# A Wagner Item For Continued TC Reading Delectation...



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

A composer whose controversy seems set to endure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22461400

Enjoy.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Before ever opening that link, let me guess what it is about... that Wagner was an antisemite and that his operas were misused by the Nazis? Am I right?


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Before ever opening that link, let me guess what it is about... that Wagner was an antisemite and that his operas were misused by the Nazis? Am I right?


Not quite. But it does involve nazis.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I think that man is sick. He should be in therapy instead of staging Wagner opera. Unless he is simply trying to get revenge on Wagner for some reason. 

And what does "Head of Dusseldorf's Jewish community" have to do with all of this.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I read the article but I can't tell if I'm supposed to be offended or not. So, I'll stick with my default position of "not offended."


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

What is it about Wagner that causes theatre directors to go insane?

What has _Tannhäuser_ got to do with the Holocaust? Where would they even shoehorn in the execution scenes? For that matter, what does _Tannhäuser_ have to do with bioethics? What does _Lohengrin_ have to do with that thing with the rats? What does _Meistersinger_ have to do with…whatever this is?

Is it too much to ask that if you're staging a production of a Wagner opera, _you actually stage a production of a Wagner opera_, as opposed to staging something completely different with Wagner's music in it?

Does this happen to other people's operas? I've certainly never heard of anybody going to a production of _Aïda_ only to discover that the director had decided that he'd rather put on a dark portrayal of the horrors of the modern prison system. I've never been to a _Zauberflöte_ that was inexplicably Godwined. Did Eduard Hanslick put a curse on Wagner that attracts crazy theatre directors, or what?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*Dusseldorf*

This article is about an unfortunately 'sensational' example of the perils inherent in re-staging an opera to represent events unrelated to the original.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...olocaust-staging-of-tannhaeuser-a-898937.html

I don't understand the why behind the staging, nor the traumas caused by it. Do you?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Perhaps this should be merged?



Hilltroll72 said:


> I don't understand the why behind the staging, nor the traumas caused by it. Do you?


Do I understand the staging? No. Do I understand why people would be upset at attending something they believe to be _Tannhäuser_, only to discover that it's actually "_The Kindly Ones:The Musical!_"? Yes.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

ahammel said:


> What is it about Wagner that causes theatre directors to go insane?


I'll just quote my own post in another thread on the same subject:



> I don't know all that much about other opera than Wagner, but it hurts me as well to see some of the things the stage directors do to him. Personally I think there are two reasons for that. Some people simply want to become famous by shocking their audience (that seems to be the idea behind much of the modern art). But some people, I am convinced, really loathe Wagner's art in their hearts. The Christian symbolism of Tannhäuser and Parsifal, the Teutonic mythology of Der Ring, the settings of medieval German history in Lohengrin and Die Meistersinger - to them all of that is, as you say, reactionary, dangerous, disturbing and uncool. That is why they need to bring Wagner down from his lofty heights into the realm of the ridiculous, make the audience laugh instead of being enchanted and awestruck by those dangerous and reactionary operas. That is why King Heinrich and the people of Brabant are replaced with rats, the medieval Nürnberg with an American-Idol-style show and the castle of Wartburg with some sort of a chemical factory. Ah yes, and the idea of a woman dying together with her man is hopelessly sexist, that's why in one staging Brünnhilde gives birth to a baby and walks around in blood-stained gown instead.
> 
> If I have not made my meaning clear enough, here:
> 
> ...


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Com'on!!!!

Which bunch of idiots would allowed such thing????????? Wagnerian opera in Germany with Third Reich motifs?????????? You'd have to be really stupid (with an IQ below 10) to come up with such... (i'd rather keep my mouth shut)


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

dionisio said:


> Com'on!!!!
> 
> Which bunch of idiots would allowed such thing????????? Wagnerian opera in Germany with Third Reich motifs?????????? You'd have to be really stupid (with an IQ below 10) to come up with such... (i'd rather keep my mouth shut)


It's happened before with the _Ring_, if I'm not mistaken.

Not that I disagree.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

ahammel said:


> It's happened before with the _Ring_, if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Not that I disagree.


Nevertheless, the stupidity remains.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

These people actually believe that what they are doing is "progressive", "relevant" and "up-to-date" art, as opposed to dusty traditional stagings that only belong in a museum. What a shame!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ahammel said:


> What is it about Wagner that causes theatre directors to go insane?
> 
> What has _Tannhäuser_ got to do with the Holocaust? Where would they even shoehorn in the execution scenes? For that matter, what does _Tannhäuser_ have to do with bioethics? What does _Lohengrin_ have to do with that thing with the rats? What does _Meistersinger_ have to do with…whatever this is?
> 
> ...


I'm afraid it's not just Wagner whose work suffers from the idiot productions. I saw an Aida on TV which bore little resemblance to what Verdi intended. Now it is good sometimes for a producer to try and bring an original slant. But it should be at least in harmony with what the composer intended. What we have to do is producers of little talents who feel they know better than the great composers who actually wrote the thing in the first place. These producers make the mistake of trying to make the composer serve their (often daft) ideas. Of course the producer should be the servant of the composer, the genius who wrote the thing. Also he should serve the audience who are paying money to see the production. But no these egotists think everyone should serve them and their own bizarre vision of what they mistakenly think art is about. 
The gentleman who produced Tannhäuser has a problem when he uses the word artistic license simply because he has no artistic merit to take licence with!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I will say I'm a bit mystified to see so much discussion of Wagner's "ties" to Nazis. What surprises me more is the thought that those who adore opera would not strive to bring Wagner to other opera lovers in the most positive light. I can understand trying to put a new spin on works that have been performed countless times, but why add strong negative aspects to what otherwise is such glorious music? I suppose controversy can yield more profits.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I'm afraid it's not just Wagner whose work suffers from the idiot productions. I saw an Aida on TV which bore little resemblance to what Verdi intended.


In what way?



DavidA said:


> The gentleman who produced Tannhäuser has a problem when he uses the word artistic license simply because he has no artistic merit to take licence with!


They'll license anything these days


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I suppose controversy can yield more profits.


The house doesn't seem to agree in this particular instance.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I will say I'm a bit mystified to see so much discussion of Wagner's "ties" to Nazis. What surprises me more is the thought that those who adore opera would not strive to bring Wagner to other opera lovers in the most positive light. I can understand trying to put a new spin on works that have been performed countless times, but why add strong negative aspects to what otherwise is such glorious music? I suppose controversy can yield more profits.


Those stage directors do not adore opera in the least. Some of them (I think this particular one too) actually were theater directors before and have not the slightest idea about opera, and sometimes even about the libretto of the opera they are going to stage. The only thing they adore is their own delusions and psychological problems.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ahammel said:


> Perhaps this should be merged?
> 
> Do I understand the staging? No. Do I understand why people would be upset at attending something they believe to be _Tannhäuser_, only to discover that it's actually "_The Kindly Ones:The Musical!_"? Yes.


He's being droll because he's a troll---ignore him!!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I don't understand the why behind the staging, nor the traumas caused by it. Do you?


Controversy for the sake of controversy. This director of course hit the jackpot. He not only caused an uproar with international headlines but his work was even "banned". I am sure he now fancies himself a luminary on the order of Stravinsky & Diaghilev.

Nazi-themed Wagner productions these days are of course about as innovative as Egyptian-themed Aida productions. The real breakthrough was making it as tasteless as possible and staging it in Germany.

