# Wagner or Shakespeare?



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I read an interesting quip today that states if Wagner hadn't been an antisemite (and subsequently defamed by the Nazis), he would today be considered greater than Shakespeare. Do you agree?


----------



## architecture (Dec 30, 2017)

It's a pretty well-known (but sadly understated) fact that many of the biggest names of the day- Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Brahms, etc.- were often skeptical of his work, for purely musical reasons unrelated to his antisemitism. Though having prominent detractors does not necessarily strip a figure of its claim to greatness, it does help provide a good reality check against anybody trying to put him on an even higher, more unjustifiable pedestal than he is placed on already.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Its apples and oranges because I haven't heard any music by Shakespeare, and personally I don't listen to Wagner for the libretto. If Wagner had no anti-Semitic writings I suspect he would be less polarizing, but still ranked about the same.


----------



## architecture (Dec 30, 2017)

One might even advance the claim that Wagner's German chauvinism- and its manifestation in his decidedly megalomaniac music- actually *helped* his rise, since many of Wagner's most vigorous advocates shared suspiciously similar views to him on either race or on the so-called "Jewish question". (These views seem to have been very popular among stuffy Western cultural circles until recently, after all). 

I doubt that as many people today would rank Wagner's music as positively had they not been predisposed to take him seriously due to his immense popularity among 20th century classical music lovers, who themselves acquired their tastes from their 19th century predecessors.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

architecture said:


> One might even advance the claim that Wagner's German chauvinism- and its manifestation in his decidedly megalomaniac music- actually *helped* his rise, since many of Wagner's most vigorous advocates shared suspiciously similar views to him on either race or on the so-called "Jewish question". (These views seem to have been very popular among stuffy Western cultural circles until recently, after all).
> 
> I doubt that as many people today would rank Wagner's music as positively had they not been predisposed to take him seriously due to his immense popularity among 20th century classical music lovers, who themselves acquired their tastes from their 19th century predecessors.


All the romantics were nationalists at heart. It was sort of the defining feature of the movement. And contrary to rumor, I don't find that Meistersinger or Parsifal make me want to invade Poland.

Anyways, this is not a thread in which we are debating Wagner's antisemitism for the umpteenth time, but considering the alternate timeline in which he was not an antisemite.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I do not know................


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Shakespeare was also an Anti-Semite, judging by MacBeth.


----------



## architecture (Dec 30, 2017)

Couchie said:


> All the romantics were nationalists at heart. It was sort of the defining feature of the movement. And contrary to rumor, I don't find that Meistersinger or Parsifal make me want to invade Poland.


I'm not sure why this needs to be said, but Wagner's breed of exclusionary racial chauvinism is very distinguishable from romantic nationalism in general. Besides the label itself, the nationalism of Grieg, Rimsky-Korsakov, Dvorak, and Heine shared little aside from superficial similarities (and fulfilled a very different, much more justifiable psychological need) with Wagner's. To downplay Wagner's virulence by claiming his was merely an extension of this nationalism would be absurd.

There's no denying that Wagner's music is written in a way that highly appeals to the circle-jerking fantasies of Aryan grandeur that were shared by many of Wagner's most ardent supporters. While the appeal of Wagner's music certainly extends beyond such a group (hence your ability to listen to "Meistersinger or Parsifal" without "wanting to invade Poland", which, you should realize, is inappropriate sarcasm that in no way makes for a valid counter against any argument), its current popularity (relative to works of at least equal merit by forgotten composers) very likely stems from the influence of the former, very unmusical sort of appeal.

Note that I'm not primarily trying to argue about Wagner's own anti-Semitism here, but that of his proponents, since this shared anti-Semitism and delusion of the grandeur of the so-called Aryan Volk is very much a part of Wagner's rise in popularity. Had he not been such a vocal anti-Semite, and had his music been judged on a _purely musical basis_, I highly doubt he would be ranked as highly as he is today.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Apples and oranges. I chose Wagner.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Couchie said:


> I read an interesting quip today that states if Wagner hadn't been an antisemite (and subsequently defamed by the Nazis), he would today be considered greater than Shakespeare. Do you agree?


Absolutely not. Even though Shakespeare wrote no music, his plays are so far superior to Wagner's libretti, the choice is no contest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Absolutely not. Even though Shakespeare wrote no music, his plays are so far superior to Wagner's libretti, the choice is no contest.


Wagner was a composer of opera, which is primarily a musical form. Why would you compare a libretto to a self-sufficient literary work?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner was a composer of opera, which is primarily a musical form. Why would you compare a libretto to a self-sufficient literary work?


Because that was the choice given by the poll. Shakespeare did not write music, so the only basis of comparison are the texts. In that case, Shakespeare is the clear winner.

Because of this apple/orange context, this poll is silly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I had a friend, not a musician, whose field of interest was literature, and especially Shakespeare and Greek drama. His acquaintance with Wagner's works was not extensive, but even on the basis of the Wagner he knew, he could suggest that Wagner's work might be comparable in artistic stature to that of Shakespeare. There's no objective measure for this, certainly, and such a comparison is meaningful only in certain respects, but my friend is not alone in his opinion. My own opinion is that there are no works of musical theater comparable in scope and depth to Wagner's greatest works, and none capable of inspiring as much continued interpretation and analysis. If we view Shakespeare's plays in relation to Elizabethan drama in general, and _Tristan und Isolde_ or the _Ring _in relation to opera as then known, it isn't hard to recognize the stature and significance of Wagner's creative genius.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Because that was the choice given by the poll. Shakespeare did not write music, so the only basis of comparison are the texts. In that case, Shakespeare is the clear winner.
> 
> Because of this apple/orange context, this poll is silly.


If the comparison is apples/oranges and thus silly, how is it improved by a completely spurious comparison?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> If the comparison is apples/oranges and thus silly, how is it improved by a completely spurious comparison?


I don't think it is spurious. Do you think that Wagner's libretti are better literature than Shakespeare's plays?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Because that was the choice given by the poll. Shakespeare did not write music, so the only basis of comparison are the texts. In that case, Shakespeare is the clear winner.
> 
> Because of this apple/orange context, this poll is silly.


I mean, you can go to _Hamlet_ one night, and then _Tristan_ the next, and then compare the experiences to each other. Who presents to most cohesive and compelling artistic vision for the stage? With Wagner you have the additional dimension of music, so in comparison, Shakespeare could be found lacking. Slavoj Žižek argues that _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ might be the "two single greatest works of art in the history of humankind" in terms of executing a cohesive artistic/philosophical vision.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I don't think it is spurious. Do you think that Wagner's libretti are better literature than Shakespeare's plays?


Of course not, and there is no reason that that they should be. In fact, that is neither possible nor desirable, since literary values as such can project only to a limited extent when words are set to music. The question to ask is whether the text of an opera supports the successful expression of dramatic emotion through music, which is the dominant art in almost any setting of words, from song to opera. Wagner's libretti do have literary values, but their primary function is to make musical expression possible.

