# Let's talk Tristan und Isolde.....................



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Always controversial.
Why do you like it or hate it?

It's sometimes called the greatest opera ever.

What makes it so compelling?
It really grabs me. Those chords opening Act 3 , sounding and wafting upwards always grip me.

What are it's meanings? What is its power? Is the power of the potion real or just an excuse?

What makes it the iconic work that it is on a musical and psychological level?
Wagner said a truly great performance would drive you mad.
Conductors have died conducting it. Karajan said he needed to come up with another way to conduct it.

Lovers of this opera.............let's talk Tristan.
:tiphat:


----------



## Speranza (Nov 22, 2014)

I thought the potion was real because of the sudden reversal in their behaviour after they drink it. I suppose that could also be that thinking they were going to die they wanted to get their feelings off their chests. 

Seen the opera twice,first time I thought it was overly long, kind of boring and full of large drab and grey looking people being very shouty/loud. Second time was a concert performance of the opera (BBC prom), no sets or costumes which meant I could just focus on the opera which I think helped. I actually liked it second time round it wasn't particularly emotionally engaging but it made me think (I have no idea about what, it was 2 years ago) it was definitely interesting and thought producing. Anyway I was bumbling along thinking this is nice and then Wham! Liebestod. The entire opera was leading up to that moment it was the perfect culmination, I felt I was physically riding on this wave of music, absolutely beautiful. 

I can see why people don't like it though, it is long and while engaging enough not enthralling till the end. I like it at any rate, looking forward to seeing it again someday.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

My favorite recordings:


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Amazing............


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I have the Bohm and the Furtwangler with Nilsson and Flagstad, respectively:

















And yes, if you haven't figured out by now, this is my favorite piece of music.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I just think its incredible.
The prelude, Isolde's scene on the ship, the love duet and duel, the opening of act 3 with the clarinet or whatever it is, Tristans mad scene and then the liebestod.

amazing...............
.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

The part in Act 2 where Tristan makes his entrance thrills me every time. Wagner is a master of suspense, and he uses long sequences to accomplish this. Other favorite moments for me are the Prelude (obviously!), the end of Act One, the part in Act 2 when Branganae sings from the tower and the lovers' duet, and last but not least, the Liebestod. The latter is quite possibly the most transcendent music I have ever heard.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Itullian said:


> I just think its incredible.
> The prelude, Isolde's scene on the ship, the love duet and duel, the opening of act 3 with the clarinet or whatever it is, Tristans mad scene and then the liebestod.
> 
> amazing...............
> .


That is an English horn I believe. It's supposed to sound like a shepherd's pipe, doesn't really, but who cares?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Celloman said:


> That is an English horn I believe. It's supposed to sound like a shepherd's pipe, doesn't really, but who cares?


It's so atmospheric..........


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

For more recent recordings this one is a classic despite the fact that hate Domingo for Wagner singing:


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> For more recent recordings this one is a classic despite the fact that hate Domingo for Wagner singing:
> 
> View attachment 63761


I like that one very much. I think Domingo is excellent, even if a bit different.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

I saw it staged twice, both times at La Scala.
The first time when I was a teenager, C. Kleiber conducting. I was with my grandma and unfortunately I cannot remember much of that evening 
Then, some years ago, Daniel Barenboim conducting, Waltraud Meier singing Isolde. A Patrice Chereau's production. 
I was thrilled from the beginning to the end, and particurarly during the liebestod when Meier/Isolde started bleeding as if the trascendent and unbereable grief had been leaving a tangible sign in her body.






In this video, at the very end someone in the audience just ruined everything. Luckily not in the evening I was there...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

albertfallickwang said:


> For more recent recordings this one is a classic despite the fact that hate Domingo for Wagner singing:
> 
> View attachment 63761


As Tristan is about half the opera that must spoil it for you somewhat!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I put on the prelude this afternoon conducted by Furtwangler. Yes, the power of the music is pretty overwhelming. 

Versions I have:
Karajan 1952 is an overwhelming experience white hot live with Modl and Vinay and Hotter terrific. the recording is, of course, dated. But to me this is the best performance.

Furtwangler has to be heard for the conducting although Flagstad was frankly a bit past it by that stage.

Bohm is too monochromatic for my taste - too little light and shade and Windgassen sounds very thin. Nilsson's power has to be heard but you can't love her.

Kleiber is a bit of a microphone job but who cares? It blows the cobwebs off and Price is a stunning Isolde even if Kollo is very rough round the edges.

Karajan / BPO is a marvel of orchestral playing but there are decidedly odd balances. Karajan is as different from his live version as can be. Vickers is absolutely superb and I can actually love Dernech's Isolde although that has come in for much criticism. To me she sounds very much like Modl on Karajan 1.

So not a perfect Tristan available on CD which is not a surprise as it probably doesn't exist.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It's pretty much the musical equivalent of crack cocaine. The endless harmonic suspension and longing is enough to drive anybody insane, and when relief finally does come at the end of the Lebestod, it is brief, and almost immediately the hunger grows again for those mystical opening chords of the Act I Prelude....


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2015)

Itullian said:


> Wagner said a truly great performance would drive you mad.


Wow - I must have heard some truly great performances of this work, then. That explains it. Maybe if I listened to a mediocre performance, I might like it better.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

Tristan und Isolde is the greatest art work of the 19th century. It is so insane, crazy, it pushes to the limit the artists, musicians and audience.

When heard live, "O sink, hernieder, Nacht der Liebe" is one of the few pieces of music that can rip a hole in the space time continuim. Listening to this live is the equivalent of falling into the Stargate in 2001.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

It does seem to suspend time.............


----------



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

There are operas that stimulate, 
There are operas that captivate,
There are operas that intoxicate,
But there is nothing that tears my soul apart and casts me into the abyss quite like _Tristan._


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I always get tears in my eyes at the end.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Trsitan und Isolde is one of but a few operas that I might think of as the single greatest opera ever composed... depending on the day of the week. :lol:

I have four or five recordings including the Pappano, Furtwangler, Kleiber, Barenboim, and the Karajan studio recording. I must check out the live version from the 1950s if it is ever released in a decent form.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Trsitan und Isolde is one of but a few operas that I might think of as the single greatest opera ever composed... depending on the day of the week. :lol:
> 
> I have four or five recordings including the Pappano, Furtwangler, Kleiber, Barenboim, and the Karajan studio recording. I must check out the live version from the 1950s if it is ever released in a decent form.


It has.









Thank the goddesses. _;D_


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> It has.
> 
> View attachment 63821
> 
> ...


Yeah, finally complete acts per disc.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Wagner didn't call it an opera.
He called it "eine handlung", a drama.


----------



## Yashin (Jul 22, 2011)

A gorgeous atmospheric prelude and an ending that builds and build, crashes and then sublime quiet and still so you don't breathe and your heart stops for a moment. When Isolde sings the last few lines it is like an out of body experience.

I love the Deborah Polaski version of this on DVD filmed at the Liceu in Barcelona where she goes to the window at the end and just stares into space. Gorgeous and simple and very moving.

On cd I have struggled to find a definitive version. The first version I bought was deborah Voigt in a live recording with Thomas Moser. Both fairly weak voices but I was young and attracted to the box cover!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Yashin said:


> A gorgeous atmospheric prelude and an ending that builds and build, crashes and then sublime quiet and still so you don't breathe and your heart stops for a moment. When Isolde sings the last few lines it is like an out of body experience.
> 
> I love the Deborah Polaski version of this on DVD filmed at the Liceu in Barcelona where she goes to the window at the end and just stares into space. Gorgeous and simple and very moving.
> 
> On cd I have struggled to find a definitive version. The first version I bought was deborah Voigt in a live recording with Thomas Moser. Both fairly weak voices but I was young and attracted to the box cover!


Furtwangler, Barenboim, Kleiber, Bohm, Karajan have great recordings.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Is there any DVD out there that has Isolde holding Tristan in her arms as she dies as Wagner intended?

The ones I've seen are awful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Is there any DVD out there that has Isolde holding Tristan in her arms as she dies as Wagner intended?
> 
> The ones I've seen are awful.


I would doubt that there is. It became fashionable at some point to have Isolde "transfigure" in such a way as to leave us in doubt as to what has happened to her, indeed as to whether she even dies. It is just one of many de-Wagnerizations of Wagner we have had to learn to tolerate.

Wagner is sometimes accused of creating characters who are not fully "human," but he would have been shocked at such an accusation. Frequently we encounter in his writings the phrase "the fully human." He never intended or even imagined, in making his dramatic figures "larger than life," that they should not in every way act as real people would act.

Isolde dies. She dies for love, yes - just as did Iseult, her medieval prototype - and in her love she holds her lover's body as she dies, and sinks down upon it at last. And what does Wagner tell us happens then? The kindly Marke, who has come too late to offer forgiveness to the pair and bless their union, raises his hands in blessing over them. When have we ever seen that? When will we ever see Wagner's deeply, heartbreakingly human understanding and sympathy for the human beings he created and loved brought before us in the theater?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

_Having recently contributed the following to the thread "The Greatest Opera Ever Written," I think I'll import it to this one in case there's anything in it of interest to anyone here._

Whether it's actually the greatest opera - with respect to everything that the complex art of opera can be - _Tristan_ is, I think, the greatest single achievement in the entire history of music. There may be more perfect operas; but certain rare achievements in art are so immense, so stunning and awe-inspiring, as to make mere perfection seem irrelevant. I think immediately of Shakespeare and _King Lear_, of the late quartets of Beethoven, and of Wagner's _Tristan__ und Isolde._

For its unimaginable expansion of the possibilities of the language of Western music, for its daring plunge deep into aspects of human experience no musical work had ever explored before, for its sheer intensity and visceral impact, this is the work above all others that, no matter how long and well we've known it - and perhaps all the more the better we know it - leaves us feeling that it could not possibly exist, that no human being could ever have dreamed of such a thing.

So much of what has happened since 1859, in music and even beyond music, has been what it is because of this singular work. Wagner may have equalled or surpassed it in one respect or another in subsequent works - the broad humanity of _Meistersinger,_ the spiritual profundity of _Parsifal_ - but when all is said and done it is _Tristan_ which confronts us with an unaccountable eruption of genius without any parallel, which like a volcanic eruption changed the landscape of Western culture forever, for better or for worse.

_Tristan_ went beyond anything even Wagner himself suspected opera, even music itself, could be. It astonished him even as he wrote it. If we have any idea of what we're hearing, it can hardly astonish us less.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Isolde dies. She [Isolde] dies for love, yes - just as did Iseult, her medieval prototype - and in her love she holds her lover's body as she dies, and sinks down upon it at last.


Uh-oh. Here comes another quibble - well, a bit more than a quibble, actually, as it contradicts directly your above. It's an article I wrote for S&F in 2004 titled "Isolde's _Liebestod_ - Or Is It?" which article asks the question:

=== Begin Quote ===
At music-drama's close, should we take it that Isolde is dead or not? To ninety-nine percent of those who know this work, even to those who consider they know it well, the question would seem absurd. Of course she's dead!, would be the astonished response. Isn't her closing apostrophe called the _Liebestod_?
=== End Quote ===

and answers it all in the negative.

The article is way too long to republish here but for those interested can be read at URL http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2004/08/isoldes_iliebes.html.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Ack!!! Silly me. I searched Amazon under "Tristan und Isolde Karajan 1952" and all I got were some questionable and high-priced OOP recordings. Broadening the search to "Tristan und Isolde Karajan" you find several releases as well as a 1959 La Scala recording with Karajan:










Another recording added to the "wish list".

Perhaps I can convince the wife that I bought it for her for Valentines Day. :devil:


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Whether it's actually the greatest opera - with respect to everything that the complex art of opera can be - _Tristan_ is, I think, the greatest single achievement in the entire history of music.


No quibbles with this at all, *Woodduck* (aren't you thrilled?). None whatsoever. My thoughts exactly.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> Uh-oh. Here comes another quibble - well, a bit more than a quibble, actually, as it contradicts directly your above. It's an article I wrote for S&F in 2004 titled "Isolde's _Liebestod_ - Or Is It?" which article asks the question:
> 
> === Begin Quote ===
> At music-drama's close, should we take it that Isolde is dead or not? To ninety-nine percent of those who know this work, even to those who consider they know it well, the question would seem absurd. Of course she's dead!, would be the astonished response. Isn't her closing apostrophe called the _Liebestod_?
> ...


I've read your article, It strikes me as an extended rationalization, a theory in search of evidence. You argue that "death" and "transfiguration" are somehow incompatible. But on the level of unconscious mythic symbolism, death can mean transformation. And even on a more literal level, if Isolde can die for love she can experience transfiguration before the moment of literal death. There's no incompatibility here. Marke blessing a dead Tristan and a still-breathing Isolde is poetically absurd. Tristan and Isolde sought the impossible in life - the "death"of the day world and a perfect union of their souls in the land of "night." Reality, however, has the last word - or rather, the last gesture, as the inhabitants of the day world stand about, transfixed by Isolde's vision of union with Tristan, and Marke punctuates the end with a solemn farewell to all the pain of people who were caught up in lives that were unbearable to them. "Union" was an illusion; the only union possible was death, and now the lovers have achieved it. Whatever else this story is - whatever the exultation along the way, whatever the "transfiguration" at the end - it is still a very human tragedy.

It was with _Tristan_ that Wagner's youthful dream of "redemption by love" was revealed to be the phantom that it must ever be. The fate of Tristan and Isolde signaled the advent of a new realism in Wagner's outlook on life, a realism which compelled him to alter the course of his magnum opus, the _Ring_; there love brings disaster, and with the destruction of the world Wagner tells us that redemption must be looked for beyond the realm of passion and desire. Enter Parsifal.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ack!!! Silly me. I searched Amazon under "Tristan und Isolde Karajan 1952" and all I got were some questionable and high-priced OOP recordings. Broadening the search to "Tristan und Isolde Karajan" you find several releases as well as a 1959 La Scala recording with Karajan:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tristan and Isolde - a Valentine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This may be the funniest thing I've ever read on TC.

:clap:


----------



## kineno (Jan 24, 2015)

I believe that Wagner never called the conclusion of the work "Liebestod", but "Verklärung" (Transfiguration). it might have been Mottl that first applied the more familiar term.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I've read your article, It strikes me as an extended rationalization, a theory in search of evidence. You argue that "death" and "transfiguration" are somehow incompatible. But on the level of unconscious mythic symbolism, death can mean transformation. And even on a more literal level, if Isolde can die for love she can experience transfiguration before the moment of literal death. There's no incompatibility here. Marke blessing a dead Tristan and a still-breathing Isolde is poetically absurd.


Not "incompatible" but two different states. When Isolde undergoes her Verklärung her bodily self, now an empty shell, doesn't disappear but simply appears to any and all onlookers to be merely ordinarily dead. My argument is that her death is nothing of the sort, but appearance like all other appearances of Day is false and merely makes it seem so.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> Not "incompatible" but two different states. When Isolde undergoes her Verklärung her bodily self, now an empty shell, doesn't disappear but simply appears to any and all onlookers to be merely ordinarily dead. My argument is that her death is nothing of the sort, but appearance like all other appearances of Day is false and merely makes it seem so.
> 
> --
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/


I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me. Isolde in the end is simply dead or alive. In either case "transfiguration" is something only she experiences; the others can't comprehend her visions. There is nothing in Wagner's stage directions to indicate that she is still living; _Marke segnet die Leichen_ - "Mark blesses the corpses," plural.

My question is: what purpose is served by having her live on? None that I can see. What would she do next? Go home and fix Mark some venison and mead? Or be confined to a turret as insane and fed bread and water through a cat door? Her death makes every kind of sense, philosophically and poetically. In Wagner spiritual states are represented by physical states; when someone dies, something - some principle, some stage in the evolution or consciousness of humanity - is left behind. In his mythic world, nothing less than death will do. Senta doesn't swim to shore; Elisabeth doesn't join a convent; Elsa doesn't moon over lost love; Kundry doesn't become Mary Magdalene to Parsifal's Jesus. If we strip Isolde of her death we render Tristan's death merely pathetic and absurd, not a "tranfiguration" for Isolde but a terrible grief to be carried for the rest of her days. The "union" the pair longed for must, in poetic justice and in mercy, be consummated, but in the only way it can be. To leave a mentally deranged Isolde to cope with the "day world" is to leave the whole story nothing but a daydream turned nightmare, a cruel, superficial irony rather than a tragic one.

After all that the man and the woman have been through, let them rest in peace, "she by him and he by her."


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Itullian said:


> Is there any DVD out there that has Isolde holding Tristan in her arms as she dies as Wagner intended?
> The ones I've seen are awful.


You may not like this video of "love death" but I find so visually compelling and abstractly captures the songs essence.

Notice the human carnage all around the room that resulted from this ill fated love, then sharply contrasted by the slowly rising expanded consciousness and enlightened vision of pure love fully consummated outside this mortal world, waves of music wash over her, as the intensity grows the camera tightens in till the growing golden pure light consumes our heroine as she fully surrenders to its irresistible pull......glorious visual!

No one can capture the beautiful otherworldly rapture and spiritual release like Waltraud Meier.........


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me. Isolde in the end is simply dead or alive. In either case "transfiguration" is something only she experiences; the others can't comprehend her visions. There is nothing in Wagner's stage directions to indicate that she is still living; _Marke segnet die Leichen_ - "Mark blesses the corpses," plural.
> 
> My question is: what purpose is served by having her live on? None that I can see. What would she do next? Go home and fix Mark some venison and mead? Or be confined to a turret as insane and fed bread and water through a cat door? Her death makes every kind of sense, philosophically and poetically. In Wagner spiritual states are represented by physical states; when someone dies, something - some principle, some stage in the evolution or consciousness of humanity - is left behind. In his mythic world, nothing less than death will do. Senta doesn't swim to shore; Elisabeth doesn't join a convent; Elsa doesn't moon over lost love; Kundry doesn't become Mary Magdalene to Parsifal's Jesus. If we strip Isolde of her death we render Tristan's death merely pathetic and absurd, not a "tranfiguration" for Isolde but a terrible grief to be carried for the rest of her days. The "union" the pair longed for must, in poetic justice and in mercy, be consummated, but in the only way it can be. To leave a mentally deranged Isolde to cope with the "day world" is to leave the whole story nothing but a daydream turned nightmare, a cruel, superficial irony rather than a tragic one.
> 
> After all that the man and the woman have been through, let them rest in peace, "she by him and he by her."


If there is a real tragedy in _Tristan und Isolde_ it is that Tristan's death really IS "pathetic" by itself, a misunderstanding by him - he who ironically was Isolde's "teacher" in this whole business as I point out in my S&F article - about death and its nature in the eternal union of two lovers. As always with Wagner, it is Isolde, the female, who finally understands everything and understands just what death in this context actually means, and it is she who makes the eternal union with her Tristan possible for them both by her Verklärung and by so doing lifts the music-drama above the level of mere tragedy and into the realm of the radiantly transcendent.

As to W's stage directions, there may be no direct statement that Isolde is still living, but, then, there's none that directly indicate she's ordinarily dead either. Hence, the ambiguity I note in my article.

