# Meistersinger vs Falstaff



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

2 of my favorites. how do you think they stack up?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Falstaff!! Sir John Falstaff!!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

sospiro said:


> Falstaff!! Sir John Falstaff!!


why am i not surprised?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

H. L. Mencken once said _Die Meistersinger_ "took more skill to plan and write it than it took to plan and write the whole canon of Shakespeare". And Mencken was more of a Brahmsian than a Wagnerite.

Irretrievably, _Meistersinger_!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

In our highly authoritative )) Top Operas thread, _Falstaff_ came it at 43. Still, I won't argue too strenuously with anyone who says that we placed it a little low. _Meistersinger_, on the other hand, cracked the Top-10.:trp:


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I voted Meistersinger, but I still love Falstaff dearly . Again, this is a futile comparison of apples and
Oranges. Both operas are towering masterpieces, each great in its own way .
Falstaff is quicksilver, mercurial whimsical ,swiftly flowing , and Meistersinger is broad ,expansive, majestic and unhurried , but with plenty of vivacious passages . 
Both are wonderfully humorous as witty. No one could claim that Wagner had no sense of humor after getting to know Die Meistersinger. Both operas are full of witty dialogugue and sarcastic putdowns . 
The way Beckmesser garbles the words of his stolen Meisterlied is hilarious. If you don't know German, read the translation and compare the text of Walther's exalted original with the way Beckmesser messes it up. 
It reads like one of those weird, surreal beatnick poems of the 60s !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Itullian said:


> 2 of my favorites. how do you think they stack up?


They are so different that this poll is pointless.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I vote for this one:


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk (May 9, 2011)

let's make every single variation of Wagner vs. Verdi.

for the sole purpose of really beating everyone over the head with the fact that should go without saying, *Wagner is infinitely superior to Verdi*.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

moody said:


> They are so different that this poll is pointless.


don't be such a curmudgeon, Moody man.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Itullian said:


> don't be such a curmudgeon, Moody man.


You will note that Superhorn said the same thing, don't you tell him off then?
If you want to do these polls there must be some sensible point to them.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

AmericanGesamtkunstwerk said:


> let's make every single variation of Wagner vs. Verdi.
> 
> for the sole purpose of really beating everyone over the head with the fact that should go without saying, *Wagner is infinitely superior to Verdi*.


I have seldom seen such nonsense.


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

superhorn said:


> I voted Meistersinger, but I still love Falstaff dearly . Again, this is a futile comparison of apples and
> Oranges. Both operas are towering masterpieces, each great in its own way .
> Falstaff is quicksilver, mercurial whimsical ,swiftly flowing , and Meistersinger is broad ,expansive, majestic and unhurried , but with plenty of vivacious passages .
> Both are wonderfully humorous as witty. No one could claim that Wagner had no sense of humor after getting to know Die Meistersinger. Both operas are full of witty dialogugue and sarcastic putdowns .
> ...


I think Superhorn is on the money with this one.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

i think this is avery sensible pole.

2 comc operas in different styles.

whats up, Moody?

i like you anyway.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Moody's just being moody.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

I feel this is a lot like deciding which of your children you like the best.

In the end, I chose Falstaff.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

New poll: Meistersinger vs. Falstaff vs. _Aksel's slow death_.

For once I may vote for something besides Wagner.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

They stack up nicely : Meistersinger above Falstaff, just like in the poll. 
Although, by a small margin. Love them both.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Meistersinger for sure! I am not into Falstaff at all. The synopsis did not appeal to me.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I've gone for Falstaff. Meistersinger is one of my least favourite Wagner operas and I don't feel I ever need to see it again...

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Falstaff by the length of a street. Has everything Mastersingers does not have including a brilliant libretto and lots of laughs - important for a comic opera. The score is utter brilliance, a culmination of Verdi's genius. In fact Falstaff imo is the greatest opera written after Mozart, a stupendous masterpiece and a celebration of life itself. If one is ever fed up a dose of Falstaff cheers the spirits - just like Sir John's wine. 
And it ends without any pomposity at all: 
'Everyone is born to laugh at everyone else
But he who laughs last laughs longest.' :lol:


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

To me the musical beauty of the Meistersinger wins over Falstaff, but I am not too much aware of the wit in Falstaff. I do agree however that more humour is always good!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Meister by light years
I never listen to Falstaff.
oh, the last 5 minutes are good.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Between Meistersinger and Falstaff I will take ... Vaughan William's Sir John in Love


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> To me the musical beauty of the Meistersinger wins over Falstaff, but *I am not too much aware of the wit in Falstaff.* I do agree however that more humour is always good!


You need to listen to it then! Women's lib Elizabethan style! Viva Verdi!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> You need to listen to it then! Women's lib Elizabethan style! Viva Verdi!


I even have Karajan's DG Falstaff on the shelve, time to give it a spin


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

As sublime as some of the music in Meistersinger is, it can be a slog and it's short of laughs. 

...whereas Falstaff is easy to love after a few listens. The orchestration is as witty as the libretto. It seems that Verdi is rushing to throw every last tune he has into this. No time for leitmotivs here, it's all about fun and good spirits.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

_Falstaff_ is impeccable entertainment. The libretto is witty, the characters are charming or farcical (Falstaff himself is both), the pace is swift, and the score is mostly one of Verdi's best. I don't find much depth in it, there's little warmth or pathos, and there's no moral to the story except an admonition not to be a pompous fool and not to take life too seriously since we're all basically clowns enacting a farce. At least that's what I take from it. For me _Falstaff_ is great fun in the theater but not quite as alluring purely as music for listening, except in places; its wealth of ideas whiz by and rarely allow much emotion to develop - but I suppose that would be beside the point.

_Die Meistersinger_ is far more complex. I'd call it a serio-comedy, incorporating elements of romance, farce, morality play, and even hints of tragedy. Hans Sachs, who is central to the story and progresses from observer to shaper of its events, is a melancholy philosopher-cobbler, a character of an intellectual and emotional subtlety the like of whom it's hard to find in opera of any sort, much less comedy. The libretto is filled with clever wit and word-play (even more apparent in German, I gather), and this is echoed in the diversity of musical techniques and the range of expression in the score, from light-hearted, satirical and festive to ardently romantic, poignant, and deeply solemn and serious.

These are very different masterpieces, and for my taste the twin peaks of operatic comedy. Apologies to Mozarteans.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

sospiro said:


> Falstaff!! Sir John Falstaff!!


This.............................


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Falstaff is a fun watch, but I never feel particularly inclined to listen to just the audio, whereas Meistersinger contains some of the most beautiful music Wagner ever composed. To me, the very best of Verdi has a strong claim against the weaker Wagner operas but I don't consider Falstaff anywhere close to the very best of Verdi.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

...whereas Falstaff is almost the only Verdi I will listen to. (I say almost as occasionally I have been known to listen to Otello & Macbeth.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> And it ends without any pomposity at all:
> 'Everyone is born to laugh at everyone else
> But he who laughs last laughs longest.' :lol:


That sounds good-natured, but it doesn't quite capture the flavor of the original. The full text of the final fugue, (roughly) correctly translated:

_Tutto nel mondo é burla. 
L'uom é nato burlone,
Nel suo cervello ciurla
Sempre la sua ragione.
Tutti gabbati! Irride
L'un l'altro ogni mortal.
Ma ride ben chi ride
La risata final. 
_
The whole world is a joke,
And man is born a clown.
Inside his brain his reason is always [Italian "ciurla," which I can't find a translation for].
We are all fools! Each mortal mocks the other.
But he laughs best who gets the last laugh.

For some reason I've never found that particularly heart-warming. Surely even comedy can leave us with something more than amused cynicism? Is shared foolishness and one-upmanship ("he who laughs last") mankind's deepest bond? It sounds like the code of a con artist, and it tends to confirm my feeling that _Falstaff,_ for all its brilliance, is basically rather shallow.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> I even have Karajan's DG Falstaff on the shelve, time to give it a spin


Not as good as the first but still very fine. But Falstaff has been very very lucky on disc. Have you tried Bernstein?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> Falstaff is a fun watch, but I never feel particularly inclined to listen to just the audio, whereas Meistersinger contains some of the most beautiful music Wagner ever composed. To me, the very best of Verdi has a strong claim against the weaker Wagner operas but I don't consider Falstaff anywhere close to the very best of Verdi.


Isn't it funny how tastes differ imm that I consider the music of Falstaff to be the finest Verdi ever wrote with the composer absolutely at the height of his powers. The sheer wonder of how he matches the score with the libretto and makes the music speak is a marvel. As for Mastersingers it does, as you say, contain some beautiful music, such as the quintet, but frankly is over long and out-stays its welcome in places, whereas not a note of Falstaff is wasted.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Neither. The correct answer is, of course, _Benvenuto Cellini_!

I've seen and heard _Falstaff _a few times; it leaves me rather cold. It doesn't have the tunes of mature (_Ballo_+) Verdi. I much prefer Nicolai's _Lustigen Weiber von Windsor_, with its dancing ensembles, bass arias, and the Mondchor.





_Meistersinger_ has some lovely things, like the quintet (obligatory mention) and the prize song; it's the most human and grounded of the post-_Dutchman _operas, but I find it rather long, and the Beckmesser sub-plot isn't at all funny. For my money, Wagner's best comic opera is _Das Liebesverbot_, full of bel canto and rhythmic élan, starting with the exhilarating, galloping, percussion-heavy overture, in the style of Herold or Auber.

If I want great 19th century comic opera, I'll listen to _La dame blanche_; _Straszny dwór_; _Zar und Zimmermann_; _Le cheval de bronze_ and _Fra Diavolo_; the _Barber_, _Cenerentola_, _Matilde di Shabran_, and _Comte Ory_; and to G&S.