Wagner once called his operas "deeds of music made visible."


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Of course not, and there is no reason that that they should be. In fact, that is neither possible nor desirable, since literary values as such can project only to a limited extent when words are set to music. The question to ask is whether the text of an opera supports the successful expression of dramatic emotion through music, which is the dominant art in almost any setting of words, from song to opera. Wagner's libretti do have literary values, but their primary function is to make musical expression possible.
> 
> Wagner once called his operas "deeds of music made visible."


I guess we answered the poll differently. I can live with that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I guess we answered the poll differently. I can live with that.


If we can live with Covid-19, we can live with TC polls.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I mean, you can go to _Hamlet_ one night, and then _Tristan_ the next, and then compare the experiences to each other. Who presents to most cohesive and compelling artistic vision for the stage? With Wagner you have the additional dimension of music, so in comparison, Shakespeare could be found lacking. Slavoj Žižek argues that _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ might be the "two single greatest works of art in the history of humankind" in terms of executing a cohesive artistic/philosophical vision.


At the very least, _Tristan_ was a bomb of incomparable explsive power dropped on the genre of opera. One writer (I forget whom) suggested that it represented an entirely new dramatic form, which he called the "theater of passion." With the bare minimum of stage action and characters completely in the grip of emotion and eros, its true protagonists are feelings, with the dramatis personae mere vessels for them.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

*I had to delete more than half of the thread because of insults, quarreling and politics. Further actions on some of the deleted posts will follow.




Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I agree that wagner is considered in many parts to be of the same stature as Shakespeare, regardless of antisemitism. Shakespeare is of course a very special case. We know almost nothing of his life, even the authorship is in doubt etc. We mostly ignore other authors from his time, or they are mostly for scholars and specialists. He totally dominates drama in the English language but is also internationally the most famous playwright. He is a bit like Homer... All this is totally different in the case of wagner. But wagner is also a unique case and one could argue that it was much harder to get such special status as he has achieved in the 2nd half of the 19th century.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> *I had to delete more than half of the thread because of insults, quarreling and politics. Further actions on some of the deleted posts will follow.
> 
> *


Why is that not a surprise!:lol: Any thread that contains either the words Wagner or anti-semite or both is a guarantee that acrimony will ensue.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

Please judge Wagner for his MUSIC and NOTHING ELSE! The poll is pointless. these were 2 different artists at 2 different eras. It would also help to remember that pretty much everyone who was anyone in times gone by (and today to an extent) had a dislike of jews, going all the way back to Jesus' crucifixion It was a European tradition which culminated in the Holocaust and now everyone seems to be judge, jury and executioner of important figures of history. While I'm at it you can add sexist, misogynistic, racist and homophobic, and yes they hated Muslim's then as well. Those were the times people lived in where it was acceptable thinking. Go back 200 years and we wouldn't even be having this discussion but shaking Wagner's hand!
Legacy and what he left to the world is all that matters.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> *I had to delete more than half of the thread because of insults, quarreling and politics. Further actions on some of the deleted posts will follow. *


I always miss the good stuff.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Shakespeare and Wagner are both great in their respective spheres. But I'll give the nod to Shakespeare, in part because of the amazing range of characters and perspectives in his plays--the fact that a single author could write _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, _Twelfth Night_, _Henry IV_, _Measure for Measure_, _Hamlet_, _King Lear_, and _The Tempest_. As Dryden said, "He was the man who of all modern, and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul."


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Couchie said:


> I read an interesting quip today that states if Wagner hadn't been an antisemite (and subsequently defamed by the Nazis), he would today be considered greater than Shakespeare. Do you agree?


Absolutely not. How are they even comparable? Overstatement typical of the fanatism that surrounds Wagner. At the same level of Shakespeare would be someone like Mozart or Verdi. It comes to my mind the clever difficult shakespearian union of tragic and comic present in Mozart, not only in opera but even in chamber works like the 6 Haydn quartets. The Magic Flute is often considered Mozart's Midsummer Night's Dream. Also for comic and tragic, think of Rigoletto. Verdi even did Macbeth. Superior, nobody. His political views are not the reason why he's not regarded as high as others. Otherwise, when nobody cared about jews he would've been considered greater. But he wasn't considered that high. C'mon. Sorry, but I think this whole "Wagner is not considered higher because of his politics" argument sounds more like victimism than facts.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

To make two crude generalisations, Wagner dealt with myth, archetypes and perhaps even fantasy while Shakespeare dealt with real people, real feelings, real situations. The latter trumps the former for me so my vote goes to Shakespeare. Also, much as I love much of Wagner's work, I don't even think he was the greatest ever composer (does anyone?). So I think there are several composers who might give Shakespeare a closer run for his money than Wagner can.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

ORigel said:


> Shakespeare was also an Anti-Semite, judging by MacBeth.


I think you mean the Merchant of Venice. Which is not an antisemitic play. It displays the clash of jews and christians but it is not antisemitic, it was in real "progressive" in a way:

SHYLOCK

To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies-and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute-and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The special thing about Wagner is not mainly that he was the most influential composer of his generation and one of the very few "opera composers" who were even more influential in nonoperatic music. But that he was probably the most influential artist in any field in the second half of the 19th century with a long shadow into the 20th and this is very rare for a composer. I am not sure any composer ever (pretty certainly not since some composer-poets of the late medieval period) had such an influence beyond music. One really has to turn to figures like Shakespeare or Goethe for parallels.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

I looked at the poll and thought...

"Shakespeare... I know and love..."

"Wagner... Wagner?... Who the hell is Wagner?"

And then I appended the two words "_and Hitler_" - "_Wagner and Hitler_" - and realized who he actually was.

In the future, please append the two words "_and Hitler_"

to _any and all mentions_ of Wagner otherwise I won't know who the hell you're talking about.

Thanks!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

ORigel said:


> Shakespeare was also an Anti-Semite, judging by MacBeth.


Not to mention The Merchant of Venice.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Amadea said:


> I think you mean the Merchant of Venice. Which is not an antisemitic play. It displays the clash of jews and christians but it is not antisemitic, it was in real "progressive" in a way:
> 
> SHYLOCK
> 
> To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies-and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute-and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.


Saw this after I posted my knee jerk response. I've seen Shylock performed in various ways. Off-topic, I guess, but this was one of the best hours of television I've ever seen.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> To make two crude generalisations, Wagner dealt with myth, archetypes and perhaps even fantasy while Shakespeare dealt with real people, real feelings, real situations. The latter trumps the former for me so my vote goes to Shakespeare. Also, much as I love much of Wagner's work, I don't even think he was the greatest ever composer (does anyone?). So I think there are several composers who might give Shakespeare a closer run for his money than Wagner can.


Firstly, I want to say that I fully respect your opinion and taste, but I find the topic rather interesting. There's one point I wish to make.

