# Why do you NOT like Wagner?



## tyroneslothrop

Some of us find the later works of Wagner to be sublimely at the pinnacle of nineteenth century opera. But this is a thread for those who *don't* like Wagner and the people who love them 

For those of you who can't stand Wagner, why is that? Is it because of his politics? Is it because a certain you-know-who liked him a lot and therefore Wagner is poisoned by association? Is it because Wagner is a fungus?

Pray tell.


----------



## Guest

Let's get Godwin's law sorted straight away. Wagner's politics and associations with others are of absolutely no interest to me, and stand as no justification for not listening to his music. After all, I'd happily read '_Mein Kampf_' if it was any good.

Based on my limited experience - and everyone who starts the classical journey begins with limited experience and usually follows what first attracts them - I find his work powerful and exciting, but overblown. Some nice tunes that outstay their welcome. I can listen in small doses. And as discussed elsewhere, the operatic singing style is unappealing (to me).

Here's a classic example...






Just to be clear. Mine is a personal response, and I recognise that the cliche of Wagner is easy to reject without giving the real Wagner a fair hearing. I'm not here to mock those who adore his works.

Oh, I suppose I should add that I can admire the skill in the prolonged delayed orgasm of _Tristan and Isolde_ and it's shame it's suffered so much ridicule in the use of adverts and comedy sketches. What one might ask is why the music has suffered such ridicule where other established classics haven't: I don't believe it's because of the political background.


----------



## KenOC

Wagner and his disciples: "...madmen, enemies of music to the knife, who, not born for music and conscious of their impotence...their being is to prey on the ailing trunk, until it becomes putrid and rotten." Unsigned, London, 1855

How can I add to that? 

But in fact, it does sound like some sort of fungus.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

KenOC said:


> Wagner and his disciples: "...madmen, enemies of music to the knife, who, not born for music and conscious of their impotence...their being is to prey on the ailing trunk, until it becomes putrid and rotten." Unsigned, London, 1855
> 
> How can I add to that?


Well fair enough. At least you didn't blame it on the ballet.


----------



## sospiro

I think I don't have the intelligence to understand him properly. Or it might be the German language I find difficult to love, I even struggle with _Die Zauberflöte_ for that reason. I don't have a problem with Italian, French, Russian or Czech.

Opera by my first love, Verdi, is easy for me to understand.


----------



## Yashin

Opera is like cheese. You like some and yet don't like or won't even try others. Even just the mere thought of some makes you feel sick. Time mellows your feelings and your taste buds change and you start listening to things you wouldn't touch with a stick years ago and rue the missed oppertunities


----------



## brianwalker

The music is so complex and beautiful that it draws you in and consumes too much of your time. There are so many details that you get lost in them, like this for example.

Someone once wrote this comment about a particular recording of the prologue in Gotterdammerung.

One of the first CDs I bought back in 1984 was one of Knappertsbusch/ Wagner chunks on Decca. During the Dawn section from Act I of Götterdämmerung *there is a huge blunder just as the sun blazes forth: the trombones miss their entry,* which throws the rest of the orchestra out; it only takes a few seconds for the VPO to get on track again nevertheless, the performance is spoilt. There should have been a re-take and, yes, Culshaw was absolutely right to have preferred Solti and the results entirely vindicate his choice.


This is the recording in question. When do the trombones miss their entry? Where are the few seconds where the orchestra is thrown off balance?






Can someone tell me when this actually happens? I've spend some time trying to find the missing trombones but to no avail.


----------



## sospiro

Another thing which puts me off, The Ring anyway, is the fantasy theme. Possibly the same reason why I can't get into The Hobbit or any of Tolkien's stuff.


----------



## TxllxT

Compared to Verdi I see Wagner being addicted to gadgetry. All his characters, especially in _Die Ring des Nibelungen_, are feeble: Who is Wotan without a spear, who are the Rhinemaidens without Rhinegold, and so on (who is this bloke without the _Tarnkappe_? who are the gods without a Walhalla?...) It reminds me of young people being glued to the newest gadget (Iphone 6, 7, 8 ...). Without this gadget they feel utterly lost and they *are* nowhere & nobody. The problem for me is that this religious gadget-veneration blocks my getting involved into the story. (Otello has a blackened face, but this only has a dramatic effect; it doesn't have any influence on Otello's character).


----------



## mamascarlatti

TxllxT said:


> Compared to Verdi I see Wagner being addicted to gadgetry. All his characters, especially in _Die Ring des Nibelungen_, are feeble: Who is Wotan without a spear, who are the Rhinemaidens without Rhinegold, and so on (who is this bloke without the _Tarnkappe_? who are the gods without a Walhalla?...) It reminds me of young people being glued to the newest gadget (Iphone 6, 7, 8 ...). Without this gadget they feel utterly lost and they *are* nowhere & nobody. The problem for me is that this religious gadget-veneration blocks my getting involved into the story. (*Otello has a blackened face*, but this only has a dramatic effect; it doesn't have any influence on Otello's character).


I disagree, Otello's race can be said to have deep effect on his character, by making him an outsider in the eyes of those around him.


----------



## TxllxT

mamascarlatti said:


> I disagree, Otello's race can be said to have deep effect on his character, by making him an outsider in the eyes of those around him.


 Whether Otello is black (out of Africa) or blackened (with charcoal or shoe-polish like the Black Peters around the Dutch Santa Claus) already is a matter of interpretation itself, but we agree on the* deep *effect on his character, which is blackened by sheer envy. In Wagner I just have to laugh at the shallowness of his characters. Perhaps it is this shallowness of character, that has a great appeal on Wagnerians....


----------



## crmoorhead

sospiro said:


> Another thing which puts me off, The Ring anyway, is the fantasy theme. Possibly the same reason why I can't get into The Hobbit or any of Tolkien's stuff.


Oh my. I don't think we can be friends now.


----------



## crmoorhead

mamascarlatti said:


> I disagree, Otello's race can be said to have deep effect on his character, by making him an outsider in the eyes of those around him.


It certainly does. The Shakespeare play makes no bones about the fact that he is despised for being a Moor and only tolerated because of his usefulness as a general. How can he not be affected by the blatant racism all around him? It is this that enables Iago to sow distrust so easily between Othello and Desdemona.


----------



## PetrB

It has everything to do with the music, the aesthetic, and nothing else. God knows some other great composers who wrote music which transports many to this day were less than pleasant persons. So, take it for granted, for me, the artist is forever separate from the art. _[I have first hand experience at 'what can come out' compared to 'what / who I am' -- and have many times heard much the same from others who compose.]_

Wagner's music does not 'breathe' much. He had a notion of 'endless melody' but forgot that normally, people take a breath: there are natural 'pauses' which make speech that much more speech-like and believable which (imo) are almost entirely absent in the majority of his works.

The seemingly endless sequencing, which is often present, is a technique which in general has me jumping ship if that ship has much of the commodity aboard. That sequencing is the very fundamental premise of Tristan -- an evening laden with sequencing. [As a friend of mine commented upon a two hour Riverdance broadcast, "Imagine, two hours of _that!_"]

I 'judge' any and all vocal music (any genre or format) first only on its musical content, and only long after on its textual content and intent and then if the goal of incorporating the two elements is 'successful,' _I only consider text -- at all -- if and only if the music and only the music has pulled me in via its 'import.'_ For a vocal work, anything less than the music first 'drawing you in and giving you some of the emotional import' without knowing a thing of or about the text, I consider a fail.

There is much in Wagner's scores which is remarkable. There is much I find tedious: far too much sequencing; in the orchestration often endless arpeggiation in the strings, the strings often treated more as 'padding' in general; in the writing itself, very little counterpoint (which I have a preference for, regardless of 'what genre' that counterpoint is or how it is used).

I think Tristan is a masterwork, a wholly effective score, and one hell of a wringer as a piece of musical theater. The Ring just does not 'carry me' for an instant. I very much like and admire his one abstract (absolute) chamber orchestral piece, "Siegfried's Idyll," because of its abstractness of form, the lack of any real literal reference, and its clarity. I would like Wagner more if he had pursued this avenue of musical thought more often. (Siegfried Idyll, too, is a "masterwork.")

Wagner, did, historically, expand tonality to an extreme, the first true and superbly accomplished use of progressive tonality, an extended music dialogue which avoids cadences, his more than intelligent handling of a high chromaticism. Without the fact of Wagner, later music would not have happened as it did, the 'busting' of common practice tonality, chord function, and high chromaticism are all present and accounted for in Wagner.

To the textual aspect: I find all of the ring 'just too silly.' There is "silly" in a lot of opera, nearly a convention where we are asked to suspend reality and accept what is there presented. A long aria, and that a virtuoso display, from a heroine in the very last throes of tuberculosis being just one of many more 'unbelievable' moments found in the genre. A not so due-to-syphilis crazed Nero in Monteverdi -- occasions of theatrical lunacy or historically inaccurate libretti are plentiful. Wagner's _mosh_ on the ring legend is, for me, truly a mosh, and very difficult to take seriously as theater.

Wagner's aesthetic (not mine, admittedly) pervades all his other scores -- as should be expected and as they should be -- of course then they are still filled too with all those aspects of the music itself which just 'do not work for me.'

Genius issues aside, I think Wagner had a very 'bourgeois' sense of theater and drama, and that, for the most part, was his audience of the time. He was, in his own time, remarkably forward looking in what music and music theater could be, while at the same time -- again for me -- there is something horribly banal about the subject and its dramatic treatment, reflected in an 'Average Joe' taste for the cheesier more commonplace theater tricks / schtick (i.e. what is 'dramatic?') and that pervades much of the music... That _"Leitmotif"_ business, to me is painfully simplistic, banal and... well, I agree with Debussy, who likened the device to _"A musical phone directory."_ Wagner, in his 'banality' as I think of 'banal', was consistent 

All the above should demonstrate, I hope, two things. 
1.) A lot of reaction for or against any composer's work is ultimately a matter of personal preference.
2.) There is no problem or dichotomy in not caring for (despising, even) a composers work while still being able to fully acknowledge that composer had the greatest of skill, and that they were one of 'the great ones.'


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> ...very little counterpoint (which I have a preference for, regardless of 'what genre' that counterpoint is or how it is used).


A shame, because he seems to have been quite handy at counterpoint. Listen to the Die Meistersinger prelude from about six minutes in...

My view is that Wagner is easily the best composer of the 19th century post-Beethoven, or would have been had he written more music.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> A shame, because he seems to have been quite handy at counterpoint. Listen to the Die Meistersinger prelude from about six minutes in...


Ah, you are mistaking a bit of 'imitation' and a scurrying accompaniment figure (i.e. not a self-standing independent second line) for 'counterpoint.'

Imitation is the slight overlapping of one bit of line, the imitation coming in at a different pitch level. Categorically, 'within the trade it is, a most basic 'contrapuntal' effect. It gives a good illusion of a fugue, without going through the actual paces or procedures -- sometimes called 'fughetta.'

This is in no way a negative comment, the cited passage generates exactly the right kind of illusion, and is totally effective in creating an anticipatory sort of 'excitement,' in its (well-placed) place.

I do not 'dis' composers for their lack of counterpoint (Beethoven, almost entirely, was not a contrapuntist, a few attempts being the tiny exception.) But said the presence of more, and more 'sophisticated' counterpoint is merely a preference of mine. It is much more present in Debussy, Chopin, Mahler, Schumann and a host of others than it is in Wagner or Beethoven - all of those on the list of 'very big composers'


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Ah, you are mistaking a bit of 'imitation' and a scurrying accompaniment (i.e. not a self-standing independent second line) figure for 'counterpoint.'


'Tis I that must disagree. 'Strict' counterpoint à la Fux is hardly the only kind. Both Mozart and Beethoven were excellent contrapuntalists, even when they weren't even remotely hinting at the baroque approach. It could be argued (though I won't) that Wagner's weaving of themes and leitmotifs throughout the Ring is also a type of counterpoint.


----------



## Ramako

Wagner said that in Beethoven's music, "All is melody". This means that the whole texture becomes one line; the whole music we hear becomes a single driving force. We as listeners interact with this force, the overall effect being one of great consonance, the resolution of emotional and large-scale dissonance. Beethoven's music is, as we know, universal; listened to and appreciated in this way by everyone. Therefore Beethoven was able to create a counterpoint that encompasses the whole world...

Ok, that all translates to "Go Beethoven!"  But I do think that this idea (in Wagner's case aesthetic) of 'all is melody' is an important aspect of why these composers were less contrapuntal in an obvious way than other composers. If the music is supposed to have one voice, how can it have multiple voices?

Disclaimer: the first paragraph was meant as a mildly humorous speculation. Given the confusion about sarcasm on the internet I thought it best to clarify.


----------



## KenOC

Ramako said:


> But I do think that this idea (in Wagner's case aesthetic) of 'all is melody' is an important aspect of why these composers were less contrapuntal in an obvious way than other composers.


Similarly, although Beethoven loved Bach and know a lot of his clavier music very well indeed, he didn't speak of Bach's prowess in counterpoint. He called Bach "the father of harmony."


----------



## PetrB

Ramako said:


> Wagner said that in Beethoven's music, "All is melody". This means that the whole texture becomes one line; the whole music we hear becomes a single driving force. We as listeners interact with this force, the overall effect being one of great consonance, the resolution of emotional and large-scale dissonance. *Beethoven's music is, as we know, universal; listened to and appreciated in this way by everyone.* Therefore Beethoven was able to create a counterpoint that encompasses the whole world...
> 
> Ok, that all translates to "Go Beethoven!"  But I do think that this idea (in Wagner's case aesthetic) of 'all is melody' is an important aspect of why these composers were less contrapuntal in an obvious way than other composers. If the music is supposed to have one voice, how can it have multiple voices?
> 
> Disclaimer: the first paragraph was meant as a mildly humorous speculation. Given the confusion about sarcasm on the internet I thought it best to clarify.


Really, 'universal' & 'the whole world?' Glad you clarified that as sarcastic


----------



## Guest

TxllxT said:


> Whether Otello is black (out of Africa) or blackened (with charcoal or shoe-polish like the Black Peters around the Dutch Santa Claus) already is a matter of interpretation itself, but we agree on the* deep *effect on his character, which is blackened by sheer envy. In Wagner I just have to laugh at the shallowness of his characters. Perhaps it is this shallowness of character, that has a great appeal on Wagnerians....


I'm interested in the idea of 'Shallowness of character'. In some literary works, (traditional epics, fantasies and formula writing like detective novels) the characters are deliberately meant to be no more than puppets or ciphers or symbols: there can't afford to be any ambiguities, subtleties or uncertainties about them. Even so, those works have a very great appeal and would not necessarily be regarded as shallow in their entirety. Is that what you meant to suggest?



PetrB said:


> Wagner, did, historically, expand tonality to an extreme, the first true and superbly accomplished use of progressive tonality, an extended music dialogue which avoids cadences, his more than intelligent handling of a high chromaticism. Without the fact of Wagner, later music would not have happened as it did, the 'busting' of common practice tonality, chord function, and high chromaticism are all present and accounted for in Wagner.


I'd like to know more. Can you point to some examples (clips) of what he did with tonality that others before had not done?


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> I'm interested in the idea of 'Shallowness of character'. In some literary works, (traditional epics, fantasies and formula writing like detective novels) the characters are deliberately meant to be no more than puppets or ciphers or symbols: there can't afford to be any ambiguities, subtleties or uncertainties about them. Even so, those works have a very great appeal and would not necessarily be regarded as shallow in their entirety. Is that what you meant to suggest?
> 
> I'd like to know more. Can you point to some examples (clips) of what he did with tonality that others before had not done?


Perhaps 'stretch' would have been the better word. [And too late to revise, should have said 'seed of' the later modern developments. Add please, that I really find the music distasteful, and I am not about to comb through, listen through yet again, sorry.]

The famous opening measures of Tristan, and the several measures of subsequent sequence are cited in just about every theory book, (they are in the Wiki Tristan entry) an expanding voicing of a chord which never resolves, stepping up to another in sequence, never resolving. In fact, essentially, that is all the theoretic premise one needs to know to 'get' what Wagner does.... the ultimate gizmo to delay / avert cadencing 
As found in link below, 
"Music analysts have labeled the opening chord of the Prelude to Act I of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde the "Tristan Chord." In the opera, the chord's lack of traditional tonal resolution serves to prolong the yearning and longing suffered by the ill-fated lovers. 
One of the most famous chords in music history, its resolution changed conventional music analysis forever. Composed as an enharmonically spelled diminished seventh chord, the "Tristan Chord" does not properly function or resolve according to the part-writing rules of the Western art tradition. It was this chord that prompted many later composers to push the tonal idiom to its limits and to abandon tonality altogether for experimentation with 12-tone serialism and the musical avant-garde
Yes... it does / did all that 
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/tristan/motive1-3.php
The thing itself:




(Care for this or not -- and I don't -- it is difficult, from a musician's point of view, to not admire how it is done, and how well done it is.)
The Ring cycle, opening in Eb and, after four evenings and sixteen hours only then once 'returning home,' to Eb, is a sort of feat on record


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> The famous opening measures of Tristan, and the several measures of subsequent sequence are cited in just about every theory book, (they are in the Wiki Tristan entry) an expanding voicing of a chord which never resolves, stepping up to another in sequence, never resolving. In fact, essentially, that is all the theoretic premise one needs to know to 'get' what Wagner does.... the ultimate gizmo to delay / avert cadencing


Ah, right, then it's the same thing that bigshot and I briefly clashed over in the thread about opera.

As 'schtick' goes, it's not great is it? It's nothing more than some love guru saying, "Look how long I can go before I give you an orgasm!!" Having just discovered what the fuss is about with Gangnam Style, I can see why delivery up front has as much appeal as delayed gratification.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> ...an expanding voicing of a chord which never resolves, stepping up to another in sequence, never resolving. In fact, essentially, that is all the theoretic premise one needs to know to 'get' what Wagner does.... the ultimate gizmo to delay / avert cadencing...


The averted cadence is an old trick, though Wagner did it well. Check out the 1st movement of Beethoven's Op. 101 piano sonata for an example.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Similarly, although Beethoven loved Bach and know a lot of his clavier music very well indeed, he didn't speak of Bach's prowess in counterpoint. He called Bach "the father of harmony."


Ah, that is where that horrible old saw came from. Now I know who to blame


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> *KenOC* _Similarly, although Beethoven loved Bach and know a lot of his clavier music very well indeed, he didn't speak of Bach's prowess in counterpoint. He called Bach "the father of harmony."_
> 
> Ah, that is where that horrible old saw came from. Now I know who to blame


I've said all kinds of silly things after a night down the pub...but no-one's taken me up on it and quoted it in Encyclopaedia Musica!


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> Ah, right, then it's the same thing that bigshot and I briefly clashed over in the thread about opera.
> 
> As 'schtick' goes, it's not great is it? It's nothing more than some love guru saying, "Look how long I can go before I give you an orgasm!!" Having just discovered what the fuss is about with Gangnam Style, I can see why delivery up front has as much appeal as delayed gratification.


Well, I'm rather with you on that if you're not being sarcastic. Then again, much of the Romantic era sensibility and its preoccupations are not my cuppa -- Longing / Unrequited love / Weltschmerz / Schadenfreude / Der Tod.
Cheery lot, those Teutonic Romantics....

_Yes, one could almost safely say (depends on the crowd around you at the time of saying) that musically, Wagner was a one-schtick pony._

...and yeah, _it was a very big deal at the time._


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> I've said all kinds of silly things after a night down the pub...but no-one's taken me up on it and quoted it in Encyclopaedia Musica!


So you're copping a plea using a pint or two of Guinness as your evidential defense?

As to Beethoven having said that, think about it. A harmonist would say that about Bach, _because that was Beethoven's context, so what he would have best understood of it._


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> So you're copping a plea using a pint or two of Guinness?


Guinness? Guinness?? You insult my taste sir! I demand satisfaction!!

A pint or ten of Pedigree, perhaps


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> Guinness? Guinness?? You insult my taste sir! I demand satisfaction!!
> 
> A pint or ten of Pedigree, perhaps


Being allergic to alcohol (not a euphemism for having fallen and recovered in a 12 step program, but _allergic._, meaning it is not a matter of discipline or will power that I refrain completely, but a practical matter wherein it averts bodily discomfort or harm...) well explains my complete ignorance of all things alcoholic. -- the down side, of course, is not being able to connect the stuff to silly things I've said. I just have to 'own' those.

With all due apologies, then.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> 'Tis I that must disagree. 'Strict' counterpoint à la Fux is hardly the only kind. Both Mozart and Beethoven were excellent contrapuntalists, even when they weren't even remotely hinting at the baroque approach. It could be argued (though I won't) that Wagner's weaving of themes and leitmotifs throughout the Ring is also a type of counterpoint.


I thought naming those other composers as exemplar of fine counterpoint demonstrated that I was not thinking of 'Fuxian' counterpoint.

Clever as it might be to toss leitmotifs like ping pong balls bouncing about throughout a lengthy score, those are mostly the motif with an harmonic setting, not a romp of several motifs sounding simultaneously. That is not counterpoint, but variation.


----------



## TxllxT

MacLeod said:


> I'm interested in the idea of 'Shallowness of character'. In some literary works, (traditional epics, fantasies and formula writing like detective novels) the characters are deliberately meant to be no more than puppets or ciphers or symbols: there can't afford to be any ambiguities, subtleties or uncertainties about them. Even so, those works have a very great appeal and would not necessarily be regarded as shallow in their entirety. Is that what you meant to suggest?


In Wagner's music the flow of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_ overflows everything and everyone: no person is able to keep his or her own stand. The grumbling Wotan and all his fellow great gods&goddesses go down into their _Götterdämmerung_ and I feel the music of Wagner urging me to splash myself down into the same melting-pot. But after some lengthy listening I just come out feeling nothing, experiencing nothing... because I have no one, no person in front of me. With Boris Godunov I see and feel this person in front of me, to the very end, and the music of Mussorgsky just sharpens& deepens the characterisations of Boris, the Holy Fool and the Russian people. Wagner's music-flow tries to reach & realise exactly the opposite. Wagner's antisemitism I understand from this totalitarian urge.


----------



## mamascarlatti

TxllxT said:


> In Wagner's music the flow of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_ overflows everything and everyone: no person is able to keep his or her own stand. The grumbling Wotan and all his fellow great gods&goddesses go down into their _Götterdämmerung_ and I feel the music of Wagner urging me to splash myself down into the same melting-pot. But after some lengthy listening I just come out feeling nothing, experiencing nothing... because I* have no one, no person in front of me*.


I have Brünnhilde . She's a real person. She feels sympathy, defiance, love, betrayal, fear, horror. She's in turn girlish, playful, brave, loving, afraid, pleading, vengeful, dignified.


----------



## Ramako

PetrB said:


> As to Beethoven having said that, think about it. A harmonist would say that about Bach, _because that was Beethoven's context, so what he would have best understood of it._


Well, tbh I think it (harmony) was the most remarkable thing about Bach for his time anyway. However a lot more people have a lot more knowledge about this than me have said otherwise so I must bow. If one compares him to the Renaissance masters of counterpoint the harmonic aspect becomes more important I think, though.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> As to Beethoven having said that, think about it. A harmonist would say that about Bach, _because that was Beethoven's context, so what he would have best understood of it._


I can't quite buy that. Yes, Beethoven was a solid harmonist, but he was also an _aspiring _contrapuntalist. Where else but Bach would he find his greatest examples and inspirations? Of all of Bach's attributes, the contrapuntal genius would have been the most appealing. Yet still he called Bach "the father of harmony."

I think there's a deeper understanding here, though I can't clearly define it.


----------



## Sid James

tyroneslothrop said:


> Some of us find the later works of Wagner to be sublimely at the pinnacle of nineteenth century opera. But this is a thread for those who *don't* like Wagner and the people who love them
> 
> For those of you who can't stand Wagner, why is that? Is it because of his politics? Is it because a certain you-know-who liked him a lot and therefore Wagner is poisoned by association? Is it because Wagner is a fungus?
> 
> Pray tell.


I'll give it straight:

- I don't much like the 'bigger is better' type aesthetic
- I think his music could have done with a fair bit of editing (I concur with Rossini's famous comments, that Wagner's operas have wonderful moments but dreadful quarters of an hour) - in other words, I find him very long-winded
- His politics definitely does colour my negative assessment of him (so too do some of his fans online who I have been unwise to be entagled/ensnared myself in discussions with - they often exhibit qualities of megalomania and intolerance of diversity of opinion)
- Too highbrow, too much philosophy and pseudo-religious aspects

Positives of Wagner which I admit:
- As a great innovator, very influential on many types of music (from high to low art - from 'serious' composers like Mahler, Schoenberg, Messiaen to composers of musicals and film musics)
- As a major composer of second half of the 19th cnetury
- As one of the great composers of opera


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ive enjoyed reading these well thought-out and honest responses. It is amusing to me that some of the reasons given for disliking Wagner are counted among my reasons for liking him. A few examples below:



sospiro said:


> Another thing which puts me off, The Ring anyway, is the fantasy theme.


I love this aesthetic he uses where things are completely unrealistic, and everything seems to function within a higher archetypal symbolical sphere. Where people aren't really people but characters, ideas from my own subconscious.



TxllxT said:


> In Wagner's music the flow of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_ overflows everything and everyone: no person is able to keep his or her own stand.


The same as above. The incredible wave of the music which engulfs and encompasses everything. A perfect example of music in the philosophy of the 'Will' of Schopenhauer.



Sid James said:


> - Too highbrow, too much philosophy and pseudo-religious aspects


Again, see above. Philosophy is something best displayed through art in my opinion. The deeper, more intellectual and philosophical a piece of art is the better. And Wagner isn't lacking!

I was a little startled by Ramako's post. While it was meant as tongue in cheek, I think the bit quoted here is actually quite accurate and serves as a good 'counter point' (hah) to the philosophy behind counterpoint and explains in a rather metaphysical sense the success of romantic homophony.



Ramako said:


> Wagner said that in Beethoven's music, "All is melody". This means that the whole texture becomes one line; the whole music we hear becomes a single driving force. We as listeners interact with this force, the overall effect being one of great consonance, the resolution of emotional and large-scale dissonance.


On the other hand, I couldn't disagree more with the following:


PetrB said:


> Clever as it might be to toss leitmotifs like ping pong balls bouncing about throughout a lengthy score


The 'leit-motif' system is more complex than you make it out to be, and Wagner never agreed to any kind of cataloging of his motifs. I think it is the best solution to the problem posed by doing away with musical structure and replacing it with dramatic structure. Further, as he went on and refined his technique these 'motifs' became more and more complex. In Parsifal we finally see that the lines between motifs blur considerably and that many of them are related, yet each is used flexibly throughout the drama providing intricate references both forwards and backwards temporally.


----------



## Sid James

emiellucifuge said:


> Ive enjoyed reading these well thought-out and honest responses. It is amusing to me that some of the reasons given for disliking Wagner are counted among my reasons for liking him. A few examples below:...


I think that's the most important aspect of many discussions here. Especially ones that become polarised and heated, emotional, etc. The reasons I don't like something might be the reasons someone likes it. I can understand that, or I'm beginning to now. If there's one big thing being on this forum has made me see more clearly (apart from broadening my exposure to music) its this. Its about diversity and how music is a personal thing. There is no 'one size fits all' type robotic conformity. If there was, TC would be a very boring place indeed.


----------



## superhorn

Wagner has divided listeners, fans, critics, and musicologists from the very beginning . There's something about his music that gets some people's goat , not only his Nazi associations . Many people could not stand his music long before the Nazi era .
I've never been one of these misguided souls, fortunately , and even though I don't approve of his anti-semitism in the least , I've never let it get in the way of my admiration for his works .
For some people, his operas are insufferably long and boring . Others fnd the music noisy and bombastic.
Others think the librettos he wrote on his own are terrible (they aren't at all). Some think his plots are ridiculous and the characters too . Not true . More than a few have misunderstood his use of leitmotifs, and mock them for reappearing whenever a character comes on stage , which is not really their function .
Quite a few people find his use of alliteration in the Ring unintenionally comic .
Now we come to the unfortunate hijacking of his works by Hitler. Many people assume that the Ring
glorifies the Teutonic triumph of Germans over Jews and other subhumans . Wrong ! Nothing could be farther form the truth . The Ring in fact is about the way that lust for power and riches corrupts everything and leads to catastrophe .
The final address of Hans Sachs to Walther and the crowd in Die Meistersinger has been misconstrued by many to be about the need for Germans to go out and conquer the world and slaughter Jews ! Again,wrong !
It has to do with the need for a people to preserve its cultural heritage in the face of misfortune and being oppressed by others .
There are no Jewish characters in the Wagner operas, no discussions of Jews or Judaism, and not a single anti-semitic statement by any of them . Wagner's operas are about HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS, not antisemtism .


----------



## Sid James

superhorn said:


> Wagner has divided listeners, fans, critics, and musicologists from the very beginning . There's something about his music that gets some people's goat , not only his Nazi associations . Many people could not stand his music long before the Nazi era .
> I've never been one of these misguided souls, fortunately , and even though I don't approve of his anti-semitism in the least , I've never let it get in the way of my admiration for his works .
> ...


To be honest, the thing that gets up my goat so to speak is that he's far from being typical of opera. Which kind of explains his 'cult' following. Also, his untouchability, his elevation to a god. There was a recent article here by an Australian musician saying the money they'll be blowing on the Wagner Ring next year in Melbourne could be put to better use. Again, I could do a thread with a link to his opinion, but I won't for fear of being shot down by various people here.

The other thing is that there is the spectre of the Holocaust there. I am very sensitive to those that died in that, one of the most horrible crimes of mass murder known to man. So there are connotations there, like the word Holocaust meaning a burnt offering. I'm sure I don't need to relate to which opera that comes to mind easily with that. Of course, some countries (not only Israel but also East Europe, where horrible atrocities where committed by the Nazis and their collaborators) also put under the carpet not only music by Wagner but other composers promoted by the Nazis, which in their minds was a symbol of subjugation and oppression.

So I am sensitive to this. As for goings on on this forum, I don't forget them. It is, I think up to more level headed Wagnerites like yourself superhorn and emiellucifuge to bring into line those on this forum who are prone to be not as sensitive, and dare I say exhibit similar bigoted and fanatical attitudes to the regime which idolised Wagner and his ideologies.

So I don't think all Wagnerites are like that, but the job to bring them into line is by you, their fellow fans, not people like me. I am not a fan and was put off Wagner by them. When I came to this forum, I was pretty neutral on Wagner. I thought the fascistic attitude to do with him was history. Then I found out that the ghosts of the past live on, online. After being on the rough end of the stick with some of these people, I got rid of all my Wagner cd's earlier in the year. It came to that.

But its the same with any zealots. Their tactics have the opposite effect to what they're hoping to achieve. It puts people off, big time.

& the only reason I'm voicing these things is I think that this thread is the right place to do it. I would not 'troll' a thread on this forum solely about Wagner and his music. Since this thread asks those of us who don't like Wagner why we don't like him, I take it I can extrapolate on my thoughts here as I have done (& hopefully not come to grief with various 'characters' on this forum).


----------



## tyroneslothrop

As the thread-starter, I just want to say that the level of discourse has just be superb! I definitely learned something reading through this thread, at least about counterpoint!  I did want to make a comment though since the topic of the Holocaust was raised:



Sid James said:


> The other thing is that there is the spectre of the Holocaust there. I am very sensitive to those that died in that, one of the most horrible crimes of mass murder known to man. So there are connotations there, like the word Holocaust meaning a burnt offering. I'm sure I don't need to relate to which opera that comes to mind easily with that. Of course, some countries (not only Israel but also East Europe, where horrible atrocities where committed by the Nazis and their collaborators) also put under the carpet not only music by Wagner but other composers promoted by the Nazis, which in their minds was a symbol of subjugation and oppression.


As a minority, I definitely am very sensitive to the spectre of the Holocaust and aware of the pall that it casts over all of the arts which were favored by the instigators. In the case of Wagner, it was not helped by the fact that Wagner was not a nice person--it is certainly possible that had he had lived 75 years later, he might have gotten caught up in the National Socialist movement. Yet as superhorn, I am able to divorce Wagner the person from Wagner the artist. And as an artist, I do find his works sublime.

They are not for everyone. In fact, I find them to be very advanced and for friends who I am introducing to opera, I warn them from the start to stay away from Wagner. I think if I had been made to sit through the Ring as my first opera, I would never have listened to another again--I just don't think Wagner is a good introduction to this genre, just as Proust would not be a good introduction to literature, or Picasso an introduction to visual art.

Yet as I have listened and watched thousands of hours of opera, I now appreciate Wagner in an entirely different way. I don't worship him as a musical god, as I would not worship Proust as a literary god either. Yet I do view him as a musical genius with profound insight in his chosen medium of expression, and I find his works to be of the highest order.

Now, I have a friend who is steeped in musicology--a real amateur expert in classical music. He can't stand Wagner. He can't get past Wagner's politics, and can't stay awake in his operas. I recognize the legitimacy of this also, although as superhorn has said, I am glad I am not numbered among people like that.


----------



## mamascarlatti

It took me twenty five years of loving opera before I got into Wagner. I've listened to and watched a lot of Rings since, and love the music (although I do agree with the "could do with some editing" camp). But I'm definitely not fanatical about him. His most mystical Late-Romantic themed opera, Parsifal, is simply too overblown for my rather rationalist 18th century character. And I'm not keen on the dramatic themes of Tristan either. I don't buy all the longing for death.


----------



## KenOC

mamascarlatti, I don't much listen to Wagner beyond the very fine bloody gobbets of orchestral stuff. But I have gotten, somehow, the impression that he confuses religion with sex in some of his operas, especially Tristan. Do you think this is correct?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Its not a confusion but quite a deliberate idea that can be found through a lot of Buddhist teaching as well as the philosophy of Schopenhauer.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Well, I don't have much time really, so I have not read the whole thread... The only time I do sometimes dislike Wagner is when the Master's genius makes me stay up until the small hours of the night, listening to his 4-hour operas and I simply do not possess the willpower to leave them and go to bed. I wake up a few hours later with a headache and "sand" in my eyes and my first thought is "I hate you, Master!"


----------



## TxllxT

emiellucifuge said:


> Ive enjoyed reading these well thought-out and honest responses. It is amusing to me that some of the reasons given for disliking Wagner are counted among my reasons for liking him. A few examples below:
> 
> I love this aesthetic he uses where things are completely unrealistic, and everything seems to function within a higher archetypal symbolical sphere. Where people aren't really people but characters, ideas from my own subconscious.
> 
> The same as above. The incredible wave of the music which engulfs and encompasses everything. A perfect example of music in the philosophy of the 'Will' of Schopenhauer.
> 
> Again, see above. Philosophy is something best displayed through art in my opinion. The deeper, more intellectual and philosophical a piece of art is the better. And Wagner isn't lacking!
> 
> I was a little startled by Ramako's post. While it was meant as tongue in cheek, I think the bit quoted here is actually quite accurate and serves as a good 'counter point' (hah) to the philosophy behind counterpoint and explains in a rather metaphysical sense the success of romantic homophony.
> 
> On the other hand, I couldn't disagree more with the following:
> 
> The 'leit-motif' system is more complex than you make it out to be, and Wagner never agreed to any kind of cataloging of his motifs. I think it is the best solution to the problem posed by doing away with musical structure and replacing it with dramatic structure. Further, as he went on and refined his technique these 'motifs' became more and more complex. In Parsifal we finally see that the lines between motifs blur considerably and that many of them are related, yet each is used flexibly throughout the drama providing intricate references both forwards and backwards temporally.


Well, well, this is quite responding to the idea that I have got of how a typical Wagnerian is loving Wagner: πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rei - all streams). " _The deeper, more intellectual and philosophical a piece of art is the better._": this is *not* true! Take for example the poems that Schubert choose to set to music; without Schubert these poems are horridly lacking quality and would have been forgotten long, long ago; but Schubert truly performed a miracle. I always notice some kind of escapism in this lust for 'more intellectual and philosophical'. Probably that is the reason why I do not like Wagner, Disney & all fairy tales: they indulge too much in petty bourgeois entertainmentstuff.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well really now you're being unreasonable.
There is nothing Disney or petty and bourgois about philosophy. Philosophy stands next to science as a pillar of our understanding of the world. "more intellectual and philosophical a piece of art is the better." this is a statement of personal preference and cannot be true or untrue, and even if I do tend to like art that has some philosophical depth this is only a tendency - which is not to say that philosophy is the only thing necessary to make good art, nor to say that philosophy always makes good art.

Wagner happens to have written powerful dramas that have increased my understanding of the human condition. This is a positive I cannot ascribe to Schubert's songs in the same degree.


----------



## TxllxT

emiellucifuge said:


> Well really now you're being unreasonable.
> There is nothing Disney or petty and bourgois about philosophy. Philosophy stands next to science as a pillar of our understanding of the world. "more intellectual and philosophical a piece of art is the better." this is a statement of personal preference and cannot be true or untrue, and even if I do tend to like art that has some philosophical depth this is only a tendency - which is not to say that philosophy is the only thing necessary to make good art, nor to say that philosophy always makes good art.
> 
> Wagner happens to have written powerful dramas that have increased my understanding of the human condition. This is a positive I cannot ascribe to Schubert's songs in the same degree.


Please, don't read my assessment as a kind of personal attack. I try to understand why I don't like Wagner, and you try to understand why you do. I fully respect your feelings and opinions. But it intrigues me, that exactly what is appealing to you (deeper, more intellectual and philosophical) is for me the cause for not liking. I cannot say that Wagner increases my understanding of the human condition otherwise than that Wagner was a great pretender, a showman with bad sense of timing, similar to his friend Ludwig being a nutty king whose legacy consist of a number of Disney castles.


----------



## sabrina

I find it weird, as I am bothered by Wagner's German, but I love Mozart in his German operas. I also have no problem, and I prefer the original German in Johann Strauss II operettas. 
I like bits and pieces in Wagner, and I really enjoy his orchestral music, but his opera is painfully boring. I watched the whole ring once, I doubt I'll try again.
Poor Wagner, venerated by some, and disregarded by others.


----------



## brianwalker

*Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _ and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.

Simple yes or no question, no explanation needed or wanted.

Not you, OP. I'm sure you've already done that a hundred times over.


----------



## TxllxT

brianwalker said:


> *Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _ and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.
> 
> Simple yes or no question, no explanation needed or wanted.
> 
> Not you, OP. I'm sure you've already done that a hundred times over.


No DVD, I listen to CD. Yes all of them except Die Meistersinger, which is for me the worst drag of draggers. Actually I *do* like Der Fliegende Holländer and Kurt Moll's singing in von Karajan's Parsifal. Wagner's operas I have in von Karajan's, Solti's, Knappertbusch's, Furtwängler's, Kubelik's, Levine's & Thielemann's interpretations. Actually I did see on TV Boulez & Chereau, when it was premiered. So many many hours of listening... and still no affection  My listening focuses on the singers, not on Wagner...


----------



## brianwalker

TxllxT said:


> No DVD, I listen to CD. Yes all of them except Die Meistersinger, which is for me the worst drag of draggers. Actually I *do* like Der Fliegende Holländer and Kurt Moll's singing in von Karajan's Parsifal. Wagner's operas I have in von Karajan's, Solti's, Knappertbusch's, Furtwängler's, Kubelik's, Levine's & Thielemann's interpretations. Actually I did see on TV Boulez & Chereau, when it was premiered. So many many hours of listening... and still no affection * My listening focuses on the singers*, not on Wagner...


What do you think of Frick's Gurnemanz?


----------



## TxllxT

brianwalker said:


> What do you think of Frick's Gurnemanz?


I'm an amateur bass singer (in a male choir) myself, so I admire & listen to great basses with special *deep* compassion.


----------



## Sid James

tyroneslothrop said:


> ...
> 
> As a minority, I definitely am very sensitive to the spectre of the Holocaust and aware of the pall that it casts over all of the arts which were favored by the instigators. In the case of Wagner, it was not helped by the fact that Wagner was not a nice person--it is certainly possible that had he had lived 75 years later, he might have gotten caught up in the National Socialist movement. Yet as superhorn, I am able to divorce Wagner the person from Wagner the artist. And as an artist, I do find his works sublime...


Well thanks for validating what I was saying. I am not used to receiving such validation from Wagnerites of the extreme kind I was talking about in my post which you quoted from. I guess it is hard for me to separate Wagner from his music. However, in some cases I can still enjoy a person's music even though he was not nice, or even potentially criminal. Eg. in the world of pop, Michael Jackson had allegations of paedophilia which where settled out of court. I think its hard to get to the bottom of what happened there, and I remember it was hotly debated among my schoolmates when I was young and his music was popular among that age group.

But bottom line is what you and what others suggest, his aesthetic is wildly different from opera of his time or since. The closest paralell is Weber and Berlioz, who both influenced him. However it can be argued that even they where not typical of their respective eras. As opera composers, that is. So even though I enjoy their music, I don't find it useful to transition onto Wagner. Then after Wagner, you get other things, some composers his innovations touched I do like. Puccini, Schoenberg and Berg, for example. But again, they are hardly like Wagner. & R. Strauss, who is maybe closest to Wagner's aesthetic (& Korngold as well), they are not my favourites.

So its a different aesthetic. Nobody like him, before or since. So that's what I say, similar to what you say about Picasso or Proust. Trying to convert people to a composer who is not typical of his genre (or even his era?), despite his greatness, ain't going to work if we apply simple logic. That's what I don't like about people trying to convert others to him, esp. with condescension and kind of talking down. Here, Puccini and Verdi have filled stadiums, Wagner would not. Doesn't make him any better or worse, its just that most people don't want it, however good or genius it is.


----------



## mmsbls

I probably should have asked this question earlier in the thread. Anyway, do the people who don't like Wagner dislike his orchestral music (preludes, overtures) or do you like the orchestral music but not the opera?

Personally I began listening to his orchestral music well before I ever heard his operas. I absolutely adored all his orchestral music. Recently I have listened to almost all his operas and found that I like them as well. I realize that listening to his operas is a very different experience than listening to his orchestral music.


----------



## sabrina

brianwalker said:


> *Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _ and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.


Of course, I generally use subtitles: Italian for Italian operas (just to understand it better). I do the same with French operas, as I speak French. But my German is just basic, for example I almost don't need subtitles anymore for Die Zauberflöte, as I understand enough to follow the already known subject. 
But with Wagner I used both subtitles in English and consulted some of the librettos I had from the CDs. DVDs don't come with libretto...Some of the stories are OK, but they just don't click with me. I guess, they are too long, and drag too much, like movies with bad editing. They are also sort of dark, too mystic, almost oppressing. That's just what I feel. 
I understand we are differently built and taste differs among us. It would be too boring if we were all the same.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Anyway, do the people who don't like Wagner dislike his orchestral music (preludes, overtures) or do you like the orchestral music but not the opera?


I admire his "bloody gobbets" though mostly their style isn't my favorite. Objectively (as much as I can be) he was an overwhelming orchestral talent and would certainly have been the 19th century's second greatest composer -- if he had written more music. :devil:


----------



## brianwalker

brianwalker said:


> *Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _ and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.
> 
> Simple yes or no question, no explanation needed or wanted.
> 
> Not you, OP. I'm sure you've already done that a hundred times over.


No answer, Sid?



TxllxT said:


> I'm an amateur bass singer (in a male choir) myself, so I admire & listen to great basses with special *deep* compassion.


Who's your favorite bass of all time? Who's your favorite Wagnerian bass? Mozart bass?



sabrina said:


> Of course, I generally use subtitles: Italian for Italian operas (just to understand it better). I do the same with French operas, as I speak French. But my German is just basic, for example I almost don't need subtitles anymore for Die Zauberflöte, as I understand enough to follow the already known subject.
> But with Wagner I used both subtitles in English and consulted some of the librettos I had from the CDs. DVDs don't come with libretto...Some of the stories are OK, but they just don't click with me. I guess, they are too long, and drag too much, like movies with bad editing. They are also sort of dark, too mystic, almost oppressing. That's just what I feel.
> I understand we are differently built and taste differs among us. It would be too boring if we were all the same.


Which operas _enchant_ you, Sabrina?


----------



## mamascarlatti

brianwalker said:


> *Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _ and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.
> 
> Simple yes or no question, no explanation needed or wanted.
> 
> Not you, OP. I'm sure you've already done that a hundred times over.


 I've really tried with Parsifal.

I've watched 4 DVDs with subtitles, one concert where I followed with the libretto, read a whole load of background info and listened about 3 times to a CD version. I still feel slightly queasy about the themes and drama. I'll go and see Jonas Kaufmann in the Met HD, but just for him, and that is IT for Parsifal in my life.


----------



## Sid James

brianwalker said:


> No answer, Sid?
> 
> ...


Nope. What is this, an interrogation?


----------



## brianwalker

Sid James said:


> Nope. What is this, an interrogation?


It's a dialogue. People in dialogue ask questions.


----------



## sabrina

brianwalker said:


> Which operas _enchant_ you, Sabrina?


Right now I'm listening to Tannhäuser, and I sort of like it up to now. It's Act II, O Fürstin in a recording from 1970 (Solti).
But, generally I listen to Rossini, Mozart, Donizetti, Verdi, Offenbach...a little Berlioz, and once in a while, others.


----------



## KenOC

brianwalker said:


> It's a dialogue. People in dialogue ask questions.


Also in interrogations.  "Herr James, I am positive that soon you will tell us more of this...Wagner. And willingly. Fritz will assist your memory, quite effectively I assure you."


----------



## brianwalker

KenOC said:


> Also in interrogations.


It's a dialogue since I'm open to questions too.



sabrina said:


> Right now I'm listening to Tannhäuser, and I sort of like it up to now. It's Act II, O Fürstin in a recording from 1970 (Solti).
> But, generally I listen to Rossini, Mozart, Donizetti, Verdi, Offenbach...a little Berlioz, and once in a while, others.


What a coincidence! I'm also listening to Act II of an equally sophisticated opera. Une appartement dans le chateau, from a recording of the same year (Boulez). I like it as much as you like Tannhauser.


----------



## PetrB

brianwalker said:


> *Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _ and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.
> 
> Simple yes or no question.


YES.

Benjamin Britten used to play through ALL of Brahms once a year to make certain that perhaps he had missed something in disliking the entire body of work -- that is rather droll, but it illustrates that some will keep tasting foods they have to date not yet cared for, to see if perhaps they were missing something all that time, or if their taste had simply changed.

The 'greatness' of Wagner is nothing I question or contest; nor do I feel differently about the other usual suspects of mid-to-late romanticism, it is just -- and this is the point of most importance -- I simply do not care for them.

The kerfuffle when party A is confounded that party B does not care for / love that which party A does can be reduced simply to this question, "Why isn't B more like A?" - or more directly, "Why are you not more like me?"


----------



## PetrB

emiellucifuge said:


> .... There is nothing Disney or petty and bourgeois about philosophy.


In the abstract, of course that is correct. Like the pen in hand writing notes on a page of manuscript paper: to become music, the quality of "Music" is completely dependent upon in whose hand that pen is....

Ditto philosophy.

You cannot, with any ease, convincingly dis a complete discipline or its built up tradition: it is the author(s) of course, who can and do fall far short -- to a degree where 'Petty bourgeois' and all other such criticisms are possible and valid.


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> I probably should have asked this question earlier in the thread. Anyway, do the people who don't like Wagner dislike his orchestral music (preludes, overtures) or do you like the orchestral music but not the opera?
> 
> Personally I began listening to his orchestral music well before I ever heard his operas. I absolutely adored all his orchestral music. Recently I have listened to almost all his operas and found that I like them as well. I realize that listening to his operas is a very different experience than listening to his orchestral music.


It's all the same to me, nothing to do with disliking or an inability for 'opera.' The overall aesthetic, to me 'overblown' a bourgeois -- let us call that "a very lackluster and mundane completely average imagination" -- in so far as his sense of the grandiose, of 'drama' of what is 'exciting' in the way of a piece of music, all of which in my perception seems like a bad cartoon, a cheap caricature, of "the real thing."

Of it all, I only much like and admire the Siegfried Idyll, about as unlike the rest of his extroverted music as could be.

All the rest: Tinsel and Glitter rather than true flashes of lightning and stars....


----------



## brianwalker

PetrB said:


> YES.


Ok then. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

brianwalker said:


> *Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _ and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.
> 
> Simple yes or no question, no explanation needed or wanted.


No, why do you ask?


----------



## TxllxT

The Wagner I really like is:









Otto Wagner introduced Academic or Geometric Art Nouveau in Architecture. Now *that's* mesmerising me, able to grab my full attention, always, again and again. Wagner's operas I listen to, mostly out of longing to hear some voices anew. Wagner's libretti (Die Fliegende Holländer is the exception) I consider to be of bottom drawer quality, Wagner's instrumental music is indeed magnanimous, but what I miss is: architecture, say, the neogothic cathedrals of Anton Bruckner.

My favourite all time bass is probably Kurt Moll, but there is Gottlob Frick too, Boris Christoff, a wealth of Bulgarians, and so on...


----------



## PetrB

brianwalker said:


> Ok then. :tiphat:


Alrighty, then.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Wagner's libretti (Die Fliegende Holländer is the exception) I consider to be of bottom drawer quality...


Just out of curiosity, may I ask whose libretti are of the top drawer quality in your opinion?


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> Just out of curiosity, may I ask whose libretti are of the top drawer quality in your opinion?


Don Giovanni, Così fan tutte, Le nozze di Figaro, Boris Godunov... Libretti that are sparkling with life, conciseness, timing, poetry, humour, in short: the drama of just being human. 
I do not relate to Blockbuster Movies (f.e. Lord of the Rings), Blockbuster Wargames (Why do all these popups that advertise this trash on the internet boringly look alike?)& Blockbuster Operas (Die Ring).


----------



## tyroneslothrop

TxllxT said:


> ... Boris Godunov... Libretti that are...


1869, 1872, 1896, 1908, 1924, 1940, or 1952?


----------



## Couchie

TxllxT said:


> Don Giovanni, Così fan tutte, Le nozze di Figaro, Boris Godunov... Libretti that are sparkling with life, conciseness, timing, poetry, humour, in short: the drama of just being human.
> I do not relate to Blockbuster Movies (f.e. Lord of the Rings), Blockbuster Wargames (Why do all these popups that advertise this trash on the internet boringly look alike?)& Blockbuster Operas (Die Ring).


What do you think of Meistersinger?

Wagner's subject matter is of course ambitious beyond good sense. As charming as operas about wedding kerfuffles are, *somebody* has to brazenly define the extremities of the art.


----------



## Sid James

^^OMG! The man himself is 'in the building!' WOW!!! It's the second coming. Let us all to Bayreuth to worship and adore him. & its nearly Christmas!


----------



## TxllxT

RichardWagner said:


> What do you think of Meistersinger?
> 
> Wagner's subject matter is of course ambitious beyond good sense. As charming as operas about wedding kerfuffles are, *somebody* has to brazenly define the extremities of the art.


Welcome *RichardWagner* on the forum!!  I do like your point of view of brazenly defining the extremities. The Meistersinger I heard for the first time in the good old grammophone record days, when there were still libretti published in a really handsome format. It was von Karajan's try that I got from the Amsterdam library, which unhappily was a no-gooder on my ears sleep: René Kollo ). As with movies where the main character happens to be a writer (= the script-writer's alter ego,  no good omen), I have problems with operas where the main characters are singers (singers that act as singers  please *no!*) It's because of the von Karajan mismatch, that I've let the Meistersinger locked up in my Wartburg, unmeistered...

As to Boris Godunov, I like both the original and Rimsky's reworking of the original. I live  with both of them.


----------



## Kieran

As far as longwinded pomposity goes, Wagner's actually not too bad! :tiphat:


----------



## tyroneslothrop

Kieran said:


> As far as longwinded pomposity goes, Wagner's actually not too bad! :tiphat:


What a backhanded compliment!  :lol:


----------



## Guest

brianwalker said:


> No answer, Sid?





Sid James said:


> Nope. What is this, an interrogation?





brianwalker said:


> It's a dialogue. People in dialogue ask questions.





brianwalker said:


> *Wagner dislikers*, have any of you ever _*completely listened* through with the German-English (or whatever native language of your choice) libretto in your hands _and/or finished a DVD with subtitles of any of these following works: Tristan und Isolde, Die Meistersinger, Gotterdammerung, Parsifal.





MacLeod said:


> No, why do you ask?


No answer brian? It's not much of a dialogue if you don't.


----------



## brianwalker

MacLeod said:


> No answer brian? It's not much of a dialogue if you don't.


Just curious.

And Sid hasn't answered yet.


----------



## Sid James

brianwalker said:


> Just curious.
> 
> And Sid hasn't answered yet.


Why should I answer? Can you blame me for being paranoid after various goings on on this forum? Your question appears to be not directed with malice, just curiousity. Thats fine, but you must understand that there are fans of Wagner here who will pull me down at the slightest opportunity to do so, using information I supply to your answer as ammunition. Its the lowest trick here, its a very mean trick, and having been on the rough end of the stick with these sorts of games, I decline to answer. Not due to you but due to others.

Anyway, I've more than answered what I need on this thread. I've gone into detail. I've tried to write with restraint and honesty. I have not pulled down Wagner, I did point out his strengths as well as what are to me his weaknesses.

A side note is that I have listened to a few Wagner operas in living memory and of course others over the decades (but that's too long ago to 'count' in any concrete way). I'm sorry but you'll just have to be content with that answer. Its less to do with you and more to do with what has turned into for me a certain amount of wariness and even bitterness regarding a minority of member's tactics on this forum. Its almost spoilt the whole thing for me.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

MacLeod said:


> No answer brian? It's not much of a dialogue if you don't.


I can't speak for Brian, but when he asked the original question, this occurred to me as well, but I discarded it. Still I can explain why the question occurred *to me*. Because what Brian suggested _(i.e., completely listening through, following with a libretto, and having understanding of what is happening in your own native language)_ seems to me to be the bare minimum requirement for appreciating most of Wagner's mature works. Therefore, for me, I ask often ask myself when I find a person who doesn't like Wagner if I believe they have performed these simple steps. However, I usually discard this question long before it is voiced, because I realize that while this is the bare minimum, usually it takes a lot more than this simple undertaking in order to appreciate one of Wagner's mature works. And that _many people set out on the path but few will make the pilgrimage_. Now, I don't want to sound like a Wagner worshipper, as I'm definitely not. As I said before, I believe him to be an artist of the highest caliber--on the Beethoven, Mozart, Michelangelo, Picasso, Proust, Tolstoy tier--but that draws my respect and does not command my worship.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

BTW, in the context of this discussion, something occurred yesterday in a Wagner group on Facebook which is worthy of note, and has actually reinforced my positive feelings concerning those who appreciate Wagner.

Someone posted this wonderful photo of renown bass-baritone, Sir Willard White:








Several group members praised his singing and deemed it regretful that such a talented singer had not played Wotan in a major production. Then out of the blue, a member spoke up and said how patently ridiculous this notion was, given that Wotan is a Teutonic god, going on to say that she believed that if Wagner were still alive, many of the group members might find themselves more in agreement than disagreement with this _(detestable)_ viewpoint. She was immediately shot down for her obviously racist remark. No one supported her position or tried to paper it over and someone went on to say how much she hated racism. When I remarked in the thread that I was shocked that we were in 2012 and seeing such racism and put a , the group owner immediately deleted the entire thread within minutes. After the deletion a member suggested that it might have been good to leave that thread as it would clearly single out the person who had made that vile remark so all could witness _(akin to displaying malefactors in the stocks or pillory in a town square, I suppose)_.

The result is that while this just brings out the point that some have made in this thread, that Wagner may be drawing some whose motives aren't pure, this actually affirms for me once again that as an overall body, Wagner fans are definitely self-policing and definitely are coming to Wagner because of the art, not the politics!


----------



## Sid James

tyroneslothrop said:


> I can't speak for Brian, but when he asked the original question, this occurred to me as well, but I discarded it. Still I can explain why the question occurred *to me*. Because what Brian suggested _(i.e., completely listening through, following with a libretto, and having understanding of what is happening in your own native language)_ seems to me to be the bare minimum requirement for appreciating most of Wagner's mature works. Therefore, for me, I ask often ask myself when I find a person who doesn't like Wagner if I believe they have performed these simple steps. However, I usually discard this question long before it is voiced, because I realize that while this is the bare minimum, usually it takes a lot more than this simple undertaking in order to appreciate one of Wagner's mature works. And that _many people set out on the path but few will make the pilgrimage_. Now, I don't want to sound like a Wagner worshipper, as I'm definitely not. As I said before, I believe him to be an artist of the highest caliber--on the Beethoven, Mozart, Michelangelo, Picasso, Proust, Tolstoy tier--but that draws my respect and does not command my worship.


Well, I appreciate your thoughts and I honestly think we need more 'Wagnerites' (or just people who like Wagner's music) on this forum with your attitude. Its all I can ask for - open, inclusive, and you're actually talking to us who don't like Wagner and not just talking at us. You're just telling it how you see it. & I think that's 'square one' here in trying to share our love of any composer here, and by extension, maybe getting others to share that love. Its not just about asking people what they have or haven't listened to. That can be important but I don't think its the first step. People have to feel safe to simply say what they think. Thats what I'm saying now, even though I try to say it all the time here, too many times.


----------



## brianwalker

Sid James said:


> Why should I answer? Can you blame me for being paranoid after various goings on on this forum? Your question appears to be not directed with malice, just curiousity. Thats fine, but you must understand that there are fans of Wagner here who will pull me down at the slightest opportunity to do so, using information I supply to your answer as ammunition. Its the lowest trick here, its a very mean trick, and having been on the rough end of the stick with these sorts of games, I decline to answer. Not due to you but due to others.
> 
> Anyway, I've more than answered what I need on this thread. I've gone into detail. I've tried to write with restraint and honesty. I have not pulled down Wagner, I did point out his strengths as well as what are to me his weaknesses.
> 
> A side note is that I have listened to a few Wagner operas in living memory and of course others over the decades (but that's too long ago to 'count' in any concrete way). I'm sorry but you'll just have to be content with that answer. Its less to do with you and more to do with what has turned into for me a certain amount of wariness and even bitterness regarding a minority of member's tactics on this forum. Its almost spoilt the whole thing for me.


Honesty is the best policy if you have nothing to hide.


----------



## KenOC

"Why do you NOT like Wagner?" Because my attention span was conditioned by Sesame Street.


----------



## Guest

tyroneslothrop said:


> I can't speak for Brian, but when he asked the original question, this occurred to me as well, but I discarded it. Still I can explain why the question occurred *to me*. Because what Brian suggested _(i.e., completely listening through, following with a libretto, and having understanding of what is happening in your own native language)_ seems to me to be the bare minimum requirement for appreciating most of Wagner's mature works. Therefore, for me, I ask often ask myself when I find a person who doesn't like Wagner if I believe they have performed these simple steps. However, I usually discard this question long before it is voiced, because I realize that while this is the bare minimum, usually it takes a lot more than this simple undertaking in order to appreciate one of Wagner's mature works. And that _many people set out on the path but few will make the pilgrimage_. Now, I don't want to sound like a Wagner worshipper, as I'm definitely not. As I said before, I believe him to be an artist of the highest caliber--on the Beethoven, Mozart, Michelangelo, Picasso, Proust, Tolstoy tier--but that draws my respect and does not command my worship.


Apparently, brian can't speak for brian either!

Never mind. The way you interpret the question is the way I do too (so brian must have something else in mind, or he would have come back and said so, wouldn't he?)

Even so, to embark on "_completely listening through, following with a libretto, and having understanding of what is happening in your own native language"_ is, I think, much more than the bare minimum. I can think of a couple of reasons (perhaps someone can think of more) why someone who knows nothing of Wagner at all might set out to do a thorough job such as is suggested: they are a student under instruction; they are a listener acting on a recommendation from someone that they trust. But for the general listener who is likely to have come across bits and pieces of Wagner while his acquaintance with classical grows organically, this is unlikely, unless those pieces have already attracted his interest, drawn him in.

The OP asked why I do not like Wagner - not, why do I _hate _Wagner. I stand by my original answer to that question, and would agree that before growing a justified hatred (not actually my style in any case), I would indeed need to do more than strike up a casual acquaintance with a few of his best known themes. At present, I'm not inclined to begin such a task, but I won't dismiss him out of hand.

For me, the composers (and bands and singers) I like best are those whose company I like to be in, irrespective of whether the piece I'm listening to is of high quality. So, the reason I'm working my way through Beethoven and Debussy - without necessarily liking each individual work - is because they offer something to me that goes beyond the music itself, though it is the music that initiates the friendship.


----------



## guythegreg

Yashin said:


> Opera is like cheese.


Thank you again - a wonderful insight. Unfortunately the carry-through fails, at least for me - as the years have accumulated, yet there are no cheeses I rue not trying. Perhaps opera is actually more like fruit? I always regret not having eaten more fruit.


----------



## guythegreg

mamascarlatti said:


> I disagree, Otello's race can be said to have deep effect on his character, by making him an outsider in the eyes of those around him.


Be funny if the original Othello, the man the play was about, wasn't actually black but wore blackface himself - you could say his failure to sense absurdity was the real source of the tragedy.


----------



## guythegreg

mamascarlatti said:


> I've really tried with Parsifal.
> 
> I've watched 4 DVDs with subtitles, one concert where I followed with the libretto, read a whole load of background info and listened about 3 times to a CD version. I still feel slightly queasy about the themes and drama. I'll go and see Jonas Kaufmann in the Met HD, but just for him, and that is IT for Parsifal in my life.


Wow - I am impressed. That's way more than I would have tried for any opera I can think of. And still you're planning to try one more time!


----------



## TxllxT

guythegreg said:


> Be funny if the original Othello, the man the play was about, wasn't actually black but wore blackface himself - you could say his failure to sense absurdity was the real source of the tragedy.


In Ancient Greece & Rome the stage was filled with masks. With Otello I feel a lot of ambiguity in play, that should be respected... Therefore I'm not sure about Otello being black or having a blackface or wearing a blackfaced mask.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I mostly listen to opera instead of watching it anyway, so for me it really does not matter much, but if I were going to see one live, I would expect the singers to at least attempt to look their role, be it a black Othello or a Teutonic Wotan.


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

In "Companion to Verdi" writers insist that Verdi downplayed Otello's race as much as possible in comparison with Shakespeare original. Can't comment myself as I haven't read it.


----------



## mamascarlatti

guythegreg said:


> Wow - I am impressed. That's way more than I would have tried for any opera I can think of. And still you're planning to try one more time!


This has more to do with Jonas Kaufmann than Parsifal.

I travelled 18,000kms to see him in Les Troyens. Of course he didn't show but it's the thought that counts.


----------



## Sid James

brianwalker said:


> Honesty is the best policy if you have nothing to hide.


Gimme a break.


----------



## guythegreg

mamascarlatti said:


> Of course he didn't show but it's the thought that counts.


Oh NOOOOO!!!!!!


----------



## guythegreg

Not sure whether or not I don't like Wagner ... kind of up in the air right now. One way or another I am going to see the Parsifal the Met has planned for this coming spring. I love Parsifal in one production, the Levine DVD with Jerusalem, Meier, Moll, etc. And the Domingo Lohengrin, with Christopher Lloyd as King Henry, is equally ... well, not equally enjoyable, because it feels like a lighter theme, but perhaps equally impressive to me. 

That said, I haven't been able yet to enjoy Meistersinger, the Ring, Tristan und I., and various other of his dramas that people keep urging on me. The overture to Meistersinger is a wonderful piece of music, but that's not what I watch opera for. Not many of the responders to this post have mentioned Wagner's dramatic genius, and I think that's what he was, not a musical genius. I don't claim his librettos are poetic masterpieces, merely that they are dramatic masterpieces. And not all of them. Das Rheingold is just unwatchable, as far as I'm concerned, and I've tried it a few times. Well, I'm not sure anyone claims it's a masterpiece all by itself, so who cares, right?


----------



## sospiro

mamascarlatti said:


> This has more to do with Jonas Kaufmann than Parsifal.
> 
> I travelled 18,000kms to see him in Les Troyens. Of course he didn't show but it's the thought that counts.


You were my first thought when I heard he'd cancelled. I was so angry with him & there were all these stories about his not allowing enough time to rehearse & some people even saying he'd cancelled because he wasn't up to the role. There were so many rumours nobody knew what to believe.

Hymel was good but he wasn't Jonas.


----------



## Manok

Years ago, when I listened to Opera at the Met, on NPR, I usually came into it at the middle, and invareably they'd play Wagner at some point, and I'd be liking what I heard til I realized it was Wagner, only because it would be 6 pm before the opera was done (the broadcast usually began at 1 pm). So That was the only reason I didn't really like Wagner, was the length, but then they invented things called cds, and MP3 players, now I can listen an act at a time, and not spend my entire day with one opera if I don't choose to.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

guythegreg said:


> Das Rheingold is just unwatchable, as far as I'm concerned, and I've tried it a few times. Well, *I'm not sure anyone claims it's a masterpiece all by itself*, so who cares, right?


No one claimed yet that Das Rheingold is a masterpiece by itself yet? What an oversight! Well then, let me be the first to claim that *by itself, Das Rheingold is a masterpiece*! :tiphat: As a stand-alone performance (i.e., separate from Die Walküre, Siegfried, and Götterdämmerung), I personally favor the 1991 Bayreuth version (although I don't think this version of the entire Der Ring Des Nibelungen is as good as other versions).


----------



## mamascarlatti

sospiro said:


> You were my first thought when I heard he'd cancelled. I was so angry with him & there were all these stories about his not allowing enough time to rehearse & some people even saying he'd cancelled because he wasn't up to the role. There were so many rumours nobody knew what to believe.
> 
> Hymel was good but he wasn't Jonas.


Well he cancelled lots of other stuff at the time so I think it was genuine.

Honestly there are so many worse things in life, and I had a magic time anyway!


----------



## mamascarlatti

Funnily enough with Wagner it's the music that gets me, and specifcally the orchestra and orchestration. With most composers you listen to the singers and the opera "accompanies", but with Wagner you have to listen to the singers as just one element of the orchestra,the orchestra is where most of the interesting stuff is going on.

In fact with Wagner I sometimes have to put the drama to one side in the sense of LIKING it, although of course drama and music are intimately intertwined. Meistersinger is the only one where I actively enjoy the plot because I can recognise the people as real.


----------



## Guest

I don't know why I don't like most of Wagner's works - I just know I don't. There are exceptions, but generally only for certain parts of his operas. I can't say there is any one opera that I really enjoy. To me, they sound like filler, interspersed with rare gems. 

With Tristan and Isolde, I thought I might join the two lovers in ending my life if I had to endure any more repetitions of their love/death. With the Ring, I found myself endlessly thinking, "Get on with it, already." I understand that some non-operatic works can continue on with repetitions, but opera is more than just music, it is also drama, and for me, a drama, even a musical one, that is insanely repetitious and lagging in moving the story is boring and tedious. Referring back to Tristan, it seemed like Wagner was simply trying to show off how many times and how many ways he could incorporate his leitmotifs and reiterate the same idea. Here, you didn't get what I'm trying to tell you the first 30 times? Let me give it to you, slightly altered, a 31st time.

Sorry - and I am not criticizing anybody who does like Wagner. That is just the repeated impression I have had everytime I have listened to Wagner - and for the record, I have listened to his operas as well as watched them, and the latter has not improved my opinion.


----------



## sospiro

mamascarlatti said:


> Well he cancelled lots of other stuff at the time so I think it was genuine.


I'm sure it was but very frustrating for all his fans



mamascarlatti said:


> Honestly *there are so many worse things in life*, and I had a magic time anyway!


This is true.


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

Sid James said:


> The other thing is that there is the spectre of the Holocaust there. I am very sensitive to those that died in that, one of the most horrible crimes of mass murder known to man. So there are connotations there, like the word Holocaust meaning a burnt offering. I'm sure I don't need to relate to which opera that comes to mind easily with that. Of course, some countries (not only Israel but also East Europe, where horrible atrocities where committed by the Nazis and their collaborators) also put under the carpet not only music by Wagner but other composers promoted by the Nazis, which in their minds was a symbol of subjugation and oppression.


Which Eastern European countries?


----------



## tyroneslothrop

Sid James said:


> The other thing is that there is the spectre of the Holocaust there. I am very sensitive to those that died in that, one of the most horrible crimes of mass murder known to man. So there are connotations there, like the word Holocaust meaning a burnt offering. I'm sure I don't need to relate to which opera that comes to mind easily with that. Of course, some countries (not only Israel but also East Europe, where horrible atrocities where committed by the Nazis and their collaborators) also put under the carpet not only music by Wagner but other composers promoted by the Nazis, which in their minds was a symbol of subjugation and oppression.





SerbenthumInDerMusik said:


> Which Eastern European countries?


Sid James is in error--no Eastern European country bans Wagner's music and the ban in Israel is only _de facto_ (there were numerous attempts in Israel to stage public performances of Wagner but only one success in 2000, and the Wagner Society of Israel has "_several_" :lol: members), but this was probably entirely your point. But regardless, this fact alone obviously will not change Sid's mind about the music of Wagner as it is not the main reason he doesn't like it.


----------



## Tero

Attention span. I will listen to 40 minutes of symphony, but I prefer about 30.


----------



## superhorn

Blaming Wagner for Hitler, the Nazis and the holocaust is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition !


----------



## Guest

superhorn said:


> Blaming Wagner for Hitler, the Nazis and the holocaust is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition !


The anti-semitism that Wagner exhibited was a symptom of the broader anti-semitism that was fairly pervasive throughout Europe, and not something significant. I believe Hitler loved Wagner, not for his anti-semitism, but rather for his very Germanic operas. Were one to go back and completely wipe Wagner from existence (send a Terminator back to kill his mother), there would still have been a Hitler and a Nazi movement. Hitler also had a fondness for neo-classical architecture - should we attribute Nazism to the ancient Greeks and Romans?


----------



## realdealblues

I like Wagner just fine...I'm just not always in the mood for Opera. 

I wish he would have wrote some other Orchestral works, Symphonies or Piano Concertos or String Quartets or something so I could listen more in depth to his Orchestration. I'm thinking of buying the "Ring Without Words" so I could spend more time listening in depth to the music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Wagner did write (two?) symphonies, very very early on. It's just that they're not considered very good. Given the quality of his non-programmatic music (Siegfried Idyll aside), I'd say that it was the theater and gesamtkunstwerk that inspired him.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

superhorn said:


> Blaming Wagner for Hitler, the Nazis and the holocaust is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition !


Just why is it that so many people try to make a connection between Wagner and ... (the person who should not be named in the same sentence with the Master), yet hardly anyone ever makes the same connection between the Soviet tyrants, who are responsible for even more deaths, and Shostakovich, Glazunov or other Russian composers?


----------



## tyroneslothrop

SiegendesLicht said:


> Just why is it that so many people try to make a connection between Wagner and ... (the person who should not be named in the same sentence with the Master), yet hardly anyone ever makes the same connection between the Soviet tyrants, who are responsible for even more deaths, and Shostakovich, Glazunov or other Russian composers?


The analogy of Shostakovich and Stalin doesn't quite work for me as Shostakovich protested against Stalin (e.g., his 4th-9th symphonies). Instead, Stalin loved Charlie Chaplin, Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable, John Wayne, and Tarzan the Ape Man. Now Stalin and Tarzan is an analogy that works! :lol:


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

tyroneslothrop said:


> Sid James is in error--no Eastern European country bans Wagner's music and the ban in Israel is only _de facto_ (there were numerous attempts in Israel to stage public performances of Wagner but only one success in 2000, and the Wagner Society of Israel has "_several_" :lol: members), but this was probably entirely your point. But regardless, this fact alone obviously will not change Sid's mind about the music of Wagner as it is not the main reason he doesn't like it.


Yeah, I've never heard of Wagner being banned in Eastern Bloc. In my country Wagner's operas are not performed but I'm pretty sure it's not for political reasons. Probably has to do with lack of funds, or the relative exoticism of the music, who knows... In other EE operas that have money to fund it Wagner was probably performed all the time. The ban in Israel is another matter. I don't agree with it but we'll need a whole new topic for that.

So, what's the real reason he doesn't like it?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

At least in Russia Wagner's operas seem to be quite well known and regularly performed.


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> The anti-semitism that Wagner exhibited was a symptom of the broader anti-semitism that was fairly pervasive throughout Europe, and not something significant. I believe Hitler loved Wagner, not for his anti-semitism, but rather for his very Germanic operas. Were one to go back and completely wipe Wagner from existence (send a Terminator back to kill his mother), there would still have been a Hitler and a Nazi movement. Hitler also had a fondness for neo-classical architecture - should we attribute Nazism to the ancient Greeks and Romans?


I prefer to blame Nazism not on Wagner but on Lehar, another of Hitler's favourite composers. Also, it's a lot funnier.


----------



## KenOC

Wagner had nothing on Martin Luther, who became violently anti-semitic in his later years, writing several treatises with names such as Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies). Per Wiki, "Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, and smashing up their homes, so that these 'poisonous envenomed worms' would be forced into labour or expelled 'for all time'."

Wagner's own views seem somewhat casual compared with this.


----------



## superhorn

Monty Python : Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition !


----------



## Sid James

After the Second World War, many Eastern European countries avoided playing not only Wagner but other composers promoted by the Nazis as examples of the supriority of Germanic culture. Eg. Bruckner, even Beethoven was avoided as much as possible. The late Charles Mackerras who went to Czechoslovakia after the war said that a big reason for the resurgence of the music of local composers like Janacek and guys like Smetana and Dvorak beyond their big warhorse hits was because with this policy the Czechs had a vacuum to fill in their concert and radio programs.

Same can be said in other East European countries. I don't think it was a ban in law, but more of a defacto ban. Of course, economics could have played part in this as well - eg. Wagner and Bruckner require large forces to perform.

The Nazis where very brutal in Eastern Europe - look at Lidice, wiped off the map as a reprisal for Czech partisans killing Nazi goon Heydrich. That was horrible, it was appalling. Its only one example of many. All I can say is look at history, look at what happened. Don't assume I'm just biased or a dimwit. Most of the things I say on this forum come from my experience (eg. reading, study, and I have known people who lived through these things). Its not just textbook stuff but you know what? I don't care. If people want to enjoy Wagner or whatever, great.

In any case, the whole thing is over. None of these composers are avoided anywhere. They can be performed now. I think that most people forget history, and then it repeats itself. But who cares about that on this forum? Nobody.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

Sid James said:


> I think that most people forget history, and then it repeats itself. But who cares about that on this forum? Nobody.


Well, I care about history. However, I think that it is one thing to outlaw Nazism (almost invoked _Godwin's Law_ there!), and it is entirely a different thing to ban (even _de facto_) performances of Wagner because _you-know-who_ happened to favor him and because of that, a certain music became associated with that evil regime. Let's imagine hypothetically something--imagine that at the death camps that when they started the ovens, they would macabrely play Jingle Bells. If this bizarre and sick thing were done, would that mean that Jingle Bells should be banned and avoided for the unfortunate association?

Yes, Wagner was not a nice guy--ok, he sucked. But there were worse. For example, KenOC pointed out that Martin Luther was worse, and there still are 75 million Lutherans in the world, yet Lutheranism is not shunned. Shunning, or worse, banning, Wagner, just seems unfair and being upset at the wrong thing. It would be like banning Tarzan because Stalin favored him _(well, ok, obviously Tarzan was less a symbol of Stalin's repression and genocide, but that is *only because Stalin did not choose to appropriate Tarzanism*)_


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

Sid James said:


> After the Second World War, many Eastern European countries avoided playing not only Wagner but other composers promoted by the Nazis as examples of the supriority of Germanic culture. Eg. Bruckner, even Beethoven was avoided as much as possible. The late Charles Mackerras who went to Czechoslovakia after the war said that a big reason for the resurgence of the music of local composers like Janacek and guys like Smetana and Dvorak beyond their big warhorse hits was because with this policy the Czechs had a vacuum to fill in their concert and radio programs.


I suspected that what you were saying was true in the years immediately following the war, so I checked the archive of Prague Opera at this link. (Click on"repertoár" for the performances in each season.)

And true... Wagner was performed often before the war, along with other Germans. But after the war, until about 1950, the only German opera was Fidelio in just one season. Mozart's operas were staged but not the ones in German. However, Italian composers also took a hit in those years. Verdi, Puccini and Rossini were outperformed by Smetana, Dvorak and Janacek.

After 1950 the things start rolling, with Mozart in German, Fidelio, Weber, and Lorzting. Wagner comes back in 1955 with Tannhauser, and in following seasons Meistersinger, Dutchman, Lohengrin, Walkure,...

The full Ring was performed for the first time in 2005.

And I suppose it was similar situation in other countries. So, you're partially right about the ban, but it seems to me that it had more to do with the widespread and undiscriminating backclash against all things German, than with ideology of any particular composer.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

SerbenthumInDerMusik said:


> However, Italian composers also took a hit in those years. Verdi, Puccini and Rossini were outperformed by Smetana, Dvorak and Janacek.


Well, Italy was a member of the Axis, so that makes sense. But then Finland and Hungary were as well, and their respective composers, such as Sebelius and Bartók should also have taken a hit, but perusing the listings, I can't tell if that was the case.


----------



## TxllxT

I would like to point out that with speaking about *Germans* and *Germany*, people are quick to forget that Germany as one country came into being at the end of the 19th century. Germany used to be a ragbag of kingdoms, counties & other feudal backwaters. The only thing that unified the Germans was the German language. All operas in German language were being applauded both for its musical merits but *more* for nationalistic reasons. Opera used to be the main carrier of national pride, it actually helped a nation to become one. Richard Wagner happened to be born in a time when the rollercoaster of nationalism swept over Europe and he choose the themes of his operas keenly in tune with this sweeping wave in mind. Of course he profited enormously from it, he knew in advance that his public would go out of the roof when he would write something that stirred the German soul of nation-building. 
Nowadays we know about the debauchery of nationalism, that in Germany led to the holocaust. Richard Wagner is not to blame for having choosen to ride on the stupendous enormity of nationalism, that was already sweeping over the minds of all these backwater suffocators. It is anachronistic to blame Wagner for this nationalist longing of the Germans to become one nation, that was already present before he was born. 
I think that nowadays people listen to Wagner's compositions mainly because of the musical merits. I notice however that Wagner's inspiration was fired almost solely by nationalistic themes and I happen to find that inspiration quite narrow-minded. Verdi's operathemes for example do cover a much wider scope.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT, this is so true! I applaud this post!


----------



## tyroneslothrop

TxllxT said:


> I would like to point out that with speaking about *Germans* and *Germany*, people are quick to forget that Germany as one country came into being at the end of the 19th century. Germany used to be a ragbag of kingdoms, counties & other feudal backwaters. The only thing that unified the Germans was the German language. All operas in German language were being applauded both for its musical merits but *more* for nationalistic reasons. Opera used to be the main carrier of national pride, it actually helped a nation to become one. Richard Wagner happened to be born in a time when the rollercoaster of nationalism swept over Europe and he choose the themes of his operas keenly in tune with this sweeping wave in mind. Of course he profited enormously from it, he knew in advance that his public would go out of the roof when he would write something that stirred the German soul of nation-building.
> Nowadays we know about the debauchery of nationalism, that in Germany led to the holocaust. Richard Wagner is not to blame for having choosen to ride on the stupendous enormity of nationalism, that was already sweeping over the minds of all these backwater suffocators. It is anachronistic to blame Wagner for this nationalist longing of the Germans to become one nation, that was already present before he was born.
> I think that nowadays people listen to Wagner's compositions mainly because of the musical merits. I notice however that Wagner's inspiration was fired almost solely by nationalistic themes and I happen to find that inspiration quite narrow-minded. Verdi's operathemes for example do cover a much wider scope.


Bravo!


----------



## emiellucifuge

TxllxT said:


> I notice however that Wagner's inspiration was fired almost solely by nationalistic themes and I happen to find that inspiration quite narrow-minded. Verdi's operathemes for example do cover a much wider scope.


Your post was excellent until this point, which is absolutely not true. 
After his discovery of Schopenhauer his operas are based on Schopenhauerian themes, morality based on compassion, metaphysics, the role of art in society. And he also reinterpreted his plot for the Ring which was originally a story of the conflict between love and power and how society oppresses free expression, into a more pessimistic story incorporating the buddhistic idea of samsara etc...
His earlier works are obviously less important in this context but largely focus on redemption through love.

We know this because it is obvious and because he told us both directly and indirectly.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

emiellucifuge said:


> Your post was excellent until this point, which is absolutely not true.
> After his discovery of Schopenhauer his operas are based on Schopenhauerian themes, morality based on compassion, metaphysics, the role of art in society. And he also reinterpreted his plot for the Ring which was originally a story of the conflict between love and power and how society oppresses free expression, into a more pessimistic story incorporating the buddhistic idea of samsara etc...
> His earlier works are obviously less important in this context but largely focus on redemption through love.
> 
> We know this because it is obvious and because he told us both directly and indirectly.


_"The Land of Non-Being"_


----------



## Guest

Hmm, perhaps Wagner was a bit nationalistic, but who wasn't? In reality, "Germany" resisted nationalism for much longer than much of the rest of the world - one of the reasons they were not quite the colonizing force that other European countries were. I think Wagner was drawn more towards the epic storylines. Tristan and Isolde, for example, is not a German story - it takes place in the British Isles. The Ring was based on a Germanic legend. Wagner, in fact, profited very much from the independence of the various Germanic kingdoms - his greatest benefactor was King Ludwig of the Kingdom of Bavaria.

Wagner was co-opted by Hitler - so what? That doesn't tie his music to the Nazis, any more than the Beatles are evil and homicidal because Charles Manson drew inspiration for the killings he orchestrated from their White Album. Because his minions scrawled Helter Skelter on a wall in blood, should we shun the Beatles as the music of homicidal maniacs? Should we associate Beethoven with "ultra-violence" because the main character in A Clockwork Orange was a huge Beethoven fan? And if we are going to condemn Wagner for nationalism, then shouldn't we also condemn Haydn, for after all, where did the music come from that would be the setting for the great German national anthem, "Deuthschland, Deutschland, ueber alles, ueber alles in der Welt."

Evil men throughout time have often co-opted art and science to their purposes - after all, didn't Hitler and the Nazis also incorporate ideas appropriated from Darwin to justify their elimination of races and genetic stocks that they thought inferior, to prevent the corruption of the German bloodline? Shall we also then condemn Darwin as a root cause of Nazism?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I apologize in advance for getting a little political, but what is wrong with a bit of German nationalism.. or should I say patriotism? Every nation is entitled to their homeland: Britain, France, Italy, the USA.. why should Germans be blamed for a desre to gather their "hodgepodge of 34 kingdoms and principalities" into one country? And why should Wagner be blamed for being an inspiration to that desire? The men who brought united Germany to life in 1848-1871 could in no way foresee what would happen sixty years after.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

SiegendesLicht said:


> I apologize in advance for getting a little political, but what is wrong with a bit of German nationalism.. or should I say patriotism? Every nation is entitled to their homeland: Britain, France, Italy, the USA.. why should Germans be blamed for a desre to gather their "hodgepodge of 34 kingdoms and principalities" into one country? And why should Wagner be blamed for being an inspiration to that desire? The men who brought united Germany to life in 1848-1871 could in no way foresee what would happen sixty years after.


I agree. Actually, there are many countries which are intensely "patriotic" (yes, nationalistic) even today. My wife is writing her Ph.D. dissertation right now on one of them and even uses the term "National Identity" in the title of her dissertation.


----------



## Guest

I think the desire to associate with those that have a shared heritage is something inherent in most people. Call it nationalism, call it whatever. In reality, those with a shared heritage often have shared interests, and so they join together to better be able to pursue those interests. What becomes unnatural is when we try to force together disparate interests - notice the mess that is Africa and the Middle East. Much of the disaster that is there results from the unnatural combination of different groups by European colonists based on their own interests, rather than the interests of those incorporated into a single country. We can pretend all we want that we should all be one great big happy family, but when you try this, you get more anarchy and confusion than anything else. Witness the problems in Europe now through the attempt to combine into one economy different cultures that have different attitudes regarding labor. 

But this is supposed to be about Wagner. Look, as I mentioned before, there are plenty of reasons to dislike his music without having to even look into his politics and personal prejudices. My recommendation? If you don't like his operas, go pick up one of those "Wagner without words" compilations. I have one by Szell with the Cleveland Orchestra, and I love it. As I said before, Wagner, to me, is a bunch of filler with a few, rare gems. This CD contains only those gems.


----------



## TxllxT

emiellucifuge said:


> Your post was excellent until this point, which is absolutely not true.
> After his discovery of Schopenhauer his operas are based on Schopenhauerian themes, morality based on compassion, metaphysics, the role of art in society. And he also reinterpreted his plot for the Ring which was originally a story of the conflict between love and power and how society oppresses free expression, into a more pessimistic story incorporating the buddhistic idea of samsara etc...
> His earlier works are obviously less important in this context but largely focus on redemption through love.
> 
> We know this because it is obvious and because he told us both directly and indirectly.


Your interpretation is quite in accordance with what I would describe as the 'censored version' of Wagner operas, the safe&nice&fashionable&philosophical fairy tale stories that Wagner presented to his rulers (the Ludwigs who had censors, secret police everywhere to safekeep their positions) in order to please his maecenas, but there is also an 'uncensored' version of Wagner, filled to the brim with subversion in many, many layers & directions, hidden in his operas. Many Wagnerlovers like Wagner because he *is* such a subversive double-dealer. 
For me Wagner is not dealing with love & power & how society oppresses free expression as such in the philosopher's limbo, but how *the German soul* is plotting&plodding through love, power and freedom of expression. Goethe hit his mark with exploring the Faustian abysses in this German soul, Wagner tried to marry the eternal longing for love, power and freedom of expression with what is typical German, say for example: with the typical German virtue of thoroughness & durability. Thoroughness however may derail into heavyhandedness, durability may suddenly collapse under a yawn of longwindedness. The most *subversive* theme that is the inner soul breathing inside all Wagner's operas, the innermost connexion that is being thematised in all his operas, is IMO: *Celebrating Germanness*. Now what is so wrong with that?


----------



## KenOC

TxllxT said:


> *Celebrating Germanness*. Now what is so wrong with that?


Quite so. As the French used to say in the cold war, "I love Germany so much that I'm happy there are two of them."


----------



## millionrainbows

I think it's perfectly reasonable if somebody wishes to reject Wagner, or not drive Fords.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DrMike said:


> And if we are going to condemn Wagner for nationalism, then shouldn't we also condemn Haydn, for after all, where did the music come from that would be the setting for the great German national anthem, "Deuthschland, Deutschland, ueber alles, ueber alles in der Welt."


This is an off-topic, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with "Deutschland über alles" either. The text comes from the 1840s and speaks exactly of that same unity (as in "united Germany over the petty interests of the rulers of all the small kingdoms it consists of...") that Wagner also desires for his nation, not of lording it over the whole world.


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

TxllxT said:


> I think that nowadays people listen to Wagner's compositions mainly because of the musical merits. I notice however that Wagner's inspiration was fired almost solely by nationalistic themes and I happen to find that inspiration quite narrow-minded. Verdi's operathemes for example do cover a much wider scope.


Geographical variety of sources for operas is one thing. Entirely different issue is what the composer (and in Wagner's case , librettist as well) did with it, how deeply he looked into the source and what he brought out of it. Hardly anyone would call Tristan und Isolde, Dutchman or the Ring narrowly Germanic operas.

If geographical variety of inspiration can substitute for inspiration itself then Baroque operas, with their Kings, Emperors, Heroes, Deities, Sultans, Pashas, Shahs ... from every corner of the world and beyond, should be regarded as somehow more inspired, deeper, more open-minded than operas of both Wagner and Verdi.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's perfectly reasonable if somebody wishes to reject Wagner, or not drive Fords.


And this is perfectly fine as a personal preference, and several have expressed this. But it is quite something else to say that one doesn't drive Fords because there is something wrong with Fords!


----------



## TxllxT

SerbenthumInDerMusik said:


> Geographical variety of sources for operas is one thing. Entirely different issue is what the composer (and in Wagner's case , librettist as well) did with it, how deeply he looked into the source and what he brought out of it. Hardly anyone would call Tristan und Isolde, Dutchman or the Ring narrowly Germanic operas.
> 
> If geographical variety of inspiration can substitute for inspiration itself then Baroque operas, with their Kings, Emperors, Heroes, Deities, Sultans, Pashas, Shahs ... from every corner of the world and beyond, should be regarded as somehow more inspired, deeper, more open-minded than operas of both Wagner and Verdi.


Most Baroque operas were conceived as works dedicated to a certain occasion (say, the opening of a local operahouse, a commision by a local moneyspender...), they did not have a globalistic world-emcompassing-scope in mind as the 19th century composers had to cope with. This makes Baroque operas in a sense more open-minded, less burdened with a wider public's expectations. Lightweight & quickly forgotten. It's a miracle in itself that many Baroque operas have been preserved for posterity. Many did not, and nobody seemed to care about it... With regard to qualifications as *'inspired'*, *'deep'* I guess that in the Baroque times people were not at all concerned with that. Really, compared to the 19th century the Baroque opera lovers living in those Baroque times seemed to be dwelling constantly in such a heavenly bliss!...


----------



## Sid James

SerbenthumInDerMusik said:


> I suspected that what you were saying was true in the years immediately following the war, so I checked the archive of Prague Opera at this link. (Click on"repertoár" for the performances in each season.)
> 
> .....
> And I suppose it was similar situation in other countries. So, you're partially right about the ban, but it seems to me that it had more to do with *the widespread and undiscriminating backclash against all things German,* than with ideology of any particular composer.


Thanks for the link. Re the part I put in bold above, there is a good deal of truth in this. After the war, there where reprisals in Eastern European countries against not only local people who collaborated with them, but also just those with German heritage. Of course, that was common in Sudetenland, which was given to Germany thanks the the Munich Agreement. Same thing in Hungary, many Hungarians of German descent had their homes taken away from them and where forcibly resettled in conditions that where even worse than for those others there who where still recovering from the war. & similarly in Poland, after the war it recovered territory taken by the Nazis, and Germans in those areas where expelled en masse. So these people got caught in this backlash, and the real tragedy is that if you look at the history of the region since (eg. the former Yugoslavia) these same 'solutions' to various problems have been used with devastating and horrific effect (that why I said, history repeats itself, time and time again).

Re ideology I think its hard to separate Wagner's ideology with what else went on in his time. There is a strong strand of militarism and anti-Semitism in German culture. In countires occupied by them, they call them the gendarmes of Europe. They always wanted to keep order, but at what cost?

Re unification, nationalism, patriotism & all that, the Nazis where not the first violent regime in Germany. Way back you had Bismark, who united Germany with 'blood and iron.' You had his successor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wanted to gain for Germany 'a place in the sun.' War crimes where committed by his troops in World War I, and there was even a move to get him extradited from the Netherlands, where he spent his final years after that war. But it did not succeed (& guess what, Hitler was a big admirer of the Kaiser, even sent him a card on one of his birthdays).

In terms of anti-Semitism, its entrenched in Germany and Central-Eastern Europe. Going back, we can cite many examples of prejudice and discrimination against Jews. Look at how composers had to convert to Christianity to have any prospect of 'making it' in the music industry of the time. Mendelssohn, Mahler, Schoenberg, Zemlinksy, the list just goes on. What Hitler did is basically codify in law many aspects of racism which where already practised.

The bigger picture does show that Wagner was one of many with these kind of ideologies, however I see Nazism as an extreme form of nationalism. It is indeed an offshoot, but I am sceptical of the current resurgence of 'pride in country' that has been going on in Germany since it was reunified in 1990. Now that the EU is crumbling, and German corporations own a vast array of assets across Europe, its not hard to see the parallels between say the Weimar years and now.

But I'll leave it at that. German culture, like all cultures, has a positive as well as dark side. Look at Humanism, of which Erasmus was a big proponent of (he was from what's now Netherlands, but he apparently influenced German thinking, incl. of Martin Luther). Look at the Enlightenment, which did touch the music and ideology of Beethoven (eg. Eroica symphony, Fidelio). Look at philosophers and also people there who opposed the Nazis (eg. the Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who paid the ultimate price for his opposition). So there are these things, positives to hold onto.

(I have not stuck exactly/right on topic but given the direction this thread has taken, I took a broad approach with this post).


----------



## SiegendesLicht

> ...You had his successor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wanted to gain for Germany 'a place in the sun.'


Which reminds me of this scene (it starts around 12 minutes into the film):






The Master looks a bit too old here though. During the Dresden uprising in 1848 when this scene took place, he was only 35.


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> Thanks for the link. Re the part I put in bold above, there is a good deal of truth in this. After the war, there where reprisals in Eastern European countries against not only local people who collaborated with them, but also just those with German heritage. Of course, that was common in Sudetenland, which was given to Germany thanks the the Munich Agreement. Same thing in Hungary, many Hungarians of German descent had their homes taken away from them and where forcibly resettled in conditions that where even worse than for those others there who where still recovering from the war. & similarly in Poland, after the war it recovered territory taken by the Nazis, and Germans in those areas where expelled en masse. So these people got caught in this backlash, and the real tragedy is that if you look at the history of the region since (eg. the former Yugoslavia) these same 'solutions' to various problems have been used with devastating and horrific effect (that why I said, history repeats itself, time and time again).
> 
> Re ideology I think its hard to separate Wagner's ideology with what else went on in his time. There is a strong strand of militarism and anti-Semitism in German culture. In countires occupied by them, they call them the gendarmes of Europe. They always wanted to keep order, but at what cost?
> 
> Re unification, nationalism, patriotism & all that, the Nazis where not the first violent regime in Germany. Way back you had Bismark, who united Germany with 'blood and iron.' You had his successor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wanted to gain for Germany 'a place in the sun.' War crimes where committed by his troops in World War I, and there was even a move to get him extradited from the Netherlands, where he spent his final years after that war. But it did not succeed (& guess what, Hitler was a big admirer of the Kaiser, even sent him a card on one of his birthdays).
> 
> In terms of anti-Semitism, its entrenched in Germany and Central-Eastern Europe. Going back, we can cite many examples of prejudice and discrimination against Jews. Look at how composers had to convert to Christianity to have any prospect of 'making it' in the music industry of the time. Mendelssohn, Mahler, Schoenberg, Zemlinksy, the list just goes on. What Hitler did is basically codify in law many aspects of racism which where already practised.
> 
> The bigger picture does show that Wagner was one of many with these kind of ideologies, however I see Nazism as an extreme form of nationalism. It is indeed an offshoot, but I am sceptical of the current resurgence of 'pride in country' that has been going on in Germany since it was reunified in 1990. Now that the EU is crumbling, and German corporations own a vast array of assets across Europe, its not hard to see the parallels between say the Weimar years and now.
> 
> But I'll leave it at that. German culture, like all cultures, has a positive as well as dark side. Look at Humanism, of which Erasmus was a big proponent of (he was from what's now Netherlands, but he apparently influenced German thinking, incl. of Martin Luther). Look at the Enlightenment, which did touch the music and ideology of Beethoven (eg. Eroica symphony, Fidelio). Look at philosophers and also people there who opposed the Nazis (eg. the Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who paid the ultimate price for his opposition). So there are these things, positives to hold onto.
> 
> (I have not stuck exactly/right on topic but given the direction this thread has taken, I took a broad approach with this post).


Re: the issue of anti-semitism in German and Eastern European countries - I would argue that this is not necessarily proof of more pronounced anti-semitism in those regions, rather that it is a result of the earlier anti-semitism in the Western Euorpean nations. Jews - at the time we are speaking - had much larger populations in Germany and Eastern Europe because they had been driven from Western Europe. For a time they had experienced toleration in Spain at the hands of the Muslim rulers, but that changed, and so many in Spain fled further West. In 1290, all Jews were expelled from England. In the late 14th century, 100,000 Jews were expelled from France. In the early 15th century, thousands were expelled from Austria. Many made their way to Poland and other Eastern European countries. As Western Europeans made their way across Europe to join in the Crusades, many took the opportunity to persecute Jews along the way. The Franciscans and Dominicans promoted anti-Semitism. Jews were scapegoated throughout Europe during the 14th century as causing the Black Death - in Strasbourg, they even burned 900 Jews because of this. Anti-semitism also found it's way to America. And one of the more famous cases of anti-semitism, the Dreyfus Affair, took place in France. Lest we also forget, while the Nazis were particularly blatant and genocidal in their anti-semitism, with a few exceptions, many conquered European countries were not in the least bit reluctant to offer up their Jews and claim their spoils. Vichy France was particularly helpful in cooperating with the Nazis, and in many instances voluntarily instituted anti-semitic policies that went above what was asked of them.

Nazis were ultra-nationalistic, but theirs went beyond mere nationalism - theirs was a racial issue. They didn't merely want a strong German nation - they wanted a strong German people, on the grounds that theirs was the superior race, and thus deserved whatever they wanted. While it is not wrong to classify Nazism as ultra-nationalistic, by simplifying the definition so much, it actually is misleading about what Nazism actually was, and incorrectly places it in a moral equivalency with the fairly universal desire to organize a government around common interests to form a nation of individuals of like sentiments and shared history. That strongly nationalistic movements have led to extremes like that of Nazism in no way proves that other nationalistic movements will go in a similar way.

You reference Bismark and the formation of Germany - this was partly out of nationalistic tendencies, but was also because, due to there not being a German nation, that area was continually overrun by other European powers that had long ago nationalized. The individual kingdoms and prinicipalities were constantly played against one another, and overrun by others, because they had no unified power to resist. Bismark helped them realize that it was in their best interest to unify for their own protection. Now, yes, there was a lot of war around this birth of a nations - but mainly because so much of Europe did not want to see them unified. And what country has not been born under bloodshed? This was not unique to Germany. Most modern nations originated as a group of independent kingdoms that were finally conquered and brought under a single rule. Go ask the Scots, and the Welsh about it. The United States was born in war with its Mother Country. You attribute these things to the Germans as if theirs is a unique situation particularly prone to Nazism, when in reality, their history is not so different from the rest of Western Civilization, save for the fact that they were later to the table of nationalism. Their anti-semitism is not unique, but rather of a kind with European anti-semitism in general, save that they didn't unleash their brutality on the Jews until the 20th century, when technology allowed for much worse consequences.

I would say that Nazism was a direct result of the feeling of national pride in a newly created Germany (it had been in existence for less than a century) combined with the humiliation of the loss of the first World War and the particularly vindictive and overly punitive actions of the Versailles Treaty. It left the people open and desparate for any movement that promised to return them to their glory and restored their national pride.


----------



## TxllxT

Side remarks
1) Holland is, I think, a Western European Country. Amsterdam did become one of the wealthiest cities in Renaissance Europe, thanks to the Sephardic Jews who were being expelled from Spain & Portugal (1492). Amsterdam's Hebrew nickname is 'Mokum' (, which means: good place), a name that the Jews usually reserve for Jerusalem. The first country in which the Jews enjoyed full citizenship was (of all places!) the Dutch colony of Surinam. Well, here the story turns to another black page of history: the Jews in Surinam and on Curaçao made big money with slavetrading...
2) Be careful with Erasmus! He is perhaps even more nasty than Martin L. with slandering the Jews. Also he committed dishonest practices during the race who would be the first to get the Greek Bible in print. Because he missed a few parts, he just translated those parts from Latin (Vulgate) to Greek. I like Martin Luther for his outspokenness. For example the letters in which he tells about the pleasures with his wife in bed. Erasmus was such a bore!


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

Sid, Txl, you make some good points, too late for me to catch up with discussion now 

One charge that is usually leveled at German nationalism (the reason it is considered more dangerous than others) is that it ascribed special mystical value to the people, their soul, their origin and their land, _mysticism of 'the Volk'_. Which makes it quite different from, say, French or American civic patriotism.
How Wagner relates to all this is difficult to say. I still believe that he was more of a millennial megalomaniac than a nationalist, and he would easily recognize the mean-spiritedness of the Nazis and their appeal to the lowest instincts in all of us.


----------



## Sid James

Reflecting on what DrMike wrote, unfortunately it is true that anti-Semitism was/is not only restricted to Germany or other countries of that region. Nor is militarism. But it is obvious that these currents in Germany definitely unleashed forces that led to WW2, and of course they where already present in imperial Germany as I talked to. But it is good simply to be aware of the historical background/context of Wagner, and since we are not stuck in 1880 or something like that, to know what happened between his time and now, in German history and beyond. I'd say people responding to this thread are aware, whether as individual listeners we like Wagner or not can ultimately be a separate issue. I am beginning to understand this.

BTW Seiglindeslicht, I think you are talking of the (first emperor of united Germany) Kaiser Wilhelm I, not his successor Wilhelm II. Basically the latter with his policies of militarisation and expansion (eg. founding colonies in Africa) was seen by Bismark to bite off more than he could chew, so to speak. Wilhelm II's aggressive attitude was definitely one of the contributing factors to WWI. An Australian historian in a documentary I was watching about that said that although many Australian lives where lost fighting that war, it had to be done, Germany had to be defeated, the values of the Kaiser - militarism, an expansionist foreign policy, anti-Semitism - where the things that Europe needed the least. So as I said, one can argue that something went seriously wrong in the 20th century, and yes it is a complex issue.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Well, I did not have any one of the two Wilhelms in mind, when writing the last post. It's just that your quote about a place in the sun for Germany reminded me of the film scene where Wagner himself said exactly those very same words. However, the film is a work of fiction, so we cannot really know if Wagner ever uttered that phrase in one of his speeches. 

PS. Personally, I respect Wagner all the more for taking a part (even if it was not all that significant) in the first attempt at German unification in 1848. Healthy patriotism and desire to see your country prosper is a good thing, after all.


----------



## TxllxT

Sid James said:


> Reflecting on what DrMike wrote, unfortunately it is true that anti-Semitism was/is not only restricted to Germany or other countries of that region. Nor is militarism. But it is obvious that these currents in Germany definitely unleashed forces that led to WW2, and of course they where already present in imperial Germany as I talked to. But it is good simply to be aware of the historical background/context of Wagner, and since we are not stuck in 1880 or something like that, to know what happened between his time and now, in German history and beyond. I'd say people responding to this thread are aware, whether as individual listeners we like Wagner or not can ultimately be a separate issue. I am beginning to understand this.
> 
> BTW Seiglindeslicht, I think you are talking of the (first emperor of united Germany) Kaiser Wilhelm I, not his successor Wilhelm II. Basically the latter with his policies of militarisation and expansion (eg. founding colonies in Africa) was seen by Bismark to bite off more than he could chew, so to speak. Wilhelm II's aggressive attitude was definitely one of the contributing factors to WWI. An Australian historian in a documentary I was watching about that said that although many Australian lives where lost fighting that war, it had to be done, Germany had to be defeated, the values of the Kaiser - militarism, an expansionist foreign policy, anti-Semitism - where the things that Europe needed the least. So as I said, one can argue that something went seriously wrong in the 20th century, and yes it is a complex issue.


After WWI the _Kaiser_ was offered a refuge in a rather small castle in Doorn, close to Utrecht, where he arrived with 60 trainwagons full of _kitsch_&knickknacks. To blame this one lone soul, who was not at all intelligent judging from his personal castle-belongings, for Germany's ventures into Namibia, building Dreadnought _Panzerschiffe_ etc. I find quite overdone. The _Kaiser_ was just the figure-head from a Bismarck led Germany, who was useful for overseeing parades (a day job I presume), hugging his Victorian cousins overseas and the Romanov relatives in St.Petersburg. The real power was kept by a _Juncker_ led bureaucracy, who were keen not to show their faces in public. Prussia's longstanding tradition of militarism had more to do with Enlightenment and Idealism (Immanuel Kant), with building an Ideal 'Christian' State. As often in history, the root of evil lies not in people being bad or devilish, but exactly in the opposite direction: people who want to realise something ideal, something that's *too* good. I do not like idealist thinking, because of this inbuild blindness. Communism had this idealist dream, so had Prussia: everything had to be organised perfectly. They got quite far with building this state-organisation. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## tyroneslothrop

TxllxT said:


> ... The real power was kept by a _Juncker_ led bureaucracy, who were keen not to show their faces in public. ... As often in history, the root of evil lies not in people being bad or devilish, but exactly in the opposite direction: people who want to realise something ideal, something that's *too* good. I do not like idealist thinking, because of this inbuild blindness. Communism had this idealist dream, so had Prussia: everything had to be organised perfectly. They got quite far with building this state-organisation. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


This is getting way of course from Wagner now (!!!), but in the case of Russia / USSR, the roots of the need for perfection (for example, the Five-Year Plans) lay more in the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy pre-dated Communism, to the days of the Imperial court. The Russians have been searching for perfection for a long time, which is why everything has to be catalogued. Even today, consumer items may not be sold in Russia unless there is a GOST standard for it--very bureaucratic.


