# Not trying to be controversial but who object's to Wagner on moralistic grounds?



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I don't object but I understand there are many who do... Is this true? If you do have you ever listed to his music or do you just avoid it? Just another random curiosity...


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

My goodness! This topic has been discussed on a hundred pages already.

I think only one person on the entire forum has strong anti-Wagnerian sentiment on those "moralistic grounds" and he still listens to it.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

-What moralistic grounds?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

If you search TC for the Wagner threads, the most direct post where the OP and others just want to discuss the music, or the man, would at times get instantly hijacked by, imo, someone obsessed with historic context vs. the music itself. Irony of Ironies, Wagner's views, writings, actions are not really much in the light of a vogue of near 'fashionable' anti-semitism roaring through Europe at the time (one of many waves of reviling / vilifying Jews, if you know history at all) and there were no such things as "fascism" or "Nazis" in Wagner's lifetime. Ergo, much of the flap about Wagner and antisemitism is extraordinary imagined sensitivity to things _which had not happened any time when Wagner was alive._

It is nearly impossible, due to those uninformed, or informed but don't care because they have an agenda, to make a thread on Wagner and expect it to stay on course -- or civil -- for more than a few postings. Rather sad, really.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> If you search TC for the Wagner threads, the most direct post where the OP and others just want to discuss the music, or the man, would at times get instantly hijacked by, imo, someone obsessed with historic context vs. the music itself. Irony of Ironies, Wagner's views, writings, actions are not really much in the light of a vogue of near 'fashionable' anti-semitism roaring through Europe at the time (one of many waves of reviling / vilifying Jews, if you know history at all, and there were no such things as "fascism" or "Nazis" in Wagner's lifetime. Ergo, much of the flap about Wagner and antisemitism is extraordinary imagined sensitivity to things _which had not happened any time when Wagner was alive._
> 
> It is nearly impossible, due to those uninformed, or informed but don't care because they have an agenda, to make a thread on Wagner and expect it to stay on course -- or civil -- for more than a few postings. Rather sad, really.


I agree with this, except to say that I think most of the arguments about Wagner here have been civil, even if heated at times.

There will apparently always be a minority of people who feel compelled to comment on Wagner's personal flaws, to dwell upon his antisemitic sentiments or other ideas they disapprove of, to interpret his operas as embodying these things, and to raise the tired spectre of Nazism and the Holocaust which, as PetrB points out, did not exist in Wagner's time or in his wildest imaginings (and his imaginings were pretty wild, thank you!). These people are entitled to their apparently ineradicable associations. The rest of us are entitled to just enjoy Wagner's art as we enjoy the art of other composers whose character we do not feel compelled to subject to constant inspection.

Lucky for us, Wagner's work persists in being around to enjoy and explore on its own terms regardless of what anyone says about it or its creator. That work will always be historically important, intellectually fascinating, and emotionally compelling, even to those with "moral" objections. Just ask Friedrich Nietzsche.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

That Wagner was no angel is well known. Personally I do not care too much about that. I object far more to his music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If you click on the "search" feature, you would find this topic has already been posted to death.

That doesn't mean this thread won't have a long life going on for 50 pages or so. :lol:

So if you folks wish to re-argue and re-hash, be my re-guests!! :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> My goodness! This topic has been discussed on a hundred pages already.
> 
> I think only one person on the entire forum has strong anti-Wagnerian sentiment on those "moralistic grounds" and he still listens to it.


Agree totally. The "search" feature is your friend.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Wagner died in 1883. Thank you, PetrB, for pointing that out  I never could understand what the Valkyries had to do with antisemitism  Much ado about nothing.

Agreed: this topic has been done so many times.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ho, hum! Here we go again.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Also, Mozart is over-rated, all 20th Century music is noise, and Bernstein and Lang Lang are over-dramatic, and Glenn Gould is the best/worst performer of all time.

But on a more serious note, no, I don't. People are complicated. People who object to Wagner on moralistic grounds should object to most music because most people have said or done bad things. How about Beethoven taking his nephew away from his mother and treating him like crap? How about Debussy leaving his first wife? How about Stravinsky being kind of a fascist among other things? Thats not to say these people were all horrible, or evil. People are more complicated than that, and so is music, so people should really stop with the holier-than-thou approach to art in general.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> My goodness! This topic has been discussed on a hundred pages already.
> 
> I think only one person on the entire forum has strong anti-Wagnerian sentiment on those "moralistic grounds" and he still listens to it.


Sorry folks, it just struck my mind and I hurriedly posted it. Thanks for responding anyway, and thanks to powders for pointing out the search bar, I can't believe I missed that (I can still claim newbie ignorance only a member for a week, but yeah I get it I should have known)

Yeah I wrote moralistic grounds because I was trying to be pc and not bring up the obvious negative connotations involving anti semitism. While I suppose I can understand those who feel that way I myself do not. Its like the people who refuse to watch a Woody Allen film because they think he's a guilty pedophile; guilty or not all anyone will know in the future is the art left behind by the artist. And speaking of Woody, he made an interesting point in "Bullets over Broadway", an artist creates his own moral universe (I don't know if I buy into this but it's an interesting notion), if true Wagner's negative moral qualities probably shaped his creative output in which case I'll take it.