And to Offenbach (most enjoyable of the numerous Bachs) - born 200 years ago today.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

NLAdriaan said:


> I even have Karajan's DG Falstaff on the shelve, time to give it a spin


Karajan's second Falsfaff was on Decca not DG, but the EMI (now Warner) is the one to go for. One of the greatest opera recordings of all time.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Isn't it funny how tastes differ imm that *I consider the music of Falstaff to be the finest Verdi ever wrote with the composer absolutely at the height of his powers.* *The sheer wonder of how he matches the score with the libretto and makes the music speak is a marvel.* As for Mastersingers it does, as you say, contain some beautiful music, such as the quintet, but frankly is over long and out-stays its welcome in places, *whereas not a note of Falstaff is wasted*.


I happen to have not the best recording (Karajan II) but listening to it now and looking at the words, I must agree with you. about the musical effectiveness and sheer fun that's in there, even if Karajan's 2nd take is more serious than you would want.

Within the oeuvre of both Wagner and Verdi, these two represent the light stories. However, give me one truly light and humorous German piece of art, I couldn't think of one. Where Italians are masters of the genre. And living in Venice, as Wagner did, doesn't give you an Italian soul.

To me, the Meistersinger still produces more beautiful but long-winded music, already from the Ouverture, but it is incomparable to the sheer energy and fun of Falstaff. The welcoming sense of perspective is a delight, as Verdi clearly did love the fun of the story and yet produced great music with it. Supposedly, Verdi said that after having killed so many heroes, he now wanted to enjoy a story.

Here (if the links works), a great video of Falstaff with the RCO/Gatti, who himself proved to be too much of an Italian soul for the serious Dutch. This video frankly makes me laugh from the very first scene and it proves that music and story go hand in hand.
https://www.concertgebouworkest.nl/nl/verdi-falstaff


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Karajan's second Falsfaff was on Decca not DG, but the EMI (now Warner) is the one to go for. One of the greatest opera recordings of all time.


Karajan 2 was originally put out by Philiips on 3 LPs but EMI trumped it by reissuing his earlier one on two LPs. Now Phillips has been submerged like Decca and DG so it could appear on either. It is actually on Decca atm. The EMI is the one to go for but the later one is still a distinguished account of the score. Certainly in his earlier opera sets Karajan and Legge (and Culshaw) set an impossible standard that not even he could beat later.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> I happen to have not the best recording (Karajan II) but listening to it now and looking at the words, I must agree with you. about the musical effectiveness and sheer fun that's in there, even if Karajan's 2nd take is more serious than you would want.
> 
> Within the oeuvre of both Wagner and Verdi, these two represent the light stories. However, give me one truly light and humorous German piece of art, I couldn't think of one. Where Italians are masters of the genre. And living in Venice, as Wagner did, doesn't give you an Italian soul.
> 
> ...


Saw this from Met and have it on DVD though different cast. What a joy! Thanks!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Karajan 2 was originally put out by Philiips on 3 LPs but EMI trumped it by reissuing his earlier one on two LPs. Now Phillips has been submerged like Decca and DG so it could appear on either. It is actually on Decca atm. The EMI is the one to go for but the later one is still a distinguished account of the score. Certainly in his earlier opera sets Karajan and Legge (and Culshaw) set an impossible standard that not even he could beat later.


Yes indeed. My memory was faulty. I remember now that it was originally on Philips, not Decca. I must have been confused by the later Decca release.

Incidentally, I don't think any of Karajan's second recordings of operas improve on the first, not even Madama Butterly, except in matters of sound of course. The only one I do like better is the EMI Aida. I find the first Decca one a bit too self-consciously beautiful and less characterful, though it has the more traditional Aida cast.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> That sounds good-natured, but it doesn't quite capture the flavor of the original. The full text of the final fugue, (roughly) correctly translated:
> 
> _Tutto nel mondo é burla.
> L'uom é nato burlone,
> ...


A few notes about your translation:

_Ciurla_ is the third person singular of the verb _ciurlare_ which means to move round in circles or move whilst swaying from side to side (think of a drunk 'ciurlaring' their way home!)

I don't think 'joke' is an adequate translation of _burla_, burla can also have an element of the con or trick about it (think of Zerlina's words about Don Giovanni _Ma puo' burlarmi ancor_) and perhaps 'mock' is the best word in English (meaning make fun of, but also false).

_Tutti gabbati!_ Doesn't mean 'We are all fools!', but 'All taken in'.

I agree that it is incredibly cynical and, in the original Italian, hard hitting. I would translate it thus:

Everything in the world is mockery.
Man is born a joker,
Inside his brain his reason is always spinning.
All taken in! Each mortal mocks the other.
But he laughs best who gets the last laugh.

In the current political climate I find these words to be a stark warning, but nothing lasts forever, trickery has to catch up with reality at some point and the Truth will laugh best!

N.

P.S. I have a _very_ dark sense of humour and so I strongly appreciate this sardonically cynical view.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

I voted for Meistersinger -- I simply find it more soul-stirring and affecting. I've actually been brought to tears by it more than once. And I'm always struck by how much is going on beneath the surface with symbolism, word play and allegory. Each listen brings new revelations.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

The Conte said:


> In the current political climate I find these words to be a stark warning, but nothing lasts forever, trickery has to catch up with reality at some point and the Truth will laugh best!


Huh. An interesting interpretation, but not at all how the words come across to me. There's no indication that reality comes into play at all or that "truth" will laugh last or laugh best. They sound like words that a Donald Trump might sing approvingly.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

I was lucky enough to be at Bryn Terfel's (Welsh) debut as Falstaff and, later, his (world) debut as Sachs, both of which were magnificent productions. Although Terfel's by no means the very greatest exponent of either role, albeit he's excellent by most standards, in person he sparkles in them both.

Two wonderful operas, but _Meistersinger_ is my favourite.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Becca said:


> ...whereas Falstaff is almost the only Verdi I will listen to. (I say almost as occasionally I have been known to listen to Otello & Macbeth.)


… how is this a "whereas" situation? The question posed is what our personal opinion is, your opinion being different from mine in no way contradicts that I have the opinion I have.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I do indeed know what the question was, my whereas was in direct response to your comments about the Falstaff and the Verdi operas


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Isn't it funny how tastes differ imm that I consider the music of Falstaff to be the finest Verdi ever wrote with the composer absolutely at the height of his powers. The sheer wonder of how he matches the score with the libretto and makes the music speak is a marvel. As for Mastersingers it does, as you say, contain some beautiful music, such as the quintet, but frankly is over long and out-stays its welcome in places, whereas not a note of Falstaff is wasted.


As far as economy of expression, I never really feel like that's something I particularly value. I suppose Fur Elise is extremely economical, but that doesn't prevent it from being absolute swill.

There's probably some excess to Meistersinger--the 15 minutes or so of David instructing Walther in Scene 2 of Act 1 is probably pretty superfluous and can be safely cut. There's a lot of humor and history there that doesn't really translate. I personally wouldn't cut a note other than possibly shortening that scene however.

Do people actually find Falstaff funny? I never really find any operatic comedies particularly funny--at most I might chuckle a bit at one or two parts, but if I want funny, I'd watch a sitcom or a standup comic, I wouldn't watch Falstaff for the 20th time.

I think these operas are "comedies" in the Aristotelian sense of having a happy ending, and to me, operatic comedies succeed or fail based on whether they cast that sense of gemutlichkeit or bien etre. Falstaff really doesn't do that for me--a lot of the making fun of Falstaff strikes me as basically pretty mean spirited, the central romance is a dud, and the ending as Woodduck points out leaves you with a sour note.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Becca said:


> I do indeed know what the question was, my whereas was in direct response to your comments about the Falstaff and the Verdi operas


It really isn't. If you start your comment with a "whereas", that implies that you're refuting my comment. Your opinion being different from mine isn't a refutation, and frankly implying that it is is a little rude.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> It really isn't. If you start your comment with a "whereas", that implies that you're refuting my comment. Your opinion being different from mine isn't a refutation, and frankly implying that it is is a little rude.


Talking about rude!


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> That sounds good-natured, but it doesn't quite capture the flavor of the original. The full text of the final fugue, (roughly) correctly translated:
> 
> _Tutto nel mondo é burla.
> L'uom é nato burlone,
> ...


Strangely enough, it's the part of the opera I love least, and I agree about the sentiment, but I guess that's down to Shakespeare. As for Meistersinger, I prefer to see stagings where Beckmesser is reconciled at the end.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> A few notes about your translation:
> 
> _Ciurla_ is the third person singular of the verb _ciurlare_ which means to move round in circles or move whilst swaying from side to side (think of a drunk 'ciurlaring' their way home!)
> 
> ...


Thanks for that refinement of my translation attempt. It makes the "moral" even more cynical than I thought. Verdi seems to have had a dark, rather bleak sense of life; his operas tend to end starkly, without hope or redemption, and _Falstaff_ definitely seems to be offering the comic side of that grim view in its final tableau. The words of that fugue are just a half-step away from the total cynicism of Iago's "Credo" in _Otello._

Although the opera is a great character portrait - Falstaff is a fantastic role for baritone with acting chops - and is full of playful musical inspiration (and I agree that there isn't a wasted note), for me there are few moments that really touch my emotions. I like the Herne's Oak scene, which is wonderfully atmospheric (do I detect a hint of Berlioz?), and I love Nanetta's fairy aria. For most of the rest I feel more of a immense admiration than a real love.

