# Greatest Ever Opera Composer



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I am only allowed 15 poll choices, so I put together a list that maybe is far from perfect, but let's give it a go. Vote for who you think is the greatest opera composer ever out of these choices. Notice that Beethoven is not included. I tried to include composers with more than one opera.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Wagner, ahead of Puccini, Strauss, Britten, Dvorak, Donizetti.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

It's a shame that Britten wasn't an option; I wouldn't have chosen him ahead of my favourite (Wagner), but he'd certainly be in my top five.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Given the known major preference here, a poll without Wagner might be more interesting.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Verdi for me.

A top 5 might also include Berlioz and Britten, who aren't on the list.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Given the early results of this poll, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard Wagner is the greatest composer of opera in the history of the universe. I proclaim that henceforth no member of TC is allowed to say otherwise. To do so would be to perjure oneself & risk prosecution.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bonetan said:


> Given the early results of this poll, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard Wagner is the greatest composer of opera in the history of the universe. I proclaim that henceforth no member of TC is allowed to say otherwise. To do so would be to perjure oneself & risk prosecution.


We could rename this web site to TalkWagnerAndOtherClassical.com


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I want to vote all :angel:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I voted Wagner, but I would have voted differently had it been _favourite_ composer. I wonder if the results would be different if that were the poll. I also think I would take out Weber and Prokofiev and replace with Gluck and Donizetti. Whilst I prefer Bellini, I would say that Donizetti was the greater composer of the two as he moved the artform ahead more.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I voted Wagner, but I would have voted differently had it been _favourite_ composer. I wonder if the results would be different if that were the poll. I also think I would take out Weber and Prokofiev and replace with Gluck and Donizetti. Whilst I prefer Bellini, I would say that Donizetti was the greater composer of the two as he moved the artform ahead more.
> 
> N.


The thread's title is "Your Top Opera Composer", which I took to mean favourite, but the poll, as you rightly point out is "Greatest Ever Opera Composer", in which case, I'd probably have to nominate Wagner. Mind you there's strong competition from Monteverdi, who, whilst he may not have penned the first opera, was pretty much responsible for creating the genre.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> *The thread's title is "Your Top Opera Composer", which I took to mean favourite, but the poll, as you rightly point out is "Greatest Ever Opera Composer",* in which case, I'd probably have to nominate Wagner. Mind you there's strong competition from Monteverdi, who, whilst he may not have penned the first opera, was pretty much responsible for creating the genre.


Yep, I goofed that one up. I just put in a request (should have days ago) to match the titles to "Greatest Ever Opera Composer."


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For me "greatest ever" and "favourite" mean the same. I can't think of any objective definition for greatest ever.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am only allowed 15 poll choices ... but give it your best shot.


Since one of those 15 slots is typically reserved for "other" and this poll does not offer this option, I'm unable to vote my 'best' opera composer - Jean Prodromidès.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Mozart followed by Verdi and Bizet.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Star said:


> Mozart followed by Verdi and Bizet.


I agree with your first two - but Bizet only composed one masterpiece of opera.
I would put puccini 3rd.

shame I have a deaf spot for wagner


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> For me "greatest ever" and "favourite" mean the same. I can't think of any objective definition for greatest ever.


There are a number of possible criteria, but I would suggest it is the composer with the most original ideas or who wrote the most innovative music. Composers who changed the art form and influenced those who followed.

N.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> Given the early results of this poll, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard Wagner is the greatest composer of opera in the history of the universe. I proclaim that henceforth no member of TC is allowed to say otherwise. To do so would be to perjure oneself & risk prosecution.


I suppose if you like extended recitative........


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Star said:


> I suppose if you like extended recitative........


Funny you should say that. The thing in opera that I dislike most is recitative. It's the #1 reason I've never been able to enjoy Mozart, as great as he was.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> Funny you should say that. The thing in opera that I dislike most is recitative. It's the #1 reason I've never been able to enjoy Mozart, as great as he was.


Most peculiar you like Wagner then. But each to his own.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Star said:


> Most peculiar you like Wagner then. But each to his own.


For the last 5 years I've learned approx 20 roles, Wagner & Mozart included. Wagner doesn't feel like recitative at all & singers don't regard it as such. That Wagner is through composed is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Regards Opera, I suppose Mozart and Handel would be my joint favourites, followed by Puccini and Verdi, with Wagner some way behind.

I have to confess that opera is not my favourite genre by a long way. That doesn't mean that I'm a complete "philistine" in this area, as I do like a lot of the instrumental music (overtures etc) that goes with it. It does mean that each opera has to heavily "filleted" to exclude most of the recitative as I find all that kind of stuff quite jarring, so as to leave mainly the arias, duets and choral pieces. Of course, Wagner came along and changed all that, but as far as I'm concerned his operas contain some very good music in isolated patches, but there remains quite a lot of the type of singing that does not appeal to me greatly, and so too has to be excised in similar manner to the earlier style recitative. 

In the realm of vocal music generally, I much prefer masses and other types of sung sacred music (cantatas, motets, passions, some oratorios, etc). I also greatly like lieder, especially Schubert, and can listen to anything like that for a long while. Overall, I far prefer instrumental music to vocal music, and within that broad area, I like chamber and solo instrument more than anything else.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> For the last 5 years I've learned approx 20 roles, Wagner & Mozart included. Wagner doesn't feel like recitative at all & singers don't regard it as such. *That Wagner is through composed is a beautiful thing.*


Afraid I only find it beautiful in parts. It gets a dreadful bore after a while.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Star said:


> Afraid I only find it beautiful in parts. It gets a dreadful bore after a while.


I know what you mean. The wrong singers can make some sections a dreadful bore even for me, so I can only imagine what that must be like for someone who doesn't feel the way I do.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

Star said:


> Afraid I only find it beautiful in parts. It gets a dreadful bore after a while.


Apparently a majority of the members replying to this poll do not agree with your assessment.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Byron said:


> Apparently a majority of the members replying to this poll do not agree with your assessment.


It's always the silent minority who suffers.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> We could rename this web site to TalkWagnerAndOtherClassical.com


Couchie would approve


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Byron said:


> Apparently a majority of the members replying to this poll do not agree with your assessment.


Ah so because 21 people on TC (out of the world's population) do not agree with me I should change my opinion? ������

I find Justin Beiber a frightful bore to, worthy lad though he is. Should I change my opinion of him because the majority of peopke disagree with me?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> We could rename this web site to TalkWagnerAndOtherClassical.com


Just don't mention a certain man with a distinctive moustache!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mozart and Verdi are the most popular composers in the opera house at any rate, with Wagner way behind.

looks like we have a disproportionate number of wagner fans on this board.

Like many people I think Wagner's orch music is stunning, in places - epic - and the last 10 minutes of tristan is incredible

I love the beginning of Die Walkure - until the singing starts

but that's about all I have enjoyed in Wagner I'm afraid.


----------



## Biffo (Mar 7, 2016)

I voted for Verdi but agonised over Mozart instead. Given the choice of attending an opera by Verdi, Mozart or Wagner I would choose Wagner (as long as it wasn't Parsifal). This may sound odd but the expense of mounting Wagner operas means the chances of seeing one is less than for Mozart or Verdi. If I was to choose one opera I would like to see in a sensible production (fat chance) it would be Berlioz' Les Troyens.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Merl said:


> Just don't mention a certain man with a distinctive moustache!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm surprised. I thought, at last, a six inch putt and Wolfie wins this one. He's losing to Verdi and _Wagner_? :lol:


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Merl said:


> Just don't mention a certain man with a distinctive moustache!


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

NickFuller said:


>


Let's get serious!

View attachment 102620


----------



## Biffo (Mar 7, 2016)

NickFuller said:


>


According to the ClassicFM website Poirot's favourite composers were Bach and Mozart.

http://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/latest/christie-poirot-marple-classical-music/


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Verdi>Rossini>Handel>Bellini>Wagner

Why is Wagner so low?
- the difficulty of his music means good singers are seldom even available. Apparently, truly great Wagnerian sopranos come around only "once in a generation". Perhaps this isn't a fair criticism, but given the regularity with which it's demanded, I can't help myself on this point.
- zero vocal runs. 'nuff said
- He seemed to write only for the most dramatic of voices save for a small handful of exceptions (ex: the trio of the Rhine maidens)

Why isn't Mozart on here at all?
- his best work is mostly for freakishly high sopranos and low basses. The further you move toward the middle, the less there is. 
- I'm not going to say there is "no vocal line" (there is plenty of vocal line if you listen to a Mozart master like Kiri Te Kanawa), be, but it's far from the creamy, sensuous legato of Italian opera which I've (quite unfairly) come to expect from other genres of operatic music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Kieran said:


> I'm surprised. I thought, at last, a six inch putt and Wolfie wins this one. He's losing to Verdi and _Wagner_? :lol:


Mozart fans tend to stick around the main discussion section - I myself rarely visit the opera board

Verdi and Wagner fans - where else would they go but here.

If this poll had been on the main discussion board the results would have been very different


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

As pointless and uninteresting as I find it to try to determine the "greatest" or "best" composer of anything, I'll simply point out that the 2015 version of the TC's Most Recommended Opera thread took place on the main forum where many of the users who stick to the opera forum did not participate in the voting, and Wagner's Ring still came out on top while Tristan came in 3rd. So the results here are not exactly surprising.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Faustian said:


> As pointless and uninteresting as I find it to try to determine the "greatest" or "best" composer of anything, I'll simply point out that the 2015 version of the TC's Most Recommended Opera thread took place on the main forum where many of the users who stick to the opera forum did not participate in the voting, and Wagner's Ring still came out on top while Tristan came in 3rd. So the results here are not exactly surprising.


It makes no difference

wagner people cant vote in symphony polls - concerto polls etc etc

all they can vote in is opera polls - and so a wagner devotee is probably more likely to vote in an opera poll, than a Mozart fan who is poll fatigued.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

stomanek said:


> It makes no difference
> 
> wagner people cant vote in symphony polls - concerto polls etc etc
> 
> all they can vote in is opera polls - and so a wagner devotee is probably more likely to vote in an opera poll, than a Mozart fan who is poll fatigued.




The make-up of the members who voted in the Recommended Operas thread weren't "Wagner devotees". It wasn't people who only vote in opera threads, or only came to vote for Wagner.

And the recommended voting thread wasn't simply a poll -- it asked users to list and rank their favorite operas, assigning a point value to each.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

I chose Puccini, although the others warrant at least a consideration, including:

Jules Massenet
Hector Berlioz, as already mentioned
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Dmitri Shostakovich, on the strengths of Lady Macbeth and the Nose
George Enescu, on the strength of Oedipe
Alban Berg
Modest Mussorgsky
Leos Janacek (_most certainly_)
Zdenek Fibich (_perhaps_)
Alexander Zemlinsky (_perhaps_)
Franz Schreker (_perhaps_)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Orfeo said:


> [*]Anton Webern
> [/LIST]


Carl Maria von Weber? Did Webern even compose an opera?


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Carl Maria von Weber? Did Webern even compose an opera?


He didn't (I confused him with Berg, somehow). 
Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Faustian said:


> The make-up of the members who voted in the Recommended Operas thread weren't "Wagner devotees". It wasn't people who only vote in opera threads, or only came to vote for Wagner.
> 
> And the recommended voting thread wasn't simply a poll -- it asked users to list and rank their favorite operas, assigning a point value to each.


do you have a link?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

stomanek said:


> do you have a link?


The 2015 TC Top 100+ Most Recommended Operas List


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Biffo said:


> According to the ClassicFM website Poirot's favourite composers were Bach and Mozart.


... and Poirot's brother (the journalist John Suchet) is a Beethoven aficionado. A family with impeccable taste


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

stomanek said:


> Mozart and Verdi are the most popular composers in the opera house at any rate, with Wagner way behind.


What do you base that on? Not disagreeing, just wondering...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I have no clue... listened to too few operas so far. But I am rooting for Verdi. Didn't vote though.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> What do you base that on? Not disagreeing, just wondering...


http://operabase.com/top.cgi?lang=en

figures for 2015/2016

1.Verdi
2. Mozart
3. Puccini
4. Rossini
5. Wagner


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Faustian said:


> The 2015 TC Top 100+ Most Recommended Operas List


where is the final list?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

It's also possible Wagner aficionados are more likely to think in terms of a "greatest ever" composer in the first place. After all, Wagner thought that way.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

stomanek said:


> where is the final list?


Stickied at the top of this forum:

The TC Top 200 Recommended Operas (2015 Version)


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

stomanek said:


> http://operabase.com/top.cgi?lang=en
> 
> figures for 2015/2016
> 
> ...


That's most performances though right? That has more to do with the ability to cast & stage those works rather than popularity.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> That's most performances though right? That has more to do with the ability to cast & stage those works rather than popularity.


yes most performances

how else do you guage popularity?

opera companies perform what people want to hear, unless they want to go bankrupt. if there was an economic rationale for staging more wagner they would do it.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Faustian said:


> Stickied at the top of this forum:
> 
> The TC Top 200 Recommended Operas (2015 Version)


Mozart has 3 in the top 10 - more than any other composer

and 4 in the top 11


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

1 Mozart
2 Puccini (Die-hard Romantic here! - Not the greatest, but my favorite after Mozart)
3 Verdi
4 Wagner
5 Rossini


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

stomanek said:


> Mozart has 3 in the top 10 - more than any other composer
> 
> and 4 in the top 11


Wagner has 5 in the top 3. :devil:


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Wagner has 5 in the top 3. :devil:


Yes but 3 of Wagner's slipped in by a bit of chicanery. If you count the "ring" as one opera split into 4 parts, then the score is Mozart 3 and Wagner 2 in the top 10.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

stomanek said:


> yes most performances
> 
> how else do you guage popularity?
> 
> opera companies perform what people want to hear, unless they want to go bankrupt. if there was an economic rationale for staging more wagner they would do it.


You gauge it is by having people vote like we're doing here, but with a larger sample size. You're exactly right about the economic rationale, but that doesn't have anything to do with popularity. You just can't stage or cast a Ring Cycle the same way you can with Nozze, Traviata, or Tosca.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> That's most performances though right? That has more to do with the ability to cast & stage those works rather than popularity.


As Woodduck pointed out recently in another thread, "In the 1930s, when there were some phenomenonal singers around to perform him, Wagner was the biggest box office draw at the Met."



stomanek said:


> Mozart has 3 in the top 10 - more than any other composer
> 
> and 4 in the top 11


That's true. And how many operas does Mozart have in the top 50 compared to Wagner? 

I'm not really sure what your point is. Among opera connoisseurs, or people who enjoy opera well enough to be able to knowledgeably vote on a large variety of operas, Wagner seems to do well. He is regarded as one of the greatest and most important composers in the classical tradition, and almost all of his noteworthy compositions fall in that genre. So I don't see why his being ahead in a poll such as this, only considering Mozart's operas and not his other output, is such a shock.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

stomanek said:


> I agree with your first two - but Bizet only composed one masterpiece of opera.
> I would put puccini 3rd.
> 
> shame I have a deaf spot for wagner


Yes I suppose I was considering Bizet's potential. He died when he had just found himself. Of course, we don't know whether he would have produced any more masterpieces. But Carmen for me is up there with the best.
Don't worry about your deaf spot for Wagner. Lots more music to enjoy. Leave Wagner to those he does something for.


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

I had to give (Richard) Strauss some love. Though objectively I might think Wagner, it is Strauss who moves me the most, gets me most excited about his operas.

There are definitely some glaring omissions.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Taplow said:


> I had to give (Richard) Strauss some love. Though objectively I might think Wagner, it is Strauss who moves me the most, gets me most excited about his operas.
> 
> There are definitely some glaring omissions.


Strauss is my #2. He wrote some glorious music & comes the closest to making me feel the way Wagner does.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Faustian said:


> As Woodduck pointed out recently in another thread, "In the 1930s, when there were some phenomenonal singers around to perform him, Wagner was the biggest box office draw at the Met."
> 
> That's true. And how many operas does Mozart have in the top 50 compared to Wagner?
> 
> I'm not really sure what your point is. Among opera connoisseurs, or people who enjoy opera well enough to be able to knowledgeably vote on a large variety of operas, Wagner seems to do well. *He is regarded as one of the greatest and most important composers in the classical tradition*, and almost all of his noteworthy compositions fall in that genre. So I don't see why his being ahead in a poll such as this, only considering Mozart's operas and not his other output, is such a shock.


I cant argue with that.

I would have thought it would have been closer between Wagner Mozart and Verdi, as the poll of top operas seems to indicate it should.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Star said:


> Yes I suppose I was considering Bizet's potential. He died when he had just found himself. Of course, we don't know whether he would have produced any more masterpieces. But Carmen for me is up there with the best.
> Don't worry about your deaf spot for Wagner. Lots more music to enjoy. Leave Wagner to those he does something for.


That Bizet died after Carmen was a tragedy for music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

There's tactical voting going on in this poll I think.

Beethoven fans throwing their lot in with Wagner

it makes some sense.

shame the poll is not public


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

I voted Verdi because for me Opera is essentially all about the singing and the way it can serve the dramatic part. I never cared that much for orchestral music per se. Verdi seemed to consider the singer as his main instrument of the orchestra and he wrote the most extravagant and beautiful music ever written for the human voice in my opinion while adding a whole new level of word vs note affinity. The singers who truly understood this, like Callas, were capable of doing extraordinary things with their voice. Verdi made Opera more accessible and more human. And needless to say, he's is never boring.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I voted Bizet for Carmen (obviously) and the Pearl Fishers, and their innovative development of opera. I agree with Tuoksu that Verdi is never boring, but blimey he can be bombastic and overblown. 
Honourable mention in his absence for Britten? Peter Grimes arouses mixed reactions (I love it), though Gloriana is quite impressive and I'm quite taken with Billy Budd.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Star said:


> Yes I suppose I was considering Bizet's potential. He died when he had just found himself. Of course, we don't know whether he would have produced any more masterpieces. But Carmen for me is up there with the best.
> Don't worry about your deaf spot for Wagner. Lots more music to enjoy. Leave Wagner to those he does something for.


I kept meaning to buy a set of die walkure and listen to it non stop whenever I drive - as I have got into a lot of music that way. But never got round to it. Still - I tried that with Tchaik operas and failed to undertstand why anybody bothers with his vocal works.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Pat Fairlea said:


> I voted Bizet for Carmen (obviously) and the Pearl Fishers, and their innovative development of opera. I agree with Tuoksu that Verdi is never boring, but blimey he can be bombastic and overblown.
> Honourable mention in his absence for Britten? Peter Grimes arouses mixed reactions (I love it), though Gloriana is quite impressive and I'm quite taken with Billy Budd.


To be sure - Carmen is one of opera's miracles. But to put Bizet in the no 1 spot for 1 great opera is going a bit far - I dont think the Pearl Fishers is in the same league.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For me the greatest opera composer was Mozart, but I wouldn't throw bile in the direction of anyone who yelled, "No, it's Wagner!"


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

I voted for Verdi.


----------



## Scopitone (Nov 22, 2015)

Pugg said:


> I want to vote all :angel:


Renee is not a composer.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Scopitone said:


> Renee is not a composer.


She knows her limits.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Pat Fairlea said:


> I voted Bizet for Carmen (obviously) and the Pearl Fishers, and their innovative development of opera. I agree with Tuoksu that Verdi is never boring, *but blimey he can be bombastic and overblown*.
> Honourable mention in his absence for Britten? Peter Grimes arouses mixed reactions (I love it), though Gloriana is quite impressive and I'm quite taken with Billy Budd.


Sometimes, but never in the wrong place


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

stomanek said:


> There's tactical voting going on in this poll I think.
> 
> Beethoven fans throwing their lot in with Wagner
> 
> ...


It is! Just click on the numbers to see the names of who voted...


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

stomanek said:


> There's tactical voting going on in this poll I think.
> 
> Beethoven fans throwing their lot in with Wagner
> 
> ...


The poll already is public. I don't know that it's the result of "strategic voting" than the fact that poll results and composer popularity in subforums changes over time. The differences are especially pronounced when there are comparatively fewer people posting here than in the other forums. That and many former posters and opera lovers here left several years ago to follow a previous moderator to post on his website he created specifically to discuss opera. If you look at other favorite opera composer polls created, the results change slightly from year to year.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

trazom said:


> The poll already is public. I don't know that it's the result of "strategic voting" than the fact that poll results and composer popularity in subforums changes over time. The differences are especially pronounced when there are comparatively fewer people posting here than in the other forums. That and many former posters and opera lovers here left several years ago to follow a previous moderator to post on his website he created specifically to discuss opera. If you look at other favorite opera composer polls created, the results change slightly from year to year.


I just looked

no vote even from Wooduck who would vote wagner I'm sure

so no there is no tactical voting

looks like Wagner is top then!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Wagner certainly has a magnificent lead. I would like to see the Mozart / Verdi tie broken and a wide margin to it.


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

I have no problem with Wagner being near the top of the poll, but am amazed that Richard Strauss polled so poorly! The same is true of Janacek

Possibly beyond even Wagner, Strauss could be considered to be an acquired taste but once one gets used to his style and in particular, the way in which the voices and the orchestrations create such integrated effects, surely, he might arguably outrank even Wagner? (and that comment is from me as an avowed Wagner lover).

Try listening to Arabella - the version with Lisa della Casa (Arabella) and George London and/or the Luba Wellisch recording of Salome:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/salom...u-wouldst-not-let-me-kiss-thee/oclc/941809273


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

aussiebushman said:


> I have no problem with Wagner being near the top of the poll, but am amazed that Richard Strauss polled so poorly!
> 
> Possibly beyond even Wagner, Strauss could be considered to be an acquired taste but once one gets used to his style and in particular, the way in which the voices and the orchestrations create such integrated effects, surely, he might arguably outrank even Wagner?


Strauss himself would never have considered himself the equal of either Wagner or Mozart, much less their superior (except perhaps in number of notes per minute of music, at which he may be unsurpassed by anyone).

I find Strauss a great composer of "highlights" - wonderful scenes and moments, embedded in a lot of superbly crafted busyness, chattiness, surface flash and titillation. Nothing even close to the immense inner journeys Wagner takes me on.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Strauss himself would never have considered himself the equal of either Wagner or Mozart, much less their superior (except perhaps in number of notes per minute of music, at which he may be unsurpassed by anyone).
> 
> I find Strauss a great composer of "highlights" - wonderful scenes and moments, embedded in a lot of superbly crafted busyness, chattiness, surface flash and titillation. *Nothing even close to the immense inner journeys Wagner takes me on.*


True, but to me, and with my very limited experience in opera, I do find Strauss' Die Frau ohne Schatten to be somewhat Wagnerian.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

No votes for Bellini and Donizetti, are you all.......:scold:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> True, but to me, and with my very limited experience in opera, I do find Strauss' Die Frau ohne Schatten to be somewhat Wagnerian.


Agreed. It's his most Wagner-like work, in its quasi-mythical plot, in placing a moral dilemma at the center of it and a redemption at the end, and in its grand, sumptuous score.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Pugg said:


> No votes for Bellini and Donizetti, are you all.......:scold:


All people of refined musical taste? Is that where you were going with your statement, Pugg?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Pugg said:


> No votes for Bellini and Donizetti, are you all.......:scold:


Apparently you did not vote for them either.... so it should be "are we all..." .


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> Apparently you did not vote for them either.... so it should be "are we all..." .


I think it is because Pugg would select ALL OF THE ABOVE, but that option was not provided, nor multiple choice. So Pugg is stymied.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Surprised Tchaikovsky only got a few votes after all the great works that he composed!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Pugg said:


> No votes for Bellini and Donizetti, are you all.......:scold:


nor Rossini

so much for bel canto


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Is it really surprising that no one chose Rossini, Donizetti or Bellini as the "greatest ever opera composer"? The only surprises for me are that Wagner is so far out in front and that Puccini doesn't do better. Whether or not one is a fan, it's hard to deny that Puccini was, as a musical-theatrical craftsman, second to none and possibly better than any other. There's more to greatness than that, of course.