Oh and If you don't like his music why?... is it the opera thing and aren't that into opera or just his musical language. As for me I'm not the biggest opera fan and admit I've never seen one by Wagner but I love his chromaticism in the works I've heard, especially the overture to "Tristan und Isolde", and "Leibestod". If that opera was all he ever put out he'd still be greatly discussed and remembered.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Well, if it comes to antisemitism, the whole western culture is infected since almost thousand year back (Shakespeare..Luther..), Its no shocking if even Wagner had such an misconception/orientation, is it? (What about the others?)

(Wouldnt it be nice if just the kindly persons made good art?)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Wow! Still only on page one? :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> That doesn't mean this thread won't have a long life going on for 50 pages or so. :lol:
> 
> So if you folks wish to re-argue and re-hash, be my re-guests!! :tiphat:


Well, powders, you incorrigible instigator ;-) You are surely doing your part. Four posts already?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Yeah I wrote moralistic grounds because I was trying to be pc and not bring up the obvious negative connotations involving anti semitism.
> *Its like the people who refuse to watch a Woody Allen film because they think he's a guilty pedophile*


The only reason I refuse to watch a Woody Allen film is because I find them so boringly sophomoric.

The only reason I do not listen to much of any Wagner is similar, I find the aesthetic, and the music which comes from that, also boringly sophomoric. (Not that there is any question the guy could compose.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I don't object but I understand there are many who do... Is this true? If you do have you ever listed to his music or do you just avoid it? Just another random curiosity...


Well, for another spin on Wagner, if you see *The Ring* in terms of class struggle, then he was sort of a* proto-Marxist.* You could then 'color' the supposed anti-semitic accusations as being actually symptomatic of a larger class-consciousness on Wagner's part, just as *Mahler* was prone to do when he made his infamous *"jews running around like dogs"* statement in his letter to Alma.

These men were simply egomaniacs who wanted to get ahead in the world, and in this sense, Wagner was no more anti-semitic than Mahler proved to be.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

There's an egomaniac in all of us.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> There's an egomaniac in all of us.


Yes, yes, go on...don't leave anything out...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Since we've all lived through this thread in the past, yet this current incarnation refuses to die, let me put this out there:

How can one possibly ask "Who objects to Wagner's music on moralistic grounds?" and also say "not trying to be controversial" in the same sentence? 

You can't ask a question like that and not have controversy.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> Its like the people who refuse to watch a Woody Allen film because they think he's a guilty pedophile; guilty or not all anyone will know in the future is the art left behind by the artist. And speaking of Woody, he made an interesting point in "Bullets over Broadway", an artist creates his own moral universe (I don't know if I buy into this but it's an interesting notion), if true Wagner's negative moral qualities probably shaped his creative output in which case I'll take it.


And speaking of Woody some more, if memory serves it was he who quipped "I can't listen to all that much Wagner. It makes me want to invade Poland." (Or something like that - I can't remember the exact quote and I'm too lazy to go look it up.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> And speaking of Woody some more, if memory serves it was he who quipped "I can't listen to all that much Wagner. *It makes me want to invade Poland." *


You know, Woody Allen has of late demonstrated that he has poor impulse control. :lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> *Not trying to be controversial but who object's to Wagner on moralistic grounds? * Just another random curiosity...


Answer: Wotan

The god thought Wagner was too full of himself and had pretentions that he himself (Wagner) would make a better god than Wotan.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Fugue Meister said:


> I don't object but I understand there are many who do... Is this true? If you do have you ever listed to his music or do you just avoid it? Just another random curiosity...


Not now, but probably in some ways I was before, however I still don't see this as a cut and dried issue.

Let me say from the outset that I have some very firm favourites in his output - his Siegfried Idyll, Wesendonck Lieder, and some of the bleeding chunks - however he is far from my favourite composer. I also recognise his contribution to music. Indeed if I didn't it would be a bit dodgy - he was very influential, and one of my favourite periods of music is the century after Wagner, the 20th century.

More broadly speaking though, my opinion is that you really can't be non controversial about Wagner, he's the most controversial composer on the planet. Its also hard to separate him from things strictly outside music, including politics. I'm sure you know about his republican ideals, rassenkunde, his idea of music as including strong philosophical and a kind of pseudo-religious elements, and even his concept of uniting the arts - Gesamkunstwerk - is a sign that he was more for tearing down boundaries than erecting them.

Wagner aslo means many things, he's like a spearhead for so many causes. Speaking of music, we all know here how scarcely any composer coming after him wasn't touched in some way by his music. Then there's all manner of other ways he influenced other areas in the arts, one being the symbolist and decadents movement of the late 19th century (think Verlaine's poem "Parsifal" or Beardsley's illustrations of Wagner's operas, or Wilde's Salome).

There's also other elements of Wagner, who as a young man was very much the dandy, wearing the finest clothes and most expensive perfumes. Given his relationship - which was strictly a musical one - with Prince Ludwig who was gay, there where even rumours of homosexuality (now proved to be false, just based on Richard's overly friendly letters to Ludwig, obviously trying to get as much cash out of him, thus playing along a bit). There is even evidence of him being a gay cult figure in the late 19th century, and the iconography of his operas can even be linked to the images of artists like Robert Mapplethorpe. Think those guys with massive biceps and six packs, the image of male virility (but of course, anything but).

