# A question about Siegfried



## pianoville (Jul 19, 2018)

In the scene with Mime and the Wanderer in act one, Mime says that he stole Nothung from Sieglinde, but didn't he say to Siegfried that she gave him the sword? Also, why would Sieglinde let Mime have Siegfried but not the sword? Is this something that was intended by Wagner or is this a plot hole?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't see where Mime tells the Wanderer that he stole the sword. Can you quote the line?


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

I recall reading that this line is an example of Wagner making changes to his text but not properly going back to make the older lines consistent with the new changes. But I can't remember the book/article this comes from, so uh, have fun believing me - a random guy on the internet!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I don't see where Mime tells the Wanderer that he stole the sword. Can you quote the line?


Verfluchter Stahl! Daß ich dich gestohlen!
Er hat mich vernagelt in Pein und Noth!


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Verfluchter Stahl! Daß ich dich gestohlen!
> Er hat mich vernagelt in Pein und Noth!


The Wanderer (Wotan) already knows Mime has Nothung. This is referenced during the Mime's questioning when Wotan says (paraphrasing) - you had three questions to ask and you didn't ask what you really need to know - who can forge Nothung anew!

Mime doesn't tell Siegfried about his mother or the sword because he is using Siegfried. All mime wants is the ring. He's going to use Siegfried to get it. And of course it backfires.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> The Wanderer (Wotan) already knows Mime has Nothung. This is referenced during the Mime's questioning when Wotan says (paraphrasing) - you had three questions to ask and you didn't ask what you really need to know - who can forge Nothung anew!
> 
> Mime doesn't tell Siegfried about his mother or the sword because he is using Siegfried. All mime wants is the ring. He's going to use Siegfried to get it. And of course it backfires.


But Mime already _has_ told Siegfried about Nothung. When Siegfried forces him to admit that he isn't Siegfried's "father and mother in one," he relates the story of finding Sieglinde in the forest and caring for her as she gave birth to Siegfried and then died. Mime claims that she gave him the broken sword as repayment "for his pains." It's possible that he simply found it and hid it away without saying anything to Sieglinde, who was in the process of giving birth and wouldn't have been thinking about it, but it makes more sense that she would have asked him to keep it for Siegfried.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It's fiction - don't let it worry you.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

DavidA said:


> It's fiction - don't let it worry you.


Are you aware that this is a discussion forum? People discuss stuff here. You seem to have it confused for some kind of emergency hotline.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

amfortas said:


> Verfluchter Stahl! Daß ich dich gestohlen!
> Er hat mich vernagelt in Pein und Noth!


"Accursed steel, I wish I'd never seen it. It's brought me only pain and woe."

Not clear how this refers to stealing the sword!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> Not clear how this refers to stealing the sword!


I'm not a German speaker, but I believe that you've mistranslated the phrase "Daß ich dich gestohlen". I think that it means "that I have stolen you", referring to the sword.

Hopefully someone fluent in German will correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

marceliotstein said:


> Are you aware that this is a discussion forum? People discuss stuff here. You seem to have it confused for some kind of emergency hotline.


I didn't say don\'t discuss it. I said don't let it worry you! I discuss lots of things here but never let them worry me!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Are you aware that this is a discussion forum? People discuss stuff here. You seem to have it confused for some kind of emergency hotline.


DavidA is back to his favorite activity of prowling the Wagner threads looking for opportunities to tell us that he can't take Wagner's operas seriously and to suggest that others adopt his attitude. He's doing it now on three threads simultaneously:

The logic of conflict in Wagner's Ring (post #8 and #20)

Tristan, Isolde, and You (posts #38 and #49)

A question about Siegfried (post #7)

To my knowledge there is no other member of this forum who exhibits this incomprehensible behavior. At times it has been really disruptive of discussion, but although it clearly meets the definition of trolling, and I and others have complained about it numerous times, the moderators of the forum have allowed it to continue for years.

Apparently we just have to be grateful that he isn't bringing up Hitler.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

DavidA said:


> It's fiction - don't let it worry you.


Good point to keep in mind in all these discussions. We may never figure it out, but at night we can still go to sleep.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I didn't say don\'t discuss it. I said don't let it worry you! I discuss lots of things here but never let them worry me!


What makes you think anyone here is worried? Do you think we need your reassurance and guidance?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> What makes you think anyone here is worried? Do you think we need your reassurance and guidance?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I'd like to know everyone's preferred translation of this opera.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> I'm not a German speaker, but I believe that you've mistranslated the phrase "Daß ich dich gestohlen". I think that it means "that I have stolen you", referring to the sword.
> 
> Hopefully someone fluent in German will correct me if I'm wrong.


That will be Andrew Porter who has mistranslated!

Btw, I think you're right. It looks like it should be "Accurséd steel. I stole thee."

Damn Wagner and his Victorian German. Also he may have been looking for stabreim that fitted into his rhyming pattern.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> That will be Andrew Porter who has mistranslated!
> 
> Btw, I think you're right. It looks like it should be "Accurséd steel. I stole thee."
> 
> Damn Wagner and his Victorian German. Also he may have been looking for stabreim that fitted into his rhyming pattern.


Well, Porter was looking for something that would fit the German phrasing. His is one of the better singing translations of any opera, but it's still far from a literal translation of the German.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> I'd like to know everyone's preferred translation of this opera.


Andrew Porter for a singing one.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> That will be Andrew Porter who has mistranslated!
> 
> Btw, I think you're right. It looks like it should be "Accurséd steel. I stole thee."
> 
> Damn Wagner and his Victorian German. Also he may have been looking for stabreim that fitted into his rhyming pattern.


Literally:
Damn steel! That I stole you!
He nailed me in pain and distress!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

JosefinaHW said:


> I'd like to know everyone's preferred translation of this opera.


Stewart Spencer, et al.

The above lines are translated:

Accursèd steel,
alas that I ever stole you!
It has trapped me
in torment and need;


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> Stewart Spencer, et al.
> 
> The above lines are translated:
> 
> ...


Thanks. I gather that Spencer's translation is the one to get.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Literally:
> Damn steel! That I stole you!
> He nailed me in pain and distress!


Must be from the Aramaic. It sounds like the crucifixion.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

pianoville said:


> In the scene with Mime and the Wanderer in act one, Mime says that he stole Nothung from Sieglinde, but didn't he say to Siegfried that she gave him the sword? Also, why would Sieglinde let Mime have Siegfried but not the sword? Is this something that was intended by Wagner or is this a plot hole?


Mime lies to Siegfried. Constantly. One example a few lines earlier (in the Spencer translation):

Siegfried: Now I ask what my father was called.
Mime: Him I have never seen.
Siegfried: But didn't my mother speak his name?
Mime: That he'd been slain was all she said.

And of course once the Wanderer shows up, Mime answers naming Siegmund. Mime knew, but withheld that information from Siegfried. His first attempt was a dodge; it's true that Mime never saw Siegmund, but irrelevant to Siegfried's question. Mime's second answer is either just a straight-out lie, or perhaps another dodge, as again he's not answering a question he knows the answer to.

Thus I think it's fair to assume Mime is lying or otherwise misleading Siegfried with the story about how he got the sword. Mime's later outburst seems much more genuine, an aside to himself rather than part of his manipulations of Siegfried.

Maybe Mime took the sword when Sieglinde was sleeping, or not paying attention. Maybe she had planned to move on, away from Mime but wouldn't without the sword. We don't have a reliable story on how Siegfried came to be in Mime's care. Maybe Sieglinde hid in the woods and had very little interaction with Mime. Maybe they chatted about the her situation and the sword once, then Mime left, only to return later to steal the sword. And, finding Sieglinde dead or on the verge of death, he took the baby from her.

But this is just idle speculation. I think there are various possible stories that could fit with what we know.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's good to be reminded that Mime is a congenital liar and a thoroughly despicable little troll motivated by greed, power and revenge.

If he were alive now he could get elected president.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks. I gather that Spencer's translation is the one to get.


My German is still limited, but I really like it. The book has a few essays to start, German and English side by side, leitmotif cues throughout the text, and an appendix with some early/alternate versions, such as several of Wagner's versions of Brünnhilde's immolation.

It's not a singing translation, which means it can be more accurate, and he really does work to capture some of the alliteration and the system of lifts and dips that Wagner uses, even if he doesn't strictly follow all of the rules.

And I think I was mistaken; the translation is credited to Stewart Spencer. The other names as authors are for the people that curated/wrote the essays that accompany the text.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

*mountmccabe 
*








Originally Posted by *JosefinaHW*  
I'd like to know everyone's preferred translation of this opera.


Stewart Spencer, et al.

When a score "claims" to be the urtext, does that include the history, analysis and presentation of the most correct translation (as well as music and scenes)? If so, on the Boosey & Hawkes webpage (as also quoted in other places), the Schott vocal scores are listed as THE urtexts of Wagner's operas.

http://www.boosey.com/shop/prod/Wagner-Richard-Siegfried-vocal-score-complete-edition/2072529

I thought an urtext would be for the full performance score only???? So an urtext can be different according to the type of score?: piano and vocal; study score; each individual instrument?

All these various companies are mentioning they are based on the Wagner Complete Editions. If that's the case then aren't those editions the urtexts?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Here's my bottom line at the moment. If an urtext only includes a history of revisions to the music and included scenes/non-included scenes, and no definitive translation, then I (or anyone else for that matter) CANNOT post a reliable interpretation of what any opera/or the entire cycle of The Ring, if we haven't read all the translations, Wagner's original prose versions (and revisions), then his conversion to poetry (however many they are and if we have them all), then later revisions made after the music was then composed.

Is all this source material available? If not and if we have not read it all and used are own rethinking in light of this material none of us can really talk intelligently and reliably about what the entire cycle means, much less what any one opera in the cycle, or any one action/passage in one of the operas. Can we?

(If this is true, then I sure could use DavidA's reminder to breathe, relax, don't blow any blood vessels, etc., etc., etc. when I am listening to these operas. Maybe you should just send it in a PM David. )


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

JosefinaHW said:


> Here's my bottom line at the moment. If an urtext only includes a history of revisions to the music and included scenes/non-included scenes, and no definitive translation, then I (or anyone else for that matter) CANNOT post a reliable interpretation of what any opera/or the entire cycle of The Ring, if we haven't read all the translations, Wagner's original prose versions (and revisions), then his conversion to poetry (however many they are and if we have them all), then later revisions made after the music was then composed.
> 
> Is all this source material available? If not and if we have not read it all and used are own rethinking in light of this material none of us can really talk intelligently and reliably about what the entire cycle means, much less what any one opera in the cycle, or any one action/passage in one of the operas. Can we?


I don't think there are any prerequisites to having an opinion about the Ring. Other than, I suppose, wanting to discuss them.

If you want to dismiss everything as unknowable, then enjoy that. I'll accept that I am in possession of limited information - and so is everyone else - and move on with that in my mind.

And honestly, the compositional history isn't that relevant to me. Changes made during conception and composition... can be interesting but I don't think they really tell us anything definitively. There are a lot of reasons changes happen, and I tend to consider such extraneous things non-canon. If a bit was changed at some point, the old version is gone, is all we know definitively (without good information as to why the change was made). It's a little more difficult when there are multiple performing versions from the composer (such as with _Tannhäuser_).

At any rate, I am absolutely certain that there are plenty of people that can talk intelligently about these operas (there are some of them on this board, here!) I am also happy to hear questions from beginners, as they often interesting perspectives and can lead to pondering things I hadn't thought about before.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I do not enjoy having to dismiss everything as unknowable.

All this type of source analysis or finding the person who has done the most of it is very important:

First: As I am still looking for as precise a score and translation I can get myself. There are the questions of different types of urtexts and Schott's claim that their's are the FIRST urtexts?!?!? d there are still all my questions about different types of Urtexts for a single opera: there is one for all the music; there is one for the "original" German text; etc., etc.. Schott's claim their 10 piano and vocal scores are THE first urtexts!?!?!? makes me even doubt their claim.)