Surely the director's greatest achievement is maintaining that he couldn't change the work lest he compromise his "artistic integrity" with a straight face.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Surely, in this particular instance, the central issue is one of *interpretation*. I doubt there is such a thing as a _definitive_ interpretation, musically or semantically, in the case of opera. Timeless quality and the universality of a given work is generated through it's continued relevance, aesthetically and philosophically, in a contemporary and increasingly cross-cultural context. This must be the challenge of every director or conductor. If a work is anchored to a specific historical time and place it's shelf-life is likely to be very limited. The fact that Wagner continues to be popular speaks in favour of the man and his music - his views less so.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

KRoad said:


> Timeless quality and the universality of a given work is generated through it's continued relevance, aesthetically and philosophically, in a contemporary and increasingly cross-cultural context. This must be the challenge of every director or conductor. If a work is anchored to a specific historical time and place it's shelf-life is likely to be very limited.


That, in my view, is tantamount to saying: "The works of Shakespeare or Goethe or any other writer who lived a couple centuries ago should be rewritten so as to fit into a modern setting, otherwise their life is likely to be very limited". Come on, every more or less educated person can understand a work of art, be it a book or an opera, even if it is set in a different time and place, than his own. A work of art is exactly for that reason universal, that no matter if it is set in medieval Germany, like Tannhäuser, or in a modern time, it can move our minds and emotions. No updating necessary for that.

Besides, if Wagner wanted his operas to be staged any weird way anybody wants to, he would have not provided us with stage remarks and directions, sometimes very precise ones. But he did.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I'm not opposed to re-imaginings of Wagner. By all means, do it in modern dress. Use Slavic mythology in a _Ring_ cycle; I'll watch it. An anachronistic _Meistersinger_ that shifts through time periods? Why not? _Lohengrin_ in feudal Japan? Sounds like fun!

Really, all I ask is a bit of enthusiasm for the spirit of the original opera.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Perhaps this should be merged?
> 
> Do I understand the staging? No. Do I understand why people would be upset at attending something they believe to be _Tannhäuser_, only to discover that it's actually "_The Kindly Ones:The Musical!_"? Yes.


"Upset" I understand; requiring medical attention I do not.

I have requested a merge with the earlier post (which is in the wrong forum...)


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> KRoad said:
> 
> 
> > Timeless quality and the universality of a given work is generated through it's continued relevance, aesthetically and philosophically, in a contemporary and increasingly cross-cultural context. This must be the challenge of every director or conductor. If a work is anchored to a specific historical time and place it's shelf-life is likely to be very limited.
> ...


I think you're taking KRoad too literally. I don't think anyone is claiming that modern audiences are incapable of understanding works of the past without first translating them into modern terms. What KRoad is saying, I take it, is that in order for works of art to appeal to future generations, those works must adhere to some value that future generations hold, even if in some cases those values are alien to past generations.

That much seems pretty self-evident, and can easily be demonstrated by asking how many of us prefer to listen to 18th century symphonies as sonic wallpaper to social gatherings, or to listen to Gregorian chant while performing monastic duties. Very few of us, I think, would say so, which shows how alien our own musical values are to those of the 18th century composers who wrote symphonies or the monks who wrote Gregorian chant. Our values are not always their values, and thank god for that; it helped 18th century symphonies and Gregorian chant survive into today.

Thus, what Burkhard Kosminski did to Wagner was an idiosyncratic, extreme, and idiotic form of what we all do: reading into the music meanings and values consistent with our own.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KRoad said:


> A composer whose controversy seems set to endure
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22461400
> 
> Enjoy.


The only 'controversy' here is about one aspect of the production, a regie choice, to be sure.

I laugh when Wagner fans call him 'highly controversial' -- once, when it was new, the music and the 'aesthetic' of that music, without any of the literal context of the operas, was 'controversial,' but not for long, and that is pretty much now over.

Whether it is tossing Nazi costumes on a few of the cast members, or cladding all the principles of Don Giovanni in costumes where it is clear their favorite indoor sport is bondage and S&M, shallow stage directors know what is going to jerk the audience's chains -- evidently none of those shallow directors at all trusting in the score or libretto much 

Production / Staging choices -- some controversial, and not at all exclusively about or around the Wagner operas.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Upset" I understand; requiring medical attention I do not.
> 
> I have requested a merge with the earlier post (which is in the wrong forum...)


Hysteria I would imagine,there's a lot of it about nowadays.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Also, regarding the notion that this is a fundamentally modern phenomenon: when asked to change his staging choices, Burkhard Kosminski refused on the grounds that they infringed on his artistic freedom and the integrity of his vision. Nothing could be more stereotypically Romantic than that response. The artwork comes first; all else is secondary.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> ...in order for works of art to appeal to future generations, those works must adhere to some value that future generations hold, even if in some cases those values are alien to past generations.


Yes. If this were not the case then the vitality and relevance of a work of art would be lost or reduced, in the case of opera, to that of an aural artefact, interesting perhaps, but lacking in the vitality necessary to _speak_ to people across generations. In the case of the Bard, it is precisely the universality of his themes that ensures the continued performance of his plays in a contemporary context - the underlying messages and themes thereby rendered more accessible to a modern audience.

In the case of Wagner and the OP item, it is apparent that it is difficult to separate the man (and his views) from his art. That the production in question should have generated the response it did from the audience suggests it is more about Vergangenheitsbewältigung than the opera itself.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It depends whether you believe that a director should interpret the composer's wishes or more or less ignore them in imposing their own ideas. This latter seems to be what Kat Wagner did to Mastersingers. It is idiotic if the text itself is not followed. Like having an angel rescuing Don Giovanni from hell showing that womanisers can be redeemed. Perhaps that could be tried sometime. I'm sure Wolfgang wouldn't mind.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

To be as shocking and tasteless as possible seems to be the ambition of many directors these days.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

KRoad said:


> Yes. If this were not the case then the vitality and relevance of a work of art would be lost or reduced, in the case of opera, to that of an aural artefact, interesting perhaps, but lacking in the vitality necessary to _speak_ to people across generations. In the case of the Bard, it is precisely the universality of his themes that ensures the continued performance of his plays in a contemporary context - the underlying messages and themes thereby rendered more accessible to a modern audience.


But what about Wagner - are his themes not universal enough? And if yes, why do they need to be transformed into a contemporary context, as if the public was only able to understand the passions and thoughts of the characters who are dressed in modern clothing , but totally unable to sympathize with someone in medieval garb?



> In the case of Wagner and the OP item, it is apparent that it is difficult to separate the man (and his views) from his art. That the production in question should have generated the response it did from the audience suggests it is more about Vergangenheitsbewältigung than the opera itself


No, it is not. It is about cheap shock value, whose only purpose was for some talentless nobody to get himself on the pages of newspapers. I think right now we are doing that nobody a favor by actually _discussing_ him. But even if it was about Vergangenheitsbewältigung (man, I love those long German words!) it should stop somewhere. And I would suggest that it stop at this wonderful work of art written by a man who loved his nation's culture and history and who lived long before the time when any "coming to terms with the past" would be necessary. If someone still wants to flagellate himself over things he had nothing to do with either, let him do it on his own. Just let me enjoy _meinen Meister_!


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

These works are old and unprotected by copywright. Directors should do whatever they want with them and let people decide if they want to see it or not. It's not like Wagner himself cares anymore, he's dead.

