# How should we interpret the end of Gotterdammerung?



## Bellerophon (May 15, 2020)

'How are we to interpret the end of Gotterdammerung'?

Percy Scholes in The Oxford Companion to Music concludes his entry on the Ring, 'Valhalla is seen in the distance in flames - final illumination of that twilight of the gods which is now to darken into eternal night'. But I have also heard it suggested that it is the end of the gods only, not of the world, and that Wagner intended this to mark the beginning of a new world of humanity without gods.

Is there any unambiguous record of what Wagner himself intended, or did he intend to leave the question open, or perhaps modify his intentions for the conclusion of the Ring over the twenty plus years of its creation?

Any thoughts would be welcome.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

My take was that it was meant to be the end of the old order and that going forward man was free to forge his own destiny free from the tryanny and machinations of gods.

I'm not great at the interpretation side, I tend to focus on the music and the literal plot rather than looking for full meaning.

I hated writing literature essays at school.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Bellerophon said:


> 'How are we to interpret the end of Gotterdammerung'?


if go by the music, it is doomsday for all -






while gods and heroes leave for nirvana; this motif repeats in the finale -


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

But what does the so called 'redemption through love' motif actually mean? In the libretto doesn't it say that people come emerging out of the shadows at the end. Hence the idea that it's time for a new order to move things forward.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

While we are waiting for Woodduck to share his extensive knowledge, I can explain my own views. For me the human transformation and constant renewing is one of the main topics of the whole _Ring_ cycle. Wagner himself said that that "the development of the whole poem sets forth the necessity of recognising and yielding to the change, the many-sidedness, the multiplicity, the eternal renewing of reality and of life." This is what Wotan finally understands when he wills his own destruction. The great achievement of Wotan's decision was a fearless human being, Siegfried, who united with Brünnhilde becomes the redeemer of the world. It must be kept in mind that in Romantic Germany, the understanding of Eternal Feminine, that was further developed by Goethe, was a very common theme. Wagner even quotes a part of the last verse of _Faust_ when explaining Brünnhilde's sacrifice. Differently from Sieglinde's sacrifice, Brünnhilde's is absolutely conscious and thus more effective - the similarity between Sieglinde's and Brünnhilde's sacrifice is emphasised through Sieglinde's leitmotif that is also called Redemption motif and that is the motif that ends the whole _Ring_. Wagner says that Brünnhilde is the real conscious redeemer of the _Ring_.

Wagner saw Siegfried as the man of future, a man who has never learnt fear and is thus greater than the gods. Wagner writes that when Siegfried encounters the Rhinemaidens, he finally grasps the higher truth and the understanding that death is better than the life of fear. Wotan's life was full of only fears and thus this contrast actually makes sense. From Wagner's letter to Roeckel: "Confess, in the presence of such a being, the splendour of the gods must be dimmed." The need for this destruction is something that arised from Wotan's deepest convictions (Wagner though doesn't exactly explain what he means by these "convictions" as he says that it can be understood by everyone who follows the course of the whole opera and drama with its natural and simple motifs...).

When I read Wagner's letters to Roeckel then I feel that one of the themes that Wagner emphasises through the ending or "end" in general is that this is the requirement for love, one has to create Siegfried who lives fearlessly through love as Wotan did. Wagner points out that the loveless relationship between Wotan and Fricka is a result of their opposition to the universal law of change and renewal. Therefore I feel that the whole _Ring_ is just an example of one step of human transformation among an infinite amount of similar steps. I don't feel it's actually anything definite.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

annaw said:


> While we are waiting for Woodduck to share his extensive knowledge, I can explain my own views. For me the human transformation and constant renewing is one of the main topics of the whole _Ring_ cycle. Wagner himself said that that "the development of the whole poem sets forth the necessity of recognising and yielding to the change, the many-sidedness, the multiplicity, the eternal renewing of reality and of life." This is what Wotan finally understands when he wills his own destruction. The great achievement of Wotan's decision was a fearless human being, Siegfried, who united with Brünnhilde becomes the redeemer of the world. It must be kept in mind that in Romantic Germany, the understanding of Eternal Feminine, that was further developed by Goethe, was a very common theme. Wagner even quotes a part of the last verse of _Faust_ when explaining Brünnhilde's sacrifice. Differently from Sieglinde's sacrifice, Brünnhilde's is absolutely conscious and thus more effective - the similarity between Sieglinde's and Brünnhilde's sacrifice is emphasised through Sieglinde's leitmotif that is also called Redemption motif and that is the motif that ends the whole _Ring_.
> 
> Wagner saw Siegfried as the man of future, a man who has never learnt fear and is thus greater than the gods. Wagner writes that when Siegfried encounters the Rhinemaidens, he fianlly grasps the higher truth and the understanding that death is better than the life of fear. Wotan's life was full of only fears and thus this contrast actually makes sense. From Wagner's letter to Roeckel: "Confess, in the presence of such a being, the splendour of the gods must be dimmed." The need for this destruction is something that arised from Wotan's deepest convictions (Wagner though doesn't exactly explain what he means by these "convictions" as he says that it can be understood by everyone who follows the course of the whole opera and drama...).
> 
> When I read Wagner's letters to Roeckel then I feel that one of the themes that Wagner emphasises through the ending or "end" in general is that this is the requirement for love, one has to create Siegfried who lives fearlessly through love as Wotan did. Wagner points out that the loveless relationship between Wotan and Fricka is a result of their opposition to the universal law of change and renewal. Therefore I feel that the whole _Ring_ is just an example of one step of human transofrmation among an infinite amount of similar steps. I don't feel it's actually anything definite.


Great analysis, it has certainly helped me.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> But what does the so called 'redemption through love' motif actually mean?


its melody sounds like a farewell, so it is unlikely there's going to be anything to start again with.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> its melody sounds like a farewell, so it is unlikely there's going to be anything to start again with.


This is too dependent on person. It might not sound this way to someone else and opera consists of music AND drama. Especially in the case of Wagner. Those two things should definitely not be separated and with every motif analysis it's important to analyse it throughout the _Ring_ not only one of its occurrences.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> _opera consists of music AND drama._


okay, the drama, and this motif appears first when Siegliende leaves the scene.

this is the last we'll see of her, for she dies later on.

a farewell, that is, a farewell.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> okay, the drama, and this motif appears first when Siegliende leaves the scene.
> 
> this is the last we'll see of her, for she dies later on.
> 
> a farewell, that is, a farewell.


It sounds like a hymn to Brunhilde's sacrifice in order to save Siegfried. In other words Brunhilde's human act of compassion is brought to mind in contrast to Wotan's having to follow his laws as dictated by Fricka. I see this as pointing the way to what the new moral order should base itself on with Wotan's law not being needed anymore.

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> It sounds like a hymn to Brunhilde's sacrifice in order to save Siegfried.


no, it sounds like waving goodbye, and Sieglinde has no idea of what sacrifice Brunhilde makes.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> no, it sounds like waving goodbye, and Sieglinde has no idea of what sacrifice Brunhilde makes.


Sieglinde didn't write the music, Wagner did and he was rather well aware of Brünnhilde's sacrifice. I'll stick with my own explanation that I stated above until proved otherwise. Sieglinde has to sacrifice her life in order to give birth to Siegfried. This, by the way, could simultaneously be seen as a step of transformation from Sieglinde to Siegfried. Sieglinde's sacrifice, as I already said, wasn't nearly as conscious as was Brünnhilde's who knowingly sacrifices herself to redeem the world. The idea of archetypal eternal feminine that I mentioned and that Wagner was well aware of is the redeeming power and moral guidance - this is one of the major roles that Brünnhilde, among other things, has.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Sieglinde didn't write the music, Wagner did and he was rather well aware of Brünnhilde's sacrifice.


Der Ring is no genre of phantasy or about symbolism, it is realism at its highest... if the composer wanted the characters to know the upcoming verdict Wotan passes on Brunhilde, he would have gotten everyone there to learn of it beforehands.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The gods end, mankind lives on. It's in Wagner's stage directions, there's nothing ambiguous about it.

The _Ring_ is about humanity's moral evolution; it traces the growth of human consciousness from the instinctive, infantile egoism of Alberich to the compassionate, conscious morality of Brunnhilde. The gods are the authoritarian transition between crude selfishness and moral autonomy; once they are gone, man is left with an existential reality which he must confront unaided by mythical fantasies. Brunnhilde, who defied the gods, sets the example, which is why the last music we hear is the melody in which Sieglinde had sung her praises.

Wagner rejected the name "redemption by love" for this motif, instead calling it "the glorification of Brunnhilde." It celebrates the compassionate nature which made her alone capable of closing out the Age of Myth and bringing humanity face to face with itself. At the end, the orchestra gives an answer to the question "How shall we live?" The still unanswered question is whether or not we - the people onstage watching Walhall consumed by fire - can hear that answer and act upon it.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> The gods end, mankind lives on. It's in Wagner's stage directions, there's nothing ambiguous about it.
> 
> The _Ring_ is about humanity's moral evolution; it traces the growth of human consciousness from the instinctive, infantile egoism of Alberich to the compassionate, conscious morality of Brunnhilde. The gods are the authoritarian transition between crude selfishness and moral autonomy; once they are gone, man is left with an existential reality which he must confront unaided by mythical fantasies. Brunnhilde, who defied the gods, sets the example, which is why the last music we hear is the melody in which Sieglinde had sung her praises.
> 
> *Wagner rejected the name "redemption by love" for this motif, instead calling it "the glorification of Brunnhilde."* It celebrates the compassionate nature which made her alone capable of closing out the Age of Myth and bringing humanity face to face with itself. At the end, the orchestra gives an answer to the question "How shall we live?" The still unanswered question is whether or not we - the people onstage watching Walhall consumed by fire - can hear that answer and act upon it.


If I recall correctly then Cooke called it "redemption" motif (not "redemption by love" though - I think this makes a difference). To what extent are thus "redemption" and "the glorification of Brünnhilde" comparable names? This probably comes down to Wagner's final understanding of Brünnhilde's character. I hope my question is understandable.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

A fundamental concern of the drama as I see it is Wotan's problem of endowing life (and death) with meaning. When Wotan left the World-Ash tree with spear in hand, he was committed to the idea that a solution to that problem involved making the world a better place. This in turn required the imposition upon it of a stable order, and so he embarked on a noble enterprise, but one that was doomed to fail. We learn through the drama that neither the best of strategy nor the greatest of heroism is the answer to Wotan's problem. Further, love does not and cannot conquer all, any more than the best laid plans of gods or the greatest of feats of the very best of heroes. None will bring more than a temporary victory at most. Yet a possiblity of a love like that which is expressed in Brunnhilde's final immolation changes everything, in a way that heroism does not. Like Cordelia in Shakespeare's King Lear, Brunnhilde illuminates a world of cruelty and darkness through love. 

And though the world ends, the earth remains, still capable of renewal, still charged with this promise. We also know that everything that comes to be in it must end, including all order and the very best of lives and loves. But in their presence, however ephemeral, they have the power to brighten the world in a manner that vindicates all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> If I recall correctly then Cooke called it "redemption" motif (not "redemption by love" though - I think this makes a difference). To what extent are thus "redemption" and "the glorification of Brünnhilde" comparable names? This probably comes down to Wagner's final understanding of Brünnhilde's character. I hope my question is understandable.


The world is freed from the gods, but is it redeemed? The people standing around at the end are a pretty wretched lot. It seems to me that redemption is in their future, if they can manage it.

How are we doing?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> The gods end, mankind lives on.


thing is, there's no mankind portrayed in this opera, except for the Rhinemaidens; however, they represent not the mankind the notion of which we are used to. Wotan, Alberich, Fricka, Brunhilde, Siegmund, Hunding, Siegfried, Hagen and so on - all of them are what is called 'mankind' from our perspective. Rhinemaidens don't even qualify here.



Woodduck said:


> Wagner rejected the name "redemption by love" for this motif, instead calling it "the glorification of Brunnhilde."


but it does not sound like a glorification; the motif droops in its ending, like a hand that just waved goodbye, instead of flying up to the skies, if it were a glory anthem. Wagner is to be trusted only in relation to his music, while the statements he made should be subject to examination.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> thing is, there's no mankind portrayed in this opera, except for the Rhinemaidens; however, they represent not the mankind the notion of which we are used to. Wotan, Alberich, Fricka, Brunhilde, Siegmund, Hunding, Siegfried, Hagen and so on - all of them are what is called 'mankind' from our perspective. Rhinemaidens don't even qualify here.
> 
> but it does not sound like a glorification; the motif droops in its ending, like a hand that just waved goodbye, instead of flying up to the skies, if it were a glory anthem. *Wagner is to be trusted only in relation to his music, while the statements he made should be subject to examination.*


Isn't music inherently much more subjective than clear statements? The only complication with Wagner's statements is that his views changed throughout his life but that still doesn't make them less objective.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Isn't music inherently much more subjective than clear statements?


no, music is most clear a statement itself, especially in this case.

Der Ring is very clear in its messages, especially because it relies on leitmotives.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> thing is, there's no mankind portrayed in this opera, except for the Rhinemaidens; however, they represent not the mankind the notion of which we are used to. Wotan, Alberich, Fricka, Brunhilde, Siegmund, Hunding, Siegfried, Hagen and so on - all of them are what is called 'mankind' from our perspective. Rhinemaidens don't even qualify here.
> 
> but it does not sound like a glorification; the motif droops in its ending, like a hand that just waved goodbye, instead of flying up to the skies, if it were a glory anthem. Wagner is to be trusted only in relation to his music, while the statements he made should be subject to examination.


You and I must be attending different operas. Life among the Gibichungs is all too human. _Gotterdammerung_ is the first opera in the _Ring_ to take place almost entirely in the human world. Wotan and his band have retired to Walhall where they await their end, and until we see them consumed by fire they are present only in the form of shrines in the Gibichung hall, illustrative of the Age of Myth, the religious phase of humanity's development. Wagner's stage directions are explicit and key to his conception; there's no excuse for ignoring them (although they are of course constantly ignored by directors who think they know better than the composer).

As for the final motif not sounding like a glorification, your idea of glorification is too narrow. The motif doesn't appear out of nowhere; it dominates, in mounting ecstasy, the final lines of Brunnhilde's "immolation scene," it combines majesically with the motifs of Walhall and the Rhine daughters during the orchestral peroration, and these statements, culminating in its serene transfiguration at the end, are simply appropriate evolutions of its original, ecstatic statement in _Die Walkure._ There Sieglinde sings "O noblest wonder! Glorious woman!" For those with a memory, the motif retains its full meaning. Yes, it here becomes valedictory - you are right to hear a gesture of farewell. Brunnhilde deserves the tribute.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Life among the Gibichungs is all too human.


neither Gibich folks nor Rhinemaidens are representative of humans. Wotan is, he is every man.



Woodduck said:


> your idea of glorification is too narrow.


sure it is, as it should be, because black is black and white is white, glory - strong, parting - not much.



Woodduck said:


> The motif doesn't appear out of nowhere;


it steps down into nowhere, and that's the point.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Sieglinde sings "O noblest wonder! Glorious woman!" For those with a memory, the motif retains its full meaning.


no, it doesn't but contradicts the words. Brunhilde is far from being noble, let alone glorious.

she just fell from grace when showed her sympahy for a mortal. Siegmund, that is.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> neither Gibich folks nor Rhinemaidens are representative of humans. Wotan is, he is every man.


ALL Wagner's characters are representative of humanity. You're missing the point here.



> sure it is, as it should be, because black is black and white is white, glory - strong, parting - not much.


Simplistic. Wagner doesn't work in black and white.



> it steps down into nowhere, and that's the point.


You have a strange idea of what "nowhere" sounds like. Wagner never goes nowhere.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> no, it doesn't but contradicts the words. Brunhilde is far from being noble, let alone glorious.
> 
> she just fell from grace when showed her sympahy for a mortal. Siegmund, that is.


Brunnhilde is not the final word, but she, alone in the _Ring,_ points the way. "Showing sympathy" is a weak description of what it took to defy the law of the gods.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> ALL Wagner's characters are representative of humanity.


except for the Gibichunds and the Rhinemaidens, who are nobodies. Wotan represents man the best.



Woodduck said:


> Wagner doesn't work in black and white.


what about the prelude from the 3rd act of Tristan und Isolde?



Woodduck said:


> Wagner never goes nowhere.


he does, in _Der Ring_ and _Tristan & Isolde_ he does, where nirvana is his 'nowhere'.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Brunnhilde is not the final word, but she, alone in the _Ring,_ points the way.


she may point the way, all she wants, but she became flawed since the moment she felt for a mortal.



Woodduck said:


> "Showing sympathy" is a weak description of what it took to defy the law of the gods.


it would have taken much more to pull oneself up and obey the god, in that case.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> she may point the way, all she wants, but *she became flawed since the moment she felt for a mortal*.


What's the flaw? She lost his Valkyrie strength, yes, but she undergoes an enormous development in _Die Walküre_ alone, not to mention _Götterdämmerung_. She is pretty much just her father's daughter in the beginning of _Die Walküre_ but when the third act starts she has become a truly independent individual. Even Wotan points that out to her. I don't see her individuation as a bad thing, quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> it would have taken much more to pull oneself up and obey the god, in that case.


I agree with Woodduck. Defying Wotan's will was much more difficult than the opposite. None of the other Valkyrie sisters managed that. The fact that Brünnhilde didn't agree to give away the ring only shows her morality. The ring had become a pledge of love (quite paradoxical actually) and giving it away would have been comparable to what Alberich did although it most likely would have saved the gods.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> I agree with Woodduck. Defying Wotan's will was much more difficult than the opposite. None of the other Valkyrie sisters managed that. The fact that Brünnhilde didn't agree to give away the ring only shows her morality. The ring had become a pledge of love (quite paradoxical actually) and giving it away would have been comparable to what Alberich did although it most likely would have saved the gods.


Wotan and Waltraute wanted to believe that Brunnhilde could have saved the old order by giving away the ring, but Erda was right in _Rheingold_ when she said that everything that exists must end. Wotan was conflicted about that right to the end, but by the time Waltraute came to her, Brunnhilde was simply incapable of the renunciation asked of her, and looked at Waltraute as if the latter were insane. In the end, the ring had to be returned to the waters, but Brunnhilde's renunciation of it was an essential part, not of saving the gods, but of saving the world _from_ them.

It's worth noting that when the gold was returned to the Rhine, it was in the form of the ring, not a lump of gold. There is no going back; the fall of Adam - the rise to consciousness - can't be reversed. Innocence is lost forever, and there will be no second Alberich. Only mankind remains, alone with his reason and his conscience.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The world is freed from the gods, but is it redeemed? The people standing around at the end are a pretty wretched lot. It seems to me that redemption is in their future, if they can manage it.
> 
> How are we doing?


I don't want to think about that. I'm trying to ignore it by listening to Die Walkure!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The gods end, mankind lives on. It's in Wagner's stage directions, there's nothing ambiguous about it.
> 
> The _Ring_ is about humanity's moral evolution; it traces the growth of human consciousness from the instinctive, infantile egoism of Alberich to the compassionate, conscious morality of Brunnhilde. The gods are the authoritarian transition between crude selfishness and moral autonomy; once they are gone, man is left with an existential reality which he must confront unaided by mythical fantasies. Brunnhilde, who defied the gods, sets the example, which is why the last music we hear is the melody in which Sieglinde had sung her praises.
> 
> Wagner rejected the name "redemption by love" for this motif, instead calling it "the glorification of Brunnhilde." It celebrates the compassionate nature which made her alone capable of closing out the Age of Myth and bringing humanity face to face with itself. At the end, the orchestra gives an answer to the question "How shall we live?" The still unanswered question is whether or not we - the people onstage watching Walhall consumed by fire - can hear that answer and act upon it.


I didn't know that was Wagner's view, but it has been my conclusion for some time that the motive is a glorification of Brunhilde in general and a glorification of her sacrifice in the moment that prefigures the larger sacrifice at the end of the cycle. Whatever the music of the theme signifies for each of us personally, the words give it away, "O hehrstes Wunder! Herrlichste Maid!"

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

As we are already discussing _Götterdämmerung_ there's a question that has bothered me for some time now - what's the significance of Siegfried's death? Wagner's reasons for Siegfried's death seemed to be somewhat different from the original cause in the myth.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> As we are already discussing _Götterdämmerung_ there's a question that has bothered me for some time now - what's the significance of Siegfried's death? Wagner's reasons for Siegfried's death seemed to be somewhat different from the original cause in the myth.


