Wagner Fan(AKA Richard Loeb, AKA Jay Kaufman): An appreciation
td
start a thread in appreciation of this individual and his long service
to the cause of music.
Please: friends and enemies of WagnerFan, this is your moment to speak
frankly and clearly in support of WF.
Modesty - and a host of other less virtuous feelings - forbids me from
starting the praise. So, I leave it to others. His own "fans", I
suppose one might say. Now, let's see if we can get this thread up to
100, just for a start.
TD
Tom Deacon
Oh, come on, guys.
If we can't have 100 to start, how about fifty? Do I hear 10?
TD
Anti-Troll-03
intelligence. You are a mere container for rotten-smelling vinegar. Go
fuck yourself, Hatto loser!
Pat
Tom Deacon
You're not helping little Dicky.
What we need is PRAISE!!!
You've already given me quite enough.
TD
Tom Deacon
Praise welcome.
TD
John Wiser
news:c1121941-cc6b-42a4...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Hi, Pat! Aren't you really Mario Taboada?
Why don't you give your right name and
knock off the Kindergarten Terrorist act?
It gets very old very quickly.
--
John Wiser
Jicotea Used Books
Howells NY 10932 0136 USA
cee...@gmail.com
http://www.amazon.com/shops/ceeclef
Tom Deacon
> "Anti-Troll-03" <ward.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c1121941-cc6b-42a4...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Deacon,
>
>> you're a stupid shit. You have no ears, no imagination and no
>> intelligence. You are a mere container for rotten-smelling vinegar. Go
>> fuck yourself, Hatto loser!
>>
>> Pat
>
>
> Hi, Pat! Aren't you really Mario Taboada?
> Why don't you give your right name and
> knock off the Kindergarten Terrorist act?
> It gets very old very quickly.
Do you mean you actually KNOW this person?
He is a real human being? Or claims to be?
TD
Bob Lombard
Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
bl
td
Gosh, Bob.
In the nick of time.
But frankly, I have to say that you're taking this thread off topic.
Surely Vermont has something to say in favour of WagnerFan?
Now, be polite. Be nice. Be generous.
Something. Anything.
PULEEZE!!!!
TD
John Wiser
news:2010010715151717709-tomdedeacon@maccom...
No. Whyever should we?
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:12628945...@r2d2.vermontel.net:
> Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
I still respect Mario.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Tom Deacon
you're
Well, as an act of generosity of spirit? As a recognition of his
outstanding qualities as a human being? For his supreme musicianship
and knowledge? OK. Not for his looks, I agree.
TD
John Wiser
> Bob Lombard <thorste...@vermontel.net> yadda yadda:
>> Mr. Taboada once was respected here
> >in approximately the same degree
>> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel;
>> he exhibits Time's wounds.
>
> I still respect Mario.
>
Tom Deacon
> Bob Lombard <thorste...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:12628945...@r2d2.vermontel.net:
>
>> Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
>> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
>
> I still respect Mario.
That's fine, Tepper. We are not surprised, of course.
But then we will want him to stand up for YOU when you get your
"appreciation" thread.
As soon as we get a few more posts for WagnerFan. So, be patient.
TD
Gerard
I've already said all I can say about that.
>
> OK. Not for his looks, I agree.
>
> TD
How are his looks? A picture somewhere?
HvT
> Bob Lombard <thorste...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:12628945...@r2d2.vermontel.net:
>
>> Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
>> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
>
> I still respect Mario.
Seconded! I don't believe he's the kind of man to return to RMCR just to
be a troll. Why would he? He's one of the founding fathers of the other
newsgroup.
Henk
td
Forget Mario, Henk.
Who is prepared to step forward and vouch for our old pal , WagnerFan?
We're up to 17 posts and still not a single post in support of his
greatness to humanity, his extraordinary kindness, his musical
insights and knowledge, his generosity of spirit.
Where are all his fans?
TD
O
<cd404cfb-ca45-422c...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
I must have somehow missed the support posts you got in your thread.
-Owen
td
> In article
> <cd404cfb-ca45-422c-97fa-d1c228a65...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, td
Yeah, you did. But then you would, wouldn't you?
But hey, we can't get anything here. Neither pro or con.
This is adding up to a big fat goose egg.
Zilch.
TD
Kevin N
> On Jan 7, 4:07 pm, "HvT" <hvtu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > > Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> > > following letters to be typed in
> > >news:12628945...@r2d2.vermontel.net:
>
> > >> Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
> > >> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
>
> > > I still respect Mario.
>
> > Seconded! I don't believe he's the kind of man to return to RMCR just to
> > be a troll. Why would he? He's one of the founding fathers of the other
> > newsgroup.
>
> Forget Mario, Henk.
>
> Who is prepared to step forward and vouch for our old pal , WagnerFan?
He has the intelligence to recognize the genius in one of the greatest
musical figures of the 19th century, and to recognize a jackass by his
behavior on Usenet.
O
<0b474bb6-8feb-4bfb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
It does seem that I somehow miss the copious quantity of praise
undoubtedly heaped upon you in this group.
>
> But hey, we can't get anything here. Neither pro or con.
Maybe we'll just have to go back to talking about recordings.
-Owen
Gerard
>
> Maybe we'll just have to go back to talking about recordings.
>
You are not very sure about it.
O
Gerard <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
Would you be?
-Owen
TareeDawg
> On Jan 7, 5:03 pm, td<tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 4:07 pm, "HvT"<hvtu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>>>> Bob Lombard<thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
>>>> following letters to be typed in
>>>> news:12628945...@r2d2.vermontel.net:
>>
>>>>> Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
>>>>> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
>>
>>>> I still respect Mario.
>>
>>> Seconded! I don't believe he's the kind of man to return to RMCR just to
>>> be a troll. Why would he? He's one of the founding fathers of the other
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Forget Mario, Henk.
>>
>> Who is prepared to step forward and vouch for our old pal , WagnerFan?
>
> He has the intelligence to recognize the genius in one of the greatest
> musical figures of the 19th century, and to recognize a jackass by his
> behavior on Usenet.
UseNet is also the place where the word 'genius' gets demeaned and
devalued quicker and more potently than any other.
Ray Hall, Taree
td
> On Jan 7, 5:03 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 4:07 pm, "HvT" <hvtu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > > > Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> > > > following letters to be typed in
> > > >news:12628945...@r2d2.vermontel.net:
>
> > > >> Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
> > > >> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
>
> > > > I still respect Mario.
