# Richard Wagner



## Chi_townPhilly

On the day that I write this, 195 years ago, in Bach's home-town of Leipzig, Germany, *Richard Wagner* was born. It is _still_ uncertain whether or not his biological father was police actuary Carl Friedrich Wagner or family friend artist-actor-painter Ludwig Geyer. (It doesn't take that great a leap of imagination to recognize that the "protagonist-of-uncertain-origin" would be forward-balanced in his Music Dramas... Tristan, Siegfried, Parsifal...)

To speak of Wagner, of course, is to broach superlatives: In Western Civilization, only two other men have been the topic of so much literature- Jesus Christ, and (possibly) Napoleon Bonaparte. One could, of course, argue about whether or not he was *the* most influential composer in music history- but the issue that no one since his time has equalled him in influence is very much less subject to dispute.

Wagner's _Magnum Opus_, the Ring Cycle, defies any comparison to any other work in the world of Art music. Its scope is such that it can be mentioned in the same breath as Michaelangelo's painting of the Sistene Chapel and Marcel Proust's multi-volume "Remembrance of Things Past." [Furthermore, the Wagner influence is never far away in the pages of that work.]

There's an obligation to make note of the fact that Wagner is indisputably the most polarizing individual in musical, yea, perhaps all of artistic history. His trail of affairs, broken promises, debts of national dimensions, predjudices, and manipulations of others make it easier for those who "love to hate" him to find a ready target in his conduct. It's an interesting study to recognize that a man whose comportment is so comprehensively reprehensible on so many levels created such profound, eternal, cathartic and life-affirming music. (As Father Lee's book has it: "The Terrible Man and his Truthful Art.")

However, on this his birthday, let us give thought to some of the mutually respectful relationships he cultivated- Berlioz (for a time), Liszt, Bruckner. His treatment of musicians whom he appreciated is something that probably no-one else could so naturally pull off without engendering misunderstanding- exclamations, tears of joy, spontaneous embraces-- virtually all who performed under his direction were, by any standards, fiduciarally undercompensated- and yet there were those who were never happier performing for any other.

So- on this, half-a-decade shy of his BiCentennial, let me pass on my appreciation for the Art of *Richard Wagner*. As Professor Hans Vaget said, the only obstacle to more frequent performance of his Music Dramas is the enlisting of singers equal to the roles. They have fluorished for close to (or more than) a century-a-half, and will doubtless flourish in the centuries beyond, as long as there are Opera Houses and Orchestral Halls.


----------



## Mayerl

Well said!!!!
It's about time that Wagner's alleged failings as a person were put to one side. What should we be remembering about one of the 19th Century's most prominent composers? His promiscuity, his debts, his anti-Semitism. Should any of these detract in any way from the sheer beauty, power and scale of his music; they should not.
I'm afraid that these days more is written about Wagner the man than in appreciation of his work, a trend that has become more fashionable since we have had political correctness thrust upon us. Is any note of Act I of Gotterdammerung less than perfect because Wagner never paid his debts; is the ethereal opening of Rheingold marred by his anti-Semitism? Is Beethoven castigated for his supposed bad temper; do we shun the music of Brahms because he played the piano in a Hamburg brothel? What does it matter? 
The current weight of opinion would appear to be that in order to produce something beautiful the artist must be of unblemished character!
I readily accept that the music of Wagner is not to everyone's taste and has, and always will be wide open to criticism, more so in the last 50 years or so with the increasing number of words written on the subject of his descendants apparent sympathies with Nazi Germany. His music is often criticised for representing German nationalism, but remember it was written at a time when Nationalism was not a dirty word, it was something to be proud of.
The day that I finally consider myself to be perfect, I shall stop listening to Wagner. I say that in the full confidence that I shall never see that day!!!


----------



## World Violist

Well, I think that any other posts in this thread will be quite redundant... but I'll stick my small comment in...

I totally agree that the music should be appreciated far, far more than many people seem to because of the man. Remember, though, that practically all of the German and Austrian music world worshiped him completely (the most notable being Mahler's circle of friends of that time: Gustav, Hugo Wolf, that lot).

That said, though, I must also confess that I have heard very little Wagner... I'd like to find some good recordings of Wagner, but they're so polarized. I thought of saving up to buy Solti's Ring, then I heard that Solti's was alright but that Levine's is better... etc. What is a good INTRODUCTION to the Ring?


----------



## Mayerl

Hi World Violist
Just after my 50th birthday, I decided that the time had come to seriously investigate Wagner. I have never been an Opera fan, at least as far as "Italian" opera goes, but over the years I have been exposed to Wagner in small doses, sufficient to whet my appetite for a more serious commitment.
My starting points, which I can wholeheartedly recommend:
George Szell's recordings of orchestral music from The Ring with the Cleveland Orchestra. These recordings go back as far as the 60's but still receive wide critical acclaim. This is as good a sampler as any and should still be available in Sony's Essential Classics Series.
Deryck Cooke's 2 disc introduction to The Ring, available on Decca, using excerpts from the Solti Ring, is invaluable as an aid to understanding the Leitmotive and "most" of the plots.
Having investigated others, for me there is only one version of The Ring and that is Solti's. I am very much a traditionalist and therefore appreciate Solti's musical pedigree. He learned his craft the hard way from humble repetiteur to become one of the most respected musicians of any day. By contrast I am no fan of Levine, in part I think due to the Bernstein influence and patronage. I find that Levine is good at what he thinks he ought to be good at!!!!
Personal preferences and prejudices to one side, believe me, Wagner is not as inaccesible as some would have you believe, and I have certainly benefitted from the time taken to aquaint myself with his work. 
Go on, try some
David


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

World Violist said:


> I thought of saving up to buy Solti's Ring, then I heard that Solti's was alright but that Levine's is better... etc. What is a good INTRODUCTION to the Ring?


I've previously advocated Solti's Ring here. However, you don't simply have to take my word (or *Mayerl*'s) on this issue:

"[Solti's] _Götterdämmerung_ was for a long time regarded by many as the best recording ever made of anything-" Bryan Magee, in "Aspects of Wagner."

"... for me, the Solti is _The Ring_." J.K. Holman, in "Wagner's Ring- a Listener's Companion & Concordance."

"...still the most clearly recommendable." Gramophone Guide 2005

"...in performance or in vividness of sound, still the most electrifying account of the tetrology on disc." Penguin Guide 2008

Of course, the recently released Keilberth 1955 also has its advocates. Additionally, no-one could be blamed for springing for the irresistible bargain that I mentioned  here. However, one must keep in mind that if a buyer of this set has no text for these Music Dramas, then some funds should be reserved for libretti (or for a replacement cartridge for your printer, after copying out libretti from on-line sources).


----------



## SamGuss

This entire month I have kept my eye out on getting the Ring, but unsure of who performed well, avoided it. This is definately a future purchase though and I am familiar with Solti, so look forward to adding this to the collection one day.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*The Wagner Pentateuch- a personal view*

On a personal note, I'm usually a spirited participant in "favorite" and "countdown" and "list" threads. Heck, I've even started a few of them myself. I also notice that there's a significant number of contributors, often very knowledgeable, who don't narrow their preferences in such a manner.

Having said that, there is a stratum of Wagner Operas that I put on a higher level than the others. They are (in chronological order): *Die Walküre*, *Tristan und Isolde*, *Die Meistersinger*, *Götterdämmerung*, and *Parsifal*. 
_I couldn't imagine separating these works into any kind of ordinal ranking._

Just barely missing this grouping, in my subjective consideration, is *Tannhäuser*, *Das Rheingold*, and *Siegfried*. Separating these three from one another is, to my mind, about equally challenging.

That, of course, leaves _Lohengrin_ and _Flying Dutchman_ a little off the pace. The latter is his earliest "canonical" opera, and the former is the last of his "number operas."

If nothing else, reflecting on this has given me some insight into the feelings of those who can frequently (and honestly) say "I can't pick a favorite!"


----------



## opus67

You may need to prepare for an initiation ceremony soon.  Someone has started like what he's heard of overtures, preludes, etc., and wouldn't mind sampling some more from the _music dramas_.


----------



## ChamberNut

opus67 said:


> You may need to prepare for an initiation ceremony soon.  Someone has started like what he's heard of overtures, preludes, etc., and wouldn't mind sampling some more from the _music dramas_.


Nav, are you talking about me, or you? Or both? 

I'm listening to Die Walkure, Act III right now. Solti/Wiener Philharmoniker (London Records).


----------



## Artemis

For those of us who have been enjoying classical for rather longer than than just a few years, it's very nice to see the thrill that others experience when they discover a new composer, in this case Wagner. Just when one was beginning to think that Beethoven or Mozart or Brahms (or whoever) are unbeatable and that you'll never tire of their music or change allegiance, strange things can happen that change all that and one's attention begins to move off altogether in a different direction. This has happened to me several times in my 20-odd year history of listening to classical music. Initially I certainly found Wagner a difficult composer but then the "penny dropped" and I became quite an ardent fan. The trigger in my case resulted partly from involvement in another classical music forum (several years ago) which happened to contain a lot of Wagnerians, and their enthusiasm was catching. I didn't suddenly develop a taste for any of the full works, but was introduced slowly by listening to the more famous extracts, and built up from there. I soon came to appreciate that Wagner's orchestration is superb.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*The Chi_town/Philly Wagner books recommendations*

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, there are forests worth of paper devoted to Wagner discussion. Of those, I want to single out a few for topmost consideration:

Bryan Magee's _Aspects of Wagner_. A slender volume, highly accessible, and worthy of unqualified recommendation for Wagnerians and non-Wagnerians alike.

_The New Grove Wagner_. Buttressed by very recent scholarship. This book also packs a lot of information in a small package. Again, Wagnerians and non-Wagnerians alike can profit from its perusal.

Now... IF YOU'RE *FAN* ENOUGH...

J. K. Holman's _Ring Concordance_. We're lucky that Holman writes for us at this time. (Even if he shows a little too much deference to Donington for my taste.) If you're serious enough to get "Ring" recordings, you're probably serious enough to consider this tome.

Deryck Cooke's _I Saw the World End_. Cooke brings a formidable array of talents to Wagner analysis- composition ability, musicology, German fluency, erudition in literature. Cooke's only partially completed study of Wagner's "Ring," combined with his 2-disc 'listening guide' to motives of the "Ring," makes him a contender for foremost Wagner commentator of all-time.

Ernest Newman's _The Wagner Operas_. Painstakingly comprehensive, and worth discovering (if you're *fan* enough!), your credentials as a Wagnerian are assured upon absorption of the material here!


----------



## opus67

ChamberNut said:


> Nav, are you talking about me, or you? Or both?


I was referring to the one who hasn't listened to the opera proper yet.


----------



## opus67

Something that's been bugging me: Why are non-vocal parts of Wagner's operas more famous than the arias (if I can call them that)? This is of course from the point of view of someone who is alien to the works as a whole.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

opus67 said:


> Something that's been bugging me: Why are non-vocal parts of Wagner's operas more famous than the arias (if I can call them that)? This is of course from the point of view of someone who is alien to the works as a whole.


What a great "essay question." I do not, however, want to give an "essay answer" (at this time), as I'd find it interesting to see how others view *opus67*'s query.

So... let me make a brief, glib response to this Wagner question (for once). It is the nature of _all_ composers to reserve their finest music for their most important characters- and in the best Wagner operas, the most important character is... *the orchestra*!


----------



## opus67

Thanks for the input, CTP. 



Chi_town/Philly said:


> So... let me make a brief, glib response to this Wagner question (for once). It is the nature of _all_ composers to reserve their finest music for their most important characters- and in the best Wagner operas, the most important character is... *the orchestra*!


Here's a follow-up: Then why did he not create fully orchestral works that stand on par with his operas? (An opera with a single "character," perhaps?  ) If I'm not mistaken, he has a symphony to his credit, but that work is not mentioned as often as his music dramas.


----------



## Artemis

opus67 said:


> Thanks for the input, CTP.
> 
> Here's a follow-up: Then why did he not create fully orchestral works that stand on par with his operas? (An opera with a single "character," perhaps?  ) If I'm not mistaken, he has a symphony to his credit, but that work is not mentioned as often as his music dramas.


After completing Parsifal in 1882, he planned to write some purely orchestral work (including a second symphony) but he never got round to it because he died in early 1883. Unlike Mozart and Schubert who wrote a great deal of music in their last year of life, Wagner wasn't as fast.

His first symphony was written at the age of 19 (in 1832) and is not well known. It wasn't until 1837 that he began to turn out the first of his higher quality work with Rienzi. Flying Dutchman came next in 1843.

In my opinion Wagner's best material doesn't just include the orchestral passages of his music dramas. There are many choral sections which are extremely good too. As I remarked elsewhere, it normally takes more time to appreciate the vocal side of Wagner's music, whereas the orchestral side is almost immediately attractive.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Two-part post, here-


opus67 said:


> Here's a follow-up: Then why did he not create fully orchestral works that stand on par with his operas?


To determine why an artist _didn't_ pursue a particular direction is a topic which, by necessity, involves some speculation. We can, however, rely on Wagner's personal testimony for why he _did_ pursue the the Opera/Music Drama genre. Among the great composers, no one was more voluble than Wagner with regard to explaining _why_ he worked as he did. 
This reality makes me chafe a little bit at the title of a well-circulated book (Decoding Wagner), as there is *nothing* "coded" about his intentions.
It was his goal to pursue the _Gesamkunstwerk_ "fusion-of-the-arts." He spent a life believing that his "Music Drama" formulation was a more comprehensive accomplishment than activity in any single art-form.
Although, picking up on what the goddess said, Wagner did say towards the end of his life "I've composed nothing for the concert-hall." (Well, not entirely nothing- there is the excellent *Faust* Overture, the even better-known _Wesendonck Lieder_...)


Artemis said:


> In my opinion Wagner's best material doesn't just include the orchestral passages of the music dramas. There are many choral sections whch are extremely good too.


I understand your point. Maybe we can pick up the top-most examples a little later. However, if we break conventional opera into its more common multi-voice "set-pieces:" 1) Duet, 2) Trio, 3) "x-" tet... we'll notice that one thing that separates much of Wagner from other opera (music-drama) is that he thought very highly of his word-play, and wanted all of his words to be heard. For a time, he even believed (mistakenly) that his verse was the equal of his music. Consequently, the idea of music-play with overlapping words was alien to the theories of Wagner (even if theory didn't always interface precisely with reality).


----------



## Bach

After the composition of Parsifal, he wanted to turn his attention to instrumental music, but his death got in the way..


----------



## Mendelssohn

Have you ever heard about the curse that follows the name of Christ?The actors that have played Jesus in the movies had a terrible fate waiting them...from economic failure to death (their's or their families')!!!

Do you know the Greek writer Kazantzakis?Having written works connected with Christ "led" him to die from leukemia away from his homeland, and due to these works the Church ruled out his being buried in a cemetery (although the last can be probably taken as an attempt from the Church to protect Herself...)...

Something similar happened and in many occasions connected with music.As I've heard, Mozart's last music production was the vocals and the Cello parts of his Requiem's "Domine Jesu"...Yet still i don't know if it is totally true.Anyway...Mendelssohn died while composing his third oratorio "Christus" from which he had completed only a few parts in the beginning...AND, Wagner, the guy that interests us here, died while intending to write a new opera for the life of Christ, and probably name it "Christ"!!!That all cannot be just coincidence...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Mendelssohn said:


> Wagner, the guy that interests us here, died while intending to write a new opera for the life of Christ, and probably name it "Christ"!!!That all cannot be just coincidence...


Well... there's a pinch of truth here--

One of the more interesting (or, put differently, less repulsive) aspects of the Wagner biography involve the "cul-de-sac" projects that he contemplated, but did not pursue further. To me, the most interesting are the projected opera on Frederick Barbarossa, the plan for the music-drama "Jesus of Nazareth," and the Schopenhauer-Buddhist amalgam "Die Sieger."

A review of the _RWW_ catalog indicates that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a topic of interest to him in 1849. There doesn't appear to be concrete evidence (taking the form of work) of interest in that project after that time. [There may have been 'verbal hints,' but we should be very skeptical of verbal hints with regard to Wagner's intentions. After all, he also 'verbally hinted' that he might be willing to become "Royal Composer" to the Brazilian Emperor, and also 'verbally hinted' that a Festival Theatre might be suitably located on the banks of the Mississippi River.]

The following is pure speculation... but it doesn't take too great a flight of imagination to conclude that some of Wagner's "trailing pennants" of imagination from both "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Die Sieger" were incorporated into *Parsifal*. Parsifal does contain the grail of the Last Supper, a Communion Chorus, and Casca's Spear. So (to distill the essence of MENDELSSOHN's point), Jesus does appear to be very much on Wagner's mind as he was penning his "work of farewell to the world."

The idea that there's some curse-hazard to approaching the topic of Jesus, I think, can more readily be explained be another way of looking at it, chicken-and-egg style. When one approaches the end of one's life, one could well be more receptive to religious topics, with their outlook on afterlife, than one might be at an earlier (and healthier) time.


----------



## nefigah

Wagner's incredible genius for weaving untold numbers of threads into a tapestry of epic proportions never ceases to amaze me. My major (read: sole, so far) focus of his work has been The Ring, as there is something about it that draws me in and makes me ponder things about life. As I study it more deeply, I'm more and more convinced that little or nothing in it--musically or dialog/plot-wise--is accidental. This is amazing considering the scope of the work: you'd think at some point he'd run out of ideas, or simply use some filler or an unrelated melody. But if he has, I haven't found it yet!


----------



## JoeGreen

Mendelssohn said:


> Have you ever heard about the curse that follows the name of Christ?The actors that have played Jesus in the movies had a terrible fate waiting them...from economic failure to death (their's or their families')!!!
> 
> Do you know the Greek writer Kazantzakis?Having written works connected with Christ "led" him to die from leukemia away from his homeland, and due to these works the Church ruled out his being buried in a cemetery (although the last can be probably taken as an attempt from the Church to protect Herself...)...
> 
> Something similar happened and in many occasions connected with music.As I've heard, Mozart's last music production was the vocals and the Cello parts of his Requiem's "Domine Jesu"...Yet still i don't know if it is totally true.Anyway...Mendelssohn died while composing his third oratorio "Christus" from which he had completed only a few parts in the beginning...AND, Wagner, the guy that interests us here, died while intending to write a new opera for the life of Christ, and probably name it "Christ"!!!That all cannot be just coincidence...


bah, just a bunch of baldedash.

But anyway a opera on the subject of Jesus by Wagner would have been very interesting.

and by chance have there been any operas on Jesus by any other composers.


----------



## confuoco

His *Liebestod* (Wagner himslef prefers the name "Verklärung) from T&I is a piece to die for. It has almost halucinatory effect on me. I like much more of his music, but Prelude and Liebestod is from another world and dimension.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Where's a good place to start with Wagner? I've been curious about the Ring series but I heard it was something like 19 hours long and had to take a step back.


----------



## handlebar

I started with the Delos series of Wagner's operas without the words. Hence, music only. A great way to learn about Wagner's orchestration and not be concerned with the operatic part of it. Very highly recommended.

Also, Denon recorded a CD of Wagner symphonies that are an interesting curiosity. No, nothing spellbinding but good nonetheless.

Jim


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

PartisanRanger said:


> Where's a good place to start with Wagner? I've been curious about the Ring series but I heard it was something like 19 hours long and had to take a step back.


I posted this back in a Bruckner thread (!)... but I think it's sufficiently relevant enough to bear repeating here--


Chi_town/Philly said:


> I think that the most common entreé into Wagner is through the bleeding chunks (i.e.: prominent opera excerpts and orchestral passages), followed by progressively greater exposures, until the point in time when one is willing to take on a complete opera.


Also, have a look at the 'similar thread' "Sampling Wagner" found at the bottom of this page.


----------



## nefigah

I'll have to throw in my vote for non-bleeding-chunks... I'd say pick up a DVD of Das Rheingold (and optionally, but recommended, this introduction to the Ring) and go for it!

That is, of course, just "imho"!


----------



## Tapkaara

I'm one of those who enjoys the bleeding chunks. I really hate "best of" albums, but this is about as far as I can go for Wagner. I want SO BADLY to be able to get into his operas, but I just cannot. There is just too much to take in in between the well-known numbers, and the "in between" material fails to keep me at full attention.

Having said all that, Wagner was indeed a musical genius. A master orchestrator, a fine melodist and a true megalomaniac...and that's a good thing. I really wish I could fully come over to his operas...


----------



## PartisanRanger

Thanks for the tips, all.


----------



## World Violist

Well, here I am again at the edge of another go at Wagner's operas... I think that after this concerto competition that I'm competing in is over, I'll be free to explore Wagner some more (I've got a few books and a Ring cycle lined up on my "to get" list right now).


----------



## Il Seraglio

I've finally gotten round to listening to Solti's Ring cycle and am up to Act III of Die Walkure right now. I absolutely love it. The sound of the orchestra is ferocious and gives a real sense of the the Ring's epic scale. Despite the vast cast of characters, the singing is wonderful too.


----------



## Aramis

Today is geburstag von Wagner. Make sure to listen his complete operas today.


----------



## Il Seraglio

British Wagnerians keep your eyes peeled for Stephen Fry on Wagner appearing on BBC4 soon.


----------



## superhorn

Wagner's symphony was written when he was only 19,and there is a freagment of a second.
It's not a bad piece at all, and nothing to be ashamed of. There are several other orchestral works by him such as the Faust overture, and the centennial march he was commissioned to write for the US centennial in 1876,which is considered a piece of hackwork, and a few other pieces. 
There was an EMI recording of the symphony and the fragment with Sawallsich and the Philadelphia orchestra,but it's probably not available, and there was one on Philips with Edo DeWaart and the San Francisco symphony, and an EMI recording of the centennial march and 
other obscure Wagner works with Marek Janowski and the LSO. 
Check arkivmusic.com, which is probably the best place to look for hard to find classical CDs,and which hasa huge selection of music by virtually any composer and performer.
Apparently,Wagner was planning to write more symphonies at the end of his life, but died before he got around to this. Who knows what he might have written? We'll never know.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Il Seraglio said:


> British Wagnerians keep your eyes peeled for Stephen Fry on Wagner appearing on BBC4 soon.


I saw it, worst documentary ever. He went on for far too long about Wagner's associations with Hitler and how long the operas were. His main argument to see a Wagner opera was that you only live once! Come on Fry!

He should have talked more about Wagner's associations with John Williams and the development of the leitmotif. People prefer Star Wars to WWII.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Edward Elgar said:


> I saw it, worst documentary ever. He went on for far too long about Wagner's associations with Hitler and how long the operas were. His main argument to see a Wagner opera was that you only live once! Come on Fry!
> 
> He should have talked more about Wagner's associations with John Williams and the development of the leitmotif. People prefer Star Wars to WWII.


It was okay I thought. Much as I like Stephen Fry, its main problem was that Fry didn't have half the capacity for talking about Wagner's music that he did for talking about himself. I was a little taken aback at how anti-social Eva Wagner was though.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Online listeners may catch the LA Opera's Ring Cycle beginning today:

http://www.kusc.org/Channels/Programs/Story.aspx?ID=1230542


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Edward Elgar said:


> I saw it, worst documentary ever. He went on for far too long about Wagner's associations with Hitler and how long the operas were. His main argument to see a Wagner opera was that you only live once! Come on Fry!


I just watched it on youtube. I have no idea who this Stephen Fry character is, but I actually thought it was entertaining. I saw it as less of a documentary than a discussion of how Wagner is perceived, heard and produced in the 21st century. Of course I didn't go in expecting much in-depth analysis of the music or the man -- these tv shows are always more superficial type things. I mean, I would have rather they not mentioned the "associations" with Hitler at all, as all of that is totally played out and worthless to me. Or reduced an incredibly complex and contradictory figure like Wagner to the obligatory "bad man, sublime music" outlook. But what can you expect? Those issues create intrigue amongst a wider audience, and are mostly what people unfamiliar with much of his music want to discuss.

What I liked about it was Fry's obvious enthusiasm for the subject and the music. It was pretty infectious. When he was talking to that Holocaust survivor about what he gets out of seeing and listening to Wagner, he pretty much described how I feel. I also enjoyed the behind the scenes exploration of Bayreuth and seeing some of the sites he visited, though I would have liked to have seen a bit more of Wahnfried.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Il Seraglio said:


> It was okay I thought. Much as I like Stephen Fry, its main problem was that Fry didn't have half the capacity for talking about Wagner's music that he did for talking about himself. I was a little taken aback at how anti-social Eva Wagner was though.


I think I know who you are talking about, that woman who disagreed with him and walked off leaving a rather awkward atmosphere? She certainly had Wagner's genes!


----------



## tahnak

superhorn said:


> Wagner's symphony was written when he was only 19,and there is a freagment of a second.
> It's not a bad piece at all, and nothing to be ashamed of.
> 
> There's nothing to be ashamed of. It is a beautiful symphony , well written and thematically woven. I fail to understand why the orchestral repertoire of so many conductors does not include this good if not great symphony in C major.
> I have a sparkling edition on LP Analog done by Bamberger Symphonie under Otto Gerdes on DGG.


----------



## tahnak

*Tristan Und Isolde*

I have just finished hearing Simon Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic perform Tristan und Isolde Prelude und Liebestod. the strings were heavenly. The performance was technically good but rushed though. I prefer the Liebestod taken at a leisurely pace.
The best I have heard so far is Charles Munch and the Boston Symphony.


----------



## TWhite

It would be nice if someday the Hitler/Wagner connection just went away so we could enjoy Wagner's music as MUSIC without all of the psychological connections. 

Believe it or not, I had to convince a friend of mine that Hitler and Wagner did NOT know each other, for cryin' out loud, that's how "Urban Legend" so much of this philosophizing has gotten. 

As to Wagner as composer--he just happened to write my second favorite opera, DIE MEISTERSINGER, which is full of so much good, warm, colorful music that a good production of it is an absolute joy to either watch or listen to (or hopefully both). And it's full of good VOCAL music, not just the remarkable orchestration. Great choral sections, a marvelous Monologue for the hero Hans Sachs (a good bass/baritone can tear your heart out during it), a marvelous tenor aria for Walther--the "Prize Song" that is rapturously beautiful, a truly GREAT quintet that I wish could go on for at least ten minutes longer than it does, a really TERRIFIC double-Fugue chorale by Students that turns into an actual Student Riot, and a final scene that just builds and builds and builds. It's his only 'comedy', and as such, shows an extremely human side of the composer. It's an EPIC, warm, good-humored (for the most part) opera and has utterly magnificent music. 

I have no trouble admiring Wagner as a composer at all. I'm still delving into the "Ring", and finding a lot of things that astound me about the work (though I'm having a little trouble with "Siegfried" right now), and "Parsifal" just leaves me limp. 

I'm still a little shy about tackling"Trisitan Und Isolde", though what I've heard of it is pretty darned fascinating (I'm still trying to resolve that damned "Tristan" chord--I think it's impossible,LOL!). I have gotten to where I much prefer my "Liebestod" with a soprano, rather than the pure orchestral version. 

Which brings me to another topic: When we talk about other operatic composers, we usually discuss the singer in the role--example: Kiri Te Kanawa vs. Elisabeth Schwartzkopf either as the Marshallin in "Rosenkavalier" or the Countess in "Marriage of Figaro." You know what I'm getting at--the "Role". 

You still don't hear that very much about Wagner--or at least not as much as other operatic composers. What you hear is: "SOLTI'S Ring" vs. "LEVINE'S Ring," Conductors. Like the actual singers are almost incidental, LOL! You don't hear "Jerusalem's Walther vs. Domingo's Walther", you hear about the Conductor. Does Bernie Wickel do a better Hans Sachs than Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau? Who's the best Eva you ever heard? Who's the best Isolde? Hell, who's the best Parsifal? 

It's usually "Von Karajan's (insert your favorite Wagner opera) is too fast." "Bohm's (insert your favorite Wagner opera) is too light textured" "Solti's (again, insert) is too frantic." Of course, there's always the old joke about a member of the Wagner family not wanting Solti to conduct at Bayreuth: "All Solti conducts is ORGASMS!" And Solti's retort: "I thought that's all that Wagner is SUPPOSED to be!" Urban Legend, I'm sure. 

But honestly, people, Wagner also writes for SINGERS. We should really start paying attention to that little detail, at least IMO. 

But I like him a lot. As I said, he's responsible for my Second Favorite Opera.

Tom


----------



## Aramis

TWhite said:


> You still don't hear that very much about Wagner--or at least not as much as other operatic composers. What you hear is: "SOLTI'S Ring" vs. "LEVINE'S Ring," Conductors. Like the actual singers are almost incidental, LOL! You don't hear "Jerusalem's Walther vs. Domingo's Walther", you hear about the Conductor. Does Bernie Wickel do a better Hans Sachs than Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau? Who's the best Eva you ever heard? Who's the best Isolde? Hell, who's the best Parsifal?
> 
> It's usually "Von Karajan's (insert your favorite Wagner opera) is too fast." "Bohm's (insert your favorite Wagner opera) is too light textured" "Solti's (again, insert) is too frantic." Of course, there's always the old joke about a member of the Wagner family not wanting Solti to conduct at Bayreuth: "All Solti conducts is ORGASMS!" And Solti's retort: "I thought that's all that Wagner is SUPPOSED to be!" Urban Legend, I'm sure.
> 
> But honestly, people, Wagner also writes for SINGERS. We should really start paying attention to that little detail, at least IMO.


That's because people rarely talk about anything else than _Der Ring_ and great conductors usually record the whole cycles. So when one says "Levine's Ring" or "Karajan's Ring" he means the whole cycle with all the cast (which is completed by conductor) and even staging, not the conducting style only.


----------



## TWhite

Aramis said:


> That's because people rarely talk about anything else than _Der Ring_ and great conductors usually record the whole cycles. So when one says "Levine's Ring" or "Karajan's Ring" he means the whole cycle with all the cast (which is completed by conductor) and even staging, not the conducting style only.


Aramis:

Point well taken. I have the first two operas in the "Solti" Ring Cycle, which I think is magnificently conducted, but what I really love about it are the great Wagnerian singers (a few that I believe came out of retirement for the project) involved.

But you're definitely right--when it comes to Wagner, a great many music lovers zero in on the Ring Cycle because it is TOTAL Music Drama--with every aspect on an even footing.

Just this morning I was reading a review of San Francisco Opera's "Valkyrie" (San Francisco is doing the complete cycle this year), and I had to get to the end of the review to find out who was singing the major roles. The majority of the review was about the conductor, sets, orchestra, lighting and two German Shepherds in the cast, LOL! Evidently the staging is a kinda/sorta Contemporary Mafia affair. I remember one televised Ring some years back that was set in England during the Industrial Revolution. Oh well--

Tom


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

TWhite said:


> It would be nice if someday the Hitler/Wagner connection just went away so we could enjoy Wagner's music as MUSIC without all of the psychological connections.
> 
> Believe it or not, I had to convince a friend of mine that Hitler and Wagner did NOT know each other, for cryin' out loud, that's how "Urban Legend" so much of this philosophizing has gotten.


Shamefully I avoided his music for so long, largely because of the popular conception of his music as being bombastic and brassy, while being emotionally crude and giving expression to a simple-minded German nationalism. Of course this is reinforced by the fact that more people hear about Wagner than the actual music itself (giving birth to these urban legends), and what is commonly heard by listeners are just the most climactic orchestral passages like "Ride of the Valkyries". But as I dove into his work I discovered these oft-repeated generalizations and exaggerations don't even begin to grasp the complexity of the man or the music. I'm taken into worlds of heightened emotion, psychological depth and immense beauty. And it's a shame that most only experience Wagner in bite sized chunks, because they miss out on probably the greatest cohesion between drama and music in history. He seems able to squeeze music out of the drama itself. As great as some of those individual chunks are, they send chills up and down my spine when placed in their proper context.



> As to Wagner as composer--he just happened to write my second favorite opera, DIE MEISTERSINGER, which is full of so much good, warm, colorful music that a good production of it is an absolute joy to either watch or listen to (or hopefully both). And it's full of good VOCAL music, not just the remarkable orchestration. Great choral sections, a marvelous Monologue for the hero Hans Sachs (a good bass/baritone can tear your heart out during it), a marvelous tenor aria for Walther--the "Prize Song" that is rapturously beautiful, a truly GREAT quintet that I wish could go on for at least ten minutes longer than it does, a really TERRIFIC double-Fugue chorale by Students that turns into an actual Student Riot, and a final scene that just builds and builds and builds. It's his only 'comedy', and as such, shows an extremely human side of the composer. It's an EPIC, warm, good-humored (for the most part) opera and has utterly magnificent music.


I agree with you, it's my personal favorite work of Wagner's as well. In fact I would call it my favorite opera from any composer, and one of my favorite musical works, period. Every passage, theme, melody and song is inspired stuff; the drama is filled with subtle humor, warm humanity and Schopenhauerian ethics; the connections that it draws between life and art are superb and moving.


----------



## wolf

tahnak said:


> I have just finished hearing Simon Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic perform Tristan und Isolde Prelude und Liebestod. the strings were heavenly. The performance was technically good but rushed though. I prefer the Liebestod taken at a leisurely pace...


You can thank your lucky stars that you didn't hear Wagners own conducting then! Listen to Melchior/Flagstad from the 30's. Fast as anything, and that goes for most versions then. Knappertbusch was supposed to be very slow, imagine anyone thinking that today!Nowadays all classical music almost stand still.


----------



## ozradio

TWhite said:


> and "Parsifal" just leaves me limp.


It's not just me, then. I haven't listened to his first three operas yet but all the others I thoroughly enjoyed except Parsifal. This one was painful for me, it just dragged on and on.


----------



## mamascarlatti

ozradio said:


> It's not just me, then. ... but all the others I thoroughly enjoyed except Parsifal. This one was painful for me, it just dragged on and on.


Ditto for me. Managed half an act. Could be partly the subject matter in my case though.


----------



## TWhite

ozradio said:


> It's not just me, then. I haven't listened to his first three operas yet but all the others I thoroughly enjoyed except Parsifal. This one was painful for me, it just dragged on and on.


Actually, when I said "leaves me limp" I meant from admiration, not exhaustion.

Tom


----------



## Il Seraglio

ozradio said:


> It's not just me, then. I haven't listened to his first three operas yet but all the others I thoroughly enjoyed except Parsifal. This one was painful for me, it just dragged on and on.


Definitely not my favourite Wagner opera. The chaste moralising of it is very un-Wagner and unromantic to me. There are moments of it that showcase Wagner at his best though musically.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Il Seraglio said:


> Definitely not my favourite Wagner opera. The chaste moralising of it is very un-Wagner and unromantic to me.


Interesting. It's not my absolute favorite either, but I consider it to be just the opposite --the ultimate Wagnerian work. Not only does it explore a lot of the same themes and ideas as his other mature music dramas more explicitly, in many ways I see it as kind of a summation and ultimate last expression of what he had become convinced over many years were the ultimately important truths about the ultimately important questions. Which I think may be why he intended it to be his final opera.


----------



## angusdegraosta

Artemis said:


> In my opinion Wagner's best material doesn't just include the orchestral passages of his music dramas. There are many choral sections which are extremely good too. As I remarked elsewhere, it normally takes more time to appreciate the vocal side of Wagner's music, whereas the orchestral side is almost immediately attractive.


Die Meistersinger is packed with rhyme and happy lyricism, a welcome rarity in Wagner's work. There's a great place to appreciate the vocal side of Wagner. I really like Kubelik's recording, with the awesome Gundula Janowitz; I've also heard Solti's Vienna recording, which I thought was great.

The overture to Parsifal fills me with awe. It sets the scene for all the motifs that pop up throughout the work. 
The Grail Scene with the big bell theme from Parsifal is another great rarity. The plot of the drama seems ridiculous, but there is plenty of detail worth literary/philosophical study.


