Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Jewish friends and colleagues

I'm not registered and I'm no expert on Wagner, so I've opted to leave a comment rather than make the edit myself. But don't you think that last sentence ought to be removed from the "Antisemitism" section? Every bigot I've ever met is forced to work alongside the very people they disparage; just because they lack the strength of their convictions to actually remove themselves from inclusive society doesn't mean that this sort of apology/rationalization has any place. Wagner's writings speak for themselves; the old "but some of my best friends are Jewish/black/gay/etc." schtick doesn't hold water, and never has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.89.61.7 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

There are two separate issues here: the facts, and the conclusions which one draws from them. If the facts are that Wagner continued to have Jewish friends and acquaintances, then the article should say so; to remove the statement would seem to me to be a form of censorship, done in order to remove an uncomfortable inconsistency of character. This does not in any way exonerate Wagner for his writings, which are, as you point out, well known. One may of course interpret the facts in many ways, but if the facts are suppressed the reader is denied that opportunity. --Stephen Burnett 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen Burnett - moreover, I have amended the sentence to include the words 'and supporters', to make it clear that this was indeed the case. (Hermann Levi, Joseph Rubinstein, Heinrich Porges, etc., listed under the Millington reference given in the WP article). This is not an 'excuse' for Wagner - just points up the paradox. --Smerus 09:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the enduring and interesting paradoxes of Wagner's life that he had Jewish supporters and friends - even after "Jewishness in Music" and even in the face of his openly expressed hostility (he seems to have been very nasty to poor Levi over Parsifal). Nevertheless these are facts, and supported in this article by verification (see WP:VER). The article does not, however, make any claim that Wagner said, or thought, that "some of my best friends are Jews", so this schtick, far from not holding water, doesn't even apply here.--Dogbertd 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Influence of Realism on Wagner

I have learned in my music history class that Richard Wagner was influenced by the literary movement called realism, like Puccini. My source is the textbook, Music: The Art of Listening, Sixth Edition, by Jean Ferris. Page 265 has the reference. I'm not sure about the new seventh edition. Does anyone have an opinion on where this would properly go in the article? — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My limited understanding of Realism - or Verismo as Puccini might have called it is that it - far from influencing Wagner - actually derives from his work. See the Wikipedia entry on Verismo for more details. It might be worth mentioning this as part of Wagner's influence - I'll try to add something when I can find a verification.--Dogbertd 12:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps I should correct my course. One of the tests asked a question about that, and the answer (multiple-choice) was that a major literary movement that influenced Wagner was Realism. I might look up more about this little tidbit. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Atonality

The use of this term in the introductory paragraph is highly questionable, in my opinion, and should be removed. Wagner's supreme "achievement" in the area of harmonic writing was not to abolish tonality, ala Schoenberg, but to introduce a style of composition that is marked by constantly shifting tonal centers. In works such as Tristan und Isolde, the music is usually without a conclusive cadence on the tonic ("interrupted cadence"), giving an unsettled feeling to the harmonic movement. Thus, it would be incorrect to call Wagner's later music "atonal"--it is always rooted in some kind of impiied tonality, however ambiguous and constantly moving it may be. Cbrodersen 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could amend it to something more appropriate? I agree that atonality is incorrect: dissonance, yes, but as you point out this is nothing like the lack of tonal centre that you find in the Second Viennese school. As a musician you're better placed than me to make this edit. Thanks! --Dogbertd 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree. There is too much loose rubbish stated about Wagner abolishing tonality, or that his music at least is atonal. There is a superb book by Marshall Tuttle called "Musical structures in Wagnerian opera" which demonstrates in great detail how Wagner still worked within standard tonality, and that even all of his late music can still be understood with proper analysis based on standard tonality (though it's of course extremely advanced!). Allansteel 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I took it out, and agree, of course. "Atonality" is not the right word for Wagnerian chromaticism. Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, for making the change! Cbrodersen 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Liszt and Wagner after the marriage of Richard and Cosima

I removed the claim that Liszt didn't speak to Wagner for years to come after that marriage. In Cosima's diaries, it's clearly shown that that was not the case. Wagner visited Liszt with Cosima in 1872, for example, more than once (abridged edition page 148). Wagner also corresponded with Liszt even earlier than that, after the marriage. Cosima's diaries show that Wagner's and Liszt's relationship was warm and affectionate throughout the former's remaining life (at least from 1872 onward). 88.148.201.133 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wagner's stepfather

