# The logic of conflict in Wagner's Ring



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

The logic of conflict is something else that puzzles me about Wagner's Ring Cycle - hoping some of the experts here can help me understand. (For those who have not caught my earlier recent questions here, I'm preparing by studying up in advance of seeing the cycle at the Met, and asking the questions I can't find answers to on my own.)

I'm having trouble understanding the balance of power, and the potential sources of power, between the Gods and the various earthly creatures (Nibelung, Gibichung - I'm also having trouble understanding whether Nibelung and Gibichung are the same thing or not). Two major examples: 

- In Das Rheingold, Wotan thinks he's pulled off a great success by stealing the Ring, but then Alberich pronounces a curse on the ring, which apparently has a devastating effect and cannot be countered in any way. This seems weird on the face of it. Shouldn't a God like Wotan have some ability to counter a curse by a lowly dwarf? And if a God like Wotan doesn't have this kind of power, shouldn't Wotan be aware of this, and be more careful not to anger Alberich? Does Wotan know that Alberich has the ability to pronounce all-powerful curses? Do all creatures have this power? What gives Alberich this power? Is there any underlying logic at all? I hate to say that, from my naive stance as a newbie watching these operas for the first time, the logic of the conflict between Wotan and Alberich seems as random as that of cartoon characters smacking each other with hammers that they pull out of their pockets - that is, no logic at all.

- In Gotterdammerung, a similar pattern occurs when Gunther and Gutrune and Hagen fool Seigfried with an all-powerful magic potion that makes him forget his love for Brunnhilde. I have the same kinds of questions: if Seigfried is such a strong hero, why is it that he can be destroyed so easily with something as simple as a potion? Does Seigfried know that he is vulnerable to such base trickery? If so, why isn't he more careful about what he eats and drinks? If not, why not? Further, does Brunnhilde know how easy it is to best Seigfried? If so, why doesn't she forgive him for what he cannot prevent? Once again, I am unable to piece together any logical pattern to Wagner's universe here. It seems that ultimate power is randomly allocated to random characters, and that none of the characters act with understanding of the problem that ultimate power is randomly allocated to random characters, because if they understood this, they would either act to prevent this power or at least be less surprised by it.

Hoping for answers, thanks ...


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Once Alberich renounces love & seizes the gold he's no longer a "lowly dwarf". The Rheingold grants him enough power to rule the world...

I learned a good bit about Wagner's Ring from this video:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The only Gibichung/Nibelung connection is Hagen who is the son of a forced connection between Alberich and an earth woman who happens to also be Gunther & Gutrune's mother. While is not specifically stated, presumably that connection was due to the power of the ring.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The Ring is a story based loosely on various European myths overlaid with Wagner's philosophy so, as with any other such story, things 'happen' because it is in the author's interest to have them happen in order to progress the story. Don't look for too much overriding logic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The allocation of power in the _Ring,_ and its movement from person to person, is far from random.

To yield to the temptations of power and glory, as Wotan does in stealing the ring, is to be accurst by the very nature of the act. In pronouncing his curse on the ring, Alberich doesn't _endow_ it with power to destroy those who covet it, but merely _enunciates_ the power it already has by virtue of being coveted. At this stage of the drama, Alberich has power over Wotan because in stealing the ring Wotan debases himself to Alberich's moral level. In a compromise with evil, evil, being uncompromising, wins.

Remember that the _Ring_ is a symbolic tale, a myth, an allegory of the evolution of human consciousness in which characters and their actions are expressions of consciousness at its various stages of development. The personages in the _Ring_ are personifications of psychological and moral principles, and their struggles within and among themselves represent the struggles, usually of a moral nature, within the human soul. _Das Rheingold_ shows us the struggle of consciousness to evolve beyond the pure egocentrism of infancy, and the dawning of morality in childhood. Alberich, a creature of darkness, is pure infantile ego; to curse the universe when it fails to accommodate his desires is Alberich's whole disposition, and he initiates the entire story with a curse upon the love he can't get. Wotan, a god living on sunlit heights, represents a higher order of being; he aspires to nobility, but at this early stage in the evolution of consciousness he, like Alberich, still conceives greatness in terms of glory and power. Unlike Alberich, he has a moral code, but like Alberich he is still trapped by ego. The death sentence contained in Alberich's curse is the consequence of Wotan's act - the "wages of sin" - and in pronouncing the curse Alberich brings to consciousness the guilt that Wotan is trying to evade. The curse thus represents the first stirring of moral awareness: the sense of guilt, of being wrong in some fundamental way. But, even so, it isn't until he hears another voice, that of Erda, embodiment of wisdom, that the full gravity of Wotan's act dawns upon him and he - reluctantly - gives up the ring.

A reluctant renunciation of evil has no salvific power. Giving up the ring will not avert the Gotterdammerung. To the very end of the story, Wotan still hopes the death of the old order can be prevented. Meanwhile, the forces of darkness still covet the ring; greed, power-lust and deceit are still abroad in the world; mankind is still ruled by authoritarian codes of custom and law; and love is still doomed. Wotan, fearing his own demise and helpless to avert it himself, had hoped that Siegfried, a being of pure natural instinct uncorrupted by power or the desire for it, would redeem the world from its curse. But Siegfried is victimized by his own naivete; it turns out that natural instinct is unreliable, and that innocent love is not enough in the face of evil. The deadly cycle of events set in motion by Alberich/Wotan will not come to an end until consciousness matures beyond childish egotism and mythic fantasy, Wotan's power (his spear) is broken forever, and the hall of the Gibichungs, with its shrines to now impotent gods and goddesses, is destroyed by fire and flood. Brunnhilde, the child of Wotan's search for wisdom through Erda, is alone in coming to see through the primitive illusions of her war-father's world, and she alone is capable of carrying out the sacrificial act needed to open up the possibility of a wiser future for mankind.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Amazing, brilliant stuff Woodduck!
:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Amazing, brilliant stuff Woodduck!
> :tiphat:


My pleasure, paesan. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I never look for any profound logic in opera, whether Mozart, Verdi, Wagner or Puccini et al. It is entertainment and should be taken on that level. Taking it seriously takes all the enjoyment out of it. Leave the seriousness to the performers.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

The cycle tracks the downfall of Wotan. In the Rheingold, Wotan breaks many promises - and it the failure of Wotan to deliver justice, by making himself an exception to the laws which govern the "universe" rather than as an impartial arbiter. 

