# Gotterdammerung ... and (again) comic elements in the Ring cycle



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Last night's Gotterdammerung at the Met was everything I hoped and more. To quickly score the four operas: Siegfried was the least exciting and satisfying for me, Rheingold and Walkure tied ... and yes, Gotterdammerung brought it all home for me. I have never seen any other Brunnhilde live, but as far as my unsophisticated newbie eyes and ears can tell, Christine Goerke nailed it. A couple of photos on my Insta here ... https://www.instagram.com/asheresque/

I'm recording a podcast episode about the Ring cycle this week with a friend of mine named Bud Parr who also (separately) attended this season. (My podcast is "Lost Music: Exploring Literary Opera" - https://litkicks.com/LostMusic). I'm going to save most of my effusive enthusiasm there ... I also plan to tip my hat during this recording to the Wagner experts in this forum for all the help you gave and the answers to my questions, especially Woodbird I mean Woodduck, as well as everybody else. So I'm not going to say too much about my overall impressions here, but I do want to circle back to a question I asked months ago about comic elements in the Ring cycle.

Even though I was familiar with the Gotterdammerung story and had watched one video of it before going in yesterday, I was surprised by how much of this particular opera (not the other three) turns on sexual innuendo of an ambiguously comic nature. In fact, it wasn't until last night that I finally pieced together why Wagner's convoluted plot takes some of the turns it does. I now realize that this is necessary to setup a massive double entendre that provides most of the storyline in Gotterdammerung. This sexual double entendre, as I now understand it, involves a far-fetched but fascinating series of steps:

1) Siegfried braves the fire and claims Brunnhilde's love (in opera #3) and the two of them are both sexually and emotionally enraptured with each other for some period of time.

2) Siegfried forms an alliance with Gunther and stupidly drinks the potion that makes him forget Brunnhilde ever existed. He now falls in love with Gutrune.

3) Siegfried puts on the magical Tarnhelm and goes back to Brunnhilde, now disguised as Gunther, to win and claim Brunnhilde's love a second time, but now for the purpose of bringing her back to marry Gunther, while he will marry Gutrune. Here, there is a clear case of fictional ambiguity as Siegfried announces that he will sleep alongside Brunnhilde on the mountain but will not have sex with her, as his sword will lie between them. This is ambiguous because we are not meant to believe him. I don't know how other opera directors treat this moment, but my impression as I watched Siegfried announce his intention to be chaste with Brunnhilde is that Siegfried was lying and intended to have sex with her. (It must be noted here the echoes of similar sexual games in Mozart comic operas, such as Don Giovanni and Cosi Fan Tutte, in which male friends seduce each other's lovers in disguise. Siegfried disguising himself as Gunther is definitely a Mozartean trope.)

4) Here's where everything turns: when Brunnhilde is brought in to Gibichung Hall and sees Siegfried. a major misunderstanding takes place which is tragic in emotional content but yet comic in terms of opera tradition. Brunnhilde remembers her previous ecstatic relationship with Siegfried, and declares that he once seduced her. Siegfried doesn't remember this, and is totally confused, because he *thinks* (incorrectly) that this means Brunnhilde wasn't fooled by his disguise. He think she is referring to the recent time he seduced her on the mountain, because he doesn't remember the earlier time. He even states his confusion, wondering aloud why the Tarnhelm's magic didn't work. His comment here is certainly meant to be comic - comic in the sense of rude sexual innuendo. He thought he got away with an act of sexual conquest, and doesn't understand why his disguise didn't work.

5) Only later does Siegfried piece together his earlier history with Brunnhilde - though he barely has a moment to digest this understanding, as he is stabbed in the back by Hagen.

So, the entire plot of Gotterdammerung turns upon a Mozartean sexual comic situation. And the energy of this situation motivates the action up until the very end when Brunnhilde proves her moral superiority by walking into the purifying fire.

My comments here are not meant to diminish Wagner's amazing work - I absolutely loved it, was blown away - and when I compare Wagner to Mozart I mean that as a compliment to Wagner. But I do want to circle back to the earliest question I asked in this forum (I was then pondering the characters of Wotan, Fricka and Loge) about whether or not the Ring Cycle had Mozartean comic elements. Gotterdammerung answered the question for me in the affirmative.

And, since Mozart is my #1 favorite, this only makes me love Wagner more. What a stunning four nights of opera I have just survived. Thanks all. Comments on my conclusions welcome, and I hope you will all listen to my podcast about Wagner when it comes out in a couple days!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Some original thinking there, Marc. I like it. Not so sure I agree with it, though...

When Siegfried tells the assembled Gibichungs that he was faithful to Gunther and laid his sword between himself and Brunnhilde in the cave, Brunnhilde cries out,

"You cunning hero, see how you lie!
You basely call upon your sword!
I know well its sharp blade, but I also know the sheath
in which it rested on the wall - 
Nothung, the faithful friend - 
as its master wed his beloved."

I think this is a pretty good literal translation of the German. It may be on account of other, so-called "singing" translations that Brunnhilde's words have sometimes been taken to mean that Siegfried raped Brunnhilde the night he captured her for Gunther and is now lying about being true to his oath. But there's nothing in her claim to indicate that she is referring to that night and not to his earlier relationship with her. 

What makes you think otherwise?


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Some original thinking there, Marc. I like it. Not so sure I agree with it, though...
> 
> When Siegfried tells the assembled Gibichungs that he was faithful to Gunther and laid his sword between himself and Brunnhilde in the cave, Brunnhilde cries out,
> 
> ...


Thanks, Woodduck. Well, I was hoping you would ask that question and I've got my answer ready. I believe that the entire debate about what Siegfried did or didn't do to or with Brunnhilde is meant to be understood as double entendre, and on two levels, which makes it a quadruple entendre. To explain the two levels, let's realize that Brunnhilde is speaking to an audience in two senses: there is an entourage (or chorus) on stage, and there is also presumed to be an audience in the opera house. For both reasons, Brunnhilde has reasons to deliver a double entendre. It's a sort of "winking" moment when one thing is said and another is meant. Or is it? This is drama, and drama thrives on ambiguity - therefore, I would not claim to be sure that Siegfried and Brunnhilde had sex during his second visit - but I am sure that the audience is meant to wonder whether or not they did.

I would compare this to the movie "Casablanca", where everything turns on the question of whether or not Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) and Rick (Humphrey Bogard) make love during the elapsed time in the hotel scene. The movie is perfectly ambiguous. It lets the watcher decide. I'm sure that Wagner had the same thing in mind about whether or not Siegfried and Brunnhilde had sex during this second visit. It's also intentionally ambiguous whether or not she was a willing participant. (Because I could not enjoy an opera that celebrates rape, I personally like to believe that their sexual chemistry was mutual - their characterizations seem to show this - and that they were both willing participants).

Does that help explain my reasoning?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Thanks, Woodduck. Well, I was hoping you would ask that question and I've got my answer ready. I believe that the entire debate about what Siegfried did or didn't do to or with Brunnhilde is meant to be understood as double entendre, and on two levels, which makes it a quadruple entendre. To explain the two levels, let's realize that Brunnhilde is speaking to an audience in two senses: there is an entourage (or chorus) on stage, and there is also presumed to be an audience in the opera house. For both reasons, Brunnhilde has reasons to deliver a double entendre. It's a sort of "winking" moment when one thing is said and another is meant. Or is it? This is drama, and drama thrives on ambiguity - therefore, I would not claim to be sure that Siegfried and Brunnhilde had sex during his second visit - but I am sure that the audience is meant to wonder whether or not they did.
> 
> I would compare this to the movie "Casablanca", where everything turns on the question of whether or not Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) and Rick (Humphrey Bogard) make love during the elapsed time in the hotel scene. The movie is perfectly ambiguous. It lets the watcher decide. I'm sure that Wagner had the same thing in mind about whether or not Siegfried and Brunnhilde had sex during this second visit. It's also intentionally ambiguous whether or not she was a willing participant. (Because I could not enjoy an opera that celebrates rape, I personally like to believe that their sexual chemistry was mutual - their characterizations seem to show this - and that they were both willing participants).
> 
> Does that help explain my reasoning?


I'd say "it's remotely possible," but also "it isn't necessary" and "it's unlikely, unless the two of them were having out-of-body experiences as the result of drinking too much honeyed mead." Wagner may have wanted the audience to feel the Gibichungs' uncertainty about who was telling the truth in this scene, but his libretto gives us no reason to doubt that both characters are being truthful and that they're simply talking across each other in the chaos of the moment.

I'd say two more things: 1.) it would be out of character for either Siegfried or Brunnhilde to lie; and 2.) characters addressing the audience or acknowledging them in any way is not a part of Wagner's aesthetic. Wagner's dramas are self-contained worlds; they're magic shows separated from the audience by the proscenium and the "mystic gulf" of the sunken orchestra (both carefully calculated features of the Bayreuth Festspielhaus). He wanted his audience to forget itself and be absorbed into a higher, transforming reality where they would not be sorting out intellectual puzzles but would "know through feeling" (his words). Double, triple and quadruple entendres are simply un-Wagnerian.

The only genuinely comic moment I find in _Gotterdammerung_ is a musical one: when Siegfried is welcomed at the Gibichung hall and hands the horse Grane over to Hagen, the orchestra does a precise imitation of the animal bucking and snorting at being led away by a stranger. Wagner must have spent some time in the stables to pin that effect down so precisely.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The only genuinely comic moment I find in _Gotterdammerung_ is a musical one: when Siegfried is welcomed at the Gibichung hall and hands the horse Grane over to Hagen, the orchestra does a precise imitation of the animal bucking and snorting at being led away by a stranger. Wagner must have spent some time in the stables to pin that effect down so precisely.


