# Wagner & Mahler



## 1996D

The more I listen to Wagner the more I see how much Mahler took from him, to a point where it can be said that the latter would not have reached anywhere near the same heights without the work of the former.

Wagner does take a lot of your time, too much for almost everyone, so there are few who know his music intimately, while Mahler while not a creator of short works, still has average lengths a third or fourth of Wagner's, and this results in listeners attributing more to the former, like it had never been done before, but the truth being that up until the 5th very little Mahler created was original.

I can wholeheartedly say that the more you know Wagner the more you realize that he is second to none in genius, truly the father of all music of substance that followed him.


----------



## Ethereality

Certainly not the father of large visionary music with substance and expression, 

but certainly unparalleled in his breadth, and surpassing Mahler's capability.


----------



## flamencosketches

You know, I've heard others say this recently too. There's probably a lot of truth in it. Wagner was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a great composer (and so was Mahler, I hope we can agree). I'll be sticking with Mahler for now. As you say, even Mahler demands a pretty good chunk of your time, but I can listen to an hour and a half Mahler symphony on headphones in the morning while getting ready for work (I just have to make myself get up earlier, which is no problem if Mahler is the catalyst for that  ). I just don't have four hours on any given day to complete a Wagner opera. Perhaps in the future I will begin to jones for the undiluted source, and it will have to be Wagner or bust. But I suspect it'll be 5, 10 years before I reach that point. I've said it a million times and I'll say it again; I'm just not an opera guy. Whether that will always remain the case is a different matter, but for now, give me "pure" music on the one hand, and give me films, books, and theatre on the other. Two completely different art forms for me; they work better when enjoyed separately.


----------



## Granate

Old threads worth reading, even if I'd rather new members looked up the topics before opening a new thread.

*Wagner vs Mahler (2011)*
*Was Richard Wagner The Most Influential Composer For Gustav Mahler? (2016)*
*I cannot understand why some who loves Wagner would dislike Mahler (2012)*

As Rosalía the singer said: "todo está inventao".


----------



## tdc

I think Mahler was influenced by Wagner to about the same degree Bach was influenced by Buxtehude, Beethoven was influenced by Mozart, Ravel was influenced by Debussy etc. 

I think you over state Wagner's influence considerably, as many do who over look the concept of 'form' in music. Wagner composed no symphonies, nor any set of preludes for piano etc. He composed for the most part opera only and essentially devised his own set of rules for the form that opera or 'music drama' took. Many feel those operas as a whole are successful in terms of form and a good number of people do not. Some suggest his works contain some excellent attributes mixed in with some tedious or less than excellent attributes. This is part of the problem with focusing only on gargantuan works, they are difficult to pull off and they tend to be judged as a whole. 

Wagner took ideas from many composers and then created something different as did Mahler. He had some revolutionary ideas that inspired a number of composers who in turn extended some aspects of his music into other works taking on different forms and characteristics. Wagner should not be then given the bulk of the credit for these other works which take on different forms, and have very different expressive and aesthetic focus. If Wagner was a versatile master as most of the other composers that are considered 'top tier', we would then have a number of works in other forms in his oeuvre - symphonies, miniatures for solo instrument, chamber music etc. We don't have any of those things so there is no evidence to support he would excel in any of those areas. What we have are a number of very large works that few would dispute contain some brilliance, but are controversial among professionals and listeners alike in terms of their coherence as a whole.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I tend to agree with 1996D, basically without Wagner, there'd be no Bruckner or Mahler. I feel 80% of their music is directly influenced from Wagner.


----------



## MrMeatScience

Mahler's earliest music sounds considerably more like Wagner than any of the symphonies do. Check out _Das Klagende Lied_ if you haven't heard it before. Parts of it sound like they're straight out of _Siegfried_. Wagner was undoubtedly a massive influence on Mahler, especially in his younger days.


----------



## DavidA

While Mahler was obviously influenced by Wagner (he conducted his operas of course) one mustn't over-emphasise the influence. As has been pointed out, Wagner was strictly a one-dimensional composer who could only see his music dramas and no other form. You could almost say the same of Mahler of course, but Mahler was only a part-time composer. Mahler obviously continued where Wagner left off. In Bruckner the influence is more readily felt.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> While Mahler was obviously influenced by Wagner (he conducted his operas of course) one mustn't over-emphasise the influence. As has been pointed out, Wagner was strictly a one-dimensional composer who could only see his music dramas and no other form. You could almost say the same of Mahler of course, but Mahler was only a part-time composer. Mahler obviously continued where Wagner left off. In Bruckner the influence is more readily felt.


I must disagree at every point here. I'm not sure how much emphasis on Mahler's Wagnerian influences would be too much emphasis; of the composers who contributed to Mahler's style, Wagner may be the most conspicuous. Consider the expansive time-scale, the orchestral richness, the expressive intensity, the programmatic and even pictorial content, the super-Romantic idea that music can be made a vehicle for conveying philosophical ideas... Then there are any number of specific musical gestures that come right out of Wagner (I'm thinking particularly of the melodic turn followed by a leap, frequent in Wagner and ubiquitous in Mahler).

One-dimensional is not a very apt description of a composer who, despite working mainly in a single genre, achieved as wide a structural and expressive range as Wagner or Mahler did. The individual operas of Wagner show an endless quest for new musical "dimensions." It's also a little baffling to hear that Mahler continued where Wagner left off; as far as I can tell, Wagner didn't "leave off" in the midst of anything that needed continuing, but pretty thoroughly exploited the possibilities of his own genre, a genre which Mahler did not take up.

As for Bruckner, his Wagnerian qualities are pretty superficial; I'd say that it's in his case, not Mahler's, that Wagner's influence tends to be overemphasized. Wagner's musical constructions are dramatically motivated, not essentially abstract, and Mahler's intense psychodramas, his proto-cinematic landscapes, and his efforts to integrate into symphonic structures his philosophical concerns, are much closer to Wagner's Romantic aesthetic than are Bruckner's austerely architectural structures.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> I just don't have four hours on any given day to complete a Wagner opera. Perhaps in the future I will begin to jones for the undiluted source, and it will have to be Wagner or bust. But I suspect it'll be 5, 10 years before I reach that point. I've said it a million times and I'll say it again; I'm just not an opera guy.


Not all of Wagner's operas are four hours in duration. But for starters you could pick up a set of overtures and preludes. The music contained in these pieces alone is worth your attention. I bought the Klemperer 5 CD box for 12 bucks. Includes his awesome renditions of several Strauss tone poems as well.


----------



## Machiavel

Woodduck said:


> *Consider the expansive time-scale, the orchestral richness, the expressive intensity, the programmatic and even pictorial content, the super-Romantic idea that music can be made a vehicle for conveying profound philosophical ideas*...
> 
> You mean like Berlioz did with Romeo and Juliet 24 yuears before Wagner Tristan.
> 
> If BErlioz had a german name he would be right upthere with all the greats, bach , beethoven, wagner and so on instead of being relagated to alsmot second rate composer by many here.


----------



## Woodduck

flamencosketches said:


> I've said it a million times and I'll say it again; I'm just not an opera guy.


Good news! If you have time to say anything a million and one times, you have time to listen to an opera.


----------



## Woodduck

Machiavel said:


> Woodduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Consider the expansive time-scale, the orchestral richness, the expressive intensity, the programmatic and even pictorial content, the super-Romantic idea that music can be made a vehicle for conveying profound philosophical ideas*...
> 
> You mean like Berlioz did with Romeo and Juliet 24 yuears before Wagner Tristan.
> 
> If BErlioz had a german name he would be right upthere with all the greats, bach , beethoven, wagner and so on instead of being relagated to alsmot second rate composer by many here.
> 
> 
> 
> Berlioz is seminal to the Romantic "progressives," as Wagner gratefully acknowledged, sending him a score to the _Tristan_ prelude as a gift. Apparently Berlioz found its hyperchromaticism baffling, or at least said he did.
> 
> I take your point about Berlioz not having a German name, but more significantly he doesn't have a German temperament. For all his wild eccentricity, there's a lightness, a sort of Gallic Classicism, pointed out many years ago by Jacques Barzun and Colin Davis, which feels alien to the Liszt-Wagner-Mahler-Strauss lineage. Set his operas alongside Wagner's and you find an entirely different emotional world, as unlike Wagner's as paintings by Jacques-Louis David are unlike those of Caspar David Friedrich. Vivid and exciting as Berlioz's music is, it isn't, by and large, psycholgically probing as Wagner's and Mahler's is.
Click to expand...


----------



## 1996D

I will add that I'm simply talking about the music of both in a technical manner, and not the artistic range or emotional depths of the composers. Mahler did surpass Wagner across the board in those regards, but he came after so it's natural, all the innovative technical work had already been explored and put on a platter for him, and thus left free to focus on other things.

Just like the Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven line of succession - a Liszt, Wagner, Mahler one could be made, each pupil of course surpassing the master, as it should be.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I will add that I'm simply talking about the music of both in a technical manner, and not the artistic range or emotional depths of the composers. Mahler did *surpass *Wagner across the board in those regards, but he came after so it's natural, all the innovative technical work had already been explored and put on a platter for him, and thus left free to focus on other things.
> 
> Just like the Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven *line of succession* - a Liszt, Wagner, Mahler one could be made, each *pupil* of course *surpassing* the master, as it should be.


I'm just dying for a definition of "surpass." Definitions of "line of succession" and "pupil" might be interesting too...


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> Machiavel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Berlioz is seminal to the Romantic "progressives," as Wagner gratefully acknowledged, sending him a score to the _Tristan_ prelude as a gift. Apparently Berlioz found its hyperchromaticism baffling, or at least said he did.
> 
> I take your point about Berlioz not having a German name, but more significantly he doesn't have a German temperament. For all his wild eccentricity, there's a lightness, a sort of Gallic Classicism, pointed out many years ago by Jacques Barzun and Colin Davis, which feels alien to the Liszt-Wagner-Mahler-Strauss lineage. Set his operas alongside Wagner's and you find an entirely different emotional world, as unlike Wagner's as paintings by Jacques-Louis David are unlike those of Caspar David Friedrich. Vivid and exciting as Berlioz's music is, it isn't, by and large, psycholgically probing as Wagner's and Mahler's is.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely sure about characterising Berlioz's music as not as psychologically probing as that of Wagner or Mahler. It definitely lacks the sense of German sonority, as you yourself pointed out, but it has a certain awareness of the absurdity of life that one finds totally lacking in the music of Mahler and Wagner; I feel they took themselves much more seriously and it came through in their music.
> 
> It is though, often understated how much influence Berlioz had on Wagner. As someone who listened to much of Berlioz's output before touching Wagner, I remember thinking, while listening to Wagner, just how much he owed to Berlioz.
> 
> I do think the stated influence of Wagner on Mahler may be overstated by the OP. Listening to something like _Tristan und Isolde_ you are often baffled by the sheer totality of the vision: the unrelenting passion and consuming world that Wagner thought up. I find Mahler to be much less single-minded. It can come across as unfocused but Mahler did say "a symphony must be like the world; it must contain everything" and this is, perhaps, his way of attempting to capture the world, for better, or for worse.
Click to expand...


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not entirely sure about characterising Berlioz's music as not as psychologically probing as that of Wagner or Mahler. It definitely lacks the sense of German sonority, as you yourself pointed out, but it has a certain awareness of the absurdity of life that one finds totally lacking in the music of Mahler and Wagner; I feel they took themselves much more seriously and it came through in their music.


In what works of Berlioz do you sense this awareness of the absurdity of life? I'm wondering how music can convey such a concept.



> I do think the stated influence of Wagner on Mahler may be overstated by the OP. Listening to something like _Tristan und Isolde_ you are often baffled by the sheer totality of the vision: the unrelenting passion and consuming world that Wagner thought up. I find Mahler to be much less single-minded. It can come across as unfocused but Mahler did say "a symphony must be like the world; it must contain everything" and this is, perhaps, his way of attempting to capture the world, for better, or for worse.


_Tristan_ is unique among Wagner's works in its relentlessness, its portrayal of an emotional world of almost obsessive singularity and claustrophobic intensity. It's very unlike Berlioz, Mahler, or anything else; perhaps only Strauss's _Elektra_ approaches its monomaniacal intensity (though in a crazier and - dare I say - kitchier way). Wagner's other operas incorporate a greater diversity of ideas, dramatic and musical, and in fact revel in philosophical, psychological and musical oppositions. The _Ring_ is indeed "like the world," and contains, if not everything, as much as a work of art reasonably can; it, along with _Meistersinger_ and _Parsifal_ (to cite only the later works), are precisely about struggles between fundamental forces, sociological and spiritual. I think Mahler was eager to bring a similar complexity and breadth to the symphony, and his complex, conflicted personality made him just the man to do it.


----------



## flamencosketches

Woodduck said:


> Good news! If you have time to say anything a million and one times, you have time to listen to an opera.


Touché. :lol: The point being that I don't like opera enough to spend all that time listening to it. I'd rather spend that time saying the same thing over and over on the internet.


----------



## Triplets

flamencosketches said:


> Touché. :lol: The point being that I don't like opera enough to spend all that time listening to it. I'd rather spend that time saying the same thing over and over on the internet.


You can always listen to an Opera while you fritter away time on the 'net...we all multi task these days...


----------



## flamencosketches

Triplets said:


> You can always listen to an Opera while you fritter away time on the 'net...we all multi task these days...


This is true. But the times that I get the most out of opera is with libretto in hand following along with the plot and everything that's going on, something I enjoy doing maybe once every two months. Last I did this, I think, was w/ Pelléas et Mélisande back in maybe September. I really enjoyed it, but have not been drawn back to it or any other opera since. Eventually, I'm sure, I will take the deep dive and get really into opera. That day is just not today, I'm afraid.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Was there ever any irony in Wagner’s music?


----------



## amfortas

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not entirely sure about characterising Berlioz's music as not as psychologically probing as that of Wagner or Mahler. It definitely lacks the sense of German sonority, as you yourself pointed out, but it has a certain awareness of the absurdity of life that one finds totally lacking in the music of Mahler and Wagner; I feel they took themselves much more seriously and it came through in their music.


I think Mahler had an awareness of the absurdity of life. He just took it very seriously.


----------



## Enthusiast

I guess one thing with opera are that there are several really great composers - giants like Verdi, Puccini as well as Wagner - who didn't do much else so if you avoid opera you avoid those composers. And then there are quite a few greats who excelled at opera as well as other forms - giants like Monteverdi, Purcell, Handel, Mozart, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Berg, Janacek, Britten and more - and who present to us a different face, with different musical glories to marvel at, in their operas. To avoid operas means missing so much no matter what your taste is. But I must confess that I do find some composers' operas easier to listen to as "pure music" (without the _need _to follow the drama closely) than others. I do find myself enjoying Verdi operas more when I am watching them, for example.


----------



## Woodduck

Bwv 1080 said:


> Was there ever any irony in Wagner's music?


There are ironic situations in the plots of his operas, and the music reflects that clearly. Good examples are the character of Loge in _Das Rheingold_ and the confrontation of Tristan and Isolde in act one of their opera.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> I'm just dying for a definition of "surpass." Definitions of "line of succession" and "pupil" might be interesting too...


Culture builds on the work of the past, each time refining and improving, this why it's culture. Just because there has been a period of stagnation in the past hundred years doesn't mean that the concept of surpassing one's master is dead.

Much of what has happened in the last century has been centred not on improving but on simplifying for the sake of the people. Capitalism relies on accessibility.





In this orchestrated Sinatra version of an Eric Clapton song you can clearly hear Mahler: as with all blues and jazz they simply take out the complexity and package it to make the most money possible. In the past it wasn't so, the focus was 100% artistic and each composer improved over the last until society deteriorated to a point where that was no longer possible.


----------



## superhorn

While Bruckner and Mahler, as well as Richard Strauss, we all strongly influenced by Wagner, each has an individual voice and style of his own which is unique and unmistakable .


----------



## BachIsBest

amfortas said:


> I think Mahler had an awareness of the absurdity of life. He just took it very seriously.


Perhaps my wording was off. What I really meant is precisely that Berlioz never took life (and himself) as seriously as Mahler and Wagner. I don't think this makes him any less "psychologically probing", but rather, allows him a different perspective in his music-making.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Culture builds on the work of the past, each time refining and improving, this why it's culture. Just because there has been a period of stagnation in the past hundred years doesn't mean that the concept of surpassing one's master is dead.
> 
> Much of what has happened in the last century has been centred not on improving but on simplifying for the sake of the people. Capitalism relies on accessibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this orchestrated Sinatra version of an Eric Clapton song you can clearly hear Mahler: as with all blues and jazz they simply take out the complexity and package it to make the most money possible. In the past it wasn't so, the focus was 100% artistic and each composer improved over the last until society deteriorated to a point where that was no longer possible.


I don't think you are comparing like with like. Is this modern instrumental break complicated?


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> Culture builds on the work of the past, each time refining and improving, this why it's culture. Just because there has been a period of stagnation in the past hundred years doesn't mean that the concept of surpassing one's master is dead.
> 
> Much of what has happened in the last century has been centred not on improving but on simplifying for the sake of the people. Capitalism relies on accessibility.


I must be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that Beethoven is greater than Bach (and so is Weber) and that Brahms is better than Beethoven?


----------



## Bluecrab

1996D said:


> In this orchestrated Sinatra version of an Eric Clapton song...


Autumn Leaves is an Eric Clapton song? Well, I've learned something today. :lol:


----------



## NLAdriaan

The canonization of Wagner as the musical, emotional or philosophical Ubermensch, is grossly overrating W's accomplishments. Wagner is no God amongst his peers over time and his supposed unlimited depth is not different from other great composers. As the OP compares Mahler and Wagner, it is interesting to look at Mahler's playlist at the Wiener Staatsoper, his ultimate condcutors position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repertory_of_the_Vienna_Court_Opera_under_Gustav_Mahler
As you can see, he conducted a huge variety of Opera's and premiered many. Wagner takes a prominent position, but so do many other opera's. The number one position goes to Pagliacci.

As any frequent Mahler listener will know, Mahler's music had a great variety of influences, like street music, military bands, nature, 'psychology of mankind' and of course the canon of other composers before him. The latter goes for any composer and only outstanding composers were able to add something extra to the ongoing musical stream.

I think there is no doubt that Mahler and Wagner are both outstanding composers. It would be an interesting experiment to think how music would have evolved if one of the greats would not have composed music. But this is impossible.

So, let's just enjoy the great music left to us and available to us in endless interpretations.


----------



## Iota

1996D said:


> Just because there has been a period of stagnation in the past hundred years ..


Except that there hasn't.

There have however been some surpassingly ignorant and arrogant statements made to that end on music forums.


----------



## fluteman

tdc said:


> I think Mahler was influenced by Wagner to about the same degree Bach was influenced by Buxtehude, Beethoven was influenced by Mozart, Ravel was influenced by Debussy etc.
> 
> I think you over state Wagner's influence considerably, as many do who over look the concept of 'form' in music. Wagner composed no symphonies, nor any set of preludes for piano etc. He composed for the most part opera only and essentially devised his own set of rules for the form that opera or 'music drama' took. Many feel those operas as a whole are successful in terms of form and a good number of people do not. Some suggest his works contain some excellent attributes mixed in with some tedious or less than excellent attributes. This is part of the problem with focusing only on gargantuan works, they are difficult to pull off and they tend to be judged as a whole.
> 
> Wagner took ideas from many composers and then created something different as did Mahler. He had some revolutionary ideas that inspired a number of composers who in turn extended some aspects of his music into other works taking on different forms and characteristics. Wagner should not be then given the bulk of the credit for these other works which take on different forms, and have very different expressive and aesthetic focus. If Wagner was a versatile master as most of the other composers that are considered 'top tier', we would then have a number of works in other forms in his oeuvre - symphonies, miniatures for solo instrument, chamber music etc. We don't have any of those things so there is no evidence to support he would excel in any of those areas. What we have are a number of very large works that few would dispute contain some brilliance, but are controversial among professionals and listeners alike in terms of their coherence as a whole.


While this is an intelligent post (as usual for you) it leaves out something (at least) I consider significant about Wagner's music: the way it is generally listened to today. Most casual listeners, and even dedicated music lovers other than the hard core Wagner enthusiasts who travel to live performances Ring cycles, listen to his music as stand-alone overtures, preludes, and in a few cases, individual arias or duets. This is true to some extent for the other famous opera specialists as well, but especially for Wagner, no doubt in part due to the expense and logistical challenges of producing a complete four-hour opera with a large cast. But it is also true that in the modern age most people don't want to sit through a four-hour opera, or a four-hour anything else. Hence, your "tedious" comment. Wagner's theatrical innovations survive in the modern era for the most part in greatly truncated and modified form.

It is of course a tribute to the greatness of Wagner's music that such relatively short and mainly instrumental excerpts from his operas stand on their own so well. But in his case, much more so than for, say, Verdi, Bizet or Puccini, or certainly Donizetti, much of what he sought to accomplish with his "music dramas" is lost with this approach. He sought to create a single, cohesive, drama, not telling a story with a series of beautiful and dramatic but short set pieces, each of which earns its own round of applause as a performance in itself, as was the operatic tradition he had the courage and imagination to break away from.

A Mahler symphony is nowhere near as long or as expensive to produce as a Wagner opera. His works can still routinely be performed in their entirety. One seldom hears excerpts, with a few exceptions. So while I'll step daintily around the endless "which composer was greater" debate, more of what made Mahler's music great is readily available and routinely performed, and listened to in recordings, today.


