# Who is your favorite opera composer?



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Choose one please. 

Didn't have room for everyone,
so please feel free to write in
your choice if they're not on the list.
Thank you


----------



## DaDirkNL (Aug 26, 2013)

Mozart, Le Nozze di Figaro is just perfect.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

Verdi's music is effortless. But I keep going back to Wagner.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

For me it was a toss-up between Mozart and Wagner, but DG is still my favorite opera and LNdF and Zauberflote are not far behind, so. The way I've been getting more and more into Wagner territory in the last 3-4 years, however, that may change eventually. And then again, maybe not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Depends what mood I'm in but generally Mozart. The three da Ponte operas and Zauberflote are the musical pinnacle of opera along with Verdi's Falstaff and Bizet's Carmen.
While I admit to the genius of Wagner, he doesn't rate as favourite.


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

"Viva Mascagni! Viva l'Italia!"


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

My favorites are Berg, Verdi, Bellini... let's say Bellini, as of now.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Still this guy:

View attachment 31018


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

And Wagner forges ahead .....................


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

As the chickens say, Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! I like Gluck!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Or as the pigs say, Oink, Oink, Oink! I like Humperdinck!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I certainly do love Bellini, but Verdi is my favorite.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

If Wagner's operas were all as good as _Tristan_, he'd possibly be tied for number one. _Der Ring_ tips the balance in favor of Puccini, though. In _Fanciulla_ through _Gianni Schicchi_ he truly achieved an endless stream of melody.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Tie between Mozart and Donizetti. I don't know how I can pick between the two.

It really depends on how I measure. The best single act in opera as far as I'm concerned is Act 1 of La Traviata, so that adds Verdi to the mix. My favorite single opera is Lucia. If I look at the best 2-4 operas for every composer, Mozart is tops. If I look at the best, say, 5+ then it tilts again towards Donizetti.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Verdi Verdi Verdi (followed by Mozart)
Britten should be on the list. So should Gounod. 
I adore Berlioz too, though he only wrote 3 operas (*La Damnation de Faust* is not an opera).


----------



## Volve (Apr 14, 2013)

Wagner, closely followed by Verdi! Then come R. Strauss, then Donizetti, Rossini, Bizet, Puccini, and many many others! I'm still iffy on Mozart though, I just can't relate to his work


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Wolfie first then Rossini, Bellini, Handel and Strauss.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For me it's Mozart. Cosi, Magic Flute, Figaro,etc; Extraordinary stuff!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

My favorite operas are by Mozart, but Wagner is so close that's it's really hard to choose.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I put Handel but that's today, can't really choose because so much depends on my mood. Also Mozart, Britten, Wagner, Verdi and Puccini.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Verdi was my first love & nothing's changed.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Wagner, then Mozart.

I would add Berg, Janacek and Britten and (personal preference) remove Bellini and Donizetti. Maybe I don't like "opera"...


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

why remove? isn't there room for everyone?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Wagner, ahead of Puccini, Strauss and Britten.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Considering that I would place _Die Zauberflöte, Don Giovanni,_ and _Le Nozze di Figaro_ as my three favorite operas... with _Cosi fan tutte_ rounding out the top 15... I have to go with Mozart... followed closely by Wagner, Richard Strauss, Puccini, Verdi, and Bellini.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, Janacek, Berg, Zemlinsky, Weill (if he's allowed, as many of his works for the stage weren't strictly opera), Shostakovich and Britten are probably my top 10 but as of now I've never had an absolute favourite.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Beethoven! (Yeah, I know he only wrote one opera, but it's the one I can't live without.) After der Ludwig, my top picks would be Mozart and Verdi.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Probably Berg and Bartok, if only they had done more. Massenet and Bellini perhaps next.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Britten*

(Other) Britten


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, Janacek, Berg, Zemlinsky, Weill (if he's allowed, as many of his works for the stage weren't strictly opera), Shostakovich and Britten are probably my top 10 but as of now I've never had an absolute favourite.


Which Zemlinsky do you like? I haven't had much joy with Zwerg, Florentine Tragedy or Traumgorge - I dig the Lyric Symphony a lot if that's any help


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Volve said:


> Wagner, closely followed by Verdi! Then come R. Strauss, then Donizetti, Rossini, Bizet, Puccini, and many many others!


May I come to that party too? Might buy pizza on the way.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

Looks as if I may be the only fan of Rossini(really?)but so be it. Bel Canto and Barber, WOW!!!!!!!


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

TrevBus said:


> Looks as if I may be the only fan of Rossini(really?)but so be it. Bel Canto and Barber, WOW!!!!!!!


Everybody's second or third favourite, I reckon. Poor guy.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

MAuer said:


> Beethoven! (Yeah, I know he only wrote one opera, but it's the one I can't live without.)


Yes, me too! I can hardly believe what a wonderful opera Fidelio is--perfect!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Britten, of course! Wagner and Monteverdi come very close behind.


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

What, no option for Beethoven? I am in shock!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. Fidelio is great and nobody IMO conducted it as well as Toscanini.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Everybody's second or third favourite, I reckon. Poor guy.


Yeah, well, love that POOR GUY!!!!!.


----------



## OrchestrasWaterboy (Mar 17, 2013)

At least for me this one is a no-brainer... my deepest respects to Mozart who's operas are exceptional; but Wagner just plays a different game.


----------



## Clayton (Nov 10, 2013)

Bellini followed closely by Verdi.
It would have been a photo finish but they didn't have the film ready.
or the camera.
or time lapse photography.


----------



## Clayton (Nov 10, 2013)

there was Donizetti as well but he was miles behind looking after his other children.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ a belcanto fan among us :tiphat:


----------



## Clayton (Nov 10, 2013)

Yes but also currently getting to grips with George Frideric


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Depends on the day. When I'm in Mozart mood, his operas are some of the most sublime music to me. But I'm not always in the mood for Mozart. Puccini is an opera composer I'm almost always in the mood for.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Mozart then Wagner.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

I voted Mozart. Then there's the gang with Verdi Wagner Puccini


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

I love Mozart and Rossini so much I almost didn't want to vote. I chose Rossini, but Mozart is beyond words, God himself


----------



## babbles (Aug 20, 2013)

I was fortunate to grow up in a small town with a large Italian population...By the age of 11,I knew all of the opera of Puccini by heart....My cousin married an Italian and when we attended an opera he would comprehend the language andwould become very emotional during certain parts....I do not believe there are any operas of Puccini which are bad...After Puccini,Donizetti is very good especially the three queens with Sills.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

I was torn between Mozart and Wagner (in my mind they have the joint first place as favorite composers), but then chose Wagner. There are non-operatic works of Mozart that I listen to, but Wagner has written his OPERAS, and there's nothing more to say.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

my two choices as well. thanks everyone.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Tie breaker: Wagner! Just voted for him.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Prokofiev, who gets better & better in his late operas.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

I am the first person to have voted Massenet... now why could that be?!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Only 8 votes for my beloved Verdi, to Wagner's 21. I feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Only 8 votes for my beloved Verdi, to Wagner's 21. I feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness


Taste by definition is a minority view.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Only 8 votes for my beloved Verdi, to Wagner's 21. I feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness


Aw, cheer up. Think how those poor souls who voted for Gluck and Strauss must feel.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Aw, cheer up. Think how those poor souls who voted for Gluck and Strauss must feel.


