• "...The bond between Sachs and Eva is in fact remarkably similar to tha

    From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 30 21:29:23 2020
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From deb@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Tue Oct 6 12:41:10 2020
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles slightly
    toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and has
    probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to deb on Wed Oct 7 08:47:01 2020
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles slightly
    toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and has
    probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.

    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From deb@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 12 06:57:32 2020
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles slightly
    toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him. Hugo
    von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope her--
    Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding night,
    but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-
    class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and pretensions of a
    couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones who are
    laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to deb on Mon Oct 12 10:14:45 2020
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him. Hugo
    von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope her--
    Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding night,
    but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-
    class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and pretensions of a
    couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones who
    are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Should the lower classes be forced to live lives where they are constantly worried because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those above them?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to deb on Mon Oct 12 14:01:51 2020
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him. Hugo
    von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope her--
    Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding night,
    but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-
    class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and pretensions of a
    couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones who
    are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Should anyone be forced to live a life of constant worry because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to deb on Mon Oct 12 19:07:32 2020
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him. Hugo
    von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope her--
    Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding night,
    but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-
    class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and pretensions of a
    couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones who
    are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to deb on Mon Oct 12 19:16:14 2020
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him. Hugo
    von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope her--
    Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding night,
    but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig...

    If an ill-e. pig lives only for his appetites, then isn't a person who lives only for his appetites abnormal?

    ..., and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable
    life for a pig....

    Can an abnormal person live a normal life if he lives only to satisfy his appetites and nothing else?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Sun Oct 18 08:40:53 2020
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers,
    and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian:
    how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness.
    She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here,
    right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler
    and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones who
    are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From deb@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 19 07:26:51 2020
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers,
    and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian:
    how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness.
    She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here,
    right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler
    and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones
    who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-driver in
    the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There are
    similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 19 09:37:30 2020
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 9:20:47 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:16:15 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers,
    and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian:
    how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness.
    She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here,
    right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler
    and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig...

    If an ill-e. pig lives only for his appetites, then isn't a person who lives only for his appetites abnormal?

    ..., and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a
    suitable life for a pig....

    Can an abnormal person live a normal life if he lives only to satisfy his appetites and nothing else?

    The following may be of interest:

    - Baron Ochs auf Lerchenau is the boorish bully in Richard Strauss’s Die Rosenkavalier. He delights in bragging to his cousin Princess Marie Thérèse von Werdenberg, the Marschallin, of seducing peasant girls on his estate. Baron Ochs is coarse and
    rude and propositions chambermaid Mariandel (who is actually the Marschallin’s lover, Octavian, in disguise)...The Duke of Mantua in Giuseppe Verdi’s opera Rigoletto is a rude womanizer and not a beloved ruler...Early on, the Duke brags about his
    seductions: ”Questa o quella,” “This woman or that.…”

    https://simanaitissays.com/2017/05/07/trumping-the-arts/

    And consider DER RING...:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 19 09:20:46 2020
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:16:15 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers,
    and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian:
    how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness.
    She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here,
    right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler
    and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig...

    If an ill-e. pig lives only for his appetites, then isn't a person who lives only for his appetites abnormal?

    ..., and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a
    suitable life for a pig....

    Can an abnormal person live a normal life if he lives only to satisfy his appetites and nothing else?

    The following may be of interest:

    - Baron Ochs auf Lerchenau is the boorish bully in Richard Strauss’s Die Rosenkavalier. He delights in bragging to his cousin Princess Marie Thérèse von Werdenberg, the Marschallin, of seducing peasant girls on his estate. Baron Ochs is coarse and
    rude and propositions chambermaid Mariandel (who is actually the Marschallin’s lover, Octavian, in disguise)...The Duke of Mantua in Giuseppe Verdi’s opera Rigoletto is a rude womanizer and not a beloved ruler...Early on, the Duke brags about his
    seductions: ”Questa o quella,” “This woman or that.…”

    https://simanaitissays.com/2017/05/07/trumping-the-arts/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 19 10:58:35 2020
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business
    from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of
    his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by
    Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does
    abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to
    compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for
    him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to
    grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the
    ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-driver
    in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There are
    similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false

