# Wagner vs. R. Strauss



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I hate these sorts of comparison threads, but I've heard R. Strauss trashed on this forum, using Wagner as the excuse. As far as I'm concerned, both are great, but I think R. Strauss was more harmonically advanced and adventurous, and more approachable in general. What say you?


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2019)

I also hate comparison threads.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Some threads of interest:

*WAGNER and R.STRAUSS* (2009)
*Richard Strauss's operas* (2019)
*R. Strauss Opera fans?* (mainly 2016)


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I hate comparison threads, too. Pointless, really. But...

Strauss should be more advanced that Wagner. Everyone in the German/Austrian sphere was influenced heavily by Wagner. Without Wagner's groundbreaking harmony, endless melody, leitmotifs, orchestration and dramatic sensibility there may not have been a Strauss at least as we know it. As much as I love the older composer, I must say I enjoy attending Strauss live much more. The orchestra is even more advanced, the stories more blood curdling, and best of all - they don't go on for hours and hours. Salome, Elektra, and Rosenkavalier are particular favorites. But as far as the greatness of either goes, Wagner wins by a landslide. One of hte most important composers ever.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Not only on this forum. Strauss is despised in other places and many of the reasons about it are just ridiculous.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I really like Wagner. Only Strauss opera I have gotten into so far is Die Frau Ohne Schatten, which is a very good opera.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

It's Wagner for me. 

But I do enjoy Strauss. He's always interesting and there are a lot of surprises in his music. Some very beautiful passages too.
But he can be a bit vulgar and decadent at times.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

I consider Strauss pretty firmly second-rate and Wagner is my favorite composer, but my judgment of Strauss has nothing to do with my affection for Wagner. He just doesn't have many works that I think are that great--Vier Letzte Lieder, Metamorphosen is about it. I like but don't love Rosenkavalier, Frosch and Ariadne. And Salome, Daphne and Arabella have their moments, but I spin them pretty infrequently. 

As far as post-Wagnerians go, I'd much rather listen to Mahler or Bruckner over Strauss.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I listen to Strauss more than Wagner. Of course, that's because of all those operas, and I can't handle operas. At least Strauss was decent enough to write instrumental pieces. So in my listening room, that leaves Strauss as the last man standing.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

Subjectively, I adore Strauss and despise Wagner. Strauss can pack way more of a punch in a _way_ shorter amount of time than Wagner ever could. For me, listening to Wagner is like trying to lick an entire lollipop the diameter of a car tire in one sitting. It tastes great for the first couple hours or so, and then you just want someone to shoot you. Strauss on the other hand also tastes wonderful but knows when to quit.

Objectively, who can say. My opinion is my opinion, and yours is yours.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strauss is a master of surfaces. Shimmer and shine and sensuality and thrills and chills. Occasionally he strikes a deeper vein, as in his _Four Last Song,_ and _Metamorphosen,_ but he's more likely to sever an artery, as in _Salome_ or _Elektra._ He has the unique ability to think up a faux-Viennese waltz tune and drop it where no other composer would, lightening up what we might otherwise mistake for tragedy and ensuring that every experience from horror to spirituality is above all titillating.

Wagner? He was a master of surfaces too, but they were always the surfaces of something that made them absolutely necessary.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2019)

They are both larger-than-life artists that did things that hadn't been done before, and who had weaknesses. I'm happy to listen to both.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I greatly enjoy them both....I don't try to make an either/or comparison...Strauss was a pretty outrageous orchestrator, and the barrage is pretty constant...Wagner was a superb orchestrator as well...really excelled at setting the scene. creating an atmosphere....wonderful effects he achieved.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

How about this generalisation. Wagner was a great tradegian, Strauss was a great comedian.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll go with Strauss. Opera isn't a big deal for me, so that leaves Wagner at the starting gate.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

They are about the same to me, not near the top of my playlist.

