# Just Finished Figaro



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

My first Opera was The Magic Flute, and now my second, Figaro. It was good!

This version:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

It's always good to make those two your first exposure to opera.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> My first Opera was The Magic Flute, and now my second, Figaro. It was good!
> 
> This version:


Figaro is Mozart at his absolute best. An astonishing whirlwind of inspiration from the first note of the overture to the last note of reconciliation. One of the greatest operatic masterpieces ever!


----------



## CMonteverdi (May 2, 2014)

IMHO, this is THE opera... 

LK


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Thinking of watching Pelléas et Mélisande by Debussy next!


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> My first Opera was The Magic Flute, and now my second, Figaro. It was good!
> 
> This version:


Excellent choice. This is actually my favorite version of Figaro. Alison Hagley is my favorite Susanna ever and Bryn Terfel is fantastic as Figaro. The comedy between Bartolo and Marcelliina is perfectly executed and I love the subtle stage gags the cast put in. Finally, I love the fact that it is a traditional setting in the correct time period (no "outside the box" director trying to set it in 1940s Nazi Germany or something stupid like that).


----------



## Scott in PA (Aug 13, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Thinking of watching Pelléas et Mélisande by Debussy next!


I wouldn't do Pelleas next. If you go French, try Carmen. Or Beethoven's Fidelio might be the next progressive step from Figaro. Do Pelleas after Tristan, which should be about 8-10 operas away.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Don Giovanni should be next!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Scott in PA said:


> I wouldn't do Pelleas next. If you go French, try Carmen. Or Beethoven's Fidelio might be the next progressive step from Figaro. Do Pelleas after Tristan, which should be about 8-10 operas away.


I was leaning towards Fidelio actually after finding out Debussy's Opera was about a love triangle. I want to watch something that isn't about romantic relationships.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Scott in PA said:


> I wouldn't do Pelleas next. If you go French, try Carmen. Or Beethoven's Fidelio might be the next progressive step from Figaro. Do Pelleas after Tristan, which should be about 8-10 operas away.


He already likes a Mozart opera with dull secco recitatives. I don't think Pelleas et Melisande would be a problem then. Pelleas et Melisande is by the way a really beautiful opera that I would say is easier to learn to fully enjoy than Tristan.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

There is no predicting what will (or won't) appeal to someone approaching opera ... or any music, as I found out when a good friend went to a performance of _Gotterdammerung_ as an opera introduction and liked it so much that he wanted to see an entire Ring Cycle in one week. Since then I won't attempt to guess what a first or second opera should be.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Thinking of watching Pelléas et Mélisande by Debussy next!


Are you sure, nothing like Mozart....at all.......


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Are you sure, nothing like Mozart....at all.......


That's what I want, something different than Mozart. I love Debussy's piano music too, so, I am interested in the music.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's what I want, something different than Mozart. I love Debussy's piano music too, so, I am interested in the music.


Why not Verdi / Donizetti/ Bellini or Puccini for that matter?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Why not Verdi / Donizetti/ Bellini or Puccini for that matter?


Nothing against them, I'm open. But I'll probably look into Fidelio next.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Nothing against them, I'm open. But I'll probably look into Fidelio next.


That's also very different then Debussy.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Korngold wrote a great aria for soprano, Marriettas Lied, with Renee Fleming that I really like. One of my favourite arias along with those 2 by Mozart i mentioned in another thread, and Song to the Moon. Not sure about the whole opera though.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Figaro is Mozart at his absolute best. An astonishing whirlwind of inspiration from the first note of the overture to the last note of reconciliation.


Except "Il capro é la capretta."

Edit: I guess with the misplaced aigu, that's now surrealism.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Korngold wrote a great aria for soprano, Marriettas Lied, with Renee Fleming that I really like. One of my favourite arias along with those 2 by Mozart i mentioned in another thread, and Song to the Moon. Not sure about the whole opera though.


I like Die tote Stadt, different but good work.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

_Le nozze di Figaro_ is without compare the greatest opera ever written. The only other work that one could argue is as great, or greater, would be _Don Giovanni_, in my opinion.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Nothing against them, I'm open. But I'll probably look into Fidelio next.


I am also in love with _Fidelio_ The Karajan studio recording with Vickers and Dernesch and the Bernstein recording with Janowitz are the best. You will hear over and over again that the Klemperer recording of Fidelio is the best. It is very well sung, but Klemperer had no insight into how Beethoven should be conducted. His interpretation is severely lacking in dramatic momentum and more importantly passion. In Klemperer's day, it was the norm to conduct Beethoven the way he did, unfortunately. As a result, Karajan's magnificent recording didn't get the recognition it deserved. It is miraculous, and I am not a big Karajan fan, at all. It is as well sung as Klemperer's. The best Fidelio is Karajan.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

gellio said:


> _Le nozze di Figaro_ is without compare the greatest opera ever written. The only other work that one could argue is as great, or greater, would be _Don Giovanni_, in my opinion.


Cosi Fan Tutte in my opinion


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The problem with watching Mozart's last 3 operas as your first opera experiences is that most other operas will, from now on, pale in comparison. The thing about Mozart in these operas is that he couldn't let more than a very few minutes pass without another beautifully melodious aria, duet, trio or quartet. That's not true of most other operas where there is a lot of recitatives or 'filler music' between the major pieces.