And when I say "do whatever they want" I mean that in the broadest terms. Literally anything they want. They should of course then be honest in how they market the production, but they should feel free to take as many liberties as they see fit.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> These works are old and unprotected by copywright. Directors should do whatever they want with them and let people decide if they want to see it or not. It's not like Wagner himself cares anymore, he's dead.
> 
> And when I say "do whatever they want" I mean that in the broadest terms. Literally anything they want. They should of course then be honest in how they market the production, but they should feel free to take as many liberties as they see fit.


For sure. I think most of the complaints are on grounds of taste and artistic merit, rather than any supposed responsibility of the director to do exactly what RW would've wanted (although there are a few in the latter camp).


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> But what about Wagner - are his themes not universal enough?


For some, clearly not. (I'll include myself in that camp.) But so what? Having to put up with idiots like Kosminski is a price I'm willing to pay if the alternative is to expect everyone to accept the values of past times, peoples, and cultures as "universal."


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

Whatever are the tastes of the director, it is clear Germans are not over what happened 70+ years ago. There is indeed Wagnerian streak of epos, messianic perceptions and grandeur in the way Germans percieve their nation. This in itself would not be bad at all; the problem is, those attitudes were thoroughly stained with nazism not that long ago.

It looks to me, German national phsyce tries to get over that, to cleanse itself, to have Wagner without nazis. This production just shoved in their faces this old stain once again.

The production, I think, was insulting to Germans not because of mere mention of nazis, but because it related their core self-identity with nazism, which is obviously wrong.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

NOTE: Two threads ("Dusseldorf" and "A Wagner Item For Continued TC Reading Delectation...") have been merged since they cover the identical topic.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

MichaelSolo said:


> Whatever are the tastes of the director, it is clear Germans are not over what happened 70+ years ago.


Which is exactly why this production was little more than provocative headline-grabbing. Germans are well aware of the holocaust, a depiction of the gas chambers is hardly insightful to anyone. Not to mention the Nazi thing has been "done" already, ad nauseum, by Regie directors. Surely a director interested in "making opera relevant" to contemporary audiences would set it in Afghanistan in 2003 or something. Of course, that might require some original thinking of people already making a living piggy-backing on the great works of more talented others...


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Love this echo-chamber you've set up here! Are the drapes new?


----------



## smkgdc (May 9, 2013)

This article comes to mind...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/unconventional-director-sets-shakespeare-play-in-t,2214/


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> These works are old and unprotected by copywright. Directors should do whatever they want with them and let people decide if they want to see it or not. It's not like Wagner himself cares anymore, he's dead.
> 
> And when I say "do whatever they want" I mean that in the broadest terms. Literally anything they want. They should of course then be honest in how they market the production, but they should feel free to take as many liberties as they see fit.


And the people are at liberty stay away. And the managers to close the tasteless nonsense down!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> Also, regarding the notion that this is a fundamentally modern phenomenon: when asked to change his staging choices, Burkhard Kosminski refused on the grounds that they infringed on his artistic freedom and the integrity of his vision. Nothing could be more stereotypically Romantic than that response. The artwork comes first; all else is secondary.


I'm wondering what his response to "You're fired." would be


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> To be as shocking and tasteless as possible seems to be the ambition of many directors these days.


There is almost a kind of arrogant defiance to the public, good taste and common sense in that attitude: "Let's see how much ugliness and repulsive stuff I can cram down the throat of anyone still willing to see an opera (at the cost of the tax payers, since European theaters mostly receive government subsidies) and get away with it, because after all _I_ am the artist and _I_ am free to do anything _I_ want to, never mind the original work. And whoever does not like that is a stupid prole, unable to understand modern art. "


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

MichaelSolo said:


> Whatever are the tastes of the director, it is clear Germans are not over what happened 70+ years ago.


I'm not german. I was born many years after WWII. I never went to war.

But if i were in the audience, i'd storm my way out and i'd speak with the management. I'd refuse to watch such garbage. I'd order a refund for the money spent. I'd make accused them of vandalizing an important masterpiece.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

To me the point is that the production seems to have little to do with what RW wrote. Schindler's List is about the Holocaust. If I go to see it I don't expect Tannhauser. Whatever the rights and wrongs of depicting the Holocaust on stage the fact is it has nothing to do with RW's opera. This is the nonsense of such productions.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

DavidA said:


> To me the point is that the production seems to have little to do with what RW wrote. Schindler's List is about the Holocaust. If I go to see it I don't expect Tannhauser. Whatever the rights and wrongs of depicting the Holocaust on stage the fact is it has nothing to do with RW's opera. This is the nonsense of such productions.


I second DavidA


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

I would like us all to just stop the pearl-clutching for just a little while, and read this. Please?

This slaughtering of productions based on a few not very detailed accounts is getting kind of boring.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Aksel said:


> I would like us all to just stop the pearl-clutching for just a little while, and read this. Please?
> 
> This slaughtering of productions based on a few not very detailed accounts is getting kind of boring.


That article was not notable for its details about the production.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

ahammel said:


> That article was not notable for its details about the production.


No, and nor did it claim to contain any. But this complete trashing of a production *none of us has actually seen* and that a certain number of people (we do not know how many, and I doubt there were many) present at the performance and several outside groups _not_ present at the performance seems rather like a circle-jerk for traditionalists at the moment.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Aksel said:


> No, and nor did it claim to contain any. But this complete trashing of a production *none of us has actually seen* and that a certain number of people (we do not know how many, and I doubt there were many) present at the performance and several outside groups _not_ present at the performance seems rather like a circle-jerk for traditionalists at the moment.


Then let me clarify my position: to judge from the details available to me, the production sounds like it was a phenomenally bad idea. Perhaps there is a good way to introduce Holocaust themes into _Tannhäuser_, but I doubt it because the two things have nothing to do with one another. If somebody wants to clue me in to the details of exactly how such a thing is done, I'll happily change my mind.

Comparing the critics of this production to the Nazis was a classy touch on the blogger's part, by the way.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Aksel said:


> I would like us all to just stop the pearl-clutching for just a little while, and read this. Please?
> 
> This slaughtering of productions based on a few not very detailed accounts is getting kind of boring.


the blogger makes good points about the blanket reaction some have against regie and I too feel that passing out during an opera due to an unexpected (really? how often do you know nothing about a production you're going to see?) production is a bit hystrionic. However, directors have beaten the nazi horse to death already. It's lazy to make all villains into reich officers. Although recently they seem to have slightly moved on to war on terror settings.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Then let me clarify my position: *to judge from the details available to me, the production sounds like it was a phenomenally bad idea*. Perhaps there is a good way to introduce Holocaust themes into _Tannhäuser_, but I doubt it because the two things have nothing to do with one another. If somebody wants to clue me in to the details of exactly how such a thing is done, I'll happily change my mind.


Which, admittedly, isn't much. I do recommend the comment thread on Parterre which actually features (translated) reviews of this, not just second-hand reports, as seems to be the case otherwise.
It does seem like Düsseldorf got its bones rattled for the first time in quite a while, and that this was the cause of the uproar.

I also find it highly amusing (and rather sad) that we are having this discussion in the weeks before the centenary of The Rite of Spring. At least Diaghilev didn't have to cancel the remaining performances ...