Oh, and as to those "Leichen" Marke blesses, there are some half-dozen or so of them scattered about the scene here and there.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DarkAngel said:


> You may not like this video of "love death" but I find so visually compelling and abstractly captures the songs essence.
> 
> Notice the human carnage all around the room that resulted from this ill fated love, then sharply contrasted by the slowly rising expanded consciousness and enlightened vision of pure love fully consummated outside this mortal world, waves of music wash over her, as the intensity grows the camera tightens in till the growing golden pure light consumes our heroine as she fully surrenders to its irresistible pull......glorious visual!
> 
> No one can capture the beautiful otherworldly rapture and spiritual release like Waltraud Meier.........


Thank you DA. Really appreciate the post.
I generally don't care for filmed productions.
I like videos of live performances and a live audience. Just seems more exciting and real to me.

You're right. I don't care for that production. Don't like the condemned building looking set.
And hated the love music set. And wasn't crazy about the yellow square. 
The singing however was wonderful.

I kinda liked the Ponnelle/Barenboim sets, but the ending is a mess.

I want a live, tasteful, true to RW's performance. Too much to ask for today I guess.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> If there is a real tragedy in _Tristan und Isolde_ it is that Tristan's death really IS "pathetic" by itself, a misunderstanding by him - he who ironically was Isolde's "teacher" in this whole business as I point out in my S&F article - about death and its nature in the eternal union of two lovers. As always with Wagner, it is Isolde, the female, who finally understands everything and understands just what death in this context actually means, and it is she who makes the eternal union with her Tristan possible for them both by her Verklärung and by so doing lifts the music-drama above the level of mere tragedy and into the realm of the radiantly transcendent.
> 
> As to W's stage directions, there may be no direct statement that Isolde is still living, but, then, there's none that directly indicate she's ordinarily dead either. Hence, the ambiguity I note in my article.
> 
> ...


No, AC! No, no, no, no, no! And did I say "no"? 

1. A "pathetic misunderstanding" is not a tragedy.

2. There is no indication that Isolde "understands" _anything_. Her last words before her vision of his transfiguration are to chide Tristan for dying without her. That leaves only her dying song to express an "understanding" of the situation, which it plainly does not. It is in fact quite meaningless except as a poetic verbalization of her hallucinations.

3. How often in Wagner does the woman "understand" everything? Senta? Elisabeth? Elsa? Eva? Kundry? Only Brunnhilde, to some extent - but even about her you admit that her eulogy of siegfried as a "hero" rings false. And does she ever really understand that "love" does not bring "redemption"?

4. Isolde does not make "the eternal union with her Tristan possible for them," with her _Verklaerung_ or with anything else. _Nothing_ can make it possible, because there is no such thing as eternal union. That is the point. Union was a dream they shared, as so many lovers share it, only to learn how unreal it is. Death together is their only possible "union."

5. Tragedy is not "mere." And this tragedy is the death, not of two people only, but of the notion that the realm of the "radiantly transcendent" you speak of can be reached through passion. This is the lesson Wagner took from Schopenhauer and quite consciously embodied here. All his operas, beginning with this one, expose or renounce that fantasy. _Tristan_, as I've said, was Wagner's final, exhaustive tribute to the ideals and longings of his youth, now viewed as sweet illusions. He wanted it to drain passion dry, to be a monument to the thing he now knew could never be attained. It's insight that brings dignity to suffering, and which raises mere pathos to tragedy. The insight is not Isolde's, but Wagner's.

6. Wagner's directions are unambiguous: "Mark blesses the corpses." To suggest, as you do, that he was referring to various now irrelevant dead bodies scattered around the stage is, as you know perfectly well, ludicrous. Wagner never committed an aesthetic crime like that.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> No, no, no, no, no, no.
> 
> 1. A "pathetic misunderstanding" is not a tragedy.
> 
> ...


No, no, no, no, no, no!

To respond in numbered order:

1: I didn't write "pathetic misunderstanding". I wrote that Tristan's ordinary death by his own doing made his death pathetic and in itself tragic as it was a result of his misunderstanding of the nature of death in the matter of a lover's eternal union with his or her beloved, as the case may be.

2: Forget the words. LISTEN TO THE MUSIC!

3: Yes, all of them but especially Brünnhilde. B was NOT looking to redeem anything but ultimately understood that the ring had to be returned to the Rhine in order to make everything right again and in the _Ring_ that's understanding everything.

4: Of course eternal union exists and is possible for lovers in Wagner's universe(s). If you don't grasp that, then you don't grasp the essence of the Wagnerian mythological ethos, Schopenhauer or no Schopenhauer.

5: You are of course free to imagine anything you wish, but in NO WAY is _Tristan_ "Wagner's final, exhaustive tribute to the ideals and longings of his youth, now viewed as sweet illusions." _Tristan_ is W's affirmation that although those "ideals and longings of his youth" were (and probably still are) denied him realization personally they are nevertheless real, achievable possibilities. Ergo, _Tristan und Isolde_.

6: Nothing "ludicrous" about it. It is, I'm fairly certain, just what W intended to be understood by that stage direction, ambiguous as it is.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Sorry folks, as much as Tristan is beautiful, my favorite opera is still Parsifal. For me, Tristan is a stepping stone towards that ultimate summation.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> Sorry folks, as much as Tristan is beautiful, my favorite opera is still Parsifal. For me, Tristan is a stepping stone towards that ultimate summation.


That's possible.............


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> No, no, no, no, no, no!
> 
> To respond in numbered order:
> 
> ...


I am very surprised that anyone who has studied the life of Wagner, his intellectual development, the revolutionary influence of Schopenhauer on his worldview, his own constant testimony to it, the profound alteration in the meaning of his own _Ring_ cycle after _Tristan_, and the renunciation, embodied explicitly in every one of his works after Siegfried, of precisely the notion of the redeeming power of erotic love, could actually believe in the reality of any sort of mystical union of Tristan and Isolde outside of Isolde's imaginings.

_Tristan_ represented the transitional moment in Wagner's thinking and work. It is simultaneously a celebration of eros - which the young Wagner regarded as a redemptive force for the individual and society - and a renunciation of it in the post-Schopenhauer recognition of sexual passion as the quintessential representation of the ever-striving and never-satisfied "will" which must be overcome (and is, in _Parsifal_). The ultimate mythic symbol for the extinction of the "will" is death - total oblivion. And this is the union - the only union - which Tristan and Isolde attain. For Tristan and Isolde actually to be shown to achieve some kind of fabulous "mystic union" - as opposed to such occurring only in the mind of Isolde - the pair would at least have to be shown to die together. But Wagner renounces, specifically denies them and us, that symbolism: Tristan dies without Isolde, and she, devastated, goes off into a mental world of her own. In no way can this disastrous irony be read as a mystic union. Do you actually suppose the dead Tristan is waiting in some sort of celestial vestibule for Isolde to catch up with him? (And, btw, I _have_ listened to the music. A million times. It nowhere says that Isolde has attained "understanding." In which bar and modulation is that message contained?)

To quote you, "you are of course free to imagine anything you wish." If you must have a "happily ever after" view of the story, you must need to have it for some reason I haven't yet seen an argument for. But your last point, I fear, remains beyond any credibility. The whole idea of Marke "blessing" - by what procedure, exactly? Leaving the lovers and running about sprinkling holy water? - a bunch of bodies scattered all over the stage, upstage and down, half of whom are of no dramatic interest when all our focus is properly on the lovers, is utterly risible as a dramatic idea or a bit of stagecraft. At this final moment I'd just echo your advice to listen to the music, and decide where our undivided attention belongs.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> Sorry folks, as much as Tristan is beautiful, my favorite opera is still Parsifal. For me, Tristan is a stepping stone towards that ultimate summation.


It's my favorite as well. Parsifal thread, anyone?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It's my favorite as well. Parsifal thread, anyone?


Why not?..............


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Before making response to your last, *Woodduck*, let me first correct the omission of a crucial word in my own last post (which I've just corrected).

I wrote: "_Tristan_ is W's affirmation that although those "ideals and longings of his youth" were (and probably still are) denied him personally they are nevertheless real, achievable possibilities." That should have read (the omitted word here in all caps): "_Tristan_ is W's affirmation that although those "ideals and longings of his youth" were (and probably still are) denied him REALIZATION personally they are nevertheless real, achievable possibilities."

Now, on to my response to your last.



Woodduck said:


> I am very surprised that anyone who has studied the life of Wagner, his intellectual development, the revolutionary influence of Schopenhauer on his worldview, his own constant testimony to it, the profound alteration in the meaning of his own _Ring_ cycle after _Tristan_, and the renunciation, embodied explicitly in every one of his works after Siegfried, of precisely the notion of the redeeming power of erotic love, could actually believe in the reality of any sort of mystical union of Tristan and Isolde outside of Isolde's imaginings.


Do you imagine it was W's intention to end this music-drama tragically by turning Isolde into a grief-stricken, hallucinating madwoman who expires on the spot falling finally dead upon the breast of her already dead-by-his-own-doing lover Tristan? That's what you seem to be saying here. But if that was truly W's intent he wrote some inexplicably malapropos music to express that and gave the episode an inexplicably malapropos designation (viz., a Verklärung). To quote myself (from my linked SF piece):

=== Begin Quote ===
Well, if dead-dead [that is, ordinarily dead] for them both [i.e., Tristan and Isolde] is what Wagner had wanted, it could certainly have been a valid ending to this music-drama - were it not for the music, that is. Had Wagner envisaged dead-dead for his two lovers, then he would not - could not - have written the music he did for the music-drama's close; music ending, as it does, with that sublime [long-awaited] resolution in the orchestra.... Dead-dead for both lovers would have made for a pathetically tragic close to the music-drama and there's nothing of the pathetically tragic in the closing music of _Tristan und Isolde_.
=== End Quote ===



Woodduck said:


> _Tristan_ represented the transitional moment in Wagner's thinking and work. It is simultaneously a celebration of eros - which the young Wagner regarded as a redemptive force for the individual and society - and a renunciation of it in the post-Schopenhauer recognition of sexual passion as the quintessential representation of the ever-striving and never-satisfied "will" which must be overcome (and is, in _Parsifal_). The ultimate mythic symbol for the extinction of the "will" is death - total oblivion. And this is the union - the only union - which Tristan and Isolde attain.


That's correct. Total oblivion in the desire- and delusion-ridden realm of Day, and eternal union in the desire- and delusion-free realm of Night, to use W's symbols for those two realms. To quote once again from my linked S&F piece:

=== Begin Quote ===
Isolde, however, in keeping with Wagner's career-long way with his heroines, does finally understand, but comes to that understanding only at drama's close when confronted with the dead Tristan (it's not for nothing that Wagner takes the music for the Verklärung from the music of the [Act II] Liebesnacht almost note for note). And what Isolde comes to understand in a moment of radiant clarity is that ordinary death is not the way to that transcendent realm of Night free of desire and delusion, but rather, to use the apposite Schopenhauerian construction, that a surrender of the Will to life (the abode of which Will is, of course, the deceiving realm of Day) is the only transport to that transcendent realm wherein she and Tristan will become one with the World Soul,

far from the sun,
far from the day's
lamentations....
[...]
enfolded in sweet darkness.
Without separating,
without parting,
dearly alone,
ever at one,
in unbounded space....
[...]
No more Tristan!
[...]
No more Isolde!
[...]
No names,
no parting;
[...]
ever, unendingly,
one consciousness....

And so Wagner has Isolde _sinkt, wie verklärt_ [sink as if transfigured] in a state of _höchste Lust_ [supreme bliss] in that surrender rather than merely _sinkt_ [sink] or _sinkt entseelt_ [sink lifeless] as would be his typical direction at such a point, and then gives to the orchestra - and the drama - that sublime resolution at music-drama's close because with Isolde's transfiguration she becomes, as declared in the mystical metaphysics of the Liebesnacht, "one consciousness," both Tristan and Isolde, which could in no way have been the case had Isolde herself ended up ordinarily dead to "join" the already ordinarily dead Tristan.
=== End Quote ===



Woodduck said:


> [Y]our last point, I fear, remains beyond any credibility. The whole idea of Marke "blessing" - by what procedure, exactly? Leaving the lovers and running about sprinkling holy water? - a bunch of bodies scattered all over the stage, upstage and down, half of whom are of no dramatic interest when all our focus is properly on the lovers, is utterly risible as a dramatic idea or a bit of stagecraft.


Don't be absurd. Engage your theatrical imagination, please, (which I assume you possess in at least a rudimentary degree). Marke merely has to stand close to the collapsed but entwined bodies of Isolde and Tristan and with his hand or hands make some sort of silent sign of blessing and then, merely turning while standing in the same spot, face the rest of the fallen bodies scattered about the stage and make the same silent sign.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

My two cents:

In Wagner's opera, Tristan and Isolde both die. (Point to Woodduck)

People don't attain mystical union in death. They're just dead. (Point to Woodduck)

Wagner thought otherwise, at least within the fictional world of his opera. (Point to AC Douglas)

Wagner's closing music evokes ecstatic transcendence, not pathetic tragedy. (Point to AC Douglas)

Marke blesses the corpses of Tristan and Isolde, not some random bodies strewn around him. (Point to Woodduck)


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

amfortas said:


> My two cents:
> 
> Marke blesses the corpses of Tristan and Isolde, not some random bodies strewn around him. (Point to Woodduck)


But it's Marke himself who _explicitly_ calls attention to those "random bodies strewn around him," ("All are dead then? All dead!").

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

AC Douglas said:


> But it's Marke himself who _explicitly_ calls attention to those "random bodies strewn around him," ("All are dead then? All dead!").
> 
> --
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/


And then he addresses some nine verse lines to Tristan specifically, trying to awaken his "faithless, faithful friend" from death. Shortly thereafter, he directs an additional fourteen lines to Isolde, announcing his belated understanding of the true circumstances and his intention to unite the two lovers. And *then* he witnesses Isolde's final rapturous Verklärung.

After all that, I'm not inclined to believe his thoughts are much taken with anything beyond the two lovers.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

amfortas said:


> And then he addresses some nine verse lines to Tristan specifically, trying to awaken his "faithless, faithful friend" from death. Shortly thereafter, he directs an additional fourteen lines to Isolde, announcing his belated understanding of the true circumstances and his intention to unite the two lovers. And *then* he witnesses Isolde's final rapturous Verklärung.
> 
> After all that, I'm not inclined to believe his thoughts are much taken with anything beyond the two lovers.


Like all personal responses to whatever, there's no gainsaying another's feelings. I, on the other hand, am inclined to believe that, like a good king which Marke unquestionably is, he would also have his newly dead countrymen in his thoughts as well.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

AC Douglas said:


> Like all personal responses to whatever, there's no gainsaying another's feelings. I, on the other hand, am inclined to believe that, like a good king which Marke unquestionably is, he would also have his newly dead countrymen in his thoughts as well.


It's a bit of a moot point, since such an understanding of Wagner's plural "die Leichen" only becomes necessary if you believe Isolde herself is not dead. *That's* the main argument of your blog post, and the real issue to address.

Not to be too literal about it, but if Isolde is not "ordinarily dead" at the end of the opera, but rather has achieved a Schopenhauerian "surrender of the Will to life" leading her to a "transcendent realm wherein she and Tristan will become one with the World Soul," this raises at least two questions:

1) How is such a union possible, when you acknowledge that Tristan *is* "ordinarily dead"? Wouldn't *both* lovers have to achieve such a transcendent state in order to be ultimately united? I know you maintain that, by the end, Isolde all by herself has become "'one consciousness," "both Tristan and Isolde," but this sounds more delusionally solipsistic than sublimely transcendent.

2) In even more practical terms, what does such a state of "surrendering of the Will to life" *mean*? If Isolde is not dead, what sort of fate would you envision for her after the events of the opera? How, in any real sense, does she *maintain* such a transcendent state while still in the midst of the harsh daylight world? Of course, you may maintain that such speculation takes us outside the permissible bounds of the text. Nonetheless, it's hard not to be puzzled on that point given the scenario you present.


----------



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

albertfallickwang said:


> Sorry folks, as much as Tristan is beautiful, my favorite opera is still Parsifal. For me, Tristan is a stepping stone towards that ultimate summation.


Parsifal would be a _very_ close second for me


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

As I posted in the other thread, my absolute favorite Tristans on CD are by Bohm and Bernstein - both the fastest and slowest on record. Modern-day Isolde for me is Waltraud Meier, but not in the La Scala production... the bleeding is awful... just to make sure you know what's going on... because modern-day opera goers are so clueless.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Azol said:


> As I posted in the other thread, my absolute favorite Tristans on CD are by Bohm and Bernstein - both the fastest and slowest on record. Modern-day Isolde for me is Waltraud Meier, but not in the La Scala production... the bleeding is awful... just to make sure you know what's going on... because modern-day opera goers are so clueless.


I went to see live that production and I found it awesome... Maybe I'm clueless...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Itullian said:


> Is there any DVD out there that has Isolde holding Tristan in her arms as she dies as Wagner intended?
> 
> The ones I've seen are awful.


Isolde dies properly in the Kollo/Jones/Friedrich DVD, collapsing upon Tristan's dead body at the end.

Of course it is not clear whether this is due to the inextricable bond of love between them, or simply old age (Gwyneth Jones well past her prime here).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Isolde dies properly in the Kollo/Jones/Friedrich DVD, collapsing upon Tristan's dead body at the end.
> 
> Of course it is not clear whether this is due to the inextricable bond of love between them, or simply old age (Gwyneth Jones well past her prime here).


As at least two conductorsx have died while conducting it, it's no wonder Isolde dies while singng it!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Not to be too literal about it, but if Isolde is not "ordinarily dead" at the end of the opera, but rather has achieved a Schopenhauerian "surrender of the Will to life" leading her to a "transcendent realm wherein she and Tristan will become one with the World Soul"... what sort of fate would you envision for her after the events of the opera? How, in any real sense, does she *maintain* such a transcendent state while still in the midst of the harsh daylight world?


Cornish winters are long and gloomy. Medieval castles are cold and drafty. There isn't much to do. Isolde and Mark would have plenty of time to sit by the fire, quaff honeyed mead, share happy memories, and read Schopenhauer. Or at least Alan Watts.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

GioCar said:


> I went to see live that production and I found it awesome... Maybe I'm clueless...


Okay, I understood there was an ironical smilie missing from my post, sorry 
Just can't understand the desire to "enhance" the plot adding these "details". Looks more like a horror movie snippet.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I'd like some help with this....I have a really hard time with most Wagnerian singing. Thats what trips me up time and time again. I feel in the first act that I'm just hearing a bunch of angry people. I'm not hearing music. And yes, I understand the drama, I understand why Isolde would be angry. But I just can't sit through it. 

So help me. Furtwangler (I know I know it's the best) did not work for me. What recording has perhaps a smoother experience than the sharpness of Wagnerian talk-singing, if any? Or should I just skip act one and at least try later acts? I've done it with Furtwangler and liked it a bit better t still couldn't just enjoy it.

Help! I considered Bohm, I've also considered Placido Domingo's version. Any suggestions to help this one click for me?