    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to deb on Mon Oct 19 10:52:36 2020
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones
    who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-driver in
    the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There are
    similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From deb@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Tue Oct 20 13:05:57 2020
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin
    trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business
    from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of
    his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by
    Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does
    abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to
    compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for
    him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to
    grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the
    ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-
    driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There
    are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-sacrificing
    love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes from the
    renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each, but it'
    s concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child and the
    family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (didn't
    Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry of '
    Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her to be.
    Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate, whatever
    it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time he can
    feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to deb on Tue Oct 20 17:54:19 2020
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin
    trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle
    for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts
    to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the
    ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-
    driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There
    are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-sacrificing
    love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes from the
    renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each, but it'
    s concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child and the
    family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (didn't
    Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry of '
    Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her to be.
    Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate, whatever
    it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time he can
    feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Tue Oct 20 20:32:38 2020
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:54:20 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin
    trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her
    own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend
    brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she
    deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle
    for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts
    to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are
    the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-
    driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There
    are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-sacrificing
    love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes from the
    renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each, but it'
    s concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child and the
    family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (didn'
    t Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry of '
    Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her to
    be. Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate,
    whatever it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time
    he can feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    And that one should go along with norms when it comes to decision-making.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 26 22:34:11 2020
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:32:39 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:54:20 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin
    trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her
    own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend
    brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she
    deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts
    and courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she
    teaches Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll
    settle for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier
    attempts to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin
    on her wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the
    rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions
    and pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are
    the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-
    driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There
    are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-
    sacrificing love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes
    from the renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each,
    but it's concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child
    and the family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (
    didn't Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry
    of 'Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her to
    be. Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate,
    whatever it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time
    he can feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    And that one should go along with norms when it comes to decision-making.

    Concerning the Renoir's 1939 film "Rules of the Game", the following may be of interest:

    - What is the game in Rules of the Game? The superficial answer is that it is the game of marital infidelity: society diverts erotic energies that might otherwise be destructive by permitting certain men to appropriate certain women for the purpose of
    temporary gratification. The rules are: that serious (i.e., legal or financial) claims must be avoided; that appearances must be maintained; that certain proprieties must be respected ("the young," Lisette reminds Octave, "should go with the young, the
    old with the old").

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~agoldham/articles/REGLE.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 26 23:05:07 2020
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:32:39 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:54:20 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin
    trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her
    own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend
    brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she
    deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts
    and courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she
    teaches Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll
    settle for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier
    attempts to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin
    on her wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the
    rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions
    and pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are
    the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-
    driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There
    are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-
    sacrificing love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes
    from the renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each,
    but it's concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child
    and the family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (
    didn't Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry
    of 'Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her to
    be. Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate,
    whatever it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time
    he can feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    And that one should go along with norms when it comes to decision-making.

    And if norms have anything to do with propriety, consider Renoir's 1939 film "Rules of the Game":

    - What is the game in Rules of the Game? The superficial answer is that it is the game of marital infidelity: society diverts erotic energies that might otherwise be destructive by permitting certain men to appropriate certain women for the purpose of
    temporary gratification. The rules are: that serious (i.e., legal or financial) claims must be avoided; that appearances must be maintained; that certain proprieties must be respected ("the young," Lisette reminds Octave, "should go with the young, the
    old with the old").

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~agoldham/articles/REGLE.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 1 22:00:42 2020
    On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 8:05:08 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:32:39 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:54:20 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the
    Marschallin trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and
    her own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true
    friend brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the
    happiness she deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts
    and courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she
    teaches Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's
    happiness. Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who
    is at the bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll
    settle for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier
    attempts to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin
    on her wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the
    rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions
    and pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips'
    are the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary
    plot-driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line.
    There are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-
    sacrificing love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes
    from the renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each,
    but it's concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child
    and the family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (
    didn't Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry
    of 'Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her
    to be. Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate,
    whatever it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time
    he can feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    And that one should go along with norms when it comes to decision-making.

