# Is Wagner sufficient as pure music?



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

I'm sure a similar topic to this must have been touched upon at other points, but I'd like to gauge the current opinion: if a person were to buy one of Wagner's operas without any clue as to the plot, the libretto's meaning etc... to what extent would he be experiencing Wagner's genius? Are the story/libretto _*so*_ inextricably linked to the music that Wagner (indeed this can apply to other operas) doesn't supply a thoroughly transcendental experience simply through the ears?

This has been my eternal inner debate with opera in general...


----------



## NishmatHaChalil (Apr 17, 2017)

At least from my experience, I do think so! As a child, I loved to listen to Tristan and Parsifal long before I learned how to read the libretti. My experience with the Ring was less consistent at the time, but even now I don't like it all that much. I'm a great opera fan, however. I know many classical listeners who cannot stand singing.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

NishmatHaChalil said:


> I know many classical listeners who cannot stand singing.


That would be me! :wave:

As far as Wagner goes, I've never heard more than a few minutes of his actual operas. I have heard the symphonic versions of some of his operas (I have the Wagner Without Words CD from Szell) and overtures and his talent shows through there too even if his style isn't always what I enjoy. Maybe I'd be even further in awe of his talent if I was an opera fan, but regardless I have a tremendous amount of respect for his ability to make great music even without the singing or any knowledge of the libretto. I could say the same thing about Bizet, Rossini, and perhaps other composers best known for opera.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I think a Wagner without words album can provide such an experience, but I cannot imagine anyone listening to all that singing and not wishing to know what the heck is going on. I myself surely wouldn't get a "transcendental" experience from listening to a Wagner opera with all that singing, without doing my homework first. The singing would simply be "noise" blocking out the incredible music. Once you do the background work-familiarizing yourself with the libretto, then the words and music make sense together.


----------



## NishmatHaChalil (Apr 17, 2017)

hpowders said:


> I think a Wagner without words album can provide such an experience, but I cannot imagine anyone listening to all that singing and not wishing to know what the heck is going on. I myself surely wouldn't get a "transcendental" experience from listening to a Wagner opera with all that singing, without doing my homework first. The singing would simply be "noise" blocking out the incredible music. Once you do the background work-familiarizing yourself with the libretto, then the words and music make sense together.


I agree, I prefer to always know the libretto. That's why my example was from before I was able to read. If I don't know it, however, could I still enjoy it? Not quite as much, but probably yes.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

NishmatHaChalil said:


> I agree, I prefer to always know the libretto. That's why my example was from before I was able to read. If I don't know it, however, could I still enjoy it? Not quite as much, but probably yes.


From a recording, not so much. From a DVD, yes, because you would get the sub-titles. The idea is not to keep yourself buried in the sub-titles, because then you miss the opera.

If I had a DVD of an unfamiliar opera, I would read the libretto first, then play it and concentrate on the sub-titles and then play it again and ignore the sub-titles.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

The problem I have with librettos is that they are so so silly most of the time. Another related problem is that I like absolute, abstract music and to me music that relies on words for impact is subservient to pure abstract music. And I don't see how so much of opera music makes sense without the words. Some does, for sure, but a whole lot doesn't.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

No opera is expected to be listened to as pure music. In 18th century opera there are stretches of recitative of little musical interest between self-contained "numbers", and even in the "through-composed" operas of later periods there are inevitably less musically interesting passages. In any style of opera the best music usually occurs in places where the emotional temperature is highest, while more mundane stage business and "talky" parts of the libretto are carried on in recitative or other less structured music.

The ideal approach for a composer of through-composed opera is to minimize the sort of conversational dialogue that exists only to move the story along, and so be able to maintain uninterrupted musical development. One way to do this is by breaking down the definiteness of "numbers"; another way is to enlarge the role of the orchestra from that of an accompaniment to the singers to that of an independent "actor," commentator, and scene-painter. Wagner did both of these things supremely well, and his best works are rich musical tapestries of interlocking musical forms with complex motivic development and great orchestral resourcefulness. They are still musical dramas and not symphonies, and so they can't be fully appreciated as pure music. But for those who've taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the operas' libretti and heard how the music expresses the drama, Wagner's operas can be listened to as magnificently expressive musical structures quite capable of fascinating the mind and moving the emotions.

