Re: And why. . .? (long)

[from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]

Canyon Rick wrote:
> Somewhere in this thread or the other part, someone mentioned Wagner
> as being 'manly' and I think there is something to that.  When I was
> younger and actually cared what people thought I always said I liked
> 'Wagner' as opposed to saying I liked 'opera'.  'Opera' conjured up
> the image of Pavarotti and the hankie sobbing their way thru Vesti la
> giubba, and everybody knew what type of man got into that.  Wagner, on
> the other hand. . .well, if worse came to worse, you could always
> bring up the Hitler connection (sort of like Manson and the Beatles),
> and 'manly' images like Panzers,  Messerschmitts and John Wayne would
> arise.
>
> The Pavarotti image, however. . .maybe I'm thinking that it's less
> difficult for a woman to embrace that than a man.

I have noticed, both here and offline, that the men posting on Wagner
here are more prone to delve into the philosophical aspects of the works
while postings on the works purely as works are more evenly split
between men and women although still not 50/50, unfortunately.

It may be that this "manly" hangup that Rick highlights entails, to a
degree, the philosophical angle in Wagner as a counterpoint to "all that
silly/beautiful music stuff";-)

In the offline group that was so much a part of our life for ten years,
Liz and I found that men like, for instance, one Marxist, one Eastern
Orthodox monarchist, and one of the two hazers of the woman Baroque
specialist (who got dumped on) engaged to a fascinating and, indeed,
enlightening degree in exchanges on the philosophical aspects in all the
works.

OTOH, another man who happened to be quite an extraordinary pianist and
musician was occasionally joined in his discussions on the works as
works by the woman botanist/linguist among us who had managed to study
up on the Ring as a work with such intensity, rapidity and thoroughness.

The works as works may have been regarded as open to all, while the
philosophical aspects may have been unconsciously regarded as the men's
preserve.  Unfortunately, the Baroque specialist whom Liz and I had
invited may have been perceived as poaching on the men's preserve,
since, unlike the woman botanist, she concentrated to a great extent on
the philosophical area -- possibly outraging the immature sensibilities
of those amongst us who were destructively (unconsciously) uncomfortable
with "discussionists" other than men tackling such matters.

Here, in this online forum, it would be wonderful if we had more women
who were as thoroughly involved with the philosophical background as a
Derrick Everett is, for instance.  Instead, though -- and this is hardly
less enlightening, although it does reflect the (unconscious?)
segregation seen in the mortifying enforcement and hazing that Liz and I
saw in the Baroque specialist's case --  what few postings we have seen
from women in humanities.music.composers.wagner have concentrated
primarily on the experiential aspects in all these works as pieces
designed for the craft of performers and musicians, not as works
intended to stimulate reflection and philosophical inquiry.

Both aspects are legitimate.  It just strikes me as unfortunate that
there may be a de facto segregation entailed here in the more
predominantly male contributions that we see on the latter.

Best,

Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com