----------



## Anselm

Wagner makes me sick, in the most gloriously positive way. Approximately once every 15 minutes on average in the Ring and Tristan especially, it's like a giant fist is grabbing my intestines and squeezing. It's quite involuntary, and it's overwhelming. One example of the dozens of such moments is when Hagen roars out his greeting to Siegfried at the very beginning of Gotterdammerung Act I scene 2, to the curse theme almost definitely loud on brass instruments. That tight feeling is in the pit of my stomach, even as I want to scream at Siegfried: "You moron? Can't you hear - that guy wants to KILL YOU!!!!!" But alas, Siegfried can't hear the orchestra.

His music is transcendental. When Mozart or Handel or whoever writes _about_ anger, or sorrow, or joy or whatever, they're writing music about anger or sorrow or joy. Wagner seems to burst the boundaries between the music and the emotion itself. Isolde's drooping phrase, repeated several times during her lament on Tristan's death, seems to me to be the very essence of heart-breaking, indeed transcendent (there's that word again) grief, so that I lose consciousness of the music itself in something larger. It's difficult to explain any more.

But is it permitted to have a favourite composer who one freely admits is not the greatest? Wagner affects me the most deeply, but I bow the knee before the one who that composer called "the most stupendous miracle in all of music" - J.S. Bach. Is it a mere coincidence that his name is the only one of the great composers all of whose letters are musical? (B flat - A - C - B natural in German spelling)?


----------



## the_emptier

I agree, i'm listening to tristan und isolde right now for a second time and it's outstanding.


----------



## Couchie

Stranded on a desert island I'd rather have the complete works of Bach, Beethoven and Wagner over the collective sum of everything else ever written; I don't think I could live without the work of these 3 Germans.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I agree, currently i am completely enraptured in T&I again. Every segment has such dramatic and emotional punch yet put everything together and it is that much more powerful. Only a genius like wagner could create a four hour work of such unity and immense dramatic continuity.


----------



## the_emptier

yeah, it took me forever to listen to it, but i loved how sparse orchestrated it was until the last act. which was amazing. great stuff, also watching an old production of lohengrin and it is freaking genius


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I can't believe nobody has wished the Master a happy birthday today! Here May 22th is already over, but nevertheless, happy birthday and have a great night of feasting in Valhalla!


----------



## Roberto

True - he will certainly be in Valhalla and not in Heaven with Bach and Mozart!


----------



## emiellucifuge

I think Parsifal is probably his best work. It most succesfully merges the drama and music, they are really inseparable, but the music on its own is just divine - his best imo. The story is fantastic when seen with good direction, and there are so many great mysteries and truths hidden in the symbolism waiting to be discovered. A real philosophical art work which can change the way you see the world.

When Mahler saw it, he wrote; "I can hardly describe my present state to you. When I came out of the Festspielhaus, completely spellbound, I understood that the greatest and most painful revelation had just been made to me, and that I would carry it unspoiled for the rest of my life."

Moralising? Yes, I suppose. He he is aiming to teach you what is good and bad and how to live your life, in accordance with Schopenhauer's principles. But this is hardly a criticism, and in any case, all his mature works are lessons in philosophy, though perhaps less explicitly.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I like Tristan und Isolde. 

^That is an understatement.


----------



## Hesoos

I like much more the arias from Wagner than the plain orchestral music! 
For exemple, these arias are much beautifuls than for exemple The ride of the valkyries, Lohengrin prelude to act III, or tannhauser overture:

Allmächt'ger Vater (Rienzi's Prayer)
Senta's ballad (Der Fliegende Hollander) 
In fernem land (Lohengrin)
Mild und liese (Tristan und Isolde)
Winterstürme wichen dem Wonnemond (Die Walküre)


----------



## Couchie

emiellucifuge said:


> When Mahler saw it, he wrote; "I can hardly describe my present state to you. When I came out of the Festspielhaus, completely spellbound, I understood that the greatest and most painful revelation had just been made to me, and that I would carry it unspoiled for the rest of my life."


People can say whatever they want about Wagner but god-damn he knew how to end an opera... we have the Liebestod, Prieslied, Brunnhilde's Immolation Scene... but I would say that the ending to _Parsifal _is his most paralyzing.


----------



## Couchie

Hesoos said:


> I like much more the arias from Wagner than the plain orchestral music!
> For exemple, these arias are much beautifuls than for exemple The ride of the valkyries, Lohengrin prelude to act III, or tannhauser overture:
> 
> Allmächt'ger Vater (Rienzi's Prayer)
> Senta's ballad (Der Fliegende Hollander)
> In fernem land (Lohengrin)
> Mild und liese (Tristan und Isolde)
> Winterstürme wichen dem Wonnemond (Die Walküre)


What about:

- Prelude to Tristan und Isolde
- Parsifal Act 1 interlude
- Siegfried's Rhine Journey


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Couchie said:


> What about:
> 
> - Prelude to Tristan und Isolde
> - Parsifal Act 1 interlude
> - Siegfried's Rhine Journey


Tannhauser prelude and venusburg music perhaps?


----------



## Arsakes

I have only listened to three Wagner Operas and liked two of them: Tristan and Isolde, Der fliegende Holländer ... yet to listen to Meistersinger and The Ring.
Fortunately I know some elementary German, so I can understand simple vocal German works. But to understand the Operas I need the lyric, or I don't even understand 10 words from a whole opera!

Besides the Wagner Operas and their major content, I like his Overtures and Marches more than other most of the famous composers.
like:
- Meistersinger's prelude
- Polonia Overture
- American Centennial March
- Kaisermarsch
- 2 Götterdammerung preludes (Dawn and Siegfried's Rhine journey - Siegfried's funeral march) 
- Die Walkure's famous prelude
- Das RheinGold's
- Prelude and 'Liebestod' from Tristan and Isolde
- Lohengrin's Prelude
- Der fliegende Holländer prelude


----------



## brianwalker

Arsakes said:


> - American Centennial March


Really? You like the American Centennial March?


----------



## Arsakes

brianwalker said:


> Really? You like the American Centennial March?


I love it. 
Lots of trombone, trumpets and drums and and it's epic (also it looks like one of the Vivaldi's Overtures). What else do I need?

*is a fan of marches*


----------



## Hesoos

The Wagner's orchestral music is wonderful, I like specialy the prelude to Lohengrin, Parsifals' overture, Siegfried's prelude to act III, the Siegfried's funeral and the Brunhilde's immolation....

But Wagner's arias are much better for me. Wagner was a great poet for me!!

Maybe someone disagree with this video because is in italian, but when I listen to the violins I'm so pleased but when the sing starts and I listen to the words and I can understand (I can understand italian, Wagners is available in catalan language too that is my own language), I feel like I am hypnotised and I believe that Lohengrin and Parsifal exists, but when the song finishes I awake from the dream. When I watch a Wagner's DVD of course it's to be in german and I read the subtitles.


----------



## Hesoos

I need to learn german... but it's too difficult...  maybe in the future


----------



## science

to be merged into this one: http://www.talkclassical.com/19827-wagner-israel.html


----------



## Hesoos

Wagner is a real magician


----------



## Couchie

Couchie said:


> Stranded on a desert island I'd rather have the complete works of Bach, Beethoven and Wagner over the collective sum of everything else ever written; I don't think I could live without the work of these 3 Germans.


Apparently back in the day I was partial to Bach and Beethoven.

Those hacks.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

This is to tell the record companies that HarpsichordConcerto has listened to all but two of Wagner's operas because these two operas lack DVD/Blu-ray releases; namely, _Die Feen_ and _Das Liebesverbot_. So can someone stage and have these competently released on DVD/Blu-ray (preferably Blu-ray)? The rest I have. Snap to it!


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Couchie said:


> Stranded on a desert island I'd rather have the complete works of Bach, Beethoven and Wagner over the collective sum of everything else ever written; I don't think I could live without the work of these 3 Germans.


Ah, but just for added torture, what if you could only pick one?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I am addicted to _Tristan und Isolde._ :tiphat:


----------



## MaestroViolinist

I agree about Bach, he is one of the best composers on Earth! And I've been wondering, is it true he wrote stories from the bible into his music? I've been wondering about this for a long, long time, and I couldn't find anywhere on the internet about this.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

MaestroViolinist said:


> I agree about Bach, he is one of the best composers on Earth! And I've been wondering, is it true he wrote stories from the bible into his music? I've been wondering about this for a long, long time, and I couldn't find anywhere on the internet about this.


Uhhh yeah. Haven't you heard any of his cantatas? St. John Passion or St. Matthew Passion?


----------



## MaestroViolinist

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Uhhh yeah. Haven't you heard any of his cantatas? St. John Passion or St. Matthew Passion?


Apparently not. I must be seriously deprived in his music...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

MaestroViolinist said:


> Apparently not. I must be seriously deprived in his music...


You are seriously deprived in his music. ut:


----------



## Hesoos

I am addicted to Siegfried's leitmotif


----------



## tahnak

Hesoos said:


> I am addicted to Siegfried's leitmotif
> 
> It is a leitmotif worth being addicted to. Solti and Wiener have brought the juice out of the Siegfried horn as no other combination has!


----------



## emiellucifuge

My favourite appearance of that motif!






What's yours?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


>


Loge, of course.


----------



## Couchie

Favourite Siegfried leitmotif:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Loge's motifs are waaay better than Siegfried's.


----------



## Lenfer

emiellucifuge said:


> My favourite appearance of that motif!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's yours?


Urgh!


----------



## emiellucifuge

????????????


----------



## powerbooks

Do we need two threads for Richard Wagner? 

Maybe one for hater, the other for lover? :lol:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

the_emptier said:


> I agree, i'm listening to tristan und isolde right now for a second time and it's outstanding.


Just two times?

Martin


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Just two times?
> 
> Martin


I have listened to it every day for the past few weeks. Except for one time where I felt like I was on cocaine so I listened to Le Grand Macabre. :lol:


----------



## Couchie

powerbooks said:


> Do we need two threads for Richard Wagner?
> 
> Maybe one for hater, the other for lover? :lol:


We need 6,317 thread for Wagner.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Couchie said:


> We need 6,317 thread for Wagner.


We need new subforum for Wagner.


----------



## Couchie

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> We need new subforum for Wagner.


We need 6,317 subforums for Wagner.


----------



## powerbooks

Couchie said:


> We need 6,317 subforums for Wagner.


I read somewhere (forgot the sources so don't quote) couple years ago, that Richard Wagner is the topic of the most written and published books about a composer, well above all the other famous ones.....


----------



## Couchie

powerbooks said:


> I read somewhere (forgot the sources so don't quote) couple years ago, that Richard Wagner is the topic of the most written and published books about a composer, well above all the other famous ones.....


The quote is "More books have been written on Richard Wagner than anyone except Jesus and Napoleon."


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Couchie said:


> The quote is "More books have been written on Richard Wagner than anyone except Jesus and Napoleon."


Who's Jesus and Napoleon?


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm not real big on opera, so my way in to Wagner was through these non-vocal versions:


----------



## Couchie

LMAO at those album covers. My instrumental Tristan must be the newer version:










I guess the naked obese woman with a heart head didn't sell so well.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The naked obese woman looks good to me.....


----------



## Sonata

I had a very hard time getting into Wagner at first. I found the singing to be very grating. I know to really appreciate him you should really watch the full operas--I acknowledge what he's done for musical drama--but I just cannot carve out the time required to put in. But enough people rave about him here that I figured there had to be SOMETHING I was missing.

So I have recently tried out several of the orchestra-only versions of his work. And I can definitely see he had something special. I DO wish he had churned out a later symphony or two. Eventually I may try to get more immersed in his work. But for now, I'll enjoy him the "bleeding chunks" way as some people word it.

I think this album is great, a very nice synthesis with continuous flow from one track to the next:


----------



## powerbooks

How about a question:

Which opera is the best to introduce someone to Wagner's music?

While I love Tristan und Isolde, and Die Meistersinger, I think Tannhäuser might be better suited for a beginner of Wagner's music, followed by Lohengrin.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

powerbooks said:


> How about a question:
> 
> Which opera is the best to introduce someone to Wagner's music?
> 
> While I love Tristan und Isolde, and Die Meistersinger, I think Tannhäuser might be better suited for a beginner of Wagner's music, followed by Lohengrin.


I introduced one of my friends to Wagner with Das Rheingold. Fast paced, good storyline, brilliant characters and amazing music.


----------



## powerbooks

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I introduced one of my friends to Wagner with Das Rheingold. Fast paced, good storyline, brilliant characters and amazing music.


The reason I think Tannhäuser will do good is because (1) simple story line with love and jealousy, (2) similar to traditional opera, (3) has arias to focus and enjoy, (4) grand chorus scene, and of course, (5) beautiful music!


----------



## drpraetorus

I would go with Flying Dutchman as an intro to Wagner. Tannhauser is a bit long. But as important as what to listen to is how to listen. For Wagner to have the proper effect, the listener must let the music flow through the heart and sole. Surrender to the music, do not fight it. Become the music. I feel that people who do not like Wagner are unwilling to give themselves totally to the music.


----------



## oogabooha

Is anyone else watching the Met's recent Ring Cycle on PBS as it airs every night? Die Walküre is on right now and after being amazed by Das Rheingold last night, I'm content with this. Some characters seem flat, but the production and scenery is some of the best I've ever seen.


----------



## Morgante

Today, i have heard DAS RHEINGOLD for the first time.
Wagner is fantastic!

This inspired me a drawing:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Morgante said:


> Today, i have heard DAS RHEINGOLD for the first time.
> Wagner is fantastic!


Welcome to the circle of the selected few, initiated into the mysteries of the Master's genius!


----------



## Morgante

Tomorrow i will listen Die Walkure.

What do you think of wagner sung in Italian?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Morgante said:


> Tomorrow i will listen Die Walkure.


Enjoy! It only keeps getting better!



Morgante said:


> What do you think of wagner sung in Italian?


Nothing good. Italian may be a very musical language, but Teutonic heroes singing in Italian sound more comical than dramatic, as intended. In my opinion Wagner should be sung exclusively in his native language.


----------



## brianwalker

Chi_townPhilly said:


> On a personal note, I'm usually a spirited participant in "favorite" and "countdown" and "list" threads. Heck, I've even started a few of them myself. I also notice that there's a significant number of contributors, often very knowledgeable, who don't narrow their preferences in such a manner.
> 
> Having said that, there is a stratum of Wagner Operas that I put on a higher level than the others. They are (in chronological order): *Die Walküre*, *Tristan und Isolde*, *Die Meistersinger*, *Götterdämmerung*, and *Parsifal*.
> _I couldn't imagine separating these works into any kind of ordinal ranking._
> 
> Just barely missing this grouping, in my subjective consideration, is *Tannhäuser*, *Das Rheingold*, and *Siegfried*. Separating these three from one another is, to my mind, about equally challenging.
> 
> That, of course, leaves _Lohengrin_ and _Flying Dutchman_ a little off the pace. The latter is his earliest "canonical" opera, and the former is the last of his "number operas."
> 
> If nothing else, reflecting on this has given me some insight into the feelings of those who can frequently (and honestly) say "I can't pick a favorite!"


This mirrors my judgment. I have a habit for ordinal ranking but all hitherto attempts have failed because for the five in the first strata they switch their positions depending on the order in which I last listened to them and the conducting and overall performance quality of the last performance listened to e.g. my evaluation of Gotterdammerung changed dramatically after digesting the 1951 Knappertsbusch and my evaluation of Act I of Tristan shifted considerably when I finally got to the somewhat neglected studio Carlos Kleiber recording. The more I listen, the murkier the already vague ordinal values I assign to the pieces become. This is true for many pieces I love but especially for Wagner because the plethora of variables in any performance means that most, I daresay all, recordings will have flaws varying from significant to fatal and will invariably distort your evaluation of the relative Platonic "value" of the work itself.

In her memoir Birgit Nilsson said that musicians who rehearsed Gotterdammerung were frustrated by the piece because of the difficulty of piecing it together as a coherent whole and called Knappertsbusch a "sorcerer". He's also esteemed as the cutter of the "Gordian Knot" that is Gotterdammerung. If Knappertsbusch had left a stereo recording of Tristan und Isolde or Meistersinger or Lohengrin who knows what my rankings would look like.

An even more fruitful (in terms of change) speculation is what my rankings look like if I were exposed to a very small selection of bad recordings of the works. If my only knowledge of Leb wohl was Bohm's butchered version on his live Philips Ring Cycle how would I rank Die Walkure? Some people say that minutiae like a certain instrument missing an entry will "ruin" a performance for them. I want to ask someone like that their opinion of Bohm's Walkure.


----------



## Lunasong

Long lost photo of Richard Wagner found.








The Bayreuther Wagner-Museum has announced that a photo of Wagner - once thought long lost - has finally been found and bought by themselves for 900 euros.

In the early hours of Friday, Dr. Sven Friedrich, director of the Richard Wagner Museum in Bayreuth, purchased, from an online auction, a previously almost unknown photograph of Richard Wagner for the National Archive of the Richard Wagner Foundation.

The photo is from a private owner in the U.S. and shows Wagner sitting as a full figure. "That in itself is a rareity," says museum director Friedrich, "because all the other studio photographs Wagner are either half-figures, busts or portraits. Moreover, it is one of the earliest photographic images Wagner found. It was probably taken in 1861 by Louis Buchheister in Paris".

Taken as part of the "promotional material" (there is nothing new in marketing) for the Paris Tannhauser, it is the only photograph of Wagner to show him without his usual facial hair.

The tip-off that photograph would be auctioned came from the Munich collector Gunther Braam, who is planning a book on Wagner in photography.
http://www.the-wagnerian.com/2013/01/long-lost-photo-of-richard-wagner-found.html


----------



## Scopitone

Listening to the *Tannhauser Overture *earlier today. I have never seen the opera, nor have I listened to the whole thing opera on tape. (the only Wagner opera I have _seen _live is _Rheingold_ - which was wonderful).

Every time I listen to this piece, I feel like my soul is lifted. CS Lewis talks about his encounter with Wagner and Norse mythology - he says it caused him an experience of JOY. The amount I know about Norse mythology can be contained in Thor comic.

But the music? I understand what Lewis meant.


----------



## Pugg

Scopitone said:


> Listening to the *Tannhäuser Overture *earlier today. I have never seen the opera, nor have I listened to the whole thing opera on tape. (the only Wagner opera I have _seen _live is _Rheingold_ - which was wonderful).
> 
> Every time I listen to this piece, I feel like my soul is lifted. CS Lewis talks about his encounter with Wagner and Norse mythology - he says it caused him an experience of JOY. The amount I know about Norse mythology can be contained in Thor comic.
> 
> But the music? I understand what Lewis meant.


Do try the whole Tannhäuser, such beautiful music.


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> Do try the whole Tannhäuser, such beautiful music.


But hear the Paris version with the bacchanale and the gorgeous post-Tristan music for Venus. The original opening scene was weak and dull.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> But hear the Paris version with the bacchanale and the gorgeous post-Tristan music for Venus. The original opening scene was weak and dull.


Agreed. Suggested recordings: Solti or Sinopoli. They're both brilliant, and you can't really go wrong with either.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Pugg said:


> Do try the whole Tannhäuser, such beautiful music.


Yes! Both of the preludes, the Pilgrims' Chorus, "O du mein holder Abendstern", the finale... and pretty much everything in between.


----------



## Barbebleu

Starting on 30 July Sky arts is broadcasting the Ring Cycle from Bayreuth. I think it's this years festival but details are sketchy. It was a twenty second ad at the end of another programme.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Barbebleu said:


> Starting on 30 July Sky arts is broadcasting the Ring Cycle from Bayreuth.


Frank Castorf's _Ring_ is an "interesting" production. _Regie_-phobic people might want to take a sedative before watching it


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> Starting on 30 July Sky arts is broadcasting the Ring Cycle from Bayreuth. I think it's this years festival but details are sketchy. It was a twenty second ad at the end of another programme.


Thankfully I do not subscribe and shall not be insulting my intelligence with Casrorf's nonsensical production.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

DavidA said:


> Thankfully I do not subscribe and shall not be insulting my intelligence with Casrorf's nonsensical production.


Aurally, it's fine. The cast is excellent and, whereas we don't have Petrenko in the pit, Marek Janowski is a seasoned enough Wagner interpreter to steer the orchestra well. I hope so, at least; I'll be there for _Götterdämmerung_ in three weeks' time.


----------



## Scopitone

Anyone had experience with this book? The reviews are strong, but it's a pricey hardcover. Thought I would ask before committing to it.

*Richard Wagner: A Life in Music by Martin Geck*
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226924610/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1H5Y06T4SWV9M​
The Kindle version is cheap, and I might be better off. But it seems like a nice book to have on the shelf.


----------



## Mahlerian

Scopitone said:


> Anyone had experience with this book? The reviews are strong, but it's a pricey hardcover. Thought I would ask before committing to it.
> 
> *Richard Wagner: A Life in Music by Martin Geck*
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226924610/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1H5Y06T4SWV9M​
> The Kindle version is cheap, and I might be better off. But it seems like a nice book to have on the shelf.


I read it. It's not especially in-depth, and I preferred Geck's book on Bach, but a nice read all the same.


----------



## Scopitone

Mahlerian said:


> I read it. It's not especially in-depth, and I preferred Geck's book on Bach, but a nice read all the same.


Educational for a relative noob, I suspect.


----------



## Woodduck

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Frank Castorf's _Ring_ is an "interesting" production. _Regie_-phobic people might want to take a sedative before watching it


The next-to-last thing I'd want said of my artistic creations is that they're "interesting." The last thing, of course, is "uninteresting."


----------



## DavidA

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Aurally, it's fine. The cast is excellent and, whereas we don't have Petrenko in the pit, Marek Janowski is a seasoned enough Wagner interpreter to steer the orchestra well. I hope so, at least; I'll be there for _Götterdämmerung_ in three weeks' time.


Good. But the problem is one is expected to watch the nonsense being performed on stage.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

DavidA said:


> the problem is one is expected to watch the nonsense being performed on stage.


I agree, although after my initial bafflement/anger at the beginning of Castorf's _Rheingold_, I got used to it. It's actually a very handsome impressive spectacle, even if the action on stage often has little or nothing to do with the _Ring_ I know and love.

So far, I've only truly disliked one part of this production, and that was an unforgivably boring _Walküre_ Act II. In it, Wotan and Brünnhilde were so dramatically and physically detached from one another that they may as well have stayed off-stage throughout. This was a shame, in that the first and final acts were in all respects wonderful and, amazingly for Castorf, surprisingly "faithful" to the plot.


----------



## Scopitone

Watching Stephen Fry "Wagner and Me". The segment on the Tristan Chord...

Tears streaming. Such sublime beauty.


----------



## DavidA

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I agree, although after my initial bafflement/anger at the beginning of Castorf's _Rheingold_, I got used to it. It's actually a very handsome impressive spectacle, *even if the action on stage often has little or nothing to do with the Ring I know and love. *
> 
> So far, I've only truly disliked one part of this production, and that was an unforgivably boring _Walküre_ Act II. In it, Wotan and Brünnhilde were so dramatically and physically detached from one another that they may as well have stayed off-stage throughout. This was a shame, in that the first and final acts were in all respects wonderful and, amazingly for Castorf, surprisingly "faithful" to the plot.


Afraid I can't take things like that. If I see an opera I want it to be the composer's concept, not a half baked guy's 'interpretation'!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

DavidA said:


> Afraid I can't take things like that. If I see an opera I want it to be the composer's concept, not a half baked guy's 'interpretation'!


So would I, in an ideal world. But it rarely is!


----------



## Scopitone

Watching a production of Tannhäuser on YouTube. No English subs, and I have never seen the opera before.

But I am reading the detailed plot summary on Wikipedia as I go. Armed with that knowledge, I can follow the music and stage action well enough. 

This production has very simple sets and is set in modern times. T is a painter instead of poet, and Venus was completely naked for the first 20 minutes. I think it's from Barcelona.


----------



## Ginger

Scopitone said:


> Watching a production of Tannhäuser on YouTube. No English subs, and I have never seen the opera before.
> 
> But I am reading the detailed plot summary on Wikipedia as I go. Armed with that knowledge, I can follow the music and stage action well enough.
> 
> This production has very simple sets and is set in modern times. T is a painter instead of poet, and Venus was completely naked for the first 20 minutes. I think it's from Barcelona.


Pretty tough without subtitles  Do you like it? Tannhäuser is one of my favourite Wagner operas. I once saw the recent production from Bayreuth, which is set in a kind of digester/ gas factory. It´s weird but not bad. The emergence and production of gas and alcohol and it´s recirculation should symbolise the life cycle.


----------



## Barbebleu

Scopitone said:


> Watching Stephen Fry "Wagner and Me". The segment on the Tristan Chord...
> 
> Tears streaming. Such sublime beauty.


Stephen Fry tends to have me in tears for entirely different reasons! Usually of rage!


----------



## Janspe

I'm glad to announce that I have *finally* listened to the entire _Ring_ - and what a ride it was! _Parsifal_ remains my favourite of his operas, but hearing this monumental work in its entirety felt important nevertheless. Can't wait to see the production in Helsinki, starting with _Das Rheingold_ in 2019...


----------



## Logos

Barbebleu said:


> Stephen Fry tends to have me in tears for entirely different reasons! Usually of rage!


----------



## Logos

Couchie said:


> The quote is "More books have been written on Richard Wagner than anyone except Jesus and Napoleon."


I bet there are vastly more books about Lincoln alone than all composers combined. I've heard several variations of that quote. "More books have been written about X than anyone except Y and Z." The names are always different.


----------



## Blancrocher

"Regrettably, there is no evidence to back up the claim that Wagner slept with Ludwig II."

http://www.therestisnoise.com/2017/11/wagner-1989.html


----------



## DeepR

Liebestod: I've barely listened to Wagner, but I don't need to in order to know that this piece is a pinnacle moment in all of music.


----------



## JamieHoldham

I just want to post here and to let Wagner know, if there is a afterlife or if in the almost impossibilty that he is still there beyond death and can see this or know my thoughts - I just want to say thank you for giving me experiences and feeling something from your music that I never knew even existed... and also for accelerating my love for composing, especially Operas... and inspiring me to write my own Librettos, as well and in general reading more on philosphy, and historic legends.

Without Wagner, my life would be nothing, my existence meaningless.

I am a Atheist, but Wagner's my God, and I wish I could meet him, hopefully one day when I pass on from this world.

Soon.


----------



## JamieHoldham

On the suggestion of members of the forum I am sharing again Wagner's Oper's in full, in parts, and his other works through Youtube links with the full score here for pleasure and or studying - which is my main reasons, not that the music isn't worth listening and not studying, haha.

Der Ring des Nibelungen, Das Rhinegold:





Die Walkure:





Siegfried:


----------



## JamieHoldham

Tannhauser Overture and Venusberg music from Paris Edition:


----------



## JamieHoldham

Siegfried Idyll:


----------



## JamieHoldham

Lohengrin:


----------



## JamieHoldham

Rienzi Overture:


----------



## JamieHoldham

The Flying Dutchman Overture:


----------



## JamieHoldham

Tristan und Isolde:


----------



## JamieHoldham

Gotterdamerung:


----------



## MusicSybarite

I have finally decided to embark on my journey through the operas (in chronological order) of this man, and today I started with _Rienzi_. I avoided _Die Feen_ and _Das Liebesverbot_, I preferred to focus on the meat of his music. I don't discard to listen to them when finishing the other 11 operas.










What can I say? I'm utterly BLOWN AWAY!!! Absolutely spellbinding, vast, monumental, epic, glorious. Just wow!!
It's an early opera, but what an early opera! and the libretto was written by him too. This human being was simply incredible, few people in this world can reach such a point of creativity. If this opera is one of the first ones, I don't imagine how brutal the others are.

I must confess that I felt a little tired, not because of the music itself, but because it is somewhat complex to listen to a single work that covers more than 3 and a half hours. However, it was worth it. I think Wagner can easily become one of my all-time favorite composers.


----------



## Janspe

MusicSybarite said:


> If this opera is one of the first ones, I don't imagine how brutal the others are.


I have a feeling you're in for quite a shock when you reach _Tristan und Isolde_. The first time I encountered that work I felt like I've discovered a drug that can never be equaled by anything else - it was really intense...


----------



## Itullian

MusicSybarite said:


> I have finally decided to embark on my journey through the operas (in chronological order) of this man, and today I started with _Rienzi_. I avoided _Die Feen_ and _Das Liebesverbot_, I preferred to focus on the meat of his music. I don't discard to listen to them when finishing the other 11 operas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can I say? I'm utterly BLOWN AWAY!!! Absolutely spellbinding, vast, monumental, epic, glorious. Just wow!!
> It's an early opera, but what an early opera! and the libretto was written by him too. This human being was simply incredible, few people in this world can reach such a point of creativity. If this opera is one of the first ones, I don't imagine how brutal the others are.
> 
> I must confess that I felt a little tired, not because of the music itself, but because it is somewhat complex to listen to a single work that covers more than 3 and a half hours. However, it was worth it. I think Wagner can easily become one of my all-time favorite composers.


Welcome to the world of Wagnerians. 
You have so many wonders ahead of you.
I've been listening to these operas for 30 years and I'm still blown away by them.
Check out our Wagner threads in the opera and opera on cd forums.
The scope and psychological depth of his works is unparalleled.
And welcome to a lifetime of wonder. 
On to the Dutchman!


----------



## MusicSybarite

Janspe said:


> I have a feeling you're in for quite a shock when you reach _Tristan und Isolde_. The first time I encountered that work I felt like I've discovered a drug that can never be equaled by anything else - it was really intense...


I'm very eager to meet it indeed! I definitely want it, to become myself an addict of that kind of works.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Itullian said:


> Welcome to the world of Wagnerians.
> You have so many wonders ahead of you.
> I've been listening to these operas for 30 years and I'm still blown away by them.
> Check out our Wagner threads in the opera and opera on cd forums.
> The scope and psychological depth of his works is unparalleled.
> And welcome to a lifetime of wonder.
> On to the Dutchman!


Thank you! I know many of the orchestral excerpts from his operas and I can say they are magnificent, brilliant. The complete operas must be real experiences as was _Rienzi_. Now, _Der Fliegende Holländer_ is coming!


----------



## MusicSybarite

Continuing with the Wagner opera project, this week I've played _Der fliegende Holländer_ and _Tannhäuser_.



















Other two great works, overly more lyrical and romantic than _Rienzi_. Definitely there is plenty of wonderful music that I didn't know or I was unfamiliar with. I think my favorite parts are the imposing choruses, full of vigour and expressivity, also some gorgeous arias and duets. Of these 2 operas, I liked Tannhäuser the most. Little by little I have become accustomed to the length of such works, so I feel exhausted less and less (a good symptom I guess).

Lohengrin will be my next opera.


----------



## Janspe

I saw my first _Parsifal_ earlier this spring at the Finnish National Opera. What a shattering experience it was!

It's simply astounding how time seemed to lose all meaning - the piece is a gigantic listening experience, but it felt like an hour. Much as I love the _Meistersinger_, witnessing that live a few years ago got to my nerves a little bit...

For me, the opening prelude of _Parsifal_ is one of the greatest pieces of music ever written. And after that, there's still hours and hours worth of similarly great music to come.


----------



## Josquin13

MusicSybarite--Here are a number of Wagner recordings that I wouldn't want to have missed along the way:

1.) Tristan und Isolde, Staatskapelle Dresden, conducted by Carlos Kleiber. As much as I enjoy Margaret Price's beautiful (& in tune) Isolde (especially her singing at the opera's unforgettable, rapturous end, which Kleiber conducts brilliantly! and I'd suggest turning up the volume on this, way up: 



), the star of this recording is the Staatskapelle Dresden, and its conductor. I'd be hard pressed to come up with more in tune or better orchestral playing of a Wagner opera:






By the way, the Staatskapelle has also recorded the Ring cycle (with Marek Janowski), Rienzi (with Heinrich Hollreiser), Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (with Herbert von Karajan & Rudolf Kempe), and the Wesendonck lieder (with soprano Cheryl Studer, & conductor Giuseppe Sinopoli).

2.) Tristan und Isolde, Welsh National Opera Orchestra, conducted by Sir Reginald Goodall. Goodall's view of Tristan is quite different from Kleiber's, and is worth hearing on that account. Linda Ester Gray's Isolde is excellent too. (Though I should warn you that Goodall was a Nazi sympathizer back in the 1930s, and later a fascist and holocaust denier--which he called a "BBC Jewish plot", so you may wish to avoid his recordings due to his ugly views.)





https://www.amazon.com/Reginald-Goo...rr&keywords=goodall+tristan+und+isolde+wagner
https://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Tristan-Isolde-Goodall-Richard/dp/B000025TTL
http://www.bruceduffie.com/goodall.html






Here too is a highly regarded 1981 live Tristan, conducted by Goodall at the English National Opera (sung in English):











3.) In addition, there are classic mono Tristan und Isolde recordings from famed conductors Wilhelm Fürtwangler, Fritz Reiner, and Hans Knappertsbusch, which you'll probably want to explore somewhere down the road. However, I wouldn't suggest these historic recordings as your initial experience of the opera, since the sound quality is less than ideal. (Others have liked Karl Bohm's 1960s Tristan recording from Bayreuth, with Birgit Nilsson, while yet others have liked Leonard Bernstein's Philips recording, which was very controversial for its slow tempi when it first came out--though none other than Karl Bohm endorsed the recording.)

4.) In conjunction with Tristan und Isolde, it's important to hear Wagner's Wesendonck Lieder, a collection of 5 songs for female voice and piano (or orchestra), which Wagner composed while he was working on Tristan. The poems were written by Mathilde Wesendonck (which only became known in 1902), the wife of one of Wagner's patrons, Otto Wesendonck. Wagner and his wife Minna were living in exile at the time in a small cottage on the Wesendonck estate in Zürich. It is thought that Wagner became infatuated with Mathilde while composing Tristan on the estate. There has even been speculation that the two were having an adulterous love affair. Whether they did or not, it's most likely that Wagner's intense feelings for Matilde found expression in his opera, and in the Wesendonck lieder, as well. In fact, Wagner called two of the Wesendonck songs "studies" for Tristan und Isolde, and developed his musical ideas in the opera. For example, the 5th song, "Träume" is developed in the love duet from Act 2, while Wagner developed the 3rd Wesendonck song, "Im Treibhaus" for the prelude of Act 3.


















5.) Tannhäuser, Vienna Philharmonic, conducted by Sir Georg Solti. I'm not normally a huge Solti fan, but he is very, very good with this Wagner opera (& also popular in the Ring cycle too). Wolfgang Sawallisch is likewise excellent in Tannhäuser (but Solti remains my 1st choice).









https://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Tannh...32611&sr=1-1&keywords=solti+wagner+tannhauser





https://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Tannh...51j%2BaBkN3NL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

6.) Lohengrin--This is another opera that I think especially highly of among Wagner's output (along with Tristan & Parsifal), and I treasure three recordings: from conductors Rudolf Kempe, Eugen Jochum (live at Bayreuth in 1954), and Rafael Kubelik on DG.