Richard Wagner's stepfather was Ludwig Meyer, not Geyer, you silly sods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.163.33 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, once again the silly sods take the day. According to Groves, and Deathridge's biography, it's Geyer. Do the serious sods have some other, more reliable source? --Ravpapa 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, Nietzsche's remark about a vulture being almost an eagle, only works with Geyer. Now Freddy N was a silly sod. --Peter cohen 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

hey..this guy is boring...im only doing a project on him because its a grade and i have to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.21.247 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Boring? Depends on your definition, of course, but let's see: he made bombs in the revolution of 1849, associated with a famous anarchist, narrowly escaped arrest and went on the lam for 12 years; he spent vast amounts of other people's money and on one occasion had to "do a runner" to escape his debtors - involving a midnight flit over a guarded border crossing and then getting illegal passage on a ship which got caught up in a storm; he had affairs with other men's wives and got one of them pregnant not once but twice while she was still married to the other guy; he became the kept composer of a prince of Germany who lavished yet more money on Wagner; his operas celebrate sex, death and love; oh, and by the way, he was one of the greatest musical geniuses of western art. Boring? Depends on your definition. --Dogbertd (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I can see that this article has an active talk page and is probably watched by many, so I'll mention that I have added Category:Antisemitism to this article. Please understand that the presence of this category is not meant to pass final judgment on whether or to what degree Wagner was a true or confirmed antisemite. It's used on pages on which antisemitism is significantly discussed, including many bios of opponents of antisemitism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have issues with the category in general being attached to people's names because it could have all sorts of WP:BLP consequences due to the intention of the category not beign transparent without following the link. But as RW is both dead and the author of anti-Semitic literature, that is not a problem here.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate the desire for diligence in lexicography, but I have reservations about the use of modern terms to describe historical events and figures. So saying, "antisemitism" seems to be rather specific, so there should be no great problem with a section title of that name. One should be careful, however, not to overuse terms that have taken on more detailed and specific definitions, to maintain the clarity and objectivity that is required of an encyclopaedic entry, i.e. "humanism," "tolerance," etc.(Peaky beaky (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Parsifal written for Bayreuth's opening, but was not actually the one that opened it

There is either a contradiction or lack of explaining in these sentences, I think:

The Festspielhaus finally opened in August 1876 with the premiere of the Ring cycle and has continued to be the site of the Bayreuth Festival ever since.

Wagner completed Parsifal in January 1882, and a second Bayreuth Festival was held for the new opera.

Wagner's final opera, Parsifal, which was written especially for the opening of Wagner's Festspielhaus in Bayreuth and which is described in the score as a "Bühnenweihfestspiel" (festival play for the consecration of the stage), is a contemplative work based on the Christian legend of the Holy Grail.90.190.225.121 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how we let that one survive for so long. I've changed opening to accoustics.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and anti-Semitism

I have edited out a para which rather contentiously links W's vegetarianism with his Jew-hatred, and replaced it with a separate section on vegetarianism and his article against vivisection. The deleted sentences cite modern German references which claim that W. condemned shechita as part of 'Jewish evil'. I am not aware of any primary source which enables such an assertion. If anyone knows of such, then of course I repent my edit.--Smerus (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any direct references to shechita, but in Herodom and Christianity there is a bizarre sentence that states: "It certainly may be right to charge this purblind dulness of our public spirit to a vitiation of our blood — not only by departure from the natural food of man, but above all by the tainting of the hero-blood of noblest races with that of former cannibals now trained to be the business-agents of Society — provided one does not overlook the further fact, that no blaze of orders can hide the withered heart whose halting beat bewrays its issue from a union pledged without the seal of love, be it never so consanguineous." This is characteristally gnomic, rendered even more so by Ellis's translation, but I think the assumption is that the "former cannibals" are Jews, linked to some strange antisemitic claim about Jewish pre-history. I think the claim was that temple sacrifice was a vestige of earlier human sacrifices, which presumably was then linked to cannibalism, but I really can't recall where I read that now. So it seems that he is saying that not only have the 'hero' races weakened themselves by eating meat, they have also made matters worse by mixing with ex-cannibals! Some concept of racial degeneration is being invoked which links meat-eating with cannibalism, but it's all so bizarre, it's difficult to fully decipher. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this - very interesting but as you point out inconclusive. I have raised the whole issue here so as to solicit further opinions, in the light of a further edit by User:Polentario.Smerus (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, again my first edit and the included sources:

Wagner was in his late years a devout vegetarian and one of the celebrities to lead the Animal Protection Movement in Germany. He saw Shechita (kosher slaughtering) and vivisection as expressing both 'Jewish Evil' and fought a long but at his lifetime not successfull battle for a stricter regulation instead Germany then very animal-testing friendly law.

