Re: And why. . .? (long)

Elizabeth Hubbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [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

In this breakdown of the appreciation of Wagner's works into the
"experiential" and "philosophical" domains, I think it is well to
remember that were it only for their philosophical aspects, these
works are mainly derivative and would be long forgotten by now. As
music, if a score exists and can be understood, or a recording exists
that can be played, they will most likely not be forgetten for
thousands of years into the future.