# Wagner and Regietheater



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Hello. While running the risk of sounding redundant, I am new here. It is a pleasure to be a member. Nice to meet you all:tiphat:. 

My favorite composer is Richard Wagner. So, seeing that it is his bicentennial, what better way to kick off my first thread than by discussing him?

My "food for thought" discussion: Is the changing of Wagner's libretto intentions (i.e. changing the setting of his operas, reinterpreting what he meant, minimalist and unusual set design, etc.) an acceptable presentation of his work? Or is it a distracting and un-Wagnerian (for lack of a better term) practice?

Regietheater is defined as doing the above. The director makes the work his own, presenting Wagner's vision through his filter.

Any opinions?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

There is no one right way to do a Wagner production, or any other opera for that matter .
Upadating operas set in the past to the present day slightly before the present is acceptable as long as
the production is not merely a collection of arbitrary gimmicks and gratuitous sex and violence .
But it's very problematical in Wagner because his operas are so closely tied to specific periods or imaginary 
mythical worlds . 
To set Die Meistersinger in the present as has been done, with the Meistersingers at the first act conference using cel phones and lap tops is ludicrous, for example .


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Personally for me the changing of Wagner's settings and libretto directions is absolutely unacceptable and, as you have so aptly put it, un-Wagnerian, for three reasons.

First, it is those particular settings: the Rhine valley in _Der Ring_, the fortress Wartburg in _Tannhäuser_, etc., the historical, the mythological, the national elements in Wagner's works that are particularly dear to me. I love _everything_ about Wagner, but without those elements this _everything_ would be incomplete. So, if there is a dragon in the libretto, there must be a dragon on stage. There are lots of creative ways to present one, and that is where stage directors should excercise their creativity, not in twisting Wagner's own intent.

Second, I think it is especially disrespectful to the composer whose idea of opera was a Gesamtkunstwerk, a synthesis of all the arts, and who followed that ideal by always writing his own texts. If we change a part of those texts, then why not change the music as well? Why not replace some Wagner's passages, say, with Tchaikovsky, and still present it as Wagner? Maybe it will even sound good. But it will not be Wagner, that's for sure.

Third, it always seems as if the Regietheater opera directors are trying to impose their particular vision of the work on their audience. They seem to be saying: "Here is what Wagner _really_ meant, but I am the only one who has understood him, and now I am going to enlighten you!". Thanks, but no thanks. I will rather read the libretto on my own, and think about it on my own, and discuss it with other Wagnerians (there are quite a lot of threads here where we have been doing just that), and enjoy this process of discovery. I don't need to be spoon-fed Wagner's meaning.

I am not even talking about those stagings who lack any kind of beauty or reason at all and whose only (doubtful) value is shock value.

Of course, this is only my personal opinion, but I would really love to see more of the good old traditionalist Wagner stagings, particularly in the opera houses of Europe.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

I've laid out a couple of my thoughts here.

Mainly, I want directors to do their job, which is to transport the play to the audience. Regardless the amount of clever ideas - if people exit "Tristan und Isolde", and still think that it's about this couple that fell in love due to a love potion, something went wrong. I think I'm quite open to directors who find their own images (even at the expense of minor inconsistencies), or manage to map the thoughts of the play onto a new context - but they need to transport the major thoughts of the play to the audience.

If directors spent 10% of their energy bringing the substantial plot points along, I should be happy!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

As with all opera the director should serve the composer's intentions not the other way round. It should also provide drama and entertainment for the watching audience. If the director is intent on his or her vision it will distract from the genius of the man who has written the thing. Now there are new ways to present the operas - for example, Weiland Wagner's Appian revolution. But does this shed new light on it or distract from it?

In this Wagner is no different from every other serious composer. Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, etc, all need their visions realising - not a half-baked one imposed by a talentless egoist.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> They seem to be saying: "Here is what Wagner _really_ meant, but I am the only one who has understood him, and now I am going to enlighten you!".


I thought regie directors thought more along the lines of "screw [composer's + librettist's names here]! here's what I'm gonna do based on my slim knowledge of the libretto, which I got from reading the wiki synopsis".