Siegfried is part of Wotan's plan in various guises to win power back for the Gods/save humanity from the evil of Alberich/Hagen. The problem that Wotan faces in Walkure is that his hero must act independently of him. Therefore he can't help Siegmund in the duel with Hunding. Once we get to the time of Siegfried, Wotan sees Siegfried as the hero that will save the world, but he can't resist helping him by telling Mime the key to defeating the Dragon, therefore voiding out the possibility that Siegfried be the independent hero. What Wotan hasn't realised is that the hero he is looking for isn't a son or grandson, but a daughter. She who dared to disobey him and therefore acts independently from him. If Siegfried were alive at the end of Gotterdamerung then he would be the natural choice to lead humanity forward, but that wouldn't fit in with the need for a hero independent of the gods.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> Siegfried is part of Wotan's plan in various guises to win power back for the Gods/save humanity from the evil of Alberich/Hagen. The problem that Wotan faces in Walkure is that his hero must act independently of him. Therefore he can't help Siegmund in the duel with Hunding. Once we get to the time of Siegfried, Wotan sees Siegfried as the hero that will save the world, but he can't resist helping him by telling Mime the key to defeating the Dragon, therefore voiding out the possibility that Siegfried be the independent hero. What Wotan hasn't realised is that the hero he is looking for isn't a son or grandson, but a daughter. She who dared to disobey him and therefore acts independently from him. If Siegfried were alive at the end of Gotterdamerung then he would be the natural choice to lead humanity forward, but that wouldn't fit in with the need for a hero independent of the gods.
> 
> N.


I've still always considered Siegfried to be an independent hero. I don't remember whom Wagner wrote in a letter (it was some Russian if I recall correctly) that the reason why Wotan lets Siegfried shatter his spear is to get a final proof that Siegfried is indeed an independent hero. (He wrote a different explanation to Roeckel but imo that was before the letter to that Russian.) This is also proved by the fact that Wotan seems to be rather tranquil after Siegfried destroys his spear, he was expecting that to happen. I'm not sure whether Wotan helping Siegfried to forge the sword is actually in conflict with Siegfried's independence as Siegfried was still free to choose what to do with the sword. In contrast Siegmund had grown up next to Wotan and thus his whole mindset and thoughts were affected by him.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> I've still always considered Siegfried to be an independent hero. I don't remember whom Wagner wrote in a letter (it was some Russian if I recall correctly) that the reason why Wotan lets Siegfried shatter his spear is to get a final proof that Siegfried is indeed an independent hero. (He wrote a different explanation to Roeckel but imo that was before the letter to that Russian.) This is also proved by the fact that Wotan seems to be rather tranquil after Siegfried destroys his spear, he was expecting that to happen. I'm not sure whether Wotan helping Siegfried to forge the sword is actually in conflict with Siegfried's independence as Siegfried was still free to choose what to do with the sword. In contrast Siegmund had grown up next to Wotan and thus his whole mindset and thoughts were affected by him.


The invincible sword Nothung is Wotan's gift to his hoped-for free agents. Only Siegmund can draw it from the tree, and only Siegfried can reforge it. In theory they may be free to do these things or not, but the sword is still an intervention by the god. Wotan cannot create a free agent, and any attempt he makes to do so is doomed. No hero, no matter how fearless or strong, can save the world from the ring's curse if he's ignorant of the nature of that curse, and Wotan can't play the role of mentor. Wotan's grand plan is thus hopeless from the start, and every part of it must be obliterated, including the boy who represents the god's last hope. Siegfried's funeral music is not for Siegfried alone, but for the whole project embodied in the Volsungs, whose leitmotifs we hear.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> The invincible sword Nothung is Wotan's gift to his hoped-for free agents. Only Siegmund can draw it from the tree, and only Siegfried can reforge it. In theory they may be free to do these things or not, but the sword is still an intervention by the god. Wotan cannot spawn a free agent, and any attempt he makes to do so is doomed. No hero, no matter how fearless or strong, can save the world from the ring's curse if he's ignorant of the nature of that curse, and Wotan can't play the role of mentor. Wotan's grand plan is thus hopeless from the start, and every part of it must be obliterated, including the boy who represents the god's last hope. Siegfried's funeral music is not for Siegfried alone, but for the whole project embodied in the Volsungs, whose leitmotifs we hear.


This is absolutely depressing, again and again I manage to misunderstand the _Ring_ . One thing I've still noticed - I've always thought that _Trauermarsch_ was a bit too grand for Siegfried alone, always reminded me more of Wotan's funeral march...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> This is absolutely depressing, again and again I manage to misunderstand the _Ring_ . One thing I've still noticed - I've always thought that _Trauermarsch_ was a bit too grand for Siegfried alone, always reminded me more of Wotan's funeral march...


I think many have noticed that and felt Siegfried, as a failed hero, to be unworthy of the music. It's a tribute to what might have been.

To succeed, Siegfried needed to be reincarnated as Parsifal.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I think many have noticed that and felt Siegfried, as a failed hero, to be unworthy of the music. It's a tribute to what might have been.
> 
> To succeed, Siegfried needed to be reincarnated as Parsifal.


Thanks for your explanation and Conte, for yours as well! At least Parsifal as a succesful hero makes a lot more sense now. My own misunderstanding regarding Siegfried sort of explains why his death confused me.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> What's the flaw? She lost his Valkyrie strength, yes, but she undergoes an enormous development in _Die Walküre_ alone, not to mention _Götterdämmerung_. She is pretty much just her father's daughter in the beginning of _Die Walküre_ but when the third act starts she has become a truly independent individual.


the only development and independence she experiences, it is when prepares her own immolation, that is at the very ending of the opera, not sooner, where she mostly finds herself tampering with things.



annaw said:


> Defying Wotan's will was much more difficult than the opposite.


not in the given circumstances that Wotan had to cancel his initial decision to make a new one against his own will and she then had to realise the situation, which she did not, for being too stupid and weak, at the time.



annaw said:


> The fact that Brünnhilde didn't agree to give away the ring only shows her morality.


no, this only shows her becoming corrupt by the power of the accursed ring.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> the only development and independence she experiences, it is when prepares her own immolation, that is at the very ending of the opera, not sooner, where she mostly finds herself tampering with things.
> 
> not in the given circumstances that Wotan had to cancel his initial decision to make a new one against his own will and she then had to realise the situation, which she did not, for being too stupid and weak, at the time.
> 
> no, this only shows her becoming corrupt by the power of the accursed ring.


You have to separate Wotan's conscious will and Wotan's unconscious will ( =Brünnhilde). Without this separation Brünnhilde's statement that she did what Wotan willed doesn't make sense. Had Brünnhilde given away the ring, that at the time was a symbol of Siegfried's love, she would have renounced love the same way as Alberich did and the inner transformation of psyche that takes place through the destruction of gods wouldn't have taken place. This transformation as Woodduck here has been explaining was seen as something good, essential and unavoidable by Wagner. Brünnhilde's development was much more extensive, read/listen what Wotan says to her in the beginning of Act III of _Die Walküre_.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Wotan and Waltraute wanted to believe that Brunnhilde could have saved the old order by giving away the ring, but Erda was right in _Rheingold_ when she said that everything that exists must end. Wotan was conflicted about that right to the end, but by the time Waltraute came to her, Brunnhilde was simply incapable of the renunciation asked of her, and looked at Waltraute as if the latter were insane.


for she was already corrupt and irresponsible so couldn't care less about the gods and the world.

she was being selfish, while thinking of her own happiness in love, and that's it.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Whatever the music of the theme signifies for each of us personally, the words give it away, "O hehrstes Wunder! Herrlichste Maid!"


it's quite the other way around, it is the music that exposes the true nature of the episode.

the words by Sieglinde only amount to her misinterpretation of the events.

but, indeed, what could she know about gods and their ways...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> what's the significance of Siegfried's death?


a loss of hope for the world.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> I've always thought that _Trauermarsch_ was a bit too grand for Siegfried alone,


not in the least, because the funeral march tells the story of Siegfried through use of leitmotives denoting his parents, his deeds, and the nature of his personality; in fact its built of Siegfried-related leitmotives all over.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I think many have noticed that and felt Siegfried, as a failed hero, to be unworthy of the music.


he is worthy of his funeral march alright, so the music is his as should be, make no mistake, the Siegfried-related leitmotives are present in there with nothing else added.



annaw said:


> You have to separate Wotan's conscious will and Wotan's unconscious will ( =Brünnhilde).


her failure to realise that only 'conscious will' must be carried out, in this case, shows her as being flawed.



annaw said:


> Had Brünnhilde given away the ring, that at the time was a symbol of Siegfried's love, she would have renounced love the same way as Alberich


not in the least, because she would have done so in a *sacrifice*, whereas he did that out of greed. Brunhilde refused to give up the ring because of being greedy, same as Alberich was, back then.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I can remember it being pointed out in one talk that by the end of Götterdämmerung we are exactly where we were at the beginning of Rheingeld, so what was the point of the twenty or so hours we have just sat through?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> *I can remember it being pointed out in one talk that by the end of Götterdämmerung we are exactly where we were at the beginning of Rheingeld*, so what was the point of the twenty or so hours we have just sat through?


You overlook this little detail that by the end of _Götterdämmerung_ there are no gods...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

because, with Brunhilde, renunciation of love would not have been the same thing as with Alberich's.

her selfishness was imposed by love, and his - by greed.

they both failed to renounce what should have been renounced in each other's case.

in Alberich case it was greed to renounce, while in Brunhilde's it was personal happiness.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> he is worthy of his funeral march alright, so the music is his as should be, make no mistake, the Siegfried-related leitmotives are present in there with nothing else added.
> 
> her failure to realise that only 'conscious will' must be carried out, in this case, shows her as being flawed.
> 
> not in the least, because she would have done so in a *sacrifice*, whereas he did that out of greed. Brunhilde refused to give up the ring because of being greedy, same as Alberich was, back then.


I don't see how this disregards Woodduck's point. It might disregard my statement that it feels like Wotan's funeral march but even not that entirely. Initially the whole _Ring_ was focused on Siegfried, but eventually Wagner focuses on Wotan and it's even been said that Wotan is the protagonist of _Götterdämmerung_ as, according to some interpretations, both Brünnhilde and Siegfried are seen as two different parts of Wotan. Thus on this basis, it could be said that Siegfried's funeral march IS Wotan's funeral march. (I don't think the interpretation I give here is entirely true, but I just show that this can be seen in such way.)

You cannot entirely disregard what Wagner clearly stated about Brünnhilde. Wagner says that Brünnhilde shares traits with (Goethe's) Eternal Feminine. This almost automatically makes her a heroine.

You can as well say that Alberich sacrificed love for the sake of ring - does that make his deed any better?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I can remember it being pointed out in one talk that by the end of Götterdämmerung we are exactly where we were at the beginning of Rheingeld


not quite so... the 3rd act of _Gotterdammerung_ begins with a return to the Rhine river banks to the very same Rhinemaidens which open _Das Rheingold_ very first scene, but now they have to get along without their gold stolen by Alberich, so this time the music of their song is not nearly as pure as it used to be.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> It might disregard my statement that it feels like Wotan's funeral march but even not that entirely. Initially the whole _Ring_ was focused on Siegfried, but eventually Wagner focuses on Wotan and it's even been said that Wotan is the protagonist of _Götterdämmerung_ as, according to some interpretations, both Brünnhilde and Siegfried are seen as two different parts of Wotan. Thus on this basis, it could be said that Siegfried's funeral march IS Wotan's funeral march.


there's no Wotan leitmotives in Siegfried's funeral march, simply none, what Wotan?



annaw said:


> Wagner says that Brünnhilde shares traits with (Goethe's) Eternal Feminine. This almost automatically makes her a heroine.


i did not say she is not a heroine, but this her status is proven only as she gets 'wise' and goes for immolation.



annaw said:


> You can as well say that Alberich sacrificed love for the sake of ring - does that make his deed any better?


no better and no worse than that of Brunhilde's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> not quite so... the 3rd act of _Gotterdammerung_ begins with a return to the Rhine river banks to the very same Rhinemaidens which open _Das Rheingold_ very first scene, but now they have to get along without their gold stolen by Alberich, so this time the music of their song is not nearly as pure as it used to be.


This is the first accurate observation you've made in this thread. Everything else you've managed to turn upside down. Obviously youve given the _Ring_ some thought, but I'd suggest doing some reading as well. A lot of people have understood the work for a long time, and it's rather a waste to try to reinvent the wheel, particular when it ends up square rather than round.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I can remember it being pointed out in one talk that by the end of Götterdämmerung we are exactly where we were at the beginning of Rheingeld, so what was the point of the twenty or so hours we have just sat through?


You are, of course, joking. Anna Russell was when she made the above remark.

We are not, at the end of the _Ring,_ back at the beginning. If you'd been paying attention here you'd have noticed that this is the subject of the thread and that we've all been talking about it all day.

Looking over a thread before crashing into it is generally wise.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I always felt that Siegfried was the needed sacrifice as is the way of myth. His death was the final proof to Brunnhilde that the ring and the emotions it stirs in people means there is no safe guardian for such things. 

Thus by destroying it people are free from the continued machinations of gods, represented by the ring itself which makes people enslave themselves as they try to claim it. 

The ring with all its powers could also be a representation of godly power itself and a sign that no matter how noble the intentions too much power and the quest for power will be your downfall.

Back to Siegfried's death and even Brunnhilde's death I have often wondered if they do show that none can possess the ring without forsaking love. Wotan can still love but his desire for the ring causes him to destroy his whole family and essentially be the cause of death for all his children as well.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Everything else you've managed to turn upside down.


i reject that accusation and, in my turn, point it at you.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

zxxyxxz said:


> I always felt that Siegfried was the needed sacrifice as is the way of myth. His death was the final proof to Brunnhilde that the ring and the emotions it stirs in people means there is no safe guardian for such things.
> 
> Thus by destroying it people are free from the continued machinations of gods, represented by the ring itself which makes people enslave themselves as they try to claim it.
> 
> ...


Ring itself is not evil, it's an entirely neutral element that can be used for both good and bad (correct me if I'm wrong). The problems begun when Alberich thought it's a super good idea to put a curse on it. I'd say that Wotan can in some cases be interpreted through Schopenhauer. Wotan renounces his life with all its desires when he understands that through his desires arises nothing but pain. Of course there are 100 other ways to interpret Wotan's self-destroying will but that's potentially one of them.

EDIT: I think Cooke analysed (in his leitmotif analysis podcast or thingy) the difference between Wotan's and Alberich's intentions regarding the ring. Warmly recommend listening to it if you haven't already .


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Ring itself is not evil, it's an entirely neutral element that can be used for both good and bad.


nope, the ring has been evil from the very moment it was forged,

because now it embodied a power that goes beyond even the stolen gold itself,

hence Alberich's easy parting with his gold as long as he may keep the ring.

the ring symbolises the power of that 'financial bubble' which has crept into the world since the advent of Stock Exchange.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I shy away from philosophy mainly as I reject salvation through suffering. And to be honest I just like Wagner's stories.

I personally don't think anything good could ever come from an object like the ring even before the curse.

The true tragedy is how despite their best efforts and through no fault of their own Siegfried and Brunnhilde could do nothing to prevent their deaths or change their course due to the control of the gods. 

In the end all Brunnhilde can do is make their ends mean something.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> nope, the ring has been evil from the very moment it was forged,
> 
> because now it embodied a power that goes beyond even the stolen gold itself,
> 
> ...


I can sort of see how in theory the ring could be inherently evil because of the way it was produced. Though I'd say that renouncing love was a method to gain the knowledge to forge the ring but this knowledge existed also before the renunciation. Thus the renunciation itself is evil but the knowledge how to forge the ring is not. (Here I'm basing a good lot of my arguments on the "Rhine gold as libido" idea where libido itself isn't, as far as I've understood, morally good or bad.)


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

zxxyxxz said:


> I shy away from philosophy mainly as I reject salvation through suffering. And to be honest I just like Wagner's stories.
> 
> I personally don't think anything good could ever come from an object like the ring even before the curse.
> 
> ...


I understand . I certainly don't agree with everything Wagner thought but I find it very fascinating to analyse his operas though it's somewhat questionable how well I manage that. I find it amazing how much he poured into them.

Yet more about the ring, I feel the problem is the same as the one with entire humanity. We are just not strong enough to reject our temptations and evil desires. I don't think that the ring would have had any power over the gods hadn't they been susceptible to the evil right in the beginning of _Das Rheingold_.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)




----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I think that is 100% true annaw.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

zxxyxxz said:


> The true tragedy is how despite their best efforts and through no fault of their own Siegfried and Brunnhilde could do nothing to prevent their deaths or change their course due to the control of the gods.


there's no innocents in Der Ring, everyone is at fault in there.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I like seeing other peoples takes on der ring.

But ultimately as listening, understanding and interpreting is a private matter I will keep my interpretation unless I come to the change myself. (I don't think I'm right, or want to present my thoughts as right)

As part of that, I am just sharing my thoughts in the spirit of friendly discussion and hopefully I will learn something


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

zxxyxxz said:


> I will keep my interpretation


it's not a matter of interpretation, for there's nothing to interpret in Der Ring that states things clearly.

this is an opera, after all, the one most close to world issues than any other opera to date.

it has words, it has leitmotives to interact with these, it has a message.

there's no room left to do guessing about it.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I disagree, everything with words and a message can be interpreted.

My main interest with is the music and the story as the operas unfold, so to me it is a tragic romance and I'm ok with that.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> it's not a matter of interpretation, for there's nothing to interpret in Der Ring that states things clearly.
> 
> this is an opera, after all, the one most close to world issues than any other opera to date.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of unanswered questions when it comes to the Ring, that's one of the reason it's such a great work of art.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> it's not a matter of interpretation, for there's nothing to interpret in Der Ring that states things clearly.
> 
> there's no room left to do guessing about it.


That's what religious fundamentalists say about their scriptures, and what totalitarian dictators say about themselves.

Neiher life nor art is that simple, thank goodness.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> That's what religious fundamentalists say about their scriptures, and what totalitarian dictators say about themselves.
> 
> Neiher life nor art is that simple, thank goodness.


Very well put. It is unfortunately a characteristic of fanaticism.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> it's not a matter of interpretation, for there's nothing to interpret in Der Ring that states things clearly.
> 
> this is an opera, after all, the one most close to world issues than any other opera to date.
> 
> ...


such narrow views make art worthless


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

zxxyxxz said:


> to me it is a tragic romance and I'm ok with that.


you are mistaken, and yours - an example of how far from truth interpreting can be.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> There are plenty of unanswered questions when it comes to the Ring


okay, go ahead and ask one, i answer.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> That's what religious fundamentalists say about their scriptures, and what totalitarian dictators say about themselves.


you not only have no proper understanding of the opera and its music, but also have no coherent idea about politics, where, as far as scriptures go, no holder of these would accept interpreting them, be it a dictatorship or a democracy.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Very well put. It is unfortunately a characteristic of fanaticism.


'well put' yeah?.. nope, he is wrong about things.

and you should go and watch the opera, listen to its music, before making comments.



Op.123 said:


> such narrow views make art worthless


you obviously know not what art is and what is for.

art is an ideology and a precise tool used to convey information in a coded way.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> you not only have no proper understanding of the opera and its music, but also have no coherent idea about politics, where, as far as scriptures go, no holder of these would accept interpreting them, be it a dictatorship or a democracy.


Meh......................


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Meh.


cop out don't you?.. good riddance.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> cop out don't you?.. good riddance.


Riddance? I'm not going anywhere. It's just that your insults aren't worth more of a response. Try to be friendlier.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Try to be friendlier.


yeah?.. and how friendly of you was to post something like this -



Woodduck said:


> Everything else you've managed to turn upside down.


it was you who started it all by not showing respect for my knowledge.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> yeah?.. and how friendly of you was to post something like this -
> 
> it was you who started it all by not showing respect for my knowledge.


Let's just try to have a nice healthy discussion. The good majority of the arguments I put forth in this thread have been destroyed through good argumentation but they've been substituted with new ones . None of us possesses the ultimate knowledge of Wagner's _Ring_ (I sometimes doubt whether even he himself possessed it) and thus we can do nothing but guess and discuss.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> None of us possesses the ultimate knowledge of Wagner's _Ring_


but i do, the piece has a political message, besides religious ones, as it clearly shows.

what you folks would say comes from some 'books' etc, not from the opera and its music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Let's just try to have a nice healthy discussion. The good majority of the arguments I put forth in this thread have been destroyed through good argumentation but they've been substituted with new ones . None of us possesses the ultimate knowledge of Wagner's _Ring_ (I sometimes doubt whether even he himself possessed it) and thus we can do nothing but guess and discuss.