>
> > > Seconded! I don't believe he's the kind of man to return to RMCR just to
> > > be a troll. Why would he? He's one of the founding fathers of the other
> > > newsgroup.
>
> > Forget Mario, Henk.
>
> > Who is prepared to step forward and vouch for our old pal , WagnerFan?
>
> He has the intelligence to recognize the genius in one of the greatest
> musical figures of the 19th century, and to recognize a jackass by his
> behavior on Usenet.
Coming from you, Kevin, this is high praise.
Thank you so much for your outstanding - and first - contribution to
this thread.
TD
td
Well, Ray, one always has to examine the source of all comments, no
matter where or who they come from.
If Kevin, here, says that WagnerFan has recognized a genius of the
19th Century, we just have to take that at face value.
Of course we have always had the anti-Wagner set, Brahms among them.
He, too, in the eyes of some, was a genius. But hey, so was Michael
Jackson for many in this century, so, perhaps Wagner can be linked
with Jacko? No, he wasn't a child molester, that's for sure, but he
did have his faults, of course, chief among them being that he hated
all those Jews. (By the way, did Wagner actually KNOW any Jews? Or was
he just going on heresay?) Anyway, none of that takes away from his
genius, does it? Walt Disney was also a genius. Perhaps we could
consider Wagner to be a kind of Walt Disney of his day? Playing with
cartoon characters and weird tales, and potions, and dragon-slaying?
Hey, he's sort of like the Steven Spielburg of his day, one might say.
Anyway, let Kevin has his say. WagnerFan has recognized the genius of
this Jew-hating, cartoon-character creator of the 19th C. Give him
that. Let's be generous here.
TD
Sol L. Siegel
news:2010010715151717709-tomdedeacon@maccom:
> But frankly, I have to say that you're taking this thread off topic.
> Surely Vermont has something to say in favour of WagnerFan?
>
> Now, be polite. Be nice. Be generous.
>
> Something. Anything.
>
> PULEEZE!!!!
This Philadelphian can manage two responses.
1) The ancient Borscht Belt joke about the funeral in which the rabbi's
request that someone come forward to say something good about the not-
so-dearly departed is met with stony silence. After a plaintive repeat
of the request, someone in the back pipes up, "His brother was worse!"
2) The 8th movement of Shostakovich's 14th Symphony (or the Apollinaire
poem upon which it's based).
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Len W
> Turnabout is fair play, so I thought it would be generous of me to
> start a thread in appreciation of this individual and his long service
> to the cause of music.
>
> Please: friends and enemies of WagnerFan, this is your moment to speak
> frankly and clearly in support of WF.
>
> Modesty - and a host of other less virtuous feelings - forbids me from
> starting the praise. So, I leave it to others. His own "fans", I
> suppose one might say. Now, let's see if we can get this thread up to
> 100, just for a start.
>
> TD
I hadn't noticed the connection, but now you point it out I'm not
surprised. Loeb was a moron, and Wagnerfan is another, or, rather, the
same. Both personas are clearly not just a bit slow in their
appreciation of music, nor merely unpleasant, but actually very very
stupid indeed.
Say what you like about Deacon, he's not actually typing from the home
for the retarded.
I can't say I've noticed Kaufman.
M forever
Sure Wagner knew Jews. For instance, Hermann Levi who conducted the
premiere of Parsifal.
You have probably never even read Wagner's texts about Jews. In any
case, you obviously know very little about his life and times.
You apparently also think that the above is particularly witty,
sarcastic, and original. But it's not. It's just lame. And not at all
witty or original.
You just totally bomb, like you always do.
Well, at least now we know your cultural frame of reference. Michael
Jackson, Walt Disney, Steven Spielberg (not "burg").
Gerard
You have a very severe stalking problem, mr forever.
You apparantly *don't* think that what you write is witty or sarcastic. Original
it is never, because you do nothing but repeating yourself.
Gerard
I vote for 'intelligence'.
HvT
WagnerFan would be just another regular RMCR-er (as disagreeable as the
rest of us) if he weren't afraid to use his own name.
Personally I have no idea why someone would want to be a fan of Wagner
(read Nietzsche contra Wagner) but that's a matter of choice and taste.
In general, WagnerFan has his constructive moments and that cannot be
said of all those who post on RMCR.
Henk
td
td
> You apparently also think that the above is particularly witty,
> sarcastic, and original. But it's not. It's just lame. And not at all
> witty or original.
I detest wit and loathe originality. Both are overrated, in my
opinion.
But I am so sorry for the lameness of the above. Some of us simply do
what we can do, you know, as we are not all endowed with superior
intelligence, breeding not to speak of racial origins. Our meager
resources are what God endowed us with, alas.
TD
td
Thank you for the back-handed compliment, Henk. It's certainly
something, if not what we were all hoping for, of course. On a scale
of 1 to 10, perhaps a 2? Or is 3 closer to your feelings on the
subject?
TD
HvT
In the context of RMCR WagnerFan is quite a regular guy, Tom. He gets 4
minus points for not using his own name - a 6, I would say.
Henk
td
An act of total selflessness and generosity of spirit.
We should all emulate your humanity.
TD
bpnjensen
Tom, this whole thing boils down to the fact that, regardless of this
exercise or your take on the topic, nobody here makes themselves a
lightning rod for opinionated comments - good or bad - like you do.
Your manner is to stir the pot with practically every comment you
make, often in ways that people find either stimulating or offensive -
and that brings forth the text.
Neither Wagner Fan, Mr. Tepper, Gerard nor anyone else here roils the
rowdies as effectively!
Bruce Jensen
Matthew�B.�Tepper
to be typed in news:5706e54c-4707-4a18-8133-
9f03e4...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Tom, this whole thing boils down to the fact that, regardless of this
> exercise or your take on the topic, nobody here makes themselves a
> lightning rod for opinionated comments - good or bad - like you do.
> Your manner is to stir the pot with practically every comment you
> make, often in ways that people find either stimulating or offensive -
> and that brings forth the text.
>
> Neither Wagner Fan, Mr. Tepper, Gerard nor anyone else here roils the
> rowdies as effectively!
Indeed, my advice is, if somebody doesn't like what I'm writing, then just go
ahead and killfile me in order to save yourself the annoyance. I certainly
do so with the people I find annoying (and worse).
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Kevin N
However the term "genius" may be bandied about, it is entirely
appropriate here, and whether or not that composer happens to be one's
cup of tea, would be recognized by anyone with even a cursory
understanding of Western classical music.