When people try to give reasons why Mozart was a genius, IMO, one doesn't have to go any farther than pointing to his last 3-4 operas (Cosi Fan Tutte is no slouch) as 18th century operatic benchmarks that would never be equaled or surpassed in the entire 19th and 20th centuries and there's no hope for the 21st! (The only one that might come close is, arguably, Bellini's Norma which has wonderful music from beginning to end.)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DaveM said:


> The problem with watching Mozart's last 3 operas as your first opera experiences is that most other operas will, from now on, pale in comparison. The thing about Mozart in these operas is that he couldn't let more than a very few minutes pass without another beautifully melodious aria, duet, trio or quartet. That's not true of most other operas where there is a lot of recitatives or 'filler music' between the major pieces.
> 
> When people try to give reasons why Mozart was a genius, IMO, one doesn't have to go any farther than pointing to his last 3-4 operas (Cosi Fan Tutte is no slouch) as 18th century operatic benchmarks that would never be equaled or surpassed in the entire 19th and 20th centuries and there's no hope for the 21st! (The only one that might come close is, arguably, Bellini's Norma which has wonderful music from beginning to end.)


BI agree but I love Mozart also, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> The problem with watching Mozart's last 3 operas as your first opera experiences is that most other operas will, from now on, pale in comparison. The thing about Mozart in these operas is that he couldn't let more than a very few minutes pass without another beautifully melodious aria, duet, trio or quartet. That's not true of most other operas where there is a lot of recitatives or 'filler music' between the major pieces.
> 
> When people try to give reasons why Mozart was a genius, IMO, one doesn't have to go any farther than pointing to his last 3-4 operas (Cosi Fan Tutte is no slouch) as 18th century operatic benchmarks that would never be equaled or surpassed in the entire 19th and 20th centuries and there's no hope for the 21st! (The only one that might come close is, arguably, Bellini's Norma which has wonderful music from beginning to end.)


Statements like these are so...so...so...

<sigh>

I started in on opera in a serious way as a young man with Verdi, Puccini and Wagner, with Bellini, Donizetti, Beethoven, Weber, Mussorgsky, Berg and others soon to follow. All of them wrote operas which impressed me deeply. I saw and heard _Figaro_, was lukewarm about it at best, and never felt that any of the great works by other composers "paled" in comparison. I still don't find that they "pale." What I do find is that Mozart's operas (the mature operas) are among opera's masterpieces, but that there are many other masterpieces in various styles which will impress different temperaments very differently, and that invidious comparisons, expressed in absolute statements of value, are attempts to turn personal preferences into realities and are, for all practical purposes, nonsense.

So am I lacking in musical understanding or "good taste"? If so, I'm far from alone.

Mozart lovers, more than any other opera lovers, seem given to exalted _ex cathedra_ proclamations of their idol's musical sublimity, theatrical mastery, psychological profundity, and eternal superiority to every other sung and staged spectacle - past, present, or future - in the universe (and I'm willing to say this even though some make similar claims for other composers). Any of these assertions is open to argument. It is perfectly possible for intelligent and musically sophisticated people to find Mozart's musical mannerisms tiresome, to find some of his characters one-dimensional and uninteresting, to find some of the plots frivolous and even repugnant, and to find that the works as whole artistic experiences do not cut very deep or make any statement about reality that's challenging or life-altering. Mozart's vaunted "perfection" is not going to mean a great a deal to those who find the operas lacking in other qualities which they seek in works of art. New concepts of artistic value, arising out of subsequent cultural milieus and new understandings of man and nature, were bound to put Mozart's unquestionably well-crafted art into boader perspectives.

Mozart's works are not the alpha and omega of opera or of anything. It's safe to say that they are the highest woks of genius in the repertoire of Classical opera, but Classical opera, like any subgenre, has necessary boundaries imposed by the musical and social culture of its time and place. There was much to be said in music and opera that Mozart could not say, it was to be said by geniuses of the first order, and there was nothing "pale" about what some of them said, or the craft and power with which they said it.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

DaveM said:


> The problem with watching Mozart's last 3 operas as your first opera experiences is that most other operas will, from now on, pale in comparison. The thing about Mozart in these operas is that he couldn't let more than a very few minutes pass without another beautifully melodious aria, duet, trio or quartet. That's not true of most other operas where there is a lot of recitatives or 'filler music' between the major pieces.
> 
> When people try to give reasons why Mozart was a genius, IMO, one doesn't have to go any farther than pointing to his last 3-4 operas *(Cosi Fan Tutte is no slouch)* as 18th century operatic benchmarks that would never be equaled or surpassed in the entire 19th and 20th centuries and there's no hope for the 21st! (The only one that might come close is, arguably, Bellini's Norma which has wonderful music from beginning to end.)


Certainly, no slouch; it is _the thing_!

I agree with you mostly, except for the Norma part . I think the 19th century opera that came closest to Mozart is Verdi's Falstaff.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ...Mozart lovers, more than any other opera lovers, seem given to exalted _ex cathedra_ proclamations of their idol's musical sublimity, theatrical mastery, psychological profundity, and eternal superiority to every other sung and staged spectacle - past, present, or future - in the universe (and I'm willing to say this even though some make similar claims for other composers). Any of these assertions is open to argument. It is perfectly possible for intelligent and musically sophisticated people to find Mozart's musical mannerisms tiresome, to find some of his characters one-dimensional and uninteresting, to find some of the plots frivolous and even repugnant, and to understandings of man and nature, were bound to put Mozart's unquestionably well-crafted art into boader perspectives.
> 
> Mozart's works are not the alpha and omega of opera or of anything. It's safe to say that they are the highest works of genius in the repertoire of Classical opera...