    And if norms have anything to do with propriety, consider Renoir's 1939 film "Rules of the Game":

    - What is the game in Rules of the Game? The superficial answer is that it is the game of marital infidelity: society diverts erotic energies that might otherwise be destructive by permitting certain men to appropriate certain women for the purpose of
    temporary gratification. The rules are: that serious (i.e., legal or financial) claims must be avoided; that appearances must be maintained; that certain proprieties must be respected ("the young," Lisette reminds Octave, "should go with the young, the
    old with the old").

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~agoldham/articles/REGLE.html

    And the Marschallin knows that she must not cling to her young lover as "Sunset Boulevard"'s Norma Desmond does.

    After all, doesn't she say to Octavian?:

    - One must be light, light of heart, light of hand, holding and taking, holding and letting go. Life punishes those who are not so and God has no mercy upon them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Nov 2 11:01:48 2020
    On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 8:05:08 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:32:39 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 5:54:20 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the
    Marschallin trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and
    her own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true
    friend brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the
    happiness she deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts
    and courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she
    teaches Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's
    happiness. Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who
    is at the bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll
    settle for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier
    attempts to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin
    on her wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the
    rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions
    and pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips'
    are the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary
    plot-driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line.
    There are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-
    sacrificing love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes
    from the renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each,
    but it's concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child
    and the family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (
    didn't Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry
    of 'Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her
    to be. Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate,
    whatever it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time
    he can feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    And that one should go along with norms when it comes to decision-making.

    And if norms have anything to do with propriety, consider Renoir's 1939 film "Rules of the Game":

    - What is the game in Rules of the Game? The superficial answer is that it is the game of marital infidelity: society diverts erotic energies that might otherwise be destructive by permitting certain men to appropriate certain women for the purpose of
    temporary gratification. The rules are: that serious (i.e., legal or financial) claims must be avoided; that appearances must be maintained; that certain proprieties must be respected ("the young," Lisette reminds Octave, "should go with the young, the
    old with the old").

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~agoldham/articles/REGLE.html

    Concerning propriety, even plantation owners in GONE WITH THE WIND are portrayed as having to be mindful that slaves were part of a plantation hierarchy and didn't exist solely to be at mercy of their owners. 

    When Scarlett tells a slave to search for a pig:

    - Pork was amazed and indignant. "Miss Scarlett, dat a fe'el han's bizness. Ah's allus been a house nigger."... Tears trembled in Pork's hurt eyes. Oh, if only [Scarlett's mother] was here! She understood such niceties and realized the wide gap between
    the duties of a field hand and those of a house nigger.

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Fri Nov 6 21:56:49 2020
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 2:54:20 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin
    trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her
    own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend
    brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she
    deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle
    for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts
    to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are
    the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-
    driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There
    are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-sacrificing
    love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes from the
    renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each, but it'
    s concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child and the
    family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (didn'
    t Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry of '
    Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her to
    be. Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate,
    whatever it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time
    he can feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    And as far as I am concerned, no one is free to do as they please--even those at the top.

    If a person starts allowing himself to do as he pleases, he will start to become careless, then reckless, then destructive and even self-destructive. (Although oftentimes not soon enough for me.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Mon Nov 9 13:22:22 2020
    On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 5:40:55 AM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers,
    and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian:
    how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness.
    She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here,
    right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler
    and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones
    who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Concerning the Japanese movie SEVEN SAMURAI, consider what the son of a farmer said about the samurai who were the ruling class in Japan:

    - What do you think of farmers? You think they're saints? Hah! They're foxy beasts! They say, "We've got no rice, we've no wheat. We've got nothing!" But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You'll find plenty!
    Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they've got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They're nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But
    then . . . who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do? Damn it... [He sinks to
    his knees, sobbing] Damn it... God damn it...

