# The Greatest Opera Ever Written



## tahnak

Richard Wagner's Der Ring Des Nibelungen takes this slot.
Das Rheingold, the Prelude, is magnificent. Richard Wagner wrote this mammoth cycle in a period spanning 26 years from 1848 to 1874. He intended the audience to watch the entire four musik dramas (Das Rheingold, Die Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung) on four successive nights without a break. He was disgusted when the operas were given a stand alone performance. The entire cycle demands nineteen hours of listening and believe me each second demands intense concentration. There were two by products of the Ring. They were Siegfried Idyll and Kindercatechismus for chamber orchestra.

It is genius at the highest cadre of work. The 136 bar muted undulating drone on the E Flat Major Chord is the longest drone in the concert repertoire. Orchestrally, Das Rheingold remains my favourite opera. The opening prelude and the scintillating writing for the strings and the brass make it the prelude of all preludes in opera.
The prelude is broken by the rhinemaidens' song and the entry of the Nibelung elf, Alberich, to the drama. He is the Nibelung the ring's story is all about. He renounces worldly lust and love and becomes the owner of the golden hoard out of which he forges the ring to become Master of the World until Loge's cunning wit and Wotan's deceit take the Ring to a full circle of the greed for power until Alberich's curse on the Ring.

Another great orchestral brushwork by Wagner is the interlude between scene 2 and scene 3 when Loge and Wotan descend into Nibelheim where the orchestra surges into a dotted rhythm with the introduction of sixteen anvils of different pitch.

After the departure of Fafner when he kills his brother Fasolt and disappears with the golden hoard, the Tarnhelm and the Ring, we have a majestic call of thunder by Donner (Heda Hedo) with his hammer blow followed by the Rainbow interlude and entry of the Gods into Valhalla bringing the opera to its magnificent conclusion with the wailing of the Rhinemaidens in the background.

I have heard versions by Furtwangler, Solti, Karajan, Bohm, Levine and Boulez of this opera and I consider Solti as the Definitive version on Decca with the Wiener Philharmoniker and George London and Kirsten Flagstad. This recording of 1959 still remains as the one to beat. It is simply magnificent.


----------



## Bach

Tristan und Isolde takes second place.. 

I also think Wozzeck is rather underrated.


----------



## jaybee57

Yes, I reckon Tahnak is right in naming Wagner's Ring as the greatest work in opera. Indeed many knowledgeable commentators regard Der Ring as the greatest work of art in any medium. As to the best of the four Ring operas, I share Tahnak's enthusiasm for Rhinegold but pushed to pick just one I would opt for Twilight of the gods (Gotterdammerung). It has much great orchestral music, often played in concert halls, and may be the ideal entry point for newcomers to Wagner. 

A word of caution though; it may be wise, initially, to skip the prologue by the three Norns and go straight to Act 1. Act 3 in particular is very easy on both eye and ear with a great deal of simply gorgeous music. With the right orchestra, conducter and soprana, the end of Gotterdammerung, say the last fifteen minutes, can simply tear your heart out. 

As to the best versions of the ring, few versions in the last forty or fifty years match those of Knappertsbusch, Bohm or Solti. The Solti Ring is legendary and widely regarded as the greatest achievement in recording history. It has been re-vamped and re-edited over recent years and now sounds sounds fantastic; theatrical and dramatic with a very contemporary lush sound. I have several Ring cycles and like many but still recommend the Solti/Decca to newcomers. 

As to the recommendation of Tristan as number two, I feel there is an equal or even greater case for Parsifal which, in compositional terms, has been called the fifth opera of the Ring. It contains Wagner's most mature, chromatic and experimental music and was, of course, the inspiration for much that was to come, from such composers as Richard Strauss, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel, Delius, Elgar and many others.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*This thread has earned the Chi_town/Philly seal of appoval*

When travelling the less nettlesome trail of "favorite" rather than "greatest," I said- _Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, Die Walküre, Götterdämmerung, & Parsifal_... and don't torture me by making me choose one! However, if one is to force me into a stand on "greatest," I'll stand here with you.

Another interesting point is that, in my perusals of message-board discussions, _non_-Wagnerians ofttimes find themselves pleasantly surprised by _Das Rheingold_.


tahnak said:


> I have heard versions by Furtwangler, Solti, Karajan, Bohm, Levine and Boulez of this opera and I consider Solti as the Definitive version on Decca with the Wiener Philharmoniker and George London and Kirsten Flagstad. This recording of 1959 still remains as the one to beat. It is simply magnificent.


Sometime last year, BBC did "Building a Library" sessions on the _Ring_. My memory is that they gave Solti's _Rheingold_ and Solti's _Götterdämmerung_ top slots. I agree wholeheartedly. They went for Keilberth's _Siegfried_, and I again agree, for different reasons than the panelist gave (Keilberth's Mime chomps on less scenery). Still, reasonable folk can differ on the _Siegfried_, and the difference may be little more than an ant's eyelash.

The _Walküre_ recordings are cause for the greatest variances of opinion. BaL (as 'Building a Library' is known in abbreviated form) went for Karajan, IIRC. Perhaps I should give it another chance... but I'll admit to liking my _Ring_ to be a larger-than-life experience. It's my belief that for years, the general impression that the Solti _Walküre_ is the least-great of the Vienna tetrology has led to it being paradoxically _underrated_. Böhm has its fans... but I think that its Sieglinde is a shade less great than others. Keilberth was put on Gramophone Mag's '100 great recordings' list once- and Varnay's introductory Brünnhilde may be the most fantastic this side of Flagstad. It has one big drawback, though. Hans Hotter (Wotan), for all his vocal excellence, could have used some Ginko Biloba or something that night, so busy was the Prompter Box. They talk about the prompter getting a workout in the Böhm _Siegfried_... what happens there is nothing compared to this rendition.

I've long advocated a 'take-it-how-you-can-get-it' approach to Wagner, and that view remains unchanged. If Krauss or Furtwängler or even Janowski resonate with you, I'm not going to sneer about it. I will, however, reserve my right to advocate for Solti.


----------



## World Violist

I very much like Das Rheingold, though I didn't really until hearing James Levine's broadcast last weekend. I've got the recordings of the Bayreuth broadcasts by both Bohm and Krauss, but having listened to them I never really understood the opera so well as after Levine's very animated performance (and the Alberich... hehehe).

This being said, I may well be getting the Solti Ring cycle soon enough. Hopefully then I'll understand all this hullabaloo about the Ring a good deal better.


----------



## jhar26

World Violist said:


> I very much like Das Rheingold, though I didn't really until hearing James Levine's broadcast last weekend. I've got the recordings of the Bayreuth broadcasts by both Bohm and Krauss, but having listened to them I never really understood the opera so well as after Levine's very animated performance (and the Alberich... hehehe).
> 
> This being said, I may well be getting the Solti Ring cycle soon enough. Hopefully then I'll understand all this hullabaloo about the Ring a good deal better.


Levine's complete ring cycle is available on DVD from DG in traditional productions by Otto Schenk.


----------



## World Violist

jhar26 said:


> Levine's complete ring cycle is available on DVD from DG in traditional productions by Otto Schenk.


Yes, I know, but I rarely if ever have the money for whole Ring cycles. As much as I'd love to see it, I think I'll wait to see this one.


----------



## Tapkaara

I would nominate Carmen. I think in terms of popular appeal, it would be pretty hard to beat. Plus it has one great tune after another.


----------



## World Violist

Tapkaara said:


> I would nominate Carmen. I think in terms of popular appeal, it would be pretty hard to beat. Plus it has one great tune after another.


You could say that about practically anything by Verdi, Puccini, or Mozart, I'm sure.


----------



## Tapkaara

World Violist said:


> You could say that about practically anything by Verdi, Puccini, or Mozart, I'm sure.


Yes, I suppose I could. But the tunes from Carmen IN PARTICULAR are well known and have appeared in countless commericals and movies and the like. I think just about anyone can hum the Toreador song without having any idea where it came from.

I think the wide-spread nature of the music certainly helps to prove its enduring popularity, and thus, I nominate it for the greatest opera.


----------



## Bach

Carmen is a thinking man's musical. It's not particularly serious.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Bach said:


> Carmen is a thinking man's musical.


What do you mean?


----------



## Gneiss

Bach said:


> Tristan und Isolde takes second place...


I find it a bit dark and moody for my taste....


----------



## JoeGreen

The Ring Cycle, mmmh maybe if you got the time...

...but if your in a rush I'll have to say *Falstaff* by Giuseppe Verdi.

AH! I can't get enough of this masterpiece of human art. 
I mean Verdi basically beat Wagner at his own game and in less time! It took 12 hours for what Verdi did in 2!
Verdi infused the music and drama into one coherent work. Neither is subservient to the other one both are equal. Catchy tunes, brilliant orchestration, great counterpoint, unbeatable flow of action, loveable characters, a witty text, etc.

ah..... Darn it, now I need to go listen to it.

No doubt *The Ring Cycle* is a work of genius, but I just find Falstaff to be so sublime in it's structure and fluidity. Not a note too long or too short, it's just right.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> Carmen is a thinking man's musical. It's not particularly serious.


As usual, MMMMMEEEEEEEEOOOOOWWWW, Bach!

A thinking man's musical? Not particularly serious. Hmmm. Well, maybe the music is "light," especially compared to Wagner, which everyone is discussing here. But light does not mean inferior, at least it shouldn't.

A musical? Just because this opera has one toe-tapper after the next, again, should not degrade it legitimacy. Does all good music have to be meandering and less immediate?


----------



## JoeGreen

^^ agreed that's why I say *Falstaff*


----------



## Weston

jhar26 said:


> Levine's complete ring cycle is available on DVD from DG in traditional productions by Otto Schenk.


Great! I was going to ask. My introduction to the ring Cycle (and to opera) was the Pierre Boulez / Orchester der Bayreuther Festspiele DVD with a cheesy modern (1980's) production. Though the performances are thrilling, I felt cheated out of the traditional winged helmet experience. I gulped the whole thing down in about a week though ith lots of backtracking to catch the finer points.

As a little kid suffering through a variety show or the Grammy Awards when some warbling soprano came on and pelted the family with a seemingly endless aria, you would never have convinced me I could sit through an entire opera, let alone four! But the Ring Cycle kept me riveted throughout.



Bach said:


> Carmen is a thinking man's musical. It's not particularly serious.


Gilbert and Sulliven then?


----------



## Bach

Tapkaara said:


> A musical? Just because this opera has one toe-tapper after the next, again, should not degrade it legitimacy. Does all good music have to be meandering and less immediate?


Well, no, but there is a good chance that if it is less immediate then it has more to give.

..It is a bit of a French Gilbert and Sullivan.. and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Wagner..


----------



## Gneiss

Tapkaara said:


> A thinking man's musical? Not particularly serious. Hmmm. Well, maybe the music is "light," especially compared to Wagner, which everyone is discussing here. But light does not mean inferior, at least it shouldn't.
> 
> A musical? Just because this opera has one toe-tapper after the next, again, should not degrade it legitimacy. Does all good music have to be meandering and less immediate?


Well I'm not ashamed to say that my favourite is La Traviata, although maybe I wouldn't claim it to be the "Greatest Opera ever written".... 

I was reminded of this one the other day as a somewhat less well known work.... il mondo della luna - Haydn There's a little snippet here 




It appeals as an Amatuer Astronomer myself


----------



## GustavMahler

I'd have to go with Falstaff too. I don't care for Wagner, sorry. But, really my 2nd choice would have to be Turnadot. Any opera that begins with blood all over the ground, come on. Ok, the 2 greatest for me are Falstaff and Turandot, I can't pick just one.


----------



## katdad

I have many favorites but most of all I love "Le Nozze di Figaro" (Marriage of Figaro). One of the greatest honors and pleasures of my life was singing the role of Antonio in this opera. The fun of playing the buffoon in Acts 2 & 3, and the thrill of standing on stage during the finale, singing "perdono, perdono" (pardon, pardon) is something I will cherish all my life.

Besides being immortally great music, Nozze is probably the most "humane" of all operas.

I'll contrast this with another fave of mine, Rigoletto. Stunning music, of course, plus I suppose the most "cruel" and nasty plot ever, depravity spread out across all the characters, even Gilda.

I sang in the chorus and I was soooo delighted in hazing and taunting poor old Rigoletto when he comes looking for his daughter at the castle! We men in the chorus shoved him around stage and mimiced his hunchback. Added to this delight was that the guy singing Rigoletto was my voice teacher!

At the time I was dating the soprano who sang Gilda, and even during rehearsals, each time the finale was performed and I saw my voice teacher (Rigoletto) watch my girlfriend (Gilda) "die", it brought tears to my eyes. 

I'll also say that Rheingold is my favorite Wagner opera.


----------



## jhar26

katdad said:


> I have many favorites but most of all I love "Le Nozze di Figaro" (Marriage of Figaro).


That one gets my vote also.


----------



## Guest

Well, I'd just like to point out (again) that "ever" isn't over yet by any means. And neither is writing operas. There have been many operas written since Wagner's _Ring,_ which hardly counts as _*an*_ opera, anyway!

Trouble is, you all would have to have listened to (some of) them before you could be sure of the Ring's pre-eminence. And even then, the "ever" not being over yet would still apply.

Still, you would at least then be contemporaneous.

Here are a few (a very few) of the very fine operas written since Wagner:

*Janáček*, Osud
Káťa Kabanová
Příhody lišky Bystroušky
Z mrtvého domu

*Bartók*, A kékszakállú herceg vára

*Berg*, Wozzek
Lulu

*Krenek*, Jonny Spielt Auf

*Прокофьев*, Обручение в монастыре
Семён Котко
Война и мир

*Шостако́вич*, Hoc
Леди Макбет Мценского уезда

*Feldman*, Neither

*Kutavičius*, Lokys

*Nørgård*, Nuit des hommes

*Azguime*, Itinerário Do Sal

Happy listening!!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

some guy said:


> Here are a few (a very few) of the very fine operas written since Wagner:
> 
> *Janáček*, Osud
> Káťa Kabanová
> Příhody lišky Bystroušky
> Z mrtvého domu


I'm sure that few would deny the mastery of _The Cunning Little Vixen_ or _From the House of the Dead_, but my favorite Czech opera is _Prodaná nevĕsta_ though I recognize that one can't call it 'an opera written since Wagner.' Smetana wrote it at about the same time Wagner did _Die Meistersinger_.


some guy said:


> *Bartók*, A kékszakállú herceg vára


A favorite of our sporadic visitor *Kuhlau*! I thought immediately of _Duke Bluebeard's Castle_ when refamiliarizing myself with the plot of Ginastera's _Bomarzo_.


some guy (freely modified by your humble dilettante) said:


> *Prokofiev*, Betrothal in a Monastery
> Semyon Kotko
> War & Peace


Maybe it's because I come from Chicago that, if someone said to me: "quick! name a Prokofiev opera!" I wouldn't have come up with any of these three. (Thinking instead of that Prokofiev work that premiered in the Windy City.)


----------



## Guest

No denying that _L'amour des trois oranges_ is a kick and a half. The commonly excerpted bits, while charming and delightful, don't give a very accurate impression of the whole opera, which I like to call, when I'm in an expansive mood, a kind of proto-_Le Grand Macabre,_ probably the most glaring omission from my previous list, ouch! I only hope that György, wherever he is, may forgive me.

(I know some people who think _Le Grand Macabre_ is the greatest opera ever, even though "ever" is not and et cetera....)

Good choice on the Smetana, too, though _Dalibor_ is also fine, and I'm quite fond of _Braniboři v Čechách_ and _Čertova stěna,_ too.

None of Smetana's are a patch on Dvořák's _Dimitrij, Rusalka,_ or _Armida,_ though. Funny thing about Dvořák. We know him primarily as a symphonist and a chamber music composer, but he wrote some stunning choral works, and he considered himself an opera composer first and foremost.


----------



## Rondo

I've been considering purchasing _War and Peace_, but, at the moment, I am stuck between purchasing a recording of that one and a recording of _L'enfant prodigue_. I am more accustomed to Prokofiev's symphonies and concertos than I am the other branches of his work.


----------



## katdad

Having to select only a few operas as the best, I admit to being quite conventional (as well as being a Mozart fan). My top operas:

Don Giovanni
Le Nozze di Figaro
Rigoletto

Following these, many many of course. One opera that's not performed as much as it deserved, "Il Tabarro".


----------



## FlyMe

*Opera - as we age*

I think your tastes change with age. As a young man I loved all things Wagner and would have listed The Ring as the greatest operatic creation with Tristan a close second while I had no time for Mozart at all.

Now I am older (51) I see the Mozart/DePonte opears as the ultimate operas and would find it hard to pick between Le Nozze and Cosi. Don't get me wrong, I still love Wagner, indeed I am very excited to have tickets for Tristan at Glyndebourne for this summer.

I also have a very weak spot for Britten - Peter Grimes being also having a special place (tickets for that at ENO next month).

Also seeing Falstaff at Glyndebourne next month which I have never seen and I am very excited by the comments posted on here about that opera - sounds like a real treat!


----------



## confuoco

Chi_town/Philly said:


> I'm sure that few would deny the mastery of _The Cunning Little Vixen_ or _From the House of the Dead_, but my favorite Czech opera is _Prodaná nevĕsta_ though I recognize that one can't call it 'an opera written since Wagner.' Smetana wrote it at about the same time Wagner did _Die Meistersinger_


I like Rusalka more than Prodana nevesta...and it is written since Wagner and ifluenced by him.


----------



## confuoco

some guy said:


> None of Smetana's are a patch on Dvořák's _Dimitrij, Rusalka,_ or _Armida,_ though. Funny thing about Dvořák. We know him primarily as a symphonist and a chamber music composer, but he wrote some stunning choral works, and he considered himself an opera composer first and foremost.


Really, I am not huge fan of Dvorak and don't consider him to be the first-class symphonist, but I think he is an excellent opera composer. But from some reason his operas are rarely performed.


----------



## Sid James

I don't think Wagner wrote the greatest opera ever written, nor did anyone else for that matter.

People seem to generally fall into one of three camps: they either think the best opera is by Wagner, Italian composers (Verdi, Puccini, Bellini, Donizetti, Mascagni, etc), or composers of other nationalities (like the French or Eastern European examples above).

I myself am not a big fan of opera. They do contain beautiful music, obviously, but their plots often don't seem to make much sense. In the case of Wagner, it seems to be about gods and superhumans, not mere mortals. So I generally only like orchestral excerpts from his operas. I think I can stomach other composers better than Wagner, because, generally their plots are on a more human scale, and they also tend to be considerably shorter in length.


----------



## katdad

Just because an opera is about gods and such doesn't disqualify it as being a disconnect from human interests. Wagner's characters are quite human for the most.

Not to be thought silly, but I frankly think that many Wagner operas are too self-consciously long. I am not a beginner with music or a newcomer to opera. I have TRIED to like Wager just like I've tried to like Benjamin Britten. But despite that I enjoy Wagner's immortal music, I frankly think that he takes too long to develop themes and scenes -- I honestly think that they drag on. As for Britten, I simply cannot get into the essential tunelessness of 20th Century British music like Britten.

My absolute favorite Wagner opera is Rhiengold. Its story line is direct and the plot moves along briskly. The characters aren't overdrawn and they don't take an hour to tell about something. I also like his "Flying Dutchman" for that same reason. Wagner's music is immensely listenable but I simply think that the operas are too long.

Let me also say that I'm not some kid. I've been involved in singing since I was a choirboy and I've sung (mostly chorus, some solo roles) in about 2 dozen operas as well as having seen at least 100 performances. I also enjoy some long fiction -- James Joyce's "Ulysses" is my favorite novel. But at no point does it drag.

I've tried to like Britten (I guess I'm supposed to since he's supposed to be a great composer) but I need TUNES! and that means Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, and others.

I don't deny the right of other people to like Britten or to have the patience to sit through a long Wagner opera, but I'm also entitled to have a different opinion.

Talk about character development, look at the first 5 minutes or so of Marriage of Figaro. From the outset, we see Figaro and Suzanna as "real" people with a sense of humor, gentle sarcasm toward the other, a genuine love between them, and some truly funny dialog. Within that few minutes, Mozart and da Ponte create two believable human beings.

Maybe that's why I like Das Rheingold. There's some very clever humor it the libretto, clever dialog from Loge, sharp humor between Loge and Wotan, and so on. Look at other great dramas: Hamlet has the funny gravedigger scene and the way Hamlet skewers Polonious. The majority of Wagner operas simply take themselves too seriously.

I know that there are others here who disagree with me, but that's life.


----------



## Nicola

I prefer several of Handel's operas to anything written by Wagner. This is not to say that I dislike Wagner. On the contrary I rate him very highly, but after according Handel and Mozart the top spots. I have lots of opera but there are only few works I can listen to all the way through. So far I haven't made it with any of Wagner's. They're either too long-winded or contain too much (awful) recitative.


----------



## Herzeleide

Nicola said:


> So far I haven't made it with any of Wagner's. They're either too long-winded or contain too much (awful) recitative.


Try the Ring, Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger or Parsifal. They contain no recitative.


----------



## Nicola

Herzeleide said:


> Try the Ring, Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger or Parsifal. They contain no recitative.


Thank you for this advice but what did you think I have been trying, if not these? I am of course well aware that Wagner abandoned the formal distinction between orchestra, aria and recitative (in the sense as previously applied), but all the same for that these operas still contain a good deal of what amounts to little more than tarted up chat (mostly in a language I do not understand) which I find tedious. I accept that if one is watching the opera live in concert, or on a dvd, this experience may be much more acceptable, but for normal listening to a CD it's not the kind of material that interests me. As I said previously, I find lots to interest me in Wagner's operas but not the whole thing. The same applies to recitative proper in other composers' operas, which I definitely dislike except perhaps for a few introductory pieces here and there.


----------



## Bach

Nicola said:


> Thank you for this advice but what did you think I have been trying, if not these?


Die Hochzeit, Die Feen, Das Liebesverbot, Rienzi, Der fliegende Holländer, Tannhäuser or Lohengrin?


----------



## nefigah

Nicola said:


> Thank you for this advice but what did you think I have been trying, if not these? I am of course well aware that Wagner abandoned the formal distinction between orchestra, aria and recitative (in the sense as previously applied), but all the same for that these operas still contain a good deal of what amounts to little more than tarted up chat (mostly in a language I do not understand) which I find tedious. I accept that if one is watching the opera live in concert, or on a dvd, this experience may be much more acceptable, but for normal listening to a CD it's not the kind of material that interests me. As I said previously, I find lots to interest me in Wagner's operas but not the whole thing. The same applies to recitative proper in other composers' operas, which I definitely dislike except perhaps for a few introductory pieces here and there.


If you haven't already, I strongly recommend you pick up Deryck Cooke's Introduction to the Ring. When I first tried listening to the Ring, I similarly thought things were a bit recitativey. But it turns out that even in times of purest exposition, Wagner is brilliantly weaving and developing motives. There are things you learn about the characters and events in the drama that you can only get from the music--that is, not everything expressed is spoken (sung). Even though the aforementioned work by Cooke is just an introduction, as the title suggests, it never ceases to amaze me with its revelations of Wagner's genius.


----------



## nefigah

Andre said:


> They do contain beautiful music, obviously, but their plots often don't seem to make much sense. In the case of Wagner, it seems to be about gods and superhumans, not mere mortals.





katdad said:


> Just because an opera is about gods and such doesn't disqualify it as being a disconnect from human interests. Wagner's characters are quite human for the most.


katdad's response here is very true. I don't think I've ever encountered more human characters than Wotan and Brunnhilde, even though they are "technically" gods. They have feelings, make bad decisions, and even eventually come to an end--that is, we can definitely relate to them. If you ever have the opportunity, I'd definitely recommend trying to "dig deeper" in the Ring than just going by a plot summary--after all, no summary is going to do a ~15 hour drama justice, and the ones I've read do indeed tend to come off like Cliff's Notes of the Odyssey or some such.


----------



## katdad

Any brief synopsis of the Ring has to skip so much that it's not much good -- sort of saying that "Ulysses" is about this Jewish guy's day in Dublin.


----------



## classidaho

1. Has to be Italian

2. Probably "Norma"


----------



## danae

In the age of relativity and post-modernist pluralist thought, there can be no "greatest opera ever written". Thankfully there are many operas, some mediocre, some good, some even better, some great.


----------



## Guest

Bach said:


> ..It is a bit of a French Gilbert and Sullivan.. and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Wagner..




Operas that I would rate as "don't fail to see" would include:


SERSE (Handel)
FIDELIO (Beethoven)
DON GIOVANNI (Mozart)
L'INCORONAZIONE DI POPPEA (Monteverdi)
LE GRAND MACABRE (Ligeti)
OSUD & FROM THE HOUSE OF THE DEAD (Janacek)
THE STORY OF A REAL PERSON (Prokofiev)
IL PRIGIONERO (Dallapiccola)
LADY MACBETH OF MTSENSK DISTRICT (Shostakovich)
LA FORZA DEL DESTINO and FALSTAFF (Verdi)
RIENZI and DER FLIEGENDER HOLLAENDER (Wagner)
THE KING GOES FORTH TO FRANCE (Sallinen)
A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM (Britten)
KING PRIAM (Tippett)
AKHNATEN (Glass)


----------



## bdelykleon

danae said:


> Thankfully there are many operas, some mediocre, some good, some even better, some great.


And _Le Nozze di Figaro_.


----------



## tahnak

*Greatest Opera*

I have gone through this before and I had mentioned that in opera writing, creative heights have not been better than with Richard Wagner's 'Der Ring Des Nibelungen'. And there has been no better recording of this opera cycle than by Sir Georg Solti and the Wiener Philharmoniker on Decca.


----------



## SenorTearduct

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Die Zauberflöte!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nickgray

Why, Der Ring des Nibelungen of course. A gargantuan work, which I hold to be one of the greatest musical achievements ever.


----------



## SenorTearduct

Yes, Wagner was brilliant and a composing beast

but really,
The Magic Flute!!
Happiness in fantasy even in the midst of impending doom, Love it!!


----------



## nickgray

SenorTearduct said:


> The Magic Flute!!
> Happiness in fantasy even in the midst of impending doom, Love it!!


Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa Papageno/a! Yeah, it's good


----------



## SenorTearduct

I love the strings in the Papageno after the man solo and the trio, right before the proposal to be wed, it is so happy in spirit...


----------



## michael walsh

My choice varies according to the questions Why? or What?

*CHEMISTRY* L'Elisir d' Amore: Anna Netrebko (Adina), Rolando Villazon (Nemorino) , Leo Nucci (Belcore), Ildebrando D' Arcangelo (Dulcamara) : Unbelievable fun ... they got paid as well?

*CLEVER PLOT*: Pagliacci. I have the Teresa Stratos and Placido Domingo version. Superb.

*BORING* My version of Puccini's Manon Lescaut. Flemish Opera Syphonic Orchestra. Yawwwwn

*PATHOS* Tosca. ( I will have to check to see if Anna Netrebko has played Tosca.


----------



## jhar26

michael walsh said:


> *CHEMISTRY* L'Elisir d' Amore: Anna Netrebko (Adina), Rolando Villazon (Nemorino) , Leo Nucci (Belcore), Ildebrando D' Arcangelo (Dulcamara) : Unbelievable fun ... they got paid as well?


Did you see the DVD? Must be the longest kiss in operatic history.....lucky Villazon!


----------



## michael walsh

Time after time ... if Anna was my babe I would be furious. The passion and chemistry between those two makes fantastic viewing and listening. I also have them, with Domingo, performing at the Berlin Waldbuhne Concert. 

If you wanted to swing anyone towards 'our kind of music' let them see these three. You would have to have a heart of stone not to be charmed, exhilarated and inspired by their performance.


----------



## jhar26

michael walsh said:


> Time after time ... if Anna was my babe I would be furious. The passion and chemistry between those two makes fantastic viewing and listening. I also have them, with Domingo, performing at the Berlin Waldbuhne Concert.
> 
> If you wanted to swing anyone towards 'our kind of music' let them see these three. You would have to have a heart of stone not to be charmed, exhilarated and inspired by their performance.


Yes, I have the Berlin concert also. I prefer it to the three tenor concerts in fact. Villazon and Anna were born for each other. I can also recommend them in Massenet's "Manon" (modern production, but a very good one) and the "La Boheme" movie they did together is a must for any fan of Villazon and/or Netrebko.


----------



## michael walsh

Yes, the two of them were born also for an opera like La Boheme. It is top of my shopping list. What about Carmen? Surely they would head the cast their too, and Anna in Pagliacci; enchantingly riveting. 

I think Anna is, like Callas, a bit of a one-off. She has presence. Her acting ability complements her singing, and where it is important she has a compelling vivacity; she lights up the stage. Heck! She can get the high-brows rockin' in the aisles.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

My Top 10 Favorite Operas are as ranked

1. Don Giovanni
2. Le Nozze Di Figaro
3. Cosi Fan Tutte
4. Rigoletto
5. Il Barbiere di Siviglia
6. Die Entführung aus dem Serail 
7. Die Zauberflöte
8. Mefistofele
9. Die Walküre
10. Fidelio


----------



## Lukecash12

> Richard Wagner's Der Ring Des Nibelungen takes this slot.
> Das Rheingold, the Prelude, is magnificent. Richard Wagner wrote this mammoth cycle in a period spanning 26 years from 1848 to 1874. He intended the audience to watch the entire four musik dramas (Das Rheingold, Die Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung) on four successive nights without a break. He was disgusted when the operas were given a stand alone performance. The entire cycle demands nineteen hours of listening and believe me each second demands intense concentration. There were two by products of the Ring. They were Siegfried Idyll and Kindercatechismus for chamber orchestra.
> 
> It is genius at the highest cadre of work. The 136 bar muted undulating drone on the E Flat Major Chord is the longest drone in the concert repertoire. Orchestrally, Das Rheingold remains my favourite opera. The opening prelude and the scintillating writing for the strings and the brass make it the prelude of all preludes in opera.
> The prelude is broken by the rhinemaidens' song and the entry of the Nibelung elf, Alberich, to the drama. He is the Nibelung the ring's story is all about. He renounces worldly lust and love and becomes the owner of the golden hoard out of which he forges the ring to become Master of the World until Loge's cunning wit and Wotan's deceit take the Ring to a full circle of the greed for power until Alberich's curse on the Ring.
> 
> Another great orchestral brushwork by Wagner is the interlude between scene 2 and scene 3 when Loge and Wotan descend into Nibelheim where the orchestra surges into a dotted rhythm with the introduction of sixteen anvils of different pitch.
> 
> After the departure of Fafner when he kills his brother Fasolt and disappears with the golden hoard, the Tarnhelm and the Ring, we have a majestic call of thunder by Donner (Heda Hedo) with his hammer blow followed by the Rainbow interlude and entry of the Gods into Valhalla bringing the opera to its magnificent conclusion with the wailing of the Rhinemaidens in the background.
> 
> I have heard versions by Furtwangler, Solti, Karajan, Bohm, Levine and Boulez of this opera and I consider Solti as the Definitive version on Decca with the Wiener Philharmoniker and George London and Kirsten Flagstad. This recording of 1959 still remains as the one to beat. It is simply magnificent.


Yes! Thank you for mentioning it. You, my friend, have gumption.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*well...*

Oscar Wilde reminiscence...

The best opera...I haven't written it yet!

Martin


----------



## Il_Penseroso

*My Selection !*

Handel: *Agrippina*

Gluck: *Orfeo ed Euridice* (Paris Version: *Orphée et Eurydice*)

---

Mozart: *Le nozze di Figaro*

Mozart: *Don Giovanni*

Mozart: *Die Zauberflöte*

---

Rossini: *Il barbiere di Siviglia*

Bellini: *Norma* (only a selection of scenes)

Donizetti: *Lucia Di Lamermoore* (Only a selection of scenes)

Verdi: *Rigoletto*

Verdi: *Il Travatore*

Verdi: *La Traviata*

Verdi: *Otello*

Verdi: *Falstaff*

---

Weber: *Der Freischutz*

Wagner: *Tristan und Isolde*

Wagner: *Der Ring des Nibelungen* (my favorite is *Das Rheingold*)

---

Glinka: *Russlan and Ludmilla*

Moussorgsky: *Boris Godunov* (Rimsky Korsakov's Version, if i have to choose only one opera...)

Borodin: *Prince Igor*

Rimsky Korsakov: *Le Coq d'or*

---

Lalo: *Le roi d'Ys* (Only a selection of scenes)

Delibes: *Lakme* (Only a selection of scenes)

---

Strauss (Johann): *Die Fledermaus*

---

Lehar: *Die lustige Witwe*

---

Mascagni: *Cavalleria rusticana*

Puccini: *Tosca*

Puccini: *Madama Butterfly*

Puccini: *Turandot*

---

Debussy: *Peleas et Melisande*

---

De Falla: *El retablo de maese Pedro* (not really an opera but a great stage work)

---

Orff: *Der Mond*

Orff: *Die Kluge*


----------



## Almaviva

Nice selection!

I haven't heard or seen it, but El Retablo de Maese Pedro is classified as a puppet chamber opera. I'm very curious. I know of a recording released by Decca with the London Symphonieta, in 2 CDs with other works by Manuel de Falla. Is there a video version that you can recommend? 

Orff, I had never heard of. Can you tell us more?


----------



## the_emptier

oh dear, i need to listen to a lot more operas. i may be well acquainted with the arias, singers and composers but i haven't actually listened to a lot of full operas. mostly verdi, wagner, puccini, rossini and donizetti...my favorite (right now) is probably la boheme...so cli che. it hasn't even been named on here once, is it just totally overrated nowadays or what? i dunno it's just so easy to listen to over and over again...the orchestration is just fantastic and the singing is great throughout regardless of the timeless arias. it's hard to pick the best OPERA and not thinking about different version, who sang what etc. you may hate an opera if it's sung by the wrong people. Rigoletto, the milnes,sutherland,pavarotti version, is just RIDICULOUS and probably my 2nd favorite. 

one opera that i really enjoy that is kind of obscure is Die Gezeichneten by Franz Schreker, it has superb orchestration, absolutely amazing and haunting, incredibly weird story as well...definitely fits the austrian/germanic style of libretto


and how long is prokofiev's war and peace?? the notorious movie is like 16 hours or something crazy....i can only imagine that's a long opera. 13 scenes or something?


----------



## Almaviva

the_emptier said:


> oh dear, i need to listen to a lot more operas. i may be well acquainted with the arias, singers and composers but i haven't actually listened to a lot of full operas. mostly verdi, wagner, puccini, rossini and donizetti...my favorite (right now) is probably la boheme...so cli che. it hasn't even been named on here once, is it just totally overrated nowadays or what? i dunno it's just so easy to listen to over and over again...the orchestration is just fantastic and the singing is great throughout regardless of the timeless arias. it's hard to pick the best OPERA and not thinking about different version, who sang what etc. you may hate an opera if it's sung by the wrong people. Rigoletto, the milnes,sutherland,pavarotti version, is just RIDICULOUS and probably my 2nd favorite.
> 
> one opera that i really enjoy that is kind of obscure is Die Gezeichneten by Franz Schreker, it has superb orchestration, absolutely amazing and haunting, incredibly weird story as well...definitely fits the austrian/germanic style of libretto
> 
> and how long is prokofiev's war and peace?? the notorious movie is like 16 hours or something crazy....i can only imagine that's a long opera. 13 scenes or something?


Hey, this is an old thread that was resurrected, but the real reference for this is our Top 100 Recommended operas which now is a sticky, locked thread that is the very first one in the forum - it will be revised yearly. Over there, La Bohème placed number 8, so, no, it's not cliché, we still love it, and rightfully so because it is a masterpiece.

As for different versions, we're currently establishing our list of preferred versions for the top 100, it will be a long process, we're now finishing up with number 4 Giulio Cesare and about to move on to number 5 Les Troyens. This thread can be found in the sub-forum.

Die Gezeichneten seems wonderful, I've just bought a copy but haven't had the time to watch it yet.

War and Peace is very good. It is number 37 in our list. Yes, it's a long one. The running time is 289 minutes.


----------



## the_emptier

!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh my gosh....i definitely would like to hear that someday though. 

Schreker is one of those fantastic composers sadly snubbed by political/religious indifferences. i saw the first production ever in the western hemisphere at the LA Opera last year in may. it was my first opera and i'll definitely never forget it


----------



## Il_Penseroso

*El Retablo de Maese Pedro*



Almaviva said:


> Nice selection!
> 
> I haven't heard or seen it, but El Retablo de Maese Pedro is classified as a puppet chamber opera. I'm very curious. I know of a recording released by Decca with the London Symphonieta, in 2 CDs with other works by Manuel de Falla. Is there a video version that you can recommend?
> 
> Orff, I had never heard of. Can you tell us more?


It is certainly his masterwork. At the premiere (Seville, 1923) the composer himself conducted the work.

Stravinsky admired the work (and the Concerto for Cembalo) in his autobiography (Chroniques de ma vie) probably because of the some neo-classical elements Falla has used in the score. and it is also interesting that before this work, Falla had worked with *Federico García Lorca* for a musical puppet show performed and directed by Lorca while Falla ,at the piano, played some pieces of Debussy, Ravel and Stravinsky.

The best audio performance of El Retablo, I think is under the baton of *Ataúlfo Argenta* conducting the national orchestra of spain, for *Decca 1958* (An earlier version conducted also by Argenta recorded in 1950 for 78 rpms). I suggest you the Decca version . It's wonderful.

About the video performance a DVD conducted by *Charles Dutoit* is available. It is first released on VHS by *A&E* in *1992 *but I haven't seen it yet.

***

About *Orff*, both of these one act operas ( if we even could call them so) are based on *The Grimm Brothers' *stories and the music style is something like the famous Carmina Burana. The best Record you may find on *EMI* CD conducted by *Wolfgang Sawallisch*.

Regards


----------



## Almaviva

Thanks a lot, Il Penseroso.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Almaviva said:


> Thanks a lot, Il Penseroso.


You're Welcome Almaviva, 
I forgot to add 2 more of my favorite Operas: the first is The Bartered Bride by Smetana and the other is Koroghlu by the Azerbaijanian composer Uzeyir Hajibeyov. I know it hsn't heared by too many music lovers in the western world yet, but sounds very beautiful to me, especially *****'s Arias in Act 1 and 2. 
You can find the Libretto here :
http://www.hajibeyov.com/music/koroghlu/koroghlu_eng/koroghlu_libretto_eng/koroghlu_libretto_eng.pdf


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Excuse me*

I love the ring very deeply...(I bought 3 versions lately, see my thread) but saying that is the* best of the best *it is kind of saying: "my taste is the best", no other counts!

Then, I do not agree. The subject is much more difficult than declaring...there are just these 4 operas being the great.

I know many operas I like more. My opinion counts a LOT for ME as you opinion counts for YOU.

This thread becomes a threat....LOL. Like or die! No way! Nonsense!

Herzlich

Martin, a Russian opera lover


----------



## MAuer

I have to go with dear Ludwig van B. and his one-and-only (well, maybe a little more than one, since there are two versions that precede the 1814 final that we know as "Fidelio"). Even though I wouldn't list individual arias as my favorites among those written for a particular voice (soprano, tenor, bass, etc.), this is definitely a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The music is gorgeous -- even the material he ended up dropping from the 1814 final -- and, for me, there's no other opera that matches the emotional impact of this one. I have nearly a dozen recordings, the 2004 Zürich DVD included, and would probably have considerably more if I weren't so picky about casting (I prefer lirico-spinto voices in the two leads).


----------



## tdc

MAuer said:


> I have to go with dear Ludwig van B. and his one-and-only (well, maybe a little more than one, since there are two versions that precede the 1814 final that we know as "Fidelio"). Even though I wouldn't list individual arias as my favorites among those written for a particular voice (soprano, tenor, bass, etc.), this is definitely a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The music is gorgeous -- even the material he ended up dropping from the 1814 final -- and, for me, there's no other opera that matches the emotional impact of this one. I have nearly a dozen recordings, the 2004 Zürich DVD included, and would probably have considerably more if I weren't so picky about casting (I prefer lirico-spinto voices in the two leads).


Thats the first time I've ever come across anyone claiming 'Fidelio' was their favorite opera, and perhaps even the first positive review I've read about it here. Interesting.


----------



## Almaviva

tdc said:


> Thats the first time I've ever come across anyone claiming 'Fidelio' was their favorite opera, and perhaps even the first positive review I've read about it here. Interesting.


Most serious critics hold _Fidelio_ in high esteem.
You need to realize that this was Beethoven's first (and only) attempt at opera. Great opera composers like Wagner, Verdi, and Mozart, all had some misfires at first.
Beethoven composed a very good opera in his first attempt, even though it has some small problems. It's still a masterpiece.
It is a lot better than the vast majority of first attempts by any major opera composer.


----------



## Kieran

Almaviva said:


> Great opera composers like Wagner, Verdi, and Mozart, all had some misfires at first.


I think Mozart was 12 when he composed his first opera, so maybe a misfire could be expected, though from what I've heard, the boy done good! :lol:

With Beethoven, I always wonder why he didn't compose more opera. Was it because composition was a slow, painstaking task for him, and so committing to such a long piece of work would be too much, and then when he went deaf, he possibly thought it would be pointless?

Or did he struggle to compose for voices? I know, he composed the imposing Missa Solemnis and the Ninth, but you know what i mean. Maybe he wasn't so natural a dramatist as the more famous opera composers.

I've only heard positive things about Fidelio, although I never heard too many people list it as high as the best of Mozart/Verdi/Wagner, etc...


----------



## Almaviva

Beethoven was crushed by the initial poor response to Fidelio. A report by a friend states that he was laying on his couch for one full week, barely eating or drinking, after the premiere. Then he kept reworking the score (and famously writing 4 different overtures) for several years. Some uneven pace and some theatrical problems show that Beethoven wasn't at ease with the medium of opera. I believe that the whole experience was too emotionally taxing and he didn't want to repeat it. Still, and in spite of initial harsh criticism, Fidelio is a spectacular opera, and its small problems are dwarfed by its qualities. I think that what Beethoven didn't realize is that opera is a different animal and requires such a mixing of different artistic components (not just the music, but staging, costumes, props, acting, pace, theatricality, libretto, etc) that it is often hard to get everything right in a performance, opening the door to misguided criticism. Apparently Beethoven was very sensitive to criticism, and thought that the whole experience of writing and staging an opera was traumatic. Too bad, because he surely did it very well for a first attempt, and had he persisted, we'd have in all likelihood been treated to some other masterpieces.


----------



## Kieran

Thanks Almaviva, seems like the making of Fidelio is a whole book in itself. Another reason to mourn Mozart's early demise, perhaps, since Beethoven arrived in Vienna in 1792 to study under the greatest living composer, who was Haydn at that time. If Mozart had lived, he may have taught Beethoven how to compose operas. It mightn't have worked, but we can fantasise, eh?:tiphat:

To go back on topic, my three favourite operas are the three da Ponte operas: The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, and Cosi Fan Tutte. Changes depending on which one I'm listening to. Are they the best? There ain't a measuring stick in existence to tell, but I sure enjoy 'em! :trp:


----------



## MAuer

Apparently, Beethoven did try his hand at least one more time at composing an opera, but never completed it. It was titled "Vesta's Fire," and I'm still trying to track down any snippets of it that may have been recorded.

I read somewhere that he had also looked over a libretto for another possible opera, this one to be titled "The Pennsylvanians in America," but never went beyond that point. Rather an odd moniker, but I suppose one could also find Pennsylvanians elsewhere in the world.


----------



## Almaviva

Kieran, whether they are "the best" or not is a difficult question to answer, given that it's an elusive question and a matter of subjective taste. They are certainly among the very best, given that they were authored by two exceptional artists - one of the very best composers together with one of the very best librettists. They have a steadily high level of quality in all aspects of such works, like orchestral music, arias and ensembles, well developed characters with witty lines, theatrical flair, excellent pace, etc. It is hard to top them. But there are many other works that can be considered to have a similar level of quality, such as those by Wagner, Verdi, Handel, and I'll throw in one of my favorites, Berlioz.


----------



## Kieran

Almaviva said:


> Kieran, whether they are "the best" or not is a difficult question to answer, given that it's an elusive question and a matter of subjective taste.


Yeah, this is largely true. I tend to think that if you pine for an apple, a Mars bar isn't so great. Likewise, in whatever mood I'm in, the opera I need to hear is "the best". There are objective measures too, I'm sure, but none which could scientifically satisfy everyone....


----------



## myaskovsky2002

tahnak said:


> Richard Wagner's Der Ring Des Nibelungen takes this slot.
> Das Rheingold, the Prelude, is magnificent. Richard Wagner wrote this mammoth cycle in a period spanning 26 years from 1848 to 1874. He intended the audience to watch the entire four musik dramas (Das Rheingold, Die Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung) on four successive nights without a break. He was disgusted when the operas were given a stand alone performance. The entire cycle demands nineteen hours of listening and believe me each second demands intense concentration. There were two by products of the Ring. They were Siegfried Idyll and Kindercatechismus for chamber orchestra.
> 
> It is genius at the highest cadre of work. The 136 bar muted undulating drone on the E Flat Major Chord is the longest drone in the concert repertoire. Orchestrally, Das Rheingold remains my favourite opera. The opening prelude and the scintillating writing for the strings and the brass make it the prelude of all preludes in opera.
> The prelude is broken by the rhinemaidens' song and the entry of the Nibelung elf, Alberich, to the drama. He is the Nibelung the ring's story is all about. He renounces worldly lust and love and becomes the owner of the golden hoard out of which he forges the ring to become Master of the World until Loge's cunning wit and Wotan's deceit take the Ring to a full circle of the greed for power until Alberich's curse on the Ring.
> 
> Another great orchestral brushwork by Wagner is the interlude between scene 2 and scene 3 when Loge and Wotan descend into Nibelheim where the orchestra surges into a dotted rhythm with the introduction of sixteen anvils of different pitch.
> 
> After the departure of Fafner when he kills his brother Fasolt and disappears with the golden hoard, the Tarnhelm and the Ring, we have a majestic call of thunder by Donner (Heda Hedo) with his hammer blow followed by the Rainbow interlude and entry of the Gods into Valhalla bringing the opera to its magnificent conclusion with the wailing of the Rhinemaidens in the background.
> 
> I have heard versions by Furtwangler, Solti, Karajan, Bohm, Levine and Boulez of this opera and I consider Solti as the Definitive version on Decca with the Wiener Philharmoniker and George London and Kirsten Flagstad. This recording of 1959 still remains as the one to beat. It is simply magnificent.


I don't like your title...Even if I deeply like these 4 operas...This is JUST your opinion. I won't write here any more.

Martin


----------



## AnaMendoza

Thanks for bumping this thread to the top, where I could see it. You're absolutely right, there's nothing better than the _Ring_. :devil:


----------



## larifari

For 'one great tune after another' nothing can beat "The Merry Widow". 

If that is what you are looking for, ditch opera. Start listening to and appreciating operetta.

Otherwise consider 'La Boheme'.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

AnaMendoza said:


> Thanks for bumping this thread to the top, where I could see it. You're absolutely right, there's nothing better than the _Ring_. :devil:


I'm sorry...this doesn't seem very logical....A question of opinions...I could say "Wozzeck", many other people would say Traviata. Imagine making a thread for each opera we "LOVE" calling it "the best". This is ridiculous. It wouldn't be ridiculous to call this site the ring...but "the best opera" is just silly.
I love the ring (the ring is not just ONE opera, but 4), but for ME are not the best. Finally your thread doesn't need to be bumped...It falls in pieces by itself!!!! Ask for opinions...

Martin


----------



## martijn

What a misleading topic. The Ring (if one should see it as one opera, and not four) may be the longest opera, but not the greatest. It's the usual trap people fall into: something is huge, so it's the best. The Ring is the longest opera, so it's the greatest. Beethoven's 9th symphony was the longest symphony up till then, so it was the greatest symphony. Stairway to heaven is one of the longest popsongs, so it's one of the best. Ulysses is a very thick book, so it must be very good. People tend to mistake quantity for quality.

Of course Wagner was a genius. But the pace of his operas is way too slow. As a Dutch writer described it well: they lack the heartbeat of human life. Rather I would go for Verdi, who was less innovative, but much more a "real" opera composer.

But of course the greatest operas are all by Mozart: Le Nozze, Don Giovanni, Così fan Tutte (so underrated), and die Zauberflöte.


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> What a misleading topic. The Ring (if one should see it as one opera, and not four) may be the longest opera, but not the greatest. It's the usual trap people fall into: something is huge, so it's the best. The Ring is the longest opera, so it's the greatest. Beethoven's 9th symphony was the longest symphony up till then, so it was the greatest symphony. Stairway to heaven is one of the longest popsongs, so it's one of the best. Ulysses is a very thick book, so it must be very good. People tend to mistake quantity for quality.
> 
> Of course Wagner was a genius. But the pace of his operas is way too slow. As a Dutch writer described it well: they lack the heartbeat of human life. Rather I would go for Verdi, who was less innovative, but much more a "real" opera composer.
> 
> But of course the greatest operas are all by Mozart: Le Nozze, Don Giovanni, Così fan Tutte (so underrated), and die Zauberflöte.


This is an old thread that has been bumped up. It doesn't represent current consensus among our members. The more current way to say this is that there is no "best" opera since this is subjective. Lately when we encounter this issue we merely say "most recommended" opera, meaning that our members recommend certain operas more often than others.

In this spirit, there was extensive voting done, and the _Ring_ did come up on top. Second was _Tristan und Isolde_, and third, _Le Nozze di Figaro_. We went on to establish a list of 272 operas. Again, they are not the best operas, they are the ones that our members most recommend.

This said, I don't think that anybody here has ever suggested that the _Ring_ is good because it is long. More likely people think that it is good in spite of being long. By the way, it is not even the longuest as you say - this honor (?) has been taken by Stockhausen's _Licht _cycle (with over 29 hours of music, versus the _Ring_'s 16).

If you think that the collective expertise of Talk Classical members can be reduced to this kind of idea - that we like better whatever is longer - you need to interact more with our members; I'm quite sure you'll change your mind about this perception. So if your perception had merit, _Licht_ would have been our number one. It actually comes in 260th place in our list.

About _Così_ being underrated, I don't think it is. I believe that most people all over the world place it solidly among Mozart's top four (the ones you've mentioned). Just using TC's membership as an example, it's number 17 in our list, and Mozart's 4th top ranked (after _Nozze _third, _Don Giovanni _sixth, and _The Magic Flute _11th). I don't think that being ranked 17th among the 40,000 operas that have been composed qualifies as being underrated. I've seen all 22 operas by Mozart, and I certainly place _Così _among his top four, and in my opinion, even third, since I like it better than _The Magic Flute _(a tiny bit better, but I do).

About Wagner's operas having a slow pace, it's a matter of opinion and taste. I think that most of them are rather entertaining and intense, very theatrical. This said, I also love Mozart's and Verdi's, but I would never say that Wagner's operas lack the heartbeat of human life, much the opposite.


----------



## martijn

Of course there is no objective way to "measure" which opera is best. But since it's very boring to respect each other's opinion, it's now and then nice to state that your own taste is the best. It keeps the discussion going. 
Besides that, I've the bad habit of naming authorities who share my opinion. I'm sure the majority of the great composers would agree me with that Mozart is the greatest opera composer. Don Giovanni was the favorite opera of Chopin, Tsjaikovsky, the young Mendelssohn, Rossini and Gounod. Le Nozze was the favorite opera of Richard Strauss and Brahms, who said that never anything like that was being made again. Ligeti called Le Nozze and Don Giovanni the greatest operas of all, and Così the most beautiful music there was. Busoni, and I believe Beethoven as well considered Die Zauberflöte their favorite opera. Ravel regarded the final act of Idomeneo the greatest music there was. And I could go on and on, quoting composers from Messiaen to Stravinsky, from Mussorgsky to Rimsky-Korsakov, and Grieg to Fauré. I couldn't come up with such an extensive list for Wagner. Wagner himself said that he couldn't understand people compared him to Mozart, since he saw Mozart as a much greater composer. He particularly loved Le Nozze. 

I didn't say the people on Talk Classical mistake quantity for quality. I said that it's the case in general with the audience. Just look at lists of the greatest song, work, book, and so on, and you will see this holds true. I wasn't aware of the existence of this opera of Stockhausen, but we will agree The Ring is quite long.

About Così I have to disagree strongly. I find the 17th position on an all-time list, way, way too low. If you asked me, it would be on number 1. I cannot even think of 16 other operas that would come close. 

I didn't say Wagner's operas are not intense. Perhaps they are too intense. For this reason I'm of the opinion the music of Wagner should only be available in small doses at the drug store. But the pace is too slow in my opinion. And I despise the influence of Wagner on Western music. One Wagner was enough. Fortunately in the 20th century many composers have stood up against Wagner.


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> Of course there is no objective way to "measure" which opera is best. But since it's very boring to respect each other's opinion, it's now and then nice to state that your own taste is the best. It keeps the discussion going.
> Besides that, I've the bad habit of naming authorities who share my opinion. I'm sure the majority of the great composers would agree me with that Mozart is the greatest opera composer. Don Giovanni was the favorite opera of Chopin, Tsjaikovsky, the young Mendelssohn, Rossini and Gounod. Le Nozze was the favorite opera of Richard Strauss and Brahms, who said that never anything like that was being made again. Ligeti called Le Nozze and Don Giovanni the greatest operas of all, and Così the most beautiful music there was. Busoni, and I believe Beethoven as well considered Die Zauberflöte their favorite opera. Ravel regarded the final act of Idomeneo the greatest music there was. And I could go on and on, quoting composers from Messiaen to Stravinsky, from Mussorgsky to Rimsky-Korsakov, and Grieg to Fauré. I couldn't come up with such an extensive list for Wagner. Wagner himself said that he couldn't understand people compared him to Mozart, since he saw Mozart as a much greater composer. He particularly loved Le Nozze.
> 
> I didn't say the people on Talk Classical mistake quantity for quality. I said that it's the case in general with the audience. Just look at lists of the greatest song, work, book, and so on, and you will see this holds true. I wasn't aware of the existence of this opera of Stockhausen, but we will agree The Ring is quite long.
> 
> About Così I have to disagree strongly. I find the 17th position on an all-time list, way, way too low. If you asked me, it would be on number 1. I cannot even think of 16 other operas that would come close.
> 
> I didn't say Wagner's operas are not intense. Perhaps they are too intense. For this reason I'm of the opinion the music of Wagner should only be available in small doses at the drug store. But the pace is too slow in my opinion. And I despise the influence of Wagner on Western music. One Wagner was enough. Fortunately in the 20th century many composers have stood up against Wagner.


I don't name authorities who share my opinion (of which there are many - the Ring is the second object of study that has generated the most publications, after the Bible). I prefer to just state what *I* like and recommend. Doing so, I don't pretend to have all the answers. I'm just stating my taste, and I understand that many others have different tastes. It so happens that over here on Talk Classical more members than not do think that the Ring is the number one opera (or opera cycle if you prefer).

About Cosi we'll be happy to ask. We are supposed to revise the list yearly, and you should feel free to vote for Cosi as number one once we do. Anyway, these lists are just for our enjoyment, it is fun to make them. They do serve a purpose - as a reference for some people who are approaching opera more recently - but we don't take the lists over seriously. Like I said, they are merely an account of our members' preferences.

Wagner is far from being a consensus among opera lovers. I understand that you don't like his operas that much, or at least, you don't place them above Mozart's operas. That's perfectly fine. It's not my case, though.


----------



## amfortas

Along with Almaviva, I would like to express my admiration of both Mozart and Wagner, and I welcome input from someone like martijn who can help me to an even better understanding and appreciation of the former.


----------



## Almaviva

Let me elaborate a little longer on the concept of an opera being underrated.

What I meant is that I don't think _Così fan Tutte_ is underrated because it enjoys wide recognition all over the world, it belongs to the standard repertory, it is given quite often in the major opera houses and in regional companies, it's been recorded multiple times, and it got some very good DVD and blu-ray versions. I don't see who exactly underrates _Così, _it's pretty much adored by the overwhelming majority of opera fans, and belongs in the select group of Mozart's Da Ponte operas, considered by most fans to be his best operatic creations.

