# I don't enjoy Verdi anymore.



## csacwp (12 mo ago)

Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

csacwp said:


> Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?


ACD: Are you sure you're dead?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

No.

Those who are familiar with my history here no that when the Verdi train left the station, I was not on it.

With a few exceptions I do not care for Wagner.

No matter how great I may think my ears are they are still flawed.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

csacwp said:


> Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. *Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?*


No. Verdi was a first love in opera and it took m a while to learn how to enjoy Wagner. I now enjoy both, as well as Puccini. These composers are not part of some zero sum game, i.e. liking one means I can no longer enjoy the other. That is a strange ailment and I'm glad I don't suffer from it.

Take two tablets of Rossini and call me in the morning.


----------



## csacwp (12 mo ago)

I haven't listened to any Rossini. Where would you recommend that I start?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

> "There are those who have told me: "Wait till your 40s, when you've lost people close to you, suffered disappointments in life, fully matured. Then you'll see the melancholy in almost every phrase. I am 60, and I'm still waiting." -Arnold Rosner, on Mozart https://sequenza21.com/rosner.html


Since around the age of early-20s, I've wept (sometimes uncontrollably) listening to Mozart and not to any other music. It only gets stronger every year (I'm 30, btw). But it sometimes feels as though someone is telling me: "Wow.. HK.. You like this stuff? You poor thing!" 
"It's as if Mozart felt he had to reassure his audience that he would not lose them in a Gothic labyrinth in which their enlightened sensibilities would be darkened for all eternity. The poor things." -Woodduck















There's a part of me that thinks people like Couchie are just *"manlier"*.
"I only listen to Wagner. I think adventurous wide-variety listening is overrated. It's the equivalent of being a musical slag afraid of making a commitment. I hope you all someday find "the one" to end your perpetual string of meaningless one-night stands with composers. In the meantime, use protection." -Couchie


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

*I don't enjoy Verdi anymore. *

That's too bad. He speaks very highly of _you_.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

csacwp said:


> I haven't listened to any Rossini. Where would you recommend that I start?



















He wrote some of the most dazzling coloratura arias, fun/ comic arias, most touching lyric arias, and the wittiest of choruses. These are the best examples I can think of.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Last one is Donizetti, but shhhh....


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Azol said:


> Last one is Donizetti, but shhhh....


THANKS for catching that!!!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

csacwp said:


> Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?


Wagner overwhelmed me in my youth, and did cause me to agree with Puccini's judgment on hearing _Parsifal_: "Compared to him we are just poor mandolin players." For those of us susceptible to Wagnerian sorcery, there is nothing to compare with it, and indeed there _is_ nothing to compare with it. Wagner, to put it in the lingo of my young years, is a trip. But with the passage of time I simply stopped making such comparisons, and my enjoyment of Verdi, Puccini and even Mozart (yes, "even") has risen to a level I wouldn't have imagined fifty years ago. I hope you're young and have plenty of time for your tastes to balance out. I'm sure they will.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

amfortas said:


> *I don't enjoy Verdi anymore. *
> 
> That's too bad. He speaks very highly of _you_.





pianozach said:


> *...so I don't like the Brahms Symphonies*
> 
> It's OK. He doesn't like _YOURS_ either.


These are identical (both the "you" and "YOURS" are in italics), albeit cute.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

A different experience. Firstly, I listened to Wagner, secondly,Verdi. 

Results: I prefer Wagner as composer and musician, but I like Verdi from Rigoletto to Falstaff.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Agamenon said:


> A different experience. Firstly, I listened to Wagner, secondly,Verdi.
> 
> Results: I prefer Wagner as composer and musician, but I like Verdi from Rigoletto to Falstaff.


Interesting. My sequence in getting to know their works was Puccini first, then Wagner, then Verdi. I clearly prefer Wagner over Puccini, but I still enjoy Puccini a lot as well. And I never got into Verdi (Bellini and Donizetti, yes, Verdi, no).


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

For us bitten by the Wagner bug, if you use Wagner as a yardstick you will indeed come away very unsatisfied with the rest of opera. I'm (still) learning to put away the yardstick and listen to other operas on their own merits. One thing I have come to enjoy about Italian opera, is that it is fun! Wagner offers us much, but very little in the way of fun. It's good to have lighter fare now and then to balance out the heavy Wagnerian seriousness.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

csacwp said:


> Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?


This happened to me on first contact with Wagner. don't worry, it passes with time and you'll be loving Verdi again like nothing happened.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

csacwp said:


> Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's.


should have tried 'Otello' to see Verdi does stand comparison.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

csacwp said:


> Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?


I have listened to Ricardo Muti in an interview bemoaning the fact that the music to the north is considered greater than his beloved Italian music. I believe that generally… Real general here!!!… The musical component that overwhelms us in the north is It's symphonic and harmonic Richness. I do not believe that as a body of music it can compare melodically (i'm leaving Mozart out of this) with the music from Italy… As a body of music!!!!!! . So for your question, since I believe melody and harmony are both Essential ingredients, and possibly the two most important ingredients… Possibly…, To our listening experience I say go ahead and listen to Wagner for the time being and don't worry… At least some parts of Verdi will come back. And if you want a good place to go looking I'd recommend the council chamber scene from Simone Bocanegra! Good luck!!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

csacwp said:


> I haven't listened to any Rossini. Where would you recommend that I start?


La Cenerentola. La Gazza Ladra. Il Barbiere di Siviglia.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

sharik said:


> La Cenerentola. La Gazza Ladra. Il Barbiere di Siviglia.


*Semiramide*, *Tancredi*


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

csacwp said:


> Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?


Verdi practically defines Italian Opera. What you're experiencing is Wagner fever, which can take months or years to get over! :lol:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> No. Verdi was a first love in opera and it took m a while to learn how to enjoy Wagner. I now enjoy both, as well as Puccini. These composers are not part of some zero sum game, i.e. liking one means I can no longer enjoy the other. That is a strange ailment and I'm glad I don't suffer from it.
> 
> Take two tablets of Rossini and call me in the morning.


SNAP! I don't understand the whole I _can't_ listen to X as they aren't Y. (Whether it be composers or singers.)

N.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

The Conte said:


> SNAP! I don't understand the whole I _can't_ listen to X as they aren't Y. (Whether it be composers or singers.)
> 
> N.


No, you're mixed up in non-sequiturs, nil-sum games and other such nonsense.

What happens is, on hearing Wagner for the first time, all else is swept away. Temporarily.

It's like your first shag, or "stout Cortez when with eagle eyes he star'd at the Pacific and all his men looked at each other with wild surmise"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HenryPenfold said:


> What happens is, on hearing Wagner for the first time, all else is swept away. Temporarily.


Exactly. When you come to the final, blissful chord of _Parsifal,_ the world seems to have disappeared.

A bit later it comes back. Damn.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I love Wagner. No lie. But I also really love the arias and structure and show off music you get in Italian opera, especially since I seldom sit down and listen to an opera all the way through. Most of you are much more sophisticated than me on this.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

sharik said:


> La Cenerentola. La Gazza Ladra. Il Barbiere di Siviglia.


How about Semiramide or L'Italiana in Algeri as in serious and fun?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Rogerx said:


> How about Semiramide or L'Italiana in Algeri as in serious and fun?


This is heresy in this group but Semiramide with Sutherland and Horne is the ultimate Rossini for me unless you could find a perfect copy of Callas in Armida.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I love Wagner. No lie. But I also really love the arias and structure and show off music you get in Italian opera, especially since I seldom sit down and listen to an opera all the way through. Most of you are much more sophisticated than me on this.