7.) Parsifal--I'd most recommend conductor Hans Knappertsbusch for Parsifal, though I've also liked two other recordings as well--by Rafael Kubelik and Herbert von Karajan. Sir Reginald Goodall's 1971 Covent Garden Parsifal, with Jon Vickers in the title role, is also worth hearing, but bear in mind that it's a live performance and there are some mess ups. You might also enjoy the 1982 film by Hans Jürgen Syberberg, conducted by Armin Jordan--but probably not as your first experience of the opera (I haven't actually seen the film myself, but have heard others speak favorably of it over the years...):


















http://conradlosborne.com/2018/03/09/parsifal-lite-and-the-afterlife/6/

https://www.amazon.com/Parzival-Wol...mr2&keywords=wolfgang+von+eschenbach+parzival

The Syberberg film can be seen in its entirety on You Tube:





8) I'd also recommend that you check out musicologist Deryck Cooke's introductory audio discussion of the 'leitmotifs' in Der Ring des Nibelungen, recorded in 1967. Cooke died prematurely in his late 50s, but was working on a large-scale study of the Ring cycle, which would have likely been definitive; most regrettably, he only finished part of the first volume, which was later published as "I Saw the World End":






https://www.amazon.com/Introduction...8&qid=1531429000&sr=1-1&keywords=deryck+cooke

9.) Finally, Otto Klemperer is another essential Wagner conductor, in my opinion:









https://www.amazon.com/Wagner-flieg...d=1531434388&sr=1-1&keywords=wagner+klemperer

P.S.--You might also enjoy this 2 CD "Essential Wagner" collection too (I have myself, as the sound quality is surprisingly good), and you can hear it for free on Amazon prime, if you're a member: https://www.amazon.com/Twilight-God...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MHP8910SJDMRDNW0AF9K


----------



## MusicSybarite

Hey many thanks Josquin13! What a great compilation of information and links! I realize this journey is going to be looong, so there are many other things to do and to listen to on the way. I'll have to be patient in order to appreciate properly these operas. I don't remember what recordings I have of the Wagner's operas besides the ones I already listened to, but I'll surely keep in mind your kind recommendations.


----------



## lextune

In the last two days I have re-watched the Barenboim Ring on Blu Ray. I have been through some very hard times of late, and it was the greatest escape I could hope for. 

I think both the Singers and Orchestra are in great form, with a tremendous energy. At times; second to very few ever captured.

It has been decades since I watched the Boulez DVDs. I do believe I will now watch them too in the next few days. I hope I get half the enjoyment I got from the Barenboim.

Thanks to all the goodness in this messy universe for Wagner's Art.


----------



## Dimace

Josquin13 said:


> MusicSybarite--Here are a number of Wagner recordings that I wouldn't want to have missed along the way:...…..


A super quality post! Thanks a lot my friend! Let us keep this thread alive.


----------



## Xisten267

I'm bumping this thread as a way of expressing my great esteem and admiration for Richard Wagner in his 206th birthday. Knowing his music was a major happening for me - it's what made me start to really enjoy classical. Listening to his magnificent operas has become one of the ultimate pleasures of my life, and I can't help but feel thankful for the man to have shared with us his immortal masterpieces. :angel:


----------



## Itullian

Thank you RW! :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows




----------



## paulbest

Janspe said:


> I saw my first _Parsifal_ earlier this spring at the Finnish National Opera. What a shattering experience it was!
> 
> It's simply astounding how time seemed to lose all meaning - the piece is a gigantic listening experience, but it felt like an hour. Much as I love the _Meistersinger_, witnessing that live a few years ago got to my nerves a little bit...
> 
> For me, the opening prelude of _Parsifal_ is one of the greatest pieces of music ever written. And after that, there's still hours and hours worth of similarly great music to come.


Parsifal is something far superior to any music before it. and afterwards, as far as theatric composition. There is nothing even close as far as telling a story combining drama, , , tragedy and Germanic folk ideas, infused with Christian lore, myths, in Germanic lands. . . , It is epochal , lasting for the ages....Must be performed only by a qualified conductor and a superior orchestra. All others leave it alone.
No music has ever been composed in that measure before. 
Which is why Debussy and the young Ravel , after experiencing Parsifal, could not sleep for one week


----------



## millionrainbows

I think it's appropriate for Wagnerites to see that permeating this area of music we know as "classical" is a strong influence of Germanic culture which should be discussed not just for its great legacy of music, but unforunately for its hubris and mistakes of the past.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's appropriate for Wagnerites to see that permeating this area of music we know as "classical" is a strong influence of Germanic culture which should be discussed not just for its great legacy of music, but unforunately for its hubris and mistakes of the past.


That's very vague. What do you mean by "permeating"? What is permeated by what? What do hubris and mistakes have to do with music? And why is whatever you're getting at "appropriate for Wagnerites?" Who are Wagnerites, and how do you know what's appropriate for them?


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> That's very vague. What do you mean by "permeating"? What is permeated by what? What do hubris and mistakes have to do with music? And why is whatever you're getting at "appropriate for Wagnerites?" Who are Wagnerites, and how do you know what's appropriate for them?


Ever heard the expression "pi$$ing in the punch bowl?"


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


>


Around fifty years ago I attended a rehearsal of the Boston Symphony which included this prelude. I was able to sit in the middle of the front row and hear the glowing orchestration and complex counterpoint as a conductor would hear it, inundated by glorious sound. It was inexpressibly thrilling, and this analysis somehow brought that experience back.


----------



## millionrainbows

Will the music you heard ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Will the music you heard ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years?


Only triskaidekaphobes with Messiah complexes make predictions like that.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Only triskaidekaphobes with Messiah complexes make predictions like that.


Messiah complex? Interesting switch.

What else was he?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Messiah complex? Interesting switch.
> 
> What else was he?


Short, bald and Jewish?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Short, bald and Jewish?


You said it. Not to mention, a genius. But they always encourage education, don't they?

You will recall Schoenberg & Webern ending their friendship because Webern would not leave Germany. Maybe if he had, he wouldn't have gotten shot, and he could have gotten a job in the US as a band director. Uh-oh, no..he was German...

Thus Pierre Boulez declares Schoenberg "morte" and takes up the mantle of Webern. Perhaps this was Boulez concurring with the French cultural legacy? Although 12-tone music was created by the Jewish Schoenberg, Webern "Germanized" it, more to Pierre's liking.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Pierre Boulez declares Schoenberg "morte" and takes up the mantle of Webern. Perhaps this was Boulez concurring with the French cultural legacy? Although 12-tone music was created by the Jewish Schoenberg, Webern "Germanized" it, more to Pierre's liking.


So Schoenberg's dodecaphony was too "Jewish," so Webern "Germanized" it, and Boulez preferred the more "Germanized" dodecaphony, as opposed to the more "Jewish" type, because he was French?

I venture to say that this would have surprised all three gentlemen.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> So Schoenberg's dodecaphony was too "Jewish," so Webern "Germanized" it, and Boulez preferred the more "Germanized" dodecaphony, as opposed to the more "Jewish" type, because he was French?


No, because he was Pierre Boulez. He once said he hated the "French orchestral sound." He was a rebel. Remember, in post-WWII he was promoting the Germanic serial idea, along with Stockhausen.



> I venture to say that this would have surprised all three gentlemen.


I venture to say Schoenberg was surprised by his own late return to Judaism, and the end of his "denial."

I think Webern was surprised when he lit that cigarette, but that's understandable.

Boulez was surprised when he got questioned by police for his statement about "burning down opera houses," although I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> No, because he was Pierre Boulez. He once said he hated the "French orchestral sound." He was a rebel. Remember, in post-WWII he was promoting the Germanic serial idea, along with Stockhausen.


You do know that Boulez excoriated Schoenberg for misusing the new serial technique in the perpetuation of traditional Classical-Romantic (Germanic) ideals? The aesthetic of Boulez is far from Germanic; he wanted to cleanse serialism of its Teutonic baggage.



> I venture to say Schoenberg was surprised by his own late return to Judaism, and the end of his "denial."
> 
> I think Webern was surprised when he lit that cigarette, but that's understandable.
> 
> Boulez was surprised when he got questioned by police for his statement about "burning down opera houses," although I'm inclined to agree.


Yes, life is forever surprising. It makes one dizzy. It's reassuring that we can rely on Talk Classical to bring us the same sort of stabilizing madness day after day.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You do know that Boulez excoriated Schoenberg for misusing the new serial technique in the perpetuation of traditional Classical-Romantic (Germanic) ideals? The aesthetic of Boulez is far from Germanic; he wanted to cleanse serialism of its Teutonic baggage.


That's a very good point, Woodduck, but consider these points:

Schoenberg started out as a traditional Classical-Romantic (Germanic) composer, in works like the _Gurrelieder_ and *Pelleas;* but by the time he had reached works like the _String Trio op. 43,_ that connection begins to break down in many ways, only having residual elements of "Brahmsian phrasing." This was a gradual development, but I'll use the String Trio as an example.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the String trio begins to see the use of "pure descriptive sound" as well as melodic/rhythmic syntax used in "unmelodic" and "arhythmic" ways. Schoenberg was well on his way to becoming a modernist, and was beginning to leave his Germanic tradition behind, to become a modernist.

Consider this also: I think Schoenberg created the 12-tone method as an expression of his gradually emerging perception of himself as being Jewish to begin with: numerology, the Cabala, use of numbers; etc.

Schoenberg's gradually emerging perception of himself as an 'outsider' (for being Jewish in Germany/Austria) led him to devise the system which 'turned the Germanic tradition on its head.'

This is only my opinion, and it may not have been so much a conscious "act of revenge," but his finally acknowledging that he was perceived as an 'outsider' and would ultimately 'get nowhere' in Austria/Germany; after all, he witnessed the way that Mahler was treated. So perhaps the 12-tone system was also born out of an acquiescence: "If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose."

Boulez was attracted to Webern's aesthetic because it more thoroughly and directly exploited the resources of Schoenberg's serial idea, using symmetry and small "cells" among other things. Thus, the purer "modernist" approach is what attracted Boulez, not its "Germanic" features, if any can be said to still remain.

The "Germanic" features which Boulez was attracted to are more sociological and political, besides appealing to his mathematical/modernist tendencies. This was post-WWII, and Schoenberg's serial thought was still seen to be a Germanic phenomenon; Boulez, a Frenchman, had chosen, along with Stockhausen, the modernist serial aesthetic which was born in Germany, and which continued at the Darmstadt classes. Let's just chalk it up to adolescent rebellion.



> Yes, life is forever surprising. It makes one dizzy. It's reassuring that we can rely on Talk Classical to bring us the same sort of stabilizing madness day after day.


Everything is impermanent and in a state of flus, this is true. You seem to say that TalkClassial is a reassuring "rut" of sameness. Then again, perhaps not...


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's a very good point, Woodduck, but consider these points:
> 
> Schoenberg started out as a traditional Classical-Romantic (Germanic) composer, in works like the _Gurrelieder_ and *Pelleas;* but by the time he had reached works like the _String Trio op. 43,_ that connection begins to break down in many ways, only having residual elements of "Brahmsian phrasing." This was a gradual development, but I'll use the String Trio as an example.
> 
> As I pointed out elsewhere, the String trio begins to see the use of "pure descriptive sound" as well as melodic/rhythmic syntax used in "unmelodic" and "arhythmic" ways. Schoenberg was well on his way to becoming a modernist, and was beginning to leave his Germanic tradition behind, to become a modernist.
> 
> Consider this also: I think Schoenberg created the 12-tone method as an expression of his gradually emerging perception of himself as being Jewish to begin with: numerology, the Cabala, use of numbers; etc.
> 
> Schoenberg's gradually emerging perception of himself as an 'outsider' (for being Jewish in Germany/Austria) led him to devise the system which 'turned the Germanic tradition on its head.'
> 
> This is only my opinion, and it may not have been so much a conscious "act of revenge," but an acknowledgement of his finally acknowledging that he was perceived as an 'outsider' and would ultimately 'get nowhere' in Austria/Germany; after all, he witnessed the way that Mahler was treated. So perhaps the 12-tone system was also born out of an acquiescence: "If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose."
> 
> Boulez was attracted to Webern's aesthetic because it more thoroughly and directly exploited the resources of Schoenberg's serial idea, using symmetry and small "cells" among other things. Thus, the purer "modernist" approach is what attracted Boulez, not its "Germanic" features, if any can be said to still remain.
> 
> The "Germanic" features which Boulez was attracted to are more sociological and political, besides appealing to his mathematical/modernist tendencies. This was post-WWII, and Schoenberg's serial thought was still seen to be a Germanic phenomenon; Boulez, a Frenchman, had chosen, along with Stockhausen, the modernist serial aesthetic which was born in Germany, and which continued at the Darmstadt classes.


Is there a unifying idea here?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Is there a unifying idea here?


These are only my opinions. Perhaps what you are asking is "What do cultural factors have to do with classical music?," and I've just told you what I think. We can go back to Wagner now.

Carl Orff saw that music has "magic" or the power to activate archetypes in the human psyche, be that individual or collective. It is full of "psychically charged" symbolism, just as Wagner's is.

Perhaps Goebbels saw this, too.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Richard Wagner (22 May 1813 - 13 February 1883)


----------



## Xisten267

Long live to the Music of Richard Wagner, the musical genius who opened the gates of the marvellous world of classical music to me! Listening to his immortal operas is one of the greatest pleasures of my life.


----------



## Rogerx

*Richard Wagner born 22th May 1813*


----------



## Mikhalina

I LOVE WAGNER!


----------



## Itullian

Happy belated birthday maestro.
Thank you for all the unbelievable great music.
:angel: :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

I like R. Strauss much better than Wagner.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I like R. Strauss much better than Wagner.


Yeah I think I do too, in terms of Strauss's operas vs. Wagner's, but I don't know either well enough to say that with any real certainty. But Strauss also seems to have been more versatile, having written a lot of orchestral and other music in addition to his many great operas.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Yeah I think I do too, in terms of Strauss's operas vs. Wagner's, but I don't know either well enough to say that with any real certainty. But Strauss also seems to have been more versatile, having written a lot of orchestral and other music in addition to his many great operas.


I was convinced when I heard the Ariadne auf Naxos/Sinopoli. The ending of it is just magic.


----------



## Rogerx

I believe this is a thread about Wager, not Strauss.


----------



## annaw

flamencosketches said:


> Yeah I think I do too, in terms of Strauss's operas vs. Wagner's, but I don't know either well enough to say that with any real certainty. But Strauss also seems to have been more versatile, having written a lot of orchestral and other music in addition to his many great operas.


Wagner actually intended to write a symphony after he had finished _Parsifal_ but, after all, he was still a mere mortal and wasn't able to write any purely symphonic music in his musically mature years, despite a few exceptions like _Sigfried Idyll_. With him, I feel, the subject material was also immensely important and the idea of _Gesamtkunstwerk_ could be put into practice in opera significantly better than in symphonic music.

Wagner's operas are immensely complex works of art, the other aspects that complement the music should certainly not be disregarded. He worked very hard on his libretti and I haven't yet read an opera libretto that in its complexity and philosophically complex ideas would come near to Wagner's.


----------



## millionrainbows

From a customer review:
I don't understand why some reviewers would give this magnificent recording less than five stars, because the cast, the conductor, and the orchestra are caught at the top of their game! Even if Giuseppe Sinopoli were replaced by a lesser conductor and the orchestra had been the Bavarian Radio or the RAI Symphony, the vocal forces assembled around this Ariadne are simply sensational! Best of the lot is Deborah Voigt's Ariadne, who is in my opinion the best soprano to have ever sung the part. It lacks the self-conscious, academic interpretation of Schwarzkopf and the indulgent jazz swoops of Jessye Norman, but that is all for the better considering how Voigt gets into the part of the character. Her luscious, silvery, creamy voice works wonders for the part of the prima donna, and her Ariadne is sung with a sense of Grecian abandon unheard in sopranos before her. I would say that this perhaps is the best recording of her discography, and brava to Deborah Voigt for making a specialty out of this role!

Voigt is partnered by the likes of Ben Heppner, Dessay, Von Otter, and Dohmen, artists of a prime calibre who are able to bring an interpretive grain to their music. Ben Heppner's large, heroic timbre fits Bacchus' high-lying, difficult music perfectly, and it is wonderful to know that he has finally overcome that vocal crisis of his so that he can once again share that voice of his with us. I don't think I've ever heard Bacchus sung better by any tenor except James King. Natalie Dessay is a three-dimensional Zerbinetta with sexiness, naughtiness, and warmth, and she is also equipped with all the coloratura in the world to perform the part's difficult pyrotechnics. Her transformation in the opera is a portrayal of this great artist's skill in turning this essentially cardboard role into a character full of life, wisdom, and compassion. I would take her Zerbinetta any day over Gruberova! Von Otter is sensational as the Composer, her chiaroscuro timbre portraying the polar temperament of this character. Although she would never erase the memories of Tatiana Troyanos, von Otter is nonetheless a prime interpreter of the part with a knack for uncovering the dramatic nuances of the part. Albert Dohmen is a vocally endowed music-master, better than the dry-voiced Fischer-Dieskau in his recording with Masur.

Of course, this recording would not achieve its legendary status without Sinopoli and the Dresden forces, perhaps the greatest Straussian orchestra in the world. Sinopoli conducts the score with outstanding clarity, movement, and verve, every instrument speaking out of the pages with an Italianate passion that only he could bring to the score. Oh that we would hope that he had lived longer to conduct Die Liebe der Danae with this team!

In short, this recording is highly recommended!


----------



## Woodduck

I drop in on this thread about Wagner and find a review of a recording of _Ariadne auf Naxos._

*?*


----------



## Itullian

annaw said:


> wagner actually intended to write a symphony after he had finished _parsifal_ but, after all, he was still a mere mortal and wasn't able to write any purely symphonic music in his musically mature years, despite a few exceptions like _sigfried idyll_. With him, i feel, the subject material was also immensely important and the idea of _gesamtkunstwerk_ could be put into practice in opera significantly better than in symphonic music.
> 
> Wagner's operas are immensely complex works of art, the other aspects that complement the music should certainly not be disregarded. *he worked very hard on his libretti and i haven't yet read an opera libretto that in its complexity and philosophically complex ideas would come near to wagner's.*


*
*
YES!!!! ................


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Richard Wagner (22 May 1813 - 13 February 1883)


Thanks. Some really interesting remarks, entertaining and moving, that begin to scratch the surface of Wagner's position in Western culture.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> From a customer review:
> I don't understand why some reviewers would give this magnificent recording less than five stars, because the cast, the conductor, and the orchestra are caught at the top of their game! Even if Giuseppe Sinopoli were replaced by a lesser conductor and the orchestra had been the Bavarian Radio or the RAI Symphony, the vocal forces assembled around this Ariadne are simply sensational! Best of the lot is Deborah Voigt's Ariadne, who is in my opinion the best soprano to have ever sung the part. It lacks the self-conscious, academic interpretation of Schwarzkopf and the indulgent jazz swoops of Jessye Norman, but that is all for the better considering how Voigt gets into the part of the character. Her luscious, silvery, creamy voice works wonders for the part of the prima donna, and her Ariadne is sung with a sense of Grecian abandon unheard in sopranos before her. I would say that this perhaps is the best recording of her discography, and brava to Deborah Voigt for making a specialty out of this role!
> 
> Voigt is partnered by the likes of Ben Heppner, Dessay, Von Otter, and Dohmen, artists of a prime calibre who are able to bring an interpretive grain to their music. Ben Heppner's large, heroic timbre fits Bacchus' high-lying, difficult music perfectly, and it is wonderful to know that he has finally overcome that vocal crisis of his so that he can once again share that voice of his with us. I don't think I've ever heard Bacchus sung better by any tenor except James King. Natalie Dessay is a three-dimensional Zerbinetta with sexiness, naughtiness, and warmth, and she is also equipped with all the coloratura in the world to perform the part's difficult pyrotechnics. Her transformation in the opera is a portrayal of this great artist's skill in turning this essentially cardboard role into a character full of life, wisdom, and compassion. I would take her Zerbinetta any day over Gruberova! Von Otter is sensational as the Composer, her chiaroscuro timbre portraying the polar temperament of this character. Although she would never erase the memories of Tatiana Troyanos, von Otter is nonetheless a prime interpreter of the part with a knack for uncovering the dramatic nuances of the part. Albert Dohmen is a vocally endowed music-master, better than the dry-voiced Fischer-Dieskau in his recording with Masur.
> 
> Of course, this recording would not achieve its legendary status without Sinopoli and the Dresden forces, perhaps the greatest Straussian orchestra in the world. Sinopoli conducts the score with outstanding clarity, movement, and verve, every instrument speaking out of the pages with an Italianate passion that only he could bring to the score. Oh that we would hope that he had lived longer to conduct Die Liebe der Danae with this team!
> 
> In short, this recording is highly recommended!


Wrong thread. There are many Strauss threads in which this would be apposite. But when did that ever stop you MR?


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> Wrong thread. There are many Strauss threads in which this would be apposite. But when did that ever stop you MR?


It wasn't a mistake. It's trolling, and another ploy to get attention.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> It wasn't a mistake. It's trolling, and another ploy to get attention.


What do you think of Parsifal?


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> It wasn't a mistake. It's trolling, and another ploy to get attention.


I knew that but hey ho. No less than I expect.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> What do you think of Parsifal?


How much time do you have?:lol:

Ask around and you'll get answers ranging from "sublime and incomparable" (roughly the reaction of Mahler, Wolf, Reger, Debussy, Sibelius, Elgar, Puccini, Nietzsche) et al.) to "repugnant" (also Nietzsche, when he was wearing his philosopher's hat rather than his musical one), absurd (also Debussy, especially when he couldn't shake its effect on his own inspiration), and "boring" (people in a hurry). I'm in category #1. I think _Parsifal_ was, in the chronology of music, the next great musical revelation after _Tristan,_ and just as influential on composers.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> How much time do you have?:lol:
> 
> Ask around and you'll get answers ranging from "sublime and incomparable" (roughly the reaction of Mahler, Wolf, Reger, Debussy, Sibelius, Elgar, Puccini, Nietzsche) et al.) to "repugnant" (also Nietzsche, when he was wearing his philosopher's hat rather than his musical one), absurd (also Debussy, especially when he couldn't shake its effect on his own inspiration), and "boring" (people in a hurry). I'm in category #1. I think _Parsifal_ was, in the chronology of music, the next great musical revelation after _Tristan,_ and just as influential on composers.


Don't you see it as Wagner repenting?


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> How much time do you have?:lol:
> 
> Ask around and you'll get answers ranging from "sublime and incomparable" (roughly the reaction of Mahler, Wolf, Reger, Debussy, Sibelius, Elgar, Puccini, Nietzsche) et al.) to "repugnant" (also Nietzsche, when he was wearing his philosopher's hat rather than his musical one), absurd (*also Debussy, especially when he couldn't shake its effect on his own inspiration*), and "boring" (people in a hurry). I'm in category #1. I think _Parsifal_ was, in the chronology of music, the next great musical revelation after _Tristan,_ and just as influential on composers.


Oh yes, Debussy: "I want to avoid Wagnerian influences in my _Pelleas_ and save French genius but I'm nevertheless going to make the first scene transition sound weirdly similar to _Parsifal_ Bells motif." I'm happy he did though.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Don't you see it as Wagner repenting?


Not really, except loosely and figuratively. If we're going to talk philosophy and psychology rather than music, I don't think Wagner was the repenting sort lol, but his views did evolve and change. He began with a young romantic's view of sexual love as man's fulfillment and salvation (see _The Flying Dutchman_, _Tannhauser_ and_ Lohengrin_), and certainly by the time of _Parsifal_ he had changed his view of it. _Tristan,_ which drove passion to exhaustion and death, was the turning point in his work, and the plots of both _Meistersinger_ and the _Ring_ began to examine the ambivalence of Romantic love and put it in perspective. _Parsifal_ completes that evolution: Parsifal can only save himself and others by seeing through the illusory promise of sexual bliss and choosing compassionate, responsible action over passive and psychologically regressive self-indulgence.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Not really, except loosely and figuratively. If we're going to talk philosophy and psychology rather than music, I don't think Wagner was the repenting sort lol, but his views did evolve and change. He began with a young romantic's view of sexual love as man's fulfillment and salvation (see _The Flying Dutchman_, _Tannhauser_ and_ Lohengrin_), and certainly by the time of _Parsifal_ he had changed his view of it. _Tristan,_ which drove passion to exhaustion and death, was the turning point in his work, and the plots of both _Meistersinger_ and the _Ring_ began to examine the ambivalence of Romantic love and put it in perspective. _Parsifal_ completes that evolution: Parsifal can only save himself and others by seeing through the illusory promise of sexual bliss and choosing compassionate, responsible action over passive and psychologically regressive self-indulgence.


Parsifal is what Wagner would've wanted to be, but instead he was Amfortas.

That would mean that he actually saw his limitations and accepted them; he couldn't change even though he tried. But he did turn his back on Nietzsche and the decadence of Tristan, so there is some maturity there.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Parsifal is what Wagner would've wanted to be, but instead he was Amfortas.
> 
> That would mean that he actually saw his limitations and accepted them; he couldn't change even though he tried. *But he did turn his back on Nietzsche and the decadence of Tristan, so there is some maturity there.*


I actually think Nietzsche turned his back on Wagner, not the other way around... I've got an impression that Wagner meant more to Nietzsche than Nietzsche meant to Wagner. I might be mistaken, of course.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Parsifal is what Wagner would've wanted to be, but instead he was Amfortas. That would mean that he actually saw his limitations and accepted them; he couldn't change even though he tried.


There's truth in that, though I think we'd be presumptuous to assess the ways in which another person changes. Wagner was neither Parsifal nor Amfortas, yet he was both - just as he was both Walther and Sachs, both Alberich and Wotan. He was nothing if not complex and contradictory, and I think it enabled him to create some of the most remarkable characters in opera.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> I actually think Nietzsche turned his back on Wagner, not the other way around... I've got an impression that Wagner meant more to Nietzsche than Nietzsche meant to Wagner. I might be mistaken, of course.


Nietzsche's hostility to Wagner can only be understood fully in the light of his devotion to him.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> There's truth in that, though I think we'd be presumptuous to assess the ways in which another person changes. Wagner was neither Parsifal nor Amfortas, yet he was both - just as he was both Walther and Sachs, both Alberich and Wotan. He was nothing if not complex and contradictory, and I think it enabled him to create some of the most remarkable characters in opera.


From a purely hedonistic viewpoint this is true, but there lacks resolution. He never had the triumph that Beethoven had, he remained somewhat unchanged his entire life, and he did open the door for Nietzsche to destroy the world.

Even if he wasn't evil himself he ended up causing it; there is undoubtedly responsibility there.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Nietzsche's hostility to Wagner can only be understood fully in the light of his devotion to him.


That's an interesting idea. Would you mind elaborating? How I see it, is that because Nietzsche seemed to almost idolise and idealise Wagner, then when the reality of Wagner's views (Bayreuth, Parsifal...) hit him, his idealised understanding of Wagner and the way he had seen him so far broke down. The contrast between Nietzsche's Wagner and the actual Wagner was slightly too big.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> From a purely hedonistic viewpoint this is true, but there lacks resolution. He never had the triumph that Beethoven had, he remained somewhat unchanged his entire life, and *he did open the door for Nietzsche to destroy the world.*
> 
> Even if he wasn't evil himself he ended up causing it; there is undoubtedly responsibility there.


He seemed to have had a lot of triumph during his own lifetime as well but I'm not sure whether comparing a purely operatic composer to Beethoven is really fair. I also agree with Woodduck that Wagner changed, as any other human being does, immensely throughout his lifetime and so did his views.

In which way did Nietzsche destroy the world? Neither Wagner nor Nietzsche could control the way their work was interpreted and used after they had already died and I cannot see how it was Wagner's fault that Nietzsche or anyone else liked his music. Nietzsche himself seemed to be very severely misinterpreted and his theory of Übermensch misused and taken out of its original philosophical context, which as far as I know dealt mainly with morality and nihilism, during the 20th century (in case if you mean this by Nietzsche destroying the world).


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Wagner and Cosima decided that Nietzsche's unhealthy and febrile views were caused by ************ and the influence on him of Jewish friends, notably the scholar Paul Ree."
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/24/books/the-will-to-madness.html


----------



## annaw

hammeredklavier said:


> "Wagner and Cosima decided that Nietzsche's unhealthy and febrile views were caused by ************ and the influence on him of Jewish friends, notably the scholar Paul Ree."
> https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/24/books/the-will-to-madness.html


Wagner had met Ree earlier at 1876 Bayreuth festival and the following Sorrento period and had taken an instant dislike to him (not too unusual with Wagner I guess). This might have had something to do not only with him being a Jew but also his open sympathy to French culture which was supposedly a perennial object of Wagner's hostility after his experience in Paris, i.e. _Tannhäuser_ I think. What the article probably means by "unhealthy and febrile views" was one of Nietzsche's books which had a dedication to Voltaire ("the greatest liberator of the spirit"). Cosima had remarked that Voltaire would have never understood _The Birth of Tragedy_ and Wagner was offended by Nietzsche's elimination of explicit references to himself and his use in their place of coded expressions such as "the artist" which were expressing his loss of confidence in Wagnerian music (and philosophy). I found this information is from Paul Ree's and Robin Small's book "Basic Writings". It still seemed to be Nietzsche who turned his back on Wagner in my opinion.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> From a purely hedonistic viewpoint this is true, but there lacks resolution. He never had the triumph that Beethoven had, he remained somewhat unchanged his entire life, and he did open the door for Nietzsche to destroy the world.
> 
> Even if he wasn't evil himself he ended up causing it; there is undoubtedly responsibility there.


Purely hedonistic point of view? You lost me there. Never had the triumph? Destroy the world? Sheesh.

If this isn't nonsense it's perilously close to it. I'm really not interested in dealing with this sort of half-baked, tendentious, agenda-driven argumentation.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> He seemed to have had a lot of triumph during his own lifetime as well but I'm not sure whether comparing a purely operatic composer to Beethoven is really fair. I also agree with Woodduck that Wagner changed, as any other human being does, immensely throughout his lifetime and so did his views.
> 
> In which way did Nietzsche destroy the world? Neither Wagner nor Nietzsche could control the way their work was interpreted and used after they had already died and I cannot see how it was Wagner's fault that Nietzsche or anyone else liked his music. Nietzsche himself seemed to be very severely misinterpreted and his theory of Übermensch misused and taken out of its original philosophical context, which as far as I know dealt mainly with morality and nihilism, during the 20th century (in case if you mean this by Nietzsche destroying the world).


Nietzsche provided the structure that made both fascism and communism possible.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Purely hedonistic point of view? You lost me there. Never had the triumph? Destroy the world? Sheesh.
> 
> If this isn't nonsense it's perilously close to it. I'm really not interested in dealing with this sort of half-baked, tendentious, agenda-driven argumentation.


It's really just about how you can end up causing great evil by simply expressing your passions, and the importance of balance and morality in the artist.

Wagner was politically minded and his effect in that realm was larger than the contribution he made to music.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Nietzsche provided the structure that made both fascism and communism possible.


Agree or disagree, I can only speak for myself. Wagner's music has touched me deeply and his political views won't change the fact.

Hojotoho, it's a bliss being a Wagnerite!!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Purely hedonistic point of view? You lost me there. Never had the triumph? Destroy the world? Sheesh. If this isn't nonsense it's perilously close to it. I'm really not interested in dealing with this sort of half-baked, tendentious, agenda-driven argumentation.





annaw said:


> In which way did Nietzsche destroy the world? Neither Wagner nor Nietzsche could control the way their work was interpreted and used after they had already died and I cannot see how it was Wagner's fault that Nietzsche or anyone else liked his music. Nietzsche himself seemed to be very severely misinterpreted and his theory of Übermensch misused and taken out of its original philosophical context, which as far as I know dealt mainly with morality and nihilism, during the 20th century (in case if you mean this by Nietzsche destroying the world).


You'll never get a resolution to how Nietzche or Wagner's views or content of their art might have influenced anything until you look at it in terms of psychological archetypes. You have to gain an overview of things in terms of mythology, combined with psychology, and how these cultural icons can influence a society.

Surely we can see the _general _implications of "supermen" as Nietzsche posited it, and a race of "underworld gold-greedy misanthropic dwarves" (who sideline as jewelers) as created by Wagner. Any "real world connection" between these sorts of entities will of course be fraught with ambiguities and philosophical musings, exactly the sort of things that rationalists and "prove it" types will find abhorrent. 
We are in metaphysical territory now. It might as well be a religious discussion.
Believe what you wish.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> Nietzsche provided the structure that made both fascism and communism possible.


Nietzscheof course made the point that when the Christian God is 'dead' so is the Christian morality, a point made in practice by both Hitler and the Bolsheviks.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Nietzscheof course made the point that when the Christian God is 'dead' so is the Christian morality, a point made in practice by both Hitler and the Bolsheviks.


No, morality does not depend on the Christian God being 'alive' or 'dead.' That's the main argument of atheists, that _morality is inherent; _we all know that it is wrong to kill, for instance, and atheists can still help little old ladies across the street.

I think the more dangerous idea of Nietzsche is the concept of the 'superman.'


----------



## 1996D

He justified the Dionysian and used this sex obsession to reverse the moral order.

Without Wagner's _Tristan_ there is no Nietzsche - together both men provided the blueprint for all the horrors of the 20th century that we still suffer from today.

We have to deal with it and good can ultimately come from it, but it doesn't justify the initial evil action.


----------



## annaw

millionrainbows said:


> No, morality does not depend on the Christian God being 'alive' or 'dead.' That's the main argument of atheists, that _morality is inherent; _we all know that it is wrong to kill, for instance, and atheists can still help little old ladies across the street.
> 
> I think the more dangerous idea of Nietzsche is the concept of the 'superman.'


The main problem Nietzsche tried to solve, as I've understood it but I haven't studied philosophy, was how to have morality without Christianity. This is why he created Übermensch who would create a new morality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch - the racial version used by the Nazis was some weird interpretation and not necessarily Nietzsche's own intention). In this sense DavidA's point is correct, at least Nietzsche seemed to view it that way. Nietzsche was an anti-nihilist and tried to desperately avoid nihilism, i.e. the lack of any meaning and morality. _He_ didn't say that morality is inherent and helping little old ladies across the street doesn't require any understanding of good and bad, i.e morality. Conscience that you seem to describe here has been frequently used as an argument for Christianity. In fact, Kant argued exactly the opposite of your argument - existence of moral order, whether inherent or not, would require the existence of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality).

DavidA, I don't think that neither of them needed Nietzsche or Wagner to justify their actions... they were maybe used as just very bad excuses. If you read Nietzsche, you'd understand that he was very anti-German (he justified liking Wagner's music through Wagner being a French rather than a German) and I have actually no idea how the Nazis managed to even use his philosophy in their propaganda.

It would be great though if we could get back to Wagner. Nietzsche composed as well and I think his thread, if such would be created, would be more appropriate for this discussion.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> No, morality does not depend on the Christian God being 'alive' or 'dead.' That's the main argument of atheists, that [I*]morality is inherent;* [/I]we all know that it is wrong to kill, for instance, and atheists can still help little old ladies across the street.
> 
> I think the more dangerous idea of Nietzsche is the concept of the 'superman.'


That is of course wrong as Hitler and Stalin proved. Hitler was nice to his secretary but he was alsop a mass murderer. Hitler and Stalin didn't believe it was wrong to kill and neither did Mao (100 million deaths estimated in peace time) and Pol Pot. As has been argued recently most atheists get their moral compass from Christian ideals even if they don't believe in the Christian God. However, as we are merely chemicals according to them, what logical framework is there for it?
However, as has been said, this thread is about Wagner so leave it at that.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> That is of course wrong as Hitler and Stalin proved. Hitler was nice to his secretary but he was alsop a mass murderer. Hitler and Stalin didn't believe it was wrong to kill and neither did Mao (100 million deaths estimated in peace time) and Pol Pot. As has been argued recently most atheists get their moral compass from Christian ideals even if they don't believe in the Christian God. However, as we are merely chemicals according to them, what logical framework is there for it?
> However, as has been said, this thread is about Wagner so leave it at that.


But Wagner and Nietzsche are tied, without one the other doesn't exist.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> But Wagner and Nietzsche are tied, without one the other doesn't exist.