Second: If all of us are using different translations (including the translations of the subtitles in the various languages--who did those? What were their sources?); or even if one of us is using three different translations at the same time/obviously, pausing the performance to compare? We really could be getting very different meanings. There is that single example in Spencer about the meaning of "love." Pg. 364 No.7, 2016 Paperback reprint of The Companion w. translation by S. Spencer. Personally, I would love  to hear a conversation re/ that, including the additional info. in that note.

Three: Now I am really shocked about this, but I have the extremely strong impression that all the performers in an opera (almost any opera) do not sit around and do a close reading! Seriously! Especially with something as complex with a multitude of different reference materials: Wagner's letters to x,y,z. Composing music after 35 years of writing the prose text and then the poetic text, and changes since writing all those letters to x,y,z.

Actors and directors and God knows who else, do a close reading for Shakespeare's plays, and they are short! and have less complicated reference materials.

I have the very distinct impression that a close reading (much less very little discussion at all between the only two characters--besides the bard) was not done with the latest Met production of _Duke Bluebeard's Castle_. One hour, two actors.

Then, back to Wagner. We have people who may have read 200 texts about any one opera of The Ring, but what translations were those authors using? One author quotes another who quotes another and then a letter is discovered that changes something big. Or a discovery is made after all these texts have been written that we don't even know which sense of "love" Wagner meant--and come on, there are a lot more than just two!

I'm not saying I want to give up or we should all give up, but it's almost as if we all have to do a close reading. Look at some of the posts above in this tiny little thread. Do you get what I'm saying?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

(This question is just for Barbebleu when he rejoins us.) B., I remember you received as a present that sexy score (can't remember if full or piano) of _Die Meistersinger._ That was published by Breitkopf & Haertel, right? Do you mean to tell me that score was not the Urtext? I'd like to hear what is says on the cover and the intro.. Many Thanks.


----------



## pianoville (Jul 19, 2018)

While we are on the subject of Siegfried, I never understood why Siegfried was so surprised that the "man" he saw in act 3 was a woman. Didn't he already know that Brünnhilde was going to be there? Wasn't that why he went there in the first place?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

In reply to JosefinaHW.

It was the Eulenburg full score for Meistersinger, not Breitkopf and Hartel. I append a direct quote from pages X to XII. I believe this is now considered to be the definitive Meistersinger text.

I will post photo extracts, which show the musical examples, when I get to my iPad as I'm on my PC at the moment.

"The present edition in Eulenburg study score format is identical, textually, with the critical edition published as Vol. 9 of the new complete edition Richard Wagner: Sämtliche Werke. As such, it is based in the main on Wagner's autograph score, since the composer failed either properly to check the printer's copy prepared by Hans Richter or to keep a detailed eye on the proofs, which were corrected by Richter and Hans von Bulow.

In consequence, the first edition of the full score that was published by Schott in July 1868 reproduces countless details that reflect the understanding of the copyists, engravers and proofreaders but which signally fail to do justice to Wagner's own intentions. Moreover, many of the idiosyncrasies of Wagner's notational system were either altered to fit conventional notational practice or simply ignored. Nor was the first edition wholly free from errors,* all of which have, of course, been corrected in the new edition.

*See Egon Voss, Annäherung ans Original: Zur New-Edition der 'Meistersinger von Nurnberg' innerhalb der Richard Wagner Gesamtausgabe, Das Orchester, 36/12, December 1988, pp.1224-7.

Although the new critical edition contains not a bar more or less than the first edition and although no bar is wholly different from the existing edition, there remain sufficient differences that relate not to pitch or note-length but to the manner in which each note is played, in short, to dynamics, phrasing and articulation.
In this respect the critical edition offers a totally new picture of the work and one that is calculated, moreover, to alter prevailing views of the piece. Die Meistersinger is frequently associated with the Grunderjahre of the early 1870s and with the founding of the German Reich and, hence, seen as an expression of pomp and rhetorical bombast. In a famous diatribe against the prelude, Nietzsche furnishes the relevant repertory of invective. In Part 8 of Beyond Good and Evil he speaks of an art that is 'Magnificent, overcharged, heavy', while the music is said to be 'coarse and rude', 'something manifold and formless in a German way'. It has 'nothing of southern and subtle brightness of the sky, nothing of gracefulness, no dance […] even a certain clumsiness[...], cumbersome drapery, something capricious, barbarian and solemn' and so on. This view of the music of Meistersinger, doubtlessly partisan and consciously provocative though it is, is still hailed as accurate and keenly observed. But it is a view that must be rooted not least in the first edition of the score, with its tendency to suppress detail and smooth out asperities, a tendency that allowed Nietzsche - who of course was familiar with the work only from performances based on this edition - to formulate the foregoing opinion. The critical edition of the score reveals Meistersinger as a far more subtly differentiated piece, characterized by incomparably more refinement and variety of musical characterization. A few examples may serve to illustrate this point. (see attached image). In all of them, the phrasing and articulation markings are crucial.

Particularly far-reaching in their consequences are the numerous staccato markings that were omitted from the first edition, since it is these above all that remove the ostensible heaviness of the score and restore the lightness that Nietzsche longed to find here. A similar effect is produced by the differing dynamic markings for the various instruments within a single chord. In the first edition, all these markings were often levelled in one direction, but if these details are taken seriously - and the number of them is legion - it becomes impossible to sustain Nietzsche's view any longer. The music of Die Meistersinger is not without 'grace' nor does it have to 'sweat' to cite another of the philosopher's characterizations. On the other hand, it is clear from the critical edition that there are many passages in which the music is palpably more aggressive that it was previously recognised to be. By omitting dynamic markings or by simplifying them (_f_ instead of _sf, _ for example), but also by eliminating dissonances, the sound somehow seems to have lost its edge and to have been smoothed out in the first edition of the score: in a word, it sounded more opulent. This was clearly not Wagner's intention. The music of Meistersinger is much more austere than is generally believed, just as its colourfulness and the multiplicity of its musical characters remain to be discovered.
The errata listed in the Sämtliche Werke (Vol. 9/III, pp. 373-4) have been corrected.

Egon Voss, Munich, August 1998
Translation Stewart Spencer"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

pianoville said:


> While we are on the subject of Siegfried, I never understood why Siegfried was so surprised that the "man" he saw in act 3 was a woman. Didn't he already know that Brünnhilde was going to be there? Wasn't that why he went there in the first place?


Never mind. It does give audiences a chuckle!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Photos as promised


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

pianoville said:


> While we are on the subject of Siegfried, I never understood why Siegfried was so surprised that the "man" he saw in act 3 was a woman. Didn't he already know that Brünnhilde was going to be there? Wasn't that why he went there in the first place?


Siegfried has only just figured out that there was such a thing as males and females ("Männchen und Weibchen"); he hasn't really internalized this yet.

Siegfried knows he is going to see Brünnhilde, and knows she can be a bride, but he doesn't know what any of that means. He figured this out from deer, birds, and foxes, not humans. He's never seen a woman before. Who knows what he's expecting, but I don't fault him for not having a good mental model of what a Brünnhilde is.

Thus he sees a figure lying down on the rock, wearing armour and takes the person for a man. The woodbird actually led him to the Wanderer, so maybe Siegfried figured there was another man (the Wanderer was a god, but Siegfried never realized that) he had to deal with before getting to Brünnhilde.

Siegfried figuring out that Brünnhilde was not a man is certainly weird.

But "Das ist kein Mann" is a nice callback to Helmwige's "Das ist kein Held" (referring to his mother) back in _Die Walküre_.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> I do not enjoy having to dismiss everything as unknowable.
> 
> All this type of source analysis or finding the person who has done the most of it is very important:
> 
> ...


I intend to reply to this post, in a little more detail, sometime tomorrow. Regarding J's point 3, I have had a chat with my sister who is an actress and has worked with the RSC and the National Theatre and the Royal Lyceum in Edinburgh, to name but a few and she has given me some interesting insights regarding 'close readings'.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I intend to reply to this post, in a little more detail, sometime tomorrow. Regarding J's point 3, I have had a chat with my sister who is an actress and has worked with the RSC and the National Theatre and the Royal Lyceum in Edinburgh, to name but a few and she has given me some interesting insights regarding 'close readings'.


A million and two thanks to you, Barbebleu! I look forward to hearing the rest of your response. (Although, ever since you mentioned it, I worry about your eyes every time you post somewhere on here. ) I haven't read your images yet. I'm going to print out all your posts and read them very closely.

I am going to do more research, as well, particularly regarding:

1. Relationship if any among, Schott, Eulenburg, and this Complete Wagner collection.

2. History of all the different translations that were produced and included in the liner notes of various Wagner recordings.

Have to run for a bit..... I have a few more questions, too.

(Please never over-strain your eyes on my account. We can exchange phone numbers (yes, I know you are in Scotland) and you can dictate to me and I'll type for you......


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> A million and two thanks to you, Barbebleu! I look forward to hearing the rest of your response. (Although, ever since you mentioned it, I worry about your eyes every time you post somewhere on here. ) I haven't read your images yet. I'm going to print out all your posts and read them very closely.
> 
> I am going to do more research, as well, particularly regarding:
> 
> ...


I'm curious. What makes you think I'm straining my eyes? Last time I looked my eyesight was perfectly fine. I think I might change my avatar to an actual picture of the real me! Oooh, scary! But only for 24 hours!!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I'm curious. What makes you think I'm straining my eyes? Last time I looked my eyesight was perfectly fine. I think I might change my avatar to an actual picture of the real me! Oooh, scary!


Now don't go messing with my mind or maybe you were joking before.... the joys of a word forum. I thought you said that you had a detached retina and some other issues, but the detached retina is what caught my attention....


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I'm curious. What makes you think I'm straining my eyes? Last time I looked my eyesight was perfectly fine. I think I might change my avatar to an actual picture of the real me! Oooh, scary!


Now don't go messing with my mind or maybe you were joking before.... the joys of a word forum. I thought you said that you had a detached retina and some other issues, but the detached retina is what caught my attention....

duplicate post


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> Now don't go messing with my mind or maybe you were joking before.... the joys of a word forum. I thought you said that you had a detached retina and some other issues, but the detached retina is what caught my attention....
> 
> duplicate post


Aah, got you. Not a detached retina, I have post vitreous detachment so I have to be careful that I don't get a detached retina. So far,so good,as the man said when he fell out the aeroplane. My eyesight is as good as it can be for a seventy year old!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Aah, got you. Not a detached retina, I have post vitreous detachment so I have to be careful that I don't get a detached retina. So far,so good,as the man said when he fell out the aeroplane. My eyesight is as good as it can be for a seventy year old!


I'm going to have to look up what exactly post vitreous detachment is, but I'm EXTREMELY thrilled that I don't have to worry (excessively) over your eyesight every time you post. Wouldn't your retina detach because of a motion of your entire head, not regular use of your eye? (By the way, I didn't get that idea in my head because of your avatar. I see what you are saying though you are a couple of years older than the man who was your avatar.)

Talking about clarity of image, even when I increase my zoom level I _*can't see you clearly*_, but two things right off the bat:

1. You don't have a beard! (So does that mean you are a fan of THE MAN OF MEN, Duke Bluebeard?!?!?!

2. You really remind me of someone from British TV... it will come to me eventually


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

My father had serious macular "tears" in both of his eyes. A eye surgeon repaired both of them (obviously, one at a time). It was a long process, but there is hope in case you do detach your retina. 

I will head on back to the subject in just a second, but another thing came to me:

You are EXTREMELY lovable-looking.... Hmmmmm


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> My father had serious macular "tears" in both of his eyes. A eye surgeon repaired both of them (obviously, one at a time). It was a long process, but there is hope in case you do detach your retina.
> 
> I will head on back to the subject in just a second, but another thing came to me:
> 
> You are EXTREMELY lovable-looking.... Hmmmmm


I think you may need glasses J.!! It is actually posterior vitreous detachment but usually referred to as post vitreous detachment.

I am actually younger than my original avatar who's picture was from 1959 when he was a lot younger then.

Btw my wife agrees with you regarding my loveability and who can blame both of you. :lol:

Shaking my head won't detach my retina. My eye doctor assures me that that's not likely but it may happen anyway. No point in worrying about it. As my old Scottish mum used to say - What's fur ye won't go by ye!

