# How did you get into Wagner, and when?



## kangxi (Jan 24, 2014)

How old were you when you started listening to Wagner, and what was your route into the music? I was about 14 when I bought an EP (remember them?) with the Ride on it, but it was the other side, with Siegfried's Funeral March, that had the more lasting influence. I remember listening to a live broadcast of Walkure sometime in the early 60s, but I didn't buy any more recordings. Why? I knew I like the music, but i felt I wasn't ready for it. So that was the situation for 20 or more years - listening to Wagner when I came across it but not seeking it out. I was conscious, however, all the time, that Wagner was waiting for me and me for him when I was finally ready. Then in my mid-forties I went to visit a friend in the States, and his mother had some old LPs & 78s. I listened to a selection of chunks from various Wagner operas by the great, the wonderful, the incomparable Lauritz Melchior & I was utterly entranced. Blown away. So I knew the time had come. I bought a set of Ernest Newman's Wagner Nights and a boxed set of the Solti Ring. I returned to my work (I was on contract in Saudi Arabia) and immersed myself. As I listened to the music I followed them in Newman (they are written so you can read the essays at the same rate as the music is playing - an ideal way to get into these works). They were my constant companions for the next few months until I returned home. I've been a devotee ever since.
(I'm assuming you do actually like Wagner. There are some - Roger at Gramex, the wonderful second hand CD shop in London, for example - who inexplicably don't. )
(Also: apologies if this thread has already started and finished before I ever got here. The site search engine sucks.)


----------



## Don Magnifico X (Jan 27, 2014)

Your story seems to parallel mine a bit, actually. 

When I was in high school (outside Philadelphia, around 1985) there was a popular Maxell audio tape commercial on TV that used "Ride of the Valkyries". The only person I knew that loved classical music was my German teacher who told me what it was. 

I went to the local Sam Goody record shop and bought a CD that had it listed on it. Since I didn't really know what I was doing, I just chose the CD with the most interesting cover and hoped for the best. Turns out, it was a recording of George Szell and the Cleveland orchestra performing orchestral highlights from the Ring Cycle. 

While that CD has become one of my favorite all time CDs, it took me a long time to warm up to the other non-Ride selections. Fortunately, I liked "Ride" enough to continue listening to the CD until the rest of the work took hold of me, and it never let go. Even though I was a confirmed heavy metal fan, I probably played that Wagner CD almost as much as any of my favorite bands. 

In college, I borrowed a CD collection of the Ring Cycle from the library (this time with the actual vocal parts!) and found that I kinda hated it. Loved the music, didn't like the singing and just figured that opera wasn't my thing. But I kept listening to the Szell CD. 

Fast forward to about five years ago. I'm not sure how it got there, but I was going through my classical music collection and came across a Ring Highlights CD I hadn't noticed before (I don't have a huge Classical music collection by any means, but somehow I can't ever remember purchasing it or seeing it before that time). It was a Met performance conducted by James Levine with Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle, and James Morris. I decided to give "the singing version" another chance. Wow, this time it bowled me over! 

From there, I went on to discovering that, hey, I actually really do like opera! How about that? It's funny, though, because I found that my opera tastes really go more towards Bel Canto and I still find much of Wagner to be a challenge (except, Das Rheingold, certainly my favorite opera), but Wagner opened my ears and mind to some of the most stunningly beautiful music I have ever heard. 

So, there you go!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

It took me ages to get into Wagner - over 20 years, in fact .... so I was in my mid-40s when I started.

It was 'Building a Library' on BBC Radio 3 that started me off, I think. I was driving and started listening to the episode on the best Ring cycle (Kleiberth on Testament - see below) ..... something about the performance got to me and I ordered it that night and have spent many enjoyable hours with it since. From that, I also bought about a metre of other Wagner CDs, including historical sets (many of which I much prefer to more recent recordings).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

The Keilberth Ring! Freewheel burning! Thumbs up.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*Apocalypse Wagner!*

I got into Wagner in the eighth grade with Birgit Nilsson by way of Coppola. To lift a line from the film, "It really sank it's hook into me." . . REALLY. . . sank its hook into me; like later that same year when I heard "Fight Fire With Fire By Metallica."

Ha. Ha. Ha.

You're got to remember, I went to private school.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Wagner is a problem as one company seduced by the music and at the same time revolted by some of the philosophy behind it. I first got to know Wagner through an old LP by Knappersbusch which contained the 'Ride' and other highlights. I bought highlights from the Decca Siegfried and a Gotterdamerung. I now own all the operas. I have four sets of Tristan, in fact, and four Ring cycles. I find, however, that Wagner must be played beautifully and not dragged. He himself told conductors not to drag. I don't love all the operas just parts of them and I never listen to a whole opera at one sitting. That risks indigestion. I don't love Wagner but he is a great seducer!


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort (Jan 24, 2014)

So many times I have heard that story - that it took years for many fans to appreciate the master. Even for some _musicians_ of my acquaintance. I'm no different. Foolishly as a Big Brahms fan for many years I sorta thought it 'incorrect' for me to like Wagner. Now he's one of my top ten and I have a set of his _Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen _, in fraktur no less, enshrined on my marble top parlor table. My inspirations were two: Glenn Gould was a fan and so I knew he must be onto something and my daughter - all of eight years old at the time - signed out a public library set of _Parzival _of Von Karajan's (I had read the Eschenbach story in German years ago and enjoyed it very much). I was hooked from the opening moments and then _Meistersinger_ and _Tristan_ (my favorite of them all). The _Wesendonk Lieder _was the icing on the cake and everything in the Wagner café is delicious though heavy in calories.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Bought Klemperer's set of the overtures and preludes at 18 yrs old.
That was it.


----------



## kangxi (Jan 24, 2014)

Heh. Mention of a certain branch of a certain modern music type brings to mind a little project I'd like to finish one day. I'd like to have a t-shirt with the following message:

Wagner's orchestra has...
8 french horns
3 trumpets
1 bass trumpet
3 trombones
1 bass trombone
1 contrabass trombone
4 wagner tubas
1 contrabass tuba
cymbals
gong
triangle
glockenspiel
18 anvils

Now *that's* what I call heavy metal.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

kangxi said:


> Heh. Mention of a certain branch of a certain modern music type brings to mind a little project I'd like to finish one day. I'd like to have a t-shirt with the following message:
> 
> Wagner's orchestra has...
> 8 french horns
> ...


TO-TAL metal. . . The first three Metallica albums great as they are can't remotely approximate the Solti Ring or the Karajan choral sections of Lohengrin. . . just an inalterable, metaphysical fact. ;D


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Oh, I can give a fig for Wagner's anti-Semitism; or Verdi's Italian nationalism; or Prokofiev and Shostakovich shilling for the Bolsheviks. . . their musical genius is noteworthy; their political affiliations incidental.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> So many times I have heard that story - that it took years for many fans to appreciate the master. Even for some _musicians_ of my acquaintance. I'm no different. Foolishly as a Big Brahms fan for many years I sorta thought it 'incorrect' for me to like Wagner. Now he's one of my top ten and I have a set of his _Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen _, in fraktur no less, enshrined on my marble top parlor table. My inspirations were two: Glenn Gould was a fan and so I knew he must be onto something and my daughter - all of eight years old at the time - signed out a public library set of _Parzival _of Von Karajan's (I had read the Eschenbach story in German years ago and enjoyed it very much). I was hooked from the opening moments and then _Meistersinger_ and _Tristan_ (my favorite of them all). The _Wesendonk Lieder _was the icing on the cake and everything in the Wagner café is delicious though heavy in calories.


The opening of Parsifal, the flower maiden sequence (with Kathleen Battle!!!!), and the ending-- of the Karajan-- is just divine. . . Great people you have working at your local library.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Shortly after graduating from high-school I set about to learn all I could about classical music. My mother had sung in the Lutheran Church choir and so I had something of a head-start in appreciating classical vocals... still opera struck me as something quite formidable and foreboding. My first real experience of opera was Verdi's _La Traviata_ in Zeffirelli's classic film (Love Teresa Stratas to this day). Shortly thereafter I was given a free ticket through my Art School to attend the opera in real life. This time it was Aida (Verdi again). During the triumphal march when all those subjugated by the Egyptian Pharaoh brought gifts the scene came to a climax with real tigers and elephants marching across the stage, the music reach its crescendo and the lights were raised until the scene was absolutely resplendent. From that very moment, I was lost. I became an opera fanatic.

As a poor art student I couldn't afford to purchase many recordings of my own, but I could check out the same from the libraries. The first two I borrowed were HvK's recordings of _Tristan und Isolde_ and _Parsifal_. I had no idea of just how Wagner had wholly overhauled opera... how these works were so far from _La Traviata_... but they exuded a sensuality... a passionate longing unlike anything I had ever heard. Once again I was seduced... I was a Wagnerian. To this day, I love _Aida_ and_ La Traviata_... but little of Verdi beyond has gotten under my skin like Wagner. Mozart, certainly and Beethoven goes without saying and Richard Strauss and French 19th century opera remain guilty pleasures... and Bach...? Well he's God... but Wagner remains a passion to surpass that of all other opera... bar only Mozart.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Captivating story: that bit with the Triumphal March with lions and elephants at Aida. . . Oh my! Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Yeah, it would have put a spell on me too. Great reminsicence. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Captivating story: that bit with the Triumphal March with lions and elephants at Aida. . . Oh my! Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Yeah, it would have put a spell on me too. Great reminsicence. Thanks for sharing.


. . . and yeah, Stlukesguildohio: that Wagnerian sensuality really DOES put a spell on you, doesn't it? Check out this incan-DES-cent Liebestod from 1943 with Furtwangler and Berlin:









http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symphony-Tristan-Prelude-Liebestod/dp/B000001OFI

http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symp...keywords=furtwangler+liebestod+music+and+arts


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

When? About now.

Seriously, I started getting into Wagner only few months ago. It was Bohm's recording of Die Zauberflote and Tristan und Isolde that led me to operas last year. I really struggled to get into opera before that - for about 15 years!!

I think I'm at the early stage of becoming a Wagner fan though. The only ones I've heard in entirety are - Tristan, Ring, Meistersinger and Tannhauser. I have to say it's wonderful to be a newbie!


----------



## expat (Mar 17, 2013)

I bought my first CD aged 21 (Tannhaeuser - Sinnopoli) after listening to the pilgrim's chorus at a friend's house. I tried playing it a few times but never got into it. Fast forward 20 years of listening to easier classical music (Bach), I picked up the Bach Christmas Oratorio and Michael Haydn's Requiem and listened to them quite often which seemed to have prepped me. Going through my CD's I listened to Tannhaeuser again and got hooked. This was 2 years ago. I have since been listening to the Ring but taking my time. So much more to discover.


----------



## kangxi (Jan 24, 2014)

Thanks to all who contributed so far. It does seem that for a (slight?) majority, Wagner was a composer we were exposed to, but the seed took several (or many) years to germinate. I think that's a fair summary of a good way to approach Wagner: carefully, with a bit of assimilated knowledge and digested (over years) experience, feeling your way as you go.
What I find interesting is that I can't think of any other composer to whom this model applies. Or if there are, Wagner dominates all. Yet again.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

When a was a child. I don't remember exactly but under 10 for sure.
I remember well all the rest. It was in my grandparent's home. 
Lohengrin - prelude to act 1. I was completely immersed in its shining pale blue light...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

kangxi said:


> What I find interesting is that I can't think of any other composer to whom this model applies. Or if there are, Wagner dominates all. Yet again.


Very far-fetched assumption, do you really believe that Wagner is the only composer that requires time and gradual appreciation? Not to mention that it's not like everybody needs years to get him. I certainly didn't spend decades on digesting any Great Wagnerian Mystery in order to understand what's going on in his music. It seems that the only thing where Wagner "dominates all" is having large number of admirers than can't see world outside him, as far as music goes.


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

With me it started by discovering the overtures to 1.Rienzi (conducted by Karl Böhm on tape) and 2.Tannhäuser (conducted by Toscanini in a live concert with the NBC Symphony Orchestra on home viedo tape). I was 12 at the time. The following year I played Liszt's famous transcription of Isoldes Liebestod and started to study the score of Tristan und Isolde (though only a few pages from Prelude and Act 1), this led me to a couple of books on progressive and modern harmony, even before i started to learn anything about how to write the traditional chord progressions! :lol:


----------



## kangxi (Jan 24, 2014)

Aramis,
Ok, you've found me committing a generalisation. I withdraw it. I wasn't aware they're banned.
Let me try to rephrase it. Some people (eg me) found it took a lot of time before their initial appreciation of Wagner was converted (either through extended listening and/or because their initial impression was given time to mature) into either love or adulation. It doesn't or didn't happen to everyone the same way. My generalisation was that the 'try, wait, like' model was more prevalent in Wagner than other composers. It was no more than a feeling, based on the contributions to this thread. I still think that maybe it is applicable, but if you can give a counterexample I'd be interested. (My own 'try, wait, like' model for Bartok quartets is still stuck on 'wait'.) 
Of course, your counterexample could just turn into just another example, & we'd be piling more evidence onto my side of the see-saw that some music takes a lot of exposure and assimilation before it's accepted and liked, except that Wagner would be joined by someone else. Bartok perhaps.

(If you slam me for a statement following the phrase "I can't think of" you must have a lot of fun with the "*** is best" brigade... )


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Aramis said:


> Very far-fetched assumption, do you really believe that Wagner is the only composer that requires time and gradual appreciation? Not to mention that it's not like everybody needs years to get him. I certainly didn't spend decades on digesting any Great Wagnerian Mystery in order to understand what's going on in his music. It seems that the only thing where Wagner "dominates all" is having large number of admirers than can't see world outside him, as far as music goes.