When they first met Nietzsche was 25 years old, he was in the very beginning of his career, and Wagner was already 56. Wagner had managed to maintain his existence pretty well for 56 years without having young Nietzsche around . Wagner was a rather self-confident man and I don't recall any instances when he claimed to ever need anyone else in his daily activities. That's maybe one of the reasons why I think he was a megalomaniac though this quality seemed to be very useful when composing. I agree with DavidA - we weren't discussing Wagner but Nietzsche. Better create a separate thread for Nietzsche if you want to go thoroughly into his philosophy and thoughts, which for sure are fascinating but not entirely appropriate here.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> When they first met Nietzsche was 25 years old, he was in the very beginning of his career, and Wagner was already 56. Wagner had managed to maintain his existence pretty well for 56 years without having young Nietzsche around . Wagner was a rather self-confident man and I don't recall any instances when he claimed to ever need anyone else in his daily activities. That's maybe one of the reasons why I think he was a megalomaniac though this quality seemed to be very useful when composing. I agree with DavidA - we weren't discussing Wagner but Nietzsche. Better create a separate thread for Nietzsche if you want to go thoroughly into his philosophy and thoughts, which for sure are fascinating but not entirely appropriate here.


It's fascinating how you can ignore what's behind the art simply because you find the surface enjoyable.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> It's fascinating how you can ignore what's behind the art simply because you find the surface enjoyable.


Art itself, which I indeed enjoy, is not the surface of itself - it's the very essence of it. Wagner's art is what I care for, the same way I care for Beethoven's and Mahler's.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Art itself, which I indeed enjoy, is not the surface of itself - it's the very essence of it. Wagner's art is what I care for, the same way I care for Beethoven's and Mahler's.


The art represents the man, especially music; these things have no separation.

Schopenhauer, Wagner, and Nietzsche saw music as an immediate representation of the will, and so did the ancient Greeks.

"All possible strivings, excitements, and expressions of the will, as well as all possible psychic events in the interior of man, which Reason refers to derogatorily as feelings, achieve their expression through the infinitely possible melodies, but always in their most general form without content, always according to the thing itself and not according to appearances, resembling in this the innermost soul without a body. Out of this intimate relationship that music has to the true being of all things, it is easy to explain that when fitting music is played alongside any scene, action, or event, this music seems to reveal the deepest meaning of the event and provides it with its most appropriate and clearest commentary. This is so because music is, as I have said, different from all of the other arts in that it is not a representation of the event or more exactly the adequate objectivity of the will, but rather the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world. It is the thing itself in relation to all appearance."


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Art itself, which I indeed enjoy, is not the surface of itself - it's the very essence of it. *Wagner's art is what I care for, *the same way I care for Beethoven's and Mahler's.


Wagner's art was bound up with his philosophy


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Wagner's art was bound up with his philosophy


And I hope I haven't denied this for a single moment.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Nietzsche provided the structure that made both fascism and communism possible.


NIetzsche doesn't provide any such "structure," and authoritarianism predominates in the history of the West, long preceding modern fascist and communist versions of it. Neither Wagner nor Nietzsche advocated these political ideas, and if you're trying to claim that their thinking somehow "led" to them you need to show that with specifics.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's really just about how you can end up causing great evil by simply expressing your passions, and the importance of balance and morality in the artist.
> 
> Wagner was politically minded and his effect in that realm was larger than the contribution he made to music.


You haven't shown that Wagner "caused great evil by expressing his passions." As for your second assertion, it's even less credible than your first.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You'll never get a resolution to how Nietzche or Wagner's views or content of their art might have influenced anything until you look at it in terms of psychological archetypes. You have to gain an overview of things in terms of mythology, combined with psychology, and how these cultural icons can influence a society.


Um...OK.



> Surely we can see the _general _implications of "supermen" as Nietzsche posited it, and a race of "underworld gold-greedy misanthropic dwarves" (who sideline as jewelers) as created by Wagner.


Can we, surely, see the general implications?



> Any "real world connection" between these sorts of entities will of course be fraught with ambiguities and philosophical musings, exactly the sort of things that rationalists and "prove it" types will find abhorrent.
> We are in metaphysical territory now. It might as well be a religious discussion.
> Believe what you wish.


Since you've said absolutely nothing of factual interest or value here, it's certain that whoever you're talking to will indeed believe whatever they wish.

Why did you bother to say anything?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Nietzscheof course made the point that when the Christian God is 'dead' so is the Christian morality, a point made in practice by both Hitler and the Bolsheviks.


The elements of Christian morality are not original with Christianity or practiced only by Christians (and often least of all by Christians). i'm sure Nietzsche would have acknowledged this. Why won't you?


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> He justified the Dionysian and used this sex obsession to reverse the moral order.


This is laughable.



> Without Wagner's _Tristan_ there is no Nietzsche -


More laughter.



> together both men provided the blueprint for all the horrors of the 20th century that we still suffer from today.


Still laughing.



> We have to deal with it and good can ultimately come from it, but it doesn't justify the initial evil action.


Which was...?


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> The art represents the man, especially music; these things have no separation.


You can't know the relationship of "the art" to "the man" unless you know them each thoroughly. If you did you might find some difficulties with your thesis, and even greater difficulty in vomiting up romantic cliches about The Artist.



> Schopenhauer, Wagner, and Nietzsche saw music as an immediate representation of the will, and so did the ancient Greeks.


Define "will," "representation" and "immediate." Give evidence that Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche and the Greeks shared an identical view.



> "All possible strivings, excitements, and expressions of the will, as well as all possible psychic events in the interior of man, which Reason refers to derogatorily as feelings, achieve their expression through the infinitely possible melodies, but always in their most general form without content, always according to the thing itself and not according to appearances, resembling in this the innermost soul without a body. Out of this intimate relationship that music has to the true being of all things, it is easy to explain that when fitting music is played alongside any scene, action, or event, this music seems to reveal the deepest meaning of the event and provides it with its most appropriate and clearest commentary. This is so because music is, as I have said, different from all of the other arts in that it is not a representation of the event or more exactly the adequate objectivity of the will, but rather the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world. It is the thing itself in relation to all appearance."


Is this Schopenhauer? You should always attribute quotes. What do you intend it to demonstrate?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Wagner's art was bound up with his philosophy


And therefore...?


----------



## Woodduck

There's a metric ton of fuzzy thinking and foundationless assertion going on here. Typical when people think they understand Wagner and his work.

Surely we can do better.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Is this Schopenhauer?


I did some Googling and, indeed, it should be Schopenahauer's _The World as Will and Representation_ Vol.1.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> I did some Googling and, indeed, it should be Schopenahauer's _The World as Will and Representation_ Vol.1.


I would have thought with the problems in our society at the moment we could do with our dear old Schopenahauer and his misery! :lol:


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> There's a metric ton of fuzzy thinking and foundationless assertion going on here. Typical when people think they understand Wagner and his work.
> 
> Surely we can do better.


...the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world.

Music has political implications, it incites powerful emotions in people that then change the world. Nietzsche listened to Tristan in his youth and was forever changed by it.

If you want to deny it you can, but the connections are as clear as day. Wagner introduced amorality in his music and this gave license to Nietzsche to provide the philosophical explanation for the rejection of reason.

A giant ego wanting to break the rules of nature; this philosophy resulted in both fascism and communism: ideologies that seek to reinvent the natural order.


----------



## 1996D

"with regard to the mother-wooing, riddle-solving Oedipus, an immediate interpretation comes to mind, that we're, through oracles and magic powers, the force of both present and future, the rigid law of individuation as well as the magic of nature are broken, the preconditioning cause is the fact that beforehand a monstrous act against nature—something on the order of incest must have taken place; then how is one to force nature to reveal her secrets other than by victoriously going against her, that is, through an act contrary to nature. I see this recognition sketched out in that hideous trinity of Oedipus’ fate: the same man who solves the riddle of nature—that double-edged Sphinx—must also violate the most holy order of nature as both parricide and spouse of his mother. Indeed, the meaning of the myth seems inescapable, that wisdom, and especially Dionysian wisdom, is an unnatural horror, and that the man who through his knowledge plunges nature into the abyss of annihilation experiences in his own being the disintegration of nature. “The point of wisdom turns against the wise; wisdom is a crime against nature.”


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> ...the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world.
> 
> Music has political implications, it incites powerful emotions in people that then change the world. Nietzsche listened to Tristan in his youth and was forever changed by it.
> 
> If you want to deny it you can, but the connections are as clear as day. *Wagner introduced amorality in his music and this gave license to Nietzsche to provide the philosophical explanation for the rejection of reason.*
> 
> A giant ego wanting to break the rules of nature; this philosophy resulted in both fascism and communism: ideologies that seek to reinvent the natural order.


I have a lot of questions about this. What do you think of Sachs then? Wasn't he then moral (IMO Nietzsche was well acquainted with _Die Meitsersinger_ as well as he even wrote about it). On what basis do you say that it was precisely _Tristan_, which made Nietzsche Nietzsche and how well are you acquainted with all other aspects of his life to dismiss those as alternatives?

We shouldn't underestimate the complexity of human nature - one opera, even if over 4 hours long, rarely changes a person drastically. If it did, why aren't we all changed by them the same way?


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> "with regard to the mother-wooing, riddle-solving Oedipus, an immediate interpretation comes to mind, that we're, through oracles and magic powers, the force of both present and future, the rigid law of individuation as well as the magic of nature are broken, the preconditioning cause is the fact that beforehand a monstrous act against nature-something on the order of incest must have taken place; then how is one to force nature to reveal her secrets other than by victoriously going against her, that is, through an act contrary to nature. I see this recognition sketched out in that hideous trinity of Oedipus' fate: the same man who solves the riddle of nature-that double-edged Sphinx-must also violate the most holy order of nature as both parricide and spouse of his mother. Indeed, the meaning of the myth seems inescapable, that wisdom, and especially Dionysian wisdom, is an unnatural horror, and that the man who through his knowledge plunges nature into the abyss of annihilation experiences in his own being the disintegration of nature. "The point of wisdom turns against the wise; wisdom is a crime against nature."


Nietzsche? (My good friend Google...)


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> I have a lot of questions about this. What do you think of Sachs then? Wasn't he then moral (IMO Nietzsche was well acquainted with _Die Meitsersinger_ as well as he even wrote about it). On what basis do you say that it was precisely _Tristan_, which made Nietzsche Nietzsche and how well are you acquainted with all other aspects of his life to dismiss those as alternatives?
> 
> We shouldn't underestimate the complexity of human nature - one opera, even if over 4 hours long, rarely changes a person drastically. If it did, why aren't we all changed by them the same way?


Nietzsche was obsessed with that opera, his entire works are based on its promise of sexual ecstasy. It was what set him off, and he admitted that Wagner had been the most important figure in his life.

You underestimate the power of music.


----------



## Barbebleu

One can never underestimate the power of writing complete nonsense on every subject under the sun


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Nietzsche was obsessed with that opera, his entire works are based on its promise of sexual ecstasy. It was what set him off, and he admitted that Wagner had been the most important figure in his life.
> 
> You underestimate the power of music.


Pardon me, if I indeed underestimate it, I certainly try not to. Have you read all his works to claim this?

I know that Wagner was an immensely important figure in Nietzsche's life but there are things and aspects which can unconsciously affect us very significantly. Those things are just much more difficult to analyse and acknowledge than the things we are aware of. Surely I don't say that _Tristan_ was an insignificant element but I most certainly wouldn't say it was the only one. The butterfly effect can work in human life as well and we'll never know what would have been different if an aspect in Nietzsche's life would have been changed. For example, if his father wouldn't have died when Nietzsche was only 5 years old, maybe he wouldn't have ever become obsessed with Wagner who seemed to be a sort of father-figure for Nietzsche, meaning that his father's death would have had a theoretically bigger significance than _Tristan_ which was only a result of the former. (Duh, those English past tenses...)

I feel that after this thread I will never have to give a second thought about the order of z, s and c in Nietzsche's name :lol:.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Pardon me if I indeed underestimate it, I certainly try not to. Have you read all his works to claim this?
> 
> I know that Wagner was an immensely important figure in Nietzsche's life but there are things and aspects which can unconsciously affect us very significantly. Those things are just much more difficult to analyse and acknowledge than the things we are aware of. Surely I don't say that _Tristan_ was an insignificant element but I most certainly wouldn't say it was the only one. The butterfly effect can work in human life as well and we'll never know what would have been different if an aspect in Nietzsche's would have been changed. For example, if his father wouldn't have died when Nietzsche was only 5 years old, maybe he wouldn't have ever become obsessed with Wagner who seemed to be a sort of father-figure for Nietzsche, meaning that his father's death would have had a theoretically bigger effect than _Tristan_ which was only a result of the former. (Duh, those English past tenses...)
> 
> I feel that after this thread I will never have to give a second thought about the order of z, s and c in Nietzsche's name :lol:.


You think it's a coincidence that both Nietzsche and Hitler drew inspiration from Wagner?

He remains the proof of the power of music to change the world, only because horror is both so easily measured and undeniable. Nothing horrible seemed to follow Mozart and Beethoven, on the contrary.

There is something genuinely there on the metaphysical nature of music, how it's the truest representation of things.


----------



## Room2201974

Barbebleu said:


> One can never underestimate the power of writing complete nonsense on every subject under the sun


Yes, and sounding so convinced of positions about matters that are beyond their scope. It's either someone putting us on.....or Dwight Schrute has come to TC. Maybe that's what the d stands for.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> You think it's a coincidence that both Nietzsche and Hitler drew inspiration from Wagner?
> 
> He remains the proof of the power of music to change the world, only because horror is both so easily measured and undeniable. Nothing horrible seemed to follow Mozart and Beethoven, on the contrary.
> 
> There is something genuinely there on the metaphysical nature of music, how it's the truest representation of things.


Maybe it's just best to agree to disagree on this matter as I feel we won't arrive to a mutual conclusion? I hope I haven't offended anyone and that most certainly hasn't been my intention. I'd be very happy to discuss Wagner further though.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Nietzsche's hostility to Wagner can only be understood fully in the light of his devotion to him.


Woodduck, I guess this went lost among everything else but I'd still be interested to hear more specifically what you meant by this .


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Maybe it's just best to agree to disagree on this matter as I feel we won't arrive to a mutual conclusion? I hope I haven't offended anyone and that most certainly hasn't been my intention. I'd be very happy to discuss Wagner further though.


There's nothing much more there, the conclusion is simply that nothing that has that great an impact is subjective and there are consequences to everything.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> There's nothing much more there, the conclusion is simply that nothing that has that great an impact is subjective and there are consequences to everything.


While I sort of agree with the second part of your sentence, although I still don't grasp how can Wagner be held accountable for the way people have decided to interpret his work, then I question the first part. The things that have a great impact, including Wagner and his music, aren't in their objectivity/subjectivity any different from the things which have a small(er) impact. The subjectivity of Wagner and his music can easily be seen in all these Wagner threads - all the different interpretations reflect its subjectivity that probably stems from Wagner's great complexity and multifaceted works which in turn seem to be a result of the way Wagner composed and wrote his libretti. People understand his works very differently. Just compare the Wagner scholars like Doningnton, Magee, Shaw, Scruton, Newman etc. Most of them interpreted the Ring cycle in some places drastically differently than the others - I wouldn't call that a quality of something objective. The mere fact that the music affects people differently and is dependent on the listener robs it from some of its objectivity. That's my opinion, at least.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> While I sort of agree with the second part of your sentence, although I still don't grasp how can Wagner be held accountable for the way people have decided to interpret his work, then I question the first part. The things that have a great impact, including Wagner and his music, aren't in their objectivity/subjectivity any different from the things which have a small(er) impact. The subjectivity of Wagner and his music can easily be seen in all these Wagner threads - all the different interpretations reflect its subjectivity that probably stems from Wagner's great complexity and multifaceted works which in turn seem to be a result of the way Wagner composed and wrote his libretti. People understand his works very differently. Just compare the Wagner scholars like Doningnton, Magee, Shaw, Scruton, Newman etc. Most of them interpreted the Ring cycle in some places drastically differently than the others - I wouldn't call that a quality of something objective. The mere fact that the music affects people differently and is dependent on the listener robs it from some of its objectivity. That's my opinion, at least.


Lack of comprehension does not equal subjectivity. Certainly today obscurantism is encouraged, but exceptions can be made if the greater good is concerned.

Wagner was a serial adulterer that tried to push the limit with Tristan, and he ended up the wounded Amfortas. As an old man he continued to be infatuated with young women, never conquering his lust.

He created an atmosphere that Nietzsche took even further - that of making a god of the self and trying to break nature to the human will in order to have unlimited pleasures. This violation against nature had extreme consequences.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Nietzsche was obsessed with that opera, his entire works are based on its promise of sexual ecstasy. It was what set him off, and he admitted that Wagner had been the most important figure in his life.
> 
> You underestimate the power of music.


You overestimate your ability to psychoanalyze dead people. You also overestimate your grasp of philosophy and history.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Wagner was a serial adulterer that tried to push the limit with Tristan, and he ended up the wounded Amfortas. As an old man he continued to be infatuated with young women, never conquering his lust.
> 
> He created an atmosphere that Nietzsche took even further - that of making a god of the self and trying to break nature to the human will in order to have unlimited pleasures. This violation against nature had extreme consequences.


The idea that Wagner's overactive libido and an opera about romantic passion represent an attempt to "break nature to the human will in order to have unlimited pleasures" is ludicrous - as ludicrous as your attempt to draw a neat line from _Tristan_ through Nietzsche to fascism and communism. Wagner's works - all of them - are profoundly anti-authoritarian.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> There's nothing much more there, the conclusion is simply that nothing that has that great an impact is subjective and there are consequences to everything.


The statement that "nothing that has that great an impact is subjective" is simply false. Man's subjective perception of things is far more determinative of his actions than is objective reality. It's no exaggeration to say that objective reality affects him deeply only as it's filtered through his subjectivity, and that every man creates his own reality out of the raw materials provided by his senses. Life is not a science (which itself, for that matter, is not unaffected by subjective perception and theory).


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You think it's a coincidence that both Nietzsche and Hitler drew inspiration from Wagner?


I've also drawn inspiration from Wagner, as have millions of other people - very different people. What of it?



> He remains the proof of the power of music to change the world, only because *horror is both so easily measured* and undeniable. Nothing horrible seemed to follow Mozart and Beethoven, on the contrary.


What is the yardstick for measuring horror ("so easily")?



> There is *something* genuinely there on the metaphysical nature of music, how it's the truest representation of *things*.


What "things"?


----------



## Woodduck

Many political thinkers and actors tried to claim Nietzsche as an intellectual forebear, but failed to grasp his complexities and, in some instances, contradictions. It's worth pointing out that he rejected the race theory and nationalism which are the pillars of Nazi ideology, and that his "superman" was far from a Nazi storm trooper.

Wagner is much harder to claim, and defeats all attempts. He is ultimately a poet of the subconscious - the realm opened up by the Romantic movement. Those taking inspiration from his work are apt to find what they wish to find (which is a testament to his greatness). Is_ Tristan_ a paean to unbounded passion, or an exposition of its illusions? Is it a tragedy of the authentic individual broken by society, or an essay on the perils of defining individuality outside of a socially sanctioned context? Is the lovers' fate inevitable? Do they really desire death, or rather a life their experience of the world prevents them from understanding rightly? Does Isolde achieve transcendence, or does she go insane? Wagner provides no answers. But no work of art before _Tristan_ had opened up this psychic territory with such compelling precision and intensity. And only Wagner found the music for it.


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> One can never underestimate the power of writing complete nonsense on every subject under the sun


Spoken like a true philosopher


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/richard-wagner.pdf
"I was censured for my admiration of Wagner and taunted with comments such as "Are you anti-Semitic too?". I do not think that he was a rabidly anti-Semitic person. It was just that he hated the composer Meyerbeer who was a Jew. As Wagner was himself painfully sensitive his remarks may have been insensitive. The composer who was vehemently anti-Semitic was Chopin"


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/richard-wagner.pdf
> "I was censured for my admiration of Wagner and taunted with comments such as "Are you anti-Semitic too?". I do not think that he was a rabidly anti-Semitic person. It was just that he hated the composer Meyerbeer who was a Jew. As Wagner was himself painfully sensitive his remarks may have been insensitive. The composer who was vehemently anti-Semitic was Chopin"


Another of Mr Wright's painfully idiotic comments.


----------



## Barbebleu

DavidA said:


> Spoken like a true philosopher


I'm so jaded DavidA that I can't decide whether this is an insult or a compliment. I'm going to take it as a compliment. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/richard-wagner.pdf
> "I was censured for my admiration of Wagner and taunted with comments such as "Are you anti-Semitic too?". I do not think that he was a rabidly anti-Semitic person. It was just that he hated the composer Meyerbeer who was a Jew. As Wagner was himself painfully sensitive his remarks may have been insensitive. The composer who was vehemently anti-Semitic was Chopin"


Wright, as usual, is wrong in his judgments, though not in his information. It's true that Chopin, like many people of his time, was vehemently antisemitic. It's also true that Wagner's antisemitism was in some ways peculiar, was inspired by his resentment of Meyerbeer's fabulous success and position of power in the opera world, and was belied by some of his actions and statements. Acknowledging these things doesn't make Wagner's negative feelings and ideas about Jews go away.

I have to chuckle at the last sentence in the Wright article you quote: "It has been said that had Wagner not been a socialist and corrupted by the theories of Darwin and Nietzsche and had been a decent, nice man he would never have written his unsurpassed music." Evidently Wright finds socialism, Darwin and Nietzsche more problematic than antisemitism. So do a lot of right-wing bigots.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> The idea that Wagner's overactive libido and an opera about romantic passion represent an attempt to "break nature to the human will in order to have unlimited pleasures" is ludicrous - as ludicrous as your attempt to draw a neat line from _Tristan_ through Nietzsche to fascism and communism. *Wagner's works - all of them - are profoundly anti-authoritarian.*


Yes! He was involved in (quite radical) left-winged activities when he was younger and had to flee to Zürich. The revolutions of 1848, including the uprising in Dresden where Wagner played an active role, were essentially democratic in nature and their aim was to remove the old monarchial structures and create independent nation-states. I don't think Wagner had forgotten everything about these ideas and political principles by the time he wrote his great mature operas. Considering that he was willing to live 12 years in Switzerland, despite loving Germany greatly, for the sake of these views, they must have been important to him! It's of course an entirely different matter whether Wagner thought about the possible consequences like the exile beforehand...


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Yes! He was involved in (quite radical) left-winged activities when he was younger and had to flee to Zürich. The revolutions of 1848, including the uprising in Dresden where Wagner played an active role, were essentially democratic in nature and *their aim was to remove the old monarchial structures* and create independent nation-states. *I don't think Wagner had forgotten everything *about these ideas and political principles by the time he wrote his great mature operas. Considering that he was willing to live 12 years in Switzerland, despite loving Germany greatly, for the sake of these views, they must have been important to him! It's of course an entirely different matter whether Wagner thought about the possible consequences like the exile beforehand...


Of course his left-wing, anti-monarchist principles did not stop him taking bags of money from a monarch to fund his vision. Amazing how flexible we can be when it suits us!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Of course his left-wing, anti-monarchist principles did not stop him taking bags of money from a monarch to fund his vision. Amazing how flexible we can be when it suits us!


If you were capable of writing _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ and needed a patron to enable you to devote your time and energy to it, you might find that flexibility suited you too.


----------



## Itullian

Wagner knew he was a great genius and was willing to take to enable himself to give his great works to the world.
He knew what he had to give and it was for the world.
Thank God he did!!!


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Of course his left-wing, anti-monarchist principles did not stop him taking bags of money from a monarch to fund his vision. Amazing how flexible we can be when it suits us!


Art was the most important thing for him! I feel he would have been willing to sacrifice A LOT for its sake.


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from personal comments. Wagner and his music are vastly too interesting to waste forum space on such comments. Some posts have been removed.


----------



## 1996D

Itullian said:


> Wagner knew he was a great genius and was willing to take to enable himself to give his great works to the world.
> He knew what he had to give and it was for the world.
> Thank God he did!!!


He did a whole lot of damage to the world, equal to Nietzsche's.

50 million dead from Fascism, 100 million from Communism, because of two children who lacked a father figure or rejected it. The blueprint for our era is of their making; geniuses, yes.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> He did a whole lot of damage to the world, equal to Nietzsche's.
> 
> 50 million dead from Fascism, 100 million from Communism, because of two children who lacked a father figure or rejected it. The blueprint for our era is of their making; geniuses, yes.


Didn't we start with the same statement? I think that very soon we'll reach the point, if we already haven't, where at least I don't have anything to add to what I've already written...


----------



## Woodduck

Absolutely, and no "probably" about it! Beginning in boyhood, when he hung around the theater with his stepfather and his feverish imagination began to produce plays, the "alternative reality" of art became Wagner's primary reality. Ultimately everything else in his life was defined in terms of it. What aspects of ordinary human experience he sacrificed for it, we can't fully know, although his letters to Liszt and others make clear that the sacrifice of "normal" life was real and difficult.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely, and no "probably" about it! Beginning in boyhood, when he hung around the theater with his stepfather and his feverish imagination began to produce plays, the "alternative reality" of art became Wagner's primary reality. Ultimately everything else in his life was defined in terms of it. What aspects of ordinary human experience he sacrificed for it, we can't fully know, although his letters to Liszt and others make clear that the sacrifice of "normal" life was real and difficult.


Fair point but no worries, I edited the "probably" out . I just try to avoid conclusive statements about some aspects of history but in this case I guess conclusiveness is well justified.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> He did a whole lot of damage to the world, equal to Nietzsche's.
> 
> 50 million dead from Fascism, 100 million from Communism, because of two children who lacked a father figure or rejected it. The blueprint for our era is of their making; geniuses, yes.


Johnny-one-note sings on. The song is off-key.

Our era has no "blueprint," and Wagner's operas are not the cause of 150 million dead. What Hitler and Stalin thought or did rests with them. If Hitler thought that Wagner's works supported his perverse ideology and power-lust, he was mistaken. So are you.

I'm SO tired of reading this simple-minded stuff over and over again. Think what you want, but for God's sake give us a break.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> Didn't we start with the same statement? I think that very soon *we'll reach the point, if we already haven't, where at least I don't have anything to add to what I've already written*...


That's what 1996D wants. To wear everyone down so that his "truth" can shine forth unimpeded. Very much like another member currently active in Area 51...


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely, and no "probably" about it! Beginning in boyhood, when he hung around the theater with his stepfather and his feverish imagination began to produce plays, the "alternative reality" of art became Wagner's primary reality. Ultimately everything else in his life was defined in terms of it. What aspects of ordinary human experience he sacrificed for it, we can't fully know, although his letters to Liszt and others make clear that the sacrifice of "normal" life was real and difficult.


There's no doubt both had very difficult lives, Nietzsche's was probably much harder, but that's what they chose.

It might very well have been necessary but it's wrong to admire men that destroyed so much, unless you're doing the same thing.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> That's what 1996D wants. To wear everyone down so that his "truth" can shine forth unimpeded. Very much like another member currently active in Area 51...


Of course not, I'm just learning as always. I appreciate what you guys do, you rightly obscure the information just in case, willingly or not.


----------



## Barbebleu

I wonder what Pol Pot’s thoughts were on Wagner’s operas or Nietzsche’s philosophy? I could hazard a guess but I’ll leave that to the greater minds that seem all too prevalent on this forum


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> I _*wonder what Pol Pot's thoughts were on Wagner's operas or Nietzsche's philosophy*_? I could hazard a guess but I'll leave that to the greater minds that seem all too prevalent on this forum


"Alas, where in the world have there been greater follies than with the compassionate? And what in the world has caused more suffering than the follies of the compassionate?"

Pol Pot worked that one out pretty well


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> There's no doubt both had very difficult lives, Nietzsche's was probably much harder, but that's what they chose.
> 
> It might very well have been necessary but it's wrong to admire men that destroyed so much, unless you're doing the same thing.


What is the "so much" that Wagner destroyed? (Try to tell us something new and concrete, please.)


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> He did a whole lot of damage to the world, equal to Nietzsche's


Nietzsche's "great damage" to the world was removing Chicken Little's security blanket. Now, sane people everywhere are pleading with Mr. Little's psychoanalyst to prescribe him more effective drugs. Or just anything to get him to STHU.

Wagner threads seem to separate out into two distinct camps:

1. Those people who know and love the maestro's music and wish to discuss it,

And

2. Those people who are obsessed with Nazis and want to talk about that because they don't have anything intelligent to say about Wagner's music.

"I wrote a song about dental floss. Did anyone's teeth get cleaner?" ~ Frank Zappa


----------



## Woodduck

Room2201974 said:


> Nietzsche's "great damage" to the world was removing Chicken Little's security blanket. Now, sane people everywhere are pleading with Mr. Little's psychoanalyst to prescribe him more effective drugs. Or just anything to get him to STHU.
> 
> Wagner threads seem to separate out into two distinct camps:
> 
> 1. Those people who know and love the maestro's music and wish to discuss it,
> 
> And
> 
> 2. Those people who are obsessed with Nazis and want to talk about that because they don't have anything intelligent to say about Wagner's music.
> 
> "I wrote a song about dental floss. Did anyone's teeth get cleaner?" ~ Frank Zappa


Zappa had it right.


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> Nietzsche's "great damage" to the world was removing Chicken Little's security blanket. Now, sane people everywhere are pleading with Mr. Little's psychoanalyst to prescribe him more effective drugs. Or just anything to get him to STHU.
> 
> Wagner threads seem to separate out into two distinct camps:
> 
> 1. Those people who know and love the maestro's music and wish to discuss it,
> 
> And
> 
> 2. Those people who are obsessed with Nazis and want to talk about that because they don't have anything intelligent to say about Wagner's music.
> 
> "I wrote a song about dental floss. Did anyone's teeth get cleaner?" ~ Frank Zappa


My interests lie in how music influences the world.

Nietzsche provided the philosophical justification for a lot of evil men, don't fool yourself.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> My interests lie in how music influences the world.


Music influences the world very little and those who think it does are operating on a false premise. The number one topic for songs, opera, and lieder is love, going back to Machaut and before and running through Dowland, Schubert, Wagner, Cole Porter, L&M and Bob Dylan. So how come we don't love one another????? How come we don't listen to _All You Need Is Love_ and eliminate the racial divide that has plagued our national compact since 3/5 of a person?????? How come a Bach Cantata doesn't convert the skeptical? How come none of my conservative friends in high school converted to liberal upon hearing Bob Dylan? They thought _Rainy Day Woman #12&35_ was cool while _The Death of Emmett Till_ moved them naught.

You fool yourself if you think music is this great shifter of history. But that wouldn't be the first time you have expressed an idea that is musically delusionary. And once again, you have posted exactly nothing when it comes to Wagner's music.

I really don't want to get off on a tangent, but here ladies and gentlemen is what I have argued before in other threads of TC: In any poll of "the greats" a confounding variable is the down vote of Wagner because of non musical subjects. You can't eliminate it!!!!

Look, if you can't listen to say, _The Prelude To The Meistersingers_ for instance and then *not* say, "Wow, that's a pretty strong compositional method." Then, I don't know. Maybe this music thing isn't really for you. You can always sell insurance (or paper). It's a thought.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> My interests lie in how music influences the world.
> 
> *Nietzsche provided the philosophical justification for a lot of evil men, don't fool yourself.*


As I said before, I think those people, who supposedly used Nietzsche as a justification, didn't need his justification. It was just a nice propaganda addition, especially considering what Nietzsche himself wrote about Germans (there's tons of rather amusing stuff, in fact). Great German poets like Schiller and Goethe were probably liked by the Nazis the same way. _Ode to Joy_ is Schiller's and _Faust_, which is one of the most influential works of Western literature, is Goethe's. We cannot reject such works just because maybe some murderer was influenced by them.

Some quotes from Nietzsche's last written work _Ecce homo_:

"I could never have survived my youth without Wagnerian music. For I was condemned to the society of Germans. If a man wish to get rid of a feeling of insufferable oppression, he has to take to hashish. Well, I had to take to Wagner. Wagner is the counter-poison to everything essentially German-the fact that he is a poison too, I do not deny. From the moment that Tristan was arranged for the piano-all honour to you, Herr von Bülow!-I was a Wagnerite. Wagner's previous works seemed beneath me-they were too commonplace, too "German.""

"What is it that I have never forgiven Wagner? The fact that he condescended to the Germans-that he became a German Imperialist.... Wherever Germany spreads, she ruins culture."

"When I try to think of the kind of man who is opposed to me in all my instincts, my mental image takes the form of a German."

"In vain have I sought among them for a sign of tact and delicacy towards myself. Among Jews I did indeed find it, but not among Germans."

"There was not a single abortion that was lacking among them-no, not even the anti-Semite.-Poor Wagner! Into whose hands had he fallen? If only he had gone into a herd of swine! But among Germans!"

And most significantly: *"For, just as Wagner is merely a misunderstanding among Germans, so, in truth, am I, and ever will be." *

Honestly, this doesn't sound pro-German at all and Nietzsche seems to condemn anti-semitism quite clearly. I don't see how the racial and German nationalistic interpretation of Übermensch could have been Nietzsche's original intention. I think _Il Trovatore_ or _Otello_ could be interpreted in an anti-semitic way as well if you really want to, but among all possible composers, Hitler just happened to like Wagner since his childhood. Had it been Verdi, we don't know.. maybe we would be discussing Verdi's role in the rise of Nazism instead of Wagner's.


----------



## 1996D

"All possible strivings, excitements, and expressions of the will, as well as all possible psychic events in the interior of man, which Reason refers to derogatorily as feelings, achieve their expression through the infinitely possible melodies, but always in their most general form without content, always according to the thing itself and not according to appearances, resembling in this the innermost soul without a body. Out of this intimate relationship that music has to the true being of all things, it is easy to explain that when fitting music is played alongside any scene, action, or event, this music seems to reveal the deepest meaning of the event and provides it with its most appropriate and clearest commentary. This is so because music is, as I have said, different from all of the other arts in that it is not a representation of the event or more exactly the adequate objectivity of the will, but rather the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world. It is the thing itself in relation to all appearance."

If you have no understanding of metaphysics and are not philosophically minded then you simply won't understand.



> How come we don't listen to All You Need Is Love and eliminate the racial divide that has plagued our national compact since 3/5 of a person?


You compare that to Tristan? It did have an impact though, music was a huge part of the 60s, without it there would've been no movement - of course you have to properly scale things - such simplistic music can only do so much.

Wagner on the other hand...


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> "All possible strivings, excitements, and expressions of the will, as well as all possible psychic events in the interior of man, which Reason refers to derogatorily as feelings, achieve their expression through the infinitely possible melodies, but always in their most general form without content, always according to the thing itself and not according to appearances, resembling in this the innermost soul without a body. Out of this intimate relationship that music has to the true being of all things, it is easy to explain that when fitting music is played alongside any scene, action, or event, this music seems to reveal the deepest meaning of the event and provides it with its most appropriate and clearest commentary. This is so because music is, as I have said, different from all of the other arts in that it is not a representation of the event or more exactly the adequate objectivity of the will, but rather the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world. It is the thing itself in relation to all appearance."
> 
> If you have no understanding of metaphysics and are not philosophically minded then you simply won't understand.


With all honesty, I must admit, I do not understand metaphysics fully. Parts of it? Maybe. But entirely? Definitely not. I also don't claim to understand Schopenhauer, Nietzsche nor Kant wholly and I try to only talk from the knowledge that I have on the subject. What I do know though is that not everything Schopenhauer wrote is considered to be "true" in the philosophical sense and Wagner didn't agree with him always (seemingly not even on the redeeming power of romantic love!). I think I've expressed myself clearly in my last post .


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> With all honesty, I must admit, I do not understand metaphysics fully. Parts of it? Maybe. But entirely? Definitely not. I also don't claim to understand Schopenhauer, Nietzsche nor Kant wholly and I try to only talk from the knowledge that I have on the subject. What I do know though is that not everything Schopenhauer wrote is considered to be "true" in the philosophical sense and Wagner didn't agree with him always (seemingly not even on the redeeming power of romantic love!). I think I've expressed myself clearly in my last post .