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/richard-wagner.pdf
_"The most frequent comment about Wagner's music is, "There are some great moments but long half hours." I can see that point but the expectation of the next tremendous moment is worth the wait and can be edge of the seat excitement."_


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> While this is an intelligent post (as usual for you) it leaves out something (at least) I consider significant about Wagner's music: the way it is generally listened to today. Most casual listeners, and even dedicated music lovers other than the hard core Wagner enthusiasts who travel to live performances Ring cycles, listen to his music as stand-alone overtures, preludes, and in a few cases, individual arias or duets. This is true to some extent for the other famous opera specialists as well, but especially for Wagner, no doubt in part due to the expense and logistical challenges of producing a complete four-hour opera with a large cast. But it is also true that in the modern age most people don't want to sit through a four-hour opera, or a four-hour anything else. Hence, your "tedious" comment. Wagner's theatrical innovations survive in the modern era for the most part in greatly truncated and modified form.
> 
> It is of course a tribute to the greatness of Wagner's music that such relatively short and mainly instrumental excerpts from his operas stand on their own so well. But in his case, much more so than for, say, Verdi, Bizet or Puccini, or certainly Donizetti, much of what he sought to accomplish with his "music dramas" is lost with this approach. He sought to create a single, cohesive, drama, not telling a story with a series of beautiful and dramatic but short set pieces, each of which earns its own round of applause as a performance in itself, as was the operatic tradition he had the courage and imagination to break away from.
> 
> A Mahler symphony is nowhere near as long or as expensive to produce as a Wagner opera. His works can still routinely be performed in their entirety. One seldom hears excerpts, with a few exceptions. So while I'll step daintily around the endless "which composer was greater" debate, more of what made Mahler's music great is readily available and routinely performed, and listened to in recordings, today.


Well observed. I've sometimes felt a bit of disappointment at the relative lack of musical understanding and analysis of Wagner on TC, relative to other composers of comparable stature. The perennial debate over the identity and importance of the "Tristan chord" comes up periodically, and someone will occasionally mention the famous contrapuntal superposition of themes in the prelude to _Meistersinger,_ but I've seen very few other observations which show a close understanding of Wagner's musical methods. I have to remind myself of the very points you make - of the fact that most music lovers who enjoy the purely orchestral excerpts from the operas, and perhaps a few of the more detachable vocal scenes, simply haven't spent enough of the required time with the operas as wholes to understand in much depth and detail what's happening in them musically. It's really impossible to assess Wagner's position in the evolution of music - including his influence on Mahler - without making the effort to do that. It's fortunate that the various overtures, preludes and interludes are themselves of such distinction that those who haven't the time or inclination to immerse themselves in the operas can nonetheless enjoy Wagner's musical imagination and get an inkling of his importance.

Mahler himself, of course, knew the operas inside out from the perspectives of both composer and conductor, and he chose to remain close to them all his life. For me this is touchingly symbolized by his experiences of _Parsifal _both early and late in life. At the age of 23 he heard the opera at Bayreuth and wrote to a friend: ""I can hardly describe my present state to you. When I came out of the Festspielhaus, completely spellbound, I understood that the greatest and most painful revelation had just been made to me, and that I would carry it unspoiled for the rest of my life." That turned out to be true: we find in the song "The Drunkard in Spring" from _Das Lied von der Erde_ a prominent melodic motif (sung to the words "Der Lenz ist da") quoting the words of Gurnemanz in Act 3 of _Parsifal, _"und Lenz ist da." Mahler had marked that phrase in his personal score of the opera. Moreover, the sorrowful orchestral interlude in "Der Abschied" (The Farewell) from _Das Lied_ can hardly fail to impress a knowledgeable listener as a Mahlerian transformation of the dark, wailing interlude from that same third act of Wagner's farewell opera.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> The canonization of Wagner as the musical, emotional or philosophical Ubermensch, is grossly overrating W's accomplishments. Wagner is no God amongst his peers over time and his supposed unlimited depth is not different from other great composers.


At whom are these remarks aimed? They look like an attempt to caricature and cut down someone, whether the composer or his admirers. Is anyone calling Wagner a "musical, emotional or philosophical Ubermensch," or saying that he has "unlimited depth"? In what particular respect do you find his accomplishments "grossly overrated"? Would you say it's a gross overstatement to call him one of the most important composers in the history of music? That does seem to be the general consensus of musicians and scholars. Or have I just been imagining that all my life?



> As the OP compares Mahler and Wagner, it is interesting to look at Mahler's playlist at the Wiener Staatsoper, his ultimate condcutors position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repertory_of_the_Vienna_Court_Opera_under_Gustav_Mahler
> As you can see, he conducted a huge variety of Opera's and premiered many. Wagner takes a prominent position, but so do many other opera's. The number one position goes to Pagliacci.


What are we to conclude from this? Does it say anything about Wagner's significance as a composer, or does it more likely say that his operas are difficult to perform, expensive to produce, and less accessible to many operagoers than shorter works full of tuneful arias? Let me go out on a limb and guess that the composer of _Pagliacci_ (himself influenced by Wagner, like nearly all other opera composers of his time) would have found this a reasonable explanation for the relative prominence of various works in the repertoire.

I'm not sure what you mean by Mahler's "ultimate conductors position." I'd guess that his usual position was standing on the podium waving his arms.



> As any frequent Mahler listener will know, Mahler's music had a great variety of influences, like street music, military bands, nature, 'psychology of mankind' and of course the canon of other composers before him. The latter goes for any composer and only outstanding composers were able to add something extra to the ongoing musical stream.


Certainly.



> I think there is no doubt that Mahler and Wagner are both outstanding composers. It would be an interesting experiment to think how music would have evolved if one of the greats would not have composed music. But this is impossible. So, let's just enjoy the great music left to us and available to us in endless interpretations.


Indeed, let's just enjoy, and not feel compelled to judge others for their presumed "overrating" of the music they love.


----------



## 1996D

Iota said:


> Except that there hasn't.
> 
> There have however been some surpassingly ignorant and arrogant statements made to that end on music forums.


But of course there has, we haven't had a musical mind that has impacted the world in a long time.

The argument can be made that without Wagner there would've been no Hitler, so that's to say that music can have a great impact on politics, and not just be a hedonistic pass time. Classical music hasn't been in a position of influence in some time, and only true innovation will return it to the forefront of the artistic and political stage.

Of course this time hopefully it'll be for the good.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> But of course there has, we haven't had a musical mind that has impacted the world in a long time.
> 
> *The argument can be made that without Wagner there would've been no Hitler*, so that's to say that music can have a great impact on politics, and not just be a hedonistic pass time. Classical music hasn't been in a position of influence in some time, and only true innovation will return it to the forefront of the artistic and political stage.
> 
> Of course this time hopefully it'll be for the good.


You are kidding right?


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> You are kidding right?


No, why do you think Wagner is banned in Israel?


----------



## Ethereality

fluteman said:


> While this is an intelligent post (as usual for you) it leaves out something (at least) I consider significant about Wagner's music: the way it is generally listened to today. Most casual listeners, and even dedicated music lovers other than the hard core Wagner enthusiasts who travel to live performances Ring cycles, listen to his music as stand-alone overtures, preludes, and in a few cases, individual arias or duets. This is true to some extent for the other famous opera specialists as well, but especially for Wagner, no doubt in part due to the expense and logistical challenges of producing a complete four-hour opera with a large cast. But it is also true that in the modern age most people don't want to sit through a four-hour opera, or a four-hour anything else. Hence, your "tedious" comment. Wagner's theatrical innovations survive in the modern era for the most part in greatly truncated and modified form.


On this note, musical taste is subjective. If you don't like opera or length, then it's fair to say you simply don't like Wagner, but just know that you're missing how to listen to him, and for all we know* we all may be listening to music wrong:* There can be so much discussion and progress made on how to listen to music that doesn't have anything to do with our innate tastes, but simply how music culture right now has us listening. If everyone went to opera, then we might all be interpreting music in a _very _different light: seeing not only its overall development and scope, but concepts (Dawkins calls them evolutionary 'memes') that we haven't even collectively grasped yet as a species. But once we get it, then it's so easy not to get it. It is similar to how we all understand the concept of driving, road signals and conventional etiquite quite easily, but it's only because we're privileged to do that .


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> No, why do you think Wagner is banned in Israel?


We might also ask why Barenboim does conduct his music. I think you need to demonstrate your assertion 1996D.


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> I must be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that Beethoven is greater than Bach (and so is Weber) and that Brahms is better than Beethoven?


There are improvements, yes. Brahms studied Bach and made improvement on a lot of things.



Bluecrab said:


> Autumn Leaves is an Eric Clapton song? Well, I've learned something today. :lol:


That speaks to how much I disregard Jazz, but you got the point.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> We might also ask why Barenboim does conduct his music. I think you need to demonstrate your assertion 1996D.


Barenboim thinks of music as something that goes beyond the composer, you can see how he disregards a lot of the markings in pieces, and always interprets music as what makes sense musically in his view. He does a lot of interviews, you can go watch them.

He looks at it abstractly and can forget what it meant historically. That doesn't mean history didn't happen or that he doesn't acknowledge that it deeply affected Hitler, he actually does.


----------



## Ethereality

1996D said:


> Barenboim thinks of music as something that goes beyond the composer,


Proper perspective. Although not exactly artistically sentimental, but correct. More than not, the music composed is greater than the individual.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Barenboim thinks of music as something that goes beyond the composer, you can see how he disregards a lot of the markings in pieces, and always interprets music as what makes sense musically in his view. He does a lot of interviews, you can go watch them.
> 
> He looks at it abstractly and can forget what it meant historically. That doesn't mean history didn't happen or that he doesn't acknowledge that it deeply affected Hitler, he actually does.


...but nothing here that underpins your assertion.

Wagner's anti-Semitism would be grist for the mill for Hitler's thinking but your assertion goes too far.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> ...but nothing here that underpins your assertion.
> 
> Wagner's anti-Semitism would be grist for the mill for Hitler's thinking but your assertion goes too far.


Art inspires, and it can be used for good or for evil. We all wish Hitler and Wagner would've been better persons, but it wasn't so.

This is why classical music isn't over, there are many things to improve, and perhaps portray things in a way that will inspire better people. I admire Wagner's technical innovations but there are many things in the feeling of his music that aren't right, many times it does inspire unruly passions without concluding with the proper lesson.

Music connects deeply with human feelings and it has a message. It's the duty of the composer to make it a good one.


----------



## Enthusiast

The Nazis celebrated German music and not just Wagner. If there had been no German music they would have made do without.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> There are improvements, yes. Brahms studied Bach and made improvement on a lot of things.


"Improvements" means very little when used the way you are using it. Your argument seems empty to me. Bach and Brahms wrote music for very different purposes in very different worlds. Of course, the later one learned things from the earlier. But to compare their value - in, again, a very different world - to us now ... is potentially interesting. But it would involve a more sophisticated analysis (including of developments in society and in technology) that you seem willing to attempt.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> The Nazis celebrated German music and not just Wagner. If there had been no German music they would have made do without.


This thread would not be complete without the notification that the nazi's banned Mahler's music.

It should also be noted that the love affair between the Nazi's and the anti-semite Wagner cult in Bayreuth was consumed after Wagner's death, by his widow Cosima Liszt and by his Winifred, the wife of the gay son of Wagner, Siegfried. The marriage of Winifred and Siegfried was probably just arranged to get the fanatic antisemite Winifred into the bloodline of the Wagner family and perhaps to ignore the gay status of Siegfried and safeguard the next Wagner generation. Winifred became an early widow in 1930 and was known to idolize/love Hitler. It would be interesting to think what would have become of Wagner Nazi flagship status if Cosima and Winifred would not have been such extreme antisemites.

It would also be interesting to think what would have become from Wagners legacy and his Nazi cult heritage if the mentally ill Ludwig of Bavaria hadn't built Bayreuth. Bayreuth plays an essential role in the preservation of Wagner's legacy and in offering a 'safe haven' for nazi's and the German conservative establishment to mingle.


----------



## fluteman

TC is a great forum, and I appreciate all of your intelligent comments, and the "Wagner and Hitler" question is certainly worth discussing (some), but haven't we examined it as fully and lengthily as it deserves at this point? Consider: (1) According to reasonably reliable sources, Hitler had a considerable and varied classical record collection that was taken by a Soviet army officer after the fall of Berlin and came to light a few years ago. It included performances by Jewish musicians, neither more nor less than one might expect in a classical collection of that era. (2) Wagner was not Hitler's favorite composer. He much preferred Franz Lehar, especially The Merry Widow. (3) The whole idea of using Wagner's music as part of the Nazi propaganda program at all was opposed by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, who wanted music specially composed for this purpose. (4) Richard Wagner, as objectionable personally as he may have been, died before Hitler was born. (5) Other 19th century artists, including some who were not even German, were just as nasty and antisemitic as Wagner. Nobody ever talks about them.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread would not be complete without the notification that the nazi's banned Mahler's music.


It wouldn't be "complete" without a lot of things. Why that in particular? To keep the "Wagner-Nazi" meme going? Let's see if that's the objective...



> It should also be noted that the love affair between the Nazi's and the anti-semite Wagner cult in Bayreuth was consumed after Wagner's death, by his widow Cosima Liszt and by his Winifred, the wife of the gay son of Wagner, Siegfried. The marriage of Winifred and Siegfried was probably just arranged to get the fanatic antisemite Winifred into the bloodline of the Wagner family and perhaps to ignore the gay status of Siegfried and safeguard the next Wagner generation. Winifred became an early widow in 1930 and was known to idolize/love Hitler.


Yup, that's the objective.



> It would be interesting to think what would have become of Wagner Nazi flagship status if Cosima and Winifred would not have been such extreme antisemites.


What is "Wagner Nazi flagship status"?



> It would also be interesting to think what would have become from Wagners legacy and his Nazi cult heritage if the mentally ill Ludwig of Bavaria hadn't built Bayreuth.


Wagner didn't establish or join a "Nazi cult" - that would have been impossible between 1813 and 1883 - so it's at least careless to call that his legacy or heritage. The warm welcome his descendants extended to Hitler is _their_ heritage, and was certainly not a part of Wagner's design for his theater.

(BTW, the mental illness of the eccentric Ludwig II has been questioned. Because of his extravagance and odd habits, Bavarian officials wanted him out of office; having him declared mentally incompetent seemed to them the best way of accomplishing that, and they went to great lengths to have it done. His "suicide" is also highly suspect; the official pronouncement of death by drowning is contradicted by substantial evidence, such as his having "drowned" in waist-deep water and with no water in his lungs.)



> Bayreuth plays an essential role in the preservation of Wagner's legacy and in offering a 'safe haven' for nazi's and the German conservative establishment to mingle.


Preserving Wagner's legacy is what Bayreuth ought to do. But many feel that that legacy is poorly preserved by Wagner's great grandchildren, whose eagerness to distance themselves from the past and prove themselves up-to-date, politically correct Germans has led them to make Wagner's theater just one more avenue for the latest trendy regietheater directors to experiment on the public. If Bayreuth became a host to moral and poliical perversity in the 1930s, it might be said to be a center of artistic perversity today. The latter is, ironically, in part a reaction to the former.

Maybe someday we'll all get out of Hitler's shadow, but the rise of authoritarian sentiment today may not bode well.


----------



## Iota

1996D said:


> But of course there has ..


No, there hasn't. What you said was there has been (musical) cultural stagnation over the past 100 years. Needless to say this is wrong.

I have no time for your notion of '(musical) culture refining and improving on the work of the past', it simply responds to it, and goes where it goes. This means neither that it refines or improves it. You sound like you want a fairytale rather than a natural evolution.


----------



## fluteman

Iota said:


> No, there hasn't. What you said was there has been (musical) cultural stagnation over the past 100 years. Needless to say this is wrong.
> 
> I have no time for your notion of '(musical) culture refining and improving on the work of the past', it simply responds to it, and goes where it goes. This means neither that it refines or improves it. You sound like you want a fairytale rather than a natural evolution.


Well and succinctly put, but I'm afraid there is a cadre of posters in these classical music internet fora who insist that classical music ended with Rachmaninoff, or was destroyed by Schoenberg, or suppressed by a conspiracy of 20th century academics and musicologists, take your pick. Your point could be made in far more detail, with all sorts of specific examples extending from music to other art forms, but I can tell you from experience it will fall on -- no, I can't say that. Too obvious.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> The more I listen to Wagner the more I see how much Mahler took from him, to a point where it can be said that the latter would not have reached anywhere near the same heights without the work of the former.
> 
> Wagner does take a lot of your time, too much for almost everyone, so there are few who know his music intimately, while Mahler while not a creator of short works, still has average lengths a third or fourth of Wagner's, and this results in listeners attributing more to the former, like it had never been done before, but the truth being that up until the 5th very little Mahler created was original.
> 
> I can wholeheartedly say that the more you know Wagner the more you realize that he is second to none in genius, truly the father of all music of substance that followed him.


I certainly hear the more traditional sounding Wagner all over Mahler's music - I don't, however, hear the Tristan and Isolde Prelude to Act I (the one caveat being that I haven't heard all of Mahler's Eighth).


----------



## Mandryka

Echoes of Meistersinger here. .






And pre-echoes of Mahler here


----------



## janxharris

For example compare this fragment of Wagner's Siegried with this section of Mahler's Second Symphony (1st movement).


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I certainly hear the more traditional sounding Wagner all over Mahler's music - I don't, however, hear the Tristan and Isolde Prelude to Act I (the one caveat being that I haven't heard all of Mahler's Eighth).


_Tristan_ - and not only the prelude - is all over the Adagietto of Mahler's 5th Symphony. We may notice this less when the Mahler is slowed to a dirge a la Bernstein, but when the piece is portrayed as a rhapsodic and ultimately passionate love song its descent from Wagner's lovers is unmistakable. Mengelberg understands:


----------



## Iota

fluteman said:


> Well and succinctly put, but I'm afraid there is a cadre of posters in these classical music internet fora who insist that classical music ended with Rachmaninoff, or was destroyed by Schoenberg, or suppressed by a conspiracy of 20th century academics and musicologists, take your pick. Your point could be made in far more detail, with all sorts of specific examples extending from music to other art forms, but I can tell you from experience it will fall on -- no, I can't say that. Too obvious.


Indeed. The poster in question seems to want shrink wrapped answers that won't get polluted by 'real' people's dirty fingers. The very death knell of anything interesting or creative imo. Or indeed anything great.


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> _Tristan_ - and not only the prelude - is all over the Adagietto of Mahler's 5th Symphony. We may notice this less when the Mahler is slowed to a dirge a la Bernstein, but when the piece is portrayed as a rhapsodic and ultimately passionate love song its descent from Wagner's lovers is unmistakable. Mengelberg understands:


Although I don't disagree with the Wagnerian influence here I'm not sure it's all over' the piece. Mahler instilled a level of sweetness and bliss that I find quite distinct from the sheer passion of _Tristan_.


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> Although I don't disagree with the Wagnerian influence here I'm not sure it's all over' the piece. Mahler instilled a level of sweetness and bliss that I find quite distinct from the sheer passion of _Tristan_.


Yes, I agree with that. I won't quibble about what "all over" means (that was janxharris's expression), but I wasn't implying that the two pieces aren't different. Mahler wasn't imitating Wagner, but he was certainly echoing him strongly in the Adagietto's upward-reaching, yearning sequences and suspensions, its slow buildup and increasing agitation and stress, climaxing in a restatement of the main melody - very similar to the Wagner in its rhythmic pattern - which finally subsides into quietness.

There's much more to _Tristan_'s vast score than sheer passion, BTW; the long love scene of Act 2 runs the gamut from sweetest serenity to near-hysteria. Conductor Charles Gerhardt recorded a beautiful "symphonic synthesis" of _Tristan_'s romantic passages which those who don't want to take time for the opera may enjoy. Without the voices we can really focus on the orchestra:






The expressionistic gestures and harmonic richness of _Tristan_ are "all over" a lot of late Romantic music, especially of a "romantic" (in the other sense) nature, from Germans like Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg and Korngold to Rimsky-Korsakov, Scriabin, Puccini, Massenet, Chausson and Dukas, not to mention everyone writing film scores. Mahler, interestingly, avoided overt portrayals of eroticism in music - the Adagietto seems to be as close as he got - and I can't help thinking it was because _Tristan,_ which he reputedly performed magnificently, was just too close to him. Perhaps, as Brahms said of Beethoven, he felt the intimidating footfalls of a giant behind him. _Tristan_ is one of those works that works out its own premises with such completeness that it becomes an immediate archetype, irresistibly influential but never to be imitated.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> _Tristan_ - and not only the prelude - is all over the Adagietto of Mahler's 5th Symphony. We may notice this less when the Mahler is slowed to a dirge a la Bernstein, but when the piece is portrayed as a rhapsodic and ultimately passionate love song its descent from Wagner's lovers is unmistakable. Mengelberg understands:


I think I'd agree with your latter post emphasising that Mahler wasn't imitating Wagner; they certainly are pieces that deal with very similar emotions it would seem.

Your link confirms the fact that the piece is generally performed slower now than originally.