-- They feel _great_. I (hard pressed to choose just 'one') voted for Strauss. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

_Ariadne? Capriccio? Die Frau ohne Schatten? Rosenkavalier? Arabella? Salome?-- _I can listen to that charm and grace all day long reading Karl Krauss essays and Arthur Schnitzler dramas. . . with espresso no dobut. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> If Wagner's operas were all as good as _Tristan_, he'd possibly be tied for number one. _Der Ring_ tips the balance in favor of Puccini, though. In _Fanciulla_ through _Gianni Schicchi_ he truly achieved an endless stream of melody.


Even though I'm a veteran Wagnerian, I love your love for Puccini and everything you write about him. I used to like to snort at his pathetic little geishas and seamstresses, but my admiration for the rest of him, mainly his musically adventurous later operas, has grown. So hip hip ragazzi!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> -- They feel _great_. I (hard pressed to choose just 'one') voted for Strauss. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
> 
> _Ariadne? Capriccio? Die Frau ohne Schatten? Rosenkavalier? Arabella? Salome?-- _I can listen to that charm and grace all day long reading Karl Krauss essays and Arthur Schnitzler dramas. . . with espresso no dobut. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


Too many notes, my dear Richard.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Meant to choose Mozart but instead voted for Wagner. What a world.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Too many notes, my dear Richard.


The justifiable arrogance of those who can orchestrate.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Meant to choose Mozart but instead voted for Wagner. What a world.


You opted for German chocolate _crème brûlée_ and got a Wagyu ribeye instead-- either way you win._ ;D_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> The justifiable arrogance of those who can orchestrate.


I grant him that. You may not know, however, that Strauss looked up to Wagner as an orchestrator, saying that W made every sound count and that he sometimes felt insecure about this in his own scoring. He may have been too modest, but it's an endearing comment. Of course I could have told him that his real problem was too many notes.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I grant him that. You may not know, however, that Strauss looked up to Wagner as an orchestrator, saying that W made every sound count and that he sometimes felt insecure about this in his own scoring. He may have been too modest, but it's an endearing comment. Of course I could have told him that his real problem was too many notes.


I didn't know that-- thanks for the recollection. . .

I think his real problem was not being immodest _enough_: "Richard, didn't_ Heldenleben _teach you anything?"


----------



## atmplayspiano (Apr 12, 2014)

*Il barbiere di Siviglia* is my favorite opera, so Rossini!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I grant him that. You may not know, however, that Strauss looked up to Wagner as an orchestrator, saying that W made every sound count and that he sometimes felt insecure about this in his own scoring. He may have been too modest, but it's an endearing comment. Of course I could have told him that his real problem was too many notes.


Interesting that Strauss iwas also quoted as saying it was better for a young composer to look to Bizet as an example as an orchestrator than Wagner.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Wagner is someone I can admire for his musical genius. But not love. Those unsympathetic heroes and characters and his long, windy libretti. And, of course, his disastrous and half-baked pseudo philosophies.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Wagner is someone I can admire for his musical genius. But not love. Those unsympathetic heroes and characters and his long, windy libretti. And, of course, his disastrous and half-baked pseudo philosophies.


I pretty much agree with this. I'm really suprised to see Wagner get so many more votes than Verdi. I thought everyone knew Verdi is the opera God.


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

Radames said:


> I pretty much agree with this. I'm really suprised to see Wagner get so many more votes than Verdi. I thought everyone knew Verdi is the opera God.


Yes. Wagner is god awful, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual noise. The music is not even beautiful...listen to Mozart or Berlioz for beautiful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Wagner? Not Verdi, Puccini, or Mozart? Whatever can it mean? Surely Mozart appeals to our civilized sensibilities as Wagner does not, Puccini touches the heart as Wagner rarely does, Verdi at his best combines the virtues of both - and all three display to the full the beauty of the human voice, which Wagner often seems to disdain. So what is it about Wagner? How does he get the blue ribbon here?

My short answer (the long one would fill a bookcase) is that Wagner, through the imagery of myth and the occult language of music, opens doors to places in the human psyche where no other composer had been able or willing to go, takes us back to the forgotten origins of our self-identity, our desires, ecstasies, and fears, and uncovers the unconscious things in us, both beautiful and horrible, that lie beneath the emotional and intellectual conceptions which we must create and sustain to get on with life. Wagner permits us, for a few hours, to stop "getting on," and allows us, inside the safe precincts of his theater of the mind, the dreams we ceased to dream when we became adults, but which remain somewhere in our depths, like the gold beneath the waters at the beginning of the world.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

.....huh...? 

Just kidding. That was good. :tiphat:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Resurrexit said:


> Yes. Wagner is god awful, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual noise. The music is not even beautiful...listen to Mozart or Berlioz for beautiful.


Yeah, see that gorgeous, white unicorn over there? It's not even beautiful; because it's really an ugly, one-horned mule. Look at a tea-cup chihuahua for beautiful.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner? Not Verdi, Puccini, or Mozart? Whatever can it mean? Surely Mozart appeals to our civilized sensibilities as Wagner does not, Puccini touches the heart as Wagner rarely does, Verdi at his best combines the virtues of both - and all three display to the full the beauty of the human voice, which Wagner often seems to disdain. So what is it about Wagner? How does he get the blue ribbon here?
> 
> My short answer (the long one would fill a bookcase) is that Wagner, through the imagery of myth and the occult language of music, opens doors to places in the human psyche where no other composer had been able or willing to go, takes us back to the forgotten origins of our self-identity, our desires, ecstasies, and fears, and uncovers the unconscious things in us, both beautiful and horrible, that lie beneath the emotional and intellectual conceptions which we must create and sustain to get on with life. Wagner permits us, for a few hours, to stop "getting on," and allows us, inside the safe precincts of his theater of the mind, the dreams we ceased to dream when we became adults, but which remain somewhere in our depths, like the gold beneath the waters at the beginning of the world.


Such _aperçus_. So beautifully put. . . It must have something to do with Tito's eyes. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . No, really, thanks.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner? Not Verdi, Puccini, or Mozart? Whatever can it mean? Surely Mozart appeals to our civilized sensibilities as Wagner does not, Puccini touches the heart as Wagner rarely does, Verdi at his best combines the virtues of both - and all three display to the full the beauty of the human voice, which Wagner often seems to disdain. So what is it about Wagner? How does he get the blue ribbon here?
> 
> My short answer (the long one would fill a bookcase) is that Wagner, through the imagery of myth and the occult language of music, opens doors to places in the human psyche where no other composer had been able or willing to go, takes us back to the forgotten origins of our self-identity, our desires, ecstasies, and fears, and uncovers the unconscious things in us, both beautiful and horrible, that lie beneath the emotional and intellectual conceptions which we must create and sustain to get on with life. Wagner permits us, for a few hours, to stop "getting on," and allows us, inside the safe precincts of his theater of the mind, the dreams we ceased to dream when we became adults, but which remain somewhere in our depths, like the gold beneath the waters at the beginning of the world.