His failure to honour his promises in the beginning forces him to make more decisions later on in the series that causes more problems for himself, triggering the ending. The God becomes corrupted - and the "laws of universal justice" which Gods themselves can't escape brings about his downfall. 

Whilst there is much more going on than that, I'm pretty sure you can trace a clear line of cause and consequence from Wotan's attempts to cheat at the beginning through to the end. His motivation through-out is to avoid the consequences of the rules he's broken - and every evasion doesn't make it better, it makes it far worse. It would be a tragedy, if Wotan himself were not so loathsome. 

The moral is you can't buck the system at least the system at play in the Ring.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

To DavidA ^^^^

I disagree my friend.
I think looking deeper than the surface greatly enhances the experience.

I don't think you do either.
At times you have pointed out the subversive strains in Mozart and Verdi's operas.
And you just called Falstaff, "life affirming"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I never look for any profound logic in opera.


It's a good thing, too. If you did you might be dangerous.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AlexD said:


> The cycle tracks the downfall of Wotan. In the Rheingold, Wotan breaks many promises - and it the failure of Wotan to deliver justice, by making himself an exception to the laws which govern the "universe" rather than as an impartial arbiter.
> 
> His failure to honour his promises in the beginning forces him to make more decisions later on in the series that causes more problems for himself, triggering the ending. The God becomes corrupted - and the "laws of universal justice" which Gods themselves can't escape brings about his downfall.
> 
> ...


I do find Wotan a genuinely tragic figure, and not loathsome, despite his transgressions. If we understand the internal contradictions with which he wrestles, we'll recognize that his tragedy is the tragedy of us and our world.

Wotan is the first being we encounter in the _Ring_ who functions at a level above that of pure natural instinct. He is the first conscious being, the first moral agent; we might call him a "pioneer" of morality. The problem is that at this stage of moral development, morality is of a purely prescriptive, legal and authoritarian nature - a "ten commandments" code of conduct - while natural instinct, which may be either good or bad, compatible or incompatible with the law, still seeks legitimately to express itself. Wotan is constantly caught between law and instinct, sensing that there is a higher morality beyond law and convention, but unable to explore it without compromising his position as the law's guardian. Fricka chides him for contravening the covenant of marriage, yet it's his union with Erda that gives him Brunnhilde, child of wisdom, who eventually allows the conflicted god to pass into history and makes of his inchoate dream, a vision of a world beyond legalism and superstition, a living example.

Wotan sins against the order he represents, but his sin is inevitable given the oppressiveness of that order, which he intuits. In working, step by painful step and in the face of his own fears, to clear the way for free men who will overthrow him and what he represents, he redeems himself and attains nobility, and in effecting his end his daughter bids him farewell with love.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Wotan is the first being we encounter in the _Ring_ who functions at a level above that of pure natural instinct. He is the first conscious being,.


I strongly disagree with this as Alberich demonstrated forward reasoning in saying that while he was renouncing love, he could still use the power of the ring to gain sex. Like it or not, this is a conscious being.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

AlexD said:


> The cycle tracks the downfall of Wotan. In the Rheingold, Wotan breaks many promises - and it the failure of Wotan to deliver justice, by making himself an exception to the laws which govern the "universe" rather than as an impartial arbiter.
> 
> His failure to honour his promises in the beginning forces him to make more decisions later on in the series that causes more problems for himself, triggering the ending. The God becomes corrupted - and the "laws of universal justice" which Gods themselves can't escape brings about his downfall.
> 
> ...


You're quite right . . . there is much more going on than that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> I strongly disagree with this as Alberich demonstrated forward reasoning in saying that while he was renouncing love, he could still use the power of the ring to gain sex. Like it or not, this is a conscious being.


By "conscious" I mean mostly "morally conscious." I agree that Alberich is conscious in a strict and elementary sense. He can draw obvious conclusions and scheme the way a child can scheme to get its way. But his mind functions only as an instrument to get him what he wants, and he never imagines a state of awareness beyond that or suspects that he ought to. It's probably the lowest level of consciousness that could be called human (unless it's shared by chimps and crows). Wotan and the gods show the beginnings of a more adult consciousness, which can entertain the concept of "ought," weigh values, appeal to principles, and look before leaping.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ...more adult consciousness, which can entertain the concept of "ought," weigh values, appeal to principles, and look before leaping.


Fascinating, given those parameters, it seems that there is probably much less adult consciousness around than is commonly believed!

As to your thoughts, I don't necessarily disagree but I would say that it is a big extrapolation to make from what little we are given in the libretto.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Becca said:


> As to your thoughts, I don't necessarily disagree but I would say that it is a big extrapolation to make from what little we are given in the libretto.


Less so if you read Wagner's extensive writings on his work. He clearly intended the Ring to have larger philosophical implications, even if not all listeners consider them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Fascinating, given those parameters, it seems that there is probably much less adult consciousness around than is commonly believed!
> 
> As to your thoughts, I don't necessarily disagree but I would say that it is a big extrapolation to make from what little we are given in the libretto.


Yes, lots of us only _look_ like adults...

I don't claim my thoughts are original. I've lived with Wagner's operas for over fifty years, and a lot of listening, reading, and winnowing of thoughts has occurred over that time. The one thing I like to emphasize to anyone wrestling with the meaning of the stories is the thing Wagner himself said over and over: the truest understanding is to be found by listening to the music. Just one example: in the interlude between scenes one and two of _Das Rheingold,_ the leitmotiv of the ring slowly transforms itself into the leitmotiv of Valhalla. It has the quality of a dream in which someone magically becomes someone else, and we wake up feeling strange, as if our subconscious is trying to tell us something we ought to know (but might not want to). And to an earlier post here, I would say that no one who's really listening to his music could feel that Wotan, whatever his misdeeds, is not a tragic figure of stature. We may form varied impressions of Wagner's characters based solely on their behavior, but their music will guide our thinking. It's become fashionable to mock Siegfried as some sort of mindless brat, but it's beyond me how anyone listening to his music could be content with such a view.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Well, once again, a fascinating discussion, my good Wagnerian friends!