I get your point. I tend to avoid superlatives (eg. best of, greatest ever etc.) as much as possible, but I've never found any other operatic composer that could match Mozart's final operas. I would also add that, to me, they also anticipated Romantic opera at the highest level. But, of course, that's all IMO.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

A great moment in Figaro: Kathleen Battle as one of the best Suzannas ever:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I get your point. I tend to avoid superlatives (eg. best of, greatest ever etc.) as much as possible, but I've never found any other operatic composer that could match Mozart's final operas. I would also add that, to me, they also anticipated Romantic opera at the highest level. But, of course, that's all IMO.


It's always reassuring to hear that people don't mean exactly what they say - unless they do, or kind of do, maybe. Or maybe not. 

I don't know what you mean by "anticipated Romantic opera at the highest level," or how _Figaro_ and _Cosi,_ say, anticipated it at all. I can see the supernatural element of _Magic Flute_ as somewhat (but not really) Romantic, and maybe the talking statue and the fires of hell that claimed the Don, which the real Romantics liked enough to want to end the opera with it and turn _Don Giovanni_ into the Romantic opera it isn't. Without tragedy (unless you think Don Giovanni is tragic), or religion, or myth and legend, or characters riven by value conflicts or driven by quests, or the enveloping presence of nature as a metaphor for internal states of soul, or an "impossible dream" to dream (unless you think Don Giovanni is a perverted idealist), Mozart has few of the hallmarks of the Romantic opera soon to come. Am I missing something?

(Weird editing job on the quote, btw...)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Statements like these are so...so...so...
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> ...


I am in agreement with most of what you say here. I know people of varied operatic taste that find Mozart opera tiresome - I dont understand why - but that is taste for you.

I have also heard Verdi fans doing what you accuse Mozart fans of - so it is not unique.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

silentio said:


> Certainly, no slouch; it is _the thing_!
> 
> I agree with you mostly, except for the Norma part . I think the 19th century opera that came closest to Mozart is Verdi's Falstaff.


Carmen and Otello come close too - superlative from start to finish.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figaro is one of the three greatest operas ever written - the other two are Cosi and Giovanni. No other composer expresses emotion with the subtlety and expression of Mozart and no other composer builds identification with characters in the way he does. Verdi comes closest and also Bizet in Carmen. The point is though Mozart's characters are real although the story might be fanciful (as in Cosi) but the emotions expressed one can identify with. Take the Countess singing 'Dove Sono' as the expression of a wronged woman. perfect in every way!


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> It is perfectly possible for intelligent and musically sophisticated people to find Mozart's [...] works as whole artistic experiences do not cut very deep or make any statement about reality that's challenging or life-altering.


Yeah but they're still wrong.



Woodduck said:


> New concepts of artistic value, arising out of subsequent cultural milieus and new understandings of man and nature, were bound to put Mozart's unquestionably well-crafted art into boader perspectives.


Ok but now you've proved that "Erwartung" is better than Wagner (and "Einstein on the Beach" is better than either).



Woodduck said:


> I don't know what you mean by "anticipated Romantic opera at the highest level," or how _Figaro_ and _Cosi,_ say, anticipated it at all. I can see the supernatural element of _Magic Flute_ as somewhat (but not really) Romantic, and maybe the talking statue and the fires of hell that claimed the Don, which the real Romantics liked enough to want to end the opera with it and turn _Don Giovanni_ into the Romantic opera it isn't. Without tragedy (unless you think Don Giovanni is tragic), or religion, or myth and legend, or characters riven by value conflicts or driven by quests, or the enveloping presence of nature as a metaphor for internal states of soul, or an "impossible dream" to dream (unless you think Don Giovanni is a perverted idealist), Mozart has few of the hallmarks of the Romantic opera soon to come. Am I missing something?


Well Romanticism is essentially adolescent so...


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Geeze, people are still overrating "Carmen"? I thought we were past that.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It's always reassuring to hear that people don't mean exactly what they say - unless they do, or kind of do, maybe. Or maybe not.


There was no equivocating. I'll rephrase: I try to avoid superlatives, but in the case of Mozart's late operas I make an exception.



> I don't know what you mean by "anticipated Romantic opera at the highest level," or how _Figaro_ and _Cosi,_ say, anticipated it at all. I can see the supernatural element of _Magic Flute_ as somewhat (but not really) Romantic, and maybe the talking statue and the fires of hell that claimed the Don, which the real Romantics liked enough to want to end the opera with it and turn _Don Giovanni_ into the Romantic opera it isn't. Without tragedy (unless you think Don Giovanni is tragic), or religion, or myth and legend, or characters riven by value conflicts or driven by quests, or the enveloping presence of nature as a metaphor for internal states of soul, or an "impossible dream" to dream (unless you think Don Giovanni is a perverted idealist), Mozart has few of the hallmarks of the Romantic opera soon to come. Am I missing something?


Perhaps, my statement on the Romantic thing was overly broad. I was talking about the music rather than plot lines, tragedy, etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Yeah but *they're still wrong. *
> 
> Ok but now *you've proved that "Erwartung" is better than Wagner* (and "Einstein on the Beach" is better than either).
> 
> Well Romanticism is *essentially* adolescent so...