Now, for me, truly underrated operas are those that have high intrinsic musical/theatrical quality but are almost forgotten, rarely given, rarely recorded, and rarely if ever, released on DVD. Or else, operas that are extremely sublime and should be in most people's top 10, but although recognized as important, are rarely given the utmost respect they deserve.

So let's go for some examples.

Bizet's _Les Pêcheurs de Perles._ Three or four recordings, 1 DVD. Almost never given in regional companies. Very rarely given in major opera houses. One tiny fraction of the popularity of _Carmen. _However, it is exquisite, has all the good elements of an opera: sublime music, some of the most melodious arias and duets, a compelling plot with a love triangle, doubt and ambivalence, friendships and love and altruism, sacrifice, death, exotic locales, a beautiful woman, good quality libretto. Still, it is badly neglected. That's what underrated means for me.

Another example, any number of Handel's operas except _Giulio Cesare_. Most others, if not for a recent revival inspired by the HIP orchestras, are rarely given and rarely known to casual opera fans, although most of his operas are truly excellent.

Berlioz's _Les Troyens _is a classic example of an underrated opera - a major masterpiece that gets rarely staged given the demanding resources needed to get it done, such as large chorus, too many characters (therefore, singers that need to be hired), huge orchestra, long duration (5 hours), and so forth. It is scholarly recognized as great, but rarely makes it to the public in order to be appreciated by more people.

_Die Tote Stadt _is another spectacular opera that suffers from some ostracism due to its composer's reputation for cinematic music (a rather silly prejudice because _Die Tote Stadt _is definitely operatic).

_Die Frau ohne Schatten _in my opinion is the best opera by Richard Strauss, but suffers from competition with his much more famous works such as _Der Rosenkavalier, Salome, _and_ Elektra._

Some hidden gems got forgotten in spite of their high quality: _Il Sant'Alessio, Il Burbero di Buon Cuore _(I know that schigolch disagrees with this one), _L'Alidoro.

La Serva Padrona _is historically important and excellent, but rarely thought of.

_La Damnation de Faust _(an oratorio but it can be staged as an opera) is simply spectacular, but suffers from competition from the vastly inferior _Faust _from Gounod (a good opera, but definitely not as good as _La Damnation de Faust_, in my opinion).

These are some examples of underrated operas. _Così_? Nah, _Così _is not underrated, it is solidly placed among Mozart's top 4, and being among Mozart's top 4 is no small matter, so it is very highly regarded by mostly everybody who knows opera. How can it be called underrated, then?

Going back to Wagner - how can someone say that Wagner's operas lack heart? Has the person who said so listened to the _Liebestod_??? Isn't Hans Sachs a sweet guy with a big heart (except for his racist rant at the end)? Regarding pace, _Tristan und Isolde _is an intense rollercoaster of emotions! At the end of it I feel exhausted, drained! The entire _Ring - _maybe with the exception of _Siegfried's _first two acts - is a nail-biting thriller!

OK, _Rienzi _is overlong and does benefit from some cuts... and I'm slow to warm up to _Parsifal _although this for me is more related to the subject matter than to the sublime music. Otherwise, Wagner's operas are all very theatrical and well-paced.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Greatest opera? Ooooooo...tricky question.

I can attack this question with confidence from the following perspective. The _first_ great opera ever written was most probably Handel's _Giulio Cesare in Egitto_ (February 1724, London). It still stands up well to any three and a half hour to four hour long opera written by later composer after him (time span chosen because most performances today of _Cesare_ go for over 3.5 but under 4 hours).

And as for those who might think Monteverdi's _Orfeo_ might be the first great opera, as fine as _Orfeo_ might be, it really belongs to a special league of its own, owing to the fact that it occupied a very early stage of opera, that was largely still during embryonic development stage. The concept of opera was rather different to the concept of opera that Baroque folks would have understood, which arguably come closer to modern audience's perception that does works by Monterverdi and his contemporaries/students.

IMHO, of course. :lol:


----------



## Gualtier Malde

Appreciation (or lack thereof) of a piece of art also very much depends on the state of mind with which it is approached. I react very differently to one and the same piece, depending on whether I think I'm:
(1) getting ready to savor a sublime masterpiece bestowed on humankind by a composer of singular genius or
(2) graciously giving a superficial hearing to a flawed effort of a minor composer

Once a certain opinion on a given piece is firmly established, it just seems to sustain itself by this mechanism.


----------



## Almaviva

Gualtier Malde said:


> Appreciation (or lack thereof) of a piece of art also very much depends on the state of mind with which it is approached. I react very differently to one and the same piece, depending on whether I think I'm:
> (1) getting ready to savor a sublime masterpiece bestowed on humankind by a composer of singular genius or
> (2) graciously giving a superficial hearing to a flawed effort of a minor composer
> 
> Once a certain opinion on a given piece is firmly established, it just seems to sustain itself by this mechanism.


Gualtier!!!! Welcome back, buddy!!!!


----------



## amfortas

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Greatest opera? Ooooooo...tricky question.
> 
> I can attack this question with confidence from the following perspective. The _first_ great opera ever written was most probably Handel's _Giulio Cesare in Egitto_ (February 1724, London). It still stands up well to any three and a half hour to four hour long opera written by later composer after him (time span chosen because most performances today of _Cesare_ go for over 3.5 but under 4 hours).
> 
> And as for those who might think Monteverdi's _Orfeo_ might be the first great opera, as fine as _Orfeo_ might be, it really belongs to a special league of its own, owing to the fact that it occupied a very early stage of opera, that was largely still during embryonic development stage. The concept of opera was rather different to the concept of opera that Baroque folks would have understood, which arguably come closer to modern audience's perception that does works by Monterverdi and his contemporaries/students.
> 
> IMHO, of course. :lol:


If you don't buy Monteverdi's _Orfeo_ as the first great opera, then I would nominate his _L'incoronazione di Poppea_. It was written thirty-five years later for the thriving Venetian commercial theatre, so we're no longer at an early, undeveloped stage of opera. And it's an acknowledged masterpiece, showing not only musical distinction but also a kind of Shakespearean complexity of character and situation that is not dissimilar to _Giulio Cesare_.

And yes, it's all definitely IMHO. :lol:


----------



## Almaviva

amfortas said:


> If you don't buy Monteverdi's _Orfeo_ as the first great opera, then I would nominate his _L'incoronazione di Poppea_. It was written thirty-five years later for the thriving Venetian commercial theatre, so we're no longer at an early, undeveloped stage of opera. And it's an acknowledged masterpiece, showing not only musical distinction but also a kind of Shakespearean complexity of character and situation that is not dissimilar to _Giulio Cesare_.
> 
> And yes, it's all definitely IMHO. :lol:


But the problem is, Poppea although good is not as good as Orfeo, and it is not even certain that it is Monteverdi's.

IMAO.:devil:


----------



## Gualtier Malde

Almaviva said:


> Gualtier!!!! Welcome back, buddy!!!!


Thanks - have been reading for a while already, now visible again


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

_Poppea_ was not entirely by Monteverdi. Some maintains that it was an "open score", flexible enough for adaptation to particular carnivals etc. I enjoy it as it has survived in the two versions that we know of, and who knows how many others there were (or are yet still to be discovered). There were either or both collaboration between Monteverdi and his student(s), or later composer(s) adapted it for a particular performance.


----------



## martijn

Wow, that's a lot of new replies. 

Almaviva, thanks for the list of underrated operas, I'm relatively new to opera, and apart from the operas of the "Big Three" (Mozart, Verdi and Wagner) and some blockbusters, there's still quite something to explore for me. Händel has sublime music in his operas, but he also has many weaker moments in his works. What Rossini said about Wagner could be applied in a sense to Händel as well: "he has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour".

This debate shouldn't be taken too seriously, it's just that when you love something so much, you cannot resist the temptation to tell everybody your favorite is the greatest of all, like a proud mother calling her baby the most beautiful baby in the world. And in general I believe we agree that both Mozart and Wagner were geniuses, so we don't disagree thát much.
That said, I don't know so much authorities who would consider The Ring the greatest of all operas. Most writers about music who can barely write a note of music themselves, I wouldn't consider authorities by the way. If The Ring has generated such a lot of publications, than this doesn't say a lot to me, because I'm pretty sure a lot of these publications would deal with the text of The Ring, and as great as the music of The Ring may be, the text is utterly nonsensical. 

About Così: I know that Così is regarded by practically everyone as a masterwork. In that sense it's not underrated. What I mean with underrated is that if people are asked to pick their favorite opera of all time, many people would vote for Don Giovanni, Le Nozze di Figaro or Die Zauberflöte, but rarely one votes for Così. I've never understood this, especially because many people choose another opera of Mozart, and then later on they say that Così perhaps contains Mozart's most beautiful music. Even Ligeti does it, as I quoted him in my previous post. It has always puzzled me. If Così is Mozart's most beautiful music, why isn't it his greatest opera? Dramatically it's every bit as great as the other two Da Ponte operas, so why place Così below these operas? I suspect it has to do with the "immoral" libretto of Così. For me that's totally unimportant, I always try to ignore the text of the opera, because it's so often so incredibly bad. And, as far as I've read the text of Così, the libretto strikes me as quite fine.

You are a bit mistaken about my view on Wagner. As I said in my previous post, I don't think Wagner's music lacks passion and emotions. The author I quoted by the way also admired Wagner a lot. What he and I just agree on is that the pace of the opera is too slow. That's really a different thing. And I will never deny Wagner's genius, his harmonies are outrageous, and his orchestration can be magnificent.

@Amfortas, what should I tell about Mozart and his operas to change your view on Mozart?


----------



## jdavid

Personally, 'hearing' Levine's version is better than 'seeing' it. (In my truly humble opinion) The Met's stage production is an arch-conservative, boring, and frequently embarrassing affair - (one example: Fasolt as the Dragon in Seigfried looks more like a gelatinous toad than a dragon). It is a a fine cast, however. And the women are the real treat: Jessye Norman as Sieglinde, the late Hidegaard Behrens as Brunhilde, and Christa Ludwig as Fricka steal the show. Levine's Met orchestra is fine and I like his tempos, but I would never buy the DVD.


----------



## MAuer

jdavid said:


> Personally, 'hearing' Levine's version is better than 'seeing' it. (In my truly humble opinion) The Met's stage production is an arch-conservative, boring, and frequently embarrassing affair - (one example: Fasolt as the Dragon in Seigfried looks more like a gelatinous toad than a dragon). It is a a fine cast, however. And the women are the real treat: Jessye Norman as Sieglinde, the late Hidegaard Behrens as Brunhilde, and Christa Ludwig as Fricka steal the show. Levine's Met orchestra is fine and I like his tempos, but I would never buy the DVD.


Welcome, jdavid! If you prefer non-traditional Ring stagings, you may enjoy the Barenboim/Kupfer version from Bayreuth. Anne Evans is a marvelous Brünnhilde -- better than Behrens, I think.


----------



## amfortas

Almaviva said:


> But the problem is, Poppea although good is not as good as Orfeo, and it is not even certain that it is Monteverdi's.





HarpsichordConcerto said:


> _Poppea_ was not entirely by Monteverdi. Some maintains that it was an "open score", flexible enough for adaptation to particular carnivals etc. I enjoy it as it has survived in the two versions that we know of, and who knows how many others there were (or are yet still to be discovered). There were either or both collaboration between Monteverdi and his student(s), or later composer(s) adapted it for a particular performance.


Many hold that _Poppea_ is Monteverdi's masterpiece. Others argue for _Orfeo_, but the two works are so different it's hard to compare them. They each shine in their own distinctive ways.

If _Poppea_ is a collaboration, does that bear on the question of its greatness? I suppose it depends on whether you're considering the intrinsic merit of a work or the accomplishment of its creator. If you apply the first measure, I would still call _Poppea_ a great opea.

And enough of the polite IMHO stuff. Everything I say is a fact that cannot be disputed! :devil:


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> If The Ring has generated such a lot of publications, than this doesn't say a lot to me, because I'm pretty sure a lot of these publications would deal with the text of The Ring, and as great as the music of The Ring may be, the text is utterly nonsensical.


I would respectfully disagree on that last point. And after all, would an utterly nonsensical text have generated that much commentary?

The Ring is indeed a sprawling, unwieldy work with many serious flaws. But nonetheless, I and many others find it tremendously compelling as both music and drama. I won't go on a lengthy tirade here; there are threads on this forum which have considered a number of specific textual issues. And I'm always more than happy to discuss any particular aspect of the cycle should you be interested.


----------



## Almaviva

amfortas said:


> Many hold that _Poppea_ is Monteverdi's masterpiece. Others argue for _Orfeo_, but the two works are so different it's hard to compare them. They each shine in their own distinctive ways.


Yep, they are so different that the question of authorship becomes relevant. Personally, I much prefer L'Orfeo. But I also do like Poppea.


> If _Poppea_ is a collaboration, does that bear on the question of its greatness? I suppose it depends on whether you're considering the intrinsic merit of a work or the accomplishment of its creator. If you apply the first measure, I would still call _Poppea_ a great opea.


I guess I was just teasing you a little.


> And enough of the polite IMHO stuff. Everything I say is a fact that cannot be disputed! :devil:


Amfortas, haven't you noticed that I said IMAO? It stands for In My Arrogant Opinion!


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> Wow, that's a lot of new replies.
> 
> Almaviva, thanks for the list of underrated operas, I'm relatively new to opera, and apart from the operas of the "Big Three" (Mozart, Verdi and Wagner) and some blockbusters, there's still quite something to explore for me. Händel has sublime music in his operas, but he also has many weaker moments in his works. What Rossini said about Wagner could be applied in a sense to Händel as well: "he has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour".
> 
> This debate shouldn't be taken too seriously, it's just that when you love something so much, you cannot resist the temptation to tell everybody your favorite is the greatest of all, like a proud mother calling her baby the most beautiful baby in the world. And in general I believe we agree that both Mozart and Wagner were geniuses, so we don't disagree thát much.
> That said, I don't know so much authorities who would consider The Ring the greatest of all operas. Most writers about music who can barely write a note of music themselves, I wouldn't consider authorities by the way. If The Ring has generated such a lot of publications, than this doesn't say a lot to me, because I'm pretty sure a lot of these publications would deal with the text of The Ring, and as great as the music of The Ring may be, the text is utterly nonsensical.
> 
> About Così: I know that Così is regarded by practically everyone as a masterwork. In that sense it's not underrated. What I mean with underrated is that if people are asked to pick their favorite opera of all time, many people would vote for Don Giovanni, Le Nozze di Figaro or Die Zauberflöte, but rarely one votes for Così. I've never understood this, especially because many people choose another opera of Mozart, and then later on they say that Così perhaps contains Mozart's most beautiful music. Even Ligeti does it, as I quoted him in my previous post. It has always puzzled me. If Così is Mozart's most beautiful music, why isn't it his greatest opera? Dramatically it's every bit as great as the other two Da Ponte operas, so why place Così below these operas? I suspect it has to do with the "immoral" libretto of Così. For me that's totally unimportant, I always try to ignore the text of the opera, because it's so often so incredibly bad. And, as far as I've read the text of Così, the libretto strikes me as quite fine.
> 
> You are a bit mistaken about my view on Wagner. As I said in my previous post, I don't think Wagner's music lacks passion and emotions. The author I quoted by the way also admired Wagner a lot. What he and I just agree on is that the pace of the opera is too slow. That's really a different thing. And I will never deny Wagner's genius, his harmonies are outrageous, and his orchestration can be magnificent.
> 
> @Amfortas, what should I tell about Mozart and his operas to change your view on Mozart?


OK, now I understand better your position regarding Così. For me, it is Mozart's third best, but by a hair. It's just that the other two are so darn good, that it's not shameful to hold third place. Yes, Così has gorgeous music, but it becomes a question of preference, and I do find the music in Le Nozze particularly sublime. And I think that both Le Nozze and Don Giovanni are more theatrical than Così. And of course, I don't hold Così in any lesser esteem because of the spicy plot, much the opposite. Once you get to know me more, you'll understand that I very much like spicy plots with beautiful women...

But we're kind of arguing about very tiny differences... The way these three Mozart/Da Ponte operas relate to each other can only be described as tiny quality differences... they are all three extremely good, and are part of practically all serious opera lovers' list of the very best. So the bottom line is that I think Le Nozze is a tiny bit better than Don Giovanni which is a tiny bit better than Così, and all three are fabulous and VERY much better than most operas ever written.

Then, I place The Magic Flute another tiny bit behind these three, and Idomeneo fifth. Mitridate Re di Ponto and Il Re Pastore are my next favorites (I don't care that much for the Seraglio or for La Clemenza di Tito - again, don't read me wrong, I'm saying this as compared to Mozart's other operas, because these are still much better than most operas). As a matter of fact, of his 22, only 2 I don't really like: La Finta Giardiniera, and Betulia Liberata. All other 20 in my opinion are excellent.

Now, Handel - again, I disagree, but it's a matter of taste. Handel can be long and repetitious but I don't get particularly bored, since I happen to like the Da Capo style, and I love baroque opera, so I'm very much entertained rather than bored. I think that Handel's music is so beautiful that even the convoluted plots don't really bother me. I love many of his operas. Giulio Cesare, Ariodante, Rinaldo, Orlando, Hercules, Tamerlano, and Theodora are my favorites.

Now, about Wagner, we won't really see eye to eye, I believe, so we should better agree to disagree. I don't think his operas lack pace. I get pretty involved, absorbed, and entertained. And I don't think the thousands of theses, dissertations, books, and articles written about the Ring were written because of the plot. The Ring is important as a musical drama, first and foremost. The plot is also very interesting and it is well anchored in fascinating traditions and legends, but the music is what makes it so special. And the music is so wonderful with its complex and evolving leitmotivs, that in itself it keeps the listener's interest. The orchestra tells the story as much as the libretto does.

About amfortas, I think he was using humor/sarcasm. I don't think amfortas lacks appreciation of Mozart.


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> @Amfortas, what should I tell about Mozart and his operas to change your view on Mozart?





Almaviva said:


> About amfortas, I think he was using humor/sarcasm. I don't think amfortas lacks appreciation of Mozart.


Actually, what I said was:



amfortas said:


> Along with Almaviva, I would like to express my admiration of both Mozart and Wagner, and I welcome input from someone like martijn who can help me to an even better understanding and appreciation of the former.


No humor or sarcasm intended there, and no need to change my view of Mozart. I genuinely think he is great.

I will admit that I enjoy some of his operas (_Le Nozze di Figaro_, _Die Zauberflöte_) a good deal more than other, equally famous ones (_Don Giovanni_, _Così fan tutte_). But I would love to derive as much pleasure from the latter as I do from the former, so I'm happy to talk to anyone who cherishes these works. Maybe I can gain a better understanding, and maybe some of that enthusiasm will be contagious.


----------



## Almaviva

amfortas said:


> Actually, what I said was:
> 
> No humor or sarcasm intended there, and no need to change my view of Mozart. I genuinely think he is great.
> 
> I will admit that I enjoy some of his operas (_Le Nozze di Figaro_, _Die Zauberflöte_) a good deal more than other, equally famous ones (_Don Giovanni_, _Così fan tutte_). But I would love to derive as much pleasure from the latter as I do from the former, so I'm happy to talk to anyone who cherishes these works. Maybe I can gain a better understanding, and maybe some of that enthusiasm will be contagious.


Oh wow, Amfortas, you post so many funny messages (and I love them) that when you're talking seriously, we think you're being sarcastic... LOL


----------



## amfortas

Almaviva said:


> Oh wow, Amfortas, you post so many funny messages (and I love them) that when you're talking seriously, we think you're being sarcastic... LOL


And before that, when I was being sarcastic, people thought I was serious!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

amfortas said:


> Many hold that _Poppea_ is Monteverdi's masterpiece. Others argue for _Orfeo_, but the two works are so different it's hard to compare them. They each shine in their own distinctive ways.
> 
> If _Poppea_ is a collaboration, does that bear on the question of its greatness? I suppose it depends on whether you're considering the intrinsic merit of a work or the accomplishment of its creator. If you apply the first measure, I would still call _Poppea_ a great opea.
> 
> And enough of the polite IMHO stuff. Everything I say is a fact that cannot be disputed! :devil:


:lol: I like you opera guys. Very direct and none of that pretentious buffalo excretum.

Now, look. _Poppea_ is a very good opera. All I'm basically saying is Handel's _Cesare_ is a better opera than _Poppea_ or _Orfeo_. Yes, in my arrogant opinion, too! :devil:

One of my goals is to see a Monteverdi opera performed live. I haven't yet.


----------



## amfortas

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: I like you opera guys. Very direct and none of that pretentious buffalo excretum.
> 
> Now, look. _Poppea_ is a very good opera. All I'm basically saying is Handel's _Cesare_ is a better opera than _Poppea_ or _Orfeo_. Yes, in my arrogant opinion, too! :devil:
> 
> One of my goals is to see a Monteverdi opera performed live. I haven't yet.


If you were to maintain that _Giulio Cesare_ was the best opera written up to that point, you could probably make a pretty strong case, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

I only questioned the contention that no great works had been written during the first century and a quarter of opera history. But that of course is a very subjective judgment, and also depends on how high you set the bar for greatness.

Suffice it to say that there is a lot of good stuff out there we can all be grateful for.


----------



## martijn

@Almaviva: your view on Così is mostly clear to me now. I can fully agree with your acceptance of the libretto, I think it's not as naive at least as "Alle menschen werden Brüder". It always surprises me how people attack the libretto of Così, while praising Beethoven for his "humanism" in the 9th symphony (a humanist who was reputed to throw eggs at his personnel when they weren't properly boiled, but ok), while in literature, our modern taste is exactly the opposite. If a book is sentimental and optimistic about mankind, we condemn it as silly and naive. Our modern taste should appreciate Così in that respect, but as so often, while values change, people still hold on to dated values in other cases. A very peculiar phenomenon. I still think for some people this is a reason to regard Così as less than the other two Da Ponte operas. At least it's not for the music itself, as I already mentioned, though you seem to prefer Le Nozze also on purely musical merits. That leaves only the opera as a drama. I never saw Così staged, not in reality or on DVD, I just listen to it on my I-pod. So I don't know how it is on stage, though I don't care too much, I don't like the overacting, and usually in reality the rendition is a bit disappointing, especially with opera (and above all Mozart's), you need a perfect rendition in order to do justice to the music. That said, when I listen to it on my I-pod, it _sounds _perfectly dramatic to me.

I can't agree with your estimation of Die Entführung aus dem Serail and La Clemenza di Tito. La Clemenza doesn't work as an opera, but the music is still very beautiful. And die Entführung is very energetic, for me it should be in his top 6. But I agree with you with your top 5, Idomeneo is also a masterpiece, really intense and daring.

Of Händel I still have a lot to explore, but what I've heard of experts and experienced myself so far, is that Händel has wonderful moments, but also many lesser moments. I think his problem was that he lived in a time when composers had to be incredibly prolific. The only composers who seem to have been able to produce works of great quality virtually non-stop were Bach, (the later) Mozart and Haydn. Anyway, Händel at his best is absolutely first-rank.

We won't agree about the words of The Ring, and I only can smile sarcastically when I read that Wagner wrote of the Ring: "I'm not ashamed to say so - the greatest work of poetry ever written". I hope we can agree opera is about the music in the first place. I would be curious to find out how many of the publications you mentioned were written in the first 50 or so years after (the different parts of) The Ring was premiered. Wagner was enormously "hot" in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, there really was a Wagner cult. I believe the modern view of Wagner is more realistic: a great innovator, and a great composer, but not quite of the same level as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. It must have been the new, radical sound of Wagner that has people brought to overestimate him a bit.

@amfortas: did you ever read a musical analysis of a musical piece that made you change your view on that piece? The reasons I would go for Così is because of all its ensembles (in which Mozart is always at his best), and because it's so moving, for me more moving than Le Nozze for example.


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> @amfortas: did you ever read a musical analysis of a musical piece that made you change your view on that piece? The reasons I would go for Così is because of all its ensembles (in which Mozart is always at his best), and because it's so moving, for me more moving than Le Nozze for example.


I'm not sure a musical analysis alone would suffice for me. I value opera as a conjunction of music and drama (you could also call it drama *through* music, which would make music predominant, but in a very particular way).

The long-standing critical knock against _Così_ is that, music aside, the dramatic situation is contrived and mechanical, the characters one-dimensional marionettes put through their paces. I have to admit that so far, in my admittedly limited encounters with the opera, I have had a similar reaction. But your enthusiasm for this work (which of course is shared by many others) prompts me to take another look. I won't try to say any more about it until I've given it that chance.


----------



## mamascarlatti

amfortas said:


> I'm not sure a musical analysis alone would suffice for me. I value opera as a conjunction of music and drama (you could also call it drama *through* music, which would make music predominant, but in a very particular way).
> 
> The long-standing critical knock against _Così_ is that, music aside, the dramatic situation is contrived and mechanical, the characters one-dimensional marionettes put through their paces. I have to admit that so far, in my admittedly limited encounters with the opera, I have had a similar reaction. But your enthusiasm for this work (which of course is shared by many others) prompts me to take another look. I won't try to say any more about it until I've given it that chance.


This is the DVD that changed my mind about Così on stage (as opposed to the purely musical aspect of it, which I have always loved).


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> @Almaviva: your view on Così is mostly clear to me now. I can fully agree with your acceptance of the libretto, I think it's not as naive at least as "Alle menschen werden Brüder". It always surprises me how people attack the libretto of Così, while praising Beethoven for his "humanism" in the 9th symphony (a humanist who was reputed to throw eggs at his personnel when they weren't properly boiled, but ok), while in literature, our modern taste is exactly the opposite. If a book is sentimental and optimistic about mankind, we condemn it as silly and naive. Our modern taste should appreciate Così in that respect, but as so often, while values change, people still hold on to dated values in other cases. A very peculiar phenomenon. I still think for some people this is a reason to regard Così as less than the other two Da Ponte operas. At least it's not for the music itself, as I already mentioned, though you seem to prefer Le Nozze also on purely musical merits. That leaves only the opera as a drama. I never saw Così staged, not in reality or on DVD, I just listen to it on my I-pod. So I don't know how it is on stage, though I don't care too much, I don't like the overacting, and usually in reality the rendition is a bit disappointing, especially with opera (and above all Mozart's), you need a perfect rendition in order to do justice to the music. That said, when I listen to it on my I-pod, it _sounds _perfectly dramatic to me.


Just like mamascarlatti said, you absolutely must see the DVD that she recommended. It also exists on blu-ray. It is simply phenomenal. If you love this opera, you'll love it so much on this DVD! It is a rather spectacular performance by all the artists involved (and I mean everyone - conductor, orchestra, singers, stage director, set designers, etc.). It is one of the best performances I've seen, and given that this is your very special #1 opera, you own to yourself the joy of seeing this wonderful production.


> I can't agree with your estimation of Die Entführung aus dem Serail and La Clemenza di Tito. La Clemenza doesn't work as an opera, but the music is still very beautiful. And die Entführung is very energetic, for me it should be in his top 6. But I agree with you with your top 5, Idomeneo is also a masterpiece, really intense and daring.


Like I said, don't read me wrong. I love the Serail and Tito. It's just that I love other Mozart operas even more.


> Of Händel I still have a lot to explore, but what I've heard of experts and experienced myself so far, is that Händel has wonderful moments, but also many lesser moments. I think his problem was that he lived in a time when composers had to be incredibly prolific. The only composers who seem to have been able to produce works of great quality virtually non-stop were Bach, (the later) Mozart and Haydn. Anyway, Händel at his best is absolutely first-rank.


For me, Handel did not know how to put two notes together without making them very beautiful. I think most of his operas are wonderful. I don't see a lot of lesser moments in Handel. I'm often in constant bliss when I listen to his operas. But it's a matter of taste. I really love baroque opera and his style, but I understand that others may find him boring.


> We won't agree about the words of The Ring, and I only can smile sarcastically when I read that Wagner wrote of the Ring: "I'm not ashamed to say so - the greatest work of poetry ever written". I hope we can agree opera is about the music in the first place. I would be curious to find out how many of the publications you mentioned were written in the first 50 or so years after (the different parts of) The Ring was premiered. Wagner was enormously "hot" in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, there really was a Wagner cult. I believe the modern view of Wagner is more realistic: a great innovator, and a great composer, but not quite of the same level as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. It must have been the new, radical sound of Wagner that has people brought to overestimate him a bit.


 Well, Wagner was a megalomaniac and as such had a pretty big opinion of himself. I mean, the guy built an OPERA HOUSE to stage his Ring the way he wanted!
Well Wagner's music does not intend to match Bach and Beethoven. These are very different musical languages.
But in terms of opera, I don't see much difference in quality between Mozart, Wagner, and Verdi. I'd add Handel and Berlioz (in spite of the latter's small operatic output) to these three, to complete my list of top five opera composers.


----------



## amfortas

mamascarlatti said:


> This is the DVD that changed my mind about Così on stage (as opposed to the purely musical aspect of it, which I have always loved).


Yes, I know it's the favored Così DVD both here at TC and by general critical consensus. I spent some time yesterday watching YouTube clips, which only confirmed that judgment. It's been on my wish list (as opposed to an unwatched pile) for quite a while now. I may just have to go ahead and place the order.


----------



## schigolch

Talking about Cosi DVDs, I shall walk out of the "TC and general critical consensus" and choose this one as my favourite:


----------



## amfortas

schigolch said:


> Talking about Cosi DVDs, I shall walk out of the "TC and general critical consensus" and choose this one as my favourite:


LOL. My local library has that one, so I'll give it a try on your recommendation, schigolch!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Bach said:


> Carmen is a thinking man's musical. It's not particularly serious.


It is a lovely opera though.

Martin


----------



## martijn

amfortas, I think that shows the main difference in which we experience opera. For me what matters most is how the opera _sounds_. For example, when I listen to La Clemenza di Tito, the arias are all very beautiful, but it doesn't sound like a story that's evolving. But when I listen to Così fan Tutte it does. 
I am not partial against watching an opera, if the female singers are pretty and their low necklines are low enough. Just a pity I can't see which DVD Mamascarlatti recommended, could you please tell me?


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> amfortas, I think that shows the main difference in which we experience opera. For me what matters most is how the opera _sounds_. For example, when I listen to La Clemenza di Tito, the arias are all very beautiful, but it doesn't sound like a story that's evolving. But when I listen to Così fan Tutte it does.
> I am not partial against watching an opera, if the female singers are pretty and their low necklines are low enough.


No problem. Opera works on so many levels, it's understandable that people approach it in different ways. My background is more theatrical than musical, so that's had a bearing on my perspective.



martijn said:


> Just a pity I can't see which DVD Mamascarlatti recommended, could you please tell me?


Here's the Amazon link, if that works for you.


----------



## martijn

Ok, thanks a lot for giving me the link, I definitely should buy this one one day.


----------



## martijn

By the way, I read there that two numbers from the operas omitted, No. 7 (the duet "Al fato dan legge") and No. 24 (Ferrando's "Ah, io veggio"), is that true? I couldn't understand why someone would choose to omit arias from the opera.


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> By the way, I read there that two numbers from the operas omitted, No. 7 (the duet "Al fato dan legge") and No. 24 (Ferrando's "Ah, io veggio"), is that true? I couldn't understand why someone would choose to omit arias from the opera.


Sorry, I don't own the DVD myself and can't answer your question. Mamascarlatti may know.

There are numerous excerpts on YouTube, by the way, in case you like to do a little previewing before buying.


----------



## Almaviva

Well, directors often omit arias for the sake of timing, staging concept, etc. Sometimes operas improve when some parts are cut. Sometimes operas have different versions after the composer implemented revisions. At other times, though, cuts are detrimental and poorly justified.

One famous example of good cuts is the recent blu-ray release of Wagner's Rienzi, which originally had 5 hours of music, and in this version ended up half as long, clocking at about 150 minutes. Most professional reviewers said that the opera improved with the cuts.

PS - The Così recommended by mamascarlatti is indeed spectacular. It also comes on blu-ray.


----------



## rgz

Almaviva said:


> Well, directors often omit arias for the sake of timing, staging concept, etc. Sometimes operas improve when some parts are cut. Sometimes operas have different versions after the composer implemented revisions. At other times, though, cuts are detrimental and poorly justified.
> 
> One famous example of good cuts is the recent blu-ray release of Wagner's Rienzi, which originally had 5 hours of music, and in this version ended up half as long, clocking at about 150 minutes. Most professional reviewers said that the opera improved with the cuts.
> 
> PS - The Così recommended by mamascarlatti is indeed spectacular. It also comes on blu-ray.


This comment I found interesting given your thoughts in the Bellini thread about the Dessay La Sonnambula:



Almaviva said:


> rgz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The central conceit really doesn't make much logical sense as the opera-within-an-opera motif falls apart almost immediately under any kind of scrutiny. That said ... I loved it. There are moments of real magic, of breaking the 4th wall in a way that gave me shivers. And while the idea of the production doesn't make logical sense, that wasn't much of a problem for me. One of my favorite directors (and America's greatest living director), David Lynch, took much the same approach with his movie Inland Empire, where if, during the movie, you attempt to analytically decide which parts are taking place in the movie and which parts are in the movie-within-the-movie, you'll be hopelessly out to sea. But that rather misses the point, which is to surrender to the director's vision and just go with it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's where the problem resides. I'd rather surrender to Bellini's and Romani's vision.
Click to expand...

Isn't cutting a composer's music just as much tampering with the original vision as a non-traditional staging might be?


----------



## Almaviva

rgz said:


> This comment I found interesting given your thoughts in the Bellini thread about the Dessay La Sonnambula:
> 
> Isn't cutting a composer's music just as much tampering with the original vision as a non-traditional staging might be?


That's why I said _sometimes _cuts improve an opera, but _at other times, though, cuts are detrimental and poorly justified._


----------



## SixFootScowl

My favorite is Fidelio and I am also fond of Boris Godunov. This may be in part because Beethoven is my favorite composer (half of my classical music files are Beethoven) and because I have about a dozen copies of Pictures at an Exhibiton, including several orchestral transcriptions, accordion and strings, piano and strings, organ, brass ensemble, and of course piano. However, I do prefer the more serious operas. I have seen Aida, Rigoletto, Magic Flute, Boris Godunov, and others live. Fidelio I have only experienced on CD, but love it.


----------



## martijn

It sounds terrible, deleting some arias from a Mozart opera. Some cuts in Wagner, ok ;-) But in Mozart!


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> It sounds terrible, deleting some arias from a Mozart opera. Some cuts in Wagner, ok ;-) But in Mozart!


I generally prefer to see any opera at its full length. In for a penny, in for a pound.


----------



## Almaviva

amfortas said:


> I generally prefer to see any opera at its full length. In for a penny, in for a pound.


Sure, for one viewing. But I worry about things like theatrical impact and pace. Opera is not just music. Opera is a combination of all these elements, and sometimes even gorgeous music lingers for too long and overstays its welcome.

Like I said, *some* cuts are helpful. Others are outrageous, preposterous, detrimental, unjustified, silly, and dumb. But some cuts are wise. It depends.


----------



## martijn

I agree with Almaviva. In an 5 hour opera a cut or two shouldn't be so problematic. One should with opera always keep in mind what Hitchcock said about movies: the length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder. Especially with such many old people visiting classical concerts.


----------



## MAuer

TallPaul said:


> My favorite is Fidelio and I am also fond of Boris Godunov. This may be in part because Beethoven is my favorite composer (half of my classical music files are Beethoven) and because I have about a dozen copies of Pictures at an Exhibiton, including several orchestral transcriptions, accordion and strings, piano and strings, organ, brass ensemble, and of course piano. However, I do prefer the more serious operas. I have seen Aida, Rigoletto, Magic Flute, Boris Godunov, and others live. Fidelio I have only experienced on CD, but love it.


Oh boy, another _Fidelio_ fanatic! Welcome, TallPaul!


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> One should with opera always keep in mind what Hitchcock said about movies: the length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.


Yes, but Hitchcock didn't have intermissions!


----------



## Ukko

It is Patently Obvious (that's called 'loading up') that the Greatest Opera Ever Written was composed by Berlioz. So obvious that I don't have to name the opera.


----------



## amfortas

Hilltroll72 said:


> It is Patently Obvious (that's called 'loading up') that the Greatest Opera Ever Written was composed by Berlioz. So obvious that I don't have to name the opera.


At last! Another fan of _Les Francs-juges_!


----------



## Ukko

amfortas said:


> At last! Another fan of _Les Francs-juges_!


Hah! Well, you got the first word right.


----------



## Almaviva

I'm thrilled to see more fans of _Les Troyens_!
Hilltroll, you should come with us to London to see it live in July 2012!


----------



## martijn

Berlioz was an amateur.


----------



## sospiro

martijn said:


> Berlioz was an amateur.


Que?


----------



## martijn

Can't help, I'll side with Stravinsky, Debussy, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Grieg and Ravel, who shared my view. The Berlioz of Symphonie Fantastique is innovative and very clumsy, the late Berlioz doesn't appeal to me at all. Shame he should be mentioned in the same thread as Mozart.

Some funny quotes I just read: Bizet called Berlioz "Wagner without style", and Wagner himself wrote that he hated Les Troyens so much that he thought he could ever speak to Berlioz again. And Debussy: "Despite some beautiful passages in Les Troyens...its proportional defects make performance impractical and its overall effect monotonous, even boring".


----------



## Ukko

martijn said:


> Berlioz was an amateur.


The root of 'amateur' is love.


----------



## Ukko

martijn said:


> Can't help, I'll side with Stravinsky, Debussy, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Grieg and Ravel, who shared my view. The Berlioz of Symphonie Fantastique is innovative and very clumsy, the late Berlioz doesn't appeal to me at all. Shame he should be mentioned in the same thread as Mozart.
> 
> Some funny quotes I just read: Bizet called Berlioz "Wagner without style", and Wagner himself wrote that he hated Les Troyens so much that he thought he could ever speak to Berlioz again. And Debussy: "Despite some beautiful passages in Les Troyens...its proportional defects make performance impractical and its overall effect monotonous, even boring".


By agreeing with those people, you ensure that you are RIGHT? Congratulations then.


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> Can't help, I'll side with Stravinsky, Debussy, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Grieg and Ravel, who shared my view. The Berlioz of Symphonie Fantastique is innovative and very clumsy, the late Berlioz doesn't appeal to me at all. Shame he should be mentioned in the same thread as Mozart.
> 
> Some funny quotes I just read: Bizet called Berlioz "Wagner without style", and Wagner himself wrote that he hated Les Troyens so much that he thought he could ever speak to Berlioz again. And Debussy: "Despite some beautiful passages in Les Troyens...its proportional defects make performance impractical and its overall effect monotonous, even boring".


Wagner must have been jealous of Berlioz, for what critics call The Latin Ring (_Les Troyens_), a towering masterpiece.
Well, for all that Debussy said about impractical performances, _Les Troyens_ has deserved some great performances, some of them recorded on DVD and blu-ray. I personally don't find it boring at all, much the opposite.

Martijn, in this and other posts you seem to rely a lot on what other people say (especially other composers), not taking into account that other composers are often the competition, and often express feelings of jealousy and an attempt to put down their competitors.

I believe that it is much better to just listen to a work or watch a performance and form your own opinion. You don't like Berlioz, fine, I can respect that. I love his music and his operas. But you shouldn't believe that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's just because it is shared by some composers. As much as these composers bash Berlioz, praise for his works can be found as well. As everything in arts, positions are divided, and it should matter a lot more for each music lover, his or her own opinion.

Mozart and Berlioz are from different eras and have different styles. A direct comparison is not very fruitful. They can both be enjoyed.


----------



## amfortas

I'm not a composer, just one of those amateur music lovers who's capable of forming his own opinion.

I watched my DVD of the Gardiner/Kokkos Chatelet production again just the other night, and came away with an even greater admiration for this opera. It's a large-scaled, imposing drama on the fate of nations and the tragedy of individuals crushed by the sweep of history--realized in beautiful, stirring music. 

It's not Le Nozze di Figaro, it's not La Traviata, it's not The Ring--nor does it set out to be. On his own terms, though, Berlioz has created a stately, powerful masterpiece. I'm glad it has gradually overcome so many years of neglect.


----------



## Couchie

Almaviva said:


> Wagner must have been jealous of Berlioz, for what critics call The Latin Ring (_Les Troyens_), a towering masterpiece.


Wagner and Berlioz had an interesting relationship, or perhaps more accurately, non-relationship. Liszt was keen on uniting the two to create a unified "progressive" front, however communication between the two was hampered as Berlioz spoke no German and Wagner's French was limited; Liszt, fluent in both, was the bridge between them and much of our knowledge of what the two thought of each other is found in their letters to Liszt. While Wagner admired Berlioz and was more receptive to a relationship, Berlioz thought Wagner threw a bit _too much_ into the wind and was not keen on being associated with Wagnerism. Wagner clearly became petty at Berlioz's unresponsiveness and became dismissive of his works, even those he had not even heard. _Troyens_ topped a kind of later, more conservative streak in Berlioz's music. It's a true Grand Opera which probably aroused in Wagner notions of his younger years of poverty in France, when he couldn't get his operas performed while Meyerbeer's frivolous Grand Operas dominated the stage, explaining why he hated it so much.


----------



## Almaviva

Well, on this, they had something in common, since Berlioz couldn't get the full _Les Troyens_ staged during his life time either, and also resented Meyerbeer's popularity.
Anyway, I wouldn't trust Wagner's - a narcissistic megalomaniac - opinion on any competing musician. Wagner may have bashed Berlioz as much as he did, and I'll continue to admire Berlioz's music and operas - almost as much as I admire Wagner's.

Funny enough, it looks like our friend martijn agrees, looky looky what I found in another one of his posts:

"I wouldn't place too much value on any comment of Wagner."

Go figure...


----------



## martijn

Ah come on guys, you shouldn't place too much value on what I write. They are my opinions, but I'm no one for diplomatic statements. For me dark grey is black and light grey is white. I am just a little provocative, but I don't think there's so much bad to be found in that. I mean, it's not a discussion on youtube, otherwise I would already have called all of you morons. 

I wouldn't have taken such a strong stance however if someone just had said that Les Troyens was his favorite opera. But if someone states that Les Troyens IS the greatest opera, then I feel I have to stand up in favor of Mozart. Can't help it, just love that guy too much. Love makes one do strange things ;-)

Nevertheless, when I quote other composers, it doesn't mean that I follow their opinion, I have my own, but I like to see it confirmed by greats, another bad habit, but it's interesting to see what composers thought of each other. True, Almaviva, there can be competition between composers, but in general it strikes me that composers are quite generous for each other. And usually rivalry just happens to exist between composers of the same generation. Wagner was probably an exception, that's true, some caustic remarks about Mendelssohn, Schumann and others attest to that. The reason why he disliked Les Troyens is hard to tell, you may be right with your explanation, but one also shouldn't outrule the possibility that Wagner really disliked Les Troyens just for the music. 
And you searched well for a quote of Wagner placed by me, but you took it a bit ouf context. Because what I meant to say is that one shouldn't take Wagner's comment about Bach being the greatest too serious, since he said similar things about Mozart. But what you can take serious is that Wagner worshipped both Bach and Mozart, in this respect he wasn't opportunistic.

And finally, I'm not that opposed to Berlioz, some things of him I do like. Just for me there is a huge gap in quality between Berlioz and Mozart.


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> I mean, it's not a discussion on youtube, otherwise I would already have called all of you morons.


Thankfully for you, because over here a statement like this would get you banned.


> I wouldn't have taken such a strong stance however if someone just had said that Les Troyens was his favorite opera. But if someone states that Les Troyens IS the greatest opera, then I feel I have to stand up in favor of Mozart. Can't help it, just love that guy too much. Love makes one do strange things ;-)


Sure, no problem. Les Troyens is my second favorite opera, though. I do acknowledge that Mozart's output is larger and I place many of his operas among my top favorites.


> Nevertheless, when I quote other composers, it doesn't mean that I follow their opinion, I have my own, but I like to see it confirmed by greats, another bad habit, but it's interesting to see what composers thought of each other. True, Almaviva, there can be competition between composers, but in general it strikes me that composers are quite generous for each other. And usually rivalry just happens to exist between composers of the same generation. Wagner was probably an exception, that's true, some caustic remarks about Mendelssohn, Schumann and others attest to that. The reason why he disliked Les Troyens is hard to tell, you may be right with your explanation, but one also shouldn't outrule the possibility that Wagner really disliked Les Troyens just for the music.


Given that Wagner's opinion on Berlioz evolved with time and went from admiration to hatred as Berlioz didn't pay much attention to Lizt's efforts to put the two of them in touch, and issued negative criticism of Wagner, it's kind of understandable that the latter changed his mind and started bashing Berlioz.


> And you searched well for a quote of Wagner placed by me, but you took it a bit ouf context. Because what I meant to say is that one shouldn't take Wagner's comment about Bach being the greatest too serious, since he said similar things about Mozart. But what you can take serious is that Wagner worshipped both Bach and Mozart, in this respect he wasn't opportunistic.


Hehehe, I got you there, didn't I?:devil:


> And finally, I'm not that opposed to Berlioz, some things of him I do like. Just for me there is a huge gap in quality between Berlioz and Mozart.


I find it hard to compare composers of different eras. Still, I grant you that Mozart is the superior one when these two are compared. I do like very much all four operas by Berlioz.


----------



## martijn

Why should someone who calls someone else a moron be banned? Couldn't such a person not simply be ignored?


----------



## obwan

Obviously there are too many greats to pick just one, and still only seen/heard less than 2 dozen, including all forms beit it live, television, home video, radio, cd or Metropolitan opera telecast. 

That and I might add, that there has never been any 'perfect' opera ever written, at least that I know of. Which is to say that Don Giovanni, one of my all time favorites, still has its flaws, namely recitatives. (Even though Mozart was better at handling recitatives, even than say Gluck, they are still recitatives nonetheless) 

But here is my try at listing my all time faves: 
In no particular order, and reasons and flaws (if I can think of any off the top of my head)

Don Giovanni, pro: all around great opera, con: a few of the recitatives are quite long and boring
The Magic flute, pro: all around fun opera, con: it has an incredibly weird plot. 
Lohengrin: pro: If you can appreciate any opera soley by listening to it on cd it has to be a contender, con: havn't yet seen 
performed, plot is a little weird. 
Jenufa by Janecek, pro: heard only on radio and it didn't put me to sleep, con: havn't yet seen performed. 
Lucia di lammermore, pro:sextett, con: missed the opening 20 minutes
Rigoletto, pro: used to be my favorite opera, con: its really only the final act that I remember as being outstanding. 
La Boheme: pro: probably the best opera for any opera virgin, con: the plot, although good, is nothing monumental, music
repetitive at times (uses motiffs, less skilled than wagner, in my opinion)
William Tell by Rossini: heard portions of it on cd along with jenufa one of the operas I want to see live sooo bad. 
Il trovotore, pro: anvil chorus

Wouldn't it be cool to start a thread of the most overrated operas? Personally I could a thread with all the flaws of Tosca.... Sure its got a couple of great tunes in it, and those 2 great tunes are sooooo great that at the end of the night that thats all you can remember. Youve completely forgotten how bored you were throughout the rest.


----------



## martijn

Nothing wrong with some recitatives.


----------



## obwan

Oh almost forgot: Recently I had decided to google around for some youtubes from scenes from Die Entführung half expecting to be bored with less than spectacular music. As the Abuduction is not nearly quite as famous as Mozarts other operas, nor had I heard anything other than the overture or the 2 brief scenes used in the movie Amadeus. I was amazed to encounter gem after gem, so now you can add the abduction from the seraglio to my list of favorite operas. It might turn out, upon seeing a complete production that it might indeed wind up being my favorite opera, or at least my favorite mozart opera. But we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## martijn

It's indeed gorgeous music, but the three Da Ponte operas and Die Zauberflöte are still on a higher level of sophistication. But Die Entführung has a quality of its own, the manic drive of a young man, the exotic colouring... And there's something more, in more than any other Mozart opera you can hear what has been and what's going to come. You hear things that remind one of other of his operas, above all Die Zauberflöte.


----------



## Ukko

martijn said:


> Why should someone who calls someone else a moron be banned? Couldn't such a person not simply be ignored?


There is a term for someone who is ignored: 'pariah'. I'd rather be banned, meself.


----------



## martijn

Just I said it because some time ago I was having a discussion with some guy, and we didn't agree about Mozart, he found him boring, I found him a genius. It was bit of a provocative discussion, but nothing like bad words were uttered, and neither of us had a problem with it. And then suddenly a message of mine, really quite normal, was deleted. And we were both thinking: "what is this?". I like the kind atmosphere between the members here, but a difference in opinion that is debated in a rather furious way doesn't mean that those debaters should dislike each other.


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> Just I said it because some time ago I was having a discussion with some guy, and we didn't agree about Mozart, he found him boring, I found him a genius. It was bit of a provocative discussion, but nothing like bad words were uttered, and neither of us had a problem with it. And then suddenly a message of mine, really quite normal, was deleted. And we were both thinking: "what is this?". I like the kind atmosphere between the members here, but a difference in opinion that is debated in a rather furious way doesn't mean that those debaters should dislike each other.


Martijn, we have Terms of Service. Please consult them under the FAQ. Calling another member a moron would be a violation of the Terms of Service. If you did such thing, while the insulted member him/herself would be welcome to ignore you (we do have this option, under profile settings, if I'm not mistaken - I've never used it myself), we the moderation team would still penalize you for a violation of the Terms of Service. Once you collect enough penalties and reach a certain threshold, you get banned. Certain outrageous violations can get you banned right away, minor ones would have to accumulate to produce this effect.

You find that it is nice to be provocative, good for you if it suits you. But this privately owned forum has a number of rules which reflect the will of its owner (Frederik Magle). When a prospective member signs up for an account, he/she accepts the Terms of Service. In this private place, free speech doesn't apply - this isn't a public venue. I like to explain this with the following analogy:

You knock on the door of a home, the owner is throwing a party. You ask the owner - "may I come in?" The owner says - "sure, but I have some behavior rules in my home. You need to take off your shoes. You can't make unwanted advances towards my daughter. You can't insult my other guests. As long as you respect my rules, you're welcome to enjoy all the perks that I'm offering - for free - to you and other guests."

Then you go in and start insulting the owner's other guests. Chances are that the owner will kick you out, regardless of you trying to justify your behavior by invoking free speech or your predilection for being provocative.

Get it?

We find that these rules have contributed to make of this place a pleasant and friendly one.

In my long experience with Internet message boards (a few decades), I've noticed that places that do not have moderation and do not enforce similar rules soon enough become infested with rude people and assorted trolls. This place is not one of those.

Be provocative if you must, but do it within the boundaries of the Terms of Service, and you'll be able to continue to enjoy the many advantages of free membership here, which Frederik generously extends to us by paying out of pocket for this place's expenses. He has all the right in the world to set the rules, and it is our duty to observe them.


----------



## Almaviva

obwan said:


> Oh almost forgot: Recently I had decided to google around for some youtubes from scenes from Die Entführung half expecting to be bored with less than spectacular music. As the Abuduction is not nearly quite as famous as Mozarts other operas, nor had I heard anything other than the overture or the 2 brief scenes used in the movie Amadeus. I was amazed to encounter gem after gem, so now you can add the abduction from the seraglio to my list of favorite operas. It might turn out, upon seeing a complete production that it might indeed wind up being my favorite opera, or at least my favorite mozart opera. But we'll have to wait and see.


Hey, you may get the same feeling from many other less known operas by Mozart. Most of them are excellent. While the top four are indeed even better, most of his operas are also highly enjoyable and contain sublime music.


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> Nothing wrong with some recitatives.


I entirely agree. Recitatives are the glue that links scenes together, and an opportunity for the artists to get into the role and develop some sort of connection to the story and to each other.

I've seen certain productions of operas that had the recitatives eliminated (sometimes just completely erased, other times, summarized by a narrator or by panels with written phrases). The result is often a disaster. The artists can't get into the proper acting of the role, the whole thing feels rushed and clumsy, character development suffers, etc.

Of course opera has evolved out of recitatives and into written-through continuous scenes.

But when we're seeing an opera from a period when recitatives were part of the operatic structure, it is highly unwise to try and eliminate them.

Mozart's recitatives - especially those from the librettos authored by Da Ponte - don't bother me at all. I find them appropriate and well placed, and these operas have good pace and good theatrical qualities.


----------



## martijn

Almaviva, well first of all, I would definitely prefer this place to f.e. youtube. Whenever listening a classical masterpiece there, I always have to persuade myself not to read the comments below the video, for it is most often filled with people insulting each other and it's quite depressing. My favorite ones are the videos with Wagner's music, which inevitably always end up with discussions about nazism. 

So, in that respect this forum is a much better place to reside. And the rules, as you explain them, seem fair and good. I didn't think who the owner was of this place, but that wouldn't make much difference, I don't lower myself to that kind of "youtube" talk anyway. Also without your analogy I get it, though I must say you forgot one thing: what if the daughter is excessively beautiful?

Anyway, basically we agree, but there's something in your message saying: I disapprove of provocation, as mentioned by you. And that's where I don't see the point. I can be provocative yes, but it's about the content. I can heavily disagree with someone, but that says nothing about how I get along with such a person. I get the impression that if I am criticizing Berlioz, that it's already almost going too far (perhaps if Berlioz would be on the forum, you would have a point). But I am focussing on the content only, I do think he can be clumsy. I don't see much wrong with that, just as some previous time, when some message of mine was deleted.


----------



## Almaviva

No, martjin, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be provocative - I said twice - "if it suits you, fine; do it if you must" - I just added, do it within the boundaries of the Terms of Service, like you're saying above. You can be provocative with your opinions and the way you debate them, but you can't call other members "morons." The Terms of Service are quite simple and clear. Over here we don't tolerate detrimental comments about the person of another member or the member's style of posting. Disagree with the member's opinion as much as you want, provocatively if this is what rocks your boat, but don't attack the member's *person.*

If I didn't like provocative posters/posts, I wouldn't have said in many occasions that our dear Aramis is one of my favorite posters (speaking as a member, not as a moderator - he is with no doubt one of our most provocative members). Being provocative is fine as long as you're not personally offensive.

As for a previously deleted post of yours, I don't recall it. Maybe one of my colleagues did it. Maybe it was me, but I don't know (we do too many of those to keep memory of each single one). If you feel any moderation action is excessive or unjustified, there are two remedies: PM site administrator Krummhorn, or use the Contact Us form. Just for your information: complaining about it in the open forum is a no-no. Complaining to Krummhorn, however, does get some of the actions of people like me (a junior moderator) reversed, always for good reason (Krummhorn is very wise, knowledgeable, and nice). But most of the time he does confirm what we do, because we try to do it right (we don't always get it right, but we try).

Cheers, Alma


----------



## Aramis

Almaviva said:


> If I didn't like provocative posters/posts, I wouldn't have said in many occasions that our dear Aramis is one of my favorite posters (speaking as a member, not as a moderator - he is with no doubt one of our most provocative members).


s
SO YOU THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD YOU MAY WRITE STUFF ABOUT ME AND I WON'T FIND OUT WELL THAT'S FINE WITH ME BUT DON'T BE SURPRISED IF ONE DAY YOU'LL FIND ME IN OTHER THREAD BACKBITING YOU AS WELL THAT'S HOW PEOPLE ARE THESE DAYS...


----------



## kv466

Wow, am I glad I stumbled upon this thread! To back up our good friend and mod, I got a warning my third day here. And I was 'insulting' a member that didn't even post anymore...it was a very old comment. Anyhow, it is what it is. If you like it here you abide by the rules and really, it's not that hard to not call someone an idiot or moron here. I've been on here for months now and still have not found anyone with my exact tastes...I probably never will...and it's all that much better because of this! I've learned a heck of a lot and I wouldn't have it any other way. 

My nickel.


----------



## martijn

Ok Almaviva, then I think there was just some sort of misunderstanding from both sides. I had the impression that with a line as "if it suits you" something was implied. And perhaps you misunderstood my line about "morons". For I was using it to tell that I wouldn't speak like that. Neither was I doing in so in that deleted post, but it's not so important to contact a moderator for it, it just suprised me.