To hear Wagner at his best, I can't do better than recommend the third act of _Tristan und Isolde._ It is an astonishing feat of composition in its integration of dramatic shape and musical form.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Well, I randomly purchased The Ride of the Valkyries without knowing anything about it, listened to it, and loved it. There was no singing on it, but I do recall listening to The Marriage of Figaro before having known anything about the Libretto and loved the music! So there's that.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Tallisman said:


> *Is Wagner sufficient as pure music? *


The short answer to that question is, in a word, "yes".
Opera is a fine musical medium, and one needn't have command of the language or an idea of the plot to enjoy opera from a purely musical point-of-view. Which is one reason why I appreciate Hungarian opera: I have little to no acquaintance to the language. I listen to it from a purely musical perspective, and the vocals become part of the musical fabric and texture. 
I actually studied German in my undergraduate days with the specific purposes of gaining access to the language of Wagner's operas (and Bach's cantatas) (and because a Theatre teacher suggested the language was a good one for advanced Theatre study, since much great criticism, philosophy, and drama -- Goethe, Schiller, Brecht -- made use of the language).
So I obviously enjoyed Wagner operas prior to having any comprehension of the words.

But one need only listen to Wagner's purely orchestral music to answer "yes" -- works such as the Overture to _Tannhäuser _ or the "Siegfried Idyll", let alone pure orchestral versions of the "Ride of the Valkyrie" or the Prelude and Liebstod from _Tristan_.

Or this!








I have a suspicion that had Wagner worked only in the realm of pure orchestral music (say, writing symphonies), his musical genius as an innovator in harmony and instrumentation would be quite evident. As it is, we know of a more expansive genius, one that lies beyond "musical genius", from the operatic masterpieces that arose from his creative mind -- a mind of genius that generated plots, music, stage craft, settings, costumes ... and even the architectural structure in which to perform the works. Wagner's genius is unique, certainly, in the history of art.

Bravo, to the man and his genius.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

When I started listening to opera, I could listen to a Puccini or Mozart opera without having a clue as to what was going on and have a wonderful musical experience. Wagnerian singing doesn't let itself to pure music the same way to me. Certainly his symphonic albums make for wonderful music, but for the full operas I really did need to know what was going on to enjoy them.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I am still waiting to see a definition of 'pure music'. Does it just mean without any vocal contributions? If so, then where does that leave the Vaughan Williams 3rd (Pastoral) or Nielsen 3rd (Espansiva)? And let's not even consider the Beethoven 9th or Mahler 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 8th!!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sonata said:


> When I started listening to opera, I could listen to a Puccini or Mozart opera without having a clue as to what was going on and have a wonderful musical experience. Wagnerian singing doesn't let itself to pure music the same way to me. Certainly his symphonic albums make for wonderful music, but for the full operas I really did need to know what was going on to enjoy them.


I love your openness and honesty, refreshing.:tiphat:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The Ring cycle can be listened to as "pure music". I know people who do that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> I am still waiting to see a definition of 'pure music'. Does it just mean without any vocal contributions? If so, then where does that leave the Vaughan Williams 3rd (Pastoral) or Nielsen 3rd (Espansiva)? And let's not even consider the Beethoven 9th or Mahler 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 8th!!


Excellent observation! However, not only words, but programmatic content, could render music impure, indeed besmirched and blighted. In instrumental music, we could postulate degrees of purity:

_Perfectly Pure_ - Bach: The Art of Fugue; _Very Pure_ - Mozart - Symphony #40 in g-minor; _Passably Pure_ - Beethoven: String Quartet in a-minor, Op. 132; _Of Questionable Purity_ - Bruckner: Symphony #9; _Pretending to be Pure_ - Brahms: Symphony #1; _Not Even Pretending_ - Schoenberg: Verklaerte Nacht; _Aggressively Impure_ - Mahler: Symphony #3; _Pure What?_ - Strauss: Don Quixote; _Neo-Pure_ - Stravinsky: Apollo; _Beyond Pure_ - Cage: 4'33."