People whose artistic tastes differ from yours are not "wrong," I've "proved" nothing of the sort, and Romanticism is too complex to be "essentially" anything.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DaveM said:


> The problem with watching Mozart's last 3 operas as your first opera experiences is that most other operas will, from now on, pale in comparison. The thing about Mozart in these operas is that he couldn't let more than a very few minutes pass without another beautifully melodious aria, duet, trio or quartet. That's not true of most other operas where there is a lot of recitatives or 'filler music' between the major pieces.
> 
> When people try to give reasons why Mozart was a genius, IMO, one doesn't have to go any farther than pointing to his last 3-4 operas (Cosi Fan Tutte is no slouch) as 18th century operatic benchmarks that would never be equaled or surpassed in the entire 19th and 20th centuries and there's no hope for the 21st! (The only one that might come close is, arguably, Bellini's Norma which has wonderful music from beginning to end.)


Well, his last 5 operas (at minimum) - Figaro, Don G. Cosi, Flute and Clemenza. All amazing.

I started with Puccini and Verdi, but it wasn't until I met Mozart that opera turned for a listen every now and then to full blown passion. If anything, Mozart's works have helped me appreciate opera, and classical music as a whole, much much more.

I would never hesitate to recommend Mozart to someone who is new to opera.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Piano, piano, piano, piano, piano...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

gellio said:


> Well, his last 5 operas (at minimum) - Figaro, Don G. Cosi, Flute and Clemenza. All amazing.
> 
> I started with Puccini and Verdi, but it wasn't until I met Mozart that opera turned for a listen every now and then to full blown passion. If anything, Mozart's works have helped me appreciate opera, and classical music as a whole, much much more.
> 
> I would never hesitate to recommend Mozart to someone who is new to opera.


Nor would I, since they are IMO the most accessible for those new to opera, but I would warn that someone that they are experiencing the cream of the crop and they might have to reduce expectations going forward.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There's probably something in Mozart to appeal to most opera newbies, but not everyone will be equally taken with all the operas. I loved the _Magic Flute_ right away, but _Don Giovanni_ less, and _Figaro_ and _Cosi_ less and even less.

There isn't a "right" sort of opera, or a best composer, to ignite someone's interest in the form. Why would anyone think otherwise? Depending on a person's background and temperament, _Wozzeck_ could be just the thing to get them excited, while _La Clemenza di Tito_ could bore them stiff.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Geeze, people are still overrating "Carmen"? I thought we were past that.


You cannot overrate Carmen. A blinding masterpiece


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> There's probably something in Mozart to appeal to most opera newbies, but not everyone will be equally taken with all the operas. I loved the _Magic Flute_ right away, but _Don Giovanni_ less, and _Figaro_ and _Cosi_ less and even less.
> 
> There isn't a "right" sort of opera, or a best composer, to ignite someone's interest in the form. Why would anyone think otherwise? *Depending on a person's background and temperament, Wozzeck could be just the thing to get them excited,* while _La Clemenza di Tito_ could bore them stiff.


Just wonder what sort of a background someone has to be from to get excited about Wozzeck!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There's probably something in Mozart to appeal to most opera newbies, but not everyone will be equally taken with all the operas...


In other words, there will be some outliers. There always are. If 'there's probably something in Mozart to appeal to most opera newbies', then that should be reason enough to recommend his operas to newbies.

Would I recommend Wagner to newbies? No. Verdi? Perhaps. Puccini? Possibly. Mozart? Definitely.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> In other words, there will be some outliers. There always are. if 'there's probably something in Mozart to appeal to most opera newbies', then that should be reason enough to recommend his operas to newbies.
> 
> Would I recommend Wagner to newbies? No. Verdi? Perhaps. Puccini? Possibly. Mozart? Definitely.


"Some" outliers? There are more of us out here than you can imagine. People shouldn't be so complacent in their assumptions about what others like, would like, or should like.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Just wonder what sort of a background someone has to be from to get excited about Wozzeck!


I would take that over Mozart even if I prefer Lulu over Wozzeck. But personally I rather recommend Puccini, Wagner and Verdi.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "Some" outliers? There are more of us out here than you can imagine. People shouldn't be so complacent in their assumptions about what others like, would like, or should like.


I believe you said 'most opera newbies'. What more does one need to recommend? 100% rather than 'most'? Perhaps have the newbie fill out a compatibility questionnaire...


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> "Some" outliers? There are more of us out here than you can imagine. People shouldn't be so complacent in their assumptions about what others like, would like, or should like.


Yes, some outliers.Berg's popularity pales in comparison to Mozart. That's a fact. So relatively speaking some outliers would be a most accurate description.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I believe you said 'most opera newbies'. What more does one need to recommend? 100% rather than 'most'? Perhaps have the newbie fill out a compatibility questionnaire...


My exact statement was: "There's probably something in Mozart to appeal to most opera newbies." That doesn't lead to the conclusion that most opera newbies should begin with Mozart, or are most likely to get excited about opera by listening to him. It means only that they'll probably hear something in him that they'll like. I enjoy a lot of Mozart's music, including things from the operas, but that doesn't mean that the operas are favorites of mine, and they're definitely not the works that made opera fascinating to me or kept me coming back to expand my operatic experience.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> Yes, some outliers.Berg's popularity pales in comparison to Mozart. That's a fact. So relatively speaking some outliers would be a most accurate description.