Actually she was very politely spoken and would never have said that in a million years. Although she would have agreed with the sentiment.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I think you may need glasses J.!!
> 
> Btw my wife agrees!
> 
> ...


Now just remember, B., Wotan's sword has been broken so none of us have to be deferential to our elders, even if they are extremely lovable-looking.

P.S. I've printed what you've posted here now, so I'm going to read thru it.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> My father had serious macular "tears" in both of his eyes. A eye surgeon repaired both of them (obviously, one at a time). It was a long process, but there is hope in case you do detach your retina.
> 
> I will head on back to the subject in just a second, but another thing came to me:
> 
> You are EXTREMELY lovable-looking.... Hmmmmm


I've edited my previous post J.


----------



## Scott in PA (Aug 13, 2016)

The use of “gestohlen” is poetic license. My guess is Wagner was preserving the Stabreim for this line, as “gestohlen” is alliterative with “Stahl”.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Scott in PA said:


> The use of "gestohlen" is poetic license. My guess is Wagner was preserving the Stabreim for this line, as "gestohlen" is alliterative with "Stahl".


Nice catch. My thoughts too. Steel and steal seem too good to ignore.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

*My sincere apologies to you, Pianoville*. I didn't realize this was your thread and my original posts were directly concerned with _Siegfried_: the best translation(s) and the best score(s), although I was equally interested in almost all of Wagner's later operas and how we can really get a handle on what he wanted to say.

I had voiced a variant of this interest back in a _Meistersinger: Historical Recordings Thread_ a long time ago and Barbebleu and I had a slightly heated discussion over staccatos in the score and other things _Meister_ that actually relate to _Siegfried_, too. (It was very nice to have a very warm and friendly turn to my continued disc. with Barbebleu.)

I would like to know if there already exists a thread specifically related to Translations, Scores and Research of Wagner's Operas. If there is such a thread I will ask the mods to cut out some of my posts and move others to that thread. If there isn't a thread, well I hope someone else will start one or I may give it a shot and also move any irrelevant posts there.

I have a few more questions that are very important to me re/ Barbebleu's Meistersinger Score and Wagner's other scores.

*May I continue them here until I can find or create a more appropriate one? Or should I immediately continue in the "Misc Opera" Thread?*


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I've been searching other Wagner threads and given what I found, I'll continue and what follows also applies to the scores of _Siegfried_. (Everything can be moved at once if it must.)

I've been searching trying to find your edition of _Die Meister_, Barbebleu. Please just post a photo of the cover.

Eulenburg publishing had slightly varying names for a variety of irrelevant reasons. Eulenburg was purchased by Schott in 1957. I found this info re/ Eulenburg on the Schott website. What's odd is that Schott APPEARS to have released only a limited number of Wagner works under the Eulenburg name. They collaborated with Naxos to relase scores with Naxos CDs. I can't find much of anything else with the Eulenburg name.

There also appears to very little uniformity among the various types of Wagner scores published by Schott: piano, vocal, study. When you say full score I am assuming that you mean all the instruments, including the human voices. (I'm not sure if I want to go that far; I'm eyeing what Schott is calling the first piano version Urtext.

Using _Die Meistersinger_ as the example here. I'm going to post the link below.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

The Eulenburg page of the Schott website:

https://en.schott-music.com/eulenburg/about-eulenburg/

As you look down the left column there is that tab that says "Performance Materials."

When you click that it only says that these scores are available from Breitkopf & Hartel (probably what confused me in the very beginning.) But then click B&H and there are no full scores off the entire opera!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Again, I really want to see the cover of your score and maybe you could ask whomever gave it to you where they purchased it.

The following is the info/image of the only Urtext full score I can find (they distinguish between one with philological notes and one without--re/ translation and stage directions(?) I imagine the one with the notes is the best one.

https://en.schott-music.com/shop/die-meistersinger-von-nuernberg-no109050.html


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Here is the Schott Piano Urtexts:

https://en.schott-music.com/shop/die-meistersinger-von-nuernberg-no222290.html


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Here is Siegfried. Although I think I posted that link above somewhere.

https://en.schott-music.com/shop/siegfried-no234642.html


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Someone had posted a link to Classicalnet re/ an authoritative score, but they are really behind. The only full Ring opera scores that list are the Dover Publication scores. (I used to think they were great--cheap and easily available. With regard to Wagner, forget it).

In summary, where are we? I suppose the two primary translations of the Ring are Stewart Spencer's and Andrew Porter's--they have different strengths and weaknesses. Maybe someone is using the Wagner Archive's to continue to produce new ones.

I GREATLY look forward to photos, info., and those insights re/ close readings.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> I've been searching other Wagner threads and given what I found, I'll continue and what follows also applies to the scores of _Siegfried_. (Everything can be moved at once if it must.)
> 
> I've been searching trying to find your edition of _Die Meister_, Barbebleu. Please just post a photo of the cover.
> 
> ...


As requested. In reverse order, cover, page 1, page 2. Yes, all instruments including voice.

Here is a link to the Amazon page I got mine from.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Die-Meiste...ger+eulenburg&qid=1555235526&s=gateway&sr=8-3


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Apologies to all for cluttering up a Siegfried thread with Meistersinger trivia. I'll try and resurrect one of the old Meistersinger threads.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> As requested. In reverse order, cover, page 1, page 2. Yes, all instruments including voice.
> 
> Here is a link to the Amazon page I got mine from.
> 
> ...


TYVM. I've been using a different search engine, but there is still something very odd and confusing with these different score editions and publishers.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

The Siegfried Score Search: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=Siegfried+eulenburg&ref=nb_sb_noss

Please take a look at these results and tell me what you think.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Siegfried-...ed+eulenburg&qid=1555274733&s=gateway&sr=8-12 (Is this it?) Other people in the world must trying to obtain this.

The following is a translation that I haven't seen mentioned, but I am going to go back to Chrome:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Siegfried-...ied+eulenburg&qid=1555274733&s=gateway&sr=8-6


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Additionally I have many specific questions about Wagner's meaning in Siegfried and the rest of The Ring which prompted me to post in this thread in the first place.

Erda. Act Three, Scene One. Spencer translation:

My sleep is dreaming,
mt dreaming brooding,
my brooding the exercise of knowledge.

Now I have a sense of the concept of the Earth Mother. The Feminine as Logos. But what is Wagner trying to say here? What does Wotan expect Erda to do? Erda is sleeping but is knowledge and wisdom, yet she doesn't have a clue what is going on, regardless of those Norns. 

I'm given several different conflicting concepts and images here. I get that she could be the spirit of all life. Her knowledge/wisdom are the platonic equivalent of the forms, but none of this coheres well for me in the opera.

Thoughts?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

They are actually all the same thing. The first link is the edition I have, No. 8056. The second link is to the same thing, but a different printing, No. 909. The third link is for an old edition of the Eulenburg that was in a smaller, more compact format (a bit of an eye-strainer!) which had singing translations in English and French. My Parsifal and Tristan editions are like that. The newer editions are in a larger, easier to read format with no translation of the German libretto.

Here is a picture of some of my full scores. The three small format editions are Tannhäuser, Parsifal and Tristan. The cd is to give you an idea of the size.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Another thing that has been bothering me about the stage directions in this scene, why is Erda covered in frost? I get the symbolism of the cave as some of the female reproductive anatomy. It seems that Wagner considers Erda both the metaphysical and physical source of life and wisdom, although how you reconcile that with her "wisdom"/"knowledge" working while she is asleep, as well as her physical fecundity, I don't know.

Life continues: the birds, the deer, the other animals of the woods. Is he trying to say that Erda hasn't been productive of "higher" (I detest that concept) beings such as the Walfungs because she has noted mated with "higher" beings since Wotan?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> They are actually all the same thing. The first link is the edition I have, No. 8056. The second link is to the same thing, but a different printing, No. 909. The third link is for an old edition of the Eulenburg that was in a smaller, more compact format (a bit of an eye-strainer!) which had singing translations in English and French. My Parsifal and Tristan editions are like that. The newer editions are in a larger, easier to read format with no translation of the German libretto.
> 
> Here is a picture of some of my full scores. The three small format editions are Tannhäuser, Parsifal and Tristan. The cd is to give you an idea of the size.
> 
> View attachment 116289


Thank you, again, for taking all this time to clarify this for me, B! Again, I'm thinking about how you try to determine what Wagner is trying to say in these operas, starting from the most brief lines of the text (Yes, I know the music is talking as well, but....this is already complicated enough).

Your smaller-sized Tristan and Parsifal scores (and an earlier version of Die Meister) are translated by someone different than Spencer and Porter? So, when you reflect on the text of the operas do you look at all the different translations and try to reconcile them in your mind somehow? I would imagine that you already have learned a great deal/most of the German as well by now. Getting a better sense of the Victorian meaning from specialized dictionaries and knowledge of the language of the literature Wagner used in the creation of his texts.....

*There is no one or two source way to get to this understanding is there? *(At least not yet.)

(Again, many, many thanks for your help here. :kiss:!)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I tend to concentrate my attention not on the text itself but on how the singer is interpreting the text, regardless of which one they are using.

I'll have a look to see who did the translations. 

My sister told me that when she and the rest of the cast are preparing a play, e.g. A Midsummer Nights Dream which she is doing in London this summer, they are given a particular version that they all use. The version they use is unimportant in itself. It might be the Cambridge, the Oxford, the Arden etc. etc. but the important thing is that they all understand the particular version they are using. Comparisons with other editions are unnecessary and time-consuming. The director will usually have a favourite version that they will use as they (hopefully) understand it better and can communicate their ideas to the cast more fully.

I have a variety of editions for my Shakespeare plays. The accompanying notes and essays are usually very informative and enlightening. My sis says that the Ardens are hardly ever used for performance as they tend to be a bit stuffy. I think it's something to do with the folio edition that they use. Who knows?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> *I tend to concentrate my attention not on the text itself but on how the singer is interpreting the text,* regardless of which one they are using.
> 
> My sister told me that when she and the rest of the cast are preparing a play, e.g. A Midsummer Nights Dream which she is doing in London this summer, they are given a particular version that they all use. The version they use is unimportant in itself. It might be the Cambridge, the Oxford, the Arden etc. etc. but the important thing is that they all understand the particular version they are using. Comparisons with other editions are unnecessary and time-consuming. The director will usually have a favourite version that they will use as they (hopefully) understand it better and can communicate their ideas to the cast more fully.


I'm not being difficult. But you must have already read and listened and read more and understood a bit more of the text over the years to be sensitive to how a singer interprets very complex texts. As of this moment, I can't imagine a singer being able to convey any particular interpretation of a complex word such as "knowledge" or "wisdom."

Bach does it in the Passions, the Mass, the Cantatas, so it is possible. That music can work for a person who may not understand (anything???) of the theology. His use of those affective rhetorical figures conveys meaning about shared life experience, but I suppose the more one learns about the theology, the more the words and music are able to speak deeper to the listener.

I think you have accumulated an enormous amount of knowledge about the text already to then be able to "read" the singer's interpretation.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I
> 
> My sister told me that when she and the rest of the cast are preparing a play, e.g. A Midsummer Nights Dream which she is doing in London this summer, they are given a particular version that they all use. The version they use is unimportant in itself. It might be the Cambridge, the Oxford, the Arden etc. etc. but the important thing is that they all understand the particular version they are using. Comparisons with other editions are unnecessary and time-consuming. The director will usually have a favourite version that they will use as they (hopefully) understand it better and can communicate their ideas to the cast more fully.
> 
> *I have a variety of editions for my Shakespeare plays. The accompanying notes and essays are usually very informative and enlightening.* My sis says that the Ardens are hardly ever used for performance as they tend to be a bit stuffy. I think it's something to do with the folio edition that they use. Who knows?