Yeah, my adolescent encounter with Wagner in the eighth grade was immediate and intuitive-- I didn't need any unimpeachable, unchallangeable authority to TELL ME to like him. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Brava. . . Bravissima.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I got into Wagner in 2 phases but there was little waiting for me. When I first heard his overtures and preludes I thought they were wonderful. I adored them. I couldn't understand why many seemed to have problems with his music. At that time I had only heard one opera (not Wagner), and my general feeling was that I would not enjoy opera in general. Later I started watching opera (Tristan was the first followed by some Mozart and the The Ring). I thought both Tristan and The Ring were beautiful. I have yet to find a Wagner work that I did not like (or love) on first hearing.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

There are many paths to the Wagner. Maybe one day those such as young Aramis will end their promiscuous flirtations with other composers and allow themselves to be lit only by the glow of the the one true light, but it is important to be patient. I myself spent much of my adolescence distracted by 20th century Russians of all indulgences, but I've been living as a virtuous Wagnerian for the past four years or so.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

I was always told by my mother that Wagner is extremely, EXTREMELY hard to listen to, and that it's only for professional musicians. That's why I had not once listened to any of his operas until I was fifteen, when I finally went to Der fliegende Holländer in the Mariinsky (with Evgeny Nikitin in the title role). I was immediately enchanted, but I was still afraid that Der Ring des Nibelungen would be incomprehensible to me.

Then I went after all to a concert performance of Das Rheingold (I was attending a Medieval Literature course, so I decided to explore the Germanic mythology world). In the Mariinsky as well. We bought tickets just two days before the performance, so our seats were practically the worst. I saw everyone from the back and could properly hear only six people from the stage - the Rhinemaidens, the giants and Freia. But it was more than enough to get me obsessed with Wagner! Fasolt's monologue "Höhnst du uns?" made me cry (the only love aria ever that did; and back then my German was pretty elementary); and the music was breathtaking.

The result? I taught my mother to love Wagner. And even my father, who doesn't like opera, now admits his music is good. I listen to extracts from Das Rheingold several times a day, I have seen Der fliegende Holländer once more, and in February-March I'm going to watch the full Ring cycle live!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Opus 55, you said: "I think I'm at the early stage of becoming a Wagner fan though. The only ones I've heard in entirety are - Tristan, Ring, Meistersinger and Tannhauser."

I think unheard of delights await you with the Furtwangler/Philharmonia Tristan from the early fifties.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Opus 55, you said: "I think I'm at the early stage of becoming a Wagner fan though. The only ones I've heard in entirety are - Tristan, Ring, Meistersinger and Tannhauser."
> 
> I think unheard of delights await you with the Furtwangler/Philharmonia Tristan from the early fifties.
> 
> View attachment 33898


If you want one from the '50s I would recommend Karajan 1952 at Bayreuth. Don't make the mistake of listening to it too late in the evening or you won't sleep!


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Opus 55, you said: "I think I'm at the early stage of becoming a Wagner fan though. The only ones I've heard in entirety are - Tristan, Ring, Meistersinger and Tannhauser."
> 
> I think unheard of delights await you with the Furtwangler/Philharmonia Tristan from the early fifties.
> 
> View attachment 33898


I've read and heard a lot about Flagstad. I will get to it eventually.



DavidA said:


> If you want one from the '50s I would recommend Karajan 1952 at Bayreuth. Don't make the mistake of listening to it too late in the evening or you won't sleep!


I prefer a recording with better sound quality. Between Furtwangler and Karajan, which one would you say is better recorded sound?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

opus55 said:


> I've read and heard a lot about Flagstad. I will get to it eventually.
> 
> I prefer a recording with better sound quality. Between Furtwangler and Karajan, which one would you say is better recorded sound?


The Furtwangler has better sound than the 52 Karajan which is live mono.
The Furtwangler is good mono.
For a great stereo version with GREAT sound get the Bohm on DG.
A searing performance with the added benefit of having each act COMPLETE on its own disc.
Which is huge for me.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

Bohm on DG is what I have. It makes me feel not wanting to bother getting another recording of Tristan!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

opus55 said:


> Bohm on DG is what I have. It makes me feel not wanting to bother getting another recording of Tristan!


It does me well too.
My Tristan's need to have their acts complete on each disc. I hate act breaks..
I also have the Kleiber on DG which is a more lyrical approach.
And I have the Pappano as well.

The Bareboim on Teldec is good, but the sound on the last disc seems a little harsh.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> The Furtwangler has better sound than the 52 Karajan which is live mono.
> The Furtwangler is good mono.
> For a great stereo version with GREAT sound get the Bohm on DG.
> A searing performance with the added benefit of having each act COMPLETE on its own disc.
> Which is huge fore me.


The Karajan 52 has each act complete on one disc on my pressing. The sound is not great but the performance is incredible, especially from Modl, Hotter and Karajan. Vinay keeps his end up well, though.
For me the Bohm is an intense experience though not one to get you to love the opera. Nilsson is absolutely tremendous vocally but you don't really love her. For that go to Price with Kleiber (beautifully conducted but Kollo struggles and D F-D hardly has any voice left) or Dernesch with Karajan 2. This latter a very different performance but one you can grow to love, despite the fact she was not well during the recording and the incompetence of Karajan and the engineers when it comes to balancing the thing!
Vickers is magnificent!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> The Furtwangler has better sound than the 52 Karajan which is live mono.
> The Furtwangler is good mono.
> For a great stereo version with GREAT sound get the Bohm on DG.
> A searing performance with the added benefit of having each act COMPLETE on its own disc.
> Which is huge for me.


DavidA, Itullian- thanks. I need to re-explore the Bohm (I haven't heard it in ages; one of my friends had it) and STILL discover the Karajan. . . I can't believe I still haven't heard his Bayreuth performance. . . . and, uh, Itullian?-- thanks for that little bit about the good sound. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> DavidA, Itullian- thanks. I need to re-explore the Bohm (I haven't heard it in ages; one of my friends had it) and STILL discover the Karajan. . . I can't believe I still haven't heard his Bayreuth performance. . . . and, uh, Itullian?-- thanks for that little bit about the good sound. Ha. Ha. Ha.


The Karajan/Bayreuth and the Bohm/Nilsson/Ludwig (I really want to hear her as Branage) are in the mail-- thanks.

Shopaholic takes Manhattan, AND Amazon. . .'again.'


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> DavidA, Itullian- thanks. I need to re-explore the Bohm (I haven't heard it in ages; one of my friends had it) and STILL discover the Karajan. . . I can't believe I still haven't heard his Bayreuth performance. . . . and, uh, Itullian?-- thanks for that little bit about the good sound. Ha. Ha. Ha.


The Karajan 52 is the most intense version ever. After conducting there HVK said he almost collapsed and would have to change how this opera was conducted.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> The Karajan 52 is the most intense version ever. After conducting there HVK said he almost collapsed and would have to change how this opera was conducted.


Yeah, I was reading reviews of it online and the conventional wisdom was that the performance had some incandescent moments, but of course that the sound was execrable. . . who cares?-- certainly not audiophile Blair. It's Karajan. It's Wagner. It's the fifties Philharmonia.


----------



## FleshRobot (Jan 27, 2014)

I think I was 17. I was really interested in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche and saw that he wrote some works about Wagner and got curious about his music. I remember listening to the Ride of the Valkyries and a few other works, but only liked a few orchestral excerpts. A few months later I started reading a book about classical music from my school and the writer called him and Verdi the two greatest opera composers of history. I became more interested in his music and soon he became my favorite composer.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Not sure if I can go back to Bohm after the Barenboim. I use to swear by it but it seems fast and sloppy now.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

I posted the following comment back in September, as a reply to a post by guythegreg. Since it's still true  and it fits just right in this thread, it's repeated below:

_My father began as a Verdi and verismo opera fan when he began his studies at the conservatory. By the time I was born, however, he was already a strong Wagnerian (or as Shaw called us, Wagnerites). I got the Verdi, the Puccini, the Leoncavallo and the Giordano, but could never get the Wagner, despite all his enthusiasic coaching and proselytizing. Eventually I grew to like isolated pieces from Lohengrin and Tannhauser, but that was it. My father kept trying over the years, to no avail. He always said that eventually I would "get" Wagner. Eventually I did. About two or three years ago, and then with a vengeance. By then my father was no longer with us and I was past 60. So, what else can I say to anyone except don't give up? Thus endeth the lesson._


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Not sure if I can go back to Bohm after the Barenboim. I use to swear by it but it seems fast and sloppy now.


I like DB's reading too.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Not sure if I can go back to Bohm after the Barenboim. I use to swear by it but it seems fast and sloppy now.


The Bohm is an exciting experience. One thing I find is that he perhaps pushes the thing along too quickly with two little differentiation between 'day' and 'night'. But something to hear for Nilsson. Just listen to her sail over the full orchestra in the Leibestode! Live performance! A thing of wonder!
Shows, of course, that there are many different ways to do a work! Sadly, many critics seem to think the is just one.


----------



## Yashin (Jul 22, 2011)

After about 10 years of listening and watching opera- mainly the Italian composers. Watched Oliver Py's Tristan und Isolde and was hooked. Now I pretty much collect anything Wagner and especially the Ring and Parsifal. I enjoy the listening/watching-mainly watching. But I also enjoy the reading and the collecting. Love reading insights into characters and different takes on Wagners story. 

I have about 7 cycles on DVD but only ever managed to see Die Walkure - twice. Really want to watch live but not much chance living in Asia.

Enjoying the Gergiev Ring so far....looking forwards to the last 2 installments


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I get into it by listening to his music, and watching his operas on stage, just like any other composer. My first exposure was as a teenager, again like most, if not all, of the more popular operatic composers.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

It was in summer 2010. I got together with some friends of mine to watch the film "Amadeus". One of the assembled company was seriously into classical music (though not really a Wagnerian). After the film the conversation turned naturally to musical themes. I was a fledgling Germanophile back then, only beginning to penetrate the intricacies of language and history, and I have been a fan of Tolkien about as long as I can remember, having also read several of his medieval North European sources that were Wagner's sources for the Ring as well. So this friend of mine told me: "If you are into all this stuff, then you should enjoy Wagner. He was into all this too." 

I went home that night, got on YouTube, found a performance of Siegfried's funeral music... and the powerful brass instantly shattered all the preconceived ideas I used to have about classical music. I listened to some more excerpts and was convinced I found everything I had been looking for in music and that none has been ever composed on the Earth more perfect than that of Wagner. It was melodic, powerful, majestic, pure, sometimes tender and romantic, sometimes stormy, and the preludes of Lohengrin and Parsifal conveyed the sense of longing for a high heavenly ideal, even before I learned what those operas were about. 

Then I found the libretto to the Ring and was finally blown off my feet. It was a sense of awe, of standing before something very great and very ancient that filled me. That poetry, set in the very same alliterative verse that Wagner's distant Germanic ancestors used in their poems, offered a portal into another world, cold, dangerous, severe, and yet infinitely beautiful and lovable: a world beneath the grey northern skies, populated with Nordic gods, heroes and fantastic creatures and yet written into the real European geography (the Rhine valley!) a world of adventure, high drama and the extremes of love and hate. 

I listened to the excerpts for a while longer, then I heard a complete opera for the first time (for some reason the first one was Tannhäuser, not the Ring, the Wiener Philarmoniker/Solti 1985 recording) and have been a disciple of Wagner ever since. And the perception of Wagner's music is for me forever inseparable from the drama, and drama inseparable from the myth, from history and broader cultural context.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Back in the day of cassette tapes i got a RCA VICTROLA THE BEST OF WAGNER in the early 1990's.Later in 2012 i got the WAGNER symphony in C major IT SOUNDS FINE-the first movement i like the most.
View attachment 34004


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

kangxi said:


> What I find interesting is that I can't think of any other composer to whom this model applies.


Actually Handel worked like that for me. I remember going to see Xerxes at ENO in the 80s and being bored senseless. Fast forward 25 years, exposure to Giulio Cesare, hooked, and now deep in the Baroque.

And yes, I rate Handel as highly as Wagner.


----------



## kangxi (Jan 24, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Then I found the libretto to the Ring and was finally blown off my feet. It was a sense of awe, of standing before something very great and very ancient that filled me. That poetry, set in the very same alliterative verse that Wagner's distant Germanic ancestors used in their poems, offered a portal into another world, cold, dangerous, severe, and yet infinitely beautiful and lovable: a world beneath the grey northern skies, populated with Nordic gods, heroes and fantastic creatures and yet written into the real European geography (the Rhine valley!) a world of adventure, high drama and the extremes of love and hate.


This is interesting. I take it you speak German, but as a second language? I've heard it said that without the music, Wagner's librettos are just not convincing. Someone a few years ago (in Germany I believe) staged the Ring as plays, without music, and the result was just risible. The language was overblown, over-pompous, becoming a parody of itself. I couldn't tell - my German is rudimentary. Are there any native German speakers who could comment here?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I found Wagner one of the easier composers to get into. Many people who are new to classical music find themselves initially drawn to loud and exciting pieces, do they not? That's certainly the route I took. I basically just watched _Das Rheingold_ one day and really liked it because of how well the music flows. By contrast, I found a lot of earlier opera much harder to get into because of the stop-start nature of the aria-recitative format. It is easy to get engrossed in Wagner because there are no interruptions.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

kangxi said:


> This is interesting. I take it you speak German, but as a second language? I've heard it said that without the music, Wagner's librettos are just not convincing. Someone a few years ago (in Germany I believe) staged the Ring as plays, without music, and the result was just risible. The language was overblown, over-pompous, becoming a parody of itself. I couldn't tell - my German is rudimentary. Are there any native German speakers who could comment here?


Yes, you are correct, German is not my native language, and at the time of my first encounter with Wagner's poetry it was pretty rudimentary too. Wagner has actually motivated me in a major way to keep digging into the language and history - something I am very grateful to the Master for. I still do not claim to have fully obtained the same degree of understanding that a German Wagner afficionado would have, but I think I am getting there in the way of ability to immediately appreciate the images that the words conjure up - and they are beautiful images!

As for the poetry being overblown and pompous, of course everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but personally I think it fits the story and the subject matter of the Ring very well. It is archaic and high-flown, heavy, subjected to the rhythm of the alliterative verse (though Wagner actualy found it liberating, compared to the conventional rhyme) - but the world of the Ring is just as archaic. And there is much beauty there: scenes like Siegmund's musings in Act I of Die Walküre and the following duet with Sieglinde are very expressive and full of living, poetic feeling. Maybe someone would find all that talk of spring and awakening of nature that brings love with it, pompous or kitschy - I love it! And I would love to hear the texts of the Ring read by good actors, without music.