Although _Falstaff_ has been compared to Mozart for its wit, I think Mozart has more human warmth, even in the equally farcical _Cosi fan tutte_, where the spectacle of humanity making a hopeless asse of itself is somewhat transformed by radiant music. In this particular sense - though certainly not in every sense - I would suggest that _Meistersinger_ may be a truer successor to Mozart than _Falstaff_ is. Wagner is a great tragedian, but not even in the cosmic disaster of the _Gotterdammerung_ is he cynical: both his last opera and Mozart's are allegories of enlightenment and man's capacity for transcendence, and there are fascinating similarities between them. Verdi would have been incapable of finding music for such subject matter.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Don Fatale said:


> Strangely enough, it's the part of the opera I love least, and I agree about the sentiment, but I guess that's down to Shakespeare.


No, it's all Boito and Verdi.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

amfortas said:


> No, it's all Boito and Verdi.


I'm not sure about the 'all' but it is definitely Shakespeare as filtered through those two. If you want closer to the original, then go to RVW.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

amfortas said:


> No, it's all Boito and Verdi.


I was going to say, I don't recall such a denouement in Shakespeare's Merry Wives, although it's been ages since I read the play. I was under the impression it was purely a feature of the opera, much like Iago's Credo in Otello. But maybe someone more familiar with the play can correct me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> As for Meistersinger, I prefer to see stagings where Beckmesser is reconciled at the end.


I do too, although I don't think it should get too much emphasis. Wagner has been condemned for cruelty toward Beckmesser - for making him a persnickety, mean-minded character to begin with, and then for subjecting him to the humiliation of making a fool of himself in public - but _Meistersinger_ doesn't shy away from showing us some of the dark side of human nature. I suspect people are lured by the idea of "comedy" into expecting unpleasantness to be downplayed, wanting wickedness and hypocrisy to seem harmless and without consequence - a sort of "I Love Lucy" sensibility, in which things that are unacceptable in real life are made so absurd as to make us forget how offensive they are. Beckmesser has little attractive about him, but he isn't a mere buffoon and he should carry himself with a certain self-conscious dignity. When he's laughed off the podium after screwing up Walther's poem, Wagner instructs that he stalks off in fury and loses himself in the crowd, but he isn't exiled from Nuremberg, and Sachs still calls him "friend Beckmesser." He wouldn't be town clerk and a mastersinger if he didn't have friends, so it seems appropriate that as he moves through the crowd some townspeople should at least show him some sympathy and give him a comforting pat on the back. I imagine him pulling himself together, sticking around to hear Walther sing, and joining in the chorus of acclamation at the end.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

OperaChic said:


> I was going to say, I don't recall such a denouement in Shakespeare's Merry Wives, although it's been ages since I read the play. I was under the impression it was purely a feature of the opera, much like Iago's Credo in Otello. But maybe someone more familiar with the play can correct me.


From the synopsis - Although he is embarrassed, Falstaff takes the joke surprisingly well, as he sees it was what he deserved. ... Eventually they all leave together and Mistress Page even invites Falstaff to come with them: "let us every one go home, and laugh this sport o'er by a country fire; Sir John and all".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> A few notes about your translation:
> 
> _Ciurla_ is the third person singular of the verb _ciurlare_ which means to move round in circles or move whilst swaying from side to side (think of a drunk 'ciurlaring' their way home!)
> 
> ...


I think Verdi here is inviting us to laugh at ourselves. Don't forget we've just been treated to the site of three pompous men - Falstaff, Ford and Dr Caius - being made fools of by the women they have tried in various ways to use for their own purposes. The warm hearted bit is, of course, that it is resolved, and everyone ends up singing the final chorus in harmony. Then, as a last gesture, Falstaff points at the audience and includes us all. I always feel sorry for people who cannot laugh at themselves because at some time in our lives we are all ridiculous. And the most pompous and self-important people are the most ridiculous, says Verdi. After a lifetime of dark plots, assassinations and tragic endings, it's as if Verdi is saying, "What does it matter anyway! You've all been fooled!" He'd made a fortune and become the most celebrated man in Italy fooling the public with his works. But he who laughs last laughs best! And here he invites us to join in with him - and who wouldn't except the most miserable person! Even Dr Caius sings his head off at the end!
As Austen's Mr Bennett says, "What do we live for but to provide sport for others and then to laugh at them in turn."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> I was going to say, I don't recall such a denouement in Shakespeare's Merry Wives, although it's been ages since I read the play. I was under the impression it was purely a feature of the opera, much like Iago's Credo in Otello. But maybe someone more familiar with the play can correct me.


The last fugue is Boito and Verdi. The Merry Wives is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays and was cobbled together to please Queen Liz 1 when she had seen Henry IV and wanted to see Sir John in love. I did see a hilarious production at Stratford by Terry Hands many years ago which had the audience nearly falling off their seats but a recent RSC production was hopeless. Interesting that one of Shakespeare's weakest plays made one of the greatest of all operas.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> Strangely enough, *it's the part of the opera I love least*, and I agree about the sentiment, but I guess that's down to Shakespeare. As for Meistersinger, I prefer to see stagings where Beckmesser is reconciled at the end.


Well we are being asked to laugh at ourselves! I just hate the humiliation of Beckmesser by that crowd. Most uncomfortable!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Well we are being asked to laugh at ourselves! I just hate the humiliation of Beckmesser by that crowd. Most uncomfortable!


I am not fond of the humiliation of Max in the beginning of Weber's Der Freischutz for having a run of poor shooting.

And Beethoven leaves us wondering if the frustrated (and likely feeling humiliated) Jaquino ever gets his Marzelline back in the end.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> The last fugue is Boito and Verdi. The Merry Wives is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays and was cobbled together to please Queen Liz 1 when she had seen Henry IV and wanted to see Sir John in love.


No argument about the weakness of _Merry Wives_, but the story about the queen asking to see Sir John in love is most likely apocryphal.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> No argument about the weakness of _Merry Wives_, but the story about the queen asking to see Sir John in love is most likely apocryphal.


That is what I heard from RSC


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> That is what I heard from RSC


Anything's possible, but since the story was first reported a century after the play's premiere, a little caution is in order.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Anything's possible, but since the story was first reported a century after the play's premiere, a little caution is in order.


Well we're not considering it the subject on a further degree! :lol:


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I think Verdi here is inviting us to laugh at ourselves. Don't forget we've just been treated to the site of three pompous men - Falstaff, Ford and Dr Caius - being made fools of by the women they have tried in various ways to use for their own purposes. The warm hearted bit is, of course, that it is resolved, and everyone ends up singing the final chorus in harmony. Then, as a last gesture, Falstaff points at the audience and includes us all. I always feel sorry for people who cannot laugh at themselves because at some time in our lives we are all ridiculous. And the most pompous and self-important people are the most ridiculous, says Verdi. After a lifetime of dark plots, assassinations and tragic endings, it's as if Verdi is saying, "What does it matter anyway! You've all been fooled!" He'd made a fortune and become the most celebrated man in Italy fooling the public with his works. But he who laughs last laughs best! And here he invites us to join in with him - and who wouldn't except the most miserable person! Even Dr Caius sings his head off at the end!
> As Austen's Mr Bennett says, "What do we live for but to provide sport for others and then to laugh at them in turn."


And so it is, let's put some lightness and perspective in our musical enjoyment. When moving up northbound in European musical history, it only becomes darker and deadserious. Maybe, the hours of sunshine have something to do with it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> And so it is, let's put some lightness and perspective in our musical enjoyment. When moving up northbound in European musical history, it only becomes darker and deadserious. Maybe, the hours of sunshine have something to do with it?


I think it's indicative as to when people start taking opera - that most ridiculous of art forms in which people sing instead of speak - too seriously. I think Verdi possibly gave a wink to that at the end of Falstaff - "lighten up, guys! Don't take it too seriously!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think it's indicative as to when people start taking opera - that most ridiculous of art forms in which people sing instead of speak - too seriously. I think Verdi possibly gave a wink to that at the end of Falstaff - "lighten up, guys! Don't take it too seriously!"


Which operas are "too serious," and what does it mean to "take opera too seriously"? Verdi spent his life composing operas dealing with the most serious of human concerns: life, death, love... Would it have been better had he not done that? Better for him? For us?

Is there not room for tragedy, comedy, romance, spirituality? Are some of these preferable to others?

Why is singing words more ridiculous than speaking them? Is Shakespeare ridiculous when he speaks in verse? Is art more ridiculous than life? Should we laugh at King Lear?

Maybe Verdi should have put his fugue at the end of Otello, just in case someone in the audience was taking the whole ridiculous thing too seriously.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> And so it is, let's put some lightness and perspective in our musical enjoyment. When moving up northbound in European musical history, it only becomes darker and deadserious. Maybe, the hours of sunshine have something to do with it?