Ah, but comrade Zhdanov is convinced that he is right in every particular and that all the rest of us are wrong. You will note how automatically he rejects everything others post, and how often he begins a sentence with "no." One can hardly hope for a "nice healthy discussion" under the circumstances.

One wonders why people who only want to negate others enter discussions at all, unless they take particular pleasure in negativity. That seems plausible, perhaps, given Zhdanov's cynical, nihilistic conception of the _Ring._ That was not Wagner's conception; he was neither a cynic nor a nihilist. The _Ring_ is a tragedy, but it isn't a vision of hopelessness.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> but i do, the piece has a political message, besides religious ones, as it clearly shows.
> 
> what you folks would say comes from some 'books' etc, not from the opera and its music.


The books themselves come from the opera and its music. People, who have devoted years to listening to the opera and analysing its score and Wagner's own writings, have written those books. In addition, I would still say that all of us possess an ability to think and analyse it further ourselves. (This ability of independent thought is the reason why some of us *cough cough* - me - still manage to draw faulty conclusions.)


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Ah, but comrade Zhdanov is convinced that he is right in every particular and that all the rest of us are wrong. You will note how automatically he rejects everything others post, and how often he begins a sentence with "no." One can hardly hope for a "nice healthy discussion" under the circumstances.
> 
> One wonders why people who only want to negate others enter discussions at all, unless they take particular pleasure in negativity. That seems plausible, perhaps, given Zhdanov's cynical, nihilistic conception of the _Ring._ That was not Wagner's conception; he was neither a cynic nor a nihilist. The _Ring_ is a tragedy, but it isn't a vision of hopelessness.


Now that you mention nihilism, I only wonder how did the discussions between Nietzsche and Wagner look like ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Now that you mention nihilism, I only wonder how did the discussions between Nietzsche and Wagner look like ...


They must have been vigorous and fascinating. Nietzsche was intensely devoted to Wagner as musician and thinker for a number of years before their famous schism, and even lived in his house for a while. Why did nihilism make you think of them?


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

Not strictly just about Gotterdammerung but leading on from it as I have been reading and thinking about my own thoughts...

What I find remarkable about all of Wagner's works are that on the surface you have fantastic orchestral work and sublime voice writing that combine with a story that works as theatre and entertainment. Yet behind each one is a really depth of ideas and philosophy.

I don't think I will ever understand Wagner's works. I'm not a 100% sure that I would want to if it was an option. There is something about not peeking behind the curtain. Though having said that despite being annoyed with libretto for one Wagner's work I do forget the annoyance when I just listen and feel instead.

I'm not sure what if any point I am trying to make......


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> cynical, nihilistic conception of the _Ring._ That was not Wagner's conception;


really? isn't the cynical way the Rhinemaidens mock the Alberich telling enough?

isn't Wotan's relegation of "gods pomp" on to a "nibelung son" (that is Hagen) being nihilistic?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

zxxyxxz said:


> Not strictly just about Gotterdammerung but leading on from it as I have been reading and thinking about my own thoughts...
> 
> What I find remarkable about all of Wagner's works are that on the surface you have fantastic orchestral work and sublime voice writing that combine with a story that works as theatre and entertainment. Yet behind each one is a really depth of ideas and philosophy.
> 
> ...


I think Wagner would have been sympathetic. He said he wanted people to "understand through feeling." It's endlessly fascinating to think about the philosophical implications of his works, but to give oneself over to their power and enchantment is still the essential Wagnerian experience, and all many people will ever feel the need for. There will always be new Wagner studies coming out for those who want to take the plunge into philosophy, psychology, religion, politics, sociology and musicology.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> The books themselves come from the opera and its music. People, who have devoted years to listening to the opera and analysing its score and Wagner's own writings, have written those books.


are you sure they didn't have a political agenda behind their work?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> really? isn't the cynical way the Rhinemaidens mock the Alberich telling enough?
> 
> isn't Wotan's relegation of "gods pomp" on to a "nibelung son" (that is Hagen) being nihilistic?


What reason could nature spirits have to be cynical? Nature is beautiful and seductive but also dangerous; she mocks our desires. The tempting but deadly water sprite is a common motif in myth. Cynicism is a human attitude the inhuman daughters of the Rhine know nothing of. Nor do they have human morality. Their mockery of Alberich is pure play, though Alberich feels it as cruelty. _Rheingold_ begins in a primeval state of nature - life begins in a watery womb - and Alberich emerges from the darkness like a newborn, an immature being who feels that his desires should be fulfilled and who screams and retaliates when they are not, his desire for love turning to hatred. I've always admired Wagner's ability to show us, in music, the simple, childlike hurt that underlies his rage.

Wotan makes his remark about the Nibelung's son in a mood of despair. That isn't nihilism. The mood passes. He does come to a point of resignation, or near-resignation, concerning the inevitability of his own demise. That isn't nihilism either, as he hopes to bequeath the world to others who will do a better job of caring for it. He tells Erda this before confronting Siegfried, and when letting go of Brunnhilde forever he speaks of "one freer than I, the god."


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> What reason could nature spirits have to be cynical?


the Rhine represents nature,

but its maidens personify the People, who are courted by the Jews personified by Alberich.

'love' in this case is an allegory of a union. Jews then fail to unite with people, so they will rob them now.

which is nothing new, but Alberich goes further and forges a ring that represents Stock Exchange.

financial machinations now to help Jews take over the entire world, not just a part of it.



Woodduck said:


> Alberich emerges from the darkness like a newborn, an immature being


that is a racist view, practised by western ideologies in order to ascribe 'subhuman' features to an enemy.



Woodduck said:


> Wotan makes his remark about the Nibelung's son in a mood of despair.


and that is when he went nihilistic about the notions of rank and order.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> They must have been vigorous and fascinating. Nietzsche was intensely devoted to Wagner as musician and thinker for a number of years before their famous schism, and even lived in his house for a while. *Why did nihilism make you think of them?*


My brain, for some reason, immediately makes the connection, not between nihilism and Wagner but nihilism and Nietzsche. He spent an awful lot of time to somehow overcome nihilism when he rejected the existence of God. This is at least one of the reasons why he created his theory of Übermensch. I'm rather impressed with Wagner's understanding of philosophy - being knowledgeable of Kant's and Hegel's philosophy is certainly not an easy job. I'm sure he must have had very fascinating discussions with Nietzsche. In _Ecce homo_, which was one of the last books Nietzsche ever wrote, he says that he wouldn't have survived his youth without Wagner (and then continues trashing German cuisine).

Wagner has never striked me as nihilistic, he enjoyed his life, at least thanks to his art, too much for that.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> the Rhine represents nature,
> 
> but its maidens personify the People, who are courted by the Jews personified by Alberich.
> 
> ...


It's important to point out that nihilism claims life to be without any meaning and intrinsic value. Thus it often also rejects all morals. Wotan says he loves the world - that just doesn't sound nihilistic to me because Wotan clearly seems to see some value in the world. That's why he sacrifices Siegmund, because he loves the world.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Wotan says he loves the world


i don't remember him saying that.

specifically, not in Die Walkure 2nd act during his conversation with Brunhilde.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> i don't remember him saying that.
> 
> specifically, not in Die Walkure 2nd act during his conversation with Brunhilde.


It's in Act III of _Die Walküre_.

So leicht wähntest du
Wonne des Herzens erworben,
wo brennend Weh' 
in das Herz mir brach,
wo gräßliche Noth 
den Grimm mir schuf,
*einer Welt zu Liebe*
der Liebe Quell
im gequälten Herzen zu hemmen?

Millington's and Spencer's translation of the lines I quoted in German above:

So lightly you thought 
that heartfelt delight might be won
when burning pain 
broke into my heart 
and hideous need
aroused my wrath, 
so that, out of my love for the world
I was forced to staunch the
[well-spring of love 
in this harrowed heart of mine?

He literally says that the only reason he was willing to let Siegmund die was because he loved the world so much and valuing the world more than his own son is by definition not nihilistic.


----------



## Bellerophon (May 15, 2020)

Hi Woodduck. Your first response to my OP began, 'The gods end, mankind lives on. It's in Wagner's stage directions, there's nothing ambiguous about it'.

Are these the directions you are referring to?

'From the ruins of the place, which has collapsed, the men and women, in the utmost apprehension, watch the growing firelight in the sky. When this finally reaches its brightest there becomes visible the palace of Valhalla, in which the gods and heroes sit assembled, exactly as Waltraute described them in Act One. Bright flames seem to set fire to the hall of the gods. As the gods become completely hidden from view by flames, the curtain falls'

If so, I can't agree that they unambiguously require the interpretation that the men and women watching 'in the utmost apprehension' will survive to go on and build a new and better world.

Since posting my question at the start of this thread I have read the Michael Tanner interview posted on this site, which contains the line, 'as he [Wagner] wrote to Liszt, he's dealing with the beginning and end of the world'.

Certainly, your interpretation is a much more positive one. By contrast if the conclusion is universal destruction it is hard to know what message to draw. But then Wagner was under the spell of Schopenhauer and his ideas of denial of the will to live.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> *einer Welt zu Liebe*





annaw said:


> out of my love for the world


however, the subtitles put it as past tense (at 11:02) -








annaw said:


> He literally says that the only reason he was willing to let Siegmund die was because he loved the world so much and valuing the world more than his own son is by definition not nihilistic.


but he is being nihilistic when relinquishes the 'gods splendour' to a 'nibelung son'.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> however, the subtitles put it as past tense -


Millington/Spencer is almost certainly more trustworthy than Met subtitles. Met simplifies the libretto so that it'd be more easily understandable for an English-speaking person.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> 'well put' yeah?.. nope, he is wrong about things.
> 
> and you should go and watch the opera, listen to its music, before making comments.
> 
> ...


So many absolutes... You should follow your own counsel.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Met simplifies the libretto


Wotan is willing to deal the world a damage, as he did with World Ash Tree, which then withered:






the Norns in the prologue tell the full story of how Wotan pursued his own interests:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> okay, go ahead and ask one, i answer.


What a temptation! (I feel like Turandot with Calaf before me.)

What happens when the curtain falls at the end of Gotterdamerung? In the score it says that once the Rhine has put out the fire the men and women in the ruins of the hall watch the fire reach Valhalla. Do those men and women forge a new society based on something other than greed and power or do things go back the way they were, but with new 'gods' taking the place of the old ones?

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> *Wotan is willing to deal the world a damage*, as he did with World Ash Tree, which then withered:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn't make it nihilistic; to prove me wrong, you have to prove my previous point wrong. It's written in the libretto that Wotan loves the world and sacrifices Siegmund for its sake. This is the very opposite of what one would call nihilistic.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> Millington/Spencer is almost certainly more trustworthy than Met subtitles. Met simplifies the libretto so that it'd be more easily understandable for an English-speaking person.


This seems like a paradox to me. How can an English interpretation of the German libretto even exist if no interpretations are possible according to Zhdanov?

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> What a temptation! (I feel like Turandot with Calaf before me.)
> 
> What happens when the curtain falls at the end of Gotterdamerung? In the score it says that once the Rhine has put out the fire the men and women in the ruins of the hall watch the fire reach Valhalla. *Do those men and women forge a new society based on something other than greed and power or do things go back the way they were, but with new 'gods' taking the place of the old ones?*
> 
> N.


Wagner could have been the first composer to compose "opera series" - new episode every.. 10 years!! New episode, new gods.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

VitellioScarpia said:


> So many absolutes...


so far, you haven't contributed to the topic, but posted comments of no worth.

still you moan about someone who can deliver valuable information.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> What happens when the curtain falls at the end of Gotterdamerung? In the score it says that once the Rhine has put out the fire the men and women in the ruins of the hall watch the fire reach Valhalla. Do those men and women forge a new society


no, the music of Gotterdammerung finale does not imply continuation, for its a farewell.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> no, the music of Gotterdammerung finale does not imply continuation, for its a farewell.


So what happens to the men and women standing in the ruins of the hall, they are mentioned in the libretto? If there is no continuation why are they in the libretto? What happens to them?

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Doesn't make it nihilistic;


don't go strawman as if you didn't read my previous comments.

Wotan's nihilism is shown when he foregoes the gods and hails Hagen as his inheritor.

the 'love of the world' part of discussion is not connected to this, as you might have noticed.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> So what happens to the men and women standing in the ruins of the hall, they are mentioned in the libretto? If there is no continuation why are they in the libretto?


they are witnesses, they just stand by, and they are alien to the proceedings.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> don't go strawman argument as if you didn't read my previous comments.
> 
> Wotan's nihilism is shown when he foregoes the gods and hails Hagen as his inheritor.
> 
> the 'love of the world' part of discussion is not connected to this, as you might have noticed.


There's no straw man. The word "nihilism" shouldn't be used too lightly as it's a rather well-defined philosophical term. I've already explained my views above.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> The word "nihilism" shouldn't be used too lightly as it's a rather well-defined philosophical term.


but i gave an example, and its well founded (at 6:25) -






there was no other way for Wotan to react but with nihilism towards the unthinkable.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> but i gave an example, and its well founded (at 6:25) -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What do you mean by the word "nihilism"? What I've been talking about is existential nihilism.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> What do you mean by the word "nihilism"?


i mean disregard for the order of things.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Bellerophon said:


> if the conclusion is universal destruction it is hard to know what message to draw.


nirvana is the word, so all leave for nirvana, this world is doomed.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> they are witnesses, they just stand by, and they are alien to the proceedings.


So what do they witness after the curtain falls, what happens after the proceedings?

Also what happens to them after they have witnessed the proceedings? Are they changed by the proceedings?

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> So what do they witness after the curtain falls, what happens after the proceedings?


they must then witness 'mother nature'? would there be anything else to do?



The Conte said:


> Also what happens to them after they have witnessed the proceedings?


they must have tried and restored some kind of order to get along for awhile.



The Conte said:


> Are they changed by the proceedings?


no, and there's no sign of them being capable of that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> nirvana is the word, so all leave for nirvana, this world is doomed.


That's your invention and is nowhere in the _Ring._ In the actual work, as written by Wagner, the gods are gone, the world and humanity remain. We are not told what happens after that and we can imagine whatever destiny we wish for the Gibichungs witnessing the fire in the heavens, but it's clear that they have lost their gods.

You've accused others here of not consulting the operas themselves and of getting their ideas from books. I don't know where you got the idea that "all leave for nirvana" - the Gibichungs "leave for nirvana"? By what conveyance? Horseback?- but there is no suggestion of it in the text or music of the opera, or in anything Wagner had to say.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> "all leave for nirvana" - the Gibichungs "leave for nirvana"?


no, of course not.



Woodduck said:


> By what conveyance? Horseback?


don't resort to cheap rhetorics.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> no, of course not.
> 
> don't resort to cheap rhetorics.


Instead of criticizing my "rhetorics," defend your theory of "nirvana." The _Ring_ requires no interptetation, according to you; its meaning is right there on the surface, "there's no room left to do guessing about it."

Show us where this notion of everyone departing for nirvana occurs in the _Ring._ Take your time. I'm all patience.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> so far, you haven't contributed to the topic, but posted comments of no worth.
> 
> still you moan about someone who can deliver valuable information.


I have not entered your game because you do not seem interested in exchanging ideas but to provoke. For example, you say "all leave for nirvana" but you are unclear who you are referring so when Wodduck asks how do the Gibichungs leave for said nirvana, you keep it again vague. You made the statement that Wotan did not say that he loves the world when it is in the text... I do not believe that what you provide is actually valuable. Enjoy... :tiphat:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Instead of criticizing my "rhetorics," defend your theory of "nirvana."


nirvana's in the ending of the finales to both _Gotterdammerung_ and _Tristan und Isolde_, where Isolde literally describes the process of ascension into The Eternal Termination, that is nirvana:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

VitellioScarpia said:


> you say "all leave for nirvana" but you are unclear who you are referring so when Wodduck asks how do the Gibichungs leave for said nirvana, you keep it again vague.


read the thread before posting, i was perfectly clear that the Gibich folks don't count.



VitellioScarpia said:


> You made the statement that Wotan did not say that he loves the world


don't distort what i say, read the thread, i only said that i don't remember him saying that.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I do not believe that what you provide is actually valuable.


because your in denial and you have nothing to say on the subject.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> they must then witness 'mother nature'? would there be anything else to do?
> 
> they must have tried and restored some kind of order to get along for awhile.
> 
> no, and there's no sign of them being capable of that.


What? Weren't they all leaving for nirvana just a moment ago? It would help if your responses weren't vague, cryptic single sentences. Your first response to this thread was, "if go by the music, it is doomsday for all". Then there is your nirvana comment above, now the men and women left at the end "must have tried and restored some kind of order to get along for awhile."

Despite your statements that "it's not a matter of interpretation, for there's nothing to interpret in Der Ring that states things clearly" and "there's no room left to do guessing about it", you don't even seem to have a clear idea of what you think those things are. Like VitelioScarpia I can't see any point continuing down this path.

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

you guys get ridiculous now that you attempt nitpicking about words.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> What? Weren't they all leaving for nirvana just a moment ago?


'all' means the main characters, not Gibichungs or Rhinemaids, don't pretend to not understand.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Like VitelioScarpia I can't see any point continuing down this path.


then, good riddance to you both, i don't need you here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> you guys get ridiculous now that you attempt nitpicking about words.


Words are all we've got here. Yours will be criticized, just like everyone else's.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I have one nice confusing question about _Götterdämmerung_ but this thread has turned sort of crazy already...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Words are all we've got here. Yours will be criticized, just like everyone else's.


you people may gang up on me, all you want, this would not change a thing.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> you people may gang up on me, all you want, this would not change a thing.


No one is actually ganging up, some just share a mutual opinion about one thing or another. As you can see from this thread alone, this "gang" hasn't agreed on everything either.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> I have one nice confusing question about _Götterdämmerung_ but this thread has turned sort of crazy already...


I would suggest now may be the perfect time to ask a follow up question (or were you thinking of an entirely new thread?)

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> this thread has turned sort of crazy already...


you did not call it crazy when posted a comment with nothing but cheap rhetoric:



annaw said:


> Sieglinde didn't write the music, Wagner did


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I would suggest now may be the perfect time to ask a follow up question (or were you thinking of an entirely new thread?)
> 
> N.


This thread will do . Brünnhilde seems to possess some specific knowledge because in _Siegfried_ Erda suggests that Wotan should go and ask his questions from Brünnhilde instead. Sooo.. my question is: what is the knowledge Brünnhilde "transfers" to Siegfried between _Siegfried_ and _Götterdämmerung_? What's up with Brünnhilde's runes (these seem to be somehow related to the same knowledge but I don't even grasp the meaning of these runes)?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> you did not call it crazy when posted a comment with nothing but cheap rhetoric:


Don't take it personally  I don't exclude the possibility that I've contributed to the craziness of this thread.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> This thread will do . Brünnhilde seems to possess some specific knowledge because in _Siegfried_ Erda suggests that Wotan should go and ask his questions from Brünnhilde instead. Sooo.. my question is: what is the knowledge Brünnhilde "transfers" to Siegfried between _Siegfried_ and _Götterdämmerung_? What's up with Brünnhilde's runes (these seem to be somehow related to the same knowledge but I don't even grasp the meaning of these runes)?


There's more material in the_ Ring_ than Wagner actually exploits, so there are mysteries. He never follows up on this one; Brunnhilde never explains what she means, and Siegfried doesn't exhibit any knowledge I can see. Indeed he seems quite naive to the end, a creature of instinct rather than intellect. The only knowledge I can imagine him gaining from Brunnhilde is some pointers on pleasing those mysterious creatures known as women. Watching the animals do it could have given him some strange ideas.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> There's more material in the_ Ring_ than Wagner actually exploits, so there are mysteries. He never follows up on this one; Brunnhilde never explains what she means, and Siegfried doesn't exhibit any knowledge I can see. Indeed he seems quite naive to the end, a creature of instinct rather than intellect. The only knowledge I can imagine him gaining from Brunnhilde is some pointers on pleasing those mysterious creatures known as women. Watching the animals do it could have given him some strange ideas.


Thanks! This has been one of those questions that confuses me almost every time I listen to _Götterdämmerung_, now I can finally do so knowing that I'm probably not missing some major idea. I have a feeling that Wagner sometimes mixes his own thoughts with the original myth producing some slightly confusing details.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Thanks! This has been one of those questions that confuses me almost every time I listen to _Götterdämmerung_, now I can finally do so knowing that I'm probably not missing some major idea. I have a feeling that Wagner sometimes mixes his own thoughts with the original myth producing some slightly confusing details.