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

amfortas said:


> Not to be too literal about it, but if Isolde is not "ordinarily dead" at the end of the opera, but rather has achieved a Schopenhauerian "surrender of the Will to life" leading her to a "transcendent realm wherein she and Tristan will become one with the World Soul," this raises at least two questions:
> 
> 1) How is such a union possible, when you acknowledge that Tristan *is* "ordinarily dead"? Wouldn't *both* lovers have to achieve such a transcendent state in order to be ultimately united? I know you maintain that, by the end, Isolde all by herself has become "'one consciousness," "both Tristan and Isolde," but this sounds more delusionally solipsistic than sublimely transcendent.
> 
> 2) In even more practical terms, what does such a state of "surrendering of the Will to life" *mean*? If Isolde is not dead, what sort of fate would you envision for her after the events of the opera? How, in any real sense, does she *maintain* such a transcendent state while still in the midst of the harsh daylight world? Of course, you may maintain that such speculation takes us outside the permissible bounds of the text. Nonetheless, it's hard not to be puzzled on that point given the scenario you present.


You say "Not to be too literal about it" and then go all clinical on me. That simply will not do. This is Wagner cum Schopenhauer, not _Grey's Anatomy_.

Isolde undergoes a Verklärung the nature of which permits her to all by herself become one consciousness, both Tristan and Isolde residing in the realm of Night. The music tells us that. What happens in the realm of Day thereafter is not our (or Wagner's) concern. Alice doesn't live there anymore.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Sonata said:


> I'd like some help with this....I have a really hard time with most Wagnerian singing. Thats what trips me up time and time again. I feel in the first act that I'm just hearing a bunch of angry people. I'm not hearing music. And yes, I understand the drama, I understand why Isolde would be angry. But I just can't sit through it.
> 
> So help me. Furtwangler (I know I know it's the best) did not work for me. What recording has perhaps a smoother experience than the sharpness of Wagnerian talk-singing, if any? Or should I just skip act one and at least try later acts? I've done it with Furtwangler and liked it a bit better t still couldn't just enjoy it.
> 
> Help! I considered Bohm, I've also considered Placido Domingo's version. Any suggestions to help this one click for me?


I would say the Domingo or the Kleiber are more on the lyrical side and are fairly inexpensive.
And I like them because each act is complete on each disc.
I think to start with Act 2 would be good. It has the amazing love music.

Tristan suspends time.
Lay down, turn down the lights, know the plot. and just let it flow.
It takes a little perseverance. But if it clicks, its wonderful.

I know the plot so just occasionally check the words.
I still mostly listen to one act per sitting
It's serious stuff but beautiful.
It took me awhile to like too. 
Then one day..........click. 

Very open of you to keep trying.
Good luck!!!!! :tiphat:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I have two recordings on loan from the library. Furtwangler, and Bohm. Neither has great sonics, as they are very old. I don't love this music, but I don't hate it, either. Will try to get through each performance before I have to return them. But so far I prefer the Furtwangler.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Gotta love Fry in this clip.

I love this clip


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

AC Douglas said:


> You say "Not to be too literal about it" and then go all clinical on me. That simply will not do. This is Wagner cum Schopenhauer, not _Grey's Anatomy_.
> 
> Isolde undergoes a Verklärung the nature of which permits her to all by herself become one consciousness, both Tristan and Isolde residing in the realm of Night. The music tells us that. What happens in the realm of Day thereafter is not our (or Wagner's) concern. Alice doesn't live there anymore.


So the answer is . . . there's no answer. It's an unfathomable mystery, and we shouldn't question it. "Never shall you ask me, nor trouble yourself to know . . ."

I suppose, then, one will be satisfied with that response to the extent one is satisfied with that response.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I like.............


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> You say "Not to be too literal about it" but then go all clinical on me. That simply will not do. This is Wagner cum Schopenhauer, not _Grey's Anatomy_.
> 
> Isolde undergoes a Verklärung the nature of which permits her to all by herself become one consciousness, both Tristan and Isolde residing in the realm of Night. The music tells us that. What happens in the realm of Day thereafter is not our (or Wagner's) concern. Alice doesn't live there anymore.
> 
> ...


The meanings of "death" and "transfiguration" are anything but clear in your explanations.

Tristan has died in a suicidal frenzy, without benefit of any "transfiguration." So he can't have gone to any "realm of Night," unless the realm of Night is simply oblivion (which is in fact the way he describes it to Kurwenal - _Urvergessen_, complete forgetting). But sheer oblivion would just be ordinary death, in which case Isolde's only way of "uniting" with him would be to die as well. If Isolde does not die, how is it that she becomes "one consciousness" with Tristan who, being stone cold dead, has no consciousness to become "one" with? You could posit that death is not "complete forgetting", and that Tristan has somehow, despite his physical death, retained some sort of consciousness capable of uniting with Isolde's. But then why not have Isolde too die, and follow Tristan's path into the realm of Night? The metaphysics of this are certainly unclear, and having Isolde remain alive seems inconsistent with any explanation.

If Isolde remains alive, she - the human being in the world - is going to have to get on with a life of some sort. You can call the matter "clinical" and say that it's none of "our" concern, but I'm not buying the idea that Wagner would leave a character hanging in such a metaphysical and existential limbo. Wagner's other "eternal femine" figures, from Senta to Kundry, all clearly die. The symbolism is consistent in his work: death is the form "transfiguration" takes in Wagner. Why should Isolde be the exception?

Fundamentally, I think it's a mistake to regard _Tristan und Isolde_ as a myth or fairy tale in which magical and otherwise inexplicable things happen. The characters in this opera are human beings - knight, princess, king, vassal, handmaid - and are not even treated as archetypes. _Tristan_ is really a domestic tragedy, but with a metaphysical overlay courtesy of Wagner-cum-Schopenhauer. There are no magical objects or occurrences, not even the so-called love potion, which doesn't cause the lovers' passion but simply occasions their confession of it. Nothing happens in this opera that hasn't happened and doesn't happen in real life, except for the way Tristan and Isolde use Wagner's/Schopenhauer's philosophical concepts to describe their experience to themselves. In such a context the idea of Isolde's "transfiguration" as anything other than a subjective experience is quite gratuitous. Tristan dies in Isolde's arms; beside herself, she imagines Tristan reviving and rising into the sky, she imagines glorious sensations of pleasure, she imagines herself drowning in them and going unconscious in a state of rapture - and then she dies. The words of her dying song say nothing about embracing Tristan or becoming "one consciousness"; her final words are _unbewusst - hoechste Lust!_ - "unconscious - highest bliss!" For her, unconsciousness, with Tristan unconscious beside her, is the highest bliss she could conceive, and certainly the highest her miserable life would allow her to achieve.

Tristan and Isolde could not bear to live apart in the cruel world of Day. Like all lovers, they dreamed of being "one." But knowing that that was impossible in the Day world, they could only identify oneness with death. And so they wanted to die together - to go to the realm of Night where the pain of being separate bodies and souls, forever separated, would be over - _nicht mehr Tristan, nicht mehr Isolde._ They got their wish, but Tristan died before he could know it. Isolde remained to complete the fulfillment of their dream. She died to be with him, and her vision of ecstasy was life's final mercy on her, and its final blessing on their love. There would have been no mercy or blessing in forcing her to live on in the world of Day.

Wagner's music, after Isolde's final words, tells us the exact moment at which Isolde gives up her life: the last sounding of the "Tristan chord," a final reminiscence of the suffering of the lovers, which now resolves into perfect consonance and peace. And to the final deep, serene, organ-like chords in the orchestra, King Mark raises his hand gently over their bodies in benediction as the faithful Brangaene kneels beside them. Surely she is weeping silently.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

What about the solo clarinet passage before the finale chord?

Could that mean they are now one?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Are we talking only music? Bernard Cornwell retells the Tristan and Isolde legend as a historical side plot in his _Warlord Chronicles_. It's a tawdry tale, embarrassing to all concerned and causing much political trouble.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The meanings of "death" and "transfiguration" are anything but clear in your explanations.
> 
> Tristan has died in a suicidal frenzy, without benefit of any "transfiguration." So he can't have gone to any "realm of Night," unless the realm of Night is simply oblivion (which is in fact the way he describes it to Kurwenal - _Urvergessen_, complete forgetting). But sheer oblivion would just be ordinary death, in which case Isolde's only way of "uniting" with him would be to die as well. If Isolde does not die, how is it that she becomes "one consciousness" with Tristan who, being stone cold dead, has no consciousness to become "one" with? You could posit that death is not "complete forgetting", and that Tristan has somehow, despite his physical death, retained some sort of consciousness capable of uniting with Isolde's. But then why not have Isolde too die, and follow Tristan's path into the realm of Night? The metaphysics of this are certainly unclear, and having Isolde remain alive seems inconsistent with any explanation.
> 
> ...


You're perfectly entitled to read the entire business as you above put it, *Woodduck*. I don't mean to be unkind or snarky when I say it would make a logical, rational, and engaging real-world soap opera. Not my thing. Nor Wagner's.

_Pace_.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Itullian said:


> I like.............


This is, to my knowledge, the one and only traditional production on DVD.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> You're perfectly entitled to read the entire business as you above put it. I don't mean to be unkind or snarky when I say it would make a logical, rational, and engaging real-world soap opera. Not my thing. *Nor Wagner's.*
> 
> _Pace_.
> 
> ...


So you're conceding that your arguments can't bear close examination?

Wagner's "thing," by the way, is in his work. Our ideas are our ideas. Two different things. Present your ideas and argue against mine, if you can, but it's presumptuous and unattractive to make ex-cathedra pronouncements as to what Wagner's "thing" is or isn't, and about whether my "thing" (as defined by you) corresponds to it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I like.............


Nothing strange or outrageous. Nothing imaginative or exciting either. Shouldn't they do something with light to express Isolde's mounting ecstasy? You'd think Adolphe Appia had never lived and written _La mise en scéne du théatre Wagnerien._ (Paris, 1891).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Appia


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Nothing strange or outrageous. Nothing imaginative or exciting either. Shouldn't they do something with light to express Isolde's mounting ecstasy? You'd think Adolphe Appia had never lived and written _La mise en scéne du théatre Wagnerien._ (Paris, 1891).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Appia


True, but its better than the others I've seen.............


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Nothing strange or outrageous. Nothing imaginative or exciting either. Shouldn't they do something with light to express Isolde's mounting ecstasy? You'd think Adolphe Appia had never lived and written _La mise en scéne du théatre Wagnerien._ (Paris, 1891).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Appia


The staging is simple, which is one of its strengths. The _Liebesnacht_ of Act II has Tristan and Isolde in embrace staring out at the audience in a void of complete darkness, which is one of the more effective presentations that I have seen.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> The staging is simple, which is one of its strengths. The _Liebesnacht_ of Act II has Tristan and Isolde in embrace staring out at the audience in a void of complete darkness, which is one of the more effective presentations that I have seen.


Does it stay dark the _whole_ time?

It would certainly save the theater money.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Does it stay dark the _whole_ time?
> 
> It would certainly save the theater money.


Yes, it's dark and shadowy. Cool though.
And its all on youtube.

They're past their vocal primes, but its a heartfelt performance
and well conducted.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Does it stay dark the _whole_ time?
> 
> It would certainly save the theater money.


Look, at least they're not eating spaghetti in a subway station in East Berlin. Can't say the same about the Siegfried I saw last August in Bayreuth.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> So you're conceding that your arguments can't bear close examination?
> 
> Wagner's "thing," by the way, is in his work. Our ideas are our ideas. Two different things. Present your ideas and argue against mine, if you can, but it's presumptuous and unattractive to make ex-cathedra pronouncements as to what Wagner's "thing" is or isn't, and about whether my "thing" (as defined by you) corresponds to it.


I've already presented my ideas and arguments in my S&F piece which you seem to have skimmed but not really read, Woodduck. In any event, you attempt to present arguments against what I had to say there which arguments at bottom insist that W's metaphysical logic in _Tristan_ is no different from the soap opera logic of Italian opera. We're not reading from the same book here, Woodduck, much less from the same page, and so arguing at cross-purposes.

You, for instance, seem unable to grasp that Tristan is forever barred from the realm of Night as he's, well, dead, you see. Ordinarily dead. Dead dead. It's all over for him. Finished. Kaput. Dead is dead, as I've said, and that's all there is to it. There's nothing beyond that. Yet you insist that's the path Isolde should follow as well in order to be united with Tristan eternally. But there's no Tristan left to be united with be it for a nanosecond or an eternity and the same would hold true for Isolde should she follow Tristan's path.

I think, Woodduck, if you can grasp and accept that and grasp as well that the realm of Night is NOT another way of referring to ordinary death nor is it an abode for the ordinarily dead you and I will at least both be reading from the same book.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Azol said:


> Okay, I understood there was an ironical smilie missing from my post, sorry
> Just can't understand the desire to "enhance" the plot adding these "details". Looks more like a horror movie snippet.


No problem, Azol 

Re. the La Scala production (Barenboim/Chereau) I'd strongly suggest to read this book









Barenboim, Chereau: Dialoghi su Musica e Teatro - Tristano e Isotta (2008) 
Honestly I don't know if it has been translated in English.

You may also be interested in reading some reviews - here's one from the NYT, there are many others online

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/arts/music/10scal.html?_r=0

Believe me, that production was everything but a horror movie...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> I've already presented my ideas and arguments in my S&F piece which you seem to have skimmed but not really read, Woodduck. In any event, *you attempt to present arguments against what I had to say there which arguments at bottom insist that W's metaphysical logic in Tristan is no different from the soap opera logic of Italian opera.* We're not reading from the same book here, Woodduck, much less from the same page, and so arguing at cross-purposes.
> 
> *You, for instance, seem unable to grasp that Tristan is forever barred from the realm of Night as he's, well, dead, you see. Ordinarily dead. Dead dead. It's all over for him. Finished. Kaput. Dead is dead, as I've said, and that's all there is to it. There's nothing beyond that. Yet you insist that's the path Isolde should follow as well in order to be united with Tristan eternally. *But there's no Tristan left to be united with be it for a nanosecond or an eternity and the same would hold true for Isolde should she follow Tristan's path.
> 
> ...


Here is a passage from a book I am now perusing, _Death devoted Heart:_
_Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's__ Tristan and Isolde_, by Roger Scruton.

 

_"The music that we now know as the Liebestod was first described by
Wagner, when arranging it as the second half of the well-known orchestral
epitome, as Isolde's "Verklärung"-transfiguration. The stage direction
tells us that "Isolde sinkt, wie verklärt, . . . auf Tristans Leiche." And in a
program note Wagner elucidated the music thus:

*'what Fate divided in life now springs into transfigured life in death:
the gates of union are thrown open. Over Tristan's body the dying
Isolde receives the blessed fulfillment of ardent longing, eternal
union in measureless space, without barriers, without fetters, inseparable.'*

The death of Isolde is also a transfiguration and a renewal, and the entire
work of the music is to imprint this fact upon our innermost emo-
tions. Its success is sufficient dramatic proof that love can be fulfilled in
death, when death is chosen, and that this fulfillment is a genuine redemption."_

If the composer has anything to say about the meaning of his work, this should settle the matter.

It has occurred to me, too, that it was Liszt who gave the title "Love-death" to Isolde's dying song - which Wagner had called "Transfiguration," giving the name "Love-death" to the opera's prelude - when he wrote his piano transcription of it. That transcription was published in 1867, not long after _Tristan's_ premiere. Liszt and Wagner were, of course, exceedingly close. I've been unable to find any comment by Wagner on this change of title, but we can be sure that he did comment on it, and since the change was allowed to stand, he obviously did not forbid it. Additionally, the practice of having Isolde remain alive at the conclusion of the opera probably dates back only to the mid-twentieth century; her death was traditionally assumed to be the correct conclusion of the story and, judging from the above facts, that assumption surely dates back all the way to _Tristan's_ earliest performances.

In light of all this - plus all the considerations I've raised in previous posts - I think it's abundantly clear that Wagner intended for Isolde to die, and that death in this opera does in fact represent the "realm of Night" to which Tristan and Isolde have dedicated themselves and which they finally attain. Your view is an interesting one, but in addition to being incoherent and insupportable on evidential grounds it clearly departs from Wagner's own.

That tells me that the fundamental problem of interpreting this work is to grasp the full symbolic meaning of death as the fulfillment of love.

P.S. It would seem that Wagner shares with me the "soap opera logic of Italian opera."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Here is a passage from a book I am now perusing, _Death devoted Heart:_
> _Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's__ Tristan and Isolde_, by Roger Scruton.
> 
>  
> ...


Roger Scruton is a professional philosopher as is Bryan Magee, both of whom wrote books on Wagner. I've read Magee's _The Tristan Chord _although I've never read Scruton's book on Wagner (I just placed an order for it though on Amazon; and I thank Wooduck for mentioning it).

When I was first getting into reading philosophy as a teenager, I always appreciated the fair and balanced exegesis of Scruton when approaching the major philosophers (so unlike, say, Bertrand Russell, who notoriously short shrifts anyone he disagrees with in his _History of Western Philosophy_).

So, all said, Scruton and _Wagner himself_ are pretty weighty arguments in favor of the fact that Isolde actually dies at the end of the opera; that is to say, aside from the logic of the libretto itself.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Roger Scruton is a professional philosopher as is Bryan Magee, both of whom wrote books on Wagner. I've read Magee's _The Tristan Chord _although I've never read Scruton's book on Wagner (I just placed an order for it though on Amazon; and I thank Wooduck for mentioning it).
> 
> When I was first getting into reading philosophy as a teenager, I always appreciated the fair and balanced exegesis of Scruton when approaching the major philosophers (so unlike, say, Bertrand Russell, who notoriously short shrifts anyone he disagrees with in his _History of Western Philosophy_).
> 
> So, all said, Scruton and _Wagner himself_ are pretty weighty arguments in favor of the fact that Isolde actually dies at the end of the opera; that is to say, aside from the logic of the libretto itself.


Does it really matter whether or not she dies in the end? The opera is over anyway as we've run out of words and music! Or as Bugs Bunny said, "What do you expect in opera? A happy ending?"


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I admit this is the last one of Wagner's operas I have come to fully appreciate. After the first listen, the music was gorgeous, but I could not bring myself to sympathize with Isolde. She seemed an immature and a bit hysterical girl who fell in love, of all men, with the one who had murdered her fiance (and it was quite clear she had been drawn to him even before the potion was drunk). Now I know Wagner was telling a story of an impossible love, that should never have happened, but still exists, contrary to all normal human logic (and just how often does love submit to logic?). And that is what the potion stands for - a metaphor for an irresistible and impossible passion, for love overcoming humiliation, shame, hate and all other human considerations. But for the characters it is quite real. 

One of my favorite parts is that moment right after the drinking. The ship comes to port, and the crowd on the shore sings "Hail to the king!", but Tristan and Isolde see nothing and hear nothing but each other. "Marke is coming on his boat!" - "Who is coming?" - "The king!" - "What... king?" Gives me goosebumps every time. And the love duet in Act II is forty minutes of sheer extasy.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

^ I have just reread my previous post and realized just how weak and powerless it is to express all my love for this masterpiece. It is truly addictive, I can listen to it every night for a week in a row. So much beauty within a single opera. If anything may be rightfully called "holy art", it is this one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Does it really matter whether or not she dies in the end? The opera is over anyway as we've run out of words and music! Or as Bugs Bunny said, "What do you expect in opera? A happy ending?"


Oh yes, _supremely_ so!: Two star-crossed lovers who won't let anything stand in their way- come what may- so that they can be together?

What could be more beautiful than that?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ I have just reread my previous post and realized just how weak and powerless it is to express all my love for this masterpiece. It is truly addictive, I can listen to it every night for a week in a row. So much beauty within a single opera. If anything may be rightfully called "holy art", it is this one.