We could break down vocal music in a similar way, but I believe the discipline of aesthetic philosophy is sufficiently besmirched for now.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

Speaking for myself, I listened to a few of Wagner's operas without really knowing the plot, and I didn't really get much out of them. However, when I listened to them and read along with a libretto, my experience was completely different. To me, in Wagner's operas, the music and the drama are so intertwined that losing one of those greatly diminishes the overall value.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Sufficient, but not necessary.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Maybe Strauss is _Passive-aggressively Impure_?


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Becca said:


> I am still waiting to see a definition of 'pure music'. Does it just mean without any vocal contributions? If so, then where does that leave the Vaughan Williams 3rd (Pastoral) or Nielsen 3rd (Espansiva)? And let's not even consider the Beethoven 9th or Mahler 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 8th!!


No, no, I mean for the opera to be listened to just as a recording, yes, with the vocals. You've hit upon one of the reasons that I asked this question in the first place, actually, because when watching an opera, it seems that a lot of the time that the music is making way or dragging itself along just for the sake of the libretto, which holds up the flow of the music for the sake of (sometimes slightly cornily) elucidating the story. Which is in command: the story or the music?, if you'll excuse my philistinism...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

It's perfectly possible to listen with great pleasure to opera without knowing what the characters are on about. Especially I would say with Wagner.
There's no doubt that if you want the full dramatic/theatrical experience its best to know what is being said on a word by word level. This is especially true of comedic scenes such as in the Meistersinger or Mozart's Figaro which can have you laughing out loud.
I'd say though, opera is a composer's art not a dramatist's and if you can't enjoy just the music, the composer didn't do a great job.


----------



## kirolak (May 8, 2017)

I don't understand what you mean by "pure music" (to me, that would equal Bach) Why not begin with the Wesendonck Lieder, which are very distinctively Wagnerian, but less demanding than Tristan und Isolde?


----------



## NishmatHaChalil (Apr 17, 2017)

Tallisman said:


> No, no, I mean for the opera to be listened to just as a recording, yes, with the vocals. You've hit upon one of the reasons that I asked this question in the first place, actually, because when watching an opera, it seems that a lot of the time that the music is making way or dragging itself along just for the sake of the libretto, which holds up the flow of the music for the sake of (sometimes slightly cornily) elucidating the story. Which is in command: the story or the music?, if you'll excuse my philistinism...


I think Woodduck's explanation in the first page touches on the right point. Opera's defining trait is the way its music is designed to accompany and be listened to as drama. Just like the music in a song can be used in order to present elements of the lyrics in a manner that works to the composer's aims, the same is true of the music in an opera as it relates to the play. Which is in command depends on your definition of command, but the short answer is that it's a mixed medium, and neither the libretto nor the music alone are really representative of the final work as it was intended by the composer. It's also him who decides how the music is used, so, in that sense, he's the one responsible for choosing the approach employed in order to relate the music to the libretto.

Like Woodduck mentioned, there are several techniques and styles of presentation that have different aims and reflect different ideas of how music can better be used in the genre of musical drama. Everyone reacts to each of these ideas in a different way. R3PL4Y, for instance, enjoys Wagner's approach as it is applied by him when he is in possession of the libretto. In my case, I would lose a lot if I did not know the meaning of the words, but I would still be able to appreciate it in a purely musical level. Anyway, if you are having trouble in general with the appreciation of opera, my recommendations are: always use the libretto, and do not try to listen to it as "pure music", but rather as musical drama. That's how opera, or at least most opera, is supposed to be listened to. It's possible that you can be affected by certain approaches of presentation, but that others may sound inadequate to your personal aesthetics. If you do not listen to the works as they are intended to be listened to, however, you may never find out. Regarding academic resources, a book on the topic I have come to find elucidating is Joseph Kerman's Opera as Drama, but others may have different recommendations that may better match your needs.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

NishmatHaChalil said:


> I think Woodduck's explanation in the first page touches on the right point. Opera's defining trait is the way its music is designed to accompany and be listened to as drama. Just like the music in a song can be used in order to present elements of the lyrics in a manner that works to the composer's aims, the same is true of the music in an opera as it relates to the play. Which is in command depends on your definition of command, but the short answer is that it's a mixed medium, and neither the libretto nor the music alone are really representative of the final work as it was intended by the composer. It's also him who decides how the music is used, so, in that sense, he's the one responsible for choosing the approach employed in order to relate the music to the libretto.
> 
> Like Woodduck mentioned, there are several techniques and styles of presentation that have different aims and reflect different ideas of how music can better be used in the genre of musical drama. Everyone reacts to each of these ideas in a different way. R3PL4Y, for instance, enjoys Wagner's approach as it is applied by him when he is in possession of the libretto. In my case, I would lose a lot if I did not know the meaning of the words, but I would still be able to appreciate it in a purely musical level. Anyway, if you are having trouble in general with the appreciation of opera, my recommendations are: always use the libretto, and do not try to listen to it as "pure music", but rather as musical drama. That's how opera, or at least most opera, is supposed to be listened to. It's possible that you can be affected by certain approaches of presentation, but that others may sound inadequate to your personal aesthetics. If you do not listen to the works as they are intended to be listened to, however, you may never find out. Regarding academic resources, a book on the topic I have come to find elucidating is Joseph Kerman's Opera as Drama, but others may have different recommendations that may better match your needs.


Thanks for the very comprehensive answer:tiphat:. I may try to watch some opera (live or otherwise) as a primer first for a greater sense of the drama and familiarise myself before going straight to plain listening.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Opera music, without the action or drama, was created differently than music made without drama, and is often subservient to the dramatic action, and does not become what it "could be" or "should be" as pure music alone.

As a result, opera music often sounds wandering or lacking rhythm; there are outbursts which mean nothing, single notes are sustained for lengthy periods, abrupt changes, and it begins to sound like empty gestures without meaning. 

In Wagner, series of diminished and half-diminished chords create a dense 'harmonic soup' which threatens to suffocate without the drama and action.

When music became separated from drama, and "pure" music was experienced in the concert hall, composers got rid of the excess dramatic baggage which slowed everything down. Ideas flowed more smoothly, without sounding like a cartoon soundtrack with abrupt changes.

Ever hear the Carl Stalling soundtrack CD? That's what opera without action sounds like; a series of abrupt changes, going nowhere.

Opera is designed to be watched, not listened to, like a good cartoon. 

Get the DVD, and stop trying to transform opera into "pure" music; it doesn't really work as pure music. That's like trying to stuff a horse into a suitcase.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Tallisman said:


> Which is in command: the story or the music?, if you'll excuse my philistinism...


Prima la musica, dopo le parole! _Pace _Richard Strauss.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Opera is designed to be watched, not listened to, like a good cartoon.
> 
> Get the DVD, and stop trying to transform opera into "pure" music; it doesn't really work as pure music. That's like trying to stuff a horse into a suitcase.


This of course makes a lot of sense since so much effort goes into the visual aspect of opera. Also, from my experience, the only time I wasn't bored experiencing a full opera was when I saw Don Giovanni live. But of course visuals aren't music. Words aren't music. So if a genre of music relies on non-musical parts then it isn't pure music. It can be enjoyed still without it being pure music, as obviously many opera fans. Not sure that the distinction matters to them, anyway.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Opera is designed to be watched, not listened to,.....


Except for 'Tristan' of course!


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The music is certainly partnered with and organized around the drama in an opera, but any lover of opera realizes the music is in no way "subservient" to the words or action.

I posted these thoughts in another thread recently:

This is an interesting comparison, and has led me to reflect on my own response to opera in visual and aural mediums. Because as an avid opera fan I find that outside of seeing an opera live in the theater, I usually prefer listening to an audio recording of an opera to watching a video taping of a live performance. But the question is, why? I mean you're absolutely right, listening to the audio of a film without the picture would absolutely ruin the experience, so because there is a visual component to an opera one would think that I would be losing something crucial by only listening to an opera and not seeing it as well. Yet I don't find this to be the case, and I'm persuaded to believe this is largely due to the fact that opera isn't primarily a visual art form in the same way that a film is. 