Sorry, mate, but Wagner does not do that for me. Rattling good entertainment sometimes, but 'opens doors to the places in the human psyche, etcetera..' Nah!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, mate, but Wagner does not do that for me. Rattling good entertainment sometimes, but 'opens doors to the places in the human psyche, etcetera..' No!


Well, each of us has things we just don't "get." Of course you know that that doesn't mean there isn't something there to be got by those attuned to it.

Nothing I say about Wagner is at bottom original; that bookcase I alluded to has already been filled to overflowing by people who have found as much in Wagner as I, if not more. As Anna Russell says, "I'm not making this up, you know!" My experience of Wagner's music and imagery have opened door after magical door over the better part of a lifetime; my quest has pretty well subsided now, but there has never, in its whole course, been a dearth of new insights and rewards. Fundamentally, though, it comes down to how deep inside you old Klingsor can cast his spells. When Nietzsche, having renounced and excoriated Wagner for various reasons, actually heard the music of _Parsifal_, he said that it "cut through the soul like a knife." He spoke for many, many people since, and most definitely for me.

Some doors within each of us are, no doubt, destined never to be opened - or perhaps, as Judith discovered in the silent darkness of _Bluebeard's Castle_ (another profound and harrowing journey into the mysteries of the self), never should be.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner? Not Verdi, Puccini, or Mozart? Whatever can it mean? Surely Mozart appeals to our civilized sensibilities as Wagner does not, Puccini touches the heart as Wagner rarely does, Verdi at his best combines the virtues of both - and all three display to the full the beauty of the human voice, which Wagner often seems to disdain. So what is it about Wagner? How does he get the blue ribbon here?
> 
> My short answer (the long one would fill a bookcase) is that Wagner, through the imagery of myth and the occult language of music, opens doors to places in the human psyche where no other composer had been able or willing to go, takes us back to the forgotten origins of our self-identity, our desires, ecstasies, and fears, and uncovers the unconscious things in us, both beautiful and horrible, that lie beneath the emotional and intellectual conceptions which we must create and sustain to get on with life. Wagner permits us, for a few hours, to stop "getting on," and allows us, inside the safe precincts of his theater of the mind, the dreams we ceased to dream when we became adults, but which remain somewhere in our depths, like the gold beneath the waters at the beginning of the world.


Though my personal preference is still for Verdi and Mozart, both of whom had a humanity, an understanding of the human condition and a compassion that Wagner lacked. For me those doors in the human psyche you talk about remain firmly closed. Does that mean I am lacking in imagination or have no dreams, no ecstasies, no desires or fears? On the other hand, I live a very unconventional life. Maybe I never closed those doors in the first place.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Though my personal preference is still for Verdi and Mozart, both of whom had a humanity, an understanding of the human condition and a compassion that Wagner lacked.


But Wagner very much had that!


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> [snip] Fundamentally, though, it comes down to how deep inside you old Klingsor can cast his spells. When Nietzsche, having renounced and excoriated Wagner for various reasons, actually heard the music of _Parsifal_, he said that it "cut through the soul like a knife." He spoke for many, many people since, and most definitely for me. [snip]


_Amfortas, die Wunde!_


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> But Wagner very much had that!


I don't see that in Wagner at all. Of the two men, Verdi and Wagner, I know which one I'd prefer to meet, to have as guest of honour at my dinner table.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> I don't see that in Wagner at all. Of the two men, Verdi and Wagner, I know which one I'd prefer to meet, to have as guest of honour at my dinner table.


Oh, I definitely see it in Wagner's art. To me, his operas are about overcoming irrationality and inhumanity. Wagner's works are not only attempts to penetrate to the mysterious core of human existence, but are about the healing of the hurt in, the drawing off of the evil in, the integration of conflicting forces in the human psyche. His works cover the gamut of human emotion and offer profound insights into each of them; what it is to recognize a mutual need in another human being and fall in love (Siegmund and Sieglinde), being consumed by passion (Tristan and Isolde), the misery of what it is to wallow in hate (Hagen and Klingsor), using life as an inspiration for art (Walther and Eva), being generous and humble (Hans Sachs), personal betrayal by a loved one (King Marke), the need for compassion for all living things and the glory of personal sacrifice to mend the suffering of others (Parsifal). If we look at the operas from a "human perspective" there's no doubt that Verdi and Mozart display knowledge of the psychology of human relations.. But Wagner had those perceptions as well. For example, we can look at Verdi and say he had among other things a great understanding of paternal relationships and immense feeling for what it is to be a father to a son or daughter, because it comes across so strongly in his music and his dramas. Yet Wotan's scene with Brünnhilde in _Die Walküre_ is one of the most powerful portraits of the relationship between a father and daughter in the operatic repertoire and is at least as convincing as any that Verdi created.

As far as the actual _man_ was concerned, Wagner was a man driven by personal demons and torn apart by conflicting emotions. He achieved in his art an integration that he never was able to achieve in his life, and this probably accounts for his _need_ create. Besides, I think the Wagner we know today is a monstrous caricature that has been blown out of proportion - of course he had character flaws and many faults, but they have been exaggerated and rarely counterbalanced. The result is that his true personality and character have largely been buried. I don't know that he would be such a bad dinner guest. He could be incredibly engaging and entertaining, he had a love of nature and animals, and possessed a keen sense of humor. Here is a quote from a Robert von Hornstein:



> Conversely, he was enchanting whenever he went walking with Ritter and me. Witty insights flew through the air. He regaled us with tales from the rich storehouse of his experiences. Many a word of wisdom there was to be heard... His whole goodnaturedness, of which he had plenty to supply, came to the fore.


He was also an exhibitionist. He was known to climb up trees, stand on his head, slide down banisters - and all well past middle age! Here is an account by an observer of the rehearsals for _Tristan_:



> If a difficult passage went particularly well he would spring up, embrace or kiss the singer warmly, or out of pure joy stand on his head on the sofa, creep under the piano, jump on to it, run into the garden and scramble joyously up a tree.