I think a native speaker of German could give a more substantial opinion on this topic.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

kangxi said:


> This is interesting. I take it you speak German, but as a second language? I've heard it said that without the music, Wagner's librettos are just not convincing. Someone a few years ago (in Germany I believe) staged the Ring as plays, without music, and the result was just risible. The language was overblown, over-pompous, becoming a parody of itself. I couldn't tell - my German is rudimentary. Are there any native German speakers who could comment here?


The problem is that Wagner was a far greater composer than he was librettist and poet. His libretti are overblown. But having said that they are no worse than in a lot of other operas. I wish Wagner had submitted to an editor to trim his ideas. Might have saved us from some of the interminable stuff among the glories.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> The problem is that Wagner was a far greater composer than he was librettist and poet. His libretti are overblown. But having said that they are no worse than in a lot of other operas. I wish Wagner had submitted to an editor to trim his ideas. *Might have saved us from some of the interminable stuff among the glories.*




I love the so called "interminable stuff".


----------



## ElAhrairah (Feb 4, 2014)

I saw the Seattle Opera's production of The Ring last summer.

Of course I'd heard the most famous excerpts of Wagner - Ride of the Valkyries, Pilgrim's Chorus, etc. And I'd seen opera many, many years before. But I did something that I will admit was a bit crazy, even getting pretty good seats (upper gallery for those familiar with the opera house.)

After sitting in a completely dark theater and hearing that opening B flat, I was hooked.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> And there is much beauty there: scenes like Siegmund's musings in Act I of Die Walküre and the following duet with Sieglinde are very expressive and full of living, poetic feeling. Maybe someone would find all that talk of spring and awakening of nature that brings love with it, pompous or kitschy - I love it!


You know what it feels like when you come into the forest in spring (whatever month spring comes in your part of the world) and you can see, hear, smell the awakening of nature: the last traces of snow melting, the first grass and leaves coming up, the warm wind, the aroma of freshness, of renewal and revival? I experience all that, any day of the year, when I listen to that scene from Die Walküre!

_Winterstürme wichen dem Wonnemond,
In mildem Lichte leuchtet der Lenz..._

Wintry storms have vanished before May;
In a gentle light springtime shines out...

It is said to be a sign of a good writer/poet, when he can take you to his world and make you literally see and feel the things he writes about. Wagner's words, combined with music, are powerful and effective, they can certainly fulfill that objective.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> [/B]
> 
> I love the so called "interminable stuff".


Well, it's good for insomniacs!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Well, it's good for insomniacs!


Or people that appreciate stupendous, monumental opera that dwarfs all others.


----------



## Romantiker (Feb 23, 2014)

My introduction to Wagner was through childhood curiosity when I about 12 in 1957. Our family phonograph only played 78s and our public library had a collection of operas on 12 inch 78s. I listened to various things. All these years later I can still remember my reaction to the Totesverkuendigung from _Die Walkuere_. I had never hear anything like that in my life and I wanted to hear more. Later, in the winter of 1961 I saw _Tannhaeuser_ with Hopf, Nilsson, and Waechter. I was so impressed by the performance, I set my career goal to be a medieval historian--which did com


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

It is possibly a bit too premature for me to comment on all of this. My Wagnerian journey is just beginning. I have listened to several of his operas in the past, but never took the time to explore them. I am doing that now, with libretto in hand, to try and understand the words while also hearing the music. I am exploring by CD, not DVD.

I wouldn't want to see the Ring performed as a stage play. The reason is that you can be more free with the words, and more lengthy, in an opera, because it is not only the words chosen, but the music they make. The voice is another instrument - I think of it as a concerto for voice and orchestra. The words can be cheesy, but it is just as much about the sounds. So Wagner chose words that not only moved the story along, but also SOUNDED good. I am not a native German speaker, but, at least at one point, was fairly fluent. I have trouble with a lot of words that Wagner uses - I'm sure much as a non-native English speaker might have difficulty with Shakespeare. I may be wrong here, but I think much of the language that Wagner uses may be a bit archaic. Interestingly, for many of the words with which I struggle, if I don't think too hard about it, and instead just go with what English word they most closely approximate, I find I am not far off (not too surprising given that English is a bastardized Germanic language with healthy doses of Romance languages mixed in).

In my new exploration, I have listened to Tristan, and I still do not find myself moved as much as others. I am now working on the Ring, and have listened to both Das Rheingold and Die Walkure. I have enjoyed Die Walkure the most - in particular, the parting of Wotan and Brunnhilde at the end of the 3rd Act. I found that final scene the most moving. 

I still don't know where my final estimation of Wagner will lie - I do enjoy those Mozart operas (esp. the Magic Flute), but I get the one commenter who said they preferred the unbroken flow of Wagner to the stop and start aria-recitative of Mozart. I am not familiar at all with Italian opera, so I couldn't comment that much on Verdi, etc. But Wagner is moving up a bit.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Like many people who grow up in non-classical-music-loving households, the first Wagner I ever heard was The Ride of the Valkyries, which I liked as a little kid. But I never knew more. Then at some point I got deeply into Puccini, especially _La fanciulla del west_, which I now believe to be his most Wagnerian opera, and I became curious to know what else was out there. I slowly branched out to Verdi, the Bel Canto composers, Massenet, and eventually Berlioz. In my excursions into reading about opera, I found many references to Wagner, either as "The Greatest Artist Who Ever Lived", or as "The Greatest *** Who Ever Lived", or at least somebody infinitely better than my beloved Puccini. I resented this (since the criticisms, or rather summary dismissals, of Puccini were not few and far between), and so i held it against Wagner for a long time. It wasn't until I studied the works of Nietzsche in college that I realized that it was unfair to hold a man's personality against his art: Nietzsche was likewise an *** and a genius. I tried getting into the Ring, but I found it to be exactly as I had heard Puccini's works described: a gaudy, crowd-pleasing pageant. It was like eating 100 doughnuts a minute for four hours. I can't say that I've as yet entirely escaped this opinion.

So I figured that I may just not be a Wagner person. But then I read an interesting fact about Puccini: when he was feeling uninspired or was suffering from writers block, he would pull out his copies of _Tristan und Isolde_ and _Parsifal_ in piano transcription, and play them. As hard as it was to imagine the composer of the exhausting Ring I had encountered aiding the composition of the feather that drops with the speed of an anvil that is _La Boheme_, I figured that perhaps I would try _Tristan_.

Wow. I had heard little pieces of _Tristan_ prior to my first serious attempt to listen to the opera, but hadn't thought too much of it. But when I made the attempt for real, I was blown away. I love _Tristan_, and I think some of the music is among the most most beautiful ever written, but I also believe it is important to maintain a a sense of conscientiousness when experiencing it. The reason for this is that, in terms of personal development, I believe the opera to be retrogressive. It is so powerful an agent on the unconscious part of one's constitution that it could easily become an obsession, and indeed it has become so for many people. I have also come to adore the prelude to _Parsifal_, but I'm still working on other parts of the opera.

(As you could perhaps imagine, I find the so-called philosophy in _Tristan_ to be rather adolescent, and clearly derivative of Schopenhauer anyway. As far as pessimists go, at least Eduard van Hartmann thought we should keep living, albeit to bring God to transcendence instead of ourselves. I think Wagner was much closer to something truly profound with _Parsifal_. But the music of _Tristan_ is exceptional. Still, given the chance to see a truly great performance of either it or anything by Puccini, except maybe the first three, I'd choose Puccini.)


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Jackson, MS was a cultural wasteland for the most part, but they had an excellent classical music library at the downtown library. I lived at the library in junior high. The picture on the front of Birgit Nilsson as the warrior goddess with helmet and breastplate made me check our Die Walkure and the rest is history. I got to see Parsifal and Die Meistersinger at Bayreuth at 15, but subtitles would have helped.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I got into Wagner whilst watching a documentary about Hitler on the History Channel _(or as it used to be known back in the late 90s/early 00's: The 'Hitler' channel.)_ In any case, the excerpt was 'Siegfried's Death & Funeral March' from Götterdämmerung and I was transfixed by the music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I got into Wagner whilst watching a documentary about Hitler on the History Channel _(or as it used to be known back in the late 90s/early 00's: The 'Hitler' channel.)_ In any case, the excerpt was 'Siegfried's Death & Funeral March' from Götterdämmerung and I was transfixed by the music.


...................................................................................Aliens!. :lol:


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

My first attempts at Wagner did not go so well. I am not a fan of "Ride of the Valkyries" (I must be the only person!). Tristan Und Isolde in spite of my efforts did not appeal. I do have a sort of lukewarm enjoyment of Parsifal highlights that I have.

I then turned to some "bleeding chunks" and have been able to have more success. I can't deny some of his orchestral beauty, and the orchestral only CDs are very good to listen to. "Ring Without Words" "Overtures & Preludes" and the like. Some very good stuff......it's really the Wagnerian singing that I have trouble with.

Well I downloaded Jonas Kaufmann "Wagner Tenor Arias" and it really is a fabulous album, his singing is very enjoyable to me. I wish there were more full opera albums available from him. several DVDs available, but I rarely sit down at the TV, so that's difficult for me.

That said, I'm going to try to give Wagner opera another go, I'm borrowing from my local library the "Introduction to the Ring" the two disc set with Deryck Cooke walking you through excerpts of Solti's Ring. Wish me luck!!


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Sonata said:


> That said, I'm going to try to give Wagner opera another go, I'm borrowing from my local library the "Introduction to the Ring" the two disc set with Deryck Cooke walking you through excerpts of Solti's Ring. Wish me luck!!


That's an excellent option! Cooke's introduction is really, really good. It definitely helped me get a grasp on the whole tapestry and framework of the Ring before I first listened to it myself. Good luck. Also, getting a good edition of the libretto for the Ring, one that indicates when different leitmotifs are being played as you're following the text can add a whole new layer of enjoyment to it as well.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

First? What's Opera Doc ...a LONG time ago.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Sonata said:


> I am not a fan of "Ride of the Valkyries" (I must be the only person!).


When that piece starts I burst into laughter. When the "Hojoto" stuff starts, I mount my horse and fly as far away as I can.

Good luck on Wagner! It's quite a trek.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

marinasabina said:


> First? What's Opera Doc ...a LONG time ago.


I think they didn't take the concept far enough. They should have brought in more Looney Tunes characters and have them play out the entire Ring. Silvester as Alberich; Daffy as his son; Porky Pig as Wotan.... And instead of Bugs Bunny, Petunia can be Brunnhilde because I think Bugs would have been perfect as Siegfried. That way Elmer Fudd can play the Dwagon.


----------



## expat (Mar 17, 2013)

That said, I'm going to try to give Wagner opera another go, I'm borrowing from my local library the "Introduction to the Ring" the two disc set with Deryck Cooke walking you through excerpts of Solti's Ring. Wish me luck!![/QUOTE]

->>I would get the Solti Ring as well. The Leitmotifs examples that Cooke covers are from it. Just the Cooke CD might be a bit dry. Highly recomend his book as well.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Maybe try Lohengrin. It was my first Wagner opera and I LOVED it.
Still do. It's a beautiful opera.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

expat said:


> That said, I'm going to try to give Wagner opera another go, I'm borrowing from my local library the "Introduction to the Ring" the two disc set with Deryck Cooke walking you through excerpts of Solti's Ring. Wish me luck!!


->>I would get the Solti Ring as well. The Leitmotifs examples that Cooke covers are from it. Just the Cooke CD might be a bit dry. Highly recomend his book as well.[/QUOTE]

I wish you luck with Cooke. I listened to it. Like pulling teeth!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Try this one folks. It's much simpler to listen to than the Cooke and covers everything beautifully.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I wish you luck with Cooke. I listened to it. Like pulling teeth!


Haha. Like pulling teeth is rather harsh. It is what it is. He doesn't dumb down the subject matter, and it isn't trying to be superficially entertaining. I actually found listening to it to be quite fascinating; it is eye-opening to realize how all the thematic material in the Ring is related to each other or derived from one another. Cooke was simply the best at tracing musical links in Wagner, and pointing out how a phrase over here is related to a phrase over there. If learning some of the leading motifs and getting acquainted with how the operas are put together is an appealing prospect for you, Cooke's introduction is going to be an enjoyable learning experience.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Well, my original plan didn't work out as the Cooke set was not there as the library catologue indicated, and I noticed that was the case for a few others. It worked in the reverse though, a few operas that hadn't been listed in catalogue were there. Strange.

Anyway to expat: I do plan down the road to purchase the Solti set....or request it from Santa . However having just purchased Brahms and Cherubini complete editions in the last four months, in addition to the 34 disc Liszt Collection, Mozart's complete opera set, Shostakovich's complete symphony set, and 8 discs of Boccherini string quintets and cello concertos (nevermind various other odds and ends) I definitely cannot get Solti just yet! lol. I want to also be a little more assured in easing my way in that I will enjoy it before I dive into that full set.

So, what I have done for my Wagner exploration is set up a "Progressive Wagner" playlist on my iPod. I have Apocalyptica's Wagner Reloaded album which is rather enjoyable. Then, Liszt piano transcriptions of some Wagner excerpts, followed by my Ring Without Words and other orchestral albums. After that will be my Jonas Kaufmann Wagner Tenor Arias album and Janet Baker singing the Wesendock lieder. Parsifal highlights to follow that.

THEN......Lohengrin. I was able to borrow that from the library, so I'm rather pleased to see Itulian mention this one. I did tack on Tristan Und Isolde at the end to see if the journey so far is good, maybe I'll give that one another go. 

And THEN I will go ahead and plan my attack of the Ring.


----------



## expat (Mar 17, 2013)

@Sonata - an easy way in is also Act 2 of Tannhäuser and Act 1 of Lohengrin.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

What first got me into Wagner was reading the chapters on TANNHAUSER and DIE WALKEURE in Fred Plotkin's book "Opera 101." At the time I considered myself a Verdian, but Plotkin made me see that one could be _both_ a Verdian _and_ a Wagnerian. I did what he suggested and listened to the 1960's London/Decca recordings of those two works, and not long after that I saw my first DIE WALKEURE at Virginia Opera, and really fell in love with it. To this day those are the only two operas by Wagner I know well, though I do know many of the overtures from a CD I have of Solti conducting them. Oh, and by the way, I love The Ride of the Valkyries! Maybe it's gotten to be a bit stereotypical, but I get a sort of visceral thrill from it.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> What first got me into Wagner was reading the chapters on TANNHAUSER and DIE WALKEURE in Fred Plotkin's book "Opera 101." At the time I considered myself a Verdian, but Plotkin made me see that one could be _both_ a Verdian _and_ a Wagnerian. I did what he suggested and listened to the 1960's London/Decca recordings of those two works, and not long after that I saw my first DIE WALKEURE at Virginia Opera, and really fell in love with it. To this day those are the only two operas by Wagner I know well, though I do know many of the overtures from a CD I have of Solti conducting them. Oh, and by the way, I love The Ride of the Valkyries! Maybe it's gotten to be a bit stereotypical, but I get a sort of visceral thrill from it.