In a film, the director is often the most important driving creative force behind the project, and are responsible for portraying their "vision" onto the screen. It's a story being conveyed through images, and while words and music often assist in the process, they aren't always necessary (or even present, i.e. silent films). Angles of shots, lighting, effects, editing, etc.; all of these are incredibly important to the art of film. In opera, on the other hand as I've noted before, the drama is primarily unfolding through the music as it investigates the subjective emotions and thoughts of the characters in crucial dramatic situations. There usually isn't a whole lot of exterior action that a viewer has to follow; indeed, when I'm in the opera house after I've taken in the essence of the scene (the scenery, costumes) I can casually glance up at the surtitles above the stage, glance back down at the characters, and let the music carry me along without feeling like I'm losing anything by not concentrating on the performers the entire time. And while everyone is going to be different obviously, I find that for me I can easily manufacture this basic "essence" of the scenes in an opera in my own mind by reading the description of it in the libretto, and often in a more preferable manner than what's presented on many opera stages. Also, not being a native speaker of many operatic languages, listening to a recording offers me other benefits as well: I can get a more intimate understanding of the words being sung, and the interplay between text and music, which allows me to flesh out the characters in an altogether fuller way than I'm able to when I'm following the surtitles above the stage or subtitles on a video recording, which are often paraphrased and omit many of the verses being sung by secondary characters when one or more person is singing at once in an ensemble. I'm actually not a fan of watching operas recorded on stage and presented in video format most of the time, because I find that watching extended close-ups of singers standing and staring at each one another, or off into space while singing is not exactly the most gripping thing to see. When you're watching an opera live in the theater you are observing the entire scope of the stage, including the choreography of other characters moving around, which is something usually lost in video recordings that focus on close-ups of that sort. The acting of singers is for me more natural and believable when seen from a distance rather than when observing sweat rolling down their brows and their mouths hanging open. But anyways, just my two cents.


----------



## Charlie Ladd (Apr 30, 2017)

Well, I once listened to a recording of Parsifal (split up into several sessions of listening over a few days) and I recall being quite moved by it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> *Opera music, without the action or drama, was created differently than music made without drama, and is often subservient to the dramatic action, and does not become what it "could be" or "should be" as pure music alone.*
> 
> As a result, opera music often sounds wandering or lacking rhythm; there are outbursts which mean nothing, single notes are sustained for lengthy periods, abrupt changes, and it begins to sound like *empty gestures without meaning.*
> 
> ...


Whether intended to be or not, this is awfully disparaging to the finest operatic music, and turns history upside down besides.

"When music became separated from drama, and 'pure' music was experienced in the concert hall, composers got rid of the excess dramatic baggage which slowed everything down..." Well, that isn't anything that ever happened. "Pure" music always existed, un-slowed by the requirements of dramatic action, and music wedded to drama has drawn upon the forms of popular and concert music and structured itself in any number of ways, ranging from discrete songs and dances separated by spoken dialogue or recitative to the continuous, quasi-symphonic tonal canvases of Wagner and later composers. All the great creators of opera have been skilled composers who sought and found ways of sustaining musical interest, and while it's perfectly true that "opera music...was created differently than music made without drama, and is often subservient to the dramatic action, and does not become what it 'could be' or 'should be' as pure music alone," the results needn't be "outbursts which mean nothing...[sounding] like empty gestures without meaning" or "a series of abrupt changes, going nowhere."

An opera is not, as an entity, a musical form, and so it can't be expected to be or listened to as if it were. But it can and should exhibit form and contain forms, and the better the composer is, the more capable he'll be of integrating stage action and dialogue with musical progressions that sound interesting and meaningful, however much or little they conform to the sorts of structures we might hear in concert music. Music can have emotional, as well as rhythmic, harmonic, or motivic, coherence; just because its material doesn't repeat, or vary, or recapitulate in certain ways doesn't mean that its gestures are "empty" or that it's "going nowhere." I can't imagine anyone listening to Act 1 of _Otello_, or Act 3 of _Die Walkure,_ and feeling that the music is "going nowhere." (I also can't imagine anyone finding the latter a "harmonic soup" that "threatens to suffocate," but we'll let that go...)