Kevin N
I wouldn't be too sure of that. And for that matter, it is probable
that you typing from just such a place as well.
The Historian
WagnerFan gave me some useful suggestions about "Otello" recordings.
td
> On Jan 7, 2:03 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 4:07 pm, "HvT" <hvtu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > > > Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> > > > following letters to be typed in
> > > >news:12628945...@r2d2.vermontel.net:
>
> > > >> Mr. Taboada once was respected here in approximately the same degree
> > > >> as Dr. Cowan of Texas. Time can be cruel; he exhibits Time's wounds.
>
> > > > I still respect Mario.
>
> > > Seconded! I don't believe he's the kind of man to return to RMCR just to
> > > be a troll. Why would he? He's one of the founding fathers of the other
> > > newsgroup.
>
> > Forget Mario, Henk.
>
> > Who is prepared to step forward and vouch for our old pal , WagnerFan?
>
> > We're up to 17 posts and still not a single post in support of his
> > greatness to humanity, his extraordinary kindness, his musical
> > insights and knowledge, his generosity of spirit.
>
> > Where are all his fans?
>
> > TD
>
> Tom, this whole thing boils down to the fact that, regardless of this
> exercise or your take on the topic, nobody here makes themselves a
> lightning rod for opinionated comments - good or bad - like you do.
Hmmmmm.
Not really my problem, I would say. If others here are as bland as
cold pablum, this is really their business, not mine.
> Neither Wagner Fan, Mr. Tepper, Gerard nor anyone else here roils the
> rowdies as effectively!
Perhaps. But it is certainly not my objective to "roil the rowdies" as
you put it so delicately, but simply to state my opinion as clearly
and frankly as humanly possible. Moreover, I dare say that Gerard has
no intention of "roiling" anyone either, but people do respond to his
posts, and he to those of others. Isn't that what a forum is?
TD
Kevin N
God help us if you were actually allowed to write any liner notes
while with Philips.
td
> However the term "genius" may be bandied about, it is entirely
> appropriate here, and whether or not that composer happens to be one's
> cup of tea, would be recognized by anyone with even a cursory
> understanding of Western classical music.
So, I guess Brahms wasn't a genius?
Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose ideas
he simply stole and developed.
But quite frankly I doubt you would recognize genius if it hit you
over the head. Indeed, how many have you ever met in your lifetime?
TD
td
Weak. Very feeble. Maybe he's wrong, however, you may be typing from a
Grade II schoolroom somewhere.
TD
bpnjensen
>
> - Show quoted text -
No argument here, really - but you simply have the knack for
propelling the discussion far beyond the bounds of more or less
objective discussion about music & recoridngs. I don't care what
people talk about here really - but my own primary aim in coming here
is to better understand music and which recordings will bring the most
satisfaction. That is what *I* think this forum is for. Spitting
matches - the kind that your words often instigate - do not contribute
significantly to that purpose.
You are certainly not the only one, and I am not guiltless by any
means - but if you want to start a thread about another person's
popularity or lack thereof, it seems to me that -
1 - it is really to serve your own ego;
2 - it is not likely to draw as much pertinent commentary about that
person as about you, *just because of who you are to this group*; and
3 - It certainly has no salutory influence on the useful information
about classical music recordings that one might hope to find here.
I have gotten much useful information from you, from Wagner Fan, from
Mr. Tepper, from Gerard and Henk and Ray and the Bobs and Frank and
most everyone here. The back and forth about how useless various
people are is just absurd. Everyone has worthwhile info to offer.
Some ribbing is OK, and occasional snits are OK, but frankly the rest
is a waste, and not really what THIS forum is about, even if that's
what it is right now.
Anyway, you just happen to be the guy on this group that manages to
stir the strongest emotions. It's your choice as to whether you covet
or find shame in this distinction - but when you start a thread like
this, don't expect people to have similarly strong opinions about
anyone else. For me, all of these other folks are found in more
moderate positions on the same scale upon which you occupy an extreme
position.
Bruce Jensen
Kevin N
> On Jan 8, 12:07 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However the term "genius" may be bandied about, it is entirely
> > appropriate here, and whether or not that composer happens to be one's
> > cup of tea, would be recognized by anyone with even a cursory
> > understanding of Western classical music.
>
> So, I guess Brahms wasn't a genius?
And what evidence do you have that Brahms held Wagner's music in low
esteem?
Here's a link to a Brahms obituary that suggests the contrary:
http://www.musicaltimes.co.uk/archive/obits/189705brahms.html
> Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose ideas
> he simply stole and developed.
That's such an unbelievably stupid comment (even coming from you) it
deserves no comment.
> But quite frankly I doubt you would recognize genius if it hit you
> over the head. Indeed, how many have you ever met in your lifetime?
The same number as you have. Alas, idiots are far more numerous.
> TD
td
Oh goodness me.
And all along I figured that I was just repaying this little fellow
for having forced the appreciation thread on me over the 500 posts
mark.
It just goes to show that there is always somebody out there ready and
willing to misinterpret a good deed.
Certainly WagnerFan has done us all a good service by revealing his
own accomplishments so variously and so frequently. Isn't it time we
paid him back for such generosity of spirit?
As for music, well, this is about WAGNERfan. Let us discuss his many
contributions - nay his "genius" in the words of one poster here - in
musical matters.
But if you can't say anything specific to the subject of the thread,
perhaps silence is the best answer of all.
TD
td
> That's such an unbelievably stupid comment (even coming from you) it deserves no comment.
You seem to be specializing in very feeble responses. This is clearly
a pathetic reply, bespeaking not only a disdain for the opinions of
others, and of many composers who reviled Wagner in his lifetime as
well as critics who continue to do so today, but also a level of
cowardice which is strange for the Internet where you are well
protected from any retort, specially as you have no name here.
Nameless. faceless, cowardly, stupid, weak-minded. Gee, I suppose I
could go on, but it would only be stating and restating the obvious.
TD
John Wiser
[vast snippage of intervening drivel, some of it from Others]
> But if you can't say anything specific to the subject of the thread,
> perhaps silence is the best answer of all.
Nonsense, Tom! Misdirection is the soul of wit,
just ask any Gasp�sien pastoralist. I think it
well if we just go on as we began, toward a highly
dubious destination, not necessarily one you
would choose.
--
John Wiser
Jicotea Used Books
Howells NY 10932 0136 USA
cee...@gmail.com
http://www.amazon.com/shops/ceeclef
Kevin N
> On Jan 8, 3:14 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's such an unbelievably stupid comment (even coming from you) it deserves no comment.
