|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 8, 2018 8:19:53 GMT
And your obviously a dumb person as evidenced by the fact that the majority of posters here believe you are (your rules). Nothing else read; end of debate! Here? Most people here? Where did you get the notion this board has any power? And I see you are still having incredible difficulty recognizing that some things are determined by a political process and some things are not. There's a lot of that going around. Your simple mind needs it one way. It is not. And I see you can't understand what makes a proof impossible or what the word scope means. Then it's just as well you give up trying. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 8, 2018 10:00:58 GMT
Still, I do think there tends to be a different feel and approach when it comes to artists inspired by religion. I think it's because there's a very natural affinity between the kind of thinking that inspired religion (and that religion inspires) and artistic creativity. Much of this I think was touched on by Blake and Stevens (the poets). I believe it depends more on the artist than on the subject. If the artist was a religious person, then maybe their approach to a composition was different than if the artist was more secular oriented. I don't know Blake and Stevens. I don't disagree strongly about Mozart and Haydn; certainly the Cm mass and Requiem are among the greats of religious music, but I still think his contributions to the symphonic, concerto, and operatic repertoire were more impressive. Certainly his biggest innovation was in opera, where he was largely responsible in turning opera into the true "hybrid art" that was to reach its zenith in Wagner and Verdi. In the other genres he was more of a perfecter than an innovator. With Haydn, I also immensely prize many of his late symphonies and string quartets, but I'd still say The Creation (and Seasons) would be the best candidate for showing his genius encapsulated in one work. It always struck me how much the opening of The Creation foretells the opening of Wagner's Ring. I believe that Mozart was also more a perfecter than an innovator in opera. Gluck was an innovator. And it's possible that without the Querelle des Bouffons, opera would have developed differently anyway. The Querelle des Bouffons was shortly before Wolfgang Mozart's time. But then, the distinction between perfecting and innovating is arbitrary anyway. Usually, perfecting is made by adding innovations to things already existing. And no innovation is made without the knowledge of previous inventions. "Reinventing the wheel" is usually not necessary; and a saying in German is: "Besser gut geklaut als schlecht erfunden" (better well stolen than badly invented). For Wagner, I don't dislike Meistersinger, but Wagner apparently didn't get the message that brevity is the soul of wit. Viewed in pieces it's as impressive as anything he ever did and also more approachable, but a 4.5 hour comedy is a rather unwieldy proposition. I don't think a comedy is meant to have the same level of weight and grandeur as a tragedy or a mythological epic. Compare the heaviness of Meistersinger against the light-as-air comedies of Mozart, or even Verdi's Falstaff, and the difference is clear. With Verdi I mostly had Aida in mind, which, while not overtly religious, borrowed more from religious music than was Verdi's wont. I once said that if Verdi was Shakespeare and Wagner was Milton, then Aida was Shakespeare trying to write Paradise Lost and Meistersinger was Wagner trying to write The Tempest. Their genius as composers make them work, but I think you can tell they were both a bit out of their comfort zone and element. Not unlike Beethoven was with Fidelio; it works because of his sheer force of will, but you can hear the laboring in it, the fact that it didn't come as naturally to him as the symphonies and sonatas. I haven't read Paradise Lost or Tempest, so I can't comment on the poetry comparisons. But as for brevity: Plenty of composers disagreed. Haydn's Creation is long. Beethoven's 9th symphony is long. But they still contain great music. I'm not really into Wagner and Verdi anyway; they are a bit too bombastic for my taste. I'd rather listen to Rossini. I agree about Fidelio. Bach is an interesting case too in that, again, his secular and religious works have a very different feel to them. I also feel he was generally better in the religious works though there are exceptions (I do love the WTC; but not more than, say, his organ repertoire, which could be seen as either religious or secular). I should clarify that I don't necessarily dislike Bach, but he does wear on me faster than other greats. I'm hot-and-cold on much of his output: love the WTC, but don't care for the Goldberg Variations; love the organ works, but not the harpsichord works; love the Bm Mass, but not St. Matthew's Passion; love the works for solo violin, but not the Art of Fugue. It seems that the more overtly intellectual he got, like with Art of Fugue especially, the more I tune out. He can do that too in, say, the organ works, but in that I think he had an