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

Wagner for me today and tomorrow


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I find Strauss a great composer of "highlights" - wonderful scenes and moments, embedded in a lot of superbly crafted busyness, chattiness, surface flash and titillation. Nothing even close to the immense inner journeys Wagner takes me on.


I do concede that Wagner created those "immense inner journeys" and you will get no criticism from me about the vast majority of his work. However, some elements must be considered superior to others in their subjective appeal to the individual listener. The "Ring" for example: Some will think Siegfried is paramount, but for me, it contains several rather boring passages. Conversely, I could listen to the first act of Walkure or the complete Gotterdamerung over and over again without hesitation.

I agree that Richard Strauss's work contains excessive "chattiness" to use your term, but being an old unreconstructed romantic, I can live with that for the sake of the sublime melody.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

aussiebushman said:


> I do concede that Wagner created those "immense inner journeys" and you will get no criticism from me about the vast majority of his work. However, some elements must be considered superior to others in their subjective appeal to the individual listener. The "Ring" for example: Some will think Siegfried is paramount, but for me, it contains several rather boring passages. Conversely, I could listen to the first act of Walkure or the complete Gotterdamerung over and over again without hesitation.
> 
> I agree that Richard Strauss's work contains excessive "chattiness" to use your term, but being an old unreconstructed romantic, I can live with that for the sake of the sublime melody.


I certainly agree that Wagner's operas are not all perfect, and that certain scenes can challenge the glutei maximi. I always think first of the Mime-Wanderer question and answer game, which I'm sure was originally intended mainly as a clever way to supply us with backstory information before Wagner realized he needed to supply it more explicitly with _Die Walkure_ and _Das Rheingold._ Had the creation of the _Ring_ not spanned 25 years, proceeded in reverse order, and been interrupted by _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger,_ he might have thought of a way to tighten up or eliminate that scene.

Those sublime melodies in Strauss don't come often enough for this romantic. I could chop _Rosenkavalier_ down to the presentation of the rose, the Italian singer's aria, and the trio and final duet, and not feel I was missing much musically (not recommending this in the theater, of course!). I find nothing gripping in _Salome_ until the final scene, which is one of Strauss's best inspirations. When I heard _Arabella_ I wondered if they'd ever stop chattering and get down to really singing something.

I'd say there are musical disadvantages to working with an intellectual librettist with literary pretensions. Librettists like Piave, Boito and Illica weren't as clever as Hoffmansthal, but they understood (with the help of savvy composers like Verdi and Puccini) how to get out of the spotlight and let music have its way - or rather, how to set the best stage for musical expression. Wagner's librettos have been criticized (mainly, I think, for being less good literarily than his theory of the Gesamtkustwerk seems to recommend), but for the most part he was quite successful at boiling situations down to essentials. Strauss is a skillful composer, though, and can dispose of a lot of dialogue rapidly, so he can partly make up for verbosity with pacing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Norman Gunston said:


> Wagner for me today and tomorrow


Yesterday too - and I have a lot of yesterdays.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> All people of refined musical taste? Is that where you were going with your statement, Pugg?


Only very disappointed ,Barbebleu.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> Apparently you did not vote for them either.... so it should be "are we all..." .





Fritz Kobus said:


> I think it is because Pugg would select ALL OF THE ABOVE, but that option was not provided, nor multiple choice. So Pugg is stymied.


Here's your answer, thank you Fritz. :tiphat:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Is it really surprising that no one chose Rossini, Donizetti or Bellini as the "greatest ever opera composer"? The only surprises for me are that Wagner is so far out in front and that Puccini doesn't do better. Whether or not one is a fan, it's hard to deny that Puccini was, as a musical-theatrical craftsman, second to none and possibly better than any other. There's more to greatness than that, of course.


I suspect some that voted verdi would have puccini down 2nd. 
As for Wagner being so far out in front - that's an anomaly not fully supported by the TC poll of greatest operas. I still think if this poll was taken in the general discussion - the gap bewteen wagner and mozart/verdi would have been much smaller.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

stomanek said:


> I suspect some that voted verdi would have puccini down 2nd.
> As for Wagner being so far out in front - that's an anomaly not fully supported by the TC poll of greatest operas. I still think if this poll was taken in the general discussion - the gap bewteen wagner and mozart/verdi would have been much smaller.


I think you're right about Puccini...as far as polls, the TC poll & this poll are 2 entirely different subjects, aren't they? I could be thinking about the wrong poll...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

[



Woodduck said:


> Yesterday too - and I have a lot of yesterdays.


If it is any comfort...... we are going to have that, or do for that matter. _hopefully_.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

stomanek said:


> nor Rossini
> 
> so much for bel canto


Lack of familiarity, I wonder?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

> Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
> Yesterday too - and I have a lot of yesterdays.





Pugg said:


> [
> 
> If it is any comfort...... we are going to have that, or do for that matter. _hopefully_.


Ah yes. I have a lot of yesterdays too, but hope to have even a whole lot more yesterdays that at this time are still tomorrows!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Ah yes. I have a lot of yesterdays too, but hope to have even a whole lot more yesterdays that at this time are still tomorrows!


I'm glad to report that at this point I don't have enough yesterdays to find that confusing. After reading it twice, anyway...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I think you're right about Puccini...as far as polls, the TC poll & this poll are 2 entirely different subjects, aren't they? I could be thinking about the wrong poll...


look earlier in this thread - the TC poll of top operas put the Ring as the top opera - but Mozart had 4 operas in the top 11, more than verdi or Wagner - if you count The Ring as 1. Still - I accept that The Ring is a monumental achievement and many listeners may feel this alone merits Wagner in the no 1 spot.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NickFuller said:


> Lack of familiarity, I wonder?


I don't think so. Even many of us who enjoy _Norma, Lucia, Barbiere_ and other great bel canto pieces simply don't see in the composers of these fine works the consistent, original genius and depth of Mozart, Verdi and Wagner. Puccini suffers from no lack of familiarity, but he was hardly more often chosen as "greatest," and given his technical sophistication, emotional intensity and theatrical brilliance I'd consider him a more likely choice than the bel canto guys.


----------



## Charade (Apr 23, 2018)

Wagner IMO. I think he revolutionized the genre (though he did borrow quite liberally musical themes).


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think so. Even many of us who enjoy _Norma, Lucia, Barbiere_ and other great bel canto pieces simply don't see in the composers of these fine works the consistent, original genius and depth of Mozart, Verdi and Wagner. Puccini suffers from no lack of familiarity, but he was hardly more often chosen as "greatest," and given his technical sophistication, emotional intensity and theatrical brilliance I'd consider him a more likely choice than the bel canto guys.


I wasn't thinking of Barber so much as Rossini's serious works, especially those composed for Naples. They're bold, innovative operas, where Rossini devises new technical solutions to convey intense emotions. For instance, Ermione, Maometto II, Armida, Mose, even the last act of Otello. And the level of musical inspiration in Ricciardo e Zoraide and Zelmira, both hampered by unlikely plots, is great. I'd say, too, that Rossini's mastery of form (eg the Terzettone in Maometto, or Ermione's massive aria) is more technically sophisticated than Puccini's.

Lucia is, as you rightly say, great - but there's far more to Donizetti than the quartet and the mad scene, or even the three big comedies, the Queens, La favorite, and Lucrezia. Ashbrook's study and the excellent series of Opera Rara recordings have revealed D's versatility and theatricality, including such first-rate works as Imelda de' Lambertazzi, Parisina, Maria di Rohan, L'assedio di Calais, Dom Sebastien (with its powerful funeral march admired by Mahler), and Caterina Cornaro.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I was reading an authority on opera detailing how Rossini, in particular - puts his best arias at the start of his operas - the idea being that 1 or 2 principal characters make their big statements at the start to grab the attention of the audience. This clicked with me - if indeed it is true - as I always wondered how an opera like Barbiere could start with a magnificent overture then two of the greatest arias ever composed and go so swiftly downhill after that.

Fortunately bel canto fans have Verdi to plump for in the great composer stakes - though I suspect many will realise their true favourites are unrealistic as greatest ever opera composers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NickFuller said:


> I wasn't thinking of Barber so much as Rossini's serious works, especially those composed for Naples. They're bold, innovative operas, where Rossini devises new technical solutions to convey intense emotions. For instance, Ermione, Maometto II, Armida, Mose, even the last act of Otello. And the level of musical inspiration in Ricciardo e Zoraide and Zelmira, both hampered by unlikely plots, is great. I'd say, too, that Rossini's mastery of form (eg the Terzettone in Maometto, or Ermione's massive aria) is more technically sophisticated than Puccini's.
> 
> Lucia is, as you rightly say, great - but there's far more to Donizetti than the quartet and the mad scene, or even the three big comedies, the Queens, La favorite, and Lucrezia. Ashbrook's study and the excellent series of Opera Rara recordings have revealed D's versatility and theatricality, including such first-rate works as Imelda de' Lambertazzi, Parisina, Maria di Rohan, L'assedio di Calais, Dom Sebastien (with its powerful funeral march admired by Mahler), and Caterina Cornaro.


Since you've spent a great deal of time with early 19th-century operas, I'm happy to acknowledge your experience and concede that there's more to some of them than has met my ear when I've sampled them. I've heard half a dozen operas of Donizetti, most of Bellini's, and seven or eight of Rossini's including _Guillaume Tell_ and _Semiramide._ My general feeling is that they are almost wholly dependent on the quality of vocalism and artistry singers can bring to them, and that an aria that can be moving when sung by a Callas or a Battistini can seem just superficially pretty when sung by a (fill in the blank - I'm not looking for a fight!). In the absence of that supreme level of vocal artistry, sitting through a bel canto opera is for me mildly entertaining at best and at worst a waste of time. _Lucia,_ for example, may be "great" in that it has a lot of great tunes, but as an expression of a gloomy tragedy set on the Scottish moors, isn't it an awfully cheerful score? There are a few (rather conventional) darker moments, but does that sextet really express the desperate situation those characters are in, and does loony Lucy's mad scene really reflect the horror of her deed?

The bel canto composers were writing popular entertainments, turning them out at a breathtaking pace, and while they were quite expert at it, I rarely find them attaining the dramatic specificity, the atmosphere, or the psychological depth that make the greatest works of Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Mussorgsky, Debussy or Strauss such _sui generis_ masterpieces of art. Rossini's _Otello_ may be a fine opera in many ways, but it sure isn't Verdi's, not by a long shot. Its relative neglect seems perfectly understandable.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

I think opera composers can be ranked like this:

Tier 1 (The Great): Monteverdi, Mozart, Wagner, Verdi in no particular order

Tier 2 (Theater wizards): Handel, Bellini, Berlioz, Puccini, Britten, Janacek, and Mussorgsky. 

Tier 3 (Consistently great): Gluck, Rossini, Donizetti, Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Prokofiev, Massenet, and Rimsky Korsakov. Among the underrated composers, Weber, Spontini, Mercadante (who influenced Verdi), Halevy (influenced both Wagner and Verdi) must be put here.

Tier 4 (Some great hits): Berg, Bartok, Debussy, Shostakovich, Bizet, Saint-Saens, and Dvorak. 

And then the rest.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Fritzi, I can honestly say that I do not even have a personal favorite; the more I listen the more I love and the more I hear the composers all loving the other composers' music. Masterpiece followed by masterpiece. One piece sparks an entire new style.... Just as an example, and I am not certain that I am correct, but I seriously suspect that William Tell, in particular, Sois immobile, strongly moved Verdi and his Ella Giammai was an offshoot of Sois. Just one example.

I'm going to take them all to my snowed-in cabin.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

silentio said:


> I think opera composers can be ranked like this:
> 
> Tier 1 (The Great): Monteverdi, Mozart, Wagner, Verdi in no particular order
> 
> ...


Very slick, Silentio! I was writing while you were posting. I like how you are trying to distinguish among them into some type of categories.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

There is only one?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

silentio said:


> I think opera composers can be ranked like this:
> 
> Tier 1 (The Great): Monteverdi, Mozart, Wagner, Verdi in no particular order
> 
> ...


Is this a ranking or a categorization? Those are not the same thing. If it's a ranking, I'd say the single operas of both Debussy and Bartok, as well as the best works by Bizet and Berg, are so striking as to catapult their composers to a level scarcely below the greatest. And who thinks that Mercadante is a great composer? Rossini and Tchaikovsky are indeed great composers, but - consistently? Rossini even recycled his overtures. Can you imagine Wagner doing that?

Categorizing opera composers according to their particular skills would be an interesting exercise, but it would be better not to mix this up with one's overall - and necessarily somewhat personal - estimate of their greatness. There are only a handful of world-changing masterpieces - by Mozart, Verdi, Wagner and who else? - and most of the rest are so open to debate that discussing their particular strengths and weaknesses is much more valuable than trying to rank them.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I cannot speak for Silentio, but I have the impression he is attempting to rank the composers by first considering their similarities and differences.

I like the idea of just categorizing because I think there are many masterpieces within a single opera and there are just too many operas I like to say that I have an all-time favorite or one that I think is the greatest overall. At this stage in my opera listening I only like certain arias or other types of excerpts from one opera, but I realize that I don't YET like the entire opera because my music-mind hasn't been trained/developed enough to hear the patterns.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Even with what I said above, I do not have one favorite at this moment. To be honest I don't want to have one particular favorite. I can have quality and quantity.

Edit with addition:

An example of a masterpiece within an entire opera that isn't a masterpiece is Vivaldi's Siam Navi. I love that piece. This is just only tiny example. Monteverdi's l'Orfeo is very clear in my mind because some of us have been listening to it lately. There are least six "arias/ariosas" in that opera that are masterpieces, plus the entire opera as an entity that is even greater than its individual components. Cosi: masterpiece after masterpiece within it. Etc....


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

A thread that calls for some music:


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> There are only a handful of world-changing masterpieces - by Mozart, Verdi, Wagner and who else? - and most of the rest are so open to debate that discussing their particular strengths and weaknesses is much more valuable than trying to rank them.


Operas need not change the world, but they may crawl inside one's cranium for a while and deposit lasting impressions.
Who else, you ask? I'll tell you below ... and I rank them, too! 

1. Aarre Merikanto's JUHA (completed 1922 - premiered 1963)
2. LA NOCHE TRISTE by Jean Prodromides 
3. George Enescu's OEDIPE
4. Paavo Heininen's THE DAMASK DRUM
5. Karl-Birger Blomdahl's opera-in-space ANIARA
6. Richard Rodney Bennett's THE MINES OF SULPHUR
7. Karol Szymanowski's KING ROGER
8. Luigi Dallapiccola's ULISSE
9. Erik Bergman's THE SINGING TREE
10. Morton Feldman's NEITHER
11. Martinů's THE GREEK PASSION
12. Marcel Landowski's MONTSEGUR
13. Wolfgang Rihm's DIE EROBERUNG VON MEXICO

My baker's dozen of faves. Plus there's more afterwards - such as JOCASTE by Charles Chaynes - and those by the likes of Birtwistle, Sallinen, Rautavaara and so on.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

As something of an outsider to the TC world of opera, I have a notion that those who love Wagner may not place Mozart or Verdi in their top opera composers. Those who love Mozart may not place the other two highly, and similarly for those who love Verdi. Is there some truth in this view or are opera lovers pretty mixed in their appreciation of these 3?

Personally, I would place Mozart and Wagner at the top above all others with Wagner just edging out Mozart. Verdi would probably be my third favorite opera composer. Is loving all 3 unusual here or in general?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> As something of an outsider to the TC world of opera, I have a notion that those who love Wagner may not place Mozart or Verdi in their top opera composers. Those who love Mozart may not place the other two highly, and similarly for those who love Verdi. Is there some truth in this view or are opera lovers pretty mixed in their appreciation of these 3?


I find the poll results disturbing because I seriously doubt they are representative of the world of opera outside of TC. Also, the insult to Rossini's operas is not fair. After listening to the version of William Tell performed by the Royal Opera House, I cannot imagine someone not highly valuing Rossini! Why would someone want to dismiss Rossini? Because there is the inaccurate cliche that Beethoven didn't admire his music?!? William Tell was composed and first performed in the 1820s--that is just extraordinary when you really listen to the music.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Also, saying that one doesn't have a single or handful of personal favorites *does not mean that we cannot still discuss their differences and learn about them via that conversation*. Mozart, Verdi and Wagner are definitely in my list of favorites and great opera composers but I still cannot and would not want to say one of them is greater than the others.

P.S. Fritzi, wasn't Rossini your favorite opera composer for quite awhile? If my memory is correct, does loving Wagner's music make Rossini's music inferior or less appealing to you?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Prodromides said:


> Operas need not change the world, but they may crawl inside one's cranium for a while and deposit lasting impressions.
> Who else, you ask? I'll tell you below ... and I rank them, too!
> 
> 1. Aarre Merikanto's JUHA (completed 1922 - premiered 1963)
> ...


Of the operas in your list, I know (and admire) _Oedipe_ and _King Roger._ You mention Sallinen; I've enjoyed his _Kullervo_. Knowing some of Merikanto's music, I'm curious about _Juha._ But when it comes to according late 20th-century and 21st-century works the status of "world-changing masterpieces," do we really have enough to go on? I chose that phrase carefully to exclude a great many fine operas, moving operas, entertaining operas, by some pretty great composers. I meant to include only works about which there has been no significant controversy, over a long period of time, about their significance to the art form or impact on the culture. I wonder how many of those you name will attain that status?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

The following is a summary of the BBC Music Magazine's 2017 survey of the greatest operas:

The list!


Le nozze di Figaro
La bohème
Der Rosenkavalier
Wozzeck
Peter Grimes
Tosca
L'incoronazione di Poppea
Don Giovanni
Otello
Tristan und Isolde
Pelléas et Mélisande
La traviata
Eugene Onegin
Jenůfa
Don Carlos
Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg
L'Orfeo
Falstaff
Giulio Cesare
Die Walküre


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> I find the poll results disturbing because I seriously doubt they are representative of the world of opera outside of TC. Also, the insult to Rossini's operas is not fair. After listening to the version of William Tell performed by the Royal Opera House, I cannot imagine someone not highly valuing Rossini! Why would someone want to dismiss Rossini? Because there is the inaccurate cliche that Beethoven didn't admire his music?!? William Tell was composed and first performed in the 1820s--that is just extraordinary when you really listen to the music.


We need to remember that this poll wasn't asking how we rate composers or their works. It was asking us to select the one composer we felt was the greatest of the pack. It's not a ranking; it's a zero-sum game. For me, that meant giving Mozart, Verdi, Rossini, and many others a score of ZERO. But that says nothing about how I regard the works of these composers. By not voting for them, I'm not being unfair to their work in any way. In fact, in two posts here I've defended the marvelous creations of that pathetic loser Puccini vigorously!

Like you, and like many others who have made a choice here, I find that a number of these composers have created very great operas, and I mean no slight to any work which I love by not assigning its author the requisite blue ribbon. Of course, I reserve the right to point out why I did or didn't award someone the prize. Staying with my theme of "world-changing masterpieces," I find it impossible not to award it to the creator of _Tristan und Isolde_, the _Ring_, and _Parsifal,_ works which changed the art form and have gotten under the world's skin to the extent that we're still coming to grips with what they mean. Does that mean that I can't love _Otello_ or _Fidelio_ or _Der Freischutz_ wholeheartedly, or that I think _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is less than a masterpiece? Not at all.

Now, _Semiramide_... That's another matter!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Does Wagner writing his own librettos not factor into this? To me it says that Wagner is more skilled when it comes to the overall composition of an opera than Mozart or Verdi. Or do we not consider the libretto a part of the composition in this case? I've never quite understood why that doesn't count for more in debates like this. When comparing the tasks of creating Tristan to Le Nozze is it even debatable that Wagner's was the greater achievement?


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

Well said!

Like you, I found so many contenders it was near impossible to choose. Having to displace R Strauss and Janacek was not easy, but I agree that overall, Wagner has the credentials for the "top spot." I currently have the overtures from Lohengrin and Tristan on the record player and last night listened to the Flagstad Sieglinde - Hard to beat that!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Does Wagner writing his own librettos not factor into this? To me it says that Wagner is more skilled when it comes to the overall composition of an opera than Mozart or Verdi. Or do we not consider the libretto a part of the composition in this case? I've never quite understood why that doesn't count for more in debates like this. When comparing the tasks of creating Tristan to Le Nozze is it even debatable that Wagner's was the greater achievement?


Bonetan, do you not remember the conversation that you, Barbebleu and others had re/ the story-line of Die Meister?!! There were so many completely different understandings of what Wagner was saying that we couldn't get even close to agreeing whether Beckmesser knew of Veit Pogner's plans from almost the very beginning of the opera! You want to pick the libretto of Tristan as your reference: they say much of the same thing over and over and over.... You KNOW I enjoy Wagner's music, but saying his libretto's make his operas greater than Mozart or Verdi--I find Verdi's libretto's much more thought-provoking and interesting.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> P.S. Fritzi, wasn't Rossini your favorite opera composer for quite awhile? If my memory is correct, does loving Wagner's music make Rossini's music inferior or less appealing to you?


I kind of burned out on Rossini and much prefer Donizetti now, but Wagner blows me away in the epic proportions of his operas and that he wrote the librettos is another awesome factor. I do still like Rossini but it seemed like too much of a good thing, like too much sugar, and I had to take a breather. But I never really know what my favorite is for very long as I kind of float around and get worked into something and will play it to death, then move on. Probably a lack of self control.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I kind of burned out on Rossini and much prefer Donizetti now, but Wagner blows me away in the epic proportions of his operas and that he wrote the librettos is another awesome factor. I do still like Rossini but it seemed like too much of a good thing, like too much sugar, and I had to take a breather. But I never really know what my favorite is for very long as I kind of float around and get worked into something and will play it to death, then move on. Probably a lack of self control.


There's a very good reason why sugar is so addictive, Fritz!

I know I am super-gung-ho about Rossini right now, but have you watched and listened to his William Tell? My God, it is amazing. I am getting ready to watch Otello next. The name itself is an argument for Rossini (and Verdi) vs. Wagner. Otello is an amazingly rich drama. We could talk for decades about it and never exhaust its meaning and it has been tested and found great for centuries--that means a great deal to me.

Another reason that I find other composers as great as Wagner is that I LOVE to sing! I'm terrible at it, but it is a WONDERFUL thing to sing along to Mozart, Gluck, Rossini, Verdi, Bellini, Vivaldi, Donizaetti, etc.. Yes, there are a little over a handful of excerpts from Wagner that I love to sing, but his music is not really music for us common folk to sing.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> ... Mind you there's strong competition from Monteverdi, who, whilst he may not have penned the first opera, was pretty much responsible for creating the genre.


Monteverdi borrowed several of the melodies from poor Peri but I think Monteverd's opera music is breathtakingly beautiful and haunting. L'Orfeo is exquisite.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I am getting too worked-up over all this. Sigh. Re/ librettos again, when I hear some of Wagner's music and some of the ideas of his music, e.g., Parsifal, I think of Dostoevsky. I wish that Wagner had used Dostoevsky's writing. The music fits, but Wagner was not that great a writer.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> We need to remember that this poll wasn't asking how we rate composers or their works. It was asking us to select the one composer we felt was the greatest of the pack.


Heh-heh, quite so. If everybody agreed that Rossini was the second-best opera composer of all time, he'd get zero votes in this game.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> Bonetan, do you not remember the conversation that you, Barbebleu and others had re/ the story-line of Die Meister?!! There were so many completely different understandings of what Wagner was saying that we couldn't get even close to agreeing whether Beckmesser knew of Veit Pogner's plans from almost the very beginning of the opera! You want to pick the libretto of Tristan as your reference: they say much of the same thing over and over and over.... You KNOW I enjoy Wagner's music, but saying his libretto's make his operas greater than Mozart or Verdi--I find Verdi's libretto's much more thought-provoking and interesting.


I'm not saying that Wagner wrote flawless librettos, but he wrote them, & the operas are amazing, so that has to count for A LOT imo. Where would the output of Mozart & Verdi have stood had they also written their librettos? Were they capable? We'll obviously never know, but the effort that Wagner put into this aspect of his compositions is something to consider...