Strauss's Mozartean side is my favorite from either. His works for woodwinds inspired by Mozart -- the *Duet-Concertino for Clarinet and Bassoon*, *Sonatina AV 143 AKA the happy workshop*, and the *Serenade in E Op. 7* -- bring me more joy and satisfaction than any other compositions by either.

As it regards Wagner, had he never written *Meistersinger* I wouldn't have much use for him. I have to put up with hours of banality to find the nuggets in *The Ring*.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Only Strauss opera I have gotten into so far is Die Frau Ohne Schatten...


Translation: "The Constipated Woman"


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Translation: "The Constipated Woman"


Oh, its a comic opera! :lol:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Wagner for the operas. Strauss for the tone poems. Makes for a good romantic collection of music. I used to hate this stuff when I was younger but I enjoy it now.


----------



## MrMeatScience (Feb 15, 2015)

I love both. I probably would pick Strauss if pushed, if only because of the variety in his output. As much as I love Wagner's operas, I rarely have the time to dedicate to them, so they probably only get played once or twice in a year. Some of Strauss' operas are on a very regular rotation for this listener, especially the shorter ones (Salome).


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

MusicSybarite said:


> Not only on this forum. Strauss is despised in other places and many of the reasons about it are just ridiculous.


What places and why?


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2019)

Manxfeeder said:


> I listen to Strauss more than Wagner. Of course, that's because of all those operas, and I can't handle operas. At least Strauss was decent enough to write instrumental pieces. So in my listening room, that leaves Strauss as the last man standing.


Similar considerations. Opera on the scale that Wagner wrote it is a prohibitive time investment. If I had time I would have more opportunity to listen to Wagner.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

The fact that I'm not really an opera fan takes a good deal of air out of this one. Just give me Wagner's Tannhauser Overture, and I'm satisfied.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

R. Strauss: composed this Violin Concerto in 1882 (Adagio below):






This duet from the opera Arabella in 1933:






This from the Four Last Songs in 1948 when he was 84:






Absolute wonderment!


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

In fact, when searching the existing threads all I did was putting _site:talkclassical wagner+strauss+[member],_ because I remember this from the start and even if I enjoy Strauss operas, I find his views on the early 20th century masters very interesting. He hasn't done it for years or several consecutive months so I'm good with it so far.

Ps. I wish I ever had the time to become one of those "opera freaks" who read literature before voicing and reasoning their opinions about the topic. I'm too focused on the recording and performance market to "discuss" about musicians.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

The God of Opera against the God of Lied... I can't choose. Sorry! (both of them in the top ten of composers, naturally…)


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

Dimace said:


> The God of Opera against the God of Lied... I can't choose. Sorry! (both of them in the top ten of composers, naturally…)


God of operas you mean Mozart:devil:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Machiavel said:


> God of operas you mean Mozart:devil:


New thread needed:

Wagner vs. Strauss vs. Mozart

:lol:

Better yet,

Wagner vs. Everyone Else!


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> New thread needed:
> 
> Wagner vs. Strauss vs. Mozart
> 
> ...


It's been done.

Wagner vs. Every Other Person Who Has Ever Existed


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

1996D said:


> What places and why?


 That doesn't matter; this thread was started by me for other reasons, which apparently no one is allowed to know, considering that the post in which I explained this was removed.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> New thread needed:
> 
> Wagner vs. Strauss vs. Mozart
> 
> ...


*Wagner Vs. Others*

*Wagner vs John Cage*

*Pointless Composer Battle #1 - Mozart vs Wagner*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Wagner as a Drug

Wagner as Substitute for Erotic Asphyxiation
*


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Too soon to drop the joke, so deleted it...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Granate said:


> Too soon to drop the joke, so deleted it...


I don't know about you, but I'm dead serious. So was the thread *"Wagner vs. Every Other Person Who Ever Existed,"* as it ran for five years, and contained serious votes such as this one: _"I voted for Wagner mainly out of a fairly secure conviction that I would die before meeting a person I actually like..."
_Wow, lighten up! Seriously?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Granate said:


> *Wagner Vs. Others*
> 
> *Wagner vs John Cage*
> 
> *Pointless Composer Battle #1 - Mozart vs Wagner*


So the poll that pitted Wagner against every other person who ever existed had a higher percentage of people pick Wagner than the poll that pitted Wagner against Mozart. Apparently TC members do not realise Mozart is, in fact, in the set of all people who ever existed.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

BachIsBest said:


> Apparently TC members do not realise Mozart is, in fact, in the set of all people who ever existed.