Thanks for that Woodduck. That's me off to listen to that little moment!

I'm curious to see how he scored it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> Thanks for that Woodduck. That's me off to listen to that little moment!
> 
> I'm curious to see how he scored it.


Perfectly, as always. :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Yeah, yeah, that's a given. Unless of course you are a certain ...............!

Oops, no names, no pack drill.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I have a question. If it's already been answered just direct me to the correct post please.

When Siegfried is killed and his funeral music plays, I always feel a profound sadness as if much more then just Siegfried has died.
Almost a spiritual death.
Maybe something almost cosmic.

Would very much appreciate your thoughts on this, thanks.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I'd say "it's remotely possible," but also "it isn't necessary" and "it's unlikely, unless the two of them were having out-of-body experiences as the result of drinking too much honeyed mead." Wagner may have wanted the audience to feel the Gibichungs' uncertainty about who was telling the truth in this scene, but his libretto gives us no reason to doubt that both characters are being truthful and that they're simply talking across each other in the chaos of the moment.
> 
> I'd say two more things: 1.) it would be out of character for either Siegfried or Brunnhilde to lie; and 2.) characters addressing the audience or acknowledging them in any way is not a part of Wagner's aesthetic. Wagner's dramas are self-contained worlds; they're magic shows separated from the audience by the proscenium and the "mystic gulf" of the sunken orchestra (both carefully calculated features of the Bayreuth Festspielhaus). He wanted his audience to forget itself and be absorbed into a higher, transforming reality where they would not be sorting out intellectual puzzles but would "know through feeling" (his words). Double, triple and quadruple entendres are simply un-Wagnerian.
> 
> The only genuinely comic moment I find in _Gotterdammerung_ is a musical one: when Siegfried is welcomed at the Gibichung hall and hands the horse Grane over to Hagen, the orchestra does a precise imitation of the animal bucking and snorting at being led away by a stranger. Wagner must have spent some time in the stables to pin that effect down so precisely.


Well, I agree with you that my interpretation isn't necessary. And I definitely acknowledge your greater experience with Wagner studies.

But I remain sure that there is a strong insinuation during the amazing confrontation scene in act two of Gotterdammerung that Siegfried and Brunnhilde are shocked and embarrassed for reasons that they are not coming clean about. I see this not only in the libretto but in the acting. I have now closely studied two performances - the Christine Goerke Brunnhilde live at the Met last night, and the Bayreuth 1979 with Gwyneth Jones. Both amazing performances - I couldn't be more moved by these stunning scenes.

In both these performances, there are looks of shock and embarrassment on the faces of both Siegfried and Brunnhilde. There expressions and gestures contradict their words. This is a clear case of dramatic layering, which is after a common technique in theatre. It's not necessarily the case that they are concealing the truth from the audience in the theater - rather they are concealing the truth from the large crowd of observers in the scene. This is basically a spontaneous public trial, and they are both swearing oaths. The looks of distress on their faces as they do so indicates that they may both be hiding secrets.

This is just a suggestion, again. But the suggestion is being clearly made by the actors on stage. I'm not imagining it. I don't know what the original Wagner performances were like, but this scene was being played for sexual innuendo last night live at the Met. When Siegfried tells Brunnhilde to take him to her chamber, then holds up his sword and announces to us as he walks jauntily forward that "this sword shall be a barrier between us" (or whatever exactly he said) the obvious interpretation is "sure, Siegfried, tell us another one".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Well, I agree with you that my interpretation isn't necessary. And I definitely acknowledge your greater experience with Wagner studies.
> 
> But I remain sure that there is a strong insinuation during the amazing confrontation scene in act two of Gotterdammerung that Siegfried and Brunnhilde are shocked and embarrassed for reasons that they are not coming clean about. I see this not only in the libretto but in the acting. I have now closely studied two performances - the amazing Christine Goerke Brunnhilde live at the Met last night, and the Bayreuth 1979 with Gwyneth Jones. Both amazing performances - I couldn't be more moved by these stunning scenes.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid this is only obvious to you. If Wagner had wanted it to be obvious to the rest of us, he'd have done a much better job of implying it. Listen to Act 1 of _Tristan und Isolde_ to see how he handles he unstated and the insinuated. Wagner is deep and complex, but he isn't cryptic or coy.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Surely Siegfried is the epitome of loyalty and his innocence would prevent him from ever betraying his promise to Gunther when he agrees to woo Brünnhilde for him. The medieval code of chivalry, to which Wagner alludes when he makes a point of placing the sword between Siegfried and Brünnhilde, would preclude Siegfried from ever taking advantage of Brünnhilde. I've seen a few productions of Götterdämmerung, live and on DVD, and I've not spotted any sexual innuendo. Maybe that's just me, of course.!

Honi soit qui mal y pense!

With regard to the OP, I'm not sure murder and betrayal give rise to many laughs!


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> Surely Siegfried is the epitome of loyalty and his innocence would prevent him from ever betraying his promise to Gunther when he agrees to woo Brünnhilde for him. The medieval code of chivalry, to which Wagner alludes when he makes a point of placing the sword between Siegfried and Brünnhilde, would preclude Siegfried from ever taking advantage of Brünnhilde. I've seen a few productions of Götterdämmerung, live and on DVD, and I've not spotted any sexual innuendo. Maybe that's just me, of course.!
> 
> Honi soit qui mal y pense!
> 
> With regard to the OP, I'm not sure murder and betrayal give rise to many laughs!


Okay, Woodduck and Barbebleu, I understand your points and I respect the authority both of you have on this. I am honestly a bit puzzled right now why the innuendo came through so strongly to me (watching both the live opera and the 1979 Gwyneth Jones on YouTube) while both of you are telling me the innuendo isn't there.

Am I the only one who sees a look of guilt on Siegfried's face when Brunnhilde accuses him during their public confrontation? If he had kept his vow of chastity, he would have no reason to feel or look guilty. He would simply think she has gone crazy. Instead, he reacts with fear and guilt as far as I can see.

Maybe both of these modern productions are taking liberties that other productions do not?

Maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there?

Two points in my interpretation's defense. First, I've alluded to in other threads here, I often think of Shakespeare when I watch the Ring cycle. Shakespeare's tragedies and comedies, of course, are packed to the hilt with innuendo and double entendre and double meaning. Why wouldn't Wagner adopt the same theatrical conventions? And doesn't a sophisticated theater or opera audience expect to be intellectually tickled and challenged with ambiguity? Woodduck's statement that double meanings are "un-Wagnerian" seems to me unsupportable. A playwright or librettist who doesn't deal in double meanings is a dull playwright/librettist. And Wagner is not dull.

Second, how can we possibly not imagine that a lustful, impulsive teenager like Siegfried might proclaim a public vow of chastity and then break it? He is not presented to us as a wise saint-like figure, but rather as an impetuous earthly hero filled with drive and energy. And we already know that the sexual chemistry between Siegfried and Brunnhilde is through the roof.

With this said, again, I do appreciate the thoughtful answers and I am questioning my own interpretation. I'd love to hear input from any others on this question - do you take Siegfried's vow of chastity when he takes Brunnhilde to bed after his second visit to the mountain on face value, or not?

Thanks.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Can we consider the facial expressions of the singers really an argument? Did Wagner intend the characters to look guilty? It could just be dependent on the interpretation and might not have been Wagner's original intention at all (I don't think that even Wagner had enough time to determine every character's facial expressions for every single scene). Also, I think the way people understand facial expressions is veeery different and such small details (compared to libretto or the overall on-stage action) can be understood in so many ways that it would be an ineffective and rather confusing method of conveying important information in an opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Can we consider the facial expressions of the singers really an argument? Did Wagner intend the characters to look guilty? It could just be dependent on the interpretation and might not have been Wagner's original intention at all (I don't think that even Wagner had enough time to determine every character's facial expressions for every single scene). Also, I think the way people understand facial expressions is veeery different and such small details (compared to libretto or the overall on-stage action) can be understood in so many ways that it would be an ineffective and rather confusing method of conveying important information in an opera.


Let me add to this that Wagner gives his performers plenty of stage directions in his scores, often to indicate their reactions to each other. There is no indication in the score of _Gotterdammerung_ that Siegfried reacts guiltily to Brunnhilde's accusations. If that were the case it would be important for the actors to know about it, and Wagner wouldn't have neglected to specify it in the score, particularly since there's nothing to suggest it in the dialogue. The point of the dialogue as written seems to be that both Brunnhilde and Siegfried are telling the truth as they understand it, and that neither of them swears falsely on Hagen's spear. Hagen, of course, has an interest in affirming that Siegfried has indeed been false, and delivers death to him using that very spear.

I checked out that scene in the video of the 1979 Bayreuth production, and I didn't think that Siegfried looked guilty when accused, but merely confused and indignant. There was an earlier moment, while Brunnhilde was crying out to the gods, when Siegfried turned slowly away from her and raised his hand to his face as if trying to recall something, perhaps indicating that the effect of the potion was momentarily weakening. But this is not called for by Wagner and is clearly a directorial choice.

It would be a big mistake to take any production of an opera as a faithful rendering of its composer's intentions, particularly in this age of gross directorial license, and it's arguable that no composer is more egregiously misrepresented than Wagner. With his operas, nowadays, we need to trust what's in the score and be thoroughly skeptical of what we see on the stage.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

annaw said:


> Can we consider the facial expressions of the singers really an argument? Did Wagner intend the characters to look guilty? It could just be dependent on the interpretation and might not have been Wagner's original intention at all (I don't think that even Wagner had enough time to determine every character's facial expressions for every single scene). Also, I think the way people understand facial expressions is veeery different and such small details (compared to libretto or the overall on-stage action) can be understood in so many ways that it would be an ineffective and rather confusing method of conveying important information in an opera.