Perhaps Shuré gives a good overview of his personality:



> His high spirits overflowed into a joyous froth of acts of sheer buffoonery and eccentric jokes, but the least contradiction provoked unprecedented anger. Then he was like a caged lion, roaring like a wild animal, pacing the room, his voice growing hoarse and the words coming out like cries, his words striking at random. He then seemed like an unleashed force of nature, a volcano erupting... Everything about him was larger than life.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Oh, I definitely see it in Wagner's art. To me, his operas are about overcoming irrationality and inhumanity. Wagner's works are not only attempts to penetrate to the mysterious core of human existence, but are about the healing of the hurt in, the drawing off of the evil in, the integration of conflicting forces in the human psyche. His works cover the gamut of human emotion and offer profound insights into each of them; what it is to recognize a mutual need in another human being and fall in love (Siegmund and Sieglinde), being consumed by passion (Tristan and Isolde), the misery of what it is to wallow in hate (Hagen and Klingsor), using life as an inspiration for art (Walther and Eva), being generous and humble (Hans Sachs), personal betrayal by a loved one (King Marke), the need for compassion for all living things and the glory of personal sacrifice to mend the suffering of others (Parsifal). If we look at the operas from a "human perspective" there's no doubt that Verdi and Mozart display knowledge of the psychology of human relations.. But Wagner had those perceptions as well. For example, we can look at Verdi and say he had among other things a great understanding of paternal relationships and immense feeling for what it is to be a father to a son or daughter, because it comes across so strongly in his music and his dramas. Yet Wotan's scene with Brünnhilde in _Die Walküre_ is one of the most powerful portraits of the relationship between a father and daughter in the operatic repertoire and is at least as convincing as any that Verdi created.
> 
> As far as the actual _man_ was concerned, Wagner was a man driven by personal demons and torn apart by conflicting emotions. He achieved in his art an integration that he never was able to achieve in his life, and this probably accounts for his _need_ create. Besides, I think the Wagner we know today is a monstrous caricature that has been blown out of proportion - of course he had character flaws and many faults, but they have been exaggerated and rarely counterbalanced. The result is that his true personality and character have largely been buried. I don't know that he would be such a bad dinner guest. He could be incredibly engaging and entertaining, he had a love of nature and animals, and possessed a keen sense of humor. Here is a quote from a Robert von Hornstein:
> 
> ...


An excellent post, and I have no doubt that you're right, but, try as I might, Wagner's operas never speak to me the way Mozart's and Verdi's do. No doubt that is my loss.

I usually try and stay out of all Wagner discussions and arguments, as Wagner lovers are so passionate in their defence of their hero. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I often feel like a teetotaler at a wine festival.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> An excellent post, and I have no doubt that you're right, but, try as I might, Wagner's operas never speak to me the way Mozart's and Verdi's do. No doubt that is my loss.
> 
> I usually try and stay out of all Wagner discussions and arguments, as Wagner lovers are so passionate in their defence of their hero. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I often feel like a teetotaler at a wine festival.


Haha. Well definitely no hard feelings. I understand that not all art speaks to everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The answer to your specific question is "no, it doesn't mean that at all." Note my exact words: "Wagner...through the imagery of myth...takes us _back to the forgotten origins_ of our self-identity, our desires, ecstasies, and fears."

Verdi, quintessential Latin Humanist, deals powerfully with the manifestation of those human emotions in the present moment, the "day" world, to borrow Wagner's image from _Tristan_. He has little or no interest in the origins, or development, of psychic processes. Iago is envious and cynical, Desdemona is sweet and trusting, Otello is prone to jealous rage, and it ends badly; so far as we can tell, they were all born that way, and if we want to know more than that we're left to our own speculations. Wagner - Teutonic Romantic rather than Latin Humanist - is after something else. His interest is in precisely the areas of human experience which are not, or are not always, open to the light of day, the areas mankind has embodied in the archetypes of myth and fairy tale, and to which he has intermittent access in dreams and psychoanalysis. Behind these "doors," as I described it, is a complex world where good and evil - "Schwartz-Alberich" and "Licht-Alberich - meet and shake hands, and beings of ambivalent nature travel between the bowels of Nibelheim and the far end of the rainbow - or the magic garden of Klingsor and the temple of the grail. The story in Wagner is not, as in Verdi, fundamentally in the events on stage as precipitated by the conscious choices and emotions of individual persons, but is rather the inner story of an "uber-consciousness" and its evolution - largely occurring beyond the conscious grasp of the characters themselves - which the events, characters and emotions of the story symbolize. Verdi's people are our neighbors, friends, and enemies, they are independent moral agents, and they are on the whole what they appear to be. Wagner's characters are not so much people as embodiments, they act not as independent agents but as personalized loci of the greater forces sweeping the drama forward, and what they embody is more than - or sometimes quite other than - what they appear to be.

To make a very long story short (which I must do because I'm due elsewhere this morning), Wagner's art is largely about the psychological forces which precede and underlie conscious human thought and action, and about the development and evolution of the soul which the movement of those forces brings about. He seems to me unique among opera composers in the breadth and depth of his imagination in carrying out such an unprecedented objective, and pre-eminent in his expansion of the capacity of music to express it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Silence, I'm grateful for your concreteness. I do tend to get carried away by floating abstractions. When you write about Wagner I no longer feel myself "somewhere over the rainbow bridge." Thanks. :tiphat:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The answer to your specific question is "no, it doesn't mean that at all." Note my exact words: "Wagner...through the imagery of myth...takes us _back to the forgotten origins_ of our self-identity, our desires, ecstasies, and fears."
> 
> Verdi, quintessential Latin Humanist, deals powerfully with the manifestation of those human emotions in the present moment, the "day" world, to borrow Wagner's image from _Tristan_. He has little or no interest in the origins, or development, of psychic processes. Iago is envious and cynical, Desdemona is sweet and trusting, Otello is prone to jealous rage, and it ends badly; so far as we can tell, they were all born that way, and if we want to know more than that we're left to our own speculations. Wagner - Teutonic Romantic rather than Latin Humanist - is after something else. His interest is in precisely the areas of human experience which are not, or are not always, open to the light of day, the areas mankind has embodied in the archetypes of myth and fairy tale, and to which he has intermittent access in dreams and psychoanalysis. Behind these "doors," as I described it, is a complex world where good and evil - "Schwartz-Alberich" and "Licht-Alberich - meet and shake hands, and beings of ambivalent nature travel between the bowels of Nibelheim and the far end of the rainbow - or the magic garden of Klingsor and the temple of the grail. The story in Wagner is not, as in Verdi, fundamentally in the events on stage as precipitated by the conscious choices and emotions of individual persons, but is rather the inner story of an "uber-consciousness" and its evolution - largely occurring beyond the conscious grasp of the characters themselves - which the events, characters and emotions of the story symbolize. Verdi's people are our neighbors, friends, and enemies, they are independent moral agents, and they are on the whole what they appear to be. Wagner's characters are not so much people as embodiments, they act not as independent agents but as personalized loci of the greater forces sweeping the drama forward, and what they embody is more than - or sometimes quite other than - what they appear to be.
> 
> To make a very long story short (which I must do because I'm due elsewhere this morning), Wagner's art is largely about the psychological forces which precede and underlie conscious human thought and action, and about the development and evolution of the soul which the movement of those forces brings about. He seems to me unique among opera composers in the breadth and depth of his imagination in carrying out such an unprecedented objective, and pre-eminent in his expansion of the capacity of music to express it.


---
I always liked that deep-subtext, deep-spiritual substrate, meta-narrative of Wagner's too. Whether it's Schopenhauer's Will in_ Tristan _or Christian redemption in_ Parsifal_-- not that I subscribe to either metaphysical system in the least; but it sheds light on the human condition in creative and insightful ways.

Psychoanalysis can go too far though. Christianity says man was made from dust; psychoanalysis reduces man to it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> But Wagner very much had that!