Lohengrin and Act 3 of Meistersinger will getcha


----------



## tahnak (Jan 19, 2009)

This is a very interesting question. No other composer would require a reply as detailed and unusual as probably Wagner would.
I was five years of age when I started humming the opening theme of Siegfried Idyll played by Boston Symphony and Erich Leinsdorf on an RCA 78 RPM record played on an HMV Gramophone of my father's. This was my introductory piece of Wagner and until I turned eighteen, I could listen to nothing but Siegfried Idyll. The second piece that I listened to and that was enough was the Introduction to the Ring by Derryck Cooke with Solti and the Vienna Philharmonic playing the leitmotifs of the entire Ring on London Label. I heard that album in the Wilson Music Library of Glasboro State College in New Jersey. There is not a single soul in the world after that baptism to convince me otherwise that there is a better performance of the Ring apart from Solti's.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Back in the eighties I happened to study philosophy at the Amsterdam university, but my friends were studying theology. Once we had an evening which was devoted to getting totally into the idea of paganism. The theological faculty used to be located in a beautiful 17th century canal house (Herengracht) and there I brought my ghettoblaster. If you want to feel, to immerse, to melt head over heels into what is outright 'pagan', just listen to the opening of _Das Rheingold_ or the call to war in _Götterdämmerung_. With Wagner droning in the air one is able to cross the frontier: out of 'christian' civilisation back into raw uncivilised, uncircumcised paganism. Wagner's music has this capacity of making one's blood boil and unleash the untamed warrior heading for nothing but the abyss. This paganism inside Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ attracted Friedrich Nietzsche without end, until he felt being betrayed by Wagner's pseudo-christian Parsifal. My personal 'getting into Wagner' and getting out of Wagner is quite in line with Nietzsche's judgement. As long as Wagner is going wild on the pagan track, his music works on me like the Siren's singing to Odysseus. But as soon as he starts to flirt & court with pseudo-christian themes, it's _nausea ad nauseam_.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

TxllxT said:


> Back in the eighties I happened to study philosophy at the Amsterdam university, but my friends were studying theology. Once we had an evening which was devoted to getting totally into the idea of paganism. The theological faculty used to be located in a beautiful 17th century canal house (Herengracht) and there I brought my ghettoblaster. If you want to feel, to immerse, to melt head over heels into what is outright 'pagan', just listen to the opening of _Das Rheingold_ or the call to war in _Götterdämmerung_. With Wagner droning in the air one is able to cross the frontier: out of 'christian' civilisation back into raw uncivilised, uncircumcised paganism. Wagner's music has this capacity of making one's blood boil and unleash the untamed warrior heading for nothing but the abyss. This paganism inside Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ attracted Friedrich Nietzsche without end, until he felt being betrayed by Wagner's pseudo-christian Parsifal. My personal 'getting into Wagner' and getting out of Wagner is quite in line with Nietzsche's judgement. As long as Wagner is going wild on the pagan track, his music works on me like the Siren's singing to Odysseus. But as soon as he starts to flirt & court with pseudo-christian themes, it's _nausea ad nauseam_.


I think you're taking it a bit too seriously.
just sayin.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

TxllxT said:


> Back in the eighties I happened to study philosophy at the Amsterdam university, but my friends were studying theology. Once we had an evening which was devoted to getting totally into the idea of paganism. The theological faculty used to be located in a beautiful 17th century canal house (Herengracht) and there I brought my ghettoblaster. If you want to feel, to immerse, to melt head over heels into what is outright 'pagan', just listen to the opening of _Das Rheingold_ or the call to war in _Götterdämmerung_. With Wagner droning in the air one is able to cross the frontier: out of 'christian' civilisation back into raw uncivilised, uncircumcised paganism. Wagner's music has this capacity of making one's blood boil and unleash the untamed warrior heading for nothing but the abyss. This paganism inside Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ attracted Friedrich Nietzsche without end, until he felt being betrayed by Wagner's pseudo-christian Parsifal. My personal 'getting into Wagner' and getting out of Wagner is quite in line with Nietzsche's judgement. As long as Wagner is going wild on the pagan track, his music works on me like the Siren's singing to Odysseus. But as soon as he starts to flirt & court with pseudo-christian themes, it's _nausea ad nauseam_.


Beautiful post. I can't say I agree entirely, since I love Parsifal and Tannhäuser with their Christian themes as well. I would say, all Wagner's music is deeply spiritual, only this spiritual quality is of various kinds. He was not bound by this or that religion.

But since a certain time I have started wearing a Thor's Hammer pendant - more as a sign of my cultural loyalties than religious ones. I guess I am also taking this a bit too seriously


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2014)

Ummm, I'm starting to enjoy Wagner. But I don't ever see myself uttering the kind of obsessed things posted on here. It is, after all, just music. Granted, extremely well written music, backed up with some fairly implausible and not highly probable story lines that wouldn't work outside the operas themselves, but still very good as a musical work. But I think you need to gain some perspective when your adoration borders on the bizarre.

Now that I have stirred the pot, I'll quietly exit stage right.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Ummm, I'm starting to enjoy Wagner. But I don't ever see myself uttering the kind of obsessed things posted on here. It is, after all, just music. Granted, extremely well written music, backed up with some fairly implausible and not highly probable story lines that wouldn't work outside the operas themselves, but still very good as a musical work. But I think you need to gain some perspective when your adoration borders on the bizarre.
> 
> Now that I have stirred the pot, I'll quietly exit stage right.


Totally with you sir.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Ummm, I'm starting to enjoy Wagner. But I don't ever see myself uttering the kind of obsessed things posted on here. It is, after all, just music. Granted, extremely well written music, backed up with some fairly implausible and not highly probable story lines that wouldn't work outside the operas themselves, but still very good as a musical work. But I think you need to gain some perspective when your adoration borders on the bizarre.
> 
> Now that I have stirred the pot, I'll quietly exit stage right.


You could, of course, say something similar about Shakespeare. It's _just_ theater. People don't talk like that in real life. The stories are improbable. But of course this misses the point. Shakespeare's ability to summarize the range of human emotions in eloquent verse can be incredibly profound. The complexity of characters and their motivations, the observations about human nature --this is what makes him great. And Wagner's music-dramas can be deeply perceptive and moving in much the same way. Now some may simply find him enjoyable and pleasant to listen to. And that's fine! But personally I've always been astounded by the amount of creativity and genius that went into these tremendously rewarding operas. And I don't think there's anything bizarre about that.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Ummm, I'm starting to enjoy Wagner. But I don't ever see myself uttering the kind of obsessed things posted on here. It is, after all, just music. Granted, extremely well written music, backed up with some fairly implausible and not highly probable story lines that wouldn't work outside the operas themselves, but still very good as a musical work. But I think you need to gain some perspective when your adoration borders on the bizarre.
> 
> Now that I have stirred the pot, I'll quietly exit stage right.







What will remain of Wagner when one rips off all obsessed things?


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2014)

TxllxT said:


> Back in the eighties I happened to study philosophy at the Amsterdam university, but my friends were studying theology. Once we had an evening which was devoted to getting totally into the idea of paganism. The theological faculty used to be located in a beautiful 17th century canal house (Herengracht) and there I brought my ghettoblaster. If you want to feel, to immerse, to melt head over heels into what is outright 'pagan', just listen to the opening of _Das Rheingold_ or the call to war in _Götterdämmerung_. With Wagner droning in the air one is able to cross the frontier: out of 'christian' civilisation back into raw uncivilised, uncircumcised paganism. Wagner's music has this capacity of making one's blood boil and unleash the untamed warrior heading for nothing but the abyss. This paganism inside Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ attracted Friedrich Nietzsche without end, until he felt being betrayed by Wagner's pseudo-christian Parsifal. My personal 'getting into Wagner' and getting out of Wagner is quite in line with Nietzsche's judgement. As long as Wagner is going wild on the pagan track, his music works on me like the Siren's singing to Odysseus. But as soon as he starts to flirt & court with pseudo-christian themes, it's _nausea ad nauseam_.


So then you would call Tannhauser, Parsifal, and Lohengrin nausea ad nauseam? All have pseudo-christian themes - Lohengrin a bit less overt, but then Lohengrin is supposed to be a grail knight, son of King Parsifal.

Oddly enough, I am finding myself enjoying most the one that deals with neither paganism nor pseudo-Christianity - die Meistersinger von Nurnberg.

And Wagner doesn't get us quite back to paganism - just his soap opera-rendition of it. It has as much to do with Germanic/Norse mythology as the newest Clash of the Titans does with Greek mythology.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> So then you would call Tannhauser, Parsifal, and Lohengrin nausea ad nauseam? All have pseudo-christian themes - Lohengrin a bit less overt, but then Lohengrin is supposed to be a grail knight, son of King Parsifal.
> 
> Oddly enough, I am finding myself enjoying most the one that deals with neither paganism nor pseudo-Christianity - die Meistersinger von Nurnberg.
> 
> And Wagner doesn't get us quite back to paganism - just his soap opera-rendition of it. It has as much to do with Germanic/Norse mythology as the newest Clash of the Titans does with Greek mythology.


The whole internet is so much infested with soap knights & knightesses, that I wonder why this obsession is lasting so long. I agree, that Wagner's treatment of the Tannhäuser, Parsifal & Lohengrin legends still has a soapy, cleanish smell around it; it's exactly this *bourgeois* rocking-horse imaginationworld that makes me looking for the exit. Die Meistersinger is still OK with me and I do like Der Fliegende Holländer very much. Somehow the Boulez-Chéreau interpretation of the Ring is still revelatory.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

I think it's worth keeping in mind that Wagner was a creative artist, not a philosopher, and attacking his operas on ideological grounds is wholly inadequate. It goes without saying that one doesn't have to agree with the ideas that have an influence on the artist and that go into making a work of art to find it powerful. To take Nietzsche as a case in point, although his criticisms of the concepts behind Wagner's operas could be provocative and entertaining, when he actually _listened_ to the prelude to _Parsifal_, he was blown away by it and found it very moving. At the end of the day, isn't this was matters when evaluating a work of art?


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> You could, of course, say something similar about Shakespeare. It's _just_ theater. People don't talk like that in real life. The stories are improbable. But of course this misses the point. Shakespeare's ability to summarize the range of human emotions in eloquent verse can be incredibly profound. The complexity of characters and their motivations, the observations about human nature --this is what makes him great. And Wagner's music-dramas can be deeply perceptive and moving in much the same way. Now some may simply find him enjoyable and pleasant to listen to. And that's fine! But personally I've always been astounded by the amount of creativity and genius that went into these tremendously rewarding operas. And I don't think there's anything bizarre about that.


Granted, but my enjoyment of Shakespeare has never driven me to contemplate suicide for love, a la Romeo and Juliet, or to assassinate a political leader, a la Julius Caesar. I enjoy the art but don't get carried away in that art, or exhibit bizarre adoration that borders on the irrational.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Granted, but my enjoyment of Shakespeare has never driven me to contemplate suicide for love, a la Romeo and Juliet, or to assassinate a political leader, a la Julius Caesar. I enjoy the art but don't get carried away in that art, or exhibit bizarre adoration that borders on the irrational.


Heh, well I certainly agree with you there! Great works of art certainly aren't prescriptions for real life, and while they can enhance our lives in immeasurable ways, there is always a danger in getting too caught up in them and using them as a _replacement_ for living. I think King Ludwig II of Bavaria had that kind of unhealthy relationship with Wagner's art that you're speaking of.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Beautiful post. I can't say I agree entirely, since I love Parsifal and Tannhäuser with their Christian themes as well. I would say, all Wagner's music is deeply spiritual, only this spiritual quality is of various kinds. He was not bound by this or that religion.
> 
> But since a certain time I have started wearing a Thor's Hammer pendant - more as a sign of my cultural loyalties than religious ones. I guess I am also taking this a bit too seriously


I don't agree entirely. I'll start out by stating that I honestly don't know what Wagner's religious leanings were - I haven't looked into it at all. But I wouldn't look to the wide ranging incorporation of everything from Christianity to pseudo-Christianity to paganism as any kind of sign of his spirituality. Going on that alone doesn't tell me that he had an unbounded religious belief, so much as no particular religious belief at all. It tells us more about the types of literature that he enjoyed incorporating into his operas - from Grail mythology (Lohengrin, Parsifal) to Nordic/Germanic mythology (Der Ring), to nautical mythology/German literature (Der Fliegende Hollander), to German literature (Tannhauser). I think his material reflects more his preference of literature more than religion.

But again, it is entirely possible he was a deeply spiritual man. But I don't think you can draw conclusions like that from his choice of material for his operas.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

TxllxT said:


> The whole internet is so much infested with soap knights & knightesses, that I wonder why this obsession is lasting so long. I agree, that Wagner's treatment of the Tannhäuser, Parsifal & Lohengrin legends still has a soapy, cleanish smell around it; it's exactly this *bourgeois* rocking-horse imaginationworld that makes me looking for the exit. Die Meistersinger is still OK with me and I do like Der Fliegende Holländer very much. Somehow the Boulez-Chéreau interpretation of the Ring is still revelatory.


I don't really see a lot of differences in the core themes of nearly all of his major operas. With the exception of perhaps Meistersinger, they all seem to have a common thread - we are all slaves to fates that are out of our hands, and the end is pre-ordained, regardless of our actions. Tristan and Isolde were fated for tragedy. So was Lohengrin. Parsifal was subject to his fate, and the relieving of his suffering was out of his hands. Wotan sealed the fate of the Gods and his mortal offspring when he took the Ring. Tannhauser could do nothing of himself to change his fate - it was in the hands of another.

