# Assertions by Composers



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

The purpose of this thread is to quote assertions made by composers and discuss if you agree or disagree with what the composer allegedly said. Let's focus on the more interesting ones where the composer might have shared some views on music and the arts in general, and in doing so might be interesting for us modern folks in 2012 to come appreciate the music given such assertions.

I'll start with one by Richard Wagner. While working on his final opera, _Parsifal_ he asserted in _Religion and Art_ (a collection of essays, 1880) that _" ... where religion becomes artificial, it is for art to salvage its core by recognizing the figurative value of mythical symbols that religion would have us believe literally, and, through their ideal presentation, revealing the deeper truth hidden within them"_.

While I am an aetheist, I find it quite agreeable especially in the context of _Parsifal_ and can even apply it to other works by other composers from even earlier periods, for example oratorios employing religious symbolism. I find it very interesting that while the symbols on its own from say, the Bible might be somewhat meaningless to me as an aetheist, but when "transcribed" to music especially in a dramatic context with strong music, it provides a whole new set of perception that might otherwise be passed over. For the religious amongst us here, I find it very interesting that classical music brings us together in this context irrespective of our individual religious or non-religious beliefs.

You?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I also agree with Wagner's assertion. All religions are based on certain values and concepts that exist widespread throughout humanity. Things such as redemption, morality, etc...

And where religion often becomes artifical, as he puts it, art can certainly return those symbols to their true stature and meaning. Wagner did this very well in Parsifal, which is filled with christian symbols, despite the fact that Wagner was an atheist. To him, Christ was an archetype of redemption through suffering and this is infintely more meaningful than the whole 'jesus loves you amen' nonsense.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

I love Wagners music, despite of, not because of, Wagner. If that makes any sense. Reading his essays I find it quite confusing at times what he actually was trying to say. Sort of like free association. 

But regarding religion and music - I agree that the art of music can bridge a lot of gaps between people. I have never attended a Catholic Church, but I definately can feel a religious connection with the Requiems of Mozart and Brahms. Bach, I was always told, very often inscribed his music "To The Glory of God" and apparently he was a devout believer. Was he a believer because he earned his living from the church? Or did he truly worship God in his heart and he sought out a life of ministry in music to fulfill his heartfelt beliefs? The music stands on its own and is its own justification without the dedication to God. But does that dedication give the music additional power for a believer?

But getting back to Wagner, I am under the impression there was a "back to paganism" sort of thing going on at that time that was given enormous fuel by the work of Wagner. Do you know anything about that?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> I also agree with Wagner's assertion. All religions are based on certain values and concepts that exist widespread throughout humanity. Things such as redemption, morality, etc...
> 
> And where religion often becomes artifical, as he puts it, art can certainly return those symbols to their true stature and meaning. Wagner did this very well in Parsifal, which is filled with christian symbols, despite the fact that Wagner was an atheist. To him, Christ was an archetype of redemption through suffering and this is infintely more meaningful than the whole 'jesus loves you amen' nonsense.


You bring up several interesting points. I do not think I can agree with Wagners thoughts on religion. There is no doubt Wagner was an aetheist, and like many aetheists he was often quite contemptuous toward believers. So why did he really use Christian symbology? Did he really mean it or was he just trying to make some money off of believers. There was a really long, really boring, six part TV series about the life of Wagner with Richard Burton. Many of the set speeches in the program seem to have came directly from Wagner essays. I cannot really recomend the series except to the most die hard Wagner fan, but it did provide a lot of material for thought.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I dont think a valid argument can be made that Wagner was "just trying to make some money off of believers". If that was his intention then he was foolish to write a work that is so harmonically complex, almost atonal at times in that once a chord feels dominant, he immediately proceeds to establish a different dominant. 

All facets of Parsifal point towards it being a work of great depth and symbolism.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont think a valid argument can be made that Wagner was "just trying to make some money off of believers". If that was his intention then he was foolish to write a work that is so harmonically complex, almost atonal at times in that once a chord feels dominant, he immediately proceeds to establish a different dominant.
> 
> All facets of Parsifal point towards it being a work of great depth and symbolism.


I agree that it is a wonderful work. I agree that it is harmonically complex, I would not say atonal. T&I is even more on the edge of the envelope (if I am remembering accurately) and even it is not atonal. I agree that it is a work of great depth and symbolism.

So why did Wagner, an aetheist, REALLY chose to use a Christian setting? We know what he said, but people don't always tell the exact truth do they? Wagner was so much on the edge of societal acceptability that he was constantly in trouble with somebody in authority. And aethism was not exactly popular in his time. He was also, usually in debt and in need of money. Parisfal won him many new supporters among the religious nobility and made him some much needed money. I was just speculating (no evidence to support it) that his choice of subject might have been perhaps motivated by money and / or his need to mend some fences.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

You're right, i didnt mean to suggest that Parsifal actually *is *atonal, I was simply highlighting its harmonic complexity.