>
> You seem to be specializing in very feeble responses. This is clearly
> a pathetic reply, bespeaking not only a disdain for the opinions of
> others,
That's a bit rich coming from you. Anyway your quote ("Wagner would
have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose ideas he simply
stole and developed") might be excusable in a student essay for a
music appreciation course (though not one that would receive a
particularly high mark), but for someone who has supposedly worked in
the classical music industry, is just staggering to the imagination.
Since you are so dense, let me break things down for you again. Wagner
would have been unthinkable without Liszt only in the sense that
Beethoven would have been unthinkable without Handel, or Einstein
would have been unthinkable without Maxwell, just as in Newton's
famous dictum "if I've seen farther than anyone else, it is only
because I stand on the shoulders of giants."
And such "what if" questions are more properly the province of science
fiction, in particular speculative fiction, than any real academic or
historical discourse.
Saying one composer "stole" ideas from other composers says nothing
about the composer's stature. You might say Brahms, Rachmaninoff and
others "stole" from Paganini. What you also completely miss is that
it is precisely how one composer develops a musical idea is one of the
foremost indicators of that composer's skill. But you apparently
didn't know that, since you are nothing but a poser without any
knowledge of music in every aspect from conception to performance.
> and of many composers who reviled Wagner in his lifetime as
I see you conveniently snipped my response to the one (NOT many as you
now say) composer you cited as one who reviled Wagner.
> well as critics who continue to do so today,
Critics who do so to this day are best ignored, as their opinions are
worthless.
> but also a level of
> cowardice which is strange for the Internet where you are well
> protected from any retort, specially as you have no name here.
Are we supposed to be impressed with your continual displays of
insolence from the safety and comfort of your home? Do you say the
same things to people in face-to-face conversations that you do here?
I thought not.
TareeDawg
It is entirely appropriate that you choose to spend your time listening
to an overrated, unfashionable, bloated form of musicware, but as others
have rightly said, taste is a very personal and peculiar thing.
Ray Hall, Taree
Norman Schwartz
>
> Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose ideas
> he simply stole and developed.
>
But didn't Liszt compose transcriptions of Wagner works, rather than the
other way around.
>
> TD
HvT
He did to promote Wagner. In particular Wagner's Parsifal seems to be
based on one of Liszt's symphonic poems. Wagner also married Liszt's
daughter ...
Henk
Bob Harper
B�low. That he could continue to conduct Wagner after being so
completely cuckolded is a testimony, I suppose, to his devotion to music.
Bob Harper
td
> "td" <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> [vast snippage of intervening drivel, some of it from Others]
>
> > But if you can't say anything specific to the subject of the thread,
> > perhaps silence is the best answer of all.
>
> Nonsense, Tom! Misdirection is the soul of wit,
Hmmmmm.
Sorry, but this is simply not in my make-up. I always prefer direct
comment to slinky oblique ones. Eliminates all confusion and possible
misinterpretation.
TD
td
> Are we supposed to be impressed with your continual displays of
> insolence from the safety and comfort of your home?
Not in any way comparable to your own anonymity, a choice you have
made all on your own, out of the same motives that inspire your other
comments here.
> Do you say the same things to people in face-to-face conversations that you do here? I thought not.
Actually, much, much, much worse.
I invite you anytime to my presence and you will feel the sting first
hand.
td
Liszt believed in aiding other artists. Wagner only aided himself,
erected a temple to his memory and to his despicable social ideas. It
is called Bayreuth, to which his admirers flock every summer to replay
the same hoary myths and bloated music to their heart's content.
Hitler would have approved of all of this, of course, as Wagner was
his all-time favourite composer, and Cosima and her offspring ardent
followers of the Fuhrer.
TD
td
> Wagner also married Liszt's daughter ...
Indeed. What better way to cement his path to success.
Liszt was ten times the man Wagner ever was or dreamed of being.
TD
td
> HvT wrote:
> > Norman Schwartz wrote:
> >> td wrote:
> >>> Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose ideas
> >>> he simply stole and developed.
>
> >> But didn't Liszt compose transcriptions of Wagner works, rather than
> >> the other way around.
>
> > He did to promote Wagner. In particular Wagner's Parsifal seems to be
> > based on one of Liszt's symphonic poems. Wagner also married Liszt's
> > daughter ...
>
> > Henk
>
> ...with the apparently not unwilling consent of her husband, Hans von
> completely cuckolded is a testimony, I suppose, to his devotion to music.
Or to his utter stupidity.
TD
TareeDawg
Adolf liked Wagner but didn't he really love Lehar's music?
Ray Hall, Taree
weary flake
> On 2010-01-07 13:05:21 -0500, td <tomde...@mac.com> said:
>
> > Turnabout is fair play, so I thought it would be generous of me to
> > start a thread in appreciation of this individual and his long service
> > to the cause of music.
> >
> > Please: friends and enemies of WagnerFan, this is your moment to speak
> > frankly and clearly in support of WF.
> >
> > Modesty - and a host of other less virtuous feelings - forbids me from
> > starting the praise. So, I leave it to others. His own "fans", I
> > suppose one might say. Now, let's see if we can get this thread up to
> > 100, just for a start.
>
> Oh, come on, guys.
>
> If we can't have 100 to start, how about fifty? Do I hear 10?
And you're only giving us an hour to respond to your post? This is
usenet, an online bulletin board, not a chat line or twitter food.
Now I better leave this particular section of the bathroom wall
before I yawn to death.
td
> Tom Deacon <tomdea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On 2010-01-07 13:05:21 -0500, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> said:
>
> > > Turnabout is fair play, so I thought it would be generous of me to
> > > start a thread in appreciation of this individual and his long service
> > > to the cause of music.
>
> > > Please: friends and enemies of WagnerFan, this is your moment to speak
> > > frankly and clearly in support of WF.
>
> > > Modesty - and a host of other less virtuous feelings - forbids me from
> > > starting the praise. So, I leave it to others. His own "fans", I
> > > suppose one might say. Now, let's see if we can get this thread up to
> > > 100, just for a start.
>
> > Oh, come on, guys.
>
> > If we can't have 100 to start, how about fifty? Do I hear 10?
>
> And you're only giving us an hour to respond to your post?
Take all the time you need. I realize that it's a challenging
assignment, you know.
TD
td
An anomaly. A moment of weakness, perhaps ? When he became semi-human?