I don't think there is anything inherently pseudo-Christian in his CHOICE of material for such works as Tannhauser, Parsifal & Lohengrin - he drew from German literature from a period that was heavily influenced by Grail lore and mythology.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Heh, well I certainly agree with you there! Great works of art certainly aren't prescriptions for real life, and while they can enhance our lives in immeasurable ways, there is always a danger in getting too caught up in them and using them as a _replacement_ for living. I think King Ludwig II of Bavaria had that kind of unhealthy relationship with Wagner's art that you're speaking of.


Although had it not been for that unhealthy relationship, and his patronage of Wagner, how much less might Wagner have been able to do?


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Although had it not been for that unhealthy relationship, and his patronage of Wagner, how much less might Wagner have been able to do?


Absolutely. We are all the better off for his support, admiration and understanding of Wagner's art. Unfortunately the more depressed and withdrawn he became, the more he sought an escape from the realities of life and used Wagner's music-dramas to that end.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DrMike said:


> It tells us more about the types of literature that he enjoyed incorporating into his operas - from Grail mythology (Lohengrin, Parsifal) to Nordic/Germanic mythology (Der Ring), to nautical mythology/German literature (Der Fliegende Hollander), to German literature (Tannhauser). I think his material reflects more his preference of literature more than religion.


You are right. And I think his choice of literature reflects his artistic motivations, his perception of the importance of myth and what he saw as the universal meanings latent within them. Yes, he took his plots from sagas, epics, and historical episodes, but it was always to serve his own purposes. He distilled from them what he saw as the essential features of the action, but what he saw as essential would have been quite a surprise to the original authors. Not only did he strip the stories down to their bare essentials, he intrinsically changed them by using features of that literature for radically new purposes.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DrMike said:


> I don't agree entirely. I'll start out by stating that I honestly don't know what Wagner's religious leanings were - I haven't looked into it at all. But I wouldn't look to the wide ranging incorporation of everything from Christianity to pseudo-Christianity to paganism as any kind of sign of his spirituality. Going on that alone doesn't tell me that he had an unbounded religious belief, so much as no particular religious belief at all. It tells us more about the types of literature that he enjoyed incorporating into his operas - from Grail mythology (Lohengrin, Parsifal) to Nordic/Germanic mythology (Der Ring), to nautical mythology/German literature (Der Fliegende Hollander), to German literature (Tannhauser). I think his material reflects more his preference of literature more than religion.
> 
> But again, it is entirely possible he was a deeply spiritual man. But I don't think you can draw conclusions like that from his choice of material for his operas.


I guess the question of whether Wagner was a spiritual man, depends on one's definition of "spiritual". Some people would call a great music master spiritual only on the basis of his great music. However, I said Wagner's _music_ is deeply spiritual, apart from the man himself. I said this in response to TxllxT who stated that he only enjoyed Wagner's pagan side.

As for Wagner's religious leanings, as far as I know he did not have any, but he was not a militant atheist either. He was more of an explorer of various philosophies and belief systems, looking for good in each of them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> As for Wagner's religious leanings, as far as I know he did not have any, but he was not a militant atheist either. He was more of an explorer of various philosophies and belief systems, looking for good in each of them.


I think Wagner's 'god' was probably Wagner!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

More than any other composer - more than any artist in any medium - Wagner has followed me through life (64 years now) as a companion both inspiring and disturbing. I had both reactions to him almost immediately at age 13 upon hearing orchestral excerpts from the Ring and Lohengrin, followed soon after by the prelude, Liebestod and love duet from Tristan. The sensuality of the orchestration and the ecstatic, wide-spanning melody, free of comfortable symmetries, got to me first; then the amazing harmonic iridescence, the constantly dissolving and evolving tonality, turned my guts inside out, a sensation not entirely comfortable and, as I learned with increased understanding, not intended to be. Hearing Tristan and Parsifal complete at age 15 administered the coup de grace: such undreamed of music, compounded of the extremities of ecstasy and primal pain (often both at once!) took me to a place from which, for better or worse, I have never fully returned. Unfortunately for this odd, hypersensitive kid, there was no communicating such perceptions to any person whatsoever!

I went on to become a musician, and to know and love the music of all the great masters of Western music. But Wagner retains a unique hold on me. I would hesitate to say that he is my "favorite composer" (I don't listen to him often now), or to try to "rank" him among the greats, as our childishly competitive human nature seems to get a kick out of doing. For me, the most peculiar thing about Wagner is his utter peculiarity: he is a great composer, sure, but he seems imperiously to demand to be considered something more, or other, than that. Poet, dramatist, philosopher, psychologist, mythmaker - however you parse the elements of his complex nature, his works finally have to be viewed as embodying all of them, with music being the primary vehicle of expression. We can listen to it as "pure" music, knowing nothing about its source or intention, and enjoy it (or not). But it seems to me largely futile to put it beside the works of Bach or Mozart or Brahms and evaluate it in purely musical terms. Wagner could do, musically, what he needed to do, and to that extent he is one of the "great composers." But what he ultimately needed to do was to create a musical language, or a way of using the language of music, so different in its structural assumptions from the works of those other masters that it makes little sense to draw comparisons and try to "place" him in the pantheon.

My journey into Wagner's quasi-mythic worlds has been a journey into parts of myself - parts beautiful, painful, and unsettling -where only the greatest art can take me. Maybe it's possible to take his unique art too seriously. But not for me.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck, you are lucky to get to know Herr Wagner at 13 already. I met him only at 23, and how I wish it had happened earlier!


----------



## omega (Mar 13, 2014)

I've tried to listen to Wagner many times on CD recordings, but I've never "got into it" until my first live performance (_The Flying Dutchman_). When I was facing the scene, the orchestra and the singers, what sounded to me as some pompous parts became outstandingly enthralling!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nimmer zu spaeht, SiegendesLicht! (is that actual German, or just some archaic gobbledegook I'm misremembering from listening to too much Wagner?)


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Nimmer zu spaeht, SiegendesLicht! (is that actual German, or just some archaic gobbledegook I'm misremembering from listening to too much Wagner?)


The "h" in "spaet" does not belong there, otherwise it is just fine.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I remember reading or hearing about Wagnerites and thinking, how cool is that? being into Wagner. I wished I had been into Wagner too. I thought I was too unmusical and that I would never appreciate him. I don't remember what happend afterwards except that much later I considered him just about the greatest composer who ever lived. I still can't enjoy full operas (by anyone), but there are some long passages from Wagner that I love (a few minutes long or even longer). Parsifal has some amazingly original & interesting music. So does Tristan. I like some other stuff too, from the first scene of Das Rheingold and most of the first act of Die Walkure. 

I've read his autobiography and the abridged version of Cosima's Diaries. I remember he said about Gotterdammerung that he lamented it had lost its magic for him and he wondered what he meant when he composed such music (or something like that). I can't get into that one either.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Omega, here's a remark by Robert Schumann upon perusing the score of Tannhauser: "This Wagner cannot write two good bars together." Then, after seeing the opera: "From the stage it all strikes one very differently!"

Maybe the trick is to listen through the proscenium arch of the mind.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

It's 2:34 AM here, I have to get up at seven, and I am still here, listening to Tristan und Isolde...


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's 2:34 AM here, I have to get up at seven, and I am still here, listening to Tristan und Isolde...


Now that's a fan


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Act three, I hope.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I believe most people's barriers with Wagner are self-imposed. They either don't want to try to like him, or they try too hard to like him. Just like him. Simple.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Act three, I hope.


Nope, at that time it was Act two. Act three will follow tonight.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Act three's a killer. You'll need your sleep. Unbewusst, hoechste lust!


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I don't really see a lot of differences in the core themes of nearly all of his major operas. With the exception of perhaps Meistersinger, they all seem to have a common thread - we are all slaves to fates that are out of our hands, and the end is pre-ordained, regardless of our actions. Tristan and Isolde were fated for tragedy. So was Lohengrin. Parsifal was subject to his fate, and the relieving of his suffering was out of his hands. Wotan sealed the fate of the Gods and his mortal offspring when he took the Ring. Tannhauser could do nothing of himself to change his fate - it was in the hands of another.
> 
> I don't think there is anything inherently pseudo-Christian in his CHOICE of material for such works as Tannhauser, Parsifal & Lohengrin - he drew from German literature from a period that was heavily influenced by Grail lore and mythology.


You make an interesting observation about being slaves, fate & pre-ordination, but the _catharsis_ comes from the heroes dying on the stage and the Bayreuth public going out of the theatre, feeling relieved that they are *not* Lohengrin, Parsifal, Tristan or Isolde and thinking that their lives are not as pre-ordained, enslaved and dictated by fate... But the end of the 19th century shows a Germany where exactly this catharsis is loosing its cleansing force and people are giving in to the pagan belief that all is pre-ordained, dictated by fate & nobody is free. Well, is Wagner to be blamed for something that was already spoiling the air, or do his operas play a pivotal role in preparing the German spirit for _Sie zogen fröhlich in den Krieg, um stark zu werden_? http://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article13621506/Sie-zogen-froehlich-in-den-Krieg-um-stark-zu-werden.html I do not believe in _L' Art pour l' art_.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> I believe most people's barriers with Wagner are self-imposed. They either don't want to try to like him, or they try too hard to like him. Just like him. Simple.


Or, of course, they just don't like him. Makes it even more simple


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I must say.....I have finally "got" Wagner with Lohengrin. Really a wonderful opera. (I have the version with Placido Domingo and Jessye Norman)

I can usually only do an act at a time, and have to have really focused listening. Not background stuff, but I really am liking this one. First "full" Wagner opera that did it for me.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

i'm going to see Der fliegende Holländer tomorrow. three weeks after that it's Parsifal.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Sonata said:


> I must say.....I have finally "got" Wagner with Lohengrin. Really a wonderful opera. (I have the version with Placido Domingo and Jessye Norman)
> 
> I can usually only do an act at a time, and have to have really focused listening. Not background stuff, but I really am liking this one. First "full" Wagner opera that did it for me.


I listen to Wagner one act at a time too. Much there to digest.
And much beauty.
Walkure , Acts 1 and 3 might be a good next listen.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Itullian said:


> I listen to Wagner one act at a time too. Much there to digest.
> And much beauty.
> Walkure , Acts 1 and 3 might be a good next listen.


I don't have a Walkure yet.  Some more orchestral only Wagner and then either a second listen to Act I of Lohengrin or maybe my Parsifal highlights album.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Sonata said:


> I must say.....I have finally "got" Wagner with Lohengrin. Really a wonderful opera. (I have the version with Placido Domingo and Jessye Norman)
> 
> I can usually only do an act at a time, and have to have really focused listening. Not background stuff, but I really am liking this one. First "full" Wagner opera that did it for me.


Every "Wagner-negative" or "Wagner-neutral" person will get him sooner or later. It is only a question of time and effort.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

some pictures from the performance.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

some pictures.
View attachment 38304






View attachment 38305
View attachment 38306


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

perempe,

thanks for the great pictures. I have seen Dutchman too and its amazing.
Never seen Parsifal though, That will be awesome.
I'm so happy for you


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

opus55 said:


> When? About now.
> 
> Seriously, I started getting into Wagner only few months ago. It was Bohm's recording of Die Zauberflote and Tristan und Isolde that led me to operas last year. I really struggled to get into opera before that - for about 15 years!!
> 
> I think I'm at the early stage of becoming a Wagner fan though. The only ones I've heard in entirety are - Tristan, Ring, Meistersinger and Tannhauser. I have to say it's wonderful to be a newbie!


Even though 50 years of loving Wagner have brought me endless new insights into a composer whom it seems impossible ever to get to the bottom of, I can say that I almost envy you encountering his works for the first time. I hope you find him as wonderful a companion as I have!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would love to hear the texts of the Ring read by good actors, without music.


I wonder...

Wagner subjected his friends to just such readings, and by all accounts he was quite a vivid actor.

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when they got home from an evening of "Librettos with Richard."


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

Der fliegende Holländer was performed without stops between the acts. is it common?


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

I haven't listened to much Wagner, but I first heard (and immediately loved) his music (other than the ubiquitous Ride of the Valkyries!) on a BBC documentary by Stephen Fry called Wagner and Me. The love duet from Tristan und Isolde seemed magical.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

perempe said:


> Der fliegende Holländer was performed without stops between the acts. is it common?


These days it's not uncommon for it to be performed either way. However the audience probably appreciates it a little more if there are intermissions.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> These days it's not uncommon for it to be performed either way. However the audience probably appreciates it a little more if there are intermissions.


Particularly the old men in the audience.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

When I saw it, it had intermissions AND the revisions.
it was great


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

to answer the thread: today.

just got back from Parsifal. this was my 2nd Wagner opera after Der fliegende Holländer.

























Pinchas Steinberg was the conductor. Marco Buhrmester and Matti Salminen were guests.

last week i saw Die Zauberflöte, there were uninteresting parts (for me). Parsifal took my attention from the first note till the last one. best opera of the season by a mile (and an hour or two, you know what i mean).


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Die Zauberflote is a remarkably long opera for its subject matter. Parsifal is only half as long as it should be.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Die Zauberflote is a remarkably long opera for its subject matter. Parsifal is only half as long as it should be.


You mean Gurmenanz's interminable discourses should be made twice as interminable?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I wonder...
> 
> Wagner subjected his friends to just such readings, and by all accounts he was quite a vivid actor.
> 
> I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when they got home from an evening of "Librettos with Richard."


Hitler also subjected his officers to compulsory attendance at Wagner's operas. I've picture of them heading towards the theatre looking like they were going to be shot!


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

Flower-maidens (Parsifal)














Klingsor at left, Kundry and Parsifal at right on the 2nd picture.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I went home that night, got on YouTube, found a performance of Siegfried's funeral music... and the powerful brass instantly shattered all the preconceived ideas I used to have about classical music. I listened to some more excerpts and was convinced I found everything I had been looking for in music and that none has been ever composed on the Earth more perfect than that of Wagner. It was melodic, powerful, majestic, pure, sometimes tender and romantic, sometimes stormy, and the preludes of Lohengrin and Parsifal conveyed the sense of longing for a high heavenly ideal, even before I learned what those operas were about.
> 
> Then I found the libretto to the Ring and was finally blown off my feet. It was a sense of awe, of standing before something very great and very ancient that filled me. That poetry, set in the very same alliterative verse that Wagner's distant Germanic ancestors used in their poems, offered a portal into another world, cold, dangerous, severe, and yet infinitely beautiful and lovable: a world beneath the grey northern skies, populated with Nordic gods, heroes and fantastic creatures and yet written into the real European geography (the Rhine valley!) a world of adventure, high drama and the extremes of love and hate.