These thoughts become clearer when teaching is attempted, that's the reason for the discussion, but people will understand what they want to understand, if it's no use to you the truth is just a burden, so rightly so you can all go on now and think what you'd like.

It's not a bad thing if people think music has no impact, it's probably best. That's what I love about this forum, you can learn freely and there will always be people to cover your tracks.

We certainly don't need another Wagner and obscurantism is a great way to prevent that, that I think is the value of postmodernism and deconstructionism.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> These thoughts become clearer when teaching is attempted, that's the reason for the discussion, but people will understand what they want to understand, if it's no use to you the truth is just a burden, so rightly so you can all go on now and think what you'd like.
> 
> It's not a bad thing if people think music has no impact, it's probably best. That's what I love about this forum, you can learn freely and there will always be people to cover your tracks.
> 
> We certainly don't need another Wagner and obscurantism is a great way to prevent that, that I think is the value of postmodernism and deconstructionism.


I THINK I understand the point you are making but some things I pointed out previously show that both Nietzsche and Wagner were in my opinion just misinterpreted and their works weren't inherently evil.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> I THINK I understand the point you are making but some things I pointed out previously show that both Nietzsche and Wagner were in my opinion just misinterpreted and their works weren't inherently evil.


Their lives tell a different story. Nietzsche visited brothels and infected himself with syphilis and Wagner was a serial adulterer.

Both rejected the laws of nature and their works reflect this rebellion. They both had a passion for pushing the limits and challenging all order, all laws, and this inspired the rebellion against nature that was the 20th century.

These unnatural political systems that the world had never seen before came because of a refusal to follow the natural order, and were only possible because of Nietzsche's philosophy, and that in turn was possible because of 'the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world', which was Wagner's music.

Both had the will to challenge the most basic and essential rules of the world, not only those of Christianity. They are a sort of extension of Martin Luther, except he only challenged Catholicism.


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> Their lives tell a different story. *Nietzsche* visited brothels and *infected himself with syphilis* and Wagner was a serial adulterer.
> 
> Both rejected the laws of nature and their works reflect this rebellion. They both had a passion for pushing the limits and challenging all order, all laws, and this *inspired the rebellion against nature that was the 20th century*.
> 
> These unnatural political systems that the world had never seen before came because of a refusal to follow the natural order, and were only possible because of Nietzsche's philosophy, and that in turn was possible because of 'the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world', which was Wagner's music.
> 
> Both had the will to challenge the most basic and essential rules of the world, not only those of Christianity. They are a sort of extension of Martin Luther, except he only challenged Catholicism.


I admire the man's flexibility and see what you mean about rejecting the laws of nature.

Your notions of causality are surreal and entertaining.


----------



## Barbebleu

1996D said:


> if it's no use to you the truth is just a burden,


Which truth? Your subjective truth according to your understanding of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or Wagner or Annaw's subjective truth based on his/her understanding or Woodduck's truth based on his understanding.

There are many truths, some of which may actually be true!


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Their lives tell a different story. Nietzsche visited brothels and infected himself with syphilis and Wagner was a serial adulterer.
> 
> Both rejected the laws of nature and their works reflect this rebellion. They both had a passion for pushing the limits and challenging all order, all laws, and this inspired the rebellion against nature that was the 20th century.
> 
> These unnatural political systems that the world had never seen before came because of a refusal to follow the natural order, and were only possible because of Nietzsche's philosophy, and that in turn was possible because of 'the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world', which was Wagner's music.
> 
> Both had the will to challenge the most basic and essential rules of the world, not only those of Christianity. They are a sort of extension of Martin Luther, except he only challenged Catholicism.


Nietzsche was not a nihilist and didn't support the the lack of moral laws.


----------



## annaw

Barbebleu said:


> Which truth? Your subjective truth according to your understanding of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or Wagner or Annaw's subjective truth based on his/her understanding or Woodduck's truth based on his understanding.
> 
> There are many truths, some of which may actually be true!


Wagner seems to be too differently interpretable :lol:.

(It's "her" )


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I've also drawn inspiration from Wagner, as have millions of other people - very different people. What of it? What is the yardstick for measuring horror ("so easily")? What "things"?


There are _obvious_ connections between Freud, Nietszche, and Wagner. The idea of "unconscious drives" which are greater than the conscious ego was emerging at this time.


----------



## 1996D

I really hope I'm not right, because that would mean that every little thing we do has absolute consequences.

That every action has a metaphysical reaction even if no one is looking, even if you think it's insignificant; and that something as powerful as a musical work might have an impact which the artist never intended.

I really don't believe Wagner was evil, and if he wasn't yet still caused all that... It brings a new reality to the responsibility of great power, that even if you're in between good and evil, it's not nearly good enough.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> I really hope I'm not right, because that would mean that every little thing we do has absolute consequences.


I think you are safe . . . and if not, then at least you will be with pretty much everyone else. (Sometimes I wonder if this life isn't already the punishment.)

Edit: (or maybe just this forum)


----------



## Barbebleu

annaw said:


> (It's "her" )


Thank you. I've been caught out before,:lol:


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I think you are safe . . . and if not, then at least you will be with pretty much everyone else. (Sometimes I wonder if this life isn't already the punishment.)


I'm thinking that the positive aspect of music today is that it has no power. Because of the obscurantism brought on by postmodernism artists have no knowledge of the past, no philosophical or metaphysical knowledge, and a disconnection from their own emotions thanks to the purely intellectual atonality they write, so they are somewhat powerless to do evil.

Good also, but I'm guessing that if a person had what it took to break the lies of postmodernism they would have to be good.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> I really hope I'm not right, because that would mean that every little thing we do has absolute consequences.
> 
> That every action has a metaphysical reaction even if no one is looking, even if you think it's insignificant; and that something as powerful as a musical work might have an impact which the artist never intended.
> 
> I really don't believe Wagner was evil, and if he wasn't yet still caused all that... It brings a new reality to the responsibility of great power, that even if you're in between good and evil, it's not nearly good enough.


Wagner nor Nietzsche had power to control the way they works were interpreted. The only solution would have been that Wagner had composed no music and Nietzsche hadn't written any philosophical works. The fact that both have been IMO misinterpreted doesn't mean that they chose or intended their works to be understood so.

Have you thought about causation? I see no way to prove that it was Wagner or Nietzsche that caused the events in 20th century.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Wagner nor Nietzsche had power to control the way they works were interpreted. The only solution would have been that Wagner had composed no music and Nietzsche hadn't written any philosophical works. The fact that both have been IMO misinterpreted doesn't mean that they chose or intended their works to be understood so.
> 
> Have you thought about causation? I see no way to prove that it was Wagner or Nietzsche that caused the events in 20th century.


The more I think about it the worst it gets, I never wanted to believe it.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> The more I think about it the worst it gets, I never wanted to believe it.


Actually, the more you TALK about it the worse it gets (for anyone actually interested in the subject of this thread).

Clearly, you've said all you have to say a long time ago. It has added nothing to anyone's knowledge, and nothing anyone says seems to add to yours. How about knocking off the cheap moralizing masquerading as philosophy and actually discussing the artistic contributions of Wagner? Or do you have no interest in those?


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Actually, the more you TALK about it the worse it gets (for anyone actually interested in the subject of this thread).
> 
> Clearly, you've said all you have to say a long time ago. It has added nothing to anyone's knowledge, and nothing anyone says seems to add to yours. How about knocking off the cheap moralizing masquerading as philosophy and actually discussing the artistic contributions of Wagner? Or do you have no interest in those?


It was never about hurting Wagner who you've made it your duty to defend, it was about learning.

I need a great deal of information before passing judgment.


----------



## annaw

Could we talk about Wagner and his music ? That would be wonderful!


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> Could we talk about Wagner and his music? That would be wonderful!


Apparently only for a few posts at a time.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Could we talk about Wagner and his music ? That would be wonderful!


You're still rejecting that the man and his music are one.

Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche wrote about it and Wagner believed it. I think he finally realized what it would cause and that's why he sought to redeem himself with _Parsifal_. He had children then and thus a stake in the future.

That they would later become Nazis is surely something he wouldn't have wanted, and he did break with Nietzsche who further spiralled down into oblivion. You could say that he began an evil that exponentially grew to be much greater than the source, and you can say that of Martin Luther as well, who married a nun and sought to justify it. Of course this is relevant because both Wagner and Nietzsche were raised Lutheran.

It's pretty eerie that evil begins relatively small yet continues to grow through generations, until it can't anymore.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> You're still rejecting that the man and his music are one.
> 
> Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche wrote about it and Wagner believed it. I think he finally realized what it would cause and that's why he sought to redeem himself with _Parsifal_. He had children then and thus a stake in the future.
> 
> That they would later become Nazis is surely something he wouldn't have wanted, and he did break with Nietzsche who further spiralled down into oblivion. You could say that he began an evil that exponentially grew to be much greater than the source, and you can say that of Martin Luther as well, who married a nun and sought to justify it. Of course this is relevant because both Wagner and Nietzsche were raised Lutheran.
> 
> It's pretty eerie that evil begins relatively small yet continues to grow through generations, until it can't anymore.


I understand your point and I absolutely agree that we cannot consider Wagner's music without Wagner himself but IMO you take it slightly too far.


----------



## Barbebleu

1996D said:


> You could say that he began an evil that exponentially grew to be much greater than the source


No, you're the one saying this. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would spout such arrant nonsense. Nobody writes music to "begin an evil".


----------



## JAS

When I first listened to some of Wagner's early operas, I was surprised at how _conventional_ they seemed. They are difficult to distinguish from others of the same period by other composers, which in no way is to suggest that they are not worthwhile.


----------



## JAS

Barbebleu said:


> . . . Nobody writes music to "begin an evil".


What about "Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit"?






At least Elmer shows remorse at the end.


----------



## annaw

JAS said:


> *When I first listened to some of Wagner's early operas*, I was surprised at how _conventional_ they seemed. They are difficult to distinguish from others of the same period by other composers, which in no way is to suggest that they are not worthwhile.


You mean _Rienzi_, _Die Feen_ and _Das Liebesverbot_ or his early mature operas?


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> You mean _Rienzi_, _Die Feen_ and _Das Liebesverbot_ or his early mature operas?


I mean early as opposed to what we usually think of, especially The Ring operas, so yes.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I need a great deal of information before passing judgment.


How about not passing judgment? How about just keep your inane judgments to yourself? They infect and derail every discussion you participate in. There's nothing more excruciatingly tiresome than a compulsive moralizer.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> I understand your point and I absolutely agree that we cannot consider Wagner's music without Wagner himself but IMO you take it slightly too far. But we could talk about minors and majors and the themes of his operas...


Well, in Parsifal he gives justification for goodness.

Likewise, if you realize that every evil you do will exponentially grow until destruction is caused, that may do something in preventing you from doing it. Wagner portrays himself as Amfortas and at least in writing he does redeem himself, certainly does everything he can.

However the evil was done and the music of _Parsifal_ was too little too late.

If there is anything to learn from this is that once you do wrong the likelihood of redemption becomes slim and Wagner does convey this in _Parsifal_.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You're still rejecting that the man and his music are one.


No, they are not "one." That is childish, Romantic fantasy. The relationship between art and artist is complex. It is not "one" of anything.



> Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche wrote about it and Wagner believed it. I think he finally realized what it would cause and that's why he sought to redeem himself with _Parsifal_. He had children then and thus a stake in the future.


Nonsense. _Parsifal_ was conceived even before _Tristan._ All of Wagner's "late" works were long-term projects that occupied his thoughts concurrently for decades, along with discarded projects such as _Jesus of Nazareth_ and _The Victors._ His thinking evolved, but _Parsifal _represents a development and, perhaps, a culmination, not a revolution or a "redemption." Wagner himself makes this explicit in letters and statements.



> That they would later become Nazis is surely something he wouldn't have wanted,


Siegfried Wagner was not a "Nazi."



> and he did break with Nietzsche


It was Nietzsche who broke with Wagner.



> who further spiralled down into oblivion.


Nietzsche did not spiral down into oblivion.



> You could say that he began an evil that exponentially grew to be much greater than the source, and you can say that of Martin Luther as well, who married a nun and sought to justify it.


You could say anything you wish, and unfortunately do.



> Of course this is relevant because both Wagner and Nietzsche were raised Lutheran.


You can't be serious.



> It's pretty eerie that evil begins relatively small yet continues to grow through generations, until it can't anymore.


There's nothing "eerie" about the spread of faulty ideas. In fact it's quite commonplace, to the point of banality. As witness your own deluded thinking, which is as banal as can be.

For God's sake give us a break. Go find some street corner to preach on.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> You're still rejecting that the man and his music are one.


Every time I put Wagner in my CD player, he complains about the light in his eyes and that he is getting dizzy from the spinning.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck: It's not real because I don't want it to be real.


That's fine, you don't have to accept anything I'm writing.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> Every time I put Wagner in my CD player, he complains about the light in his eyes and that he is getting dizzy from the spinning.


If you can;t understand the Schopenhauer I quoted there is a simpler version by Aristotle:
_
And the music will correspond to their minds, for as their minds are perverted from the natural state, so there are perverted modes and highly strung and unnaturally colored melodies.
_

They knew even back then what Schopenhauer describes as "the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world".


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> you don't have to accept anything I'm writing.


Unfortunately we all have to read it.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> If you can;t understand the Schopenhauer I quoted there is a simpler version by Aristotle:
> _
> And the music will correspond to their minds, for as their minds are perverted from the natural state, so there are perverted modes and highly strung and unnaturally colored melodies.
> _
> 
> They knew even back then what Schopenhauer describes as "the immediate replica of the will itself and the metaphysical principle to the physical world".


My reply, of course, was meant to be lighthearted (as there seems far too much tension here). And I note that there is a difference between understanding something and agreeing with it.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> My reply, of course, was meant to be lighthearted (as there seems far too much tension here). And I note that there is a difference between understanding something and agreeing with it.


There is a biological reality to sound that proves its metaphysical properties.

Sound is what gives birth to language and it's the essential part of being human. Bernstein has lovely lectures where he relates music to linguistics, which bring an easily understandable reality to what we're discussing.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> There is a biological reality to sound that proves its metaphysical properties.


Pretentious verbiage that says absolutely nothing.



> Sound is what gives birth to language


No, it's _cognition_ that "gives birth" to language. Language may be visual or tactile in addition to, or instead of, auditory.



> and it's the essential part of being human.


Animals have language on a more rudimentary level.



> Bernstein has lovely lectures where he relates music to linguistics, which bring an easily understandable reality to what we're discussing.


Bernstein is theorizing and analogizing. The reality is not as "easily understandable" as you imagine, and "we," on this music forum, are supposed to be discussing Wagner (as in *Composer* Guestbooks). Try it for a change - or don't you know enough about music to talk about it intelligently?


----------



## 1996D

^You still think I'm trying to convince you of something.

If you think you're too far gone then I believe you, and you don't have to reply to anything I write.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> Sound is what gives birth to language and it's the essential part of being human. Bernstein has lovely lectures where he relates music to linguistics, which bring an easily understandable reality to what we're discussing.


I have heard it many times. He really cannot sing a note. And there are others who question such clean explanations.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> ^You still think I'm trying to convince you of something.
> 
> If you think you're too far gone then I believe you, and you don't have to reply to anything I write.


WTF does "thinking I'm too far gone" mean? Don't tell me what I think you're trying to do. What you ARE doing is filling thread after thread with foolishness. It ruins the forum for people actually interested in the subjects under discussion. You behave like a know-it-all adolescent who actually knows very little but hasn't yet developed enough mentally to realize it. If you keep filling threads with your silly moralizing I will have to take it up with moderation. Your nonsense is not what anyone comes here for.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I have heard it many times. He really cannot sing a note. And there are others who question such clean explanations.


It's fantastic that many think as you do with regards to what is true and what isn't, and sometimes some who delude themselves into thinking there are no truths - at least in this case it seems to be positive.

Postmodernism does take away power to do evil from people in intellectual realms and that's a positive, it undoubtedly had its purpose.

If so many can't even hold a single truth then there is a great reduction in philosophical thoughts. That explains why we haven't seen another Nietzsche that tries to seduce the reader into doing evil.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> It's fantastic that many think as you do with regards to what is true and what isn't, and sometimes some who delude themselves into thinking there are no truths - at least in this case it seems to be positive.


Disagreement is not necessarily delusion.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> It's fantastic that many think as you do with regards to what is true and what isn't, and sometimes some who delude themselves into thinking there are no truths - at least in this case it seems to be positive.
> 
> Postmodernism does take away power to do evil from people and that's a positive, it undoubtedly had its purpose.


This page has currently one mention of Wagner's name. Let's try to bring this somehow back to Wagner. What problem exactly are we trying to solve or which question are we discussing?


----------



## Woodduck

Does anyone have an idea for restarting a discussion about Wagner, who seems to have gone off to have a beer while a puny soapbox preacher rants about how he destroyed the modern world and probably designed the ovens at Auschwitz?


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> *Does anyone have an idea for restarting a discussion about Wagner*, who seems to have gone off to have a beer while a puny soapbox preacher rants about how he destroyed the modern world and probably designed the ovens at Auschwitz?


Yes, please!!!!


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> This page has currently one mention of Wagner's name. Let's try to bring this somehow back to Wagner. What problem exactly are we trying to solve or which question are we discussing?


Wagner, Wagner, Wagner . . . that name sounds familiar. Was he on Hart to Hart and It Takes a Thief?

Edit: My general statement is that people are complicated. As Ron Chernow once told me, great men have great flaws. (It was a general dinner before he spoke to a large crowd, so it is isn't as if we are close personal friends.)


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> WTF does "thinking I'm too far gone" mean? Don't tell me what I think you're trying to do. What you ARE doing is filling thread after thread with foolishness. It ruins the forum for people actually interested in the subjects under discussion. You behave like a know-it-all adolescent who actually knows very little but hasn't yet developed enough mentally to realize it. If you keep filling threads with your silly moralizing I will have to take it up with moderation. Your nonsense is not what anyone comes here for.


I told you you don't have to reply, you weren't even addressed, you just bumped in.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> This page has currently one mention of Wagner's name. Let's try to bring this somehow back to Wagner. What problem exactly are we trying to solve or which question are we discussing?


Post #311 was about Wagner until Woodduck got offended.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Post #311 was about Wagner until Woodduck got offended.


Still... what exactly are we discussing? Current problem is that everyone seems to have expressed their opinion but as no one has transformed theirs, and no one has to, there's no new argumentation nor discussion going on. Thus restarting it with a wholly new topic seems to be the most reasonable solution.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Post #311 was about Wagner until Woodduck got offended.


Post 311 was more of your typical moralizing and sophistry, incorrectly citing _Parsifal_ as justification for it.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Still... what exactly are we discussing? Current problem is that everyone seems to have expressed their opinion but as no one has transformed theirs, and no one has to, there's no new argumentation nor discussion going on. Thus restarting it with a wholly new topic seems to be the most reasonable solution.


Alright, go ahead.



> Post 311 was more of your typical moralizing and sophistry, incorrectly citing Parsifal as justification for it.


What moralizing? Have you even seen Parsifal, Wagner consulted a Catholic priest for advice - the work is highly religious.

Morality is the central theme of it.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Alright, go ahead.
> 
> What moralizing? Have you even seen Parsifal, *Wagner consulted a Catholic priest for advice - the work is highly religious*.
> 
> Morality is the central theme of it.


Woodduck is certainly more competent to answer whether morality is the central theme of it or not than me but saying that it's Christian just because it includes Christian themes is not necessarily correct. They rather seem as just the means Wagner used to convey his own views and "philosophy".


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Woodduck is certainly more competent to answer whether morality is the central theme of it or not than me but saying that it's Christian just because it includes Christian themes is not necessarily correct. They rather seem as just the means Wagner used to convey his own views and "philosophy".


Yes, of course.

Parsifal is what he would've liked to be and he did show remorse, the story is highly personal, and he used Catholicism simply as a vessel to convey his message of regret.


----------



## Itullian

i see Parsifal as a religious work or at least spiriyual.
i may be inclined to think that though as i am Catholic.
To me it's a very reverential work that i play on or around Easter.
i think it contains hints of philosophy but look at all the settings.
And what was Kundry's sin? Laughing at Christ.
The spear, grail, the church, the dove, etc.
It's all Catholic to me.
But again, i may be a bit bias.


----------



## 1996D

Itullian said:


> i see Parsifal as a religious work or at least spiriyual.
> i may be inclined to think that though as i am Catholic.
> To me it's a very reverential work that i play on or around Easter.
> i think it contains hints of philosophy but look at all the settings.
> And what was Kundry's sin? Laughing at Christ.
> The spear, grail, the church, the dove, etc.
> It's all Catholic to me.
> But again, i may be a bit bias.


But he wasn't Catholic.

Maybe it was admiration for what he saw as the right way, but one that he didn't take.


----------



## annaw

Itullian said:


> i see Parsifal as a religious work or at least spiriyual.
> i may be inclined to think that though as i am Catholic.
> To me it's a very reverential work that i play on or around Easter.
> i think it contains hints of philosophy but look at all the settings.
> And what was Kundry's sin? Laughing at Christ.
> The spear, grail, the church, the dove, etc.
> It's all Catholic to me.
> But again, i may be a bit bias.


Spiritual is probably better. I'm also a Christian and I have found very many Christian ideas from that opera - immensely beautiful choral writing in the Grail scenes for example. It's probably my favourite Wagner opera! It's just that I'm doubting how Christian Wagner himself was... but then, how much does it matter after all for my own personal listening experience and considering Wagner and his complexity, I wouldn't be surprised if it simultaneously includes Christian, Buddhistic and Schopenhauerian influences.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> But he wasn't Catholic.
> 
> Maybe it was admiration for what he saw as the right way, but one that he didn't take.


There was this massive _Parisfal_ religion thread which Woodduck started. I think _Parsifal_ and religion was rather thoroughly discussed there.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> There was this massive _Parisfal_ religion thread which Woodduck started. I think _Parsifal_ and religion was rather thoroughly discussed there.


Perhaps not thoroughly, but substantially. And you are right: _Parsifal_ contains a personal amalgamation of Christianity and Buddhism. I find nothing _specifically_ from Schopenhauer, whom Wagner had absorbed and interpreted in his own way, and through whom some of his understanding of Buddhism undoubtedly came.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps not thoroughly, but substantially. And you are right: _Parsifal_ contains a personal amalgamation of Christianity and Buddhism. *I find nothing specifically from Schopenhauer, whom Wagner had absorbed and interpreted in his own way*, and through whom some of his understanding of Buddhism undoubtedly came.


I certainly agree that Wagner's so called Schopanhauerianism was different from the original philosophical idea which Schopenhauer put forth. The ending of _Tristan und Isolde_ is IMO one of the clearest examples of how Wagner's understanding was different from Schopenhauer's. What I've so far interpreted as Wagner's take of Schopenhauer in _Parsifal_ is the fact that Parsifal seems to be enlightened through compassion which, as I've understood it, Schopenhauer saw as a kind of morality. Schopenhauer was also influenced by Buddhism though, so maybe I'm just mixing up Buddhistic and Schopenhauerian influences


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Parsifal is what he would've liked to be and he did show remorse, the story is highly personal, and he used Catholicism simply as a vessel to convey his message of regret.


I've already told you that this idea of _Parsifal_ as a belated expression of "regret," "remorse" or repentance is wrong. Until you can show some evidence that your purported insight into Wagner's psyche is valid, you should stop making these claims about him. It's highly presumptuous.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> I certainly agree that Wagner's so called Schopanhauerianism was different from the original philosophical idea which Schopenhauer put forth. The ending of _Tristan und Isolde_ is IMO one of the clearest examples of how Wagner's understanding was different from Schopenhauer's. What I've so far interpreted as Wagner's take of Schopenhauer in _Parsifal_ is the fact that Parsifal seems to be enlightened through compassion which, as I've understood it, Schopenhauer saw as a kind of morality. Schopenhauer was also influenced by Buddhism though, so maybe I'm just mixing up Buddhistic and Schopenhauerian influences.


I think Schopenhauer's emphasis on compassion (_Mitleid,_ or "suffering with") came from his Buddhist studies.

It may be useful here to note that Wagner said that when he discovered Schopenhauer's quasi-Buddhist philosophy, it felt not like a change in his outlook, but like a clarification of what he had always felt and believed.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> I think Schopenhauer's emphasis on compassion (_Mitleid,_ or "suffering with") came from his Buddhist studies.


Makes sense! Buddhism seemed to be a mutual influence then and if that's the case, it seems quite possible that Wagner didn't use anything purely Schopenhauerian because Schopenhauer himself was quite deeply influenced by Buddhistic ideas.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> It may be useful here to note that Wagner said that when he discovered Schopenhauer's quasi-Buddhist philosophy, it felt not like a change in his outlook, but like a clarification of what he had always felt and believed.


After spending a lot of time with the _Dutchman_'s libretto recently, I've started seeing exactly the same thing. I find it quite fascinating how his views of for example compassion as a redeeming power can also be seen through Senta's character and that was way before he had written _Parsifal_. This is also in accordance with the statement which he made after reading Schopenhauer about finally understanding his Wotan.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> After spending a lot of time with the _Dutchman_'s libretto recently, I've started seeing exactly the same thing. I find it quite fascinating how his views of for example compassion as a redeeming power can also be seen through Senta's character and that was way before he had written _Parsifal_. This is also in accordance with the statement which he made after reading Schopenhauer about finally understanding his Wotan.


Nearly all Wagner's operas exhibit in some major character the beauty and nobility of compassion and devotion as virtues. Think of Wolfram, Elisabeth, Kurwenal, Marke, Sachs and Brunnhilde. Sachs and Brunnhilde both prefigure Parsifal in bringing about redemption through self-sacrifice. Wagner is positively Shakespearean in his ability to evoke - in his case through music - sympathy for even his villainous characters, whom Wagner said (specifically referring to Alberich) that he loved.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Nearly all Wagner's operas exhibit in some major character the beauty and nobility of compassion and devotion as virtues. Think of Wolfram, Elisabeth, Kurwenal, Marke, Sachs and Brunnhilde. Sachs and Brunnhilde both prefigure Parsifal in bringing about redemption through self-sacrifice. Wagner is positively Shakespearean in his ability to evoke - in his case through music - sympathy for even his villainous characters, whom Wagner said (specifically referring to Alberich) that he loved.


I love the ambivalence of his villain characters.

You brought up Sachs. The philosophy in _Die Meistersinger_ seems to be much less discussed than that of his other late operas, although he wrote it simultaneously with _Tristan_ and it seems to exhibit similar traits. Sachs' Wahn monologue strikes me as straightforwardly philosophical as does Wotan's monologue in _Die Walküre_. I'm somewhat confused by _Die Meistersinger_ though. I mean, Sachs compares himself to King Marke but leaving the age aside, he seems to be much more similar to Tristan with the difference that he doesn't drink a love potion and is thus able to reject romantic love which Tristan wasn't able to do. He strikes me as a "healthy" version of Tristan. I might misunderstand something though...


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> I've already told you that this idea of _Parsifal_ as a belated expression of "regret," "remorse" or repentance is wrong. Until you can show some evidence that your purported insight into Wagner's psyche is valid, you should stop making these claims about him. It's highly presumptuous.


It's a huge change of direction from Tristan and it was what caused the break between Wagner and Nietzsche. The former sent him a copy knowing that he would hate the Christian theme, and after told his doctor, Dr. Eiser, that he believed his illness to be caused by excessive onanism.

You say Nietzsche caused the break but Wagner knew what he was doing. _Parsifal_ is a departure from the egoism that had plagued him and the only thing he had in common with Nietzsche; it is in every way a move of repentance, and Amfortas shows how deeply Wagner felt wounded by his sin, and he absolutely felt remorse. Parsifal is what he would've wanted to be.

This is not my opinion, it's the only conclusion to be drawn after reading Wagner's Mein Lieben and Derrida's writings on Nietzsche. Adorno and Thomas Mann also have valuable information, you'd gain quite a bit from reading them.

Adorno particularly recognized the power of music as an agent for social revolution.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's a huge change of direction from Tristan and it was what caused the break between Wagner and Nietzsche. The former sent him a copy knowing that he would hate the Christian theme, and after told his doctor, Dr. Eiser, that he believed his illness to be caused by excessive onanism.
> 
> You say Nietzsche caused the break but Wagner knew what he was doing. _Parsifal_ is a departure from the egoism that had plagued him and the only thing he had in common with Nietzsche; it is in every way a move of repentance, and Amfortas shows how deeply Wagner felt wounded by his sin, and he absolutely felt remorse. Parsifal is what he would've wanted to be.
> 
> This is not my opinion, it's the only conclusion to be drawn after reading Wagner's Mein Lieben and Derrida's writings on Nietzsche.


_Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ are on different subjects, but, as I've already pointed out, _Parsifal_ was part of Wagner's thinking even when he was writing _Tristan_. He said (in a letter or in his autobiography, I forget which) that he had considered having Parsifal, "the renouncing one," wander into the third act of _Tristan_ and face Tristan, the "longing one." Wagner knew the issues even then. For that matter, _Tannhauser,_ from years earlier than _Tristan_, is an explicit dramatization of the different meanings of "love" and the potential for conflict between them. Both you and Nietzsche fail to see that _Parsifal_ does not represent something new in Wagner's thought - a "huge change of direction" - but a working out of a lifelong project which his various works express in developing stages. Nietzsche was upset because Wagner failed to be who Nietzsche thought he was and needed him to be. Nothing hurts like the loss of illusions. The idea that _Parsifal_ is Wagner's "move of repentance" is indeed your own opinion. But I'm sure you have reasons for needing to consider it that.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ are on different subjects, but, as I've already pointed out, _Parsifal_ was part of Wagner's thinking even when he was writing _Tristan_. He said (in a letter or in his autobiography, I forget which) that he had considered having Parsifal, "the renouncing one," wander into the third act of _Tristan_ and face Tristan, the "longing one." Wagner knew the issues even then. For that matter, _Tannhauser,_ from years earlier than _Tristan_, is an explicit dramatization of the different meanings of "love" and the potential for conflict between them. Both you and Nietzsche fail to see that _Parsifal_ does not represent something new in Wagner's thought - a "huge change of direction" - but a working out of a lifelong project which his various works express in developing stages. Nietzsche was upset because Wagner failed to be who Nietzsche thought he was and needed him to be. Nothing hurts like the loss of illusions. The idea that _Parsifal_ is Wagner's "move of repentance" is indeed your own opinion. But I'm sure you have reasons for needing to consider it that.


It's a sort of repentance but it's disingenuous, a trademark of Wagner. I did have a feeling that he knew his lust and was unable to do anything about it, or didn't want to control it; he was happy letting it loose then asking for forgiveness, probably with his fingers crossed.

If he did know what Nietzsche was up to yet still played him, that shows his ego in an even worse light, that he would lead a friend into such abyss while knowing all the while that he would abandon ship when it became convenient for him. Parsifal came at a time when Wagner had a family, respect among the bourgeoisie, and great professional success - he had no further reason to feel at ill with the world.

Meanwhile Nietzsche was sick with syphilis and close to going insane for the cause he believed in after being lead on by Wagner. It's very possible that he was used, which would make Wagner evil.

There are many possibilities but Wagner seeking repentance is the one that makes him look the best.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's a sort of repentance but it's disingenuous, a trademark of Wagner. I did have a feeling that he knew his lust and was unable to do anything about it, or didn't want to control it; he was happy letting it loose then asking for forgiveness, probably with his fingers crossed.
> 
> If he did know what Nietzsche was up to yet still played him, that shows his ego in an even worse light, that he would lead a friend into such abyss while knowing all the while that he would abandon ship when it became convenient for him. Parsifal came at a time when Wagner had a family, respect among the bourgeoisie, and great professional success - he had no further reason to feel at ill with the world.
> 
> Meanwhile Nietzsche was sick with syphilis and close to going insane for the cause he believed in after being lead on by Wagner. It's very possible that he was used, which would make Wagner evil.
> 
> There are many possibilities but Wagner seeking repentance is the one that makes him look the best.


There's so much spinning and speculating here that it isn't even worth dissecting.

We're on to talking about what's actually in Wagner's work.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> There's so much spinning and speculating here that it isn't even worth dissecting.
> 
> We're on to talking about what's actually in Wagner's work.


The thing is whichever way you spin it it doesn't end up looking good for Wagner, he was a terrible person and his relationship with Nietzsche proves it.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> The thing is whichever way you spin it it doesn't end up looking good for Wagner, he was a terrible person and his relationship with Nietzsche proves it.


OK, great. A terrible person. Your proofs of whatever are worth whatever they're worth.

"You certainly could and you should like Wagner. He is the best and noblest of men. Of course our contemporaries misunderstand and slander him. It is the duty of the world to darken those who shine. Goethe did not fare any better. That he bears no petty antisemitism like a country squire or a protestant bigot is seen by the way he treats me, Rubinstein, the late Tausig whom he loved dearly…Even his fight against what he calls „Jewishness" in music and modern literature springs from the noblest of motives. I am convinced that posterity will learn what we who are close to him know already: that in him we had just as great a man as a musician. I consider myself very lucky to be working with such a man and I thank God for it every day."

(Hermann Levi, the Jewish conductor whom the terrible person Wagner chose to lead the premiere of _Parsifal,_ in a letter to his rabbi father)

Of course you are much better qualified to tell us about Wagner than Levi was. After all, all he did was work with Wagner day in and day out.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> The thing is whichever way you spin it it doesn't end up looking good for Wagner, he was a terrible person and his relationship with Nietzsche proves it.


We cannot quantify terribleness - all of us are in some sense terrible and Wagner was no exception. Of course he did things he maybe shouldn't have done and acted in ways that we consider to be absolutely inappropriate but we shouldn't forget what a great relationship he had with Geyer, even after learning he's (officially) not his real father and if I recall correctly then Wagner himself was a very good father for Siegfried Wagner as well. We cannot blame him for ruining Nietzsche's life through just sending him the libretto of _Parsifal_. I would have considered it to be a rather nice move, considering how Wagner and Liszt themselves exchanged their scores and libretti. Nietzsche was an adult man and a very intelligent one.

Wagner suffered much! Very much... He didn't have a particularly stable mind. He had his obsessions since childhood, he suffered nightmares and had some weird fears. Considering how fond this thread seems to be of psychoanalysis, then it was Donington who put forth a theory that Wagner's non-romantic libido was directed into developing his inside rather than his outside being, resulting in some of the most moral and sensible opera characters ever created. While I doubt the general biological and medical applications of psychoanalysis then I agree with Donington in a way - Wagner's inability to act in the way he seemigly would have wanted to act made him put that ideal self into the operas, into Sachs, into Wotan who despite everything admits his weaknesses, into Brünnhilde, into Parsifal but he also depicted himself through the villains. His villains, as Woodduck pointed out, are extremely humane - terrible? Sure. Sympathetic? Certainly. The point is that he only didn't see himself in Amfortas, he also saw bits of himself in Parsifal. Even the mere wish to be like Parsifal would make him part of himself.

We cannot thus draw straightforward parallels between Wagner's own nature and his operas. They are for sure connected and that's what I try to emphasise, but in his operas we can see traits of Wagner that he was able to project onto his operas much more effectively than his own life.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> OK, great. A terrible person. Your proofs of whatever are worth whatever they're worth.
> 
> "You certainly could and you should like Wagner. He is the best and noblest of men. Of course our contemporaries misunderstand and slander him. It is the duty of the world to darken those who shine. Goethe did not fare any better. That he bears no petty antisemitism like a country squire or a protestant bigot is seen by the way he treats me, Rubinstein, the late Tausig whom he loved dearly…Even his fight against what he calls „Jewishness" in music and modern literature springs from the noblest of motives. I am convinced that posterity will learn what we who are close to him know already: that in him we had just as great a man as a musician. I consider myself very lucky to be working with such a man and I thank God for it every day."
> 
> (Hermann Levi, the Jewish conductor whom the terrible person Wagner chose to lead the premiere of _Parsifal,_ in a letter to his rabbi father)
> 
> Of course you are much better qualified to tell us about Wagner than Levi was. After all, all he did was work with Wagner day in and day out.