It helps to recall that the _Ring_ was composed over a 25-year period, that the libretti were written in reverse order, that Wagner's philosophical conception changed considerably between his socialist-anarchist-revolutionary youth and his Schopenhauer-influenced maturity, and that _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger _interrupted the whole project midway. It's amazing that the final product is as coherent as it is.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> This thread will do . Brünnhilde seems to possess some specific knowledge because in _Siegfried_ Erda suggests that Wotan should go and ask his questions from Brünnhilde instead. Sooo.. my question is: what is the knowledge Brünnhilde "transfers" to Siegfried between _Siegfried_ and _Götterdämmerung_? What's up with Brünnhilde's runes (these seem to be somehow related to the same knowledge but I don't even grasp the meaning of these runes)?


This feels like an exam question (not that there is anything wrong with the question, but rather I seem to have a dim recollection of studying this and I can't quite recall it). I will have to ruminate on it (and if it _were_ an exam I would want to consult my notes/books.

(I will need to have a look at Siegfried act three with an annotated libretto with the motives in to try and figure something out.)

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> *This feels like an exam question* (not that there is anything wrong with the question, but rather I seem to have a dim recollection of studying this and I can't quite recall it). I will have to ruminate on it (and if it _were_ an exam I would want to consult my notes/books.
> 
> (I will need to have a look at Siegfried act three with an annotated libretto with the motives in to try and figure something out.)
> 
> N.


Haha, I was actually thinking the same when formulating my question but couldn't find any better way to put it into words :lol:.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> It helps to recall that the _Ring_ was composed over a 25-year period, that* the libretti were written in reverse order*, that Wagner's philosophical conception changed considerably between his socialist-anarchist-revolutionary youth and his Schopenhauer-influenced maturity, and that _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger _interrupted the whole project midway. It's amazing that the final product is as coherent as it is.


I've never really understood how on earth Wagner managed to write them in reverse order and what exactly made him think it's a good idea in the first place. It turned out wonderfully though! Interestingly _Götterdämmerung_ still seems to be the culmination both musically and plotwise so I guess it's just another proof of his genius.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> I've never really understood how on earth Wagner managed to write them in reverse order and what exactly made him think it's a good idea in the first place. It turned out wonderfully though! Interestingly _Götterdämmerung_ still seems to be the culmination both musically and plotwise so I guess it's just another proof of his genius.


It was originally conceived as one opera called Siegfried's Death, but Wagner realised that it there wasn't enough time to work through the philosophical points he wanted to in one stand alone opera. Therefore he would need a prequel to Siegfried's Death (which ended up becoming Gotterdamerung) to explain the back story fully (this is why there are parts in both those operas where the events of previous operas are retold). Then Wagner realised that the the exposition in the his two operas still didn't cover the ground he wanted to satisfactorily and so he needed even more prequels! The scene between Mime and the Wanderer in Siegfried partially covers the action of Rheingold and the Norns in Gotterdamerung is another segment of this type of 'retelling'. The interesting thing is that Wagner didn't cut those bits out once he had finished his four libretti and that's because those scenes not only serve a dramatic purpose, but they also provide some extra information that provide pointers for the works overall meaning. I also adore the Norns' scene and couldn't imagine the cycle without it.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> It was originally conceived as one opera called Siegfried's Death, but Wagner realised that it there wasn't enough time to work through the philosophical points he wanted to in one stand alone opera. Therefore he would need a prequel to Siegfried's Death (which ended up becoming Gotterdamerung) to explain the back story fully (this is why there are parts in both those operas where the events of previous operas are retold). Then Wagner realised that the the exposition in the his two operas still didn't cover the ground he wanted to satisfactorily and so he needed even more prequels! The scene between Mime and the Wanderer in Siegfried partially covers the action of Rheingold and the Norns in Gotterdamerung is another segment of this type of 'retelling'. The interesting thing is that Wagner didn't cut those bits out once he had finished his four libretti and that's because those scenes not only serve a dramatic purpose, but they also provide some extra information that provide pointers for the works overall meaning. I also adore the Norns' scene and couldn't imagine the cycle without it.
> 
> N.


That's interesting! I knew that the orignal titles etc were different but I hadn't actually thought about why Wagner ended up writing such a massive work or a body of works but this explanation makes a lot of sense. I'm very happy he didn't cut anything as I also enjoy the different retellings and the length doesn't disturb me. What I absolutely love about the _Ring_ is that thanks to its length I can get to know characters the same way as I do when I read a book - the effect is much greater than in shorter operas. I'm somewhat happy Wagner decided to focus on Siegfried a bit less and on gods more as I find Wotan to be one of the most fascinating Wagner characters.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

annaw said:


> Don't take it personally  I don't exclude the possibility that I've contributed to the craziness of this thread.


This is a Wagner thread. In what parallel universe would it not be crazy?:lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> This is a Wagner thread. In what parallel universe would it not be crazy?:lol:


That's a very fair point :lol:!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Brünnhilde seems to possess some specific knowledge because in _Siegfried_ Erda suggests that Wotan should go and ask his questions from Brünnhilde instead.


Brunhilde was initially Wotan's officer and confidante.



annaw said:


> what is the knowledge Brünnhilde "transfers" to Siegfried between _Siegfried_ and _Götterdämmerung_?


akt III of the opera Siegfried; he was a virgin before they met, so...



annaw said:


> What's up with Brünnhilde's runes (these seem to be somehow related to the same knowledge but I don't even grasp the meaning of these runes)?


protective runes with which she had secured the hero's front part of his body.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> I have a feeling that Wagner sometimes mixes his own thoughts with the original myth producing some slightly confusing details.


forget the myth and think of historical realities.

the opera events take place in a ranked society.

its characters represent social classes as follows:

*Gods of Valhalla* - _aristocracy and nobles_.

*Alberich* *&* *Mime* - _jews and bourgeoisie_.

*Fasolt* *&* *Fafner* - _manufacturers_.

*Rhine Maidens* - _the people_.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> forget the myth and think of historical realities.
> 
> the opera events take place in a ranked society.
> 
> ...


To be honest, I've never sympathised with the purely political interpretation of the _Ring_. Wagner used one of the greatest European mythologies there is - I don't wish to disregard it! I want to think that the _Ring_ is deeper than pure politics because Wagner poured so much of himself into his operas. Take Tristan, Wotan, Alberich... - they all exhibit some traits of Wagner himself. Wagner said to Cosima that he even feels sympathy towards Alberich. Alberich is not some thoroughly evil character, neither is Klingsor - they are both ambivalent. This is the reason why I think Wagner's characters, despite being gods and heroes, are sometimes more humane than many human characters of other operas.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> I want to think that the _Ring_ is deeper than pure politics


there's nothing deeper than politics, only religion, and both are present in Der Ring.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Wagner said to Cosima that he even feels sympathy towards Alberich.


nevermind Wagner, even less so Cosima.

it's in the opera. Alberich does invite sympathy, as you watch the piece and listen to its music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> forget the myth and think of historical realities.
> 
> the opera events take place in a ranked society.
> 
> ...


There are certainly political implications to the _Ring_ and its characters. I wouldn't agree, though, that there are rigid and unambiguous correspondences to social class structures or to any specific political model represented by its characters, or that this was Wagner's primary concern.

The scheme you lay out is too simple. The "twilight of the gods" is not merely the end of an aristocrat class. The deaths of Fasolt and Fafner don't illustrate the fate of manufacturers. There is nothing specifically Jewish about the Nibelungs, who, as smiths, actually do much more manufacturing than the giants, who erect only one building and one of whom spends a whole opera sleeping in a cave. And what are "the people," and how do mermaids cavorting all day in a river, guarding the gold, represent them? It looks to me like you're trying to stuff the _Ring_ into some sort of Marxist framework. G.B. Shaw tried to do that and found that _Gotterdammerung_ didn't fit his model.

Maybe you can elaborate and clarify your interpretation. I believe that the political dimension is one dimension of the _Ring_ (and of Wagner's other operas). But thinking of it as primary easily leads to oversimplifications and distortions, and tells us little about the deeper moral and psychological issues Wagner was concerned with. Wagner moved on from his anarchist/socialist youth, and the _Ring,_ while it reflects that period in his thinking, goes beyond it, as he himself understood.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> The scheme you lay out is too simple.


simple? the entire world is unable to work it out, to this day, and still it's simple?



Woodduck said:


> The "twilight of the gods" is not merely the end of an aristocrat class.


read the thread, will you? where did i say it is?



Woodduck said:


> The deaths of Fasolt and Fafner don't illustrate the fate of manufacturers.


they do, the very day it came to 'money makes money' spelled the end to manufacture, as you can see.



Woodduck said:


> There is nothing specifically Jewish about the Nibelungs,


tell that to Wagner.



Woodduck said:


> what are "the people,"


people are ignorant fools, represented by the Rhinemaidens here.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> To be honest, I've never sympathised with the purely political interpretation of the _Ring_. Wagner used one of the greatest European mythologies there is - I don't wish to disregard it! I want to think that the _Ring_ is deeper than pure politics because Wagner poured so much of himself into his operas. Take Tristan, Wotan, Alberich... - they all exhibit some traits of Wagner himself. Wagner said to Cosima that he even feels sympathy towards Alberich. Alberich is not some thoroughly evil character, neither is Klingsor - they are both ambivalent. This is the reason why I think Wagner's characters, despite being gods and heroes, are sometimes more humane than many human characters of other operas.


I agree that there is more to the Ring than the simple political allegory (and the interpretation and reading of it by George Bernard Shaw), however, it is one valid interpretation that makes up one layer of meaning of the work. I have come to the conclusion that there are four main characters, two heroes and two villains, but in some respects two of them are anti-hero and anti-villain. Brunhilde is the hero as far as I am concerned, with Siegfried as an anti-hero. Alberich is the villain (Hagen is more or less just an extension or continuation of his influence) and Wotan is what I would term an anti-villain. Just like Alberich he wants the Ring for the power it will give him and we see in his dealings in Rheingold and Walkure that he has renounced love in return for power. However, he realises the damage that this does and tries (in some respects unsuccessfully) to make amends for it. I thus think of him as an anti-villain, if that makes sense.

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe you can elaborate and clarify your interpretation.


maybe you can abstain from rhetorics and trying to find faults with my work?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> I agree that there is more to the Ring than the simple political allegory


it's not simple, on the contrary, its sophisticated, unlike the romanticist drivel propagated by some.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> it is one valid interpretation that makes up one layer of meaning of the work.


Der Ring does not come in layers... for example, its religious aspect is presented straightforward: The Eternal Beginning, The Eternal Return, The Eternal Termination -


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> Der Ring does not come in layers... for example, its religious aspect is presented straightforward: The Eternal Beginning, The Eternal Return, The Eternal Termination


Do you think any opera comes in layers?

In any case what I meant was there are a number of meanings and interpretations. You have mentioned that it has a political and a religious aspect. What I am calling layers here, you are calling aspects. Some of the aspects are more obvious than others, hence my calling them layers. However, call them what you will, I'm not interested in nitpicking linguistics.

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

the tragedy of this masterpiece is that everyone seems to undervalue its true meaning to the world.

Der Ring is not to be read about, but to be watched and listened to, then it all comes clear.

the history of the world during the last three centuries will unfold eventually.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I agree that there is more to the Ring than the simple political allegory (and the interpretation and reading of it by George Bernard Shaw), however, it is one valid interpretation that makes up one layer of meaning of the work. I have come to the conclusion that there are four main characters, two heroes and two villains, but in some respects two of them are anti-hero and anti-villain. Brunhilde is the hero as far as I am concerned, with Siegfried as an anti-hero. Alberich is the villain (Hagen is more or less just an extension or continuation of his influence) and Wotan is what I would term an anti-villain. Just like Alberich he wants the Ring for the power it will give him and we see in his dealings in Rheingold and Walkure that he has renounced love in return for power. However, he realises the damage that this does and tries (in some respects unsuccessfully) to make amends for it. I thus think of him as an anti-villain, if that makes sense.
> 
> N.


Yes, I certainly don't want to exclude political allegory from the _Ring_ but I think it's not the main thing Wagner wanted to convey. Or at least it's not the most important theme in the _Ring_ for me personally. This of course doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I haven't got around to read Shaw yet but thanks to Woodduck's recommendation I've immensely enjoyed Donington's psychoanalytical approach - that's maybe why I'm biased towards a more psychological reading of the _Ring_. I'm quite interested in philosophical analysis as well. When I first listened to the _Ring_ and tried to analyse it, I started with Paul Heise's Feuerbachian interpretation and looking back I think I didn't understand the majority of it. I should probably give it another go.

The anti-hero and anti-villain approach is fascinating! I think it comes through quite nicely with Alberich as nacht-Alberich and Wotan as licht-Alberich.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Do you think any opera comes in layers?


most of them do, but not Der Ring.

take for example _La Traviata_, it consists of two layers:

1st - a love story, where love is above all.

2nd - nah, a prostitute to stand in the way of a noble who is to marry a woman of his rank? no way!

the poor girl is better off dead.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> I think it's not the main thing Wagner wanted to convey.


think twice, and leave the composer be.



annaw said:


> Or at least it's not the most important theme in the _Ring_ for me personally.


and who cares? are we talking you or the masterpiece of all times?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> maybe you can abstain from rhetorics and trying to find faults with my work?


Maybe you shouldn't brag about "your work," tell everyone else how ignorant they are, and then make elementary mistakes which show your own understanding to be inadequate.

Examples:

_If go by the music, it is doomsday for all. _[Not for the Gibichungs, who watch the gods burn.]

_All leave for nirvana, this world is doomed._ [Not supported by libretto or music.]

_Nirvana's in the ending of the finales to both Gotterdammerung and Tristan und Isolde, where Isolde literally describes the process of ascension into The Eternal Termination, that is nirvana. _[T & I is a different opera. Isolde and Brunnhilde are different characters. Their deaths have different meanings.]

[_The spectators who witnessed the end of the gods] must have tried and restored some kind of order to get along for awhile. _[What? They came back from nirvana? And they don't represent humans anyway, because only the Rhinemaidens are "the People"?]
_
Thing is, there's no mankind portrayed in this opera, except for the Rhinemaidens. _[Bizarre notion.]
_
Neither Gibich folks nor Rhinemaidens are representative of humans. _[But you just said...!]

_The motif droops in its ending, like a hand that just waved goodbye._ [Your personal feeling only.]

_Wagner is to be trusted only in relation to his music._ [Wagner said a lot of perinent things about his works, not only their music.]
_
Der Ring is very clear in its messages, especially because it relies on leitmotives._ [Non sequitur.]

_T__he only development and independence Brunnhilde experiences, it is when prepares her own immolation._ [She defied Wotan's command and the laws of the gods. That's as independent as you can get.]

_Wotan had to cancel his initial decision to make a new one against his own will and she then had to realise the situation, which she did not, for being too stupid and weak, at the time. _[She was not stupid, and love is not weakness.]

_She was already corrupt and irresponsible so couldn't care less about the gods and the world. She was being selfish, while thinking of her own happiness in love, and that's it. _[That is exactly what she should have been thinking about. The superiority of love to legality and authoritarianism is the point.]

_Brunhilde refused to give up the ring because of being greedy, same as Alberich was, back then. _[She was not greedy. She had sacrificed everything for love, which at this point in the drama expresses wisdom in opposition to the gods and what they represent.]

_With Brunhilde, renunciation of love would not have been the same thing as with Alberich's. Her selfishness was imposed by love, and his - by greed._ [As I say - and you now say - she was not greedy. But neither was Alberich's "sefishness imposed by greed." His rage and rebellion, his choice to hate and dominate when spurned, is not "greed." Hatred and the will to power are deeper than greed.]

_Wotan is being nihilistic when relinquishes the 'gods splendour' to a 'nibelung son'. _[Not nihilistic, but despairing.]

_The funeral march tells the story of Siegfried through use of leitmotives denoting his parents, his deeds, and the nature of his personality; in fact its built of Siegfried-related leitmotives all over.
The Siegfried-related leitmotives are present in there with nothing else added._ [Half of the motifs we hear in the funeral music are those of Siegmund and Sieglinde, as heard in the first scene of _Walkure,_ before Siegfried was conceived. This is why the music is about more than Siegfried himself.]

_The ring symbolises the power of that 'financial bubble' which has crept into the world since the advent of Stock Exchange._ [The ring symbolizes the corruption of the spirit which manifests in hate and the will to power. That is an eternal part of human nature and did not appear with capitalism.]

_The Rhine represents nature, but its maidens personify the People, who are courted by the Jews personified by Alberich. 'Love' in this case is an allegory of a union. Jews then fail to unite with people, so they will rob them now, which is nothing new, but Alberich goes further and forges a ring that represents Stock Exchange. Financial machinations now to help Jews take over the entire world, not just a part of it._ [I'm not touching that one...!]

_Art is an ideology and a precise tool used to convey information in a coded way._ [The precise view of totalitarian dictators everywhere.]

_There's nothing deeper than politics, only religion. _[The human psyche - the mind and spirit - is the root of politics, religion, philosophy, art, psychology, etc. Wagner explores more of human nature than its political and religious conceptions.]

_There's nothing to interpret in Der Ring that states things clearly. There's no room left to do guessing about it. _

You've made lots of guesses about the _Ring._ Some of them are reasonable interpretations, some are partial and misleading, some are simply erroneous. It would all be inoffensive if you weren't so convinced of your own perfect understanding and the ignorance of others.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Examples:


strawman and nitpicking - all you can do for your lack of arguments.

you, reading books instead of watching the opera, seen and heard nothing of it.

and stop pretending you didn't read the thread and the comments i posted.

for instance, you deliberately misquoted this my comment -



> thing is, there's no mankind portrayed in this opera, except for the Rhinemaidens; however, they represent not the mankind the notion of which we are used to. Wotan, Alberich, Fricka, Brunhilde, Siegmund, Hunding, Siegfried, Hagen and so on - all of them are what is called 'mankind' from our perspective. Rhinemaidens don't even qualify here.


this is telling about you as a person.



Woodduck said:


> _The Rhine represents nature, but its maidens personify the People, who are courted by the Jews personified by Alberich. 'Love' in this case is an allegory of a union. Jews then fail to unite with people, so they will rob them now, which is nothing new, but Alberich goes further and forges a ring that represents Stock Exchange. Financial machinations now to help Jews take over the entire world, not just a part of it._ [I'm not touching that one...!]


not touched but added in order to make your list look bigger, huh?

such are your methods of discussion?



Woodduck said:


> You've made lots of guesses about the _Ring._


it is you guessing, but i am not.

and it's obvious you only read about this opera in the books while no experience of it firsthand.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> This thread will do . Brünnhilde seems to possess some specific knowledge because in _Siegfried_ Erda suggests that Wotan should go and ask his questions from Brünnhilde instead. Sooo.. my question is: what is the knowledge Brünnhilde "transfers" to Siegfried between _Siegfried_ and _Götterdämmerung_? What's up with Brünnhilde's runes (these seem to be somehow related to the same knowledge but I don't even grasp the meaning of these runes)?


This is an incredibly complex question (or at least it seems that way to me as act three of Siegfried is the part of the cycle that is most enigmatic to me). I think Zhdanov has partially answered it as both lose their virginity on the rock and that is a part of the knowledge that Siegfried gains from Brunhilde.

One thing I would like to look at before getting to your main question is the scene at the beginning of act three of Siegfried and what it is about. Last time I saw the opera it struck me that the main theme of this scene is the passing of authority or ascendancy from one generation to the next. Most obviously this is the progression from Wotan to Siegfried. However, Erda also hints at this with her suggestion to Wotan that he speak with her daughters (first the Norns and then Brunhilde). We can't understand this scene if we don't understand two crucial things about Wotan at that point.

1) Why does he become the Wanderer in Siegfried and 2) What is his question for Erda (or why does he summon her)?

These questions are resolved in that scene itself. Wotan tells Erda that "Die Welt durchzog ich, wanderte viel, Kunde zu werben, urweisen Rat zu gewinnen." (I have traversed the world, wandered far afield to gather knowledge and to win primevally-wise counsel.) It seems that Wotan is looking for the answer to a question that is tormenting him, the question he then ultimately asks her: "wie besiegt die Sorge der Gott?" (How may the god conquer his cares?) How can Wotan calm that which torments him? I think Wotan is addicted to the lust for power even at this stage in the drama and whilst he recognises that it is an issue, he doesn't understand how to resolve it. Erda answers his question before he has even asked it in her enigmatic way. He needs to relinquish all power, all control and leave it to the next generation. This in fact is the answer to his dilemma whichever angle you view it from, Siegfried needs to act independently, completely independently of Wotan.

Therefore the knowledge that Brunhilde has is tied into Wotan's dilemma and connected to Brunhilde's ultimate purpose of separating completely from her heritage as a god.