I think I have something to learn from each of these comments. For me - well, I read Nietzsche long before I heard Wagner, and I read Nietzsche's writings on tragedy, music and Wagner before I ever studied opera. I find in the character of Wotan a wonderful embodiment of the tragic Nietzschean hero, with all his fatal flaws. The more I learn about the story of the Ring cycle, the more fascinated I become. I do look for at least enough of a basic logic in this story that I can follow the plot coherently - and some of these questions are to help me do that. I agree that there's no point looking for basic logic in many Mozart operas, but he makes up for that with the great music! With Wagner, I need the story - but the story is indeed very powerful, and all the psychological/cultural interpretations described here do seem valid to me.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> To DavidA ^^^^
> 
> I disagree my friend.
> I think looking deeper than the surface greatly enhances the experience.
> ...


Yes but I don't look for any deep philosophical meaning in these operas. Of course Falstaff is life affirming but that doesn't mean it has any great meaning. In fact, Verdi signs it off with 'life is a joke and we've all been fooled!' (which I think just about sums up the barmy medium that is opera, where people sing rather than talk and where dying heroines managed to sing a con belto aria before they expire.) The subversive strains in Mozart do not indicate any great philosophical bent on the part of da Ponte - he was using a play which had been banned for being subversive. I suppose you could say the Flute is philosophical but the meaning is probably hidden to all but freemasons. Wagner of course wanted his hearers to believe his works were the greatest philosophical thing since sliced bread. He wanted to be Germany's greatest composer, poet and philosopher rolled into one. What's more, he and Cosima were intent on everyone believing it! Whether he succeeded is, of course, a matter of opinion! Sorry, for me opera is an entertainment - like going to the movies. If I want profound philosophy I go elsewhere. But if you get it from Wagner, then you are fulfilling his wishes at least.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Yes but I don't look for any deep philosophical meaning in these operas ... Sorry, for me opera is an entertainment - like going to the movies. If I want profound philosophy I go elsewhere. But if you get it from Wagner, then you are fulfilling his wishes at least.


I see it differently. As a glimpse into the hearts and souls of many human beings who were our cultural ancestors - the European and American music lovers of the 18th century, 19th century and early 20th century, before other forms of music replaced opera as unifying forms of entertainment - opera carries a broad philosophical attitude, a world view. I would describe this attitude as deeply concerned with honor, courage, sacrifice, suffering and faithful monogamous love. The worldly philosophy of Napoleonic heroism seems more deeply written into opera than the bookish philosophy of any individual thinkers, but clearly Rousseau, Voltaire, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche resonate in most of the operas in the repertory today. If I had to sum up the worldly philosophy expressed by nearly every opera in a single word ... well, this is an exercise I have thought about before, and I think I know what the word is: honor. A concept of honor lies behind most operas, whether comic (where honor often consists of not being cuckolded) or tragic (where honor often consists of dying for a cause).


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Much of the discussion has been on the Das Rheingold portion of the question, so I'll skip that.



marceliotstein said:


> - In Gotterdammerung, a similar pattern occurs when Gunther and Gutrune and Hagen fool Seigfried with an all-powerful magic potion that makes him forget his love for Brunnhilde. I have the same kinds of questions: if Seigfried is such a strong hero, why is it that he can be destroyed so easily with something as simple as a potion? Does Seigfried know that he is vulnerable to such base trickery? If so, why isn't he more careful about what he eats and drinks? If not, why not? Further, does Brunnhilde know how easy it is to best Seigfried? If so, why doesn't she forgive him for what he cannot prevent? Once again, I am unable to piece together any logical pattern to Wagner's universe here. It seems that ultimate power is randomly allocated to random characters, and that none of the characters act with understanding of the problem that ultimate power is randomly allocated to random characters, because if they understood this, they would either act to prevent this power or at least be less surprised by it.
> 
> Hoping for answers, thanks ...


I think the context of the rest of the Ring helps explain the power dynamics at play here. Wagner does a good amount of world-building to show us what people are like

First off, I'm not sure I understand the "simple as a potion" part of the question. If we accept that mind-erasing love potions exist, then they are going to be powerful. I don't see how muscles or fearlessness could be a defense against such magic. And not accepting food or drink offered to you is rude. In the human culture that we see, though, hospitality and sharing are important values. Remember how back in _Die Walküre_ Sieglinde offers water and then mead to Siegmund who gladly accepts both (he was quite desperate for the water, but theoretically could have refused the mead... but would never be so rude). Hunding is clearly suspicious of Siegmund, but offers him food and shelter, and again Siegmund accepts. Hunding doesn't even retract this offer when he realizes that Siegmund is his enemy! Back in _Götterdämmerung_ it is really quite unthinkable that the Gibichungs give Siegfried this potion, and they never would have done it if it weren't for Hagen manipulating them.

Siegfried is fearless and powerful, but he is also uninformed. He sees himself as unbeatable, and this served him well in the opera _Siegfried_. No other mortals would have gone after Fafner as a dragon, faced down the Wanderer, or charged through the Magic Fire surrounding Brünnhilde. And we are given an example of him being careful with what he consumes: he does not take the poison that Mime has prepared for him. But this was thanks to the warning of the Woodbird.

It's also important that while Siegfried may have little respect for the gods he's not entirely wild; his action are quite moral. He doesn't just stab Fafner, he doesn't fight Wotan until he has to. And later in the opera, he stands by his blood-brother oath with Gunther. (And remember his father was on the run in _Die Walküre_ not because he was randomly fighting people but because he was defending a girl that was being married against her will).

In _Götterdämmerung_ Siegfried is traveling, again, looking for adventure and friends. As with his approach to Fafner, he goes to the Gibichungs hoping for the best. And he no longer had any birds to warn him of the trickery of Mime's nephew Hagen; and he likely doesn't know of the family connection.