Of course there is the way totalitarian regimes adopted the same sort of iconography, and not just the Nazis mind you, but also the Apartheid regime in South Africa. This is of course in the realm of political propaganda, and as people said we've talked enough about that on TC. So I'll give that a rest.

But what I'm saying is that you're asking a bit of a loaded question. More controversial is the way in which Wagner's operas mirror his ideas. I went to some effort to get to grips with this in the Wagner anniversary year, last year. I even went to a public lecture on the topic.

It is clear that Wagner's operas at least have undercurrents of his politics, but nowhere near as overt as say Beethoven's Fidelio and its Enlightenment ideals, nor Verdi's Nabucco and Aida that speak to the risorgimento movement for Italian unity and independence. Opera in any case is hard to separate from things strictly outside music, many opera's plots go back in history at political events and stories. Sometimes, as with Britten's operas - many of which are written from the perspective of the main protagonists as being outsiders in society -they are strontly related to the personal life of the composer.

I'm not saying Wagner is the same as these guys, but like them you just can't apply a kind of formalist antiseptic and bleach out Wagner from his operas. Here I am going against the trend of this forum, but if you look at it, extreme formalism is very much a Modernist concept. Even if we date back Modernism to the industrial revolution or the French revolution (18th century) the debates between 'absolute' and 'program' music have been going on since then. I think now its better to look at connections rather than dichotomies, and in that I am more leaning towards Post-Modernist views of the history of music and the arts in general. I don't think its useful to separate things, at least not in any strict way, its better to see things as a whole.

After that whole process of inquiry, and more listening and reading things (including debates on this forum) I think I see the many sides of this debate. There are many layers to Wagner, probably more than for any other composer.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Sid James said:


> There's also other elements of Wagner, who as a young man was very much the dandy, wearing the finest clothes and most expensive perfumes.


This was actually a lifelong preoccupation, pursued even more avidly as an older man when he could better afford it.



Sid James said:


> Given his relationship - which was strictly a musical one - with Prince Ludwig who was gay, there where even rumours of homosexuality (now proved to be false, just based on Richard's overly friendly letters to Ludwig, obviously trying to get as much cash out of him, thus playing along a bit).


Wagner's extreme womanizing rules out homosexuality (but doesn't preclude bisexuality).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I mentioned dwarfs in jest on the "Stupid Thread Ideas," but dwarfs are a recurring theme in Germanic mythology. Could Wagner's use of dwarfs in The Ring, and the general presence of dwarfs in German mythology, perhaps have created an archetype which manifest as an anti-semitic attitude?

Dwarfs could be construed as the 'inferior other' in a general cultural mythology/view in which one's own race was superior.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I used to reject Wagner's music on the basis of principle.

As I matured, I realized that a great many of the composers I adore had objectionable opinions, and that I could disassociate the music from the woman/man who composed it.

Wagner the man? I detest. Wagner the composer? I respect.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Novelette said:


> I used to reject Wagner's music on the basis of principle.
> 
> As I matured, I realized that a great many of the composers I adore had objectionable opinions, and that I could disassociate the music from the woman/man who composed it.
> 
> Wagner the man? I detest. Wagner the composer? I respect.


I think it's harder with Wagner than with most other composers to disassociate the objectionable man from the sometimes glories his music, simply because the music dramas reflect, to a certain extent, the objectionable opinions of the man. Of course, Wagner worshippers vehemently deny this as for them the music dramas must be untainted. But to an unbiased mind which has not succumbed completely to the sorcery of the music it is inescapable. What is necessary therefore is to simply come to terms with it, cast aside the rather tiresome and hopelessly wordy libretto and enjoy the music.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I think it's harder with Wagner than with most other composers to disassociate the objectionable man from the sometimes glories his music, simply because the music dramas reflect, to a certain extent, the objectionable opinions of the man. Of course, Wagner worshippers vehemently deny this as for them the music dramas must be untainted. But to an unbiased mind which has not succumbed completely to the sorcery of the music it is inescapable. What is necessary therefore is to simply come to terms with it, cast aside the rather tiresome and hopelessly wordy libretto and enjoy the music.


And I think that people who dislike Wagner, the man, deliberately force trying to taint his works because they can't deal with how magnificent and monumental his works are.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> And I think that people who dislike Wagner, the man, deliberately force trying to taint his works because they can't deal with how magnificent and monumental his works are.


Wagner's personal beliefs couldn't be more further removed from the aesthetic content of his works-- as Woodduck has so amply documented.

Argumentum ad hominem, writ large.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I mentioned dwarfs in jest on the "Stupid Thread Ideas," but dwarfs are a recurring theme in Germanic mythology. Could Wagner's use of dwarfs in The Ring, and the general presence of dwarfs in German mythology, perhaps have created an archetype which manifest as an anti-semitic attitude?
> 
> Dwarfs could be construed as the 'inferior other' in a general cultural mythology/view in which one's own race was superior.