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I'm not saying that Wagner wrote flawless librettos, but he wrote them, & the operas are amazing, so that has to count for A LOT imo. Where would the output of Mozart & Verdi have stood had they also written their librettos? Were they capable? We'll obviously never know, but the effort that Wagner put into this aspect of his compositions is something to consider...


This isn't going to sound like me, but when it comes to this kind of conversation "effort" counts for nothing, Bonetan. OUCH, it does pain me to say it. How many millions ??? of writers and composers worked diligently for years and years and never composed something almost anyone else would like--that type of effort has a value in another dimension--but not here. I stand by what I said about Die Meister, Tristan and Parsifal.

Imagine if Wagner had used Dostoevsky!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Heh-heh, quite so. If everybody agreed that Rossini was the second-best opera composer of all time, he'd get zero votes in this game.


I don't understand you, Ken. Are you busting-on Rossini? or the argumentative temperaments of some of us folks on TC?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> We need to remember that this poll wasn't asking how we rate composers or their works. It was asking us to select the one composer we felt was the greatest of the pack. It's not a ranking; it's a zero-sum game. For me, that meant giving Mozart, Verdi, Rossini, and many others a score of ZERO. But that says nothing about how I regard the works of these composers. By not voting for them, I'm not being unfair to their work in any way. In fact, in two posts here I've defended the marvelous creations of that pathetic loser Puccini vigorously!
> 
> Like you, and like many others who have made a choice here, I find that a number of these composers have created very great operas, and I mean no slight to any work which I love by not assigning its author the requisite blue ribbon. Of course, I reserve the right to point out why I did or didn't award someone the prize. Staying with my theme of "world-changing masterpieces," I find it impossible not to award it to the creator of _Tristan und Isolde_, the _Ring_, and _Parsifal,_ works which changed the art form and have gotten under the world's skin to the extent that we're still coming to grips with what they mean. Does that mean that I can't love _Otello_ or _Fidelio_ or _Der Freischutz_ wholeheartedly, or that I think _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is less than a masterpiece? Not at all.
> 
> Now, _Semiramide_... That's another matter!


I hear you, Woodduck, but we weren't asked to make our selections based on whether they were world-changing masterpieces. I can see where such a discussion would be very interesting and informative. Would you be willing to just go back and make your decision based on what you like, apart from the piece's history. Also, I would like to hear what you and others have to say about my thoughts on making decisions about opera composers and what is a masterpiece by breaking-up an opera into components: is it not a very fair criterion to make a decision about a composer's music based on how many masterpieces or fabulous "arias" or in Wagner's case, monologues and quintets, etc.. are in an opera? Even, by who has the best recitatives, if they have them?

I consider Vivaldi to be a great composer based on individual arias.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> I don't understand you, Ken. Are you busting-on Rossini? or the argumentative temperaments of some of us folks on TC?


I mean exactly what I wrote. Please read again the question asked in the poll. It seems obvious (to me) that if everybody thinks Rossini is number 2, nobody will vote for him as number 1.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I mean exactly what I wrote. Please read again the question asked in the poll. It seems obvious (to me) that if everybody thinks Rossini is number 2, nobody will vote for him as number 1.


I understand now; I just wish you had picked someone else other than Rossini as your example. Again, re/ the original question I just cannot pick one composer.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> This isn't going to sound like me, but when it comes to this kind of conversation "effort" counts for nothing, Bonetan. OUCH, it does pain me to say it. How many millions ??? of writers and composers worked diligently for years and years and never composed something almost anyone else would like--that type of effort has a value in another dimension--but not here. I stand by what I said about Die Meister, Tristan and Parsifal.
> 
> Imagine if Wagner had used Dostoevsky!


But they're not just solid efforts, they're some of the greatest works of art in human history, & Wagner took them on almost single-handed! What is happening here feels almost like someone being a great pitcher AND hitter in baseball, but us only considering one of them when deciding the best player. Why would we do that? Sorry for that comparison, but its the best I can do at the moment lol


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> But they're not just solid efforts, they're some of the greatest works of art in human history, & Wagner took them on almost single-handed! What is happening here feels almost like someone being a great pitcher AND hitter in baseball, but us only considering one of them when deciding the best player. Why would we do that? Sorry for that comparison, but its the best I can do at the moment lol


I know you love Wagner, Bonetan, and it bothers me greatly to criticize his writing publicly like this. As of this moment I do not think that his librettos are among the greatest works of art in human history; some of his music, yes, but again AMONG many other works of art. Do you not agree with me that the text of Die Meister is extremely confusing? Do you not agree that the text of Tristan and Isolde says the same thing over and over? I sort of look at that repetition or variation as a key part of the opera--the characters are engaged in a civil war with their own thoughts and emotions, so we need to hear the same thing over and over, but not for four hours.

Addition: One of things that I love about the Wahn Monologue is that it is a gorgeous, concise expression of all the main ideas of the entire opera--in what, I can't remember, five minutes?! To me, that Monologue is an extraordinary work of art.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Here is something that I find extraordinary about Wagner, if I am correct that is. The man had next to no music education did he? He only studied with any kind of teacher for a few months, right? Again, that may have more to do with arguing that he was a true genius as a composer (not writer) rather than if he was one of the greatest composers. If I'm right I find that absolutely amazing.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> I know you love Wagner, Bonetan, and it bothers me greatly to criticize his writing publicly like this. As of this moment I do not think that his librettos are among the greatest works of art in human history; some of his music, yes, but again AMONG many other works of art. Do you not agree with me that the text of Die Meister is extremely confusing? Do you not agree that the text of Tristan and Isolde says the same thing over and over? I sort of look at that repetition or variation as a key part of the opera--the characters are engaged in a civil war with their own thoughts and emotions, so we need to hear the same thing over and over, but not for four hours.
> 
> Addition: One of things that I love about the Wahn Monologue is that it is a gorgeous, concise expression of all the main ideas of the entire opera--in what, I can't remember, five minutes?! To me, that Monologue is an extraordinary work of art.


I wasn't implying that his librettos were among the greatest works of art, rather the operas as a whole. Personally I find Wagner's librettos to be underrated, but I am no expert in this. There are those that find the libretto for Don G to be awkward & hard to understand just to give one example showing that this criticism isn't exclusive to Wagner's librettos. Sure, Wagner likes to rehash things, but never will you sing the same phrase over & over for pages like you might in Mozart or Verdi. I just don't think Wagner's libretto should be dismissed as 2nd rate. IMO they are actually quite good & a large part of what makes him the Greatest ever opera composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> Does Wagner writing his own librettos not factor into this? To me it says that Wagner is more skilled when it comes to the overall composition of an opera than Mozart or Verdi. Or do we not consider the libretto a part of the composition in this case? I've never quite understood why that doesn't count for more in debates like this. When comparing the tasks of creating Tristan to Le Nozze is it even debatable that Wagner's was the greater achievement?


Writing one's own libretti is an accomplishment in itself, but words are only one manifestation of the total art work that Wagner created virtually from scratch. A libretto isn't a play; it's a dramatic concept, a theme, a structure, and an arena for musical expression. Wagner took some ingredients from traditional stories and transformed them into original dramas full of new meaning, and with just the form required for his own music to take wing. Doing all this doesn't guarantee that the final product will be a great opera, but when that is the result, the value of the libretto shouldn't be minimized. People who object that Wagner's librettos aren't great literature are missing the point. If they were great plays, there would be no need for music; in fact, music - especially music as rich and expansive as Wagner's - would very likely just get in the way.

When Tristan and Isolde meet in the garden, their wild verbal ejaculations are not meant to be considered for literary value. They merely concretize the wild tumult in the orchestra, and let the voices ride the waves. There's no way "great literature" could express such complete, passionate abandon; Wagner knew that only music, of all the arts, could do that job, and he gave his characters words that would supply a conceptual equivalent of what his unprecedented music had to say. The words are not set to music; they're an aspect of it, and in a real sense grow out of it.

Wagner adapted his verbal style to his musical-dramatic needs, which varied greatly from work to work and within the same work. His concern was to create fully integral works of art. Singling out the literary element for assessment on its own misses its function and does Wagner's total vision an injustice.

Whether or not he wrote the greatest operas, Wagner's was certainly the most comprehensive creative mind possessed by any composer. He wrote his own libretti for his unique works because no one else possibly could have.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> Here is something that I find extraordinary about Wagner, if I am correct that is. The man had next to no music education did he? He only studied with any kind of teacher for a few months, right?


No, this is not true. Wagner did not develop as early as many of the other great composers, and his journey towards music was through the world of theater and literature, but he had more musical education than he later acknowledged.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> There's a very good reason why sugar is so addictive, Fritz!
> 
> I know I am super-gung-ho about Rossini right now, but have you watched and listened to his *William Tell*? My God, it is amazing.


That one is on my list. In fact, I have a DVD in my unwatched pile. The problem is there are too many DVDs in my unwatched pile. But someday I'll get to it.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

OperaChic said:


> No, this is not true. Wagner did not develop as early as many of the other great composers, and his journey towards music was through the world of theater and literature, but he had more musical education than he later acknowledged.


How much more, OperaChic? Just to give me a general sense--one, two, three teachers? one, two, three years?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Writing one's own libretti is an accomplishment in itself, but words are only one manifestation of the total art work that Wagner created virtually from scratch. A libretto isn't a play; it's a dramatic concept, a theme, a structure, and an arena for musical expression. Wagner took some ingredients from traditional stories and transformed them into original dramas full of new meaning, and with just the form required for his own music to take wing. Doing all this doesn't guarantee that the final product will be a great opera, but when that is the result, the value of the libretto shouldn't be minimized. People who object that Wagner's librettos aren't great literature are missing the point. If they were great plays, there would be no need for music; in fact, music - especially music as rich and expansive as Wagner's - would very likely just get in the way.
> 
> When Tristan and Isolde meet in the garden, their wild verbal ejaculations are not meant to be considered for literary value. They merely concretize the wild tumult in the orchestra, and let the voices ride the waves. There's no way "great literature" could express such complete, passionate abandon; Wagner knew that only music, of all the arts, could do that job, and he gave his characters words that would supply a conceptual equivalent of what his unprecedented music had to say. The words are not set to music; they're an aspect of it, and in a real sense grow out of it.
> 
> ...


This is one of your lovely odes to Wagner, but it is just an ode; you give no examples and you don't address any of the questions that I asked Bonetan.

"People who object that Wagner's librettos aren't great literature are missing the point. If they were great plays, there would be no need for music; in fact, music - especially music as rich and expansive as Wagner's - would very likely just get in the way."

Do you even believe yourself re/ the bit about if they were great plays there would be no need for music?! Music does bring another dimension to the text, it can convey a composer's particular interpretation of a single line or scene. Great literature often has innumerable interpretations and music can present those different understandings. It can also convey the great depth of emotion in a great piece of literature more immediately to the mind and heart. Verdi, MacBeth, _Pieta, rispetto y honore/amore._.. one of the first opera arias I ever heard.

"When Tristan and Isolde meet in the garden, their wild verbal ejaculations are not meant to be considered for literary value. They merely concretize the wild tumult in the orchestra, and let the voices ride the waves."

Of course they are not to be considered solely or primarily for their literary value, but you and others are saying that the fact that Wagner's wrote the words or verbal ejaculations should be considered part of his greatness as a composer. You cannot have your cake and eat it too here. His MUSIC is the masterpiece.

"His concern was to create fully integral works of art. Singling out the literary element for assessment on its own misses its function and does Wagner's total vision an injustice." Again, YOU AND OTHERS are arguing that the fact that he wrote the text that accompany or grow out of his music, should be a factor in considering his greatness as an opera composer.

I am not so sure that Wagner himself had a coherent idea of what he was trying to say and convey in his music. I remember reading a very lengthy thread on here discussing the exact location and the symbolic meaning of Amfortas' wound. It's fun to speculate about that kind of thing, but the fact that no one came up with a completely convincing explanation and missed a few very important ones (Amfortas as Adam whose rib was removed to create Eve; the wound in Jesus' side at his crucifixion) says that I think Wagner had a jumble of myths and ideas that weren't clearly thought out and that jumble and hodge-podge comes through when we try to talk about the deeper meaning of his works.

Yes, I know Die Meister was not composed as a gesamtskungwerk, but the story-line is very confusing and not completely thought-out.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> Of course they are not to be considered solely or primarily for their literary value, but you and others are saying that the fact that Wagner's wrote the words or verbal ejaculations should be considered part of his greatness as a composer. You cannot have your cake and eat it too here. His MUSIC is the masterpiece.


I think the libretto, a major piece in the composition of any opera, must be considered part of how we evaluate Wagner's greatness as a composer. Do you think his libretti are a bad stain on the resume of an otherwise great composer?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Rottweiler said:


> Monteverdi hands down, my father was a singer in many performances of his operas


I love Monteverdi, too. What a gorgeous dog! Is s/he a Dane?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I think the libretto, a major piece in the composition of any opera, must be considered part of how we evaluate Wagner's greatness as a composer. Do you think his libretti are a bad stain on the resume of an otherwise great composer?


I wouldn't use such a negative word as "stain" but I suppose I don't think his libretti are great. Certainly not good enough to argue that since he wrote them that should add to the argument that he is the greatest composer.

(I'm signing off now, Bonetan.)


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Since you've spent a great deal of time with early 19th-century operas, I'm happy to acknowledge your experience and concede that there's more to some of them than has met my ear when I've sampled them. I've heard half a dozen operas of Donizetti, most of Bellini's, and seven or eight of Rossini's including _Guillaume Tell_ and _Semiramide._ My general feeling is that they are almost wholly dependent on the quality of vocalism and artistry singers can bring to them, and that an aria that can be moving when sung by a Callas or a Battistini can seem just superficially pretty when sung by a (fill in the blank - I'm not looking for a fight!). In the absence of that supreme level of vocal artistry, sitting through a bel canto opera is for me mildly entertaining at best and at worst a waste of time. _Lucia,_ for example, may be "great" in that it has a lot of great tunes, but as an expression of a gloomy tragedy set on the Scottish moors, isn't it an awfully cheerful score? There are a few (rather conventional) darker moments, but does that sextet really express the desperate situation those characters are in, and does loony Lucy's mad scene really reflect the horror of her deed?
> 
> The bel canto composers were writing popular entertainments, turning them out at a breathtaking pace, and while they were quite expert at it, I rarely find them attaining the dramatic specificity, the atmosphere, or the psychological depth that make the greatest works of Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Mussorgsky, Debussy or Strauss such _sui generis_ masterpieces of art. Rossini's _Otello_ may be a fine opera in many ways, but it sure isn't Verdi's, not by a long shot. Its relative neglect seems perfectly understandable.


Thanks, Woodduck!

Popular entertainment, of course, can also be great art (or great heart, as my phone's dictation thinks I said);?think of Dickens, Shakespeare, Hitchcock and Spielberg.

A lot of Belcanto might be Middleton or Webster compared to Verdi's Shakespeare, but The Revenger's Tragedy and The Duchess of Malfi are still powerful, compelling works!

Rossini's late opera seria, his masterpieces, are extraordinary. I really recommend Ermione, a bel canto Elektra; there's a DVD from Glyndebourne with Antonacci and Bruce Ford.

There is a lot of hackwork in Donizetti; with 70 operas, how could there not be? But his best works are theatrically compelling, and the later ones anticipate mature Verdi. And his versatility, too, is remarkable.

You're right that the arias need a virtuoso singer who can act; that's who they were written for! There's a famous description of Isabella Colbran becoming Elizabeth I (in Rossini's Elisabetta); she played the part as though she had worn a crown all her life. The warbling songbird might be able to sing the notes, but isn't what the composers wanted - and would be totally at sea in, say, Roberto Devereux.

Couldn't you, though, say the same thing about other composers? We've all seen mediocre performances of great works! I've even seen a boring Boris Godunov! And an appalling amateur Boheme, where nobody could sing.

I agree with you about most of Rossini's Otello; it's not really comparable to Verdi's great work. It's a fairly conservative piece that has some terrific music (the duo and trio in Act II) and little Shakespeare - until the last act. It's one of the first Italian operas with a death onstage, and Rossini's Willow Song, and the gondolier singing Dante, are inspired.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

silentio said:


> I think opera composers can be ranked like this:
> 
> Tier 1 (The Great): Monteverdi, Mozart, Wagner, Verdi in no particular order
> 
> ...


Mercadante and Halevy! Hurrah!


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> And who thinks that Mercadante is a great composer?


Me! Or, at least, a composer who wrote great operas - which may not be the same thing! Orazi e Curiazi is remarkable. And Liszt thought him Italy's best opera composer.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Bonetan said:


> Does Wagner writing his own librettos not factor into this? To me it says that Wagner is more skilled when it comes to the overall composition of an opera than Mozart or Verdi. Or do we not consider the libretto a part of the composition in this case? I've never quite understood why that doesn't count for more in debates like this. When comparing the tasks of creating Tristan to Le Nozze is it even debatable that Wagner's was the greater achievement?


Donizetti wrote some of his own libretti...


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> How much more, OperaChic? Just to give me a general sense--one, two, three teachers? one, two, three years?


As the writer, critic, and family friend of Wagner Heinrich Laube later recalled, Wagner "had received the sort of current musical education that had been popular in Leipzig since Bach's day." Besides borrowing and studying several books on music theory that were popular during the period, at the age of 15 he took private lessons with the musician Christian Gottlieb Müller that lasted for three years. He then went on to more intensive study with Theodor Weinlig, who happened to be Bach's successor as Cantor at the Thomaskirche. Wagner studied with him for the better part of year and received a systematic grounding in the rules of counterpoint and harmonic theory. He also had some violin lessons with a Leipzig orchestral player which gave him a sense of the capabilities of the instrument and how to write for them.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> , I know Die Meister was not composed as a gesamtskungwerk, but the story-line is very confusing and not completely thought-out.


Strange. Not only do I find the libretto of Die Meistersinger clear and completely coherent dramatically, like all of his conceptions it allows his music the room to create a wellspring of emotions and psychological motivations which generate characters that are wonderfully complex, ambiguous, and who grow and evolve as individuals throughout the progression of the opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW writes: This is one of your lovely odes to Wagner, but it is just an ode 

Just an ode... Nothing there to think about, then?

you give no examples 

Um...Tristan?

and you don't address any of the questions that I asked Bonetan.

Bonetan can answer for himself.

_ "People who object that Wagner's librettos aren't great literature are missing the point. If they were great plays, there would be no need for music; in fact, music - especially music as rich and expansive as Wagner's - would very likely just get in the way."
_
Do you even believe yourself 

I never say anything I don't believe. Do you?

re/ the bit about if they were great plays there would be no need for music?! 

Yes, I believe that to be true. A great work of literature is self-sufficient. Music might be added effectively in some cases, most successfully to short poems of no great verbal complexity. But music has its own laws and is quite dictatorial. Good librettists and composers know that in an extended work the text must serve the needs of music, which is the primary expressive medium in any combination with words. Verdi was constantly making necessary demands on his librettists. He knew that an opera was not a play or a poem, that sung words don't come across as spoken words do, that fancy figures of speech would be lost, that mundane conversation was not musically fertile, and that simple, emotive dialogue with minimal descriptive language was best for the sort of music he was writing. Every composer must find a verbal style that suits his own musical needs. Very few great operas attempt to set plays verbatim; Debussy managed it in _Pelleas et Melisande_ by approximating in music the cadence of speech and utilizing a text that suited that style of musical declamation, consisting mainly of short, enigmatic utterances. Wagner, as I've said in my "lovely ode," employed different verbal styles in different works with different musical requirements.

Music does bring another dimension to the text, it can convey a composer's particular interpretation of a single line or scene. Great literature often has innumerable interpretations and music can present those different understandings. It can also convey the great depth of emotion in a great piece of literature more immediately to the mind and heart. Verdi, MacBeth, _Pieta, rispetto y honore/amore._.. one of the first opera arias I ever heard.

Verdi's Macbeth is not a setting of Shakespeare's text. Any good composer would know better than to attempt that. When Boito adapted Shakespeare for Verdi's _Otello_, he did just that: adapted. He kept the story line and some essential lines of dialogue, but cut the play drastically and even added some stuff (Iago's "credo") that gave the composer an opportunity for a musically powerful aria.

_"When Tristan and Isolde meet in the garden, their wild verbal ejaculations are not meant to be considered for literary value. They merely concretize the wild tumult in the orchestra, and let the voices ride the waves."_

Of course they are not to be considered solely or primarily for their literary value, but you and others are saying that the fact that Wagner's wrote the words or verbal ejaculations should be considered part of his greatness as a composer. You cannot have your cake and eat it too here. His MUSIC is the masterpiece.

I didn't say that his texts made him a better composer. I said, in fact, that they _didn't_ necessarily do that: _"Wagner took some ingredients from traditional stories and transformed them into original dramas full of new meaning, and with just the form required for his own music to take wing. Doing all this doesn't guarantee that the final product will be a great opera, but when that is the result, the value of the libretto shouldn't be minimized."_ Every operatic masterpiece is that primarily because of the music.

_"His concern was to create fully integral works of art. Singling out the literary element for assessment on its own misses its function and does Wagner's total vision an injustice." _

Again, YOU AND OTHERS are arguing that the fact that he wrote the text that accompany or grow out of his music, should be a factor in considering his greatness as an opera composer. 

Yes, it should. That doesn't mean his operas are the greatest operas. There's a difference.

I am not so sure that Wagner himself had a coherent idea of what he was trying to say and convey in his music.

_You_ may be unsure of Wagner's purposes. How does that show that _Wagner_ was?

I remember reading a very lengthy thread on here discussing the exact location and the symbolic meaning of Amfortas' wound. It's fun to speculate about that kind of thing, but the fact that no one came up with a completely convincing explanation and missed a few very important ones (Amfortas as Adam whose rib was removed to create Eve; the wound in Jesus' side at his crucifixion) says that I think Wagner had a jumble of myths and ideas that weren't clearly thought out and that jumble and hodge-podge comes through when we try to talk about the deeper meaning of his works.

It says no such thing. Why does the exact location of Amfortas' wound matter? If it did Wagner would have been more specific. Consider the possibility that he was as specific as he needed to be, and that understanding Amfortas' wound doesn't depend on its precise physical location.

I know Die Meister was not composed as a gesamtskungwerk, but the story-line is very confusing and not completely thought-out.

I've never found it confusing.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Of the operas in your list, I know (and admire) _Oedipe_ and _King Roger._ You mention Sallinen; I've enjoyed his _Kullervo_. Knowing some of Merikanto's music, I'm curious about _Juha._ But when it comes to according late 20th-century and 21st-century works the status of "world-changing masterpieces," do we really have enough to go on? I chose that phrase carefully to exclude a great many fine operas, moving operas, entertaining operas, by some pretty great composers. I meant to include only works about which there has been no significant controversy, over a long period of time, about their significance to the art form or impact on the culture. I wonder how many of those you name will attain that status?


Probably none of them will enter standard repertoire let alone accrue the status a masterpiece which significantly alters the zeitgeist of the times.
Future generations during upcoming centuries, though, might possibly revisit late-20th century works via a different evaluation spectrum than our current perspectives due to their long distances away from what is new or relatively new to us here & now.

I posted my faves here to demonstrate just how many operas and composers exist below the radar of most listeners because our collective focus typically falls upon the 'warhorses' and their well-known & high-profile composers.

Can't we mention operas without the names Wagner or Verdi being deposited?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Prodromides said:


> Operas need not change the world, but they may crawl inside one's cranium for a while and deposit lasting impressions.
> Who else, you ask? I'll tell you below ... and I rank them, too!
> 
> 1. Aarre Merikanto's JUHA (completed 1922 - premiered 1963)
> ...


hey Prodromides, I've always appreciated your suggestions. You should definitely write more often.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Prodromides said:


> Probably none of them will enter standard repertoire let alone accrue the status a masterpiece which significantly alters the zeitgeist of the times.
> Future generations during upcoming centuries, though, might possibly revisit late-20th century works via a different evaluation spectrum than our current perspectives due to their long distances away from what is new or relatively new to us here & now.
> 
> I posted my faves here to demonstrate just how many operas and composers exist below the radar of most listeners because our collective focus typically falls upon the 'warhorses' and their well-known & high-profile composers.
> ...