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ggggg9271@gmail.com@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 10 09:11:54 2020
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 2:54:20 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 18:58:36 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 10:52:37 AM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:33 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 16:47:03 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin
    trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her
    own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend
    brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she
    deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle
    for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts
    to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are
    the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.

    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.' But all I'm saying is that that isn't the primary plot-
    driver in the case of 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier.' And since I had a look at the page of text you posted a bit ago, I can see much more similarity in musical terms. As I have remarked, I've looked at the story-line, not the musical line. There
    are similarities, for those who have the education to see them. Wish I did!

    Concerning the abuse of power, how about DER RING...?:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=bLDaqKzJF08C&pg=PA269&dq=%22the+denizens+of+Valhalla+can+be+seen+as+ruthless+politicians+chasing+their+own+selfish+interests+to+the+detriment+of+the+many.%22%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=
    2ahUKEwjRt4S4i8HsAhXQsKQKHZ8YDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20denizens%20of%20Valhalla%20can%20be%20seen%20as%20ruthless%20politicians%20chasing%20their%20own%20selfish%20interests%20to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the%20many.%22%22&f=false
    The abuse of power has been a problem throughout human history. Ever heard of the Magna Carta?:

    And that problem is not going away anytime soon:

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-legislation-elections-campaigns-house-elections-82489275685c971ccef66d9864ec916a
    True, it's part of the human condition--the part we share with chimpanzees, the journalists' bread and butter. Wagner was deeply concerned with the use and abuse of power, especially in relation to love, particularly sexual love, and self-sacrificing
    love, which he saw as the highest human experience of good. I would never say that Wagner didn't treat about the problems of power and its abuse--the Ring is his masterpiece, and the great crime of selling love, and the redemption that comes from the
    renunciation of power for love's sake, is its central message. But you started by comparing 'Meistersinger' and 'Rosenkavalier,' both of which are comedies, in which high-level power-play would be out of place. There is a serious message in each, but it'
    s concerned less with power and manipulation forcing choices, than with human error and how to untangle it. The parallel characters I see are Weit Pogner and Herr Faninal, Sophie's father, both of whom, desiring the best for their darling child and the
    family, have got them into a ghastly situation. Fortunately, these are comedies and help is at hand.

    What other themes does Wagner deal with, besides power and young love? In 'Tannhauser', the protagonist has turned from spiritual to carnal love, and is in the toils of Venus herself. But his restless human spirit still seeks something greater, (didn'
    t Goethe describe mankind's 'divine discontent?') He rejects her, and he finds himself out on the cold hillside, but not forsaken: the shepherd boy and the pilgrims' chorus make him see what a narrow escape he's had. In the Solti recording, his cry of '
    Allmachtiger, dir sei Preis! Gross ist die Wunder eure Gnaden!' makes the hair rise on my neck, with its mixture of exultation and loss. The court of the Wartburg may have power-games going on, but the game that matters in the opera is the game of
    chivalry, with its idealization of spiritual love, and Elisabeth's constancy to her inconstant lover. She is like Margarethe in 'Faust,' the intercessor whose pure and selfless love enables erring man to approach God. The 19th C. loved pure and selfless
    women, from Marguerite to Peer Gynt's Solveig.

    What else? In 'Lohengrin' abuse of power is a theme, but it's achieved through witchcraft and Ortrud's adherence to the old gods, plus Telramund's talent for cognitive dissonance--he can convince himself that Elsa is guilty, because he wants her to
    be. Because the abuse has a supernatural origin, it requires a supernatural solution; not an option for most of us chimps. In 'Dutchman', a soul lost in selfishness and obstinacy has one chance at happiness,, and Senta is willing to share his fate,
    whatever it may be. However, her other suitor takes her careless words as a promise, so that the Dutchman sees her as forsworn--she will be damned like all the others who betrayed him. But this time, he is really experiencing love, and for the first time
    he can feel for other people. Until that last scene, he's only been sorry for himself, never for his crew or the other women. And he is ready to give up his only hope of rest, and set sail forever, rather than marry and damn her. Senta's answering self-
    sacrifice unites them in death. So would I say 'learning love' is the theme there? I can't speculate on 'Tristan und Isolde' or 'Parsifal' tonight.