Heh. Aren't you forgetting a few other, ummmm, somewhat popular composers? Who, for example, appears to be the most popular opera composer here on this music forum? It might be Mozart, but it might be...!


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> People whose artistic tastes differ from yours are not "wrong," I've "proved" nothing of the sort, and Romanticism is too complex to be "essentially" anything.
> 
> I've noticed that during your various incarnations on this forum (Harold, Hildadam Bingor, and whatever else you've called yourself) that you're fond of making ex cathedra pronouncements without a shred of support, and particularly of telling people bluntly that they're "wrong."
> 
> This a forum, not a boxing ring or a sandbox. If you can back up any of these pithy little retorts with an actual argument, I'm waiting.


The first and third points don't originate with me and I don't feel like arguing about an obvious truth or telling you at length what you can look up for yourself. The second point is already an argument - that what you say about Mozart versus later operas applies equally to Wagner versus Schoenberg or Philip Glass (which is to say, it's wrong).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Magnum Miserium said:


> The first and third points don't originate with me and I don't feel like arguing about an obvious truth or telling you at length what you can look up for yourself. The second point is already an argument - that what you say about Mozart versus later operas applies equally to Wagner versus Schoenberg or Philip Glass (which is to say, it's wrong).


"Obvious truths" are as likely to be wrong as any other kind. Maybe more so - especially when people cop out with "it's obvious."

Your second "point" was based on a misinterpretation of what I said. I didn't say that new concepts of art invalidated former concepts, or were superior to them, only that they afforded new perspectives on them. But you too can "look it up for yourself."


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Your second "point" was based on a misinterpretation of what I said. I didn't say that new concepts of art invalidated former concepts, or were superior to them, only that they afforded new perspectives on them.


No, you didn't only say that. You also tried to damn with faint praise ("undoubtedly well-crafted").


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Statements like these are so...so...so...
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> ...


My sincerest condolences in not being able (or willing) to appreciate an opera that has been called the greatest ever by many informed musicians and audiences. I guess this only proves the old adage: there is no accounting for taste.

Brahms had the right idea when he famously said:

_"In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle," composer Johannes Brahms said of Mozart's great opera a century after its creation. "It is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven." _


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Magnum Miserium said:


> No, you didn't only say that. You also tried to damn with faint praise ("undoubtedly well-crafted").


A nonenthusiast's respectful acknowledgment is an enthusiast's damnation. But guess what? There's opera after Mozart. He didn't say it all. Not even close. Some people don't find that what he did say says anything that they want to hear often, and they - I, at least - find persnickety and presumptuous arbiters of taste even less compelling.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

poconoron said:


> My sincerest condolences in not being able (or willing) to appreciate an opera that has been called the greatest ever by many informed musicians and audiences. I guess this only proves the old adage: there is no accounting for taste.


...and many informed musicians and audiences disagree so why is one group more correct than another? This is starting to sound like a religious argument, i.e. my truth is more of a truth than your truth.

Regarding Brahms' quote, since when did he have a monopoly on truth?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> My first Opera was The Magic Flute, and now my second, Figaro. It was good!
> 
> This version:


And all that typing for one line: Just Finished Figaro .


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> A nonenthusiast's respectful acknowledgment is an enthusiast's damnation. But guess what? There's opera after Mozart. He didn't say it all. Not even close. Some people don't find that what he did say says anything that they want to hear often, and they - I, at least - find persnickety and presumptuous arbiters of taste even less compelling.


I think you should probably let it go. You have made your objections plain on countless occasions.

But why do you never object when Beethoven fans start making impossible to prove claims? ie - "Beethoven was the pinncale of symphonic art"

maybe you agree with the last statement - as unfounded as any comments made in favour of Mozart I have heard. Beethoven was not the last word in the symphony.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> But why do you never object when Beethoven fans start making impossible to prove claims? ie - "Beethoven was the pinncale of symphonic art"


Because those claims, of course, are quite true.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> I think you should probably let it go. You have made your objections plain on countless occasions.
> 
> But why do you never object when Beethoven fans start making impossible to prove claims? ie - "Beethoven was the pinncale of symphonic art"
> 
> maybe you agree with the last statement - as unfounded as any comments made in favour of Mozart I have heard. Beethoven was not the last word in the symphony.


Well, goodness, I can hardly be expected to go around looking for every extravagant and unprovable claim, can I? But the next time you see one, if you'll be so kind as to draw my attention to it, I'll be happy to raise an objection.

I'm not sure what the "it" is that you want me to let go. I might point out that this is the first objection I've raised to this particular poster's particular objections to my particular objections. Context is everything.

And to the ultimate point: it appears that some people never learn that their opinions as to what is the absolute greatest thing among all things is just their opinion and not a fact. When they learn that, others will stop objecting. And that really _is_ a fact.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

poconoron said:


> My sincerest condolences in not being able (or willing) to appreciate an opera that has been called the greatest ever by many informed musicians and audiences. I guess this only proves the old adage: there is no accounting for taste.
> 
> Brahms had the right idea when he famously said:
> 
> _"In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle," composer Johannes Brahms said of Mozart's great opera a century after its creation. "It is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven." _


Yes. Leave it to Brahms. Short concise and to the point. Gets right to the heart of the matter. No bloviating for him!


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Statements like these are so...so...so...


Absolute? Tiresome? Unprovable and unsupportable?