You do raise a good point, one which I oversimplified in my previous post.
Heres an interesting relevant article, on a great site: http://www.monsalvat.no/xtianity.htm



> So despite Wagner's description of the work, for the benefit of King Ludwig, as a Christian parable it would be more accurate to say that he made use of the symbols of Christianity, together with some elements of Buddhist philosophy, to convey his own message.





> It is deeply significant that the second crucial moment in the opera takes place not on Easter Day but on Good Friday: on the day of the passion of Christ, not of his resurrection. Gurnemanz corrects Parsifal: it is a time for rejoicing, for the sacrifice of love that has already set men free. The spring of new life is here, as Parsifal himself comes to see and to proclaim to Kundry. The interpretation is not that of orthodox Christian doctrine and devotion, but it does express the significance that Wagner himself found in Christianity. The emphasis was on "the deed of free-willed suffering", not on the triumph of love which had overcome suffering: on "the love that springs from pity, and carries its compassion to the utmost breaking of self- will" which he claimed to have found in Schopenhauer's ethics, as he found it in Christianity. Schopenhauer, we know, points to the renunciation of the will- to-live; but mere renunciation, however unselfish, does not imply renewal, nor did Schopenhauer look for it.


 - James Mark in _Theology_, March 1987, reprinted in _Wagner_, vol.9 no.3, July 1988]


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Truckload said:


> So why did Wagner, an aetheist, REALLY chose to use a Christian setting?


My guess would be for the same reason that many atheists brought up in the Christian tradition still love Church settings, hymns, rituals and the many other trappings that come with it, which don't require belief to be appreciated.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Truckload said:


> ... But getting back to Wagner, I am under the impression there was a "back to paganism" sort of thing going on at that time that was given enormous fuel by the work of Wagner. Do you know anything about that?


I'm not a Wagner expert by any means. _Parsifal_ was his last complete opera and he probably would have sensed that when he was near completion, and when he wrote those essays (the opera was completed in January 1880, premiered in November 1880, and he died in February 1883). Many composers did have this "last work premonition". I was merely wondering if towards the completion of _Parsifal_, whether he thought a lot more about religion on a personal level and if he applied any of that to the work. We will probably never know or maybe it's an irrelevant question altogether.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Very interesting observation HC!

This thread has led to some great discussion so far.

How about a new 'assertion':



> "We need to restore the spirit of irreverence in music." - Boulez, 1972, "Freeing Music"


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

The Boulez assertion is an interesting one and made me think what he might have meant by that. Irreverence in music?! Lack of respect in music? What did that mean? But then you gave a glue: _Freeing Music_ and I guess I could agree with that. But only with respect to aesthetics of music written in Boulez's time (i.e. 20th century). Freeing music probably meant an aesthetic quality that differs to the formalised structure from say, the Baroque. This doesn't negate aesthetic qualities of the Baroque to imply it is less free. If artistic freedom was what Boulez was on about, then he certainly picked a very interesting term (_irreverance_ to hint at that). Almost poetic?!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Artists make grand, dramatic and over-the top statements All The Time. They MAY actually believe them at the time they were being said.

I give them all pretty much a grain of salt and get on with it... whatever 'it' is.

While one might pay a little attention to an actual writer, the 'pronouncements' made by artists working the non-verbal media are about as dubious as it can get.

Sometimes a great thought comes out.

What I've read of Wagner shows me that even a genius I.Q. can get as wrapped up as an infant can be fascinated with their own excreta.

Debussy, a hero of mine, and a wonderful critic / essayist aka "Monsieur Croche, dilettante hater," after seeing Ravel's "Oiseaux Tristes from Miroirs, "Declared." "All Music Should Take This Form!!!!" -- then went about writing what he cared to write and as he wrote it 

So much for artist's statements, pronouncements, philosophical musings. It's the baby / barbarian coming out of them for the most part. Other than seeing how impressed with himself he was, and finding little if any import in some Wagner essay or tract, I concluded we are much better off with the legacy of his music than about any words he penned other than his libretti.

Once in a while 'they' say something keenly perceptive, pithy, aphoristic or maxim-like, and true. The occasions of that happening are Very Rare.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The Boulez assertion is an interesting one and made me think what he might have meant by that. Irreverence in music?! Lack of respect in music? What did that mean? But then you gave a glue: _Freeing Music_ and I guess I could agree with that. But only with respect to aesthetics of music written in Boulez's time (i.e. 20th century). Freeing music probably meant an aesthetic quality that differs to the formalised structure from say, the Baroque. This doesn't negate aesthetic qualities of the Baroque to imply it is less free. If artistic freedom was what Boulez was on about, then he certainly picked a very interesting term (_irreverance_ to hint at that). Almost poetic?!