For himself certainly!


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Silence, I'm grateful for your concreteness. I do tend to get carried away by floating abstractions. When you write about Wagner I no longer feel myself "somewhere over the rainbow bridge." Thanks. :tiphat:


Oh don't be so modest! You have a wonderful way with words that I am quite jealous of.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, each of us has things we just don't "get." Of course you know that that doesn't mean there isn't something there to be got by those attuned to it.
> 
> Nothing I say about Wagner is at bottom original; that bookcase I alluded to has already been filled to overflowing by people who have found as much in Wagner as I, if not more. As Anna Russell says, "I'm not making this up, you know!" My experience of Wagner's music and imagery have opened door after magical door over the better part of a lifetime; my quest has pretty well subsided now, but there has never, in its whole course, been a dearth of new insights and rewards. Fundamentally, though, it comes down to how deep inside you old Klingsor can cast his spells. When Nietzsche, having renounced and excoriated Wagner for various reasons, actually heard the music of _Parsifal_, he said that it "cut through the soul like a knife." He spoke for many, many people since, and most definitely for me.
> 
> Some doors within each of us are, no doubt, destined never to be opened - or perhaps, as Judith discovered in the silent darkness of _Bluebeard's Castle_ (another profound and harrowing journey into the mysteries of the self), never should be.


Ah, the mystical Wagner thing, understood only by the enlightened! I personally have no wish to have a spell cast on me by a castrated magician! The problem is that Wagner's music casts a spell and kids us we are listening to something profound when actually the libretto is pretty nonsensical. I prefer to listen to the music without the distraction of the dodgy (and some would argue, obnoxious) philosophy presented in the piece. Nietzsche also said of Parsifal: "a work of malice, of vindictiveness...an outrage on morality." Hmm!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I don't see that in Wagner at all. Of the two men, Verdi and Wagner, I know which one I'd prefer to meet, to have as guest of honour at my dinner table.


Yes. Wagner would probably make off with your dinner table!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> An excellent post, and I have no doubt that you're right, but, try as I might, Wagner's operas never speak to me the way Mozart's and Verdi's do. No doubt that is my loss.
> 
> I usually try and stay out of all Wagner discussions and arguments, as Wagner lovers are so passionate in their defence of their hero. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I often feel like a teetotaler at a wine festival.


No loss at all as both Verdi and Mozart have far greater insights into the human condition than Wagner could ever manage.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> I always liked that deep-subtext, deep-spiritual substrate, meta-narrative of Wagner's too. Whether it's Schopenhauer's Will in_ Tristan _or Christian redemption in_ Parsifal_-- not that I subscribe to either metaphysical system in the least; but it sheds light on the human condition in creative and insightful ways.
> 
> Psychoanalysis can go too far though. Christianity says man was made from dust; psychoanalysis reduces man to it.


The problem is that it is apparent that Wagner did not get either Schopenhauer or Christianity.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> I always liked that deep-subtext, deep-spiritual substrate, meta-narrative of Wagner's too. Whether it's Schopenhauer's Will in_ Tristan _or Christian redemption in_ Parsifal_-- not that I subscribe to either metaphysical system in the least; but it sheds light on the human condition in creative and insightful ways.
> 
> Psychoanalysis can go too far though. Christianity says man was made from dust; psychoanalysis reduces man to it.


Every _system_ reduces man. Wagner's eclecticism in using whatever he needs from man's various myths, legends, and philosophies - for which he has been criticized and even mocked, particularly in _Parsifal_ - avoids that danger quite remarkably. I love the fact that his references are so rich that we can argue forever about what he means and almost all be right in some respects! And while we're busy arguing, the operas go on and on for as long as there are people at least somewhat capable of performing them.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Ah, all right- add me to the over two-dozen people who've fooled themselves into thinking that Wagner is a worthy choice, here. Guess we're all in the throes of self-deception-- unless... unless...

...maybe the plurality-repsondents are the ones who have correctly gauged Wagner's significance- and our spirited designated local Wagner counter-missionary is the one who's not apprising things correctly.

Here's an idea- the title of the thread is *"Who is your favorite opera composer?"* If you have something to say concerning your favorite opera composer, please- feel free to say it [and seriously, spare us the invidious comparisions]. If you can't post on-topic, do us a favor and don't post at all, FfS.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Ah, the mystical Wagner thing, understood only by the enlightened! Nietzsche also said of Parsifal: "a work of malice, of vindictiveness...an outrage on morality." Hmm!


A tautology. By definition, nothing is understood by the unenlightened. 

Nietzsche had his own hang-ups. But when he heard the music, he got the point in spite of himself.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DavidA said:


> The problem is that it is apparent that Wagner did not get either Schopenhauer or Christianity.


Apparent...from the operas? Which weren't intended to be and can't even begin to be understood as religious or philosophical doctrines? As Wooduck points out, you can say that his music dramas were _enriched_ by the various sources Wagner drew from and the symbolism he employs, but they aren't clear, cogent statements about anything, because as works of art they _show_ rather then _tell_. If we could encapsulate their insights in words, we wouldn't need the artworks in the first place.

As far as his understanding of Schopenhauer goes, we know from Nietzsche, one of the greatest figures in the history of philosophy and someone who not only discussed Schopenhauer but other various topics regarding philosophy, religion, ancient Greek drama, and so on with Wagner that Wagner's grasp of Schopenhauer's philosophy was thorough and masterly.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Karlheinz Stockhausen. Does he count?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A tautology. By definition, nothing is understood by the unenlightened.
> 
> Nietzsche had his own hang-ups. But when he heard the music, he got the point in spite of himself.


Yeah, there's nothing more terrible than German opera, except German philosophy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Every _system_ reduces man. Wagner's eclecticism in using whatever he needs from man's various myths, legends, and philosophies - for which he has been criticized and even mocked, particularly in _Parsifal_ - avoids that danger quite remarkably. I love the fact that his references are so rich that we can argue forever about what he means and almost all be right in some respects! And while we're busy arguing, the operas go on and on for as long as there are people at least somewhat capable of performing them.


Thumbs up, Wagner. Thumbs up, Blake: "I must create my own system or be enslaved by another."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Apparent...from the operas? Which weren't intended to be and can't even begin to be understood as religious or philosophical doctrines? As Wooduck points out, you can say that his music dramas were _enriched_ by the various sources Wagner drew from and the symbolism he employs, but they aren't clear, cogent statements about anything, because as works of art they _show_ rather then _tell_. If we could encapsulate their insights in words, we wouldn't need the artworks in the first place.
> 
> As far as his understanding of Schopenhauer goes, we know from Nietzsche, one of the greatest figures in the history of philosophy and someone who not only discussed Schopenhauer but other various topics regarding philosophy, religion, ancient Greek drama, and so on with Wagner that Wagner's grasp of Schopenhauer's philosophy was thorough and masterly.


Frankly, I don't think even Schopenhauer grasped his own philosophy! As for Wagner.......!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yeah, there's nothing more terrible than German opera, except German philosophy.