There has long been a critical tendency to see Wagner's dwarf brothers Alberich and (especially) Mime as Jewish stereotypes, along with other unpleasant characters like Hagen, Beckmesser, and Klingsor. Ultimately, there's no way to prove or disprove such assertions; we don't know everything that went on in Wagner's head. What we have left are several sharply delineated characters and a freedom to view them as we choose.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I think it's harder with Wagner than with most other composers to disassociate the objectionable man from the sometimes glories his music, simply because the music dramas reflect, to a certain extent, the objectionable opinions of the man. Of course, Wagner worshippers vehemently deny this as for them the music dramas must be untainted. But to an unbiased mind which has not succumbed completely to the sorcery of the music it is inescapable. What is necessary therefore is to simply come to terms with it, cast aside the rather tiresome and hopelessly wordy libretto and enjoy the music.


I'm not sure how one has "come to terms with" Wagner by throwing out the libretto.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_* Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
*_
_*I mentioned dwarfs in jest on the "Stupid Thread Ideas," but dwarfs are a recurring theme in Germanic mythology. Could Wagner's use of dwarfs in The Ring, and the general presence of dwarfs in German mythology, perhaps have created an archetype which manifest as an anti-semitic attitude?*_*...Dwarfs could be construed as the 'inferior other' in a general cultural mythology/view in which one's own race was superior.
*



amfortas said:


> There has long been a critical tendency to see Wagner's dwarf brothers Alberich and (especially) Mime as Jewish stereotypes, along with other unpleasant characters like Hagen, Beckmesser, and Klingsor. Ultimately, there's no way to prove or disprove such assertions; we don't know everything that went on in Wagner's head. What we have left are several sharply delineated characters and a freedom to view them as we choose.


Who said anything about 'proving' it? This is art, and mythology, and metaphysics, and human nature. I'm just sharing my observations, not asserting immutable truths.

If the dwarfs in Wagner do not represent Jews, then other possibilities exist, such as the dwarfs representing the proletariat or poverty class. After all, social theory was newly emerging in the 1800s, and very popular in Germany.

Serendipitously, I just saw *Randy Newman* on Austin City Limits. He sang his hit *Short People*, of course. Just humor? They say humor is indicative of unconscious impulses...aren't we glad we are tall, white people!

Another song he did might have escaped most people's radar, a song called _*Birmingham.*_ Yes, that's the city in Alabama where the civil rights race riots took place. One of the song verses mentions 'his dog' and how mean it is. Coincidence? Unconscious aggression? Most black people, to this day, are still fearful of dogs, because of their use by law enforcement in tracking down escapees and in crowd control.

*Sun Ra* has an album called _*Magic City*_ which is referring to his hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, touted by a billboard at its entrance as the *"Magic City."* *...Sun Ra's* take on this, of course, differs considerably.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2014)

I think you mean 'moral' don't you?

Moral = 


> Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral?q=moral

Moralistic =



> *Someone or something that is moralistic **judges **people** by **fixed **and **possibly **unfair **standards** of **right** and **wrong** and **tries** to **force **or **teach** them to **behave **according** to these **standards** :*


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/moralistic


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Is that why people don't like Antonio Salieri? Because he was a murderer? lol.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Who objects to Wagner on moral ground? People who don't like his music. 

Why should we let anyone take a moral high ground on a non-moral issue.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Radames said:


> Is that why people don't like Antonio Salieri? Because he was a murderer? lol.


Hmm but a lot of us love Gesualdo... a double standard?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Hmm but a lot of us love Gesualdo... a double standard?


So the guy killed a few people... could be worse. He did compose some brilliant music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> So the guy killed a few people... could be worse. He did compose some brilliant music.


Simply sacrifices on the altar of great art. I mean, would you rather have all that neat music or a few random people you didn't know anyway? :devil:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

PetrB said:


> The only reason I refuse to watch a Woody Allen film is because I find them so boringly sophomoric.
> 
> The only reason I do not listen to much of any Wagner is similar, I find the aesthetic, and the music which comes from that, also boringly sophomoric. (Not that there is any question the guy could compose.)


Have you given Woody a fair chance PetrB or did the early ones turn you off and you missing out on his later mature films? Sorry to deviate from the OP.

On point I think Wagner was the kind of guy we would probably all despise in real life but there are some aspects of his music that are very engrossing.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Simply sacrifices on the altar of great art. I mean, would you rather have all that neat music or a few random people you didn't know anyway? :devil:


Could've been righteous kills. Never know.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Radames said:


> Is that why people don't like Antonio Salieri? Because he was a murderer? lol.


I enjoy Salieri. He's charming.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Could've been righteous kills. Never know.


Or they could have taken a walk in the wrong part of Chicago, gotten hold of some bad tacos, anything. Why does everybody always blame poor Gesualdo?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Or they could have taken a walk in the wrong part of Chicago, gotten hold of some bad tacos, anything. Why does everybody always blame poor Gesualdo?


Okay, now it's starting to makes sense. They drowned on their long walk to Chicago from Venosa for some fish tacos. Case closed.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Leave Wagner alone already, he's been dead for awhile. And let's not even talk about morals because who is without sin? Of course, this doesn't mean that antisemitism should be tolerated but what does Wagner's music have to do with fascism? Political correctness only serves to obscure the truth.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

amfortas said:


> This was actually a lifelong preoccupation, pursued even more avidly as an older man when he could better afford it.