Well, Sieg, I just ran across this old, very eloquent post, and you've got me wiping a nostalgic tear!  These were exactly my feelings on discovering the _Ring_, albeit over 40 years earlier than you. It's always nice to see that the old wizard is still casting his spells. Thanks.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Die Zauberflote is a remarkably long opera for its subject matter. Parsifal is only half as long as it should be.


Brilliant! As pithily paradoxical as can be.

It takes some understanding of the real action, the _inner_ action, in _Parsifal_ (and in _Tristan_ and _Der_ _Ring_) to see the truth of this. In Wagner, the depth of the backstory and the stages in the development of the characters can't remotely be spelled out in the allotted stage time. As a storyteller Wagner was a master of condensation, showing us just those actions which constitute the moments of crisis in the narrative, and so giving to music the task of filling us in. For example, in _Parsifal_ the prelude to Act 3 is an epic drama in itself, tracing concisely and powerfully the path of struggle which brings Parsifal from the garden of Klingsor back to Montsalvat.

In most operas, what is shown on stage and related by the characters is pretty much the whole story. In Wagner's mature works, it is only the surface, inviting us to listen and be taken into hidden realms, where "time becomes space."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Brilliant! As pithily paradoxical as can be.
> 
> It takes some understanding of the real action, the _inner_ action, in _Parsifal_ (and in _Tristan_ and _Der_ _Ring_) to see the truth of this. In Wagner, the depth of the backstory and the stages in the development of the characters can't remotely be spelled out in the allotted stage time. As a storyteller Wagner was a master of condensation, showing us just those actions which constitute the moments of crisis in the narrative, and so giving to music the task of filling us in. For example, in _Parsifal_ the prelude to Act 3 is an epic drama in itself, tracing concisely and powerfully the path of struggle which brings Parsifal from the garden of Klingsor back to Montsalvat.
> 
> In most operas, what is shown on stage and related by the characters is pretty much the whole story. In Wagner's mature works, it is only the surface, inviting us to listen and be taken into hidden realms, where "time becomes space."


Parsifal is an opera of in which the vast amount of inactivity greatly outweighs the stage action.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> It takes some understanding of the real action, the _inner_ action, in _Parsifal_ (and in _Tristan_ and _Der_ _Ring_) to see the truth of this. In Wagner, the depth of the backstory and the stages in the development of the characters can't remotely be spelled out in the allotted stage time. As a storyteller Wagner was a master of condensation, showing us just those actions which constitute the moments of crisis in the narrative, and so giving to music the task of filling us in.


Absolutely, and he was remarkably efficient at transmitting a large amount of information and backstory to the audience in a succinct manner, all the while keeping it engaging and dramatic. I believe it was Michael Tanner who pointed out that if you attempt to summarize Gurnemanz's Act I narration about Klingsor, Amfortas, and the predicament of the lost spear, you find that you are taking longer than he does. And the way that the narration builds pitch-perfectly to the moment when Parsifal appears on stage is masterly.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> You mean Gurmenanz's interminable discourses should be made twice as interminable?


Should heaven be made less eternal?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Absolutely, and he was remarkably efficient at transmitting a large amount of information and backstory to the audience in a succinct manner, all the while keeping it engaging and dramatic. I believe it was Michael Tanner who pointed out that if you attempt to summarize Gurnemanz's Act I narration about Klingsor, Amfortas, and the predicament of the lost spear, you find that you are taking longer than he does. And the way that the narration builds pitch-perfectly to the moment when Parsifal appears on stage is masterly.


'Succinct' is one adjective I never expected to be applied to Wagner!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Should heaven be made less eternal?


Being made to sit through a double dose is not my idea of heaven! The other place, perhaps?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Absolutely, and he was remarkably efficient at transmitting a large amount of information and backstory to the audience in a succinct manner, all the while keeping it engaging and dramatic. I believe it was Michael Tanner who pointed out that if you attempt to summarize Gurnemanz's Act I narration about Klingsor, Amfortas, and the predicament of the lost spear, you find that you are taking longer than he does. And the way that the narration builds pitch-perfectly to the moment when Parsifal appears on stage is masterly.


The same in Tristan und Isolde with Isolde's narration concerning Tristan killing Morold, Isolde saving Tristan's life and nursing him back to health, Tristan's promise never to come back and his breach of that promise etc. The same in Die Walküre with Siegmund telling the story of his life, losing his family, living as an outcast in the forest and attempting to save a girl from a forced marriage. One would have to add at least one more act to each of the operas to narrate all these events.


----------



## Hesoos (Jun 9, 2012)

Before listening to Opera I listened to classical music, among my first cd's were Vivaldi, Strauss II, Mozart and ouvertures from Operas. I began with orchestral works of Wagner, some cd from my town library. then I was some 16 or 17 years old. 
When I tried to listen to my first operas in cd, Traviata, Il Barbiere and Carmen where among my first. I liked a lot Verdi and somehow I thought that Wagner was not for me until 2003, when I gave a chance to a dvd from the met with Rheingold, since then I am Wagner fan.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Hesoos said:


> Before listening to Opera I listened to classical music, among my first cd's were Vivaldi, Strauss II, Mozart and ouvertures from Operas. I began with orchestral works of Wagner, some cd from my town library. then I was some 16 or 17 years old.
> When I tried to listen to my first operas in cd, Traviata, Il Barbiere and Carmen where among my first. I liked a lot Verdi and somehow I thought that Wagner was not for me until 2003, when I gave a chance to a dvd from the met with Rheingold, since then I am Wagner fan.


I had a kindred experience myself as a late-comer to Wagnerite wanna-be status, as per my own earlier post in this thread. Rheingold was the lynchpin in my conversion also.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> The same in Tristan und Isolde with Isolde's narration concerning Tristan killing Morold, Isolde saving Tristan's life and nursing him back to health, Tristan's promise never to come back and his breach of that promise etc. The same in Die Walküre with Siegmund telling the story of his life, losing his family, living as an outcast in the forest and attempting to save a girl from a forced marriage. One would have to add at least one more act to each of the operas to narrate all these events.


So Wagner is now succinct? My word! Whatever next!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> So Wagner is now succinct? My word! Whatever next!


Hey, you've just demonstrated a logical fallacy!


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

I was a late-comer to the big W but my father-in-law took me to see-hear The Ring on successive nights. 

I survived to tell the tale and the rest is history.


----------



## KnulpJose (May 19, 2014)

I got into Wagner because I was coursing Fine Arts at the university and there was a class called Body Workshop and it was about, as the name says, corporal expression, theater and dance. Once our teacher told us about Wagners desire of combining the Arts, bringing poetry, music, architecture, theater, dance and painting together, I started paying more and more attention to him.


----------



## Cantabile (May 24, 2014)

I was given an album of Wagner's "Greatest Hits" at about 14 and had a pianist friend at school who was so crazy about everything Wagner that he wanted to compose Wagnerian operas of his own. It was a visceral, breathtaking experience to hear Wagner for the first time, even if just on a sampler recording. We'd also discovered something completely hilarious while in school - Anna Russell's Ring Cycle! It was a delightful way to discover those operas. Wore the grooves off a recording of the Wesendonck Lieder and the Tristan Prelude few summers later and was fortunate to be able to study Wagner at college in a course devoted to his work - bliss!


----------



## Allanmcf (May 29, 2014)

I was and still am a huge jazz fan but when I was about twenty six I was lying in the bath and the radio was on and as I flicked through the channels I caught the last ten minutes or so of Tannhauser. It was the Solti one with Rene Kollo and hearing those magical moments with the voices of the Vienna Boys Choir in the chorus near the end gave me one of those epiphanal moments that pretty well changed my musical life forever. Wagner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Brahms, Britten, Dowland, Puccini, Mozart, Beethoven, Shostakovich- the list of my musical discoveries and loves is pretty well endless. So glad I took a bath that night forty years ago. I have had a few since of course!!

Peace to all


----------



## Allanmcf (May 29, 2014)

Also the first Wagner opera I purchased was that same Tannhauser. Incidentally it was the first opera I purchased. The second thing I bought was the Solti Ring in the big wooden Decca box. It had libretti with the wonderful Arthur Rackham illustrations. I miss the days of hearing an opera for the first time but fortunately nobody does opera the same way so the joy now is from listening to the many wonderful interpretations that exist, even the lesser quality ones usually have some bit of magic that reveals a new subtlety.

As it is said- Everyone brings joy to a room. Some when they arrive, some when they leave!

Peace to all


----------



## Zabirilog (Mar 10, 2013)

I was 11. A Liszt-fan, and found Richard through him. Then I saw this:






And oh no. That changed my life!


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I first discovered opera in my mid-20s and couldn't stop exploring new works. I had eyed Solti's Ring many times and finally bought it. The only thing I knew about the Ring was the Ride. I got home, put Walküre in (rightfully and thankfully assuming it was in that work) and scanned the CDs until I found it. Then I listened the very beginnings and endings of Rheingold and Walküre. I was so overwhelmed I didn't know where to start. When I got to Seigfred I couldn't stop once I started. I listened to the whole thing and a love affair was born. I am absolutely NUTS about the Ring. I now have 14 1/2 recordings. 14 years after falling in love with the Ring, I'm finally diving into Wagner's other works. I've had recordings of all his major works for years, but every time I would try to give them attention I would stop and listen to the Ring. I'm mad about Tristan. It's so powerful and moving. Dutchman is fun and charming. I'm now giving Meistersinger my full attention and it's wonderful. I need to devote time to Tannhauser, Lohengrin and Parsifal. I've listened to the beginning of Parsifal many times but as beautiful as it is I struggle with the slow speed of the music. At the end of the day, Wagner's music stirs my soul and I'm so thankful to have discovered it. And Seigfried (the opera, not the character) is THE BOMB!


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> It took me ages to get into Wagner - over 20 years, in fact .... so I was in my mid-40s when I started.
> 
> It was 'Building a Library' on BBC Radio 3 that started me off, I think. I was driving and started listening to the episode on the best Ring cycle (Kleiberth on Testament - see below) ..... something about the performance got to me and I ordered it that night and have spent many enjoyable hours with it since. From that, I also bought about a metre of other Wagner CDs, including historical sets (many of which I much prefer to more recent recordings).
> 
> View attachment 33614


That is an amazing recording. Varnay is out of this world.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> It was in summer 2010. I got together with some friends of mine to watch the film "Amadeus".


That's how it all started for me, but in 1997. Some friends and I had a movie night every Wednesday. Every week we would rotate who brought the movie. One week a friend brought Amadeus and I was not happy. I had never seen it, thought it was to be a total bore and almost left before it started. I am so thankful I didn't. From the first note of the movie, I was hooked. The Abduction from the Seraglio parts had the biggest impression so the very next day I bought a recording of it and thus began my love affair with Mozart. Along with The Ring, Figaro is my favorite opera. That night taught me a huge lesson about opening your mind and experiencing new things. I can't believe I came so close to potentially missing out on what has become the biggest love of my life over some idiotic preconceived notion.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Ummm, I'm starting to enjoy Wagner. But I don't ever see myself uttering the kind of obsessed things posted on here. It is, after all, just music. Granted, extremely well written music, backed up with some fairly implausible and not highly probable story lines that wouldn't work outside the operas themselves, but still very good as a musical work. But I think you need to gain some perspective when your adoration borders on the bizarre.
> 
> Now that I have stirred the pot, I'll quietly exit stage right.


Haha. Well his music has power. I can listen to Nilsson sing the Liebestod and totally go to another place.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Ummm, I'm starting to enjoy Wagner. But I don't ever see myself uttering the kind of obsessed things posted on here. It is, after all, just music. Granted, extremely well written music, backed up with some fairly implausible and not highly probable story lines that wouldn't work outside the operas themselves, but still very good as a musical work. But I think you need to gain some perspective when your adoration borders on the bizarre.
> 
> Now that I have stirred the pot, I'll quietly exit stage right.


To me there is nothing to Wagner outside some pretty good music, yet people see all sorts of things in it, like deep philosophy and understanding of human nature, etc.. I always think Mozart and Verdi bring you far more of that than the self-obsessed RW.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> To me there is nothing to Wagner outside some pretty good music, yet people see all sorts of things in it, like deep philosophy and understanding of human nature, etc.. I always think Mozart and Verdi bring you far more of that than the self-obsessed RW.


I don't care about philosophy and and understanding human nature. I care about music that completely moves me, and I get that from Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner. I also don't care what kind of man Wagner was. I don't care what kind of man or woman any composer was. The single point, for me, is the music.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

gellio said:


> Varnay is out of this world.


We'll all be, sooner or later.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

When I first started listening to opera I bought B of Seville, L'Italiana, Magic Flute, T of Hoffman, Faust, Rigoletto, Traviata, Trovatore. I had stated listening to Wagners overtures.

Then in Tower Records I saw the RING. I looked at it with intrigue and awe.
They had both the Karajan and the Solti. I bought the Karajan. I went home handing it like it was gold.
I wasn't sure what to expect.
I read thru the notes and libretti and then put on cd number one, listening with my headphones.
I had never heard anything like this.
The opening of Das Rheingold. WOW
I knew I was in another world. This wasn't just opera. This was an EPIC JOURNEY.
I was transfixed throughout.
Niebelheim, the Giants, Valhalla. how all the music described the action.
And then the last 20 minutes of absolute grandeur. I was amazed.
On I went on the musical journey, amazed at all I heard.

I then HAD to hear another version. Bought the Solti. WOW. amazing.
Then the Bohm. What a thrill to hear it from Bayreuth itself!!!!!
Those were the main 3 recordings back then.
And i'm still amazed by them.

Next was Lohengrin, Dutchman, Tristan, etc.
I can still remember how I felt when first hearing them.
Nothing like 'em.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> To me there is nothing to Wagner outside some pretty good music, yet people see all sorts of things in it, like deep philosophy and understanding of human nature, etc.. I always think Mozart and Verdi bring you far more of that than the self-obsessed RW.


