this topic is a different animal. It's inviting a more dynamic discussion. If you're tired of certain features of the dynamo, then don't participate in threads welcoming these discussions.


Ah, but I *love* talking about Wagner! I love talking about him in real life as well. Everybody who knows me some, also knows I am going to attend "The Flying Dutchman" in a few weeks. I love talking about him so much in fact, that this is my 1000th post on this forum - and at least a half of them have been either about Wagner or I had Wagner in the back of my mind when I wrote them. It is only the same old repeated over and over arguments of a few agents provocateurs that seem to be bent on derailing every Wagner thread, that I am tired of.

A thousand posts on a forum about classical music - something I could have never thought about three years ago, sitting in the darkness in my room, listening to Siegfried's funeral music for the very first time and being overwhelmed by it. How the times have changed...


----------



## Blake

He was an incredible composer, no doubt.

To quote Bernstein: "I hate Wagner, but I hate him on my knees."


----------



## AndreasFink

SiegendesLicht said:


> Ah, but I *love* talking about Wagner! I love talking about him in real life as well. Everybody who knows me some, also knows I am going to attend "The Flying Dutchman" in a few weeks. I love talking about him so much in fact, that this is my 1000th post on this forum - and at least a half of them have been either about Wagner or I had Wagner in the back of my mind when I wrote them. It is only the same old repeated over and over arguments of a few agents provocateurs that seem to be bent on derailing every Wagner thread, that I am tired of.
> 
> A thousand posts on a forum about classical music - something I could have never thought about three years ago, sitting in the darkness in my room, listening to Siegfried's funeral music for the very first time and being overwhelmed by it. How the times have changed...


Susan, CONGRATULATIONS!!!


----------



## Couchie

Copperears said:


> The problem is the literal-mindedness of our own time.
> 
> We have to create an ad hominem connection between the person and the work done. This is of course more seemingly natural in art, and in art taken as ideological in conception and intention.
> 
> If, however, you take that ideological contamination of the work as distraction that a lesser composer (whom I consider Wagner to be) gets caught up in, in lieu of concentration on the work of production of the art itself, you simply replicate the same mistake said lesser artist is making, and get dragged down into the pit of mediocrity with them.
> 
> Wagner manages to climb out of that pit despite himself, sometimes, that's what I like about him. Like there's something better fighting to crawl up from out of the mud, no matter what the circumstances.
> 
> Too many people simply get dragged down into the mud, one way or the other, and end up wallowing in it, hating it or praising it.


Wagner is a lesser composer? Nope. He's better than Bach or Shoebert (sp?)


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Wagner is a lesser composer? Nope. He's better than Bach or Shoebert (sp?)


Well, ya gotta have a sense of humour in the face of a remark like that!


----------



## Aramis

Winterreisender said:


> Granted, many earlier operas contain excellent moments but these are often dispersed among moments of lesser quality (e.g. recitative or bland filler passages)


Funny, my impression is that Wagner's works have more "bland filler passages" than anything else in the standard repertoire.


----------



## DavidA

Winterreisender said:


> I might as well give my two cents worth. I love Wagner and his innovative approach to opera. Personally, I find it hard to become fully engrossed in a lot of pre-Wagnerian opera. Granted, many earlier operas contain excellent moments but these are often dispersed among moments of lesser quality (e.g. recitative or bland filler passages). By contrast, I enjoy the way that Wagner grabs the audience's attention from the word go and never really loses it. His pieces hold together as solid entities which refuse to be butchered into smaller passages.
> 
> .


First, I suggest you try Mozart.

Second, my reaction to Wagner is opposite to yours. I find some overwhelming moments but some pretty dull stuff in between. Then Wagner gets going again and we are again overwhelmed. One problem is that Wagner suffered from literary diarrhoea in writing his libretti. One of many examples are the interminable discourses in Parsifal or the first act of Siegfried. The music is not sufficiently interesting to fill out these lengthy discourses. So my view of Wagner is a series of peaks and troughs.


----------



## Winterreisender

Aramis said:


> Funny, my impression is that Wagner's works have more "bland filler passages" than anything else in the standard repertoire.


I'm not sure if I would agree. What I like about Wagner is that even his "filler passages" add something to the overall complexion of the piece, whether that be the development of an earlier theme or even a gentle reminder of a leitmotif.

In contrast, I think of operas by Mozart which contain many extensive recitative passages which are essential for plot development but musically pretty uninteresting. Although I love some of Mozart's arias, I find that the opera as a whole can sound quite fragmented because the music is constantly stopping. What I like about Wagner is that he emphatically eradicates the distinction between aria and recitative. That's why I find his pieces more coherent than that of many of the composers who came before him.


----------



## DavidA

Winterreisender said:


> In contrast, I think of operas by Mozart which contain many extensive recitative passages which are essential for plot development but musically pretty uninteresting. Although I love some of Mozart's arias, I find that the opera as a whole can sound quite fragmented because the music is constantly stopping. What I like about Wagner is that he emphatically eradicates the distinction between aria and recitative. That's why I find his pieces more coherent than that of many of the composers who came before him.