Well, I've never believed that an artist in any medium owns the right to define interpretations of his or her own work. This is a familiar argument among critics and academics and postmodernists. I am interested in knowing what Wagner intended, but I am even more interested in knowing simply what is the prevailing opinion among Wagner aficionados and experts today. Example: neither Sophocles nor Shakespeare knew about the Freudian interpretations of "Oedipus Rex" or "Hamlet", but that doesn't mean the Freudian interpretations are worthless.

With this said, though - I appreciate and respect the answers I got here, even though I'm not fully happy with them. I asked a question - do you all see Mozartean comic influences in the Ring cycle as I do? - and I got a resounding "no" here. But I did get some really brilliant commentary and responses.

I do think my interpretation - which sees innuendo and double entendre especially in Gotterdammerung - looks good on Wagner. I like to think that Wagner was reaching for the same kind of psychological depth and irony found in Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, T. S. Eliot. If I have to accept that there is no innuendo intended in the bizarre Gotterdammerung act two confrontation scenes, that seems to me to make Wagner less fascinating. But I still believe the innuendo is there, even though I can't convince you all, so I'm not letting this reduce my new fascination with Wagner.

I also found an independent answer to my question on the Metropolitan Opera Guild podcast on Gotterdammerung! Check this excellent episode out:


__
https://soundcloud.com/met-opera-guild%2Fepisode46

This directly addresses the question I'm asking, and does so in such a way as to satisfy both sides here. This podcaster says here that some have questioned whether or not Siegfried is telling the truth when he says he will be chaste with Brunnhilde. He then says that he believes the answer is that Siegfried IS telling the truth, which is what Woodduck, Barbebleu and Annaw all seem to agree with here. But the fact that this podcaster mentions the question does validate that I am not crazy for asking it, and that I am not imagining things when I see the actors suggesting it on stage!

Great discussion. Love this forum. Thanks all!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

marceliotstein said:


> the entire plot of Gotterdammerung turns upon a Mozartean sexual comic situation.


you haven't seen La Traviata to learn of real sex jokes yet.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Going back to the OP and the idea that Gotterdammerung uses tropes seen in some of Mozart's comedies, such as disguise, mistaken identities and seduction. I think that is a really interesting point (irrespective of whether you think Siegfried has sex with Brunhilde between acts one and two or not).

I agree that Wagner (intentionally or subconsciously) uses some routine comic tropes to serve the interests of tragedy and it brings to mind a phrase attributed to Marx, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce" and it isn't original to point out that comedy and tragedy are two sides of the same coin. One of the cornerstones of Greek tragedy was that the events had to be inevitable, the idea no doubt being that disaster is more tragic if ordained by fate and therefore unavoidable. The complex turn of events revolving around Hagen's plot are such that there is nothing that the heroes Siegfried and Brunhilde can do to stop them and as they are archetypes of the virtuous hero the only way that Hagen can overcome them is through cunning and deception. This is why Brunhilde can forgive Siegfried (as she has found out and trusted in the truth) and ultimately truth wins out over Hagen's deception.

Whilst Wagner uses disguise and mistaken identities (symbols of Hagen's deception as explained above) to express tragedy, he wasn't the first to do so. Shakespeare and Greek tragedy (and many others influenced by one or both of them) also did so, so this isn't something that Wagner initiated. He did use them to great dramatic effect, though and it's interesting to note his use of theatrical conventions to achieve his aims.

N.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> you haven't seen La Traviata to learn of real sex jokes yet.


I have seen Traviata (though I prefer Wagner to Verdi) and yes you are right!


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

The Conte said:


> Whilst Wagner uses disguise and mistaken identities (symbols of Hagen's deception as explained above) to express tragedy, he wasn't the first to do so. Shakespeare and Greek tragedy (and many others influenced by one or both of them) also did so, so this isn't something that Wagner initiated. He did use them to great dramatic effect, though and it's interesting to note his use of theatrical conventions to achieve his aims.
> 
> N.


Thanks, Conte - I totally agree. I am much more familiar with classical literature than with classical music. In classical literature, as you point out, all of these techniques and devices and tropes are VERY familiar.

And I do insist that opera is classical literature as well as classical music!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I am also befuddled by the suggestion that Siegfried raped Brünnhilde (or that she would willingly have sex with Gunther), and that Siegfried would have lied about this (both in an aside to us, and in front of everyone later).

Siegfried sends Brünnhilde into the cave and then says, in his own voice (not with the voice of Gunther):
"Now, Nothung, attest that I wooed her chastely: keep faith with my brother, keep me apart from his bride"

This isn't a public declaration for appearances; he's speaking to himself (and the audience).

In my interpretation, Wagner set this up so that in their Act 2 confrontation, Siegfried doesn't lie to Brünnhilde AND she doesn't falsely accuse him. The closest to deception Siegfried gets is not acknowledging that he took the ring from Brünnhilde, instead saying that he got the ring after slaying a dragon (which is completely true). Siegfried's vow upon Hagen's spear is that he didn't break his bond with Gunther (which in my interpretation of this is true), not that Brünnhilde was never his wife. He doesn't remember the latter, and thus could have extended his vow on the spear to include that, but Wagner doesn't have him make any statements that he believes to be false.

If Siegfried is lying and he did have sex with Brünnhilde (when disguised as Gunther) then Hagen stabbing him was justified. In my mind that means there's really no tragedy here, it's just that he's a jerk who got what's coming to him. And it would make me think less of Brünnhilde for holding him in such high regard.

I don't get how that's funny, and I don't get how that leaves a death that inspires an opera (and then the entire cycle) named after it (even though Wagner eventually changed the name from _Siegfrieds Tod_).


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

mountmccabe said:


> I don't get how that's funny, and I don't get how that leaves a death that inspires an opera (and then the entire cycle) named after it (even though Wagner eventually changed the name from _Siegfrieds Tod_).


Thanks for these comments, mountmccabe. First, most importantly, I want to clarify that I would never suggest that Siegfried disguising himself as Gunther and forcing himself upon Brunnhilde is funny. I'm pretty sure I never used the word "funny" here. (If I did, I wish I didn't.) I used the word "comic", which in an opera forum clearly refers to comic opera. My specific question all along has been whether or not there are elements of comic opera in the Ring cycle, specifically elements of Mozartean comic opera. As I described in an earlier thread here, I was excited to be struck by what seemed to be many references to Mozart when I began attending the Wagner series at the Met. I'm talking about the three Rhinemaidens and three Norns echoing Zauberflote's three ladies, Fricka wearing a costume and adopting a posture (in the Met's production) that reminded me of Der Konigen der Nacht, the use of a wily trickster character (Loge) to add ironic commentary, Siegfried becoming a hero by facing off against a large magical reptile. I was asking if there was a general recognition of Mozart's influence on Wagner, especially in the Ring cycle.

I asked the above before seeing Gotterdammerung, and then when I saw Gotterdammerung I was really struck by the adoption of a very distinct and key Mozart trope - male friends disguising themselves as each other to seduce each other's lovers. This is familiar from both Cosi Fan Tutte and Don Giovanni, and there is also a lot of clothing flying through the air and suggestions of illicit sex in Nozze di Figaro. As I watched Siegfried become blood brothers with Gunther and then promptly go off to disguise himself as Gunther and spend a night in the chambers of the woman he had just won to be Gunther's bride, I could not miss what seemed to me an obvious tip of the hat from Richard to his fellow German. This is what I meant by "comic elements". Perhaps I should have said "Mozartean elements", except that many elements of comic opera that are characteristically Mozartean also appear in the work of other composers. I have always been interested in the many ways that composers and librettists refer to the work of previous composers and librettists - it's the kind of thing that always gets literary-minded people like me excited. I am not a musical expert and have no idea if Wagner refers to Mozart as a composer, but I felt sure he does so as a librettist, and I was seeking confirmation here - though I haven't really gotten it.

As for the actual plot machinations: I am not saying there is a coherent plotline to Gotterdammerung in which Siegfried-as-Gunther violently rapes Brunnhilde. There is, however, a possible coherent plotline in which Siegfried-and-Gunther and Brunnhilde fell in love a second time - after all, they have a magical connection that should transcend disguise and sorcery - and had consensual sex, and that both Brunnhilde and Siegfried (neither of whom understood their feelings consciously, but only subconsciously) then felt it necessary to hide the fact that they had sex, and implicitly agree to both conceal it. But then the problem occurs: Brunnhilde doesn't realize that Siegfried-as-Gunther was Siegfried, and when she realizes it (in the public confrontation scene in act two) she is stunned and stupefied, and blows their cover. Siegfried, who still doesn't know about his past relationship with Brunnhilde, is stunned as well because he thought Brunnhilde would keep their secret, and now she's blowing it.

Important point: I am NOT saying this is the stated plot to Gotterdammerung. It clearly is not the stated plot. I am saying it is a sexually suggestive subtext that is written cleverly into the stated plot, as is done frequently in brilliant works of psychological literature. Another example of what I'm talking about is Mozart's Cosi Fan Tutte, where the "stated plot" only tells us that the two pairs of illicit lovers held hands adoringly while gazing upon the shore. We in the audience are meant to understand, however, that the two pairs of lovers each had sex. This is an absolutely standard device in theater and opera and literature, and I think it's to Wagner's credit if he was placing this type of layered psychological subtext in Gotterdammerung.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Siegfried and Gunther do not "disguise themselves as each other to seduce each other's lovers." That doesn't remotely describe their actions, their motives, or the relationships involved. Gunther doesn't disguise himself as Siegfried. Siegfried doesn't seduce Gutrune; nobody, in fact, seduces anybody, or wants to. And Gutrune isn't Gunther's lover; she's his sister. There is no "sexually suggestive subtext." What is actually "to Wagner's credit" is that he had too much artistic intuition and integrity to introduce dramatic irrelevancies into his carefully constructed plots merely to give literature students the pleasure of thinking they've made a clever discovery.