----------



## TxllxT

tyroneslothrop said:


> This is getting way of course from Wagner now (!!!), but in the case of Russia / USSR, the roots of the need for perfection (for example, the Five-Year Plans) lay more in the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy pre-dated Communism, to the days of the Imperial court. The Russians have been searching for perfection for a long time, which is why everything has to be catalogued. Even today, consumer items may not be sold in Russia unless there is a GOST standard for it--very bureaucratic.


You're right. Why did Wagner want to keep such frantic control over all things related to his operas? He wrote the libretti, had his own theatre build on Bayreuth's green hill, etc. Was he afraid of bureaucracy's lethargy sneaking into his family-business? I do not know, what Wagner thought about militarism (& Prussia)...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> You're right. Why did Wagner want to keep such frantic control over all things related to his operas? He wrote the libretti, had his own theatre build on Bayreuth's green hill, etc. Was he afraid of bureaucracy's lethargy sneaking into his family-business? I do not know, what Wagner thought about militarism (& Prussia)...


I don't know what he thought about them either (at least, as far as I know, he supported the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 inasmuch as it could lead to German unification), but does not his desire to keep control over all his artistic affairs have to do with his extremely good (and justified!) opinion of himself and his own art?  At least, he did not want _Parsifal_ to be staged outside of Bayreuth partly because all other stages seemed to him "too lowly" for his sacred work.


----------



## Couchie

I don't think Wagner is for "normal" people. In fact I think you have to be slightly insane.


----------



## Guest

tyroneslothrop said:


> And this is perfectly fine as a personal preference, and several have expressed this. But it is quite something else to say that one doesn't drive Fords because there is something wrong with Fords!


Or, more correctly, something wrong with the _people _who drive Fords!


----------



## Itullian

where's Couchie?


----------



## KenOC

Wagner? Well, he does then to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on (and on...)


----------



## tyroneslothrop

KenOC said:


> Wagner? Well, he does then to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on (and on...)


...and isn't that just *wonderful*?


----------



## KenOC

tyroneslothrop said:


> ...and isn't that just *wonderful*?


Is that a question that requires an answer? Otherwise I'll just leave it alone...


----------



## tyroneslothrop

KenOC said:


> Is that a question that requires an answer?


As much as your comment called for a response!


----------



## MaestroViolinist

I hate the sopranos in Wagner's operas, they're so high and wobbly. And I just find his music boring in general. Nothing much to add. It has absolutely nothing to do with his acquaintances or admirers or whatever.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

MaestroViolinist said:


> I hate the sopranos in Wagner's operas, they're so *high and wobbly*.


Wow! A new term for coloratura soprano!


----------



## MaestroViolinist

tyroneslothrop said:


> Wow! A new term for coloratura soprano!


Yup.   It's how I always refer to them.


----------



## TxllxT

MaestroViolinist said:


> I hate the sopranos in Wagner's operas, they're so high and wobbly. And I just find his music boring in general. Nothing much to add. It has absolutely nothing to do with his acquaintances or admirers or whatever.


I thought 'wobbly' referred to the shapes of their Brünhilde-bodies...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

tyroneslothrop said:


> ...and isn't that just *wonderful*?


Amen to that!


----------



## tyroneslothrop

TxllxT said:


> I thought 'wobbly' referred to the shapes of their Brünhilde-bodies...


Fascinating! And what about 'high'? :lol:


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

MaestroViolinist said:


> I hate the sopranos in Wagner's operas, they're so high and wobbly. And I just find his music boring in general. Nothing much to add. It has absolutely nothing to do with his acquaintances or admirers or whatever.


The Wagner Method: How Wagner Resolved The "Soprano Problem"


----------



## Operafocus

Oh, Wagner. I think my "problem" with Wagner is the indulgence of it, that nobody ever thought to tell him to _cut_ anything. Then again, he was indulgent because nobody told him that enduring 5-6-7 hours of _anything_ is a bit of a patience test. Wagner is great for those who live and breathe his output, and he has some good tunes, I'll give him that. I've sat through a few... "Lohengrin", "Tannhäuser", "Parsifal" and "Götterdämmerung"... and it's been fine - but I've come to the conclusion that it's not that I _don't like it_ - I just _don't enjoy it_.


----------



## KenOC

In a nutshell: "Parsifal is the kind of opera that starts at six o'clock and after it has been going on for three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6:20." -- David Randolph


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Operafocus, I do believe you are exaggerating a bit about 6-7 hours. Even the longest ones: "Die Meistersinger" and "Götterdämmerung" are below 5 hours (not counting the breaks, of course). 7 hours would be even better though!


----------



## Operafocus

SiegendesLicht said:


> Operafocus, I do believe you are exaggerating a bit about 6-7 hours. Even the longest ones: "Parsifal" and "Götterdämmerung" are below 5 hours (not counting the breaks, of course). 7 hours would be even better though!


Yeah, I'm talking about _with_ breaks here. I sat through a "Lohengrin" where I arrived at 2.30pm and wasn't out of there until about 9.45pm. I saw a recent production of "Götterdämmerung" and as I recall it lasted about 6 1/2 hours with breaks two breaks. I don't remember how long "Tannhäuser" at RoH was, but I remember looking at my ticket and nearly falling over when I saw the start and end time. lol.

He's not alone in having _long_ operas. I just saw "Les Troyens" and it lasted a while, there's "La Forza del Destino" that goes on a bit... but it just doesn't _feel_ as long.


----------



## Operafocus

KenOC said:


> In a nutshell: "Parsifal is the kind of opera that starts at six o'clock and after it has been going on for three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6:20." -- David Randolph


I love this quote a lot!


----------



## Bill H.

I adore Monteverdi, Cavalli, Rameau, Mozart. 

I also adore Wagner. And I have absolutely no problem with people who don't. ..


----------



## heliatrope

I've only been to one production of a Wagner opera (Götterdämmerung), and I thought it long and tedious, but maybe it wasn't the best introduction to Wagner (or the best performance). What is everyone else's favorite?


----------



## Sid James

removed whole post


----------



## TxllxT

We have family in the heart of Europe, so we're quite often on a Kafka trail. (Yes, we love it, gloomy, misty, but with _Kaffeehaus_style!) But about 'Do rationalize', I will now be the advocate of :devil: : Germany used to be a country of poets, philosophers, idealists, composers, in short: people who are immersing themselves into the ungraspable of the spirit and come forward with spiritual stuff (like f.e. Classical Music). Nowadays, what is left of this spirit? Who is carried by this spirit? Germany nowadays = Audi, Volkswagen, Mercedes + a functional network of highways. But still, isn't it true that Germany even now continues to surprise the world with the typical German spirit of _Das Auto_. Billions of Chinese dream this dream: driving _Das Auto_.
When I confront the greatness of the bygone Central European culture of Bach, Goethe & Wagner with the greatness of the bygone British Empire (incl. the U.S.), well, perhaps isn't it comparable to changing from driving an Audi into driving a Mini Cooper? :devil: Or in the American way: driving a gasguzzling 4wheel monster? Still, it is the German dream of _Das Auto_ that is in the minds of those billions of Chinese. Nothing else. Why? Is it because of this spiritual background of German idealism :devil:? (Mini Cooper has been bought by BMW)


----------



## Guest

TxllxT said:


> We have family in the heart of Europe, so we're quite often on a Kafka trail. (Yes, we love it, gloomy, misty, but with _Kaffeehaus_style!) But about 'Do rationalize', I will now be the advocate of :devil: : Germany used to be a country of poets, philosophers, idealists, composers, in short: people who are immersing themselves into the ungraspable of the spirit and come forward with spiritual stuff (like f.e. Classical Music). Nowadays, what is left of this spirit? Who is carried by this spirit? Germany nowadays = Audi, Volkswagen, Mercedes + a functional network of highways. But still, isn't it true that Germany even now continues to surprise the world with the typical German spirit of _Das Auto_. Billions of Chinese dream this dream: driving _Das Auto_.
> When I confront the greatness of the bygone Central European culture of Bach, Goethe & Wagner with the greatness of the bygone British Empire (incl. the U.S.), well, perhaps isn't it comparable to changing from driving an Audi into driving a Mini Cooper? :devil: Or in the American way: driving a gasguzzling 4wheel monster? Still, it is the German dream of _Das Auto_ that is in the minds of those billions of Chinese. Nothing else. Why? Is it because of this spiritual background of German idealism :devil:? (Mini Cooper has been bought by BMW)


You'll forgive me here, but I think that you are looking back on history with very selective rose-tinted glasses. Yes - Germany did formerly give us Kant, Bach, Goethe, etc. But you are looking at the greatness of a culture from a very narrow perspective. That Germany also had a very distinct line between those who were doing well, and those who lived in abject squalor. People then were wiped out by plagues. Much of the culture then was accessible only by the affluent. People claim today that technology and the industrial revolution have stolen our souls and diminished us from our pristine heritage. But there is much that is better. Perhaps geniuses stood out so much more then than they do now because they were few and far between. Contrast that with today, where even more people are literate and possess an education unthinkable in the time of Bach. How many brilliant ideas are emerging from schools and universities, as compared to Bach's day? How many people are living longer, healthier lives? How much less war is going on - gone are the 30 Years Wars and the 100 Years Wars. Smallpox doesn't ravage. When was the last time we had a plague? Bach and Goethe and Wagner were exemplary champions of the arts in their day, but how many more people know of these people today than did when they were alive? How many people outside of the parrish in which Bach worked ever heard one of his cantatas? His Brandenburg Concertos sat on a shelf for who knows how many years.

I am not saying that all is better today. But it seems a narrow-minded way to measure progress. As to the Americans and their "gasguzzling 4wheel monster," well, Americans tend to have more children than Europeans, so naturally they would need larger cars to carry those children. America is a much bigger place, and public transportation is not as feasible outside of large cities as it is in Europe, and so there are more cars on the road. This means a greater risk of an accident - and the fact is that those larger "monster" cars have a much better safety rating than a Mini Cooper. Take my family of 4. I can't buy one of those nice little Smart cars, because it would take 2 cars to go anywhere with my family, but that wouldn't even be possible at this point, because my children are still young enough that they would need to ride in the backseat, which a Smart car doesn't possess. So I am required to buy a larger car. Cars are a means to an end - the end being transportation. They provide more independence than public transportation, as you don't have to constrain yourself to schedules and multiple stops. But they are not really the measure of culture, any more than the modes of transportation in Bach's day defined his culture.


----------



## Guest

I would argue that our cultures today tend more towards independence, and our means of transportation are more an outgrowth of that culture than a defining characteristic. Cars represent an ability to go when and where you want. People are not as tied to a relatively small geographic area as they were in centuries past. For our ancestors, how many ever ventured more than a few miles from their homes for their entire lives? They were tied to a land for multiple reasons. Seeing the world was something you only did if you were conscripted into an army to fight for some noble who owned the land you farmed. Look, too, at the greater independence of artists in our day than in the days of Bach. Much of what we have from Bach was due to his dependence on a church employing him, or the patronage of some nobleman. How much of Haydn's work would we have had he not been employed by the Eszterhazys? And how nice it is in this impersonal, industrialized age, where I can walk down the street listening to the entire collection of Bach's known works on a small device that fits in the palm of my hand and can deliver amazingly clear sound rivaled only slightly by actually being in an actual live performance?


----------



## tyroneslothrop

DrMike said:


> As to the Americans and their "gasguzzling 4wheel monster," well, Americans tend to have more children than Europeans, so naturally they would need larger cars to carry those children.


The 2011 average total fertility rate of women in the US is 1.894 children per woman. The average total fertility rate in the EU is 1.59. This is a difference of 0.3, or about 1 extra child in the US per every 3 families. I would be surprised if this were the reason for larger cars.


----------



## dionisio

SiegendesLicht said:


> Operafocus, I do believe you are exaggerating a bit about 6-7 hours. Even the longest ones: "Die Meistersinger" and "Götterdämmerung" are below 5 hours (not counting the breaks, of course). 7 hours would be even better though!


Wasn't Rienzi longer? I mean the whole opera uncut?


----------



## Aksel

dionisio said:


> Wasn't Rienzi longer? I mean the whole opera uncut?


I think Rienzi uncut is between five or six hours. Super long, either way.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

dionisio said:


> Wasn't Rienzi longer? I mean the whole opera uncut?


Is that even relevant? Who has ever conducted an uncut Rienzi in a live performance? I haven't heard of one in modern times.


----------



## Ramako

Phew, that was a monster thread to read (bit like one of his operas)!

I don't much care for Wagner because (cliche alert!) IT'S SO LONG! Honestly, I don't need to see Siegfried hammering away at Notung for more than 30 seconds: I'm not a blacksmith. I don't need to see Tristan and Isolde say they love each other AGAIN, or that they want to die AGAIN. Why do I need to be told what happened in the previous operas over and over again in Siegfried and Gotterdammerung? I've just spent the last 10 hours watching it - I don't need to spend the next 5 having it repeated to me.

That said, I found the Ring at least reasonably engaging, at least in the middle sections when he wasn't indulging himself in an over-long introduction or finale. I can't say I've ventured into all his operas. My opinion of him may improve over time. Still, I came to the end of the Ring feeling "What actually just happened?". Not all that much. He could have fit a lot more in 18 hours, and made it all just as significant.


----------



## dionisio

tyroneslothrop said:


> Is that even relevant? Who has ever conducted an uncut Rienzi in a live performance? I haven't heard of one in modern times.


Firstly Rienzi was played, if i'm not mistaken, as a whole. Then it was decided to divide it in two. Since the original manuscript was lost in WWII (which Hitler owned) we will never know its real length.

From what i've read, it's more than 6 hours. So i thought this was the longest.

Finally, i just asked because i was curious.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ramako said:


> Phew, that was a monster thread to read (bit like one of his operas)!
> 
> I don't much care for Wagner because (cliche alert!) IT'S SO LONG! Honestly, I don't need to see Siegfried hammering away at Notung for more than 30 seconds: I'm not a blacksmith. I don't need to see Tristan and Isolde say they love each other AGAIN, or that they want to die AGAIN. Why do I need to be told what happened in the previous operas over and over again in Siegfried and Gotterdammerung? I've just spent the last 10 hours watching it - I don't need to spend the next 5 having it repeated to me.
> 
> That said, I found the Ring at least reasonably engaging, at least in the middle sections when he wasn't indulging himself in an over-long introduction or finale. I can't say I've ventured into all his operas. My opinion of him may improve over time. Still, I came to the end of the Ring feeling "What actually just happened?". Not all that much. He could have fit a lot more in 18 hours, and made it all just as significant.


Ah, the youth of today want everything fast-paced and have no patience


----------



## Ramako

emiellucifuge said:


> Ah, the youth of today want everything fast-paced and have no patience


It's not a matter of fast-paced. I just feel that the themes in the Ring were under-explored (and yes, I do mean that!). My opinion is that he could have spent his time (as in, time in the opera) in more artistically productive ways. But I am not that long acquainted with his output as a whole, and I recognise that he is not one of the easier composers to get into.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

Ramako said:


> Still, I came to the end of the Ring feeling "What actually just happened?". Not all that much. He could have fit a lot more in 18 hours, and made it all just as significant.


Well clearly you were looking for this: :devil:


----------



## Ramako

tyroneslothrop said:


> Well clearly you were looking for this: :devil:


I was making an artistic judgement. I am not Wagner: I can't say how I think it could have been improved. Only I can identify what I don't like about it. It is not the time spent, only the reward for that time is not commensurate for me.

:lol: on the video though.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Ah, the youth of today want everything fast-paced and have no patience


No, I agree with Ramako. Length is not necessarily boring, but when the length is attributed to needless repetition and what feels like vanity, then it becomes tedious. Would you read a 1000-page book that repeats the same thing over and over? There is room for ornamentation, to be sure, but there comes a point when enough is enough. If you look at public speaking, endless repetition is one of the signs of an unprepared speaker. Those who are prepared get to the point and don't say more than is needed. The same goes for literature. What is the pleasure in reading something where one chapter is virtually unrecognizable from another, or only slightly different? Why does the same not hold true for opera? Sure, if you have nothing else occurring in your life, and you have the time to listen to endless repetition, I suppose you can indulge in such past times.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT, Germany has surely been the homeland of the most glorious classical tradition, however it is precisely that "soulless" Anglo-American civilization that has made it possible for ordinary folks like us (I don't think there are many descendants of royalty or nobility among us) to have access to that tradition via recordings, Internet etc. 

In addition, Romanticism with it's idealism, love of nature and native heritage is not a purely German tradition either. It has flourished in England with Byron and Walther Scott at the same time.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> TxllxT, Germany has surely been the homeland of the most glorious classical tradition, however it is precisely that "soulless" Anglo-American civilization that has made it possible for ordinary folks like us (I don't think there are many descendants of royalty or nobility among us) to have access to that tradition via recordings, Internet etc.
> 
> In addition, Romanticism with it's idealism, love of nature and native heritage is not a purely German tradition either. It has flourished in England with Byron and Walther Scott at the same time.


As advocate of the :devil: I'm investigating the sticky relation between *not liking *Wagner and *not liking* anything German. In the past the Dutch often heard "_Bei uns ist alles besser_" as the standard remark of our big neighbour, but it is my impression that this )) seems to be fading away in the present with the younger generation. But again: Is Wagner & are Wagner's operas the ultimate representation of Germanness? In other words: Is Wagner in classical music equivalent with Audi/Volkswagen/Mercedes on the highways ?


----------



## Guest

I do not like Wagner but love Germany. I studied German for 4 years in high school, spent 2 years in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria on a mission for my church, and then took more German classes in college afterwards. I even performed in a small German choir at my school for a year. I love the castles of Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria, I love Ritter Sport and Milka chocolate, and still from time to time read Tolkien's Hobbit in German. My favorite composers are German. I have German blood in me. But I don't like Wagner - oh, and I drive a Honda.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Is Wagner & are Wagner's operas the ultimate representation of Germanness? In other words: Is Wagner in classical music equivalent with Audi/Volkswagen/Mercedes on the highways ?


I think Wagner and his operas are a far *better * representation of Germanness than Audi/Volkswagen/Mersedes  Thousands or even millions of people drive those cars without ever giving a thought to their origin. Yet, it seems, most people who have ever heard Wagner and enjoyed him, have in some way given their attention to Germanness and German culture. At least I know this is true about me. In the last year of being a Wagnerian I have learned more about German history than in all the years of history classes at high school.

However I do not think the Anglo-American culture is inferior to the German one. Rather it is inferior in some ways and superior in others (like literature)

PS. DrMike, yeeeah! It's great to see another Germanophile here!


----------



## tyroneslothrop

TxllxT said:


> Is Wagner & are Wagner's operas the ultimate representation of Germanness? In other words: Is Wagner in classical music equivalent with Audi/Volkswagen/Mercedes on the highways ?


I love Wagner and drive a Japanese car! No correlation there for me


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I don't drive anything at all, but my dream car would be a gas-guzzling American SUV


----------



## tyroneslothrop

SiegendesLicht said:


> Yet, it seems, most people who have ever heard Wagner and enjoyed him, have in some way given their attention to Germanness and German culture.


Not true here. Like DrMike, I took 4 yrs of German in high school, have only retained the reading and listening part of that which comes in useful for Wagner _(only a little though since German sung, especially by sopranos is very different indeed!)_, but beyond that, I have not found a pressing need to learn any more about Germans and Germany than I already learned in high school and college. So that's that there as well. I didn't even continue my German language learning into college--in college, I switched over fully to taking Russian instead of German, which has been more useful to me because I've spent 80+ months in Russia. So no, I don't think a fondness of Wagner means that one loves all things German (unless Beethoven is included! )


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I don't love *all* things German either (in fact if I had a choice between living in Germany and in America, I would most likely choose the latter), I am just saying that the probability of someone getting interested in German culture after listening to Wagner is probably higher than of someone after purchasing a Volkswagen. A Volkswagen is, after all, just a piece of metal and plastic. Wagner's music is the soul of a nation, transformed into sound and poetry.


----------



## jani

Funny fact!

May i introduce Viivi&*Wagner*








Viivi&wagner is a Finnish comic book were a woman ( Viivi) is married to a pig *WAGNER*. 
Wagner is a stereotypical Finnish man who drinks and swears sometimes etc... Likes to eat etc...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Well, Wagner is one of the most popular German last names. It seems there is pretty much everything _Wagner _in the country: Wagner pizza, Wagner candy, Wagner constructions, etc. One more touch to the portrait of the man who said about himself "I am the most German of men, I am the spirit of Germany"


----------



## Guest

Wagner is an occupational surname - meaning Wagon maker or wagon driver. I wouldn't call a surname popular, as people don't get to choose those. At some point in Wagner's ancestry there was a wagon maker or driver who received that surname, and passed it on to posterity. Popularity plays more a role in first names. But the prevalence of Wagner in Germany is no more surprising than that of Smith, or Baker in America.


----------



## KenOC

An English equivalent: "Carter is of English origin and is an occupational name given to one who transports goods by cart or wagon."


----------



## Couchie

What is wrong with Finland?


----------



## jani

RichardWagner said:


> What is wrong with Finland?


Nothing because its a joke...
" All men are pigs"
The meaning is symbolic.


----------



## TxllxT

DrMike said:


> Wagner is an occupational surname - meaning Wagon maker or wagon driver. I wouldn't call a surname popular, as people don't get to choose those. At some point in Wagner's ancestry there was a wagon maker or driver who received that surname, and passed it on to posterity. Popularity plays more a role in first names. But the prevalence of Wagner in Germany is no more surprising than that of Smith, or Baker in America.


Well, well, I was wondering why I got stuck in a Volkswagen (I happen to drive a Xantia: _Douce France_). It has to do with Volks*wag*ner! Volkswagen Beet[_hoven_]le.


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik

KenOC said:


> An English equivalent: "Carter is of English origin and is an occupational name given to one who transports goods by cart or wagon."


There is an English lastname "Wagoner" as well.

Don't forget the Jeep Wagoneer either.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

tyroneslothrop said:


> ...I've spent 80+ months in Russia. So no, I don't think a fondness of Wagner means that one loves all things German (unless Beethoven is included! )


BTW, I should mention that having spent a lot of time in Russia, I know that the Russians *don't love* all things German :lol: although they do love Wagner and love German engineering and German cars (lots of Audi's, BMW's, Mercedes, and Volkswagens running around the streets in Russia). Russians felt a lot of pain in WW2 and those of you old enough will remember that before the Berlin Wall fell virtually in 1989 (and physically in 1990), there were some Cold War analysts in the West that were claiming that the Russians would *NEVER* let the two Germanies reunite because of Barbarossa '41-'45--that Russians knew what a "united" Germany was capable of. Well fortunately for all, this never materialized and Germany is happily reunited and continues to give us all great cars and great beer!  That said, because of '41-'45, the Russians still have some discomfort with Germans/Germany, in much the same way as the Chinese today still have some discomfort with Japanese/Japan because of '37-'45.


----------



## TxllxT

I guess that the world wide public has made its very first acquaintance with Wagner's music through this (again it has to do with cars) :


----------



## tyroneslothrop

TxllxT said:


> I guess that the world wide public has made its very first acquaintance with Wagner's music through this (again it has to do with cars) :


Wait! What about this even more famous film which was out the year before that one, and doesn't even have to do with cars?


----------



## Guest

You both are wrong. Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd introduced the larger world to Richard Wagner much earlier in the Looney Tunes cartoon, "What's Opera Doc?" You can see a clip from it here (sorry, I can't find a very good clip).


----------



## tyroneslothrop

DrMike said:


> You both are wrong. Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd introduced the larger world to Richard Wagner much earlier in the Looney Tunes cartoon, "What's Opera Doc?" You can see a clip from it here (sorry, I can't find a very good clip).


Wow! I remember that. What a great episode. And Bugs makes a great Brünnhilde! :lol:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

A Wagner-and-car commercial. And the car is not even German, but French


----------



## tyroneslothrop

SiegendesLicht said:


> A Wagner-and-car commercial. And the car is not even German, but French


Hey, the music was great! The ad was pretty bad though. Blech.


----------



## Bill H.

I have sometimes wondered if the criticism that Wagner is too long and repetitious is due in part to the origins of his libretti (specifically in the Ring Cycle) in epic literature, such as the Nibelungenlied (which I have not read myself). Rhetorical traditions vary from one culture to another, but anyone who has studied e.g. Homer will recognize that there are patterns in the poetry that do get repeated any number of times--perhaps originating in its oral rather than written provenance. If bardic traditions allow the use of repetition as vehicles to aid memory, or to help "center" the story over long periods of retelling (an earlier musical analogue might be the use of an ostinato bass line common in the Baroque period), this might be part of a tradition of which Wagner was a subscriber/participant. The Ring, after all, is nothing if not epic in music, and some of the retellings may come with the assumption that not everyone who is listening to Siegfried's stories in "Götterdämmerung" is necessarily going to have seen "Siegfried" a night or two before.....

Of course, it's probably safe to say that Wagner's ego regarding his own writing skills never let him get in the way of a good repetition;-)

Finally, there's the precedent that repetition on a smaller scale (phrases or lines) happens all the time in Baroque operas, especially with certain composers such as Handel. 

Just some thoughts, backed up by absolutely zero scholarship.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I dont think so; Wagner didnt preserve much of the literary style. The only reason he used the myths is because he believed they held cultural significance and were part of the 'collective conscious' of all Germans.
The reason they are so long is because Wagner externalises internal psychology.


----------



## tyroneslothrop

emiellucifuge said:


> The reason they are so long is because Wagner *externalises internal psychology*.


Ok, dense me, but what do you mean by that and what does it have to do with length? _(I'm fascinated by this because I am a Proust-groupie and there is also a reason why Proustian sentences are so long...)_


----------



## emiellucifuge

tyroneslothrop said:


> Ok, dense me, but what do you mean by that and what does it have to do with length? _(I'm fascinated by this because I am a Proust-groupie and there is also a reason why Proustian sentences are so long...)_


I must confess to not being an expert in Proust, but to have read in literature on Wagner that Proust took a lot of influence from him.
Take for example Tristan and Isolde, in the eyes of Wagnerians, yet for most of its 4 hours nothing happens. We have heard complaints from people who do not wish to sit through an hour of two people declaring their love to eachother in different ways, yet for others this is the powerful thing about it.
In the words of Bryan Magee who is much more eloquent than I:


> Traditional drama depicts... what goes on outside people... between them.....Dramatic development is a chain of cause and effect. This requires that the forces which act on the characters be ... shown.
> Music Drama would be the opposite.... It would be about the insides of the characters. It would be concerned with their emotions, not their motives....
> In this kind of drama the externals of plot and social relationships would be reduces to a minimum. Its chief requirement was for situations which remained unchanged long enough for the character' full inner experience, and response to them, to be expressed.


Wagner himself said of T&I:


> Here I sank myself... into the depths of the souls' inner workings.... This explains the brevity of the text...
> Here life and death and the very existence and significance of the external world appear only as manifestations of the inner workings of the soul.


This is one of the pillars of his theory of 'The Artwork of the Future', or the Gesamtkunst. Tristan is obviously the most perfect example as is Parsifal. The Ring was started before he developed these theories, and the Die Meistersinger is a kind of 'meta-' commentary on the role of art and so is exempted.

Of course this only serves to prove that the length and "repetition" (which is an inaccurate term as little is repeated beyond local sequences) is not a dramatic flaw, but a deliberate method of achieving the desired artistic aims. You may still not like it, but it does partially account for what some of us do like about it.

Now please do tell me about Proust?


----------



## tyroneslothrop

emiellucifuge said:


> I must confess to not being an expert in Proust, but to have read in literature on Wagner that Proust took a lot of influence from him.
> Take for example Tristan and Isolde, in the eyes of Wagnerians, yet for most of its 4 hours nothing happens. We have heard complaints from people who do not wish to sit through an hour of two people declaring their love to eachother in different ways, yet for others this is the powerful thing about it.
> In the words of Bryan Magee who is much more eloquent than I:
> 
> Wagner himself said of T&I:
> 
> This is one of the pillars of his theory of 'The Artwork of the Future', or the Gesamtkunst. Tristan is obviously the most perfect example as is Parsifal. The Ring was started before he developed these theories, and the Die Meistersinger is a kind of 'meta-' commentary on the role of art and so is exempted.
> 
> Of course this only serves to prove that the length and "repetition" (which is an inaccurate term as little is repeated beyond local sequences) is not a dramatic flaw, but a deliberate method of achieving the desired artistic aims. You may still not like it, but it does partially account for what some of us do like about it.


I've certainly read a lot about Wagner but your comments give an insight I hadn't had before. Thank you!



emiellucifuge said:


> Now please do tell me about Proust?


I noticed from elsewhere on in these forums that you've read _À la recherche du temps perdu_. Congratulations! Not many can make it to even the madeleine scene! Well much has been written about Proust's use of language, including his sentences with their elaborate and nested subordinate clauses. For example, here is one view, this is another, and this is a third. I could go on and on. Many of these explanations have common elements, and some just are clearly wrong. What is clear is that Proust used language quite deliberately. The use of long sentences with layer upon layer of subordinate clauses, just as was the case with Faulkner, was hardly a reflection of a disordered or wandering mind. If you read Proust, you'll know that right next to some of his truly impressively long sentences, he will drop a sentence of two or three words! Clearly one reason for his sentences then is texture. Then another thing which has come to me in reading so much about Proust (I've read his book 5 times, and have struggled through it in French) is that my favorite explanation is that his sentences add texture to the world he is describing. The difference between what a child might draw as a tree, a trunk and a green canopy, which symbolically conveys the "tree-ness", and how a mature artist would draw the tree, with the leaves, which together would clearly depict a tree although we are not intended to get lost looking at each individual leaf. Now this is not to convey that I believe that Proust was to literature as the Academy painters were to art. In fact, Proust's views on art were much more sophisticated than that, but I used this drawing a tree example as only a rough analogy of what Proust was doing from the perspective of writing.

That said, there are almost as many views on every element of Proust, from memory to madeleines as there are critics and writers, so I'd be delighted to hear your views on this topic--or perhaps more relevant to this forum, what operas you think best reflect the Proustian view of the world.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thanks for your posts, though Im afraid you may have confused me with somebody else (I havent read any Proust ).


----------



## PetrB

tyroneslothrop said:


> Ok, dense me, but what do you mean by that and what does it have to do with length? _(I'm fascinated by this because I am a Proust-groupie and there is also a reason why Proustian sentences are so long...)_


externalises internal psychology -- this means the characters, and in the case of opera, all spend time talking about or illustrating that which in other traditional dramatic formats is not discussed, but conveyed by acting, a look, a tone of voice. Think of a movie where all the characters do is talk and there is very little action. -- you have to be mightily interested in their every word for that to rack up to 'a good night at the cinema / theater....

What is conventionally conveyed by non-verbal means with a raised eyebrow, a nervous edge to the voice, instead is 'discussed' or 'explained.' -- to some this is interesting; to others, externalizing all that interior business is tedious, and to me, painfully and brutally heavy-handed and obvious, as if the creator did not have the usual skills to more indirectly put it in the text, the score, etc. Which is exactly one aspect that is my main complaint about Wagner, the music and 'the drama' are far too explained, dwelt upon, and, uh, schoolboy obvious. Weird, for a genius, to come up with that aesthetic, but that is what he did.


----------



## Couchie

PetrB, I suspect your issue is with opera itself, not Wagner. When you accept that opera is not cinema or a novel, you will understand.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> externalises internal psychology -- this means the characters, and in the case of opera, all spend time talking about or illustrating that which in other traditional dramatic formats is not discussed, but conveyed by acting, a look, a tone of voice. Think of a movie where all the characters do is talk and there is very little action. -- you have to be mightily interested in their every word for that to rack up to 'a good night at the cinema / theater....
> 
> What is conventionally conveyed by non-verbal means with a raised eyebrow, a nervous edge to the voice, instead is 'discussed' or 'explained.' -- to some this is interesting; to others, externalizing all that interior business is tedious, and to me, painfully and brutally heavy-handed and obvious, as if the creator did not have the usual skills to more indirectly put it in the text, the score, etc. Which is exactly one aspect that is my main complaint about Wagner, the music and 'the drama' are far too explained, dwelt upon, and, uh, schoolboy obvious. Weird, for a genius, to come up with that aesthetic, but that is what he did.


You put it in more depth than I did earlier on this thread, but I agree with this basically. I can't add anything except that philosophy and pseudo religion made into music, no matter how good or great or genius (whatever it is), will not appeal to most listeners of classical music. Nor will other things for that matter - eg. atonal or serial operas - but they are not rammed down our throats constantly as being superior to everything else, the high point of Western classical music, the ultimate fusion of music, visual arts and drama, blah blah blah. I think this type of highbrow attitude may be comforting to the egos of the likes of certain members who where professed hard core Wagnerites and don't seem to be around this forum anymore, but basically its irrelevant to someone like me who acknowledges Wagner's greatness and contribution to music but I can do without it.

But re discussions earlier on this thread, I am not one who will decontextualise Wagner or any other composer for that matter from the culture surrounding him. The German imperial regime was an anti-Semitic, militaristic and anti-democratic political culture. There is no denying that. & its hard to separate it from what happened later, after the failed attempt at democracy which was the Weimar Republic after World War I. All regimes need something to underpin their ideology, and every totalitarian regime in the 20th century used culture as 'proof' of their superiority.

But I am fighting a losing battle on this forum. Few people here are interested in the context from which music, any music, came. Its like Vienna is today, totally bombed during the war and what you see now is a theme-park rebuilt from the ruins of that decayed and corrupt culture. It had to be swept aside as it had become toxic by the boy who was bought up in Linz and came 'home' to a hero's welcome in 1938. After the war, the memories of the Anschluss was erased from the public consciousness. So too the German 'head in sand' attitude. What we have now is the same thing. Let's do what some art galleries do. Just plonk the painting onto a white wall in a white box. Its got no apparent context or history. Its just a work of art, its pure and chaste. For those that believe that, or want to believe in that fantasy, good for them. I for one don't, not even with some of my favourite composers.

I was going to do a thread on this but forget it. The culture that bought us classical music can only be good, can't it? It was only corrupted by that bad man Hitler (or Stalin for that matter), before that it was as pristine as a clear blue lake.

Not?!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Sid James said:


> Nor will other things for that matter - eg. atonal or serial operas - but they are not rammed down our throats constantly as being superior to everything else, the high point of Western classical music, the ultimate fusion of music, visual arts and drama, blah blah blah.


I don't think anybody can ram Wagner's music down your throat if you feel you can do without it, especially by means of discussions on an internet forum. There is no threat that one of our hardcore Wagnerians will tie you up and physically make you listen to Wagner, is there? 



> But re discussions earlier on this thread, I am not one who will decontextualise Wagner or any other composer for that matter from the culture surrounding him. The German imperial regime was an anti-Semitic, militaristic and anti-democratic political culture. There is no denying that. & its hard to separate it from what happened later, after the failed attempt at democracy which was the Weimar Republic after World War.


Maybe, but where do you see any signs of that in Wagner's music? Could you please give any particular examples? I have listened to them many times through and read the libretti, but I have not noticed any antisemitism, militarism and antidemocratism in them. Sure it is present in Wagner's prose writings, but it seems, only hardcore Wagnerians have ever read them, and they are a minority among all those who enjoy his music dramas in their own right.



> All regimes need something to underpin their ideology, and every totalitarian regime in the 20th century used culture as 'proof' of their superiority.


Does that mean we should throw away all the culture that has ever been used by any totalitarian regime? This particular regime that has dragged Wagner's good reputation in the mud, also seemed to respect Beethoven and Bruckner, so should our perception of their music be tainted by that fact as well?



> Let's do what some art galleries do. Just plonk the painting onto a white wall in a white box. Its got no apparent context or history. Its just a work of art, its pure and chaste. For those that believe that, or want to believe in that fantasy, good for them. I for one don't, not even with some of my favourite composers.


Is it not one of the reasons people are drawn to art, or even drawn to create art themselves? Because it *is* pure and chaste, unlike the world we live in?

Actually the reason I dislike _Regietheater_ stagings of Wagner so much is precisely that in most of them this purity and chastity is brought down and destroyed for the sake of being "modern" and "relevant". Think only of most of the modern stagings of _Parsifal_.



> The culture that bought us classical music can only be good, can't it? It was only corrupted by that bad man Hitler (or Stalin for that matter), before that it was as pristine as a clear blue lake.


No culture can be entirely good, because it is created by human beings, even the best of whom are fallible and corrupt. However if we talk about the particular culture that has given us Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Bruckner etc (and that only in the realm of music) and also a crazy dictator and a couple of militaristic regimes... I guess it is the question of personal perception, but I believe the good things do outweigh the bad.


----------



## PetrB

RichardWagner said:


> PetrB, I suspect your issue is with opera itself, not Wagner. When you accept that opera is not cinema or a novel, you will understand.


Written with all the snarky condescension one might think of as coming from a mistaken Wagner himself!

You do know this 'must just not like opera altogether' is a very usual response from Wagnerites -- as if a reasonable dismissal of Wagner must mean you are deaf to opera altogether?

Your hypothesis is 100% incorrect, btw.

I just think Wagner schoolboy obvious and leaden-handed, something which entertains and thrills those with a petit bourgeois mentality (his main audience then and now), just as lower-end action movies do today.


----------



## Couchie

I don't think somebody throwing "petit bourgeois" around can whine about somebody else being condescending. 

You aren't really saying anything. I could spin any opera composer as being for the "petit bourgeois". I've never seen an opera and thought to myself, "wow, this is subtle".

The comparison to action movies is laughable. Are you familiar with Wagner beyond "Ride of the Valkyries?"


----------



## mamascarlatti

Kindly keep this discussion civil and free from ad homs or the thread will be shut down and the perpetrators will incur forum penalties.

I remind you of the Terms of Service:



> 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 member's 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«.


----------



## PetrB

Yes'm. 

Wish that monitorial lens included scanning for 'tone' - but that would keep the monitors far far too busy.

Best regards.


----------



## Sid James

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't think anybody can ram Wagner's music down your throat if you feel you can do without it, especially by means of discussions on an internet forum. There is no threat that one of our hardcore Wagnerians will tie you up and physically make you listen to Wagner, is there?  ...


No, however I was reflecting with some bitterness on past 'events' and exchanges on this forum. Maybe I should leave it in the past.



> ...
> Maybe, but where do you see any signs of that in Wagner's music? Could you please give any particular examples? I have listened to them many times through and read the libretti, but I have not noticed any antisemitism, militarism and antidemocratism in them. Sure it is present in Wagner's prose writings, but it seems, only hardcore Wagnerians have ever read them, and they are a minority among all those who enjoy his music dramas in their own right. ...


In _Lohengrin_ you have as a backdrop the Brabantians or whatever that ancient German tribe is warring with the Huns. That does bring uncomfortable overtones of what would happen in reality in WWII. Germany committed terrible crimes in Eastern Europe, of course it was aided and abetted by local collaborators. Another example which I mentioned earlier is the end of _Gotterdammerung_. Holocaust means burnt offering._ Parsifal _is also full of a subtext which maybe it is better not to dig too deep into. Its a kind of pseudo religion, I see it as an attempt to 'Aryanise' Christianity, get rid of the impurity from the 'Judeo' part of Judeo-Christianity. I read this in a book as well, someone I know has that book (& it is an old book, it may well predate Nazi Germany!). These are some examples, but it is true that in retrospect things that of course Wagner wrote and thought of have a sinister glow due to the atrocities done by the Nazis. In effect Wagner was looking back into a mythical past, and with the events to unfold later, that mythology was used by the Nazis precisely because it corresponds with what they where thinking and doing - the invasion of East Europe (& other parts of Europe, even North Africa, these where obviously full of 'inferior' races), the destruction of Europe's Jewish populations (two-thirds of them murdered), and turning away from religion to a kind of pseudo-religion, a kind of going back to the warlike tribe mentality of the anceint Germans.

One can say its separate, and one can say its connected. Both are to some degree valid conclusions, so it is "personal pereception" as you say in your final sentence. My view of Wagner is negative, and I think it is just as valid as anyone's whose view is more the opposite, eg. positive.

But don't worry I'm just as scathing of some of my favourite composers who I see as basically douchebags to a similar extent as I see Wagner. Eg. Beethoven did have those works espousing democratic Enlightenment ideals (eg. Fidelio or the Eroica symphony) but he also planned but never composed an oratorio celebrating Austrian Chancellor Metternich's rule (this is the man who reversed the clock of Napoleon's positive reforms, he basically was a supporter of absolutism). So if Beethoven had composed this work toadying to Metternich (basically for the cash, or for prestige, or maybe just to be in the 'good books' of the newly energised monarchy in Austria) then we would see it as a hypocritical act. There's loads of other examples like this. Sure Beethoven's works like Fidelio and the Eroica do inspire me as examples of those ideals, but I am aware that they're not worth much more than the paper they're written on. They're theory and maybe as some here may think just decontextualised ear candy. If you don't put these ideals in practice as a society or nation, and indeed end up corrupting them with nasty things like oppression and militarism, then its just like those facades rebuilt after 1945 in Vienna, it takes on mythical and symbolic proportions, not reality. But anyway.


----------



## PhileasFogg

sospiro said:


> Another thing which puts me off, The Ring anyway, is the fantasy theme. Possibly the same reason why I can't get into The Hobbit or any of Tolkien's stuff.


So, you can't get into Shakespeare? Or Medieval-themed games or stories? Or Greek mythology? What is wrong with fantasy, is the contemporary real world so perfect that you can't get your mind into anything else?


----------



## Sid James

PhileasFogg said:


> So, you can't get into Shakespeare? Or Medieval-themed games or stories? Or Greek mythology? What is wrong with fantasy, is the contemporary real world so perfect that you can't get your mind into anything else?


I didn't say anything about those things. What you're saying looks exactly like a former/banned member here always did to me and others. If I expressed dislike of something this person liked, I would get bombarded with a list of suppositions and dichtomies. & of course, the ol' classic, putting words into my mouth.

So to answer your question, no I can't get my mind into anything else. Cos I don't like Wagner that is a fact! I'm a moronic fool. & since in my post I cast unhealthy aspersions on Beethoven (your avatar) I am doubly a fool.

So you win, my friend. Three cheers to you.


----------



## PhileasFogg

It's not dislike of Wagner that seems shocking to me, a lot of people dislike him. It's dislike of fantasy. Fantasy in general has been an inspiration in so many forms of art. The renaissance was inspired in such large part by Greek mythology, and while Norse-inspired fantasy is not identical it seems not possible to me to like something as abstract as classical music, and at the same time dislike anything imaginative. Classical music also ties to intimately to fantasy in the form of ballets and operas which are extremely often based on mythology and fairy tales. But I didn't mean to imply anything negative about tastes or views on the matter and I'm sorry for my abrupt tone


----------



## Sid James

^^Well I accept your apology and the only reason I overreacted was memory of what that former/recently banned member did. But to answer your question, I am not against fantasy, however it appears that Wagner is a special case for a variety of reasons I and others have discussed on this thread. But I am repulsed by fantasy or mythology or whatever that is related to racist ideology. Even if its related in retrospect, or because of 'reading between the lines' of his operas, I think my view is warranted. 

It is a tragic fact that many of the operagoers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries where of Jewish heritage. Many of them would have heard Wagner, many would have separated the maker from his creations. Schoenberg is a good example, he saw productions of all of Wagners operas many times before he went into exile due to the rise of the Nazis. It is hard for me but to see this whole thing as a betrayal of the ideals people have talked about on this thread. But my opinion is that ideals mean nothing if not backed up with actions that speak to those ideals. 

So yeah, fantasy is fine, but when you use it for oppression, I have problems with that. A huge amount of those Jews who attended opera and saw Wagner's operas live on stage would have ended their lives being murdered by the Nazis. Idealism or what I see as a naive belief in separating the man and his ideology from his creations in retrospect panned out as anything but separate. It all came together, and these stories and this music unleashed the most terrible things. Its unbalanced to only focus on the ennobling or transcendental things. It did not enoble the Nazis, unfortunately. The implication of this is that classical music must indeed just be glorified ear candy, so people rubbishing rock or pop should maybe rubbish the music that legitimised death and repression in so many cases, esp. in the 20th century.


----------



## PhileasFogg

I was only speaking of fantasy in and of itself of course, not in reference to oppression or Wagner in particular. But yes I definitely agree


----------



## Mahlerian

Sid James said:


> It is a tragic fact that many of the operagoers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries where of Jewish heritage. Many of them would have heard Wagner, many would have separated the maker from his creations. Schoenberg is a good example, he saw productions of all of Wagners operas many times before he went into exile due to the rise of the Nazis. It is hard for me but to see this whole thing as a betrayal of the ideals people have talked about on this thread. But my opinion is that ideals mean nothing if not backed up with actions that speak to those ideals.


Mahler conducted Wagner's works regularly, and although he'd read every bit of them, he once said that Wagner's writings were not worth a single bit.

There was an interesting thesis I read once that compared several things in Moses und Aron and Wagner's operas, and implied that the former could be intentional parodies/corruptions of the latter. Remember that Schoenberg's opera was written right around the rise of Nazi Germany.


----------



## Rapide

Sid James said:


> No, however I was reflecting with some bitterness on past 'events' and exchanges on this forum. Maybe I should leave it in the past.
> 
> In _Lohengrin_ you have as a backdrop the Brabantians or whatever that ancient German tribe is warring with the Huns. That does bring uncomfortable overtones of what would happen in reality in WWII. Germany committed terrible crimes in Eastern Europe, of course it was aided and abetted by local collaborators. Another example which I mentioned earlier is the end of _Gotterdammerung_. Holocaust means burnt offering._ Parsifal _is also full of a subtext which maybe it is better not to dig too deep into. Its a kind of pseudo religion, I see it as an attempt to 'Aryanise' Christianity, get rid of the impurity from the 'Judeo' part of Judeo-Christianity. I read this in a book as well, someone I know has that book (& it is an old book, it may well predate Nazi Germany!). These are some examples, but it is true that in retrospect things that of course Wagner wrote and thought of have a sinister glow due to the atrocities done by the Nazis. In effect Wagner was looking back into a mythical past, and with the events to unfold later, that mythology was used by the Nazis precisely because it corresponds with what they where thinking and doing - the invasion of East Europe (& other parts of Europe, even North Africa, these where obviously full of 'inferior' races), the destruction of Europe's Jewish populations (two-thirds of them murdered), and turning away from religion to a kind of pseudo-religion, a kind of going back to the warlike tribe mentality of the anceint Germans.
> 
> One can say its separate, and one can say its connected. Both are to some degree valid conclusions, so it is "personal pereception" as you say in your final sentence. My view of Wagner is negative, and I think it is just as valid as anyone's whose view is more the opposite, eg. positive.
> 
> But don't worry I'm just as scathing of some of my favourite composers who I see as basically douchebags to a similar extent as I see Wagner. Eg. Beethoven did have those works espousing democratic Enlightenment ideals (eg. Fidelio or the Eroica symphony) but he also planned but never composed an oratorio celebrating Austrian Chancellor Metternich's rule (this is the man who reversed the clock of Napoleon's positive reforms, he basically was a supporter of absolutism). So if Beethoven had composed this work toadying to Metternich (basically for the cash, or for prestige, or maybe just to be in the 'good books' of the newly energised monarchy in Austria) then we would see it as a hypocritical act. There's loads of other examples like this. Sure Beethoven's works like Fidelio and the Eroica do inspire me as examples of those ideals, but I am aware that they're not worth much more than the paper they're written on. They're theory and maybe as some here may think just decontextualised ear candy. If you don't put these ideals in practice as a society or nation, and indeed end up corrupting them with nasty things like oppression and militarism, then its just like those facades rebuilt after 1945 in Vienna, it takes on mythical and symbolic proportions, not reality. But anyway.


... and so what? So what if Wagner and Beethoven were flawed characters? Were they gods? What does your relentless persecution of Wagner himself has to do with the music? Wagner's music continues to this day to remain popular in the opera world, that's a fact. But I guess that's the topic of this pathetic thread - to tear down the composer. Considering you often speak of not tearing down one composer, I find it puzzling that you are doing so on Wagner.

Edit: and considering that u are generally not an opera listener, you sure do have a lot to say about Wagner and his music.


----------



## Sid James

Mahlerian said:


> Mahler conducted Wagner's works regularly, and although he'd read every bit of them, he once said that Wagner's writings were not worth a single bit...


Do you mean Mahler was critical of Wagner's writings (on race, etc.) or his music?



> ...
> There was an interesting thesis I read once that compared several things in Moses und Aron and Wagner's operas, and implied that the former could be intentional parodies/corruptions of the latter. Remember that Schoenberg's opera was written right around the rise of Nazi Germany.


Well it makes some sense, in terms of the worship of the golden calf in that opera, a false pagan god. I do think that opera depicts the brutality and pack mentality which I take as a reference to what was going on in Germany with the rise of the Nazis. & of course the Jews' struggle against the oppression by the Egyptians and that kind of thing. I have always related it to the context in which Schoenberg wrote it, and this was indeed a context in which the ideals of the Enlightenment had gone out the window. I also know that around this time he returned to his original religion, Judaism. Like other composers of that time - eg. Mahler, Zemlinsky - he'd had to convert to Christianity to have any chance of making it in the music world. So there are all these things related to that opera. But I did not think of that possible Wagner connection you speak of. Indeed it would be interesting to know whether Schoenberg's enthusiasm for Wagner's music dimmed later in his life. I know Debussy's did, he ended up rejecting Wagner totally, but that of course was for different reasons.



Rapide said:


> ... and so what? So what if Wagner and Beethoven were flawed characters? Were they gods? What does your relentless persecution of Wagner himself has to do with the music? Wagner's music continues to this day to remain popular in the opera world, that's a fact. But I guess that's the topic of this pathetic thread - to tear down the composer. Considering you often speak of not tearing down one composer, I find it puzzling that you are doing so on Wagner.
> ...


This thread is asking people who don't like Wagner to say the reasons why they don't like him. I was just answering the question and putting down what I think, simple as that. I don't go on other threads devoted to Wagner, eg. praising him, I don't troll those threads and put him down. If any thread is the right place for me criticising Wagner, this is it.

So just gimme a break for God's sakes.



> ...Edit: and considering that u are generally not an opera listener, you sure do have a lot to say about Wagner and his music.


I am by no means an opera 'fanatic' but I do listen to operas ocassionally. Like Moses und Aron by Schoenberg which Mahlerian mentioned above, I've got it on cd. I've got more than a handful of operas on cd and I have heard some live on stage. I personally know people who don't like any opera, or any music with vocals for that matter. The vast majority of classical music listeners prefer concert hall type music, opera is not as popular as concert hall type music, esp. instrumental music.

Anyway, you should just put your bias on the table and not judge others. Everyone has bias, you, me, everybody. The sooner we get over the 'foreplay' and get into the main thing the better. So maybe better you judge yourself, but maybe lets just forget it.


----------



## Rapide

Sid James said:


> The vast majority of classical music listeners prefer concert hall type music, opera is not as popular as concert hall type music, esp. instrumental music.
> 
> Anyway, you should just put your bias on the table and not judge others. Everyone has bias, you, me, everybody. The sooner we get over the 'foreplay' and get into the main thing the better. So maybe better you judge yourself, but maybe lets just forget it.


People are entitled to dislike opera or concerto or string quartet. But I have not met one in the real world who constantly goes on line and single out one composer to tarnish as much as your obsession with Wagner.


----------



## Mahlerian

Sid James said:


> Do you mean Mahler was critical of Wagner's writings (on race, etc.) or his music?


His writings, not his music. He adored Wagner's music. Of course, Mahler tended to make large sweeping statements suddenly to friends, once declaring to Alma that Nietzsche was useless (Mahler set a bit of Nietzsche in his 3rd symphony), or the famous line about "After Beethoven, nobody!"



Sid James said:


> Well it makes some sense, in terms of the worship of the golden calf in that opera, a false pagan god. I do think that opera depicts the brutality and pack mentality which I take as a reference to what was going on in Germany with the rise of the Nazis. & of course the Jews' struggle against the oppression by the Egyptians and that kind of thing. I have always related it to the context in which Schoenberg wrote it, and this was indeed a context in which the ideals of the Enlightenment had gone out the window. I also know that around this time he returned to his original religion, Judaism. Like other composers of that time - eg. Mahler, Zemlinsky - he'd had to convert to Christianity to have any chance of making it in the music world. So there are all these things related to that opera. But I did not think of that possible Wagner connection you speak of. Indeed it would be interesting to know whether Schoenberg's enthusiasm for Wagner's music dimmed later in his life. I know Debussy's did, he ended up rejecting Wagner totally, but that of course was for different reasons.


Like I said, I found it a pretty convincing argument. I'm not sure about his later thoughts on Wagner, though. On Schoenberg's conversion to Christianity, it was not forced and entirely sincere, as far as I know, though he was not consistently religious. Note that instead of Catholicism, he converted to Lutheranism, which doesn't convey the same kind of connection with privilege, not being connected to state institutions. Likewise, he threw himself whole-heartedly into his conversion to Judaism, becoming interested in the Zionist cause (connection with Moses und Aron), writing a setting of the Kol Nidre ceremony (partially tonal), and penning a set of "Modern Psalms" that he intended to set to music, only finishing part of one, unfortunately.


----------



## Sid James

Mahlerian said:


> His writings, not his music. He adored Wagner's music. ...


Well that makes sense to me.



Rapide said:


> People are entitled to dislike opera or concerto or string quartet...


Yes they are, but opera tends to be less popular than orchestral music. Even as a fan of chamber music I have to separate that from the apparent reality that its not as popular as orchestral music. That's life. But this is another issue. I would not give people a hard time for not liking what I like, eg. chamber, as it is not as popular as what most people like (eg. orchestral). That's my point, there is no reason to like something or not to like something. Its just all music, not some religion or duty.



> ...But I have not met one in the real world who constantly goes on line and single out one composer to tarnish as much as your obsession with Wagner.


Neither have I met in real life many people like who I interact with on this forum. I know people personally into classical music. We are all different, its just a matter of diversity. But the fact is that the person who made this thread in the first place likes Wagner's music and was asking people who don't like his music to tell why. As I said, I just answered his question, I was talking to the issues he raised. That's it.

But I think that my obsession as you call it, is like a direct opposite of certain members being discomfited by their 'sacred cows' or ideologies being questioned on this forum. There seems to be so many unwritten taboos here. Its like the neurosis of Freud's Vienna or something. Maybe instead of making lists about people's favourite works on TC, we should make a list of all the taboos and things that you cannot question. It would be a long list, a very long one. & maybe more relevant to the lists on this forum. It would expose a lot of things people want hidden under a rock. Well let them live in their fantasy land but when I get angry is when they try to impose their will upon me. Doesnt' work, sorry.


----------



## Novelette

Sometimes I find the stories of Wagner's operas too intensively interwoven that one must not miss a single detail, if one character sneezes and a spectator misses it, the entirety of the opera will make little sense. Well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the literary density makes the operas very difficult to grasp.

That said, the orchestration is much too heavy for an operatic work, for my taste. It seems as though most of the dramatic expression comes not from the stage players, but from the orchestra itself, so much so, that only a very unbalanced broadcasting system can make the singers' voices prominent in a live staging. Wagner is a remarkable symphonist, and his genius in orchestration is indisputable. Too much of the vocalization is lost in the transcending might of the orchestra; it detracts from the literary drama, for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

tyroneslothrop said:


> For those of you who can't stand Wagner, why is that?


Because I think he might have had something to do with Natalie Wood's death.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Because I think he might have had something to do with Natalie Wood's death.


C'mon millions, innocent until proven guilty! But it is kind of suspicious, for sure.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Novelette said:


> That said, the orchestration is much too heavy for an operatic work, for my taste. It seems as though most of the dramatic expression comes not from the stage players, but from the orchestra itself, so much so, that only a very unbalanced broadcasting system can make the singers' voices prominent in a live staging. Wagner is a remarkable symphonist, and his genius in orchestration is indisputable. Too much of the vocalization is lost in the transcending might of the orchestra; it detracts from the literary drama, for me.


This is why he designed the Bayreuth acoustic!


----------



## TxllxT

Novelette said:


> Sometimes I find the stories of Wagner's operas too intensively interwoven that one must not miss a single detail, if one character sneezes and a spectator misses it, the entirety of the opera will make little sense. Well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the literary density makes the operas very difficult to grasp.
> 
> That said, the orchestration is much too heavy for an operatic work, for my taste. It seems as though most of the dramatic expression comes not from the stage players, but from the orchestra itself, so much so, that only a very unbalanced broadcasting system can make the singers' voices prominent in a live staging. Wagner is a remarkable symphonist, and his genius in orchestration is indisputable. Too much of the vocalization is lost in the transcending might of the orchestra; it detracts from the literary drama, for me.


I think that from the viewpoint of Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ he is whirling the voices into a transformation to become super-voices, super-human: they are to be melted together with the orchestra's instruments, that also receive an super-instrumental upgrade. The goal of this meltdown/melt-up is *mythical*: away with mere humanness and all that scornful misery; enter the Gods! 
Personnally I prefer human voices to retain, show & share a human quality, just human, no highmindedness.


----------



## PetrB

PhileasFogg said:


> It's not dislike of Wagner that seems shocking to me, a lot of people dislike him. It's dislike of fantasy. Fantasy in general has been an inspiration in so many forms of art. The renaissance was inspired in such large part by Greek mythology, and while Norse-inspired fantasy is not identical it seems not possible to me to like something as abstract as classical music, and at the same time dislike anything imaginative. Classical music also ties to intimately to fantasy in the form of ballets and operas which are extremely often based on mythology and fairy tales. But I didn't mean to imply anything negative about tastes or views on the matter and I'm sorry for my abrupt tone


There are people who have no taste for, and 'cannot' read any non-fiction. I am not one of them, but it really should not astonish.

As an example, there are some who wholly accept the accumulated writings of centuries as a literal text as if dictated by a deity, others consider it 'literature' and fiction. -- That framed to help you get your mind around accepting that some do not care for myth or fantasy, others do.

Repeating, some have no disposition, temperament, or inclination to read non-fiction of any sort. Time to wrap your mind around that and realize you will almost certainly 'not convert' them. Unless you are twelve, I think your finding that some have a dislike of fantasy 'shocking' is rather disingenuous


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> There are people who have no taste for, and 'cannot' read any non-fiction. I am not one of them, but it really should not astonish.


Many such people read fantasy with savor, esteeming it only because they think it the truth.


----------



## dominique

1.000 reasons but OK here are mine!
1. Having to endure hours of boring pompousness in order to enjoy five minutes of sublime music.
2. Appalling political ideas and racist views that are pretty obvious in most of his works. Probably not his fault but his work and his lunatic writings ('Judaism in music' or 'Why I hate every composer who is doing better work than I do and he is more popular than I am') inspired one of the most horrific regimes in history of mankind. The iconic picture of Nazis heading to Bayreuth while the world was falling in ruins is quite difficult to fade.
3. Fantasy is absolutely fine and I really love it but it needs some references to reality and to human condition. I know that several very important thinkers wrote books about these references in Wagner but to me the librettos seem something like the short stories you write while you are a teenager geek and you never publish as an adult. 
4. I can't relate at all. OK this is not objective but look– in Wagner somebody is threatened with exile from Valhalla if she disobeys Master God's will. In Puccini somebody is threatened with eviction if he fails again to pay the rent. Which one seems more likely to happen? 
5. Not even one truly likable character or even interesting. Loge is a rather fascinating character but he is given too short time. Wotan is also interesting but the appeal somewhat disappears if you consider his motives for wanting to rule the world (actually avoiding paying for a mortgage! I thought I was watching the best fantasy saga ever written!!!). The Flying Dutchman is OK though. 
6. Even if the director goes for the minimalistic, allegorical production Wagner's operas need a huge budget in order to be presented decently, something that can not be said for the majority of all other operas which can be shown even in a plain room without fancy costumes.
7. Overblown and pretentious in pretty much everything. I know that maybe it doesn't make too much sense to blame Wagner for these (he invented the stuff!) but his music is usually more annoying than epic. Everything in Wagner is outside human proportions, something that for many is a good thing but I can't stand it.
8. Once more not exactly Wagner's fault but his operas have inspired awful parodies and imitations and not only in opera but also in art, cinema and literature.
9. Wagner's arrogance is also pretty obvious everywhere in his work. I can never stop thinking that this really, really claims to be 'very difficult and intellectual art that only the chosen ones can understand'. Which wouldn't be a problem if the stories did not involve dragons, magic potions, enchanted people and endless mindless heroics. Music (and librettos) claim to be more multi – layered and complicated than they actually are.


----------



## DavidA

Let's face it Wagner was a musical genius. He scores and orchestrations are full of brilliant ideas.
Unfortunately his choice of writing opera and the way he did it was a bad one.
1. He never seem to realise that though he was a musical genius he was a lousy librettist. He's libretti Are mostly vastly too long and terribly uninteresting. The feeble nature of the stories will simply not bear the length.
2. Wagner was an equally terrible philosopher. I know people look to his works as great works of philosophy and full of meaning. But Wagner's philosophy was never tried out in real life especially that of the love death. He himself was a serial womaniser and did not know the meaning of real love. 
3. Wagner himself was a ghastly man and a monster of selfishness and egoism. This character comes out again and again in the operas especially in the character of his hero Siegfried. His anti-Semitism also surfaces despite the defences put up by his admirers.
4. The works themselves often look ludicrous on a stage especially as they often have to be sung by mature singers. They also involve situations that even in modern staging cannot be brought off properly.
5. For the music itself one can apply Rossini's maxim: Wagner has wonderful moments but awful quarter hours. There are some really thrilling and beautiful moments but much is tedious with tedious dialogue and not much going on. 
6. There is a sick pseudo-religious nature in some of the music especially in something like Parsifal which to me is absolutely ghastly as a spectacle. 
7. There is of course the shadow of Nazism hanging over Wagner though this was not his fault, of course. The Nazis also tried to high jack other music too, such as Beethoven's ninth. But of all composers Wagner's appears to fit Hitler's ideals most closely.


----------



## Aksel

I'm impressed. Godwin's law was invoked after three sentences. Sneaky!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

An opera that has to do with _paying the rent_ would be a horrible waste of talent for me. Wagner's works are not about _relating_, they are about being exalted over our lousy modern life, over all those rents and loans, 9 to 5 rat race and one night relationships, into a world where the concepts of nobility, honor, courage, chastity and loyalty are still alive.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> An opera that has to do with _paying the rent_ would be a horrible waste of talent for me. Wagner's works are not about _relating_, they are about being exalted over our *lousy modern life*, over all those rents and loans, 9 to 5 rat race and one night relationships, into a world where the concepts of nobility, honor, courage, chastity and loyalty are still alive.


Lousy modern life: Am I the only one who is bothered by Wotan's character being so infested with lousiness? I *do* like the Boulez/Chereau interpretation that accentuates a typical 19th century *bourgeois* lack of backbone in *all* the Ring characters. They all waver when it comes to nobility, honor, courage etc. You do not agree that Wagner is a great builder of Potemkin villages?


----------



## Couchie

Personally I find La Traviata and Otello far longer than Tristan or Parsifal. I admit I have never wished Siegfried any longer though.


----------



## DavidA

RichardWagner said:


> Personally I find La Traviata and Otello far longer than Tristan or Parsifal. I admit I have never wished Siegfried any longer though.


Parsifal is an opera that begins at six o'clock. When it has been going three hours you look at your watch and it says ten past six.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

We've already heard that. Anything new?


----------



## Couchie

DavidA said:


> Parsifal is an opera that begins at six o'clock. When it has been going three hours you look at your watch and it says ten past six.


It's about as long as it needs to be. Your teaspoon-sized attention span is another matter.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> We've already heard that. Anything new?


Well, the old jokes are the best. But the dreadful pseudo- religious atmosphere of Parsifal isn't.


----------



## DavidA

RichardWagner said:


> It's about as long as it needs to be. Your teaspoon-sized attention span is another matter.


If it was as long as it needed to be it would finish as soon as it started.


----------



## dominique

Verdi's characters were also honorable, heroical and noble (but thankfully not chaste! and when we say noble I mean as personalities not as a class defining aspect) but they are human as well. Wagner's work is one of those things that I feel good that they exist and that I am familiar with, but I completely disagree with their philosophy and their approach to art and life. Also for somebody who narrated some of the most popular love stories ever written, his operas feel utterly devoid of eroticism and passion. Sexuality is presented either under a sterile, clinical light or full of a Protestant and outdated morality. It is not the language - Berg and Straous created some of the most sexually charged and provocative operas ever.

Perhaps is a cultural thing, I am from a Mediterranean country and I live in Latin America – Wagner's issues seems to me limited only to those people of Northern European descent. It has nothing to do with the fantasy, Rusalka and Turandot are symbolical fairytales but they have parallelisms with contemporary issues, the same goes for many historical operas (like those of Monteverdi and Verdi) or operas based on Greek tragedies. If one analyses those references in Wagner he is left with something either stupid or scary with all those racist hate against anyone who doesn't fit to a certain unappealing and pretty deranged ideal. 
For me Wagner musically promises more than he delivers. But I admit he was a genius.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I'd be interested to hear what you mean by genius as you've just given the label to a person you don't feel has created anything worthwhile.


----------



## dominique

I disagree with the ideals and I feel that much of the music is overrated but I can appreciate his importance for many people and cultures and as I have already said I am glad that I had the opportunity to watch his operas. I never said his work it is not worthwhile,of course it is! it is simply not for me.


----------



## DavidA

dominique said:


> Sexuality is presented either under a sterile, clinical light or full of a Protestant and outdated morality. It is not the language - Berg and Straous created some of the most sexually charged and provocative operas ever.
> 
> .


Wagner - Protestant? Am I hearing right? Wagner's sexuality is pagan not Protestant.


----------



## dominique

For me Parsifal is too restricted to be pagan and his work has nothing of the paganistic sexual liberation. But of course I might so not get it correctly so I apologise!


----------



## DavidA

dominique said:


> For me Parsifal is too restricted to be pagan and his work has nothing of the paganistic sexual liberation. But of course I might so not get it correctly so I apologise!


Wagner may have used pseudo-Christian themes but the philosophy behind his works is certainly not Protestant. It has nothing to do with the Christianity of the Bible. Wagner has redefined Christianity in his own image.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

It seems, Wagner was not ever fully Christian or fully Pagan, rather someone who had a great interest in the European literary heritage of both periods and employed it in his works. _Tannhäuser_ ends with a miracle of God and a worship chorus, and yet, at the time of its composition Wagner was an absolute atheist. _Parsifal_ has a very Christian theme as well, and in between them is the "Norse Pagan" Ring.


----------



## dominique

I am really sorry that I do not get any of this. For me the austerity in Wagner and the circle of 'mistake (mistake not crime!!!)–suffering–painful death' that is repeated in the majority of his operas seems to be a very Christian and a very Protestant aspect that I find really annoying. Of course as I have mentioned before it might be simply a cultural misunderstanding. No other opera (or classical) composer has managed to alienate so much and so many people of a different background.


----------



## emiellucifuge

dominique said:


> I am really sorry that I do not get any of this. For me the austerity in Wagner and the circle of 'mistake (mistake not crime!!!)-suffering-painful death' that is repeated in the majority of his operas seems to be a very Christian and a very Protestant aspect that I find really annoying. Of course as I have mentioned before it might be simply a cultural misunderstanding. No other opera (or classical) composer has managed to alienate so much and so many people of a different background.


I suggest you read some Schopenhauer, all the symbolism and meaning if his later operas are derived from the philosophy of Schopenhauer.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Well, at least Parsifal teaches you that there are more important things in life, than, to put it crudely, hopping in bed with every girl who comes your way, even if she is pretty. She may turn out to be a witch who has been plotting your destruction all the while 

What about _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_? Have you ever heard that one and what do you think about it? Nobody dies there and it actually has a happy end.


----------



## Couchie

OK Parsifal may start slow but Act 2 is some of the most mesmerizing and sublime music coupled with an absolutely masterful libretto. To say otherwise is ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Herr Meister, with all due respect, you seem to be practicing your patented Wagner nastiness


----------



## dominique

I have read some Schopenhauer (although not much I admit) and some Nietszche but I can't relate those writings with Wagner's work, actually I was wondering how people can see deep meanings in his operas. Maybe it is because I have watched only Tristan and Izolde live and I have watched all the rest in DVDs. I have watched Tristan in an amazing performance at Berlin and it was a wonderful experience but not one that I would like to repeat. _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg 
_is nice but not that impressing, nothing as the works we love to talk about. And all the nasty messages about privileged, gifted elites that exclude any intruder are there alive and well even in this!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well I will still state again that Schopenhauer is the key.
Forget Nietzsche, it is a reaction to, and a product of Wagner's works but did not impact them in any way.

Well I've always found the metaphor in his works pretty clear but ill give you some clues:
- _Tristan _plays around with the Schopenhauerian concept of the will and representation; the illusory nature of the world and the inner reality. He uses day and night as a metaphor, as in the 2nd act duet.
- Parsifal is a morality play which covers a lot of ground but the main point is redemption through compassion. Compassion being the basis of Schopenhauerian ethics as it allows transcendence of the illusory


----------



## DavidA

dominique said:


> I am really sorry that I do not get any of this. For me the austerity in Wagner and the circle of 'mistake (mistake not crime!!!)-suffering-painful death' that is repeated in the majority of his operas seems to be a very Christian and a very Protestant aspect that I find really annoying. Of course as I have mentioned before it might be simply a cultural misunderstanding. No other opera (or classical) composer has managed to alienate so much and so many people of a different background.


With respect I would suggest you get a better understanding of both Wagner and Protestant Christianity. Despite some superficial resemblances, the operas are no more Christian in philosophy than Hitler's Neuremberg rallies.


----------



## DavidA

emiellucifuge said:


> I suggest you read some Schopenhauer, all the symbolism and meaning if his later operas are derived from the philosophy of Schopenhauer.


That is right.


----------



## DavidA

RichardWagner said:


> OK Parsifal may start slow but Act 2 is some of the most mesmerizing and sublime music coupled with an absolutely masterful libretto. To say otherwise is ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


No, it's just that is thread is about why people don't like Wagner. To say the libretto of Parsifal (or any of Wagner's operas) is masterful seems to me an intellectual disaster. You have, Sir, been seduced by a Kundry. Wagner was like that - people so seduced by his music they lost their reason.


----------



## dominique

Ok! I am convinced, I will watch again as many Wagner's operas as I can stand and I will make a sincere effort to try to discover those hidden messages. I confess that although I have huge respect for Schopenhauer it seems to me rather strange that Wagner was really influenced by his writings. As for the compassion this is one feeling that in my opinion is nowhere to be found in Wagner. But, all right I 'll try again to approach this with an open mind and maybe I 'll become a fan as well! 

Could someone be more analytical in the subject of Parsifal please? For me this opera is all about a very strict and rather straightforward promotion of fanatical religion (not exactly Christianity and Protestantism if you wish, but definitely religion of some sort). I have watched three different productions and I got the same idea from all of them so I'd love if someone could explain more. 

And in general this idea of devotion to a higher ideal–betrayal–punishment–sacrifice or devotion–acceptance to an inner circle– enlightenment that penetrates all of Wagner's operas sounds quite disturbing, no wonder the Nazis loved this kind of work.


----------



## kv466

_Thread: Why do you NOT like Wagner?_

Ahh,...let me count the ways.


----------



## Aksel

dominique said:


> And in general this idea of devotion to a higher ideal-betrayal-punishment-sacrifice or devotion-acceptance to an inner circle- enlightenment that penetrates all of Wagner's operas sounds quite disturbing, no wonder the Nazis loved this kind of work.


Well, it's nothing new. Zauberflöte is full of it.


----------



## dominique

Perhaps, but Zauberflote has more complicated messages (do not judge somebody from the beginning, what appears to be the good could be evil and vice versa, everybody has the right to be happy and loved, it promotes the right to intellectual freedom and being one's true self), really interesting characters and (all right I admit that's a matter of taste) much better music!


----------



## guythegreg

dominique said:


> Ok! I am convinced, I will watch again as many Wagner's operas as I can stand and I will make a sincere effort to try to discover those hidden messages. I confess that although I have huge respect for Schopenhauer it seems to me rather strange that Wagner was really influenced by his writings. As for the compassion this is one feeling that in my opinion is nowhere to be found in Wagner. But, all right I 'll try again to approach this with an open mind and maybe I 'll become a fan as well!
> 
> Could someone be more analytical in the subject of Parsifal please? For me this opera is all about a very strict and rather straightforward promotion of fanatical religion (not exactly Christianity and Protestantism if you wish, but definitely religion of some sort). I have watched three different productions and I got the same idea from all of them so I'd love if someone could explain more.
> 
> And in general this idea of devotion to a higher ideal-betrayal-punishment-sacrifice or devotion-acceptance to an inner circle- enlightenment that penetrates all of Wagner's operas sounds quite disturbing, no wonder the Nazis loved this kind of work.


Opinions on Parsifal differ tremendously. Mine is that Parsifal is a last-ditch effort of Wagner to secure an income for his family after he was gone, and was in fact a staged prefiguration of the Second Coming. It's all in code, which makes it hard to prove, but you'll notice it generally pops up around Easter time, by no coincidence.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

dominique said:


> Could someone be more analytical in the subject of Parsifal please? For me this opera is all about a very strict and rather straightforward promotion of fanatical religion (not exactly Christianity and Protestantism if you wish, but definitely religion of some sort). I have watched three different productions and I got the same idea from all of them so I'd love if someone could explain more.


Personally I have always seen it as a very Christian allegory of spiritual struggle between temptation (symbolized by Klingsor and Kundry) and holiness (symbolized by the Holy Grail, the spear and the brotherhood centered around them) in the soul of a human being (Parsifal). So, I guess let somebody else come up with a more agreeable interpretation.



> And in general this idea of devotion to a higher ideal-betrayal-punishment-sacrifice or devotion-acceptance to an inner circle- enlightenment that penetrates all of Wagner's operas sounds quite disturbing, no wonder the Nazis loved this kind of work


And just why is the above described idea seem disturbing to you? This idea has been present in the Western art since its very beginning, from the Greek and Germanic heroic epics to the modern fantasy novels. Why would it suddenly seem disturbing?

You seem to dislike Wagner for many of the same reasons I love him for. But then a lot of people love _Carmen_, and I absolutely hate it.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> Personally I have always seen it as a very Christian allegory of spiritual struggle between temptation (symbolized by Klingsor and Kundry) and holiness (symbolized by the Holy Grail, the spear and the brotherhood centered around them) in the soul of a human being (Parsifal). So, I guess let somebody else come up with a more agreeable interpretation.


Though it uses Christian symbols, there is little or nothing of the Christianity of the New Testament in Parsifal. The influences are in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. In Parsifal Wagner redefines the Christ figure in an Aryan image.

Interesting quote from Mark Twain when he saw Parsifal in 1891:
"I was not able to detect in the vocal parts of Parsifal anything that might with confidence be called rhythm or tune or melody... Singing! It does seem the wrong name to apply to it... In Parsifal there is a hermit named Gurnemanz who stands on the stage in one spot and practices by the hour, while first one and then another of the cast endures what he can of it and then retires to die."


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> You seem to dislike Wagner for many of the same reasons I love him for. But then a lot of people love _Carmen_, and I absolutely hate it.


Friedrich Nietzsche loved Wagner, but adored _Carmen_. The end of the 19th century shows Germany turning away from all holiness-convictions from the past and embracing a new future: the non-convictions of a plain fool: Parsifal's endlessly repeated theme is "_Bist du ein Tor_" / "Are you a fool?" This flirt of Wagner with anti-intellectualism does not prefigure the Second Coming but paves the way for a failed painter, born in Braunau on the border of Bavaria & Austria, who was unbelievably extraordinary in his impersonation of the lamebrain Parsifal.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> Though it uses Christian symbols, there is little or nothing of the Christianity of the New Testament in Parsifal. The influences are in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. In Parsifal Wagner redefines the Christ figure in an Aryan image."


Probably, but I guess, if some people see racism, anti-semitism and other things like that in Wagner's operas, I am allowed to see Christian symbolism in Parsifal. At least it is not that far-fetched.

*TxllxT*, yes, I know, Godwin's law must not be disobeyed under any circumstances. Well, now I'll go listen to _Das Rheingold_, polish my old trusty WWII-era _Maschinenpistole _ and dream about German glory


----------



## dominique

Because in Greek or Shakespearean tragedies there is a deep understanding for human weaknesses and the moral dilemmas are quite complicated and difficult to answer whereas in Wagner things are more straightforward and rigid. There is only one way to do things and if one does not follow the right path he is utterly destroyed and humiliated. The heroical ideal in Wagner is not at all human and it is not a healthy ideal to aspire to. I also find his characters one dimensional. The funny thing is that I really enjoy fantasy novels and films so I should have loved Wagner!

You are right–I guess that I do not like Wagner for the reasons that many people love him and I absolutely adore Carmen!


----------



## Couchie

For all the supposed shortcomings of Wagner's librettos they are at least interesting enough to inspire and sustain these sorts of discussions. Not to mention they have attracted a substantial amount of literary criticism. 

That's more than can be said about Verdi or Puccini's operas.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

dominique said:


> I also find his characters one dimensional. The funny thing is that I really enjoy fantasy novels and films so I should have loved Wagner!


Don't you find a lot of characters and situations in fantasy literature quite one-dimensional and straightforward as well? I mean, orcs are always evil, elves are almost always good (unless they are dark elves from Salvatore's world) and you either destroy the One Ring or keep it for yourself and become the next Sauron. That's pretty black-and-white.

I hope no one will attack me now for comparing the Master's immortal work with such lowbrow entertainment 

As for the librettos, I have read somewhere that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis had planned to do a translation of _Die Walküre_ into English and get it published as poetry (but never got around to doing it). So, it seems, they did hold Wagner's poetry in high esteem, and they were Oxford professors of literature.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Hang on, you can't have it both ways.

Fantasy literature involving orcs, elves and the One Ring: low brow entertainment

Tolkien: Oxford professor of English whose approval you call on to sanction the value of Die Walküre as poetry, but also author of said low-brow entertainment so why would his approval matter?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

1. My comment about "lowbrow entertainment" was ironical, I love fantasy (and Wagner - have I ever said that yet?) and could not care less if someone considers it lowbrow. I guess, English not being my native language, I should rather not attempt to be ironical in it.
2. I would assume that an Oxford professor of English would be able to tell good writing from bad one. The quality of Tolkien's own writing is a further proof that he is a good authority on this matter.


----------



## dominique

RichardWagner said:


> For all the supposed shortcomings of Wagner's librettos they are at least interesting enough to inspire and sustain these sorts of discussions. Not to mention they have attracted a substantial amount of literary criticism.
> 
> That's more than can be said about Verdi or Puccini's operas.


That 's an old one and it is not entirely true- Italian neorealism has a lot to do with Puccini's operas and Visconti's work was inspired by Verdi. I could write essays on Puccini's characters and on Verdi's ideal of a hero but I guess this is not the right thread! They might not inspired critical writings but they inspired one of the most important cinema movements ever, which is sort of an equal achievement. All the important Italian directors including the fantastic Pazolini have been influenced by verismo and Verdi. The best influence Wagner had on another artist is on Leni Riefenstahl 's photos and films that are also products of a misinformed (to put it politely) genius.
I agree that Tolkien is one dimensional as well but I quite forgive him because Lord of the rings is a metaphor for the second world war. Hobbit has by far more interesting characters.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

dominique said:


> The best influence Wagner had on another artist is on Leni Riefenstahl 's photos and films that are also products of a misinformed (to put it politely) genius.


Erm... I have always thought Wagner's best influence was on _other composers _... Bruckner...Mahler... Sibelius...Richard Strauss... but I am just a n00b, so I'll better shut up.



> I agree that Tolkien is one dimensional as well but I quite forgive him because Lord of the rings is a metaphor for the second world war.


If you imply that Sauron and his orcs are a metaphor for the nazis (yeah, Godwin's law at work again), you are wrong. Tolkien was a big Germanophile, he would never show them that way.


----------



## emiellucifuge

dominique said:


> I confess that although I have huge respect for Schopenhauer it seems to me rather strange that Wagner was really influenced by his writings. As for the compassion this is one feeling that in my opinion is nowhere to be found in Wagner.
> 
> Could someone be more analytical in the subject of Parsifal please? For me this opera is all about a very strict and rather straightforward promotion of fanatical religion (not exactly Christianity and Protestantism if you wish, but definitely religion of some sort). I have watched three different productions and I got the same idea from all of them so I'd love if someone could explain more.


Yes Wagner was more than influenced by the writings of Schopenhauer; he completely believed in their truth and knew everything about them. Even Nietzsche, a genius himself, was impressed by Wagner's understanding of Schopenhauer. Arthur was Wagner's idol and he constantly quoted him and all his dramas apply this philosophy.
Wagner himself may not have come across as a Schopenhauerian ideal per se, but thank goodness we can deal with his creations and ignore his private life.

I won't explain here Schopenhauer's philosophy, but on its application in Parsifal (in the simplest terms):
Amfortas falls prey to the illusory temptations of the representative world and suffers as a result. Parsifal is confronted with the same situation, not only does he resist, but, having seen the same temptation he has a direct understanding of Amfortas' suffering. The compassion he then shows Amfortas (we know he is a pure fool and therefore that this is really compassion) redeems the both of them and allows them to transcend the representative world.



guythegreg said:


> Opinions on Parsifal differ tremendously. Mine is that Parsifal is a last-ditch effort of Wagner to secure an income for his family after he was gone, and was in fact a staged prefiguration of the Second Coming. It's all in code, which makes it hard to prove, but you'll notice it generally pops up around Easter time, by no coincidence.


This doesn't make any sense to me. The Wagner family was safely supported by the patronage of King Ludwig II and lived in a luxurious villa at Bayreuth. Also to use art as a 'cash cow' goes against all of Wagner's beliefs, and furthermore he lived in poverty for many years but never compromised then.
I believe we have had this discussion previously, but I maintain that Parsifal is not essentially a Christian opera but uses Christian imagery to convey Schopenhauerian beliefs. Again Wagner was fairly explicit about his meanings here in his essays and diaries. Naturally the work pops up at Easter as it is partially set on Good Friday.



TxllxT said:


> Friedrich Nietzsche loved Wagner, but adored Carmen.


Just to be clear. Nietzsche adored and loved Wagner as a father for a long time. 
Numerous personal and political differences between the two eventually led to Nietzsche's estrangement, after which he wrote a spiteful essay comparing the music of Bizet (whom Wagner detested) to Wagner's own.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Wait, so did Wagner admire or detest _Carmen_? I've read elsewhere he loved it and I could never understand why. I mean, this female there, she is a total opposite to almost all Wagnerian ladies, except Kundry, maybe.


----------



## dominique

SiegendesLicht said:


> Erm... I have always thought Wagner's best influence was on _other composers _... Bruckner...Mahler... Sibelius...Richard Strauss... but I am just a n00b, so I'll better shut up.
> 
> If you imply that Sauron and his orcs are a metaphor for the nazis (yeah, Godwin's law at work again), you are wrong. Tolkien was a big Germanophile, he would never show them that way.


Of course you are right about Wagner's influence on other composers but I meant the influence he had regarding the context, the aesthetic and the ideals not only the music. As far as I know no other composer tried to recreate this artistic vision.

I meant exactly that, but maybe I am wrong, I had no idea that Tolkien had friendly feelings about the Nazis! Certainly nobody tells you about those feelings in Great Britain where Lord of the Rings is considered as anti Nazi propaganda.

I beg your pardon but Carmen is a far more complicated character than Kundry who is more a symbol rather than a real person.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

No, no, no, I never said Tolkien sympathized with the nazis. He hated Hitler and his regime, but had a great respect for the German people as such. In fact, he did not lose that respect even when he himself was a soldier in WWI. German does not equal nazi, you know. 

Here is a famous quote of his on that issue: 
“I have in this War a burning private grudge—which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.” 

Pretty much explains it, doesn't it?


----------



## dominique

German does not equal nazi, you know.[/QUOTE]

Of course. I never said that. I have a huge respect for Germans and German culture. I understand that Wagner means a lot to somebody from Germany. Personally I prefer Strauss or Kurt Weill if we are talking about German opera composers but I guess that mine it is a completely different point of view.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

dominique said:


> I have a huge respect for Germans and German culture.


Aaach, das freut mich 
Just to make it clear, I am not a German, rather someone who shares Wagner's and Tolkien's sentiment concerning that culture to a great extent.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> Probably, but I guess, if some people see racism, anti-semitism and other things like that in Wagner's operas, I am allowed to see Christian symbolism in Parsifal. At least it is not that far-fetched.
> 
> *TxllxT*, yes, I know, Godwin's law must not be disobeyed under any circumstances. Well, now I'll go listen to _Das Rheingold_, polish my old trusty WWII-era _Maschinenpistole _ and dream about German glory


Discussing whether the Jew Hermann Levi should conduct the premiere of Parsifal, Wagner wrote to King Ludwig that he "regard[ed] the Jewish race as the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble about it".
The man who wrote the work - music AND words - was a demented racist. Racism was part of Wagner's philosophy and it is there in the works however one might try to ignore it.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> Erm... I have always thought Wagner's best influence was on _other composers _... Bruckner...Mahler... Sibelius...Richard Strauss... but I am just a n00b, so I'll better shut up.


Wagner's influence on opera composers is paramount on Claude Debussy  and Bedřich Smetana . I like Reinhold Glière for overdoing Wagner on the symphonic side (Symphony nr.3 Ilya Muromets).


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, no, no, I never said Tolkien sympathized with the nazis. He hated Hitler and his regime, but had a great respect for the German people as such. In fact, he did not lose that respect even when he himself was a soldier in WWI. German does not equal nazi, you know.
> 
> Here is a famous quote of his on that issue:
> "I have in this War a burning private grudge-which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light."
> 
> Pretty much explains it, doesn't it?


The problem is that an entire country (and beyond) was hoodwinked by this ruddy little ignoramus. And by the time he had finished misapplying everything 50 million people we dead!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> The man who wrote the work - music AND words - was a demented racist. Racism was part of Wagner's philosophy and it is there in the works however one might try to ignore it.


Could you give any particular examples of scenes/episodes/libretto lines where Wagner's racism comes through?



> The problem is that an entire country (and beyond) was hoodwinked by this ruddy little ignoramus. And by the time he had finished misapplying everything 50 million people we dead!


And? Does that mean we should now throw out everything Germany has ever produced or that we have no right to admire that nation's contributions to the world, including our beloved classical music?


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> The problem is that an entire country (and beyond) was hoodwinked by this ruddy little ignoramus. And by the time he had finished misapplying everything 50 million people we dead!


Remember there once existed another little ignoramus on the other side of the border: Napoléon. Both had this brainless appeal on the masses...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Remember there once existed another little ignoramus on the other side of the border: Napolèon. Both had this brainless appeal on the masses...


There have been more than two such ignoramuses in various countries and in various times. In a hundred years or so, this man whose shadow seems to keep some of us from enjoying Wagner will be another one of them, just a name out of a history book, who and whose musical taste most people would hardly ever consider. But Wagner's music and that of other great German masters will still be alive and well.


----------



## DavidA

John Elliott Gardiner is good value on Wagner. “I really loathe Wagner – everything he stands for – and I don’t even like his music very much.” Pressed on why, and why he won’t perform it: “It’s like if you have a palate that you’ve developed over the years to distinguish between the best Burgundy and Côtes du Rhone – then you’re suddenly given this appalling Spätlese that’s actually got a fair dose of paraffin in it as well, and sheep drench – I think your palate would be ruined. That’s my fear.”


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Here is a quote from an interview with Christian Thielemann on the subject: 

"When I first conducted Palestrina in Nuremberg, someone said, 'This is a nationalistic piece of *****.' This score, this beautiful, beautiful piece. What has C sharp minor to do with fascism? Nothing. Does Meistersinger have anything to do with politics? Can a tonality be political?" 

I raise the nationalistic peroration at the end of Meistersinger, but Thielemann leaps on me. "Ah come on - read the score properly. It has been used, I agree, but it doesn't mean that the work is forever out of circulation, and it is our duty to see it with fresh eyes."


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> John Elliott Gardiner is good value on Wagner. "I really loathe Wagner - everything he stands for - and I don't even like his music very much." Pressed on why, and why he won't perform it: "It's like if you have a palate that you've developed over the years to distinguish between the best Burgundy and Côtes du Rhone - then you're suddenly given this appalling Spätlese that's actually got a fair dose of paraffin in it as well, and sheep drench - I think your palate would be ruined. That's my fear."


Sorry but Brünhilde likes:


----------



## mamascarlatti

SiegendesLicht said:


> 1. My comment about "lowbrow entertainment" was ironical, I love fantasy (and Wagner - have I ever said that yet?) and could not care less if someone considers it lowbrow. I guess, English not being my native language, I should rather not attempt to be ironical in it.
> 2. I would assume that an Oxford professor of English would be able to tell good writing from bad one. The quality of Tolkien's own writing is a further proof that he is a good authority on this matter.


Good-oh. I love fantasy too and don't find it low-brow at all.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

DavidA said:


> John Elliott Gardiner is good value on Wagner. "I really loathe Wagner - everything he stands for - and I don't even like his music very much." Pressed on why, and why he won't perform it:


So... John Eliot Gardiner won't perform Wagner. Oh.

Is there an emoticon for :relieved:?

Now we gotta run a targeted counter-missionary campaign, to get 'im to dislike _more_ composers. :devil:


----------



## KenOC

Chi_townPhilly said:


> So... John Eliot Gardiner won't perform Wagner. Oh.


I was really looking forward to some HIP Wagner performances. I'm sure the powdered wigs will help.


----------



## Guest

RichardWagner said:


> For all the supposed shortcomings of Wagner's librettos they are at least interesting enough to inspire and sustain these sorts of discussions. Not to mention they have attracted a substantial amount of literary criticism.
> 
> That's more than can be said about Verdi or Puccini's operas.


Big deal. 50 Shades of Gray is attracting a substantial amount of literary criticism. All that means is that literary critics have to pay the bills as well.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> Erm... I have always thought Wagner's best influence was on _other composers _... Bruckner...Mahler... Sibelius...Richard Strauss... but I am just a n00b, so I'll better shut up.
> 
> If you imply that Sauron and his orcs are a metaphor for the nazis (yeah, Godwin's law at work again), you are wrong. Tolkien was a big Germanophile, he would never show them that way.


Tolkien explicitly stated that the LotR was not an allegory for WWII, and Sauron was not Hitler. That there are parallels only speaks to how universal the concept of a war between good and evil is. The entire history of his Middle-Earth was something he had been constructing since at least his mid 20s in 1915. Furthermore, he kept extensive notes on all of his writings, which are being compiled and published by his son. No mention is made of it being allegory. He even explicitly stated that he despised allegory. The LotR fits in very well with his broader history, and what he was originally attempting was a uniquely English mythology, not one borrowed from the various invading groups.


----------



## guythegreg

DavidA said:


> Discussing whether the Jew Hermann Levi should conduct the premiere of Parsifal, Wagner wrote to King Ludwig that he "regard[ed] the Jewish race as the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble about it".
> The man who wrote the work - music AND words - was a demented racist. Racism was part of Wagner's philosophy and it is there in the works however one might try to ignore it.


I don't think anyone was claiming Wagner wasn't a racist - what the claim was, was that there was no racism in his opera. Right? I think it's a lot harder to find racism in Parsifal than it is to find Christianity, and some people don't even see that ...


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> Big deal. 50 Shades of Gray is attracting a substantial amount of literary criticism. All that means is that literary critics have to pay the bills as well.


In addition to the text, James didn't spend 6 years setting _50 Shades of Gray_ to four hours of music held in the same esteem as the best of Beethoven and Brahms.

Why should Wagner's texts be critiqued by the same standards of stage plays or literature? It is a vastly different form of art that plays by completely different rules.

Rule #1 for enjoying opera has always been: *Suspend disbelief and take the libretto with a teaspoon of salt.*

(cough _Il trovatore_)


----------



## mamascarlatti

RichardWagner said:


> (cough _Il trovatore_)


:lolr Ernani, or as I like to call it Inany (but I love the music)


----------



## Lunasong

All the other composer action figures come with their own sitting stool.


----------



## KenOC

Oh! Oh! I want this one! Want it! Want it!


----------



## DavidA

guythegreg said:


> I don't think anyone was claiming Wagner wasn't a racist - what the claim was, was that there was no racism in his opera. Right? I think it's a lot harder to find racism in Parsifal than it is to find Christianity, and some people don't even see that ...


Note I didn't say there was no Christianity in Parsifal - it uses specific Christian symbols. What I did say was that it is not the Christianity of Jesus or the New Testament.

On racism, of course, it is implicit rather than explicit. Interesting that the critics Paul Lindau and Max Nordbeck, present at Parsifal 's premiere, noted in their reviews how the work accorded with Wagner's anti-Jewish sentiments. Of course, this was their own subjective reaction them knowing the opinions of the composer. But I would be exceedingly surprised that, given the pseudo-philosophical nature of Wagner's libretti, that his racism didn't come through.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

As the abovementioned example with "Lord of the Rings" being an allegory of WWII has shown, you can impose a variety of meanings on a work of art, when you so desire, especially when it deals with such broad concepts as the struggle between good and evil. I have read a very "Freudian" interpretation of Parsifal once *facepalm*. It does not mean all those interpretations were intended by the author.


----------



## Ramako

SiegendesLicht said:


> As the abovementioned example with "Lord of the Rings" being an allegory of WWII has shown, you can impose a variety of meanings on a work of art, when you so desire, especially when it deals with such broad concepts as the struggle between good and evil. I have read a very "Freudian" interpretation of Parsifal once *facepalm*. It does not mean all those interpretations were intended by the author.


Tolkein said he preferred what he called 'applicability' to allegory, the one resulting in the freedom of the reader, the other in the domination of the author [close paraphrase]. The thing is, though, that in Tolkein we have inner struggle about the Ring, coming from the inside of the characters, rather than a series of people being affected by an external curse on Wagner's Ring. Personally I find a great deal more depth in Tolkein's tale of the Ring than Wagner's - "Both rings are round, and there the resemblance ceases" [paraphrase of Tolkein responding to those who drew close parallels between his and Wagner's work]. Partly that is because I have much more sympathy with the philosophy of it, which is essentially pagan myth Christianized. However, while we see the the basic good vs evil battle being fought out many times, it is because it is a model which is always applicable to us. Tolkein's Ring can be found in our lives, if we want to, many times over because of the obvious applicability of it. Wagner's one is confined to the opera stage. Both Rings do have some interesting characters in them. Neither is particularly original in literary conception. Though the Lord of the Rings does reference happenings of the First and Second Ages, I am only comparing the two Rings because it seems to me that the only reason one is considered 'lowbrow' is because it's 'too popular'.

Fortunately, Wagner's great strength lies in his music.


----------



## superhorn

KenOC, there's a complete concert performance of Das Rheingold with Sir Simon Rattle conducting the pretentiously titled "Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment " on period instruments complete on youtube .
I didn't have time to hear the whole thing, but the orchestra didn't really sound any different from the 
ones we're accustomed to except for maybe sounding somewhat thinner . Do we REALLY need HIP Wagner? 
My estimation for Sir John Eliot Gardiner went down several notches because of his dumb statement about Wagner. He ought to know better .


----------



## DavidA

Ramako said:


> Tolkein said he preferred what he called 'applicability' to allegory, the one resulting in the freedom of the reader, the other in the domination of the author [close paraphrase]. The thing is, though, that in Tolkein we have inner struggle about the Ring, coming from the inside of the characters, rather than a series of people being affected by an external curse on Wagner's Ring. Personally I find a great deal more depth in Tolkein's tale of the Ring than Wagner's - "Both rings are round, and there the resemblance ceases" [paraphrase of Tolkein responding to those who drew close parallels between his and Wagner's work]. Partly that is because I have much more sympathy with the philosophy of it, which is essentially pagan myth Christianized. However, while we see the the basic good vs evil battle being fought out many times, it is because it is a model which is always applicable to us. Tolkein's Ring can be found in our lives, if we want to, many times over because of the obvious applicability of it. Wagner's one is confined to the opera stage. Both Rings do have some interesting characters in them. Neither is particularly original in literary conception. Though the Lord of the Rings does reference happenings of the First and Second Ages, I am only comparing the two Rings because it seems to me that the only reason one is considered 'lowbrow' is because it's 'too popular'.
> 
> Fortunately, Wagner's great strength lies in his music.


In Tolkien you have essentially weak people - ie the Hobbits - who become heroes and defeat foes who are vastly superior both in numbers and in physical strength. In that there is Siegfried, a hugely strong but immensely disagreeable man, who kills the dwarf who adopted him (in cold blood) and thereafter does nothing heroic at all. True he had killed a Dragon which had long gone into retirement but actually, apart from that, his heroics are really nothing. His father Siegmund similarly does nothing heroic during the opera apart from run off and fornicate with his sister and then get killed by Hunding. Just what sort of a role model did Wagner have for a hero?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Because Siegfried and Siegmund are not _real _people! They are symbols. It is not Siegfried _per se _ who is victorious, it is the circumstances of his conception and what they represent: namely, free unrepressed love and natural expression.

Besides, Wagner and Schopenhauer's pessimistic world view does not dictate a happy victorious ending such as we find in Lord of the Rings, but instead the cycle of suffering in life repeats itself. This is all expressed in the music at the end of Götterdämmerung.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I remember having read somewhere that Wagner did intend a happy ending at first - Wotan would give Brünnhilde (and her horse) all their divine powers back and she would rise from the flames, carrying Siegfried to Valhalla, symbolizing the salvation of man by the "Ewig-weibliches", eternal feminine. But that was before Wagner got enamored with Schopenhauer. 

Anyway, I am still of the opinion that the Ring librettos would have literary value even on their own, without the music, had Wagner chosen to publish them that way. At least they are of greater literary value then most other opera librettos seem to have.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes, he discovered Schopenhauer halfway through Siegfried and reinterpreted his own text.
There are multiple endings he toyed with including changing the Brunnhildes last solo to reflect a more pessimistic point of view. Eventually he decided to leave the text unchanged but to convey this through the final music.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> I remember having read somewhere that Wagner did intend a happy ending at first - Wotan would give Brünnhilde (and her horse) all their divine powers back and she would rise from the flames, carrying Siegfried to Valhalla, symbolizing the salvation of man by the "Ewig-weibliches", eternal feminine. But that was before Wagner got enamored with Schopenhauer.
> 
> Anyway, I am still of the opinion that the Ring librettos would have literary value even on their own, without the music, had Wagner chosen to publish them that way. At least they are of greater literary value then most other opera librettos seem to have.


It's the libretti that present one problem with Wagner in that he was a vastly more talented musician than he was a dramatist. I don't know whether he ever had anyone edit the libretti, but he should have had. They are vastly too unwieldy and make the operas seem interminable, despite some purple passages.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Besides, Wagner and Schopenhauer's pessimistic world view does not dictate a happy victorious ending such as we find in Lord of the Rings


Victorious, yes. Happy? That depends on your point of view. All the main characters are changed by their experiences, some, including Frodo, are not made happy at all.

I'm not claiming LOTR to be great literature, but neither is it a simplistic fantasy (nor am I suggesting that Wagner's works are simplistic fantasies, I hasten to add!)


----------



## Ramako

MacLeod said:


> Victorious, yes. Happy? That depends on your point of view. All the main characters are changed by their experiences, some, including Frodo, are not made happy at all.
> 
> I'm not claiming LOTR to be great literature, but neither is it a simplistic fantasy (nor am I suggesting that Wagner's works are simplistic fantasies, I hasten to add!)


Yes, I think that LOTR bridges the gap between low and high literature. However, the it is not simply a happily ever after ending at all - in fact, Tolkien claimed once that he didn't write a sequel because it would be far too miserable!


----------



## superhorn

The end of the Ring is not entirely pessimistic or a downer . Although Wotan and the gods have 
perished in the flames of Walhall , not to mention Siegfried, Brunnhilde, Hagen, Gunther, and Gutrune et al, on level ground, there is still hope that a better world ruled by love, not greed and corruption, will rise from the ashes .
The last thing we hear is the leitmotiv "redemption through love ".


----------



## DavidA

The end of the Ring is great. Just a pity it didn't come a few hours earlier.


----------



## Flamme

Now i have never met Mr Couchie but think his presence is highly required on this topic...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Couchie has gone on to a higher form of existence on this forum as Richard Wagner himself.


----------



## Flamme

Fo real?Some of his posts put tears in my eyes not from sadness though


----------



## millionrainbows

_I think Wagner transformed opera to a large degree. For example, I can listen to Verdi's *Il trovatore *and get more "tunes" and songs out of it than Wagner.

It seems that Wagner took opera in a more "cinematic" direction, in which the background music is more separated from the singing. And all this despite the fact of his "leitmotifs" and musical devices. Note his long stretches of "mood-setting" music which goes nowhere tonally.

I think Wagner sacrificed "unified musical experience" for story-telling devices, in which music became compromised for narrative._


----------



## emiellucifuge

millionrainbows said:


> _
> 
> I think Wagner sacrificed "unified musical experience" for story-telling devices, in which music became compromised for narrative._


I think you are correct up to Parsifal. At this point i feel he had managed to create such a close symbiosis between the music and drama without the music being 'demusicalised'.
He was starting to realise that music was in fact the supreme art (in accordance with Schopenhauer), and there is good evidence that had he lived longer he would have written some music dramas without the actual 'drama' so to speak.


----------



## Tristan

millionrainbows said:


> I think Wagner transformed opera to a large degree. For example, I can listen to Verdi's *Il trovatore *and get more "tunes" and songs out of it than Wagner.


Verdi is definitely the king of opera tunes. _Aida_ for the win...


----------



## DavidA

Mozart combined everything opera should be.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I like Wagner because - In 1839 he was forced to flee Riga, Russia(money issues) then flee Germany because there was a warrant out for his arrest (revolt) etc affairs with married women and on and on... why do I like him....

Music, which should pulsate with life, needs new means of expression, and science alone can infuse it with youthful vigor.


----------



## DavidA

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I like Wagner because - In 1839 he was forced to flee Riga, Russia(money issues) then flee Germany because there was a warrant out for his arrest (revolt) etc affairs with married women and on and on... why do I like him....
> 
> Music, which should pulsate with life, needs new means of expression, and science alone can infuse it with youthful vigor.


I assume you also like him because he was a monster of ingratitude, a supreme egoist and a man who was a monster to his own family.

As to your point about science - I cannot (as a trained scientist myself) see how 'science alone can infuse music with youthful vigour.' Could you please enlighten me on this point?


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> As to your point about science - I cannot (as a trained scientist myself) see how 'science alone can infuse music with youthful vigour.' Could you please enlighten me on this point?


I think he's referring to Wagner's electronic works. :lol:


----------



## emiellucifuge

DavidA said:


> Mozart combined everything opera should be.


I strongly disagree


----------



## Flamme

DavidA said:


> I assume you also like him because he was a monster of ingratitude, a supreme egoist and a man who was a monster to his own family.
> 
> As to your point about science - I cannot (as a trained scientist myself) see how 'science alone can infuse music with youthful vigour.' Could you please enlighten me on this point?


Didnt know these things...


----------



## DavidA

emiellucifuge said:


> I strongly disagree


You are entitled to. But no-one else did it better.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I respect Wagner all the more because of that episode with the Dresden uprising too. He did not just lament the lack of German unity (as he did in his essay "On German Music" for example) but actually had the guts to try and do something about it, even though he did not manage to do much and almost got himself arrested in the process. 