I think Mozart's operas definitely work better on the stage where you can actually see the drama - in a good production, that is. The recites then fall in with the action. With Wagner I feel the opposite in that the subject material looks absurd when put on stage, with (usually mature and large) singers who have to bawl over the orchestra. Hence I tend to prefer to listen to an audio experience and let my imagination do the rest.


----------



## Aramis

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not sure if I would agree. What I like about Wagner is that even his "filler passages" add something to the overall complexion of the piece, whether that be the development of an earlier theme or even a gentle reminder of a leitmotif.


Then you love what I hate. For example, introduction to the Fafner scene in Siegfried is just the giants leitmotif repeated again and again over some drowsy texture and it bores me to tears: I've seen Rheingold and I know Fafner was a giant, no need to remind me about it for couple of minutes with some movie-like music. The "reminders of leitmorifs" is what Wagner does when he has nothing to add musically - a true hole-fillers.



> In contrast, I think of operas by Mozart which contain many extensive recitative passages which are essential for plot development but musically pretty uninteresting. Although I love some of Mozart's arias, I find that the opera as a whole can sound quite fragmented because the music is constantly stopping. What I like about Wagner is that he emphatically eradicates the distinction between aria and recitative. That's why I find his pieces more coherent than that of many of the composers who came before him.


The good thing about recitativo secco is that it doesn't stretch. Mozart thought "I have no idea for an aria or ensamble here, let it be quick recitative leading to another scene" and it works fine with me. Wagner, on the other hand, prefers to hang in the middle between music and recitative when he has no idea for setting some portion of text to a truely musical composition, which results in something that bores me immensely.


----------



## Copperears

Couchie said:


> Wagner is a lesser composer? Nope. He's better than Bach or Shoebert (sp?)


Well to be more accurate: there is only one Wagner. One J.S. Bach (with piles of kids!). And one Shoebert. 

I wouldn't be without any of 'em! They're all originals, and their work is unforgettable at some level.

I only say mediocre, by my particular modern perspective, because for me the music matters above all, and there are better movies, special effects and TV shows now than Wagner created in his day.

But, that's just me; I'm not much of a theatre-goer, for instance, my loss, and prefer to listen to opera just for the music and singing. Anything else is extraneous. Which wasn't the perspective Wagner was working from, for sure.

So, I enjoy him wrong.


----------



## KenOC

Couchie said:


> Wagner is a lesser composer? Nope. He's better than Bach or Shoebert (sp?)


Nobody's arguing that Wagner wasn't a fine composer. Well, a good composer. Well, he had some measure of talent, however slight, and can be compared favorably with, say, Raff. Of course in the end he was a minor master of a minor art form...but who among us can say the same? No, not at all a man to sneeze at. Besides, why would you want to sneeze at him?


----------



## KenOC

BTW, just kidding of course!


----------



## Reinhold

Wagner is by far one of my favorite composers. I would choose his operas over Weber's or Rossini's any day, especially Tristan and Lohengrin.

Though his legacy is extremely controversial and has received mixed views, he is still a great composer.


----------



## science

For what it's worth, I believe I'm the sole great advocate for Schobert on this site. His music is sadly and undeservedly neglected. I hope someone like Savall or Biondi or Manze remedies that at some point. 

But I like Wagner even more. It's not even close!


----------



## Copperears

There's a Schobert?

That's either a joke or a serious question, depending on your answer...


----------



## millionrainbows

I sure do like the non-vocal reductions of his large operas cond. by Edo DeWaart, with the Netherlands Orchestra. I heard the reduced Parsifal on the radio during 5 o'clock traffic, and wow, that's what turned me on to him. It was like a bath in warm milk. I think what ruins it is the nationalism, which was rampant all over Europe at the time, leading to WW I & II.


----------



## Itullian

I LOVE Wagner.
Every note.


----------



## Petwhac

Itullian said:


> I LOVE Wagner.
> Every note.


Well Beckmesser has a D flat in the second act of Die Meistersinger that I'm not that fond of but apart from that ................he'll do.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> For what it's worth, I believe I'm the sole great advocate for Schobert on this site. His music is sadly and undeservedly neglected. I hope someone like Savall or Biondi or Manze remedies that at some point.
> 
> But I like Wagner even more. It's not even close!


I'm behind you on Schubert. But I think many people, particularly on here, understand his importance. It just doesn't seem to be talked about much.

P.S. - You were talking about "Franz Schubert" right? And not some obscure "Schobert" that I've never heard of?


----------



## dgee

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


----------



## Blake

Hehehe, hohoho.


----------



## KenOC

science said:


> For what it's worth, I believe I'm the sole great advocate for Schobert on this site. His music is sadly and undeservedly neglected. I hope someone like Savall or Biondi or Manze remedies that at some point.


My family celebrates Schobert Day every August 28, with a fine dinner of veal and mushrooms. So far we've done better than poor Johann and his family and his servant and his friends...


----------



## science

dgee said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Schobert


This is the guy.

If anyone wishes to be a Schobert completist, you can probably manage it:

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Name/Johann-Schobert/Composer/10852-1#drilldown_recordings

(That is not correct, FWIW. There's lots of Schobert out there. Probably even enough to keep you busy for a whole working day.)