Or at least, there's some overlap.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't know about you, but I'm dead serious. So was the thread *"Wagner vs. Every Other Person Who Ever Existed,"* as it ran for five years, and contained serious votes such as this one: _*"I voted for Wagner mainly out of a fairly secure conviction that I would die before meeting a person I actually like..."*.."
> _Wow, lighten up! Seriously?


Why do I think that that statement was made tongue-in-cheek? Could it be you who needs to lighten up?

(BTW, you've referred to me in four posts in different threads today. It feels like stalking. Maybe you need a girlfriend.)


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

BachIsBest said:


> So the poll that pitted Wagner against every other person who ever existed had a higher percentage of people pick Wagner than the poll that pitted Wagner against Mozart. Apparently TC members do not realise Mozart is, in fact, in the set of all people who ever existed.


I just listened to Mozart's Great Mass in C minor. I'm beginning to think the TC members may actually be on to something here.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Little known factoid of Richard Strauss: he conducted the premiere of Englebert Humperdinck’s opera Hansel and Gretel...to great success!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

He had ideas about how to play Beethoven






The guy who put that on youtube also uploaded a Mozart 39 by Strauss, which I didn't know existed before.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Little known factoid of Richard Strauss: he conducted the premiere of Englebert Humperdinck's opera Hansel and Gretel...to great success!


Surely not an opera from THE Engelbert Humperdinck?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Surely not an opera from THE Engelbert Humperdinck?
> View attachment 126431


Apparently Mr. Humperdink was more well preserved than we imagined.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Why do I think that that statement was made tongue-in-cheek? Could it be you who needs to lighten up?


Knowing you, you were dead serious.



> (BTW, you've referred to me in four posts in different threads today. It feels like stalking. Maybe you need a girlfriend.)


So report it and get my posts removed, like you did earlier.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> New thread needed:
> 
> Wagner vs. Strauss vs. Mozart
> 
> ...


Wagner VS Chuck Norris! The absolutely chaotic thread ONLY for people they know music to death (and beyond) Please don't participate if you haven't already composed 10 operas, kicked 100 bad guys ashes and, naturally, climbed to Mount Everest with flip-flops. :lol:


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> That doesn't matter; this thread was started by me for other reasons, which apparently no one is allowed to know, considering that the post in which I explained this was removed.


Well, Strauss is not greater than Wagner no matter how you put it, there doesn't seem to be an argument to make; he would tell you himself Wagner is better.

That being said Strauss is excellent, I'm writing a symphonic poem right now, through-composed, so I know just how good he is. Wagner is just a little bigger.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Surely not an opera from THE Engelbert Humperdinck?
> View attachment 126431


That's him! He's 166 years old and still performing with the help of a little surgery and a lot of Botox.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Does that mean that Wagner is associated with Tom Jones? If so, that's a big point for the Wagnerites, since Tom Jones is Clearly superior to Engelbert Humperdinck, and could sing _any_ opera.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Does that mean that Wagner is associated with Tom Jones? If so, that's a big point for the Wagnerites, since Tom Jones is Clearly superior to Engelbert Humperdinck, and could sing _any_ opera.


Yeah, and E. Humperdinck didn't have a movie made about him:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Does that mean that Wagner is associated with Tom Jones? If so, that's a big point for the Wagnerites, since Tom Jones is Clearly superior to Engelbert Humperdinck, and could sing _any_ opera.


Engelbert Humperdinck assisted Wagner in the preparation of the premiere of _Parsifal,_ and Wagner trusted him enough to have him add a few bars of music to the Act One transformation scene when the stage machinery malfunctioned (music afterward removed). It shouldn't be surprising that Tom Jones didn't get the assignment, since his reaction to the situation was merely to shrug and say "it's not unusual."