Namely, in my _personal_ opinion, it's not quite fair to say that Wagner wasn't interested in real people, feelings, and situations as I think that people and their feelings were the things he cared about most. Yes, he used myth but shouldn't be forgotten that Jung derived his psychoanalytic archetypes from mythology as well, and was also rather well acquainted with Wagner's works; he even did a small psychoanalytic analysis of _Parsifal_ and refers to Wotan in his writings. Psychoanalysis is essentially a way to analyse human mind and archetypes, fundamentally, are generalisations of human behaviour. As you say, I think Wagner used mythological characters as archetypes, but not as characters in the way writers do.

My point is that I really doubt Wagner was interested in actually analysing Lohengrin or Wotan as characters, but he was more interested in using them to analyse human behaviour, motives, and mind. They all represent certain parts of human mind as Wagner saw it. I agree though that Wagner made it a lot more abstract than Shakespeare (whom I like so much that I actually haven't even voted in this poll due to my indecisiveness regarding the choice). Of course, that is my own interpretation of Wagner's works, and I fully respect yours, but I thought I'd just throw it out here.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Shakespeare was not antisemitic or if he was there's not really way to know. He's not his characters. I don't really get what's antisemitic in his plays. He gives Shylock perfect human understandable shareable reasons to want revenge, making the character much more complex and questioning christian view of jews. He makes us think: aren't jews as human as us? He makes that question in a time in which jews were seen as animals. How it that antisemitic? Anyway, to stay on topic. I don't really see Wagner as a poet. More like a novelist. Tolkien, if you want. But there's nothing similar in Wagner and Shakespeare.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Amadea said:


> Shakespeare was not antisemitic or if he was there's not really way to know. He's not his characters. I don't really get what's antisemitic in his plays. He gives Shylock perfect human understandable shareable reasons to want revenge, making the character much more complex and questioning christian view of jews. He makes us think: aren't jews as human as us? He makes that question in a time in which jews were seen as animals. How it that antisemitic? Anyway, to stay on topic. I don't really see Wagner as a poet. More like a novelist. Tolkien, if you want. *But there's nothing similar in Wagner and Shakespeare.*


Hmm... Wagner seemed to be rather fond of Shakespeare actually and some argue that Shakespeare's influence on Wagner was huge. Additionally, Wagner's second opera, _Das Liebesverbot_, is based on Shakespeare's _Measure for Measure_. There're bound to be certain similarities between the two, even if just through the chain of influence.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Even if limited to music, Wagner's influence was immense. I think that his antisemitic views have had some impact on his legacy, but not too much. Perhaps in this regard, he can be compared to Rudyard Kipling whose colonialist jingoism hasn't dented the continued enjoyment by generations since of works like _Jungle Book_.

Undoubtedly, the Nazis did further damage to Wagner's image, but they did the same to European culture as a whole. Nevertheless, the fallout from this has cleared up, for example Israel's de facto ban on Wagner's music has long been a thing of the past.

Having said all this, Wagner is limited to opera, an artform that has had nowhere near the broad appeal of theatre (or at least, its extension into cinema, where a large amount of Shakespeare's output can be found). Wagner doesn't have anywhere near the sheer range of Shakespeare (but then again, who does?).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

annaw said:


> Firstly, I want to say that I fully respect your opinion and taste, but I find the topic rather interesting. There's one point I wish to make.
> 
> Namely, in my _personal_ opinion, it's not quite fair to say that Wagner wasn't interested in real people, feelings, and situations as I think that people and their feelings were the things he cared about most. Yes, he used myth but shouldn't be forgotten that Jung derived his psychoanalytic archetypes from mythology as well, and was also rather well acquainted with Wagner's works; he even did a small psychoanalytic analysis of _Parsifal_ and refers to Wotan in his writings. Psychoanalysis is essentially a way to analyse human mind and archetypes, fundamentally, are generalisations of human behaviour. As you say, I think Wagner used mythological characters as archetypes, but not as characters in the way writers do.
> 
> My point is that I really doubt Wagner was interested in actually analysing Lohengrin or Wotan as characters, but he was more interested in using them to analyse human behaviour, motives, and mind. They all represent certain parts of human mind as Wagner saw it. I agree though that Wagner made it a lot more abstract than Shakespeare (whom I like so much that I actually haven't even voted in this poll due to my indecisiveness regarding the choice). Of course, that is my own interpretation of Wagner's works, and I fully respect yours, but I thought I'd just throw it out here.


I don't disagree, I just value art that shows us the human condition and real people in real dilemmas above art that is more symbolic. I like both, though, and acknowledge that it is hard to make the distinction at all for music. Music is an art form that seems to say those things that cannot be expressed in words or images.

As for Jung, I respect him as an important thinker of the 20th century but when all is said and done the man was crazy! There is some truth perhaps in his description of our inner worlds and also some rather dubious "explanation" of some strange metaphysical phenomena. I have read and been stimulated by much of his writing but would not name him as someone who led us towards truths about ourselves or the increasingly powerful science of psychology that we might benefit from. Outside of this science but perhaps close to his therapeutic intentions, I think that humanistic psychology has moved us a long way from those psychoanalysts who would _tell _us what our thoughts, behaviour and dreams mean.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

*"Shakespeare and Wagner or Turning the Bard Inward"*

https://lesleychamberlain.wordpress...speare-and-wagner-or-turning-the-bard-inward/

"Wagner admired Shakespeare's grandeur and range. He paid him the ultimate compliment of calling him 'The Second Creator'.

But where the composer's originality began he became Shakespeare's rival. He made two crucial autobiographical statements which show the path he took. The first was that he actually became a composer to equal Shakespeare. The second, intricately related to the first, was that Shakespeare originated the music-drama.

In truth Wagner wanted to be Shakespeare. He summed up why late in his life: 'Shakespeare, the great mimetic talent, could not fulfil all the roles he created. The composer, however, may realize all aspects of music and may be at one with the executant musician.'

And so he drew Shakespeare's world of epic grandeur and Hamletian interiority into his own religion of art, where he transformed it. Consider only the leitmotiv by which he approached his Shakespearean-style heroes and heroines, warriors and lovers, from inside their emotions, and represented those interiorities of longing, loving, hating, promising with a new musico-dramatic device. The leitmotiv has been described as 'an all-embracing amalgam of sound, feeling and experience, the little phrase is a single unified thing, in ordinary terms "a moment in time".'

Note: If you can get past the "I need to justify the extraordinary amount of debt I acquired from attending a really expensive grad school that I really couldn't afford" writing style it's not a bad read.

