Thread: Wagner Vs. Others

Originally Posted by Yashin

Opera for me is like cheese.

Ah, that's such a great line ... no explanation needed. I had a car like that once.

Originally Posted by guythegreg

Ah, that's such a great line ... no explanation needed. I had a car like that once.

Smelly with holes?

Originally Posted by sospiro

Smelly with holes?

I love it.

Originally Posted by dionisio

That's the problem (or isn't) of Verdi's music. His music was strictly for theater. His music wasn't written to be heard in hall concerts or at home (considering that time when there were no recording). His music isn't to be heard like other music. His music is like soundtracks to films.

Of all composers, i rarely listen to Verdi when i'm working. It's too hard because it removes me from what i'm doing to the plot. His music isn't to be beautiful or ugly. His music is just the right music for that specific scene. And that or you pay attention to the opera or it gives you a great headache.

Well said! Yes, it is like dipping into/out of shakespeare i guess - it just doesn't work. You need to watch the whole work. I guess Janacek and Berg are the same....story-tellers. And i love them all!

Puccini was brilliant for his 'bleeding chunks' as one book puts it....as was Rossini. Short bursts of less than 10 minutes....my ipod is full of them. Verisimo greats also like Giordano and Leoncavallo.

Great Operas are needed to be listened or watched in their entirety, but they are great in every single line of their respective score. You may enjoy a single aria, duet or ensemble from "Le Nozze di Figaro" as well as the whole more than 3 hours entire work.
You see, the issue is not whether the work fits in you, but rather whether you fit in it (how you can reach it).
However, if the discourse has been moved to the comparison with...cheese, I guess the greatness of Wagner (versus others) is a matter of whether one likes Parmigiano Reggiano.

Principe

I'd take the Others, thanks.

Originally Posted by Couchie

Actually Wagner was a more gifted melodist than Mozart.

This is one of the craziest statements I've ever heard. Mozart was a far greater writer of melody, as by the definition of melody being a single line or musical phrase, mostly the singing. Mozart wrote the world's most gorgeous melodies over a harmonic vocabulary that was much simpler and more straightforward than Wagner.
Wagner, on the other hand was a far greater harmonic innovator than Mozart (one could argue what Mozart would be capable of if he wrote for himself and not the aristocracy as in the dissonant string quartets). Wagner's melodies, though occasionally stunning on their own, serve to heighten and maintain the incredible harmonic shifts happening below them. It is two completely differently styles of writing. In Mozart the melody is paramount, with the harmony providing accompaniment. In Wagner it is the opposite, the harmony is paramount and the melody highlights it's brilliance (but rarely stands on its own like in Mozart).

Originally Posted by WAWilson

This is one of the craziest statements I've ever heard. Mozart was a far greater writer of melody, as by the definition of melody being a single line or musical phrase, mostly the singing. Mozart wrote the world's most gorgeous melodies over a harmonic vocabulary that was much simpler and more straightforward than Wagner.
Wagner, on the other hand was a far greater harmonic innovator than Mozart (one could argue what Mozart would be capable of if he wrote for himself and not the aristocracy as in the dissonant string quartets). Wagner's melodies, though occasionally stunning on their own, serve to heighten and maintain the incredible harmonic shifts happening below them. It is two completely differently styles of writing. In Mozart the melody is paramount, with the harmony providing accompaniment. In Wagner it is the opposite, the harmony is paramount and the melody highlights it's brilliance (but rarely stands on its own like in Mozart).

The fact that Mozart's harmony is lacking is of no consequence to Wagner's ability as a melodist. It goes without saying that Wagner has greater harmony. But harmony is the backbone of melody. Mozart did the best of what he had but with a stunted vocabulary he can't compete with Wagner.

Also: The whole point of Wagner is endless melody.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Originally Posted by WAWilson

Mozart wrote the world's most gorgeous melodies over a harmonic vocabulary that was much simpler and more straightforward than Wagner.

No, not in his operas. Mozart's counterpoint was much more skilled than Wagner's. It looks like you're trying to generalize his composition style for his piano sonatas to his operas.

Originally Posted by trazom

No, not in his operas. Mozart's counterpoint was much more skilled than Wagner's. It looks like you're trying to generalize his composition style for his piano sonatas to his operas.

I'm not saying anything about his counterpoint, which was incredible. I'm talking just about the harmony itself. The chord progressions. Mozart often sketched out the harmony in blocks, wrote the melody over it, then went back and added the brilliant counterpoint, bringing the harmony to life. The amount of different and beautiful ways Mozart could write the same chord progression was amazing. But the harmonic vocabulary was still simple compared to Wagner. Mozart's operas are by far my favorite, I'm in no way saying this is a sleight on him whatsoever. This is just the way the classical period was.

Originally Posted by Couchie

The fact that Mozart's harmony is lacking is of no consequence to Wagner's ability as a melodist. It goes without saying that Wagner has greater harmony. But harmony is the backbone of melody. Mozart did the best of what he had but with a stunted vocabulary he can't compete with Wagner.

While your opinion is obviously not going to change, the average person is not going to agree. Mozart was a far greater melody writer. In Wagner the text is declaimed through melody, in Mozart it is lifted right off the earth into heaven. As much as I love Wagner, Mozart will always be supreme because his music doesn't deal with the ugliness of ordinary life like Wagner. It is only the unattainable beauty of the heavens. Even in pain and suffering it is resilient and uplifting.

Originally Posted by Couchie

Also: The whole point of Wagner is endless melody.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

No, endless music is NOT equal to endless melody. Most of them are just building the climax, or repeat of the "motifs".

In certain way, someone may argue that probably because of the lack of ability to come up with the whole "melody", someone came out the lazy "motifs", just kidding!

Yeah, I still love them, even though they are "motifs", not melodies.

Originally Posted by WAWilson

While your opinion is obviously not going to change, the average person is not going to agree. Mozart was a far greater melody writer. In Wagner the text is declaimed through melody, in Mozart it is lifted right off the earth into heaven. As much as I love Wagner, Mozart will always be supreme because his music doesn't deal with the ugliness of ordinary life like Wagner. It is only the unattainable beauty of the heavens. Even in pain and suffering it is resilient and uplifting.

Perfection is of course Mozart's greatest shortcoming.

Originally Posted by powerbooks

No, endless music is NOT equal to endless melody. Most of them are just building the climax, or repeat of the "motifs".

In certain way, someone may argue that probably because of the lack of ability to come up with the whole "melody", someone came out the lazy "motifs", just kidding!

Yeah, I still love them, even though they are "motifs", not melodies.

Wrong: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unendliche_Melodie

Mozart is a good melodist, like Andrew LLoyd Webber, John Lennon, and Lady Gaga are good melodists... song and dance, song and dance... You fly back to school now, little powerbooks. Fly, fly, fly. Fly, fly, fly...