The image of operatic music as a sort of "cartoon" score, or maybe an improvised silent movie soundtrack, with the organist striking, ad hoc, appropriate chords for each moment of the action, is light years away from the musical procedures and structural achievements of Monteverdi, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini, Wagner, Strauss, Verdi, Puccini, Berg, Britten, etc. I have the feeling you don't listen to much opera, or just want to criticize it for not being something it isn't.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Opera music, without the action or drama, was created differently than music made without drama, and is often subservient to the dramatic action, and does not become what it "could be" or "should be" as pure music alone.
> 
> As a result, opera music often sounds wandering or lacking rhythm; there are outbursts which mean nothing, single notes are sustained for lengthy periods, abrupt changes, and it begins to sound like empty gestures without meaning.
> 
> ...


Now substitute 'ballet' for 'opera' and you can make many of the same statements and yet I will bet that a significant number of TC'ers have never seen a production of the major ballets (ok, perhaps Nutcracker) and yet many of them will listen to the music by itself despite the composer's intent of tying to a story.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Now substitute 'ballet' for 'opera' and you can make many of the same statements and yet I will bet that a significant number of TC'ers have never seen a production of the major ballets (ok, perhaps Nutcracker) and yet many of them will listen to the music by itself despite the composer's intent of tying to a story.


Tsk tsk, Becca! More impure music! I mean, just listen to _Swan Lake:_ all those changes of rhythm, the music forever starting and stopping, always moving on to something completely unrelated, all of it going nowhere, just so beautiful half-naked women can show off their shapely legs and pointy feet. Who wants to listen to the music anyway?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

I have said this elsewhere in other posts, to my mind opera is very well suited to listening to on CD alone, provided one has read the Libretto in advance and has the it in hand when actually listening. After all, a play can be appreciated perfectly well through reading a script. One does not need to see it acted out on stage. And how many of us have been disappointed by the film version of a novel we have enjoyed reading. Similarly with opera. Yes, it is best to go to a production and get the full monty - but there is an enormous effort to be made. Hard seats, everybody squeezed together, hacking and coughing, the need to go to the restroom, topping up the glass of whatever, taking a break, let alone procuring a ticket, the transport to and from etc, etc. A DVD is also not really to be compared to the joys of a CD. It limits the possibilities of the imagination by giving the stage directors a monopoly on the visual interpretation. For example, I have a DVD of a Handel opera which, in placing it in a hospital setting, completely ruins it for me.

Yes, opera _is_ Music Drama and to listen to it as music alone is really only half the story. I agree many Libretti are down right silly and others very confusing and tedious - and reading them takes an effort - but it pays off in the long run in terms of one's over all enjoyment, appreciation and understanding. Wagner being the present case in point. While I would never claim to having understood all the symbolism and semantics of the Ring Cycle Libretti, I have invested the time and effort to read them on a number of occasions and this was time well spent. IMO.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Yes but it's better with word next question


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

I used to think watching opera DVDs with subtitles was the way to go.

Then I watched Verdi's _Il Trovatore_.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Yes, in fact it's even better as pure music. I read the libretto for Tristan und Isolde today and it made me like the opera (the second greatest musical work of all time IMO) less. Such a silly, contrived and melodramatic story. I thought the opera was about the immense power and passion of natural human love, then I found out it was about a magic love potion. Oh well.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

mathisdermaler said:


> Yes, in fact it's even better as pure music. I read the libretto for Tristan und Isolde today and it made me like the opera (the second greatest musical work of all time IMO) less. Such a silly, contrived and melodramatic story. I thought the opera was about the immense power and passion of natural human love, then I found out it was about a magic love potion. Oh well.


You apparently missed the subtleties of the story and the function the love potion plays in the context of the drama.
The opera is very much a powerful investigation of erotic passion in human lives.

Reading the libretto without the music and judging the opera off that is kind of like reading the screenplay of a movie and deciding whether or not it's a good film. The libretto is simply a blueprint. The music is what fills out and gives force to the drama.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Faustian said:


> *You apparently missed the subtleties of the story and the function the love potion plays in the context of the drama.
> The opera is very much a powerful investigation of erotic passion in human lives.*
> 
> Reading the libretto without the music and judging the opera off that is kind of like reading the screenplay of a movie and deciding whether or not it's a good film. The libretto is simply a blueprint. The music is what fills out and gives force to the drama.