----------



## Dster

This is an impossible question, one that has no definite answer. Its like asking is Rembrandt's 'The Night Watch' a better painting than Von Gogh's 'The Starry Night'. There are some criterions that can be used to judge the artistic merit of a certain piece of work, and even that is open to debate (In the Tate Gallery human excerment is considered worthy artistic exhabit). These general acceptable criterions only form a general frame work, but the final decision is individual taste, a subjective judgement. Inspite of a disparaging reference to Carmen, I noticed that it is ranked twelve among the 100 most recommended opera. 
The question should be rephased as 'What is your most favorite opera' because if it is one that one considers as the best ever written than one would go out of one's way to attend its performance if at all possible; the kind of desert island disc, hence one's favorite. On that basis we do have some objective criteria to use. Opera houses know what operas the public like and will happily attend. Hence the most performed operas are likely to be the general public's favorite. One man's meat is another man's poision, but most men's meat cannot be poison. The following is the list of 25 most performed operas in the last five years from Operabase, the number in bracket is the ranking shown in the 100 Most Recommended List:
1. Mozart Die Zauberflöte (11)
2. Verdi La traviata (7)
3. Bizet Carmen (12)
4. Puccini La bohème (8)
5. Mozart Le nozze di Figaro (3)
6. Puccini Tosca (16)
7. Mozart Don Giovanni (6)
8. Puccini Madama Butterfly (45)
9. Rossini Il barbiere di Siviglia (14)
10. Verdi Rigoletto (26)
11. Mozart Così fan tutte (17)
12. Donizetti L'elisir d'amore (64)
13. Verdi Aida (23)
14. Humperdinck Hänsel und Gretel (68)
15. Puccini Turandot (44)
16. Strauss,J Die Fledermaus (-)
17. Verdi Nabucco (-)
18. Tchaikovsky Eugene Onegin (22)
19. Donizetti Lucia di Lammermoor (20)
20. Leoncavallo Pagliacci (69)
21. Mozart Die Entführung (47)
22. Lehár Die lustige Witwe (-)
23. Verdi Il trovatore (48)
24 Verdi Falstaff (43)
25. Wagner,R Der fliegende Holländer (42)

We can group them and say that within this particular group they are received within the same enthusiasm. On this basis of comparison, and looking at the first group of ten (the primere division if you like) only La nozze and Don Giovanni have similar position within two groups; La Traviata and La Boheme made both list; Magic Flute and Carmen are within statistical errors to be included. If we look at the list from 11 to 25, the disparaity is even greater.
One interesting thing to note is that Wagner have 3 scores in first 10 of the Top 100 list(5 within 25), but only 1 score at rank 25 in the most performed list. The Italian Romantic masters (Verdi and Puccini) have a combined score of 2 in first 10 (6 wiithin 25, 4 for Verdi and 2 for Puccini) of the Top 100 list but 5 in the first 10 (10 within 25) amount the most performed

My conclusion is that those who help to draw up the Top 100 List are members of the Richard Wagner Fan Club and they dislike the Italian school. :devil:


----------



## AnaMendoza

Well, remember that counting 'most frequently performed' operas weights the scales toward those operas that are relatively easy to cast and produce. That weights the scales heavily against Wagner.


----------



## Almaviva

Dster said:


> One interesting thing to note is that Wagner have 3 scores in first 10 of the Top 100 list(5 within 25), but only 1 score at rank 25 in the most performed list. The Italian Romantic masters (Verdi and Puccini) have a combined score of 2 in first 10 (6 wiithin 25, 4 for Verdi and 2 for Puccini) of the Top 100 list but 5 in the first 10 (10 within 25) amount the most performed
> 
> My conclusion is that those who help to draw up the Top 100 List are members of the Richard Wagner Fan Club and they dislike the Italian school. :devil:


Our list is just the "Most recommended" list by TC members.
We have never pretended that they're "best" or superior to other operas.
They're just the ones our members most recommend - as in, most often recommend (This said, when I say "just" you need to understand that the collective expertise of our members here is actually quite considerable).

This thread continues to suffer from the "non-official" view. New members join, read this thread, and think we're here trying to establish what the "best" opera is. I've said before (earlier in this thread) and we've all said many times, that there is no such thing as the "best" opera. We've repeatedly said here that all we can say about this, is what we like and recommend.

Popularity (most performed) and quality don't necessarily overlap.

McDonald's is a very popular restaurant. I can think of about 2,000 restaurants that are better than McDonald's.

Like AnaMendoza said, Wagner's operas are very hard to stage, thanks to the specialized singing they require. That's probably the main reason why they're not as performed as others, but many opera fans do have them as very rewarding and beautiful operas.

I don't think our members dislike the Italian school, much the opposite. We have dozens of Italian operas in our Most Recommended lists, and they get lots of praise in the composer threads.

About disparaging comments regarding Carmen, it is rather clear that Carmen is a masterpiece. I don't think too many opera experts and scholars out there disagree with this. Yes, it was composed to please the crowds. Still, it's a masterpiece.


----------



## Dster

I have no problem with the list at all. Like you say 'it is recommended" and one is free to take it or leave it. Personally I do not like Wagner, but that is only me. I was only using the list as a vehicle to make a point. But this thread's title is "The Greatest Opera Ever Written", by that I intrepret 'greatest=best' and I object to it because there is no objective way to measure greatest in art. 
What prompted me to post in the first place is the remark on Carmen, which incidentally is not my most favorite. There seems to be a school of thought that popularity = vulgarity. I have heard people commenting La Boheme being a little pot boiler, that Tosca is a shabby little shocker. This is exactly the public's image of opera lovers - nose up in the air. Everyone has their like and dislike. We are talking of great work of art, one that stands the passage of time, transcending boundaries of genre. Our lives will be much more enriched if there are more work of this standard.
You cannot be more wrong when you say Wagner is difficult to stage. It brought about the demise of the Scottish Opera where I watched my first opera 'Il Barbiere di Siviglia' back in 1966. The company staged the critically acclaimed (= finanical disaster) Ring Cycle. The Scottish government viewed opera as an elite entertainment and refused to help. It ended with the company laying off the orchestra and chorus.


----------



## mamascarlatti

I don't follow your argument. You imply that Wagner is easy to stage:



Dster said:


> You cannot be more wrong when you say Wagner is difficult to stage.


And then you give an example of a particular production which ruined an opera company.



> It brought about the demise of the Scottish Opera where I watched my first opera 'Il Barbiere di Siviglia' back in 1966. The company staged the critically acclaimed (= finanical disaster) Ring Cycle. The Scottish government viewed opera as an elite entertainment and refused to help. It ended with the company laying off the orchestra and chorus.


I would have thought that this means that Wagner IS difficult to stage successfully and get a decent financial return.


----------



## Dster

mamascarlatti said:


> I don't follow your argument. You imply that Wagner is easy to stage:
> 
> cannot be more wrong = right. Wagner is difficult to stage successfully and get a decent financial return. From the report I read, the Scottish production was highly regarded; some companies outside UK put it on, but its no help for the company


----------



## mamascarlatti

OK. Actually, "cannot be more wrong" = very wrong, completely mistaken.

But you meant "you are absolutely right", or "I couldn't agree more". Wagner is difficult to stage.


----------



## maxshrek

Well, if you think what Wagner achieve with Tristan and Isolde, the question is very easy to answer.


----------



## Itullian

my choices for greatest can't pick one

Don Giovanni, Falstaff, Meistersinger, Tristan, Rigoletto, 

but if i must............Meistersinger , Wagner with a heart.

it's what i'd pay the most to see.

the Ring doesn't count, it's 4 operas. and each could be on the list.


----------



## martijn

what's the matter with this thread, why am I unable to go to the last page?


----------



## Almaviva

Dster said:


> cannot be more wrong = right. Wagner is difficult to stage successfully and get a decent financial return. From the report I read, the Scottish production was highly regarded; some companies outside UK put it on, but its no help for the company


I think there is a problem with the usage of English here, quite understandable if you're not a native speaker [I'm not saying this in a mean way, not at all - I cherish and welcome everybody here and admire those who make an effort to post in a language that is not theirs] since in English, "cannot be more wrong" means that you are at the highest point of being wrong therefore can't say anything that would be even wronger than what you've said.

By the way, what you mentioned happened in Los Angeles as well, when a big and resourceful company - the LA Opera (although by some accounts, not very good) staged an ambitious modern Ring and got a huge financial problem from it, diving deep into debt.

And it's not just the staging, it's the casting as well. All those Heldentenors and those Wagnerian sopranos able to sing above the huge orchestra are not that easy to find.

About the title of this thread, it was started by one of our members, but it doesn't mean the majority of members feel this way. The majority's opinion is more reflected in the forum-wide projects - in which there was extensive discussion and consensus that we can only refer to "most recommended" when establishing lists - than in individual threads.


----------



## Almaviva

martijn said:


> what's the matter with this thread, why am I unable to go to the last page?


It's been happening periodically in many threads.
It helps if you go out completely, close everything, and re-open the thread again.
Krummhorn has been working on it, it's some sort of software glitch.


----------



## obwan

Almaviva said:


> Mozart's recitatives - especially those from the librettos authored by Da Ponte - don't bother me at all. I find them appropriate and well placed, and these operas have good pace and good theatrical qualities.


I didn't say Mozart wrote bad recitatives. On the contrary, Mozart was one of the best at recitative writing, and I even compared him positively to Gluck, who himself was regarded as a great innovator of recitatives, being the first to start to do away with the seco style and acompany them with whole orchestra. I just feel that in general, Mozart included, there is nothing interesting in them musically. In general they would totally be out of place in a concert setting, and I disagree that they are well paced. Many listeners, myself included, do tend to enjoy the music as much as the plot, if not even more, and find recitatives to be rather distracting. I don't need to mention that there are exceptions to this do I? Donna Anna's first Act aria, "Or sai chi l'onore" has an absolutely wonderful recitative that I find to be absolutely thrilling.

If recitatives are the glue linking scenes together, what links the scenes together in the Magic flute or any other singspiel? Spoken dialogue. Which works just fine. I agree that recitatives have a place in operatic history, but spoken dialogue can acommplish the same things for which recitatives evolved to accomplish in the first place. But because it was 'en vogue' to be entirely sung, this is why we have recitatives in italian operas as opposed to spoken dialogue. And yes, I would prefer that even the best singspiels be entirely sung, but not at the expense of good music.


----------



## martijn

It's an interesting discussion you raise, obwan. I understand your point about recitatives, but at the same time they are a necessity in my view.

The point is that opera lasts longer than most other musical forms, like a symphony, concerto or chamber music. A symphony of Bruckner or Mahler is already long enough, and as a listener one (at least I do) needs a break after 30 or 40 minutes or so. But an opera like a Mozart opera even lasts much longer, sometimes even longer than three hours. To fill this with non-stop music would be an impossibility, it would tire an audience. Just like it wouldn't work if a comedian would have a show of an hour, with one joke after the other, music needs its pauses. Every great artist knows that to make something stand out, it's best to surround it by something less interesting (this is a reason why the classical style is so particulary succesful: moments of great beauty and originality are coupled with clichés, that are moments of resolution).
This is the function of recitatives. They are moments of rest, and after that, the real music can make a greater impact on us again. Mozart did however try to solve this problem, because a problem it remains, by extending the finales of each act.

Later composers, from Schumann on, have tried to abolish recitatives. Wagner is a good example of it, and most composers have followed in him in it. Just the problem for me with Wagner is that nearly _everything_ becomes recitative with him, probably the "bad quarters of an hour" of which Rossini spoke.


----------



## Barelytenor

some guy said:


> Well, I'd just like to point out (again) that "ever" isn't over yet by any means. And neither is writing operas. There have been many operas written since Wagner's _Ring,_ which hardly counts as _*an*_ opera, anyway!
> 
> Trouble is, you all would have to have listened to (some of) them before you could be sure of the Ring's pre-eminence. And even then, the "ever" not being over yet would still apply.
> 
> Still, you would at least then be contemporaneous.
> 
> Here are a few (a very few) of the very fine operas written since Wagner:
> 
> *Janáček*, Osud
> Káťa Kabanová
> Příhody lišky Bystroušky
> Z mrtvého domu
> 
> *Bartók*, A kékszakállú herceg vára
> 
> *Berg*, Wozzek
> Lulu
> 
> *Krenek*, Jonny Spielt Auf
> 
> *Прокофьев*, Обручение в монастыре
> Семён Котко
> Война и мир
> 
> *Шостако́вич*, Hoc
> Леди Макбет Мценского уезда
> 
> *Feldman*, Neither
> 
> *Kutavičius*, Lokys
> 
> *Nørgård*, Nuit des hommes
> 
> *Azguime*, Itinerário Do Sal
> 
> Happy listening!!


How ironic that you seem to want to communicate a point but then put all the Russian titles and composers in Cyrillic, guaranteeing that 90% (99%) of your audience will not understand you.


----------



## martijn

Прокофьев, Prokofiev, that I got.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Шостако́вич, Леди Макбет Мценского уезда - I'm guessing, Shostakovich, lady Macbeth

Семён Котко Semyon Kotko
Война и мир War and peace?

I'd have to googlecheat with the rest


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> Later composers, from Schumann on, have tried to abolish recitatives. Wagner is a good example of it, and most composers have followed in him in it. Just the problem for me with Wagner is that nearly _everything_ becomes recitative with him, probably the "bad quarters of an hour" of which Rossini spoke.


Regarding Wagner, I think the only way you can say "nearly everything becomes recitatives" is by radically expanding the definition of "recitative"--certainly into something far different from Mozart's day. In which case, I'm not sure there's much point to the criticism.


----------



## mamascarlatti

amfortas said:


> Regarding Wagner, I think the only way you can say "nearly everything becomes recitatives" is by radically expanding the definition of "recitative"--certainly into something far different from Mozart's day. In which case, I'm not sure there's much point to the criticism.


I think I know what martinj is getting at.

The joy of recits is in the words. If you understand them and pay attention to them, and more importantly if the singer does the same, they are in their own way as pleasurable as arias. If you are listening to Mandel or early Mozart, the words of the arias are important mainly to understand what emotion or affect the singer is conveying.

With a lot of Wagner careful attention to the words are essential all the way through. I only started enjoying his operas when I realised this (as well as learning to listen more to the orchestra than the singers).


----------



## amfortas

mamascarlatti said:


> I think I know what martinj is getting at.
> 
> The joy of recits is in the words. If you understand them and pay attention to them, and more importantly if the singer does the same, they are in their own way as pleasurable as arias. If you are listening to Mandel or early Mozart, the words of the arias are important mainly to understand what emotion or affect the singer is conveying.
> 
> With a lot of Wagner careful attention to the words are essential all the way through. I only started enjoying his operas when I realised this (as well as learning to listen more to the orchestra than the singers).


I don't necessarily disagree with this as a description of Wagner's operas; I just question whether it is the "problem" martijn suggests.

But of course, differing tastes; problem for some, not for others.


----------



## MrCello

No love for Siegfried? My favorite of the Ring Cycle and my favorite opera of all time, with La Traviata a close second.

And anything Wagner is difficult to recreate, singing, playing, staging, etc...


----------



## amfortas

MrCello said:


> No love for Siegfried? My favorite of the Ring Cycle and my favorite opera of all time, with La Traviata a close second.


_Siegfried_ was my initial favorite Ring opera, and my favorite opera, period, for quite a while. It hasn't quite held either lofty position for me in recent years, but it still holds a special place in my heart.


----------



## martijn

In fact my point had nothing to do with the words, for I consider the text in opera most often to be abonimable, and so I try to ignore it whenever I can. I just meant that much of the music in Wagner (and others after him) is rather undefined, unlike arias in earlier operas, but also unlike music in for example a solo piano work, chamberwork, or symphony of Wagner's time and beyond. It's clearly a sort of recitative, just indeed transformed. 

"Problem" I meant not like something which makes Wagner wrong and f.e. Mozart right (though I've my objections against Wagner's innovations), but a problem which I believe is essential to opera: how do you keep music that lasts an hour or three interesting and fluid, and how do you manage to insert breaks and pauses so that the music doesn't tire the listener? I think Verdi succeeded quite well in it by the way.


----------



## sospiro

martijn said:


> ... but a problem which I believe is essential to opera: how do you keep music that lasts an hour or three interesting and fluid, and how do you manage to insert breaks and pauses so that the music doesn't tire the listener? *I think Verdi succeeded quite well in it by the way*.




But the great man wasn't averse to a bit of recit when it suited him.


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> In fact my point had nothing to do with the words, for I consider the text in opera most often to be abonimable, and so I try to ignore it whenever I can.


In that case, you and I look at opera very differently, so it's no wonder we disagree on more specific points.



martijn said:


> I just meant that much of the music in Wagner (and others after him) is rather undefined, unlike arias in earlier operas, but also unlike music in for example a solo piano work, chamberwork, or symphony of Wagner's time and beyond. It's clearly a sort of recitative, just indeed transformed.


I'm not sure what you mean by "undefined." I would agree that Wagner's music doesn't employ some of the structural devices common in opera (and other music) of his time, but I don't think that's the same as saying it lacks form of its own.

"Transformed recitative" I can accept up to a point (though Wagner also drew upon other musical influences, such as Beethoven's symphonies, in particular the development sections of the first movements).



martijn said:


> "Problem" I meant not like something which makes Wagner wrong and f.e. Mozart right (though I've my objections against Wagner's innovations), but a problem which I believe is essential to opera: how do you keep music that lasts an hour or three interesting and fluid, and how do you manage to insert breaks and pauses so that the music doesn't tire the listener? I think Verdi succeeded quite well in it by the way.


I would agree that Verdi succeeded. I also think Wagner succeeded, but in a different way. And finally, I think Verdi also succeeded when, in his final operas, he adopted an approach a good deal closer to Wagner's.


----------



## martijn

I'm not sure what I meant with undefined too ;-) I think the best way to say it, is that you could for example orchestrate a Mozart aria for strings, and it would sound like a convincing piece, even if you are able in most cases to recognize it as an arranged aria. But with much of Wagner's music this would seem impossible to me. His "recitatives" may be influenced by Beethoven's development sections, as you say, but they sound still very different to me.

Verdi's music, also his later music, I consider to be very different from Wagner's. You find much of Wagner in Richard Strauss or Debussy, but Verdi I find a different story, even if he has been influenced by Wagner.


----------



## NightHawk

I didn't read ALL the posts, but I sure hope someone nominated DON GIOVANNI and Humperdinck's HANSEL AND GRETEL - don't laugh - get the Anna Moffo recording, you'll pig out on listening to it. Sumptuous music from beginning to end with absolutely infectious melodies. Humperdinck was a copyist for Wagner, and in the copying he picked up a lot of orchestration lessons. I might nominate DIE MEISTERSINGER VON NURNBURG, also. If just one, though, I'd go with DON G.


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> I'm not sure what I meant with undefined too ;-) I think the best way to say it, is that you could for example orchestrate a Mozart aria for strings, and it would sound like a convincing piece, even if you are able in most cases to recognize it as an arranged aria. But with much of Wagner's music this would seem impossible to me. His "recitatives" may be influenced by Beethoven's development sections, as you say, but they sound still very different to me.


I would agree with you there. I've heard people say, for instance, that _Tristan_ would work as a symphonic poem, but I'm inclined to side with those who reject such an idea. Even though Wagner has been accused of contradicting his own theories in that opera by letting music assume an unheard-of preeminence, it's still a music very much tied to the specifics of the moment-by-moment dramatic situation, and would be hard to comprehend without that framework.

Maybe it wouldn't be completely simplistic to say that, in Mozart (and composers up to his time), dramatic events are shaped to fit musical forms, whereas with Wagner (and many composers who followed) musical forms are shaped to fit dramatic events.



martijn said:


> Verdi's music, also his later music, I consider to be very different from Wagner's. You find much of Wagner in Richard Strauss or Debussy, but Verdi I find a different story, even if he has been influenced by Wagner.


I agree with you there as well. All I meant to suggest was that, in _Otello_ and _Falstaff_, Verdi arrived at a new kind of musical continuity and flexibility that would not have been possible without Wagner's influence. But one of the admirable and endearing things about Verdi was his ability to incorporate these new developments while remaining distinctively himself.


----------



## martijn

Finally someone agreeing with me, it's unbelievable! ;-) I understand the comparison between Wagner's music and a symphonic poem, but I would like to see an arrangment of Tristan und Isolde for orchestra only. Would be a very weird symphonic poem. Your explanation also makes perhaps clear why I appreciate Wagner less than others here: for me music has to be able to stand on its own, quite apart from the words. To most others here, they are more integrated.

And you are probably right too about the relation between drama and form as you describe it. 

Yes, there's something great about Verdi's way of integrating inventions in his own music. I admit that I had to learn to love Verdi. While everybody praises his Requiem, I still have my misgivings about it. But after it I heard Aida, and it blew me away.


----------



## amfortas

martijn said:


> I admit that I had to learn to love Verdi. While everybody praises his Requiem, I still have my misgivings about it. But after it I heard Aida, and it blew me away.


LOL . . . for me it's the other way around: love the Requeim, have misgivings about Aida. Maybe I need to borrow a page from your playbook and listen to them one after the other.


----------



## sospiro

martijn said:


> I admit that I had to learn to love Verdi. While everybody praises his Requiem, I still have my misgivings about it. But after it I heard Aida, and it blew me away.


:clap: Another fan!

Any other Verdi which has had that effect? I'm currently re-visiting Luisa Miller on CD. Sherrill Milnes is absolutely wonderful, had me in tears on my walk home tonight.


----------



## martijn

Yes, it's funny, and I've indeed heard many that praise the Requiem. I don't say it's bad at all, but there are some things, you know the fugue in the opening, it sounds so simplistic to me, especially the way it's performed on the CD I have. And other things are so operatic, that they seem out of place.

I also can understand people have objections against Aida, it's quite bombastic. But while usually I hate such music, Aida is the one exception.

I don't know all early and middle Verdi, but from what I've heard, it appeals to me less. I believe the last operas are his greatest masterpieces.


----------



## CameraEye

I adore Verdi´s Requiem. I agree it has operatic elements but why should we consider this as something negative? 
As for the opening, I wouldn´t say it´s simplistic. I would rather say it is a delicate introduction in contrast with the dramatic strength which is to follow.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

All this Verdi. Verdi, Verdi Verdi. His operas are FANTASTIC, but no opera is greater than Brett Dean's "Bliss."

Also, how many people here have heard of Stockhausen's 29 hour opera cycle "Licht?"


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Just remembered another fantastic opera: Ligeti's "Le Grande Macabre"


----------



## martijn

I get the impression someone favors modern music.


----------



## sospiro

martijn said:


> I get the impression someone favors modern music.


Every composer was modern in his/her day. There's room for everyone.


----------



## amfortas

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> . . . how many people here have heard of Stockhausen's 29 hour opera cycle "Licht?"


Enough of us to vote it number 260 on our Talkclassical List of Recommended Operas (probably should be higher, but at least it made the cut). 



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Just remembered another fantastic opera: Ligeti's "Le Grande Macabre"


Number 209 with a bullet.


----------



## mamascarlatti

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Also, how many people here have heard of Stockhausen's 29 hour opera cycle "Licht?"


I'd say most people here are aware of it. But if you want to chat to someone who has actually listened to the lot and is very knowledgeable about it, you need member Jeremy Marchant.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I've only really heard Thursday in full. I know Stockhausen's helicopter string quartet comes from one of them but I can't remember which one it is, even if it is from Thursday.


----------



## NightHawk

Great list! Many I don't know so it's good to have a list to to explore. Glad to see Der Freischutz on the list, Weber is underrated terribly. What about Humperdinck's 'Hansel and Gretel' - gorgeous work! The Anna Moffo recording of this is illegally beautiful!



Il_Penseroso said:


> Handel: *Agrippina*
> 
> Gluck: *Orfeo ed Euridice* (Paris Version: *Orphée et Eurydice*)
> 
> ---
> 
> Mozart: *Le nozze di Figaro*
> 
> Mozart: *Don Giovanni*
> 
> Mozart: *Die Zauberflöte*
> 
> ---
> 
> Rossini: *Il barbiere di Siviglia*
> 
> Bellini: *Norma* (only a selection of scenes)
> 
> Donizetti: *Lucia Di Lamermoore* (Only a selection of scenes)
> 
> Verdi: *Rigoletto*
> 
> Verdi: *Il Travatore*
> 
> Verdi: *La Traviata*
> 
> Verdi: *Otello*
> 
> Verdi: *Falstaff*
> 
> ---
> 
> Weber: *Der Freischutz*
> 
> Wagner: *Tristan und Isolde*
> 
> Wagner: *Der Ring des Nibelungen* (my favorite is *Das Rheingold*)
> 
> ---
> 
> Glinka: *Russlan and Ludmilla*
> 
> Moussorgsky: *Boris Godunov* (Rimsky Korsakov's Version, if i have to choose only one opera...)
> 
> Borodin: *Prince Igor*
> 
> Rimsky Korsakov: *Le Coq d'or*
> 
> ---
> 
> Lalo: *Le roi d'Ys* (Only a selection of scenes)
> 
> Delibes: *Lakme* (Only a selection of scenes)
> 
> ---
> 
> Strauss (Johann): *Die Fledermaus*
> 
> ---
> 
> Lehar: *Die lustige Witwe*
> 
> ---
> 
> Mascagni: *Cavalleria rusticana*
> 
> Puccini: *Tosca*
> 
> Puccini: *Madama Butterfly*
> 
> Puccini: *Turandot*
> 
> ---
> 
> Debussy: *Peleas et Melisande*
> 
> ---
> 
> De Falla: *El retablo de maese Pedro* (not really an opera but a great stage work)
> 
> ---
> 
> Orff: *Der Mond*
> 
> Orff: *Die Kluge*


----------



## NightHawk

Fidelio is totally incredible, and Beethoven is my favorite composer, also.



TallPaul said:


> My favorite is Fidelio and I am also fond of Boris Godunov. This may be in part because Beethoven is my favorite composer (half of my classical music files are Beethoven) and because I have about a dozen copies of Pictures at an Exhibiton, including several orchestral transcriptions, accordion and strings, piano and strings, organ, brass ensemble, and of course piano. However, I do prefer the more serious operas. I have seen Aida, Rigoletto, Magic Flute, Boris Godunov, and others live. Fidelio I have only experienced on CD, but love it.


----------



## NightHawk

An impressive achievement, but flawed, mainly in the interminable 'non-recitative' but still 'just singing conversation' where two characters (e.g. Wotan/Frica - Wotan/Brunnhilde) are on stage and there is no action, and no attractive melody - I think Die Walkure and Gotterdammerung are the two best of the four.



nickgray said:


> Why, Der Ring des Nibelungen of course. A gargantuan work, which I hold to be one of the greatest musical achievements ever.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

nickgray said:


> Why, Der Ring des Nibelungen of course. A gargantuan work, which I hold to be one of the greatest musical achievements ever.


What? Stockhausen's "Licht" makes Wagner's cycle look like Webern's symphony compared to Brian's Gothic!


----------



## amfortas

NightHawk said:


> An impressive achievement, but flawed, mainly in the interminable 'non-recitative' but still 'just singing conversation' where two characters (e.g. Wotan/Frica - Wotan/Brunnhilde) are on stage and there is no action, and no attractive melody.


I actually think there is a great deal of action in those scenes--just not of the overt variety. By the time those crucial Wotan/Fricka and Wotan/Brunnhilde scenes in Act II are over, all the main characters' destinies have changed irrevocably.

The sparks emanating from the Wotan/Fricka confrontation alone makes it clear to me that Wagner knew all about unhappy marriages!


----------



## Couchie

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What? Stockhausen's "Licht" makes Wagner's cycle look like Webern's symphony compared to Brian's Gothic!


I think the difference is people actually perform/give a damn about Wagner's cycle.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I love 'em both! :lol:


----------



## brianwalker

martijn said:


> Of course there is no objective way to "measure" which opera is best. But since it's very boring to respect each other's opinion, it's now and then nice to state that your own taste is the best. It keeps the discussion going.
> Besides that, I've the bad habit of naming authorities who share my opinion. I'm sure the majority of the great composers would agree me with that Mozart is the greatest opera composer. Don Giovanni was the favorite opera of Chopin, Tsjaikovsky, the young Mendelssohn, Rossini and Gounod. Le Nozze was the favorite opera of Richard Strauss and Brahms, who said that never anything like that was being made again. Ligeti called Le Nozze and Don Giovanni the greatest operas of all, and Così the most beautiful music there was. Busoni, and I believe Beethoven as well considered Die Zauberflöte their favorite opera. Ravel regarded the final act of Idomeneo the greatest music there was. And I could go on and on, quoting composers from Messiaen to Stravinsky, from Mussorgsky to Rimsky-Korsakov, and Grieg to Fauré. I couldn't come up with such an extensive list for Wagner. Wagner himself said that he couldn't understand people compared him to Mozart, since he saw Mozart as a much greater composer. He particularly loved Le Nozze.
> 
> I didn't say the people on Talk Classical mistake quantity for quality. I said that it's the case in general with the audience. Just look at lists of the greatest song, work, book, and so on, and you will see this holds true. I wasn't aware of the existence of this opera of Stockhausen, but we will agree The Ring is quite long.
> 
> About Così I have to disagree strongly. I find the 17th position on an all-time list, way, way too low. If you asked me, it would be on number 1. I cannot even think of 16 other operas that would come close.
> 
> I didn't say Wagner's operas are not intense. Perhaps they are too intense. For this reason I'm of the opinion the music of Wagner should only be available in small doses at the drug store. But the pace is too slow in my opinion. And I despise the influence of Wagner on Western music. One Wagner was enough. Fortunately in the 20th century many composers have stood up against Wagner.


You have no way to know what those great composers would say about Wagner's operas relative to Mozart's if they had actually had the chance to listen to Wagner. The composers who were contemporaries of Wagner had reason to be dissembling about their real thoughts on the matter due to the politics of music.


----------



## Operadowney

NightHawk said:


> Fidelio is totally incredible, and Beethoven is my favorite composer, also.


Beethoven was a great instrumental composer but his opera is garbage. He has no dramatic sense period when it comes to areas outside of the music. Sure the music is great, but dramatically this opera is flawed beyond reason.


----------



## Moira

The Magic Flute (Mozart) remains my favourite. Incidentally, I agree that Fidelio is theatrically problematic, to say the least.


----------



## Couchie

brianwalker said:


> The composers who were contemporaries of Wagner had reason to be dissembling about their real thoughts on the matter due to the politics of music.


100% accurate. Living _after_ a great composer: awe and reverence. Living _with_ a great composer: jealousy and envy.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Favourite opera: can't decide between Albert Herring and Le Grand Macabre at the moment.


----------



## MAuer

Operadowney said:


> Beethoven was a great instrumental composer but his opera is garbage. He has no dramatic sense period when it comes to areas outside of the music. Sure the music is great, but dramatically this opera is flawed beyond reason.


Them's fightin' words, buddy! :scold: ut:


----------



## tgtr0660

I'm not sure if I ever posted on this thread, but anyway: Die Zauberflöte would be the greatest opera ever written if it was not for Boris Godunov...


----------



## martijn

brianwalker said:


> You have no way to know what those great composers would say about Wagner's operas relative to Mozart's if they had actually had the chance to listen to Wagner. The composers who were contemporaries of Wagner had reason to be dissembling about their real thoughts on the matter due to the politics of music.


Absolutely not right, Brian. Wagner's contemporaries were mostly in awe of him. They were rather overestimating him than underestimating him. What Couchie says after is also completely wrong. You two lack some historical knowledge. Wagner had some distractors, but they were a minority. The great majority of his contemporaries put him on a pedestal. Reaction against Wagner (if there was any substantial reaction) rather started in the 20th century (Stravinsky, Milhaud and a few others)


----------



## Itullian

Meistersinger:trp::guitar::trp::guitar::clap::clap:


----------



## poconoron

Couchie said:


> 100% accurate. Living _after_ a great composer: awe and reverence. Living _with_ a great composer: jealousy and envy.


Not necessarily true.............. what about the Mozart/Haydn mutual admiration?


----------



## Operadowney

katdad said:


> I have many favorites but most of all I love "Le Nozze di Figaro" (Marriage of Figaro). One of the greatest honors and pleasures of my life was singing the role of Antonio in this opera. The fun of playing the buffoon in Acts 2 & 3, and the thrill of standing on stage during the finale, singing "perdono, perdono" (pardon, pardon) is something I will cherish all my life.
> 
> Besides being immortally great music, Nozze is probably the most "humane" of all operas.
> 
> I'll contrast this with another fave of mine, Rigoletto. Stunning music, of course, plus I suppose the most "cruel" and nasty plot ever, depravity spread out across all the characters, even Gilda.
> 
> I sang in the chorus and I was soooo delighted in hazing and taunting poor old Rigoletto when he comes looking for his daughter at the castle! We men in the chorus shoved him around stage and mimiced his hunchback. Added to this delight was that the guy singing Rigoletto was my voice teacher!
> 
> At the time I was dating the soprano who sang Gilda, and even during rehearsals, each time the finale was performed and I saw my voice teacher (Rigoletto) watch my girlfriend (Gilda) "die", it brought tears to my eyes.
> 
> I'll also say that Rheingold is my favorite Wagner opera.


I'm preparing the role of the Count right now, and I love this work. Best moments for me are the Act I Trio and all of the Act 2 Finale (as well as the aria in Act III)


----------



## PetrB

tahnak said:


> Richard Wagner's Der Ring Des Nibelungen takes this slot.
> Das Rheingold, the Prelude, is magnificent. Richard Wagner wrote this mammoth cycle in a period spanning 26 years from 1848 to 1874. He intended the audience to watch the entire four musik dramas (Das Rheingold, Die Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung) on four successive nights without a break. He was disgusted when the operas were given a stand alone performance. The entire cycle demands nineteen hours of listening and believe me each second demands intense concentration. There were two by products of the Ring. They were Siegfried Idyll and Kindercatechismus for chamber orchestra.
> 
> It is genius at the highest cadre of work. The 136 bar muted undulating drone on the E Flat Major Chord is the longest drone in the concert repertoire. Orchestrally, Das Rheingold remains my favourite opera. The opening prelude and the scintillating writing for the strings and the brass make it the prelude of all preludes in opera.
> The prelude is broken by the rhinemaidens' song and the entry of the Nibelung elf, Alberich, to the drama. He is the Nibelung the ring's story is all about. He renounces worldly lust and love and becomes the owner of the golden hoard out of which he forges the ring to become Master of the World until Loge's cunning wit and Wotan's deceit take the Ring to a full circle of the greed for power until Alberich's curse on the Ring.
> 
> Another great orchestral brushwork by Wagner is the interlude between scene 2 and scene 3 when Loge and Wotan descend into Nibelheim where the orchestra surges into a dotted rhythm with the introduction of sixteen anvils of different pitch.
> 
> After the departure of Fafner when he kills his brother Fasolt and disappears with the golden hoard, the Tarnhelm and the Ring, we have a majestic call of thunder by Donner (Heda Hedo) with his hammer blow followed by the Rainbow interlude and entry of the Gods into Valhalla bringing the opera to its magnificent conclusion with the wailing of the Rhinemaidens in the background.
> 
> I have heard versions by Furtwangler, Solti, Karajan, Bohm, Levine and Boulez of this opera and I consider Solti as the Definitive version on Decca with the Wiener Philharmoniker and George London and Kirsten Flagstad. This recording of 1959 still remains as the one to beat. It is simply magnificent.


Oh, No. No. No. That is ALL I have to say about this.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk

PetrB said:


> Oh, No. No. No. That is ALL I have to say about this.


is that because you don't like Wagner?


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk

Couchie said:


> I think the difference is people actually perform/give a damn about Wagner's cycle.


that's fair to say. Wagner's drama was naturalistic and relevant to the heritage of his audience.

Stockhausen's drama is completely non-dramatic by comparison. he was writing with a theatric vocabulary that barely existed in his time, he died before the premieres of some of them. we'll be able to judge that in a century or two.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

AmericanGesamtkunstwerk said:


> that's fair to say. Wagner's drama was naturalistic and relevant to the heritage of his audience.
> 
> Stockhausen's drama is completely non-dramatic by comparison. he was writing with a theatric vocabulary that barely existed in his time, he died before the premieres of some of them. we'll be able to judge that in a century or two.


I admire Stockhausen's work, but I think that Der Ring is historically more important and more fun to watch. _Licht_ does seem to drag on in some parts.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk

AmericanGesamtkunstwerk said:


> that's fair to say. Wagner's drama was naturalistic and relevant to the heritage of his audience.
> 
> Stockhausen's drama is completely non-dramatic by comparison. he was writing with a theatric vocabulary that barely existed in his time, he died before the premieres of some of them. we'll be able to judge that in a century or two.


*NOT fair to say... oh errors.


----------



## Badinerie

Wait a minute....Tosca....Boring!!! What kind of life does one have to lead to find Sex, Murder, Political Intrigue, Torture, and a Firing squad, Boring ! Its The Second best opera ever....after ( Obviously!) Richard Strauss's Elektra.


Blimey! some people....


----------



## Moira

Badinerie said:


> Wait a minute....Tosca....Boring!!! What kind of life does one have to lead to find Sex, Murder, Political Intrigue, Torture, and a Firing squad, Boring ! Its The Second best opera ever....after ( Obviously!) Richard Strauss's Elektra.
> 
> Blimey! some people....


My sister had a dog named Tosca. She was bad tempered and bit people. The dog, not my sister. Although my aunt always said animals take on the personalities of their owners.

I like the opera very much and if it is the second best opera ever, which it may well be, it follows The Magic Flute. That's by Mozart if anyone was wondering.


----------



## poconoron

I'll go with Don Giovanni by Mozart as best ever.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Three favourites
Brett Dean: Bliss
*Ligeti:* Le Grand Macabre
Britten: Albert Herring


----------



## DavidA

Mozart wrote three which must rank as the greatest ever.

Figaro
Don Giovanni
Cosi fan Tutte
The only comparable operas in greatness to them is Carmen and Verdi's Falstaff


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Although I would go for Elektra, Tristan or The Ring, depending on my mood, according to NPR Don Giovanni is widely considered the greatest opera ever written.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15828636


----------



## deggial

The Ring cycle is surely the most self indulgent an overblown operatic (and, as such, unintentionally funny) gesture in the history of music.


----------



## JCarmel

A _very_ difficult question to answer....but I think I must chose two 'great' operas .....not only because of the music which is tremendous but because they are both so 'human' in their dramatic character. They are about real believable people and their predicaments. The operas are Le Nozze di Figaro and Carmen.


----------



## Art Rock

deggial said:


> The Ring cycle is surely the most self indulgent an overblown operatic (and, as such, unintentionally funny) gesture in the history of music.


Surely this is merely your opinion. Der Ring der Nibelungen gets my vote.


----------



## DavidA

deggial said:


> The Ring cycle is surely the most self indulgent an overblown operatic (and, as such, unintentionally funny) gesture in the history of music.


As with all Wagner there are many times when you feel like saying, "do get on with it, Richard!"
Interesting comparing Mastersingers with Falstaff. Where Wagner leisurely spins out his somewhat thin material for four hours, Verdi shimmers and dances his way through Boito's superb libretto. It seems not a note is wasted. The humour is terrific, the music laughs. Why I would rate it as Verdi's greatest opera and right up there with the greatest ever. Astonishing work for an old man! What a pity he didn't write more comic operas.


----------



## Mahlerian

deggial said:


> The Ring cycle is surely the most self indulgent an overblown operatic (and, as such, unintentionally funny) gesture in the history of music.


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


----------



## deggial

^ I stand corrected! :tiphat: however, I feel he could've pushed himself a bit more. There are 168 hours in a week.


----------



## deggial

Art Rock said:


> Surely this is merely your opinion.


I'm actually the spokesperson of The Society of People Amused by The Ring Cycle (SPARC)


----------



## Logos

I find that those who prefer Italian to German opera tend to be more humanistic and epicurean in disposition; they want to enjoy the world rather than wrestle with it.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licht


A week of that! It just doesn't bear thinking about!


----------



## DavidA

Logos said:


> I find that those who prefer Italian to German opera tend to be more humanistic and epicurean in disposition; they want to enjoy the world rather than wrestle with it.


Is that a virtue or a vice in your book?


----------



## Logos

DavidA said:


> Is that a virtue or a vice in your book?


As Sir Roger de Coverley put it, there is much to be said on both sides.


----------



## deggial

DavidA said:


> A week of that! It just doesn't bear thinking about!


my eyes glazed over reading the synopsis, but the music is actually neat (listening to Freitags Gruss right now; All those hours spent playing Spore must've set my psyche in the right direction for this one). I'll get back to y'all in a few years with my full impression, hehe. It must be quite something hearing this live.


----------



## Mahlerian

deggial said:


> my eyes glazed over reading the synopsis, but the music is actually neat (listening to Freitag right now; All those hours spent playing Spore must've set my psyche in the right direction for this one). I'll get back to y'all in a few years with my full impression, hehe. It must be quite something hearing this live.


I find it intriguing that the whole thing arose out of a commission to write for Gagaku ensemble, but the cycle strikes me as being more concerned with spectacle than anything else. I'm sure it's quite something to hear live (because I'm certainly not paying the absurd prices his estate charges for CDs), but I'm not sure I'd want to go through a whole week of it.

I'm not even really a fair-weather Stockhausen devotee. Usually his music strikes me as interesting, but not as earth-shattering as it wants to be, and the novelty wears off shortly.


----------



## deggial

it's overblown all right, but I find it more enjoyable than Wagner's. Same with classical Japanese music.


----------



## Celloissimo

Ring Cycle = Greatest thing ever

'Nuff said


----------



## Mahlerian

deggial said:


> it's overblown all right, but I find it more enjoyable than Wagner's. Same with classical Japanese music.


I like traditional Japanese and Wagner. Now we need to get a Noh production of Tristan going...


----------



## sharik

tahnak said:


> The Greatest Opera Ever Written


the greatest - _Carmen_, the best - _Tristan Und Isolde_.


----------



## Logos

sharik said:


> the greatest - _Carmen_, the best - _Tristan Und Isolde_.


I'm not quite clear on how you've differentiated between best and greatest.


----------



## sharik

Logos said:


> how you've differentiated between best and greatest.


because the greatest does not necessarily mean the best.


----------



## Logos

sharik said:


> because the greatest does not necessarily mean the best.


But would you explain how you are differentiating these words in this instance? Greatness can be contrasted with moral goodness but to contrast it with "bestness" is very murky.


----------



## sharik

Logos said:


> But would you explain how you are differentiating these words in this instance?


to begin with, English is not my native language. Russian has these two words not as synonyms: 'great' rather refers to popularity then quality whereas 'best' refers to the absolute.


----------



## Logos

Ah, I understand. We usually use greatness to signify excellence or bigness. Thank you for your explanation.


----------



## sharik

Logos said:


> We usually use greatness to signify excellence or bigness


i'm already guessing so, thanks for a lesson.


----------



## DavidA

sharik said:


> to begin with, English is not my native language. Russian has these two words not as synonyms: 'great' rather refers to popularity then quality whereas 'best' refers to the absolute.


Well, friend, your English is certainly better than my (non-existant) Russian! You guys are fantastic!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Logos said:


> I find that those who prefer Italian to German opera tend to be more humanistic and epicurean in disposition; they want to enjoy the world rather than wrestle with it.


It is a great _enjoyment_ for me to listen to composers who express their _wrestling_ with the world in their music. That is true not only about opera.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Tristan and Isolde probably wins the prize for my _favourite_ opera.

Just pips Parsifal and Peter Grimes.

Other faves - Lady Macbeth, La Traviata, Don Giovanni, Tosca.

As for the Greatest. Who knows. An argument could be made for many. 
Marriage of Figaro was the pinnacle at the time of writing. 
The Ring Cycle as already mentioned.
Carmen for it's sheer popularity.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby

The best operas ever written in my opinion...

1. La fanciulla del west
The best of all worlds. It's Puccini, so there's melody galore, a solid libretto, and dramatic tension. But it was also the opera in which Puccini broke away from his previous habits: the opera is driven less by melody and more by chord and tonal progressions. The orchestration is brilliant, and much more sensitive to the words and the action on stage than Debussy, for example, while applying similar harmonic techniques as Debussy did for Pelleas et Mellisande. And the finale is absolutely glorious. It's my favorite scene in all of opera.

2. Benvenuto Cellini
Such a fun opera, and brilliant. Berlioz manages to combine all the orchestral brilliance of a Wagner with the melodic gifts of the Italian bel canto composers. Cellini's 'La gloire etait ma seule idole' is one of my favorite arias.

3. Mefistofele
The philosophy of Goethe, the orchestral writing of a master, the melodic gifts of an Italian, and some of the best choral writing in opera... The neglect of Boito's masterpiece is mind boggling to me. The duet 'Lontano lontano lontano' is one of the most ravishing in opera, and the finale (which recapitulates the music of the prologue in heaven) is thrilling. And Boito's libretto is excellent (although Faust's salvation comes a little too easily: Goethe's Faust was dreaming of a housing project, not the pearly gates).

4. Il Trittico
Technically three operas, but since they're meant to be performed together, like the Ring, which has been included on this list, I feel I can do it. Puccini's tryptich gets short shrift both academically and in performance. The latter is understandable, as the demands are high. The former is the result of the latent hostility that critics seem to have for Puccini. But the quality of each of these operas is undeniable, including the much maligned Suor Angelica. Since I love the philosophical nature of much of opera, I just have to include that this triptych is basically a commentary on Dante's Commedia from a modern perspective. fascinating and beautiful.


----------



## Ritter

So hard to say which is the greatest opera ever written, but for me "Tristan und Isolde" is "the opera", God touched Wagner's heart when he composed it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Ritter said:


> So hard to say which is the greatest opera ever written, but for me "Tristan und Isolde" is "the opera", God touched Wagner's heart when he composed it.


And the gods of his fathers touched Wagner's heart when he composed the Ring. Wotan who had once brought the mead of poetry to the sons of men, gave him poetic inspiration, Donner filled his music with thunder and lightning, and Freia, the goddess of all things beautiful, endowed it with supreme beauty.


----------



## Ritter

HumphreyAppleby said:


> The best operas ever written in my opinion...
> 1. La fanciulla del west
> The best of all worlds. It's Puccini, so there's melody galore, a solid libretto, and dramatic tension. But it was also the opera in which Puccini broke away from his previous habits: the opera is driven less by melody and more by chord and tonal progressions. The orchestration is brilliant, and much more sensitive to the words and the action on stage than Debussy, for example, while applying similar harmonic techniques as Debussy did for Pelleas et Mellisande. And the finale is absolutely glorious. It's my favorite scene in all of opera.


The second act is formidable, with such a dramatic tension... I love this opera


----------



## mamascarlatti

Ritter said:


> The second act is formidable, with such a dramatic tension... I love this opera


Another huge fan here.


----------



## Novelette

I'm currently favoring Cherubini's Les Abencerages.

Doubtlessly _not_ one of the greatest operas ever written, but I think that it is unfairly neglected.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby

For the last while I've been listening to it once a week.


----------



## unpocoscherzando

My favourite operas are _Carmen_ and _Tosca_. As for the greatest opera, I find that more difficult to suggest an answer to (although _Carmen_ is, I think, certainly a contender); my mind, however, turns toward Handel...

Having said all that, _Der Ring_ is a towering achievement of music and really _sui generis_ in several respects.


----------



## GiulioCesare

My answer to this question should be pretty clear.


----------



## GiulioCesare

unpocoscherzando said:


> My favourite operas are _Carmen_ and _Tosca_. As for the greatest opera, I find that more difficult to suggest an answer to (although _Carmen_ is, I think, certainly a contender); *my mind, however, turns toward Handel...
> *
> Having said all that, _Der Ring_ is a towering achievement of music and really _sui generis_ in several respects.


Your mind turns right!


----------



## deggial

GiulioCesare said:


> My answer to this question should be pretty clear.


I'm confused, help me out here 

 tough contender!


----------



## TxllxT

Прокофьев, Обручение в монастыре - Prokofiev , Betrothal in a Monastery








Прокофьев, Семён Котко - Prokofiev, Semyon Kotko








Прокофьев, Война и мир - Prokofiev, War and Peace


----------



## MagneticGhost

TxllxT said:


> Прокофьев, Обручение в монастыре - Prokofiev , Betrothal in a Monastery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Прокофьев, Семён Котко - Prokofiev, Semyon Kotko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Прокофьев, Война и мир - Prokofiev, War and Peace


So you like Prokofiev ;-)

Never heard any of them. Will have to rectify that.


----------



## mamascarlatti

MagneticGhost said:


> So you like Prokofiev ;-)
> 
> Never heard any of them. Will have to rectify that.


A good place to start:










http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Decca/4782315

*Betrothal in a Monastery*

Anna Netrebko, Larissa Diadkova, Nikolai Gassiev & Sergei Alexashkin

*The Love for Three Oranges*

Larissa Shevchenko, Konstantin Pluzhnikov, Vassily Gerello, Alexander Morozov, Mikhail Kit, Fyodor Kuznetsov & Vladimir Vaneev

*The Gambler, Op. 24*

Sergei Alexashkin, Ljuba Kazarnovskaya, Vladimir Galusin, Elena Obraztsova, Nikolai Gassiev, Valery Lebed, Marianna Tarassova, Victor Vikhrov, Andrei Khramtsov, Yuri Laptev, Grigory Karassev, Vladimir Zhivopistsev, Victor Vikhrov & Gennadi Bezzubenkov

*The Fiery Angel*

Sergei Leiferkus & Galina Gorchakova

*War and Peace, Op. 91*

Olga Borodina, Yuri Marusin, Alexandr Morozov, Irina Bogachova, Evgeniya Tselovalnik, Nikolai Okhotnikov, Ivan Volodin, Mikhail Chernozhukov, Georgi Zastavnij, Mikhail Kit, Yuri Laptev, Mikail Bulatov, Vassily Gerelo, Andrei Khramstov, Genadij Bezzubenkov, Viacheslav Trofimov, Maria Gortsievskaja, Sergei Alexashkin, Yuri Zhikalov, Nikolai Gassiev, Grigory Karasev, Igor Shpagin, Evgeny Fedotov, Andrei Karabanov, Vladimir Ognovenko, Yevgeny Boitsov, Olga Markova-Mikhailenko, Slava Fomin, Vladimir Solodovnikov, Vladimir Knijasev, Alexandr Shubin, Elena Guliaeva, Julia Chazanova, Evgenia Perlasova, Igor Yan, Mikhail Yegorov, Gegam Gregoriam, Svetlana Volkova, Yelena Prokina, Ludmilla Kanunnikova, Alexandr Gergalov, Tatjana Filimonova, Anna Kovaleva & Ludmilla Filatova

*Semyon Kotko, Op. 81*

Ekaterina Solovyeva, Evgeny Akimov, Gennady Bezzubenkov, Ludmilla Filatova, Nikolai Gassiev, Olga Savova, Tatiana Pavlovskaya, Viktor Lutsuk & Yuri Laptev

Kirov Opera & Orchestra & Mariinsky Theatre, St Petersburg, Valery Gergiev


----------



## mamascarlatti

MagneticGhost said:


> So you like Prokofiev ;-)
> 
> Never heard any of them. Will have to rectify that.


If you prefer DVDs:



















Semyon Kotko is not on DVD.


----------



## TxllxT

It's a pity that Gergiev didn't record Prokofiev's last opera 'The Story of a Real Man' yet. The Chandos recording with Mark Ermler however is not at all bad... Does there exist a DVD recording of the Story of a Real Man? I like Prokofiev's lyrical _grandeur_, without a hint of Wagnerian pomposity & dragging. I like operas that make one aware of human dignity and tenderness. Prokofiev happens to carry a poetical torch that lights my fire... :angel:


----------



## MagneticGhost

Thanks for the tips Mamascarlatti.
Too many CDs on my wishlist to be able to invest in the CD box just yet. But I've popped Betrothal in a Monastary on my lovefilm list. Will look forward to watching it.


----------



## mamascarlatti

MagneticGhost said:


> Thanks for the tips Mamascarlatti.
> Too many CDs on my wishlist to be able to invest in the CD box just yet. But I've popped Betrothal in a Monastary on my lovefilm list. Will look forward to watching it.


It's really charming.

My favourite out of the list is War and Peace. It's Epic, with a heart wrenching love story, and Zambello's production for Paris opera that I posted above i just gorgeous.

Watch this lovely clip as Natasha and Prince Andrei waltz together. Swoon. How can two people be so beautiful and graceful and still be able to sing like that?


----------



## Zabirilog

Ring des Nibelungen - Greatest cultural thing ever.


----------



## msegers

I've been away from TalkClassical for a while, and just today discovered this thread and read the whole thing in one sitting.

I don't think the title question about the "greatest opera" can be answered. But, I find myself agreeing with a number of the most popular responses here, Wagner (esp. the "Ring"), _Boris Godunov_, _Falstaff_, and _Carmen_, if the question becomes more a matter of "favorite opera."

There is one that I am surprised I could not find here, _Rosenkavalier_. In various ways, it appeals to me - the lush (perhaps too lush?) music, the glorious use of the voices, the sheer joy of the plot and the characterization, perhaps the best use of a trouser role in opera, and finally the poignance of the Marschallin's acceptance of all kinds of facts of life.

I think it has become my operatic equivalent of comfort food, which I suppose would move it away from the title of "greatest opera," but I do love it.


----------



## aisia

Ok, so here goes. I think the best single opera is Tristan and Isolde. It couldn't really be The Ring, as it's not a single opera. Moreover, I think Tristan is better than any of the four individual Ring operas, and that while Tristan is obviously less ambitious than the entire Ring, it's also less flawed. I'd be happy to grant a thesis like 'The Ring is the world's greatest musical-dramatic artwork', though. But my main point is that Wagner's mature (i.e. post-Lohengrin) work is, in general, the pinnacle of musical drama by some distance, and that there's relatively little room for reasonable disagreement on this point. 

First of all, theoretical considerations. (I hope that) I'm not merely bashing you over the head with my own preferences here. I think people appeal a little too glibly to the variation of subjectivities in such discussions. I don't buy it. You can press me on this if you like, but be warned, I am a philosopher. Consider the following analogy. I'm not especially keen on vegetarian food. I think I'd prefer to eat pasta in a simple tomato sauce before any other vegetarian dish. But I don't want to say that pasta with tomato sauce is the best vegetarian dish going. There are probably better dishes: as in, dishes with more to offer to those who enjoy that sort of thing. I like my my pasta, but it can only offer me so much. Other people are getting more out of other dishes. Art is much the same. Others may prefer Verdi, but I still think that Wagner simply offers more. 

Why do I think this, and with such confidence? After all, even if you sign on in principle to all I've said so far, it still seems a fiendish task to adjudicate works in different styles within the same genre. What makes opera special, I think, is that it's a hybrid form. We're not just judging on musical criteria, but also dramatic criteria. And in fact it's incredibly difficult to meet both sets of criteria at once. I think operatic music is only infrequently great according to purely musical standards of greatness, and almost never great according to dramatic standards of greatness. Which brings us to Wagner. Wagner is simply unique in being frequently great according to both sets of criteria. 

Case in point: Tristan Act 1. Perhaps you don't much like listening to the Prelude. But here are some reasons why it's great anyway. It's radically and influentially innovative: all those emphatic, unresolved dissonances. It's also masterfully constructed: Wagner manipulates all the elements with aplomb. The melodic material, the orchestral colour and texture, the rhythms, the harmonies, all carefully developed into those intense cycles of anguish and tenderness, driving relentlessly towards a climax that is never consummated. It's a tremendous feat of composition. The above makes the prelude special in a way that few operatic excerpts are. It's uncommonly great music. 

Then, the drama. The portrait of Isolde we are given is astonishingly rich and full. It is a minute analysis of her fragile psychological state and the variety of factors impinging on it. Verdi's characters are usually credible and sympathetic; Da Ponte, with Mozart's help, draws well rounded, engaging human beings; and I think Der Rosenkavalier's Marschallin is simply wonderful. But no other librettist has ever possessed Wagner's psychological penetration. It makes for truly great drama. 

And on and on: the way the music of the act builds on from the prelude, and lives up to its promise; the way it deepens and intensifies the portrayal of Isolde; the perfect sense the drama makes of the prelude that preceded it. Can anyone point to another instance of such great music united so well to such great drama?