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

deggial said:


> the blogger makes good points about the blanket reaction some have against regie and I too feel that passing out during an opera due to an unexpected (really? how often do you know nothing about a production you're going to see?) production is a bit hystrionic. However, directors have beaten the nazi horse to death already. It's lazy to make all villains into reich officers. Although recently they seem to have slightly moved on to war on terror settings.


I thought the most interesting thing was the point that we blindly accept Nazism and violence worse than was depicted in the Tannhäuser as pure entertainment.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Aksel said:


> Which, admittedly, isn't much. I do recommend the comment thread on Parterre which actually features (translated) reviews of this, not just second-hand reports, as seems to be the case otherwise.


Having read said reviews, I stand by my position that _Tannhäuser_ has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

And I feel slightly ill, actually.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

@Aksel: too true. There is a reason why holocausts have happened, still do and will probably go on happening in the future.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

An interesting sidelight. From the Rheinoper statement canceling the production: "Of course, we have to respect -- _and also for legal reasons _-- the artistic freedom of the director." (italics added)

What's the clinical term for "fear of lawyers"? :lol:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

ahammel said:


> I stand by my position that _Tannhäuser_ has nothing to do with the Holocaust.


I'd say the whole point is that you can see anything at all in a work of art you're trying to update for the stage or otherwise, even make a really tenuous link. Since nazi-holocaust seems to be short-hand for *horrible/evil/baddie/villain/someone-thing we don't like or approve of* even *edgy*, directors will use it whenever necessary and/or trying to get the public riled up a bit.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

KenOC said:


> What's the clinical term for "fear of lawyers"? :lol:


you know, I've actually thought about it as well: Rheinoper added the production to their season and only did an about-face when faced with public criticism, so why aren't they standing up for their decision?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Aksel said:


> No, and nor did it claim to contain any. But this complete trashing of a production *none of us has actually seen* and that a certain number of people (we do not know how many, and I doubt there were many) present at the performance and several outside groups _not_ present at the performance seems rather like a circle-jerk for traditionalists at the moment.


Nazification of a beloved Wagner classic is reason enough to trash a production on its own, regardless of the details provoking the elderly to faint.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

deggial said:


> Since nazi-holocaust seems to be short-hand for *horrible/evil/baddie/villain/someone-thing we don't like or approve of* even *edgy*, directors will use it whenever necessary and/or trying to get the public riled up a bit.


Well, it worked.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aksel said:


> I would like us all to just stop the pearl-clutching for just a little while, and read this. Please?
> 
> This slaughtering of productions based on a few not very detailed accounts is getting kind of boring.


The fact the guy calls himself Boulezian does not inspire confidence.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just to consider this. If you turned up for an opera and the conductor produced a different score then you would want your money back. If the singers sang different words or different notes that you would feel outraged. But apparently a producer can put something on which has no resemblance to the composers intentions and the public are supposed to swallow it in the name of art. The reasoning behind these things is idiotic.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Just to consider this. If you turned up for an opera and the conductor produced a different score then you would want your money back. *If the singers sang* different words or *different notes* that you would feel outraged. But apparently a producer can put something on which has no resemblance to the composers intentions and the public are supposed to swallow it in the name of art. The reasoning behind these things is idiotic.


I'm sorry, but that happens all. the. time. Ever heard of Baroque opera?

And could we please just have "the composer's intentions" defined? It's used so loosely as a really rather lazy argument against Regieoper, and yet you NEVER see it used when talking about other aspects of the performance, like the singing or the orchestral playing. If you're supposed to obey EVERY word in the stage directions (as VERY few productions actually do), should the conductor then be at liberty to change or add articulation marks, bowings, dynamic markings to the score? Should singers be allowed to do the same? What is written is after all "the composer's intentions" ...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aksel said:


> I'm sorry, but that happens all. the. time. Ever heard of Baroque opera?
> 
> And could we please just have "the composer's intentions" defined? It's used so loosely as a really rather lazy argument against Regieoper, and yet you NEVER see it used when talking about other aspects of the performance, like the singing or the orchestral playing. If you're supposed to obey EVERY word in the stage directions (as VERY few productions actually do), should the conductor then be at liberty to change or add articulation marks, bowings, dynamic markings to the score? Should singers be allowed to do the same? What is written is after all "the composer's intentions" ...


This is not a lazy argument at all. We are not talking about the Baroque opera we are talking about Wagner. Of course the producer has the right to interpret the composers intentions just as the conductor and the singers have. But they should be the composers intentions not something they have made up themselves which beats no resemblance. Not obeying every stage direction is quite different from completely ignoring the composers intentions.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> This is not a lazy argument at all. We are not talking about the Baroque opera we are talking about Wagner. Of course the producer has the right to interpret the composers intentions just as the conductor and the singers have. But they should be the composers intentions not something they have made up themselves which beats no resemblance. *Not obeying every stage direction is quite different from completely ignoring the composers intentions*.


That is certainly what the composer intended, is it not? It seems to me that the composer's intentions are only brought up when it's convenient for the traditionalist side. I myself prefer to think of the author (read: composer) as dead.

We might have started talking about Wagner, but we (or you, rather) have moved on to bashing all Regietheater ages ago.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

deggial said:


> I'd say the whole point is that you can see anything at all in a work of art you're trying to update for the stage or otherwise, even make a really tenuous link. Since nazi-holocaust seems to be short-hand for *horrible/evil/baddie/villain/someone-thing we don't like or approve of* even *edgy*, directors will use it whenever necessary and/or trying to get the public riled up a bit.


It's true. Regietheater has its tropes, just like all other forms of opera productions. It's just that pretty dresses (which, let's face it, a lot of so-called traditional (as in "the way they did it at the Met in the 50's") boil down to) aren't as offensive.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aksel said:


> That is certainly what the composer intended, is it not? It seems to me that the composer's intentions are only brought up when it's convenient for the traditionalist side. I myself prefer to think of the author (read: composer) as dead.
> 
> We might have started talking about Wagner, but we (or you, rather) have moved on to bashing all Regietheater ages ago.


That is a typical argument used by people who want to see opera mauled about in the name of 'art'. It just doesn't wash. That particular Emperor has no clothes. If I must bear the title of traditionalist for desiring to see and hear what the composer actually wanted then I will cheerfully bear that burden! I would sooner bear that burden than have to endure some of the idiotic productions which come our way, many of which have more to do with the ego of a producer than the genius of the composer.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> That is a typical argument used by people who want to see opera mauled about in the name of 'art'. It just doesn't wash. That particular Emperor has no clothes. If I must bear the title of traditionalist for desiring to see and hear what the composer actually wanted then I will cheerfully bear that burden! I would sooner bear that burden than have to endure some of the idiotic productions which come our way, many of which have more to do with the ego of a producer than the genius of the composer.


Well, I prefer not to be that direct about it, but sure, 'mauled' it is, then.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see the attraction of museum pieces. If all you want pretty dresses and a few hummable tunes, then be my guest, by all means.
But opera is a performing art. It's not like a painting or a sculpture that stays the same no matter when in time you look at it (provided that it has been created first, of course). While parts of an opera (the music and the libretto) have already been created, there are still several artforms that need to come into play before an opera can actually be fully realised on stage. Should we just ignore the change of opinions and general mood, historical happenings and the like that has happened between then and now?