Sure we can, and I appreciate your bringing some interesting operas to our attention. I hope to hear some of them. You'll have to admit, though, that it's hard not to bring up Wagner and Verdi in a "greatest ever" survey. :tiphat:


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Faustian said:


> Strange. Not only do I find the libretto of Die Meistersinger clear and completely coherent dramatically, like all of his conceptions it allows his music the room to create a wellspring of emotions and psychological motivations which generate characters that are wonderfully complex, ambiguous, and who grow and evolve as individuals throughout the progression of the opera.


At first I thought the libretto was very clear until some of us had the following discussion. You might want to start reading at Post #240 for some background.... I'd be interested to hear your interpretation, if you are willing to post it over in the other thread.

Wagner on disc...Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> But they're not just solid efforts, they're some of the greatest works of art in human history, & Wagner took them on almost single-handed! What is happening here feels almost like someone being a great pitcher AND hitter in baseball, but us only considering one of them when deciding the best player. Why would we do that? Sorry for that comparison, but its the best I can do at the moment lol


The problem is that Wagner was a far greater hitter than he was a pitcher. He was a vastly greater musician than he was a poet. But of course he wanted not only to be the greatest opera composer ever but the greatest poet in the German language and greatest master of stagecraft in the world. Unfortunately, although his devoted followers will never admit it, his libretti are pretty awful in places. They are vastly overlong and you long for him to have an editor. They are also in places quite meaningless and it to me do not bring out character in the performers. If you compare Wagner with Verdi, dear old Joe Green would send his libretti back and forth to the librettist until they were honed to his satisfaction. Even though some of them were hacked around by the authorities, they remain some of the best and his collaborations with Boito only matched by Mozart's with da Ponte. As a librettist to me Wagner is not in the same league. So I consider his attempt to be the creator of 'a total work of art' a weakness not a strength. As a writer myself I know I need an editor. Everyone does - including Wagner!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> *The problem is* that Wagner was a far greater hitter than he was a pitcher. *He was a vastly greater musician than he was a poet. But of course he wanted not only to be the greatest opera composer ever but the greatest poet in the German language and greatest master of stagecraft in the world.* Unfortunately, although his devoted followers will never admit it, *his libretti are pretty awful in places. They are vastly overlong* and you long for him to have an editor. *They are also in places quite meaningless* and it to me do not bring out character in the performers. If you compare Wagner with Verdi, dear old Joe Green would send his libretti back and forth to the librettist until they were honed to his satisfaction. Even though some of them were hacked around by the authorities, they remain some of the best and his collaborations with Boito only matched by Mozart's with da Ponte. As a librettist to me Wagner is not in the same league. So I consider his attempt to be the creator of 'a total work of art' a weakness not a strength. As a writer myself I know I need an editor. Everyone does - including Wagner!


No one disputes that Wagner was a greater composer than poet. But not everyone thinks that that's a "problem." It's just as true that Verdi was a greater composer than Piave or Boito was a poet. There is no necessity for the libretto of an opera to be distinguished literarily. Music and language have different imperatives, and in opera words and action must accommodate the dictates of musical expression.

Wagner did not always recognize this, at least in theory. In his essay _Opera and Drama,_ he imagined an art form in which the separate arts would make more or less equal contributions, and he saw music as governed by the meaning of the text. This was his attempt to get away from what he saw as meaningless vocal display in traditional opera, and we see him attempting to apply his principles in the early parts of the _Ring._ Fortunately, his results revealed to him, and transcended, the fallacy of his theory, and music quickly claimed its prerogatives - did so, in fact from the very prelude and first scene of _Das Rheingold,_ which is as magical a stretch of pure music as ever opened an opera. Ultimately Wagner was to speak of his works as "deeds of music made visible."

Wagner never claimed to be "the greatest poet in the German language and greatest master of stagecraft in the world." You're exaggerating in order to disparage him. There's no need for that, is there? When you say that his libretti are "vastly overlong," you are implying that his operas are vastly overlong. This will come as news to a great many people who wouldn't willingly part with a bar of _Lohengrin, Tristan, Die Walkure, Parsifal,_ et al. These operas may be too long for _you, _but that's no one's concern but yours.

Wagner's "attempt to be the creator of 'a total work of art'" is neither a "weakness" nor a "strength." It was simply what he wanted to do - and what he _had_ to do, given the originality of his project - and the astonishingly powerful results speak for themselves, and have done so unflaggingly for generations of listeners and operagoers. They may not communicate their power as compellingly to you as to other people, but there is no need to resort to exaggerated and pseudo-factual statements in order to prove your inability to respond to them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> No one disputes that Wagner was a greater composer than poet. But not everyone thinks that that's a "problem." It's just as true that Verdi was a greater composer than Piave or Boito was a poet. There is no necessity for the libretto of an opera to be distinguished literarily. Music and language have different imperatives, and in opera words and action must accommodate the dictates of musical expression.
> 
> Wagner did not always recognize this, at least in theory. In his essay _Opera and Drama,_ he imagined an art form in which the separate arts would make more or less equal contributions, and he saw music as governed by the meaning of the text. This was his attempt to get away from what he saw as meaningless vocal display in traditional opera, and we see him attempting to apply his principles in the early parts of the _Ring._ Fortunately, his results revealed to him, and transcended, the fallacy of his theory, and music quickly claimed its prerogatives - did so, in fact from the very prelude and first scene of _Das Rheingold,_ which is as magical a stretch of pure music as ever opened an opera. Ultimately Wagner was to speak of his works as "deeds of music made visible."
> 
> ...


Not exaggerated or pseudo-factual statements at all. Wagner was well-known for his massive ego and some psychiatrists would say he suffered from chronic megalomania. You might just as well say that my inability to respond to Wagner might just be Wagner's fault as much as my own. If he had had the humility to employ an editor for his works I might just have responded more positively. But I am not going to start another argument with you. I just give my opinion. And that is all it is - opinion. And an opinion shared by other people too.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

If there is any other temporary ban for this topic, I want to say that I love the four of you as contributors, and I don't think we have discussed non-Wagner operatic recordings enough. Please don't go...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Not exaggerated or pseudo-factual statements at all. Wagner was well-known for his massive ego and some psychiatrists would say he suffered from chronic megalomania. You might just as well say that my inability to respond to Wagner might just be Wagner's fault as much as my own. If he had had the humility to employ an editor for his works I might just have responded more positively. But I am not going to start another argument with you. I just give my opinion. And that is all it is - opinion. And an opinion shared by other people too.


Whether or not Wagner had any illusions about being "the greatest poet in the German language and greatest master of stagecraft in the world" is not a matter of opinion. Do you know for a fact that he imagined himself a greater writer or dramatist than Goethe, Schiller, or Shakespeare? In the absence of factual support, you're merely engaging in gratuitous mockery of a composer you manifestly love to disparage.

It's too bad that Wagner's operas are too long for you. If you could simply state that - if you must - instead of giving spurious justifications for your personal feelings such as "everybody needs an editor" and "Wagner was a megalomaniac," no one would care enough to argue with you. Your tastes don't need justifying; we all have our dislikes. But most of us don't feel compelled to harp on them constantly in the company of people who don't share them. I'm not a big fan of your favored Mozart-Da Ponte operas, for example; as a person of Romantic temperament, I just don't find that sort of social comedy more than mildly entertaining, or Mozart's music, beautifully written though it is, terribly exciting or affecting on more than an aesthetic level. But I have no interest in wasting anyone's time announcing this over and over, or wasting my own time looking for "faults" in Mozart and Da Ponte, either as artists or as men.

I'm sure that my inability to find _Cosi fan tutte_ "perfect" and "sublime" (as some have called it) indicates a limitation on my part, regardless of whether my or anyone else's opinion of that opera has any rational basis. I'm equally sure that your inability to grasp the aesthetic integrity of _Parsifal_ (which many consider perfect and sublime!) represents the limitations of your own nature. It might be well to stop and think of that before lighting into Wagner for his lack of humility and his psychiatric deficiencies.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Whether or not Wagner had any illusions about being "the greatest poet in the German language and greatest master of stagecraft in the world" is not a matter of opinion. Do you know for a fact that he imagined himself a greater writer or dramatist than Goethe, Schiller, or Shakespeare? In the absence of factual support, you're merely engaging in gratuitous mockery of a composer you manifestly love to disparage.
> 
> It's too bad that Wagner's operas are too long for you. If you could simply state that - if you must - instead of giving spurious justifications for your personal feelings such as "everybody needs an editor" and "Wagner was a megalomaniac," no one would care enough to argue with you. Your tastes don't need justifying; we all have our dislikes. But most of us don't feel compelled to harp on them constantly in the company of people who don't share them. I'm not a big fan of your favored Mozart-Da Ponte operas, for example; as a person of Romantic temperament, I just don't find that sort of social comedy more than mildly entertaining, or Mozart's music, beautifully written though it is, terribly exciting or affecting on more than an aesthetic level. But I have no interest in wasting anyone's time announcing this over and over, or wasting my own time looking for "faults" in Mozart and Da Ponte, either as artists or as men.
> 
> I'm sure that my inability to find _Cosi fan tutte_ "perfect" and "sublime" (as some have called it) indicates a limitation on my part, regardless of whether my or anyone else's opinion of that opera has any rational basis. *I'm equally sure that your inability to grasp the aesthetic integrity of Parsifal (which many consider perfect and sublime!) represents the limitations of your own nature.* It might be well to stop and think of that before lighting into Wagner for his lack of humility and psychiatric deficiencies.


As I consider Parsifal to have little or no aesthetic integrity outside of some pretty amazing music in places then I do not consider my lack of appreciation for the pseudo-religious claptrap of a plot (I would also put the libretto of Die Zauberflote in the same category btw) to be a 'limitation' on my part. I do wishy ou wouldn't try always to have the last word on everything. I have no problem with you not being a fan of Mozart - da Ponte. The only person I am interested in appreciating them is me! I reckon they are the greatest operas ever written no matter that da Ponte was an immoral rake and that Mozart had his faults no doubt. I just can't understand why you take it so personally. I don't. This is opera - fiction! Not a matter of life and death!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> As I consider Parsifal to have little or no aesthetic integrity outside of some pretty amazing music in places then I do not consider my lack of appreciation for the pseudo-religious claptrap of a plot to be a 'limitation' on my part.


A defense like that renders a prosecution redundant.


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

lmao why does every single thread devolve into you two fighting about Wagner


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ma7730 said:


> lmao why does every single thread devolve into you two fighting about Wagner


Because DavidA can't let a conversation about Wagner pass without getting in a few jabs & Woodduck won't let him get away with it! As long as DavidA feels the need to take shots at Wagner, people will defend Wagner, & there will be arguments.


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Because DavidA can't let a conversation about Wagner pass without getting in a few jabs & Woodduck won't let him get away with it! As long as DavidA feels the need to take shots at Wagner, people will defend Wagner, & there will be arguments.


fair enough, but I think David's arguments have been addressed over and over again. Ultimately I think most people find them pretty silly
if we just let it go, we could move onto move interesting discussions than "well Wagner's operas just too _loooong_"


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Maybe we need a Wagner group that is not open to membership but where one must be invited?


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

Would a change of name to Wagnersohn help


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Norman Gunston said:


> Would a change of name to Wagnersohn help


Let's do a poll first


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Let's do a poll first


As in, someone from a country between Germany and Holland or its the other side


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

ma7730 said:


> lmao why does every single thread devolve into you two fighting about Wagner


Very this. I also can't help but note notes of sexual tension between the two.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

ma7730 said:


> fair enough, but I think David's arguments have been addressed over and over again. Ultimately I think most people find them pretty silly
> if we just let it go, we could move onto move interesting discussions than "well Wagner's operas just too _loooong_"


Pretty sure anything we don't enjoy we find "overlong". _Parsifal _ought to be twice as long and it would be twice as enjoyable. I was recently dragged along to Sir Andras Schiff playing mostly Brahms and the lighter end of Beethoven and sixteen Parsifals could not have been as long as that damn concert.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Pretty sure anything we don't enjoy we find "overlong".


Indeed. So often I feel that Satie doesn't know when enough is enough.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Very this. I also can't help but note notes of sexual tension between the two.


Lord no. Beethoven in shades is not my type at all. I'd sooner have a little green slug in a winged helmet, though not much sooner.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Because DavidA can't let a conversation about Wagner pass without getting in a few jabs & Woodduck won't let him get away with it! As long as DavidA feels the need to take shots at Wagner, people will defend Wagner, & there will be arguments.


Not at all. I was just answering your point in 139 as to why I felt differently about the works than you do - i.e. they are not some of the greatest works ever written. Of course, that is a sign for someone else to chip in and rise to the defense. I have no problem with that as long as we are polite. I'm one of those people who believes others have a right to their opinion even when it differs from mine.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Very this. I also can't help but note notes of sexual tension between the two.


No, you've just been listening to too much of a certain composer! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ma7730 said:


> fair enough, but I think David's arguments have been addressed over and over again. Ultimately I think most people find them pretty silly
> if we just let it go, we could move onto move interesting discussions than "well Wagner's operas just too _loooong_"


Just I don't buy into the myth! I find that silly. :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Looks like V and M are closing on W?

it's not over till it's over


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'm one of those people who believes others have a right to their opinion even when it differs from mine. Just I don't buy into the myth! I find that silly. :lol:


You do have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Shall we look at some of these "opinions"?

1. _"But of course he wanted not only to be the greatest opera composer ever but the greatest poet in the German language and greatest master of stagecraft in the world."_ What evidence do you have that Wagner imagined his poetry and stagecraft (whatever that is) the equal of Goethe, Schiller, Shakespeare, etc.?

2. _"Unfortunately, although his devoted followers will never admit it, his libretti are pretty awful in places."_ If this is just your opinion, how can other people "admit" it?

2. _"They are vastly overlong." _How long is vastly overlong? What "vast" sections should be eliminated? (Since anything we don't enjoy will seem too long, all this says is that you don't experience enough enjoyment and so become bored. So what?)

3. _"You long for him to have an editor."_ Who is "you," other than _you?_

4. _"They are also in places quite meaningless."_ What places? (Anything is meaningless if you don't understand its meaning.)

5. _"As a writer myself I know I need an editor. Everyone does - including Wagner!"_ You are undoubtedly alone in thinking that Wagner should have adopted the authorial standards and practices of DavidA. Others may enjoy Wagner and think _you_ should employ an editor.

6. _"Wagner was well-known for his massive ego and some psychiatrists would say he suffered from chronic megalomania."_ I assume you are one of the psychiatrists qualified to diagnose the disease of "megalomania," and to attribute to this ailment the fact that an artist chooses to create his work all by himself?

7. _"You might just as well say that my inability to respond to Wagner might just be Wagner's fault as much as my own."_ Why is your, or anyone's, inability to respond to any artistic product anyone's "fault"?

8. _"If he had had the humility to employ an editor for his works I might just have responded more positively."_ So Wagner's artistic choices resulted from a lack of humility? And you prefer operas written by humble people?

9._ "As I consider Parsifal to have little or no aesthetic integrity outside of some pretty amazing music in places then I do not consider my lack of appreciation for the pseudo-religious claptrap of a plot to be a 'limitation' on my part."_ Well of course you don't. You're making it clear that nothing anyone could ever say will cause you to suspect that your understanding of the subject is limited in any way.

(And it's _Wagner_ who suffered from a lack of humility?!)

10. _"I reckon they are the greatest operas ever written no matter that da Ponte was an immoral rake and that Mozart had his faults no doubt."_ So Mozart's and Da Ponte's personal faults didn't affect their work and don't figure into your reckoning, but Wagner's did and do?

11._"Just I don't buy into the myth! I find that silly."_ So you insist that your opinions be respected - even when you post factual falsehoods and spurious conclusions as "opinions" - but people who reject the sort of stuff I've just shot full of holes are buying into a "myth"?

I'd like to know what gives anyone the idea that it's rational or acceptable to enter a discussion, make unsupported or insupportable statements about subjects they aren't sufficiently interested in to try to understand, boast about their lack of interest and understanding, and accuse those who challenge them of "buying into myths."

The belief on the part of people here and elsewhere that Wagner produced some of the greatest artistic achievements in the history of Western culture is not a "myth" that anyone is "buying into." You may as well get used to it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You do have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
> 
> Shall we look at some of these "opinions"?
> 
> ...


What you have done is a complete waste of time. I was giving my opinion not facts. I cannot think why you waste your time in this way, unless you think other people haven't a right to their opinions. Just look at what you have written. Just your opinions - no factual basis to it. You have every right to your opinions. I do wish you didn't have to be the self-appointed 'correcter' of other people's! Or treat your own opinions as 'facts' when they are in fact opinions. But please don't let us get into another hassle on Wagner. He wrote fiction not life and death issues.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> What you have done is a complete waste of time. I was giving my opinion not facts. I cannot think why you waste your time in this way, unless you think other people haven't a right to their opinions. Just look at what you have written. Just your opinions - no factual basis to it. You have every right to your opinions. I do wish you didn't have to be the self-appointed 'correcter' of other people's! Or treat your own opinions as 'facts' when they are in fact opinions. But please don't let us get into another hassle on Wagner. He wrote fiction not life and death issues.


You yourself have wondered in this very thread why so many people find offense in your opinions on Wagner, and why they take it personally. Perhaps it has something to do with the way you express those opinions.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> You yourself have wondered in this very thread why so many people find offense in your opinions on Wagner, and why they take it personally. Perhaps it has something to do with the way you express those opinions.


I must confess I could take offence at the way other people express their opinions but I don't. Unfortunately some people are very quick to express their opinions strongly but take offence when they are returned with equal frankness.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I must confess I could take offence at the way other people express their opinions but I don't. Unfortunately some people are very quick to express their opinions strongly but take offence when they are returned with equal frankness.


I don't think it has anything to do with frankness. I think it's more about couching one's opinions in terms that suggest they have some sort of objective grounding, and implying that others are misguided, delusional, or followers of some sort of cult because they find pleasure in something. You know, things like that which you do often that obviously antagonizes others.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with frankness. I think it's more about couching one's opinions in terms that suggest they have some sort of objective grounding, and implying that others are misguided, delusional, or followers of some sort of cult because they find pleasure in something. You know, things like that which you do often that obviously antagonizes others.


Sorry, I don't intend to get into a personal slanging match with you. If you don't like my opinions please don't read them. Please note the subject of the OP is the greatest opera composer.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, I don't intend to get into a personal slanging match with you. Please note the subject is the greatest opera composer.


I just thought that since you seem to be constantly taken aback by the responses your posts on the subject arouse, it might be a good time for a little self reflection. But if your intention is to continue to stir up animosity, by all means keep on doing what you're doing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> I just thought that since you seem to be constantly taken aback by the responses your posts on the subject arouse, it might be a good time for a little self reflection. But if your intention is to continue to stir up animosity, by all means keep on doing what you're doing.


Frankly a bit of self reflection by others would be welcome too! :lol:


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> But please don't let us get into another hassle on Wagner. He wrote fiction not life and death issues.


Sorry, but this is a load of bull. Creating a "hassle on Wagner" is exactly what you want & I think that's been clear to a lot of us for a very long time. You continue to poke the Wagnerian Bear...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

May I suggest returning to comments on why we like or prefer certain opera composers? Negative remarks about a composer's personality, comments about his or her followers, or inflammatory statements about a composer's works are best left unsaid on threads such as this one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> What you have done is a complete waste of time. I was giving my opinion not facts. I cannot think why you waste your time in this way, unless you think other people haven't a right to their opinions. Just look at what you have written. Just your opinions - no factual basis to it. You have every right to your opinions. I do wish you didn't have to be the self-appointed 'correcter' of other people's! Or treat your own opinions as 'facts' when they are in fact opinions. But please don't let us get into another hassle on Wagner. He wrote fiction not life and death issues.


Don't bother about what is or isn't a "waste of time." Obviously, you believe that making negative, provocative, uninformed and uninformative remarks about a composer you dislike for the purpose of venting your scorn and irritating people is a worthwhile use of _your_ time. Why complain if I believe that dismantling careless, fallacious comments and exposing their negativity is a worthwhile use of mine?

If you insist on the right to make statements that you expect others to consider, you must grant others the right to consider them - to assess their truth and value. I've just evaluated eleven of your statements and shown how poorly they hold up to scrutiny. Do you dislike having your fondly held (and endlessly repeated, year after year) notions questioned? Then why throw them into an arena where people are discussing and debating each other's ideas? What makes you exempt from the normal rules of discussion and debate?

I wonder if this forum shouldn't include in its user manual some guidelines for how to have a discussion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I wonder if this forum shouldn't include in its user manual some guidelines for how to have a discussion.


Interesting as I notice you've just ignored the request of the moderator in 192


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Interesting as I notice you've just ignored the request of the moderator in 192


It was finished before I saw #192 and I didn't want to waste a good post. There has to be some reward for the pain. (But I see you're ignoring it too! )

May I refer you to another post of mine? #50 in this thread: https://www.talkclassical.com/55122-why-all-negativity-4.html#post1439906


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Bizet, Handel, Monteverdi, Tchaikovsky, and Weber are unusual choices! I'm intrigued. Could the people who voted for them explain why?

I don't know H or M terribly well; I've seen Orfeo twice (once a student production) and heard Poppaea; and seen Giulio Cesare and a staged version of Jephtha, and listened to some of the arias.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I think if you look I was just trying to respond to the point t raised by another poster that Wagner's works were 'some of the greatest works of art in human history' and that they were so because he not only wrote the music but also the libretto. I was giving my opinion as to why I thought they were not.


If I said something like this it's not at all what I meant...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> If I said something like this it's not at all what I meant...


Certainly I read it that way - no 138 - but apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

NickFuller said:


> Bizet, Handel, Monteverdi, Tchaikovsky, and Weber are unusual choices! I'm intrigued. Could the people who voted for them explain why?
> 
> I don't know H or M terribly well; I've seen Orfeo twice (once a student production) and heard Poppaea; and seen Giulio Cesare and a staged version of Jephtha, and listened to some of the arias.


I know people who can only listen to handel and cant abide anyone else - who else would they vote for but Handel.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

NickFuller said:


> Bizet, Handel, Monteverdi, Tchaikovsky, and Weber are unusual choices! I'm intrigued. Could the people who voted for them explain why?


You can forget about the Monteverdi vote, that is by a banned member, so no chance for an explanation. And given his/her antics in the short period of membership, probably not a serious vote anyway.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

stomanek said:


> I know people who can only listen to handel and cant abide anyone else - who else would they vote for but Handel.


Handel has some marvellous moments from his operas. I was listening to Rinaldo the other day and there are so many wonderful things that take your breath away. Of course he mainly wrote for opera attended by the upper classes where people would sit in boxes and chat during the recitatives and then stop and listen when their favourite castrato or whatever came on. He certainly produced a staggering amount of quality work which is only really now being appreciated. Unfortunately his operas can be very long and the plots quite inconsequential but there is some wonderful music in there.
I still believe that Mozart was the most staggering Genius in the history of opera but I certainly put in a word for Handel.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

One name missing from the list us Henry Purcell. Well I wouldn't put as the greatest he wrote some fab music including Dido and Aeneaus. I'd certainly recommend you to listen to that if you've never ventured into the world Purcell . Quite mesmeric


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Star said:


> Handel has some marvellous moments from his operas. I was listening to Rinaldo the other day and there are so many wonderful things that take your breath away. Of course he mainly wrote for opera attended by the upper classes where people would sit in boxes and chat during the recitatives and then stop and listen when their favourite castrato or whatever came on. He certainly produced a staggering amount of quality work which is only really now being appreciated. Unfortunately his operas can be very long and the plots quite inconsequential but there is some wonderful music in there.
> I still believe that Mozart was the most staggering Genius in the history of opera but I certainly put in a word for Handel.