    I think that my view is more simplistic (too simplistic?) which is:

    - Everybody has to do the right thing--even those at the top.

    - If you are a sparrow, don't attack the eagle; be wise! If you are an eagle, don't attack the sparrow; be just!

    Mehmet Murat Ildan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 25 15:59:10 2020
    On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 8:05:08 PM UTC-10, wro
    On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 05:29:25 UTC+1, wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the
    Marschallin trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and
    her own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true
    friend brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the
    happiness she deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts
    and courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she
    teaches Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on
    business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the
    sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points
    made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of
    jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther
    the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's
    happiness. Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort...

    According to Kant:

    - We have a moral duty to satisfy the legitimate needs of others as dictated by logic and reason.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=dMMEnn-OJQMC&pg=PT418&dq=%22We+have+a+moral+duty+to+satisfy+the+legitimate+needs+of+others+as+dictated+by+logic+and+reason.%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRv--r8p7tAhUr5eAKHUFMC6YQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=
    onepage&q=%22We%20have%20a%20moral%20duty%20to%20satisfy%20the%20legitimate%20needs%20of%20others%20as%20dictated%20by%20logic%20and%20reason.%22&f=false

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From REP@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Sat Dec 5 15:10:05 2020
    On Monday, November 9, 2020 at 1:22:23 PM UTC-8, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    Concerning the Japanese movie SEVEN SAMURAI, consider what the son of a farmer said about the samurai who were the ruling class in Japan:

    - What do you think of farmers? You think they're saints? Hah! They're foxy beasts! They say, "We've got no rice, we've no wheat. We've got nothing!" But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You'll find plenty!
    Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they've got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They're nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But
    then . . . who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do? Damn it... [He sinks to
    his knees, sobbing] Damn it... God damn it...

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai

    Great movie. One of my favorites.

    REP

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 8 08:04:50 2020
    On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 5:47:03 AM UTC-10,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles slightly
    toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand?

    Concerning rights, according to the following:

    - He is supportive of the idea that since human beings are one species, there must be some claims we make upon each other that have universal status. He doesn’t think, in other words, that rights are a Western invention with no purchase elsewhere.

    https://literaryreview.co.uk/when-virtue-is-not-enough

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 6 15:42:53 2021
    On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 8:47:03 AM UTC-7,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles slightly
    toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand?

    Concerning the letter 'r', also keep in mind the word 'reciprocity' when it comes the 'rights' and 'responsibilities' of unequal classes.

    According to this:

    - ...Not only should a just government recognize the rights of the more talented natures, but it should recognize the desire of the mass of men not to be disturbed and bullied by these aspiring talents. The prudent statesman endeavors to maintain a
    balance between these two claims.

    https://kirkcenter.org/politics-and-social-order/the-best-form-of-government/

    "Prudent statesman" = Hans Sachs?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From REP@21:1/5 to gggg...@gmail.com on Wed Jan 6 21:07:41 2021
    On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:29:25 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc

    The difference between Sachs and the Marschallin that everyone always overlooks is that the Marschallin gave in to her (some would say perverse) desires, whereas Sachs did not. Just imagine if Die Meistersinger began with a scene with Hans Sachs and Eva
    in bed together!

    This is why I cannot think of these two characters as being at all similar, and why I find Sachs admirable, and the Marschallin much less so.

    REP

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From deb@21:1/5 to REP on Thu Jan 7 06:59:48 2021
    On Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 05:07:42 UTC, REP wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:29:25 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc

    The difference between Sachs and the Marschallin that everyone always overlooks is that the Marschallin gave in to her (some would say perverse) desires, whereas Sachs did not. Just imagine if Die Meistersinger began with a scene with Hans Sachs and
    Eva in bed together!

    This is why I cannot think of these two characters as being at all similar, and why I find Sachs admirable, and the Marschallin much less so.