But I think this is revealing to us how the world has changed. Hagen is treacherous, but so was Mime; that's not the change. The change is that there's no Woodbird to warn the naive Siegfried. I see this as a symbol; the gods are gone and no longer looking after anyone. Wedding offerings are made to Wotan, Froh, Donner, and Fricka, but they are of no use. (But back in _Die Walküre_ Hunding prayed to Fricka and Siegmund did, indeed lose their battle (Pyrrhic victory though it was)). But no one knows that the gods are not watching anymore, and the culture has not changed.

So like Hunding dutifully allowing Siegmund to stay in his home, Siegfried will dutifully accept drinks from strangers. And Siegfried, being a hero, will travel the world and do dangerous things rather than staying at home (like the unmarried and unfulfilled Gunther and Gutrune).

In summary:

So potions are powerful, and with the gods gone, they are even more uncontrollable.

Siegfried isn't more careful about what he eats and drinks because that would be rude to his hosts (that he's trying to befriend).

Brünnhilde is new to being mortal, but she certainly knows that many great warriors die: inciting them to fight and gathering up the best afterward was literally her job as a Valkyrie! But, again, the culture is about being bold, not cowering.

And finally, Brünnhilde does forgive Siegfried, but not until she understands what has happened. She thought Gunther went through the Magic Fire and took her from her rock; she thought Wotan had gone back on his promise. And then she sees Siegfried and he denies knowing her; she's going to be mad about that. I would find it ridiculous for her to say, "Oh well, we're mortal so you're capable of lying. I'm not surprised, I don't care" (To be clear neither Brünnhilde nor Siegfried are lying here (or anywhere), they're just miscommunicating. Hagen is the only one who really knows what's going on, and he's continuously manipulating people).


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, for me opera is an entertainment - like going to the movies.


Depends on the opera--like it depends on the movie.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

mountmccabe said:


> I think the context of the rest of the Ring helps explain the power dynamics at play here. Wagner does a good amount of world-building to show us what people are like ...]


Really great answer. Thanks. I am so appreciative of the high quality discussion level here!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Really great answer. Thanks. I am so appreciative of the high quality discussion level here!


Wagner brings that out in people. At least in people who know that he's more than an entertainer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

marceliotstein said:


> I see it differently. As a glimpse into the hearts and souls of many human beings who were our cultural ancestors - the European and American music lovers of the 18th century, 19th century and early 20th century, before other forms of music replaced opera as unifying forms of entertainment - opera carries a broad philosophical attitude, a world view. I would describe this attitude as deeply concerned with honor, courage, sacrifice, suffering and faithful monogamous love. The worldly philosophy of Napoleonic heroism seems more deeply written into opera than the bookish philosophy of any individual thinkers, but clearly Rousseau, Voltaire, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche resonate in most of the operas in the repertory today. If I had to sum up the worldly philosophy expressed by nearly every opera in a single word ... well, this is an exercise I have thought about before, and I think I know what the word is: *honor. *A concept of honor lies behind most operas, whether comic (where honor often consists of not being cuckolded) or tragic (where honor often consists of dying for a cause).


The Honor!
Thieves! You stay in your honor, you!
Cloache d'ignominia, when, not always, we
We can stay in ours. I myself, yes, me, me,
On the one hand I must ask God's fear
And, by necessity, clear the honor, use
Stratagems and misunderstandings,
Go away, tack.
And you, with your rags and your cake look
From cat-pardo and the fetid sghignazzi you have to escort
Your Honor! That honor?! what honor? what an honor! that chatters!
What a bay! - Can the honor fill your stomach?
No. Can the honor put a shin back on you? He can not.
Not a foot? No. Nor a finger? Nor a hair? No.
Honor is not a surgeon. What is it then? A word.
What's in this word? There is air flying.
Nice construct! Can the honor hear him who died?
No. Do you live alone with the living? ... Not even: why wrongly
The flattery swells, the pride corrupts him,
The ammonia calumnies; and for me I do not want it!

(Verdi - Falstaff Act 1)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The Honor!
> Thieveanslations! You stay in your honor, you!
> Cloache d'ignominia, when, not always, we
> We can stay in ours. I myself, yes, me, me,
> ...


That reads like an instruction manual translated from the Chinese. You know, this sort of thing:

In order that the article has minced could be perfectly cut, Knocked Vigorously on the bud Superior hand Opened. The most or less great number of knocks determines the fineness of cup. The rotation of knives is made automatically and regularly. For the cleaning, to pull the inferior bell and to release the recipient Superior. Well to rinse the machine, if possible to the running water. Re-assembly in Senses inverts. All parts metallic are executed in a materials has the test of the rust.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> (Verdi - Falstaff Act 1)


Boito, too, if you think about it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Boito, too, if you think about it.


Well if you want to be pedantic. Verdi approved or he wouldn't have set it


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

Verdi signs it off with 'life is a joke and we've all been fooled!

I guess Verdi knows how much the audience paid to sit through his operas. No wonder opera inspires riots.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Love the well-chosen Boito quote. (Saw Falstaff a couple months ago and it was great to hear those words from the stage too.)

A little Wagner/Verdi rivalry never hurts, though I do understand that Boito was Verdi's most Wagnerian librettist. 

Wagner operas are indeed better than Verdi's ... well, for what it's worth, I'll take Mozart or Rossini over Verdi and Wagner put together. (Ducking.)


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

Yes, but this was borrowed from Shakespeare

'Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before
his day. What need I be so forward with him that
calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is
honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism.

(Henry IV part 1 William Shakespeare)

It is rather fitting that Shakespeare, who pirated various Italian stories for his plays, had his own plays subsequently plundered by the Italians. And people blame The Beatles for a similar crime. Just goes to show that there is seldom anything new under the sun.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Love the well-chosen Boito quote. (Saw Falstaff a couple months ago and it was great to hear those words from the stage too.)
> 
> A little Wagner/Verdi rivalry never hurts, though I do understand that Boito was Verdi's most Wagnerian librettist.
> 
> Wagner operas are indeed better than Verdi's ... *well, for what it's worth, I'll take Mozart or Rossini over Verdi and Wagner put together.* (Ducking.)