Yes, for me, Handel is made up at the moment of terrific arias and long, slow recit. But I love these:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Star said:


> Handel has some marvellous moments from his operas. I was listening to Rinaldo the other day and there are so many wonderful things that take your breath away. Of course he mainly wrote for opera attended by the upper classes where people would sit in boxes and chat during the recitatives and then stop and listen when their favourite castrato or whatever came on. He certainly produced a staggering amount of quality work which is only really now being appreciated. Unfortunately his operas can be very long and the plots quite inconsequential but there is some wonderful music in there.
> I still believe that Mozart was the most staggering Genius in the history of opera but I certainly put in a word for Handel.


I know - one day I am going to grit my teeth and really have a go at Handel opera.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Very surprised Janacek doesn't make the list here. He'd get my vote!


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Orfeo said:


> I chose Puccini, although the others warrant at least a consideration, including:
> 
> Jules Massenet
> Hector Berlioz, as already mentioned
> ...


Good list! Thumbs up from me! I'd also add Paul Hindemith.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am only allowed 15 poll choices, so I put together a list that maybe is far from perfect, but let's give it a go. Vote for who you think is the greatest opera composer ever out of these choices. Notice that Beethoven is not included. I tried to include composers with more than one opera.





Robert Pickett said:


> Very surprised Janacek doesn't make the list here. He'd get my vote!


Perhaps this is the reason.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

NickFuller said:


> Bizet, Handel, Monteverdi, Tchaikovsky, and Weber are unusual choices! I'm intrigued. Could the people who voted for them explain why?
> 
> I don't know H or M terribly well; I've seen Orfeo twice (once a student production) and heard Poppaea; and seen Giulio Cesare and a staged version of Jephtha, and listened to some of the arias.


I'm not at home and have next to no capability of posting YouTube links, but I think Tchaikovski should be in the pantheon of great opera composers for Gremin's Aria in Eugene Onegin. It is breathtakingly gorgeous music that is so perfectly paired with the lyrics that you don't need to understand Russian to understand most of what he is singing. Also, for me, in one piece of music out of all the wonderful music of the opera, Gremin's greatness as a person just soars up above all the other characters except Tatiana in one piece of music. Does anyone else agree w this?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Wagner, surely there can be no doubt, can there?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

HenryPenfold said:


> Wagner, surely there can be no doubt, can there?


Of course there can. From the votes cast the majority of TC members disagree with you!


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

stomanek said:


> I know - one day I am going to grit my teeth and really have a go at Handel opera.


Please do so. I've only recently discovered him myself. Listen to Bartoli in Combatting da Forte' from Rinaldo. Breathtaking! The whole opera is full of great arias, even if we have to substitute a countertenor for a castrato.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Of course there can. From the votes cast the majority of TC members disagree with you!


Which poll are you looking at? In the one at the top of my page Wagner is 14 votes clear of his nearest rival.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I know - one day I am going to grit my teeth and really have a go at Handel opera.


Give Giulio Cesare a go.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Big surprise. I think most of us knew it would be either Wagner or Verdi.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Which poll are you looking at? In the one at the top of my page Wagner is 14 votes clear of his nearest rival.


He's saying that because 54 people voted 'not Wagner' versus 34 who chose him. Grasping at straws with that one lol


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Star said:


> Please do so. I've only recently discovered him myself. Listen to Bartoli in Combatting da Forte' from Rinaldo. Breathtaking! The whole opera is full of great arias, even if we have to substitute a countertenor for a castrato.


ok - but I cant abide Bartoli singing Mozart - maybe handel suits her better.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It's obviously between Mozart, Verdi and Wagner. And us Wagnerians are winning because we've driven the Mozartians and Veridians from the forums with our obnoxious obsessiveness. Those who like Wagner, like him a lot.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> He's saying that because 54 people voted 'not Wagner' versus 34 who chose him. Grasping at straws with that one lol


Not at all, dear boy! Just simple logic. 54 TC members don't think Wagner is the greatest opera composer ever. 34 people do. i.e. a clear majority of members don't think he was the greatest opera composer of all. This is not grasping at straws but simple logic!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> It's obviously between Mozart, Verdi and Wagner. And us Wagnerians are winning because we've driven the Mozartians and Veridians from the forums with our *obnoxious obsessiveness.* Those who like Wagner, like him a lot.


I realize you're just being cute, since in fact the Mozartians and Verdians are still here, and any who aren't are not likely to have been driven off by Wagnerians, unless they were anti-Wagnerians ostracized for the obnoxiousness and obsessiveness of their own negativity.

If you've been following the spate of recent threads about Mozart, you'd have noticed that some of his admirers are prone to making claims for his supreme status that no Wagnerian I know of can match (or dares to, for fear of being accused of belonging to a "cult" or of excusing Wagner's inexcusable behavior). Expressions like "sublime,""perfect," and "in tune with the Divine," as well as long lists of tributes from other composers throughout history, get hauled out routinely to "prove" that Mozart is the greatest composer there is, was, and presumably ever could be. Even when his operas present shallow and cynical characters engaged in farcical behaviors, we're told that only the highest genius could clothe such frivolity in such sublime music, and that not even the obvious incongruity can prevent the product from proving Mozart the greatest opera composer of all time. Could such claims be correct? Does anyone have the "right" answer to that?

Wagnerians and Verdians nowadays generally don't seem to show much interest in making invidious comparisons and in "proving" to others the superiority of their favorites. Most people recognize the foolishness of arguing seriously against anyone's preference for one great composer over another, and as far as I can see, neither I nor other Wagner enthusiasts on this forum exhibit the compulsion (or tactlessness, or stupidity) to seek out threads dealing with other composers in order obnoxiously and obsessively to express our dislike of those composers' work. The greatest composers are individualists; their artistic goals are different, and it should be clear that we will all respond with different degrees of sympathy to the very different sorts of opera (or music drama) they produce. We'll therefore answer differently the question at the head of this thread according to which composer's goals and styles are most impressive to us. Most of us know, I think, that the question has no universally valid answer.

That said, Wagner _is_ "winning" here by a considerable margin. I don't know why this is, but I don't need to know, as I recognize the futility of trying to use the mere fact of it to try to prove anything. I'm just pleased to see that WRW's unique works are still quite capable of facing down all the foolish and hostile things that have been said about them and their creator, from their first appearance to the present day.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Not at all, dear boy! Just simple logic. 54 TC members don't think Wagner is the greatest opera composer ever. 34 people do. i.e. a clear majority of members don't think he was the greatest opera composer of all. This is not grasping at straws but simple logic!


But the poll is not structured as Wagner versus the rest of the composing fraternity, so your logic, such as it is, is illogical! And by your logic a greater proportion like Mozart even less! So anyway you look at it Wagner is regarded as a greater composer than Mozart, or Verdi or any of the other twelve composers in the poll. Logically speaking.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Voted Mozart, though Wagner and perhaps Verdi are understandable bids.

Monteverdi however shouldn´t be underestimated, for his sheer early innovation and ambition.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Not at all, dear boy! Just simple logic. 54 TC members don't think Wagner is the greatest opera composer ever. 34 people do. i.e. a clear majority of members don't think he was the greatest opera composer of all. This is not grasping at straws but simple logic!


By which token the present UK government should not be in power, because a lot more people didn't vote for them than did.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Not at all, dear boy! Just simple logic. 54 TC members don't think Wagner is the greatest opera composer ever. 34 people do. i.e. a clear majority of members don't think he was the greatest opera composer of all. This is not grasping at straws but simple logic!


But isn't that what I just said?? The "grasping at straws" was in reference to the lengths you'll go to to discredit anything poor Richard accomplishes, even if its winning a measly TC poll.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> But the poll is not structured as Wagner versus the rest of the composing fraternity, so your logic, such as it is, is illogical! And by your logic a greater proportion like Mozart even less! So anyway you look at it Wagner is regarded as a greater composer than Mozart, or Verdi or any of the other twelve composers in the poll. Logically speaking.


We were not talking about Mozart but Wagner and the majority of people on TC did not reckon him to be the greatest opera composer. Period! BTW Wagner is not reckoned to be the greatest composer as he only wrote operas. He was a one trick pony!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> But isn't that what I just said?? The "grasping at straws" was in reference to the lengths you'll go to to discredit anything poor Richard accomplishes, even if its winning a measly TC poll.


Not at all. I was just applying a bit of arithmetic. And frankly whatever the poll says makes no difference whatever to what I like or dislike.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

DavidA said:


> We were not talking about Mozart but Wagner and the majority of people on TC did not reckon him to be the greatest opera composer. Period! BTW Wagner is not reckoned to be the greatest composer as he only wrote operas. He was a one trick pony!


Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> It's obviously between Mozart, Verdi and Wagner. And us Wagnerians are winning because we've driven the Mozartians and Veridians from the forums with our *obnoxious obsessiveness*. Those who like Wagner, like him a lot.


You said it! :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> We were not talking about Mozart but Wagner and the majority of people on TC did not reckon him to be the greatest opera composer. Period! BTW Wagner is not reckoned to be the greatest composer as he only wrote operas. He was a one trick pony!


That would be the majority of people who participated in the poll, not the majority on TC, but that's mere pedantry.

Well, I've decided to talk about Mozart who polled 20 votes out of 88 in this poll, the same amount as Verdi and quite a bit less than Wagner. Given that people only have one vote it's difficult to say, that of the remaining 54 who didn't vote for Wagner, what proportion of them would place Wagner higher than Mozart if they had two votes instead of one. Perhaps we should have a poll that allows three votes. If I'd had three votes I would have picked Wagner, Verdi and Strauss. Ah me, still no vote for Mozart. Quel domage!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Well, I've decided to talk about Mozart who polled 20 votes out of 88 in this poll, the same amount as Verdi and quite a bit less than Wagner. Given that people only have one vote it's difficult to say, that of the remaining 54 who didn't vote for Wagner, what proportion of them would place Wagner higher than Mozart if they had two votes instead of one. Perhaps we should have a poll that allows three votes. If I'd had three votes I would have picked Wagner, Verdi and Strauss. Ah me, still no vote for Mozart. Quelle domage!


The point in question was whether people thought Wagner was the greatest opera composer. The arithmetic suggests that the majority don't believe that however the votes were split. Sorry to be a party pooper! :lol:


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

DavidA said:


> The point in question was whether people thought Wagner was the greatest opera composer. The arithmetic suggests that the majority don't believe that however the votes were split. Sorry to be a party pooper! :lol:


What is this compulsion you have to bash or attempt to diminish Wagner's achievements at every opportunity you can find?

Guess what. Someone saying something complimentary about his work is not your cue for you to tell them they are wrong.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Byron said:


> What is this compulsion you have to bash or attempt to diminish Wagner's achievements at every opportunity you can find?
> 
> Guess what. Someone saying something complimentary about his work is not your cue for you to tell them they are wrong.


No compulsion at all. Just tell it as I find it. Am I allowed that?


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

DavidA said:


> No compulsion at all. Just tell it as I find it. Am I allowed that?


Do you really need to repeat yourself for the millionth time? I mean if you actually had something new and insightful to say on the subject or actually want to have a discussion with others that would be one thing. But yes you are allowed to embarrass yourself by trying to take down a great artist at every opportunity you can find.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Byron said:


> Do you really need to repeat yourself for the millionth time? I mean if you actually had something new and insightful to say on the subject or actually want to have a discussion with others that would be one thing. But yes you are allowed to embarrass yourself by trying to take down a great artist at every opportunity you can find.


Why this compulsion to spring to RW's defence that some of you have? Is there some underlying insecurity?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> BTW Wagner is not reckoned to be the greatest composer as he only wrote operas. *He was a one trick pony!*


Wagner is not reckoned to be the greatest composer because there _is_ no greatest composer. There is also no greatest opera composer, and no greatest opera. Threads like this are fun games, of no greater consequence than beauty pageants unless they prompt us to look at what these composers were actually doing in their works to enrich the art.

If you were to look at (and comprehend) what Wagner did to enrich opera over the span of his career, the expression "one trick pony" would never occur to you. There are more "tricks" - musical innovations inspired by the need to express the previously unimagined and inexpressible - in Wagner's ten canonical operas than can be found in most composers' whole lifetimes of turning out sonatas, symphonies, quartets, ballets, masses, et al. Even if we look only at his numerous preludes, overtures and orchestral interludes, the range of form and expression is astonishing, rivaling the orchestral output of virtually any other composer; even Beethoven's constant innovation in the symphony doesn't surpass Wagner's creativity as an orchestral composer, and the fact that these orchestral masterpieces are embedded in works of even greater scope is yet another "trick" at which to marvel.

It may be worth pointing out that the _Wesendonck Lieder_ and the _Siegfried Idyll_ are pretty nifty tricks too.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> I'm not at home and have next to no capability of posting YouTube links, but I think Tchaikovski should be in the pantheon of great opera composers for Gremin's Aria in Eugene Onegin. It is breathtakingly gorgeous music that is so perfectly paired with the lyrics that you don't need to understand Russian to understand most of what he is singing. Also, for me, in one piece of music out of all the wonderful music of the opera, Gremin's greatness as a person just soars up above all the other characters except Tatiana in one piece of music. Does anyone else agree w this?


Now able to post links.

Laszlo Polgar, _Lyubvi vsye vozrasti _
​


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

NickFuller said:


> Bizet, Handel, Monteverdi, Tchaikovsky, and Weber are unusual choices! I'm intrigued. Could the people who voted for them explain why?
> 
> I don't know H or M terribly well; I've seen Orfeo twice (once a student production) and heard Poppaea; and seen Giulio Cesare and a staged version of Jephtha, and listened to some of the arias.


Haunting and extraordinary what the human voice is able to do in the hands of a great composer. Monteverdi, _L'Orfe_o, Scherzi Musicali











And, I think the ability to compose a fabulous "tune" should be a criterion for entering the pantheon of opera composers:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> The point in question was whether people thought Wagner was the greatest opera composer. The arithmetic suggests that the majority don't believe that however the votes were split. Sorry to be a party pooper! :lol:


You're not spoiling my, nor I imagine, anyone else's party. The greatest number of votes for any individual composer went to Wagner thereby making him the winner of this poll or do you think by finishing joint second Verdi and Mozart were the winners. I'm intrigued by your arithmetic. Is this poll not using the simple first past the post is the winner voting system. Perhaps the OP can enlighten us.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> You're not spoiling my, nor I imagine, anyone else's party. The greatest number of votes for any individual composer went to Wagner thereby making him the winner of this poll or do you think by finishing joint second Verdi and Mozart were the winners. I'm intrigued by your arithmetic. Is this poll not using the simple first past the post is the winner voting system. Perhaps the OP can enlighten us.


Why can't you just get it? I said that the majority of TC members who voted did NOT consider Wagner as the greatest opera composer. That is factual. I did not say anything about the voting system which makes Wagner the winner. It's just that the majority of TC members don't see it that way because they voted for other people.. I just can't see why you don't get it. Now please may I respectfully ask you to put it to rest.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Non sequitur.
Neither did Verdi or Mozart get a majority, so what does that prove?
Scoreboard!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Why can't you just get it? I said that the majority of TC members who voted did NOT consider Wagner as the greatest opera composer. That is factual. I did not say anything about the voting system which makes Wagner the winner. It's just that the majority of TC members don't see it that way because they voted for other people.. I just can't see why you don't get it. Now please may I respectfully ask you to put it to rest.


You are twisting the poll results because you appear to hate Wagner. Twist away all you want, but it does nothing to change the fact that Wagner won this poll by a healthy margin. Given a list of 15 opera composers, it's ridiculous to bring up the fact that he didn't get the majority of votes.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Why can't you just get it? I said that the majority of TC members who voted did NOT consider Wagner as the greatest opera composer. That is factual. I did not say anything about the voting system which makes Wagner the winner. It's just that the majority of TC members don't see it that way because they voted for other people.. I just can't see why you don't get it. Now please may I respectfully ask you to put it to rest.


You can 'respectfully' ask all you like, it's not a happening thing. Mozart polled a derisory 20 votes out of 91 (22% approx.) It doesn't matter a hoot in this particular polling system that Wagner (38% approx) didn't get 51% of all the votes, that was not the point. Now may I respectfully ask you to put it to rest. Given that you started this little rammy I don't think that's too much to ask - respectfully.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

34 votes for Wagner
57 for the other composers listed in this poll

Many of us have not voted. If there were such a choice, I would vote "I have no single favorite."

DavidA, if you are extremely interested in finding out what a majority of active members think re/ this subject, you could redesign the poll and then in various threads post a request that all members vote. If enough active members don't respond, you could then send PMs to those who didn't respond. If you are going to do something along this lines, please just include a choice that says (1) no one favorite and maybe (2) I don't listen to opera


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Just listening to Handel's Rinaldo. What quality music! Why aren't these operas better known?

Bartoli singing 'Lascia ch'io Piangia'

The old boy could sure write them. A melodic beauty only found later in Mozart.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Star said:


> Just listening to Handel's Rinaldo. What quality music! Why aren't these operas better known?
> 
> Bartoli singing 'Lascia ch'io Piangia'
> 
> The old boy could sure write them. A melodic beauty only topped by Mozart.


I need (would like) to listen to some Handel and Bizet. This thread is just as good an opportunity as any other to give them a longer listen. I don't like _Carmen_, so no suggestions there, please. I probably don't need suggestions I am going to scan the list for favorite Bass, Bass-Baritone, and Baritone singers and make my selections based on that.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

As a baritone, this was SUCH an easy decision. Verdi -- end of discussion for me. If not him, I would've chosen Wagner. My dream Germanic role is The Dutchman!


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> As a baritone, this was SUCH an easy decision. Verdi -- end of discussion for me. If not him, I would've chosen Wagner. My dream Germanic role is The Dutchman!


Cool thing I really like Wagner way more for baritones than Verdi: Telramund, Dutchman, Donner, Wotan, Alberich, Klingsor, Kurwenal, Wolfram! (Nimsgern, Uhde, Stewart, Hotter, Neidlinger, Kelemen & Fischer-Dieskau)

I can only think of Iago, Amonasro, Germont, Nabucco, Phillip II, Rigoletto & Macbeth for Verdi (Milnes, Gobbi & Cappuccilli).

I do think Verdi and his libretists treated fairer Sopranos and Tenors while Wagner did better with singers in lower keys. It's my own opinion. I have a special taste for those characters.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Granate said:


> I can only think of Iago, Amonasro, Germont, Nabucco, *Phillip II*, Rigoletto & Macbeth for Verdi (Milnes, Gobbi & Cappuccilli).
> 
> I do think Verdi and his libretists treated fairer Sopranos and Tenors while Wagner did better with singers in lower keys. It's my own opinion. I have a special taste for those characters.


 Philip II is a bass.

A few more great Verdi baritone roles - Falstaff, Ford, Rodrigo (Don Carlo), Don Carlo di Vargas (La Forza del Destino), Renato/Ankaerstrom (Un Ballo in Maschera), Simon Boccanegra, Di Luna (Il Trovatore), Monforte (I Vespri Siciliani), Miller (Luisa Miller) and so on. _Every _Verdi opera has an important role for baritone, and in Nabucco, Macbeth, Simon Boccanegra and Falstaff the baritone is the lead role, the tenor roles being merely supportive.

He also wrote quite a few good bass roles, and some magnificent bass arias. Think of those for Zaccaria, Banquo, Ferrando, Procida, Fiesco, King Philip (not to mention the tremendous bass duet for Philip and the Grand Inquisitor), and in *Attila* the bass takes the leading role.

Verdi may have written a great many superb roles for sopranos and tenors, but he certainly didn't neglect the lower voices.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Granate said:


> Cool thing I really like Wagner way more for baritones than Verdi: Telramund, Dutchman, Donner, Wotan, Alberich, Klingsor, Kurwenal, Wolfram! (Nimsgern, Uhde, Stewart, Hotter, Neidlinger, Kelemen & Fischer-Dieskau)
> 
> I can only think of Iago, Amonasro, Germont, Nabucco, Phillip II, Rigoletto & Macbeth for Verdi (Milnes, Gobbi & Cappuccilli).
> 
> I do think Verdi and his libretists treated fairer Sopranos and Tenors while Wagner did better with singers in lower keys. It's my own opinion. I have a special taste for those characters.


In fact, all of Verdi's operas have major baritone parts with lots of gorgeous arias. Try Battistini's classic recordings from _Ernani_ - there's plenty for him to do in that one opera - or the marvelous "Eri tu" from Un Ballo in Maschera, or "Il balen" from _Trovatore_. And don't forget Simon Boccanegra and Luisa Miller's dad, or Falstaff! I'd say that Verdi wrote more delicious tunes for baritone than anyone else, and in his last two operas he gave us two of a baritone's most vivid and memorable characters.

That said, Wagner's baritone (and bass-baritone) roles are emotionally complex, intense, varied, and fascinating. There isn't another character in opera with the scope of Wotan, a more exhilarating representative of evil than Alberich, or a more terrible portrait of suffering than Amfortas.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Verdi baritone roles are almost in helden tenor territory. It's amazing how close the tessituras are...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> You can 'respectfully' ask all you like, it's not a happening thing. *Mozart polled a derisory 20 votes* out of 91 (22% approx.) It doesn't matter a hoot in this particular polling system that Wagner (38% approx) didn't get 51% of all the votes, that was not the point. Now may I respectfully ask you to put it to rest. Given that you started this little rammy I don't think that's too much to ask - respectfully.


what, is the poll closed

present perfect please


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

New poll (as with this one, just for fun):

Greatest Opera Composer: Wagner or Other?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JosefinaHW said:


> 34 votes for Wagner
> 57 for the other composers listed in this poll
> 
> Many of us have not voted. If there were such a choice, I would vote "I have no single favorite."
> ...


I don\'t know why some of you guys are making such a meal of this. The original comment was in response to a comment: 'Wagner, surely there can be no doubt, can there?' I just pointed out while 34 TC members who voted put Wagner as the greatest there were 57 who didn't put him as the greatest. It was a single comment designed to bring balance to such hyperbolic statements that's all. Surely you are intelligent to get the point. Now please let's leave it.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I don\'t know why some of you guys are making such a meal of this. The original comment was in response to a comment: 'Wagner, surely there can be no doubt, can there?' I just pointed out while 34 TC members who voted put Wagner as the greatest there were 57 who didn't put him as the greatest. It was a single comment designed to bring balance to such hyperbolic statements that's all. Surely you are intelligent to get the point. Now please let's leave it.


I was supporting what you said, David, sigh, but trying to do it in a manner that was kind to everyone.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

stomanek said:


> what, is the poll closed
> 
> present perfect please


How about ' At the time of writing Mozart has polled a derisory etc. etc.' Does that satisfy the English teacher in you?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> I was supporting what you said, David, sigh, but trying to do it in a manner that was kind to everyone.


JosefinaHW, surely the comment about your intelligence is worth a mention because as far as I can see it is bordering on being an ad hom?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Star said:


> Just listening to Handel's Rinaldo. What quality music! Why aren't these operas better known?
> 
> Bartoli singing 'Lascia ch'io Piangia'


...or Gerald Finley singing "Sibilar gli angui d'Aletto" - utterly superb, vocally and orchestrally. (I presume you're listening to the Hogwood recording?)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> I was supporting what you said, David, sigh, but trying to do it in a manner that was kind to everyone.


Sometimes it's not worth the bother.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> JosefinaHW, surely the comment about your intelligence is worth a mention because as far as I can see it is bordering on being an ad hom?


I have no idea what you are talking about, B, but it sounds terrible. ???


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about, B, but it sounds terrible. ???


Someone was insulting you, which technically is not allowed on the site.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I realize you're just being cute, since in fact the Mozartians and Verdians are still here, and any who aren't are not likely to have been driven off by Wagnerians, unless they were anti-Wagnerians ostracized for the obnoxiousness and obsessiveness of their own negativity.
> 
> If you've been following the spate of recent threads about Mozart, you'd have noticed that some of his admirers are prone to making claims for his supreme status that no Wagnerian I know of can match (or dares to, for fear of being accused of belonging to a "cult" or of excusing Wagner's inexcusable behavior). Expressions like "sublime,""perfect," and "in tune with the Divine," as well as long lists of tributes from other composers throughout history, get hauled out routinely to "prove" that Mozart is the greatest composer there is, was, and presumably ever could be. Even when his operas present shallow and cynical characters engaged in farcical behaviors, we're told that only the highest genius could clothe such frivolity in such sublime music, and that not even the obvious incongruity can prevent the product from proving Mozart the greatest opera composer of all time. Could such claims be correct? Does anyone have the "right" answer to that?
> 
> ...