----------



## KenOC

From the Department of Almost Unrelated Facts: Looking into Schobert's death led me to this, re Nicholas Evans, author of _The Horse Whisperer_. "Evans, [his wife] Cumming, and several of their relatives were poisoned in September 2008 after consuming deadly webcap mushrooms that they gathered on holiday. They all had to undergo kidney dialysis, and Evans underwent a transplant in 2011 using a kidney donated by his daughter." The others have been advised that they will need transplants in the future.

Be careful out there!


----------



## ahammel

KenOC said:


> From the Department of Almost Unrelated Facts: Looking into Schobert's death led me to this, re Nicholas Evans, author of _The Horse Whisperer_. "Evans, [his wife] Cumming, and several of their relatives were poisoned in September 2008 after consuming deadly webcap mushrooms that they gathered on holiday. They all had to undergo kidney dialysis, and Evans underwent a transplant in 2011 using a kidney donated by his daughter." The others have been advised that they will need transplants in the future.
> 
> Be careful out there!


Bad taxonomy kills.


----------



## Bulldog

My take:

Great composer, scum-bag person. Fortunately, I'm able to forget about the scum when listening to his music. One thing for sure - I wouldn't want to share an office with the man.


----------



## millionrainbows

As far as what school of thought Wagner represents musically, it's either the Brahms camp or Wagner. I'll go with Wagner, because of the progressive harmonic thought, paving the way to the historically inevitable erosion of harmony. Brahms' motives are noble, and that way of thinking is modern as well, but there was so much more that Brahms could have done harmonically, which he didn't do because of his reactionary, purposeful, tea-party-like conservatism, which he used to slow down the gears of historical inevitability.


----------



## Nevum

How could anyone not like Wagner's music. One may not like Wagner as a person, but his music is ingenius.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> My take:
> 
> Great composer, scum-bag person. Fortunately, I'm able to forget about the scum when listening to his music. One thing for sure - I wouldn't want to share an office with the man.


No. You're likely soon to sharing a lot more with him - like your wife and your money!


----------



## Copperears

Ok there _is_ a Schobert..... hmmmm..... Schobert or Langgaard...... Schobert or Langgaard..... Sorry, Langgaard wins, for three points!

I'm not going to live forever.

Mention of Wagner and death by poisonous mushrooms (of the soul?) seems an apt juxtaposition.... [ducks].


----------



## spradlig

What instrumental music? The only thing I've heard of is the _Siegfried Idyll_, and I'm pretty sure almost everyone likes it. Did he write enough instrumental music to make it worth complaining about?

As usual, I am eager for your informative reply.



Mahlerian said:


> I consider Wagner one of the greatest composers of all time. Not just of operas, but of anything. Although he had roots, in the Grand Opera of Meyerbeer, (far trashier than anything Wagner ever wrote), the very Germanic opera of Weber, the Symphonies of Beethoven and the tone poems of Liszt, his music and his conception of drama were all his own. He had an excellent sense of what worked and would not work in the theater, and his libretti raised the standard for future opera composers to match (although none since who have dared to write their own libretti have been as successful).
> 
> Tristan, in its entirety, is a masterpiece, and I believe one of the supreme works of 19th century Romanticism. It is unfortunate that his instrumental music doesn't match his dramatic music in quality, but his mature operatic works more than compensate.


----------



## Mahlerian

spradlig said:


> What instrumental music? The only thing I've heard of is the _Siegfried Idyll_, and I'm pretty sure almost everyone likes it. Did he write enough instrumental music to make it worth complaining about?
> 
> As usual, I am eager for your informative reply.


He wrote a number of concert overtures, including the infamously terrible American Centennial March, and some juvenilia that don't approach his later works in terms of inspiration. True, there isn't much to speak of, but as I said, I don't count it against him.


----------



## dgee

millionrainbows said:


> As far as what school of thought Wagner represents musically, it's either the Brahms camp or Wagner. I'll go with Wagner, because of the progressive harmonic thought, paving the way to the historically inevitable erosion of harmony. Brahms' motives are noble, and that way of thinking is modern as well, but there was so much more that Brahms could have done harmonically, which he didn't do because of his reactionary, purposeful, tea-party-like conservatism, which he used to slow down the gears of historical inevitability.


Arnold Schoenberg disagrees with you there. Here's a commentary on his lovely essay "Brahms the Progressive" which highlghts the key points about harmony and organising and developing material - Brahms was also rhythmically funkier than he is often given credit for! I must track down the real thing sometime and have a re-read with the musical examples

http://friedfoo.wordpress.com/music...ble/arnold-schoenberg-brahms-the-progressive/


----------



## Nevum

Wagner is fantastic. He would have possibly been the best composer of all times if Bruckner had not been born.


----------



## millionrainbows

dgee said:


> Arnold Schoenberg disagrees with you there. Here's a commentary on his lovely essay "Brahms the Progressive" which highlghts the key points about harmony and organising and developing material - Brahms was also rhythmically funkier than he is often given credit for! I must track down the real thing sometime and have a re-read with the musical examples


Schoenberg was influenced by both Wagner & Brahms, as is evident from the Gurreleider and Pelleas. But I think he saw tonal harmony as being an exhausted, dead-end road, and was prepared to return to contrapuntal, melodic-line-based music.