I will leave it there for now as this is part one of an answer that I will finish off tomorrow.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Thanks Conte, I’m already excited to read your full answer! This thread has been very enlightening so far.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> strawman and nitpicking - all you can do for your lack of arguments.
> 
> you, reading books instead of watching the opera, seen and heard nothing of it.
> 
> ...


Well, if listing your nonsensical speculations has no effect and you wish to go on propagating more of same, there's unfortunately nothing anyone can do to stop you. Too bad. Some people are here for an actual conversation about an actual work of art, not narrow-minded pronouncements about a caricature of it.

But I do recommend keeping your theories about Jews lusting after "the People" under wraps. It's ugly stuff, and makes you look pretty bad.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I do recommend keeping your theories about Jews lusting after "the People" under wraps. It's ugly stuff, and makes you look pretty bad.


there you go... why didn't you proclaim yourself a follower of political correcteness, first off, eh?

hence your beef, i see... but you shouldn't have even try into Der Ring, in such a case, you understand?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> there you go... why didn't you proclaim yourself a follower of political correcteness, first off, eh?
> 
> hence your beef, i see... but you shouldn't have even try into Der Ring, in such a case, you understand?


Objecting to the gratuitous propagation of antisemitic stereotypes is not "political correctness," except to an antisemite.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Objecting to the gratuitous propagation of antisemitic stereotypes


blinkered much?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> Thanks Conte, I'm already excited to read your full answer! This thread has been very enlightening so far.


Here is the second part of my answer. Having been able to sleep on it and consider act three of Siegfried again, I don't think Erda does say that Brunhilde has some knowledge that Wotan should seek his daughter's counsel instead of hers. She merely says that Brunhilde is brave and wise. I have already given my interpretation of that scene and its meaning within the overall drama.

In the duet at the end of Siegfried there are a few moments where wisdom and knowing are mentioned. At one point Brunhilde tells Siegfried "That which you don't know, I know for you: yet I am wise only because I love you." Later on she fears that she will lose her wisdom and knowledge due to a union with Siegfried. I don't think it's that productive trying to find the meaning in every phrase and word of the Ring. I think the allusions to the knowledge that Brunhilde loses and Siegfried gains when each lose their virginity is poetic symbolism related to the consummation of their union. However, we often are only given half the story when it comes to the libretto of the Ring. Sometimes the leitmotives tell us something quite different from the words that are spoken (just as in real life one doesn't always say exactly what is on one's mind). I don't think the leitmotives help us much here, but we could ask whether Brunhilde only loses and Siegfried only gains. Brunhilde gains the knowledge of carnal love and this is very much apparent in her frustrating dialogue with Waltraute where neither can understand the other because of Brunhilde's experience that Waltraute hasn't been through.

To be continued...

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> This thread will do . Brünnhilde seems to possess some specific knowledge because in _Siegfried_ Erda suggests that Wotan should go and ask his questions from Brünnhilde instead. Sooo.. my question is: what is the knowledge Brünnhilde "transfers" to Siegfried between _Siegfried_ and _Götterdämmerung_? What's up with Brünnhilde's runes (these seem to be somehow related to the same knowledge but I don't even grasp the meaning of these runes)?


I've gone back to your original question to finish my answer. To sum up, Erda's suggestion doesn't really have any connection to the knowledge that Brunhilde gives Siegfried. Part of that knowledge is, as Zhdanov suggested, related to the mutual losing of their virginity. However to answer your question properly we need to look at the scene between Brunhilde and Siegfried in Gotterdamerung. Brunhilde tells Siegfried that she has given him the 'heiliger Runen' (holy runes) which the gods taught her and he has also taken all her wisdom. It becomes clear later on that these runes are blessings that protect Siegfried. So that should clarify what the runes are. Brunhilde has also taught Siegfried everything she knows in order to protect him out in the big bad world, however he is incapable of understanding this as he tells her, "Don't chide me if your lessons have left me uneducated". Brunhilde has tried to pass onto Siegfried the remaining divine aspects left in her makeup (blessings, wisdom and knowledge), but this is only partially successful as Siegfried is a mortal. He gets the blessings, but not the wisdom and knowledge (and it isn't knowledge of a particular thing, but knowledge in general), hence why he doesn't act with wisdom in the rest of the final Ring opera.

So to sum up, Brunhilde doesn't possess specific knowledge, but she does have holy blessings (called runes in the opera) which she has learned as a god and general wisdom which she tries to transfer to Siegfried, but it isn't successful. Hence why he acts unwisely, she seems to lose this wisdom temporarily in the process (hence why she acts unwisely), but she never really lost it ultimately as she realises the sacrifice that is needed by the end of the opera.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I've gone back to your original question to finish my answer. To sum up, Erda's suggestion doesn't really have any connection to the knowledge that Brunhilde gives Siegfried. Part of that knowledge is, as Zhdanov suggested, related to the mutual losing of their virginity. However to answer your question properly we need to look at the scene between Brunhilde and Siegfried in Gotterdamerung. Brunhilde tells Siegfried that she has given him the 'heiliger Runen' (holy runes) which the gods taught her and he has also taken all her wisdom. It becomes clear later on that these runes are blessings that protect Siegfried. So that should clarify what the runes are. Brunhilde has also taught Siegfried everything she knows in order to protect him out in the big bad world, however he is incapable of understanding this as he tells her, "Don't chide me if your lessons have left me uneducated". Brunhilde has tried to pass onto Siegfried the remaining divine aspects left in her makeup (blessings, wisdom and knowledge), but this is only partially successful as Siegfried is a mortal. He gets the blessings, but not the wisdom and knowledge (and it isn't knowledge of a particular thing, but knowledge in general), hence why he doesn't act with wisdom in the rest of the final Ring opera.
> 
> So to sum up, Brunhilde doesn't possess specific knowledge, but she does have holy blessings (called runes in the opera) which she has learned as a god and general wisdom which she tries to transfer to Siegfried, but it isn't successful. Hence why he acts unwisely, she seems to lose this wisdom temporarily in the process (hence why she acts unwisely), but she never really lost it ultimately as she realises the sacrifice that is needed by the end of the opera.
> 
> N.


Huge thanks! This was very very helpful (I feel like Germany during the Age of Enlightenment :lol! I particularly like the idea that Siegfried's mortality kept him from possessing the knowledge of immortals. The runes make sense as well!

One thing there is, I'm not absolutely sure whether Brünnhilde acts particularly unwisely in _Götterdämmerung_. Okay, she doesn't give away the ring but that, as far as I've understood, would have symbolically meant renouncing love. (It's a bitter-sweet thing as I feel too much sympathy towards Wotan and would be very happy with hearing a grand heroic bass-baritone in _Götterdämmerung_ instead of seeing burning Walhalla but I understand the symbolical importance.) Second, she helps Hagen kill Siegfried but that seems to be a very humane reaction considering that her love towards Siegfried was the reason she saw any reason in living (Brünnhilde pretty much manages to give Wotan only two choices in Act III of _Die Walküre_ - kill her or give her Siegfried). Maybe her greatest weakness was that she was blinded by her love but considering _Tristan_, I'm not sure whether Wagner saw that as a mistake or rather as something desirable.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

annaw said:


> . . . Okay, she doesn't give away the ring but that, as far as I've understood, would have symbolically meant renouncing love.


Isn't this backwards? I thought that _using_ the ring required the person to renounce love, not that the ring itself was somehow love. (I suppose that would make it a kind of anti-symbol.) That would suggest that she embraces her love by destroying the ring. (And note that the opera ends with a recapitulation of the love theme.)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)




----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> Isn't this backwards? I thought that using the ring required the person to renounce love, not that the ring itself was somehow love.


It is indeed backwards! I find this to be something very paradoxical and I certainly don't exclude the possibility that I might be wrong. How I see this is that by the time Waltraute comes to Brünnhilde, the ring has become a pledge of Siegfried's love towards Brünnhilde - it's a symbol of that love. So yes, it's in contradiction with ring's general meaning as a poison of love but it's still the way Brünnhilde seems to see the ring. Brünnhilde says to Waltraute: "For Siegfried's love shines blissfully forth from it! Siegfried's love - if only my rapture could speak to you! - That love the ring embodies for me. Go hence to the gods' hallowed council; of my ring tell them only this: I shall never relinquish love, they'll never take love from me, though Valhalla's glittering pomp should moulder into dust!" (Spencer, Millington)

It could be though argued as Millington and Spencer themselves did, that as Wagner's views changed with his studies of Schopenhauer, he started seeing love as a fundamentally devastating force. Thus if understood that way, then Conte is indeed right and Brünnhilde's actions here are unwise. Hmm, now that I think about it, then it actually makes sense...


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Personally, I think I would take the ring, but that may just be me (and no ring of power is being offered, so . . .)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

JAS said:


> (And note that the opera ends with a recapitulation of the love theme.)


love theme is this leitmotive -






the opera ends with redemption farewell -


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

annaw said:


> It is indeed backwards! I find this to be something very paradoxical and I certainly don't exclude the possibility that I might be wrong. How I see this is that by the time Waltraute comes to Brünnhilde, the ring has become a pledge of Siegfried's love towards Brünnhilde - it's a symbol of that love. So yes, it's in contradiction with ring's general meaning as a poison of love but it's still the way Brünnhilde seems to see the ring. Brünnhilde says to Waltraute: "For Siegfried's love shines blissfully forth from it! Siegfried's love - if only my rapture could speak to you! - That love the ring embodies for me. Go hence to the gods' hallowed council; of my ring tell them only this: I shall never relinquish love, they'll never take love from me, though Valhalla's glittering pomp should moulder into dust!" (Spencer, Millington)
> 
> It could be though argued as Millington and Spencer themselves did, that as Wagner's views changed with his studies of Schopenhauer, he started seeing love as a fundamentally devastating force. Thus if understood that way, then Conte is indeed right and Brünnhilde's actions here are unwise. Hmm, now that I think about it, then it actually makes sense...


One might also say that the ring becomes a symbol of love because Sigfried gave it up for love, by giving it to Brünnhilde (although I am not at all sure that he understands what he has done). (Perhaps the power of the ring has less appeal to him as he has already been captured by love?) The ring is thus a symbol of that love, but it is also what destroyed him, as it is cursed (an important detail). Brünnhilde, perhaps, cannot resolve the conflict, so she destroys herself along with the ring. Problems solved!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> Huge thanks! This was very very helpful (I feel like Germany during the Age of Enlightenment :lol! I particularly like the idea that Siegfried's mortality kept him from possessing the knowledge of immortals. The runes make sense as well!
> 
> One thing there is, I'm not absolutely sure whether Brünnhilde acts particularly unwisely in _Götterdämmerung_. Okay, she doesn't give away the ring but that, as far as I've understood, would have symbolically meant renouncing love. (It's a bitter-sweet thing as I feel too much sympathy towards Wotan and would be very happy with hearing a grand heroic bass-baritone in _Götterdämmerung_ instead of seeing burning Walhalla but I understand the symbolical importance.) Second, she helps Hagen kill Siegfried but that seems to be a very humane reaction considering that her love towards Siegfried was the reason she saw any reason in living (Brünnhilde pretty much manages to give Wotan only two choices in Act III of _Die Walküre_ - kill her or give her Siegfried). Maybe her greatest weakness was that she was blinded by her love but considering _Tristan_, I'm not sure whether Wagner saw that as a mistake or rather as something desirable.


I wasn't thinking about Brunhilde's not giving up the Ring as being unwise (and you and JAS have pointed out the irony that the Ring has become a symbol of love rather than a renunciation of love). Your point about whether her behaviour in act two is wise or not is a good one and is an example of my point that the Ring raises questions that can't be answered. For example, does Brunhilde actually lose her wisdom or does she just think she does? Are her actions in act two unwise? I don't think there is a set answer to that. You could say that had she some supernatural godly wisdom then she would see through the actions of Hagen, however her godhead is separate from her wisdom (Wotan took her godhead away, she gave her wisdom to Siegfried). I think it's a matter of personal interpretation whether she is unwise or not. What *is* clear is that she does have her wisdom at the end of the opera and therefore her feeling that she has given it away at the beginning is a mistake on her part.

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Are her actions in act two unwise?


obvioulsy, they are... the very next scene, where she loses the ring is proof of that.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I wasn't thinking about Brunhilde's not giving up the Ring as being unwise (and you and JAS have pointed out the irony that the Ring has become a symbol of love rather than a renunciation of love). Your point about whether her behaviour in act two is wise or not is a good one and is an example of my point that the Ring raises questions that can't be answered. For example, does Brunhilde actually lose her wisdom or does she just think she does? Are her actions in act two unwise? I don't think there is a set answer to that. You could say that had she some supernatural godly wisdom then she would see through the actions of Hagen, however her godhead is separate from her wisdom (Wotan took her godhead away, she gave her wisdom to Siegfried). I think it's a matter of personal interpretation whether she is unwise or not. What *is* clear is that she does have her wisdom at the end of the opera and therefore her feeling that she has given it away at the beginning is a mistake on her part.
> 
> N.


Yes, as this thread has proved, it's certainly a question of personal interpretation. Nevertheless, I find yours to be very insightful and it certainly gave me a lot to think about next time I listen to the _Ring_!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> obvioulsy, they are... the very next scene, where she loses the ring is proof of that.


I think Wagner wrote about this to Roeckel as well though I don't have the time atm to dive into the letters and find out whether that was in there or not. The point was that losing the ring is almost unavoidable - when the ring has to go, it goes. Wotan takes it from Alberich, Fafner is killed, Siegfried gives it away, Brünnhilde loses it, etc. One might ask why no one is able to keep it if it gives such a great power? It seems to follow a certain higher destiny that is uncontrollable.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Wotan takes it from Alberich, Fafner is killed, Siegfried gives it away, Brünnhilde loses it, etc. One might ask why no one is able to keep it if it gives such a great power?


because Wotan took it from Alberich and the latter laid a curse on it.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> because Wotan took it from Alberich and the latter laid a curse on it.


Mind you that Alberich loses the ring and curses it only afterwards. Why wasn't Alberich then able to control Wotan the way he controlled other dwarves? I still think that the fate of the ring was to some extent uncontrollable.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

once again i call on everyone here to not overcomplicate things about opera plot.

Der Ring is most powerful a message when perceived as is, as it looks and sounds, at its rawest.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Why wasn't Alberich then able to control Wotan the way he controlled other dwarves?


because Wotan is not a nibelung, he is a god, for its all about ranking.

it would have taken some time for Alberich to find the ways to attack Valhalla and its gods.

he only threatened Wotan with something like this, in the previous scene, but it was still a future plan.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> once again i call on everyone here to not overcomplicate things about opera plot.
> 
> *Der Ring is most powerful a message when perceived as is, as it looks and sounds, at its rawest.*


I think Wagner would have agreed with you! I know I have a bad tendency to overinterpret things but then I never know when I do and when I don't. Some things that Wagner thought were a common sense and trivial are much more complicated for me and thus I can but keep thinking and analysing his works. Because his philosophical genius is a lot more difficult to assess than the musical one, I don't know what Wagner did intentionally and what I'm just reading into the plot. As Conte said, the final understanding is still about personal intepretation because people with different experiences and backgrounds see things differently and thus such discussions as this one can be very eye-opening.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Some things that Wagner thought were a common sense and trivial are much more complicated for me and thus I can but keep thinking and analysing his works. Because his philosophical genius is a lot more difficult to assess than the musical one, I don't know what Wagner did intentionally and what I'm just reading into the plot.


what i would warn against, however, is a supposed philosophical aspect to Der Ring.

the attempts to find philosophy in its music end up ignoring the music itself.

it strikes me, by the way, how little discussed music is on this forum.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> what i would warn against, however, is a supposed philosophical aspect to Der Ring.
> 
> the attempts to find philosophy in its music end up ignoring the music itself.
> 
> it strikes me, by the way, how little discussed music is on this forum.


Here I disagree, I think the philosophical aspect is not "supposed" but very real. Wagner lived in Romantic Germany after all! I certainly do not wish, and I hope I don't, disregard the music but valuing Wagner's musical genius doesn't keep me from analysing the libretto that Wagner wrote himself like he wrote the music.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> Here I disagree, I think the philosophical aspect is not "supposed" but very real. Wagner lived in Romantic Germany after all! I certainly do not wish, and I hope I don't, disregard the music but valuing Wagner's musical genius doesn't keep me from analysing the libretto that Wagner wrote himself like he wrote the music.


I agree with Zhdabov that we tend to overemphasize the philosophical aspects of The Ring. Firstly, it is a _musical drama_ instead of a drama with incidental music (e.g., Peer Gynt with incidental music by Grieg). Secondly, I find it amazing that most discussions are about the "philosophy" and so little about the music which can either be the most sublime to many, or _fragmented_ to others.

I believe that Wagner snobbery shows through - I know, it may be sacrilege to many - but he could not help himself but self aggrandize however wonderful or accomplished his _œuvre_ may be. I do not expect anyone to agree but I am speaking from having lived, thought and experienced his operas since I was 13 when I dug into Die Götterdämmerung by having been given the Solti recording as a present. Wagner gives us his interpretation of the world but it does not mean that he was right about everything.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I agree with Zhdabov that we tend to overemphasize the philosophical aspects of The Ring. Firstly, it is a _musical drama_ instead of a drama with incidental music (e.g., Peer Gynt with incidental music by Grieg). Secondly, I find it amazing that most discussions are about the "philosophy" and so little about the music which can either be the most sublime to many, or _fragmented_ to others.
> 
> I believe that Wagner snobbery shows through - I know, it may be sacrilege to many - but he could not help himself but self aggrandize however wonderful or accomplished his _œuvre_ may be. I do not expect anyone to agree but I am speaking from having lived, thought and experienced his operas since I was 13 when I dug into Die Götterdämmerung by having been given the Solti recording as a present. Wagner gives us his interpretation of the world but it does not mean that he was right about everything.


I certainly don't want to imply that I agree with everything Wagner thought, that's definitely not the case! I'm rather trying to understand what on earth he even thought and then assess whether I agree with it or not. Just to point this out, so that no one would misunderstand me, I find his music absolutely sublime! Music is just a more emotional experience for me as I have no professional musical training and thus analysing the score is a lot more complicated. I'm also very fascinated by the leitmotifs but this is a way Wagner conveys his views on psychology, philosophy etc as well - it's a very beautiful way to do that. I love analysing, I do it with books as well! It gives me a lot of enjoyment and one can rarely do that so thoroughly with any other operas. I'm sure my views will change and mature the more I listen to Wagner though.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> I certainly don't want to imply that I agree with everything Wagner thought, that's definitely not the case! I'm rather trying to understand what on earth he even thought and then assess whether I agree with it or not. Just to point this out, so that no one would misunderstand me, I find his music absolutely sublime! Music is just a more emotional experience for me as I have no professional musical training and thus analysing the score is a lot more complicated. I'm also very fascinated by the leitmotifs but this is a way Wagner conveys his views on psychology, philosophy etc as well - it's a very beautiful way to do that. I love analysing, I do it with books as well! It gives me a lot of enjoyment and one can rarely do that so thoroughly with any other operas. I'm sure my views will change and mature the more I listen to Wagner though.


I hear you. I find his music sublime also! I found useful at one time a set of 2 CD's put together by Deryk Cooke on Decca where he goes through all the leitmotifs and their evolution in The Ring to better appreciate his work.

However, I go back to the question _does it speak to me_? I confess that however much I admire and like Wagner's music, I do not connect emotionally as deeply I do to Beethoven, Mozart, and many other composers (operatic or not). I admire him tremendously and love to understand the way he built his operas. However, I do not _viscerally love_ his operas in the same way as I do others. I feel that I am always left at the perimeter looking in to his creatures instead of being with the them sharing their sorrows or happiness. Perhaps the _closest_ ones to me are Isolde and, somewhat strangely, King Marke. His fascination to me is more intellectual than emotional.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> The point was that losing the ring is almost unavoidable - when the ring has to go, it goes. Wotan takes it from Alberich, Fafner is killed, Siegfried gives it away, Brünnhilde loses it, etc. One might ask why no one is able to keep it if it gives such a great power? It seems to follow a certain higher destiny that is uncontrollable.


You are insightful. The power of destiny over the lives of his characters, the sense that they act as pawns of powers higher than themselves, forces which they can't resist but may, in some cases, come to understand and embrace in the end, is characteristic of Wagner's dramaturgy. In _Tristan_, in the _Ring,_ in _Parsifal,_ even in _Meistersinger_ - to cite only the mature operas - we see the setting forth of a problem and the working out of its resolution in ways that seem necessary, arising from the nature, motivation and circumstances of the characters involved. In the_ Ring,_ and especially in _Gotterdammerung,_ we feel the power of fate to a haunting and almost oppressive degree; it's personified in the Norns, who spin the rope of destiny and see it fray and break asunder as the world ruled by the gods begins to give way and a new order struggles to be born.