----------



## Adeodatus100 (May 27, 2013)

As I understand it, what you get with Regietheater is the director's artistic reaction to the material they're presented with - i.e. the text of the opera. This is something artists do all the time - if you commission, say, a sculptor to create something for a large indoor room, then part of their work will be exploring their reaction to the space and how it's used.

This is actually how you get the best out of your artist, but it comes with a risk - what if you've chosen an artist whose work at the end is trite, dull, or just downright inappropriate? And this is the problem with Regietheater too - it's not that directors shouldn't be using their creativity, it's just that they should be better at it.

I own two Ring Cycles on DVD - the "old" Met production, and the Kupfer/Barenboim from Bayreuth. I think the Met production is really quite dull in places. There's nothing in it that encourages me to think more deeply about the story than I did before. The Kupfer/Barenboim, by contrast, I find completely thrilling. It's not exactly out-and-out Regietheater, but Kupfer has thought creatively about how to present Wagner's work in a new way that's still faithful (enough) to the text.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

DavidA said:


> As with all opera the director should serve the composer's intentions not the other way round. It should also provide drama and entertainment for the watching audience. If the director is intent on his or her vision it will distract from the genius of the man who has written the thing. Now there are new ways to present the operas - for example, Weiland Wagner's Appian revolution. But does this shed new light on it or distract from it?
> 
> In this Wagner is no different from every other serious composer. Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, etc, all need their visions realising - not a half-baked one imposed by a talentless egoist.


Regarding Wieland Wagner, I find that his "stripping-down" of the text to its essentials is not distracting. The problem comes in when regie-directors strip it down and re-build it according to their vision. I find that Wieland presented the only acceptable type of regietheater.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Notung said:


> Regarding Wieland Wagner, I find that his "stripping-down" of the text to its essentials is not distracting. The problem comes in when regie-directors strip it down and re-build it according to their vision. I find that Wieland presented the only acceptable type of regietheater.


Actually WW's interpretations tended to keep the focus on what his grandfather wrote, stripped down to minimalist essentials, interpreting the stage directions with lighting.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

deggial said:


> I thought regie directors thought more along the lines of "screw [composer's + librettist's names here]! here's what I'm gonna do based on my slim knowledge of the libretto, which I got from reading the wiki synopsis".


:lol:Although its not that simple, I agree. Regie-directors seem to want to present THEIR philosophy. Instead of writing their own plays, where they can do whatever they want, they piggyback on another's work, which I find inappropriate.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Actually WW's interpretations tended to keep the focus on what his grandfather wrote, stripped down to minimalist essentials, interpreting the stage directions with lighting.


I would like to see Bayreuth revive his "Parsifal". From pictures I've seen, the production does not seem to distract. Unlike the "creative" re-stylization of recent times.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

I think it's like what Duchamp did to the Mona Lisa. It's the painting...but it really isn't. It's Duchamp's "vision" of it. It did, like what many regietheater directors want to do with Wagner, make it "relevant" to the politics and ideas of its time. But it steamrolled Da Vinci, the creator of the art, and distracted from it's inherent beauty.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Or take "Parsifal" (my favorite Wagner piece). The beautiful story of redemption, healing seemingly inescapable wounds, and God's forgiveness has been transformed into a yahoo-parade of Nazi references, Aryanism, and Freudian interpretations.


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

Ebab, Here is a question for you: Did you see any of the Bayerische Staatsoper Ring last year (although, I think they did another cycle this spring)? If so, what did you think? 

I made the trip last year - my first trip to Germany in a very long time, and my first Ring cycle and, while there were elements in the 4 operas that were a little much, overall I thought the direction well done and ultimately successful.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Bottom line for me is that while these interpretations/productions supposedly are out to make the audience "think", I have never seen a radical reinterpretation of any opera that has provided any kind of significant insight into the work. They are simply more distracting than anything, and often in a direct conflict with the feeling/atmosphere of the of the music, not to mention with the words of the drama in question, that it makes any kind of cohesive artistic experience absolutely impossible.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

The first time I saw the Rat Lohengrin I thought... what a load of tripe this rat idea is! But I enjoyed the performance and acting by the principals, which stuck pretty closely to the story.