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Wagner easily. I find Strauss great but sometimes gets bloated.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Wagner easily. I find Strauss great but sometimes gets bloated.


"Too many notes, my dear [Strauss]!" Millions of notes seem to fly by in a work like _Arabella_ before anything much happens musically. And it's interesting that Strauss, whose orchestration is universally admired, himself admired the economy of Wagner's, saying how difficult it is to make every instrumental strand count.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> "Too many notes, my dear [Strauss]!" Millions of notes seem to fly by in a work like _Arabella_ before anything much happens musically. And it's interesting that Strauss, whose orchestration is universally admired, himself admired the economy of Wagner's, saying how difficult it is to make every instrumental strand count.


Strauss has no issues musically, with creativity, with counterpoint, or anything of that nature, he just has less to say than Wagner. He lacks essence and a mission.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "Too many notes, my dear [Strauss]!" Millions of notes seem to fly by in a work like _Arabella_ before anything much happens musically. And it's interesting that Strauss, whose orchestration is universally admired, himself admired the economy of Wagner's, saying how difficult it is to make every instrumental strand count.


I don't understand what goes on in the head of composers who compose an opera such as Arabella where there are a lot of unmemorable notes and then out comes the wonderful aria such as 'Und du wirst mein Gebieter' I posted earlier. Another that comes to mind is Nessun Dorma from Pucinni's Turandot (Yes, there's some other stuff there that's interesting, but nothing close to that barn-burner aria). It reminds of popular music records where there is one track that is a hit and the rest is forgettable.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> I don't understand what goes on in the head of composers who compose an opera such as Arabella where there are a lot of unmemorable notes and then out comes the wonderful aria such as 'Und du wirst mein Gebieter' I posted earlier. Another that comes to mind is Nessun Dorma from Pucinni's Turandot (Yes, there's some other stuff there that's interesting, but nothing close to that barn-burner aria). It reminds of popular music records where there is one track that is a hit and the rest is forgettable.


I'd love to see you try. The longer a piece is the harder it is to portray the desired effect--that's why Wagner is so great--he goes on and on and it can get boring but the whole work is like a ritual. At the end you feel exactly how Wagner wanted you to feel; he gets his point across beautifully.

Strauss doesn't have the drive or the will to do that, very few do.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> I'd love to see you try.


Huh? I'm not going to try driving in the Indy 500, playing quarterback for the New England Patriots or climbing Mount Everest either.



> The longer a piece is the harder it is to portray the desired effect--that's why Wagner is so great--he goes on and on and it can get boring but the whole work is like a ritual. At the end you feel exactly how Wagner wanted you to feel; he gets his point across beautifully. Strauss _*doesn't have*_ the drive or the will to do that, very few do.


(I didn't know that Richard S. was still with us.) You must not be familiar with Strauss' little number Der Rosenkavalier. Besides, you have no way of knowing what his drive or will was. He was perfectly capable of putting out a tuneful song even into his 80s.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> *
> (I didn't know that Richard was still with us.)* You must not be familiar with Strauss' little number Der Rosenkavalier. *Besides, you have no way of knowing what his drive or will was.* He was perfectly capable of putting out a tuneful song even into his 80s.


Everything is in the music, he's alive in it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> The longer a piece is the harder it is to portray the desired effect--that's why Wagner is so great--he goes on and on and it can get boring but the whole work is like a ritual. At the end you feel exactly how Wagner wanted you to feel; he gets his point across beautifully.
> 
> Strauss doesn't have the drive or the will to do that, very few do.