Interesting post considering what we were saying about self awareness (or lack of it in area 51


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> Interesting post considering what we were saying about self awareness (or lack of it in area 51


I'm always pleased when others find my posts interesting, even if their responses are cryptic.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> JosefinaHW, surely the comment about your intelligence is worth a mention because as far as I can see it is bordering on being an ad hom?


I now understand what you were referring to, so no need to explain. On the personal offense scale it's a -460. I wouldn't mind getting some compliments as good as the reference. (Many thanks for your concern, though. :tiphat


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JosefinaHW said:


> I was supporting what you said, David, sigh, but trying to do it in a manner that was kind to everyone.


Just seen this. Many apologies if I misunderstood your intent. Afraid I was getting a bit frustrated with guys not seeing to get the point I was making. Anyway, hope you will accept my sincere apology. Sorry again!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Just seen this. Many apologies if I misunderstood your intent. Afraid I was getting a bit frustrated with guys not seeing to get the point I was making. Anyway, hope you will accept my sincere apology. Sorry again!


No apology necessary, David. Just another example of how difficult it can be to communicate effectively on the internet. I used that particular emoji because I felt bad for YOU because I knew what you were trying to say.

I wasn't hurt or offended in anyway.

I hope you have a fabulous day!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JosefinaHW said:


> No apology necessary, David. Just another example of how difficult it can be to communicate effectively on the internet. I used that particular emoji because I felt bad for YOU because I knew what you were trying to say.
> 
> I wasn't hurt or offended in anyway.
> 
> I hope you have a fabulous day!


Many thanks for the gracious reply.

Have a great day yourself!


----------



## les24preludes (May 1, 2018)

Glad to see Wagner on top of the list. I'd substitute Janacek for some of the Italians. I think Italian opera is generally overrated, though I'd make a good case for Puccini.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I realize you're just being cute, since in fact the Mozartians and Verdians are still here, and any who aren't are not likely to have been driven off by Wagnerians, unless they were anti-Wagnerians ostracized for the obnoxiousness and obsessiveness of their own negativity.
> 
> If you've been following the spate of recent threads about Mozart, you'd have noticed that some of his admirers are prone to making claims for his supreme status that no Wagnerian I know of can match (or dares to, for fear of being accused of belonging to a "cult" or of excusing Wagner's inexcusable behavior). Expressions like "sublime,""perfect," and "in tune with the Divine," as well as long lists of tributes from other composers throughout history, get hauled out routinely to "prove" that Mozart is the greatest composer there is, was, and presumably ever could be. Even when his operas present shallow and cynical characters engaged in farcical behaviors, we're told that only the highest genius could clothe such frivolity in such sublime music, and that not even the obvious incongruity can prevent the product from proving Mozart the greatest opera composer of all time. Could such claims be correct? Does anyone have the "right" answer to that?
> 
> ...


As a mozartian - I would be much less likely to dispute the validity of Wagner's claim to supremacy in opera, than the assertion that Beethoven is a greater composer than Mozart. Wagner has 10 or so great operas, as far as I am aware - and though I am not that inclined towards them - the orch music excerpts I have heard are so outstanding - I have to acknowledge that there may well be something in Wagner opera that I am not quite equal to. I can let it go. Wagner wins.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

les24preludes said:


> Glad to see Wagner on top of the list. I'd substitute Janacek for some of the Italians. I think Italian opera is generally overrated, though I'd make a good case for Puccini.


I don't consider Italian opera overrated; it just isn't my cup of tea.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

stomanek said:


> As a mozartian - I would be much less likely to dispute the validity of Wagner's claim to supremacy in opera, than the assertion that Beethoven is a greater composer than Mozart. Wagner has 10 or so great operas, as far as I am aware - and though I am not that inclined towards them - the orch music excerpts I have heard are so outstanding - I have to acknowledge that there may well be something in Wagner opera that I am not quite equal to. I can let it go. Wagner wins.


 Well having decided that let's have some music of real genius


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Or perhaps this


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I would say that all the composers in the poll wrote music of real genius. I have favourites and some of them were more creative, inventive and did more to change the art form than others, but I don't think there are any duds in the poll.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I would say that all the composers in the poll wrote music of real genius. I have favourites and some of them were more creative, inventive and did more to change the art form than others, but I don't think there are any duds in the poll.
> 
> N.


Maybe there's music of fake genius out there we need to avoid. How about another poll: Fakest Ever Opera Composer? It would certainly Trump this poll.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I'm always pleased when others find my posts interesting, even if their responses are cryptic.


Very interesting case study


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> Very interesting case study


What subject are you studying?


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> What subject are you studying?


Naughty, naughty!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^^Nellie Melba's comebacks maybe


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Richard Wagner would claim Don Giovanni is "the opera of all operas". Shouldn't we take his word for it?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I've heard Don Giovanni many times. I'm afraid Wagner got it wrong. When would one ever take Wagner's word on anything? Interesting that on this occasion you would!


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> I've heard Don Giovanni many times. I'm afraid Wagner got it wrong. When would one ever take Wagner's word on anything? Interesting that on this occasion you would!


I don't think you caught the irony that not everything Wagner said was wrong :lol:

He may have been wrong about a lot but he was a musical genius and he realised genius when he heard it - in this case at least!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Did Wagner try to rewrite Don Giovanni at some stage? I imagine his best efforts disimproved it immeasurably, if he did...


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Star said:


> I don't think you caught the irony that not everything Wagner said was wrong :lol:
> 
> He may have been wrong about a lot but he was a musical genius and he realised genius when he heard it - in this case at least!


And you missed my sarcasm. Hey ho.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Kieran said:


> Did Wagner try to rewrite Don Giovanni at some stage? I imagine his best efforts disimproved it immeasurably, if he did...


He did not, so no need to imagine any such thing.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Faustian said:


> He did not, so no need to imagine any such thing.


I would be unhappy indeed to imagine a less than perfect Don, but I must be mixing it up with other intrepid composers who thought that Cosi needed help, as if....


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Star said:


> Richard Wagner would claim Don Giovanni is "the opera of all operas". Shouldn't we take his word for it?


Maybe Don Giovanni is only performed so often because Wagner praised it?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Maybe Don Giovanni is only performed so often because Wagner praised it?
> 
> N.


That Wagner! If only he'd kept quiet we'd all be listening to Meyerbeer, and Mozart would be an obsolete relic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kieran said:


> Did Wagner try to rewrite Don Giovanni at some stage? I imagine his best efforts disimproved it immeasurably, if he did...


It wasn't _Don Giovanni._ He did a revision of Gluck's _Iphigenie en Tauride_, and also composed an aria for Oroveso to be inserted into Bellini's _Norma._ I don't know how much it sounds like Bellini, or whether anyone uses it.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Just because you think one composer is the greatest it is not the same that you do not like the others.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It wasn't _Don Giovanni._ He did a revision of Gluck's _Iphigenie en Tauride_, and also *composed an aria for Oroveso to be inserted into Bellini's Norma*_._ I don't know how much it sounds like Bellini, or whether anyone uses it.


There also is an aria Mozart write for one of Pasiello's operas:



> Paisiello's greatest failing: Despite his remarkable stage instincts, his music was just … ordinary. This is one reason Lievi and Fischer decided to insert an aria that Mozart wrote for Paisiello's opera Andronica, "Ah, lo previdi[" into Paisiello's Nina,] "We didn't trust Paisiello, and we should have." Perhaps so, at least theatrically. Musically, Mozart is still superior. Lindoro has a similarly long aria by Paisiello in the second act, and it's just not as good. It wears out its welcome after five minutes.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> There also is an aria Mozart write for one of Pasiello's operas:


Mozart was capable of inserting a naff number into his own operas never mind others (eh Leporello/Zerlina


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

stomanek said:


> Mozart was capable of inserting a naff number into his own operas never mind others (eh Leporello/Zerlina


They mention inserting the Mozart aria "Ah, lo previdi" and if it's the same one I'm thinking of(K.272), it's anything but naff. It's actually quite a special work, as much a stylistic leap forward in Mozart's vocal works as the 9th piano concerto was for its genre.

Hermann Abert goes into a little more detail...



> K272 is one of the last works that he wrote before leaving Salzburg and one of his most magnificent contributions to the genre, unusual not least for the fact that, unlike most arias of this kind, it does not build to a passionate climax but traces the course of an emotion that gradually dies away, ending in a rapt rêverie and, finally, a resigned and broken-hearted return to reality, this concluding section again very finely observed from a psychological point of view. The opening recitative leads via a brief and violent outburst to the agitated conflict of emotions that typifies the work as a whole, with the two main antitheses -suppressed anguish and wild passion - finding masterfully succinct expression within the first few bars. The harmonies modulate constantly and abruptly, passing without any clear break into the first cavatina, one of those genuinely Mozartian numbers woven from passion and despair and achieving no real resolution … it is the vocal line that is all-important here, almost literally overflowing with tender infatuation, as though a sense of gentle ease were slowly stealing over the hapless Andromedaʼs limbs after the painful tensions of the past … The whole scene reveals a master of musical psychologizing and makes it clear what Mozart could have achived in opera seria at this time if only he had received a commission.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

The Conte said:


> Maybe Don Giovanni is only performed so often because Wagner praised it?
> 
> N.


No it was great enough as an opera to survive that! :lol:


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

stomanek said:


> Mozart was capable of inserting a naff number into his own operas never mind others (eh Leporello/Zerlina


I wouldn't call the Oeporello / Zerlina naff. Possibly less good than the rest but then the rest is pretty tremendous. By the time we get to Cosi fan tutti we see that everything works musically on an incredible level of inspiration, so that one thinks, "How on earth did he do it!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> No it was great enough as an opera to survive that! :lol:


My God, you can't even give the man credit for praising Mozart...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> I wouldn't call the Oeporello / Zerlina naff. Possibly less good than the rest but then the rest is pretty tremendous. By the time we get to Cosi fan tutti we see that everything works musically on an incredible level of inspiration, so that one thinks, "How on earth did he do it!"


Is _this_ on an incredible level of inspiration?






I'd be less likely to ask "How on earth did he do it?" than "Why on earth did he do it?" But to be fair, what's a man to do with a plot like that? He did rise to, or slightly beyond, the occasion.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I've already made my views known about this meretricious nonsense on another thread. An appalling plot idea unredeemed by one or two pretty songs in an otherwise fairly ordinary piece of musical writing is not my idea of a great opera. But this is merely my opinion so no need to respond.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

dup post. So good I wrote it twice!:lol:


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Is _this_ on an incredible level of inspiration?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think whatever one thinks of the plot, only the musically illiterate would not call the music inspired. Beethoven hated the plot but recognised the genius of the music. Some see there is strong evidence in Fidelio that he had listened to it with some care.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Post deleted sorry


----------



## Tennessee Dave (Mar 30, 2018)

Though I am a Wagner fan I have to go with Verdi for the sheer volume of work.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> I think whatever one thinks of the plot, only the musically illiterate would not call the music inspired. Beethoven hated the plot but recognised the genius of the music. Some see there is strong evidence in Fidelio that he had listened to it with some care.


I can assure you that I don't consider _Cosi_ uninspired. Mozart's music is better than the plot deserves - in places, I think, equal to his best. Certainly no one else could have managed the assignment as well. But these things are relative, and there must be a limit to how fully greatness is compatible with frivolity. When I hear _Cosi_ called a "sublime masterpiece," "Mozart's greatest opera," or "one of the four greatest operas ever written" (all of which I've seen stated on this forum), I realize how different are people's artistic values, not to mention their definitions of words like "sublime."


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Star said:


> I think whatever one thinks of the plot, only the musically illiterate would not call the music inspired. Beethoven hated the plot but recognised the genius of the music. Some see there is strong evidence in Fidelio that he had listened to it with some care.


I am thrilled to hear that Beethoven recognized the genius of the music of _Cosi_! What did he think of Mozart's other opera music? And Mozart's opera music vs. their libretti?

Also, I still haven't decided which biography of Mozart that I am going to read. Is there one that includes the thoughts of later composers on Mozart's operas?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven (and Wagner, and many others) have felt that Mozart's music was too good for the frivolous and morally vacuous dramatic material he squandered it on. About _Don Giovanni_ Beethoven said that the sacred art of music "ought never to permit itself to be degraded to the position of being a foil for so scandalous a subject." He was also offended by _Cosi fan tutte_'s cynical and farcical fiancee-swapping business.

Some feel that _Cosi_ is misogynist, which it pretty clearly is; the title, _Cosi fan tutte_ ("tutte," feminine, not the masculine "tutti"), means "all women do it." Others point out that the men are as contemptible as the women are weak and fickle; no one comes off looking good, and this is said to be somehow an insightful glimpse into human nature (gotta rescue this thing somehow!). But if anything rescues it it's Mozart's music, which makes all (or some) of these dumb puppets more subtle and sympathetic than their behavior justifies. And so we listen to the beautiful melodies and chuckle at the funny fun onstage, and feel we're in the presence of genius. Which we are, whether we find the whole thing palatable or not.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven (and Wagner, and many others) have felt that Mozart's music was too good for the frivolous and morally vacuous dramatic material he squandered it on. About _Don Giovanni_ Beethoven said that the sacred art of music "ought never to permit itself to be degraded to the position of being a foil for so scandalous a subject." He was also offended by _Cosi fan tutte_'s cynical and farcical fiance-swapping business.
> 
> Some feel that _Cosi_ is misogynist, which it pretty clearly is; the title, _Cosi fan tutte_ ("tutte," feminine, not the masculine "tutti"), means "all women do it." Others point out that the men are as contemptible as the women are weak and fickle; no one comes off looking good, and this is said to be somehow an insightful glimpse into human nature (gotta rescue this thing somehow!). But if anything rescues it it's Mozart's music, which makes all (or some of) these dumb puppets more subtle and sympathetic than their behavior justifies. And so we listen to the beautiful melodies and chuckle at the funny fun onstage, and feel we're in the presence of genius. Which we are, whether we find the whole thing palatable or not.


Why did Mozart pick such television-soap-opera-type stories? Did he just not care? Did he like such trash? On the other hand, Beethoven looked for subjects so sublime that he only found one libretto to write music to in his whole life.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Why did Mozart pick such television-soap-opera-type stories? Did he just not care? Did he like such trash? On the other hand, Beethoven looked for subjects so sublime that he only found one libretto to write music to in his whole life.


Mozart's opera plots are no shallower than most, and of course Da Ponte's witty libretti are a cut above the norm. We regard opera as "classical," but opera then was popular entertainment. Mozart had to appeal to people who would now be sitting in front of the TV. Of course he hoped his music would also please the more sophisticated.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

JosefinaHW said:


> I am thrilled to hear that Beethoven recognized the genius of the music of _Cosi_! What did he think of Mozart's other opera music? And Mozart's opera music vs. their libretti?
> 
> Also, I still haven't decided which biography of Mozart that I am going to read. Is there one that includes the thoughts of later composers on Mozart's operas?


Try Jean Glover : Mozart's Women which concentrates on the operas


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Again, I have only read two brief biographies of Mozart, but Paul Johnson points out that many opera composers had difficulties finding good libretti. He also believes that Da Ponte's libretti were not that good. Johnson states that other composers had used Da Ponte's libretti and those operas were not remarkable or have not stood the test of time.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven (and Wagner, and many others) have felt that Mozart's music was too good for the frivolous and morally vacuous dramatic material he squandered it on. About _Don Giovanni_ Beethoven said that the sacred art of music "ought never to permit itself to be degraded to the position of being a foil for so scandalous a subject." He was also offended by _Cosi fan tutte_'s cynical and farcical fiance-swapping business.
> 
> Some feel that _Cosi_ is misogynist, which it pretty clearly is; the title, _Cosi fan tutte_ ("tutte," feminine, not the masculine "tutti"), means "all women do it." Others point out that the men are as contemptible as the women are weak and fickle; no one comes off looking good, and this is said to be somehow an insightful glimpse into human nature (gotta rescue this thing somehow!). But if anything rescues it it's Mozart's music, which makes all (or some) of these dumb puppets more subtle and sympathetic than their behavior justifies. And so we listen to the beautiful melodies and chuckle at the funny fun onstage, and feel we're in the presence of genius. Which we are, whether we find the whole thing palatable or not.


I love the music of Cosi and my feathers have never been very ruffled because of the story. It was clear to me that the text was misogynistic, but even 15 or 20 years ago I knew that Da Ponte was not a paragon of virtue. The music is the music. I am very happy to have read recently that Mozart was a charming man; he was a flirt, but a charming flirt and he was very well-liked.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Star said:


> Try Jean Glover : Mozart's Women which concentrates on the operas


Thank you, Star. I'm a bit curious about that title; it seems to suggest a more narrow focus than on what other composers thought of his works, am I mistaken?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven (and Wagner, and many others) have felt that Mozart's music was too good for the frivolous and morally vacuous dramatic material he squandered it on. About _Don Giovanni_ Beethoven said that the sacred art of music "ought never to permit itself to be degraded to the position of being a foil for so scandalous a subject." He was also offended by _Cosi fan tutte_'s cynical and farcical fiancee-swapping business.


I am very surprised to read this about Beethoven; I always think of him as a social and political revolutionary. It's good to hear that he conserved some traditional values.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven (and Wagner, and many others) have felt that Mozart's music was too good for the frivolous and morally vacuous dramatic material he squandered it on. About _Don Giovanni_ Beethoven said that the sacred art of music "ought never to permit itself to be degraded to the position of being a foil for so scandalous a subject." He was also offended by _Cosi fan tutte_'s cynical and farcical fiance-swapping business.
> 
> Some feel that _Cosi_ is misogynist, which it pretty clearly is; the title, _Cosi fan tutte_ ("tutte," feminine, not the masculine "tutti"), means "all women do it." Others point out that the men are as contemptible as the women are weak and fickle; no one comes off looking good, and this is said to be somehow an insightful glimpse into human nature (gotta rescue this thing somehow!). But if anything rescues it it's Mozart's music, which makes all (or some) of these dumb puppets more subtle and sympathetic than their behavior justifies. And so we listen to the beautiful melodies and chuckle at the funny fun onstage, and feel we're in the presence of genius. Which we are, whether we find the whole thing palatable or not.


You appear to have the traditional view of Cosi fan tutti which was held until the 1930s until the opera began to be revived by people like Thomas Beecham. The problem people had (and some still have) is how profundity can be contained within the music comedy. Of course it misses the point that the comedies are bitter-sweet and that the genius of Mozart was to create comedy with the depth of tragedy. His operas involve real people doing things which happened to be funny but the emotions they express our profound, and speak to us because we have all probably experienced the emotions contained. It is this balance between comedy and tragedy that makes most that supremely realistic and his operas so believable to our experiences even though they are set in farcical situations. They draw us into his world and in that incredible subtle way Mozart had we relate to the emotions being expressed by the characters . 
I never feel that an opera like Cosi us frivolous in its message. Yes it is a comedy but it is also a tragedy of destroyed relationships when it's done properly. The men behave abominably and get what's coming to them. The emotions are laid there even in the midst of the comedy and in the glorious final act when all is revealed sorrow and anger are mixed in the awful realisation of self knowledge that both men and women have been manipulated into sacrificing the love of their intended by giving into the pleasures of the moment. Mozart is showing us that the border between comedy and tragedy is so narrow. And very often we see ourselves the emotions we ourselves have e experienced in all this.
Just a word about the libretto of Cosi in that it is just about the most perfectly balanced libretto in the whole of opera. It is brilliantly written and once you get past the incredulity that the girls would not recognise the boys extremely touching. And of course it us an enlightenment piece - One of many which used as similar technique of body swap. With this libretto Mozart touches the heart in that he transforms what could've been a bedroom type farce to a statement on human nature in which tragedy always lurks behind the comedy; unless we realise this we miss the sheer genius of what Mozart and his librettist produced. The genius was missed for a hundred years perhaps because of its sheer subtlety but thank goodness it's been recognised again.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

JosefinaHW said:


> I am very surprised to read this about Beethoven; I always think of him as a social and political revolutionary. It's good to hear that he conserved some traditional values.


Beethoven was extremely idealistic about women. Just think of Leanora


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

JosefinaHW said:


> I love the music of Cosi and my feathers have never been very ruffled because of the story. It was clear to me that the text was misogynistic, but even 15 or 20 years ago I knew that Da Ponte was not a paragon of virtue. The music is the music. I am very happy to have read recently that Mozart was a charming man; he was a flirt, but a charming flirt and he was very well-liked.


Da Ponte was driven out of Venice for his rakish lifestyle. He was apparently an absolute rogue who collaborated with Casanova (Another kindred spirit) on the libretto of Don Giovanni. There is an interesting biography called The man who wrote Mozart about him but I can't think of the author. John Suchet has a chapter on da Ponte in his biography of Mozart.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Star said:


> Beethoven was extremely idealistic about women. Just think of Leanora


I have not yet listened to _Leanora_, but I'll take this opportunity! 

I'm having difficulties with what you are saying about the libretto of Cosi, though. Until this year I had only listened to the opera. In the recent Glyndebourne interpretation, Luca Pisaroni did effectively convey his regret and his sadness for Ferrando. (I think Pisaroni is a fabulous actor.) For me, Don Alfonso is the villian; yes, a villian: he's the cynical old man and no matter what happens one makes a choice to become cynical and nasty.

What production do you think has most effectively conveyed what you are saying above?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Star said:


> Da Ponte was driven out of Venice for his rakish lifestyle. He was apparently an absolute rogue who collaborated with Casanova (Another kindred spirit) on the libretto of Don Giovanni. There is an interesting biography called The man who wrote Mozart about him but I can't think of the author. John Suchet has a chapter on da Ponte in his biography of Mozart.


It's been said on here somewhere that Da Ponte used himself as the model for Don Giovanni; if that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

JosefinaHW said:


> I have not yet listened to _Leanora_, but I'll take this opportunity!
> 
> I'm having difficulties with what you are saying about the libretto of Cosi, though. Until this year I had only listened to the opera. In the recent Glyndebourne interpretation, Luca Pisaroni did effectively convey his regret and his sadness for Ferrando. (I think Pisaroni is a fabulous actor.) For me, Don Alfonso is the villian; yes, a villian: he's the cynical old man and no matter what happens one makes a choice to become cynical and nasty.
> 
> What production do you think has most effectively conveyed what you are saying above?


I meant of course Leonora in Beethoven's Fidelio

As for Cosi this Glyndebourne 2006 production is superb


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> You appear to have the traditional view of Cosi fan tutti which was held up at work at the 1930s until the opera began to be revised by people like Thomas Beecham. The problem people have is how profundity can be contained within the music comedy. Of course it misses the point that the conedies are bitter-sweet and that the genius of Mozart was to create comedy with the depth of tragedy. His operas involve real people doing things which happened to be funny but the emotions they express our profound, and speak to us because we have all probably experienced the emotions contained. It is this balance between comedy and tragedy that makes most that supremely realistic and his operas so believable. They draw us into his world and in that incredible subtle way he had we relate to the emotions being expressed by the characters .
> I never feel that an opera like Cosi us frivolous in its message. Yes it is a comedy but it is also a tragedy of destroyed relationships when it's done properly. The men behave abominably and get what's coming to them. The emotions are laid there even in the mist of the comedy and in the glorious final act when all is revealed sorrow and anger are mixed in the awful realisation of self knowledge that both men and women have been manipulated into giving into the pleasures of the moment. Mozart is showing us that the border between comedy and tragedy is so narrow. And very often we see ourselves the emotions we ourselves have e experienced in all this.
> Just a word about the libretto of Cosi in that it is just about the most perfectly balanced libretto in the whole of opera. It is brilliantly written and once you get past the incredulity that the girls would not recognise the boys extremely touching. And of course it us an enlightenment piece - One of many which used as similar technique of body swap. With this libretto Mozart touches the heart in that he transforms what could've been a bedroom type farce to a statement on human nature in which tragedy always lurks behind the comedy, unless we realise this we missed the sheer genius I watch Mozart and his librettist produced. The genius was missed for a hundred years perhaps because of its sheer subtlety but thank goodness it's been recognised again.