• Smerus, as you are a multilingual person and have a good command of german, I suggets you have a look on

[1]Tierliebe Menschenfeinde Hitlers Zuneigung zu seiner Schäferhündin "Blondi" ist legendär. Dass strenger Tierschutz und Verachtung für Menschen für die Nazis ohne weiteres zusammengingen, beweist die Geschichte des „Reichstierschutzgesetzes“ von 1933. Helene Heise, Spiegel Online 19.9.2007 Tatsächlich war die Tierliebe der Nazis mitnichten nur propagandistische Inszenierung. Teile der Tierschutzbewegung - wie auch der Naturschutzbewegung - bezogen sich auf ganz ähnliche ideologische Grundlagen wie die Nationalsozialisten. Beide etwa beriefen sich auf die Vorstellungen des Komponisten Richard Wagner (1813-1883), der in Naturverbundenheit und Tierliebe eine besondere Charaktereigenschaft der "nordischen Rasse" sah. Der Künstler, ein überzeugter Vegetarier wie nach ihm Hitler, wetterte gegen den Fleischverzehr - für ihn eine Vermischung von Rasse und Blut, durch welche die nordisch-germanischen Reinheit verschmutzt werde. Der Tierversuch war für Wagner Inbegriff "des Bösen und Jüdischen". Solch verquastes Mischmasch aus völkischen „Blut und Boden“-Denken, Rassenideologie, Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit und Antisemitismus vertraten keineswegs nur Nationalsozialisten, auch Tierschützern der Zeit war es nicht fremd.

[2] IDB Münster • Ber. Inst. Didaktik Biologie Suppl.2 (2002), 167-184 167, Tierschutz und Nationalsozialismus Die Entstehung und die Auswirkungen des nationalsozialistischen Reichstierschutzgesetzes von 1933 Daniel Jütte

I will have a look in the library tomorrow and check wether i can find some of the old Tierschutz publications of Wagner BR to provide original sources --Polentario (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But unfortunately neither of these references cite clearly where (if anywhere) Wagner specifically condemned shechita, (which is what your edit claimed). If there is no source (as opposed to the opinion or conjecture of later writers) it shouldn't go into Wikipedia as a fact - and depending on the integrity of those later writers, it might or moight not belong in WP if clearly labelled as an opinion. Incidentally, 'Inbegriff "des Bösen und Jüdischen" ' which is attributed without giving any source in the above citation, means I think (for I am only slightly multi-lingual, if that) characteristic of the wicked and the Jewish, not quite the same, in English, as expressing [..] Jewish evil.--Smerus (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I read it too. And though it's in quotes, it's not clear where it comes from. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, first the Spiegel article does mention a connection between Wagner, Shechicta and animal testing. I had translated Jewish (and) evil, wicked sounds more appropriate. But its an indirect, not an original source. I however think the track should be checked. Leon Poliakov (about antisemitism) is quoted with "Der besondere Wesenszug, der bei Wagner mit dem Hass gegen die Juden Hand in Hand zu gehen scheint, ist also die Liebe zu den Tieren.", so that wagners antisemitism had to do with animals (meat) / vergetarianism and purity. As an original Wagnerian source, the second part of Religion und Kunst is mentioned and Erkenne Dich selbst of 1881, one of the most inflammatory texts shoudl be checked. Let me have a look and come back. Thnx btw for your thorough reading. Its not standard anymmore here. --Polentario (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, some results:

First I went through Wagners Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen, Volume 10, Steiger 1976, a faksimile of the 1888 edition printed by Fritsch in Leipzig. The most signifikant reads were "Religion und Kunst" of 1880 and an open letter to Ernst von Weber, 1879, author of a pathetic anti animal testing essay called "Die Folterkammern der Wissenschaft" (Torture Chambers of Science). Erkenne Dich selbst is similar to Das Judentum in der Musik clearly antisemitic but not specific about animals, as far as I could understand. Wagner recalls in the letter as well an alleged nordic / germanic tradition wehre hunting and eating animals was necessary in cold climates but the hunter offered a part of the animal to the gods as a suitable tradition. He contraposts it with an alleged victory of the old testimony, which introduced cruelty and calculation ("Das alte Testament hat obsiegt und aus dem reißenden ist das rechnende Raubtier geworden", in the letter).