This is really quite interesting and a significantly better read -

*"Shakespeare's Dramatic Use of Songs"*

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/shakespearesongsplays.html


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't disagree, I just value art that shows us the human condition and real people in real dilemmas above art that is more symbolic. I like both, though, and acknowledge that it is hard to make the distinction at all for music. Music is an art form that seems to say those things that cannot be expressed in words or images.
> 
> As for Jung, I respect him as an important thinker of the 20th century but when all is said and done the man was crazy! There is some truth perhaps in his description of our inner worlds and also some rather dubious "explanation" of some strange metaphysical phenomena. I have read and been stimulated by much of his writing but would not name him as someone who led us towards truths about ourselves or the increasingly powerful science of psychology that we might benefit from. Outside of this science but perhaps close to his therapeutic intentions, I think that humanistic psychology has moved us a long way from those psychoanalysts who would _tell _us what our thoughts, behaviour and dreams mean.


Yeah, I would much rather go to a psychologist or a neurologist than a psychoanalyst in case of a medical issue. But I think that the 20th century literature benefitted greatly from the psychoanalysts and I suppose that they played their part in at least giving some thought to the reasons behind psychological phenomenon before giving someone an electric shock or repeated ice baths.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

annaw said:


> There're bound to be certain similarities between the two, even if just through the chain of influence.


Ok, Shakespeare arguably influenced all romantics, but I don't see poetry in Wagner and mixture of registers. Not to mention the supernatural (when present) of Shakespeare is not the mystic/philosophic of Wagner. In Shakespeare there's humanity in Wagner there's psychology. In Shakespeare there's history in Wagner mythology. Different things. I really see Wagner as a novelist.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

I’m not quite sure what the point of this poll is (frankly, I don’t understand any of the polls here), but this strikes me as particularly absurd. I have been reading and studying the complete works of Shakespeare for the last three months; I can confidently say he is the most inexhaustible and comprehensive of all artists.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Amadea said:


> Ok, Shakespeare arguably influenced all romantics, but I don't see poetry in Wagner and mixture of registers. Not to mention the supernatural (when present) of Shakespeare is not the mystic/philosophic of Wagner. In Shakespeare there's humanity in Wagner there's psychology. In Shakespeare there's history in Wagner mythology. Different things. I really see Wagner as a novelist.


I'm not trying to disprove your views or anything as I feel we simply approach Wagner from slightly different angles. I personally think both Shakespeare and Wagner have things you mentioned in your post. Take _Die Meistersinger_, for example. Wagner went to great lengths to integrate different historical aspects to his work. He used fugues, polyphony, and mere historical facts in the libretto to emphasise the 16th century setting of the opera. Nothing supernatural there. Similarly, I personally see many passages in Shakespeare as extremely philosophical (Macbeth's "I see a dagger..." monologue for example - its depth is immense) and mystic (e.g., the three witches in _Macbeth_). However, I do agree that Wagner focused a lot more on myths than Shakespeare likely did, but I personally wouldn't call it explicit mysticism.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Yeah, it may be easy to prefer modern psychotherapy to jung or Freud but until the 60s "scientific theory" included electroshocks an lobotomy. I'd rather talk to jung...
It seems a central point in Wagner and cause of his huge influence on the culture and art of the late 19th anDecember early 20th century that he included all the mystical, historical, psychological and philosophical baggage and turned opera and music into a religion. We may not like this for good reason buto it was hugely influential.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I've never understood why people find Wagner interesting; for me he is a colossal bore. Shakespeare, OTOH, is infinitely more rewarding, any time spent with his works is time very well spent.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Both had an immeasurable impact on the arts of their times, and were hugely influential, but Wagner has been so far much more important to my life than Shakespeare, and I had to vote for him. My first times with Hamlet were interesting, but my first Lohengrin was a revelation. To this day Wagner's music still causes in me a deep impression, and it's a great degree of pleasure to me to hear his astonishing, powerful art.

To the OP: I believe that Wagner would probably do better in this poll if it was done in the opera subforum. I don't think that there are many people around this subforum who really care for operas, as in games and the _Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommend Works_ project they tend to not do well (Mozart's _Idomeneo_ for example, one of his masterpieces and his favorite opera of those he composed, is at this moment ranked worse in the said project than _Für Elise_, Pachelbel's Canon or even _4'33"_).


----------



## La Passione (Oct 23, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> Yeah, it may be easy to prefer modern psychotherapy to jung or Freud but until the 60s "scientific theory" included electroshocks an lobotomy. I'd rather talk to jung...
> It seems a central point in Wagner and cause of his huge influence on the culture and art of the late 19th anDecember early 20th century that he included all the mystical, historical, psychological and philosophical baggage and turned opera and music into a religion. We may not like this for good reason buto it was hugely influential.


Yeah, here's an interesting article that makes some of the same points:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/apr/12/classicalmusicandopera.artsfeatures1



> Wagner's appropriation of myth is not merely a matter of one person's moral and artistic credo. It is also one of the great intellectual advances of modern times: the ancestor and inspiration of comparative anthropology, symbolist poetry, psychoanalysis and many aesthetic and theological doctrines that are now common currency.
> 
> Wagner is given credit for this by Claude Lévi-Strauss (who acknowledges the composer as the main inspiration behind his structuralist method), by the anthropologist and medievalist Jessie L Weston and by Weston's disciple, TS Eliot, in The Waste Land. This accumulation of myth-analysing and myth-making makes it necessary to revisit Wagner's approach and to study the vitality with which he transformed ancient myth into modern art.
> 
> ...


To answer the OP, I think the article is right in suggesting Wagner's notorious antisemtic views have made it easier for some to simply write him off, and for others to pretend that his antisemitism is at the heart of what makes his operas "controversial", when the fact of the matter is much more complex. His artistic vision and message contains plenty that is deeply subversive, and I suspect a more serious effort would be made to uncover the source of what makes his art so challenging and subversive if he had not been an antisemite.


----------



## La Passione (Oct 23, 2020)

Allerius said:


> To the OP: I believe that Wagner would probably do better in this poll if it was done in the opera subforum.


I also wonder how many answering the poll are deeply acquainted with the works of both.

For me, the discovery of both at different times of my life was about an equal revelation for me, both have shaped me and influenced my life in all sorts of indefinable ways. I certainly consider them two of the greatest artistic giants who ever lived. If forced to vote, I might give the slight nod to Shakespeare, but there's really not much in it.


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

Couchie said:


> I mean, you can go to _Hamlet_ one night, and then _Tristan_ the next, and then compare the experiences to each other. Who presents to most cohesive and compelling artistic vision for the stage? With Wagner you have the additional dimension of music, so in comparison, Shakespeare could be found lacking. Slavoj Žižek argues that _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ might be the "two single greatest works of art in the history of humankind" in terms of executing a cohesive artistic/philosophical vision.


With all respect to Zizek, who is far above me in intellectual knowledge, and who still has good knowledge in music compared to many other philosophers, I think he is dead wrong. For one with a sensitive ear, the artistic/philosophical vision of someone like Beethoven is on another level compared to Wagner. I sense a greater, deeper vision even in the works of Chopin, Schumann and Schubert... Another philosopher, Nietzsche, who was at first a great admirer of Wagner, would certainly have agreed at least regarding Chopin.