And there is also the fact that we actually don't know (much as with historically informed performance) how opera was staged in the time of Verdi, or Mozart. We can only make informed guesses, but productions that are supposedly HIP (usually Baroque operas) are little less than academic exercises. They are often very interesting exercises, but exercises nonetheless.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Aksel said:


> We might have started talking about Wagner, but we (or you, rather) have moved on to bashing all Regietheater ages ago.


Do you understand why somebody who is not opposed to Regietheater in general might think this particular production was not such a hot idea?


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Do you understand why somebody who is not opposed to Regietheater in general might think this particular production was not such a hot idea?


I do. And I don't rule out the option that I also might be opposed to this staging. I just don't see what's so very controversial about this. It's not like opera with Konzepte and Nazis are a novelty by now.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Aksel said:


> I do. And I don't rule out the option that I also might be opposed to this staging. I just don't see what's so very controversial about this. It's not like opera with Konzepte and Nazis are a novelty by now.


But then, you are not German. A staging glorifying the Norwegian Fascist party and Quisling would not have the same impact, eh?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aksel said:


> Well, I prefer not to be that direct about it, but sure, 'mauled' it is, then.
> 
> And I'm sorry, but I don't see the attraction of museum pieces. If all you want pretty dresses and a few hummable tunes, then be my guest, by all means.
> But opera is a performing art. It's not like a painting or a sculpture that stays the same no matter when in time you look at it (provided that it has been created first, of course). While parts of an opera (the music and the libretto) have already been created, there are still several artforms that need to come into play before an opera can actually be fully realised on stage. Should we just ignore the change of opinions and general mood, historical happenings and the like that has happened between then and now?
> ...


Sorry, but to interpret the desire for the composers' intentions as 'wanting pretty dresses and a few hummable tunes' is laughable. Please read what I said. You're about as far from the mark as the producers you revere.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Aksel said:


> I do. And I don't rule out the option that I also might be opposed to this staging. I just don't see what's so very controversial about this. It's not like opera with Konzepte and Nazis are a novelty by now.


To judge from the producers' comments and the reviews you linked earlier, it seems particularly violent and disturbing even by the standards(?) of Nazi-themed productions.

I'm not an expert in such things, though. Maybe other such productions are worse. I'd prefer not to think about it, really.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> But then, you are not German. A staging glorifying the Norwegian Fascist party and Quisling would not have the same impact, eh?


Nor are you.
And who has said anything about glorifying Nazis? Portraying something or someone on-stage is not the same as extolling their virtues.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

ahammel said:


> To judge from the producers' comments and the reviews you linked earlier, it seems particularly violent and disturbing even by the standards(?) of Nazi-themed productions.


I think the main issue here is that Düsseldorf hasn't done many "controversial" productions during the last 40 years or so (one of the reviewers in my previous link talked about this), and that is why it caused such a shock.

If this had opened in Berlin or any city like that, this production would not have caused this amount of uproar. Sure, some Jewish organizations would probably have been offended (without having seen the production, of course, basing it all on second- and third-hand stories).


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Aksel said:


> Nor are you.
> And who has said anything about glorifying Nazis? Portraying something or someone on-stage is not the same as extolling their virtues.


right, we might need to go back to our third hand sources and refocus on what they say was happening on stage:



Spiegel said:


> *The Venusberg*, the site of hedonistic love in Wagner's opera, becomes the site of a brutal shooting scene. Venus, who is decked out in a Nazi uniform, and her SS henchmen murder a family and then force Tannhäuser to kill as well.


I wouldn't say that's extolling nazi virtues. It sounds more like swapping hedonistic sex for hedonistic violence.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Aksel said:


> I do. And I don't rule out the option that I also might be opposed to this staging. I just don't see what's so very controversial about this. It's not like opera with Konzepte and Nazis are a novelty by now.


It seems to me most Nazikonzept (deserves its own hybridization by now for sure) doesn't go very far beyond the SS uniforms. I offer the exception in this case was the reportedly graphic and highly realistic depictions of the execution of Jews to the accompaniment of the jubilant Tannhauser overture. Perhaps imagine a recreation of the Utøya massacre set to the Tannhauser overture and you can see where they're coming from.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

ahammel said:


> To judge from the producers' comments and the reviews you linked earlier, it seems particularly violent and disturbing even by the standards(?) of Nazi-themed productions.


You used a very true and very macabre word in this context: standard. It has become the _standard_ to present Wagner in a Nazi context. I'm _bored_ by that, and that's alarming on two levels: I shouldn't be bored by opera productions, and I shouldn't be bored by the fate of Nazi victims. If these productions try to educate me on Nazism - whether I need that or not - they're doing a terribly bad job because the shock value has worn off long ago.

OK, this one apparently was so graphic that some audience members had physical reactions. Theaters get cold feet when that happens.

It's _so_ been done, and that's so wrong on all the levels. It's artistically shallow, it declares the audience incapacitated, it scorns the victims. And where the work comes in here at all - heaven knows.

Wagner was an Anti-Semite and Wagner's work was extensively used by the Nazis. I _get_ it. Is that _all_ that German audiences will have a chance to see of _Tannhäuser_, ever?

I realize that opera is not a jukebox. I've enjoyed productions that have moved very far from the written word. But most _Regietheater_ has stopped caring for either the work or the audience altogether, is only narcissistically busy with itself (in avoidance of another word).

Something is seriously wrong here; a bad case of Emperor's new clothes, and it has been going on for far too long.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

MichaelSolo said:


> There is indeed Wagnerian streak of epos, messianic perceptions and grandeur in the way Germans percieve their nation.


I hardly have an objective view on that, but I believe that's a cliché that has nothing to do with the German reality of today.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ebab said:


> I hardly have an objective view on that, but I believe that's a cliché that has nothing to do with the German reality of today.


An interesting question. Story: When I was young, ~1955 or so, we were camping at a state park in Oregon. In the next site were some visitors from Germany, two or three strapping young men. My father invited them over to our campfire. As the conversation went, they said that Hitler was pretty much an OK guy, just a victim of some poor advisors. My father was as angry as I'd ever seen and was very happy to see them off. I wonder how much has changed since then.

As the French used to say, "I Love Germany so much, I'm happy there are two of them." No longer the case, of course.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Whatever the rights and wrongs about the German people, the main issue is that the production had little or nothing to do with the composer's intentions. Now some people don't seem to think this is important. But I consider that the genius who composed the work is rather more important than a hack producer who is trying to impose his own view to shock, be different, or whatever. I just saw a Rheingold prelude that looked to me more like a hedonistic orgy from Tannhauser. Now that is not what Wagner intended. There was a lunatic Figaro from Salzburg where a cherub like figure was swanning around. Funny that Mozart, da Ponte or Bauchamais did not mention him! The producer should be the interpreter of the composer's intentions not produce something that ignores them.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> An interesting question. Story: When I was young, ~1955 or so, we were camping at a state park in Oregon. In the next site were some visitors from Germany, two or three strapping young men. My father invited them over to our campfire. As the conversation went, they said that Hitler was pretty much an OK guy, just a victim of some poor advisors. My father was as angry as I'd ever seen and was very happy to see them off. I wonder how much has changed since then.


That story is hair-raising of course, particularly given they were your personal, and your country's, guests. I can understand that this episode didn't exactly help establishing trust. And of course, I couldn't vouch for a certain percentage that had that opinion today still.