But then the rats haunted me. What was going on? So I watched it again and paid attention to the rats. And then I started listening very closely to the chorus words. And realised how much they swing with whoever seems to be the strongest presence in the gathering, quick to turn on whoever falls out of favour. SO the rats drew my attention to something which previously I dismissed as background. Now when I watch another production, I get a fuller experience because of this. Regie has its moments.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> The first time I saw the Rat Lohengrin I thought... what a load of tripe this rat idea is! But I enjoyed the performance and acting by the principals, which stuck pretty closely to the story.
> 
> But then the rats haunted me. What was going on? So I watched it again and paid attention to the rats. And then I started listening very closely to the chorus words. And realised how much they swing with whoever seems to be the strongest presence in the gathering, quick to turn on whoever falls out of favour. SO the rats drew my attention to something which previously I dismissed as background. Now when I watch another production, I get a fuller experience because of this. Regie has its moments.


Of course there's no reason that a clever opera director couldn't find a way to highlight this without depicting the actors as rats...the true evaluation of a great opera director should be one that is able to draw attention to underlying themes and symbols, and demonstrate how the work holds significance for a modern audience _while at the same time_ remaining true to the composer's dramatic and musical intentions. Now _that_ would be something unique and worthwhile. These typical regietheater-like perversions have become the norm unfortunately, and they are what has become quite boring and mindless.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Of course there's no reason that a clever opera director couldn't find a way to highlight this without depicting the actors as rats...the true evaluation of a great opera director should be one that is able to draw attention to underlying themes and symbols, and demonstrate how the work holds significance for a modern audience _while at the same time_ remaining true to the composer's dramatic and musical intentions. Now _that_ would be something unique and worthwhile. These typical regietheater-like perversions have become the norm unfortunately, and they are what has become quite boring and mindless.


Well I'm not sure that I would use the word perversion - too loaded for my liking. And I wouldn't lump all regie devices together as mindless; some are very carefully thought out (although I DO get bored with gratuitous blood and splatter). Anyway, this one worked for me, and judging by the audience's reaction they seemed to have come round to it too, although I believe that the audiences were pretty hostile when it firs came out.

I liked the Herheim Parsifal too - but then, I'm not that keen on Parsifal the story (as opposed to the music) in its unvarnished form.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well I'm not sure that I would use the word perversion - too loaded for my liking. And I wouldn't lump all regie devices together as mindless; some are very carefully thought out (although I DO get bored with gratuitous blood and splatter). Anyway, this one worked for me, and judging by the audience's reaction they seemed to have come round to it too, although I believe that the audiences were pretty hostile when it firs came out.
> 
> I liked the Herheim Parsifal too - but then, I'm not that keen on Parsifal the story (as opposed to the music) in its unvarnished form.


Fair enough. And to clarify a little, by mindless I didn't mean they can't be carefully thought out. I just think they are mostly inherently misguided, and never seem to question "why" they are radically reinventing the opera, other than as a compulsive urge to need to do something "new" and "different". Indeed, maybe the problem is they are _too_ conceptual, and too little attention is given to creating a harmonious artistic statement.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> But then the rats haunted me. What was going on? So I watched it again and paid attention to the rats. And then I started listening very closely to the chorus words. And realised how much they swing with whoever seems to be the strongest presence in the gathering, quick to turn on whoever falls out of favour. SO the rats drew my attention to something which previously I dismissed as background. Now when I watch another production, I get a fuller experience because of this. Regie has its moments.


I failed to notice that. I really had a hard time not getting entirely distracted, also because people were giggling all the time over the funny rats, even after two hours. When Telramund was killed, some idiot right behind me laughed out loud over the funny rat. I just don't believe that this was Neuenfels' intention. One could argue that people are just too stupid, but that's something that I expect a director to take into account.

At one point they were taking off the rats costumes - we all thought "thanks, we've gotten the idea" - next scene, the rats were back ... And that really _awful_ embryo thing sluggishly appearing as Gottfried at the end; which did what looked like slowly breaking its umbilical cord piece by piece and throwing it into the crowd, in that provocatively detached and, like, bored kind of way - I was _disgusted_ to no end! And that at a point where the gorgeous music really opens you up. I can't put it any differently: I felt like Neuenfels had done his business all over me.

At that point something snapped. I'm done with Bayreuth for the time being.