----------



## NLAdriaan

> Mahler, interestingly, avoided overt portrayals of eroticism in music - the Adagietto seems to be as close as he got - and I can't help thinking it was because Tristan, which he reputedly performed magnificently, was just too close to him. Perhaps, as Brahms said of Beethoven, he felt the intimidating footfalls of a giant behind him. Tristan is one of those works that works out its own premises with such completeness that it becomes an immediate archetype, irresistibly influential but never to be imitated.


We may not criticize Wagner for these fruits of blind and wild admiration, as R.W. can't do anything about it. But we may conclude that there is something in R.W.'s music that inspires certain people to become spellbound for life and form cults of fanatic and devoted followers, still to this day.


----------



## NLAdriaan

> Mahler, interestingly, avoided overt portrayals of eroticism in music - the Adagietto seems to be as close as he got - and I can't help thinking it was because Tristan, which he reputedly performed magnificently, was just too close to him. Perhaps, as Brahms said of Beethoven, he felt the intimidating footfalls of a giant behind him. Tristan is one of those works that works out its own premises with such completeness that it becomes an immediate archetype, irresistibly influential but never to be imitated.


This quote has no ground at all. Unfounded associations and bringing up Brahms out of nowhere. 'Intimidating footfalls of a giant' (meaning Wagner:lol. The only thing the author proves here, is that idolatry of Wagner (or any other person for that matter) can go far. It says absolutely nothing about Mahler, just wild imaginations.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> This quote has no ground at all. *Unfounded associations* and bringing up Brahms out of nowhere. 'Intimidating footfalls of a giant' (meaning Wagner:lol. The only thing the author proves here, is that idolatry of Wagner (or any other person for that matter) can go far. It says *absolutely nothing about Mahler, just wild imaginations.*


Jeez, bub, what's eating you? Try getting up on the other side of the bed. It might improve your _own _imagination.

_"There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner], and after them - nobody."_ - Gustav Mahler


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> someone will occasionally mention the famous contrapuntal superposition of themes in the prelude to _Meistersinger,_


And I'm proud to join that elite group of occasional someones with the Wagner trivia question of the day (don't look for another tomorrow): Which famous Broadway musical makes a none-too-subtle reference to this climactic moment from the first-act Prelude to Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg?


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> And I'm proud to join that elite group of occasional someones with the Wagner trivia question of the day (don't look for another tomorrow): Which famous Broadway musical makes a none-too-subtle reference to this climactic moment from the first-act Prelude to Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg?


Why, fluteman! This comes as a revelation to a geezerische Wagnermensch! I'd be proud and grateful to have you fill this gaping hole in my education.


----------



## fluteman

fluteman said:


> And I'm proud to join that elite group of occasional someones with the Wagner trivia question of the day (don't look for another tomorrow): Which famous Broadway musical makes a none-too-subtle reference to this climactic moment from the first-act Prelude to Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg?


Starting at 1:30 or so, I've always felt the similarity is too obvious to be accidental. Of course, a major theme of The Sound of Music is the Trapp family's defiance of the Nazis, but Rodgers and Hammerstein still needed to give it an Austrian flavor, just as they had to create a world of western cowmen and farmers in Oklahoma! So there is a Ländler, some yodeling, and this very Wagnerian wedding procession. Not the last word in authenticity, but these are two native New Yorkers writing a musical for their New York audience and giving them what they would think of as Austrian. This was during the mid-20th century boom in popularity of 19th century classical music in America, and I'm sure the audience would have appreciated the music as Germanic, even if they didn't know the exact source.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Starting at 1:30 or so, I've always felt the similarity is too obvious to be accidental. Of course, a major theme of The Sound of Music is the Trapp family's defiance of the Nazis, but Rodgers and Hammerstein still needed to give it an Austrian flavor, just as they had to create a world of western cowmen and farmers in Oklahoma! So there is a Ländler, some yodeling, and this very Wagnerian wedding procession. Not the last word in authenticity, but these are two native New Yorkers writing a musical for their New York audience and giving them what they would think of as Austrian. This was during the mid-20th century boom in popularity of 19th century classical music in America, and I'm sure the audience would have appreciated the music as Germanic, even if they didn't know the exact source.


Ha! Thanks!

Rodgers combines two very different melodies effectively. However, it's obvious that the chorale-like tune was composed to harmonize with "How do you solve a problem..." Wagner combines three tunes that we'd never have imagined fitting together, and the texture is more interesting with the bass line being a complete, long melody in itself. But the general effect is similar enough that I can see where you'd make the comparison.

I wouldn't doubt that Rodgers was conscious of the resemblance, but if he'd really wanted to make an explicit reference, he'd have added "Edelweiss" in long notes. It really works for the first two phrases; try singing along!


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Ha! Thanks!
> 
> Rodgers combines two very different melodies effectively. However, it's obvious that the chorale-like tune was composed to harmonize with "How do you solve a problem..." Wagner combines three tunes that we'd never have imagined fitting together, and the texture is more interesting with the bass line being a complete, long melody in itself. But the general effect is similar enough that I can see where you'd make the comparison.
> 
> I wouldn't doubt that Rodgers was conscious of the resemblance, but if he'd really wanted to make an explicit reference, he'd have added "Edelweiss" in long notes. It really works for the first two phrases; try singing along!


I agree Rodgers was conscious of the resemblance, and very much so. I didn't mean to imply his music is anywhere near the same level of sophistication as Wagner's. Rodgers couldn't even do his own orchestrations. Moreover, in my humble opinion, The Sound of Music is among the least successful in purely musical terms of all of his hits with Hammerstein, largely because compared to the western theme of Oklahoma!, the American servicemen theme of South Pacific or the small town USA theme of Carousel, the Austrian theme was further outside his cultural sphere. (Of course, they also wrote The King and I, but I doubt anything in that had much to do with actual Siamese music, nor would his audience know or care.)

But this wedding scene is a prime example of the profound impact of Wagner on Hollywood and Broadway in the mid-20th century. Ironically, when it opened in 1959, West Side Story, which was one of the first major examples of the impact of Stravinsky and modernism on mainstream popular culture, had already been running for two years. But that's the way cultural evolution works. A new era begins well before an earlier one ends.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Jeez, bub, what's eating you? Try getting up on the other side of the bed. It might improve your own imagination.
> _"There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner], and after them - nobody."_ - Gustav Mahler


For some reason this sounds so funny now, after all the conversations we had in Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart

_"I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven."_ -Richard Wagner


----------



## hammeredklavier

NLAdriaan said:


> We may not criticize Wagner for these fruits of blind and wild admiration, as *R.W. can't do anything about it.* But we may conclude that there is something in R.W.'s music that inspires certain people to become spellbound for life and form cults of fanatic and devoted followers, still to this day.


This sounds like a compliment. R.W. couldn't do anything about his music being too spellbinding.. Too spellbindingly powerful it attracts people and mesmerizes them, turns them into fanatics of his. He just couldn't stop the phenomenon. It was beyond his control.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> For some reason this sounds so funny now, after all the conversations we had in Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart
> 
> _"I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven."_ -Richard Wagner


I think Wagner was at best ambivalent about God, but his faith in Mozart and Beethoven never faltered.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> We may not criticize Wagner for these fruits of blind and wild admiration, as R.W. can't do anything about it. But we may conclude that there is something in R.W.'s music that inspires certain people to become spellbound for life and form *cults of fanatic and devoted followers*, still to this day.





hammeredklavier said:


> *This sounds like a compliment*. R.W. couldn't do anything about his music being too spellbinding.. Too spellbindingly powerful it attracts people and mesmerizes them, turns them into fanatics of his. He just couldn't stop the phenomenon. It was beyond his control.


Wagner would be happy to accept it as a compliment, cheerfully turning its authors intent upside-down and back-asswards.

"Fanatic" has a negative connotation - but then, it's meant to. The peculiar relish with which strangely angry people brand enthusiasts of a composer, over and over in thread after thread, as "fanatics," never quite conceals a malicious intent. We have to wonder whether the malice reduces finally to the self-styled iconoclast's resentment that someone is having a magnificent experience in which they themselves are incapable of participating. God forbid that Wagner - or Mozart, or Mahler, or any acclaimed artistic genius - should be as great as those fanatical cultists say he is, and that I, the better judge of such things, should be unable to hear it!


----------



## 1996D

Iota said:


> No, there hasn't. What you said was there has been (musical) cultural stagnation over the past 100 years. Needless to say this is wrong.
> 
> I have no time for your notion of '(musical) culture refining and improving on the work of the past', it simply responds to it, and goes where it goes. This means neither that it refines or improves it. You sound like you want a fairytale rather than a natural evolution.


You're in denial, classical music's innovations slowly declined in the last hundred years, the evidence is clear.

You can't deny the degeneration of society, all contemporary art is focused on that, there are countless pieces in all mediums that seek to portray the ills of a greed based society. Contemporary art is ugly because it's meant to send a message.

A societal renewal is needed and it will come in the coming decades.


----------



## 1996D

fluteman said:


> TC is a great forum, and I appreciate all of your intelligent comments, and the "Wagner and Hitler" question is certainly worth discussing (some), but haven't we examined it as fully and lengthily as it deserves at this point? Consider: (1) According to reasonably reliable sources, Hitler had a considerable and varied classical record collection that was taken by a Soviet army officer after the fall of Berlin and came to light a few years ago. It included performances by Jewish musicians, neither more nor less than one might expect in a classical collection of that era. (2) Wagner was not Hitler's favorite composer. He much preferred Franz Lehar, especially The Merry Widow. (3) The whole idea of using Wagner's music as part of the Nazi propaganda program at all was opposed by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, who wanted music specially composed for this purpose. (4) Richard Wagner, as objectionable personally as he may have been, died before Hitler was born. (5) Other 19th century artists, including some who were not even German, were just as nasty and antisemitic as Wagner. Nobody ever talks about them.


Lies over lies... Hitler attended many Wagner performances in his youth. The music shaped him as much as WW1, he couldn't have made conclusions of the latter without the message of the former.

Wagner's message in his operas is clear and he backs it up with his musical genius, a very powerful combination.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> You're in denial, classical music's innovations slowly declined in the last hundred years, the evidence is clear.
> 
> You can't deny the degeneration of society, all contemporary art is focused on that, there are countless pieces in all mediums that seek to portray the ills of a greed based society. Contemporary art is ugly because it's meant to send a message.
> 
> A societal renewal is needed and it will come in the coming decades.


Humanity used to be altruistic but no longer? I think that your assertion would be almost impossible to prove - and yet you think it is undeniable.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Humanity used to be altruistic but no longer? I think that your assertion would be almost impossible to prove - and yet you think it is undeniable.


Not humanity, society.

Societies or civilizations have cycles, moments of greatness and moments of decline.

I know I'm right, you're the one that has to do the digging.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Not humanity, society.
> 
> Societies or civilizations have cycles, moments of greatness and moments of decline.
> 
> I know I'm right, you're the one that has to do the digging.


Ok - this makes more sense - societies rather than humanity.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread would not be complete without the notification that the nazi's banned Mahler's music.
> 
> It should also be noted that the love affair between the Nazi's and the anti-semite Wagner cult in Bayreuth was consumed after Wagner's death, by his widow Cosima Liszt and by his Winifred, the wife of the gay son of Wagner, Siegfried. The marriage of Winifred and Siegfried was probably just arranged to get *the fanatic antisemite Winifred *into the bloodline of the Wagner family and perhaps to ignore the gay status of Siegfried and safeguard the next Wagner generation. Winifred became an early widow in 1930 and was known to idolize/love Hitler. It would be interesting to think what would have become of Wagner Nazi flagship status if Cosima and Winifred would not have been such extreme antisemites.
> 
> It would also be interesting to think what would have become from Wagners legacy and his Nazi cult heritage if the mentally ill Ludwig of Bavaria hadn't built Bayreuth. Bayreuth plays an essential role in the preservation of Wagner's legacy and in offering a 'safe haven' for nazi's and the German conservative establishment to mingle.


While Cosima was certainly a fanatical antisemite (even more so than her husband apparently) Winifred is more complicated. Although her admiration for Hitler was unbounded and it is even suggested they may have been lovers, she does not appear to have shared his antisemitism. At her trial after the war 50 Jews wrote letters of support and 30 testified how she had saved them from death. Her private correspondence reveals how she told Hitler she was 'disgusted' by his treatment of the Jews. This is not to excuse her actions - she remained unrepentant in her admiration for Hitler and extreme right wing politics - but just to say it appears more complicated than just mere antisemitism.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Lies over lies... Hitler attended many Wagner performances in his youth. The music shaped him as much as WW1, he couldn't have made conclusions of the latter without the message of the former.
> 
> Wagner's message in his operas is clear and he backs it up with his musical genius, a very powerful combination.


To say that Wagner's "message" is clear while arguing that the music "shaped" Hitler is anything but clear, and certainly an insinuation that shouldn't be glibly tossed out.

If Wagner's operas were effective vehicles for clear messages they would not inspire so much discussion and debate. The fact is that the operas are complex works of art from which any number of "messages" may be inferred, some of them contradicting each other. That is not a flaw, either, but rather a tribute to the depths and complexities of human nature with which the operas deal. The same can be said of the plays of Shakespeare.

Hitler took from Wagner what his own imaginative predilections wished to find there. It was all "clear" to him, as things are dangerously "clear" to all true believers and aspirants to domination. If he had actually understood the operas he would have found messages deeply opposed to his own ideologies and projects.

(Let me add, as a postscript, that taking "messages" from music as such is always perilous.)


----------



## Iota

1996D said:


> You're in denial, classical music's innovations slowly declined in the last hundred years, the evidence is clear.


No they haven't. There has been a positive flowering of innovations and inspiration, the evidence is all around you. 
You say I'm in denial simply because I disagree with your view. I could say the same about you. It's meaningless.



1996D said:


> You can't deny the degeneration of society, all contemporary art is focused on that, there are countless pieces in all mediums that seek to portray the ills of a greed based society.


Degeneration is just a word you've chosen, 'society' has done many things, some good some bad. Many would say people are freer now to express the ugly side of life in music than they once were. And some of them do, some of them don't. A perfectly healthy state of affairs.

You seem to think that enforcing a rictus grin on music will somehow palliate bad aspects of the world, which is no more than wishful thinking. I'd suggest you do your thing and let others do theirs.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Speaking of Mahler's 5th: Adagietto, 
(at least the way it opens)
it reminds me of this:


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Speaking of Mahler's 5th: Adagietto,
> (at least the way it opens)
> it reminds me of this:


That's because both begin with a falling minor third - though in different keys.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> To say that Wagner's "message" is clear while arguing that the music "shaped" Hitler is anything but clear, and certainly an insinuation that shouldn't be glibly tossed out.
> 
> If Wagner's operas were effective vehicles for clear messages they would not inspire so much discussion and debate. The fact is that the operas are complex works of art from which any number of "messages" may be inferred, some of them contradicting each other. That is not a flaw, either, but rather a tribute to the depths and complexities of human nature with which the operas deal. The same can be said of the plays of Shakespeare.
> 
> Hitler took from Wagner what his own imaginative predilections wished to find there. It was all "clear" to him, as things are dangerously "clear" to all true believers and aspirants to domination. If he had actually understood the operas he would have found messages deeply opposed to his own ideologies and projects.
> 
> (Let me add, as a postscript, that taking "messages" from music as such is always perilous.)


If you can't see it you can't see it, but it doesn't mean it's not there. Hitler of course took it one step further, but the base gained in youth Wagner gave him - the courage and the idea that Germans were some sort of mystical people.

Das Rheingold's message is also clear, one of revolution against greed. It's all quite complex but it fits together, Wagner's family was after all close to Hitler, he actually almost married his granddaughter.

They wouldn't have been close if they felt that he in some way dishonored Wagner's ideals.


----------



## 1996D

Iota said:


> Degeneration is just a word you've chosen, 'society' has done many things, some good some bad. Many would say people are freer now to express the ugly side of life in music than they once were. And some of them do, some of them don't. A perfectly healthy state of affairs.
> 
> You seem to think that enforcing a rictus grin on music will somehow palliate bad aspects of the world, which is no more than wishful thinking. I'd suggest you do your thing and let others do theirs.


You're right it's all a matter of prespective, but I feel degeneration is the right word because we're close to the renewal, the reset if you will. You can only get so wild before order is brought back.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> If you can't see *it* you can't see *it*, but it doesn't mean *it's *not there.


You haven't yet shown any qualifications to tell me what I can see and can't see. I'll wager that you're not prepared to show us the _"it"_ you claim is "there."



> Hitler of course *took it one step further,* but the base gained in youth Wagner gave him - the courage and *the idea that Germans were some sort of mystical people.*


Took _"it"?_ What is _"it"?_ "One step further" than _what?_

Wagner's operas nowhere show Germans as "some sort of mystical people." Most of them don't even show us Germans, and in those set in Germanic lands the characters are no more "mystical" than are the Italians in Verdi or the Russians in Mussorgsky. The only part of his operas expressing any sort of "nationalism" is the little speech of Hans Sachs, at the end of _Meistersinger,_ exhorting the young artist Walther and his fellow Nurembergers to honor their "holy German art." Sachs does this on a municipal festival day in medieval Germany. Not exactly "mystical." (By the way, Wagner wasn't even sure he wanted to include that speech, but Cosima convinced him to leave it in place.)

Hitler considered the Germans to be a biologically superior race destined to dominate the world and destroy Jews, homosexuals and other "inferior" people. That is not "one step further" than anything in a Wagner opera.



> Das Rheingold's message is also clear, one of *revolution* against greed.


There is no "revolution" in the _Ring._ There _is_ a portrayal of the depravity and corrosiveness of power lust and the tragic struggle of love (not "mystical Germanness") to survive in, and redeem, a corrupt world. That particular Wagnerian message is not one that Hitler would have liked, but he was obviously too preoccupied with his "mystical" fantasies of heroic eugenics to take proper heed.



> *It**'s* *all *quite complex but *it fits together*, Wagner's family was after all *close* to Hitler, he actually almost married his granddaughter.


There's that _"it"_ again, now with an _"all"_ attached. What "fits together"? The family's "closeness" to Hitler tells us nothing about Wagner's operas except that they all liked them. It says nothing about how well they understood them.



> They wouldn't have been close if they *felt *that he in some way dishonored Wagner's ideals.


We weren't talking about "Wagner's ideals," which were an evolving mixed bag. We were talking about the operas and what's in them versus what Hitler read into them. It isn't safe to expect to find all of an artist's irrational philosophies and theories in his art, and it certainly isn't safe to read into it the misperceptions of its unauthorized admirers and critics. Hitler, regardless of what he "felt," was hardly a qualified assessor of Wagner's works (or of anything else). It would appear that you aren't on intimate terms with them either.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> You haven't yet shown any qualifications to tell me what I can see and can't see. I'll wager that you're not prepared to show us the _"it"_ you claim is "there."
> 
> Took _"it"?_ What is _"it"?_ "One step further" than _what?_
> 
> Wagner's operas nowhere show Germans as "some sort of mystical people." Most of them don't even show us Germans, and in those set in Germanic lands the characters are no more "mystical" than are the Italians in Verdi or the Russians in Mussorgsky. The only part of his operas expressing any sort of "nationalism" is the little speech of Hans Sachs, at the end of _Meistersinger,_ exhorting the young artist Walther and his fellow Nurembergers to honor their "holy German art." Sachs does this on a municipal festival day in medieval Germany. Not exactly "mystical." (By the way, Wagner wasn't even sure he wanted to include that speech, but Cosima convinced him to leave it in place.)
> 
> Hitler considered the Germans to be a biologically superior race destined to dominate the world and destroy Jews, homosexuals and other "inferior" people. That is not "one step further" than anything in a Wagner opera.
> 
> There is no "revolution" in the _Ring._ There _is_ a portrayal of the depravity and corrosiveness of power lust and the tragic struggle of love (not "mystical Germanness") to survive in, and redeem, a corrupt world. That particular Wagnerian message is not one that Hitler would have liked, but he was obviously too preoccupied with his "mystical" fantasies of heroic eugenics to take proper heed.
> 
> There's that _"it"_ again, now with an _"all"_ attached. What "fits together"? The family's "closeness" to Hitler tells us nothing about Wagner's operas except that they all liked them. It says nothing about how well they understood them.
> 
> We weren't talking about "Wagner's ideals," which were an evolving mixed bag. We were talking about the operas and what's in them versus what Hitler read into them. It isn't safe to expect to find all of an artist's irrational philosophies and theories in his art, and it certainly isn't safe to read into it the misperceptions of its unauthorized admirers and critics. Hitler, regardless of what he "felt," was hardly a qualified assessor of Wagner's works (or of anything else). It would appear that you aren't on intimate terms with them either.


I'm not going to walk you to it, as I said, if you can't see you can't see. It's so interesting how you think that a man's ideals are not projected in his art - art after all is political in nature.

You do a lot of mental gymnastics, but the reality is another, the historical facts are clear.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I'm not going to walk you to it, as I said, if you can't see you can't see.


And as I said, you are clearly incapable of "walking" anyone into this subject at all. All you're doing is regurgitating pseudo-historical cliches.



> It's so interesting how you think that a man's ideals are not projected in his art - art after all is political in nature.


What's MORE interesting is that that is NOT what I said, which you know very well. Your misrepresentation of what I DID say - _"it isn't safe to expect to find all of an artist's irrational philosophies and theories in his art"_ - gives away your game.



> You do a lot of mental gymnastics,


It's called THINKING, and it's based on actual knowledge of Wagner's operas.