Just be careful, Siegendes. We don't want to lose you forever to "Das Wunderreich der Nacht."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> *Does it really matter whether or not she dies in the end? The opera is over *anyway as we've run out of words and music! Or as Bugs Bunny said, "What do you expect in opera? A happy ending?"


At the very least, the fat lady needs to know whether she's to finish standing up or lying down.

You think I'm joking?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh yes, _supremely_ so!: Two star-crossed lovers who won't let anything stand in their way- come what may- so that they can be together?
> 
> What could be more beautiful than that?




Well, of course, they could have lived happily ever after!


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

DavidA said:


> Well, of course, they could have lived happily ever after!


Ironically, the ending would have been much less satisfying if this had happened. It is the fact that Tristan dies that inspires Isolde's _Liebestod_, the most joyful moment in the opera. Greater darkness gives birth to greater joy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Well, of course, they could have lived happily ever after!


They could have, but then that would take _Tristan und Isolde_ from the realm of real life into the realm of fairy tale. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE fairy tales- its just that what touches me most sublimely is verisimilitude in art- and _Tristan_ is just that.

In the real world, just as this opera shows, just as Shakespeare's _Romeo and Juliette_ shows, and just as, say, Nietzsche's _On the Birth of Tragedy_ and _Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks_ all show- real heroism and real love of others and of life itself is giving it your all- on your own terms- regardless of the consequences that may ensue.

This is why _Tristan_ and_ Romeo and Juliette _touch me in a way that _Swan Lake,_ Hans Christian Anderson, and _Sleeping Beauty_ (gorgeous as they are) never can.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

The greatest love stories must end in death, or separation.

Otherwise, the two lovers would have to live with each other.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)




----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Well, of course, they could have lived happily ever after!


Ever after what?

Of the number of thing that could be said, the least philosophical one is that Tristan and Isolde lived in a world where that was simply not an option. Tristan was his uncle Mark's "man," bound by fealty and family combined. Isolde was a woman in a world where women were property and independence for a female was probably proof of witchcraft. Isolde was claimed by Mark, and his nephew was the agent of acquisition. There could be no happiness - before, during, or after. And we don't even need to bring in Schopenhauer.

At least he got to die in her arms, and she died with a vision of the splendor they were denied in life.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Here is a passage from a book I am now perusing, _Death devoted Heart:_
> _Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's__ Tristan and Isolde_, by Roger Scruton.
> 
>  
> ...


I'm not at all sure why you posted the above, Woodduck. After all, its entirety is common knowledge among Wagnerians among whom you know I number myself, and it's no answer to my S&F piece which attempts to explain the curious fact that in the final authority on all questions relating to this music-drama, the score (music, text, and stage directions), W refuses to declare Isolde dead in the stage directions as he does with all his other heroines in all other such cases in his operas and music-dramas. In your previous attempts to rebut my ideas and arguments in this matter you relied on showing how Isolde not dying would have mundane-world consequences (what I called your "Italian opera soap opera logic") and that's no rebuttal at all as it has no force within the context of the metaphysical logic of W's _Tristan und Isolde_.

I don't know where we go with this from here, Woodduck. We seem to have reached something of a Mexican standoff concerning the matter.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> I'm not at all sure why you posted the above, Woodduck. After all, its entirety is common knowledge among Wagnerians among whom you know I number myself, and it's no answer to my S&F piece which attempts to explain the curious fact that in the final authority on all questions relating to this music-drama, the score (music, text, and stage directions), W refuses to declare Isolde dead in the stage directions as he does with all his other heroines in all other such cases in his operas and music-dramas. In your previous attempts to rebut my ideas and arguments in this matter you relied on showing how Isolde not dying would have real-world consequences (what I called your "Italian opera soap opera logic") and that's no rebuttal at all as it has no force within the context of the metaphysical logic of W's _Tristan und Isolde_.
> 
> I don't know where we go with this from here, Woodduck. We seem to have reached something of a Mexican standoff concerning the matter.
> 
> ...


It is not possible that you are "not at all sure" why I posted the above. Nevertheless, I will play this game with you. I will tell you so that you will be sure and so that anyone else reading this will be sure, even though everyone else who has followed this thread is already sure. As are you.

Please attend to me carefully.

The question was: _Does Isolde die at the end of Tristan und Isolde?_ That is the question we have been addressing for the last few days. If you look back over this thread, you will see that we have been addressing that question.

The answer to that question, according to you, is "no." The answer, according to almost everyone else, is "yes." My answer is "yes." What is the composer's answer? What is Wagner's answer?

Here is what Wagner wrote:

*'what Fate divided in life now springs into transfigured life in death:
the gates of union are thrown open. Over Tristan's body the dying
Isolde receives the blessed fulfillment of ardent longing, eternal
union in measureless space, without barriers, without fetters, inseparable.'
*

Now before I continue, I must ask whether there is anything unclear about that. Are the words "death" and "dying" in any way unclear? No? Good.

You have said that you don't believe what Wagner says here. Instead you make an assumption based on what he _does not say_ in his stage directions. In those directions he describes what looks like Isolde dying, but he does not use the word "die," which he does in his other operas. This omission you take as proof that Isolde does not die. Wagner does say that at the end she "sinks down onto Tristan's body" and that "Marke blesses the corpses." That isn't good enough for you. You require more proof that Isolde is dead. Without more evidence you refuse to believe it.

Well -

I found you the missing evidence! I brought Wagner himself in here, right in here to this forum, to tell you in clear, unambiguous terms that:

.....................................................:trp: ISOLDE DIES!

Do you see now why I posted what I did? I wanted you to know that the question of whether Isolde dies is one that we no longer need to argue about. I wanted to you to hear it _from the_ _composer himself,_ so that you would know that his omission of the word "dies" from his stage directions does not mean that Isolde does not die, and that we can interpret the directions he does give to mean that she does.

Now, if there is anything else you don't understand about this, please tell me. I am a patient man.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Well, there is a version of Tristan and Isolde with a happy ending:









No dead princess, no unhappy prince, no dissatisfied king.
But Wagner it ain't.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> Well, there is a version of Tristan and Isolde with a happy ending:
> 
> View attachment 64040
> 
> ...


Thanks for the laugh, Albert. I really, really needed that! :tiphat:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Note, this isn't an aria, but just another wincer:






Someone please bring me the man with the golden gun.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> They could have, but then that would take _Tristan und Isolde_ from the realm of real life into the realm of fairy tale. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE fairy tales- its just that what touches me most sublimely is verisimilitude in art- and _Tristan_ is just that.
> 
> In the real world, just as this opera shows, just as Shakespeare's _Romeo and Juliette_ shows, and just as, say, Nietzsche's _On the Birth of Tragedy_ and _Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks_ all show- real heroism and real love of others and of life itself is giving it your all- on your own terms- regardless of the consequences that may ensue.
> 
> This is why _Tristan_ and_ Romeo and Juliette _touch me in a way that _Swan Lake,_ Hans Christian Anderson, and _Sleeping Beauty_ (gorgeous as they are) never can.


Real life? How many love potions have you drunk recently?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Celloman said:


> Ironically, the ending would have been much less satisfying if this had happened. It is the fact that Tristan dies that inspires Isolde's _Liebestod_, the most joyful moment in the opera. Greater darkness gives birth to greater joy.


But this is not real life. If you've sat by a bedside comforting a grieving spouse when their loved one passes (or has past) away you know death us not a joyful, romantic experience except in the imagination of poets.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

DavidA said:


> But this is not real life. If you've sat by a bedside comforting a grieving spouse when their loved one passes (or has past) away you know death us not a joyful, romantic experience except in the imagination of poets.


Biologically, there is an erotic element to death for a few people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_during_consensual_sex


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It is not possible that you are "not at all sure" why posted the above. Nevertheless, I will play this game with you. I will tell you so that you will be sure and so that anyone else reading this will be sure, even though everyone else who has followed this thread is already sure. As are you.
> 
> Please attend to me carefully.
> 
> ...


Did you, even for an instant, Woodduck, imagine I was ignorant of anything you posted in your last post before this one concerning this business (or in any of your previous posts, for that matter)? I've known it all for decades. There's nothing - nothing - in that post of which I was not fully aware. And I note with special interest but with no surprise that in your above post you got W's directions in the score at music-drama's close wrong. W did NOT write what you above say he wrote. What W wrote in those directions vis-à-vis Isolde is that "Isolde sinkt, wie verklärt, in Brangenes Armen sanft auf Tristans Lieche" (Isolde, as if transfigured, sinks in Brangäne's arms gently onto Tristan's body). Not merely "sinkt" or "sinkt entseelt" (sinks lifeless) which is W's usual formula when a female character dies, but "sinkt wie verklärt" (sinks as if transfigured); a stage direction which W never before or after employed, and it was that very anomaly that provoked my conjectures and my S&F piece.

Now then, Woodduck, as you think this is a game ("I will play this game with you") then I'm wasting my time here and have better uses for it elsewhere.

So, do have a good day.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

albertfallickwang said:


> Biologically, there is an erotic element to death for a few people.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_during_consensual_sex


Yes but as Tristan is dead they are not having sex!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> Did you, even for an instant, Woodduck, imagine I was ignorant of anything you posted in your last post before this one concerning this business (or in any of your previous posts, for that matter)? *I've known it all for decades. There's nothing - nothing - in that post of which I was not fully aware.* And I note with special interest but with no surprise that in your above post you got W's directions in the score at music-drama's close wrong. W did NOT write what you above say he wrote. What W wrote in those directions vis-à-vis Isolde is that "Isolde sinkt, wie verklärt, in Brangenes Armen sanft auf Tristans Lieche" (Isolde, as if transfigured, sinks in Brangäne's arms gently onto Tristan's body). Not merely "sinkt" or "sinkt entseelt" (sinks lifeless) which is W's usual formula when a female character dies, but "sinkt wie verklärt" (sinks as if transfigured); a stage direction which W never before or after employed, and it was that very anomaly that provoked my conjectures and my S&F piece.
> 
> Now then, Woodduck, as you think this is a game ("I will play this game with you") then I'm wasting my time here and have better uses for it elsewhere.
> 
> ...


If you have known "for decades" that Wagner intended for Isolde to die at the end of _Tristan_, yet you are still claiming that she doesn't, what kind of fraud are you perpetrating here, and how stupid do you think people on this forum are?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Real life? How many love potions have you drunk recently?


real people in old times believed in potions.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> But this is not real life. If you've sat by a bedside comforting a grieving spouse when their loved one passes (or has past) away you know death us not a joyful, romantic experience except in the imagination of poets.


And sometimes they die cause they love them so much.
connection.........


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> real people in old times believed in potions.


They might have done but such things did not exist!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Real life? How many love potions have you drunk recently?


Oh come on, show a little historical awareness. This is the middle ages. People believed in such things. It would have been some herbal mixture, and it hardly matters what was in it. Tristan and Isolde thought they were taking poison. They expected to die, the ship had docked, King Marke was due to greet them and claim his bride, the pressure to get it over with and end their hopeless situation was intense. And then - OMG! - they didn't die. So there they stood, having in effect confessed the love they'd been holding in all this time, expecting to die together, and finding themselves gazing into each other's eyes. So what could they do?

Love potion? No, just time to admit the truth. Psychologically, that's pretty damned real.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> And sometimes they die cause they love them so much.
> connection.........


Not in my experience. In any case, there is nothing romantic about it. Tristan is simply not real life! It is fiction and must be discussed in those terms. Like most opera.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Not in my experience. In any case, there is nothing romantic about it. Tristan is simply not real life! It is fiction and must be discussed in those terms. Like most opera.


Yes, its a story, but they're real people within the story, not Gods or such.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Oh come on, show a little historical awareness. This is the middle ages. People believed in such things. It would have been some herbal mixture, and it hardly matters what was in it. Tristan and Isolde thought they were taking poison. They expected to die, the ship had docked, King Marke was due to greet them and claim his bride, the pressure to get it over with and end their hopeless situation was intense. And then - OMG! - they didn't die. So there they stood, having in effect confessed the love they'd been holding in all this time, expecting to die together, and finding themselves gazing into each other's eyes. So what could they do?
> 
> Love potion? No, just time to admit the truth. Psychologically, that's pretty damned real.


Historical awareness? Only in fiction!

Ever known that happen outside the movies? I haven't! Real? Only to the hopeless romantic!

I'm quite happy to enter the spirit of the opera but let no-one say this is real life any more than Fred Aistair and Ginger Rogers musicals are. Sorry! It's romantic fiction through and through!


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Itullian said:


> I would say the Domingo or the Kleiber are more on the lyrical side and are fairly inexpensive.
> And I like them because each act is complete on each disc.
> I think to start with Act 2 would be good. It has the amazing love music.
> 
> ...


Open....yeah...open, not OCD. Not at all :lol: Thanks Itulian. And if I can't crack that nut, I still am completely basking in Verdi lately, so I'm still not hurting for sublime music!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Oh come on, show a little historical awareness. This is the middle ages. People believed in such things. It would have been some herbal mixture, and it hardly matters what was in it. Tristan and Isolde thought they were taking poison. They expected to die, the ship had docked, King Marke was due to greet them and claim his bride, the pressure to get it over with and end their hopeless situation was intense. And then - OMG! - they didn't die. So there they stood, having in effect confessed the love they'd been holding in all this time, expecting to die together, and finding themselves gazing into each other's eyes. So what could they do?
> 
> Love potion? No, just time to admit the truth. Psychologically, that's pretty damned real.


I agree with Woodduck. Today new mix is going to be Love Potion No. 9. Except that Isolde is now played by the great Sandra Bullock.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> If you have known "for decades" that Wagner intended for Isolde to die at the end of _Tristan_, yet you are still claiming that she doesn't, what kind of fraud are you perpetrating here, and how stupid do you think people on this forum are?


I believe you and AC are working from a different set of interpretive assumptions. As he has acknowledged to me in the past, AC subscribes to the New Critical view that anything external to the literary text (or operatic score) is irrelevant to interpretation. This would include the author's own pronouncements about said work; to try to understand the text in light of such evidence is to commit an "intentional fallacy."

Please correct me, AC, if I've misstated your position.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

albertfallickwang said:


> I agree with Woodduck. Today new mix is going to be Love Potion No. 9. Except that Isolde is now played by the great Sandra Bullock.


As I said, it doesn't happen outside the movies!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Historical awareness? Only in fiction!
> 
> Ever known that happen outside the movies? I haven't! Real? Only to the hopeless romantic!
> 
> I'm quite happy to enter the spirit of the opera but let no-one say this is real life any more than Fred Aistair and Ginger Rogers musicals are. Sorry! It's romantic fiction through and through!


I didn't say that the story is not fiction. I said that it is "psychologically realistic" for Tristan and Isolde, given their horrible circumstances, to confess their feelings openly when they drink what they think is poison but find that it isn't. It isn't the business of art to be as random and boring as "real life," but to be true to life and human nature in a deeper sense. Here Wagner takes what in the original sources was a literally impossible occurrence - the creation, by means of a magical potion, of love between two people who lacked any such feelings - and finds a very real basis for both that love and the manner in which it is repressed and finally revealed and confessed. The fact Wagner's next door neighbors were unlikely to have lived the lives of a medieval knight and princess, but probably met at the factory or at a church supper, fortunately did not place the sort of limits on his ability to imagine other times and places and to empathize with what people in those other cultures, people with beliefs and practices alien to his own time, might experience, as it seems to place on yours. The words and actions of Tristan and Isolde in Act 1 of the opera present their situation, and their thoughts and feelings, with a degree of subtlety and ingenuity quite uncommon in opera, which is by nature not a realistic medium. The tension between emotion and constraint - the verbal fencing, the evasion, the innuendo - in this act is so thick you could cut it with the proverbial knife, and Wagner's release and resolution of it by the device of a failed joint suicide attempt is perfect and, at bottom, quite realistic. Stranger things - by far - have happened in "real" life.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Ever after what?
> 
> Of the number of thing that could be said, the least philosophical one is that Tristan and Isolde lived in a world where that was simply not an option. Tristan was his uncle Mark's "man," bound by fealty and family combined. Isolde was a woman in a world where women were property and independence for a female was probably proof of witchcraft. Isolde was claimed by Mark, and his nephew was the agent of acquisition. There could be no happiness - before, during, or after. And we don't even need to bring in Schopenhauer.
> 
> At least he got to die in her arms, and she died with a vision of the splendor they were denied in life.


Actually they could have lived happily ever after. King Marke, as he came on his ship in Act III, was ready to release Isolde from her marriage and to give her to Tristan. He had no desire for her anyway, at least no physical desire. And by that time he knew about the potion and all that had happened. But he came too late.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


>


There was someone on these boards before, a guy from Bavaria with this picture as his avatar and an excellent understanding of all things Wagnerian. But he is long gone, and that is a pity.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't say that the story is not fiction. I said that it is "psychologically realistic" for Tristan and Isolde, given their horrible circumstances, to confess their feelings openly when they drink what they think is poison but find that it isn't. It isn't the business of art to be as random and boring as "real life," but to be true to life and human nature in a deeper sense. Here Wagner takes what in the original sources was a literally impossible occurrence - the creation, by means of a magical potion, of love between two people who lacked any such feelings - and finds a very real basis for both that love and the manner in which it is repressed and finally revealed and confessed. The fact Wagner's next door neighbors were unlikely to have lived the lives of a medieval knight and princess, but probably met at the factory or at a church supper, fortunately did not place the sort of limits on his ability to imagine other times and places and to empathize with what people in those other cultures, people with beliefs and practices alien to his own time, might experience, as it seems to place on yours. The words and actions of Tristan and Isolde in Act 1 of the opera present their situation, and their thoughts and feelings, with a degree of subtlety and ingenuity quite uncommon in opera, which is by nature not a realistic medium. The tension between emotion and constraint - the verbal fencing, the evasion, the innuendo - in this act is so thick you could cut it with the proverbial knife, and Wagner's release and resolution of it by the device of a failed joint suicide attempt is perfect and, at bottom, quite realistic. Stranger things - by far - have happened in "real" life.


If what happens in Tristan is 'psychologically realistic' then you live in a different universe from me! It is a romantic concept not a realistic one.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Oh come on, show a little historical awareness. This is the middle ages. People believed in such things. It would have been some herbal mixture, and it hardly matters what was in it. Tristan and Isolde thought they were taking poison. They expected to die, the ship had docked, King Marke was due to greet them and claim his bride, the pressure to get it over with and end their hopeless situation was intense. And then - OMG! - they didn't die. So there they stood, having in effect confessed the love they'd been holding in all this time, expecting to die together, and finding themselves gazing into each other's eyes. So what could they do?
> 
> Love potion? No, just time to admit the truth. Psychologically, that's pretty damned real.


I still think the potion was real _for the characters_. Wagner intended it as a metaphor of an incredible, impossible love that transcends all human understanding, so he made it "chemically induced" and as impossible to resist as any other drug.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> I believe you and AC are working from a different set of interpretive assumptions. As he has acknowledged to me in the past, AC subscribes to the New Critical view that anything external to the literary text (or operatic score) is irrelevant to interpretation. This would include the author's own pronouncements about said work; to try to understand the text in light of such evidence is to commit an "intentional fallacy."
> 
> Please correct me, AC, if I've misstated your position.