instrument whose grandeur lent a dramatic weight to his ideas. The Passacaglia & Fugue in Cm is perhaps my ultimate example; it's intellectually spell-binding, but with the right performance it can also bring down the house with its dramatic power and force. The Passacaglia is a great piece. I agree about that. But there are orchestra transcriptions of it. I have sung both the Matthäuspassion and the Mass in B Minor in a choir. I like the latter better than the former. More fugues. But with these works, Bach apparently also disagreed about brevity being the soul of wit. 2 hours for a mass, 3 hours for a passion... I prefer comparing the length and opulence of musical religious pieces to the size of religious buildings. A short mass or passion (like a Gregorian chant) would be comparable to a chapel; Bach however built musical cathedrals. Both have their justifications and rationalizations. And both can be great art. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 9, 2018 1:26:53 GMT
Still, I do think there tends to be a different feel and approach when it comes to artists inspired by religion. I think it's because there's a very natural affinity between the kind of thinking that inspired religion (and that religion inspires) and artistic creativity. Much of this I think was touched on by Blake and Stevens (the poets). I believe it depends more on the artist than on the subject. If the artist was a religious person, then maybe their approach to a composition was different than if the artist was more secular oriented. I don't know Blake and Stevens. Perhaps that’s true, but it just seems like in most case religiously motivated art has a different feel to it. Blake and Stevens basically conceived of religion as art that resonated with cultures so much that cultures came to believe it was true. Blake in particular built up an elaborate mythology of how this whole processed happened, essentially analyzing how artistic creativity creates gods and laws and stories as a way of explaining nature, which also evolves (in its own way) into politics and morals, and eventually gains so much control that it tries to chain “emotion” and “creativity” up so that neither can upset the status quo that it’s established. But the central idea is that they thought that religions were basically just acts of the imagination. I don't disagree strongly about Mozart and Haydn; certainly the Cm mass and Requiem are among the greats of religious music, but I still think his contributions to the symphonic, concerto, and operatic repertoire were more impressive. Certainly his biggest innovation was in opera, where he was largely responsible in turning opera into the true "hybrid art" that was to reach its zenith in Wagner and Verdi. In the other genres he was more of a perfecter than an innovator. With Haydn, I also immensely prize many of his late symphonies and string quartets, but I'd still say The Creation (and Seasons) would be the best candidate for showing his genius encapsulated in one work. It always struck me how much the opening of The Creation foretells the opening of Wagner's Ring. I believe that Mozart was also more a perfecter than an innovator in opera. Gluck was an innovator. And it's possible that without the Querelle des Bouffons, opera would have developed differently anyway. The Querelle des Bouffons was shortly before Wolfgang Mozart's time. But then, the distinction between perfecting and innovating is arbitrary anyway. Usually, perfecting is made by adding innovations to things already existing. And no innovation is made without the knowledge of previous inventions. "Reinventing the wheel" is usually not necessary; and a saying in German is: "Besser gut geklaut als schlecht erfunden" (better well stolen than badly invented). Gluck was definitely an innovator, but when I listen to Mozart’s operas compared to Gluck, I do hear more progress in the naturalness with which Mozart incorporated symphonic forms into a coherent, flowing, organic, dramatic stream. Compared to the innovations (practically inventions) Haydn made in symphonies and chamber music, Mozart seemed to add much less—mostly just color, elegance, and at times a more advanced musical sophistication. Put another way, I think Beethoven could’ve achieved his musical revolutions if he had only been exposed to Haydn, but I’m not sure if Wagner and Verdi could’ve had theirs by only having encountered Gluck. We do agree in general about innovating/perfecting VS reinventing the wheel though. That’s one problem I have with many of the more modern schools of music; they tried to reinvent the wheel too much, and too often with the results not paying dividends. I love that saying, btw. For Wagner, I don't dislike Meistersinger, but Wagner apparently didn't get the message that brevity is the soul of wit. Viewed in pieces it's as impressive as anything he ever did and also more approachable, but a 4.5 hour comedy is a rather unwieldy proposition. I don't think a comedy is meant to have the same level of weight and grandeur as a tragedy or a mythological epic. Compare the heaviness of Meistersinger against the light-as-air comedies