I absolutely agree! There are wonderful editions that include extensive notes. *Unless I'm wrong*, maybe that is part of the difficulty with the Wagner: no one has published translations and explanations of the intended meaning of the stage directions with very extensive notes (yet). Spencer has some, but nothing like the equivalent of Shakespeare editions. This could also lead to some of the bizarre regie productions of some of Wagner's works; directors don't have this type of material and haven't done the long, hard work themselves.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Have you or anyone else observed the production and rehearsals for a good production of Siegfried or other Wagner opera?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> I have many specific questions about Wagner's meaning in Siegfried and the rest of The Ring...
> 
> Erda. Act Three, Scene One. Spencer translation:
> 
> ...


If I may interject...

I can't answer all your questions offhand, but I believe that what Wagner wants to convey in this scene is that a fundamental shift is taking place in the nature of reality. Even the primeval Erda is caught up in it, so that her ancient wisdom is no longer adequate to comprehend the change that's happening or the world to come when the gods are gone. Wotan, whose very life has been at the crux of the _Ring_'s tale of evolution and crisis, comes to her full of anxiety, hoping to tap her wisdom yet again, but finds that now he understands more than she does.

Erda is covered with hoarfrost because she is dying. When the rope of destiny snaps in _Gotterdammerung_ the Norns will descend into the depths to join her in what is essentially the grave of the cosmos; she and they will sleep forever and be heard from no more.

I'd guess that the image of frost was suggested to Wagner by the original Norse conception of Ragnarok, in which a profound winter will grip the world prior to its destruction.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> If I may interject...
> 
> I can't answer all your questions offhand, but I believe that what Wagner wants to convey in this scene is that a fundamental shift is taking place in the nature of reality. Even the primeval Erda is caught up in it, so that her ancient wisdom is no longer adequate to comprehend the change that's happening or the world to come when the gods are gone. Wotan, whose very life has been at the crux of the _Ring_'s tale of evolution and crisis, comes to her full of anxiety, hoping to tap her wisdom yet again, but finds that now he understands more than she does.
> 
> ...


Thank you for joining the conversation, but what you are saying is a complete shock and (at least at the moment) a great disappointment: I think the concepts of Earth Mother and the Logos as female are appealing in many ways. At a much more "superficial" or sensual level, I just like Erda: she is beautiful and her music is beautiful.

Must think about all this, but I see there is no way around it, it is necessary to learn all/a great deal of the mythology and other lit Wagner used as background to his operas.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> *Erda is covered with hoarfrost because she is dying. *
> 
> I'd guess that the image of frost was suggested to Wagner by the original Norse conception of Ragnarok, in which a profound winter will grip the world prior to its destruction.


So when you listen to a performance of the scene with Erda in _Siegfried_, do you judge the singer in part in how well she conveys the fact that Erda is dying?

Is this the same for you, too, Barbebleu?

Others?

And, If I listen to that scene again knowing this is there something also in the music that conveys that she is dying?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Thank you for joining the conversation, but what you are saying is a complete shock and (at least at the moment) a great disappointment: I think the concepts of Earth Mother and the Logos as female are appealing in many ways. At a much more "superficial" or sensual level, I just like Erda: she is beautiful and her music is beautiful.
> 
> Must think about all this, but I see there is no way around it, it is necessary to learn all/a great deal of the mythology and other lit Wagner used as background to his operas.


The old mythical cosmos _was_ poetically beautiful - I spent many happy hours reading those wondrous stories as a child - but one of the messages of the _Ring_ is that mythology belongs to an earlier phase in mankind's evolution. For modern man the myths may have power as symbols, but he no longer seeks knowledge by waking Erda from her dreams.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

He is using myth to strip it of meaning except symbolic meaning? If the symbolic meaning is what is important (which to me that is what all myth is anyway) then in Wagner's mind it must be important to understand as clearly as possible the meaning of the symbols. So Wagner thinks that the concepts of Earth Mother; Logos/Form/Order of Reality is NOT the nature of reality? There is no "being"/"life force" that is the source of and unites all of life?

P.S. It really does seem like Wagner has great respect for (some) of his female characters, so the following might be a contradiction of that respect, but could her passage from Siegfried:

"My sleep is dreaming,
my dreaming brooding,
my brooding the exercise of knowledge."

Actually be meant to be incomprehensible? It's nonsense deliberately meant to sound like nonsense; showing that she IS NOT reality; she/mythological explanation is just nonsense?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

^^^ That cannot be. Because Erda is wise! Later in the passage:

"Does he who taught defiance
scourge defiance?

Does he who urged the deed
grow wrath when it is done?

Does he who safeguards rights and helps uphold sworn oaths 
gainsay that right and rule through perjured oath?"


She has basically summed up the core of Wotan right there.

Maybe Wagner wants to use myth because myths are always full of contradictions. He doesn't want to or have to attempt to make everything cohere logically!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Finally, maybe Wagner never intended to give us a (clear) message about reality. You don't use poetry to try and present a model of reality: poetry is inherently ambiguous. And that is really frustrating.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> He is using myth to strip it of meaning except symbolic meaning? If the symbolic meaning is what is important (which to me that is what all myth is anyway) then in Wagner's mind it must be important to understand as clearly as possible the meaning of the symbols. So Wagner thinks that the concepts of Earth Mother; Logos/Form/Order of Reality is NOT the nature of reality? There is no "being"/"life force" that is the source of and unites all of life?


Wagner never explained himself or his work to the last degree of philosophical explicitness. The operas don't express thoroughgoing philosophical systems and aren't intended to. The _Ring_ in particular underwent many changes over the 25 years Wagner worked on it; his conception changed, in particular, after he read Schopenhauer and composed _Tristan_ and Die _Meistersinger._ He was always wary of allowing his libretti to become didactic, wanting his symbols and his music to say what needed to be said without the constraint of explicit ideology.

I do believe that in the _Ring_ Wagner uses myth to symbolize the end of myth as a controlling power in human life. The end of the gods and their world is adumbrated several times during the cycle, most dramatically when Brunnhilde is stripped of her godhood and made a human woman. As such, she is the one who finally has the power to bring the old order to its end in an act of love - which, if all goes well, will be the moral engine of the world to come.

As far as Erda is concerned, she was never the source of life, or an "earth mother" in the sense of a fertility goddess. Maybe she was the equivalent of the subconscious mind, into which Wotan, the conscious intellect, made occasional deep dives. Just a thought that occurs to me. In any case the whole primeval cosmos they represented had to give way.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> As far as Erda is concerned, she was never the source of life, or an "earth mother" in the sense of a fertility goddess.
> I think there is some evidence to support that was part of her nature, but I'll let it rest.
> 
> *Maybe she was the equivalent of the subconscious mind, into which Wotan, the conscious intellect, made occasional deep dives. Just a thought that occurs to me*.


This is a very interesting idea: dreaming, brooding, while sleeping could definitely convey a certain understanding of the subconscious. I do not share (yet?) your respect for Wotan. He isn't wise at all; he doesn't even understand the basics of a situation; he contradicts himself repeatedly; he acts directly on emotion frequently. But again, I'll leave it here.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

JosefinaHW said:


> I do not enjoy having to dismiss everything as unknowable.
> 
> All this type of source analysis or finding the person who has done the most of it is very important:
> 
> ...


This isn't something I've really concerned myself with. I'm not doing scholarship on the Ring; I'm discussing it with friends and/or people on the internet. I try to be thoughtful and humble, but I don't need everything to be precise, and I'm happy to discuss it, no matter what level they are at. And even if someone has used the best possible sources that doesn't mean I'm going to like what they say.

I have copies of the Dover reprint scores for the first three operas, and eventually would like to get _Götterdämmerung_, too, but it's not a huge priority. I can read music but have not done so regularly in a long time. I never took a class in music theory, though I was always better at understanding how music worked than performing it. So I'm doing well when I can follow along with the music; I'm not going to come to any different conclusions from minor variations in the score (especially since the Ring operas have, to my understanding, fewer variations/controversial portions than many other works.

But I looked in one of the books on the Ring I have here, _Wagner's Ring: A Listener's Companion & Concordance_ by J. K. Holman (1996).

In the introduction he talks about sources, and does an overview of options. There was a translation in the late 19th century by Frederick Jameson, largely unused today. He mentions the Porter translation, "Porter modestly notes that his translation 'was made for singing, acting, and hearing, not for reading.'" He mentions the Spencer and that "Spencer's work may well emerge as the standard translation." (Again this book came out in 1996, just 3 years after Spencer's was published). The translations used in Holman's book are by Lionel Salter (1968-1970), except for William Mann's for The Valkyrie (1967). He notes that these translations accompanied many of the major released sets in the late 60s (starting with the Karajan on DG) through (at least) the 80s.

Incidentally I found this an interesting book, and a useful resource, but there was also quite a few things I disagreed with.

And, before moving on, I just want cover this part specifically:



JosefinaHW said:


> Second: If all of us are using different translations (including the translations of the subtitles in the various languages--who did those? What were their sources?); or even if one of us is using three different translations at the same time/obviously, pausing the performance to compare? We really could be getting very different meanings.


I never assume that DVD or in-house subtitles are complete. They are often done to convey the jist, not to reproduce every word. With many DVDs (and in some houses like the Metropolitan Opera and Komische Oper Berlin) you can select the language put on screen (or seatback screen); if you pick the original language is (in my experience) rarely complete.

So yeah, if people are only paying attention to subtitles, they're going to have some wrong impressions. But most of us know better.

I really think people should, similarly, know better regarding translations. For just one example, how many people have the mistaken impression that the Ring has conflicting stories of how Wotan lost his eye due to taking Porter's singing translation too seriously?

To be clear, I think it's great when people read translations and I do so regularly. Maybe it's a low bar, but I'm glad when people actually read/consult libretti, rather than making stuff up (or entirely dismissing the worthiness of considering what happens in an opera and how it works). Last summer I had a long public transportation ride to see _Pelléas et Mélisande_; I read the libretto along the way. It may not have been a perfect translation, but I don't read French. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on the opera now, but I certainly benefited from reading the translation regardless.

But yeah, we should still understand that the German (for Wagner) is the original text. (I typically include the German, too when I'm quoting the libretto here).


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> Thank you, again, for taking all this time to clarify this for me, B! Again, I'm thinking about how you try to determine what Wagner is trying to say in these operas, starting from the most brief lines of the text (Yes, I know the music is talking as well, but....this is already complicated enough).
> 
> Your smaller-sized Tristan and Parsifal scores (and an earlier version of Die Meister) are translated by someone different than Spencer and Porter? So, when you reflect on the text of the operas do you look at all the different translations and try to reconcile them in your mind somehow? I would imagine that you already have learned a great deal/most of the German as well by now. Getting a better sense of the Victorian meaning from specialized dictionaries and knowledge of the language of the literature Wagner used in the creation of his texts.....
> 
> ...


I have had a look at my two smaller full study scores that have translations on the vocal line. The Parsifal translation is by Margaret H. Glyn and the Tristan is by H. & F. Corder. Haven't googled them yet to see their provenance.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner never explained himself or his work to the last degree of philosophical explicitness. The operas don't express thoroughgoing philosophical systems and aren't intended to. The _Ring_ in particular underwent many changes over the 25 years Wagner worked on it; his conception changed, in particular, after he read Schopenhauer and composed _Tristan_ and Die _Meistersinger._ He was always wary of allowing his libretti to become didactic, wanting his symbols and his music to say what needed to be said without the constraint of explicit ideology.
> 
> I do believe that in the _Ring_ Wagner uses myth to symbolize the end of myth as a controlling power in human life. The end of the gods and their world is adumbrated several times during the cycle, most dramatically when Brunnhilde is stripped of her godhood and made a human woman. As such, she is the one who finally has the power to bring the old order to its end in an act of love - which, if all goes well, will be the moral engine of the world to come.
> 
> As far as Erda is concerned, she was never the source of life, or an "earth mother" in the sense of a fertility goddess. Maybe she was the equivalent of the subconscious mind, into which Wotan, the conscious intellect, made occasional deep dives. Just a thought that occurs to me. In any case the whole primeval cosmos they represented had to give way.


Adumbrated? Ooooh, someone has been reading a dictionary for fun and profit!:lol:

I had to reach for my Concise Oxford for that one!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Barbebleu said:


> Adumbrated? I had to reach for my Concise Oxford for that one!