> but the reality is another, the historical facts are clear.


"Historical facts" have to be interpreted. Your interpretations are not facts. Actually, though, your trite, scattershot remarks don't even rise to the level of interpretations. "The reality" is somewhere beyond whatever tabloid journalism you've been reading.

The content and meaning of Wagner's operas is a subject on which you obviously have nothing to offer. Humility would dictate that you go off and study up before you say another word.


----------



## jdec

This epic fight is still undecided. Let's give them an energy boost.

*Wagner vs Mahler (2011)*


----------



## tdc

Been reading Murakami's Conversations with Seiji Ozawa, Ozawa is a big Mahler fan, he was first exposed to Mahler's scores in the '60's and was shocked. 

Murakami: Did you enjoy just reading the scores?

Ozawa: Oh tremendously. I mean it was the first time in my life I had ever seen anything like them. To think there were scores like this!

Murakami: Was it a completely different world from the music you had been playing until then?

Ozawa: First of all, I was amazed that there was someone who knew how to use an orchestra so well. It was extreme - his marvelous ability to put every component of the orchestra to use. And from the orchestra's point of view, the Mahler symphonies are the most challenging pieces ever.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> And as I said, you are clearly incapable of "walking" anyone into this subject at all. All you're doing is regurgitating pseudo-historical cliches.
> 
> What's MORE interesting is that that is NOT what I said, which you know very well. Your misrepresentation of what I DID say - _"it isn't safe to expect to find all of an artist's irrational philosophies and theories in his art"_ - gives away your game.
> 
> It's called THINKING, and it's based on actual knowledge of Wagner's operas.
> 
> "Historical facts" have to be interpreted. Your interpretations are not facts. Actually, though, your trite, scattershot remarks don't even rise to the level of interpretations. "The reality" is somewhere beyond whatever tabloid journalism you've been reading.
> 
> The content and meaning of Wagner's operas is a subject on which you obviously have nothing to offer. Humility would dictate that you go off and study up before you say another word.


You obviously have a stake in this, so you can't take it at face value. That's what I meant by gymnastics, you will do all the thinking necessary to convince yourself that Wagner isn't at odds with who you are, or you won't be able to listen to him.

The truth is he is, but if you must ignore it to enjoy his music then by all means.


----------



## 1996D

tdc said:


> Been reading Murakami's Conversations with Seiji Ozawa, Ozawa is a big Mahler fan, he was first exposed to Mahler's scores in the '60's and was shocked.
> 
> Murakami: Did you enjoy just reading the scores?
> 
> Ozawa: Oh tremendously. I mean it was the first time in my life I had ever seen anything like them. To think there were scores like this!
> 
> Murakami: Was it a completely different world from the music you had been playing until then?
> 
> Ozawa: First of all, I was amazed that there was someone who knew how to use an orchestra so well. It was extreme - his marvelous ability to put every component of the orchestra to use. And from the orchestra's point of view, the Mahler symphonies are the most challenging pieces ever.


Mahler is indeed the pinnacle of orchestral writing but he had Wagner to work on top of, stating that was the whole point of this thread.

Mahler surpassed him in many ways as any good student should.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You obviously have a stake in this, so you can't take it at face value. That's what I meant by gymnastics, you will do all the thinking necessary to convince yourself that Wagner isn't at odds with who you are, or you won't be able to listen to him.
> 
> The truth is he is, but if you must ignore it to enjoy his music then by all means.


Psychologizing one's opponent is always the last pathetic resort of people who have no argument.

Thanks, Dr. Freud.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Mahler is indeed the pinnacle of orchestral writing but he had Wagner to work on top of, stating that was the whole point of this thread.
> 
> *Mahler surpassed him in many ways* as any good student should.


What are those "many ways"?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> What are those "many ways"?


I'm reluctant to wade in here, and make no claim of special expertise, though I have played the music of both composers in the orchestra as well as heard it in performance, but I would say that Mahler and Richard Strauss brought the art of orchestration to a new and higher level than that of their predecessors. Notice that Mahler himself referred to his 10th symphony as finished "in the sketch", and parts of it were finished entirely. Yet few have argued that the 10th should be considered a completed work. I think this is partly because Mahler's complex and sophisticated orchestrations play such an integral part in the finished result, and are missing or incomplete in much or most of Mahler's sketch.

The two attempts to finish the 10th that I have heard seem to have taken the approach of minimizing significant departures from Mahler's sketches. That is understandable, but without his distinctive orchestrations, something important is missing from the result.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> You obviously have a stake in this, so you can't take it at face value. That's what I meant by gymnastics, you will do all the thinking necessary to convince yourself that Wagner isn't at odds with who you are, or you won't be able to listen to him.
> 
> The truth is he is, but if you must ignore it to enjoy his music then by all means.


You will find there are some people who feel it necessary to absolutely deny that any of Wagner's philosophies we find disturbing surface in his operas. Anyone who implies such is of the level of a 'tabloid journalist' making 'trite, scattershot remarks' no matter how well qualified the person is as a scholar or critic or writer. I have a number of books by scholars which delve into this and to me it's clear that Wagner's operas do contain a dark side which appealed to the dark side of humanity. This is the opinion reached by people who have done a lot of study on the subject. It is opinion not established fact, of course. But the weight of probability seems to weigh heavy. Does this prevent me listening to the operas? No. Am I conscious of somewhat of a Faustian pact when I do? Sometimes. Do I tolerate the opinions of those who have a different opinion to me and agree to differ while still retaining my own opinion? Absolutely!


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> You will find there are some people who feel it necessary to absolutely deny that any of Wagner's philosophies we find disturbing surface in his operas....


Not to give anything away here, but one might imagine a member of the family _Anatidae _composed of a composite of cellulose fibers embedded in a matrix of lignin.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *You will find there are some people who feel it necessary to absolutely deny that any of Wagner's philosophies we find disturbing* surface in his operas. Anyone who implies such is of the level of a 'tabloid journalist' making 'trite, scattershot remarks' no matter how well qualified the person is as a scholar or critic or writer. I have a number of books by scholars which delve into this and *to me it's clear that Wagner's operas do contain a dark side which appealed to the dark side of humanity. This is the opinion reached by people* who have done a lot of study on the subject. It is opinion not established fact, of course. But *the weight of probability seems* to weigh heavy.


Well, well. Where've you been? I was almost thinking that you had tired of trotting out your usual second-hand non-arguments on this subject. Your post above says EXACTLY NOTHING. "Some people" say this or that..."a dark side which appealed to the dark side of humanity"..."the opinion reached by people who have done a lot of study on the subject"..."the weight of probability"... "seems"...

What does it all mean?

EXACTLY NOTHING.

Your statement, "You will find there are some people who feel it necessary to absolutely deny that any of Wagner's philosophies we find disturbing surface in his operas" is disingenuous. There are no people who deny anything that "we" find disturbing. You (and whoever else constitutes "we") are free to be as disturbed as you like, and by anything that disturbs you.

To someone who repeatedly, year after year, invades discussions for no purpose other than to spread negativity and create discord, I say: If you can tell us specifically what "dark side" of Wagner's operas you think relevant to the foregoing discussion, if you can state, specifically, _where_ in Wagner's operas you -_ YOU, not "some people"_ - find that "dark side," and if you can state cogently your reasons for seeing it there - DO IT.

Just quit dropping horse pucky. Shoveling it wears me down.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I'm reluctant to wade in here, and make no claim of special expertise, though I have played the music of both composers in the orchestra as well as heard it in performance, but I would say that Mahler and Richard Strauss brought the art of orchestration to a new and higher level than that of their predecessors. Notice that Mahler himself referred to his 10th symphony as finished "in the sketch", and parts of it were finished entirely. Yet few have argued that the 10th should be considered a completed work. I think this is partly because Mahler's complex and sophisticated orchestrations play such an integral part in the finished result, and are missing or incomplete in much or most of Mahler's sketch.
> 
> The two attempts to finish the 10th that I have heard seem to have taken the approach of minimizing significant departures from Mahler's sketches. That is understandable, but without his distinctive orchestrations, something important is missing from the result.


Mahler's orchestration is endlessly fascinating and is very different from Wagner's. He places great emphasis on individual timbres, making him, in that respect, more a descendant of Berlioz than of Wagner. Wagner expressed a dislike of harsh sounds, which Mahler exploits boldly; the use of clarinets playing loudly in the upper register, and that diabolical violin in the 4th symphony, are effects Wagner wouldn't have cared for unless some dramatic situation made them necessary.

It's worth pointing out that Wagner's orchestration was extremely varied and always evolving as he pursued fresh sonic images from opera to opera. I feel that Mahler and Strauss both set out early in their careers to exploit the capabilities of instruments to the full, whereas Wagner expanded the orchestra's capacities gradually as he needed to. The _Ring_ alone required an enormous expansion of tone color; it even required the invention of new instruments. But then, when work on that project was interrupted for_ Tristan,_ the orchestral style changed, with the colorful world of the _Ring_ giving way to a palette of rich, dark, almost organ-like blends in which individual instruments often lose their separate identities. The subtle, glowing blends in _Parsifal_ are quite unlike Mahler and Strauss, drawing the particular admiration of Debussy, and Strauss called the last chord in _Tristan_ "the most beautifully orchestrated B-Major chord in music."

The brilliance of Mahler's and Strauss's orchestration is certainly of the sort that calls attention to itself - it exploits the virtuoso capabilities of instruments to an unprecedented degree - and it serves its expressive purposes admirably, but I'm not sure it's right to say that it represents a "higher level" in any absolute sense, unless we also want to contend that the purposes to which it's put are also somehow "higher."


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Mahler's orchestration is endlessly fascinating and is very different from Wagner's. He places great emphasis on individual timbres, making him, in that respect, more a descendant of Berlioz than of Wagner. Wagner expressed a dislike of harsh sounds, which Mahler exploits boldly; the use of clarinets playing loudly in the upper register, and that diabolical violin in the 4th symphony, are effects Wagner wouldn't have cared for unless some dramatic situation made them necessary.
> 
> It's worth pointing out that Wagner's orchestration was extremely varied and always evolving as he pursued fresh sonic images from opera to opera. I feel that Mahler and Strauss both set out early in their careers to exploit the capabilities of instruments to the full, whereas Wagner expanded the orchestra's capacities gradually as he needed to. The _Ring_ alone required an enormous expansion of tone color; it even required the invention of new instruments. But then, when work on that project was interrupted for_ Tristan,_ the orchestral style changed, with the colorful world of the _Ring_ giving way to a palette of rich, dark, almost organ-like blends in which individual instruments often lose their separate identities. The subtle, glowing blends in _Parsifal_ are quite unlike Mahler and Strauss, drawing the particular admiration of Debussy, and Strauss called the last chord in _Tristan_ "the most beautifully orchestrated B-Major chord in music."
> 
> The brilliance of Mahler's and Strauss's orchestration is certainly of the sort that calls attention to itself - it exploits the virtuoso capabilities of instruments to an unprecedented degree - and it serves its expressive purposes admirably, but I'm not sure it's right to say that it represents a "higher level" in any absolute sense, unless we also want to contend that the purposes to which it's put are also somehow "higher."


Hmm. Well, that was a good post. OK, I'll just say "new", not "higher". But with his wonderfully extensive exploitation of "individual timbres", as you put it, (and that comes as close to describing a key part of what I meant as I could have done) Mahler opened up a new and richly varied world of sound. Wagner, though a brilliant orchestrator in terms of creating sound effects that enhance his drama in ways that piano reductions of his scores never seem to achieve (so much so that his music can fall flat or even sound silly in piano reduction form) didn't try to reach the limits of each instrument's potential. Wagner liked big sonorities, endlessly long legato lines, gradual crescendos, rhythmic propulsion and majestic climaxes, in other words the grand dramatic gesture, and his orchestration serves him exceedingly well in achieving that.

I'm not the expert you no doubt are, but I can't think of a whole lot of single instrument solos in Wagner's music, at least not the overtures, preludes and interludes. They are everywhere in Mahler and Strauss, and then, of course, Stravinsky. Theirs is the modern orchestral sound, with leaner textures, numerous solos and small ensemble passages within the larger group, creating variety and contrast with the crashing tutti climaxes and other moments of high drama that sometimes still appear. Wagner's is a supercharged romantic orchestral sound, with layered dynamics, thick textures and organ-like sonorities. It's hard to imagine Wagner using his music to depict an awkward little wooden puppet like Stravinsky's Petrushka.

Anyway, I see Mahler's innovations as important, and greatly expanding the musical possibilities of the traditional orchestra. That doesn't mean Mahler was a better orchestrator than Wagner, just as I wouldn't say Wagner was a better orchestrator than Mozart. As another poster intelligently commented, music and art in general don't continuously improve, but they do continuously evolve, and that is a good thing, in my opinion.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Hmm. Well, that was a good post. OK, I'll just say "new", not "higher". But with his wonderfully extensive exploitation of "individual timbres", as you put it, (and that comes as close to describing a key part of what I meant as I could have done) Mahler opened up a new and richly varied world of sound. Wagner, though a brilliant orchestrator in terms of creating sound effects that enhance his drama in ways that piano reductions of his scores never seem to achieve (so much so that his music can fall flat or even sound silly in piano reduction form) didn't try to reach the limits of each instrument's potential. Wagner liked big sonorities, endlessly long legato lines, gradual crescendos, rhythmic propulsion and majestic climaxes, in other words the grand dramatic gesture, and his orchestration serves him exceedingly well in achieving that.
> 
> I'm not the expert you no doubt are, but I can't think of a whole lot of single instrument solos in Wagner's music, at least not the overtures, preludes and interludes. They are everywhere in Mahler and Strauss, and then, of course, Stravinsky. Theirs is the modern orchestral sound, with leaner textures, numerous solos and small ensemble passages within the larger group, creating variety and contrast with the crashing tutti climaxes and other moments of high drama that sometimes still appear. Wagner's is a supercharged romantic orchestral sound, with layered dynamics, thick textures and organ-like sonorities. It's hard to imagine Wagner using his music to depict an awkward little wooden puppet like Stravinsky's Petrushka.
> 
> Anyway, I see Mahler's innovations as important, and greatly expanding the musical possibilities of the traditional orchestra. That doesn't mean Mahler was a better orchestrator than Wagner, just as I wouldn't say Wagner was a better orchestrator than Mozart. As another poster intelligently commented, music and art in general don't continuously improve, but they do continuously evolve, and that is a good thing, in my opinion.


You describe the modern orchestral sound - the leaner, more soloistically oriented manner - very well, no doubt reflecting your own listening habits and/or experience as an orchestral musician. It's true that Wagner's preludes and overtures don't have a lot of extended solos in them, but then how many overtures do? The major exception is the prelude to act 3 of _Tristan_, which contains a touchstone solo for cor anglais, the long, haunting shepherd's tune, which wends its desolate way unaccompanied for several minutes:






Solo instrumental writing is fairly uncommon in opera - the voice is the solo "instrument" there, while solos in instrumental works often function essentially as "singers" or "protagonists" - but there are numerous brief solo moments emerging from the orchestral texture in Wagner's operas; many statements of leitmotifs are on solo instruments, such as the various horncalls in the _Ring,_ and sometimes these become fairly extended, as with the delicious interplay of woodwinds evoking birdsong in Siegfried's forest (in the course of which we hear other brief solo bits from bass clarinet, violin and trumpet):






My impression of Wagner's sonic pictures is really very different from yours, perhaps based on our different experiences of his music. You're an orchestral player - and I assume not primarily a pit musician in an opera orchestra - while I'm a former singer and lifelong opera enthusiast. The elements in Wagner that stand out for me are the intimate ones that convey subtle moods and take us inside the psychology of the characters. These are much more frequent than you may realize, and your description of Wagner's sound as "big sonorities, endlessly long legato lines, gradual crescendos, rhythmic propulsion and majestic climaxes, in other words the grand dramatic gesture" doesn't describe a great many wonderful moments in the scores that depict contemplative, tender, sorrowful, hesitant or suppressed emotions, and often feature expressive solos for various instruments. Even the epic funeral march from _Gotterdammerung_ is virtually a procession of solos, taking us from sorrowful contemplation to heroism:






This kind of writing is characteristic of _Gotterdammerung_ (and much different from, say _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_). I have to think Mahler was influenced by it in the first few minutes of his third symphony:


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> What are those "many ways"?


Well, for one his music has a positive message of love of nature and God, his emotional range is fully developed, he is a complete and self-realized person. His counterpoint and craftsmanship also surpass Wagner's in his last 5 symphonies.

There is very little narcissism in his music as he progresses as a composer, in his 9th it is as if he loses all sense of egoism and completely gives all his love in the purest form, very much like Beethoven in his own 9th.

Wagner's soul is full of rage and unruly passion, hatred for the world he lived in, and in that he becomes a revolutionary. His impact on human history was huge, probably more so than any artist. He plays the role of philosopher, he breaks down society.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> Well, for one his music has a positive message of love of nature and God, his emotional range is fully developed, he is a complete and self-realized person. His counterpoint and craftsmanship also surpass Wagner's in his last 5 symphonies.
> 
> There is very little narcissism in his music as he progresses as a composer, in his 9th it is as if he loses all sense of egoism and completely gives all his love in the purest form, very much like Beethoven in his own 9th.
> 
> Wagner's soul is full of rage and unruly passion, hatred for the world he lived in, and in that he becomes a revolutionary. His impact on human history was huge, probably more so than any artist. He plays the role of philosopher, *he breaks down society*.


Oh I can just picture this now. The maestro, hunched over the piano, the thoughts racing in his brain...'I shall appogatura this augmented sixth chord....thus causing the destruction of society.' *Let's out evil maniacal laugh*

Pretty much your standard compositional thinking. You just wait until the full effect of Brahms' developing variation revolutionary cells are felt throughout the globe.....total world destruction by 2050!


----------



## fluteman

Yes, simplistic and overreaching generalizations are vulnerable to being punctured with exceptions, aren't they? Listening to the wonderful Forest Murmurs right now, that could only have been written by Wagner. It anticipates the glorious forest sunrise in Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe, with the thick textures, endless legato and layered dynamics I mentioned. As for the wind solos, notice the bass clarinet with its rich low sound begins alone, but by the time he builds up to the high clarinet, flute and finally piccolo, there is a firm foundation of massed strings and horns beneath them. Nothing piercing, jarring or jangling. No accident there -- Wagner knows his orchestra instruments. The solos smoothly integrate into the ensemble, rather than giving sharply defined contrasts in the pre-romantic, classical manner, which was the sort of solo I was thinking of.

Ravel's version is surprisingly similar, but of course lighter textured, as befits a ballet. Forest Murmurs was one of the many "theme songs" used for regular features by the classical music radio station of my childhood, so hearing it is always a nostalgic rush for me. Another regular theme song came from Stravinsky's Pulcinella, heard starting at about 20:15 in my link. That is a great example of the sort of modern neoclassical orchestration I was thinking of when I mentioned instrumental solos. Of course, Stravinsky contrasts these spiky, staccato, hard-edged wild episodes with stately and formal episodes, only making them stand out more starkly. This pushes the modern orchestration of Mahler and Strauss another big step further, and is perhaps too radical for some tastes here.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Well, for one his music has a positive message of love of nature and God, his emotional range is fully developed, he is a complete and self-realized person. His counterpoint and craftsmanship also surpass Wagner's in his last 5 symphonies.
> 
> *There is very little narcissism in his music* as he progresses as a composer, in his 9th it is as if he loses all sense of egoism and completely gives all his love in the purest form, very much like Beethoven in his own 9th.
> 
> Wagner's soul is full of rage and unruly passion, hatred for the world he lived in, and in that he becomes a revolutionary. His impact on human history was huge, probably more so than any artist. He plays the role of philosopher, he breaks down society.


Who is 'right' 1996D - you or Jacck in the thread _Mahler: Symphony #2 "Resurrection"_ post #21?


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Well, for one his music has a positive message of love of nature and God, his emotional range is fully developed, he is a complete and self-realized person. His counterpoint and craftsmanship also surpass Wagner's in his last 5 symphonies.
> 
> There is very little narcissism in his music as he progresses as a composer, in his 9th it is as if he loses all sense of egoism and completely gives all his love in the purest form, very much like Beethoven in his own 9th.
> 
> Wagner's soul is full of rage and unruly passion, hatred for the world he lived in, and in that he becomes a revolutionary. His impact on human history was huge, probably more so than any artist. He plays the role of philosopher, he breaks down society.


What a curious response. I ask you what are the "many ways" in which the composer Mahler "surpassed" the composer Wagner, and you respond with an amateurish psychoanalysis of two men you've never met. "A complete and self-realized person"? Please.

What if I said that I often find Mahler nervous, self-absorbed, lachrymose, desperate, overwrought, hysterical and bombastic? Would that be an answer to anyone's question about the quality of his music? As it happens, my reaction to his 9th symphony is nothing at all like yours. I don't find the music somehow telling me that its composer "loses all sense of egoism and completely gives all his love in the purest form, very much like Beethoven in his own 9th."

I respect everyone's personal responses to music and wouldn't argue about them. But let's not pretend that they have some objective reality in the music itself.