Let's face it, the art of the philosopher is making the obvious obscure!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I usually try and stay out of all Wagner discussions and arguments, as Wagner lovers are so passionate in their defence of their hero. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I often feel like a teetotaler at a wine festival.


We carousers are honored to have you as our designated driver. Would you please take us to Villa Wahnfried?
What? What do you mean, the car doesn't go there? Where? The Casa di Riposo per Musicisti?! 

You're fired!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Yes. Wagner would probably make off with your dinner table!


No, only your silk underwear and your incense burner.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> No, only your silk underwear and your incense burner.


Actually, your wife.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Karlheinz Stockhausen. Does he count?


Most definitely. Tell us more!:tiphat:


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Actually, your wife.


But he would offer to share.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Even though I'm a veteran Wagnerian, I love your love for Puccini and everything you write about him. I used to like to snort at his pathetic little geishas and seamstresses, but my admiration for the rest of him, mainly his musically adventurous later operas, has grown. So hip hip ragazzi!


Grazie! Le vostre parole m'hanno fatto felice. I consider Puccini and Wagner to be the two strongest exponents of a certain kind of opera, one that uses music to magnify psychic (the other meaning of the word) phenomena and give them a "local habitation and a [note]". It's the heart of Romanticism. I admit to being a bit of a Puccini partisan, but given all of the Wagner and Mozart and Beethoven and Mahler etc. partisans, I figure it's a good thing to have one for Puccini.

Just today I was asked by a musician about my favorite Puccini opera, and he was very surprised to hear that it was _La fanciulla del west_ (although that changes hourly). While I'll go to bat any day for _La boheme_ and _Butterfly_, as much as I love it, I find _Tosca_ a bit crass. But it's the later operas, as you say, where Puccini really became outstandingly innovative and original. He never got past being woefully misunderstood, however.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Grazie! Le vostre parole m'hanno fatto felice. I consider Puccini and Wagner to be the two strongest exponents of a certain kind of opera, one that uses music to magnify psychic (the other meaning of the word) phenomena and give them a "local habitation and a [note]". It's the heart of Romanticism. I admit to being a bit of a Puccini partisan, but given all of the Wagner and Mozart and Beethoven and Mahler etc. partisans, I figure it's a good thing to have one for Puccini.
> 
> Just today I was asked by a musician about my favorite Puccini opera, and he was very surprised to hear that it was _La fanciulla del west_ (although that changes hourly). While I'll go to bat any day for _La boheme_ and _Butterfly_, as much as I love it, I find _Tosca_ a bit crass. But it's the later operas, as you say, where Puccini really became outstandingly innovative and original. He never got past being woefully misunderstood, however.


_Fanciulla_ is my favorite Puccini as well. It's a funny sort of piece, isn't it? I don't exactly know why it appeals to me so much, but off the top of my head: 1) it doesn't have any young women who are tortured to death; 2) it's amusing to see a fanciful version of the American west through the eyes and ears of an Italian; 3) the score is totally fascinating; and 3) Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Music of the Night" sounds better in the original version (surely I'm not the only person to notice this!). Not a profound analysis, I guess, but there it is.

I must also put in a plug for my favorite _Fanciulla_ recording, the perhaps controversial old EMI recording with Birgit Nilsson. She sounds like a healthy, sharp-shootin' valkyrie with high notes like white lightnin'; to me that's exactly what Minnie ought to sound like, and I think she portrays the part very convincingly. (The more "idiomatic" Tebaldi, in comparison, sounds like a very nice, well-endowed ragazza who's come to America to visit her immigrant relatives.) I also like Gibin's genuine, sympathetic Dick Johnson, Mongelli's menacing and superbly vocalized Jack Rance, and Matacic's exciting conducting. I wonder what you think.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> _Fanciulla_ is my favorite Puccini as well. It's a funny sort of piece, isn't it? I don't exactly know why it appeals to me so much, but off the top of my head: 1) it doesn't have any young women who are tortured to death; 2) it's amusing to see a fanciful version of the American west through the eyes and ears of an Italian; 3) the score is totally fascinating; and 3) Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Music of the Night" sounds better in the original version (surely I'm not the only person to notice this!). Not a profound analysis, I guess, but there it is.
> 
> I must also put in a plug for my favorite _Fanciulla_ recording, the perhaps controversial old EMI recording with Birgit Nilsson. She sounds like a healthy, sharp-shootin' valkyrie with high notes like white lightnin'; to me that's exactly what Minnie ought to sound like, and I think she portrays the part very convincingly. (The more "idiomatic" Tebaldi, in comparison, sounds like a very nice, well-endowed ragazza who's come to America to visit her immigrant relatives.) I also like Gibin's genuine, sympathetic Dick Johnson, Mongelli's menacing and superbly vocalized Jack Rance, and Matacic's exciting conducting. I wonder what you think.


My favourite Puccini too. I love the DVD with Nina Stemme, set in the era of silent movies.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I bowed out of the discussion, as I usually tend to do when Wagner idolatry gets going. I have been mightily impressed by so many of the posts in his defence, but the fact is I simply can't get that worked about him, ditto Puccini, if I'm honest. I do enjoy quite a lot of Wagner's _oevre_ (though there's usually somewhere I want to scream, "Oh for God's sake, get on with it!"). Puccini also ranks quite high in my list of favourite composers, _but_, and I guess this is the litmus test, a life for me without Verdi and Mozart is inconceivable, whereas both Wagner and Puccini I can take or leave.

To put it another way, forced to choose on that proverbial desert island, I would sooner take *Norma* than *Tosca*, *Les Troyens* than *Tristan und Isolde*, though I'd be hard pressed to leave behind *La Traviata*, *Don Carlo* or *Falstaff*, *Le Nozze di Figaro*, *Don Giovanni* or *Cosi fan Tutte*.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I bowed out of the discussion, as I usually tend to do when Wagner idolatry gets going. I have been mightily impressed by so many of the posts in his defence, but the fact is I simply can't get that worked about him, ditto Puccini, if I'm honest. I do enjoy quite a lot of Wagner's _oevre_ (though there's usually somewhere I want to scream, "Oh for God's sake, get on with it!"). Puccini also ranks quite high in my list of favourite composers, _but_, and I guess this is the litmus test, a life for me without Verdi and Mozart is inconceivable, whereas both Wagner and Puccini I can take or leave.
> 
> To put it another way, forced to choose on that proverbial desert island, I would sooner take *Norma* than *Tosca*, *Les Troyens* than *Tristan und Isolde*, though I'd be hard pressed to leave behind *La Traviata*, *Don Carlo* or *Falstaff*, *Le Nozze di Figaro*, *Don Giovanni* or *Cosi fan Tutte*.


---
Funny I read this. I just got in the '62 Knappertsbusch _Parsifal_ in the mail yesterday. Before listening to it though, I was finishing listening to the final act of the '69 Colin Davis _Troyens_. Well, I put on the Knappertsbusch, and it's predictably gorgeous. I'm skipping around of course because of the opera's duration and I have limited time to listen before I go to bed. The singing's gorgeous, the orchestrations are magnificent. . . the Overture, the Good Friday Music, the chorus with the Flower Maidens, the ending of the opera---- all finessingly done; gorgeous-- but not as gorgeous as the Karajan. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . and as good as the principals are in the '62 Knappertsbusch, the majority of the music and the drama still leaves me cold; though of course I treasure parts of the opera immensely.