I can only encourage people to look at Germany with their own eyes, as far as that's possible; at what people really say, whom they vote for, what German politics really are like. "Wagnerian streak of epos, messianic perceptions and grandeur in the way Germans percieve their nation" - that's not what I see.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Ebab's points are well taken, I think. Thanks for that.

I'm not sure whether it's been said yet or not - the subject is a painful one, and I haven't read every post, sorry - but I don't think there's enough value in all the art in the world to make up for making people feel bad yet again about an event of such magnitude. 

I had a Jewish girlfriend once, and when I first got to know her I figured I would learn a few things about Jewish customs that I hadn't, and was looking forward to that as well as to the relationship. Then one day I found myself wearing a T-shirt I had thought amusing when I bought it: it had a picture of the face of Charles Manson, with the supertitle "Charlie don't surf." The phrase is from the movie Apocalypse Now, and (I guess) implied that Manson's real problem was an inability to chill.

I had forgotten, or perhaps never cared, that in the center of Charlie's forehead is a swastika. This was clear on the T-shirt. An acquaintance at lunch one day pointed it out, and asked my girlfriend how she felt about the Holocaust. Her response was that she tries not to think about it. Her manner became strained. I don't know if I stopped wearing the T-shirt immediately, but certainly very soon thereafter. I began to feel it was in bad taste.

I also think that part of the problem that may not have been mentioned yet is in the way we divide up responsibility for things. It's always enjoyable to blame the Nazis, because of course none of us are Nazis. (Well, I hope not.) It doesn't seem to occur to most people to blame the Christians. However, Germany at the time was the most Christian nation on earth. Christianity was as important to them as liberty is to the Americans. Without the active and energetic assistance of Christians, the thing could not have happened. Is it possible that those who planned it knew very well that the Christians with whom they had to deal did not have the moral fiber to protest such things? How sad if so. 

Nor does it seem to occur to most people to blame decent people. Yet Himmler made a famous speech to his men, claiming that "the ability to have done these things," (meaning the Holocaust) and to have remained decent men - this is what has made us strong." He valued decency as they did, or at least wanted to appear so. Is the real problem the definition of decency? I have to think it has its share.

Finally, I was going to wind up with a kudos to those who protested the opera, for having the courage to do so. But after all, they were protesting their own discomfort, as most people do, and I suppose that's not so special.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Whatever the rights and wrongs about the German people, the main issue is that the production had little or nothing to do with the composer's intentions.


I think it's pretty clear that almost nobody considers this the 'main issue'. There was no similar controversy over the Boulez/Chéreau _Ring_, or the Las Vegas _Rigoletto_, or the Met's recent run of _Giulio Cesare_ in 1920's costume; none of which were staged in anything like the way the composer intended.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Maybe it's not too late to bring in Mel Brooks and Nathan Lane to salvage it. :lol:


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

Ebab said:


> I hardly have an objective view on that, but I believe that's a cliché that has nothing to do with the German reality of today.


Indeed, "streak" only means that you could meet that attitude more often than not, I did not do a comprehensive survey, so this statement is not based on facts, but on some perceptions of mine. I have a few German friends and few more acquaintances, and I spoke of German history with them; I noted this attitude, sometimes unspoken, more than a few times. And, as a matter of fact, I admired them for this!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> I also think that part of the problem that may not have been mentioned yet is in the way we divide up responsibility for things. It's always enjoyable to blame the Nazis, because of course none of us are Nazis. (Well, I hope not.) It doesn't seem to occur to most people to blame the Christians. However, Germany at the time was the most Christian nation on earth. Christianity was as important to them as liberty is to the Americans. Without the active and energetic assistance of Christians, the thing could not have happened. Is it possible that those who planned it knew very well that the Christians with whom they had to deal did not have the moral fiber to protest such things? How sad if so.


Could you please explain to me how the holocaust is in any way compatable with the teaching of Jesus Christ. It doesn't seem to occur to people when they blame so-called 'Christians' that such actions were going completely against the teaching of the founder of Christianity, who, by the way, was a Jew (much to Wagner's disgust, it seems). The founders of Christianity were Jews. St Paul was a Jew - a 'Hebrew's Hebrew'. Every writer in the Bible apart from perhaps one was a Jew. Hence to blithely blame 'Christians' for the Holocaust is not a thought out statement. Germany may have been a nominally christian nation but its actions were totally incompatible with Christian New Testament teaching. However, they were perfectly compatible with Nazi ideology that many Germans had embraced at the time.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Ebab said:


> That story is hair-raising of course, particularly given they were your personal, and your country's, guests. I can understand that this episode didn't exactly help establishing trust. And of course, I couldn't vouch for a certain percentage that had that opinion today still.
> 
> I can only encourage people to look at Germany with their own eyes, as far as that's possible; at what people really say, whom they vote for, what German politics really are like. "Wagnerian streak of epos, messianic perceptions and grandeur in the way Germans percieve their nation" - that's not what I see.


I'm not exactly objective on this subject, either, since I'm second-generation German and my grandfather was a member of the underground during the Nazi era (translated: he emphatically was NOT a Nazi). And while I'm proud to be an American, I will also admit that a "Wagnerian streak of epos, messianic perceptions, and grandeur in the way (citizens) perceive(d) their nation" could be a good description of certain parts of U.S. history. Does the term "manifest destiny" ring a bell? Frankly, I think the same could be said of certain periods of history in a number of other nations. I also think we need to be cautious about stereotyping any country or nationality.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MAuer said:


> I'm not exactly objective on this subject, either, since I'm second-generation German and my grandfather was a member of the underground during the Nazi era (translated: he emphatically was NOT a Nazi). And while I'm proud to be an American, I will also admit that a "Wagnerian streak of epos, messianic perceptions, and grandeur in the way (citizens) perceive(d) their nation" could be a good description of certain parts of U.S. history. Does the term "manifest destiny" ring a bell? Frankly, I think the same could be said of certain periods of history in a number of other nations. I also think we need to be cautious about stereotyping any country or nationality.


Well said. We easily condemn Germany for genocide, conveniently forgetting the genocide (of greater proportions) in our own country.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

To be honest, I would take "epos, messianic perceptions and grandeur" over the sort of self-hating, "oh-we-are-all-so-evil" attitude most Germans (including those opera directors) seem to exhibit nowadays towards their country and their history.

However, I have also encountered quite a lot of Germans who have a healthy, dignified pride in their nation, their culture and their well-earned by economic and cultural success place in the world. And that is the best kind of attitude anyone can have.

And dear *Ebab*, do not let yourself be discouraged by stories like the above mentioned one. There are lots of people outside Germany (myself included) who have either seen your country with their own eyes or simply do not let themselves be brainwashed and who have a lot of respect and goodwill towards Germany and Germans, including Wagner, of course.

Ah yes, forgot to mention: at least one of my ancestors has also fought in WW2 (here http://www.talkclassical.com/25382-mannliest-manliest-5.html#post458456 is his story), which does not keep me from either enjoying Wagner and other German masters, or from visiting the country at least once a year, or from being in love with a fine Teutonic gentleman, whose ancestors have fought in WW2 as well - on the other side, of course.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Could you please explain to me how the holocaust is in any way compatable with the teaching of Jesus Christ.