of Mozart, or even Verdi's Falstaff, and the difference is clear. With Verdi I mostly had Aida in mind, which, while not overtly religious, borrowed more from religious music than was Verdi's wont. I once said that if Verdi was Shakespeare and Wagner was Milton, then Aida was Shakespeare trying to write Paradise Lost and Meistersinger was Wagner trying to write The Tempest. Their genius as composers make them work, but I think you can tell they were both a bit out of their comfort zone and element. Not unlike Beethoven was with Fidelio; it works because of his sheer force of will, but you can hear the laboring in it, the fact that it didn't come as naturally to him as the symphonies and sonatas. I haven't read Paradise Lost or Tempest, so I can't comment on the poetry comparisons. But as for brevity: Plenty of composers disagreed. Haydn's Creation is long. Beethoven's 9th symphony is long. But they still contain great music. I'm not really into Wagner and Verdi anyway; they are a bit too bombastic for my taste. I'd rather listen to Rossini. I agree about Fidelio. The general comparison is that Shakespeare and Verdi were “realists” concerned with concrete people/characters and events, while Milton and Wagner tended to be more “idealists” concerned with theoretical philosophy/theology and allegories. So Aida was Verdi trying to be quasi-religious/transcendental, and Meistersinger was Wagner trying to be more humanistic and concrete. Indeed Haydn’s Creation and Beethoven’s 9th are long, but I don’t consider either terribly witty. In fact, The Creation may be Haydn at his least witty. Absolutely both are great music, but they’re heavy going (at least compared to most of each composers’ other works). I’m just essentially saying that making a comedy into a long epic is trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. I love Rossini and the Bel Canto greats too, but not as much as Wagner and Verdi; though in saying that I do find it much easier to listen to Rossini in any mood. For Wagner and Verdi I often have to be in a specific mood to get into them. Rossini had that Mozartean quality where it’s always superficially pleasing no matter what, so it’s never ponderous or annoying or heavy in such a way that you really have to be into its unique musical world to get something out of it. Although I might say Verdi came close to that in La Traviata and Falstaff. Falstaff is, IMO, the finest Mozartean opera since Mozart. Bach is an interesting case too in that, again, his secular and religious works have a very different feel to them. I also feel he was generally better in the religious works though there are exceptions (I do love the WTC; but not more than, say, his organ repertoire, which could be seen as either religious or secular). I should clarify that I don't necessarily dislike Bach, but he does wear on me faster than other greats. I'm hot-and-cold on much of his output: love the WTC, but don't care for the Goldberg Variations; love the organ works, but not the harpsichord works; love the Bm Mass, but not St. Matthew's Passion; love the works for solo violin, but not the Art of Fugue. It seems that the more overtly intellectual he got, like with Art of Fugue especially, the more I tune out. He can do that too in, say, the organ works, but in that I think he had an instrument whose grandeur lent a dramatic weight to his ideas. The Passacaglia & Fugue in Cm is perhaps my ultimate example; it's intellectually spell-binding, but with the right performance it can also bring down the house with its dramatic power and force. The Passacaglia is a great piece. I agree about that. But there are orchestra transcriptions of it. I have sung both the Matthäuspassion and the Mass in B Minor in a choir. I like the latter better than the former. More fugues. But with these works, Bach apparently also disagreed about brevity being the soul of wit. 2 hours for a mass, 3 hours for a passion... I prefer comparing the length and opulence of musical religious pieces to the size of religious buildings. A short mass or passion (like a Gregorian chant) would be comparable to a chapel; Bach however built musical cathedrals. Both have their justifications and rationalizations. And both can be great art. I don’t think I’ve ever heard an orchestral transcription of the Passacaglia. Very cool that you’ve gotten to sing Bach! Again with the Bach pieces, I don’t think either were terribly witty, and I never thought Bach a particularly witty composer in general. I don’t disagree with you about the chapel/cathedral comparison. I’m not arguing for brevity over length in general (being a Wagner and Mahler lover, I couldn’t!), merely that for comedies I do think brevity helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 9, 2018 11:25:00 GMT