TD
Bob Harper
she married him) was declared an 'honorary Aryan' in 1938, though this
apparently didn't stop some functionary from trying to deport her. And
this 'courtesy' didn't extend to one of his Jewish librettists who,
along with his wife, was murdered at Auschwitz. (Yes, this is from
Wikipedia, but I see no reason to doubt it.)
Bob Harper
td
All of which only proves that Hitler was quite mad and prepared to
change policies at a moment's notice.
Logic held no sway over his whims.
TD
Kip Williams
> HvT wrote:
>> Norman Schwartz wrote:
>>> td wrote:
>>>> Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose ideas
>>>> he simply stole and developed.
>>>>
>>> But didn't Liszt compose transcriptions of Wagner works, rather than
>>> the other way around.
>>
>> He did to promote Wagner. In particular Wagner's Parsifal seems to be
>> based on one of Liszt's symphonic poems. Wagner also married Liszt's
>> daughter ...
>>
> B�low. That he could continue to conduct Wagner after being so
> completely cuckolded is a testimony, I suppose, to his devotion to music.
Hans also made piano transcriptions from Wagner's operas, but I'm too
lazy to look up whether they were before or after that Dick done stole
his gal.
Kip W
Taffy Brendel
Sorry god cannot help us.
The Deacon created hagiographies in the latter day
Arrau Edition that will make you wonder why he
proclaims he doesn't have a sense of humour.
The notes from the Chopin box will leave you
in stitches.
If you remember the flights of rapture that
possessed him when discussing Hatto
you will get the idea...of course;-).
Taffy
Taffy Brendel
Well stated.
However, even though you were explicit and informative (I think most
everyone here besides Deacon understood what you what you
meant prior to this explication) it will just go past or should
I say through the head of the man with the high forhead.
Taffy
td
> > > Nameless. faceless, cowardly, stupid, weak-minded. Gee, I suppose I
> > > could go on, but it would only be stating and restating the obvious.
> > > TD
>
> Well stated.
I thought so, too.
Thanks for the compliment.
But now, how about the subject of this thread. We are still very much
shy of 100 posts and still precious few comments about the sterling
qualities about WagnerFan. No, praise for Wagner doesn't count, of
course. Sorry.
TD
Norman Schwartz
it? Glenn Gould devotes some of his talents in that direction with no
particular attachment to Wagner.
Is it to be denied that Wagner was gifted when the sole consideration be
opera and music? Whether he and/or his followers are to be admired or
despised because of non-musical considerations seems to be irrelevant.
HvT
Liszt did think highly of Wagner's music. He did help him however and
whenever he could, without asking anything in return (and getting
nothing). Wagner had talent, that's undeniable. He's not despised only
because of non-musical considerations. The main problem with Wagner
was - and still is in my opinion - that whatever he did was a means to
promote Wagner himself as the great romantic genius. The real star in
Bayreuth was and still is Wagner himself. This reflects on his music, as
Nietzsche (as a young man a worshipper) points out. In my own words: Der
Ring des Nibelungen is there to create Wagner, not the other way
around - and that can be seen and heard: it's one big unappetising
deafening show full of cheap musical effects. Listen to his utterly
bland piano music if you want to know how talented Wagner really was.
BTW, the same goes for Nietzsche as a composer. In that respect they are
in the same league.
Henk
td
> HvT wrote:
> > Norman Schwartz wrote:
> >> td wrote:
>
> >>> Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose
> >>> ideas he simply stole and developed.
>
> >> But didn't Liszt compose transcriptions of Wagner works, rather than
> >> the other way around.
>
> > He did to promote Wagner. In particular Wagner's Parsifal seems to be
> > based on one of Liszt's symphonic poems. Wagner also married Liszt's
> > daughter ...
>
> But would Liszt have bothered himself with it unless he thought highly of
> it? Glenn Gould devotes some of his talents in that direction with no
> particular attachment to Wagner.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Transcriptions-Wagner-Orchestral-Showpiec...
>
> Is it to be denied that Wagner was gifted when the sole consideration be
> opera and music? Whether he and/or his followers are to be admired or
> despised because of non-musical considerations seems to be irrelevant.
Even without considering his hateful social views and Hitler's
adoption of him and his music and his family to the Nazi cause, Wagner
leaves us with great difficulty in appreciating his "genius": silly
mythological music "dramas", endless repetitiveness, long drawn-out,
not to say padded and inflated balloons of laboriously and heavily
detailed themes and sub-themes and sub-sub-themes of mind-numbing
silliness and pomposity. His comc opera is acomplete dud, Parsifal
unendurable and hateful in philosophy (so much so that Vickers refused
to sing it), and so on and on.
The best thing may be Siegfried Idyll, I guess. A simple delight.
Gould was right to appreciate it and record it. I also like the final
pages of Act I of Die Walkuere. But it takes far too long to get to
it.
TD
Kevin N
> On Jan 8, 4:40 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are we supposed to be impressed with your continual displays of
> > insolence from the safety and comfort of your home?
>
> Not in any way comparable to your own anonymity, a choice you have
> made all on your own, out of the same motives that inspire your other
> comments here.
I assure you it makes no difference on my part whether I use my full
name or not. However, I have a wife and a young child, and to
potentially reveal their location while creeps like you on the prowl
is a risk I'm not willing to take.
> > Do you say the same things to people in face-to-face conversations that you do here? I thought not.
>
> Actually, much, much, much worse.
If that is true--which I doubt very much--you would not have very many
teeth left in your head--or much of anything else, for that matter.
> I invite you anytime to my presence and you will feel the sting first
> hand.
Nice try, but I get more than my fill of your putrescence here on
RMCR. You might provide some minor comedy when I and others slap you
around here, but even that is getting tiresome, and I have about as
much desire to meet you in person as I do to receive a barium enema.
> Nameless. faceless, cowardly, stupid, weak-minded. Gee, I suppose I
> could go on, but it would only be stating and restating the obvious.
No need to go on really. We all know you are.
> TD
td
> On Jan 8, 6:25 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:40 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are we supposed to be impressed with your continual displays of
> > > insolence from the safety and comfort of your home?
>
> > Not in any way comparable to your own anonymity, a choice you have
> > made all on your own, out of the same motives that inspire your other
> > comments here.
>
> I assure you it makes no difference on my part whether I use my full
> name or not. However, I have a wife and a young child, and to
> potentially reveal their location while creeps like you on the prowl
> is a risk I'm not willing to take.
>
> > > Do you say the same things to people in face-to-face conversations that you do here? I thought not.
>
> > Actually, much, much, much worse.