I've got a book with an etching of Wagner sitting on a very plush sofa in his lavishly furnished lounge room. So it wasn't just clothes or perfume. I can't find that pic but I think the most compelling image of Wagner is by Franz von Lenbach. I don't know if its a realistic or idealised portrait but I think he captures that sense of a man who had this unbounded ambition, these very high goals. That steely gaze and maybe a hint of megalomania? An amazing portrait, quite mesmerising.












> Wagner's extreme womanizing rules out homosexuality (but doesn't preclude bisexuality).


From what I gather he was just straight but in any case this guy did some of the most erotically charged music (the Liebestod being the one everyone here, or most people here, would know).

As for the discussion since I've been to this thread, Wagner's most political work is the early Rienzi. It kind of lays out his political beliefs, especially with overthrowing established power structures and making a republic for the people. Like Verdi's operas it goes back to the past, providing a metaphor that mirrors the events of the present (mid 19th century, esp. the failed 1848 revolutions). As I said probably less like Verdi in terms of a solid political aim, and in any case Rienzi meets a sticky ending. So it looks back on dictators, probably of the ancient Roman era, maybe of the more recent past of Napoleon. Of course the message is that power can be acquired and lost very easily, so it has lessons in terms of what would occur in the dictatorships of the 20th century. Much hype has been made of the fact that Hitler had a score of it in his bunker.

As for his other operas, his politics and beliefs about progress and rassenkunde are hinted at in subtexts and asides of certain songs. There is a controversial one at the end of Meistersinger, there is this bit about invading lands to the East in Tannhauser (if I remember correctly, or it could be Lohengrin?), and Parsifal includes everything but the kitchen sink in terms of being a mixture of pseudo-religion, philosophy, hints at darker things too.

As I said its what I have learnt in recent years. I haven't read much about dwarfs, that's new to me. The issue isn't that history or politics is everything, or that formal analysis is irrelevant, its more that looking at all aspects of composers and their networks provides a broader picture than limiting things in one way or another. So there's a balanced way to go about this, it doesn't necessarily have to be related to the events of the 20th century. As people have said we've had those discussions here before, and it just leads to focussing on Wagner and race. He comes across as more than that, I admit it now more than I did in the past.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

He had a MASSIVE head. Funny little man.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> I enjoy Salieri. He's charming.


He's like Ted Bundy, minus the empathy.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Sid James said:


> As for his other operas, his politics and beliefs about progress and rassenkunde are hinted at in subtexts and asides of certain songs. There is a controversial one at the end of Meistersinger, there is this bit about invading lands to the East in Tannhauser (if I remember correctly, or it could be Lohengrin?), and Parsifal includes everything but the kitchen sink in terms of being a mixture of pseudo-religion, philosophy, hints at darker things too.


This bit was in Lohengrin, and it was actually about defending Germany from the enemy in the East, namely from the Hungarians.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Wagner demonstrates how the universal qualities of art must transcend whatever other kinds of 'external' pressures are exerted upon it, in this case, the human flaws of the man himself.

As art frees itself from pressures of royalty, wealth, the church, the state, commerciality, and other extra-artistic factors, and becomes an artistic expression of the 'soul' of the artist, from him to humanity at large, then the only thing left which can get in the way is the artist himself, and his relation to 'the audience' or Humanity at large. As humans, we desire to communicate our experience to others, via storytelling and art.

If the artist who creates the art, in his desire to 'belong' to humanity, and participate in a two-way communication of his soul experience to ours, then we have no choice but to judge the man himself as the embodiment of the artistic creation, since the art was done for no other purpose than artistic purposes. We have adjudged Wagner's art as 'high art'.

We know that Wagner was flawed, and racist; since art is just an extension and expression of Humanity, we can't ignore the human nature and personality which produced the art, unless we artificially separate the Man from the Art. This would be disingenuous, unless we are willing to accept Wagner's flaws, as well as his better accomplishments.

Do we castigate Wagner? If we judge him as a failed man, then yes. If we choose to ignore, or even forgive, then we can see his art as a reflection of his better side, and leave the darkness for biographers.

*Unless somebody wants to pursue that dwarf metaphor!*


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Sid James said:


> ...
> As for the discussion since I've been to this thread, Wagner's most political work is the early Rienzi. It kind of lays out his political beliefs, especially with overthrowing established power structures and making a republic for the people. Like Verdi's operas *it goes back to the past, providing a metaphor that mirrors the events of the present (mid 19th century, esp. the failed 1848 revolutions*). As I said probably less like Verdi in terms of a solid political aim, and in any case Rienzi meets a sticky ending. So it looks back on dictators, probably of the ancient Roman era, maybe of the more recent past of Napoleon. Of course the message is that power can be acquired and lost very easily, so it has lessons in terms of what would occur in the dictatorships of the 20th century. Much hype has been made of the fact that Hitler had a score of it in his bunker.
> 
> ...


Just a correction to the part I put in bold above. _Rienzi_ was composed in the late 1830's (so, before 1848), however the 1789 and 1830 revolutions in Paris could well have been on Wagner's mind or used as some sort of inspiration for the opera.