I agree largely with both you and DaveM. Most of Strauss's opera have conspicuous "deep moments" and noticeable stretches of note-spinning which get by on sheer frenetic energy rather than depth of meaning. He is, as has often been noted, an extremely clever fellow! Wagner, always probing for meaning above all, never goes on automatic and takes greater risks, among them the risk that the listener unsympathetic to the message will be bored or exhausted. The result, as you say, is that his dramas do have a quality of ritual; we feel that we've been conducted step by deliberate step through something momentous and impossible to grasp fully at first exposure. Wagner's ability to shape large time spans with unfailing intensity of focus and constantly deepening and accumulating meaning is unusual in opera; I can't imagine any other composer being capable of maintaining a cohesive dramatic through-line at a high level of musical inspiration over four evenings as we find in the _Ring._

I wouldn't say that Strauss's inability to match these particular qualities in Wagner are a matter of drive or will. I think he simply knew his strengths and quite naturally had different goals. His operas are ambitious and complex in their own way, theatrically effective, and blossoming at times into some of the most exciting and sensuously beautiful music ever written. The one opera in which he achieved a quasi-Wagnerian gravitas was _Die Frau ohne Schatten,_ and I think that work represents an outer limit where he couldn't be happy all the time.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Loved the Wagner excerpts as a kid, but now Strauss is probably my favorite opera composer, and Salome my favorite opera. Have rarely enjoyed listening to Wagner uncut.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I agree largely with both you and DaveM. Most of Strauss's opera have conspicuous "deep moments" and noticeable stretches of note-spinning which get by on sheer frenetic energy rather than depth of meaning. He is, as has often been noted, an extremely clever fellow! Wagner, always probing for meaning above all, never goes on automatic and takes greater risks, among them the risk that the listener unsympathetic to the message will be bored or exhausted. The result, as you say, is that his dramas do have a quality of ritual; we feel that we've been conducted step by deliberate step through something momentous and impossible to grasp fully at first exposure. Wagner's ability to shape large time spans with unfailing intensity of focus and constantly deepening and accumulating meaning is unusual in opera; I can't imagine any other composer being capable of maintaining a cohesive dramatic through-line at a high level of musical inspiration over four evenings as we find in the _Ring._
> 
> I wouldn't say that Strauss's inability to match these particular qualities in Wagner are a matter of drive or will. I think he simply knew his strengths and quite naturally had different goals. His operas are ambitious and complex in their own way, theatrically effective, and blossoming at times into some of the most exciting and sensuously beautiful music ever written. The one opera in which he achieved a quasi-Wagnerian gravitas was _Die Frau ohne Schatten,_ and I think that work represents the outer limit where he couldn't be happy all the time.


I wouldn't argue with the above, but my question, not really addressed by 1996, had nothing to do with Strauss vs. Wagner. It was what is in the mind of an opera composer when they compose 2+ hours of music, but leave the audience with really only one great musical moment? It couldn't have been for lack of melodic ideas given the Four Last Songs years later as an old man.

One thing I'll say for Wagner, IMO, his periods of note-spinning during random parts of his operas were more interesting and engaging than Strauss.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

philoctetes said:


> Loved the Wagner excerpts as a kid, but now Strauss is probably my favorite opera composer, and Salome my favorite opera. Have rarely enjoyed listening to Wagner uncut.


Salome is fantastic, one of the few Strauss operas I really love.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

philoctetes said:


> Loved the Wagner excerpts as a kid, but now Strauss is probably my favorite opera composer, and Salome my favorite opera. Have rarely enjoyed listening to Wagner uncut.


I'm the opposite. I liked Strauss better on first exposure than I do now. I detest most cuts in Wagner, but could dispense with all of _Salome_ except the fantastic final scene (Jokanaan has more personality without a body than he did with one), and all of _Rosenkavalier_ except for the Italian tenor's aria, the presentation of the rose, and the sublime final trio. _Elektra _is mostly a bunch of mentally unhinged women running around shrieking, but of course the music is highly effective in depicting that. I do like the orchestral magic of _Die Frau_ and the cleverness of _Ariadne._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I wouldn't argue with the above, but my question, not really addressed by 1996, had nothing to do with Strauss vs. Wagner. It was what is in the mind of an opera composer when they compose 2+ hours of music, but leave the audience with really only one great musical moment? It couldn't have been for lack of melodic ideas given the Four Last Songs years later as an old man.