    REP
    I think I agree with you, REP. A married woman with a young lover is an altogether more 20th C. device than a widower quietly in love with a friend's daughter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 17 17:57:59 2021
    On Monday, November 9, 2020 at 1:22:23 PM UTC-8,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones
    who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.
    Concerning the Japanese movie SEVEN SAMURAI, consider what the son of a farmer said about the samurai who were the ruling class in Japan:

    - What do you think of farmers? You think they're saints? Hah! They're foxy beasts! They say, "We've got no rice, we've no wheat. We've got nothing!" But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You'll find plenty!
    Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they've got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They're nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But
    then . . . who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do? Damn it... [He sinks to
    his knees, sobbing] Damn it... God damn it...

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai

    - I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.

    Leo Tolstoy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 20 20:31:42 2021
    On Monday, November 9, 2020 at 1:22:23 PM UTC-8, ..wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones
    who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.
    Concerning the Japanese movie SEVEN SAMURAI, consider what the son of a farmer said about the samurai who were the ruling class in Japan:

    - What do you think of farmers? You think they're saints? Hah! They're foxy beasts! They say, "We've got no rice, we've no wheat. We've got nothing!" But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You'll find plenty!
    Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they've got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They're nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But
    then . . . who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do? Damn it... [He sinks to
    his knees, sobbing] Damn it... God damn it...

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai

    Concerning "Seven Samurai" and norms:

    - Yet, in a normal world, the political authorities should sense both a duty and their self-interest in protecting the producing class from unfair treatment.

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_to_Improve_Your_Movie_Literacy_With/vMWfDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Yet,%20in%20a%20normal%20world,%20the%20political%20authorities%20should%22

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to gggg gggg on Wed Jan 20 21:38:32 2021
    On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 8:31:43 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
    On Monday, November 9, 2020 at 1:22:23 PM UTC-8, ..wrote:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business
    from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of
    his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by
    Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does
    abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to
    compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for
    him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to
    grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the
    ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.
    Concerning the Japanese movie SEVEN SAMURAI, consider what the son of a farmer said about the samurai who were the ruling class in Japan:

    - What do you think of farmers? You think they're saints? Hah! They're foxy beasts! They say, "We've got no rice, we've no wheat. We've got nothing!" But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You'll find plenty!
    Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they've got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They're nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But
    then . . . who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do? Damn it... [He sinks to
    his knees, sobbing] Damn it... God damn it...

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai
    Concerning "Seven Samurai" and norms:

    - Yet, in a normal world, the political authorities should sense both a duty and their self-interest in protecting the producing class from unfair treatment.

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_to_Improve_Your_Movie_Literacy_With/vMWfDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Yet,%20in%20a%20normal%20world,%20the%20political%20authorities%20should%22

    If you don't think that people even in these times don't crave for normality, this recent article on the inauguration mentions the word 'normal' a dozen times:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/20/biden-harris-inauguration-put-normal-proud-display-column/4214868001/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to deb on Tue Feb 2 09:20:32 2021
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones
    who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.
    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.'...

    What about Gotterdammerung's Wotan?:

    - This [prologue] mirrors the opening of Rhinegold with the three Rhinedaughters and the crime against nature with the theft of the gold, which Wagner reminds us of with the Rhine motif. Three Norns, Erda’s daughters, weave the threads of fate (their
    weaving becomes an inversion of the Rhine motif). They sing of long ago when they wove at the base of the World Ash Tree. There Wotan gave up an eye to drink from the stream of wisdom, but also he tore a limb from the tree to make his spear. Because of
    this violence, the tree is now dead, the result of Wotan’s abuse of power, perverting his wisdom, symbolized by the stream of wisdom drying up. The Norns tell of the final collapse of the old world order which has become rotten at its ‘roots.’ The
    tree now provides the funeral pyre for the waiting gods, resigned to their doom...Typical of the period, Wagner’s Romanticism was both idealistic (infinite longing) and fatalistic (inevitable disappointment). Attempting through abuse of power to hold
    onto what we cannot keep causes us to hurt and destroy others and is ultimately futile.