----------



## fluteman

Just to refine my comments a bit about Wagner, Mahler and the art of orchestration, and back them up with a concrete example. First, I should have said solo instrumental episodes rather than just instrumental solos. Listen to Lob Des Hohen Verstandes from Mahler's song cycle Des Knaben Wunderhorn, particularly the orchestral part. Compare that to Wagner's Siegfried Forest Murmurs cited by Woodduck above, and Stravinsky's Pulcinella that I cited above. Which one is the Mahler song closer to, in arrangement, orchestration and overall style? Perhaps a tough question, but I think it's more than halfway to Pulcinella.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ I wouldn't dream of arguing about fractions on the way to Stravinsky!  Mahler favors the individual timbres of intruments, letting each instrument speak for itself (so to speak). This seems analogous to the trend in 20th-century sculpture and painting of allowing the peculiarities of the material to dictate the texture and finish of the work, as opposed to an older aesthetic in which a sculptor's or painter's artistry lay partly in his ability to make marble look like flesh, or paint look like brass or fur.

Wagner comes out of an older German tradition in which instrumental sonorities are often doubled in various ways, but in pursuit of fresh expressive and pictorial qualities he takes that art to a new level. Listen to the "a capella" opening of _Parsifal._ What instruments are contributing to the sound? I wonder if anyone could guess. (It's clarinets, bassoons, muted violins and muted cellos, joined by cor anglais in the second bar.) When the melody is repeated against a glowing, throbbing background of mixed winds and strings it enters pianissimo on a solo trumpet, but the cool brassiness is removed and a piercing poignancy and complexity is added by doubling the trumpet with two oboes.






Subtle doublings make for mystery and a kind of "inner light", much as the old master technique of "glazing" one translucent pigment over another replaces the obviousness of pure color. I think it also sometimes imparts a certain vocal quality, replicating the complex overtones of the human voice.


----------



## fluteman

Not only was that a very well-written post, Woodduck, you've given me a great title for the book I've just decided to write: Fractions On The Way To Stravinsky. It could be a novel, a memoir, historical, polemical, or even a collection of poems -- that title works with everything.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> What a curious response. I ask you what are the "many ways" in which the composer Mahler "surpassed" the composer Wagner, and you respond with an amateurish psychoanalysis of two men you've never met. "A complete and self-realized person"? Please.
> 
> What if I said that I often find Mahler nervous, self-absorbed, lachrymose, desperate, overwrought, hysterical and bombastic? Would that be an answer to anyone's question about the quality of his music? As it happens, my reaction to his 9th symphony is nothing at all like yours. I don't find the music somehow telling me that its composer "loses all sense of egoism and completely gives all his love in the purest form, very much like Beethoven in his own 9th."
> 
> I respect everyone's personal responses to music and wouldn't argue about them. But let's not pretend that they have some objective reality in the music itself.


Have you ever composed anything? That's the soul of what music is, the heart of the man is exposed in his music, but you obviously know nothing about that. Your pedantic analysis of relatively unimportant technicalities shows how much you don't know about music and what it's really about.

Any good composer or musician will tell you that it's about love and spirit, about the final message, about crafting a work as to give a statement - the technicalities are so much easier and really not worth discussing. Art is about the final color.

Wagner's strength and creativity are what allowed his message to be delivered in the first place, that's what's admirable about him, his ability as an artist, even if his message ended up doing a lot of damage. Mahler has it all, the strength, the creativity, and the good message - in Das Lied von der Erde you can feel and intellectualize his love for nature and the world - it's an extremely positive message, about the cycles of nature and man.

You still don't understand that composers are alive in their music: because you're not a composer you can't understand that you leave so much of yourself in the music, and you lack any ability to empathize with the feelings of these composers because you're so different from them.

It's no wonder you can't see the darkness in Wagner's music, you are perhaps more filled with darkness yourself. Your denial that objective truth exists shows that.

The range of possible interpretations is not large, we are all human beings with the same sense of right and wrong, disobeying it, ignoring it, is all you can do.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Have you ever composed anything? That's the soul of what music is, the heart of the man is exposed in his music, but you obviously know nothing about that. Your pedantic analysis of relatively unimportant technicalities shows how much you don't know about music and what it's really about.
> 
> Any good composer or musician will tell you that it's about love and spirit, about the final message, about crafting a work as to give a statement - the technicalities are so much easier and really not worth discussing. Art is about the final color.
> 
> Wagner's strength and creativity are what allowed his message to be delivered in the first place, that's what's admirable about him, his ability as an artist, even if his message ended up doing a lot of damage. Mahler has it all, the strength, the creativity, and the good message - in Das Lied von der Erde you can feel and intellectualize his love for nature and the world - it's an extremely positive message, about the cycles of nature and man.
> 
> You still don't understand that composers are alive in their music: because you're not a composer you can't understand that you leave so much of yourself in the music, and you lack any ability to empathize with the feelings of these composers because you're so different from them.
> 
> It's no wonder you can't see the darkness in Wagner's music, you are perhaps more filled with darkness yourself. Your denial that objective truth exists shows that.
> 
> The range of possible interpretations is not large, we are all human beings with the same sense of right and wrong, disobeying it, ignoring it, is all you can do.


Gosh, what verbiage. 
So, you are a composer, right? If that is the case, I can't wait not to give your music a listen.
Goodbye.


----------



## Machiavel

Woodduck said:


> What a curious response. I ask you what are the "many ways" in which the composer Mahler "surpassed" the composer Wagner, and you respond with an amateurish psychoanalysis of two men you've never met. "A complete and self-realized person"? Please.
> 
> What if I said that I often find Mahler nervous, self-absorbed, lachrymose, desperate, overwrought, hysterical and *bombastic*? Would that be an answer to anyone's question about the quality of his music? As it happens, my reaction to his 9th symphony is nothing at all like yours. I don't find the music somehow telling me that its composer "loses all sense of egoism and completely gives all his love in the purest form, very much like Beethoven in his own 9th."
> 
> I respect everyone's personal responses to music and wouldn't argue about them. But let's not pretend that they have some objective reality in the music itself.


You cannot talk about Bombastic when Wagner is the all time bombast composer. Its not even close. He is upthere by tenfold.


----------



## Woodduck

Well, Mr. or Ms. 1996D, I've read a lot of presumptuous posts in my six years on this forum, but your latest deserves an award. I could charitably assume that it expresses a genuine concern that my vulnerable soul is in danger of beng engulfed by Wagnerian darkness. But that would presume that I can diagnose your spiritual condition in the way you imagine you've diagnosed mine, and I'd rather skirt that pitfall.



1996D said:


> Have you ever composed anything?


Yes. I've not only put music on paper, but I spent 35 years composing improvisations at the piano for ballet in many schools and dance companies around the country, including about 13 years with Pacfic Northwest Ballet in Seattle. I have also been a singer and organist. I've done a great deal of drawing and painting, a bit of sculpting, and some poetry writing.



> That's the soul of what music is, the heart of the man is exposed in his music, but you obviously know nothing about that. Your pedantic analysis of relatively unimportant technicalities shows how much you don't know about music and what it's really about.


"Obviously" I know a great deal more about music (and the other arts) than you want to imagine I do. It has in fact been the chief preoccupation and reward of my entire long life.



> Any good composer or musician will tell you that it's about love and spirit, about the final message, about crafting a work as to give a statement - the technicalities are so much easier and really not worth discussing. Art is about the final color.


The "technicalities" are very much worth discussing. Any really competent composer, musician, painter or poet will tell you that art is "about" the sensible forms in which love, spirit and whatever else you want to swoon over are embodied. That's what makes an artist different from an "art lover." When artists get together they talk precisely about "the technicalities," because they know that those are not at all easy, and that that "final color" can take hours of grueling effort to achieve and may not be attained - if it ever is - until weeks after the inspiration of love and spirit have faded. Try telling an art instructor that you're interested in "love and spirit" and that "the technicalities are not worth discussing."

We all have feelings. The artist is distinguished by his ability to understand how feelings are translated into forms, and by his ability to manipulate those forms.



> Wagner's strength and creativity are what allowed his message to be delivered in the first place, that's what's admirable about him, his ability as an artist, even if his message ended up doing a lot of damage.


You've still not given any evidence that you know what Wagner's "message" is beyond vague, dark mutterings and references to Hitler. I see no evidence that you have any personal experience of Wagner's art at all.



> Mahler has it all, the strength, the creativity, and the good message - in Das Lied von der Erde you can feel and intellectualize his love for nature and the world - it's an extremely positive message, about the cycles of nature and man.


No artist "has it all." That should be obvious from looking at the infinite variety of art, if not from simple common sense. The things you find in Mahler's music are reasonable interpretations, but they arise from the way the music affects you as an individual. The same music may affect others differently. (I don't disagree with you about _Das Lied,_ by the way. Did you know that Mahler quotes Wagner in it?)



> You still don't understand that composers are alive in their music: because you're not a composer you can't understand that you leave so much of yourself in the music, and you lack any ability to empathize with the feelings of these composers because you're so different from them.


Perhaps it's you who lack the ability to "empathize with the feelings of these composers," and perhaps this explains your inability to say one meaningful thing about Wagner.



> It's no wonder you can't see the darkness in Wagner's music, you are perhaps more filled with darkness yourself.






> Your denial that objective truth exists...


I haven't denied that objective truth exists. I've merely denied that your interpretations of particular musical works represent objective truth. Your claim that they do is either arrogant or deluded.



> The range of possible interpretations is not large,


The range of _possible_ interpretations of music is very large, as evidenced by the fact that the range of _existing_ interpretations is very large.



> we are all human beings with the same sense of right and wrong, disobeying it, ignoring it, is all you can do.


We're discussing art, not ethics.

I really must request that you knock off the silly attempts to psychoanalyze me. You are not qualified to rewrite the biographies of other people here. If you can't answer my specific questions about music, just say nothing and we can part amicably.


----------



## Woodduck

Machiavel said:


> You cannot talk about Bombastic when Wagner is the all time bombast composer. Its not even close. He is upthere by tenfold.


Yes, I can talk about bombastic, just as you can.

Do you know the definition of bombastic, by the way? Most people don't.


----------



## Machiavel

Woodduck said:


> Yes, I can talk about bombastic, just as you can.
> 
> Do you know the definition of bombastic, by the way? Most people don't.


Pretentious, overblown, pompous, going heavy fast and loud when the music does not call for it. thanks for refreshing my memory as to why Wagner is the textbook definition of bombast music for the sake of it. Am I missing something. I could add entire empty passages without any meanings except going full blown bombast.

Brahms says so much out of almost nothing while Wagner says nothing out of so much. 3 hours lol


----------



## Woodduck

Machiavel said:


> Pretentious, overblown, pompous, going heavy fast and loud when the music does not call for it. thanks for refreshing my memory as to why Wagner is the textbook definition of bombast music for the sake of it. *Am I missing something.* I could add entire empty passages without any meanings except going full blown bombast.
> 
> Brahms says so much out of almost nothing while Wagner says nothing out of so much. 3 hours lol


I would answer "yes, you're missing something."


----------



## Machiavel

Woodduck said:


> I would answer "yes, you're missing something."


Well then tell me instead of just saying it. What am I missing that you don't obviously.


----------



## Woodduck

Machiavel said:


> Well then tell me instead of just saying it. What am I missing that you don't obviously.




Think for a minute: is it possible to tell someone why they don't respond to a composer's music? Why they hear "entire empty passages without any meanings" where others hear eloquence and beauty? Why one person sits bored through _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_ (or just refuses to sit through it) while another hangs on every note and is transported to another dimension of feeling?

What could I tell you about Wagner's music, or any music, that would convince you that it has something worthwhile to say? Maybe it will never be worth your while no matter what anyone says. It's OK. That's what music is like.

The only advice I would offer is not to express your personal feelings about music in terms of objective certainties (a habit you appear to share with Mr. - or Ms. - 1996D above). Your description of Wagner in such terms is ridiculous, particularly since his operas sell out opera houses wherever they're performed, and even get into concert halls, as most operas don't. I'm sure millions of people have not sat through his works in order to catch a bit of shuteye, and equally sure that the reason more words have been written about Wagner (I gather) than any other composer is not a desire on the part of scholars to figure out how such "bombastic" and "meaningless" music became so popular.


----------



## fluteman

Before we proceed for another 500 posts in this manner: 1996D says Wagner's soul is full of rage and unruly passion. Machiavel says Wagner's music is bombastic. Both perfectly valid opinions, I wouldn't dream of arguing with either of you. But before going to war against Woodduck or anyone else who doesn't share those opinions, consider this: Music means different things to different people, often only slightly different but also sometimes very different. It wouldn't be as interesting otherwise, no? What's interesting, to me is why these differences arise. Sometimes the answers are in the music itself, other times in the listeners.

I often find myself on nearly the opposite end of a spectrum of many classical music listeners in a number of ways, though as fellow classical music listeners, even then we typically have more in common than contrasting in our tastes. You may have noticed that Woodduck (and several others here) and I are on the opposite ends of a spectrum in certain ways when it comes to our tastes in late 19th-century high romantic music and early and mid-20th century modern music. (Others here have tastes startlingly similar to mine.) But we tend not to pepper each other with attacks and insults. And why should we? He is not my wife or children, or otherwise living with me. I don't care if he can't tolerate my music, and I'm sure he doesn't care if I can't tolerate his.

It is the particular things we hear and love in the music we love, i.e., the details or the technicalities, that matter and are well worth discussing, at least to me. I try hard to discuss these things in an entirely non-technical way. And I welcome anyone else's efforts to do the same thing, as Woodduck has been kind enough to do here in response to my comments about orchestration in Wagner and Mahler. This is one of two things that makes TC worthwhile for me. The other is learning about music that is worth investigating. For all my years investigating classical music, there are posts here at TC about music that is new to me all the time.

So why not discuss some specific examples in music you like or don't like, and verbalize exactly what it is about that music that elicits that reaction in you? If you do that, I'll stay with you another 50 posts. Maybe not 500.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ An admirable preface to "Fractions on the Way to Stravinsky."


----------



## Barbebleu

I would say this to those who would bandy words with Woodduck - save yourself the grief! It will avail you naught!

Mess with the best and die, like the rest. :tiphat:

Merry xmas to all and may 2020 bring nothing but joy.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> I would say this to those who would bandy words with Woodduck - save yourself the grief! It will avail you naught!
> 
> Mess with the best and die, like the rest. :tiphat:
> 
> Merry xmas to all and may 2020 bring nothing but joy.


If you're angling for money in your stocking, forget it.

Merry Xmas to you too.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> If you're angling for money in your stocking, forget it.
> 
> Merry Xmas to you too.


I got an early xmas present from a friend. Benjamin Britten Opera box with some rarities like Paul Bunyan and Owen Windgrave. Nice. So I might not need the money in the stocking!:lol:


----------



## amfortas

Barbebleu said:


> I would say this to those who would bandy words with Woodduck - save yourself the grief! It will avail you naught!
> 
> Mess with the best and die, like the rest. :tiphat:


Shhhh! Don't spoil my entertainment!


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> The "technicalities" are very much worth discussing. Any really competent composer, musician, painter or poet will tell you that art is "about" the sensible forms in which love, spirit and whatever else you want to swoon over are embodied. That's what makes an artist different from an "art lover." When artists get together they talk precisely about "the technicalities," because they know that those are not at all easy, and that that "final color" can take hours of grueling effort to achieve and may not be attained - if it ever is - until weeks after the inspiration of love and spirit have faded. Try telling an art instructor that you're interested in "love and spirit" and that "the technicalities are not worth discussing."
> 
> We all have feelings. The artist is distinguished by his ability to understand how feelings are translated into forms, and by his ability to manipulate those forms.
> 
> We're discussing art, not ethics.
> 
> I really must request that you knock off the silly attempts to psychoanalyze me. You are not qualified to rewrite the biographies of other people here. If you can't answer my specific questions about music, just say nothing and we can part amicably.


Discussing and studying technicalities before prioritizing what a good message is and how to convey it is precisely why art has been on the decline and will continue to decline until there is a significant change politically and societally.

Good art should inspire good ethics, Plato went to war with the art of his day precisely because of its lies and ability to inspire darkness - swaying people away from reason. You obviously don't hold ethics in very high regard, this is why you haven't been able to understand Wagner's deviation from the good.

Mahler conversely is a much more complete artist that conveys universal truths, namely a love for nature, which is the immovable beauty that surrounds our existence, unchanged throughout the periods of history. He has his flaws, but what he seeks to portray is forever relevant.

Wagner opened a world for the composers that followed him and that will be his legacy, going into his message leads directly to Hitler.

Interpretations are only large if you don't group them together, you'll find they have a lot in common with each other. For or against, good or evil, Apollonian or Dionysian.


----------



## bz3

As I've found on the internet, there is no shortage of anti-Wagnerians but they are utterly redundant in their feeble attempts to cope with his art.


----------



## fluteman

1996D said:


> Good art should inspire good ethics, Plato went to war with the art of his day precisely because of its lies and ability to inspire darkness - swaying people away from reason. You obviously don't hold ethics in very high regard, this is why you haven't been able to understand Wagner's deviation from the good.


And there, 1996D, you have lost me for good. I've learned there is no point in pursuing discussions about music with dyed-in-the-wool pre-Enlightenment rationalists who cite Plato on aesthetic issues. Fortunately, since the Age of Enlightenment the empiricists have had the upper hand when it comes to the arts, and, of course, the sciences. The example I always cite is Galileo: Though he was placed under house arrest by the Pope for defying Church dogma and insisting the earth and other planets orbited around the sun, the inescapable empirical validity of his proposition eventually and inevitably won out.

The earliest empirical philosopher I've been able to find who explicitly acknowledged that whether music is good or bad is an empirical issue was David Hume, whom I've cited here before. Unfortunately, he was a disorganized and rambling writer. To put it simply, the goodness or badness of music can never be determined solely by examining qualities inherent in the music itself. The skill, experience, and personal and cultural background of the listener is always a crucial factor. Or as the sage Duke Ellington remarked, "If it sounds good, it is good."

I discuss music specifically here and not the arts or aesthetics generally because some philosophers, most notably Immanuel Kant, gave music short shrift. Kant ranked it as the least of the arts. But I contend that though Kant was a vastly superior and better organized writer, Hume understood music far better.

The are a couple of other pre-Enlightenment rationalists here, most notably a frequent poster who goes by the moniker Millionrainbows. Seek him out, 1996D, and you may find a sympathetic compatriot. But I'm out.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> As I've found on the internet, there is no shortage of anti-Wagnerians but they are utterly redundant in their feeble attempts to cope with his art.


In general, they are trying to "cope" with an art which they haven't experienced in anything like its completeness. That's why they fall back on what we now call "memes" propagated by non-musicians and the popular media. It's infinitely wearisome.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Discussing and studying technicalities before prioritizing what a good message is and how to convey it is precisely why art has been on the decline and will continue to decline until there is a significant change politically and societally.


I asked you a simple question some time ago now. I asked you what are the "many ways" in which Mahler "surpassed" Wagner (your words). It was a question about music. All you've been able to come up with, save for one brief remark about counterpoint, is a load of cowpoo about how Mahler was a more "fully realized" person and how that presumably makes his art better than Wagner's, as if the relationship between the personality of an artist and the quality of his art were somehow predestined, reliable and diagnostic of something. That is a pleasant dream of adolescence, a naive mixture of hero-worship and a wish for life to be simple and predictable. It's pure sophistry.



> Good art should inspire good ethics, Plato went to war with the art of his day precisely because of its lies and ability to inspire darkness - swaying people away from reason.


Plato said a lot of things...

I hate to break it to you, but any given work of art, "good" or otherwise, can "inspire" in different people different feelings, and the relation between people's aesthetic responses and their behavior is more than questionable. I think you would find that the number of people inspired by Wagner's operas to commit genocide has, since Hitler, been approximately zero. On the other hand, many people have unquestionably been inspired to deeper reflection on aspects of human experience. And that, if anything, is what "good art" should do.



> You obviously don't hold ethics in very high regard, this is why you haven't been able to understand Wagner's deviation from the good.


You obviously don't know your own limits, ethically or intellectually.



> Mahler conversely is a much more complete artist that conveys universal truths, namely a love for nature, which is the immovable beauty that surrounds our existence, unchanged throughout the periods of history. He has his flaws, but what he seeks to portray is forever relevant.


How would you know how "complete" an artist is if you don't know his work intimately? As I remarked earlier, you give no indication at all that you know Wagner's work intimately - or at all. From what you've said, one might wonder if you've even listened to his music. Anyway, music doesn't seem to be your concern here. You're obviously more interested in making pompous and presumptuous remarks about people's ethics and pretending that you can pronounce insightfully upon the worthiness of their artistic tastes on that spurious basis.

Well, you can't.



> Wagner opened a world for the composers that followed him and that will be his legacy, going into his message leads directly to Hitler.


Wrong on both counts. Wagner's legacy rests first on the power of his works; his influence, while enormous, is secondary. I won't comment again on Hitler, except to say that in insisting on reading his delusions back into Wagner you reveal yourself once more to have almost no vital experience of Wagner's work. (Hint, for future reference: it's much, much bigger than you think it is.)



> Interpretations are only large if you don't group them together, you'll find they have a lot in common with each other. For or against, good or evil, Apollonian or Dionysian.


Oh dear. I feel like I've been dragged back to Great Philosophical Ideas 101, freshman year. A bit of Plato, a smidgin of Nietzsche, maybe a little Ayn Rand...

