Is Mozart Greater Than Wagner in Opera ?

[M forever]

And Britney Spears is greater that both Mozart and Wagner for somebody else, it's their choice and I don't blame them. It's natural.

I am not sure Britney Spears is entirely natural.

[Sarastro]

Mozart is greater so far.

[Lilas Pastia]

But raspberries are even greater than oranges. The greatest fruit however, is the banana. I also like saying that word. "Ba-na-na" In German, banana is Banane. "Bah-naah-ne". That sounds even funnier.

Amazing! a german banane is identical to the french banane  (Ba-NAnn) -  hopefully without the insulting sub-meaning 0:). And french champignons are germane to the Germans. Wonders never cease. Any other bombs like that?

[M forever]

Oui. "Friseur" is "Friseur" in German. And "Bouillabaisse" is "Bouillabaisse"!

[Sarastro]

(Ba-NAnn)

The same in Russian! And Butter Brott is sandwich in Russian.  0:) champignons too, and some Spanish words either.  The World is small, isn't it?

I bet opera is also the same in different languages. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Maybe it is, though I'm not a musician and cannot say everything I think in English. I don't understand why you didn't like my reply about beef-stakes, they are GREAT! 
The question - what's greater...but it is obviously ridiculous, asking what's greater - Mozart or Wagner, Da Vinci or Micelangelo, isn't it?
Wagner, of course, did his own world of music, using his own language, system of symbols, keynotes, making  great libretti twisted with the music canvas. So what's that? It's more like thinking, noting all those signs...it's great, especially when you know all this, you'll enjoy.
Mozart didn't get much into such a complications, though some of his operatic music is written for those who have "long ears", but even a beginner will gladly listen to them, understand and receive a bouquet of emotions. Of course, for me Wagner also gives a bunch of them, but the fact is that not everybody is deep in classical music and listen to it a lot. The statistics says there are 2-3 percent in the entire World...so do you expect most of the people be fond of Wagner and listen to him all free time? No. I'm not sure. And as for Mozart it doesn't matter if you are a beginner or an expert or someone else, each category of listeners will get their own. Of course you can say - Wagner can bring it too! yes, he may, but the percentage would be smaller.
Arguing about what is greater/more unique/more excellent/more exciting is a waste of a time. Go, listen to the music, enjoy it! That should be wise. Of course there are some points that are solid and undeniable, but we are human, and thing we consider to be great are just thing that we like.
And Britney Spears is greater that both Mozart and Wagner for somebody else, it's their choice and I don't blame them. It's natural.

You sound like a sensible person, and so I hope you can understand the difference between the original question and one like the following:

"Given that Mozart and Wagner have both been highly esteemed by a large majority of people devoted to opera, what can we say about their successes in light of their very different approaches towards structuring a musical action, creating characters, using the orchestra, developing recitatives and arias, and so forth? How is it that two composers exhibiting such radically different musical styles and techniques can both succeed so well in creating works that are convincing musical dramas?"

[(poco) Sforzando]

I am not sure Britney Spears is entirely natural.

No less natural than an animated GIF of a dancing banana.

[Lilas Pastia]

Vive la bouillabaisse!

I'm afraid your friseur will not be curling hair with my wife's coiffeur, or my barbier. I've never seen a french friseur. But raseur is definitely a very popular category!

[M forever]

The word friseur does not exist in French? That is strange. Apparently it is a "pseudo loan word". There is even the equivalent female word "Friseuse" (instead of "Friseurin" or something like that, because in German -in typically denotes the person is female). "Friseuse" is also a word which is used as an insult for stupid girls, kind of like "blonde".

[Morigan]

I remember that word when I was learning German. I think it was borrowed from French in the old times when people would go to the friseur to get their hair done. Friseur basically means "someone that curls your hair".