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

Couchie said:


> I read an interesting quip today that states if Wagner hadn't been an antisemite (and subsequently defamed by the Nazis), he would today be considered greater than Shakespeare. Do you agree?


Not at all. And yet I place Dante above Shakespeare.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Beebert said:


> With all respect to Zizek, who is far above me in intellectual knowledge, and who still has good knowledge in music compared to many other philosophers, I think he is dead wrong. For one with a sensitive ear, the artistic/philosophical vision of someone like Beethoven is on another level compared to Wagner. I sense a greater, deeper vision even in the works of Chopin, Schumann and Schubert... Another philosopher, Nietzsche, who was at first a great admirer of Wagner, would certainly have agreed at least regarding Chopin.


Nietzsche's fall out with Wagner seemed to have very little to do with Wagner's music but was more a sort of philosophical disagreement over religion, nationalism, and whatnot. Even after they weren't at good terms anymore, Nietzsche very greatly admired _Parsifal_ although he disregarded it philosophically. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

annaw said:


> Nietzsche's fall out with Wagner seemed to have little to do with his music but was more a sort of philosophical disagreement over religion, nationalism and whatnot. Even after they weren't at good terms anymore, Nietzsche very greatly admired _Parsifal_ although he disregarded it philosophically.


Which still has exactly to do with Wagner's philosophical/artistic vision. It was Wagner's visions in the end that Nietzsche completely turned against. He writes a lot about it in Nietzsche contra Wagner and Beyond Good and Evil, among other works. Exceptional writing all of it, despite sometimes being a bit too much perhaps. If we just talk about a purely musical perspective, it surely seems even more obvious to me at least that there are many that are superior to Wagner.


----------



## La Passione (Oct 23, 2020)

Beebert said:


> Which still has exactly to do with Wagner's philosophical/artistic vision. It was Wagner's visions in the end that Nietzsche completely turned against. He writes a lot about it in Nietzsche contra Wagner and Beyond Good and Evil, among other works.


Nietzsche on Wagner


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Beebert said:


> Which still has exactly to do with Wagner's philosophical/artistic vision. It was Wagner's visions in the end that Nietzsche completely turned against. He writes a lot about it in Nietzsche contra Wagner and Beyond Good and Evil, among other works. Exceptional writing all of it, despite sometimes being a bit too much perhaps. If we just talk about a purely musical perspective, it surely seems even more obvious to me at least that there are many that are superior to Wagner.


I don't wish to dwell on this topic much further as I find it rather difficult to evaluate when one should take into account the writer's bias. I've read parts of Nietzsche's works, and while what he writes about Wagner is interesting, it's difficult to say how objective Nietzsche was when he wrote them. He was a human too, after all, and most humans are affected by their feelings - I doubt Nietzsche had particularly positive emotions towards Wagner when he wrote those essays and books. He wasn't stupid when he was younger either and his views seemed to be rather different when he wrote "The Birth of Tragedy" and basically lived in Wagner's home for some while if I recall correctly.

On the other hand, it should be asked to what extent Nietzsche's opinion should matter? Wagner was by far a superior composer but Nietzsche was a far superior philosopher. But Nietzsche was still just one person who had an opinion. How do you weight it?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Nietzsche also thought the Hammerklavier should be orchestrated, which is perverse. He did like "Carmen", though.

Really, I think philosophers are fascinating to read about their musical opinions, but they frequently have some of the weirdest tastes, though consistently the people with the weirdest and most interesting musical tastes are other artists. They certainly aren't some kind of authority, if such a thing really exists, though.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

That someone like Nietzsche got so excited about Wagner, first pro then later contra is clear evidence how important Wagner was on a far broader level than almost any other composer. What is there to engage with philosophically in Chopin or Puccini? One has to turn to the greatest literature like Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe to find a similar impact. One can grant that simply because of seniority such poets were stronger long term influences. But in music I doubt anyone comes close, maybe beethoven would be next but his impact is more restricted to music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

As long as we're comparing across media, the best comparison for Shakespeare is clearly Haydn. Not just for his immense impact on art, but for his sense of humor that remains remarkably funny today, given how poorly jokes tend to age.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's justly observed that there is something in Shakespeare to speak to, and appeal to, virtually every taste, temperament and outlook. Such universality is one element of greatness, though of course not the only one. We don't find the same degree of universality in Wagner, but I would argue that we could not possibly find it in the work of any artist whose primary medium is music. The verbal arts are by nature capable of depicting more aspects of everyday experience, and of doing so more objectively and less personally, than is music, which is not a fully "universal language" or, strictly speaking, a language at all.

Wagner's ability to take rambling narratives of myth and romance, find in them complex and difficult dramatic ideas, and create concise, focused, cohesive narratives in which every element contributes in an essential way, was second to no one's, including Shakespeare's, but the primary vehicle of expression in his amalgamation of the arts was music, and his dramatic structures are essentially musical gestures on a grand scale. His integration of music and drama - his ability to conceive drama in musical terms - is unequaled in the work of any other single mind, but for that very reason no one who doesn't respond to Wagner's music will understand him fully and be able to assess fairly his achievement. I think his art has more breadth and speaks to more of human nature and life than one who doesn't care for his music will ever be able to perceive. But neither we nor Wagner are to blame for our failures of understanding. It's just in the nature of the medium.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Couchie said:


> I read an interesting quip today that states if Wagner hadn't been an antisemite (and subsequently defamed by the Nazis), he would today be considered greater than Shakespeare. Do you agree?


Probably.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Greater - Shakespeare
More influential - Wagner.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

annaw said:


> Hmm... Wagner seemed to be rather fond of Shakespeare actually and some argue that Shakespeare's influence on Wagner was huge. Additionally, Wagner's second opera, _Das Liebesverbot_, is based on Shakespeare's _Measure for Measure_. There're bound to be certain similarities between the two, even if just through the chain of influence.


In youth, Wagner's two idols were Shakespeare and Beethoven, and the influence of both is particularly prevalent in his early works. Wagner also regarded his librettos as "poems", and upon their completion, before the music was written, would "treat" his friends to lengthy recitations of them.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

Couchie said:


> I read an interesting quip today that states if Wagner hadn't been an antisemite (and subsequently defamed by the Nazis), he would today be considered greater than Shakespeare. Do you agree?


Absolutely. "Meistersinger" alone already contains more genius than all of Shakespeare combined.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I have a computer program that precisely measures the objective greatness of art, and it told me that _King Lear_ is objectively the greatest thing humanity has ever achieved.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

annaw said:


> I don't wish to dwell on this topic much further as I find it rather difficult to evaluate when one should take into account the writer's bias. I've read parts of Nietzsche's works, and while what he writes about Wagner is interesting, it's difficult to say how objective Nietzsche was when he wrote them. He was a human too, after all, and most humans are affected by their feelings - I doubt Nietzsche had particularly positive emotions towards Wagner when he wrote those essays and books. He wasn't stupid when he was younger either and his views seemed to be rather different when he wrote "The Birth of Tragedy" and basically lived in Wagner's home for some while if I recall correctly.
> 
> On the other hand, it should be asked to what extent Nietzsche's opinion should matter? Wagner was by far a superior composer but Nietzsche was a far superior philosopher. But Nietzsche was still just one person who had an opinion. How do you weight it?