----------



## Jobis

aisia said:


> Ok, so here goes. I think the best single opera is Tristan and Isolde. It couldn't really be The Ring, as it's not a single opera. Moreover, I think Tristan is better than any of the four individual Ring operas, and that while Tristan is obviously less ambitious than the entire Ring, it's also less flawed. I'd be happy to grant a thesis like 'The Ring is the world's greatest musical-dramatic artwork', though. But my main point is that Wagner's mature (i.e. post-Lohengrin) work is, in general, the pinnacle of musical drama by some distance, and that there's relatively little room for reasonable disagreement on this point.
> 
> First of all, theoretical considerations. (I hope that) I'm not merely bashing you over the head with my own preferences here. I think people appeal a little too glibly to the variation of subjectivities in such discussions. I don't buy it. You can press me on this if you like, but be warned, I am a philosopher. Consider the following analogy. I'm not especially keen on vegetarian food. I think I'd prefer to eat pasta in a simple tomato sauce before any other vegetarian dish. But I don't want to say that pasta with tomato sauce is the best vegetarian dish going. There are probably better dishes: as in, dishes with more to offer to those who enjoy that sort of thing. I like my my pasta, but it can only offer me so much. Other people are getting more out of other dishes. Art is much the same. Others may prefer Verdi, but I still think that Wagner simply offers more.
> 
> Why do I think this, and with such confidence? After all, even if you sign on in principle to all I've said so far, it still seems a fiendish task to adjudicate works in different styles within the same genre. What makes opera special, I think, is that it's a hybrid form. We're not just judging on musical criteria, but also dramatic criteria. And in fact it's incredibly difficult to meet both sets of criteria at once. I think operatic music is only infrequently great according to purely musical standards of greatness, and almost never great according to dramatic standards of greatness. Which brings us to Wagner. Wagner is simply unique in being frequently great according to both sets of criteria.
> 
> Case in point: Tristan Act 1. Perhaps you don't much like listening to the Prelude. But here are some reasons why it's great anyway. It's radically and influentially innovative: all those emphatic, unresolved dissonances. It's also masterfully constructed: Wagner manipulates all the elements with aplomb. The melodic material, the orchestral colour and texture, the rhythms, the harmonies, all carefully developed into those intense cycles of anguish and tenderness, driving relentlessly towards a climax that is never consummated. It's a tremendous feat of composition. The above makes the prelude special in a way that few operatic excerpts are. It's uncommonly great music.
> 
> Then, the drama. The portrait of Isolde we are given is astonishingly rich and full. It is a minute analysis of her fragile psychological state and the variety of factors impinging on it. Verdi's characters are usually credible and sympathetic; Da Ponte, with Mozart's help, draws well rounded, engaging human beings; and I think Der Rosenkavalier's Marschallin is simply wonderful. But no other librettist has ever possessed Wagner's psychological penetration. It makes for truly great drama.
> 
> And on and on: the way the music of the act builds on from the prelude, and lives up to its promise; the way it deepens and intensifies the portrayal of Isolde; the perfect sense the drama makes of the prelude that preceded it. Can anyone point to another instance of such great music united so well to such great drama?


I think whoever dislikes listening to prelude has no heart or any kind of ear at all! Or they've overplayed it to all hell.

I agree though, Tristan is just sublime, miraculous.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Ok, so here goes. I think the best single opera is Tristan and Isolde. It couldn't really be The Ring, as it's not a single opera. Moreover, I think Tristan is better than any of the four individual Ring operas, and that while Tristan is obviously less ambitious than the entire Ring, it's also less flawed. I'd be happy to grant a thesis like 'The Ring is the world's greatest musical-dramatic artwork', though. But my main point is that Wagner's mature (i.e. post-Lohengrin) work is, in general, the pinnacle of musical drama by some distance, and that there's relatively little room for reasonable disagreement on this point.
> 
> First of all, theoretical considerations. (I hope that) I'm not merely bashing you over the head with my own preferences here. I think people appeal a little too glibly to the variation of subjectivities in such discussions. I don't buy it. You can press me on this if you like, but be warned, I am a philosopher. Consider the following analogy. I'm not especially keen on vegetarian food. I think I'd prefer to eat pasta in a simple tomato sauce before any other vegetarian dish. But I don't want to say that pasta with tomato sauce is the best vegetarian dish going. There are probably better dishes: as in, dishes with more to offer to those who enjoy that sort of thing. I like my my pasta, but it can only offer me so much. Other people are getting more out of other dishes. Art is much the same. Others may prefer Verdi, but I still think that Wagner simply offers more.
> 
> Why do I think this, and with such confidence? After all, even if you sign on in principle to all I've said so far, it still seems a fiendish task to adjudicate works in different styles within the same genre. What makes opera special, I think, is that it's a hybrid form. We're not just judging on musical criteria, but also dramatic criteria. And in fact it's incredibly difficult to meet both sets of criteria at once. I think operatic music is only infrequently great according to purely musical standards of greatness, and almost never great according to dramatic standards of greatness. Which brings us to Wagner. Wagner is simply unique in being frequently great according to both sets of criteria.
> 
> Case in point: Tristan Act 1. Perhaps you don't much like listening to the Prelude. But here are some reasons why it's great anyway. It's radically and influentially innovative: all those emphatic, unresolved dissonances. It's also masterfully constructed: Wagner manipulates all the elements with aplomb. The melodic material, the orchestral colour and texture, the rhythms, the harmonies, all carefully developed into those intense cycles of anguish and tenderness, driving relentlessly towards a climax that is never consummated. It's a tremendous feat of composition. The above makes the prelude special in a way that few operatic excerpts are. It's uncommonly great music.
> 
> Then, the drama. The portrait of Isolde we are given is astonishingly rich and full. It is a minute analysis of her fragile psychological state and the variety of factors impinging on it. Verdi's characters are usually credible and sympathetic; Da Ponte, with Mozart's help, draws well rounded, engaging human beings; and I think Der Rosenkavalier's Marschallin is simply wonderful. But no other librettist has ever possessed Wagner's psychological penetration. It makes for truly great drama.
> 
> And on and on: the way the music of the act builds on from the prelude, and lives up to its promise; the way it deepens and intensifies the portrayal of Isolde; the perfect sense the drama makes of the prelude that preceded it. Can anyone point to another instance of such great music united so well to such great drama?


Tristan is a work I admire but do not love, I'm afraid. I just cannot get into these characters. It is so unreal.


----------



## aisia

'Tristan is a work I admire but do not love, I'm afraid. I just cannot get into these characters. It is so unreal.'


Well to some extent that's fair enough, and your attitude illustrates my point that a statement of preference is different from an assessment of merit. But I'd like to examine the idea that Tristan and Isolde are unreal characters. Obviously they are extreme characters, and in that sense are unrealistic. But their extremity is really of a piece with the conventions of tragic opera. 'I want to die', after all, is pretty much the catch phrase of all grand opera. What differentiates Tristan and Isolde is really two things: first, they appear to have swallowed with their potion a load of modified Schopenhaeurian philosophy, which doesn't exactly help the cause of realism. But the other, in my view more important, aspect is the way they make sense of their own extremity - the close psychological analysis of the libretto. Because they spend so much time telling their own story, identifying the origins of their distress, that distress becomes intelligible to us. The music, meanwhile, makes it present to us. What Tristan and Isolde does - or if you can't agree, then it still surely makes tremendous strides towards doing - is to take the essentially unrealistic conventions of opera and make them seem terribly, beautifully real. Of course there's all the philosophy, as well. But that to me just makes it more interesting.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> Tristan is a work I admire but do not love, I'm afraid. I just cannot get into these characters. It is so unreal.


Would you rather hear an opera about somebody's inability to pay the rent?


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> 'Tristan is a work I admire but do not love, I'm afraid. I just cannot get into these characters. It is so unreal.'
> 
> Well to some extent that's fair enough, and your attitude illustrates my point that a statement of preference is different from an assessment of merit. But I'd like to examine the idea that Tristan and Isolde are unreal characters. Obviously they are extreme characters, and in that sense are unrealistic. But their extremity is really of a piece with the conventions of tragic opera. 'I want to die', after all, is pretty much the catch phrase of all grand opera. What differentiates Tristan and Isolde is really two things: first, they appear to have swallowed with their potion a load of modified Schopenhaeurian philosophy, which doesn't exactly help the cause realism. But the other, in my view more important, aspect is the way they make sense of their own extremity - the close psychological analysis of the libretto. Because they spend so much time telling their own story, identifying the origins of their distress, that distress becomes intelligible to us. The music, meanwhile, makes it present to us. What Tristan and Isolde does - or if you can't agree, then it still surely makes tremendous strides towards doing - is to take the essentially unrealistic conventions of opera and make them seem terribly, beautifully real. Of course there's all the philosophy, as well. But that to me just makes it more interesting.


Come off it! The whole thing is cods wallop! I mean, how many of us fall in love and then say 'Let me die!' The people in it are unreal. The philosophy - did Wagner believe it? Maybe - as long as he didn't have to practice it! They are just not real characters - perhaps that's why I see it at a distance. But it's the same with most of Wagner.
Now with Verdi you can believe (at least partly) in the characters and sympathise. In Mozart he manages to get you to believe in them even when it's a farce. But dear old Richard's characters? Brunnhilde? Wotan? The horrible brat Siegfried? The idiot Tristan or the fool Parsifal? Not on your life!


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> Would you rather hear an opera about somebody's inability to pay the rent?


No - has someone written one then?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> No - has someone written one then?


Wasn't there something of that nature in La Boheme? I mean, the whole thing is so insufferably down-to-earth, not very different from those soap operas on TV, which are in turn not very different from the lives of the people who watch them: financial troubles, illnesses and petty little loves, not worth of the musical talent spent on them. You dislike Wagner for being too far from everyday life, I love him for that.

And by the way, Parsifal was a fool only in the 1st act.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> Wasn't there something of that nature in La Boheme? I mean, the whole thing is so insufferably down-to-earth, not very different from those soap operas on TV, which are in turn not very different from the lives of the people who watch them: financial troubles, illnesses and petty little loves, not worth of the musical talent spent on them. You dislike Wagner for being too far from everyday life, I love him for that.
> 
> And by the way, Parsifal was a fool only in the 1st act.


I didn't say I dislike Wagner. I said I can't identify with the characters.

I think you will find life rather more like Boheme than Parsifal. However, Rudolfo and Mimi are a pair of idiots. That's why they are Bohemians. But under the seductive power of Puccini's music who can be left dry eyed when she snuffs it? Or who can fail to groan when Butterfly commits Hari-Kari? But when Isolde drops dead I do feel a certain relief at the end of four hours of unending and unresolved melody.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> Come off it! The whole thing is cods wallop! I mean, how many of us fall in love and then say 'Let me die!' The people in it are unreal. The philosophy - did Wagner believe it? Maybe - as long as he didn't have to practice it! They are just not real characters - perhaps that's why I see it at a distance. But it's the same with most of Wagner.
> Now with Verdi you can believe (at least partly) in the characters and sympathise. In Mozart he manages to get you to believe in them even when it's a farce. But dear old Richard's characters? Brunnhilde? Wotan? The horrible brat Siegfried? The idiot Tristan or the fool Parsifal? Not on your life!


Oh dear. You were also putting forward that nonsense about Verdi being 'more in touch with the human condition' on the other thread, weren't you? A sad case. It seems you can't take into your heart a character or situation that's more than a little larger than life - we'll call it being mythologically challenged. 
As to the specific issue of Tristan and Isolde. I never claimed that "many of us fall in love and then say 'Let me die!'" - that's why I called Tristan and Isolde extreme characters. I only claimed that it's exactly what many operatic protagonists do. But when Isolde says it - set to Wagner's music, within his penetrating libretto - it's many times more believable than when Aida or Lucia say it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> I didn't say I dislike Wagner. I said I can't identify with the characters.


So what? Is it necessary for you to have characters whose life is exactly like your own in order to admire a work of art? Isn't it the same logic as the one the _Regietheater_ stage directors employ: "An average listener cannot understand an opera that is set in the 18th century or in the Middle Ages or in any space and time other than his own, that is why we need to dress all characters in jeans and t-shirts etc..."?



> I think you will find life rather more like Boheme than Parsifal. However, Rudolfo and Mimi are a pair of idiots. That's why they are Bohemians. But under the seductive power of Puccini's music who can be left dry eyed when she snuffs it? Or who can fail to groan when Butterfly commits Hari-Kari? But when Isolde drops dead I do feel a certain relief at the end of four hours of unending and unresolved melody.


I know what my life is like, and I find my own life quite enjoyable. However, it would be far less enjoyable, if I were forced to only watch/read/listen to stories about other similar lives, about people who go to the office every day, who sometimes have financial problems, etc. and if I were deprived of things like the epic struggle of gods and heroes in the Ring, like the account of no less epic passion of T&I and other stories that appeal to me precisely because they are larger-than-life.


----------



## Celloman

Ladies and gentlemen, the greatest opera of them all........Bohemian Rhapsody. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Oh dear. You were also putting forward that nonsense about Verdi being 'more in touch with the human condition' on the other thread, weren't you? A sad case. It seems you can't take into your heart a character or situation that's more than a little larger than life - we'll call it being mythologically challenged.
> As to the specific issue of Tristan and Isolde. I never claimed that "many of us fall in love and then say 'Let me die!'" - that's why I called Tristan and Isolde extreme characters. I only claimed that it's exactly what many operatic protagonists do. But when Isolde says it - set to Wagner's music, within his penetrating libretto - it's many times more believable than when Aida or Lucia say it.


Wagner's libretto penetrating? About as penetrating as a brick wall! Why didn't he employ an editor instead of those interminable ramblings! I know within the holy grail of Wagner fundamentalism that dear old Richard could do no wrong. But when one steps out of the Valhalla of that then his characters are unreal and unsympathetic. I know to your Wagnerites anyone who doesn't share that view is to be pitied as somehow lowbrow. But the fact is that Verdi had a far greater understanding of the human state than Wagner did.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> So what? Is it necessary for you to have characters whose life is exactly like your own in order to admire a work of art? Isn't it the same logic as the one the _Regietheater_ stage directors employ: "An average listener cannot understand an opera that is set in the 18th century or in the Middle Ages or in any space and time other than his own, that is why we need to dress all characters in jeans and t-shirts etc..."?
> 
> I know what my life is like, and I find my own life quite enjoyable. However, it would be far less enjoyable, if I were forced to only watch/read/listen to stories about other similar lives, about people who go to the office every day, who sometimes have financial problems, etc. and if I were deprived of things like the epic struggle of gods and heroes in the Ring, like the account of no less epic passion of T&I and other stories that appeal to me precisely because they are larger-than-life.


That is absolutely fine. It's like watching a Steven Spielberg movie like Indiana Jones. We can thrill to the action but the characters are totally unreal.


----------



## DavidA

Zabirilog said:


> Ring des Nibelungen - Greatest cultural thing ever.
> 
> View attachment 17309


No! Try some Mozart. Or Verdi's Falstaff!


----------



## Zabirilog

Of course I love Mozart! And Verdi too, but not as much as Wagner and Mozart. Entführung may be the funniest thing ever, but the Ring is the greatest... (cultural)


----------



## aisia

'Wagner's libretto penetrating? About as penetrating as a brick wall! Why didn't he employ an editor instead of those interminable ramblings! I know within the holy grail of Wagner fundamentalism that dear old Richard could do no wrong. But when one steps out of the Valhalla of that then his characters are unreal and unsympathetic. I know to your Wagnerites anyone who doesn't share that view is to be pitied as somehow lowbrow. But the fact is that Verdi had a far greater understanding of the human state than Wagner did.'


Well, unless you care to defend your claims, then I can only conjecture two explanations: either, as I previously suggested, you are mythologically challenged (i.e., you just can't respond to situations and characters larger than, and much altered from the context of, ordinary human life); or, less, charitably, I would suppose that the real brick wall here is around your head and heart.

Incidentally, re the charge of Wagner fundamentalism, one of the first things I said right at the top of my Tristan discussion was that the Ring is flawed. Whether it's quite fair to call him a 'horrible brat', I agree that Siegfried has problems. Besides which, the essence of fundamentalism is really close-mindedness and unwillingness to engage in critical discussion. I have proceeded by way of argument, while your arguments have not risen much above 'come off it'. Perhaps you might with more justice be called an anti-Wagner fundamentalist?


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> That is absolutely fine. It's like watching a Steven Spielberg movie like Indiana Jones. We can thrill to the action but the characters are totally unreal.


You've not grasped the fundamental point, namely, the distinction between circumstantial realism (i.e., whether a character is a god or not) and psychological realism. Wagner's gods behave, as gods have ever done, like humans transformed by some marvellous spell. Wotan, just like us, has noble aspirations, which are tainted by his own egotism and a willingness to let his scruples slide in order to achieve them. Just like us, he is proud of his children, but must eventually allow them to go their own way and, finally, replace him. Just like us, he struggles to reconcile himself to approaching death. There is much more humanity in Wotan, divinity notwithstanding, than in any character of Mozart or Verdi.

I think some words of Hume are apposite here: 'The Rhine flows North, the Rhone South; yet both spring from the same Mountain, and are also actuated, in their opposite Directions, by the same Principle of Gravity: The different Inclinations of the Ground, on which they run, cause all the Difference of their Courses'. The same holds for all who dwell beside the Rhine, be they gods, heroes, or merely modern mortals.


----------



## aisia

Finally, I may as well repeat here my riposte to you on the other thread:

'Sorry. Mozart outdoes Wagner. Wagner has a world of his own but Mozart occupies humanity. His genius shows every facet of human emotion in music. Wagner doesn't get near (for me that is). The composer that came closest to Mozart was Verdi in Falstaff. But I've always thought Verdi far more in touch with the human condition than Wagner.'

As to Wagner vs. Mozart on the range of human emotion: it would be helpful it you backed up your claims with specific emotions that Mozart, but not Wagner, captures. I think Mozart portrays the middle course of human life with great intelligence and sensitivity, but he rarely veers to the extremes. Where is the absolute agony (Tristan) and absolute ecstasy of romantic passion (Tristan and Siegfried)? Where spiritual awe (Parsifal)? Profound anguish (Walkure and Tristan) and total despair (Tristan)? The parent/child relationship (Parsifal, Siegfried, and, magnificently, Walkure) is another great region of human experience in which Mozart is at least deficient. Verdi is ahead of Mozart here, but still several spear-lengths behind Wagner. 

As for the general human condition, I find the idea that Verdi had a better grasp on it than Wagner frankly ridiculous. A significant aspect of the human condition, we can all agree, is mortality. I'd say that the Ring Cycle ranks beside Gilgamesh as the most profound study of mortality I've encountered in art. Wotan's tremendous struggle, and the sad calm of the Gotterdammerung motif from 'all that is, ends' to the final funeral pyre: those are strings that no other operatic composer, not Mozart and not Verdi, ever touched.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> 'Wagner's libretto penetrating? About as penetrating as a brick wall! Why didn't he employ an editor instead of those interminable ramblings! I know within the holy grail of Wagner fundamentalism that dear old Richard could do no wrong. But when one steps out of the Valhalla of that then his characters are unreal and unsympathetic. I know to your Wagnerites anyone who doesn't share that view is to be pitied as somehow lowbrow. But the fact is that Verdi had a far greater understanding of the human state than Wagner did.'
> 
> Well, unless you care to defend your claims, then I can only conjecture two explanations: either, as I previously suggested, you are mythologically challenged (i.e., you just can't respond to situations and characters larger than, and much altered from the context of, ordinary human life); or, less, charitably, I would suppose that the real brick wall here is around your head and heart.
> 
> Incidentally, re the charge of Wagner fundamentalism, one of the first things I said right at the top of my Tristan discussion was that the Ring is flawed. Whether it's quite fair to call him a 'horrible brat', I agree that Siegfried has problems. Besides which, the essence of fundamentalism is really close-mindedness and unwillingness to engage in critical discussion. I have proceeded by way of argument, while your arguments have not risen much above 'come off it'. Perhaps you might with more justice be called an anti-Wagner fundamentalist?


You guys make me laugh out loud! No I am not mythologically challenged. Nor am I thick in the head. (Please remember that abuse is not an argument it is an attitude usually used by people with weak arguments). I just think that Wagner's libretti are not very good and also are vastly overlong. If my editor had them in front of them in give them the blue pencil treatment straight away.

No I'm not an anti-Wagnerian fundamentalist. I have nearly all his operas on disk and I enjoy listening to the music in reasonable doses.

Wrong on both counts, Sir!


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Finally, I may as well repeat here my riposte to you on the other thread:
> 
> 'Sorry. Mozart outdoes Wagner. Wagner has a world of his own but Mozart occupies humanity. His genius shows every facet of human emotion in music. Wagner doesn't get near (for me that is). The composer that came closest to Mozart was Verdi in Falstaff. But I've always thought Verdi far more in touch with the human condition than Wagner.'
> 
> As to Wagner vs. Mozart on the range of human emotion: it would be helpful it you backed up your claims with specific emotions that Mozart, but not Wagner, captures. I think Mozart portrays the middle course of human life with great intelligence and sensitivity, but he rarely veers to the extremes. Where is the absolute agony (Tristan) and absolute ecstasy of romantic passion (Tristan and Siegfried)? Where spiritual awe (Parsifal)? Profound anguish (Walkure and Tristan) and total despair (Tristan)? The parent/child relationship (Parsifal, Siegfried, and, magnificently, Walkure) is another great region of human experience in which Mozart is at least deficient. Verdi is ahead of Mozart here, but still several spear-lengths behind Wagner.
> 
> As for the general human condition, I find the idea that Verdi had a better grasp on it than Wagner frankly ridiculous. A significant aspect of the human condition, we can all agree, is mortality. I'd say that the Ring Cycle ranks beside Gilgamesh as the most profound study of mortality I've encountered in art. Wotan's tremendous struggle, and the sad calm of the Gotterdammerung motif from 'all that is, ends' to the final funeral pyre: those are strings that no other operatic composer, not Mozart and not Verdi, ever touched.


You are of course entitled to your opinion. But why try and convert me to it? Music is all about what we feel and what it does to us. If I say Figaro or Fidelio affect me far more than a ring then that is my business not yours. It is my emotions and feelings we are dealing with. To look upon a person is somehow deficient because they do not see what you see in Wagner is just to try and put your own value judgements on other people.


----------



## deggial

aisia said:


> I think Mozart portrays the middle course of human life with great intelligence and sensitivity, but he rarely veers to the extremes.


he's got a few mad scenes here and there but, by and large, he's from a different era which valued different things so it's pointless to judge his output from a romantic perspective. It's like looking for balance and elegance in Wagner.


----------



## guythegreg

:lol: ah, you're on a roll today my friend ...


----------



## Vesteralen

Wouldn't a person have to have listened to every opera ever written to really answer this question?

In my own case, the number of operas I haven't listened to all the way through outnumbers the ones I have by about 500 to 1, I would imagine.

But, hey, if you guys tell me The Ring is the greatest, I'll buy it. (Just don't ask me to listen to it - I have too many things I _want_ to listen to first.)


----------



## guythegreg

I think the ratio is probably the same for me. But once you enter OPERA MADNESS such rational considerations fall away.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> You guys make me laugh out loud! No I am not mythologically challenged. Nor am I thick in the head. (Please remember that abuse is not an argument it is an attitude usually used by people with weak arguments). I just think that Wagner's libretti are not very good and also are vastly overlong. If my editor had them in front of them in give them the blue pencil treatment straight away.
> 
> No I'm not an anti-Wagnerian fundamentalist. I have nearly all his operas on disk and I enjoy listening to the music in reasonable doses.
> 
> Wrong on both counts, Sir!


I quite agree that abuse is not an argument. I would prefer to trade arguments than attitudes, but you seem unwilling to offer me anything more than incredulity, which is another attitude. You say that Wagner's libretti are overlong; all right, but that is hardly germane to the issue, which is whether the characters are credible. I think they are; Wagner devotes a great deal of his long libretti to complex psychological explorations of his characters. You obviously disagree; not, so far, with the support of arguments, but merely through the attitude of derision. In the absence of any explanation on your part, I seriously hypothesised that you might just find it hard to relate to myths, and less seriously resorted to the attitude of abuse. I would like to hear any arguments you might have, though.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> You are of course entitled to your opinion. But why try and convert me to it? Music is all about what we feel and what it does to us. If I say Figaro or Fidelio affect me far more than a ring then that is my business not yours. It is my emotions and feelings we are dealing with. To look upon a person is somehow deficient because they do not see what you see in Wagner is just to try and put your own value judgements on other people.


Another glib appeal to the variation of subjectivities, and one that involves considerable backsliding on your part: weren't you saying earlier that it was a fact that Verdi had a far greater understanding of the human state than Wagner? In fact, mortality is central to the human state. In fact, Wagner gives us in the Ring a sustained exploration of mortality unparalleled by Mozart or Verdi. Perhaps his treatment of the subject doesn't move you or interest you that much: fair enough, we have space now for subjectivity to do its work. But it's there. If you haven't seen it, you've missed it. The same could be said for the parent/child relationship. You claimed that Mozart shows every facet of human emotion in music. I don't think he does, and gave examples of emotions which I haven't seen in him. You can either point them out to me, or retract your claim, or tone it down to something truly subjective like 'Mozart stirs in me a greater range of emotions than Wagner does'.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> I quite agree that abuse is not an argument. I would prefer to trade arguments than attitudes, but you seem unwilling to offer me anything more than incredulity, which is another attitude. You say that Wagner's libretti are overlong; all right, but that is hardly germane to the issue, which is whether the characters are credible. I think they are; Wagner devotes a great deal of his long libretti to complex psychological explorations of his characters. You obviously disagree; not, so far, with the support of arguments, but merely through the attitude of derision. In the absence of any explanation on your part, I seriously hypothesised that you might just find it hard to relate to myths, and less seriously resorted to the attitude of abuse. I would like to hear any arguments you might have, though.


I would point out that my so-called 'derision' did not stoop to calling you thick! Your whole argument is based on a wrong premise, that you equate me saying that Wagner's libretti being over-long is because I dislike myth. One does not follow the other. Use logic not supposition.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Another glib appeal to the variation of subjectivities, and one that involves considerable backsliding on your part: weren't you saying earlier that it was a fact that Verdi had a far greater understanding of the human state than Wagner? In fact, mortality is central to the human state. In fact, Wagner gives us in the Ring a sustained exploration of mortality unparalleled by Mozart or Verdi. Perhaps his treatment of the subject doesn't move you or interest you that much: fair enough, we have space now for subjectivity to do its work. But it's there. If you haven't seen it, you've missed it. The same could be said for the parent/child relationship. You claimed that Mozart shows every facet of human emotion in music. I don't think he does, and gave examples of emotions which I haven't seen in him. You can either point them out to me, or retract your claim, or tone it down to something truly subjective like 'Mozart stirs in me a greater range of emotions than Wagner does'.


Oh come off it! Backsliding! We are here ALL talking subjectivities, if you haven't yet grasped that point! We are dealing with opinion not absolutes. Wagner stirs worship in some but I am a non-believer in him as the musical messiah though I grant he wrote some enjoyable stuff at times.

To me you haven't begun to even grasp Mozart's emotional range. Just because he doesn't blast one's emotions like Wagner - a full-scale assault on the senses in every sense of the word - does not mean they are not there. Have you no understanding of subtlety?

To say The Ring gives us a sustained exploration of mortality when it deals with manifestly unreal characters and situations is to verge on the self- deceptive. I haven't missed it at all because for me at least it just isn't there. The characters are cardboard. Wagner is like Indiana Jones - rattling good entertainment when I'm in the mood. Wagner's music is like Spielberg's direction - it makes you into a believer if you let it. But for me it is an illusion. There is no 'holy grail' about it. For me it is not there.

That's my feeling so I'll leave it there. I go to Wagner to be entertained not enlightened about the human condition.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> I would point out that my so-called 'derision' did not stoop to calling you thick! Your whole argument is based on a wrong premise, that you equate me saying that Wagner's libretti being over-long is because I dislike myth. One does not follow the other. Use logic not supposition.


I find your attempts to lecture me on logic and the analysis of arguments amusing, especially given that you have yet to mount a real argument. No, my argument did not use a wrong premiss. Let me make it more explicit for you. It takes the form of an abduction: an inference to the best explanation.

The _explandum_ is the fact that you find Wagner's characters incredible.

My proposed _explanans_ is that you find myths difficult to relate to.

The most promising rival explanation I can think of is that Wagner's characterisations are defective. But considering the richness, complexity, and psychological insight of those characterisationa, I dismissed that explanation as implausible. Which leaves us with my original idea that you are mythologically challenged.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> I find your attempts to lecture me on logic and the analysis of arguments amusing, especially given that you have yet to mount a real argument. No, my argument did not use a wrong premiss. Let me make it more explicit for you. It takes the form of an abduction: an inference to the best explanation.
> 
> The _explandum_ is the fact that you find Wagner's characters incredible.
> 
> My proposed _explanans_ is that you find myths difficult to relate to.
> 
> The most promising rival explanation I can think of is that Wagner's characterisations are defective. But considering the richness, complexity, and psychological insight of those characterisation, I dismissed that explanation as implausible. Which leaves us with my original idea that you are mythologically challenged.


Look! Keep calling me 'mythologically challenged' is not an argument. You did not 'dismiss any argument except in your own mind. fine! you have your opinion but don't try and foist it on the unbelievers. Let's agree to differ.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> Oh come off it! Backsliding! We are here ALL talking subjectivities, if you haven't yet grasped that point! We are dealing with opinion not absolutes. Wagner stirs worship in some but I am a non-believer in him as the musical messiah though I grant he wrote some enjoyable stuff at times.
> 
> To me you haven't begun to even grasp Mozart's emotional range. Just because he doesn't blast one's emotions like Wagner - a full-scale assault on the senses in every sense of the word - does not mean they are not there. Have you no understanding of subtlety?
> 
> To say The Ring gives us a sustained exploration of mortality when it deals with manifestly unreal characters and situations is to verge on the self- deceptive. I haven't missed it at all because for me at least it just isn't there. The characters are cardboard. Wagner is like Indiana Jones - rattling good entertainment when I'm in the mood. Wagner's music is like Spielberg's direction - it makes you into a believer if you let it. But for me it is an illusion. There is no 'holy grail' about it. For me it is not there.
> 
> That's my feeling so I'll leave it there. I go to Wagner to be entertained not enlightened about the human condition.


Here's the thing about emotional extremes: they tend not to be subtle. Religious awe, ecstatic romantic passion, profound anguish: none of them especially subtle.

And here we go again with the 'manifestly unreal characters and situations'. What exactly do you mean by 'unreal' if not 'mythological'? The characters and situations of the Epic of Gilgamesh are pretty 'unreal' as well. Am I also deluding myself when I consider Gilgamesh an exploration of mortality? If not, why is Wagner different? If so, God help you!

There is probably a plausible interpretation of your claim that 'we are ALL talking subjectives'. Still, it's as much a fact as any critical claim ever is that Wagner's characters are not cardboard. Please, please explain your bizarre claims in this area.


----------



## aisia

You're quite right, it's not an argument. An inference to the best explanation, however, is an argument. I just gave such an argument. Kindly explain where precisely it goes wrong.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Here's the thing about emotional extremes: they tend not to be subtle. Religious awe, ecstatic romantic passion, profound anguish: none of them especially subtle.
> 
> And here we go again with the 'manifestly unreal characters and situations'. What exactly do you mean by 'unreal' if not 'mythological'? The characters and situations of the Epic of Gilgamesh are pretty 'unreal' as well. Am I also deluding myself when I consider Gilgamesh an exploration of morality? If not, why is Wagner different? If so, God help you!
> 
> There is probably a plausible interpretation of your claim that 'we are ALL talking subjectives'. Still, it's as much a fact as any critical claim ever is that Wagner's characters are not cardboard. Please, please explain your bizarre claims in this area.


My claims are not 'bizarre' - I just happen to see things differently from you. Let's face it, if anything is bizarre, it's Wagner's plots!

Please accept not everyone sees things your way. It's not that they are somehow defective - just different. Like in the Myers-Briggs personality assessment theories. People are different.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> My claims are not 'bizarre' - I just happen to see things differently from you. Let's face it, if anything is bizarre, it's Wagner's plots!
> 
> Please accept not everyone sees things your way. It's not that they are somehow defective - just different. Like in the Myers-Briggs personality assessment theories. People are different.


This just isn't a legitimate juncture at which to appeal to the variation of subjectivities. There are matters of fact about the complexity of a fictional character. If you read Ulysses, and come away thinking that Leopold Bloom is a cardboard character, you don't have one equally valid opinion among others, you have a mistaken opinion. Wagner's characters are substantially more complex than the majority of operatic characters. Compare Isolde with Aida, or Lucia di Lammermoor. The libretto shows no interest in establishing why Aida loves Radames, or Lucia Edgardo. We're just asked to accept that they do, and that it's a problem. Isolde explains it all in agonising detail. How they first meant, both in states of extreme vulnerability. How she invested herself in looking after Tristan. Then the passion of her anger, when she found out the truth about him. And then, the moment when their eyes locked and tenderness and compassion overcame her anger. Wagner goes to great lengths to give Isolde a past in view of which her present feelings and actions make sense. That's good characterisation.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> My claims are not 'bizarre' - I just happen to see things differently from you. Let's face it, if anything is bizarre, it's Wagner's plots!
> 
> Please accept not everyone sees things your way. It's not that they are somehow defective - just different. Like in the Myers-Briggs personality assessment theories. People are different.
> ----------
> To say The Ring gives us a sustained exploration of mortality when it deals with manifestly unreal characters and situations is to verge on the self- deceptive.


It's also worth noting that if our respective opinions on whether Wagner's characters are realistic or not are equally valid, I can hardly deceive myself, or even verge on deceiving myself, when I say that The Ring presents a sustained exploration of mortality.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> It's also worth noting that if our respective opinions on whether Wagner's characters are realistic or not are equally valid, I can hardly deceive myself, or even verge on deceiving myself, when I say that The Ring presents a sustained exploration of mortality.


You can if what you say is not true!

As I say, we are not going to agree. So please leave it.


----------



## aisia

Well, if it isn't true, then why isn't it true? You've so far failed to say anything in defence of your belief that it isn't true. Why is that? If you have nothing to say in its defence, why are you so firmly wedded to it? If you do have something to say, why not share it with me, so I may have the opportunity to escape the pitiable state of self-deception you take me to be in?


----------



## DavidA

Please friend just leave it! We've said all we can within this context. We are not going to agree.


----------



## aisia

You certainly haven't! You've said nothing whatsoever, merely maintaining monotonously that Wagner's characters are totally unbelievable without ever explaining why. Please explain yourself. I want to understand why you think the way you do; it's a puzzle I want to make sense of.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> You certainly haven't! You've said nothing whatsoever, merely maintaining monotonously that Wagner's characters are totally unbelievable without ever explaining why. Please explain yourself. I want to understand why you think the way you do; it's a puzzle I want to make sense of.


Please have the politeness to respect my wishes that we agree to differ.


----------



## aisia

You've accused me of deceiving myself. I don't much like being accused of something like that. Do you? If you're going to make an accusation like that, you should have the politeness to make some attempt to substantiate it.


----------



## aisia

Can anyone else explain what this guy might be on about?


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> Please friend just leave it! We've said all we can within this context. We are not going to agree.


So here are three potential explanations for the putative fact that we have said all we can and will not agree:

1. There is no fact of the matter about the complexity of Wagner's characters. We have simply responded to the operas in different, equally valid ways, and there's an end on it. We cannot publicly disagree about it because it's simply a private matter concerning how the work happens to strike us.
The trouble with this explanation is that it undermines the stronger claims that you yourself have made, particularly the claim that I am deceiving myself. I have a perspective, viz, that the Ring is a great meditation on mortality, which you do not share. But there is no underlying reality behind our perspectives against which they must measure up, and so neither of us can be more deceived than the other.

2. Though there is a relevant fact, the weight of reasons is roughly balanced between our respective opinions. We should give up now because we could keep on citing reasons until the cows come home, yet still be no closer to agreement. 
Apart from the fact that you have made little attempt to counter-balance the reasons I have cited to support my opinion, this explanation again makes it difficult for your self-deception charge to stick. Sure, my perspective can now be mistaken, but not all mistakes are cases of self-deception. If, as we have assumed, my reasons for believing what I do differ little in strength from your own, then the claim that I have perpetrated an act of self-deception in reaching my conclusion is rash to say the least.

3. Though you are right on the facts and enjoy the overwhelming support of the evidence, I am just a hopeless case. Not only have I failed so far to discern the reasons why we should conclude that Wagner's characters are cardboard, but I will still fail to grasp them even when you point them out to me. 
Now, finally, we have a situation able to vindicate both your claims: firstly, that we have said all we can; and secondly, that I really have deceived myself. But the hypothesis just seems excessively uncharitable.

Which of the explanations do you subscribe to, or can you offer another?


----------



## Belowpar

Re Carmen

Don Jose is such a wimp I sit there cringing. Never again.

Actually I prefer Carmen Jones. Beat our that ...


----------



## Belowpar

Sorry new to the thread and not going through 22 pages.

Has anyone made the case for Otello?

One of Shakespeare's greatest plays IMPROVED by radical editing and Boito coming up with Iago's credo. 

There isn't an semi quaver which is superfluous and old man Green rose to the challenge magnificently. It may not have famous arias and chorus's or it would be better known. Anyway Zefferelli cut The Willow Song from his movie because he believed it slowed the drama down. But the more you see and hear it the more you realise how great it is.

thrill to "esultate"

be touched by "un bacio, ancora un bacio"

etc, etc etc.


The closest any opera gets to perfection. The film is not a bad place to start.


----------



## Celloman

Wagner - _Tristan und Isolde_

Any persons disagreeing with the above statement will give said poster, aka Celloman, due satisfaction - place and time to be determined.


----------



## Guest

Probably Orfeo, Der Ring, and LICHT.


----------



## DavidA

Having just listened to Mozart's Don Giovanni I am convinced it is the greatest opera ever written. This impression will continue until I next hear Figaro, Cosi or Zauberflote! 
No question in my mind who composed the greatest operas and that was Mozart.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

The Ring is, surely, has to be acknowledged as the greatest _achievement_ in opera, even amongst those who don't care much for the music (or plot!).


----------



## nina foresti

While attempting to stick to the rules I almost feel it is unfair to lump Italian operas with German operas.
So I need to make 2 choices for the greatest opera.
1. German opera: Parsifal (Wagner)
2. Italian opera: Don Carlo (Verdi)


----------



## Itullian

William Tell...................


----------



## DonAlfonso

nina foresti said:


> While attempting to stick to the rules I almost feel it is unfair to lump Italian operas with German operas.
> So I need to make 2 choices for the greatest opera.
> 1. German opera: Parsifal (Wagner)
> 2. Italian opera: Don Carlo (Verdi)


So implicitly the greatest opera can't be in English, French, Russian.....


----------



## Itullian

Belowpar said:


> Sorry new to the thread and not going through 22 pages.
> 
> Has anyone made the case for Otello?
> 
> One of Shakespeare's greatest plays IMPROVED by radical editing and Boito coming up with Iago's credo.
> 
> There isn't an semi quaver which is superfluous and old man Green rose to the challenge magnificently. It may not have famous arias and chorus's or it would be better known. Anyway Zefferelli cut The Willow Song from his movie because he believed it slowed the drama down. But the more you see and hear it the more you realise how great it is.
> 
> thrill to "esultate"
> 
> be touched by "un bacio, ancora un bacio"
> 
> etc, etc etc.
> 
> The closest any opera gets to perfection. The film is not a bad place to start.


..............................


----------



## Becca

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> The Ring is, surely, has to be acknowledged as the greatest _achievement_ in opera, even amongst those who don't care much for the music (or plot!).


Why surely should it be? Why more so than _Meistersinger, Le Nozze di Figaro, Les Troyens, Fidelio_, etc.? Just because it is 4 long, connected operas written over half a lifetime? It is a totally subjective question that is also a function of a given moment in time. I can assure you that there are many who not only don't much care for the music but will also not accept your thesis.


----------



## Woodduck

_Tristan und Isolde._

Whether it's actually the greatest opera - with respect to everything that the complex art of opera can be - _Tristan_ is, I think, the greatest single achievement in the entire history of music. There may be more perfect operas; but certain rare achievements in art are so immense, so stunning and awe-inspiring, as to make mere perfection seem irrelevant. I think immediately of Shakespeare and _King Lear,_ of the late quartets of Beethoven, and of Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde._

For its unimaginable expansion of the possibilities of the language of Western music, for its daring plunge deep into aspects of human experience no musical work had ever explored before, for its sheer intensity and visceral impact, this is the work above all others that, no matter how long and well we've known it - and perhaps all the more the better we know it - leaves us feeling that it could not possibly exist, that no human being could ever have dreamed of such a thing.

So much of what has happened since 1859, in music and even beyond music, has been what it is because of this singular work. Wagner may have equalled or surpassed it in one respect or another in subsequent works - the broad humanity of _Meistersinger_, the spiritual profundity of _Parsifal_ - but when all is said and done it is _Tristan_ which confronts us with an unaccountable eruption of genius without any parallel, which like a volcanic eruption changed the landscape of Western culture forever, for better or for worse.

_Tristan_ went beyond anything even Wagner himself suspected opera, even music itself, could be. It astonished him even as he wrote it. If we have any idea of what we're hearing, it can hardly astonish us less.


----------



## Itullian

I think it's in a separate category all together.


----------



## Belowpar

Itullian said:


> ..............................


Wakey, wakey






Incidentally the Toscanini RCA version get's my vote as greatest Opera recording ever. It positively fizzes with energy. Some pople however, can apparently sleep through earthquakes.


----------



## PetrB

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> The Ring is, surely, has to be acknowledged as the greatest _achievement_ in opera, even amongst those who don't care much for the music (or plot!).


No it doesn't, bulk is not part of the arguments here 

As Woodduck has already pointed out (and I really do not care for Wagner, great composer that he was), _Tristan und Isolde_ is not only an in performance extreme wringer for all but those in attendance other than the dead, but the musical vocabulary pretty much single-handedly blew apart common practice harmony at the seams, and the use of harmony of yore was so shattered that it never thereafter reverted to its former state of practice -- completely changing through its strengths and pan-global influence the course of western musical history, altering the direction of all that was composed by others thereafter.

This is as dramatic a shift,* a major pivot point for the direction of western music as was that of Monteverdi 'opting' for the modal / tonal homophony over polyphony. Which brings up Monteverdi, Orefeo, and his other operas as being as centrally 'great and important'* as Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde._


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> _Tristan und Isolde._
> 
> Whether it's actually the greatest opera - with respect to everything that the complex art of opera can be - _Tristan_ is, I think, the greatest single achievement in the entire history of music. There may be more perfect operas; but certain rare achievements in art are so immense, so stunning and awe-inspiring, as to make mere perfection seem irrelevant. I think immediately of Shakespeare and _King Lear,_ of the late quartets of Beethoven, and of Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde._
> 
> For its unimaginable expansion of the possibilities of the language of Western music, for its daring plunge deep into aspects of human experience no musical work had ever explored before, for its sheer intensity and visceral impact, this is the work above all others that, no matter how long and well we've known it - and perhaps all the more the better we know it - leaves us feeling that it could not possibly exist, that no human being could ever have dreamed of such a thing.
> 
> So much of what has happened since 1859, in music and even beyond music, has been what it is because of this singular work. Wagner may have equalled or surpassed it in one respect or another in subsequent works - the broad humanity of _Meistersinger_, the spiritual profundity of _Parsifal_ - but when all is said and done it is _Tristan_ which confronts us with an unaccountable eruption of genius without any parallel, which like a volcanic eruption changed the landscape of Western culture forever, for better or for worse.
> 
> _Tristan_ went beyond anything even Wagner himself suspected opera, even music itself, could be. It astonished him even as he wrote it. If we have any idea of what we're hearing, it can hardly astonish us less.


I must confess that while I acrept Tristan as a masterpiece, it tends for me to fall in the same category as King Lear - admired but not loved. Yes it astonishes. But so does Mozart: the reconciliation of the Count and Countess in Figaro. So does the sheer melodic flow of Cosi. And the Commendatore scene at the end of the Don is for me the greatest scene in opera. So while I am astonished by Tristan I am even more gob smacked by the sheer genius of Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck

PetrB said:


> No it doesn't, bulk is not part of the arguments here
> 
> As Woodduck has already pointed out (and I really do not care for Wagner, great composer that he was), _Tristan und Isolde_ is not only an in performance extreme wringer for all but those in attendance other than the dead, but the musical vocabulary pretty much single-handedly blew apart common practice harmony at the seams, and the use of harmony of yore was so shattered that it never thereafter reverted to its former state of practice -- completely changing through its strengths and pan-global influence the course of western musical history, altering the direction of all that was composed by others thereafter.
> 
> This is as dramatic a shift,* a major pivot point for the direction of western music as was that of Monteverdi 'opting' for the modal / tonal homophony over polyphony. Which brings up Monteverdi, Orefeo, and his other operas as being as centrally 'great and important'* as Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde._


Good point about the importance of _L'Orfeo_. I find its impact harder to judge than _Tristan's_ obvious effects on music - which are closer to my time - and I don't think it's intrinsically equal in sheer inspiration or power, but I do love it.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I must confess that while I acrept Tristan as a masterpiece, it tends for me to fall in the same category as King Lear - admired but not loved. Yes it astonishes. But so does Mozart: the reconciliation of the Count and Countess in Figaro. So does the sheer melodic flow of Cosi. And the Commendatore scene at the end of the Don is for me the greatest scene in opera. So while I am astonished by Tristan I am even more gob smacked by the sheer genius of Mozart.


Interestingly enough, I don't exactly "love" Tristan either, except when I'm listening to it and studying it with my "musician's ears." It's too dark, wrenching and terrifying to be "lovable."But my musician's ears are pretty refined, and I'm in no doubt that I'm hearing something unparalleled. Mozart's perfect turns of phrase and moments of human insight are certainly beyond criticism, and I wouldn't attempt to rank his "big three" against each other or against the other masterworks of the genre (except to agree somewhat with Wagner's and Beethoven's view that the frivolous cynicism of _Cosi_ undercuts its musical beauties). Mozart is incredible to me mainly because of his musical perfection; Wagner is attempting things, musically and dramatically, that are so unprecedented - and have subsequently proven inimitable by anyone else - that my critical faculties have to throw up their hands. _Tristan_ is not my favorite opera (any more than _Lear_ is my favorite play), but I still find it the single most mind-blowing thing that ever happened in music.

I haven't even discussed it's innovativeness as drama and theater, or its wider cultural impact.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Interestingly enough, I don't exactly "love" Tristan either, except when I'm listening to it and studying it with my "musician's ears." It's too dark, wrenching and terrifying to be "lovable."But my musician's ears are pretty refined, and I'm in no doubt that I'm hearing something unparalleled. Mozart's perfect turns of phrase and moments of human insight are certainly beyond criticism, and I wouldn't attempt to rank his "big three" against each other or against the other masterworks of the genre (except to agree somewhat with Wagner's and Beethoven's view that the frivolous cynicism of _Cosi_ undercuts its musical beauties). Mozart is incredible to me mainly because of his musical perfection; Wagner is attempting things, musically and dramatically, that are so unprecedented - and have subsequently proven inimitable by anyone else - that my critical faculties have to throw up their hands. _Tristan_ is not my favorite opera (any more than _Lear_ is my favorite play), but I still find it the single most mind-blowing thing that ever happened in music.
> 
> I haven't even discussed it's innovativeness as drama and theater, or its wider cultural impact.


I'd love if you would. _;D_

Two lumps or one with your triple espresso?


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'd love if you would. _;D_
> 
> Two lumps or one with your triple espresso?


I'll trust that that is not merely a _conceptual_ espresso you're offering?

I don't think I can discuss this very well, as my own investigations go back decades and I've forgotten too much. What does occur to me is that _Tristan_ is the epitome of Wagner's "interior drama," in which story, plot, dialogue, mise-en-scene and even, in a way, character (to the degree that character is revealed through action), are merely an armature on which the real substance of the work is hung, that substance being the emotional states of the dramatis personae. We can say this about opera in a general sense, but in _Tristan_ all the other elements are stripped down about as far as they can be: even the libretto, which in the "love duet" appears rather talky, is there to provide a framework for an immense flood of music which ebbs and flows and virtually drowns the lovers in waves of ecstasy. This is the opera in the writing of which Wagner realized the absolute pre-eminence of music among the various arts which go into making an opera. He had composed the first two and two-thirds segments of his _Ring_ more or less according to the precepts of his famous essay "Opera and Drama," in which he had argued for the equality of the arts in musical drama. But his own instincts, reinforced by Schopenhauer's thoughts on music as the greatest of the arts, were leading him in the direction of a different ideal, one which _Tristan_ embodies. What we get as a result is a new form of drama which one writer describes as the "theater of passion," as opposed to the traditional "theater of action." Only Wagner's enormous expansion of the role of the orchestra, his advances in harmony and orchestration, and his elaboration of the leitmotiv, his way of using recurring motifs both symphonically and psychologically - allowing the orchestra to comment continuously on the internal states of the characters - made this new form of drama possible. In short, _Tristan_ embodies - and probably epitomizes for all time - the first dramatic genre arising out of the unique nature and capacities of music itself. This had a huge impact, not only on subsequent music and opera, but on literature, in which writers sought ways of limning the internal psychology of characters through "stream-of-consciousness" techniques and recurring motifs, quite conscious of their Wagnerian inspiration. But I'm not very literate in literature, so I'll have to leave that part of the discussion to others.


----------



## DavidA

While appreciating Wagner's contribution we should not overlook Mozart's revolution creating real characters in opera with emotions we can identify with. When we consider the leap from Idomeneo and Seraglio to the da Ponte operas, it is quite incredible. Mozart had an astonishing way of dealing with the character and emotions not equalled by anyone else in opera. He can bring out an emotion in a way which never fails to astonish. For me his characters speak far more than Wagner's, for all the orchestral splendour.


----------



## Itullian

DavidA said:


> While appreciating Wagner's contribution we should not overlook Mozart's revolution creating real characters in opera with emotions we can identify with. When we consider the leap from Idomeneo and Seraglio to the da Ponte operas, it is quite incredible. Mozart had an astonishing way of dealing with the character and emotions not equalled by anyone else in opera. He can bring out an emotion in a way which never fails to astonish. For me his characters speak far more than Wagner's, for all the orchestral splendour.


Mozart's big operas are genius, but ohhh those recitatives.

The scope and majesty of Wagner is amazing.


----------



## Loge

DavidA said:


> Mozart had an astonishing way of dealing with the character and emotions not equalled by anyone else in opera. He can bring out an emotion in a way which never fails to astonish. For me his characters speak far more than Wagner's, for all the orchestral splendour.


Firstly Wagner only wrote archetypes, think Star Wars. You have the farm boy, the Merlin character, the princess and the rogue pirate. These are not real people living in the real world, therfore very difficult to empathises on an emotional level. Did audiences cry at the death of Ben Kenobi as they do with the death of Mimi? You get the picture.

Secondly the characters in Verdi and especially Puccini are more developed than in any Mozart opera. When I first saw Madama Butterfly on DVD, not really knowing the story, I was outraged. How could Pinkerton do such a wicked thing to a such wonderful woman. Do audiences boo the Mozart's villains at the curtain call like they do with Puccini's' Pinkerton?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> While appreciating Wagner's contribution we should not overlook Mozart's revolution creating real characters in opera with emotions we can identify with. When we consider the leap from Idomeneo and Seraglio to the da Ponte operas, it is quite incredible. Mozart had an astonishing way of dealing with the character and emotions not equalled by anyone else in opera. He can bring out an emotion in a way which never fails to astonish. For me his characters speak far more than Wagner's, for all the orchestral splendour.


Yes, Mozart's genius for characterization was a distinct advance on that of his predecessors. However, we have to acknowledge that his range of expression (like that of any artist) is bound not only by his musical vocabulary but by his social milieu, that of 18th-century society with its constraints on the expression of passion and its repression or rationalization of feelings which would later be recognized as the mysterious, perilous and revelatory realm of the unconscious (which is not to say that he could not break through conventional boundaries; that's part of his genius). It's been remarked that Wagner, half a century before psychoanalysis, virtually _discovered_ the unconscious. Mozart could not have done anything musically convincing with the desperate, hopeless passion of Tristan and Isolde, or taken Tristan through his harrowing self-examination in Act 3 of that opera, or Wotan through the wrenching self-incrimination and loss of _Die Walkure_. Wagner, on the other hand, would not have cared to depict the intrigues of the assortment of social types that inhabit the world of Beaumarchais - or would he? His 16th-century Nuremberg comes pretty close to being Mozartean in its observation of everyday characters and their foibles.

With Mozart and Wagner we're dealing with very different species of drama. Social drama and psychic drama are scarcely comparable, so ranking them as composers of opera - a form capable of such variety - really seems pointless. Of course we will have our personal rankings - and no one is going to talk us out of them!


----------



## AC Douglas

Woodduck said:


> Yes, Mozart's genius for characterization was a distinct advance on that of his predecessors. However, we have to acknowledge that his range of expression (like that of any artist) is bound not only by his musical vocabulary but by his social milieu, that of 18th-century society with its constraints on the expression of passion and its repression or rationalization of feelings which would later be recognized as the mysterious, perilous and revelatory realm of the unconscious (which is not to say that he could not break through conventional boundaries; that's part of his genius). It's been remarked that Wagner, half a century before psychoanalysis, virtually _discovered_ the unconscious. Mozart could not have done anything musically convincing with the desperate, hopeless passion of Tristan and Isolde, or taken Tristan through his harrowing self-examination in Act 3 of that opera, or Wotan through the wrenching self-incrimination and loss of _Die Walkure_. Wagner, on the other hand, would not have cared to depict the intrigues of the assortment of social types that inhabit the world of Beaumarchais - or would he? His 16th-century Nuremberg comes pretty close to being Mozartean in its observation of everyday characters and their foibles.
> 
> With Mozart and Wagner we're dealing with very different species of drama. Social drama and psychic drama are scarcely comparable, so ranking them as composers of opera - a form capable of such variety - really seems pointless. Of course we will have our personal rankings - and no one is going to talk us out of them!


You make some excellent points in your above with most of which I find myself in agreement. That having been said, I trust you'll permit me a quibble or two.

*Quibble The First:* Wagner in no way "half a century before psychoanalysis, virtually _discovered_ the unconscious." As a matter of fact, not even Freud did (and, yes, as well as being a Wagnerian, I was first a Freudian and remain so to this day). What F did was to make the unconscious central to a systematic, _dynamic_ model of the human psyche. And before F there was Nietzsche who got the whole enchilada on the existence of the unconscious in human action but in a general, unsystematic way. Truth of the matter is that the whole idea of the unconscious was simply "in the air" at the time (19th century) and was "picked up on" by all the above mentioned 19th-century individuals as it was part of the fabric of intellectual life of the time and one could hardly be unaware of it.

*Quibble The Second:* Mozart was a working-for-his-daily-bread-and-cheese composer and entirely dependent on commissions and appointed positions. Wagner was not. M was NOT free to follow freely the dictates of his transcendent genius as was W if they led him in directions unfamiliar to or unpopular with his patrons, and he confessed looking forward to the day when he could give free rein to those dictates on his own terms. He simply didn't live long enough to reach that point. It's a longstanding conceit of mine that had M lived out his biblical three-score-and-ten there would have been no need for W to reinvent opera in the way he did as M would have accomplished all that on his own decades before W began composing.