How true is this, really? Most of Verdi's operas are very dark: full of murder, suicide, rape, betrayal, maledictions, revenge, infanticide, slavery, misogyny, churchyards, sepulchres and convents. Puccini spent most of his career devising ways to make lovely young women suffer and die in a pitiless world and audiences cry their eyes out. The sordid brutality of verismo, not even aspiring to the dignity of tragedy, was a Mediterranean pleasure. Operetta - all about lightness, though I'm not sure about perspective - is mainly Viennese and Parisian. Only in the 20th century did the Germans catch up and give us spectacles of hopeless depravity such as Elektra, Wozzeck and Lulu.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

In urging us not to take it too seriously, Verdi is simply stating the limits of his craft. Verdi was the great entertainer whose great themes included tremendous tragedies - but then everyone got up afterwards and took a bow! The stage is like that. It is not a real mediums - in fact the Greek word for actor is the one we get our word hypocrite from in English which means to wear a mask. When we are at the theatre we are there to be entertained and Verdi realise this better than anybody else. This is why he was adored by his public and after his operas he was summoned to the stage time after time and carried shoulder high to his hotel. Why? Because people felt they have been entertained in the most wonderful way imaginable with words and music. But if we take it all too seriously then we spoil it. I leave it to the musicians and the interpreters to take it seriously because that is their job. I am there to enjoy it. There are aspects of life to be taken seriously but not opera for me . Otherwise we can be like the great lady who attended a play and came out weeping about the poor people who were portrayed in the play and didn't notice that her own cab driver was nearly frozen to death because he couldn't afford an overcoat. To me there are far more things to be serious about than an artificial medium like opera. I leave that to those who are employed there and go there to be entertained. 
And at the end - 'We've all been fooled' says Verdi. Especially if you take it too seriously!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> In urging us not to take it too seriously, Verdi is simply stating the limits of his craft. Verdi was the great entertainer whose great themes included tremendous tragedies - but then everyone got up afterwards and took a bow! The stage is like that. It is not a real mediums - in fact the Greek word for actor is the one we get our word hypocrite from in English which means to wear a mask. When we are at the theatre we are there to be entertained and Verdi realise this better than anybody else. This is why he was adored by his public and after his operas he was summoned to the stage time after time and carried shoulder high to his hotel. Why? Because people felt they have been entertained in the most wonderful way imaginable with words and music. But if we take it all too seriously then we spoil it. I leave it to the musicians and the interpreters to take it seriously because that is their job. I am there to enjoy it. There are aspects of life to be taken seriously but not opera for me . Otherwise we can be like the great lady who attended a play and came out weeping about the poor people who were portrayed in the play and didn't notice that her own cab driver was nearly frozen to death because he couldn't afford an overcoat. To me there are far more things to be serious about than an artificial medium like opera. I leave that to those who are employed there and go there to be entertained.
> And at the end - 'We've all been fooled' says Verdi. Especially if you take it too seriously!


So "not taking opera too seriously" means realizing that I haven't watched an actual murder onstage. And Verdi was adored because, more than anyone else, he didn't exceed the limits of his craft and kill his performers, but let them be hypocrites and take bows.

I get it now. I must confirm with my chauffeur, before seeing Madama Butterfly, that my limo has a working heater.

I think I can manage that.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> It is not a real mediums - in fact the Greek word for actor is the one we get our word hypocrite from in English which means to wear a mask.


Irrespective of your other points (which are merely _opinions_, that you probably don't mean us to take _too seriously_ - I for one certainly find them most entertaining!) the word hypocrite has nothing to do with masks (or masques even!) In ancient Greek Hypokrites was indeed the word for an actor or a stage player coming from two words: 'hypo' meaning 'under' and 'krites' meaning decider or interpreter. The best translation of the literal meaning is 'one who interprets from below', as in one who performs on a stage below the spectators (think of ancient Greek theatre). With time the word's meaning changed to 'under-judge', in other words not to judge ones own actions sufficiently. This use was already prevalent in Greek two thousand years ago and can be understood as the English 'hypocrite', whereas there was a different word for actor meaning 'character-creator'. There is no evidence that the second use of 'hypokrites' had any link to its previous use as the word for an actor and 'krites' had a number of meanings including judge or anyone who analyses, interprets or comes to a decision.

N.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> How true is this, really? Most of Verdi's operas are very dark: full of murder, suicide, rape, betrayal, maledictions, revenge, infanticide, slavery, misogyny, churchyards, sepulchres and convents. Puccini spent most of his career devising ways to make lovely young women suffer and die in a pitiless world and audiences cry their eyes out. The sordid brutality of verismo, not even aspiring to the dignity of tragedy, was a Mediterranean pleasure. Operetta - all about lightness, though I'm not sure about perspective - is mainly Viennese and Parisian. Only in the 20th century did the Germans catch up and give us spectacles of hopeless depravity such as Elektra, Wozzeck and Lulu.


The alternative of taking opera (or any artform) primarily as fiction (even if the subject is unpleasant) is taking it for real and in extreme cases even to identify with it. This is where art becomes a religion/cult and any discussion between believers and non-believers is bound to escalate, as we have experienced recently. Let's not grab any option to provoke and ignite the whole pointless discussion again. We are well beyond the age of the schoolyard, however, some after raising a fist still like to run to the headmaster to plea for punishment.

And if you look for opportunities to expose your knowledge, you can always write an article or blog or a whodunit, instead of seeking an argument. You have enough words up your sleeve and plenty of victims are available, if I read your words.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Irrespective of your other points (which are merely _opinions_, that you probably don't mean us to take _too seriously_ - I for one certainly find them most entertaining!) the word hypocrite has nothing to do with masks (or masques even!) In ancient Greek Hypokrites was indeed the word for an actor or a stage player coming from two words: 'hypo' meaning 'under' and 'krites' meaning decider or interpreter. The best translation of the literal meaning is 'one who interprets from below', as in one who performs on a stage below the spectators (think of ancient Greek theatre). With time the word's meaning changed to 'under-judge', in other words not to judge ones own actions sufficiently. This use was already prevalent in Greek two thousand years ago and can be understood as the English 'hypocrite', whereas there was a different word for actor meaning 'character-creator'. There is no evidence that the second use of 'hypokrites' had any link to its previous use as the word for an actor and 'krites' had a number of meanings including judge or anyone who analyses, interprets or comes to a decision.
> 
> N.


'The word hypocrite ultimately came into English from the Greek word hypokrites, which means "an actor" or "a stage player." The Greek word itself is a compound noun: it's made up of two Greek words that literally translate as "an interpreter from underneath." That bizarre compound makes more sense when you know that the actors in ancient Greek theater *wore large masks* to mark which character they were playing, and so they interpreted the story from *underneath their masks.*'
(Merriam-Webster)
So while you are right that it doesn't actually mean a mask, it appears masks do come into the meaning. Anyway, thanks for your explanation. All grist to the mill of learning, even at my advanced age! 

PS glad you find my post entertaining. As I write here in my spare time for my entertainment I'm glad others share in it! :tiphat:


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

NLAdriaan said:


> The alternative of taking opera (or any artform) primarily as fiction (even if the subject is unpleasant) is taking it for real


Who on earth does that?



> and in extreme cases even to identify with it.


Being able to identify with and relate to a work of art is "extreme" and can lead to cult worship? Fascinating.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

DavidA said:


> After a lifetime of dark plots, assassinations and tragic endings, it's as if Verdi is saying, "What does it matter anyway! You've all been fooled!" He'd made a fortune and become the most celebrated man in Italy fooling the public with his works


Geez, talk about cynical.

Thankfully I don't actually think it's true and find your whole spin on this preposterous.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> *The alternative of taking opera (or any artform) primarily as fiction (even if the subject is unpleasant) is taking it for real and in extreme cases even to identify with it.* *This is where art becomes a religion/cult* and any discussion between believers and non-believers is bound to escalate, as we have experienced recently. Let's not grab any option to provoke and ignite the whole pointless discussion again. We are well beyond the age of the schoolyard, however, some after raising a fist still like to run to the headmaster to plea for punishment.
> 
> And if you look for opportunities to expose your knowledge, you can always write an article or blog or a whodunit, instead of seeking an argument. You have enough words up your sleeve and plenty of victims are available, if I read your words.


So touchy. You're uncomfortable with having your statements challenged? Well, you've wandered into the wrong room. This is the room where we expect our ideas to engender discussion, and where - surprise! - some people are likely to disagree with us.

Who is "taking opera for real"? How would one go about doing that? You, for reasons unknown to us, may carry around some fantasy of art becoming a "religion/cult," but your apparent obsession with the concept - you've dropped it into at least two threads now to no discernible purpose - is, frankly, baffling, at least to me.

Having been on the forum for over five years now, I want to assure you that everyone I've observed here appears to be immune to the soul-corroding horrors of the Cult of Opera-as-Real-Life. The nearest anyone seems to come to losing touch with reality is in holding the belief that art might in some cases have something to offer beyond momentary titillation, something that the mind and heart can take in and be nourished by even after the music has stopped. Indeed, we have real artists here - I'm one of them - whose personal pursuit of music, painting, and poetry convinces them of this every single day.

Perhaps we're at terrible risk, taking opera "too seriously" as you and DavidA accuse us of doing, but so far nothing awful has happened. There's only the annoyance of having to listen to the nattering of a few killjoys and wet blankets who think they've been called by some higher power to save someone from something.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ManateeFL said:


> Geez, talk about cynical.
> 
> Thankfully I don't actually think it's true and find your whole spin on this preposterous.


Then I fear you've been fooled! :lol:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Both these operas are masterpieces and interestingly they are the only mature comedies by two composers who were very different, but also had a lot in common (born the same year and whose second opera is a comedy in the style of the previous tradition). I would be suspicious of anybody who doesn't value and appreciate both (even if we have personal preferences). Neither is my favourite opera by either by a long shot. 

There are similarities between the characters of Falstaff and Sachs and Nanetta and Eva, but it is better to look at the differences rather than try and compare and assess the works based on the similarities between them. Meistersinger has a number of themes, the main one being the tired dialectic between 'tradition' on the one hand and 'modernism' on the other. Wagner's conclusion (as Sachs demonstrates) is that a balance between both is necessary. Beckmesser deludes himself that he can win Eva as he is a traditionalist against modernism. Walther, albeit unknowingly, is a modernist who isn't interested in the tradition of the knights. Were Sachs to enter the contest he would win, as only he understands the balance needed between the old and the new. However, he isn't deluded enough to think that his marrying Eva is the best thing for her and so he helps Walther to win the contest.