Towards the end of his output (when he was writing obsessively about Wagner), Nietzsche did little more than wail about the supposed decline of everything around him, oblivious to the fact that the thing really in decline was his own mind. And any art that didn't contribute to societal "health" as Nietzsche (disturbingly) conceived it, he ruled as "decadence", a playbook the Nazis adopted, terming it "degenerate art".


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

jegreenwood said:


> Greater - Shakespeare
> More influential - Wagner.


Greatness is debatable, but I think that Shakespeare is undoubtedly, objectively more influential than Wagner.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

jegreenwood said:


> Greater - Shakespeare
> More influential - Wagner.


Wrong on both accounts!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Regarding opera composers, it would seem that *Verdi *was more interested in Shakespeare as a source for libretti than Wagner. He wrote Macbeth, Otello, and Falstaff, but he considered (though briefly) doing a Tempest or Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. He considered for a very long time, and came near to creating, an opera from his favorite play, King Lear.



> Hundreds of operas were derived from Shakespeare's plays-even more than from the works of Schiller, Goethe, or Walter Scott. Phyllis Hartnoll and her collaborators in Shakespeare in Music counted over 180 Shakespeare operas, but admitted they were missing some.
> 
> The editors of The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare claim the number is closer to three hundred.
> 
> ...


No mention of Wagner.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> In youth, Wagner's idols were Shakespeare and Beethoven


and
3:04


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Beebert said:


> I sense a greater, deeper vision even in the works of Chopin, Schumann and Schubert... Another philosopher, Nietzsche, who was at first a great admirer of Wagner, would certainly have agreed at least regarding Chopin.





Amadea said:


> Ok, Shakespeare arguably influenced all romantics, but I don't see poetry in Wagner and mixture of registers.


Wasn't Chopin more inspired by Adam Mickiewicz rather than Shakespeare?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Regarding opera composers, it would seem that *Verdi *was more interested in Shakespeare as a source for libretti than Wagner. He wrote Macbeth, Otello, and Falstaff, but he considered (though briefly) doing a Tempest or Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. He considered for a very long time, and came near to creating, an opera from his favorite play, King Lear.
> 
> No mention of Wagner.


A minor oversight. Wagner did (freely) adapt Shakespeare's _Measure for Measure_ in his second opera, _Das Liebesverbot_ ("The Ban on Love"). But ultimately he wasn't interested in setting anyone's plays to music. His adaptations of myth, legend and romance were not settings of existing dramas but highly original modern interpretations of traditional tales, deriving from multiple sources. In order to set Shakespeare Wagner would have had to choose between suppressing his own original dramatic instincts or changing the plays beyond recognition. Verdi, like most opera composers, took his libretti essentially as they were offered to him (essentially, because good composers work closely with their librettists when that's possible and will change things for musical reasons), and in their dramatic construction his Shakespeare operas are generally faithful to their models. Personally, I'm doubtful that Verdi could have succeeded with _King Lear_ as well as he did with _Otello_ and _Falstaff,_ both of which have very clean dramatic structures thanks to Shakespeare and librettist Boito. _Lear_ seems more meditative and discursive to me, and an operatic adaptation would have had to be freer. And what composer could have done justice to Lear's ravings on the stormy heath?

Maybe Wagner...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Sunburst Finish said:


> "Wagner... Wagner?... Who the hell is Wagner?"


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> A minor oversight. Wagner did (freely) adapt Shakespeare's _Measure for Measure_ in his second opera, _Das Liebesverbot_ ("The Ban on Love"). But ultimately he wasn't interested in setting anyone's plays to music. His adaptations of myth, legend and romance were not settings of existing dramas but highly original modern interpretations of traditional tales, deriving from multiple sources. In order to set Shakespeare Wagner would have had to choose between suppressing his own original dramatic instincts or changing the plays beyond recognition. Verdi, like most opera composers, took his libretti essentially as they were offered to him (essentially, because good composers work closely with their librettists when that's possible and will change things for musical reasons), and in their dramatic construction his Shakespeare operas are generally faithful to their models. Personally, I'm doubtful that Verdi could have succeeded with _King Lear_ as well as he did with _Otello_ and _Falstaff,_ both of which have very clean dramatic structures thanks to Shakespeare and librettist Boito. _Lear_ seems more meditative and discursive to me, and an operatic adaptation would have had to be freer. And what composer could have done justice to Lear's ravings on the stormy heath?
> 
> Maybe Wagner...


Yes, an oversight - which might also include the opera itself (how often is it performed anyway?).

Verdi was a nightmare for his librettists constantly overseeing their work and demanding changes over and over, and often firing them when he was not satisfied. Verdi's respect for Shakespeare is well documented, and I actually enjoy Macbeth as much as the other two.

I won't get into a pi$$ing contest with you over Wagner and Verdi, my preference is clearly for Verdi (my second favorite opera composer). But I agree with you that Wagner was too much of a narcissist to set someone else's libretto.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

I've spent a great deal of time with the Bard in my life, and with many of his contemporaries (& friends, most of whom sadly didn't live to see their 40th birthday, such as Marlowe & Nashe) in that forlorn, plague-ridden, & politically treacherous but glorious age of the murderous, tyrant Queen: who cleverly outsmarted all her enemies (with Walsingham & the Cecils' help), except for time, but doesn't deserve any of the credit for the legacy of the age named after her, literary-wise or scientifically. To the contrary, she caused significant damage to the lives of the greatest geniuses of her age, who lived in abject terror of her. Indeed, it was a time when noblemen weren't allowed to write for the common theater, but most of them were doing so anyway... that is, until the reviled Puritans eventually got their way.

Neither "Shakespeare" nor Christopher Marlowe were anti-semites. In fact, that is a ludicrous and sadly, badly misinformed notion that continues to get perpetuated by people that grossly misread "The Merchant of Venice" and "The Jew of Malta". You need to read those plays more carefully & thoughtfully. (& as for the "Scottish play" being anti-semitic, huh?)

I'd also urge you to read the book, "Judaic Devices in Shakespeare", as well. Now there's an author that knows his subject. In other words, not only was the Bard not an anti-semite, but he was actually quite sympathetic towards Jews & Judaism, and evidently closely familiar with the subject...

As for Wagner and Shakespeare, Shakespeare sits at the very top of the Western Canon. As T.S. Eliot once said: "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. There is no third". Eliot was a literary genius in his own right (just read his Four Quartets), and knew what he was talking about. (So too did Harold Bloom, who likewise placed Shakespeare at the top of the canon: https://www.amazon.com/Western-Cano...old+bloom+western+canon&qid=1621453965&sr=8-1.)