It's really helpful to get to know a literary work as a whole before reading one's favorite conceits into bits and pieces of it. With Wagner, and with the _Ring_ in particular, this is a substantial endeavor which takes some time.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

marceliotstein said:


> Important point: I am NOT saying this is the stated plot to Gotterdammerung. It clearly is not the stated plot. I am saying it is a sexually suggestive subtext that is written cleverly into the stated plot, as is done frequently in brilliant works of psychological literature. Another example of what I'm talking about is Mozart's Cosi Fan Tutte, where the "stated plot" only tells us that the two pairs of illicit lovers held hands adoringly while gazing upon the shore. We in the audience are meant to understand, however, that the two pairs of lovers each had sex. This is an absolutely standard device in theater and opera and literature, and I think it's to Wagner's credit if he was placing this type of layered psychological subtext in Gotterdammerung.


It is a standard device, suggesting sex rather than explicitly stating that it happens. But it happens when that suggestion matches the text. (Except, perhaps, for some impressionistic type works from a later period, like maybe _Pelléas et Mélisande_, or say _Einstein on the Beach_).

For example, Sieglinde and Siegmund are together in a passionate embrace at the end of act one of _Die Walküre_. Some productions are a bit more explicit about this (one example is Audi's for De National Opera in Amsterdam) than others, but it's never a wink-wink situation, or a layer that shifts our conception (ha) of what happens. It's just what happens, even if it isn't narrated (for once) and doesn't happen on stage (per the stage directions). They embraced on-stage, and had sex off-stage. The former implied that latter, but that doesn't mean there's any ambiguity here. We cannot interpret as a chaste embrace.

But it's a completely different situation than the end of act one of _Götterdämmerung_. I believe the contrast between these scenes is quite deliberate; the characters involved are in very different situations, and have very different feelings about each other.

But my main problem with this suggestion is that it reveals entirely different characters for Siegfried and Brünnhilde. If Brünnhilde goes from lamenting her fate and cursing Wotan to getting cuddly with Gunther over the course of a few hours, that says something about her. And her words and actions over the rest of the opera - the way she calls out Siegfried, and then how she expresses her feelings for him when Gutrune laments losing her husband, and in her final monologue. None of this makes any sense (to me) if she had anything but resistance for Siegfried-as-Gunther. In my previous post I spent a lot of time on how it doesn't make sense for Siegfried's character either, so I won't repeat that here.

You are right that Wagner knew how to use theatrical devices. But he also carefully chose which ones he used to serve his drama. He avoided choruses throughout the first three operas of the Ring because they didn't fit the story. He avoided musical resolution until the very end of _Tristan und Isolde_ because it reinforced the story he was telling. A chorus in _Die Walküre_ could have been fun. We could all enjoy _Tristan und Isolde_ if the music had some happy parts rather that prolonged longing for four hours.

The Ring is his revolutionary work about the fall of the old order. I don't see it as full of cute references to Mozart operas for no particular purpose. I don't see him suggesting a psychological layer that doesn't fit the story just because other theatrical works did such a thing. He wasn't writing this cycle to show off his mastery of technique (_Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ reveals what he thinks of that), but to create a new form of natively German opera, breaking free from history filled with things like Mozart's Italian works.

It's clear we're coming at these works from a very different perspective. The confusion for me is not how it happens, but how does it fit with the rest of the opera, and for what reason would any of this be what was intended?


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Makes sense, mountmccabe. And, as I said before here, I do acknowledge that I am a Wagner newbie. That's why I am asking this as a question, not stating my point of view as an absolute fact.

With humility, I will state two quick points to explain why I think this makes sense. First, Wagner chose to create a highly ambiguous situation. Why, if he wanted to make it clear that Siegfried-as-Gunther would be chaste, does he give us the ambiguity of "Lead me to your chamber!". And why the equally ambiguous moment when Brunnhilde states that Siegfried's sword was not between them when they were in bed together? I do understand that these provide ambiguous meanings, not clear meanings. But why would Wagner go to so much trouble to present this ambiguity, if he did not want our understanding to reflect ambiguity?

Second, as I said before, and this is only circumstantial evidence: I perceive in both the 1979 Bayreuth video (available on YouTube) and in the live opera I just watched at the Met that Siegfried reacts with guilt and distress, not dignified self-confidence, when Brunnhilde accuses him of being her lover. At this time he is not aware of his earlier history with her. I know that Woodduck says he didn't see this look of guilt in the 1979 Bayreuth. It looks to me like he is sweating bricks when he holds Hagen's sword to his neck. I also asked a friend of mine (who I just interviewed for a podcast episode about our experiences separately attending this Ring cycle at the Met) if he thought Siegfried was telling the truth when he said the sword would lie between them in her chamber. My friend smiled and shook his head - "I dunno ...". This will all be in the podcast episode I'm about to release and I do hope some of you will listen and give me feedback on it!

With these points stated, again, I do admit that I am not a Wagner expert and I do yield to the possibility that I am entirely wrong here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Makes sense, mountmccabe. And, as I said before here, I do acknowledge that I am a Wagner newbie. That's why I am asking this as a question, not stating my point of view as an absolute fact.
> 
> With humility, I will state two quick points to explain why I think this makes sense. First, Wagner chose to create a highly ambiguous situation. Why, if he wanted to make it clear that Siegfried-as-Gunther would be chaste, does he give us the ambiguity of "Lead me to your chamber!". And why the equally ambiguous moment when Brunnhilde states that Siegfried's sword was not between them when they were in bed together? I do understand that these provide ambiguous meanings, not clear meanings. But why would Wagner go to so much trouble to present this ambiguity, if he did not want our understanding to reflect ambiguity?


There's nothing ambiguous about either of the instances you mention.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

marceliotstein said:


> With humility, I will state two quick points to explain why I think this makes sense. First, Wagner chose to create a highly ambiguous situation. Why, if he wanted to make it clear that Siegfried-as-Gunther would be chaste, does he give us the ambiguity of "Lead me to your chamber!". And why the equally ambiguous moment when Brunnhilde states that Siegfried's sword was not between them when they were in bed together? I do understand that these provide ambiguous meanings, not clear meanings. But why would Wagner go to so much trouble to present this ambiguity, if he did not want our understanding to reflect ambiguity?


I will grant that "Lead me to your chamber" (or "allow me to enter your chamber") may, in English, be taken as suggestive. But that's not what Wagner wrote. He wrote "gönne mir nun dein Gemach." I certainly don't know German well enough to know if his use of an archaic form for "apartment" was to make it suggestive, but I see no indication. And, again, directly after Siegfried says this (once Brünnhilde leaves) he pledges to be chaste that night.

And in Act 2 Brünnhilde says that there was no sword between them because she's not thinking of the night before, she's thinking of before Siegfried set off adventuring. It is a case of tragic miscommunication, a common theatrical technique, here as a useful plot device. (Of course Hagen knew exactly what was going on, but he certainly wasn't going to clear things up; this was all his design).



marceliotstein said:


> Second, as I said before, and this is only circumstantial evidence: I perceive in both the 1979 Bayreuth video (available on YouTube) and in the live opera I just watched at the Met that Siegfried reacts with guilt and distress, not dignified self-confidence, when Brunnhilde accuses him of being her lover. At this time he is not aware of his earlier history with her. I know that Woodduck says he didn't see this look of guilt in the 1979 Bayreuth. It looks to me like he is sweating bricks when he holds Hagen's sword to his neck. I also asked a friend of mine (who I just interviewed for a podcast episode about our experiences separately attending this Ring cycle at the Met) if he thought Siegfried was telling the truth when he said the sword would lie between them in her chamber. My friend smiled and shook his head - "I dunno ...". This will all be in the podcast episode I'm about to release and I do hope some of you will listen and give me feedback on it!


I don't have a chance to rewatch those scenes right now, but as you note, it's just circumstantial evidence. Maybe one or both of those productions does wish to suggest that something happened. I would, as before, ask why. What were Patrice Chéreau or Robert Lepage doing? You are right, "evidence" from productions is all but meaningless.

That being said, there is an extent to which Siegfried feels guilty during the conversation with Brünnhilde in Act 2: because he's concerned that he's betraying his blood brother. And, again, when he takes a vow it isn't that he has never slept with Brünnhilde, but that he didn't break his vow with his brother (which, in my interpretation, is true, but in yours is not). Wagner could have introduced ambiguity or nuance here by having Siegfried vow that he had never been with Brünnhilde (which was a thing he believed at the time (in my interpretation), but not a thing that was true).



marceliotstein said:


> With these points stated, again, I do admit that I am not a Wagner expert and I do yield to the possibility that I am entirely wrong here.


I think there's a decent range of interpretation for many aspects of the Ring cycle. It's interesting to hear different approaches, and different ideas. And I know that it's a complex enough work that I'm still learning. And note that I have not said that you're wrong here.

But I have asked questions about why, or what purpose this bit of wink-wink serves. I have asked why it makes more sense to have a Siegfried that perjured himself because he was too weak to admit the truth, and for Hagen stabbing him was justice, as that, in my mind, does not fit with the rest of _Götterdämmerung_, or the rest of the Ring. And you've ignored these questions. And that's fine; you are not beholden to answer me. But that's where my argument resides, and if you're not going to engage with it, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Based on Wagner's text, I too must reject the notion that Siegfried, while disguised as Gunther, has sex with Brünnhilde. As for a tangential point,



marceliotstein said:


> Neither Sophocles nor Shakespeare knew about the Freudian interpretations of "Oedipus Rex" or "Hamlet."