As for whether he should have had his libretti edited, just how would editing have improved them? Made them shorter - but then we would miss on some of that magnificent music. There is really nothing in them that needs editing.


----------



## Guest

Editing would have meant a greater "impressive music" to "repetitive filler" ratio. There is a lot that could be edited. Wagner suffered from that affliction that most middle school teenagers do when writing essays - they think repetition and length are the true signs of greatness. Later on, you learn that succinctness is greater. Repetition means you didn't say it well enough the first time around that you have to continue to hit people over the head with your point, lest they not understand you.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> I respect Wagner slightly more because of that episode with the Dresden uprising too. He did not just lament the lack of German unity (as he did in his essay "On German Music" for example) but actually had the guts to try and do something about it, even though he did not manage to do much and almost got himself arrested in the process.
> 
> As for whether he should have had his libretti edited, just how would editing have improved them? Made them shorter - but then we would miss on some of that magnificent music. There is really nothing in them that needs editing.


If Wagner had made his libretti shorter we would have had a few less of the boring interludes and interminable discourses.


----------



## emiellucifuge

DrMike said:


> Repetition means you didn't say it well enough the first time around that you have to continue to hit people over the head with your point, lest they not _*understand *_you.


There's your problem. Stop trying to understand; let the music wash over you, intuitively feel the inner workings of the characters blend with your own.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> If Wagner had made his libretti shorter we would have had a few less of the boring interludes and interminable discourses.


Boring to YOU, you want to say.

It could be a good idea to record a few different versions of Wagner operas with different degrees of editing: for example "a half-Götterdämmerung" with no interludes and discourses at all, just the action going, then "a three-quarter-Götterdämmerung" etc... 

But seriously, what is wrong with Siegfried's Rhine Journey or his Funeral Music or the Norns? I admit the final dialogue in "Die Walküre" seemed a bit too long to me at first as well, but isn't learning to love the parts you did not quite enjoy before a part of "maturing" as a classical fan? That's what I've always thought...


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> Boring to YOU, you want to say.
> 
> It could be a good idea to record a few different versions of Wagner operas with different degrees of editing: for example "a half-Götterdämmerung" with no interludes and discourses at all, just the action going, then "a three-quarter-Götterdämmerung" etc...
> 
> But seriously, what is wrong with Siegfried's Rhine Journey or his Funeral Music or the Norns? I admit the final dialogue in "Die Walküre" seemed a bit too long to me at first as well, but isn't learning to love the parts you did not quite enjoy before a part of "maturing" as a classical fan? That's what I've always thought...


Note that Wagner himself did not employ this philosophy. I mean, rejecting music because it was written by a Jew. Was that part of his maturing as an artist?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I'm thinking Wagner would not have the time to listen to all the music there is anyway. He was too busy writing his own. I just wish he had written some more of it.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## KenOC

SiegendesLicht said:


> I'm thinking Wagner would not have the time to listen to all the music there is anyway. He was too busy writing his own. I just wish he had written some more of it.


Agree. I, too, wish Wagner had written more music.


----------



## Ramako

KenOC said:


> Agree. I, too, wish Wagner had written more music.


So does Schenker - _The decline of the Art of Composition_.

Schenker does (did) not like Wagner. He believed in fact that Wagner was a cause of great grief - perhaps irredeemable grief - to music.

His argument extends back to Gluck. He suggests that Gluck enslaved music to the drama, and that Mozart 'saved' music by being better than Gluck and achieving great musical coherence even within the suspect genre of opera, thus putting Gluck in the metaphorical musical corner, and allowing music to thrive. Another issue he has with the likes of Wagner is that they only composed very little, and in 'grand' genres, such as symphonies or 'musical dramas'. He says that the danger Gluck posed to music, Wagner posed again, however this time there was no Mozart to save the day. Music was therefore on the decline, perhaps never to recover.


----------



## Mahlerian

DrMike said:


> Editing would have meant a greater "impressive music" to "repetitive filler" ratio. There is a lot that could be edited. Wagner suffered from that affliction that most middle school teenagers do when writing essays - they think repetition and length are the true signs of greatness. Later on, you learn that succinctness is greater. Repetition means you didn't say it well enough the first time around that you have to continue to hit people over the head with your point, lest they not understand you.


Wagner had an excellent sense of theatrical pacing. Many people have observed that his operas performed with cuts can seem longer than the uncut versions. Having obvious seams showing is a surefire way to lose your audience's attention. The repetition is not nearly so great as some suggest, given that his leitmotiv grow and change throughout the operas to reflect a situation.

Richard Strauss did extremely condensed hyper-Wagnerian operas in Salome and Elektra, and they are successful, no doubt about it, but certain parts, like the interlude and dance in Salome, hit you over the head repeatedly like nothing in Wagner.



Ramako said:


> His argument extends back to Gluck. He suggests that Gluck enslaved music to the drama, and that Mozart 'saved' music by being better than Gluck and achieving great musical coherence even within the suspect genre of opera, thus putting Gluck in the metaphorical musical corner. He says that the danger Gluck posed to music, Wagner posed again, however this time there was no Mozart to save the day.


This seems oddly an ahistorical perspective, given that by the time Wagner began writing, grand opera of the Bellini/Auber/Meyerbeer variety ruled the stage, far removed from Mozartian comic opera.

Mozart was an excellent operatic composer, but so was Wagner. They worked with two very different conceptions of the genre.


----------



## KenOC

Ramako said:


> His argument extends back to Gluck. He suggests that Gluck enslaved music to the drama, and that Mozart 'saved' music by being better than Gluck and achieving great musical coherence even within the suspect genre of opera, thus putting Gluck in the metaphorical musical corner, and allowing music to thrive. Another issue he has with the likes of Wagner is that they only composed very little, and in 'grand' genres, such as symphonies or 'musical dramas'. He says that the danger Gluck posed to music, Wagner posed again, however this time there was no Mozart to save the day. Music was therefore on the decline, perhaps never to recover.


A very interesting viewpoint. So is John Williams continuing Wagner's destruction of music?


----------



## Ramako

I think Schenker believed that after Beethoven things started going downhill. I think that he thought that after Beethoven only Mendelssohn and Brahms truly grasped the true essence of composition, though he seemed to like Chopin and Dvorak he thought was the last composer of any worth. I will have to read the article in more detail to grasp the finer points of the argument.

And, yes, I suppose that does mean John Williams is nursing the downfall of music :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

DavidA said:


> I assume you also like him because he was a monster of ingratitude, a supreme egoist and a man who was a monster to his own family.
> 
> As to your point about science - I cannot (as a trained scientist myself) see how 'science alone can infuse music with youthful vigour.' Could you please enlighten me on this point?


DavidA- you are right on both counts - So 1. yes refer to my thread "Who Is / Was the Craziest Most Insane Composer of All Time"
Wagner makes my top 10, so I like him.
and 2. this is a direct quote from my alter ego Edgard Varese refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgard_Varèse
to which Edgard was try to say (I believe)- that music must have life and interest/ vigour and he was messing around with electronic music and promoted his vision of new electronic art music instruments.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> I respect Wagner all the more because of that episode with the Dresden uprising too. He did not just lament the lack of German unity (as he did in his essay "On German Music" for example) but actually had the guts to try and do something about it, even though he did not manage to do much and almost got himself arrested in the process.
> 
> As for whether he should have had his libretti edited, just how would editing have improved them? Made them shorter - but then we would miss on some of that magnificent music. There is really nothing in them that needs editing.


I cannot see how anyone can respect Wagner the man in any way. What ever the merits of his music he was a most disgusting, nasty individual.


----------



## DavidA

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> DavidA- you are right on both counts - So 1. yes refer to my thread "Who Is / Was the Craziest Most Insane Composer of All Time"
> Wagner makes my top 10, so I like him.
> and 2. this is a direct quote from my alter ego Edgard Varese refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgard_Varèse
> to which Edgard was try to say (I believe)- that music must have life and interest/ vigour and he was messing around with electronic music and promoted his vision of new electronic art music instruments.
> View attachment 12018


I note that: 
Composers who have claimed, or can be demonstrated to have been influenced by Varèse, include Milton Babbitt, Harrison Birtwistle, Pierre Boulez, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Roberto Gerhard, Olivier Messiaen, Luigi Nono, Krzysztof Penderecki, Wolfgang Rihm, Alfred Schnittke, William Grant Still, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Iannis Xenakis, and Frank Zappa.

For my own enjoyment of music and life In general I will therefore steer well clear of your alter ego!

With respect, of course!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> I cannot see how anyone can respect Wagner the man in any way. What ever the merits of his music he was a most disgusting, nasty individual.


How come then Bruckner, King Ludwig and young Nietzsche positively adored Wagner (and they all knew him personally, with all his quirks)?

Tchaikovsky is sometimes accused of having a relationship with an underage boy. Now _that_ (if that is true, of course) is far more sick and perverted than any political opinions anyone can hold. And yet this allegation does not keep lots of people from enjoying his music.


----------



## emiellucifuge

And Debussy was a treacherous and cowardly liar who drove his wife to shoot herself and was unremorseful.
And Beethoven drove his young nephew to suicide for his own selfish emotional needs.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> How come then Bruckner, King Ludwig and young Nietzsche positively adored Wagner (and they all knew him personally, with all his quirks)?
> 
> Tchaikovsky is sometimes accused of having a relationship with an underage boy. Now _that_ (if that is true, of course) is far more sick and perverted than any political opinions anyone can hold. And yet this allegation does not keep lots of people from enjoying his music.


Note I was not talking about his music. I was talking about the man. He was a monster by all accounts.

Of course that does not keep us from enjoying his music. I think it was Toscanini who said of Richard Strauss: 'To Strauss the composer I take my hat off. To Strauss the man I put it back on again!'

Many of the major composers were highly flawed individuals. The problem I have with Wagner is that his flaws appear to have found their way into the philosophy behind his operas.


----------



## TxllxT

Richard Wagner and Lance Armstrong have a lot in common: both are bigots, self-contained, obstinate. Their faces show the ironclad grimness of "I'm the boss, out of the way!".
















I'm so glad that Mozart outside his music only produced farts!


----------



## Flamme

Lol Lance...I feel sorry for that guy and in the same time despise him...


----------



## millionrainbows

Ramako said:


> I think Schenker believed that after Beethoven things started going downhill. I think that he thought that after Beethoven only Mendelssohn and Brahms truly grasped the true essence of composition, though he seemed to like Chopin and Dvorak he thought was the last composer of any worth. I will have to read the article in more detail to grasp the finer points of the argument.
> 
> And, yes, I suppose that does mean John Williams is nursing the downfall of music :lol:


Is this the same Schenker who developed the "Schenker analysis?" If so, I see why he might not like Wagner, since Schenker was concerned with "distilling" musical ideas to their essence, and Wagner seemed to go in the opposite direction, "drawing everything out" into a gossamer cloud of Romanticism.

Also, Schenker's advocacy of Brahms brings to light the real issue, of the Wagner/Brahms camps which emerged. I think that Wagner's influence represents something more than his individual legacy, and represents a larger tendency towards "the expansive and Romantic Dionysian" as contrasted with Brahms' "Apollonian Classicism."


----------



## Ramako

millionrainbows said:


> Is this the same Schenker who developed the "Schenker analysis?" If so, I see why he might not like Wagner, since Schenker was concerned with "distilling" musical ideas to their essence, and Wagner seemed to go in the opposite direction, "drawing everything out" into a gossamer cloud of Romanticism.
> 
> Also, Schenker's advocacy of Brahms brings to light the real issue, of the Wagner/Brahms camps which emerged. I think that Wagner's influence represents something more than his individual legacy, and represents a larger tendency towards "the expansive and Romantic Dionysian" as contrasted with Brahms' "Apollonian Classicism."


Yes.

And yes.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I note that:
> Composers who have claimed, or can be demonstrated to have been influenced by Varèse, include Milton Babbitt, Harrison Birtwistle, Pierre Boulez, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Roberto Gerhard, Olivier Messiaen, Luigi Nono, Krzysztof Penderecki, Wolfgang Rihm, Alfred Schnittke, William Grant Still, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Iannis Xenakis, and Frank Zappa.
> 
> For my own enjoyment of music and life In general I will therefore steer well clear of your alter ego!
> 
> With respect, of course!


That seems like a great list to me! Some of the greatest composers of the post-WWII generation, all in one place (many from the classes of Messiaen). I'm a little surprised you'd condemn them all in one go, though, as Still was extremely conservative, Rihm at least not very radical, and Penderecki has turned to conservatism since the 70s.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> That seems like a great list to me! Some of the greatest composers of the post-WWII generation, all in one place (many from the classes of Messiaen). I'm a little surprised you'd condemn them all in one go, though, as Still was extremely conservative, Rihm at least not very radical, and Penderecki has turned to conservatism since the 70s.


It may be a failing with me but I'm afraid I cannot stand a lot of modern music. I cannot stand Messiaen. Believe me I have tried but I end up feeling almost ill by the time I've listened to it. If you like this sort of music then fine. I'm not saying it is wrong but I'm afraid it's beyond me to like it and enjoy it.


----------



## Truckload

I tend to listen to the orchestral versions of Wagners music. I believe Wagner was a brilliant composer of orchestral music, but leaving aside the quality of the libretto or lack thereof and ignoring hidden meanings, I just never particularly cared for the way he wrote for voice. Therefor I don't listen to the full operas much.

Can any of the Wagner fans please point out to me one or two of what they consider the absolute best "arias" by Wagner, that show off his writing for voice? I know this is going to be a problem since I don't think he wrote arias, as such, but hopefully someone will share the Wagner equivalent so that I can expand my Wagnerian appreciation.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> There's your problem. Stop trying to understand; let the music wash over you, intuitively feel the inner workings of the characters blend with your own.


I don't even understand what the hell that means. ;D

Are you saying I should let the music and characters possess me? But seriously though - washing over me is fine if there is a foreseeable end in sight. With Wagner, though, I fear your method might lead to my untimely death from drowning in his endless repetitions. Either that, or killing myself long before to end the tedium. Characters cease to be interesting when they do nothing but continuously blather about the same thing - seriously, his love stories (like Tristan) are like being restrained and forced to watch ( a la a Clockwork Orange) endless teen angst dramas - all this endless rambling about "oh, I love you so much it will kill me!!!!!"


----------



## emiellucifuge

What Wagner does with his music is externalise the internal workings of the characters. Their feelings and emotions are all in the music, and music being the Art that best speaks to the heart, my experience of an opera like Tristan is one of endless raptures of emotion. I dont sit there and think about how much they love one another, I directly experience every moment.

-----------
@Truckload, try this:


----------



## Mahlerian

Truckload said:


> Can any of the Wagner fans please point out to me one or two of what they consider the absolute best "arias" by Wagner, that show off his writing for voice? I know this is going to be a problem since I don't think he wrote arias, as such, but hopefully someone will share the Wagner equivalent so that I can expand my Wagnerian appreciation.


You're right, Wagner didn't really write arias. His entire conception of music drama depends on there not being a distinction between the various parts of an act. This is not to say everything is recitative; there are moments in his operas which are perhaps separable from the whole, but all of those are better taken in context (the final scenes from Die Walkurie or Tristan, or Siegfried's forging song in the opera of the same name). In fact, I find all of Wagner better "in context" than in excerpts, including the orchestral parts.

He did write one significant non-operatic work for orchestra and voice (edit: Wagner didn't do the orchestration; he wrote the cycle for voice and piano), the Wesendonck Lieder.








DrMike said:


> With Wagner, though, I fear your method might lead to my untimely death from drowning in his endless repetitions. Either that, or killing myself long before to end the tedium.


The Blue Danube waltz is more repetitive in every way than a Wagner opera. So is the finale of Tchaikovsky's 2nd. These things strike me as far more repetitious and monotonous than any of the big works by Wagner or Bruckner, and I really don't understand what people mean when they criticize these composers for their supposed repetition.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> Note I was not talking about his music. I was talking about the man. He was a monster by all accounts.


I am talking about the man as well. There were people, and quite prominent people who knew him personally, and seemed to love his personality, not to mention his music. Another one is Cosima, Wagner's wife. Did she not leave her first husband for the sake of the _Meister_?



TxllxT said:


> Richard Wagner and Lance Armstrong have a lot in common: both are bigots, self-contained, obstinate. Their faces show the ironclad grimness of "I'm the boss, out of the way!".


... and both look manly, tough and handsome. In fact if I did not know who that man on the left is, I would take him for some 19th-century traveller and explorer who has had his face beaten by every wind on Earth.

Just my female take on the issue


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I really don't understand what people mean when they criticize these composers for their supposed repetition.


Well, I want you to at least try to infer what they mean by this. I mean really try.


----------



## millionrainbows

I wonder...


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Well, I want you to at least try to infer what they mean by this. I mean really try.


Use of sequences?


----------



## Flamme

millionrainbows said:


> I wonder...


OMG what will i not read here!This would really SPARK the conversation...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Truckload said:


> Can any of the Wagner fans please point out to me one or two of what they consider the absolute best "arias" by Wagner, that show off his writing for voice? I know this is going to be a problem since I don't think he wrote arias, as such, but hopefully someone will share the Wagner equivalent so that I can expand my Wagnerian appreciation.


You might enjoy the Quintet from "Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg" (... Selig wie die Sonne...) and the Prize Song from the same opera or "Winterstürme wichen dem Wonnemond..." from "Die Walküre", or Wotan's farewell monologue from the same opera.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> The Blue Danube waltz is more repetitive in every way than a Wagner opera. So is the finale of Tchaikovsky's 2nd. These things strike me as far more repetitious and monotonous than any of the big works by Wagner or Bruckner, and I really don't understand what people mean when they criticize these composers for their supposed repetition.


Well, the Blue Danube is a waltz, and you can dance to it, so it can be forgiven if it is repetitive. As for the finale of Tchaikovsky's 2nd, that isn't exactly one of his more famous works, is it? And it is quite another thing to refer to only one work by a composer, or one movement from one work, when I am talking about most of Wagner's works. If the repetition was rare in Wagner's work, like these others you cite, then I would excuse it. But we aren't talking about one movement/act, or one composition. We are talking about multiple complete operas.

And I'm sorry, but there is no awe-inspiring stories in Wagner that engross me. They tend towards the absurd, and the characters become boring quickly. Honestly, in Tristan, I don't understand why then even need scene changes - after they drink the potion in the beginning, nothing changes. Ooh, look, there they are professing their love-death in this location. Ooh, look, love death in another location. Ooh, look, love-death dying in a castle. If Wagner had lived in the time of George Lucas, you would have had the two characters simply singing in front of an ever-changing green screen with a bunch of superfluous action occurring in the background that has absolutely no relevance to the story - instead, you just have the low-tech equivalent of that.

The emotion in his operas does nothing for me - again, it has all the believability and sincerity of a love-sick 12-year old girl who has just discovered Justin Bieber and will absolutely DIE if she can't be with him forever. I don't really care if the music accentuates that emotion, because the emotion seems absurd to me in the first place. And having to hear it over and over just augments my annoyance.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ok that is fine, I hope you can accept that myself and many others have the exact opposite reaction.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Some part of me can understand that kind of reaction to _Tristan und Isolde_, but what about other operas: Parsifal or Lohengrin or Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg?


----------



## Mahlerian

DrMike said:


> Well, the Blue Danube is a waltz, and you can dance to it, so it can be forgiven if it is repetitive. As for the finale of Tchaikovsky's 2nd, that isn't exactly one of his more famous works, is it? And it is quite another thing to refer to only one work by a composer, or one movement from one work, when I am talking about most of Wagner's works. If the repetition was rare in Wagner's work, like these others you cite, then I would excuse it. But we aren't talking about one movement/act, or one composition. We are talking about multiple complete operas.


Okay, how about the 1812 Overture or the 4th Symphony, then? Repetitive movements are far from rare in Tchaikovsky, although I'll admit that the finale of the 2nd Symphony is a particularly noticeable case.

I don't think you got what I said. I really don't hear Wagner's music as all that repetitive. After the Prelude, it's a long time before the Love-death motif is heard again. Almost the whole act. It hardly dominates from then on, either. Although it appears, it's varied and developed and mixed with other leitmotif.

In the Tchaikovsky example I cited, the theme itself is an AAAA' pattern, so every time you hear it, you hear essentially the same thing four times. And this theme appears several times in a row each time it appears, so, 16 times for each appearance; at the same pitch level, mind you, not even moving in sequence or to a different harmony. Bruckner repeats his motifs in sequences, but the harmony is changing constantly, always moving somewhere. Same thing with Wagner.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> I am talking about the man as well. There were people, and quite prominent people who knew him personally, and seemed to love his personality, not to mention his music. Another one is Cosima, Wagner's wife. Did she not leave her first husband for the sake of the _Meister_?
> 
> and both look manly, tough and handsome. In fact if I did not know who that man on the left is, I would take him for some 19th-century traveller and explorer who has had his face beaten by every wind on Earth.
> 
> Just my female take on the issue


There were quite a few people who love the admired Hitler's personality. One woman even committed suicide with him


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> There were quite a few people who love the admired Hitler's personality. One woman even committed suicide with him


There was a whole damned nation who loved Hitler's personality.


----------



## moody

SiegendesLicht said:


> How come then Bruckner, King Ludwig and young Nietzsche positively adored Wagner (and they all knew him personally, with all his quirks)?
> 
> Tchaikovsky is sometimes accused of having a relationship with an underage boy. Now _that_ (if that is true, of course) is far more sick and perverted than any political opinions anyone can hold. And yet this allegation does not keep lots of people from enjoying his music.


Only one problem with this--I think that Wagner and King Ludwig probably had a "relationship" it certainly got the king killed.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Ok that is fine, I hope you can accept that myself and many others have the exact opposite reaction.


Absolutely. I is just that this thread is entitled, "Why do you NOT like Wagner?" So I am afraid you are going to get a high volume of complaints against Wagner in this thread.


----------



## Novelette

I have so much difficulty coming to like Wagner. I don't deny that he was a monumental composer, but it's all too much for me. Too many subplots, too much orchestral thunder.

I've listened to a good number of recordings of his operas but none of them resonate with me. Whose are your favorite recordings? Solti's "Ring" is very highly acclaimed, and I have not obtained that recording yet.

Do you think that it's best to begin with his early operas, which always struck me as the most conventional, and then work my way to the late operas?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> There were quite a few people who love the admired Hitler's personality. One woman even committed suicide with him


*groan*
Look, I'm sure we can find all kinds of examples of people who had unattractive qualities, but nevertheless were charismatic enough to draw the admiration of others without having to throw out Hitler. I can think of many less inflammatory people. There is even a great example in the broader art community - Roman Polanski. The man fled the United States to avoid prosecution for drugging and raping an under-aged girl, and yet he is applauded as a wonderful guy because of his filmmaking, and even won an Oscar. People excuse his earlier actions all the time because they think somehow his skills as an artist counterbalance previous bad behavior. I can't explain it, any more than I can explain how Wagner drew people to him despite his personality that to me seems rather disgusting, from his serial womanizing and adultery, to convincing a king to bankrupt his country for his selfish interests, to his antisemitic writings (and I can criticize him for his antisemitism without conflating him to being a pre-Nazi).


----------



## SiegendesLicht

moody said:


> Only one problem with this--I think that Wagner and King Ludwig probably had a "relationship" it certainly got the king killed.


Oh please! No offence intended, but that remark reminds me of teenage fanfiction writers who would have Frodo and Sam or just about any two male characters be in a "relationship". Has the notion of friendship been altogether lost? And besides, Wagner has a reputation of a womanizer who had affairs with married ladies, no?

And that "damned" nation is faring better than most nowadays...


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, how about the 1812 Overture or the 4th Symphony, then? Repetitive movements are far from rare in Tchaikovsky, although I'll admit that the finale of the 2nd Symphony is a particularly noticeable case.
> 
> I don't think you got what I said. I really don't hear Wagner's music as all that repetitive. After the Prelude, it's a long time before the Love-death motif is heard again. Almost the whole act. It hardly dominates from then on, either. Although it appears, it's varied and developed and mixed with other leitmotif.
> 
> In the Tchaikovsky example I cited, the theme itself is an AAAA' pattern, so every time you hear it, you hear essentially the same thing four times. And this theme appears several times in a row each time it appears, so, 16 times for each appearance; at the same pitch level, mind you, not even moving in sequence or to a different harmony. Bruckner repeats his motifs in sequences, but the harmony is changing constantly, always moving somewhere. Same thing with Wagner.


I admit that the 1812 overture is not my favorite.

With Wagner, though, it goes beyond merely musical repetitions. Wagner didn't write operas - he claimed he wrote dramas. And the plot of those dramas gets repetitious. In Das Rheingold, how many times did we have to hear about how Wotan was going to screw the giants out of their deal? The plot doesn't move, and everybody sits around discussing the same damn points ad nauseum. It's as if Wagner simply kept adding new characters to restate what had already been made abundantly clear. In any given act, you already know everything that is going to happen within the first few minutes. Everything else is repetition. You can actually stop reading the translation on the screen after about 2 minutes in each scene, and you will not miss out on the plotline. Dramas are supposed to move along.

Repetition is not always bad. For example, in Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, there is a great deal of repetition of the central them, but it works there, because it moves things along and connects all the different "pictures." Repetition in dance music is fine - like with the waltz mentioned. But repetition in an opera, or a musical drama, gets tedious, because you aren't just there to hear the music, but to watch the plot develop, reach the climax, and then the resolution. Wagner may have been a good musical composer, but he should have subcontracted out his librettos to someone who could write.


----------



## Mahlerian

DrMike said:


> With Wagner, though, it goes beyond merely musical repetitions. Wagner didn't write operas - he claimed he wrote dramas. And the plot of those dramas gets repetitious. In Das Rheingold, how many times did we have to hear about how Wotan was going to screw the giants out of their deal? The plot doesn't move, and everybody sits around discussing the same damn points ad nauseum. It's as if Wagner simply kept adding new characters to restate what had already been made abundantly clear. In any given act, you already know everything that is going to happen within the first few minutes. Everything else is repetition. You can actually stop reading the translation on the screen after about 2 minutes in each scene, and you will not miss out on the plotline. Dramas are supposed to move along.
> 
> Repetition is not always bad. For example, in Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, there is a great deal of repetition of the central them, but it works there, because it moves things along and connects all the different "pictures." Repetition in dance music is fine - like with the waltz mentioned. But repetition in an opera, or a musical drama, gets tedious, because you aren't just there to hear the music, but to watch the plot develop, reach the climax, and then the resolution. Wagner may have been a good musical composer, but he should have subcontracted out his librettos to someone who could write.


It just moves on a different timescale than people are generally used to. There is a good deal of back-and-forth between the characters, who are busy manipulating each other, and the music and libretto unfold with the scene. It is eminently false that "You can actually stop reading the translation on the screen after about 2 minutes in each scene, and you will not miss out on the plotline." You can do this with a da capo aria, which isn't even meant to move the plot forward, but Wagner is always giving us new perspectives on the current situation. Sometimes the psychological development happens quickly, but usually it plays out in great depth between the characters, which is one of the things that slows down the "action".

As for Wagner's librettos, I used to have a problem with them for being full of odd phrasings and unpoetic wording, but I've since realized that part of the problem I had was with bad English translations. The librettos of Wagner's time common in grand opera and the like were terrible, full of deus ex machina coincidences and puerile melodrama and all kinds of things that Wagner thankfully avoided.



DrMike said:


> In Das Rheingold, how many times did we have to hear about how Wotan was going to screw the giants out of their deal?


Because he's bargaining with them, wanting to keep things for himself, and we get to see him give everything up, culminating in his turning over the ring after he is warned about its destructive power. The words may be similar, but they change over time in response to the situation, same as the music.

Successful post-Wagner composers tended either to limit the scope of the drama (Salome, Elektra, which happen over very short spans of fictional time) or compress the music so everything happens very quickly by comparison (Wozzeck, Moses und Aron). Debussy's Pelleas and Messiaen's St. Francois, on the other hand, slowed everything down even more, which has left them on the fringes of the operatic repertoire (Messiaen's massive orchestration is partially at fault here as well).


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> Only one problem with this--I think that Wagner and King Ludwig probably had a "relationship" it certainly got the king killed.


We on earth did you get this from? What evidence is there that Wagner was anything but a prodigious womaniser?


----------



## moody

SiegendesLicht said:


> Oh please! No offence intended, but that remark reminds me of teenage fanfiction writers who would have Frodo and Sam or just about any two male characters be in a "relationship". Has the notion of friendship been altogether lost? And besides, Wagner has a reputation of a womanizer who had affairs with married ladies, no?
> 
> And that "damned" nation is faring better than most nowadays...


The relationship thing was told to me by Germans when I was based there.
The description of Germany was apropos the doings under Hitler,I don't think anyone is blaming your generation.


----------



## Guest

I get it. Wagner has devoted fans that love his works. I'm just not one of them, for the reasons I have already repeated D). He bores me. Opera in general bores me, with Mozart being the rare exception - but Wagner bores me more. The plotlines are boring and absurd and don't interest me, and so I have tried just listening to the music, but, as I mentioned, apart from a few highlights, the rest struck me as nothing more than repetitive, unremarkable filler.


----------



## moody

moody said:


> The relationship thing was told to me by Germans when I was based there.
> The description of Germany was apropos the doings under Hitler,I don't think anyone is blaming your generation.


I have just been reading the love letters between Wagner and the King, so i guess that my informants were correct.


----------



## Ramako

SiegendesLicht said:


> Oh please! No offence intended, but that remark reminds me of teenage fanfiction writers who would have Frodo and Sam or just about any two male characters be in a "relationship". Has the notion of friendship been altogether lost?


I hate that too - but I doubt moody would say something like that without some kind of evidence.

Still, there is that sort of 'overblown' friendship, based more on admiration than anything else (i.e. over the top 19th century language), which existed at the time which one has to be careful in interpreting. I can say nothing more knowing nothing of this particular issue. There is some confusion about Schubert largely based on this as I understand.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I've read some of those letters too, but in the 19th century men used to express their friendly affection for one another in far more flowery terms without being afraid they would be "misunderstood".

There is another thread on the subject of Wagner-Ludwig relationship: http://www.talkclassical.com/11293-i-am-intrigued-about.html


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> I have just been reading the love letters between Wagner and the King, so i guess that my informants were correct.


I read those letters too. I think what ever sexual love there was was one way with Wagner responding appropriately as Ludwig was his sponsor.


----------



## TxllxT

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, how about the 1812 Overture or the 4th Symphony, then? Repetitive movements are far from rare in Tchaikovsky, although I'll admit that the finale of the 2nd Symphony is a particularly noticeable case.
> 
> I don't think you got what I said. I really don't hear Wagner's music as all that repetitive. After the Prelude, it's a long time before the Love-death motif is heard again. Almost the whole act. It hardly dominates from then on, either. Although it appears, it's varied and developed and mixed with other leitmotif.
> 
> In the Tchaikovsky example I cited, the theme itself is an AAAA' pattern, so every time you hear it, you hear essentially the same thing four times. And this theme appears several times in a row each time it appears, so, 16 times for each appearance; at the same pitch level, mind you, not even moving in sequence or to a different harmony. Bruckner repeats his motifs in sequences, but the harmony is changing constantly, always moving somewhere. Same thing with Wagner.


Tchaikovsky's fourth symphony: did you ever listen to Mravinsky's interpretation, to Haitink's interpretation and to von Karajan's interpretation? These conductors make me marvel about how different one may present this great symphony. Von Karajan lets the repetitions dance in syncopation, Mravinsky makes every note a witness of human suffering and Haitink is caressing the symphonic wholeness. 
Turning to Wagner it seems to me that his repetitiveness lacks exactly the strength of the masters of symphony: abstraction. Once I've recognised the _Leitmotiv_ of the giants, the repetition of this _Leitmotiv_ is just that... and I know too knowingly in advance who will be thumping down the _Bühne_ in the next moments. The same, alas, goes for the other stage actors.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

DavidA said:


> I note that:
> Composers who have claimed, or can be demonstrated to have been influenced by Varèse, include Milton Babbitt, Harrison Birtwistle, Pierre Boulez, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Roberto Gerhard, Olivier Messiaen, Luigi Nono, Krzysztof Penderecki, Wolfgang Rihm, Alfred Schnittke, William Grant Still, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Iannis Xenakis, and Frank Zappa.
> 
> For my own enjoyment of music and life In general I will therefore steer well clear of your alter ego!
> 
> With respect, of course!


No problem- All the more for me to enjoy and not share my Alter - pretty impressive list of names there - and Frank Zappa to very Intriguing hey.... 
To quote Varese "I don't want to write any more for the old Man-power instruments and am handicapped by the lack of adequate electrical instruments for which I now conceive my music"


----------



## Mahlerian

TxllxT said:


> Turning to Wagner it seems to me that his repetitiveness lacks exactly the strength of the masters of symphony: abstraction. Once I've recognised the _Leitmotiv_ of the giants, the repetition of this _Leitmotiv_ is just that... and I know too knowingly in advance who will be thumping down the _Bühne_ in the next moments. The same, alas, goes for the other stage actors.


It's not meant to be a surprise. You're supposed to recognize it. The music is a reflection of the drama. Sometimes it's used when the giants are not present, in order to refer to them. Do you think that abstraction is, in and of itself, a virtue? If so, why don't the programmatic elements of Tchaikovsky's 4th might bother you, with the fate motif and all that?

Have you listened to Boulez's version of the Ring, or Solti's, or Levine's? They are all quite different, and show different sides of the music.

I'll listen to any Tchaikovsky 4th you recommend, despite not being a fan, if you will try to take Wagner on his own terms.



DrMike said:


> Opera in general bores me, with Mozart being the rare exception - but Wagner bores me more.


There's a lot of opera I don't particularly like, but I do enjoy Wagner, Mozart, and some post-Wagnerian composers' works. It's not my forte, really. There is definitely a reason why orchestras sometimes perform single acts from Wagner operas in unstaged concert performances. The music has its own ebb and flow, and is far more than simply a collection of highlights plus filler, which more accurately describes the less interesting aria/recitative operas of the 18th and 19th centuries in my opinion.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> I read those letters too. I think what ever sexual love there was was one way with Wagner responding appropriately as Ludwig was his sponsor.


But you gave them to me.


----------



## TxllxT

Mahlerian said:


> It's not meant to be a surprise. You're supposed to recognize it. The music is a reflection of the drama. Sometimes it's used when the giants are not present, in order to refer to them. Do you think that abstraction is, in and of itself, a virtue? If so, why don't the programmatic elements of Tchaikovsky's 4th might bother you, with the fate motif and all that?
> 
> Have you listened to Boulez's version of the Ring, or Solti's, or Levine's? They are all quite different, and show different sides of the music.
> 
> I'll listen to any Tchaikovsky 4th you recommend, despite not being a fan, if you will try to take Wagner on his own terms.


Classical music & opera is full of repetition and I love it, when it occurs with an intellectual appeal, a rhetoric accuracy & elegance. But as soon as I notice the composer has straightjacketed himself into a mere mechanical copying of musical score (an infamous Baroque vice) I will not content myself with licking off this lollipop. Richard Wagner has woven more than one _Leitmotiv_ into his lenghty scores. I understand the reasons why he did this: to keep apart the wood from the trees. But after some time I notice the wood and the trees start blurring: rhetorical overkill that immediately dumbs my senses. Wagner I guess, has noticed this himself too and tried to solve the problem in a typical Romantic manner with a leap into the abyss: overkill the overkill!


----------



## Zabirilog

sospiro said:


> Another thing which puts me off, The Ring anyway, is the fantasy theme. Possibly the same reason why I can't get into The Hobbit or any of Tolkien's stuff.


That's interesting! For me, the Ring is the greatest opera ever, but I still hate (sorry for its lovers) lotr. Hmmm...


----------



## nopianojohnson

I've read some of those letters too, but in the 19th century men used to express their friendly affection for one another in far more flowery terms without being afraid they would be "misunderstood".

There is another thread on the subject of Wagner-Ludwig relationship: I am intrigued about the relationship between Richard Wagner and Louis II of Bavaria
Last edited by SiegendesLicht; Jan-18-2013 at 14:41.
Share
| Like
... yet for us will still remain the holy German ar


----------



## nopianojohnson

*That's interesting! For me, the Ring is the greatest opera ever, but I still hate (so*

That's interesting! For me, the Ring is the greatest opera ever, but I still hate (sorry for its lovers) lotr. Hmmm...


----------



## guythegreg

Maybe Germanic fantasy grates on some of the people that love British fantasy, and vice versa? Don't you wonder if the Ring could be made into a big-budget smash hit movie like LOTR?


----------



## deggial

guythegreg said:


> Don't you wonder if the Ring could be made into a big-budget smash hit movie like LOTR?


I thought that's what LOTR was.


----------



## ahammel

deggial said:


> I thought that's what LOTR was.


Tolkien would be annoyed to hear you say it.

"Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases" were his thoughts on the subject.


----------



## KenOC

ahammel said:


> Tolkien would be annoyed to hear you say it.
> 
> "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases" were his thoughts on the subject.


Methinks Tolkien was objecting a wee bit too much.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

He did say that, but it does not change the fact that the sources both he and Wagner used, were the same. And two literary works drawing their inspiration from the same tradition, really could not but have some similarities.


----------



## petter

Wagner is not music, it's only sound effects.


----------



## mamascarlatti

petter said:


> Wagner is not music, it's only sound effects.


Please explain more.


----------



## petter

mamascarlatti said:


> Please explain more.


I don't actually mean that Wagner is "not music", of course he wrote music. I just mean; when the story of the libretto overshadows the the music and the instrumental properties are used as just base background colors, then, in my opinion, the piece is shifted more to theater than music. I think that music always should be the core element of a piece and produce the emotions of the story and everything else wrapped around it. My key point is: Wagner was very good at producing captivating dramatic and theatrical music but look behind the cardboard back drop and see its lacks backbone.


----------



## ahammel

petter said:


> I don't actually mean that Wagner is "not music", of course he wrote music. I just mean; when the story of the libretto overshadows the the music and the instrumental properties are used as just base background colors, then, in my opinion, the piece is shifted more to theater than music. I think that music always should be the core element of a piece and produce the emotions of the story and everything else wrapped around it. My key point is: Wagner was very good at producing captivating dramatic and theatrical music but look behind the cardboard back drop and see its lacks backbone.


I can think of a couple of generations of German romantic composers who would disagree with you that Wagner's music is superficial. Bruckner, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, and Wolf all thought of themselves as carrying on Wagner's tradition, and it wasn't because of his libretti.


----------



## Zabirilog

petter said:


> Wagner is not music, it's only sound effects.


I would say that Stravinsky is sound effects. Wagner is just massive music. And, opera is 50 % theater and 50 % music.


----------



## TxllxT

petter said:


> I don't actually mean that Wagner is "not music", of course he wrote music. I just mean; when the story of the libretto overshadows the the music and the instrumental properties are used as just base background colors, then, in my opinion, the piece is shifted more to theater than music. I think that music always should be the core element of a piece and produce the emotions of the story and everything else wrapped around it. My key point is: Wagner was very good at producing captivating dramatic and theatrical music but look behind the cardboard back drop and see its lacks backbone.


The trouble with Wagner is IMO not in the music, neither in the theatre, but in its hidden religious/pseudo-religious aspirations. Wagner wrote fairy tale libretti, but he sneakily wants me, forces me, to believe in them. No, all the stuff that is made of "May the FORCE be with you" doesn't comfort me at all.


----------



## Mahlerian

Zabirilog said:


> I would say that Stravinsky is sound effects. Wagner is just massive music. And, opera is 50 % theater and 50 % music.


I'd say you're as wrong as he was.


----------



## StevenOBrien

The Music Dramas in their original form often feel far too drawn out for my tastes.

I can listen to a condensed instrumental version of his music just fine. I can listen to his overtures, and his preludes (The Tristan und Isolde prelude, immediately followed by the Liebestod is easily one of my favorite pieces of all time) with great pleasure. As soon as any of the actual drama begins, however, I cannot help but feel incredibly frustrated at how slow moving everything is, and how drawn out everything feels. I'm sorry, but it just bores me to death.

I am not exaggerating when I say that every time I've tried to force myself to sit through a Wagner Music Drama, I have either fallen asleep or have had to turn it off from the sheer physical pain of the frustration and boredom I feel as a result. It gets progressively easier with every relisten, but for the time being, I'm just not ready for Wagner's full works. Hopefully someday though, I really want to be able to enjoy them!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Right now I do NOT like him because it's 1.40 here, I have to get up in a little over 5 hours, and I should have long been in bed, if I had not undertaken the task of spring cleaning while listening to _Die Walküre _ at the same time, because, after all, the man's big birthday is _tomorrow_, and I do want to honor him by getting through the Ring once more...

As for some people finding him boring... well, I guess I should have long got used to the fact that there are things in the universe which I plain don't understand, and probably never will. Advanced astrophysics is one such thing, for example, and people who find Wagner boring is another.


----------



## deggial

Zabirilog said:


> I would say that Stravinsky is sound effects.


dude! which piece does specifically come to mind when you're saying that?


----------



## deggial

TxllxT said:


> The trouble with Wagner is IMO not in the music, neither in the theatre, but in its hidden religious/pseudo-religious aspirations.


it's like the bible - he and she begat so and so who slept with so and so after having been tricked by another so and so who hated his ancestors because they slighted him 2345745836 years ago and then killed such and such then begat so and so who then... it's in the music, too, though. It's LOTR with loud singing.


----------



## PetrB

deggial said:


> dude! which piece does specifically come to mind when you're saying that?


99.9999 to 0001 it is Le Sacre. ...or L'Oiseau de feu, or Petrushka


----------



## ahammel

deggial said:


> it's like the bible - he and she begat so and so who slept with so and so after having been tricked by another so and so who hated his ancestors because they slighted him 2345745836 years ago and then killed such and such then begat so and so who then... it's in the music, too, though. It's LOTR with loud singing.


I can't think of any 'begat' chain longer than three in Wagner.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby

For me, Wagner's ego gets in the way. Like many others, I love the Liebestod. Easily one of the most beautiful pieces ever written. It's about love and a belief in love that transcends death. It's beautiful and moving because of it. But most of Tristan und Isolde is not like the Liebestod. It's about demonstrating Wagner's musical skill, and about making us adore his profound philosophical vision (which was really Schopenhauer's). He feels he needs three hours of ambiguous dialogue to explain it to us. Rather than subjecting us to exposition, he could have simply demonstrated what he meant in the music and text, _subtly_. But that would involve placing him in the backseat, and the idea first. So he only achieves the splendor of the Liebestod very rarely. See, Wagner believed in this transcendental love, but except for snatches of it in his music, he never actually created any of it. He was hateful, and he hated. He believed that he was better than other people, and he felt he could act accordingly, cheating them, backstabbing and so on. And it shows in a lot of his music.

He wrote of a woman who was willing to die with her lover so they could live together in eternal night. Like Puccini, I'm still waiting for the dawn in which we can all live in a higher love than Tristan and Isolde's desires.

Just my feelings from listening to Wagner and reading his libretti. I think it's great that some people have able to find more beauty in his works than I have, and I will continue to reappraise him.


----------



## deggial

ahammel said:


> I can't think of any 'begat' chain longer than three in Wagner.


I was exaggerating


----------



## Zabirilog

deggial said:


> dude! which piece does specifically come to mind when you're saying that?


Well, Le Sacre. It has good passages, but normally it sounds like effects to me... but what ever, I'm not a Stravinsky specialist.


----------



## Zabirilog

deggial said:


> It's LOTR with loud singing.


How can you think it like that?  I know that many do it, but what are actually the same things in them?


----------



## deggial

Zabirilog said:


> what are actually the same things in them?


your signature, for starters


----------



## Zabirilog

Siegfried thinks first that Brünnhilde is a man, is there something like that in Lotr?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Zabirilog said:


> Siegfried thinks first that Brünnhilde is a man, is there something like that in Lotr?


There is Eowyn, the princess of the Rohirrim, who went to battle in male clothing, and killed one of the Ringwraiths, but a scene resembling the one from _ Siegfried _- no, I believe not.


----------



## ahammel

Zabirilog said:


> How can you think it like that?  I know that many do it, but what are actually the same things in them?


The setting (Wagner and Tolkein having cribbed from the same sources), the scale, and the corrupting influence of the Rings are comparable. As for actual plot points and themes: not so much.


----------



## TxllxT

The comparison with LOTR is anachronistic. Without Wagner's compositions Tolkien would never have seen the Light... As to the 'begat'- series in the Bible, I remember a professor who compared it with the begetting of rabbits. The Bible really is - deep down inside - a funny collection of books, whereas Wagner never ever has been making me smile.


----------



## deggial

ahammel said:


> The setting (Wagner and Tolkein having cribbed from the same sources), the scale, and the corrupting influence of the Rings are comparable. As for actual plot points and themes: not so much.


cheers for making my point where I was lazy :tiphat: yes, it's true that on details they are different, but there's enough semblance to link them, even anachronistically.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> The comparison with LOTR is anachronistic. Without Wagner's compositions Tolkien would never have seen the Light... As to the 'begat'- series in the Bible, I remember a professor who compared it with the begetting of rabbits. The Bible really is - deep down inside - a funny collection of books, whereas Wagner never ever has been making me smile.


Which goes to prove the inanity of the remarks of certain professors.


----------



## aisia

A lot of people seem very sure that Wagner is bad drama. This puzzles me, since I think it's excellent drama. Unhappily, most people seem to voice their criticisms through vague abuse - it's adolescent, petit bourgeois, etc. But some specifics have been cited over the course of the thread.

PetrB interestingly mentions Wagner's externalising of internal psychology



PetrB said:


> -- this means the characters, and in the case of opera, all spend time talking about or illustrating that which in other traditional dramatic formats is not discussed, but conveyed by acting, a look, a tone of voice.


Perfectly true. If it's not something you happen to fancy, then fair enough. But I don't think it makes much sense to cite it as a fault. Probably not co-incidentally, a similar point could be made about much modernist literature (PetrB's comment followed a discussion of Proust, and Joyce, whom I know better, is an excellent example). It's just a different- and an innovative - way of going about things. It also strikes me as a worthwhile way of going about things. Foregrounding the internal workings of the mind allows for greater scope in examining those workings.

Aside from that issue, people keep returning to one theme in particular: it's fantastical, it's unreal, they're all gods and demigods, etc. Well again, if that's simply not your cup of tea, all right, but it's not really a fault on Wagner's part. People seem to find it acceptable as a criticism of, say, Tolkien, but look a little further and it can't really be sustained. Milton, Vergil, and Homer could all be faulted on the same grounds. Obviously I don't mean that it's simply inconsistent to think highly of Milton and poorly of Tolkien. But you need to say more by way of criticism, of either Tolkien or of Wagner, than that it's fantastical.

Some people have said things like this:



dominique said:


> Fantasy is absolutely fine and I really love it but it needs some references to reality and to human condition.


This attitude I find particularly puzzling. Wagner is plentifully connected to the human condition. Look at Wotan: just like us, he has noble aspirations, which are tainted by his own egotism and a willingness to let his scruples slide in order to achieve them. Just like us, he is proud of his children, but must eventually allow them to go their own way and, finally, replace him. Just like us, he struggles to reconcile himself to approaching death. Of course it isn't especially probable that anyone will ever face exile from a non-existent kingdom on the decree of a non-existent king - but that's neither here not there. The conclusion of Die Walkure is rich in human resonance. It's about the courage it takes to stand up for what you believe even before those you admire and love. It's about the loss of childhood security that occurs when we become independent of our parents. It's about all the times we bury our impulses and our true feelings in order to abide by social convention.

I'll gladly grant the formal flaws - the pace of the Ring often slackens, there are frequent repetitions, it's all rather long. But I'm not so interested in those issues.

Could someone please make the case against Wagner's drama clearly, carefully, and in detail?


----------



## aisia

DrMike said:


> And I'm sorry, but there is no awe-inspiring stories in Wagner that engross me. They tend towards the absurd, and the characters become boring quickly. Honestly, in Tristan, I don't understand why then even need scene changes - after they drink the potion in the beginning, nothing changes. Ooh, look, there they are professing their love-death in this location. Ooh, look, love death in another location. Ooh, look, love-death dying in a castle. If Wagner had lived in the time of George Lucas, you would have had the two characters simply singing in front of an ever-changing green screen with a bunch of superfluous action occurring in the background that has absolutely no relevance to the story - instead, you just have the low-tech equivalent of that.
> 
> The emotion in his operas does nothing for me - again, it has all the believability and sincerity of a love-sick 12-year old girl who has just discovered Justin Bieber and will absolutely DIE if she can't be with him forever. I don't really care if the music accentuates that emotion, because the emotion seems absurd to me in the first place. And having to hear it over and over just augments my annoyance.


The most detailed argument I can find is this against Tristan, but frankly I'm not impressed. The account makes it sound as if the drama and characters are entirely static throughout, and that is simply false. The drinking of the potion produces a substantial change. Until that point, their feelings for each other had been repressed. Outwardly, Isolde had shown hatred for Tristan and Tristan had shown contempt for Isolde. Though they both embrace death, they embrace it as an escape from shame and and the torment of repressed love. Only once their potion has been drunk do they allow free rein to their love, and they only begin to contemplate love-death in the second act once they have established their dichotomy between day and night. In the third act, the desire for death recurs, but with yet another meaning. Earlier it had been a romantic notion to accompany love's ecstasy, now it is a tangible reality which love's agony has made imminently desirable.

The supposed superfluity of the surrounding action is no more cogent an objection. In one sense, the action simply is not superfluous. Of course it's relevant to the story that Isolde is betrothed to Tristan's uncle, that the lovers are caught, and that Tristan is wounded. In another sense, though, everything that goes on around the lovers is irrelevant - the lovers themselves are the world. That's the whole point.

Finally, there's the idea that the lover's emotions are too extreme to be credible. This has some force, but the problem is hardly remarkable for an opera. The extraordinary things that Tristan and Isolde say are of a piece with the extraordinary things operatic protagonists have always said. Think of Aida or Lucia di Lammermoor. What distinguishes Tristan and Isolde is the way the lovers make sense of their own extremity - in telling their own story, they render it intelligible to us. We hear of their first meeting, when both of them were in states of extreme vulnerability. Isolde glad to invest herself in caring for Tristan, Tristan grateful to be cared for. It's perfectly credible that they should have been attracted to each other. Then, factor in the maelstrom of supporting factors - the history with Morold, Tristan's decision, itself intelligible, to claim Isolde for Mark, their conviction of imminent death - and it is also credible that whatever feelings they initially had for each other should have been enormously intensified. The drama is compelling at all levels.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> The most detailed argument I can find is this against Tristan, but frankly I'm not impressed. The account makes it sound as if the drama and characters are entirely static throughout, and that is simply false. The drinking of the potion produces a substantial change. Until that point, their feelings for each other had been repressed. Outwardly, Isolde had shown hatred for Tristan and Tristan had shown contempt for Isolde. Though they both embrace death, they embrace it as an escape from shame and and the torment of repressed love. Only once their potion has been drunk do they allow free rein to their love, and they only begin to contemplate love-death in the second act once they have established their dichotomy between day and night. In the third act, the desire for death recurs, but with yet another meaning. Earlier it had been a romantic notion to accompany love's ecstasy, now it is a tangible reality which love's agony has made imminently desirable.
> 
> The supposed superfluity of the surrounding action is no more cogent an objection. In one sense, the action simply is not superfluous. Of course it's relevant to the story that Isolde is betrothed to Tristan's uncle, that the lovers are caught, and that Tristan is wounded. In another sense, though, everything that goes on around the lovers is irrelevant - the lovers themselves are the world. That's the whole point.
> 
> Finally, there's the idea that the lover's emotions are too extreme to be credible. This has some force, but the problem is hardly remarkable for an opera. The extraordinary things that Tristan and Isolde say are of a piece with the extraordinary things operatic protagonists have always said. Think of Aida or Lucia di Lammermoor. What distinguishes Tristan and Isolde is the way the lovers make sense of their own extremity - in telling their own story, they render it intelligible to us. We hear of their first meeting, when both of them were in states of extreme vulnerability. Isolde glad to invest herself in caring for Tristan, Tristan grateful to be cared for. It's perfectly credible that they should have been attracted to each other. Then, factor in the maelstrom of supporting factors - the history with Morold, Tristan's decision, itself intelligible, to claim Isolde for Mark, their conviction of imminent death - and it is also credible that whatever feelings they initially had for each other should have been enormously intensified. The drama is compelling at all levels.


There is only one thing that lulls us into thinking this opera is believable and that is the music. Without it the plot is as DrMike says. If you adore the music (as you do) then you suspend your disbelief.
Same with Mozart's Cosi. The plot is quite implausible. But when Mozart's genius gets going, I'll believe anything as long as it lasts!


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> There is only one thing that lulls us into thinking this opera is believable and that is the music. Without it the plot is as DrMike says. If you adore the music (as you do) then you suspend your disbelief.
> Same with Mozart's Cosi. The plot is quite implausible. But when Mozart's genius gets going, I'll believe anything as long as it lasts!


But it isn't as DrMike says - I've just explained the various ways in which he's mistaken. Of course the music has an important part in getting us to believe it - hearing both the Act III Tristan and the Act III Edgardo, who would you tip to top themselves? But as I have already pointed out, the characters also take great care to explain their situation, and the explanations they offer are fairly credible. And finally, as you note, the charge of implausibility is hardly specific to Wagner. So it's not really a reason to think that Wagner's drama in particular is bad when compared to the rest of opera, which was my main point.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> But it isn't as DrMike says - I've just explained the various ways in which he's mistaken. Of course the music has an important part in getting us to believe it - hearing both the Act III Tristan and the Act III Edgardo, who would you tip to top themselves? But as I have already pointed out, the characters also take great care to explain their situation, and the explanations they offer are fairly credible. And finally, as you note, the charge of implausibility is hardly specific to Wagner. So it's not really a reason to think that Wagner's drama in particular is bad when compared to the rest of opera, which was my main point.


The characters are completely implausible to any kind of rational thinking.

I mean, who would make a suicide pact with someone like Tristan does? 
How many love potions do we see around today?
When I fell in love I didn't say, 'Let me die!' 
They are totally unreal characters. One reason I cannot love this opera. 
It is only the music that lulls us into thinking it is plausible.
Mind you, if you live in that sort of imaginary world Wagner and Ludwig lived in you might think differently.


----------



## Couchie

With the exception of Meistersinger (notably Wagner's most "human" and down-to-earth opera), all of Wagner's operas are _adaptations_ of medieval legends and poems... yes, medieval legends contain material "hard to believe" by the standards of contemporary society... how insightful.

The entire 1st act of Tristan builds up to why Tristan would make a "suicide pact" with Isolde given their backstory. Try another viewing. The augmentation of the love potion's effects on their repressed love justifies their inane obsession with love-death in Acts II and III. The only implausibility here is the love potion itself, and that is straight from the source material.

And how plausible is Romeo & Juliet? Shakespeare sucks.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> With the exception of Meistersinger (notably Wagner's most "human" and down-to-earth opera), all of Wagner's operas are _adaptations_ of medieval legends and poems... yes, medieval legends contain material "hard to believe" by the standards of contemporary society... how insightful.
> 
> The entire 1st act of Tristan builds up to why Tristan would make a "suicide pact" with Isolde given their backstory. Try another viewing. The augmentation of the love potion's effects on their repressed love justifies their inane obsession with love-death in Acts II and III. The only implausibility here is the love potion itself, and that is straight from the source material.
> 
> And how plausible is Romeo & Juliet? Shakespeare sucks.


I'm glad you agree with me it's implausible. I wasn't even attempting to be insightful. Just stating the obvious. But it doesn't seem obvious to some.

Well, how on earth can you rationalise Tristan and then say R&J sucks? I must confess that raises a chuckle!


----------



## Couchie

R&J fall madly in love for no reason (no well developed backstory unlike Tristan) and are killing themselves for each other within the same week. What's chuckleworthy is to say T&I makes Wagner a bad dramatist when the greatest of all time is guilty of far greater indulgences regarding suspension of disbelief (and with no mind-warpingingly beautiful music to accompany it).


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> R&J fall madly in love for no reason (no well developed backstory unlike Tristan) and are killing themselves for each other within the same week. What's chuckleworthy is to say T&I makes Wagner a bad dramatist when the greatest of all time is guilty of far greater indulgences regarding suspension of disbelief (and with no mind-warpingingly beautiful music to accompany it).


But that is the whole point of Shakespeare's play. There is no reason for it. Love at first sight. 'You will see a stranger across a crowded room', eye.. Now I'm not saying how plausible it is. But actually Wagner has taken up the star crossed lovers theme for Tristan. Shakespeare's plots are often pretty implausible. You have to take in the verse to appreciate them. 
Please note that I was not going on about Wagner as a dramatist - good or bad. Merely answering the question of a Wagner worshipper who was insisting the plot of Tristan is plausible. It is not. But then it is an opera.


----------



## Guest

'Plot plausibility' is an interesting concept. Personally, I find the idea that gods, monsters, Heroes with superpowers and tragic Heroines falling in love with bearded men (etc etc etc) are all totally implausible. I mean, have you actually seen _Avengers Assemble_??? Or read any Sophocles???

I mean....come on!!!???

None of these sieve-like plots are made any more plausible by the accompanying music or poetry or cinematography or acting. They don't need to be plausible.


----------



## Celloman

I like Wagner. Oooh, burn!


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> The characters are completely implausible to any kind of rational thinking.
> 
> I mean, who would make a suicide pact with someone like Tristan does?
> How many love potions do we see around today?
> When I fell in love I didn't say, 'Let me die!'
> They are totally unreal characters. One reason I cannot love this opera.
> It is only the music that lulls us into thinking it is plausible.
> Mind you, if you live in that sort of imaginary world Wagner and Ludwig lived in you might think differently.


The love potion is a circumstantial issue, part of the mythic background. It's just one of the basic premisses you sign on for, not so far removed from the fact that everyone sings, and in German rather Gaelic.

As to why Tristan accepts a suicide pact, he has plenty of reasons. The most obvious point is that it's not an explicitly agreed upon suicide pact. Isolde has presented it as a mere drink of atonement, apparently an accepted social convention. If Tristan refuses, then he will have grievously insulted King Marke's bride. And given that Isolde presumably understands her mother's arts better than Tristan or Marke, Tristan would have a hard job proving any wrong doing on her part (for example, she could claim that her mother's potion, once consecrated, acts as poison unless used within its intended context of ritual atonement drinking. Who's to contradict her?). Then there are all the reasons Tristan wants to die: shame at having so humiliated the woman he loves; anguish at enduring her apparent hatred because of it; having to see that woman married to another man, and the knowledge that he was responsible for the union; and all the angst from his past that resurfaces in Act III. Add to that the fact that sometimes people do sign on for suicide pacts in reality, and it really isn't so very implausible after all.

So you never said 'let me die' when you fell in love. Bully for you. But it's not as if Wagner pulled the whole liebestod idea from out of thin air. Clearly there's a deep imaginative connection between the two concepts, a connection which Tristan is plentifully disposed to pick up on. He's already proven himself to be comfortable with death by swallowing the potion in Act I. That had amounted to a near-death experience for him. As people tend to after such events, he went on to re-evaluate his life. He decided that the only thing of real value to him is Isolde, while all of the rest of the substance of his life is in fact inimical to their relationship, and so hateful. He cannot be with his beloved in this life, and so he rejects this life. It is, as I've always said, an extreme condition, but not as implausible as you make out.


----------



## TxllxT

aisia said:


> The love potion is a circumstantial issue, part of the mythic background. It's just one of the basic premisses you sign on for, not so far removed from the fact that everyone sings, and in German rather Gaelic.
> 
> As to why Tristan accepts a suicide pact, he has plenty of reasons. The most obvious point is that it's not an explicitly agreed upon suicide pact. Isolde has presented it as a mere drink of atonement, apparently an accepted social convention. If Tristan refuses, then he will have grievously insulted King Marke's bride. And given that Isolde presumably understands her mother's arts better than Tristan or Marke, Tristan would have a hard job proving any wrong doing on her part (for example, she could claim that her mother's potion, once consecrated, acts as poison unless used within its intended context of ritual atonement drinking. Who's to contradict her?). Then there are all the reasons Tristan wants to die: shame at having so humiliated the woman he loves; anguish at enduring her apparent hatred because of it; having to see that woman married to another man, and the knowledge that he was responsible for the union; and all the angst from his past that resurfaces in Act III. Add to that the fact that sometimes people do sign on for suicide pacts in reality, and it really isn't so very implausible after all.
> 
> So you never said 'let me die' when you fell in love. Bully for you. But it's not as if Wagner pulled the whole liebestod idea from out of thin air. Clearly there's a *deep imaginative connection* between the two concepts, a connection which Tristan is plentifully disposed to pick up on. Tristan, in drinking the love potion which he believed to be a death potion, basically underwent a near-death experience. As people tend to after such events, he went on to re-evaluate his life. He decided that the only thing of real value to him is Isolde, while all of the rest of the substance of his life is in fact inimical to their relationship, and so hateful. He cannot be with his beloved in this life, and so he rejects this life. It is, as I've always said, an extreme condition, but not as implausible as you make out.


Deep imaginative connection.... With Wagner's libretti it is as with Ludwig's castle architecture: they're build on effect & sensual make-believe. 




You're being fooled and the fun is that we know it. But I find it unwise to look for anything 'deep' or 'imaginative' in Wagner. Dan Cruickshank explains the modernity of solving architectural problems during the building of Neuschwanstein castle. Neuschwanstein is a fine example of early skyscraper-building. But to call this highrise a 'castle', referring to the times of valiant knights & yearning _Jungfrauen_...... It is just theatrical effect, on which the Bavarian kingdom almost went broke. Wagner knew his public, and provided them with the make-believe that they wanted to believe. Richard Wagner's music is *modern*: lacking truth & imaginativeness.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> The love potion is a circumstantial issue, part of the mythic background. It's just one of the basic premisses you sign on for, not so far removed from the fact that everyone sings, and in German rather Gaelic.
> 
> As to why Tristan accepts a suicide pact, he has plenty of reasons. The most obvious point is that it's not an explicitly agreed upon suicide pact. Isolde has presented it as a mere drink of atonement, apparently an accepted social convention. If Tristan refuses, then he will have grievously insulted King Marke's bride. And given that Isolde presumably understands her mother's arts better than Tristan or Marke, Tristan would have a hard job proving any wrong doing on her part (for example, she could claim that her mother's potion, once consecrated, acts as poison unless used within its intended context of ritual atonement drinking. Who's to contradict her?). Then there are all the reasons Tristan wants to die: shame at having so humiliated the woman he loves; anguish at enduring her apparent hatred because of it; having to see that woman married to another man, and the knowledge that he was responsible for the union; and all the angst from his past that resurfaces in Act III. Add to that the fact that sometimes people do sign on for suicide pacts in reality, and it really isn't so very implausible after all.
> 
> So you never said 'let me die' when you fell in love. Bully for you. But it's not as if Wagner pulled the whole liebestod idea from out of thin air. Clearly there's a deep imaginative connection between the two concepts, a connection which Tristan is plentifully disposed to pick up on. He's already proven himself to be comfortable with death by swallowing the potion in Act I. That had amounted to a near-death experience for him. As people tend to after such events, he went on to re-evaluate his life. He decided that the only thing of real value to him is Isolde, while all of the rest of the substance of his life is in fact inimical to their relationship, and so hateful. He cannot be with his beloved in this life, and so he rejects this life. It is, as I've always said, an extreme condition, but not as implausible as you make out.


It always amazes me how people like you stand reason on its head trying to make the implausible plausible and the impossible possible. There is nothing remotely real attached to Tristan and Isolde. It is a myth. A fairy tale. The characters are unreal. Enjoy it on that basis without trying to push some great philosophical meaning into it.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It always amazes me how people like you [...]


By all means disagree with aisia - but it's not necessary to be quite so contemptuously dismissive. I don't like Wagner, finding the music not to my taste, but clearly, millions of people do, and doubtless find the drama as attractive and absorbing as the music.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> By all means disagree with aisia - but it's not necessary to be quite so contemptuously dismissive. I don't like Wagner, finding the music not to my taste, but clearly, millions of people do, and doubtless find the drama as attractive and absorbing as the music.


I have no problem with people enjoying the music or drama. It's when it is equated to real life it amazes me.

When I see a Spielberg Indiana Jones, I enjoy the movie. I don't equate it to real life. It is entertainment - as opera is.


----------



## aisia

TxllxT said:


> Deep imaginative connection.... With Wagner's libretti it is as with Ludwig's castle architecture: they're build on effect & sensual make-believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being fooled and the fun is that we know it. But I find it unwise to look for anything 'deep' or 'imaginative' in Wagner. Dan Cruickshank explains the modernity of solving architectural problems during the building of Neuschwanstein castle. Neuschwanstein is a fine example of early skyscraper-building. But to call this highrise a 'castle', referring to the times of valiant knights & yearning _Jungfrauen_...... It is just theatrical effect, on which the Bavarian kingdom almost went broke. Wagner knew his public, and provided them with the make-believe that they wanted to believe. Richard Wagner's music is *modern*: lacking truth & imaginativeness.


From the wikipedia article on Liebestod: 'Other two-sided examples include Pyramus and Thisbe, Romeo and Juliet, and to some degree Wuthering Heights. One-sided examples are Porphyria's Lover and The Sorrows of Young Werther. The joint suicide of Heinrich von Kleist and lover Henriette Vogel (de) is often associated with the Liebestod theme'. Beyond that, you've only got vague abuse. Next?



DavidA said:


> It always amazes me how people like you stand reason on its head trying to make the implausible plausible and the impossible possible. There is nothing remotely real attached to Tristan and Isolde. It is a myth. A fairy tale. The characters are unreal. Enjoy it on that basis without trying to push some great philosophical meaning into it.


I think that may have come out wrong. Did you mean something like 'it always amazes me how people like you use reason to argue so cogently for views I disagree with that I can't think of any decent response'?


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> From the wikipedia article on Liebestod: 'Other two-sided examples include Pyramus and Thisbe, Romeo and Juliet, and to some degree Wuthering Heights. One-sided examples are Porphyria's Lover and The Sorrows of Young Werther. The joint suicide of Heinrich von Kleist and lover Henriette Vogel (de) is often associated with the Liebestod theme'. Beyond that, you've only got vague abuse. Next?
> 
> I think that may have come out wrong. Did you mean something like 'it always amazes me how people like you use reason to argue so cogently for views I disagree with that I can't think of any decent response'?


The problem is you equate disagreement with verbal abuse. People have different opinions to you.

I have given you a perfectly reasonable response. You might disagree. That is your privilege. But you do have to learn other people have different opinions. Opera is a fantasy. Enjoy it on that level.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> The problem is you equate disagreement with verbal abuse. People have different opinions to you.
> 
> I have given you a perfectly reasonable response. You might disagree. That is your privilege. But you do have to learn other people have different opinions. Opera is a fantasy. Enjoy it on that level.


No, that's really not my problem. Wasn't your 'perfectly reasonable response' supposed to be this:



DavidA said:


> It always amazes me how people like you stand reason on its head trying to make the implausible plausible and the impossible possible. There is nothing remotely real attached to Tristan and Isolde. It is a myth. A fairy tale. The characters are unreal. Enjoy it on that basis without trying to push some great philosophical meaning into it.


wherein you accuse me of standing reason on its head, and just insist that I believe an impossibility? The response MacLeod considered to be 'contempously dismissive'? Your problem seems to be what might be called the 'John Cleese fallacy' - the mistaking of mere contradiction for actual argument. All I did was call you out on it.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I have no problem with people enjoying the music or drama. It's when it is equated to real life it amazes me.
> 
> When I see a Spielberg Indiana Jones, I enjoy the movie. I don't equate it to real life. It is entertainment - as opera is.


I may have misread aisia's postings, but I don't think T&I was being equated to 'real life'. Myth and fantasy, fairy tale and fable are tremendously powerful genres. They are not popular merely because they are 'entertainment', but because they have the capacity to touch the observer/listener in meaningful ways. _You _may not be touched, and you may by all means argue a point that fantasy is, in fact, shallow and worthy only as entertaining as popular blockbuster cinema, but you need to reflect on whether your version of 'disagreement' is as free of insult as you claim.

[edit]

On the matter of suicide love pacts...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/borehamwood-suicide-pact-father-train-1963414

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/01/suicide-pact-pair-stephen-lumb-joanne-lee

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340456/t/japans-chilling-internet-suicide-pacts/#.UgIHpZLVB8E


----------



## Itullian

What I hate about Wagner's operas is that they are far too short.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I may have misread aisia's postings, but I don't think T&I was being equated to 'real life'. Myth and fantasy, fairy tale and fable are tremendously powerful genres. They are not popular merely because they are 'entertainment', but because they have the capacity to touch the observer/listener in meaningful ways. _You _may not be touched, and you may by all means argue a point that fantasy is, in fact, shallow and worthy only as entertaining as popular blockbuster cinema, but you need to reflect on whether your version of 'disagreement' is as free of insult as you claim.
> 
> [edit]
> 
> On the matter of suicide love pacts...
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/borehamwood-suicide-pact-father-train-1963414
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/01/suicide-pact-pair-stephen-lumb-joanne-lee
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340456/t/japans-chilling-internet-suicide-pacts/#.UgIHpZLVB8E


We do, however, view such things with horror and dismay.

Wagner's opera seems to imply they are rather a good thing!


----------



## EllenBurgess

music is my life and i cant escape and compromise from it at any cost....


----------



## deggial

^ does that mean you love Wagner or does it mean you don't love his music?


----------



## Vesteralen

*Thread: Why do you NOT like Wagner?*

My smart-aleck answer would be: "What's NOT NOT to like about Wagner (the man)?"

His music?

I love the orchestral music.

And, if I'm in the mood for something very Teutonic (and, who isn't sometimes?) I can enjoy a lot of his vocal music, too.


----------



## Guest

So, you'd acknowledge that there is current evidence of a closer parallel between Wagner's plots and 'real life' than at first you'd cared to admit?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> So, you'd acknowledge that there is current evidence of a closer parallel between Wagner's plots and 'real life' than at first you'd cared to admit?


No. How many suicide pacts substitute a love potion?


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> No. How many suicide pacts substitute a love potion?


Unbelievable. You wouldn't even admit the feasibility of suicide pacts at all at first. The relevant question is 'how many suicide pacts are disrupted by third parties who don't want to see them executed?', and the answer to it is probably 'quite a few', though for obvious reasons these cases are under-reported. And you've not even touched upon the underlying psychological motivations which I have explained in detail for you.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Unbelievable. You wouldn't even admit the feasibility of suicide pacts at all at first. The relevant question is 'how many suicide pacts are disrupted by third parties who don't want to see them executed?', and the answer to it is probably 'quite a few', though for obvious reasons these cases are under-reported. And you've not even touched upon the underlying psychological motivations which I have explained in detail for you.


You are completely missing the pint. Can you name me ONE true instance that parallels Tristan and Isolde? You are giving me cases of real life but never in real life is there a love potion. Such a thing does not exist. In any case, Nor are knights nursed back to health by magic. It is NOT real life! I just can't see how you cannot see it. It is not real life. It is fiction, just like Indiana Jones is, just like Romeo and Juliet, etc.. Enjoy it as such but don't please say it is in any way real life. It is fiction.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> You are completely missing the pint. [etc]


Nobody is missing the pint...or the point. You seem to have argued that because the plot is wholly fantastic and bears no relation to 'reality' or 'real life' it is of the same entertainment value as a blockbuster movie.

I have shown that in fact, the plot is _closer _to real life than you think (not exactly the same in every respect) and aisia has argued the psychology of the characterisation and its consequent value as a powerful myth.

You can continue to argue that it has no relevance to you, but it's plain perverse to suggest that the value derived by others can only be of the level of an Indiana Jones movie.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Nobody is missing the pint...or the point. You seem to have argued that because the plot is wholly fantastic and bears no relation to 'reality' or 'real life' it is of the same entertainment value as a blockbuster movie.
> 
> I have shown that in fact, the plot is _closer _to real life than you think (not exactly the same in every respect) and aisia has argued the psychology of the characterisation and its consequent value as a powerful myth.
> 
> You can continue to argue that it has no relevance to you, but it's plain perverse to suggest that the value derived by others can only be of the level of an Indiana Jones movie.


You shouldn't call an opinion 'perverse' just because you don't agree with it. Actually I didn't say that the value derived by others can only be on the level of an Indiana Jones movie. What I said was it is fiction exactly the same as an Indiana Jones movie's fiction. Of course there are parts in parallels of the Indiana Jones trilogy you can relate to real life. There are parallels in how humans behave. Same with Cosi fan Tutte, R&J or any other unlikely tale. But it is fiction. It is derived as an entertainment. It is not a lecture on life. There are no great lessons in it. What makes Tristan remarkable is (like it or not) the music.


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> You shouldn't call an opinion 'perverse' just because you don't agree with it. Actually I didn't say that the value derived by others can only be on the level of an Indiana Jones movie. What I said was it is fiction exactly the same as an Indiana Jones movie's fiction. Of course there are parts in parallels of the Indiana Jones trilogy you can relate to real life. There are parallels in how humans behave. Same with Cosi fan Tutte, R&J or any other unlikely tale. But it is fiction. It is derived as an entertainment. It is not a lecture on life. There are no great lessons in it. What makes Tristan remarkable is (like it or not) the music.


Did anyone ever deny that Tristan is a fiction? As to whether it is 'exactly the same' as Indiana Jones, I must confess that I don't know what you mean. But yes, they are both fiction, and both notably fantastical. However, to begin with you seemed quite intent on denying that there were any parallels whatsoever with how humans behave. What else could have been the import of this:



DavidA said:


> The characters are completely implausible to any kind of rational thinking.
> 
> I mean, who would make a suicide pact with someone like Tristan does?
> How many love potions do we see around today?
> When I fell in love I didn't say, 'Let me die!'
> They are totally unreal characters. One reason I cannot love this opera.
> It is only the music that lulls us into thinking it is plausible.
> Mind you, if you live in that sort of imaginary world Wagner and Ludwig lived in you might think differently.


And why otherwise would you have seen fit to argue with me at all, when I never once denied that Tristan was fantastical or fictitious? And whether or not you think it a 'great lesson', it does give powerful expression to a philosophy derived from that of Schopenhauer. And before you dismiss that idea, you might at least want to contemplate the argument you ignored the last time we debated this point:



aisia said:


> Words are (I imagine you'll agree) capable of expressing philosophical thought. I can take some words which express a philosophical thought, insert them into a libretto, and set the whole to music. That way, I'd have an opera expressing a philosophical thought. Let's say I wrote an opera on the early years of Wittgenstein. In one scene, Wittgenstein could sing a few passages from the Tractatus, closing with proposition 7. At this point the accompaniment could fade out, leaving only a whistle behind, and then silence. Frank Ramsey responds 'But what we can't say, we can't say, and we can't whistle it either'. Behold, an opera expresses philosophical thought!


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Did anyone ever deny that Tristan is a fiction? As to whether it is 'exactly the same' as Indiana Jones, I must confess that I don't know what you mean. But yes, they are both fiction, and both notably fantastical. However, to begin with you seemed quite intent on denying that there were any parallels whatsoever with how humans behave. What else could have been the import of this:
> 
> And why otherwise would you have seen fit to argue with me at all, when I never once denied that Tristan was fantastical or fictitious? And whether or not you think it a 'great lesson', it does give powerful expression to a philosophy derived from that of Schopenhauer. And before you dismiss that idea, you might at least want to contemplate the argument you ignored the last time we debated this point:


'For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world.'

So it's really pointless us discussing this, according to that gentleman. So let's leave it at that. Put Tristan on and enjoy!


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> 'For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world.'
> 
> So it's really pointless us discussing this, according to that gentleman. So let's leave it at that. Put Tristan on and enjoy!


Well, at least this time you've found a cute way to accept defeat without acknowledging it, I'll give you that much.


----------



## DavidA

aisia said:


> Well, at least this time you've found a cute way to accept defeat without acknowledging it, I'll give you that much.


Glad to leave you in that happy state of self-delusion!


----------



## aisia

DavidA said:


> Glad to leave you in that happy state of self-delusion!


'Wahn! Wahn! Uberall wahn!', as one might write in a libretto if only opera were not by its very nature incapable of expressing philosophical ideas. A real shame about that, isn't it? I'm sure those words could be set to fine music...


----------



## Sid James

DavidA said:


> John Elliott Gardiner is good value on Wagner. "I really loathe Wagner - everything he stands for - and I don't even like his music very much." Pressed on why, and why he won't perform it: "It's like if you have a palate that you've developed over the years to distinguish between the best Burgundy and Côtes du Rhone - then you're suddenly given this appalling Spätlese that's actually got a fair dose of paraffin in it as well, and sheep drench - I think your palate would be ruined. That's my fear."


Just reading some of the old posts here. Didn't realise this thread had gone on this long. I remember contributing to it when it first came out.

Re the above quote by Maestro Gardiner, I think its sad how people layed into him on this thread for saying that. Its similar to how I was treated years back for expressing similarly negative sentiments on Wagner. I haved become more moderate in my views towards him now though. Or at least aimed for some balance. I even attended concerts this year which included his music. Its hard to avoid in this, the bicentenary of his birth. I also went to a talk about him, and the lecturer didn't whitewash the man, nor some of the less than savoury political overtones of his music. However, that Wagner is a genius isn't a thing I would question, or not with much ease.

I just find it beyond the pale to attack people for simply expressing an opinion, albeit colourfully and provocatively. Years back, one Wagnerite here said I had ADHD for not being able to stomach 4 or 5 hour long operas. I don't remember any people here, including Wagnerites, coming to my aid. It has shut me up ever since, unless its like this thread where criticism of The Master is called for. But I guess that's life, you speak your mind, you are liable to get any type of reaction - good, bad or ugly.

The only thing I do admire Wagner for, in terms of his personality, is his audacity. Mixed as it was with a fair bit of cunning and a huge amount of egotism. This guy had big dreams and he - through the help of others, no doubt - made them into a reality by the end of his life. That's the only thing I can take my hat of to as regards Wagner the man - his dogged determination.


----------



## KenOC

Sid James said:


> Years back, one Wagnerite here said I had ADHD for not being able to stomach 4 or 5 hour long operas.


So you can join Tchaikovsky: "Maybe the Ring is a great composition, but I have never heard anything so boring and so drawn out as this."


----------



## Couchie

Well Wagner can spin 30+ page threads of discussion from people who don't even like him. That has to count for something.

I don't like Justin Bieber, and I don't waste any time discussing him.


----------



## KenOC

This thread asks, "Why do you NOT like Wagner?" Well, beats me. Wagner's a fine guy, great to hoist a stein or two with. Just don't get him started on _*that *_subject, if you know what I mean.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I used to take it for granted that the attention span of a classical afficionado is long enough to endure three or four hours of music.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> I used to take it for granted that the attention span of a classical afficionado is long enough to endure three or four hours of music.


It's when it's not music that my attention span wanes! :devil:


----------



## Hoffmann

Sid James said:


> Just reading some of the old posts here. Didn't realise this thread had gone on this long. I remember contributing to it when it first came out.
> 
> Re the above quote by Maestro Gardiner, I think its sad how people layed into him on this thread for saying that. Its similar to how I was treated years back for expressing similarly negative sentiments on Wagner. I haved become more moderate in my views towards him now though. Or at least aimed for some balance. I even attended concerts this year which included his music. Its hard to avoid in this, the bicentenary of his birth. I also went to a talk about him, and the lecturer didn't whitewash the man, nor some of the less than savoury political overtones of his music. However, that Wagner is a genius isn't a thing I would question, or not with much ease.
> 
> I just find it beyond the pale to attack people for simply expressing an opinion, albeit colourfully and provocatively. Years back, one Wagnerite here said I had ADHD for not being able to stomach 4 or 5 hour long operas. I don't remember any people here, including Wagnerites, coming to my aid. It has shut me up ever since, unless its like this thread where criticism of The Master is called for. But I guess that's life, you speak your mind, you are liable to get any type of reaction - good, bad or ugly.
> 
> The only thing I do admire Wagner for, in terms of his personality, is his audacity. Mixed as it was with a fair bit of cunning and a huge amount of egotism. This guy had big dreams and he - through the help of others, no doubt - made them into a reality by the end of his life. That's the only thing I can take my hat of to as regards Wagner the man - his dogged determination.


For what it's worth, I have ADHD and I prefer Wagner over other composers - so that snarky comment was for naught. I've done two Ring cycles, and didn't look at my phone once.


----------



## deggial

SiegendesLicht said:


> I used to take it for granted that the attention span of a classical afficionado is long enough to endure three or four hours of music.


endure? I thought you like it


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> I used to take it for granted that the attention span of a classical afficionado is long enough to endure three or four hours of music.


I think you are mixing up classical aficionado with Wagner fanatic!


----------



## mchriste

Hi all! I am still pretty new at opera but have already developed sort of a love-hate relationship to Wagner.
I find that I can be enthralled and dismayed in turn during a single work! While I've never seen a Wagner opera live, I have listened to the Ring (yes the complete thing!), Tannhäuser, Lohengrin, Die Meistersänger von Nürnberg and Tristan und Isolde. Parsifal is on my list next. I also tried watching Der Ring des Nibelungen on DVD (Barenboim 1991) but gave up after Das Rheingold.

I think what bothers me most is the language he uses. I am Swiss, so German (or what we call "high german") is sort-of-but-not-really my native tongue. It's not that I don't like german per se, but the way Wagner uses the language just makes me cringe. To me it sounds by turns archaic, campy, turgid, misogynistic and just plain silly. Some of my favorite (not!) terms that keep occurring: "fromm", "hold/holder", "Wonne", "Minne"... Essentially, I can't stand Wagner's poetry. Yet I have no problem listening to poetic opera language in French, Italian or English. But the music, ahh... the music...

TL;DR: I love Wagner the composer but hate Wagner the librettist. To be provocative: Wagner would be awesome if the singers would just SHUT UP (or rather hum instead of sing...) as they distract me from the beauty of the melody!


----------



## superhorn

Mchriste, I know German very welll even though I'm an American . I can understand your discomfiture with Wagner's archaic use of German, but remember, Tannhauser, Lohengrin , and Parsifal tke place in the medieval era , so he was trying to recapture nd evoke ancient usage of the language . 
I rather like it .


----------



## Sid James

SiegendesLicht said:


> I used to take it for granted that the attention span of a classical afficionado is long enough to endure three or four hours of music.


I'd say that's too long for the average classical listener. Judging by the fact that instrumental music is far more popular than vocal, in terms of classical as a whole. So the length of a standard orchestral concert, which is maybe two hours (slightly more than that with interval), would correlate with most people's endurance in terms of time.

Wagner asks a lot of his audience - as well as his orchestral players, singers, conductor, the lot. He's no more a typical composer of opera than Havergal Brian is of symphonies, with his over 2 hour long Gothic Symphony. I've said this many times here. It doesn't matter if a composer is typical of a genre or not. But the amount of times I had my dislike of Wagner shoved in my face as some supposed deficiency is quite a lot. I've had a gutful (even though these days we don't get that so much on the forum, thank goodness) and applying basic logical and critical thinking to this fallacy just totally kills it.



Hoffmann said:


> For what it's worth, I have ADHD and I prefer Wagner over other composers - so that snarky comment was for naught. I've done two Ring cycles, and didn't look at my phone once.


Well I tend to forget things on this forum, even unpleasant things like that, but that really stood out. Its not only an insult to my intelligence (or anybody's at the end of such insults) but also to people like you who have that condition. Its just low, but of course best thing is to ignore it.


----------



## Posie

And how plausible is Romeo & Juliet? Shakespeare sucks.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say that Shakespeare sucks. Romeo and Juliet, the play definitely sucks, far from being his best work.


----------



## Zabirilog

mchriste said:


> I also tried watching Der Ring des Nibelungen on DVD (Barenboim 1991) but gave up after Das Rheingold.


You.have.to.watch.it.!!!!!!


----------



## Logos

Some have spoken about disliking the 'fantasy' element of the Ring and the religious obsession with objects with swords, spears, etc. This is rather missing the point. Leaving aside the word 'fantasy' in this application, which is an unsuitable 20th century paperback marketing term, these elements are part of all mythologies--symbolic or holy weapons, oaths, ritualistic encounters, narrative repetition. By using these devices Wagner is being true to the character of the mythological setting. 

When I read earlier in the thread someone objecting to the quasi-religious obsession with weapons, I could only say to myself "that obsession is indeed quasi-religious, as it occurs within the mythology." Of course Wagner reforms the mythology a great deal, but then again, so did Hesiod and other myth-compilers throughout history.

As to the length of the Ring, in my own listening I was struck by the briskness of the narrative. I think the narrative repetitions of the characters make some feel that it drags, but these repetitions are part of the epic form and aid those hearing for the first time in following the story, and also aid in memorization those who have heard before.


----------



## Logos

I think those who ascribe to the creed of "art for art's sake" usually dislike Wagner. I mean those persons who think that the content or subject of art is largely unimportant, and that beauty, form, line, color, sensory impressions, etc. are the vital thing.

How did the creed of "art for art's sake" come about? When the old religious and political institutions collapsed, they took with them the subject matter for most great art--the veneration of religious subjects, and the celebration of political power. These were gone, yet there were still artists. What subject could the artist legitimately choose in a fragmented world? Monolithic religion had been undermined by science, philosophy, and theological wrangling, and so as a subject it seemed dead. Great monarchies and aristocracies had been destroyed by revolution, and so they too were out. 

Eventually society became so pluralistically topsy-turvy, and social and religious institutions seemed so decrepit and unworthy of representation that some artists gave up on having a subject at all--hence, abstract art. Mere sensory impression reigning supreme. These artists and their ideological fathers like Walter Pater taught that emotion and living in transitory sensations of the moment were the great thing in art (and life) rather than any underlying idea or subject. 

Wagner clearly disagreed with all this. He believed art had a definite social and historical purpose--to cultivate men and society and make them great. I think it is not only because Wagner held political ideas about art contrary to those of modern, liberal aesthetes, but the fact that he had any strong ideas about art's purpose in society at all, and that he in his art obviously believed in content. The definite presence of ideological content in art is itself hateful to them. They desire only highly refined impressions, malleable to the fragmented, pluralistic, liberal society in which they live. They do not desire art that states anything, or even one that subtly suggests a definite ideology, much less an often powerfully yearning, social art like Wagner's, an art that compels and declaims with very unmodern confidence. 

"But the individual man, in full possession of health of body, heart and mind, can experience no higher need than that which is common to all his kind; for, to be a True Need it can only be such a one as he can satisfy in Community alone." --Richard Wagner 

This was no member or the aesthete's "art for art's sake" crowd that demands an art void of content that reflects the void of content in their own fragmented, modern lives.


----------



## superhorn

What a pity that a musician of Gardiner's stature could be so blind to the greatness of Wagner .
His wine comparison is not just ludicrous, but pathetic . I hope he will see the light some day
and possibly have his Saul to Paul conversion . He might be a gret Wagner conductor if not fror
his willful blindness .


----------



## Itullian

Well, for someone that strips music of all its warmth, soul and heart (Gardiner) I would expect nothing less.


----------



## TxllxT

Itullian said:


> Well, for someone that strips music of all its warmth, soul and heart (Gardiner) I would expect nothing less.


Well, well, I take this as quite a _Lederhosen_ statement. The point is that Gardiner obviously doesn't like Bavarian beer: his comparison of Wagner & wine does unjustice to this North-of-the-Alps composer. Talking for myself: I prefer Czech beer over Bavarian brews, but dislike Smetana (the Czech follower of the younger Wagner) even more than the _Meister_.


----------



## Logos

TxllxT said:


> Well, well, I take this as quite a _Lederhosen_ statement. The point is that Gardiner obviously doesn't like Bavarian beer: his comparison of Wagner & wine does unjustice to this North-of-the-Alps composer. Talking for myself: I prefer Czech beer over Bavarian brews, but dislike Smetana (the Czech follower of the younger Wagner) even more than the _Meister_.


I don't see why man should advertise his sottishness in the first place with all this talk of drink. :cheers: :scold:


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> I think those who ascribe to the creed of "art for art's sake" usually dislike Wagner. I mean those persons who think that the content or subject of art is largely unimportant, and that beauty, form, line, color, sensory impressions, etc. are the vital thing. [..etc etc etc].


I'm not sure which is most awry here: your notions of 'liberal', or 'abstract art', or the development of art over x 100 years which you compress and distort. Whatever Walter Pater thought and wrote, I wouldn't cast him as the Single Great Villain in the War Between Artists of the World over Form v Content...or Wagner as his Significant Nemesis.


----------



## Logos

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure which is most awry here: your notions of 'liberal', or 'abstract art', or the development of art over x 100 years which you compress and distort. Whatever Walter Pater thought and wrote, I wouldn't cast him as the Single Great Villain in the War Between Artists of the World over Form v Content...or Wagner as his Significant Nemesis.


Single great villain? I said ideological fathers like Pater, meaning that there are several 'villains'. He was a typical case. Perhaps you could actually make a counter-argument instead of simply disagreeing.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Perhaps you could actually make a counter-argument instead of simply disagreeing.


It's difficult to know where to start when I disagree with almost all of your post. There is no counter-argument that can easily be made to reject a proposition based on erroneous definitions and assumptions. For example, in the context of this thread, you set up a false dichotomy between 'those who dislike Wagner' as fans of 'art for art's sake' (AFAS) and, presumably, those who like Wagner as fans of whatever the opposite of AFAS is. I doubt that such a correlation exists at either end of the pro-anti spectrum. Even if it did (or does now), you might take the trouble to evidence it from members' posts. Why not quote someone who has said why they dislike Wagner and who has also shown that they like AFAS? Or ask them to elaborate on their other likes and then we might all see if such a correlation exists.

First, of course, you'll have to offer a better analysis of AFAS than a broad generalisation about the collapse of sources of worthy content (eg religion) and the rise of content-free art as a result of the 'undermining' of science etc...


----------



## Logos

MacLeod said:


> First, of course, you'll have to offer a better analysis of AFAS than a broad generalisation about the collapse of sources of worthy content (eg religion) and the rise of content-free art as a result of the 'undermining' of science etc...


Again, you say my argument is wrong, but you offer no counter argument. Saying to one's opponent in a debate "make better argument and then I'll respond" is just not the way it's done. If my argument is bad, demolish it point by point, agree with it, offer a different interpretation of the facts, do something besides making bland announcements that contribute nothing.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Again, you say my argument is wrong, but you offer no counter argument. Saying to one's opponent in a debate "make better argument and then I'll respond" is just not the way it's done. If my argument is bad, demolish it point by point, agree with it, offer a different interpretation of the facts, do something besides making bland announcements that contribute nothing.


I will contribute how I wish.

You're entitled to your opinion on my contribution, but I would say that a broad rebuttal can be 'something'. Not all arguments have to be rejected point by point. In any case, I have rejected some of your specific points on the gounds that they are not argued with supportive evidence: they are just assertions. By all means reject my argument as bland counter assertions, but don't assume the highground is yours when you yourself offer bland assertions in the first place.


----------



## Logos

MacLeod said:


> I will contribute how I wish.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion on my contribution, but I would say that a broad rebuttal can be 'something'. Not all arguments have to be rejected point by point. In any case, I have rejected some of your specific points on the gounds that they are not argued with supportive evidence: they are just assertions. By all means reject my argument as bland counter assertions, but don't assume the highground is yours when you yourself offer bland assertions in the first place.


Telling someone you reject their case for a lack of evidence is not in itself an alternative explanation/scenario/case. I want to hear your case. A rebuttal should be made only when both parties have presented their cases. You never presented a case. You only rebutted. Not really fair seeing as how I can't rebut your case since you never made one.


----------



## deggial

Logos said:


> Some have spoken about disliking the 'fantasy' element of the Ring and the religious obsession with objects with swords, spears, etc. This is rather missing the point. Leaving aside the word 'fantasy' in this application, which is an unsuitable 20th century paperback marketing term, these elements are part of all mythologies--symbolic or holy weapons, oaths, ritualistic encounters, narrative repetition. *By using these devices Wagner is being true to the character of the mythological setting.*


I for one have an issue with the mythological setting itself. I don't care about gods, cupids, hell hounds, water nymphs, magical rings etc. I occasionally put up with them in Baroque opera, but they are by far my least favourite elements. I like real people in real situations or at the very least quasi-real situations. I do think there is a place in culture for mythology. It's just I find the metaphors tedious and uninteresting and I'd rather have a less complex, even trivial plot centred on mundane relationships with real people having to make difficult decisions and usually failing abysmally or being horribly and unfairly opposed by bad luck. It's no more complicated than that.


----------



## Logos

deggial said:


> I for one have an issue with the mythological setting itself. I don't care about gods, cupids, hell hounds, water nymphs, magical rings etc. I occasionally put up with them in Baroque opera, but they are by far my least favourite elements. I like real people in real situations or at the very least quasi-real situations. I do think there is a place in culture for mythology. It's just I find the metaphors tedious and uninteresting and I'd rather have a less complex, even trivial plot centred on mundane relationships with real people having to make difficult decisions and usually failing abysmally or being horribly and unfairly opposed by bad luck. It's no more complicated than that.


One can't understand real people unless understands history, and one can't understand history unless one understands historical religion. That is, mythology. To put one's mind in a mythological frame of understanding is to enter into deep sympathy with real people of past times, which can only help one interpret present times. One can't know what man is or can be unless one knows what he has been and felt. That's the whole purpose of historical study.

Of course the vulgarian's argument that one should simply be entertained is hardly worth addressing in my view. Day to day life is entertaining and ridiculous enough. No theater required.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> A rebuttal should be made only when both parties have presented their cases.


Ooh! You're very strict! And you're 'wrong' inasmuch as what 'should' happen is not laid down anywhere and people who post here can conduct themselves in any way they wish (in accordance with the Ts and Cs of course).

Now, you have made a set of unsubstantiated assertions, and I have rejected them generally and one or two of them specifically. What you 'should' do is to offer some substantiation to support your argument, not complain that I've not substantiated my counter. I'm not the one who is putting forward a thesis about AFAS and Wagner.


----------



## Logos

MacLeod said:


> I'm not the one who is putting forward a thesis about AFAS and Wagner.


Precisely, and that's the problem. I can't engage one whose statements amount to nothing more than a collective, adolescent "nuh-uh!" If you don't want to present a case, why bother to announce your disagreement in the first place? Do you think your unqualified views are interesting in themselves?

Do you participate in political discussions by listening to one man's argument, blandly saying "no, provide more evidence and do better next time", and then walk away? What good does that do anybody? Someone gives you their case, and you don't give anything back except a judgment on their case. You should be a participant offering your own case, not the high lord judge passing judgment without being judged, or a teacher grading my paper and then handing it back to me so I can improve it. Let's see your paper, and I'll be your teacher for a change. It's magnificently arrogant and rude to an almost silly degree.


----------



## Mahlerian

Logos said:


> Precisely, and that's the problem. I can't engage one whose statements amount to nothing more than a collective, adolescent "nuh-uh!" If you don't want to present a case, why bother to announce your disagreement in the first place? Do you think your unqualified views are interesting in themselves?


Okay, then how about this: most of the modernists you despise were and are Wagnerites. Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Messiaen...they all looked to Wagner and his music for inspiration. Your whole argument is based on a false supposition, and thus merits no further comment.

But on top of that, what about the religious music composed by people like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Messiaen? Is it not tied into those social structures to which you refer?


----------



## Logos

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, then how about this: most of the modernists you despise were and are Wagnerites. Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Messiaen...they all looked to Wagner and his music for inspiration. Your whole argument is based on a false supposition, and thus merits no further comment.


You'll notice that the word music did not once appear in the post which you are addressing. Most of those men are only Wagnerites musically, not ideologically like a Houston Stewart Chamberlain figure. I'm talking about the true believers in Wagnerian political and artistic ideology and those who reject it, not the merely formal questions of musical expression. The men you mentioned were largely Wagnerites in the same sense that Marx was a Hegelian--through emptying the content of his ideas and retaining only the dialectical process. They retained Wagnerian musical idioms in the same way atheists like verdi still wrote requiems.

The fact that trained musicians can appreciate music without agreeing with the ideas it represents is true, but the main point is that _they don't agree with what it represents_. How could they, what with modernism's largely jewish origins? And of course, many don't like the music because they can't get past the ideology, like Mr. Gardiner.

The anecdotal observation that there are ostensibly religious artworks made today doesn't disprove the larger reality that reverential religious art makes up an infinitesimally small part of today's output as compared with past centuries. In painting, the change is even more marked. You think that by finding a mud puddle of an oasis that you can say a desert isn't a desert. But it's still a desert.


----------



## Logos

Oh dear, I think I killed this thread.


----------



## Mahlerian

Logos said:


> Oh dear, I think I killed this thread.


Did you actually want me to respond to you? Your entire post consisted of denying mine, and contains untruths (referring to the "Jewish origins" of Modernism) as well as unsubstantiated weasel words (ostensibly religious artworks). I felt there was no point. If you don't want to present a case, why bother to announce your disagreement in the first place?


----------



## Logos

Mahlerian said:


> Did you actually want me to respond to you? Your entire post consisted of denying mine, and contains untruths (referring to the "Jewish origins" of Modernism) as well as unsubstantiated weasel words (ostensibly religious artworks). I felt there was no point. If you don't want to present a case, why bother to announce your disagreement in the first place?


I cannot help but deny your post--I thought it was wrong. What do you want? A Willkie button? Be truthful now, are Jews are not vastly over-represented in the modern arts today, as they were in the 19th century? And many religious artworks today do merely make use of religious iconography for the purpose of mutilating it, contemning it, distorting, ridiculing it. I can call these religious only in an ostensible sense, and that is probably too generous already.

Originally, I argued people dislike Wagner because because they find his stentorian ideology oppressive and contrary to their liberal understanding of the world. You then named a lot of composers who disliked his ideology and merely pilfered his music as every subsequent composer did. What of it?


----------



## Mahlerian

Logos said:


> I cannot help but deny your post--I thought it was wrong. What do you want? A Willkie button? Be truthful now, are Jews are not vastly over-represented in the modern arts today, as they were in the 19th century?


No, they are not. Ligeti, Schoenberg, and Babbitt were Jewish, but not Boulez, Cage, Messiaen, Takemitsu, Carter, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, and countless other prominent names. Debussy, by many musicologists considered among the first modernists, was not Jewish.

And I don't believe that there are many Jews among the prominent 19th century composers, either. Other than Mendelssohn, Mahler, and Meyerbeer, the rest have fallen into cult status (and including Meyerbeer here is perhaps too generous).

I can't help but fail to see this Jewish cabal you're talking about.



Logos said:


> And many religious artworks today do merely make use of religious iconography for the purpose of mutilating it, contemning it, distorting, ridiculing it. I can call these religious only in an ostensible sense, and that is probably too generous already.


I am not referring to the use of religious symbols appropriated for other purposes. I am referring specifically to works composed with the intent of expressing religious devotion, such as the Mass and choral works of Stravinsky, the organ works of Messiaen, and the Modern Psalm of Schoenberg, for which he wrote the text as well as the music. These do nothing to condemn, distort, or ridicule religious iconography. There are also works written by atheists on Christian themes, like Vaughan Williams' Mass in G minor, which are reverential towards tradition.



Logos said:


> Originally, I argued people dislike Wagner because because they find his stentorian ideology oppressive and contrary to their liberal understanding of the world. You then named a lot of composers who disliked his ideology and merely pilfered his music as every subsequent composer did. What of it?


Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Messiaen were politically very conservative (in Stravinsky's case, leaning towards fascist). Eisler, Nono, and Copland were prominently liberal in their views. Both sides were interested in art that is expressive of ideas in addition to abstract art (as much as Stravinsky loved to deny it), but _especially_ Nono and Messiaen, the former from an explicitly Marxist/Communist and the latter from a devout Catholic point of view.

Of that list, only Stravinsky (neither liberal nor Jewish) ever claimed to disdain music that is expressive of extramusical ideas (and he wrote it anyway).


----------



## Logos

Mahlerian said:


> And I don't believe that there are many Jews among the prominent 19th century composers, either. Other than Mendelssohn, Mahler, and Meyerbeer, the rest have fallen into cult status (and including Meyerbeer here is perhaps too generous). I can't help but fail to see this Jewish cabal you're talking about.
> 
> I am not referring to the use of religious symbols appropriated for other purposes. I am referring specifically to works composed with the intent of expressing religious devotion, such as the Mass and choral works of Stravinsky, the organ works of Messiaen, and the Modern Psalm of Schoenberg, for which he wrote the text as well as the music. These do nothing to condemn, distort, or ridicule religious iconography. There are also works written by atheists on Christian themes, like Vaughan Williams' Mass in G minor, which are reverential towards tradition.


You toss off the names of Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer, when in fact these were for a time the most celebrated musicians on earth. They were not two more composers in a roll call: Meyerbeer's praises were wafted to the high heavens. Of course the absolute number of Jewish composers is not germane--the important thing is the _proportion_ in relation to the general population. It is by this measure we can say that Jewish critics and journalists were over-represented in the press, just as Jewish music publishers were over-represented in that capacity. Can we pretend that these facts had no influence on the ascendancy of those composers like Brahms who purposefully cultivated ties to Jewish audiences? Or that men like Meyerbeer were not in many instances aided by the men of his race? I never spoke of a cabal or a concerted conspiracy--men will favor other men of their race without any special planning coordination. On the other hand, to pretend that no bias was exhibited by the press and publishers would be absurd.

My first argument was tied to modernism in general, not only in music. Again, the absolute number of Jews participating is of no concern. Proportionally, they are over-represented in the modern arts. This is understandable, the Jews as a people, being outsiders in western nations, cannot bring themselves to fully join the western tradition. When the Jews were still a religious people, they clung to their faith, but as this was undermined by science, higher criticism and classical liberalism, this crumbled. Much more so than Christianity, orthodox Judaism with its obsessive legalism is irreconcilable with liberalism, and so it crumbled all the quicker and more completely. Now not only were they a people without a nation, but they were without a faith. It takes no great psychologist to understand that a man whose icons have been taken away from him, is unwilling to see other men retain their own icons--or to phrase it differently, the man who cannot believe in icons becomes an iconoclast.

Iconoclasm is the key note of all modernism--emptiness and the making empty of all dearly held traditions, the destruction of foundations. Through this all the barren disease of art for art's sake is spread, and no doubt this is why all minorities and those who feel culturally shut out are attracted to modernism. They join the culture of anti-culture: the bizarre, the twisted, the empty, the sick, the murky, the unformed. They defile and attempt to tear down the temple into which they can never enter.

As for the anecdotal instances of religious works, are they exceptions, or are they the rule? If one is honest, one must concede that one the whole that modern art has been anything but favorable towards religion.

It's true some men like T. S. Eliot adopted modernism as a language to speak to the modern world in order to reform it. This was a mistake--one can't teach a baby to talk by babbling to it in its own infantile language any more than one can demonstrate to an insane man his own insanity with insane ravings. Likewise, to reform the modern world through modernism is a fool's errand.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Oh dear, I think I killed this thread.


Never mind. It wasn't a very profitable one, and getting worse by the minute.


----------



## pwdemars

Frankly I just haven't given the man time yet. I could not say that I like or dislike him, because I've not yet offered up an afternoon to listening to an opera in its entirety. Sorry Richard.


----------



## Couchie

pwdemars said:


> Frankly I just haven't given the man time yet. I could not say that I like or dislike him, because I've not yet offered up an afternoon to listening to an opera in its entirety. Sorry Richard.


Imagine if you died tomorrow and you hadn't heard the Ring Cycle. I should say you had never lived.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Imagine if you died tomorrow and you hadn't heard the Ring Cycle. I should say you had never lived.


Please note then that, according to your good self, the vast majority of people on this planet will die without ever living!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> Please note then that, according to your good self, the vast majority of people on this planet will die without ever living!


The majority of people live their life and die without experiencing a lot of the good things life has to offer, including the Ring Cycle.


----------



## Copperears

Resurrecting (appropriately) this thread, just so I can be subscribed and read it all in its fascinatingly Wagnerian elaboration.