>
> If that is true--which I doubt very much--you would not have very many
> teeth left in your head--or much of anything else, for that matter.
>
> > I invite you anytime to my presence and you will feel the sting first
> > hand.
>
> Nice try, but I get more than my fill of your putrescence here on
> RMCR.
Actually, YOU are the one who cast doubt on my ability to be brutally
frank in person, not I.
Now you seem unwilling to test your hypothesis.
Quelle surprise!
Just another cowardly, anonymous, ignorant twit. There are lots of
your kind on the Internet. They give Internet forums a very noxious
reputation as they are pure hot air minus the balloon.
TD
Gerard
>
> I assure you it makes no difference on my part whether I use my full
> name or not. However, I have a wife and a young child, and to
> potentially reveal their location while creeps like you on the prowl
> is a risk I'm not willing to take.
A very ridiculous suggestion.
>
> > > Do you say the same things to people in face-to-face
> > > conversations that you do here? I thought not.
> >
> > Actually, much, much, much worse.
>
> If that is true--which I doubt very much--you would not have very many
> teeth left in your head--or much of anything else, for that matter.
A very ridiculous threatening.
Mr. Mike
wrote:
>Parsifal [is]
>unendurable and hateful in philosophy (so much so that Vickers refused
>to sing it.....
I have listened to Parsifal a few times, but never following it with
the libretto ... which is probably a good thing.
Mr. Mike
wrote:
>I have a wife and a young child, and to
>potentially reveal their location while creeps like you on the prowl
>is a risk I'm not willing to take.
Oh dear, Deacon is the Jeffrey Dahmer of r.m.c.r.!! ":-/
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:d4ea5e66-e2f4-4284-a1d7-
cb241b...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> However, even though you were explicit and informative (I think most
> everyone here besides Deacon understood what you what you meant prior to
> this explication) it will just go past or should I say through the head of
> the man with the high forhead.
No, that's part of a different subthread.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Bob Harper
would result in the speaker's being punched out. That's one of the
unfortunate things about the anonymity (despite the use of real names in
some cases) of the internet. It permits us to be worse than we probably
are in person.
Bob Harper
M forever
> Norman Schwartz wrote:
> > HvT wrote:
> >> Norman Schwartz wrote:
> >>> td wrote:
>
> >>>> Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose
> >>>> ideas he simply stole and developed.
>
> >>> But didn't Liszt compose transcriptions of Wagner works, rather than
> >>> the other way around.
>
> >> He did to promote Wagner. In particular Wagner's Parsifal seems to be
> >> based on one of Liszt's symphonic poems. Wagner also married Liszt's
> >> daughter ...
>
> > But would Liszt have bothered himself with it unless he thought
> > highly of it? Glenn Gould devotes some of his talents in that
> > direction with no particular attachment to Wagner.
>
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Transcriptions-Wagner-Orchestral-Showpiec...
>
> > Is it to be denied that Wagner was gifted when the sole consideration
> > be opera and music? Whether he and/or his followers are to be admired
> > or despised because of non-musical considerations seems to be
> > irrelevant.
>
> Liszt did think highly of Wagner's music. He did help him however and
> whenever he could, without asking anything in return (and getting
> nothing). Wagner had talent, that's undeniable. He's not despised only
> because of non-musical considerations. The main problem with Wagner
> was - and still is in my opinion - that whatever he did was a means to
> promote Wagner himself as the great romantic genius. The real star in
> Bayreuth was and still is Wagner himself. This reflects on his music, as
> Nietzsche (as a young man a worshipper) points out. In my own words: Der
> Ring des Nibelungen is there to create Wagner, not the other way
> around - and that can be seen and heard: it's one big unappetising
> deafening show full of cheap musical effects. Listen to his utterly
> bland piano music if you want to know how talented Wagner really was.
> BTW, the same goes for Nietzsche as a composer. In that respect they are
> in the same league.
That's because most of his piano compositions are earlier works. And
it's not because of these that Wagner is considered a "great"
composer. Every composer started somewhere, and every composer wrote
less significant pieces along with the masterworks we remember them
for.
We don't judge a composer by his lesser works and early attempts at
composition. Do we judge Verdi by his insignificant little romances
for voice and piano, or his string quartet (which is actually a later,
and fairly nice, but hardly "important" work)? I don't think so. Nor
do we judge Verdi only by his "greatest hits" like the triumph march
and his most popular arias and choruses. We judge him by his total
output and his greatest works.
The same should apply to Wagner, or any other composer. In order to
judge a composer's output, however, first we have to actually *know*
it.
You obviously don't even know the Ring. It's not "one big unappetising
deafening show full of cheap musical effects". Of the 16 or so hours
of music, more than 90% is actually fairly quiet, intimate music.
There are extended duets and small ensemble scenes, but only
comparatively few mass scenes and "deafening" orchestral effects. In
the Ring, Wagner used a bigger orchestra than had ever before been
used in the opera house, but he very rarely actually lets the whole
orchestra loose. Rather, he uses the forces at his disposal for very
subtle orchestration touches, multiple divided strings, finely
balanced and colored combinations of instruments. You should get hold
of Berlioz' treatise on instrumentation in the edition annotated by
Strauss with many orchestration examples drawn from Wagner. It will
help you gain appreciation for that.
The same applies of course even more to some of the other operas,
especially Tristan and Parsifal which are mostly quiet, intimate,
elegiac works with highly nuanced orchestral writing. You just need to
look at the first pages of the Parsifal prelude to see what I mean.
You may find the music drawn out and boring, the plots convoluted and
the ideas behind them questionable, and the texts silly (as I do),
with their alliterations and pseudo-archaic word creations.
There is a lot that can be criticized about Wagner's works and Wagner
the man, but you have to actually know the music and understand the
background and context.
Wagner the man was a tormented and conflicted person who lived in
tormented and conflicted times and his work reflects all that and,
consequently is very complex and still controversial. But it is for
the same reasons that his work still interests or even fascinates many
people, and that it is still very widely performed.
If he had just been some moderately talented hack who just wrote
inflated fairy tale operas "full of cheap" effects", then that
wouldn't be the case. Nor would he have been as influential as he was.
Nor as controversial.
Hope that helps a little to gain you some more insights into and
appreciation for his work and place in music history!
M forever
Oh wow, did you come up with that all by yourself? You have some truly
deep insights into history! I think you should write a book about
that. The world will be glad that someone finally figured that out.