Sophocles may have had more of an inkling than people realize. When a fearful Oedipus tells his wife Jocasta about the prophecy that he will marry his mother, she reassures him by saying, "Many a man has dreamt as much."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

We should also look at the bit of dialogue where Siegfried reassures Gutrune of his faithfulness:


GUTRUNE: So you overcame the intrepid woman?

SIEGFRIED: She surrendered - to Gunther's strength.

GUTRUNE: And she was married to you?

SIEGFRIED: Brünnhilde submitted to her husband
on the bridal night.

GUTRUNE: But you passed for her husband?

SIEGFRIED: Siegfried remained here with Gutrune.

GUTRUNE: How then did Gunther take over from you?

SIEGFRIED: Through the fire's dying flames
she followed in the morning mist from the rock to the valley;
near the shore,
Gunther in a trice
changed places with me
through the Tarnhelm's power.


Wagner is clearly trying to emphasize either Siegfried's honesty or his duplicity. Which is more consistent with his character?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

amfortas said:


> Based on Wagner's text, I too must reject the notion that Siegfried, while disguised as Gunther, has sex with Isolde.


I'm 100% certain Siegfried didn't have sex with _Isolde_.

N.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

mountmccabe said:


> But I have asked questions about why, or what purpose this bit of wink-wink serves. I have asked why it makes more sense to have a Siegfried that perjured himself because he was too weak to admit the truth, and for Hagen stabbing him was justice, as that, in my mind, does not fit with the rest of _Götterdämmerung_, or the rest of the Ring. And you've ignored these questions. And that's fine; you are not beholden to answer me. But that's where my argument resides, and if you're not going to engage with it, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.


I will answer. It's because the kind of literature I am most drawn to is psychological literature - literature that probes the depths of inner conflict. Kafka, Joyce, Virginia Woolf, DH Lawrence, TS Eliot, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Flaubert ... and of course, again, Shakespeare. I consider this the most fascinating kind of literature, but it doesn't describe every kind of literature. Charles Dickens was a great novelist, but not a great psychological novelist. Same with Victor Hugo.

I'm sorry to say that many classic opera librettos - such as Verdi's - bear the psychological flatness of Dickens and Hugo rather than the complexity of Kafka and Dostoevsky. Hofmansthal certainly did write psychological librettos for the great Strauss operas, and perhaps Puccini's librettists reached for this as well - but Strauss and Puccini belong to the modern era, the post-Freudian era, when psychological literature was a broad trend. I have to admit that even my beloved Mozart's Da Ponte operas only managed a sort of bawdy and obvious psychological sense, without the complexity of characterization that would lead to them being classified as great literature.

I have really fallen in love with Wagner's work since attending the Ring operas - and as I wrote here immediately after seeing Das Rheingold, I see in Wotan a character of Shakespearean complexity. (I don't know if you caught this, but at that time I also wrote a thread here asking if Wotan was based on King Lear, as I suspect he must have been, as some slight evidence has arisen of Wagner's interest in Shakespeare.)

When I saw Gotterdammerung, I was struck with a sense that Siegfried and Brunnhilde are similarly deep and complex characters, groping with inner conflicts and buried motivations. To me, this enhances the brilliance of Wagner's work. I'm trying to figure out if he was the first great psychological librettist.

Mountmccabe, when you refer to "wink-wink" or "cute Mozart references", that definitely diminishes what I am interested in. I am trying to take the measure of how ahead of his time Wagner was. All of this is in the context of me trying to understand Wagner's work as a whole. Does that help explain?

One more thing I want to add - and I hope I'm not repeating myself too much here. (Thank you all for entertaining my sometimes obsessive questions.)

Isn't it the case that Wagner's method in the Ring cycle (as well as in Tristan und Isolde, which I haven't seen live but have watched on video) is about subverting conventional notions of heroism? Wotan, of course, is my prime example. What an incredibly fascinating character - and many of you here have helped me fill out my understanding of this character.

What I am seeing in Gotterdammerung's subtext indicates that Siegfried and Brunnhilde are similarly great, and that the Ring cycle has not one but three incredibly deep, complex and conflicted characters.

A chaste hero is boring. A gloriously pure woman is boring. I like to think that Siegfried and Brunnhilde are something more interesting than perfect.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I think it's really important to remember that one of Wagner's goals was to convey his deeply philosophical ideas and convictions through his operas. That certain type of innocence of Siegfried is quite essential for the Ring, otherwise his philosophy wouldn't have made sense.

I still think that we shouldn't interpret Wagner's work based on an another interpretation - things that are not mentioned in the score shouldn't be taken as Wagner's original ideas. I think it's not really correct to base our understanding of Wagner's work on someone's interpretation when we can base it on his actual work and writings.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

The Conte said:


> I'm 100% certain Siegfried didn't have sex with _Isolde_.


Yes, I just caught that myself. For reasons I needn't go into, I've had Isolde in mind a good deal lately. Duly corrected.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> I will answer. It's because the kind of literature I am most drawn to is psychological literature - literature that probes the depths of inner conflict. Kafka, Joyce, Virginia Woolf, DH Lawrence, TS Eliot, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Flaubert ... and of course, again, Shakespeare. I consider this the most fascinating kind of literature, but it doesn't describe every kind of literature. Charles Dickens was a great novelist, but not a great psychological novelist. Same with Victor Hugo.
> 
> I'm sorry to say that many classic opera librettos - such as Verdi's - bear the psychological flatness of Dickens and Hugo rather than the complexity of Kafka and Dostoevsky. Hofmansthal certainly did write psychological librettos for the great Strauss operas, and perhaps Puccini's librettists reached for this as well - but Strauss and Puccini belong to *the modern era, the post-Freudian era, when psychological literature was a broad trend. *I have to admit that even my beloved Mozart's Da Ponte operas only managed a sort of bawdy and obvious psychological sense, without the complexity of characterization that would lead to them being classified as great literature.
> 
> ...


If you stay with Wagner long enough, I think you will find that he was indeed the first great psychological opera composer. Notice that I don't say, as you suggested, "great psychological librettist." Wagner was a composer, not a playwright; opera librettos are not literature. Whatever purely literary merit his plots and poetry may have (and that's been debated), his principal medium of expression is music, and he was adamant that his works are to be understood, not as drama _with_ music, but as drama _through_ music. His librettos provide only the bare bones which his music fleshes out. Any attempt to understand them without reference to the continuously illuminating parallel activity of his rich musical tapestries is likely to lead us astray.

That said, the concentrated, carefully crafted action and symbolism of Wagner's mythic and legendary stories are psychologically potent in ways that become more apparent the longer we know them, ways that put his works in another category altogether from any operas that preceded them and most that have been written since. They occupy a rarefied terrain where myth, romance, religion and psychology meet in an unprecedented art which is at once sensually enveloping, philosophically stimulating, and capable of cracking the veneer of conscious life to show us primal intuitions and urges which call common social categories and moral standards into question. From the birth of the conscious ego in the dark waters to the fiery transfer of power and moral authority from the gods to human beings, the _Ring_ is an odyssey of human psychological development, and all of its characters and their behavior can be understood as knots in the rope of evolving life which Wagner's norns weave, and which breaks to symbolize the graduation of man's consciousness from a primitive, childish moral sense built on dogma and law (with its inevitable obverse and dire consequences) to an adult embrace of individual perception and self-realization. Characters in the _Ring_ are interesting, not primarily for themselves (although Wagner makes many of them "personally" interesting and vivid), but for the roles they play in the trajectory of the whole saga. Seen in that light, Brunnhilde and Siegfried are not "perfect heroes" but stages along the way to enlightenment, and their trials and tragedies are the trials and tragedies of every soul as it fights its way through the darkness to a hoped-for light.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I really am only beginning with a thorough listening of the Renaissance/very Early Baroque, but Monteverdi had a profound sense of the depths of the psyche and he successfully conveyed that in his later madrigals and operas. 

Bach, in his St. Matthew and St. John Passion extraordinarily conveyed the depths of human experience and psyche. Not operas, so what. Although, the Berlin Philharmonic, Simon Rattle and Peter Sellars created ritualizations or staged versions of the Passions that could easily be considered operas--at least to my ear. Opera masterpieces!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> the graduation of man's consciousness from a primitive, childish moral sense built on dogma and law (with its inevitable obverse and dire consequences) to an adult embrace of individual perception and self-realization.


wonder how it came about that "dogma and law" should necessarily have "dire consequences" meanwhile to get "individual perception and self-realization" is considered totally safe while facts show otherwise.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I'm rather bemused by statements that Da Ponte's opera librettos aren't literature, or great literature. Would somebody please inform the Italians, they seem to think otherwise:

https://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/Storia_della_letteratura_italiana/Lorenzo_Da_Ponte

N.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I'm rather bemused by statements that Da Ponte's opera librettos aren't literature, or great literature. Would somebody please inform the Italians, they seem to think otherwise:
> 
> https://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/Storia_della_letteratura_italiana/Lorenzo_Da_Ponte
> 
> N.


Well, Conte, I wrote several paragraphs to explain my thinking when I made that statement. The fact that others see it differently doesn't come as a shock. We are in the realm of opinion and artistic judgement, after all.

For what it's worth, the Mozart/Da Ponte operas are my very favorite in the world. I just don't think the character development or plotting is at a high enough level to deserve to be called great literature. The only well known operas that I believe earn that status are by Wagner, Strauss and (on a good day) Puccini.