I can't think of a popular opera that has only one great musical moment. Such a work would probably not survive in the repertoire. I disagree strongly that _Turandot_ is such a work; "Nessun dorma" is an effective set piece, but I think many other things in the opera are even better. Even in its weaker parts - do Ping, Pang and Pong really have to go on about whatever it is they're going on about? - Puccini's theatrical sense gets us through.



> One thing I'll say for Wagner, IMO, his periods of note-spinning during random parts of his operas were more interesting and engaging than Strauss.


What do you think of as "note-spinning"? In opera, I think of it as music that fills stage time, keeping things moving along but without substantial expressive content. I find very little note-spinning in Wagner; he's always earnestly digging into the drama, which is not to say that all the music is equally interesting. A consistently inspired opera score is a huge achievement; dramatic form has somehow to be translated into satisfying musical form, and not every moment in a drama is conducive to that happening. In Strauss there's often a lot of undramatic chit-chat that Wagner or Puccini wouldn't have considered worth setting to music. In Mozart such talk would have been neatly disposed of in secco recitative, leaving music free to fulfill its higher function. But through-composed opera can't deal so easily with mundane conversation.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> I wouldn't argue with the above, but my question, not really addressed by 1996, had nothing to do with Strauss vs. Wagner.* It was what is in the mind of an opera composer when they compose 2+ hours of music, but leave the audience with really only one great musical moment? It couldn't have been for lack of melodic ideas given the Four Last Songs years later as an old man.*
> 
> One thing I'll say for Wagner, IMO, his periods of note-spinning during random parts of his operas were more interesting and engaging than Strauss.


That's what I meant by challenging you to try composing. What comes out comes out, creativity is in many ways your master, not the other way around.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's an interesting thing from Wagner, it's a bit of orchestral music from Siegfried, the eponymous hero is moving from one part of the set to another, from a forest to a mountain where he meets the woman he will eventually marry. The first 3 minutes or so really does push repetition to the limits I think, not least because it's all based on moftifs we've been hearing for ages before, in this opera and probably in the ones which came before. But Wagner's a great composer, because he knows when to stop, he knows just how much the listener can bear of this sort of "note spinning" and then, at just the right moment, everything changes . . . . .


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> The first 3 minutes or so really does push repetition to the limits I think . . .


Only if you haven't heard Philip Glass.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

1996D said:


> I'd love to see you try. The longer a piece is the harder it is to portray the desired effect--that's why Wagner is so great--*he goes on and on and it can get boring* but the whole work is like a ritual. At the end you feel exactly how Wagner wanted you to feel; he gets his point across beautifully.
> 
> Strauss doesn't have the drive or the will to do that, very few do.


Agree with that bit! :lol:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> That's what I meant by challenging you to try composing. What comes out comes out, creativity is in many ways your master, not the other way around.


That may be your experience and that may be true of the composing of the more abstract music of the present day. However, I don't think there is any evidence that that was the experience of many if not all of the great composers. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in their writings, letters and historic evidence (Beethoven's notebooks and so on). In other words, their works were highly structured and planned, subject to constant change and revision (in the case of some composers). So I suspect that Strauss could have added another tuneful aria or duet in Arabella if he had wanted.

(Btw, I have done a little composing.)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I can't think of a popular opera that has only one great musical moment. Such a work would probably not survive in the repertoire. I disagree strongly that _Turandot_ is such a work; "Nessun dorma" is an effective set piece, but I think many other things in the opera are even better. Even in its weaker parts - do Ping, Pang and Pong really have to go on about whatever it is they're going on about? - Puccini's theatrical sense gets us through.
> 
> What do you think of as "note-spinning"? In opera, I think of it as music that fills stage time, keeping things moving along but without substantial expressive content. I find very little note-spinning in Wagner; he's always earnestly digging into the drama, which is not to say that all the music is equally interesting. A consistently inspired opera score is a huge achievement; dramatic form has somehow to be translated into satisfying musical form, and not every moment in a drama is conducive to that happening. In Strauss there's often a lot of undramatic chit-chat that Wagner or Puccini wouldn't have considered worth setting to music. In Mozart such talk would have been neatly disposed of in secco recitative, leaving music free to fulfill its higher function. But through-composed opera can't deal so easily with mundane conversation.