When I find myself unable to perceive the qualities of greatness and depth of meaning in established masterpieces that millions of other people spanning many generations have found, and still find, to be present, I have the humility to assume that I am simply not attuned to the spirit of those works and that the lack of perception is mine. I also have the tact and taste not to inject my unvarying expressions of disparagement into the conversation about those works over and over and over again on the assumption that others must be made constantly aware of my opinions no matter how weary they may be of hearing them. But these considerations appear not to matter to you, as you have expressed your unvarying and unsubtle negative opinions about Wagner's works so many times that I'm sure we've all lost count.

Please note: We get it. We get it. We got it long ago.

As you know, there is a thread on TC just for those who dislike Wagner to say anything they wish about one of the most astonishing creative minds in our history. Of course nothing they - or you - may say can dislodge Wagner one millimeter from his position of cultural importance, or render any less valuable his works or the continuing quest on the part of those who know and love those works to grapple with and elucidate their meaning. Like all great artists, Wagner reveals more the longer one studies him. But obviously you think that the work of those who pursue such study with great intelligence and industry is much ado about nothing, and must by implication be either deluded or dishonest.

Not to like a composer for one reason or another is perfectly legitimate. But to dismiss his achievements and the high repute they have earned over a century and a half with glib remarks such as the above is just embarrassingly foolish.


----------



## randy woolf (Jun 7, 2014)

i'm a composer, and studied traditional harmony very seriously for a year and half. i studied with joe maneri, an amazing man and musician. he used the schoenberg 'theory of harmony', which is like no other harmony textbook. one really learns how to write in the 18th and 19th century styles. when we got to the kind of harmony wagner was using, i had to overcome my previous total lack of interest in his music. now, 'parsifal' and 'the ring' are my favorite operas! the schoenberg book and joe helped me see the complexity and depth of wagner's music, on a nuts and bolts level.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Not to like a composer for one reason or another is perfectly legitimate. But to dismiss his achievements and the high repute they have earned over a century and a half with glib remarks such as the above is just embarrassingly foolish.


I don't mind the critical attitude so much--no one is required to like Wagner. But it would help if the negative comments focused on a more specific issue or passage from the operas. Always easier to have an intelligent debate when we're dealing with something concrete.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

amfortas said:


> I don't mind the critical attitude so much--no one is required to like Wagner. But it would help if the negative comments focused on a more specific issue or passage from the operas. Always easier to have an intelligent debate when we're dealing with something concrete.


I am afraid we are dealing with a knee-jerk reaction here, not something concrete.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I never "got into" Wagner as such- but I do remember the first time I heard a clip from one of his operas- it was Tristan, I think- and the argument with my Wagner-loving friend which followed! It was 1995, first term at university. I was on a high at being in such a rarefied intellectual environment (or so I still naïvely thought!) where it was OK to come out as someone with moderately highbrow tastes, at least by the standards of my working class upbringing. So he put on this CD of Tristan- it was a fairly recent recording, I don't remember which one. I was appalled by the singing- wide wobbly vibratos, the words unintelligible- and lost no time in telling him so! He said something like "Well what's it supposed to sound like then?" so I hared off to find a CD I had of singing that had impressed me and which I vaguely recalled had contained the name Wagner in brackets after two of the tracks. The records were of Francisco Viñas singing In fernem Land from Lohengrin and the Prize Song from Meistersinger, sung in Italian with piano. My friend was as appalled by the ancient recordings as I had been by his modern ones! I explained in vain that it was better to hear a beautiful voice and elegant phrasing with every word crystal clear (albeit in the "wrong" language) than a shiny modern recording with ugly singing. I even argued, though I knew I was on shakier aesthetic ground, that the piano accompaniment (obviously a practical rather than artistic choice by the early sound recordists)was better than a full orchestra as it allows us to focus on the voice by stripping away the aural clutter of the orchestration. My friend was pretty cross with me by this point. I concluded then and now that he was within his rights to insist on the German language and Wagner's noisy orchestra- each to their own- but it's madness and sheer philistinism to object to a fantastic performance because the record crackles! We kept on trying to convert each other to our respective causes without success. Years on, I still find that the standard of the singing is the biggest stumbling block to the appreciation of Wagner. It is really only in old recordings of the more conventionally attractive arias, sung by unusually gifted and charismatic singers, that I can begin to grasp what all the fuss is about. For example, check out on YouTube Lelio Casini's O du mein holder Abenstern: I've played it hundreds of times to try and understand how he achieves such magical effects, but to no avail- each time I go into a sort of hypnotic trance. Anton van Rooy is wonderful in this aria too, although he insists on singing it in German


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

I think Wagner had a serious case of wanting 2 tell the world his dog was bigger than evry1elses as that ring thing is a bl**dy big dog


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I never "got into" Wagner as such- but I do remember the first time I heard a clip from one of his operas- it was Tristan, I think- and the argument with my Wagner-loving friend which followed! It was 1995, first term at university. I was on a high at being in such a rarefied intellectual environment (or so I still naïvely thought!) where it was OK to come out as someone with moderately highbrow tastes, at least by the standards of my working class upbringing. So he put on this CD of Tristan- it was a fairly recent recording, I don't remember which one. I was appalled by the singing- wide wobbly vibratos, the words unintelligible- and lost no time in telling him so! He said something like "Well what's it supposed to sound like then?" so I hared off to find a CD I had of singing that had impressed me and which I vaguely recalled had contained the name Wagner in brackets after two of the tracks. The records were of Francisco Viñas singing In fernem Land from Lohengrin and the Prize Song from Meistersinger, sung in Italian with piano. My friend was as appalled by the ancient recordings as I had been by his modern ones! I explained in vain that it was better to hear a beautiful voice and elegant phrasing with every word crystal clear (albeit in the "wrong" language) than a shiny modern recording with ugly singing. I even argued, though I knew I was on shakier aesthetic ground, that the piano accompaniment (obviously a practical rather than artistic choice by the early sound recordists)was better than a full orchestra as it allows us to focus on the voice by stripping away the aural clutter of the orchestration. My friend was pretty cross with me by this point. I concluded then and now that he was within his rights to insist on the German language and Wagner's noisy orchestra- each to their own- but it's madness and sheer philistinism to object to a fantastic performance because the record crackles! We kept on trying to convert each other to our respective causes without success. Years on, I still find that the standard of the singing is the biggest stumbling block to the appreciation of Wagner. It is really only in old recordings of the more conventionally attractive arias, sung by unusually gifted and charismatic singers, that I can begin to grasp what all the fuss is about. For example, check out on YouTube Lelio Casini's O du mein holder Abenstern: I've played it hundreds of times to try and understand how he achieves such magical effects, but to no avail- each time I go into a sort of hypnotic trance. Anton van Rooy is wonderful in this aria too, although he insists on singing it in German


If your point here is that Wagner was sung better a century ago, you'll get no argument from me.Try Joseph Schwarz and Heinrich Schlusnus. Though they insist on singing it in the language in which it was written, and are accompanied by Wagner's own "aural clutter," you might find that their singing justifies these odd artistic choices.











Of course, Wagner's aural clutter is a major part of "what all the fuss is about." But you knew that, didn't you?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> When I find myself unable to perceive the qualities of greatness and depth of meaning in established masterpieces that millions of other people spanning many generations have found, and still find, to be present, I have the humility to assume that I am simply not attuned to the spirit of those works and that the lack of perception is mine. I also have the tact and taste not to inject my unvarying expressions of disparagement into the conversation about those works over and over and over again on the assumption that others must be made constantly aware of my opinions no matter how weary they may be of hearing them. But these considerations appear not to matter to you, as you have expressed your unvarying and unsubtle negative opinions about Wagner's works so many times that I'm sure we've all lost count.
> 
> Please note: We get it. We get it. We got it long ago.
> 
> ...


Yo dismiss someone's arguments as 'glib' because they happen not to agree with yours is surely the ultimate non-argument. The opinions are these: you might view Wagner as the highest sort of philosophy. I don't. You might find him to have incredible insights into the human condition. I don't. I can't see them anywhere.
I have found this with Wagnerians - they view their Master's works with such reverence that any comment to the contrary is dismissed. They are holy writ and must be defended at all costs. One of the problems is that we can be hypnotised by the power of the music and fail to realise that without that we are dealing with pretty mediocre fare.
To call adverse comments 'glib' though is just too easy. Why on earth don't you just say that I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours? I have no problem with this.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Yo dismiss someone's arguments as 'glib' because they happen not to agree with yours is surely the ultimate non-argument. The opinions are these: you might view Wagner as the highest sort of philosophy. I don't. You might find him to have incredible insights into the human condition. I don't. I can't see them anywhere.
> I have found this with Wagnerians - they view their Master's works with such reverence that any comment to the contrary is dismissed. They are holy writ and must be defended at all costs. One of the problems is that we can be hypnotised by the power of the music and fail to realise that without that we are dealing with pretty mediocre fare.
> To call adverse comments 'glib' though is just too easy. Why on earth don't you just say that I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours? I have no problem with this.


You're entitled to your opinion; it's just not very illuminating. You repeatedly dismiss Wagner's libretti as "daft" without offering any specific critique. And when someone presents a detailed explanation of the text, you accuse him of "over-egging the pudding." It doesn't leave much room for discussion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Yo dismiss someone's arguments as 'glib' because they happen not to agree with yours is surely the ultimate non-argument. The opinions are these: you might view Wagner as the highest sort of philosophy. I don't. You might find him to have incredible insights into the human condition. I don't. I can't see them anywhere.
> I have found this with Wagnerians - they view their Master's works with such reverence that any comment to the contrary is dismissed. They are holy writ and must be defended at all costs. One of the problems is that we can be hypnotised by the power of the music and fail to realise that without that we are dealing with pretty mediocre fare.
> To call adverse comments 'glib' though is just too easy. Why on earth don't you just say that I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours? I have no problem with this.


"But he _is _expressing his opinion, Blanche. He_ is_."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> When I find myself unable to perceive the qualities of greatness and depth of meaning in established masterpieces that millions of other people spanning many generations have found, and still find, to be present, I have the humility to assume that I am simply not attuned to the spirit of those works and that the lack of perception is mine. I also have the tact and taste not to inject my unvarying expressions of disparagement into the conversation about those works over and over and over again on the assumption that others must be made constantly aware of my opinions no matter how weary they may be of hearing them. But these considerations appear not to matter to you, as you have expressed your unvarying and unsubtle negative opinions about Wagner's works so many times that I'm sure we've all lost count.
> 
> Please note: We get it. We get it. We got it long ago.
> 
> ...


I would be the first to admit that I am not a Wagner devotee. There are other great composers I don't really _get_ either. I usually put this down to a deficiency in me. I might, on occasion, make flippant remarks about Wagner's length or quote Rossini, but it is in no way meant as serious criticism. It is just me having a bit of fun.

_But_ I absolutely and completely take on board what Woodduck is saying here. I might not feel as passionately about Wagner as his devoted followers, but rather than upset them, I prefer to bow out of the conversation gracefully.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I would be the first to admit that I am not a Wagner devotee. There are other great composers I don't really _get_ either. I usually put this down to a deficiency in me. I might, on occasion, make flippant remarks about Wagner's length or quote Rossini, but it is in no way meant as serious criticism. It is just me having a bit of fun.
> 
> _But_ I absolutely and completely take on board what Woodduck is saying here. I might not feel as passionately about Wagner as his devoted followers, but rather than upset them, I prefer to bow out of the conversation gracefully.


Brains, beauty, and breeding will do that to you; but we all have our crosses to bear.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> You're entitled to your opinion; it's just not very illuminating. You repeatedly dismiss Wagner's libretti as "daft" without offering any specific critique. And when someone presents a detailed explanation of the text, you accuse him of "over-egging the pudding." It doesn't leave much room for discussion.


On Wagner's libretti: take a well a story about some maidens who live at the bottom of a river, who guard the gold which is stolen by a dwarf. No-one else has stolen the gold yet although it appears too easy to do. How does he get the gold? A frogman's outfit?
The second drama has an elopement by a guy with his twin sister, a god who constantly changes his mind and punishes his daughter for something he originally told her to do. We know in the next opera she will be awakened by her nephew and fall in lve with him. In the last opera she will ride her horse into a fire which seems a funny thing to do.
So I am not convinced this is credible.
Nor am I convinced Mozart's Cosi is credible either. It's a daft, implausible plot redeemed by some of the greatest music ever written. The same can be said of the Flute. 
But I don't try and justify them - just sit back and enjoy the glories of Wolfie's musical genius.
You guys do the same with dear old Richard.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I would be the first to admit that I am not a Wagner devotee. There are other great composers I don't really _get_ either. I usually put this down to a deficiency in me. I might, on occasion, make flippant remarks about Wagner's length or quote Rossini, but it is in no way meant as serious criticism. It is just me having a bit of fun.
> 
> _But_ I absolutely and completely take on board what Woodduck is saying here. I might not feel as passionately about Wagner as his devoted followers, but rather than upset them, I prefer to bow out of the conversation gracefully.


The problem is, I don't notice anyone else bowing out gracefully!

But why on earth should people be upset about my opinion on Wagner? Come on! This is nothing personal against them, just a sharing of opinion. When Glenn Gould said he hated Mozart I didn't suddenly stop buying his discs. He's welcome to his opinion! Just that I don't happen to agree.

Just to add that I do enjoy Wagner when in the mood. I have four versions of the Ring, three of Tristan and the rest of the mature operas. Just that I don't treat him - or any other composer for that matter - with uncritical reverence.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Because you have to renounce love to get it. Not daft at all.
Yes, complicated and thought provoking and even disturbing, but daft....NOT.
We don't know until we get there.
After all that's befallen her, she sees end and purification as the only answer motivated by love.
Brilliant ending to an amazing tale.

You really need to look a little deeper friend and try not so hard to WANT to dislike it. And remember its an epic myth and not real life.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

DavidA said:


> On Wagner's libretti: take a well a story about some maidens who live at the bottom of a river, who guard the gold which is stolen by a dwarf. No-one else has stolen the gold yet although it appears too easy to do. How does he get the gold? A frogman's outfit?
> The second drama has an elopement by a guy with his twin sister, a god who constantly changes his mind and punishes his daughter for something he originally told her to do. We know in the next opera she will be awakened by her nephew and fall in lve with him. In the last opera she will ride her horse into a fire which seems a funny thing to do.
> So I am not convinced this is credible.