Why would anyone expect consensus regarding opinions about opera? I'm still slightly peeved, though, that not a single person has spoken up here to second my analysis of Gotterdammerung, even though I suspect many of you know in your heart that I've got a good point.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Sorry M. In my heart of hearts I just can't see what you are seeing. But who really cares. I don't see the appeal of baroque music but lots of people in this forum do and that's fine by me. 

I'm not convinced that any libretto is a great work of literature regardless of who wrote it. It's a vehicle for a music drama and it is what it is. A great story? Possibly. Great literature? Debatable.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> wonder how it came about that "dogma and law" should necessarily have "dire consequences" meanwhile to get "individual perception and self-realization" is considered totally safe while facts show otherwise.


Nothing is "totally safe." It's only a question of whether we're basing our morality on what we've been told is right or on what we've discovered to be right through the process of maturing, intellectually and emotionally. A child can only do the former, will test the "rules" by breaking them, and will be "good" because he fears punishment for being "bad." An adult who never gets beyond this stage of moral development will live as a child, in fear of social disapproval, legal jeopardy, or hell fire, always conflicted and always a "sinner" - a hypocrite - because his human nature rebels against the authority of the so-called morality he cannot challenge.

The gods of the _Ring_ represent the rule-based morality of childhood: a "morality from above." Fricka upholds that morality to the letter; Alberich rebels against it totally, even throwing away what's good in it; Wotan glimpses a deeper morality - a "morality from within" - but is trapped in his godly identity and tragically torn. Brunnhilde, daughter of Wotan and Erda (Wisdom), embodies the higher consciousness which Wotan can only dream of, but must still undergo her own crisis when she feels that love has failed. She, rather than Siegfried - who is unaffected by the edicts of the gods but naive - brings the reign of childhood, governed by myths, rules and conventions, to an end, and opens the road to an adult moral consciousness grounded in self-knowledge and empathy. It's the road Parsifal will travel in Wagner's next opera.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Nothing is "totally safe."


sure nothing is, and no thing should be given prefrence here.



Woodduck said:


> the process of maturing


not to be mistaken for process of *corrupting* though.



Woodduck said:


> The gods of the _Ring_ represent the rule-based morality of childhood: a "morality from above."


that, excluding Wotan - he is different and corrupt.



Woodduck said:


> Wotan glimpses a deeper morality - a "morality from within"


does he? where at?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

that, excluding Wotan - he is different and corrupt.

Part of Wotan's moral progression is the point when he himself understands that he is corrupted.

He isn't totally corrupted throughout the whole Ring though. Wotan's selfishness starts to cease when he places the fire around Brünhilde - he uses the spear (also seen as Wotan's tool to satisfy his own desires) for compassionate love and for a benefit of another.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> Sorry M. In my heart of hearts I just can't see what you are seeing. But who really cares. I don't see the appeal of baroque music but lots of people in this forum do and that's fine by me.


Well, I don't like baroque music either. Hey, I barely like classical music! Until I started listening to opera, I was all about classic rock, punk, hiphop. At best I've been able to enjoy Beethoven's symphonies, but even that took effort. Italian Opera has been a gateway for me though ...


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I'm rather bemused by statements that Da Ponte's opera librettos aren't literature, or great literature.


At the risk of dragging this out beyond anyone's interest level, I do want to throw out there an opinion that will probably be REALLY unpopular. I think Die Zauberflote has hints of great literary scope. I have never understood why Emanuel Schikanader is so universally demeaned. (Though I have mentioned this opinion here before and it was intelligently explained to me that much of this has to do with authorship questions. Can't call a librettist a genius if he doesn't actually deserve credit for the libretto. And for what it's worth I entirely agree with Woodduck's observations above that an opera is a whole work, and that it's meaningless to consider the libretto in isolation. I think Die Zauberflote is Mozart's most perceptive, symbolic and psychological literary work, and I wish it wasn't so often scoffed at.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> sure nothing is, and no thing should be given prefrence here.


What "thing"?



> not to be mistaken for process of *corrupting* though.


What process are you talking about?



> that, excluding Wotan - he is different and corrupt.


Yes, he is. So?



> does he? where at?


Wotan's intuition that there is something more at stake in the universe than power-relations, treaties and contracts is represented by his union with Erda (wisdom), which produces Brunnhilde (who embodies Wotan's best impulses and tries to be his conscience), and his union with a human woman, begetting Siegmund and Sieglinde. Gods mating with humans, or incarnating as human, are found in various mythologies, and represent the yearning of the divine for human qualities, as if to say that mortal humanity is a more complete state of being than impersonal divinity. Wotan, even while he exults in the power of godhood, sees himself trapped by it, and can only hope for "der freier als ich, der Gott" (one freer than I, the god), ultimately realizing that the world will belong to humanity. He says to Erda:

The eternals' downfall no longer dismays me
since I willed their doom.
What in my spirit's fiercest anguish,
despairing, I resolved,
gladly and freely I bring now to pass.
Though I decreed, in my loathing,
the world to the Nibelung's greed,
Gladly I leave to the Wälsung
my heritage now.
One who never knew me, though chosen by me,
a boy of dauntless daring,
untaught by my counsel,
has won the Nibelung's ring.
Pure from greed, gladdened by love-dreams,
powerless on him falls Alberich's curse,
for he knows no fear.
Her whom you bore,
Brünnhilde, the hero will wake:
then the child of your wisdom will accomplish
a deed to set free the world.

So slumber now, close fast your eyelids;
dreaming, behold my downfall.
Whatever shall befall them,
to the ever-young in gladness yields the god.
Descend then, Erda! Mother of fear!
World-sorrow! Descend!
Descend, to endless sleep!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> At the risk of dragging this out beyond anyone's interest level, I do want to throw out there an opinion that will probably be REALLY unpopular. I think Die Zauberflote has hints of great literary scope. I have never understood why Emanuel Schikanader is so universally demeaned. (Though I have mentioned this opinion here before and it was intelligently explained to me that much of this has to do with authorship questions. Can't call a librettist a genius if he doesn't actually deserve credit for the libretto. And for what it's worth I entirely agree with Woodduck's observations above that an opera is a whole work, and that it's meaningless to consider the libretto in isolation. I think Die Zauberflote is easily Mozart's most brilliant, symbolic and psychological literary work, and I wish it wasn't so often scoffed at.)


I'm inclined to agree. I say "inclined" because I haven't given enough time and thought to the subject to say much more. It may be my "Wagnerian" bias that causes me to see more depth in Schikaneder's fantasy than in Da Ponte's witty but (I think) rather shallow social comedies, which attain such depth as they do on account of Mozart's music rather than their libretti. But I also find Mozart's music for _Zauberflote_ more multi-dimensional. This is the one opera of Mozart to which I find Wagner's mythic imagination in any way akin, though I don't think there was any direct influence on Wagner or any tribute to Mozart intended.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Nothing is "totally safe." It's only a question of whether we're basing our morality on what we've been told is right or on what we've discovered to be right through the process of maturing, intellectually and emotionally. A child can only do the former, will test the "rules" by breaking them, and will be "good" because he fears punishment for being "bad." An adult who never gets beyond this stage of moral development will live as a child, in fear of social disapproval, legal jeopardy, or hell fire, always conflicted and always a "sinner" - a hypocrite - because his human nature rebels against the authority of the so-called morality he cannot challenge.
> 
> The gods of the _Ring_ represent the rule-based morality of childhood: a "morality from above." Fricka upholds that morality to the letter; Alberich rebels against it totally, even throwing away what's good in it; Wotan glimpses a deeper morality - a "morality from within" - but is trapped in his godly identity and tragically torn. Brunnhilde, daughter of Wotan and Erda (Wisdom), embodies the higher consciousness which Wotan can only dream of, but must still undergo her own crisis when she feels that love has failed. She, rather than Siegfried - who is unaffected by the edicts of the gods but naive - brings the reign of childhood, governed by myths, rules and conventions, to an end, and opens the road to an adult moral consciousness grounded in self-knowledge and empathy. It's the road Parsifal will travel in Wagner's next opera.


I may regret responding to your post, but who the hell cares.

Almost every time that_ The Ring _and God or Someone help us, Parsifal comes up on here, Woodbird (LOL), you have to share your delight in Wagner's so-called rejection of doing things because they are laws.

Maybe when you were fourteen what you interpreted Wagner to say was a major revelation that you needed to hear. Fine. I hope it has ENRICHED your life.

BUT. And I think you know this if you stop and look back for 3 seconds. Wagner was no way the first person to say that law for the sake of law was the reason that we should act a particular way.

Okay. If at 13 or 14 this IN FACT was the first time you became aware that the law should not be followed just because for centuries is has been considered the law, that's fine.

BUT!

I would seriously hope that after many later years of learning about history and the history of thought that Wagner was not way the first person to say that we don't have to follow "The Law" because it supposedly was revealed as The Law.

I am sick and tired of every time _The Ring _comes up and--Dear God or Someone Else help us--that you have to exalt 
Wagner as the First and Greatest enemy of The Law for the Law's Sake!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> I may regret responding to your post, but who the hell cares.
> 
> Almost every time that_ The Ring _and God or Someone help us, Parsifal comes up on here, Woodbird (LOL), you have to share your delight in Wagner's so-called rejection of doing things because they are laws.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry that you're sick and tired. But you're wrong about what I've said about Wagner. I've never claimed that he was the first to reject conventional, authoritarian, rule-based morality. I've merely pointed out that this is a major theme of the _Ring_ and _Parsifal_ - in fact, of all his operas. It's a centrally important aspect of the growth of consciousness that we see symbolized in the _Ring_'s progression of characters and events.

What's remarkable about Wagner is not the ideas he held - he was, philosophically, an amateur - but the manner in which he was able to express them allegorically in art works of the most extraordinary originality and power. Nothing like his mythical creations had ever appeared on the opera stage, or on any stage.