Yes, I think that number-style is underrated in its dramatic sophistication. The _gran scena_ can be very dramatically powerful when done well, and number operas like _Norma_ and _La traviata_ are vastly more true to life dramatically than many a through composed snoozefest. The musical structure should fit the dramatic needs of the work.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Yes, I think that number-style is underrated in its dramatic sophistication. The _gran scena_ can be very dramatically powerful when done well, and number operas like _Norma_ and _La traviata_ are vastly more true to life dramatically than many a through composed snoozefest. The musical structure should fit the dramatic needs of the work.


Fortunately, the economics of opera being what it is, audiences aren't subjected to very many through-composed snoozefests. Arguably there are, over the course of opera's history, as many, if not more, numbers-style snoozefests (which we are also rarely subjected to). Much depends on what sort of thing puts you to sleep. Rameau, for example, touted by many as one of the great composers of his era, I find pleasant number by number, but string too many of those numbers together and I'm out like a light.

I oppose the common wisdom that there is no progress in art, and for me a composer such as Wagner or Puccini (or late Verdi) who truly masters through-composed opera is achieving something more extraordinary than any composer of numbers opera, including the master Mozart (I expect argument on this, but I'm not looking for one, just expressing an opinion). I nevertheless agree with you that numbers opera can have great dramatic force and integrity. I'd only suggest that the numbers structure doesn't so much fit a work's dramatic needs as determine them. The drama is what it is largely because a numbers structure is assumed in constructing it.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> The drama is what it is largely because a numbers structure is assumed in constructing it.


I get you that your expressing your preference.....genuine question here. Would that last sentence of yours be equally true if the term "through- composed" was substituted for " numbers" ?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I get you that your expressing your preference.....genuine question here. Would that last sentence of yours be equally true if the term "through- composed" was substituted for " numbers" ?


Of course. My point is that the kind of music a composer thinks in terms of is an important determinant of an opera's dramatic substance, of what it can say. Styles express the sensibilities of their subjects as well as their eras, and not every subject, story, idea or feeling can be expressed in every musical style and through the forms peculiar to that style. Baroque composers can write operas on mythological subjects, and late Romantic composers can write comedies about social manners, but the results differ not only in form but in meaning from their treatments in other eras.

Given certain basic stylistic choices, the greatest opera composers knew where and how to employ different musical styles, so that we find Mozart resorting to through-composed passages at moments of high drama, and Wagner and Puccini integrating discernible discrete numbers into a continuous musical-dramatic texture when they want to set off, explore and describe an idea or feeling. "Through-composed" doesn't mean "formless," and it's the power these and other composers have to create free and varied yet coherent form, without the obvious guidelines of traditional arias and ensemble numbers, that commands my special admiration. Works like _Tristan,_ _Falstaff_ and _Fanciulla_ seem to me miracles of musical-dramatic originality and ingenuity. Of course, the ability to achieve a powerful, dramatic through-line in more traditionally structured opera is also a great achievement.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I adore Verdi, but I think I can understand where you're coming from. In fact, I'm gonna p*** off a lot of afficionados by saying this but...most Italian operas are pretty corny if you actually pay close attention to the plot and take it seriously (it's not uncommon to read the libretto and think "wait..._that's_ what this is about? that sounds like a Spanish soap opera). Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but I listen to Italian opera primarily for the visceral effect of the rhythm, the shaping of the melodic line, the way it shows off different colors and abilities of the voice. For the most part (and this is where I really depart from most opera lovers), it's not even about the "emotion", so to speak. The emotion it triggers for me is not from the mind or the heart, but from the gut. Montserrat Caballe's pianismo, Samuel Ramey's cavernous low notes, Maria Callas's portamenti or Joan Sutherland's spinning Eb6. When you get an operatic note or passage just right, it triggers this "*yes! nailed it!*" response, which can correspondingly bring relaxation or excitement, but 9 times out of 10, Italian opera doesn't really make me feel much in the way of grief, anger, fear, etc (one exception is Madame Butterfly, because it deals with themes that have been extremely relevant to my life).

Wagner is a little different. He's a more nuanced story teller, doesn't overly rely on the vocal fireworks of any one singer (in fact, he doesn't even have traditional arias) and typically accompanies his works with well fleshed out backstories that make the experience more immersive. If Italian opera appeals to a certain "spirited Mediterranean flair", Wagner appeals to the more contemplative Northern European soul with less interest in acrobatic vocal runs and solo pieces that run the risk of disrupting the flow of the story. As such, he demands something of the audience that Verdi doesn't, but to many, that makes the experience a bit more "complete", for lack of a better word.



Woodduck said:


> Wagner overwhelmed me in my youth, and did cause me to agree with Puccini's judgment on hearing _Parsifal_: "Compared to him we are just poor mandolin players." For those of us susceptible to Wagnerian sorcery, there is nothing to compare with it, and indeed there _is_ nothing to compare with it. *Wagner, to put it in the lingo of my young years, is a trip.* But with the passage of time I simply stopped making such comparisons, and my enjoyment of Verdi, Puccini and even Mozart (yes, "even") has risen to a level I wouldn't have imagined fifty years ago. I hope you're young and have plenty of time for your tastes to balance out. I'm sure they will.


(off topic): 15-30 year olds still say that, it's just that, like most slang words, its meaning has moved from something more dramatic to more casual/banal. ex: "dude, that was lame!" used to evoke a bit more emotion when used in the 70s. Nowadays, it's used halfway satirically. Boomers would say "lame!" when they got pulled over by a cop and got a ticket. Millennials and Zoomers would say it when they caught a red light.

As per your example, boomers would say "man! that concert was a _trip_!", while Millennials/Zoomers would say "bro! that breakfast was a trip!". The former is passionately into something, the latter is being playful (or perhaps ironic).

Sorry, the nerd in me felt compelled to point this out. Words lose their novelty or ability to convey intense feeling (a common example: think of the number of people who make fun of romantic language or the way people talk in most plays), so we have to keep making up new ones to fill that niche. It's one reason we have so many synonyms for the same concept.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> 15-30 year olds still say that ["trip"], it's just that, like most slang words, its meaning has moved from something more dramatic to more casual/banal. ex: "dude, that was lame!" used to evoke a bit more emotion when used in the 70s. Nowadays, it's used halfway satirically. Boomers would say "lame!" when they got pulled over by a cop and got a ticket. Millennials and Zoomers would say it when they caught a red light.
> 
> As per your example, boomers would say "man! that concert was a _trip_!", while Millennials/Zoomers would say "bro! that breakfast was a trip!". The former is passionately into something, the latter is being playful (or perhaps ironic).
> 
> Sorry, the nerd in me felt compelled to point this out. Words lose their novelty or ability to convey intense feeling (a common example: think of the number of people who make fun of romantic language or the way people talk in most plays), so we have to keep making up new ones to fill that niche. It's one reason we have so many synonyms for the same concept.


Thanks for keeping this codger up to date on the term "trip." I'm sad to hear that it's been debased, but then language tends to be, as you say. Do people still use the adjectival "trippy?" I don't and probably never did - I never had shoulder-length hair, huge bellbottoms and bead necklaces either - but it's fun to reminisce about the bad old days now that we have worse present ones.


----------



## ClassicalPower (12 mo ago)

They are simply completely different things: Verdi is about "ordinary" lives of men, while Wagner is about "gods", and the music reflects it. Now you may think that the second one is "better" (whatever that could mean), but eventually you'll be tired of Wagner and those godly stuff which is hard to understand and difficult to relate with. Unless you do a good mix! And listen to both depending on what you feel like at the moment, that way you'll never get tired of a composer and you will enjoy both even more! At least this is my suggestion.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Exactly. When you come to the final, blissful chord of _Parsifal,_ the world seems to have disappeared.
> 
> A bit later it comes back. Damn.


Exactly, the problem is when it doesn't come back!

N.


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

Surely. tastes change with age and experience? What impressed us most in our relative youth may seem somewhat passe a few decades later, though of course there are exceptions. A function of the change may also be exposure to different performances when some previously unheard rendition provides insight not previously experienced.