And I even agree with you - the _Personenregie_ was really good indeed, that's what's so confusing to me. The beginning of Act II with the desperate Ortrud and Telramund was dramatically very exciting; also the blocking in the scene in the bridal chamber (which easily gets dull) was very skillfully solved.

But why does the man - who obviously knows his craft - feel the need to - OK, no more of that.

- And I also agree about the Herheim "Parsifal", which is probably the most extreme example of Wagner _Regietheater_, that I, for the most part, _did_ enjoy. It was very far away from the written word, but somehow, still within of what I feel is the spirit of the play (I had once written something here).


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Hoffmann said:


> Ebab, Here is a question for you: Did you see any of the Bayerische Staatsoper Ring last year (although, I think they did another cycle this spring)?


As a matter of fact, I didn't. I've only been ultimately "sold" to Wagner this spring (from - I bore people with that - a performance of "Tristan und Isolde" with Waltraud Meier) ... for some reason, I let the "Ring" pass.

They're doing another cycle this summer, but the tickets are long gone. I'm very glad to hear that you, overall, had a satisfying experience!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> never seem to question "why" they are radically reinventing the opera, other than as a compulsive urge to need to do something "new" and "different". Indeed, maybe the problem is they are _too_ conceptual, and too little attention is given to creating a harmonious artistic statement.


true on so many levels* :tiphat:

*not just regie, but art in general


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

Re: Rat Lohengrin

I watched this legendary production for the first time last weekend - at Tyroneslothrop's instigation - and my observation was that it was an interesting novelty.

The rats, while an immediate distraction because they are so not anticipated, really didn't bother me. I tried to figure out the point, and kind of vaguely arrived at the same conclusion as Mamascarlatti. I have to admit, though, that the rats were really well done: killer feet and tails! great movement - the zoot suits also were great. 

I completely agree with Ebab about the Act II dialogue between Telramund and Ortrud and the wedding chamber scenes were awesome. However, with all due respect to Herr Neuenfels and Regie, the real strength of the Bayreuth Lohengrin was the singing - the production was only an accessory. I know that Klaus Florian Vogt's voice may not be everyone's taste - I think he's wonderful and sings completely effortlessly and with great expression, and he provided real backbone to the production. Then, Elsa - terrific; Ortrud blew me away; Telramund, terrific and the Herald was really wonderful (and had great hair). 

Finally, after a terrific "In Fernem Land", with the music swelling toward its glorious close, we get that gross Gottfried fetus thing - a serious buzzkill. That was audience manipulation at its worst - just as the audience was on the edge of their seats for one of the glories of opera, Director Neuenfels yanks their chains: "Not so fast, all you rich Bayreuther operavolk, not so fast. Take that"! That kind of Regie should be a felony.


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

Re: Rat Lohengrin

I watched this legendary production for the first time last weekend - at Tyroneslothrop's instigation - and my observation found it very interesting.

The rats, while an immediate distraction because they are so not anticipated, turned out not to bother me. I tried to figure out the point, and kind of vaguely arrived at the same conclusion that Mamascarlatti arrived it. I have to admit, though, that the rats were really well done: killer feet and tails! great movement - the zoot suits also were great. 

I completely agree with Ebab about the Act II dialogue between Telramund and Ortrud and the wedding chamber scene was terrific. However, with all due respect to Herr Neuenfels and Regie, the real strength of the Bayreuth Lohengrin was the singing. I know that Klaus Florian Vogt's voice is to not everyone's taste - I think he's wonderful and sings completely effortlessly and with great expression, but he provided real backbone to the production. Then, Elsa - terrific; Ortrud blew me away; Telramund, terrific and the Herald also was really wonderful (and had great hair). 

Then, after an awesome "In Fernem Land" and the music is swelling toward its glorious closing, we get that gross Gottfried fetus thing - a serious buzzkill. That was audience manipulation at its worst - just as the audience was on the edge of their seats for one of the glories of opera, Director Neuenfels yanks their chains: "Not so fast, all you rich Bayreuther operavolk, not so fast. Take that"! That kind of Regie should be a felony.


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

Sorry about the duplicate posting - now you can see what I edited! Geez.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Hoffmann said:


> I tried to figure out the point, and kind of vaguely arrived at the same conclusion that Mamascarlatti arrived it.