I'm trying hard not to make this a value-judgment, probably somewhat unsuccessfully. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the operas of Mozart, Bellini, Verdi and some Puccini. For me, without periodic distinct beautiful arias, duets, trios or quartets, I get bored.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> That may be your experience and that may be true of the composing of the more abstract music of the present day. However, I don't think there is any evidence that that was the experience of many if not all of the great composers. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in their writings, letters and historic evidence (Beethoven's notebooks and so on). In other words, their works were highly structured and planned, subject to constant change and revision (in the case of some composers). So I suspect that Strauss could have added another tuneful aria or duet in Arabella if he had wanted.
> 
> (Btw, I have done a little composing.)


What I'm trying to say is that you can't just manufacture a 'tuneful aria' out of thin air to fit into a piece, whatever he had to give creatively he gave. The larger structure of the work may be planned but in the moment composition is improvisational.

"Straightaway the ideas flow in upon me, directly from God, and not only do I see distinct themes in my mind's eye, but they are clothed in the right forms, harmonies."

Here Brahms perfectly explains what composition is as experienced by the composer.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> What I'm trying to say is that you can't just manufacture a 'tuneful aria' out of thin air to fit into a piece, whatever he had to give creatively he gave. The larger structure of the work may be planned but in the moment composition is improvisational.


Put that way, I can't say you're wrong (in the case of Strauss and Arabella). We'll never know. Perhaps this duet came to him in a grand moment of creativity just when he was afraid the opera would not have its big hit.  (My understanding is that this duet is what the audiences of Arabella particularly wait for.)

Or maybe it came from a song Strauss had in his back pocket all along. After all, if one listens to the entire opera there is nothing quite like this duet insofar as having a very distinct, accessible melody and structure such as the romantic arias and duets in operas composed many years earlier.

Can't help but provide another performance:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I'm trying hard not to make this a value-judgment, probably somewhat unsuccessfully. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the operas of Mozart, Bellini, Verdi and some Puccini. For me, without periodic distinct beautiful arias, duets, trios or quartets, I get bored.


 A few months ago I went to Cosi fan Tutte, and in the second half, when you get back from the interval, there's a sequence of arias designed to let each of the main singers strut their stuff. I was so bored by it all I thought I would die of boredom, I regretted not staying in the bar.

Much the same at the start of the last act of Otello, where the sequence of the willow song and Ave Maria is really too much aria.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> _Elektra _is mostly a bunch of mentally unhinged women running around shrieking, but of course the music is highly effective in depicting that.


I saw the Euripades a couple of weeks ago in Paris. If you think that Hofmannsthal is bad, you should see what they were like in c5 BC Athens.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> A few months ago I went to Cosi fan Tutte, and in the second half, when you get back from the interval, there's a sequence of arias designed to let each of the main singers strut their stuff. I was so bored by it all I thought I would die of boredom, I regretted not staying in the bar.


I'm not sure what your point is. The arias of Mozart's latter 4-5 operas, including Cosi is what is most attractive about them. You're the outlier.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> "Too many notes, my dear [Strauss]!" Millions of notes seem to fly by in a work like _Arabella_ before anything much happens musically. And it's interesting that Strauss, whose orchestration is universally admired, himself admired the economy of Wagner's, saying how difficult it is to make every instrumental strand count.


That sounds exactly like listening to Tristan, waiting for a resolution, while those tedious vagrant harmonies and half-diminished sections linger on and on.
There's note-spinning, and there's "harmonic spinning" where you keep wondering "Where's the key?" And then there's your head spinning.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds exactly like listening to Tristan, waiting for a resolution, while those tedious vagrant harmonies and half-diminished sections linger on and on.
> There's note-spinning, and there's "harmonic spinning" where you keep wondering "Where's the key?" And then there's your head spinning.