Thus endeth the quibbles.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Woodduck

AC Douglas said:


> You make some excellent points in your above with most of which I find myself in agreement. That having been said, I trust you'll permit me a quibble or two.
> 
> *Quibble The First:* Wagner in no way "half a century before psychoanalysis, virtually _discovered_ the unconscious." As a matter of fact, not even Freud did (and, yes, as well as being a Wagnerian, I was first a Freudian and remain so to this day). What F did was to make the unconscious central to a systematic, _dynamic_ model of the human psyche. And before F there was Nietzsche who got the whole enchilada on the existence of the unconscious in human action but in a general, unsystematic way. Truth of the matter is that the whole idea of the unconscious was simply "in the air" at the time (19th century) and was "picked up on" by all the above mentioned individuals as it was part of the fabric of intellectual life of the time and one could hardly be unaware of it.
> 
> *Quibble The Second:* Mozart was a working-for-his-daily-bread-and-cheese composer and entirely dependent on commissions and appointed positions. Wagner was not. M was NOT free to follow freely the dictates of his transcendent genius as was W if they led him in directions unfamiliar to or unpopular with his patrons, and he confessed looking forward to the day when he could give free rein to those dictates on his own terms. He simply didn't live long enough to reach that point. It's a longstanding conceit of mine that had M lived out his biblical three-score-and-ten there would have been no need for W to reinvent opera in the way he did as M would have accomplished all that on his own decades before W began composing.
> 
> Thus endeth the quibbles.
> 
> --
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/


Interesting points both. Of course I was referring to someone else's comment on Wagner and the unconscious, and I'm certain that whoever said it (I've forgotten) didn't mean it literally, as I don't take it literally. More literally, we might say that Wagner was more acutely aware of than most of this aspect of human nature and the first major artist to focus on it intensely in his work and thereby influence the general awareness. He was powerfully aware of the unconscious on a personal level, and his descriptions of his own creative nature are full of references to unconscious processes and their influence on, and often their conflict with, his conscious intentions and procedures. He explicitly chose myth as the vehicle best suited to express the unconscious aspects of human nature, advocated its use in musical drama partly for that reason, and stated his intention to discover and reveal the underlying meanings of mythic symbols. We shouldn't underestimate how novel this artistic approach was, or how influential.

As far as Mozart's unfulfilled potential to pre-empt the Wagnerian music drama - well, we'll never know, will we? I'd only suggest that, being a far different animal from Wagner, in both origins and personality, his work wouldn't have resembled Wagner's very closely.


----------



## Loge

AC Douglas said:


> *Quibble The First:* Wagner in no way "half a century before psychoanalysis, virtually _discovered_ the unconscious." As a matter of fact, not even Freud did (and, yes, as well as being a Wagnerian, I was first a Freudian and remain so to this day). What F did was to make the unconscious central to a systematic, _dynamic_ model of the human psyche. And before F there was Nietzsche who got the whole enchilada on the existence of the unconscious in human action but in a general, unsystematic way. Truth of the matter is that the whole idea of the unconscious was simply "in the air" at the time (19th century) and was "picked up on" by all the above mentioned 19th-century individuals as it was part of the fabric of intellectual life of the time and one could hardly be unaware of it.
> --
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/


Freud was a Fraud. He basically plagiarised Wagner with his Oedipus complex. As we see in Siegfried. Freud has since been proven by falsification as charlatan.


----------



## AC Douglas

Loge said:


> Freud was a Fraud. He basically plagiarised Wagner with his Oedipus complex. [...] Freud has since been proven by falsification as charlatan.


So goes the academic and hard-science party line these days. It's of course total crap. The party line, that is.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## PetrB

Loge said:


> Freud was a Fraud. He basically plagiarised Wagner with his Oedipus complex. As we see in Siegfried. Freud has since been proven by falsification as charlatan.


If Freud 'plagiarized' anything about Oedipus, he plagiarized Sophocles _Oedipus the King_, from ca. 429 B.C.E.

You give that petit bourgeois German showman -- whose main genius was to be able to appeal to the mass of the petite bourgeoisie -- far too much credit, methinks.


----------



## Woodduck

PetrB said:


> If Freud 'plagiarized' anything about Oedipus, he plagiarized Sophocles _Oedipus the King_, from ca. 429 B.C.E.
> 
> You give *that **petit bourgeois German showman -- whose main genius was to be able to appeal to the mass of the petite bourgeoisie *-- far too much credit, methinks.


Whom do you mean?


----------



## DavidA

Loge said:


> Firstly Wagner only wrote archetypes, think Star Wars. You have the farm boy, the Merlin character, the princess and the rogue pirate. These are not real people living in the real world, therfore very difficult to empathises on an emotional level. Did audiences cry at the death of Ben Kenobi as they do with the death of Mimi? You get the picture.
> 
> Secondly the characters in Verdi and especially Puccini are more developed than in any Mozart opera. When I first saw Madama Butterfly on DVD, not really knowing the story, I was outraged. How could Pinkerton do such a wicked thing to a such wonderful woman. Do audiences boo the Mozart's villains at the curtain call like they do with Puccini's' Pinkerton?


Frankly I have never heard an audience boo Pinkerton. But then in Mozart his equivalent - the Don - gets his come up anyway!


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Yes, Mozart's genius for characterization was a distinct advance on that of his predecessors. However, we have to acknowledge that his range of expression (like that of any artist) is bound not only by his musical vocabulary but by his social milieu, that of 18th-century society with its constraints on the expression of passion and its repression or rationalization of feelings which would later be recognized as the mysterious, perilous and revelatory realm of the unconscious (which is not to say that he could not break through conventional boundaries; that's part of his genius). It's been remarked that Wagner, half a century before psychoanalysis, virtually _discovered_ the unconscious. Mozart could not have done anything musically convincing with the desperate, hopeless passion of Tristan and Isolde, or taken Tristan through his harrowing self-examination in Act 3 of that opera, or Wotan through the wrenching self-incrimination and loss of _Die Walkure_. Wagner, on the other hand, would not have cared to depict the intrigues of the assortment of social types that inhabit the world of Beaumarchais - or would he? His 16th-century Nuremberg comes pretty close to being Mozartean in its observation of everyday characters and their foibles.
> 
> With Mozart and Wagner we're dealing with very different species of drama. Social drama and psychic drama are scarcely comparable, so ranking them as composers of opera - a form capable of such variety - really seems pointless. Of course we will have our personal rankings - and no one is going to talk us out of them!


Whatever the merits of the argument that Wagner discovered the unconscious, I find it puzzling that you can write that "Mozart could not have done anything musically convincing with the desperate, hopeless passion of Tristan and Isolde" when we have such incredible examples of him dealing with such matters in his music - just take the countess's arias in Figaro. Just because Mozart is far more subtle and does not drag the thing out like Wagner does not mean the passions are not there. In fact, Porgi Amor and Dove Sono are far more convincing (to me) of conveying the passion of unrequited love than anything Wagner wrote. The fact is Mozart is dealing with real characters we can identify with. Tristan and Isolde are mythical characters not real ones. Obviously Mozart wrote into a music scene which had not been expanded by Beethoven but given the restraints I find Mozart far more convincing.
the other thing is that Mozart (in the da Ponte operas) had a fellow genius writing his librettos. Wagner did not have that - he was a far greater musician than he was a poet. So despite the admiration I have for the music of tristan (and it is revolutionary) I find Mozart touches a much deeper chord within me.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Becca said:


> Why surely should it be?... Just because it is 4 long, connected operas written over half a lifetime?


The _Ring_ is a work that took decades to compose, over which time it not not only preserved a remarkable architectural consistency. It builds inexorably to a natural conclusion over four self-contained works, each of which builds dramatically and musically on the last. Many composers scarcely achieved that over their entire careers, let alone within the span of a single story-line. That is why I believe it to be the greatest achievement in opera. There may be greater single operas than any one component of the _Ring_, but as a musical/dramatical whole I struggle to think of anything that gets anywhere near it.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

PetrB said:


> No it doesn't, bulk is not part of the arguments here


Bulk allied with drama, musicality, vision, tenacity and - allowing for the occasional longueur - breathtaking execution.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Whatever the merits of the argument that Wagner discovered the unconscious, I find it puzzling that you can write that "Mozart could not have done anything musically convincing with the desperate, hopeless passion of Tristan and Isolde" when we have such incredible examples of him dealing with such matters in his music - just take the countess's arias in Figaro. Just because Mozart is far more subtle and does not drag the thing out like Wagner does not mean the passions are not there. In fact, Porgi Amor and Dove Sono are far more convincing (to me) of conveying the passion of unrequited love than anything Wagner wrote. The fact is Mozart is dealing with real characters we can identify with. Tristan and Isolde are mythical characters not real ones. Obviously Mozart wrote into a music scene which had not been expanded by Beethoven but given the restraints I find Mozart far more convincing.
> the other thing is that Mozart (in the da Ponte operas) had a fellow genius writing his librettos. Wagner did not have that - he was a far greater musician than he was a poet. So despite the admiration I have for the music of tristan (and it is revolutionary) I find Mozart touches a much deeper chord within me.


I must correct two statements of yours. Mozart is not dealing with "real characters." He is dealing with fictional characters. And Tristan and Isolde are not "mythical." They are a knight and a princess from an era that had knights and princesses. And what if they _were_ mythical? What difference would it make? Mythical characters can exhibit all the same motives and behaviors and emotions as your next door neighbor. This is fiction, not real life. Your ability to "identify" with an 18th-century countess musing in her boudoir about her philandering husband, more than with a princess of medieval Ireland being forced by the man she loves to marry his elderly uncle, is neither here nor there. The accomplishments of Mozart and Wagner are not affected by what you can personally "identify with."

I very honestly can't see the point in your constant insistence on comparing Mozart and Wagner to the detriment of Wagner. They are radically different in their aims and methods. My point that Mozart could not have set _Tristan und Isolde_ to music seems self-evident to me. The countess with her lovely arias in _Figaro_ is supposed to disprove this? Is there any real equivalence here? Whatever can you be thinking? Oh that's right. You find it "puzzling."

Really, what is your purpose here? It seems that no one can praise Wagner without your jumping in to say "Mozart is better." Why? I haven't noticed any fanatical Wagnerians hovering around you waiting for opportunities to put down Mozart every time you praise him. I have not argued the relative merits of these two geniuses of opera. I have merely pointed out how different they are. Do you disagree that they are very different? What exactly is in question here?

Just asking.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I must correct two statements of yours. Mozart is not dealing with "real characters." He is dealing with fictional characters. And Tristan and Isolde are not "mythical." They are a knight and a princess from an era that had knights and princesses. And what if they _were_ mythical? What difference would it make? Mythical characters can exhibit all the same motives and behaviors and emotions as your next door neighbor. This is fiction, not real life. Your ability to "identify" with an 18th-century countess musing in her boudoir about her philandering husband, more than with a princess of medieval Ireland being forced by the man she loves to marry his elderly uncle, is neither here nor there. The accomplishments of Mozart and Wagner are not affected by what you can personally "identify with."
> 
> I very honestly can't see the point in your constant insistence on comparing Mozart and Wagner to the detriment of Wagner. They are radically different in their aims and methods. My point that Mozart could not have set _Tristan und Isolde_ to music seems self-evident to me. The countess with her lovely arias in _Figaro_ is supposed to disprove this? Is there any real equivalence here? Whatever can you be thinking? Oh that's right. You find it "puzzling."
> 
> Really, what is your purpose here? It seems that no one can praise Wagner without your jumping in to say "Mozart is better." Why? I haven't noticed any fanatical Wagnerians hovering around you waiting for opportunities to put down Mozart every time you praise him. I have not argued the relative merits of these two geniuses of opera. I have merely pointed out how different they are. Do you disagree that they are very different? What exactly is in question here?
> 
> Just asking.


I think it's pointless debating whether Mozart would have set tristan to music any more than Wagner would have set Figaro or Cosi to music. it is a question that can never be answered. Each was so different anyway. The nearest Wagner got was Mastersingers which frankly hasn't a fraction of Mozart's wit and does tend towards tedium in places. The point is we are discussing the greatest opera ever written. You are saying Tristan which I disagree with. I prefer Mozart so it is quite obvious I will compare Mozart to the detriment of Wagner in this case. That is not rubbishing Wagner it is just making my point. I believe Mozart was the greater opera composer imo. I have no problem with you disagreeing but please allow me to state that. This is not a slight on Wagner. After all, as Richard himself said:"Is it possible to find anything more perfect than every piece in 'Don Giovanni'? (Oper und Drama)


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I think it's pointless debating whether Mozart would have set tristan to music any more than Wagner would have set Figaro or Cosi to music. it is a question that can never be answered. Each was so different anyway. The nearest Wagner got was Mastersingers which frankly hasn't a fraction of Mozart's wit and does tend towards tedium in places. The point is we are discussing the greatest opera ever written. You are saying Tristan which I disagree with. I prefer Mozart so it is quite obvious I will compare Mozart to the detriment of Wagner in this case. That is not rubbishing Wagner it is just making my point. I believe Mozart was the greater opera composer imo. I have no problem with you disagreeing but please allow me to state that. This is not a slight on Wagner. After all, as Richard himself said:"Is it possible to find anything more perfect than every piece in 'Don Giovanni'? (Oper und Drama)


I did not propose a "debate" on whether Mozart or Wagner could have set each other's plots to music. My observation was that they couldn't. Of course it's pointless "debating" it. Where do you get the idea that a "debate" exists? And what "question" can never be answered? There is no debate and no question. Wagner and Mozart could not have written each other's operas. Self-evident. Case closed.

But now, even with that settled, you must continue with your pointless, odious comparisons! "The nearest Wagner got was Mastersingers"? Nearest to what? Is there something he should have got nearer to? Was he trying to write a Mozart opera and failing to? Meistersinger "hasn't a fraction of Mozart's wit" and "tends toward tedium." Really? Is this Wagner's issue or yours? Perhaps someone else finds that _Cosi fan tutte_ is, despite much beautiful music, a dreadfully overextended piece of frivolous fluff. I have seen that shallow and cynical entertainment proposed as the greatest of Mozart's operas. Frankly, I could go on and on about much it irritates and bores me and what nitwits the characters are and what a waste of Mozart's talents it is and how it "hasn't a fraction" of _Meistersinger's_ depth - but why would I? What purpose would that serve? I would prove nothing about either Mozart or Wagner.

I do not find it necessary to criticize one thing in order to praise another. Both of those composers were great. I would prefer to take them on their own merits and not criticize eiher of them for "failing" to duplicate the achievements of the other. Doesn't that make sense?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I did not propose a "debate" on whether Mozart or Wagner could have set each other's plots to music. My observation was that they couldn't. Of course it's pointless "debating" it. Where do you get the idea that a "debate" exists? And what "question" can never be answered? There is no debate and no question. Wagner and Mozart could not have written each other's operas. Self-evident. Case closed.
> 
> But now, even with that settled, you must continue with your pointless, odious comparisons! "The nearest Wagner got was Mastersingers"? Nearest to what? Is there something he should have got nearer to? Was he trying to write a Mozart opera and failing to? Meistersinger "hasn't a fraction of Mozart's wit" and "tends toward tedium." Really? Is this Wagner's issue or yours? Perhaps someone else finds that _Cosi fan tutte_ is, despite much beautiful music, a dreadfully overextended piece of frivolous fluff. I have seen that shallow and cynical entertainment proposed as the greatest of Mozart's operas. Frankly, I could go on and on about much it irritates and bores me and what nitwits the characters are and what a waste of Mozart's talents it is and how it "hasn't a fraction" of _Meistersinger's_ depth - but why would I? What purpose would that serve? I would prove nothing about either Mozart or Wagner.
> 
> I do not find it necessary to criticize one thing in order to praise another. Both of those composers were great. I would prefer to take them on their own merits and not criticize eiher of them for "failing" to duplicate the achievements of the other. Doesn't that make sense?


You yourself said that Mozart couldn't have set Tristan That was the starting point. It was me who said debate on the subject was pointless. It was a red herring in the first place and I'm glad you have announced the case closed.

Why are my comparisons odious? Because you disagree? I would have thought it self evident that whatever merits Mastersingers has, sparkling wit a la Mozart is not one of them. I take your point about Cosi because my wife is similarly irritated by the plot! But I still find it far less irritating than some other operas and the music is utterly sublime and, given the plot, Mozart's development of the emotions of each character is masterly.

I take your last point. But the question is which is the greatest opera. That surely invites comparison within the bounds of the question posed by OP. Please, as a fellow music lover I don't want us to fall out. I accept Tristan is a masterpiece. Just that I think the da Ponte operas are greater works. But that's just my opinion. Let's just agree to differ but enjoy both!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> You yourself said that Mozart couldn't have set Tristan That was the starting point. It was me who said debate on the subject was pointless. It was a red herring in the first place and I'm glad you have announced the case closed.
> 
> Why are my comparisons odious? Because you disagree? I would have thought it self evident that whatever merits Mastersingers has, sparkling wit a la Mozart is not one of them. I take your point about Cosi because my wife is similarly irritated by the plot! But I still find it far less irritating than some other operas and the music is utterly sublime and, given the plot, Mozart's development of the emotions of each character is masterly.
> 
> I take your last point. But the question is which is the greatest opera. That surely invites comparison within the bounds of the question posed by OP. Please, as a fellow music lover I don't want us to fall out. I accept Tristan is a masterpiece. Just that I think the da Ponte operas are greater works. But that's just my opinion. Let's just agree to differ but enjoy both!


Sure. Nothing else to say really. Until the next unnecessary and pointless comparison, at least.


----------



## Azol

The greatest of them all...
It really depends on what you are listening to at the moment...

*Tristan und Isolde* - because it's so profound and ecstatic;
*La Fanciulla del West* - because it evokes deep personal feelings and finale always leaves you in tears;
*Don Carlo* - because it's so huge, varied, uplifting, oppressing;
*Il barbiere di Siviglia* - because it's the milestone of the genre;

Even though "greatest" does not mean "most complex" or "most serious".


----------



## perempe

obwan said:


> Wouldn't it be cool to start a thread of the most overrated operas? Personally I could a thread with all the flaws of Tosca.... Sure its got a couple of great tunes in it, and those 2 great tunes are sooooo great that at the end of the night that thats all you can remember. Youve completely forgotten how bored you were throughout the rest.


I like the finale of Tosca because of the music & big timpani drum roll at the end. epic.


----------



## gellio

I am a huge lover of _The Ring_, but I not only think _Le nozze di Figaro_ is the greatest opera ever written, I think it is the greatest artistic creation by mankind.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

for me, it's a close call between Semiramide, Norma and Attila.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Azol said:


> The greatest of them all...
> It really depends on what you are listening to at the moment...
> 
> *Tristan und Isolde* - because it's so profound and ecstatic;
> *La Fanciulla del West* - because it evokes deep personal feelings and finale always leaves you in tears;
> *Don Carlo* - because it's so huge, varied, uplifting, oppressing;
> *Il barbiere di Siviglia* - because it's the milestone of the genre;
> 
> Even though "greatest" does not mean "most complex" or "most serious".


to be honest, I found Barbiere a bit...boring compared to Rossini's more heroic works (which I wish he did more of, because they easily rivaled Verdi's).


----------



## Pugg

Don Carlo without one minute hesitation, closely followed by Norma and Lucia .


----------



## Lensky

*Don Giovanni*

Norma
Don Carlo


----------



## nina foresti

Wagner aside, I think the usual suspects are "Don Giovanni" or "The Marriage of Figaro".
Myself?? "Verdi's "Otello"!
Having said that, it comes in 3rd in my favorite 5 column. (1."Verdi's Don Carlo" and 
2. Boito's "Mefistofele")

Wagner: "Parsifal"


----------



## Bonetan

The Ring gets my vote.


----------



## Woodduck

If I had to vote - but only if I had to - I might have to pick _Tristan._ It's the only opera that seems truly impossible. Verdi said much the same about it - that it filled him with awe and that he could hardly believe it was written by a human being - and Verdi knew a thing or two.


----------



## gellio

BalalaikaBoy said:


> to be honest, I found Barbiere a bit...boring compared to Rossini's more heroic works (which I wish he did more of, because they easily rivaled Verdi's).


I used to find _Barbiere_ boring myself, now I love it. I'm listening to it right now.


----------



## ma7730

I definitely have to agree with _Tristan_. The sheer scope of its orchestration, the depth of the characters, the beauty of the leitmotifs, and of course its influence across different art forms never fail to astound me. Certainly not the most "perfect" opera (King Marke's lament is too long, it's probably too rough on the lead voices, etc), but I don't think it's a stretch at all to call it the greatest.


----------



## alan davis

For me it's Tristan pipping Die Meistersingers, Parsifal and Gotterdammerung at the post. Mozart's the Magic Flute contains some of the most beautiful music for the female voice that could ever be imagined so it's right up there as well. And the redoubtable Joe Green created something very special with Otello. Plus Der Rosenkavalier has to be in the mix. But overall there's so many wonderful operas it's proof to me GOD does exist....Thanks big fella.


----------



## Sloe

ma7730 said:


> Certainly not the most "perfect" opera (King Marke's lament is too long, it's probably too rough on the lead voices, etc), but I don't think it's a stretch at all to call it the greatest.


Agree with that first and second act are fantastic then the opera starts to fade out in the third act.


----------



## Pugg

Bonetan said:


> The Ring gets my vote.


Narrow this from four to 1


----------



## DavidA

The obviously candidate as composer is Mozart who wrote the four greatest operas in his short life. 

I think the da Ponte operas are probably the greatest though which of them happens to be the ne I am listening to at the time. 

I'd also mention Verdi's Falstaff as the greatest opera after Mzart.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Trump the Opera does it for me................


----------



## Bonetan

In that case I'm going with Tristan. I admit to a strong Wagner bias. I consider Mozart to be children's music by comparison. I'm know I'm out of line to say that, but its how I feel. I've tried to enjoy Mozart (Don G is in my car right now), but it ain't going well lol


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> In that case I'm going with Tristan. I admit to a strong Wagner bias.* I consider Mozart to be children's music by comparison. I'm know I'm out of line to say that, but its how I feel*. I've tried to enjoy Mozart (Don G is in my car right now), but it ain't going well lol


Must confess it baffles me when someone says something like that! The utter skill in Mozart and sheer sublimity of the music easily outdoes any of Wagner's somewhat overblown outpourings.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

*Meyerbeer's Huguenots *

* A _liberal_ opera that urges tolerance and shows the murderous consequences of bigotry and fanaticism.

* A social / political opera which also boasts vivid, well rounded characters (esp. Marcel, Valentine, Raoul, Saint-Bris, Nevers).

* A score which at times looks back towards Mozart and Rossini and anticipates and influences Verdi, Wagner, Berlioz and Mussorgsky - but is unmistakably Meyerbeer's.

* The sheer wealth of melody - including three great finales, _the_ love duet, the Marcel/Valentine duet, the Blessing of the Swords...

* The chorus as protagonist. The depiction of mob violence, and the idea of the crowd (la foule) as an agent in its own right.

* The steady increase in tension; from its light-hearted opening acts, it hurtles towards tragedy.

* The richness and variety of scenes, characters, and music. Its mixture of comedy, tragedy, irony and action; of high born characters with servants and soldiers; of intimate scenes with public ones; and of Italianate melody with German harmonies and French declamation.


----------



## Pugg

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Trump the Opera does it for me................


You are on the V.I.P list for the world premiere .


----------



## SixFootScowl

I can't remember what I said before in this thread and as much as I like Wagner's Ring, I am now thinking that the greatest opera has to be Beethoven's Fidelio.


----------



## Woodduck

Of course there's really no such thing as "the greatest opera." So long as there are varied criteria for greatness, no one opera can fulfill them all to everyone's satisfaction. Only fools state unequivocally that their favorites are "the greatest."

You know who you are.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

I know I'm jumping in late here, but my favorite opera is Mozart's Magic Flute. The only opera, in fact, which I can definitively say that I like.


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> Must confess it baffles me when someone says something like that! The utter skill in Mozart and sheer sublimity of the music easily outdoes any of Wagner's somewhat overblown outpourings.


You know, for me there is a reason why every young singer starts with Mozart & sing his roles in the beginning. Why an Isolde must study the role for 5 years before attempting it on stage. Why a Mozart accompanist can be found at any university. Why conducting a Wagner opera takes such care. I think Wagner demands more of its singers, orchestra, conductor, & listener. Universities around the world are staging Mozart's works everyday. This is why I say its children's music by comparison


----------



## Woodduck

*DavidA:* _"The utter skill in Mozart and sheer sublimity of the music easily outdoes any of Wagner's somewhat overblown outpourings."_

*Bonetan:*_ "You know, for me there is a reason why every young singer starts with Mozart & sing his roles in the beginning. Why an Isolde must study the role for 5 years before attempting it on stage. Why a Mozart accompanist can be found at any university. Why conducting a Wagner opera takes such care. I think Wagner demands more of its singers, orchestra, conductor, & listener. Universities around the world are staging Mozart's works everyday. This is why I say its children's music by comparison."_

Hooo-weee! We'll be watching _this_ debate with great interest! :devil:

(Hint to participants: Apples and oranges.)


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> Hooo-weee! We'll be watching _this_ debate with great interest! :devil:
> 
> (Hint to participants: Apples and oranges.)


Lol. I understand apples to oranges. However, David regularly trashes Wagner & I felt compelled to give my 2 cents. I've admitted to a huge Wagner bias, but I got this way from studying both Wagner & Mozart's scores from a singing perspective. You say apples to oranges but it felt like elementary school to college to me.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> Lol. I understand apples to oranges. However, David regularly trashes Wagner & I felt compelled to give my 2 cents. I've admitted to a huge Wagner bias, but I got this way from studying both Wagner & Mozart's scores from a singing perspective. You say apples to oranges but it felt like elementary school to college to me.


My bias is toward Wagner too. But then I have a soft spot for overblown outpourings regularly trashed by people who think _Cosi fan tutte_ is "sublime."


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> You know, for me there is a reason why every young singer starts with Mozart & sing his roles in the beginning. Why an Isolde must study the role for 5 years before attempting it on stage. Why a Mozart accompanist can be found at any university. Why conducting a Wagner opera takes such care. I think Wagner demands more of its singers, orchestra, conductor, & listener. Universities around the world are staging Mozart's works everyday. This is why I say its children's music by comparison


Frankly I find this facile. Because something is more difficult to sing or requires the lungs of a rhino does not mean the music is necessarily superior. Not many musicians would reckon Henselt's fiendishly difficult piano concerto to be superior to any other just because it is more difficult. The idea is laughable. In fact many great pianists would reckon that although Mozart is superficially easier than (eg) Liszt it is more difficult to play well. 
Hence your very concept of Mozart being 'children's music' by comparison to Wagner appears to me totally misplaced. As to being 'easy' you only gave to go to the recording catalogue to find that Mozart is not easy to sing or perform well. In addition, Mozart had an understanding of human emotions that Wagner, whatever the difficulties of staging the operas, never got anywhere near imo. Just read about what some of the great conductors have said about Mozart and gain sme understanding of his genius.


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> I find this rather facile. Because something is more difficult to sing or requires the lungs of a rhino does not mean the music is necessarily superior. Not many musicians would reckon Hensekt's fiendishly difficult piano concerto to be superior to any other just because it is more difficult. The idea is laughable. In fact many great pianists would reckon that although Mozart is superficially easier than (eg) Liszt it is more difficult to play well.
> Hence your very concept of Mozart being 'children's mysic' by comparison to Wagner appears to me totally misplaced. Mozart had an understanding of human emotions that Wagner never got anywhere near imo.


I agree that the difficulty alone doesn't make it superior. But I'm sure you would agree that Wagner isn't merely difficult music. I believe Wagner's impact on music to be greater than Mozart's. I believe his genius to be superior to Mozart's. As far as his understanding of human emotions, I agree with what Mr. Woodduck had to say.


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> I agree that the difficulty alone doesn't make it superior. But I'm sure you would agree that Wagner isn't merely difficult music. I believe Wagner's impact on music to be greater than Mozart's. I believe his genius to be superior to Mozart's. As far as his understanding of human emotions, I agree with what Mr. Woodduck had to say.


The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts.
(Richard Wagner)

I agree with Richard!

I also agree with another great Wagnerian:
Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces.
(Georg Solti)

And as to your comments about Mozart being too easy, listen to what a real musician says:
The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to play because of the quantity of notes; grown ups avoid him because of the quality of notes.
(Artur Schnabel)

Perhaps this sums him up:
Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's-the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering--a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages.
(Leonard Bernstein)

Just listen to Dove Sono from Figaro and you know what I mean. As Szell said:
Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
(George Szell)


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts.
> (Richard Wagner)
> 
> I agree with Richard!
> 
> I also agree with another great Wagnerian:
> Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces.
> (Georg Solti)
> 
> And as to your comments about Mozart being too easy, listen to what a real musician says:
> The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to play because of the quantity of notes; grown ups avoid him because of the quality of notes.
> (Artur Schnabel)


Rather than trying to go quote for quote with you, I battle I will undoubtedly lose lol, I can only go off what I've learned studying the scores, singing the music, & speaking with coaches, conductors, & people who have performed the roles on stage. Wagner's music is more complex, powerful, transcendent, & innovative than Mozart's. To me that equals better.


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> Rather than trying to go quote for quote with you, I battle I will undoubtedly lose lol, I can only go off what I've learned studying the scores, singing the music, & speaking with coaches, conductors, & people who have performed the roles on stage. Wagner's music is more complex, powerful, transcendent, & innovative than Mozart's. To me that equals better.


Your problem is that you don't apoear to realise how innovative and revolutionary Mozart actually was. A work like Figaro in its subject and treatment compketely changed opera. To me (and I dn't equate power with noise nor transcendence with complexity) Mzart has a power, a sublimity, a transcendence that eludes most other composers. As Bernstein said: ' mMozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.' To me only Bach and Beethoven belong in the same league althoigh Handel is making out a good case for himself at the moment! As for coaches and cnductors - well, maybe you talk to the wrong people! Just take composer Charles Gounod: 'Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.' Or conductor George Szell: Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
Wagner is a composer I listen to when I'm in the mood. For Mozart I'm always in the mood!


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> Your problem is that you don't apoear to realise how innovative and revolutionary Mozart actually was. A work like Figaro in its subject and treatment compketely changed opera. To me (and I dn't equate power with noise nor transcendence with complexity) Mzart has a power, a sublimity, a transcendence that eludes most other composers. As Bernstein said: ' mMozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.' To me only Bach and Beethoven belong in the same league althoigh Handel is making out a good case for himself at the moment! As for coaches and cnductors - well, maybe you talk to the wrong people! Just take composer Charles Gounod: 'Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.' Or conductor George Szell: Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
> Wagner is a composer I listen to when I'm in the mood. For Mozart I'm always in the mood!


One could, rather, call Mozart naïve because he worked in forms he did not create himself - only what he said within them was his own. But what do these people know of the enraptured state of a productive artist." (Richard Wagner, quoted in Cosima's Diary November 19, 1871)


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> One could, rather, call Mozart naïve because he worked in forms he did not create himself - only what he said within them was his own. But what do these people know of the enraptured state of a productive artist." (Richard Wagner, quoted in Cosima's Diary November 19, 1871)


I'd just take issue with RW in that Mozart is far more revolutionary than generally been been recognised. Although superficially working with existing forms he actually expanded opera to a level then unknown. As I say you only have to look at the musical complexities within Figaro which illustrate every emotion expressed to boggle at the mnd that could produce this with such overwhelming sublimity.


----------



## trazom

Bonetan said:


> You know, for me there is a reason why every young singer starts with Mozart & sing his roles in the beginning. Why an Isolde must study the role for 5 years before attempting it on stage. Why a Mozart accompanist can be found at any university. Why conducting a Wagner opera takes such care. I think Wagner demands more of its singers, orchestra, conductor, & listener. Universities around the world are staging Mozart's works everyday. This is why I say its children's music by comparison


That accessibility is only a result of Mozart's unrivaled connoisseurship of the instrumental and vocal capabilities of musicians in his acquaintance and his ability to adapt and accommodate his artistic vision with what was perfectly natural and playable to most professional musicians, though he didn't always do that(see for example, the highly virtuosic arias of Idomeneo or Seraglio), nor does it mean the music doesn't have more to offer than performances by amateurs who--supposedly--undergo less preparation and consequently give lackluster performances. I don't think any reasonable person would assume that because certain Mozart piano sonatas, for example, are attempted by children means they don't contain qualities of subtlety, poignancy, craftsmanship, and drama of contrasting characters of themes that an artist like Artur Schnabel or Lili Krauss could bring out. Same with the concertos and operas, the best performances, of which, are the result of years of study and honing of skill. Some of the greatest sopranos spent years perfecting their interpretation of Mozartian heroines, singers like Lucia Popp, Kiri Te Kenawa, Teresa Berganza, and many others. One of the great conductors described staging a Mozart opera as a "labor of love." Just as with any great work of art, the amount of effort put into them yields greater rewards, for both the musician and the listener.



Bonetan said:


> I agree that the difficulty alone doesn't make it superior. But I'm sure you would agree that Wagner isn't merely difficult music.


Of course Wagner isn't merely difficult, just like Mozart isn't merely accessible.


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart and Wagner are nearly as far apart aesthetically as opera (at least until the 20th century) can be. This is why glibly comparing their "greatness" is more than a little absurd. Just as Mozart took the Classical style to the greatest heights, Wagner brought Romanticism to its operatic climax. The two have almost nothing in common, and we shouldn't look to them for similar experiences, or apply the same criteria in judging them (if we must judge them at all). 

I would like to make one observation, and that is with regard to this concept of "perfection" as applied to art (since some people are prone to apply that concept when speaking of Mozart). There are some aesthetic ideals, some styles of art, in which physical perfection - precision and balance of form - is of fundamental importance. Music of the classical period is to be judged successful partly by this criterion. In other kinds of art, this sort of physical perfection is less important, or even unattainable. Wagner was sometimes accused in his time of being formless - an accusation which is obviously (to us) untrue, but which points up the nature of a very different musical style and a different relationship between music and drama. I think it's in the very nature of Wagner's dramatic goals and musical style that the Classical ideal of perfection is not only unattainable but irrelevant, and such musico-dramatic integrity and effectiveness as Wagner's works attain must be much more elusive for anyone who would try to describe or defend it.

In a real sense, a fundamental difference between what Mozart's operas try to do and how, musically, they do it, and what Wagner's try to do and how they do it, is that Classical opera (like Classical aesthetics in general) does things which are definable and achievable and which make perfection a (theoretically) attainable and necessary goal, while Wagner's operas, as Romantic art, attempt to do things, musically and dramatically, that are indefinite and ultimately unachievable, things which make formal perfection finally unattainable and irrelevant. That is not to say, of course, that Romantic art lacks formal qualities (no art can), but that it is prevented by the open-endedness of its meaning and the infinite reach of its expressive ambitions from expressing itself in the finite proportionality of Classical art.

In essence, Mozart attempted to do the conceivable and the possible, and did it better than anyone else. Wagner tried to do the previously inconceivable and the impossible, and did it better than anyone - even Wagner himself, if we're to believe his own words - could imagine.


----------



## ma7730

trazom said:


> That accessibility is only a result of Mozart's unrivaled connoisseurship of the instrumental and vocal capabilities of musicians in his acquaintance and his ability to adapt and accommodate his artistic vision with what was perfectly natural and playable to most professional musicians, though he didn't always do that(see for example, the highly virtuosic arias of Idomeneo or Seraglio), nor does it mean the music doesn't have more to offer than performances by amateurs who--supposedly--undergo less preparation and consequently give lackluster performances. I don't think any reasonable person would assume that because certain Mozart piano sonatas, for example, are attempted by children means they don't contain qualities of subtlety, poignancy, craftsmanship, and drama of contrasting characters of themes that an artist like Artur Schnabel or Lili Krauss could bring out. Same with the concertos and operas, the best performances, of which, are the result of years of study and honing of skill. Some of the greatest sopranos spent years perfecting their interpretation of Mozartian heroines, singers like Lucia Popp, Kiri Te Kenawa, Teresa Berganza, and many others. One of the great conductors described staging a Mozart opera as a "labor of love." Just as with any great work of art, the amount of effort put into them yields greater rewards, for both the musician and the listener.
> 
> Of course Wagner isn't merely difficult, just like Mozart isn't merely accessible.


I agree completely. What's so amazing about Mozart (and I'm certainly not arguing Mozart over Wagner) is that there are so many levels in which it's accessible. Of course, you can go to _Figaro_ and enjoy the pretty duets and recognizable tunes. You can go deeper, and see it as illuminating the struggle between classes. Of course, it's also a question of impossible love and a nostalgia for things that never were. Or perhaps it's about moral ambiguity and how someone in an elevated status gains forgiveness from those below him.
This is the reason both my mother (by no means an opera fan) and Joseph Kerman can enjoy and respect it. It's so incredibly subtle and layered.


----------



## Faustian

ma7730 said:


> What's so amazing about Mozart (and I'm certainly not arguing Mozart over Wagner)


Thank god you don't have to. One of the most disheartening and tiresome trends on this forum is the need to tear down one thing in order to advocate another. Alternatively, the most enriching posts and discussions occur when people simply express what they love about the composers and the incomparable works of art that move us so. Thank you for that beautiful summary of Mozart's stupendous genius.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Woodduck said:


> Of course there's really no such thing as "the greatest opera." So long as there are varied criteria for greatness, no one opera can fulfill them all to everyone's satisfaction. Only fools state unequivocally that their favorites are "the greatest."
> 
> You know who you are.


Yeah, different criteria different pick. Plus different musical eras. Always like Don Giovanni. With Wagner it is harder to enjoy the opera without reading the libretto, as with Puccini, especially with Puccini you get these moments the cymbals crash and singers wail all of a sudden, and you wonder what's going on if you don't speak the language or remember or follow the story. With Tristan and Isolde, I was able to enjoy the music more without libretto, than with the Ring.


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> Thank god you don't have to. One of the most disheartening and tiresome trends on this forum is the need to tear down one thing in order to advocate another. Alternatively, the most enriching posts and discussions occur when people simply express what they love about the composers and the incomparable works of art that move us so. Thank you for that beautiful summary of Mozart's stupendous genius.


I certainly don't think we need to tear anything down to advocate Mozart's genius. Let's face it is Leonard Bernstein himself said when faced with Mozart, "who's in that league anyway?" It appears that Mozart has such a wide appreciation among musicians and music lovers that any attempts to denigrate his genius are just bound to be disagreed with by the vast majority. As has been said: How can such a disproportionately large number of people have a definite, and unusually positive relationship to Mozart? (Wolfgang Hildesheimer)
Rightly or wrongly not everyone enjoys the genius of Wagner, Verdi, Puccini et al. But Mozart appears to be almost universally revered.


----------



## Barbebleu

DavidA said:


> Rightly or wrongly not everyone enjoys the genius of Wagner, Verdi, Puccini et al. But Mozart appears to be almost universally revered.


Universally revered? Just a tad OTT. Respected and admired certainly for his musical ability much the same as you would for whichever musician appeals to your particular susceptibilities.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Bonetan said:


> You know, for me there is a reason why every young singer starts with Mozart & sing his roles in the beginning. Why an Isolde must study the role for 5 years before attempting it on stage. Why a Mozart accompanist can be found at any university. Why conducting a Wagner opera takes such care. I think Wagner demands more of its singers, orchestra, conductor, & listener. Universities around the world are staging Mozart's works everyday. This is why I say its children's music by comparison


this debate aside (enjoying from the sidelines, but I don't feel like I can compare the two myself), most singers start out with Mozart because Mozart wrote more pieces for lyric voices while Wagner wrote for gigantic voices which usually aren't even physiologically compatible with his work until their 40s (most of the sopranos who try to sing it too early turn themselves into mezzos lol).


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> *Universally revered? Just a tad OTT. *Respected and admired certainly for his musical ability much the same as you would for whichever musician appeals to your particular susceptibilities.


I did say 'almost universally revered. I don't think that is an exaggeration. The vast majority of musicians I read revere Mozart.


----------



## hpowders

For me the greatest opera ever written is Wagner's Götterdämmerung.

Despite its length, it is inspired from the first note of the Norns in the Prologue to the last note of the orchestra in the Immolation Scene.

For me, it is a quick 5 hours and I've witnessed it being performed at the Met three times.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> For me the greatest opera ever written is Wagner's Götterdämmerung.
> 
> Despite its length, it is inspired from the first note of the Norns in the Prologue to the last note of the orchestra in the Immolation Scene.
> 
> For me, it is a quick 5 hours and I've witnessed it being performed at the Met three times.


Careful. According to one poster: 
'Of course there's really no such thing as "the greatest opera." So long as there are varied criteria for greatness, no one opera can fulfill them all to everyone's satisfaction. Only fools state unequivocally that their favorites are "the greatest."'


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> Careful. According to one poster:
> 'Of course there's really no such thing as "the greatest opera." So long as there are varied criteria for greatness, no one opera can fulfill them all to everyone's satisfaction. Only fools state unequivocally that their favorites are "the greatest."'


Okay. For me it is the FINEST opera, then! :lol:

I don't wish to be a _Norn_ in the side to anyone on TC. That's not my mission!


----------



## SixFootScowl

hpowders said:


> Okay. For me it is the FINEST opera, then! :lol:
> 
> I don't wish to be a _Norn_ in the side to anyone on TC. That's not my mission!


You are okay with "greatest opera" because you qualified it as "*For me* the greatest opera ..."

That makes it so you are not imposing this opinion on others.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> Careful. According to one poster:
> 'Of course there's really no such thing as "the greatest opera." So long as there are varied criteria for greatness, no one opera can fulfill them all to everyone's satisfaction. Only fools state unequivocally that their favorites are "the greatest."'


Somehow I suspect this warning would not have been issued if "the greatest opera" in question was one by Mozart.


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> Rightly or wrongly not everyone enjoys the genius of Wagner, Verdi, Puccini et al. But Mozart appears to be almost universally revered.


As Barbebleu said, I don't find that to be the case. Respected absolutely, but there are many people like me who get zero enjoyment from Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> As Barbebleu said, I don't find that to be the case. Respected absolutely, but there are many people like me who get zero enjoyment from Mozart.


You are in a pretty small minority among music lovers I would guess. Everyone I know whom loves music appreciates Mozart.


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> You are in a pretty small minority among music lovers I would guess. Everyone I know whom loves music appreciates Mozart.


I absolutely appreciate Mozart! But given the choice I wouldn't listen to it. The harpsichord/recit alone makes me suicidal lol


----------



## hpowders

Florestan said:


> You are okay with "greatest opera" because you qualified it as "*For me* the greatest opera ..."
> 
> That makes it so you are not imposing this opinion on others.


I'm wondering, when Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) told his wife Alice, "Baby You're the greatest!" on the Honeymooners, he would have been more accurate to exclaim, "Baby, you're the finest!!". ??


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> I absolutely appreciate Mozart! But given the choice I wouldn't listen to it. The harpsichord/recit alone makes me suicidal lol


Funny! I actually listen to composers I appreciate!


----------



## itarbrt

To me , the greatest opera ever written is Orfeo + Monteverdi ; from there all has begun .


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> Funny! I actually listen to composers I appreciate!


Not me lol. I appreciate all the great composers for their contributions. I could never do what they do. But that doesn't mean I enjoy their music.


----------



## Sloe

Bonetan said:


> I absolutely appreciate Mozart! But given the choice I wouldn't listen to it. The harpsichord/recit alone makes me suicidal lol


Agree. I prefer his operas in German. I really think something wonderful happened with opera when the secco recitatives were dropped. My favourite opera is Iris by Pietro Mascagni.


----------



## gellio

Bonetan said:


> I absolutely appreciate Mozart! But given the choice I wouldn't listen to it. The harpsichord/recit alone makes me suicidal lol


I'm not a fan or recitative either, but it is easy to delete them out of your library, as most recordings have them on separate tracks. You can also indicate on any iTunes track when that track should start playing and when it should stop playing, so now, even on recordings were the recitative isn't on a separate track I can still avoid it.


----------



## gellio

DavidA said:


> Funny! I actually listen to composers I appreciate!


Mozart is incomparable in my opinion. I am also crazy about Wagner, the Russians, Verdi, Bellini and Donizetti, but I don't think any of them, or any other opera composer, has achieved the perfection Mozart has in his later operas. To me, there isn't a single moment in any of Mozart's operas (Idomeneo on) that doesn't have something interesting happen musically. I cannot say the same for any of the other opera composers I love.


----------



## Woodduck

gellio said:


> Mozart is incomparable in my opinion. I am also crazy about Wagner, the Russians, Verdi, Bellini and Donizetti, but I don't think any of them, or any other opera composer, has achieved the perfection Mozart has in his later operas. To me, there isn't a single moment in any of Mozart's operas (Idomeneo on) that doesn't have something interesting happen musically. I cannot say the same for any of the other opera composers I love.


If perfection means consistently _interesting_ music throughout, then "perfection" becomes a subjective matter. Unlike you, I find Mozart's operas as uneven as Verdi's (excepting _Otello_ and _Falstaff_, which I find as evenly inspired as any operas in the repertoire). It really depends on what sort of music interests you. I am thoroughly absorbed by every moment of _Parsifal_, for example, and don't find Wotan's long dialogue with Brunnhilde in act 2 of _Die Walkure_ dull at all (assuming it's well performed, of course). On the other hand, there are gorgeous and powerful numbers in _Cosi fan tutte_ and _Don Giovanni_, but I don't find what surrounds them equally compelling. It just isn't possible (probably) for a composer to set every moment of a dramatic text with equal inspiration, although Classical opera has a built in advantage: prosaic dialogue can be consigned to recitatives which aren't expected to be great music (and boy are they not!). Verdi, Wagner and Puccini didn't have that option, and so maintaining the interest was a monumental challenge which, in my estimation, they met as well as anyone, though certainly not in every work.


----------



## Pugg

DavidA said:


> Funny! I actually listen to composers I appreciate!


Keep it that way David, and my motto is the same.


----------



## Phil loves classical

How about the worst opera ever written? Supposed Pelleas and Melisande is almost universally accepted as one of the worst.

http://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> How about the worst opera ever written? Supposed Pelleas and Melisande is almost universally accepted as one of the worst.
> 
> http://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf


Haha. That David C F Wright DMus is quite the prankster. Or quite the blithering idiot.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Woodduck said:


> Haha. That David C F Wright DMus is quite the prankster. Or quite the blithering idiot.


After reading a dozen of his articles on certain composers, I've noticed a disturbing pattern in his is approach to music criticism. It goes like this:
A. This composer is homosexual, or sexually immoral, therefore,
B. His music is poor.

Or is it rather like this?:
A. I don't like this composer's music, therefore,
B. This composer must be homosexual, or sexually immoral, and,
C. His music is poor.


----------



## Woodduck

Well, that answers my question.


----------



## Pugg

Phil loves classical said:


> After reading a dozen of his articles on certain composers, I've noticed a disturbing pattern in his is approach to music criticism. It goes like this:
> A. This composer is homosexual, or sexually immoral, therefore,
> B. His music is poor.
> 
> Or is it rather like this?:
> A. I don't like this composer's music, therefore,
> B. This composer must be homosexual, or sexually immoral, and,
> C. His music is poor.


That's called being biased , read of some threads on this site .....


----------



## doctorjohn

Lohengrin is my fave Wgner


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Haha. That David C F Wright DMus is quite the prankster. Or quite the blithering idiot.


Wright has a strange way of dealing with composers and performers. He says Karajan was not a great conductor because he was vain and such men do not make great conductors. Well that just about rules out 99% of competent conductors. 
As Culshaw once said about Krips that he was 'very vain in a profession where modesty is rare.' 
I have recently read a biography of Beecham who comes across as a self-obsessed, often unpleasant individual who used his famed wit to mask his own insecurities. But of his conducting? Sheer genius!
I am always amazed that a man like Wright who has musical qualifications can come up with such daft subjective statements. Yet you only have to listen to some of the music critics to know they can!


----------



## Dongiovanni

Don Giovanni, no surprise there  Still, after 10 years of more and more opera, the ones that come close are Don Carlo, Nozze di Figaro. And, not an opera but there are undeniably theatrical qualities in the Matthew Passion.


----------



## Dongiovanni

Bonetan said:


> In that case I'm going with Tristan. I admit to a strong Wagner bias. I consider Mozart to be children's music by comparison. I'm know I'm out of line to say that, but its how I feel. I've tried to enjoy Mozart (Don G is in my car right now), but it ain't going well lol


There is one famous quote from the pianist Arthur Schnabel on the piano sonatas of Mozart, that also applies to his opera's:

"Mozart is too easy for children, but too difficult for professionals."


----------



## Op.123

For me, I'd say the ten greatest operas ever written are:

1: Mozart - Le Nozze di Figaro
2: Wagner - Der Ring des Nibelungen 
3: Verdi - Don Carlo
4: Mozart - Don Giovanni
5: Verdi - La Traviata
6: Wagner - Parsifal
7: Wagner - Tristan und Isolde
8: Prokofiev - War and Peace
9: Verdi - Otello
10: Puccini - Tosca


----------



## Pugg

Don Carlo/ s still on top for me,


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> Don Carlo/ s still on top for me,


_Don Carlo/Don Carlos_ is an anomaly. I would call it either the greatest among the most flawed operas or the most flawed among the greatest operas. No one, including Verdi, has ever been sure in which of its forms, or in what combination of them, it ought to be performed to best effect. The only thing nearly everyone agrees on is that it contains some of Verdi's most powerful music. That final act is a stunner - up to but not including the rather baffling and anticlimactic ending. Does Verdi the realist suddenly become a symbolist, or is poor disappearing Carlo/s still alive somewhere - maybe enjoying a perpetual vacation on the Mediterranean, laughing at the world's puzzlement?


----------



## dgee

Wozzeck, probably


----------



## Pugg

Woodduck said:


> _Don Carlo/Don Carlos_ is an anomaly. I would call it either the greatest among the most flawed operas or the most flawed among the greatest operas. No one, including Verdi, has ever been sure in which of its forms, or in what combination of them, it ought to be performed to best effect. The only thing nearly everyone agrees on is that it contains some of Verdi's most powerful music. That final act is a stunner - up to but not including the rather baffling and anticlimactic ending. Does Verdi the realist suddenly become a symbolist, or is poor disappearing Carlo/s still alive somewhere - maybe enjoying a perpetual vacation on the Mediterranean, laughing at the world's puzzlement?


Thank you Mr.Duck but I know what_ I like _and that is the question in this matter.


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> Thank you Mr.Duck but I know what_ I like _and that is the question in this matter.


Why, Pugg dear, _of course_ you know what you like! Don't we all? I like Don C. too. But is it impermissible to comment on the works being mentioned? And didn't the image of Carlo/s on perpetual vacation even prompt a quickly suppressed smile?


----------



## mountmccabe

Woodduck said:


> _Don Carlo/Don Carlos_ is an anomaly. I would call it either the greatest among the most flawed operas or the most flawed among the greatest operas. No one, including Verdi, has ever been sure in which of its forms, or in what combination of them, it ought to be performed to best effect. The only thing nearly everyone agrees on is that it contains some of Verdi's most powerful music. That final act is a stunner - up to but not including the rather baffling and anticlimactic ending. Does Verdi the realist suddenly become a symbolist, or is poor disappearing Carlo/s still alive somewhere - maybe enjoying a perpetual vacation on the Mediterranean, laughing at the world's puzzlement?


The production at SFO last summer went for the realist approach throughout. For the very end, the Carlo V monk did not appear on stage (though his voice was heard) and Don Carlo was just dragged off to prison by guards. I don't think that does anything for the opera, which is rather a historical to begin with. The 4-act Italian version starts with the appearance of the Carlo V monk and his warning and ends with him coming back putting an end to everything. For all our machinations, we are not in control. Don Carlo being dragged to the tomb also offers a nice contrast with the condemned souls rising to heaven in the auto-de-fé.

Reality doesn't necessarily matter, but I do think Verdi/Méry/du Locle/Schiller were going for a poetic representation of reality. Don Carlo really did die a few months after being imprisoned. Elisabetta really did die a few months later (in childbirth), as seems to fit with "Tu che le vanità."

Also the Fontainbleau act is nice, and it adds depth to Elisabetta and the love story between her and Don Carlo, but I find that that unbalances the work. The love story is, to me, not what makes this opera special. Though I do admit that since it was originally written in French and opens in France, there is more of Don Carlo (and Elisabetta?) crying about a lost love than there would be were it written without the Fontainbleau act in the first place.

EDIT: just to clarify, I think it's a great opera no matter what. The 4-act version fits my preferences, but there are trade-offs. This is one reason only of the shallowest productions (such as the one I saw at SFO) could be used for both versions. (Though, to be clear, the cast (and the score) meant that this was still exceptional in performance).


----------



## Tchaikov6

dgee said:


> Wozzeck, probably


Wozzeck is simply stunning! Maybe the greatest opera of the 20th century... but I wouldn't say the greatest of all time. My top 20 greatest operas (In no order):

1. Andrea Chenier- Giordano
2. Fidelio- Beethoven
3. Stiffelio- Verdi (Sooo underrated, amazing work!)
4. Satyagraha- Glass (I really don't like much of Glass's work, but this is one of his greatest pieces!)
5. Parsifal- Wagner
6. Die tote Stadt- Korngold
7. William Tell- Rossini
8. Adriana Lecouvreur- Cilea
9. Doktor Faust- Busoni
10. Saint François d'Assise- Messiaen
11. Thesee- Lully
12. Tristan und Isolde- Wagner
13. Bluebeard's Castle- Bartok
14. La Traviata- Verdi
15. Eugene Onegin- Tchaikovsky
16. War and Peace- Prokofiev
17. Giulio Cesare- Handel
18. Benevenuto Cellini- Berlioz
19. Wozzeck- Berg
20. The Ring- Wagner

Yes, no Mozart. No Puccini. No Strauss.


----------



## Pugg

Tchaikov6 said:


> Wozzeck is simply stunning! Maybe the greatest opera of the 20th century... but I wouldn't say the greatest of all time. My top 20 greatest operas (In no order):
> 
> 1. Andrea Chenier- Giordano
> 2. Fidelio- Beethoven
> 3. Stiffelio- Verdi (Sooo underrated, amazing work!)
> 4. Satyagraha- Glass (I really don't like much of Glass's work, but this is one of his greatest pieces!)
> 5. Parsifal- Wagner
> 6. Die tote Stadt- Korngold
> 7. William Tell- Rossini
> 8. Adriana Lecouvreur- Cilea
> 9. Doktor Faust- Busoni
> 10. Saint François d'Assise- Messiaen
> 11. Thesee- Lully
> 12. Tristan und Isolde- Wagner
> 13. Bluebeard's Castle- Bartok
> 14. La Traviata- Verdi
> 15. Eugene Onegin- Tchaikovsky
> 16. War and Peace- Prokofiev
> 17. Giulio Cesare- Handel
> 18. Benevenuto Cellini- Berlioz
> 19. Wozzeck- Berg
> 20. The Ring- Wagner
> 
> Yes, no Mozart. No Puccini. No Strauss.


How hard can I scream


----------



## Tchaikov6

Pugg said:


> How hard can I scream


Sorry... Puccini's Madama Butterfly and Mozart's Marriage of Figaro are in my list of top 10 _favorite_ operas, but I don't thin they're that great...


----------



## Pugg

Tchaikov6 said:


> Sorry... Puccini's Madama Butterfly and Mozart's Marriage of Figaro are in my list of top 10 _favorite_ operas, but I don't thin they're that great...


Now I get it, thanks . :cheers:


----------



## VladaNS

Hi to all, i am a newbie at this forum 
I just LOVE Italian composers!
1) Puccini's "Tosca" 
2) Puccini "La bohème"
3) Verdi "Macbeth"
Those 3 are my absolute favorites.


----------



## Bertali

A very difficult question to answer... but... maybe not the greatest ever written... ?!?

​









I borrowed this and a couple of other operas from my brother when I decided at least try listening to opera, never looked back since. For me this is one of the greatest operas written but maybe not accepted as one of the greatest by critics and public.


----------



## Pugg

Bertali said:


> A very difficult question to answer... but... maybe not the greatest ever written... ?!?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I borrowed this and a couple of other operas from my brother when I decided at least try listening to opera, never looked back since. For me this is one of the greatest operas written but maybe not accepted as one of the greatest by critics and public.


In any case a monumental recording. :angel:


----------



## hpowders

Les Troyens by Berlioz is the greatest opera ever written.

Honorable mention to Die Götterdämmerung by Wagner, which may substitute whenever Les Troyens isn't available.

I know many of you must be exclaiming, "Oh dämm it!! Why did he pick the Berlioz. Ruined my Sunday!!"


----------



## Bettina

I don't know about greatest, but Mozart's Don Giovanni is my favorite. It has everything that matters to me in an opera: comedy, tragedy, social commentary, musical unity, memorable melodies...

Some of Wagner's operas come close, but the comedic element is missing from most of them (with the exception of Die Meistersinger). For me personally, I prefer operas that strike a balance between humor and heartbreak!


----------



## Pugg

Bettina said:


> I don't know about greatest, but Mozart's Don Giovanni is my favorite. It has everything that matters to me in an opera: comedy, tragedy, social commentary, musical unity, memorable melodies...
> 
> Some of Wagner's operas come close, but the comedic element is missing from most of them (with the exception of Die Meistersinger). For me personally, I prefer operas that strike a balance between humor and heartbreak!