So when I speak of Wagner being more harmonically adventurous than Brahms, I mean just that: harmony. With Schoenberg, harmony came to an end. So his essay "Brahms the Progressive" was not an expression of his preference over Wagner and that camp-battle, but a way of lending traditional status to his new contrapuntal 12-tone way.


----------



## Couchie

Bulldog said:


> Great composer, scum-bag person. Fortunately, I'm able to forget about the scum when listening to his music. One thing for sure - I wouldn't want to share an office with the man.


So? For such a "good" person, Jesus never wrote any good operas.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> So? For such a "good" person, Jesus never wrote any good operas.


He dealt with reality not fantasy!


----------



## Couchie

DavidA said:


> He dealt with reality not fantasy!


Bull. Jesus taught almost exclusively in allegorical madeup stories. He should have set them all to a godly music, but he didn't. If we want to hear the divine, not read it, but hear it, we must turn to Wagner.


----------



## Itullian

Couchie said:


> Bull. Jesus taught almost exclusively in allegorical madeup stories. He should have set them all to a godly music, but he didn't. If we want to hear the divine, not read it, but hear it, we must turn to Wagner.


I LOVE Wagner, but I think the divine is more the realm of Bach and Palestrina.
Or even Bruckner


----------



## Couchie

Itullian said:


> I LOVE Wagner, but I think the divine is more the realm of Bach and Palestrina.
> Or even Bruckner


I guess you haven't seen Parsifal, it's a nice opera (or so I'm told, I haven't seen it either)


----------



## Couchie

Vesuvius said:


> Hey, there's no need to make noise about such things. Jesus taught in a way that could reach the limited logic of the people around him. How can you degrade a man who preached love and compassion? I'm no religious person, but he was a beautiful being... as was Krishna, Buddha, and many others. Don't let your interaction with extreme Christians wrongly influence you. Jesus wasn't a Christian.


Let's not make this about religion. I'm just saying Jesus was a good person but he wrote no good music.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Wagner was a despicable human being (He stole Cosima from Hans von Bülow, and was somewhat surprised that von Bülow objected. After all, if the genius wanted something, it should be his by right.) and a great composer of opera. One problem I have with Wagner is how long-winded he is. For example, in _Götterdämmerung_, Alberich and Hagen have the same 5-minute conversation three times.

However, he could write such sublime music as this


----------



## Aramis

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> He stole Cosima from Hans von Bülow


Can you actually steal a person

How did he do that, came to their house at night, masked, and took her away in a sack?


----------



## hpowders

In between the tedious sprechstimme, there are some beautiful melodies, if you have the patience to wait for them.


----------



## ahammel

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> He stole Cosima from Hans von Bülow, and was somewhat surprised that von Bülow objected.


Cosima _left_ von Bülow for Wagner. She was not a sack of potatoes.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I think the fact that Cosima outlived Wagner by over 40 years but remained faithful to him, never remarried and devoted all those years to the management of the Festspielhaus and upholding Wagner's heritage, shows clearly enough that she did not need to be kidnapped by him.


----------



## Flamme

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Wagner was a despicable human being (He stole Cosima from Hans von Bülow, and was somewhat surprised that von Bülow objected. After all, if the genius wanted something, it should be his by right.) and a great composer of opera. One problem I have with Wagner is how long-winded he is. For example, in _Götterdämmerung_, Alberich and Hagen have the same 5-minute conversation three times.
> 
> However, he could write such sublime music as this


Poor Hans...


----------



## Flamme

From Wagner to Jesus how?


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> Yes, correct. Only the resurrection was historical not supposed.


Hmmm.....Nah..I won't touch this one.


----------



## ahammel

violadude said:


> Hmmm.....Nah..I won't touch this one.


Discretion is the better part of valour.


----------



## Flamme

Maybe the new sub topic should be ''Would Jesus like Wagners music if he was in position to hear it''


----------



## violadude

Flamme said:


> Maybe the new sub topic should be ''Would Jesus like Wagners music if he was in position to hear it''


I think Wagner's music would have pumped Jesus up and provided the extra energy boost he needed to actually take down the Roman Empire.


----------



## hpowders

Parsifal is thoroughly laced with Christianity. Christian Knights. Good Friday Spell, etc; The work was considered blasphemous since folks were being "saved" and wounds were being healed by a simpleton fool who became their savior.


----------



## Flamme

Somehow i agree although the motives and the lore were completely different...On a first glance at least.


----------



## hpowders

Wagner took Christianity and twisted it in his own strange way.


----------



## Itullian

To OP.
Because the music is great.


----------



## hpowders

The sprechstimme can be dull and seemingly can go on like forever, but it's worth waiting for the gorgeous melodies.

I love Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung and Parsifal in descending order.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## Aramis

^ pretty obsolete dress for 1914. Is this cover of German fashion magazine from august that year? Seems like Germans never had sense of style.