With all due respect, it isn't worth much.

I've never seen any of these composers as competitors. They all succeeded in doing very different things very well. I'm not so sure about Rossini's "serious" operas - but then even Beethoven said to him, "Write more Barbers!" so I'm in good company.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

marceliotstein said:


> Love the well-chosen Boito quote. (Saw Falstaff a couple months ago and it was great to hear those words from the stage too.)
> 
> A little Wagner/Verdi rivalry never hurts, though I do understand that Boito was Verdi's most Wagnerian librettist.
> 
> *Wagner operas are indeed better than Verdi's *... well, for what it's worth, *I'll take Mozart* or Rossini over Verdi and Wagner put together. (Ducking.)


Wagner better than Verdi? You are joking. But I accept the Mozart point


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Wagner better than Verdi? You are joking. But I accept the Mozart point


The "Mozart point" is only a statement of preference.

Verdi, in old age, having finished all his operas, said in an interview that _Tristan_ filled him with awe and that he could hardly believe it was composed by a human being. I don't think he was joking.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

I have always been frustrated with Verdi - or, more specifically, with his immense popularity. Sure, his operas are very good. But invariably the operas in the repertory that fill me with the most joy and wonder are not his. I never dislike them either - I always admire the intelligent plotting, there are always a few memorable musical moments. I guess the one I've liked best so far is Il Trovatore.

But the operas where I leave the Met with my ears humming, my head spinning and my spirit soaring are not his. Wagner, yes, so far in my introduction that began this year. Mozart - always. Rossini - always. As far as Rossini's serious operas - Semiramide is in that category and it is monstrously great. Great like Wagner. Can't really take the insane story seriously, but I do believe it's considered an "opera seria". I really want to see his Tancredi and Guillaime Tell.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Well if you want to be pedantic. Verdi approved or he wouldn't have set it


I'm funny that way. I'd probably be equally pedantic if you attributed Verdi's music to Boito.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

_Semiramide_ "great like Wagner"?

Too bad I'm so old. Maybe in another lifetime... or two... or three...


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> _Semiramide_ "great like Wagner"?
> 
> Better, but I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings.
> 
> This is something I've covered a bit in my podcast. Looking back on how these composers were evaluated in their own time, there was nobody more beloved in his own time than Rossini. The awestruck biography by the great novelist Stendhal shows how he was regarded. I find it frustrating that he is so often dismissed as a mere composer of popular or "comic" operas today. I think Stendhal had it right.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

(Even though Stendhal dismissed Semiramide as mediocre late Rossini. Oh well, we will all disagree. It's because of Stendhal that I want to see Tancredi, which I think was his favorite. Also a "seria" I believe.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'll give you that Rossini's serious works may have been underestimated and do deserve a place in the repertoire. Of course its always a challenge to find singers up to them, but then it's getting to be a challenge to find singers up to anything except, seemingly, Mozart.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> I'm funny that way. I'd probably be equally pedantic if you attributed Verdi's music to Boito.


If I'd have put 'Boito - Falstaff' you would no doubt have said I got the composer wrong!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I never look for any profound logic in opera, whether Mozart, Verdi, Wagner or Puccini et al. It is entertainment and should be taken on that level. Taking it seriously takes all the enjoyment out of it. Leave the seriousness to the performers.


This makes me sad. Why put limits on what opera (or any art form) can be??


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> This makes me sad. Why put limits on what opera (or any art form) can be??


Look at DavidA's remarks on opera the way he looks at opera itself. "[They're] just entertainment and should be taken on that level. Taking [them] seriously takes all the enjoyment out of [them]. Leave the seriousness to [people who actually understand the potential of opera as an art form]."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> This makes me sad. Why put limits on what opera (or any art form) can be??


Because I watch it or listen for a pastime. There are lots more serious things to do than a semi-ridiculous art form (which I enjoy immensely) but taking it seriously takes the fun out of it. Why on earth does it make you sad? Fiction is not to be taken seriously


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Because I watch it or listen for a pastime. There are lots more serious things to do than a semi-ridiculous art form (which I enjoy immensely) but taking it seriously takes the fun out of it. Why on earth does it make you sad? Fiction is not to be taken seriously


It makes me sad because if we limit opera to what you suggest I (& many others) would have no use for it. & I think you telling people how opera should be taken is all kinds of wrong


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> It makes me sad because if we limit opera to what you suggest I (& many others) would have no use for it. & I think you telling people how opera should be taken is all kinds of wrong


I can't see any reason that my personal outlook should make you sad. I am certainly not telling other people how they should view things but just expressing my own view. Opera for me is a relaxation. Things to be taken seriously are things like Family, work, friends, etc.. If I have to take opera seriously then it is not a relaxation. My son takes his music seriously but he is a professional musician and earns his living from it. For him it is not relaxation. But please, take opera as seriously as you want if that is what matters to you. Just there are a lot of things that matter far more to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I can't see any reason that my personal outlook should make you sad. I am certainly not telling other people how they should view things but just expressing my own view. Opera for me is a relaxation. Things to be taken seriously are things like Family, work, friends, etc.. If I have to take opera seriously then it is not a relaxation. My son takes his music seriously but he is a professional musician and earns his living from it. For him it is not relaxation. *But please, take opera as seriously as you want if that is what matters to you. Just there are a lot of things that matter far more to me.*


Are you implying that people who have a serious interest in opera are unserious about other things?

For someone who doesn't take opera seriously, you certainly seem seriously determined to tell everyone else about it whenever the subject of Wagner comes up.

The truth is, nobody cares how seriously you take anything, and others' level of seriousness is not your concern.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I am certainly not telling other people how they should view things


But isn't that exactly what you did when you said "It is entertainment and should be taken on that level"?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I think some people's hatred for Wagner blinds them to reason sometimes.
Just my take :tiphat:

To say that the movies To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath, Casablanca,
Schindler's List, etc, to name but a few, are purely "entertainment is disingenuous
to say the least.
Same for many operas and even music.
Beethoven wasn't saying anything when he wrote the Eroica Symphony or the 9th?
It doesn't pass the giggle test.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Itullian said:


> I think some peoples hatred for Wagner blinds them to reason sometimes.
> Just my take :tiphat:
> 
> To say that the movies To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath, Casablanca,
> ...