I also agree with Couchie. I have no regrets about being besotted with much(maybe most) of Wagner's work, but an unremitted diet of it without some alternatives would be excessive. That said, those alternatives themselves may become tedious in excess. For example, I could never imagine becoming fixated with Mozart. Even Richard Strauss, whose music I absolutely love, would pale somewhat without variation.

As for Verdi, where this thread started, there is so much to enjoy, but do I get as much pleasure today as I did say, 40 years ago? With exceptions, probably not.

Try living only a diet of the food of just one country, without frequently changing from Asian to Italian or whatever.How boring that would be!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Exactly, the problem is when it doesn't come back!
> 
> N.


Well, can you think of a nicer way to go than this?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

You don't enjoy Verdi anymore? Don't let him hit your @r$e on the way out. :tiphat:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Verdi is to Wagner as Shakespeare was to Milton: monumental geniuses working in what could be considered polar opposite styles. Verdi and Shakespeare are the humanists, the ones interested in all the messy flesh-and-blood reality of people and their lives. Milton and Wagner are the mythicists, the ones interested in the philosophical abstractions and themes that churn beneath the mythologies we tell (though Milton would've objected to me calling them mythologies: William Blake knew better than Milton). To that point I've also thought that Verdi's Aida was like Shakespeare trying to write Paradise Lost, and Die Meistersinger was like Milton trying to write As You Like It; somewhat awkward (even if frequently magnificent) attempts at each composer working more within the others' milieu. 

It's probably not accidental that most people tend to find themselves pulled more strongly towards either the "humanist" or "mythicist" end of the spectrum when it comes to art, and if you find yourself enraptured by either the other can either feel too abstract and disconnected (the mythicists) or too trivial and ordinary (the humanists) by comparison. Hopefully time allows us to mature to a point where we can enjoy and appreciate both. In my youth I was definitely pulled more towards the Milton/Wagner side, and though Shakespeare always spoke to me it's taken Verdi a bit longer, but I also adore him now, especially the awesome trilogy of Otello, Don Carlos, and Falstaff.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, can you think of a nicer way to go than this?


Emm... maybe like this?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

After decades of listening to opera (although not as many as some here), there are certain operas that I no longer have much desire to listen to much, let alone see for the umpteenth time.

One of the marks of greatness of a work of art is how many times one can experience it before becoming jaded with it, or even not being jaded at all with it. When it comes to music, there is much that has an expiry number (after a certain number of listens it has said all it is going to say and one gets bored with it). This is, of course, subjective to a certain point, but you could say that a beautiful melody isn't enough. (And yes, what constitutes a beautiful melody is also subjective.)

Carmen's hip swivelling, seductive tunes and Papageno's perky sing-alongs have their appeal (and very appealing they are too), but as I see more and more opera (and listen to it at home, of course), I'm finding fewer of the common rep that I want to listen to for the hundredth/thousandth time. The exceptions are the operas that I would consider the absolute creme de la creme of the universal masterpieces. These are the works that I would see tomorrow at the drop of a hat despite having seen them countless times. Among the few operas in this category are Parsifal and the Ring because no matter how many times I see them, there is always something new to experience. However, the same is true of Traviata, Forza and Macbeth for me. I've lost count of how many times I've seen Traviata, but when I saw it at Covent Garden a few months ago there were still new things to see in it.

The great works of both Verdi and Wagner (and not just of this two) have universal themes that are perfectly articulated in their music.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Verdi is to Wagner as Shakespeare was to Milton: monumental geniuses working in what could be considered polar opposite styles. Verdi and Shakespeare are the humanists, the ones interested in all the messy flesh-and-blood reality of people and their lives. Milton and Wagner are the mythicists, the ones interested in the philosophical abstractions and themes that churn beneath the mythologies we tell (though Milton would've objected to me calling them mythologies: William Blake knew better than Milton). To that point I've also thought that Verdi's Aida was like Shakespeare trying to write Paradise Lost, and Die Meistersinger was like Milton trying to write As You Like It; somewhat awkward (even if frequently magnificent) attempts at each composer working more within the others' milieu.
> 
> It's probably not accidental that most people tend to find themselves pulled more strongly towards either the "humanist" or "mythicist" end of the spectrum when it comes to art, and if you find yourself enraptured by either the other can either feel too abstract and disconnected (the mythicists) or too trivial and ordinary (the humanists) by comparison. Hopefully time allows us to mature to a point where we can enjoy and appreciate both. In my youth I was definitely pulled more towards the Milton/Wagner side, and though Shakespeare always spoke to me it's taken Verdi a bit longer, but I also adore him now, especially the awesome trilogy of Otello, Don Carlos, and Falstaff.


I like this analogy and analysis, but where it falls a bit short for me is that I don't see Verdi as any comparison for Shakespeare as a humanist dramatist. Shakespeare wrote exceptional poetry, Verdi wrote some exceptional music. But Shakespeare also formed his plays so that the exceptional poetry was in service of exceptional drama. For Verdi, even much of the incredible music is in the service of pedestrian drama. "Eri tu" is a masterpiece of vocal writing, certainly one of a handful of the greatest a but it rises well above the dramatic context that inspired it. Wagner and Milton are more equally matched.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Verdi is to Wagner as Shakespeare was to Milton: monumental geniuses working in what could be considered polar opposite styles. Verdi and Shakespeare are the humanists, the ones interested in all the messy flesh-and-blood reality of people and their lives. Milton and Wagner are the mythicists, the ones interested in the philosophical abstractions and themes that churn beneath the mythologies we tell (though Milton would've objected to me calling them mythologies: William Blake knew better than Milton). To that point I've also thought that Verdi's Aida was like Shakespeare trying to write Paradise Lost, and Die Meistersinger was like Milton trying to write As You Like It; somewhat awkward (even if frequently magnificent) attempts at each composer working more within the others' milieu.
> 
> It's probably not accidental that most people tend to find themselves pulled more strongly towards either the "humanist" or "mythicist" end of the spectrum when it comes to art, and if you find yourself enraptured by either the other can either feel too abstract and disconnected (the mythicists) or too trivial and ordinary (the humanists) by comparison. Hopefully time allows us to mature to a point where we can enjoy and appreciate both. In my youth I was definitely pulled more towards the Milton/Wagner side, and though Shakespeare always spoke to me it's taken Verdi a bit longer, but I also adore him now, especially the awesome trilogy of Otello, Don Carlos, and Falstaff.


Although I was enraptured by opera of every kind in my early years of discovering music, and numbered several operas of Verdi among my favorites, I was soon absorbed by the complex musical universes through which Wagner expanded the art form, and art in general. I never lost my fondness for _La Traviata,_ _Otello_ and _Falstaff_ in particular, and never looked condescendingly on Verdi or the Italian opera tradition as such, but I found, like you, that my personal affinity was for the "mythicist" sort of art; it even dictated my taste in Mozart, whose _Magic Flute_ enchanted me but whose social comedies do little for me to this day. But I also find that a preference for Wagner may have a purely musical component: Wagner is a complex, innovative and provocative composer, the piano scores of whose operas I sat with for countless hours over many years, slowly working my way through harmonic progressions of astonishing subtlety. To some extent this pleasure is separable from our enjoyment of his works as operas; people (incuding me, right here on TC) have had long and animated discussions of his musical methods and even of specific chord progressions, of how they function and what we should call them. Italian opera, up to the late Romantic era, doesn't generally require or inspire this sort of musicianly fascination and analysis. Verdi, though, was forging a new style in his late years, no doubt partly a response to the ways in which Wagner was changing opera, and even as a young music lover I was fascinated by what he came up with in _Otello_ and _Falstaff_, not least a new harmonic subtlety. In what I might presume to call the Italian post-Wagnerian operatic revolution, Puccini took the new trends still further, and it's certainly no accident that I find Puccini, in general, a more interesting composer than Verdi. But this doesn't apply to Verdi's last two operas, and it's notable that there's no Puccini opera I like as well as _Otello._ It just goes to show that we may prefer some things to others for different reasons.