Neuenfels said that the rats should be _"accepted as a sensual metaphor for the masses and for mass behaviour. Behind this clash lies the notion - and that was our declared aim - to take away the fear of Wagner, to unmask a false cult, and to lay bare the realities that his music reveals in all its multifacetedness."_

Whatever. 

_(I just wish I could have been a fly on the wall when Bayreuth's 21-person Board of Directors would meet and discuss the Neuenfels production! :lol_


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I am with changes as long as they serve the story being told. Arbitrary desisions, no. But the settings don't have to be paper mache rocks and bits of twisted tree trunks.

I think Mehta's Valencia Ring was a very successful staging, and I think Boulez's Bayreuth Ring was a close second.


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

tyroneslothrop said:


> Neuenfels said that the rats should be _"accepted as a sensual metaphor for the masses and for mass behaviour. Behind this clash lies the notion - and that was our declared aim - to take away the fear of Wagner, to unmask a false cult, and to lay bare the realities that his music reveals in all its multifacetedness."_
> 
> Whatever.
> 
> _(I just wish I could have been a fly on the wall when Bayreuth's 21-person Board of Directors would meet and discuss the Neuenfels production! :lol_


"..to take away the fear of Wagner, to unmask a false cult..."

I'm sure the audience was sitting there in the Festspielhaus Bayreuth, waiting patiently for Neuenfels to relieve them of their fear of Wagner and to unmask the cult from which they yearned for release!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Hoffmann said:


> Finally, after a terrific "In Fernem Land", with the music swelling toward its glorious close, we get that gross Gottfried fetus thing - a serious buzzkill. That was audience manipulation at its worst - just as the audience was on the edge of their seats for one of the glories of opera, Director Neuenfels yanks their chains: "Not so fast, all you rich Bayreuther operavolk, not so fast. Take that"! That kind of Regie should be a felony.


Well the Gottfried thing was pretty gross, yes, and of course you have to ask if a production can really call itself Regie if the audience isn't grossed out at some point:lol:.

But more seriously, I think it does point to the fact that the happy glorious ending is probably not all that happy, whatever the music (and rats oooops sorry members of the chorus) say. The new ruler of Brabant is a kid. How is a kid going to unite all those unruly ambitious nobles once Heinrich is on his merry way? I give him one year tops before he is removed to make way for the next Telramund. And the rats will be cheering all the way.


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

That's true, of course - I understood what Neuenfels was driving at, but it helps illustrate the debate about self-righteous Regie directors tendency to try and hijack composers' intent. Lohengrin's ending already is bittersweet - Elsa, after all, just dropped dead; Telramund is dead and Ortrud is dead (which is happy and glorious - but still is death) and Lohengrin is leaving - Wagner always leaves the audience at least a shred of hope - and, in Lohengrin, Gottfried might be seen as representing hope for the future. So, in the Rat Lohengrin, Neuenfels is telling us that the future sucks (so to speak)?


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Kaufmann on the Neuenfels Lohengrin starting at 7:25-


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Hoffmann said:


> That's true, of course - I understood what Neuenfels was driving at, but it helps illustrate the debate about self-righteous Regie directors tendency to try and hijack composers' intent. Lohengrin's ending already is bittersweet - Elsa, after all, just dropped dead; Telramund is dead and Ortrud is dead (which is happy and glorious - but still is death) and Lohengrin is leaving - Wagner always leaves the audience at least a shred of hope - and, in Lohengrin, Gottfried might be seen as representing hope for the future. So, in the Rat Lohengrin, Neuenfels is telling us that the future sucks (so to speak)?


Well, there is always an interpretation. In the traditional production ending, with the music and the chorus and the boy standing there, you are pointed towards optimism. But as I say, even before seeing the Neuenfels production I was never comfortable with this feeling. It seemed misplaced, wrong. The Neuenfels ending resonates better with my inner pessimism about the future in that situation.


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

But that's exactly what makes Wagner, Wagner!


----------



## Hoffmann (Jun 10, 2013)

tyroneslothrop said:


> Kaufmann on the Neuenfels Lohengrin starting at 7:25-


Thanks for posting this interview, TL. JK comes across as a very thoughtful refined guy - a superb interview, I watched it all the way through.