I'm no expert on Wagner, but you look at Eugene Delacroix's painting_ Liberty Leading the People_, and it pretty much expresses the spirit of the age. You can see the man in the top hat, he represents someone middle class (perhaps an intellectual), whilst the man to his left is working class. The bare breasted woman with the tricolour represents the French republic.

That sense of society joining together to demand the freedoms most of us take for granted today - to vote in free elections, to have a parliament representing us, to have a constitution framing the democratic process - was something that dogged remnants of the old order throughout the 19th century. The young Wagner was engaged in this era of struggle, later as participant in 1848.

But I won't go on, this is again just background info, but I just came to correct that error.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

So, there are elements of social theory and of class struggle in Wagner, just as I suspected. This was also the rise of nationalism. Does antisemitism tie in to that?

This is a thing that runs deep, even among people and institutions I thoght knew better. I was shocked to find that Yale had a quota on Jews back in the day.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Wagner's personal beliefs couldn't be more further removed from the aesthetic content of his works-- as Woodduck has so amply documented.
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem, writ large.


Sorry, but I think you fail to notice the obvious!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> So, there are elements of social theory and of class struggle in Wagner, just as I suspected. This was also the rise of nationalism. Does antisemitism tie in to that?...


I think that class struggle, the demand for rights across the board in Europe, the emergence of independence movements and nationalism, all tie into this. You and I and others here have discussed these things, probably on those earlier Wagner threads and other places.

It boils down to the failure of the ideals of the Enlightenment to be implemented in the 19th century in terms of real political reform. Sure you had the rise of nations like Italy and Germany, but you had an emphasis on economic development rather than political rights being granted and expanded. Civil society was there, but it showed itself in things like numerous revolutions and uprisings. Also, in art you had the salons as centres of political debate, a safe place away from the public eye. These where basically classy lounge rooms, and this tradition goes back to the 18th century.

Another aspect was indeed the concert hall, chamber music hall (which just became established in the 19th century), and the opera. What we had was art being seen in some ways as a way to connect with likeminded others, share with them your ideas and in that way improve society from outside the power structures that where unresponsive to the changes people wanted. This idealised way of thinking translated into philosophy as well, even of today. The idea that you have to be open to new ideas, although in practical terms that might not really make you a better or worse person than the next guy.

Of course with the failure of the revolutions of the 19th century, Marxism comes into the picture. His was the most important philosophy to come out of the 19th century, and it definitely had impacts in the 20th century.

To put it briefly, by the time the last remnants of the ancien regime where swept away from Europe, after World War I, it was too late to implement the reforms that revolutionaries asked for throughout the 19th century. The world had changed, and the rise of dictatorships coopting some of the nationalist rhetoric from the previous century feeds into this. Thus we had the rise of opposing extreme ideologies, Communism - which basically became Stalinism - and fascism.

I'll leave you with another well known painting of the period that speaks to this, the massacre by Napoleon's troops in Spain by Goya. Supposedly the French where there to liberate the Spanish from the royalists. Didn't exactly happen like that, didn't it? This was in 1808, even before Wagner was born, but this type of thing continued throughout his century - and sadly, beyond. Death in the name of freedom, a distortion of ideals that in the first place looked good on the surface.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Good post, Sid. That still leaves us with the question of whether it is reasonable to castigate Wagner for his views on Jews, or whether this was a pervasive perception of history; just as Yale and Harvard had "quotas" on admission of Jews. I think to address this, we have to look deeply into the question of antisemitism itself.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Good post, Sid. That still leaves us with the question of whether it is reasonable to castigate Wagner for his views on Jews, or whether this was a pervasive perception of history; just as Yale and Harvard had "quotas" on admission of Jews. I think to address this, we have to look deeply into the question of antisemitism itself.


Thank you.

Prejudice and discrimination against minorities, including but not limited to those of Jewish heritage, went on during Wagner's time and before. The way it changed in the 19th century is that it was codified, it was made into ideology. Again, I have talked of this many times on this forum, for years on threads like this. De Gobineau and H.S. Chaimberlain are two big names in terms of making racism into a kind of theory, a kind of pseudo-science. Wagner's own writings of rassenkunde type related to this as well in some respects.

The truth is that classical music, and all the other arts, are far from this kind of decontextualised ideology that has developed since the 19th century, and in some quarters - maybe many quarters - is still a strong force. The issue is that you can't apply some sort of barrier between music and other things, like issues of ethnicity and class, or gender, or developments in politics and economics.

I will rest there, but I think that at least this thread has ended not in an argument but in us discussing Wagner's many faces if you like, the many layers that made his music what it was, looking at the big picture rather than getting involved in the petty wars that now flare up on a daily basis on this forum. If people want one answer to a thread, you probably won't get it. Wagner is no exception to this, and as I've said, he's the most controversial composer of them all.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Do we castigate Wagner? If we judge him as a failed man, then yes. If we choose to ignore, or even forgive, then we can see his art as a reflection of his better side, and leave the darkness for biographers.
> 
> *Unless somebody wants to pursue that dwarf metaphor!*


I don't think Wagner is anywhere near "a failed man". He could not foresee that some day Jews would be the one nation that is forbidden to criticize. And he did not only criticized Jews, but also Frenchmen and pretty much anyone who he perceived as a threat to Germany. It's natural, we all want to protect the things that we love. and it's not like Germany had no enemies back in his time (it's not like it doesn't have them now either, in fact I would very much like to know what Wagner would have said about the current political situation - probably nothing good). Of course if he was only anti-French or anti-anyone else except the "chosen people", nobody would have called him a failed man. I would take a man like Wagner over someone whose opinions are always 100% politically correct, but who does not care about anything further than his own nose.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Sid James said:


> De Gobineau and H.S. Chaimberlain are two big names in terms of making racism into a kind of theory, a kind of pseudo-science. Wagner's own writings of rassenkunde type related to this as well in some respects.