Seriously now, reality, and art in particular, is much more complex than such baby-simple formulations. If you knew Wagner's work at all well, you would find that it can take us deep into complex states of human experience which you won't find in Mahler (who of course deals with his own complex states of being, as all great artists do). Maybe these would be states that would reveal the shallowness and glibness of your neat little philosophical preoccupations, and maybe that's why you play it safe and simply rant about Wagner's "darkness" and his "message" (as if only one message could be gleaned from his works). Well, what we don't understand is easy to dismiss as bad. It gives us an easy out.

In any event, you still aren't saying much about music. I guess my question must go forever unanswered. Not that I'd expect anything else at this point. So spare me your lectures about "ethics." Frankly, based on your appalling condescension toward me and others here, I find your own ethics none too impressive.


----------



## Woodduck

I think it might be instructive to point out that the title of this thread is "Wagner & Mahler," not "Wagner vs Mahler." That's a constructive and refreshing approach for this forum, and I for one appreciate it.


----------



## NLAdriaan

It's just the 'Wagner uber alles, uber alles in der Welt' cult movement that is making any conversation with Wagner in it, into a battle. Sometimes a punch or two in the Bayreuth gut seems necessary to push back on its delusion of supremacy, actually resembling sheer fascism, if you follow the definition. It is therefor only logical that Wagner will always be associated with Hitler and the Nazi's, as also in this thread. The repeated (endless) attempts to ridicule or diminish such logical and historically correct comparisons, are only a way to whitewash or hide the inevitable and to change history.

In a way, it is perverse to compare Wagner and Mahler, as it will inevitably end up in a comparison of Judaism and nazism. 

To prove my point, if you write like this to Wagner's followers, they will condemn you as someone who hates Wagner's music. This is not the case, not at all. And don't bother, nobody else can influence what music I like or not. It's just the followers who try to steal Wagner's heritage and make proprietary claims in an attempt that one may only like Wagner's music if you share certain theories. 

It's tiring and it shouldn't happen here on a music forum. 

Maybe this post won't last, we'll see. 

But for the time being merry Xmas to all who still believe in democracy and who love music!


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> Discussing and studying technicalities before prioritizing what a good message is and how to convey it is precisely why art has been on the decline and will continue to decline until there is a significant change politically and societally.


That's exactly what Stalin thought.



1996D said:


> Good art should inspire good ethics, Plato went to war with the art of his day precisely because of its lies and ability to inspire darkness - swaying people away from reason.


Yes, the very basis of Socialist Realism and the justification for persecuting artists.


----------



## Ethereality

flamencosketches said:


> You know, I've heard others say this recently too. There's probably a lot of truth in it. Wagner was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a great composer (and so was Mahler, I hope we can agree). I'll be sticking with Mahler for now. As you say, even Mahler demands a pretty good chunk of your time, but I can listen to an hour and a half Mahler symphony on headphones in the morning while getting ready for work (I just have to make myself get up earlier, which is no problem if Mahler is the catalyst for that  ). I just don't have four hours on any given day to complete a Wagner opera. Perhaps in the future I will begin to jones for the undiluted source, and it will have to be Wagner or bust. But I suspect it'll be 5, 10 years before I reach that point. I've said it a million times and I'll say it again; I'm just not an opera guy. Whether that will always remain the case is a different matter, but for now, give me "pure" music on the one hand, and give me films, books, and theatre on the other. Two completely different art forms for me; they work better when enjoyed separately.


For me the largest problem with opera is they compose the female voice way too loud, or record it too loud, and it prevents me from understanding the music. Whichever/whoever it is, Wagner, Mozart, that has been my biggest obstacle. Maybe opera listeners are deaf in their treble. I recommend to you Audio Equalizer as this was a good gateway for me to first learn and enjoy the works, which are astounding. Play them on YouTube and the voices won't be so loud. Then eventually we may garner a passion to tolerate the intended dynamic. But for now I just can't do it.

I use this one currently and for Wagner, limiter threshold is 15, and eq volume at the 2K+ point is quite low.

I have nothing against the female voice, but I do think many people are deaf at high register. I will not ruin my flute ears, my favorite instrument.


----------



## fluteman

Ethereality said:


> For me the largest problem with opera is they compose the female voice way too loud, or record it too loud, and it prevents me from understanding the music. Whichever/whoever it is, Wagner, Mozart, that has been my biggest obstacle. Maybe opera listeners are deaf in their treble. I recommend to you Audio Equalizer as this was a good gateway for me to first learn and enjoy the works, which are astounding. Play them on YouTube and the voices won't be so loud. Then eventually we may garner a passion to tolerate the intended dynamic. But for now I just can't do it.
> 
> I use this one currently and for Wagner, limiter threshold is 15, and eq volume at the 2K+ point is quite low.
> 
> I have nothing against the female voice, but I do think many people are deaf at high register. I will not ruin my flute ears, my favorite instrument.


If the flute is your favorite instrument, you must be right about everything. But keep in mind that pre-modern operas were written for an entirely acoustic, unamplified environment where solo singers often have to sing above an entire orchestra and be heard in the last row of large halls that only became larger in the modern era. Recordings can be a problem too, as soloists are often subjected to excessive spotlighting. And as with nearly all large-scale classical music, there is a huge dynamic range. I find I need to listen to most opera recordings at a much lower volume than anything one would hear in person in a decent seat anywhere near the stage. The same is true for large-scale romantic era orchestral works.


----------



## DavidA

bz3 said:


> As I've found on the internet, there is no shortage of anti-Wagnerians but they are utterly redundant in their *feeble attempts to cope with his art.*


Please can we please not have this sort of condescension. I know people who are highly intelligent, are even professional musicians, but they simply don't like Wagner. They don't like his music, his philosophy and his bombast. It's not that they can't 'cope' with his art. They just don't like his art. I was strolling round a Dutch city last year with a friend and happened to mention my love of van Gogh. My friend surprised me when he said he didn't think much of van Gogh's paintings and much preferred Rembrandt. He didn't even reckon van Gogh was in the same league. It wasn't because he couldn't 'cope' with van Gogh's art - he just didn't like it! As he is a highly intelligent man and probably knows more about art than me I respect his opinion while not necessarily agreeing with it. Similarly, for goodness sake, let's allow people to dislike composers we like without using condescending language which views them as lesser species.


----------



## fluteman

DavidA said:


> Please can we please not have this sort of condescension. I know people who are highly intelligent, are even professional musicians, but they simply don't like Wagner. They don't like his music, his philosophy and his bombast. It's not that they can't 'cope' with his art. They just don't like his art. I was strolling round a Dutch city last year with a friend and happened to mention my love of van Gogh. My friend surprised me when he said he didn't think much of van Gogh's paintings and much preferred Rembrandt. He didn't even reckon van Gogh was in the same league. It wasn't because he couldn't 'cope' with van Gogh's art - he just didn't like it! As he is a highly intelligent man and probably knows more about art than me I respect his opinion while not necessarily agreeing with it. Similarly, for goodness sake, let's allow people to dislike composers we like without using condescending language which views them as lesser species.


All of that is sensible and well put, DavidA. But I hope you agree that as bad or worse than condescension is accusing those who happen to like music you don't like as lacking ethical standards or the ability to tell right from wrong. And I wouldn't appreciate being criticized for enjoying looking at a painting or sculpture or listening to music without worrying about the political or religious beliefs or personal conduct of the artist who created it, either. Though there, I understand there are many who do, and I would never criticize or ridicule them for their feelings on the subject.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> All of that is sensible and well put, DavidA. But I hope you agree that as bad or worse than condescension is accusing those who happen to like music you don't like as lacking ethical standards or the ability to tell right from wrong. And I wouldn't appreciate being criticized for enjoying looking at a painting or sculpture or listening to music without worrying about the political or religious beliefs or personal conduct of the artist who created it, either. Though there, I understand there are many who do, and I would never criticize or ridicule them for their feelings on the subject.


I hope also as intelligent people we realise things are never that black and white. For example, there have been efforts to shut down viewing of Gauguin's paintings because of his dubious behaviour with young girls. Unfortunately if we go down this route with artists and performers then we have very thin pickings indeed. Also none of us can be perfectly consistent anyway. I realise when I listen to Wagner I am making somewhat of a Faustian pact as some of what he stood for and is present is repugnant to me. Same as when I look at a Gauguin. That doesn't stop me but I do respect others who take a different line for the sake of conscience. What always amazes me is those who deny these matters actually exist and that what we consider as great works of art are always pure as the driven snow. So the fact that I regard Picasso as a pretty repugnant individual does not mean to say I walk out the room if one of his paintings is on the wall although I am not a fan. Or the fact that Furtwangler was a womaniser to make most Hollywood film stars cringe with embarrassment does not mean to say I would not listen to his conducting. Or the fact that Wagner was a loathsome man does not mean to say I do not recognise his genius even though I don't recognise him as the musical messiah some do. Does the fact that Puccini's attitude towards women was particularly repellant does not stop me enjoying a certain tiny hand being frozen? 
How we choose to regard works of art and artists is a matter of personal conscience. What does not help is dogmatic statements of affirmation and denial.


----------



## 1996D

bz3 said:


> As I've found on the internet, there is no shortage of anti-Wagnerians but they are utterly redundant in their feeble attempts to cope with his art.


I started this thread, read the original post.

I enjoy Wagner a lot, but his impact on the world was a terrible one.


----------



## fluteman

DavidA said:


> I hope also as intelligent people we realise things are never that black and white. For example, there have been efforts to shut down viewing of Gauguin's paintings because of his dubious behaviour with young girls. Unfortunately if we go down this route with artists and performers then we have very thin pickings indeed. Also none of us can be perfectly consistent anyway. I realise when I listen to Wagner I am making somewhat of a Faustian pact as some of what he stood for and is present is repugnant to me. Same as when I look at a Gauguin. That doesn't stop me but I do respect others who take a different line for the sake of conscience. What always amazes me is those who deny these matters actually exist and that what we consider as great works of art are always pure as the driven snow. So the fact that I regard Picasso as a pretty repugnant individual does not mean to say I walk out the room if one of his paintings is on the wall although I am not a fan. Or the fact that Furtwangler was a womaniser to make most Hollywood film stars cringe with embarrassment does not mean to say I would not listen to his conducting. Or the fact that Wagner was a loathsome man does not mean to say I do not recognise his genius even though I don't recognise him as the musical messiah some do. Does the fact that Puccini's attitude towards women was particularly repellant does not stop me enjoying a certain tiny hand being frozen?
> How we choose to regard works of art and artists is a matter of personal conscience. What does not help is dogmatic statements of affirmation and denial.


Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. And it doesn't mean I endorse the political views, life styles or morality of Degas, Picasso, D'Indy, or any other artists who may have been bad people in one or more ways. I would also say that if you started worrying about womanizers like Furtwangler, who got various women pregnant, and/or cheated on their wives, and/or had very young girlfriends, that would eliminate from consideration a large number of artists throughout western history.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Oh dear. I feel like I've been dragged back to Great Philosophical Ideas 101, freshman year. A bit of Plato, a smidgin of Nietzsche, maybe a little Ayn Rand...
> 
> Seriously now, reality, and art in particular, is much more complex than such baby-simple formulations. If you knew Wagner's work at all well, you would find that it can take us deep into complex states of human experience which you won't find in Mahler (who of course deals with his own complex states of being, as all great artists do). Maybe these would be states that would reveal the shallowness and glibness of your neat little philosophical preoccupations, and maybe that's why you play it safe and simply rant about Wagner's "darkness" and his "message" (as if only one message could be gleaned from his works). Well, what we don't understand is easy to dismiss as bad. It gives us an easy out.
> 
> In any event, you still aren't saying much about music. I guess my question must go forever unanswered. Not that I'd expect anything else at this point. So spare me your lectures about "ethics." Frankly, based on your appalling condescension toward me and others here, I find your own ethics none too impressive.


You're trying to make it more complex than it is to avoid facing the truth, it's your mental gymnastics, you'll continue to go through unlimited hurdles, just running away. But the reality is simple, there is a direct action and a direct reaction.

I didn't go into the technicalities of Wagner and Mahler because I respect both of them, and while I think Mahler is better, he is the student, Wagner did it before. I have no desire to diminish in any way Wagner's technical ability, on the contrary, thus why I started this thread.

You keep wanting to avoid Hitler but that's where you must go, many see him as an untouchable, but he was a human being like you and me, and he fully understood and appreciated Wagner's art. Maybe it needed to happen that way, it's a lesson for the future, such a mistake perhaps needed to be made for us to learn.

In your entire answer you didn't grasp a single thing I said, instead going on about what you think of certain philosophers and your understanding of them. From all the likes you got they probably didn't get it either, and that's perhaps a good thing.

I'm not trying to condescend, I'm pushing your buttons in a way for you to give me something, trying to understand what the nature of your thinking is. Don't be offended, I'm about done.


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> *You keep wanting to avoid Hitler* but that's where you must go, many see him as an untouchable,


Why would anyone want to avoid Hitler? 



1996D said:


> but *he was a human being like you and me*


Speak for yourself.



1996D said:


> and he *fully understood and appreciated Wagner's art*. Maybe it needed to happen that way, it's a lesson for the future, such a mistake perhaps needed to be made for us to learn.


How do you know this? Did he publish music criticism of which I am unaware? Or was he an old family friend or something?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

1996D said:


> You're trying to make it more complex than it is to avoid facing the truth, it's your mental gymnastics, you'll continue to go through unlimited hurdles, just running away. But the reality is simple, there is a direct action and a direct reaction.
> 
> I didn't go into the technicalities of Wagner and Mahler because I respect both of them, and while I think Mahler is better, he is the student, Wagner did it before. I have no desire to diminish in any way Wagner's technical ability, on the contrary, thus why I started this thread.
> 
> You keep wanting to avoid Hitler but that's where you must go, many see him as an untouchable, but he was a human being like you and me, and he fully understood and appreciated Wagner's art. Maybe it needed to happen that way, it's a lesson for the future, such a mistake perhaps needed to be made for us to learn.
> 
> In your entire answer you didn't grasp a single thing I said, instead going on about what you think of certain philosophers and your understanding of them. From all the likes you got they probably didn't get it either, and that's perhaps a good thing.
> 
> I'm not trying to condescend, I'm pushing your buttons in a way for you to give me something, trying to understand what the nature of your thinking is. Don't be offended, I'm about done.


Hitler also loved the music of Beethoven and in particular Beethoven symphony # 9 was performed for him on his birthday. Would you avoid Beethoven symphony # 9 for that reason?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Well its obvious that anyone who prefers Wagner is a closet Nazi, hope that clears things up 

Interesting anecdote from Volker Ullrich's recent Hitler bio is that Adolph, when he lived in Vienna, liked Mahler's Wagner conducting in Vienna and even defended his compositions from anti-Semitic detractors (no documentation exists of Hitler's rabid antisemitism until after the war)


----------



## 1996D

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Hitler also loved the music of Beethoven and in particular Beethoven symphony # 9 was performed for him on his birthday. Would you avoid Beethoven symphony # 9 for that reason?


I avoid no music, neither am I saying that some art should be banned like some other users implied. Of course some art will get banned in the future, this has happened many times in the past, but I'm not promoting it.

It's all an exploration of evil, of the evil inside myself too, these things need to be talked about and explored, Woodduck just happened to be a perfect subject.

In understanding how other people rationalize it, you can then see it in yourself, how you run away with your own mental gymnastics.


----------



## Room2201974

Mussolini in the 1920's fully 10 years ahead of Hitler and his mentor in many ways.

Franco in Spain in the 1930's.

Tojo and Konoye in Japan in the 30's and 40's.

Three brutal fascist regimes all coming to power without one word or note required from a long dead German composer.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You're trying to make it more complex than it is to avoid facing the truth, it's your mental gymnastics, you'll continue to go through unlimited hurdles, just running away. But the reality is simple, there is a direct action and a direct reaction.


Reality is simple only to two-year-olds. Direct actions and reactions? What is this, chemistry class?



> I didn't go into the technicalities of Wagner and Mahler because I respect both of them,


Funny. That would make a musician MORE likely to "go into the technicalities."



> and while I think Mahler is better, he is the student, Wagner did it before. I have no desire to diminish in any way Wagner's technical ability, on the contrary, thus why I started this thread.


I'm sure Wagner would be relieved to know that you recognize his technical ability. But if that's the subject of the thread, why are you avoiding it? Oh yeah..."respect."



> You keep wanting to avoid Hitler but that's where you must go,


That's where YOU must go, apparently. Well, go. Just don't drag what could be a worthwhile discussion of two great composers along with you.



> many see Hitler as an untouchable, but he was a human being like you and me,


Speak for yourself.



> he fully understood and appreciated Wagner's art.


How would you know what he understood? His hideous life indicates a man who failed to understand quite a few things.

If you want a real discussion of precisely how Hitler was influenced by Wagner, you're going to have to learn a lot more about both of them.



> Maybe it needed to happen that way, it's a lesson for the future, such a mistake perhaps needed to be made for us to learn.


Well, I don't know what YOU'VE learned, but it isn't anything about Wagner's operas. And it isn't how to avoid making flimsy arguments and insulting people when they don't accept them.



> In your entire answer you didn't grasp a single thing I said, instead going on about what you think of certain philosophers and your understanding of them. From all the likes you got they probably didn't get it either, and that's perhaps a good thing.


I didn't "go on" about any philosopher. I simply pointed out the carelessness of your throwing around philosophical ideas.

If you want people to "grasp" what you say about a subject, give some substantial evidence that you understand it yourself. There is zero evidence in this whole discussion that you understand Wagner's very rich and complex art, either musically or dramatically. All you've done is parrot tabloid cliches about an ominous "dark" something-or-other that for some reason or other gave birth to a power-intoxicated, genocidal failed artist _cum_ dictator.



> I'm not trying to condescend, I'm pushing your buttons in a way for you to give me something, trying to understand what the nature of your thinking is. Don't be offended, I'm about done.


Offended? You've told a man who has made a successful vocation of music that he doesn't know "what music is really about" and that he doesn't "hold ethics in high regard." Gosh! Who would be offended? What on earth would you say if you DID try to condescend?

So, are you actually "about done" now? Really, you should have been "done" before you started this thread under the false pretense that you wanted a discussion of music.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> *It's all an exploration of evil, of the evil inside myself too, these things need to be talked about and explored, Woodduck just happened to be a perfect subject.*


This needs to stand alone in all its glory.


----------



## DavidA

Bwv 1080 said:


> Well its obvious that anyone who prefers Wagner is a closet Nazi, hope that clears things up
> 
> Interesting anecdote from Volker Ullrich's recent Hitler bio is that Adolph, when he lived in Vienna, liked Mahler's Wagner conducting in Vienna and even defended his compositions from anti-Semitic detractors (*no documentation exists of Hitler's rabid antisemitism until after the war*)


So what are you implying by that statement?


----------



## hammeredklavier

In 1934, Goebbels, realizing the need to respite from military music, issued a decree which called for lighter music on the radio for several weeks following intensely emotional experiences such as party rallies. In order for the propagandistic value of the radio broadcasts to realized, Goebbels also accepted that the Reich had to provide programs which would encourage citizens to keep their radios turned on. Between 1932 and 1937, therefore, the amount of air time dedicated to music increased to sixty-nine percent, seven-eights of which was lighter music. These programs included operas by the nineteenth-century masters Weber, Lortzing, Cornelius and Nicolai, and operettas. Johann Strauss, Franx Lehár, Paul Lincke and lesser composers like Eduard Kunecke and Emil Rezenicek were heard repeatedly. Goebbels was aware that not everyone had a comprehension of music sufficient for appreciation of such works as Wagner's operas. He found it necessary that simple forms of music should exist and that creators of those forms should be made to realize that they render a service to the Reich. Then too, Hitler doubtlessly approved of the inclusion of lighter music, for he was especially fond of operettas.
Many symphonic programs by the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonic Orchestras were broadcast during the Third Reich. They were usually held to an hour's length, but special exceptions were made for such works as Bruckner's lengthy Seventh Symphony. Certain instrumental works became monograms for special events and announcements over the radio. The Meistersinger overture was played for Goebbels' annual radio celebration speeches on Heroes' Remembrance Day. Herzstein claimed that in a special effort to keep Germans out of the churches, special attention was given to Sunday broadcasts of the finest classical and church music and poetry readings.
Goebbels also banned the playing of Mozart's Requiem over the radio during the war, because it was "world-renouncing and depressing." Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was also rejected because it had become an allied victory signal. The war also brought confusion about playing, singing, and listening to music of the enemy. This resulted in a ban on the music of Ravel, Debussy, Chopin, Bizet, and Tchaikovsky. Nevertheless, Borodin's Prince Igor was performed at Hamburg during the German campaign in Russia.
Musical compositions were often changed to suit the restrictions of the Third Reich. In Beethoven's Fidelio, for example, Leonora's loyalty to Florestan was given emphasis in order to take attention away from the prison scenes, which were too relevant to concentration camps, while Wilhelm Backhus was praised for playing the Schumann concerto with a new German image, which avoided the typical effeminate manner of playing Schumann.
A portion of the Nazi government, surely not comprised of musicologists, saw a serious problem in the respective value of major and minor keys in music. Some argued greater gifts were required to compose in a major key because the composer had to "take upon himself the contradiction and paradox of life." More "inner strength" was needed than in the case of a minor key. Minor keys, on the other hand, were associated with non-Aryan music. The realization that a great number of songs of the movement were not in a major key but had "a marked affinity with an alien system of sound" was quite disturbing to some, such as Rosenberg. However there was never a resolution of the dispute.