Such dramatic flagging doesn't happen with_ Les Troyens_; not by a long shot: Cassandra's early heart-rending warnings, Aeneas and Priam's decision to open the gates of Troy and to wheel in the Trojan horse, the love duet of Dido and Aeneas, Dido's final lament-- thrilling, dramatically-palpable drama. . . The only serious criticism I would make of the performance was that it was made in 1969 and not in 1955; and with Maria Callas as Cassandra, or Dido. . . or both. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

This is a minority view, though. Why, I have no idea.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Frankly, I don't think even Schopenhauer grasped his own philosophy! As for Wagner.......!!


Well I'm far from the sharpest tool in the shed, so if I can read him and grasp his philosophy I don't have any doubts that Wagner could.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> . The only serious criticism I would make of the performance was that it was made in 1969 and not in 1955; and with Maria Callas as Cassandra, or Dido. . . or both. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
> 
> This is a minority view, though. Why, I have no idea.


Not as minority as you might think. There are many who regret that Callas came to French music late in her career. Her beautifully understated, but musically inspired recording of Margeurite's _D'amour l'ardente flamme_, though sung with threabare tone, is enough indication of what a great Berlioz interpreter she could have been.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't even had my coffee yet. I misspoke. Allow me to disambiguate what I just botched and bungled.

What I meant to say was that more people would more readily choose _Parsifal_ over _Troyens_, and that I just can't understand why.

I never meant to convey that there was any doubt whatsoever about Callas being the ideal Cassandra and Dido. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . .

I'll have to raid my collection to hear her_ D'amour l'ardente flamme_. Thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> What I meant to say was that more people would more readily choose _Parsifal_ over _Troyens_, and that I just can't understand why.


I am totally with you on that one.

Incidentally, did you know there was a recording of *Parisfal* (in Italian) with Callas as Kundry? Also in the cast are Rolando Panerai as Amfortas and Boris Christoff as Gurnemanz with Vittorio Gui conducting. If you can take Wagner in Italian, then it's not negligible, though the Parsifal (Africo Badelli - who he?) is hardly inspired.

Interesting footnote, Lina Pagliughi is one of the Flowermaidens. This must surely be the only ever recording of *Parsifal* with two famous Lucias in the cast.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> To put it another way, forced to choose on that proverbial desert island, I would sooner take *Norma* than *Tosca*, *Les Troyens* than *Tristan und Isolde*, though I'd be hard pressed to leave behind *La Traviata*, *Don Carlo* or *Falstaff*, *Le Nozze di Figaro*, *Don Giovanni* or *Cosi fan Tutte*.


That desert island thing is interesting. For a short stay I'd probably take _Troyens_ rather than _Tristan_ too! My reasons are no doubt different from yours, but you do have me thinking.Though Wagner was meat and drink for me in my twenties and for some time thereafter, he cannot be now. It may be partly listener fatigue, which affects my desire to listen to some other music too. It certainly also has to do with the fact that I know him so well that just thinking of the music gives me much of the experience of hearing it (this may be a peculiarity of musicians, I'm not sure); indeed, "thinking music" is for me often preferable to the too common experience of hearing it inadequately performed (Brahms felt this way too). But it's also that Wagner asks too much of my time and effort: he virtually demands full immersion. I don't think I'd use word 'immersion" to describe my experience of most operas, partly because the "numbers" structure of opera up to Wagner's time allows me to "come up for air," and partly because the musical and dramatic "layers" of Wagner (mature Wagner, that is) really cannot be properly heard unless he is listened to attentively. Giving four hours of undivided attention to anything can be both a psycho-physical and a practical challenge for an old guy, and I'm just less inclined to do it than I was twenty years ago. I can put on Bellini or Mozart or even Strauss while paying the bills, and tune in and out as the music prompts without feeling that I'm missing the essential experience. But if I'm going to have to fit _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_ into my everyday life in this way, I usually prefer not to bother. And finally, Wagner's works are "alternative universes," journeys into parts of the self which are often, for me at least, quite disruptive and unsettling, in ways sometimes thrilling but also sometimes rather horrifying. The pains of Tristan and Amfortas are simply too primal and too excruciating for frequent visitation, and these days my returns to the precincts of Kareol and Montsalvat are pretty widely spaced.

The upshot of all this is that, depending on how long I'm to be detained on that island, I might just prefer your preferences too.
That would at least be convenient, should we ever find ourselves shipwrecked together.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I am totally with you on that one.
> 
> Incidentally, did you know there was a recording of *Parisfal* (in Italian) with Callas as Kundry? Also in the cast are Rolando Panerai as Amfortas and Boris Christoff as Gurnemanz with Vittorio Gui conducting. If you can take Wagner in Italian, then it's not negligible, though the Parsifal (Africo Badelli - who he?) is hardly inspired.
> 
> Interesting footnote, Lina Pagliughi is one of the Flowermaidens. This must surely be the only ever recording of *Parsifal* with two famous Lucias in the cast.


---
I'd have a temperamental disaffinity to hearing it in Italian; but certainly more than a passing curiosity in hearing what kind of a dramatic spell Callas can throw my way; and with such illustrious company. . . It'd be interesting to see how Gui would do the score as well, given that his '53 Callas _Medea_ has some of the highest drama I've heard in opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I am totally with you on that one.
> Incidentally, did you know there was a recording of *Parisfal* (in Italian) with Callas as Kundry?
> Interesting footnote, Lina Pagliughi is one of the Flowermaidens. This must surely be the only ever recording of *Parsifal* with two famous Lucias in the cast.


I have that _Parsifal_, and I don't mean to downgrade it in any way in saying that it's a great party record! Callas is really pretty good, and certainly traces Wagner's tortured melodic lines more cleanly than most Kundrys can. By the way, have you heard her relate the story of how she felt too shy too kiss her Parsifal on the mouth, and how her conductor (was it Gui or Serafin?) walked up on stage, did it himself, and said "If I can do it, you can do it!"?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

If you Wagnerites would just listen to Stockhausen's 'Licht' cycle, you'd forget all about Wagner for a good while.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Depends what mood I'm in but generally Mozart. The three da Ponte operas and Zauberflote are the musical pinnacle of opera along with Verdi's Falstaff and Bizet's Carmen.
> While I admit to the genius of Wagner, he doesn't rate as favourite.


yeah, Mozart wrote some pretty swell operas!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I have that _Parsifal_, and I don't mean to downgrade it in any way in saying that it's a great party record! Callas is really pretty good, and certainly traces Wagner's tortured melodic lines more cleanly than most Kundrys can. By the way, have you heard her relate the story of how she felt too shy too kiss her Parsifal on the mouth, and how her conductor (was it Gui or Serafin?) walked up on stage, did it himself, and said "If I can do it, you can do it!"?