----------



## Flamme

Duck and coveeer


----------



## Flamme

She looks very mad and determined...


----------



## Ebab

_<deleted>__<deleted><deleted>_


----------



## Flamme

We are still in Jesus area? Mein Gott!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Flamme said:


>


_Zu Walvater,
der dich gewählt,
führ' ich dich:
nach Walhall folgst du mir..._

To the Father of battles
who chose you
I shall lead you:
You will follow me to Valhalla.

And many have indeed followed this lady to the Hall of the slain.


----------



## hpowders

I've met many women who think they are Goddesses, but never the real thing!! Brünnhilde, über alles!!!


----------



## Flamme

This one would literally cut you down


----------



## scratchgolf

A whole page and no mention of Wagner. Did I click on the wrong thread?


----------



## hpowders

Flamme said:


> This one would literally cut you down


At least she's the real deal!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

To return back to the topic: I would like to quote a letter I have just received from a good friend of mine, who I introduced to Wagner's music and who is totally fascinated by it: 

"I intend, as soon as I'm finished, to listen to the entire "Ring des Nibelungen" again. I am already looking forward to it with joy. I think it is mainly the undisputed German identity of these works, which attracts me so much. One can say of Wagner this or that, but that he was a patriot, can not be denied. I say it this way: there are papers that define the national identity of a man, but they are papers with notes and poetry, not with stamps. I thank you sincerely, that I have acquired an interest in this music through you."


----------



## Aramis

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think it is mainly the undisputed German identity of these works, which attracts me so much.


Nice motivation for listening to music. So this obsessive germanophile community you and your friends belong to, is it numerous?


----------



## Krummhorn

Temporarily closed for repairs ... 

We are straying way way way off topic here.


----------



## Krummhorn

Couchie said:


> Let's not make this about religion. I'm just saying Jesus was a good person but he wrote no good music.





Flamme said:


> From Wagner to Jesus how?


We were straying way way way off topic here . . . 
*Off topic postings have been deleted*

And now we return to the OT please ...


----------



## SixFootScowl

Krummhorn said:


> And now we return to the OT please ...


I like Wagner's operas because they are awesome musical dramas!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I listen mainly to the overtures and incidental music. I like them because he has a great ear for melody, but also his techniques for sort of shimmering background strings. He's sort of a proto-Sibelius for me.


----------



## samm

I like his music. His theories, even some of his musical theories, are of historical interest for innovating a new form, but no longer indispensable for casual listening. I think some feel that you must always accept the entire Wagner approach as a whole; the 'music of the future' and entire opera, but I don't think that's completely necessary.

In some ways I wish he'd followed a little more of Liszt's idea of the symphonic poem rather than long operas.


----------



## Guest

samm said:


> I like his music. His theories, even some of his musical theories, are of historical interest for innovating a new form, but no longer indispensable for casual listening. I think some feel that you must always accept the entire Wagner approach as a whole; the 'music of the future' and entire opera, but I don't think that's completely necessary.
> 
> In some ways I wish he'd followed a little more of Liszt's idea of the symphonic poem rather than long operas.


From recent exchanges in other threads recently, you won't be surprised to know that I agree with what you say in your first paragraph.

I doubt that many Wagnerites would agree with your last sentence, if you mean Wagner producing less opera. Liszt's symphonic poems (which I agree are excellent) are all purely orchestral works of a programmatic nature. Maybe what you mean is that things might have been better if Wagner had shared his composing time more evenly by writing a few more symphonic poems, offset by fewer or shorter operas.

It does rather seem to be the case on this Forum that Liszt doesn't get much of a look-in, relative to other composers of the same period, and given his innovative composing skills. He has been among my favourite composers for as long as I can remember. He's hardly a controversial composer these days in any regard, but in his day he was a very controversial figure, being a prominent member of the new Romantic school that was opposed by Brahms and Clara Schumann and one or two others.


----------



## Zhdanov

samm said:


> I wish he'd followed a little more of Liszt's idea of the symphonic poem rather than long operas.


opera's the main genre in music, not to be missed out on, or you have lived your life in vain.


----------



## samm

Zhdanov said:


> opera's the main genre in music, not to be missed out on, or you have lived your life in vain.


That's mere opinion. It is no longer a popular genre and not the 'main' genre in music at all. Most classical listeners must have lived their lives in vain.


----------



## Guest

samm said:


> That's mere opinion. It is no longer a popular genre and not the 'main' genre in music at all. Most classical listeners must have lived their lives in vain.


It could be in Moscow, I guess?


----------



## Dimace

The biggest opera composer with abyssal difference from the second. His orchestral music, his Lieder etc. are also of very high standards. His Tannhäuser and Rienzi are very often companion, when I want to listen something pleasant but meaningful.


----------



## 1996D

peeyaj said:


> _There is Beethoven and Richard, and after them, nobody._
> *
> Gustav Mahler*


It's funny that Mahler said that since it's after him that the hundred year drought began.


----------



## samm

To paraphrase Chairman Mao, a hundred schools blossomed after late romanticism. The view that there is nothing after Wagner-Mahler is naught but an expression of taste.