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, goodness, I can hardly be expected to go around looking for every extravagant and unprovable claim, can I? But the next time you see one, if you'll be so kind as to draw my attention to it, I'll be happy to raise an objection.
> 
> I'm not sure what the "it" is that you want me to let go. I might point out that this is the first objection I've raised to this particular poster's particular objections to my particular objections. Context is everything.
> 
> And to the ultimate point: it appears that some people never learn that their opinions as to what is the absolute greatest thing among all things is just their opinion and not a fact. When they learn that, others will stop objecting. And that really _is_ a fact.


Perhaps you will start by accounting for your own words - this taken from the why I like Beethoven thread

"Then his late period takes us to an extraordinary world which still defies description *and stands in lonely eminence among the world's music*, a testament to the creative spirit burrowing deep into itself and finding there an unfathomable well of inspiration.

I wonder: if we didn't know beforehand, would we recognize earliest and latest Beethoven as the same man? For that matter, would we identify all the piano sonatas as being by the same composer? Yet who else could have written them?

Beethoven is a mountain. You can't get around him without experiencing an immense journey, and if you're attentive you'll be changed by it. "

Some quite esoteric claims there not far removed from the "Mozart is the greatest" type of comment you often demand justification for. It is quite clear that you are in utter awe of Beethoven. What do you mean by the language I have highlighted in bold? You mean that Beethoven's late period is - what exactly? Superior in eminance to Mozart's late period, or any other composer's late period.
Perhaps you will explain.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

@DavidA response to what background would you have to be from to like Wozzeck comment

The first opera I fell in love with was Lulu. The standard repertoire operas aren't always the best intro.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mathisdermaler said:


> @DavidA response to what background would you have to be from to like Wozzeck comment
> 
> The first opera I fell in love with was Lulu. *The standard repertoire operas aren't always the best intro*.


But they almost always are.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Perhaps you will start by accounting for your own words - this taken from the why I like Beethoven thread
> 
> "Then his late period takes us to an extraordinary world which still defies description *and stands in lonely eminence among the world's music*, a testament to the creative spirit burrowing deep into itself and finding there an unfathomable well of inspiration.
> 
> ...


My description of Beethoven's late work is hardly esoteric. It's not even original. In fact, I'd say it's rather commonplace.

There are distinctions to be made here. I didn't say that Beethoven, or his late music, is _superior in an absolute sense_ to, say, music of Bach or Mozart or Wagner. I could just as well have said that Bach's passions and _B-minor Mass_, or Beethoven's symphonies taken as a body, or Wagner's _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_, or Verdi's _Falstaff_, have a peculiar eminence with respect to the unique qualities they exhibit. I do believe that these are extraordinary inspired and accomplished works of art, yes; I'm not an "absolute subjectivist" when it comes to judging artistic merit - one of those poor souls forced by their own logic to hold that _Hamlet_ is in fact no better than a TV soap opera or the Sistine Chapel ceiling no better than little Suzie's finger painting, and that nothing can be superior to anything else, much less qualify for a term such as "greatness," so long as one single person living under a rock somewhere is incapable of understanding why it can. There is such a thing as aesthetic discrimination, and it's a thing that some possess more than others and can be cultivated and refined. But when it comes to distinguishing subtle levels of greatness in the realm of great art, we have to realize that works of art differ enormously in their expressive goals, and that here subjective preference inevitably colors judgment. And so judgment must hold back with a modicum of humility and not obliviously run roughshod over the differing predilections of others.

As to the late work of Beethoven, it certainly does "stand in lonely eminence." It resembles little that preceded it and little that came after it. It is stunning in the originality, extent and richness of the aesthetic terrain it explores - in its range of technique and expression, its structural originality and brilliance, and ultimately the way in which it tends to leave those who appreciate it stammering in inarticulate bafflement in their search for words to comprehend its source in Beethoven's spirit and its peculiar effect on their own. All the greatest art baffles us, in the sense that we're amazed that anyone could have imagined such an unprecedented world of meaning and realized it with such seeming ease that it presents itself to us complete, as if it had to exist or had always existed. In all these ways I find little in music to set alongside the late works of Beethoven, and nothing to surpass it.

As far as opera is concerned, the work that baffles me most, in the sense defined above, is _Tristan und Isolde_ - again, hardly an "esoteric" view: Verdi, late in life, described himself standing "in wonder and terror" before _Tristan_, and said that he found it almost inconceivable that the opera had been composed by a human being. No musically and culturally informed person, whether they enjoy Wagner's music or not, can view _Tristan_ as anything less than a unique and momentous phenomenon in the history of music, musical drama, and Western culture; it would be hard to argue that any other opera has a comparable status. And when I catch myself playing, in the part of my brain that still cares whether my slice of birthday cake is as big as my little brother's, the "greatest" game, I tend to think that _Tristan_ is the greatest of all operas. And then I ask myself whether, just maybe, _Parsifal_ is greater!