Well, that was a long paragraph. Sorry I couldn't break it up! But, speaking of Puccini, I'd like to propose his _Turandot_ as a better example than _Aida_ of an Italian humanist aiming at something like Teutonic mythicism and missing the mark. I don't think _Aida_ is remotely mythical; it's neither metaphysical nor psycho-symbolic, and indeed I've never been sure what it is beyond a sort of fake-Oriental soap opera (not to disparage the wonderful music that, along with things like pyramids and elephants, ensure its longevity). For _Turandot,_ though, Puccini had philosophical ambitions. Unfortunately, its purportedly mythical personages remain chilly abstractions with fancy Chinese dresses and nice arias, and the only true window to the soul comes with a character right out of _La Boheme _or _Madama Butterfly._ What makes Wagner the great mythicist that he is - and what Puccini couldn't manage, and Verdi had the self-knowledge not to attempt - is his ability to bridge the gap between symbolic meaning and human experience; we may never have met a king who presides over an order of knights and bears an incurable spear-wound, but the suffering of Amfortas is excruciatingly real.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> What makes Wagner the great mythicist that he is is his ability to bridge the gap between symbolic meaning and human experience; we may never have met a king who presides over an order of knights and bears an incurable spear-wound, but the suffering of Amfortas is excruciatingly real.


THIS! Quite, there's far more to it than Wagner's works being solely mystical parables and Verdi's mere humanist, realist stories. It doesn't get more humanist than that advocation of the 'fallen' woman Traviata and in some ways more real. However, the archetypal nature of Violetta and her vicissitudes are just the stuff of which myths (and legends) are made. (Violetta, or Marguerite as she is called in the novel and play, are a far cry from the historical figure of Marie.)

N.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I like this analogy and analysis, but where it falls a bit short for me is that I don't see Verdi as any comparison for Shakespeare as a humanist dramatist. Shakespeare wrote exceptional poetry, Verdi wrote some exceptional music. But Shakespeare also formed his plays so that the exceptional poetry was in service of exceptional drama. For Verdi, even much of the incredible music is in the service of pedestrian drama. "Eri tu" is a masterpiece of vocal writing, certainly one of a handful of the greatest a but it rises well above the dramatic context that inspired it. Wagner and Milton are more equally matched.


It's a bit of an unfair comparison because obviously Verdi didn't write his dramas/librettos, he merely set them to music. With Shakespeare the poetry is embedded within (and often used to express) the drama; they are inseparable, and he wrote both. However, Verdi's librettos, as sub-par as they often are, are still very humanist in nature and present perfectly apt canvasses and sketches upon which Verdi to apply his musical coloring and bring them to life infinitely more than what they are on the page. I mean, I don't consider any opera libretti to be literary masterpieces; the art of opera is all in how the music galvanizes whatever drama does exist on the page, and great composers have made silk purses out of sow's ears, as the saying goes.

As pure literature/drama I don't think Wagner is any more of a match for Milton than Verdi is for Shakespeare.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> ...I also find that a preference for Wagner may have a purely musical component...


Yes, this is certainly true as well. To be fair I didn't intend my own post an exhaustive catalog of reasons why one might prefer Wagner or Verdi, though I do think that is an important aspect in terms of which approach to art tends to speak with us more. The musical component you mention is something different entirely, and that can have its own individual appeal.



Woodduck said:


> Well, that was a long paragraph. Sorry I couldn't break it up! But, speaking of Puccini, I'd like to propose his _Turandot_ as a better example than _Aida_ of an Italian humanist aiming at something like Teutonic mythicism and missing the mark. I don't think _Aida_ is remotely mythical; it's neither metaphysical nor psycho-symbolic, and indeed I've never been sure what it is beyond a sort of fake-Oriental soap opera (not to disparage the wonderful music that, along with things like pyramids and elephants, ensure its longevity). For _Turandot,_ though, Puccini had philosophical ambitions. Unfortunately, its purportedly mythical personages remain chilly abstractions with fancy Chinese dresses and nice arias, and the only true window to the soul comes with a character right out of _La Boheme _or _Madama Butterfly._ What makes Wagner the great mythicist that he is - and what Puccini couldn't manage, and Verdi had the self-knowledge not to attempt - is his ability to bridge the gap between symbolic meaning and human experience; we may never have met a king who presides over an order of knights and bears an incurable spear-wound, but the suffering of Amfortas is excruciatingly real.


I might would concede that Turandot is more mythical on the page, but in the music and general tone I find Aida feels closer to the mythical approach. That entire opera feels very... processional to me. Not quite to the level of a work like Parsifal, but certainly as close as Verdi ever got. That musical effect combined with the setting and certain elements within the drama give off the vibe, at least to me, of something mythical, whether or not it's explicitly (or even implicitly) there in the libretto. It very much feels like it's trying to evoke something ancient and symbolic even if it's just Verdi attempting to bring out some Oriental flavoring.


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

csacwp said:


> Listening to Verdi hooked me on opera, but recently I heard Parsifal for the first time, and that profound experience led me to do a deep dive into Wagner's other operas. Now I find it difficult to enjoy Verdi - his operas are like fast food compared to Wagner's. Puccini's sound even worse to my ears. Has anyone else had this experience after listening to Wagner?


almost contrary to my listening experience!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I might would concede that Turandot is more mythical on the page, but in the music and general tone I find Aida feels closer to the mythical approach. That entire opera feels very... processional to me. Not quite to the level of a work like Parsifal, but certainly as close as Verdi ever got. That musical effect combined with the setting and certain elements within the drama give off the vibe, at least to me, of something mythical, whether or not it's explicitly (or even implicitly) there in the libretto. It very much feels like it's trying to evoke something ancient and symbolic even if it's just Verdi attempting to bring out some Oriental flavoring.


I suspect that we aren't thinking of the "mythical approach" in quite the same way. As I conceive it, there are very few operas outside of Wagner's that actually qualify. "Mythical" has stricter and looser meanings, and Wagner's use of actual mythical, or at least legendary, material, along with his draconian dramatic method of stripping his characters and settings of everything incidental or merely picturesque, placing them virtually outside of space-time as we know it, is almost unique. But in the most liberal, loose or derivative sense, "mythical" ought at least to imply that a work doesn't represent the "folks next door," whether they're next door to a palace, a bordello, or a pyramid - or that, if it does, it makes them outstanding representatives of some category of universal human experience, doing so in such a way that they and their circumstances transcend the particulars of time, space and culture, explore or strongly suggest issues beyond what meets the eye or ear, and achieve a quality of grandeur.

For me, _Aida_'s splendiferous pomp and orientalia don't achieve, or even aim at, that sort of grandeur. Its characters are not larger than life - in fact, the grandiosity of their setting makes them seem smaller to me - and the work neither embodies nor provokes any contemplation of the nature of things. Actually, I think Verdi comes closer to creating characters of archetypal stature, as well as more thought-provoking situations, in operas without _Aida_'s picture-postcard trappings, scenic or musical. Part of that is thanks to Shakespeare, whose Othello and Lady Macbeth were already near-archetypes and gave Verdi opportunities to extend the horizons of his own art. Verdi would have liked to pit his musical powers against Lear as well, but may have realized his own limitations.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Apropos of *Macbeth*, it is the opera that started my interest in opera - the _Sleepwalking Scene_, in the voice of Maria Callas and not incidentally on my journey as a Callas _aficionado_. I knew less than nothing about opera then, but have been learning ever since.