----------



## 1996D

samm said:


> To paraphrase Chairman Mao, a hundred schools blossomed after late romanticism. The view that there is nothing after Wagner-Mahler is naught but an expression of taste.


It's a degeneration after Mahler with few good works compared to the 19th century. The art of composition slowly dies to where we are now, where there is no one to correctly teach it anymore.


----------



## Couchie

samm said:


> To paraphrase Chairman Mao, a hundred schools blossomed after late romanticism. The view that there is nothing after Wagner-Mahler is naught but an expression of taste.


That's the issue. Shortly after Wagner music composition schismed to become a mere contest for originality and innovation for innovation's sake. There's a lot of great music, but the grand purpose and direction of music was lost forever. The spiritual dimension of music - peaking with _Parsifal _- was closed off. Schoenberg killed off all the gods. All the 20th century _enfant terrible_ composers rejoiced in their death. So I like Wagner for taking us to music's highest ledge and hate him for pushing us off.


----------



## larold

I think Wagner among the best composers and one of the top composers in term of revolutionizing form and format. I do not particularly like his music, however. 

I have listened to, attended and sung opera, lied and sacred classical music for a lifetime and own only 4 Wagner recordings: some of Stokowski's bleeding chunks from The Ring, Wesendonck lieder, a 40-minute LP with selection from Tannhauser & Gotterdamerung, and an ancient single LP with excerpts from Meistersinger. Of these I may listen to the Wesendonck songs once a year or every other year.

I could never sit through an entire Wagner opera live and certainly never at home. I tried watching The Ring on TV when PBS showed it; it was too long, too windy, too everything. I think that fairly sums up my opinion of this great composer. He is simply too demanding of this listener.

I should add I have also enjoyed operas by Mozart, Verdi, Rossini and others in the opera house but don't listen to any complete operas at home.


----------



## PlaySalieri

My view of Wagner is I wish he had composed symphonies. he had phenomenal ability - wasted on me - since while I love the orch bits I soon get bored once the "singing" starts.

maybe one day I will *really *try to get into wagner opera


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> My view of Wagner is I wish he had composed symphonies. he had phenomenal ability - wasted on me - since while I love the orch bits I soon get bored once the "singing" starts.


Wagner without the singing would like Hamlet with the Prince, fish without chips, macaroni without cheese, peanut butter without jelly, pros without cons.


----------



## SixFootScowl

stomanek said:


> My view of Wagner is I wish he had composed symphonies.


C Major is complete, but E Major apparently is a fragment.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Wagner is of interest musically. His ego is of no interest at all. The problem is that Wagner pushes his grotesque worldviews through the throat of his singers and into our ears. It's a package deal, or in Wagners words: a Gesamtkunstwerk. So, the best way to enjoy Wagner is to just listen to the music and ignore the storyline. I agree that the singing is an essential part of the musical experience. So, the bleeding chunks approach would not work for me.


----------



## Bourdon

NLAdriaan said:


> Wagner is of interest musically. His ego is of no interest at all. The problem is that Wagner pushes his grotesque worldviews through the throat of his singers and into our ears. It's a package deal, or in Wagners words: a Gesamtkunstwerk. So, the best way to enjoy Wagner is to just listen to the music and ignore the storyline. I agree that the singing is an essential part of the musical experience. So, the bleeding chunks approach would not work for me.


*The best way to listen to Wagner can be different, for one person the libretto is of no importance for the other an added value.
Live and let live.*


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> Wagner is of interest musically. His ego is of no interest at all. The problem is that Wagner pushes his grotesque worldviews through the throat of his singers and into our ears. It's a package deal, or in Wagners words: a Gesamtkunstwerk. So, the best way to enjoy Wagner is to just listen to the music and ignore the storyline.


Does anyone new to Wagner, or any composer, require warnings of this sort?

As you know, many people find Wagner's storylines quite fascinating and not at all "grotesque," and there's no disputing that his music is brilliantly designed to illuminate them. It's fine that the only thing you like about Wagner is the sound of the music; many listeners begin and end with that, and will never seek out the total experience of an opera. But it's hardly the "best" way to enjoy him if we're open to opera as an art form. After all, he's considered one of the masters of the genre, and understanding how he's earned that reputation can be a long and rewarding journey.

The best way to enjoy any work of art is to approach it without preconceptions, and we do best to ignore, or at least set aside, other people's hangups about a composer's "ego" and "grotesque worldviews." If things of that sort are present in the operas, Wagner's skills as a musical dramatist should make them apparent to an unprejudiced listener, who can surely decide for himself whether they're really there, and how much they matter.

(The concept of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_, by the way, refers the integration of art forms, not to the composer's personality or worldview.)


----------



## Guest

As a general comment, I would guess that more classical music newbies are put off by all the singing in Wagner's operas than those who are encouraged to delve further as a result of it. 

Speaking personally, Wagner was the last of the "great" composers I finally came to terms with, after several failed previous attempts. By comparison, the various other great composers were very much simpler although there was some variation between them. 