Falstaff explores some of the same themes. The dialectic between 'tradition' and 'modernism' in art doesn't feature, however the self delusion that Beckmesser is subject to takes centre stage here and is the main topic of Verdi's opera. Falstaff is bound to meet his comeuppance (like Beckmesser) due to his complete lack of self awareness. This is very difficult to pull off (can we really believe that this corpulent, old has been can go out on the pull!!!?) Yet we believe it due to Verdi's music (which, let's be honest, is what makes us laugh when experiencing this opera). Falstaff explores this enigmatic human trait (self delusion) in a way that is just hinted at in Meistersinger. The vincible nature of young love also features and Ford's final acceptance of Nanetta and Fenton's love is different from Sach's acknowledgment that Eva and Walther are a couple, however both situations reveal different aspects of human nature in their way.

I find it really difficult to say that one composer (as far as these works alone are concerned) has expressed more in music than the other and I find as much cynicism and humanity in both operas.

N.

P.S. Just for the record I prefer both Gianni Schichi and Barbiere when it comes to making me laugh and leave the theatre with a smile on my face! (But then I have no taste!)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Both these operas are masterpieces and interestingly they are the only mature comedies by two composers who were very different, but also had a lot in common (born the same year and whose second opera is a comedy in the style of the previous tradition). I would be suspicious of anybody who doesn't value and appreciate both (even if we have personal preferences). Neither is my favourite opera by either by a long shot.
> 
> There are similarities between the characters of Falstaff and Sachs and Nanetta and Eva, but it is better to look at the differences rather than try and compare and assess the works based on the similarities between them. Meistersinger has a number of themes, the main one being the tired dialectic between 'tradition' on the one hand and 'modernism' on the other. Wagner's conclusion (as Sachs demonstrates) is that a balance between both is necessary. Beckmesser deludes himself that he can win Eva as he is a traditionalist against modernism. Walther, albeit unknowingly, is a modernist who isn't interested in the tradition of the knights. Were Sachs to enter the contest he would win, as only he understands the balance needed between the old and the new. However, he isn't deluded enough to think that his marrying Eva is the best thing for her and so he helps Walther to win the contest.
> 
> ...


You make some interesting points but I don't think mastersinger is really a comedy. I don't really think you can compare the themes because Wagner was making some self-consciously heavy points whereas Verdi was working from Shakespeare (via the brilliant Boito) for his own amusement. I don't think Verdi ever makes its believe Falstaff can pull it off as the music constantly mocks him. Verdi his really exploring the theme of feminism and the triumph of the wit of women of pompous men, something, I fear that would be foreign to Wagner. We see Falstaff lamenting his age after his first ducking yet he still falls for the merry wives second trick. Yet how robust he is - he says he is a wit and also the cause of wit in others.
But then we also see the pompous Ford get his comeuppance - and the stupid Dr Caius. By the end the men are routed. The women have won - we've all been fooled! (How much better that is than the flag waving in the other). Everyone is reconciled. This to me is light years ahead in its thought. Verdi had very special insights into the human condition even in a farce.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I have heard that Meistersinger is a comedy but I do not find it to be so.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You make some interesting points but *I don't think mastersinger is really a comedy.* I don't really think you can compare the themes because *Wagner was making some self-consciously heavy points whereas Verdi was working from Shakespeare (via the brilliant Boito)* for his own amusement. I don't think Verdi ever makes its believe Falstaff can pull it off as the music constantly mocks him. *Verdi is really exploring the theme of feminism** and the triumph of the wit of women of pompous men*, something, I fear that would be foreign to Wagner. We see Falstaff lamenting his age after his first ducking yet he still falls for the merry wives second trick. Yet how robust he is - he says he is a wit and also the cause of wit in others.
> But then we also see the pompous Ford get his comeuppance - and the stupid Dr Caius. *By the end the men are routed. The women have won* - we've all been fooled! (How much better that is than the flag waving in the other).* Everyone is reconciled.* *This to me is light years ahead in its thought. Verdi had very special insights into the human condition* even in a farce.


_Falstaff_ is stock comedy material. Clever women outwitting male hubris has been a comedic standby since _Lysistrata._ It's the stuff of TV sitcoms: at the end of every episode of _I Love Lucy_ (and practically every other TV comedy I grew up watching except possibly _Lassie Come Home_ and _Rin Tin Tin_) the women outwit the men and in the end everyone is reconciled (in those two the men were outwitted by animals). To pretend that any of this represents "special insight into the human condition," much less Verdi "exploring the theme of feminism," is hilarious.

_Meistersinger_ has a very original plot containing several dramatic themes both light and serious. _Falstaff_ has, basically, one, and it's neither original nor profound. Isn't it enough that Boito and Verdi took a farcical play and gave it a witty libretto and marvelous music? Must we search the exploits of a pompous old buffoon for profundity? Aren't you the one who's always haranguing Wagner-lovers about not taking opera seriously?

_Meistersinger_ is a comedy. There's nothing about the genre that precludes the presence of serious themes and pathos. If it's easy yuks you need, there's always _I Love Lucy_.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I have heard that Meistersinger is a comedy but I do not find it to be so.


It's a comedy in the sense that it's not a tragedy but it's somewhat short on gags.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I find it hugely baffling that people (if it just men?) can't see the feminism in Falstaff when it is absolutely brimming with it and the original title is 'The Merry Wives of Windsor.' But never mind! Perhaps, as Falstaff says, we've all been fooled! Especially comparing it to TV comedies about Lassie! :lol:
I don't think any of us search the exploits of the pompous old buffoon for 'profundity' particularly, but for those of us who have the temerity to be able to laugh at ourselves there is perhaps (if we are honest) a bit of all of us in Falstaff, especially if we are advancing in years. I think that is why I love Falstaff because it gives us the opportunity for laughing at ourselves and not taking ourselves (or opera) too seriously. Verdi invites us to laugh at ourselves so why not join in? :tiphat:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> It's a comedy in the sense that it's not a tragedy but it's somewhat short on gags.


Are we talking about Wagner's Meister singer vs Verdi/Boito's Falstaff or the two works as often staged today? Meister singer has plenty of 'gags' but there aren't exploited by directors as they could be. Beckmesser's nonsense song (both as far as the words and music are concerned) is very cleverly done and the Meister singer themselves can be comically pompous (it's there in the music). Then the fight at the end of Act Two can be a riot!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I find it hugely baffling that people (if it just men?) can't see the feminism in Falstaff when it is absolutely brimming with it and the original title is 'The Merry Wives of Windsor.' But never mind! Perhaps, as Falstaff says, we've all been fooled! Especially comparing it to TV comedies about Lassie! :lol:
> I don't think any of us search the exploits of the pompous old buffoon for 'profundity' particularly, but for those of us who have the temerity to be able to laugh at ourselves there is perhaps (if we are honest) a bit of all of us in Falstaff, especially if we are advancing in years. I think that is why I love Falstaff because it gives us the opportunity for laughing at ourselves and not taking ourselves (or opera) too seriously. Verdi invites us to laugh at ourselves so why not join in? :tiphat:


Nobody has said that they can't see the feminism in Falstaff, but it is a stock part of operatic comedy and since it is part of the original play, it's Shakespeare rather than Verdi who is to be credited here. In a previous post you wrote that we can't compare the themes of the two operas as Wagner and Shakespeare are too different as artists. So can we compare them or not?

I am happy to join in laughing at the 'gags' in Falstaff, but that doesn't stop me laughing at Turco in Italia, Gianni Schichi or Meister singer too. I don't agree that Verdi is suggesting we don't take opera too seriously, it sees an odd statement for the swansong of an artist that took their art form so seriously they completely changed it whilst doing something different from the other national schools, if influenced by them.

Falstaff, feminist or otherwise, doesn't have anything to say about opera. If anybody is laughing at the reaction of artists and audiences to musical works of art it's Wagner in Meistersinger. His Meisters are crusty old farts who are too closed minded to leave their comfort zones. Wagner invites us to listen to opera with an open mind. Why not join him?

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Are we talking about Wagner's Meister singer vs Verdi/Boito's Falstaff or the two works as often staged today? Meister singer has plenty of 'gags' but there aren't exploited by directors as they could be. Beckmesser's nonsense song (both as far as the words and music are concerned) is very cleverly done and the Meister singer themselves can be comically pompous (it's there in the music). Then the fight at the end of Act Two can be a riot!
> 
> N.


The problem is I never find the gags in mastersinger funny but those in Falstaff hilarious. But each to his own.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Nobody has said that they can't see the feminism in Falstaff, but it is a stock part of operatic comedy and since it is part of the original play, it's Shakespeare rather than Verdi who is to be credited here. In a previous post you wrote that we can't compare the themes of the two operas as Wagner and Shakespeare are too different as artists. So can we compare them or not?
> 
> I am happy to join in laughing at the 'gags' in Falstaff, but that doesn't stop me laughing at Turco in Italia, Gianni Schichi or Meister singer too. I don't agree that Verdi is suggesting we don't take opera too seriously, it sees an odd statement for the swansong of an artist that took their art form so seriously they completely changed it whilst doing something different from the other national schools, if influenced by them.
> 
> ...