A few purely personal perceptions of my own, based on a lifelong struggle with my combined fascination with and abhorrence of Wagner's music. Please, these are not truths, just my struggle. I'll start simple and work my way down.

Wagner, not Kavalier and Clay, was the inventor of the comic book superhero. His mad mythological obsessions, not unique to him but characteristic of the period, led to creating really big, colorful but ultimately melodramatically simple, psychologically speaking, characters. There is complex struggle but it is usually with a few giant dramatic things writ large.

There's enough evidence, I think, of Wagner like Hitler of having been of Jewish origin, in a culture that had been sustainedly hostile to us Yids for so long that it produced a world-historically destructive impulse in these two men to repudiate the core of their own identities, in a massive attempt to assimilate completely once and for all. Call it the unbearable heaviness of being Jewish. While a generation previous it was enough for Mendelssohn to convert, not by Wagner's time, and certainly not by Hitler's. Thus the profound obsession with death and purification, combined, in an almost Hindu intensity, with powerful fantasies of dissolution and annihilation. I actually think sometimes that Wagner was the precondition for Hitler, and if someone could have stepped back in time and given Wagner a message about what happens when the art is effective enough to cause life to imitate it, it would have been: "DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM!". Wagner and Hitler gave a people who were collectively the Jews of the European nations after WWI a target to externalize all their feelings of inadequacy and failure onto. How sad for all of them, and for us, their inevitable victims. Try not to do this again, anywhere.

Ok to the music: it is simultaneously glorious and unbearable. It dissolves all the principles of order that came before it, and proceeds with a willingness to abandon all restraint for the sake of innovation. It captures the sense of infinite vista and possibility and a break with all previous history implicit present in the advent of the industrial age. Wagner is like Henry Adams in this way. It is totalitarian music, and I say that in a logical and not political sense. It embodies the belief that everything can be integrated into one universal and coherent system of progress, that both sustains and dissolves the individuality within it. Prior to the failures that totalitarianism led to, it is actually utopian and idealistic in the extreme. All is possible, there is no impossibility. Serialism is in some ways the death of the Wagnerian Utopian Dream. The music recognizes both the destructive and creative elements inherent in such a belief, and actually elaborates both, in musical form. It's not in the story or the drama but in the music itself that this cycliNg of opposites takes place. It is fundamentally dialectical in nature, insisting upon the inevitability of resolution while at the same time refusing it.

Orchestrally and operatically, I find Wagner's work fills the ear like much of late-19th century music, and this is what can make it unbearable. As with Mahler, even in its silences it is relentless. There is as much delicacy as there is melodrama, but neither is ever a resting point for very long. So, it can be an exhausting experience, especially if you give it your full, sustained, uninterrupted attention. Again, this is where Wagner and say recent X-Men movies come together in my mind.

Ultimately, for me, the result can end up being either impatience, or a kind of complete swoon in the arms of an excessive embrace. There is no middle ground, ironic for a music that is so middle-class. At the same time that it is high-bourgeois in context and audience, though, it is also revolutionary repudiation of bourgeois complacency. At the historical precipice of the sudden, dramatic dissolution of the successes and progress of middle class culture, economics and nationalist form, it presages that cultural moment's imminent dissolution in the apocalyptic catastrophes of the ensuing World Wars.

This is why X-Men movies worry me now. The moment is all too familiar.


----------



## Copperears

Logos said:


> I think those who ascribe to the creed of "art for art's sake" usually dislike Wagner. I mean those persons who think that the content or subject of art is largely unimportant, and that beauty, form, line, color, sensory impressions, etc. are the vital thing.
> 
> How did the creed of "art for art's sake" come about? When the old religious and political institutions collapsed, they took with them the subject matter for most great art--the veneration of religious subjects, and the celebration of political power. These were gone, yet there were still artists. What subject could the artist legitimately choose in a fragmented world? Monolithic religion had been undermined by science, philosophy, and theological wrangling, and so as a subject it seemed dead. Great monarchies and aristocracies had been destroyed by revolution, and so they too were out.
> 
> Eventually society became so pluralistically topsy-turvy, and social and religious institutions seemed so decrepit and unworthy of representation that some artists gave up on having a subject at all--hence, abstract art. Mere sensory impression reigning supreme. These artists and their ideological fathers like Walter Pater taught that emotion and living in transitory sensations of the moment were the great thing in art (and life) rather than any underlying idea or subject.
> 
> Wagner clearly disagreed with all this. He believed art had a definite social and historical purpose--to cultivate men and society and make them great. I think it is not only because Wagner held political ideas about art contrary to those of modern, liberal aesthetes, but the fact that he had any strong ideas about art's purpose in society at all, and that he in his art obviously believed in content. The definite presence of ideological content in art is itself hateful to them. They desire only highly refined impressions, malleable to the fragmented, pluralistic, liberal society in which they live. They do not desire art that states anything, or even one that subtly suggests a definite ideology, much less an often powerfully yearning, social art like Wagner's, an art that compels and declaims with very unmodern confidence.
> 
> "But the individual man, in full possession of health of body, heart and mind, can experience no higher need than that which is common to all his kind; for, to be a True Need it can only be such a one as he can satisfy in Community alone." --Richard Wagner
> 
> This was no member or the aesthete's "art for art's sake" crowd that demands an art void of content that reflects the void of content in their own fragmented, modern lives.


Funny, I feel compelled to respond to this, as a complete, degenerate aesthete. 

I think Wagner is closer to Mallarmé than you suggest; Schopenhauer's ponderous, turgid philosophical writings, so very late-19th-century, nevertheless have at their core the tenets of Buddhism, which insist upon the simultaneous resignation of all will in the face of the mutability of reality (attachment, to anyone or anything, is the fundamental source of suffering, just let it all go, man....), and upon the recognition of will (urge, demiourgos, Hegel and Jung's "world soul," Freud's id, Lacan's differance....) as inevitably and inescapably at the core of what it means to be conscious, to exist, to self-perceive. A simplification of Buddhism's emphasis on detachment: "mushrooms live in bliss.". Of its understanding of will: "there is only the moment, that is all that exists, all else is Maya [not a Buddhist term, I like to mix 'n match]."

I can listen to Wagner endlessly as pure music, completely devoid of the distractions of the text, simply an arbitrary armature to hang the swords and armor on. Whatever the research and history, that's all the characters and story are: pretexts for the music. For those who can't be in the moment of each and every note, the pretext sustains attention, in the hope you will stay awake and have a moment of being able to listen along the way.

I suspect Wagner inhaled this dynamic in translated Buddhism and it suffused all he did and was. One suffers to achieve detachment. AKA: Liebestod. Orgasm, the little death, as it was called in Shakespeare's Renaissance; culmination and simultaneous release. The salmon has swum upstream to spawn, and die.


----------



## Posie

I had a Music Lit. professor who referred to the libretto for die Walküre as diarrhea-of-the-mouth. I can see why.

HojotohoOOO! HojotohoOOO!  Translation: "Hey! I'm over here!" "Hey, we're over here!"

Repeat.


----------



## Copperears

Just as long as I'm not "over-representing myself"...... you know, the quota that determines how many words and creative things Jews can contribute assigned by some secret law...... (cf. some really odd comments up-thread).

I will postulate that the libretti, the staging, Bayreuth, all of it, was just one giant prank Wagner committed on both his audience and his potential gay lover, the Mad King. Keep them distracted, so he can get the chance to write the music unmolested.

And generations have been taken in ever since, how sad.

It's best not to take anything too literally, it just ends up causing a lot of trouble, clearly.  

Or seriously, for that matter!

That's why I don't like Wagner, managed to hoodwink a whole bunch of folks and got away with it....


----------



## alan davis

Being a relatively new member of Talk Classical and someone who often describes himself as having a short attention span, I had no desire to plow through the 35 pages of this thread. Then I noticed it is about why you "DISLIKE" Wagner so I intend to flee from here post haste removing even the dust from my shoes. I'll leave you who dwell in darkness to yourselves.


----------



## Couac Addict

Let's see. 
He owned the yacht that Natalie Wood "fell" overboard from....erm...then he wrote an opera about it with Senta plunging into the sea...erm...so that wasn't cool.

...but mostly, I don't like Wagner because he was Dr. Evil's right-hand man.
That Wotan disguise is fooling no one.


----------



## Revenant

Couac Addict said:


> Let's see.
> He owned the yacht that Natalie Wood "fell" overboard from....erm...then he wrote an opera about it with Senta plunging into the sea...erm...so that wasn't cool.
> 
> ...but mostly, I don't like Wagner because he was Dr. Evil's right-hand man.
> That Wotan disguise is fooling no one.


There is also the Liebestod link in one of his early movies, A Kiss Before Dying.


----------



## TxllxT

Copperears said:


> Resurrecting (appropriately) this thread, just so I can be subscribed and read it all in its fascinatingly Wagnerian elaboration.
> 
> A few purely personal perceptions of my own, based on a lifelong struggle with my combined fascination with and abhorrence of Wagner's music. Please, these are not truths, just my struggle. I'll start simple and work my way down.
> 
> Wagner, not Kavalier and Clay, was the inventor of the comic book superhero. His mad mythological obsessions, not unique to him but characteristic of the period, led to creating really big, colorful but ultimately melodramatically simple, psychologically speaking, characters. There is complex struggle but it is usually with a few giant dramatic things writ large.
> 
> There's enough evidence, I think, of Wagner like Hitler of having been of Jewish origin, in a culture that had been sustainedly hostile to us Yids for so long that it produced a world-historically destructive impulse in these two men to repudiate the core of their own identities, in a massive attempt to assimilate completely once and for all. Call it the unbearable heaviness of being Jewish. While a generation previous it was enough for Mendelssohn to convert, not by Wagner's time, and certainly not by Hitler's. Thus the profound obsession with death and purification, combined, in an almost Hindu intensity, with powerful fantasies of dissolution and annihilation. I actually think sometimes that Wagner was the precondition for Hitler, and if someone could have stepped back in time and given Wagner a message about what happens when the art is effective enough to cause life to imitate it, it would have been: "DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM!". Wagner and Hitler gave a people who were collectively the Jews of the European nations after WWI a target to externalize all their feelings of inadequacy and failure onto. How sad for all of them, and for us, their inevitable victims. Try not to do this again, anywhere.
> 
> Ok to the music: it is simultaneously glorious and unbearable. It dissolves all the principles of order that came before it, and proceeds with a willingness to abandon all restraint for the sake of innovation. It captures the sense of infinite vista and possibility and a break with all previous history implicit present in the advent of the industrial age. Wagner is like Henry Adams in this way. It is totalitarian music, and I say that in a logical and not political sense. It embodies the belief that everything can be integrated into one universal and coherent system of progress, that both sustains and dissolves the individuality within it. Prior to the failures that totalitarianism led to, it is actually utopian and idealistic in the extreme. All is possible, there is no impossibility. Serialism is in some ways the death of the Wagnerian Utopian Dream. The music recognizes both the destructive and creative elements inherent in such a belief, and actually elaborates both, in musical form. It's not in the story or the drama but in the music itself that this cycliNg of opposites takes place. It is fundamentally dialectical in nature, insisting upon the inevitability of resolution while at the same time refusing it.
> 
> Orchestrally and operatically, I find Wagner's work fills the ear like much of late-19th century music, and this is what can make it unbearable. As with Mahler, even in its silences it is relentless. There is as much delicacy as there is melodrama, but neither is ever a resting point for very long. So, it can be an exhausting experience, especially if you give it your full, sustained, uninterrupted attention. Again, this is where Wagner and say recent X-Men movies come together in my mind.
> 
> Ultimately, for me, the result can end up being either impatience, or a kind of complete swoon in the arms of an excessive embrace. There is no middle ground, ironic for a music that is so middle-class. At the same time that it is high-bourgeois in context and audience, though, it is also revolutionary repudiation of bourgeois complacency. At the historical precipice of the sudden, dramatic dissolution of the successes and progress of middle class culture, economics and nationalist form, it presages that cultural moment's imminent dissolution in the apocalyptic catastrophes of the ensuing World Wars.
> 
> This is why X-Men movies worry me now. The moment is all too familiar.


Imagine a sleepy country full of _Biedermeier_ houses, _Biedermeier_ people and _Biedermeier_ furniture, where everybody is happy & merry, greeting each other during their daily walks & everybody is piously attending church on Sundays where people massively sing beautiful hymns by heart on famous tunes from Johann Sebastian Bach.
Now imagine a country where _Herr_ Krupp is producing a silvery river of steel and masses of young people are being drafted into the army; they get a drilling, learn how to march in goose-step & hail _Der Kaiser_.
Romantic peaceful Germany, being scattered around in small-scale _Fachwerk_ villages: the residence of the German soul. Modern martial Germany, producing shiploads of _Panzerschiffe_: the drilling ground for the German body. Now try to unite this Germany. 
Richard Wagner tried to accomplish exactly this in his _Gesamtkunstwerk_, which in itself already shows the ongoing adulation of UNITY. Are you willing to offer your life for UNITY? Well, I guess that Wagnerlovers do (wholeheartedly!) and the Wagnerweary don't.

The reference to X-Men movies I do not understand; I see the overall influence of 'movies' declining rapidly (or do you regard small screen, cheap production YouTube stuff as movies?)


----------



## Copperears

That's a really interesting way of looking at it, thank you!

I only think of the X-Men movies (or others based on Marvel, basically comic book characters) because in terms of the blockbuster nature the medium has become in its most pervasive form, it begins to take on the same qualities of scale, melodrama, extremist emotional intensity and impossible situations teetering always right at the maximum excitement edge of disaster that I also get from Wagner. Boils down simply to an experience of everything _AND_ the kitchen sink pushed to the point where it's all simply going to collapse from its own weight at some point. Or prove tedious and overburdensome, alternatively.


----------



## Mahlerian

Copperears said:


> That's a really interesting way of looking at it, thank you!
> 
> I only think of the X-Men movies (or others based on Marvel, basically comic book characters) because in terms of the blockbuster nature the medium has become in its most pervasive form, it begins to take on the same qualities of scale, melodrama, extremist emotional intensity and impossible situations teetering always right at the maximum excitement edge of disaster that I also get from Wagner. Boils down simply to an experience of everything _AND_ the kitchen sink pushed to the point where it's all simply going to collapse from its own weight at some point. Or prove tedious and overburdensome, alternatively.


Wagner actually did a great job of boiling the absurd theatrics of 19th century opera down into a more plausible emotional/psychological form. His conception of drama may not have been able to exist without Meyerbeer, but in every conceivable way he surpasses his inspiration. The drama of Wagner's works may seem over-intense, but he does an excellent job of putting everything on a human level.

And comparing plots, well...

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


----------



## Aramis

Mahlerian said:


> Wagner actually did a great job of boiling the absurd theatrics of 19th century opera down into a more plausible emotional/psychological form


I'd rather say he did a great job of boiling the absurd theatrics of 19th century opera down into absurd theatrics of Wagnerian opera. I don't think there is single operatic absurd that Wagner renounced without replacing it with no lesser absurd of his own.


----------



## Blancrocher

Aramis said:


> I'd rather say he did a great job of boiling the absurd theatrics of 19th century opera down into absurd theatrics of Wagnerian opera. I don't think there is single operatic absurd that Wagner renounced without replacing it with no lesser absurd of his own.


You put one lousy sword fight with a dragon in an opera, and it's all anyone ever wants to talk about...


----------



## Mahlerian

Aramis said:


> I'd rather say he did a great job of boiling the absurd theatrics of 19th century opera down into absurd theatrics of Wagnerian opera. I don't think there is single operatic absurd that Wagner renounced without replacing it with no lesser absurd of his own.


Do you have a clue what I'm referring to?

Grand opera as a genre was entirely about spectacle. The librettos were melodramatic, overwrought nonsense piled high with coincidences that determine the fate of the world, usually with a pair of star-crossed lovers at the core. It's like the 19th century version of the movie Titanic: a historical tragedy used for cheap emotional fodder to heighten a trite love story.

Wagner's librettos usually deal with events on a smaller scale that, despite the mythic backdrop, delve more deeply into its characters as human. Even in Gotterdammerung, the only mature Wagner opera that approaches the style of grand opera in its plot, the formula is practically reversed. We are presented with a setting that distances us from the action rather than drawing us in, and the love triangle/mistaken identity subplot takes a backseat to that mythology.

In all of Wagner's other mature works, the scale is smaller. Tristan und Isolde, for example, is about only those two characters; the world around them matters not one bit, save to reflect their relationship.


----------



## Aramis

Mahlerian said:


> Do you have a clue what I'm referring to?


No, I didn't know that by "19th century opera" you mean "grand opera", which is only one of XIXth century operatic styles. Maybe it's because I didn't go back to read earlier discussion before replying.



> Wagner's librettos usually deal with events on a smaller scale that, despite the mythic backdrop, delve more deeply into its characters as human.


Like with Senta or Elisabeth. Such a masterfully conceived, fully human characters. I don't buy the notion of all standard-repertoire Wagner operas being free of these sins you mention. Although if you compare him with the worst of works that once enjoyed big time in Paris, the contrast will be considerable.


----------



## TxllxT

Mahlerian said:


> Do you have a clue what I'm referring to?
> 
> Grand opera as a genre was entirely about spectacle. The librettos were melodramatic, overwrought nonsense piled high with coincidences that determine the fate of the world, usually with a pair of star-crossed lovers at the core. It's like the 19th century version of the movie Titanic: a historical tragedy used for cheap emotional fodder to heighten a trite love story.
> 
> Wagner's librettos usually deal with events on a smaller scale that, *despite the mythic backdrop, delve more deeply into its characters as human. * Even in Gotterdammerung, the only mature Wagner opera that approaches the style of grand opera in its plot, the formula is practically reversed. We are presented with a setting that distances us from the action rather than drawing us in, and the love triangle/mistaken identity subplot takes a backseat to that mythology.
> 
> In all of Wagner's other mature works, the scale is smaller. Tristan und Isolde, for example, is about only those two characters; the world around them matters not one bit, save to reflect their relationship.


*Where* does the mythic drop back ? *Where* does Wagner reveal a character as human? _"Genau da liegt des Pudels Kern"_ When Wotan, the God, starts to grumble, this whole long and winding monologue retains this inhuman stain all the way down towards the grand _Kladderadatsch_: never and nowhere does this God ever downsize his godhood. Sorry, I do *not* notice any dropback of the mythic. Apart from this I wonder why the adherents of great Goethean humanism in Germany turned a blind eye & deaf ear on the inhumanity that is mythically being cultivated in Wagnerian totality-art. The humanists thought it was merely played on the stage, whereas others started to revere it as the heralding of a new age: a _tausendjähriges Reich_ with a new _Führer_. Where does the mythic drop back?


----------



## Mahlerian

TxllxT said:


> *Where* does the mythic drop back ? *Where* does Wagner reveal a character as human? _"Genau da liegt des Pudels Kern"_ When Wotan, the God, starts to grumble, this whole long and winding monologue retains this inhuman stain all the way down towards the grand _Kladderadatsch_: never and nowhere does this God ever downsize his godhood. Sorry, I do *not* notice any dropback of the mythic. Apart from this I wonder why the adherents of great Goethean humanism in Germany turned a blind eye & deaf ear on the inhumanity that is mythically being cultivated in Wagnerian totality-art. The humanists thought it was merely played on the stage, whereas others started to revere it as the heralding of a new age: a _tausendjähriges Reich_ with a new _Führer_. Where does the mythic drop back?


_Backdrop_ (meaning background), not drop back.

It seems like you're using Der Ring as your sole example here, when actually Parsifal would probably be a better choice.

In any event, the analogy fails. I cannot imagine anything less totalitarian in nature than the glorification of individual human love against the rules and strictures of society. Wotan's struggle in Die Walkure is based on this very human conflict, and Brunnhilde, in her loving defiance, manages to change his mind well enough to save herself from the worst part of her fate.

Your interpretation seems based more on how the Nazis mistreated and appropriated Wagner than on Wagner's work.



Aramis said:


> No, I didn't know that by "19th century opera" you mean "grand opera", which is only one of XIXth century operatic styles. Maybe it's because I didn't go back to read earlier discussion before replying.


It was the most influential and popular style of Wagner's formative years and the one that he developed out of. That is why it is the most relevant in this discussion.



Aramis said:


> Like with Senta or Elisabeth. Such a masterfully conceived, fully human characters. I don't buy the notion of all standard-repertoire Wagner operas being free of these sins you mention. Although if you compare him with the worst of works that once enjoyed big time in Paris, the contrast will be considerable.


You are exaggerating my argument. I did not claim that they were masterfully realized depictions of humanity, merely that the human took on a more important role in Wagner's works than in those of his immediate predecessors and contemporaries. Senta and Elizabeth are more or less archetypes, it is true, but their archetypical nature is utilized as a foil for the main protagonists in each case (and I note the sexist implications of that), who are more fully realized. Hollander and Tannhauser aren't as well-written as the later operas anyway, either in terms of music (which still retains some reminiscences of grand opera) or libretto.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Wagner's librettos usually deal with events on a smaller scale that, despite the mythic backdrop, delve more deeply into its characters as human. p.


I must confess I have never found the libretti of Wagner delve into the characters with anything like (eg) the same insight as da Ponte's for Mozart. I find the characters unloveable cut outs for the musical splendour.


----------



## Copperears

Mahlerian said:


> Wagner actually did a great job of boiling the absurd theatrics of 19th century opera down into a more plausible emotional/psychological form. His conception of drama may not have been able to exist without Meyerbeer, but in every conceivable way he surpasses his inspiration. The drama of Wagner's works may seem over-intense, but he does an excellent job of putting everything on a human level.
> 
> And comparing plots, well...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Huguenots


Let me respond before going down-thread because this is exactly what I think I was trying to say, but more intelligently.

We forget the context of Wagner melodrama if we don't see it as a metamorphosis of Meyerbeer melodrama. It is always critical to judge these things, not just on our present terms, but with an understanding of the historical terms within which they were constructed.

Simple way of saying that, whoah, you think Wagner is melodramatic, you should see Meyerbeer melodrama!

Which is what I was getting at with the X-men parallel. The current epic movies transform what are actually some pretty simple, extremely melodramatic characters from the pages of their original conception and then write them large in a way that is compelling for an entirely different audience. Scale, form, characterization are still melodrama but take on epic and mythological echoes not as fleshed out (pun intended) in the 2D color comic book pages.

It's as if someone were able to make a compelling, 90-minute movie with depth of character and insight and cleverness out of Dilbert. . Which should be done, btw.

Quentin Tarantino, I choose you!

Okay back to Wagner....


----------



## TxllxT

Mahlerian said:


> _Backdrop_ (meaning background), not drop back.
> 
> It seems like you're using Der Ring as your sole example here, when actually Parsifal would probably be a better choice.
> 
> In any event, the analogy fails. I cannot imagine anything less totalitarian in nature than the glorification of individual human love against the rules and strictures of society. Wotan's struggle in Die Walkure is based on this very human conflict, and Brunnhilde, in her loving defiance, manages to change his mind well enough to save herself from the worst part of her fate.
> 
> *Your interpretation seems based more on how the Nazis mistreated and appropriated Wagner than on Wagner's work.*
> 
> It was the most influential and popular style of Wagner's formative years and the one that he developed out of. That is why it is the most relevant in this discussion.
> 
> You are exaggerating my argument. I did not claim that they were masterfully realized depictions of humanity, merely that the human took on a more important role in Wagner's works than in those of his immediate predecessors and contemporaries. Senta and Elizabeth are more or less archetypes, it is true, but their archetypical nature is utilized as a foil for the main protagonists in each case (and I note the sexist implications of that), who are more fully realized. Hollander and Tannhauser aren't as well-written as the later operas anyway, either in terms of music (which still retains some reminiscences of grand opera) or libretto.


No, I do not aim anachronistically at Nazi (wrong)doings, but at the insensitivity of humanists towards the mythic. You interpret & project human love, human conflict where Wagner is imagining something pre-human, something far-from-human. Why, o why, should Wotan have anything human in his godhead?


----------



## Copperears

But this is what's fascinating. When I say Wagner's work is totalitarian, I am not trying to summon some mediocre political reference to Hitler or Stalin or Oppressive Big Gubmint, all the empty clichés of our time post-WW2.

As Mahlerian is saying about Biedermeier/Meyerbeer, it's the historical moment Wagner and others show up at the start of, and which the NSA now in the US is only just beginning to realize: a notion of total integration of all information to the point where no data is left unrationalized, as noise hanging loose in the system. Early totalitarian tendencies sprang from the first hints of the possibility that all human activity could be integrated and structured "scientifically" as a perfectly understood system. The Utopian aspect of this seen in a Wagner or a Walt Whitman (notice the similarities?) quickly turned horrendous with the primitive, misguided "social science" that was Nazism, Stalinism or Maoism (Cultural Revolution). The totalitarian impulse derives from the belief that everything can be rational and orderly and managed and secure. Witness the current global obsession with the "eradication of terrorism." Same impulse.

In art, this is reflected in Wagner's work as the effort to bring theatre, music, solo singing and orchestration, mythology and archetype and individual romantic struggle, all together into one production where all the parts inform each other to create a sustained and coherent whole.

Same thing btw with Ezra Pound's Cantos, towards the end of which he writes, in a state of breakdown and madness, "the center cannot hold" (late Canto, I forget which one).

So Wagner is totalitarian in that sense, without trying to imply in a mundane way that totalitarianism==oppressive.

It has been, so far, but that is not intrinsic to it, the mistake we've made in the ensuing 68 years since the end of WW2.

There is now an internationalization of culture, economy, science, enlightenment even, sweeping the planet. We are on a similar precipice of a new totalization. And it is reflected in our art, too.

Let's hope this time it doesn't turn into the apocalyptic disaster it did last time.


----------



## Mahlerian

Copperears said:


> But this is what's fascinating. When I say Wagner's work is totalitarian, I am not trying to summon some mediocre political reference to Hitler or Stalin or Oppressive Big Gubmint, all the empty clichés of our time post-WW2.
> [...]
> So Wagner is totalitarian in that sense, without trying to imply in a mundane way that totalitarianism==oppressive.


Ah, I understand now. You mean that Wagner intends to create something "totalizing", that takes everything into itself and, in that sense, could be seen as shutting out anything else (how many universes can exist? well, a good number, according to some theories).



Copperears said:


> It has been, so far, but that is not intrinsic to it, the mistake we've made in the ensuing 68 years since the end of WW2.
> 
> There is now an internationalization of culture, economy, science, enlightenment even, sweeping the planet. We are on a similar precipice of a new totalization. And it is reflected in our art, too.
> 
> Let's hope this time it doesn't turn into the apocalyptic disaster it did last time.


If it was reflected in 19th century art by the music drama of a Wagner, the symphonies of a Mahler, the poetry of a Whitman, or even the all-subsuming novels of a Tolstoy or Melville, then I think the current corollary can be seen in the ideas of "mixed-media", of "polystylism" or simply the intentional blurring of the lines between "high" and "low" culture. Not negative things at all, but perhaps symptomatic nonetheless of flaws in a culture (no culture is without them, after all).


----------



## Copperears

Well yes, although the lines between high and low have always been blurred in Western music, whether it be Bach using popular dance forms of his time (Chaconne), or Beethoven including folk music as well as poetry by Friederich Schiller, or Mahler mixing Klezmer and bandstand village music into his symphonies. The painstaking research Bartok did, informing his Mikrokosmos. Brahms and Liszt for that matter, Hungarian Rhapsodies. And so on.


----------



## messadivoce

I never understood why I was never a big fan of Wagner. Maybe it's because I'm not particularly fond of the German language. I feel like I haven't given Wagner a chance yet. The German repertory is so huge I'm kind of scared to get into it. I feel that Wagner would be a place to start but I've started with Capriccio by Richard Strauss the other day. One of the reasons Wagner hasn't gotten to me yet is that I like bel canto and virtuosity and sublty too much. From the little I've heard of Wagner, it seems like you have to sing loud all the time to be heard over the full orchestra. I like hearing a well sung piano and fioritura and coloratura. But with that said, I like verismo and Verdi too. I've heard with Wagner it might not primarily be about the singing but more about the philosophical ideals presented by the entire work itself. That's fine to have but I think the singing shouldn't be put on the back burner for drama and staging and large orchestration and sending messages. Maybe it is because Wagner has a lot of dissonance too, like with the Tristan chord. I'm not a fan of atonal music and I've always heard Wagner pioneered that with his dissonance. One of these days I'm going to give him a serious chance though. I think I just have all these preconceived notions from little tibbits I've heard and read.


----------



## Couchie

There's a lot of subtlety in Wagner, you just have to wear earplugs to hear it.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> I would like to point out that with speaking about *Germans* and *Germany*, people are quick to forget that Germany as one country came into being at the end of the 19th century. Germany used to be a ragbag of kingdoms, counties & other feudal backwaters. The only thing that unified the Germans was the German language. All operas in German language were being applauded both for its musical merits but *more* for nationalistic reasons. Opera used to be the main carrier of national pride, it actually helped a nation to become one. Richard Wagner happened to be born in a time when the rollercoaster of nationalism swept over Europe and he choose the themes of his operas keenly in tune with this sweeping wave in mind. Of course he profited enormously from it, he knew in advance that his public would go out of the roof when he would write something that stirred the German soul of nation-building.
> Nowadays we know about the debauchery of nationalism, that in Germany led to the holocaust. Richard Wagner is not to blame for having choosen to ride on the stupendous enormity of nationalism, that was already sweeping over the minds of all these backwater suffocators. It is anachronistic to blame Wagner for this nationalist longing of the Germans to become one nation, that was already present before he was born.
> I think that nowadays people listen to Wagner's compositions mainly because of the musical merits. I notice however that Wagner's inspiration was fired almost solely by nationalistic themes and I happen to find that inspiration quite narrow-minded. Verdi's operathemes for example do cover a much wider scope.


This is, factually, grossly inaccurate. Nationalism is not a major, and scarcely a minor, theme in Wagner's operas, which draw upon a wide range of mythical, legendary, and historical material. The stories of the _Flying Dutchman_, _Tristan und isolde_, and _Parsifal_ have no Germanic associations whatever, the mythological roots of the _Ring_ are largely Scandinavian, and the other operas merely happen to be set in Teutonic lands, with brief references to that fact in the librettos being quite inconsequential. Sounds to me like just another agenda-driven attempt to confuse Wagner's theoretical talk and his artistic walk - an attempt no more benign than the related attempt to read the operas as anti-semitic tracts.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

TxllxT said:


> I would like to point out that with speaking about *Germans* and *Germany*, people are quick to forget that Germany as one country came into being at the end of the 19th century. Germany used to be a ragbag of kingdoms, counties & other feudal backwaters. The only thing that unified the Germans was the German language. All operas in German language were being applauded both for its musical merits but *more* for nationalistic reasons. Opera used to be the main carrier of national pride, it actually helped a nation to become one. Richard Wagner happened to be born in a time when the rollercoaster of nationalism swept over Europe and he choose the themes of his operas keenly in tune with this sweeping wave in mind. Of course he profited enormously from it, he knew in advance that his public would go out of the roof when he would write something that stirred the German soul of nation-building. Nowadays we know about the debauchery of nationalism, that in Germany led to the holocaust. Richard Wagner is not to blame for having choosen to ride on the stupendous enormity of nationalism, that was already sweeping over the minds of all these backwater suffocators. It is anachronistic to blame Wagner for this nationalist longing of the Germans to become one nation, that was already present before he was born.
> I think that nowadays people listen to Wagner's compositions mainly because of the musical merits. I notice however that Wagner's inspiration was fired almost solely by nationalistic themes and I happen to find that inspiration quite narrow-minded. Verdi's operathemes for example do cover a much wider scope.


--
I do hope in the spirit of being fair and balanced you will extend that same chauvinist-tribalist indictment to Verdi for being an Italian nationalist; and of course to Shostakovich and Prokofiev for being pan-Marxist-Leninists.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> --
> I do hope in the spirit of being fair and balanced you will extend that same chauvinist-tribalist indictment to Verdi for being an Italian nationalist; and of course to Shostakovich and Prokofiev for being pan-Marxist-Leninists.


And of course to a Thomas Arne for writing Rule Britannia!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> And of course to a Thomas Arne for writing Rule Britannia!


The point I was trying to make was that I try to separate art and politics._ ;D_


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> The point I was trying to make was that I try to separate art and politics._ ;D_


Yes, but it is inevitable that the composer's personal and political beliefs come through. Hence Mozart's Freemasonry, Beethoven's freedom of man stuff, Verdi's nationalism, Wagner's racial purity theme, Britten's pacifism, etc.. You cannot separate them entirely.


----------



## quack

Woodduck said:


> This is, factually, grossly inaccurate. Nationalism is not a major, and scarcely a minor, theme in Wagner's operas, which draw upon a wide range of mythical, legendary, and historical material. The stories of the _Flying Dutchman_, _Tristan und isolde_, and _Parsifal_ have no Germanic associations whatever, the mythological roots of the _Ring_ are largely Scandinavian, and the other operas merely happen to be set in Teutonic lands, with brief references to that fact in the librettos being quite inconsequential. Sounds to me like just another agenda-driven attempt to confuse Wagner's theoretical talk and his artistic walk - an attempt no more benign than the related attempt to read the operas as anti-semitic tracts.


Wagner has always been a central figure of 19th century romantic nationalism and it seems to me to be far more agenda-driven to deny that role. Dismissing the _Ring_ as largely Scandinavian ignores the prevailing 19th century scholarship which saw the Goths as the progenitor of the Germanic people, who from their beginnings in modern day Sweden helped push back the decadent Roman empire until they eventually conquered it. Legends such as Parsifal or Tristan may well be regarded as French or Cornish these days but in the 19th century they would have been seen as offshoots of the expansion of northern peoples.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Yes, but it is inevitable that the composer's personal and political beliefs come through. Hence Mozart's Freemasonry, Beethoven's freedom of man stuff, Verdi's nationalism, Wagner's racial purity theme, Britten's pacifism, etc.. You cannot separate them entirely.


---
I can as an objective work of art. When I hear_ Parsifal _I'm not imagining Wagner's essay "Judiasm in Music." When I hear Verdi's _Nabucco_, I'm not thinking of Garibaldi's nationalist intrigues.


----------



## Itullian

I think we need a , Why do you not like Verdi, thread now.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Itullian said:


> I think we need a , Why do you not like Verdi, thread now.


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . . I'm_ rol-ling_. Bully beatdown.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Yes, but it is inevitable that the composer's personal and political beliefs come through. Hence Mozart's Freemasonry, Beethoven's freedom of man stuff, Verdi's nationalism, Wagner's racial purity theme, Britten's pacifism, etc.. You cannot separate them entirely.


Very generalized and vague, I have to say, and not helpful in addressing the artistic manifestation of Wagner's nationalistic sentiments. Yes, Schikaneder and Mozart used Masonic symbolism prominently in _Zauberflote _and Mozart wrote some music on Masonic themes. Britten certainly intended his _War Requiem_ as a protest against the horrors of war, but "pacifism" as a philosophical view is not discussed in that work; perhaps it is in some other vocal work of his, but I'm not aware of it. "Freedom of man stuff"...? The fact that artists are inspired by their personal beliefs is kind of, well, obvious. Aren't we all? How does that address the present question? The original observation I was contesting was that Wagner chose the themes of his operas _for the purpose of_ advancing the cause of German nationalism, and that nationalistic themes are _prominent_ in them. Well, no, he didn't, and they aren't.


----------



## Woodduck

quack said:


> Wagner has always been a central figure of 19th century romantic nationalism and it seems to me to be far more agenda-driven to deny that role. Dismissing the _Ring_ as largely Scandinavian ignores the prevailing 19th century scholarship which saw the Goths as the progenitor of the Germanic people, who from their beginnings in modern day Sweden helped push back the decadent Roman empire until they eventually conquered it. Legends such as Parsifal or Tristan may well be regarded as French or Cornish these days but in the 19th century they would have been seen as offshoots of the expansion of northern peoples.


The question of Wagner's "role" in the German nationalist movement is really at least two questions. Txllxt contended that Wagner chose his subject matter with the goal of advancing the nationalist cause and that nationalist ideas pervade his operas. I was answering that specific charge. Whatever "role" Wagner imagined his art might play in his society, or others wanted to see it as playing or tried to make it play, is a different discussion. As far as the content of the operas themselves is concerned, _some_ of Wagner's stories have _some_ Teutonic roots. Well, what would we expect? 1.) Wagner was German. 2.) The primitive and medieval myths and legends Wagner used have cross-cultural, pan-European roots, of which Wagner was well aware. The _Parsifal_ story is Celtic in its deepest roots, then French via Chretien de Troyes, and only latterly taken up by Wolfram von Eschenbach, whose version Wagner felt had lost sight of the archetypal meaning of its symbols. The _Ring_ is not at all like the German _Nibelungenlied_, but draws much more on the pagan mythology of the Scandinavian _Edda_s. _Tristan und Isolde _ may have been "seen as" an "offshoot" of something or other by someone or other, but Wagner himself was quite happy to situate it in Great Britain and to give no suggestion of Teutonic origins or meanings.

My point is not to deny that Wagner had nationalist sentiments, or that he was thrilled to work with whatever poetic elements he felt he was culling from his Germanic heritage, but simply to say that looking for any consequential nationalist statement in the operas is a futile and pointless exercise, engaged in primarily by the same determined Wagner detractors who comb his writings and librettos seeking to prove that the villains in his operas are Jewish. If people can't enjoy works of art for what is demonstrably in them because they can't get over the behaviors and statements of artists, they should just say so and not flood the world with their misguided efforts to discredit what others find beautiful and rewarding.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Woodduck said:


> Britten certainly intended his _War Requiem_ as a protest against the horrors of war, but "pacifism" as a philosophical view is not discussed in that work; perhaps it is in some other vocal work of his, but I'm not aware of it.


The whole of Owen Wingrave is concerned with pacifism.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> The question of Wagner's "role" in the German nationalist movement is really at least two questions. Txllxt contended that Wagner chose his subject matter with the goal of advancing the nationalist cause and that nationalist ideas pervade his operas. I was answering that specific charge. Whatever "role" Wagner imagined his art might play in his society, or others wanted to see it as playing or tried to make it play, is a different discussion. As far as the content of the operas themselves is concerned, _some_ of Wagner's stories have _some_ Teutonic roots. Well, what would we expect? 1.) Wagner was German. 2.) The primitive and medieval myths and legends Wagner used have cross-cultural, pan-European roots, of which Wagner was well aware. The _Parsifal_ story is Celtic in its deepest roots, then French via Chretien de Troyes, and only latterly taken up by Wolfram von Eschenbach, whose version Wagner felt had lost sight of the archetypal meaning of its symbols. The _Ring_ is not at all like the German _Nibelungenlied_, but draws much more on the pagan mythology of the Scandinavian _Edda_s. _Tristan und Isolde _ may have been "seen as" an "offshoot" of something or other by someone or other, but Wagner himself was quite happy to situate it in Great Britain and to give no suggestion of Teutonic origins or meanings.
> 
> My point is not to deny that Wagner had nationalist sentiments, or that he was thrilled to work with whatever poetic elements he felt he was culling from his Germanic heritage, but simply to say that looking for any consequential nationalist statement in the operas is a futile and pointless exercise, engaged in primarily by the same determined Wagner detractors who comb his writings and librettos seeking to prove that the villains in his operas are Jewish. If people can't enjoy works of art for what is demonstrably in them because they can't get over the behaviors and statements of artists, they should just say so and not flood the world with their misguided efforts to discredit what others find beautiful and rewarding.


-- and _mutatis mutandis _for any intellectual endeavor _whatsoever_ for that matter:

I can't read Aristotle's _Posterior Analytics _or _Politics_ or _Poetics_-- because he said that slavery was both natural and just.

I can't read Thomas Jefferson's writings on individual liberty because he himself owned slaves.

I can't like _Arabella_ and _Rosenkavalier_ because Strauss was the head of the _Reichsmusikkammer_.

I can't like Delius' music because he was a racist.

I can't read Karl Marx because he was a vicious anti-Semite and racist.

I can't listen to Shostakovich and Prokofiev because they shilled for Stalin.

I can't listen to Franz Schmidt because he wrote a Nazi propaganda work.

I can't read Heidegger's_ Sein und Zeit _because Heidegger gave blood-and-soil speeches for the Third Reich.

-- _Ad hominem, ad nauseam, ad infinitum_, bedlam-nonsense.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> -- and _mutatis mutandis _for any intellectual endeavor _whatsoever_ for that matter:
> 
> I can't read Aristotle's _Posterior Analytics _or _Politics_ or _Poetics_-- because he said that slavery was both natural and just.
> 
> I can't read Thomas Jefferson's writings on individual liberty because he himself owned slaves.
> 
> I can't like _Arabella_ and _Rosenkavalier_ because Strauss was the head of the _Reichsmusikkammer_.
> 
> I can't like Delius' music because he was a racist.
> 
> I can't read Karl Marx because he was a vicious anti-Semite and racist.
> 
> I can't listen to Shostakovich and Prokofiev because they shilled for Stalin.
> 
> I can't listen to Franz Schmidt because he wrote a Nazi propaganda work.
> 
> I can't read Heidegger's_ Sein und Zeit _because Heidegger gave blood-and-soil speeches for the Third Reich.
> 
> -- _Ad hominem, ad nauseam, ad infinitum_, bedlam-nonsense.


I love it when people amass such pointed examples as to render my ponderous abstractness superfluous.

No, really. I love it! :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

mamascarlatti said:


> The whole of Owen Wingrave is concerned with pacifism.


Thanks. Never listened to that one. I must find out how one writes a decent opera on that subject.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I love it when people amass such pointed examples as to render my ponderous abstractness superfluous.
> 
> No, really. I love it! :tiphat:


You're the sage, Tito. I'm merely the supermodel.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

DavidA said:


> Yes, but it is inevitable that the composer's personal and political beliefs come through. Hence Mozart's Freemasonry, Beethoven's freedom of man stuff, Verdi's nationalism, Wagner's racial purity theme, Britten's pacifism, etc.. You cannot separate them entirely.


Does the same thing apply to conductors? Does it apply to pianists? Violinists? Cellists? Composers of atonal music? or minimalist music? Or is it only applicable to SOME composers?


----------



## Woodduck

Headphone Hermit said:


> Does the same thing apply to conductors? Does it apply to pianists? Violinists? Cellists? Composers of atonal music? or minimalist music? Or is it only applicable to SOME composers?


Generally it's applicable only to composers we dislike. And mostly to Wagner, the *******.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> You're the sage, Tito. I'm merely the supermodel.


Hel-lo, gawgeous!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Woodduck said:


> Generally it's applicable only to composers we dislike. And mostly to Wagner, the *******.


The bounder! Serves him right!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> Does the same thing apply to conductors? Does it apply to pianists? Violinists? Cellists? Composers of atonal music? or minimalist music? Or is it only applicable to SOME composers?


Brilliantly selective 'candor'. . . or 'amnesia' for that matter.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Hel-lo, gawgeous!


Tito, when you say that in front of the mirror, take two steps back-- it gets even better.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Marschallin Blair said:


> Tito, when you say that in front of the mirror, take two steps back-- it gets even better.


what IS this forum? Flirt dot com .... or what???? (can't find a smiley for 'green with jealousy')


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Very generalized and vague, I have to say, and not helpful in addressing the artistic manifestation of Wagner's nationalistic sentiments. Yes, Schikaneder and Mozart used Masonic symbolism prominently in _Zauberflote _and Mozart wrote some music on Masonic themes. Britten certainly intended his _War Requiem_ as a protest against the horrors of war, but "pacifism" as a philosophical view is not discussed in that work; perhaps it is in some other vocal work of his, but I'm not aware of it. "Freedom of man stuff"...? The fact that artists are inspired by their personal beliefs is kind of, well, obvious. Aren't we all? How does that address the present question? The original observation I was contesting was that Wagner chose the themes of his operas _for the purpose of_ advancing the cause of German nationalism, and that nationalistic themes are _prominent_ in them. Well, no, he didn't, and they aren't.


Yes, but I was not quoting your original observation but Blair's. Of course inspiration from the artists' personal beliefs is obvious. That's what I was saying. But it is often incidental rather than fundamental.


----------



## DavidA

Headphone Hermit said:


> Does the same thing apply to conductors? Does it apply to pianists? Violinists? Cellists? Composers of atonal music? or minimalist music? Or is it only applicable to SOME composers?


Well, Furtwangler conducting for Hitler?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Yes, but I was not quoting your original observation but Blair's. Of course inspiration from the artists' personal beliefs is obvious. That's what I was saying. But it is often incidental rather than fundamental.


Ah. I was still back with the person whose post got me going. Thanks for clarifying, and forgive the mistake. :angel:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> what IS this forum? Flirt dot com .... or what???? (can't find a smiley for 'green with jealousy')


You're _wunderbahr_, Headphone Hermit. . . but have you seen Tito's _eyes_?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Ah. I was still back with the person whose post got me going. Thanks for clarifying, and forgive the mistake. :angel:


I'm lost. I'm just trying to hide that glazed-doughnut facial expression.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

DavidA said:


> Well, Furtwangler conducting for Hitler?


I have little truck with judging perofrmers according to their beliefs - ever since being told as a child that I shouldn't listen to the Beatles because John Lennon had left his wife.

I detest Nazi views but I'm not going to stop listening to Furtwangler because he conducted for Nazis. Or Mengelberg because he did so too. Or Beecham because of his rampant sexism or ...... yawn!

You make your own decision, squire. I'm more interested in the music than the performer


----------



## Woodduck

Headphone Hermit said:


> what IS this forum? Flirt dot com .... or what???? (can't find a smiley for 'green with jealousy')


Don't worry. That hair is bound to catch somebody's eye.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Don't worry. That hair is bound to catch somebody's eye.


Well, everybody has to be 'somebody'. . . like, I'm Blair Warner, and you're not.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, everybody has to be 'somebody'. . . like, I'm Blair Warner, and you're not.[/QUOTE
> 
> Perhaps we should have a poll on "How many people are aware of Blair Warner"? I needed Wikipedia .... and I'm still not much wiser :lol:


----------



## Itullian

And Karajan was a Nazi, and Bernstein a radical left winger.
etc etc
now Klemperer, he was perfect


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, everybody has to be 'somebody'. . . like, I'm Blair Warner, and you're not.


I was, of course, referring to Headphone Hermit's hair...


----------



## Woodduck

Headphone Hermit said:


> Marschallin Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, everybody has to be 'somebody'. . . like, I'm Blair Warner, and you're not.[/QUOTE
> 
> Perhaps we should have a poll on "How many people are aware of Blair Warner"? I needed Wikipedia .... and I'm still not much wiser :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor would I be, but for the graciously tolerant explanation of the Marschallin him...er, herself.
Click to expand...


----------



## mamascarlatti

Woodduck said:


> Thanks. Never listened to that one. I must find out how one writes a decent opera on that subject.


It was written as a film and is best experienced as one:

The original:






Although I prefer this:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Itullian said:


> And Karajan was a Nazi, and Bernstein a radical left winger.
> etc etc
> now Klemperer, he was perfect


He was a perfect _womanizer_. . and a terrible one at that. Ask his wife. She could tell you, if she spoke English.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> Marschallin Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, everybody has to be 'somebody'. . . like, I'm Blair Warner, and you're not.[/QUOTE
> 
> Perhaps we should have a poll on "How many people are aware of Blair Warner"? I needed Wikipedia .... and I'm still not much wiser :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Facts-Lif...=1398381313&sr=8-1&keywords=facts+of+life+dvd
Click to expand...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Headphone Hermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor would I be, but for the graciously tolerant explanation of the Marschallin him...er, herself.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Male analogue, in every way.
Click to expand...


----------



## Itullian

Marschallin Blair said:


> He was a perfect _womanizer_. . and a terrible one at that. Ask his wife. She could tell you, if she spoke English.


Vicious rumors started by his competitors 
Karajan prolly


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Headphone Hermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Facts-Lif...=1398381313&sr=8-1&keywords=facts+of+life+dvd
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, right! I mean, like, Headphone 'n' me, like we're gonna buy this right now, 'cause, like, we just have to like, KNOW all about you or sumpthin! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA-A-A-A-A-A-A!
> 
> What was the topic of this thread again?
Click to expand...


----------



## Revenant

Itullian said:


> And Karajan was a Nazi, and Bernstein a radical left winger.
> etc etc
> now Klemperer, he was perfect





Marschallin Blair said:


> He was a perfect _womanizer_. . and a terrible one at that. Ask his wife. She could tell you, if she spoke English.


And their son, Werner Kemplerer, was a nazi! Of sorts... Facts of life, facts of life....


----------



## Itullian

Marschallin Blair said:


> --
> I do hope in the spirit of being fair and balanced you will extend that same chauvinist-tribalist indictment to Verdi for being an Italian nationalist; and of course to Shostakovich and Prokofiev for being pan-Marxist-Leninists.


There is no fair and balanced when it comes to Wagner. I'm convinced there are psychological reasons people don't like his music.
Not all, of course, but many. mho


----------



## hpowders

mamascarlatti said:


> The whole of Owen Wingrave is concerned with pacifism.


 Wilfred Owen, the WW1 poet/pacifist Britten quoted in his War Requiem has a similar name.


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> There is no fair and balanced when it comes to Wagner. I'm convinced there are psychological reasons people don't like his music.
> Not all, of course, but many. mho


Since you, comrade Itullian, are foolhardy enough to lay yourself open to unimaginable torrents of contumely, I, with nothing left to lose in this respect, shall stand beside you!

As with any composer, some people just don't like Wagner's music, for whatever reason. Others may like the music but have prejudices about the operas based on things they've heard or read. But there are people, a goodly number I believe, who find the music itself really disturbing; it makes them genuinely uncomfortable. I have met several such people - you know, the kind who, at the mention of Wagner, curl their lips and whine through their noses like Ray Barone, as if they were talking about an impending vasectomy or having to take their wives ice fishing. Now I don't want to suggest, or to go beyond the merest suggestion that I might be suggesting, that there may be something psychologically askew in these people. No, I must tread lightly here! I only want to express my personal suspicion that there may indeed be something pychologically - well, not askew, but perhaps _repressed_ - in such people, something that, should they succumb to the force and sensuality, the agonies and the ecstasies, of Wagner's music, might crack the lid of Pandora's box.

But beyond this mere suggestion of a suggestion of a suspicion, I humbly forbear to venture.

I stand ready to take my punishment.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Revenant said:


> And their son, Werner Kemplerer, was a nazi! Of sorts... Facts of life, facts of life....


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!. . . Ha. Ha. Ha.

-- So great, Revenant. So great. My kind of humor all the way. . .

Switching gears: Who's your favorite Alcina?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Since you, comrade Itullian, are foolhardy enough to lay yourself open to unimaginable torrents of contumely, I, with nothing left to lose in this respect, shall stand beside you!
> 
> As with any composer, some people just don't like Wagner's music, for whatever reason. Others may like the music but have prejudices about the operas based on things they've heard or read. But there are people, a goodly number I believe, who find the music itself really disturbing; it makes them genuinely uncomfortable. I have met several such people - you know, the kind who, at the mention of Wagner, curl their lips and whine through their noses like Ray Barone, as if they were talking about an impending vasectomy or having to take their wives ice fishing. Now I don't want to suggest, or to go beyond the merest suggestion that I might be suggesting, that there may be something psychologically askew in these people. No, I must tread lightly here! I only want to express my personal suspicion that there may indeed be something pychologically - well, not askew, but perhaps _repressed_ - in such people, something that, should they succumb to the force and sensuality, the agonies and the ecstasies, of Wagner's music, might crack the lid of Pandora's box.
> 
> But beyond this mere suggestion of a suggestion of a suspicion, I humbly forbear to venture.
> 
> I stand ready to take my punishment.


You just need that little extra bit of attention, don't you? . . . well, I know how you feel.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I don't know that I do or do not like Wagner. When I first tried classical music in the 1970s, being heavily into hard rock, Wagner overtures were a natural choice for the forceful and loud music. But I have not spent much time with Wagner otherwise or since then. I am very heavily into Beethoven and Handel's Messiah at this time and occasionally checking out other works. Wagner is just not on my radar right now, but perhaps someday I'll find I am missing something wonderful.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Itullian said:


> There is no fair and balanced when it comes to Wagner. I'm convinced there are psychological reasons people don't like his music.
> Not all, of course, but many. mho


Respectfully, I disagree. I know some really aesthetically-informed, intelligent people who make every good faith effort to appreciate Wagner's music drama-- and still find it wanting.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Florestan said:


> I don't know that I do or do not like Wagner. When I first tried classical music in the 1970s, being heavily into hard rock, Wagner overtures were a natural choice for the forceful and loud music. But I have not spent much time with Wagner otherwise or since then. I am very heavily into Beethoven and Handel's Messiah at this time and occasionally checking out other works. Wagner is just not on my radar right now, but perhaps someday I'll find I am missing something wonderful.


--
I kid you not: When I was in Catholic grammar school, I was weaned on punk, hardcore, and heavy metal. Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" and "Brunnhilde's Immolation Scene" was a rather logical extension of Metallica's "Fight Fire With Fire" for me-- in temperament if not stylistic contours. Ha. Ha. Ha. I immediately and intuitively liked his music.


----------



## Itullian

Wagner took me a little while. I started with Italian opera.
The length took me awhile. But when I learned to relax and let the
music flow, I got it.
Reading about the operas helped too.


----------



## Revenant

Marschallin Blair said:


> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!. . . Ha. Ha. Ha.
> 
> -- So great, Revenant. So great. My kind of humor all the way. . .
> 
> Switching gears: Who's your favorite Alcina?


For the role itself, Arleen Auger. For the available recordings, haven't found it yet. Still looking.


----------



## Woodduck

mamascarlatti said:


> It was written as a film and is best experienced as one:
> 
> The original:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I prefer this:


Having just watched _Owen Wingrave_ in this very effective TV production, I would emphatically agree that it must be experienced this way, as originally conceived. As a total production it held my interest, but I feel certain that the music would not do so without the visual element. Britten was an extremely clever and resourceful composer, but he did not find much intrinsically attractive music for this very talky libretto consisting largely of people quarreling over ideas. In an opera where very little happens and what is said is said over and over, one really needs a lot of absorbing, emotional music to fill it out, and preferably a goodly amount of effective vocal writing. I didn't hear much of those things in this score. The vocal lines are tuneless, even atonal, with frequent odd accentuation of syllables, and the orchestra is mainly busy with percussive effects evoking a bleak, spooky and rather martial atmosphere, as well as competing unnecessarily at times with the singers, whose words were generally comprehensible due to miking and close-up camera work but would certainly be drowned out live in a theater.

In the context of this thread and my previous comments on Wagner, this opera stands in illustrative contrast to that composer's with respect to its emphasis on ideological or philosophical concerns. Wagner never wrote an opera in order to present arguments; he understood, as did Verdi, Mozart, Beethoven, Bellini, et al., what music did well and did poorly, and he knew that what it did best in opera was to express emotion. If his libretti sometimes offer narrative or explanatory passages, he ferrets out and expresses the emotional implications of the words, and binds them into a musical sequence with emotional shape and progression. Mundane conversation and ideological discussion, both of which Wagner wisely avoids, are not on the whole conducive to musical treatment, and the translation of those kinds of dialogue into song tends to result in something flat and even absurd. _Owen Wingrave_ sounds at many junctures like a spoken drama with orchestral sound effects, except that the actors are unaccountably prolonging and shouting their words on pitch in a kind of exaggerated recitation which is less eloquent than either speech or song. Wagner has been accused of vocal writing lacking in melodic distinction; but a comparison with many 20th-century operas, definitely including this one, only reveals the mastery with which he set words and the effectiveness of his vocal writing. Wagner's libretti were made for music; Henry James's story of _Owen Wingrave_ submits to musical treatment with only intermittent success. I'm glad I saw this production (mostly for Janet Baker's splendid Kate!), but I doubt I'll want to see it - and know I'll never listen to it -again.


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> And Karajan was a Nazi, and Bernstein a radical left winger.
> etc etc
> now Klemperer, he was perfect


Klemperer was a manic-depressive who would do a round of the brothels when the mood was on him. George Solti tells of one occasion when he called on K in his dressing room to find him lying in his underpants covered in lipstick. K then went on to berate Toscanini because he lived in America while his wife was in Italy. Solti thought that K didn't look a model of marital fidelity himself at that particular moment.


----------



## DavidA

Headphone Hermit said:


> I have little truck with judging perofrmers according to their beliefs - ever since being told as a child that I shouldn't listen to the Beatles because John Lennon had left his wife.
> 
> I detest Nazi views but I'm not going to stop listening to Furtwangler because he conducted for Nazis. Or Mengelberg because he did so too. Or Beecham because of his rampant sexism or ...... yawn!
> 
> You make your own decision, squire. I'm more interested in the music than the performer


If you look at what I actually said I just gave it as an example of nationalism. I didn't say you shouldn't listen to him. Obviously if we only listened to conductors with perfect morals we will have a very small field to choose from.


----------



## Itullian

DavidA said:


> Klemperer was a manic-depressive who would do a round of the brothels when the mood was on him. George Solti tells of one occasion when he called on K in his dressing room to find him lying in his underpants covered in lipstick. K then went on to berate Toscanini because he lived in America while his wife was in Italy. Solti thought that K didn't look a model of marital infidelity himself at that particular moment.


I guess he did have his fans


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> !
> 
> As with any composer, some people just don't like Wagner's music, for whatever reason. Others may like the music but have prejudices about the operas based on things they've heard or read. But there are people, a goodly number I believe, who find the music itself really disturbing; it makes them genuinely uncomfortable. I have met several such people - you know, the kind who, at the mention of Wagner, curl their lips and whine through their noses like Ray Barone, as if they were talking about an impending vasectomy or having to take their wives ice fishing. Now I don't want to suggest, or to go beyond the merest suggestion that I might be suggesting, that there may be something psychologically askew in these people. No, I must tread lightly here! I only want to express my personal suspicion that there may indeed be something pychologically - well, not askew, but perhaps _repressed_ - in such people, something that, should they succumb to the force and sensuality, the agonies and the ecstasies, of Wagner's music, might crack the lid of Pandora's box.
> 
> But beyond this mere suggestion of a suggestion of a suspicion, I humbly forbear to venture.
> 
> I stand ready to take my punishment.


My Jewish wife doesn't like Wagner because of his blatant anti-Semitism. My late mother in law didn't like him for similar reasons and because he was Hitler's favourite composer and she tended to associate it with Nazi jackboots. As her family were nearly starved to death during the Nazi occupation of Europe then I think you might allow her that privilege. But neither of them appreciated the music anyway as they didn't go in for overstatement.
As for your implication that some people don't like Wagner because they are somehow psychologically deficient, this is simply not true. It sounds like a Bayreuth faithful worshipper protesting too much. Some people just don't like it. Disturbing? Well, it is a full-scale assault on the senses. As a friend of mine put it, "the heavy metal of classical music."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Having just watched _Owen Wingrave_ in this very effective TV production, I would emphatically agree that it must be experienced this way, as originally conceived. As a total production it held my interest, but I feel certain that the music would not do so without the visual element. Britten was an extremely clever and resourceful composer, but he did not find much intrinsically attractive music for this very talky libretto consisting largely of people quarreling over ideas. In an opera where very little happens and what is said is said over and over, one really needs a lot of absorbing, emotional music to fill it out, and preferably a goodly amount of effective vocal writing. I didn't hear much of those things in this score. The vocal lines are tuneless, even atonal, with frequent odd accentuation of syllables, and the orchestra is mainly busy with percussive effects evoking a bleak, spooky and rather martial atmosphere, as well as competing unnecessarily at times with the singers, whose words were generally comprehensible due to miking and close-up camera work but would certainly be drowned out live in a theater.
> 
> In the context of this thread and my previous comments on Wagner, this opera stands in illustrative contrast to that composer's with respect to its emphasis on ideological or philosophical concerns. Wagner never wrote an opera in order to present arguments; he understood, as did Verdi, Mozart, Beethoven, Bellini, et al., what music did well and did poorly, and he knew that what it did best in opera was to express emotion. If his libretti sometimes offer narrative or explanatory passages, he ferrets out and expresses the emotional implications of the words, and binds them into a musical sequence with emotional shape and progression. Mundane conversation and ideological discussion, both of which Wagner wisely avoids, are not on the whole conducive to musical treatment, and the translation of those kinds of dialogue into song tends to result in something flat and even absurd. _Owen Wingrave_ sounds at many junctures like a spoken drama with orchestral sound effects, except that the actors are unaccountably prolonging and shouting their words on pitch in a kind of exaggerated recitation which is less eloquent than either speech or song. Wagner has been accused of vocal writing lacking in melodic distinction; but a comparison with many 20th-century operas, definitely including this one, only reveals the mastery with which he set words and the effectiveness of his vocal writing. Wagner's libretti were made for music; Henry James's story of _Owen Wingrave_ submits to musical treatment with only intermittent success. I'm glad I saw this production (mostly for Janet Baker's splendid Kate!), but I doubt I'll want to see it - and know I'll never listen to it -again.


Great review: critical yet generous-- so much like the dismissive, uncritical, doctrinaire, unfounded, and ungenerous musings I've read of late on King Richard (no Tito, I'm not referring to Strauss, but rather the other Richard).


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> My Jewish wife doesn't like Wagner because of his blatant anti-Semitism. My late mother in law didn't like him for similar reasons and because he was Hitler's favourite composer and she tended to associate it with Nazi jackboots. As her family were nearly starved to death during the Nazi occupation of Europe then I think you might allow her that privilege. But neither of them appreciated the music anyway as they didn't go in for overstatement.
> As for your implication that some people don't like Wagner because they are somehow psychologically deficient, this is simply not true. It sounds like a Bayreuth faithful worshipper protesting too much. Some people just don't like it. Disturbing? Well, it is a full-scale assault on the senses. As a friend of mine put it, "the heavy metal of classical music."


-- and that's precisely why I _love_ it. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. To each his own, certainly. But great spirits need great stimulants.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Itullian said:


> I guess he did have his fans


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . We all have our crosses to bear.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Marschallin Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, right! I mean, like, Headphone 'n' me, like we're gonna buy this right now, 'cause, like, we just have to like, KNOW all about you or sumpthin! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA-A-A-A-A-A-A!
> 
> What was the topic of this thread again?
> 
> 
> 
> All I want to share is my charm. Can you blame me?
Click to expand...


----------



## Revenant

DavidA said:


> Klemperer was a manic-depressive who would do a round of the brothels when the mood was on him. George Solti tells of one occasion when he called on K in his dressing room *to find him lying in his underpants covered in lipstick*. K then went on to berate Toscanini because he lived in America while his wife was in Italy. Solti thought that K didn't look a model of marital fidelity himself at that particular moment.


So he took a lipstick to his underpants and smeared them... Offbeat preference surely, but to each his own.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Revenant: So he took a lipstick to his underpants and smeared them... Offbeat preference surely, but to each his own.


I think F. Lee Bailey or Edward Bennett Williams would say something to that effect.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> My Jewish wife doesn't like Wagner because of his blatant anti-Semitism. My late mother in law didn't like him for similar reasons and because he was Hitler's favourite composer and she tended to associate it with Nazi jackboots. As her family were nearly starved to death during the Nazi occupation of Europe then I think you might allow her that privilege. But neither of them appreciated the music anyway as they didn't go in for overstatement.
> As for your implication that some people don't like Wagner because they are somehow psychologically deficient, this is simply not true. It sounds like a Bayreuth faithful worshipper protesting too much. Some people just don't like it. Disturbing? Well, it is a full-scale assault on the senses. As a friend of mine put it, "the heavy metal of classical music."


David, please be assured that I was only half-serious (although surely everyone _does_ love Raymond!) in my diagnosis of Wagner-phobia, and that no disrespect is intended to people whose horrible life experiences unavoidably color their perceptions. Those are not the people I was talking about, and I would certainly never mock them. As a lifelong Wagner enthusiast, I do quite seriously find Wagner's music disturbing, and not because it is loud - which, by the way, it more often is not. I felt this as a teenager, this sensation of being taken beyond my psychological comfort zone, which most of the music I loved then (and love now) did not make me feel. I know from talking to others that they have felt this too: for example, a friend of mine finds the transformation music in act 3 of _Parsifal_ to be one of the most horrific things in all music, someone he played it for said that it went "beyond Schoenberg," and when I hear it I get an almost vertiginous sensation of the ground shifting under me, of pain tearing apart the fabric of life, of Yeats's center no longer holding. I don't blame anyone for preferring not to be subjected to this exploration of the dark side - or for not recognizing it for what it is - when they go to the opera, but whether we like it or not there is no dismissing the strangely powerful fascination that "the sorcerer of Bayreuth" has had on generations of people. This fascination has often been characterized as unwholesome or dangerous, and not merely because of some popular association with the Third Reich. I really think that the continuing debates and controversies over Wagner are less a reverberation of Hitlerian associations than they are a testimony to something peculiarly insidious about the music itself, something which people sense and either embrace or abjure. There's plenty of music that merely assaults the senses. Wagner assaults, among other things, the defenses. I will always stand in awe of that, even - or especially -on days when I'd rather forgo the invasion!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> David, please be assured that I was only half-serious (although surely everyone _does_ love Raymond!) in my diagnosis of Wagner-phobia, and that no disrespect is intended to people whose horrible life experiences unavoidably color their perceptions. Those are not the people I was talking about, and I would certainly never mock them. As a lifelong Wagner enthusiast, I do quite seriously find Wagner's music disturbing, and not because it is loud - which, by the way, it more often is not. I felt this as a teenager, this sensation of being taken beyond my psychological comfort zone, which most of the music I loved then (and love now) did not make me feel. I know from talking to others that they have felt this too: for example, a friend of mine finds the transformation music in act 3 of _Parsifal_ to be one of the most horrific things in all music, someone he played it for said that it went "beyond Schoenberg," and when I hear it I get an almost vertiginous sensation of the ground shifting under me, of pain tearing apart the fabric of life, of Yeats's center no longer holding. I don't blame anyone for preferring not to be subjected to this exploration of the dark side - or for not recognizing it for what it is - when they go to the opera, but whether we like it or not there is no dismissing the strangely powerful fascination that "the sorcerer of Bayreuth" has had on generations of people. This fascination has often been characterized as unwholesome or dangerous, and not merely because of some popular association with the Third Reich. I really think that the continuing debates and controversies over Wagner are less a reverberation of Hitlerian associations than they are a testimony to something peculiarly insidious about the music itself, something which people sense and either embrace or abjure. There's plenty of music that merely assaults the senses. Wagner assaults, among other things, the defenses. I will always stand in awe of that, even - or especially -on days when I'd rather forgo the invasion!


--
The falcon cannot hear the falconer-- certainly. . .

If people are going to throw out Wagner as Nazi music, then they have to throw out operetta and Karl May cowboy and Indian stories-- because Hitler lavished more attention on either one of these things than he ever did on Wagner.


----------



## hpowders

Nobody's perfect so why would anyone think great composers or conductors would be?


----------



## Op.123

Because I don't


----------



## Itullian

DavidA said:


> Klemperer was a manic-depressive who would do a round of the brothels when the mood was on him. George Solti tells of one occasion when he called on K in his dressing room to find him lying in his underpants covered in lipstick. K then went on to berate Toscanini because he lived in America while his wife was in Italy. Solti thought that K didn't look a model of marital fidelity himself at that particular moment.


The poor guy had a tumor the size of an orange on his brain and was manic depressive.
I might go to a brothel or 2 too.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> --
> The falcon cannot hear the falconer-- certainly. . .
> 
> If people are going to throw out Wagner as Nazi music, then they have to throw out operetta and Karl May cowboy and Indian stories-- because Hitler lavished more attention on either one of these things than he ever did on Wagner.


But like it or not Wagner became associated with the Nazis' greatest crimes because of his antisemitism. Of course, he was not the only anti-Semite around at the time. But he damned himself in the minds of many by his odious and demented writings, which, to many who suffered under the Nazis appeared to anticipate their crimes. Hence it is not just a matter that Hitler championed him. But that Wagner himself appeared to have so much philosophical common ground with Hitler. So I can perfectly see why some people do not want anything to do with him or his music.


----------



## Revenant

Itullian said:


> The poor guy had a tumor the size of an orange on his brain and was manic depressive.
> I might go to a brothel or 2 too.


If that is a cause for brothel-hopping, then Brahms must have had a grapefruit-sized tumor on his brain!


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> --
> I kid you not: When I was in Catholic grammar school, I was weaned on punk, hardcore, and heavy metal. Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" and "Brunnhilde's Immolation Scene" was a rather logical extension of Metallica's "Fight Fire With Fire" for me-- in temperament if not stylistic contours. Ha. Ha. Ha. I immediately and intuitively liked his music.


Good Lord! Your path to Valhalla took you through lands that Mime and the Wanderer forgot to mention in their game of Twenty Questions!


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Good Lord! Your path to Valhalla took you through lands that Mime and the Wanderer forgot to mention in their game of Twenty Questions!


I never listen to that bit. Interminable!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Good Lord! Your path to Valhalla took you through lands that Mime and the Wanderer forgot to mention in their game of Twenty Questions!


The first three Metallica albums would definately get the _Wagner Seal of Approval_: "Ride the Lightning"? "Brunnhilde's Immolation Scene"?-- what's the Valhallan-thunder difference?


----------



## hpowders

Aside from the fact that he would have liked to destroy my people a la Martin Luther, nothing, except for his excessive length of his operas.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

I never tried Wagner too much, but he's OK


----------



## hpowders

Jonathan Wrachford said:


> I never tried Wagner too much, but he's OK


If you have the patience. You go see Die Walküre or Gotterdamerung, prepare for a very long day/night.
I used to do it with work the next day. It turned me into a zombie at work!


----------



## Don Fatale

hpowders said:


> If you have the patience. You go see Die Walküre or Gotterdamerung, prepare for a very long day/night.
> I used to do it with work the next day. It turned me into a zombie at work!


I remember a while ago being in Paris on business. Managed to get a ticket to the opera at the Bastille. They were doing Parsifal. Got home to London the following day and had a ticket for an opera that evening. Yup, Parsifal again! In my opera-going heyday it seemed perfectly normal at the time.

Consecutive Wagner nights can leave you in an altered state.


----------



## Woodduck

Alexander said:


> I remember a while ago being in Paris on business. Managed to get a ticket to the opera at the Bastille. They were doing Parsifal. Got home to London the following day and had a ticket for an opera that evening. Yup, Parsifal again! In my opera-going heyday it seemed perfectly normal at the time.
> 
> Consecutive Wagner nights can leave you in an altered state.


And I thought I was the only kid in high school who could do _Parsifal_ twice in a row!

Huh. Come to think of it, I was.

Guess that explains my altered adulthood.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

DavidA said:


> My Jewish wife doesn't like Wagner because of his blatant anti-Semitism. My late mother in law didn't like him for similar reasons and because he was Hitler's favourite composer and she tended to associate it with Nazi jackboots. As her family were nearly starved to death during the Nazi occupation of Europe then I think you might allow her that privilege. But neither of them appreciated the music anyway as they didn't go in for overstatement.
> As for your implication that some people don't like Wagner because they are somehow psychologically deficient, this is simply not true. It sounds like a Bayreuth faithful worshipper protesting too much. Some people just don't like it. Disturbing? Well, it is a full-scale assault on the senses. As a friend of mine put it, "the heavy metal of classical music."
> 
> But like it or not Wagner became associated with the Nazis' greatest crimes because of his antisemitism. Of course, he was not the only anti-Semite around at the time. But he damned himself in the minds of many by his odious and demented writings, which, to many who suffered under the Nazis appeared to anticipate their crimes. Hence it is not just a matter that Hitler championed him. But that Wagner himself appeared to have so much philosophical common ground with Hitler. So I can perfectly see why some people do not want anything to do with him or his music.


Everyone has the privilege of being able to dislike Wagner's music, and if that's because of his antisemitism then that's their prerogative. I don't hold it against anyone. Someone who isn't interested in Edgar Degas' paintings or T.S. Eliot's poetry because of the antisemitic views of those men are afforded the same right.

However, these alleged associations between Wagner and the Nazis and Wagner and Hitler are based on ignorance and hearsay. Yes, he was an antisemite. Yes, some of his essays have undoubtedly hurt his reputation and he has no one to blame but himself. But Wagner's behavior and the known facts dating from Wagner's lifetime are incriminating enough without burdening him with the horrible deeds of Hitler. As a point of fact, Wagner had almost no philosophical common ground with Hitler. As a point of fact, his writings do not anticipate the crimes of the Nazis. As a point of fact, he had no intention of wiping the Jews from the face of the earth. As a point of fact, demented as they are, in his writings his solution to the "Jewish problem" is assimilation and conversion, not mass murder. As a point of fact, his antisemitism has completely different roots and takes a completely different form than Hitler's. Which brings up the point that although racism and prejudice in any guise is appalling, not all antisemitism is created equal. You can't say that person A is a racist and person B is a racist, therefore person A bears all the same traits as person B in thought an character and should be held accountable for the crimes of person B. None of this of course exonerates Wagner of his own antisemitism, and it's not meant to. But just because we are repulsed by Wagner's antisemitism does not give anyone the right to make sweeping generalizations that are not true. If we wish to understand anything about the man and the nature of his prejudices, we have to look at them and be able to see that they have certain characteristics but not others, that his views had these influences but not those.

As I myself have acquired greater knowledge of Wagner's behavior and read his writings first hand, not simply accepting the summaries and charges made by others, in my opinion his antisemitism has grown a lot less scary and threatening, much more sad and pathetic. Take his essay "Judaism in Music" for example. Certainly a repellent piece of work in many ways, but so often when you see it referenced to it's as if it were some kind of prescription for Auschwitz. I fail to see what all the fuss about, and why it continues to create so much controversy. It strikes me as a totally dated, silly, and contrived thesis based on dubious speculation. Essentially it's a pseudo-intellectual cultural theory that contains some offensive remarks; the main argument being basically that the Jews have no place in Western European culture, and can only do harm both to the culture on which they are parasitic and to themselves by mixing with it. The fact that it is an incredibly contrived essay is demonstrated by the fact that Wagner's own attitudes and opinions outright contradicted it. Despite claiming in the essay that Jews were incapable of creating great art, he always thought highly of the Jewish composer Halévy's opera _La Juive_ and wrote than Halévy's music "issues from the inmost and most puissant depths of human nature." In a diary entry Cosima wrote "At lunch he remarks on the beauties of _La Juive_, the Passover celebrations, the final choruses, also the final first act, and says it contains the best expression of the Jewish character." He also acknowledged his admiration for and made several comments about the virtues in Mendelssohn's music. He even called the _Hebrides_ overture "truly masterly". And of course he used a story by the Jewish poet Heinrich Heine as the basis and inspiration for _The Flying Dutchman_. I think the contradictions can be largely explained by the observation that "Judaism in Music" is in large part a specific attack on the composer Meyerbeer, whose opera's Wagner found to be frivolous entertainment and came under his disdain because they were commercializing an art form that he absolutely cherished. The essay is really a very bad attempt at elevating the argument about Meyerbeer's operas being bad, concocting a theory that it wasn't _possible_ for Meyerbeer to create great art because of his Jewish ancestry and because he was attempting to work in a great tradition that he was an outsider to. It is probably no happenstance that it was written just as he was preparing to begin his grandly conceived _Ring_ cycle. His heroes, Beethoven and Mozart, had been gone for decades, and he saw a degeneration in musical taste. While he did not blame the Jews for the decline, he saw them as profiting from it, and deplored the new music in which second rate composers, especially Meyerbeer, were taking the lead. More likely than not, he feared that after writing his great magnum opus there would be no audience for it.


----------



## DavidA

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Everyone has the privilege of being able to dislike Wagner's music, and if that's because of his antisemitism then that's their prerogative. I don't hold it against anyone. Someone who isn't interested in Edgar Degas' paintings or T.S. Eliot's poetry because of the antisemitic views of those men are afforded the same right.
> 
> However, these alleged associations between Wagner and the Nazis and Wagner and Hitler are based on ignorance and hearsay. Yes, he was an antisemite. Yes, some of his essays have undoubtedly hurt his reputation and he has no one to blame but himself. But Wagner's behavior and the known facts dating from Wagner's lifetime are incriminating enough without burdening him with the horrible deeds of Hitler. As a point of fact, Wagner had almost no philosophical common ground with Hitler. As a point of fact, his writings do not anticipate the crimes of the Nazis. As a point of fact, he had no intention of wiping the Jews from the face of the earth. As a point of fact, demented as they are, in his writings his solution to the "Jewish problem" is assimilation and conversion, not mass murder. As a point of fact, his antisemitism has completely different roots and takes a completely different form than Hitler's. Which brings up the point that although racism and prejudice in any guise is appalling, not all antisemitism is created equal. You can't say that person A is a racist and person B is a racist, therefore person A bears all the same traits as person B in thought an character and should be held accountable for the crimes of person B. None of this of course exonerates Wagner of his own antisemitism, and it's not meant to. But just because we are repulsed by Wagner's antisemitism does not give anyone the right to make sweeping generalizations that are not true. If we wish to understand anything about the man and the nature of his prejudices, we have to look at them and be able to see that they have certain characteristics but not others, that his views had these influences but not those.
> 
> As I myself have acquired greater knowledge of Wagner's behavior and read his writings first hand, not simply accepting the summaries and charges made by others, in my opinion his antisemitism has grown a lot less scary and threatening, much more sad and pathetic. Take his essay "Judaism in Music" for example. Certainly a repellent piece of work in many ways, but so often when you see it referenced to it's as if it were some kind of prescription for Auschwitz. I fail to see what all the fuss about, and why it continues to create so much controversy. It strikes me as a totally dated, silly, and contrived thesis based on dubious speculation. Essentially it's a pseudo-intellectual cultural theory that contains some offensive remarks; the main argument being basically that the Jews have no place in Western European culture, and can only do harm both to the culture on which they are parasitic and to themselves by mixing with it. The fact that it is an incredibly contrived essay is demonstrated by the fact that Wagner's own attitudes and opinions outright contradicted it. Despite claiming in the essay that Jews were incapable of creating great art, he always thought highly of the Jewish composer Halévy's opera _La Juive_ and wrote than Halévy's music "issues from the inmost and most puissant depths of human nature." In a diary entry Cosima wrote "At lunch he remarks on the beauties of _La Juive_, the Passover celebrations, the final choruses, also the final first act, and says it contains the best expression of the Jewish character." He also acknowledged his admiration for and made several comments about the virtues in Mendelssohn's music. He even called the _Hebrides_ overture "truly masterly". And of course he used a story by the Jewish poet Heinrich Heine as the basis and inspiration for _The Flying Dutchman_. I think the contradictions can be largely explained by the observation that "Judaism in Music" is in large part a specific attack on the composer Meyerbeer, whose opera's Wagner found to be frivolous entertainment and came under his disdain because they were commercializing an art form that he absolutely cherished. The essay is really a very bad attempt at elevating the argument about Meyerbeer's operas being bad, concocting a theory that it wasn't _possible_ for Meyerbeer to create great art because of his Jewish ancestry and because he was attempting to work in a great tradition that he was an outsider to. It is probably no happenstance that it was written just as he was preparing to begin his grandly conceived _Ring_ cycle. His heroes, Beethoven and Mozart, had been gone for decades, and he saw a degeneration in musical taste. While he did not blame the Jews for the decline, he saw them as profiting from it, and deplored the new music in which second rate composers, especially Meyerbeer, were taking the lead. More likely than not, he feared that after writing his great magnum opus there would be no audience for it.


The associations between Wagner and Hitler are not based on 'ignorance and heasay.' Please read your history books. Read his great-grandson's book. The Wagner family welcomed Hitler as an honoured guest to Bayreuth where the tyrant held court. Performances of some of the operas became almost Nazi propaganda pieces. Of course, RW wasn't there at the time as he was dead. But there is this association in the minds of people between Wagner's legacy and Hitler positively encouraged by the family.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

DavidA said:


> The associations between Wagner and Hitler are not based on 'ignorance and heasay.' Please read your history books. Read his great-grandson's book. The Wagner family welcomed Hitler as an honoured guest to Bayreuth where the tyrant held court. Performances of some of the operas became almost Nazi propaganda pieces. Of course, RW wasn't there at the time as he was dead. But there is this association in the minds of people between Wagner's legacy and Hitler positively encouraged by the family.


But those are not the associations I was referring to. Yes, he was one of Hitler's favorite composers, his music was appropriated by the Nazis and Hitler had a personal relationship with Winifried Wagner. None of those things has anything to do with Wagner. Alleged associations that supposedly go deeper than that -- not only the ones you mentioned before, but others, some of them being that Wagner's antisemitic had an influence on Hitler's antisemitism, that Wagner's music held some sort of privileged place in the Nazi regime on the whole, even that Wagner's music was played to inmates of death camps as they were being marched to their death -- are completely false and based upon misinformation, rumors, and yes ignorance. As the Israeli historian Na'ama Sheffi has pointed out in her book The Ring of Myths: The Israelis, Wagner and the Nazis, the Wagner controversy has reached such a level that Wagner had been completely disassociated from his historical context. Indeed, by the 1980s and 1990s proponents of Wagner performances in Israel frequently had to remind their readers that Wagner was not actually alive during the Nazi era, such was the level of knowledge concerning the real Richard Wagner.


----------



## DavidA

SilenceIsGolden said:


> But those are not the associations I was referring to. Yes, he was one of Hitler's favorite composers, his music was appropriated by the Nazis and Hitler had a personal relationship with Winifried Wagner. None of those things has anything to do with Wagner. Alleged associations that supposedly go deeper than that -- not only the ones you mentioned before, but others, some of them being that Wagner's antisemitic had an influence on Hitler's antisemitism, that Wagner's music held some sort of privileged place in the Nazi regime on the whole, even that Wagner's music was played to inmates of death camps as they were being marched to their death -- are completely false and based upon misinformation, rumors, and yes ignorance. As the Israeli historian Na'ama Sheffi has pointed out in her book The Ring of Myths: The Israelis, Wagner and the Nazis, the Wagner controversy has reached such a level that Wagner had been completely disassociated from his historical context. Indeed, by the 1980s and 1990s proponents of Wagner performances in Israel frequently had to remind their readers that Wagner was not actually alive during the Nazi era, such was the level of knowledge concerning the real Richard Wagner.


You're completely missing the point. If just Hitler had liked Wagner's music or even had the relationship with the family, people would not have bothered too much. But it was the fact that Wagner's views on race and Hitler's views on the subject were uncomfortably close. This is enough for many folk to switch off from Wagner. I remember Fry asking one of the survivors of the death camps - a musician - whether she ever listened to Wagner. "No. I don't like noise!" Is what she said.
So just allow people their choices? Why defend Wagner with almost a religious zeal? He's your choice but not other people's for various reasons including his racial bigotry. Let's face it, people do not miss much in life by not listening to Wagner when they have a whole stack of other great composers!


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

DavidA said:


> You're completely missing the point. If just Hitler had liked Wagner's music or even had the relationship with the family, people would not have bothered too much. But it was the fact that Wagner's views on race and Hitler's views on the subject were uncomfortably close. This is enough for many folk to switch off from Wagner. I remember Fry asking one of the survivors of the death camps - a musician - whether she ever listened to Wagner. "No. I don't like noise!" Is what she said.
> So just allow people their choices? Why defend Wagner with almost a religious zeal? He's your choice but not other people's for various reasons including his racial bigotry. Let's face it, people do not miss much in life by not listening to Wagner when they have a whole stack of other great composers!


I don't think I'm missing the point at all David. I suppose you missed the part where I already said I support anyone's choice not to listen to Wagner. I'm sorry if attempting to explain that no, Wagner's and Hitler's view on race really _weren't_ close at all, and trying to address common misconceptions is taken to be a defense of Wagner's antisemitism. It is not, and I already stated as much. I don't excuse it, and I find it to be just as odious as you do.


----------



## DavidA

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I don't think I'm missing the point at all David. I suppose you missed the part where I already said I support anyone's choice not to listen to Wagner. I'm sorry if attempting to explain that no, Wagner's and Hitler's view on race really _weren't_ close at all, and trying to address common misconceptions is taken to be a defense of Wagner's antisemitism. It is not, and I already stated as much. I don't excuse it, and I find it to be just as odious as you do.


Wagner's and Hitler's views on rave co-incoded with antisemitism.


----------



## expat

Can the mods please create a sticky for Wagner and Nazism so all the debates can happen there?

I am one of these uncultured or insensibles who just cares for the music and the art.


----------



## Woodduck

expat said:


> Can the mods please create a sticky for Wagner and Nazism so all the debates can happen there?
> 
> I am one of these uncultured or insensibles who just cares for the music and the art.


I'm wholeheartedly with you, and so are others of us who find themselves dragged willy-nilly into these side issues by people who just can't stop insisting that if we don't find premonitions of the gas chambers in Wagner's art we are refusing to face the awful "truth." Probably these discussions should, as you suggest, have a thread of their own; the title of this one, "Why do you NOT like Wagner?", is unfortunately predestined to bring up Hitler, Nazism and racism more often than chromatic harmony or Norse mythology. And when that happens, those of us who understand how inaccurately and unfairly Wagner and his work have been reinterpreted in terms of these things find it a virtual necessity to call out this inaccuracy and unfairness when it is perpetuated here on TC. I know I speak for more than myself in wishing it were not necessary to do this now, in 2014, when nothing about the composer or his work has not been thoroughly explored and there is no excuse for getting things so perversely wrong. Unfortunately, Wagner's art, which can stand very well on its own and reveal its own truths, is precisely not where his most determined detractors look in order to tell us what it, and its composer, "really" mean. They look, instead, to his personal flaws (as they understand them) and, still worse, to the ideologies and atrocities of self-proclaimed admirers who came after his death, and attempt to read these flaws, ideologies and atrocities back into his art.

I for one love Wagner's work far too much to let people continue to paint swastikas on it. And I want to urge people attracted to Wagner's operas by the power of his music to look deeper into his amazing works and see for themselves how they speak, not to Wagner's or anyone else's prejudices or transient cultural circumstances, but to the universal human emotions and values which animate all great art. For that is ultimately what matters about Wagner, and what will ensure his survival even as the illusions of his detractors play themselves out and fade away.

Let's hope that happens soon!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I'm wholeheartedly with you, and so are others of us who find themselves dragged willy-nilly into these side issues by people who just can't stop insisting that if we don't find premonitions of the gas chambers in Wagner's art we are refusing to face the awful "truth." Probably these discussions should, as you suggest, have a thread of their own; the title of this one, "Why do you NOT like Wagner?", is unfortunately predestined to bring up Hitler, Nazism and racism more often than chromatic harmony or Norse mythology. And when that happens, those of us who understand how inaccurately and unfairly Wagner and his work have been reinterpreted in terms of these things find it a virtual necessity to call out this inaccuracy and unfairness when it is perpetuated here on TC. I know I speak for more than myself in wishing it were not necessary to do this now, in 2014, when nothing about the composer or his work has not been thoroughly explored and there is no excuse for getting things so perversely wrong. Unfortunately, Wagner's art, which can stand very well on its own and reveal its own truths, is precisely not where his most determined detractors look in order to tell us what it, and its composer, "really" mean. They look, instead, to his personal flaws (as they understand them) and, still worse, to the ideologies and atrocities of self-proclaimed admirers who came after his death, and attempt to read these flaws, ideologies and atrocities back into his art.
> 
> I for one love Wagner's work far too much to let people continue to paint swastikas on it. And I want to urge people attracted to Wagner's operas by the power of his music to look deeper into his amazing works and see for themselves how they speak, not to Wagner's or anyone else's prejudices or transient cultural circumstances, but to the universal human emotions and values which animate all great art. For that is ultimately what matters about Wagner, and what will ensure his survival even as the illusions of his detractors play themselves out and fade away.
> 
> Let's hope that happens soon!


Perfectly encapsulating trope. _Bravo_.


----------



## DavidA

'I for one love Wagner's work far too much to let people continue to paint swastikas on it.'

Unfortunately you are too late. Someone already did it! Look at pictures of Bayreuth in the 1930s / 40s
The problem is that his daughter-in- law and grandsons joined in as well!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> 'I for one love Wagner's work far too much to let people continue to paint swastikas on it.'
> 
> Unfortunately you are too late. Someone already did it! Look at pictures of Bayreuth in the 1930s / 40s
> The problem is that his daughter-in- law and grandsons joined in as well!


I said "continue," and it's never too late to try to discourage that, and to challenge those who for whatever reason or motive cannot bear to let the association go. As for those who helped to create it, they were wrong to do so even if their name was "Wagner", and we would be wrong to grant them any authority in the matter.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Quote Originally Posted by DavidA View Post
> 'I for one love Wagner's work far too much to let people continue to paint swastikas on it.'
> 
> Unfortunately you are too late. Someone already did it! Look at pictures of Bayreuth in the 1930s / 40s
> The problem is that his daughter-in- law and grandsons joined in as well!
> I said "continue," and it's never too late to try to discourage that, and to challenge those who for whatever reason or motive cannot bear to let the association go. As for those who helped to create it, they were wrong to do so even if their name was "Wagner", and we would be wrong to grant them any authority in the matter.


What's that saying of Nietzsche's?-- never judge a philosopher by his followers? A right-wing Prussian apologist for the House of Hohenzollern like Hegel would scarcely recognize Karl Marx's 'Dialectical Materialism' as being of his extraction. So why would a status-quo monarchist like Wagner recognize National Socialism as being his?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I said "continue," and it's never too late to try to discourage that, and to challenge those who for whatever reason or motive cannot bear to let the association go. As for those who helped to create it, they were wrong to do so even if their name was "Wagner", and we would be wrong to grant them any authority in the matter.


The problem you have is that there are uncomfortable overlaps in the philosophies of Wagner and Hitler. That is one reason why his close relatives just one generation down the line were so keen to welcome Hitler to Bayreuth eg Wieland Wagner, who was a strong supporter of Hitler and closely associated with Hitler, later tried to distance himself from the Nazis by radically re staging the operas. . 
I never see why you guys want everyone to turn a blind eye to it, to pretend it isn't there. 
Is this cover-up because Wagner has become some sort of religious icon? I can recognise it is there and still enjoy the music.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> The problem you have is that there are uncomfortable overlaps in the philosophies of Wagner and Hitler. That is one reason why his close relatives just one generation down the line were so keen to welcome Hitler to Bayreuth eg Wieland Wagner, who was a strong supporter of Hitler and closely associated with Hitler, later tried to distance himself from the Nazis by radically re staging the operas. .
> I never see why you guys want everyone to turn a blind eye to it, to pretend it isn't there.
> Is this cover-up because Wagner has become some sort of religious icon? I can recognise it is there and still enjoy the music.


I don't have a problem at all with any "overlaps" in the "philosophies" of Wagner and Hitler. In a broad, general sense, both men could be characterized as antisemites. But antisemitism is not a precise term and is not a philosophy. Wagner, in his essay _Das Judentum in der Musik_, made observtions and expressed ideas about Jewish identity in relation to the society of the time, ideas which I outlined in an earlier post. He did not express, and in fact _disagreed strongly__ with_, theories of Jewish racial inferiority and the corruption of Aryan racial purity which were espoused late in Wagner's lifetime by Gobineau and adopted by Hitler and Nazism. If you want to call this a "philosophical overlap" I can't stop you. To me it looks like a very significant philosophical difference. Wagner's own ideas do not provide a reason for anyone, related to Wagner or not, to sympathize with the racist ideas which Wagner himself rejected, and if Wagner's descendants were sympathetic to Hitler's philosophy or goals, it was not on the basis of the composer's expressed attitudes or actions. It is reasonable to suppose that Wagner's negative remarks about Jewishness contributed in some undetermined degree to an atmosphere of antisemitism in 19th-century Germany. Vast numbers of people contributed similarly. But it was not Wagner's specific, expressed ideas - one of which, please note, was that Jews should properly be free citizens of European states - which implied or led to the attempted physical extermination of the Jewish "race." Wagner had no association with racial ideologies or with Nazism; those association were made after his death, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that he would have sanctioned them in any respect.

So tell us: how much responsibility do you want Wagner to shoulder for Auschwitz and Theresienstadt? What's your standard of measurement for culpability? What's to be accomplished by harping on what his descendants or self-proclaimed disciples thought and did? And how is my assertion that Wagner's art - the central concern of his life and his essential contribution to the world - is neither an embodiment of nor a contribution to antisemitism, past or present, a coverup of anything? _The Ring of the Nibelung and Parsifal_ have never killed any Jews or uttered a word or a note to their disfavor. Efforts to show otherwise have been grotesque in their fanciful absurdity. Wagner, never shy in expressing himself, has left us plenty of words describing his artistic intentions; antisemitic sentiments and propaganda are conspicuously absent from those descriptions. Wagner the man thought and said a lot of things, rational and irrational. Wagner the artist had far deeper issues to address than whether a particular group of people were successfully integrated into 19th-century German culture.

I'm sorry that you and others can't think of Wagner without thinking of Hitler. Others of us can, and we can without evading or "covering up" a single fact of history.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I don't have a problem at all with any "overlaps" in the "philosophies" of Wagner and Hitler. In a broad, general sense, both men could be characterized as antisemites. But antisemitism is not a precise term and is not a philosophy. Wagner, in his essay _Das Judentum in der Musik_, made observtions and expressed ideas about Jewish identity in relation to the society of the time, ideas which I outlined in an earlier post. He did not express, and in fact _disagreed strongly__ with_, theories of Jewish racial inferiority and the corruption of Aryan racial purity which were espoused late in Wagner's lifetime by Gobineau and adopted by Hitler and Nazism. If you want to call this a "philosophical overlap" I can't stop you. To me it looks like a very significant philosophical difference. Wagner's own ideas do not provide a reason for anyone, related to Wagner or not, to sympathize with the racist ideas which Wagner himself rejected, and if Wagner's descendants were sympathetic to Hitler's philosophy or goals, it was not on the basis of the composer's expressed attitudes or actions. It is reasonable to suppose that Wagner's negative remarks about Jewishness contributed in some undetermined degree to an atmosphere of antisemitism in 19th-century Germany. Vast numbers of people contributed similarly. But it was not Wagner's specific, expressed ideas - one of which, please note, was that Jews should properly be free citizens of European states - which implied or led to the attempted physical extermination of the Jewish "race." Wagner had no association with racial ideologies or with Nazism; those association were made after his death, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that he would have sanctioned them in any respect.
> 
> So tell us: how much responsibility do you want Wagner to shoulder for Auschwitz and Theresienstadt? What's your standard of measurement for culpability? What's to be accomplished by harping on what his descendants or self-proclaimed disciples thought and did? And how is my assertion that Wagner's art - the central concern of his life and his essential contribution to the world - is neither an embodiment of nor a contribution to antisemitism, past or present, a coverup of anything? _The Ring of the Nibelung and Parsifal_ have never killed any Jews or uttered a word or a note to their disfavor. Efforts to show otherwise have been grotesque in their fanciful absurdity. Wagner, never shy in expressing himself, has left us plenty of words describing his artistic intentions; antisemitic sentiments and propaganda are conspicuously absent from those descriptions. Wagner the man thought and said a lot of things, rational and irrational. Wagner the artist had far deeper issues to address than whether a particular group of people were successfully integrated into 19th-century German culture.
> 
> I'm sorry that you and others can't think of Wagner without thinking of Hitler. Others of us can, and we can without evading or "covering up" a single fact of history.


Your post exactly illustrates what I am talking about. Instead of just admitting the obvious we must go into great debates as to the extent, etc.. To me it's quite obvious Wagner would have welcomed Hitler to Bayreuth as he (along with countless other Germans) would have been swept along by Hitler's dark charisma and the promise of making Germany great. Wagner would also approved of Hitler's antisemitism. Whether he would have approved of - or been appalled by - the extent to which the antisemitism was taken is another matter. We really cannot speculate one way or another. But the inescapable fact of history is that Wagner's family carried their adoration of Hitler further than most. Of course, Wagner cannot be blamed for this himself but it is inescapable that he sowed the seeds of it.


----------



## Wood

DavidA said:


> Your post exactly illustrates what I am talking about. Instead of just admitting the obvious we must go into great debates as to the extent, etc.. To me* it's quite obvious Wagner would have welcomed Hitler to Bayreuth as he (along with countless other Germans) would have been swept along by Hitler's dark charisma and the promise of making Germany great. Wagner would also approved of Hitler's antisemitism.* Whether he would have approved of - or been appalled by - the extent to which the antisemitism was taken is another matter. We really cannot speculate one way or another. But the inescapable fact of history is that Wagner's family carried their adoration of Hitler further than most. Of course, Wagner cannot be blamed for this himself but it is inescapable that he *sowed the seeds of it*.


How do you know that Wagner would have been swept along by Hitler's 'dark charisma'?

The Nasties never got a majority in a free election, so why is this obvious?

Why would Wagner have necessarily approved of Hitler's anti-Semitism if the nature of their anti-Semitism were so different?

Should one be held accountable for what one's, er, seed, turns into when it grows?


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

DavidA said:


> The problem you have is that there are uncomfortable overlaps in the philosophies of Wagner and Hitler. That is one reason why his close relatives just one generation down the line were so keen to welcome Hitler to Bayreuth eg Wieland Wagner, who was a strong supporter of Hitler and closely associated with Hitler, later tried to distance himself from the Nazis by radically re staging the operas. .
> I never see why you guys want everyone to turn a blind eye to it, to pretend it isn't there.
> Is this cover-up because Wagner has become some sort of religious icon? I can recognise it is there and still enjoy the music.


Making vague assertions about Wagner's and Hitler's philosophies overlapping doesn't go very far in explaining or excusing anything. In fact, knowing what I do about both men, I would say their philosophies were mostly worlds apart. Until his early forties, far from being some sort of fascist, Wagner was socialist. Later in life, partly nourished by his reading of Schopenhauer, he became convinced of the un-changeability of the human condition; his outlook took a metaphysical turn and became more inward than outward looking. At no point do his political or general world views match-up with Hitler's, even remotely. And I've already commented on how different in character Wagner's antisemitism was from Hitler's. It was crassly and cruelly expressed, and is not to be defended, but no honest account of it can make it the same as the antisemitism of Hitler. The foundations of Wagner's antisemitism, as well as his German nationalism and his anti-French posturings, were predominantly cultural. What mattered to him overwhelmingly were art and music, and he held his attitudes chiefly with regards to these. He never argued that Jews should be subjected to legal disabilities or forfeit their civil rights. His hostility to them did not operate at that level. I hardly think Hitler would have been in a position where he was not only working closely with Jewish artists on a daily basis but having two Jews living as part of his household, or would have been able to make a laconic comment like Wagner did to Cosima about their home turning into a synagogue. I also don't think Hitler would have thought much of the conclusions Wagner reaches in an essay like "Know Thyself".

I'm afraid that attempts to combat widely held assumptions that only go to create misunderstandings don't constitute any kind of cover-up. There has been no turning of a blind-eye to anything; in fact, speaking for myself, I know that my goal has always been for knowledge. Not to _excuse_ Wagner's beliefs or his antisemitism, but to understand them and confront them for what they were, not make them out to be something they were not.


----------



## TxllxT

Of course TC members never venture into the sub-world of the internet: the maelstrom of illegal uploads & downloads. But if you just out of pure curiosity want to have a look around down there, be sure your screen will fill up with pop-up advertisements for games & casinos. What interests me in these pop-ups, are the fantasies of these website exploiters with which they try to seduce the public. Lots & lots of game fantasies find unending inspiration in the fantasy world of the late 19th century, when there existed a great longing for the pre-civilised world. In Germany, Russia, Czech Republic we have seen huge canvasses, on which a painter was imagining for example the battle between the Saxons and the Czechs (a battle that was won by the Czechs)








Richard Wagner's fantasy world has this wider background, where many artists were hailing the nationalistic pride of their nation. Wagner was hailing the national pride of _Das Deutsche Reich_, an entity that came into existence under the guidance of Bismarck. In doing this, he was just a typical _Zeitgeist_ follower. But Wagner went further on with his fantasies. In _Die Ring des Nibelungen_ we see him delving deeper into German mythology, leaving Tannhäuser & Die Meistersinger behind on a more legendary quasi-historical level. What is happening, when Wagner immerses more & more into the mythology of the Edda & _Das Nibelungenlied_ ? We witness the disappearing of human beings. Instead of human beings we are being confronted with Gods, Giants & Trolls. The fantasies around these fantasy beings easily fire up into larger-than-life proportions and obviously is this the reason why the game exploiters of today go ahead into this same direction.
What is the deep felt abyss between Wagner, Edda, Nibelungenlied (& nowadays game exploiters) on the one hand and the Jews and the Bible on the other hand? It's the direction into which there are looking. Wagner and his fellow fantasy makers *look away* from human beings. The Jews and the Bible *look into the face* of human beings. The God of the Bible is even looking for human beings who are lost. It is the direction where your face is looking to, that is decisive. Wagner didn't like the Jews, because they have this inborn inclination to preserve what is human. He felt at liberty, when he could move away from that and plunge for his goldmine into the Rhine. 
Hitler hated human civilisation and blames the Jews for having civilised the nation of _Übermenschen_. Why did he adore Richard Wagner? With Wagner he thought to get Germany back into this lost pre-Christian & pre-Jewish world.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

DavidA said:


> Your post exactly illustrates what I am talking about. Instead of just admitting the obvious we must go into great debates as to the extent, etc.. To me it's quite obvious Wagner would have welcomed Hitler to Bayreuth as he (along with countless other Germans) would have been swept along by Hitler's dark charisma and the promise of making Germany great. Wagner would also approved of Hitler's antisemitism. Whether he would have approved of - or been appalled by - the extent to which the antisemitism was taken is another matter. We really cannot speculate one way or another. But the inescapable fact of history is that Wagner's family carried their adoration of Hitler further than most. Of course, Wagner cannot be blamed for this himself but it is inescapable that he sowed the seeds of it.


Admitting the obvious is not the same thing as unfounded speculation about how Wagner would have received Hitler. Knowing what we do know about Wagner -- his refusal to sign antisemitic petitions, his disillusionment with Bismark's new Germany that was not at all the sort of society that he wanted or believe in -- I would say those comments are considerably off-base.

As for Wagner needing to be held responsible for sewing the seeds of something that took on a life of it's own after his death, I mostly agree. Of course we need some perspective first. Wagner was not one who advocated violence, in fact he abhorred it. What he did do was to try to make the world a better place through art. He was commenting on the ills of civilization in his time and arguing for art, love, compassion and community. Though he had his prejudices, I think in the grand scheme of things it is proper and right to celebrate him for his life and artistic legacy. This doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't acknowledge his flaws, one of them being his idealistic belief in a Utopian society that led him to create a narrative construction of an amorphous entity that he called _the Jews_ as enemies of his cultural and revolutionary program. He consciously engendered a Utopian cult around him and his works, and it was within this cult that a strain of antisemitism grew that eventually linked up with Hitler. As Bryan Magee has rightly remarked:

"The circles that surrounded him in his final years at Bayreuth contained many individuals who fitted the stereotype view of him much better than he fitted it himself: vulgarly and aggressively patriotic for the new Germany, militantly right-wing in political and social views, clamorously anti-Semitic. Wagner was bad enough in the last of these respects, but his courtiers, and many of those who helped to run the Bayreuth Festival during the decades between his death and the Second World War, were worse in all of them than he was, and they marred his reputation unnecessarily. An entourage is always a bad thing, for it always reinforces the isolation and limitations of the person at the centre of it. Furthermore, like attracts worse. It is ironic that the two most repellent early Wagnerites should have been not German but British nationals by origin: Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who married Wagner's daughter Eva, and Winifried Williams, who married his son Siegfried."

So by all means, hold him accountable for his impractical views. Hold him accountable for the bubble he created around himself and his supporters. Hold him accountable for his inability to see the practical application in the real world of his "ethical aesthetics" (his term) and his wrongheaded beliefs that the Jews were some sort of corrupting influence on German intellectual and artistic life. But, you know, at the end of the day his driving passion in life was to regenerate the German spirit and ennoble human beings through his music dramas. He had a desire to see a united Germany self-confident in its own culture carrying their great artistic traditions into the future. I believe his intentions were for the best; he truly felt he was doing a service for mankind. He was a deeply flawed human being, but let's not make him accountable for the crimes of others in generations to come, and let's not condone the perpetuation of untrue associations and falsification of both his character and his art.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

TxllxT said:


> Hitler hated human civilisation and blames the Jews for having civilised the nation of _Übermenschen_. Why did he adore Richard Wagner? With Wagner he thought to get Germany back into this lost pre-Christian & pre-Jewish world.