Wagner came later, first as "Der Ring Ohne Worte," then as the Solti *Der Ring des Nibelungen*. Then *Lohengrin*, still my favorite.

But Verdi is my first love, and you don't forget your first love.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that we aren't thinking of the "mythical approach" in quite the same way. As I conceive it, there are very few operas outside of Wagner's that actually qualify. "Mythical" has stricter and looser meanings, and Wagner's use of actual mythical, or at least legendary, material, along with his draconian dramatic method of stripping his characters and settings of everything incidental or merely picturesque, placing them virtually outside of space-time as we know it, is almost unique. But in the most liberal, loose or derivative sense, "mythical" ought at least to imply that a work doesn't represent the "folks next door," whether they're next door to a palace, a bordello, or a pyramid - or that, if it does, it makes them outstanding representatives of some category of universal human experience, doing so in such a way that they and their circumstances transcend the particulars of time, space and culture, explore or strongly suggest issues beyond what meets the eye or ear, and achieve a quality of grandeur.
> 
> For me, _Aida_'s splendiferous pomp and orientalia don't achieve, or even aim at, that sort of grandeur. Its characters are not larger than life - in fact, the grandiosity of their setting makes them seem smaller to me - and the work neither embodies nor provokes any contemplation of the nature of things. Actually, I think Verdi comes closer to creating characters of archetypal stature, as well as more thought-provoking situations, in operas without _Aida_'s picture-postcard trappings, scenic or musical. Part of that is thanks to Shakespeare, whose Othello and Lady Macbeth were already near-archetypes and gave Verdi opportunities to extend the horizons of his own art. Verdi would have liked to pit his musical powers against Lear as well, but may have realized his own limitations.


I would agree that few outside of Wagner qualify if we're speaking of mythical in its purest sense. However, there are aspects of the mythical approach and style beyond the obvious aspects like dealing with gods and dragons. One aspect is the general aesthetic of rendering a feeling of otherness. In the case of Wagner that does come from, in large part (though not entirely) from dealing with the realms of gods, dragons, and (in the case of Parsifal) heroes and legends. In Wagner that abstraction is obviously meant to invite our contemplation of their allegorical and symbolic nature, frequently as it relates to psychology and philosophy.

There's by no means THAT level of mythologizing in something like Aida, but I do think the aesthetic of "otherness" is there, if only because of its foreign setting. But I also feel like in that musically. More so than most of Verdi's, he seems just as interested in rendering that particular aesthetic as opposed to slavishly tying his music to the libretto's dramatic action. I'm by no means saying the music completely ignores the dramatic action (even Wagner doesn't do this), but I do hear much more music in Aida that could be considered... I'm trying to think of a word. "Atmospheric" seems close, but not quite right. I also only think this mostly comes through when compared to Verdi's operas that I do feel are far more "flesh-and-blood" like La Traviata, Rigoletto, Otello, Don Carlos, Falstaff, etc. Of all Verdi's operas, Aida would certainly be the one that would invite a production that wanted to enhance these mythical aspects, something that I can't imagine working in the operas that are solely carried by the dramatic action of the characters.

Obviously, Aida is still Verdi, and what you say about it being an Oriental soap-opera still rings true on the dramatic level, and in many respects I feel this is where the awkwardness is. I feel like Verdi is trying to musically make the opera into something it isn't in the libretto. Perhaps it was just the setting that inspired Verdi, as, indeed, I certainly do not think it provokes or evokes the kind of philosophical/psychological analysis of Wagner; but there's still something about the setting and the music and that gives the illusion that it should, or perhaps even could (to a limited extent) with a certain approach to the direction. I actually think the grandness of the setting and the smallness of the characters feed into that as well. It's similar to the feeling I get from, say, the films of Bela Tarr or Theo Angelopolous where characters are often rendered small against huge landscapes, and that contrast in itself evokes (at least to me) quasi-mythical implications. In Angelopolous those are intentional given his allusions to classic Greek tragedies. In Aida I think it's just the aesthetic of the setting itself combined with Verdi's music that gives me that feeling.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I would agree that few outside of Wagner qualify if we're speaking of mythical in its purest sense. However, there are aspects of the mythical approach and style beyond the obvious aspects like dealing with gods and dragons. One aspect is *the general aesthetic of rendering a feeling of otherness*. In the case of Wagner that does come from, in large part (though not entirely) from dealing with the realms of gods, dragons, and (in the case of Parsifal) heroes and legends. In Wagner that abstraction is obviously meant to invite our contemplation of their allegorical and symbolic nature, frequently as it relates to psychology and philosophy.
> 
> There's by no means THAT level of mythologizing in something like Aida, but I do think the aesthetic of "otherness" is there, if only because of its foreign setting. But I also feel like in that musically. More so than most of Verdi's, he seems just as interested in rendering that particular aesthetic as opposed to slavishly tying his music to the libretto's dramatic action.


What you call "otherness" - placing stories in the realms of fantasy or exotic locales rather than the familiar world - is surely only a part of what gives a work "mythical" stature, and not the most important part. "Otherness" can be purely an exercise in the imaginary, or it can be merely picturesque or decorative, a sort of cultural tourism, which I think it essentially is in Verdi's _Aida_ and many other works of art featuring exotic settings and "local color." Wagner never deals in mere exoticism; his settings and props, natural or man-made, symbolize things beyond what they appear to be, and his music reveals and explores their meaning. Wagner's stories are full of themes, characters, situations and objects embodying basic archetypes of the sort studied by mythicists, and his music is designed to penetrate beneath the surface of things and stir up mental and emotional states that belong largely to the realm of the unconscious. We are not likely to recognize on a conscious level, in the course of a normal day, the terrifying conflict which Parsifal feels when Kundry appears to him as the mother who died when her son left her weeping, and offers him his mother's last kiss which, if he succumbs to the seduction, will destroy his soul and prevent him from achieving true manhood. But what an incredibly profound and powerful representation Wagner has given us of the fundamental and ongoing choice a human being must make between yielding to the temptation to remain a passive child or to mastering himself and become an autonomous, self-directed, responsible adult! Embedded in this operatically unprecedented and utterly mythical situation are the archetypes of the hero's quest and the femme fatale, the "belle dame sans merci" who brings death to the man self-forgetful enough to yield to her. And of course all of this paves the way for Freud's enlistment of Oedipus. That Wagner asks for this remarkable representation of psychic transformation to take place in a fantastic sort of garden where flowers sing and dance is "othering," not to entertain us with colorful exoticism but to prepare us to move outside the limitations of our everyday frames of reference and into the shadowy realm of desires, fears and impulses we've locked away beyond the reach of memory.



> I'm by no means saying the music completely ignores the dramatic action (even Wagner doesn't do this), but I do hear much more music in Aida that could be considered... I'm trying to think of a word. "Atmospheric" seems close, but not quite right. I also only think this mostly comes through when compared to Verdi's operas that I do feel are far more "flesh-and-blood" like La Traviata, Rigoletto, Otello, Don Carlos, Falstaff, etc. Of all Verdi's operas, Aida would certainly be the one that would invite a production that wanted to enhance these mythical aspects, something that I can't imagine working in the operas that are solely carried by the dramatic action of the characters.
> 
> Obviously, Aida is still Verdi, and what you say about it being an Oriental soap-opera still rings true on the dramatic level, and in many respects I feel this is where the awkwardness is. I feel like Verdi is trying to musically make the opera into something it isn't in the libretto. Perhaps it was just the setting that inspired Verdi, as, indeed, I certainly do not think it provokes or evokes the kind of philosophical/psychological analysis of Wagner; but there's still something about the setting and the music and that gives the illusion that it should, or perhaps even could (to a limited extent) with a certain approach to the direction. I actually think the grandness of the setting and the smallness of the characters feed into that as well. It's similar to the feeling I get from, say, the films of Bela Tarr or Theo Angelopolous where characters are often rendered small against huge landscapes, and that contrast in itself evokes (at least to me) quasi-mythical implications. In Angelopolous those are intentional given his allusions to classic Greek tragedies. In Aida I think it's just the aesthetic of the setting itself combined with Verdi's music that gives me that feeling.