My dear friend, laughing at Falstaff does not prevent anyone laughing at Turco in Italia, Gianni Schichi, Meister singer, Laural and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin or Morcambe and Wise! do believe Verdi was giving his message not to take it too seriously because it becomes a pain in the neck when we do rather than a joy. I mean, why is it such a sitting duck when something goes wrong? Verdi wrote operas to entertain the public because he was rather good at it and it was the best way he found to make living as a country gentleman and to get the adoration of his countrymen, something incidentally, I was reading, that RW never generally got. 
Actually someone did say they can't see the feminism in Falstaff. Obviously Verdi saw it even if it isn';t his libretto. We know he poured over the libretti he wrote until he was satisfied so he obviously approved.
Generally speaking I don't want to join the Masters as I don't want to be an old fart who is too closed minded to leave his comfort zone. I left them behind a few years ago.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> My dear friend, laughing at Falstaff does not prevent anyone laughing at Turco in Italia, Gianni Schichi, Meister singer, Laural and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin or Morcambe and Wise! do believe Verdi was giving his message not to take it too seriously because it becomes a pain in the neck when we do rather than a joy. I mean, why is it such a sitting duck when something goes wrong? Verdi wrote operas to entertain the public because he was rather good at it and it was the best way he found to make living as a country gentleman and to get the adoration of his countrymen, something incidentally, I was reading, that RW never generally got.
> Actually someone did say they can't see the feminism in Falstaff. Obviously Verdi saw it even if it isn';t his libretto. We know he poured over the libretti he wrote until he was satisfied so he obviously approved.
> Generally speaking I don't want to join the Masters as I don't want to be an old fart who is too closed minded to leave his comfort zone. I left them behind a few years ago.


Is The Conte actually your "dear friend"? Somehow I haven't gotten that impression. But then it's none of my business, is it? 

Your weird obsession with the idea of not taking things "too seriously" has several times led you to speak of Verdi in terms such as you do here: "Verdi wrote operas to entertain the public because he was rather good at it and it was the best way he found to make a living as a country gentleman and to get the adoration of his countrymen."

I would love to hear Verdi's response to that. Somehow I don't think it would begin with "My dear friend..."


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I have heard that Meistersinger is a comedy but I do not find it to be so.


It's a "comedy" in the classical sense--"classical" meaning the ancient Greeks, see for instance Aristotle defining comedy as a narrative with a happy ending for a sympathetic character. Festive and lighthearted and productive of good cheer is what is meant here, not the more modern sense of "comedy" as a joke-delivery device.

And despite Falstaff being funnier than Meistersinger, I find Meistersinger a more successful comedy in the sense of being more able to produce that feeling of good cheer and well-being, over Falstaff which I find somewhat mean-spirited.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> And despite Falstaff being funnier than Meistersinger, I find Meistersinger a more successful comedy in the sense of being more able to produce that feeling of good cheer and well-being, over Falstaff which I find somewhat mean-spirited.


Funny how we differ. I find Mastersingers far more mean spirited. I know Shakespeare had a pretty mean sense of humour running through his plays (eg twelfth night) but in Falstaff everyone is reconciled and it ends in a celebration of life. Mastersingers ends in a celebration of Wagner's art which puts me off somewhat. Also the mocking of Beckmesser is very OTT> But just how one reacts.
But it's the music that does it for me. I find Verdi's far preferable to Wagner's long drawn out affair.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Also the mocking of Beckmesser is very OTT.


You mean when they beat him with sticks?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Is The Conte actually your "dear friend"? Somehow I haven't gotten that impression. But then it's none of my business, is it?
> 
> Your weird obsession with the idea of not taking things "too seriously" has several times led you to speak of Verdi in terms such as you do here: "Verdi wrote operas to entertain the public because he was rather good at it and it was the best way he found to make a living as a country gentleman and to get the adoration of his countrymen."
> 
> I would love to hear Verdi's response to that. Somehow I don't think it would begin with "My dear friend..."


At the moment I can only access TC via my mobile and I can't see how to like posts in this format. Therefore count this post as liked!

I'm somewhat bemused by the idea of not taking things too seriously that has crept up (again) here. What does it really mean? There are a few things that should be taken very seriously (ie. a decision that could result in a death), but most things aren't that serious. However, what is too serious? Why is discussing details of the music or themes of an opera 'taking it too seriously'? Why is considering Falstaff a feminist work not taking it too seriously, but appreciating what Wagner has to say about Sach's wisdom is taking opera too seriously?

Some may come to the conclusion that it is a lazy way of trying to present one's preferences as being based on something more than personal taste.

As I have said, I prefer Falstaff, but I don't confuse that preference with the natural merits of the work as a masterpiece.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Hmm... mocking Beckmesser. He was acting quite stupidly and arrogantly himself too - it was a clear consequence of his actions and decisions he made throughout the opera.

BECKMESSER
Oh, this song! I can't get it,
and yet I've studied away at it long enough!

SACHS
My friend, it's not being forced on you.

BECKMESSER
What use is that? My own's song out;
it was your fault! Now be kind to me!
I would be disgraceful if you left me in the lurch!

Beckmesser sees Sachs as the main cause of all his problems, but in reality hadn't Backmesser gone to sing under Eva's window, Sachs wouldn't have been able to do anything to ruin his song. Hadn't Beckmesser taken Walther's song in the first place, he would have avoided all the humiliation. Had Beckmesser decided not to sing the song, because after thorough practicing he still felt uncomfortable singing it, he would have avoided the whole situation. He had very many opportunities to avoid the mocking. How Beckmesser acted wasn't really rational most of the time and he was lead by his own self-confidence and blind arrogance.

Beckmesser wasn't too nice or noble guy himself either. I would say that the mocking in the end of the opera is more like the reward for his own deeds. Beckmesser is acting very offensively throughout the whole opera - why don't we feel uncomfortable with that? Sachs was more ironising but not acting clearly offensive. Now suddenly Beckmesser decides to sing a song he knows he cannot sing and people mock him (for a short period of time) because the song doesn't make any sense, Beckmesser himself also knows that* (reference below), and we see this as a problem that ruins the whole opera? Beckmesser was acting unfairly and offensively towards Sachs and very unpleasantly towards Walther who both hadn't done anything to deserve such a behaviour throughout the whole opera. In addition, the mocking wasn't that brutal...

*BECKMESSER
The song! I'm sure no one will understand it:
but I'm basing my hopes on your popularity.

Beckmesser clearly understands that the song is ... weird and doesn't make sense, but he still decides to sing it just because Sachs had written it down.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> At the moment I can only access TC via my mobile and I can't see how to like posts in this format. Therefore count this post as liked!
> 
> I'm somewhat bemused by the idea of not taking things too seriously that has crept up (again) here. What does it really mean? There are a few things that should be taken very seriously (ie. a decision that could result in a death), but most things aren't that serious. However, what is too serious? Why is discussing details of the music or themes of an opera 'taking it too seriously'? Why is considering Falstaff a feminist work not taking it too seriously, but appreciating what Wagner has to say about Sach's wisdom is taking opera too seriously?
> 
> ...


 Just to clear a point raised by somebody else as to how I could address you as 'My dear friend' while disagreeing with you on the matter of opera, it is because I value friendship (yes, even over the Internet) higher than any disagreement in discussion that I can regard you as a friend and a music lover while disagreeing with you . In fact I feel that if we cannot disagree with people while maintaining a friendship with them in a mutual love of music it doesn't say much for our character. We are music lovers so we cheerfully agree to differ on some matters while agreeing on the major matter that we join together in our love of music. I would say that we are taking opera too seriously when we start falling out with people whose don't share our tastes and when we have such a dogmatic stand on things that we do not allow anyone to have a different opinion . I think that the point has already been made on TC by another poster . 
As you say, there are certain things in life we must take seriously and other things (for me) we view for our recreation. Opera is for me a recreation. The serious stuff for me is my faith and my family and my relationships. I am now retired so thankfully I do not have a job to keep me serious. There was enough serious stuff going on in my life (including travels around the world to some pretty dangerous places) so when I came back Opera provided some recreation and not something to take seriously if you know what I mean. Of course if we are involved in the production of opera then these are the people to take it seriously rather like a sportsman will take his sport seriously while the spectator has The luxury of knowing that if his team loses his life will carry on as normal. Mind you there are some people who take their sport so seriously as a spectator that their lives are ruined for the week if their team loses! I have always advised people that if they are upset for more than 15 minutes after their team loses then they have the priorities in life wrong. My mind has always boggled of the sort of people who view the opposing supporters as enemies when sport is something that he supposed to bring us together. I don't know what the equivalent of it is in opera, but for me it is a glorious entertainment rather than an obsession that controls my life. 
I always remember a friend of mine I used to have discussions with and sometimes really disagree and still remain friends. When I told him once how much I appreciated this fact, he simply said , 'Well this is maturity!' Being able to discuss and disagree and still remain friends is to be a matter of maturity


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm always surprised at the indignant argy-bargy over Beckmesser's humiliation in _Meistersinger._ He brings it on himself by stealing a song he knows he can't sing, and all Sachs has to do is let him learn the natural consequences of his actions. The people laugh at his garbled effort - who wouldn't? - and he storms off in a huff to lick his wounds. We can assume that he'll be back working as town clerk the next morning, albeit keeping his head down for a while.

This is a far cry from _Falstaff,_ in which very nearly the entire cast of characters plots to humiliate a man whose main offenses are being fat and thinking too well of himself. He is tricked cold-bloodedly and repeatedly, stuffed into a basket and thrown out a window into a river, and gleefully poked, pinched and thrashed by a gang of people while lying frightened on the ground in a deer costume. Are we to suppose that he learns anything from this treatment? Or does it all serve no purpose but to provide others the sadistic pleasure of punishing the crime of merely existing as an arrogant old buffoon? Somehow the calculated cruelty toward Falstaff is excused on the grounds that "the whole world is a joke" and that "he who laughs last laughs best," while poor Beckmesser must be treated with sympathy.