(Adolf Hitler: A Psychological Interpretation of His Views on Architecture, Art, and Music. By Sherree Owens Zalampas. Pg. 108~110)



1996D said:


> he was a human being like you and me


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Bwv 1080

DavidA said:


> So what are you implying by that statement?


What are you implying that I am implying?


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. And it doesn't mean I endorse the political views, life styles or morality of Degas, Picasso, D'Indy, or any other artists who may have been bad people in one or more ways. I would also say that if you started worrying about womanizers like Furtwangler, who got various women pregnant, and/or cheated on their wives, and/or had very young girlfriends, *that would eliminate from consideration a large number of artists throughout western history*.


Exactly! I don't know why people then are so rabid in their defence of Wagner or any other artist. I enjoy their art but certainly do not look to them for any guidance or philosophy of life. I can admire their genius but not their lifestyle.


----------



## bz3

DavidA said:


> Please can we please not have this sort of condescension. I know people who are highly intelligent, are even professional musicians, but they simply don't like Wagner. They don't like his music, his philosophy and his bombast. It's not that they can't 'cope' with his art. They just don't like his art. I was strolling round a Dutch city last year with a friend and happened to mention my love of van Gogh. My friend surprised me when he said he didn't think much of van Gogh's paintings and much preferred Rembrandt. He didn't even reckon van Gogh was in the same league. It wasn't because he couldn't 'cope' with van Gogh's art - he just didn't like it! As he is a highly intelligent man and probably knows more about art than me I respect his opinion while not necessarily agreeing with it. Similarly, for goodness sake, let's allow people to dislike composers we like without using condescending language which views them as lesser species.


Nobody said you must like Wagner. I was talking about a specific strain in Wagner detractors, and you usually know them because they insist they aren't detractors at all but rather warm, moralistic humanists who have taken it upon themselves to educate others on that diabolical evil incarnate known to us mortals as Richard Wagner.



1996D said:


> I started this thread, read the original post.
> 
> I enjoy Wagner a lot, but his impact on the world was a terrible one.


Such as this. Who wouldn't want to revel in an artist that is basically Opera Wars: The Rise of Hitler? I listen to Kodak Black everyday for this very reason.


----------



## DavidA

bz3 said:


> Nobody said you must like Wagner. I was talking about a specific strain in Wagner detractors, and you usually know them because they insist they aren't detractors at all but rather warm, moralistic humanists who have taken it upon themselves to educate others on that diabolical evil incarnate known to us mortals as Richard Wagner.


I know them not because they are 'rather warm, moralistic humanists' but because they are people who just don't like Wagner - his music, his philosophy or both! As a fellow human being I allow them that privilege! Please, there is nothing wrong with someone because they don't like Wagner!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I don't know why people are so rabid in their defence of Wagner or any other artist.


Well, perhaps you can explain why people are "so rabid" in trying to portray Wagner's works as Nazi manifestos, and to brand people who take exception to this as "fanatics" and "cultists."



> I enjoy their art but certainly do not look to them for any guidance or philosophy of life.


Who does that?



> I can admire their genius but not their lifestyle.


Do you see anyone defending anyone's "lifestyle"? Speaking for myself, I'm only minimally interested in the extra-curricular activities of artists. I care about the substance of their work, and I defend them only when others confuse their work with their "lifestyle," make strained attempts to read their lifestyle into it, and blame the artists for the inappropriate uses to which their work is put by others.


----------



## fluteman

Oh, brother. I can easily understand why some would associate Wagner's music with Hitler and the Nazi regime, and equally easily why others would not make that association. It depends on the listener's own mindset and tastes. From my own investigation, it seems hammeredklavier's comments, or those of the author he cites, are spot on. The Nazis used the music that they thought best suited to their propaganda campaign, and it came from many composers. I very much doubt Wagner's own antisemitic diatribes had anything to do with whether or how his music was used.


----------



## Bwv 1080

hammeredklavier said:


> In 1934, Goebbels, realizing the need to respite from military music, issued a decree which called for lighter music on the radio for several weeks following intensely emotional experiences such as party rallies. In order for the propagandistic value of the radio broadcasts to realized, Goebbels also accepted that the Reich had to provide programs which would encourage citizens to keep their radios turned on. Between 1932 and 1937, therefore, the amount of air time dedicated to music increased to sixty-nine percent, seven-eights of which was lighter music.


Goebbels made a similar accommodation to swing in late 1941, allowing germanized swing on armed forces radio to try to prevent soldiers listening to allied radio



> Speak for yourself.


""Are we permitted to depict Hitler as a human being?" the German media asked in 2004 with the release of Bernd Eichinger's film Downfall, which depicted the Führer, played by veteran actor Bruno Ganz, during his final days in the bunker in Berlin. 42 The only answer is: not only are we permitted, we are obliged to. It is a huge mistake to assume that a criminal on the millennial scale of Hitler must have been a monster. Naturally it would be simpler to reduce him to a psychopath who used political action to realise his homicidal impulses. For a long time this tendency to demonise Hitler dominated historical research and prevented us from having a clear view of the actual man. In February 1947, from the isolation of his cell in Spandau prison, Albert Speer remarked on the growing tendency in post-Nazi German society "to depict Hitler as a carpet-chewing hotheaded dictator who blew his stack on the slightest of occasions." Speer thought that was both wrong and dangerous, noting: "If there are no human characteristics in the picture of Hitler, if one ignores" "his power of persuasion, his winning qualities and the Austrian charm he was capable of displaying, one will never do justice to him as a phenomenon""

- Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939 by Volker Ullrich
http://a.co/bq3Ihhd


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Oh, brother. I can easily understand why some would associate Wagner's music with Hitler and the Nazi regime, and equally easily why others would not make that association. It depends on the listener's own mindset and tastes. From my own investigation, it seems hammeredklavier's comments, or those of the author he cites, are spot on. The Nazis used the music that they thought best suited to their propaganda campaign, and it came from many composers. I very much doubt Wagner's own antisemitic diatribes had anything to do with whether or how his music was used.


We know Hitler turned Bayreuth into a shrine of German Nazi nationalism. That and the fact that certain of Wagner's most repellent philosophies found an echo in the Nazis links the composer indelibly to them. We know that much other music was used by the Nazis but it was Wagner's virulent philosophy - tones of it - which links him to Hitler.


----------



## Machiavel

Arguing with a Wagnerites is like arguing with flat earthers. BOth act like its a cult and a sect. If only Wagner was original and not copied and take all his ideas from Berlioz. The main weakness about Wagner is he was incapable to get to the point with overly long overblown passages that dont finish just like Beethoven 4th movement in his 5th symphony. Also he really should have let someone worte his libretto. You won't finf pro singers who dont like Mozartt or puccinni or verdi singing but Wagner guttural does have his many detractors between the singers both female and males.

Anyway, happy holidays everyone. Just remember Wagner was an ahole who should have


----------



## bz3

DavidA said:


> We know Hitler turned Bayreuth into a shrine of German Nazi nationalism. That and the fact that certain of Wagner's most repellent philosophies found an echo in the Nazis links the composer indelibly to them. We know that much other music was used by the Nazis but it was Wagner's virulent philosophy - tones of it - which links him to Hitler.


What is 'Wagner's virulent philosophy?' The only specific complaints I've been able to glean from the very vague references to 'darkness' and 'evil' is that perhaps Wagner's traditionalist thought turns off more whiggish commenters - though I don't even think Wagner is that clear.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> In 1934, Goebbels, realizing the need to respite from military music, issued a decree which called for lighter music on the radio for several weeks following intensely emotional experiences such as party rallies. In order for the propagandistic value of the radio broadcasts to realized, Goebbels also accepted that the Reich had to provide programs which would encourage citizens to keep their radios turned on. Between 1932 and 1937, therefore, the amount of air time dedicated to music increased to sixty-nine percent, seven-eights of which was lighter music. These programs included operas by the nineteenth-century masters Weber, Lortzing, Cornelius and Nicolai, and operettas. Johann Strauss, Franx Lehár, Paul Lincke and lesser composers like Eduard Kunecke and Emil Rezenicek were heard repeatedly. Goebbels was aware that not everyone had a comprehension of music sufficient for appreciation of such works as Wagner's operas. He found it necessary that simple forms of music should exist and that creators of those forms should be made to realize that they render a service to the Reich. Then too, Hitler doubtlessly approved of the inclusion of lighter music, for he was especially fond of operettas.
> Many symphonic programs by the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonic Orchestras were broadcast during the Third Reich. They were usually held to an hour's length, but special exceptions were made for such works as Bruckner's lengthy Seventh Symphony. Certain instrumental works became monograms for special events and announcements over the radio. The Meistersinger overture was played for Goebbels' annual radio celebration speeches on Heroes' Remembrance Day. Herzstein claimed that in a special effort to keep Germans out of the churches, special attention was given to Sunday broadcasts of the finest classical and church music and poetry readings.
> Goebbels also banned the playing of Mozart's Requiem over the radio during the war, because it was "world-renouncing and depressing." Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was also rejected because it had become an allied victory signal. The war also brought confusion about playing, singing, and listening to music of the enemy. This resulted in a ban on the music of Ravel, Debussy, Chopin, Bizet, and Tchaikovsky. Nevertheless, Borodin's Prince Igor was performed at Hamburg during the German campaign in Russia.
> Musical compositions were often changed to suit the restrictions of the Third Reich. In Beethoven's Fidelio, for example, Leonora's loyalty to Florestan was given emphasis in order to take attention away from the prison scenes, which were too relevant to concentration camps, while Wilhelm Backhus was praised for playing the Schumann concerto with a new German image, which avoided the typical effeminate manner of playing Schumann.
> A portion of the Nazi government, surely not comprised of musicologists, saw a serious problem in the respective value of major and minor keys in music. Some argued greater gifts were required to compose in a major key because the composer had to "take upon himself the contradiction and paradox of life." More "inner strength" was needed than in the case of a minor key. Minor keys, on the other hand, were associated with non-Aryan music. The realization that a great number of songs of the movement were not in a major key but had "a marked affinity with an alien system of sound" was quite disturbing to some, such as Rosenberg. However there was never a resolution of the dispute.
> 
> (Adolf Hitler: A Psychological Interpretation of His Views on Architecture, Art, and Music. By Sherree Owens Zalampas. Pg. 108~110)


Thank you for posting this interesting document. Such a dry-eyed, factual account of the ideologically determined musical views of the Third Reich should give pause to anyone imagining that Wagner's - or anyone else's - works were "fully understood" by Hitler. No one who's aware of the uses of art under dictatorships should be capable of any such assumption.

No one comes to art _tabula rasa._ Art is what we want and need it to be, regardless of its actual content, and unless we're determined to have an open mind we see mainly what we expect, or are told, to see. For many people, thanks to Hitler, Goebbels and company, as well as to our society's abiding obsession with the still-unsolved cultural neuroses their reign of horror represents, Wagner is an artist who will never be fully visible. What's become painfully clear to me (and wastes a great deal of my time and effort here) is that so many people who have only superficial experience of Wagner's works and no direct experience of the Nazi era think they "know" that those works somehow prefigure Nazism. Their "knowledge" appears to be based only on their reading of popular journalists and academics who know how to cash in on the abovementioned cultural obsessions. People who wouldn't dream of sitting through an opera can pick up a newspaper and in a few minutes "know" that Wagner "wrote the soundtrack for the Third Reich." (Presumably that was before he married Natalie Wood.)

That kind of "knowledge" just isn't good enough.


----------



## bz3

Machiavel said:


> Arguing with a Wagnerites is like arguing with flat earthers. BOth act like its a cult and a sect. If only Wagner was original and not copied and take all his ideas from Berlioz. The main weakness about Wagner is he was incapable to get to the point with overly long overblown passages that dont finish just like Beethoven 4th movement in his 5th symphony. Also he really should have let someone worte his libretto. You won't finf pro singers who dont like Mozartt or puccinni or verdi singing but Wagner guttural does have his many detractors between the singers both female and males.
> 
> Anyway, happy holidays everyone. Just remember Wagner was an ahole who should have


Yes this is generally the final refuge. After calling him evil, an 'ahole,' etc. and failing to extrapolate the critic says 'and besides, his operas were too long and stuff and someone else should have written them!' Surprised you didn't suggest he was homosexual or had impure thoughts about his mother. Maybe you've got to save some for the next post.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> We know Hitler turned Bayreuth into a shrine of German Nazi nationalism. That and the fact that certain of Wagner's most repellent philosophies found an echo in the Nazis links the composer indelibly to them. We know that much other music was used by the Nazis but it was Wagner's virulent philosophy - tones of it - which links him to Hitler.


Lots of things are "linked" to other things. That's how gossip gains a foothold. To a responsible person, "links" are merely suggestions that further inquiry may be warranted.

The "links" you mention are the ways in which Wagner was understood and used by Hitler, fifty years after Wagner's death. They tell us nothing about Wagner and about his artistic intentions or accomplishments.

I guess its easier to gossip than to say anything worthwhile.


----------



## DavidA

bz3 said:


> What is '*Wagner's virulent philosophy?' T*he only specific complaints I've been able to glean from the very vague references to 'darkness' and 'evil' is that perhaps Wagner's traditionalist thought turns off more whiggish commenters - though I don't even think Wagner is that clear.


Sorry but I would have thought that was obvious! Someone has complained about the links to Hitler being like 'gossip'. Would those links have been made in people's minds if certain philosophies had not been somewhat uncomfortably similar? All I am doing is facing the historical realities of the situation. Unless we want to re-write history there are unfortunate similarities


----------



## bz3

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I would have thought that was obvious! Someone has complained about the links to Hitler being like 'gossip'. Would those links have been made in people's minds if certain philosophies had not been somewhat uncomfortably similar? All I am doing is facing the historical realities of the situation. Unless we want to re-write history there are unfortunate similarities


It's so obvious that it cannot even be mentioned, I suppose.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I would have thought that was obvious! Someone has complained about the links to Hitler being like 'gossip'. Would those links have been made in people's minds if certain philosophies had not been somewhat uncomfortably similar? All I am doing is facing the historical realities of the situation. Unless we want to re-write history there are unfortunate similarities


Oh for Pete's sake! Wagner was antisemitic. Hitler was antisemitic. Germany was antisemitic. Europe was antisemitic. So there!

Now what? Can we stop hinting about "links," "certain philosophies," "unfortunate similarities"?

Where does this get us in understanding Wagner's works?

(By the way, "someone" did not "complain" about "the links to Hitler" being "like 'gossip'." But "someone" - me - did say, "The "links" you mention are the ways in which Wagner was _understood and used by Hitler,_ fifty years after Wagner's death." That's the sentence you should have paid attention to. You're pretty obvious about pretending to miss the point.)


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> It's just *the 'Wagner uber alles, uber alles in der Welt' cult movement* that is making any conversation with Wagner in it, into a battle...its delusion of supremacy, *actually resembling sheer fascism, *if you follow the definition. *It is therefor only logical that Wagner will always be associated with Hitler and the Nazi's,* as also in this thread. The repeated (endless) attempts to ridicule or diminish such *logical and historically correct comparisons,* are only a way to whitewash or hide the inevitable and to change history.
> 
> It's just *the followers who try to **steal Wagner's heritage and make proprietary claims* in an attempt that *one may only like Wagner's music if you share certain theories.
> *
> But for the time being *merry Xmas to all who still believe in democracy* and who love music!


HOW WAGNER IS DISCUSSED ON TC

"Wagner's works are evil. They're linked to Hitler."

"What do you mean, linked?"

"They inspired Hitler to do what he did."

"Do what?"

"Mass murder and the attempted conquest of Europe."

"How did Wagner's operas inspire those things?"

"There's bad stuff in them."

"What stuff, particularly?"

"Um, dark, German-type stuff. You know, evil stuff."

"Well, I've known the operas well all my life, and I haven't seen anything that would inspire me to do evil things. Where's the concrete proof of your serious claim?"

"History proves it."

"History is an interpretation of facts. What are the facts? You need to be specific and clear."

"The problem isn't specifics, it's you. You're just unwilling to face the truth."

"What, exactly, is the truth, and how do you determine it?"

"Reputable sources say it."

"Say what, exactly? And what determines that they're reputable? Aren't there reputable sources that say something different?"

"You just won't see that the operas are immoral. You're morally obtuse."

"Gee, you're nice too. ... But what do you really know about Wagner's works? What qualifies you to make these judgments?"

"Well what qualifies YOU to pick fights with everybody who criticizes Wagner?"

"Offer any criticism you want, but either show some real knowledge and adduce some facts to back it up - or zip it up."

"Oh, you're a fanatic! You're a cultist! You're a fascist! You don't believe in democracy! Merry Christmas to everyone but you...you...you...you WAGNER LOVER!"


----------



## haydnguy

When we judge people in history we must always keep in mind the time and place of which they lived. Of course Hitler was evil but unless Wagner actually joined in the actions of Hitler it is quite possible that Wagner would not be seen in a bad way if he lived in a different time or place. After all, people can be duped. I personally don't take into account a composers personal life when judging their music.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> (Presumably that was before he married Natalie Wood.)


First "fractions on the way to Stravinsky", and now that? :lol: I tried to write some good posts in this thread, but I have been beaten.


----------



## DavidA

‘Oh for Pete's sake! Wagner was antisemitic. Hitler was antisemitic. Germany was antisemitic. Europe was antisemitic. So there!’

Interesting statement that. I suppose that’s why my father risked his life for five years fighting against that anti-somatic regime. I suppose that’s why my relatives in Europe (and countless others) risked their lives sheltering Jews from the Holocaust - they were all antisemitic. Amazing how much history you can wipe out with a sentence.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> 'Oh for Pete's sake! Wagner was antisemitic. Hitler was antisemitic. Germany was antisemitic. Europe was antisemitic. So there!'
> 
> Interesting statement that. I suppose that's why my father risked his life for five years fighting against that anti-somatic regime. I suppose that's why my relatives in Europe (and countless others) risked their lives sheltering Jews from the Holocaust - they were all antisemitic. Amazing how much history you can wipe out with a sentence.


What are you talking about? You're "amazed" because you're missing the point. I keep forgetting that things have to be spelled out to the point of redundancy for some people (and sometimes even that doesn't help).

What's your purpose here? Why are you always attracted to Wagner discussions? Let me guess: it's the opportunity to say "Hitler" and Nazi" and "antisemitic" with an air of righteousness, isn't it? The chance to pronounce moral judgments, and to put down people who you think are too kind to the horrible nasty composer, who everyone knows wore pajamas decorated with swastikas and kept Hermann Levi in a dungeon and threatened to feed him nothing but matzos and water if he didn't conduct _Parsifal_ at the same exact tempo every night.

What a sad way to spend your time. But then, you have plenty of company. Looking for the worst in people, and exaggerating it if you can't find enough of it to satisfy you, is popular these days, and the internet is the ideal forum for those who want to denigrate others without consequences.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Machiavel said:


> If only Wagner was original and not copied and take all his ideas from Berlioz. The main weakness about Wagner is he was incapable to get to the point with overly long overblown passages that dont finish just like Beethoven 4th movement in his 5th symphony.


If only Berlioz was actually proficient at harmony and counterpoint (not just interesting orchestral effects) and stayed sober while composing... Alas, there had to be someone with solid techniques and a clear mind and a professional attitude to art such as Wagner to fully develop the ideas to create professional works, and make the ideas fully come true.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ I gave this a "like" because someone has returned the thread to discussing music (thank you!), not because I agree that Berlioz was incompetent or unprofessional. I have never felt that his work betrays an unclear mind, although I don't find all of it equally successful. Berlioz was a true original who invented his own techniques to say what he needed to say, and he turned out some great stuff. I'd be curious to know in which works you find the weaknesses you refer to.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> If only Berlioz was actually proficient at harmony and counterpoint (not just interesting orchestral effects) and stayed sober while composing... Alas, there had to be someone with solid techniques and a clear mind and a professional attitude to art such as Wagner to fully develop the ideas to create professional works, and make the ideas fully come true.


I'm not a great fan of Berlioz but I think it would be difficult to argue that he struggled in the areas you suggest; and I notice you didn't do so.


----------



## Ethereality

Nobody has thoughts about the volume issue I mentioned? I never thought music appreciation was about a female vocalist being 3x piercingly louder than the rest of the parts going on. Wagner's writing is truly out of this world, but on recording, I have to listen to the audio considerably edited-out high pitches, to make out anything intelligible in composition, otherwise it sounds like wailing with faint background noise. I just don't get why anyone would want to mix a final product like that for serious listening.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ethereality said:


> Nobody has thoughts about the volume issue I mentioned? I never thought music appreciation was about a female vocalist being 3x piercingly louder than the rest of the parts going on. Wagner's writing is truly out of this world, but on recording, I have to listen to the audio considerably edited-out high pitches, to make out anything intelligible in composition, otherwise it sounds like wailing with faint background noise. I just don't get why anyone would want to mix a final product like that for serious listening.


I can't say I hear vocal or operatic music in the way you describe. Sure there are moments where the voice is piercing, but I enjoy them, it's always a wonder what heights the human voice can reach. The reasons I don't like opera have nothing to do with the way the voices are mixed, but more so in the structure of the music itself and my own attention span, among other, dramaturgical concerns. I would imagine others here probably feel similarly (in terms of not having a problem with the ways operatic recordings are EQ'd), and that's why no one else has responded.