    https://larryavisbrown.com/ring-of-the-nibelung-twilight/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to gggg gggg on Wed Mar 3 21:57:37 2021
    On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 9:20:33 AM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
    On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:26:52 AM UTC-7, deb wrote:
    On Sunday, 18 October 2020 at 16:40:55 UTC+1,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business
    from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of
    his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by
    Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does
    abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to
    compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness.
    Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the
    bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for
    him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to
    grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her
    wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights
    of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the
    ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?
    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.
    Poor Gilda. But that is a different opera. There are many operas with plots built around the abuse of power--from 'The Marriage of Figaro' through, as you say, 'Rigoletto,' to 'Turandot.'...

    What about Gotterdammerung's Wotan?:

    - This [prologue] mirrors the opening of Rhinegold with the three Rhinedaughters and the crime against nature with the theft of the gold, which Wagner reminds us of with the Rhine motif. Three Norns, Erda’s daughters, weave the threads of fate (their
    weaving becomes an inversion of the Rhine motif). They sing of long ago when they wove at the base of the World Ash Tree. There Wotan gave up an eye to drink from the stream of wisdom, but also he tore a limb from the tree to make his spear. Because of
    this violence, the tree is now dead, the result of Wotan’s abuse of power, perverting his wisdom, symbolized by the stream of wisdom drying up. The Norns tell of the final collapse of the old world order which has become rotten at its ‘roots.’ The
    tree now provides the funeral pyre for the waiting gods, resigned to their doom...Typical of the period, Wagner’s Romanticism was both idealistic (infinite longing) and fatalistic (inevitable disappointment). Attempting through abuse of power to hold
    onto what we cannot keep causes us to hurt and destroy others and is ultimately futile.

    https://larryavisbrown.com/ring-of-the-nibelung-twilight/

    Concerning social hierarchy, does this describe the relationship between the top and everyone else?:

    - I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.

    Leo Tolstoy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 15 22:12:40 2022
    On Monday, November 9, 2020 at 1:22:23 PM UTC-8,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own
    awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings
    you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves
    and couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and
    courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches
    Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish
    unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage
    and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but
    then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from
    his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise
    the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom
    here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones
    who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.

    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    Think of Rigoletto's worry for his daughter Gilda.
    Concerning the Japanese movie SEVEN SAMURAI, consider what the son of a farmer said about the samurai who were the ruling class in Japan:

    - What do you think of farmers? You think they're saints? Hah! They're foxy beasts! They say, "We've got no rice, we've no wheat. We've got nothing!" But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You'll find plenty!
    Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they've got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They're nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But
    then . . . who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do? Damn it... [He sinks to
    his knees, sobbing] Damn it... God damn it...

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai

    (Recent Youtube upload):

    Samurai Being *ssholes: Abusing Peasants

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 22 22:52:15 2022
    On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 5:47:03 AM UTC-10,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles slightly
    toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and
    has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to
    find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She
    knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right
    enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and
    the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand?

    Concerning responsibilites and rights:

    https://www.globaleast.org/wp-content/uploads/1999/05/ResponsibilitiesAndRights.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 29 20:45:32 2022
    On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-7,
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
    No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles
    slightly toward the gorgeous East.
    Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening
    realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you
    ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and
    couldn't choose for herself.
    The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers,
    and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian:
    how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness.
    She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here,
    right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler
    and the Marschallin a court lady.
    The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
    Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.

    Consider the letter 'r'.

    In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?

    But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?

    And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?

    And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?

    Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?

    Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.

    I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his
    landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his
    estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner
    is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse
    his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete,
    but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
    Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the
    Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here,
    or deprived of 'normal lives?'
    As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him.
    Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope
    her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding
    night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the
    middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and
    pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
    So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones who
    are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.
    Can it be normal for a person to be forced to live a life of constant worry and anxiety because they are at the mercy of the will (and whims) of those who are socially above them?

    - I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. (James Madison)

    - There comes a time when out of a false good there arises a true evil, since the encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the constitution than those of the people. ("Politics", Aristotle)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)