[paulb]

You sound like a sensible person, and so I hope you can understand the difference between the original question and one like the following:

"Given that Mozart and Wagner have both been highly esteemed by a large majority of people devoted to opera, what can we say about their successes in light of their very different approaches towards structuring a musical action, creating characters, using the orchestra, developing recitatives and arias, and so forth? How is it that two composers exhibiting such radically different musical styles and techniques can both succeed so well in creating works that are convincing musical dramas?"

Excellent and relevant perspecive,
Mozart and Wagner (his 3 best efforts) though written in the 18th and 19th C, yet are alive with power and meanings in 2008, Few operas from either generation can be said to enchant as they did back then as they do today.

Verdi, blah. Good luck resurrecting Verdi from the ashes maestro Levine!

Mussorgsky? He never completed Boris, If it was not for Rimsky to the rescue, we might not have the opera on record. In spite of Rimsky's best efforts, the opera fizzles out in the second half, just barely wobbling along. The first part is gloroius. Wish the Paris 2005 production of Shostakovich's Boris would make it to cd. Now we're talking  a  Boris to hear!!

Puccini?
Turandot a  supreme masterpiece.

Janacek? has 2 operas, a  few Puccini-esque great moments, most often the operas  slouch  along, screechy arias at times..

Not sure who i am missing as far as truly great operatic creations.
I do not know Prokofiev;'s War And Peace and should order, on my wish list for too long.

There you have it, no one comes even close.
Thats the reason to recognize both as offering the pinnacle in excellence of the operatic  genre.


See its posts like this that  tend to get myself in hot water. But hey that means they have the hangup.
When some one gets all bent out of shape over a  opinion that does not personally offend, they are hiding something. They project their issues within their minds onto others.

I see nothing harmful in saying Verdi is  antequated out of date boring music, that has no place on the modern stage. Its the truth.

[M forever]

I remember that word when I was learning German. I think it was borrowed from French in the old times when people would go to the friseur to get their hair done. Friseur basically means "someone that curls your hair".

Wikipedia.de says you are right about the provenance of the word!

[Sarastro]

I remember Frisur - haircut, even just simply hair, hairstyle.

Schau auf meine Frisur
Und auf meine Figur
Ohne Schlankheitskur
Mit dem keine Spur
Trotz Milliarden von Jahren
Kein Grau in der Haaren
etc..
(not to be applied to me, just a quotation from a school musical)

[Sarastro]

You sound like a sensible person, and so I hope you can understand the difference between the original question and one like the following:

"Given that Mozart and Wagner have both been highly esteemed by a large majority of people devoted to opera, what can we say about their successes in light of their very different approaches towards structuring a musical action, creating characters, using the orchestra, developing recitatives and arias, and so forth? How is it that two composers exhibiting such radically different musical styles and techniques can both succeed so well in creating works that are convincing musical dramas?"

I don't want to disappoint you, as being so stupid not to understand the difference, but I'm still amused.
You ask "how it is that...etc." The matter is how it is that they are both very popular, that's the reason I think. Salieri and Paisiello were super-popular in their times too, but what about nowadays? So...the fact is that we just like both Wagner and Mozart, through the ages, now. Why do we? Why do people like them?
And why do some people like green, some - yellow, why do some people like tangerines, others - apples, why?? It is just it, we like and no matter what is about it. I don't know how to explain, and that's probably a rhetorical question...something like to be or not to be...who can answer that? Everyone will have his own unique choice and reason for it.

[Que]

Q

[Wendell_E]

Mussorgsky? He never completed Boris, If it was not for Rimsky to the rescue, we might not have the opera on record.

Not true.  Mussorgsky in fact completed two different versions of Boris.  The opera he didn't complete was Khovanshchina.

I won't even address the whole calling Turandot a masterpiece while dissin' Verdi and Janáček issue.   

Oh, yeah.  Back to the topic.  I do think it's an apples vs. oranges issue.  Or sunsets vs. warm puppies.  Or a great meal vs. great sex.  Or....