I agree with your perception that the ring goes where it must go, and the fact that it's so easily lost suggests that it has no real power but is merely a talisman onto which people project their own desires. I find a terrible irony here, but one true to life: power is often not what it's expected to be by those who seek it - it often rebounds, sometimes fatally, upon the seeker - and absolute power is a mirage. What kind of power one seeks and gains, and the extent of it, are not determined by predictions and curses, but fundamentally by one's character. Just as in _Tristan_ the power of the "love potion," which seems to turn hate into love, really resides in the emotional state and expectations of those who drink it, the apparent power of the ring lies in the motivations of the one who forges it, the one who can crush loving impulses and succumb completely to hate. Both the potion and the ring are symbolic manifestations of the psychic forces moving in their respective dramas, and those forces, expressed in the actions of the characters, are what propel the stories forward, determining their courses and outcomes regardless of the often deluded hopes and futile efforts of the actors.

Alberich's power, such as it is - and it is less than he imagines in his grandiose fantasies of omnipotence, which could never become real and were destined to yield to an ambitious god - is represented by the ring but not caused by it, and is the product of his renunciation of all the softer sensibilities and impulses of empathy and benevolence. Wotan could never have killed those impulses in himself, and when his conscience comes to him in the form of the goddess of wisdom his relinquishment of the ring is inevitable. The ring, as always, goes where it has to go.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I agree with Zhdanov that we tend to overemphasize the philosophical aspects of The Ring. Firstly, it is a musical drama instead of a drama with incidental music (e.g., Peer Gynt with incidental music by Grieg).I find it amazing that most discussions are about the "philosophy" and so little about the music which can either be the most sublime to many, or _fragmented_ to others.


There are places on the forum outside the opera subforum where music is more likely to be discussed. But Wagner presents special challenges, since the structure of his music is intimately bound up with dramatic ideas and is hard to discuss the way one would talk about, say, Beethoven's symphonies. I find that Wagner's musical techniques are not widely understood beyond the obvious use of leitmotif, and some attempts I've made to describe them have attracted few responses, even in dicussions of music theory. Most people just haven't given his music, as music, much thought. It's also difficult to discuss music on a forum like this without recourse to examples. It's too bad we can't all sit around a piano and look at scores.

I'm surprised that anyone would find surprising the perennial interest in analyzing the meaning of Wagner's dramatic visions, expressed in such imaginative rethinkings of some of the central myths and romances of Western culture. The archetypes he employs have always cried out for philosophical and psychological analysis, and the flow of books dealing with them seems unstoppable. His works really are a unique phenomenon, and they can occupy as much of our time as we wish. They've certainly occupied a good deal of mine over the last 55 years or so, and I'm not finished with them yet.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I agree with Zhdabov that we tend to overemphasize the philosophical aspects of The Ring. Firstly, it is a _musical drama_ instead of a drama with incidental music (e.g., Peer Gynt with incidental music by Grieg). Secondly, I find it amazing that most discussions are about the "philosophy" and so little about the music which can either be the most sublime to many, or _fragmented_ to others.
> 
> I believe that Wagner snobbery shows through - I know, it may be sacrilege to many - but he could not help himself but self aggrandize however wonderful or accomplished his _œuvre_ may be. I do not expect anyone to agree but I am speaking from having lived, thought and experienced his operas since I was 13 when I dug into Die Götterdämmerung by having been given the Solti recording as a present. Wagner gives us his interpretation of the world but it does not mean that he was right about everything.


As others have said the philosophy isn't solely in the libretto of the Ring, but is explained by the music. Whilst there is more the the music of the Ring than the leitmotives when I have been looking at the libretto to understand it better I use one which includes the leitmotives that appear at the same time in the music in a margin. Both the words and music need to be considered in order to study the philosophy of the Ring.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I hear you. I find his music sublime also! I found useful at one time a set of 2 CD's put together by Deryk Cooke on Decca where he goes through all the leitmotifs and their evolution in The Ring to better appreciate his work.
> 
> However, I go back to the question _does it speak to me_? I confess that however much I admire and like Wagner's music, I do not connect emotionally as deeply I do to Beethoven, Mozart, and many other composers (operatic or not). I admire him tremendously and love to understand the way he built his operas. *However, I do not viscerally love his operas in the same way as I do others. I feel that I am always left at the perimeter looking in to his creatures instead of being with the them sharing their sorrows or happiness.* Perhaps the _closest_ ones to me are Isolde and, somewhat strangely, King Marke. His fascination to me is more intellectual than emotional.


I relate with Wagner's characters much better than with other opera characters. Wagner managed to portray human psychology very masterfully - his characters are never black and white but they're ambivalent, complex and multifaceted as are real human-beings. Wagner understood them amazingly well - the weaknesses of his own nature seem to suddenly become the opposite strengths of his heroes. Take Sachs for example. He's truly moral, maybe more moral than Wagner himself ever was but this all springs from Wagner's own inner being and understanding which he was much more successful projecting onto his characters than his own life. Nietzsche puts this beautifully into words in _Nietzsche contra Wagner_: "Wagner is one who has suffered much-and this elevates him above other musicians.-I admire Wagner wherever he sets himself to music." This is exactly what makes his music so real and touching because it seems to be his only means that kept him alive (literally!) and kept him from going truly mad as he didn't seem to possess a particularly stable mind. I don't really doubt he was a somewhat megalomaniac because who else would have written an opera which starts with the beginning of the world and goes on for ~16 hours?! This overly high self-esteem and megalomania, that in his daily life caused a lot of pain for both himself and his friends, became a strength when composing. Of course, this was a sacrifice for the sake of his art - whether it was worth it or not, I cannot say. I can but imagine what the music meant for the man himself!

(Don't take this as a counterargument, I totally understand how personal the whole matter is but I saw this as a great opportunity to praise Wagner's genius just a bit more .)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

See above post, last paragraph. 

Praising Wagner’s genius? Is that not just asking for trouble?:lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> See above post, last paragraph.
> 
> Praising Wagner's genius? Is that not just asking for trouble?:lol:


I'm willing to take the risk :lol:!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I hear you. I find his music sublime also! I found useful at one time a set of 2 CD's put together by Deryk Cooke on Decca where he goes through all the leitmotifs and their evolution in The Ring to better appreciate his work.
> 
> However, I go back to the question _does it speak to me_? I confess that however much I admire and like Wagner's music, I do not connect emotionally as deeply I do to Beethoven, Mozart, and many other composers (operatic or not). I admire him tremendously and love to understand the way he built his operas. However, I do not _viscerally love_ his operas in the same way as I do others. I feel that I am always left at the perimeter looking in to his creatures instead of being with the them sharing their sorrows or happiness. Perhaps the _closest_ ones to me are Isolde and, somewhat strangely, King Marke. His fascination to me is more intellectual than emotional.


Gosh! You have put into words pretty much exactly what I feel about Wagner.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> (Don't take this as a counterargument, I totally understand how personal the whole matter is but I saw this as a great opportunity to praise Wagner's genius just a bit more .)


Love it. This is what it is so much fun about these conversations. As you say, the important thing is how we relate more or less to each piece. I love Wagner and I can relate to many of the characters, for example, Wotan's frustration and pain in Die Walküre. I could "treat" him as a counselor but I could not do that with characters like Violetta, Gustavo, Lady Macbeth, etc. because it would be a case of _folie à deux_, as it were. :lol:

It is so wonderful that we have received these gifts from all these geniuses!


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Gosh! You have put into words pretty much exactly what I feel about Wagner.


I am glad to read that I am not the only "crazy" one here!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Wagner managed to portray human psychology very masterfully


right, psychology it is, not philosophy, because psychology can be taken for philosophy, sometimes.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

however, a philosophical aspect might be found where the Renunciation leitmotive is used:






first, of course, its used in Das Rheingold 1st scene as, indeed, a renunciation of love (at 4:13) -






but in Die Walkure 1st act 3rd scene it reappears in proclamation of love this time around (at 11:24) -






- the springtime theme could also be seen as a philosophical allusion in there.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> however, a philosophical aspect might be found where the Renunciation leitmotive is used:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wagner's use of that motif to accompany text referring to both the renunciation of love and its opposite has been a subject for speculation. The problem may be in the naming of the motif, "renunciation of love." Wagner didn't call his themes "Leitmotiven," a term applied to them by Hans von Wolzogen (he called them "Grundthema"), and he didn't give them the names by which they're popularly known, or any names at all in most cases. If we don't assume that "renunciation of love" is what Wagner meant to express by the motif in question, his apparently contradictory uses of it might be easier to rationalize. Its sad quality might reflect not renunciation but rather the pain of needing love yet being shut out from its joys, as Siegmund had experienced until he found Sieglinde (he sings that "love-longing's piercing passionate need" drove him to deeds and death). The motif later makes an appearance in Wotan's farewell to Brunnhilde where, again, love itself has not been renounced - in fact it's being confessed and affirmed - but where its fruits can no longer be enjoyed.

We know that Wagner scoffed at the designation "redemption by love" with reference to the final theme heard in _Gotterdammerung,_ and there's no reason to think that "renunciation of love" would have pleased him either. In analyzing his use of leitmotives it's wise to be skeptical about the names we commonly give them.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

the motifs names used here are merely subjective and used out of convenience.

i for one would like to call the redemption motif a 'farewell' one, same for many other Der Ring motives.

we can dedicate ourselves, by the way, to renaming these and revise views on this opera as a whole.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I guess Wagner had a reason for leaving them unnamed. I think many of them convey so complex and different meanings in different places that it's difficult to give them short names. Describing their meanings seems to be a lot more reasonable than giving oversimplified names. (It's of course easier to talk about them if they have short names but these names shouldn't be seen as something that actually convey their meaning.)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Describing their meanings seems to be a lot more reasonable than giving oversimplified names.


but please let's do without philosophy, otherwise descriptions would be too long.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

and i personally stand for a short name to each motif, short but precise one.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> I think many of them convey so complex and different meanings in different places


important to always remember that a leitmotive is always of the same meaning whatever place it is.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> important to always remember that a leitmotive is always of the same meaning whatever place it is.


What do you suggest for those that "evolve" through the Ring? For example: the renunciation of love in Rheingold, to love in Walküre, etc.?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> important to always remember that a leitmotive is always of the same meaning whatever place it is.


I don't entirely agree. Of course the central meaning of the leitmotif remains the same but it develops as the characters and the music itself develops. I think this is one of those points where one should be able to read the score to more thoroughly understand the musical progression of leitmotifs, sadly I don't (but I'd love to!). This is also the reason why people don't seem to agree upon the exact number of leitmotifs because no one is able to determine at which point a version of leitmotif becomes an independent one. Many of the leitmotifs are "recognised" but left unnamed, probably for the same reason - they are just further developments of one of the major leitmotifs and thus are just considered as part of a bigger leitmotif "family".


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

VitellioScarpia said:


> What do you suggest for those that "evolve" through the Ring? For example: the renunciation of love in Rheingold, to love in Walküre, etc.?


if it's "renunciation" in Das Rheingold, then it can't be any other name in Die Walkure.

and if its "love" in Die Walkure, then it should be "love" in Das Rheingold as well.

however, we already have the 'love' motif -






- those strings express it so clear.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I think a leitmotif has the same association, a character or idea, but not necessarily the same meaning.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Of course the central meaning of the leitmotif remains the same but it develops as the characters and the music itself develops.


it can develop and modify, but it can't change its meaning


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

JAS said:


> a leitmotif has the same association, a character or idea, but not necessarily the same meaning.


its precisely same meaning, otherwise it is not a leitmotive.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> it can develop and modify, but it can't change its meaning


The same leitmotif develops and changes until the change is so great that we start calling it with a specific name and it becomes a new leitmotif in the family of the original leitmotif. It also obtains a more specific meaning that is often connected with the original one, but not entirely the same one. This is inherently subjective, because the music itself is and Wagner never gave us a dictionary of his leitmotifs.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> The same leitmotif develops and changes until the change is so great that we start calling it with a specific name and it becomes a new leitmotif


not the 'accursed ring' motif, for example, and not most of the main Der Ring motifs.



annaw said:


> It also obtains a more specific meaning that is often connected with the original one, but not entirely the same one.


it rarely occurs in Der Ring.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

let's read up on leitmotif - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitmotif



> A leitmotif or leitmotiv is a "short, constantly recurring musical phrase" associated with a particular person, place, or idea. It is closely related to the musical concepts of idée fixe or motto-theme.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

JAS said:


> I think a leitmotif has the same association, a character or idea, but not necessarily the same meaning.


I agree, the context that the symbol or association is used in changes its meaning.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> not the 'accursed ring' motif, for example, and not most of the main Der Ring motifs.
> 
> *it rarely occurs in Der Ring*.


Reading some books would help here - Cooke, Donington and Millington/Spencer all analyse leitmotifs to some extent and I'm more than sure that this occurs in the _Ring_ rather often. I'm not saying that the original motifs disappears but just occurs in multiple different versions that don't have exactly the same meaning as the original one. I don't actually like the word "meaning" here but I cannot come up with anything else at the moment...


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> let's read up on leitmotif - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitmotif


Yes, it's associated with a particular thing (usually an idea), the association or idea doesn't change (you are right there), however when the idea is placed in a new context then the result is different to when it was heard elsewhere. Some call that result 'meaning', you may have another word for it, but the outcome is different, even if based on the same idea or association.

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Reading some books would help here - Cooke, Donington and Millington/Spencer all analyse leitmotifs to some extent and I'm more than sure that this occurs in the _Ring_ rather often.


maybe, but the main leitmotives retain their meanings in the main episodes of Der Ring.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Yes, it's associated with a particular thing (usually an idea), the association or idea doesn't change (you are right there), however when the idea is placed in a new context then the result is different to when it was heard elsewhere.


i don't see anything like that occurring in Der Ring and, in this case, the whole point is in obtaing same results.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> maybe, but the main leitmotives retain their meanings in the main episodes of Der Ring.


Agreed. What I said was that alongside the original leitmotif, different versions and developments of the same original leitmotif occur and these have often their own specific meanings. It is pure linguistics whether you'd say that these are independent leitmotifs or just versions of the original one. I tend to prefer the latter as it emphasises the development that goes on constantly throughout the whole _Ring_ in all its different aspects but I don't think that the exact definition has that much importance.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

like, with Renunciation leitmotiv that makes allusions to both Alberich renunciation of love and Siegmund proclamation of love.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> like, with Renunciation leitmotiv that makes allusions to both Alberich renunciation of love and Siegmund proclamation of love.


I don't know but regarding this specific leitmotif, Woodduck's explanation made a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> What I said was that alongside the original leitmotif, different versions and developments of the same original leitmotif occur and these have often their own specific meanings.


well, for example the Accursed Ring leitmotiv, originally sinister in its nature, gets cynical to boot when blares through Hagen's welcome "heil Siegfried" as the hero arrives at the Gibichungs'.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Woodduck's explanation made a lot of sense to me.


but it does not solve the question: why the same motif for the both of these?

its not in the name, Renunciation or not, but in the mystery - what Alberich and Siegmund have in common?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Wotan too, later on, in Die Walkure act 3 where he addresses Brunhilde, picks up the Renunciation motif.

all three of them - Alberich, Siegmund and Wotan are not to love someone at each one's according points.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> Wotan too, later on, in Die Walkure act 3 where he addresses Brunhilde, picks up the Renunciation motif.
> 
> all three of them - Alberich, Siegmund and Wotan are not to love someone at each one's according points.


To expand on the way I read this:

Alberich wanted love (of a primitive, selfish sort) but his desire gave way to hate when the Rhinemaidens refused him. Siegmund was reflecting that he had yearned for love but couldn't find it until he found Sieglinde. Wotan loved Brunnhilde but denied himself and her the expression of it. These are very different situations and the characters' motivations are different, but in all three the motif expresses the sadness of love's fulfillment being denied. "Renunciation of love" is clearly not an accurate description of what the motif expresses.

As for a label that would summarize what the motif actually tells us, I'm open for suggestions. Perhaps "love's denial," implying that love can be denied us (Siegmund), that we can deny the value of love (Alberich), and that we can deny ourselves or others the happiness of love (Wotan). Does that cover the range of meanings the motif has in the story, or does it take on further meanings elsewhere in the _Ring?_


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

back to the 'Farewell' leitmotiv, as it is to be named from now on, that first appears in Die Walkure and ends Gotterdammerung; it represents the breaking of the earthly ties and relations while heading towards eternity, The Eternal Termination:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Siegmund was reflecting that he had yearned for love but couldn't find it until he found Sieglinde.


yes, and the one whom he found turned out to be his sister, hence love impossible.



Woodduck said:


> "Renunciation of love" is clearly not an accurate description of what the motif expresses.


ok, let us call it 'Love Impossible'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> yes, and the one whom he found turned out to be his sister, hence love impossible.
> 
> ok, let us call it 'Love Impossible'.


Sounds like a romance novel.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> back to the 'Farewell' leitmotiv, as it is to be named from now on, that first appears in Die Walkure and ends Gotterdammerung; it represents the breaking of the earthly ties and relations while heading towards eternity, The Eternal Termination:


I can't go with you on this one. That's clearly not what it's about when Sieglinde sings it, where it has words that make its meaning fairly clear. If it's a tribute to Brunnhilde there, it needs to retain its relationship to her when it reappears in the immolation scene, and then in combination with the Rhinemaidens' "Weia waga" theme as the gods go up in flames. What you feel as "farewell" is heard only at the very end, and that isn't a necessary interpretation.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Sounds like a romance novel.


well, maybe 'Love Not Possible' will do?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I can't go with you on this one. That's clearly not what it's about when Sieglinde sings it, where it has words that make its meaning fairly clear. If it's a tribute to Brunnhilde there, it needs to retain its relationship to her when it reappears in the immolation scene, and then in combination with the Rhinemaidens' "Weia waga" theme as the gods go up in flames. What you feel as "farewell" is heard only at the very end, and that isn't a necessary interpretation.


but the music of this motif sounds precisely like a farewell as if waving good bye and departing.

the motif says precisely "goodbye forever goodbye" as if in contradiction to Sigliende words.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> well, maybe 'Love Not Possible' will do?


It's OK. You can go with that. I prefer The Denial of Love. But it doesn't matter anyway, unless one of us plans to publish a new guide to the leitmotifs of the _Ring._ You can do it. I'm too old and tired. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> but the music of this motif sounds precisely like a farewell as if waving good bye and departing.


It doesn't to me, except a little at the very end, maybe. In its earlier forms it's more passionate, very much so as Brunnhilde sings it to Siegfried as she prepares to join him in death. She's greeting him, not saying farewell! It's a good instance of a motif keeping its original reference while acquiring new meanings.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> as Brunnhilde sings it to Siegfried as she prepares to join him in death. She's greeting him, not saying farewell! It's a good instance of a motif keeping its original reference while acquiring new meanings.


that's the point, this isn't a new meaning, but she greets Siegfried by waving her hand and thus waving goodby to the world.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

had it been a glorification, this would have been fanfares,

but the motif sounds nothing like that, because its way too ethereal,

its like flying away, to never return...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> she greets Siegfried by waving her hand and thus waving goodby to the world.


Brunnhilde does not wave her hand at anyone or anything, and the idea of greeting does not imply the idea of goodbye. At this point she is focused entirely on Siegfried and doesn't give a hang about the world. You're just making stuff up because you have to be right.



> had it been a glorification, this would have been fanfares,
> 
> but the motif sounds nothing like that, because its way too ethereal,
> 
> its like flying away, to never return...


Glorification can mean different things and be expressed in different ways. It isn't contradicted by serenity and gentleness. In its original form in _Walkure,_ the motif is an ecstatic outburst - nothing ethereal about it - and glorification is an apt description. You talk as if the motif should to be defined by your impression of its final statement. That's not the way this leitmotiv thing works, and you know that.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> It's OK. You can go with that. I prefer The Denial of Love. But it doesn't matter anyway, unless one of us plans to publish a new guide to the leitmotifs of the _Ring._ You can do it. I'm too old and tired. :lol:


I mentioned a "dictionary" of Wagner's leitmotifs in an earlier post... Woodduck, I'm more than sure that you have still a bit more energy left :lol:!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I just started thinking (finally!), why Brünnhilde even had to die? I mean, couldn’t she just have given the Ring to the Rhinemaidens? Here I’m talking about the universal “higher” significance of her death not the personal Isolde-ish significance (that her husband had died). This question might be very shortsighted but for the sake of understanding the last motif better I thought I’d ask it nevertheless.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Brunnhilde does not wave her hand at anyone or anything, and the idea of greeting does not imply the idea of goodbye.


by greeting Siegfried (who is dead) she therefore is waving goodbye to the world she is to leave.