_Tristan_ is relentless, and must affect many listeners in a way similar to your description. Even Berlioz reported being baffled by the prelude, which Wagner had presented to him as a gift. I have to say that my first hearing of Isolde's "Liebestod" - I was probably 13 or 14 - had me slightly at sea (a metaphor often evoked by the work), and I felt more fascination than pleasure. But the next time I heard it, and upon hearing the entire opera - I may have been 15 - the whole thing felt right. I never wondered where the key was or doubted that the magical, yearning, dissolving, time-obliterating stream of harmony was guided by a sure hand.

There's no note-spinning in _Tristan,_ nothing facile or just for effect. No opera is more terribly earnest: it's expressive to an excruciating degree, and probably as easily hated as loved for its refusal to let us up for air. We can be grateful for the intermissions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> A few months ago I went to Cosi fan Tutte, and in the second half, when you get back from the interval, there's a sequence of arias designed to let each of the main singers strut their stuff. I was so bored by it all I thought I would die of boredom, I regretted not staying in the bar.
> 
> Much the same at the start of the last act of Otello, where the sequence of the willow song and Ave Maria is really too much aria.


I have a similar (if maybe less intense) reaction to _Cosi,_ and actually to a lot of "recitative-aria"-structured opera. I can never get all the way through the lengthy succession of numbers in most 18th-century operas; Mozart and Handel defeat almost my every attempt - I tend to give up after an act or two - even though the individual numbers are fine music. I need to see such operas in the theater. The constantly developing musical texture of more modern operas - Wagner, Strauss, Puccini, Britten, etc. - is much more interesting to me and can hold me for the entire work.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I have a similar (if maybe less intense) reaction to _Cosi,_ and actually to a lot of "recitative-aria"-structured opera. I can never get all the way through thea lengthy succession of numbers in most 18th-century operas; Mozart and Handel defeat almost my every attempt - I tend to give up after an act or two - even though the individual numbers are fine music. I need to see such operas in the theater. The constantly developing musical texture of more modern operas - Wagner, Strauss, Puccini, Britten, etc. - is much more interesting to me and can hold me for the entire work.


Same here, although I'd put the first act of The Marriage of Figaro as probably my favorite act in any opera ever... the entire opera is up there, too. The Magic Flute too has a surprisingly novel development of the leitmotif that I'm sure influenced Wagner.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

What’s with these ‘reactions’ to one of Mozart’s most popular, albeit the 4th in line, operas? It’s not like Cosi is a relatively unknown opera. Why would anyone go to a well-known opera of this caliber live and be bored? And why would anyone listen to the entire recording with the recitatives when there are several recordings of the arias without the recitatives? Or is it that the arias themselves that are boring? Geez!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Well there are many nice things in Cosi Fan Tutte. Don Alfonso is one of my role models in life! And I always laugh out loud when they get decked out as Albanians, and she uses that mesmerism machine.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Much the same at the start of the last act of Otello, where the sequence of the willow song and Ave Maria is really too much aria.


Now that you say it, I guess it's possible someone could feel that way.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

As they say, comparisons are odorous . I adore the music of both composers and would not want to be without either . Of course, Strauss owes so much to Wagner, but he developed his own individual voice as a composer . His operas and symphonic poems could never have come into existence without Wagner, but this is true of so many other outstanding composers such as Mahler, Bruckner , Schoenberg, Zemlinsky and others . 
Enough apples and oranges !


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Now that you say it, I guess it's possible someone could feel that way.


I think it's quite common to cut one of them.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> I think it's quite common to cut one of them.


Zeffirelli did in his film. I would hope that ends the list, but people are capable of anything.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

*Me two years ago:* Ugh, I cannot thing that any opera more unpleasant to watch than _Die Meistersinger_ or more tiring than _Götterdämmerung._

Die Frau Ohne Schatten:








¨


----------

