Christopher Webber in response to Pablo Massa:

>>In fact, what sometimes is
>>glorious is not a leitmotiv in itself, but some of its transformations.
>
>Indeed, although this shunts my question a little further down the line.
>Why do we seem to find the rather simple sequential development of, say,
>the 'Fate' motif in Act 1 of "Die Walkure" more 'advanced' than Handel's
>use of complementary themes for Cleopatra? Rhythm and timbre can, of
>course, equally define form.

Well, for some people the response seems to be simply "because leitmotiv
came later".  But, of course, this is not a good answer.  Personally, I
don't find the wagnerian example more "advanced" than the haendelian one.

>As far as Nietzsche goes, he's a dangerous authority to quote.

I quoted him as a case of opinion, not as an authority.

>In another context I've just had cause to employ a precisely contrary
>point he made later in life, when he saw Chueca's revista-zarzuela "La
>Gran Via" in Vienna (numbers opera, short, super-organised as an urban
>dance suite but not thematically) to the effect that Chueca's masterpiece
>was wonderfully refreshing after hours of Wagnerian 'melos', and really
>represented the "true path forward" ...  so much for Nietzsche (wise man!)

Well, don't forget that Nietzsche died nuts...  If, being an old man,
I would try to make "poenitentiam" for my wagnerite years, Chueca's "La
Gran Via" would be perhaps the perfect self-punishment..  ;-)

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]