"Related" pretty literally, since Chamberlain was Wagner's son-in-law.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't think Wagner is anywhere near "a failed man". He could not foresee that some day Jews would be the one nation that is forbidden to criticize. And he did not only criticized Jews, but also Frenchmen and pretty much anyone who he perceived as a threat to Germany. It's natural, we all want to protect the things that we love. and it's not like Germany had no enemies back in his time (it's not like it doesn't have them now either, in fact I would very much like to know what Wagner would have said about the current political situation - probably nothing good). Of course if he was only anti-French or anti-anyone else except the "chosen people", nobody would have called him a failed man. I would take a man like Wagner over someone whose opinions are always 100% politically correct, but who does not care about anything further than his own nose.


Yes, but you are still trying to justify Wagner's music using _external_ social issues, and with Wagner's perceived 'persona,' which is a social mask, not our true inner selves (see Jung). Real, true, great art (which Wagner's was) is conveyed from the deeper, universal part of the composer's identity, to our deeper identity.

Human existence is a sacred thing. This is universal to being human...So if Wagner's music moves me and Daniel Barenboim and James Levine, it is because we all sense a connection, as humans, to Wagner's sacred nature as a human, not his outward 'ego,' cultural trappings, historical position, or his 'outward social persona' (which is like a mask) with all its opinions and flaws.

If people wish to reject Wagner on the grounds of his "outward" social identity, then that's their choice, but in doing so, they are letting extra-musical factors affect the aesthetic experience too much.

Wagner's music came from his connection to the sacred, which is his 'inner' identity, and that's why it's good music; because it communicates on a subjective human level, which is our shared, universal, inner connection with the sacred.

Anyway, with the advent of "absolute music," all social context gets thrown out, and is irrelevant to the aesthetic experience.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Again!? Not again! Surely this has been discussed 100 times now!


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Anyway, with the advent of "*absolute music*," all social context gets thrown out, and is irrelevant to the aesthetic experience.


There is, of course, no such thing except when a composer expressly declares a piece to be so. Just because an argument has been put forward that music should be absolute, doesn't mean that argument has been settled, or that it carries greater validity than the argument that all music carries with it some value beyond that which the composer intends.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Burroughs said:


> Again!? Not again! Surely this has been discussed 100 times now!


We need a 101................


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> There is, of course, no such thing* (as 'absolute' music)* except that which a composer expressly declares it to be so. Just because an argument has been put forward that music should be absolute, doesn't mean that argument has been settled, or that it carries greater validity than the argument that all music carries with it some value beyond that which the composer intends.


_*
*Music's structural and sensual elements resonate more with individuals' cognitive and emotional sets rather than with their cultural or doctrinal sentiments, although its external manner and expression may be rooted in historical circumstances.
__The highest and truly sincere, effective art communicates on the individual level, and is received in the same way. 
_
_The ideology or social function, or social content, or text, of a musical work leads towards a repression of the sensual.

__In this sense, all music is "absolute" in that it is an abstract art without explicit meaning, unless the explicit meaning is appended to it as extra-musical baggage.

It is necessary to the aesthetic response that we free ourselves from textual and doctrinal content in order to fully experience the aesthetic form.

Music is the 'dynamic' of feelings and emotions and thoughts, not their literal or specific meanings. Music is 'gesture of thought and emotion.'

Musical emotion is profound but *vague.* Musical meanings are like thought in action, as "A leads to B," but the thought is not literal; it is musical meaning, not narrative or linguistic thought.

Music is concerned with feelings which are primarily individual and rooted in the body...regardless of any social context or ideological baggage which was originally part of whatever social, ritual, ceremonial, or utilitarian purpose might have been intended.

Recording has removed music from its original intended social functions and contexts (doctrines, vehicles for religion, religious ceremonies), and now listening is a subjective experience.  

Just as art historians can study paintings of religious imagery, and appreciated their formal aspects fully, so too can we listen to music in the same way.

There is no requirement for anyone to acknowledge any other perspective (doctrinal, social, historical) other than their own, unless they are interested in extra-musical reasons.

Additionally, I do not acknowledge that a work of art's religious or social ideology or social intent are essential formal elements of that art, especially the* abstract *art of music; only the artist's subjective human qualities, if those come through, can be essential to the art, and in that sense the music *transcends* "outer" ideologies and intents, and embodies the artist's* inner subjective connection to the sacred*, which communicates universally, because* these are universal human qualities which existed first, before ideology or doctrine.

*Isn't this the very reason that we all can enjoy and 'get' music, even without any technical knowledge?