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> I'm not a great fan of Berlioz but I think it would be difficult to argue that he struggled in the areas you suggest; and I notice you didn't do so.


For me, I've found I need to do two things to approach the music of Berlioz with a relatively clear mind and ear: First and most difficult, get the Symphonie fantastique out of my mind and ear; second, forget as much as possible about the harrowing experience of sitting through an entire Les Troyens.

I keep returning to two of his works: the song cycle Les Nuits d'été and the oratorio L'Enfance du Christ. Here is a kinder, gentler, more introspective Berlioz. Closer to the topic of this thread, I think it's interesting and significant that Mahler wrote song cycles but Wagner did not.


----------



## flamencosketches

fluteman said:


> For me, I've found I need to do two things to approach the music of Berlioz with a relatively clear mind and ear: First and most difficult, get the Symphonie fantastique out of my mind and ear; second, forget as much as possible about the harrowing experience of sitting through an entire Les Troyens.
> 
> I keep returning to two of his works: the song cycle Les Nuits d'été and the oratorio L'Enfance du Christ. Here is a kinder, gentler, more introspective Berlioz. Closer to the topic of this thread, I think it's interesting and significant that Mahler wrote song cycles but Wagner did not.


Wagner wrote at least one great orchestral song cycle: the Wesendonck Lieder. When I listened to Les nuits d'été for the first time in quite some time yesterday, I was reminded of the Wesendonck Lieder. There is definitely truth to the notion that Wagner drew much from Berlioz.

edit: correction, Wagner wrote the Wesendonck Lieder for voice and piano. They were later orchestrated by someone else.


----------



## fluteman

flamencosketches said:


> Wagner wrote at least one great orchestral song cycle: the Wesendonck Lieder. When I listened to Les nuits d'été for the first time in quite some time yesterday, I was reminded of the Wesendonck Lieder. There is definitely truth to the notion that Wagner drew much from Berlioz.
> 
> edit: correction, Wagner wrote the Wesendonck Lieder for voice and piano. They were later orchestrated by someone else.


Yes, I forgot about those songs, nor was I sure they were considered a "song cycle" in the sense the famous ones by Schubert, Schumann and Mahler are. But OK. And I hear the influence of Berlioz in Mahler even more than in Wagner, but it seems to be there in both cases.


----------



## DavidA

In saying that Wagner has certain unfortunate philosophies in common with a certain dictator we are not ‘trying to see the worst in people’ but merely stating the clear facts of history. That is one reason they tend to be linked together in people's thinking. Sorry but that is just history. I know history has unfortunate facts but there it is.


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> Wagner wrote at least one great orchestral song cycle: the Wesendonck Lieder. When I listened to Les nuits d'été for the first time in quite some time yesterday, I was reminded of the Wesendonck Lieder. There is definitely truth to the notion that Wagner drew much from Berlioz.
> 
> edit: correction, Wagner wrote the Wesendonck Lieder for voice and piano. They were later orchestrated by someone else.


I certainly wouldn't apply the label 'great' to it personally.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> For me, I've found I need to do two things to approach the music of Berlioz with a relatively clear mind and ear: First and most difficult, get the Symphonie fantastique out of my mind and ear; second, forget as much as possible about the harrowing experience of sitting through an entire Les Troyens.
> 
> I keep returning to two of his works: the song cycle Les Nuits d'été and the oratorio L'Enfance du Christ. Here is a kinder, gentler, more introspective Berlioz. Closer to the topic of this thread, I think it's interesting and significant that Mahler wrote song cycles but Wagner did not.


Your preferences in Berlioz are different from mine. I share your liking for _Les Nuits d'ete_ (do you know Janet Baker's recording? Glorious!), but _L'Enfance du Christ_ has never done anything for me. And I love _Symphonie Fantastique_ and _Les Troyens_ (though the latter partly because I had the fantastique experience of singing in the chorus of the Boston Opera production in the '70s). I like the crazy Berlioz; his _Requiem_ is trippy, as my generation used to say.

Liszt and Wagner talked a lot about Berlioz, and expressed concern for his career and well-being. Wagner said that only he, Liszt and Berlioz understood where music was headed. Wagner was excited by _Romeo and Juliet; _one of the motifs in _Tristan_ is reminiscent of one in Berlioz's love scene. He sent Berlioz a score of the prelude to Tristan, inscribed (roughly), "In gratitude, to the composer of_ Romeo and Juliet_ from the composer of _Tristan and Isolde._" Berlioz reportedly found the music baffling.

I'm curious why you think it's interesting or significant that Wagner didn't write a song cycle. The _Wesendonck Lieder_ aren't really a cycle, it's true; they're related only in that the poems were all by Wagner's love interest, Mathilde Wesendonck, but they are generally performed together, and virtually all mezzo-sopranos sing them (I'm not a mezzo but I've sung a couple of them myself). Wagner might have written more songs had he not been so busy writing operas and long, verbose essays on everything under the sun. I just wish he'd lived another decade and gotten around to the symphonies he said he was planning. He told Liszt that he was thinking of a new form based on thematic metamorphosis. That brings Sibelius to mind. We'll never know.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

DavidA said:


> In saying that Wagner has certain unfortunate philosophies in common with a certain dictator we are not 'trying to see the worst in people' but merely stating the clear facts of history. That is one reason they tend to be linked together in people's thinking. Sorry but that is just history. I know history has unfortunate facts but there it is.


Margaret Sanger got awards from Hitler and is loved by today's democrat leadership does that link them to Hitler?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> In saying that Wagner has certain unfortunate philosophies in common with a certain dictator we are not 'trying to see the worst in people' but merely stating the clear facts of history. That is one reason they tend to be linked together in people's thinking. Sorry but that is just history. I know history has unfortunate facts but there it is.


Antisemitism is not a "philosophy." It is, and was - partcularly at that time - a common prejudice. The nearest thing the Nazis had to a "philosophy," the idea that the "Ayan races" were superior to all others and that the "greatest" of the Aryans, the Germans, were destined to rule and/or destroy the "inferior races," was not advanced by Wagner and is not a theme present in his works (despite the strained efforts of some to find it there). Those, sir, are the "clear facts of history."

Wagner and Hitler are "linked together in people's thinking" because people who don't know the clear facts, or have an interest in overlooking them, keep insisting that they should be. People like you. (Read post #166. You should find yourself there.)


----------



## Bwv 1080

Wagner should not get off too easily, although he died before the antisemitic racially-based panGermanism of the late 19th century took off, he was a leading influence for Schonerer which then is a direct line to Hitler. 

‘The Jews have never produced a true poet’ -Wagner

10 symphonies and several song cycles by Mahler proved him wrong


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I share your liking for _Les Nuits d'ete_ (do you know Janet Baker's recording? Glorious!)


Yes, she is wonderful, but I especially like Regine Crespin's version.



Woodduck said:


> I'm curious why you think it's interesting or significant that Wagner didn't write a song cycle.


Because though song cycles usually have unifying themes and ideas, and perhaps even a logical progression from introduction to development or examination of those ideas and some sort of conclusion, I don't think of them as single, cohesive dramatic narratives, or they would be more like cantatas than song cycles, at least in my mind. (I guess I need to break out my music dictionary before writing these posts.) For me, Wagner is a champion of the cohesive dramatic narrative.



Woodduck said:


> Antisemitism is not a "philosophy." It is, and was - partcularly at that time - a common prejudice. The nearest thing the Nazis had to a "philosophy," the idea that the "Ayan races" were superior to all others and that the "greatest" of the Aryans, the Germans, were destined to rule and/or destroy the "inferior races," was not advanced by Wagner and is not a theme present in his works ....


Not only is all of that entirely correct as far as my own research indicates, but even the idea of the "Aryan race", like other ideas of earlier "thinkers" (more like quacks and frauds) was completely reinvented to support the idea that Germans were superior and destined to rule the world, which is the one and only consistent "idea" I've found in Nazi ideology. Otherwise, their ideas are most accurately categorized as mere propaganda strategies, though sometimes elaborate and sophisticated ones.

I see Wagner's antisemitism as strategic as well, but the strategy was one many famous composers have had, to advance their own artistic approach beyond that of other composers. He resented Meyerbeer as an inferior composer who nevertheless was popular and financially successful. He was professionally jealous of Mendelssohn, who was a great composer with an entirely different approach, and set of skills with which to realize it, than his own. His antisemitism was a convenient way to belittle them, as much of his audience shared it to some extent.

All that has nothing to do with the Nazi agenda. Other earlier antisemitic writers also have some very non-Nazi ideas. I'll never dignify the Nazis by pretending their crude "ideology" has anything to do with the great music (not just Wagner's) they used for propaganda purposes.


----------



## Woodduck

Bwv 1080 said:


> Wagner should not get off too easily, although he died before the antisemitic racially-based panGermanism of the late 19th century took off, he was a leading influence for Schonerer which then is a direct line to Hitler.
> 
> 'The Jews have never produced a true poet' -Wagner
> 
> 10 symphonies and several song cycles by Mahler proved him wrong


We can trace many such direct lines between what some people say and other people do down the road, with varying "degrees of separation." Wagner made antisemitic statements; some people agreed with them, others didn't. Unfortunately his wife did, and unquestionably numbers of his admirers did. But the idea of German racial superiority and dominance did not come from or through him; it was presented to him toward the end of his life by Gobineau, and he found it interesting but did not accept it. That's not surprising considering the number of intelligent and talented Jews who were very much a part of his life and who worked to propagate his music.

It would have been interesting to see how he responded to Mahler's "Resurrection" symphony had he lived to hear it. Would he have been able, or tried, to find something "Jewish" in it, as he did in the works of Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer?


----------



## hammeredklavier

_"I didn't expect such Jewish behavior from Pleyel… If we have to deal with Jews, let it at least be with orthodox ones…. Jews will be Jews and Huns will be Huns-that's the truth of it, but what can one do? I'm forced to deal with them…."_ -Frederic Chopin

The difference between Chopin and Wagner was that Chopin was not an influential composer of stage works, not an influential writer, and not German. If Chopin had all those attributes, we don't know what kind of influence he would have had on Hitler.


----------



## DavidA

A philosophy is ‘a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.’ 

Does it matter whether we call it a ‘prejudice’ or a ‘philosophy’? We know what we mean and history says they had it in common! I just cannot see the point of arguing over semantics when we all know surely what we mean!


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> _"I didn't expect such Jewish behavior from Pleyel… If we have to deal with Jews, let it at least be with orthodox ones…. Jews will be Jews and Huns will be Huns-that's the truth of it, but what can one do? I'm forced to deal with them…."_ -Frederic Chopin
> 
> The difference between Chopin and Wagner was that Chopin was not an influential composer of stage works, not an influential writer, and not German. If Chopin had all those attributes, we don't know what kind of influence he would have had on Hitler.


 The other point is Chopin did not make a point of writing long volumes of prose on the subject.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> _"I didn't expect such Jewish behavior from Pleyel… If we have to deal with Jews, let it at least be with orthodox ones…. Jews will be Jews and Huns will be Huns-that's the truth of it, but what can one do? I'm forced to deal with them…."_ -Frederic Chopin
> 
> The difference between Chopin and Wagner was that Chopin was not an influential composer of stage works, not an influential writer, and not German. *If Chopin had all those attributes, we don't know what kind of influence he would have had on Hitler.*


Probably not much. It was the operas of Wagner, not his antisemitic pronouncements, that affected Hitler so powerfully. Hitler is not known ever to have mentioned Wagner's antipathy to the Jews, including his essay, "Das Judentum in der Musik," and so although he must have known of the composer's attitudes, it seems clear that Hitler's love of Wagner was more an identification with what he felt to be the spirit of the music and the meaning of the mythical dramas it accompanied. In the theater Hitler could be transported by the ecstatic sounds, lose himself in fantasies of grandeur, and imagine himself a hero of the _Volk. _ It's interesting that the work of Wagner that spoke to him most powerfully seems to have been the early _Rienzi_, the composer's only overtly political opera, which offered the ambitious young Hitler a heroic figure he could identify with. The martial overture to _Rienzi _was plundered for theme music at Nazi rallies, and Hitler kept the manuscript of the opera in his possession until he died.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> The other point is Chopin did not make a point of writing long volumes of prose on the subject.


Neither did Wagner. He wrote a not-very-long essay.

How about making an effort to be accurate? Or is truth irrelevant to a propagandist?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> A philosophy is 'a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.'
> 
> Does it matter whether we call it a 'prejudice' or a 'philosophy'? We know what we mean and history says they had it in common! I just cannot see the point of arguing over semantics when we all know surely what we mean!


No one knows WHAT you mean when you speak in fuzzy generalizations, make unsupported accusations, and just make things up.

Can't you find a more suitable way to spend the day? Or your life? Venting your spleen about a dead composer seems a damned odd way to spend Christmas.


----------



## BachIsBest

hammeredklavier said:


> If only Berlioz was actually proficient at harmony and counterpoint (not just interesting orchestral effects) and stayed sober while composing... Alas, there had to be someone with solid techniques and a clear mind and a professional attitude to art such as Wagner to fully develop the ideas to create professional works, and make the ideas fully come true.


When I first started listening to Berlioz I would have agreed with many of these sentiments but I find I can't know. His harmonies and counterpoint were often quite different and idiosyncratic, but different and idiosyncratic are about the only two things that tie Berlioz's music together; the more you listen to it the more you begin to 'hear' the logic behind the absurdities. Although I certainly won't argue Berlioz had the harmonic mastery of Wagner (I mean, who did?) his harmonies suited his music and he had other attributes that Wagner didn't. Wagner's orchestration can, at its worst, be overbearing and overly weighty with his doubling of every part under the sun. Berlioz's instrumentation can hardly be faulted, even you admit this.

As for composing sober (or not) this is purely historical speculation and, furthermore, the art should be judged on its merits not on the mental state of the composer during composition (which can never really be ascertained anyways). I would hope that, although many in this thread seem to disagree, we don't judge _The Ring_ because Wagner might have been in an antisemitic "mood" while composing it.


----------



## DavidA

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Margaret Sanger got awards from Hitler and is loved by today's democrat leadership does that link them to Hitler?


Where did you get that from? Sanger and Hitler never met and in personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program; and donated to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda. "All the news from Germany is sad & horrible," she wrote in 1933, "and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria." (MS to Edith How-Martyn, May 21, 1933 [MSM C2:536].) She joined the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda and "gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany." ("World War II and World Peace," 1940? [MSM S72:269].) For Hitler the feeling was mutual; in 1933 the Nazis burned Sanger's books along with those of Ellis, Freud, German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and others. (Ellis to MS, Sept. 3, 1933 [LCM 3:385].)
In saying this I do not endorse all of Sanger's work but to link her with Hitler as some have done is a travesty of inaccurate history


----------



## Dimace

Mahler was inspired by nobody. Mahler's music is unique. A beautiful CHAOS, a crazy continuum, an eternal search with daemonic sounds, unexpected silences etc. There is no inspiration from others for such music. Only epiphany. Just open a Mahler's symphony score. So much detail, so many explanations, hundred of footnotes, also small texts are coming here and there. It is so obvious that the GREAT MAESTRO Mahler (he was by far the greatest maestro from ALL the big composers) had fears that could forget what he had composed and how he can conduct it! This is something unique in the history of symphonies and shows that everything he is doing is a creation of the moment and NOT something he learned or inspired from a third person. So much chaos in perfection… I don't believe that Mahler is greater in symphonies than Bruckner. For what I'm sure about him is that he is the MOST original and spontan than anybody else.


----------



## janxharris

fluteman said:


> For me, I've found I need to do two things to approach the music of Berlioz with a relatively clear mind and ear: First and most difficult, get the Symphonie fantastique out of my mind and ear; second, forget as much as possible about the harrowing experience of sitting through an entire Les Troyens.
> 
> I keep returning to two of his works: the song cycle Les Nuits d'été and the oratorio L'Enfance du Christ. Here is a kinder, gentler, more introspective Berlioz. Closer to the topic of this thread, I think it's interesting and significant that Mahler wrote song cycles but Wagner did not.


i will look into those pieces - thanks.


----------



## DavidA

I find it peculiar when members call historical facts ‘generalisations’


----------



## EdwardBast

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Margaret Sanger got awards from Hitler and is loved by today's democrat leadership does that link them to Hitler?


I, like DavidA, am curious about where you dredged up this conspiracy theory. Care to provide any documentation?



DavidA said:


> *Where did you get that from?* Sanger and Hitler never met and in personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program; and donated to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda. "All the news from Germany is sad & horrible," she wrote in 1933, "and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria." (MS to Edith How-Martyn, May 21, 1933 [MSM C2:536].) She joined the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda and "gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany." ("World War II and World Peace," 1940? [MSM S72:269].) For Hitler the feeling was mutual; in 1933 the Nazis burned Sanger's books along with those of Ellis, Freud, German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and others. (Ellis to MS, Sept. 3, 1933 [LCM 3:385].)
> In saying this I do not endorse all of Sanger's work but to link her with Hitler as some have done is a travesty of inaccurate history


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from personal comments. The thread topic is Wagner & Mahler. Discuss those composers and not each other.


----------



## fluteman

I've noticed the personal lives and political or philosophical views of great artists often are unimpressive at best. My conclusion after studying the lives of many great artists is, in many cases, they focus so much, not only of their energy, talent, intellect and discipline, but also their courage, integrity, empathy, generosity, and any of their other good qualities, on their art, that what's left to devote to the rest of their lives is often the other side of the coin: selfishness, vanity, pettiness, cowardice, dishonesty, lack of respect for their spouses or lovers and interest in their children, carelessness with money, overindulgence in alcohol, and in general, the lesser side of themselves.

It is dangerous to confuse the art with the artist himself. As Ben Jonson said about Shakespeare (and what little is known about the bard's personal life is not impressive), look not to the man, but to his book.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I've noticed the personal lives and political or philosophical views of great artists often are unimpressive at best. My conclusion after studying the lives of many great artists is, in many cases, they focus so much, not only of their energy, talent, intellect and discipline, but also their courage, integrity, empathy, generosity, and any of their other good qualities, on their art, that what's left to devote to the rest of their lives is often the other side of the coin: selfishness, vanity, pettiness, cowardice, dishonesty, lack of respect for their spouses or lovers and interest in their children, carelessness with money, overindulgence in alcohol, and in general, the lesser side of themselves.
> 
> It is dangerous to confuse the art with the artist himself. As Ben Jonson said about Shakespeare (and what little is known about the bard's personal life is not impressive), look not to the man, but to his book.


To these observations I would add: and not only artists. Humans are a problematic species in general. Getting all the parts of our oversized, overactive brains to work together harmoniously is a precarious achievement at best. The animal and the god in us are often at war, and often we're unsure which is which. The miracle is that such great art can arise from such unpromising soil.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> To these observations I would add: and not only artists. Humans are a problematic species in general. Getting all the parts of our oversized, overactive brains to work together harmoniously is a precarious achievement at best. The animal and the god in us are often at war, and often we're unsure which is which. The miracle is that such great art can arise from such unpromising soil.


Indeed. One of the most famous autobiographies ever written is that of Italian Renaissance sculptor and goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini. Justly famous, as it gives unique insight into one of the great artistic ages and places in the history of western civilization. It also reveals Cellini the man as arrogant, vain, self-centered, and as proud of his amorous conquests as of his art. Perhaps that mindset was needed to rise to the top of the competitive art game in 16th century Florence. Or not. Either way, I wouldn't appreciate it if my admiration for his work (including his book) was taken as an endorsement of his character or lifestyle, or as a negative reflection on my own character. To me, that would be so patently absurd, not to mention insulting, I would have little interest in responding.


----------



## Woodduck

The amount of straw-manning going on here is extraordinary even for TC. Two points, for those capable of understanding the distinctions involved:

1. No one is "excusing" any artist's behavior. No one is saying that bad actions are acceptable because they're undertaken by artists. Gesualdo's fascinating music did not make it acceptable for him to commit murder. However, the relationship between a human being's creative life and their everyday life in the world has long been a topic of interest, and we ought to be able to be talk about it dispassionately without risk of being labeled morally deficient. 

2. No one is denying that an artist's work has an impact on others, or that the impact may result in bad actions on the part of those others. But this doesn't imply that the artist is responsible for those actions, or that there must be something improper about his work. There may indeed be, but that has to be demonstrated with reference to the content of the art itself, not to the reactions of deluded individuals or cultures. 

Self-styled inquisitors and iconoclasts whose only desire is to condemn and appear superior won't care about these distinctions. They may not even understand them. Most of us will understand them, and in any case they ought to be made.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> If only Berlioz was actually proficient at harmony and counterpoint (not just interesting orchestral effects) and stayed sober while composing... Alas, there had to be someone with solid techniques and a clear mind and a professional attitude to art such as Wagner to fully develop the ideas to create professional works, and make the ideas fully come true.


Berlioz was well aware of what he was doing. He had a great sense of harmony well ahead of his time, and Boulez's supposedly. I believe it's his use of bitonality in a more conservative context that either puts some off, or intrigues some others. Also he knew how to play around with the listener's expectation.


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> Berlioz was well aware of what he was doing. He had a great sense of harmony well ahead of his time, and Boulez's supposedly. I believe it's his use of bitonality in a more conservative context that either puts some off, or intrigues some others. Also he knew how to play around with the listener's expectation.


Where does Berlioz use bitonality?


----------



## Taggart

Thread closed to allow for moderator discussion.


----------