Adumbrate = The act of ranking something as stupid


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> This isn't something I've really concerned myself with. I'm not doing scholarship on the Ring; I'm discussing it with friends and/or people on the internet. I try to be thoughtful and humble, but I don't need everything to be precise, and I'm happy to discuss it, no matter what level they are at. And even if someone has used the best possible sources that doesn't mean I'm going to like what they say.
> 
> I have copies of the Dover reprint scores for the first three operas, and eventually would like to get _Götterdämmerung_, too, but it's not a huge priority. I can read music but have not done so regularly in a long time. I never took a class in music theory, though I was always better at understanding how music worked than performing it. So I'm doing well when I can follow along with the music; I'm not going to come to any different conclusions from minor variations in the score (especially since the Ring operas have, to my understanding, fewer variations/controversial portions than many other works.
> 
> ...


TY, I've read your post and will respond later.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> As of this moment, I can't imagine a singer being able to convey any particular interpretation of a complex word such as "knowledge" or "wisdom."
> 
> I think you have accumulated an enormous amount of knowledge about the text already to then be able to "read" the singer's interpretation.


I think a really good singer/actor can convey a tremendous amount even to a single word. I shall give an example. In the Furtwangler Rome Ring, Götterdämmerung, Act III, Scene 2, in the passage where Hagen (sung here by Josef Greindl) exhorts Siegfried to tell the men about his younger days and Siegfried agrees and says:
"Dankst du es mir,
So sing ich dir Mären
Aus meinen jungen Tagen."

Gunther replies:
"Dich hör ich gern."

And Hagen says:
"So singe, Held!"

There is a little pause between singe and Held and Greindl observes the tiny pause and then imbues the word Held with a world of contempt and disdain. Hagen is really saying that to everyone else you are acknowledged as a hero, but not to me.
To my ears it is an extraordinary piece of vocalisation and reinforces my belief that emotion can be delivered to any word or phrase if the artist is good enough.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I think a really good singer/actor can convey a tremendous amount even to a single word. I shall give an example. In the Furtwangler Rome Ring, Götterdämmerung, Act III, Scene 2, in the passage where Hagen (sung here by Josef Greindl) exhorts Siegfried to tell the men about his younger days and Siegfried agrees and says:
> "Dankst du es mir,
> So sing ich dir Mären
> Aus meinen jungen Tagen."
> ...


I am very excited to hear that emotion can be delivered to any word or phrase and that it is possible for the listener to hear it.

Things are starting to come together in my collection:

1. I recently purchased the Furt Rome Ring! (I got a real bargain on The Legacy Box Set! and that includes the Rome Ring.)

2. I own the Barenboim Ring and I am in the process of watching Gotterd.

3. Prior to switching to the Barenboim I was just beginning Gotterd. in the LePage Gotterd. with Hagen: Hans-Peter Konig

4. I also have access to the Met's Otto Schenk (?) with Hagen: Matti Salminen

The Met also has 4 live audio-only recordings:

1. Apr 22, 2000 Hagen: Eric Halvarson
2. Mar 2, 1957 Hagen: Lurt Bohme
3. Jan. 27 1962 Hagen: Gottlob Frick
4. Jan. 11, 1936 Hagen: Friedrich Schorr

Although this may sound like a military plan of action, my plan at the moment is:

1. Finish the Barenboim Gotterd..
2. Finish the LePlage Gotterd.
3. Watch the Schorr Gotterd.

Then listen to the Furt. Rome Ring.

Other suggestions would be gladly welcomed.

FYI, Pianoville sent me a PM and very graciously has given us permission to also discuss Die Meister and scores, translations, etc..


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

JosefinaHW said:


> The Met also has 4 live audio-only recordings:
> 
> 1. Apr 22, 2000 Hagen: Eric Halvarson
> 2. Mar 2, 1957 Hagen: Lurt Bohme
> ...


Schorr sang Gunther in that performance. The Hagen was Ludwig Hoffmann.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Listen to the Goodall Ring ... While is a singing translation rather than a literal one, Goodall spent a LOT of time getting his singers and orchestra to communicate the essence of the story. Yes it is slow but the ear (or most ears) do adjust. It is well worth the time.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

JosefinaHW said:


> This is a very interesting idea: dreaming, brooding, while sleeping could definitely convey a certain understanding of the subconscious. I do not share (yet?) your respect for Wotan. He isn't wise at all; he doesn't even understand the basics of a situation; he contradicts himself repeatedly; he acts directly on emotion frequently. But again, I'll leave it here.


I agree with Josefina's observations, yet at the same time I find Woodduck's heartfelt thoughts on the character of Wotan very helpful in understanding the work. For myself, I consider the question of "respect for Wotan" very much an open question - particularly open since I am seeing Seigfried on May 2 (where I will meet a new performer, not Greer Grimsley, as Wotan the Wanderer). Am I correct, though, in seeing Wotan as the most complex, ambivalent and central character of the Ring cycle, and as a moral stand-in for Wagner himself? This is the understanding I seem to be gradually coming to of this character.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Becca said:


> Listen to the Goodall Ring ... While is a singing translation rather than a literal one, Goodall spent a LOT of time getting his singers and orchestra to communicate the essence of the story. Yes it is slow but the ear (or most ears) do adjust. It is well worth the time.


An interesting exercise is to listen to the Goodall Ring while following along and reading the Spencer translation. Between the two, I think you get a very effective sense of the text.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> I agree with Josefina's observations, yet at the same time I find Woodduck's heartfelt thoughts on the character of Wotan very helpful in understanding the work. For myself, I consider the question of "respect for Wotan" very much an open question - particularly open since I am seeing Seigfried on May 2 (where I will meet a new performer, not Greer Grimsley, as Wotan the Wanderer). Am I correct, though, in seeing Wotan as the most complex, ambivalent and central character of the Ring cycle, and as a moral stand-in for Wagner himself? This is the understanding I seem to be gradually coming to of this character.


I would certainly agree in the assessment of Wotan as "the most complex, ambivalent and central character of the Ring cycle." The only possible competitor is Brünnhilde, who makes some ethically challenged decisions of her own. A moral stand-in for Wagner? Possibly, but it's hard to match that up with Wotan's nearly complete absence from Götterdämmerung.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> I agree with Josefina's observations, yet at the same time I find Woodduck's heartfelt thoughts on the character of Wotan very helpful in understanding the work. For myself, I consider the question of "respect for Wotan" very much an open question - particularly open since I am seeing Seigfried on May 2 (where I will meet a new performer, not Greer Grimsley, as Wotan the Wanderer). Am I correct, though, in seeing Wotan as the most complex, ambivalent and central character of the Ring cycle, and as a moral stand-in for Wagner himself? This is the understanding I seem to be gradually coming to of this character.


I think Wagner saw himself in nearly all his characters, and his empathy with them makes them interesting. He's on record as saying that he loved even his villains, and I think it shows in the sympathetic (even if only slightly sympathetic) moments he gives them and in their sense of being justified by the wrongs they've been dealt. Villains like Ortrud, Alberich and Klingsor have a certain nobility, at least in their own eyes, in the way they affirm their dignity in the face of the world's scorn; they are almost heroic in their pursuit of their own ideals, however perverted those ideals are. Even Hagen, whose evil actions seem entirely unjustified, has that odd moment when, urged on in the quest to reclaim the ring by his father Alberich, he confesses to being "never happy." Wagner could never have created a slimy monster like Scarpia or a cynical manipulator like Iago.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> Am I correct, though, in seeing Wotan as the most complex, ambivalent and central character of the Ring cycle....


wkasimer: Thank you for the correction Becca: Thank you for the recommendatiion

I am extremely fatigued this evening so I'm not going to attempt to express many of my questions and thoughts re/ The Ring tonight. There is ONE thing, though, that keeps coming into my mind and it did right from the first time I watched the scene with the Rhinemaidens/daughters and Alberich:

If those Rhine-whatevers (Yes, I am having difficulty being compassionate towards them) had treated Alberich kindly; welcomed him politely; MOST DEFINITELY NOT have mocked him so *mercilessly* (and that is a gross understatement); the ENTIRE chain of events would (could) have been completely different. Alberich really was a complete innocent when he first observed the Rhine-whatevers.

A single act of kindness could have changed the course of the entire universe for the better!

I feel and think this very strongly.

(Goodnight, Everyone.)


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

gardibolt said:


> An interesting exercise is to listen to the Goodall Ring while following along and reading the Spencer translation. Between the two, I think you get a very effective sense of the text.


Ah yes, that would be an excellent thing to do. Now how many years until I retire? Well, if I live long enough I may find the time.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Ah yes, that would be an excellent thing to do. Now how many years until I retire? Well, if I live long enough I may find the time.


LOL! It is extraordinary how The Ring can swirl you up (or down) or both at the same time. I'm posting from my phone because I'm too tired to sit in my chair but I told my mother not to worry about waking me up 'cause I'll be listening to five versions of this 15 hour opera series. L


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

^^^ Horror! "A slimy monster like Scarpia"?!?! No, no, no, no, no. His voice type is gorgeous! His music is gorgeous! He lives in a breathtaking palace that has a torture chamber right in the basement! The only thing wrong w him is his lousy taste in women!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> If those Rhine-whatevers (Yes, I am having difficulty being compassionate towards them) had treated Alberich kindly; welcomed him politely; MOST DEFINITELY NOT have mocked him so *mercilessly* (and that is a gross understatement); the ENTIRE chain of events would (could) have been completely different. Alberich really was a complete innocent when he first observed the Rhine-whatevers.
> 
> *A single act of kindness could have changed the course of the entire universe for the better!
> *


The _Ring_ isn't about the course of the universe. It's about the development of humanity from ignorance to wisdom.

To feel compassion for the _Rheintochter_ would be inappropriate. They are not human. They represent Nature. If, in terms of Wagner's allegory, they had granted Alberich's wishes, human consciousness would never have risen above animal instinct, the neonate would have suckled mindlessly at the breast of Mother Nature forever, and there would have been no story to tell.

The mermaids did what Nature does. Nature is beautiful but cruel; she seduces but does not indulge, and she seems to toy with the infant who cannot fathom her reasons. The child must be weaned: the parent must forbid it the dependency it wants. Denied the breast, the baby will scream in hurt and rage, he will throw a tantrum, he will experience hate - and with his rebellion against Nature he will gain his first taste of freedom and autonomy. Thus consciousness will begin its perilous journey toward autonomy and wisdom.

The story of Alberich's rebellion should ring a bell with us in the West. The original sin of Adam was a similar declaration of autonomy. In traditional theology man's act of disobedience has been called the "felix culpa" - the "blessed fault" - because it brought about the Redemption. But in modern psychological terms, it can be seen as "blessed" because it freed man from ignorance and dependency and set him on a course of growth toward self-knowledge. Alberich's act of defiance was also a "felix culpa," but whereas in the Biblical tale the motivation is located in some supposed flaw in man, who is condemned for rejecting his blissful dependency on a creator depicted as a loving parent, in Wagner's story the parent is Nature, and it's the parent who rejects man's infantile yearning for dependency, thus triggering his own act of rebellion and freeing him to become an adult. Wagner doesn't show us a happy automaton's willful Fall from some imagined Eden. He shows us ourselves, born into a universe in which the garden of bliss is an illusion which turns into a patch of thorns if we try to hold onto it, and which we must reject, at whatever the cost to ourselves and others, in order to become ourselves.

As I've often mentioned on the forum, Wagner tells this primal tale of human becoming once again in _Parsifal._


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

There is way too much in your post to respond to w one typing finger and I have to think more about it, but:

1. What I meant by universe is life on planet earth. I don't think Wagner's Ring is exclusively about humanity and I definitely do not think the developmental process is limited to ignorance and wisdom. As you said the Rhinetochter are not human, neither is Alberich, but I still think they are concrete beings in the story. Not just a symbol of nature or a human infant. They are just too real in the story. And Alberich's first attraction to the RHine-ettes is not lust it is the awareness of another, then others. He is like Siegfried looking for companionship. Had companionship been offered Alberich might not have stolen the gold and cursed all of life. I get a sense that Wagner oved nature (all nature lovers know that life can be viewed as cruel--but it's not malicious, deliberately planned cruelty. And it doesn't lack an order and intelligence: it lacks empathy, agapic love, compassion.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

^^^ a great line from a great movie: Yes there is order and hierarchies in nature, but.nature does not humiliate.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

I think Woodduck and JosefinaHW are presenting two different overall conceptions of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle. These two opposing ways to understand it cannot be reconciled, and both are valid in their own ways.