You have more respect than I do for postmodernist malarkey, not to mention arrogance and obfuscation.

Mr. Douglas's position is based solely on Wagner's omission of the word "death" in describing Isolde's fate at the end of the opera, which he claims is inconsistent with the composer's usual practice. The assumption that this omission adequately demonstrates that Isolde lives on is logically absurd, but when that conclusion can also be shown to be contradicted by statements and actions of Wagner and Liszt (and certainly many others) and Mr. Douglas admits that he has always been aware of these statements and actions, the integrity of Mr. Douglas's position is on the line. Invoking dogmas such as "New Criticism" is mere obfuscation; the so-called "intentional fallacy," applied here, is nothing but a cover for the dishonest act of putting one's own "interpretation" of the "text" above that of the author, who is presumed to be incapable of interpreting the text he himself has written. It is saying nothing more than "Wagner doesn't know what he's doing or what he's talking about, but I do."

In the absence of any reason to do otherwise, simple honesty requires that we give greater credence to what Wagner says his work is about than what some random commentator says it is about a century and a half later. If Wagner says that Isolde dies at the end of the opera he has just driven himself to the limit of his powers to compose, then Isolde dies at the end of that opera. No further "criticism," "new" or otherwise, is necessary or relevant.

Postmodernist jargon is horsepuckey postmodernists wallow in to entertain themselves. Rational people with respect for the clear truth do not find it entertaining.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> There was someone on these boards before, a guy from Bavaria with this picture as his avatar and an excellent understanding of all things Wagnerian. But he is long gone, and that is a pity.


It is a great pity that ebab is gone. It isn't easy to find people who can discuss Wagner's work insightfully, and with the sensitivity, honesty and goodwill ebab always displayed. I still hold out hope that he will return.

Thanks for remembering him.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I still think the potion was real _for the characters_. Wagner intended it as a metaphor of an incredible, impossible love that transcends all human understanding, so he made it "chemically induced" and as impossible to resist as any other drug.


I would only say to this that whether or not there was anything "magical" in that goblet, T and I were already lost in a love impossible to resist. The horrible tension of repression which kept those feelings in check had to be released, and the act of committing suicide together - and failing! - was all that was necessary. This is not found in the old legends, it's Wagner's invention, and it brings the story out of the realm of fantasy and into psychological reality. T and I, as medieval people, may have believed in the love potion's magical properties, but even they knew those properties were not responsible for their love. As Tristan says in Act 3:

_Den furchtbaren Trank,
der der Qual mich vertraut,
ich selbst - ich selbst,
ich hab' ihn gebraut!
Aus Vaters Not
und Mutter-Weh,
aus Liebestränen
eh' und je, -
aus Lachen und Weinen,
Wonnen und Wunden
hab ich des Trankes
Gifte gefunden!
_
The fearful draught
that brings me anguish,
I, I myself,
I prepared it!
From my father's distress
and mother's anguish,
from tears of love
everlasting,
from laughing and weeping,
happiness and hurts,
I found
the poisonous draught!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> You have more respect than I do for postmodernist malarkey, not to mention arrogance and obfuscation.
> 
> Mr. Douglas's position is based solely on Wagner's omission of the word "death" in describing Isolde's fate at the end of the opera, which he claims is inconsistent with the composer's usual practice. The assumption that this omission adequately demonstrates that Isolde lives on is logically absurd, but when that conclusion can also be shown to be contradicted by statements and actions of Wagner and Liszt (and certainly many others) and Mr. Douglas admits that he has always been aware of these statements and actions, the integrity of Mr. Douglas's position is on the line. Invoking dogmas such as "New Criticism" is mere obfuscation; the so-called "intentional fallacy," applied here, is nothing but a cover for the dishonest act of putting one's own "interpretation" of the "text" above that of the author, who is presumed to be incapable of interpreting the text he himself has written. It is saying nothing more than "Wagner doesn't know what he's doing or what he's talking about, but I do."
> 
> ...


Just as a side note, New Criticism dates back to the 1940s, is decidedly Old now, and predates postmodernism (at least in literary studies) by several decades.

I don't subscribe to New Critical theory, or to AC's view of _Tristan_. But I thought it might be helpful to understand some of the interpretive assumptions behind his reading.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

amfortas said:


> I believe you and AC are working from a different set of interpretive assumptions. As he has acknowledged to me in the past, AC subscribes to the New Critical view that anything external to the literary text (or operatic score) is irrelevant to interpretation. This would include the author's own pronouncements about said work; to try to understand the text in light of such evidence is to commit an "intentional fallacy."
> 
> Please correct me, AC, if I've misstated your position.


I'm not sure if you have misstated AC's position, but I'm pretty sure you misstated William Wimsatt's and Monroe Beardsley's position as stated in their famous essay, "The Intentional Fallacy." What they in fact argued was that the author's intentions should not be considered in addressing questions about the _*aesthetic value*_ of a text. ("The design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art.") Not only did they not say that anything external to the text should be excluded in _*interpreting*_ texts, they specifically endorsed the use of biographical and other historical and external data in writing interpretive criticism. In short, Woodduck does not invoke the intentional fallacy in quoting Wagner on Isolde's death - any more than AC does in relying on the evidence of his other libretti.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I would only say to this that whether or not there was anything "magical" in that goblet, T and I were already lost in a love impossible to resist. The horrible tension of repression which kept those feelings in check had to be released, and the act of committing suicide together - and failing! - was all that was necessary. This is not found in the old legends, it's Wagner's invention, and it brings the story out of the realm of fantasy and into psychological reality. T and I, as medieval people, may have believed in the love potion's magical properties, but even they knew those properties were not responsible for their love. As Tristan says in Act 3:
> 
> _Den furchtbaren Trank,
> der der Qual mich vertraut,
> ...


Sorry but Tristan is not psychological reality. it is a romance,


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You have more respect than I do for postmodernist malarkey, not to mention arrogance and obfuscation.
> 
> Mr. Douglas's position is based solely on Wagner's omission of the word "death" in describing Isolde's fate at the end of the opera, which he claims is inconsistent with the composer's usual practice. The assumption that this omission adequately demonstrates that Isolde lives on is logically absurd, but when that conclusion can also be shown to be contradicted by statements and actions of Wagner and Liszt (and certainly many others) and Mr. Douglas admits that he has always been aware of these statements and actions, the integrity of Mr. Douglas's position is on the line. Invoking dogmas such as "New Criticism" is mere obfuscation; the so-called "intentional fallacy," applied here, is nothing but a cover for the dishonest act of putting one's own "interpretation" of the "text" above that of the author, who is presumed to be incapable of interpreting the text he himself has written. It is saying nothing more than "Wagner doesn't know what he's doing or what he's talking about, but I do."
> 
> ...


This is certainly an exegetical view that I believe will be sustained by any impartial standard.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Thanks to both amfortas and EdwardBast for their comments. Apparently we don't need to invoke the "New Criticism" or the "intentional fallacy," whether they are "postmodern," merely "modern," or as old as the hills.

So, with the question of whether Isolde dies answered by Wagner himself, the only question that remains is why anyone knowing Wagner's answer would still question it. We'll probably never know the answer to that one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but Tristan is not psychological reality. it is a romance,


What is your objective? Are you saying that Wagner's portrayal of the psychology of his characters is poorly conceived? I have never encountered that opinion anywhere in 50 years of acquaintance with this work and the literature about it. As Anna Russell says, "I'm not making this up."

Cannot a romance exhibit psychological truth? Or is asking such a question irrelevant to your real purpose here - which is _what_, again?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> What is your objective? Are you saying that Wagner's portrayal of the psychology of his characters is poorly conceived? I have never encountered that opinion anywhere in 50 years of acquaintance with this work and the literature about it. As Anna Russell says, "I'm not making this up."
> 
> Cannot a romance exhibit psychological truth? Or is asking such a question irrelevant to your real purpose here - which is _what_, again?


My purpose is simply to express my opinion in disagreeing with your version of reality. In nearly 70 years of living on this planet I have never known people act like this outside of fiction. Of course a romance can exhibit psychological truth but you used the word reality.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

DavidA said:


> As I said, it doesn't happen outside the movies!


Perhaps although there have been some chemists who have attempted to make a chemical love potion.

http://everydayroots.com/love-potion

And then the drug companies are making bank on Viagra. Although honestly I can't dream of Tristan taking that during the Liebestod scene.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not sure if you have misstated AC's position, but I'm pretty sure you misstated William Wimsatt's and Monroe Beardsley's position as stated in their famous essay, "The Intentional Fallacy." What they in fact argued was that the author's intentions should not be considered in addressing questions about the _*aesthetic value*_ of a text. ("The design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art.") Not only did they not say that anything external to the text should be excluded in _*interpreting*_ texts, they specifically endorsed the use of biographical and other historical and external data in writing interpretive criticism. In short, Woodduck does not invoke the intentional fallacy in quoting Wagner on Isolde's death - any more than AC does in relying on the evidence of his other libretti.


Wimsatt and Beardsley do indeed argue that the author's intention has no bearing on a work's aesthetic value, but also, more broadly, that such intention is irrelevant to interpretation. For them, a literary work "is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it."

And regardless of how Wimsatt and Beardsley may have viewed evidence external to the text itself, AC Douglas himself seems pretty clearcut on the matter. As he wrote during one of our debates on another forum, "all genuine works of art, and most particularly those works of art which are the products of authentic genius, are totally self-contained entities, and require nothing extrinsic to themselves to be understood, all that's required for such understanding being contained within the artworks themselves."


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Wimsatt and Beardsley do indeed argue that the author's intention has no bearing on a work's aesthetic value, but also, more broadly, that such intention is irrelevant to interpretation. For them, a literary work "is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it."


Wimsatt and Bearsley's discussion of the author's "power to intend about it or control it" concerned statements about the overall thrust and significance of a work, not the specific details and meanings of individual words, expressions, plot points and other minutia. For those, biographical, historical and extra-textual sources, including other writings of the author, are fair game, and indeed essential to interpretation in many cases.



amfortas said:


> And regardless of how Wimsatt and Beardsley may have viewed evidence external to the text itself, AC Douglas himself seems pretty clearcut on the matter. As he wrote during one of our debates on another forum, "all genuine works of art, and most particularly those works of art which are the products of authentic genius, are totally self-contained entities, and require nothing extrinsic to themselves to be understood, all that's required for such understanding being contained within the artworks themselves."


This view is clearly refuted with a single word: Shakespeare.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Wimsatt and Bearsley's discussion of the author's "power to intend about it or control it" concerned statements about the overall thrust and significance of a work, not the specific details and meanings of individual words, expressions, plot points and other minutia. For those, biographical, historical and extra-textual sources, including other writings of the author, are fair game, and indeed essential to interpretation in many cases.


While Wimsatt and Beardsley consistently rule out the author's "intention" as a basis for interpretation, they do indeed allow for certain kinds of biographical and historical sources, as you say. They acknowledge that, in practice, this distinction is not always clearcut: "The use of biographical evidence need not involve intentionalism, because while it may be evidence of what the author intended, it may also be evidence of the meaning of his words and the dramatic character of his utterance. On the other hand, it may not be all this."

I think part of the problem lies with the word "intention" itself, which can refer to a number of different authorial aims (I intend to write a great work; I intend to make a particular theme my work's central concern; I intend to have a given word carry a specific meaning from my own historical era, etc.). Since Wimsatt and Beardsley apparently see some of these "intentions" as more admissible than others, it is perhaps unfortunate they chose to give the word itself such a negative connotation.



EdwardBast said:


> This view is clearly refuted with a single word: Shakespeare.


I assume you mean because Shakespeare's time is far removed from our own, and we can only understand many of his words and ideas with the help of some historical background.

On the other hand, Shakespeare can also be used to support New Critical claims about the irrelevance of authorial intention. After all, Shakespearean criticism has always proceeded without relying on such evidence (there is none). And even if Shakespeare came back to life and told us all what he "really" meant in his plays, such a revelation, though interesting, would not invalidate the myriad interpretations that have accumulated over the centuries.


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

amfortas said:


> I believe you [Woodduck] and AC are working from a different set of interpretive assumptions. As he has acknowledged to me in the past, AC subscribes to the New Critical view that anything external to the literary text (or operatic score) is irrelevant to interpretation. This would include the author's own pronouncements about said work; to try to understand the text in light of such evidence is to commit an "intentional fallacy."
> 
> Please correct me, AC, if I've misstated your position.


With the exception of your saying I "subscrib[e] to the New Critical view" (I have no idea what that might be) you're absolutely correct. I even explicitly stated my critical approach in the referenced (and linked) S&F article that started this business here. As I wrote there:

=== Begin Quote ===
The Schopenhauerian metaphysics of _Tristan_ is formidable, and penetrating to its core is made even more difficult by the text's (purposely?) obscure language. *And it does no good knowing certain biographical and historical facts about Wagner, or facts about his sources and influences, or even about his own before- or after-the-fact and outside-the-score comments.* The only thing pertinent in a matter such as this is what Wagner's creative unconscious - the animating and informing force behind the creation of all his mature works, and _Tristan_ most particularly - intended in the heat of the creative act itself, as that creative unconscious, the key to Wagner's genius, was all but infallible. And the key to understanding the intentions of that creative unconscious is the score itself. As I've already noted, it's the only permissible authority, and so we must make do using what's there written to puzzle it all out. [above emphasis added]
=== End Quote ===

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

How did the potion go from Isolde's poison to Brangane's love potion?

Did Isolde subconsciously make a love potion? Or did Brangane switch it?

Or what?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Itullian said:


> How did the potion go from Isolde's poison to Brangane's love potion?
> 
> Did Isolde subconsciously make a love potion? Or did Brangane switch it?
> 
> Or what?


Isolde asks Brangane to prepare the potion. And by "prepare" it, she means pour it from a flask into a goblet (Isolde is lazy). Brangane instead prepares the love potion (I think substituting a harmless antidote would have been a better choice).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> And regardless of how Wimsatt and Beardsley may have viewed evidence external to the text itself, AC Douglas himself seems pretty clearcut on the matter. As he wrote during one of our debates on another forum, *"all genuine works of art, and most particularly those works of art which are the products of authentic genius, are totally self-contained entities, and require nothing extrinsic to themselves to be understood, all that's required for such understanding being contained within the artworks themselves."*


It takes very little reflection to see the fallaciousness of AC Douglas's statement. It first begs the question of which works of art are "genuine" and "products of authentic genius." It also begs the question of what it means to "understand" a work of art. And even if we succeed in making those determinations to our satisfaction, the question arises: What if the artist has not included in the artwork indications of his full intentions? This is always relevant to any work which must be realized in performance by others, whether it be a piece of music or a dramatic presentation such as a play, opera, or ballet. Every musician knows that a musical score is only a kind of blueprint for what will eventually be heard, a schematic which must first be interpreted by performers. Interpretation consists not only of rendering the notes written on the page, but of adding to them an enormous range of effects which have not been, and largely cannot be, written down. These effects will vary, often very greatly, from performance to performance - and yet any number of different performances may be equally justified by reference to the same notes on the page. In the dramatic arts, where words are spoken by actors, every role must be characterized by the particular actor playing it, and every actor's characterization will be different, in varying degrees. The director of a play must similarly arrive at and execute an overall concept of the play, based largely on the words and actions of the characters and to some extent on whatever stage directions the playwright has provided. But such directions typically allow great latitude in realizing the overall effect of the play. In opera, where the musical and theatrical arts combine, the problems of interpretation multiply.

If we were to accept this notion that a work of art - an opera, say - contains everything within itself that will tell sufficiently perceptive performers exactly how it must be played, sung, acted and staged, then we have to accept that only one ideal performance of the work is conceivable and that all actual performances are, in various respects, departures from that ideal or failures to attain it. But while it is probably always true that no performance of a compex opera can realize, for practical reasons, its full musical and dramatic potential, it may also be true that to attempt to do so is to attempt something intrinsically impossible, because attempting to realize fully one aspect of a work's meaning may necessitate detracting from, or de-emphasizing, some other aspect of its meaning. It's been said (by Artur Schnabel, if I remember correctly) that great music is greater than it can ever be played. I take this to mean that the greatest art has the power to embrace and imply a wide range of meanings, not all of which can be fully brought out in any one performance, and some of which may even be, for the practical purposes of performance, contradictory. Again, any performing artist - and particularly anyone producing an opera, which confronts him with several arts at once - knows this to be the case.

If Wagner has left us explicit stage directions, on top of music of great expressive power, to help us understand his complex artistic creations, we are fortunate, and we should pay careful attention to what he has left us. But if we imagine that, were he to return, he would have nothing more specific to tell us than we already know from the notes and words contained in his scores - or if, on the other hand, we imagine that he would try to impose on us a single, rigid, invariable interpretation of those notes and words - we are merely showing our ignorance of the nature of art, of where meaning in art resides, and of what is involved in the realization of it.

Wagner won't be coming back to talk to us; the nearest we can come to reincarnating him is to study his life and thought, and the life and thought of his times, in order to glean what knowledge and insight we can in helping us to understand the artistic products he left us. We would be foolish not to avail ourselves of that knowledge and insight, and most particularly when it issues from his own mouth or pen.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Now that we know Wagner's position without doubt or ambiguity:

ISOLDE DIES,

(just to remind y'all:

_'what Fate divided in life now springs into transfigured life in death:
the gates of union are thrown open. Over Tristan's body the dying
Isolde receives the blessed fulfillment of ardent longing, eternal
union in measureless space, without barriers, without fetters, inseparable.')_,

further debate is hot air, isn't it?


----------



## AC Douglas (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It takes very little reflection to see the fallaciousness of AC Douglas's statement. It first begs the question of which works of art are "genuine" and "products of authentic genius." It also begs the question of what it means to "understand" a work of art. And even if we succeed in making those determinations to our satisfaction, the question arises: What if the artist has not included in the artwork indications of his full intentions?


The artist's intentions are a separate matter altogether vis-à-vis my quoted statement, and the meaning of "understand" in that statement is the common, quotidian meaning of the term. No deep, vivisectional, philosophical discussion necessary. Ditto "genuine" and "products of authentic genius" however determined by the consensus judgment of educated, well-informed parties.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AC Douglas said:


> The artist's intentions are a separate matter altogether vis-à-vis my quoted statement, and the meaning of "understand" in that statement is the common, quotidian meaning of the term. No deep, vivisectional, philosophical discussion necessary. Ditto "genuine" and "products of authentic genius" however determined by the consensus judgment of educated, well-informed parties.
> 
> --
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/


I'll try again.

Do you agree with Wagner's statement that Isolde dies? If not, why not?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Since members have failed to observe the normal rules of decorum, this thread has been closed for repairs and posts have been deleted. Please remember the ToS :



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.
> 
> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


The thread will now re-open but the moderators will keep a careful eye on it.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Why do you think Brangane gave them a love potion and not just water or something else?


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2015)

Itullian said:


> Why do you think Brangane gave them a love potion and not just water or something else?


Umm, because then it would have been a totally different story? He liked the juxtaposition of going from pure hatred to pure love? Or whatever it was.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

_Tristan und Isolde _gets my vote for _The Greatest Story Ever Told_.

(Well, that and _Traviata_ in '58 Covent Garden Callas mode._ ;D_ )


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Itullian said:


> Why do you think Brangane gave them a love potion and not just water or something else?