Woodduck said:


> Glorification can mean different things and be expressed in different ways.


not really, and we already know how glorification should sound as Wagner sees it -


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

the only thing the Farewell motif could mean besides goodbye is Gratitude.

and Gratitude goes well with the idea of leaving the world while not harboring bad feelings towards it.

because one who leaves for nirvana should abandon hate and grudge beforehand.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> I just started thinking (finally!), why Brünnhilde even had to die?


because her beloved Siegfried is dead, perhaps?

she greets him in death, waves goobye to the world...

and the *Farewell & Gratitude* leitmotiv closes the final scene.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> *because her beloved Siegfried is dead, perhaps?*
> 
> she greets him in death, waves goobye to the world...
> 
> and the *Farewell & Gratitude* leitmotiv closes the final scene.


That's her personal Isolde-ish reason I was trying to exclude but I guess there's also a bigger significance for the world itself. Or is there?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> As for a label that would summarize what the motif actually tells us, I'm open for suggestions. Perhaps "love's denial," implying that love can be denied us (Siegmund), that we can deny the value of love (Alberich), and that we can deny ourselves or others the happiness of love (Wotan). Does that cover the range of meanings the motif has in the story, or does it take on further meanings elsewhere in the _Ring?_


My name for that motif is simply "renunciation", but perhaps irrevocable renunciation would be even better. At each point a character is giving something up that they can never get back and it changes the whole course of subsequent events. Alberich gives up love (not the simple lust for the Rhinemaidens, but human love for fellow mankind), Wotan gives up Brunhilde and Siegfried gives up his anonymous, nomadic life as an outsider on the run. He now has a role: son of Walse and protector of Sieglinde and this defines the rest of his life (as the other renunciations do for Alberich and Wotan).

N.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

annaw said:


> I just started thinking (finally!), why Brünnhilde even had to die? I mean, couldn't she just have given the Ring to the Rhinemaidens? Here I'm talking about the universal "higher" significance of her death not the personal Isolde-ish significance (that her husband had died). This question might be very shortsighted but for the sake of understanding the last motif better I thought I'd ask it nevertheless.


She doesn't _have_ to die; she _chooses_ to die. I presume that she prefers to be with Siegfried in death than continue to live and mourn his loss. (As has often been noted, suicide is a permanent solution to what is typically a temporary problem, but one that does not seem so to the key person at the key time.)


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> My name for that motif is simply "renunciation", but perhaps irrevocable renunciation would be even better. At each point a character is giving something up that they can never get back and it changes the whole course of subsequent events. Alberich gives up love (not the simple lust for the Rhinemaidens, but human love for fellow mankind), Wotan gives up Brunhilde and *Siegmund (?) gives up his anonymous, nomadic life as an outsider on the run. He now has a role: son of Walse and protector of Sieglinde and this defines the rest of his life (as the other renunciations do for Alberich and Wotan*).
> 
> N.


This is a beautiful take! This could be further emphasised by some small details. Like Siegmund and Sieglinde drinking from the same horn (I guess it wasn't a glass...) could be interpreted as their decision to share a mutual destiny, which in this case means death, from that point forward. I would actually exclude the son of Wälse as this was something that Siegmund was before meeting Sieglinde, now on he's just the protector and lover of Sieglinde (it's a similar case with Tristan who gives up everything else but his love towards Isolde).


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> She doesn't _have_ to die; she _chooses_ to die. I presume that she prefers to be with Siegfried in death than continue to live and mourn his loss. (As has often been noted, suicide is a permanent solution to what is typically a temporary problem, but one that does not seem so to the key person at the key time.)


Yeah, I was just wondering whether her death carries some greater significance than that. Upon that depends whether her death should be seen as sacrifice or not. If she wished to die only because Siegfried was dead, I wouldn't call it exactly a sacrifice. If there is some higher meaning, as Wagner to some extent seemed to think there was, then her death could be an actual sacrifice.

By the way, regarding the final Sieglinde/redemption/glorification of Brünnhilde motif (naming this motif gets only worse :lol, the glorification and redemption could be combined together as they don't exclude each other. While the motif is heard, burning Walhalla is seen and the ring is finally returned. At least returning the ring to Rhinemaidens and the end of gods could be seen as both the redemption of Wotan, who finally redeems himself through his own death and fire, but also the redemption of the world from which sprang the initial violation (?) of Nature when Alberich stole the gold and forged the ring.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

JAS said:


> She doesn't _have_ to die; she _chooses_ to die. I presume that she prefers to be with Siegfried in death than continue to live and mourn his loss. (As has often been noted, suicide is a permanent solution to what is typically a temporary problem, but one that does not seem so to the key person at the key time.)


Brünnhilde jumps into the fire because she is the last mortal left of Wotan's lineage so as to close the old order she must die and unite with Siegfried in death, which was her destiny. By taking the ring to be cleansed of its curse in the fire and dying, Brünnhilde ends the old order.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

annaw said:


> I just started thinking (finally!), why Brünnhilde even had to die? I mean, couldn't she just have given the Ring to the Rhinemaidens? Here I'm talking about the universal "higher" significance of her death not the personal Isolde-ish significance (that her husband had died). This question might be very shortsighted but for the sake of understanding the last motif better I thought I'd ask it nevertheless.


As Loge perceives in Das Rheingold, justice requires that the gold be returned to the Rhinemaidens. But remember, in Götterdämmerung, returning the gold has taken on new meaning. As has the gold itself, for that matter. For the gold fashioned into the Ring is now the symbol of the romantic love Brünnhilde has discovered with Siegfried. For her to relinquish it, signifying subordination of that love to something else, would therefore be making a great sacrifice -- and indeed a quite inconceivable one for her. Because looked at in a certain way, relinquishing the Ring would be almost tantamount to what Alberich did in the first place: to renounce love itself, as she now understands and embraces it.

Earlier in the opera, when Waltruate asked her to make that sacrifice, Siegfried was alive, the love between them was still perfect and unsullied, and she saw only through a lover's eyes. But by the time of the final scene, Siegfried is dead, and that love too has died an awful death. Yet for Brünnhilde to simply cast the Ring away at this juncture might be seen as acquiescing in those deaths, bleakly admitting the defeat of love. And that would be the significance of returning the gold to the Rhine, if that was _all_ Brünnhilde did. However, in the aftermath of Siegfried's death she can declare her love anew, offering a quite different token: herself. She can do what Siegmund was prepared to do in their critical encounter in Die Walküre, proclaiming that life without the beloved is unthinkable and expressing her unsurpassed love for him by joining him in death.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

annaw said:


> Yeah, I was just wondering whether her death carries some greater significance than that. Upon that depends whether her death should be seen as sacrifice or not. If she wished to die only because Siegfried was dead, I wouldn't call it exactly a sacrifice. If there is some higher meaning, as Wagner to some extent seemed to think there was, then her death could be an actual sacrifice.


It is certainly a dramatic way to end a very long set of operas. And thus it serves the purposes of the composer. (It is a nice parallel that the ring is forged in fire, and destroyed by fire.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> My name for that motif is simply "renunciation", but perhaps irrevocable renunciation would be even better. At each point a character is giving something up that they can never get back and it changes the whole course of subsequent events. Alberich gives up love (not the simple lust for the Rhinemaidens, but human love for fellow mankind), Wotan gives up Brunhilde and Siegfried gives up his anonymous, nomadic life as an outsider on the run. He now has a role: son of Walse and protector of Sieglinde and this defines the rest of his life (as the other renunciations do for Alberich and Wotan).
> 
> N.


I think you're overintellectualizing this. "Renunciation," as such, is a concept that isn't within music's power to express. But "sadness," as a basic emotion, is easily expressible. This motif is straightforwardly and unquestionably sad. Siegmund, though, is anything but sad. The pain of being shut out from love's joys is in his past now; he's experiencing the promise of happiness for the first time in his life, and he's seizing it boldly. That's the very _opposite_ of renunciation. If Wagner had had the notion of renunciation in mind for this musical motif, he wouldn't have had Siegmund singing it while preparing to pull Nothung out of the tree and run off into the night with his "sister and bride"!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> I just started thinking (finally!), why Brünnhilde even had to die? I mean, couldn't she just have given the Ring to the Rhinemaidens? Here I'm talking about the universal "higher" significance of her death not the personal Isolde-ish significance (that her husband had died). This question might be very shortsighted but for the sake of understanding the last motif better I thought I'd ask it nevertheless.


The _Ring_ is an allegory of the progress of mankind's moral consciousness. Brunnhilde is the crucial agent of moral evolution. She sacrificed her godhood when she made the radical choice to side with Wotan's love for Siegmund over the god's legal obligation to kill him. In doing this she was also acknowledging the bond of love between Siegmund and Sieglinde as more valid - more sacred - than the forced marriage between Sieglinde and her brutal husband. Brunnhilde's choice to break free of Fricka-sanctioned legality and defy the gods was a declaration that, for her, love is the highest moral law. Her final sacrifice is consistent with this, but now she makes the greatest sacrifice possible - her life - and in doing so makes the ultimate statement of love's supremacy, a statement that the conflicted, tormented Wotan, bound by law, could never make. For Wotan, renunciation of the world was a tragic fate, but for Brunnhilde it's a victorious choice. When she rebelled against the god, he yielded to love and surrounded her with fire; now she herself rides triumphantly into the fire as a celebration of love. Her voluntary love-death sets Wotan free - "Rest, rest," are her last words to him - and thus sets the world free from the gods, ending the oppressive reign of legalistic, authoritarian morality. It is Brunnhilde, and no one else, who can make the loving sacrifice capable of bringing about the _Gotterdammerung._


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> The _Ring_ is an allegory of the progress of mankind's moral consciousness. Brunnhilde is the crucial agent of moral evolution. She sacrificed her godhood when she made the radical choice to side with Wotan's love for Siegmund over the god's legal obligation to kill him. In doing this she was also acknowledging the bond of love between Siegmund and Sieglinde as more valid - more sacred - than the forced marriage between Sieglinde and her brutal husband. Brunnhilde's choice to break free of Fricka-sanctioned legality and defy the gods was a declaration that, for her, love is the highest moral law. Her final sacrifice is consistent with this, but now she makes the greatest sacrifice possible - her life - and in doing so makes the ultimate statement of love's supremacy, a statement that the conflicted, tormented Wotan, bound by law, could never make. For Wotan, renunciation of the world was a tragic fate, but for Brunnhilde it's a victorious choice. When she rebelled against the god, he yielded to love and surrounded her with fire; now she herself rides triumphantly into the fire as a celebration of love. Her voluntary love-death sets Wotan free - "Rest, rest," are her last words to him - and thus sets the world free from the gods, ending the oppressive reign of legalistic, authoritarian morality. It is Brunnhilde, and no one else, who can make the loving sacrifice capable of bringing about the _Gotterdammerung._


Could it be that you have hung on a tree upside-down without food or drink for nine days, wounded with your own spear (assuming that you have one) and have given one of your eyes in return for the knowledge you possess on Wagner's operas?

On a bit more serious note, this explanation makes a lot of sense and could also explain why I find Wotan's death somehow more disturbing than Brünnhilde's, although neither are exactly - what's the word? - humane. Wotan's death-wish seems to be a rather conflicting topic as he cannot make up his mind for quite some time. He goes to Erda to ask how to escape his fate and the suddenly proclaims that he wills his own doom...


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

JAS said:


> It is certainly a dramatic way to end a very long set of operas. And thus it serves the purposes of the composer. (It is a nice parallel that the ring is forged in fire, and destroyed by fire.)


Brünnhilde through the ordeal of treason becomes a woman of wisdom as she herself says:

_He, truest of all, must betray me,
that wise a woman might grow!
Know I now all thy need?
All things, all things, all now know I.
All to me is revealed._

Brünnhilde brings the end of the old order as the last one of the mortals descended from the gods (first a Valkyrie, later a mortal). Thus, she must perish to achieve the cleansing of world. Thus, I do not think that it is just for dramatic effect but to bring closure and give the world a new start.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Brünnhilde through the ordeal of treason becomes a woman of wisdom as she herself says:
> 
> _He, truest of all, must betray me,
> that wise a woman might grow!
> ...


This too. :tiphat: ..................


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

annaw said:


> On a bit more serious note, this explanation makes a lot of sense and could also explain why I find Wotan's death somehow more disturbing than Brünnhilde's, although neither are exactly - what's the word? - humane. Wotan's death-wish seems to be a rather conflicting topic as he cannot make up his mind for quite some time. He goes to Erda to ask how to escape his fate and the suddenly proclaims that he wills his own doom...


Isn't Wotan a bit of a tragic figure because, in spite of all of what he thought was cleverness, the terrible things that happen in the opera are at least partly his fault?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> Isn't Wotan a bit of a tragic figure because, in spite of all of what he thought was cleverness, the terrible things that happen in the opera are at least partly his fault?


He surely is a tragic figure. First time we see him he's this ambitious brash young god who governs the world. The way he acts without thinking so that Loge has to calm him down only emphasises his initial immaturity. We can be quite sure that the deal with the giants wasn't his first such bargain - it was one of many but it ended up having a much greater significance than any other. That's most likely also the reason why he takes it so easily even when Fricka is deeply concerned. I like to think that Wagner just drops us into one of Wotan's usual days and no one can imagine how differently it turns out than expected. Until that moment all his bargains have, yes bound him, but none of them has caused a disaster comparable to the ring. He, in some places, reminds me of Siegfried because he acts as imprudently as he does. In contrast to his grandson, he doesn't strike one as innocent because he has power and he's much smarter and more cunning than Siegfried ever was. His courage fades with Erda's warning and this is the first step of his development that will go on throughout the last three operas. He's act was truly stupid, but I think that considering his moral immaturity, it was unavoidable. As Woodduck pointed out, the moral development is one of the main themes in the _Ring_ and this can also be seen through Wotan's character. Moral development is unavoidable because the immaturity will guarantee that this development will be put into motion sooner or later. For Wotan the moment was when his ambitions made him make the bargain. I don't think it was possible to stop the motion after that one decision - he could only choose between two ways to die: either mess around with the ring or give Freia to the giants. In the myth Freia symbolises also the happiness that springs from life - Wotan was willing to risk this for the sake of the security of his own power. Wagner sees such development as the one Wotan will soon go through as something essential and in the long run very rewarding for a human-being.

In _Die Walküre_ I can but feel sympathetic towards Wotan. He has to kill his son and lose his daughter - it seems that they are the two most dearest to him. This is the opera where Wotan becomes truly tragic because finally he's wise and knowledgeable enough to understand what's at stake. It sort of depicts human growth - in _Das Rheingold_ Wotan acts like a teenager or 20-something would act, in _Die Walküre_, on the other hand, he faces decisions that a grown-up, an adult faces. I think Wagner uses this as a way to illustrate not so much his outer but inner growth.

In _Siegfried_ he is what Jung would call a Wise Old Man. Maybe only in the battle of wits I'm reminded of _Das Rheingold_ Wotan who shows off his power and wisdom. Despite that, it's an important point where Wotan first time says that he's licht-Alberich and this is an essential understanding for his development. He might not see this so literally but this shows that he finally understands his own weaknesses, the weaknesses that were the same as Alberich's, and shadow-side that didn't seem to be known to him in _Das Rheingold_. His conflicting presence and being, mixed with everything he has to sacrifice for his power that was worthless is what for me makes him more tragic than any other character in the _Ring_.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> He surely is a tragic figure... He has to sacrifice for his power that was worthless is what for me makes him more tragic than any other character in the _Ring_.


Wotan sacrifices love for power also. He betrayed his own rules, made promises he could not keep, accepted the sophism that stealing from a thief was not stealing, manipulated events, etc. He betrayed and abandoned Fricka who is wiser than him for she reveals to him the deception of his plotting to restore the world order. When Siegfried breaks his spear, he is no longer a god. Yes, Wotan is probably the most tragic character.

Brünnhilde instead is the _unintended_ (per Wotan) hero of this drama. She renounces power for love with Siegmund, Sieglinde, Siegfried and, finally, The Ring. Brünnhilde's capacity to love is complete: compassion, empathy, companionship, and sacrifice.

_All things, all things, all now know I.
All to me is revealed. _

Brünnhilde is both divine and mortal and she is the freest of them all: every choice she makes is with full knowledge of what she renounces and what she gains. She is the only one who could and restores the world through sacrificial love. She is the eternal feminine, the one that _gives_ life.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Wotan sacrifices love for power also. He betrayed his own rules, made promises he could not keep, accepted the sophism that stealing from a thief was not stealing, manipulated events, etc. He betrayed and abandoned Fricka who is wiser than him for she reveals to him the deception of his plotting to restore the world order. When Siegfried breaks his spear, he is no longer a god.
> 
> Brünnhilde instead is the hero of this whole drama as she renounces power for love knowingly with Siegmund, Sieglinde, Siegfried and finally when renouncing the ring. Brünnhilde's capacity to love is complete: compassion, empathy, companionship, and sacrifice.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree, Brünnhilde is the hero but Wotan is my favourite character nevertheless . I'd actually argue with Fricka being wiser than Wotan. Both the original myth and Wagner emphasise that Wotan was extremely wise but at that specific moment in Act II of _Die Walküre_ Wotan, differently from Fricka, was blinded by his love towards Siegmund and was very reluctant to admit that his cunning plan to produce a free hero doesn't work. Fricka on the other hand acts as something I rather see from a symbolic perspective. She's obsessed with martial purity and not that much with love that Wotan focuses on. Interestingly, Wotan says to Fricka that he doesn't regard loveless marriage as sacred - this could explain the Valkyrie daughters and the Völsungs. Fricka's and Wotan's marriage, that exists just for the sake of rules and laws, depicts the whole system Wotan so desperately tries to save. It's without love and supported only by conventional laws and rules that Fricka herself represents. I'm almost sure that Wagner depicts her knowingly as a nagging wife (imo the original myth portrays her much more positively than Wagner) and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Fricka's and Wotan's loveless marriage is to some extent inspired by Wagner's own first marriage. Certainly Fricka is ambivalent as are all other characters Wagner created - as you point out, she's the one who makes Wotan realise that his idea of Siegmund as a free hero is inherently flawed.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> Yes, I agree, Brünnhilde is the hero but Wotan is my favourite character nevertheless . I'd actually argue with Fricka being wiser than Wotan. Both the original myth and Wagner emphasise that Wotan was extremely wise but at that specific moment in Act II of _Die Walküre_ Wotan, differently from Fricka, was blinded by his love towards Siegmund and was very reluctant to admit that his cunning plan to produce a free hero doesn't work. Fricka on the other hand acts as something I rather see from a symbolic perspective. She's obsessed with martial purity and not that much with love that Wotan focuses on. Interestingly, Wotan says to Fricka that he doesn't regard loveless marriage as sacred - this could explain the Valkyrie daughters and the Völsungs. Fricka's and Wotan's marriage, that exists just for the sake of rules and laws, depicts the whole system Wotan so desperately tries to save. It's without love and supported only by conventional laws and rules that Fricka herself represents. I'm almost sure that Wagner depicts her knowingly as a nagging wife (imo the original myth portrays her much more positively than Wagner) and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Fricka's and Wotan's loveless marriage is to some extent inspired by Wagner's own first marriage. Certainly Fricka is ambivalent as are all other characters Wagner created - as you point out, she's the one to make Wotan realise that his idea of Siegmund as a free hero is inherently faullty.


Wotan is the most human as it is so fallible because of his obsessions. That's why we like him most as a character. We can identify fully with his contradictions, his pain, his fears, his bravado and his tremendous loss. I'd say Wotan is the archetypal male.

Fricka may be right but she is not sympathetic as depicted by Wagner. However, there's room to make her softer and loving than what the text seems to indicate and some creative singers have made this part of their interpretation. She clings to the rules because that is all is left to her, but in her protestations, to me it is clear that she longs for Wotan's love. However, Wotan in his despair has isolated himself from Fricka first and later from all the gods and mortals.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Wotan is the most human as it is so fallible because of his obsessions. That's why we like him most as a character. We can identify fully with his contradictions, his pain, his fears, his bravado and his tremendous loss. I'd say Wotan is the archetypal male.
> 
> Fricka may be right but she is not sympathetic as depicted by Wagner. However, there's room to make her softer and loving than what the text seems to indicate and some creative singers have made this part of their interpretation. She clings to the rules because that is all is left to her, but in her protestations, to me it is clear that she longs for Wotan's love. However, Wotan in his despair has isolated himself from Fricka first and later from all the gods and mortals.