Or conversely, here are Michael Tanner's thoughts:

"Still, the question will haunt many people: why was it Wagner who was such an inspiration to him? The main reason, I suspect - and this is confirmed by his remark that all told _Tristan und Isolde_ is Wagner's greatest work, which is rather inconvenient for those who wish to see a Hitlerian streak in Wagner - is that he was attracted by the atmosphere or ethos of Wagner's works, the state of perpetual crisis that most of them portray, which means that every moment is a moment of crucial decision. There isn't any doubt that Wagner's works do convey that sense very powerfully, nor that it is one that imbues life with a thrilling momentousness that counters the colourless routine which most people are prepared, or resigned, to experiencing. It seems that Hitler enjoyed opera, and other art, that was either very serious and demanding, or escapist and positively frivolous. (Frederic Spotts, in his excellent book _Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics_, tells us that Hitler attended performances of Wagner a great deal while things were going well for him, as leader of Germany; but that when the tide turned with Stalingrad he could no longer bear to listen to Wagner, and instead indulged his passion for Lehár, above all _The Merry Widow_. It's a bizarre thought that when Germany and Europe were hurtling to destruction, Hitler spent much of his birthday in 1943 discussing the respective merits of two recordings of _The Merry Widow_, from Berlin and Munich, before settling down to listen to the one he concluded was superior.) Wagner, in other words, had a fan in Hitler for the same reason that he has many other fans - though he has plenty on other grounds too: he leads them to feel that they are in a world which doesn't evoke religious responses, but rather what one might call metaphysical ones. What we do, how we act, what our attitudes to living are have enormous significance for the drama that is the world: human and - in a way - superhuman, but not transcendent."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

_



Originally Posted by DavidA 
The problem you have is that there are uncomfortable overlaps in the philosophies of Wagner and Hitler. That is one reason why his close relatives just one generation down the line were so keen to welcome Hitler to Bayreuth eg Wieland Wagner, who was a strong supporter of Hitler and closely associated with Hitler, later tried to distance himself from the Nazis by radically re staging the operas. . 
I never see why you guys want everyone to turn a blind eye to it, to pretend it isn't there. 
Is this cover-up because Wagner has become some sort of religious icon? I can recognise it is there and still enjoy the music.

Woodduck: I don't have a problem at all with any "overlaps" in the "philosophies" of Wagner and Hitler. In a broad, general sense, both men could be characterized as antisemites. But antisemitism is not a precise term and is not a philosophy. Wagner, in his essay Das Judentum in der Musik, made observtions and expressed ideas about Jewish identity in relation to the society of the time, ideas which I outlined in an earlier post. He did not express, and in fact disagreed strongly with, theories of Jewish racial inferiority and the corruption of Aryan racial purity which were espoused late in Wagner's lifetime by Gobineau and adopted by Hitler and Nazism. If you want to call this a "philosophical overlap" I can't stop you. To me it looks like a very significant philosophical difference. Wagner's own ideas do not provide a reason for anyone, related to Wagner or not, to sympathize with the racist ideas which Wagner himself rejected, and if Wagner's descendants were sympathetic to Hitler's philosophy or goals, it was not on the basis of the composer's expressed attitudes or actions. It is reasonable to suppose that Wagner's negative remarks about Jewishness contributed in some undetermined degree to an atmosphere of antisemitism in 19th-century Germany. Vast numbers of people contributed similarly. But it was not Wagner's specific, expressed ideas - one of which, please note, was that Jews should properly be free citizens of European states - which implied or led to the attempted physical extermination of the Jewish "race." Wagner had no association with racial ideologies or with Nazism; those association were made after his death, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that he would have sanctioned them in any respect.

So tell us: how much responsibility do you want Wagner to shoulder for Auschwitz and Theresienstadt? What's your standard of measurement for culpability? What's to be accomplished by harping on what his descendants or self-proclaimed disciples thought and did? And how is my assertion that Wagner's art - the central concern of his life and his essential contribution to the world - is neither an embodiment of nor a contribution to antisemitism, past or present, a coverup of anything? The Ring of the Nibelung and Parsifal have never killed any Jews or uttered a word or a note to their disfavor. Efforts to show otherwise have been grotesque in their fanciful absurdity. Wagner, never shy in expressing himself, has left us plenty of words describing his artistic intentions; antisemitic sentiments and propaganda are conspicuously absent from those descriptions. Wagner the man thought and said a lot of things, rational and irrational. Wagner the artist had far deeper issues to address than whether a particular group of people were successfully integrated into 19th-century German culture. I'm sorry that you and others can't think of Wagner without thinking of Hitler. Others of us can, and we can without evading or "covering up" a single fact of history.

Click to expand...

_It would be more reasonable-- in fact, 'historical'-- to point out that the pseudo-scientific racism and aggressive nationalism of Nazism was imported from_ abroad_: from such Latins as Sismondi, Sorel, and Gobineau; and from such Anglo-Saxons as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Carlyle, and Ruskin. Hitler's eugenics program came out of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute-- a Rockefeller-funded, "racial hygiene" (their terminology, not mine) enterprise. Such "progressives" like Margaret Sanger, who was friends with Dr. Ernst Rudin (the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute), called black people weeds, and would often say, "More children from fit races, less children from unfit ones." Teddy Roosevelt idolized the eugenicist Madison Grant-- of whose book _The Passing of the Great Race_, Hitler called "his Bible." The Marxist philosopher Werner Sombart said that Hitler was the Supreme Fuhrer of the Universe, and that he got his orders directly from God.

--- All of these people had a very real, palpable effect on the acceptance of Nazism in Germany.

Wagner's art is a red herring.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> It would be more reasonable-- in fact, 'historical'-- to point out that the pseudo-scientific racism and aggressive nationalism of Nazism was imported from_ abroad_: from such Latins as Sismondi, Sorel, and Gobineau; and from such Anglo-Saxons as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Carlyle, and Ruskin. Hitler's eugenics program came out of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute-- a Rockefeller-funded, "racial hygiene" (their terminology, not mine) enterprise. Such "progressives" like Margaret Sanger, who was friends with Dr. Ernst Rudin (the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute), called black people weeds, and would often say, "More children from fit races, less children from unfit ones." Teddy Roosevelt idolized the eugenicist Madison Grant-- of whose book _The Passing of the Great Race_, Hitler called "his Bible." The Marxist philosopher Werner Sombart said that Hitler was the Supreme Fuhrer of the Universe, and that he got his orders directly from God.
> 
> --- All of these people had a very real, palpable effect on the acceptance of Nazism in Germany.
> 
> Wagner's art is a red herring.


Nothing but the facts here, thank you very much! We ivory tower types need information specialists like you. :clap:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Those who can, 'do'-- as we're too busy making money; those who can't, 'teach'-- His Eminence the Woodduck excepted.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Really, I don't have anything against the professoriate at all; only against the self-annoited, unctious nonsense of schoolmarming post-modernists.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I have just emerged out of the Teutonic forests and see people still going round and round and round endlessly chewing over the same old debate.... 

And by the way, Germany does not need a Hitler to "make it great". It is already great, and so is Wagner...


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> It would be more reasonable-- in fact, 'historical'-- to point out that the pseudo-scientific racism and aggressive nationalism of Nazism was imported from_ abroad_: from such Latins as Sismondi, Sorel, and Gobineau; and from such Anglo-Saxons as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Carlyle, and Ruskin. Hitler's eugenics program came out of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute-- a Rockefeller-funded, "racial hygiene" (their terminology, not mine) enterprise. Such "progressives" like Margaret Sanger, who was friends with Dr. Ernst Rudin (the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute), called black people weeds, and would often say, "More children from fit races, less children from unfit ones." Teddy Roosevelt idolized the eugenicist Madison Grant-- of whose book _The Passing of the Great Race_, Hitler called "his Bible." The Marxist philosopher Werner Sombart said that Hitler was the Supreme Fuhrer of the Universe, and that he got his orders directly from God.
> 
> --- All of these people had a very real, palpable effect on the acceptance of Nazism in Germany.
> 
> Wagner's art is a red herring.


You are right in everything you say. But the fact remains that Wagner's music is inextricably linked with Hitler in the minds of many people through:
A) the Fuhrer's championing of Wagner's music
B) the Wagner family's familiarity with Hitler
C) the fact that Wagner's own racism was uncomfortably close to Hitler's in places. If Wagner hadn't have expressed such vitriolic racist views himself, no-one would have thought too much of Hitler's admiring him.
D) the fact that the ultimate racist, Chamberlain, was Wagner's son-in-law
Wagner's art may be a red herring but certainly the associations are not. Trying to deny them just is a denial of history.
You might also mention that Darwinianism was also a very real factor in the out working of Nazi policies.


----------



## DavidA

SiegendesLicht said:


> I have just emerged out of the Teutonic forests and see people still going round and round and round endlessly chewing over the same old debate....
> 
> And by the way, Germany does not need a Hitler to "make it great". It is already great, and so is Wagner...


Germany followed Hitler because they believed he would make them great again after WW 1. Of course, they believed a lie.

Wagner was a great musician. Like some other composers, he was not a great man!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Wagner was a great musician. Like some other composers, he was not a great man!


Very true, in ways much discussed. But we know only the discussions, not the man himself. "Great" means many things, and anyone may be great in some ways but not in others. Perhaps Herrmann Levi was deluded or intimidated when he told his father that Wagner was, not merely a great artist, but a great man. Or perhaps not even Wagner's suggestion that he change his religion could blind him to qualities we are in no position to see.

I prefer to avoid blanket judgments of the dead, and simply be grateful for their gifts.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Originally Posted by DavidA View Post
> 
> Wagner was a great musician. Like some other composers, he was not a great man!
> 
> Woodduck: Very true, in ways much discussed. But we know only the discussions, not the man himself. "Great" means many things, and anyone may be great in some ways but not in others. Perhaps Herrmann Levi was deluded or intimidated when he told his father that Wagner was, not merely a great artist, but a great man. Or perhaps not even Wagner's suggestion that he change his religion could blind him to qualities we are in no position to see.
> 
> I prefer to avoid blanket judgments of the dead, and simply be grateful for their gifts.


I didn't come here to decry Wagner; on the contrary, I praise him, and perhaps excessively, because only a small-souled man could write something as gorgeous and fleshy and sensual as _Parsifal_ or _Tannhauser_.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Very true, in ways much discussed. But we know only the discussions, not the man himself. "Great" means many things, and anyone may be great in some ways but not in others. Perhaps Herrmann Levi was deluded or intimidated when he told his father that Wagner was, not merely a great artist, but a great man. Or perhaps not even Wagner's suggestion that he change his religion could blind him to qualities we are in no position to see.
> 
> I prefer to avoid blanket judgments of the dead, and simply be grateful for their gifts.


Yes, but not making blanket judgments doesn't mean we don't make judgments at all. The historian has to make such judgments. What we should do is to make sure they are balanced and fair and effected as little as possible by our regard (or otherwise) for the man and his art.
One thing we can say about Wagner is that he was obviously a highly charismatic person. He was still able to retain peoples regard and affection even though we treated them abominably sometimes


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> I didn't come here to decry Wagner; on the contrary, I praise him, and perhaps excessively, because only a small-souled man could write something as gorgeous and fleshy and sensual as _Parsifal_ or _Tannhauser_.


I think an awful lot of people confuse being a great artist to being a great man. Four example, Shakespeare is often quoted as being one of the greatest Britons who ever lived. We know he was a great playwright but we hardly know anything about him as a man. So the judgement of greatness can only be made on his art not on his life.


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> I think an awful lot of people confuse being a great artist to being a great man. Four example, Shakespeare is often quoted as being one of the greatest Britons who ever lived. We know he was a great playwright but we hardly know anything about him as a man. So the judgement of greatness can only be made on his art not on his life.


Wagner is great in voluminousness


----------



## Couac Addict

He'd be a great DJ at a beach party but I'd be forever worried that he'd throw himself into the bonfire.


----------



## Couchie

Since Wagner created great music, all things considered, he himself must be at least as great as his creation. If he was not virtuous in his interpersonal dealings, as much can be said. But to leverage that to make an overall assessment that Wagner was not a great man is to subtract the value of "being nice" from the value of his music, a meaningless operation.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Since Wagner created great music, all things considered, he himself must be at least as great as his creation. If he was not virtuous in his interpersonal dealings, as much can be said. But to leverage that to make an overall assessment that Wagner was not a great man is to subtract the value of "being nice" from the value of his music, a meaningless operation.


It of course depends on how you interpret the word 'great'. A man might have a tremendous talent in one direction and be a complete failure in most other things, that does not, IMO qualify him for the title of a 'great man' as 'great' includes character as well as talent. Of course, the fact that (eg) Beethoven was a right toe-rag does not detract from the music he wrote one iota.


----------



## Couchie

DavidA said:


> It of course depends on how you interpret the word 'great'. A man might have a tremendous talent in one direction and be a complete failure in most other things, that does not, IMO qualify him for the title of a 'great man' as 'great' includes character as well as talent. Of course, the fact that (eg) Beethoven was a right toe-rag does not detract from the music he wrote one iota.


Saying Wagner is not great because he was unpleasant makes as much sense than saying Jesus was not great because, while he was completely selfless and virtuous, he failed to make any notable contribution to the standard operatic repertoire.


----------



## Revenant

Couchie said:


> Saying Wagner is not great because he was unpleasant makes as much sense than saying Jesus was not great because, while he was completely selfless and virtuous, he failed to make any notable contribution to the standard operatic repertoire.


Really now... How about Jesus Christ Superstar? :angel:


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Saying Wagner is not great because he was unpleasant makes as much sense than saying Jesus was not great because, while he was completely selfless and virtuous, he failed to make any notable contribution to the standard operatic repertoire.


You are missing the point, friend. Wagner had great musical talent but at being a decent human being he was decidedly less talented.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Agreed as the point isn't about the music but the man and it seems that most didn't and don't like the guy as a man


----------



## JohnGerald

Well, since I never met RW, I can't say whether he was a scumbag or not, But, try as I might, I have never been able to find pleasure in his operas, other than from a very few orchestral works.. I think there are several resons for this.

1. When I studied voice, I and most of my fellow students found that Italian caressed and developed the voice, but trying to sing "Ich" on a high B flat was ruinous. Italian is all about vowels, but German is a lot to do with consonants.

2. The development of Romanticism in music took different paths in Germany and Italy, its birthplace. The former was mostly expressed in the orchestra, while the latter was expressed vocally. I believe that either Phil Gosset, or Richard Osborne in his biography of Rossini stated that Rossini and Beethoven were the compositional "rock stars" of their time, i.e., they were very popular all over Europe. While I do listen to a lot of symphonic music, it does not have the same emotional impact on me as vocal music does. And my antecedents are Irish, not Italian ...

3. Bel Canto, with all its alleged excesses resonates with me at some very basic level. Wagner doesn't.

4. Finally, while most operatic plots are silly, and some verge on the ridiculous, I can't get seriously involved with Norse mythology, especially where the music is ponderous, without a clear vocal line and seems interminably loooong.


----------



## Vesteralen

At my current age and circumstance, I don't have the patience to listen to Wagner. I do most of my listening at work and in my car, and neither venue gives the kind of all-or-nothing attention opportunity RW seems to demand.

So, in my case, it's not so much Wagner's fault as mine.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

JohnGerald said:


> When I studied voice, I and most of my fellow students found that Italian caressed and developed the voice, but trying to sing "Ich" on a high B flat was ruinous. Italian is all about vowels, but German is a lot to do with consonants.


I don't know how hard classical singing in German is, but I like that consonant in the word "ich" and similar, very, very much. There is something so soft and distinguished about it. Just sayin'


----------



## shangoyal

Seeing this thread, I decided to listen to Tristan und Isolde (for the very first time) - and I have to say I am astonished so far. Great stuff.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I don't dislike Wagner's operas, in fact there are parts I play often, especially the vorspiels. His works are simply overwhelming. Not in sound, but in sheer scale.


----------



## Itullian

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> I don't dislike Wagner's operas, in fact there are parts I play often, especially the vorspiels. *His works are simply overwhelming. Not in sound, but in sheer scale.*


Yes they are


----------



## TxllxT

shangoyal said:


> Seeing this thread, I decided to listen to Tristan und Isolde (for the very first time) - and I have to say I am astonished so far. Great stuff.


Yes. the only proof is eating the pudding, and what a pudding this is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

And one more observation about _sounds_: there are also the umlauts, particularly the "ö" and "ü". There is a moment in the famous quintet from Die Meistersinger when Eva sings "... Traum der höchsten Hulden..." (... dream of highest favours...), and that long, drawn out "hööööööchsten" sounds so very good.

You see, everything about Wagnerian art is beautiful, from the grand, world-encompassing myths to the single particular German sounds.


----------



## Sloe

SiegendesLicht said:


> And one more observation about _sounds_: there are also the umlauts, particularly the "ö" and "ü". There is a moment in the famous quintet from Die Meistersinger when Eva sings "... Traum der höchsten Hulden..." (... dream of highest favours...), and that long, drawn out "hööööööchsten" sounds so very good.
> 
> You see, everything about Wagnerian art is beautiful, from the grand, world-encompassing myths to the single particular German sounds.


What about French listening to it seems like ö and y/ü are the only vocal sounds they have?


----------



## Aramis

SiegendesLicht said:


> And one more observation about _sounds_: there are also the umlauts, particularly the "ö" and "ü". There is a moment in the famous quintet from Die Meistersinger when Eva sings "... Traum der höchsten Hulden..." (... dream of highest favours...), and that long, drawn out "hööööööchsten" sounds so very good.


There are also countless moments when singers have to hurriedly throw these harsh/unmusical German endings at the end of the longer notes sung on vovels, like -ft (which often sounds like character would decide to spit after saying what he/she had to say), -kt, -dt, -rd and some grunt-like "h"s. To each his own, one can like German, sure, but whether it's naturally musical language or not... the case is pretty obvious.


----------



## Woodduck

Aramis said:


> There are also countless moments when singers have to hurriedly throw these harsh/unmusical German endings at the end of the longer notes sung on vovels, like -ft (which often sounds like character would decide to spit after saying what he/she had to say), -kt, -dt, -rd and some grunt-like "h"s. To each his own, one can like German, sure, but whether it's naturally musical language or not... the case is pretty obvious.


Be careful how you define "musical." Wagner was acutely sensitive to the sounds of his own language and to how they could be used expressively. To the extent that musicality has to do with expression, Wagner's poetic diction is full of music. Just listen to the _Ring_ in translation and see how much is lost. "Starke Scheite schichtet mir dort am Rande des Rheins zuhauf!" resounds with the music of Brunnhilde's power; "Mighty logs pile up for me there upon the bank of the Rhine!" has neither music nor power. And just try it (no, please don't) in Italian or French.


----------



## Woodduck

shangoyal said:


> Seeing this thread, I decided to listen to Tristan und Isolde (for the very first time) - and I have to say I am astonished so far. Great stuff.


I would say I envy you your first time. But your astonishment will only grow. After fifty years I still can't believe the damn thing.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> Be careful how you define "musical." Wagner was acutely sensitive to the sounds of his own language and to how they could be used expressively. To the extent that musicality has to do with expression, Wagner's poetic diction is full of music. Just listen to the _Ring_ in translation and see how much is lost. "Starke Scheite schichtet mir dort am Rande des Rheins zuhauf!" resounds with the music of Brunnhilde's power; "Mighty logs pile up for me there upon the bank of the Rhine!" has neither music nor power. And just try it (no, please don't) in Italian or French.


Or try "Schmiede, mein Hammer, ein hartes Schwert!" vs. "Forge me, my hammer, a hard strong sword!"


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Be careful how you define "musical." Wagner was acutely sensitive to the sounds of his own language and to how they could be used expressively. To the extent that musicality has to do with expression, Wagner's poetic diction is full of music. Just listen to the _Ring_ in translation and see how much is lost. "Starke Scheite schichtet mir dort am Rande des Rheins zuhauf!" resounds with the music of Brunnhilde's power; "Mighty logs pile up for me there upon the bank of the Rhine!" has neither music nor power. And just try it (no, please don't) in Italian or French.


The English translation is weak because it doesn't offer an equivalent to the three strong 'S' ("St"!, "Sch"!, "Sch"!) sounds and the two rolling "R" sounds. Wagner's ears clearly concentrated on that alliteration-effect. Sometimes one has to let the meaning go in order to save a language's inner music, when translating from one to another language. It's difficult, but not impossible.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Be careful how you define "musical." Wagner was acutely sensitive to the sounds of his own language and to how they could be used expressively. To the extent that musicality has to do with expression, Wagner's poetic diction is full of music. Just listen to the _Ring_ in translation and see how much is lost. "Starke Scheite schichtet mir dort am Rande des Rheins zuhauf!" resounds with the music of Brunnhilde's power; "Mighty logs pile up for me there upon the bank of the Rhine!" has neither music nor power. And just try it (no, please don't) in Italian or French.


To me it is obvious that no language on earth has such possibilities for grumbling than the German language. The most notable grumbler being Wotan, who is Wagner's _Über-Ich_. So perhaps the real trouble is not in the language, but in the untranslatable *character* of Wotan, Brünnhilde etc. Their character is so much rooted in German, and in another language they appear as emperors without clothes.


----------



## Aramis

Woodduck said:


> Be careful how you define "musical." Wagner was acutely sensitive to the sounds of his own language and to how they could be used expressively. To the extent that musicality has to do with expression, Wagner's poetic diction is full of music. Just listen to the _Ring_ in translation and see how much is lost. "Starke Scheite schichtet mir dort am Rande des Rheins zuhauf!" resounds with the music of Brunnhilde's power; "Mighty logs pile up for me there upon the bank of the Rhine!" has neither music nor power. And just try it (no, please don't) in Italian or French.


I define "musical" as "naturally suitable for singing". Of course Wagner knew how to use his language to best possible effect, but it still doesn't change the fact that this language is generally disadvantaged and full of obstacles for the singer and possibly composers who have to reduce the discords while setting texts to music. There is reason why even German composers preferred to write in other languages in baroque/classical periods, before musical nationalism got the upper hand.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> The English translation is weak because it doesn't offer an equivalent to the three strong 'S' ("St"!, "Sch"!, "Sch"!) sounds and the two rolling "R" sounds. Wagner's ears clearly concentrated on that alliteration-effect. Sometimes one has to let the meaning go in order to save a language's inner music, when translating from one to another language. It's difficult, but not impossible.


Exactly _what_ is "difficult but not impossible?" Are you saying that poetic language - language in which meaning resides in sonority and connotation - is translatable? I think anyone who has undertaken the task of translating poetry will tell you that there is almost always substantial compromise, and that inevitably something is lost. No language's inner music can actually be "saved" in another language. It can only be, at best, approximated.


----------



## Woodduck

Aramis said:


> I define "musical" as "naturally suitable for singing". Of course Wagner knew how to use his language to best possible effect, but it still doesn't change the fact that this language is generally disadvantaged and full of obstacles for the singer and possibly composers who have to reduce the discords while setting texts to music. There is reason why even German composers preferred to write in other languages in baroque/classical periods, before musical nationalism got the upper hand.


Given that definition, I would agree that some languages may present more obstacles, mainly in the form of diphthongs and consonants, to easy vocal production. Those obstacles are obviously not insurmountable; great singers seem to have no more trouble with German or English or Russian than with Italian or French. It was the experience of hearing the beautiful German diction of Lotte Lehmann and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf that made me realize that the usual cliches about the "musicality" of various languages are overstated, and that singers can turn the peculiarities of these languages (particularly their own languages) to artistic advantage, with no loss of purely vocal prowess.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Aramis said:


> There is reason why even German composers preferred to write in other languages in baroque/classical periods, before musical nationalism got the upper hand.


These reasons had more to do with fashion than with inherent musicality of languages.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Exactly _what_ is "difficult but not impossible?" Are you saying that poetic language - language in which meaning resides in sonority and connotation - is translatable? I think anyone who has undertaken the task of translating poetry will tell you that there is almost always substantial compromise, and that inevitably something is lost. No language's inner music can actually be "saved" in another language. It can only be, at best, approximated.


Wagner listened to his native German first and foremost for its inner music. No wonder, he was 100% occupied with music. So if any translator wants to make me aware of Wagner's German in another language, he/she should make me aware of that language's inner music. _Das also war des Pudels Kern!_ When you keep your eyes & ears on that Holy Grail, you will create in the other language a new way of listening to this language's own music. That's no approximation. One shining-singing example that comes to my mind is Paul Celan translating Osip Mandelstam.


----------



## Aramis

SiegendesLicht said:


> These reasons had more to do with fashion than with inherent musicality of languages.


This might just as well be one and the same, because there is always some reason for a fashion to appear. There was little of it in French or Spanish stage music of the day, which both remained dominated by national languages. German composers were particularly liable to this fashion, which is quite significant.


----------



## amfortas

Aramis said:


> This might just as well be one and the same, because there is always some reason for a fashion to appear. There was little of it in French or Spanish stage music of the day, which both remained dominated by national languages. German composers were particularly liable to this fashion, which is quite significant.


But Spain established its own musical theatre tradition apart from opera, while France, under a strong centralized monarchy, quickly established its own operatic tradition apart from the original Italian influence. A less unified Germany, on the other hand, was slower to evolve its own distinctive style, and so remained more dependent on Italian models. We're talking about cultural and political differences that go well beyond the question of a language's singability.


----------



## Aramis

amfortas said:


> A less unified Germany


Because Italy was totally one, unified country in the meanwhile. Otherwise Cimarosa would be known as author of _Das Heimliche Ehe_. Clearly, developing culture is not THAT dependent on existence of unified state.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Wagner listened to his native German first and foremost for its inner music.


It's not a really fancy quote, but I may take it as my new signature for explaining pretty well what is so powerful about the man's art.


----------



## amfortas

Aramis said:


> Because Italy was totally one, unified country in the meanwhile. Otherwise Cimarosa would be known as author of _Das Heimliche Ehe_. Clearly, developing culture is not THAT dependent on existence of unified state.


But Italy gave birth to opera, its own native tradition, which gradually developed as it spread from one city state to another (Florence, Mantua, Venice). Germany, on the other hand, merely imported an already well-established art form from another culture. It's understandable the Germans wouldn't immediately find their own distinctive equivalent (especially since they lacked the theatrical tradition of catering to a strong centralized monarchy, like in France).


----------



## Aramis

amfortas said:


> It's understandable the Germans wouldn't immediately find their own distinctive equivalent


Weren't we talking about language, though, not finding distinctive equivalents of the art form? German composers were still writing operas in non-German languages more frequently even after they started to write them in more or less German style, musically. Haydn's operas are still in Italian while his music is already distinctly Germanic.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Aramis said:


> Weren't we talking about language, though, not finding distinctive equivalents of the art form? German composers were still writing operas in non-German languages more frequently even after they started to write them in more or less German style musically.


And that had nothing to do with the sound of the language, simply with the prevalence of a fashion for certain languages like French and Italian among the elite, and also with the fact that opera was considered an Italianate art form.


----------



## violadude

I personally love listening to German in classical music (lieder or opera). It's every bit as beautiful (if not more so, sort of my preference) as Italian or French canzonetta or chanson.


----------



## amfortas

Aramis said:


> Weren't we talking about language, though, not finding distinctive equivalents of the art form? German composers were still writing operas in non-German languages more frequently even after they started to write them in more or less German style, musically. Haydn's operas are still in Italian while his music is already distinctly Germanic.


I'll let SiegndesLicht's answer stand for the moment (though I think the argument is starting to circle around to its beginning).

Speaking of language, though, I will say that your English seems to have improved significantly over time, Aramis. Just thought you should know.


----------



## Aramis

amfortas said:


> Speaking of language, though, I will say that your English seems to have improved significantly over time, Aramis. Just thought you should know.


sssssss
ARE YOU TRYING TO BE CONDESCENDING NOW


----------



## SiegendesLicht

One of my favourite bits of Wagner's poetry that beautifully demonstrates his skill with language, comes in Act I of Die Walküre as Siegmund is musing over his newfound love:

Noch einmal, da sie schied,
traf mich abends ihr Schein;
selbst der alten Esche Stamm
_erglänzte in goldener Glut..._

(Once more as she departed
at evening her light fell on me.
Even the trunk of the old ash-tree
Glowed in a golden gleam)

Even apart from the credit that Wagner deserves for reawakening the old Germanic tradition of alliterative poetry, the sound-play in that last line is wonderful. It almost makes you see the light of the setting sun play on that old tree trunk. It takes a real poet to hear the music of one's own language like that.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

violadude said:


> I personally love listening to German in classical music (lieder or opera). It's every bit as beautiful (if not more so, sort of my preference) as Italian or French canzonetta or chanson.


I love German with and without music. Sometimes I even manage to see some beauty in something as unromantic and unpoetic as shipping documents for various stuff that pass through my hands daily - purely because of the sound of the language.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> One of my favourite bits of Wagner's poetry that beautifully demonstrates his skill with language, comes in Act I of Die Walküre as Siegmund is musing over his newfound love:
> 
> Noch einmal, da sie schied,
> traf mich abends ihr Schein;
> selbst der alten Esche Stamm
> _erglänzte in goldener Glut..._
> 
> (Once more as she departed
> at evening her light fell on me.
> Even the trunk of the old ash-tree
> Glowed in a golden gleam)
> 
> Even apart from the credit that Wagner deserves for reawakening the old Germanic tradition of alliterative poetry, the sound-play in that last line is wonderful. It almost makes you see the light of the setting sun play on that old tree trunk. It takes a real poet to hear the music of one's own language like that.


How is it possible that all these declarations of love & admiration are finding their way in this ever prolonged thread?  Just to correct the tone: I think Wagner copied a lot out of the old German poetry, that in his days was still _terra incognita_. Clever, clever indeed, but Wagner himself remains a minor poet with little scruples.


----------



## amfortas

Aramis said:


> sssssss
> ARE YOU TRYING TO BE CONDESCENDING NOW


No, I meant it sincerely. I think I've read your posts long enough to see the improvement, and it's pretty impressive.


----------



## Sloe

JohnGerald said:


> 4. Finally, while most operatic plots are silly, and some verge on the ridiculous, I can't get seriously involved with Norse mythology, especially where the music is ponderous, without a clear vocal line and seems interminably loooong.


For me it is the other way. I told once how music in operas can be a gateway to discover and enjoy stories I would not have found out other ways. With Wagner it is the other way it was the stories that made me interested in his operas and made me discover the music. Music that feels like it is not of this world music that makes our ancestors come to life.


----------



## Bellinilover

I just saw the Met Opera's TANNHAUSER and have been listening to this opera on CD. Based on TANNHAUSER and DIE WALKEURE and what I know of DIE MEISTERSINGER, I'd say that I like Wagner; however, I don't like him as much as I like Richard Strauss, and I certainly don't like him as much as I like Verdi.

Wagner's music makes me think of a room filled with heavy furniture, heavy draperies, and the scent of potpourri -- in other words, his music sounds "Victorian" to me. Though it's undeniably beautiful, it tends to get a bit too "heavy" for my taste and sometimes actually sounds _stodgy _in a way that Verdi's music (also quite "Victorian"-sounding) does not, IMO. I think it's the German language and the out-sized orchestration that does this. I'm pretty sure the reason I like R. Strauss's music so much is that its more twentieth-century sound keeps it from coming across as stodgy or pompous or weighted-down.

I hope all this makes at least some sense. I'm not a musician, so I don't have the technical expertise to express it better.


----------



## Sloe

Bellinilover said:


> I just saw the Met Opera's TANNHAUSER and have been listening to this opera on CD. Based on TANNHAUSER and DIE WALKEURE and what I know of DIE MEISTERSINGER, I'd say that I like Wagner; however, I don't like him as much as I like Richard Strauss, and I certainly don't like him as much as I like Verdi.
> 
> Wagner's music makes me think of a room filled with heavy furniture, heavy draperies, and the scent of potpourri -- in other words, his music sounds "Victorian" to me. Though it's undeniably beautiful, it tends to get a bit too "heavy" for my taste and sometimes actually sounds _stodgy _in a way that Verdi's music (also quite "Victorian"-sounding) does not, IMO. I think it's the German language and the out-sized orchestration that does this. I'm pretty sure the reason I like R. Strauss's music so much is that its more twentieth-century sound keeps it from coming across as stodgy or pompous or weighted-down.
> 
> I hope all this makes at least some sense. I'm not a musician, so I don't have the technical expertise to express it better.


When I listen to Wagner I think of what the operas are about.


----------



## Ivan Limanjaya

For years I had been a bigoted anti-Wagner for 'personal' reason:
1. His antisemitism (I'm Asian myself, so that has nothing to do with me, but still I find it repugnant)
2. His exploiting attitude toward King Ludwig II of Bayern.
3. His hate towards Mendelssohn. I'm a big fan of Bach, so hatred towards Mendelssohn is for me, an indirect hatred towards Bach.
4. The first time I watch a live performance of his work in Marinsky Theater, St. Petersburg, I fell asleep.

But later, I discover his works to be of exceptional quality (no wonder why King Ludwig II admired him so much). As is the case for classical music in general, that the taste is something that you learn and develop over time through literacy, I think I'd need more 'education' to develop a certain degree of openness capable of appreciating the beauty of his music.


----------



## Sloe

Ivan Limanjaya said:


> 3. His hate towards Mendelssohn. I'm a big fan of Bach, so hatred towards Mendelssohn is for me, an indirect hatred towards Bach.


Were have you heard Wagner hated Mendehlson?
From what I have heard Wagner had high thoughts of Mendehlson as a composer.


----------



## TxllxT

Bellinilover said:


> I just saw the Met Opera's TANNHAUSER and have been listening to this opera on CD. Based on TANNHAUSER and DIE WALKEURE and what I know of DIE MEISTERSINGER, I'd say that I like Wagner; however, I don't like him as much as I like Richard Strauss, and I certainly don't like him as much as I like Verdi.
> 
> Wagner's music makes me think of a room filled with heavy furniture, heavy draperies, and the scent of potpourri -- in other words, his music sounds "Victorian" to me. Though it's undeniably beautiful, it tends to get a bit too "heavy" for my taste and sometimes actually sounds _stodgy _in a way that Verdi's music (also quite "Victorian"-sounding) does not, IMO. I think it's the German language and the out-sized orchestration that does this. I'm pretty sure the reason I like R. Strauss's music so much is that its more twentieth-century sound keeps it from coming across as stodgy or pompous or weighted-down.
> 
> I hope all this makes at least some sense. I'm not a musician, so I don't have the technical expertise to express it better.


I certainly cannot imagine Wagner in an IKEA interior..


----------



## TxllxT

*Typical 'Wagner' interiors*




























Instead of 'the scent of potpourri' I associate Wagner with the scent of waterpipes & opiates.


----------



## DavidA

Sloe said:


> Were have you heard Wagner hated Mendehlson?
> From what I have heard Wagner had high thoughts of Mendehlson as a composer.


http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music

http://www.signandsight.com/service/1856.html


----------



## Bellinilover

Sloe said:


> When I listen to Wagner I think of what the operas are about.


Well, yeah, I think of what they're about, too; but in my post I was focusing only on the sound or character of the music itself.


----------



## Itullian

"There may have been a more personal element to all this. In 1836, the 23-year-old Wagner sent Mendelssohn - only four years older but already a towering figure - a copy of his C major Symphony. Mendelssohn never replied. Later, Mendelssohn saw the premiere of Wagner's Flying Dutchman. Robert Schumann, who was with Felix, remembers that he was "totally indignant" about it"
-Guardian-
Same with Meyerbeer

Who dissed who first. Wagner must have respected Mendy , or he wouldn't have sent him his first symphony. Wagner was very indignant toward those that dissed him.


----------



## Triplets

Bellinilover said:


> I just saw the Met Opera's TANNHAUSER and have been listening to this opera on CD. Based on TANNHAUSER and DIE WALKEURE and what I know of DIE MEISTERSINGER, I'd say that I like Wagner; however, I don't like him as much as I like Richard Strauss, and I certainly don't like him as much as I like Verdi.
> 
> Wagner's music makes me think of a room filled with heavy furniture, heavy draperies, and the scent of potpourri -- in other words, his music sounds "Victorian" to me. Though it's undeniably beautiful, it tends to get a bit too "heavy" for my taste and sometimes actually sounds _stodgy _in a way that Verdi's music (also quite "Victorian"-sounding) does not, IMO. I think it's the German language and the out-sized orchestration that does this. I'm pretty sure the reason I like R. Strauss's music so much is that its more twentieth-century sound keeps it from coming across as stodgy or pompous or weighted-down.
> 
> I hope all this makes at least some sense. I'm not a musician, so I don't have the technical expertise to express it better.


Or, to paraphrase Nietzsche, "Wagner's music sweats"


----------



## Sloe

Itullian said:


> "There may have been a more personal element to all this. In 1836, the 23-year-old Wagner sent Mendelssohn - only four years older but already a towering figure - a copy of his C major Symphony. Mendelssohn never replied. Later, Mendelssohn saw the premiere of Wagner's Flying Dutchman. Robert Schumann, who was with Felix, remembers that he was "totally indignant" about it"
> -Guardian-
> 
> Who dissed who first. Wagner must have respected Mendy , or he wouldn't have sent him his first symphony. Wagner was very indignant toward those that dissed him.


I read both articles and I say nothing recembles hate from Wagner´s side.


----------



## Sloe

Bellinilover said:


> Well, yeah, I think of what they're about, too; but in my post I was focusing only on the sound or character of the music itself.


I think the music is very much related to what the operas are about so the Victorian connection is just not there.


----------



## TxllxT

Sloe said:


> I think the music is very much related to what the operas are about so the Victorian connection is just not there.


Well, well: Victorians were & are escapists, who try not to hear, see and smell the industrialised surroundings that intrude their pre-industrial world. Therefore Victorians love to jump out of time into the realm of myths & daydreams. In Victorian times opera was the favourite bandwagon to jump on, if you wanted such a 'time-out'. _"L'Art pour l'Art"_ is* the* ultimate Victorian conviction: voilá the Victorian connection.


----------



## graziesignore

I figure Wagner already has enough fans.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

my opinion of Wagner is kind of like my opinion of Christianity: nice in theory, and respectable when performed properly, but, more often than not, the practitioners disappoint.

some things I would change immediately:
1) cut the histrionically loud orchestras back down to more historically accurate sizes
2) choose the repertoire you will be performing based on the singers you have available. you cannot produce quality opera by choosing one simply because it is popular and expecting singers to adjust when they don't have the right voice for it (Norma, Turandot and Wagner in general are the worst offenders in terms of repertoire)
3) stop hiring people who exaggerate the stereotype of the wobbly-voiced opera singer and hire people who can actually sing (there are plenty who have been able to in the past, and there's no reason why we can't have more Kirsten Flagstads, Helen Traubels, Hans Hotters or Lauritz Melchiors)

PS: unlike the euro tra...ehem..."modern" interpretations which are becoming more popular when performing Italian repertoire, I quite like the increasingly grand staging of Wagnerian opera. it _enhances_ rather than distracts from the music because Wagner is supposed to be epic, heroic and super-human.


----------



## Sonata

I'd love to be able to jump aboard this thread. But apparently now I DO like Wagner's music. I will say it that getting a recording that clicks is VERY important to liking Wagner to me. It's been slow going and hard work to come around to Wagner's music but I'm glad I have. You can give me just about any version of Puccini or Mozart operas and I'm going to love them. But I'm far more particular in terms of what I consider a good Wagner recording.


----------



## Sonata

BalalaikaBoy said:


> my opinion of Wagner is kind of like my opinion of Christianity: nice in theory, and respectable when performed properly, but, more often than not, the practitioners disappoint.
> 
> some things I would change immediately:
> 1) cut the histrionically loud orchestras back down to more historically accurate sizes
> 2) choose the repertoire you will be performing based on the singers you have available. you cannot produce quality opera by choosing one simply because it is popular and expecting singers to adjust when they don't have the right voice for it (Norma, Turandot and Wagner in general are the worst offenders in terms of repertoire)
> 3) stop hiring people who exaggerate the stereotype of the wobbly-voiced opera singer and hire people who can actually sing (there are plenty who have been able to in the past, and there's no reason why we can't have more Kirsten Flagstads, Helen Traubels, Hans Hotters or Lauritz Melchiors)
> 
> PS: unlike the euro tra...ehem..."modern" interpretations which are becoming more popular when performing Italian repertoire, I quite like the increasingly grand staging of Wagnerian opera. it _enhances_ rather than distracts from the music because Wagner is supposed to be epic, heroic and super-human.


Well....I have to say, I'm Christian but I do like your point! Both on the practitioners of the religion as well as your points on Wagner! Well done.


----------



## Sloe

BalalaikaBoy said:


> my opinion of Wagner is kind of like my opinion of Christianity: nice in theory, and respectable when performed properly, but, more often than not, the practitioners disappoint.
> 
> some things I would change immediately:
> 1) cut the histrionically loud orchestras back down to more historically accurate sizes
> 2) choose the repertoire you will be performing based on the singers you have available. you cannot produce quality opera by choosing one simply because it is popular and expecting singers to adjust when they don't have the right voice for it (Norma, Turandot and Wagner in general are the worst offenders in terms of repertoire)
> 3) stop hiring people who exaggerate the stereotype of the wobbly-voiced opera singer and hire people who can actually sing (there are plenty who have been able to in the past, and there's no reason why we can't have more Kirsten Flagstads, Helen Traubels, Hans Hotters or Lauritz Melchiors)
> 
> PS: unlike the euro tra...ehem..."modern" interpretations which are becoming more popular when performing Italian repertoire, I quite like the increasingly grand staging of Wagnerian opera. it _enhances_ rather than distracts from the music because Wagner is supposed to be epic, heroic and super-human.


Not all of us have so high standards and I like loud orchestras.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Sloe said:


> Not all of us have so high standards and I like loud orchestras.


no one's asking to. I simply responded when asked why I didn't like Wagner (in this case, in practice more so than the music itself, which I find pleasing)


----------



## Ivan Limanjaya

@Sloe

Maybe I (wrongfully) amalgamated the fact that the NAZI banned performance of Mendelssohn's work and their support for Wagner. But here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies#Antisemitism

I hope I'm not drawing wrong conclusion that Wagner hated Mendelssohn.


----------



## DavidA

Ivan Limanjaya said:


> @Sloe
> 
> Maybe I (wrongfully) amalgamated the fact that the NAZI banned performance of Mendelssohn's work and their support for Wagner. But here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies#Antisemitism
> 
> I hope I'm not drawing wrong conclusion that Wagner hated Mendelssohn.


Hmmm Solomon has no doubts about the matter

http://solomonsmusic.net/WagHit.htm

This may be an extreme statement but I think this gives all of us who admire Wagner's music some discomfort!


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> "There may have been a more personal element to all this. In 1836, the 23-year-old Wagner sent Mendelssohn - only four years older but already a towering figure - a copy of his C major Symphony. Mendelssohn never replied. Later, Mendelssohn saw the premiere of Wagner's Flying Dutchman. Robert Schumann, who was with Felix, remembers that he was "totally indignant" about it"
> -Guardian-
> Same with Meyerbeer
> 
> Who dissed who first. Wagner must have respected Mendy , or he wouldn't have sent him his first symphony. Wagner was very indignant toward those that dissed him.


The problem is that Wagner's antisemitism was a highly developed philosophy that went far deeper than just feeling miffed by someone whom he perceived slighted him.


----------



## DavidA

We have to realise when we are listening to Wagner that the composer offers us a Faustian pact of glorious music coupled with dubious moral and racist implications. He isn't the only composer to do this. Listening to the Magic Flute one can easily see the world of male supremacy, misogyny and racism clearly portrayed. I for one don't try and deny this. It's part of the opera so what's the point of living in denial about it? I don't try and excuse Mozart and Schikaneder so why do we try and excuse Wagner?


----------



## gellio

It took me years to appreciate Wagner and a few more years to absolutely love Wagner. About 2 years after I had gotten into, and fell in love with Wagner, I got a Ring Cycle, only because I felt I had to have it. In the beginning, I could only listen to snippets, then eventually the whole of Siegfried, then eventually the whole thing. Now, I love nothing more than I love the Ring (well maybe Figaro and Don Giovanni). To each his own, but sometimes it takes a long time and a lot of work, but in the end it is worth it.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> We have to realise when we are listening to Wagner that the composer offers us a Faustian pact of glorious music coupled with dubious moral and racist implications. He isn't the only composer to do this. Listening to the Magic Flute one can easily see the world of male supremacy, misogyny and racism clearly portrayed. I for one don't try and deny this. It's part of the opera so what's the point of living in denial about it? I don't try and excuse Mozart and Schikaneder so why do we try and excuse Wagner?


Who are the "we" who "try and excuse Wagner?" Is this a club one can join? I've never met a member.

Wagner certainly had some unsavory personal traits (welcome to humanity!), but the rather comical notion that his operas are a "Faustian pact of glorious music coupled with dubious moral and racist implications" is a personal slant on his works not shared by everyone. I've been listening to them for half a century and Mephistopheles has never materialized in my living room.

As for _The Magic Flute_, it might be said to reflect some of the social biases of its time. Most dramatic art, including opera, does. We're hardly making a pact with Satan - or living in denial - when we enjoy it.

I should think it a desirable goal to be able to love the great art of the world without having to filter the experience through the inevitably cloudy scrim of its creators' personal faults.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Woodduck said:


> Who are the "we" who "try and excuse Wagner?" Is this a club one can join? I've never met a member.
> 
> Wagner certainly had some unsavory personal traits (welcome to humanity!), but the rather comical notion that his operas are a "Faustian pact of glorious music coupled with dubious moral and racist implications" is a personal slant on his works not shared by everyone. I've been listening to them for half a century and Mephistopheles has never materialized in my living room.
> 
> As for _The Magic Flute_, it might be said to reflect some of the social biases of its time. Most dramatic art, including opera, does. We're hardly making a pact with Satan - or living in denial - when we enjoy it.
> 
> I should think it a desirable goal to be able to love the great art of the world without having to filter the experience through the inevitably cloudy scrim of its creators' personal faults.


extended a bit further, I think people are way too sensitive about historical works in general. it gets annoying when people say _everything_ traditional in any capacity is racist, sexist, ethnocentric, etc.


----------



## TxllxT

Why do you NOT like Volkswagen? Why does such a top quality car maker revert to such lowly & abject methods?
Why do you NOT like Wagner? Why does such a top quality composer revert to such lowly & abject methods?


----------



## DavidA

BalalaikaBoy said:


> extended a bit further, I think people are way too sensitive about historical works in general. it gets annoying when people say _everything_ traditional in any capacity is racist, sexist, ethnocentric, etc.


Just to correct your overstatement - I do not believe anyone is saying _everything_ is racist, sexist, ethnocentric.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Who are the "we" who "try and excuse Wagner?" Is this a club one can join? I've never met a member.
> 
> Wagner certainly had some unsavory personal traits (welcome to humanity!), but the rather comical notion that his operas are a "Faustian pact of glorious music coupled with dubious moral and racist implications" is a personal slant on his works not shared by everyone. I've been listening to them for half a century and Mephistopheles has never materialized in my living room.
> 
> As for _The Magic Flute_, it might be said to reflect some of the social biases of its time. Most dramatic art, including opera, does. We're hardly making a pact with Satan - or living in denial - when we enjoy it.
> 
> I should think it a desirable goal to be able to love the great art of the world without having to filter the experience through the inevitably cloudy scrim of its creators' personal faults.


I didn't realise I'd be taken quite so literally when I talk about a 'Faustian Pact'. The phrase was actually cribbed from a well known Wagnerian scholar who said that about the composer and his works so I'll not claim originality. The fact is that whereas the music lover might be prepared to listen to the works the historian is not satisfied with that and - as people and personalities are the stuff of history - wants to investigate the sort of men who composed these works and what their intentions - if any - were.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I didn't realise I'd be taken quite so literally when I talk about a 'Faustian Pact'. The phrase was actually cribbed from a well known Wagnerian scholar who said that about the composer and his works so I'll not claim originality. The fact is that whereas the music lover might be prepared to listen to the works the historian is not satisfied with that and - as people and personalities are the stuff of history - wants to investigate the sort of men who composed these works and what their intentions - if any - were.


Well, we shouldn't be surprised at anything well-known Wagner scholars write. Wagner's dramatic life and art do tend to inspire hyperbole. His personality and thought are legitimate inquiries for the historian, certainly. Just as certainly, however, the listener to the _Siegfried Idyll_ - one of the loveliest presents a man ever gave his wife and newborn son - need not be thinking about that poor cuckold, Hans von Bulow, who had the artistic integrity and good grace to keep life and work apart and to go on championing the music of the man for whom Cosima had deserted him.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Well, we shouldn't be surprised at anything well-known Wagner scholars write. Wagner's dramatic life and art do tend to inspire hyperbole. His personality and thought are legitimate inquiries for the historian, certainly. Just as certainly, however, the listener to the _Siegfried Idyll_ - one of the loveliest presents a man ever gave his wife and newborn son - need not be thinking about that poor cuckold, Hans von Bulow, *who had the artistic integrity and good grace* to keep life and work apart and to go on championing the music of the man for whom Cosima had deserted him.


Did Wagner keep life and work apart? Did he maintain artistic integrity and good grace? Or did he on purpose cheat & introduce his evil-minded vitriol into his mythical characters?


----------



## The Conte

I've noticed that some people (not on TC) seem to think that great artists also need to be great human beings, otherwise their art is tarnished in some way. I really don't understand that. Is it not possible to love the art whilst denouncing the views/personality traits of the artist?

N.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> Did Wagner keep life and work apart? Did he maintain artistic integrity and good grace? Or did he on purpose cheat & introduce his evil-minded vitriol into his mythical characters?


An artist's relationship with his work, and our relationship with it, are certainly very different, are they not?


----------



## TxllxT

The Conte said:


> I've noticed that some people (not on TC) seem to think that great artists also need to be great human beings, otherwise their art is tarnished in some way. I really don't understand that. Is it not possible to love the art whilst denouncing the views/personality traits of the artist?
> 
> N.


OK, but here we are talking not in general (talking in general = forgive everything), but talking about Richard Wagner who did insert hideosities into his art, not with an pure artistic purpose, but with the ungodly purpose of annihilating the Chosen People (I use a 'mythical' name for the Jews here).


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> OK, but here we are talking not in general (talking in general = forgive everything), but talking about *Richard Wagner who did insert hideosities into his art, not with an pure artistic purpose, but with the ungodly purpose of annihilating the Chosen People (I use a 'mythical' name for the Jews here).*


That is a very serious accusatory statement with which I disagree. Such an accusation obliges you to substantiate it. Others who have made it on this forum - or insinuated it, or cited others who have asserted it - have brought whole threads to grief (i.e. got them closed down). It may be best to take it someplace other than a music forum.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> An artist's relationship with his work, and our relationship with it, are certainly very different, are they not?


With 'our relationship' you probably mean aesthetic appreciation. The more refined aesthetic appreciation, the better! Wagner propagated the concept of _Das Gesamtkunstwerk_ and did not want to keep life and work apart anymore. This concept was taken over by Nietzscheans & Futurists and is portrayed as sharp as possible in Bertolucci's _Novecento_. I'm always in shock, when I see Donald Sutherland turning round and round with the child. Bertolucci shows here how far people can go who are infatuated by the concept of _Das Gesamtkunstwerk_. 
Wagner stands at the cradle of a revival of paganism. Paganism is the hailing of immorality. His relationship with his work has the unified _Gesamtkunstwerk_ purpose of introducing paganism into our way of life. Well, he has been successful with achieving this goal, hasn't he?


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> That is a very serious accusatory statement with which I disagree. Such an accusation obliges you to substantiate it. Others who have made it on this forum - or insinuated it, or cited others who have asserted it - have brought whole threads to grief (i.e. got them closed down). It may be best to take it someplace other than a music forum.


OK, I agree that I went too far. Forgive me!


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> With 'our relationship' you probably mean aesthetic appreciation. The more refined aesthetic appreciation, the better! Wagner propagated the concept of _Das Gesamtkunstwerk_ and did not want to keep life and work apart anymore. This concept was taken over by Nietzscheans & Futurists and is portrayed as sharp as possible in Bertolucci's _Novecento_. I'm always in shock, when I see Donald Sutherland turning round and round with the child. Bertolucci shows here how far people can go who are infatuated by the concept of _Das Gesamtkunstwerk_.
> Wagner stands at the cradle of a revival of paganism. Paganism is the hailing of immorality. His relationship with his work has the unified _Gesamtkunstwerk_ purpose of introducing paganism into our way of life. Well, he has been successful with achieving this goal, hasn't he?


OK, I can (partially) forgive your previous statement, but now you have Wagner trying to turn us into pagans! That's going to take some pretty fancy arguing too, especially in light of Parsifal's journey from self-indulgent little game hunter to compassionate healer. Wagner's may not be Billy Graham's or the Vatican's Christianity, but I don't think either Jesus or the Buddha would object to strongly to the lessons he teaches his heroes.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> OK, I can (partially) forgive your previous statement, but now you have Wagner trying to turn us into pagans! That's going to take some pretty fancy arguing too, especially in light of Parsifal's journey from self-indulgent little game hunter to compassionate healer. Wagner's may not be Billy Graham's the Vatican's Christianity, but I don't think either Jesus or the Buddha would object to strongly to the lessons he teaches his heroes.


No, paganism is the hailing of not knowing, of not knowing "_Thou shalt not kill_", of not acknowledging this voice. Parsifal is the prophet of this pagan religion, the worship of not knowing. But by the way, I do like your alignment of Richard Wagner next to Billy Graham!


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> No, paganism is the hailing of not knowing, of not knowing "_Thou shalt not kill_", of not acknowledging this voice. Parsifal is the prophet of this pagan religion, the worship of not knowing. But by the way, I do like your alignment of Richard Wagner next to Billy Graham!


Well, "thou shalt not kill" is Parsifal's first encounter with morality, isn't it? The first dawning of fellow-feeling, of empathy, which is at the heart of morality? Granted, it's a bird and not a person, but then he was basically a good kid and wasn't running around shooting people. I'm sure Gurnemanz would have had something to say about _that!_ As for the "prophet of not knowing," I'm not knowing what the heck you're talking about, but I suspect I'd prefer not knowing in this case. I guess I'm one of those pagans.

Yes, Wagner and Evangelical Billy do make for an amusing juxtaposition, don't they? I felt the thread needed some humor. And don't forget the Pope!


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Well, "thou shalt not kill" is Parsifal's first encounter with morality, isn't it? The first dawning of fellow-feeling, of empathy, which is at the heart of morality? Granted, it's a bird and not a person, but then he was basically a good kid and wasn't running around shooting people. I'm sure Gurnemanz would have had something to say about _that!_ As for the "prophet of not knowing," I'm not knowing what the heck you're talking about, but I suspect I'd prefer not knowing in this case. I guess I'm one of those pagans.
> 
> Yes, Wagner and Evangelical Billy do make for an amusing juxtaposition, don't they? I felt the thread needed some humor. And don't forget the Pope!


Strange that seeing Wagner on his own, or Billy G. on his own --- there is no humour, but together they do make quite a couple...

PARSIFAL

Ich wusste sie nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Wo bist du her?

PARSIFAL

Das weiss ich nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Wer ist sein Vater?

PARSIFAL

Das weiss ich nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Wer sandte dich dieses Weges?

PARSIFAL

Das weiss ich nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Dein Name denn?

PARSIFAL

Ich hatte viele,
doch weiss ich ihrer keinen mehr.

Interpretations may differ, but I do not notice 'a good kid' here, but the subject of brainwashing. Not at all innocent, but the purposeful activist program of Wagner to create an endless number of Parsifal lookalikes marching without brains, without a father, without a name, without a conscience, without a heart. [- The Futurists had a similar program with their adoration of the Machine, producing a mankind that would be identical with the Machine -] Perhaps one may find all these questions [- very weird is the question: _"Wer ist sein Vater?"_ instead of _"Wer ist dein Vater"?_ -] put by Gurnemanz to be of an highly hypothetical nature and therefore innocent...Until you meet such a Parsifal from face to face in real life: beware, beware, such a Fool is extremely dangerous! 
Wagner wrote and composed operas and his opera characters are meant for the stage. But again, in Wagner's concept of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_ the stage and the public outside the stage are intended to become one. The Parsifal on the stage is intended to become one with a Parsifal in the public.


----------



## aisia

TxllxT said:


> Interpretations may differ, but I do not notice 'a good kid' here, but the subject of brainwashing. Not at all innocent, but the purposeful activist program of Wagner to create an endless number of Parsifal lookalikes marching without brains, without a father, without a name, without a conscience, without a heart.


But by the third act, Parsifal is _made wise through compassion_ - which includes, inter alia, knowing his father and his own name. If we had an endless number of enlightened Act III Parsifals around, this would be rather a good thing. Interpretations do indeed differ - and they tend to improve when you take more of the work into account!


----------



## TxllxT

aisia said:


> But by the third act, Parsifal is _made wise through compassion_ - which includes, inter alia, knowing his father and his own name. If we had an endless number of enlightened Act III Parsifals around, this would be rather a good thing. Interpretations do indeed differ - and they tend to improve when you take more of the work into account!


Indeed, It seems to me I'm beginning to see the light: Richard Wagner becoming Billy Graham! This is why Nietzsche turned his back on Wagner. Where are those enlightened Act III Parsifals, where *were* those enlightened Parsifals when they were confronted with their nameless namesakes?


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> PARSIFAL
> 
> Ich wusste sie nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Wo bist du her?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Das weiss ich nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Wer ist sein Vater?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Das weiss ich nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Wer sandte dich dieses Weges?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Das weiss ich nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Dein Name denn?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Ich hatte viele,
> doch weiss ich ihrer keinen mehr.
> 
> Interpretations may differ, but I do not notice 'a good kid' here, but the subject of brainwashing. Not at all innocent, but the purposeful activist program of Wagner to create an endless number of Parsifal lookalikes marching without brains, without a father, without a name, without a conscience, without a heart...


I can only echo aisia's admonition to see this in the context of the whole work. Far from advocating a world populated with "ignorant fools," Wagner is here representing the beginning of the human journey, not its fulfillment. That journey takes the hero through several encounters which progressively jolt him out of his "namelessness," beginning with his Buddha-like experiences of witnessing death and suffering in the realm of the Grail. The deepest meaning of Parsifal's encounter with Kundry, and the thing that makes it his turning point into mature consciousness, is his choice to reject and grow beyond the state of self-absorbed ignorance, the state in which Kundry, posing as his dead mother, would try to keep him. It's a brilliantly concentrated image of the leaving-behind of childhood - the leaving-behind of precisely the "extremely dangerous fool" you say Wagner is advocating.

And lest we imagine that Wagner came to reject the mindless, instinct-driven superhero only in _Parsifal_, we need to realize that even Siegfried had to die. Neither Nietzsche nor Hitler ever really understood what Wagner's poetic instincts were leading him to say, and it's a pity that their fallacious interpretations of him have so imprinted themselves on the public perception.


----------



## aisia

TxllxT said:


> Indeed, It seems to me I'm beginning to see the light: Richard Wagner becoming Billy Graham! This is why Nietzsche turned his back on Wagner. Where are those enlightened Act III Parsifals, where *were* those enlightened Parsifals when they were confronted with their nameless namesakes?


Though Nietzsche despised Wagner's appropriation of Christianity in Parsifal, it was not the cause of their split: 'It was indeed high time to say farewell: _soon after, I received the proof_. Richard Wagner, apparently most triumphant, but in truth a decaying and despairing decadent, suddenly sank down, helpless and broken, before the Christian cross...' (Nietzsche Contra Wagner).

Wagner certainly does not champion the suppression of conscience, and Christianity is a significant influence on the work - in its themes, imagery, and even its music (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_amen).

As to where the Parsifals are, the answer is: few and far between. Enlightenment is not easy, and certainly nothing recognizable as real and lasting enlightenment was ever achieved solely by the appreciation of a single work of art.


----------



## TxllxT

aisia said:


> Though Nietzsche despised Wagner's appropriation of Christianity in Parsifal, it was not the cause of their split: 'It was indeed high time to say farewell: _soon after, I received the proof_. Richard Wagner, apparently most triumphant, but in truth a decaying and despairing decadent, suddenly sank down, helpless and broken, before the Christian cross...' (Nietzsche Contra Wagner).
> 
> Wagner certainly does not champion the suppression of conscience, and Christianity is a significant influence on the work - in its themes, imagery, and even its music (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_amen).
> 
> As to where the Parsifals are, the answer is: few and far between. Enlightenment is not easy, and certainly nothing recognizable as real and lasting enlightenment was ever achieved solely by the appreciation of a single work of art.


Thanks for this answer. Somehow the whole Enlightenment movement comes into view. Parsifal's track is that of starting as a fool and ending wise.... I just want to add a comment on this: wise... wise in your own eyes means to become an even greater fool. I notice in the Enlightenment movement a very strong solipsistic tendency plus a tendency to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to all what is not able to be aligned with this ideology. But to stay with Parsifal: why would this whole Enlightenment not be reversible? I think the later Parsifal to be more foolish, foolish with a conscience, malignantly foolish - and I long back for the plain fool at the beginning. The beginning of the opera I find strong and convincing, the end I find moralising, Billy Graham-ish.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> Thanks for this answer. Somehow the whole Enlightenment movement comes into view. Parsifal's track is that of starting as a fool and ending wise.... I just want to add a comment on this: wise... wise in your own eyes means to become an even greater fool. I notice in the Enlightenment movement a very strong solipsistic tendency plus a tendency to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to all what is not able to be aligned with this ideology. But to stay with Parsifal: why would this whole Enlightenment not be reversible? I think the later Parsifal to be more foolish, foolish with a conscience, malignantly foolish - and I long back for the plain fool at the beginning. The beginning of the opera I find strong and convincing, the end I find moralising, Billy Graham-ish.


Parsifal has been called "sanctimonious," "pseudo-religious," and many other things by those who have moral and religious objections to it. I can understand these criticisms, though I disagree with them and think they are based on superficial interpretations Wagner's use of Christian imagery and musical associations. But "moralizing"? Where do you see that? I see an anti-moralistic, anti-dogmatic, anti-institutional-religion tendency in Wagner's sly revelation of the underlying perversity of the rigid and moribund Titurel's "holy" and self-righteous order of knights, to which the compassionate "fool" Parsifal comes as a correction. I don't see Parsifal as "wise in his own eyes" - his self-accusatory words in act three don't suggest that - and see nothing malignant about his actions. What would you change about Wagner's telling of the story to make it less "moralizing"?


----------



## Bellinilover

Sloe said:


> I think the music is very much related to what the operas are about so the Victorian connection is just not there.


But you can't deny that the music was written in the Victorian period. That's all I'm saying. It sounds like Victorian music as opposed to Baroque music or Classical-era music.


----------



## Bellinilover

BalalaikaBoy said:


> extended a bit further, I think people are way too sensitive about historical works in general. it gets annoying when people say _everything_ traditional in any capacity is racist, sexist, ethnocentric, etc.


That's true. I just recently finished writing and presenting essay sort of dealing with this general topic. IMO when judging historical figures, works, etc. you have to achieve a balance between making moral judgments and viewing these things within the context of their time.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Parsifal has been called "sanctimonious," "pseudo-religious," and many other things by those who have moral and religious objections to it. I can understand these criticisms, though I disagree with them and think they are based on superficial interpretations Wagner's use of Christian imagery and musical associations. But "moralizing"? Where do you see that? I see an anti-moralistic, anti-dogmatic, anti-institutional-religion tendency in Wagner's sly revelation of the underlying perversity of the rigid and moribund Titurel's "holy" and self-righteous order of knights, to which the compassionate "fool" Parsifal comes as a correction. I don't see Parsifal as "wise in his own eyes" - his self-accusatory words in act three don't suggest that - and see nothing malignant about his actions. What would you change about Wagner's telling of the story to make it less "moralizing"?


My point doesn't point so much at moralising, superficial or not, but at how someone may come out of a story, a preaching, an opera etc. Contrary to what followers of the Enlightenment believe this is not so linear (start at the beginning, finish at the end). No, somewhere one may get stuck (for example when a preaching turns into a dragging play with words) and one's thoughts may not be able to get in-line anymore. Only the true & die hard believers will swallow both Jonah and the whale. With regard to Parsifal I'm so much fascinated and shocked by the archetypal fool-beginning, that the whole cloud of words-words-words that follows remains what it is: words-words-words, enveloped in beautiful music. I interpret precisely this to be Wagner's intention.


----------



## DavidA

Although Parsifal uses Christian symbols it is as far away from the Christianity of the New Testament as it can be. Wagner’s 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers—a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness. Anyone who equates Parsifal with Christianity has either misunderstood the New testament or Wagner's intentions.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

DavidA said:


> Just to correct your overstatement - I do not believe anyone is saying _everything_ is racist, sexist, ethnocentric.


don't be pedantic. you got my point


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Although Parsifal uses Christian symbols it is as far away from the Christianity of the New Testament as it can be. Wagner's 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers-a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness. Anyone who equates Parsifal with Christianity has either misunderstood the New testament or Wagner's intentions.


Just read Albert Schweitzer's _ Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ 1906 (An encompassing overview of all Jesus' biographies, that were published in the 19th century) and one will see that Wagner is not the only one who imagined his own version of 'Christianity'. It is a difficult concept: "the Christianity of the New Testament", but for sure Wagner's Christ is not Jewish.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Just read Albert Schweitzer's _ Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ 1906 (An encompassing overview of all Jesus' biographies, that were published in the 19th century) and one will see that Wagner is not the only one who imagined his own version of 'Christianity'. It is a difficult concept: "the Christianity of the New Testament", but for sure Wagner's Christ is not Jewish.


Yes but Schweitzer's Christianity was itself miles from the New Testament Christianity as well. He disbelieved just about every major tenet of the Christian faith.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Although Parsifal uses Christian symbols it is as far away from the Christianity of the New Testament as it can be. Wagner's 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers-a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness. Anyone who equates Parsifal with Christianity has either misunderstood the New testament or Wagner's intentions.


I fear your own claim to understand Wagner's intentions appears to be based on the assumption that he is offering the "death cult" of Titurel as a model to be emulated. In fact it is an illustration of how cults - religious institutions, institutional religion, organized ideologies and their ideologically-motivated leaders - succumb to the desire for power and control: of man, of woman, of sexuality, of nature - a strategy of repression which leaves them open to the temptation of egocentricity (Amfortas) and self-indulgence (Kundry). This is why Parsifal - who is untainted by all this - is needed; his assignment is to save Titurel's order from itself by recovering the true basis of morality in compassion (empathy, fellow-feeling) rather than in spirit-killing rules and prohibitions. To get there he has to experience suffering and reject self-indulgence, a decisive choice symbolized by his rejection of Kundry's deadly offer of irresponsible bliss and a return to mother-love. Titurel's knights, because of their misguided attempt to repress their own human nature, are helpless before the magic of Klingsor and his tortured temptress. Parsifal alone, representing human nature unrepressed and so not craving the forbidden, can resist, not in the name of ideology, but with the power of insight.

_Parsifal_ is not a "religious" opera, but neither is its moral thrust so remote from some basic religious teachings such as those of Jesus and the Buddha. What it _is_ remote from - what it presents as deeply corrupt - is any "churchly" ideology and its distorting effects on human nature and society.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> Just read Albert Schweitzer's _ Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ 1906 (An encompassing overview of all Jesus' biographies, that were published in the 19th century) and one will see that Wagner is not the only one who imagined his own version of 'Christianity'. It is a difficult concept: "the Christianity of the New Testament", but for sure Wagner's Christ is not Jewish.


We don't have to read Schweitzer, or anyone in particular, to find individualized and contradictory versions of Christianity. Christendom has been rife with them since Christ. Wagner is as entitled to his own as anyone is. As far as _Parsifal_ is concerned, it's a marvelous specimen of Wagnerian myth-making like the _Ring,_ and any resemblance to what you or DavidA or anyone else thinks Christianity is supposed to be is interesting but finally unimportant. It is what it is, and it is an artistic wonder.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I fear your own claim to understand Wagner's intentions appears to be based on the assumption that he is offering the "death cult" of Titurel as a model to be emulated. In fact it is an illustration of how cults - religious institutions, institutional religion, organized ideologies and their ideologically-motivated leaders - succumb to the desire for power and control: of man, of woman, of sexuality, of nature - a strategy of repression which leaves them open to the temptation of egocentricity (Amfortas) and self-indulgence (Kundry). This is why Parsifal - who is untainted by all this - is needed; his assignment is to save Titurel's order from itself by recovering the true basis of morality in compassion (empathy, fellow-feeling) rather than in spirit-killing rules and prohibitions. To get there he has to experience suffering and reject self-indulgence, a decisive choice symbolized by his rejection of Kundry's deadly offer of irresponsible bliss and a return to mother-love. Titurel's knights, because of their misguided attempt to repress their own human nature, are helpless before the magic of Klingsor and his tortured temptress. Parsifal alone, representing human nature unrepressed and so not craving the forbidden, can resist, not in the name of ideology, but with the power of insight.
> 
> _Parsifal_ is not a "religious" opera, but neither is its moral thrust so remote from some basic religious teachings such as those of Jesus and the Buddha. What it _is_ remote from - what it presents as deeply corrupt - is any "churchly" ideology and its distorting effects on human nature and society.


That is one interpretation of Wagner's pseudo-religious drama. There are, of course, others which have been postulated by Wagnerian scholars. The whole thing is a heady concoction of ideas set to music of incredible beauty and voluptuousness. In fact, it has been said that never has asceticism been celebrated through music of such extraordinary voluptuousness. Never has pain seemed so delicious or hatred been so beguilingly packaged. Even Neitzsche called it: "An outrage on morality!" That does not, of course, prevent it being an artistic masterpiece, at least as far as the music is concerned. But whatever the meaning of Parsifal, the point I am making is that its message has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> We don't have to read Schweitzer, or anyone in particular, to find individualized and contradictory versions of Christianity. Christendom has been rife with them since Christ. Wagner is as entitled to his own as anyone is. As far as _Parsifal_ is concerned, it's a marvelous specimen of Wagnerian myth-making like the _Ring,_ and any resemblance to what you or DavidA or anyone else thinks Christianity is supposed to be is interesting but finally unimportant. It is what it is, and it is an artistic wonder.


Of course Christianity has been rife with them. The point I am making is that Schweitzer's version of Christianity is nowhere found in the New Testament. Of course, people have a right to their opinions but then don't call it Christianity. As you say Parsifal is mere myth making - whether it has value as a myth is a matter of opinion, any more than whether Die Zauberflote has value as a myth. Wagner was entitled to his own opinion but as he did not believe in Christianity himself it is quite obvious that the message of Parsifal has nothing to do with Christianity. I think it is important to make the distinction as unfortunately there are gullible people who swallow myths. Just look at the rush to see the sights depicted in Dan's Brown's book, "The Da Vinci Code." Even though the book was complete fiction (and full or errors) many people swallowed it as fact!


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> I fear your own claim to understand Wagner's intentions appears to be based on the assumption that he is offering the "death cult" of Titurel as a model to be emulated. In fact it is an illustration of how cults - religious institutions, institutional religion, organized ideologies and their ideologically-motivated leaders - succumb to the desire for power and control: of man, of woman, of sexuality, of nature - a strategy of repression which leaves them open to the temptation of egocentricity (Amfortas) and self-indulgence (Kundry). This is why Parsifal - who is untainted by all this - is needed; his assignment is to save Titurel's order from itself by recovering the true basis of morality in compassion (empathy, fellow-feeling) rather than in spirit-killing rules and prohibitions. To get there he has to experience suffering and reject self-indulgence, a decisive choice symbolized by his rejection of Kundry's deadly offer of irresponsible bliss and a return to mother-love. Titurel's knights, because of their misguided attempt to repress their own human nature, are helpless before the magic of Klingsor and his tortured temptress. Parsifal alone, representing human nature unrepressed and so not craving the forbidden, can resist, not in the name of ideology, but with the power of insight.
> 
> _Parsifal_ is not a "religious" opera, but neither is its moral thrust so remote from some basic religious teachings such as those of Jesus and the Buddha. What it _is_ remote from - what it presents as deeply corrupt - is any "churchly" ideology and its distorting effects on human nature and society.


Nice post. But. Suppose that somebody who gets acquainted with Wagner's opera (Albert Schweitzer for one was deeply impressed by the Ring & Parsifal) wants to follow the example of the compassion-empathy-fellow feeling Parsifal and go through a comparable _rite de passage_ to become a Parsifal lookalike. Where to start? Well, it's not at all difficult to get over the treshold: become a fool, be immune and keep yourself dumb for all knowledge & moral teaching. 
Nowadays people will appreciate Parsifal as passive onlookers, but in the end of the 19th century they were actively taking possesion. Italians went to Nabucco because the operahouse was very suitable for starting a revolution, the Czechs rebelled in the operahouse against the domination of the German language in their country. In the same revolutionary spirit the Germans came up to the green hill. And how did they come down the green hill? With an empowering indoctrination. Let us not think too little of Wagner's influence on the minds of German youngsters!


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Nice post. But. Suppose that somebody who gets acquainted with Wagner's opera (Albert Schweitzer for one was deeply impressed by the Ring & Parsifal) wants to follow the example of the compassion-empathy-fellow feeling Parsifal and go through a comparable _rite de passage_ to become a Parsifal lookalike. Where to start? Well, it's not at all difficult to get over the treshold: become a fool, be immune and keep yourself dumb for all knowledge & moral teaching.
> Nowadays people will appreciate Parsifal as passive onlookers, but in the end of the 19th century they were actively taking possesion. Italians went to Nabucco because the operahouse was very suitable for starting a revolution, the Czechs rebelled in the operahouse against the domination of the German language in their country. In the same revolutionary spirit the Germans came up to the green hill. And how did they come down the green hill? With an empowering indoctrination. Let us not think too little of Wagner's influence on the minds of German youngsters!


But do people take opera that seriously? It's fiction. Did Wagner actually practice what he was writing? Can you believe Wagner entering a field of flower maidens, receiving a kiss and then not succumbing to temptation, given his track record with women?


----------



## Woodduck

Good God, people, you're piling it up so deep it's hard to know where to begin shoveling!

David: You are correct that there have been numerous (perhaps innumerable) things said about _Parsifal_. It's sheer evocative power has a way of drawing the crazies out of the woodwork (starting with Nietzsche, who was, in prose, precisely the ham-actor he accused Wagner of being in music), and even, apparently, making "Wagner scholars" out of them. But your quoting and paraphrasing them here does not serve much purpose. It's hard to be certain which of the things you've said about the opera are your own ideas based on actual study of the work (and it does take some work, I can tell you) and which are simply parroted from the works of those "Wagner scholars" who seem to impress you. Enlightenment is better served by presenting one's own thoughts and supporting them by referring to the opera itself. Then an actual conversation becomes possible. And may I suggest (as I already have, but you've apparently missed the suggestion) that there is no single "New Testament Christianity" which serves as a standard of reference, and that there would be no value in comparing _Parsifal_ with it if there were, since _Parsifal_ is not intended to be a Christian tract.

TxllxT: You need to show that your hypothetical wannabe fools have some meaningful basis in reality. You write: "Nowadays people will appreciate Parsifal as passive onlookers, but in the end of the 19th century they were actively taking possesion...In the same revolutionary spirit the Germans came up to the green hill. And how did they come down the green hill? With an empowering indoctrination. Let us not think too little of Wagner's influence on the minds of German youngsters!" What, factually, does this have to do with _Parsifal?_ Did this opera ever have the sort of mass effect on the German mind you're claiming for it? Did it - could it, even - ever indoctrinate anyone, much less "overpoweringly"? Did it ever help to make anyone "dumb" and "immune to moral teaching"? I'm pretty sure most members of the dumb and amoral Nazi party were bored by it and had little use for it, or for Wagner in general. That their amoral leader liked Wagner's operas almost as much as Lehar's tells us little about the operas themselves.

The question posed by this thread is "Why do you not like Wagner?" It seems that you two are basing your remarks on dubious theories extraneous to Wagner's actual work. I lament over and over that so much opinion of Wagner and his creations is still influenced by the seemingly endless proliferation of agenda-driven theories, whether those agendas originate with crazy 19th-century philosophers, politically correct "Wagner scholars," or mad genocidal dictators.

Me? I'm interested in what Wagner actually created. What others have said or written will be given due consideration, but I will like or dislike his works based on my perceptions of, and thinking about, the works themselves. Those works are larger, deeper, and more "fully human" (to use Wagner's own expression of his intentions) than any ideologies that have been attached to them.


----------



## The Conte

DavidA said:


> That is one interpretation of Wagner's pseudo-religious drama. There are, of course, others which have been postulated by Wagnerian scholars. The whole thing is a heady concoction of ideas set to music of incredible beauty and voluptuousness. In fact, it has been said that never has asceticism been celebrated through music of such extraordinary voluptuousness. Never has pain seemed so delicious or hatred been so beguilingly packaged. Even Neitzsche called it: "An outrage on morality!" That does not, of course, prevent it being an artistic masterpiece, at least as far as the music is concerned. But whatever the meaning of Parsifal, the point I am making is that its message has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament.


But if different interpretations, readings and understandings of Parsifal can exist at the same time, is it not possible for ones own interpretation of Parsifal to be consonant with ones own interpretation of the New Testament?

There are differences between the Anglican and the Catholic churches' interpretation of the New Testament after all.

Isn't art more interesting when it is open to possibilities rather than limits them?

N.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Did Wagner actually practice what he was writing? Can you believe Wagner entering a field of flower maidens, receiving a kiss and then not succumbing to temptation, given his track record with women?


You appear to be saying that Wagner in _Parsifal_ is preaching sexual abstinence, but then saying that he did not believe in sexual abstinence. Has it occurred to you that _Parsifal_ might not actually be preaching abstinence? Wouldn't it be infinitely surprising if it were? Why start out by assuming that Wagner is being hypocritical? Why not examine your own assumptions first? (Post #737 above ought to assist in that process.)


----------



## TxllxT

`Durch Mitleid wissend´ - Through compassion (empathy, fellow feeling) 100% sure.

PARSIFAL

Ich wusste sie nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Wo bist du her?

PARSIFAL

Das weiss ich nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Wer ist sein Vater?

PARSIFAL

Das weiss ich nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Wer sandte dich dieses Weges?

PARSIFAL

Das weiss ich nicht.

GURNEMANZ

Dein Name denn?

PARSIFAL

Ich hatte viele,
doch weiss ich ihrer keinen mehr.

The German verb 'wissen' differs in meaning from the English verb 'to know'. The German 'wissen' points towards the Greek concept of ἐπιστήμη and in English this would be: to be absolutely certain, to be 100% sure. An example of 'wissen' is: 1+1=2. German 'Wissenschaft' is in English: science.
The English verb 'to know' however is mostly used in everyday language as 'to have developed a relationship' or 'to be aware'. Whereas the German 'wissen' is immediately hardcore absolute going for 100%, the English 'to know' is relational & 'softcore' relative, looking to understand a person, a word.
Now we enter Wagner's libretto of Parsifal. The story centers on the German verb 'wissen'. In the beginning Parsifal repeats _"Das weiss ich nicht"_, which means: I'm not 100% certain about that. He is not sure about his father, he is not sure about his own name. (In the normal reality each person is 100% sure about his or her father's name and 100% sure about his or her own name, but here we are dealing with the fictional imaginations of Richard Wagner). Now the play develops and we are introduced into a _rite de passage_ with the outcome that Parsifal becomes _"Durch Mitleid wissend"_. It is not that he becomes empathic, compassionate or having fellow feeling (if that would have been Wagner's goal, I would like him), no! *Through* compassion, empathy, fellow feeling he reaches for the holy grail: he becomes 100% certain, 100% sure. In ancient Greek this process of gaining 'wissen', 100% certainty would be described as: gnosis. 
If Wagner's fiction would have as outcome: 'Durch Wissen mitleidend' I would perhaps start to feel something, but this is just another self-ascertaining, self-deceiving religion.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Good God, people, you're piling it up so deep it's hard to know where to begin shoveling!
> 
> David: You are correct that there have been numerous (perhaps innumerable) things said about _Parsifal_. It's sheer evocative power has a way of drawing the crazies out of the woodwork (starting with Nietzsche, who was, in prose, precisely the ham-actor he accused Wagner of being in music), and even, apparently, making "Wagner scholars" out of them. But your quoting and paraphrasing them here does not serve much purpose. It's hard to be certain which of the things you've said about the opera are your own ideas based on actual study of the work (and it does take some work, I can tell you) and which are simply parroted from the works of those "Wagner scholars" who seem to impress you. Enlightenment is better served by presenting one's own thoughts and supporting them by referring to the opera itself. Then an actual conversation becomes possible. And may I suggest (as I already have, but you've apparently missed the suggestion) that there is no single "New Testament Christianity" which serves as a standard of reference, and that there would be no value in comparing _Parsifal_ with it if there were, since _Parsifal_ is not intended to be a Christian tract.
> 
> TxllxT: You need to show that your hypothetical wannabe fools have some meaningful basis in reality. You write: "Nowadays people will appreciate Parsifal as passive onlookers, but in the end of the 19th century they were actively taking possesion...In the same revolutionary spirit the Germans came up to the green hill. And how did they come down the green hill? With an empowering indoctrination. Let us not think too little of Wagner's influence on the minds of German youngsters!" What, factually, does this have to do with _Parsifal?_ Did this opera ever have the sort of mass effect on the German mind you're claiming for it? Did it - could it, even - ever indoctrinate anyone, much less "overpoweringly"? Did it ever help to make anyone "dumb" and "immune to moral teaching"? I'm pretty sure most members of the dumb and amoral Nazi party were bored by it and had little use for it, or for Wagner in general. That their amoral leader liked Wagner's operas almost as much as Lehar's tells us little about the operas themselves.
> 
> The question posed by this thread is "Why do you not like Wagner?" It seems that you two are basing your remarks on dubious theories extraneous to Wagner's actual work. I lament over and over that so much opinion of Wagner and his creations is still influenced by the seemingly endless proliferation of agenda-driven theories, whether those agendas originate with crazy 19th-century philosophers, politically correct "Wagner scholars," or mad genocidal dictators.
> 
> Me? I'm interested in what Wagner actually created. What others have said or written will be given due consideration, but I will like or dislike his works based on my perceptions of, and thinking about, the works themselves. Those works are larger, deeper, and more "fully human" (to use Wagner's own expression of his intentions) than any ideologies that have been attached to them.


Sorry Woodduck but it rather tiresome when you label people who do not agree with you as 'crazies'. Unless you live in a bubble you will realise there has always been intense debate over the years as to the meaning of Parsifal. That debate goes on. It is ironic that you say there is 'no single New Testament Christianity' yet you seem to imply there is only one Parsifal interpretation (i.e. the one you hold) possible. You say that we make Wagnerian scholars out of these 'crazies'. So by your reckoning, Barry Millington, who takes a different line from you by acknowledging that Wagner's concept of racial purity is present in Parsifal, is not a scholar but rather he is a 'crazy'. Sorry, but that is not to me argument.
As to your point about New Testament Christianity please see below. We appear to agree on the fact that Parsifal in no way Christian apart from in the symbolism it uses.
Your statement: "It seems that you two are basing your remarks on dubious theories extraneous to Wagner's actual work. I lament over and over that so much opinion of Wagner and his creations is still influenced by the seemingly endless proliferation of agenda-driven theories, whether those agendas originate with crazy 19th-century philosophers, politically correct "Wagner scholars," or mad genocidal dictators."
These theories are not dubious as they are based very much on Wagner's own writings. It is, of course, to the extent that Wagner's philosophies influenced his operas. No operatic composer was more influenced by his personal philosophy that Richard Wagner. I think that point is quite obvious. So do we just pick the philosophies we are comfortable with and not the less agreeable ones? In fact, Millington believes "the thesis has been confirmed, as far as I'm concerned, by a succession of scholarly books and articles. I think it's true to say that there's something of a consensus on the subject now, though there are still dissenting voices - in one or two cases belonging to people for whom I have a lot of respect." 
I think that is the point. There is a consensus but we respect those who have a different opinion from us rather than being defensive and labelling them 'crazies' or people with 'agenda driven theories.' Then we can have a proper discussion. 
One last point. Although the question posed by this thread is "Why do you not like Wagner?" I am one of those who enjoys Wagner's music but also has to be honest and not in denial about the darker side of the works. To me this is merely being intellectually honest. You may disagree with my views - you have every right to do so on TC. But trying to make out that people who think this way are a mere fringe group of 'crazies' is just not on as it is just not true. Just look at e.g. respected producer David Mr Vicker's remarks. Different opera but same argument:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/may/19/die-meistersinger-von-nurnberg-glyndebourne


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> But if different interpretations, readings and understandings of Parsifal can exist at the same time, is it not possible for ones own interpretation of Parsifal to be consonant with ones own interpretation of the New Testament?
> 
> There are differences between the Anglican and the Catholic churches' interpretation of the New Testament after all.
> 
> Isn't art more interesting when it is open to possibilities rather than limits them?
> 
> N.


Interesting that I was talking to someone about this the other day together with a gentleman who is a Roman Catholic. We agreed that whereas there are different interpretations of the New Testament, there are also some non-negociables - e.g. belief in deity of Christ and the resurrection of Christ - without which an interpretation cannot be called new testament Christianity.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> You appear to be saying that Wagner in _Parsifal_ is preaching sexual abstinence, but then saying that he did not believe in sexual abstinence. Has it occurred to you that _Parsifal_ might not actually be preaching abstinence? Wouldn't it be infinitely surprising if it were? Why start out by assuming that Wagner is being hypocritical? Why not examine your own assumptions first? (Post #737 above ought to assist in that process.)


You are making me out to saying something I didn't. Please refer to the actual question I asked 742


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Sorry Woodduck but it rather tiresome when you label people who do not agree with you as 'crazies'. Unless you live in a bubble you will realise there has always been intense debate over the years as to the meaning of Parsifal. That debate goes on. It is ironic that you say there is 'no single New Testament Christianity' yet you seem to imply there is only one Parsifal interpretation (i.e. the one you hold) possible. You say that we make Wagnerian scholars out of these 'crazies'. So by your reckoning, Barry Millington, who takes a different line from you by acknowledging that Wagner's concept of racial purity is present in Parsifal, is not a scholar but rather he is a 'crazy'. Sorry, but that is not to me argument.
> As to your point about New Testament Christianity please see below. We appear to agree on the fact that Parsifal in no way Christian apart from in the symbolism it uses.
> Your statement: "It seems that you two are basing your remarks on dubious theories extraneous to Wagner's actual work. I lament over and over that so much opinion of Wagner and his creations is still influenced by the seemingly endless proliferation of agenda-driven theories, whether those agendas originate with crazy 19th-century philosophers, politically correct "Wagner scholars," or mad genocidal dictators."
> These theories are not dubious as they are based very much on Wagner's own writings. It is, of course, to the extent that Wagner's philosophies influenced his operas. No operatic composer was more influenced by his personal philosophy that Richard Wagner. I think that point is quite obvious. So do we just pick the philosophies we are comfortable with and not the less agreeable ones? In fact, Millington believes "the thesis has been confirmed, as far as I'm concerned, by a succession of scholarly books and articles. I think it's true to say that there's something of a consensus on the subject now, though there are still dissenting voices - in one or two cases belonging to people for whom I have a lot of respect."
> I think that is the point. There is a consensus but we respect those who have a different opinion from us rather than being defensive and labelling them 'crazies' or people with 'agenda driven theories.' Then we can have a proper discussion.
> One last point. Although the question posed by this thread is "Why do you not like Wagner?" I am one of those who enjoys Wagner's music but also has to be honest and not in denial about the darker side of the works. To me this is merely being intellectually honest. You may disagree with my views - you have every right to do so on TC. But trying to make out that people who think this way are a mere fringe group of 'crazies' is just not on as it is just not true. Just look at e.g. respected producer David Mr Vicker's remarks. Different opera but same argument:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/may/19/die-meistersinger-von-nurnberg-glyndebourne


What are you actually saying here about the opera _Parsifal?_ I see nothing at all. I see only a longer version of your constant refrain "different people interpret the work differently." Yes, we know that. We really do.

I've offered many, many thoughts on this opera in various threads in this forum. Those thoughts are the slowly-evolving product of my own intimate and complex engagement with the work over many years. Contrary to your accusation, I do not consider them the only possible or correct interpretation of _Parsifal_'s highly suggestive symbolism. That doesn't mean, though, that I think all interpretations equally credible or consistent with the opera's content. If you want to respond to my views in a reasoned way, I'd welcome that response. But just saying again and again that Barry Millington (or some other 'Wagner scholar') disagrees with me is of no use at all. Do you actually have a _personal_ view of this work? Can you support it without relying on what other people think? That other people think anything at all is evidence of nothing at all. If I don't have a personal belief about something and reasons for believing it which I'm willing to present, I don't talk about it. Disagreement is fine, but there has to be something concrete to disagree with. If these hints you like to make about "the darker side of the works" are to persuade anyone, they need to be argued rationally and supported with reference to the actual content of those works, not merely parroted over and over as you do in thread after thread on the subject of Wagner. Yes, Wagner, like millions of other people, held bigoted opinions about Jews. Can we just accept that as historical fact, and then examine the actual content of his music dramas, without reflexively importing the assumption that they must embody that prejudice and proceeding to spin dubious theories of "racial purity"? Some of us obviously cannot look at anything Wagner did except through this filter.

As to your comments above: 1.) I did not refer to Barry Millington as "crazy." I didn't mention him at all, but since you bring him up, I think his "racial purity" theory (like some of the even more extreme views of, say, Gutman and Rose) is bunk. In past posts I've said why I think that. Evidently you'd rather just repeat his opinion than address my objections. 2.) No, we don't agree that _Parsifal_ is "_in no way_ Christian." I said that it isn't "a Christian tract." Obviously it doesn't embody _your_ notion of Christianity, whatever that is (and I really don't care what it is; that's your business solely). 3.) _Parsifal_ has indeed attracted all sorts of theories about what it means. It's funny to see you defending them _en masse_ as "based on Wagner's own writings." What theories are based on what writings? Do you even know what Wagner wrote about _Parsifal?_ Do you care? Maybe he had more pertinent things to say than Barry Millington or Nietzsche did. 4.) What "thesis" has been "confirmed"? Confirmed by whom? "Something of a consensus"? A consensus of whom? Is that "consensus" supposed to prove something? Does a responsible scholar even talk about "consensus" when there is substantial disagreement? 5.) What do David Vickers' remarks on _Die Meistersinger_ tell us about the subject under discussion? What _is_ the subject under discussion? I thought we were discussing _Parsifal_. Do you want to broaden - or dilute - the conversation into the usual generalities and prejudices into which most discussions of Wagner degenerate when people really have nothing specific and well-informed to say?

So what do you, personally - never mind the "Wagner scholars" - think _Parsifal_ is about? And what can you point to, in the work itself and in what Wagner said about it, to support your views?


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> `Durch Mitleid wissend´ - Through compassion (empathy, fellow feeling) 100% sure.
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Ich wusste sie nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Wo bist du her?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Das weiss ich nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Wer ist sein Vater?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Das weiss ich nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Wer sandte dich dieses Weges?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Das weiss ich nicht.
> 
> GURNEMANZ
> 
> Dein Name denn?
> 
> PARSIFAL
> 
> Ich hatte viele,
> doch weiss ich ihrer keinen mehr.
> 
> The German verb 'wissen' differs in meaning from the English verb 'to know'. The German 'wissen' points towards the Greek concept of ἐπιστήμη and in English this would be: to be absolutely certain, to be 100% sure. An example of 'wissen' is: 1+1=2. German 'Wissenschaft' is in English: science.
> The English verb 'to know' however is mostly used in everyday language as 'to have developed a relationship' or 'to be aware'. Whereas the German 'wissen' is immediately hardcore absolute going for 100%, the English 'to know' is relational & 'softcore' relative, looking to understand a person, a word.
> Now we enter Wagner's libretto of Parsifal. The story centers on the German verb 'wissen'. In the beginning Parsifal repeats _"Das weiss ich nicht"_, which means: I'm not 100% certain about that. He is not sure about his father, he is not sure about his own name. (In the normal reality each person is 100% sure about his or her father's name and 100% sure about his or her own name, but here we are dealing with the fictional imaginations of Richard Wagner). Now the play develops and we are introduced into a _rite de passage_ with the outcome that Parsifal becomes _"Durch Mitleid wissend"_. It is not that he becomes empathic, compassionate or having fellow feeling (if that would have been Wagner's goal, I would like him), no! *Through* compassion, empathy, fellow feeling he reaches for the holy grail: he becomes 100% certain, 100% sure. In ancient Greek this process of gaining 'wissen', 100% certainty would be described as: gnosis.
> If Wagner's fiction would have as outcome: 'Durch Wissen mitleidend' I would perhaps start to feel something, but this is just another self-ascertaining, self-deceiving religion.


The German verb _wissen_ means, in practice, to know (something to be true). Whether one is "100% certain" or only "95% certain," one uses the verb _wissen_, just as one uses "to know" in English. "To know" has, of course, other meanings in English, one of which is "to be acquainted," for which German has the separate verb _kennen_ (_Ich kenne ihn_ - I know him).

Wagner in his libretto uses _wissen_ in both a basic and an expanded sense. Parsifal's answers to Gurnemanz's questions are simply factual: I don't know my name. I don't know who my father is. This is not a matter of "percentages of certainty"; he cannot possibly mean that he is not "100% sure" about his or his father's name! He simply doesn't know them. On the other hand, in the expression _durch Mitleid__ wissend_ - through compassion, knowledge - Wagner is describing knowledge not of facts but of spiritual truth, knowledge which could only be awakened by the experience of fellow-suffering. This (or any) process of spiritual awakening and maturation has to begin with experience, not with knowledge - understanding of life depends on experiencing it, which is how we grow as human beings - so your preference for turning it around (through wisdom, compassion) makes no sense to me. And I certainly don't see how the lesson Parsifal learns amounts to a "self-ascertaining, self-deceiving religion." But that pretty accurately describes cult-leader Titurel, clinging morbidly to a half-life in his tomb, unwilling to let go, torturing his son so that he can go on sucking at the teat of the Grail, destined to die at last when the "fool" is made wise.

In a real sense, _Parsifal_ is an anti-religious work, turning the symbols of religion upside down or inside out - or, as Wagner said, revealing archetypal meanings in them which religion as an institution renders distorted or superficial (that's a paraphrase; I don't have the quote handy). Sly old Richard's _Speer_ and _Graal_ are much more, and different, than they are in the Christian legends from which they are drawn.


----------



## DavidA

Hhy


Woodduck said:


> What are you actually saying here about the opera _Parsifal?_ I see nothing at all. I see only a longer version of your constant refrain "different people interpret the work differently." Yes, we know that. We really do.
> 
> I've offered many, many thoughts on this opera in various threads in this forum. Those thoughts are the slowly-evolving product of my own intimate and complex engagement with the work over many years. Contrary to your accusation, I do not consider them the only possible or correct interpretation of _Parsifal_'s highly suggestive symbolism. That doesn't mean, though, that I think all interpretations equally credible or consistent with the opera's content. If you want to respond to my views in a reasoned way, I'd welcome that response. But just saying again and again that Barry Millington (or some other 'Wagner scholar') disagrees with me is of no use at all. Do you actually have a _personal_ view of this work? Can you support it without relying on what other people think? That other people think anything at all is evidence of nothing at all. If I don't have a personal belief about something and reasons for believing it which I'm willing to present, I don't talk about it. Disagreement is fine, but there has to be something concrete to disagree with. If these hints you like to make about "the darker side of the works" are to persuade anyone, they need to be argued rationally and supported with reference to the actual content of those works, not merely parroted over and over as you do in thread after thread on the subject of Wagner. Yes, Wagner, like millions of other people, held bigoted opinions about Jews. Can we just accept that as historical fact, and then examine the actual content of his music dramas, without reflexively importing the assumption that they must embody that prejudice and proceeding to spin dubious theories of "racial purity"? Some of us obviously cannot look at anything Wagner did except through this filter.
> 
> As to your comments above: 1.) I did not refer to Barry Millington as "crazy." I didn't mention him at all, but since you bring him up, I think his "racial purity" theory (like some of the even more extreme views of, say, Gutman and Rose) is bunk. In past posts I've said why I think that. Evidently you'd rather just repeat his opinion than address my objections. 2.) No, we don't agree that _Parsifal_ is "_in no way_ Christian." I said that it isn't "a Christian tract." Obviously it doesn't embody _your_ notion of Christianity, whatever that is (and I really don't care what it is; that's your business solely). 3.) _Parsifal_ has indeed attracted all sorts of theories about what it means. It's funny to see you defending them _en masse_ as "based on Wagner's own writings." What theories are based on what writings? Do you even know what Wagner wrote about _Parsifal?_ Do you care? Maybe he had more pertinent things to say than Barry Millington or Nietzsche did. 4.) What "thesis" has been "confirmed"? Confirmed by whom? "Something of a consensus"? A consensus of whom? Is that "consensus" supposed to prove something? Does a responsible scholar even talk about "consensus" when there is substantial disagreement? 5.) What do David Vickers' remarks on _Die Meistersinger_ tell us about the subject under discussion? What _is_ the subject under discussion? I thought we were discussing _Parsifal_. Do you want to broaden - or dilute - the conversation into the usual generalities and prejudices into which most discussions of Wagner degenerate when people really have nothing specific and well-informed to say?
> 
> So what do you, personally - never mind the "Wagner scholars" - think _Parsifal_ is about? And what can you point to, in the work itself and in what Wagner said about it, to support your views?


I'm sorry, Woodduck, but you have again missed the point of what I am trying to say. I was not giving my personal views of Parsifal at all but saying that there are people who hold other views. McVicker is an example of a noted producer who obviously does. The problem is there is no absolute proof either way. You say the theory Millington (and a whole host of other writers espouse) is 'bunk' - but how do you know? Can we swallow the opposite theory that a self proclaimed racist, who wrote extensively on the subject, never ever allowed his racial beliefs to enter his operas, the libretti of which he wrote himself? You say millions of others held equally bigoted views? But millions of others didn't feel so strongly that they wrote whole tracts expressing their views. We simply can't rule it out as 'bunk' when there is so much in Wagner's own hand that gives credence to it. The problem is that neither side can conclusively prove their case. So why not just leave it there and agree to differ on this?


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> The German verb _wissen_ means, in practice, to know (something to be true). Whether one is "100% certain" or only "95% certain," one uses the verb _wissen_, just as one uses "to know" in English. "To know" has, of course, other meanings in English, one of which is "to be acquainted," for which German has the separate verb _kennen_ (_Ich kenne ihn_ - I know him).
> 
> Wagner in his libretto uses _wissen_ in both a basic and an expanded sense. Parsifal's answers to Gurnemanz's questions are simply factual: I don't know my name. I don't know who my father is. This is not a matter of "percentages of certainty"; he cannot possibly mean that he is not 100% sure about his or his father's name! He simply doesn't know them. On the other hand, in the expression _durch Mitleid__ wissend_ - through compassion, knowledge - Wagner is describing knowledge not of facts but of spiritual truth, knowledge which could only be awakened by the experience of fellow-suffering. This (or any) process of spiritual awakening and maturation has to begin with experience, not with knowledge - understanding of life depends on experiencing it, which is how we grow as human beings - so your preference for turning it around (through wisdom, compassion) makes no sense to me. And I certainly don't see how the lesson Parsifal learns amounts to a "self-ascertaining, self-deceiving religion." That was cult-leader Titurel, living morbidly in his tomb, torturing his son so that he could go on sucking at the teat of the Grail, destined to die at last when the "fool" is made wise.


_Durch Mitleid wissend_ means that one goes through _Mitleid_ and ends in: _wissend_. It means that _Mitleid_ becomes part of a ceremony, the ceremony proceeds, and the procession ends in a celebration, the celebration of _Wissen_.

http://www.monsalvat.no/nazism.htm

In 1939 Hermann Rauschning interviewed Adolf Hitler and he states: "Hitler hummed the motif, Durch Mitleid wissend." Well, well, well, what happened to _Mitleid_ was my question, when I read Monsalvat's blog. I just cannot understand all the drumbeating that Parsifal is an opera about compassion. It is an opera that teaches one to get *through* compassion into something that is *past* compassion: the gnostic selfie of _Wissen_.


----------



## The Conte

DavidA said:


> Interesting that I was talking to someone about this the other day together with a gentleman who is a Roman Catholic. We agreed that whereas there are different interpretations of the New Testament, there are also some non-negociables - e.g. belief in deity of Christ and the resurrection of Christ - without which an interpretation cannot be called new testament Christianity.


There's a few groups in the United States who would disagree with you there! However, I take your point (of course interpretations of both the New Testament and Parsifal aren't limitless.

N.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> _Durch Mitleid wissend_ means that one goes through _Mitleid_ and ends in: _wissend_. It means that _Mitleid_ becomes part of a ceremony, the ceremony proceeds, and the procession ends in a celebration, the celebration of _Wissen_.
> 
> http://www.monsalvat.no/nazism.htm
> 
> In 1939 Hermann Rauschning interviewed Adolf Hitler and he states: "Hitler hummed the motif, Durch Mitleid wissend." Well, well, well, what happened to _Mitleid_ was my question, when I read Monsalvat's blog. I just cannot understand all the drumbeating that Parsifal is an opera about compassion. It is an opera that teaches one to get *through* compassion into something that is *past* compassion: the gnostic selfie of _Wissen_.


This is completely fantastic and gratuitous. _Durch Mitleid wissend_ means exactly what it says: "Through compassion, knowledge." It says absolutely nothing about ceremonies, processions, or celebrations. Nor does it say that knowledge is "past" compassion in a temporal sense; _durch_ - "through" - does not imply sequence. Wagner chose exactly the words he needed and no others. They are simple, explicit and clear. We may debate the precise substance of the "knowledge" gained, but the phrase is not ambiguous, and the story of the opera - in which Parsifal, one encounter at a time, learns to feel Amfortas' and humanity's suffering as his own - could not be clearer about this. The fact that you cannot understand the "drumbeat" suggests to me that you're importing some extrinsic theory about the work which is getting in the way of your perceiving what is clearly in it, and central to it. Could it be that you, like many others apparently, just can't believe that nasty old RW could concern himself with anything so human as compassion?

And - God help us - not another Hitler reference! Please!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I was not giving my personal views of Parsifal at all but saying that there are people who hold other views[...]Can we swallow the opposite theory that a self proclaimed racist, who wrote extensively on the subject, never ever allowed his racial beliefs to enter his operas, the libretti of which he wrote himself? You say millions of others held equally bigoted views? But millions of others didn't feel so strongly that they wrote whole tracts expressing their views. We simply can't rule it out as 'bunk' when there is so much in Wagner's own hand that gives credence to it.


The problem is not that people ask the legitimate question: "Did Wagner's antisemitic views affect his operas?" The problem is that people like Millington and Gutman claim that there is some sort of "consensus" that the operas contain antisemitic messages or are fundamentally "about" racial theories, while providing only vague, anecdotal, controversial evidence which proves inadequate to establish the point beyond a reasonable doubt when examined, and is even contradicted by other real evidence we do possess. Why is this a problem? Because it is not merely a questionable statement about the operas, but is a specific accusation against their author. Wagner has quite enough to answer for in his stated views about Jews. He should not need to answer speculative allegations about works of art in which those views cannot be demonstrated to appear.

It's unfortunate that once an association is made in people's minds - e.g., Beckmesser or Klingsor as Jewish caricatures - it seems almost impossible to banish. That's why I get so angry about the way in which this particular issue is raised here: it is simply illegitimate to say that such-and-such a "Wagner scholar" believes that _Parsifal_ is about race, and that this is sufficient to give credence to the idea. No. It is not sufficient. And if you or anyone else want to introduce this damning notion into a conversation about the opera, then the responsible thing to do is to present the evidence and open the floor to debate on that evidence. Anything less is simply a cheap smear which disrespects Wagner, his works, and anyone here who cares about them for any reason or to any extent.