If you have reason to think that the moral aspect of life as dramatized in Wagner's works is unimportant and not worth discussing, perhaps you could offer an alternative view.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> This is the one opera of Mozart to which I find Wagner's mythic imagination in any way akin, though I don't think there was any direct influence on Wagner or any tribute to Mozart intended.


I admit to having a bad habit of finding connections often. Sometimes I find them where they don't exist. But I've got others to mention between Wagner and Mozart that I haven't even aired out here, for risk of being scoffed at. For example: I was remarking with my friend Bud (who also saw the Ring operas with me) how strange it was that an opera would have two lovers named Siegmund and Sieglinde who have a kid named Siegfried. And then I remembered Papageno and Papagena arguing about whether they would have a bunch of Papagenos or Papagenas. A real connection? Who knows. For some reason I seem to see a lot of these when I watch Wagner. I've got more.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> I admit to having a bad habit of finding connections often. Sometimes I find them where they don't exist. But I've got others to mention between Wagner and Mozart that I haven't even aired out here, for risk of being scoffed at. For example: I was remarking with my friend Bud (who also saw the Ring operas with me) how strange it was that an opera would have two lovers named Siegmund and Sieglinde who have a kid named Siegfried. And then I remembered Papageno and Papagena arguing about whether they would have a bunch of Papagenos or Papagenas. A real connection? Who knows. For some reason I seem to see a lot of these when I watch Wagner. I've got more.


A resemblance is not necessarily a connection. For there to be a connection there would have to be something in common between these couples besides their "his & hers" names. Besides, there's never been any speculation about a bunch of Siegfrieds. Would Hagen have to murder them all, one at a time?

You're a kick, Marc.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Wotan's intuition that there is something more at stake in the universe than power-relations, treaties and contracts is represented by his union with Erda (wisdom)


union? what union? he flat out raped her didn't he?



Woodduck said:


> He says to Erda:


while at some point there she replies like: 'your not what you pretend to be' etc.



Woodduck said:


> Descend then, Erda! Mother of fear! World-sorrow! Descend! Descend, to endless sleep!


yes, this - where i will not symphatise with but rather despise him. Erda is right when goes 'told you so' and he is not because gets hysterical... as for the 'fear & sorrow' - these had been brought to mankind by Wotan's own depravity, incompetence and rashness; now he seeks others to blame, huh.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> to the ever-young in gladness yields the god.


good idea btw even though its not in accordance with 'Eternal Return' concepts but is leading us to a notion of The Eternal Beginning where only a glimpse of a thought is enough to live on and no material realisation needed whatsoever.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> I admit to having a bad habit of finding connections often. Sometimes I find them where they don't exist. But I've got others to mention between Wagner and Mozart that I haven't even aired out here, for risk of being scoffed at. For example: I was remarking with my friend Bud (who also saw the Ring operas with me) how strange it was that an opera would have two lovers named Siegmund and Sieglinde who have a kid named Siegfried. And then I remembered Papageno and Papagena arguing about whether they would have a bunch of Papagenos or Papagenas. A real connection? Who knows. For some reason I seem to see a lot of these when I watch Wagner. I've got more.


As Woodduck points out above, just because there are similarities that doesn't mean that it is highly significant. There are certain tropes that are common to a particular culture and that's why you can find all sorts of similarities in operas written by composers writing at different times and of different nationalities. I'd be more surprised if the Germanic international Wunderkind Mozart and Germanic internationalist enfant terrible Wagner _didn't_ have lots in common and similarities between their works.

I'm less interested in these casual connections, than why they exist. This reminds me of an incredibly boring book I once read with the title 'The Origin of Music' which seemed to be a history of the roots of music, but was instead just a list of casual observations and descriptions of creation myths from around the world that mentioned music. Do you think there is something beyond the similarities between Mozart and Wagner other than a general shared cultural heritage or do you think there is a deeper meaning to be drawn from them?

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Besides, there's never been any speculation about a bunch of Siegfrieds.


That would have been rather amusing - triplet Siegfrieds or something  Wotan would have been happy - a bigger chance that at least one of them wouldn't get killed


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> union? what union? he flat out raped her didn't he?


I ask with serious concern: what am I missing about Wotan raping Erda? Is this mentioned in the Ring cycle, or elsewhere in the source material, or what? I had (perhaps overly optimistically) assumed that Brunnhilde was born of a love relationship between Wotan and Erda.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

The Conte said:


> Do you think there is something beyond the similarities between Mozart and Wagner other than a general shared cultural heritage or do you think there is a deeper meaning to be drawn from them?


Good question, Conte - when I ask these questions I am mostly trying to analyze Wagner's creative process. I am always fascinated by the connections of influence between generations of artists. An example from a totally non-opera world would be the way that Bob Dylan was inspired by Woody Guthrie ... and then so many songwriters were inspired by Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan makes no secret of his Woody Guthrie influence - rather he broadcasts it, and also hints at it in many subtle ways throughout his early albums. My most direct line of thought that has motivated all of my questions about Mozart's influence on Wagner has been to inquire whether or not Wagner was actually paying tribute to Mozart by making connections that were designed to be noticed.

(It occurs to me that I have never even mentioned one other clear line of similarity between the Ring cycle and Die Zauberflote, which is that both involve heroes braving trials of fire. Undoubtedly a key moment in both works!)

Perhaps a more general way of phrasing my question (without so much risk of overreach) would be to ask this of you Wagner experts: what was Wagner's general attitude towards Mozart's legacy?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

marceliotstein said:


> I ask with serious concern: what am I missing about Wotan raping Erda? Is this mentioned in the Ring cycle, or elsewhere in the source material, or what? I had (perhaps overly optimistically) assumed that Brunnhilde was born of a love relationship between Wotan and Erda.


I have the same question. Wotan himself emphasises the love relationship. Of course, if you think that Wotan was thoroughly and completely evil, you'd say that he just lied (seems unlikely if you ask me), but it feels logical that Brünhilde, who's seen as the redeemer of the corrupted world, was born through a love relationship not violence. The same case with Siegfried - he was born through a love relationship and it's very strongly emphasised in the Ring.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> Perhaps a more general way of phrasing my question (without so much risk of overreach) would be to ask this of you Wagner experts: what was Wagner's general attitude towards Mozart's legacy?


This is where things get interesting. I imagine that Wagner thought of Mozart primarily as a composer or musician and therefore would have been looking at his _music_ rather than the opera libretti that were written by other people. I'm not sure what Wagner thought about the Magic Flute. Whilst he may have considered it a masterpiece in its time, he most certainly understood that music had moved on from then and looked to Weber (Der Freischutz) as a role model in his early years.

Wagner the librettist was interested in myth and archetype so Magic Flute would have interested him more than the Da Ponte operas as far as libretti go, however I don't think there is conscious copying from Flute in the Ring, the similarities are so common as theatrical tropes that I can't see them as being anything other than incidental. Wagner was far more interested in translating and expressing philosophical ideas and human psychology into music by use of the leitmotive than he was by literary tropes.

It's similar to Shakespeare where it could be argued that it isn't the stories themselves or the sources for them that Shakespeare used that keeps them alive today, but the poetry that Shakespeare created to express them.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Isn't Google great!

Here are some quotes from Wagner on Mozart:

“Of Mozart I only cared for the Magic Flute. Don Giovanni went against my grain, because of the Italian text: It seemed to me such rubbish.”

On another occasion, he said, “Mozart is the founder of German declamation. What fine humanity resounds in the priest’s replies to Tamino! Think how stiff such high priests are in Gluck. When you consider that this text, which was meant to be a farce, and the theater for which it was written, then compare what was written before Mozart’s time (even Cimarosa’s still famous Matrimonio Segreto) – on the one side the wretched German Singspiel, on the other, the ornate Italian opera – one is amazed by the soul he managed to breathe into such a text. And what a life he led! A bit of tinsel at the time of his popularity, but for that he had then to play all the more dearly. He did not complete his work, which is why one cannot really compare him with Raphael. For there is still too much convention left in him.” (Richard Wagner, quoted in Cosima’s Diary May 29, 1870).

So Wagner viewed the libretto of Flute as nothing more than a 'wretched' entertainment which was raised to art by Mozart's music and he seems above all impressed by the natural nature of Mozart recitative. When Wagner talks about Mozart and Beethoven it is always as past masters rather than as models to be copied. I can't think of any examples where Wagner looked to Mozart for inspiration either as librettist or composer.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Wagner viewed the libretto of Flute as nothing more than a 'wretched' entertainment which was raised to art by Mozart's music and he seems above all impressed by the natural nature of Mozart recitative. When Wagner talks about Mozart and Beethoven it is always as past masters rather than as models to be copied. I can't think of any examples where Wagner looked to Mozart for inspiration either as librettist or composer.