I know very well that this "greatest" game is one I play in order to pretend to myself that I'm capable of wrapping my mind around something too big for it. And so you won't catch me planting my flag in ground that I have no claim to and declaring that the whole continent of opera should belong to the state of "Wagnerica," in which simple organ grinders like Mozart and Puccini may be permitted to exist only if they recognize that King Richard rules over them by divine right. I see no reason why the lovers of Mozart's operas and the lovers of Wagner's can't get along, even if they can't quite see what all the fuss is about on the other side, so long as they recognize that all this "my masterpiece is better than your masterpiece" stuff is juvenile.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> My description of Beethoven's late work is hardly esoteric. It's not even original. In fact, I'd say it's rather commonplace.
> 
> There are distinctions to be made here. I didn't say that Beethoven, or his late music, is _superior in an absolute sense_ to, say, music of Bach or Mozart or Wagner. I could just as well have said that Bach's passions and _B-minor Mass_, or Beethoven's symphonies taken as a body, or Wagner's _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_, or Verdi's _Falstaff_, have a peculiar eminence with respect to the unique qualities they exhibit. I do believe that these are extraordinary inspired and accomplished works of art, yes; I'm not an "absolute subjectivist" when it comes to judging artistic merit - one of those poor souls forced by their own logic to hold that _Hamlet_ is in fact no better than a TV soap opera or the Sistine Chapel ceiling no better than little Suzie's finger painting, and that nothing can be superior to anything else, much less qualify for a term such as "greatness," so long as one single person living under a rock somewhere is incapable of understanding why it can. There is such a thing as aesthetic discrimination, and it's a thing that some possess more than others and can be cultivated and refined. But when it comes to distinguishing subtle levels of greatness in the realm of great art, we have to realize that works of art differ enormously in their expressive goals, and that here subjective preference inevitably colors judgment. And so judgment must hold back with a modicum of humility and not obliviously run roughshod over the differing predilections of others.
> 
> ...


In view of these comments - I really am surprised you keep taking exception to "figaro shines like a beacon upon all of music before and after" type comments. why not just take them for what they are - praise and enthusiasm of the listener. and imagine each comment is prefaced by the words "in my opinion"

it will make your life much easier


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

stomanek said:


> In view of these comments - I really am surprised you keep taking exception to "figaro shines like a beacon upon all of music before and after" type comments. why not just take them for what they are - praise and enthusiasm of the listener. and imagine each comment is prefaced by the words "in my opinion"
> 
> it will make your life much easier


Exactly! At least in the case of my posts on the subject of the late Mozart operas, it seems as if somewhere along the line, what was obviously an opinion based on not only my experience, but that of many others, was twisted into meaning some declaration of absolute fact and/or statement as to which composer should be considered 'the best' at something simply because I say so.

Point being that, unless one declares some sort of 'all-knowing' superiority, everything that is stated in posts on this forum should be taken as 'IMO', especially if 'IMO', 'arguably' or some such appears in the post. Not to mention that we are allowed to defend our opinions without it being taken as an absolute directive for others to follow. And jeez, we are allowed to gush once in awhile just as some, including myself, do about Beethoven.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

stomanek said:


> But they almost always are.


I think people should pretty much follow their heart and own intuitive judgment when getting into any style of music. Listening to Mozart first just because its basic is the wrong course of action. If you like very epic rock or metal music, you're better off starting with Wagner, and if you like avant garde rock or electronic music, Berg. I suppose you're right though, as most people don't like those genres.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

stomanek said:


> But they almost always are.


This isn't true at all, in my experience.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> In view of these comments - I really am surprised you keep taking exception to *"figaro shines like a beacon upon all of music before and after"* type comments. why not just take them for what they are - praise and enthusiasm of the listener. and imagine each comment is prefaced by the words "in my opinion"
> 
> it will make your life much easier


On this thread we've had statements such as "Le nozze di Figaro is without compare the greatest opera ever written," and "Figaro is one of the three greatest operas ever written - the other two are Cosi and Giovanni," and (my favorite, since I love condescending pity) "My sincerest condolences in not being able (or willing) to appreciate an opera that has been called the greatest ever by many informed musicians and audiences. I guess this only proves the old adage: there is no accounting for taste."

Well! < Jack Benny pose> _Does_ _Figaro_ "shine like a beacon upon all music before and after?" Does _anything?_ What could that possibly _mean?_ Is it just an expression of enthusiasm, like "I love Figaro" or "Mozart's genius amazes me"? Then why not say "I love Figaro" or "Mozart's genius amazes me"? Why resort to "My Daddy's stronger than your Daddy?"

Because I work fairly hard to say what I mean and mean what I say, I don't have much additional energy to take on the responsibility of figuring out what people who don't are "really" saying. The work of seeking exactness and avoiding bloviation is not a burden to me, and neglecting to analyze the "alternative facts" that float in the atmosphere around me really would not make my life "much easier." In fact, life seems easiest to me when I can make order out of chaos. I enjoy it.

I'm sorry if doing what I enjoy spoils anyone's fun, but my kind of enjoyment is as good as anyone's. It might even be the greatest form of enjoyment that ever existed or ever will exist, shining like a beacon on all enjoyment before and after.

"IMO," of course. :tiphat:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

As at least reasonably educated readers and thinkers, I believe most of us can tell when a statement made is an opinion, even if the person making it may not. (The only problem comes in when said person explicitly insists that it is objective fact and not an opinion, over and over and over again.)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> This isn't true at all, in my experience.


so newcomers to opera are more likely to find appeal in Lulu or Wozzek or Peter Grimes than Figaro, La Traviata or Carmen?

in your experience.

or do you mean just you?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Exactly! At least in the case of my posts on the subject of the late Mozart operas, it seems as if somewhere along the line, what was obviously an opinion based on not only my experience, but that of many others, was twisted into meaning some declaration of absolute fact and/or statement as to which composer should be considered 'the best' at something simply because I say so.