Which part is yours?
Donna Anna or Donna Elvira.
( I had you down for Cosi fan Tutte by the way.)


----------



## Bettina

Pugg said:


> Which part is yours?
> Donna Anna or Donna Elvira.
> ( I had you down for Cosi fan Tutte by the way.)


If I could play any part in Don Giovanni, it would definitely be Donna Elvira. I like her fiery temperament and determination!


----------



## Woodduck

Bettina said:


> If I could play any part in Don Giovanni, it would definitely be Donna Elvira. I like her fiery temperament and determination!


Determination to make herself miserable. She keeps throwing herself at a scoundrel and complains incessantly when he acts like one. She needs to get a life.


----------



## Pugg

Woodduck said:


> Determination to make herself miserable. She keeps throwing herself at a scoundrel and complains incessantly when he acts like one. She needs to get a life.


Just like real life Mr. Wood, don't we all.


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> Just like real life Mr. Wood, don't we all.


You wouldn't be telling us about your relationship history...?


----------



## Pugg

Woodduck said:


> You wouldn't be telling us about your relationship history...?


Only in private, not enough for composing another opera.


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> Only in private, not enough for composing another opera.


How about "Puggliacci"? Or maybe "Puggsifal"?


----------



## Pugg

Woodduck said:


> How about "Puggliacci"? Or maybe "Puggsifal"?


The first would be the best, not ready for the other .


----------



## Itullian

Gotterdammerung :clap:

Troyens


----------



## Larkenfield

I consider Bizet's "Carmen" as the quintessentially greatest opera ever written. Not only is it popular and enduring for its earthiness and beautiful melodies, but it's beloved. As much as the Wagner operas are ambitious works of genius, I consider them more respected and admired as impressive achievements rather than as being beloved.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Determination to make herself miserable. She keeps throwing herself at a scoundrel and complains incessantly when he acts like one. She needs to get a life.


Like Gilda and that infernal bounder, the Duke.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> I consider Bizet's "Carmen" as the quintessentially greatest opera ever written, for not only is it popular for its beautiful melodies but it's beloved. As much as the Wagner operas are works of genius, I consider them more respected, enjoyed and admired as impressive achievements than being beloved.


Carmen is certainly one of the greatest of all operas and its popularity shouldn't hide that fact that it is scored wonderfully. It aroused the admiration of Richard Strauss who said, "If you want to learn how to orchestrate, don't study Wagner's scores - study the score of Carmen."


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> I consider Bizet's "Carmen" as the quintessentially greatest opera ever written. Not only is it popular and enduring for its earthiness and beautiful melodies, but it's beloved. As much as the Wagner operas are ambitious works of genius, I consider them more respected and admired as impressive achievements rather than as being beloved.


_Carmen_ is a superbly written opera, very melodious and entertaining, and as frequently performed as any over the years. Who can resist a sexy gypsy (I can, but let that go)? But I wonder what "beloved" means, and how we can be sure who "loves" what. Wagner's operas - and for that matter other extraordinary works such as Verdi's _Falstaff,_ Mussorgsky's _Boris Godunov_ and Debussy's _Pelleas et Melisande_ - are not warm and fuzzy and are never going to be as popular as catchy tunefests like _Carmen_ and _La Traviata_. But _Carmen_ and _Traviata_ aren't as popular as Beyonce either. Can we really put greatness up for a popular vote, or might this be a valid role for an electoral college?

I feel pretty certain that the sold-out houses at performances of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ are not filled with people who merely admire the operas as impressive achievements. I do know what my reasons for attending would be, and "respect" wouldn't be one of them.


----------



## SixFootScowl

*Greatest opera ever written has to be from the very master himself, Ludwig van Beethoven.

So it is Fidelio. *

However, I could argue for the greatness of many of Wagner's operas, or Tosca, or others. But I do think I cannot include such as Barber of Seville or other comedy opera, because the very idea of greatness seems (in my mind) to exclude comedy and warrants a serious plot.

I really do feel that Fidelio has to be the greatest because of the very high ideals it presents.


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> _Carmen_ is a superbly written opera, very melodious and entertaining, and as frequently performed as any over the years. Who can resist a sexy gypsy (I can, but let that go)? But I wonder what "beloved" means, and how we can be sure who "loves" what. Wagner's operas - and for that matter other extraordinary works such as Verdi's _Falstaff,_ Mussorgsky's _Boris Godunov_ and Debussy's _Pelleas et Melisande_ - are not warm and fuzzy and are never going to be as popular as catchy tunefests like _Carmen_ and _La Traviata_. But _Carmen_ and _Traviata_ aren't as popular as Beyonce either. Can we really put greatness up for a popular vote, or might this be a valid role for an electoral college?
> 
> I feel pretty certain that the sold-out houses at performances of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ are not filled with people who merely admire the operas as impressive achievements. I do know what my reasons for attending would be, and "respect" wouldn't be one of them.


Yeah, but Carmen may be the most difficult role ever!! A sexy gypsy, beautiful figure, who can both sing and dance seductively. No thanks, I'm busy. I'm waiting for the call for me to sing Mimí.


----------



## howlingfantods

It's amazing how many more people in this thread pick Don Carlo over Otello or Aida. I love Don Carlo and think it has many of Verdi's most beautiful moments, but it's a blatantly flawed opera with a transcendentally silly ending, a central romance that's a dud, a passive and reactive lead character, and with most of the great musical moments given to the secondary characters. 

While the first two acts of Aida aren't to my tastes, it is overall a much more skillful and effective piece of theatrical drama, and everything from the Nile Scene on ranks with anything in Don Carlo. And Otello is easily the most fascinating, effective, dramatic, and beautiful Verdi, the only opera that prevents Wagner from sweeping my personal top 10.

It feels like Don Carlo was so underrated for so long that it became overrated because people argued about it being underrated.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

4'33" performance art


----------



## SixFootScowl

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> 4'33" performance art


I guess it is as much an opera as it is a symphony or other, which is to say not much of anything.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Florestan said:


> I guess it is as much an opera as it is a symphony or other, which is to say not much of anything.


Its fits all genres, a piece for all occasions


----------



## Lensky

The greatest Opera ever written?

From now to eternity: *Don Giovanni*


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven begs to differ. " 'Die Zauberflote' will always remain Mozart's greatest work, for in it he for the first time showed himself to be a German musician. 'Don Juan' still has the complete Italian cut; besides, our sacred art ought never permit itself to be degraded to the level of a foil for so scandalous a subject."


----------



## SixFootScowl

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Its fits all genres, a piece for all occasions


Or for no occasion!


----------



## Woodduck

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Its fits all genres, a piece for all occasions


It can even be performed by the dead.


----------



## Woodduck

Lensky said:


> The greatest Opera ever written?
> 
> From now to eternity: *Don Giovanni*


Eternity is now, and now has no duration.

Onward to _Tristan_.


----------



## Timothy

I love opera, thank you for this thread


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> It's amazing how many more people in this thread pick Don Carlo over Otello or Aida. I love Don Carlo and think it has many of Verdi's most beautiful moments, but it's a blatantly flawed opera with a transcendentally silly ending, a central romance that's a dud, a passive and reactive lead character, and with most of the great musical moments given to the secondary characters.
> 
> While the first two acts of Aida aren't to my tastes, it is overall a much more skillful and effective piece of theatrical drama, and everything from the Nile Scene on ranks with anything in Don Carlo. And Otello is easily the most fascinating, effective, dramatic, and beautiful Verdi, the only opera that prevents Wagner from sweeping my personal top 10.
> 
> It feels like Don Carlo was so underrated for so long that it became overrated because people argued about it being underrated.


I agree about _Don Carlo._ Its best music is among Verdi's greatest, but it isn't as satisfying an entity as any number of his other works. I put _Otello_ and _Falstaff_ among the greatest of all operas, and _Aida_ is (mostly) musically superb, though I notice that a considerable number of people (including me) are less than fond of it. I feel the characters as pretty one-dimensional, and their rather commonplace soap opera is not enhanced but further diminished by elephants, pyramids, and pseudo-Egyptian harmonies.


----------



## Pugg

Timothy said:


> I love opera, thank you for this thread


Glad you like it, feel free to participate whenever you like.


----------



## Bonetan

Lensky said:


> The greatest Opera ever written?
> 
> From now to eternity: *Don Giovanni*


Not a fan. I've tried sooo hard to enjoy it too.


----------



## Amara

An interesting question would be, "Greatest non-Wagner opera?" since it's hard to compare anything to a 4-piece work like the Ring. And Tristan und Isolde is also a good contender.

My answer to the above would be Der Rosenkavalier, which is also a good example of comedy as high art.


----------



## Bonetan

Amara said:


> An interesting question would be, "Greatest non-Wagner opera?" since it's hard to compare anything to a 4-piece work like the Ring. And Tristan und Isolde is also a good contender.


I think you are right. I'm no expert, but I imagine its hard for a work of art in any medium to stand up to the Ring, let alone opera. I have been completely fascinated by it since the 1st day I knew of it & my passion for it only grows stronger with time. & I know I'm just one of many who feel this way. Is there anything else in opera that can elicit such a response from so many people? Only Tristan perhaps...


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Bonetan said:


> Not a fan. I've tried sooo hard to enjoy it too.


Have you seen Joseph Losey's film?


----------



## Bonetan

SimonTemplar said:


> Have you seen Joseph Losey's film?


No I haven't, but I just looked it up. You highly recommend?


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Bonetan said:


> No I haven't, but I just looked it up. You highly recommend?


Both highly and strongly! (Two for the price of one.)


----------



## Pugg

SimonTemplar said:


> Both highly and strongly! (Two for the price of one.)


I agree even if it is a little bit O.T.T .


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Pugg said:


> I agree even if it is a little bit O.T.T .


This is opera! It _should_ be O.T.T.!


----------



## Rossiniano

Don Giovanni! There can be no other. Perhaps I'm biased because it was the first standard repertory piece that I listened to all the way through when quite young. I never made it through Traviata as a youngster, but in retrospect it was probably that I realized that something was wrong because it was in the onld Decca Tebaldi recording and I stopped after the first act. The first opera that I listened to all the way through was Il Socrate Immaginario by Paisiello and I loved it! Next came Don Giovanni in the Giulini recording. It was also my first opera recording, a Christmas gift... the Siepi Leinsdorf. 

As they sometimes say, "Your first is often the best"! Yet Don Giovanni has it all! Mozart and DePonte explore ever human emotion and the roller coaster ride takes one even to the deep recesses of hell! What can be better! To this day it makes my blood boil. Interestingly, I can't put any of Mozart's other operas in the same class. Some of his sublime piano concerti yes... and especially the two minor key specimens K. 466 and 492, but none of his other operas, as fine as they are, really do it for me!


----------



## gellio

Rossiniano said:


> Don Giovanni! There can be no other. Perhaps I'm biased because it was the first standard repertory piece that I listened to all the way through when quite young. I never made it through Traviata as a youngster, but in retrospect it was probably that I realized that something was wrong because it was in the onld Decca Tebaldi recording and I stopped after the first act. The first opera that I listened to all the way through was Il Socrate Immaginario by Paisiello and I loved it! Next came Don Giovanni in the Giulini recording. It was also my first opera recording, a Christmas gift... the Siepi Leinsdorf.
> 
> As they sometimes say, "Your first is often the best"! Yet Don Giovanni has it all! Mozart and DePonte explore ever human emotion and the roller coaster ride takes one even to the deep recesses of hell! What can be better! To this day it makes my blood boil. Interestingly, I can't put any of Mozart's other operas in the same class. Some of his sublime piano concerti yes... and especially the two minor key specimens K. 466 and 492, but none of his other operas, as fine as they are, really do it for me!


I would agree with this, except for one problem - _Le nozze di Figaro_. It is the most perfect opera, in my opinion. I do love _Don Giovanni_ and really all of Mozart's mature operas. I find myself completely in love and listening to _Figaro_ more than anything else.


----------



## gellio

DavidA said:


> I think it's pointless debating whether Mozart would have set tristan to music any more than Wagner would have set Figaro or Cosi to music. it is a question that can never be answered. Each was so different anyway. The nearest Wagner got was Mastersingers which frankly hasn't a fraction of Mozart's wit and does tend towards tedium in places. The point is we are discussing the greatest opera ever written. You are saying Tristan which I disagree with. I prefer Mozart so it is quite obvious I will compare Mozart to the detriment of Wagner in this case. That is not rubbishing Wagner it is just making my point. I believe Mozart was the greater opera composer imo. I have no problem with you disagreeing but please allow me to state that. This is not a slight on Wagner. After all, as Richard himself said:"Is it possible to find anything more perfect than every piece in 'Don Giovanni'? (Oper und Drama)


I absolutely love Wagner. But I agree with you. Mozart was the single supreme master of operatic out point. Whether one loves Mozart or not, I don't think you can really argue otherwise. He has such an amazing talent for portraying human emotion and giving us one brilliant idea after another. There's not a single moment in ANY of Mozart's works that I am not completely enthralled. I cannot say the same for my beloved Wagner. Sometimes I'm just like come on....it just drags and drags and drags. More is not always better.


----------



## gellio

DavidA said:


> The obviously candidate as composer is Mozart who wrote the four greatest operas in his short life.
> 
> I think the da Ponte operas are probably the greatest though which of them happens to be the ne I am listening to at the time.
> 
> I'd also mention Verdi's Falstaff as the greatest opera after Mzart.


Assuming you're talking about Flute, Figaro, Cosi and Giovanni here, but I would have to add Clemenza - such a monumentally great work that often gets the shaft. You could also definitely include Idoemeneo and Abduction in a greatest operas list for sure.


----------



## gellio

DavidA said:


> Your problem is that you don't apoear to realise how innovative and revolutionary Mozart actually was. A work like Figaro in its subject and treatment compketely changed opera. To me (and I dn't equate power with noise nor transcendence with complexity) Mzart has a power, a sublimity, a transcendence that eludes most other composers. As Bernstein said: ' mMozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.' To me only Bach and Beethoven belong in the same league althoigh Handel is making out a good case for himself at the moment! As for coaches and cnductors - well, maybe you talk to the wrong people! Just take composer Charles Gounod: 'Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.' Or conductor George Szell: Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
> Wagner is a composer I listen to when I'm in the mood. For Mozart I'm always in the mood!


Absolutely - Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the three greatest composers whom ever lived. Absolutely. It simply cannot be denied. Their contributions to classical music are simply greater than all others. Mozart and Beethoven are my two favorites, but Bach is not even close to being a favorite. It's more than just personal taste, it's contribution and sheer brilliance of composition.


----------



## Woodduck

gellio said:


> I absolutely love Wagner. But I agree with you. Mozart was the single supreme master of operatic out point. Whether one loves Mozart or not, *I don't think you can really argue otherwise.* He has such an amazing talent for portraying human emotion and giving us one brilliant idea after another. There's not a single moment in ANY of Mozart's works that I am not completely enthralled. I cannot say the same for my beloved Wagner. Sometimes I'm just like come on....it just drags and drags and drags. More is not always better.


:lol: Unfortunately, I _can_ argue otherwise. In fact, I _have_ argued it many times. I'm not denying Mozart's musical and dramatic genius in saying that for me none of his operas, for all their brilliance, achieve the profundity and power of the greatest art. _You_ may be enthralled by every moment of every work of Mozart, but I can find innumerable moments to be less than enthralled by. In fact, I can take or leave a great many of Mozart's sonatas, symphonies, concertos, divertimentos, masses, and so on, and I find his operas, for the most part, rather unexciting and, in the case of _Cosi_, unattractive as entities, regardless of an abundance of fine music. They simply don't do much for me, beyond affording me an evening of classy entertainment.

Both _Figaro_ and _Don Giovanni_ have been called "perfect" operas, but whatever anyone means by that, perfection isn't all that interesting; _Fidelio_ is a distinctly imperfect opera, but it moves me in a way that Mozart's operas never do. I find upstairs-downstairs intrigue like that in the Almaviva household a yawn, especially when the great tunes are separated by yards of secco recitative. My patience is sorely tried by all those unemployed people in crinolines and their insipid boyfriends whingeing about the psychopath they couldn't say no to. And let's not even start talking about how "this is what all women do"! The only Mozart opera I come close to loving is _Zauberflote;_ I'm enchanted by its childlike fantasy and the deceptive simplicity of its melodies, and Bergman's film of it is my all-time favorite Mozart experience (I chuckle at the moment where Sarastro is seen studying the role of Gurnemanz backstage).

I want to be shaken up and changed by art, and I fear that Mozart's earthbound, worldly social comedies don't invite me to realms of the spirit where those things can happen. If an opera can do that, I don't care whether it's "perfect."


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> I want to be shaken up and changed by art, and I fear that Mozart's earthbound, worldly social comedies don't invite me to realms of the spirit where those things can happen. If an opera can do that, I don't care whether it's "perfect."


To me honestly Beethoven's music feels more 'earthbound' than Mozart's. Beethoven's music seems to reflect the kind of struggle that seems representative of the material world, where Mozart's music seems to reflect a kind of youthful joy that I find a highly spiritual quality in. (I'm speaking more about the music itself here than the actual subject matter of the Opera, the former for me is generally more important).

I think it is most possible to be 'shaken up' and 'changed' by an intense experience of joy which is every bit as valid the same effect being caused by struggle or hardship. (Not that either Beethoven or Mozart are so one-dimensional that there music doesn't encompass aspects of both.)

To me the music itself speaks louder than words, for example Wagner. I love his music, and I know he delves into some deeper spiritual issues in his work, but I'm not convinced he really sheds much light on anything as far as the non-musical content goes. His Operas tend to leave a lot of questions rather than leaving a sense of some kind of spiritual knowledge gleaned or enlightenment attained - for me anyway. These inconclusive conclusions seem more symbolic of the material world (or a man trying to reconcile the divine with the rational mind) than the actual spiritual realm where I feel true joy resides and the paradoxes are resolved.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> :lol: Unfortunately, I _can_ argue otherwise. In fact, I _have_ argued it many times. I'm not denying Mozart's musical and dramatic genius in saying that for me none of his operas, for all their brilliance, achieve the profundity and power of the greatest art. _You_ may be enthralled by every moment of every work of Mozart, but I can find innumerable moments to be less than enthralled by. In fact, I can take or leave a great many of Mozart's sonatas, symphonies, concertos, divertimentos, masses, and so on, and I find his operas, for the most part, rather unexciting and, in the case of _Cosi_, unattractive as entities, regardless of an abundance of fine music. They simply don't do much for me, beyond affording me an evening of classy entertainment.
> 
> Both _Figaro_ and _Don Giovanni_ have been called "perfect" operas, but whatever anyone means by that, perfection isn't all that interesting; _Fidelio_ is a distinctly imperfect opera, but it moves me in a way that Mozart's operas never do. I find upstairs-downstairs intrigue like that in the Almaviva household a yawn, especially when the great tunes are separated by yards of secco recitative. My patience is sorely tried by all those unemployed people in crinolines and their insipid boyfriends whingeing about the psychopath they couldn't say no to. And let's not even start talking about how "this is what all women do"! The only Mozart opera I come close to loving is _Zauberflote;_ I'm enchanted by its childlike fantasy and the deceptive simplicity of its melodies, and Bergman's film of it is my all-time favorite Mozart experience (I chuckle at the moment where Sarastro is seen studying the role of Gurnemanz backstage).
> 
> I want to be shaken up and changed by art, and I fear that Mozart's earthbound, worldly social comedies don't invite me to realms of the spirit where those things can happen. If an opera can do that, I don't care whether it's "perfect."


I didn't bother writing my thoughts on this subject because I knew Woodduck would express them in a way I never could. My thoughts exactly


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I didn't bother writing my thoughts on this subject because I knew Woodduck would express them in a way I never could. My thoughts exactly


That'll be fifty cents per word.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> To me honestly Beethoven's music feels more 'earthbound' than Mozart's. Beethoven's music seems to reflect the kind of struggle that seems representative of the material world, where Mozart's music seems to reflect a kind of youthful joy that I find a highly spiritual quality in. (I'm speaking more about the music itself here than the actual subject matter of the Opera, the former for me is generally more important).
> 
> I think it is most possible to be 'shaken up' and 'changed' by an intense experience of joy which is every bit as valid the same effect being caused by struggle or hardship. (Not that either Beethoven or Mozart are so one-dimensional that there music doesn't encompass aspects of both.)
> 
> To me the music itself speaks louder than words, for example Wagner. I love his music, and I know he delves into some deeper spiritual issues in his work, but *I'm not convinced he really sheds much light on anything as far as the non-musical content goes. His Operas tend to leave a lot of questions rather than leaving a sense of some kind of spiritual knowledge gleaned or enlightenment attained* - for me anyway. These inconclusive conclusions seem more symbolic of the material world (or a man trying to reconcile the divine with the rational mind) than *the actual spiritual realm where I feel true joy resides and the paradoxes are resolved.*


You're defining "spiritual" rather narrowly, I think. I've never lived in a "spiritual realm where I feel true joy resides and the paradoxes are resolved," and I suspect that such a realm might be a wee bit boring. It's the questions and doubts and upsettings of the familiar that enlarge us, and I get more of that out of Wagner, Mussorgsky, Debussy, Britten, etc. than I do out of Mozart. Mozart's works, in their power to express personality and situation, certainly do cut deeper than the typical opera of his time, which was after all the "age of reason" that regarded too much invasion of unchanneled emotion into the conscious mind as a psychological disorder, a character flaw, or simply poor taste. That's what Romanticism was out to change, and in fact we find stirrings of Romanticism in Mozart (Don Giovanni's "damnation" music being the most obvious example). Romantic art looked for realms of the imagination where the subconscious elements of human experience could be released from the discipline of 18th-century social and moral strictures, and often found them in myth and legend, as well as in remote times and places. _Fidelio_ was still a work representative of Enlightenment morality, but Beethoven imbued it with the revolutionary spirit of the new era. Weber's _Der Freischutz_ opened up the domain of folklore and magic, initiating a whole new genre of German opera that culminated in Wagner's psycho-mythological explorations, which in turn spun off Strauss, Berg, and Britten. (Italian opera of the Romantic and Modernist periods, from bel canto to verismo, represents another branch of Romanticism, but I want to keep this short).

Mozart represents a pinnacle of operatic achievement, without question, but for my taste he's too constrained by the sensibilities of his time. Do all men, as well as all women, do it? Will the count keep on philandering even after asking forgiveness? Does the Don get his just deserts (after all, he's the only interesting character in the opera), and will Donna Elvira ever get a life, and what does Donna Anna see in Ottavio besides the fact that he can sing a long melisma on one breath? I don't find that such mundane questions keep me awake after the opera is over - nothing like wondering what the Holy Grail is and why the Sacred Spear must never be used in battle, and why Kundry must die. But that's my bias toward the subconscious and the symbolic, and toward music that takes me by the hand, or the throat, and leads me on a journey through uncharted wormholes where I can meet characters I wouldn't meet in "real life." Opera isn't about asking questions or answering them, but if I'm to choose a "greatest" opera (or poem, or painting, or play), I want it to make me feel that there might be questions and answers I wouldn't have suspected the existence of.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> You're defining "spiritual" rather narrowly, I think. I've never lived in a "spiritual realm where I feel true joy resides and the paradoxes are resolved," and I suspect that such a realm might be a wee bit boring. It's the questions and doubts and upsettings of the familiar that enlarge us, and I get more of that out of Wagner, Mussorgsky, Debussy, Britten, etc. than I do out of Mozart. Mozart's works, in their power to express personality and situation, certainly do cut deeper than the typical opera of his time, which was after all the "age of reason" that regarded too much invasion of unchanneled emotion into the conscious mind as a psychological disorder, a character flaw, or simply poor taste. That's what Romanticism was out to change, and in fact we find stirrings of Romanticism in Mozart (Don Giovanni's "damnation" music being the most obvious example). Romantic art looked for realms of the imagination where the subconscious elements of human experience could be released from the discipline of 18th-century social and moral strictures, and often found them in myth and legend, as well as in remote times and places. _Fidelio_ was still a work representative of Enlightenment morality, but Beethoven imbued it with the revolutionary spirit of the new era. Weber's _Der Freischutz_ opened up the domain of folklore and magic, initiating a whole new genre of German opera that culminated in Wagner's psycho-mythological explorations, which in turn spun off Strauss, Berg, and Britten. (Italian opera of the Romantic and Modernist periods, from bel canto to verismo, represents another branch of Romanticism, but I want to keep this short).
> 
> Mozart represents a pinnacle of operatic achievement, without question, but for my taste he's too constrained by the sensibilities of his time. Do all men, as well as all women, do it? Will the count keep on philandering even after asking forgiveness? Does the Don get his just deserts (after all, he's the only interesting character in the opera), and will Donna Elvira ever get a life, and what does Donna Anna see in Ottavio besides the fact that he can sing a long melisma on one breath? I don't find that such mundane questions keep me awake after the opera is over - nothing like wondering what the Holy Grail is and why the Sacred Spear must never be used in battle, and why Kundry must die. But that's my bias toward the subconscious and the symbolic, and toward music that takes me by the hand, or the throat, and leads me on a journey through uncharted wormholes where I can meet characters I wouldn't meet in "real life." Opera isn't about asking questions or answering them, but if I'm to choose a "greatest" opera (or poem, or painting, or play), I want it to make me feel that there might be questions and answers I wouldn't have suspected the existence of.


Some excellent points, but I think it is dangerous to box composers like Mozart or Bach into merely products of their time (as all composers are to some extent). I feel their music goes so far beyond whatever the limitations or fashions were of the time into the realm of a very pure vein of expression. I disagree with the line of thinking that "Mozart couldn't express himself fully because of such and such a convention" or "In Bach's time music was seen as a lowly form of art, merely putting sounds to express some kind of rhetoric - not true cathartic expression like Beethoven etc". (I know you have said nothing of Bach here in your posts).

It is good to be informed of the intellectual movements of the time but at the same time I think it is important to not subconsciously place the limitations of the time on these composers music, because I think they both transcended those limitations.

As far as the "realm of joy and balance" I've never lived in it either (in this lifetime anyway) but I sense it intuitively, and for me Mozart's music helps me connect to that realm. I think you are probably thinking of that state as a 'wee bit boring', because you are associating it with Mozart's music in your mind which doesn't quite do it for you. But if you imagine a time in your life when you felt true joy (whether being in love, or just feeling really great about something) when you are in that state you do not need a lot of drama to maintain the feeling. Just sitting and observing can feel amazing, one might even be able to observe the divine in the mundane. That is the kind of joy that I think Mozart's music expresses. Again I think of that realm as one of balance, not one where only good exists or there is no ego at all - those latter ideas do sound a bit boring to me.

So I'm just describing why I think Mozart's music is quite spiritual. I'm not arguing that his operas are better than everyone else. I think both Mozart and Wagner are top tier composers of opera. Weber's _Der Freischutz_ which you mentioned is probably my favorite non-Wagner Romantic era opera. Like yourself I'm fascinated by the subconscious and symbolism, but as I said I'm generally more concerned with the music itself than the subject matter in opera.


----------



## damianjb1

Is it possible for there to be one 'Greatest Opera'?
My FAVOURITE Opera's would be Don Giovanni, Parsifal and Don Carlos


----------



## PlaySalieri

Wooduck it depends what interests in you in opera.

Mozart's musical characterisations of unexceptional people charm and interest me much more than the big metaphysical quests and posturings of later composers. And I think you might agree - that in his own sphere he was probably the best at what he did.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> Wooduck it depends what interests in you in opera.
> 
> *Mozart's musical characterisations of unexceptional people charm and interest me much more than the big metaphysical quests and posturings of later composers.* And I think you might agree - that in his own sphere he was probably the best at what he did.


Oh absolutely! The fact is that I can identify with Mozart's characters in their joys and sorrows as they are real people. When we get into the realm of metaphysical posturing then you lose me. I cannot identify with it. I'm sure we can all identify with Mimi in Boheme rather than Turandot, for all the glory of the music. I am moved by Gilda and her father's relationship because we can identify with it. I can't say I am move the same by Wotan and Brunnhilde at all. I can be moved by Violetta but not by Isolde. It seems that Verdi and Mozart and some of Puccini do it for me. Rossini's Cenerentola does too. Wagner on the whole doesn't. So I think your point about metaphysical is right. Others I know see things differently but it's not because of their higher thinking but their personality.


----------



## Faustian

stomanek said:


> Wooduck it depends what interests in you in opera.
> 
> Mozart's musical characterisations of unexceptional people charm and interest me much more than the big metaphysical quests and posturings of later composers. And I think you might agree - that in his own sphere he was probably the best at what he did.


Exactly. Which is why hyperbolic declarations like "x composer is the absolute master of operatic output" are pointless and silly.



DavidA said:


> Oh absolutely! The fact is that I can identify with Mozart's characters in their joys and sorrows as they are real people. When we get into the realm of metaphysical posturing then you lose me. I cannot identify with it. I'm sure we can all identify with Mimi in Boheme rather than Turandot, for all the glory of the music. I am moved by Gilda and her father's relationship because we can identify with it. I can't say I am move the same by Wotan and Brunnhilde at all. I can be moved by Violetta but not by Isolde. It seems that Verdi and Mozart and some of Puccini do it for me. Rossini's Cenerentola does too. Wagner on the whole doesn't. So I think your point about metaphysical is right. Others I know see things differently but it's not because of their higher thinking but their personality.


A point you've made numerous times and yet I can never quite understand what you're getting at, to be honest. Wagner's characters and their relationships to one another trace all the intricacies and inner motivations of what it means to be human. I can't identify with what it means to be a hungry bohemian in the 19th century dying of tuberculosis anymore than I can identify with being aan ancient queen from Ireland who has fallen in love with the killer of my betrothed. But that doesn't make the way both Puccini and Wagner bring these characters to life absolutely real in our experience of them.

In any case, not all of Wagner's characters are "mythic" in staure -- by your standards even, characters like Eva, Pogner and Hans Sachs should be effortlessly relatable as "real" people living out the follies of their "real" lives.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Wooduck it depends what interests in you in opera.
> 
> Mozart's musical characterisations of unexceptional people charm and interest me much more than the big metaphysical quests and posturings of later composers. And I think you might agree - that in his own sphere he was probably the best at what he did.


I don't question that Mozart did what he did brilliantly. There's a reason why his operas remain popular and most others of his era are forgotten. They give us one memorable musical number after another. But why call the products of other artistic approaches "posturings"? That implies insincerity, and whatever else you can say about the operas of Beethoven, Weber, Bellini, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, Alfano, Mascagni, Dvorak, Mussorgsky, Shostakovich, Debussy, Berg, Britten and others writing in genres other than social comedy, I doubt that insincerity is a fair accusation you can level at them. Wagner certainly thought that Meyerbeer's grand operas were too interested in "effects without causes," and Strauss's Elektra and Salome do, in my judgment, have more than a whiff of sensationalism about them. But weren't most of the great operas genuine efforts to explore and express aspects of the human experience? Myth, fantasy, allegory and symbolism are time-honored artistic approaches to doing that, and there are reasons why they continue to exist alongside more naturalistic and literal ways of representing life.


----------



## howlingfantods

It's no secret that Wagner is my favorite and I have little interest in Mozart, and yet I'm capable of saying that without also arguing that it's an objective truth that what Mozart did is a lesser art than Wagner. I'm curious why the Mozart fans around here feel so compelled to make the reverse argument, repeatedly and incessantly.


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> A point you've made numerous times and yet I can never quite understand what you're getting at, to be honest. Wagner's characters and their relationships to one another trace all the intricacies and inner motivations of what it means to be human. I can't identify with what it means to be a hungry bohemian in the 19th century dying of tuberculosis anymore than I can identify with being aan ancient queen from Ireland who has fallen in love with the killer of my betrothed. But that doesn't make the way both Puccini and Wagner bring these characters to life absolutely real in our experience of them.
> 
> In any case, not all of Wagner's characters are "mythic" in staure -- by your standards even, characters like Eva, Pogner and Hans Sachs should be effortlessly relatable as "real" people living out the follies of their "real" lives.


I should have thought it was quite obvious what I was getting at. I have explained it exactly. But as I have said some people see things differently. You do allow that I suppose?


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> It's no secret that Wagner is my favorite and I have little interest in Mozart, and yet I'm capable of saying that without also arguing that it's an objective truth that what Mozart did is a lesser art than Wagner. I'm curious why the Mozart fans around here feel *so compelled to make the reverse argument, repeatedly and incessantly*.


Maybe it's because the other one is made repeatedly and incessantly!


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> Maybe it's because the other one is made repeatedly and incessantly!


I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realize you're the victim here. Terribly rude of us Wagnerians to always go into Mozart and Verdi threads and write half-baked arguments about how Mozart operas are too soft and short or desperately needed less editing or that it would be great if he could write about less realistic people (ignoring the characters from Magic Flute apparently).


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realize you're the victim here. Terribly rude of us Wagnerians to always go into Mozart and Verdi threads and write half-baked arguments about how Mozart operas are too soft and short or desperately needed less editing or that it would be great if he could write about less realistic people (ignoring the characters from Magic Flute apparently).


If a thread is about a certain composer then surely it is quite legitimate for those with certain opinions to post them. Op-inions which are to some half baked are shared by an awful lot of people outside the bubble of admirers. If a thread is 'Quotes about Wagner' then surely quotes from both sides of the argument - admirers and detractors - is legitimate? I've just read someone saying that he finds Mozart's operas uninspired'. I'm not going to get my hair off about that as that is that person's particular problem not mine. I'm so glad I've got so much joy out of them and feel so sad for the other guy!


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realize you're the victim here. Terribly rude of us Wagnerians to always go into Mozart and Verdi threads and write half-baked arguments about how Mozart operas are too soft and short or desperately needed less editing or that it would be great if he could write about less realistic people (ignoring the characters from Magic Flute apparently).


I really must remember that point about Mozart needing less realistic people, especially when _Cosi fan tutte_ is brought up. In real life one gets so desperately tired of folks going around pretending to be Albanians and seducing their best friends' lovers.


----------



## hpowders

OP: In real time, still Les Troyens by Berlioz. Second place, Götterdämmerung by Wagner.

The only downside is they are both extemely unforgiving regarding bathroom breaks.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> OP: In real time, still Les Troyens by Berlioz. Second place, Götterdämmerung by Wagner.
> 
> The only downside is they are both extemely unforgiving regarding bathroom breaks.


The problem is not their downside, but yours.


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> The problem is not their downside, but yours.


Yes. This is true, but I would gladly pay good Bitcoin to see both of these on successive nights, regardless of my potential discomfort.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I really must remember that point about Mozart needing less realistic people, especially when _Cosi fan tutte_ is brought up. In real life one gets so desperately tired of folks going around pretending to be Albanians and seducing their best friends' lovers.


I think most Mozart lovers would be like me in that we know the story of Cosi fan Tutre is pretty daft - it is a bittersweet farce after all - but we are prepared to suspend our disbelief as the music is so incredible. And within the farcical story, mozart's portrayal of human emotion is without peer among opera composers. Actually when you get past the sheer unlikelihood of the switch of characters, the libretto is a fantastic piece of construction by da Ponte. One of the great opera libretti. 
Similarly with the Magic Flute I don't think even Mozart's greatest admirers outside of Freemasonry would give much for the nonsense libretto. The music however is another thing! I have no problem as I don't believe that Mozart operas are some form of holy writ. They are what they are - supreme operas.


----------



## Bonetan

How can an opera with recit & the harpsichord be considered perfect? I ask that only half joking lol


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> How can an opera with recit & the harpsichord be considered perfect? I ask that only half joking lol


It's a good half-joke. I doubt that Mozart or any other composer of the period regarded opera as a form even potentially "perfect," since even at the time secco recitative was recognized as a sort of "semi-music" that lacked the intrinsic interest of arias and ensembles, and even those set pieces were apt to be shuffled around and altered according to the needs of singers or venues. Mozart made some major changes to the "perfect opera" _Don Giovanni_ after the premiere, and apparently the final scene of the opera was heard at the premiere but never thereafter during the opera's initial run, and was generally omitted during the 19th century. Opera is a hybrid art form presenting all sorts of practical problems, and composers (Verdi being a notable example) have always been willing to fiddle around with their works and leave us various performance options. Even Wagner left us a very lopsided _Tannhauser,_ with the Paris revision of Scene 1 giving us a thrilling post-Tristan orgy hardly congruent with the style of the rest of the opera.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bonetan said:


> How can an opera with recit & the harpsichord be considered perfect? I ask that only half joking lol


I dont see the problem people have with secco recitative.

the alternative that emerged in the 19thC - is relatively uninteresting music accompanying what would otherwise be the dialogue between the numbers (arias etc)

if you can understand what is going on in the dialogue - you wont have such an aversion to recitative.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> *I dont see the problem people have with secco recitative.*
> 
> the alternative that emerged in the 19thC - is relatively uninteresting music accompanying what would otherwise be the dialogue between the numbers (arias etc)
> 
> if you can understand what is going on in the dialogue - you wont have such an aversion to recitative.


I can understand an aversion to recitative if they are not written imaginatively. But when Mozart was on the job it was another matter. You only have to listen to Tito to hear the difference between Mozart and his pupil who filled in for him, competently but not imaginatively.


----------



## Woodduck

I've often wondered why secco recitative even exists. It reduces musical accompaniment to a bare minimum - little more than punctuation by the occasional chord on a keyboard as the singer spits out the words. It does give singers some expressive latitude in terms of pacing and inflection, but I don't see it having any advantage over spoken dialogue - quite the contrary, actually - except perhaps for singers who aren't very good at speaking. Maybe that's why it was used.

Secco recitative was going out of style at the turn of the century, and Mozart in _The Magic Flute_, Beethoven in _Fidelio_, and Weber in _Der Freischutz_ eliminate the chatter and the twang of the harpsichord and cast their operas in the form of _Singspiel,_ using spoken dialogue and orchestrally accompanied recitative where needed. Cherubini's _Medea_ (1797) was originally an _opera comique_, _Medee_, with spoken dialogue; accompanied recitatives were composed by Franz Lachner for an 1855 revival.

Secco recitative works perfectly well in the theater where you have action to watch, but for listening at home many find it annoying. I prefer to program most of it out. As far as spoken dialogue is concerned, I find it more interesting than secco recitative when it's done by good actors, although in a work like _Zauberflote_ the silliness can get tiresome once you know the opera reasonably well. Heretical as may be, I'd rather listen to "highlights" recordings of most 18th-century operas.


----------



## gellio

Woodduck said:


> Secco recitative works perfectly well in the theater where you have action to watch, but for listening at home many find it annoying. I prefer to program most of it out. As far as spoken dialogue is concerned, I find it more interesting than secco recitative when it's done by good actors, although in a work like _Zauberflote_ the silliness can get tiresome once you know the opera reasonably well. Heretical as may be, I'd rather listen to "highlights" recordings of most 18th-century operas.


I'm the same way. I delete the recitative from iTunes once I import a CD of work that contains recitative. Unless if it's accompanied recitative. It just gets tiresome and boring when you have no action happening. I just always wish Mozart had done away with it all together and had action pass through music, but that was not his time.


----------



## gellio

howlingfantods said:


> It's no secret that Wagner is my favorite and I have little interest in Mozart, and yet I'm capable of saying that without also arguing that it's an objective truth that what Mozart did is a lesser art than Wagner. I'm curious why the Mozart fans around here feel so compelled to make the reverse argument, repeatedly and incessantly.


I love Mozart and Wagner. Right now, I'm on a big Mozart kick. A few months down the line and I might not be listening to nothing but The Ring for a few months. These are not the only composers I love. I used to pause a Prokofiev and have a hard stop at Stravinsky, but I have just discovered Adams and am loving what I am hearing.

It does, however, go beyond personal preference. I think, as a whole body of work, Mozart definitely did more than Wagner. With opera, I don't know. They lived in different times and did different things. Mozart perhaps had more constraints (censorship) than Wagner did. I will say, what drives me nuts about Wagner is his lack of editing. His works are overly long. I am so grateful for that when listening to his works, but I hate it in the theater.


----------



## gellio

Woodduck said:


> :lol: Unfortunately, I _can_ argue otherwise. In fact, I _have_ argued it many times. I'm not denying Mozart's musical and dramatic genius in saying that for me none of his operas, for all their brilliance, achieve the profundity and power of the greatest art. _You_ may be enthralled by every moment of every work of Mozart, but I can find innumerable moments to be less than enthralled by. In fact, I can take or leave a great many of Mozart's sonatas, symphonies, concertos, divertimentos, masses, and so on, and I find his operas, for the most part, rather unexciting and, in the case of _Cosi_, unattractive as entities, regardless of an abundance of fine music. They simply don't do much for me, beyond affording me an evening of classy entertainment.
> 
> Both _Figaro_ and _Don Giovanni_ have been called "perfect" operas, but whatever anyone means by that, perfection isn't all that interesting; _Fidelio_ is a distinctly imperfect opera, but it moves me in a way that Mozart's operas never do. I find upstairs-downstairs intrigue like that in the Almaviva household a yawn, especially when the great tunes are separated by yards of secco recitative. My patience is sorely tried by all those unemployed people in crinolines and their insipid boyfriends whingeing about the psychopath they couldn't say no to. And let's not even start talking about how "this is what all women do"! The only Mozart opera I come close to loving is _Zauberflote;_ I'm enchanted by its childlike fantasy and the deceptive simplicity of its melodies, and Bergman's film of it is my all-time favorite Mozart experience (I chuckle at the moment where Sarastro is seen studying the role of Gurnemanz backstage).
> 
> I want to be shaken up and changed by art, and I fear that Mozart's earthbound, worldly social comedies don't invite me to realms of the spirit where those things can happen. If an opera can do that, I don't care whether it's "perfect."


That's fair enough. But, whether they do something for your or not isn't really the point. The point is Mozart completely mastered every single genre of classical music he touched. What other composer can say that? My favorite (Beethoven) came close, but wasn't able to master opera, although Fidelio is one of my most favorite operas. Other favorites, Verdi and Wagner, certainly mastered opera, but what else? I really don't think one can argue that Mozart didn't master opera. He did.

I don't care for perfection either, but I find it in _Don Giovanni_ and _Le nozze di Figaro_. Both have top notch librettos, real-believable characters that we can relate to, they make me laugh, they make me cry, they make me happy, then make me said, and most of all the music just thrills me. Figaro is one unbelievable musical moment after another. I've heard it thousands of times and I still hear new things.

My opera loves are Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Bellini, Donizetti, Rossini, and the Russians. I wouldn't want to be without any of them.

Beethoven - he's just kick ***. Period.  His music moves me like no other, perfect or not. I seriously cannot listen to the 2nd movement of the 5th Piano Concerto in public because it causes me to weep. I just love him. Original rock star.


----------



## Woodduck

That's fair enough. But, whether they do something for you or not isn't really the point.

Was there only one point here?

The point is Mozart completely mastered every single genre of classical music he touched. What other composer can say that? 

Bach and Handel, to name two - and Verdi, even though he wrote only a fine string quartet and some interesting choral works outside of opera. I'm sure we could come up with others.

I really don't think one can argue that Mozart didn't master opera. He did. I don't care for perfection either, but I find it in _Don Giovanni_ and _Le nozze di Figaro_.

I don't think anyone argues that Mozart didn't master opera, _in terms of his own artistic goals._ I say that only to urge caution about this notion of "perfection" that Mozart fans like to haul out to "prove" his superiority. As I pointed out in another post, Mozart was quite prepared to revise his operas to meet the requirements of different occasions. If an opera can be altered without detriment, can we say it was "perfect" to begin with? Which version of _Don Giovanni _is perfect? And is there an "imperfection" in _Otello_ or _Falstaff?_ In _Parsifal?_ In _Pelleas et Melisande?_ In _Peter Grimes?_

Both have top notch librettos, real-believable characters that we can relate to, they make me laugh, they make me cry, they make me happy, then make me said, and most of all the music just thrills me. Figaro is one unbelievable musical moment after another. I've heard it thousands of times and I still hear new things.

This is of course quite subjective. I don't find most of Mozart's characters easy to relate to, much less interesting, and some of the music thrills me but most of it doesn't. In fact, some of it actually irritates me. But, as you said at the top of this post, "whether they do something for you or not isn't really the point."

_My_ major point, in this thread about "the greatest opera," is that we may have different criteria for our nominations to that honor, and the "perfect" operas of Mozart can't meet all of them any more than Verdi's or Wagner's can.


----------



## Bonetan

This notion of a "perfect opera" needs to be done away with. Doesn't exist


----------



## SixFootScowl

Bonetan said:


> This notion of a "perfect opera" needs to be done away with. Doesn't exist


Who needs a perfect opera anyway? I just want good operas and preferably great performances thereof.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> _My_ major point, in this thread about "the greatest opera," is that we may have different criteria for our nominations to that honor, and the "perfect" operas of Mozart can't meet all of them any more than Verdi's or Wagner's can.


I think one major point in favour of the 'perfection' of the da Ponte / Mozart operas and the Boito / Verdi is the sheer genius of the libretti. To me Wagner was a far greater composer than librettist.


----------



## gellio

DavidA said:


> I think one major point in favour of the 'perfection' of the da Ponte / Mozart operas and the Boito / Verdi is the sheer genius of the libretti. To me Wagner was a far greater composer than librettist.


I agree with this. I do absolutely love Wagner, tho, especially The Ring. I'm fortunate, that I find things to love with nearly every opera composer I've come across.


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> I think one major point in favour of the 'perfection' of the da Ponte / Mozart operas and the Boito / Verdi is the sheer genius of the libretti. To me Wagner was a far greater composer than librettist.


& I think one major point in favor of Wagner being the superior operatic composer to Mozart & Verdi is his ability to do both.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I think one major point in favour of the 'perfection' of the da Ponte / Mozart operas and the Boito / Verdi is the sheer genius of the libretti. To me Wagner was a far greater composer than librettist.


Well, Mozart's and Verdi's music was far greater than Da Ponte's and Boito's librettos, which no one would care about without the music. But what of it? What makes a good libretto? Could Da Ponte have written a libretto suitable for the music of Debussy or Wagner?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Well, Mozart's and Verdi's music was far greater than Da Ponte's and Boito's librettos, which no one would care about without the music. But what of it? What makes a good libretto? Could Da Ponte have written a libretto suitable for the music of Debussy or Wagner?


Of course, I'm just saying that in da Ponte and Boito, Mozart and Verdi found librettists of genius. I think that is a view widely held by most opera lovers. Don't know whether da Ponte spoke French or German so cannot answer the second point. What we are talking about though is the quality of libretti they did write.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Of course, I'm just saying that in da Ponte and Boito, Mozart and Verdi found librettists of genius. I think that is a view widely held by most opera lovers. Don't know whether da Ponte spoke French or German so cannot answer the second point. *What we are talking about though is the quality of libretti they did write.*


But that's the question I'm asking. What is "quality" in a libretto? Is it the same as quality in a stage play or a novel? Is it something unrelated to the music or the staging? Is a good libretto something we'd read or watch on its own? Does a good play always make a good opera libretto?


----------



## Itullian

*The poets Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Verlaine worshipped Wagner*.[214] Édouard Dujardin, whose influential novel Les Lauriers sont coupés is in the form of an interior monologue inspired by Wagnerian music, founded a journal dedicated to Wagner, La Revue Wagnérienne, to which J. K. Huysmans and Téodor de Wyzewa contributed.[215] In a list of major cultural figures influenced by Wagner, Bryan Magee includes D. H. Lawrence, Aubrey Beardsley, Romain Rolland, Gérard de Nerval, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Rainer Maria Rilke and numerous others.[216]

He must have been pretty good.


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> *The poets Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Verlaine worshipped Wagner*.[214] Édouard Dujardin, whose influential novel Les Lauriers sont coupés is in the form of an interior monologue inspired by Wagnerian music, founded a journal dedicated to Wagner, La Revue Wagnérienne, to which J. K. Huysmans and Téodor de Wyzewa contributed.[215] In a list of major cultural figures influenced by Wagner, Bryan Magee includes *D. H. Lawrence, Aubrey Beardsley, Romain Rolland, Gérard de Nerval, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Rainer Maria Rilke* and numerous others.[216]
> 
> He must have been pretty good.


Important literary additions: Thomas Mann, Marcel Proust, Virginia Woolf, and James Joyce, the last three practitioners of the "interior monologue" or "stream of consciousness" technique inspired by Wagner's use of the leitmotif to depict characters' states of mind, unconscious motivations, and the evolution of ideas and emotions in the course of a story. Through these crucial literary figures, Wagner's music drama is directly foundational to the modern novel.


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> Of course, I'm just saying that in da Ponte and Boito, Mozart and Verdi found librettists of genius. I think that is a view widely held by most opera lovers. Don't know whether da Ponte spoke French or German so cannot answer the second point. What we are talking about though is the quality of libretti they did write.


What, in your estimation, makes them librettists of genius?

I think that it would be foolish to deny that their librettos contain attributes and excel in ways that Wagner's do not, but the reverse is also true. Wagner's librettos may have their weaknesses, but he was anything but a _poor_ librettist. Just think of the way he was able to find the dramatic essence of multiple literary sources, often with contradictory elements, and compress them into cohesive and efficient narratives of marvelous intricacy that are focused on decisive moments, epoch making events, and gives them maximum dramatic pressure, perhaps most impressively in operas like The Ring, Tristan und Isolde, and Parsifal. Or think of the way he is able to craft a text full of patterns, images, and references, both literal and metaphorical, that are able to add a layer upon layer of meaning to the drama. As in Die Meisteringer where there are constant references to song birds, to shoes and boots and comparisons of how well-made shoes are like well-made songs, and the ways in which Hans Sachs is associated with John the Baptist throughout the opera, leading up to Act III when he baptizes Walther's newborn song. Or the innovative way in which he was able to fuse words and music together so that the audience hears musical accents as if they were verbal accents in his use of _Stabreim_ in the libretto for the Ring. Or just the enormous number of _ideas_ behind these masterpieces, both philosophical and psychoanalytical, that he is able to fuse together with the music and the drama in such a way where he never sacrifices emotion to abstraction.


----------



## Woodduck

Faustian said:


> I think that it would be foolish to deny that their librettos contain attributes and excel in ways that Wagner's do not, but *the reverse is also true.* Wagner's librettos may have their weaknesses, but he was anything but a _poor_ librettist. Just think of the way he was able to find the dramatic essence of multiple literary sources, often with contradictory elements, and compress them into cohesive and efficient narratives of marvelous intricacy that are focused on decisive moments, epoch making events, and gives them maximum dramatic pressure, perhaps most impressively in operas like The Ring, Tristan und Isolde, and Parsifal. Or think of the way he is able to craft a text full of patterns, images, and references, both literal and metaphorical, that are able to add a layer upon layers of meaning to the drama. As in Die Meisteringer where there are constant references to song birds, to shoes and boots and comparisons of how well-made shoes are like well-made songs, and the ways in which Hans Sachs is associated with John the Baptist throughout the opera, leading up to Act III when he baptizes Walther's newborn song. Or the innovative way in which he was able to fuse words and music together so that the audience hears musical accents as if they were verbal accents in his use of _Stabreim_ in the libretto for the Ring. Or just the enormous number of _ideas_ behind these masterpieces, both philosophical and psychoanalytical, that he is able to fuse together with the music and the drama in such a way where he never sacrifices emotion to abstraction.


Great points about _Meistersinger,_ in which Wagner comes closest to writing a social comedy about "ordinary people," yet still creates subtexts which other librettists wouldn't think of. I'll take a risk here and say that the cleverness of Da Ponte tends to lie right on the surface and is easily understood - is intended to be, in fact - but the layers of thought and meaning to be found in Wagner's dramatic conceptions require a bit (or a lot) more time and effort to discover. That's not to say that Wagner's stories and dialogue don't work on a surface level as well; obviously they work well enough, or his operas wouldn't be enjoyed by so many people who presumably aren't interested in studying them in depth. But really, shouldn't it be obvious that the artistic goals of _Figaro_ and Don _Giovanni,_ and of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_, are light years apart, and that it's with reference to those goals that their respective texts ought to be judged?


----------



## Barbebleu

And so the ball is kicked into the other court again!:lol:


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> What, in your estimation, makes them librettists of genius?
> 
> I think that it would be foolish to deny that their librettos contain attributes and excel in ways that Wagner's do not, but the reverse is also true. Wagner's librettos may have their weaknesses, *but he was anything but a poor librettist.* Just think of the way he was able to find the dramatic essence of multiple literary sources, often with contradictory elements, and compress them into cohesive and efficient narratives of marvelous intricacy that are focused on decisive moments, epoch making events, and gives them maximum dramatic pressure, perhaps most impressively in operas like The Ring, Tristan und Isolde, and Parsifal. Or think of the way he is able to craft a text full of patterns, images, and references, both literal and metaphorical, that are able to add a layer upon layer of meaning to the drama. As in Die Meisteringer where there are constant references to song birds, to shoes and boots and comparisons of how well-made shoes are like well-made songs, and the ways in which Hans Sachs is associated with John the Baptist throughout the opera, leading up to Act III when he baptizes Walther's newborn song. Or the innovative way in which he was able to fuse words and music together so that the audience hears musical accents as if they were verbal accents in his use of _Stabreim_ in the libretto for the Ring. Or just the enormous number of _ideas_ behind these masterpieces, both philosophical and psychoanalytical, that he is able to fuse together with the music and the drama in such a way where he never sacrifices emotion to abstraction.


I don't think you got what I said. I said that he was a far greater composer then librettist. His libretti are no worse than many others but then he did not have a lot of competition from some quarters! Of course he wanted to be the greatest at everything, including the greatest poet in the German language. So of course he wrote his own libretti, parts of which are frankly far too long for the drama they sustain, in my opinion anyway. Of course the lovers of Wagner will not have it and you're entitled to your view. But taken objectively I think they sprawl and if he had allowed someone else to tighten them up it would be better dramatically. Of course such an idea would've been ridiculous to Wagner with his massive ego and self belief. To him his libretti were no doubt supreme masterpieces. But as a writer I know that I need an editor. In fact everyone needs an editor, a second opinion which the composer often provides to his librettist. But with Wagner there was only one.


----------



## Barbebleu

And the ball is returned once again sports fans.:lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Well, Mozart's and Verdi's music was far greater than Da Ponte's and Boito's librettos, which no one would care about without the music. But what of it? What makes a good libretto? Could Da Ponte have written a libretto suitable for the music of Debussy or Wagner?


I think it is worth pointing out that Da Ponte wrote libretti for Salieri. Indeed Da Ponte was falling over himself to work with Salieri and he only put Cosi Fan Tutte Mozart's way when Salieri rejected it.
Of course the great composers' music was light years in front of their librettists who would have needed to be shakespeares or goethe's to match them.


----------



## PlaySalieri

*The point is Mozart completely mastered every single genre of classical music he touched. What other composer can say that?

Bach and Handel, to name two - and Verdi, even though he wrote only a fine string quartet and some interesting choral works outside of opera. I'm sure we could come up with others.
*

Wooduck's answer.

That's not worthy of you - could have is not the same as doing it. We dont know whether Verdi could have written a great symphony, sonatas etc. One solitary quartet? An operatic requiem? he was a master of opera - is all we can say based on what he did leave behind.

handel yes - composed great works across the board.


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> I don't think you got what I said. I said that he was a far greater composer then librettist.


I completely got what you said, I just thought Woodduck pretty much answered that point when he said "Well, Mozart's and Verdi's music was far greater than Da Ponte's and Boito's librettos, which no one would care about without the music. But what of it?"



> His libretti are no worse than many others


Boy, talk about a back-handed compliment. :lol:



> Of course he wanted to be the greatest at everything, including the greatest poet in the German language. So of course he wrote his own libretti, parts of which are frankly far too long for the drama they sustain, in my opinion anyway.


And to counter this notion, I'll simply offer the thoughts of Bryan Magee:

"Wagner consciously took over from the dramatists of ancient Greece for Tristan, as he had in his first conception of The Ring, their way of beginning the theatrical presentation of a story not with the beginning of the story but, on the contrary, at a point shortly before its climax; and then recounting, in flashback as it were, the events that have led up to this point; and then precipitating the climax. The great strengths of this technique are that it can be a way of holding the audience in high tension while the story is told, and that all the events are understood with hindsight, which is something Wagner's music has the power of conveying with unique eloquence. Its great danger is that only a little of the story is presented in the form of stage action, nearly all of it coming to the audience through somebody's narrating long chunks of back history -- and this can become boring if it is not kept energized and animated. This precisely is the nature of the boredom experienced by many of those who do find Wagner's operas boring: to them it seems that nothing is happening, that the characters are just prosing on endlessly about things that were already in the past when the opera began. These are auditors to whom, alas, the music does not speak, and for whom this form of drama must therefore be the least accessible of any."