Wotan's and Fricka's relationship was rather obscure. I mean, your husband trades your sister for a huge.. house?! Sounds super silly when you put it into words :lol:.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Wotan sacrifices love for power also. He betrayed his own rules, made promises he could not keep, accepted the sophism that stealing from a thief was not stealing, manipulated events, etc. He betrayed and abandoned Fricka who is wiser than him for she reveals to him the deception of his plotting to restore the world order. When Siegfried breaks his spear, he is no longer a god. Yes, Wotan is probably the most tragic character.
> 
> Brünnhilde instead is the _unintended_ (per Wotan) hero of this drama. She renounces power for love with Siegmund, Sieglinde, Siegfried and, finally, The Ring. Brünnhilde's capacity to love is complete: compassion, empathy, companionship, and sacrifice.
> 
> ...


Oh, the "let the thief steal from thief" logic isn't as far as I remember Wagner's own invention but taken straight from the original myth. I think it was one of Loge's stories but I'm not 100% sure. By the way, was Wotan even able to defy his own rules, at least those written on the spear? Alberich says to him in _Siegfried_ that he cannot take the ring from Fafner because his spear would break if he defied its laws.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

what needs to be pointed out is that Brunhilde was no better than others in bringing about the disaster.






it was her who helped Hagen in his plan to frame Siegfried, obtain a pretext for murder, and kill him.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

to "Nibelung Son" leitmotiv that first appeared in _Die Walkure_ 2nd act there's also "Hagen Calls" motif -


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Hagen's monologue contains the "Nibelung Son" leitmotiv besides "Alberich Anguish" motif -


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

there are more leitmotives to be heard in "Hagen Watch" of course, among which:

'Siegfried Calls', 'Die Walkure', 'Wotan Spear', 'Rhein Gold', 'Nibelungs Bondage', 'Tarnhelm' etc.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> Wotan's and Fricka's relationship was rather obscure. I mean, your husband trades your sister for a huge.. house?! Sounds super silly when you put it into words :lol:.


I don't know, depends on the sister. I know plenty of women who would jump for a man prepared to do that!

:lol:

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I don't know, depends on the sister. I know plenty of women who would jump for a man prepared to do that!
> 
> :lol:
> 
> N.


You must forgive me my inexperience in that case :lol:.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> You must forgive me my inexperience in that case :lol:.


My sister in law would give up her parents and her siblings for a wad of cash! :devil:


----------



## Bellerophon (May 15, 2020)

annaw said:


> Oh, the "let the thief steal from thief" logic isn't as far as I remember Wagner's own invention but taken straight from the original myth. I think it was one of Loge's stories but I'm not 100% sure. By the way, was Wotan even able to defy his own rules, at least those written on the spear? Alberich says to him in _Siegfried_ that he cannot take the ring from Fafner because his spear would break if he defied its laws.


In the Prose Edda a giant agrees to build Valhalla in a single winter in return for the goddess Freya. As the completion of the work approaches the gods realise that they do not actually want to part with her. They hold a meeting at which they conclude that it was on Loki's advice that they agreed the contract so it is his responsibility to get them out of it. Loki disguises himself as a mare and lures away the giant's horse, as a result of which his work is delayed and he forfeits payment.

The story of a ransom paid in gold, measured by the covering of Freya's body, and requiring a ring to complete it, is adapted from another, quite separate story in which Loki kills an otter (which, it transpires, is a man in otter form) and is obliged to pay compensation to his father by covering the otters pet with gold.

Wagner adapted and combined the original stories in a number of places to fit his dramatic purposes, most significantly at the end of Gotterdammerung; in the Volsunga Saga and Nibelungenlied there is no connection between the deaths of Siegfried or Brunhilde and the twilight or doom of the gods.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Bellerophon said:


> In the Prose Edda a giant agrees to build Valhalla in a single winter in return for the goddess Freya. As the completion of the work approaches the gods realise that they do not actually want to part with her. They hold a meeting at which they conclude that it was on Loki's advice that they agreed the contract so it is his responsibility to get them out of it. Loki disguises himself as a mare and lures away the giant's horse, as a result of which his work is delayed and he forfeits payment.
> 
> The story of a ransom paid in gold, measured by the covering of Freya's body, and requiring a ring to complete it, is adapted from another, quite separate story in which Loki kills an otter (which, it transpires, is a man in otter form) and is obliged to pay compensation to his father by covering the otters pet with gold.
> 
> Wagner adapted and combined the original stories in a number of places to fit his dramatic purposes, most significantly at the end of Gotterdammerung; in the Volsunga Saga and Nibelungenlied there is no connection between the deaths of Siegfried or Brunhilde and the twilight or doom of the gods.


Thanks for the insight! I find it very interesting how Wagner uses the myths and combines them. I only wonder to what extent can we compare the original characters from the myths to Wagner's adaptions.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

For those who are interested, there's a text called "The Metaphysics of Annihilation: Wagner, Schopenhauer, and the Ending of the Ring" by Warren Darcy which argues for a Schopenhauerian interpretation of the end of Götterdämmerung. I read it through JStor so its a little difficult to share it but if you can you should check it out. The last verses written by Wagner for the Immolation scene are as followed (the versification dates from 1871-1872):

_Were I no more to fare 
to Valhalla's fortress,
do you know whither i fare?
I depart from the home of desire,
I flee forever the home of delusion;
the open gates
of eternal becoming
I close behind me now:
to the holiest chosen land, 
free from desire and delusion,
the goal of the world's migration,
redeemed from reincarnation,
the enlightened woman now goes.
The blessed end
of all things eternal,
do you know how I attained it?
Grieving love's
profoundest suffering
opened my eyes for me:
I saw the world end.-_

(Spencer and Millington's traduction)

These verses were supposed to be sung by Brünnhilde but Wagner thought that the music was clear enough and that therefore the text was not needed. So in the end, Brünnhilde, an extension of Wotan's will, does just like her father: she renounces the world (governed whether by power or love) for it as only brought her suffering, just like Wotan. And because, for Schopenhauer, the world is a representation where the will acts, when the will dies (Wotan is the world's will) so the world dies (the text mentionned above explains it more clearly than me... I'm just doing a short summary). The men and women mentionned in the stage notes are therefore us, the spectators. The entire world of the Ring burns with the gods and Brünnhilde.

The author of the text then does a great job of presenting how the music of the Immolation scene conveys Wagner's message for the end of his tetralogy, message which he wrote in verses as presented above.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> I find it very interesting how Wagner uses the myths and combines them.


there's way much more to Der Ring than just some myths, but it was Leo Tolstoy who, perhaps out of jealousy, said of this opera something like "they in Germany put on costly fairy tale shows while German people are starving" etc.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> there's way much more to Der Ring than just some myths, but it was Leo Tolstoy who, perhaps out of jealousy, said of this opera something like "they in Germany put on costly fairy tale shows while German people are starving" etc.


Yes, I absolutely agree with you that there is much more in the _Ring_ than just the myths but nevertheless I find it fascinating how Wagner used and integrated them.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Parsifal98 said:


> For those who are interested, there's a text called "The Metaphysics of Annihilation: Wagner, Schopenhauer, and the Ending of the Ring" by Warren Darcy which argues for a Schopenhauerian interpretation of the end of Götterdämmerung. I read it through JStor so its a little difficult to share it but if you can you should check it out. The last verses written by Wagner for the Immolation scene are as followed (the versification dates from 1871-1872):
> 
> _Were I no more to fare
> to Valhalla's fortress,
> ...


Are you sure that Wagner himself stated thet "the music was clear enough"? Generally, from my experience, if Wagner wanted to make something truly clear he did so by all means possible. For example in _Die Meistersinger_, which is thoroughly Schopenhauerian, he almost quotes Schopenhauer in Sachs's "Wahn!" monologue. This is what Sachs says/sings:

"driven into flight he believes he is hunting, and does not hear his own cry of pain:
when he tears into his own flesh, he imagines he is giving himself pleasure!"

Now, in _The World as Will and Representation_ Schopenhauer writes:

"He sees that the difference between him who inflicts the suffering and him who must bear it is only the phenomenon, and does not concern the thing-in-itself, for this is the will living in both, which here, deceived by the knowledge which is bound to its service, does not recognise itself, and *seeking an increased happiness in one of its phenomena, produces great suffering in another, and thus, in the pressure of excitement, buries its teeth in its own flesh, not knowing that it always injures only itself, revealing in this form, through the medium of individuality, the conflict with itself which it bears in its inner nature.*"

In addition, in _Mein leben_ Wagner writes after studying Schopenhauer: "Now at last I could understand my Wotan, and I returned with chastened mind to the renewed study of Schopenhauer's book." Passage before he says that he had just finished the fair copy of _Das Rheingold_'s score which would mean that the great majority, if not all, of _Ring_'s libretto was already written. I haven't read the whole book so I don't know whether Wagner had read Schopenhauer before or not but my feeling is that he didn't have Schopenahauer in mind when writing the libretto. He afterwards, as the quote proves, understood that he had unknowingly used similar ideas but it doesn't seem to be intentional. Surely he could have changed the original libretto but not the majority of it. I think there's a reason Wagner left the ending without any moral message, including the Schopenhauerian one, but I personally don't know what it is.

Feel free to correct me if I'm somewhere mistaken!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

the myth and the philosophy might be found in Der Ring in connection to religious beliefs,

namely Ragnarök - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnarök

and Kali Yuga - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Here is a passage from the text I mentionned in my previous post:

_The controversy revolves around the so-called "Schopen-
hauerian" ending. These lines employ the language of Bud-
dhism to articulate the metaphysical notion of renouncing the
phenomenal world as an evil illusion and withdrawing into a
mystical state of nonbeing. Wagner ultimately did not set
these verses to music because, in his opinion, "their meaning
is already expressed with the greatest precision in the effect
of the drama-sounding-in-music"._

Darcy takes his information from the book _Gesammelte schriften und dichtungen von Richard Wagner_, which is a serie of collected writings and poems from the master. The author also writes later on:

_On 20 of October 1871 Cosima wrote in her diary: "R. reads me an alteration he has made in Brünnhilde's last words; I beg him to leave it as it was, and he agrees, saying that the new version comes too close to literary drama"._

It is important to note that at this point in his life, Wagner supported Schopenhauer's claim that music was queen of the arts:

_ "Schopenhauer thought that music was the only art that did not merely copy ideas, but actually embodied the will itself".[179] He deemed music a timeless, universal language comprehended everywhere, that can imbue global enthusiasm, if in possession of a significant melody". (from Schopenhauer, Arthur (1970). Essays and Aphorisms. 10: Penguin Classics. p. 162 (found on Wikipedia))

"Music is, according to Schopenhauer, an immediate expression of will, the basic reality of the experienced world. Libretto is merely a linguistic representation of transient phenomena. Wagner emphasized music over libretto in his later works after reading Schopenhauer's aesthetic doctrine"._

I took the second excerpt from Wikipedia (_Arthur Schopenhauer's aesthetics_ to be more precise) but there are other, better sources which claim the same thing.

Furthermore, it is true that Wagner had finished the Ring's poem when he read Schopenhauer, but he only finished the music of Siegfried and Götterdämmerung after Die Meistersinger and Tristan. It is therefore highly possible that the music at the end of Götterdämmerung supports a Schopenhauerian ending, even though it was not Wagner's vision when he started to work on the Ring.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Parsifal98 said:


> Here is a passage from the text I mentionned in my previous post:
> 
> _The controversy revolves around the so-called "Schopen-
> hauerian" ending. These lines employ the language of Bud-
> ...


How can music, which is an inherently one of the most abstract forms of art, be Schopenhauerian? Music itself is just music, a melody that feels sad for one person might sound happy for another one. That is the reason why opera composers cannot rely only on music alone to convey so specific ideas, like the one we are discussing, because that would make them very differently interpretable. I think if Schopenhauerian ending had been Wagner's intention, he would have used the libretto as he did in _Die Meistersinger_ and _Tristan_. Maybe he felt that using a Schopenhauerian ending would require the whole opera to be somewhat Schopenhauerian but that would have required extensive rewriting that he probaby didn't want to undergo.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> How can music, which is an inherently one of the most abstract forms of art, be Schopenhauerian?


music is no abstract but the most concrete and precise art form.



annaw said:


> a melody that feels sad for one person might sound happy for another one.


not really, unless one is completely uninformed on the subject of music.



annaw said:


> That is the reason why opera composers cannot rely only on music alone to convey so specific ideas,


they can, same as symphony composers can do that.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Part of the problem with the idea that any music can sound like _anything_ is that it forgets the fact that in addition to the music and the composer's intentions, we have a listener with an established context. (In addition, there are some characteristics of the human brain that are innate, such as pattern recognition. These might be changed by evolution, but it takes an exceedingly long time for that to happen.)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

JAS said:


> we have a listener with an established context.


and the chief problem is that we have an unenlightened listener.

we have academies of art which educate musicians, writers, moviemakers,

but nothing of the sort in order to educate listeners, readers, spectators.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

JAS said:


> *Part of the problem with the idea that any music can sound like anything is that it forgets the fact that in addition to the music and the composer's intentions*, we have a listener with an established context. (In addition, there are some characteristics of the human brain that are innate, such as pattern recognition. These might be changed by evolution, but it takes an exceedingly long time for that to happen.)


What do you mean by "established context"? What I try to say is that Wagner rejected his own Schopenhauerian ending and didn't put anything else straightforwardly Schopenhauerian into the opera, we can interpret it through Schopenhauer, as Wagner himself interpreted Wotan, but we don't have to necessarily see it as Wagner's intention. Schopenhauer's influences in the _Ring_ are not comparable to those in his later operas, like _Parsifal_. The argument which Parsifal98 was making, as I understood it, was that the Schopenhauerian ending is in the music. I'm interested in reading the original text that Parsifal98 quoted because if the ending is Schopenhauerian and Wagner clearly stated so, I'd welcome it openly but I'm just cautious when it comes to interpretations that are expressed only through the music. The composer must put them into words and writing somewhere for them to be objectively legitimate. At least that's my view. I beg your pardon if I dismissed this view without thoroughly looking into it . I'll try to find that letter or writing quoted.

I oversimplified my argument through my example - while there are certainly means that can be used to, in most people, stimulate happy or sad emotions, there's nothing that I'm aware of to convey anything as specific as Schopenhauer's theory. What should be the tempo, harmonics, orchestration etc. to make a random listener think that this is certainly Schopenhauerian or this is Kantian or Hegelian? I don't know, Wagner might be one of a very few composers whom I'd suspect to possess such an understanding but I myself certainly do not. Then again I'm also not a world-famous composer. Music has an ability to express emotions superbly well, this I think is one of the main reasons I love it so much, but it still remains a lot more abstract than literature. "Expressiveness" and "expression" should be separated - while in literature one could state that "I'm sad" (expression), then through music the composers expresses a sad face (expressive). Complex things, on the other hand, as Schopenhauer's philosophy are much more easy to put into words than into such abstract expressiveness. Music itself is *inherently* abstract because it's connections with the real world are questionable and have been questioned. When I talk about pure music, I leave composer's intentions aside, I only care for the notes played. When I talk about a piece, then yes, composer's intentions should be considered. If music itself was inherently happy or sad or Schopenhauerian I should be able to determine that without knowing composer's intentions - that's why it's "inherent". I can say that _Tristan_ is Schopenhauerian because I know that was Wagner's intention but even then I wouldn't go as far as to say that _Tristan_'s music is inherently Schopenhauerian ( = the notes played are somehow Schopenhauerian). (A lot of this has already been discussed in Religious Music subforum - it was a thread called "Religious music without lyrics" or something similar).


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Music has an ability to express emotions superbly well, this I think is one of the main reasons I love it so much, but it still remains a lot more abstract than literature.


music comes from literature, a music score is a literature piece, only read out by musical instruments.



annaw said:


> "Expressiveness" and "expression" should be separated - while in literature one could state that "I'm sad" (expression), then through music the composers expresses a sad face (expressive).


'sad face' can be expressed through a minor based chord, for example.



annaw said:


> Music itself is *inherently* abstract because it's connections with the real world are questionable and have been questioned.


music was invented by man, how can it be abstract?



annaw said:


> When I talk about pure music, I leave composer's intentions aside,


what is 'pure music'?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> music comes from literature, a music score is a literature piece, only read out by musical instruments.
> 
> 'sad face' can be expressed through a minor based chord, for example.
> 
> ...


Pure music is music without vocals. In opera it's the orchestral playing without considering vocals. Symphonies, chamber music etc. are all examples of so called pure music while lieder WITH vocals is not. When you analysed it as pure music you should either analyse only the piano/orchestral playing or consider vocals as just... sounds without any meaning.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> In opera it's the orchestral playing without considering vocals.


that's only with belcanto operas maybe, but the rest are tied closely to the words.



annaw said:


> Symphonies, chamber music etc. are all examples of so called pure music


symphonies are not pure music, if so. Shostakovich 4th is completely different from his 7th for a reason.

take Brahms 1st for example, the timpani beat a combat march to portray a genocide:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

JAS said:


> Part of the problem with the idea that any music can sound like _anything_ is that it forgets the fact that in addition to the music and the composer's intentions, we have a listener with an established context. (In addition, there are some characteristics of the human brain that are innate, such as pattern recognition. These might be changed by evolution, but it takes an exceedingly long time for that to happen.)


I agree with you on this one. Music can be abstract, but doesn't have to be and there are meanings associated with particular melodic ideas, keys or rhythms dependent on cultural context and human biology.

However annaw is correct that music alone can't point us in the direction of something as complex as the workings of a major philosophy. A piece of music may be intended to convey the ideas in such a philosophy and if one is familiar with the philosophy one would understand the connection, but I think very few (if any) would make the connection if they didn't know it were already there.

That said, I think Schopenhauer is in the mix of ideas for the end of Gotterdamerung, but it is only so for the gods. Wotan welcomes his end after all. However, Wagner (I think) realised that an ending is also another beginning.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I agree with you on this one. Music can be abstract, but doesn't have to be and there are meanings associated with particular melodic ideas, keys or rhythms dependent on cultural context and human biology.
> 
> However annaw is correct *that music alone can't point us in the direction of something as complex as the workings of a major philosophy. A piece of music may be intended to convey the ideas in such a philosophy and if one is familiar with the philosophy one would understand the connection, but I think very few (if any) would make the connection if they didn't know it were already there.*
> 
> ...


You put my idea into words better than I did myself !


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> music comes from literature, a music score is a literature piece, only read out by musical instruments.


I am going to perhaps go on a limb here but what Zhdanov says above resonates so truthfully to me. When I listen to music, including non vocal music, I hear ideas and not just sounds or emotions. This is what I find so compelling about music and in particular with vocal music, there's the sung text and its concepts _plus_ the unsung ideas and concepts.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I am going to perhaps go on a limb here but what Zhdanov says above resonates so truthfully to me. When I listen to music, including non vocal music, I hear ideas and not just sounds or emotions. This is what I find so compelling about music and in particular with vocal music, there's the sung text and its concepts _plus_ the unsung ideas and concepts.


Oh, I certainly didn't want to say that perceiving music as just mere sounds is something that one should do on regular basis. I was rather trying to say that to evaluate the inherent qualities of music, like "Schopenhauerianism" (all you native speakers, is this even a word :lol:?), that are not dependent on any context given by the composer, one should forget about everything else except the music itself.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

What I meant by the music of the end of Götterdämmerung being Schopenhaurian is how the different musical ideas (leitmotivs, harmonies and the likes) are built to express certains ideas. Before the "Immolation scene", there is more than 14 hours of music which as been contextualised and associated to different ideas. Wagner then takes this music (or musical ideas) which are charged with meaning and builds them in a way to convey a specific message, which is the one conveyed by the verses that he scraped because in his view, the music that he had composed was clear enough.

P.S.: I am sorry if what I am writing is not clear... English is not my first language


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Parsifal98 said:


> What I meant by the music of the end of Götterdämmerung being Schopenhaurian is how the different musical ideas (leitmotivs, harmonies and the likes) are built to express certains ideas. Before the "Immolation scene", there is more than 14 hours of music which as been contextualised and associated to different ideas. Wagner then takes this music (or musical ideas) which are charged with meaning and builds them in a way to convey a specific message, which is the one conveyed by the verses that he scraped because in his view, the music that he had composed was clear enough.
> 
> P.S.: I am sorry if what I am writing is not clear... English is not my first language


Oh, if you meant also leitmotifs then it's a different case I suppose. With those I can understand how Wagner could have managed to achieve a Schopenhauerian ending.

(English is also not my first language, so I absolutely understand!)


----------