To be clear, my posts, on the other hand, are declarations of absolute fact.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I came across the Final Poll which had both Tristan and Isolde and Marriage of Figaro on it, and was wondering which I'd picked then came across this thread.  very timely... they are just different. Marriage of Figaro, as some put it, densely packs a lot of great music together, while with Wagner, his ideas take more time to unfold, some might say the great moments and overall impact is higher? I've listened to Verdi's Otello also, and thought it was great. Impossible to rate which is better. The musical language of Mozart's is definitely different than Wagner's. From a modern music standpoint like someone mentioned, they all had their time and place, and are only as relevant as the fans still make them to be, not to say they lose any of the greatness as in the day they were first performed. More fans of one doesn't make the other less.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What has become of my thread? :lol:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What has become of my thread? :lol:


Like all the best threads, it is being woven into a grand tapestry (or is it a travesty?)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> Like all the best threads, it is being woven into a grand tapestry (or is it a travesty?)


When in doubt, choose the optimistic choice. Tapestry it is!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

gellio said:


> I am also in love with _Fidelio_ The Karajan studio recording with Vickers and Dernesch and the Bernstein recording with Janowitz are the best. You will hear over and over again that the Klemperer recording of Fidelio is the best. It is very well sung, but Klemperer had no insight into how Beethoven should be conducted. His interpretation is severely lacking in dramatic momentum and more importantly passion. In Klemperer's day, it was the norm to conduct Beethoven the way he did, unfortunately. As a result, Karajan's magnificent recording didn't get the recognition it deserved. It is miraculous, and I am not a big Karajan fan, at all. It is as well sung as Klemperer's. The best Fidelio is Karajan.


I'm a big fan of Klemperer's Beethoven, including Symphonies. His way is more measured and statelier, but i find it full of passion suppressed just below the surface. Always preferred that way over making the emotions more obvious.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm a big fan of Klemperer's Beethoven, including Symphonies. His way is more measured and statelier, but i find it full of passion suppressed just below the surface. Always preferred that way over making the emotions more obvious.


Interesting take. The thing I love about classical music is we all get different things out of different performances. I'm not a fan of Klemperer, in General, at all. My only exposure to him was through Mozart and Beethoven, and I think his approach is too slow and all wrong. But, I can say that Knappertsbusch's is too slow and yet his performances are so riveting. So, I don't think my issue with Klemperer is speed. I think it's I get no feeling or emotion out of his conducting.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

stomanek said:


> so newcomers to opera are more likely to find appeal in Lulu or Wozzek or Peter Grimes than Figaro, La Traviata or Carmen?
> 
> in your experience.
> 
> or do you mean just you?


I don't know about more likely, but you said "almost always" - very strong claim, which I'm sure is wrong.

I personally did come to classical music through the standard rep, because my parents played it a lot - the first operas I liked were Carmen and Don Giovanni. But I have friends who came to classical music later and whose experience was different.

I would bet that newcomers under the age of about 35 or 40 are more likely to find appeal in Lulu and Wozzeck than in La Traviata, now that you mention it. I certainly was, and still am.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What has become of my thread? :lol:


The Norns must have gotten to it


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What has become of my thread? :lol:


This my friend is what you are going to see lots of times.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

All it needs is a comment about 4:33.


(Oops)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> The Norns must have gotten to it


Nothing abnornal about that.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> All it needs is a comment about 4:33.
> 
> (Oops)


Gotcha :lol: ..


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What is this 4:33 everyone keeps referring to?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What is this 4:33 everyone keeps referring to?


It is basically a controversial stunt, or a profound commentary on music, depending on which side you fall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> It is basically a controversial stunt, or a profound commentary on music, depending on which side you fall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″


I just looked it up, so silly imo.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just looked it up, so silly imo.


You've been warned . . .


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

jegreenwood said:


> You've been warned . . .


Boromir (in "The Lord of the Rings"): "It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing. Such a little thing."


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I don't know about more likely, but you said "almost always" - very strong claim, which I'm sure is wrong.
> 
> I personally did come to classical music through the standard rep, because my parents played it a lot - the first operas I liked were Carmen and Don Giovanni. But I have friends who came to classical music later and whose experience was different.
> 
> I would bet that newcomers under the age of about 35 or 40 are more likely to find appeal in Lulu and Wozzeck than in La Traviata, now that you mention it. I certainly was, and still am.


Well I am nearly sure that you cannot be sure my claim is wrong. How can you be? Have you done a count.
OK - almost always is too much - let us say over 50% of the time - I think it is probably much more than that.
I was 25 when I discovered Figaro - and of the friends I have who have discovered opera - they all came to it through a standard repertoire piece. So my experience conflicts with yours.
why do you bet that newcomers will find more appeal in Lulu and Wozzek? Seems to me the opposite will be the case and according to all listening stats - wozzek and lulu are down there with Peter Grimes and Nixon in China. Those operas are all hardly performed compared to traviata, don giovanni etc - and being rarey performed - how do you suppose newcomers will have access to them? Online listening? Why would a newcomer be more likely to say - he let's try opera - now what comes to mind? Wozzek!
That seems unlikely. Much more likely they will think of Carmen, Barber of Seville (Figaro la figaro qua etc) or Marriage of Figaro (thinking it has the figaro la figaro qua aria in it). 
The only reason they would come first to Wozzek is because they have a friend who recommends it. It is much more likely that friends will recommend standard rep pieces simply because they are much more popular.


----------