Simple answer: it's not. I think you misunderstood what I said. I hope you will excuse me if I don't go into more detail.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Interesting article in Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-forever-associated-with-hitler-a-892600.html


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Could you please explain to me how the holocaust is in any way compatable with the teaching of Jesus Christ. It doesn't seem to occur to people when they blame so-called 'Christians' that such actions were going completely against the teaching of the founder of Christianity, who, by the way, was a Jew (much to Wagner's disgust, it seems). The founders of Christianity were Jews. St Paul was a Jew - a 'Hebrew's Hebrew'. Every writer in the Bible apart from perhaps one was a Jew. Hence to blithely blame 'Christians' for the Holocaust is not a thought out statement. Germany may have been a nominally christian nation but its actions were totally incompatible with Christian New Testament teaching. However, they were perfectly compatible with Nazi ideology that many Germans had embraced at the time.


There is a difference between reading and projection 101a.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

It would be rather difficult for us all to have seen the production wouldn't it?
But if the general description given as to the ideas behind the production are correct---it is a disgrace in every way. Nothing about the Nazis is accepted lightly I hope and certainly not by people who were around at the time and suffered or whose families suffered.

There is no comparison with the Stravinsky premier because Stravinsky was there and part of the whole process. Wagner of course was not there in Dusseldorf as he is dead---I am sure that makes a slight difference.
What is the meaning of this apparent dislike of tradition, I believe that a basic mistake is being made about opera fans.
In most cases they know exactly what they are going to see and that is why they go,they certainly don't want to be confronted with something new and certainly not something objectionable.
I've seen "Il Barbiere" a number of times and still laugh at what I know is coming,Iam not keen to see the story of Socialist Councillor in Scunthorpe and his gent's barber in a side street. (please don't tell me it's been done!)
To me and many others opera is a museum and I want it kept that way. What has happened between then and now has no bearing whatever, but what happened was that composers have written operas that maybe reflect those times.
We most certainly do know exactly how opera was staged and performed in the days of their composition ,because there is a mass of material describing it in detail.
In the case of Verdi we are not talking of prehistoric times you know he died only 37 years before I was born--that's all.
Incidentally, if anyone can seriously describe the Nazis as a novelty I can only stand open-mouthed and gasp with incredulity.
The comment about Jewish organisations are completely wide of the mark,why would they need to base anything on second-hand descriptions. As soon as the thing was announced someone would have been detailed to attend the performance.
"The universality of a given work is generated through its continued relevance aesthetically and philosophically,in a contemporary and increasingly cross-cultural context."
This is simply not true,there is a huge demand for such drama as "Pride and Prejudice" (pretty dresses) and apparently the character most filmed across the ages is "Robin Hood"---not very contemporary are they? Mind you we remember the updating of "Robin Hood" by Sinatra and his Rat Pack "Robin and the Seven Hoods" ---particularly ghastly.
People want to be taken out of the mundane into a fantasy land and that in most cases is what the world of opera provides.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

You can look at the production of Cosi fan Tutte in Glyndbourne 2006. Modern looking but totally traditional. It is fabulous. You can actually enjoy the genius of Mozart / da Ponte because the producer isn't getting in the way.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> To be honest, I would take "epos, messianic perceptions and grandeur" over the sort of self-hating, "oh-we-are-all-so-evil" attitude most Germans (including those opera directors) seem to exhibit nowadays towards their country and their history.
> 
> [...]


A sane middle-ground is what I see most Germans striving for, and I think we're getting there.

Very roughly speaking, I see the following development in Germany: The 50s were a time of hasty restoration, with a lot of open issues being swept under the carpet, and the guilty conscious buried in economic achievements. These open issues fouled so badly that by '68 at the latest, a new generation demanded answers. They put public discussions in motion, often polemically, but those were necessary. It was only those processes that made the republic really arrive in democracy and pluralism. What quite a few people of that generation haven't really realized is that many of their goals were achieved, and it'd become time to halt and re-evaluate. They are still in a mode of self-flagellation, of putting everything down that reminds them of that fake restoration of the 50s, but is actually only a windmill.

I think it's that spirit that's still in the minds of many of those responsible in opera and theater today, and that of the respective critics and publicists.

But German society overall, I think, has moved on from that. Younger people feel much more relaxed about their country, they are less interested in abstract political dogmas but what a certain political decision means in their concrete life situation. They have an uninhibited, even playful way of dealing with national symbols. They're identifying themselves with their own country, without the need of putting other nations down.

I think we're getting there.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Interesting article in Der Spiegel
> 
> http://www.spiegel.de/international...-forever-associated-with-hitler-a-892600.html


That sad article was a cover story in March. _"200 Years Richard Wagner - The Mad Genius"._ Comment unnecessary.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I'll comment on just one thing out of that article:



> The Bayreuth Festival is still the country's most important social event, but it is also a drably German affair. The guests consume bratwurst in large quantities, the famous bratwurst of the Bayreuth Festival. Nowadays there is even a lobster bratwurst, which says a lot. But even the dressed-up version of bratwurst is still just a bratwurst, and German society is still a bratwurst society, no matter how sophisticated its behavior.


OK, I get all the Wagner-bashing, but _what in the world is wrong with bratwurst?!! _ 

Next thing you know those self-haters will declare bratwurst to be inherently Nazi as well...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I'll comment on just one thing out of that article:
> 
> OK, I get all the Wagner-bashing, but _what in the world is wrong with bratwurst?!! _
> 
> Next thing you know those self-haters will declare bratwurst to be inherently Nazi as well...


Hah. In order to 'echo-locate' the bratwurst code word, it is necessary to note that it is Der Spiegel, and is about the Bayreuth Festival. That "drably German" should be helpful, and "no matter how sophisticated its behavior" should nail it down.

If it were a Brit article with the same viewpoint, and about the Proms, the author would probably use 'fish&chips'. I can't think of a comparable _event_ in the US, but the code word/phrase would probably be burger&fries.

The target of the article must be the... the... drat, can't spell the word - 'Bour... something.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Except that the Proms is a bit more upmarket than fish-and-chips. But I get the point.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> OK, I get all the Wagner-bashing, but _what in the world is wrong with bratwurst?!! _


Hitler ate Bratwurst!

You know, probably.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From Der Spiegel: "But even the dressed-up version of bratwurst is still just a bratwurst, and German society is still a bratwurst society, no matter how sophisticated its behavior."

You can almost hear the "...except for this writer, of course." Some things don't change anywhere! :lol:


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Hitler ate Bratwurst!
> 
> You know, probably.


I enjoy both my bratwurst and my Wagner - sometimes simultaneously. I guess that makes me to a follower of Hitler


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Hitler ate Bratwurst!
> 
> You know, probably.


Not likely, given that he was a vegetarian...


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I enjoy both my bratwurst and my Wagner - sometimes simultaneously. I guess that makes me to a follower of Hitler


Since Hitler was a vegetarian, that clever disguise of yours makes you _doubly_ suspicious!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Well, I apologize for my ignorance, but I am not all that familiar with Hitler's eating habits - or other suchlike personal information: the date of his birthday, for example 

I remember there was a scandal last year at the _Deutsche Oper Berlin_ over a performance of Rienzi scheduled exactly on that date. I am sure the managers of the _Deutsche Oper_ made that mistake because the date of Hitler's birthday was simply not the kind of imformation they would want to retain in their mind.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Bayreuth Festspielhaus

If Wagner should be _Der Himmel_ in the world of opera, Bayreuther Bratwurst of course must be tasting as heavenly. Can anybody describe to me how special this taste is? Did Wagner like _Bratwurst_ ? Who did introduce _Bratwurst_ in _Die Bayreuther Festspiele_ ? :cheers:


----------



## AndreasFink (Feb 11, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I'll comment on just one thing out of that article:
> 
> OK, I get all the Wagner-bashing, but _what in the world is wrong with bratwurst?!! _
> 
> Next thing you know those self-haters will declare bratwurst to be inherently Nazi as well...