Sure, but either should still be decent on its own. The Tristan libretto, minus the beautiful prose, is awful on its own IMO.

Care to explain?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Sure. Well I'll try, I don't think I can give a sufficient analysis of the drama and the function of the love potion in one concise post.

But let me first simply point out that Wagner makes it very clear, both by Isolde's words, Tristan's actions, and the music he uses to portray the circumstances that the lovers are already under the control of a force they don't 
yet comprehend: love. The reason that Isolde wants to destroy both Tristan and herself in the first act is that she believes her love is unrequited and the idea of living in the presence of the man she loves, without being able to share that love, is unbearable to her. But she doesnt yet understand the reason for her distress. Tristan too obviously has feelings for Isolde that he has yet to face up to, so he hides behind customs to avoid her.

As regards the love potion. Remember, Wagner was dramatizing myths, and these are works of symbolism. In the old Germanic and Icelandic literature spells have an important role: they show power lying just out of the reach of reason. They are the symbolic representation of the potential that lies dormant in objects until their secret has been mastered. In Wagner spells and potions have a more focused meaning. They dramatize the condition of the human person being overwhelmed by forces we cannot understand, and these forces seem to arise out of or 'within' our bodies as impulses.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Faustian said:


> Sure. Well I'll try, I don't think I can give a sufficient analysis of the drama and the function of the love potion in one concise post.
> 
> But let me first simply point out that Wagner makes it very clear, both by Isolde's words, Tristan's actions, and the music he uses to portray the circumstances that the lovers are already under the control of a force they don't
> yet comprehend: love. The reason that Isolde wants to destroy both Tristan and herself in the first act is that she believes her love is unrequited and the idea of living in the presence of the man she loves, without being able to share that love, is unbearable to her. But she doesnt yet understand the reason for her distress. Tristan too obviously has feelings for Isolde that he has yet to face up to, so he hides behind customs to avoid her.
> ...


interesting. I will read more.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Although opera is a "mixed media" art form, its dominant medium of expression is music. A good libretto is, basically, one that lets a composer make an effective musical statement (and it's often observed that great music can rescue an awkward or dull libretto, but the reverse can't happen). A few libretti may stand up fairly well as plays or even as poetry - some actually start out as straight plays, e.g. _Pelleas et Melisande_ - but there's no reason why they should, and in some cases those attributes could even interfere with the composer's musical conception.

In his treatise "Oper und Drama," written to prepare his mind for the writing of _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, Wagner theorized about a _gesamtkunstwerk_ ("total art work") in which all the arts of the theater - music, poetry, acting, painting - would contribute equally to the total effect, and music would serve to illuminate the words. With the composition of _Tristan und __Isolde,_ and under the influence of Schopenhauer's belief that music was the profoundest of the arts, he realized that music could say things that words couldn't and that it had to be his dominant expressive vehicle, and he came to speak of his operas as "deeds of music made visible." As the author of his own librettos, he could tailor them to the requirements of musical expression.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht is not an opera, but it works well as "pure" music. For the opera apologists, there are always the overtures and preludes. I just got through listening to Wagner this way.

It's enjoyable, but tends to slowly drip over my consciousness like molasses. It is obvious that these overtures and preludes are still being subservient to dramatic action and narrative: they set the mood. As such, there is an unresolved feeling about them; and of course, it is the fact that they are setting the mood for things to come.

I see no difference between this and cinema. Some soundtracks (composed specifically for that purpose) are very enjoyable as soundtracks; but they lack a certain self-contained quality that pure music has.

But music composed for dramatic purposes is always compromised, from the standpoint of being "pure" music; otherwise, why would we make the distinction?

Schoenberg's Accompaniment to a Film Scene is palatable as a stand-alone piece, but it was not made to accompany a specific film. I think Schoenberg wanted to demonstrate that he could provide music which expressed inner turmoil, emotions and suspense; but he was unwilling to edit his music for such purposes.


----------