A most eloquent defense of the opera. I still feel that the success of _Cosi_ is attributable mainly to Mozart's ability to transcend the libretto, which as I read it through strikes me as much ado about next to nothing, clever and somewhat amusing but cold and heartless. It's also highly repetitive and floridly rhetorical, which I know is part of the humor; but it draws out a very slight story, which could be told in a 20-minute sitcom, to the length of an epic. I don't know whether the libretto is "balanced" (or what that means, exactly), but it surely is long: the opera is as long as _Don Carlo_ or _Die Walkure,_ and it doesn't have the kind of dramatic tension that holds me over such a span of time; without a great denouement to look forward to, I get impatient, and about halfway through I just want to go for a walk. But that's me. I guess if you love Mozart enough you can't have too much of him.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> A most eloquent defense of the opera. I still feel that the success of _Cosi_ is attributable mainly to Mozart's ability to transcend the libretto, which as I read it through strikes me as much ado about next to nothing, clever and somewhat amusing but cold and heartless. It's also highly repetitive and floridly rhetorical, which I know is part of the humor; but it draws out a very slight story, which could be told in a 20-minute sitcom, to the length of an epic. I don't know whether the libretto is "balanced" (or what that means, exactly), but it surely is long: the opera is as long as _Don Carlo_ or _Die Walkure,_ and it doesn't have the kind of dramatic tension that holds me over such a span of time; without a great denouement to look forward to, I get impatient, and about halfway through I just want to go for a walk. But that's me. I guess if you love Mozart enough you can't have too much of him.


 I think it's also a matter of personality, of being able to see the huge emotional reach of the opera amid the farcical story. Of course the story could be cold in 20 minutes but that is true of most opera. To me it has tremendous dramatic tension when it is produced properly. The story is certainly cold and heartless but it is made into a display of emotional tragedy by Mozart's music. You mention the story is slight, but then so is Tristan where nothing much happens over 5 hours. But then what appeals to one person doesn't move another and we are all different.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't think of Cosi as "misogynistic" (dunno who said it, but it was said), I think of it as being a farce about manners, sex and identity, and though the devices used are dated, and possibly equally farcical, well we suspend belief cos it's theatre. It isn't da Ponte's best work for Mozart, and I think that might be because it's an original script, and maybe he was just so much better at adapting other people's works. In this case, he doesn't keep himself totally free from referring to another work: Figaro, at the end of Cosa sento, Basiio repeats the charge, "cosi fan tutte" (all women are like that). But you know, when set to Mozart's music, the pompous become clowns, and the words take on a whole different shade. This was the beauty of how he redeemed that script and turned it into a great opera, one of his best - his use of music to reveal psychological weaknesses of his characters, usually done with great subtlety, as Star has already said.

Another great thing with opera though: I don't speak italian, I only know the meanings through translations, and so when I'm listening, I'm hearing words I don't understand, but sung beautifully, and set to the greatest music. Sometimes, that's not so bad a thing...


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Didn't the great Beethoven write an Opera?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Didn't the great Beethoven write an Opera?


Yes: Fidelio..............................


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Rogerx said:


> Yes: Fidelio..............................


Rubbish????????


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Didn't the great Beethoven write an Opera?


I assume he is not included because he only composed one opera. Calling Beethoven an opera composer would be like calling Wagner a symphony composer.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

adriesba said:


> I assume he is not included because he only composed one opera. Calling Beethoven an opera composer would be like calling Wagner a symphony composer.


That's giving Beethoven far too little credit, or Wagner far too much. But you have a point.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

amfortas said:


> That's giving Beethoven far too little credit, or Wagner far too much. But you have a point.


Well I'm not trying to describe _Fidelio _or Wagner's symphonies in terms of their value. But opera was not a large part of Beethoven's overall output just as symphonies were not a large part of Wagner's overall output.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Rubbish????????


If you say so........:devil:


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I love so many of these, but I’m going to give Mozart the nod here. He is the only composer to send all the operas written by all his contemporaries into obscurity. There are no other operas, written during his time by his contemporaries, that are in the standard repertoire. It is too bad, because I’ve found several operas from other composers during his time that I quite enjoy, but I understand it. No other composer has dominated their era and annihilated their contemporaries in the way Mozart did. 

But, most of all, I vote for him because it all his mature operas, from the first note to the last note, it’s just one genius idea after another. It’s miraculous.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

adriesba said:


> I assume he is not included because he only composed one opera. Calling Beethoven an opera composer would be like calling Wagner a symphony composer.


I agree, this comment gives Beethoven far too little credit, and Wagner far too much. I love Wagner. He is one of my passions, but he didn't leave us a great or good symphony. Beethoven left us one great opera, and one almost great opera, not to mention great symphonies, concertos, sonatas, choral works and lieder.

The unfortunate circumstances surrounding the premiere of Beethoven's Leonore, in my opinion, completely altered the course of opera for Beethoven. I think the 1805 Leonore is a far better work than the 1814 Fidelio (although I love Fidelio as well). Leonore premiered when Napoleons' forces were occupying Vienna. Many Viennese fled their city, including the large part of its talent pool. Beethoven was left with an inadequate orchestra and inadequate singers to perform the work. The work was poorly played, poorly sung, and the orchestra couldn't handle the faster tempos, which resulted in the performance dragging, which made the work seem overly long and impacted the dramatic intensity of the work. That coupled with an audience made up largely of French soldiers spelled disaster from the start.

I consider the 1805 Leonore to be one of the greatest operas ever written. I believe had the circumstances been different and Beethoven had adequate forces, it may have been a triumph. Had it triumphed, Beethoven would have likely written other operatic works.

There are composers who have written 30+ operas that didn't compose one as great and revolutionary as Leonore. I absolutely consider Beethoven an opera composer, and a great one at that. It's heartbreaking to think what could have been, and what we have lost because of the circumstances that led to a disastrous premiere of Leonore.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

JosefinaHW said:


> I am thrilled to hear that Beethoven recognized the genius of the music of _Cosi_! What did he think of Mozart's other opera music? And Mozart's opera music vs. their libretti?
> 
> Also, I still haven't decided which biography of Mozart that I am going to read. Is there one that includes the thoughts of later composers on Mozart's operas?


Here's an outtake from the booklet accompanying Solti's first recording of _Die Zauberflöte_

Once Beethoven went to tea with a Viennese family and the conversation turned to Mozart. Baroness Born wrote a question in Beethoven's 'conversation book': which Mozart opera did Beethoven regard as the finest? (Everyone expected him to name _Don Giovanni_, which was generally considered to be the greatest in those days). "_Die Zauberflöte_", answered Beethoven, folding his hands above his head and looking heavenwards, adding "O Mozart! Who would venture to disagree?"

I haven't read this since I bought this recording in 1996, but it stuck with me all these years because of the love I have for both these men. I just pulled it out to get it exact. One giant showing love and admiration for another giant. I love it.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

gellio said:


> I agree, this comment gives Beethoven far too little credit, and Wagner far too much. I love Wagner. He is one of my passions, but he didn't leave us a great or good symphony. Beethoven left us one great opera, and one almost great opera, not to mention great symphonies, concertos, sonatas, choral works and lieder.
> 
> The unfortunate circumstances surrounding the premiere of Beethoven's Leonore, in my opinion, completely altered the course of opera for Beethoven. I think the 1805 Leonore is a far better work than the 1814 Fidelio (although I love Fidelio as well). Leonore premiered when Napoleons' forces were occupying Vienna. Many Viennese fled their city, including the large part of its talent pool. Beethoven was left with an inadequate orchestra and inadequate singers to perform the work. The work was poorly played, poorly sung, and the orchestra couldn't handle the faster tempos, which resulted in the performance dragging, which made the work seem overly long and impacted the dramatic intensity of the work. That coupled with an audience made up largely of French soldiers spelled disaster from the start.
> 
> ...


Having listened to both Fidelio and Leanore I can only say that Beethoven's later thoughts were correct. Of course the circumstances were unfavourable but Beethoven himself had a habit of making life difficult both himself and everyone around him. He managed to completely upset everyone at the premiere of Fidelio. Of course he had tremendous genius but his genius stopped when he had written the music. Organisation and handling people were not his forte. Compare that with Handel who could write a opera and then produce and conduct it. He appears to have been a composer and an impresario all in one. An astonishing man! His operas are just being recognised for the genius they are.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I realize you're just being cute, since in fact the Mozartians and Verdians are still here, and any who aren't are not likely to have been driven off by Wagnerians, unless they were anti-Wagnerians ostracized for the obnoxiousness and obsessiveness of their own negativity.
> 
> If you've been following the spate of recent threads about Mozart, you'd have noticed that some of his admirers are prone to making claims for his supreme status that no Wagnerian I know of can match (or dares to, for fear of being accused of belonging to a "cult" or of excusing Wagner's inexcusable behavior). Expressions like "sublime,""perfect," and "in tune with the Divine," as well as long lists of tributes from other composers throughout history, get hauled out routinely to "prove" that Mozart is the greatest composer there is, was, and presumably ever could be. Even when his operas present shallow and cynical characters engaged in farcical behaviors, we're told that only the highest genius could clothe such frivolity in such sublime music, and that not even the obvious incongruity can prevent the product from proving Mozart the greatest opera composer of all time. Could such claims be correct? Does anyone have the "right" answer to that?
> 
> ...


Interesting post. I consider myself Mozartian and a Wagnerian in training. If Wagner had only written The Ring, I'd be a Wagnerian, because there are periods in my life where I listen to nothing but The Ring for weeks on end. But, I have struggled with his other works. It's a work in progress. The Ring was a work in progress. It took years and years of work to get it and love it. I was work well worth it.

I struggled with the idea of even exploring Wagner because of the gross little man he was. Then, a wise friend set me straight. He said "we can separate the art from the artist" and valuing his works is different than valuing him and what he stood for. He also said to think about all the people who created the art that I am supporting by purchasing his recordings. That made sense, and it's been a fun journey.

I wouldn't consider myself a Verdian, although there are many of his works I love.

I don't think we have to choose one over the other. There's too much to learn and love. For opera, for me, it's Mozart above all others. I just connect to his works. For classical music as a whole, it's Beethoven above all others, because no other artist can impact me emotionally - across the whole spectrum of emotions, like Beethoven.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

aussiebushman said:


> I do concede that Wagner created those "immense inner journeys" and you will get no criticism from me about the vast majority of his work. However, some elements must be considered superior to others in their subjective appeal to the individual listener. The "Ring" for example: Some will think Siegfried is paramount, but for me, it contains several rather boring passages. Conversely, I could listen to the first act of Walkure or the complete Gotterdamerung over and over again without hesitation.
> 
> I agree that Richard Strauss's work contains excessive "chattiness" to use your term, but being an old unreconstructed romantic, I can live with that for the sake of the sublime melody.


Siegfried is my favorite Wagner opera by far. I think it's thrilling from first to last note.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> I love so many of these, but I'm going to give Mozart the nod here. He is the only composer to send all the operas written by all his contemporaries into obscurity. There are no other operas, written during his time by his contemporaries, that are in the standard repertoire. It is too bad, because I've found several operas from other composers during his time that I quite enjoy, but I understand it. No other composer has dominated their era and annihilated their contemporaries in the way Mozart did.


I must say that I find this an extremely odd criterion for greatness. I suspect that most of the operas of Mozart's day have fallen into obscurity without having to be sent there by Mozart. Wagner has similarly been blamed for Meyerbeer's lapse from favor, but as I listen to Meyerbeer I find that Wagner is not needed to explain why the former is no longer a repertory staple.

As a composer generally, Mozart shares "domination" of his era with the great Haydn, but talk of "domination" needs to be tempered by the knowledge that in that period there were large numbers of composers who achieved great popular success. This doesn't take anything away from Mozart's deserved reputation as the best of his day. He and Haydn transcended the styles of the time and produced something timeless, but they weren't in any respect the only show in town. That's merely a modern perspective.



> But, most of all, I vote for him because it all his mature operas, from the first note to the last note, it's just one genius idea after another. It's miraculous.


This makes more sense, as long as we don't take "miraculous" literally. Mozart lovers are very fond of using that word, I know, so I won't actually try to argue about it, save to say that I can never seem to sit through the entire "miracle" of _Figaro_ or _Cosi._ It's my problem, I guess - but if I ever can persist with one of these works from first note to last, I will not hesitate to proclaim that a miracle has occurred.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> This makes more sense, as long as we don't take "miraculous" literally. Mozart lovers are very fond of using that word, I know, so I won't actually try to argue about it, save to say that I can never seem to sit through the entire "miracle" of _Figaro_ or _Cosi._ It's my problem, I guess - but if I ever can persist with one of these works from first note to last, I will not hesitate to proclaim that a miracle has occurred.


I once attended three performances of _Die Zauberflote_ in a single weekend, and I wasn't bored in any of the three evenings. But _Zauberflote_ is probably the only Mozart opera I could say that about, and it depended crucially on my not paying much attention to the libretto and just listening to the music and enjoying the atmosphere of the theater and the live music making from the orchestra. If I tried it at home with the stereo it would have been another matter entirely.

The rest of Mozart's operas I find to have some great moments but dull quarters of an hour.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

gellio said:


> Siegfried is my favorite Wagner opera by far. I think it's thrilling from first to last note.


It's definitely my favorite Ring opera. The music from when Siegfried makes it past the Wanderer to the end is unbelievable, and I find the Forest Murmurs sequence in Act II very moving in context.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

vivalagentenuova said:


> It's definitely my favorite Ring opera. The music from when Siegfried makes it past the Wanderer to the end is unbelievable, and I find the Forest Murmurs sequence in Act II very moving in context.


Yes, I love Act II! That whole part where Siegfried is in the forest before Fafner appears I find really atmospheric and beautiful, even though there's a bit of fear for what is to come. And that ominous prelude sets the scene really well!


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

As far as Mozart goes, his operas are a big blind spot of mine. I really want to like them because many of my favorite singers performed them. Lucia Popp is one of them. Some excerpts I like too such as "O, wie will ich Triumphieren" and "Der Hölle Rache". But much loses my attention. There is this beautiful video of _Cosi _with Gundula Janowitz, Christa Ludwig, and Hermann Prey conducted by Böhm, but wow, if only I could make it fifteen minutes without getting bored. Maybe I just need to figure out which one is the most easygoing and just dive in, I don't know.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

adriesba said:


> As far as Mozart goes, his operas are a big blind spot of mine.


You and me both unfortunately. One note from the harpsichord and I'm ready to jam an icepick in my earhole


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There probably isn't a one of us who doesn't find some acknowledged masterpiece or great composer less than thoroughly engaging, and we can all probably come up with some semblance of a reason for our distaste or indifference. Wagner has his share of skeptics who find at least some of his operas heavy going, and it's interesting to me to find others who share my inability to stay with Mozart for three hours at a time. People who can't get into Wagner often say something like "I know this is important stuff, I'll have to keep working on it, and hopefully I'll get it someday." Wagner does have a way of sounding like important stuff even when we don't know what on earth he's up to (_Parsifal,_ anyone?). People who can't get into Mozart often complain about the secco recitative (I find it works fine in the theater but drives me bananas at home) or absurd plots and characters (actually, not all women flirt with their best friends' fiances disguised as Albanians). Some people react negatively to Puccini, either finding his music sentimental and manipulative or his portrayal of tormented young women repugnant. I confess to having to work to overcome both reactions, although a lot of Puccini's music is just so seductively beautiful that the "work" has consisted mainly of just submitting to it and not thinking about the things that bother me (but I'm incurably disgusted by Turandot and Calaf making love over Liu's dead body, and the slow emotional and physical breakdown of Puccini's sad young women deters me from engaging most of the time).

Of the "top four" opera composers, Verdi seems not to come in for such pronounced dislikes or criticisms as the other three, at least if we exclude the universal chortle that greets the plot of _Il Trovatore._ It's my impression that he gets widespread respect even from people who might generally prefer the operas of other composers, and I might speculate that it's partly because his musical language (granting that it evolved) is very strong and direct, pretty centrally 19th-century Romantic, less formal than Mozart's Classicism, less disturbing than Wagner's dark and unstable chromatics, and less aggressively pathetic than Puccini's (though his style too evolved). I have found surprising, though, the number of people right here on the forum for whom _Aida_, one of the most popular of operas, is not a favorite. Also interesting has been the way _Falstaff_ divides opinion - but, come to think of it, my own feelings about that undoubted masterpiece are ambivalent. Practically everyone, though, loves _Otello._

These are just some thoughts for a Sunday evening. They may be worth little to you. But that's what we do here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I once attended three performances of _Die Zauberflote_ in a single weekend, and I wasn't bored in any of the three evenings. But _Zauberflote_ is probably the only Mozart opera I could say that about, and it depended crucially on my not paying much attention to the libretto and just listening to the music and enjoying the atmosphere of the theater and the live music making from the orchestra. If I tried it at home with the stereo it would have been another matter entirely.
> 
> The rest of Mozart's operas I find to have some great moments but dull quarters of an hour.


_Zauberflote_ is my favorite too (a taste we share with Beethoven). No recitativo secco! I'd happily turn all Classical operas into singspiels.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> It's definitely my favorite Ring opera. The music from when Siegfried makes it past the Wanderer to the end is unbelievable, and I find the Forest Murmurs sequence in Act II very moving in context.


The first two acts of _Siegfried_ don't excite me _quite_ as much as they did in my years of discovery, but that Forest Murmurs sequence is absolute enchantment. What stuns me most about the opera is how Wagner came back to the _Ring_ after getting _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger_ under his belt and proceeded to raise its music to a new level. The radiant atmosphere and passion of Siegfried on the mountaintop, discovering the opposite sex and throwing himself into love is, I agree, unbelievable. But that level of mastery and inspiration pervades_ Gotterdammerung_ too. I hadn't heard it for a few years when I watched the Met's recent _Ring_ entire on video, and the score's richness and power simply blew me away even without a Flagstad or a Melchior to do the music full justice.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Rubbish????????


There are people who find it special. I respect their view/preference.



Allerius said:


> If I could listen only to one moment from Fidelio for the rest of my life, I would choose the _Chorus of Prisoners_, not the overture. *I think that it displays a dreamer, humanist, intimate side of the composer that really connects with me in a different way than any Mozart.* If Fidelio wasn't a masterpiece overall and all that it had was a good overture then I don't think that it would still be produced so frequently nowadays in it's entirety.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I must say that I find this an extremely odd criterion for greatness. I suspect that most of the operas of Mozart's day have fallen into obscurity without having to be sent there by Mozart. Wagner has similarly been blamed for Meyerbeer's lapse from favor, but as I listen to Meyerbeer I find that Wagner is not needed to explain why the former is no longer a repertory staple.
> 
> As a composer generally, Mozart shares "domination" of his era with the great Haydn, but talk of "domination" needs to be tempered by the knowledge that in that period there were large numbers of composers who achieved great popular success. This doesn't take anything away from Mozart's deserved reputation as the best of his day. He and Haydn transcended the styles of the time and produced something timeless, but they weren't in any respect the only show in town. That's merely a modern perspective.
> 
> This makes more sense, as long as we don't take "miraculous" literally. Mozart lovers are very fond of using that word, I know, so I won't actually try to argue about it, save to say that I can never seem to sit through the entire "miracle" of _Figaro_ or _Cosi._ It's my problem, I guess - but if I ever can persist with one of these works from first note to last, I will not hesitate to proclaim that a miracle has occurred.


Fair points, and yes, I am fully aware that Mozart was not the most popular composer of his day. That astonishes me in a way. I love operas my Haydn (who is another HUGE love of my life), Salieri, Cimarosa, and Martin y Soler to name a few. It is so disappointing to me that operas by these great composers aren't more mainstream, but I am so grateful to Rousset, Ehrhardt, Les Talens Lyriques and others who are championing Salieri's works, because I haven't meant a Salieri opera I haven't loved. I hope that spreads to other late-18th, early-19th century classical composers. But, it's shocking to me that I discovered opera in 1994, in 1996 it became a full blown passion due to my first exposure to Mozart, and it took 20 years for me to find a great late-classical period opera recording by a composer other than Mozart. That isn't the reason I would rank Mozart amongst the highest. To clarify - for ME he is the greatest opera composer. A minor interested turned into a full blown passion through his music - so that love will always been there, because I am so grateful. One could say toss out Abduction and the other 6 late operas are in my top 10, along with The Ring, Leonore, Boris and probably Don Carlo. Mozart dominates my opera listening.

Mozart is miraculous. Beethoven is miraculous. Schubert is miraculous. Haydn is miraculous. To me. I am not using it literally. They are miracles in my life, because as stupid and corny as it may sound, I could not bare to live without any of these four, and others. I'm just so overwhelmingly grateful that I not only found their music, but I had the sense to appreciate and love it.

I'm sorry you cannot sit through _Figaro_. That is my single favorite opera. But, when I see it live and the two arias in the 4th Act for Marcellina and Basilio are omitted I am happy, because they do nothing for the story and make it too long. But, I love them when I listen to it.

Miracles are different for everyone. I can listen to the entire Ring straight through for weeks on end, but I have STILL not been able to listen, _Meistersinger_, _Parsifal_, _Lohengrin_ or _Tannhäuser_ straight through, and I keep trying. Even though I'm Ring (and perhaps Tristan) obsessed, I just can't with the others for some reason, but I still recongnize the genius behind them.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I voted for one composer: Mozart, who is, in fact, the greatest composer of opera.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The first two acts of _Siegfried_ don't excite me _quite_ as much as they did in my years of discovery, but that Forest Murmurs sequence is absolute enchantment. What stuns me most about the opera is how Wagner came back to the _Ring_ after getting _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger_ under his belt and proceeded to raise its music to a new level. The radiant atmosphere and passion of Siegfried on the mountaintop, discovering the opposite sex and throwing himself into love is, I agree, unbelievable. But that level of mastery and inspiration pervades_ Gotterdammerung_ too. I hadn't heard it for a few years when I watched the Met's recent _Ring_ entire on video, and the score's richness and power simply blew me away even without a Flagstad or a Melchior to do the music full justice.


I love how you describe this. I love Siegfried because it is the only 1 of the 4 that ends on a happy note, it is the most fairytalelike and it contains most of my favorite music in the Ring. I think it was around 2004 that I decided I had to give The Ring a try. I bought Solti's box set and when I got home I found the Ride of the Valkyries first because that's all I knew of it and I wanted to hear it. I then played the opening and closing 10 minutes or so of the four. It was so daunting and overwhelming. On first listen, the music opening and closing Siegfried was my favorite, so that was the first one I listened all the way through. That was the only one at the time I could listen to all the way through. For quite some time actually. Wagner was so new to me and so heavy and difficult. Then I ventured into Rheingold, then Gotterdammerung, then Walkure. Once I had really familiarized myself with the music, then I dove into the story, in order. It was by far the most and hardest work I've ever put into anything art related, but it was so worth it. I love every single moment of it, from the first note to the last.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> _Zauberflote_ is my favorite too (a taste we share with Beethoven). No recitativo secco! I'd happily turn all Classical operas into singspiels.


I hate secco recitative and I hate dialogue. I never include either. If I import a CD into iTunes I immediately delete the secco recitative and dialogue tracks. If they are, unfortunately, imbedded into the musical tracks, then I ended the timing on the tracks to begin after the recitative or end before it.

I just love that story though of him looking up to the heavens.