----------



## sparsity (Apr 10, 2012)

I love Wagner so much that I saw Lohengrin twice in the same week. However, his operas are leaving me with a bitter aftertaste--it's not that they're sad, there's something disturbing about them I cant quite put my finger on. Anyone know what I'm talking about?


----------



## Adeodatus100 (May 27, 2013)

sparsity said:


> ... there's something disturbing about them ...


Oh yes. Mwahahaha! If you let him, he can do anything he likes with your emotions. And he does. Because we're used to them, it's easy to forget how dark some of his plots and characters are. Lohengrin, for example - it may be a fairytale cliché that the princess isn't allowed to ask her hero's name, but Wagner asks us to think of it as a real possibility: imagine never being able really to know the person you've committed your life to. I think this might be why Nikolaus Lehnhoff portrayed him as a narcissist - his demand is utterly selfish, it's all about allowing him to stay in the "real world". In the end, it breaks Elsa, just as it would break anyone, and she dies for doing what any one of us would do. Think of it like that, and it starts to become scary stuff.

I've only seen bits of the DVD of "Rat Lohengrin", and I'm intrigued. If the director hadn't spoken of breaking Wagner's "false cult", but rather about deflating the one of his operas that's most likely to come across as pompous and self-important, I'd have agreed wholeheartedly. The world needs a "Silly Lohengrin".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sparsity said:


> I love Wagner so much that I saw Lohengrin twice in the same week. However, his operas are leaving me with a bitter aftertaste--it's not that they're sad, there's something disturbing about them I cant quite put my finger on. Anyone know what I'm talking about?


Well, he was a man who had very disturbing views!


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Well, he was a man who had very disturbing views!


Except for Beckmesser, where else in Wagner's operas did we see his "disturbing views" peek out? I think that for the most part, his operas did not overtly reflect the man's politics.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

tyroneslothrop said:


> Except for Beckmesser, where else in Wagner's operas did we see his "disturbing views" peek out? I think that for the most part, his operas did not overtly reflect the man's politics.


What politics anyway? The radical l_et's overthrow the existing order_ of 1848? Which he then repudiated in favour of a schopenhaueresque disillusionment with the world? Because let's remember that when Wagner was still interested in politics, he was a radical left-winger with links to anarchists such as Bakunin.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

tyroneslothrop said:


> Except for Beckmesser, where else in Wagner's operas did we see his "disturbing views" peek out? I think that for the most part, his operas did not overtly reflect the man's politics.


Wagner's disturbing views are bound up in his overt and often-stated racism. The question is how much these views are reflected in his works. The new biography from Barry Millington suggests they are. This a matter of controversy in itself which many people find itself disturbing and which some producers of Regeitheatre have sought to exploit.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I think if I hear much longer about Wagner's disturbing views, I will start to share them in their entirety...

And *Tyroneslothrop*, what is wrong with Beckmesser? He was an old nasty creep who tried to get a girl that was just not in his league, and he made an idiot of himself in the process, that's all.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Because let's remember that when Wagner was still interested in politics, he was a radical left-winger with links to anarchists such as Bakunin.


Now, that, if anything, is suspicious. But, first, it was the 19th century, before the lefties ever got any real power and were still relatively harmless, and second, that uprising of 1848 was more about _building_ a nation than about tearing down and destroying as was the case with most other left-wing movements. In the end, the united Germany that Wagner also desired, was built under Bismarck, who was anything but a leftie.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think if I hear much longer about Wagner's disturbing views,


seriously... this has been discussed to death even in the short period I've been on this board. It needs a serious rest.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> mamascarlatti said:
> 
> 
> > What politics anyway? The radical l_et's overthrow the existing order_ of 1848? Which he then repudiated in favour of a schopenhaueresque disillusionment with the world? Because let's remember that when Wagner was still interested in politics, he was a radical left-winger with links to anarchists such as Bakunin.
> ...