Didn't know that Schindler was a cobbler!!:lol:

That darn predictive text!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> But isn't that exactly what you did when you said "It is entertainment and should be taken on that level"?


That is my opinion as is everything I put on here. If you wanna take it seriously then be my guest. To be honest I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can take people who are singing when they should be speaking too seriously. But let's face it we all have our preferences and if your preference is to take opera seriously then that's fine. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy opera just like I enjoy cricket. But because my team don't win I'm not miserable all day because there are far more serious things to be serious about.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I think some people's hatred for Wagner blinds them to reason sometimes.
> Just my take :tiphat:
> 
> To say that the movies To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath, Casablanca,
> ...


Oh come off it! Blinds them to reason? Since when is Wagner with his preposterous plots and grandiose length ever 'reasonable'. I would actually say it's the other way round. In any case I'm not a Wagner 'hater', at least as far as the music is concerned. I do indulge sometimes but in relatively small doses which I enjoy. it seems to me that you are saying with either got a take music dead seriously or not at all. Sorry that's not my take as music is there to enjoy and be made enjoyable to people like me . Professional musicians can take it seriously but that is their job


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

The idea that opera is just good for "enjoyment" or "entertainment" is very limiting. I also gotta say, opera is often NOT that enjoyable or entertaining, so if that's what it's good for, it's not good for much.

I go to opera for insight into human nature, and to commune with past generations by experiencing an art form that was the most sublime, significant and sophisticated art form of their time. Opera is our cultural fingerprint. It's part of the origin story of who we are today. I greatly enjoyed going to the Met to see Carmen and Barbieri di Siviglia, and I barely enjoyed going to the Met to see Fidelio and Elektra - but both were equally valuable and enlightening experiences for me. I can enjoy an opera, or not enjoy it - I can also enjoy the bag of peanut M&Ms that I carry with me to eat during intermission so that I don't have to pay $14 for a chocolate chip cookie. But it's not the enjoyment that stays with me - it's the enlightenment that I always hope to gain.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Since when is Wagner with his *preposterous plots and grandiose length* ever 'reasonable'?
> 
> I *never* look for any profound logic in opera... It is entertainment and *should* be taken on that level. Taking it seriously takes *all* the enjoyment out of it.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... Wow!...D'ya think maybe we really _are_ wasting our time with this silly opera business? I mean, like, who _needs_ preposterous plots? Maybe we should be discussing the prospects for a two-state solution. Or maybe just playing cricket.

Dr. Dave sure makes you reassess your values and think about what really matters in life, doesn't he? And he doesn't even charge for an office visit!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> That is my opinion as is everything I put on here. If you wanna take it seriously then be my guest. To be honest I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can take people who are singing when they should be speaking too seriously. But let's face it we all have our preferences and if your preference is to take opera seriously then that's fine. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy opera just like I enjoy cricket. But because my team don't win I'm not miserable all day because there are far more serious things to be serious about.


It's not about making a conscious decision to take opera seriously or not seriously. It's about being open to all of the possibilities of what a work of art can be. If you limit Wagner in this way you're completely short-changing who & what he was. No wonder you prefer Mozart & Verdi when you're comparing them to half Richard Wagner...if your cricket team was capable of revolutionizing the way we look at sport perhaps you would take them more seriously too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> .if your cricket team was capable of revolutionizing the way we look at sport perhaps you would take them more seriously too.


Sports can be serious all right! I got really, really serious when figure skaters started doing quadruple axels. I was seriously annoyed and thought, "how are they going to focus on artistry if they have to spend their time practicing those tricks?" I also got seriously depressed when more and more skaters were using rock and rap and similar crap instead of classical music. The whole prospect of watching figure skating became so unbearably serious that I stopped doing it. It was all too clearly just another way in which the world is going seriously down the tubes.

I think I need some light entertainment to cheer me up. Let's see... _Pelleas_ or _Wozzeck?_


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Because I watch it or listen for a pastime. There are lots more serious things to do than a semi-ridiculous art form (which I enjoy immensely) but taking it seriously takes the fun out of it. Why on earth does it make you sad? *Fiction is not to be taken seriously*


Well now I don't feel so bad. It's not just _Tristan_ or _Otello_ or _Wozzeck_, but also _Anna Karenina_, _Crime and Punishment_, and _Beloved_. All just a bit of light entertainment, good for a couple of laughs.

What was I thinking all this time?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Well now I don't feel so bad. It's not just _Tristan_ or _Otello_ or _Wozzeck_, but also _Anna Karenina_, _Crime and Punishment_, and _Beloved_. All just a bit of light entertainment, good for a couple of laughs.
> 
> What was I thinking all this time?


I'm writing in the context of opera.It says above this post 'Opera'. If you take people singing when they should be speaking seriously it's up to you. Dear oh dear! Why must we have these insistences that everything has to be serious and great intense lessons can be learned. Why not just relax and enjoy.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> It's not about making a conscious decision to take opera seriously or not seriously. It's about being open to all of the possibilities of what a work of art can be. If you limit Wagner in this way *you're completely short-changing who & what he was.* No wonder you prefer Mozart & Verdi when you're comparing them to half Richard Wagner...if your cricket team was capable of revolutionizing the way we look at sport perhaps you would take them more seriously too.