---
-- it was Serafin. . . and I love it!!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> We carousers are honored to have you as our designated driver. Would you please take us to Villa Wahnfried?
> What? What do you mean, the car doesn't go there? Where? The Casa di Riposo per Musicisti?!
> 
> You're fired!


---
_The Casa di Riposo per Musicisti?_

Where have you _been_, Tito?

He's already at Ribot, tearing it up dancing on the tables to the brindisi from _Traviata_.

http://ribotmilano.it/it/ristorante.html


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> _The Casa di Riposo per Musicisti?_
> 
> Where have you _been_, Tito?
> ...


I'm a senior citizen, dear.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I'm a senior citizen, dear.


All the more reason, Darling.

Think 'Rossini.'

Think 'Anthony Hopkins.'

Repeat after me: "What one man can do, another can do."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> All the more reason, Darling.
> 
> Think 'Rossini.'
> 
> ...


I followed your recommendation. After three repetitions I nodded off.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I followed your recommendation. After three repetitions I nodded off.


_"Cameriere! Due triple espresso!"_. . . this dear man obviously has Parsifal-poisoning in his blood.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Well I'm far from the sharpest tool in the shed, so if I can read him and grasp his philosophy I don't have any doubts that Wagner could.


Yes, I put him right up there with Edward Lear!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> If you Wagnerites would just listen to Stockhausen's 'Licht' cycle, you'd forget all about Wagner for a good while.


Certainly after Stockhausen, Wagner's unending melodies would seem to pass at lightening speed! After dear old Karl, even the vacuum cleaner seems tuneful!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Certainly after Stockhausen, Wagner's unending melodies would seem to pass at lightening speed! After dear old Karl, even the vacuum cleaner seems tuneful!


Indeed. I was going into ecstasies over my Dirt Devil the other day. :devil:


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> _Fanciulla_ is my favorite Puccini as well. It's a funny sort of piece, isn't it? I don't exactly know why it appeals to me so much, but off the top of my head: 1) it doesn't have any young women who are tortured to death; 2) it's amusing to see a fanciful version of the American west through the eyes and ears of an Italian; 3) the score is totally fascinating; and 3) Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Music of the Night" sounds better in the original version (surely I'm not the only person to notice this!). Not a profound analysis, I guess, but there it is.


1) Minnie's about as far away from that as you can get. She's awesome. 2) He turns it into such a mythical landscape, the snow covered mountains and dark pines towering above the valleys... you can hear it. 3a) Indeed. Anton Webern wrote to Schoeberg: "A score that sounds original in every way. Splendid. Every measure astonishing... I have to say I really like it" [emphasis in original]. Although he was apparently surprised by his favorable reaction: "How can it be? Do I err so completely? I would like so much to look at this score together with you." Puccini really did something completely different with this opera. Rhythmically (there are passages that have multiple times signatures going simultaneously), harmonically (extensive use of whole tone scales and prominent dissonance), orchestrally (much greater diversity of wind colors), and dramatically, this was a huge departure for him, and I think an overwhelmingly successful one. 3b) Much, much better. There was a lawsuit over two instances of plagiarism, and Webber settled. Hm.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> 1) Minnie's about as far away from that as you can get. She's awesome. 2) He turns it into such a mythical landscape, the snow covered mountains and dark pines towering above the valleys... you can hear it. 3a) Indeed. Anton Webern wrote to Schoeberg: "A score that sounds original in every way. Splendid. Every measure astonishing... I have to say I really like it" [emphasis in original]. Although he was apparently surprised by his favorable reaction: "How can it be? Do I err so completely? I would like so much to look at this score together with you." Puccini really did something completely different with this opera. Rhythmically (there are passages that have multiple times signatures going simultaneously), harmonically (extensive use of whole tone scales and prominent dissonance), orchestrally (much greater diversity of wind colors), and dramatically, this was a huge departure for him, and I think an overwhelmingly successful one. 3b) Much, much better. There was a lawsuit over two instances of plagiarism, and Webber settled. Hm.


Webern praising Puccini to Schoenberg! That is priceless! You've made my day! :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Webern praising Puccini to Schoenberg! That is priceless! You've made my day! :lol:


"The great-souled man sees greatness in others." - Aristotle


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Webern praising Puccini to Schoenberg! That is priceless! You've made my day! :lol:


Here's Dallapiccola to Shoenberg:
"I had seen you in Florence at the time of the first Italian tour of Pierrot lunaire, but how could I, a Conservatory student, find the courage on that evening to come and shake your hand? In any case, I have never forgotten the attitude of Puccini with regard to you on that 1 April 1924, and since that evening I have considered the popular Italian composer to be of an intelligence and a humanity that I had not suspected."

Schoenberg himself called Puccini "a great man". In fact, he quoted _Manon Lescaut_ in his work, _Von heute auf morgen_. Ravel was also very fond of _La fanciulla del west_, as was Alban Berg.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Karlheinz Stockhausen. Does he count?


As a safety consultant I get paid to protect people from those kinds of sounds.:lol:


----------



## Signor Crescendo (May 8, 2014)

GIACOMO MEYERBEER!

Pour cette cause sainte, j'obéirai sans crainte!

And Rossini.

Eccentric opinions nowadays - but most people would have agreed in the mid-19th century.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Signor Crescendo said:


> GIACOMO MEYERBEER!
> 
> Pour cette cause sainte, j'obéirai sans crainte!
> 
> ...


Have you seen this?










It was brilliant. They had a dancing bear. Well not a real bear; a man in a bear suit, dancing.


----------



## Signor Crescendo (May 8, 2014)

sospiro said:


> Have you seen this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A Meyer-bear! :devil:

Yes, I've seen it. Interesting production, but I'm not sure the opera is served by it; a bit too Pythonesque! Act III was done very well, though.

Because Meyerbeer is done so seldom, there aren't many good DVDs. The two best productions are the delightful Compiègne _Dinorah_ and _Il Crociato in Egitto_. The Sutherland farewell performance of _Les Huguenots_ is visually excellent (despite the small size of the Sydney Opera House stage!), but a lot of the performers are struggling with it; and _L'Africaine_ is an abridged abridgement.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Signor Crescendo said:


> A Meyer-bear! :devil:
> 
> Yes, I've seen it. Interesting production, but I'm not sure the opera is served by it; a bit too Pythonesque! Act III was done very well, though.


Haha! I agree with you about being Pythonesque. When the knights were brought in to sit on the horses ... 



Signor Crescendo said:


> Because Meyerbeer is done so seldom, there aren't many good DVDs. The two best productions are the delightful Compiègne _Dinorah_ and _Il Crociato in Egitto_. The Sutherland farewell performance of _Les Huguenots_ is visually excellent (despite the small size of the Sydney Opera House stage!), but a lot of the performers are struggling with it; and _L'Africaine_ is an abridged abridgement.


Going to have to explore some Meyerbeer


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

I've been a passionate Verdista for about two years now. Especially after seeing the Verdi vs. Wagner debate. Just over the past two weeks I've been getting into Tristan und Isolde. I think I may be converted. ...to the fence.

I love this video.


----------