Duh, what a beautiful quote by Levi!!


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> We cannot quantify terribleness - all of us are in some sense terrible and Wagner was no exception. Of course he did things he maybe shouldn't have done and acted in ways that we consider to be absolutely inappropriate but we shouldn't forget what a great relationship he had with Geyer, even after learning he's (officially) not his real father and if I recall correctly then Wagner himself was a very good father for Siegfried Wagner as well. We cannot blame him for ruining Nietzsche's life through just sending him the libretto of _Parsifal_. I would have considered it to be a rather nice move, considering how Wagner and Liszt themselves exchanged their scores and libretti. Nietzsche was an adult man and a very intelligent one.
> 
> Wagner suffered much! Very much... He didn't have a particularly stable mind. He had his obsessions since childhood, he suffered nightmares and had some weird fears. Considering how fond this thread seems to be of psychoanalysis, then it was Donington who put forth a theory that Wagner's non-romantic libido was directed into developing his inside rather than his outside being, resulting in some of the most moral and sensible opera characters ever created. While I doubt the general biological and medical applications of psychoanalysis then I agree with Donington in a way - Wagner's inability to act in the way he seemigly would have wanted to act made him put that ideal self into the operas, into Sachs, into Wotan who despite everything admits his weaknesses, into Brünnhilde, into Parsifal but he also depicted himself through the villains. His villains, as Woodduck pointed out, are extremely humane - terrible? Sure. Sympathetic? Certainly. The point is that he only didn't see himself in Amfortas, he also saw bits of himself in Parsifal. Even the mere wish to be like Parsifal would make him part of himself.
> 
> We cannot thus draw straightforward parallels between Wagner's own nature and his operas. They are for sure connected and that's what I try to emphasise, but in his operas we can see traits of Wagner that he was able to project onto his operas much more effectively than his own life.


It's a truism that artists can often put more of themselves into their art than they can express in their mundane affairs. This may be all the more true for those whose art we recognize as most extraordinary, in that creating such work asks more of the artist's time and focus and takes him farther and longer from the everyday world, with which he may never establish a normal or satisfactory relationship (think Beethoven). If an artist's work seems finer than the man himself, that doesn't make the work a "penance" or bid for "forgiveness" from the universe. It's merely the artist employing the only way he knows to tell all he has inside him. The hero Parsifal was not merely something to which Wagner aspired. Parsifal was what Wagner knew, in his depths, that he was, whether others could see it or not.

"Woe unto you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence." Woe, too, unto those who judge a man by the outside of his cup, and fail to see that the wine within is the true blood of his life.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> It's a truism that artists can often put more of themselves into their art than they can express in their mundane affairs. This may be all the more true for those whose art we recognize as most extraordinary, in that creating such work asks more of the artist's time and focus and takes him farther and longer from the everyday world, with which he may never establish a normal or satisfactory relationship (think Beethoven). If an artist's work seems finer than the man himself, that doesn't make the work a "penance" or bid for "forgiveness" from the universe. It's merely the artist employing the only way he knows to tell all he has inside him. The hero Parsifal was not merely something to which Wagner aspired. Parsifal was what Wagner knew, in his depths, that he was, whether others could see it or not.
> 
> "Woe unto you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence." Woe, too, unto those who judge a man by the outside of his cup, and fail to see that the wine within is the true blood of his life.


Yes! I feel the need for art itself is one of many indications of a great artist because this almost guarantees that they couldn't be anything else but an artist. (I have a slight problem with some contemporary art because of this. Parts of it seem to be created just for the sake of innovativeness or erudition and not for the sake of art itself.) Goethe is another such example that comes to mind. His first famous novel which he wrote when he was 24 or something was _The Sorrows of Young Werther_ and it's partially autobiographical. It seemed to help Goethe to overcome a hopeless romantic relationship which he depicts in the novel.

With Wagner this comes through particularly well because he's own complexity and understanding of human nature enabled him to understand his characters marvellously well. I remember one person draw attention to the fact that Wagner seemed to understand his villains much better than Verdi, mainly because Verdi himself was conventionally much nicer guy and it was just difficult for him to understand why a villain should act the way he does. How much truth is behind this theory is of course difficult to evaluate.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> Yes! I feel the need for art itself is one of many indications of a great artist because this almost guarantees that they couldn't be anything else but an artist. (I have a slight problem with some contemporary art because of this. Parts of it seem to be created just for the sake of innovativeness or erudition and not for the sake of art itself.) Goethe is another such example that comes to mind. His first famous novel which he wrote when he was 24 or something was _The Sorrows of Young Werther_ and it's partially autobiographical. It seemed to help Goethe to overcome a hopeless romantic relationship which he depicts in the novel.
> 
> With Wagner this comes through particularly well because he's own complexity and understanding of human nature enabled him to understand his characters marvellously well. I remember one person draw attention to the fact that Wagner seemed to understand his villains much better than Verdi, mainly because Verdi himself was conventionally much nicer guy and it was just difficult for him to understand why a villain should act the way he does. How much truth is behind this theory is of course difficult to evaluate.


Wagner saw the pain which lies at the root of villainy. There are always moments when he lets us into his villains' woundedness. The villains of most opera composers lack this dimension.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Wagner saw the pain which lies at the root of villainy. There are always moments when he lets us into his villains' woundedness. The villains of most opera composers lack this dimension.


I'm very happy Wagner wrote his libretti himself. It's great that there're operas which can be analysed with the same complexity as pure literature. I guess we have to thank Romantic Germany and their obsession with philosophy and culture as well.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Wagner saw the pain which lies at the root of villainy. There are always moments when he lets us into his villains' woundedness. The villains of most opera composers lack this dimension.


That's because he was himself a wounded villain.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> That's because he was himself a wounded villain.


In fact, that's almost the same what Woodduck and I have stated . With the little difference that Wagner had also poured quite a lot of his understandings into the nice and heroic characters as well. He wasn't ONLY a wounded villain. (Don't take this literally! What I mean by Wagner "being" someone is that Wagner's own character was expressed through that character.)


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> In fact, that's almost the same what Woodduck and I have stated . With the little difference that Wagner had also poured quite a lot of his understandings into the nice and heroic characters as well. He wasn't ONLY a wounded villain. (Don't take this literally! What I mean by Wagner "being" someone is that Wagner's own character was expressed through that character.)


He's not a hero, there is nothing of Beethoven in him, he simply admired the heroes from a distance, but only to deceive. He's the most disingenuous person I've read about - most philosophers and artists hide, but are honest - he purposely misdirects.

He's pure pride and ego, what Plato called thymos: there's not a gram of logos in him.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> He's not a hero, there is nothing of Beethoven in him, he simply admired the heroes from a distance, but only to deceive. He's the most disingenuous person I've read about - most philosophers and artists hide, but are honest - he purposely misdirects.
> 
> He's pure pride and ego, what Plato called thymos: there's not a gram of logos in him.


Okay... I guess we just have to disagree then. My view is still that Wagner had positive personality traits as well, as most people do.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Okay... I guess we just have to disagree then. My view is still that Wagner had positive personality traits as well, as most people do.


Sure, thymos has positive traits, and you and Woodduck certainly admire those traits, as do all Wagner lovers.

But he's certainly not a hero, he's a destroyer, a revolutionary.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Sure, thymos has positive traits, and you and Woodduck certainly admire those traits, as do all Wagner lovers.
> 
> But he's certainly not a hero, he's a destroyer, a revolutionary.


I'm not sure how to even define "hero". Almost every human destroys something and yes, so did Wagner but he also built a lot in both his personal life and artistically even more. Revolutionary for sure.

I don't want to exhibit any blind admiration toward Wagner as a person but I'm just trying to humanise him a bit more. As a human, he was ambivalent. Both "good" and "bad", creator and destroyer, a "hero" and a "villain". So was Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy... Beethoven wasn't an overly nice guy either.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Okay... I guess we just have to disagree then. *My view is still that Wagner had positive personality traits as well, as most people do*.


Well if you believe that being an insufferable egomaniac is a positive personality trait then maybe. Interesting that in a book I am reading about Mao the same personality trait emerges. Mao believed that the whole of humanity was there just for himself, to fulfil his own desires and ambitions. You can see the same in Wagner. Thankfully of course, Wagner's ambitions were channelled into his musical genius so we had operas rather than killing fields and famines, but it's an interesting read how closely the two match up in personality. Mind you, Wagner does seem to have shown vastly more genius for composing than Mao for governing.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Well if you believe that being an insufferable egomaniac is a positive personality trait then maybe. Interesting that in a book I am reading about Mao the same personality trait emerges. Mao believed that the whole of humanity was there just for himself, to fulfil his own desires and ambitions. You can see the same in Wagner. Thankfully of course, Wagner's ambitions were channelled into his musical genius so we had operas rather than killing fields and famines, but it's an interesting read how closely the two match up in personality.


I said he has positive personality traits and I wasn't specifically referring to him being an egomaniac. Although I think we wouldn't have the same Wagner if he hadn't been an egomaniac. Who else would have undertaken writing a 15 hours long opera which figuratively starts with the beginning of the world?


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> I said he has positive personality traits and I wasn't specifically referring to him being an egomaniac. Although I think we wouldn't have the same Wagner if he hadn't been an egomaniac. Who else would have undertaken writing a 15 hours long opera which figuratively starts with the beginning of the world?


Oh absolutely. He thought he was the beginning and end of everything. He was the greatest composer, the greatest poet, the greatest philosopher of his age and all time - according to himself!


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> I'm not sure how to even define "hero". Almost every human destroys something and yes, so did Wagner but he also built a lot in both his personal life and artistically even more. Revolutionary for sure.
> 
> I don't want to exhibit any blind admiration toward Wagner as a person but I'm just trying to humanise him a bit more. As a human, he was ambivalent. Both "good" and "bad", creator and destroyer, a "hero" and a "villain". So was Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy... Beethoven wasn't an overly nice guy either.


Beethoven was full of good, his 9th shows that.

Wagner seems to be copying, channelling, his father in law Liszt anytime he goes away from his egocentric excess. _Parsifal_ is Catholic because Liszt was Catholic and that's who he admired. Equally in Tannhauser the influence from Liszt is great.

His truly original work, where his true self shines is Tristan, that is his masterpiece and the work that inspired Nietzsche and the horrors of the 20th century.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Oh absolutely. He thought he was the beginning and end of everything. He was the greatest composer, the greatest poet, the greatest philosopher of his age and all time - according to himself!


"Liszt: You're Dante! You're Shakespeare! You're Saint David!

Wagner: I'm big!

Liszt (crescendo): You're Napoléon I, II, III, IV! You're Byron! You're Kościuszko! You're Christopher Columbus!

Wagner: I'm bigger!

Liszt (crescendo): You're the great Christopher of the Rhine! You're the Buddha of notes! You're the Christ of counterpoint! You're the Garibaldi of music of the future! You're the Kossuth of German music! You're the Kálmán Tisza of opera! You're the Richard Wagner of Richard Wagner!

Wagner: I'm the biggest!

Liszt: Yes! -You're my son-in-law."


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> "Liszt: You're Dante! You're Shakespeare! You're Saint David!
> 
> Wagner: I'm big!
> 
> Liszt (crescendo): You're Napoléon I, II, III, IV! You're Byron! You're Kościuszko! You're Christopher Columbus!
> 
> Wagner: I'm bigger!
> 
> Liszt (crescendo): You're the great Christopher of the Rhine! You're the Buddha of notes! You're the Christ of counterpoint! You're the Garibaldi of music of the future! You're the Kossuth of German music! You're the Kálmán Tisza of opera! You're the Richard Wagner of Richard Wagner!
> 
> Wagner: I'm the biggest!
> 
> Liszt: Yes! -*You're my son-in-law*."


IMO Liszt wasn't too happy about that :lol:.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Beethoven was full of good, his 9th shows that.
> 
> Wagner seems to be copying, channelling, his father in law Liszt anytime he goes away from his egocentric excess. _Parsifal_ is Catholic because Liszt was Catholic and that's who he admired. Equally in Tannhauser the influence from Liszt is great.
> 
> His truly original work, where his true self shines is Tristan, that is his masterpiece and the work that inspired Nietzsche and the horrors of the 20th century.


Beethoven's relative supposedly made a suicide attempt because of him... (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_van_Beethoven).


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Beethoven's relative supposedly made a suicide attempt because of him... (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_van_Beethoven).


He was a demanding father, just like his own father.

He was good enough to adopt him, it's not his fault the child was deranged.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Mao believed that the whole of humanity was there just for himself, to fulfil his own desires and ambitions. You can see the same in Wagner. He thought he was the beginning and end of everything. He was the greatest composer, the greatest poet, the greatest philosopher of his age and all time - according to himself!


Sweeping, totalitarian condemnations of others is ugly, obnoxious, and un-Christian. You can't support these extreme statements - there is no support for them.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Sweeping, totalitarian condemnations of others is ugly, obnoxious, and un-Christian. You can't support these extreme statements - there is no support for them - and your relish in making such absurd judgments, like that of 1996D, is stomach-turning and a subversion of any rational discussion. Notice how few people participate in discussions of Wagner on his forum. You and other dime-store moralists like 1996D are responsible for it.


He can't escape it, he did great evil and it'll follow him forever.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> "Liszt: You're Dante! You're Shakespeare! You're Saint David!
> 
> Wagner: I'm big!
> 
> Liszt (crescendo): You're Napoléon I, II, III, IV! You're Byron! You're Kościuszko! You're Christopher Columbus!
> 
> Wagner: I'm bigger!
> 
> Liszt (crescendo): You're the great Christopher of the Rhine! You're the Buddha of notes! You're the Christ of counterpoint! You're the Garibaldi of music of the future! You're the Kossuth of German music! You're the Kálmán Tisza of opera! You're the Richard Wagner of Richard Wagner!
> 
> Wagner: I'm the biggest!
> 
> Liszt: Yes! -You're my son-in-law."


This is ridiculous garbage in keeping with the rest of your contributions here. It's impossible for genuine discussion to take place when the thread is infected by such foolishness. It's because of people like you, DavidA and NLAdriaan that very few people participate in threads about Wagner.

I don't come to these discussions to hear over and over to the point of nausea what was wrong with Wagner's character. You would better spend your time working on your own character, which doesn't emerge in a very good light on this forum.

I'm fed up with this, and I intend to make a major issue of it with the administration and moderators.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Beethoven's relative supposedly made a suicide attempt because of him... (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_van_Beethoven).


Poor Carl. Living with Beethoven was hell. The man was inadequate in everything apart from music. Can you imagine today a child being given into his care?


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Poor Carl. Living with Beethoven was hell. The man was inadequate in everything apart from music. Can you imagine today a child being given into his care?


Karl married and had children and in all evidence a fruitful life. He had his moment of being a confused teenager with a demanding father figure, but it didn't damage him.

Beethoven was a good man whose music has had a profoundly positive influence on the world.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> He's not a hero, there is nothing of Beethoven in him, he simply admired the heroes from a distance, but only to deceive. He's the most disingenuous person I've read about - most philosophers and artists hide, but are honest - he purposely misdirects.
> 
> He's pure pride and ego, what Plato called thymos: there's not a gram of logos in him.


I forgot how entertaining you could be. A lot has to do with how naive you could be. Beethoven was not a great man, nor was Wagner. You're reading too much into character which could have nothing to do with their music. Karl Popper felt your hero Plato was responsible for totalitarianism in Hitler with a certain idealism in the Philosopher Kings. Nice ideas on paper or a controlled environment could in fact cause great atrocities in the real world that is always subject to human nature.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Karl married and had children and in all evidence a fruitful life. He had his moment of being a confused teenager with a demanding father figure, but it didn't damage him.
> 
> Beethoven was a good man whose music has had a profoundly positive influence on the world.


Isn't this logic flawed? You say that Wagner had a bad effect on the world but Beethoven had positive. Still Beethoven influenced Wagner profoundly meaning that, according to your logic, Beethoven is to be "blamed" for Wagner as Wagner is for the 20th century.

"Beethoven's Ninth Symphony became the mystical goal of all my strange thoughts and desires about music. I was first attracted to it by the opinion prevalent among musicians, not only in Leipzig but elsewhere, that this work had been written by Beethoven when he was already half mad. It was considered the 'non plus ultra' of all that was fantastic and incomprehensible, and this was quite enough to rouse in me a passionate desire to study this mysterious work. At the very first glance at the score, of which I obtained possession with such difficulty, I felt irresistibly attracted by the long-sustained pure fifths with which the first phrase opens: these chords, which, as I related above, had played such a supernatural part in my childish impressions of music, seemed in this case to form the spiritual keynote of my own life. This, I thought, must surely contain the secret of all secrets, and accordingly the first thing to be done was to make the score my own by a process of laborious copying." - R. Wagner in _Mein leben_


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Isn't this logic flawed? You say that Wagner had a bad effect on the world but Beethoven had positive. Still Beethoven influenced Wagner profoundly meaning that, according to your logic, Beethoven is to be "blamed" for Wagner as Wagner is for the 20th century.
> 
> "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony became the mystical goal of all my strange thoughts and desires about music. I was first attracted to it by the opinion prevalent among musicians, not only in Leipzig but elsewhere, that this work had been written by Beethoven when he was already half mad. It was considered the 'non plus ultra' of all that was fantastic and incomprehensible, and this was quite enough to rouse in me a passionate desire to study this mysterious work. At the very first glance at the score, of which I obtained possession with such difficulty, I felt irresistibly attracted by the long-sustained pure fifths with which the first phrase opens: these chords, which, as I related above, had played such a supernatural part in my childish impressions of music, seemed in this case to form the spiritual keynote of my own life. This, I thought, must surely contain the secret of all secrets, and accordingly the first thing to be done was to make the score my own by a process of laborious copying." - R. Wagner in _Mein leben_


He learned from Beethoven technique wise but the essence of their music couldn't be more different.

If a religious cult leader learns from Christ on how to lead yet uses the knowledge to form a sex cult, is that somehow Christ's fault?


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> He learned from Beethoven technique wise but the essence of their music couldn't be more different.
> 
> If a religious cult leader learns from Christ on how to lead yet uses the knowledge to form a sex cult, is that somehow Christ's fault?


He wrote also this: "I now wanted to set Leubald und Adelaide (sic) to music, similar to that which Beethoven wrote to Goethe's Egmont; the various ghosts from the spirit world, who were each to display different characteristics, were to borrow their own distinctive colouring from appropriate musical accompaniment"

Doesn't sound like only techique to me as Wagner says he wanted to write similar music, not use similar techique.


----------



## Snazzy

An interesting question is how exactly does Alberich attain what is virtually global dominance in the world of The Ring? 
Now we know that Alberich has stolen the Ring and that he has his slaves working to produce presumably more gold, but the question is, how does this actually translate into real power, which clearly Alberich has got.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> He wrote also this: "I now wanted to set Leubald und Adelaide (sic) to music, similar to that which Beethoven wrote to Goethe's Egmont; the various ghosts from the spirit world, who were each to display different characteristics, were to borrow their own distinctive colouring from appropriate musical accompaniment"
> 
> Doesn't sound like only techique to me as Wagner says he wanted to write similar music, not use similar techique.


He did early on, his symphony is quite like Beethoven.

Later he developed his own style and gradually more and more of his essence is present.


----------



## VitellioScarpia

This has degraded into a childish food fight where preposterous morsels get thrown onto the wall.

I concur with Woodduck that many of us abstain on having a conversation about Wagner (but also other composers) because it always degenerates into a denunciation of the man _versus_ the artist, or it becomes a platform to advance the personal insecurities of the commentator at the expense of the dissenting people leading into personal attacks and put downs. If one expresses an opinion, one must accept the fact that one will be contradicted. Otherwise, this impoverishes the purpose of this forum. Passion and dissent are fun, insults are not.

If we were to ban every artist who had dubious traits, then we would be probably be left with Bruckner, maybe Brahms? Moreover, however people _used_ someone's artistic output to further their own political or totalitarian agenda is not the fault of an artist who lived 60 plus years before the demagogue. Instead, let's discuss the music and its meaning. Art allows people to transcend their imperfections and shine their "divinity" to the world. (I do not mean this in a religious sense for I am an atheist.)


----------



## annaw

Snazzy said:


> An interesting question is how exactly does Alberich attain what is virtually global dominance in the world of The Ring?
> Now we know that Alberich has stolen the Ring and that he has his slaves working to produce presumably more gold, but the question is, how does this actually translate into real power, which clearly Alberich has got.


You mean how Alberich's power would have manifested itself if it had been actually established? Wotan gives quite a nice description of the consequences in the Act II of _Die Walküre_

"Only were he 
to win back the ring 
would Valhalla then be lost: 
he who laid a curse on love, 
he alone 
in his envy would use 
the runes of the ring 
to the noble gods' 
unending shame; 
my heroes' hearts 
he'd turn against me, 
forcing the brave 
to battle with me 
and, with their strength, 
wage war against me." (Translation by Spencer)

Ring itself is an interesting object as it gives power which can be used if one wills so. It strikes me as a source of universal power which can be used very differently. Fafner evidently doesn't wish to govern the world and doesn't seek similar power as Alberich. He just uses it to hoard gold and keep it. Both Alberich and Wotan, as Licht-Alberich, do seek it for the power it would give over others (although Wotan is somewhat more noble in the way he wishes to use it). Fricka wants it to keep Wotan true to her etc. Everyone wishes to use the power of the ring in their own way and the world-governing power which Wotan and Alberich seek, seems to be only one aspect of it. Alberich though doesn't achieve this power because Wotan managed to get the ring from him before.

That's my opinion. Others are free to correct me!


----------



## Snazzy

annaw said:


> You mean how Alberich's power would have manifested itself if it had been actually established? Wotan gives quite a nice description of the consequences in the Act II of _Die Walküre_
> 
> "Only were he
> to win back the ring
> would Valhalla then be lost:
> he who laid a curse on love,
> he alone
> in his envy would use
> the runes of the ring
> to the noble gods'
> unending shame;
> my heroes' hearts
> he'd turn against me,
> forcing the brave
> to battle with me
> and, with their strength,
> wage war against me." (Translation by Spencer)
> 
> Ring itself is an interesting object as it gives power which can be used if one wills so. It strikes me as a source of universal power which can be used the way person wants to. Fafner evidently doesn't wish to govern the world and doesn't seek similar power as Alberich. He just uses it to hoard gold and keep it. Both Alberich and Wotan, as Licht-Alberich, do seek it for the power it would give over others (although Wotan is somewhat more noble in the way he wishes to use it). Fricka wants it to keep Wotan true to her etc. Everyone wishes to use the power of the ring in their own way and the world-governing power which Wotan and Alberich seek, seems to be only one aspect of it.
> 
> That's my opinion. Others are free to correct me!


Interesting, but what is the power of the gold? We know that either Alberich or the gold possess the power to duplicate themselves and to continue that power. That is why the Ring itself as a thing can be given or extorted back to Wotan, because the power it has can be replicated , I think you are touching on the point when you refer to the giants who only want to hoard it as a kind of store of value, but clearly Alberich sees far further than this and he is able to transmute its value in someway so that he subjugates his minions and indeed the world . So the question is, what is the power of the gold and what has Alberich discovered about the gold?


----------



## annaw

Snazzy said:


> Interesting, but what is the power of the gold? We know that either Alberich or the gold possess the power to duplicate themselves and to continue that power. That is why the Ring itself as a thing can be given or extorted back to Wotan, because the power it has can be replicated , I think you are touching on the point when you refer to the giants who only want to hoard it as a kind of store of value, but clearly Alberich sees far further than this and he is able to transmute its value in someway so that he subjugates his minions and indeed the world . So the question is, what is the power of the gold and what has Alberich discovered about the gold?


What do you mean by this duplication?


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> Karl married and had children and in all evidence a fruitful life. He had his moment of being a confused teenager with a demanding father figure, but it didn't damage him.
> 
> Beethoven was a good man whose music has had a profoundly positive influence on the world.


For goodness sake, Beethoven was a deranged man totally unfit to care for a child, whatever his motives. The romantic image of Beethoven through its music is unfortunately not one which exists in history about the man himself. He was obviously quite an unpleasant character although part of that may have been due to mental illness or lead poisoning. To say Karl was not damaged by the experience frankly is quite laughable


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake, Beethoven was a deranged man totally unfit to care for a child, whatever his motives. The romantic image of Beethoven through its music is unfortunately not one which exists in history about the man himself. He was obviously quite an unpleasant character although part of that may have been due to mental illness or lead poisoning. To say Karl was not damaged by the experience frankly is quite laughable


He had five children that ended up being constructive members of society and a good marriage. If we can judge a man by his children, he came out of being raised by Beethoven a fine man.

Beethoven was a demanding but uncruel father.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> He had five children that ended up being constructive members of society and a good marriage. If we can judge a man by his children, he came out of being raised by Beethoven a fine man.
> 
> Beethoven was a demanding but uncruel father.


Sorry he was damaged. He never made a go of things but lived comfortably Off the income from his two uncles' estates dying from liver disease at the age of 52. Beethoven of course didn't mean to be cruel but the problem was he hadn't got a clue about raising a child or young person and made the boys life hell. Interestingly although the film immortal beloved is not accurate in many instances it is in this account of the relationship between Beethoven and Carl


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Sorry he was damaged. He never made a go of things but lived comfortably Off the income from his two uncles' estates dying from liver disease at the age of 52. Beethoven of course didn't mean to be cruel but the problem was he hadn't got a clue about raising a child or young person and made the boys life hell. Interestingly although the film immortal beloved is not accurate in many instances it is in this account of the relationship between Beethoven and Carl


The consequences were hardly severe.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> The consequences were hardly severe.


Well the consequences of spending your teenage years and part of your childhood with a man who is partly deranged can only be wondered at. You Babs I've never had the experience but I know people who have


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Well the consequences of spending your teenage years and part of your childhood with a man who is partly deranged can only be wondered at. You Babs I've never had the experience but I know people who have


Funny you say that because Beethoven's father was very cruel yet he was able to overcome it.

It's not about what you go through in childhood, that's why Wagner has no excuses, it's about what you do with your life as an adult. We all make our own choices.


----------



## tdc

1996D said:


> He's pure pride and ego, what Plato called thymos: there's not a gram of logos in him.


Did you know that in _The Republic_ Plato's views have been called totalitarian and that he was also a proponent of eugenics? Indeed, Plato thought reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state. Actually some of Plato's ideas appear more closely aligned with Nazi ideology than anything in Wagner.


----------



## 1996D

tdc said:


> Did you know that in _The Republic_ Plato's views have been called totalitarian and that he was also a proponent of eugenics? Indeed, Plato thought reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state. Actually some of Plato's ideas appear more closely aligned with Nazi ideology than anything in Wagner.


It has nothing in common because Plato advocates for morality. He was Christian before Christianity existed.

There is also a part on tyranny, and why the tyrant is the person who suffers the most and is destined for death before too long.

Hitler didn't know Plato, he ignored all the advice, he was too busy thinking of the ring of power and the spear of destiny, drunken with Wagner.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> It has nothing in common because Plato advocates for morality. He was Christian before Christianity existed.
> 
> There is also a part on tyranny, and why the tyrant is the person who suffers the most and is destined for death before too long.
> 
> Hitler didn't know Plato, he ignored all the advice.


Supposedly it's been argued that Plato influenced Hitler and Stalin through his influence on Hegel and Marx, respectively. (We're getting off-topic again!)


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Supposedly it's been argued that Plato influenced Hitler and Stalin through his influence on Hegel and Marx, respectively. (We're getting off-topic again!)


That's too far a stretch and too many misunderstandings and corruptions later.

Plato's Republic is a fantastic work for the right mind. Marcus Aurelius is the result of implementing it and really all of the 5 good emperors were familiar with it: the height of the Roman empire was brought on by this philosophy.


----------



## mmsbls

Some political posts and some other posts have been unapproved for further review. The Composer Guestbooks are a place to discuss composers and their music in a positive manner and not a place to write derogatory comments, whether true or not, about composers. Any political comments related to classical music should go in threads in the Politics and Religion in Classical Music sub-forum and not elsewhere on the forum.


----------



## hammeredklavier

annaw said:


> "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony became the mystical goal of all my strange thoughts and desires about music. I was first attracted to it by the opinion prevalent among musicians, not only in Leipzig but elsewhere, that this work had been written by Beethoven when he was already half mad. It was considered the 'non plus ultra' of all that was fantastic and incomprehensible, and this was quite enough to rouse in me a passionate desire to study this mysterious work. At the very first glance at the score, of which I obtained possession with such difficulty, I felt irresistibly attracted by the long-sustained pure fifths with which the first phrase opens: these chords, which, as I related above, had played such a supernatural part in my childish impressions of music, seemed in this case to form the spiritual keynote of my own life. This, I thought, must surely contain the secret of all secrets, and accordingly the first thing to be done was to make the score my own by a process of laborious copying." - R. Wagner in _Mein leben_


"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."



hammeredklavier said:


> "During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'. In the last years of his life he liked to call himself the 'last Mozartian'. ..."
> (Wagner: A Biography, By Curt von Westernhagen, Pages 81~82)


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> Supposedly it's been argued that Plato influenced Hitler and Stalin through his influence on Hegel and Marx, respectively. (We're getting off-topic again!)


Chains of influence are many, tangled, and sometimes inscrutable. The business of crediting and blaming forebears is forever inexact and subject to the prejudices of the historian. We've had too much of it here. Wagner stands on the merits of his work, and our time is best spent turning our ears, hearts and minds toward it. If we're unwilling to do that, why have we come here at all?


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Chains of influence are many, tangled, and sometimes inscrutable. The business of crediting and blaming forebears is forever inexact and subject to the prejudices of the historian. We've had too much of it here. Wagner stands on the merits of his work, and our time is best spent turning our ears, hearts and minds toward it. If we're unwilling to do that, why have we come here at all?


Wagner dealt more with psychology and philosophy than with politics. (Or maybe it's just me - I'm not overly keen on the _Ring_ interpretations which consider the characters as political elements rather than representations of different aspects of human mind and being).

I made my comment more for the sake of the argument itself. I think the whole chain of influence should maybe be considered as just the "cultural atmosphere" of different eras which moves, flows and develops depending on who is contributing to it. If that's the basis of blame, we'll eventually end up with all prominent artists being, through their influence, responsible for severe war crimes.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> Wagner dealt more with psychology and philosophy than with politics. (Or maybe it's just me - I'm not overly keen on the _Ring_ interpretations which consider the characters as political elements rather than representations of different aspects of human mind and being).


I'm in complete agreement with this. Although Wagner was politically active in his twenties to the point of having to spend years as a wanted man in exile, there are no political prescriptions in his operas. I think people often misunderstand the relation of artists' work to their lives, and try to read too much conscious philosophy and even randomly held beliefs into it. Those who want to find, say, socialism or racism in Wagner's works have to resort to a good deal of rationalization and overlook a fair amount of contrary evidence.

The most authentic art is apt to proceed from a deeper place in the artist's soul than the level at which his beliefs about politics, and even religion, reside. Those beliefs are subject to intellectual reassessment and change, but the artist's fundamental sense of life remains much more constant and is the main determinant of the expressive content of his work. Wagner was very much aware of this, and at one point while working on the second act of _Parsifal_ expressed misgivings about allowing explicitly philosophical dialogue into the opera. He wanted to express the life of the soul, not of the brain, and in my judgment succeeded very well in keeping his works poetic rather than didactic in nature. Of course this opens them up to varying interpretations, and the Wagner study industry goes on forever with book after book being written and published.


----------



## 1996D

His works are still dangerous to the individual, fortunately they no longer are to Germany or the world; the deconstructionists and postmodernists made sure of that.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> His works are still dangerous to the individual, fortunately they no longer are to Germany or the world; the deconstructionists and postmodernists made sure of that.


Who is "the individual" to whom Wagner's works are dangerous? I don't notice people suffering grave consequences from having listened to the operas or attended productions of them. On the contrary, both persons of my acquaintance and the authors of innumerable studies have found immersion in Wagner's works to be salubriously mind- and soul-expanding and enriching.

If you feel that Wagner's works are threatening to your well-being I advise avoiding them. But I still more strongly advise not speaking for "the individual" who is not you.


----------



## Barbebleu

1996D said:


> His works are still dangerous to the individual, fortunately they no longer are to Germany or the world; the deconstructionists and postmodernists made sure of that.


The mind fairly boggles at statements like this! Since when was music dangerous to the individual unless that individual was already weak minded and dangerously deluded! It is after all an entertainment for the spirit and the intellect.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> The mind fairly boggles at statements like this! Since when was music dangerous to the individual unless that individual was already weak minded and dangerously deluded! It is after all an entertainment for the spirit and the intellect.


Some statements are not information but rather confessions, and require not analysis but psychoanalysis. We may be dealing with a case in point.


----------



## Barbebleu

What was it Woody Allen said and I paraphrase- “Everytime I listen to Wagner I get the urge to conquer Poland!” :lol:

I know it’s not the exact quote but it’s close enough for government work!


----------



## JAS

Barbebleu said:


> The mind fairly boggles at statements like this! Since when was music dangerous to the individual unless that individual was already weak minded and dangerously deluded! It is after all an entertainment for the spirit and the intellect.


What if you dropped an orchestra on your foot? I bet that would hurt. And maybe you could get mugged by some musicians. (Even the piccolo players are tougher than they look.)

Edit: I did hear of someone who hurt his back lifting the DG Karajan box.


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> The mind fairly boggles at statements like this! Since when was music dangerous to the individual unless that individual was already weak minded and dangerously deluded! It is after all an entertainment for the spirit and the intellect.


That is because we underestimate the seductive power of music. Why I view it as entertainment.


----------



## 1996D

You can't deconstruct music, only the minds that listen to it.

For those who reject postmodernism and still have a vibrant soul, Wagner either becomes wretched or like many here, you fall under the spell. People otherwise wouldn't have the hypocrisy to listen to such a man, for the art represents only that which already caused so much damage that every truth had to be broken down along with everything else.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You can't deconstruct music, only the minds that listen to it.
> 
> For those who reject postmodernism and still have a vibrant soul, Wagner either becomes wretched or like many here, you fall under the spell. People otherwise wouldn't have the hypocrisy to listen to such a man, for the art represents only that which already caused so much damage that every truth had to be broken down along with everything else.


Before the wizard of Bayreuth zaps any more of your vulnerable brain cells with his dangerous enchantments and all remaining truth is "broken down along with everything else," may I suggest that you read post #385 above? And then try to implement the suggestions therein?


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> You can't deconstruct music, only the minds that listen to it.
> 
> For those who reject postmodernism and still have a vibrant soul, Wagner either becomes wretched or like many here, you fall under the spell. People otherwise wouldn't have the hypocrisy to listen to such a man, for the art represents only that which already caused so much damage that every truth had to be broken down along with everything else.


It's never hypocritical to listen to wonderful music. Your inability or refusal to separate a person from his/her music is a major flaw.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> It's never hypocritical to listen to wonderful music. *Your inability or refusal to separate a person from his/her music is a major flaw*.


Why is this when a man's philosophy is expressed in his music?


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> It's never hypocritical to listen to wonderful music.





> Posted by *DavidA*: Why is this when a man's philosophy is expressed in his music?


It's a common failure to misunderstand the relationship of art to the artist. There's a romantic fantasy that art is a sort of autobiography that sums up an artist's personality and beliefs, and that we can understand the artist by looking at his work and his work by looking at his life. As an artist myself, I can say that this isn't entirely the case. There is always more to the artist than he can express in his work even when such expression is his goal (which it isn't necessarily), and the art itself can represent an attempt by the artist to take in and represent things beyond his experience or even alien to his own nature.