I think he was talking about that 'reverent' approach which some take to older great music - so stiff the music is no longer lively, as if the composer was a saint, without smell, who neither drank, shat, or had sex - and those who 'revere' Bach, Wagner, you name the composer, often take the lifeblood out of it when it is performed. Stiff and Stale are two words that come to mind when I hear a 'reverent' performance.


----------



## sah (Feb 28, 2012)

Wagner was not an atheist all his life:



> Nietzsche attacks Wagner's views in this short work, expressing disappointment and frustration in Wagner's life choices (such as his conversion to Christianity, perceived as a sign of weakness). Nietzsche evaluates Wagner's philosophy on tonality, music and art; he admires Wagner's power to emote and express himself, but largely disdains what Nietzsche calls his religious biases.


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

Mythical symbols are often present in art. How many operas use Greek mythology?

I like this assertion:

"_To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also_." Igor Stravinsky


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

sah said:


> ...
> 
> I like this assertion:
> 
> "_To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also_." Igor Stravinsky


Good one. I think Igor was talking of perception there. & I'd extend, for me it's been developing over time and not finished, never finished, it's a life's journey, a work in progress, always. New challenges are everywhere in music of all kinds, around the corner.

Similar to what Elgar said "My idea is that there is music in the air, music all around us, the world is full of it and you simply take as much as you require." It applies to Beethoven composing his _Pastoral _symphony, with the sounds of nature, to Varese composing _Deserts_, which has taped sounds of factories intermingling with acoustic instruments. Music is everywhere for composers inspiration, and developing perception for us as listeners is the same.

Like another artist said about painting, anyone can see, but it's not that easy to percieve.


----------



## goodgoods (Mar 19, 2012)

While I am an aetheist, I find it quite agreeable especially in the context of Parsifal and can even apply it to other works by other composers from even earlier periods, for example oratorios employing religious symbolism. I find it very interesting that while the symbols on its own from say, the Bible might be somewhat meaningless to me as an aetheist, but when "transcribed" to music especially in a dramatic context with strong music, it provides a whole new set of perception that might otherwise be passed over. For the religious amongst us here, I find it very interesting that classical music brings us together in this context irrespective of our individual religious or non-religious beliefs.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

sah said:


> Wagner was not an atheist all his life:


Is there a citation for that information? Ive never heard it elsewhere.



> In 1873, Nietzsche wrote regarding Wagner that he who believes in himself only is no longer honest toward himself. The final break came nine years later when Nietzsche heard Parsifal, which he called Christianity arranged for Wagnerians. Nietzsche had known Wagner was a cynical atheist, and that what seemed like a conversion was due to Wagner's wife Cosima. Nietzsche also knew that among close friends Wagner was still cynical about his wife's beliefs. It is no secret that the editors of his letters deleted many of Wagner's anti-Christian polemics.


 - _Richard Wagner - Wunderkind Or Monster_ 
By Diana Glazer


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Truckload said:


> I agree that it is a wonderful work. I agree that it is harmonically complex, I would not say atonal. T&I is even more on the edge of the envelope (if I am remembering accurately) and even it is not atonal. I agree that it is a work of great depth and symbolism.
> 
> So why did Wagner, an aetheist, REALLY chose to use a Christian setting? We know what he said, but people don't always tell the exact truth do they? Wagner was so much on the edge of societal acceptability that he was constantly in trouble with somebody in authority. And aethism was not exactly popular in his time. He was also, usually in debt and in need of money. Parisfal won him many new supporters among the religious nobility and made him some much needed money. I was just speculating (no evidence to support it) that his choice of subject might have been perhaps motivated by money and / or his need to mend some fences.


Can you support this? My understanding is most Christians would find Parsifal pretty heretical.


----------



## sah (Feb 28, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> Is there a citation for that information? Ive never heard it elsewhere.
> 
> - _Richard Wagner - Wunderkind Or Monster_
> By Diana Glazer





> Already in the summer of 1876, when the first festival at Bayreuth was at
> its height, I took leave of Wagner in my soul. I cannot endure anything
> double-faced. Since Wagner had returned to Germany, he had condescended
> step by step to everything that I despise-even to anti-Semitism.… As a
> ...


_Nietzsche contra Wagner_, by F. Nietzsche.

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=746821&pageno=35

I'd say the last sentence means Wagner became a Christian. After reading your citation, I wonder whether Nietzsche could be speaking metaphorically.


----------