Obviously we hear what Verdi achieves with his ancient Egyptian setting differently. I can certainly imagine an opera that actually makes some attempt to probe "ancientness" or "Egyptianness" for meaning. Maybe Philip Glass's _Akhnaten_ does so; I haven't explored it enough to know.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's probably not accidental that most people tend to find themselves pulled more strongly towards either the "humanist" or "mythicist" end of the spectrum when it comes to art, and if you find yourself enraptured by either the other can either feel too abstract and disconnected (the mythicists) or too trivial and ordinary (the humanists) by comparison. Hopefully time allows us to mature to a point where we can enjoy and appreciate both. .


I'm with it all - though the fact that Milton is the only non-dramatist required my Steel-trap mind to loosen up a bit - and disagree with little. But it did take my thinking into a realm of concern I often visit.

I would be amazed if the number of those who have felt the love of both ends of the spectrum mentioned above, have, in the course of their music loving lives, as often moved in the direction of the humanists as in the direction of the mythicists, to use the present labels. I don't think it usually works that way. I'll guess that many of us reading the orignal post found the basic premise to be well worth considering but not necessarily surprising.

My concern is that there is a corresponding leaning in those who create the music we listen to. Again, no surprise that Otello and Falstaff come as the summation of Verdi's journey...Turandot the unfinished end to Puccini's journey. The reason for my concern is that I feel that the creators who have followed have increasingly paid less attention to the merits that were the calling cards of the humanist creators...concise story-telling ( not always good story-telling but most often attempts at something intended to keep the eye on the story) and tuneful song writing.

I'm not concerned because I think those features represent the highest point of achievment in creating operas. I'm concerned because I often think that the search for the great at the expense of the good, has left us a group of composers playing with half a deck; with traditions of composition - at least in the new operas that I have experienced in the past 10 to 15 years - that show an almost fearful avoidance of melody and a need for obscurity in story-telling. The desire to do something important, more readily found by many of us in the realm of those mythicists, has, it seems to me, created a focus away from the essential tools that are so often thought of as the calling cards of the humanists.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> What you call "otherness" - placing stories in the realms of fantasy or exotic locales rather than the familiar world - is surely only a part of what gives a work "mythical" stature, and not the most important part. "Otherness" can be purely an exercise in the imaginary, or it can be merely picturesque or decorative, a sort of cultural tourism, which I think it essentially is in Verdi's _Aida_ and many other works of art featuring exotic settings and "local color." Wagner never deals in mere exoticism; his settings and props, natural or man-made, symbolize things beyond what they appear to be, and his music reveals and explores their meaning. Wagner's stories are full of themes, characters, situations and objects embodying basic archetypes of the sort studied by mythicists, and his music is designed to penetrate beneath the surface of things and stir up mental and emotional states that belong largely to the realm of the unconscious. We are not likely to recognize on a conscious level, in the course of a normal day, the terrifying conflict which Parsifal feels when Kundry appears to him as the mother who died when her son left her weeping, and offers him his mother's last kiss which, if he succumbs to the seduction, will destroy his soul and prevent him from achieving true manhood. But what an incredibly profound and powerful representation Wagner has given us of the fundamental and ongoing choice a human being must make between yielding to the temptation to remain a passive child or to mastering himself and become an autonomous, self-directed, responsible adult! Embedded in this operatically unprecedented and utterly mythical situation are the archetypes of the hero's quest and the femme fatale, the "belle dame sans merci" who brings death to the man self-forgetful enough to yield to her. And of course all of this paves the way for Freud's enlistment of Oedipus. That Wagner asks for this remarkable representation of psychic transformation to take place in a fantastic sort of garden where flowers sing and dance is "othering," not to entertain us with colorful exoticism but to prepare us to move outside the limitations of our everyday frames of reference and into the shadowy realm of desires, fears and impulses we've locked away beyond the reach of memory.


And with this I think we are no longer finding points of disagreement. It's perhaps my own fault in my initial post for overselling the extent to which I thought Aida was "mythical," as I certainly never intended that to mean that I felt it was mythical to the depth or extent that Wagner was; merely that of all Verdi's works it felt the closest to that approach, and probably the largest part of that is the otherness; which, and I agree with you on this, is far from the most important aspect of the mythical approach. However, I do think that otherness can help to stir in composers not innately drawn to the mythical a rather new or different (for them) way of approaching the music and drama, even if it not wholly successful. I think both elements are true of Aida and Verdi.

Interestingly, we haven't discussed the extent to which Die Meistersinger is humanist. Similar to how I've said Aida is only, at best, quasi-mythical (and more in the "otherness" and the music it inspires than anything else), I feel Meistersinger is only quasi-humanist. It still has a very strong feeling of myth, even though we're not dealing in the realms of gods and dragons and ghostly dutchmen and whatnot. The very premise of a culture where people sing to win the prize of a mate feels straight out of a fairy tale, and of course we have Hans's existential contemplation, drawing us towards the themes of the work. Similar to Aida, though, I still feel a significant change in Wagner's approach to the music, which is frequently attempting to be lighter and more tuneful than ever before, and when he does get "thick" it seems more in response to the dramatic action occurring (like the finale of 2-6). Still a wonderful work, though I've always felt it a bit too long for what is predominantly a comedy (albeit with frequently darker undertones). Guess Wagner never got Shakespeare's message that brevity is the soul of wit!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Not in my case. I listened to my first Wagner opera when I was a teenager, and my life continued in the same path. In fact, quite a few years later, I still like Verdi, Puccini and Wagner. In this order.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Interestingly, we haven't discussed the extent to which Die Meistersinger is humanist. Similar to how I've said Aida is only, at best, quasi-mythical (and more in the "otherness" and the music it inspires than anything else), I feel Meistersinger is only quasi-humanist. It still has a very strong feeling of myth, even though we're not dealing in the realms of gods and dragons and ghostly dutchmen and whatnot. The very premise of a culture where people sing to win the prize of a mate feels straight out of a fairy tale, and of course we have Hans's existential contemplation, drawing us towards the themes of the work. Similar to Aida, though, I still feel a significant change in Wagner's approach to the music, which is frequently attempting to be lighter and more tuneful than ever before, and when he does get "thick" it seems more in response to the dramatic action occurring (like the finale of 2-6). Still a wonderful work, though I've always felt it a bit too long for what is predominantly a comedy (albeit with frequently darker undertones). Guess Wagner never got Shakespeare's message that brevity is the soul of wit!


The difference between _Meistersinger_ and Wagner's other mature operas in terms of the "mythicist - humanist" spectrum is generally observed. But, as your term "quasi" seems to imply, the difference is not as great as it appears. In fact, if one of the criteria for humanism is a focus on "real life," I find that the wheeling and dealing of _Das Rheingold_ and the passions and conflicts of _Die Walkure_ look and feel more like what goes on in the world I'm familiar with than the song contests and street riots of _Meistersinger,_ which feel quite stylized. The opera might serve as a corrective to any attempt to draw too sharp a line between "mythicism" and "humanism." That line certainly isn't always sharp in the "humanist" Shakespeare, nor is it in Wagner. I would argue that Hans Sachs and Wotan are, in terms of the distinct medium of music drama, characters of a depth and stature quite worthy of Shakespeare, and offhand I can't think of any personages to equal them in the operas of more "humanist" composers, including Verdi.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> . I would argue that Hans Sachs and Wotan are, in terms of the distinct medium of music drama, characters of a depth and stature quite worthy of Shakespeare, and offhand I can't think of any personages to equal them in the operas of more "humanist" composers, including Verdi.