I always liked some of the purely orchestral elements of Wagner's operas, but the singing posed a major challenge. Gradually, I found a way around it. It was by being super-selective about the choice of singing sections I listened to. I found that all of the operas are too long for comfort, containing quite a lot of low grade music. Fortunately, the hard work of selecting only the best bits has been done in the form of various highlight CDs, mostly as shorter versions that have accompanied the full-blown works by decent orchestras. 

I have a rough understanding of the various opera plots, but they don't interest me to any great degree. I have never bothered to understand what they're singing about, and I don't care. As far as I'm concerned the plots are merely there to give a backcloth to what's generally going on, but apart from that they're virtually a complete irrelevance. I would not accept that only by understanding the plots can a full appreciation of the works as intended by Wagner be obtained. Here I can only speak for myself and would not attempt to say the same for others, although that would be my guess in many cases.


----------



## Larkenfield

I have no problem with the Wagner operas, I like them, consider him a genius, but I do not care for his singers with wide, warbling, exaggerated vibratos, huffing away like walrusses or hippos, or those vocalists who are straining their voices to be heard over the orchestra because their voices do not have sufficient power. Those who can sing with power and comfortably within their own vocal range are tremendous and worth hearing. I believe there are others who do not like such vocal exaggerations and distortions. I do not have problems with Wagner's librettos or storylines because he was free to write what he wanted as myth, legend, or reality, just like any other composer who wrote operas that were not according to literal or historical facts. As a composer, you are in the position of creating your own reality according to what's meaningful to you... and religion can be what you want it to be, historical figures can be made according to your own image, with the added soundtrack of the transcendent music. But please spare me the singers who do not sound equipped for their roles.


----------



## Resurrexit

Partita said:


> I have a rough understanding of the various opera plots, but they don't interest me to any great degree. I have never bothered to understand what they're singing about, and I don't care. As far as I'm concerned the plots are merely there to give a backcloth to what's generally going on, but apart from that they're virtually a complete irrelevance. I would not accept that only by understanding the plots can a full appreciation of the works as intended by Wagner be obtained. Here I can only speak for myself and would not attempt to say the same for others, although that would be my guess in many cases.


I don't understand this comment at all. Your position is obviously one of willful ignorance: you don't know what you're missing, you don't care to find out and you're not prepared to change your mind. That's all fine and dandy, no one is under any sort of _obligation_ to engage with any piece of music or work of art as their creators intended. But to come to a full appreciation of what Wagner was trying to accomplish and an understanding of what _he_ intended? That's not something you can speak for yourself on. Opera is an artform where music, words and drama are fully integrated. Each element is written to coincide with the others. You might be happy to ignore everything but the music, but those open to the other dimensions of an opera are going to, well, have a vastly different experience. Of course this is not unique to Wagner; it goes for the operas of Monteverdi, Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Berg and so on. They were not writing stand alone symphonic music with vocal accompaniment. They were writing music for the stage with the theatrical experience fully in mind. Operas are not dramas with musical accompaniment, they are drama through music.

Which leads me to a general comment of my own. There may be some who indeed wish Wagner had written more symphonies or purely instrumental works. Unfortunately for them, this simply wasn't the kind of artist Wagner was. His whole impetus for studying music and becoming a composer from boyhood was to create music for the plays he was writing and believed needed a musical component to fill them out and bring them to life. Speaking to his second wife late in life after composing the banal "American Centennial March" he made the remark that if he had not been a composer for the stage he would have been a very ordinary composer. His dramas are what he drew his musical inspiration from, and the reason he was able to compose such riveting, profound music was precisely because he was composing it with the greater dramatic context in mind. That was what drove Wagner the composer, and that's simply how it is.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

I do, here in Israel his Operas are not preformed publicly because of his anti-Semitism and relation to the Nazis (and sadly so), but it's perfectly fine to cell CDs for private use, and I enjoyed "Tristan Und Isolde" a lot even though I don't speak German; back in 2000 Danial Barenboim tried to conduct a part of it and it sparked fury...


----------



## Bourdon

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


----------



## Guest

Resurrexit said:


> I don't understand this comment at all. Your position is obviously one of willful ignorance: you don't know what you're missing, you don't care to find out and you're not prepared to change your mind.
> etc.


I think your comment above, and your subsequent argument, is highly dubious.

Ballet music was written to accompany ballet. Would you say that full enjoyment of the music cannot be experienced without watching the ballet?

A requiem was written to be performed at a funeral service, or perhaps at a subsequent memorial event of some kind. Would you say that full enjoyment of the music cannot be experienced without being present at some kind of requiem service?

A mass setting was written as the music to accompany a mass. Would you say that full enjoyment of the music cannot be experienced without being present at a mass?

Concert overtures and incidental music were written for various types of stage works. Would you say that full enjoyment of the music cannot be experienced without being present at the relevant stage work?


----------



## Resurrexit

Partita said:


> I think your comment above, and your subsequent argument, is highly dubious.


Most likely since you didn't comprehend it, since none of your questions address it.

Quite obviously someone can enjoy the music to an opera without comprehending its greater context or engaging with it as part of the original work. But we're not talking about the music. We're talking about the "works". What you wrote was: "I would not accept that only by understanding the plots can a full appreciation of the works as intended by Wagner be obtained." And in this case the "works" are operas: opera is a form of theater.