Surely, MacLeod, you do a disservice to all listeners here if you posit that__ "all music carries with it some value beyond that which the composer intends," which implies that there are "hidden social and ideological meanings" in music which are not accessible to all; even though those are non-essential to the aesthetic experience of music, which is abstract, sensual, and rooted in our primary humanity, of which we are all a part.
_


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> _You seem to be more interested in "content" and doctrine, and literal meaning of text than aesthetic experience of music._


This looks awfully familiar.

http://www.talkclassical.com/31454-what-universal-characteristics-sacred-post694911.html#post694911

and

http://www.talkclassical.com/31435-religious-music-real-post695286.html#post695286

Would you kindly engage with what I actually posted - since you quoted it. By all means refute what I've said, in whole or in part. Thanks.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> This looks awfully familiar.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/31454-what-universal-characteristics-sacred-post694911.html#post694911
> 
> ...


MacLeod, you require so much explanation and justification from me that I find it easier to do it this way. If you respond to a statement I make, then I can answer it however I see fit, as long as it is clear to all, including the random reader. I'm more interested in that than I am in meeting your requirements.

But, to satisfy you, MacLeod, here it is:



MacLeod said:


> There is, of course, no such thing except_* (as absolute music)*_ when a composer expressly declares a piece to be so. Just because an argument has been put forward that music should be absolute, doesn't mean that argument has been settled, or that it carries greater validity than the argument that all music carries with it some value beyond that which the composer intends.


_Music is an abstract art, and we experience it as such. I think you are too distracted by extra-musical content.

________________________________________________________________________________

_*This part of my previous response #63 was not pasted; it is new response:*

Additionally, I do not acknowledge that a work of art's religious or social ideology or social intent are essential formal elements of that art, especially the* abstract *art of music; only the artist's subjective human qualities, if those come through, can be essential to the art, and in that sense the music *transcends* "outer" ideologies and intents, and embodies the artist's* inner subjective connection to the sacred*, which communicates universally, because* these are universal human qualities which existed first, before ideology or doctrine.

*Isn't this the very reason that we all can enjoy and 'get' music, even without any technical knowledge?

Surely, MacLeod, you do a disservice to all listeners here if you posit that__ "all music carries with it some value beyond that which the composer intends," which implies that there are "hidden social and ideological meanings" in music which are not accessible to all; even though those are non-essential to the aesthetic experience of music, which is abstract, sensual, and rooted in our primary humanity, of which we are all a part._


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> MacLeod, you require so much explanation and justification from me that I find it easier to do it this way. If you respond to a statement I make, then I can answer it however I see fit, as long as it is clear to all, including the random reader. I'm more interested in that than I am in meeting your requirements.
> 
> But, to satisfy you, MacLeod, here it is:
> 
> ...


Thanks again for your helpful reply.

You may feel I'm 'too distracted'; inevitably, I don't think I'm distracted at all. IMO, it's there, whether we like it or not. I don't think "_religious or social ideology or social intent are essential formal elements"_ either. As is more often the case than we might admit, we agree.

Why do I do a disservice to other listeners by trying to explain what I get out of/ hear in the music? My personal response is my own. I can (and will) assert that there is more to the music than just the music, but I fully expect others to disagree with me and point out the error of my ways, in the same way that I will disagree with them.

It's called debate.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

I object to your use of an apostrophe in "object's" [sic].


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks again for your helpful reply.
> 
> You may feel I'm 'too distracted'; inevitably, I don't think I'm distracted at all. IMO, it's there, whether we like it or not. I don't think "_religious or social ideology or social intent are essential formal elements"_ either. As is more often the case than we might admit, we agree.
> 
> ...


I responded to your statement:



MacLeod said:


> There is, of course, no such thing* (as 'absolute' music)* except that which a composer expressly declares it to be so. Just because an argument has been put forward that music should be absolute, doesn't mean that argument has been settled, or that it carries greater validity than the argument that all music carries with it some value beyond that which the composer intends.


I think music is an "absolute" aesthetic experience, in that musical thought is essentially abstract, and only expresses "dynamics" of thought and emotional gesture, _not_ extra-musical content, as your opposition to this idea seems to suggest.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks again for your helpful reply.
> 
> You may feel I'm 'too distracted'; inevitably, I don't think I'm distracted at all. IMO, it's there, whether we like it or not. I don't think "_religious or social ideology or social intent are essential formal elements"_ either. As is more often the case than we might admit, we agree.
> 
> ...


Right. And our friend million seems pretty hung up about exclusivism and the idea that the music "belongs" to those who agree with the text. I would contend that everyone's own response is exclusive to him or her, that his own response is exclusive to him.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I think music is an "absolute" aesthetic experience, in that musical thought is essentially abstract, and only expresses "dynamics" of thought and emotional gesture, _not_ extra-musical content, as your opposition to this idea seems to suggest.


Even PetrB has conceded that music is of its time because of all the extra-musical influences on it at the time of composition (see the silly but fun thread about Beethoven).

Wagner (remember him? He's what the thread is about) wrote what he wrote because of who he was and when he lived.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I definitely object to Wagner's antisemitic views, but I can't deny he was a great composer.


----------