I see Woodduck's interpretation as an existential one. The events of the Ring cycle are a necessary rite of passage for the human race. Though this chain of events begins with mistakes and folly, it ends with humanity being "born" in all its freedom - and it is this freedom that defines our cosmic purpose in the universe. And yes, as Woodduck suggests, this does offer parallels with the Book of Genesis, which Wagner must have been aware of.

But, as valid and persuasive as this interpretation is, no literary form is limited to a single possible interpretation. The idea that all the mistakes and crimes of the Ring are cosmically good and necessary is compelling and fascinating, but it's also frustrating and unsatisfying in the sense that these four operas take us through all the emotions of all these events, and we feel the agony and anger and pain - so it's a bit frustrating to be told "it's okay, it's just the cosmos giving birth to humanity". We are inside it. We don't want to know that it's okay. We feel what the characters feel.

So - I think both of these conceptions of the Ring are valid, and both stand on their own. And both were (I'm guessing) intended as possible interpretations by Wagner. But the two different conceptions cannot co-exist, and we shouldn't be surprised that we can't make them agree.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> *I think Woodduck and JosefinaHW are presenting two different overall conceptions of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle. These two opposing ways to understand it cannot be reconciled, and both are valid in their own ways.
> *
> I see Woodduck's interpretation as an existential one. The events of the Ring cycle are a necessary rite of passage for the human race. Though this chain of events begins with mistakes and folly, it ends with humanity being "born" in all its freedom - and it is this freedom that defines our cosmic purpose in the universe. And yes, as Woodduck suggests, this does offer parallels with the Book of Genesis, which Wagner must have been aware of.
> 
> ...


Not so fast, marceliostein.

Neither I nor JosefinaHW have presented an "overall conception of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle." I have to say here that I don't have such an overall conception, and I seriously doubt that she does either. I will further assert that Wagner himself did not have a single purpose in mind for his epic. And, finally, there is no reason why a variety of interpretations of the work should not co-exist happily.

The capacity to make us look at reality from more than a single standpoint is, I think, virtually a defining criterion of greatness in art. It's a criterion that Wagner's works fulfill triumphantly.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Neither I nor JosefinaHW have presented an "overall conception of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle." I have to say here that I don't have such an overall conception, and I seriously doubt that she does either. I will further assert that Wagner himself did not have a single purpose in mind for his epic. And, finally, there is no reason why a variety of interpretations of the work should not co-exist happily.


I think we agree that, yes, different interpretations of the work can co-exist happily. For sure!

I'm a little skeptical when you say you have not presented an overall conception of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle. I have read your words here. While you have a right to say that you have not presented a *conclusive and complete* overall conception, it is actually not for you to say what your words add up to for any reader. I have read your words, and appreciated them, and from my point of view you certainly have presented an overall conception of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle. It's here for all of us to see. We may be splitting hairs here, though.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

JosefinaHW said:


> I am extremely fatigued this evening so I'm not going to attempt to express many of my questions and thoughts re/ The Ring tonight. There is ONE thing, though, that keeps coming into my mind and it did right from the first time I watched the scene with the Rhinemaidens/daughters and Alberich:
> 
> If those Rhine-whatevers (Yes, I am having difficulty being compassionate towards them) had treated Alberich kindly; welcomed him politely; MOST DEFINITELY NOT have mocked him so *mercilessly* (and that is a gross understatement); the ENTIRE chain of events would (could) have been completely different. *Alberich really was a complete innocent* when he first observed the Rhine-whatevers.
> 
> ...


Where do you get the impression that Alberich was innocent? Is he honorable with the Rhinedaughters, or does his attention wander from one to the other, heaping praises until they dismiss him when his words turn to scorn. And when the Rhinegold is first mentioned, Alberich does not care as he doesn't see how it would help him. It's only once he realizes that with the Rhinegold he could control people and pay for sex does he decide to steal it. This isn't the first time Alberich has tried to get the attention of women (or vaguely women-like creatures), and I'm convinced it's not the first time he turned nasty as soon as he saw he wasn't going to get his way. It's just the first time he was explicitly given a chance to give up love for power, and took it. Someone who was completely innocent ten minutes ago would not make that choice.

Now maybe the Rhinedaughters didn't have to teach him a lesson. Perhaps if they were respectful and said no clearly Alberich would have gone on his way, but I don't think so. He just goes so quickly to "Gefall' ich dir nicht, dich fass' ich doch fest!" ("Although you don't like me, I still hold you tight.") I can't say they're deft judges of character, but it seems to me like even they could see through him. Alberich was already selfish and cruel.

Similarly, Alberich is not the first threat to Wotan and the gods. When we meet them their new fortress is already completed. Valhalla was not built as defense against Alberich's power, but because of prior threats. There was already conflict in the world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> I think we agree that, yes, different interpretations of the work can co-exist happily. For sure!
> 
> I'm a little skeptical when you say you have not presented an overall conception of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle. I have read your words here. While you have a right to say that you have not presented a *conclusive and complete* overall conception, it is actually not for you to say what your words add up to for any reader. I have read your words, and appreciated them, and from my point of view you certainly have presented an overall conception of the meaning and purpose of the Ring cycle. It's here for all of us to see. *We may be splitting hairs here, though.*


I wouldn't say we're splitting hairs. You're defining what you mean by an "overall conception," and apparently saying that by "overall" you don't mean, as I took you to mean, "comprehensive" (i.e., inclusive of all aspects of the work). In that case I can't guess what you intend for the word to include. Maybe it should be used only for a one-piece denim garment with shoulder straps worn by farmers. 

In any event, I haven't noticed that JosefinaHW has enunciated any conception of the _Ring_ at all, or that she has intended to do so. Sympathy for Alberich and dislike of the Rhinemaidens, and speculation on how the whole rest of the story would have been different if they'd indulged his desires, isn't a view of what Wagner wrote but of what else he might have written. We might consider what any work of art, or anything at all, would be if it were not what it is, but our imaginings wouldn't constitute a conception of it. A conception of the _Ring_ would seek to explain not "What if it were different?" but "Why is it as it is?".

When I say that I don't have an overall - I'd rather say "comprehensive" - conception of the _Ring,_ I mean only that my basic conception of it as an allegory of the growth of human consciousness, moral consciousness in particular, isn't intended to account for every detail of the work (at least, I'm not aware that it does). However I do think it explains more of it than any other interpretation I'm familiar with. It certainly is a fundamental theme of the story - more fundamental, I think, than the commonly offered one of "love versus power," and similar to - or maybe inclusive of - the other theme I've suggested, which Marshall Tuttle has described as "the birth pangs of a free and conscious humanity liberated from stultifying and constrictive mythology." That this view of the work is indeed the most fundamental one is strongly supported by the strikingly parallel themes to be found in _Parsifal,_ which has been called "the fifth opera of the _Ring._"


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Warm Greetings, Everyone!

For me, there are too many different conservation topics being discussed at the same time in the last several posts. I could respond to "x" number of statements made thus far, but that would not be helpful to me and I don't think it would be helpful to anyone else either.

The following is a FIRST draft of grouping the discussion into larger themes:

1. There are symbolic meanings of The Ring Cycle as an entirety. 

2. There are symbolic meanings on a much smaller-scale in the operas of The Ring, such as:

a. There is/are a symbolic meaning(s) of an individual character as he/she appears through the entirety of their presence in The Ring.

b. There are symbolic meanings of an individual character in smaller units: a single scene, a part of a scene


3. There are individual characters in The Ring that should be respected as, thought about as, "real" characters with "real" emotions, spoken words with some intentional meaning. Even though mermaids, giants and dragons don't exist in my world, for the sake of really participating in the story, we should treat them, as real beings with consciousness and emotions.

Personally, I do not (yet) have any complex and coherent understanding at any of the above levels. I'm here in this thread to see what WE ALL can learn from each other.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Mountmccabe, I now owe you two responses. I haven't forgotten either of them. Re/ the scores, I already had the Dover Scores for the first three operas of The Ring. I am now awaiting the arrival of one of Urtext scores that Barbebleu showed me. Until I receive it and then compare it I'm not able to respond to your first post. The Alberich post I need to watch, listen and re-read carefully. I'd like to continue this conversation at a more general level if that's okay with everyone else.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> From my previous post:
> 
> The following is a FIRST draft of grouping the discussion into larger themes:
> 
> ...


Of course I would like to hear others' thoughts about the above, but in my mind the next important question that's been asked thus far in this thread is *whether all these levels of interpretation and meaning can live happily together*.

This MIGHT be a question for each individual member.

First and foremost, how well does one compartmentalize? How well does someone deal with having in their mind completely different and contradictory ideas?

How comfortable is one with SEVERE ambiguity?

Maybe until the last few months/weeks, I disliked mythology and poetry. As I've said before they both are inherently contradictory and ambiguous. I don't delight in words for the sake of words (except with Shakespeare--his works are in a pantheon all by themselves). So, my gut reaction is to say that for me all these levels are not happily going to co-exist in my mind. But,....

I find myself open now to just entering the operas: okay, for the sake of getting the most out of these things, believe in dragons, magic potions, magic swords, gnomes/dwarfs, etc., etc..... I still don't know if that change in my approach is going to enable me to happily exist with contradictions.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I've always found that the worlds of fantasy and sci-fi held a fascination for me as do the worlds of music and literature. All of them are for me, an escape from the stresses of everyday life and plunging into an opera is no different from reading Shakespeare, George R. R. Martin, watching Black Panther or listening to John Coltrane. Each of them gives me a vehicle in which I can see other worlds that excite me, make me laugh, make me cry, make me think and basically run the gamut of human emotion. Sometimes it's nice to look a little deeper into why exactly they cause those things and this is why we have these discussion forums.

Having said that I don't feel it necessary to believe in the worlds they conjure up but it's nice to escape even for a short time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Myths, and works of art that draw on mythical sources and are expressed through archetypal symbols, are not things that require us to believe in anything. They speak to parts of us that existed before we were capable of belief, parts deeper than the level of empirical evidence and logical demonstration. That's why contradictory - or at least different - interpretations of mythical stories are more than acceptable. I say "more than," because the more we can be open to having our thoughts and feelings sent off into multiple and seemingly unrelated dimensions of reality, the richer will be our experience, not merely of the works of art, but of ourselves and of human nature in general.

Wagner's _Ring,_ a synthetic myth created out of ancient material by a modern poet-composer in a post-mythical era, has a range of philosophical, political, psychological, religious, and aesthetic meanings that will resonate differently with different people, but can all be entertained together if we can first get the conscious mind out of the way of the emotional-intuitive responses which come naturally to children but are often blunted or lost in adulthood except, perhaps, in dreams.

Myths are the collective dreams of the human race, and the _Ring_ has been called "the dream we've never dreamed."


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ....Wagner's _Ring,_ a synthetic myth created out of ancient material by a modern poet-composer in a post-mythical era, has a range of philosophical, political, psychological, religious, and aesthetic meanings that will resonate differently with different people, but *can all be entertained together if we can first get the conscious mind out of the way of the emotional-intuitive responses*......"


I think the idea expressed by the text I bolded is very possible and I think/suspect that Wagner constructed his theater and chose to compose very lengthy operas to help us to get out of our conscious mind. All darkness in the beginning; orchestra and conductor not visible; mist surrounding the audience (all the time?). It would have probably helped if the theater temperature set would be set not too extreme to become focused on that. Instead of trying to prevent audience members from falling asleep by using uncomfortable seats it, cushy seats with plenty of leg room would help people to get relaxed to the point of forgetting themselves and their aches.

Right in our own homes, we can prepare ourselves the same way and relaxed-ly/non-judgmentally bring our minds and bodies back to being swept up by the music when we notice ourselves thinking too much or our minds wandering elsewhere.