We should be very careful in trying to understand an artist's work by examining his behavior and stated beliefs, or we may form inaccurate ideas of both the artist and his work. I would say that this is especially true of an art as intangible as music.


----------



## Room2201974

Bulldog said:


> It's never hypocritical to listen to wonderful music. Your inability or refusal to separate a person from his/her music is a major flaw.


A larger flaw it seems is his perception that both _A Clockwork Orange_ and _Flintstones:The Movie_ were documentaries.


----------



## Woodduck

Room2201974 said:


> A larger flaw it seems is his perception that both _A Clockwork Orange_ and _Flintstones:The Movie_ were documentaries.


On the other hand, _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest _ is now perilously close to being one.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> It's a common failure to misunderstand the relationship of art to the artist. There's a romantic fantasy that art is a sort of autobiography that sums up an artist's personality and beliefs, and that we can understand the artist by looking at his work and his work by looking at his life. As an artist myself, I can say that this isn't entirely the case. There is always more to the artist than he can express in his work even when such expression is his goal (which it isn't necessarily), and the art itself can represent an attempt by the artist to take in and represent things beyond his experience or even alien to his own nature.
> 
> We should be very careful in trying to understand an artist's work by examining his behavior and stated beliefs, or we may form inaccurate ideas of both the artist and his work. I would say that this is especially true of an art as intangible as music.


I decided to look into Wagner's essays and turns out that those are as difficult as some purely philosophical works!! But... I think I managed to find some things that support the idea that Wagner indeed saw art as the only way to convey some things which otherwise couldn't be expressed.

"Man's nature is twofold, an outer and an inner. The senses to which he offers himself as a
subject for Art, are those of Vision and of Hearing: to the eye appeals the outer man, *the inner
to the ear.*" _The Artwork of the Future_

"Of what unspeakable weight it is, for any inquiry into the nature of Art, that this inner urgence of the Poet, such as we may see before our very eyes, could at last content itself with nothing but reaching the plainest utterance through direct portrayal to the senses: in one word, that the romance became a drama! This mastery of the outward stuff, so as to shew the inner view of the essence of that stuff, could only be brought to a successful issue by setting the subject itself before the senses in all the persuasiveness of actuality; *and this was to be achieved in Drama and nothing else.*" _Oper und Drama_ (I don't want to know how long this is in German...)

The essays were quite a tough read for me and I might be misinterpreting them but in addition I feel he put something on a similar topic into words for Liszt as well:

"Creative power in music appears to me like a bell, which the larger it is is the less able to give forth its full tone, unless an adequate power has set it in motion. This power is internal, and where it does not exist internally it does not exist at all. The purely internal, however, cannot operate unless it is stimulated by something external, related to it and yet different. Creative power in music surely requires this stimulus no less than does any other great artistic power; a great incitement alone can make it effective." Zürich, October 14th 1849

Based on these it would be fair to infer that Wagner saw his art as an expression of something inner which in turn represented the understanding of the external.


----------



## 89Koechel

OK, guys, while some of you all have gone-into somewhat-ESOTERIC areas (although I like "annaw"/14:50 today - art can use the inner, to express the external) ... has anyone mentioned early Wagner, such as "Rienzi"? The Overture, itself (Bohm and whoever else, in recordings) is COMPELLING, and gives an idea of the creative FORCE of this "egomaniac". ... OK, I DID put egomaniac in italics, and anyone can argue that his TALENT overcame any excessive, ego tendencies of his. His was also a TURNING force in classical music, even with predecessors of his Century - Beethoven (in part), Brahms, Berwald, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, von Weber ... and NAME-YOUR-OWN (part). ... His genius was not a totality (some weak parts, here and there), but the best of it's parts (Meistersinger, Parsifal, Dutchman ... even the 4 elements of The Ring) are virtually-immutable, in our recollection and designation of the BEST of opera, overall. ... Of course, he was fortunate (although, he never KNEW it) to have singers such as Melchior, Frida Leider, Madame Flagstad, Friedrich Schorr, Helen Traubel and many others to give the vocality of his opera lines the truly BEST, that could ever be, as we're fortunate to listen-to, as they were transcribed. ... A talented man, but also a LUCKY guy - eh?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Barbebleu said:


> What was it Woody Allen said and I paraphrase- "Everytime I listen to Wagner I get the urge to conquer Poland!" :lol:


True, if you rearrange "MOR WAGNER", you get "WARMONGER"






so world peace can only be achieved if there's
no MORe WAGNER

*[ 39:00 ]*


----------



## Woodduck

89Koechel said:


> A talented man, but also a LUCKY guy - eh?


I'd say that Wagner had enough good luck AND bad luck for ten average people, and enough vision and grit to get him through all of it. Laboring under the compulsion of that much genius while struggling with illness and poverty doesn't necessarily feel lucky to the person so burdened, as his letters to Liszt make clear. But I do know that WE are lucky he did it.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> True, if you rearrange "MOR WAGNER", you get "WARMONGER"
> so world peace can only be achieved if there's
> no MORe WAGNER


Cheater! The invasion of Poland is called off.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Your inability or refusal to separate a person from his/her music is a major flaw.


THE MAN IS IN HIS MUSIC
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/the-man-is-in-his-music.pdf

DELIUS, MUSIC AND MORALS
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/delius-music-and-morals.pdf
"He was hatefully vicious about Christianity and other religions. He absorbed the pagan writings of Nietzsche who advocated that God was dead and Nietzsche also lead campaigns against morality and decency. He went mad and died insane. ...
The Mass of Life of 1905 has some very fine moments including the explosive beginning, but this is one of two major works that Delius wrote to attack the Christian Faith. These works are not liturgical and therefore the words Mass and Requiem are improperly used. The Mass is inspired by Nietzche. The Requiem of 1914 is not a requiem at all. It does not open with a Kyrie or follow the traditional movements of a requiem. It begins with the words, "Our days here are one day for our days are rounded by sleep..."



1996D said:


> But it's on the surface, it doesn't dig deep like Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. He's called an impressionist for a reason (and he disliked it); because his music goes nowhere; lacks a clear mission; his form poor in large scale works. He's at his best when his works are short because he hasn't the depth of character.
> He hated Beethoven for a reason - he's the exact opposite - pretty and on the surface as opposed to explosive and deep.
> 
> 
> 
> hammeredklavier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you "David Mack" C. F. Wright? XD
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf
> "Debussy had unresolved problems with form and structure which encouraged a rhapsodic style, which, consequently, lacked substance. There are no real quality works of large forms, and it is accepted almost universally that his opera Pelleas and Melisande is one of the worst operas ever written, even the stars in the premiere said so. The twenty four Preludes for piano is not a large work, but twenty four short pieces which are deliberately opposed to traditional structure and form...
> ...There was genuine success with composers writing in both traditional structures and forms than rhapsodic impressionism which has its obvious and evident weaknesses...
> ...Impressionism does not really lend itself to drama, tension or originality. Atmosphere alone is not enough."
Click to expand...

So, Mr. "David Mack" C F Wright, when did you start hating Wagner? XD


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Is this post making some sort of point? In what way is it a contribution to this particular thread? It appears to be a random collection of the usual Wright garbage.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Is this post making some sort of point? In what way is it a contribution to this particular thread? It appears to be a random collection of the usual Wright garbage.


The way 1996D talks strongly reminds me of Wright every time. It's as if they're the same person. The only significant difference is that 1996D hates Wagner, whereas Wright likes Wagner. It is as if Wright had a change of heart on Wagner and is posting on TC under the name "1996D". LOL


----------



## Woodduck

I'm not sure I see a resemblance beyond the abundance of cranky sophistries, the nauseating moralism, and the incredible, and unjustified, self-regard. Well, I guess that's a fair number of similarities, isn't it? But then I don't read Wright except when you post his bilge here, and even in those cases my stonach can only tolerate a light skim. _Pelleas_ one of the worst operas ever written? I think I need some Pepto Bysmol right now.


----------



## annaw

hammeredklavier said:


> The way 1996D talks strongly reminds me of Wright every time. It's as if they're the same person. The only significant difference is that 1996D hates Wagner, whereas Wright likes Wagner. It is as if Wright had a change of heart on Wagner and is posting on TC under the name "1996D". LOL


I feel I have managed to not get acquainted with Wright before this thread but I would have not guessed, based on these quotes, that he liked Wagner?! Whew...


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> I feel I have managed to not get acquainted with Wright before this thread but I would have not guessed, based on these quotes, that he liked Wagner?! Whew...


Look hard enough and you can find something not altogether repugnant in anybody. Well, maybe not Donald Trump...


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Look hard enough and *you can find something not altogether repugnant in anybody*. Well, maybe not Donald Trump...


In the context of the main arguments in this thread: even in Wagner !


----------



## TurnaboutVox

OK folks, you have succeeded in closing the thread for the time being. Closed for cleaning. Some posts may be deleted, etc., etc., etc.

Edit: Off topic posts and personal comments have been removed. Please don't post them here in the first place - this is a "Composer Guestbook". I have re-opened the thread.


----------



## annaw

I think this thread has been so far a huge success story though it's a different question in which we have succeeded...


----------



## Barbebleu

Well its been fun while it lasted but I'll be gone for a while, if not permanently. Heavy handed moderation on a fairly innocuous series of posts on a well subscribed thread has done it for me.

Good luck all.

In the words of Mountjoy - 'And so fare thee well. Thou never shalt hear herald anymore'


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> Well its been fun while it lasted but I'll be gone for a while, if not permanently. Heavy handed moderation on a fairly innocuous series of posts on a well subscribed thread has done it for me.
> 
> Good luck all.
> 
> In the words of Mountjoy - 'And so fare thee well. Thou never shalt hear herald anymore'


You're not alone in feeling this way, Barbie.


----------



## Room2201974

A couple of observations for the group:

Why don't we just keep open a thread called Hitler/Wagner/Nazis/Nietzsche and those who wish to constantly vent their spleen in that direction can. And while they are at it they can *stay the hello away from threads where there is a discussion of music and not psycho history.*

My other point. I've known about a dozen composers in my life (long story, I won't bore you with it here). There are several characteristics that I have noted they all seem to share: pedagogically sound on one or more instruments, usually first in their theory classes, knew music history well enough to discuss almost any musical period innovations. That sort of thing.

There is another trait I've noticed and it can best be expressed in the title of a book once written by a Major League Baseball manager. Earl Weaver's_ It's What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts_. You see, *every one* of the composers I have known was constantly inquisitive about methods of composition and didn't spend much of their time on historybabble. This is so different than what we have observed here. In post after post, thread after thread, we see a pattern of no real discussion of music, compositional method, instrumental pedagogy, ect. in one supposedly so focused on writing music that will, of course, "change the world."

So basically, poser or put-on, and likely both, there is little musical value expressed. But historybabble will garner attention, hence historybabble is all they speak. Which brings me back to my first point. Ma fin est mon commencement!


----------



## Woodduck

^^^There is a thread, inactive for some time, called "Wagner and Hitler." Given the mythology that's grown up around the subject - there are actually people who think Wagner and Hitler knew each other - an apparently innocuous title like that seems automatically sinister. But your idea may be a good one IF certain guidelines can be enforced. That's definitely an upper-case IF; someone would have to keep a close eye on the situation, and that job could prove painful for anyone who actually cares about the subject matter.

I've asked the mods whether they think this is a problem worth tackling. Ideas are certainly welcome. Wagner presents a unique problem; he was a complex figure, his works are complex artistically and philosophically, and he occupies a problematic cultural position mainly through having been dragged into what his detractors rather disingenuously call his "association" with one of the most horrific figures in modern history. You're right to note that his music as such gets little discussion (apart from some theorerical discussion of his harmonic innovations), but of course it's mainly dramatic music and can't be fully understood without reference to the total art form of which it's a part. Apprehending his gigantic creations in all their complexity can be an intimidating prospect for many. 

Wagner will never be an easy subject, but he's too remarkable and important for us not to try. Taking a large view (not always easy), I have to say that there's been a fair accumulation of good Wagner conversation here over the years, despite the propagation of misinformation and occasional outright mean-spiritedness toward both the long-deceased composer and those who admire his work. I need to remind myself of that when I open up the forum and find myself and others accused of belonging to an esoteric religion. If believing that Wagner is one of the giant figures in the Western cultural heritage, that his works are profound and life-enhancing, and that his music is not the "soundtrack of the Third Reich" bestows membership in a cult, I'll happily wear the chasuble and swing the censer.


----------



## annaw

I think it’s also a matter of the way these discussions are held. One should be open-minded when you join them. I present my views about a certain subject and when I’m proved wrong based on reasonable and logical arguments, I’m willing to change my views. The problems start when I ignore those arguments and sort of develop an obsession with my own one. An example of an obsessive (in a negative way) Wagnerite would be someone who’d claim that Wagner didn’t have any anti-semitic views even after reading his infamous essay. It’s a question of what do we see as the goal of such threads. If it’s just to present my own opinion, then such situations as the one I described are almost unavoidable. If the goal is to develop my own understanding through being willing to at least at times agree with the other side, we could have many extremely rewarding and enjoyable discussions even on difficult subjects as this one. It’s of course always okay to disagree but then that argument should be ended and not continued through rephrasing the same things over and over again. Then all other participants have to do that as well and it becomes tense and exhausting because everyone is just throwing in additional proofs for their side but those are all useless if no one is willing to change their views. 

I might or might not have contributed to writing “historybabble”, depending on how we define it, but my only excuse is that I don’t (yet?) possess enough knowledge about music theory or orchestration to analyse it independently and regarding the whole idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, I don’t know if we even can and should analyse Wagner’s music separately from the drama (or the other way around). Some history, certainly not all of it, and cultural understanding can enhance the understanding of the music as well but I entirely agree, this certainly shouldn’t be more important than the work itself!


----------



## Woodduck

^^^You're describing the dynamics of discussion as such. Discussions of Wagner are not different in those respects, but they do also present peculiar issues. In the case of no other composer is there such a tendency to lose sight of the actual content of his work and to attract comment from people who have little or no first-hand experience of it.


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> I think it's also a matter of the way these discussions are held. One should be open-minded when you join them. I present my views about a certain subject and when I'm proved wrong based on reasonable and logical arguments, I'm willing to change my views. . . . .


I would suggest an even more useful perspective for these discussions. I think it would be helpful, but often difficult or impossible to achieve, that the discussion allows participants to present their respective views, seeking only to explain them or explore an idea, without necessarily trying to _convince_ anyone of anything. Likewise, the opposing view should be able to question the views expressed, chiefly with an eye to seeking clarification, or refinement of how they have been presented.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> ^^^You're describing the dynamics of discussion as such. Discussions of Wagner are not different in those respects, but they do also present peculiar issues. In the case of no other composer is there such a tendency to lose sight of the actual content of his work and to attract comment from people who have little or no first-hand experience of it.


It seems that people are more likely to develop those obsessive opinions about Wagner than other composers because of his complexity and "associations". Maybe it's only a feeling though... I have had to deal with widening my horizons as well regarding Wagner even if I'm not always intially overly willing to.


----------



## annaw

JAS said:


> I would suggest an even more useful perspective for these discussions. I think it would be helpful, but often difficult or impossible to achieve, that the discussion allows participants to present their respective views, seeking only to explain them or explore an idea, without necessarily trying to _convince_ anyone of anything. Likewise, the opposing view should be able to question the views expressed, chiefly with an eye to seeking clarification, or refinement of how they have been presented.


That's a wonderful suggestion!


----------



## Zhdanov

Snazzy said:


> An interesting question is how exactly does Alberich attain what is virtually global dominance in the world of The Ring? Now we know that Alberich has stolen the Ring and that he has his slaves working to produce presumably more gold, but the question is, how does this actually translate into real power, which clearly Alberich has got.


the Stock Exchange owners, once it has been established, began to enslave Jews and rule them with the threat of a pogrom if they refuse to pay up.


----------



## mmsbls

We've reviewed the recent thread posting and edited or deleted a number of posts while reinstating others that were unapproved. These threads are difficult to moderate due to conflicting views of members. Some feel we should remove off-topic/political/disruptive posts while others think removing posts is problematic. Especially difficult are moderating thoughtful posts that respond to disruptive ones. In general we remove posts that reply to deleted ones (or deleted portions of posts). Hopefully the thread can get back to discussions of Wagner's music without further disruptions.


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> the Stock Exchange owners, once it has been established, began to enslave Jews and rule them with the threat of a pogrom if they refuse to pay up.


Not only does this not answer the question - _how_ does the power of the ring operate? - but it introduces an interpretation which is open to question. The moment someone purporting to discuss a Wagner opera injects the word "Jew," we have a controversy and questions need to be raised. Can you justify what you're asserting, based on the content of the work, on Wagner's stated intentions, and on the historical conditions which you're claiming the _Ring_ cycle dramatizes? Is there any actual evidence for your interpretation?


----------



## Zhdanov

Woodduck said:


> _how_ does the power of the ring operate?


----------



## Zhdanov

Woodduck said:


> Can you justify what you're asserting, based on the content of the work, on Wagner's stated intentions, and on the historical conditions which you're claiming the _Ring_ cycle dramatizes? Is there any actual evidence for your interpetation?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild


^^^In no way does an article on Mayer Amschel Rothschild explain anything in Wagner's work.


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> That's a wonderful suggestion!


Sadly, I have yet to find anywhere that such a discussion can happen, and certainly not an open forum on the Internet.


----------



## annaw

Zhdanov said:


> the Stock Exchange owners, once it has been established, began to enslave Jews and rule them with the threat of a pogrom if they refuse to pay up.


Waaait... I've been thinking about this a bit and I feel that even if there was a very good justification for this interpretation, there's a problem. It assumes that whoever you see as Jews are oppressed, meaning that the whole thing would be... pro-Jewish. As Woodduck said though, I think it's no good to start this discussion without a very good justification for your view which seems to me slightly read into the work rather than something Wagner actually wanted to convey.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> Waaait... I've been thinking about this a bit and I feel that even if there was a very good justification for this interpretation, there's a problem. It assumes that whoever you see as Jews are oppressed, meaning that the whole thing would be... pro-Jewish. As Woodduck said though, I think it's no good to start this discussion without a very good justification for your view which seems to me *slightly read into the work **rather than something Wagner actually wanted to convey.*


"Slightly"? The persistent attempts on the part of some to read antisemitism, or to find references to Jews, in the _Ring,_ attempts that date all the way back to Wagner's lifetime, have no foundation in any statement by the composer. However, there are several statements that undermine those efforts. He said that he would not wish to present a Jewish character onstage (not an admirable attitude, but it is what it is); he said that he loved his villains, referring particularly to Alberich (who is sometimes viewed as an antisemitic symbol of the greedy capitalist); and, according to Cosima, he and Cosima once made a game of assigning races to the characters of the _Ring,_ and they agreed that the Nibelungs belonged to "the yellow races," obviously not a description of Jews (whom, in any case, Wagner did not think of as a "race," much less as "yellow"). Moreover, when he attended an 1881 rehearsal of _Siegfried_ in Berlin in which the dwarf Mime was played by a Jewish singer, Wagner commented, "A Jewish dwarf, but excellent." That is not the remark of a composer who intends that Mime represent a Jew.

It's quite arguable that in his role as Wanderer, the character in the _Ring_ conforming most closely to a Jewish stereotype is Wotan, who, like the Flying Dutchman and Kundry, is a "wandering Jew" cursed to wander the world in search of home and salvation. Wagner confirmed the connection of these two characters to the legendary Jew, and although he makes no such reference with regard to Wotan the archetype is clearly present. It's significant that these characters are not villains and that their sufferings are presented with the deepest sympathy.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> "Slightly"? The persistent attempts on the part of some to read antisemitism, or to find references to Jews, in the _Ring,_ attempts that date all the way back to Wagner's lifetime, have no foundation in any statement by the composer. However, there are several statements that undermine those efforts. He said that he would not wish to present a Jewish character onstage (not an admirable attitude, but it is what it is); he said that he loved his villains, referring particularly to Alberich (who is sometimes viewed as an antisemitic symbol of the greedy capitalist); and, according to Cosima, he and Cosima once made a game of assigning races to the characters of the _Ring,_ and they agreed that the Nibelungs belonged to "the yellow races," obviously not a description of Jews (whom, in any case, Wagner did not think of as a "race," much less as "yellow"). Moreover, when he attended an 1881 rehearsal of _Siegfried_ in Berlin in which the dwarf Mime was played by a Jewish singer, Wagner commented, "A Jewish dwarf, but excellent." That is not the remark of a composer who intends that Mime represent a Jew.
> 
> It's quite arguable that in his role as Wanderer, the character in the _Ring_ conforming most closely to a Jewish stereotype is Wotan, who, like the Flying Dutchman and Kundry, is a "wandering Jew" cursed to wander the world in search of home and salvation. Wagner confirmed the connection of these two characters to the legendary Jew, and although he makes no such reference with regard to Wotan the archetype is clearly present. It's significant that these characters are not villains and that their sufferings are presented with the deepest sympathy.


I absolutely agree with you, neither have I found an even the smallest hint about anything anti-semitic in Wagner's operas. Very compelling examples by the way, may I ask, where did you find these? I think they would come in handy in the future which is somewhat sad outlook but these discussions keep coming up in different threads.

I have never thought about the similarity between Kundry's and the Dutchman's characters, but now it seems very striking! There's also the aspect that neither of them seek actual love but salvation (or at times just death and definite end).

Ha, I've noticed my overuse of words like "slightly", "probably", "maybe" etc. as well and I've got a theory: it might be (I'm doing it again!) at least partially a result of some mannerisms of Estonian language that I transfer over to English - a difficult habit to get rid of.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> I absolutely agree with you, neither have I found an even the smallest hint about anything anti-semitic in Wagner's operas. Very compelling examples by the way, may I ask, where did you find these? I think they would come in handy in the future which is somewhat sad outlook but these discussions keep coming up in different threads.
> 
> I have never thought about the similarity between Kundry's and the Dutchman's characters, but now it seems very striking! There's also the aspect that neither them seek actual love but salvation (or at times just death and definite end).
> 
> Ha, I've noticed my overuse of words like "slightly", "probably", "maybe" etc. as well and I've got a theory: it might be (I'm doing it again!) at least partially a result of some mannerisms of Estonian language that I transfer over to English - difficult habit to get rid of.


Haha. I had no idea that Estonians were so polite! If you're an example, Estonians are very nice people indeed.

This subject is discussed here: https://books.google.com/books?id=C...=cosima wagner nibelungs yellow races&f=false


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Haha. I had no idea that Estonians were so polite! If you're an example, Estonians are very nice people indeed.
> 
> This subject is discussed here: https://books.google.com/books?id=C...=cosima wagner nibelungs yellow races&f=false


Double thanks  !


----------



## annaw

^^^ BTW, as Kundry got mentioned and this _Ring_ discussion doesn't seem to be really developing, I've got a question. How should Kundry's character be understood - as an individual character or rather as a representation of multiple different ones? Wotan is one example of a character who actually "consists" of multiple different characters (Alberich for sure, but Brünnhilde and the three Völsungs represent different aspects of Wotan as well). I feel that considering the complexity of Kundry, a similar quality wouldn't be too surprising and I think I've heard the theory mentioned somewhere. I don't exclude the possibility that I might be mixing it up with the fact that Kundry was developed by Wagner using multiple different characters from other earlier sources and works.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Off the current topic of discussion, but as this is a general Wagner thread - I listened to Act I of _Tristan_ today. Flabbergasting! I'm not always in the mood for Wagner, and I'm still developing an opinion of him - but this is music that can shoot you up into the stratosphere. Genius!


----------



## annaw

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Off the current topic of discussion, but as this is a general Wagner thread - *I listened to Act I of Tristan today*. Flabbergasting! I'm not always in the mood for Wagner, and I'm still developing an opinion of him - but this is music that can shoot you up into the stratosphere. Genius!


And it gets only better  !


----------



## Woodduck

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Off the current topic of discussion, but as this is a general Wagner thread - I listened to Act I of _Tristan_ today. Flabbergasting! I'm not always in the mood for Wagner, and I'm still developing an opinion of him - but this is music that can shoot you up into the stratosphere. Genius!


At this rate you may be a basket case when the opera is over. But that's the idea!. Here's what Wagner experienced while composing it:

""I fear the opera will be banned - if the whole work is not parodied through bad performance: only mediocre performances can save me! Thoroughly good ones will surely drive people crazy."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Woodduck said:


> At this rate you may be a basket case when the opera is over. But that's the idea!. Here's what Wagner experienced while composing it:
> 
> ""I fear the opera will be banned - if the whole work is not parodied through bad performance: only mediocre performances can save me! Thoroughly good ones will surely drive people crazy."


I'm listening to the 1966 Bohm recording too, which I hear has a reputation of being "theatrical" and "overheated." Birgit Nilsson's voice is a force of nature.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> ^^^ BTW, as Kundry got mentioned and this _Ring_ discussion doesn't seem to be really developing, I've got a question. How should Kundry's character be understood - as an individual character or rather as a representation of multiple different ones? Wotan is one example of a character who actually "consists" of multiple different characters (Alberich for sure, but Brünnhilde and the three Völsungs represent different aspects of Wotan as well). I feel that considering the complexity of Kundry, a similar quality wouldn't be too surprising and I think I've heard the theory mentioned somewhere. I don't exclude the possibility that I might be mixing it up with the fact that Kundry was developed by Wagner using multiple different characters from other earlier sources and works.


I think Wagner's characters, in the _Ring_ and even more in _Parsifal,_ can be seen as different aspects of a single being, a single consciousness moving through the vicissitudes of life toward maturity. _Parsifal_ is amazingly comprehensive and concentrated in presenting this journey of the soul, taking us through the same stages of growth as the _Ring_ and beyond it. Kundry has the most intense amalgamation of traits of any Wagnerian character (or any character in art, very possibly), and I think she is best understood as a confused, agonized portrait of the oppressed, unliberated woman - as a mix of all the fragmentary aspects of woman as experienced by man when he is cut off from his feminine aspect, as Titurel, Klingsor and the knights of the Grail are. Parsifal recovers the feminine through the experience of empathy and compassion, and is thus able to reject the multiple personae - mother, seductress, and servant - imposed on woman by the misogynist order of Titurel (of whom Klingsor is the "shadow," the two of them equivalent to "Licht-Alberich" and "Schwarz-Alberich" in the _Ring_).


----------



## Woodduck

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm listening to the 1966 Bohm recording too, which I hear has a reputation of being "theatrical" and "overheated." Birgit Nilsson's voice is a force of nature.


That's an intense performance, one of the best.


----------



## Zhdanov

Woodduck said:


> He said that he would not wish to present a Jewish character onstage


but his actions belie his words.

Alberich is modeled after then famous Mayer Amchel Rothschield and his power grab.



Woodduck said:


> Wanderer, the character in the _Ring_ conforming most closely to a Jewish stereotype


the Wotan as Wanderer is a Viking who travels the world for his expansionist desires.

America was discovered by the Vikings, among other things.


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> Alberich is modeled after then famous Mayer Amchel Rothschield and his power grab.


I've seen no evidence that Alberich is modeled after any real person. It would be very much contrary to Wagner's poetic imagination and his desire to probe essential human archetypes to do that. Alberich is an amalgamation of two mythical characters, primarily Andvari, a dwarf from the Eddas who possessed a magic ring that enabled him to accumulate great wealth and who was able to transform himself into a fish (hence the Tarnhelm). What _specifics_ in the life of Rothschild make you think that Alberich represents him?



> the Wotan as Wanderer is a Viking who travels the world for his expansionist desires.


The Wanderer bears no resemblance to the Vikings. After _Die Walkure_ Wotan has no expansionist desires. He is primarily an observer of events, and his interview with Erda shows him struggling with his decision to will the world to the hero he created and to Brunnhilde. Nothing whatever to do with Viking conquests. Narrowing the scope of Wagner's thought to such specifics, as you seem to want to do, diminishes his art.

It pays to begin a study of the _Ring_ by seeing what Wagner himself said about it. He saw in Alberich "the ugly person's longing for beauty" and said he had the deepest sympathy for the character. Doesn't sound like something he'd say about a Jewish financier!


----------



## annaw

Time to get back in the saddle again...

^ In addition, Wagner hasn’t mentioned or expressed any intention to connect his characters with any public figures as far as I‘m concerned (except Sachs but he’s a different case). If I recall correctly, then he expressed that he was creating a different reality and mythology is evidently better fit for that than real life. The same way we could say that Wotan is a representation of Napoleon or someone else - while there might be similarities, they weren’t intentional, at least based on the information I’ve read. We don’t really have a reason to think that he even knew anything profound about business and finances, I’m inclined to think it was rather the opposite case.

Wanderer was still Wotan who was Odin who was not a viking though I don’t see what difference that would make. Vikings were just another name for the Norse people who battled and traded with their neighboring nations but yes, discovered new areas as well. We could say that thus Wotan was a representation of the British nation... A mere similarity doesn’t establish an intentional connection.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> That's an intense performance, one of the best.


Yeess! Nilsson loved performing with Windgassen and you can hear they had a very good chemistry. They performed _Tristan_ together nearly 100 times and Nilsson said something like "embracing another Tristan felt like committing adultery" :lol:.


----------



## Jacck

A real Wagnerian drama: the backstage feuds threatening the future of Bayreuth 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/c...-backstage-feuds-threatening-future-bayreuth/


----------



## Zhdanov

Woodduck said:


> I've seen no evidence that Alberich is modeled after any real person. It would be very much contrary to Wagner's poetic imaination and his desire to probe essential human archetypes to do that.


art is an ideology, it deals only with reality, real events and real persons, otherwise it would have no role in this world... artistical "imagination" only serves a political request where this or that masterpiece is made to order.



Woodduck said:


> Alberich is an amalgamation of two mythical characters, primarily Andvari, a dwarf from the Eddas who possessed a magic ring that enabled him to accumulate great wealth and who was able to transform himself into a fish (hence the Tarnhelm). What _specifics_ in the life of Rothschild make you think that Alberich represents him?


the Rothschild's rise to power, his fame and the menace he was to nobles, his interests behind the revolutions that swept over Europe, and there's nothing mythical about this. Der Ring Des Nibelungen is no fairy tale, despite the likes of Leo Tolstoy would attempt to present it.



Woodduck said:


> The Wanderer bears no resemblance to the Vikings. After _Die Walkure_ Wotan has no expansionist desires. He is primarily an observer of events, and his interview with Erda shows him struggling with his decision to will the world to the hero he created and to Brunnhilde.


if so, then why is Wotan still a 'wanderer' in there? 3 acts of Siegfried opera - Wanderer appears in each act, pursues his geopolitical goals, has doubts about his will (the Decision Reversed leitmotiv) but his grandson unwittingly makes it remain in place.



Woodduck said:


> It pays to begin a study of the _Ring_ by seeing what Wagner himself said about it. He saw in Alberich "the ugly person's longing for beauty" and said he had the deepest sympathy for the character. Doesn't sound like something he'd say about a Jewish finacier!


i'd suggest we throw out the window most of what he 'said' and better keep to his music works.


----------



## annaw

Zhdanov said:


> art is an ideology, it deals only with reality, real events and real persons, otherwise it would have no role in this world... artistical "imagination" only serves a political request where this or that masterpiece is made to order.


As we have discussed in this thread, then art is a way the artist expresses himself and expresses things which cannot be expressed otherwise. As I quoted Wagner's essays earlier, which were an important way he expressed his theoretical ideas, he also saw art, particularly drama, as the only way to convey certain inner ideas. His essays were as important as his operas and shouldn't thus be neglected. Wagner managed to get into some political mess and wrote to Liszt that he intends to avoid discussing pure politics in his works (I can try to find the exact quote).



> the Rothschild's rise to power, his fame and the menace he was to nobles, his interests behind the revolutions that swept over Europe, and there's nothing mythical about this. Der Ring Des Nibelungen is no fairy tale, despite the likes of Leo Tolstoy would attempt to present it.


As I said in my previous post. A mere similarity doesn't mean it's an intentional connection. If it would, we could find many many other public figures who could have been the inspiration for Wotan's character. There's an important difference between a simple fairy tale and one of the greatest Western mythologies which Wagner used for creating the _Ring_. Mythology has been seen as a representation of human society and mind. Otherwise Jung couldn't have been able to base many of his psychoanalytical ideas on different mythological stories.



> if so, then why is Wotan still a 'wanderer' in there? 3 acts of Siegfried opera - Wanderer appears in each act, pursues his geopolitical goals, has doubts about his will (the Decision Reversed leitmotiv) but his grandson unwittingly makes it remain in place.


Again, the same thing, it's just a similarity. The point I'm trying to make is that on what basis should the Vikings be preferred to Napoleon who had an arguably much more bigger significance for the German and European political and cultural atmosphere? Wagner didn't establish that kind of connection and thus we will never know who then inspired the characters if we assumed they are influenced by real life personalities. Wagner explained to Roeckel why Wotan becomes Wanderer - I can find that quote as well and post it a bit later.



> i'd suggest we throw out the window most of what he 'said' and better keep to his music works.


This is a thing we should not do. As I said, his essays were very important. If we dismissed them, we'd also have to dismiss the theoretical idea of Gesamtkunstwerk which Wagner put largely into words in his essays and into practice in his operas. In his letters Wagner expresses his personal thoughts which changed throughout his life but are important to understand what made him do and create what he did. Wagner as many other artist in Romantic Germany established a good part of his work on a certain ideology, and I agree with you in that, but that doesn't mean he was straightforwardly influenced by politics. The same Wagner who wrote the operas also wrote the letters and the essays.


----------



## JAS

Zhdanov said:


> art is an ideology, it deals only with reality, real events and real persons, otherwise it would have no role in this world... artistical "imagination" only serves a political request where this or that masterpiece is made to order.


I think that there is an element of truth here, but also masses of error. Mythology might be said to have the same characteristics, but it would be a mistake to say that mythology is about specific people or events. It is the universality of the truths of mythology that make it a powerful force, and I think something of the sort also applies to great art that deals with ideas.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> I think Wagner's characters, in the _Ring_ and even more in _Parsifal,_ can be seen as different aspects of a single being, a single consciousness moving through the vicissitudes of life toward maturity. _Parsifal_ is amazingly comprehensive and concentrated in presenting this journey of the soul, taking us through the same stages of growth as the _Ring_ and beyond it. Kundry has the most intense amalgamation of traits of any Wagnerian character (or any character in art, very possibly), and I think she is best understood as a confused, agonized portrait of the oppressed, unliberated woman - as a mix of all the fragmentary aspects of woman as experienced by man when he is cut off from his feminine aspect, as Titurel, Klingsor and the knights of the Grail are. Parsifal recovers the feminine through the experience of empathy and compassion, and is thus able to reject the multiple personae - mother, seductress, and servant - imposed on woman by the misogynist order of Titurel (of whom Klingsor is the "shadow," the two of them equivalent to "Licht-Alberich" and "Schwarz-Alberich" in the _Ring_).


Huge thanks! That was sooo insightful! I should dive into _Parsifal_'s libretto and music much more thoroughly. I feel I don't understand the majority of it...


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I've seen no evidence that Alberich is modeled after any real person. It would be very much contrary to Wagner's poetic imaination and *his desire to probe essential human archetypes* to do that. Alberich is an amalgamation of two mythical characters...The Wanderer bears no resemblance to the Vikings. Nothing whatever to do with Viking conquests. Narrowing the scope of Wagner's thought to such specifics, as you seem to want to do, diminishes his art.





JAS said:


> I think that there is an element of truth here, but also masses of error. Mythology might be said to have the same characteristics, but it would be a mistake to say that mythology is about specific people or events. It is* the universality of the truths of mythology* that make it a powerful force, and I think something of the sort also applies to great art that deals with ideas.