[longears]

This topic interests me greatly. In all of my discussions with opera lovers over the years it has been implied that I was 'lacking in aesthetic perception' for claiming that Wagner was the infinitely greater opera composer. Folks, I have tried, really tried with Mozart but I just can't get excited about his operas. At times I am truly mystified at why his works are considered the summit of operatic achievement....

For me the finest works of Wagner, Debussy, late Verdi, Puccini and Richard Strauss come way before Don Giovanni, Le Nozze de Figaro, Cosi fan Tutte, Die Zauberflote and others....

So I am wondering how GMG'rs feel about this.

You know how we feel about this, Eric.  You bring up the same two topics over and over.  You are welcome to think whatever you want and to like whatever pleases you.  You are also welcome to claim that you have special knowledge due to heightened intelligence and sensitivity and the brain implants installed when you were abducted by aliens.  And if others are offended by these claims, or your corollary claims that those who disagree are insensitive morons, they are welcome to express their feelings just like you.

If not for your narcissism, rather than being "mystified at why his [Mozart's] works are considered the summit of operatic achievement," you would be mystified at your inability to appreciate their quality.

i just gave some reason to consider both in one topic. as both stand at the pinnacle of greatness in the operatic genre. No other composer comes close..

Welcome back, Paul.  Older but no wiser, eh? 

Is anyone else amused by the constant need of some Wagnerophiles to try to force others to share their preferences?  There is a delightful irony in that sort of "artistic fascism," especially when one considers that fans of other composers hardly ever do so. 

Here, guys...this one's for you:

[paulb]

Not true.  Mussorgsky in fact completed two different versions of Boris.  The opera he didn't complete was Khovanshchina.

I won't even address the whole calling Turandot a masterpiece while dissin' Verdi and Janáček issue.   

Oh, yeah.  Back to the topic.  I do think it's an apples vs. oranges issue.  Or sunsets vs. warm puppies.  Or a great meal vs. great sex.  Or....

i have the Gergiev Philips, offering both the 'Original Mussorgsky version" and the Rimsky.
The 'original completed" from M is such a let down, completely unacceptable compared to Rimsky's more than just mere touch ups.
If it was not for Rimsky and Ravel, M would just bea   name in the history books.


Janacek has highlights, there's so much thats filler, un-involving. Janacek was folk opera, nothing what so ever to do with operatic genre. Besides his best part in Kata is taken (or is it Jenufa) right out of Puccini. Jancek, minor composer.
Verdi is Beethoven cast as opera.

Hi Longeras,
good to be back, yes the same fool as before. But even more brash opinons than before, , Lately I  have seen even more false doctrines that need to be torn down among the super hyped misleading propagandists.
Like in the preposterous idae that M completed Boris. Go listen for yourself in Gergiev's. M's is a  totally failure next to Rimsky's, just a  shell of the opera.
If it was not for the efforts of Rimsky and ravel in the Pictures, I would even care to know the composer.
M's opera Khovanshchina, is all rehashed Boris, nothing original. Lets get real here, why the fluff.

[marvinbrown]

  I voted no, quelle surprise huh?.  If that Ring Cycle is not the most ambitious, most daring, most astounding collection of sequential operas ever conceived by one man I do not know what is!  When it comes to the Ring Cycle alone I have heard it argued that "what defies explanation is that one man can have in him, the totality, the complexity, the total immensity of that design".  I think in that regard no opera composer can compete with Wagner.

  marvin       

[Wendell_E]

i have the Gergiev Philips, offering both the 'Original Mussorgsky version" and the Rimsky.

Wrong again.  Gergiev's Philips recording offers two versions, but they're both by Mussorgsky (his original 1869 version, and his revised 1872 version).  The Rimsky-Korsakov dumbed-down version didn't appear until 1896.

Like in the preposterous idae that M completed Boris.

It's not an idea, preposterous or otherwise, but a simple fact.  Now you're certainly entitled to prefer RK's version to the composer's but that doesn't change the fact that Mussorgsky did finish the opera.