Well, Wagner at least exhibits some sense of justice. But I guess that's not as amusing as _Schadenfreude._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Just to clear a point raised by somebody else as to how I could address you as 'My dear friend' while disagreeing with you on the matter of opera, it is because I value friendship (yes, even over the Internet) higher than any disagreement in discussion that I can regard you as a friend and a music lover while disagreeing with you . In fact I feel that if we cannot disagree with people while maintaining a friendship with them in a mutual love of music it doesn't say much for our character. We are music lovers so we cheerfully agree to differ on some matters while agreeing on the major matter that we join together in our love of music. I would say that we are taking opera too seriously when we start falling out with people whose don't share our tastes and when we have such a dogmatic stand on things that we do not allow anyone to have a different opinion . I think that the point has already been made on TC by another poster .
> As you say, there are certain things in life we must take seriously and other things (for me) we view for our recreation. Opera is for me a recreation. The serious stuff for me is my faith and my family and my relationships. I am now retired so thankfully I do not have a job to keep me serious. There was enough serious stuff going on in my life (including travels around the world to some pretty dangerous places) so when I came back Opera provided some recreation and not something to take seriously if you know what I mean. Of course if we are involved in the production of opera then these are the people to take it seriously rather like a sportsman will take his sport seriously while the spectator has The luxury of knowing that if his team loses his life will carry on as normal. Mind you there are some people who take their sport so seriously as a spectator that their lives are ruined for the week if their team loses! I have always advised people that if they are upset for more than 15 minutes after their team loses then they have the priorities in life wrong. My mind has always boggled of the sort of people who view the opposing supporters as enemies when sport is something that he supposed to bring us together. I don't know what the equivalent of it is in opera, but for me it is a glorious entertainment rather than an obsession that controls my life.
> I always remember a friend of mine I used to have discussions with and sometimes really disagree and still remain friends. When I told him once how much I appreciated this fact, he simply said , 'Well this is maturity!' Being able to discuss and disagree and still remain friends is to be a matter of maturity


A free sermon on the subject of "Maturity: what mature people consider important and how they conduct themselves." And it isn't even Sunday.

I'm sure The Conte is grateful, as all assembled here should be, to have you put "somebody else's" remarks in mature perspective.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Beckmesser reminds me of* this character* from *this series*:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Beckmesser reminds me of* this character* from *this series*:


I'm one of the unfortunates who has never seen that show. But I will say he has a good Beckmesser face, like someone who's been eating unripe persimmons.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I'm always surprised at the indignant argy-bargy over Beckmesser's humiliation in _Meistersinger._ He brings it on himself by stealing a song he knows he can't sing, and all Sachs has to do is let him learn the natural consequences of his actions. The people laugh at his garbled effort - who wouldn't? - and he storms off in a huff to lick his wounds. We can assume that he'll be back working as town clerk the next morning, albeit keeping his head down for a while.
> 
> This is a far cry from _Falstaff,_ in which very nearly the entire cast of characters plots to humiliate a man whose main offenses are being fat and thinking too well of himself. He is tricked cold-bloodedly and repeatedly, stuffed into a basket and thrown out a window into a river, and gleefully poked, pinched and thrashed by a gang of people while lying frightened on the ground in a deer costume. Are we to suppose that he learns anything from this treatment? Or does it all serve no purpose but to provide others the sadistic pleasure of punishing the crime of merely existing as an arrogant old buffoon? Somehow the calculated cruelty toward Falstaff is excused on the grounds that "the whole world is a joke" and that "he who laughs last laughs best," while poor Beckmesser must be treated with sympathy.
> 
> Well, Wagner at least exhibits some sense of justice. But I guess that's not as amusing as _Schadenfreude._


I agree about Beckmesser, he brings his downfall on himself. However I don't agree about Falstaff. The reason that Meg and Alice decide to play a trick on him is because he is flirting with both at the same time. Falstaff starts the trickery by telling both women he is in love with them.

Beckmesser's comeuppance plays out in a more nuanced way, yet I don't think Falstaff doesn't deserve the basket treatment. The Herne's Oak scene takes things too far, but Falstaff is stupid enough to be taken in again because he desperately wants to believe that he still has it! One can think that he deserves everything he gets whilst feeling sorry for him at the same time. This makes him a more complex and interesting character, just the sort of baritone role Verdi knew how to write for and the type of fictitious human both Shakespeare and Wagner created.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I agree about Beckmesser, he brings his downfall on himself. However I don't agree about Falstaff. The reason that Meg and Alice decide to play a trick on him is because he is flirting with both at the same time. Falstaff starts the trickery by telling both women he is in love with them.
> 
> Beckmesser's comeuppance plays out in a more nuanced way, yet I don't think Falstaff doesn't deserve the basket treatment. The Herne's Oak scene takes things too far, but Falstaff is stupid enough to be taken in again because he desperately wants to believe that he still has it! One can think that he deserves everything he gets whilst feeling sorry for him at the same time. This makes him a more complex and interesting character, just the sort of baritone role Verdi knew how to write for and the type of fictitious human both Shakespeare and Wagner created.
> 
> N.


In a comedic context, Falstaff may "deserve" what he gets, since the farcical nature of the plot makes the idea of "deserving" rather arbitrary. Cartoon characters get knocked about constantly and no one asks whether they deserve it. What I wanted to point up was the double standard of pitying Beckmesser while declaring open season on Falstaff.

If we're going for a real life standard of justice, Beckmesser gets simple natural justice in the form of predictable consequences, and no one does anything to him, while Falstaff's punishers, though rightly indignant at his attempted two-timing, are cruel. Flirting with two women at once is hardly an offense that justifies being stuffed into a basket and thrown into a river, and real people who did that would rightly face legal charges, perhaps even attempted murder.

_Falstaff_ is a terrific farce, but I still tend to feel, as howlingfantoids does, that it's a bit mean-spirited, and I find the supposedly joyous fugue that ends it shallow and cynical. I still enjoy it as a great comic opera, of course.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I agree about Beckmesser, he brings his downfall on himself. However I don't agree about Falstaff. The reason that Meg and Alice decide to play a trick on him is because he is flirting with both at the same time. Falstaff starts the trickery by telling both women he is in love with them.
> 
> Beckmesser's comeuppance plays out in a more nuanced way, yet I don't think Falstaff doesn't deserve the basket treatment. The Herne's Oak scene takes things too far, but Falstaff is stupid enough to be taken in again because he desperately wants to believe that he still has it! One can think that he deserves everything he gets whilst feeling sorry for him at the same time. This makes him a more complex and interesting character, just the sort of baritone role Verdi knew how to write for and the type of fictitious human both Shakespeare and Wagner created.
> 
> N.


Basically agreeing with you. Beckmesser does, of course, bring the humiliation upon himself, but it is the way the character is drawn which always dismays me as it reminds me of darker currents going through Wagner and the ultimate humiliation is not just that of a single character. 
However, when it comes to Falstaff only someone who doesn't know the opera would think his only offences are 'being fat and thinking too well of himself.' He is actually planning to line his pockets by seduce two rich women who are married to other men! He thinks, of course, he is irresistible. The plot is considered so dishonourable that ever the roguish Bardolf and Pistol won't go along with it. Then comes the 'honour' monologue' - it's quite obvious that Falstaff is not just being tricked because he is a 'an arrogant old buffoon,' to quote a previous poster. 
Of course, the last act is overkill but that is Shakespeare. But at least it ends with reconciliation whereas in Mastersingers (or at least what I have seen) Beckmesser is left to walk off alone in disgrace. There was no sympathy in the productions I saw. At the end of Falstaff the pompous Ford and Caius are duped and the lovers are united. A happy ending and no ranting about art. The world's a joke so don't take what you have seen too seriously because, boys and girls, we're just actors and at the end we all take a bow! Wonderful! Life enhancing in a way Wagner never gets to! For me any way!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> However, when it comes to Falstaff only someone who doesn't know the opera would think his only offences are 'being fat and thinking too well of himself.' He is actually planning to line his pockets by seduce two rich women who are married to other men! He thinks, of course, he is irresistible. The plot is considered so dishonourable that ever the roguish Bardolf and Pistol won't go along with it. Then comes the 'honour' monologue' - it's quite obvious that Falstaff is not just being tricked because he is a 'an arrogant old buffoon,' to quote a previous poster.


An arrogant old buffoon - a rogueish buffoon - is what Falstaff is. His plot to trick two women into doing - what? - with him is absurd on its face. Can we really imagine either of them falling for him, letting him get her into bed and slobber all over her, and giving him her husband's money? Such a person makes a fool of himself without assistance, and any woman who would be taken in by him and betray her husband would be much guiltier than her seducer. He just needs to be ignored or flipped off; he doesn't need to be punished with elaborate trickery, humiliation, physical pain and possible danger to his life.

The entire opera is built around one person being purposefully punished. It's a comedy, and in comedy stuff like this is played for laughs, but that doesn't remove the aspect of cruelty. And the "moral" says that the cruel plot is unnecessary; if everything is a joke and can be laughed off in the end, Falstaff could simply have been laughed into well-earned embarrassment by the women right at the start.

_Meistersinger_ is a much more complex work. It doesn't pretend that everything is trivial, that everything in life gets resolved, or that all people attain a perspective that allows them to get along in the end. Beckmesser merely takes to an extreme traits which are variously represented in the narrow, small-town mentality of other characters in the opera. At the other extreme, of course, is the philosophical Sachs, who bears Beckmesser no ill will but knows he should let him experience the natural consequences of his own character and actions. Beckmesser leaves the podium furious and blaming everyone but himself; it's an uncomfortable moment, but nothing harmful has been done to him, and he will soon be back at writing his own academically correct and boring songs and eyeing handsome young knights with suspicion. Some people never learn.