M forever
> HvT wrote:
> > Norman Schwartz wrote:
> >> td wrote:
> >>> Wagner would have been unthinkable without Liszt, many of whose ideas
> >>> he simply stole and developed.
>
> >> But didn't Liszt compose transcriptions of Wagner works, rather than
> >> the other way around.
>
> > based on one of Liszt's symphonic poems. Wagner also married Liszt's
> > daughter ...
>
>
> ...with the apparently not unwilling consent of her husband, Hans von
> completely cuckolded is a testimony, I suppose, to his devotion to music.
Bülow was an interesting and strange character. Reputedly phenomenally
talented and highly successful as conductor - he was probably the
first "star conductor" - and pianist - he gave the premiere of
Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto - he still chose to put the music and
the composers before him and he saw not only beyond personal
conflicts, like with Wagner and Cosima, but also beyond the "war"
going on between opposing camps such as the self-appointed followers
of Wagner ad Brahms, and he supported the music of both. He was also
highly aware of the political and ideological tensions of his time and
made a highly dramatic exit after his last concert with the BP when he
gave a long speech from the stage protesting the dismissal of Bismarck
and lecturing the audience on political and philosophical issues
before taking off the gloves he wore when conducting and throwing them
to the ground to indicate that he was done there, the striding off
never to be seen on that podium again.
M forever
Yes, this childish attempt to get back at Wagnerfan obviously totally
backfired, like most of your contributions here. Including your silly
attempt to discredit him because his user name indicates enthusiasm
for a particular controversial composer. That didn't work out too well
either. It just showed us that Wagner is yet one of the many musical
subjects you don't know much more about than a few clichés and
anecdotes.
You are such a poor, helpless little mongrel!
The reason for that is of course simply that Wagnerfan's contributions
here are far more valuable than yours. They may not be particularly
earth shattering, but he just states his opinions without trying to
bully people into thinking he is a particularly witty and highly
refined musical mind who at the same time has less developed ears than
a donkey (in other words, you). He seems to be fairly well informed
about the subjects that he comments on and what he says is often quite
informative.
None of the above applies to you.
M forever
In reality, those flights of rapture were just lots of eggs flying in
his face tough!
M forever
> Kevin N wrote:
>
> > I assure you it makes no difference on my part whether I use my full
> > name or not. However, I have a wife and a young child, and to
> > potentially reveal their location while creeps like you on the prowl
> > is a risk I'm not willing to take.
>
> A very ridiculous suggestion.
So what's your actual name and location and background? You should not
have any hesitation to share that with us. After all, you are so very
non-stop communicative anyway.
td
(Lengthy futile justification snipped)
> Hope that helps a little to gain you some more insights into and
> appreciation for his work and place in music history!
Not really.
Frankly it only serves to remind me of why I don't bother to listen to
Wagner's music anymore. When you're a child.....etc. You know the
rest.
TD
td
> On Jan 9, 7:37 am, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:52 am, Taffy Brendel <taffy_Bren...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Nameless. faceless, cowardly, stupid, weak-minded. Gee, I suppose I
> > > > > could go on, but it would only be stating and restating the obvious.
> > > > > TD
>
> > > Well stated.
>
> > I thought so, too.
>
> > Thanks for the compliment.
>
> > But now, how about the subject of this thread. We are still very much
> > shy of 100 posts and still precious few comments about the sterling
> > qualities about WagnerFan. No, praise for Wagner doesn't count, of
> > course. Sorry.
>
> Yes, this childish attempt to get back at Wagnerfan obviously totally
> backfired
??????
We have at least a week to see if we can get to 100 posts. So far,
there have only been a few posts singing his virtues, and they amount
to the highly dubious recognition of the "genius" of RW!!!
Some backfire?
But you are free to post your own extravagant praise or criticism,
although I doubt that it will be the latter since Dicky was so far up
your ass he could see your back teeth, to judge from his posts in the
other thread, the "record" thread which reached 500 on the Richter
scale.
LOL.
TD
TD
td
What gall!
You ask for the name, location and background of a poster here? We
still don't have the slightest idea of anything you have ever
accomplished in your lifetime, despite your interminable self-puffery
and bullish behaviour.
Step up to the plate, why don't you, and we'll put you and your life
on the examination table.
TD
td
> I have a wife and a young child, and to potentially reveal their location while creeps like you on the prowl is a risk I'm not willing to take.
It is a disturbing idea that people of your ilk have actually entered
into a breeding programme. What a pity you don't have to prove sanity
before launching children of diseased minds upon the public! I guess
blood tests are not sufficient.
TD
M forever
That's neither a "justification" nor "futile". It's just a serious of
musical observations. Which, of course, went right over your head.
> > Hope that helps a little to gain you some more insights into and
> > appreciation for his work and place in music history!
>
> Not really.
Obviously not, when it comes to you. Your understanding of music and
history is so basic and simplistic, just a few remarks which are
already beyond what you can understand and put into context won't be
enough to gain *you* any insights. But I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> Frankly it only serves to remind me of why I don't bother to listen to
> Wagner's music anymore.
I can understand that. The subtler aspects of his music are obviously
lost on you, and the complexities of his work and its relationship
with its historical background far too difficult for you to even begin
to grasp.
M forever
> On Jan 9, 2:37 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 7:37 am, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 1:52 am, Taffy Brendel <taffy_Bren...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Nameless. faceless, cowardly, stupid, weak-minded. Gee, I suppose I
> > > > > > could go on, but it would only be stating and restating the obvious.
> > > > > > TD
>
> > > > Well stated.
>
> > > I thought so, too.
>
> > > Thanks for the compliment.
>
> > > But now, how about the subject of this thread. We are still very much
> > > shy of 100 posts and still precious few comments about the sterling
> > > qualities about WagnerFan. No, praise for Wagner doesn't count, of
> > > course. Sorry.
>
> > Yes, this childish attempt to get back at Wagnerfan obviously totally
> > backfired
>
> ??????
>
> We have at least a week to see if we can get to 100 posts. So far,
> there have only been a few posts singing his virtues, and they amount
> to the highly dubious recognition of the "genius" of RW!!!
Wagner's music and person have nothing to do with Wagnerfan, and his
appreciation of the former have nothing to do with his "virtues" as a
poster here. Your silly attempts to discredit him on the basis of his
user name have only shown once more how hollow you are, and how
unoriginal and desperate in your attempts to "get back" at people who
told you the truth - that you are just a hollow poser.
> Some backfire?