This said I think that we probably have to approach these works many different ways at different times. Losing ourselves in it sometimes; focusing on the vocal line and the meaning of what is being sung another time, focusing on the music and what is going on with that, etc., etc..

Interesting.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I do not want to monopolize this thread.

1. I could go on just outlining what I think are the order of and the subjects that were addressed in the latest posts of this thread.

2. I could wait 12-18 hours or so to let people from different time zones comment on what already has been summarized.

or

3. Jump ahead of the outline and ask a question I am dying to ask about freedom, Siegfried, and magic potions.

This is my first poll. :lol:

If you don't want to answer, that's ok, but PLEASE do not be SEVERELY AND DISTRESSINGLY ambiguous and just click LIKE. I have a magic spell for anyone who does that.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Go directly to 3.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't say we're splitting hairs. You're defining what you mean by an "overall conception," and apparently saying that by "overall" you don't mean, as I took you to mean, "comprehensive" (i.e., inclusive of all aspects of the work). In that case I can't guess what you intend for the word to include. Maybe it should be used only for a one-piece denim garment with shoulder straps worn by farmers.


Fair enough - and let me clarify that, since we're talking about a massive multi-part work, I used the word "overall" just to mean that your theory takes into account *all* of the Ring cycle, from the beginning to the end. Your scope is the whole cycle - thus, "overall". The word "comprehensive", on the other hand, would seem to suggest completeness in the sense of saying everything that needs to be said. Okay, enough words about words - onward.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

@JoeSaunders I like you so much I've sent you a magical potion that will the reverse the spell. I have sent it to you by way of my beloved wing-ed woodchuck.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Excerpt from my Post #91

"If those Rhine-whatevers (Yes, I am having difficulty being compassionate towards them) had treated Alberich kindly; welcomed him politely; MOST DEFINITELY NOT have mocked him so *mercilessly* (and that is a gross understatement); the ENTIRE chain of events would (could) have been completely different. Alberich really was a complete innocent when he first observed the Rhine-whatevers.

A single act of kindness could have changed the course of the entire universe for the better!"

Excerpt of Response from Mountmccabe Post "96.



mountmccabe said:


> *Where do you get the impression that Alberich was innocent?* Is he honorable with the Rhinedaughters, or does his attention wander from one to the other, heaping praises until they dismiss him when his words turn to scorn. And when the Rhinegold is first mentioned, Alberich does not care as he doesn't see how it would help him. It's only once he realizes that with the Rhinegold he could control people and pay for sex does he decide to steal it. *This isn't the first time Alberich has tried to get the attention of women (or vaguely women-like creatures)*,...."
> 
> My response (and I'm sorry but it is lengthy):
> 
> ...


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

JosefinaHW said:


> My response (and I'm sorry but it is lengthy):
> 
> I meant morally innocent; i.e., he doesn't have an adult's knowledge of what is right or wrong and therefore isn't acting malicious deliberately.
> 
> ...


This is an interesting take. It does fit with the conception of the Ring as about the growth of consciousness. I think it takes it way too far, and just doesn't fit with the character of Alberich that we see. As I said in my post, "Someone who was completely innocent ten minutes ago would not make that choice." (I went on, as I do).

Similarly, I love the imagery of the prelude of _Das Rheingold_, but there's a lot in those 4 minutes. This bit with the Rhinedaughters isn't the start of this world; a lot of Wagner's world-building posits a lot of history for these characters, and ignoring that discards layers to these characters.

I need to rewatch the Kupfer Ring from Bayreuth; it's really wonderful. I'm not going to ever really take seriously ideas from any particular production, though (or at least not without considering them against the text, etc). If I took the Kupfer Ring at face value I'd have to conclude that Der Wanderer controls the woodbird in _Siegfried_.

At any rate, "First we see him crawl up into a space that is not enveloped in water--he's climbed up out of the sea with newly-evolved legs" is quite curious. Perhaps that's was Kupfer's idea. It's quite interesting, figuratively, but it doesn't fit, literally. And I don't think it was Wagner's idea.

The stage directions say: "Meanwhile Alberich as emerged from a dark gully below and climbed up to one of the rocky ledges" (from the Spencer translation; I don't have the German text at hand). He's not coming from the water; he's coming from Nibelheim. We don't know who his parents are, but we do know his brother. And once Alberich gets the Ring he goes back to Nibelheim and abuses his brother (and the other Nibelungs). He has a history.

As for his approach to the Rhinedaughters, I agree that they don't start out explicitly sexual. But that is often the case, when men approach women in such a predatory manner. In fact Alberich's actions here strike me as very familiar. Flitting from target to target, turning on them as soon as he realizes he's not going to be successful. And he curses love as soon as gets the Ring. Again, I don't see someone who just found out that love is a thing would go there that quickly. And if this is his first explore to female creatures, why is his plan already to buy sex from them? That's some advanced gross nonsense.

Alberich didn't understand that the Rhinedaughters were fooling with him because he's not that bright. (See how easily Loge goads him into being caught). This is why he was genuinely upset when he realized Floßhilde was fooling, too.

Alberich the innocent, doesn't, for me, make any sense with his callousness, and the depths to which his cruelty goes, enslaving his brother, cursing love and then Ring. I get the impression that he has pursued women before from how he treats the Rhinedaughters, and that he does have a history (a brother, and the other Nibelungs).

But one other curious thing, if we do posit that Alberich is innocent... then why not give that same consideration to the Rhinedaughters? They haven't even emerged from the water! Why do they get judgement rather than compassion?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Mountmccabe, thank you for taking the time to reflect on what I said: I appreciate that particularly because I knew when I said about the aquatic animal using his new feet to climb out of the water that you and anyone else reading this would think I blew my last working fuse. I know we bring our own knowledge and thoughts to any work and we have to be careful about that because it's quite possible that some theory wasn't FORMALLY published until much later. BUT, I remember as a very young kid in the bathtub, I thought "Wow, I look like a frog from the head down. Could Wagner not have noticed the same thing? I'm not going to explore this idea any further, at least at the moment, but it is there to see. 

I hate to keep saying to you, "Wait, wait, wait, I have to listen more; I have to take more notes; I have to compare production to production," BUT I DO. There are SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS from line to line that I need to take comprehensive notes of the full cycle for many cycles. It would be wasting YOUR time if I didn't!

I will say a few things here:

1. The only two that are somewhat swift in Das Rheingold are Loge and Erda. Tell me, who the hell is Loge? He's half "human" and half god, yet he is fire, he's deceptive and mean. What exactly is he and what is his origin? So, as to not being too swift, I think that is an excellent argument in itself to say that they ALL need to grow and develop. Wagner was going to write a poem and compose music for an entire cast of characters that is that backward? I don't believe that, yet.

2. As to the opening scene being the beginning of the world. Again, at this moment, I really think that time is collapsed/compacted/what is the correct word? here. As I said, I need to take comprehensive notes all the way through several cycles, but who is the Father of the Rhintochter?! It's not Wotan. He knows NEXT to nothing about them and the gold! It's this great discovery for him about the gold, the ring and what it could do for him? So Wotan, god of gods, doesn't know too much, so why couldn't that first scene be the creation of the world?

You are right. I am much more sympathetic to Alberich and I really dislike the Rheinmaidens. Is it just my own personal history and thoughts that are provoking that reaction in me? Girls play a lot meaner than boys, in general. I cannot answer that with 99% confidence, yet, but I'm about 80% there. It is such an incredibly STRIKING thing to see in the first scene of a long, epic opera cycle: females being mercilessly nasty to Alberich. Really think about that. You are composing a very lengthy epic and the first scene is down right nasty.

I had started to read a bit of other authors' commentaries before I had watched and listened carefully. One of them was G. K. Chesterton. I put aside all those books after a few pages: what the authors were saying was ridiculous to me. A lot of people praise Chesterton for his wit, well, I already knew he was a nasty, piece of work from other texts, BUT Chesterton says the Rhinemaidens mock Alberich mercilessly--if Chesterton crawled out from under his rock long enough to say that with such emphasis, that's almost 100% proof that one of the most non-sensitive and compassionate people on earth observe it as well. (and I'm really not one for arguing on the basis of some authority)


I'm not trying to avoid you or hard questions, but I really must listen on and take a lot more notes.

Thank you very much for your patience! And I am extremely grateful that you are open (and brave) enough to challenge me!

:cheers:


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

JosefinaHW said:


> Mountmccabe, thank you for taking the time to reflect on what I said: I appreciate that particularly because I knew when I said about the aquatic animal using his new feet to climb out of the water that you and anyone else reading this would think I blew my last working fuse. I know we bring our own knowledge and thoughts to any work and we have to be careful about that because it's quite possible that some theory wasn't FORMALLY published until much later. BUT, I remember as a very young kid in the bathtub, I thought "Wow, I look like a frog from the head down. Could Wagner not have noticed the same thing? I'm not going to explore this idea any further, at least at the moment, but it is there to see.
> 
> I hate to keep saying to you, "Wait, wait, wait, I have to listen more; I have to take more notes; I have to compare production to production," BUT I DO. There are SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS from line to line that I need to take comprehensive notes of the full cycle for many cycles. It would be wasting YOUR time if I didn't!


I mean, I like watching different productions of the Ring. But I don't think it's necessary to deeply analyze them all to understand the Ring. Or, at least, I think they can only be helpful measured against the text, the score.

I mean, it can be helpful, but not always in the way we might expect. I am really glad I saw Zambello's production of the Ring, in part because I really, really disliked that take on the Ring. For example, seeing a Hunding so brutal reminded me that he's not entirely a monster. Yes, he's cruel to his wife, but he also has a code of honor, at least with other men. That's why he was out defending his kinsmen, and that's why he fed Siegmund (he didn't in the Zambello production) and even still let Siegmund stay in his home. Even if he hadn't been drugged Siegmund would never had had anything to fear from Hunding until the next morning (and Hunding would never consider that Siegmund would attack him in the night, but in the Zambello product Hunding puts a leg chain on his guest). So I saw something that I hadn't before, it felt wrong (in the moment, in the house), and the more I considered it I realized I didn't like it, didn't see it as a faithful (or interesting, even) interpretation. (There probably are people who rate Hunding too highly, but not many, I'd bet).

I think it's rewarding to spend time thinking about the Ring, reading books, articles, and discussing it with people. And yes, watching productions, reading the libretto, studying the score, and so on. But if the goal is to look for elements that support our preconceived notions... that's not going to be fruitful.

You're not wasting my time; I am responding because I want to.



JosefinaHW said:


> I will say a few things here:
> 
> 1. The only two that are somewhat swift in Das Rheingold are Loge and Erda. Tell me, who the hell is Loge? He's half "human" and half god, yet he is fire, he's deceptive and mean. What exactly is he and what is his origin? So, as to not being too swift, I think that is an excellent argument in itself to say that they ALL need to grow and develop. Wagner was going to write a poem and compose music for an entire cast of characters that is that backward? I don't believe that, yet.
> 
> 2. As to the opening scene being the beginning of the world. Again, at this moment, I really think that time is collapsed/compacted/what is the correct word? here. As I said, I need to take comprehensive notes all the way through several cycles, but who is the Father of the Rhintochter?! It's not Wotan. He knows NEXT to nothing about them and the gold! It's this great discovery for him about the gold, the ring and what it could do for him? So Wotan, god of gods, doesn't know too much, so why couldn't that first scene be the creation of the world?


First, I agree that the opening scene *represents* the creation and unfolding of the world. We hear the development of the first leitmotifs that will tell the story. But it is not, literally, in stage time, the creation of the world, followed by the very first beings, the Rhinedaughters. We know they're not the first beings by their title: they are daughters of, well, someone (my answer follows below). And, again, we have pre-dawn to the moment of dawn in scene 1, followed by just after dawn in scene 2... we join that story in the middle, and a story that has a long, long past! Wotan has already won Fricka, Fasolt and Fafner have already built Valhalla. Wotan has already sent Loge on fact-finding mission around the world, so there's even already a world full of beings! And by the time we reach mid-day (scene 3) Alberich has already formed the Ring, and used to make his fellow Nibelungs gather a substantial (Freia-sized, even) horde of gold, and forced his brother to forge the Tarhelm. There must be a gap between Scene 1 and Scene 2 (and 3), so why can't there be a gap (in literal time) between the prelude and Scene 1? That is, I see that four minute prelude as summing up a long, long time. It's poetic to start this with a representation of the beginning of everything, but there's just no time to cover everything and still have a world with a rich backstory such as what we see in _Das Rheingold_.