And why must we always take art seriously I wonder? Isn't art to be enjoyed? And short changing who Wagner was? When I read about him frankly I don't like what he was. He was a musical genius but I certainly don't want to be like that nor do I want to embrace that sort of philosophy (which he himself didn't embrace in practice anyway). I'm certainly not comparing Verdi and Mozart to half Richard Wagner as I consider their operas do far more for me than Wagner's do. Mozart and Verdi were great humanists in a way Wagner never was. It's not a matter that I'm not somehow enlightened but a matter of preferences. No problem with you preferring Wagner but please don't think everyone should think that way.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

DavidA said:


> And why must we always take art seriously I wonder? Isn't art to be enjoyed? And short changing who Wagner was? When I read about him frankly I don't like what he was. He was a musical genius but I certainly don't want to be like that nor do I want to embrace that sort of philosophy (which he himself didn't embrace in practice anyway). I'm certainly not comparing Verdi and Mozart to half Richard Wagner as I consider their operas do far more for me than Wagner's do. Mozart and Verdi were great humanists in a way Wagner never was. It's not a matter that I'm not somehow enlightened but a matter of preferences. No problem with you preferring Wagner but please don't think everyone should think that way.


David, you are presenting mixed messages to the point of stepping on your own argument here. First you say "why must we always take art seriously?". A commonplace but valid question. Then you veer sharply off into the quite serious topic of Wagner's ethics. At this point it becomes clear that you do take art seriously, and are merely using the question "why must we take art seriously?" as a device with which to dismiss Wagner. If you want to discuss Wagner's ethics, I'd love to have that discussion. But let's start it in its own thread. I have a few things to say myself about this, and I wouldn't be shocked to find that one or two other people on this forum do as well.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> No problem with you preferring Wagner but *please don't think everyone should think that way*.


This sounds strange coming from you. Especially since I haven't told anyone how to think. Rather I think everyone must remain open to the possibility that art can be more than just light entertainment...


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

marceliotstein said:


> If you want to discuss Wagner's ethics, I'd love to have that discussion. But let's start it in its own thread. I have a few things to say myself about this, and I wouldn't be shocked to find that one or two other people on this forum do as well.


There are many many threads here on TC that provide exactly what you seek & DavidA is prominently featured in all of them lol

You won't be needing a new thread...


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

marceliotstein said:


> David, you are presenting mixed messages to the point of stepping on your own argument here. First you say "why must we always take art seriously?". A commonplace but valid question. Then you veer sharply off into the quite serious topic of Wagner's ethics. At this point it becomes clear that you do take art seriously, and are merely using the question "why must we take art seriously?" as a device with which to dismiss Wagner. If you want to discuss Wagner's ethics, I'd love to have that discussion. But let's start it in its own thread. I have a few things to say myself about this, and I wouldn't be shocked to find that one or two other people on this forum do as well.


Please, save yourself the trouble.

Hitler and Wagner

This whole entertainment vs. serious art discussion is silly because it sets up a false dichotomy. Art can be, and obviously is, both. But the clear implication from DavidA is that Wagner _shouldn't_ be taken seriously. It's coercive stuff.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Well now I don't feel so bad. It's not just _Tristan_ or _Otello_ or _Wozzeck_, but also _Anna Karenina_, _Crime and Punishment_, and _Beloved_. All just a bit of light entertainment, good for a couple of laughs.
> 
> What was I thinking all this time?


I get a special kick out of Anna throwing herself under the train. It just makes my day.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I thought that this thread was about the logic of conflict IN Wagner's Ring, not the logic of conflict ABOUT ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> David, you are presenting mixed messages to the point of stepping on your own argument here. First you say "why must we always take art seriously?". A commonplace but valid question. Then you veer sharply off into the quite serious topic of Wagner's ethics. At this point it becomes clear that you do take art seriously, and are merely using the question "why must we take art seriously?" as a device with which to dismiss Wagner. *If you want to discuss Wagner's ethics, I'd love to have that discussion. But let's start it in its own thread. I have a few things to say myself about this, and I wouldn't be shocked to find that one or two other people on this forum do as well.*


Careful, Marc! Trust me, you do NOT want to get DavidA started (again) on Wagner's personal life. I've had five years of that stuff, and I can assure you that nothing good will come of it.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I'm writing in the context of opera.It says above this post 'Opera'. If you take people singing when they should be speaking seriously it's up to you.


People talk in verse when they should be speaking prose--_Oedipus_, _King Lear_, _Phèdre_--and I'm able to take that seriously. And though I'm not a big fan of ballet, sometimes I'm even able to take people dancing seriously--Prokofiev's _Romeo and Juliet_ comes to mind.

It's a willing suspension of disbelief--accepting a particular artistic convention, an expressive medium, to heighten the emotional impact. Of course, there's no requirement to do so; you're always free to stay closer to your comfort zone. But your more limited experience is far from being shared by everyone.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> This sounds strange coming from you. Especially since I haven't told anyone how to think. Rather I think everyone must remain open to the possibility that art can be more than just light entertainment...


I haven't told anyone how to think either. Just said how I think. Sorry, but I thought that was the purpose of this forum - to give opinion. Quite funny really, I give my opinion as to jhow I think and then I get people telling me how I should think and then they accuse me of telling them how to think. Full circle! Just live and let live!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

marceliotstein said:


> David, you are presenting mixed messages to the point of stepping on your own argument here. First you say "why must we always take art seriously?". A commonplace but valid question. Then you veer sharply off into the quite serious topic of Wagner's ethics. *At this point it becomes clear that you do take art seriously, and are merely using the question "why must we take art seriously?" as a device with which to dismiss Wagner. *If you want to discuss Wagner's ethics, I'd love to have that discussion. But let's start it in its own thread. I have a few things to say myself about this, and I wouldn't be shocked to find that one or two other people on this forum do as well.


Please read the context in which I said what I did ie in answer to a point raised by Bonetan. I think you will find your accusation ill founded.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

WildThing said:


> Please, save yourself the trouble.
> 
> Hitler and Wagner
> 
> This whole entertainment vs. serious art discussion is silly because it sets up a false dichotomy. Art can be, and obviously is, both. But the clear implication from DavidA is that Wagner _shouldn't_ be taken seriously. It's coercive stuff.


Well can anyone take this ridiculous medium called opera that seriously? Come on! As Verdi said, "We've all been fooled" [by it]


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

The 'Like this post' button isn't sufficient.

We also need a 'Love this post' and a 'Pissed myself laughing at this post' option.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Well can anyone take this ridiculous medium called opera that seriously? Come on! As Verdi said, "We've all been fooled" [by it]


No, that's politics, Opera is for real.