But of course Germany is a bratwurst society! It is just not an ONLY bratwurst society, there are a lot of other things here. E. g. the lowest unemployment in Europe.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

AndreasFink said:


> But of course Germany is a bratwurst society! It is just not an ONLY bratwurst society, there are a lot of other things here. E. g. the lowest unemployment in Europe.


Yes, I'm sure the Germans are all working hard, every day, to support Greece. And Greece thanks you for it! :devil:


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

You all are having WAY too much fun.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> You all are having WAY too much fun.


And you know who else had fun? _Hitler_!


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

Ebab said:


> ...
> 
> I think we're getting there.


I am so happy to hear that!


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

AndreasFink said:


> But of course Germany is a bratwurst society! It is just not an ONLY bratwurst society, there are a lot of other things here. ....


.. like cabbage that must come with it. And a mug of beer. I love it already, shame the day is young!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

MichaelSolo said:


> .. like cabbage that must come with it. And a mug of beer. I love it already, shame the day is young!


I hate cabbage! But then, I don't have to like _everything_ about a particular culture, do I?


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2013)

Sorry to have missed most of this thread, been away (Mannheim, not Düsseldorf!).
Operas causing a stink? Who'd believe it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/10/operas-top-10-shockers


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Sorry to have missed most of this thread, been away (Mannheim, not Düsseldorf!).
> Operas causing a stink? Who'd believe it?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/10/operas-top-10-shockers


that's a great Rusalka picture!


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Sorry to have missed most of this thread, been away (Mannheim, not Düsseldorf!).


Did you take the Mannheim Rocket?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

TalkingHead said:


> Sorry to have missed most of this thread, been away (Mannheim, not Düsseldorf!).
> Operas causing a stink? Who'd believe it?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/10/operas-top-10-shockers


_4. Mazeppa (Tchaikovsky), ENO, 1984

David Alden's gruesome blood-soaked low-budget production, known from that day to this as "the chainsaw Mazeppa" opened the door to a new era of innovative in-your-face opera stagings in the UK._

I walked out of that one. It was a horror. The booing started pretty early on.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Hitler ate Bratwurst!
> 
> You know, probably.


You can bet the damned fascist Nazi started with that _gateway food_, *MILK!*


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeez, if the Met's 2009 Sonnambula made the list ... what the heck are we talking about? It wasn't THAT bad. It just didn't WORK. Is it possible all the Regie theater kerfuffle is about an extremely small number of productions that get endless press?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> Is it possible all the Regie theater kerfuffle is about an extremely small number of productions that get endless press?


By George I think he's got it!


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2013)

*Classical music in the age of the dictatorship*

Well here's an article (from The Guardian) that kind of touches on issues raised in this thread. There is one line from the article that particularly struck me: 
_"The real shocker, though, is that classical music aficionados [...] still believe there can be something intrinsically morally ennobling about music."_
Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did. Here is the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/10/power-classical-music-age-dictators


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

The real shocker, though, is that classical music writers still believe there is intrinsically nothing ennobling about music.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

"I love bananas. I know, we all do. But for me it goes much more deeper than that." - The Far Side


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The production director of the much-reviled Tannhäuser production has his say.

"I'm interested in the great archaic theme of guilt. Why then shouldn't Tannhäuser be made into a perpetrator, into a war criminal? In my staging Tannhäuser is forced by members of the Wehrmacht to shoot a family. The production deals with individual guilt under National Socialism and during the development of the Federal Republic of Germany."

The Der Spiegel article is here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...pera-claims-artistic-censorship-a-899543.html


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The production director of the much-reviled Tannhäuser production has his say.
> 
> "I'm interested in the great archaic theme of guilt. Why then shouldn't Tannhäuser be made into a perpetrator, into a war criminal? In my staging Tannhäuser is forced by members of the Wehrmacht to shoot a family. The production deals with individual guilt under National Socialism and during the development of the Federal Republic of Germany."
> 
> ...


If this guy wants to put on a play or an opera about individual guilt under national socialism then he should write one himself. To inflict his views on the public through the medium of an opera that has nothing to do with it - whether the opera is by Mozart, Handel, Verdi or Wagner - is just intellectual and artistic dishonesty. But nothing will persuade these people about this quite obvious point even though the facts stare them right in the face as they are under the delusion that what they are involved in is 'art'.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Nothing will persuade some people that art isn't only what they say it is.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "I'm interested in the great archaic theme of guilt. Why then shouldn't Tannhäuser be made into a perpetrator, into a war criminal? In my staging Tannhäuser is forced by members of the Wehrmacht to shoot a family. The production deals with individual guilt under National Socialism and during the development of the Federal Republic of Germany."


You know, I can _almost_ see that working. Guilt is certainly a theme in _Tannhäuser_. The director makes a good point that it's hard to relate to Heinrich's being cast out of society for paganism these days.

I'm not sure it was a fantastic idea to leap right from "let's emphasize the 'guilt' theme" to "Nazis ahoy!", though. Heinrich's guilt is of the religious/sexual variety. He's not a murderer (at least not in Wagner's libretto). He's very nearly a murder _victim_, actually. I'd be interested to see a production that gives Heinrich something more relatable in that vein to be guilty about, but this particular production seems to have overshot that mark by 100 miles. I'm really not convinced it wasn't a case of going for shock value or letting the composer's personality unduly influence the production.

The other big problem I can see with this is that Heinrich is redemed at the end. In fact, God personally intervenes to ensure that Heinrich is forgiven. I'm very curious to know how the director handled that aspect. The Heinrich of this production absolutely doesn't deserve forgiveness.

I withdraw my earlier comment that the director is insane and down-grade it to 'misguided'. There's clearly a fair bit of thought that went into this, and there's a justification for the theme in the libretto, but it still seems heavy-handed and off the mark to me. It still does sound quite a bit like the director wanted to fit war-guilt into the production and reached for a justification for it, rather than starting with an aspect of the libretto he wanted to emphasize and came up with war-guilt as a way to acomplish it.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2013)

Again, I give here a link (UK newspaper The Guardian) that is not directly related to these Wagner issues, but does raise the general question of 'relevant stagings' / composer intentions blah blah ... In this case, it concerns *Richard Strauss*'s _Ariadne auf Naxos_. Anyway, have a read of the article and report back here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/15/ariadne-auf-naxos-glyndebourne-thoma


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I'd see it, but then I'm a sucker for the Blitz in fiction.

I'm not too familiar with _Ariadne_, but I can see the plot working in the setting she's chosen. The director seems to have picked the concept to match themes she wanted to emphasise in the libretto, which is, you know, a good thing in regietheater. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think it has the potential to be a really good production.

It would be a bit weird to see people with Greek names singing in German in a Blitz hospital, though.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2013)

Thanks for the reply, Ahammel. I can't recall your position on the Tannhauser production in Düsseldorf. Care to elaborate?


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2013)

Ahammel : on reflection, please ignore my posting above, your answer was more than sufficient. I have just 'clicked' what you meant to say. I'm slow, forgive me.


----------