Perhaps not everyone wants reality to intrude on comedy - it's "nicer" if everyone just yuks it up and sings together as if nobody's nasty behavior matters - but Wagner can't resist being a moralist. There will always be Beckmessers, and far worse villains, who will not be reconciled to reality. But reason, love and music can still win the day.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> _Meistersinger_ is a much more complex work. It doesn't pretend that everything is trivial, that everything in life gets resolved, or that all people attain a perspective that allows them to get along in the end.


A feature I love about Meistersinger is although it reflects a somewhat grim outlook on the human condition and provides plenty of melancholy insights into the absence of value or order in our world, it declares that despite how terrible life can seem, it is still worth living. And implies that since one can make it any better by crying, one might as well laugh. So depending on our perspective, _Wahn_ can be seen as depressingly ominpresent or as a force that can be channelled for "nobler" ends. We have to _impose_ form and order on our lives to make them meaningful.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

OperaChic said:


> A feature I love about Meistersinger is although it reflects a somewhat grim outlook on the human condition and provides plenty of melancholy insights into the absence of value or order in our world, it declares that despite how terrible life can seem, it is still worth living. And implies that since one can make it any better by crying, one might as well laugh. So depending on our perspective, _Wahn_ can be seen as depressingly ominpresent or as a force that can be channelled for "nobler" ends. We have to _impose_ form and order on our lives to make them meaningful.


And exactly the same can be said about Falstaf! Whilst I can totally understand why one can prefer one to the other (we all have different tastes), I'm not fully convinced that one is a better opera than the other.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think saying Mastersingers is a more complex work is just allowing Wagner to kid us that he is in fact more profound than he is, which is obviously what the composer intended. Interesting Verdi dos the opposite in that he kids us he is just having fun )he actually said this when composing Falstaff) when in fact he is writing a work of sheer genius. In fact, musically Falstaff is an incredibly complex work with melodies and themes tossed around and even discarded at will. A lesser composer might have milked each melody for all it was worth but not Verdi at the height of his powers - something extraordinary for an old man. It might appear to the superficial listener as a joke but it is anything but that. It is the work of an incredible genius who, after years of writing tragedies, now turned and mastered the one form he had never attempted since his second opera. The triumph was so complete that Verdi was brought on to the stage again and again - even bringing Boito on to the stage to share the applause with him as a recognition that the operatic genius was working with the man who had written a libretto of incredible genius by squeezing all the juice out of a couple of Shakespeare plays with absolutely no wastage. What a glorious end to a glorious career. And to end it: "All the world's a joke!" "Please don't take it too seriously guys!" How much better than a load of self-congratulation! Typical of Verdi. For his funeral he specified: "One cross. One candle, One priest." Of course, over of million turned up to see him off! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think saying Mastersingers is a more complex work is just allowing Wagner to kid us that he is in fact more profound than he is, which is obviously what the composer intended.


There can never be a mention of Wagner without a gratuitous insult from DavidA. Of course we realize that insulting Wagner helps prove that Verdi was a genius.



> Interesting Verdi dos the opposite in that he kids us he is just having fun )he actually said this when composing Falstaff) when in fact he is writing a work of sheer genius. In fact, musically Falstaff is an incredibly complex work with melodies and themes tossed around and even discarded at will.


We were discussing dramatic themes, not musical ones. (Btw, when you start tossing melodies and themes around, be careful not to hit any passers by, and when you discard them at will, check for the recycling symbol on the bottom. Handel and Rossini, I believe, were always careful to recycle.)



> A lesser composer might have milked each melody for all it was worth but not Verdi at the height of his powers - something extraordinary for an old man.


Any composer "might have done" a lot of things Verdi didn't do. So what? And_ Falstaff _would be extraordinary for a _young_ man.



> It might appear to the superficial listener as a joke but it is anything but that.


Have you asked any superficial listeners their opinion?



> It is the work of an incredible genius who, after years of writing tragedies, now turned and mastered the one form he had never attempted since his second opera. The triumph was so complete that Verdi was brought on to the stage again and again - even bringing Boito on to the stage to share the applause with him as a recognition that the operatic genius was working with the man who had written a libretto of incredible genius by squeezing all the juice out of a couple of Shakespeare plays with absolutely no wastage. What a glorious end to a glorious career.


Yeah... And now back to the topic:



> And to end it: "All the world's a joke!"


Just as God intended - except for those He'll be sending you know where. Or is that the joke?



> "Please don't take it too seriously guys!" How much better than a load of self-congratulation!


Yes, loads of self-congratulation are not good. Maybe only loads of _non_ _sequiturs_ masquerading as arguments are worse.



> For his funeral he specified: "One cross. One candle, One priest." Of course, over of million turned up to see him off! :lol:


Wagner went Verdi one better and didn't ask for any crosses, candles or priests. His body was transported in a funerary gondola over the Grand Canal in Venice, and quite a few fish turned up to see him off. Anchovies, I believe.

Now what were we discussing...?


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. So Verdi becomes rich and famous by writing sincere and powerful dramas with eloquent music that touches and moves audiences worldwide, yet with the ending of Falstaff he is essentially just giving anyone who has found something meaningful in his operas the finger with a "You think I took this crap seriously? Well now look who's got your money, so take that, suckers!!!" send off. Hold on though, there's another plot twist. He was fooling us once more, for just when we thought he was just having a bit of fun with us he was actually writing works of profound genius, and so the joke is really on the superficial listeners who don't understand the true complexity of his work and don't take his operas seriously enough. In essence this means the ending to Falstaff is really _really_ an act of self-deprecation, where instead of congratualting himself on a job well done, he is saying "Ah shucks, it's nothing! Just a little mild entertainment from a modest entertainer!" But we know better than to take him seriously...right?

Jeebus. And people say Wagner is convoluted.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ManateeFL said:


> Wait a minute, let me get this straight. So Verdi becomes rich and famous by writing sincere and powerful dramas with eloquent music that touches and moves audiences worldwide, yet with the ending of Falstaff he is essentially just giving anyone who has found something meaningful in his operas the finger with a "You think I took this crap seriously? Well now look who's got your money, so take that, suckers!!!" send off. Hold on though, there's another plot twist. He was fooling us once more, for just when we thought he was just having a bit of fun with us he was actually writing works of profound genius, and so the joke is really on the superficial listeners who don't understand the true complexity of his work and don't take his operas seriously enough. In essence this means the ending to Falstaff is really _really_ an act of self-deprecation, where instead of congratualting himself on a job well done, he is saying "Ah shucks, it's nothing! Just a little entertainment from a modest entertainer!"
> 
> Jeebus. And people say Wagner is convoluted.


By God, I believe you've dotted every "T" and crossed every "I."

I always suspected manatees were brilliant.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ManateeFL said:


> Wait a minute, let me get this straight. So Verdi becomes rich and famous by writing sincere and powerful dramas with eloquent music that touches and moves audiences worldwide, yet with the ending of Falstaff he is essentially just giving anyone who has found something meaningful in his operas the finger with a "You think I took this crap seriously? Well now look who's got your money, so take that, suckers!!!" send off. Hold on though, there's another plot twist. He was fooling us once more, for just when we thought he was just having a bit of fun with us he was actually writing works of profound genius, and so the joke is really on the superficial listeners who don't understand the true complexity of his work and don't take his operas seriously enough. In essence this means the ending to Falstaff is really _really_ an act of self-deprecation, where instead of congratualting himself on a job well done, he is saying "Ah shucks, it's nothing! Just a little mild entertainment from a modest entertainer!" But we know better than to take him seriously...right?
> 
> Jeebus. And people say Wagner is convoluted.


There joke is on us, Mate! At least those who cannot laugh at themselves! What does it matter anyway? It's just an entertainment! And a pretty ridiculous form at that! We've all been fooled :lol:

Perhaps it's because I am English and had a father to whom boasting was an anathema but I prefer Verdi's self-deprecatory humour to Wagner's self-promotion. But just me.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There can never be a mention of Wagner without a gratuitous insult from DavidA. Of course we realize that insulting Wagner helps prove that Verdi was a genius.
> 
> We were discussing dramatic themes, not musical ones. (Btw, when you start tossing melodies and themes around, be careful not to hit any passers by, and when you discard them at will, check for the recycling symbol on the bottom. Handel and Rossini, I believe, were always careful to recycle.)
> 
> ...


This is pure genius!

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I would recommend anyone try Falstaff from the beginning of the last scene around the Oaktree. The fairy music begins and you suddenly realise that this tribute to a 16-year-old Mendelssohn is actually written by a 78-year-old veteran. The whole thing then miraculously plays out. there is of course Falstaffs humiliation which is quite nasty but then the thing turns right round as the pompous Ford and the idiotic Dr Caius are also fooled. I love the setting of the lines:
"Fenton with my daughter
And I've married Bardolf!"
The thing then very quickly turns round into reconciliation between ford and his daughter and the great final fugue which tells us that man is a joker and we've all been fooled. Of course those without a sense of humour should avoid this but for those of us who like a bit of self-deprecating humour and can put ourselves in the position of those people is it a bit of a life enhancing experience. I've just listened to it as an early morning tonic. I'm very fortunate in having a family who are quick to pull my leg. So I can understand Falstaff and rejoice in it as an expression and an enhancement of life itself !


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> This is pure genius!
> 
> N.


Thanks. Perhaps I should set it to music as a fugue. I'll have all the musicians winking at the audience and slapping one another on the back and the derriere so that no one will take it too seriously.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Meistersingers. (Bach applied).


----------