Rigoletto!...even though there's been no one to successfully portray him on stage. I don't know about the worthy of Shakespeare thing but I absolutely find his stature and depth to be on a par with Wotan and Hans sachs. And I love the two of them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Rigoletto!...even though there's been no one to successfully portray him on stage. I don't know about the worthy of Shakespeare thing but I absolutely find his stature and depth to be on a par with Wotan and Hans sachs. And I love the two of them.


Rigoletto is no doubt a powerful operatic character. Among Verdi's characters I would rank him with Lady Macbeth, Violetta, Otello, Iago and Falstaff in terms of vivid, memorable individuality, conveyed in both story and music. His plight, and the power with which he expresses his feelings, are compelling. But whether he has "depth" and "stature" is another question, our answer to which will depend on how we define those terms.

I would look for, among other things, a certain complexity, a certain level of awareness - especially self-awareness - and some growth, or at least change, in the course of a drama. These are things that I think give depth and stature to people in life, and we would reasonably expect to apply similar criteria to judging characters in opera. These are surely difficult things to convey in music, but Wagner achieves it powerfully in both Wotan and Sachs. Verdi, I think, conveys such qualities best in Violetta, the courtesan who attains nobility through her loving sacrifice. She appears to us in three dimensional reality. I'm not persuaded that Rigoletto does, however potent he is in such dimensionality as he does possess.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I would look for, among other things, a certain complexity, a certain level of awareness - especially self-awareness - and some growth, or at least change, in the course of a drama...... I'm not persuaded that Rigoletto does, however potent he is in such dimensionality as he does possess.


The growth or change, I think, is probably not part of the Rigoletto complexity but I do think in Pari Siamo his self reflection is pretty potent. The first scene has not prepared us to hear this character offer this level of insight. Thereafter I find his capacity to be moving comes from the size and variety of his responses...tenderness in abundance, the rage followed by self aware purposefulness in Cortigianni and then the tragic lack of self awareness when he could leave with Gilda except for his need for revenge.

When a real change takes place in a character over the course of a drama and BECAUSE of what has taken place in a drama, that truly can be affecting for the best reasons. One of my greatest experiences of that was in one of your not-so-favored Mozart domestic dramas...a performance of Cosi in which Fiordiligi emerged from the others as a human with a very real and trying journey. But I don't know if it happens to Boris and I would be hard put to deny him the accolade of stature.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> The growth or change, I think, is probably not part of the Rigoletto complexity but I do think in Pari Siamo his self reflection is pretty potent. The first scene has not prepared us to hear this character offer this level of insight. Thereafter I find his capacity to be moving comes from the size and variety of his responses...tenderness in abundance, the rage followed by self aware purposefulness in Cortigianni and then the tragic lack of self awareness when he could leave with Gilda except for his need for revenge.
> 
> When a real change takes place in a character over the course of a drama and BECAUSE of what has taken place in a drama, that truly can be affecting for the best reasons. One of my greatest experiences of that was in one of your not-so-favored Mozart domestic dramas...a performance of Cosi in which Fiordiligi emerged from the others as a human with a very real and trying journey. But I don't know if it happens to Boris and I would be hard put to deny him the accolade of stature.


Much depends on performance too. It would be hard to deny the stature of nearly any character sung by, say, Tito Gobbi. It's hard to imagine a more powerful Rigoletto. He even makes Scarpia's loathsome lust seem profound.


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

I may be a bit late to the party, but I too have had a similar experience to many others in this thread.

My first brush with Wagner was listening to the _Tannhäuser_ overture. This was music quite unlike anything else I had heard. It moved me deeply and left me craving more. I later learned that this overture prefaced an entire opera following the eponymous character. In the rest of the opera, the themes and motifs that Wagner first introduces in the overture are developed, expanded and recapitulated in a grand orgiastic fanfare. I was instantly hooked and my fascination with all of Wagner's music was crystallised. Since then, I have avidly watched all of his major operas (from _Dutchman_ onward) almost on a constant loop. For me, _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ stand above the rest and musical monuments that will never be matched.

But, as the OP describes, I have had trouble enjoying other classical music as I had done previously. It feels insignificant and rather bland (with someone like Richard Strauss as a potential exception). I was a huge Mahler fan a few years ago (in fact, I listened to him with the same zeal that I pay Wagner now) but now his music just doesn't sit right with me. I feel almost disappointed (and simultaneously pleased) that I have been exposed to Wagner so early in my life because I suspect that nothing will quite live up to his music. I think Wagner ought to be something that you build up to but my impulsive juvenile spirit lunged right toward him.

I hope this all doesn't come off as too over the top, however, I felt almost obliged to write a response having seen that others have had similar experiences.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Trollcannon said:


> I may be a bit late to the party, but I too have had a similar experience to many others in this thread.
> 
> My first brush with Wagner was listening to the _Tannhäuser_ overture. This was music quite unlike anything else I had heard. It moved me deeply and left me craving more. I later learned that this overture prefaced an entire opera following the eponymous character. In the rest of the opera, the themes and motifs that Wagner first introduces in the overture are developed, expanded and recapitulated in a grand orgiastic fanfare. I was instantly hooked and my fascination with all of Wagner's music was crystallised. Since then, I have avidly watched all of his major operas (from _Dutchman_ onward) almost on a constant loop. For me, _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ stand above the rest and musical monuments that will never be matched.
> 
> ...


Don't be concerned that Wagner will spoil you permanently for other music. I've always loved a wide variety of music, including operas by many composers, but I too was stunned by my first encounters with Wagner. He just seemed more substantial in various ways - in his musical complexity, his visceral power and sensuality, his imagination and originality, and his ability to probe areas of human experience never explored by others. I became a devoted Wagner listener in my teens, devoting a high percentage of my listening time to him, and I went on over many years studying and thinking about his work.

I'm in my seventies now, and although I still think that Wagner's greatest work represents a unique summit of operatic creation, I've come to appreciate and enjoy more and more other great operas for the very things that are un-Wagnerian about them. It's partly that I've known Wagner so intimately for so long that he holds no (or not many) more secrets for me, and partly that as I grow older I find myself less tempted by the deep dive into the grand, cosmic and esoteric, and more inclined to sit back and savor the simple, familiar and existential aspects of life. Being more open to the direct emotional appeal of Verdi and Puccini, I'm also able to appreciate their sheer musical brilliance more than I could when the complexities of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ were my obligatory standard of reference.

No composer's music contains everything, and we can't turn to Wagner to experience the things Bellini, Beethoven, Weber, Mussorgsky, Debussy and others had to say, things which may be less stimulating and challenging to the imagination, but are still to be treasured for the sureness and poignancy with which they capture what it is to be human.


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Don't be concerned that Wagner will spoil you permanently for other music. I've always loved a wide variety of music, including operas by many composers, but I too was stunned by my first encounters with Wagner. He just seemed more substantial in various ways - in his musical complexity, his visceral power and sensuality, his imagination and originality, and his ability to probe areas of human experience never explored by others. I became a devoted Wagner listener in my teens, devoting a high percentage of my listening time to him, and I went on over many years studying and thinking about his work.
> 
> I'm in my seventies now, and although I still think that Wagner's greatest work represents a unique summit of operatic creation, I've come to appreciate and enjoy more and more other great operas for the very things that are un-Wagnerian about them. It's partly that I've known Wagner so intimately for so long that he holds no (or not many) more secrets for me, and partly that as I grow older I find myself less tempted by the deep dive into the grand, cosmic and esoteric, and more inclined to sit back and savor the simple, familiar and existential aspects of life. Being more open to the direct emotional appeal of Verdi and Puccini, I'm also able to appreciate their sheer musical brilliance more than I could when the complexities of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ were my obligatory standard of reference.
> 
> No composer's music contains everything, and we can't turn to Wagner to experience the things Bellini, Beethoven, Weber, Mussorgsky, Debussy and others had to say, things which may be less stimulating and challenging to the imagination, but are still to be treasured for the sureness and poignancy with which they capture what it is to be human.