Where would she get the water? She couldn't just turn on a tap.

If we assume the chest of potions was all she had readily at hand from which to make a substitution, the love potion may well have been the only non-poisonous recourse.

I'm not suggesting Wagner thought it through that literally, or that we need to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Why do you think Brangane gave them a love potion and not just water or something else?


I suspect it was a last-minute decision, probably made in a panic. Brangaene had a tough job, working for a raving mistress who had just commanded assistance in a suicide/murder. Add to that the awful circumstance of being ripped away from their home and country by a bunch of brutish men (probably a redundancy in those days) and not knowing what to expect of life in a foreign land - well, she had to be in quite a state. She probably saw "l'elisir d'amore" on the lid and thought "Well, she seems to have a thing for that dreadful man anyway - God only knows why - so what can it hurt? Love is nice, isn't it?"


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Itullian said:


> Why do you think Brangane gave them a love potion and not just water or something else?


To be honest there isn't much evidence in the opera to suggest that Brangane was a particularly bright girl. While she is the only one equipped with the knowledge of her deed, the revelation of which could bring about a peaceful resolution, she instead is capable of nothing more than wringing her hands, allowing Tristan and Isolde to be caught in Act II (on top of everything else, she keeps a terrible watch).

In fact it could be said that Brangane's keeping the potion secret is directly responsible for the needless deaths of Tristan, Isolde, Melot, Kurwenal, as well as Marke's heartbreak. We see in the end that Marke was in fact understanding after he knew about the potion, which Brangane only told him about after Tristan is mortally wounded and Kurwenal is sent into a triggerhappy frenzy.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Couchie said:


> . . . on top of everything else, she keeps a terrible watch.


Yes, but it's so gorgeous, who can stay mad at her?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

From Wiki......

On 21 July 1865, having sung the role only four times, Ludwig Schnorr von Carolsfeld died suddenly—prompting speculation that the exertion involved in singing the part of Tristan had killed him. (The stress of performing Tristan has also "claimed" the lives of conductors Felix Mottl in 1911 and Joseph Keilberth in 1968. Both men died after collapsing while conducting the second Act of the opera.) Malvina sank into a deep depression over her husband's death, and never sang again, although she lived for another 38 years.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Yes, but it's so gorgeous, who can stay mad at her?


Now that you mention it, what a wonderfully poetic concept Brangaene's "watch song" is - I mean the very idea of having her sing it.

"You upon whom
love's dream smiles,
take heed of
the voice of one
keeping solitary
watch at night,
foreseeing evil
for the sleepers,
anxiously urging
you to waken.
Beware!
Beware!
Night soon melts away."

She isn't singing it to them, but to herself and the night and us. And did Wagner ever write a more exquisite piece of music?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

The opera was enormously influential among Western classical composers and provided direct inspiration to composers such as Gustav Mahler, Richard Strauss, Karol Szymanowski, Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg and Benjamin Britten. Other composers like Claude Debussy, Maurice Ravel and Igor Stravinsky formulated their styles in contrast to Wagner's musical legacy. Many see Tristan as the beginning of the move away from common practice harmony and tonality and consider that it lays the groundwork for the direction of classical music in the 20th century.[1] Both *Wagner's libretto style *and music were also profoundly influential on the Symbolist poets of the late 19th century and early 20th century.[2]

Ahem, so much for criticizing his libretto. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> The opera was enormously influential among Western classical composers and provided direct inspiration to composers such as Gustav Mahler, Richard Strauss, Karol Szymanowski, Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg and Benjamin Britten.* Other composers like Claude Debussy, Maurice Ravel and Igor Stravinsky formulated their styles in contrast to Wagner's musical legacy.* Many see Tristan as the beginning of the move away from common practice harmony and tonality and consider that it lays the groundwork for the direction of classical music in the 20th century.[1] Both *Wagner's libretto style *and music were also profoundly influential on the Symbolist poets of the late 19th century and early 20th century.[2]
> 
> Ahem, so much for criticizing his libretto. :tiphat:


The case of Debussy is interesting. His relationship to Wagner's music is best described as "love-hate." He fought against the seductiveness of Wagner, and made numerous critical and derogatory remarks about his aesthetic approach, but knew he couldn't avoid being influenced. _Pelleas et Melisande_ is unthinkable without _Tristan_ and _Parsifal;_ Debussy loved the latter work especially for its subtle orchestration, and there are moments in _Parsifal_ which anticipate, in sonority, harmony, and mood, the sound-world we think of as "impressionist."


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Just watched Act 1 of the Jones, Kollo, 92 Tokyo Tristan.

I think it's fantastic!!

And it just flew by........


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> The case of Debussy is interesting. His relationship to Wagner's music is best described as "love-hate." He fought against the seductiveness of Wagner, and made numerous critical and derogatory remarks about his aesthetic approach, but knew he couldn't avoid being influenced.


That is utterly parallel with Wagner's relationship with Bellini. Perhaps it's some sort of rite of passage to assassinate your influences.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It is said that Melchior sang Tristan so many times he got somewhat bored with it. One night singing with Flagstad after Tristan's 'death' Melchior dropped off to sleep and started snoring. Flagstad had to kick him awake before her Lieberstod!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> It is said that Melchior sang Tristan so many times he got somewhat bored with it. One night singing with Flagstad after Tristan's 'death' Melchior dropped off to sleep and started snoring. Flagstad had to kick him awake before her Lieberstod!


Great story. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Great story. :lol:


It's recounted by Harold Schoenberg.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> From Wiki......
> 
> On 21 July 1865, having sung the role only four times, Ludwig Schnorr von Carolsfeld died suddenly-prompting speculation that the exertion involved in singing the part of Tristan had killed him. (The stress of performing Tristan has also "claimed" the lives of conductors Felix Mottl in 1911 and Joseph Keilberth in 1968. Both men died after collapsing while conducting the second Act of the opera.) Malvina sank into a deep depression over her husband's death, and never sang again, although she lived for another 38 years.


Keilberth's death prompted Karajan to sponsor research into the stresses conductors suffer. Mind you, it is not confined to Tristan. Sinopoli died conducting Aida. A friend of mine collapsed and died while conducting the local choir! So the 'Tristan' curse might be a bit mythical.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Keilberth's death prompted Karajan to sponsor research into the stresses conductors suffer. Mind you, it is not confined to Tristan. Sinopoli died conducting Aida. A friend of mine collapsed and died while conducting the local choir! So the 'Tristan' curse might be a bit mythical.


All the same, singing Wagner is a risky business and requires precautions to be taken. I was listening today to recordings made during the 1904 Bayreuth Festival (Symposium CD 1081) and the singers included no fewer than two medical doctors: neurologist Dr. Alfred von Bary, and Dr. Otto Briesemeister, an army surgeon! They must have been expecting a bloodbath!


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

Tristan und Isolde is currently my favorite opera. It always gives me hope, a little break from romantic cynicism. If you have the courage to continue on the frustrating, confusing, sometimes nauseating path to love and intimacy, the destination just might be glorious. Even if it is not a "happily ever after" ending, there is still hope.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

When I was 20, I coulda used that love potion. The A & W Root Beer just didn't get the job done!!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

hpowders said:


> When I was 20, I coulda used that love potion. The A & W Root Beer just didn't get the job done!!


You gotta believe


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Itullian said:


> You gotta believe


Unfortunately it took two to believe. 

For me, it was Tristan Minus Isolde. I was always good in math.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Unfortunately it took two to believe.
> 
> For me, it was Tristan Minus Isolde. I was always good in math.


Only one if Isolde falls for it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Only one if Isolde falls for it.


I would have even settled for love potion No. 9.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I would have even settled for love potion No. 9.


Great song!!!........................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marinasabina said:


> Tristan und Isolde is currently my favorite opera. It always gives me hope, a little break from romantic cynicism. If you have the courage to continue on the frustrating, confusing, sometimes nauseating path to love and intimacy, the destination just might be glorious. Even if it is not a "happily ever after" ending, there is still hope.


If _Tristan und Isolde_ gives you hope, you are a hopeless Romantic. Utterly hopeless.

Bless your dear heart. :kiss:


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> If _Tristan und Isolde_ gives you hope, you are a hopeless Romantic. Utterly hopeless.
> 
> Bless your dear heart. :kiss:


Yes I am.  If one looks at the story pragmatically, as if it were a real event, it's just a story about two stupid people who die for stupid reasons. What would be the purpose of writing an opera about it?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marinasabina said:


> Yes I am.  If one looks at the story pragmatically, as if it were a real event, it's just a story about two stupid people who die for stupid reasons. What would be the purpose of writing an opera about it?


So true. I must say that sometimes I think all romance is about two stupid people doing things for stupid reasons, but that's because I'm an old fart. People like you can keep me young, at least for a few minutes. :lol:


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> So true. I must say that sometimes I think all romance is about two stupid people doing things for stupid reasons, but that's because I'm an old fart. People like you can keep me young, at least for a few minutes. :lol:


I was repressed romantically as a child. Tristan und Isolde is one of the only things which cause that part of my brain to spring a leak.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

hpowders said:


> When I was 20, I coulda used that love potion. The A & W Root Beer just didn't get the job done!!


When I was 20 I didn't need no love potion!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> When I was 20 I didn't need no love potion!


You animal you. :lol:


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

This is my reaction to the beginning of Brangaene's warning in Act 2:


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Would it have been a better story without the potion?


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Itullian said:


> Would it have been a better story without the potion?


How could Isolde have fallen in love with a man she had just hated without taking it? It's fascinating to me that Isolde wanted to take that death potion, but instead received the love potion. Wagner symbolically equates them with each other. Would Isolde have loved Tristan without the potion? Probably not, but ultimately this doesn't matter because the potion _chose_ her.

Tristan and Isolde don't have an option. They are compelled to love.

As Ingrid Bergman famously said in _Casablanca_, "I wish I didn't love you so much."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Would it have been a better story without the potion?


Would Cinderella be a better story without the glass slipper?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Celloman said:


> How could Isolde have fallen in love with a man she had just hated without taking it? It's fascinating to me that Isolde wanted to take that death potion, but instead received the love potion. Wagner symbolically equates them with each other. Would Isolde have loved Tristan without the potion? Probably not, but ultimately this doesn't matter because the potion _chose_ her.
> 
> Tristan and Isolde don't have an option. They are compelled to love.
> 
> As Ingrid Bergman famously said in _Casablanca_, "I wish I didn't love you so much."


But Isolde already did love Tristan, quite understandably hating him for loyally serving his uncle Marke and fetching her to be the old king's wife. "Mir erkoren, mir verloren," etc. He loves her too, which is why he studiously avoids her until she summons him. The potion is not the cause of their love (as it was in the old legend) but the device by which they are forced to acknowledge it: the acknowledgement is in their attempt to commit suicide together, failing which there's nothing left for them to do but fall into each other's arms. In a way it makes no difference what's actually in the drink; it's been cleverly transformed from something purely magical into something more psychological and "modern," but it remains an essential dramatic device.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> But Isolde already did love Tristan, quite understandably hating him for loyally serving his uncle Marke and fetching her to be the old king's wife. "Mir erkoren, mir verloren," etc. He loves her too, which is why he studiously avoids her until she summons him. The potion is not the cause of their love (as it was in the old legend) but the device by which they are forced to acknowledge it: the acknowledgement is in their attempt to commit suicide together, failing which there's nothing left for them to do but fall into each other's arms. In a way it makes no difference what's actually in the drink; it's been cleverly transformed from something purely magical into something more psychological and "modern," but it remains an essential dramatic device.


So what you're saying is that they loved each other, but would have held their love inside without the potion?
It says she loved him, but did he love her?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> So what you're saying is that they loved each other, but would have held their love inside without the potion?
> It says she loved him, but did he love her?


That's it, basically. How could they have expressed their underlying feelings, given their impossible circumstances? Isolde reveals her emotions rather cryptically to Brangaene; Tristan has to suppress his completely, translating them into his extreme formality and curt responses. Their dialogue before drinking the potion is quite a nice piece of verbal fencing, keeping everything unstated; they're virtually speaking to each other in code, but they both know what they're about to do. What they aren't prepared for is the poison not working.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> That's it, basically. How could they have expressed their underlying feelings, given their impossible circumstances? Isolde reveals her emotions rather cryptically to Brangaene; Tristan has to suppress his completely, translating them into his extreme formality and curt responses. Their dialogue before drinking the potion is quite a nice piece of verbal fencing, keeping everything unstated; they're virtually speaking to each other in code, but they both know what they're about to do. What they aren't prepared for is the poison not working.


Jesus, don't people read and analyze libretti for _themselves _anymore?

That's what 'interpretation' is in literature, law, and even life itself.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I come here to talk about these things with other music lovers if that's ok with you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

_Tristan and Isolde have just returned from a session of couples therapy._

"Tristy, honey, why do we get angry? What were we fighting about?"

"I don't know, Isie, sweetie. It all seems so meaningless now."

"Dr. Schopenhauer says it really is all meaningless. It's all just illusion."

"Yeah... Heh, heh. That Doc's a smart one."

_(they are quiet for a moment)_

"But...Isie, what do you suppose he means?"

"Well... You know. Nicht mehr Tristan. Nicht mehr Isolde. And that little word "and"? Illusion. Gone. I mean, think about that."

"Yeah... No more Tristan. No more Isolde. No more _me_, no more _you_, just _us_ ......
Oh, man! Oh, wow! Heh, heh... That's just... I mean... _OH WOW!!!"_

_(they are quiet for a long time) _

"Tristy, baby?"

"Yes, Isie, dearest?"

"Let's never fight again."

"OK."

"Feel like a drink?"

"Sure. The good stuff? Liebestodmilch, 1859?"

"Mmmm-hmmm."

_(Tristan smiles and nods. Isolde walks slowly over to the wet bar, fills a goblet, and hands it to Tristan. She gazes steadily into his eyes. She is not smiling.)
_

"Here, darling. You first."


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As a postscript to this thread, I just saw a post which reminded me that Otto Klemperer had been engaged to conduct Tristan at Bayreuth in 1964(?) with Birgit Nilsson but just prior to this he had his horrific burn accident and was replaced by Karl Bohm. Given his orchestral excerpts, I have to wonder what that would have been like.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> As a postscript to this thread, I just saw a post which reminded me that Otto Klemperer had been engaged to conduct Tristan at Bayreuth in 1964(?) with Birgit Nilsson but just prior to this he had his horrific burn accident and was replaced by Karl Bohm. Given his orchestral excerpts, I have to wonder what that would have been like.


Distinctly different. I'm sorry we didn't get to hear it (but no disrespect to Bohm, whose performances were exciting in their own way).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> As a postscript to this thread, I just saw a post which reminded me that Otto Klemperer had been engaged to conduct Tristan at Bayreuth in 1964(?) with Birgit Nilsson but just prior to this he had his horrific burn accident and was replaced by Karl Bohm. Given his orchestral excerpts, I have to wonder what that would have been like.


One problem with Klemperer is that we only really hear him when he was getting old and his beat was slowing. He was apparently far more vital and favoured faster speeds as a younger conductor. Interesting to hear him live at Bayreuth though.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Becca said:


> As a postscript to this thread, I just saw a post which reminded me that Otto Klemperer had been engaged to conduct Tristan at Bayreuth in 1964(?) with Birgit Nilsson but just prior to this he had his horrific burn accident and was replaced by Karl Bohm. Given his orchestral excerpts, I have to wonder what that would have been like.


As a Klemp fan, I think it would have been awesome. Spacious and timeless. But who knows? We have some Walkure of his.
I would have loved a Ring too.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I listened to the EMI Karajan Tristan today and thought it was the worst Tristan I ever heard.
OMG
What was he/they thinking.
The balances are all over the place.
But the balances........OMG.
One minute horns blaring, choruses distant then close, orchestral balance all over the place.
Sometimes Dernesch is blaring in your ear, then you can barely hear her.
And Vickers at times blowing u out of your seat.
What a mess.
I was shocked. How do people listen to this?
The Furtwangler is a masterpiece of engineering compared to this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I listened to his EMI Tristan today and thought it was the worst Tristan I ever heard.
> OMG
> What was he/they thinking.
> The balances are all over the place.
> ...


You're talking about the Karajan. That's what happens when they allow conductors in the control booth. Of course no one "allowed" Herbert to do anything!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> You're talking about the Karajan. That's what happens when they allow conductors in the control booth. Of course no one "allowed" Herbert to do anything!


Yes, the Karajan.
sheeeeesh


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Yes, the Karajan.
> sheeeeesh


Watch out, paesan! David's gonna get ya tomorrow!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I listened to his EMI Karajan Tristan today and thought it was the worst Tristan I ever heard.
> OMG
> What was he/they thinking.
> The balances are all over the place.
> ...


According to Osbourne, "the recording of Tristan was a troubled affair" not least because Dernesch was ill at the time. By the time of this recording Karajan was in control of everything. He had no printed schedule and completely dictated what should be recorded when and in what order. He put the thing together like a giant tapestry in his mind, remarkable but not always guaranteed to get the best results sonically. Glotz later said Karajan was impossible to handle because he was so absorbed in an opera he knew so well. He said he feared HvK had lost touch with reality. The strange balances (some were ironed out on CD) were probably a result of this. Interesting that the Mastersingers Dresden sessions that preceded Tristan had gone very smoothly as it was the producers not Karajan who were in charge but even then they said they found Karajan "impossible to argue with" when he wanted his way with the crowd scenes.
Osbourne on BBC CD review said although he liked the Tristan as a performance he found it impossible to recommend as first choice something "so incompetently engineered" As for being the worst Tristan, I must confess it's the one recording that entices me to love this music rather than just admire it. Recording quirks and all!
Pity Decca didn't ask Karajan to record it with Culshaw instead of the woefully (at the time) inexperienced Solti. Then we might have had something remarkable.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> According to Osbourne, "the recording of Tristan was a troubled affair" not least because Dernesch was ill at the time. By the time of this recording Karajan was in control of everything. He had no printed schedule and completely dictated what should be recorded when and in what order. He put the thing together like a giant tapestry in his mind, remarkable but not always guaranteed to get the best results sonically. Glotz later said Karajan was impossible to handle because he was so absorbed in an opera he knew so well. He said he feared HvK had lost touch with reality. The strange balances (some were ironed out on CD) were probably a result of this. Interesting that the Mastersingers Dresden sessions that preceded Tristan had gone very smoothly as it was the producers not Karajan who were in charge but even then they said they found Karajan "impossible to argue with" when he wanted his way with the crowd scenes.
> *Osbourne on BBC CD review said although he liked the Tristan as a performance he found it impossible to recommend as first choice something "so incompetently engineered" *As for being the worst Tristan, I must confess it's the one recording that entices me to love this music rather than just admire it. Recording quirks and all!
> Pity Decca didn't ask Karajan to record it with Culshaw instead of the woefully (at the time) inexperienced Solti. Then we might have had something remarkable.


I'm with this guy. I find it unlistenable.
Such a shame.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I'm with this guy. I find it unlistenable.
> Such a shame.