This accords with what I've read. Though I have no quotes handy to back me up, I have the impression that Wagner, like Beethoven, found the Da Ponte libretti frivolous, and reserved his high admiration for Mozart's music. At various times he made statements to the effect that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were music's greatest masters, although it's clear that Beethoven meant the most to him personally and had the strongest influence on his own music.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

marceliotstein said:


> I ask with serious concern: what am I missing about Wotan raping Erda?





marceliotstein said:


> Brunnhilde was born of a love relationship between Wotan and Erda.





annaw said:


> I have the same question. Wotan himself emphasises the love relationship.


well, in Die Walkure 2nd act he confides to Brunhilde that "i had quietened Erda's knowledge in my wisdom" or like text, which obviously hints at rape, even though presented in a politically correct manner, but still the message is clear.



annaw said:


> if you think that Wotan was thoroughly and completely evil


he was no evil, besides it was considered ok for men to rape women at the time. Wotan is rash and *incompetent* meanwhile not evil at all.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> "Mozart is the founder of German declamation. What fine humanity resounds in the priest's replies to Tamino! Think how stiff such high priests are in Gluck. When you consider that this text, which was meant to be a farce, and the theater for which it was written, then compare what was written before Mozart's time (even Cimarosa's still famous Matrimonio Segreto) - on the one side the wretched German Singspiel, on the other, the ornate Italian opera - one is amazed by the soul he managed to breathe into such a text. And what a life he led! A bit of tinsel at the time of his popularity, but for that he had then to play all the more dearly. He did not complete his work, which is why one cannot really compare him with Raphael. For there is still too much convention left in him." (Richard Wagner, quoted in Cosima's Diary May 29, 1870).


i do not believe Wagner to perceive Die Zauberflote libretto text and its message as a farce, i strongly object the above quote to be taken as his authorised word instead of being exposed as a forgery. Wagner just could not fail to see the geopolitical subject matter, which that opera involves on the level unseen before and unsurpassed later on, where Sarastro and his temple represent German freemasonry who defeat England monarchy in its attempt to disrupt law & order in Europe and which is represented in the opera by The Queen Of The Night character.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> well, in Die Walkure 2nd act he confides to Brunhilde that "i had quietened Erda's knowledge in my wisdom" or like text, which obviously hints at rape, even though presented in a politically correct manner, but still the message is clear.
> 
> he was no evil, besides it was considered ok for men to rape women at the time. Wotan is rash and *incompetent* meanwhile not evil at all.


Maybe that's my problem but at least I wouldn't say that the message is that clear.
Erda says to Wotan in Siegfried:
"A wish-maiden I bore to Wotan:
at his behest brought she heroes to Walhall.
Bold is she and wise withall:
why wak'st thou me and seek'st not counsel
from Erda's and Wotan's child?"

She refers to Brünhilde as Wotan's and Erda's child, in addition she doesn't seem to talk as she was violently forced to bore her (or Brünhilde's seven sisters).

In Die Walküre Wotan says to Brünhilde
"... by love's enchantment forced I the Wala,
troubling her wisdom's calm,
and constrained her tongue to speak.
Counsel I won from her words;
from me yet she harbored a pledge:
the world's wisest of women gave me,
Brünnhilde, thee."

Quoting this passage might be a mistake as you could interpret "forcing" as some kind of violence, but again "love's enchantment" doesn't seem to refer to some physically violent act. "gave me" refers to a voluntary act rather than a forced one. When you say that "it was considered ok for men to rape women at the time" then what time do you refer to? The Ring is based on a myth and isn't happening in some kind of histroical era or a period.

Wotan also says to Brünhilde:
"by gold gaining her grace:
the fruit of hate beareth a wife;
the child of spite grows in her womb;
this wonder befell the loveless Niblung;
yet, tho' I loved so truly,
the free one I never might win."

In my opinion, it seems unlikely that Wotan blames Alberich for being 'loveless' if he himself had been 'loveless' in violently forcing Erda to bore him Brünhilde. Being able to love seems to be one of the few things Wotan can be proud of.

This is my own interpretation and understanding of Erda/Wotan relationship and of course it could be understood differently. This just seems the most logical interpretation to me


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

This thread continues to yield excellent results. Thanks all! A few quick responses:

- I see Conte's point that many of the tropes I thought Wagner might be taking from Mozart may simply be common theatrical or mythical tropes, like a hero enduring a trial by fire, or trios of women who bear semi-mythical power and lust comically after male heroes.

- Likewise I acknowledge Woodduck's good points, though I'm a little puzzled by this sentence: "I have the impression that Wagner, like Beethoven, found the Da Ponte libretti frivolous, and reserved his high admiration for Mozart's music." Woodduck, weren't you just saying that on the high realms of opera appreciation there is no valid way to separate libretti from musical composition? Doesn't that apply to Mozart as well as Wagner? I know Mozart's libretti were more flawed than those of Wagner, but (to state the extremely obvious) his operas are considered among the greatest artistic achievements of humankind, and surely deserve the same respect as those of Wagner. Doesn't the fact that Wagner appreciated Mozart's music leave open the possibility that while he was painfully aware of the flaws of Mozart's libretti, and criticized them in writing, he was still deeply affected by them?

- I did know about Wagner's admiration for Beethoven. Strangely, though, even though I am fully familiar with Fidelio, I was not struck by a single reference to Fidelio as I watched any of the four Ring operas. The tone and theme of Fidelio feels to me completely alien to the tone and theme of the Ring cycle, whereas I viscerally sensed (perhaps accurately, perhaps the result of my overactive imagination) the presence of Mozart's operas constantly. The commonality between Wagner and Mozart might be captured in the word "magic". Beethoven's Fidelio bears incredible historic and political power, and also contains some uniquely wonderful music, but seems to me completely devoid of magic.

- Finally, I'm glad annaw seconds me on feeling affection and love between Wotan and Erde, and I have to say I do not understand why the statement "I had quietened Erda's knowledge in my wisdom" should be taken as an indication that Wotan raped Erde.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

The podcast about Wagner's Ring Cycle that I recorded with my friend Bud Parr (who also attended all 4 operas at the Met, though separately from me) is now available, and I would be happy to hear any feedback! Here's the main page:

https://litkicks.com/LostMusic

Episode links:

iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wotan-and-brunnhilde/id1448538058?i=1000438719999
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4bzJ8EbK3tp5llukxL74CX
Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/lost-music-exploring-literary-opera/e/60792193

I'm also going to post this as a new thread on this forum ...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> She refers to Brünhilde as Wotan's and Erda's child


and why she must not?



annaw said:


> she doesn't seem to talk as she was violently forced to bore her


because it was already too late to delve into the details, and rape was no big deal at the time.



annaw said:


> "... by love's enchantment forced I the Wala, troubling her wisdom's calm, and constrained her tongue to speak.


sounds like a rape doesn't it?



annaw said:


> When you say that "it was considered ok for men to rape women at the time" then what time do you refer to?


the orginal myth, in its post-Gotterdammerung events part, mentions Etzel The Hun (Attila) as the next husband of Gutrune (Krimhilde), so it must be the 5th century AD.



annaw said:


> it seems unlikely that Wotan blames Alberich for being 'loveless' if he himself had been 'loveless' in violently forcing Erda to bore him Brünhilde.


that only means Wotan was strong while Alberich was weak and therefore unable to rape a woman; it took the latter some gold to buy her consent.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

marceliotstein said:


> even though I am fully familiar with Fidelio, I was not struck by a single reference to Fidelio as I watched any of the four Ring operas. The tone and theme of Fidelio feels to me completely alien to the tone and theme of the Ring cycle


why Fidelio at all? Beethoven work on the brass section must have impressed & influenced Wagner.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

sounds like a rape doesn't it?

I think I was quite clear why I think it doesn't

that only means Wotan was strong while Alberich was weak and therefore unable to rape a woman; it took the latter some gold to buy her consent.

Isn't this a bit farfetched? Loge and Wotan had hard time getting the ring from Alberich - he couldn't be that weak as you seem to think.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Loge and Wotan had hard time getting the ring from Alberich


not really, only whilst in the Nibelung Kingdom, but later they showed him, after back home.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> "... by love's enchantment forced I the Wala, troubling her wisdom's calm, and constrained her tongue to speak."
> 
> sounds like a rape doesn't it?


No, it does not!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> i do not believe Wagner to perceive Die Zauberflote libretto text and its message as a farce, i strongly object the above quote to be taken as his authorised word instead of being exposed as a forgery. Wagner just could not fail to see the geopolitical subject matter, which that opera involves on the level unseen before and unsurpassed later on, where Sarastro and his temple represent German freemasonry who defeat England monarchy in its attempt to disrupt law & order in Europe and which is represented in the opera by The Queen Of The Night character.


Do you have any evidence that it's a forgery? Do you have any evidence that Wagner interpreted Magic Flute in that way? In fact, do you have any evidence at all?

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

marceliotstein said:


> This thread continues to yield excellent results. Thanks all! A few quick responses:
> 
> - Likewise I acknowledge Woodduck's good points, though I'm a little puzzled by this sentence: "I have the impression that Wagner, like Beethoven, found the Da Ponte libretti frivolous, and reserved his high admiration for Mozart's music." Woodduck, weren't you just saying that on the high realms of opera appreciation there is no valid way to separate libretti from musical composition? Doesn't that apply to Mozart as well as Wagner? *I know Mozart's libretti were more flawed than those of Wagner, *but (to state the extremely obvious) his operas are considered among the greatest artistic achievements of humankind, and surely deserve the same respect as those of Wagner. Doesn't the fact that Wagner appreciated Mozart's music leave open the possibility that while he was painfully aware of the flaws of Mozart's libretti, and criticized them in writing, he was still deeply affected by them?


Not obvious to me that Mozart's libretti (by da Ponte) were flawed. In fact they were the greatest ever written alongside those written by Boito for Verdi and were certainly superior to Wagner's frankly rambling efforts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's really rather beside any meaningful point to speak of rape in relation to Wotan and Erda. "Rape" is a moral and legal concept which implies violating someone's rights and acting against her will. Even if we apply such standards to gods and goddesses - and there's no reason why we should - we still have no idea what Erda thought about the transaction. The all-knowing one may have known exactly what to expect and welcomed it as foreordained and necessary to the evolution of the cosmos, whether it was "forced by love's enchantment" or not. Wotan wasn't some psychopath out prowling the city park at midnight (that would be Alberich ). 

In properly mythical, as opposed to frivolously literal, terms, Wotan's union with Erda represents his search for wisdom, and the wisdom born of the union is Brunnhilde.


----------