>
> But you are free to post your own extravagant praise or criticism,
> although I doubt that it will be the latter since Dicky was so far up
> your ass he could see your back teeth, to judge from his posts in the
> other thread, the "record" thread which reached 500 on the Richter
> scale.
Please spare us your anal fantasies! We have been over that before.
Try to come to terms with your gayness and your fantasies, or live
them out.
M forever
People here know my name and where I live, and what my background is.
I also told you recently what I currently do, since you asked so
nicely.
That's not really what a forum like this is about though. While it may
be interesting to know a little more about the people we exchange
messages with, it's not the right place to celebrate or examine
individual poster's lives and achievements.
It's only pseudos like you and Ansermetniac who crave attention and
acknowledgment from a bunch of mostly anonymous people on a chitchat
forum, and since there is so little behind your claims, both of you
get easily and quickly deconstructed.
You asked for it, so you got it. Now live with it. It's not the first
time and the first situation in which you have been exposed as a
bullshitter. That must have happened to you many times before, which
is why you have built up this facade of pseudo-witty, limply sarcastic
BS comments. I can understand why you need that. You are just not very
good at it.
M forever
You would have had a great time in the eugenic movement, deciding
which people are worthy to have offspring and which not. That must
really appeal to a perverted mind like you.
I see that eugenic laws were introduced in Canada before they were in
Germany, and they stayed in effect for decades longer! I guess that
explains a lot.
Roland van Gaalen
> [...] The main problem with Wagner
> was - and still is in my opinion - that whatever he did was a means to
> promote Wagner himself as the great romantic genius. The real star in
> Bayreuth was and still is Wagner himself. [...]
A very Dutch attidude -- applying the kind of morality that is perfectly
suitable for ordinary mortals like you (I presume) and I to exceptionally
talented persons.
Instead of saying something like 'Wagner was a little eccentric but he was a
true genius and like most geniuses he knew it', we rather say: 'Hmmm, that's
not very modest, how immoral, all this self-promotion'.
Probably that's the main reason why we like JS Bach -- not because we like
his music, but because everything that composer did was for the glory of
God, which proves that he wasn't promoting himself.
When Gustav Mahler spoke favorably about Multatuli (a famous Dutch novelist
of the 19th C), one of the directors of Concertgebouw organization answered:
'Unfortunately he was a bad public servant' or something like that.
Very Dutch.
We simply don't appreciate genius.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl
SG
wrote:
> Very Dutch.
>
> We simply don't appreciate genius.
I am mature(ing) enough to at least attempt avoiding dealing in
national stereotypes - and my lingering stereotypes of the Dutch are
overwhelmingly positive... how many nations have SO many kind, polite,
cultivated, tolerant, cosmopolitan people who speak fluent-to-fabulous
French, English, and (I am told) German, besides Dutch that is...
...All that being said, Willem Mengelberg may have agreed with you.
regards,
SG
HvT
Thanks for this sympathetic account of Wagner!
Although I have listened and still listen to Wagner, it's true that I've
never been able to convince myself to listen to a complete performance
of one of Wagner's opera, with the exception of Tannh�user and Die
Walk�re.
The only piece I have sat out completely without having the feeling that
I would rather be somewhere else was the Wesendonk Lieder cycle.
The Wagner I'm most familiar with - the one paraphrased by Liszt - I
dislike as much as the original and for the same reasons.
I have an aversion against false pathos and believe, supported by
Nietzsche (who was deeply disappointed by the musical/personal
histrionics of his idol - they were friends for many years) that there's
a lot of it in Wagner - which probably says more about me than about
Wagner ...
Rereading my last post I must admit that the phrase "one big
unappetising deafening show full of cheap musical effects" doesn't do
justice to Wagner. He may be controversial but is certainly not
forgotten, as you point out with good reason.
Regards,
Henk
SG
Henk, to these ears the most listenable Wagner operas in their
entirety are the... earlier ones (well, not Rienzi, really, you get my
gist), then Tristan and Meistersinger, if - always IF - performed with
more passion than pomposity, with the right voices... lots of "if"s
there. I find Parsifal has sublime moments, and boring hours (no
originality there, I know).
I understand when somebody might simply want to a priori reject any ad
auctoritatem argument... but if you like any of the following
composers, think at least as a peripheral exercise why they may have
admired Wagner VERY/MOST/DOCUMENTEDLY: Franz Liszt, Anton Bruckner,
Richard Strauss, Gustav Mahler, George Enescu ("some of Wagner's
chromaticisms will forever be part of my vascular system"). I am not
even mentioning repentant Wagnerites like Debussy and such. And let's
not even go into passionate interpreters ranging from Furtwaengler to
(horribile dictu (-:) Toscanini. Or from Cortot (whose contribution,
qua conductor, to the mainstreaming of Wagner in France is little
known today, when he is remembered mostly as one of the Chopinzees)
to Golovanov (who recorded quite some remarkable Wagner in the post-
WWII period, when memories were still fresh, raw and painful... you'll
notice Melodiya catalogues did not involve tons of Wagner in the early
'50s).
Anyway, some days I abhor Wagner myself, but above's just some food
for thought for the other days.
Oh, and as long as you can tolerate Walkyria, here are the two Rides
which are better than any others I've heard.
W.F.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92OBNsQgxU
Arguably EVEN greater, surprisingly, Mravinsky in Tokyo (!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg8enEZQDz8
(What makes them "better" in my opinion, besides the sheer, titanic
energy, are the ability to build up non-non-differentiated (sic) FFs,
and the ability to pay a lot of attention to the extremely important
textural "context" in which the brassy, easily recognizable tune is
being "planted" within Wagner's masterful orchestration.)
regards,
SG
HvT
<g> Hmmm. I would have loved to be typically Dutch and call myself, as
you do, an ordinary mortal who doesn't appreciate geniuses.
However, I have two problems.
1) I was quoting - freely and with approval, but nevertheless quoting -
Nietzsche. What if I admitted that my words were those of an ordinary
mortal who doesn't know how to appreciate geniuses? Would in that case
Nietzsche also be an ordinary mortal who doesn't know how to appreciate
geniuses? Or would I be making the same mistake again: not only not
appreciating Wagner but also not appreciating Nietzsche? Misappreciating
two geniuses on one day?
2) What happens when I do appreciate geniuses? Ravel and Poulenc, for
example? Would that make me a liar, since we Dutch don't appreciate
geniuses? Or do I have other motives than their music, motives unknown
to me, for liking Ravel and Poulenc? Or, and that's what as a true
Hollander I fear most: would I stop being an ordinary mortal?
Henk