Osbourne didn't say it was unlistenable just there were engineering quirks. The same could be said of Karajan's Otello and Trovatore for EMI though not enough to detract from the performances.
What were you listening to the Tristan on? The CD remastering? I grant the odd balances but to say it's 'unlistenable' appears a bit OTT.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Osbourne didn't say it was unlistenable just there were engineering quirks. The same could be said of Karajan's Otello and Trovatore for EMI though not enough to detract from the performances.
> What were you listening to the Tristan on? The CD remastering? I grant the odd balances but to say it's 'unlistenable' appears a bit OTT.


Just a regular stereo system. Too many weird balances going on. Ruined it for me.
I agree with the Trovatore and Otello too, which I gave away.
And the Don Carlo as well. Gone.


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

The English National Opera are doing a production of Tristan next year in English with Stuart Skelton and Heidi Melton. Does anyone know if there are any recordings of Tristan in English? I don't ever recall Goodall doing one and I'd be interested to hear how the opera fares in translation.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

This opera is so intense, sometimes I just can't listen to it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> This opera is so intense, sometimes I just can't listen to it.


I had a friend years ago who was a Mahler fanatic. Mahler's music is certainly intense. My friend had never heard a Wagner opera, so I gave him the Bohm/Nilsson/Windgassen recording to listen to. He said he had to stop it after the opening scene because he couldn't stand the intensity of it.

Sometimes I feel that way too.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I am the opposite I can just get stuck listening to it when I have been planning of only hearing a part of the opera.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Sloe said:


> I am the opposite I can just get stuck listening to it when I have been planning of only hearing a part of the opera.


Same here............


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

jflatter said:


> The English National Opera are doing a production of Tristan next year in English with Stuart Skelton and Heidi Melton. Does anyone know if there are any recordings of Tristan in English? I don't ever recall Goodall doing one and I'd be interested to hear how the opera fares in translation.


Goodall did in fact do an English version, an all-time great one. Although if you can actually figure out what they're singing without an English libretto in hand, you're a better man than me.

Linda Esther Gray and Albert Remedios as the lovers, excellent performances--LEG delivering one of the great Isolde performances, before a too-early retirement.

Been OOP forever though, and pretty hard to find cheap used copies. Can be bought from Arkiv.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> Goodall did in fact do an English version, an all-time great one. Although if you can actually figure out what they're singing without an English libretto in hand, you're a better man than me.
> 
> Linda Esther Gray and Albert Remedios as the lovers, excellent performances--LEG delivering one of the great Isolde performances, before a too-early retirement.
> 
> Been OOP forever though, and pretty hard to find cheap used copies. Can be bought from Arkiv.


I think you're confusing the live English-language performance with Remedios with the German-language recording with John Mitchinson as Tristan. That's the one reissued by Arkiv Music.

It's the performance in English on YouTube. Remedios is a lightweight Tristan and the translation is, to me, irritating. I do want to hear the recording in German, as Gray's Isolde is indeed fine, even in translation.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I think you're confusing the live English-language performance with Remedios with the German-language recording with John Mitchinson as Tristan. That's the one reissued by Arkiv Music.
> 
> It's the performance in English on YouTube. Remedios is a lightweight Tristan and the translation is, to me, irritating. I do want to hear the recording in German, as Gray's Isolde is indeed fine, even in translation.


OH! I got this as a bootleg awhile ago and just assumed the CD was the same performance. Darn, then I really do have to get the CD, I would prefer the German too.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

I am baffled that I have no DVD or Blu-ray of this one. It looks like the Gwyneth Jones one is probably the most traditional. Any other contenders?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> OH! I got this as a bootleg awhile ago and just assumed the CD was the same performance. Darn, then I really do have to get the CD, I would prefer the German too.


I had it (probably still have in storage) on cartridge tapes. It was done with the Welsh National Opera


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

. No information on the year or under who's baton this is, but this recording of the Narration and Curse with Flagstad is the most astonishing I've ever heard, and I have heard some great ones by Nilsson, Varnay, Traubel, Jones, Eaglen and the stereo with Flagstad. She is so passionate! During the curse she sings the most overwhelmingly large note I have ever heard by any singer. You have to hear it to believe it. She was reputed to have the largest voice of any soprano, but normally she would coast by in 3rd and 4th gear and still be overwhelming. Here she let it all hang out and used her 7th gear!!!! I kid you not! Even on the old 78 equipment. I did a speech on this in my Toastmasters club that is on Youtube. John


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Seattleoperafan said:


> . No information on the year or under who's baton this is, but *this recording of the Narration and Curse with Flagstad is the most astonishing I've ever heard*, and I have heard some great ones by Nilsson, Varnay, Traubel, Jones, Eaglen and the stereo with Flagstad. She is so passionate! During the curse she sings the most overwhelmingly large note I have ever heard by any singer. You have to hear it to believe it. She was reputed to have the largest voice of any soprano, but normally she would coast by in 3rd and 4th gear and still be overwhelming. Here she let it all hang out and used her 7th gear!!!! I kid you not! Even on the old 78 equipment. I did a speech on this in my Toastmasters club that is on Youtube. John


Pretty sure that Flagstad version is from 1948 EMI (abbey road studios) studio recording session along with Liebestod from Tristan, on CD very cheap on various releases.......also valuable Wesendonck Lieder

The conducting by Dobrowen is the clue


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I'm a big fan of the PristineClassical remasters of historical recordings, I have the remasters of the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven Ninth, 1954 Furtwängler Lucerne Beethoven Ninth (the final Ninth that he performed), the Toscanini 1952 Beethoven Ninth, and Toscanini Brahms cycle. They're all top notch remasters, I was wondering if anyone knows if Pristine has ever remastered the legendary 1952 Furtwängler _Tristan und Isolde_ with Suthaus and Flagstad. Thanks!


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

DiesIraeCX said:


> I'm a big fan of the PristineClassical remasters of historical recordings, I have the remasters of the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven Ninth, 1954 Furtwängler Lucerne Beethoven Ninth (the final Ninth that he performed), the Toscanini 1952 Beethoven Ninth, and Toscanini Brahms cycle. They're all top notch remasters, *I was wondering if anyone knows if Pristine has ever remastered the legendary 1952 Furtwängler Tristan und Isolde with Suthaus and Flagstad*. Thanks!


Yes it is a magnificent remaster by Pristine XR, even though the EMI is good mono studio sound it is easily surpassed in all respects by Pristine XR with ambient stereo......you have never heard Flagstad sound this good, so much insight into her vocal technique and tonal shadings, essential buy










Same comments for 50 Furtwangler Ring (la scala) with Flagstad's Brunnhilde performance, amazing sound quality now in Pristine XR


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

DarkAngel said:


> Yes it is a magnificent remaster by Pristine XR, even though the EMI is good mono studio sound it is easily surpassed in all respects by Pristine XR with ambient stereo......you have never heard Flagstad sound this good, so much insight into her vocal technique and tonal shadings, essential buy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed on all counts.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

DarkAngel said:


> Yes it is a magnificent remaster by Pristine XR, even though the EMI is good mono studio sound it is easily surpassed in all respects by Pristine XR with ambient stereo......you have never heard Flagstad sound this good, so much insight into her vocal technique and tonal shadings, essential buy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why don't I have this?! 

Pristine makes me angry. Several of my Wagner recordings are now obsolete! It's not fair...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Celloman said:


> Why don't I have this?!
> 
> Pristine makes me angry. Several of my Wagner recordings are now obsolete! It's not fair...


I sympathize, in spades. I would have to replace most of my Wagner and Callas collections to avoid obsolescence. Luckily the rest of me has been behind the times for some years now. About 66, in fact.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Just finished the first act of Karl Böhm's _Tristan und Isolde_, blown away and _then_ some. 

I'm feeling like Isolde after they both take the "draught of atonement".

"Wo bin ich? Leb' ich? Ha! Welcher Trank?" (Where am I? Living? What draught was that?)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Just thought I'd revive this thread as I've started listening to the Barenboim Tristan with Meier, Jerusalem and Salminnen. Barenboim works magic with the Berln Phil and Act 1, so far, is rather good. Only weak link is Roman Treckel as the sailor. His opening lament is a bit wavery and he has a tendency to sing slightly sharp on occasion. Meier and Jerusalem are in excellent voice and Jerusalem sounds as good as I've ever heard him. Lipovsek is a pretty fair Brangane and Struckmann is fine as Kurwenal. I shall report further.


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Would you prefer it over the Barenboim, Meier, Jerusalem from Bayreuth?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

interestedin said:


> Would you prefer it over the Barenboim, Meier, Jerusalem from Bayreuth?


Not sure yet. I'll reserve judgement until after I've heard it all.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

interestedin said:


> Would you prefer it over the Barenboim, Meier, Jerusalem from Bayreuth?


I would say that now that I've heard it all I think I do prefer this studio recording to the "live" Bayreuth one. Orchestrally it's quite wonderful and Barenboim and the BPO are superb, and to my old ears Jerusalem in is in much sweeter voice here. Waltaud is her usual reliable self although I still feel that you need a proper hochdramatische soprano for Isolde and not a pushed-up mezzo and she does a great job of the Liebestod. I heard her sing Isolde in Berlin two or three years back and she was very convincing but she did sound a bit strained by the time it got to the Liebestod. Of course in this recording she was much younger and not doing four hours singing at a stretch. Matti Salminen is a good Marke although I always feel I'm listening to Fasolt or Fafner! All in all its a very fine Tristan and I'm glad to have heard it.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Bump ...............


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Bump ...............


I hope your shocks are good.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

If I were a stage director and entrusted with staging this particular opera, I would make Kurwenal and Brangäne into gay characters who are in love with Tristan and Isolde respectively. That would make for three tragedies instead of one 

And seriously, Kurwenal and Brangäne display such a deep, fierce devotion towards Tristan and Isolde that it would not be far-fetched to imagine each one of them being in love - and hopelessly watching the fateful potion take its effect on their beloved ones. Maybe that is why Brangäne mixed up a love potion instead of death potion in the first place. Maybe she even hoped Isolde's affection would be suddenly directed towards her. And most definitely the reason Kurwenal gave his life for his friend with the words

_Tristan! Trauter! 
Schilt mich nicht -, 
daß der Treue auch mitkommt!_

Tristan, dear one,
do not scold me,
because you faithful one goes with you.

Every time I listen to the opera, I feel great compassion for these two supporting characters. They put the interests of their respective friends always above their own, they gave their 100% - and still in the end all they were left with is watching their beloved ones die.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

SiegendesLicht said:


> If I were a stage director and entrusted with staging this particular opera, I would make Kurwenal and Brangäne into gay characters who are in love with Tristan and Isolde respectively. That would make for three tragedies instead of one
> 
> And seriously, Kurwenal and Brangäne display such a deep, fierce devotion towards Tristan and Isolde that it would not be far-fetched to imagine each one of them being in love - and hopelessly watching the fateful potion take its effect on their beloved ones. Maybe that is why Brangäne mixed up a love potion instead of death potion in the first place. Maybe she even hoped Isolde's affection would be suddenly directed towards her. And most definitely the reason Kurwenal gave his life for his friend with the words
> 
> ...


This is actually an interesting idea Siegendes. It's not too much of a stretch to see that point of view.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> If I were a stage director and entrusted with staging this particular opera, I would make Kurwenal and Brangäne into gay characters who are in love with Tristan and Isolde respectively. That would make for three tragedies instead of one
> 
> And seriously, Kurwenal and Brangäne display such a deep, fierce devotion towards Tristan and Isolde that it would not be far-fetched to imagine each one of them being in love - and hopelessly watching the fateful potion take its effect on their beloved ones. Maybe that is why Brangäne mixed up a love potion instead of death potion in the first place. Maybe she even hoped Isolde's affection would be suddenly directed towards her. And most definitely the reason Kurwenal gave his life for his friend with the words
> 
> ...


They haven't done that yet?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> They haven't done that yet?


I have no idea. If anyone anywhere has done that _tastefully_, I would like to know about it.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> If I were a stage director and entrusted with staging this particular opera, I would make Kurwenal and Brangäne into gay characters who are in love with Tristan and Isolde respectively. That would make for three tragedies instead of one
> 
> And seriously, Kurwenal and Brangäne display such a deep, fierce devotion towards Tristan and Isolde that it would not be far-fetched to imagine each one of them being in love - and hopelessly watching the fateful potion take its effect on their beloved ones. Maybe that is why Brangäne mixed up a love potion instead of death potion in the first place. Maybe she even hoped Isolde's affection would be suddenly directed towards her. And most definitely the reason Kurwenal gave his life for his friend with the words
> 
> ...


Not really a big Tristan Und Isolde fan, but I agree with you on this


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Brangaene and Kurwenal needn't be gay to be devoted. But now that it's come up, some director will stage the whole thing as their story. It will all end with Brangaene passionately embracing and kissing Isolde's body. 

(Incidentally, does anyone ever stage the end of the opera as Wagner instructs? "Isolde sinks gently, as if transfigured, in Brangaene's arms, onto Tristan's body. Those standing around are awed and deeply moved. Marke blesses the bodies.")


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> If I were a stage director and entrusted with staging this particular opera, I would make Kurwenal and Brangäne into gay characters who are in love with Tristan and Isolde respectively. That would make for three tragedies instead of one
> 
> And seriously, Kurwenal and Brangäne display such a deep, fierce devotion towards Tristan and Isolde that it would not be far-fetched to imagine each one of them being in love - and hopelessly watching the fateful potion take its effect on their beloved ones. Maybe that is why Brangäne mixed up a love potion instead of death potion in the first place. Maybe she even hoped Isolde's affection would be suddenly directed towards her. *And most definitely the reason Kurwenal gave his life for his friend with the words
> 
> ...


I am pretty certain that this particular thought never entered Wagner's head when he wrote it.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> I am pretty certain that this particular thought never entered Wagner's head when he wrote it.


Are you so sure? It's somewhat hard to believe now that Wagner has been culturally filtered through Nazi and Apocalypse Now machismo, but he was considered effeminate and something of a gay and feminist icon in his own day, _Tristan _in particular.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Are you so sure? It's somewhat hard to believe now that Wagner has been culturally filtered through Nazi and Apocalypse Now machismo, but *he was considered effeminate and something of a gay and feminist icon in his own day, Tristan in particular*.


History leaves us in no doubt of Wagner's capabilities as a heterosexual athlete!

I would like to know where you get your information from.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I am pretty certain that this particular thought never entered Wagner's head when he wrote it.


You are right. "Most definitely" was a bad choice of words on my part.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Incidentally, does anyone ever stage the end of the opera as Wagner instructs? "Isolde sinks gently, as if transfigured, in Brangaene's arms, onto Tristan's body. Those standing around are awed and deeply moved. Marke blesses the bodies."

























This one comes the closest to the written ending you say. I didn't watch it. I read this entire thread and you all discussed the staging two years ago. Paraphrasing your own words, it was just "Nothing outrageous. Nothing imaginative or exciting".


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I've read this thread, and I would first need to say that this is for me the best opera ever written. I 95% agree with Woodduck's posts throughout this thread and I was relieved to read the explanation of the "love potion". Before making personal comments about the opera, I want to mention very old posts.



DavidA said:


> If what happens in Tristan is 'psychologically realistic' then you live in a different universe from me! It is a romantic concept not a realistic one.


I must live in the same universe as Woodduck (in TUI). Before reading the posts, the Ponelle staging for Bayreuth, plus Meier and Kollo's superb acting, made it very clear to me. Further explanation in a later post.

When was love, or even friendship, entirely rational? I sadly have never experienced love with a human being, but a hint of friendship and colleage teamwork has suggested me that many times we have to do self-harming or inconvenient acts to help someone in need, even if we know they don't deserve it or we don't want to. Enter Bragänne here.



Itullian said:


> Would it have been a better story without the potion?


Woodduck gave an enlightening answer many posts before. I didn't ever think about the psychological consecuences of both people taking a supposed poison drink and vent their repressed feelings like they were about to die. Bragänne wasn't very smart, but had a big heart because she knew about the existence of the love potion as (in the productions I've seen) Isolde discards a vessel of her suitcase and asks for the deadly poison. *It's a very subtle script item, not everyone catches the reason.*



AC Douglas said:


> If there is a real tragedy in _Tristan und Isolde_ it is that Tristan's death really IS *"pathetic" by itself, a misunderstanding by him - he who ironically was Isolde's "teacher" in this whole business* as I point out in my S&F article - about death and its nature in the eternal union of two lovers. As always with Wagner, it is Isolde, the female, who finally understands everything and understands just what death in this context actually means, and it is she who makes the eternal union with her Tristan possible for them both by her Verklärung and by so doing lifts the music-drama above the level of mere tragedy and into the realm of the radiantly transcendent.
> 
> As to W's stage directions, there may be no direct statement that Isolde is still living, but, then, there's none that directly indicate she's ordinarily dead either. Hence, the ambiguity I note in my article.
> 
> Oh, and as to those "Leichen" Marke blesses, there are some half-dozen or so of them scattered about the scene here and there.





Woodduck said:


> No, AC! No, no, no, no, no! And did I say "no"?
> 
> 1. *A "pathetic misunderstanding" is not a tragedy.*
> 
> ...


About Isolde's death, I agree that she dies. And I have a comment for Tristan's "pathetic" death. *It depends on the production phylosophy that Tristan's death is pathetic or not.* Only someone who shares the nihilistic views of TUI in paper and visual production would say such a thing, together with newbies like me who went completely umprepared for this opera for one long evening.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

*My scarce views on Tristan und Isolde - Metropolitan 2016*

I don't exactly know how to structure this post. Maybe I should tell my story with this opera right from the start.

Right in 2015 and 2016, when I was listening to Herbert von Karajan discography, before joining this forum, I tried Trisan und Isolde, Parsifal and the Ring in the same way as all the operas I had been listening too: *without libretto or knowing the synopsis, or watching a production beforehand.* No wonder I only ended up liking Puccini. I had worse views on _Parsifal, Siegfried_ and _Götterdämmerung_ than _Tristan und Isolde._ I never revisisted Wagner opera until my first watch of a Tristan und Isolde in the Metropolitan broadcast in 2016, with Simon Rattle and Mariusz Trelinski (stage director). I was completely baffled and as I said, before, I had went completely unprepared, like someone who goes to watch a film in the cinema/theatre (in Spain, I don't know the US, we don't watch films in traditional theatres anymore. Usually in big screens in shopping centers. In London I guess the scene is very different.).

Because it was my first opera broadcast, and I was completely clueless, I spent the entire Act I of _Tristan_ eating chips, bothering the neighbour watchers. I have never done it again. Don't worry.

This Trelinski was completely far from Wagner stage directions as I would know later. The setting is a US Navy ship with Admiral Marke's future wife being held hostage (that's what I could understand): Isolde. To me, then Nina Stemme was nothing but an everylady who wouldn't ever stop singing long and slow phrases in Act I constantly looking at the audience. I was not very familiar to opera charachteristics then. It felt reallyn unrealistic and I was not very involved. Stuart Skelton was Tristan dressed as a modern US navy (I completely forgot he was singing the Irish girl song) and the action went from room to room without me knowing what was really going on because Isolde was too busy telling the backstory for almost half an hour. Remember, I'm clueless at this time.

I don't know what the stage directions wanted to mean with the gun scene in the final encounter between Isolde and Tristan in Act I. Only I could remember that the "love potion" thing made me blind to the chorus and Marke and stuff. Nothing was involving in Act I. I didn't mention the Overture screening which I didn't understand at all now and then.