As great and wonderful as many of Wagner's operas are, musically, and a case can certainly be made for Tristan und Isolde, or the Ring Cycle, or Parsifal (just take your pick) being the greatest opera ever composed (although I'd personally claim that it's Don Giovanni), Wagner doesn't sit at the top of the Western Canon, rather J.S. Bach does. Nor would I place Wagner in the top five. Although of course people will quickly respond that that's just a matter of personal opinion and everything is relative... and I'm certainly not trying to take anyone's favorite composer away from them.

Nor does Wagner, in his librettos offer anything like the depth of perception, insight, & understanding into the human condition and life on earth that Shakespeare does. Shakespeare is one of the very few, extremely rare writers/artists in history with whom the more you experience and learn about life and the world, the more you will find that he already knew those things four hundred years ago. I recall an old actor in the Royal Shakespeare Company once told me that he'd done the Henry VI trilogy twice with the RSC--with runs at Stratford upon Avon and in London both times, over a period of about four or five years, in total, and that towards the end of the second run, he was still finding things in the plays that he'd never noticed before! That gives a glimpse into the extent of the Bard's genius, & it is mind blowing the closer you get to it. & Henry VI is one of his earliest plays... So, I guess people can tell who I voted for.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> And any art that didn't contribute to societal "health" as Nietzsche (disturbingly) conceived it, he ruled as "decadence", a playbook the Nazis adopted, terming it "degenerate art".


"Wagner and Cosima decided that Nietzsche's unhealthy and febrile views were caused by ************ and the influence on him of Jewish friends, notably the scholar Paul Ree."

W.T.F.?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, an oversight - which might also include the opera itself (how often is it performed anyway?).


As I said, a minor oversight. It's a minor, early work, rarely performed, though it has some charming things for a composer who hasn't yet found himself.



> Verdi was a nightmare for his librettists constantly overseeing their work and demanding changes over and over, and often firing them when he was not satisfied. Verdi's respect for Shakespeare is well documented, and I actually enjoy Macbeth as much as the other two.


Arrigo Boito, librettist for _Otello_ and _Falstaff, _was also a composer (_Mefistofele_) who understood the musical aspects of libretto-writing and did a marvelous job of adapting Shakespeare. Verdi was not a "nightmare" for him.



> I won't get into a pi$$ing contest with you over Wagner and Verdi,


Glad to hear it, since I don't engage in such silly contests.



> my preference is clearly for Verdi (my second favorite opera composer). But I agree with you that Wagner was too much of a narcissist to set someone else's libretto.


I don't care about preferences, I'm simply describing Wagner's procedures and why setting someone else's plays to music would not have made sense. I'm sorry that all you got out of it was that Wagner was a narcissist. By your logic Verdi was a narcissist for being a "nightmare" to work with. Me, I'd rather grant an artist's right to have definite artistic goals and to follow whatever path he needs to to accomplish them.

Putdowns of composers we lack sympathy with don't get us anywhere in these discussions. Assuming that getting somewhere is your goal.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Wasn't Chopin more inspired by Adam Mickiewicz rather than Shakespeare?


I said arguably  in general Shakespeare was influential to romanticism. That doesn't mean he was the most influential for everyone, but that in general in almost every composer we can find some shakespearian inspiration. Shakespeare's influence is so immense and extensive which is not comparable to others, not even Wagner. Some believe op. 15 n. 3 by Chopin was inspired by Hamlet.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Amadea said:


> Some believe op. 15 n. 3 by Chopin was inspired by Hamlet.


"Chopin originally entitled this nocturne "At the cemetery" when he composed it a day after he attended a performance of Hamlet, but erased the inscription when the piece was to be printed, saying: "Let them figure it out for themselves.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnes,_Op._15_(Chopin)#Nocturne_in_G_minor,_Op._15,_No._3


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Putdowns of composers we lack sympathy with don't get us anywhere in these discussions. Assuming that getting somewhere is your goal.


Noted; in hindsight I can see how my tone was more confrontational than I intended, or at least would have intended. My antipathy for Wagner is so strong that I am better off not entering discussions where he is a part. Despite my gut feeling, I have posted elsewhere about how often and how much time and energy I have put into trying to "get" Wagner, to no avail.

It may happen some day, but I tend to think it is a bridge too far for me.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Let them figure it out for themselves."


Yeah, 'cause we can mindread, Frédérick ... :')


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Couchie said:


> I read an interesting quip today that states if Wagner hadn't been an antisemite (and subsequently defamed by the Nazis), he would today be considered greater than Shakespeare. Do you agree?


To paraphrase Jen Psaki, Joe Biden's press secretary: What idiot said that? It's an absurd proposition.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I much prefer Chekhov to Shakespeare. Without actually seeing the latter's plays, they don't quite work for me on the page alone.

_Wagner rules._


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/books/1999/jan/30/shakespeare
Is Shakespeare overrated?
'Yes' says Edward Burns, Senior lecturer in English; 'No' says Stanley Wells, Professor of Shakespeare Studies


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I have a difficult time appreciating Shakespeare because the language feels so different to me, finding the meaning in sentences takes me a while and then the flow of the dialogue/narrative becomes lost. Not my strong suit.

It was a similar challenge for me recently reading _The Prince_ by Machiavelli, constantly having to re-read sentences to distill the meaning.


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

Funny no one yet had mentioned Tolstoy, who mentioned both Shakespeare and Wagner as exemples of bad art, and also arguing for why


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Beebert said:


> Funny no one yet had mentioned Tolstoy, who mentioned both Shakespeare and Wagner as exemples of bad art, and also arguing for why


This is interesting, where can I read about it?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> This is interesting, where can I read about it?


"He disliked the works of the Greek tragedians, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespeare, almost all the works of Goethe, Zola and Ibsen."
https://readersquest.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/what-art-isnt-tolstoy-disses-beethoven-and-wagner/

btw, 
"Leo Tolstoy described Scriabin's music as "a sincere expression of genius.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Scriabin


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> This is interesting, where can I read about it?


You can read about it all in his own book called 'What is art?'. You can probably look up a lot of it on the internet!
He was very austere in his opinions. All art had to live up to certain moral criterias, which meant being easy to understand, genuine and not false, never artificial nor melodramic among other things. He also claimed all great art has to be self-denying and religous to a certain extent. For exemple, he claimed that Liszt, Brahms, Ibsen, Baudelaire and many others were examples of bad art, and that Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Bach, Chopin, Goethe, Molière and Dostoevsky among others were good art.

He was very ambivalent towards Beethoven. Some of it was bad art, some of it good. He said the same of himself, claiming that what is considered his greatest novels and perhaps even the greatest novels ever written, War and Peace and Anna Karenina, were examples of bad and false art.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Very interesting, will definitely look that book up


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Beebert said:


> for exemple, he claimed that Liszt, Brahms, Ibsen, Baudelaire and many others were examples of bad art, and that Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Bach, Chopin, Goethe, Molière and Dostoevsky among others were good art.