In 1849, Wagner, seriously, took part in an indisputable attempt of revolution. We will never know what each individuals' goals were, but overall, the movement was nationalist, libertarian, and democratic (friends: this does _not_ mean the U.S. party). At that time (not necessarily ours), these goals were certainly regarded as extreme-left.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Bottom line for me is that while these interpretations/productions supposedly are out to make the audience "think", I have never seen a radical reinterpretation of any opera that has provided any kind of significant insight into the work. They are simply more distracting than anything, and often in a direct conflict with the feeling/atmosphere of the of the music, not to mention with the words of the drama in question, that it makes any kind of cohesive artistic experience absolutely impossible.


There was one staging (Not sure who, I ran away from it as soon as possible) where the R. of the Valkyries was depicted with a bunch of people clinging to a massive, disco-ball-esque pendulum. Naturally, I only saw a couple of seconds and never went back again....


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Notung said:


> There was one staging (Not sure who, I ran away from it as soon as possible) where the R. of the Valkyries was depicted with a bunch of people clinging to a massive, disco-ball-esque pendulum. Naturally, I only saw a couple of seconds and never went back again....


I just don't get the connection between acrobats and opera. I had a pet ferret which would cling to balls too. He didn't try his paw at producing opera though...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Notung said:


> There was one staging (Not sure who, I ran away from it as soon as possible) where the R. of the Valkyries was depicted with a bunch of people clinging to a massive, disco-ball-esque pendulum. Naturally, I only saw a couple of seconds and never went back again....


They were the dead heroes, I think. Just what they were doing is anyone's guess. Then along came an enormous Valkyrie and started yelling her war cry. Not convincing. We should just have the music.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

tyroneslothrop said:


> I just don't get the connection between acrobats and opera. I had a pet ferret which would cling to balls too. He didn't try his paw at producing opera though...


He should have. He might be an improvement upon some of the humans currently trying their hands at it. :lol:


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Although I'm a traditionalist, i am thinking of giving Chereau's "Industrial Revolution" one a shot. You never never know, there could be at least one regie-production a traditionalist might like and appreciate. Is it distracting from the music, or are both in relative harmony?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Notung said:


> Although I'm a traditionalist, i am thinking of giving Chereau's "Industrial Revolution" one a shot. You never never know, there could be at least one regie-production a traditionalist might like and appreciate. Is it distracting from the music, or are both in relative harmony?


I liked it relatively well, but a respectful non-traditional production doesn't bother me.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Notung said:


> Although I'm a traditionalist, i am thinking of giving Chereau's "Industrial Revolution" one a shot. You never never know, there could be at least one regie-production a traditionalist might like and appreciate. Is it distracting from the music, or are both in relative harmony?


It is Regie by 80's standards, AKA full-on traditional by today's standards. I think you will like it. I prefer it to the Met myself.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Couchie said:


> It* is Regie by 80's standards, AKA full-on traditional by today's standards.* I think you will like it. I prefer it to the Met myself.


Haha, that's what I thought.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

I am watching Chereau's version of Wotan's Farewell. His staging is elegant and not distracting. It's a new vision, but its still "Wagner"!!! (Finally)!!! If anyone would help a poor Nibelung out, perhaps one could give me a complete copy they want to get rid of.....Please?


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm still a bit skeptical though. However, let me know if anyone has a complete Chereau's they're willing to donate.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It is worth the price for Gwenyth Jones' thrilling Brunnhilde alone. It is simple to come up with the money, buy the DVDs and not food. Let Wagner's music nourish you for the week as you fast (water is acceptable). You have great epiphany.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Before I make a purchase decision, what would be a better way way to spend the money:

1.) Chereau Ring

2.) Solti Studio Ring (1997 Edition, the limited edition deluxe box that just came out is too much money.)


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Barenboim ring










Sorry, couldn't resist, but I do mean it.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Have it, not a fan.....


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Then again, I need to give it a second chance.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't like the Barenboim either. Performance is good, found the costumes ridiculous.

If you do not already have the Solti, that is required listening. Get it immediately.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Couchie said:


> I don't like the Barenboim either. Performance is good, found the costumes ridiculous.
> 
> If you do not already have the Solti, that is required listening. Get it immediately.


Is the 1997 remaster adequate? I know the deluxe anniversary box fixes some sound glitches, but too expensive.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Notung said:


> Is the 1997 remaster adequate?


Yes, of course!


----------