Act II, set in two scenes (the same control room of the ship for Isolde and Bragänne, then a Navy basement whith weapon materials where the two poisoned lovers were supposed to meet) felt eternal. I wasn't rooting for any of the main singers. Bragänne warns the lovers during their watch but I have no idea whether it's night or day in any moment of Scene 2. Then comes my first time with René Pape's "Admiral" Marke and I did not even realised that he had been owning the role for years. I was only focused on the strange story and I did not understand why an admiral would need to ask for his new wife now that his dearest captain is cheating with her, but well, we always count with that ambitious Melot, ready to be promoted into Tristan's wealthy post, so killing him as an honour deed is in order, why not. Tristan is shot by a gun. I repeat. Tristan is shot by a _ gun.

Act III impressed me the most. The overture was a discovery for me and then became one of my favourite Classical pieces. In this scene, filled with screenings, a child, a giant radar and a hospital bed, has been criticised as delusional. I don't even remember seeing a shepherd. The scene changes for the Tristan mad scene, where he tells his past from the ruins of his house. Now that I think, in the story's context it could make sense. But I have then no grasp of the feelings that he is portraying inside out. I still have in my mind the love potion. So when he learns that Isolde is arriving, and very explicitly tears off his cures, dooming him to death, I roll my eyes. Isolde's liebestod is obscured by her cutting her veins and dying in Tristan's corpse. The. End.

My comment right then was: _Romeo and Juliet_ was better written than this, which is not even positive.

I now realise that what I was watching was a regietheatre production very far from Wagner's ideas, and I should have informed myself way more before going there. To me, those lovers were just too crazy for each other and the production tended to make everything explicit but also taking many things out of context.










































To be continued with J.P. Ponnelle's Bayreuth production, my second watch and most enlightening.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

*My scarce views on Tristan und Isolde - Bayreuth 1980*

Many of you may have watched the Jean-Pierre Ponnelle production with Johanna Meier and René Kollo.
*It's a traditional production with everything orthodox except for the ending, which follows the Critical Theories.* Ponnelle makes Isolde's last appearance as a vision of Tristan. Meier was first supposed to sing the Liebestod from the orchestral pit, but this shift was proven impossible for the acoustics of Bayreuth, and neither Barenboim or Meier agreeeded with it. In the production, she sings the liebestod onstage, and instead of dying, she vanishes inside the stage before the lights go off. In the video, the editors fade Isolde until she disappears. Meier argues that Ponnelle was exhausted staging Acts I and II, with lots and lots of slight and important stage directions. She says he ran out of ideas for the liebestod.

This production was essential for me to understand the psychologycal reasons for the actions of the characters. *Knowing the whole backstory is essential,* and inside the opera we only know the context in Acts I and III. If we know the details, following the script is very simple. This interpretation sets the love potion as the climax. The Irish song became very clear to me. It implied that Tristan had repressed feelings about Isolde right after her saving his life in Ireland. He was at the mercy of the enemy, Isolde, who feels compassion and saves the life of Tantris. Before meeting Isolde, Tristan was born in a very dark island where the sun never rises. Her mother died and those experiences of pain told him about the lack of meaning in living suffering. "Why to suffer when one can die". *He enlisted in Marke's navy in search for victory, honour and wealth, as a means of escaping pain and darkness. This part is really important for me personally.*
For the side he fights for, Tristan cannot reveal that Isolde saved her life, because that would mean to lose the honour of the hero he is considered by King Marke. That's why he cannot face Isolde in front of his men and the society.










Isolde, on her part, wants revenge and because she is denied to see Tristan, she forgets the mercy she had in Ireland with Tantris, and now just suffers shame after losing her fiancé and being humilliated into her wedding with the enemy. She is the ramson for the defeat, and will avenge the hero that killed Moralt and won the war: Tristan. She knows his past, but puts the guilt on her only and she will take the life of Marke's best man. Bragänne shows her the potions for the plan (her mother created many medicines and cures), and when her assistant shows a particular potion, not mentioned then, she rejects it. This one is the love potion which Bragänne will use in compassion, not obeying Isolde's order, but doing what she thinks is best for her, because more than a subject, she is her only friend. That is the kind of love I think she feels for Isolde, the love of a friend who doesn't want her to live in pain or die either.

Back to Isolde, when she finally confronts an apologetic Tristan (she doesn't know his dark backstory before Ireland), she rules over him and squashes his steem remembering his close-to-death experiences. When she offers the "drink" that is supposed to be poison, to Tristan, the toast spins. Isolde feels again mercy for Tristan and denies the reason to live after killing him. She also takes the drink and they think they are going to die. Isolde is in love with Tristan, but this is the time she realises it.

Enter Woodduck's explanation of the chorus here. I never catched it beforehand. They think they are going to die and express their repressed emotions. They realise that they love each other with passion and fall. In the second, silent, tristan chord section, they embrace and know that they are not dead. Bragänne enters and says the thing about the Love potion. In this version, the potion is a trigger for psychological reasons, never a cheap excuse.

*King Marke arrives on stage* to claim his bride. The newfound lovers have to go back to reality. *It's daytime,* when everyone can see them and judge their actions. Their love is forbidden.


















Act II is way more in the present than in the past. *It's nightime.* The lovers basically wait to the night to encounter and enjoy their presence and their love, in a 40m duet that represents musical love-making, abruptly ended by Kurwenal followed by the ambitious Melot and King Marke, who discovers the lovers and feels both anger and pain for being cheated. Never as a jealous or evil man. He doesn't then understand what is going on. I say this because then K. Wagner comes to Bayreuth and ruins the entire TUI with Marke as an evil king taking Isolde away before dying from love, making the end anti-climatic. The ambitious, more of "evil" character, is the oportunistic Melot who craves Marke's approval and supposes that this blasphemy must be avenged to Marke's benefit, but only thinking in his own benefit and future wealth as Marke's new captain. Tristan resigns himself for a future interned in the dark island that was his hometown, now that he has lost all honour and wealth for loving Isolde. It's not that he has any hopes on living with Isolde, but Melot doesn't have enough and stabs Tristan in the final swordfight. The curtain falls in one of the most climatic endings I remember in a spare act in an opera. Bum!










Act III is a great emotional rollercoaster. The setting is a dark, isolated island *where the sun never rises.* Kurwenal stays by the wounded hero as a loyal friend, singing his lovely lines with the shepherd over the Overture leitmotiv. My favourite part of the opera.
Tristan wakes up and lights the spark in Kurwenal's sadness. He learns that he is in his hometown, in the island that saw him being born, out of a suffering mother. This solo is essential and I summed up in the beginning the reason. Tristan's early life and pains have taught him that suffering in life is not worth the time. If death can put an end to it, so be it. No one mentions ever a second life, reincarnation, transfiguration. No religion. No redemption. Just. Escape. Pain.* It's for me the most beautiful portrayal of suicide.* That is my interpretation.

When Tristan learns that Isolde is coming, he wants to feel again, to go back to the time that Isolde met him, and cured his wounds. With that reasoning, in the context of putting an end to pain (suicide), he takes away the ropes, and starts to bleed insanely. He expects Isolde to come right at that time. He eventurally causes his own death, but I don't have very clear whether his thoughts are to be cured by Isolde and live in love, or bleed to death but feeling ecstacy to end his life in the sweetest way possible for his pessimistic background. In this staging, Tristan does never die, but has his eyes open for his vision or delusion of Isolde arriving and staying with him.

Whether this death, and Isolde's too, is pathetic or not, depends on the staging and acting. Isolde arrives with Marke, who forgives the love of Tristan and Isolde after being explained by Bragänne about the whole thing. Isolde comes and dies from love (or isn't actually present in Ponnelle's view).
The curtain falls. The two corpses lie on the ground, rather than by any mediocrity or misunderstanding, because one didn't see the meaning of life anymore if it only led to suffering. Isolde is his redemtion. Isolde comes unfortunately late and dies out of the pain. There is no redeption actually. There is nothing. Woodduck's paraphrasing: Redemption through love, Wagner's recurrent plot style, is meaningless now and we must search other ways to give meaning to our lives outside of pleasure, feelings and desire, as they lead to an end where no good has been done. Parsifal is the continuity (more or less Woodduck's words).

For me, from then I expect a TUI production to be almost always traditional and focus on the acting of characters. I think this opera is too psycological to distract the public or create new backgrounds out of nothing. Kollo has the fault of convicing me of the suicidal ideas of Tristan. What a superb performance of Act III.

The Metropolitan Production was very distracting and made the Isolde death too evident. Stemme's Isolde doesn't look like she dies of love, but she dies phisically like Tristan because they are both bleeding to death. That is pathetic in my opinion, and a postmodernistic vision that puts nihilism before the psychological reasons behind each character. Without this background, of course the characters look dumb, because the plotline in the present is very simple and fast, but the underlying story must be told accordingly or it won't be Tristan und Isolde.

My curtain falls. This is exhausting.

Source for the Production. Interview with Johanna Meier about her career.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Granate said:


> This one comes the closest to the written ending you say. I didn't watch it. I read this entire thread and you all discussed the staging two years ago. Paraphrasing your own words, it was just "Nothing outrageous. Nothing imaginative or exciting".


I have this DVD as well. It's definitely the most "traditional" filmed production in existence. It's a case of be careful what you wish for. Wagner's stage instructions are not necessarily the most compelling.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Curious: Is there a sung-in-English set of Tristan and Isolde?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Next question: What is with this set?
It is 4 disks but both the Amazon listing and the Allmusic listing show it as only having Acts 1 and 2 with a bunch of tracks of leider, Meistersinger and other assorted Wagner, in the middle of Act 2, yet the Amazon reviewers rave about this set. 









Disc: 1
1. Tristan und Isolde: Act 1
2. Tristan und Isolde: Act 1
3. Tristan und Isolde: Act 1
4. Tristan und Isolde: Act 1
5. Tristan und Isolde: Act 1
6. Tristan und Isolde: Act 1

Disc: 2
1. Tristan und Isolde: Act 1
2. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
3. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
4. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
5. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
6. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
7. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
8. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
9. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
10. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
11. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2

Disc: 3
1. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
2. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
?????????
3. Wesendonck-Lieder
4. Wesendonck-Lieder
5. Wesendonck-Lieder
6. Wesendonck-Lieder
7. Wesendonck-Lieder
8. Die Meistersinger Von NÃ1/4rnberg: Wahn! Wahn! Ãberall Wahn!
9. Die WalkÃ1/4re: Nun ZÃ¤ume Dein Ross, Reisige Maid!
10. Die WalkÃ1/4re: War Es So ScmÃ¤lich, Was Ich Verbrach... So Tatest du, ...
11. Parsifal: Titurel, Der Fromme Held
12. TrÃ¤ume (Dreams) for violin & small orchestra in A flat major (from Wesendonck Lieder No. 5), WWV 91b: Be Still! - Hans Knappertsbusch
13. TrÃ¤ume (Dreams) for violin & small orchestra in A flat major (from Wesendonck Lieder No. 5), WWV 91b: In the Hothouse - Hans Knappertsbusch
14. TrÃ¤ume (Dreams) for violin & small orchestra in A flat major (from Wesendonck Lieder No. 5), WWV 91b: Torment - Hans Knappertsbusch
15. TrÃ¤ume (Dreams) for violin & small orchestra in A flat major (from Wesendonck Lieder No. 5), WWV 91b: Dreams - Hans Knappertsbusch
16. Die Meistersinger von NÃ1/4rnberg, opera, WWV 96: Wahn! Wahn! Ãberall Wahn! - Hans Knappertsbusch
17. Die WalkÃ1/4re (The Valkyrie), opera, WWV 86b: Nun zÃ¤ume dein Ross, reisige Maid! - Hans Knappertsbusch
18. Die Walküre (The Valkyrie), opera, WWV 86b: War es so scmälich, was ich verbrach... So tatest du, was, so gern zu tun ich begehrt - Hans Knappertsbusch
19. Parsifal, opera, WWV 111: Titurel, der fromme Held - Hans Knappertsbusch

Disc: 4
1. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
2. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
3. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
4. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
5. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
6. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
7. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
8. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
9. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2
10. Tristan und Isolde: Act 2


???????????????? ACT 3 Please ?????????????????????


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Next question: What is with this set?
> It is 4 disks but both the Amazon listing and the Allmusic listing show it as only having Acts 1 and 2 with a bunch of tracks of leider, Meistersinger and other assorted Wagner, in the middle of Act 2, yet the Amazon reviewers rave about this set.
> 
> 
> ...


Never fear. I have it and it's complete. The other stuff is a nice bonus. I can't tell you the disc layout, since my CDs are presently packed away.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

^^^if you would like it in better sound and nicer packaging, get the Orfeo.

They do very good remasters and it sounds excellent.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tristan is one of those operas better heard than seen imo. The problem is that most singers of the roles are (by necessity) mature and often bulky which somewhat ruins the effect of two young lovers, especially in HD. I prefer the audio experience and then at least you can imagine what goes on without the distraction of 'young' lovers.
Of course this applies to other opera too. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing the distinguished baritone Simon Keenlyside singing Don Giovanni. Da Ponte describes him as 'a licentious YOUNG nobleman.' Keenlyside is nearly 60 and in HD looked it even with make-up. Opera houses need to wake up to this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Tristan is one of those operas better heard than seen imo. The problem is that most singers of the roles are (by necessity) mature and often bulky which somewhat ruins the effect of two young lovers, especially in HD. I prefer the audio experience and then at least you can imagine what goes on without the distraction of 'young' lovers.
> Of course this applies to other opera too. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing the distinguished baritone Simon Keenlyside singing Don Giovanni. Da Ponte describes him as 'a licentious YOUNG nobleman.' Keenlyside is nearly 60 and in HD looked it even with make-up. Opera houses need to wake up to this.


We can lament the fact that most operatic protagonists are supposed to be young and gorgeous and that most singers (like most of us) aren't, but what's the solution? Plastic surgery? Liposuction? Careers that end at age 30? There are few enough great singers already.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I suggest that operas should be performed by idealized projections, keyed to the actual singing. movements and facial expressions of the performers by CGI. (I am not actually serious about this, but how long before it becomes the reality?)


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

JAS said:


> I suggest that operas should be performed by idealized projections, keyed to the actual singing. movements and facial expressions of the performers by CGI. (I am not actually serious about this, but how long before it becomes the reality?)


I don't think it's a bad idea actually. Especially if it gives us more ideal productions that are faithful to the composer's artistic conception.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> I suggest that operas should be performed by idealized projections, keyed to the actual singing. movements and facial expressions of the performers by CGI. (I am not actually serious about this, but how long before it becomes the reality?)


There are a few opera DVDs out there where they used actors and had them lip sync to a track laid down by professional opera singers.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I've been thinking this for enough time. Opera was made to be performed in a theatre live in front of an audience with usually far-sight problems and really high vocal demands. Richard Strauss was one of the composers who did care about the looks of his singers but this is not general at all. This wasn't made to be filmed, but two things could be made: shot very few close ups and more general views or let opera houses cast more eye-pleasing singers like Karajan did for his Madame Butterfly video recording. If nothing of this is met, it's us the audience who should settle to this weakness.

But I don't understand this justification as_ it's just opera, and grand librettos are just presumptuous,_ and at the same time _demand singers to look the part._ I'm done with this.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Granate said:


> I've been thinking this for enough time. Opera was made to be performed in a theatre live in front of an audience with usually far-sight problems and really high vocal demands. Richard Strauss was one of the composers who did care about the looks of his singers but this is not general at all. This wasn't made to be filmed, but two things could be made: shot very few close ups and more general views or let opera houses cast more eye-pleasing singers like Karajan did for his Madame Butterfly video recording. If nothing of this is met, it's us the audience who should settle to this weakness.
> 
> But I don't understand this justification as_ *it's just opera, and grand librettos are just presumptuous,*_* and at the same time demand singers to look the part.* I'm done with this.


Yes it's a preposterous art form. Why make it more preposterous with singers who don't look the part? Interestingly Marilyn Horne said that HD was a menace to opera singers, many of whom are too mature or too bulky for actually looking the parts they play, at least when looked at close up. I recently saw a Trovatore from ROH where the Manrico looked older than me! It might not affect you but it does me. I just want to laugh! 
Karajan was one of those conductor / directors who actually wanted his singers to look good as well as sound good. When asked once about his contribution to opera he said, "At least I have chased all those fat ladies from the stage."


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Granate said:


> But I don't understand this justification as_ it's just opera, and grand librettos are just presumptuous,_ and at the same time _demand singers to look the part._ I'm done with this.


Well said.

The first act of Tristan is supposed to take place on a boat but last time I saw a staged production it was inside of an opera house, not on a boat. The second act was supposed to be in Cornwall but it was actually in London, I could tell because Covent Garden is in London, not Cornwall.

I recently saw the Ring here in San Francisco and in Das Rheingold Alberich was supposed to turn into a giant snake beast, but the singer just went behind a wall so we couldn't really see him most of the time. He didn't actually shapeshift. Same deal for when he was supposed to turn into a toad.

But while it can be interesting to see how various elements of an opera are represented on stage that's really more a meta-concern than a part of the opera (in almost all cases). We have to work with the creators of the opera to accept that we are not seeing reality on stage. Some reality has to intrude to be able to present an opera on stage. Sometimes that distance is useful/used by the composer and/or director/crew; often it is not. We can examine and analyze that, but it is often best to focus on elements that work with what the opera is doing. And I consider the bodies of the singers to be one of those realities that is a necessary part of putting opera on stage.

Also I don't think there's anything in _Tristan und Isolde_ that gives the ages of the characters other than the "young" sailor that has the initial song that Isolde gets mad at. There's also nothing that says anything about the weight of the characters. Older people fall in love. Overweight people fall in love. Whatever singers we're presented with... people like them have fallen in love, magic potion or no.

One can be a gross creep and insist that they must be teenagers or be a cruel fat-shamer and assume that they can't be above average weight or whatever, but none of that has anything to do with what was written.


----------



## betterthanfine (Oct 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Yes it's a preposterous art form. Why make it more preposterous with singers who don't look the part? Interestingly Marilyn Horne said that HD was a menace to opera singers, many of whom are too mature or too bulky for actually looking the parts they play, at least when looked at close up. I recently saw a Trovatore from ROH where the Manrico looked older than me! It might not affect you but it does me. I just want to laugh!
> Karajan was one of those conductor / directors who actually wanted his singers to look good as well as sound good. When asked once about his contribution to opera he said, "At least I have chased all those fat ladies from the stage."


Ageist and body shaming. Nice one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

We all have our personal tolerance levels in everything, but I think some of it is cultural. Audiences in earlier times were of necessity much more capable of suspending disbelief in the theater than many of us who've been raised on the sophisticated visual technologies of film, TV, and now CGI. We are spoiled, and that's unfortunate. We're also preoccupied with physical appearance. The first Tristan and Isolde were large people, and Wagner seems to have been happy with them. However, we have to assume that they acted their roles with the abandon he would have demanded, and not stood around like two beached whales the way Jane Eaglen and Ben Heppner did in their boring DVD from the Met. Being overweight is one thing, but looking as if you're too heavy to move is another.


----------



## Scott in PA (Aug 13, 2016)

If only Sophia had sung Isolde!!






That was Sophia singing, wasn't it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

betterthanfine said:


> Ageist and body shaming. Nice one.


tell that to Hollywood :lol:


----------