This seems to be a misunderstanding of archetypes. All archetypes are universal abstractions of real specific human characteristics. To assert that "archetypes can't be applied backwards to their possible myriad specific sources" is a misuse of archetypes, which are abstractions made from convenience.


----------



## annaw

millionrainbows said:


> This seems to be a misunderstanding of archetypes. All archetypes are universal abstractions of real specific human characteristics. To assert that "archetypes can't be applied backwards to their possible myriad specific sources" is a misuse of archetypes, which are abstractions made from convenience.


Doesn't the whole problem start with the fact that for example Jung was literally inspired by Wagner and created his psychoanalytic theories after Wagner had created his operas? Meaning that there is no other choice than to apply Jung's archetypes backwards to Wagner's characters. I feel that Jung's archetypes provide a good structure and terminology to explain character behaviour but in the case of Wagner, we cannot talk about knowing use of Jung's archetypes. That doesn't mean that Wagner didn't use similar ideas. I agree with Woodduck that Wagner discussed human archetypes rather than politics, no difference if Jungian or not.

I think what Woodduck argued in the post you quoted was not that they aren't based on real specific human characteristics but rather that they aren't based on one specific human being. Mythological figure can represent different archetypes during different periods and that's how Wotan has been analysed in the Jungian terms. At least that's how I've understood it but my experience with Jung is only quite brief.


----------



## Zhdanov

JAS said:


> it would be a mistake to say that mythology is about specific people or events.


i didn't say it is, but mythology is utilised to portray specific persons, like in this case the character of Alberich is used to portray the Rothschields, the "accursed ring" symbolises the Stock Exchange, meanwhile the gods of Valhalla represent aristocracy whose position is under threat posed by it.


----------



## JAS

Zhdanov said:


> i didn't say it is, but mythology is utilised to portray specific persons, like in this case the character of Alberich is used to portray the Rothschields, the "accursed ring" symbolises the Stock Exchange, meanwhile the gods of Valhalla represent aristocracy whose position is under threat posed by it.


No, no, no . . . a thousand times no. This kind of reductionist interpretation has been used far too often to diminish art. There might be _an element_ of specific things in the final product, but as soon as it becomes _about_ those things, it ceases to be art in any meaningful sense. Similarly, there have been efforts to identify a real Huckleberry Finn, which is interesting as a source of literary inspiration but entirely misses the appeal and relevance of Finn as an iconic character. It is similar to falling into the error of assuming that an allegorical painting is about the models that were used.


----------



## Zhdanov

JAS said:


> This kind of reductionist interpretation has been used far too often to diminish art.


to not diminish but enlarge the role of art.

politics - good, not bad, and there wouldn't have been art if not for politics involved.


----------



## annaw

Zhdanov said:


> to not diminish but enlarge the role of art.
> 
> politics - good, not bad, and there wouldn't have been art if not for politics involved.


As I said, Wagner wrote to Liszt that he doesn't wish to discuss straightforward politics in his works. At least it wasn't the main theme. An aspect maybe but not the essence - my opinion.


----------



## annaw

"I am glad that I can agree to your wish to dedicate "Tannhäuser" to the Grand Duke without the slightest abnegation of my principles, for I hope you will see that I care for something else than the stupid political questions of the day." Zürich, August 7th, 1849

"In all I do and think I am only artist, nothing but artist. If I am to throw myself into our modern publicity, I cannot conquer it as an artist, and God preserve me from dealing with it as a politician. ... but I have learnt nothing but my art, and that I cannot possibly use for the purpose of acquiring nowadays; I cannot seek publicity, and my artistic salvation could be brought about one day only by publicity seeking me." Zürich, October 14th, 1849

"I should only have to announce the modified and clearer view which makes me look upon the affairs of this world in a light in which I did not see them previously, and which induces me to confine myself to my art, without any reference to political speculation." Zürich, April 13th, 1858

I think that this is quite enough of proof. In fact, as it can be seen, all these letters were written from Zürich. Wagner had to avoid any participation in politics to be allowed to return to Germany. He quite clearly sees his art as something separate from politics. We cannot separate Wagner from his opinions but what he put into his operas was something deeper which he needed for living. According to his own words, his wish to create more art was the reason he didn't end his life. IMO it must have been something deeper than politics.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This seems to be a misunderstanding of archetypes. All archetypes are universal abstractions of real specific human characteristics. To assert that "archetypes can't be applied backwards to their possible myriad specific sources" is a misuse of archetypes, which are abstractions made from convenience.


You know very well that "archetype" refers to universal human traits and concepts, not to specific people. Zhdanov is claiming that Alberich is a representation of a specific historical person. That's what's under debate here. Neither I nor JAS is misunderstanding anything.


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> I think that this is quite enough of proof. In fact, as it can be seen, all these letters were written from Zürich. Wagner had to avoid any participation in politics to be allowed to return to Germany. He quite clearly sees his art as something separate from politics. We cannot separate Wagner from his opinions but what he put into his operas was something deeper which he needed for living. According to his own words, his wish to create more art was the reason he didn't end his life. IMO it must have been something deeper than politics.


To be fair, it might be a more precise statement to say that Wagner clearly understood that he needed to have at least the appearance of his music being separate from politics. In reading historical letters, one must always consider the audience, and the fact that people are not always strictly honest, even to themselves.


----------



## annaw

JAS said:


> To be fair, it might be a more precise statement to say that Wagner clearly understood that he needed to have at least the appearance of his music being separate from politics. In reading historical letters, one must always consider the audience, and the fact that people are not always strictly honest, even to themselves.


Hmm, I actually think that Wagner's music IS separate from politics. I feel his art originated from a deeper place than the things of everyday life, including politics and social criticism. His work is, in my view, mainly about what it means to be a human - how human mind develops and changes, what are the relationships between the different aspects of it and so on. Hemingway came up with his Iceberg theory which was a minimalistic writing style where he focused on surface elements without explicitly discussing underlying themes because he believed the deeper meaning of a story should not be evident on the surface, but should shine through implicitly. I view Wagner's works the same way. He uses the characters and mythological themes to convey something significantly deeper. Maybe I'm idolising and giving him too much credit, but when I read such explanations as the one Woodduck gave about Kundry, I understand that I barely scratch the surface of his profound works. I think there are political themes but these themes were part of Wagner's ideas and in my opinion not the major ones. I might be profoundly mistaken and if I indeed am then, please, show me!

Pardon for constantly quoting his letters. I try to avoid making unsupported statements and Wagner the Human comes through in his letters very nicely. Take it or leave it .


----------



## Zhdanov

and lest we forget Hagen, the ennobled son of Alberich,

like was Amschel Mayer von Rothschild an ennobled son of M.A.Rothschild...

this to not be denied: we have a portrayal of 19th century Europe and a foresight of the doom awaiting it.


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> and lest we forget Hagen, the ennobled son of Alberich,
> 
> like was Amschel Mayer von Rothschild an ennobled son of M.A.Rothschild...
> 
> this to not be denied: we have a portrayal of 19th century Europe and a foresight of the doom awaiting it.


Hagen isn't noble. He is given no title such as Rothschild was. He's merely Gunther's half-brother, son of Gunther's mother who was seduced by Alberich's gold. Nor is the house of Gibich and the primitive world in which it exists similar to 19th century Europe. These political parallels are weak to nonexistent, and any production dressed up to create such parallels is a caricature and diminution of the _Ring_ and of Wagner's poetic imagination.


----------



## Zhdanov

Woodduck said:


> Hagen isn't noble. He is given no title such as Rothschild was. He's merely Gunther's half-brother, son of Gunther's mother who was seduced by Alberich's gold.


Gunther is the ruler of Gibich folks, and Hagen sits at the same table with him - huge promotion for a nibelung, title or not. Hagen gives counsel his noble brother and sister too; all this in the music of his motifs that show he, unlike his father, is now a noble, although wicked one:













Woodduck said:


> Nor is the house of Gibich and the primitive world in which it exists similar to 19th century Europe.


'primitive'?.. if so, then it's always been that way and ever will be; this world is ruled by potentates and their will for power, which they get at any condition and in any circumstance, be it primitive or advanced; the development the world has gone through is merely a byproduct of there struggle for power, same about culture and art; but make no mistake, if a need arises to secure the rule of these potentates by going back to stone ages - they will do it without second thought.


----------



## Zhdanov

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's poetic imagination.


but Wagner and his team were no idiots.

to demote them from the heights of politics to a lower rank of being poets and dreamers would be unfair.


----------



## annaw

Zhdanov said:


> but Wagner and his team were no idiots.
> 
> to demote them from the heights of politics to a lower rank of being poets and dreamers would be unfair.


I don't know who categorises as "dreamers" but saying that poetics (or any art) is lower than politics diminishes the importance of art and the goal it tries to achieve. In my opinion, these two things are not even truly comparable.


----------



## annaw

Zhdanov said:


> 'primitive'?.. if so, then it's always been that way and ever will be; this world is ruled by potentates and their will for power, which they get at any condition and in any circumstance, be it primitive or advanced; the development the world has gone through is merely a byproduct of there struggle for power, same about culture and art; but make no mistake, if a need arises to secure the rule of these potentates by going back to stone ages - they will do it without second thought.


Saying that the world of _Götterdämmerung_ is the same as 19th century Europe just because the governments in 19th century Europe might or might not have acted the same way as did medieval governments (could you bring specific examples?) is just another such connection that is based on mere similarity. It's much more likely that Wagner hadn't drawn such far-fetched connections if he had wanted to portray 19th century Europe.


----------



## annaw

Found a rather interesting article by Scruton: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/apr/12/classicalmusicandopera.artsfeatures1

"But Wagner's dramas are not fairy tales. Nothing in them is more impressive than the grim realism with which wholly intelligible motives are carried through to their crisis. At the same time, these motives are placed in a prehistoric, mythical or medieval setting. Wagner's purpose was to create the kind of distance between audience and drama that would endow the drama with a universal significance. Hence his preoccupation with myths and legends - stories that depart from realism to convey universal truths about the human condition."

Maybe someone is interested .


----------



## millionrainbows

annaw said:


> Wagner's purpose was to create the kind of distance between audience and drama that would endow the drama with a universal significance. Hence his preoccupation with myths and legends - stories that depart from realism to convey universal truths about the human condition."


Okay, so you think it only works one way - from specific to universal. That's the nature of myths and archetypes. If we make correspondences backwards, to specifics, that takes all the fun out of it, doesn't it?


----------



## millionrainbows

annaw said:


> Saying that the world of _Götterdämmerung_ is the same as 19th century Europe just because the governments in 19th century Europe might or might not have acted the same way as did medieval governments (could you bring specific examples?) is just another such connection that is based on mere similarity.


Yeah, that's not 'universal' enough to be an archetype. That's just boring old reality, not mythological art.


----------



## annaw

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, so you think it only works one way - from specific to universal. That's the nature of myths and archetypes. If we make correspondences backwards, to specifics, that takes all the fun out of it, doesn't it?


Wagner, when trying to explain human mind, used archetypes from specific to universal. He took specific myths and applied them to human behaviour in general. Although Wagner saw that in myth the purely human appears in its most concrete and primordial form and thus he probably didn't even knowingly "apply" them but saw that they in themselves are an almost pure representation of humans. That's how I've understood it.

Jung derived his archetypes partially from the same sources and possibly even straight from Wagner. This means that I, the listener, can apply them backwards - from universal Jungian archetypes to Wagner (because a = b then b = a sort of thing). (I suppose you meant Jungian archetypes?)


----------



## Merl

1996D said:


> From a purely hedonistic viewpoint this is true, but there lacks resolution. He never had the triumph that Beethoven had, he remained somewhat unchanged his entire life, and he did open the door for Nietzsche to destroy the world.
> 
> Even if he wasn't evil himself he ended up causing it; there is undoubtedly responsibility there.


Oh dear, is this headi g where I think it is? I'm off to the shops. I sense I may need a few boxes of popcorn. Are you getting that familiar feeling again, Woody?


----------



## Zhdanov

the Ring's another character, Loge, needs to be mentioned.

because there we have aristocrats - check, financiers - check, but where is the secret service?

Loge is there as an allegory for the Jesuits Order, who go everywhere, reach anyone, know everything,

serve anyone but in fact - only their own ends. Loge's motif is devious and permeating,

its as if "at your service" but never completely, so you don't mess with it:


----------



## annaw

Zhdanov said:


> the Ring's another character, Loge, needs to be mentioned.


I'm much more willing to see him as an archetypal character, rather than secret service. The problem we have to solve is that whether _Der Ring_ represents 19th century Europe or not, otherwise we will keep going through the characters. As millionrainbows said though, 19th century Europe does not bear the archetypal singificance Wagner intended to convey. That's the very reason Wagner (and Jung!) used myths not fairy tales or mere history.


----------



## millionrainbows

Merl said:


> Oh dear, is this headi g where I think it is? I'm off to the shops. I sense I may need a few boxes of popcorn. Are you getting that familiar feeling again, Woody?


Yes, where is our enforcer when you need him?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You know very well that "archetype" refers to universal human traits and concepts, not to specific people. Zhdanov is claiming that Alberich is a representation of a specific historical person. That's what's under debate here. Neither I nor JAS is misunderstanding anything.


That's the kind of "one-directional" thinking that always loses me. If A=B, then B=A. The reason the 'specifics' are under debate is not because a specific reference is not possible, but because there are so many possibilities that a specific reference is difficult to "prove."

Archetypes are universal out of convenience, but they always are manifest in people as specific traits. A "villain" or "hero" could be anybody, but that does not separate the archetype from being a reference to specific traits in specific people.
In being specific, let's not dwell on the impossibility of correspondence to real people, but rather the _possibilities_ this opens up.


----------



## JAS

There has been some discussion made based on the idea that another Ring (Tolkien's Lord of the Rings) was a metaphor for WWII, with the dwarves as the Jews. There, at least, we have the advantage of Tolkien himself weighing in against the claim. Too many people seem to have forgotten that art must elevate itself above its source material. It needs such material to be created, but it crumbles if it is merely _about_ those sources.


----------



## DavidA

JAS said:


> There has been some discussion made based on the idea that another Ring (Tolkien's Lord of the Rings) was a metaphor for WWII, with the dwarves as the Jews. There, at least, we have the advantage of Tolkien himself weighing in against the claim. Too many people seem to have forgotten that art must elevate itself above its source material. It needs such material to be created, but it crumbles if it is merely _about_ those sources.


I think there are two things to be said against that, one is Tolkien's own denial and the second that he never published antisemitic tracts such as 'The Jews in Literature'


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> I think there are two things to be said against that, one is Tolkien's own denial and the second that he never published antisemitic tracts such as 'The Jews in Literature'


Okay, I get the first point but what's up with the second one? Not everyone who has got inspiration from Wagner are antisemits. (Could we somehow ban the use of that word in Wagner threads ?)

EDIT: Sorry, DavidA, I totally misread! Apparently Tolkien was a Wagner fan if I recall correctly. It has been said that he might have got inspiration from Wagner but he denied that as well. I somehow thought we are talking about that. My bad!


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> Okay, I get the first point but what's up with the second one? Not everyone who has got inspiration from Wagner are antisemits. (Could we somehow ban the use of that word in Wagner threads ?)


And have such threads run for only two or three posts?


----------



## annaw

JAS said:


> And have such threads run for only two or three posts?


I'm tempted to say that yes, indeed, it would be better if the only other way was to discuss him _only_ through his antisemitic views. Luckily there are exceptions as well.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Okay, I get the first point but what's up with the second one? Not everyone who has got inspiration from Wagner are antisemits. (Could we somehow ban the use of that word in Wagner threads ?)
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, DavidA, I totally misread! Apparently Tolkien was a Wagner fan if I recall correctly. It has been said that he might have got inspiration from Wagner but he denied that as well. I somehow thought we are talking about that. My bad!


Tolkien refused to admit that his ring had anything to do with Wagner's. "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceased," he said. But he certainly knew his Wagner, and made an informal study of "Die Walküre" not long before writing the novels. It's quite obvious that his book was influenced by Wagner but as Wagner's operas were not exactly original, so what?
Tolkien's friend, C S Lewis was also a great fan of Wagner


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Tolkien refused to admit that his ring had anything to do with Wagner's. "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceased," he said. But he certainly knew his Wagner, and made an informal study of "Die Walküre" not long before writing the novels. It's quite obvious that his book was influenced by Wagner but as Wagner's operas were not exactly original, so what?
> Tolkien's friend, C S Lewis was also a great fan of Wagner


Yup, that's what I initially thought we were talking about :lol:.


----------



## Zhdanov

JAS said:


> art must elevate itself above its source material.


yes, but it is the administrators handling the 'source material' that work to elevate art above all.



JAS said:


> It needs such material to be created, but it crumbles if it is merely _about_ those sources.


Der Ring Des Nibelungen, for one, is no crumbling, although being very direct on the matter.


----------



## annaw

millionrainbows said:


> That's the kind of "one-directional" thinking that always loses me. If A=B, then B=A. *The reason the 'specifics' are under debate is not because a specific reference is not possible, but because there are so many possibilities that a specific reference is difficult to "prove."
> *
> Archetypes are universal out of convenience, but they always are manifest in people as specific traits. A "villain" or "hero" could be anybody, but that does not separate the archetype from being a reference to specific traits in specific people.
> In being specific, let's not dwell on the impossibility of correspondence to real people, but rather the _possibilities_ this opens up.


Sure we cannot exclude the interpretation which Zhdanov is arguing for but I see it just as much more unlikely compared to many other interpretations which could be used instead.


----------



## annaw

Zhdanov said:


> yes, but it is the administrators handling the 'source material' that work to elevate art above all.


What do you mean by this? I think it was mainly Wagner who handled the source material.



> Der Ring Des Nibelungen, for one, is no crumbling, although being very direct on the matter.


This strikes me as word against word sort of argument. I don't think it's even possible to present _only_ a specific real life event through art because artist cannot avoid putting his own thoughts and life into it.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

annaw said:


> I haven't yet read an opera libretto that in its complexity and philosophically complex ideas would come near to Wagner's.


Tippett's libretti spring to mind, but they're not in the same league. Can't fault him for ambition, however.


----------



## DavidA

'I haven't yet read an opera libretto that in its complexity and philosophically complex ideas would come near to Wagner's.'

Funny I was only just listening to a philosopher saying that we shouldn't mistake complexity for profundity. He said profundity usually exists in simpicity. We are fooled by complexity.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> 'I haven't yet read an opera libretto that in its complexity and philosophically complex ideas would come near to Wagner's.'
> 
> Funny I was only just listening to a philosopher saying that we shouldn't mistake complexity for profundity. He said profundity usually exists in simpicity. We are fooled by complexity.


Those are not excluding each other though. I wouldn't claim that Kant's _Critique_s are simple and thus profound, they are mad complex and yet profound, of course depending how we define those terms.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Can anyone recommend anymore Wagner to listen to? Iv'e listened to the overtures, and pieces from the operas, and some early stuff. I just don't want to sit through a 4 hour Opera.


----------



## annaw

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Can anyone recommend anymore Wagner to listen to? Iv'e listened to the overtures, and pieces from the operas, and some early stuff. I just don't want to sit through a 4 hour Opera.


Listen to them in separate acts . You don't have to listen through the whole thing in one sitting. I started with _Ring_ myself and got a bit obsessed with it. That worked for me. The one I think might actually be the best one to start with is _Lohengrin_ - wonderful music and IMO the best one among his three early operas. It's maybe a bit more easier to approach musically than _Tristan_ and it's not as lengthy as _Die Meistersinger_. I would listen to _Parsifal_ after I've listened to all his other operas. It was IMO the climax of his genius which can be appreciated best if you know the whole development of his skills which took him so far.


----------



## starthrower

Lohengrin
Das Rheingold
Flying Dutchman


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> 'I haven't yet read an opera libretto that in its complexity and philosophically complex ideas would come near to Wagner's.'
> 
> Funny I was only just listening to a philosopher saying that we shouldn't mistake complexity for profundity. *He said profundity usually exists in simpicity.* We are fooled by complexity.


A simple statement your philosopher wants us to mistake for a profound one.

A great deal of simplicity is simply simple-mindedness. Wagner's art is neither simple nor simple-minded. But fortunately for the simple-minded, he wrote some music that anyone can enjoy.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> A simple statement your philosopher wants us to mistake for a profound one.
> 
> A great deal of simplicity is simply simple-mindedness. Wagner's art is neither simple nor simple-minded. But fortunately for the simple-minded, *he wrote some music that anyone can enjoy.*


Does this qualify or is it in the opposite extreme - music Wagner wrote which only a few can enjoy :lol:? This is written when he was 40.






It's quite unbelievable that the same person who wrote this weird polka also wrote _Tristan_. This must be the very definition of artistic development.


----------



## DavidA

We can deceive ourselves by thinking that complexity = profundity and that density = depth. I can remember coming out of lectures and people saying, “wasn’t that deep!” What they really meant was that the fool of a lecturer had baffled them by his intelligibility and they didn’t want to admit it. The greatest profundity is often expressed in the greatest simplicity. As one highly intellectual man once said to me on lecturing, “Don’t forget that any fool can baffle people!”
Don’t forget that Wagner wrote an opera on the holy fool!


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> Does this qualify or is it in the opposite extreme - music Wagner wrote which only a few can enjoy :lol:? This is written when he was 40.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite unbelievable that the same person who wrote this weird polka also wrote _Tristan_. This must be the very definition of artistic development.


That's really cute! Just a little something he tossed off at a party, probably. Could almost be a bit from the apprentice music in _Meistersinger._


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> We can deceive ourselves by thinking that complexity = profundity and that density = depth. I can remember coming out of lectures and people saying, "wasn't that deep!" What they really meant was that the fool of a lecturer had baffled them by his intelligibility and they didn't want to admit it. The greatest profundity is often expressed in the greatest simplicity. As one highly intellectual man once said to me on lecturing, "Don't forget that any fool can baffle people!"
> Don't forget that Wagner wrote an opera on the holy fool!


I seriously doubt that anyone here thinks that complexity necessarily implies profundity. Yes, Parsifal is a "fool," but he doesn't sing "Mairzy Doats" when Kundry kisses him. _Parsifal_ is a complex, layered work of art.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity.


Heh, heh!:lol:xxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity.


You are easily fooled my friend!


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity.


Have a scribble, or any of the piles of my extension cords. (Unlike the Gordian Knot, cutting an extension cord is not a clever solution.)


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity.


So THAT'S what you've been up to all this time...


----------



## millionrainbows

Man the pattern-seeker...

If you look at the 12-note octave long enough, you're bound to start seeing it non-diatonically, as an invisible chromatic matrix which underlies everything.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Man the pattern-seeker...
> 
> If you look at the 12-note octave long enough, you're bound to start seeing it non-diatonically, as an invisible chromatic matrix which underlies everything.


Or will it see you?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## annaw

Barbebleu said:


> Or will it see you?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I'd like to rephrase a quote by the second principal of this thread:

"And if you gaze long enough at a 12-note octave, the 12-note octave will gaze back into you."

_Editor's note: The second "into" goes unchanged to deliver the needed metaphysical meaning. :tiphat:_


----------



## millionrainbows

Wagner was a modernist. He already had his own system of chromaticism going, based on the chromatic 12-note octave. The use of so many dim7s is a good indicator of this. He built on Liszt's augmented ideas and Beethoven/Bach's diminished seventh/dominant ideas.
That's why the "Tristan" chord can't be identified as a 'normal' chord. None of the diatonic 7-note stuff applies anymore.


----------



## millionrainbows

annaw said:


> I'd like to rephrase a quote by the second principal of this thread:
> 
> "And if you gaze long enough at a 12-note octave, the 12-note octave will gaze back into you."
> 
> _Editor's note: The second "into" goes unchanged to deliver the needed metaphysical meaning. _


"I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity." Hey, that sounds like something John Cage would have said.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> "I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity." Hey, that sounds like something John Cage would have said.


It does, but that should not necessarily be the reason that it is dismissed. We might just as easily reverse the claim. I think that if anything is asserted as possessing sufficient layers of profundity (asserted but not self-evident), it will eventually reveal itself to be so complex as to really be nonsense.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> It does, but that should not necessarily be the reason that it is dismissed. We might just as easily reverse the claim. I think that* if anything is asserted as possessing sufficient layers of profundity (asserted but not self-evident)*, it will eventually reveal itself to be so complex as to really be nonsense.


I have a problem with this "reversal" of yours, because "profundity is in the eye of the beholder," not as an "assertion" for skeptics to overcome.

Look at how "clean" the original statement is:
_
"I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity."
_
That's perfect; it allows no pretension to "fool" anyone; it is simply a statement about experience.

Yours is too long, for one thing, and brings in the word "nonsense," which is heavy baggage. 
The "(asserted but not self-evident)" part is clumsy as well. Overall, it's not an "elegant" statement like the original.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I have a problem with this "reversal" of yours, because "profundity is in the eye of the beholder," not as an "assertion" for skeptics to overcome.
> 
> Look at how "clean" the original statement is:
> _
> "I think that if anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity."
> _
> That's perfect; it allows no pretension to "fool" anyone; it is simply a statement about experience.
> 
> Yours is too long, for one thing, and brings in the word "nonsense," which is heavy baggage.
> The "(asserted but not self-evident)" part is clumsy as well. Overall, it's not an "elegant" statement like the original.


And I have a problem with your original supposition. It presumes that any mere complexity necessarily implies profundity, which is certainly not true, no matter how elegantly it might be phrased or how much you might wish it to be so.

In your own opinion, my statement is more complex than yours, and thus must be more profound.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> And I have a problem with your original supposition. It presumes that any mere complexity necessarily implies profundity, which is certainly not true, no matter how elegantly it might be phrased or how much you might wish it to be so.


I think it implies something about human experience and Man's search for meaning.



> In your own opinion, my statement is more complex than yours, and thus must be more profound.


 No, it don't work that way.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I think it implies something about human experience and Man's search for meaning.


I think that it is just a pretension claim without actual meaning. I think that it is a just lame attempt to justify crackpot notions about art.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think that it is just a pretension claim without actual meaning. I think that it is a just lame attempt to justify crackpot notions about art.


Your "monkey see-monkey do reversal quote" has built-in pretension, skepticism, and implies a dislike of modernism as "crackpot."


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Your "monkey see-monkey do reversal quote" has built-in pretension, skepticism, and implies a dislike of modernism as "crackpot."


It does if the implication is that modernism relies on your original quote. The idea that mere complexity equals profundity is simply wrong-headed. Any works based on it are likely to be as absurd as the idea itself.


----------



## Barbebleu

I know that threads can go off-piste but c’mon guys. Let’s at least pretend to talk about Wagner!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Barbebleu said:


> Let's at least pretend to talk about Wagner!


----------



## millionrainbows

Just got my first modern Ring (I have a 1950s Furt too). Solti, 1984. I like the sonics, for such an early digital recording.

I can see how this opera with its Gods, Giants, Valhalla, singing swimming nymphs & dwarfs, presented problems for stage designers.


----------



## Barbebleu

Solti 1984? Is this not just a remastering of the 50s/60s set recorded way back in the analogue days? So it should probably be AAD and deffo not DDD.


----------



## MAS

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Can anyone recommend anymore Wagner to listen to? Iv'e listened to the overtures, and pieces from the operas, and some early stuff. I just don't want to sit through a 4 hour Opera.


Some of them are *five* hours. He really needed an editor! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> Solti 1984? Is this not just a remastering of the 50s/60s set recorded way back in the analogue days? So it should probably be AAD and deffo not DDD.


It's ADD. Yes, it was obviously recorded earlier than its 1984 CD release, which I so thoughtfully provided. I swear, you are a hard woman to get along with.


----------



## JAS

. . . steps back carefully, to be out of the line of fire.


----------



## Barbebleu

Don’t worry JAS, it’s always fun bandying words with clowns. If you read MR’s post nowhere does he make it clear that he realises the Solti was recorded before 1984. In fact he refers to it as his first modern digital recording. I have re-read the post carefully and I do believe I’m right, by george, I know I’m right. Oy veh!! Handcuffed to lunatics, right enough. :lol:

Btw, I’m not hard to get along with if you think before you post!


----------



## annaw

MAS said:


> Some of them are *five* hours. He really needed an editor! :lol:


Nah, he didn't :lol:. During one _Parsifal_ performance the Transformation music wasn't long enough for some staging action. It has been said that Wagner was super triggered how everyone is always complaining that his operas are too long and now ask him to write them even longer. Cosima wrote that Wagner composed those few additional minutes with a watch in his hand.


----------



## JAS

Barbebleu said:


> Don't worry JAS, it's always fun bandying words with clowns. If you read MR's post nowhere does he make it clear that he realises the Solti was recorded before 1984. In fact he refers to it as his first modern digital recording. I have re-read the post carefully and I do believe I'm right, by george, I know I'm right. Oy veh!! Handcuffed to lunatics, right enough. :lol:
> 
> Btw, I'm not hard to get along with if you think before you post!


Well, if you are going to set outrageously unreasonable conditions like _thinking_, you will have lots of problems here at TC. Next, you will start demanding that people actually _read_ your posts _before_ replying.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> Solti 1984? Is this not just a remastering of the 50s/60s set recorded way back in the analogue days? So it should probably be AAD and deffo *not DDD.*





Barbebleu said:


> Don't worry JAS, it's always fun bandying words with clowns. If you read MR's post *nowhere does he make it clear that he realises the Solti was recorded before 1984. *In fact he refers to it as his first modern digital recording. I have re-read the post carefully and I do believe I'm right, by george, I know I'm right. Oy veh!! Handcuffed to lunatics, right enough. :lol: Btw, I'm not hard to get along with if you think before you post!


I never said anything about *DDD.* I simply said the CD mastering I have was released in 1984. It was recorded on tape as well (see below), so it MUST be ADD. What are you talking about, girl?

I think what confused you was my use of the term "recording" when I should have said "mastering" or "digital transfer": 
"I like the sonics,* for such an early digital recording." 
*
Since ADD _does_ involve a digital transfer (a digital re-recording of the multitrack tapes, the second "D" in ADD), then I'm not totally wrong, and I think you're being aggressive and nit-picky because of a grudge.
Page 1146, Current Listening: 
I've got plenty of spare time, so I'm starting on The Ring. I found this 1984 issue of the 15-CD set used for $39.99, and bought this particular "old" mastering on the basis of the Amazon review below. 
According to this reviewer, the set was later remastered in the nineties, but unfortunately the *original source tapes* were lost, so the remaster consists of alternate, doctored, and rejected takes which were on the cutting-room floor. According to this, this CD issue is now the only way to get the original 'superior' master takes. The box set is ADD, and sounds fine to me. Hats off to Decca here also.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Since ADD _does_ involve a digital transfer (a digital re-recording of the multitrack tapes, [/COLOR]the second "D" in ADD), then I'm not totally wrong, and I think you're being aggressive and nit-picky because of a grudge.
> Page 1146, Current Listening:




I'm not sure what grudge you're referring to. You can hardly blame me for being aggressive when you put things like girl at the end of a sentence, twice in posts directed at me.

It's a very fortunate thing all this is done at a distance because we Glaswegians have a very short fuse when it comes to being insulted and saying this to my face would not be recommended. Now normally I would end with an emoji that would show that I wasn't taking any of this too seriously but in this instance you would be very wrong.


----------



## thejewk

I've been considering giving Wagner a proper go, and came to this thread in the hope of gleaming a little insight. How wrong I was.


----------



## Barbebleu

Now that certain individuals are banned this thread could probably be resurrected with advantage. 
Try the historical Wagner recordings thread. It’s pretty good and well informed.


----------



## thejewk

Barbebleu said:


> Now that certain individuals are banned this thread could probably be resurrected with advantage.
> Try the historical Wagner recordings thread. It's pretty good and well informed.


Amen haha, I'll have a look there now. Thanks Barbebleu.


----------



## Woodduck

thejewk said:


> Amen haha, I'll have a look there now. Thanks Barbebleu.


You'll find plenty of interesting discussion of Wagner, his works and recordings of them, on the opera forum. With those "certain individuals" gone, the rest of us are eager to avoid detours into unprofitable territory. in particular, we hope to keep Godwin's Law in the deep freeze for a good long time.


----------



## cardamom

How much Wagner is too much? I mean, is there a certain point beyond which insanity is likely to ensue?  I have lately been almost addicted to Lohengrin and I really have to force myself to forget about it and listen to other things. This is the problem for me with Wagner. It sucks me in and I can’t get out! This is a half-serious question.


----------



## ArtMusic

People complain that Wagner's music is too long. This is really a superficial argument on its own. Consider this, let's work with the ten canon Wagner operas (he wrote only about a dozen). Assume on average an opera is four hours long (probably less), so that's only about forty hours worth of music. Let's round it up to fifty hours. So one composer's oeuvre at only fifty hours of music. That is actually not a lot of music for a Romantic composer. Now of course it is quality, and not quantity. Fifty hours of quality music is a limited amount after all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ArtMusic said:


> People complain that Wagner's music is too long. This is really a superficial argument on its own. Consider this, let's work with the ten canon Wagner operas (he wrote only about a dozen). Assume on average an opera is four hours long (probably less), so that's only about forty hours worth of music. Let's round it up to fifty hours. So one composer's oeuvre at only fifty hours of music. That is actually not a lot of music for a Romantic composer. Now of course it is quality, and not quantity. Fifty hours of quality music is a limited amount after all.


Yeah, in that regard, I think he beats Mahler and Bruckner in terms of hits-to-misses ratio. And he's underrated as a melodist.
R. Strauss said "The most perfect melodic shapes are found in Mozart; he has the lightness of touch which is the true objective ... Listen to the remarkable expansion of a Mozart melody, to Cherubino's 'Voi che sapete', for instance. You think it is coming to an end, but it goes farther, even farther."

I think the "You think it is coming to an end, but it goes farther, even farther" part can be said of Wagner as well.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't think anyone means with "too long" the sum of the oeuvre, but the length of particular works or sections of works. Of Wagner's 10 mature operas 8 are long or extremely long (and so is "Rienzi" outside the main 10). Some acts are around 80 min. or so which is very long until an intermission. Sure, there are comparably long operas but not many in the standard repertoire and hardly any of them are as popular as Wagner's, so the length was not to their advantage. It seems also true that a lot of Wagner is broad and "slow", not mainly in the sense of slow tempi but of very little obvious action taking place. Mozart's Figaro is also around 3 hours but it is very busy compared to Tristan.
So "very long" seems just true to me whereas I agree that "too long" is a fairly superficial criticism. (To be fair, Bruckner's and Mahler's symphonies had to face this complaint as well, it's just that in early 21st century internet fora those two seem so popular (even entrenched) that this complaint is not frequently seen.


----------



## Xisten267

Happy birthday to Richard Wagner, one of the most astonishing musical minds of all times! I'm glad to be able to hear the sparkling alexandrites of sounds that the master created, and I wish that they shine forever!


----------



## Music Snob

Allerius said:


> Happy birthday to Richard Wagner, one of the most astonishing musical minds of all times! I'm glad to be able to hear the sparkling alexandrites of sounds that the master created, and I wish that they shine forever!


Happy Birthday Herr Wagner!!


----------



## Barbebleu

Richard Wagner, Richard Wagner, we’ll support you evermore, we’ll support you, evermore. Live long and prosper!:lol:


----------



## Xisten267

Here is an interesting video explaining the use of counterpoint in the Meistersinger prelude:


----------



## Woodduck

Allerius said:


> Happy birthday to Richard Wagner, one of the most astonishing musical minds of all times! I'm glad to be able to hear the sparkling alexandrites of sounds that the master created, and I wish that they shine forever!


That's clever, hilarious and wonderful. It's also dreadful - it would get a big red "F" from a theory teacher - but I'd like to think Wagner would get the joke.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Siegfried Ochs wrote an extended musical joke as variations on a German folksong. S'kommt ein Vogel geflogen.


----------