----------



## Guest

Resurrexit said:


> Most likely since you didn't comprehend it, since none of your questions address it.
> 
> Quite obviously someone can enjoy the music to an opera without comprehending its greater context or engaging with it as part of the original work. But we're not talking about the music. We're talking about the "works". What you wrote was: "I would not accept that only by understanding the plots can a full appreciation of the works as intended by Wagner be obtained." And in this case the "works" are operas: opera is a form of theater.


I don't understand your reply. It seems to me that you have dodged answering my questions because you have no sensible answers.

Just like an opera, a ballet has a plot, but it's not necessary to know the full details of the plot in order to listen to the music and enjoy it to the full. Actually attending a ballet and knowing the details of the plot could possibly be a cause of liking it less for some people.

It's the same with a Mass. One doesn't need to understand the complexities of the R.C. faith underpinning a mass setting in order to be able to listen to it and gain an appreciation. I would accept that a believer of that faith might possibly obtain a different interpretation compared with other people, but it would be presumptuous to assume that one person gained more than another from it simply on the basis of whether or not they hold the R.C. faith.


----------



## Resurrexit

Partita said:


> I don't understand your reply. It seems to me that you have dodged answering my questions because you have no sensible answers.


I'm not sure how else to spell it out to you to make you understand. I didn't "dodge" your questions, they simplly didn't address the basic contradction in the post I quoted between what your capacity for apprecation is and what the intentions of an opera composer are. Your habit of framing and marginalizing the comments of others (dubious, non-sensible) is unnecessary.



> Just like an opera, a ballet has a plot, but it's not necessary to know the full details of the plot in order to listen to the music and enjoy it to the full. Actually attending a ballet and knowing the details of the plot could possibly be a cause of liking it less for some people.


Agreed. One does not have to watch a ballet to enjoy ballet music. But to fully understand and appreciate the art form of ballet, which is a type of performance dance, one does indeed have to undersand how music, plot, and movements of the human body are coordinated.



> It's the same with a Mass. One doesn't need to understand the complexities of the R.C. faith underpinning a mass setting in order to be able to listen to it and gain an appreciation. I would accept that a believer of that faith might possibly obtain a different interpretation compared with other people, but it would be presumptuous to assume that one person gained more than another from it simply on the basis of whether or not they hold the R.C. faith.


Again, agreed that one does not need to participate in a mass to enjoy the music for a mass. As to whether one can fully appreciate and understand a mass without understanding its tradtion, its function, and sharing that relgious belief is a different question.


----------



## Guest

Resurrexit said:


> I'm not sure how else to spell it out to you to make you understand. I didn't "dodge" your questions, they simplly didn't address the basic contradction in the post I quoted between what your capacity for apprecation is and what the intentions of an opera composer are. Your habit of framing and marginalizing the comments of others (dubious, non-sensible) is unnecessary.


 I think we're arguing over semantics here.

If I may repeat in slightly different terms what I said previously, it was that in my opinion it's not necessary to be fully familiar with the plot of any of Wagner's operas (or any opera by anyone) to obtain a good appreciation of the work. For me personally, a partial understanding of the plots to any stage work is all that is necessary. I was careful to point out that I wasn't aiming to make any general statements about this as being necessarily applicable to all listeners.

I would accept that complete ignorance of the plot is not a good position to be at, but thereafter as additional knowledge is acquired I would reckon that for many people the extra benefit is likely to be subject to diminishing returns. Some people may like the work in question more if they acquire a greater in-depth knowledge of the plot, whilst it's also possible that the opposite effect could occur for some individuals if they don't like certain aspects of it, e.g. any aspects that might cause them to be concerned over religion or morals etc.

Against this, your point seems to be that it is not possible for anyone to "appreciate" an opera work fully work unless they know about the plot in detail, since an opera comprises a package of music and storyline.

I think there is semantic issue here over the meaning of "appreciate". You seem to be using this to mean "comprehend", in which case it is a truism with which I would obviously not disagree. However, I don't mean "comprehend". Instead, I mean "enjoy", and on that basis I do not budge an inch over the validity of what I wrote previously.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Bourdon said:


> *The best way to listen to Wagner can be different, for one person the libretto is of no importance for the other an added value.
> Live and let live.*


Absolutely, so I just give my opinion, which as every opinion is no better or worse then any other. I always think that's what discussions are meant for, also when a certain Wagner is concerned.

I don't know of other composers who wrapped up their very own thoughts in existing stories and sold them as package deals in their music. In the philosophy or poetry department, I rank Wagner as far less interesting than in the music department. As in a movie where you like the soundtrack more than the movie itself. It happens. But don't say this when Wagner is at stake. With Wagner, war is always round the corner, always has been. He is the most controversial composer.

PS: Wagner's most loyal fan here on TC is on my ignore list, so I don't read and react to his words any longer. Helpful TC feature.


----------



## iMmusic

Music has nothing to do with politics and personal conception of the world. I love Wagner as a musician. I love his passion. There is so much passion in the Tristan ...


----------