Still, I do think there tends to be a different feel and approach when it comes to artists inspired by religion. I think it's because there's a very natural affinity between the kind of thinking that inspired religion (and that religion inspires) and artistic creativity. Much of this I think was touched on by Blake and Stevens (the poets). I believe it depends more on the artist than on the subject. If the artist was a religious person, then maybe their approach to a composition was different than if the artist was more secular oriented. I don't know Blake and Stevens. I don't disagree strongly about Mozart and Haydn; certainly the Cm mass and Requiem are among the greats of religious music, but I still think his contributions to the symphonic, concerto, and operatic repertoire were more impressive. Certainly his biggest innovation was in opera, where he was largely responsible in turning opera into the true "hybrid art" that was to reach its zenith in Wagner and Verdi. In the other genres he was more of a perfecter than an innovator. With Haydn, I also immensely prize many of his late symphonies and string quartets, but I'd still say The Creation (and Seasons) would be the best candidate for showing his genius encapsulated in one work. It always struck me how much the opening of The Creation foretells the opening of Wagner's Ring. I believe that Mozart was also more a perfecter than an innovator in opera. Gluck was an innovator. And it's possible that without the Querelle des Bouffons, opera would have developed differently anyway. The Querelle des Bouffons was shortly before Wolfgang Mozart's time. But then, the distinction between perfecting and innovating is arbitrary anyway. Usually, perfecting is made by adding innovations to things already existing. And no innovation is made without the knowledge of previous inventions. "Reinventing the wheel" is usually not necessary; and a saying in German is: "Besser gut geklaut als schlecht erfunden" (better well stolen than badly invented). For Wagner, I don't dislike Meistersinger, but Wagner apparently didn't get the message that brevity is the soul of wit. Viewed in pieces it's as impressive as anything he ever did and also more approachable, but a 4.5 hour comedy is a rather unwieldy proposition. I don't think a comedy is meant to have the same level of weight and grandeur as a tragedy or a mythological epic. Compare the heaviness of Meistersinger against the light-as-air comedies of Mozart, or even Verdi's Falstaff, and the difference is clear. With Verdi I mostly had Aida in mind, which, while not overtly religious, borrowed more from religious music than was Verdi's wont. I once said that if Verdi was Shakespeare and Wagner was Milton, then Aida was Shakespeare trying to write Paradise Lost and Meistersinger was Wagner trying to write The Tempest. Their genius as composers make them work, but I think you can tell they were both a bit out of their comfort zone and element. Not unlike Beethoven was with Fidelio; it works because of his sheer force of will, but you can hear the laboring in it, the fact that it didn't come as naturally to him as the symphonies and sonatas. I haven't read Paradise Lost or Tempest, so I can't comment on the poetry comparisons. But as for brevity: Plenty of composers disagreed. Haydn's Creation is long. Beethoven's 9th symphony is long. But they still contain great music. I'm not really into Wagner and Verdi anyway; they are a bit too bombastic for my taste. I'd rather listen to Rossini. I agree about Fidelio. Bach is an interesting case too in that, again, his secular and religious works have a very different feel to them. I also feel he was generally better in the religious works though there are exceptions (I do love the WTC; but not more than, say, his organ repertoire, which could be seen as either religious or secular). I should clarify that I don't necessarily dislike Bach, but he does wear on me faster than other greats. I'm hot-and-cold on much of his output: love the WTC, but don't care for the Goldberg Variations; love the organ works, but not the harpsichord works; love the Bm Mass, but not St. Matthew's Passion; love the works for solo violin, but not the Art of Fugue. It seems that the more overtly intellectual he got, like with Art of Fugue especially, the more I tune out. He can do that too in, say, the organ works, but in that I think he had an instrument whose grandeur lent a dramatic weight to his ideas. The Passacaglia & Fugue in Cm is perhaps my ultimate example; it's intellectually spell-binding, but with the right performance it can also bring down the house with its dramatic power and force. The Passacaglia is a great piece. I agree about that. But there are orchestra transcriptions of it. I have sung both the Matthäuspassion and the Mass in B Minor in a choir. I like the latter better than the former. More fugues. But with these works, Bach apparently also disagreed about brevity being the soul of wit. 2 hours for a mass, 3 hours for a passion... I prefer comparing the length and opulence of musical religious pieces to the size of religious buildings. A short mass or passion (like a Gregorian chant) would be comparable to a chapel; Bach however built musical cathedrals. Both have their justifications and rationalizations. And both can be great art. I've been arguing against @miccee and assisted suicide. Turkish Rondo does make me want to commit suicide just a little bit though. So far I haven't actually gone through with it. |
|