> But taken objectively I think they sprawl


So in attempting to put forth an objective statement you're offering an subjective assessment. Thanks for that.



> Of course such an idea would've been ridiculous to Wagner with his massive ego and self belief. To him his libretti were no doubt supreme masterpieces. But as a writer I know that I need an editor. In fact everyone needs an editor, a second opinion which the composer often provides to his librettist. But with Wagner there was only one.


You seem to have some sort of weird idea that Wagner was _uncritical_ of his own works, which I know is in compliance with the caricature of Wagner as the supreme egoist, but is flat out wrong. He revised and edited both their music and text, sometimes with the opinion that certain portions _were_ too long and wouldn't come off well.

An editor can be incredibly beneficial for making corrections and suggestions regarding spelling, grammar, punctuation and things of that nature, but to suggest that they should always play an intrinsic role in shaping and manipulating the material that an artist puts forth strikes me as more than a little preposterous. And may I say, any editor who suggested to Wagner that he simply "shorten" and "tighten" his dramatic conceptions without understanding the implications of this probably would have had as little sympathy and understanding for them as you do. Shorter doesn't always mean greater.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> *The point is Mozart completely mastered every single genre of classical music he touched. What other composer can say that?
> 
> Bach and Handel, to name two - and Verdi, even though he wrote only a fine string quartet and some interesting choral works outside of opera. I'm sure we could come up with others.
> *
> 
> Wooduck's answer: "Bach and Handel, to name two - and Verdi, even though he wrote only a fine string quartet and some interesting choral works outside of opera. I'm sure we could come up with others."
> 
> That's not worthy of you - could have is not the same as doing it. We dont know whether Verdi could have written a great symphony, sonatas etc. One solitary quartet? An operatic requiem? he was a master of opera - is all we can say based on what he did leave behind.
> 
> handel yes - composed great works across the board.


The exact statement was "Mozart completely mastered every single genre of classical music he touched." Verdi didn't touch symphonies, sonatas, concertos, etc., so my answer was precisely to the point. If gellio had said "Mozart mastered more genres than any other composer," I'd have had little argument with him, but neither would I argue with someone suggesting Bach or Handel, or even Haydn, as comparably versatile, with Beethoven slightly lacking only as regards _Fidelio_ (which is still a great opera, even if Beethoven didn't completely "master" the genre). Some (including me) would argue that Beethoven made up for it by taking several genres farther than Mozart did in complexity and depth, but that's not to dispute that Mozart's mastery, in terms of his artistic goals and style, was thorough.

But let's not get into who the "greatest composer" is. "Greatest opera" is problematic enough.


----------



## Barbebleu

Advantage Woodduck.


----------



## JJF

Is it OK to hate opera? Can this be overcome? Perhaps it's a language issue?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> The exact statement was "Mozart completely mastered every single genre of classical music he touched." Verdi didn't touch symphonies, sonatas, concertos, etc., so my answer was precisely to the point. If gellio had said "Mozart mastered more genres than any other composer," I'd have had little argument with him, but neither would I argue with someone suggesting Bach or Handel, or even Haydn, as comparably versatile, with Beethoven slightly lacking only as regards _Fidelio_ (which is still a great opera, even if Beethoven didn't completely "master" the genre). Some (including me) would argue that Beethoven made up for it by taking several genres farther than Mozart did in complexity and depth, but that's not to dispute that Mozart's mastery, in terms of his artistic goals and style, was thorough.
> 
> But let's not get into who the "greatest composer" is. "Greatest opera" is problematic enough.


Correct - as you say - he could have made a more convincing and impressive claim about Mozart if he'd chosen his words carefully.


----------



## Pugg

JJF said:


> Is it OK to hate opera? Can this be overcome? Perhaps it's a language issue?


It's okay, if you don't like it, so be it. 
( it might come though)


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> I think it is worth pointing out that Da Ponte wrote libretti for Salieri. Indeed Da Ponte was falling over himself to work with Salieri and he only put Cosi Fan Tutte Mozart's way when Salieri rejected it.
> Of course the great composers' music was light years in front of their librettists who would have needed to be shakespeares or goethe's to match them.


In my opinion Cosi fan Tutte, when you get over the farcical elements, is one of the truly great libretti which brought forth perhaps Mozart's most 'perfect' opera.


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> I completely got what you said, I just thought Woodduck pretty much answered that point when he said "Well, Mozart's and Verdi's music was far greater than Da Ponte's and Boito's librettos, which no one would care about without the music. But what of it?"
> 
> *Boy, talk about a back-handed compliment. :lol:*
> 
> And to counter this notion, I'll simply offer the thoughts of Bryan Magee:
> 
> "Wagner consciously took over from the dramatists of ancient Greece for Tristan, as he had in his first conception of The Ring, their way of beginning the theatrical presentation of a story not with the beginning of the story but, on the contrary, at a point shortly before its climax; and then recounting, in flashback as it were, the events that have led up to this point; and then precipitating the climax. The great strengths of this technique are that it can be a way of holding the audience in high tension while the story is told, and that all the events are understood with hindsight, which is something Wagner's music has the power of conveying with unique eloquence. Its great danger is that only a little of the story is presented in the form of stage action, nearly all of it coming to the audience through somebody's narrating long chunks of back history -- and this can become boring if it is not kept energized and animated. *This precisely is the nature of the boredom experienced by many of those who do find Wagner's operas boring: to them it seems that nothing is happening, that the characters are just prosing on endlessly about things that were already in the past when the opera began. These are auditors to whom, alas, the music does not speak, and for whom this form of drama must therefore be the least accessible of any."
> *
> 
> *So in attempting to put forth an objective statement you're offering an subjective assessment. Thanks for that.*
> 
> You seem to have some sort of weird idea that Wagner was _uncritical_ of his own works, which I know is in compliance with the caricature of Wagner as the supreme egoist, but is flat out wrong. He revised and edited both their music and text, sometimes with the opinion that certain portions _were_ too long and wouldn't come off well.
> 
> *An editor can be incredibly beneficial for making corrections and suggestions regarding spelling, grammar, punctuation and things of that nature, but to suggest that they should always play an intrinsic role in shaping and manipulating the material that an artist puts forth strikes me as more than a little preposterous*. And may I say, any editor who suggested to Wagner that he simply "shorten" and "tighten" his dramatic conceptions without understanding the implications of this probably would have had as little sympathy and understanding for them as you do. Shorter doesn't always mean greater.


I'm always baffled in why in the case of Wagner when someone expresses reservations there appears indignation, as if at some form of heresy been committed. We are talking about opera here, theatre, fiction.

Of course I know RW revised and re-wrote but that is different from collaborating with someone else. Are usually revise and rework a piece a number of times before even sending it to an editor. The fact that Wagner was an egoist is pretty much born out by history. In that he is no different from a lot of other artists. He's does appear to have been a more advanced form however.

It's interesting that you accuse me of trying to make an objective statement by making a subjective one. But your whole statement is subjective. Bryan McGee's is obviously a subjective statement. It is actually the usual tone to people who are less than ecstatic about RW's operas, implying that they are somehow less than enlightened because of their non-appreciation of the master. The whole thing is subjective. I know people who do not share my musical tastes (including some of my family) but I don't regard them in a lesser light for that as Magee appears to. His statement comes over as incredibly arrogant. In any case, how has he got access into the minds of other people?

I would've thought as intelligent people we realise that the vast majority of opinions put on TC are subjective. I thought that was taken as read and didn't have to be explained every time one gave an opinion.

However just to return to your point about an editor. I can see you are confusing an editor with the sub editor. It is a sub editor who will actually edit the text itself for misspellings etc. However the editor (if they are a good one) will read through the text and make suggestions about how improvements can be made. He may suggest cutting a bit out here or adding a bit there or (often) rewriting some of the stuff to make it clearer. I know as I've had that experience many, many times. I know from personal experience the value of a good editor. One needs an editor not because one's work is bad but often because it is only someone else reading from outside your own mind who sees the flaws. A good editor will see the flaws and help to make (hopefully) good work better. 
Of course you might say that and that was such a great literary genius that he did not need an editor. That is your opinion and a subjective one, of course. However, you notice that even with such a great genius as Shakespeare producers 'edit' the text (I don't think I'll ever sat through an uncut version of Hamlet) often because it is too long for theatregoers to sit through. Why? Shakespear is theatre and that is what happens to text in theatre. Is Magee going to say everyone who can't sit through the umpteen hours of a Complete Hamlet without getting a numb behind and an aching head is somehow a lesser being? This is theatre written to entertain. By Shakespeare at least!


----------



## Woodduck

In opera, librettos exist not merely to tell a story but for the sake of musical expression, and need an editor only if the music they accompany is uninteresting. If you are bored by Wagner's music, you'll think he needed an editor. If you aren't, you won't. Most people who enjoy Wagner find that his scores are, for the most part, so carefully shaped that making cuts in them is disfiguring and spoils the pacing (the "traditional" cuts in _Tristan_, as heard in old live recordings, illustrate this very well). To the extent that the operas are musically absorbing and well-paced, and their texts impart dramatically relevant information, the contents of their librettos are justified, whether or not they would read well as spoken drama.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> In my opinion Cosi fan Tutte, when you get over the farcical elements, is one of the truly great libretti which brought forth perhaps Mozart's most 'perfect' opera.


In a different opinion (mine), the plot of _Cosi_ is such a slight bit of fluff that Da Ponte had to fill it with reams of silly dialogue just to give Mozart something to work with. Mozart's music may justify the libretto's length for you - that's what's supposed to happen in opera - but without that music it's quite trivial and could be edited far more severely than any Wagner libretto without loss of meaning. Whether one thinks so probably depends on one's appetite for heartless farce. Purely as a literary experience, give me the text of _Meistersinger_ any day.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> In a different opinion (mine), the plot of _Cosi_ is such a slight bit of fluff that Da Ponte had to fill it with reams of silly dialogue just to give Mozart something to work with. Mozart's music may justify the libretto's length for you - that's what's supposed to happen in opera - but without that music it's quite trivial and could be edited far more severely than any Wagner libretto without loss of meaning. Whether one thinks so probably depends on one's appetite for heartless farce. Purely as a literary experience, give me the text of _Meistersinger_ any day.


Actually purely as a literary experience I wouldn't choose either! They are written to be set to music. The Mastersingers is an example of Wagner's extreme length. It certainly could lose an hour (imo) without effecting the drama in any way. Of course, Cosi is a farce but it is a bittersweet, Enlightenment farce which is summed up right at the very end. And yes, it is heartless yet the characters are full of heartfelt expression of human emotion of which Mozart was the supreme master. That is the paradox. But the libretto is perfectly balanced and the music, of course, is heavenly. I certainly wouldn't want to lose any of the music of Cosi any more than a committed Wagnerian would want to lose any of Mastersingers! But TC is the place for giving opinions!
Mastersingers for me is an example of Wagner the librettist being carried away with his own writing. There appears too much text for the action and for me the music doesn't always hold the attention like Mozart's does. Be interesting to know whether if it was another composer writing the music for it whether it would have been accepted without cuts. But, of course, that is sheer speculation. 
Interesting that was part of Boito's genius to know how to arrange Shakespeare so the operas are actually greater (imo) dramatically than the original plays themselves. And before anybody comments let me say this is my personal subjective opinion!


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

JJF said:


> Is it OK to hate opera? Can this be overcome? Perhaps it's a language issue?


It's rather like hating theatre, prose fiction or poetry. Opera isn't a genre, it's a form of storytelling. Several thousand operas have been composed over the last four centuries, in dozens of languages. An opera written in the late Renaissance doesn't resemble a contemporary opera much except that they're both dramas in which people sing.

What operas have you tried? And what sort of fiction do you like?


----------



## DavidA

JJF said:


> Is it OK to hate opera? Can this be overcome? Perhaps it's a language issue?


Of course it's alright to dislike opera. It's a free country. I have a theory that certain types of personalities cannot suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it. They are irritated that people sing rather than speak. Just my theory btw. My wife can't get on with opera but we don't fall out about it. Plenty of other music we can listen to together. I just listen to opera in my own den! :lol:


----------



## JJF

Do you listen or watch on DVD or both? Maybe it's the language issue for me as I can't understand what the performers sing. Am curious as to my own prejudice against it. What do you enjoy in it? TIA.


----------



## JJF

What do you like about opera? The physical performance, the audio performance?


----------



## Pugg

JJF said:


> Do you listen or watch on DVD or both? Maybe it's the language issue for me as I can't understand what the performers sing. Am curious as to my own prejudice against it. What do you enjoy in it? TIA.


The singing for one, watching on DVD these days is a stunning experience, lots of great works out there in super quality.



JJF said:


> What do you like about opera? The physical performance, the audio performance?


Seeing it in theatre is a whole other dimension, noting beats that.


----------



## JJF

Do you know Italian? Or enough of the story to follow along and become immersed?


----------



## Pugg

JJF said:


> Do you know Italian? Or enough of the story to follow along and become immersed?


A little bit, learned from watching/ listen operas, most of them if not all have subtitles.


----------



## gellio

stomanek said:


> Correct - as you say - he could have made a more convincing and impressive claim about Mozart if he'd chosen his words carefully.


Yes, I could have chosen my words more carefully.


----------



## gellio

Woodduck said:


> In opera, librettos exist not merely to tell a story but for the sake of musical expression, and need an editor only if the music they accompany is uninteresting. If you are bored by Wagner's music, you'll think he needed an editor. If you aren't, you won't. Most people who enjoy Wagner find that his scores are, for the most part, so carefully shaped that making cuts in them is disfiguring and spoils the pacing (the "traditional" cuts in _Tristan_, as heard in old live recordings, illustrate this very well). To the extent that the operas are musically absorbing and well-paced, and their texts impart dramatically relevant information, the contents of their librettos are justified, whether or not they would read well as spoken drama.


Yes and no. I absolutely love Wagner, and I'm glad he didn't use an editor in the sense that I get more music because of it, and I adore his music. It's so wonderful. But from a dramatic and structural standpoint, his works are overlong. I mean I could not imagine editing out a single note of the Immolation Scene, but take _Tristan_ as an example. Jesus Christ - he took two hours longer than he needed to to tell that story.


----------



## howlingfantods

gellio said:


> take _Tristan_ as an example. Jesus Christ - he took two hours longer than he needed to to tell that story.


Strictly speaking, any opera's story can be told in many fewer hours than they take to tell the story. You could do a staged drama of every opera in minutes. In fact, I'd say Wagner wastes far less time than most operas since he doesn't do musical numbers where people repeat lines over and over.

I can't think of a single mature opera of Wagner's that I'd enjoy more if they were cut, other than maybe trimming a bit of Tannhauser Act 2. Perhaps if you feel so, you aren't getting what's so great about the non-highlight bleeding chunks of meat parts of Wagner's compositions.

ETA: by the way, in this weird argument where somehow the battle is solely between Wagner and Mozart for title of Top Opera Champion, I'm surprised how little discussion there has been for the numbers opera versus through-composed. At least for me, one of the reasons I have little interest in operas prior to middle Verdi or so is because of the recitative aria recitative aria structure of numbers operas.


----------



## Sloe

howlingfantods said:


> Strictly speaking, any opera's story can be told in many fewer hours than they take to tell the story. You could do a staged drama of every opera in minutes. In fact, I'd say Wagner wastes far less time than most operas since he doesn't do musical numbers where people repeat lines over and over.
> 
> I can't think of a single mature opera of Wagner's that I'd enjoy more if they were cut, other than maybe trimming a bit of Tannhauser Act 2. Perhaps if you feel so, you aren't getting what's so great about the non-highlight bleeding chunks of meat parts of Wagner's compositions.


The libretto of an average opera takes 10 minutes to read. But an opera is just not a story it is an experience.


----------



## Itullian

gellio said:


> Yes and no. I absolutely love Wagner, and I'm glad he didn't use an editor in the sense that I get more music because of it, and I adore his music. It's so wonderful. But from a dramatic and structural standpoint, his works are overlong. I mean I could not imagine editing out a single note of the Immolation Scene, but take _Tristan_ as an example. Jesus Christ - he took two hours longer than he needed to to tell that story.


Then you just don't get it my friend.


----------



## Woodduck

gellio said:


> Yes and no. I absolutely love Wagner, and I'm glad he didn't use an editor in the sense that I get more music because of it, and I adore his music. It's so wonderful. But from a dramatic and structural standpoint, his works are overlong. I mean I could not imagine editing out a single note of the Immolation Scene, but *take Tristan* as an example. Jesus Christ - *he took two hours longer than he needed to to tell that story.*


That depends on what you think Tristan's "story" is. Critical events occur before the opera even begins, and Wagner covers those very efficiently in the recollections of the protagonists. Most of what we actually witness are conversations and monologues, and that's not at all peculiar; the same is true of Hamlet and King Lear. But then, who needs all that poetry? It just holds up the action!


----------



## Bonetan

howlingfantods said:


> ETA: by the way, in this weird argument where somehow the battle is solely between Wagner and Mozart for title of Top Opera Champion, I'm surprised how little discussion there has been for the numbers opera versus through-composed. At least for me, one of the reasons I have little interest in operas prior to middle Verdi or so is because of the recitative aria recitative aria structure of numbers operas.


I'm with you. Secco recit is my least favorite thing about opera, & the #1 reason I don't enjoy Mozart. A perfect opera couldn't possibly contain that crap lol


----------



## Itullian

Bonetan said:


> I'm with you. Secco recit is my least favorite thing about opera, & the #1 reason I don't enjoy Mozart. A perfect opera couldn't possibly contain that crap lol


And one of 2 reasons I don't listen to baroque operas anymore.
The other is countertenors. blehhhhhhh


----------



## rjrobinson198

Bach said:


> Tristan und Isolde takes second place..


I've only seen Tristan once, so I am no judge, but I find it hard to take seriously an opera in which the principals spend 25 minutes singling "We are in love, therefore we must' die" over and over again. Having said which, the ending is simply the greatest moment in opera I have ever heard.


----------



## gellio

howlingfantods said:


> Strictly speaking, any opera's story can be told in many fewer hours than they take to tell the story. You could do a staged drama of every opera in minutes. In fact, I'd say Wagner wastes far less time than most operas since he doesn't do musical numbers where people repeat lines over and over.
> 
> I can't think of a single mature opera of Wagner's that I'd enjoy more if they were cut, other than maybe trimming a bit of Tannhauser Act 2. Perhaps if you feel so, you aren't getting what's so great about the non-highlight bleeding chunks of meat parts of Wagner's compositions.
> 
> ETA: by the way, in this weird argument where somehow the battle is solely between Wagner and Mozart for title of Top Opera Champion, I'm surprised how little discussion there has been for the numbers opera versus through-composed. At least for me, one of the reasons I have little interest in operas prior to middle Verdi or so is because of the recitative aria recitative aria structure of numbers operas.


It is a weird argument - I adore both. I don't know - I guess it's more a sitting down stationary for 5 hours thing for me with Wagner. I love listening to his works. The music is glorious and I'm glad they are so long when listening to them, but I can't do it in the opera house. Now if they started putting bed sections in opera houses, that would work well.


----------



## gellio

Bonetan said:


> I'm with you. Secco recit is my least favorite thing about opera, & the #1 reason I don't enjoy Mozart. A perfect opera couldn't possibly contain that crap lol


Although I'm not a fan of recitative myself, I wouldn't go as far as to call it crap. With today's technology it makes it very easy to eliminate them. Once I burn the CD to iTunes, if the recitative are on separate tracks I delete them. If they are not separate tracks, I go into "Get Info" then "Options" and change the start and/or end time of the track to eliminate the recitative.


----------



## gellio

Itullian said:


> Then you just don't get it my friend.


Perhaps not, but it's pretty damn hard for me to sit in an opera house for five hours.


----------



## Woodduck

rjrobinson198 said:


> I've only seen Tristan once, so I am no judge, but I find it hard to take seriously an opera in which the principals spend 25 minutes singling "We are in love, therefore we must' die" over and over again. Having said which, the ending is simply the greatest moment in opera I have ever heard.


Of course they don't really do that. But would it be better if Tristan and Isolde just said "I love you" and "I love you too," kissed, got caught in the act, apologized to King Marke, and let us all go home half an hour earlier? Tristan could also summarize his feelings in Act 3 quite nicely, trimming another forty minutes off the evening, and instead of singing about drowning in waves of bliss Isolde could just pull out a knife and get the whole thing over with.

I wonder what, in opera, we _can_ take seriously? In real life people don't go around singing everything they want to say. Can we take seriously a Handelian da capo aria, complete with embellishments and a cadenza on the repeat, as a vow of revenge? Can we take seriously six people in a courtroom in Lammermoor all talking at the same time and not to each other? Can we take seriously a Mozart character repeating a musical phrase four times with exactly the same words - words like "No, no, no, no, no, no, no" ? Can we take seriously a court jester having a conversation with his daughter as she dies, singing celestially, in a gunny sack - or a woman with advanced tuberculosis singing anything at all?

Apparently the excuse for all this nonsense is music. I know that's not good enough for some people, but it works for me.


----------



## Woodduck

gellio said:


> Perhaps not, but it's pretty damn hard for me to sit in an opera house for five hours.


I'm sympathetic. When I was younger and less likely to ossify after half an hour of sitting, I could do _Parsifal_ or _Figaro_ with no problem. Now opera is best enjoyed at home in a soft recliner with kitchen and bathroom nearby, and long breaks between acts. But there's still the risk of dozing off.


----------



## howlingfantods

gellio said:


> Although I'm not a fan of recitative myself, I wouldn't go as far as to call it crap. With today's technology it makes it very easy to eliminate them. Once I burn the CD to iTunes, if the recitative are on separate tracks I delete them. If they are not separate tracks, I go into "Get Info" then "Options" and change the start and/or end time of the track to eliminate the recitative.


For me, it's less the existence of the secco recitative and more the structure of numbers operas that I value far less. With a numbers opera, you're essentially listening to a collection of songs, not one complete and through-composed piece, and I find that categorically a less interesting art form.


----------



## hpowders

Who has to sit for 5 hours?

It doesn't always have to be Parsifal, Die Meistersinger, Götterdämmerung or Les Troyens.

La Boheme, Rigoletto and Tosca are all prostate-friendly operas.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Who has to sit for 5 hours?
> 
> It doesn't always have to be Parsifal, Die Meistersinger, Götterdämmerung or Les Troyens.
> 
> La Boheme, Rigoletto and Tosca are all prostate friendly operas.


Point taken, but I'm more likely to go for Bluebeard's Castle than Puccini's weeper in a garret or his shabby little shocker. It does occur to me, though, that the womenfolk fare rather badly in all of them.


----------



## Sloe

rjrobinson198 said:


> I've only seen Tristan once, so I am no judge, but I find it hard to take seriously an opera in which the principals spend 25 minutes singling "We are in love, therefore we must' die" over and over again. Having said which, the ending is simply the greatest moment in opera I have ever heard.


But it sounds so beautiful.


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> Point taken, but I'm more likely to go for Bluebeard's Castle than Puccini's weeper in a garret or his shabby little shocker. It does occur to me, though, that the womenfolk fare rather badly in all of them.


As long as an opera gets people into the seats. People are intimidated by long Wagner operas, especially if they don't do any preparation work in advance. I think La Boheme is the perfect mainstream "starter opera": melodic; short; story is easy to follow; Bluebeard's Castle is for advanced opera listeners.


----------



## Sloe

hpowders said:


> As long as an opera gets people into the seats. People are intimidated by long Wagner operas, especially if they don't do any preparation work in advance. I think La Boheme is the perfect mainstream "starter opera": melodic; short; story is easy to follow; Bluebeard's Castle is for advanced opera listeners.


What is an advanced opera listener? Bluebeard's Castle is a short opera with an exciting stiry and music that is easy to listen to because it is good and exciting music.
I think for being in the opera house Tristan can work as good as La Boheme but listening at home I think La Boheme have an advantage.


----------



## Itullian

I went to see Tristan years ago when I had just started to be a Wagner fan
and the time flew by. It was great.

Had some club soda in the lounge between acts.
And met Charlton Heston.


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> I went to see Tristan years ago when I had just started to be a Wagner fan
> and the time flew by. It was great.
> 
> Had some club soda in the lounge between acts.
> And met Charlton Heston.


Was Charlton Heston an operaphile?


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> Was Charlton Heston an operaphile?


Not sure.
I had seen him play Sherlock Holmes there previous and approached him with that.
Saying how much I enjoyed his portrayal.
Then I asked what he thought so far and he said he liked it very much.
The production and cast.
He seemed to know the opera, but we didn't talk long.
Nice, classy gentleman.


----------



## PlaySalieri

howlingfantods said:


> For me, it's less the existence of the secco recitative and more the structure of numbers operas that I value far less. With a numbers opera, you're essentially listening to a collection of songs, not one complete and through-composed piece, and I find that categorically a less interesting art form.


La Traviata has no recitative and yet is a numbers piece - as are most operas in the 19thC. The music between the numbers is not that interesting.


----------



## howlingfantods

stomanek said:


> La Traviata has no recitative and yet is a numbers piece - as are most operas in the 19thC. The music between the numbers is not that interesting.


Yes. This is among the reasons I far prefer Verdi later in his career.


----------



## Sloe

stomanek said:


> La Traviata has no recitative and yet is a numbers piece - as are most operas in the 19thC. The music between the numbers is not that interesting.


La traviata still have a good flow.


----------



## hpowders

Barbebleu said:


> Advantage Woodduck.


Are you a close relative?


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Are you a close relative?


We've never heard of each other.


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. I don't care for La Traviata either....not the kind of opera I need for listening consumption.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Yeah. I don't care for La Traviata either....not the kind of opera I need for listening consumption.


I can't ague with that.


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> I'm always baffled in why in the case of Wagner when someone expresses reservations there appears indignation, as if at some form of heresy been committed. We are talking about opera here, theatre, fiction.


I can assure you, there isn't even the least bit of indignation on my part. What you do or do not like is of no matter to me, but if you're going to enter discussions on Wagner or any other composer and offer ideas and critiques on their works, you should expect people might respond to them, and possibly even disagree.



> It's interesting that you accuse me of trying to make an objective statement by making a subjective one. But your whole statement is subjective. Bryan McGee's is obviously a subjective statement. It is actually the usual tone to people who are less than ecstatic about RW's operas, implying that they are somehow less than enlightened because of their non-appreciation of the master. The whole thing is subjective. I know people who do not share my musical tastes (including some of my family) but I don't regard them in a lesser light for that as Magee appears to. His statement comes over as incredibly arrogant. In any case, how has he got access into the minds of other people?


I'm not sure where you got off on this tangent of me criticizing your posts for being subjective opinions parading as objective truth, but I never did any such thing. I was only pointing out the contradiction of one particular sentence, which I found humorous, and in which you yourself put forth the term "objective".

I wasn't using Bryan Magee's statement to try to get at some sort of objective truth, and there is not a trace of condesention in his statement, nor does he make any kind of value judgement on those who do not enjoy Wagner, anymore than there is in your theory in post #541 on why some personality types do not enjoy opera in general. I was simply offering it as an alternative explanation to why some may not find the operas compelling, other than "they are long and boring" and products of an unchecked egoist.

Which leads back to the point that I cannot accept your explanation for what you perceive as the weaknesses in Wagner's operas, namely their dramatic ineffectiveness, by attributing to Wagner the librettist all the worst elements of egoism and self-indulgence in crafting sprawling, overly long narratives, while conceding that as a composer he was a musical genius. Because this explanation overlooks the fundamental truth here: that Wagner's librettos in and of themselves aren't usually particularly long or wordy, his dramatic structures are actually quite concise, and what accounts for the operas length is the breadth and scope of the _music_ that fills out the characters and situations.


----------



## Pugg

Sloe said:


> La traviata still have a good flow.


Good point, one has to understand he deep meaning if it though.


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> I can assure you, there isn't even the least bit of indignation on my part. What you do or do not like is of no matter to me, but if you're going to enter discussions on Wagner or any other composer and offer ideas and critiques on their works, you should expect people might respond to them, *and possibly even disagree.*
> 
> I'm not sure where you got off on this tangent of me criticizing your posts for being subjective opinions parading as objective truth, but I never did any such thing. I was only pointing out the contradiction of one particular sentence, which I found humorous, and in *which your yourself put forth the term "objective".*
> 
> I wasn't using Bryan Magee's statement to try to get at some sort of objective truth, and there is not a trace of condensation in his statement, *nor does he make any kind of value judgement on those who do not enjoy Wagner, *anymore than there is in your theory in post #541* on why some personality types do not enjoy opera in general. *I was simply offering it as an alternative explanation to why some may not find the operas compelling, other than "they are long and boring" and products of an unchecked egoist.
> 
> Which leads back to the point, that I cannot accept your explanation for what you perceive as the weaknesses in Wagner's operas, namely their dramatic ineffectiveness, by attributing to Wagner the librettist all the worst elements of egoism and self-indulgence in crafting sprawling, overly long narratives, while conceding that as a composer he was a musical genius. Because this explanation overlooks the fundamental truth here: that *Wagner's librettos in and of themselves aren't usually particularly long or wordy, *his dramatic structures are actually quite concise, and what accounts for the operas length is the breadth and scope of the _music_ that fills out the characters and situations.


First I have no problem with people criticising my posts (after all, who am I?) as long as they maintain courtesy and politeness, which we all should aim at on TC.

I realise I used the word 'objective' which was a result of (I think) the auto-text on my computer. Wrong word there! Should have been 'overall'

Magee's statement at the end: "These are auditors to whom, alas, the music does not speak, and for whom this form of drama must therefore be the least accessible of any." When taken with the rest does imply to me a down-looking on people who do not appreciate RW as they should.

My theory on why some people don't like opera I got from someone I know who is a trained expert in personality assessment. It is a general theory, btw, not a fact. I have no doubt there are exceptions.

Your point: 'Wagner's librettos in and of themselves aren't usually particularly long or wordy' I think would be disputed by those of us who have sat through some of his operas. Indeed, many with more knowledge than me have talked of his 'notorious Longueurs, the fact that he always seems to go on for too long'. Of course, this is hotly disputed by Wagnerians as they can't get enough of their hero and his music. But to others outside the inner circle it might seem a trifle long. I love Don Carlo but the whole lot it can be a very long sit through an evening - why Verdi, a practical man of the theatre - edited it to make it more accessible.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

DavidA said:


> First I have no problem with people criticising my posts (after all, who am I?) as long as they maintain courtesy and politeness, which we all should aim at on TC.
> 
> I realise I used the word 'objective' which was a result of (I think) the auto-text on my computer. Wrong word there! Should have been 'overall'
> 
> Magee's statement at the end: "These are auditors to whom, alas, the music does not speak, and for whom this form of drama must therefore be the least accessible of any." When taken with the rest does imply to me a down-looking on people who do not appreciate RW as they should.
> 
> My theory on why some people don't like opera I got from someone I know who is a trained expert in personality assessment. It is a general theory, btw, not a fact. I have no doubt there are exceptions.
> 
> Your point: 'Wagner's librettos in and of themselves aren't usually particularly long or wordy' I think would be disputed by those of us who have sat through some of his operas. Indeed, many with more knowledge than me have talked of his 'notorious Longueurs, the fact that he always seems to go on for too long'. Of course, this is hotly disputed by Wagnerians as they can't get enough of their hero and his music. But to others outside the inner circle it might seem a trifle long. I love Don Carlo but the whole lot it can be a very long sit through an evening - why Verdi, a practical man of the theatre - edited it to make it more accessible.


Personality assessment and (not) liking opera? MBTI?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Your point:* 'Wagner's librettos in and of themselves aren't usually particularly long or wordy'* I think would be disputed by those of us who have sat through some of his operas. Indeed, many with more knowledge than me have talked of his 'notorious Longueurs, *the fact that he always seems to go on for too long'*. Of course, this is hotly disputed by Wagnerians as they can't get enough of their hero and his music. But *to others outside the inner circle it might seem a trifle long. *I love Don Carlo but the whole lot it can be a very long sit through an evening - why Verdi, a practical man of the theatre - edited it to make it more accessible.


This is both confused and condescending.

First of all, you should have quoted Faustian's entire thought: "Wagner's librettos in and of themselves aren't usually particularly long or wordy, _*his dramatic structures are actually quite concise, and what accounts for the operas length is the breadth and scope of the music that fills out the characters and situations.*_"

This is exactly right. Wagner's operas, more than those of any other composer I can think of, contain extended orchestral passages, lengthy preludes and interludes which serve to focus the central themes of the dramas, establish moods, and even create "aural scenery" so vivid that Wieland Wagner felt safe in eliminating a great deal of actual physical scenery from the stage, knowing that the music would paint the necessary picture. Just consider the magnificent dawn sequence and Rhine journey in _Gotterdammerung,_ and how much of the opera's prologue they occupy, or the extraordinary quantity and power of the orchestral sections in _Parsifal_ - the three preludes, the two transformation processionals, the abundant orchestral passages in act three which accompany the silent actions of the characters. Add to these orchestral passages the extended choral writing to be found in many of Wagner's operas, and it should be quite clear that his lengths are not primarily a function of wordiness in the librettos.

Whether or not any individual thinks Wagner's operas too long is really of no importance, and it isn't helpful to claim that people outside an "inner circle" find them so. The only circle here is in your reasoning, as you are basically defining this "inner circle" by whether or not they agree with your assessment. It is not a "fact" that Wagner "always seems to go on for too long." A four-hour opera may be a problem for your brain and backside to deal with, but the anatomy and attention span of others are perfectly fine with it.


----------



## DavidA

SimonTemplar said:


> Personality assessment and (not) liking opera? MBTI?


Yes that is the one


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> This is both confused and condescending.
> 
> First of all, you should have quoted Faustian's entire thought: "Wagner's librettos in and of themselves aren't usually particularly long or wordy, _*his dramatic structures are actually quite concise, and what accounts for the operas length is the breadth and scope of the music that fills out the characters and situations.*_"
> 
> This is exactly right. Wagner's operas, more than those of any other composer I can think of, contain extended orchestral passages, lengthy preludes and interludes which serve to focus the central themes of the dramas, establish moods, and even create "aural scenery" so vivid that Wieland Wagner felt safe in eliminating a great deal of actual physical scenery from the stage, knowing that the music would paint the necessary picture. Just consider the magnificent dawn sequence and Rhine journey in _Gotterdammerung,_ and how much of the opera's prologue they occupy, or the extraordinary quantity and power of the orchestral sections in _Parsifal_ - the three preludes, the two transformation processionals, the abundant orchestral passages in act three which accompany the silent actions of the characters. Add to these orchestral passages the extended choral writing to be found in many of he operas, and it should be quite clear that Wagner's lengths are not primarily a function of wordiness in the librettos.
> 
> Whether or not any individual thinks Wagner's operas too long is really of no importance, and it isn't helpful to claim that people outside an "inner circle" find them so. The only circle here is in your reasoning, as you are basically defining this "inner circle" by whether or not they agree with your assessment. It is not a "fact" that Wagner "always seems to go on for too long." The dimensions of his operas may be a problem for your brain and backside to deal with, but the anatomy of others is perfectly fine with it.


May I point out Woodduck that whatever the merits of your argument making a statement confusing my brain with my backside is just plain rude. If we getting to the stage of personal insults I'd sooner opt out the argument. Just to say there are people who are dedicated Wagnerians who glory in what appears to others to be the excessive length of the operas. Fine! The merit of the operas is a matter of opinion but please let's not be rude about it.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> May I point out Woodduck that whatever the merits of your argument making a statement confusing my brain with my backside is just plain rude. If we getting to the stage of personal insults I'd sooner opt out the argument. Just to say there are people who are dedicated Wagnerians who glory in what appears to others to be the excessive length of the operas. Fine! The merit of the operas is a matter of opinion but please let's not be rude about it.


I see that my attempt at humor fell flat. Let me assure you that I could never under any circumstances confuse a brain with a backside. I simply thought it relevant to mention both in order to be sure that neither would find itself unfairly neglected. If one of them bears no responsibility for your difficulty with Wagner's lengths, its protestations of innocence will be cheerfully accepted by me.

I'm happy to see that you retract your assertion that it's a "fact" that Wagner goes on too long. I still have no idea whether you think it's his librettos that account for the length of his operas, but since you don't acknowledge the point that Faustian and I have made - that it's the music that's mainly responsible - I have to assume that you either disagree with our judgment or fail to understand it. But I'm sure there will arise further opportunities to make it.


----------



## DavidA

When we are talking about the greatest opera ever written then Verdi certainly comes into the reckoning. The quantity and quality of the blinding masterpieces he wrote for the stage is quite incredible. Laying aside his early operas and starting with Rigoletto, there is a series of incredible works for the stage. Just listened to Trovatore. I know it's been lampooned by the Marx Bros but when it's done well it has tremendous power. No one would say it's one of Verdi's greatest works but it fulfils all that an opera should a great evening in the theatre. And when we come to the late operas they are supreme works. Verdi had an unerring instinct for the theatre matched only by Mozart imo


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I see that my attempt at humor fell flat. Let me assure you that I could never under any circumstances confuse a brain with a backside. I simply thought it relevant to mention both in order to be sure that neither would find itself unfairly neglected. If one of them bears no responsibility for your difficulty with Wagner's lengths, its protestations of innocence will be cheerfully accepted by me.
> 
> I'm happy to see that you retract your assertion that it's a "fact" that Wagner goes on too long. I still have no idea whether you think it's his librettos that account for the length of his operas, but since you don't acknowledge the point that Faustian and I have made - that it's the music that's mainly responsible - I have to assume that you either disagree with our judgment or fail to understand it. But I'm sure there will arise further opportunities to make it.


Yes your attempts at humour and lead balloons appear to have much in common! A personality thing again? Actually I don't know whether I have ever said it's a fact that that that goes on to long but it is certainly a fact that his operas are long. I thought that was a generally accepted fact. But your point that it s mainly the music that accounts for its length is probably true of all opera, not just Wagner


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Yes your attempts at humour and lead balloons appear to have much in common! A personality thing again? Actually I don't know whether I have ever said it's a fact that that that goes on to long but it is certainly a fact that his operas are long. I thought that was a generally accepted fact. But *your point that it s mainly the music that accounts for its length is probably true of all opera, not just Wagner*


You have the most remarkable way of never acknowledging a point that contradicts you, no matter how much evidence is given you, and of misremembering what you've said and claiming you didn't say it.

"Indeed, many with more knowledge than me have talked of his 'notorious Longueurs, *the fact* that he always seems to go on for too long'." (Post #579) I should add that you've advanced this "fact" many times in a completely unqualified way, as if it were not open to question, and when challenged on it you invariably backpedal and say that it's "just your opinion." You're also likely to appeal to some "authority" ("many with more knowledge than me"), as if that constitutes evidence for the objective rightness of your position, and may find some sly way to put down those who disagree with you (as in your "inner circle" remark). This is all gamesmanship, and disingenuous.

Your last statement is a fine bit of wiggle-wobble in order to avoid conceding the point that music, with no words attached, makes up a considerable portion of the length of a typical Wagner opera. If you can come up with similar cases in other composers, that will be interesting in itself, but will not in the least disprove Faustian's and my analysis, which you would evidently prefer to avoid confronting in order to hang on to your view of Wagner's librettos as "frankly far too long for the drama they sustain," a result of his "massive ego"(Post #525).


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> You have the most remarkable way of never acknowledging a point that contradicts you, no matter how much evidence is given you, and of misremembering what you've said and claiming you didn't say it.
> 
> "Indeed, many with more knowledge than me have talked of his 'notorious Longueurs, *the fact* that he always seems to go on for too long'." (Post #579) I should add that you've advanced this "fact" many times in a completely unqualified way, as if it were not open to question, and when challenged on it you invariably backpedal and say that it's "just your opinion." You're also likely to appeal to some "authority" ("many with more knowledge than me"), as if that constitutes evidence for the objective rightness of your position, and may find some sly way to put down those who disagree with you (as in your "inner circle" remark). This is all gamesmanship, and disingenuous.
> 
> Your last statement is a fine bit of wiggle-wobble in order to avoid conceding the point that music, with no words attached, makes up a considerable portion of the length of a typical Wagner opera. If you can come up with similar cases in other composers, that will be interesting in itself, but will not in the least disprove Faustian's and my analysis, which you would evidently prefer to avoid confronting in order to hang on to your view of Wagner's librettos as "frankly far too long for the drama they sustain," a result of his "massive ego"(Post #525).


Note Woodduck that it is a quotation . It was what someone else has said not me! Calling my opinions should 'gamesmanship' and 'disingenuous' is just your way of saying 'how dare you disagree with me'. 
Anyway my opinions are mine and I'm sticking to them just as you have every right to yours. I leave it at that. Let's move on to Verdi, an unashamed entertainer! Love the man!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *Note Woodduck that it is a quotation . It was what someone else has said not me! *Calling my opinions should 'gamesmanship' and 'disingenuous' is just your way of saying 'how dare you disagree with me'.
> *Anyway my opinions are mine* and I'm sticking to them just as you have every right to yours. I leave it at that. Let's move on to Verdi, an unashamed entertainer! Love the man!


Since when does quoting someone else with approval not imply agreement? Especially when they're saying something you've been agreeing with for years? _"Oh, that wasn't me speaking! But lots of other people say it..."_ Sheesh.

Appeals to authority, especially anonymous authority ("many with more knowledge than me," or "scholars who know more than me or thee," etc. etc.) are no substitute for an argument. Who _are_ you quoting anyway? Failure to attribute a quote that's supposed to support your views is indeed disingenuous, and going on and on with such tactics is indeed gamesmanship.

What would _not_ be disingenuous or gamesmanship? Expressing a simple opinion, acknowledging that that's all it is and that you can't produce any real evidence to support it, and not pounding it into the ground in thread after thread, prompting people with real information and evidence to take exception to it, and then ignoring their carefully framed arguments and twisting their statements and your own to say that you didn't really say what you said and that those who express their annoyance with these games are "insulting" you.

If you have actually analyzed Wagner's librettos and their musical treatment in any detail, and can produce some carefully adduced evidence - something besides personal taste and anonymous quotations - to support your claims that Wagner's librettos are "far too long for the dramas they sustain," that his texts and not his music are the main reason why his operas are long, and that it was for reasons of "massive ego" that he didn't hire an editor, kindly produce that evidence. Otherwise, could you simply admit that Wagner's operas are too long for your unqualified enjoyment and not assume, as you seem to, that that unfortunate fact has any kind of "authority" behind it and is therefore worth insisting upon at every available opportunity?

Simple bashing, backed by nothing, will get you blowback every single time.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

DavidA said:


> Yes that is the one


Intriguing! Could you tell me more?


----------



## DavidA

SimonTemplar said:


> Intriguing! Could you tell me more?


Myers Briggs tells us that the way we conduct ourselves is at least partly due to our personality types. So a certain type of personality is more likely (eg) to make a good social worker. It also tells us how to relate to people of different personalities from our own. It's also pretty good on the sort of things we might prefer so someone with certain preferences may not like opera as they want to get on with the action and get irritated when it's held up by singing. I'm no expert on this and I have no doubt lots of other factors come into it. But this is just a theory having done a couple of courses. It would actually be interesting to see what personality types opera lovers actually consist of although it would be impossible to do personality assessments on TC


----------



## DavidA

When it comes to the greatest opera ever written Verdi also comes to mind. He wrote a series of pretty staggering masterpieces even if we just begin with Rigoletto which is the first of these really mature operas. Verdi was a man of the theatre, an unashamed entertainer. As I go to the theatre primarily to be entertained then ranks high on my list. By the time we get the two Shakespeare operas, written afterVerdi had officially 'retired' we see an absolute master of his craft. Either of these has the claim to be right in the top drawer of any opera that's ever been written.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> When it comes to the greatest opera ever written Verdi also comes to mind. He wrote a series of pretty staggering masterpieces even if we just begin with Rigoletto which is the first of these really mature operas. Verdi was a man of the theatre, an unashamed entertainer. As I go to the theatre primarily to be entertained then ranks high on my list. By the time we get the two Shakespeare operas, written afterVerdi had officially 'retired' we see an absolute master of his craft. Either of these has the claim to be right in the top drawer of any opera that's ever been written.


agreed - in fact Otello is the only opera by Verdi I consider to be almost equal to the great Mozart operas. I never could get into falstaff for some reason - but Otello is as good as it gets.

As for Wagner - I spun an old decca of the start of die walkure recently I was thrilled at the orch opening - magnificent - and then the singing began - yawn.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> agreed - in fact Otello is the only opera by Verdi I consider to be almost equal to the great Mozart operas. I never could get into falstaff for some reason - but Otello is as good as it gets.
> 
> As for Wagner - I spun an old decca of the start of die walkure recently I was thrilled at the orch opening - magnificent - and then the singing began - yawn.


I couldn't get on with Falstaff at first but I now consider it (with Otello) the greatest post-Mozart opera. I think also it has to be seen as well as heard. Verdi the great dramatist at his best.

Must confess I often feel much the same about Walkure. There are parts which are magnificent - I mean the Windersturm and when Siegmund draws the sword out of the tree at the end of the act. The announcement of death. But there is an awful lot of longuers to get through too.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

DavidA said:


> Myers Briggs tells us that the way we conduct ourselves is at least partly due to our personality types. So a certain type of personality is more likely (eg) to make a good social worker. It also tells us how to relate to people of different personalities from our own. It's also pretty good on the sort of things we might prefer so someone with certain preferences may not like opera as they want to get on with the action and get irritated when it's held up by singing. I'm no expert on this and I have no doubt lots of other factors come into it. But this is just a theory having done a couple of courses. It would actually be interesting to see what personality types opera lovers actually consist of although it would be impossible to do personality assessments on TC


I've dipped my toe into the waters of MBTI a few times... I really meant which types he thought were allergic to opera (SJs? Thinkers?).

Interesting to see how personality type would affect how people experienced opera. Would SPs, say, focus on singing as a display of skill? Would SJs want to compare singers and recordings? Would iNtuitives look at the meaning of the works? Would Feelers be the types who cry at the opera? Would heavily emotional, introspective operas irritate Thinkers?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Carmen. 

That's all.

...........................


----------



## DavidA

SimonTemplar said:


> I've dipped my toe into the waters of MBTI a few times... I really meant which types he thought were allergic to opera (SJs? Thinkers?).
> 
> Interesting to see how personality type would affect how people experienced opera. Would SPs, say, focus on singing as a display of skill? Would SJs want to compare singers and recordings? Would iNtuitives look at the meaning of the works? Would Feelers be the types who cry at the opera? Would heavily emotional, introspective operas irritate Thinkers?


I think JS probably get irritated with the length of time opera takes and it's largely illogical framework


----------



## DavidA

Pat Fairlea said:


> Carmen.
> 
> That's all.
> 
> ...........................


Great choice!

Right up there


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> I think JS probably get irritated with the length of time opera takes and it's largely illogical framework


If you're thinking JS Bach, I read that he was in a different town one time with some son or other. He suggested they drop by the opera "to hear the pretty tunes." You can almost hear the sneer in his voice!


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> If you're thinking JS Bach, I read that he was in a different town one time with some son or other. He suggested they drop by the opera "to hear the pretty tunes." You can almost hear the sneer in his voice!


Well that does not help my view of JS. Rarely listen to JS anyway.


----------



## howlingfantods

KenOC said:


> If you're thinking JS Bach, I read that he was in a different town one time with some son or other. He suggested they drop by the opera "to hear the pretty tunes." You can almost hear the sneer in his voice!


I think he's talking about Myers Briggs categories, so Js would be who incline towards Judging instead of Perceiving, IIRC.

If that story is true, I share with Bach a certain contempt for opera of his era. For that matter, all music of his era that wasn't by Bach.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

DavidA said:


> I think JS probably get irritated with the length of time opera takes and it's largely illogical framework


Interesting! My father's definitely a Judger; he likes opera (including twentieth century works like (_King Roger_ or _Die tote Stadt_), but it irritates him if the characters aren't believable. He also can't see the point of myth or fantasy.


----------



## DavidA

SimonTemplar said:


> Interesting! My father's definitely a Judger; he likes opera (including twentieth century works like (_King Roger_ or _Die tote Stadt_), but it irritates him if the characters aren't believable. He also can't see the point of myth or fantasy.


Yes that fits. Of courts there ate three other categories of preferences in MBTI

https://www.opp.com/en/tools/MBTI/MBTI-personality-Types


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> I think he's talking about Myers Briggs categories, so Js would be who incline towards Judging instead of Perceiving, IIRC.
> 
> If that story is true, I share with Bach a certain contempt for opera of his era. *For that matter, all music of his era that wasn't by Bach*.


Handel? .


----------



## pianozach

*OMG*

*OK, here's the deal*: I've made a little list, and I've been posting the entries one at a time on a remarkably similar looking vBlog to THIS one.

It's *A Beginner's Guide to Classical Music*, and was intended to be a launching ground for those who have no background or exposure to classical music, but are interested in Classical music, and are woefully unsure of where to start.

I've accompanied each entry with explanations, a linked video (usually a live performance), and occasionally a link to a related pop or rock version. It started last November as a *Top Ten*, then Top Twenty, and now I'm up to #160, where I've stopped to include some full length operas.

For instance, the first ten:

Holst - *The Planets*, Op. 32. 1918
Dvorak - *Symphony No.9 * in E minor "From the New World", Op 95. 1893
Beethoven - Symphony No. 3 "*Eroica*"
Stravinsky - The *Firebird*. 1910	
Tchaikovsky - *1812* Festival Overture, Op. 49. 1882

Vivaldi - *Summer*, The Four Seasons. 1723
JS Bach - *Brandenburg Concerto #6*, In B Flat, BWV 1051. 1721.
WA Mozart - Symphony 41 in C "*Jupiter*", K. 551. 1788
Borodin - *In the Steppes of Central Asia*. 1880. 
WA Mozart - *Overture* from *The Marriage of Figaro*. 1786

In retrospect, the TOP TEN reminds me of MOST EXPECTED works on next season's Local Symphony Orchestra list. But, IMO, these are probably some of the most ACCESSIBLE Classical works for a novice listener.

That said, I've got a list of roughly 50 operas, and it occurred that I'm going to have to choose one to go first.

Of course, full length operas, which can be problematic in terms of accessibility for a novice listener (They're sung by operatic voices, they're usually in a foreign language, and they're long). So I've neglected them in my Top 160, although I've included several Overtures and other opera highlights in the list, but almost all are _*non*_-vocal.

*And there are over 600 comments in this thread. Has there been any consensus? *

The Top Ten on my list do not include any operas in English, which might actually be a better starting point

Bizet - Carmen
Mozart - The Marriage of Figaro
Verdi - La Traviata
Puccini - La Bohème
Mozart - The Magic Flute

Rossini - The Barber of Seville
Puccini - Tosca
Puccini's Madama Butterfly
Mozart - Don Giovani
Verdi - Rigoletto

. . . . but I can't help think that it might be better to begin with and Opera _in English_. I'm pretty familiar with the Sir Arthur Sullivan operettas, but after that, where does one go for Operas in English? Purcell? Bleah. Ralph Vaughan Williams? Britten? (Actually, I've got A Midsummer's Night Dream in my list). Porgy and Bess? The Threepenny Opera in English? Does West Side Story count?

I'll browse through THIS thread (all 600 comments), but looking at other sites with music experts the list of ten above are almost always mentioned, and the following seem to pop up frequently as #1:

*Carmen
La Boheme
Le nozze di Figaro
Falstaff
Rigoletto
La Traviatta
L'Orfeo*


----------



## Woodduck

pianozach said:


> *OMG*
> 
> *OK, here's the deal*: I've made a little list, and I've been posting the entries one at a time on a remarkably similar looking vBlog to THIS one.
> 
> It's *A Beginner's Guide to Classical Music*, and was intended to be a launching ground for those who have no background or exposure to classical music, but are interested in Classical music, and are woefully unsure of where to start.
> 
> I've accompanied each entry with explanations, a linked video (usually a live performance), and occasionally a link to a related pop or rock version. It started last November as a *Top Ten*, then Top Twenty, and now I'm up to #160, where I've stopped to include some full length operas.
> 
> For instance, the first ten:
> 
> Holst - *The Planets*, Op. 32. 1918
> Dvorak - *Symphony No.9 * in E minor "From the New World", Op 95. 1893
> Beethoven - Symphony No. 3 "*Eroica*"
> Stravinsky - The *Firebird*. 1910
> Tchaikovsky - *1812* Festival Overture, Op. 49. 1882
> 
> Vivaldi - *Summer*, The Four Seasons. 1723
> JS Bach - *Brandenburg Concerto #6*, In B Flat, BWV 1051. 1721.
> WA Mozart - Symphony 41 in C "*Jupiter*", K. 551. 1788
> Borodin - *In the Steppes of Central Asia*. 1880.
> WA Mozart - *Overture* from *The Marriage of Figaro*. 1786
> 
> In retrospect, the TOP TEN reminds me of MOST EXPECTED works on next season's Local Symphony Orchestra list. But, IMO, these are probably some of the most ACCESSIBLE Classical works for a novice listener.
> 
> That said, I've got a list of roughly 50 operas, and it occurred that I'm going to have to choose one to go first.
> 
> Of course, full length operas, which can be problematic in terms of accessibility for a novice listener (They're sung by operatic voices, they're usually in a foreign language, and they're long). So I've neglected them in my Top 160, although I've included several Overtures and other opera highlights in the list, but almost all are _*non*_-vocal.
> 
> *And there are over 600 comments in this thread. Has there been any consensus? *
> 
> The Top Ten on my list do not include any operas in English, which might actually be a better starting point
> 
> Bizet - Carmen
> Mozart - The Marriage of Figaro
> Verdi - La Traviata
> Puccini - La Bohème
> Mozart - The Magic Flute
> 
> Rossini - The Barber of Seville
> Puccini - Tosca
> Puccini's Madama Butterfly
> Mozart - Don Giovani
> Verdi - Rigoletto
> 
> . . . . but I can't help think that it might be better to begin with and Opera _in English_. I'm pretty familiar with the Sir Arthur Sullivan operettas, but after that, where does one go for Operas in English? Purcell? Bleah. Ralph Vaughan Williams? Britten? (Actually, I've got A Midsummer's Night Dream in my list). Porgy and Bess? The Threepenny Opera in English? Does West Side Story count?
> 
> I'll browse through THIS thread (all 600 comments), but looking at other sites with music experts the list of ten above are almost always mentioned, and the following seem to pop up frequently as #1:
> 
> *Carmen
> La Boheme
> Le nozze di Figaro
> Falstaff
> Rigoletto
> La Traviatta
> L'Orfeo*


How does all this address the subject of the thread: THE GREATEST OPERA EVER WRITTEN?

(Also - just puzzled/curious - how can this be your first post if you joined the forum in May of 2018?)


----------



## pianozach

Woodduck said:


> How does all this address the subject of the thread: THE GREATEST OPERA EVER WRITTEN?
> 
> (Also - just puzzled/curious - how can this be your first post if you joined the forum in May of 2018?)


SECOND QUESTION FIRST. I forgot you guys were even here. Found you back then, signed up, and promptly forgot. I should have bookmarked the page. Found it again yesterday while searching for the one best opera ever, tried signing in, and yikes, I guessed my user name and password on the first try.

FIRST QUESTION NEXT. Um, well, as I mentioned, I'd like to present some operas for novice listeners, and it makes sense that I'd consider using "THE GREATEST OPERA EVER WRITTEN" as a potential first entry.