Wagner is a master of omitting, elapse and pretext. E.g. he does not state "the Jews are anti animal" nor does he mention Shechita but denounces any religion, that uses the first book of Moses as base is not very suitable for any pity towards animals and talks about bloody abattoirs and Abrahams blood offers. He denounces as well his own, christian heritage, in so far it is based on the old testimony. He mentions in one paragraph that animal testers should be kicked out of the nation and in the next paragraph (in the open letter, page 209) states that a recent attack against an animal testing research laboratory in Leipzig was not a socialist anti property act but most probably an ethical one. Sounds quite familiar!

All in all, I think its OK modify the entry in so far, that Wagner in his late years contributed to the antisemitic stance of the then Tierschutz (Animal protection) movement.

A source for this antisemitic stance, which is still ongoing in some respect is to be found in Hanna Rheinz, Kabbala der Tiere, Tierrechte im Judentum, in Tierrechte, eine interdiszinplinäre Herausforderung, Hrsg IATE, Heidelberg 2007, S. 234-252 and in [[3]], a german Website about jewish animal protection, done by Hanna Rheinz, a german Jew as well. According her, Antijudaismus and Antisemitism in 19th century Germany already had developed a certain dynamics with regard to animal protection. The german Animal Protection movement has contraposted a germanic love for animals agains alleged cruelty and hostility of Jewdom and modern medicine. Still and again today, animal protecion would be a difficult topic for German jews, since the jewish community connects Tierschutz with nationalsozialist discrimination against shechita and the german Tierschutz would encounter jewish initiatives with sceptism (bramanic and (red) indian sources are much more fashionable) and more or less hiddden ansemitic prejudice still today. --Polentario (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't accept this in the way you state it. We agree that Wagner wrote an essay supporting animal rights, in which he did not however mention either Jews or shechita. You then state that the man he supported was against shechita for anti-Semitic reasons. This may or may not be true, but it does not in any way amount to Wagner being in favour of animal rights because was anti-Jewish, and does not justify associating his animal rights views with his anti-Semitism in any way. Nor does it justify any lengthy discourse on the topic in this article, which I am therefore once more editing down. I suggest that if you are interested in it you write a new article in Wikipedia about the German animal rights movement. With best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - thats not in line with the sources. Wagner clearly used used antisemitic points to support the animal movement, which was definitely antisemitic. My wording is already a compromise. He didnt mention Shechita as close. You seem to have a good library back home, just have a look on the sources. --Polentario (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is a subsection on RW's vegetarianism, is it worth mentioning that before he became veggie, he talked Nietzsche out of it? Also does anyone have a source which places Gurnemanz's complaint about Parsifal's shooting of the swan (du koennste morden hier im heilige Wald) to RW's vegetarianism.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a good section on W and vegetarianism at Monsalvalt: [[4]] although I'm not sure that this can be cited as a primary reference, but it will point you in the right direction for references. I had always thought W's interest in vegetarianism stemmed from his reading of Schopenhauer (compassion, etc) - I don't think that he was himself a practising vegetarian.--Dogbertd (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dogbert on the Schopenhauer issue. Be informed, that Schopenhauers vegetarian stance is antisemitic respectively anti old testimony christianity as well. Just Wagner being outspoken pro moderation / temperance, pro animal welfare (and the Tierschutz, animal protection organizations) and pro vegetarism doesnt mean he was practicing it, maybe except his last years. (Personal POV: His previous lifestyle, his early friendship with fur loving Ludwig II, his hang for Nietzsche no compromise Übermensch philosophy and his own Sword and Sorcery Opera librettos do not at all mirror this moderationa and Temperance - but thats very much in line with later life style contenders, from Kerrys SUV till Al Gores electricity bill and airflight tickets)

I have done another change and hope to find consent with that. I would agree to to downsize or archive this discussion then. There is an Article about Animal Welfare and the Nazis in the english wikipedia already, I will do some extension about Wagners treehugging phase there, but I prefferred to have it discussed with the Wagner experts first. --Polentario (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it wrong re Wagner and Nietzsche. Nietzsche was the younger man and the influence flowed the other way. The Übermensch stuff really took off in Also Sprach Zarathustra by which time N had split from W and in fact he satirised him in the book.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

e: first youre right - wasn't it so that Wagner was a Übermenscn example for nietzsche? - I assume that Wagner preaching about modesty is a sort of oxymoron with regard to his personal behavior and insofar in line with Nietzsche. --Polentario (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on two counts here. You state that Schopenhauer was antisemitic - have a look at Schopenhauer and you'll see that he may have been anti-Judaic but that he was not a racist in the way that Wagner was. Secondly Wagner was never a model of Nietzsche's Ubermensch: N. was well aware that Wagner was human, all too human.--Dogbertd (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Performances in Israel