The direct answer to your question above is: Yes, we _can_ believe that a self-proclaimed racist (or, more accurately, antisemite) wrote operas which do not propound racist ideas. On what factual - factual, not emotional - basis do you claim otherwise? You may believe or disbelieve anything you please, but your insinuations that Wagner was such a rotter that he would be unable to resist putting racial propaganda into his works and then deceiving the world about his true intentions would be laughed out of an actual court, and they should get no greater respect in the court of opinion. Please recognize that you are seriously misinformed: _there is nothing whatever "in Wagner's own hand" to "give credence" to the notion that his operas contain antisemitism or are about ideas of race and racial supremacy._ He wrote an essay on Jews, and made remarks about Jews in conversation, but there is not one scrap of paper anywhere showing any intention of putting them into his art. The nearest thing we have is a statement of the opposite intent: he remarked that he did not consider Jews suitable subjects to represent onstage. A contemptible remark, but pretty clear about the matter in question. Wagner wrote and talked about his views and intentions more than any human being I know of. He had a great deal to say about what his operas meant to him, and in all of his writings about his work no one has ever found a word about racial supremacy. What we do find, however, is a great many words about the universal human feelings and values he sought to portray.

One other thing: you say that you are not giving your own views at all. Well, then, whose views were you expressing in post #733 where you said _"Wagner's 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers-a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness"?_ You don't give anyone else credit for that. How are we to know whose views you're offering? Shouldn't you tell us? Are those your words, or are you quoting someone else without acknowledging it? And do you agree with that view or not? You can't just throw these provocative notions out and then, when other people question or dispute them, say "oh, I'm just reporting what so-and-so says," or fail to attribute them at all.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> The problem is not that people ask the legitimate question: "Did Wagner's antisemitic views affect his operas?" The problem is that people like Millington and Gutman claim that there is some sort of "consensus" that the operas contain antisemitic messages or are fundamentally "about" racial theories, while providing only vague, anecdotal, controversial evidence which proves inadequate to establish the point beyond a reasonable doubt when examined, and is even contradicted by other real evidence we do possess. Why is this a problem? Because it is not merely a questionable statement about the operas, but is a specific accusation against their author. Wagner has quite enough to answer for in his stated views about Jews. He should not need to answer speculative allegations about works of art in which those views cannot be demonstrated to appear.
> 
> It's unfortunate that once an association is made in people's minds - e.g., Beckmesser or Klingsor as Jewish caricatures - it seems almost impossible to banish. That's why I get so angry about the way in which this particular issue is raised here: it is simply illegitimate to say that such-and-such a "Wagner scholar" believes that _Parsifal_ is about race, and that this is sufficient to give credence to the idea. No. It is not sufficient. And if you or anyone else want to introduce this damning notion into a conversation about the opera, then the responsible thing to do is to present the evidence and open the floor to debate on that evidence. Anything less is simply a cheap smear which disrespects Wagner, his works, and anyone here who cares about them for any reason or to any extent.
> 
> The direct answer to your question above is: Yes, we _can_ believe that a self-proclaimed racist (or, more accurately, antisemite) wrote operas which do not propound racist ideas. On what factual - factual, not emotional - basis do you claim otherwise? You may believe or disbelieve anything you please, but your insinuations that Wagner was such a rotter that he would be unable to resist putting racial propaganda into his works and then deceiving the world about his true intentions would be laughed out of an actual court, and they should get no greater respect in the court of opinion. Please recognize that you are seriously misinformed: _there is nothing whatever "in Wagner's own hand" to "give credence" to the notion that his operas contain antisemitism or are about ideas of race and racial supremacy._ He wrote an essay on Jews, and made remarks about Jews in conversation, but there is not one scrap of paper anywhere showing any intention of putting them into his art. The nearest thing we have is a statement of the opposite intent: he remarked that he did not consider Jews suitable subjects to represent onstage. A contemptible remark, but pretty clear about the matter in question. Wagner wrote and talked about his views and intentions more than any human being I know of. He had a great deal to say about what his operas meant to him, and in all of his writings about his work no one has ever found a word about racial supremacy. What we do find, however, is a great many words about the universal human feelings and values he sought to portray.
> 
> One other thing: you say that you are not giving your own views at all. Well, then, whose views were you expressing in post #733 where you said _"Wagner's 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers-a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness"?_ You don't give anyone else credit for that. How are we to know whose views you're offering? Shouldn't you tell us? Are those your words, or are you quoting someone else without acknowledging it? And do you agree with that view or not? You can't just throw these provocative notions out and then, when other people question or dispute them, say "oh, I'm just reporting what so-and-so says," or fail to attribute them at all.
> 
> _My bottom line is this:_ _we should speak for ourselves, say what we believe, and be prepared to back it up, or else have the grace to recede from the conversation. _I believe in justice and evidence, and I believe that if we can't provide evidence to support our allegations - either direct allegations or sneaky innuendos such as "some people say..." - we ought to just acknowledge that we are not qualified to speak. Ducking your obligation to back your statements with facts when asked to, disowning responsibility for inserting unsupported, inflammatory assertions into the discussion by claiming they are someone else's, and shrugging off the rightful indignation of your readers by telling them that it's all just a matter of opinion and that we must "agree to disagree" - is simply dishonest. Every bit of it.


I'm sorry Woodduck but it is you who appears to be making the inflammatory comments in questioning the motives of those who disagree with you. I said I was not going to continue this discussion because we simply won't agree. You yourself present absolutely no evidence yourself to counter my own argument. You say, "Yes, we can believe that a self-proclaimed racist (or, more accurately, antisemite) wrote operas which do not propound racist ideas," in spite of the fact that every other philosophy Wagner believed in is presented in his operas. The evidence is there for all to see. It has been written about time and time again. Wagner was absolutely up front in his views and many see them in the operas. It is just you don't accept it - you have every right to. But calling other people who disagree 'dishonest' and saying their arguments are a 'cheap smear' and other personal accusations I find just plain rude. I note also your comments to others who disagree with you. This is, as I say, just not on. For me at any case as I don't want to enter into this sort of personalised argument. Sorry but leave it there.


----------



## mmsbls

Feel free to criticize another's arguments, but please refrain from commenting on other members.


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> The problem is not that people ask the legitimate question: "Did Wagner's antisemitic views affect his operas?" The problem is that people like Millington and Gutman claim that there is some sort of "consensus" that the operas contain antisemitic messages or are fundamentally "about" racial theories, while providing only vague, anecdotal, controversial evidence which proves inadequate to establish the point beyond a reasonable doubt when examined, and is even contradicted by other real evidence we do possess. Why is this a problem? Because it is not merely a questionable statement about the operas, but is a specific accusation against their author. Wagner has quite enough to answer for in his stated views about Jews. He should not need to answer speculative allegations about works of art in which those views cannot be demonstrated to appear.
> 
> It's unfortunate that once an association is made in people's minds - e.g., Beckmesser or Klingsor as Jewish caricatures - it seems almost impossible to banish. That's why I get so angry about the way in which this particular issue is raised here: it is simply illegitimate to say that such-and-such a "Wagner scholar" believes that _Parsifal_ is about race, and that this is sufficient to give credence to the idea. No. It is not sufficient. And if you or anyone else want to introduce this damning notion into a conversation about the opera, then the responsible thing to do is to present the evidence and open the floor to debate on that evidence. Anything less is simply a cheap smear which disrespects Wagner, his works, and anyone here who cares about them for any reason or to any extent.
> 
> The direct answer to your question above is: Yes, we _can_ believe that a self-proclaimed racist (or, more accurately, antisemite) wrote operas which do not propound racist ideas. On what factual - factual, not emotional - basis do you claim otherwise? You may believe or disbelieve anything you please, but your insinuations that Wagner was such a rotter that he would be unable to resist putting racial propaganda into his works and then deceiving the world about his true intentions would be laughed out of an actual court, and they should get no greater respect in the court of opinion. Please recognize that you are seriously misinformed: _there is nothing whatever "in Wagner's own hand" to "give credence" to the notion that his operas contain antisemitism or are about ideas of race and racial supremacy._ He wrote an essay on Jews, and made remarks about Jews in conversation, but there is not one scrap of paper anywhere showing any intention of putting them into his art. The nearest thing we have is a statement of the opposite intent: he remarked that he did not consider Jews suitable subjects to represent onstage. A contemptible remark, but pretty clear about the matter in question. Wagner wrote and talked about his views and intentions more than any human being I know of. He had a great deal to say about what his operas meant to him, and in all of his writings about his work no one has ever found a word about racial supremacy. What we do find, however, is a great many words about the universal human feelings and values he sought to portray.
> 
> One other thing: you say that you are not giving your own views at all. Well, then, whose views were you expressing in post #733 where you said _"Wagner's 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers-a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness"?_ You don't give anyone else credit for that. How are we to know whose views you're offering? Shouldn't you tell us? Are those your words, or are you quoting someone else without acknowledging it? And do you agree with that view or not? You can't just throw these provocative notions out and then, when other people question or dispute them, say "oh, I'm just reporting what so-and-so says," or fail to attribute them at all.
> 
> _My bottom line is this:_ _we should speak for ourselves, say what we believe, and be prepared to back it up, or else have the grace to recede from the conversation. _I believe in justice and evidence, and I believe that if we can't provide evidence to support our allegations - either direct allegations or sneaky innuendos such as "some people say..." - we ought to just acknowledge that we are not qualified to speak. Ducking your obligation to back your statements with facts when asked to, disowning responsibility for inserting unsupported, inflammatory assertions into the discussion by claiming they are someone else's, and shrugging off the rightful indignation of your readers by telling them that it's all just a matter of opinion and that we must "agree to disagree" - is simply dishonest. Every bit of it.


This is not just the best post I have seen on TC, it's the most reasoned, intelligent post I have seen on the web.

N.


----------



## The Conte

DavidA said:


> I'm sorry Woodduck but it is you who appears to be making the inflammatory comments in questioning the motives of those who disagree with you. I said I was not going to continue this discussion because we simply won't agree. *You yourself present absolutely no evidence yourself to counter my own argument.* You say, "Yes, we can believe that a self-proclaimed racist (or, more accurately, antisemite) wrote operas which do not propound racist ideas," in spite of the fact that every other philosophy Wagner believed in is presented in his operas. The evidence is there for all to see. It has been written about time and time again. Wagner was absolutely up front in his views and many see them in the operas. It is just you don't accept it - you have every right to. But calling other people who disagree 'dishonest' and saying their arguments are a 'cheap smear' and other personal accusations I find just plain rude. I note also your comments to others who disagree with you. This is, as I say, just not on. For me at any case as I don't want to enter into this sort of personalised argument. Sorry but leave it there.


I'm afraid if you claim that Parsifal is racist then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your hypothesis. As it's much more difficult to prove that something _isn't_ so rather than proving it is the opposite the burden of proof rests with whoever is making the claim. (In a legal court the prosecution has to prove that the defendant DID commit the crime, it's not up to the defendant to prove that they DIDN'T commit it.)

N.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> One other thing: you say that you are not giving your own views at all. Well, then, whose views were you expressing in post #733 where you said _"Wagner's 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers-a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness"?_ You don't give anyone else credit for that. How are we to know whose views you're offering? Shouldn't you tell us? Are those your words, or are you quoting someone else without acknowledging it? And do you agree with that view or not? You can't just throw these provocative notions out and then, when other people question or dispute them, say "oh, I'm just reporting what so-and-so says," or fail to attribute them at all.
> 
> _My bottom line is this:_ _we should speak for ourselves, say what we believe, and be prepared to back it up, or else have the grace to recede from the conversation. _I believe in justice and evidence, and I believe that if we can't provide evidence to support our allegations - either direct allegations or sneaky innuendos such as "some people say..." - we ought to just acknowledge that we are not qualified to speak. Ducking your obligation to back your statements with facts when asked to, disowning responsibility for inserting unsupported, inflammatory assertions into the discussion by claiming they are someone else's, and shrugging off the rightful indignation of your readers by telling them that it's all just a matter of opinion and that we must "agree to disagree" - is simply dishonest. Every bit of it.


You are right that DavidA should attribute.



> _"Wagner's 'Christianity' is a grim cult of chastity, obedience, order, and war, a Spartan vision of a master race of true believers-a death cult that gains its legitimacy from its possession of relics, a possession that forces them into an iron-clad submissiveness"?_


This quote can be found at http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/parsing-parsifal


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> I'm afraid if you claim that Parsifal is racist then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your hypothesis. As it's much more difficult to prove that something _isn't_ so rather than proving it is the opposite the burden of proof rests with whoever is making the claim. (In a legal court the prosecution has to prove that the defendant DID commit the crime, it's not up to the defendant to prove that they DIDN'T commit it.)
> 
> N.


Not at all when Wagner's own writings are the chief witness. I rather think a court would find them compelling evidence. But note what I said - we cannot conclusively prove the matter either way. The problem your lobby has though is the composer's own views which he was never adverse to expressing. So a burden of proof lies in the defence as well as the prosecution. The question to be answered is would a composer who was not shy of incorporating many other philosophical views he held into his operas not also weave into them a view he held so passionately? But let's just leave it there and agree to differ.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You are right that DavidA should attribute.
> 
> This quote can be found at http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/parsing-parsifal


Anything wrong with quoting somethng we agree with? I thought we were on TC not writing a doctrinal thesis. Anyone who wanted to take the trouble could look it up as you did,


----------



## The Conte

DavidA said:


> Not at all when Wagner's own writings are the chief witness.


1. You have literally said that the concept of "burden of proof" somehow doesn't apply to allegations concerning Parsifal, but not explained why. What do Wagner's writings have to do with the concept of "burden of proof"? Puccini wrote letters, does that mean I can state that he was an undiscovered serial killer, but it's not up to me to prove my allegation you have to prove Puccini WASN'T a serial killer!

2. I didn't know that Wagner wrote that Parsifal was racist. Where did he write that, could you provide the name of the text, the edition and page number?

Thanks,
N.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Anything wrong with quoting somethng we agree with? I thought we were on TC not writing a doctrinal thesis. Anyone who wanted to take the trouble could look it up as you did,


Nothing wrong with _posting _something you agree with...but you didn't "quote" it. Anyone could have taken the trouble, but why would they, unless they suspected that the words were not your own?

No-one expects the presentation and reference standards of a 'doctrinal thesis', but I think TC aims for better standards than seeming to pass off someone else's words as your own.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> This is completely fantastic and gratuitous. _Durch Mitleid wissend_ means exactly what it says: "Through compassion, knowledge." It says absolutely nothing about ceremonies, processions, or celebrations. Nor does it say that knowledge is "past" compassion in a temporal sense; _durch_ - "through" - does not imply sequence. Wagner chose exactly the words he needed and no others. They are simple, explicit and clear. We may debate the precise substance of the "knowledge" gained, but the phrase is not ambiguous, and the story of the opera - in which Parsifal, one encounter at a time, learns to feel Amfortas' and humanity's suffering as his own - could not be clearer about this. The fact that you cannot understand the "drumbeat" suggests to me that you're importing some extrinsic theory about the work which is getting in the way of your perceiving what is clearly in it, and central to it. Could it be that you, like many others apparently, just can't believe that nasty old RW could concern himself with anything so human as compassion?
> 
> And - God help us - not another Hitler reference! Please!


We happen to disagree and please, don't use the name of the Lord in vain. I see Wagner's Parsifal to be meant to lure people into a neo-religion. You think it's about compassion, I think 'compassion' is the carrot to lure one inside. OK, we disagree? I like Parsifal as to what it is for me: a religious mock-up, a heavy-handed play in a Potemkin village that I find curiously superficial in all respects. OK, we disagree? In the end I see Parsifal coming out as wise in his own eyes, _wissend_. OK, we disagree.


----------



## Couchie

Synthesized with paganism and possibly bearing anti-semitic subtext... apparently wasn't an issue for the New Testament so why make complaints with Parsifal?


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Synthesized with paganism and possibly bearing anti-semitic subtext... apparently wasn't an issue for the New Testament so why make complaints with Parsifal?


The New Testament was written by devout Jews most of whom died rather than compromise with Pagansim. A few more facts please and less of these fantasies dreamed up by peopke with time on their hands.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> Synthesized with paganism and possibly bearing anti-semitic subtext... apparently wasn't an issue for the New Testament so why make complaints with Parsifal?


This got a big chuckle from me. As I read it, the "subtext" in the NT is not all that "sub," and the Wiki article supports this.

Who was it that said, "Hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye"? Unfortunately the advice is rarely heeded, and some of us are still worried that the good people of a fictional Nuremberg may have unknowingly elected a Jewish town clerk, and that a self-castrated magician in a fictional medieval Spain may actually have been secretly circumcised.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> This quote can be found at http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/parsing-parsifal


Thanks for digging up that article. Having just read it, I have to say it is one of the more unenlightening pieces of literary onanism I've seen pretending to be about _Parsifal_ in some time. How do people manage to get paid to write such bilge? At least it's brief; there are entire books pursuing their self-indulgent, deceitful fantasies at far greater length.

From Monica Lewinsky to Nazism in one pointless page. Sheesh.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> This got a big chuckle from me. As I read it, the "subtext" in the NT is not all that "sub," and *the Wiki article supports this*.
> 
> .


Some of us have studied theology and the New Testament at a rather higher level than a Wiki article so we've seen it all before and are not so easily taken in!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Some of us have studied theology and the New Testament at a rather higher level than a Wiki article so we've seen it all before and are not so easily taken in!


You're saying that some of us (or me specifically, since you selectively quote my post) are getting our knowledge of the subject from a Wiki article and are "taken in" by it. Not a safe assumption. Best not to go there at all - and particularly not in this thread.


----------



## Couchie

Seems to me you can still read and enjoy the New Testament without denying that it's the foundation document of anti-semitism in Europe and ultimately bears responsibility for the holocaust. Experts have written as much, DavidA. Experts. Apparently your argument is that we only need to find a few experts backing our position to bestow it with some essence of truth that cannot be refuted but only denied.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Seems to me you can still read and enjoy the New Testament without denying that it's the foundation document of anti-semitism in Europe and ultimately bears responsibility for the holocaust. Experts have written as much, DavidA. Experts. Apparently your argument is that we only need to find a few experts backing our position to bestow it with some essence of truth that cannot be refuted but only denied.


Oh well, if you believe that then you believe anything I suppose! :lol: I never know whether to laugh or cry at such statements.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Oh well, if you believe that then you believe anything I suppose! :lol: I never know whether to laugh or cry at such statements.


What makes _me_ cry - not laugh - is that the bulk of the responsibility for the antisemitism in Western society is being misplaced, and that the people railing against the splinter in Wagner's eye are overlooking the plank in the eye of their own religious/cultural tradition.

The extent of the influence of Wagner's antisemitic statements on the culture of his era is a matter for some speculation, but tends, I think, to be exaggerated in the light of subsequent events and widespread misconceptions and propaganda. His essay "Jewishness in Music" was not widely read and not much liked. Antisemitic movements existed and grew with no input from him, and it is a matter of record that he refused, when asked, to lend his name to or participate in political movements to abridge the rights of Jews - and that, to make sure his position was understood publicly, he made a statement abjuring such movements in the _Bayreuthe Blatter_. There is no evidence that Hitler, popularly but mistakenly thought to have derived his thinking from Wagner's writings, ever read "Das Judentum in der Musik," and it is pretty obvious that he would not have cared for Wagner's stated approval of civil rights for Jews.

Wagner's personal animosity toward Jews (except his Jewish friends and colleagues!) did not lead him to advocate the treatment that Jews have received through the ages at the hands of "true believers" who read in their scriptures innumerable imprecations against "the Jews" and words such as "Let his blood be on us and on our children."

The influence of Paul of Tarsus, with his un-Jewish, primitive, neo-pagan, mystical faith-theology of a three-headed, self-sacrificial, cannibalized, dying, resurrected god, and his condemnation of the Jesus-as-rabbi-and-prophet-centered Judaism of James, far exceeds the influence of Wagner in instigating the anti-Jewish tendencies of Western philosophy, theology and politics, and in setting Western civilization on its bloody course. Antisemitism in its most hideous manifestations has been, at root, the creation of Judeo-Christian culture and its deeply biased foundational scriptures, not of one splenetic and talkative German composer.

A little perspective is in order.


----------



## The Conte

Couchie said:


> Seems to me you can still read and enjoy the New Testament without denying that it's the foundation document of anti-semitism in Europe and ultimately bears responsibility for the holocaust. Experts have written as much, DavidA. Experts. Apparently your argument is that we only need to find a few experts backing our position to bestow it with some essence of truth that cannot be refuted but only denied.


I couldn't disagree more. I think branding the New Testament as "Anti-semitic" is just as limiting as describing Parsifal as "Anti-semitic". The New Testament has a wide variety of readings and interpretations (just look at the wide range of christian dominations that hold the NT as their scripture.

I would be fascinated to know which verses in particular you believe as being anti-semitic.

It's interesting to me that all manner of accusations have been thrown around about Parsifal and the New Testament have been thrown around in this thread without any quote from either to back them up.

N.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> What makes _me_ cry - not laugh - is that the bulk of the responsibility for the antisemitism in Western society is being misplaced, and that the people railing against the splinter in Wagner's eye are overlooking the plank in the eye of their own religious/cultural tradition.
> 
> The extent of the influence of Wagner's antisemitic statements on the culture of his era is a matter for some speculation, but tends, I think, to be exaggerated in the light of subsequent events and widespread misconceptions and propaganda. His essay "Jewishness in Music" was not widely read and not much liked. Antisemitic movements existed and grew with no input from him, and it is a matter of record that he refused, when asked, to lend his name to or participate in political movements to abridge the rights of Jews - and that, to make sure his position was understood publicly, he made a statement abjuring such movements in the _Bayreuthe Blatter_. There is no evidence that Hitler, popularly but mistakenly thought to have derived his thinking from Wagner's writings, ever read "Das Judentum in der Musik," and it is pretty obvious that he would not have cared for Wagner's stated approval of civil rights for Jews.
> 
> Wagner's personal animosity toward Jews (except his Jewish friends and colleagues!) did not lead him to advocate the treatment that Jews have received through the ages at the hands of "true believers" who read in their scriptures innumerable imprecations against "the Jews" and words such as "Let his blood be on us and on our children."
> 
> The influence of Paul of Tarsus, with his un-Jewish, primitive, neo-pagan, mystical faith-theology of a three-headed, self-sacrificial, cannibalized, dying, resurrected god, and his condemnation of the Jesus-as-rabbi-and-prophet-centered Judaism of James, far exceeds the influence of Wagner in instigating the anti-Jewish tendencies of Western philosophy, theology and politics, and in setting Western civilization on its bloody course. Antisemitism in its most hideous manifestations has been, at root, the creation of Judeo-Christian culture and its deeply biased foundational scriptures, not of one splenetic and talkative German composer.
> 
> A little perspective is in order.


Saul of Tarsus (later renamed to Paul - 'little one') was a pharisee and remained a pharisee all his life. All his letters are a testimony to this. It is really misguided to think of him as un-Jewish. Even his _Teshuvah_ on the road to Damascus didn't change his Jewish way of life & thinking. Please note that he was taught by Gamaliel.


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> What makes _me_ cry - not laugh - is that the bulk of the responsibility for the antisemitism in Western society is being misplaced, and that the people railing against the splinter in Wagner's eye are overlooking the plank in the eye of their own religious/cultural tradition.
> 
> The extent of the influence of Wagner's antisemitic statements on the culture of his era is a matter for some speculation, but tends, I think, to be exaggerated in the light of subsequent events and widespread misconceptions and propaganda. His essay "Jewishness in Music" was not widely read and not much liked. Antisemitic movements existed and grew with no input from him, and it is a matter of record that he refused, when asked, to lend his name to or participate in political movements to abridge the rights of Jews - and that, to make sure his position was understood publicly, he made a statement abjuring such movements in the _Bayreuthe Blatter_. There is no evidence that Hitler, popularly but mistakenly thought to have derived his thinking from Wagner's writings, ever read "Das Judentum in der Musik," and it is pretty obvious that he would not have cared for Wagner's stated approval of civil rights for Jews.
> 
> Wagner's personal animosity toward Jews (except his Jewish friends and colleagues!) did not lead him to advocate the treatment that Jews have received through the ages at the hands of "true believers" who read in their scriptures innumerable imprecations against "the Jews" and words such as "Let his blood be on us and on our children."
> 
> The influence of Paul of Tarsus, with his un-Jewish, primitive, neo-pagan, mystical faith-theology of a three-headed, self-sacrificial, cannibalized, dying, resurrected god, and his condemnation of the Jesus-as-rabbi-and-prophet-centered Judaism of James, far exceeds the influence of Wagner in instigating the anti-Jewish tendencies of Western philosophy, theology and politics, and in setting Western civilization on its bloody course. Antisemitism in its most hideous manifestations has been, at root, the creation of Judeo-Christian culture and its deeply biased foundational scriptures, not of one splenetic and talkative German composer.
> 
> A little perspective is in order.


True.

Whilst I agree with your analysis of the minimal influence that Wagner had on anti-semitism, I don't think that the New Testament in itself has had more influence. For a start Wagner's article WAS anti-semitic, but I haven't seen proof that the New Testament was. Then again, perhaps it depends on whether you view the New Testament as a philosophical text or as a work of art.

N.


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> True.
> 
> Whilst I agree with your analysis of the minimal influence that Wagner had on anti-semitism, I don't think that the New Testament in itself has had more influence. For a start Wagner's article WAS anti-semitic, but I haven't seen proof that the New Testament was. Then again, perhaps it depends on whether you view the New Testament as a philosophical text or as a work of art.
> 
> N.


Apart from Luke's writings - Luke and Acts - it was written by Jews, all of whom saw Christianity as an Fulfilment of the Jewish faith. Jews they remained all their lives. 
I'd like to know where the evidence for the stamen tent of our friend Woodduck: "The influence of Paul of Tarsus, with his un-Jewish, primitive, neo-pagan, mystical faith-theology of a three-headed, self-sacrificial, cannibalized, dying, resurrected god, and his condemnation of the Jesus-as-rabbi-and-prophet-centered Judaism of James..." Another wiki?


----------



## Faustian

Oh the irony...


----------



## Couchie

The Conte said:


> I couldn't disagree more. I think branding the New Testament as "Anti-semitic" is just as limiting as describing Parsifal as "Anti-semitic". The New Testament has a wide variety of readings and interpretations (just look at the wide range of christian dominations that hold the NT as their scripture.
> 
> I would be fascinated to know which verses in particular you believe as being anti-semitic.
> 
> It's interesting to me that all manner of accusations have been thrown around about Parsifal and the New Testament have been thrown around in this thread without any quote from either to back them up.
> 
> N.


That's my point really. There are not authoritative interpretations of texts, only good and bad ones. To that regard, I have infinitely more esteem in Woodduck as a guiding lamppost over DavidA. Heck, think of the queer readings of Parsifal and the New Testament that have come to the conclusion that Parsifal and Jesus are gay. You can read anything into a text of adequate complexity.

Some people like DavidA seem to be under the impression that he can flaunt a few "experts" who take an anti-semitic reading of Parsifal and everybody else is to be compelled not to deny that it's there. Mentioning the NT only served the purpose of pointing out his double standard.


----------



## Woodduck

The Conte said:


> True.
> 
> Whilst I agree with your analysis of the minimal influence that Wagner had on anti-semitism, I don't think that the New Testament in itself has had more influence. For a start Wagner's article WAS anti-semitic, but I haven't seen proof that the New Testament was. Then again, perhaps it depends on whether you view the New Testament as a philosophical text or as a work of art.
> 
> N.


I confess to be playing a little "What's sauce for the goose..." gambit here, as Faustian has charmingly noted.

No, the New Testament does not take a consistent position on Jews, or anything else. It's an accreted collection of writings, not a treatise by an author. I'm only pointing up the irony of Christians looking at antisemitism as if it were alien to their tradition and culture, some sort of pagan Romantic aberration (the image given it by Nazism). It is anything but. And I do believe that although Paul was born and studied as a Jew, the dying god religion he invented, synthesizing pagan and Jewish elements for easy consumption by heathens (which explains its triumphant march across pagan Europe), is a mystery cult quite un-Jewish in character - which, given Christianity's claim to be the only true way, easily transitioned into "anti-Jewish." The conflict between Paul's new salvation-by-faith theology and the practical Judaism of Jesus' brother James is not a secret. Paul did not know Jesus personally, and his ideas of what Jesus was about - based on a personal crisis that sounds like some sort of psychological breakdown - were not agreeable to the men who had in fact known Jesus and heard him speak. Paul's ideas had a great influence on other New Testament writings (accounting for, among other things, the very Pauline conception of Jesus-as-self-sacrificing-God we find in the fourth gospel). Moreover, the frequent negative references in the New Testament to "the Jews" are not hard to find. Whatever the original meaning or intent of these anti-Judaic elements of Christianity, Christendom's use of them has been deadly for a goodly part of two millennia, and the relationship between the people of the Torah and the people of the Gospels has been a shameful one. That is simply a matter of history.

I seem to be surrounded by Christians at the moment. Are there any Jews here who might speak to this?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I confess to be playing a little "What's sauce for the goose..." gambit here, as Faustian has charmingly noted.
> 
> No, the New Testament does not take a consistent position on Jews, or anything else. It's an accreted collection of writings, not a treatise by an author. I'm only pointing up the irony of Christians looking at antisemitism as if it were alien to their tradition and culture, some sort of pagan Romantic aberration (the image given it by Nazism). It is anything but. And I do believe that although Paul was born and studied as a Jew, the dying god religion he invented, synthesizing pagan and Jewish elements for easy consumption by heathens (which explains its triumphant march across pagan Europe), is a mystery cult quite un-Jewish in character - which, given Christianity's claim to be the only true way, easily transitioned into "anti-Jewish." The conflict between Paul's new salvation-by-faith theology and the practical Judaism of Jesus' brother James is not a secret. Paul did not know Jesus personally, and his ideas of what Jesus was about - based on a personal crisis that sounds like some sort of psychological breakdown - were not agreeable to the men who had in fact known Jesus and heard him speak. Paul's ideas had a great influence on other New Testament writings (accounting for, among other things, the very Pauline conception of Jesus-as-self-sacrificing-God we find in the fourth gospel). Moreover, the frequent negative references in the New Testament to "the Jews" are not hard to find. Whatever the original meaning or intent of these anti-Judaic elements of Christianity, Christendom's use of them has been deadly for a goodly part of two millennia, and the relationship between the people of the Torah and the people of the Gospels has been a shameful one. That is simply a matter of history.
> 
> I seem to be surrounded by Christians at the moment. Are there any Jews here who might speak to this?


You say that ["Paul] invented, synthesizing pagan and Jewish elements for easy consumption by heathens (which explains its triumphant march across pagan Europe), is a mystery cult quite un-Jewish in character."
First Paul did not 'invent' Christianity. It was Jesus. The message preached by the first apostles was in obedience to Jesus' command to go into all the world and preach the good news to everyone (Jew or Gentile]. Of course the first converts were Jews who accepted the message Peter preached of justification by faith in Christ. This was preached not as opposition to the Jewish faith but a fulfilment of it and was accepted by the Jews who believed as such. They saw nothing anti-Jewish in it as they carried on practising their Jewish customs.
I'd like to know where Paul is "synthesizing pagan and Jewish elements for easy consumption by heathens"? Or this old chestnut of the "mystery cult quite un-Jewish in character"? It is true that Paul does use the Greek word μυστήριον (translated 'mystery' in the New Testament) but in a very different way from the heathen writers. The word as used by Paul means a 'secret that was once kept hidden but is now revealed'. It is not some sort of secret society but a revelation let loose the world.
What is the 'mystery'? It was that the Gentle believers were co-heir with the Jewish believers in the Kingdom of God. Of course, Paul was not the first person to realise this. Peter in response to a vision from God visited a family a Gentiles and saw them all believe the Gospel and receive Holy Spirit. Peter baptised them (without feeling the need to make the Jews by circumcising them) and the rest of the church at Jerusalem (all Jews) agreed: God had granted repentance to the Gentiles into the Christian faith. Shortly after this Jewish believers talked to Gentiles in Antioch and saw them become believers. 
it was left to Paul with his lawyer mind and vast intellect to sort of the implications of all this. The fact that under the New Covenant justification is by faith alone through the death and resurrection of Christ and not by observance of the Jewish law. How does Paul work this through? By quoting pagan sources? No, the argument (which is most deeply worked out in the book of Romans) is by reference to "the law and the prophets" (ie what we would call the Old Testament).
You say: "The conflict between Paul's new salvation-by-faith theology and the practical Judaism of Jesus' brother James is not a secret." Conflict? Where? There is no conflict in the New Testament. In fact it is James (along with Peter) who takes Paul's side at the conference in Jerusalem saying the Gentiles shall not be circumcised. The only conflict occurred when people who came from Jerusalem to Antioch went well beyond their brief and told the Gentiles they must be circumcised. To which the council (headed by James) replied: "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said."
Your point that: Paul's ideas of what Jesus was about - based on a personal crisis that sounds like some sort of psychological breakdown - were not agreeable to the men who had in fact known Jesus and heard him speak," are just not found in the New Testament. In fact the other apostles agreed with Paul that his and their gospel was the same! As for Paul's conversation being due to a psychological breakdown that is a pretty far fetched theory! I've worked with many people who have had breakdowns and the effect of it is quite different from the dynamic course that Paul's life subsequently takes after his Damascus Road experience. 
I don't know where you got the "very Pauline conception of Jesus-as-self-sacrificing-God we find in the fourth gospel" bit from. The fact of Jesus as self-sacrificing God is found in all four gospels if one takes the trouble to read them. 
You say, 'the frequent negative references in the New Testament to "the Jews" are not hard to find.' You will find if you take the context that the term often applies to Jewish leaders who opposed the teachings of Christ and the apostles. They never refer the Jews as a race. In fact the gospels say of Jesus, "The common people (all of whom were Jews) heard him gladly." The apostles themselves were Jews and always took the gospel first to the Jews. The first converts (an estimated twelve thousand of them) were all Jews. It was a minority of Jews (in the form of the establishment) who objected and persecuted the apostles. When Paul and Silas were flogged by a heathen mob the accusation against them is that they were Jews!
Paul kept his own Jewishness to the end, making vows and offering sacrifices at the temple which led to his arrest. Ironic that he was arrested not while preaching the gospel but while practicing the Jewish faith which he loved and delivering a charitable offering he had personally raised to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem. When charged he told his accusers he didn't believe anything except what the laws and the prophets taught and they couldn't refute him.
I fully accept over the years that certain pernicious anti-Semitic teaching has arisen in Christendom (ie the politicised form that uses Christianity as a front) but it's by its mis-use of the New Testament not by adhering to its teaching. As you say the history has been shameful but it is nothing to do with the actual teaching of Christ and the apostles. The teaching of Christ is love - even your enemy - something echoed throughout the New Testament - and anti-semitism as practiced by anyone has no place in this.
Of course, I'm not asking you to believe the New Testament - but rather saying what it actually says itself. One thing that we in the west forget is that the New Testament is a Jewish book and if we are not careful we look at it entirely through the wrong eyes.

Sorry to go on at great length, Woodduck, but you often do yourself. As you mention anyone who is a Jew. My wife is Jewish and finds nothing anti-semitic at all in the New Testament. She does not feel the same, however, about Wagner!

As this this a thread about Wagner perhaps I could bring it back to the point I first asked in 752. I am happy to agree to differ as I don't believe either side can conclusively prove its point.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> I seem to be surrounded by Christians at the moment. Are there any Jews here who might speak to this?


Surrounded by Christians? I'm just a gentile who has received hearing.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread has deviated from a discussion of Wagner to one of religion without music. The thread is closed for now.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is now open again. Please refrain from posting details concerning religious topics. This thread is not in the proper forum area for those topics. Also please refrain from posts that focus on other members rather than Wagner and his music.


----------



## Belowpar

I hope this isn't sailing too close to the edge as I don't wish to be provocative.

I do wonder if some of the attraction of Wagner is that he was a 'bad boy'? The music IS sublime but it comes with all the other 'history' and 'baggage' added and that somehow increases the fascination. I smile inwardly when people claim objectivity so I think you have to admitt that all the things his unique character led him to do builds the legend and that helps to make his art more interesting? You would have to be blind to a lot of things before you could say there's nothing of interest there.


----------



## Couchie

Belowpar said:


> I hope this isn't sailing too close to the edge as I don't wish to be provocative.
> 
> I do wonder if some of the attraction of Wagner is that he was a 'bad boy'? The music IS sublime but it comes with all the other 'history' and 'baggage' added and that somehow increases the fascination. I smile inwardly when people claim objectivity so I think you have to admitt that all the things his unique character led him to do builds the legend and that helps to make his art more interesting? You would have to be blind to a lot of things before you could say there's nothing of interest there.


True. For better or worse, Wagner is associated with Nazism, and West remains eternally obsessed with all things Third Reich and WWII. I think that association goes further towards his "interestingness" than anything else.


----------



## TxllxT

I think Wagner was a romantic child of his time. The Romantic movement somehow started with Rousseau's longing back-to-nature, back to the first humans who according to Rousseau were not at all wicked (as Hobbes maintained) but innocent & good-natured. This search back to the first humans sparked an anxious interest for stories about those first humans. In Germany _Das Nibelungenlied_ and the _Edda_ were received as the first testimonies of the German 'first humans'. Richard Wagner's genial idea was to set these _Ur_German testimonies to music. But where are Rousseau's innocent & good-natured first humans to be found in _Das Nibelungenlied_ and the _Edda_? These stories are infested with 'bad boys', aren't they? It seems that Wagner was fascinated by these pre-moral mythical characters, who were not yet influenced by Jewish testimonies. The question whether Wagner was a 'bad boy' himself + a sublime musical genius does not stand apart from his lifelong interest in the mythical testimonies about the first Germans.


----------



## mmsbls

Belowpar said:


> I do wonder if some of the attraction of Wagner is that he was a 'bad boy'? The music IS sublime but it comes with all the other 'history' and 'baggage' added and that somehow increases the fascination. I smile inwardly when people claim objectivity so I think you have to admitt that all the things his unique character led him to do builds the legend and that helps to make his art more interesting? You would have to be blind to a lot of things before you could say there's nothing of interest there.


I adore Wagner's music because it is sublimely beautiful. To me his operas contain this wonderful music coupled with at times a compelling narrative (The Ring, Parsifal, less so Tristan). I have little interest in his political views. There have been many people with such views. Racism itself is abhorrent, but the fact that a particular person was a racist is of little interest to me. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the US and a founder of the first democratic state, was also a slave owner. Thousands back then were slave owners, but very few moved forward political ideology as Jefferson did. So I'm interested in Jefferson the political theorist and Wagner the composer and vastly less interested in their similarities with other common people.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> For better or worse, Wagner is associated with Nazism, and West remains eternally obsessed with all things Third Reich and WWII. I think that association goes further towards his "interestingness" than anything else.


The association seems ineradicable, and like all "associations" (as opposed to well-understood relationships) the "for better or worse" part constantly slips toward the "worse." It is difficult even to read a review of a Wagner performance in a provincial opera house without some undigested tidbit of the composer's "association" with that terrible era creeping in and coloring the reportage - often in the first paragraph, as if prompt mention of antisemitism were necessary to establish the writer's credibility among the smugly compassionate and hiply liberal intellectuals who presumably attend Wagner performances with an uneasy conscience assuaged only by the now-ubiquitous regietheater distortions of Wagner's intentions. Thus do fashionable social illusions and simplistic historical myths perpetuate themselves, and thus do we lose sight of complex realities and the real people who constitute them.

I would differ with you and say that the association of Wagner with twentieth-century atrocities does nothing for his "interestingness," but in fact obscures it. The Wagner of popular perception is a two-dimensional cartoon of one of the most complex and fascinating people in history, a caricature which began vigorously taking shape even in his lifetime, thanks to the complexity and innovativeness of his art and thought, and to the reflexive viciousness of the popular press, obsessed as ever with superficialities and scandal. When people ask, as they routinely do, how such a dreadful little man could have created such sublime music, I can only say that nothing comes from nothing, and that if we find greatness in the creation we are foolish and unjust not to seek for its source in the creator. But even in suggesting such a thing I can hear the clucks and gasps of the politically righteous and the culturally fahionable. Wagner? Greatness? How can greatness reside in the soul of any man, especially any German man, who said such spiteful things about - _those_ people?

It's one thing to want to simplify our view of a man whose outsized personality and mind lie outside our normal experience and defy easy comprehension. But so persistent is our inherited mythology of the amoral proto-Nazi that when the apparent incongruity between the creation and the creator is mentioned, the first tendency is not to seek a deeper understanding of the man but to seek the embodiment of his most flagrant vices in his art. Whether or not this search yields anything real or significant, its very premise results in a deeper entrenchment of the illusions which we've come to take as reality. No, Wagner's vices are not illusory. The illusion consists in taking the parts for the whole, and sometimes the surfaces for the depths, which so often elude our understanding.

I don't know of any other major figure in music who is accorded such radically prejudicial treatment, based on such a morass of ambiguous and questionable "associations" and sustained by such a deep desire to be politically correct. Perhaps our view of a deceased composer's life and character is of little consequence in itself, however regrettable our oversimplifications and misconceptions. But Wagner's works remain very much alive and able to speak profoundly to people a century and a half after their creation. Whether we like those works or not, I think we owe Wagner the respect, and ourselves the potential enjoyment, of determining what they actually do and do not contain, and to try to identify the "associations" which received opinion and sheer mindless fashion may be interposing between them and us.


----------



## Belowpar

He was a womaniser, a man who ignored his debts and spent others money lavishly. He travelled around Europe at a most interesting time. He defines part of our image of how an Artist behaves. He was exactly what people mean when they say larger than life!

It doesn't just come down to the Nazi question. That is the controversy, the baggage that followed. Oddly enough I can't see Hitler praising Wagners lifestyle.


Mix it all together and you have eternal fascination...as long as the music is at least as interesting.


----------



## graziesignore

Wagner is too tinkly for me...


----------



## Woodduck

graziesignore said:


> Wagner is too tinkly for me...


Might as well go back to Faure:


----------



## gardibolt

I just enjoy the music. The plots range from vaguely amusing to incomprehensible, but the music is almost always glorious. I don't give two figs about whether he was or wasn't an abomination. I despise the desire to have everyone conform to some milquetoast sanctification in order to be treated seriously. Those who accomplish great things--I would suggest especially great artists----are always seriously flawed in a variety of ways. Wagner hated Jews? I don't care. Nor do I care that Beethoven was a misanthrope, or that Schubert died of syphilis. It's just not relevant.


----------



## Celloman

Wagner was a flawed human being, full of contradictions. Most people are, you know.

It's when we boil him down to a crude caricature that we are most likely to misunderstand him. Like his operas, he too was complex and paradoxical and that is just what makes him such a fascinating historical figure. He was not a good man or a bad man. But in a profoundly artistic way, he _was_ (and is) great.


----------



## Barbebleu

I'm always surprised that while it seems facile to vilify Wagner, nobody seems to level similar accusations at Mozart. Misogyny - Cosi, casual racism - Die Zauberflote (the treatment of Monostatos) just for starters!


----------



## Balthazar

Barbebleu said:


> I'm always surprised that while it seems facile to vilify Wagner, nobody seems to level similar accusations at Mozart. Misogyny - Cosi, casual racism - Die Zauberflote (the treatment of Monostatos) just for starters!


Similar accusations are not leveled against Mozart because there is no equivalence in their positions. If you are genuinely surprised by this, I assume you have not read Wagner's infamous pamphlet which he published not once but twice. You may also be overlooking the fact that Wagner wrote all of his libretti while Mozart did not.

Let us imagine that Mozart wrote a blistering essay called "Blacks and Music" in which he hysterically argued that blacks are an inherently repulsive people in manner, speech and custom, and incapable of producing great music. Imagine Mozart published this pamphlet not once but twice, the second time at the height of his fame. Imagine further that Mozart lived another 50 years and became the undisputed dominant cultural force in Europe. Imagine that Mozart left voluminous writings extolling the virtues and superiority of the ethnically Austrian people and culture which, given his stature in the cultural realm, had considerable influence on the development of extreme Austrian nationalism in the ensuing decades. Imagine further that Mozart wrote all of his libretti and that these chauvinistic views found expression throughout his texts. Continue to imagine that 50 years after Mozart's death, the extreme racist Austrian nationalism movement that Mozart helped inspire led to a devastating global conflagration resulting in the death of not only 6 million innocent blacks but tens of millions of others.

Now that would be a Mozart with some equivalence to Wagner. And in that case, I would fully expect people to direct a rather more critical glance toward Mozart's writings and socio-political views.


----------



## Barbebleu

Balthazar said:


> Similar accusations are not leveled against Mozart because there is no equivalence in their positions. If you are genuinely surprised by this, I assume you have not read Wagner's infamous pamphlet which he published not once but twice. You may also be overlooking the fact that Wagner wrote all of his libretti while Mozart did not.
> 
> Let us imagine that Mozart wrote a blistering essay called "Blacks and Music" in which he hysterically argued that blacks are an inherently repulsive people in manner, speech and custom, and incapable of producing great music. Imagine Mozart published this pamphlet not once but twice, the second time at the height of his fame. Imagine further that Mozart lived another 50 years and became the undisputed dominant cultural force in Europe. Imagine that Mozart left voluminous writings extolling the virtues and superiority of the ethnically Austrian people and culture which, given his stature in the cultural realm, had considerable influence on the development of extreme Austrian nationalism in the ensuing decades. Imagine further that Mozart wrote all of his libretti and that these chauvinistic views found expression throughout his texts. Continue to imagine that 50 years after Mozart's death, the extreme racist Austrian nationalism movement that Mozart helped inspire led to a devastating global conflagration resulting in the death of not only 6 million innocent blacks but tens of millions of others.
> 
> Now that would be a Mozart with some equivalence to Wagner. And in that case, I would fully expect people to direct a rather more critical glance toward Mozart's writings and socio-political views.


He may not have written his own libretti but by using them I would suggest that he is condoning the sentiments expressed therein. Which is entirely what you should expect from an eighteenth century man as are Wagner's mores, those of a nineteenth century man. This is a century which saw no problem in sending a child up a chimney, or out to work when barely old enough. My point was not the morality or ethics of either Mozart or Wagner but rather the opprobrium heaped upon Wagner which seems, in the twenty first century, excessive and unnecessary. By now we should be divorcing ourselves from the politics and concentrating on the music and its visceral effect on our emotions.


----------



## gardibolt

I don't know...I have the sense Mozart would have set anything to music if you paid him.


----------



## Mahlerian

gardibolt said:


> I don't know...I have the sense Mozart would have set anything to music if you paid him.


As a mature man, he was very picky about his opera libretti, actually, and frequently made revisions in the course of setting them.

It's been pointed out that Mozart took out some of the more misogynist portions of The Magic Flute, and that his music treats the women in Cosi with far more respect than the libretto.


----------



## TxllxT

Barbebleu said:


> He may not have written his own libretti but by using them I would suggest that he is condoning the sentiments expressed therein. Which is entirely what you should expect from an eighteenth century man as are Wagner's mores, those of a nineteenth century man. This is a century which saw no problem in sending a child up a chimney, or out to work when barely old enough. My point was not the morality or ethics of either Mozart or Wagner but rather the opprobrium heaped upon Wagner which seems, in the twenty first century, excessive and unnecessary. By now we should be *divorcing ourselves from the politics and concentrating on the music* and its visceral effect on our emotions.


From: Obituary: Patrice Chéreau (1944-2013)
"_Working in close collaboration with conductor Pierre Boulez, Mr. Chéreau's vision persevered against attacks, death threats and outright xenophobia from opera-goers who did not went to see their beloved German operas in the hands of French artists_."


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Now that this thread has been reopened, I feel compelled to comment on this:



TxllxT said:


> Wagner stands at the cradle of a revival of paganism. Paganism is the hailing of immorality. His relationship with his work has the unified _Gesamtkunstwerk_ purpose of introducing paganism into our way of life. Well, he has been successful with achieving this goal, hasn't he?


Paganism is not the hailing of immorality. It is the hailing of _this world_, as opposed to the afterlife, and all the good things this world has to offer: the love of nature, of other human beings, of beauty and of great art. What is immoral about that? And Wagner is undoubtedly great art. His art is maybe one of the few truly _perfect_ things that exist in this world. As for whether his was successful in reviving paganism, I think he was. I know I am not the only one who was inspired by Wagner in that regard. And it is a good thing.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now that this thread has been reopened, I feel compelled to comment on this:
> 
> Paganism is not the hailing of immorality.


Of course it is not. But unfortunately it is used as a pejorative term by non-pagans, often, but not exclusively, by Christians who wish to put other religions down.


----------



## Balthazar

Barbebleu said:


> He may not have written his own libretti but by using them I would suggest that he is condoning the sentiments expressed therein. Which is entirely what you should expect from an eighteenth century man as are Wagner's mores, those of a nineteenth century man. This is a century which saw no problem in sending a child up a chimney, or out to work when barely old enough.


Your argument seems to have shifted from 'Wagner is equivalent to Mozart' to 'Wagner was no different from any other 19th century European.' I reject this view. Please read the essay I linked above and re-read my last post and tell me if you truly believe this. To state that Wagner had no greater influence than any other 19th century man on the socio-political development of Europe is as patently false as stating that Wagner had no greater influence on the development of Western music.



> My point was not the morality or ethics of either Mozart or Wagner but rather the opprobrium heaped upon Wagner which seems, in the twenty first century, excessive and unnecessary. By now we should be divorcing ourselves from the politics and concentrating on the music and its visceral effect on our emotions.


As I have noted, Wagner had a tremendous influence on the development not only of music, but of politics and intellectual history as well. If you, or anyone else, are not interested in those facets of Wagner, that is fine. I would not presume to tell you how you should approach Wagner. Bear in mind, though, that Wagner's contributions to politics and intellectual history are far-reaching and a legitimate area of inquiry. I include myself among those who find this a fascinating area of study.

If you wish simply to listen to the music and ignore everything else, you are welcome to do so. I personally find my appreciation of music increases significantly when I have a fuller understanding of the intellectual and historical context within which it was written and performed.


----------



## Dim7

What's misogynistic about the Magic Flute?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Balthazar said:


> As I have noted, *Wagner had a tremendous influence on the development not only of music, but of politics and intellectual history as well.* If you, or anyone else, are not interested in those facets of Wagner, that is fine. I would not presume to tell you how you should approach Wagner. Bear in mind, though, that Wagner's contributions to politics and intellectual history are far-reaching and a legitimate area of inquiry. I include myself among those who find this a fascinating area of study.


And more than that. This:









would not exist without his inspiration either.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now that this thread has been reopened, I feel compelled to comment on this:
> 
> Paganism is not the hailing of immorality. It is the hailing of _this world_, as opposed to the afterlife, and all the good things this world has to offer: the love of nature, of other human beings, of beauty and of great art. What is immoral about that? And Wagner is undoubtedly great art. His art is maybe one of the few truly _perfect_ things that exist in this world. As for whether his was successful in reviving paganism, I think he was. I know I am not the only one who was inspired by Wagner in that regard. And it is a good thing.







Just let the music do its work: isn't this beautiful? Isn't Hagen's call to arms exciting (is there something in _this world_ that can match this excitement?) ? Doesn't it make your blood boil? Wagner's music is making one able to enjoy war. This is what I mean with the hailing of immorality; it means that something one normally would disapprove (like enjoying war, blood shedding) is shown in an artistic context to be beautiful & acceptable. Well, I for one *adore* this part of Götterdämmerung because it does make my blood boil, but at the same time I know it's immoral.
Your praise of the good things this world has to offer doesn't mention that Wagner went far beyond the love of nature, the love of other human beings. He wants you to feel as a god, to become a god and go down fullbloodedly into the _Götterdämmerung_.


----------



## mountmccabe

TxllxT said:


> Just let the music do its work: isn't this beautiful? Isn't Hagen's call to arms exciting (is there something in _this world_ that can match this excitement?) ? Doesn't it make your blood boil? Wagner's music is making one able to enjoy war. This is what I mean with the hailing of immorality; it means that something one normally would disapprove (like enjoying war, blood shedding) is shown in an artistic context to be beautiful & acceptable. Well, I for one *adore* this part of Götterdämmerung because it does make my blood boil, but at the same time I know it's immoral.
> Your praise of the good things this world has to offer doesn't mention that Wagner went far beyond the love of nature, the love of other human beings. He wants you to feel as a god, to become a god and go down fullbloodedly into the _Götterdämmerung_.


War? You do understand that Hagen is calling the vassals to prepare for a _wedding_, not war, right?

Hagen talks of sacrifices to Wotan, Froh, Donner, and Fricka, but this is showing the cycle of the gods. In _Das Rheingold_ they are powerful and important; by _Götterdämmerung_ they are gone, or at least entirely offstage. Rather than building castles and raging and adventuring they are hiding away in that castle, waiting to die. All that's left are the rituals of the humans who have taken over.

Hagen isn't calling anyone to war, and neither is Wagner. Hagen _is_ calling the people to perform rituals to the gods, but Wagner is showing us how these gods have fallen and that they are powerless.


----------



## Balthazar

SiegendesLicht said:


> And more than that. This:
> 
> View attachment 77896
> 
> 
> would not exist without his inspiration either.


Indeed! It's good to see those revolutionary republican ideals in practice! :lol:

Oh well, as they say, money can't buy taste...


----------



## Sloe

Balthazar said:


> Indeed! It's good to see those revolutionary republican ideals in practice!
> 
> Oh well, as they say, money can't buy taste...


Are you saying that the castle is not beautiful?


----------



## Balthazar

Sloe said:


> Are you saying that the castle is not beautiful?


I find it garish and not to my taste.

I also view it as a horrific misuse of resources.


----------



## Aramis

Sloe said:


> Are you saying that the castle is not beautiful?


I'd say it looks a little bit like fantasy castle of 7-years old girl dreaming of being a princess.

Where exactly do they keep the ponies?


----------



## Sloe

Aramis said:


> I'd say it looks a little bit like fantasy castle of 7-years old girl dreaming of being a princess.
> 
> Where exactly do they keep the ponies?


I think it is beautiful.


----------



## TxllxT

mountmccabe said:


> War? You do understand that Hagen is calling the vassals to prepare for a _wedding_, not war, right?
> 
> Hagen talks of sacrifices to Wotan, Froh, Donner, and Fricka, but this is showing the cycle of the gods. In _Das Rheingold_ they are powerful and important; by _Götterdämmerung_ they are gone, or at least entirely offstage. Rather than building castles and raging and adventuring they are hiding away in that castle, waiting to die. All that's left are the rituals of the humans who have taken over.
> 
> Hagen isn't calling anyone to war, and neither is Wagner. Hagen _is_ calling the people to perform rituals to the gods, but Wagner is showing us how these gods have fallen and that they are powerless.


From Wikipedia:
"_Hagen summons the Gibichung vassals to welcome Gunther and his bride. He does this by sounding the *war-alarm*. The vassals are surprised to learn that the occasion is not battle, but their master's wedding and party_."

You don't hear the call to war? Hear, hear!!!!!

This is not _Le Nozze di Figaro_


----------



## Dim7

Balthazar said:


> I find it garish and not to my taste.
> 
> I also view it as a horrific misuse of resources.


Balth strikes again with sarcastic (?) likes.

note: my likes in this thread are not sarcastic. So far.


----------



## Balthazar

Dim7 said:


> Balth strikes again with sarcastic likes.


You misread those, Dim7.

I sincerely like that SL and Sloe are expressing their views even though they differ from mine.

I also agree with SL that Neuschwanstein Castle is an example of Wagner's influence in the broader world outside of his compositions and, as such, is a worthy subject of discussion here.

Those are respectful likes.

The one directly above, on the other hand...


----------



## TxllxT

Balthazar said:


> I find it garish and not to my taste.
> 
> I also view it as a horrific misuse of resources.


Actually it is very modern, build with an iron framework inside, covered only on the outside with a shallow stone covering:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Just let the music do its work: isn't this beautiful? Isn't Hagen's call to arms exciting (is there something in _this world_ that can match this excitement?) ? Doesn't it make your blood boil? Wagner's music is making one able to enjoy war. This is what I mean with the hailing of immorality; it means that something one normally would disapprove (like enjoying war, blood shedding) is shown in an artistic context to be beautiful & acceptable. Well, I for one *adore* this part of Götterdämmerung because it does make my blood boil, but at the same time I know it's immoral.
> Your praise of the good things this world has to offer doesn't mention that Wagner went far beyond the love of nature, the love of other human beings. He wants you to feel as a god, to become a god and go down fullbloodedly into the _Götterdämmerung_.


That is an interesting point. I love this music too, but I see it somewhat differently: as a way to connect to the past - that of Wagner's most distant ancestors, and probably your own as well at some point.

I remember one episode from my college days: I was reading a book on the history of English, more precisely a chapter on the development and spread of Germanic languages around the world, while listening to some metal band sing about the Vikings going on a journey. Suddenly the dry scientific narrative of the book became alive and three-dimensional. I could almost see these ancient wanderers on board their dragon ships, setting out for the coast of England or of France. The same happens during that scene from Götterdämmerung, but even more powerfully: a little bit of history comes alive, raised to life through the magic of Wagner's musical genius. This history might be immoral from our modern point of view and hardly something we would want to repeat, but we are also hardly in a position to condemn it.

And that is also a part of pretty much every modern pagan faith: reconnect to your past, take what good things you might find there and learn from the bad things.


----------



## Dim7

Balthazar said:


> You misread those, Dim7.
> 
> I sincerely like that SL and Sloe are expressing their views even though they differ from mine.
> 
> I also agree with SL that Neuschwanstein Castle is an example of Wagner's influence in the broader world outside of his compositions and, as such, is a worthy subject of discussion here.
> 
> Those are respectful likes.
> 
> The one directly above, on the other hand...


I should've said just "mysterious" like before.


----------



## Morimur

Balthazar said:


> I find it garish and not to my taste.
> 
> I also view it as a horrific misuse of resources.


I hear ya, but it was built in a different time. Of course, the maintenance cost must be obscene, but I'll give the Germans the benefit of the doubt-they've earned it.


----------



## Sloe

Morimur said:


> I hear ya, but it was built in a different time. Of course, the maintenance cost must be obscene, but I'll give the Germans the benefit of the doubt-they've earned it.


A time when beauty was appreciated.


----------



## mountmccabe

TxllxT said:


> From Wikipedia:
> "_Hagen summons the Gibichung vassals to welcome Gunther and his bride. He does this by sounding the *war-alarm*. The vassals are surprised to learn that the occasion is not battle, but their master's wedding and party_."
> 
> You don't hear the call to war? Hear, hear!!!!!
> 
> This is not _Le Nozze di Figaro_


To be fair, it is not a happy call. Hagen has no friendly wishes for those to be married. This is all about manipulation. Hagen is the villain of the piece, everything he does is deception, with ulterior motives. The music here does not make war sound enjoyable; Hagen could not have approached this in such a way; that would in no way serve his purpose. Yes, his literal call is to war:

"Waffen! Waffen! Waffen durchs Land! Gute Waffen! Starke Waffen! Scharf zum Streit. Not ist da!"
(To arms! To arms! All take up your weapons, good weapons! Strong weapons, sharpend for battle! There is danger!)

It should come as no shock to us that he was not being forthright. He is trying to put everyone on edge, he is trying to create a tense environment for the confrontation he has arranged. His calls for sacrifices to the gods are also not done out of religious sincerity, but, again, to make everyone else take these events seriously, so that he may gain from them.

I do consider the music for Hagen here to be beautiful, but it is not pretty. It induces terror and fear, not glorious rapture or even patriotic fervor. The vassals response shows the same thing, they come out agitated and tense. They're not singing the praises of fighting, they're asking what the danger is and what they _have_ to do to protect their lands.

So the villain of the piece uses a terrifying call to war to manipulate the masses, and you're spinning this as evidence of Wagner glorifying war?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

The castle brings in some 15 million euro annually in admittance tickets, and it not only covers the maintenance costs, but also brings in a profit. And that is only one of four Ludwig's castles. 

The place is much too overcrowded and touristy nowadays, but if you are willing to try and imagine you are all alone there, or to separate yourself from the crowds, walk up into the mountains and admire it from above - it is wonderful.


----------



## Morimur

SiegendesLicht said:


> The castle brings in some 15 million euro annually in admittance tickets, and it not only covers the maintenance costs, but also brings in a profit. And that is only one of four Ludwig's castles.


Well there you go-case closed.


----------



## Balthazar

SiegendesLicht said:


> The castle brings in some 15 million euro annually in admittance tickets, and it not only covers the maintenance costs, but also brings in a profit. And that is only one of four Ludwig's castles.


It's a shame that Ludwig chose to bankrupt himself building his fourth(!) castle, which of course contributed to his being deposed and, shortly thereafter, drowning in a shallow lake under 'mysterious circumstances.'

Hmmmm... maybe the castle really is an example of Wagner's radical revolutionary ideas put into practice.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Just remember: if you ever want to visit, either get tickets online or come early.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I think his antisemitism was ridiculous and it is also a barrier to me, but he was an excellent composer.


----------



## Woodduck

Balthazar said:


> Let us imagine that Mozart wrote a blistering essay called "Blacks and Music" in which he hysterically argued that blacks are an inherently repulsive people in manner, speech and custom, and incapable of producing great music. Imagine Mozart published this pamphlet not once but twice, the second time at the height of his fame. Imagine further that Mozart lived another 50 years and became the undisputed dominant cultural force in Europe. Imagine that Mozart left voluminous writings extolling the virtues and superiority of the ethnically Austrian people and culture which, given his stature in the cultural realm, had considerable influence on the development of extreme Austrian nationalism in the ensuing decades. Imagine further that Mozart wrote all of his libretti and that these chauvinistic views found expression throughout his texts. Continue to imagine that 50 years after Mozart's death, the extreme racist Austrian nationalism movement that Mozart helped inspire led to a devastating global conflagration resulting in the death of not only 6 million innocent blacks but tens of millions of others.
> 
> Now that would be a Mozart with some equivalence to Wagner. And in that case, I would fully expect people to direct a rather more critical glance toward Mozart's writings and socio-political views.


What is right about this picture and what is prejudicial, exaggerated, or wrong?

1.) Wagner did indeed write and publish an essay called _Der Judentum in der Musik_ ("Jewishness in Music") in 1850, and again in 1869. It has long been available in what is considered an inadequate translation by William Ashton Ellis (who titled it "Judaism in Music"), and it has not been translated more accurately into English since. In addition to the obviously repellent personal animosity Wagner exhibits, it is interesting for showing some real comprehension, unusual for that time, of the cultural position of Jews in Germany, and Wagner acknowledges "the misery of the Jews through history and the predatory bestiality of the Christian-Germanic power-brokers towards the Sons of Israel" and makes clear his disapproval of the attempts throughout history to deprive Jews of their rights. His message and position are thus more complex than they are generally thought to be.

The essay met with little approval when published and cannot with any certainty be said to have been influential. Fascinatingly, Wagner's speculation upon the idea of a Jewish state is thought to have inspired the (Jewish) founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl. Richard Wagner, antisemite, one of the fathers of Israel? What a thought!

2.) It is questionable whether any person should be called the "undisputed dominant cultural force in Europe," if the "culture" of an era is taken to mean the whole range of human endeavor characterizing it. Wagner certainly had an overwhelming influence on music, and substantial and specific influences on literature and theater. His influence on the visual arts was more indirect and marginal. He made no contribution to philosophy; he was not a formal philosopher, being more of an eclectic follower than a leader, and was not a very consistent or influential thinker in the realm of ideas outside of his theories about music and drama. Nor was his political thinking seminal or of much interest to anyone after his youthful phase as an anarchist revolutionary; the idea that it pointed toward Nazism is a complete misconception. This is not to minimize the widespread fascination with his works and the fanatical enthusiasm of his numerous "disciples" who made his name a symbol for everything modern and progressive.

3.) Wagner's ideas about German "superiority" were subject to considerable emendation and misgivings during his life. The statement that he "had considerable influence on the development of extreme nationalism in the ensuing decades" really begs for analysis and support. What Wagner "extolled" about Germanness, and how he might have wished that Germanness to manifest itself - basically, through an artistic renaissance exhibiting the (potential) greatness of the "German soul" - had essentially nothing to do with the "extreme nationalism" you are clearly getting at. He was a pacifist who condemned Bismarck's militancy and any idea of German conquest of other lands. He also, be it noted, supported civil rights for Jews in German society and would not be associated with movements advocating the abridgment of those rights.

4.) The presence of "chauvinistic" views in Wagner's libretti is confined to Hans Sachs exhorting the people of Nuremberg to honor their German artists. The worst we can say about this little speech is that it's gratuitous (Wagner considered cutting it but left it in at Cosima's recommendation). It does not advocate "nationalism." Attempts to read chauvinism into the rest of the operas are without objective basis, and fall under the classification of "things that must surely be true because Wagner was that sort of person and Siegfried was blond and dumb and the Nazis..."

Which brings us to:

5.) The statement that Wagner "helped to inspire" the "extreme racist nationalism movement" that led to the murder of 6 million Jews, in the context of the rest of your contentions here, might be taken to suggest that his thought and works somehow predicted or favored the Nazi atrocities. Certainly anyone who was an antisemite in 19th-century Germany was blameworthy for participating in the creation of a cultural atmosphere which ultimately put Jews in danger, but despite Wagner's personal hatred for the Jews he was consistently opposed to violence against any people or nation. Direct influence of any specifically Wagnerian ideas on Hitler's own thinking and on Nazi policies is probably nil: Wagner was not the originator of racist doctrines, he did not advocate - in fact he disapproved of - the idea of a dominating "master race," he abhorred political and every other sort of violence, and the growth of antisemitism would probably have been what it was had he not lived. To quote Monte Stone, creator and author of "The Ring Disc: An Interactive Guide to Wagner's Ring": _"People need to understand the difference between 'influence' and (mis)appropriation. The Nazis tried to appropriate Wagner, Nietzsche, Goethe, Beethoven, Bruckner, and a host of others. That is not to say these people 'influenced' the Nazis to become what they were. The Nazis were Nazis and they tried to justify their world view by claiming a cultural heritage. In a word; propaganda. It is a little known fact that Adolf Hitler said almost nothing about Wagner and he NEVER quoted him."_ It is also quite possible that Hitler never read Wagner's _Das Judentum in der Musik_, as it existed only in very small editions and was never widely read. But even if he had, I doubt that he'd have found anything in it germane to his project. Hitler's project was not that of Wagner, whose works were far too complex and profound for him actually to understand. Had he understood them, he would have seen that Wagner's message was actually a negation of his aspirations, and that the real Wagnerian representation and just fate of the Third Reich was the Gotterdammerung.


----------



## DavidA

Balthazar said:


> It's a shame that Ludwig chose to bankrupt himself building his fourth(!) castle, which of course contributed to his being deposed and, shortly thereafter, drowning in a shallow lake under 'mysterious circumstances.'
> 
> Hmmmm... maybe the castle really is an example of Wagner's radical revolutionary ideas put into practice.


Wagner was not a man to let his revolutionary principles stand in the way when he needed money!


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> From Wikipedia:
> "_Hagen summons the Gibichung vassals to welcome Gunther and his bride. He does this by sounding the *war-alarm*. The vassals are surprised to learn that the occasion is not battle, but their master's wedding and party_."
> 
> You don't hear the call to war? Hear, hear!!!!!
> 
> *This is not Le Nozze di Figaro*


Please remember that Figaro is a subversive opera which mocked the ruling classes by showing a servant getting the better of them. In its time and context it is actually far more subversive and revolutionary than Gotterdamerung.


----------



## KenOC

I believe that _Marriage of Figaro _was banned in some places. Subversive yes, but not nastily so (and that may have made it even more subversive).


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I like motifs from Wagner's popular operas, but forgive me, when the singing starts, I lose interest. It has nothing to do with the German, because I love the German language. I will probably give the Ring another chance sometime when I have a lot of time to sit, and watch them. I know the story, but would still like to witness the operas visually as well as audibly, though the sound of Solti's famous set is the most appealing to me.


----------



## Sloe

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> I like motifs from Wagner's popular operas, but forgive me, when the singing starts, I lose interest. It has nothing to do with the German, because I love the German language. I will probably give the Ring another chance sometime when I have a lot of time to sit, and watch them. I know the story, but would still like to witness the operas visually as well as audibly, though the sound of Solti's famous set is the most appealing to me.


Nice to see that someone dislikes Wagner because of his music and not because he expressed opinions they do not like.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> The presence of "chauvinistic" views in Wagner's libretti is confined to Hans Sachs exhorting the people of Nuremberg to honor their German artists.


There is also Lohengrin.

_Für deutsches Land das deutsche Schwert
So sei des Reiches Kraft bewährt!_

And there is a beautiful orchestral interlude before that scene.

The positive side of Wagner's nationalism (the pro-German, not the anti-anything side) that is cited as one of the reasons to dislike Wagner, is actually one of the reasons I _do_ like him for. He seems to have walked through life with his head up high, an attitude that modern Germans largely lack.


----------



## TxllxT

mountmccabe said:


> To be fair, it is not a happy call. Hagen has no friendly wishes for those to be married. This is all about manipulation. Hagen is the villain of the piece, everything he does is deception, with ulterior motives. The music here does not make war sound enjoyable; Hagen could not have approached this in such a way; that would in no way serve his purpose. Yes, his literal call is to war:
> 
> "Waffen! Waffen! Waffen durchs Land! Gute Waffen! Starke Waffen! Scharf zum Streit. Not ist da!"
> (To arms! To arms! All take up your weapons, good weapons! Strong weapons, sharpend for battle! There is danger!)
> 
> It should come as no shock to us that he was not being forthright. He is trying to put everyone on edge, he is trying to create a tense environment for the confrontation he has arranged. His calls for sacrifices to the gods are also not done out of religious sincerity, but, again, to make everyone else take these events seriously, so that he may gain from them.
> 
> I do consider the music for Hagen here to be beautiful, but it is not pretty. It induces terror and fear, not glorious rapture or even patriotic fervor. The vassals response shows the same thing, they come out agitated and tense. They're not singing the praises of fighting, they're asking what the danger is and what they _have_ to do to protect their lands.
> 
> So the villain of the piece uses a terrifying call to war to manipulate the masses, and you're spinning this as evidence of Wagner glorifying war?


I think Wagner wanted to shake things & people up. The end of _Götterdämmerung_ with all those weak & listless gods, isn't there hidden his opinion over his contemporaries? He was not the only one who found his own times deadish & rotten. No, I'm *not* accusing Wagner for the fact, that World War I in the summer of 1914 was hailed in Germany by the countless war volunteers as a _"frischer und fröhlicher Krieg"_ and that everyone *at the same time * dreamed about celebrating Christmas warm & cosy at home after a few months.

As to Hagen, my enjoyment of this part of _Götterdämmerung_ is not civilised.  "_ It induces terror and fear, not glorious rapture or even patriotic fervor"_) It is beauty and the beast without limits.


----------



## Balthazar

Woodduck said:


> What is right about this picture and what is prejudicial, exaggerated, or wrong?


Erm… all those statements I made were not about Wagner but rather about a hypothetical Mozart. As such, none of them are prejudicial, exaggerated, or wrong.

My point was to explain to Barbebleu why extra-musical aspects of Wagner's views receive more critical attention than Mozart's. I explained that handily. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

I take issue with your characterization of Wagner and his views, particularly the radical contention that only one line in his libretti expresses his chauvinistic views. But this is not the "Quibble about Precisely How Horrible Wagner Was" thread, but rather the "Why do you NOT like Wagner?" thread. As such, I am working on my list…


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> I believe that _Marriage of Figaro _was banned in some places. Subversive yes, but not nastily so (and that may have made it even more subversive).


It's probably for the best that Mozart didn't make an opera based on Beaumarchais' sequel, "The Guilty Mother."

Though Wagner probably would have made an even worse hash of it, imo.


----------



## Woodduck

Balthazar said:


> Erm… all those statements I made were not about Wagner but rather about a hypothetical Mozart. As such, none of them are prejudicial, exaggerated, or wrong.


In order to compare Wagner with Mozart, you construct a "hypothetical Mozart" all of whose characteristics match exactly the clicheed, oversimplified, misleading image of Wagner which we've been fed all our lives and which still dominates popular perception, but when someone tries to modify that image with a bit more information you deny that you were describing Wagner at all?


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> I believe that _Marriage of Figaro _was banned in some places. Subversive yes, but not nastily so (and that may have made it even more subversive).


The original play was. I don't know about Mozart's opera.


----------



## Balthazar

Woodduck said:


> In order to compare Wagner with Mozart, you construct a "hypothetical Mozart" all of whose characteristics match exactly the clicheed, oversimplified, misleading image of Wagner which we've been fed all our lives and which still dominates popular perception, but when someone tries to modify that image with a bit more information you deny that you were describing Wagner at all?


Of course I was not describing Wagner. Did he write an essay entitled "Blacks and Music?" I don't think so. (Though it wouldn't surprise me in the least if such a manuscript were discovered.)

I was limning out a hypothetical Mozart who would present some equivalence to the real Wagner. My conclusion holds: no one but Wagner himself bears responsibility for the criticism he and his works draw.

In any case, the topic of this thread is "Why do you NOT like Wagner?" and that is what I intend to address in my posts here.

:tiphat:


----------



## OperaChic

Balthazar said:


> My conclusion holds: no one but Wagner himself bears responsibility for the criticism he and his works draw.


He certainly bears the responsibility for some of the criticism and controversy, but that does not mean that any criticism directed at him or his works is justified. Especially criticisms that are based on exaggerations, misconceptions, or appropriations and associations to people and events after his death that he cannot possibly be held responsible for, and that his thought and works bear little to no relation to.

For example, whether chauvinism is displayed in just one line or in a handful of ways in a few of his works, anyone who is familiar with the operas knows it is hardly the main thrust of them or even a major theme within those it does appear in, while they contain much, much more that hold broad, universal appeal. So if one were to claim that identification of that chauvinism within the operas was somehow critical to an understanding and appreciation of them (a claim I've seen made before), that would in my opinion be a unfair criticism.


----------



## Balthazar

OperaChic said:


> He certainly bears the responsibility for some of the criticism and controversy, but *that does not mean that any criticism directed at him or his works is justified*.


No one here has made that extreme claim.



> For example, whether chauvinism is displayed in just one line or in a handful of ways in a few of his works, anyone who is familiar with the operas knows it is hardly the main thrust of them or even a major theme within those it does appear in, while they contain much, much more that hold broad, universal appeal. So *if one were to claim that identification of that chauvinism within the operas was somehow critical to an understanding and appreciation of them* (a claim I've seen made before), that would in my opinion be a unfair criticism.


Fair enough. I have never seen such a claim, and certainly not on this thread.

Please bear in mind the context of my statement. It was questioned why Wagner is the subject of more extra-musical criticism than Mozart. The short answer: he earned it.


----------



## TxllxT

From: _Das Judentum in der Musik_ (1850): _"Aber bedenkt, dass nur eines eure Erlösung von dem lastenden Fluche sein kann, die Erlösung Ahasvers. Der Untergang!" _
Richard Wagner was a lifelong romantic revolutionary who strongly believed in the rebirth capacity of the Aryan race (against the pessimist vision of Gobineau, who expected only decline & decay for his brainchild (Gobineau invented the concept of 'the Aryan race')). But this rebirth capacity of the purely German culture was incapacitated by the influence of another culture, a cursed culture that awaited its inevitable outcome: disappearance, _Untergang!_. To Wagner's sour dismay the influence of this other culture only seem to grow and strengthen: Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Hanslick. But Wagner's antisemitism remained perfunctory: his real goal was to promote the conditions for the long awaited rebirth of the purely German culture. Closely intertwined with this deep longing for a renewed _Deutschtum_ is the romanticised expectation for the 2nd coming of the messiah. This romantic messiah for sure would be a German messiah. Who would be the person to fulfill this Germanised (romanticised) messianic dream? . . . . . .


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> The original play was. I don't know about Mozart's opera.


The original play was somewhat toned down by da Ponte to get it through the censors. But the opera was still felt subversive by the aristocracy, which is was, of course, for the day. Read Rene Jacobs intro to his recording of Figaro.


----------



## DavidA

Balthazar said:


> No one here has made that extreme claim.
> 
> Please bear in mind the context of my statement. * It was questioned why Wagner is the subject of more extra-musical criticism than Mozart. The short answer: he earned it.*


You couldn't have made the point any clearer.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> From: _Das Judentum in der Musik_ (1850): _*"Aber bedenkt, dass nur eines eure Erlösung von dem lastenden Fluche sein kann, die Erlösung Ahasvers. Der Untergang!" *_
> Richard Wagner was a lifelong romantic revolutionary who strongly believed in the *rebirth capacity of the Aryan race* (against the pessimist vision of Gobineau, who expected only decline & decay for his brainchild (*Gobineau invented the concept of 'the Aryan race'*)). But this rebirth capacity of the purely German culture was incapacitated by the influence of another culture, a cursed culture that awaited its inevitable outcome: *disappearance, Untergang!*. To Wagner's sour dismay the influence of this other culture only seem to grow and strengthen: Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Hanslick. But Wagner's antisemitism remained perfunctory: *his real goal was to promote the conditions for the long awaited rebirth of the purely German culture.* Closely intertwined with this deep longing for a renewed _Deutschtum_ is *the romanticised expectation for the 2nd coming of the messiah.* This romantic messiah for sure would be a German messiah. *Who would be the person to fulfill this Germanised (romanticised) messianic dream? . . . . . .*


The quote means little if you decline to translate it and interpret it in context. There is disagreement over what Wagner meant by it, particularly by the word "Untergang," which you incorrectly translate as "disappearance." Are you aware of this?

Gobineau invented the concept of "the Aryan race," but Wagner did not become familiar with Gobineau until 1876 and discuss his writings until 1881, two years before his death. He was not entirely in agreement with Gobineau's concepts. Understanding might be better served by looking at their points of agreement and difference, rather than making these loose associations.

I can assure you: Wagner pursued a great many "real goals" in his long and immensely productive life besides the revival of German culture.

Please cite the writings in which Wagner expresses the "dream" of a German messiah. What? There aren't any?

Yeah, who indeed? Don't keep us in suspense.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> The quote means little if you decline to translate it and interpret it in context. There is disagreement over what Wagner meant by it, particularly by the word "Untergang," which you incorrectly translate as "disappearance." Are you aware of this?
> 
> Gobineau invented the concept of "the Aryan race," but Wagner did not become familiar with Gobineau until 1876 and discuss his writings until 1881, two years before his death. He was not entirely in agreement with Gobineau's concepts. Understanding might be better served by looking at their points of agreement and difference, rather than making these loose associations.
> 
> I can assure you: Wagner pursued a great many "real goals" in his long and immensely productive life besides the revival of German culture.
> 
> Please cite the writings in which Wagner expresses the "dream" of a German messiah. What? There aren't any?
> 
> Yeah, who indeed? Don't keep us in suspense.


Wagner's stand is basically optimistic, quite _Biedermeier_ly sweet, with always the German ideal of Germanness as the longing perspective. But what is preferable, or what is less dangerous? Exactly this strong sweetly romantic & optimistic belief in the rebirth of pure _Deutschtum_ is much more treacherous than all these heinous straightforward antisemitic writings of Gobineau & Chamberlain. Wagner's stand towards the Jews can be summarised as: you stand in the way. He is the first to have mentioned this ominous _Der Untergang!_


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> Wagner's stand is basically optimistic, quite _Biedermeier_ly sweet, with always the German ideal of Germanness as the longing perspective. But what is preferable, or what is less dangerous? Exactly this strong sweetly romantic & optimistic belief in the rebirth of pure _Deutschtum_ is much more treacherous than all these heinous straightforward antisemitic writings of Gobineau & Chamberlain. Wagner's stand towards the Jews can be summarised as: you stand in the way. He is the first to have mentioned this ominous _Der Untergang!_


Why do you say that Wagner's essentially sentimental passion for "the German spirit" (embodied, of course, in his own works ) was more dangerous than Gobineau's stark Aryan suprematism? The issue of racial dominance - actual physical domination - was, you know, a point of disagreement between the two: Gobineau for, Wagner against. Wagner wanted the "German spirit" (which ultimately was to involve his own brand of non-theistic, non-Judaic Christianity) to improve humanity, not subjugate or exterminate it - and that included the Jews. Yes, it's still insulting to the "lesser races," but plenty of people have insulted others without attempting to kill them.

There is always a danger in ideas of racial, ethnic, national, religious, etc. superiority/inferiority; one never knows, and cannot control, what people will conclude that they are entitled to do to the objects of their hatred or disdain. But not all bigots and bigotries are equal. The practical working out of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a culture is not always straightforward or easy to trace, and it's reasonable that Wagner's published thoughts, as well as his art, would have had some influence on the cultural milieu of his time. But the direct, unambiguous line to Nazi ideology is not from Wagner's idiosyncratic, ivory-tower mix of pro-Teutonic idealism, Schopenhauerian-Buddhist pessimism, Christian pacifism, animal-rights-based vegetarianism, and personal antisemitic bile, but from the overt and provocative conquest/extermination-supremacism of Gobineau and Chamberlain (whose work Hitler called his "Bible"), the militarist-expansionist precedent of Bismarck (which Wagner deplored), and the burgeoning pseudo-science of racial eugenics. These are all un-Wagnerian ideas, and it galls me when self-styled "Wagner experts" like Robert Gutman try to read them into Wagner's operas < snipped > .

Refuting them certainly keeps me busy around here (I'm always looking for someone to take the night shift, but as this is a non-profit concern it's a volunteer position).


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Why do you say that Wagner's essentially sentimental passion for "the German spirit" (embodied, of course, in his own works ) was more dangerous than Gobineau's stark Aryan suprematism? The issue of racial dominance - actual physical domination - was, you know, a point of disagreement between the two: Gobineau for, Wagner against. Wagner wanted the "German spirit" (which ultimately was to involve his own brand of non-theistic, non-Judaic Christianity) to improve humanity, not subjugate or exterminate it - and that included the Jews. Yes, it's still insulting to the "lesser races," but plenty of people have insulted others without attempting to kill them.
> 
> There is always a danger in ideas of racial, ethnic, national, religious, etc. superiority/inferiority; one never knows, and cannot control, what people will conclude that they are entitled to do to the objects of their hatred or disdain. But not all bigots and bigotries are equal. The practical working out of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a culture is not always straightforward or easy to trace, and it's reasonable that Wagner's published thoughts, as well as his art, would have had some influence on the cultural milieu of his time. But the direct, unambiguous line to Nazi ideology is not from Wagner's idiosyncratic, ivory-tower mix of pro-Teutonic idealism, Schopenhauerian-Buddhist pessimism, Christian pacifism, animal-rights-based vegetarianism, and personal antisemitic bile, but from the overt and provocative conquest/extermination-supremacism of Gobineau and Chamberlain (whose work Hitler called his "Bible"), the militarist-expansionist precedent of Bismarck (which Wagner deplored), and the burgeoning pseudo-science of racial eugenics. These are all un-Wagnerian ideas, and it galls me when self-styled "Wagner experts" like Robert Gutman try to read them into Wagner's operas, and uninformed parrots repeat these fallacious interpretations as if they were self-evidently true.
> 
> Refuting them certainly keeps me busy around here (I'm always looking for someone to take the night shift, but as this is a non-profit concern it's a volunteer position).


First: I appreciate your explanations very much and it's important that the 19th century way of disputing (Hanslick against Wagner, Wagner against Hanslick) is *not* taken as the example to follow. Wagner wanted a non-Judaic, Buddhist kind of Christianity and he realised that vision in Parsifal. In Parsifal one may notice a thorough Germanisation of what remained of derelict Christian religious habits & rites. The scandal that was caused by David Friedrich Strauß' _Das Leben Jesu_ (1836) had left Germany at the end of the 19th century in a complete spiritual disarray. Wagner wanted to save German culture. Compared with Bismarck, Gobineau, Chamberlain Wagner's ideology indeed may seem soft & soothing, but he was more than anyone else convinced that the balance that in his times heavily weighed in detriment to Germany's cultural glory only could be reversed by putting down the Jews & Jewish culture.


----------



## The Conte

Balthazar said:


> No one here has made that extreme claim.
> 
> Fair enough. I have never seen such a claim, and certainly not on this thread.
> 
> Please bear in mind the context of my statement. It was questioned why Wagner is the subject of more extra-musical criticism than Mozart. The short answer: he earned it.


I disagree, are Wagner's views expressed in 'Das Judentum in der Musik', worse than Mozart's views about women, Christianity and black people (he may not have written about these views, but he was a fully signed up Mason)?

We cannot know what Wagner would have thought about the Third Reich, but in any case he did not earn being misrepresented and exploited by the Nazis.

N.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> Refuting them certainly keeps me busy around here (I'm always looking for someone to take the night shift, but as this is a non-profit concern it's a volunteer position).


I would maybe take the night shift, but I have lost patience explaining the same things over and over and over again. Besides, lately I am of the opinion that whatever conflicts took place between Wagner and the chosen people, this is not my war. I am trying to be like Switzerland - strictly neutral.


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> The quote means little if you decline to translate it and interpret it in context. There is disagreement over what Wagner meant by it, particularly by the word "Untergang," which you incorrectly translate as "disappearance." Are you aware of this?
> 
> Gobineau invented the concept of "the Aryan race," but Wagner did not become familiar with Gobineau until 1876 and discuss his writings until 1881, two years before his death. He was not entirely in agreement with Gobineau's concepts. Understanding might be better served by looking at their points of agreement and difference, rather than making these loose associations.
> 
> I can assure you: Wagner pursued a great many "real goals" in his long and immensely productive life besides the revival of German culture.
> 
> Please cite the writings in which Wagner expresses the "dream" of a German messiah. What? There aren't any?
> 
> Yeah, who indeed? Don't keep us in suspense.


Thank you Woodduck.

The offending (and offensive article) needs to be read in its entirety, cherry picking sections and mistranslating them isn't fair.

Wagner makes two things quite clear in 'Das Judentum in der Musik':

1) His opinion that the only salvation for the Jewish race is to be assimilated into Western European culture (this is what constitutes the Untergang when understood in context). He cites some examples of Jewish friends/colleagues who have managed to do this (including Mendelssohn, if I remember correctly).

2) His opinion that it isn't possible for Jewish people to change their character and personality to become assimilated into Western European culture as they are so fundamentally different to non semitic peoples.

These two views, that are typical of Wagner's racism, are not only totally reprehensible, but contradict each other in a way typical of small thinking racists and bigots. However, to suggest that Wagner was some kind of visionary prophet who looked forward to a Hitler type figure is as ridiculous as Wagner's own contradictory racism.

N.


----------



## Guest

The Conte said:


> Wagner [...] did not earn being misrepresented and exploited by the Nazis.


On the other hand, he wouldn't be the first celeb whose opinions are used and abused in the name of...whatever. With celebrity comes great responsibility!


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would maybe take the night shift, but I have lost patience explaining the same things over and over and over again. Besides, lately I am of the opinion that whatever conflicts took place between Wagner and the chosen people, this is not my war. I am trying to be like Switzerland - strictly neutral.


In the early nineties I used to be a professional guide in Prague who also was taken to excursions into Terezín / Theresienstadt. I remember I had a group of Swiss youngsters and it was at the time that Switzerland's role during WWII came out. Well, I never have encountered with such sincere tearful emotions inside the prison. No, there existed & exists no neutral ground. Richard Wagner's role is not financial. He brought Germany back to a mythical worldview and a mythical "_Úbermensch_"view down on "_Untermensch_"fellow human beings. Please, be vigilant when & whenever the gods enter!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

When I was in Bavaria last January (heck, it's been almost a year, but the memories are still fresh and sweet), while travelling out of Munich to different places on a train, my man and I went past Dachau all of four times. And not a single time did we get out. My man suggested it once, and I simply said "No". We travelled to old Nürnberg, we visited King Ludwig's castles, we spent time wandering in the majestic Bavarian Alps, and I had my "heathen epiphany" there. That is the side of Germany I will love as long as I live - together with Wagner. And Dachau - maybe some other time.

Also, the Swiss youngsters were the ones who most definitely had nothing to repent in tears from: they were not even fetuses inside their mothers at that time. It is learned guilt, imposed from the outside, and it is psychologically destructive. If I were there, I would have given them a hug and told them that.


----------



## DavidA

Hh


The Conte said:


> Thank you Woodduck.
> 
> The offending (and offensive article) needs to be read in its entirety, cherry picking sections and mistranslating them isn't fair.
> 
> Wagner makes two things quite clear in 'Das Judentum in der Musik':
> 
> 1) His opinion that the only salvation for the Jewish race is to be assimilated into Western European culture (this is what constitutes the Untergang when understood in context). *He cites some examples of Jewish friends/colleagues who have managed to do this (including Mendelssohn, if I remember correctly).*
> 
> 2) His opinion that it isn't possible for Jewish people to change their character and personality to become assimilated into Western European culture as they are so fundamentally different to non semitic peoples.
> 
> These two views, that are typical of Wagner's racism, are not only totally reprehensible, but contradict each other in a way typical of small thinking racists and bigots. However, to suggest that Wagner was some kind of visionary prophet who looked forward to a Hitler type figure is as ridiculous as Wagner's own contradictory racism.
> 
> N.


Sorry, but never thought RW numbered Mendelssohn among his friends. I thought he did everything to destroy Mendelssohn's legacy.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> I disagree, are Wagner's views expressed in 'Das Judentum in der Musik', worse than Mozart's views about women, Christianity and black people (he may not have written about these views, but he was a fully signed up Mason)?
> 
> We cannot know what Wagner would have thought about the Third Reich, but in any case he did not earn being misrepresented and exploited by the Nazis.
> 
> N.


I think to compare Wagner's voluminous writings on the Jews with the comparatively tiny inset into the libretto of Zauberflote (not of course written by Mozart but by Shikeneder) is somewhat stretching credulity.


----------



## The Conte

TxllxT said:


> In the early nineties I used to be a professional guide in Prague who also was taken to excursions into Terezín / Theresienstadt. I remember I had a group of Swiss youngsters and it was at the time that Switzerland's role during WWII came out. Well, I never have encountered with such sincere tearful emotions inside the prison. No, there existed & exists no neutral ground. Richard Wagner's role is not financial. He brought Germany back to a mythical worldview and a mythical "_Úbermensch_"view down on "_Untermensch_"fellow human beings. Please, be vigilant when & whenever the gods enter!


If Wagner is as responsible as you suggest for the Third Reich, then he was no mere genius but also had supernatural powers (if he could influence the politics of his country fifty years after he died).

Or is this some kind of karmic tit-for-tat where Hitler becomes responsible for Der Ring? An equally supernatural act seeing as it was written fifteen years before he was born.

N.


----------



## TxllxT

The Conte said:


> If Wagner is as responsible as you suggest for the Third Reich, then he was no mere genius but also had supernatural powers (if he could influence the politics of his country fifty years after he died).
> 
> Or is this some kind of karmic tit-for-tat where Hitler becomes responsible for Der Ring? An equally supernatural act seeing as it was written fifteen years before he was born.
> 
> N.


From: Obituary: Patrice Chéreau (1944-2013)
_"Working in close collaboration with conductor Pierre Boulez, Mr. Chéreau's vision persevered against attacks, death threats and outright xenophobia from opera-goers who did not went to see their beloved German operas in the hands of French artists."_

Wagner's supernatural powers even stretched out to 1976: (From Wikipedia) _"The French team revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany, as music critic Eleonore Büning wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Unprecedentedly, the scene was set in Industrial Revolution, "dressing the gods as capitalists at war with the Nibelung proletariat". Set at the time of the composition, it took a critical view of the time's capitalism, industrialism and spiritual background. The Rhinemaidens appeared as 19th-century cancan dancers and Wotan as a banker in a frock coat. Siegfried enters the hall of the Gibichungs dressed in the "ragged clothes of a mythical hero" and meets Gunther wearing a dinner jacket, visualising how alien the hero is to the world. The director's approach was described as a mix of "a vague sense of 19th-century melodrama with Shaw's messianic socialism and Strindberg's psychodrama."_

Before Chéreau the opera legacy of Richard Wagner was interpreted in a safe, non-political manner. Most people are familiar with these Asterix & Obelix dress ups. Chéreau's revolution however was to wipe out the difference between the stage and the public. The outcry this caused is still being heard today. I can understand that some Wagnerians feel more comfortable with looking at Asterix & Obelix (nothing more), with a Wagner who doesn't blow any war-alarm, with a Wagner whose antagonism towards the Jews is not systematic.


----------



## The Conte

TxllxT said:


> From: Obituary: Patrice Chéreau (1944-2013)
> _"Working in close collaboration with conductor Pierre Boulez, Mr. Chéreau's vision persevered against attacks, death threats and outright xenophobia from opera-goers who did not went to see their beloved German operas in the hands of French artists."_
> 
> Wagner's supernatural powers even stretched out to 1976: (From Wikipedia) _"The French team revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany, as music critic Eleonore Büning wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Unprecedentedly, the scene was set in Industrial Revolution, "dressing the gods as capitalists at war with the Nibelung proletariat". Set at the time of the composition, it took a critical view of the time's capitalism, industrialism and spiritual background. The Rhinemaidens appeared as 19th-century cancan dancers and Wotan as a banker in a frock coat. Siegfried enters the hall of the Gibichungs dressed in the "ragged clothes of a mythical hero" and meets Gunther wearing a dinner jacket, visualising how alien the hero is to the world. The director's approach was described as a mix of "a vague sense of 19th-century melodrama with Shaw's messianic socialism and Strindberg's psychodrama."_
> 
> Before Chéreau the opera legacy of Richard Wagner was interpreted in a safe, non-political manner. Most people are familiar with these Asterix & Obelix dress ups. Chéreau's revolution however was to wipe out the difference between the stage and the public. The outcry this caused is still being heard today. I can understand that some Wagnerians feel more comfortable with looking at Asterix & Obelix (nothing more), with a Wagner who doesn't blow any war-alarm, with a Wagner whose antagonism towards the Jews is not systematic.


In the late nineties I was studying in Milan and was quite bemused by elderly Italians who were shocked that there were so many non Italians singing at La Scala, especially when they were in the casts of Verdi operas. Does that make Verdi xenophobic?

N.


----------



## Sloe

TxllxT said:


> Most people are familiar with these Asterix & Obelix dress ups.


No that is Norma and that is a Bellini opera.

I have said before all the regietheater productions of Wagner operas make them less attractive. It have caused problems for me to get into Wagner and I think that for many others.


----------



## Barbebleu

Balthazar said:


> I personally find my appreciation of music increases significantly when I have a fuller understanding of the intellectual and historical context within which it was written and performed.


That's fine by me. It's not absolutely essential for my non-intellectual appreciation of any artist's music.


----------



## Itullian

Because the magnificence, scope, beauty, depth, seamless composition, orchestration and more have spoiled me for almost all other operas.
I hate him.


----------



## Guest

Well, given that the 2015 _Beaujolais nouveau_ season is once again upon us and after dutifully (and unreservedly) contributing to the French wine-producing economy (tonight in particular), I can say that it's not so much a question of NOT liking Wagner (I do) but rather a situation where I find myself duty bound to report that RW pales into insignificance faced with the OVERWHELMING GENIUS OF BEETHOVEN who leaves RW standing except when it comes to the question of, er, opera where RW is fairly good, I'll admit, but did RW ever write a symphony? [He did, but we need not dwell on it.] OK, did RW ever write 32 piano sonatas and string quartets and good stuff like that? No, he didn't, and that's why I don't NOT like Wagner, see? I certainly don't.


----------



## Sloe

TalkingHead said:


> OK, did RW ever write 32 piano sonatas and string quartets and good stuff like that? No, he didn't, and that's why I don't NOT like Wagner, see? I certainly don't.


Did Beethoven ever write 13 operas?
I would rather listen to an opera than a piano sonata.


----------



## Guest

Sloe said:


> Did Beethoven ever write 13 operas?
> I would rather listen to an opera than a piano sonata.


Well, Beethoven probably made 13 attempts at a couple of operas, but let's not quibble! 
I'll still take the _Hammerklavier_ over _*any*_ opera any day, even one of RW's.


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> Well, given that the 2015 _Beaujolais nouveau_ season is once again upon us and after dutifully (and unreservedly) contributing to the French wine-producing economy (tonight in particular), I can say that it's not so much a question of NOT liking Wagner (I do) but rather a situation where I find myself duty bound to report that RW pales into insignificance faced with the OVERWHELMING GENIUS OF BEETHOVEN who leaves RW standing except when it comes to the question of, er, opera where RW is fairly good, I'll admit, but did RW ever write a symphony? [He did, but we need not dwell on it.] OK, did RW ever write 32 piano sonatas and string quartets and good stuff like that? No, he didn't, and that's why I don't NOT like Wagner, see? I certainly don't.


No argument from a devoted lifelong Wagnerian about the - ahem - OVERWHELMING GENIUS OF BEETHOVEN! That's a real thing, _sans doute_, and no one was surer of it than Wagner himself. But how can we compare? Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and those other fellows were mere composers, after all; they had only to put notes together flawlessly (big deal, eh? ). Finding the right notes was only a part of Wagner's achievement. Scholar, poet, storyteller, mythmaker, dramatist, composer - discoverer of new worlds of the imagination, explorer of hidden recesses of the human psyche which no artist had ever touched - creator of a new music, an aural seismograph transmitting every tremor of feeling, every anxiety, longing, passion and pain, every terror and ecstasy...

When people have that hopeless argument about who the greatest composer is, I always regret leaving Wagner out of the discussion. I think his greatest music is among the greatest ever written, but I feel he is a different kind of animal - in fact, the only one of his species. I'm content to let him stand to one side, smiling his arrogant, megalomaniac smile while the rest jostle for first place. Whoever wins, he'll still be there. He might even cast a vote - for Beethoven, perhaps, or for Mozart?

_"I believe in God, Mozart and Beethoven, and likewise their disciples and apostles; - I believe in the Holy Spirit and the truth of the one, indivisible Art; - I believe that this Art proceeds from God, and lives within the hearts of all illumined men; - I believe that he who once has bathed in the sublime delights of this high Art, is consecrate to Her for ever, and never can deny Her; - I believe that through Art all men are saved."_

He didn't say "through _my_ art," but no doubt he was thinking it, bless his mad little heart.


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> In the late nineties I was studying in Milan and was quite bemused by elderly Italians who were shocked that there were so many non Italians singing at La Scala, especially when they were in the casts of Verdi operas. Does that make Verdi xenophobic?
> 
> N.


What relevance has that to the present discussion?


----------



## DavidA

Sloe said:


> Did Beethoven ever write 13 operas?
> I would rather listen to an opera than a piano sonata.


But he's not saying he prefers opera.


----------



## Balthazar

The Conte said:


> Thank you Woodduck.
> 
> *The offending (and offensive article) needs to be read in its entirety*, cherry picking sections and mistranslating them isn't fair.
> 
> Wagner makes two things quite clear in 'Das Judentum in der Musik':
> 
> 1) His opinion that the only salvation for the Jewish race is to be assimilated into Western European culture (this is what constitutes the Untergang when understood in context). *He cites some examples of Jewish friends/colleagues who have managed to do this (including Mendelssohn, if I remember correctly)*.
> 
> 2) His opinion that it isn't possible for Jewish people to change their character and personality to become assimilated into Western European culture as they are so fundamentally different to non semitic peoples.
> 
> These two views, that are typical of Wagner's racism, are not only totally reprehensible, but contradict each other *in a way typical of small thinking racists and bigots.* However, to suggest that Wagner was some kind of visionary prophet who looked forward to a Hitler type figure is as ridiculous as Wagner's own contradictory racism.
> 
> N.


Yes, the essay should be read in it's entirety. I don't see how one could do so yet misread Wagner's attitude toward Mendelssohn. As pointed out above, far from an exception to Wagner's vilification, Mendelssohn is expressly singled out as an example of a Jew who is congenitally incapable of producing great art :lol:. (Despite, of course, Mendelssohn's being a baptized Christian.)

The article linked by DavidA above provides a good _précis_ of the matter. Rather classy of Wagner to publish such a scabrous attack shortly after Mendelssohn's untimely death, don't you think?

Wagner's petty attacks on Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn no doubt had their genesis in Wagner's deep-seated jealousy of their artistic and professional successes. That Wagner was a "small thinking racist and bigot" you did get right. But the fact that someone's hate speech is contradictory doesn't mean it is without influence, or that the speaker/writer bears no responsibility for it.


----------



## Balthazar

Itullian said:


> Because the magnificence, scope, beauty, depth, seamless composition, orchestration and more have spoiled me for almost all other operas.
> I hate him.


Itullian, I am glad to see you contributing here!

I know that in other Wagner threads, dissenting views are actively and aggressively discouraged. But the "Why do you NOT like Wagner?" thread is a big tent where all are welcome. I think that a free and open exchange of ideas provides for a more interesting discussion.

Based on the relative number of posts here since this thread was re-opened versus the "Wagner fans......why do you like Wagner?" thread, it seems that most others do as well, particularly the Wagner fans!

Funnily enough, I predicted such a phenomenon in an eerily prescient post in the "Wagner fans" thread that was lost in clean-up. :lol:


----------



## TxllxT

Richard Wagner loved Venice. But it is not the Venice that is shown in this lovely & interesting video. Wagner's Venice was a city in decay, atrophy, rot, mistily veiled in the smells of death, a place of absolute solitude: this is the Venice that inspired him. 
The Venice of the video is the gloriously restored city that the whole year round is being flocked by tourists: if one longs to retreat into sole isolation, the last place on earth to go for is Venice! We prefer the present day Venice in almost all respects above Wagner's Venice. Of course we would like to see the number of tourists decline a bit, but on the other hand they help to boost its economy & liveliness. Well, what do the unwavering Wagnerians prefer? Venice anno 2015/16 or the Venice as Richard Wagner knew & loved it?


----------



## gardibolt

TalkingHead said:


> Well, Beethoven probably made 13 attempts at a couple of operas, but let's not quibble!
> I'll still take the _Hammerklavier_ over _*any*_ opera any day, even one of RW's.


Mmm not so many. Offhand there's Leonore 1805 and Leonore 1806, plus Fidelio of course. 
Vestas Feuer, which got so far as one complete scene
Macbeth, which got no further than sketches for the Overture and the opening scene with the witches before his librettist died.
He toyed with the idea of Goethe's Faust, but so far as I know never wrote or even sketched anything for it.
There probably are more I'm not thinking of, but it's probably less than half of 13.

Back to your regularly scheduled festivities.


----------



## Krummhorn

Thread closed for repairs ...


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is now open. The thread has 59 pages so apparently many people have enjoyed reading and posting here. Let's try to keep it open by not commenting on other members or their posting style.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Richard Wagner loved Venice. But it is not the Venice that is shown in this lovely & interesting video. Wagner's Venice was a city in decay, atrophy, rot, mistily veiled in the smells of death, a place of absolute solitude: this is the Venice that inspired him.
> The Venice of the video is the gloriously restored city that the whole year round is being flocked by tourists: if one longs to retreat into sole isolation, the last place on earth to go for is Venice! We prefer the present day Venice in almost all respects above Wagner's Venice. Of course we would like to see the number of tourists decline a bit, but on the other hand they help to boost its economy & liveliness. Well, what do the unwavering Wagnerians prefer? Venice anno 2015/16 or the Venice as Richard Wagner knew & loved it?


Sorry but the video is disabled. Venice is a beautiful city but I found it uncommonly expensive last time I visited!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Wagner seems the have had a taste for living in beautiful places. Tribschen on Lake Lucerne in Switzerland where he lived for a few years is incredibly beautiful too. Unfortunately Switzerland is even more expensive than Venice.


----------



## Belowpar

SiegendesLicht said:


> Wagner seems the have had a taste for living in beautiful places. Tribschen on Lake Lucerne in Switzerland where he lived for a few years is incredibly beautiful too. Unfortunately Switzerland is even more expensive than Venice.