N.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

The Conte said:


> The 'Like this post' button isn't sufficient.
> 
> We also need a 'Love this post' and a 'Pissed myself laughing at this post' option.
> 
> N.


I agree. But I would also like to see a "Hate this post" and "This post is full of crapola"


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The Conte said:


> The 'Like this post' button isn't sufficient.
> 
> We also need a 'Love this post' and a 'Pissed myself laughing at this post' option.
> 
> N.


You could always add it to "The Most Beautiful Post of the Day" thread :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Well can anyone take this ridiculous medium called opera that seriously? Come on! As Verdi said, "We've all been fooled" [by it]


Can anyone take this "ridiculous medium" seriously? Well, there's always...NO! Can it be? Verdi???

"You do well to honor your Maestro. He is one of the greatest geniuses. He has made people happy and presented them with treasures of immeasurable and immortal worth. You will understand that I, as an Italian, do not yet understand everything. That is due to our ignorance of German legend, the strangeness of Wagner's subject matter, its prevailing mysticism and the pagan world with its gods and Norns, its giants and dwarves. But I'm still young. I never cease exploring Wagner's sublime world of ideas. I owe him an enormous amount-hours of most wonderful exaltation."

"The work that always arouses my greatest admiration is Tristan! Before that gigantic work I stand in wonder and terror. I consider the second act, in its wealth of musical invention, its tenderness and sensuality of musical expression and its inspired orchestration, to be one of the finest creations that has ever issued from a human mind."

As Verdi said...


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Wasn't the quote from Falstaff about life? not just opera?

Funny that you take a quote from his opera "that means nothing"
to mean something!!!!!!
Quite a trick


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Wasn't the quote from Falstaff about life? not just opera?
> 
> Funny that you take a quote from his opera "that means nothing"
> to mean something!!!!!!
> Quite a trick


But of course. Not taking things seriously is to be taken very seriously.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I haven't told anyone how to think either.


I guess we have different definitions of the word "should" :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Perhaps we need a new thread - The Conflict of Logic in Wagner's Ring.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Wasn't the quote from Falstaff about life? not just opera?
> 
> Funny that you take a quote from his opera "that means nothing"
> to mean something!!!!!!
> Quite a trick


I never said it meant nothing. Please read what I say


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Deleted/////////////////////////


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I guess we have different definitions of the word "should" :lol:


Why take it so seriously? This is opera we're talking about not real life.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

Here's an idea guys, it's quite novel but I think you'll like it: let's just collectively ignore DavidA's posts on Wagner threads entirely and let the discussion go on unabated! We don't to HAVE to rise to the bait...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JoeSaunders said:


> Here's an idea guys, it's quite novel but I think you'll like it: let's just collectively ignore DavidA's posts on Wagner threads entirely and let the discussion go on unabated! We don't to HAVE to rise to the bait...


I'd give this half a "like" if there were such a thing. The half I'd keep in reserve arises from genuine perplexity and long-simmering-to-boiling-over frustration that the problem is still here for us to deal with.

Question: is a person who repeatedly enters a discussion for the sole purpose of telling participants that the subject they're discussing shouldn't be taken seriously: A. stupid, B. rude, C. evil, or D. all of the above? Regardless of the diagnosis, how should we define a persistent pattern of such behavior over a period of years? Here's a possibility:

*"A troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."* (Wikipedia)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JoeSaunders said:


> Here's an idea guys, it's quite novel but I think you'll like it: let's just collectively ignore DavidA's posts on Wagner threads entirely and let the discussion go on unabated! We don't to HAVE to rise to the bait...


No bait mate. Just gave my opinion. I am amazed it caused such a fuss in some people's minds!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Why take it so seriously? This is opera we're talking about not real life.


It can be taken seriously or as lite entertainment, however one sees fit. But when you tell a group of people who love opera on a deeper level than you that *"it is entertainment and should be taken on that level" *there's going to be pushback. I'm not sure why this is surprising to you. If you said "I prefer to enjoy opera as lite entertainment & nothing more" that's great. But when you tell the rest of us that we "should" enjoy it in the same way, that's an argument waiting to happen. & I think that's your goal tbh.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> No bait mate. Just gave my opinion. I am amazed it caused such a fuss in some people's minds!


You see the tactic: repeat over and over that opera is "absurd," that Wagner's plots are "preposterous," that his librettos are terrible, that there are only bits of his music worth hearing, that we shouldn't "worry" about finding any meaning in his works, and that you can't imagine why anyone would take it seriously - and then, when people question what the hell you're up to, protest sweetly that you're "just expressing your opinion" and that if others disagree with that opinion you'll very generously allow them to, and why make a fuss, and can't we all just be friends.

I believe my posts are presently invisible to DavidA, so I'm unable to ask him whether this is normal behavior for him outside the forum - i.e., is he in the habit of looking for interest groups he can join for the purpose of informing them that what they're interested in is ridiculous and that he, unlike them, has a real life filled with more important concerns.

If he actually has so many more important concerns, one wonders why he doesn't just go concern himself with them and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I've noticed a complete lack of posting from his other half recently. Curious!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> I've noticed a complete lack of posting from his other half recently. Curious!


So have I. I still wonder about that "other half." Seemed more like a twin to me.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Yeah, maybe the strain of running two identities was a bit too much!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

deleted...............


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> It can be taken seriously or as lite entertainment, however one sees fit. But when you tell a group of people who love opera on a deeper level than you that "it is entertainment and should be taken on that level" [/B]there's going to be pushback. I'm not sure why this is surprising to you. If you said "I prefer to enjoy opera as lite entertainment & nothing more" that's great.[/B] But when you tell the rest of us that we "should" enjoy it in the same way, that's an argument waiting to happen. & I think that's your goal tbh.


As I said it is my opinion. Are you saying I haven't a right to express it?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Now he's pretending to be unable to read.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

....music is not only an `entertainment’, nor a mere luxury, but a necessity of the spiritual if not of the physical life, an opening of those magic casements through which we can catch a glimpse of that country where ultimate reality will be found. RVW, 1948


----------