It has been disputed (somewhat rudely, by User:Critter beach) that Wagner remains unperformed in Israel - and he deleted the para which says so without any reference (in doing so deleting the genuine reference to the reception of Barenboim's concert). If there is any evidence of Wagner's operas being staged in Israel it would be nice to have that cited--Smerus (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning that Barenboim played the Tristan prelude as an encore after a debate with the audience.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

German Pronunciation

I believe that there is an error with the IPA spelling of Richard, which uses [x] rather than the [ç]. Does anybody know if this an exception?

82.13.93.216 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The current IPA is based on this source. Do you have one that indicates otherwise? seresin ( ¡? )  23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a mistake, check : Wikipedia:IPA_for_German. I made the change. x is pronounced after a, o, u and au, otherwise is ç. 65.93.172.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Dating of Ring Cycle operas

The correct dates for the Ring Cycle operas are as follows:

Das Rheingold - music composed 1853-1854, first performed in 1869. Die Walkure - music composed 1854-1856, first performed in 1870. Seigfried - music composed 1856-1871, first performed in 1876. Gotterdammerung - music composed 1869-1874, first performed in 1876.

Idesofmontreal (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"First performance" is generally the date used. Tedickey (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with the original poster in so far that the completeted composition dates are key to understanding the progression of Wagner's compositional style. Perhaps it would be worth adding the order of composition alongside? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.93.216 (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

All the dates are given in the List of works for the stage by Wagner. --Kleinzach 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The so-called "English" pronunciation given is actually the American one. In England the r is silent unless followed by a vowel in the next word. Peter jackson (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Purely coincidentally, I have my concern about the pronunciation as well. It isn't cited. How can we be sure that it isn't just a hoax? Concerning the comment above, as far as I know there is no rule saying that only the BBC English pronunciation is accepted. Besides, many rhonic accents are not American - a Scot might pronounce the r sound without getting into any trouble. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 05:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

/wægnɚ/ is a real pronunciation; I don't have a source. As far as I am aware, it exists solely in the United States. Why, why, why there is such a pronunciation I don't know. I've never liked the sound of it, and to me, it is ignorance of the word's origins. I'm not sure the above pronunciation should be on this page, though, because, again, as far as I am aware, it is used never when referencing Richard Wagner, but others with the surname. I might remove it soon, if there's no objection. 79.71.113.135 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to include a pronunciation that never applies to the individual it is trying to describe. No one, not even Americans, pronounce this composers name as /wægnɚ/, though they might pronounce a different individual this way. The pronunciation guide should be just that, a guide to correct pronunciation, not a list of the various ways people mispronounce a name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.4.99 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Jews"

In the controversies section: out side of Wagner's usual anti-Semitic diatribes, the word "Jew" appears to continue to stay with it is antisemitic overtones (i know this is not how it is meant by the author but it is how it reads to me) . While we need to make clear Wagner's "views"; outside of his quotes, could we use language less emotionally and historically "loaded"? Replace "Jews" with "Jewish people" for example. Or something that seems less value laden? Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As a Jew, and one who is proud to be one and to be called one, may I state it is utter nonsense to claim that the word in itself is prejudicial or racist in any way. It is simply descriptive, exactly analogous to 'Englishman', 'Frenchman' etc., etc. Of course some foolish people may use these and similar words in an offensive way but that is no reflection on the words themselves. Please let us not use Wikipedia to rewrite the English language in any partisan manner.--Smerus (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - see also the WP articel Jew - should we delete this?--Smerus (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) was a sockpuppet. --Kleinzach 09:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wagner's Influence

The article says that Rossini was a composer that resisted Wagner's influence. I think this isn't really a very meaningful comment. Firstly, Rossini was a composer of an older generation than Wagner, and it is relatively uncommon for composers who are much older to be influenced by those who are much younger. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Rossini had largely stopped composing by the time that Wagner's seminal works were being written. So which WORKS by Rossini resisted Wagner's influence? It is true that Rossini made various witty comments attacking Wagner, but to say that he resisted Wagner's influence in a musical sense doesn't seem to have much meaning... Museslave (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rossini lived until 1868. I've changed the word 'influence' to 'attraction' but maybe someone should find the quotation and nail it down? --Kleinzach 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mordden's Opera Anecdotes has a lengthy quote on this subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)