Our one visit to Switzerland was for the marriage of someone who my wife had trained with and a guy who worked for the Swiss Tourist Board. They had met while he was posted to London. So pleased that we were coming to their wedding, they put off their honeymoon for 3 days in order to show us some of the country. Every time we stopped for something to eat and drink he would say "Look cheaper than London!" I will never forget the hunger I felt in the next 4 days travelling back through Germany. We could only afford breakfast each day having spent the week's money in 3 days in Switzerland.

If anyone would like tips on how to eat reasonably in London, just send me an IM, I'd be happy to help. Unless of course you are Swiss, you won't need help as you'll find all prices more than reasonable!


----------



## The Conte

Balthazar said:


> Yes, the essay should be read in it's entirety. I don't see how one could do so yet misread Wagner's attitude toward Mendelssohn. As pointed out above, far from an exception to Wagner's vilification, Mendelssohn is expressly singled out as an example of a Jew who is congenitally incapable of producing great art :lol:. (Despite, of course, Mendelssohn's being a baptized Christian.)
> 
> The article linked by DavidA above provides a good _précis_ of the matter. Rather classy of Wagner to publish such a scabrous attack shortly after Mendelssohn's untimely death, don't you think?
> 
> Wagner's petty attacks on Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn no doubt had their genesis in Wagner's deep-seated jealousy of their artistic and professional successes. That Wagner was a "small thinking racist and bigot" you did get right. But the fact that someone's hate speech is contradictory doesn't mean it is without influence, or that the speaker/writer bears no responsibility for it.


I didn't say that Wagner wasn't responsible for what he wrote and said. Others with more knowledge about the subject have demonstrated how little influence Wagner's views had. I don't think anybody here has tried to stand up for Wagner's views or tried to downplay them. Neither should we inflate them into something they are not.

N.


----------



## Flamme

Cool topic but it needs more Coochie...


----------



## lauriesonic

i was more into REM and pearl jam until i wached a documentry around 1996 on tv about richard wagner s life and his affair with judith gautier and his love of silk !! this put me on the path of my love of vivaldi and bach . after all music is 
mainly influenced by love. and a way to express it to the world . his sensual side came out in the music like a peice of sky !! you dont have to understand the language to feel the sentement the passion energy . like alizee a french singer i dont speak french but i feel the words !


----------



## The Conte

TxllxT said:


> Richard Wagner loved Venice. But it is not the Venice that is shown in this lovely & interesting video. Wagner's Venice was a city in decay, atrophy, rot, mistily veiled in the smells of death, a place of absolute solitude: this is the Venice that inspired him.
> The Venice of the video is the gloriously restored city that the whole year round is being flocked by tourists: if one longs to retreat into sole isolation, the last place on earth to go for is Venice! We prefer the present day Venice in almost all respects above Wagner's Venice. Of course we would like to see the number of tourists decline a bit, but on the other hand they help to boost its economy & liveliness. Well, what do the unwavering Wagnerians prefer? Venice anno 2015/16 or the Venice as Richard Wagner knew & loved it?


I absolutely adore Venice! It's true that many parts are crowded, especially during the summer months (although you haven't seen Venice crowded until you have been there for carnival), however it's one of the places where I think you can find quiet corners and get away from the tourists. It's much harder to get away from the crowds in Florence, for example. Last time I was there I remember a day where I walked with a friend through the Jewish quarter (called the ghetto from the Venetian word for to mint a coin (it was the area where the mint was located)) and then we continued to the church of the Madonna dell'orto which has amazing frescoes by Tintoretto in. This is the area north and east of the train station and was pretty much deserted, despite it being summer.

N.


----------



## RenardDeLaForet

I find the music asphixiating. I can hear in it the song of a practicing solipsist--spiritually, musically--quite apart from the biography or politics of the composer. No ray of light from other human beings. A sealed room, deep underwater or underground.

The characters are grandiose and, in the fashion of, say, war propoganda posters, phony: caricatures or fragments of human beings, as opposed to characters in, say, Chekov. And the purity of some of them (Elsa) is even more repulsive than the selfishness of most of them, for it is just the sort of image of purity that, in practice, leads man to sink below the beasts.

Furthermore, it is a bad sign when one becomes too conscious of orchestration--the composer has too little to say, or at any rate wants to appear to have more to say than he does. No one commends the orchestration of Debussy's Nuages because the ideas are so gripping that they command one's attention, while the orchestra merely presents them in proper character.

I enjoy a little bombast as much as the next guy, in, say, Russian music; but here the heaviness is not to get everyone happy or to discharge energy, but to make self-important statements (often with mere arpeggios). And at the end of the day, I have the feeling that the composer is lying.

"That music may not become an art of lying"--Nietzche contra Wagner.

I much prefer Beethoven or Chopin or Schoenberg or Bartok or Ives or Lutoslawski, honest men who give the impression of artistic incorruptiblility.


----------



## Woodduck

RenardDeLaForet said:


> I find the music asphixiating. I can hear in it the song of a practicing solipsist--spiritually, musically--quite apart from the biography or politics of the composer. No ray of light from other human beings. A sealed room, deep underwater or underground.
> 
> The characters are grandiose and, in the fashion of, say, war propoganda posters, phony: caricatures or fragments of human beings, as opposed to characters in, say, Chekov. And the purity of some of them (Elsa) is even more repulsive than the selfishness of most of them, for it is just the sort of image of purity that, in practice, leads man to sink below the beasts.
> 
> Furthermore, it is a bad sign when one becomes too conscious of orchestration--the composer has too little to say, or at any rate wants to appear to have more to say than he does. No one commends the orchestration of Debussy's Nuages because the ideas are so gripping that they command one's attention, while the orchestra merely presents them in proper character.
> 
> I enjoy a little bombast as much as the next guy, in, say, Russian music; but here the heaviness is not to get everyone happy or to discharge energy, but to make self-important statements (often with mere arpeggios). And at the end of the day, I have the feeling that the composer is lying.
> 
> "That music may not become an art of lying"--Nietzche contra Wagner.
> 
> I much prefer Beethoven or Chopin or Schoenberg or Bartok or Ives or Lutoslawski, honest men who give the impression of artistic incorruptiblility.


Why don't you come clean and tell us what you really think? :lol:

Welcome to the forum. Speaking as a Wagner lover for half a century who isn't a solipsist, propagandist, or liar, who has never been in a sealed room deep underwater, and who doesn't think of any of those things when I listen to his music, I foresee fun times ahead.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I love his overtures and preludes but I can't seem to appreciate his operas as a whole. I don't like opera much in general and his operas are so long that I can never listen to a whole one. There is a lot of what I consider non-music in opera that bores me. I do appreciate a live opera or even watching at home as the visual aspect adds somewhat to the enjoyment but I can't sit through a whole opera just listening.


----------



## mountmccabe

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I love his overtures and preludes but I can't seem to appreciate his operas as a whole. I don't like opera much in general and his operas are so long that I can never listen to a whole one. There is a lot of what I consider non-music in opera that bores me. I do appreciate a live opera or even watching at home as the visual aspect adds somewhat to the enjoyment but I can't sit through a whole opera just listening.


I could have written this 15-20 years ago. I loved instrumental Wagner, but had not connected with the overall drama of his works and would not get swept away as I am now.

Personally, I think I was trying to take in too much at one time. For orchestral music I strictly listened to full pieces, entire symphonies and concertos, rather than excerpts. I listened to rock and jazz albums in the same way. I applied this same principle to opera and thus ignored arias, and wouldn't even listen to a scene or act from an opera. And since I wasn't big into opera, I didn't search out videos to watch (personally a big turnoff was old-fashioned costumes, which made everything seem incredibly boring) so while that was an easier way to connect with opera, I rarely made the commitment.

Something changed around when I was able to see a lot more opera live, and allowed myself to listen to arias. I could listen to a 5-minute aria many times (and from several different artists) and understand how meaning - drama and emotion - was being conveyed. And once I knew/liked several arias - and knew what was going on in them - from an opera, it was easier to follow the rest of the journey of the piece. Wagner's operas are less about big arias in the same way as a lot of operas of his contemporaries and earlier are, but there are still pieces that are frequently excerpted, that contain a lot.

But, as noted, that was me, and my experiences.


----------



## Mal

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I love his overtures and preludes but I can't seem to appreciate his operas as a whole. I don't like opera much in general and his operas are so long that I can never listen to a whole one. There is a lot of what I consider non-music in opera that bores me.


I could also have written this 15-20 years ago, but could also write it again today! I love instrumental Wagner, but overall I do not like Wagner's works. I have forced myself to sit through the entire ring cycle, Tristan & Isolde, and the Flying Dutchman. Overall this has been as exciting as watching paint dry, apart from a few minutes of bleeding chunks, they do nothing for me.

I've studied the major works of Schopenhauer, and secondary literature that connects Schopenhauer to Wagner's operas. I admire much of Schopenhauer's philosophy, and the uses Wagner has made of it ... in theory! But, in practice, the singing does nothing for me, it just sounds like people speaking in silly, overblown voices, talking over what might be quite good music if they would shut up and let me listen to it.

I've been giving Wagner a "last chance" recently. I listened to the Flying Dutchman, again, in its entirety, last week. Apart from the wonderful prelude, and echos of it in patches, I was again "watching paint dry", for several hours. At the time of writing this I'm listening to the first act of Tristan & Isolde - wonderful prelude again, but I just couldn't carry on listening to that tedious singing without doing something else to keep extreme boredom at bay! So I thought I'd write about it instead, and see if others dislike Wagner. Hmmm... many do!

I'll suffer it until this CD finishes, but I'm not listening the other three CDs (aagh!). It's Karajan's version, so Tristan sounds like an aged greengrocer discussing the weather, and Isolde like an angry gym teacher, but I don't think other singers would help (the ones on the Naxos flying dutchman were as good as any I've heard in this genre, but watching first class gloss paint drying is still watching paint drying.)

Actually this is a general problem I have with most Opera, but at Least Mozart has some wonderful arias to lighten the gloom, arias in which the singers seem to be having fun, rather than just shouting or grumbling, or bantering on in a tedious manner.

I think I'll just give up on Opera, certainly on Wagner, and devote myself to instrumental music only from now on. There's enough there to enthral me for several lifetimes, without any worry of having to "watch paint dry".

So, in summary, I dislike Wagner for making me spend many hours watching paint dry, and those bleeding chunks aren't enough compensation, and (in fact) just make the problem worse... being a lure that makes me come back again and again to the operas... but no more... the Wagner CD has finished playing... for the last time...


----------



## hpowders

The same reason I fall asleep reading some posters' endless dissertations.

It's all in the length!

Hey Wagner. For the love of Pete...brevity, man...brevity!!!


----------



## Mal

Point taken. Don't listen to Wagner while posting! He's infectious....


----------



## Lenny

Mal said:


> I've studied the major works of Schopenhauer, and secondary literature that connects Schopenhauer to Wagner's operas. I admire much of Schopenhauer's philosophy, and the uses Wagner has made of it ... in theory! But, in practice, the singing does nothing for me, it just sounds like people speaking in silly, overblown voices, talking over what might be quite good music if they would shut up and let me listen to it.


I'm happy to read this! I more or less think the same way - and also adore Schopenhauer's philosophy! I don't "get" the opera either, not the way most CM people see to view it, but I don't really care OTOH. I take from Wagner's music what I want, the instrumentals and also the huge heritage over all the western music since then. And to be honest, I also do like the operas, but I just wish he would have written more than one symphony!


----------



## Woodduck

Hmmm... What seems apparent from threads like this is that people often don't know why they don't like what they don't like. They just don't like it, have an odd compulsion to say so, and need to find plausible-sounding ways of justifying their dislike because that's what the thread seems to be asking for.

Saying that listening to Wagner's operas is as exciting as watching paint dry tells us nothing except that the listener is bored by Wagner's operas. In fact, listening to Wagner is nothing like watching paint dry. But you have to appreciate both Wagner and paint to understand that. If you can't respond to the music, you aren't, by definition, appreciating it. That's OK. No reasons need be offered.

I can only hope that the next time I watch paint dry, I'll find the experience somehow similar to listening to the third act of _Parsifal._ But I'm not counting on it.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Hmmm... What seems apparent from threads like this is that people often don't know why they don't like what they don't like. They just don't like it...


I do not like thee, Dr. Fell
The reason why I cannot tell
But this I know and know full well
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Mal said:


> But, in practice, the singing does nothing for me, it just sounds like people speaking in silly, overblown voices, talking over what might be quite good music if they would shut up and let me listen to it.


It looks like your problem is with opera in general. Do you dislike all opera in the same way, or just Wagner?


----------



## Couchie

RenardDeLaForet said:


> I find the music asphixiating. I can hear in it the song of a practicing solipsist--spiritually, musically--quite apart from the biography or politics of the composer. No ray of light from other human beings. A sealed room, deep underwater or underground.
> 
> The characters are grandiose and, in the fashion of, say, war propoganda posters, phony: caricatures or fragments of human beings, as opposed to characters in, say, Chekov. And the purity of some of them (Elsa) is even more repulsive than the selfishness of most of them, for it is just the sort of image of purity that, in practice, leads man to sink below the beasts.
> 
> Furthermore, it is a bad sign when one becomes too conscious of orchestration--the composer has too little to say, or at any rate wants to appear to have more to say than he does. No one commends the orchestration of Debussy's Nuages because the ideas are so gripping that they command one's attention, while the orchestra merely presents them in proper character.
> 
> I enjoy a little bombast as much as the next guy, in, say, Russian music; but here the heaviness is not to get everyone happy or to discharge energy, but to make self-important statements (often with mere arpeggios). And at the end of the day, I have the feeling that the composer is lying.
> 
> "That music may not become an art of lying"--Nietzche contra Wagner.
> 
> I much prefer Beethoven or Chopin or Schoenberg or Bartok or Ives or Lutoslawski, honest men who give the impression of artistic incorruptiblility.


Maybe you and Nietzche need to let your hair down and realize art doesn't have to be interpreted as a morality play.

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde


----------



## Woodduck

We shouldn't take "Renard" too seriously. He probably wouldn't be able to see past his prejudices. Notice that he dropped in long enough to condemn Wagner's music for qualities music isn't even capable of conveying - "the song of a practicing solipsist--spiritually, musically--quite apart from the biography or politics of the composer," "no ray of light from other human beings," "a sealed room, deep underwater or underground" - and didn't return.


----------



## hpowders

OP: I do not like Wagner because I am a male with an aging prostate.

You asked. I told.


----------



## TxllxT

Isn't Richard Wagner the inventor of Trolls?


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> OP: I do not like Wagner because I am a male with an aging prostate.
> 
> You asked. I told.


As good a reason as any.


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> As good a reason as any.


It hurts to say that and believe me, it's the truth. I used to love going to the Met for the entire Ring Cycle. "Used to".


----------



## hpowders

I do have the entire Ring, Die Meistersinger and Parsifal. Better to listen at home or watch on DVD.

I put in for a vanity license plate:

"Florida, The Prostate." Too many letters?


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> OP: I do not like Wagner because I am a male with an aging prostate.
> 
> You asked. I told.


Actually, Wagner gives the audience many opportunities to take a break. Every time Wotan retells his story in the Ring Cycle, there's your chance!:lol:

I do like Wagner, but there is an awful lot of retelling in the Ring Cycle. The characters repeatedly describe all the previous events, often in great detail.


----------



## Guest

I imagine being tied to a chair while a gestapo officer screams the title of this thread into my face.


----------



## Woodduck

Victor Redseal said:


> I imagine being tied to a chair while a gestapo officer screams the title of this thread into my face.


It would be more historically accurate to imagine a gestapo officer being tied to a chair and forced to listen. Most of them attended the opera more out of duty than out of actual interest.


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> Actually, Wagner gives the audience many opportunities to take a break. Every time Wotan retells his story in the Ring Cycle, there's your chance!:lol:
> 
> I do like Wagner, but there is an awful lot of retelling in the Ring Cycle. The characters repeatedly describe all the previous events, often in great detail.


Yes. Wagner was big on long monologues. What does he think? We are all just a bunch of Niebelungen?

Instead of talking down to me, try being a bit more down to earth, eh, Richard?


----------



## Pugg

Woodduck said:


> It would be more historically accurate to imagine a gestapo officer being tied to a chair and forced to listen. Most of them attended the opera more out of duty than out of actual interest.


Spot on, things didn't change, some people go to watch Wagner just to be seen.


----------



## Judith

I like some of the music of Wagner but not him as a person. There is a guy at work who is crazy about him. My favourite piece is Ride of the Valkyries!!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ Good for the guy at work


----------



## TSWO

Well I'd say that he IS a great composer... What I dont like with him is his constant effort to be "deep" "serious" to write a masterpiece to end all masterpieces, to do the "total work of art" etc... He's always trying to nail some abstract goal, never effortless, never light... He is always concious of what he does and that's not always a good way to go.


----------



## Vaneyes

Jus' somethin' about the guy. I didn' like Porter Wagoner, either.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> Jus' somethin' about the guy. I didn' like Porter Wagoner, either.


Lyle Waggoner was good though. Handsome devil!

"It's so nice to have this time together...."


----------



## znapschatz

Bettina said:


> Actually, Wagner gives the audience many opportunities to take a break. Every time Wotan retells his story in the Ring Cycle, there's your chance!:lol:
> 
> I do like Wagner, but there is an awful lot of retelling in the Ring Cycle. The characters repeatedly describe all the previous events, often in great detail.


Somewhere I read that rather later in his career, Wagner admitted he could have been less repetitious in the Ring Cycle and also apologized for being too hard on the voices of those who had to belt it out onstage. Better late than never?


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> *Lyle Waggoner *was good though. Handsome devil!
> 
> "It's so nice to have this time together...."


How could I have forgotten.

Or, *Robert Wagner*.


----------



## Woodduck

znapschatz said:


> Somewhere I read that rather later in his career, Wagner admitted he could have been less repetitious in the Ring Cycle and also apologized for being too hard on the voices of those who had to belt it out onstage. Better late than never?


Remember that the _Ring_ started out as a single opera called "Siegfried's Death," and that the four libretti were written in reverse order, each intended to dramatize the backstory of the existing ones. It must have been difficult to decide which explanatory narratives to remove or revise as the process went along, especially since Wagner tended to conceive the music while writing the dialogue. In the main, I think he did a pretty good job of justifying what he kept in, in that most of it gives us insight into the character and feelings of the person doing the telling. It also often tells us things we didn't know.

Wagner thought about thinning some of the orchestration in _Tristan_ out of consideration for his singers, but never got around to it. I'm sure he was quick to realize the problems that score presented to mere mortals (the attempted premiere in Vienna was abandoned after some 70 rehearsals), and we find him noticeably more considerate of singers in _Meistersinger_ and _Parsifal_, which can make their effect without Flagstad/Melchior-sized heroic voices.


----------



## Woodduck

Vaneyes said:


> How could I have forgotten.
> 
> Or, *Robert Wagner*.


Nice Tristan haircut. Wasn't it sad that Princess Natalie drowned on the voyage to Cornwall?


----------



## Dim7

Not to be a troll or anything, but did you guys know that "Grand Reich War" is an anagram of Richard Wagner ut:


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> Not to be a troll or anything, but did you guys know that "Grand Reich War" is an anagram of Richard Wagner ut:


just playing with words,no deeper meaning.:wave:


----------



## Dim7

Traverso said:


> just playing with words,no deeper meaning.:wave:


True... Just too delicious of an anagram to not share :angel:


----------



## Woodduck

TSWO said:


> Well I'd say that he IS a great composer... What I dont like with him is his constant effort to be "deep" "serious" to write a masterpiece to end all masterpieces, to do the "total work of art" etc... He's always trying to nail some abstract goal, never effortless, never light... He is always concious of what he does and that's not always a good way to go.


I don't understand these comments.

What's the difference between being deep and being "deep," or being serious and being "serious"? What is an _abstract_ goal? Is that different from a _concrete_ goal? In what way is being conscious of what one does an undesirable goal for an artist? How do you know what Wagner was conscious of during the act of creation? Were Verdi and Mozart not conscious of what they did? Are Shakespeare's _King Lear_, Michelangelo's Sistine ceiling, Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_, or Beethoven's 9th created in an _un_conscious state? Do they lack depth and seriousness? Are they effortless and light? Are these (and many other) works not masterpieces of a magnitude that, in their own ways, end all masterpieces? And if they are, is that a fault? Do you dislike these works as well?

The "total art work" was a stage in Wagner's thinking about opera's possibilities. _Gesamtkunstwerk_ refers to a conception of musical theater in which the arts of music, poetry, scenic design and acting play more or less equal roles. Wagner aspired to emulate - to recreate - in modern terms the theater of ancient Greece, but came to realize that in opera music would have primacy over the other arts as the principal medium of expression.

If Wagner is too much for you, there's always Johann Strauss. Apparently he tossed off melodies as easily as breathing. Wagner and Brahms - those oh-so-serious Teutons - loved his waltzes. Me? I wouldn't want to be without any of these composers, none of whom could do what the others did, and none of whom deserve blame for that. No artistic course is "always a good way to go," but if an artist can produce something wonderful, then his way is the right way for him.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I remember saying it elsewhere already, but for me the best kind of musical discussions are the ones where the meanings and symbols of Wagner operas are pulled apart and analyzed. Little other opera lends itself successfully to that kind of _serious_ discussion.

I have just found out something interesting about how far Wagner's influence on music went. From the Wiki article on Hugo Wolf, a composer who is most well-known for his lieder - a genre which is just about the opposite of Wagner's monumental creation: "Wolf's greatest musical influence was Richard Wagner, who, in an encounter after Wolf first came to the Vienna Conservatory, encouraged the young composer to persist in composing and to attempt larger-scale works, cementing Wolf's desire to emulate his musical idol. His antipathy to Johannes Brahms was fueled equally by his devotion to Wagner's musical radicalism and his loathing of Brahms' musical conservatism."

Who would have thought...


----------



## hpowders

The music is great if a bit too long. Must we CONSTANTLY be reminded of the whole darn story of the Ring in twenty minute monologues? Couldn't he respect our intelligence?

Also more people than you think have been turned off by the despicable racial acts AND writings of this despicable semblance of a human being.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ I find him to be a better human being than some people who search for faults in others with a magnifying glass, while they themselves have not done anything to provide the tiniest bit of joy and inspiration to their fellow man. And I don't mean you by that.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> The music is great if a bit too long. Must we CONSTANTLY be reminded of the whole darn story of the Ring in twenty minute monologues? Couldn't he respect our intelligence?
> 
> Also more people than you think have been turned off by the despicable racial acts AND writings of this despicable semblance of a human being.


There are really only a few conspicuous examples of the retelling of events in the _Ring_, and far from insulting our intelligence, they are usually made to serve a definite dramatic purpose. As I said in post #914: "Remember that the Ring started out as a single opera called 'Siegfried's Death,' and that the four libretti were written in reverse order, each intended to dramatize the backstory of the existing ones. It must have been difficult to decide which explanatory narratives to remove or revise as the process went along, especially since Wagner tended to conceive the music while writing the dialogue. In the main, I think he did a pretty good job of justifying what he kept in, in that most of it gives us insight into the character and feelings of the person doing the telling. It also often tells us things we didn't know."

As for people who dislike the music because of what they've read about the man (much of which is apt to be untrue or misleading), they seem to have an odd compulsion for telling us about it. It's an unfortunate affliction. I suggest a little Zen meditation before listening.


----------



## Faustian

hpowders said:


> The music is great if a bit too long.


Golly gee, TOO MUCH great music. What a sin.

I believe if I could speak for Wagner he would probably paraphrase Beethoven, something to the effect of "Do you think I give a damn about your wretched [prostate] when the Muse speaks to me me!?"



Woodduck said:


> There are really only a few conspicuous examples of the retelling of events in the _Ring_, and far from insulting our intelligence, they are usually made to serve a definite dramatic purpose. As I said in post #914: "Remember that the Ring started out as a single opera called 'Siegfried's Death,' and that the four libretti were written in reverse order, each intended to dramatize the backstory of the existing ones. It must have been difficult to decide which explanatory narratives to remove or revise as the process went along, especially since Wagner tended to conceive the music while writing the dialogue. In the main, I think he did a pretty good job of justifying what he kept in, in that most of it gives us insight into the character and feelings of the person doing the telling. It also often tells us things we didn't know."


Yeah, first of all, there's actually very little literal repetition, far less than many of the detractors make there out to be. But Carl Dahlhaus has perceptively pointed out that when Wagner originally begin composing music to Siegfried's Tod, he broke it off because the background he was attempting to convey was too abstract, and that the decision to expand the story into four operas arose "not only from dramatic but also musical reasons". Those who are deeply moved by the Ring instinctively understand this: the story doesn't simply unfold through what the characters say, but so much of it is shaped by the deeper meaning of what they music conveys. Thus, as Dahlhaus observes, where a scene like the Norns narrative in Gotterdammerung was originally providing exposition and explanation, Wagner didn't simply remove the scene after composing the other operas because it took on whole new meaning: it now functions as a kind of recapitulation, and allows Wagner to create musical passage rich with associations built up from the music of the proceeding three nights.

Honestly, what it really seems to come down to is that if you find the works enthralling and Wagner's conception of drama engaging, you'll recognize that what is really happening is the characters are processing the events that have taken place, thus giving them a new perspective. And since so much of Wagner's art is about portraying the subjective inner workings of his characters, these monologues are actually of great consequence. However, if you are unmoved by the music or don't find the story and it's symbolism compelling, you aren't going to care and won't pick up on any of the subtleties. Any time a character discusses anything that's happened before, it'll get a reaction of "what, this again!?"


----------



## Woodduck

Faustian said:


> Yeah, first of all, there's actually very little literal repetition, far less than many of the detractors make there out to be. But Carl Dahlhaus has perceptively pointed out that when Wagner originally begin composing music to Siegfried's Tod, he broke it off because the background he was attempting to convey was too abstract, and that the decision to expand the story into four operas arose "not only from dramatic but also musical reasons". Those who are deeply moved by the Ring instinctively understand this: the story doesn't simply unfold through what the characters say, but so much of it is shaped by the deeper meaning of what they music conveys. Thus, as Dahlhaus observes, where a scene like the Norns narrative in Gotterdammerung was originally providing exposition and explanation, Wagner didn't simply remove the scene after composing the other operas because it took on whole new meaning: it now functions as a kind of recapitulation, and allows Wagner to create musical passage rich with associations built up from the music of the proceeding three nights.
> 
> Honestly, what it really seems to come down to is that if you find the works enthralling and Wagner's conception of drama engaging, you'll recognize that what is really happening is the characters are processing the events that have taken place, thus giving them a new perspective. And since so much of Wagner's art is about portraying the subjective inner workings of his characters, these monologues are actually of great consequence. However, if you are unmoved by the music or don't find the story and it's symbolism compelling, you aren't going to care and won't pick up on any of the subtleties. Any time a character discusses anything that's happened before, it'll get a reaction of "what, this again!?"


Maybe a little bit of the blame for perpetuating this impression lies with dear old Anna Russell, who says of that "dreary bunch of aunts," the Norns, "Well! If they don't tell this whole story over again from the beginning!" Of course, they don't. From them we learn, among other things, of Wotan's destruction of the mythic tree at the center of Earth, the World Ash Tree, Yggdrasil, as a consequence of his making its wood into the shaft of his spear; of how the Sacred Spring that flowed from its base then dried up; and of how he sacrificed one of his eyes in exchange for wisdom. Wagner didn't choose to dramatize this episode, but it provides a key to one of the deepest meanings in the _Ring,_ the loss of the state of natural innocence and the birth of a primitive moral consciousness as embodied in the runes on Wotan's spear, representing the law by which he rules. Alberich's invasion of the unsullied realm of the Rhinedaughters and their gold, his renunciation of love in favor of power, shows us the darker side of Wotan's act: in both cases the carefree state of nature is violated, and the divine and the diabolical arise together, both good and evil and the knowledge of them.

The _Ring_ as a whole shows the working out of this profound moral paradox, inherent in the nature of consciousness, and the tragic struggle of a higher morality based on love to arise and transcend a primitive ethic of law, convention, and power. What the norns tell us may not be necessary to our understanding of this - the rest of the story conveys it pretty well - but by showing us the cost to Wotan and to the world of his very godhood, it deepens our sense of the eternal duality with which we as moral beings are confronted in the very act of living and knowing: the fact that life implies death, that our every choice destroys as well as creates, and that what finally matters on the moral plane is the disposition of the heart. In the _Ring_ Wagner couldn't take that lesson beyond the catastrophe of the gods' destruction, and his hero Siegfried would need to be reincarnated in Parsifal.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> There are really only a few conspicuous examples of the retelling of events in the _Ring_, and far from insulting our intelligence, they are usually made to serve a definite dramatic purpose. As I said in post #914: "Remember that the Ring started out as a single opera called 'Siegfried's Death,' and that the four libretti were written in reverse order, each intended to dramatize the backstory of the existing ones. It must have been difficult to decide which explanatory narratives to remove or revise as the process went along, especially since Wagner tended to conceive the music while writing the dialogue. In the main, I think he did a pretty good job of justifying what he kept in, in that most of it gives us insight into the character and feelings of the person doing the telling. It also often tells us things we didn't know."
> 
> As for people who dislike the music because of what they've read about the man *(much of which is apt to be untrue or misleading)*, they seem to have an odd compulsion for telling us about it. It's an unfortunate affliction. I suggest a little Zen meditation before listening.


The problem is we have Wagner's own writings. They tend to be somewhat self-condemnatory!


----------



## Mal

Wagner was a devil when it came to morality, but we all know the devil has the best music . You need to separate the music from the morality of the guys who produce it or you will miss out on some great tunes, and tie your aesthetic sensibility in knots trying to dislike those tunes. (You can still dislike *them* as people... as I dislike Wagner. You don't have to like them just because you like some of their music... or even if you love all of it.)


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> The problem is we have Wagner's own writings. They tend to be somewhat self-condemnatory!


What writings are you referring to, besides _Das Judentum in der Musik_ ("Jewishness in Music")? Hardly anyone really knows what Wagner says and doesn't say in that essay (besides the fact that the standard, and only, published English translation can be misleading), but millions of people think they know what he meant, and millions of people are wrong in their assumptions, most of which they've picked up from sloppy second-hand journalistic references to other sloppy second-hand journalists who've swallowed unquestioning the propaganda of sloppy, agenda-driven, profit-driven, self-proclaimed scholars.

There's no positive side to making casual swipes at Wagner's, or anyone's, character. Anyone sincerely interested in understanding him as a person and a thinker - no easy task, admittedly - should start by ignoring any such remarks that are made, here or elsewhere.


----------



## interestedin

Woodduck, if you ever write a book about Wagner or if you have already done so, let me know. I would want to read that.


----------



## Woodduck

interestedin said:


> Woodduck, if you ever write a book about Wagner or if you have already done so, let me know. I would want to read that.


I've thought about it, but doubt that I have the sustained energy for such a project (not as young as I used to be). There is so much literature on Wagner, and it keeps coming; he's said to be the second most written-about person in history, after Jesus (_pace_ John Lennon). With so much already having been said, any new book on Wagner really needs to look at particular aspects of his life or work, or to take a specific point of view. But with those "points of view" we are apt to get into trouble, and the temptation is to make of Wagner what we want him to be - to try to iron out the complexities and inconsistencies in his nature and "prove" that he or his works represent or advocate one thing or another. People use religious scriptures in the same way, and it's certainly interesting that they find Wagner sufficiently fascinating, and his work sufficiently deep and provocative, to inspire a need to condemn or justify some of their most dearly held views.

I can only recommend that people be sensitive to the smell of excessive protestation, tendentiousness, moralizing, and politicization when they read about Wagner, and try to let his work speak to them directly and without the filter of popular conceptions of the man or his art. There will always be time to explore the outer limits of criticism and to weigh the merits of this theory or that. The extant theories range from the deeply insightful to the outrageous, and it does take quite a bit of reading and thinking to form a rounded picture of the subject. But in the end Wagner will always be bigger than we can fully grasp, which is why he's amazed and fascinated me and so many others through the whole of our lives.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> What writings are you referring to, besides _Das Judentum in der Musik_ ("Jewishness in Music")? Hardly anyone really knows what Wagner says and doesn't say in that essay (besides the fact that the standard, and only, published English translation can be misleading), but millions of people think they know what he meant, and millions of people are wrong in their assumptions, most of which they've picked up from sloppy second-hand journalistic references to other sloppy second-hand journalists who've swallowed unquestioning the propaganda of sloppy, agenda-driven, profit-driven, self-proclaimed scholars.
> 
> There's no positive side to making casual swipes at Wagner's, or anyone's, character. Anyone sincerely interested in understanding him as a person and a thinker - no easy task, admittedly - should start by ignoring any such remarks that are made, here or elsewhere.


And we ignore what Wagner said too because he didn't really mean it? And everyone who takes Wagner's views at face value is just swallowing the propaganda of sloppy, agenda-driven, profit-driven, self-proclaimed scholars? The problem is that any form objective scholarship has huge problems with Wagner's racist pronouncements. The greatest witness for the prosecution in these matters is Wagner himself by the things he said and wrote. But of course the great get-out is to accuse everyone else but Wagner!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> I can only recommend that people be sensitive to the smell of excessive protestation, tendentiousness, moralizing, and politicization when they read about Wagner, and try to let his work speak to them directly and without the filter of popular conceptions of the man or his art. There will always be time to explore the outer limits of criticism and to weigh the merits of this theory or that. The extant theories range from the deeply insightful to the outrageous, and it does take quite a bit of reading and thinking to form a rounded picture of the subject.


And in the end there will remain the holy German art...

But wasn't it something you and I used to argue about - that someone who wants to approach Wagner's art does not need a whole lot of interpretations to help him undestand it, that this someone should only let the music and the poetry speak to him directly?


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> And in the end there will remain the holy German art...
> 
> But wasn't it something you and I used to argue about - that someone who wants to approach Wagner's art does not need a whole lot of interpretations to help him undestand it, that this someone should only let the music and the poetry speak to him directly?


I don't recall any specific arguments. I'd only say: listen first, and if the works really speak to you, they're apt to raise many questions. There are plenty of answers, and further questions, to investigate, and the works will only appear richer as you do. But whatever anyone says about them, the works themselves are the ultimate point of reference. Wagner is often considered didactic - out to prove this or that in his operas. This is much less true than people are given to think. His "lessons" are very broad, and typically distorted by attempts to narrow them to specific philosophical, religious or political theories. Like all great dramatic works, they deal with fundamental human situations. We can argue about their implications, but the choice of how far to take our inquiries is ours. The operas speak, first and foremost, to our emotions, and that was the composer's stated intention.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> I don't recall any specific arguments. I'd only say: listen first, and if the works really speak to you, they're apt to raise many questions. There are plenty of answers, and further questions, to investigate, and the works will only appear richer as you do. But whatever anyone says about them, the works themselves are the ultimate point of reference. Wagner is often considered didactic - out to prove this or that in his operas. This is much less true than people are given to think. His "lessons" are very broad, and typically distorted by attempts to narrow them to specific philosophical, religious or political theories. Like all great dramatic works, they deal with fundamental human situations. We can argue about their implications, but the choice of how far to take our inquiries is ours. The operas speak, first and foremost, to our emotions, and that was the composer's stated intention.


I loved the operas before I knew anything about Wagner as a man and before I started to look into the the dramatic and psychological issues raised in his music dramas. Knowing more about the man has not lessened my love for his music in the slightest. I doubt it ever will.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

My very first point of reference in approaching Wagner (and classical music in general) was my love for the German language and desire to better understand the culture formed with and around that language. Over the years this love and understanding have grown immensely, and all these years Wagner was there to guide me. I have a good reason to be grateful to the man, and that will never change either.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> And we ignore what Wagner said too because he didn't really mean it? And everyone who takes Wagner's views at face value is just swallowing the propaganda of sloppy, agenda-driven, profit-driven, self-proclaimed scholars? The problem is that any form objective scholarship has huge problems with Wagner's racist pronouncements. The greatest witness for the prosecution in these matters is Wagner himself by the things he said and wrote. But of course the great get-out is to accuse everyone else but Wagner!


Such ire! Such spleen! Such missionary zeal! When a plea for objectivity and accuracy provokes a response like this, it demonstrates the need for such a plea, doesn't it? Or am I taking you too much at "face value"?

It is easily observed and verified, by anyone with the slightest interest in the matter, that oversimplifications, misconceptions, and outright cuckoo ideas about Wagner are common currency. Why does my pointing that out evoke such a misrepresentation of what is a simple statement of that fact?

No, we don't ignore what Wagner wrote. We merely make certain that we know, first, what he meant by it, and, second, what consequences it actually had in his life and the lives of others. There are misconceptions with respect to both. What I suggest we ignore is casual, easy conclusions drawn about complex human beings who lived a long time ago and were not even understood by their contemporaries.

"Face value" is too often the resort of those who lack imagination, want easy answers, and like to assume righteous postures. Thoughtful people know that there is likely to be a complex mind behind a face.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Such ire! Such spleen! Such missionary zeal! When a plea for objectivity and accuracy provokes a response like this, it demonstrates the need for such a plea, doesn't it? Or am I taking you too much at "face value"?
> 
> It is easily observed and verified, by anyone with the slightest interest in the matter, that oversimplifications, misconceptions, and outright cuckoo ideas about Wagner are common currency. Why does my pointing that out evoke such a misrepresentation of what is a simple statement of that fact?
> 
> No, we don't ignore what Wagner wrote. We merely make certain that we know, first, what he meant by it, and, second, what consequences it actually had in his life and the lives of others. There are misconceptions with respect to both. What I suggest we ignore is casual, easy conclusions drawn about complex human beings who lived a long time ago and were not even understood by their contemporaries.
> 
> "Face value" is too often the resort of those who lack imagination, want easy answers, and like to assume righteous postures. Thoughtful people know that there is likely to be a complex mind behind a face.


Again you take refuge in an emotional not I tellectual argument. Because some of us actually take Wagner to mean what he said 
we 'lack imagination, want easy answers, and like to assume righteous postures.' Sorry, to make a defence of WGner's clear and expressed statements - put down in thought-out written form not off the cuff remarks - like this would certainly not convince anyone who looks at the matter objectively.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Again you take refuge in an emotional not I tellectual argument. Because some of us actually take Wagner to mean what he said
> we 'lack imagination, want easy answers, and like to assume righteous postures.' Sorry, *to make a defence of Wagner's clear and expressed statements* - put down in thought-out written form not off the cuff remarks - like this would certainly not convince anyone who looks at the matter objectively.


Which of Wagner's "clear and expressed statements" have I defended? Wagner made many statements that few would defend, no matter how they are interpreted. That doesn't mean that all interpretations of those statements are equally valid, or that our moralistic high dudgeon entitles us to attribute to him ideas that he didn't hold. That this is routinely done is something that anyone can easily see, if they're interested. Evidently you aren't interested. It seems more important to you to accuse than to understand - and your insistence on the "face value" of Wagner's statements is for you the beginning and the end of the story. That may give you a warm sense of self-satisfaction, but it isn't going to satisfy anyone whose mind is open to the subtlety, nuance, and complexity of Wagner's thoughts and feelings. If we've done much reading of his own statements on various subjects (Cosima's diaries being an invaluable source), we know what an ambivalent, evolving, and sometimes self-contradictory intellectual life Wagner had, and we can often find the "face value" of his remarks at one stage of his life called into question by remarks made at another.

I do find fascinating your insistence on taking (certain of) Wagner's statements about Jews at what you consider "face value," while you insist on reading antisemitic messages into the operas, which exhibit no such intent on their "face." From your past posts, I take the essence of your view to be that a person so thoroughly antisemitic couldn't possibly have avoided expressing those views in his art. There are several fallacies contained in that conclusion - start with your assumptions about how "thorough" Wagner's concern about Jews was - but all I want to say here is that there are probably few artists in history less amenable to being understood at "face value" than Wagner, either personally or artistically. It's one reason why the world can't stop talking about him.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Which of Wagner's "clear and expressed statements" have I defended? Wagner made many statements that few would defend, no matter how they are interpreted. That doesn't mean that all interpretations of those statements are equally valid, or that our moralistic high dudgeon entitles us to attribute to him ideas that he didn't hold. That this is routinely done is something that anyone can easily see, if they're interested. Evidently you aren't interested. It seems more important to you to accuse than to understand - and your insistence on the "face value" of Wagner's statements is for you the beginning and the end of the story. That may give you a warm sense of self-satisfaction, but it isn't going to satisfy anyone whose mind is open to the subtlety, nuance, and complexity of Wagner's thoughts and feelings. If we've done much reading of his own statements on various subjects (Cosima's diaries being an invaluable source), we know what an ambivalent, evolving, and sometimes self-contradictory intellectual life Wagner had, and we can often find the "face value" of his remarks at one stage of his life called into question by remarks made at another.
> 
> I do find fascinating your insistence on taking (certain of) Wagner's statements about Jews at what you consider "face value," while you insist on reading antisemitic messages into the operas, which exhibit no such intent on their "face." From your past posts, I take the essence of your view to be that a person so thoroughly antisemitic couldn't possibly have avoided expressing those views in his art. There are several fallacies contained in that conclusion - start with your assumptions about how "thorough" Wagner's concern about Jews was - but all I want to say here is that there are probably few artists in history less amenable to being understood at "face value" than Wagner, either personally or artistically. It's one reason why the world can't stop talking about him.


OK here is the text. People can read it for themselves and make a judgment.

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/judaisminmusic.pdf

I can assure you that such text does not give me what you call a 'warm sense of satisfaction'. For myself I cannot see 'the subtlety, nuance, and complexity of Wagner's thoughts and feelings' in this. I take it as a sad and inexcusable blot on the life and thought of a musical genius. To me it's a pity Wagner didn't spend his time writing music than writing this demented stuff. That is why presumably you have to make excuses like 'there are probably few artists in history less amenable to being understood at "face value" than Wagner, either personally or artistically.' For course not! To take his statements at face value reveals things we are just not comfortable with - in fact we find repugnant! I just cannot see why you insist on attacking people who point out this very obvious fact!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> OK here is the text. People can read it for themselves and make a judgment.
> 
> http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/judaisminmusic.pdf
> 
> I can assure you that such text does not give me what you call a 'warm sense of satisfaction'. For myself I cannot see 'the subtlety, nuance, and complexity of Wagner's thoughts and feelings' in this. I take it as a sad and inexcusable blot on the life and thought of a musical genius. To me it's a pity Wagner didn't spend his time writing music than writing this demented stuff. That is why presumably you have to make excuses like 'there are probably few artists in history less amenable to being understood at "face value" than Wagner, either personally or artistically.' For course not! To take his statements at face value reveals things we are just not comfortable with - in fact we find repugnant! I just cannot see why you insist on attacking people who point out this very obvious fact!


No one I know defends all of the statements Wagner makes in "Das Judentum in der Musik." Why are you even bothering to debate that essay, when no one is debating it with you? (I will only add the proviso that not all of Wagner's thoughts are clearly or accurately represented in this standard translation from the German. But apparently you feel that accuracy is irrelevant.)

Let me remind you that I didn't begin this conversation. You chose to begin it by objecting to my statement that much of what we read about Wagner is untrue or misleading. I said in post #923:

_"As for people who dislike the music because of what they've read about the man (much of which is apt to be untrue or misleading), they seem to have an odd compulsion for telling us about it."_

Your response in post #926 was:

_"The problem is we have Wagner's own writings. They tend to be somewhat self-condemnatory!" _

Maybe you'd like to start over, with the realization that nothing in my statement implies approval of Wagner's mistaken ideas or personal faults. Can you see that, and perhaps even concede that I made a valid point? "The problem" I cited is not Wagner's writings, but the transfer of people's feelings about those writings (or whatever else they think they know about Wagner) to the experience of his music. We might sympathize with these unfortunate folk, but the solution to their problem isn't likely to lie in rehashing received conceptions of the composer's life and character, true or false - and it certainly doesn't lie in taking any remark about the man that isn't roundly condemnatory as excusing his faults. If you suffer from that aforementioned "odd compulsion" to do so, you can hardly be surprised if others find it irrelevant, distracting, and pesky.

I take the OP's question to mean "What do you dislike about Wagner's music?", not "Why wouldn't you want Wagner as a drinking buddy?" or "Why wouldn't you vote for Wagner to be President?" (though, come to think of it, that one might afford some interesting insights at this time).


----------



## KenOC

Threads like this shut down automatically when Godwin's law comes into force.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ This one has stayed afloat since 2012, Godwin or no Godwin.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Threads like this shut down automatically when Godwin's law comes into force.


Would that it _were_ automatic! I fear that under the new regime Godwin's Law may become the law of the land.


----------



## Zhdanov

DavidA said:


> OK here is the text. People can read it for themselves and make a judgment.


most people in 19th century hated Jews, it was considered normal to hate Jews back then. Wagner, on the other hand, did not hate Jews, he only was *critical* of them; and one does have a right for criticism.


----------



## KenOC

Zhdanov said:


> most people in 19th century hated Jews, it was considered normal to hate Jews back then. Wagner, on the other hand, did not hate Jews, he only was *critical* of them; and one does have a right for criticism.


I'd say that Wagner's feeling about Jews went somewhat beyond mere criticism. I certainly won't post any quotes here, but you can check out a few examples.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/wagner-on-judaism-in-music


----------



## Zhdanov

KenOC said:


> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/wagner-on-judaism-in-music


most of what he says rings true.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> Would that it _were_ automatic! I fear that under the new regime Godwin's Law may become the law of the land.


If it does, I believe you would be welcome in the good ole _Vaterland_. Germany needs more people who know as much about its best cultural heritage as much as you do :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I'd say that Wagner's feeling about Jews went somewhat beyond mere criticism. I certainly won't post any quotes here, but you can check out a few examples.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/wagner-on-judaism-in-music


That "precis" is very incomplete. Wagner makes further observations about the position of Jews in European society - about how they've been badly treated, and whether and how they might become assimilated. His distasteful sentiments (which were widely shared) aside, not everything in the essay is nonsense, and some have noted that his analysis shows more insight into the Jewish cultural situation than was typical at the time. A new, more exact English translation has long been needed.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> If it does, I believe you would be welcome in the good ole _Vaterland_. Germany needs more people who know as much about its best cultural heritage as much as you do :tiphat:


Right now a little cottage retreat in the Bavarian _Wald_ would be welcome. I can hear the Woodbird talking to me now.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

KenOC said:


> Threads like this shut down automatically when Godwin's law comes into force.


In my short time here I've gained the impression that on TC, Godwin's Law applies less to A.H. than to Justin Bieber.

On the subject at hand, the only thing I have to say is that I adore Wagner, but my bladder is less enthusiastic.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> No one I know defends all of the statements Wagner makes in "Das Judentum in der Musik." Why are you even bothering to debate that essay, when no one is debating it with you? (I will only add the proviso that not all of Wagner's thoughts are clearly or accurately represented in this standard translation from the German. But apparently you feel that accuracy is irrelevant.)
> 
> Let me remind you that I didn't begin this conversation. You chose to begin it by objecting to my statement that much of what we read about Wagner is untrue or misleading. I said in post #923:
> 
> _"As for people who dislike the music because of what they've read about the man (much of which is apt to be untrue or misleading), they seem to have an odd compulsion for telling us about it."_
> 
> Your response in post #926 was:
> 
> _"The problem is we have Wagner's own writings. They tend to be somewhat self-condemnatory!" _
> 
> Maybe you'd like to start over, with the realization that nothing in my statement implies approval of Wagner's mistaken ideas or personal faults. Can you see that, and perhaps even concede that I made a valid point? "The problem" I cited is not Wagner's writings, but the transfer of people's feelings about those writings (or whatever else they think they know about Wagner) to the experience of his music. We might sympathize with these unfortunate folk, but the solution to their problem isn't likely to lie in rehashing received conceptions of the composer's life and character, true or false - and it certainly doesn't lie in taking any remark about the man that isn't roundly condemnatory as excusing his faults. If you suffer from that aforementioned "odd compulsion" to do so, you can hardly be surprised if others find it irrelevant, distracting, and pesky.
> 
> *I take the OP's question to mean "What do you dislike about Wagner's music?", n*ot "Why wouldn't you want Wagner as a drinking buddy?" or "Why wouldn't you vote for Wagner to be President?" (though, come to think of it, that one might afford some interesting insights at this time).


The OP's question was this:

"Some of us find the later works of Wagner to be sublimely at the pinnacle of nineteenth century opera. But this is a thread for those who don't like Wagner and the people who love them

For those of you who can't stand Wagner, why is that? Is it because of his politics? Is it because a certain you-know-who liked him a lot and therefore Wagner is poisoned by association? Is it because Wagner is a fungus?

Pray tell."

So the OP was not raising the question just about the music but he was raising it about the composer himself. As I've said before I am someone who enjoys a dabble in Wagner and I've got all these operas on disk, even though I often consider Wagner offers a 'Faustian Pact'. However his racist views I have no time for. As he took the trouble to write them down in great detail we can only believe that Wagner believed in them inherently. That is my point which you seem not to be able to grasp. That is why I do not like Wagner the man- whatever his music. Other well detailed aspects of his character - that he was a monster of egoism and selfishness - I also dislike. But then I dislike these traits in anyone. And no, I wouldn't have wanted Wagner as a drinking buddy either as I'd no doubt always end up paying!
The music is a different matter. Now please leave this alone. We agree we deplore Wagner's racism do we? We've surely both said enough!


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> That "precis" is very incomplete. Wagner makes further observations about the position of Jews in European society - about how they've been badly treated, and whether and how they might become assimilated. His distasteful sentiments (which were widely shared) aside, not everything in the essay is nonsense, and some have noted that his analysis shows more insight into the Jewish cultural situation than was typical at the time. A new, more exact English translation has long been needed.


http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/judaisminmusic.pdf


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/judaisminmusic.pdf


Yes, that's the old Ellis translation. Wagner's prose is notoriously oblique and convoluted, and presumably a nightmare to translate.


----------



## znapschatz

Woodduck said:


> I've thought about it, but doubt that I have the sustained energy for such a project (not as young as I used to be). *There is so much literature on Wagner, and it keeps coming; he's said to be the second most written-about person in history, after Jesus (pace John Lennon).* With so much already having been said, any new book on Wagner really needs to look at particular aspects of his life or work, or to take a specific point of view. But with those "points of view" we are apt to get into trouble, and the temptation is to make of Wagner what we want him to be - to try to iron out the complexities and inconsistencies in his nature and "prove" that he or his works represent or advocate one thing or another. People use religious scriptures in the same way, and it's certainly interesting that they find Wagner sufficiently fascinating, and his work sufficiently deep and provocative, to inspire a need to condemn or justify some of their most dearly held views.


In another source, I read that #2 is Jesse James. But that was in a magazine article about the Old West. They both agree on #1.



> *I can only recommend that people be sensitive to the smell of excessive protestation, tendentiousness, moralizing, and politicization when they read about Wagner, and try to let his work speak to them directly and without the filter of popular conceptions of the man or his art. *There will always be time to explore the outer limits of criticism and to weigh the merits of this theory or that. The extant theories range from the deeply insightful to the outrageous, and it does take quite a bit of reading and thinking to form a rounded picture of the subject. But in the end Wagner will always be bigger than we can fully grasp, which is why he's amazed and fascinated me and so many others through the whole of our lives.


Done.


----------



## Woodduck

znapschatz said:


> In another source, I read that #2 is Jesse James. But that was in a magazine article about the Old West.


Hmmm... I wonder what the Vatican Library has on old Jesse. Would they file it under "Catholicism in the West"?


----------



## znapschatz

Zhdanov said:


> most people in 19th century hated Jews, it was considered normal to hate Jews back then. Wagner, on the other hand, did not hate Jews, he only was *critical* of them; and one does have a right for criticism.





KenOC said:


> I'd say that Wagner's feeling about Jews went somewhat beyond mere criticism. I certainly won't post any quotes here, but you can check out a few examples.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/wagner-on-judaism-in-music


Wagner seems to have been a virulent, fanciful and almost incoherent antisemite in his attitudes. There is no international Jewish conspiracy and never has been. Not all Jews look alike or think alike, there is no central Jewish authority, nor is it intellectually coherent to ascribe any of these fantasies to an entire ethnic group. Is every Irishman defined by liquor consumption? Do all Germans yearn to march in lock step?

Time and developments have made Wagnerian antisemitism irrelevant in regards to the concert stage, except in Israel, where many musicians and/or audiences still reject his repertoire. But we all have our little quirks, and frankly, I perceive none of the crackpot in his works.


----------



## Couchie

I find Wagner's little pamphlet there actually rather tame in comparison to contemporary diatribes against Muslims in the West which are broadly tolerated but absent a holocaust in living memory.


----------



## KenOC

Couchie said:


> I find Wagner's little pamphlet there actually rather tame in comparison to contemporary diatribes against Muslims in the West which are broadly tolerated but absent a holocaust in living memory.


It's true that Wagner, while inveighing against Jews, didn't propose violent actions against them. He can be contrasted with Martin Luther: "Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, and smashing up their homes, so that these 'envenomed worms' would be forced into labour or expelled 'for all time'. " (Wiki)


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I'm with Rossini:
"Mr Wagner has some wonderful moments but bad quarters of an hour"
I find that I get slightly overwhelmed, then quickly sated, then profoundly bored by Wagner's music. There is just too much going on, and going on for too long. It is like the creations of a would-be master chef who has yet to learn that less may be more. Too many flavours are bunged together to create novelty and impact, and the result just baffles the taste-buds. OK, not the best simile but maybe you get the idea? 
And it's the music, not Wagner's beliefs or character that put me off. I am naive enough to believe that I can separate the two. 
Having begun with Rossini, here's Sibelius to sum up:
"Whereas most other modern composers are engaged in manufacturing cocktails of every hue and description, I offer the public cold spring water". 
I'll have the spring water, please, on ice.


----------



## Anselm

Sorry, I'm almost completely at the other end of the spectrum. I have to struggle _not_ to subscribe to Mahler's comment that "There's Beethoven and Wagner, and after them nobody". Whenever I get to the end of any Wagner opera I'm torn between knowing that it's just the right length and yearning desperately for more. What you describe as "too much" going on, I experience as "the same thing taken to hitherto unimagined heights of expressiveness". This is especially so with the last two acts of _Tristan_ and the whole of _Götterdämmerung_. I love French Baroque music; Bach is for me the greatest composer who ever lived; the late music of Gesualdo, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt reveal new worlds to me...but within a few bars (including the opening ones of _Das Rheingold_, Wagner makes me forget them, along with the others. He's the only composer who shows me that there's no such thing as "too much", the only one who for me truly conforms to the SAS motto "Who dares, wins". He dared most, and won most.


----------



## SixFootScowl

hpowders said:


> The same reason I fall asleep reading some posters' endless dissertations.
> 
> It's all in the length!
> 
> Hey Wagner. For the love of Pete...brevity, man...brevity!!!


This is why one should come to Wagner via the Flying Dutchman, a normal-length opera and a great one.

By the way, I don't like Wagner because of the way he wears his hair.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> I'd say that Wagner's feeling about Jews went somewhat beyond mere criticism. I certainly won't post any quotes here, but you can check out a few examples.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/wagner-on-judaism-in-music


More on this with more details on Wagner's verbal attack on Felix Mendelssohn (born a Jew):

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music


----------



## hpowders

Florestan said:


> This is why one should come to Wagner via the Flying Dutchman, a normal-length opera and a great one.
> 
> By the way, I don't like Wagner because of the way he wears his hair.


As a kid, I used to watch Captain Video on TV. The theme music was the overture to the Flying Dutchman.

His hair? Funny. That is the only thing I do like about Wagner.


----------



## Genoveva

Florestan said:


> By the way, I don't like Wagner because of the way he wears his hair.


I recall a post many years ago on another forum where a member said that the standard photo of Wagner wearing that weird-looking hat reminded him of the attire of a New York City trash collector working for the City's Sanitation Department. When I visited NYC a couple of years ago I was on the lookout for such an employee but didn't see anyone who fitted the description. Does this sound plausible to any Noo Yoikers?


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> I recall a post many years ago on another forum where a member said that the standard photo of Wagner wearing that weird-looking hat reminded him of the attire of a New York City trash collector working for the City's Sanitation Department. When I visited NYC a couple of years ago I was on the lookout for such an employee but didn't see anyone who fitted the description. Does this sound plausible to any Noo Yoikers?


Well, I'm from Noo Joizy, and the custom of trash collectors wearing berets certainly didn't cross the river.


----------



## Woodduck

Anselm said:


> Sorry, I'm almost completely at the other end of the spectrum. I have to struggle _not_ to subscribe to Mahler's comment that "There's Beethoven and Wagner, and after them nobody". Whenever I get to the end of any Wagner opera I'm torn between knowing that it's just the right length and yearning desperately for more. What you describe as "too much" going on, I experience as "the same thing taken to hitherto unimagined heights of expressiveness". This is especially so with the last two acts of _Tristan_ and the whole of _Götterdämmerung_. I love French Baroque music; Bach is for me the greatest composer who ever lived; the late music of Gesualdo, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt reveal new worlds to me...but within a few bars (including the opening ones of _Das Rheingold_, Wagner makes me forget them, along with the others. He's the only composer who shows me that there's no such thing as "too much", the only one who for me truly conforms to the SAS motto "Who dares, wins". He dared most, and won most.


All I can do is read this over and over. Thanks.

Well, I can do one thing more, and that's remark that one of the things I most admire about Wagner (most of the time) is his economy.

All these detractors can put that in their pipes and smoke it.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> More on this with more details on Wagner's verbal attack on Felix Mendelssohn (born a Jew):
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music


Felix Mendelssohn was born without religion, his father Abraham having earlier renounced the Jewish religion. He was baptized in a Christian church at the age of seven.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Pat Fairlea said:


> Having begun with Rossini, here's Sibelius to sum up:
> "Whereas most other modern composers are engaged in manufacturing cocktails of every hue and description, I offer the public cold spring water".
> I'll have the spring water, please, on ice.


Sibelius is absolutely right - his music is indeed like a drink of cold clear water, refreshing the soul. Wagner's music is like the legendary mead of poetry, that gives the soul wings and takes it to other worlds, intoxicating and inspiring at the same time.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Anselm said:


> Sorry, I'm almost completely at the other end of the spectrum. I have to struggle _not_ to subscribe to Mahler's comment that "There's Beethoven and Wagner, and after them nobody". Whenever I get to the end of any Wagner opera I'm torn between knowing that it's just the right length and yearning desperately for more. What you describe as "too much" going on, I experience as "the same thing taken to hitherto unimagined heights of expressiveness". This is especially so with the last two acts of _Tristan_ and the whole of _Götterdämmerung_. I love French Baroque music; Bach is for me the greatest composer who ever lived; the late music of Gesualdo, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt reveal new worlds to me...but within a few bars (including the opening ones of _Das Rheingold_, Wagner makes me forget them, along with the others. He's the only composer who shows me that there's no such thing as "too much", the only one who for me truly conforms to the SAS motto "Who dares, wins". He dared most, and won most.


You should be posting more around here, my friend :tiphat:


----------



## Barbebleu

Anselm said:


> Sorry, I'm almost completely at the other end of the spectrum. I have to struggle _not_ to subscribe to Mahler's comment that "There's Beethoven and Wagner, and after them nobody". Whenever I get to the end of any Wagner opera I'm torn between knowing that it's just the right length and yearning desperately for more. What you describe as "too much" going on, I experience as "the same thing taken to hitherto unimagined heights of expressiveness". This is especially so with the last two acts of _Tristan_ and the whole of _Götterdämmerung_. I love French Baroque music; Bach is for me the greatest composer who ever lived; the late music of Gesualdo, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt reveal new worlds to me...but within a few bars (including the opening ones of _Das Rheingold_, Wagner makes me forget them, along with the others. He's the only composer who shows me that there's no such thing as "too much", the only one who for me truly conforms to the SAS motto "Who dares, wins". He dared most, and won most.


I would add that after Beethoven and Wagner there's Mahler, and after him Shostakovich. But that's me being contrary. :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Felix Mendelssohn was born without religion, his father Abraham having earlier renounced the Jewish religion. He was baptized in a Christian church at the age of seven.


Not sure that is an accurate view. The reason the father turned Christian was to avoid the persecutions on Jews as his business would have been disfavored. That is where the name Bartholdy came in. Felix and his sister both wanted to drop the Bartholdy part later in life. Felix was baptized Lutheran and then wrote his 5th symphony in commemoration of the foundational Lutheran document, The Augsburg Confession and the Reformation, embedding the tune from Luther's "Mighty Fortress" hymn in the last movement. Funny, the Lutheran church is soon to celebrate the 500th year anniversary of the Reformation, but I bet none of them play Mendelssohn's 5th. I have been a Lutheran for 32 years and only learned of Mendelssohn's 5th last year. Ah well, I digress.


----------



## KenOC

Wiki has a slightly different version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Mendelssohn_Bartholdy#Attitude_to_Judaism


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Wiki has a slightly different version.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Mendelssohn_Bartholdy#Attitude_to_Judaism


I am going off a book I read last August, and my leaky memory. I'll have to go back and see what exactly it was I read and report back. Wikipedia usually has pretty good info so maybe my brain is the problem here. 
But I do still wish the Lutheran church would embrace Mendelssohn's 5th, if only even the last movement. What great music for pre-service mediation for a bunch of folks who are intimately familiar with the Mighty Fortress tune!


----------



## Woodduck

I really do enjoy reading people's reasons for not liking things. It makes me appreciate human diversity. There are no illegitimate reasons for liking or not liking something. I, for example, would much rather listen to the song "Fish Heads, Fish Heads, Rolly Polly Fish Heads" than to Mahler's _Kindertotenlieder_, which is especially interesting considering that I like Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_ immensely. I could probably contrive a long dissertation on why dead fish are more worthy of extended contemplation than dead babies, but would this explain my preference? It might or it might not. But it definitely would not justify it. We don't need to justify anything, except our futile attempts at justification.

I could say that I dislike Mussorgsky because he was a boozehound, or Messiaen because he plagiarized birds, or Feldman because listening for six hours makes my hemorrhoids act up, or Chopin because he was an antisemite but didn't have the guts to be open about it and publish an essay. But I'd really rather spend my time listening to music I enjoy.

"Fish heads, fish heads..."


----------



## DavidA

Anselm said:


> Sorry, I'm almost completely at the other end of the spectrum. I have to struggle _not_ to subscribe to Mahler's comment that "There's Beethoven and Wagner, and after them nobody". Whenever I get to the end of any Wagner opera I'm torn between knowing that it's just the right length and yearning desperately for more. What you describe as "too much" going on, I experience as "the same thing taken to hitherto unimagined heights of expressiveness". This is especially so with the last two acts of _Tristan_ and the whole of _Götterdämmerung_. I love French Baroque music; Bach is for me the greatest composer who ever lived; the late music of Gesualdo, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt reveal new worlds to me...but within a few bars (including the opening ones of _Das Rheingold_, *Wagner makes me forget them, along with the others*. He's the only composer who shows me that there's no such thing as "too much", the only one who for me truly conforms to the SAS motto "Who dares, wins". He dared most, and won most.


I must confess that I find the statement that Wagner makes you forget the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert incomprehensible. No I'm afraid his immense length does not do it for me. Neither does his philosophy - and I don't count the anti-semitism in that either. I can take RW in relatively small doses but I cannot begin to compare him for sheer enjoyment with the genius of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. Wagner when I'm in the mood. The others always.


----------



## Guest

mistake,sorry...


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I really do enjoy reading people's reasons for not liking things. It makes me appreciate human diversity. There are no illegitimate reasons for liking or not liking something. I, for example, would much rather listen to the song "Fish Heads, Fish Heads, Rolly Polly Fish Heads" than to Mahler's _Kindertotenlieder_, which is especially interesting considering that I like Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_ immensely. I could probably contrive a long dissertation on why dead fish are more worthy of extended contemplation than dead babies, but would this explain my preference? It might or it might not. But it definitely would not justify it. We don't need to justify anything, except our futile attempts at justification.
> 
> I could say that I dislike Mussorgsky because he was a boozehound, or Messiaen because he plagiarized birds, or Feldman because listening for six hours makes my hemorrhoids act up, or Chopin because he was an antisemite but didn't have the guts to be open about it and publish an essay. But I'd really rather spend my time listening to music I enjoy.
> 
> "Fish heads, fish heads..."


chop chop - chop chop......


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I must confess that I find the statement that Wagner makes you forget the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert incomprehensible. No I'm afraid his immense length does not do it for me. Neither does his philosophy - and I don't count the anti-semitism in that either. I can take RW in relatively small doses but I cannot begin to compare him for sheer enjoyment with the genius of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. Wagner when I'm in the mood. The others always.


Thats the difference,you are not a Wagner addict.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I must confess that I find the statement that Wagner makes you forget the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert incomprehensible. No I'm afraid his immense length does not do it for me. Neither does his philosophy - and I don't count the anti-semitism in that either. I can take RW in relatively small doses but I cannot begin to compare him for sheer enjoyment with the genius of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. Wagner when I'm in the mood. The others always.


Now, now. He doesn't mean that he _literally forgets_ that those people exist! But you know that, don't you? You know Anselm is just expressing a special relationship with Wagner's music. You know he's saying that Wagner provides him a unique experience that's potent enough to make him forget, _as he listens,_ even Bach, whom he says outright that he regards as the greatest composer who ever lived (and I might just agree with him, which is neither here nor there). Well, why should we REMEMBER Bach, or anyone else, while listening to Wagner? Why shouldn't we just let go and submit to the magic and the bliss of forgetting ourselves and everything else? That _Rheingold_ prelude ushers us into another, enchanted world, if only we let it: that deep tone, the sound of all beginnings, one chord growing and glowing, the awakening of consciousness out of primeval darkness... I think of Nietzsche, who excoriated his former idol for _Parsifal_ but then admitted that it made him "lose his manhood under a rose bush" and made earlier music seem like "a misunderstanding." The "sorcerer of Bayreuth" overwhelms people that way. There's nothing odd about that, and certainly nothing wrong or objectionable about it. Or is there? Some people do resist.

All this love for that despicable rotter! Yeah, I know. This thread isn't the place for love. We're supposed to be contrary, dyspeptic and picayune.

Well, first prize to you. :tiphat:


----------



## znapschatz

Anselm said:


> Sorry, I'm almost completely at the other end of the spectrum. I have to struggle _not_ to subscribe to Mahler's comment that "There's Beethoven and Wagner, and after them nobody". Whenever I get to the end of any Wagner opera I'm torn between knowing that it's just the right length and yearning desperately for more. *What you describe as "too much" going on, I experience as "the same thing taken to hitherto unimagined heights of expressiveness". This is especially so with the last two acts of Tristan and the whole of Götterdämmerung*. I love French Baroque music; Bach is for me the greatest composer who ever lived; the late music of Gesualdo, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt reveal new worlds to me...but within a few bars (including the opening ones of _Das Rheingold_, Wagner makes me forget them, along with the others. He's the only composer who shows me that there's no such thing as "too much", the only one who for me truly conforms to the SAS motto "Who dares, wins". He dared most, and won most.


I'd go a step further: I'm for the whole of the *Ring Cycle*. No doubt a fanatic, I set aside large hunks of time to listen to the entire thing in four day segments, while the wife handles whatever needs done during these sessions (maybe once every two years, or so.). Any standalone of the Ring operas is okay, but in my mind, an incomplete experience. There are other operas I binge on, but this is the largest en bloc.


----------



## Couchie

KenOC said:


> It's true that Wagner, while inveighing against Jews, didn't propose violent actions against them. He can be contrasted with Martin Luther: "Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, and smashing up their homes, so that these 'envenomed worms' would be forced into labour or expelled 'for all time'. " (Wiki)


The phenomenon of grouping races together and punishing them proceeds quite naturally from Jewish and Christian scripture where we have many instances of collective guilt justifying the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, conquest of Canaan, etc. Most infamously the Catholics held the Jewish race collectively responsible for the death of Christ, and the rather unpleasant protestant forefathers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc) found no disagreement there. It will of course not do to blame Wagner, or Christian Europe, or even Judeo-Christian morality since base prejudice and the in-group and out-group mentality is a most natural production of evolution and human nature itself. I think it is easier to make lightning rods (Wagner) rather than acknowledge that we all have the potential for a great ugliness when conditions far removed from the comforts we currently enjoy present themselves.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Wiki has a slightly different version.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Mendelssohn_Bartholdy#Attitude_to_Judaism


You are right, my book says that Abraham Mendelssohn "had long ago ceased being a believing Jew." He wanted to to the right thing for his children. His brother-in-law said of remaining Jewish, "A man can remain loyal to an oppressed, persecuted religion; he can impose it upon his children as a candidature for a lifelong martyrdom--_as long as he thinks that it alone will bering salvation_. but as soon as he no longer believes that, it is barbarism to do anything of the kind."


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Now, now. He doesn't mean that he _literally forgets_ that those people exist! But you know that, don't you? You know Anselm is just expressing a special relationship with Wagner's music. You know he's saying that Wagner provides him a unique experience that's potent enough to make him forget, _as he listens,_ even Bach, whom he says outright that he regards as the greatest composer who ever lived (and I might just agree with him, which is neither here nor there). Well, why should we REMEMBER Bach, or anyone else, while listening to Wagner? Why shouldn't we just let go and submit to the magic and the bliss of forgetting ourselves and everything else? That _Rheingold_ prelude ushers us into another, enchanted world, if only we let it: that deep tone, the sound of all beginnings, one chord growing and glowing, the awakening of consciousness out of primeval darkness... I think of Nietzsche, who excoriated his former idol for _Parsifal_ but then admitted that it made him "lose his manhood under a rose bush" and made earlier music seem like "a misunderstanding." The "sorcerer of Bayreuth" overwhelms people that way. There's nothing odd about that, and certainly nothing wrong or objectionable about it. Or is there? Some people do resist.
> 
> All this love for that despicable rotter! Yeah, I know. This thread isn't the place for love. We're supposed to be contrary, dyspeptic and picayune.
> 
> Well, first prize to you. :tiphat:


Oh dear Woodduck! You make me smile! Never mind! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> The phenomenon of grouping races together and punishing them proceeds quite naturally from Jewish and Christian scripture where we have many instances of collective guilt justifying the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, conquest of Canaan, etc. Most infamously the Catholics held the Jewish race collectively responsible for the death of Christ, and the rather unpleasant protestant forefathers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc) found no disagreement there. It will of course not do to blame Wagner, or Christian Europe, or even Judeo-Christian morality since base prejudice and the in-group and out-group mentality is a most natural production of evolution and human nature itself. I think it is easier to make lightning rods (Wagner) rather than acknowledge that we all have the potential for a great ugliness when conditions far removed from the comforts we currently enjoy present themselves.


Ah so by the same logic it will not do to blame the Nazis for the Holicaust as it was just a product of evolution and human nature? Or Isis for what is happening in the Middle East today?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> Ah so by the same logic it will not do to blame the Nazis for the Holicaust as it was just a product of evolution and human nature? Or Isis for what is happening in the Middle East today?


What is happening in the Middle East is mostly a product of belief in certain three collections of ancient myths (a lot of which are pretty vile by themselves), which mostly originated in Israel. I believe humanity would have been much better off if none of these myths ever strayed beyong the borders of the ancient Hebrew kingdom, but this Pandora's box has already been opened.

To put it in even plainer language, you should read the Old Testament/Jewish Torah, particularly the Pentateuch and the book of Joshuah, and you will see where exactly the idea of killing people who do not follow the same god as you do, originated from. And it most assuredly is neither Wagner nor Germany.


----------



## Guest

For many people it is a very assuring thought to belief in the same thing,history is repeating itself.In this false idea one thinks that this is truly safe.
Kill your ideological opponents and you have unity.


----------



## Anselm

Woodduck said:


> Anselm is just expressing a special relationship with Wagner's music. You know he's saying that Wagner provides him a unique experience that's potent enough to make him forget, _as he listens,_ even Bach, whom he says outright that he regards as the greatest composer who ever lived (and I might just agree with him, which is neither here nor there).


Couldn't have put it better myself, thanks. Let me try it this way: Bach's St Matthew Passion always transports me to a sublime world, from the opening heartbeat in the bass (a sort of Rhinegold Prelude of its own) right to the final gut-wrenching farewell to the dead Christ in the tomb. At least three places in the work regularly choke me up. But Wagner's _Ring_ and _Tristan_ does that to me every 15 minutes or so. It's a solar plexus thing: Wagner kicks me in it harder than any other composer does. It's not because he's greater (Wagner would object to that himself: he called Bach "the most stupendous miracle in all of music", a judgment with which I heartily concur) but because, as you say, I feel a special relationship with his music that I don't with any other. It's personal, no more. You might feel it for another composer, and you (yes, you) for another. That's the great thing about forums like this: we can share these personal experiences.

Another way of putting it is this: as a kid I got into classical music, but I was ever so slightly disappointed by it because of the liner and programme notes to LPs, CDs and concerts, which described the music in hyperbolic terms that only a late Romantic composer could do justice to. Consequently, I felt just a little let down by music whose formality and regularity seemed to belie hyperbolic representations like "the music rises from a whisper to a shatteringly powerful climax". Of course, I hasten to add that that was my misapprehension. I soon learned to treat such descriptions with the contempt they deserved, and to take any music on its own terms, which is how I came to adore the formality and ornateness of French Baroque music (I did my Masters' thesis on the liturgical music of Marc-Antoine Charpentier). But along the way I discovered the one composer who rendered such descriptions anemic: that of Richard Wagner.

Here's a starter for 10, an excerpt that I've never heard in the concert hall, but for my money is a strong contender for the most ineffably sublime piece of music ever written. It's the passage between the last two scenes of the much-maligned _Siegfried_. Having surged to the most powerfully exuberant climax, the music gradually settles (there's Wagner's self-described "art of transition" at play) down to a single note, the violins' lowest (the open G, a sound Wagner loved). From there, the unaccompanied melody winds its way softly, slowly, sinuously ever upwards and still upwards until it enters the stratosphere, holding there on a high B. It's one of those "I can't breathe" moments. And then, miles under what seems like that highest possibly playable note, three trombones in close position quietly intone the Fate theme, instantly transforming that B and forcing it upwards another semitone, and then another. I can feel that gentle nudge to the solar plexus even as I write, fully conscious that it's one of those detestable liner notes I've just been excoriating. So go listen to it, and find out how absurd it renders any description!

And of course, you - and you, and you - could write similarly about your favourite passages from your favourite composer, be it Josquin or Hindemith. And all power to you!


----------



## Barbebleu

Of course I will now have to go and listen to that passage now! Thanks Anselm.:tiphat:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Anselm said:


> .. I feel a special relationship with his music that I don't with any other. It's personal, no more. You might feel it for another composer, and you (yes, you) for another. That's the great thing about forums like this: we can share these personal experiences.


That is the very best way to put it.

I think the whole reason some of us are willing to engage in these lengthy debates in defense of the Meister is precisely that: a personal relationship with his music. I can say the same about myself - Wagner's work has pretty much become a part of me over the years. I would probably be a somewhat different person without it - a less happy and contented one for sure.

And when you see something that is so dear to you under attack - you want to fight, by all means necessary


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is the very best way to put it.
> 
> I think the whole reason some of us are willing to engage in these lengthy debates in defense of the Meister is precisely that: a personal relationship with his music. I can say the same about myself - Wagner's work has pretty much become a part of me over the years. I would probably be a somewhat different person without it - a less happy and contented one for sure.
> 
> And when you see something that is so dear to you under attack - you want to fight, by all means necessary


The light must survive.


----------



## Anselm

znapschatz said:


> I'd go a step further: I'm for the whole of the *Ring Cycle*.


Heck, me too!!!! I just think that the _Ring_ starts off being as absolutely fantastically wonderfully superb as it could possibly be, and then gets better as it goes on!



> No doubt a fanatic, I set aside large hunks of time to listen to the entire thing in four day segments, while the wife handles whatever needs done during these sessions (maybe once every two years, or so.). Any standalone of the Ring operas is okay, but in my mind, an incomplete experience.


Again, totally agreed. However wonderful the parts, the whole is so much greater than their total!



> There are other operas I binge on, but this is the largest en bloc.


Well, you could binge on Stockhausen's 24-hour _Licht_, a cycle of seven operas, which took him a similar amount of time to write as the _Ring_ did its composer. Wagner, schmagner, I say. :lol:

And _Tristan_...Oh god, what can you say about _Tristan_? It's not music any more. It's like a runner's "wall" - pain, increasing, searing pain, pain beyond endurance...and then, in Act III, you find yourself through to some indescribable state, something past mere emotion and feeling...something Buddhist, something world-embracing? Why would I need a destructive addictiveness to crystal meth when I'm addicted to Wagner the health- and life-giver?


----------



## Anselm

Woodduck said:


> All I can do is read this over and over. Thanks.
> 
> Well, I can do one thing more, and that's remark that one of the things I most admire about Wagner (most of the time) is his economy.
> 
> All these detractors can put that in their pipes and smoke it.


Absolutely!!! All this talk about Wagner's excessive length has always puzzled me. He's exactly as long as he needs to be to say what he needs to say. The third act of _Die Meistersinger_ is famously longer than Mozart's entire _Don Giovanni_. So what? Does that make the latter better? No. The argument about quality isn't related to length or size. If it were, the _Mona Lisa_ would be "better" than Constable's wopping _The Haywain_. That argument has to be conducted on different grounds. (What they would be, I couldn't say.)

But for anyone who decries Wagner's length, I could take innumerable passages from the "overlong" _Ring_ and defy anyone to make them more concise. The opening scene of _Das Rheingold_, for instance. Not a note too long, and in about 20 minutes you have the story and the music that provides the genesis of the entire epic. The opening of Scene 2: Wotan luxuriating in the magnificent sight of his new-built fortress, taking just the right amount of time to do so to make his bringing down to earth by Fricka maximally effective. And the sheer musical conciseness of the journeys to and from Nibelheim! Any shorter and their effectiveness would be impaired, any longer and it would be too much of a good thing. It's exactly enough to make us fully experience that journey with Wotan and Loge (and Alberich, on the return trip). Or the first scene of _Die Walküre_? Or the whole second act, which could perhaps be best summed up by title of Henry James' _The Turn of the Screw_ - the screw most excruciatingly turned? Or - heck - the whole opera? Or all of _Siegfried_? Or - well, dammit - the whole _Ring_, for Pete's sake!!!!!!


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> What is happening in the Middle East is mostly a product of belief in certain three collections of ancient myths (a lot of which are pretty vile by themselves), which mostly originated in Israel. I believe humanity would have been much better off if none of these myths ever strayed beyong the borders of the ancient Hebrew kingdom, but this Pandora's box has already been opened.
> 
> To put it in even plainer language, you should read the Old Testament/Jewish Torah, particularly the Pentateuch and the book of Joshuah, and you will see where exactly the idea of killing people who do not follow the same god as you do, originated from. And it most assuredly is neither Wagner nor Germany.


Critical theologians have found out, that the people of Israel just settled among the Canaanite nations in Palestine. The Biblical stories do not reflect history but the opinions of the Sadducee's, the clan of priests in Jerusalem. So please, there is blood shedding and there are *stories* about blood shedding.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Critical theologians have found out, that the people of Israel just settled among the Canaanite nations in Palestine. The Biblical stories do not reflect history but the opinions of the Sadducee's, the clan of priests in Jerusalem. So please, there is blood shedding and there are *stories* about blood shedding.


And then there are stories that great numbers of people make into the foundation for their lives and that galvanize people to action according to the message of these stories. The folk-myths of Germany that Wagner remade into plots for his operas, or for that matter any other European mythology, is pretty tame in that regard as compared to the sacred books of the Middle East.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> And then there are stories that great numbers of people make into the foundation for their lives and that galvanize people to action according to the message of these stories. The folk-myths of Germany that Wagner remade into plots for his operas, or for that matter any other European mythology, is pretty tame in that regard as compared to the sacred books of the Middle East.


Pretty tame I regard the _Tarnkappe_ stuff and in the end the whole fetishism around the ring itself. When I think those items away the narrative strength collapses.


----------



## DavidA

Anselm said:


> Absolutely!!! All this talk about Wagner's excessive length has always puzzled me. !


A statement of a true Wagnerian. You really need to think outside your own box of preferences though. For most people outside the clan Wagner can seem excessively long. The times I have sat and watched Wagner's operas the phrase, "Oh please get on with it!" always enters somewhere. The last time I saw Mastersingers I realised how the seats needed double padding! I incidentally thought the same thing about Lord of the Rings movie as well. So Wagner isn't the only culprit!


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Critical theologians *have found out,* that the people of Israel just settled among the Canaanite nations in Palestine. The Biblical stories do not reflect history but the opinions of the Sadducee's, the clan of priests in Jerusalem. So please, there is blood shedding and there are *stories* about blood shedding.


Correction - they have speculated!


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Correction - they have speculated!


We get out of the thread: archaeological findings show how all these peoples lived next to each other in the same period.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> We get out of the thread: archaeological findings show how all these peoples lived next to each other in the same period.


Some people have speculated this. Just to say without derailing the thread it is a matter of dispute.


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Some people have speculated this. Just to say without derailing the thread it is a matter of dispute.


All is open to interpretation. Many interpretations may be valid next to each other. I do not like Wagner when he turns childish.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> All is open to interpretation. Many interpretations may be valid next to each other. I do not like Wagner when he turns childish.


No I don't either


----------



## interestedin

DavidA said:


> A statement of a true Wagnerian. You really need to think outside your own box of preferences though. For most people outside the clan Wagner can seem excessively long. The times I have sat and watched Wagner's operas the phrase, "Oh please get on with it!" always enters somewhere. The last time I saw Mastersingers I realised how the seats needed double padding! I incidentally thought the same thing about Lord of the Rings movie as well. So Wagner isn't the only culprit!


There is your own box. I am pretty sure there are far more humans who are willing to sit through 3 hours of Lord of the Rings than there are humans willing to sit through a 25 minute Mozart symphony. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

interestedin said:


> There is your own box. I am pretty sure there are far more humans who are willing to sit through 3 hours of Lord of the Rings than there are humans willing to sit through a 25 minute Mozart symphony. :tiphat:


But probably even less willing to sit through a 5 hour opera!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> But probably even less willing to sit through a 5 hour opera!


Some of those who have sat through 10 hours of the entire LOTR series later were willing to sit through 14 hours of Wagner - if only because his take on the story is even greater :tiphat:


----------



## Couchie

DavidA said:


> Ah so by the same logic it will not do to blame the Nazis for the Holicaust as it was just a product of evolution and human nature? Or Isis for what is happening in the Middle East today?


It does not logically follow from not blaming people for possessing prejudice (seeing that we all do), that we should not blame people who choose to murder.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Holy thread derailment.

I'll get back on subject by saying that I don't like Wagner because what beautiful music he wrote is most of the time drowned by the sound of human voices that I dislike. I find the majority of operatic voice writing(with some notable exceptions) boring compared to purely instrumental music. And lastly i don't like it since it relies heavily on visuals (after all, it has a significant a theatrical aspect) and story telling, which I find silly at best.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> A statement of a true Wagnerian. *You really need to think outside your own box of preferences though.* For most people outside the clan Wagner can seem excessively long. The times I have sat and watched Wagner's operas the phrase, "Oh please get on with it!" always enters somewhere. The last time I saw Mastersingers I realised how the seats needed double padding! I incidentally thought the same thing about Lord of the Rings movie as well. So *Wagner isn't the only culprit!*


No, he doesn't. What people _need_ to do is not tell other people how they "need" to think. So Wagner's lengths are too much for you? Too bad. Anyone who's been on this site for the past two years (as I have) has been informed again and again about your lack of endurance in listening to Wagner. Why you think that this affliction is something anyone else "needs" to share remains a mystery.

I can only imagine how you'd respond if someone told you that you "need" to think "outside the box" of your love for Mozart. I may think that _Cosi fan tutte_ is a cynical piece of fluff and that Don Giovanni's whining women are crashing bores, but I'm not going to tell you that _you_ shouldn't find them sublime. Likewise, thinking that _Parsifal_ is a profound work of art and not a note too long is not a "box" anyone needs to get out of.

The title of this thread is not "Why You Should Not Like Wagner."


----------



## Couchie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Holy thread derailment.
> 
> I'll get back on subject by saying that I don't like Wagner because what beautiful music he wrote is most of the time drowned by the sound of human voices that I dislike. I find the majority of operatic voice writing(with some notable exceptions) boring compared to purely instrumental music. And lastly i don't like it since it relies heavily on visuals (after all, it has a significant a theatrical aspect) and story telling, which I find silly at best.


Yeah and I don't like Chopin because I hate the sound of felt hammers hitting tensioned wires.


----------



## DavidA

[



Woodduck said:


> No, he doesn't. *What people need to do is not tell other people how they "need" to think. *So Wagner's lengths are too much for you? Too bad. Anyone who's been on this site for the past two years (as I have) has been informed again and again about your lack of endurance in listening to Wagner. Why you think that this affliction is something anyone else "needs" to share remains a mystery.
> 
> I can only imagine how you'd respond if someone told you that you "need" to think "outside the box" of your love for Mozart. I may think that _Cosi fan tutte_ is a cynical piece of fluff and that Don Giovanni's whining women are crashing bores, but I'm not going to tell you that _you_ shouldn't find them sublime. Likewise, thinking that _Parsifal_ is a profound work of art and not a note too long is not a "box" anyone needs to get out of.
> 
> The title of this thread is not "Why You Should Not Like Wagner."


unless I am mistaken, Woodduck, you are also one of the persons who tells people how they should think. So I'm in good company! If you actually read the contxt of my comment (which is the key to understanding comments) then you will find I am trying to answer the question posed by someone who admits he is addicted to Wagner.
The question raised was by Anselm was
"Absolutely!!! All this talk about Wagner's excessive length has always puzzled me.,"
To have the answer to his puzzle he needs to think outside his Wagnerian box - ie to realise that for some people the sheer length of Wagner's operas makes them tedious. I am not telling him to agree (as you appear to think I do with your somewhat black and white interpretation of my post) but to think outside his own thought box at what a non Wagnerian might think. That might end his puzzlement.
My son who is a professional musician does not like classical music. I cannot understand his tastes without thinking outside of the box of my own preferences. I'm not talking about liking or not liking. Just understanding others!


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Unless I am mistaken, Woodduck, you are also one of the persons who tells people how they should think.


Woodduck believes he can tell us what we should think. Resolutely struggle against Woodduckness! Sweep Woodduckness onto the ashheap of history! Consign Woodduckness to the forgotten and disgraced ideologies of a failed past!

But don't worry Woodduck. We still love ya.


----------



## Balthazar

'Tis naught but a suppurating wen on the perineum of civilized society.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Yeah and I don't like Chopin because I hate the sound of felt hammers hitting tensioned wires.


A matter of taste and preference, you see!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Couchie said:


> Yeah and I don't like Chopin because I hate the sound of felt hammers hitting tensioned wires.


Which are barely audible. The sound of those voices, though.


----------



## interestedin

Over 1000 posts now. Interesting that one of the longest threads in TC's opera forum is about why some people do NOT like one particular composer. Usually a forum is about common interests after all, not about common dislikes. And there is so much music I do not like, yet it would not occur to me to spend so much energy trying to explain why I feel that music is dislikable. But keep it going, it's entertaining to read....


----------



## TxllxT

interestedin said:


> Over 1000 posts now. Interesting that one of the longest threads in TC's opera forum is about why some people do NOT like one particular composer. Usually a forum is about common interests after all, not about common dislikes. And there is so much music I do not like, yet it would not occur to me to spend so much energy trying to explain why I feel that music is dislikable. But keep it going, it's entertaining to read....


Well, isn't this because Wagner himself has nothing positive to offer: Wotan dislikes Alberich, Alberich dislikes everyone, etc. etc.


----------



## Barbebleu

But Tristan loves Isolde, Brunnhilde loves Wotan and Siegfried and probably Grane, Elisabeth loves Tannhauser, David loves Lena. I could go on but you see where I'm going with this. Not all negativity.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Doesn't almost every Wagner opera proclaim redemption through love? The only possible exception is Parsifal, and even that depends on how you interpret it.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

Barbebleu said:


> But Tristan loves Isolde, Brunnhilde loves Wotan and Siegfried and probably Grane, Elisabeth loves Tannhauser, David loves Lena. I could go on but you see where I'm going with this. Not all negativity.


Ugh, such heteronormativity... Not enough gay characters (except Klingsor, and he's a jerkass).


----------



## SiegendesLicht

And Klingsor burns with unfulfilled passion for Kundry, except that he cannot do anything about it because he had chopped off his.. erm... instrument.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> And Klingsor burns with unfulfilled passion for Kundry, except that he cannot do anything about it because he had chopped off his.. erm... instrument.


I happen to know a real living person who a few months ago got all of his properties removed because of prostate cancer. When you compare that with the myths Wagner was thriving on I can tell you again why I dislike Wagner.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

SiegendesLicht said:


> And Klingsor burns with unfulfilled passion for Kundry, except that he cannot do anything about it because he had chopped off his.. erm... instrument.


Nahhh, its definitely Parsifal he's got the hots for...


----------



## Faustian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Which are barely audible. The sound of those voices, though.


Oh I'm with ya. Wagner's Tristan, Bach' s B minor Mass, Mozarts 's Figaro, Handel's Messiah, Schubert's Winterreise, Brahms' requiem, Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, the finale of Beethoven's 9th...those damn human voices keep ruining so much great music! A bunch of intolerable racket.


----------



## Barbebleu

Faustian said:


> Oh I'm with ya. Wagner's Tristan, Bach' s B minor Mass, Mozarts 's Figaro, Handel's Messiah, Schubert's Winterreise, Brahms' requiem, Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, the finale of Beethoven's 9th...those damn human voices keep ruining so much great music! A bunch of intolerable racket.


You are awful, but I like you!


----------



## Anselm

DavidA said:


> [If you actually read the contxt of my comment (which is the key to understanding comments) then you will find I am trying to answer the question posed by someone who admits he is addicted to Wagner.
> The question raised was by Anselm was
> "Absolutely!!! All this talk about Wagner's excessive length has always puzzled me.,"
> To have the answer to his puzzle he needs to think outside his Wagnerian box - ie to realise that for some people the sheer length of Wagner's operas makes them tedious. I am not telling him to agree (as you appear to think I do with your somewhat black and white interpretation of my post) but to think outside his own thought box at what a non Wagnerian might think. That might end his puzzlement.


OK, your post has made me clarify my original comment. When I say it's "puzzled" me, I meant in terms of feeling. Of course I've "thought" outside my own box. I can objectively understand why people wouldn't like Wagner, just as I can understand why anyone wouldn't like what they don't like. Basically, it's just because it doesn't push their buttons, for whatever reason. Fair enough. But in terms of _feeling_ - that's different. Can I _feel_ outside the box, feel what it's like to be bored by Wagner's music, or to hate it? No, nor do I have the slightest wish to. I feel myself transformed by it. Why on earth would I try, or even _want_ to try, to get rid of such a wonderful feeling, such a profound experience? Besides, I'd be interested to know how I'd go about this exercise. As far as I can tell, it would be as easy as your learning to hate chocolate (assuming you love it), or love Brussel sprouts (assuming you loathe them).


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> I can only hope that the next time I watch paint dry, I'll find the experience somehow similar to listening to the third act of _Parsifal._


Quite similar, actually. The last time I watched paint dry, I was overcome by emulsion.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Retrograde Inversion said:


> Nahhh, its definitely Parsifal [Klingsor]'s got the hots for...


Anyone who who can use the words "kindisch jauchzend" to describe an overweight, middle-aged tenor in a blonde wig must be a bit besotted, it must be said.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Couchie said:


> Yeah and I don't like Chopin because I hate the sound of felt hammers hitting tensioned wires.


Your problem is that you're too highly-strung


----------



## mountmccabe

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Quite similar, actually. The last time I watched paint dry, I was overcome by emulsion.


It sometimes feels like just a dispersion, but if I can manage a suspension of disbelief, it can really resin-ate and I go all emotionally in-solvent.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Anyone who who can use the words "kindisch jauchzend" to describe an overweight, middle-aged tenor in a blonde wig must be a bit besotted, it must be said.


Not only that, but that little grace note at "Er ist schön, der Knabe"? Pure lust.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> I happen to know a real living person who a few months ago got all of his properties removed because of prostate cancer. When you compare that with the myths Wagner was thriving on I can tell you again why I dislike Wagner.


I am afraid I do not quite understand the connection. Everything that happens in Parsifal has a spiritual meaning. Klingsor castrates himself, presumably because he does not possess the spiritual strength and control over his desires that are needed in order to become part of the Grail brotherhood. At least that is how I understand it, maybe Woodduck or someone else has a different interpretation. What that has to do with the person you know - that I do not quite see.


----------



## hpowders

Look! Let's separate the man, Wagner, from the music Wagner!!!






Nah! Just kidding! :lol::lol:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I think I have found something that I can possibly accuse Wagner of. Having started my operatic journey with his music, I now find it difficult to learn to appreciate any other opera. I love Wagner, I like Weber's Der Freischütz because it is a Romantic German fairy tale, and you can smell the pine trees while listening to it, in the words of one of our own posters - but that is pretty much it. I listened to Mozart, to Baroque opera, to Rigoletto, Carmen and a few others. The music is nice and pretty of course, but none of these operas have given me such a profound spiritual experience as those of Wagner. There are plenty of vocal works I have learned to adore over the years - but no other opera.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *Unless I am mistaken,* Woodduck, you are also one of the persons who tells people how they should think. So I'm in good company! If you actually read the contxt of my comment (which is the key to understanding comments) then you will find I am trying to answer the question posed by someone who admits he is addicted to Wagner.
> The question raised was by Anselm was
> "Absolutely!!! All this talk about Wagner's excessive length has always puzzled me.,"
> To have the answer to his puzzle he needs to think outside his Wagnerian box - ie to realise that for some people the sheer length of Wagner's operas makes them tedious. I am not telling him to agree (as you appear to think I do with your somewhat black and white interpretation of my post) but to think outside his own thought box at what a non Wagnerian might think. That might end his puzzlement.
> My son who is a professional musician does not like classical music. I cannot understand his tastes without thinking outside of the box of my own preferences. I'm not talking about liking or not liking. Just understanding others!


Yes, you are mistaken. I have never begun a sentence with "you need to think..." I only state what _I_ think. You're free to make of it what you wish.

Anselm has now clarified (post #1024) his original statement for the unimaginative and the cranky.

P.S. Your concern for Anselm's "addiction" is touching.


----------



## znapschatz

Anselm said:


> OK, your post has made me clarify my original comment. When I say it's "puzzled" me, I meant in terms of feeling. Of course I've "thought" outside my own box. I can objectively understand why people wouldn't like Wagner, just as I can understand why anyone wouldn't like what they don't like. Basically, it's just because it doesn't push their buttons, for whatever reason. Fair enough. But in terms of _feeling_ - that's different. Can I _feel_ outside the box, feel what it's like to be bored by Wagner's music, or to hate it? No, nor do I have the slightest wish to. I feel myself transformed by it. Why on earth would I try, or even _want_ to try, to get rid of such a wonderful feeling, such a profound experience? Besides, I'd be interested to know how I'd go about this exercise. As far as I can tell, it would be as easy as your learning to hate chocolate (assuming you love it), or love Brussel sprouts (assuming you loathe them).


Actually, I love Brussel sprouts, but also Wagner's music. I feel so conflicted  .


----------



## Anselm

interestedin said:


> Over 1000 posts now. Interesting that one of the longest threads in TC's opera forum is about why some people do NOT like one particular composer. Usually a forum is about common interests after all, not about common dislikes. And there is so much music I do not like, yet it would not occur to me to spend so much energy trying to explain why I feel that music is dislikable. But keep it going, it's entertaining to read....


...perhaps because Wagner gets under people's skins more than most other classical composers. My understanding is that this is more akin to observable fact than mere opinion. It's not just me who's observed that it's easier to love Wagner or loathe him than it is to ignore him - as the posters in this thread testify!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

znapschatz said:


> Actually, I love Brussel sprouts, but also Wagner's music. I feel so conflicted.


No need to feel conflicted - they're actually quite similar. Brussels sprouts belong to the _brassica_ family, and Wagner's music to the _brassy_ family.


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think I have found something that I can possibly accuse Wagner of. Having started my operatic journey with his music, I now find it difficult to learn to appreciate any other opera. I love Wagner, I like Weber's Der Freischütz because it is a Romantic German fairy tale, and you can smell the pine trees while listening to it, in the words of one of our own posters - but that is pretty much it. I listened to Mozart, to Baroque opera, to Rigoletto, Carmen and a few others. The music is nice and pretty of course, but none of these operas have given me such a profound spiritual experience as those of Wagner. There are plenty of vocal works I have learned to adore over the years - but no other opera.


German fairy tales distinguish themselves from other nations' fairy tales because they end badly, Pied Piper of Hamelin being the typical example. What is happening to those small German children's minds when they learn that the children do not return? Isn't this quite psycho? Wagner's love affair with German myths may be understood from this German fairy tale inclination towards bad endings.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

TxllxT said:


> German fairy tales distinguish themselves from other nations' fairy tales because they end badly, Pied Piper of Hamelin being the typical example. What is happening to those small German children's minds when they learn that the children do not return?


They learn not to go after strange men playing pipes? I'm quite serious: aren't fairy-tales meant to be cautionary and, in consequence, somewhat scary in their original form? The fact that other countries have developed "sanitised" versions of these tales (although, as far as I remember, the wolf still eats grandma, and the witch still dies a horrible death in a gingerbread oven) might mean we've rather missed the point.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> German fairy tales distinguish themselves from other nations' fairy tales because they end badly, Pied Piper of Hamelin being the typical example. What is happening to those small German children's minds when they learn that the children do not return? Isn't this quite psycho? Wagner's love affair with German myths may be understood from this German fairy tale inclination towards bad endings.


Wagner's operas don't have "bad" endings. Other people's, though, predominantly do. Wagner's protagonists may die, but in search of salvation, and his works lead, opera by opera, toward Parsifal, who lives and redeems others. Verdi's characters just die - and as his Iago says, "la morte e nulla."


----------



## interestedin

TxllxT said:


> German fairy tales distinguish themselves from other nations' fairy tales because they end badly, Pied Piper of Hamelin being the typical example. What is happening to those small German children's minds when they learn that the children do not return? Isn't this quite psycho? Wagner's love affair with German myths may be understood from this German fairy tale inclination towards bad endings.


That reminds me of John Oliver:






Although that one does have a happy ending...


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's operas don't have "bad" endings. Other people's, though, predominantly do. Wagner's protagonists may die, but in search of salvation, and his works lead, opera by opera, toward Parsifal, who lives and redeems others. Verdi's characters just die - and as his Iago says, "la morte e nulla."


Wagner = German + Fairy Tales + Religion: that mix turning sour is really bad.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Wagner = German + Fairy Tales + Religion: that mix turning sour is really bad.


Maybe, but when done right, there is not a more inspiring and empowering potion than that, especially if you add Romanticism and Love of Nature to it. It is the ultimate energy drink. Prost! :cheers:


----------



## DavidA

Anselm said:


> OK, your post has made me clarify my original comment. When I say it's "puzzled" me, I meant in terms of feeling. Of course I've "thought" outside my own box. I can objectively understand why people wouldn't like Wagner, just as I can understand why anyone wouldn't like what they don't like. Basically, it's just because it doesn't push their buttons, for whatever reason. Fair enough. But in terms of _feeling_ - that's different. Can I _feel_ outside the box, feel what it's like to be bored by Wagner's music, or to hate it? No, nor do I have the slightest wish to. I feel myself transformed by it. Why on earth would I try, or even _want_ to try, to get rid of such a wonderful feeling, such a profound experience? Besides, I'd be interested to know how I'd go about this exercise. As far as I can tell, it would be as easy as your learning to hate chocolate (assuming you love it), or *love Brussel sprouts* (assuming you loathe them).


i like Brussel Sprouts as long as they're not overcooked. Same goes for Wagner! :lol:


----------



## Anselm

znapschatz said:


> Actually, I love Brussel sprouts, but also Wagner's music. I feel so conflicted  .


I'm sorry, I don't believe you. As any musicologist will testify, Brussel sprouts are fundamentally incompatible with Wagner. You need to think more inside the box


----------



## MarkW

This is not Wagner's fault, but I frankly just don't have the attention span to listen to one all the way through too often (and this is from someone who loves Boris Godunov). Also whenever I hear the last scene of Gotterdammerung (which turns up on NPR frequently enough) I find myself saying "Oh, no. Not _that_ leitmotif _again_!


----------



## Woodduck

MarkW said:


> This is not Wagner's fault, but I frankly just don't have the attention span to listen to one all the way through too often (and this is from someone who loves Boris Godunov). Also whenever I hear the last scene of Gotterdammerung (which turns up on NPR frequently enough) I find myself saying "Oh, no. Not _that_ leitmotif _again_!


:lol: I guess it turns up on NPR too frequently! It doesn't turn up where I live, though. Opera almost never does, except in the opera spot on Saturday.

But about those leitmotifs... Don't you find it impressive that Waqner can create such immense musical structures out of them, weaving them together and presenting them in endlessly new guises: extending them, reharmonizing them, reorchestrating them, fusing two motifs into one new one, cutting one up into two new ones, transitioning from one to another, combining two or more motifs contrapuntally, creating a whole new texture and mood out of themes that began life in a quite different context...? And all without feeling mechanical or contrived? Does any other composer exhibit such limitless resource in the deployment of such basic materials?


----------



## MarkW

I can't disagree, but when I'm not in the mood, it knd of wears -- like the Franck Symphony.


----------



## Woodduck

MarkW said:


> I can't disagree, but when I'm not in the mood, it knd of wears -- like the Franck Symphony.


Ha ha. Yeah, that one wears thin with me too. It's a nice work, but doesn't hold a candle to Wagner, despite all its dramatic panting and heaving.


----------



## Pugg

MarkW said:


> I can't disagree, but when I'm not in the mood, it knd of wears -- like the Franck Symphony.


Isn't that with all music?


----------



## TxllxT

Anselm said:


> I'm sorry, I don't believe you. As any musicologist will testify, Brussel sprouts are fundamentally incompatible with Wagner. You need to think more inside the box


Please, never criticize Brussel!  Wagner was a true EUropean, wasn't he?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Please, never criticize Brussel!  Wagner was a true EUropean, wasn't he?


NATO is also in Brussel, and I believe it to be a true European's duty to criticise THAT one


----------



## interestedin

SiegendesLicht said:


> NATO is also in Brussel, and I believe it to be a true European's duty to criticise THAT one


SiegendesLicht, it is actually none of my business but am I allowed to ask where you are from?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

MarkW said:


> Also whenever I hear the last scene of Gotterdammerung I find myself saying "Oh, no. Not _that_ leitmotif _again_!


Depends which Leitmotif you mean. The so-called "redemption" theme, the closing statement of _Götterdämmerung_ - indeed, of the entire _Ring_ - makes its first appearance since Sieglinde sang it in Act III of _Die Walküre_.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

interestedin said:


> SiegendesLicht, it is actually none of my business but am I allowed to ask where you are from?


I really wish you asked that question a few months from now, but I don't mind answering it. I am a native of the Republic of Belarus, soon to exchange it for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland  For now I am playing a nationalistic German om TC


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Yes, you are mistaken. I have never begun a sentence with "you need to think..." I only state what _I_ think. You're free to make of it what you wish.
> 
> Anselm has now clarified (post #1024) his original statement for the *unimaginative and the cranky.*
> 
> P.S. Your concern for Anselm's "addiction" is touching.


Please do not resort to insults. It does not add to the argument.


----------



## interestedin

SiegendesLicht said:


> I really wish you asked that question a few months from now, but I don't mind answering it. I am a native of the Republic of Belarus, soon to exchange it for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland  For now I am playing a nationalistic German om TC


Fascinating! Yes I sometimes notice your political comments so I wondered.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

interestedin said:


> Fascinating! Yes I sometimes notice your political comments so I wondered.


Do you mean to say that no _echt-Deutscher_ would ever make these comments? 