Speaking of which, Wotan is god of light, air, and the wind. Erda is goddess of the earth (and wisdom and fate). I think that gives us a hint about what to do with Loge (fire) and Vater Rhein (water). We also know that Erda is not quite like Wotan (and Fricka, Donner, and so on). We also know that Wotan used to not what he is in the course of the cycle; he gave up an eye and broke a branch from the World-ash tree to build the power he has now.

This is my own speculation/expansion of this backstory, but I think what we have here are four elemental powers: air, earth, fire, water. Loge even refers to the other three: "in Wasser, Erd' und Luft, lassen will nichts von Lieb' und Weib" (in the context of his search for an out for Wotan with regards to Freia).

At any rate, I think these beings formed from the nothing, starting out largely unconscious, inanimate. Primal. But they grew and evolved, developed personalities. And Wotan, the god of the air, wanted to soar higher, so he gave up an eye. Erda never had that ambition, in part because she was too smart for that. Loge also never quite developed to that level, and he's easily controlled by Wotan (which makes sense, air is important to fire). We don't know much about Vater Rhein in this conception, except that he has three daughters that he left to watch over his gold (and, to be clear, he is not my invention. Vater Rhein isn't in the Ring, but he is in the mythology).

Also, incidentally: Wagner uses Rheintöchter (singular Rheintochter), literally Rhine daughters. The common English translation tends to be Rhinemaidens. I'm not entirely sure why (I don't believe Wagner ever uses Rheinmädchen) and I find it particularly gross, so I don't use it, opting for Rhinedaughters. The Spencer translation also uses Rhinedaughters; this isn't my own translation. And Rhein is the German spelling of the river, Rhine is the English spelling. So _Das Rheingold_ becomes _The Rhinegold_. Die Rheintöchter becomes the Rhinedaughters. It's not terribly important and no matter what spelling/letters are used it's often clear what is meant.



JosefinaHW said:


> You are right. I am much more sympathetic to Alberich and I really dislike the Rheinmaidens. Is it just my own personal history and thoughts that are provoking that reaction in me? Girls play a lot meaner than boys, in general. I cannot answer that with 99% confidence, yet, but I'm about 80% there. It is such an incredibly STRIKING thing to see in the first scene of a long, epic opera cycle: females being mercilessly nasty to Alberich. Really think about that. You are composing a very lengthy epic and the first scene is down right nasty.
> 
> I had started to read a bit of other authors' commentaries before I had watched and listened carefully. One of them was G. K. Chesterton. I put aside all those books after a few pages: what the authors were saying was ridiculous to me. A lot of people praise Chesterton for his wit, well, I already knew he was a nasty, piece of work from other texts, BUT Chesterton says the Rhinemaidens mock Alberich mercilessly--if Chesterton crawled out from under his rock long enough to say that with such emphasis, that's almost 100% proof that one of the most non-sensitive and compassionate people on earth observe it as well. (and I'm really not one for arguing on the basis of some authority)
> 
> ...


I know that girls can be mean, but we don't see that anywhere else in the Ring. And the Rhinedaughters are not mean to each other. They're not mean to Siegfried (though as with Alberich they don't give themselves to Siegfried either, and that seems to be the subtext of all of the criticism of them, why do they have to have agency?!) he's just not in a place where he can give them the Ring.

I haven't read Chesterton on the Ring but that sounds interesting so I will look into it. But I would never call what they do "mercilessly nasty" and in fact would not use either word. And, again, we have to remember who we're dealing with here. Or, rather, what. And I ask, again, why do the Rhinedaughters get judgement rather than compassion? Why are they not moral innocents? They are playful beings and that's what we see them doing before Alberich shows up. They decide to teach him a lesson, but once each has had a turn mocking him, they move on, back to playing in the water and rejoicing in the dawn. They don't torment him further, so I don't see where "merciless" comes from.

And I don't understand calling what they do "nasty" but not applying the same to Alberich, who curses everything he can't have. Who brutalizes his brother, his fellow Nibelungs, and torments his own son.

So we have to opposed visions of the first scene of _Das Rheingold_. Brutal nasty Rhinedaughters torment innocent Alberich, who ends up being cruel to those around him, but it's because he learned it from the Rhinedaughters. Or we have playful Rhinedaughters recognizing Alberich for the cruel creature he is, and having a bit of fun (for them, of course) with him over that. Once they've all but forgotten him he steals their gold and uses it to wreak havoc on those close to him, with plans on using it to conquer everyone else.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I mean, I like watching different productions of the Ring. But I don't think it's necessary to deeply analyze them all to understand the Ring. Or, at least, I think *they can only be helpful measured against the text, **the score.*
> 
> First, I agree that the opening scene represents the creation and unfolding of the world. We hear the development of the first leitmotifs that will tell the story. *But it is not, literally, in stage time, the creation of the world, followed by the very first beings, the Rhinedaughters. *We know they're not the first beings by their title: they are daughters of, well, someone (my answer follows below). And, again, we have pre-dawn to the moment of dawn in scene 1, followed by just after dawn in scene 2... we join that story in the middle, and a story that has a long, long past! Wotan has already won Fricka, Fasolt and Fafner have already built Valhalla. Wotan has already sent Loge on fact-finding mission around the world, so there's even already a world full of beings! And by the time we reach mid-day (scene 3) Alberich has already formed the Ring, and used to make his fellow Nibelungs gather a substantial (Freia-sized, even) horde of gold, and forced his brother to forge the Tarhelm. *There must be a gap between Scene 1 and Scene 2 (and 3), so why can't there be a gap (in literal time) between the prelude and Scene 1?* That is, I see that four minute prelude as summing up a long, long time. It's poetic to start this with a representation of the beginning of everything, but there's just no time to cover everything and still have a world with a rich backstory such as what we see in _Das Rheingold_.
> 
> ...


Good stuff! I agree with most of what you say here. I've put a few of your phrases in bold because they illustrate the wrongheadedness, which you clearly appreciate, of taking Wagner's mythical imagery too literally and of judging his characters as if they were persons in real life. This caution applies to the element of time as well; as you imply, stage time is not mythical time. Mythical events don't necessarily respect chronology; events presented sequentially may well represent things that happen simultaneously in real life, or they may present different aspects of the same real-life event or phenomenon. The symbolic narrative of story and drama exists only to bestow a vividly perceptible reality upon abstract, psychological, and intangible phenomena, and symbolic occurrences don't have to obey the laws of the physical world.

The opening scene of _Rheingold_ conveys the idea and the feeling of a primal world and of a primitive state of consciousness and moral awareness. If we feel that deeply - as I think we can if we're listening to the music - our experience and understanding are scarcely enhanced by speculation on how, or even whether, the humanoid beings that populate this world came into existence (though there's no harm in such speculation as long as we don't let it distort our perception of the work in front of us). All we see and hear is that Alberich is a grotesque creature of darkness ruled by desire, and that the Rhinedaughters are sensuous, playful spirits of water, ruled by pleasure. Both act on the most primitive impulses: Alberich wants the gratification of possessing the nixies, they are incapable of taking his passion seriously, he responds to their rejection by renouncing what he can't get and accepting a substitute that will allow him to act out his rage, and they respond to the theft with cries of woe. It all transpires to music of a marvelous fantasy and lightness of touch; it touches our own primal emotions of delight and fear, but even at the theft of the gold it doesn't aspire to emotional complexity or gravitas. Alberich's crime opens the door to a moral universe, but we don't yet see what's inside, and we won't until we ascend to the airy heights where the gods - guardians of a primitive morality - dwell.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

While Alberich is obvously no prize, the Rhine Daughters have always struck me as gratuitously cruel as well. Is there an admirable character in the entire Ring Cycle? I am having trouble coming up with one, which probably is as it should be.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

gardibolt said:


> While Alberich is obvously no prize, the Rhine Daughters have always struck me as gratuitously cruel as well. Is there an admirable character in the entire Ring Cycle? I am having trouble coming up with one, which probably is as it should be.


I think Siegmund is an admirable and heroic character. He tries to rescue a woman who is being forced into a marriage; and although it brings him pain and loneliness he follows his own mind and isn't afraid to speak it.

Why do you think it should be that we should have difficulty finding an admirable character in _The Ring?_


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

There are admirable characters, but no perfectly admirable characters.
Wagner's characters are complicated creatures, just like real life.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

> Why do you think it should be that we should have difficulty finding an admirable character in The Ring?


Man, this is a tough crowd!

Fricka stands firm for her principles and calls out Wotan on his philandering and and self-deception. We may not agree with her principles, we can be sympathetic with Wotan's desire to escape the strictures of convention and legalism, but Wagner presents both characters non-judgmentally. I agree with mezzo Stephanie Blythe that Fricka should be portrayed as strong and dignified, not as a nag and a killjoy.

Fasolt seems affectionate and tender-hearted. Of course it does him no good.

Siegmund and Sieglinde are both fine individuals if you think the love between soulmates justifies incest and adultery. (In this case I have no problem with it.)

Hunding, like Fricka (who takes his side vis a vis Siegmund), is merely upholding the laws of his culture. And note that he gives Siegmund food and lodging. Sieglinde may not love him, but he isn't necessarily a brute; his music has a rough dignity.

Siegfried spends his time growing up and acts as a boy raised in the forest might be expected to act. His killing of Fafner is not to be held against him; that's what dragons were for in those days, and slaying them was considered heroic. Likewise his killing Mime was simply forest justice, administered just as Mime was offering him poison and unknowingly broadcasting the fact. Later, Siegfried is honorable in upholding his oath of brotherhood, even though he is tricked into betraying his love, for which Brunnhilde forgives him.

Brunnhilde, daughter of Erda'a wisdom, has a loving spirit that sees farther than the legalistic rule of the gods. She is heroic in disobeying Wotan - in acting out what she knows is his deepest desire - by trying to spare Siegmund's life, saving Sieglinde, and facing her father's wrath, and she is courageous again in accepting mortal womanhood. Like Siegfried a victim of treachery, she finally performs the ultimate act of sacrifice which brings the gods' rule to an end and proclaims the transcendent value of love.

Wotan is the self-conscious center of the Ring's "uber-mind," where conventional morality fights with the awareness of the possibility of a morality rooted in love rather than law. The upholder of law, he yearns for freedom from it, and his inability to bring a new moral order into being is his tragedy. In his growing understanding of his limitations and in his abdication in favor of a new world of humanity he attains dignity and redemption.

Those are mostly major characters, but even minor characters - and even villains - have their moments of dignity. A lot like the real world, isn't it?


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

> Brunnhilde, daughter of Erda'a wisdom, has a loving spirit that sees farther than the legalistic rule of the gods. She is heroic in disobeying Wotan - in acting out what she knows is his deepest desire - by trying to spare Siegmund's life, saving Sieglinde, and facing her father's wrath, and she is courageous again in accepting mortal womanhood. Like Siegfried a victim of treachery, she finally performs the ultimate act of sacrifice which brings the gods' rule to an end and proclaims the transcendent value of love.


Well, after conspiring with Hagen to murder Siegfried, yes.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Siegmund and Sieglinde are both fine individuals if you think the love between soulmates justifies incest and adultery. (In this case I have no problem with it.)


What did Wagner say his reasons were for including the theme of incest in _The Ring_?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> What did Wagner say his reasons were for including the theme of incest in _The Ring_?


I don't know what Wagner said about it, but incest is rather common in mythology, and in Wagner's source material Siegmund married his sister. In _Die Walkure_ Siegmund and Sieglinde are portrayed as twins and soulmates, and only Fricka, who symbolizes and upholds the laws of conventional morality against the claims of love, objects to their union.


----------