Thanks Woodduck for yet another thoughtful response. I suspect that over time the shock impact of his work will wane and the artistic genius of others will re-emerge. However, Wagner, to me, will always remain unparalleled in his ability to move me in a way that no other composer is able to.

I suppose that this thread has exposed a certain type of person who is especially responsive to the emotional impact of Wagner's operas. I certainly know of people that dismiss his music has over the top and all a bit too much (to bad for them I guess ). I wonder what it is that makes some individuals more prone to the ecstasy of emotion this his music has to offer? Is it simply a willingness to give in to the music, or something more innate (like a 'Wagner gene')?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Trollcannon said:


> I wonder what it is that makes some individuals more prone to the ecstasy of emotion this his music has to offer? Is it simply a willingness to give in to the music, or something more innate (like a 'Wagner gene')?


I dunno. What is it that makes Barbebleu and BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist more prone to the ecstasy of emotion expressed in Mahler's 8th? We cannot explain.
Bernard Haitink: "It's a hobbyhorse of mine and a major worry, this Mahler cult. There are people who come to a concert only if Mahler is played. Once, after a performance of Mahler's Third Symphony, I received a letter, telling me: 'I was so moved, I wept through the whole piece. " I almost wrote back: 'You need to see a psychiatrist.' I didn't, of course. These are isolated instances, but Mahler is not well served by this cult. Maybe, after the anniversary year, it will all die down.
(Es ist ein Steckenpferd von mir und eine grosse Sorge. Dieser Mahler-Kult: Es gibt Leute, die nur zu einem Konzert kommen, wenn Mahler gespielt wird. Nach einer Aufführung von Mahlers dritte Sinfonie habe ich einmal einen Brief gekommen: 'Ich war so gerührt, ich habe das ganze Stück über geheult.' Fast hatte ichzurückgeschrieben: 'Sie sollten einen Psychiater aufsuchen'. Das habe ich natürlich nicht getan. Es sind Einzelfälle, aber dieser Mahler-Kult - damit wird Mahler nicht gedient. Aber es ist so, und vielleicht wird es nach diesem Jubiläum wieder weniger werden.)"


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Trollcannon said:


> Thanks Woodduck for yet another thoughtful response. I suspect that over time the shock impact of his work will wane and the artistic genius of others will re-emerge. However, Wagner, to me, will always remain unparalleled in his ability to move me in a way that no other composer is able to.
> 
> I suppose that this thread has exposed a certain type of person who is especially responsive to the emotional impact of Wagner's operas. I certainly know of people that dismiss his music has over the top and all a bit too much (to bad for them I guess ). I wonder what it is that makes some individuals more prone to the ecstasy of emotion this his music has to offer? Is it simply a willingness to give in to the music, or something more innate (like a 'Wagner gene')?


Or so many others that hate him. I like it all. I love black forest cake but prime rib is heaven as well. Do you want to give up arias???? I don't. Do you never want to hear another Eb? Do you never want to hear the glories of a gorgeous voice without a huge orchestra accompanying it? Can you live without cabalettos?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Can you live without cabalettos?


Verdi himself got tired of the obligatory cabaletta - along with other conventions designed to show off the singer at the expense of the drama - and you won't find them in his later operas. Not that showing off is always bad...


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Verdi himself got tired of the obligatory cabaletta - along with other conventions designed to show off the singer at the expense of the drama - and you won't find them in his later operas. Not that showing off is always bad...


Though even in *Otello* he could revert to older forms if they served the purpose of moving along the drama, for what is Iago's and Otello's thrilling _Si pel ciel_ if not a cabaetta to the previous duet? It certainly brings the scene to a rousing conclusion.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Anyone who reckons they are tired of Verdi just needs to put on Toscanini’s or Karajan’s Falstaff and listen again!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Though even in *Otello* he could revert to older forms if they served the purpose of moving along the drama, for what is Iago's and Otello's thrilling _Si pel ciel_ if not a cabaetta to the *previous duet*? It certainly brings the scene to a rousing conclusion.


Aren't you stretching the meaning of cabaletta? We might similarly designate any number of rousing act finales. And what previous duet are you referring to? _Si pel ciel_ is preceded by a conversation between Iago and Otello.

Now that I think about it, _Si pel ciel_ is the only true duet in the opera, even the love duet in act 1 being conversational in format. _Otello_ preserves the ensemble finale as a sure-fire operatic convention, but otherwise Verdi seems to be pursuing a goal of near-realism much like that described by Wagner in _Opera and Drama_, where it's argued that since people don't talk simultaneously in real life it's generally artificial to have them sing together in opera. This principle is observed in the first act of _Die Walkure_, where Siegmund and Sieglinde never join voices, but fortunately the musician in Wagner won out over the theoretician, and his subsequent operas bring exciting love duets, oaths of brotherhood, vengeance trios, fugal street riots and more. I doubt that Verdi was inhibited by the sort of ivory-tower theoretical musings that Wagner seemed to need to turbocharge his brain, but it's interesting - and not surprising, given his constant evolution in the use of traditional forms - to see him every bit as concerned with dramatic integrity and dropping traditional musical devices where he perceives no dramatic need for them.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Aren't you stretching the meaning of cabaletta? We might similarly designate any number of rousing act finales. And what previous duet are you referring to? _Si pel ciel_ is preceded by a conversation between Iago and Otello.


Maybe, yes, but I took my position from the Verdi scholar, Julian Budden in the third volume of his exhaustive survey of _The Operas of Verdi_.

The previous conversation between Iago and Otello is still a duet, but



> the act requires a 'clinching design; and for Verdi even in 1887 there was none better than the cabaletta with its formal repetitions that drive home the point that has been made. Hence for the first time since the choral episode a symmetrical melody with a self-propageting rhythmic pattern.No wonder that the unsophisticated find this the most enjoyable moment in the score. It is of course a cabletta with a difference, since nobody at this time was writing the conventional Donizettian variety.


.

I don't have the time to write out the full argument as specified by Budden, but I get his point. A complex duet in which the two protagonists are brilliantly characterised becomes a duet of much simpler design. It may not be a conventional cabaletta, but it serves the same purpose.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Maybe, yes, but I took my position from the Verdi scholar, Julian Budden in the third volume of his exhaustive survey of _The Operas of Verdi_.
> 
> The previous conversation between Iago and Otello is still a duet, but
> 
> ...


I see his point. I don't like it, but I see it.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Verdi himself got tired of the obligatory cabaletta - along with other conventions designed to show off the singer at the expense of the drama - and you won't find them in his later operas. Not that showing off is always bad...


I never won a spelling bee LOL. I rarely experience opera as part of a whole drama anymore. I admit it is very different. I listen to arias in the car and the Cab.......... (word) are fabulous there LOL


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I never won a spelling bee LOL. I rarely experience opera as part of a whole drama anymore. I admit it is very different. I listen to arias in the car and the Cab.......... (word) are fabulous there LOL


Who knew that "cab driver" was short for "cabaletta driver"?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I never won a spelling bee LOL.* I rarely experience opera as part of a whole drama anymore*. I admit it is very different. I listen to arias in the car and the Cab.......... (word) are fabulous there LOL


I feel pretty much the opposite for the music that I've been listening to my whole life. Often the ONLY way I can find it engaging is to experience it as a drama. Otherwise I find I've just heard the sounds too many times.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marlow said:


> Anyone who reckons they are tired of Verdi


The Verdi I reckon I'm tired of:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Monteverdi, Giuuseppe Vedi, Tutto Verde.

(Just something someone once said to me which always made me smile.)


----------