Actually that is one thing, not music-related, where I feel an inner affinity to Wagner the man. He was a patriotic German, with a great interest in his native heritage of literature, music and folk-myths, and yet forced to spend long periods of his life away from home, in France, in Switzerland etc. And even the abovementioned interest of his began while he was a young man trying to make a career in Paris.

Whenever I get so lonely and homesick that I would just about howl at the moon, I play the music ofd a man who knew very well what it was to be lonely and homesick. Especially Die Meistersinger provides a good medicine against that particular spiritual malady.


----------



## MarkW

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Depends which Leitmotif you mean. The so-called "redemption" theme, the closing statement of _Götterdämmerung_ - indeed, of the entire _Ring_ - makes its first appearance since Sieglinde sang it in Act III of _Die Walküre_.


All of them. .


----------



## Becca

For those who aren't sure whether or not they like Wagner, you will be interested in the following quote from Sir Reginald Goodall, the conductor who is best known for his Wagner interpretations including the recorded Ring in English...

_"Well, I've got a blind spot - Wagner's music on the whole doesn't appeal to me until we get to Meistersinger. Only then do we find his own real personality. Before that, it's suffused with Marschner and Bellini. When he knew his harmony in that masterly way, as in Götterdämmerung, then that's Wagner. That's why he stopped doing the Ring I'm sure - he had to write these other operas and he couldn't do the end of Siegfried and Götterdämmerung until he had gotten that. Götterdämmerung is a wonderful opera, and the subtleties ofParsifal are overwhelming. But he had to practice. He said to Cosima, "My greatest art is the art of transition" and transition above all is necessary in Götterdämmerung. There are no false jerks or anything - it just goes in one great sweep."
_


----------



## Becca

One further comment FWIW ... on the occasion of the release of Goodall's recording of Tristan, a press conference was held in Chicago (home to Amoco who sponsored the recording). One reporter who was present said...

_"I am aware of the aversion that many people have to the music of Richard Wagner. In fact, some people have commented that it would be a very cold day before they would listen to one of his works. Well, those people got their wish, for the broadcast of this new Tristan recording [in Chicago] was on January 10, the day of our record-breaking cold of -26 degrees."_


----------



## Morton

Becca said:


> For those who aren't sure whether or not they like Wagner, you will be interested in the following quote from Sir Reginald Goodall, the conductor who is best known for his Wagner interpretations including the recorded Ring in English...
> 
> _"Well, I've got a blind spot - Wagner's music on the whole doesn't appeal to me until we get to Meistersinger. Only then do we find his own real personality. Before that, it's suffused with Marschner and Bellini. When he knew his harmony in that masterly way, as in Götterdämmerung, then that's Wagner. That's why he stopped doing the Ring I'm sure - he had to write these other operas and he couldn't do the end of Siegfried and Götterdämmerung until he had gotten that. Götterdämmerung is a wonderful opera, and the subtleties ofParsifal are overwhelming. But he had to practice. He said to Cosima, "My greatest art is the art of transition" and transition above all is necessary in Götterdämmerung. There are no false jerks or anything - it just goes in one great sweep."
> _


This quote comes as a bit of a surprise to me, Tristan was written before Meistersinger & I'm not sure how much Marschner and Bellini there is in that. I think there could be some exaggeration for effect going on here. The second act of Tristan is a fine example of the art of transition.
I well remember hearing his Tristan live, twice in about two weeks, with the wonderful Linda Esther Gray as Isolde, there was no sense that he did not think this was the real Wagner.


----------



## interestedin

SiegendesLicht said:


> Do you mean to say that no _echt-Deutscher_ would ever make these comments?


No, on the contrary, I assumed they could only come from a German (although I'm not saying they are the norm in Germany), but I remembered that you did not come from that place, so I was confused. 

Meistersinger is the most uplifting Wagner opera, IMO. Joyful and almost (but not quite) not _heavy_.


----------



## Woodduck

Morton said:


> This quote comes as a bit of a surprise to me, Tristan was written before Meistersinger & I'm not sure how much Marschner and Bellini there is in that. I think there could be some exaggeration for effect going on here. The second act of Tristan is a fine example of the art of transition.
> I well remember hearing his Tristan live, twice in about two weeks, with the wonderful Linda Esther Gray as Isolde, there was no sense that he did not think this was the real Wagner.


I'm surprised by that too. It was probably just a senior moment for old Reginald.


----------



## Woodduck

interestedin said:


> Meistersinger is the most uplifting Wagner opera, IMO. Joyful and almost (but not quite) not _heavy_.


An almost (but not quite) not undelightful remark.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

interestedin said:


> No, on the contrary, *I assumed they could only come from a German* (although I'm not saying they are the norm in Germany), but I remembered that you did not come from that place, so I was confused.
> 
> Meistersinger is the most uplifting Wagner opera, IMO. Joyful and almost (but not quite) not _heavy_.


Oh, I guess I should thank you for that :tiphat: Trust me, I am eagerly awaiting that day when I can write my place of residence across my profile in big letters and not hide behind vague formulations 

And "uplifting" is just about the most fitting epithet for Die Meistersinger. So many wonderful moments there... and wonderful quarters of an hour too.


----------



## Scopitone

Finally made it to the end of this thread! 1079 posts to this point. It's taken me awhile, reading off and on. 

I know it started out on a negative premise, but it really has been a fascinating and enlightening discussion. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> For those who aren't sure whether or not they like Wagner, you will be interested in the following quote from Sir Reginald Goodall, the conductor who is best known for his Wagner interpretations including the recorded Ring in English...
> 
> _"Well, I've got a blind spot - Wagner's music on the whole doesn't appeal to me until we get to Meistersinger. Only then do we find his own real personality. Before that, it's suffused with Marschner and Bellini. When he knew his harmony in that masterly way, as in Götterdämmerung, then that's Wagner. That's why he stopped doing the Ring I'm sure - he had to write these other operas and he couldn't do the end of Siegfried and Götterdämmerung until he had gotten that. Götterdämmerung is a wonderful opera, and the subtleties ofParsifal are overwhelming. But he had to practice. He said to Cosima, "My greatest art is the art of transition" and transition above all is necessary in Götterdämmerung. There are no false jerks or anything - it just goes in one great sweep."
> _


Goodall was known for his remarkable quotes. A mild mannered, self-effacing man, he was a member of the British Union of Fascists and even after the war Goodall was unrepentant in his views. He was recruited by Walter Legge to take part in a tour of to Germany in 1946. Some of the performers visited the site of the Belsen concentration camp, only, it is said, to be told by Goodall, who did not make the visit, that Belsen was British fiction manufactured in a leading movie studio.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

DavidA said:


> Goodall was known for his remarkable quotes.


I once nearly decapitated him - accidentally! - with a cardboard _Parsifal_ poster I liberated from its frame at the London Coliseum. I didn't think ENO would miss one poster, as there were dozens of them all around the theatre, and I wanted a souvenir of what I think must have been Goodall's last-ever fully-staged _Parsifal_. So, on the way down the stairs from the Amphitheatre, I grabbed a poster and headed to the Stage Door for autographs. Gwynne Howell, Neil Howlett, Warren Ellsworth and Anne Evans' autographs in the bag, I waited for the diminutive Reggie to appear. He duly did, and I was so excited that I whipped out the poster much too quickly and caught the poor man entirely by surprise; the poster must have stopped millimetres away from his neck. He rocked a little on his heels, but soon recovered and returned me a sweet smile when I apologised. I still have the poster, with Goodall's autograph taking pride of place in the centre.


----------



## Belowpar

DavidA said:


> Goodall was known for his remarkable quotes. A mild mannered, self-effacing man, he was a member of the British Union of Fascists and even after the war Goodall was unrepentant in his views. He was recruited by Walter Legge to take part in a tour of to Germany in 1946. Some of the performers visited the site of the Belsen concentration camp, only, it is said, to be told by Goodall, who did not make the visit, that Belsen was British fiction manufactured in a leading movie studio.


Firstly, as with a certain composer and an even more famous conductor, one has to choose if one is happy to separate the individuals behaviour from the music they left us.

Secondly, David do you recall where you read that? I had no idea there were Holocaust deniers as early as 1946. Not to want to see for oneself, is strange.


----------



## DavidA

Belowpar said:


> Firstly, as with a certain composer and an even more famous conductor, one has to choose if one is happy to separate the individuals behaviour from the music they left us.
> 
> Secondly, David do you recall where you read that? I had no idea there were Holocaust deniers as early as 1946. Not to want to see for oneself, is strange.


This is the article the quote came from.

http://www.overgrownpath.com/2007/05/reginald-goodall-holy-fool.html

Goodall's misguided political beliefs have of course no bearing on his musical ability. I must confess that a man who held such beliefs getting a knighthood stuck in my throat a bit when my own father spent five years of his life during WW2 in the commandos risking his life many times to ensure such beliefs wouldn't come to Britain.


----------



## gellio

DavidA said:


> Goodall was known for his remarkable quotes. A mild mannered, self-effacing man, he was a member of the British Union of Fascists and even after the war Goodall was unrepentant in his views. He was recruited by Walter Legge to take part in a tour of to Germany in 1946. Some of the performers visited the site of the Belsen concentration camp, only, it is said, to be told by Goodall, who did not make the visit, that Belsen was British fiction manufactured in a leading movie studio.


I haven't heard Goodall's other Wagner, but I'm not a fan of his Ring. He seemed, IMO, to have zero sense of the work through is overly-plodding tempos.


----------



## Woodduck

My feeling is that Goodall was too devoted to the "German" approach to Wagner which we think of in relation to Knappertsbusch and to _Parsifal_ in particular. But Kna's performances, actually quite variable in tempo over the years, always had inner life and vitality, and if you listen across the many recorded performances we have you find he isn't as slow as your memory, possibly biased by his 1951 _Parsifal_ (much slower than his later ones), might suggest. The "old Germans" like Kna and Furtwangler believed in leaving some things, tempo included, open to inspiration in performance, which gave their performances a certain special, organic feeling of "creation in progress" and could generate an unforgettable intensity when the spirit was upon them. I don't get this from Goodall, whose Wagner I sometimes enjoy (when he keeps the momentum up) but can't put in that same exalted category as performance art.

Goodall's _Tristan_ is very good, but set it beside Furtwangler's, or Kna's as captured live in Munich in 1950 (which was quite a revelation to me), and the differences are clear.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

Interpretations of Wagner's unique style of writing for voice vary more wildly than anything else I've heard in CM and that makes it very hard to find ideal versions of things.

When I'm at work humming Wagner to myself the recitative portions sound just as musical as the portions that are explicitly sung, but when I go home and listen to those same performances on which I based my humming I don't hear as much emotion in the recitative.

There are a few precious exceptions in which the singers use the quieter inflections of every day speech in a way that sounds appropriate to me, which is to say it actually sounds like characters speaking to each other in the same room - I feel like that subtle, more intimate style works better for recordings especially, much like the difference between theater and film acting, but most recordings of opera in general just sound like people screaming at each other; unfortunately it's especially annoying in Wagner's dialogue-heavy music dramas.

In summary I guess my answer to the question is that it's just very difficult to find an ideal performance of any given slice of these behemoths. If it weren't the greatest music ever written it wouldn't be worth it.

* I don't mean to ignore the very interesting posts before me by replying to the OP; I love reading these big Wagner threads too.


----------



## TxllxT

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Interpretations of Wagner's unique style of writing for voice vary more wildly than anything else I've heard in CM and that makes it very hard to find ideal versions of things.
> 
> When I'm at work humming Wagner to myself the recitative portions sound just as musical as the portions that are explicitly sung, but when I go home and listen to those same performances on which I based my humming I don't hear as much emotion in the recitative.
> 
> There are a few precious exceptions in which the singers use the quieter inflections of every day speech in a way that sounds appropriate to me, which is to say it actually sounds like characters speaking to each other in the same room - I feel like that subtle, more intimate style works better for recordings especially, much like the difference between theater and film acting, but most recordings of opera in general just sound like people screaming at each other; unfortunately it's especially annoying in Wagner's dialogue-heavy music dramas.
> 
> In summary I guess my answer to the question is that it's just very difficult to find an ideal performance of any given slice of these behemoths. If it weren't the greatest music ever written it wouldn't be worth it.
> 
> * I don't mean to ignore the very interesting posts before me by replying to the OP; I love reading these big Wagner threads too.


Wagnerians love anything _bolshoi_


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Wagnerians love anything _bolshoi_


I love lieder - only second to Wagner. Sometimes, small is beautiful. Am I doing anything wrong?


----------



## Woodduck

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Interpretations of Wagner's unique style of writing for voice vary more wildly than anything else I've heard in CM and that makes it very hard to find ideal versions of things.
> 
> When I'm at work humming Wagner to myself the recitative portions sound just as musical as the portions that are explicitly sung, but when I go home and listen to those same performances on which I based my humming I don't hear as much emotion in the recitative.
> 
> There are a few precious exceptions in which the singers use the quieter inflections of every day speech in a way that sounds appropriate to me, which is to say it actually sounds like characters speaking to each other in the same room - I feel like that subtle, more intimate style works better for recordings especially, much like the difference between theater and film acting, but most recordings of opera in general just sound like people screaming at each other; unfortunately it's especially annoying in Wagner's dialogue-heavy music dramas.
> 
> In summary I guess my answer to the question is that it's just very difficult to find an ideal performance of any given slice of these behemoths. If it weren't the greatest music ever written it wouldn't be worth it.


Wagner's vocal writing moved very freely between something like traditional recitative and sustained melodic periods. He wanted it all truly sung: "There are no recitatives in my operas," he said to his first interpreters at Bayreuth. "It's all arias." He admired what was then considered the "Italian" style of singing - legato, legato, legato, no barking and shouting - and praised the great Italian baritone Mattia Battistini, one of the last representatives of bel canto. Wagner himself had conducted plenty of Italian opera when he was music director at Dresden, and when he was composing _Tristan_ said he was thinking of Bellini. That should tell us what sort of singing he expected to hear in his works. Of course he didn't make that easy to achieve.


----------



## DarkAngel

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's vocal writing moved very freely between something like traditional recitative and sustained melodic periods. He wanted it all truly sung: "There are no recitatives in my operas," he said to his first interpreters at Bayreuth. "It's all arias." *He admired what was then considered the "Italian" style of singing - legato, legato, legato, no barking and shouting* - and praised the great Italian baritone Mattia Battistini, one of the last representatives of bel canto. Wagner himself had conducted plenty of Italian opera when he was music director at Dresden, and when he was composing _Tristan_ said he was thinking of Bellini. That should tell us what sort of singing he expected to hear in his works. Of course he didn't make that easy to achieve.


It is a great compliment for a wagner singer to be told they have an "Italian style" of singing.......as Jess Thomas recounts during a break in rehearsing Parsifal at Bayreuth, he received just such a compliment from an older woman admirer telling him that is how all great wagner should be sung.......then introduced herself as Frida Leider check 1:40 of interview


----------



## Pugg

SiegendesLicht said:


> I love lieder - only second to Wagner. Sometimes, small is beautiful. Am I doing anything wrong?


You......never! :angel:


----------



## DavidA

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Interpretations of Wagner's unique style of writing for voice vary more wildly than anything else I've heard in CM and that makes it very hard to find ideal versions of things.
> 
> *When I'm at work humming Wagner to myself th*e recitative portions sound just as musical as the portions that are explicitly sung, but when I go home and listen to those same performances on which I based my humming I don't hear as much emotion in the recitative.
> 
> There are a few precious exceptions in which the singers use the quieter inflections of every day speech in a way that sounds appropriate to me, which is to say it actually sounds like characters speaking to each other in the same room - I feel like that subtle, more intimate style works better for recordings especially, much like the difference between theater and film acting, but most recordings of opera in general just sound like people screaming at each other; unfortunately it's especially annoying in Wagner's dialogue-heavy music dramas.
> 
> In summary I guess my answer to the question is that it's just very difficult to find an ideal performance of any given slice of these behemoths. If it weren't the greatest music ever written it wouldn't be worth it.
> 
> * I don't mean to ignore the very interesting posts before me by replying to the OP; I love reading these big Wagner threads too.


I remember a a lad I when I got into Wagner I had excerpts from Solti's Siegfried. I went round singing the forging song - my parents' reaction: "Shut up!" Think I'd have been better off singing Mime!


----------



## DHE

Most people I know, have never listened to Wagner. Even some of them don't like him. Why? Because of his anti-Semitism, of course. Many of these, are not surprisingly, Jewish. I (by heritage Jewish) don't care. Why? Because he's dead. I can't reward him or punish him. I just have the music to listen to (I cannot tolerate most singing in operas but often love the music). It is a series of notes just like the music of anyone else and not anti-Semitic. Daniel Barenboim, who is, of course, Jewish, said "Wagner was an anti-Semite, but his music wasn’t…The music is not ideological." Besides, why do people who hate Wagner because of anti-Semitism and not other anti-Semitic composers? Tchaikovsky was anti-Semitic. Mussorgsky was so anti-Semitic that the editors of a book of his correspondence I read deleted one letter entirely for that reason. Beethoven's letters indicate that he is. I've read that Chopin is considered by many to be anti-Semitic. And I'm sure there are many more. Do you think that composers, writers, artists, etc., are any different in their biases than everyone else? What is the difference with Wagner? He wrote about it and so put a spotlight on himself. Personally, I love his music and have no problem with listening to it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DHE said:


> What is the difference with Wagner?


46:14








What do you think about this?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I almost never listen to Wagner (or other operas) because it takes forever.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> 46:14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about this?


Who wants to spend an hour trying to figure out why you posted this? What's in it for us?


----------



## Woodduck

DHE said:


> Most people I know, have never listened to Wagner. Even some of them don't like him. Why? Because of his anti-Semitism, of course. Many of these, are not surprisingly, Jewish. I (by heritage Jewish) don't care. Why? Because he's dead. I can't reward him or punish him. I just have the music to listen to (I cannot tolerate most singing in operas but often love the music). It is a series of notes just like the music of anyone else and not anti-Semitic. Daniel Barenboim, who is, of course, Jewish, said "Wagner was an anti-Semite, but his music wasn't…The music is not ideological." Besides, why do people who hate Wagner because of anti-Semitism and not other anti-Semitic composers? Tchaikovsky was anti-Semitic. Mussorgsky was so anti-Semitic that the editors of a book of his correspondence I read deleted one letter entirely for that reason. Beethoven's letters indicate that he is. I've read that Chopin is considered by many to be anti-Semitic. And I'm sure there are many more. Do you think that composers, writers, artists, etc., are any different in their biases than everyone else? What is the difference with Wagner? He wrote about it and so put a spotlight on himself. Personally, I love his music and have no problem with listening to it.


Rationality and common sense are always needed in this crazy world. Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are people who think that Mime and some other figures resemble antisemitic caricatures, so Barenboim's claim that Wagner's operas are free of antisemitism is not uncontested. I am not sure about this, everybody can decide for himself. And it is also a difference if one's "antisemitism" consists in a few passages like in a letter where Beethoven jokingly writes he is not inclined to haggling as he is neither Jewish nor Italian or in book-length pamphletes about Jewishness ruining music and culture...


----------



## Zhdanov

Kreisler jr said:


> There are people who think that Mime and some other figures resemble antisemitic caricatures,


Alberich & Mime represent the clan of Rothshields in _Der Ring Des Nibelungen_ and therefore 'court Jews' that benefit from the kabbalistic technology of the Stock Exchange represented by the 'accursed Ring' in this opera. Rothbart in Tchaikovsky 'Swan Lake' also alludes to the Rothshields.


----------



## Zhdanov

Mime fostering Siegfried to kill the dragon & former giant Fafner symbolises how the Financiers prepare the Proletariat so they oust the manufacture based Capitalists and thus pave way for the money to rule the world.


----------



## SanAntone

I've tried to listen to Wagner's operas, several times I've invested hours in the effort. I managed to get through Das Rheingold, over several days, but couldn't continue with the other operas, although I've watched scenes form all of them. I've bought a number of books on The Ring, I must have at least three different translations of the libretto, including one as a graphic novel. 

I did watch a DVD of Tristan und Isolde and got some enjoyment out of it, and almost watched Parsifal to the end.

Despite these attempts and good faith efforts I have never gotten over the hump that it is hard work for me. It is a combination of a number of things: the music, which I find heavy and overwrought; the libretti, which I find silly and dramatizations of myths that I don't find compelling or even interesting, especially when they deal with warped sexuality, like brothers falling in love with sisters and singing love duets about it.

I find Wagner to be excessively long-winded with themes and characters that try my patience, ending up with my opinion that watching/istening to his operas is not a worthwhile way to spend my time.

But who knows? I still have all those books; I'm retired; I might give it another go down the road.


----------



## Couchie

There is a remarkable (and sad) disconnect between people who know Wagner only through name and reputation, and those who actually know him as related through his works. Along with Nietzsche, one of the most weirdly misunderstood people in history.


----------



## Couchie

Kreisler jr said:


> There are people who think that Mime and some other figures resemble antisemitic caricatures, so Barenboim's claim that Wagner's operas are free of antisemitism is not uncontested. I am not sure about this, everybody can decide for himself. And it is also a difference if one's "antisemitism" consists in a few passages like in a letter where Beethoven jokingly writes he is not inclined to haggling as he is neither Jewish nor Italian or in book-length pamphletes about Jewishness ruining music and culture...


The funny thing is, Wagner renders Mime quite sympathetically, as suffering abuse from our supposed hero, Siegfried. Even Alberich is not really a villain but an eventuality, a result of Wotan's hubris in constructing a ruling staff fashioned from the world ash tree. Wotan, for his crime, is reduced to being 'The Wanderer", which may be an allusion to the "Wandering Jew", but I don't think is particularly antisemitic in context.


----------



## MAS

SanAntone said:


> I've tried to listen to Wagner's operas, several times I've invested hours in the effort. I managed to get through Das Rheingold, over several days, but couldn't continue with the other operas, although I've watched scenes form all of them. I've bought a number of books on The Ring, I must have at least three different translations of the libretto, including one as a graphic novel.
> 
> I did watch a DVD of Tristan und Isolde and got some enjoyment out of it, and almost watched Parsifal to the end.
> 
> Despite these attempts and good faith efforts I have never gotten over the hump that it is hard work for me. It is a combination of a number of things: the music, which I find heavy and overwrought; the libretti, which I find silly and dramatizations of myths that I don't find compelling or even interesting, especially when they deal with warped sexuality, like brothers falling in love with sisters and singing love duets about it.
> 
> I find Wagner to be excessively long-winded with themes and characters that try my patience, ending up with my opinion that watching/istening to his operas is not a worthwhile way to spend my time.
> 
> But who knows? I still have all those books; I'm retired; I might give it another go down the road.


I love much of the music of the *Ring* operas and some of the others, but I totally get the comments about the length of both libretto and music. I've always though what Wagner needed most was an editor. There are operas of his that I've never gotten through: *Tristan und Isolde*, *Parsifal*, *Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg*, to name three; though I attended them, I often escaped to the restaurant for a bit of a rest.

But often the music is majestic and moving and memorable - it can be used very effectively in movies (see "Excalibur" for instance).


----------



## Byron

MAS said:


> I've always though what Wagner needed most was an editor. There are operas of his that I've never gotten through: *Tristan und Isolde*, *Parsifal*, *Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg*, to name three; though I attended them, I often escaped to the restaurant for a bit of a rest.


So if those operas were "edited" from 4 and 1/2 hours to 3 and 1/2 hours, you would enjoy them more? Or it would just be less to sit through?


----------



## MAS

Byron said:


> So if those operas were "edited" from 4 and 1/2 hours to 3 and 1/2 hours, you would enjoy them more? Or it would just be less to sit through?


No, I meant an editor when he was composing those operas. But now that you mention it... :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic

DHE said:


> Most people I know, have never listened to Wagner. Even some of them don't like him. Why? Because of his anti-Semitism, of course. Many of these, are not surprisingly, Jewish. I (by heritage Jewish) don't care. Why? Because he's dead. I can't reward him or punish him. I just have the music to listen to (I cannot tolerate most singing in operas but often love the music). It is a series of notes just like the music of anyone else and not anti-Semitic. Daniel Barenboim, who is, of course, Jewish, said "Wagner was an anti-Semite, but his music wasn't…The music is not ideological." Besides, why do people who hate Wagner because of anti-Semitism and not other anti-Semitic composers? Tchaikovsky was anti-Semitic. Mussorgsky was so anti-Semitic that the editors of a book of his correspondence I read deleted one letter entirely for that reason. Beethoven's letters indicate that he is. I've read that Chopin is considered by many to be anti-Semitic. And I'm sure there are many more. Do you think that composers, writers, artists, etc., are any different in their biases than everyone else? What is the difference with Wagner? He wrote about it and so put a spotlight on himself. Personally, I love his music and have no problem with listening to it.


Thank you for sharing your heritage and thank you for a very good post.


----------



## Byron

MAS said:


> No, I meant an editor when he was composing those operas. But now that you mention it... :lol:


Right. Your assertion that they needed an editor during their creation and composition to "trim" them suggests they contain a lot of extraneous bloat that could easily be cut without losing their core essence and effectiveness. It's quite obvious to me that nothing could be further from the truth. They are amazingly cohesive works musically and dramatically, and while one could always nitpick to find a few passages here and there that one might be able to do without, on the whole almost every element in them are substantative: they inform and add to the symbolism embedded in the works, give extra perspective and richness to the story, build on assocations, enhance character development, and the operas would be much less layered and complex and powerful works of art if substantial portions of them were cut.

Which is why my initial question still stands. It sounds like you wouldn't actually enjoy the operas more if they were shorter, it would just mean works that you didn't much like would be a little less long and a a little less of an ordeal to sit through. Not much of an argument for the operas needing to have had an editor.


----------



## Woodduck

The only thing I really dislike about Wagner is that my seventy-something body is no longer happy sitting still for long evenings in the theater. But that goes for many other operas and films as well.


----------



## Zhdanov

MAS said:


> I've always though what Wagner needed most was an editor.


he did have one, if not a few, so when we say "wagner" it means there was a team of assistants behind him that meticulously 'post-produced' and edited his music and libretti... at some point, king Ludvig II of Bavaria himself was one of the co-authors and has built an entire theater for the composer to stage their mutual works.

there is a curious moment in _Die Walkure_ 3rd act score, between the Roll Call of The Valkyries and Wotan's arrival at the scene, where the music gets oddly lame sounding, as if shrinking and losing its volume, while same orchestaration; this might give a clue that its original part of the score has been left intact, with no production applied to it for some reason, as if in order to let know something.


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> he did have one, if not a few, so when we say "wagner" it means there was a team of assistants behind him that meticulously 'post-produced' and edited his music and libretti... at some point, king Ludvig II of Bavaria himself was one of the co-authors and has built an entire theater for the composer to stage their mutual works.
> 
> there is a curious moment in _Die Walkure_ 3rd act score, between the Roll Call of The Valkyries and Wotan's arrival at the scene, where the music gets oddly lame sounding, as if shrinking and losing its volume, while same orchestaration; this might give a clue that its original part of the score has been left intact, with no production applied to it for some reason, as if in order to let know something.


Evidence for any of this please. Start with names for this team of co-authors. Follow with specifics for the parts of the works Wagner was not responsible for. What was changed, by whom, and why?

In sixty years of reading I have seen not a single reference supporting your claims. What references are you using?


----------



## Zhdanov

Woodduck said:


> Evidence for any of this please. Start with names for this team of co-authors.


Liszt, von Bulow, Ludvig II of Bavaria.



Woodduck said:


> What references are you using?


there cannont be any reference to something like this... except for maybe Wagner himself letting it slip out in _Die Meistersingers_ 3rd act where Hans Zachs helps von Stolzing with production of his festival song entry (at 30:49):






Wagner appears to be not merely a composer, but a technologist, producer.


----------



## Barbebleu

So really no evidence. I thought as much.


----------



## Zhdanov

Barbebleu said:


> So really no evidence. I thought as much.


the evidence is in front of you.


----------



## Barbebleu

No it's not. xxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Zhdanov

Barbebleu said:


> No it's not.


how many Wagner operas and how many times you listened to or watched?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Couchie said:


> The funny thing is, Wagner renders Mime quite sympathetically, as suffering abuse from our supposed hero, Siegfried. Even Alberich is not really a villain but an eventuality, a result of Wotan's hubris in constructing a ruling staff fashioned from the world ash tree. Wotan, for his crime, is reduced to being 'The Wanderer", which may be an allusion to the "Wandering Jew", but I don't think is particularly antisemitic in context.


I am not sure if Mime is a sympathetic figure. But one of the two closest to the eternally Wandering Jew, Kundry, clearly is IMO a sympathetically drawn heroine (and the Flying dutchman is also the title figure, not obviously a bad guy) so I never understood that she is also often named as an example for antisemitic clichées. 
It seems that by now many of us have become so sensitive wrt certain archetypes (esp. female or potentially ethnic minorities) in several millenia of literature that they always and only/mainly see them as sexist/racist stereotypes and cannot fathom the historical and psychological depth dimensions. Similarly, the incest in Walküre. This is "messed up" like several Bible stories (think of Lot and his daughters) or Germanic or Classical mythologies (incest is frequent and not necessarily bad there) are "messed up". It's not to be taken like a realistic modern mystery or so... It is strange that a culture like our contemporary that on the one hand seems to delight in all kinds of (not only sexual) transgressions, gets suddenly schoolmarmish if older literature or art is transgressive...


----------



## Zhdanov

Kreisler jr said:


> I am not sure if Mime is a sympathetic figure.


and he isn't... not to say that any other Der Ring charachter is... in fact their all flawed... the opera's intended to elicit no sympathy but show the very technology of a catastrophy inflicted and how the world gets destroyed.


----------



## Barbebleu

Zhdanov said:


> how many Wagner operas and how many times you listened to or watched?


All of them, countless times.


----------



## Zhdanov

Barbebleu said:


> All of them, countless times.


go and listen again then.


----------



## Barbebleu

I probably will. It doesn’t change anything though. I’m still keen to see your actual evidence rather than your imaginings.


----------



## annaw

Wagner probably discussed his work with other people (at least he sent them scores - at least to Liszt) when he was composing but Liszt could hardly be called Wagner's editor as far as I know. Wagner definitely was inspired by other people and it's quite likely that he also got some good ideas from his friends which he used in his work but isn't that quite... natural?


----------



## Zhdanov

Barbebleu said:


> I'm still keen to see your actual evidence rather than your imaginings.


the evidence is on the above mentioned segments of Wager works he left to give you a clue as to what's what and in the fact that Ludvig II has built a theater to stage them. Wagner was made a figurehead for a reason and not so to expose his production team, as you might guess.


----------



## Barbebleu

So, still no real evidence then. Ah well.


----------



## Itullian

Wagner was so great, people have to invent things to try to mitigate 
his greatness. Too great to accept.


----------



## The Conte

Zhdanov said:


> Liszt, von Bulow, Ludvig II of Bavaria.
> 
> there cannont be any reference to something like this... except for maybe Wagner himself letting it slip out in _Die Meistersingers_ 3rd act where Hans Zachs helps von Stolzing with production of his festival song entry (at 30:49):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wagner appears to be not merely a composer, but a technologist, producer.


Rubbish! That part of act three of Meistersinger isn't even by Wagner, it was written by my Grandma!

N.


----------



## Zhdanov

The Conte said:


> That part of act three of Meistersinger isn't even by Wagner, it was written by my Grandma!


great lineage, congrats on that.


----------



## MAS

Byron said:


> Right. Your assertion that they needed an editor during their creation and composition to "trim" them suggests they contain a lot of extraneous bloat that could easily be cut without losing their core essence and effectiveness. It's quite obvious to me that nothing could be further from the truth. They are amazingly cohesive works musically and dramatically, and while one could always nitpick to find a few passages here and there that one might be able to do without, on the whole almost every element in them are substantative: they inform and add to the symbolism embedded in the works, give extra perspective and richness to the story, build on assocations, enhance character development, and the operas would be much less layered and complex and powerful works of art if substantial portions of them were cut.
> 
> Which is why my initial question still stands. It sounds like you wouldn't actually enjoy the operas more if they were shorter, it would just mean works that you didn't much like would be a little less long and a a little less of an ordeal to sit through. Not much of an argument for the operas needing to have had an editor.


Ach, du lieber! Don't take offense at my making fun of Wagner!


----------



## SixFootScowl

SanAntone said:


> I've tried to listen to Wagner's operas, several times I've invested hours in the effort. I managed to get through Das Rheingold, over several days, but couldn't continue with the other operas, although I've watched scenes form all of them. I've bought a number of books on The Ring, I must have at least three different translations of the libretto, including one as a graphic novel.
> 
> I did watch a DVD of Tristan und Isolde and got some enjoyment out of it, and almost watched Parsifal to the end.
> 
> Despite these attempts and good faith efforts I have never gotten over the hump that it is hard work for me. It is a combination of a number of things: the music, which I find heavy and overwrought; the libretti, which I find silly and dramatizations of myths that I don't find compelling or even interesting, especially when they deal with warped sexuality, like brothers falling in love with sisters and singing love duets about it.
> 
> I find Wagner to be excessively long-winded with themes and characters that try my patience, ending up with my opinion that watching/istening to his operas is not a worthwhile way to spend my time.
> 
> But who knows? I still have all those books; I'm retired; I might give it another go down the road.


Try Wagner's Flying Dutchman. If is not so Wagnerian as the others and I think you would have no problem digesting it. Then go to Meistersinger. I would rank Tristan as one of the last ones to try.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

SanAntone said:


> I've tried to listen to Wagner's operas, several times I've invested hours in the effort. I managed to get through Das Rheingold, over several days, but couldn't continue with the other operas, although I've watched scenes form all of them. I've bought a number of books on The Ring, I must have at least three different translations of the libretto, including one as a graphic novel.
> 
> I did watch a DVD of Tristan und Isolde and got some enjoyment out of it, and almost watched Parsifal to the end.
> 
> Despite these attempts and good faith efforts I have never gotten over the hump that it is hard work for me. It is a combination of a number of things: the music, which I find heavy and overwrought; the libretti, which I find silly and dramatizations of myths that I don't find compelling or even interesting, especially when they deal with warped sexuality, like brothers falling in love with sisters and singing love duets about it.
> 
> I find Wagner to be excessively long-winded with themes and characters that try my patience, ending up with my opinion that watching/istening to his operas is not a worthwhile way to spend my time.
> 
> But who knows? I still have all those books; I'm retired; I might give it another go down the road.


This summarizes my feelings about Wagner's music. I simply cannot get into those long-winded melodies, especially when they go on and on with hardly a memorable moment. It doesn't help that I find singing in German not a very compelling medium of sound. I find the libretti just too ridiculous for me to get anything out of them, and besides, I don't care for non-musical aspects in music.

I have spent already too many hours trying to hear what others hear in Wagner and at this point in my life, I have paused any further efforts; there is a lot of other music I enjoy greatly so it's not like my life is lacking in music I enjoy. The only Wagner that I listen to is non-vocal excerpts from his operas, which I find quite exciting. Oh and his symphony in C, which as a very early work is quite telling of what he could have accomplished in the symphonic genre had he not devoted almost his entire output to opera.


----------



## The Conte

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This summarizes my feelings about Wagner's music. I simply cannot get into those long-winded melodies, especially when they go on and on with hardly a memorable moment. It doesn't help that I find singing in German not a very compelling medium of sound. I find the libretti just too ridiculous for me to get anything out of them, and besides, I don't care for non-musical aspects in music.
> 
> I have spent already too many hours trying to hear what others hear in Wagner and at this point in my life, I have paused any further efforts; there is a lot of other music I enjoy greatly so it's not like my life is lacking in music I enjoy. The only Wagner that I listen to is non-vocal excerpts from his operas, which I find quite exciting. Oh and his symphony in C, which as a very early work is quite telling of what he could have accomplished in the symphonic genre had he not devoted almost his entire output to opera.


Just out of interest, what are your favourite operatic composers and are there any other opera composers who you don't like?

N.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

The Conte said:


> Just out of interest, what are your favourite operatic composers and are there any other opera composers who you don't like?
> 
> N.


Opera is not my thing. There is just too much non-musical, or of very little musical interest, filler material for my liking. Only opera bits I enjoy are overtures and some arias(who can resist Nessun Dorma or The Queen of the Night?) but I cannot sit through a whole opera.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> they go on and on with *hardly a memorable moment*.


But do Brahms and Sibelius (I know they're among your favorites) fare any better in that regard?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> But do Brahms and Sibelius (I know they're among your favorites) fare any better in that regard?


Yes, by a light year. Their music, especially symphonies, are jam-packed with one memorable moment after another.


----------



## fluteman

tyroneslothrop said:


> Some of us find the later works of Wagner to be sublimely at the pinnacle of nineteenth century opera. But this is a thread for those who *don't* like Wagner and the people who love them
> 
> For those of you who can't stand Wagner, why is that? Is it because of his politics? Is it because a certain you-know-who liked him a lot and therefore Wagner is poisoned by association? Is it because Wagner is a fungus?
> 
> Pray tell.


Wagner's operas are too long. Like this thread.


----------



## SixFootScowl

fluteman said:


> Wagner's operas are too long. Like this thread.


They are only too long if you fall asleep before it is over.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, by a light year. Their music, especially symphonies, are jam-packed with one memorable moment after another.


But you said you appreciate Wagner's orchestral preludes and overtures, right?

Look at this section, for example
[ 5:25 ~ 5:50 ], which I think is quite "ecstatic",









and then this section [ 30:57 ~ 35:40 ] in the opera. At around 33:23, there is the same feeling of "ecstasy" occuring:









In the context of the entire build-up of the section [ 30:57 ~ 35:40 ], the expression at 33:23 seems fascinatingly appropriate, doesn't it? It seems as though the expression at 33:23 "enhances" the expression of the other passages in the section, and vice-versa.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Wagner's operas are too long.


only in theatres, with breaks etc, but not on recordings. Wagner is for audiophiles, where you got all sound of the world at hand and thus need not to go out.


----------



## Dick Johnson

I certainly understand why some people have trouble with Wagner. I used to be one of them - but my views on Wagner have shifted in the last year or two. My tastes have traditionally run in an "anything but Wagner" direction despite trying to watch a few of his operas each year under the assumption that it would be worth knowing what all the fuss was about. While still not my favorite composer, I must confess that Wagner has finally clicked for me this year. 

With that introduction, here are a few unconnected thoughts as a response to the thread topic:

1. Appreciating Wagner is really hard work - but the work is rewarding. Most great operas are enjoyable on the first listen. That was never the case with Wagner for me. I had to watch them many times each, consulting multiple texts on the music and ideas as I slowly made my way through. 

2. A breakthrough with appreciating Wagner was finding that I had to listen differently than how I listened to most other composers. For me to enjoy Wagner, I must listen to the orchestra first and the singers second - exactly the opposite of all other composers. In contrast to all of my other favorite opera composers, Wagner puts a great deal of his musical ideas only in the orchestra. I think one of the reasons I found Wagner such hard work for many years is that the vocals are often less interesting and, trained on listening to other composers, I was waiting in vain for the vocals to carry the moment. 

3. Listening to Meistersinger was also something of a breakthrough for my appreciation of Wagner. I found the lack of "human scale" rather than mythic stories in most of the Wagner oeuvre challenging. Hans Sachs and Meistersinger was a revelation that forced me to go back and re-evaluate and find humanity in all of his other operas. It's there just a bit hidden. I still wish he wrote 4 more operas in the Meistersinger mold instead of the Ring (sorry).

4. The transcriptions of Franz Liszt were also very helpful for me to see the beauty in Wagner's music. Liszt has a great ability to show me some of the musical aspects that were in the score but that I might have missed in the opera. After hearing the Liszt transcriptions, I listen to the operas differently.

5. After immersing myself in Wagner biographies for a few months, I am less inclined to believe the commonly held opinion that Wagner was an anti-Semitic proto-Nazi monster. The man had some seriously bad opinions but I do enjoy the work of others with equally bad opinions. Unlike most of those, however, Wagner put his bad opinions in print - so we are forced to come to terms with them. Regarding the opinions themselves, I think it is possible to view some of them within the cultural milieu of 19th century Europe. He was a German nationalist at a time when the future of German culture and nationhood seemed very uncertain - essentially the opposite of the view we may have when we look in reverse at developments in Germany after his time. Other contemporary composers were equally nationalistic about their own respective nations - but did not have the weight of shameful historical catastrophes pass judgement on the at the time unforeseen results of their nationalism. 

6. In particular, I have been impressed by Wagner's breaking from Nietzsche's philosophy (and vice versa). I have come to regard compassion as a central theme (perhaps THE central theme) running through all of Wagner's operas. In the middle of all of his many contradictions and destructive opinions, the theme of compassion rings true and saves the overall message of the man for me. 

7. Wagner apparently gave lectures and wrote pamphlets on the rewards of vegetarianism while continuing to eat meat in his own life. I hope that's a true story. The man had a lot of complicated, often wrong, sometimes contradictory opinions - but that's true for most of us. 

8. Wagner is still not my favorite composer - but his operas have enriched my life and I am glad to have spent the time getting to know them.

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## Couchie

Dick Johnson said:


> I6. In particular, I have been impressed by Wagner's breaking from Nietzsche's philosophy (and vice versa). I have come to regard compassion as a central theme (perhaps THE central theme) running through all of Wagner's operas. In the middle of all of his many contradictions and destructive opinions, the theme of compassion rings true and saves the overall message of the man for me.


Compassion is important, but I would say the central theme of Wagner's operas is what Schopenhauer described as "The Will", or the Buddhists refer to as Taṇhā (thirst, desire, longing, greed): the insatiable craving and restless striving suffered by all living things. Recognition of the suffering of others in this regard is what awakens compassion within oneself. _Parsifal_, in a nutshell.

Dutchman craves a release from his curse, Senta craves the Dutchman, Tannhauser craves redemption from sin, Elsa craves knowledge of Lohengrin's identity, the many characters that seek power and wealth in the Ring Cycle, Tristan and Isolde's craving for union with each other, Parsifal's quest for knowledge, Kundry's craving for death's release, Amfortas' crying out for a cure to his incurable wound.

The "contradiction" in Wagner comes from the fact that he explores this concept though many different angles, his insight no doubt shifting over his long life... from the extent to which the Will is embraced or renounced, whether it leads to death or life, tragedy or redemption, whether it is relieved by oneself... or through the sacrifice of another.

Personally I think Wagner operated on this deepest level of eternal themes despite the fact he has more popularly been subjected to countless psychological, religious, economic, political, racist, postmodern, queer, feminist and whatever analyses and performance settings. Those make for interesting reading/watching sometimes, but the majesty and ambition of the music (Wagner and Schopenhauer identified music as being an unobstructed expression of the Will) is clearly intended for something much more than that.


----------



## Itullian

It may help to remember that Wagner called them "Music Dramas", not operas.


----------



## SanAntone

SixFootScowl said:


> Try Wagner's Flying Dutchman. If is not so Wagnerian as the others and I think you would have no problem digesting it. Then go to Meistersinger. I would rank Tristan as one of the last ones to try.


Pass. The only operas I listen to now are by Mozart, Handel, Rossini and Gluck. Oh, and _Pelleas et Melisande_, my favorite.


----------



## SixFootScowl

SanAntone said:


> Pass. The only operas I listen to now are by Mozart, Handel, Rossini and Gluck. Oh, and _Pelleas et Melisande_, my favorite.


What? No Donizetti? I have more Donizetti operas on my favorites list than any other composer but Wagner.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Itullian said:


> It may help to remember that Wagner called them "Music Dramas", not operas.


Only the later ones are called like that (after Lohengrin). And it is just the name (such as Mozart's Don Giovanni is called "dramma giocoso", not "opera buffa). I am not sure reflecting on these names will help a lot. And although Wagner with all its Schopenhauerian, pseudo-buddhist, pseudo-christian, Nietzschean, Marxist whatever depth (and I don't deny that it is there, it is extremely loaded with deep ideas and open to many fascinating interpretations) will fascinate some people intellectually, I don't think it will make them like the music if they don't like it as music. So it might work for some, but will be repulsive or irrelevant to others, the same holds for the mostly mythological "surface sujets".

I think a very good point is the suggestion to listen to orchestra first, singers second and appreciate both the orchestral colors and textures in general and also the leitmotiv technique. This is mostly independent of the ideas or ideologies and might be a more "neutral" approach for some listeners.


----------



## Amadea

I'm afraid I belong to those who don't get "Wagner's genius" and I don't like his music no matter how much I try. I like Stravinsky, I like Shostakovich, even some Schoenberg, I like dissonance, but no Wagner. Yet, Howard Shore's Lord of The Rings has been my favourite soundtrack for 16 years. I don't know. Wagner to me has some good moments (which are boring though). Speaking of Overtures as example, I like the first minutes of the Parsifal. What happens next is the problem. Yeah, I know it is all meant to surprise and impress. But to me, Wagner's music in general feels just excessive and "rude"? I don't want to offend anybody who likes Wagner, it is just not my cup of tea. De gustibus. I don't get it, I guess. The same way some don't like Mozart or others. Maybe it has something to do with the fact I absolutely love Tchaikovsky and he was my first introduction to classical music. In Tchaikovsky there is tragedy and great feelings, but there is also balance, clarity, at least to my ears. So maybe, being used to him, I don't like Wagner. Yeah I know we can find influences in Tchaikovsky, even if I've read he didn't like wagnerism and we should take into account they both looked at Mozart a lot:




My point is: I feel like Tchaikovsky _doses_ while Wagner doesn't. I guess I "like Wagner" when he's "digested" by others. As I said, I love Howard Shore. I want to precise I knew nothing of his political ideas when I approached the music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> But you said you appreciate Wagner's orchestral preludes and overtures, right?
> 
> Look at this section, for example
> [ 5:25 ~ 5:50 ], which I think is quite "ecstatic",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and then this section [ 30:57 ~ 35:40 ] in the opera. At around 33:23, there is the same feeling of "ecstasy" occuring:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the entire build-up of the section [ 30:57 ~ 35:40 ], the expression at 33:23 seems fascinatingly appropriate, doesn't it? It seems as though the expression at 33:23 "enhances" the expression of the other passages in the section, and vice-versa.


Thanks. I did enjoy the orchestral parts you pointed out. But then the singing started and my interest waned

Again, I wish Wagner had been a symphonist; to me, he dedicated his creative output to the wrong genre.


----------



## Amadea

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Again, I wish Wagner had been a symphonist; to me, he dedicated his creative output to the wrong genre.


Tchaikovsky asserts that "Wagner was a great symphonist, but not a composer of opera". He agrees with you that he astrayed in the wrong genre:
https://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Richard_Wagner


----------



## Barbebleu

I’m afraid Pyotr Ilyich has, in this instance, no idea what he’s talking about.


----------



## Amadea

Barbebleu said:


> I'm afraid Pyotr Ilyich has, in this instance, no idea what he's talking about.


The fact you do not agree doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about, just that your opinion differs. He is one of the greatest composers and also he was a critic and published several papers. He just had a different idea of what opera had to be. I am sure we can find a great composer who agrees with you.


----------



## Barbebleu

I’m sure we can, but you would be confusing me with someone who cares. :lol:


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Tchaikovsky's writings on Wagner are actually quite amusing. He wrote that Wagner gave his singers the third French horn part instead of a vocal line and referred to sections of the Ring as "turgid symphonies". Such criticisms come off not seeming petty because he's also extremely laudatory towards a lot of Wagner's work. While I don't necessarily agree with many of his comments, he was a perceptive and interesting writer.


----------



## Amadea

vivalagentenuova said:


> Tchaikovsky's writings on Wagner are actually quite amusing. He wrote that Wagner gave his singers the third French horn part instead of a vocal line and referred to sections of the Ring as "turgid symphonies". Such criticisms come off not seeming petty because he's also extremely laudatory towards a lot of Wagner's work. While I don't necessarily agree with many of his comments, he was a perceptive and interesting writer.


It is what it is: criticism. The work of a good critic is not to do petty commentary on someone's work, rather to analyze a work and see what's good and bad in it according to him possibly being objective. I think Tchaikovsky liked the orchestration, but not the vocal parts. "Extremely laudatory" are big words in my opinion. I think he tried to be quite objective and neutral, given the debates wagnerian operas had started. So he gave Wagner merits but also criticized other aspects.


----------



## Woodduck

Tchaikovsky had very personal tastes which he seemed to have difficulty seeing beyond. His slams against Brahms are legendary (e.g. "talentless b*****d"), and he didn't hear much of worth in late Beethoven. I wouldn't use his opinions of any composer in support of any viewpoint.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Amadea also dislikes Mahler and Bruckner, and TwoFlutesOneTrumpet dislikes all opera, not just Wagner, btw.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Barbebleu said:


> I'm afraid Pyotr Ilyich has, in this instance, no idea what he's talking about.


Exactly, like MR and DA



Woodduck said:


> he didn't hear much of worth in late Beethoven.


"Such zeal in acquainting himself with Beethoven's less accessible works does suggest that Tchaikovsky's feelings about them were not just limited to awe-struck reverence, and if in that diary entry of 1886 he turns away almost in disgust from the "chaos" which prevailed in the works of Beethoven's final period, a letter written to Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich two years later (it is quoted below) shows that *Tchaikovsky was capable of appreciating the late string quartets after studying them more closely.*"
http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Ludwig_van_Beethoven


----------



## Woodduck

The only thing I dislike about Wagner is that most of his operas are made for bodies younger than mine, at least if those bodies are sitting in an auditorium. At 20 I might get through _Gotterdammerung_ without having to use what houses of culture call the men's lounge. At 72 all sorts of untoward things can happen to me in the course of five hours.


----------



## Amadea

Woodduck said:


> Tchaikovsky had very personal tastes which he seemed to have difficulty seeing beyond. His slams against Brahms are legendary (e.g. "talentless b*****d"), and he didn't hear much of worth in late Beethoven. I wouldn't use his opinions of any composer in support of any viewpoint.


I wasn't supporting anything. I was just informing the poster someone actually had his same perceptions. Anybody has very personal opinions, even strong, about some composers and works. Tchaikovsky and Brahms couldn't be more different. It is understandable why Tchaikovsky didn't like him and if I read critics talking about Brahms as the heir of Beethoven I'd probably go mad too. Anyway, I think the comments on Brahms you're reporting were written in a diary, not a published paper.


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> Amadea also dislikes Mahler and Bruckner.


Dislike is a strong word, they bore me. But what is your point?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Tchaikovsky had very personal tastes which he seemed to have difficulty seeing beyond. His slams against Brahms are legendary (e.g. "talentless b*****d"), and he didn't hear much of worth in late Beethoven. I wouldn't use his opinions of any composer in support of any viewpoint.


The same can be said about what nearly any composer has ever had to say about any contemporary or even predecessor who was a rival in any sense, even if only in the sense of having a profoundly different artistic approach and/or temperament. Chopin had amazingly nasty things to say about Liszt. Schoenberg went beyond nasty into ridicule for Stravinsky. And Stravinsky, writing in 1939, didn't hold back when it came to Wagner:

Nothing shows more clearly the power of Wagner and the kind of storm and stress that he unleashed than this decadence that his work actually consecrated and that has developed apace ever since his time. How powerful this man must have been to have destroyed an essentially musical form [opera] with such energy that fifty years after his death we are still staggering under the rubbish and racket of the music drama! For the prestige of the Synthesis of the Arts is still alive.

Is that what is called Progress? Perhaps. Unless composers find the strength to shake off this heavy legacy by obeying Verdi's admirable injunction: "Let us return to old times, and that will be progress."

[....]

Whether we admit it or not, the Wagnerian drama reveals continual bombast.
Its brilliant improvisations inflate the symphony beyond all proportion and give it less real substance than the invention, at once modest and aristocratic, that blossoms forth on every page of Verdi.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The same can be said about what nearly any composer has ever had to say about any contemporary or even predecessor who was a rival in any sense, even if only in the sense of having a profoundly different artistic approach and/or temperament. Chopin had amazingly nasty things to say about Liszt. Schoenberg went beyond nasty into ridicule for Stravinsky. And Stravinsky, writing in 1939, didn't hold back when it came to Wagner:
> 
> Nothing shows more clearly the power of Wagner and the kind of storm and stress that he unleashed than this decadence that his work actually consecrated and that has developed apace ever since his time. How powerful this man must have been to have destroyed an essentially musical form [opera] with such energy that fifty years after his death we are still staggering under the rubbish and racket of the music drama! For the prestige of the Synthesis of the Arts is still alive.
> 
> Is that what is called Progress? Perhaps. Unless composers find the strength to shake off this heavy legacy by obeying Verdi's admirable injunction: "Let us return to old times, and that will be progress."
> 
> [....]
> 
> Whether we admit it or not, the Wagnerian drama reveals continual bombast.
> Its brilliant improvisations inflate the symphony beyond all proportion and give it less real substance than the invention, at once modest and aristocratic, that blossoms forth on every page of Verdi.


You need to use quotation marks! Otherwise you might find yourself embroiled in arguments. That last statement of Stravinsky's - about the "real substance" and "invention" that "blossom forth on every page" (every single page!) of Verdi - is a real howler. One wonders what he'd have said to Verdi himself, who reportedly found _Tristan und Isolde_ so awe-inspiring that he wondered how a human being could have composed it.

You're right to observe that artists tend to criticize art that operates on premises different from their own. Their remarks are sometimes enlightening, but often merely a source of amusement. It's interesting, though, that Brahms was more restrained than Tchaikovsky in his opinions of other composers, and that Wagner, contrary to the popular impression of his arrogance, had very broad tastes despite certain prejudices having little to do with music itself. He was quite capable of acknowledging, for example, Mendelssohn's prowess as a composer, whatever he may have had to say about the Jew-turned-Christian.


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> Exactly, like MR and DA


I don't know who you're referring to with "MR and DA", anyway I think Tchaikovsky just had a different idea of what opera should be like. Focused on singing, no orchestra prevaling etc. I mean, it's understandable. It is also understandable why he didn't like Grosse Fugue etc. He wasn't a modernist. I feel like he had a normal taste for his times rather than "a very personal taste".


----------



## Woodduck

Amadea said:


> I don't know who you're referring to with "MR and DA", anyway I think Tchaikovsky just had a different idea of what opera should be like. Focused on singing, no orchestra prevaling etc. I mean, it's understandable. It is also understandable why he didn't like Grosse Fugue etc. He wasn't a modernist. *I feel like he had a normal taste for his times rather than "a very personal taste".*


Was there such a thing as a "normal" taste for a distinguished Russian composer in 1870? Was it normal to fail to comprehend the genius of both a "progressive" (Wagner) and a "conservative" (Brahms), who seemed to understand each other better than Tchaikovsky understood either of them?

I do suspect, though, that Tchaikovsky understood these composers better than he wanted to admit, and that his tendency to rationalize his personal feelings in quasi-objective terms was consistent with his nature. There's also ego to overcome, and he certainly spent plenty of private time studying Wagner's scores, of which there's clear evidence in his own operas and tone poems. We should also remember that there were very few opportunities to experience Wagner's operas as they were intended to be experienced: whole and in the theater. Schumann was dubious about _Tannhauser_ until he saw it performed on stage, after which he revised his opinion.


----------



## Amadea

Woodduck said:


> Was there such a thing as a "normal" taste for a distinguished Russian composer in 1870? Was it normal to fail to comprehend the genius of both a "progressive" (Wagner) and a "conservative" (Brahms), who seemed to understand each other better than Tchaikovsky understood either of them?


By "normal" I mean that given the context of his times his taste and opinions about Beethoven's late quartets and Wagner's opera are absolutely understandable, related to his times and therefore not personal, in my view. Except for Brahms, that probably was personal but still understandable, they were very different. So, *overall*, I wouldn't say Tchaikovsky isn't or doesn't try to be objective. But again, I wasn't trying to prove anything. I just informed twofluteman someone elses has his same perceptions. So, chill.


----------



## Couchie

> Whether we admit it or not, the Wagnerian drama reveals continual bombast.


This opinion has always been weird to me, and makes me wonder how much Wagner they have heard aside from Act III of _Die Walkure_. The majority of Wagnerian drama is one or two characters engrossed in lengthy psychophilosophical deliberation.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> This opinion has always been weird to me, and makes me wonder how much Wagner they have heard aside from Act III of _Die Walkure_. The majority of Wagnerian drama is one or two characters engrossed in lengthy psychophilosophical deliberation.


It's understandable that Stravinsky, dapper inhabitant of the salon and fond of the witty bon mot, would have had little patience with such deliberation and called it "bombast." Ned Rorem said, in Stravinskian style, that artistic temperaments are fundamentally either French or German. It's interesting, though, that Wagner was a tremendous hit with the French, and that French music of the _fin de siecle _is permeated with his influence.


----------



## 89Koechel

(Couchie, and "continual bombast":tiphat - Agree, and we could look to Siegfried, even, also. It begins with menacing string figures, as the Mime (Laufkotter/1937 Met) simply sets-the-stage, opens the DOOR to the NOT-bombastic Melchior, and his unforgettable, often exultant/ringing tenor, as ol' Siegfried, himself. Of course, it's probably RARE that a Wagnerian singer didn't sound bombastic, on his own, esp. in the male roles, and there are examples of Hans Hopf and others who were simply ordinary, or worse. Fortunately, we still have examples of Thill, Melchior, Volker, Schorr and others who put the stamp of their OWN personality and lyricism into their roles, raising the latter to the truly-ENJOYABLE level.


----------



## Woodduck

Not to be pedantic, but it seems useful to remind ourselves that "bombast" has nothing to do, etymologically, with bombs or bombardment. It refers to content that's overwrought, pompous, or excessively pretentious, something that presents itself as being more meaningful or important than it really is. 

Some people do claim to find such qualities in Wagner. I don't think there's any definitive argument for or against this; it might be (and has been) said of other artists whose work is expansive in ambition and scale rather than light, terse and epigrammatic, and how you respond to such an aesthetic approach is a personal matter. Of the millions of notes penned by Wagner, there are very few I'd willingly part with, even though I feel that a few scenes might have been tightened a little and still made their point, and I never feel that the music is inappropriate or out of proportion to what the drama requires. Wagner knew what he wanted to say and said it, and much of what he wanted to say had never been said before in musical or dramatic form. We don't have to like it, but not even Stravinsky could avoid affirming its power over the Western imagination, however stingy his acknowledgment was.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> You need to use quotation marks! Otherwise you might find yourself embroiled in arguments. That last statement of Stravinsky's - about the "real substance" and "invention" that "blossom forth on every page" (every single page!) of Verdi - is a real howler. One wonders what he'd have said to Verdi himself, who reportedly found _Tristan und Isolde_ so awe-inspiring that he wondered how a human being could have composed it.
> 
> You're right to observe that artists tend to criticize art that operates on premises different from their own. Their remarks are sometimes enlightening, but often merely a source of amusement. It's interesting, though, that Brahms was more restrained than Tchaikovsky in his opinions of other composers, and that Wagner, contrary to the popular impression of his arrogance, had very broad tastes despite certain prejudices having little to do with music itself. He was quite capable of acknowledging, for example, Mendelssohn's prowess as a composer, whatever he may have had to say about the Jew-turned-Christian.


Translating Stravinsky's comments about Wagner from composerspeak to English, what he is saying is, "I have chosen to take a different approach than Wagner." Exactly the same is true of Wagner's comments about Mendelssohn. Every sincere artist is a passionate advocate of his own approach and of anything else that tends to validate it. I enjoy reading the commentary of composers who are articulate and good writers, like Stravinsky, who btw was a stickler about English grammar, usage and style. But I can translate from composerspeak, mainly because, I try to stay openminded and broad minded about art.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> Not to be pedantic ...


Too late, that train long ago left the station.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Too late, that train long ago left the station.


Such flattery may get you somewhere, but that's a train you wouldn't want to take.


----------



## Barbebleu

And we’re off and running! Hold onto your hats!


----------



## hammeredklavier

marvelous!


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> marvelous!


I do much prefer stuff like this:


----------



## annaw

Amadea said:


> I do much prefer stuff like this:


Sometimes Wagner's music is a bit like liquorice - you either love it or hate it.

I feel that the way Mendelssohn and Wagner approached classical music was in many ways virtually opposite. Mendelssohn strongly preferred a more conservative take to the full-blown Romanticism of Wagner. However, I think Wagner's personality made him a great Romantic - let's be honest, it was a pretty egomaniac era, where the artist and individualism were more important than arguably ever before. For Wagner, who was undoubtedly a pretty complex and somewhat unstable person, this was a perfect opportunity to pour a huge part of himself into his music. That was something Classicists were never able to do when they were ordered to write some light, entertaining music for the parties and dinners the aristocrats held.

Wagner would probably have made a terrible Classicist and couldn't have copied what Mendelssohn was able to do with his more conservative musical language, but Wagner was a dazzling Romantic. In many ways, maybe even the most iconic example of a Romantic composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

annaw said:


> Wagner would probably have made a terrible Classicists and couldn't have copied what Mendelssohn was able to do with his more conservative musical language, but Wagner was a dazzling Romantic. In many ways, maybe even the most iconic example of a Romantic composer.


Yes, I made a point about this in How much theory do you have?


hammeredklavier said:


> isn't it amazing a person could write music so full of fantasy while respecting older practices.





hammeredklavier said:


> Think of the upward steps and download leaps this way:
> match the parts in blue in the Wagner with the parts in blue in the Mozart,
> and the parts in red in the Wagner with the parts in red in the Mozart.
> There are some differences in rhythm and scale degrees, but the gestural similarities are undeniable.
> And then the part in green (consisting of downward arpeggios; a half-diminished seventh built on F) in the Wagner with the part in green (a dominant seventh built on F) in the Mozart,
> and then the part in yellow (consisting of reprises of the original material) in the Wagner
> with the part in yellow in the Mozart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 7:00 ~ 7:30 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 5:05 ~ 5:35 )






Btw, speaking of Romanticism; Chopin is another Romantic with mesmerizing, imaginative harmonies. (I heard you saying once that you didn't like his stuff). 
From my activities in other communities such as google/youtube/reddit, I had stereotypes about his fandom. https://forums.abrsm.org/?showtopic=16967&page=25 There would occasionally be threads such as "unpopular opinions", "the most overrated composer" and in them, there would always be Chopin-loving piano fans/players writing anti-Mozart comments, and clicking up-votes on them. I came to TC to whine about it many times long ago, but nowadays I think I was simply being egotistical/obsessive.


----------



## annaw

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, speaking of Romanticism; Chopin is another Romantic with mesmerizing, imaginative harmonies. (*I heard you saying once that you didn't like his stuff*).
> From my activities in other communities such as google/youtube/reddit, I had stereotypes about his fandom. https://forums.abrsm.org/?showtopic=16967&page=25 There would occasionally be threads such as "unpopular opinions", "the most overrated composer" and in them, there would always be Chopin-loving piano fans/players writing anti-Mozart comments, and clicking up-votes on them. I came to TC to whine about it many times long ago, but nowadays I think I was simply being egotistical/obsessive.


I'm surprised you remember that. Indeed, I'm not a particularly huge fan of Chopin but maybe I should just devote more time to his works than I have. I sometimes struggle with solo piano works because they aren't always equally exciting to me personally (German (late-)Romantics have played a very important role in shaping my musical tastes). Many of Chopin's works seem to be particularly slow and meditative, and thus are a bit boring to me. It's an embarrassing confession as I feel a certain obligation to like his works, but for the time being I find greater enjoyment in listening to other works. But maybe sometime in the future I'll start enjoying his music, who knows.


----------



## Amadea

annaw said:


> Many of Chopin's works seem to be particularly slow and meditative, and thus are a bit boring to me. It's an embarrassing confession as I feel a certain obligation to like his works, but for the time being I find greater enjoyment in listening to other works. But maybe sometime in the future I'll start enjoying his music, who knows.


These are some of my favourites and they're not "slow and meditative", maybe you'll like them:


----------



## Barbebleu

We seem to have morphed into a ‘Why do you like Chopin?’ thread. :lol: Not that I don’t like Chopin. Au contraire. Unless of course the answer to the OP is - the reason I don’t like Wagner is because I like other composers more!


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> There would occasionally be threads such as "unpopular opinions", "the most overrated composer" and in them, there would always be Chopin-loving piano fans/players writing anti-Mozart comments, and clicking up-votes on them. I came to TC to whine about it many times long ago, but nowadays I think I was simply being egotistical/obsessive.


That's funny, since Chopin's favourite composer was Mozart, he was inspired a lot by him (Mozart's Rondo in A minor k. 511, Adagio in B minor k. 540, the piano sonatas, etc. etc.) and Chopin's epitaph says "Play Mozart in memory of me". I mean... I can understand if you say negative things about Mozart and you listen to Shostakovich. But Chopin??? It's like: "Beethoven sucks, I listen to Brahms!". Ok...


----------



## Amadea

Barbebleu said:


> We seem to halve morphed into a 'Why do you like Chopin?' Thread. :lol: Not that I don't like Chopin. Au contraire. Unless of course the answer to the OP is - the reason I don't like Wagner is because I like other composers more!


It was a momentary digression. It happens. Don't be too severe


----------



## hammeredklavier

annaw said:


> That was something Classicists were never able to do when they were ordered to write some light, entertaining music for the parties and dinners the aristocrats held.


Sure, they have certain qualities that make them "light", "pleasant", "whimsical" but
believe it or not, they all point toward Wagner:

6:20 








3:00 



25:00 








I'm just kidding


----------



## Amadea

annaw said:


> Sometimes Wagner's music is a bit like liquorice - you either love it or hate it.
> 
> I feel that the way Mendelssohn and Wagner approached classical music was in many ways virtually opposite. Mendelssohn strongly preferred a more conservative take to the full-blown Romanticism of Wagner.


Yes. In general, I do not love late-romantics with some russian exceptions. Probably my dislike for Wagner is the result of my being used to more conservative romantics and classics (and also my personality). Yet, I don't listen to those only (Shostakovich is a favourite of mine) and I wouldn't call myself someone who doesn't like to "exit the comfort zone" musically speaking, quite the opposite.


----------



## annaw

Barbebleu said:


> We seem to halve morphed into a 'Why do you like Chopin?' Thread. :lol: Not that I don't like Chopin. Au contraire. Unless of course the answer to the OP is - *the reason I don't like Wagner is because I like other composers more!*


Indeed, indeed. After Saint-Saëns visited Bayreuth and, if I recall correctly, among other things witnessed a woman almost faint after Wagner had pressed a piano key, he concluded that he doesn't match the standards to be a Wagnerite but also concluded that a true Wagnerian is singularly intolerant of all other music :lol:.


----------



## Barbebleu

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, they have certain qualities that make them "light", "pleasant", "whimsical" but
> believe it or not, they all point toward Wagner:
> 
> 6:20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3:00
> 
> 
> 
> 25:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just kidding


Michael Haydn? You do surprise me!


----------



## Barbebleu

annaw said:


> Indeed, indeed. After Saint-Saëns visited Bayreuth and, if I recall correctly, among other things witnessed a woman almost faint after Wagner had pressed a piano key, he concluded that he doesn't match the standards to be a Wagnerite but also concluded that a true Wagnerian is singularly intolerant of all other music :lol:.


I'm clearly not a true Wagnerian then. There are hordes of other composers I love.


----------



## annaw

Barbebleu said:


> I'm clearly not a true Wagnerian then. There are hordes of other composers I love.


I'd have to arrive to the same conclusion. I propose we just disagree with Saint-Saëns's extremist definition .

In reality, it was just very amusing to read how shocked Saint-Saëns was in Bayreuth, which he visited during the time when Wagner was in his prime. His essay was pure gold lol.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Interesting article... In a kind of completely nuts off-the-wall way... If true, would go a long ways towards explaining the tone and tenor of some of the threads though...

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/may/22/wagner-bad-for-your-mental-health

*"A Disease Called Richard?

Wagner As Mental Health Menace"*

"In his time the composer's 'dangerously stimulating' music was blamed for melancholy, hysteria, hypnosis and even triggering orgasm"

"No musician's music was seen as such a potentially dangerous stimulant as Wagner's," says James Kennaway, a historian specialising in music and medicine. "While the Nazis famously saw him as a model of musical health, at no time before or since the 1800s has one figure so dominated the debate on music as a pathogen as Wagner."

His music was seen not just as a symptom of the physical and sexual pathologies associated with a nervous modernity - everything from neurasthenia [nervous exhaustion] and degeneration to perversion and fatigue - but also as the direct cause of these."

"The medical profession put this down partly to the sheer length of his operas, partly to the "pathological lack of rhythm" in Wagner's music, which led the late-19th-century author of popular science Grant Allen to conclude that the "gathered energy has to dissipate itself by other channels, which involves a certain amount of conflict and waste, leading to fatigue".

It's well worth reading... There was one section in the article I wish I known back in college -

"Women were considered to be particularly susceptible to the "disease" of musical nervousness that was often referred to as Wagnerianism. The music was inextricably linked to eroticism (take the incest in Die Walküre and the adultery in Tristan), and was *believed to nurture dangerous sexual feelings among young, unmarried women*."

Hell, if I had known that I would have had the Ring cycle running 24/7... or until I fainted from exhaustion... whichever came first.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^A must-read, especially for Wagner lovers who are suffering odd symtoms which baffle their physicians.

It might be mentioned that Schnorr von Carolsfeld was extremely obese and is assumed to have died of a rheumatic condition, not of Wagneritis, although the experience of performing _Tristan_ is certainly taxing. Actually it's pretty taxing just to listen to it, at least if it's done right.


----------



## Chopin Fangirl

.


----------



## Flamme

I think listening to some wagnerian music before bed gives you some majestic ''dreams''!!!


----------



## Shaughnessy

Woodduck said:


> ^^^A must-read, especially for Wagner lovers who are suffering odd symtoms which baffle their physicians.
> 
> It might be mentioned that Schnorr von Carolsfeld was extremely obese and is assumed to have died of a rheumatic condition, not of Wagneritis,* although the experience of performing Tristan is certainly taxing. Actually it's pretty taxing just to listen to it, at least if it's done right.*


Not to mention conducting it - "Felix Mottl collapsed while leading a 1911 production and died shortly thereafter, while Joseph Keilberth was fatally stricken during a 1968 performance. Coincidentally, both maestros experienced these blows while performing the opera at the National Theater in Munich."

https://www.wqxr.org/story/top-5-intriguing-historical-facts-about-tristan-and-isolde/


----------



## Barbebleu

Note to self - Never conduct Wagner in Munich!:lol:


----------



## Shaughnessy

Barbebleu said:


> Note to self - Never conduct Wagner in Munich!:lol:


I think that the jinx or the hex... or is it a curse? - only applies to conducting "Tristan" specifically at the National Theater in Munich.

If you were to conduct "Tristan" in Munich at "The Candlelight Pavilion Dinner Playhouse", the "Dutch Apple Treat Dinner Theater", or "Murray's All-You-Can-Eat Buffet Dinner Playhouse" you wouldn't have much, if anything, to worry about.

Unless.. whilst in Munich you decided for reasons known to no one least of all yourself, to spontaneously stage a putsch in a beer garden...

And so let me just say this - "Don't... seriously... don't... If it didn't work in '23, it probably has even less chance of working out now."


----------



## Couchie

Found some recordings of Glenn Gould playing his transcriptions of Wagner on Spotify today. Intrigued, I found an article that states he was a closeted Wagnerian. While he played Bach in public, in private he subjected his friends to lengthy performances of excerpts from Wagner's operas, often his own transcriptions. You never know!

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230607170_3


----------



## hammeredklavier

Chopin Fangirl said:


> About the Chopin thing - I have been troubled by this (I found out after I had started liking him), so I did a little Google searching. There was one article that claimed that he was not in fact anti-Semitic, but just distant (or something like that)... that same article also claimed that he had done absolutely nothing wrong in anything at all, so I wouldn't really trust it.
> I do remember that in his biography of Chopin, Walker mentioned something about a Mazurka called the "Little Jew" or something in the chapter talking about his summer at his friend's estate when he was 14. As this was also mentioned in Chopin's satirical (and unpublished, I would assume) newspaper when he was there, I'm not too sure whether this mention can be seen as evidence for his support for Jews or his mockery of them....


"Chopin was preoccupied with problems more secular than satanic. The financial agreement that he had reached with Pleyel regarding the sale of the Préludes had started to founder, causing him some vexation. Lurking beneath the surface was the fact that Chopin was having difficulty in paying his share of the Majorcan expenses. The day before he left Paris he had secured an advanced of 1,000 francs from the banker Auguste Léo in order to help defray the costs of the trip, but Léo was now pressing Chopin (through Fontana) to repay the loan. The only way that Chopin could settle the debt was by diverting to Léo money owed him by Pleyel for the Préludes, but Pleyel was reluctant to increase the advance he had already forwarded to Chopin, because the bill for the piano was still unpaid.

Chopin now developed what can only be described as a Machiavellian plan to turn matters to his personal advantage, and the long-suffering Fontana was charged with the unpleasant task of carrying everything out. Chopin instructed Fontana to bypass Pleyel if the latter continued to procrastinate, and offer the Préludes to other publishers, including Heinrich Probst (the Paris-based agent for Breitkopt and Härtel in Germany), Maurice Schlesinger in France, and Christian Wessel in England. In order to make the offer more attractive to Schlesinger he dangled the prospect of further manuscripts to come, including the second Ballade and the Two Polonaises, op. 40.

Chopin, in fact, was infuriated by this money mix-up, involving Pleyel, Léo, and Schlesinger, which drew from some blistering anti-Semitic comments. "Léo is a Jew!... I'll send [him] a short open letter with my thanks which he can swallow right down to his heels (or wherever you like). Scoundrel!" And later on, with particular reference to Schlesinger and Probst, "All these lice bite me less where I am now." Two months later he was still venting his frustration. "If we have to deal with Jews let it at least be with the orthodox ones." And the tirade continued in a separate latter to Grzymała: "Jews will be Jews and Huns will be Huns-that's the truth but what can one do? I am forced to deal with them." This picture Chopin as an anti-Semite, railing against his Jewish publishers for wanting their pound of flesh, stands in contrast to the received image of him as a rarefied dandy, disdaining to sully his hands with the grime of filthy lucre."

< Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times / Alan Walker, 2018 / P. 251 >

"This news reached Chopin in Marseilles . " I had not expected such Jewish behavior from Pleyel , " he wrote to Fontana , and urged the latter to try to sell the French and English rights of the new ballade to Pleyel for a thousand francs , and ..."

< Chopin: A New Biography / Adam Zamoyski · 1980 / P. 186 >


----------



## amadeus1928

I do admit that Wagner's music is cool (when you don't think about his politics) but the whole antisemitism and Nazi stuff ruined him for me.


----------



## Woodduck

amadeus1928 said:


> I do admit that Wagner's music is cool (when you don't think about his politics) but the whole antisemitism and Nazi stuff ruined him for me.


Since there's no antisemitism in the operas (although some people are obsessed with finding it), and since Wagner wasn't remotely a Nazi (though some people will tell you he would have been if...), why pay attention to all that "stuff"? What's actually in his works is far more interesting and compelling than what his agenda-driven detractors say about it.


----------



## Couchie

amadeus1928 said:


> I do admit that Wagner's music is cool (when you don't think about his politics) but the whole antisemitism and Nazi stuff ruined him for me.


You would probably not judge most things (such as America and Judaism) by what the Nazis thought about them, so why judge Wagner's works with that yardstick? Why give Nazis that authority and honor? Listen to the works on their own terms, and you will be richly rewarded.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> Since there's no antisemitism in the operas (although some people are obsessed with finding it), and since Wagner wasn't remotely a Nazi (though some people will tell you he would have been if...), why pay attention to all that "stuff"? What's actually in his works is far more interesting and compelling than what his agenda-driven detractors say about it.


Thanks W. I too thought of responding but I'm tired of this old cobblers being trotted out time after time and I'm no longer interested in enabling these people. Life is short and getting shorter by the day. Idiots believe what they believe and no amount of reasoned argument will change that. I'm off now to listen to Kinderkatechismus to soothe my distemper.


----------



## Couchie

Barbebleu said:


> Thanks W. I too thought of responding but I'm tired of this old cobblers being trotted out time after time and I'm no longer interested in enabling these people. Life is short and getting shorter by the day. Idiots believe what they believe and no amount of reasoned argument will change that. I'm off now to listen to Kinderkatechismus to soothe my distemper.


While Wagner has fairly earned the stain that soils his name in the public conception, I think it is still worthwhile and necessary for those experienced in his works to correct people and liberate the works themselves from that stain. It's a battle against ignorance, which really, is the same battle we fight against racism.


----------



## BachIsBest

Couchie said:


> While Wagner has fairly earned the stain that soils his name in the public conception, I think it is still worthwhile and necessary for those experienced in his works to correct people and liberate the works themselves from that stain. It's a battle against ignorance, which really, is the same battle we fight against racism.


I'm not sure he did. Wagner held manifold and wildly contradictory ideas throughout his life. At one point (conveniently when his chief rivals as a composer were Jews) he railed against Jewish invasion of "proper" German music; this is obviously morally wrong, but the opinions he expressed were no more terrible than many of his contemporaries. His hamartia was ultimately not his anti-Semitism, but his propensity for writing his ideas down in essays and the subsequent fact that his works were then "adopted" by possibly the most evil regime in the history of mankind.

If the true reason for this stain was his anti-Semitism, there would be plenty more composers to share in this stain.


----------



## Couchie

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure he did. Wagner held manifold and wildly contradictory ideas throughout his life. At one point (conveniently when his chief rivals as a composer were Jews) he railed against Jewish invasion of "proper" German music; this is obviously morally wrong, but the opinions he expressed were no more terrible than many of his contemporaries. His hamartia was ultimately not his anti-Semitism, but his propensity for writing his ideas down in essays and the subsequent fact that his works were then "adopted" by possibly the most evil regime in the history of mankind.
> 
> If the true reason for this stain was his anti-Semitism, there would be plenty more composers to share in this stain.


Wagner wrote _Das Judenthum in der Musik_ in 1850, publishing it anonymously, clearly fearing backlash. Then he doubles-down on it in 1869, publishing it under his own name when he knew his reputation was established enough to withstand it. I don't think it was one of his contradictory ideas, and he clearly understood it was controversial even for the standards of his time.

I'm all for a nuanced reading of it though. There's even some truth to what he says... if I move to China tomorrow, and try my hand at writing traditional Chinese opera, is that authentic Chinese opera, or an imitation of it? Can a white immigrant ever create "Chinese" art? How many generations must pass or how much race mixing must occur before my children are sufficiently "Chinese"?

Clearly there is some undeniable linkage between a people's national heritage and their art, and all the Romantics at the time strove to strengthen that linkage. Much as Wagner wanted to take the "Jewishness" out of German music, did the Russians and French not strive to take the "Germanness" out of their national music? Should Jews not also desire to create their own nation and corresponding national musical identity? (which I believe is the main thrust of the essay).


----------



## Music Snob

I really hesitated to post on the same tired matters concerning this great genius.
However I decided to contribute this- if anyone truly wishes to learn about Herr Wagner, I recommend going straight to the source. He wrote voluminously. Instead of listening to biographers or critics, one could just read any of his letters or essays.

I also find Cosima’s diary entries to be illuminating. From the outside one can almost eavesdrop into the many profound conversations her and Richard had concerning all matters. Indeed I wish my closest friends and family shared the same passion for the Arts and matters of Religion as Wagner and his wife did.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Couchie said:


> I'm all for a nuanced reading of it though. There's even some truth to what he says... if I move to China tomorrow, and try my hand at writing traditional Chinese opera, is that authentic Chinese opera, or an imitation of it? Can a white immigrant ever create "Chinese" art? How many generations must pass or how much race mixing must occur before my children are sufficiently "Chinese"?


But Meyerbeer had not been an immigrant from Israel (or Galicia or Ukraine) to Germany, he was a German Jewish immigrant to France. So e.g. Berlioz would have had a reason to complain about Germans (or Jews) usurping "real French opera" but not Wagner about a foreigner spoiling/faking "die heilge deutsche Kunst"...



> Clearly there is some undeniable linkage between a people's national heritage and their art, and all the Romantics at the time strove to strengthen that linkage. Much as Wagner wanted to take the "Jewishness" out of German music, did the Russians and French not strive to take the "Germanness" out of their national music? Should Jews not also desire to create their own nation and corresponding national musical identity? (which I believe is the main thrust of the essay).


That's fair as a general idea but the problem was that the claim that there was any dominating "Jewishness" in German music was hysterical nonsense, despite a certain popularity of the completely assimilated baptized Lutheran Mendelssohn and the more than half frenchified Meyerbeer...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> That's fair as a general idea but the problem was that the claim that there was any dominating "Jewishness" in German music was hysterical nonsense, despite a certain popularity of the completely assimilated baptized Lutheran Mendelssohn and the more than half frenchified Meyerbeer...


"The most successful musician in Paris was the Jewish composer Giacomo Meyerbeer, who offered Wagner help and encouragement, but despite this, Wagner failed to secure a single performance of his operas. He perceived that the musical life of Paris was dominated by a Jewish clique, and feeling himself an outsider, used this as a convenient excuse for his own failure. In order to make ends meet, he was forced to write piano arrangements of operas by another Jewish composer, Jacques Halévy.

This was slave work from the point of view of a composer who thought of himself as the great composer in the world. He was invited to breakfast with Halévy to talk about his work for the transcription, and he was there with several journalists, and at a certain point in the conversation, everybody was speaking French. Halévy of course is a native French speaker. Poor Wagner doesn't speak French very well, so at a certain point, Halévy turns to him in German, and says something. And the French journalists who see this are quite surprised and they say, _"What? We didn't know that Monsieur Halévy could speak German."_ And he turns to them and says, _"Oh, didn't you know? All Jews can speak German."_
So Wagner in this moment is suddenly in the company of Halévy, a Jew. And I think if one looks at Wagner's subsequent turn to the anti-Semitic writings that we know, one can recognize the fear of contamination; the fear that he has been too close to what he describes as being Jewish, or French, or decadent, or modern. Therefore, the effort had always been to distance himself from that."





It's also worth remembering that Mendelssohn treated him badly:

"There may have been a more personal element to all this. In 1836, the 23-year-old Wagner sent Mendelssohn - only four years older but already a towering figure - a copy of his C major Symphony. Mendelssohn never replied. Later, Mendelssohn saw the premiere of Wagner's Flying Dutchman. Robert Schumann, who was with Felix, remembers that he was "totally indignant" about it."
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music


----------



## BachIsBest

Couchie said:


> Wagner wrote _Das Judenthum in der Musik_ in 1850, publishing it anonymously, clearly fearing backlash. Then he doubles-down on it in 1869, publishing it under his own name when he knew his reputation was established enough to withstand it. I don't think it was one of his contradictory ideas, and he clearly understood it was controversial even for the standards of his time.


Yes, I didn't mean to minimise the fact that Wagner was an anti-Semite. However, I do think his anti-Sematism was part of the myriad of contradictions that made the man (at once a German nationalist and then again a pacifist arguing for the universality of the human spirit) as, after all, he sincerely had Jewish friends. The essays were controversial, especially considering Mendelssohn status and the unsubtlety of some of the attacks, but I don't think the general opinion on Jews and the resulting "taint" Germanism would have been terribly out of line with many other composers who were fashionably anti-Semitic.

Anyhow, I've never read the whole essay (only translated excerpts), so I could be very wrong.


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> Yes, I didn't mean to minimise the fact that Wagner was an anti-Semite. However, I do think his anti-Sematism was part of the myriad of contradictions that made the man (at once a German nationalist and then again a pacifist arguing for the universality of the human spirit) as, after all, he sincerely had Jewish friends. The essays were controversial, especially considering Mendelssohn status and the unsubtlety of some of the attacks, but I don't think the general opinion on Jews and the resulting "taint" Germanism would have been terribly out of line with many other composers who were fashionably anti-Semitic.
> 
> Anyhow, I've never read the whole essay (only translated excerpts), so I could be very wrong.


The Ellis translation is still, surprisingly, the only one published in English, and my understanding is that it has problems. Wagner's prose can be convoluted and oblique.


----------



## amadeus1928

I do know that Wagner lived way before Nazis ever existed (let alone Hitler was even born). And the antisemitism didn't get into his operas. But just the knowledge of the whole association kinda ruined him for me.


----------



## LeoPiano

On the topic of the lack of antisemitism in Wagner's music, this is my favorite quote from www.monsalvat.no: "After denouncing Parsifal for containing ideas that it does not actually contain, [Barry] Millington wails in frustration: _*'And why is there not a single expression of anti-Semitism to be found in Parsifal?'*_ No doubt he will tell us about the work's inherent anti-Semitism when, through persistence, he has found it." (From this article: www.monsalvat.no/parsifal.htm)


----------



## Music Snob

I don’t care much for intellectualism, not that anyone here asked my opinion. It is music that speaks truths to me where words often fall short. I’m sure this is the case with most of us here.

To get back to intellectualism... after learning more and more about this man I began to appreciate just how immense his knowledge and intellect was- he wasn’t a “pure” musical prodigy like many others. He was an Artist. He was a writer. He wasn’t afraid to have and share unpopular opinions. This ironclad will to stand by his opinions and not allow himself to be “cancelled” like we see all the time today is astounding. We don’t have to agree with him. It is my hope to convey to people just how vast his knowledge in all things really was. 

So as I posted the other day. Read his writings, or Cosima’s diaries. Read his opinions about Louis the XVI, how he would re-score the trumpets of a Beethoven symphony, his recollections of the Paris Tannhauser debacle, his insights into Mozart, Weber, Spontini, the Public in Time and Space, even conducting... or just keep dwelling on his opinions on jews. Some may find he might not of been as nearly as nasty a person as he is often discussed as. Then perhaps, some may see that could’ve been as noble and intelligent as some of the most famous philosophers and intellects of his day.

Then again, I know little about anything. I shouldn’t even be posting here about things that I have no real benefit from. However, these days it seems like relative to the population at whole there aren’t many who even have any idea who Wagner was, or his influence on, say, the modern movie score. So I come here to at least discuss his Art with like minds. Unfortunately we won’t be able to dig deeper into his great insights if we only act like every waking moment of his life was to put down jews. If that’s the way people feel then I won’t stop them.


----------



## Woodduck

It's generally very difficult to say why we like or dislike music. The roots of our tastes are deep and tangled, and we can no more untangle them than we can dissect the workings of our own brains. Often those tastes are influenced by associations which have nothing to do with the music itself. It seems unfortunately common to dislike Wagner's music - or imagine that we do - because of associations people have read about or absorbed from somewhere; individuals particularly impressionable may be blocked from responding to his music as music. In the case of those directly or strongly impacted by the Nazi era, the associations may be impossible to set aside, although some can do it. I'm sure there have always been plenty of Israelis who would want Wagner's music played at public concerts in Israel, and there are certainly innumerable Jews outside of Israel who have never allowed historical associations to cloud their enjoyment.

Anti-Wagner sentiments are - disgracefully, I think - fueled by critics and scholars who seem driven by a need to demonize and "cancel" (as the present lingo has it) anything exhibiting a whiff of antisemitism, and there's been a sort of industry in publishing articles and essays purporting to show antisemitic representations in Wagner's operas. The plausibility of such efforts is minimal, and most of it that I've seen falls under the category of wishful thinking, if not outright fantasy. I think we should condemn such efforts for what they are. The operas of Wagner are extraordinary achievements which, beyond their musical marvels, are rich in philosophical and psychological concepts which can and have deservedly inspired diverse interpretations. Perhaps, as the Nazi era recedes from our cultural consciousness, we'll be able to distinguish more clearly what properly belongs to that awful phenomenon from what doesn't. A friend of a friend, a Jewish man with little knowledge of classical music and knowing Wagner only by reputation, listened to _Die Walkure_ and remarked that, to his surprise, there seemed to be nothing Nazi or antisemitic about it.


----------



## Music Snob

Woodduck said:


> It's generally very difficult to say why we like or dislike music. The roots of our tastes are deep and tangled, and we can no more untangle them than we can dissect the workings of our own brains. Often those tastes are influenced by associations which have nothing to do with the music itself. It seems unfortunately common to dislike Wagner's music - or imagine that we do - because of associations people have read about or absorbed from somewhere; individuals particularly impressionable may be blocked from responding to his music as music. In the case of those directly or strongly impacted by the Nazi era, the associations may be impossible to set aside, although some can do it. I'm sure there have always been plenty of Israelis who would want Wagner's music played at public concerts in Israel, and there are certainly innumerable Jews outside of Israel who have never allowed historical associations to cloud their enjoyment.
> 
> Anti-Wagner sentiments are - disgracefully, I think - fueled by critics and scholars who seem driven by a need to demonize and "cancel" (as the present lingo has it) anything exhibiting a whiff of antisemitism, and there's been a sort of industry in publishing articles and essays purporting to show antisemitic representations in Wagner's operas. The plausibility of such efforts is minimal, and most of it that I've seen falls under the category of wishful thinking, if not outright fantasy. I think we should condemn such efforts for what they are. The operas of Wagner are extraordinary achievements which, beyond their musical marvels, are rich in philosophical and psychological concepts which can and have deservedly inspired diverse interpretations. Perhaps, as the Nazi era recedes from our cultural consciousness, we'll be able to distinguish more clearly what properly belongs to that awful phenomenon from what doesn't. A friend of a friend, a Jewish man with little knowledge of classical music and knowing Wagner only by reputation, listened to _Die Walkure_ and remarked that, to his surprise, there seemed to be nothing Nazi or antisemitic about it.


My wife and I have often wondered if Richard has charisma of some kind since people seemed quite eager to open up their checkbooks for him. We imagine he wasn't as much a curmudgeon as he depicted as in the Tony Palmer Wagner miniseries.


----------



## Couchie

Music Snob said:


> My wife and I have often wondered if Richard has charisma of some kind since people seemed quite eager to open up their checkbooks for him. We imagine he wasn't as much a curmudgeon as he depicted as in the Tony Palmer Wagner miniseries.


He was actually rather effeminate, had a strange obsession with fine fabrics and perfume, his favorite outfit being a long and flowy pink robe.


----------



## Woodduck

Music Snob said:


> My wife and I have often wondered if Richard has charisma of some kind since people seemed quite eager to open up their checkbooks for him. We imagine he wasn't as much a curmudgeon as he depicted as in the Tony Palmer Wagner miniseries.


He most definitely had personal magnetism. I imagine people are fooled by his rather severe-looking photographs (of course it wasn't common to smile in photos then). Apparently he had a sharp sense of humor, and was quite talkative and given to extravagant expressions of emotion. Sounds like someone who'd quickly wear me out.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think I once read that his predilection for silk underwear was not a fetish or mere luxury but had to do with some skin condition, basically all but the fine silk underwear made his skin itch or break out in a rash or whatever.

As for the antisemitic stereotypes in the operas. Despite the efforts of the guy with that blog linked further above, this seems an entrenched position in more recent Wagner research/commentary. The Dutchman and Kundry are the "wandering Jew", Mime, Alberich, Beckmesser and Klingsor supposedly all meet stereotypes. E.g. Mime cannot reforge the sword, Beckmesser messes up a stolen song, a reference to the supposed artistic impotence. People also claim (or stage it that way) that Beckmesser is lynched at the end instead of just being mocked. 
(I wonder if Ortrud as villain has to be redeemed not to offend neopagans...)
But this is hardly surprising. With Wagner's clearly antisemitic pamphlets as background it is quite easy to find stuff like that in the operas, if one wants to. Just look where people nowadays find objectionable stuff in far more innocuous art and literature.


----------



## BachIsBest

Kreisler jr said:


> I think I once read that his predilection for silk underwear was not a fetish or mere luxury but had to do with some skin condition, basically all but the fine silk underwear made his skin itch or break out in a rash or whatever.
> 
> As for the antisemitic stereotypes in the operas. Despite the efforts of the guy with that blog linked further above, this seems an entrenched position in more recent Wagner research/commentary. The Dutchman and Kundry are the "wandering Jew", Mime, Alberich, Beckmesser and Klingsor supposedly all meet stereotypes. E.g. Mime cannot reforge the sword, Beckmesser messes up a stolen song, a reference to the supposed artistic impotence. People also claim (or stage it that way) that Beckmesser is lynched at the end instead of just being mocked.
> (I wonder if Ortrud as villain has to be redeemed not to offend neopagans...)
> But this is hardly surprising. With Wagner's clearly antisemitic pamphlets as background it is quite easy to find stuff like that in the operas, if one wants to. Just look where people nowadays find objectionable stuff in far more innocuous art and literature.


The oddest thing is, judging by how much he wanted to remove all traces of "Jewishness" from German music and render it purely "Germanic", I would presume he would have avoided putting Jewish characters in his operas like the plague and instead focus on non-Jewish characters.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The only character who could plausibly be Jewish is Kundry (and she is certainly more of an archetype than a caricature and overall a rather positive figure). Historians have pointed out that an (unbaptized) Jew would have been inconceivable in a honorary position in 1500 Nuremberg. But Beckmesser was originally called Hans Lich (the critic Hanslick was jewish and "enemy" for Wagner) and it might be the best case for being an antisemitic caricature

The dwarves are obviously not Jewish but are supposedly drawn with some clichés also applied to them. Of course, Alberich and Mime are extremely creative/productive in Rheingold, the former makes the ring and uses it to turn Nibelheim into some dark satanic but very productive mill and Mime has made the Tarnhelm, I believe...

I don't find it a very productive strategy to search out and dwell on such stereotypes, but it is probably unavoidable to deal with it somehow.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> He most definitely had personal magnetism. I imagine people are fooled by his rather severe-looking photographs (of course it wasn't common to smile in photos then).


----------



## Woodduck

Kreisler jr said:


> As for the antisemitic stereotypes in the operas. Despite the efforts of the guy with that blog linked further above, this seems an entrenched position in more recent Wagner research/commentary.


I'm not sure about this, but although there were apparently always speculations about Wagner sneaking caricatures of Jewish types into his operas, the modern obsession with "Jew-spotting" may have received its first big boost in the late '60s with Robert Gutman's "Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music." I read it at a time when I was already immersed in the operas, and even in my teens I felt that Gutman's ideas, especially his notions about _Parsifal_ being racist and homoerotic, were far-fetched and improperly motivated. Nonetheless the book was hyped as a major contribution to Wagner studies, and since then such ideas have found a wide welcome in both academia and the popular media. You can hardly pick up a review of a book on Wagner or a performance of one of the operas that doesn't lead off with some mention of the "taint" (at least) of antisemitism that we are told we must perceive as a virtual precondition of understanding the operas. An entrenched position indeed, one that fits perfectly into an anxious post-WW II worldview and gives unoriginal and poorly paid academics and critics some claim to usefulness.



> The Dutchman and Kundry are the "wandering Jew", Mime, Alberich, Beckmesser and Klingsor supposedly all meet stereotypes. E.g. Mime cannot reforge the sword, Beckmesser messes up a stolen song, a reference to the supposed artistic impotence. People also claim (or stage it that way) that Beckmesser is lynched at the end instead of just being mocked.
> (I wonder if Ortrud as villain has to be redeemed not to offend neopagans...)


Wagner was certainly well-acquainted with the popular tale of the Wandering Jew, and his "Der Judentum in der Musik" was in a real sense his application of it to current European culture. Its near-archetypal protagonist might be seen in the Dutchman and Kundry, and also in Wotan as Wanderer. But that opens up the peculiar possibility that not only Wagner's villains but also his heroes, cursed as they generally are with seeking salvation in a world with which they are out of step, could be seen as representatives of Jewishness. Should we see them that way, we would be in the curious position of supposing that most of Wagner's characters, heroes and villains alike, are representations of Jewish stereotypes. And this from a man who admitted that he would never want to put a Jewish character onstage.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


>


Amazingly well done. Now we know! A few adjustments to the clothing and hair, and he could be your tennis buddy.


----------



## Couchie

Kundy was definitely partially inspired by the Wandering Jew, he states so explicitly in the prose draft, where he outlines the work to King Ludwig. It's actually a good read, if you want insight as to what Wagner was thinking about when he constructed the work. It's a remarkably feminist take I thought, Kundry's salvation depends on a man with the strength to resist her, but men are weak and fail her time and time again. I recently had an online debate with someone who argued the message of Parsifal is one of white supremacy. If you read the prose draft you can see how far removed such nonsense is from Wagner's thought.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> Kundy was definitely partially inspired by the Wandering Jew, he states so explicitly in the prose draft, where he outlines the work to King Ludwig. It's actually a good read, if you want insight as to what Wagner was thinking about when he constructed the work. It's a remarkably feminist take I thought, Kundry's salvation depends on a man with the strength to resist her, but men are weak and fail her time and time again. *I recently had an online debate with someone who argued the message of Parsifal is one of white supremacy.* If you read the prose draft you can see how far removed such nonsense is from Wagner's thought.


That person had probably read and believed Robert Gutman, who concocted the Aryan supremacy thesis and added a dose of homoeroticism for good measure. So the celibate Grail knights were a society of white European gay guys whose mission was to preserve the purity of the race. Jewish Klingsor's self-castration was actually a circumcision, and Kundry, like any proper Orthodox woman, was not allowed to sit in temple with the men, except that in this case the temple was Christian - and Christ was, of course, white, Indo-European, and probably gay (unless you believe he was secretly married to Mary Magdalene, who would also have had to be white and Indo-European so as to avoid miscegenation).

Yah, it all makes sense now.


----------



## Couchie

I've read what I could find about contemporary response to Parsifal, and there were accusations of homosexuality from the start. But the racial bit seems totally concocted after WWII. You would think the Nazi propaganda engine would have jumped all over it given the chance, but they were quite hostile to the work and wanted it banned, with the exception (and veto power) of Hitler. But it was not shown at Bayreuth during the war, too "compassionate". People also forget that Wagner's popularity fell in Germany during the Third Reich, while it soared in America.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> I've read what I could find about contemporary response to Parsifal, and there were accusations of homosexuality from the start. But the racial bit seems totally concocted after WWII. You would think the Nazi propaganda engine would have jumped all over it given the chance, but they were quite hostile to the work and wanted it banned, with the exception (and veto power) of Hitler. But it was not shown at Bayreuth during the war, too "compassionate". People also forget that Wagner's popularity fell in Germany during the Third Reich, while it soared in America.


I'm not sure of this, but I have the impression that Hitler himself was somewhat uncomfortable with _Parsifal._ However, I've heard bits of its music used in films about the Third Reich - just because it's Wagner, to put the best interpretation on it, or because the filmmakers believe the white supremacist theory of the opera, to put the worst.


----------



## LeoPiano

Since I love Wagner, I'll share my grandmother's views about Wagner since she does not like his music. Interestingly, she does not like Wagner because there is too much recitative. (Specifically, she said, "give me some arias!") She loves the overtures, but cannot listen to the full operas because of this. When she was telling me why she didn't like Wagner, I was expecting it to be the regular conversation about Wagner's views, but it was an actual musical criticism. Because of this, I was very surprised by her response.


----------



## Couchie

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure of this, but I have the impression that Hitler himself was somewhat uncomfortable with _Parsifal._ However, I've heard bits of its music used in films about the Third Reich - just because it's Wagner, to put the best interpretation on it, or because the filmmakers believe the white supremacist theory of the opera, to put the worst.


Yes, quite right that Hitler understood Parsifal as being detrimental to Nazi philosophy. He did however have a deep soft spot for Wagner.


----------



## bz3

Couchie said:


> Yes, quite right that Hitler understood Parsifal as being detrimental to Nazi philosophy. He did however have a deep soft spot for Wagner.


I'm not an expert on WW2 facts and figures but Thielemann's book on Wagner said that Hitler's favorite Wagner operas were Rienzi and Lohengrin. It made me wonder how common such a view was at the time; now it would be seen as contrarian, or at the very least highly nuanced.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> I'm not an expert on WW2 facts and figures but Thielemann's book on Wagner said that Hitler's favorite Wagner operas were Rienzi and Lohengrin. It made me wonder how common such a view was at the time; now it would be seen as contrarian, or at the very least highly nuanced.


He seems to have liked best the operas that gave him a hero to identify with. Rienzi, the heroic Roman tribune, was his first Wagnerian inspiration, and it's pretty clear that although Hitler did love the music of the operas it was his mythologizing of their subjects to suit his personal aspirations to greatness that made him regard Wagner as a spiritual forerunner. Contrary to a general perception, Wagner's antisemitism seems not to have been of much interest, as Hitler never wrote or spoke of it publicly, and there isn't even any reason to think that he ever read Wagner's infamous essay, which might have seemed to him too esoteric and too accommodating in its suggestion that Jewish assimilation was even desirable or possible.

In most of Wagner's operas the "heroes" are fallible individuals battling not only with the world but with themselves, trying to redeem lives in which things have gone wrong, and dying in the end. One could almost call them anti-heroes, and they wouldn't appear to be the sort that Hitler would identify with. Even Siegfried gets cut down by a hostile world before he has a chance to express his heroism in worldly terms. The movers and shakers in the _Ring_ are Alberich, Wotan and Brunnhilde, none of them amenable to having Hitler's fantasies of himself projected onto them, and Parsifal's quest and triumph are altogether too spiritual and pacifist to excite a would-be master of the world. It's true that Rienzi and Lohengrin fail in the end to achieve their missions, but the former is a great populist leader and the latter a knight in shining armor too good for the world into which he descends. An ambitious autocrat could have seen his ideal self in both.


----------



## Couchie

Hitler's war decisions were so insane some historians think he was not fighting to win, but fighting simply to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible. So there is the theory that Hitler *did* see himself as a doomed Wagnerian protagonist, and purposefully waged an unwinnable war, the goal being his own personal Gotterdammerung.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> Hitler's war decisions were so insane some historians think he was not fighting to win, but fighting simply to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible. So there is the theory that Hitler *did* see himself as a doomed Wagnerian protagonist, and purposefully waged an unwinnable war, the goal being his own personal Gotterdammerung.


That actually seems reasonable. Where the craving for power is great enough, and there's a subconscious realization that godlike power is unattainable, destruction, including self-destruction, can be the only assertion of power with guaranteed results.


----------



## Couchie

Woodduck said:


> That actually seems reasonable. Where the craving for power is great enough, and there's a subconscious realization that godlike power is unattainable, destruction, including self-destruction, can be the only assertion of power with guaranteed results.


Yes, the perfectly reasonable production of a mind loaded to the gills with daily intravenous injections of opiates and methamphetamine.


----------



## Woodduck

Couchie said:


> Yes, the perfectly reasonable production of a mind loaded to the gills with daily intravenous injections of opiates and methamphetamine.


Gosh, I wonder how _I_ came up with it...


----------



## bz3

Couchie said:


> Hitler's war decisions were so insane some historians think he was not fighting to win, but fighting simply to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible. So there is the theory that Hitler *did* see himself as a doomed Wagnerian protagonist, and purposefully waged an unwinnable war, the goal being his own personal Gotterdammerung.


The allies were just as guilty of wartime senseless destruction, though. It is a fact that remains minimized to this day due to the mythologized history of 'the good war' but it bears remembering as we (read: we in the west) now careen towards war with China and/or Russia.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Couchie said:


> Hitler's war decisions were so insane some historians think he was not fighting to win, but fighting simply to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible.


I'm suddenly reminded of How Close Did Nazi's Come to Creating the Atomic Bomb?


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> The allies were just as guilty of wartime senseless destruction, though. It is a fact that remains minimized to this day due to the mythologized history of 'the good war' but it bears remembering as we (read: we in the west) now careen towards war with China and/or Russia.


Careful where you take this! We can get in trouble for talking politics here.


----------



## bz3

Noted, but if we can have endless threads and commentary on Wagner's Nazism then I'd hope simply acknowledging the reality of geopolitics could pass the censors.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> Noted, but if we can have endless threads and commentary on Wagner's Nazism then I'd hope simply acknowledging the reality of geopolitics could pass the censors.


I'm not sure what can pass the censors now that there's an officially stated effort to stamp out political comments. One member was recently banned (temporarily) after mentioning [blank], but I don't know the details. I think we'd best err on the side of caution.

Hopefully we can fend off some of those endless threads. And of course there is no Nazism in Wagner. Perhaps "Wagner's supposed Nazism" would be a more judicious phrasing?


----------