I would... rather agree with those baskets of artists, save for some of Brahms.



Beebert said:


> He said the same of himself, claiming that what is considered his greatest novels and perhaps even the greatest novels ever written, War and Peace and Anna Karenina, were examples of bad and false art.


_Anna Karenina_ was written by him lazily and was not subject to 7 revisions like _War and Peace_ was, and unsurprisingly Tolstoy thought of the end result much less than about that of _War and Peace. _He was baffled by it being considered a work on a similar level (basically: baffled that people couldn't tell the difference). Myself, when I read a few pages of Karenina, I knew perfectly what Tolstoy meant. This book is a tier or two lower to my "red pen" sense.

Imho Tolstoy as a writer was an artist of a caliber similar to Shakespeare and likely proudly reacted to Shakespeare overhype that, let's not forget, back in the 19th century was stronger than today. Also, he either read a translation into Russian or didn't fully understand the antiquated English.

Wagner as a writer has nothing on either of them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> I much prefer Chekhov to Shakespeare. Without actually seeing the latter's plays, they don't quite work for me on the page alone.
> 
> _Wagner rules._


Shakespeare's plays are not always shapely - not "well-made plays" as Ibsen's and Chekhov's are - and don't necessarily suffer for being rearranged and revised, as was certainly done in his day, as well as since, for a variety of reasons practical and otherwise. This flexible or open-ended approach to the overall structure of a work in performance seems to have applied to the performing arts in general, including music, until the 19th century, when the idea that all parts of a work and their precise arrangement were essential to the work's effect and meaning took hold. Early in that century we find composers reusing overtures and arias for new operas and routinely adding or subtracting music to accommodate performers or audiences. As late as mid-century Verdi and Wagner could make major additions to _Macbeth_ and _Tannhauser,_ bringing new power to the operas, though not without some perhaps unimportant damage to aesthetic unity.

I particularly enjoy Ibsen's tight dramatic structures, relishing his skill in plotting his plays, in which he leads us with a firm hand to the dramatic payoff. This ability, considered a great virtue in 19th-century drama, isn't one I'm particularly conscious of in Shakespeare; indeed, _Hamlet _is notoriously a bit of a sprawling mess which everyone likes to hack up and fiddle around with. Shakespeare has been accused, I gather, of being deficient as a dramatist, but then we turn to Shakespeare for other important qualities. There are works of art in which the grandeur of the artist's vision make certain perfections more or less irrelevant. I think this is true of Shakespeare, and to some extent of Wagner.

Given the length of his operas, it may seem surprising that as a dramatist Wagner conforms rather well to the Romantic "well-made" ideal; he was draconian in "cleaning up" the stories he drew from, removing great quantities of incidental detail which may be delightful in the original narratives but would only dilute the purposeful focus and progression of his play. The length of his works, and the fact that their visceral impact tends - quite as he intended - to make us unaware of their structural aspects, shouldn't prevent us from appreciating how cannily they are made. Their length results mainly from his expansion of musical form, specifically with respect to his innovative approach to musical exposition in time, wherein music, largely freed from established forms and conventions prevalent in opera until then, becomes a psychological narrative which follows virtually in real time the feelings, thoughts and utterances of his characters, while commenting on them from the standpoint of an implicit, ideal narrator and interpreter. It was this inner, psychic narrative, implemented through increasingly subtle transformations of motifs as evocative signifiers, that caught the imaginations of numerous literary figures as well as musicians.

With respect to music, of course, no comparison of Wagner and Shakespeare can be made, except perhaps for a very rough and partial one based on certain similarities between the functions of music and poetry in their respective art forms. But there really can be no parallel in verbal drama to Tristan and Isolde's night of love, Siegfried's funeral march, or the uncovering of the Grail and the heavenly voices floating down from the temple dome.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> Imho Tolstoy as a writer was an artist of a caliber similar to Shakespeare and likely proudly reacted to Shakespeare overhype that, let's not forget, back in the 19th century was stronger than today. Also, he either read a translation into Russian or didn't fully understand the antiquated English.
> 
> Wagner as a writer has nothing on either of them.


Since Wagner's works are not primarily literature, and since the words of an opera have to function as a basis for a different and dominant art - music - it makes no sense to compare his verbal art to that of two great writers (whose music has nothing on his, btw ). Do you speak German and Russian?


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/books/1999/jan/30/shakespeare
> Is Shakespeare overrated?
> 'Yes' says Edward Burns, Senior lecturer in English; 'No' says Stanley Wells, Professor of Shakespeare Studies


Welcome to another episode of: "Meaningless articles with academics" also known as "How to waste a degree" and "Look at me I have a controversial opinion I'm so clever". Basically, E. Burns thinks Shakespeare's plays are represented too much in theatres, he's tired of them, he wants more of his underrated contemporaries and modern authors and he believes his female roles are wider in other authors. That's all. That's all his "academic opinion". He doesn't really say or prove Shakespeare's overrated in history (because he can't).


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Since Wagner's works are not primarily literature, and since the words of an opera have to function as a basis for a different and dominant art - music - it makes no sense to compare his verbal art to that of two great writers (whose music has nothing on his, btw ). Do you speak German and Russian?


Russian on a basic level, but I know another Slavic language natively, and have read very faithful translations of Tolstoy in it. I am fluent in German.

Wagner in music probably ranks as high as Shakespeare does in literature (conservatively a "top 10") - but literature is the more important art.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

ORigel said:


> Shakespeare was also an Anti-Semite, judging by MacBeth.


Imagine the overture of a MacBeth opera composed by Wagner! That would be something.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> Wagner in music probably ranks as high as Shakespeare does in literature (conservatively a "top 10") - but literature is the more important art.


What? How? How can you assert that?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Fabulin said:


> ...literature is the more important art.


Why? Compared to music or fine arts it has a major drawback that it can not reach every one due to the language barrier - and translating a piece of literature has its own issues.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ORigel said:


> Shakespeare was also an Anti-Semite, judging by MacBeth.


What in Macbeth is the clue? You may be getting the Scottish play confused with The Merchant of Venice, and the character of Shylock. But that claim has generally been discarded for the more credible idea that Shakespeare, as he did in all his plays, was holding a mirror up to the society of his day, highlighting the prejudices that existed.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Hmm.... I'm trying to work out whether I prefer "Wagala weia" to "Hey nonny nonny". It's a tough call


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Hmm.... I'm trying to work out whether I prefer "Wagala weia" to "Hey nonny nonny". It's a tough call


Don't leave "hojotoho" or "heigh ho" out of your calculations. For my money nothing beats a good "hojotoho heiaha," not even "derry derry down down."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/737855?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Wagner and Shakespeare
Edgar Istel and Theodore Baker


----------