I go to Vienna every summer and the first time I went to the cemetery I was so excited to see Beethoven's grave (he's my No. 1) and the second I saw it that excitement turned to tears. It was so embarrassing. I just felt the urge to complete fall apart and sob I was so overwhelmed. I love that cemetery. My two boys - Beethoven and Schubert are right next to each other.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Handelian said:


> Having listened to both Fidelio and Leanore I can only say that Beethoven's later thoughts were correct. Of course the circumstances were unfavourable but Beethoven himself had a habit of making life difficult both himself and everyone around him. He managed to completely upset everyone at the premiere of Fidelio. Of course he had tremendous genius but his genius stopped when he had written the music. Organisation and handling people were not his forte. Compare that with Handel who could write a opera and then produce and conduct it. He appears to have been a composer and an impresario all in one. An astonishing man! His operas are just being recognised for the genius they are.


Yeah, Beethoven didn't make things easy on himself.

However, I much prefer Leonore over Fidelio and think it is the better of the two. Leonore reflects, as you know, his original ideas when he was full of excitement over writing this work. He succumbed to pressures in 1806 and 1814 to make changes that weren't necessary and were a determent to the work (even thought I love some of the additional music he wrote for Fidelio).

The three act structure in Leonore makes more sense than the two act structure, with ACT I being a singspiel, ACT II being a melodrama, and ACT III being the tragic act. We lose the singspiel with Fidelio, not to mention the transition from singspiel-to melodrama-to tragedy, which is brilliant. That is completely lost in the two act structure - ACT I is really two acts, it doesn't make sense having them be combined into one act. We also lose the brilliance of the gradual increase in forces through the aria, duet, trio, quartet opening structure of Leonore, and the trio is lost all together in Fidelio.

We lose the Gold Aria (although I know it's inserted in most performances) and the great duet between Marzelline and Leonore, which is one of the most magnificent things Beethoven ever wrote. That is the most tragic loss in the transition from Leonore to Fidelio IMO. Leonore's great aria is also longer in Leonore and it loses many of its coloratura passages in Fidelio.

The biggest thing for me that makes Leonore the greater of the two for me is the ending. The ending of Fidelio is anticlimactic. We know, through the music, that Florestan is going to be rescued. We know it's going to be a happy ending. That's not so in Leonore. In fact, we think, when the Revenge Chorus starts that Pizarro and his soldiers are going to win and we are going to get a tragic ending. Then Beethoven surprises us brilliantly and magnificantly with a happy ending.

I love both, but am a firm believer that Beethoven got it right on his first try.

Lastly, another part of the problem is there just hasn't been a good recording of Leonore, until now. Jacobs' recording is a sheer revelation. If you haven't heard it, I can't recommend it enough. The Blomstedt recording is so dull and lifeless compared to Jacobs, and Gardiner's has some 1806 and 1814 thrown in so that doesn't really count. Jacobs' recording is so damn exciting and riveting.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

gellio said:


> Lastly, another part of the problem is there just hasn't been a good recording of Leonore, until now. Jacobs' recording is a sheer revelation. If you haven't heard it, I can't recommend it enough. The Blomstedt recording is so dull and lifeless compared to Jacobs, and Gardiner's has some 1806 and 1814 thrown in so that doesn't really count. Jacobs' recording is so damn exciting and riveting.


Yes I have the Jacobs. it is good but it doesn't alter my opinion. It is interesting but Beethoven's final thoughts were correct imo.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

It is of course impossible to say who was the greatest opera composer. There is the man who wrote a string of masterpieces - Verdi. The man who wrote four of the greatest ever operas then died prematurely leaving us thinking what he might have achieved if he had lived another ten (or even five years) - Mozart. The man who wrote one of the greatest ever then died - Bizet. And the man whose operas (or music dramas) have divided opinion ever since - Wagner, the Marmite man.
But let's also put in a word for the staggering genius who was one of the pioneers of opera and wrote around 40 of them - Handel. They were written for commercial success (often at great speed) and in some of them he does frankly go through the motions. But even so they are never less than pleasing. But at his best as in operas like Julius Caesar, Rodilinda and Tamerlano he is quite stunning in his drama and characterisation. Then of course he did go on to write a different form of 'opera' the oratorio. To pick 'the greatest' is a very subjective matter as much depends on personal taste. But imo Handel is right up there with the best.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Handelian said:


> It is of course impossible to say who was the greatest opera composer. There is the man who wrote a string of masterpieces - Verdi. The man who wrote four of the greatest ever operas then died prematurely leaving us thinking what he might have achieved if he had lived another ten (or even five years) - Mozart. The man who wrote one of the greatest ever then died - Bizet. And the man whose operas (or music dramas) have divided opinion ever since - Wagner, the Marmite man.


I gather you're not too fond of Wagner.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Handelian said:


> To pick 'the greatest' is a very subjective matter as much depends on personal taste.


I agree that it is somewhat subjective, however there is a difference between 'greatest' and 'favourite'. I would say the second depends on personal taste, the former is less subjective. There are plenty of operas I admire, but they wouldn't be favourites of mine.

N.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Handelian said:


> It is of course impossible to say who was the greatest opera composer. There is the man who wrote a string of masterpieces - Verdi. The man who wrote four of the greatest ever operas then died prematurely leaving us thinking what he might have achieved if he had lived another ten (or even five years) - Mozart. The man who wrote one of the greatest ever then died - Bizet. And the man whose operas (or music dramas) have divided opinion ever since - Wagner, the Marmite man.
> But let's also put in a word for the staggering genius who was one of the pioneers of opera and wrote around 40 of them - Handel. They were written for commercial success (often at great speed) and in some of them he does frankly go through the motions. But even so they are never less than pleasing. But at his best as in operas like Julius Caesar, Rodilinda and Tamerlano he is quite stunning in his drama and characterisation. Then of course he did go on to write a different form of 'opera' the oratorio. To pick 'the greatest' is a very subjective matter as much depends on personal taste. But imo Handel is right up there with the best.


Agree on Handel. We are fortunate to those who started championing those great works, and now we are getting it with Vivaldi thanks to Naive and Co.

My favorite baroque opera, hands down without a single doubt, is Leonardo Vinci's _Artaserse_. It's one of my most favorite operas of any era.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

gellio said:


> Agree on Handel. .


Of course, it helps that we have imaginative productions these days:


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Semele gives us inspiration in front of the mirror in the morning! Bet she didn't shave though!


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

And Handel could also write this:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> If you've been following the spate of recent threads about Mozart, you'd have noticed that some of his admirers are prone to making claims for his supreme status that no Wagnerian I know of can match (or dares to, for fear of being accused of belonging to a "cult" or of excusing Wagner's inexcusable behavior). Expressions like "sublime,""perfect," and "in tune with the Divine," as well as long lists of tributes from other composers throughout history, get hauled out routinely to "prove" that Mozart is the greatest composer there is, was, and presumably ever could be. Even when his operas present shallow and cynical characters engaged in farcical behaviors, we're told that only the highest genius could clothe such frivolity in such sublime music, and that not even the obvious incongruity can prevent the product from proving Mozart the greatest opera composer of all time. Could such claims be correct? Does anyone have the "right" answer to that?


Can't agree more, Mr. Woodduck! :angel: With the so-called "great composers", some of us have tendency to indulge in "idolatry" like that. (I'm reminded of Denk's "critique" on Bach's goldbergs*). I myself am "moved to tears" by stuff like K.616, but at the same time I agree with everything you said here, and I respect, for example, people who prefer Beethoven's concertos and Fidelio over anything by Mozart, and would not pretend like they have bad taste. I also can see how DavidA's rants often bothered you, but I think both of you are quite "adorable" in different ways. (_"Look dear boy!"_-DavidA) LOL.

*https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"I know everyone discusses the Goldbergs as if born from the mind of God in some beautiful Olympian harmony-paradise. ...
The capstone of these is the Quodlibet, with its good humor and generosity of spirit, reenacting (so they say) Bach family parties where they would mash up various tunes, dazzle each other with contrapuntal mastery. Now, the words of the tunes are perhaps jokes, references that we can probably no longer get; everyone has their own idea what it all means. This lost joke which no one agrees about is the last laughing straw for me."


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Let this thread put to rest the overration of Handel. Imagine having the gall to write 4 hour long operas and not being Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Let this thread put to rest the overration of Handel. Imagine having the gall to write 4 hour long operas and not being Wagner.


Indeed, indeed. If one must have gall, let it at least be Wotan's _nagende Galle._


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Couchie said:


> Let this thread put to rest the overration of Handel. Imagine having the gall to write 4 hour long operas and not being Wagner.


Which one of Handel's operas is four hours long?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I voted for *Mozart*, but *Verdi* is my second choice.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

adriesba said:


> Which one of Handel's operas is four hours long?


Depends how much they cut (the more the merrier), but Giulio Cesare can definitely run 4 hours.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

Here's a four-hour Giulio Cesare under René Jacobs.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Wagner is 1000 km away from the others. R. Strauss as second. Bellini & Donizetti for the 3rd place. Period.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

While there's no doubt in my mind that Wagner is far ahead of just about everyone else, I'm puzzled by the total lack of love for Rossini. Am I one of a very small group who thinks that he deserves to be ranking much higher? Rossini's mastery of harmony and ability to construct some thoroughly memorable Operas seems to be lacking in recognition in here (although I confess to not having read every post in the last 25 pages).

Come on, where's the love for Rossini??


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Aerobat said:


> While there's no doubt in my mind that Wagner is far ahead of just about everyone else,* I'm puzzled by the total lack of love for Rossini. * Am I one of a very small group who thinks that he deserves to be ranking much higher? Rossini's mastery of harmony and ability to construct some thoroughly memorable Operas seems to be lacking in recognition in here (although I confess to not having read every post in the last 25 pages).
> 
> Come on, where's the love for Rossini??


Donizetti deserves a few votes too.


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC (Jun 29, 2020)

Wagner is my choice for favorite composer. I feel that his operas are so distinct and immersive in comparison to the other operas I listen to. I find that Wagner's music also impacts me differently than the rest when I listen to it as well. Verdi has been gaining ground over the past couple of months as I explore more of his catalog of music, but Wagner remains top dog for me.

The favorites: Wagner, Verdi, Bellini, Strauss, Puccini

Composers I am looking to listen to more of: Handel, Donizetti, Berlioz, Rossini


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

There's no such thing as "greatest opera composer." All these composers listed, and more, were great opera composers in their own right. There is only "favorite opera composer" and that would be Mozart (hands down).


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I agree that it is somewhat subjective, however there is a difference between 'greatest' and 'favourite'. I would say the second depends on personal taste, the former is less subjective. There are plenty of operas I admire, but they wouldn't be favourites of mine.
> 
> N.


The problem is people, by and large, cannot be objective and are therefore mainly subjective, especially when it comes to stupid things like naming the "greatest" this or that. That's entirely subjective unless you are a scholar on the subject matter. People picked Wagner because they like Wagner, Verdi because they like Verdi, and Mozart because they like Mozart.

I would pick Mozart _subjectively_ because his seven mature operas are probably all in my top 10 favorite operas. I still could not say _objectively_ that he is the greatest opera composer. I like Beethoven's _Leonore (1805)_ as much as any of Mozart's mature operas, and I like Wagner's _Ring_, Verdi's _Don Carlo_, and Mussorgsky's _Boris Godunov_ almost as much.

Despite writing only one opera (or two depending on how you look at it), I could argue Beethoven is as great of an opera composer as any, and I could argue the same for Mussorgsky based on _Boris_ alone.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The five greatest opera composers are Handel, Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

gellio said:


> The problem is people, by and large, cannot be objective and are therefore mainly subjective, especially when it comes to stupid things like naming the "greatest" this or that. That's entirely subjective unless you are a scholar on the subject matter. People picked Wagner because they like Wagner, Verdi because they like Verdi, and Mozart because they like Mozart.


Oh, I'm sure they did. I agree with your point that "greatest" from an objective viewpoint is impossible. You would have to determine the criteria first of all, most sophisticated harmonies, advanced sense of drama or melodic gifts (and how would you judge each of these). That said, it's still possible to make a distinction between a favourite and a most admired work of art.

N.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Oh, I'm sure they did. I agree with your point that "greatest" from an objective viewpoint is impossible. You would have to determine the criteria first of all, most sophisticated harmonies, advanced sense of drama or melodic gifts (and how would you judge each of these). That said, it's still possible to make a distinction between a favourite and a most admired work of art.
> 
> N.


I think it is quite clear that there were a few opera composers who excelled in their chosen forte. Who would not consider Mozart a great opera composer?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I think it is quite clear that there were a few opera composers who excelled in their chosen forte. Who would not consider Mozart a great opera composer?


Or Wagner, or Verdi?

The problem comes when you start comparing and trying to work out who comes in the second tier of greatness and who is in the tiers below that?

N.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Or Wagner, or Verdi?
> 
> The problem comes when you start comparing and trying to work out who comes in the second tier of greatness and who is in the tiers below that?
> 
> N.


I suppose so but it's often more pleasing to work out tier 1 and then "the rest"


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Dimace said:


> Wagner is 1000 km away from the others. R. Strauss as second. Bellini & Donizetti for the 3rd place. Period.


"Period?" Wagner and Strauss - nope. Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Period?" Nope. It's apples, oranges, mangos and starfruit. What do _Figaro_, _Otello,_ _Boheme_ and _Parsifal_ - masterpieces all - have in common to make comparison meaningful? Besides suffering women, that is?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> "Period?" Nope. It's apples, oranges, mangos and starfruit. What do _Figaro_, _Otello,_ _Boheme_ and _Parsifal_ - masterpieces all - have in common to make comparison meaningful? Besides suffering women, that is?


Suffering men, too, if you think about it. Why can't we have an opera about happy people in happy land?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> "Period?" Wagner and Strauss - nope. Mozart.


Can you prove it is Mozart?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

What is an opera composer? Someone who sets music to someone else's libretto? Or someone who writes their own libretto and sets music to it? This would certainly narrow the field of choices.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

amfortas said:


> Why can't we have an opera about happy people in happy land?


Wouldn't that one be about life at the funny farm?


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I think it is quite clear that there were a few opera composers who excelled in their chosen forte. Who would not consider Mozart a great opera composer?


I would consider Mozart a GREAT opera composer. I would consider Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, Donizetti, Bellini, Rossini, Beethoven, Mussorgsky, and Tchaikovsky great opera composers as well. Labelling something "great" isn't problematic. Labelling anything the "greatest" is problematic.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> "What do _Figaro_, _Otello,_ _Boheme_ and _Parsifal_ - masterpieces all - have in common?


Exactly. The _only_ thing these works have in common is they are great works.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Suffering men, too, if you think about it. Why can't we have an opera about happy people in happy land?


Because as humans we relate more to suffering than joy!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

An excellent performance of a great 18th century opera:

Amore: Carolyn Sampson
Elena: Susan Gritton
Pallade: Gillian Webster
Paride: Magdalena Kožená

Gabrieli Consort & Players
Paul McCreesh


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> Can you prove it is Mozart?


always remember, always remember:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

John Cage's _Europeras_ is described thus in Wikipedia:

_Europeras I and II were premiered by the Frankfurt Opera in December 1987 after a delay caused by fire; both call on the full resources of the house and apply the technique of indeterminacy to plot, stage directions, lighting, costuming, props, and sets, as well as to the music, drawn from fragments of the 18th and 19th century repertoire and intermittently drowned out by a taped Opera Mix, "as if you were shouting to someone on the opposite side of the street and a large truck passes by."

The libretto, in twenty-four scenarios, likewise juxtaposes traditional operatic episodes: the libretto begins "Dressed as an Irish princess, he gives birth; they plot to overthrow the French." The area of the stage is divided into 64 quadrants corresponding to the I Ching and the nineteen singers share the space with dancers. Cage said "What I wanted to do was to have the programs such that if twelve people were sitting in a row each one would be looking at a different opera."
There is no conductor; performers are instead guided by large projections of a digital clock according to strict time intervals. Cage even went so far as to hand out two separate sets of librettos to the audience at the premiere, themselves culled from previous operatic works._

That may not sound promising, but I can assure skeptics that someone, somewhere, knows with absolute subjective certainty that this work is as great and valuable a work of art as _Le Nozze di Figaro_ or _Der Ring des Nibelungen._ It's important to understand that no one can prove with scientific objectivity that any work of art is greater than any other, and that if you've been thinking anything like that you're just a cultural imperialist seeking power over others. I learned this recently in discussions of artistic greatness right here on TC, along with the further subjective certainty that preferring Mozart or Wagner to Cage is of no more significance than preferring chocolate to vanilla. I can't express how liberating and relaxing it is to realize that appreciating opera is as quick and easy as a happy meal at MacDonald's. (But don't let anyone try to tell me that Macdonald's French fries don't possess inherent greatness! I can take this "all aesthetics is subjective" thing only so far.)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SixFootScowl said:


> What is an opera composer? Someone who sets music to someone else's libretto? Or someone who writes their own libretto and sets music to it? This would certainly narrow the field of choices.


I see what you mean. I would rather have a good libretto set to good music by a great composer. More often than not, the librettists were master writers just like the composers were masters of music. Nothing beats having the best of both masters collaborating together, as was the case for example with Lorenzo da Ponte and Mozart, arguably one of the greatest operatic collaborations in opera history.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> John Cage's _Europeras_ is described thus in Wikipedia:
> 
> _Europeras I and II were premiered by the Frankfurt Opera in December 1987 after a delay caused by fire; both call on the full resources of the house and apply the technique of indeterminacy to plot, stage directions, lighting, costuming, props, and sets, as well as to the music, drawn from fragments of the 18th and 19th century repertoire and intermittently drowned out by a taped Opera Mix, "as if you were shouting to someone on the opposite side of the street and a large truck passes by."
> 
> That may not sound promising, but *I can assure skeptics that someone, somewhere, knows with absolute subjective certainty that this work is as great and valuable a work of art as Le Nozze di Figaro or Der Ring des Nibelungen. * _


_

What business is it of yours to ridicule someone finding greatness in this work by John Cage?_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> What business is it of yours to ridicule someone finding greatness in this work by John Cage?


I wasn't aware that satire required a license. Have Swift, Wilde, Twain and Stephen Colbert been informed?

If the emperor's new shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> I see what you mean. I would rather have a good libretto set to good music by a great composer. More often than not, the librettists were master writers just like the composers were masters of music. Nothing beats having the best of both masters collaborating together, as was the case for example with Lorenzo da Ponte and Mozart, arguably one of the greatest operatic collaborations in opera history.


With Wagner we get both: A master librettist and a master composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> I see what you mean. I would rather have a good libretto set to good music by a great composer. More often than not, the librettists were master writers just like the composers were masters of music. Nothing beats having the best of both masters collaborating together, as was the case for example with Lorenzo da Ponte and Mozart, arguably one of the greatest operatic collaborations in opera history.


It's important to remember, though, that librettos are not to be judged as self-sufficient literature (unless the composer intentionally sets an existing literary work to music, but this is uncommon). In opera music is the controlling art. A master librettist is one who tailors his libretto to the needs of the composer, who will ultimately decide the form it takes.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't aware that satire required a license. Have Swift, Wilde, Twain and Stephen Colbert been informed?
> 
> If the emperor's new shoe fits, wear it.


Since I've seen many similar comments on TC that were definitely not satire, I didn't assume yours was an exception, especially considering your many posts in the "objectivity" threads..


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Since I've seen many similar comments on TC that were definitely not satire, I didn't assume yours was an exception, especially considering your many posts in the "objectivity" threads..


The inherent greatness of French fries didn't tip you off?

On this subject, laughter is all I can manage at this point, and it feels purifying. Frankly, I find the whole debate over "greatness" in art, as conducted on this forum, absurd and ponderously irrelevant to life on earth. I've learned a great deal about music by hearing, performing and composing it, and in doing all of those things I've always functioned on the assumption that whatever project I'm engaged in demands of me the best that I can give. What's "best" is always determined by the nature of the task. In that context, there are always fairly well-defined standards and goals, which it's my job to understand and pursue. That's another way of saying that in any artistic context, there are things we do which are better - objectively better - than others. Every artist - at least, every artist who wants to achieve anything worthwhile - functions on the basis of this assumption, and no artist of distinction and repute has ever thought otherwise. Long-winded individuals who hang out on internet forums day after day relentlessly celebrating the importance of their preference for apricot jam over raspberry are of no objective value to anyone's understanding of how art is created or perceived, and it feels right to celebrate my own weariness of such bloviation with a laugh.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> The inherent greatness of French fries didn't tip you off?
> 
> On this subject, laughter is all I can manage at this point, and it feels purifying. Frankly, I find the whole debate over "greatness" in art, as conducted on this forum, absurd and ponderously irrelevant to life on earth. I've learned a great deal about music by hearing, performing and composing it, and in doing all of those things I've always functioned on the assumption that whatever project I'm engaged in demands of me the best that I can give. What's "best" is always determined by the nature of the task. In that context, there are always fairly well-defined standards and goals, which it's my job to understand and pursue. That's another way of saying that in any artistic context, there are things we do which are better - objectively better - than others. Every artist - at least, every artist who wants to achieve anything worthwhile - functions on the basis of this assumption, and no artist of distinction and repute has ever thought otherwise. Long-winded individuals who hang out on internet forums day after day relentlessly celebrating the importance of their preference for apricot jam over raspberry are of no objective value to anyone's understanding of how art is created or perceived, and it feels right to celebrate my own weariness of such bloviation with a laugh.


To be honest I didn't read your post carefully after seeing the gist of it and missed the french fries part.

You have a perspective on creating art/music. I have been a professional musician (jazz and classical) and songwriter my entire life and do not identify with everything you write. Of course there are skills to be learned, experience to amass and each musician has their own standards to live up to and by. Music like any art is learned and goals are approached and sometimes achieved by doing it.

That's about it, IMO.

I have never cared much for abstract or perceived "greatness" outside of my own appreciation of what someone is doing or has done. But I do share what I think is your perception of the importance of Internet forums regarding this kind of topic.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

When it comes to opera I got Wagner over everyone, even though I prefer singing Verdi. He didn't need no stinking librettist


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> If you've been following the spate of recent threads about Mozart, you'd have noticed that some of his admirers are prone to making claims for his supreme status that no Wagnerian I know of can match (or dares to, for fear of being accused of belonging to a "cult" or of excusing Wagner's inexcusable behavior). Expressions like "sublime,""perfect," and "in tune with the Divine," as well as long lists of tributes from other composers throughout history, get hauled out routinely to "prove" that Mozart is the greatest composer there is, was, and presumably ever could be.


LOL, I was suddenly reminded of the above as I was reading:


RogerWaters said:


> With Brahms, you're venturing into difficult territory, not least because his devotees think anyone who criticises him must be tone-deaf or a secret fan of Karl Jenkins. They're ruder in my experience than Wagnerians, who are used to hearing their idol being trashed. They insist that Brahms's craftsmanship reached wondrous levels but was always at the service of increasingly subtle ideas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> When it comes to opera I got Wagner over everyone, even though I prefer singing Verdi. He didn't need no stinking librettist


There are people who feel that Wagner _was _a stinking librettist. We may safely disregard these people. They are useless and will get their comeuppance some day.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> LOL, I was suddenly reminded of the above as I was reading:


That was amusing, if I do say so. If I ever decide to publish my collected works, I will know who to hire to research and collate them.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> To be honest I didn't read your post carefully after seeing the gist of it and missed the french fries part.
> 
> You have a perspective on creating art/music. I have been a professional musician (jazz and classical) and songwriter my entire life and do not identify with everything you write. Of course there are skills to be learned, experience to amass and each musician has their own standards to live up to and by. Music like any art is learned and goals are approached and sometimes achieved by doing it.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm crazy but it sounds like you both are in agreement, as am I. "Greatests" are bunk.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Maybe I'm crazy but it sounds like you both are in agreement, as am I. "Greatests" are bunk.


You aren't crazy, as far as I can tell. I disagree only to the extent of recognizing degrees of quality within specific categories. I see no objection to calling Mozart's operatic comedies the greatest of the era we call Classical. Who was there to challenge him in that genre? Salieri? Jommelli? Paisiello? Haydn? There are good reasons why his works are still popular and highly praised while theirs are barely known despite occasional revivals.


----------