I just perused this entire thread and discovered several things:

1. There's an awful lot of folks here that hate *recitative*. :lol:
2. Folks here are having trouble reconciling *"greatest"* and "_*favorite"*_, yet most people here seem to think that their favorites are the "best". I agree . . . The operas that people 'love' may very well be the 'best'.
3. As I went through I made hash marks next to my list, and in several instances added additional operas, either because of how they were described, or because several people mentioned them.***
4. I learned about operas I'd never heard about. Ever. Like Meyerbeer's *Huguenots*.
5. No one thought *Madama Butterfly, Rigoletto*, or *Die Fledermaus* was 'the greatest'. 
6. There's a list, posted as a sticky note with the results of a poll. I'll look at that soon.
7. I've musical directed every *Gilbert & Sullivan* operetta, all of them at least twice, some of them several times. Directed two of 'em. They're likeable, tuneful, and they're IN ENGLISH. Sullivan's one grand opera was well received in the 1880s, broke attendance records, then was practically never heard from since. Not a lot of love for operetta, is there?

* You might be interested at the hash mark results for this thread. DISCLAIMER: My count was neither scientific nor unbiased. Sometimes it's difficult to tell whether someone simply commented with their fave opera several times. If someone mentioned two 'best' operas I'd count them both. If they listed three or more, I'd count the first on their list.

I found the choices to be quite interesting: It seems that *Wagner* and *Mozart* kiiled it, with *Verdi* a close third. *The Ring* was mentioned often, although some folks mentioned the entire cycle while others mentioned one of the four parts, with the first and fourth operas getting the most love.

*1. The Ring 
2. Don Giovanni 
3. Tristan und Isolde
4. Marriage of Figaro
5. Carmen
6. The Magic Flute

7. Don Carlo
7. Fidelio

9. La Bohème
9. Falstaff
9. Tosca
9. Le Grand Macabre

13. La Traviata, Der Rosenkavalier, Les Troyens, L'Orfeo
*
I think that I cannot place *The Ring* at the top of _*my*_ list even though The Ride of the Valkyries already appeared earllier on my list (at #31). I can't think of an appropriate justification for something so astonishingly epic. For example, if I'm trying to get someone who has never been to the movies to appreciate film, I am not going to start with the *Godfather* trilogy, regardless of how highly I may rate it (maybe *The Wizard of Oz*, or *Around the World in 80 Days*, or perhaps *Raiders of the Lost Ark*.) I digress. Perhaps one could say that *Wagner* is simply too advanced for a beginner, eh?


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ If you're fond of listing, you may be interested in participating in this thread: Discussion: The 2020 Talk Classical Top Recommended Opera CDs and DVDs


----------



## pianozach

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ If you're fond of listing, you may be interested in participating in this thread: Discussion: The 2020 Talk Classical Top Recommended Opera CDs and DVDs





Woodduck said:


> ^^^ If you're fond of listing, you may be interested in participating in this thread: Discussion: The 2020 Talk Classical Top Recommended Opera CDs and DVDs


thanks.

I'm opinionated, but as an instrumentalist raised on piano, symphonic, then rock, pop, and musical theatre, my working knowledge of opera is lacking.

I grew up despising opera, mostly because I hated the way legit voices sounded. Oh, that bellowing and catterwalling.

I have a healthy appreciation for it these days, which is a good thing as I'm resident MD for an operetta group, and accompany choirs at two schools.

I sing some . . . was in a professional BBSQ for several years, and as church soloist for non-mainstream churches. I coach amateur vocalists (mostly in very simple technique, and advanced dramatic presentation for both auditions and performances).

I feel as though I know enough about Opera to be a danger to myself and others, but I'm learning more all the time.

I'm more of an afficionado of live symphonic works, and have favorite conductors, notably Bernstein, Mehta, Dorati. I love film composers and, at one time thought it would be a great career. A buddy of mine that DID film and TV scores warned me that "there is nothing like having to compose on a schedule to suck the joy out of music." That's not why I'm not a film composer . . . it's a combination of lack of technical skills and contacts. To a large degree it's who you know.

Wait, what was your question?

Oh. I have one current favorite presentation of The Mikado to share. The *Pacific Opera Project* just streamed their production a few months ago, and it's brilliant. The operetta has been unofficially blacklisted for several years now by ignorant folks that have decided that it's racist. For those *actually* familiar with the work, they're aware that Gilbert was NOT making fun of the Japanese, but rather, making fun of the British, and getting away with it by *pretending* to be writing about the Japanese. POP skirts around the 'objectional' stuff by making it far less Japanese, and more global.

I did get to watch the stream live, and know a couple of the people in it: *Will*, who plays half of *Pish-Tush*, and *Tony*, who was in the ensemble.


----------



## MAS

What constitutes the *greatest*? By what or whose measure? Any human agency involved would proffer an *opinion*.

It offends me when people automatically think Wagner's music is the greatest. The *longest*, yes. Not that I don't like Wagner.

Does what *I* like make anything the greatest? To me, yes. But I'm realistic enough to think that *even I* don't believe that. I'm not deluded.

But if you had a committee put together the criteria for the greatest opera, would it come to a consensus? You'd want to have at least one person to represent (like) each known composer. One for Monteverdi, one for Händel, one for Mozart, one for Verdi, and so on and so forth.
Some would like three or four of the composers, some twenty, some just Berg, some Glass, some any 12-tone stuff. Each would have his or her criteria. A Monteverdi opera would have a smaller orchestra, a Strauss one a larger one, so would the criteria differ for each of those? I'm already thinking this is too complicated!

*What I think are great operas* (no one has to agree)

L'Incoronazione di Poppaea, Alcina, Rinaldo, Orlando, Giulio Cesare, Orfeo Ed Euridice, Iphigenie en Tauride, Cosi Fan Tutte, Don Giovanni, Die Zauberfloete, Medee, Euryanthe, Oberon, Les Huguenots, Semiramide, Lucia di Lammermoor, Ana Bolena, Norma, La Sonnambula, I Puritani, Les Troyens, Lohengrin, Der Ring des Nibelungen, Romeo et Juliette, Rigoletto, La Traviata, Il Trovatore, Don Carlo, Aida, Otello, Un Ballo In Maschera, Macbeth, Nabucco, Madama Butterfly, Turandot, Eugène Onegin, Werther, Manon, Le Cid, Pagliacci, Cavalleria Rusticana, Salomé, Elektra, Arabella, Billy Budd, Akhenaten.


----------



## Woodduck

MAS said:


> It offends me when people automatically think Wagner's music is the greatest. The *longest*, yes. Not that I don't like Wagner.


Who AUTOMATICALLY thinks that? Don't most people who think that think it because of what they hear?



> I'm already thinking this is too complicated!


It IS complicated.



> *What I think are great operas* (no one has to agree)
> 
> L'Incoronazione di Poppaea, Alcina, Rinaldo, Orlando, Giulio Cesare, Orfeo Ed Euridice, Iphigenie en Tauride, Cosi Fan Tutte, Don Giovanni, Die Zauberfloete, Medee, Euryanthe, Oberon, Les Huguenots, Semiramide, Lucia di Lammermoor, Ana Bolena, Norma, La Sonnambula, I Puritani, Les Troyens, Lohengrin, Der Ring des Nibelungen, Romeo et Juliette, Rigoletto, La Traviata, Il Trovatore, Don Carlo, Aida, Otello, Un Ballo In Maschera, Macbeth, Nabucco, Madama Butterfly, Turandot, Eugène Onegin, Werther, Manon, Le Cid, Pagliacci, Cavalleria Rusticana, Salomé, Elektra, Arabella, Billy Budd, Akhenaten.


Well, I'll agree with MOST of those, but there are a few surprising inclusions and some shocking omissions. It would be interesting to hear your reasons.


----------



## MAS

Woodduck, you’d like to know my reasons for thinking the operas I listed are great? I prefer them to all of the other works composed by their composers, and to other operas in the repertoire. They hold my interest, plus they have interesting soprano roles, plus they have great melodies, plus they touch my heart and sometlmes my soul. I prefer dramas to comedies. I like parts of some operas I havent heard all operas in the repertoire, Some operas have become trite to me over the years, and I’ve become somewhat jaded. 

What omissions shock you?


----------



## Woodduck

MAS said:


> Woodduck, you'd like to know my reasons for thinking the operas I listed are great? I prefer them to all of the other works composed by their composers, and to other operas in the repertoire. They hold my interest, plus they have interesting soprano roles, plus they have great melodies, plus they touch my heart and sometlmes my soul. I prefer dramas to comedies. I like parts of some operas I havent heard all operas in the repertoire, Some operas have become trite to me over the years, and I've become somewhat jaded.
> 
> What omissions shock you?


Those seem like reasons for liking an opera, but not necessarily for calling it great.

Besides a number of those you mention, what about Le Nozze di Figaro, Fidelio, Il Barbiere di Siviglia, Der Freischutz, Der Fliegende Hollander, Tannhauser,Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Parsifal, Un Ballo in Maschera, Simon Boccanegra, Falstaff, Faust, Carmen, Boris Godunov, Pelleas et Mellsande, Die Fledermaus, La Boheme, Tosca, La Fanciulla del West, Il Trittico, Hansel und Gretel, Der Rosenkavalier, Die Frau ohne Schatten, Wozzeck, Lulu, Dialogues des Carmelites, Peter Grimes and Porgy and Bess - just to name operas I know well enough to make a judgment about? I'm not necessarily fond of all these, but they all strike me as unique and outstanding works, masterpieces or near-masterpieces of musical theater which have earned their reputations and popularity.

As for which of these, among others, might be "the greatest opera ever written," well... I don't like to engage in arguments that can't be settled. I'm inclined toward _Tristan_ myself, for reasons I've expressed in previous posts, but if its dark, visceral, quivering agonies and ecstasies are not your thing, I won't insist.


----------



## ldiat

from Twitter: 
Eun Sun Kim will be Music Director of San Francisco Opera, making her the first woman MD at a Level 1 American opera house. A huge step forward for the industry – overjoyed for 
@sfopera
and so proud to represent ESK!!!


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

pianozach said:


> 7. I've musical directed every *Gilbert & Sullivan* operetta, all of them at least twice, some of them several times. Directed two of 'em. They're likeable, tuneful, and they're IN ENGLISH. Sullivan's one grand opera was well received in the 1880s, broke attendance records, then was practically never heard from since. Not a lot of love for operetta, is there?


A G&S fan!

What do you think of _The Grand Duke_? Almost nobody has heard of it, but I've loved it since my teens. Who can resist an operetta with a statutory duel whereby the loser is declared legally dead; the sausage roll aria; the increasingly drunk chorus; the roulette aria; and a patter song in Greek? ("In the period Socratic every dining room was Attic...") And Julia's aria in Act II is splendid.

And the similarly undersung _Princess Ida _has some of Sullivan's best music - although I'm not sure I should have modelled myself on Gama Rex when young. But I can't think why.

What's your opinion of _Ivanhoe_?


----------



## The Conte

Dr. Shatterhand said:


> A G&S fan!
> 
> What do you think of _The Grand Duke_? Almost nobody has heard of it, but I've loved it since my teens. Who can resist an operetta with a statutory duel whereby the loser is declared legally dead; the sausage roll aria; the increasingly drunk chorus; the roulette aria; and a patter song in Greek? ("In the period Socratic every dining room was Attic...") And Julia's aria in Act II is splendid.
> 
> And the similarly undersung _Princess Ida _has some of Sullivan's best music - although I'm not sure I should have modelled myself on Gama Rex when young. But I can't think why.
> 
> What's your opinion of _Ivanhoe_?


Although the question wasn't addressed to me, I'll give my answer as I adore The Grand Duke. I can't fathom why it is seen as one of the G&S duds. Some find the plot too ridiculous... But I love it and the music is what all good operetta is about. Furthermore I agree with your assessment of the music to Princess Ida.

Ivanhoe on the other hand I find to be a crashing bore. Should I listen to it further?

N.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Greatest opera ever written?

Fidelio by Beethoven, of course. 

No, make that L'amico Fritz by Mascagni! 

Love them both, and both are unique, but....

THERE IS NO GREATEST OPERA! 

However, it if fun to speculate and we can perhaps be introduced to operas we have not tried yet, which is the practical function of many of the threads here at TC. (There is an impractical function to TC threads and that is for having skirmishes over opinions on operas, composers, conductors, and singers, for people who love to be right, no matter what, and who won't listen to reason, and can hide behind a mouse and keyboard :lol: )

But perhaps, based on Renata Scotto's quote (see my signature), La Sonnambula should be nominated as the Greatest. Of course that could be said about many arias in many operas, eh?


----------



## Couchie

Fritz Kobus said:


> THERE IS NO GREATEST OPERA!


Of course there is a greatest opera. To say that there is no greatest opera, one must discard the concept of "greatness" altogether, which means any old opera I whip up on a Thursday is as great as Mozart's Don Giovanni. Since this is clearly absurd, the existence of greatness in opera must exist. If a spectrum of greatness exists, then by logical necessity, a greatest opera must exist, even if it shares the title with other operas.

You sir, are wrong.


----------



## pianozach

Dr. Shatterhand said:


> A G&S fan!
> 
> What do you think of _The Grand Duke_? Almost nobody has heard of it, but I've loved it since my teens. Who can resist an operetta with a statutory duel whereby the loser is declared legally dead; the sausage roll aria; the increasingly drunk chorus; the roulette aria; and a patter song in Greek? ("In the period Socratic every dining room was Attic...") And Julia's aria in Act II is splendid.


We just had auditions for *The Grand Duke*. Rehearsals start in January.

There's some great moments in *The Grand Duke*, but there's also some headscratchingly awful settings of Gilbert's lyrics. It seems to have been a slap-dash affair with Sullivan, as though he were just too busy to be bothered to get the lyrics to fit correctly. Even Gilbert was critical of his own libretto, calling it "an ugly misshapen little brat".

In spite of that, it still manages to make some forays into actual Grand Opera. There's some great melodies, and some great dialogue. But there's also filler, unjustified comedy, a complex yet thin plot, and awkward lyrics. That doesn't mean it's justifiably neglected in the canon of G&S . . . It's quite a jolly romp with some dramatic moments, even though I suspect the intention was to present a dramatic splash with some comedic moments: In effect, this operetta doesn't really know WHAT it wants to be.

I like it. It's not my favorite, and it's far from perfect, but I like it anyway.



Dr. Shatterhand said:


> And the similarly undersung _Princess Ida _has some of Sullivan's best music - although I'm not sure I should have modelled myself on Gama Rex when young. But I can't think why.


*Princess Ida* is also amusing, although I still don't understand the Brits' obsession with crossdressing. Whatever.

The lead role, in the hands of a capable actress is a tour de force. The ending (like many of their endings) unfortunately seems arbitrary and rushed, which works for most of the other G&S operettas, but not so much in _this_ one. In this case, with the feminists all caving in to the mens' world at the end seems astonishingly outdated, but it is what it is.



Dr. Shatterhand said:


> What's your opinion of _Ivanhoe_?


Our Artistic Director despises *Ivanhoe* passionately. I've suggested we present it (both seriously, and in 'jest') on several occasions, and have been met with derision and scorn, even when suggesting it as merely a concert presentation.

From what I've read (and the little I've heard) it's really not suitable for presentation any more. When originally presented the story of Ivanhoe was well-loved and well-known, and this Grand Opera used that to its advantage . . . the librettist Julian Sturgis evidently cherry picked the best parts of the story and that's what was set. Unfortunately, they left out a great deal of the plot, which makes it difficult for modern audiences, now unfamiliar with the tale, to follow along. The opera _*intentionally*_ dramatizes disconnected scenes from the book and does not attempt to retell the whole story.

That is why I've been advocating for a *concert presentation*. The music, from what I've heard and read, is top notch stuff. It's a bit stuffy in places, as it's heavy with ballads and hymn-like numbers, but that's outweighed by the wonderfully complex and dramatic music. There's a brilliant double chorus in the jousting scene, and some wonderfully Wagnerian arias. And in a concert presentation of an unknown operatic work no one will notice if we made any judicious 'trimming' of the score.

Also in its favor for presentation, is that it's likely it might actually be a premiere presentation out here, leaving a possibility for advertising it as such. The "Lost Arthur Sullivan Grand Opera", "West Coast Premiere", "rare opportunity to hear the score from one of Great Britain's most celebrated composers", the opera that broke attendance records on its original run in 1891 (a consecutive run of 155 performances, a record for a grand opera, a record that is STILL unbroken in England). We're coming up on its 130th anniversary 2021.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Couchie said:


> Of course there is a greatest opera. To say that there is no greatest opera, one must discard the concept of "greatness" altogether, which means any old opera I whip up on a Thursday is as great as Mozart's Don Giovanni. Since this is clearly absurd, the existence of greatness in opera must exist. If a spectrum of greatness exists, then by logical necessity, a greatest opera must exist, even if it shares the title with other operas.
> 
> You sir, are wrong.


If it's the "greatest" opera then it cannot share the title with others, because there can only be one "greatest", though there may be several "great".

Greatest is a superlative, here meaning the greatest among greats. I don't see how admitting the impossibility of choosing one greatest means one must discard the concept of greatness altogether. That is a nonsense.


----------



## pianozach

The Conte said:


> Ivanhoe on the other hand I find to be a crashing bore. Should I listen to it further?
> 
> N.


I'm guessing that you've simply not heard a 'great' version/production of it, or perhaps not the 'best' parts of the opera. Try listening to "_*O Moon*_" or "*Tend Thou the Knight Thou Lovest*".


----------



## Couchie

Tsaraslondon said:


> If it's the "greatest" opera then it cannot share the title with others, because there can only be one "greatest", though there may be several "great".
> 
> Greatest is a superlative, here meaning the greatest among greats. I don't see how admitting the impossibility of choosing one greatest means one must discard the concept of greatness altogether. That is a nonsense.


Not true... "Die Walkure is one of the greatest operas." "Greatest" can be a _class _category of the highest ranked works, meaning there is no higher class of work.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> Of course there is a greatest opera. To say that there is no greatest opera, one must discard the concept of "greatness" altogether...


No, it means that one understands that things are great in different ways, ways that may be incommensurable, so that comparisons can't be made by a single standard. The old apples and oranges thing, in other words.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Not true... "*Die Walkure is one of the greatest operas*." "Greatest" can be a _class _category of the highest ranked works, meaning there is no higher class of work.


Of course there are operas which can be ranked as 'the greatest'. Whether Die Walkure is one of them depends on your point of view. Like much else here it is subjective


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Couchie said:


> Not true... "Die Walkure is one of the greatest operas." "Greatest" can be a _class _category of the highest ranked works, meaning there is no higher class of work.


But not in this context. "The greatest opera ever written" clearly asks for the single greatest opera ever written.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

pianozach said:


> We just had auditions for *The Grand Duke*. Rehearsals start in January.


Fantastic! I'd love to see _The Grand Duke_ someday.



> There's some great moments in *The Grand Duke*, but there's also some headscratchingly awful settings of Gilbert's lyrics. It seems to have been a slap-dash affair with Sullivan, as though he were just too busy to be bothered to get the lyrics to fit correctly. Even Gilbert was critical of his own libretto, calling it "an ugly misshapen little brat".


And I wish Sullivan had set _His Excellency_! Which pieces did you have in mind? Some of Rudolph's?



> In spite of that, it still manages to make some forays into actual Grand Opera. There's some great melodies, and some great dialogue. But there's also filler, unjustified comedy, a complex yet thin plot, and awkward lyrics.


Yes, I'll agree that it's uneven - but I like it more than _The Sorcerer_, _Pinafore_, _Ruddigore_, or _Utopia_ - or even _Gondoliers_, its closest equivalent: longer and more complex than other Savoy operas (except _Yeomen_), more operatic (_Gondoliers_ is Italianate, this is closer to Viennese operetta or Offenbach).

I love Ludwig's matrimonial complications - culminating in the arrival of the Prince of Monte Carlo and entourage from Mediterranean water.

When orthography foregoes its laws, and ghost is written 'ghoest', that kind of pun's the lowest? Matrimonially matrimonified? Yes, Gilbert's muse is erratic in this one.



> That doesn't mean it's justifiably neglected in the canon of G&S . . . It's quite a jolly romp with some dramatic moments, even though I suspect the intention was to present a dramatic splash with some comedic moments: In effect, this operetta doesn't really know WHAT it wants to be.
> 
> I like it. It's not my favorite, and it's far from perfect, but I like it anyway.


A dramatic splash with comedic moments - that might, as you suggest, be the problem! It could probably have done with another revision - but could Gilbert have received Sullivan's criticism after the carpet quarrel?

*Princess Ida* is also amusing, although I still don't understand the Brits' obsession with crossdressing. Whatever.

The lead role, in the hands of a capable actress is a tour de force. The ending (like many of their endings) unfortunately seems arbitrary and rushed, which works for most of the other G&S operettas, but not so much in _this_ one. In this case, with the feminists all caving in to the mens' world at the end seems astonishingly outdated, but it is what it is.[/QUOTE]

I suppose one way might be to look at _Princess Ida _as a satire on extremism.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

The Conte said:


> Although the question wasn't addressed to me, I'll give my answer as I adore The Grand Duke. I can't fathom why it is seen as one of the G&S duds. Some find the plot too ridiculous... But I love it and the music is what all good operetta is about. Furthermore I agree with your assessment of the music to Princess Ida.
> 
> Ivanhoe on the other hand I find to be a crashing bore. Should I listen to it further?
> 
> N.


Well, in its day, apparently it was a huge hit. But it's probably longer and more difficult to stage than other G&S. And whereas other operas parody the law, the navy, aesthetics, or the Westminster system, here Gilbert satirises theatricality itself - including the Savoy operas.


----------



## The Conte

Dr. Shatterhand said:


> Well, in its day, apparently it was a huge hit. But it's probably longer and more difficult to stage than other G&S. And whereas other operas parody the law, the navy, aesthetics, or the Westminster system, here Gilbert satirises theatricality itself - including the Savoy operas.


Ivanhoe? Ivanhoe isn't _G_&S.

N.


----------



## Rogerx

The Conte said:


> Ivanhoe? Ivanhoe isn't _G_&S.
> 
> N.


I do think Dr. Shatterhand means this one, easy mistake .

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7983835--sullivan-a-ivanhoe


----------



## The Conte

Rogerx said:


> I do think Dr. Shatterhand means this one, easy mistake .
> 
> https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7983835--sullivan-a-ivanhoe


Yes, so do I, perhaps it is an easy mistake, but it still isn't *G* &S

N.


----------



## SixFootScowl

If we establish categories it might be easier to peg the greatest opera for that category. Therefore, I nominate Wagner's Ring for the category LONGEST OPERA (excuse me for splicing a prelude and three musical dramas into one single opera, but I could not help it).


----------



## OperaChic

Fritz Kobus said:


> If we establish categories it might be easier to peg the greatest opera for that category. Therefore, I nominate Wagner's Ring for the category LONGEST OPERA (excuse me for splicing a prelude and three musical dramas into one single opera, but I could not help it).


I believe Stockhausen has him beat.


----------



## Lever Du Jour

Gluck's Orfeo and Euridice, although I've only heard the music and never seen it


----------



## Rogerx

Lever Du Jour said:


> Gluck's Orfeo and Euridice, although I've only heard the music and never seen it


If I may, how many opera's do you know?


----------



## Lever Du Jour

Not many, only ever went to see Mozart's Don Giovanni, which was admitedly quite good, and of Cosí fan tutte I also only heard the music but found it to be also quite good, same with the magic flute.
I also heard Debussy's Pelleas and Mellisande which has quite some good music, but never seen it, same with Verdi's La Traviatta, Geeshwin's Porgy and Bess, to name a few
To be honest, I am not quite fond of the genre of opera, I think Cioran is in a sense right in calling it a sinester masquerade, altough I still think it's valuable for it's music only, the Dance of the blessed spirits from Orfeo and Euridice for instance I consider to be one of the must sublime pieces of music ever written, or the great famous aria from act II of Mozart's magic flute.


----------



## pianozach

The Conte said:


> Yes, so do I, perhaps it is an easy mistake, but it still isn't *G* &S
> 
> N.


Correct.

*Sir Arthur Sullivan* wrote 23 or 24 operas, although most are operettas, and three are one-act-only affairs, and at least two are permanently "lost", as only fragments remain. One, *Ivanhoe*, was a very successful Grand Opera. The first act of *The Contrabandista* was later recycled as the first act of *The Cheiftain*.

He collaborated on fourteen comic operas between 1871 and 1896 with *W.S. Gilbert*, of which Ivanhoe was _NOT_ one.

His other works are largely forgotten with the exceptions of the songs _*The Lost Chord*_ and _*Onward Christian Soldiers*_. But he was moderately prolific, also composing 13 major orchestral works, eight choral works and oratorios, two ballets, one song cycle, incidental music to several plays, numerous hymns and other church pieces, and a large body of songs, parlour ballads, part songs, carols, and piano and chamber pieces.


----------



## Parsifal1954

"Tristan und Isolde", without a doubt. There has not been any work at this level in the whole music history.


----------



## VitellioScarpia

These questions are so hard because once one makes a choice, one's instantly regretful for the ones I did not pick... I pick _Le Nozze di Figaro_.


----------



## Couchie

parsifal1954 said:


> "tristan und isolde", without a doubt. There has not been any work at this level in the whole music history.


then why is your name parisfal?


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> then why is your name parisfal?


Perhaps he would rather a large soprano die at his feet than die on top of him.


----------



## zxxyxxz

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps he would rather a large soprano die at his feet than die on top of him.


Made me chuckle.

But I would pick Tristan und Isolde as the greatest opera ever written as well.


----------



## DavidA

Any of Mozart’s da Ponte operas qualifies as the greatest in different ways. Depends which one I’m listening to at the time.


----------



## Woodduck

zxxyxxz said:


> Made me chuckle.
> 
> But I would pick Tristan und Isolde as the greatest opera ever written as well.


So would I. Actually I think _Parsifal_ is in some ways finer, but _Tristan_ is simply a KILLER. Nothing like it before or since.


----------



## zxxyxxz

I've got to admit Parsifal has moments that move to tears and move me to get on my knees and pray. But the english translation I followed caused me to hate the words.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps he would rather a large soprano die at his feet than die on top of him.


Too many memories; too soon.


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> Too many memories; too soon.


A large soprano recently died on top of you? How large? Jane Eaglen large?


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> A large soprano recently died on top of you? How large? Jane Eaglen large?


Let's just say, it wasn't over until then.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Where's the love for Siegfried? In every ranking of the four dramas I see Siegfried is always at the bottom. People complain of the (almost) all-male cast, the 'ponderousness', the 'meanness' of Siegfried, and never is there any love for the completely unique music, which has evolved past what we are used to in Das Rheingold and Die Walkure, yet without becoming Gotterdammerung which is an entirely different style on its own.

One good scene after another, who can't love the forging song or the Wand'rer's entrance? And for Wotan's story this is really the best drama. The game of wits with Mime, the renunciation of the hoard with Alberich, the marvellous scene with Erda (which many have noted approaches the language of Thus Spoke Zarathustra) where we see Wotan's character having come full circle since Rheingold, all this weaved throughout until we see the final and only confrontation between him and Siegfried. On a literary level, it may be the best drama, but it may also be musically:


----------



## HenryPenfold

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Where's the love for Siegfried? In every ranking of the four dramas I see Siegfried is always at the bottom. People complain of the (almost) all-male cast, the 'ponderousness', the 'meanness' of Siegfried, and never is there any love for the completely unique music, which has evolved past what we are used to in Das Rheingold and Die Walkure, yet without becoming Gotterdammerung which is an entirely different style on its own.
> 
> One good scene after another, who can't love the forging song or the Wand'rer's entrance? And for Wotan's story this is really the best drama. The game of wits with Mime, the renunciation of the hoard with Alberich, the marvellous scene with Erda (which many have noted approaches the language of Thus Spoke Zarathustra) where we see Wotan's character having come full circle since Rheingold, all this weaved throughout until we see the final and only confrontation between him and Siegfried. On a literary level, it may be the best drama, but it may also be musically:


Not sure what your point is. Am I (for example) supposed to change my order of preference and enjoyment of Ring operas?

Just because I (for one) rank it fourth does not mean that I do not love Siegfried or enjoy the virtues you identify in it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Parsifal1954 said:


> "Tristan und Isolde", without a doubt. There has not been any work at this level in the whole music history.
> 
> 
> Couchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why is your name parisfal?
Click to expand...

I don't think Wooddy thinks wood ducks are the greatest animals ever lived either.


----------



## SixFootScowl

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Where's the love for Siegfried? In every ranking of the four dramas I see Siegfried is always at the bottom. People complain of the (almost) all-male cast, the 'ponderousness', the 'meanness' of Siegfried, and never is there any love for the completely unique music, which has evolved past what we are used to in Das Rheingold and Die Walkure, yet without becoming Gotterdammerung which is an entirely different style on its own.
> 
> One good scene after another, who can't love the forging song or the Wand'rer's entrance? And for Wotan's story this is really the best drama. The game of wits with Mime, the renunciation of the hoard with Alberich, the marvellous scene with Erda (which many have noted approaches the language of Thus Spoke Zarathustra) where we see Wotan's character having come full circle since Rheingold, all this weaved throughout until we see the final and only confrontation between him and Siegfried. On a literary level, it may be the best drama, but it may also be musically:


I would not rate Siegfried the greatest, but it is an awesome opera. However, the Greatest opera probably need a bit of choral parts (Gotterdammerung woudl fit), but perhaps also some bel canto.

To me La Sonnambula is the greatest opera, but there are many close runner-ups.


----------



## SanAntone

My choices would be 

Mozart: Don Giovanni 
Mozart: Cosi fan tutte
Mozart: Die Zauberflöte
Verdi: Otello
Verdi: La traviata
Verdi: Rigoletto
Puccini: Tosca
Puccini: La Boheme

For me a great opera would have to include:

- scenes which organically produce great arias and ensembles, with melodic content which is above all tuneful and memorable 
- finely drawn dramatic narrative and characterizations, 
- as well as flexibility regarding staging

I am a big fan of operatic structure, scenes with arias and ensemble pieces as opposed to the kind of writing Wagner is known for, i.e. arioso style.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

HenryPenfold said:


> Not sure what your point is. Am I (for example) supposed to change my order of preference and enjoyment of Ring operas?


Not at all, but I am curious as to why almost everyone does rank it as their least favourite opera in the Ring. An explanation is wanting!


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Thoughts on Meistersinger?


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

SanAntone said:


> I am a big fan of operatic structure, scenes with arias and ensemble pieces as opposed to the kind of writing Wagner is known for, i.e. arioso style.


Thoughts on Meistersinger?

Apologies for replying twice, still getting used to talkclassical's controls.


----------



## SanAntone

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Thoughts on Meistersinger?


No, sorry to say, I don't have any thoughts. I've never listening to it or seen it performed.


----------



## HenryPenfold

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Not at all, but I am curious as to why almost everyone does rank it as their least favourite opera in the Ring. An explanation is wanting!


I can only say that it gets ranked fourth because there are three preferable to it in the tetralogy!

Hardly an explanation, I know!


----------



## Woodduck

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Not at all, but I am curious as to why almost everyone does rank it as their least favourite opera in the Ring. An explanation is wanting!


_Siegfried_ and _Rheingold_ are tied for my "least favorite in the _Ring_." _Walkure_ is warmer emotionally - it's all about love - and _Gotterdammerung_ is simply and totally awesome (in the full, original meaning of the word). _Siegfried,_ about which you ask, is wonderfully imaginative and sometimes enchanting, but a bit lacking in humanity; we spend much time in the company of nasty dwarves, lazy dragons, retired gods, talking birds and such, all of whom are nicely portrayed but not terribly reflective of most of our lived experience as human beings. I was more responsive to that stuff when I was young. Of course it's all very meaningful in the context of the _Ring_ as a whole, and it does inspire some fantastic music (the forest murmurs, the Wanderer-Erda exchange, and the final scene). Even though _Siegfried_ doesn't touch me as deeply as the operas that precede and follow it, I wouldn't want to be without it, at least when it's well-sung (which it rarely is).


----------



## HenryPenfold

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Thoughts on Meistersinger?


It's never really appealed to me. I've listened to it through a few times and sometimes listen to parts of it, but I'm not really an opera fan as such. Hard to explain. I'm a huge fan of Britten, love his operas and I've attended a fair few performances. But it doesn't mean I'd be that keen on say, La Sonnambula (sorry SixFootScowl!), for example. I'm a huge Beethoven fan, but rarely listen to Fidelio. With Wagner, I'm not entirely sure what the appeal is. I'm really only interested in The Ring, Tristan and Parsifal - Lohengrin at a push.


----------



## SixFootScowl

HenryPenfold said:


> It's never really appealed to me. I've listened to it through a few times and sometimes listen to parts of it, but I'm not really an opera fan as such. Hard to explain. I'm a huge fan of Britten, love his operas and I've attended a fair few performances. But it doesn't mean I'd be that keen on say, La Sonnambula (sorry SixFootScowl!), for example. I'm a huge Beethoven fan, but rarely listen to Fidelio. With Wagner, I'm not entirely sure what the appeal is. I'm really only interested in The Ring, Tristan and Parsifal - Lohengrin at a push.


Have you tried Wagner's Hollander?


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Woodduck said:


> a bit lacking in humanity; we spend much time in the company of nasty dwarves, lazy dragons, retired gods, talking birds and such, all of whom are nicely portrayed but not terribly reflective of most of our lived experience as human beings.


I dunno, if you ask people if they've known a nasty dwarf in the past many would say yes. I think the argument (which has been used against all of Wagner's dramas) that Siegfried is somehow less relatable than the other Ring operas is perplexing, as I don't see it any less human rather than it just focusing on different human relationships and experiences.

Interpreting his dramas in a purely realistic way is not something I am prone to (presupposing that the myth is just a useful means of expressing 'more human' concerns or some such), and I rather enjoy the more abstract philosophical and mythological elements. It is the simple folk/fairy tale element which Wagner was pleased with in it. Without such the scenery and stage directions can be turned into any regietheater mayhem, and do we really need more directors pretentiously talking about 'finding the real human stories in Wagner'? I could go so far as to say that judging Wagner's operas on to what extent they represent human life is an outdated humanistic view from Wagner's Feuerbachian period, and it is persistently questionable whether he really held it. It smells too secular. But insofar as Wagner's dramas do present a direct parallel to real experiences and troubles which the rest of the story wraps itself around, this 'human' blueprint is in Siegfried. It is Siegfried growing up, the problems of youth, the relationship between parent and child, the young and the old, as well as getting older, relinquishing your plot in life as one approaches their mortality, and really the fundamental moral decision in Wotan's entire story. Is it any less about love? No, just a different kind of love.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

I also want to say, I think one of the main problems stopping people from enjoying the Siegfried opera is that they can't relate to the character of Siegfried (it doesn't help that his abuse of Mime is now overladen with supposed antisemitism every which way you turn; thanks Jahrhundertring!), he is immoral they claim, but that only betrays people's own skewed moral compass. They're too sensitive.


----------



## HenryPenfold

SixFootScowl said:


> Have you tried Wagner's Hollander?


Yes, and I've attended a performance of it.


----------



## SixFootScowl

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> I also want to say, I think one of the main problems stopping people from enjoying the Siegfried opera is that they can't relate to the character of Siegfried (it doesn't help that his abuse of Mime is now overladen with supposed antisemitism every which way you turn; thanks Jahrhundertring!), he is immoral they claim, but that only betrays people's own skewed moral compass. They're too sensitive.


So I have never thought of antisemitism while watching Siegfried or reading the libretto. Is this something that people just read into it? I don't recall anywhere that Mime was Jewish.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

SixFootScowl said:


> Is this something that people just read into it?


Yes. The relationship is supposed to be 'an Ubermensch Aryan hero bullies an evil Jewish dwarf who is intrinsicially inferior by his race and deserves to be bullied because of it!' It's a very lazy interpretation, and iirc the Jahrhundertring dressed the Nibelung's up as stereotypical Jews.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Yo I made a big reply to Woodduck anyone know the average wait time for posts to be approved?


----------



## Woodduck

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Yo I made a big reply to Woodduck anyone know the average wait time for posts to be approved?


Did you say anything that might arouse concern among the moderators and delay approval? An overtly political statement might do that; they're wary of that when Wagner is the subject, given some recent history of certain members (no longer with us) insisting on inserting Nazism into every discussion. Since you clearly don't buy into that, I shouldn't think you'd run into any difficulty.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

I'm still new to talkclassical so I might have touched on some topics which could result in an unrelated discussion (for example Feuerbach), but I said nothing offensive.

How strict are talkclassical mods generally?


----------



## Woodduck

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> I'm still new to talkclassical so I might have touched on some topics which could result in an unrelated discussion (for example Feuerbach), but I said nothing offensive.
> 
> How strict are talkclassical mods generally?


Just now it's hard to know. The implications of a recent clamping down on political exchanges aren't clear to me. If I were you I'd send a private message to one of the mods and ask what happened to your post. I'd like to see what you wrote!


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Woodduck said:


> If I were you I'd send a private message to one of the mods and ask what happened to your post.


How does one go about this?


----------



## SixFootScowl

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Yes. The relationship is supposed to be 'an Ubermensch Aryan hero bullies an evil Jewish dwarf who is intrinsicially inferior by his race and deserves to be bullied because of it!' It's a very lazy interpretation, and iirc the Jahrhundertring dressed the Nibelung's up as stereotypical Jews.


Well I guess people can make what they want of it, and Wagner can have had [something does not seem right about that phrasing, but I don't now how else to say it so...] his intentions, but I just look at it as an evil dwarf. His nationality does not matter. If Mime and Beckmesser in Meistersinger are meant by Wagner to be Jews, it is not apparent just from casual viewing (or is Beckmesser particularly a Jewish name?). At any rate I just look at them as characters. In fact Beckmesser reminds me of Dr. Smith from the old Lost in Space TV program.


----------



## Art Rock

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Yo I made a big reply to Woodduck anyone know the average wait time for posts to be approved?


There's nothing wrong with your post, but the site's software marked it as likely spam (not clear why, but we do know the software is more critical with new members for obvious reasons - spammers tend to spam in their first posts). There's only a handful of moderators, who cannot cover the site 24 hours a day, so delays are unavoidable. Anyway, welcome to the site!


----------



## Woodduck

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> I dunno, if you ask people if they've known a nasty dwarf in the past many would say yes. I think the argument (which has been used against all of Wagner's dramas) that Siegfried is somehow less relatable than the other Ring operas is perplexing, as I don't see it any less human rather than it just focusing on different human relationships and experiences.
> 
> Interpreting his dramas in a purely realistic way is not something I am prone to (presupposing that the myth is just a useful means of expressing 'more human' concerns or some such), and I rather enjoy the more abstract philosophical and mythological elements. It is the simple folk/fairy tale element which Wagner was pleased with in it. Without such the scenery and stage directions can be turned into any regietheater mayhem, and do we really need more directors pretentiously talking about 'finding the real human stories in Wagner'? I could go so far as to say that judging Wagner's operas on to what extent they represent human life is an outdated humanistic view from Wagner's Feuerbachian period, and it is persistently questionable whether he really held it. It smells too secular. But insofar as Wagner's dramas do present a direct parallel to real experiences and troubles which the rest of the story wraps itself around, this 'human' blueprint is in Siegfried. It is Siegfried growing up, the problems of youth, the relationship between parent and child, the young and the old, as well as getting older, relinquishing your plot in life as one approaches their mortality, and really the fundamental moral decision in Wotan's entire story. Is it any less about love? No, just a different kind of love.


Glad to see you were able to post this.

I have no disagreement with the essence of what you're saying, to the extent that I understand it. I would only observe that what determines our engagement with art, what marks art as more or less profound - and what, in fact, a work of art really is in its essence - is found not so much in the subject matter as in its treatment. This is unmistakably true of opera, as any number of operas with ordinary plots and extraordinary music make clear. Applied to Wagner's mythic worlds, the question for me is how much the potential for the expression of human experience undoubtedly present in an opera's characters and situations is realized in the music.

I find a good deal of the music of _Siegfried,_ a very long opera, to be more illustrative of setting, atmosphere and action than expressive of deep human feeling, and I find this more true of _Siegfried_ and _Rheingold_ than of any other work of Wagner from _Hollander_ on. The meaning of your statement, "judging Wagner's operas on to what extent they represent human life is an outdated humanistic view," depends on what you mean by "human life." No one expects a recreation of myth to represent human life in a literal way, but it was very much Wagner's intention to portray in his characters and stories what he called the "fully human," and the full spectrum of his work reveals a powerful drive to express the inner lives of his personages in nuanced and often extreme ways. _Siegfried_ doesn't take us to the outer reaches of subjective experience we find in Wagner's telling of the stories of _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_, nor does it present any character with the depth and complexity of Hans Sachs. Wotan, I would argue, has his life crisis in the preceding opera, where he cries out for "das Ende" and gives his dearest child to a future he can only hope for, all in music more piercing to the heart than anything in _Siegfried._

That said, I wouldn't dream of objecting because Siegfried is "cooler" in its emotional temperature than _Die Walkure_ or _Gotterdammerung,_ never mind _Tristan_ or _Parsifal!_ After all, there's no sunlight in its world, except the flicker of light and shade in Fafner's realm, until Siegfried reaches the mountaintop. There are moving human moments: Mime's narration of Sieglinde's fate, Siegfried's reflections on the mother he never saw, Wotan's final attempt to grasp the inevitability of his coming demise, Brunnhilde's tenderness toward the man/boy she loved before he was born... I hear little to compare with the emotional pressure that drives _Die Walkure_ from beginning to end, or the terrible power of fate, death and transfiguration that grips us in _Gotterdammerung._ But this is surely intentional - Siegfried has been called the "scherzo" of the _Ring_ symphony - and we might actually find our black forest journey a welcome respite from the desperate intensities that bound it, and love it precisely for its youthful exuberance and the cool refreshment its sylvan fantasy provides.


----------



## Kreisler jr

SixFootScowl said:


> Well I guess people can make what they want of it, and Wagner can have had [something does not seem right about that phrasing, but I don't now how else to say it so...] his intentions, but I just look at it as an evil dwarf. His nationality does not matter. If Mime and Beckmesser in Meistersinger are meant by Wagner to be Jews, it is not apparent just from casual viewing (or is Beckmesser particularly a Jewish name?)


We had this in another thread. Of course they are not literally Jews (Beckmesser is not such a name, it would have been impossible for an unbaptized Jew to be official scribe in 16th century Nuremberg and the guy was originally named "Hans Lich" to make fund of the (jewish) critic Hanslick who was an opponent of Wagner). They share some very general stereotypes used also by antisemites, namely being greedy, nasty, scheming etc. There was also the claim that there music/way of singing was similar to stereotypes used in antisemitism or caricatures of synagogal chant. I know nothing about the latter and the plaintive chatter is only true for Mime, not for Alberich. Similarly, they supposedly follow the cliché of "impotence" (not being able of genuine creation, only stealing and aping others). 
But this is nonsense because except for the re-forging of the sword, Mime is obviously truly a mastersmith as he had made the Tarnhelm (and supposedly countless unmentioned weapons and wonderful/magical items for the dwarves), Alberich forged the Ring of Power and begat Hagen, so he might be sinister but not at all without potency and power.

In any case, there are two main characters in Wagner who clearly resemble the "eternal/wandering Jew" but they are both rather sympathetic, certainly not crude caricatures, The Dutchman and Kundry.


----------



## JackRance

My favourites are (not in a specific order)
Falstaff
Nozze di Figaro
Keszakallu da herceg vara
Salome
Tosca
Turandot
Rigoletto

but I'm ashamed because I didn't listen nothing of Wagner...
I also agree with the idea that the Carmen is a thinking man's musical.
I'm really sorry for Wagner but I'm 14 years old, so I think that I still have a lot of time.


----------



## JackRance

JackRance said:


> My favourites are (not in a specific order)
> Falstaff
> Nozze di Figaro
> Keszakallu da herceg vara
> Salome
> Tosca
> Turandot
> Rigoletto
> 
> but I'm ashamed because I didn't listen nothing of Wagner...
> I also agree with the idea that the Carmen is a thinking man's musical.
> I'm really sorry for Wagner but I'm 14 years old, so I think that I still have a lot of time.


I forget Peter Grimes


----------



## SixFootScowl

JackRance said:


> My favourites are (not in a specific order)
> Falstaff
> Nozze di Figaro
> Keszakallu da herceg vara
> Salome
> Tosca
> Turandot
> Rigoletto
> 
> but I'm ashamed because I didn't listen nothing of Wagner...
> I also agree with the idea that the Carmen is a thinking man's musical.
> *I'm really sorry for Wagner but I'm 14 years old, so I think that I still have a lot of time.*


Go for it! I got into Wagner with Der fliegende Holländer back in 2015. But now I am addicted to the Ring.


----------



## Woodduck

Kreisler jr said:


> We had this in another thread. Of course they are not literally Jews (Beckmesser is not such a name, it would have been impossible for an unbaptized Jew to be official scribe in 16th century Nuremberg and the guy was originally named "Hans Lich" to make fund of the (jewish) critic Hanslick who was an opponent of Wagner). They share some very general stereotypes used also by antisemites, namely being greedy, nasty, scheming etc. There was also the claim that there music/way of singing was similar to stereotypes used in antisemitism or caricatures of synagogal chant. I know nothing about the latter and the plaintive chatter is only true for Mime, not for Alberich. Similarly, they supposedly follow the cliché of "impotence" (not being able of genuine creation, only stealing and aping others).
> But this is nonsense because except for the re-forging of the sword, Mime is obviously truly a mastersmith as he had made the Tarnhelm (and supposedly countless unmentioned weapons and wonderful/magical items for the dwarves), Alberich forged the Ring of Power and begat Hagen, so he might be sinister but not at all without potency and power.
> 
> In any case, there are two main characters in Wagner who clearly resemble the "eternal/wandering Jew" but they are both rather sympathetic, certainly not crude caricatures, The Dutchman and Kundry.


The question of antisemitic traits in Wagner's villains - mainly Beckmesser and the Nibelungs - has come up a number of times since I joined the forum, and arguments in favor of the idea have been unpersuasive. I've noted the following: 1.) It would be hard to think of a negative trait that has NOT been attributed to Jews; 2.) There is nothing in the speech, singing style or physical behavior of any character that requires an association with Jewishness to explain it (Barry Millington and some other commentators to the contrary); and 3.) Wagner never said anything remotely suggestive of an intention to portray Jews or to give characters Jewish traits. But even more dispositive are three things he actually did say. He wrote that he would never portray a Jew onstage; he commented on the performance of a Jewish tenor singing the role of Mime that the man understood the part very well "for a Jew"; and he and Cosima, playing a game in which they assigned races to various characters in the _Ring,_ decided that the Nibelungs could represent "the yellow races." The idea of a Chinese Alberich is certainly nothing Wagner actually intended, but the incident does rather put to rest the notion of antisemitic stereotyping.

It's been suggested that the "wandering Jew" can also be found in Wotan. But most of Wagner's most memorable protagonists have in them more than a little of the homeless wanderer seeking salvation and, often, finding release only in death or, at least, renunciation of some kind. I wonder if the "wandering theory" of racial stereotypes in Wagner's operas will ever reach its own overdue expiration and leave us all alone.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Woodduck said:


> I have no disagreement with the essence of what you're saying, to the extent that I understand it. I would only observe that what determines our engagement with art, what marks art as more or less profound - and what, in fact, a work of art really is in its essence - is found not so much in the subject matter as in its treatment. This is unmistakably true of opera, as any number of operas with ordinary plots and extraordinary music make clear. Applied to Wagner's mythic worlds, the question for me is how much the potential for the expression of human experience undoubtedly present in an opera's characters and situations is realized in the music.
> 
> I find a good deal of the music of _Siegfried,_ a very long opera, to be more illustrative of setting, atmosphere and action than expressive of deep human feeling, and I find this more true of _Siegfried_ and _Rheingold_ than of any other work of Wagner from _Hollander_ on. The meaning of your statement, "judging Wagner's operas on to what extent they represent human life is an outdated humanistic view," depends on what you mean by "human life." No one expects a recreation of myth to represent human life in a literal way, but it was very much Wagner's intention to portray in his characters and stories what he called the "fully human," and the full spectrum of his work reveals a powerful drive to express the inner lives of his personages in nuanced and often extreme ways.


You're right, but the 'purely human' as Wagner understood it after his Feuerbachian stage took into account the religious or mythological as essential parts of human nature in itself, rather than just a convenient projection of or answer to that nature. And in a properly romantic view influenced by Schopenhauer (as well as Hegel), the religious is a gateway to a deeper understanding of the world than anything else. Thus the mythological is meaningful in itself whether or not it accurately represents how humans act or feel, but again, as far as the Siegfried drama is embodying the inner lives of realistic people I don't see it doing it less than others. Siegfried is probably the most believable of all the operas in the Ring as an authentic medieval story, while balancing the subjective humanity of the story which is what makes it a modern work.



Woodduck said:


> _Siegfried_ doesn't take us to the outer reaches of subjective experience we find in Wagner's telling of the stories of _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_, nor does it present any character with the depth and complexity of Hans Sachs. Wotan, I would argue, has his life crisis in the preceding opera, where he cries out for "das Ende" and gives his dearest child to a future he can only hope for, all in music more piercing to the heart than anything in _Siegfried._


Yes, the main life crisis of Wotan is in Die Walkure, but not the main moral decision which occurs in his meeting with Erda and Siegfried. I would say these two scenes alone are just as deep and complex as anything in Meistersinger. He has come to his final realisation, and it is very hopeful. To sum up my view, I don't think Siegfried is any less complex or impactful than the other dramas, just of such a different nature that it's easy to miss many details, Brunnhilde expresses love for Siegfried since before he was born, but also a fear of losing her immortality. There's a lot of brilliant psychology.



Woodduck said:


> But this is surely intentional - Siegfried has been called the "scherzo" of the _Ring_ symphony - and we might actually find our black forest journey a welcome respite from the desperate intensities that bound it, and love it precisely for its youthful exuberance and the cool refreshment its sylvan fantasy provides.


Very well put.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

SixFootScowl said:


> Well I guess people can make what they want of it, and Wagner can have had [something does not seem right about that phrasing, but I don't now how else to say it so...] his intentions, but I just look at it as an evil dwarf. His nationality does not matter. If Mime and Beckmesser in Meistersinger are meant by Wagner to be Jews, it is not apparent just from casual viewing (or is Beckmesser particularly a Jewish name?). At any rate I just look at them as characters. In fact Beckmesser reminds me of Dr. Smith from the old Lost in Space TV program.


Exactly. The reason Jews are associated with these negative and villainous characteristics is because these were negative and villainous characteristics in the first place, so whether or not Wagner intended any characters to be Jewish doesn't change that there's nothing intrinsically Jewish, or antisemitic about them.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Art Rock said:


> There's nothing wrong with your post, but the site's software marked it as likely spam (not clear why, but we do know the software is more critical with new members for obvious reasons - spammers tend to spam in their first posts). There's only a handful of moderators, who cannot cover the site 24 hours a day, so delays are unavoidable. Anyway, welcome to the site!


Thank you for the kind welcome, I am sure I will find many fruitful discussions.


----------



## Woodduck

RichardWagnerOfficial said:


> Siegfried is probably the most believable of all the operas in the Ring as an authentic medieval story, while balancing the subjective humanity of the story which is what makes it a modern work.


I don't know what you mean by "most believable." Offhand, I'd say the dramatic situations of _Die Walkure_ are on the whole more believable than those of _Siegfried._ The tragic story of twins separated in childhood, their lonely, desperate lives apart, Sieglinde's forced and loveless marriage, their passionate love on finding each other again, her terror of her pursuing husband, Siegmund's unwillingness to be parted from her on any terms, Wotan's insight into the contradictions in his nature and the untenableness of his schemes and choices, his agony and defeat in the face of the moral law, Fricka's perceptive dissection of his contradictions and her pride as the guardian of the established order, Brunnhilde's intuitive understanding of her father's authentic desires and her inability to subordinate love to law, the profound tragedy of her own father having to renounce the daughter who sacrifices everything and who represents all that he loves...

What, in _Siegfried_, is "more believable," or more meaningful, than all this? And - more importantly, since these are works of music - what in _Siegfried_ is expressed more affectingly through music? I think it's only in Act 3 that _Siegfried_ achieves, at times, a similar depth and power of expression, aside from a few tender moments given to the hero as he considers his identity and lineage. Certainly the relationship between Siegfried and the whiny, calculating Mime, which occupies much of Act 1 and part of Act 2, may be "believable" to anyone with a dysfunctional family, but Wagner's treatment of that relationship strikes me as more entertaining than thought-provoking, inspiring or tragic. As for the Wanderer, he's - how shall I say this? - rather statuesque. His overextended game of riddles is probably the only scene in the _Ring_ that I could do without, except for the marvelously expressed fit of hallucinogenic terror it induces in Mime.

I wouldn't debate your general point that mythical tales may be of great significance even when their characters are not particularly true to life, or even when they're altogether fantastic. But I _would_ suggest that mythic stories are not all equally significant. Some are just fantastic stories. Wagner's genius at finding in myths meanings relevant to modern man was phenomenal, but not all his material could be expected to draw from him the same depth of meaning and expression. It's a credit to him that he sustains as high a level of musical invention as he does, largely due to the fact that his conceptions have such dramatic fitness that he sets few musical traps into which he can stumble and encounters few hurdles he can't surmount.


----------



## RichardWagnerOfficial

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what you mean by "most believable." Offhand, I'd say the dramatic situations of _Die Walkure_ are on the whole more believable than those of _Siegfried._ The tragic story of twins separated in childhood, their lonely, desperate lives apart, Sieglinde's forced and loveless marriage, their passionate love on finding each other again, her terror of her pursuing husband, Siegmund's unwillingness to be parted from her on any terms, Wotan's insight into the contradictions in his nature and the untenableness of his schemes and choices, his agony and defeat in the face of the moral law, Fricka's perceptive dissection of his contradictions and her pride as the guardian of the established order, Brunnhilde's intuitive understanding of her father's authentic desires and her inability to subordinate love to law, the profound tragedy of her own father having to renounce the daughter who sacrifices everything and who represents all that he loves...
> 
> What, in _Siegfried_, is "more believable," or more meaningful, than all this?


I said most believable as an authentic medieval story, that it fits what one typically expects from any medieval saga and belongs to that worldview. Your description of the Wanderer as 'statuesque' is fitting as he is closer to what a God was in the pagan worldview, as well as to the Volsunga saga which has this Wanderer appearing occasionally and mysteriously throughout the story to help Siegfried (which is a point of difference). Since this was the first entrance of Wotan into the story, it's natural that Wagner would use more closely his sources as a base for the character. And for many of the reasons you gave Die Walkure is closer to a Greek Tragedy than a medieval story.



Woodduck said:


> And - more importantly, since these are works of music - what in _Siegfried_ is expressed more affectingly through music? I think it's only in Act 3 that _Siegfried_ achieves, at times, a similar depth and power of expression, aside from a few tender moments given to the hero as he considers his identity and lineage. Certainly the relationship between Siegfried and the whiny, calculating Mime, which occupies much of Act 1 and part of Act 2, may be "believable" to anyone with a dysfunctional family, but Wagner's treatment of that relationship strikes me as more entertaining than thought-provoking, inspiring or tragic. As for the Wanderer, he's - how shall I say this? - rather statuesque. His overextended game of riddles is probably the only scene in the _Ring_ that I could do without, except for the marvelously expressed fit of hallucinogenic terror it induces in Mime.


The riddle may just be an outdated recounting of events, but I very much enjoy the music and it does reassure Wotan's view of himself and of the Volsungs up to that point (which is necessary).








Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't debate your general point that mythical tales may be of great significance even when their characters are not particularly true to life, or even when they're altogether fantastic. But I _would_ suggest that mythic stories are not all equally significant. Some are just fantastic stories. Wagner's genius at finding in myths meanings relevant to modern man was phenomenal, but not all his material could be expected to draw from him the same depth of meaning and expression. It's a credit to him that he sustains as high a level of musical invention as he does, largely due to the fact that his conceptions have such dramatic fitness that he sets few musical traps into which he can stumble and encounters few hurdles he can't surmount.


I completely agree, no one would say Grimm's Rapunzel is of the same value as the story of Antigone, but (and I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this) I believe Wagner balances perfectly a medieval myth with a human story in Siegfried.


----------



## SanAntone

I guess I have to admit that the greatest achievement in opera has to be *Richard Wagner*'s _Der Ring des Nibelungen_.

Wagner's vision and realization of these works has to be acknowledged as a very high achievement. It is comparable to Faulkner's cycle of novels and stories set in the mythical county of Yoknapatawpha.

There is no "greatest opera" but there is a greatest opera achievement.


----------