According to your reasoning, all mythologies (which would make pretty considerable part of our cultural heritage) are one big crap, because they're not 'credible'. If you care so much for credibility, understood as "only what could happen to/be done by random Joe", opera (or maybe most of art in general) is definitely not up your alley.

Of course Wagner libretti suck, just fot other reasons. You brought up Cosi fan Tutte, which is certainly unrealistic story, but written by librettist of quality, with wit and loftiness, unlike many heavy-handed, bloated attempts at poetry by Richard Wagner.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> On Wagner's libretti: take a well a story about some maidens who live at the bottom of a river, who guard the gold which is stolen by a dwarf. No-one else has stolen the gold yet although it appears too easy to do. How does he get the gold? A frogman's outfit?
> The second drama has an elopement by a guy with his twin sister, a god who constantly changes his mind and punishes his daughter for something he originally told her to do. We know in the next opera she will be awakened by her nephew and fall in lve with him. In the last opera she will ride her horse into a fire which seems a funny thing to do.
> So I am not convinced this is credible.
> Nor am I convinced Mozart's Cosi is credible either. It's a daft, implausible plot redeemed by some of the greatest music ever written. The same can be said of the Flute.
> ...


Because you have to renounce love to get it. Not daft at all.
Yes, complicated and thought provoking and even disturbing, but daft....NOT.
We don't know until we get there.
After all that's befallen her, she sees end and purification as the only answer motivated by love.
Brilliant ending to an amazing tale.

You really need to look a little deeper friend and try not so hard to WANT to dislike it. And remember its an epic myth and not real life.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Aramis said:


> According to your reasoning, all mythologies (which would make pretty considerable part of our cultural heritage) are one big crap, because they're not 'credible'. If you care so much for credibility, understood as "only what could happen to/be done by random Joe", opera (or maybe most of art in general) is definitely not up your alley.
> 
> Of course *Wagner libretti suck*, just fot other reasons. You brought up Cosi fan Tutte, which is certainly unrealistic story, but written by librettist of quality, with wit and loftiness, unlike many heavy-handed, bloated attempts at poetry by Richard Wagner.


I think they are brilliant, and fit the music and story lines perfectly.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Because you have to renounce love to get it. Not daft at all.
> Yes, complicated and thought provoking and even disturbing, but daft....NOT.
> We don't know until we get there.
> After all that's befallen her, she sees end and purification as the only answer motivated by love.
> ...


Renounce love? Doesn't the guy father a son?

Dig deeper? There is no depth to dig!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Renounce love? Doesn't the guy father a son?
> 
> Dig deeper? There is no depth to dig!


Does that require love?

And when was he fathered.

The depth of Wagner's operas are psychological, not physical.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Just that I don't treat him - or any other composer for that matter - with uncritical reverence.


So, are you implying that absolutely anyone who holds a different view from your own _does_ treat Wagner's music and libretti with uncritical reverence?

Your lack of any real argument (the above doesn't count) has, unsurprisingly, not convinced anyone that your views have more merit than their own.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Does that require love?
> 
> And when was he fathered.
> 
> The depth of Wagner's operas are psychological, not physical.


It required 'love' of the sort that appeared to be important to Wagner!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> It required 'love' of the sort that appeared to be important to Wagner!


oh brother.
not that again
sheeeeesh


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> So, are you implying that absolutely anyone who holds a different view from your own _does_ treat Wagner's music and libretti with uncritical reverence?
> 
> Your lack of any real argument (the above doesn't count) has, unsurprisingly, not convinced anyone that your views have more merit than their own.


Sorry, but did I say they ever did? They are just my views. My opinions. Please don't let's fall out over them as if we were football supporters quarrelling over the merits of our teams!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> oh brother.
> not that again
> sheeeeesh


Well, wasn't it?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> The second drama has an elopement by a guy with his twin sister, a god who constantly changes his mind and punishes his daughter for something he originally told her to do. We know in the next opera she will be awakened by her nephew and fall in lve with him. In the last opera she will ride her horse into a fire which seems a funny thing to do.
> So I am not convinced this is credible.


I appreciate this more detailed critique. Others have touched on Das Rheingold already, so I'll focus on Die Walküre.

It's true, we do have an incestuous relationship between twins. This is partly Wagner being true to his mythological sources, partly an intentional flouting of convention. In the subsequent scene, he gives full voice (through the character Fricka) to the conventional view that such a relationship is shocking and repulsive. But he also indicates (through Wotan) that this departure from the norm is part of a larger, unprecedented plan. And at a more individual level, it's worth remembering that these twins were separated in early childhood, and have lived painful, lonely lives ever since. Perhaps it's not surprising that such kindred spirits, rediscovering one another after all this time, might develop a more than casual attraction to one another.

As you say, Wotan does change his mind; he gives in to conventional morality, after being brow beaten by his wife and made to see that all his grand schemes have been nothing but self-deception. He has the seemingly insoluble dilemma of requiring a free human hero who, completely of his own volition, will do exactly what he, the god, requires--thus saving the gods from destruction. By planting the sword for his son Siegmund, Wotan has tainted this whole project with his divine influence. But then, when he does encounter such an exercise of free will--from the most unlikely source, his beloved daughter Brünnhilde, whom he considers nothing more than his own will personified--he ironically (but understandably) fails to see that he has finally found what he sought all along.

In his anger, he banishes Brünnhilde and condemns her to the life of a mortal woman, about the worst fate he can imagine for her. But she is gradually able to make him realize that, through her disobedience, something larger has been set in motion, the course of events are no longer under his control, and the gods themselves must make room for a new order. The free hero will indeed appear, but as the successor to the gods, not their savior. Finally, then, Wotan agrees to surround his sleeping daughter with magical fire, so that only this free, fearless hero will win her. (And yes, she's his aunt, as Anna Russell was endlessly fond of pointing out. Again though, if you look up family trees from just about any culture's mythology, there's nothing too unusual there).

In the end, then, we have the sad but inevitable (and very human) scenario of a father giving up his daughter to another man, a ruler giving up his power to another generation, a man coming to terms with his own demise. Wotan's changes of heart, far from being a sign of weakness, reveal his gradual, painful emergence into a hard-won insight and acceptance.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Well, wasn't it?


No
We don't know who he loved and who he didn't do we?
And I thought we were talking about the opera.

its obvious you cant do that.
And that is a very plausible explanation I offered.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but did I say they ever did?


Yes. You did. This is exactly what you implied.

If you present your opinion, repeatedly and loudly, and then declare that it is "Just that I don't treat him - or any other composer for that matter - with uncritical reverence," then you are strongly implying that this is in contrast to those who would think otherwise.

Or else you like to throw in completely irrelevant comments at the end of your posts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Yo dismiss someone's arguments as 'glib' because they happen not to agree with yours is surely the ultimate non-argument. The opinions are these: you might view Wagner as the highest sort of philosophy. I don't. You might find him to have incredible insights into the human condition. I don't. I can't see them anywhere.
> I have found this with Wagnerians - they view their Master's works with such reverence that any comment to the contrary is dismissed. They are holy writ and must be defended at all costs. One of the problems is that we can be hypnotised by the power of the music and fail to realise that without that we are dealing with pretty mediocre fare.
> To call adverse comments 'glib' though is just too easy. Why on earth don't you just say that I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours? I have no problem with this.


The title of this thread is "How did you get into Wagner, and when?" It is not "Tell us yet again (ad nauseam) why you don't like Wagner and why you think those who do are deluded idol worshippers."

It might surprise you to know that people who love Wagner's operas, even people who find them deeply moving and meaningful, are perfectly cognizant that they have artistic faults and that their creator had faults of personality and character. We do not regard Wagner as a infallible "god" (although it must be said that mankind's gods appear dreadfully fallible and commit outrages that dwarf even those of the worst among us!). I for one am as wary of false piety as anyone, and am interested in any and all thoughtful and responsible perspectives on Wagner's work, positive or negative. It is testimony to the largeness of Wagner's artistic ambitions, and to the suggestiveness of his musical and dramatic conceptions, that his works convey many things to many people, and may for some touch upon aspects of human experience which are uncomfortable, problematic, or objectionable. It is also undeniable that the operas' intensity and seriousness, as well as their unusual demands in performance (some of which may never be perfectly realizable), provide an opening for humor and parody. Would it surprise you to know that Wagner lovers enjoy such humor? Let me tell you: Anna Russel was an essential part of my Wagnerian education.

No one, to my knowledge, regards Wagner's work as "the highest form of philosophy." Hardly anyone, at least nowadays, would care to study Wagner as a philosopher at all. His operas do, however, purport to express and imply philosophical, religious, political, sociological and psychological ideas, and they do so in their stories, their symbolism, their texts, and the unprecedented kinds of music the composer had to develop to say what he wanted to say. Wagner is, in the extent to which his works carry such implications, unique among composers of opera. This does not mean that his operas are philosophical tracts, meant more to be puzzled over and analyzed than to be experienced; he himself insisted that the meaning of his work should be apprehended primarily through the emotions, and to that end he expanded the resources of music to an unprecedented degree. The significance and value of the ideas embodied by his musico-dramatic conceptions is open to discussion, has been, in fact, widely discussed for a century and a half, and will continue to be discussed.

It's too bad that such discussion does not interest you. Your need to state again and again, in this and many other threads, that you "see nothing there," is not discussion; it is merely a confession of ignorance. Ignorance is perfectly acceptable; we are all ignorant of a great many things. However - and this is my point in taking you to task - insisting upon our ignorance of a subject whenever we see an opportunity can be of no interest or value to anyone and gets to be quite annoying. If you have something concrete to say (or, heaven help us, ask!) about Wagner's works, I'm all ears and happy to talk about it. But saying repeatedly, to people who have devoted much time to divining and appreciating the meanings in Wagner's works, that you see no meaning, and saying it not from a desire to know or understand but, apparently, solely from a need to irritate, is perilously close to the activity known as trolling.

In keeping with the title of the thread, I will conclude by saying that I got into Wagner in my early teen years, as I was also getting into Verdi, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and many other composers. I loved the work of all these composers and many others, as I still do. But even at that age I was dimly aware that Wagner was up to some things that the others were not, that his works were not just straightforward presentations of stories expressed through music, that he was probing aspects of human consciousness in a manner never before imagined, and that his position in our artistic heritage was for that and other reasons unique and important. I spent many years exploring the complexities of his art. I remain in awe of it, as do many other people. I fully respect the fact that other temperaments are not in sympathy with what I love. I have musical "blind spots" too. I merely expect that, occasional bits of humor aside (the Norns are indeed Siegfried's aunts!), we can discuss our own and other's preferences intelligently, respectfully, and with an openness to learning something from each other.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Woodduck: This does not mean that his operas are philosophical tracts, meant more to be puzzled over and analyzed than to be experienced; he himself insisted that the meaning of his work should be apprehended primarily through the emotions, and to that end he expanded the resources of music to an unprecedented degree.


Beautifully put.

Taffeta phrases, silken-terms-precise--is right.

Poetry minus its 'music' (of rhyme, meter, and alliteration) can be pretty meshuggah, if read straightforwardly; most opera libretti can't withstand the same indictment.

Wagner's genius is to transcend what mere words or poetry can only at best hint at; at least that's how I experience his genius; or Schopenhauer too for that matter.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aramis said:


> Of course Wagner libretti suck, just fot other reasons. You brought up Cosi fan Tutte, which is certainly unrealistic story, but written by librettist of quality, with wit and loftiness, unlike many heavy-handed, bloated attempts at poetry by Richard Wagner.


Though I can't comment on the literary quality of Wagner's libretti (I'm not literate in German), I can say that that they express his dramatic ideas very well and provide him with the framework he needs to fill with his music. Those were of course his intentions, and those are the things opera libretti need primarily to do. Comments about the quality of libretti outside that context are really irrelevant. It's also worth pointing out that literarily fine stage plays are apt not to make for good libretti without considerable adaptation. This was much less true in 18th-century opera, in which much plot-advancing conversation could be disposed of in rapid-fire recitative, than in later through-composed opera, where continuous musical development requires that mundane chatter be kept to a minimum. The three-way marriage of Beaumarchais, Da Ponte and Mozart was virtually a ready-made one; but Wagner could not have found such a literary mate, and so created his own solution which, by and large, worked well for him. We need not claim that his libretti are consistent in quality; one might argue that act 2 of _Tristan_ is awfully talky (yet feel that the music justifies it). But the book of _Meistersinger_ is delightful and enjoyable to read, and that of _Parsifal_ is brilliantly concise.

In the end, it's how well the libretto supports the music, opera's primary raison d'etre, that matters. No one performs libretti as spoken drama, and it's pefectly appropriate that very few of them could survive the experiment.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Aramis
> 
> Of course Wagner libretti suck, just fot other reasons. You brought up Cosi fan Tutte, which is certainly unrealistic story, but written by librettist of quality, with wit and loftiness, unlike many heavy-handed, bloated attempts at poetry by Richard Wagner.
> 
> ...


As if people went to the opera to hear a monologue, colloquy, or trialogue.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Thanks for those links Woodduck. Joseph Schwarz is amazing. Listened to it twice and got goose bumps both times! I will be seeking out more of his records.Schlusnus' performance is excellent too, although I don't find his timbre as attractive as Schwarz's. I thought the balance with the orchestra was very good on both recordings, with the voice well forward. I see Friedrich Schorr's fine recording of the aria is on YouTube too.
YouTube really must be a boon for fans of Heinrich Schlusnus and other hard to pronounce singers. No longer do they have to go to their local independent record shop and say to the dauntingly erudite, bearded assistant, "Have you got anything by Heinrich Schlussnusch.. .schluschnicht...Heinrich Schlischnusch...never mind!"


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

And he really knew how to begin and end an Act.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

1983 as the Siegfried Idyll was on a disc I got and that first snort was heaven


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> And he really knew how to begin and end an Act.


I once gave a non-Wagner-loving friend the final duet from Siegfried to listen to (Nilsson/Windgassen/Solti recording), and his comment was "He really knows how to end 'em, doesn't he?" Some writer (whose name I've forgotten) remarked that with Wagner, unlike with many composers, you can always look forward to an ending that is not inferior to anything that came before. But you're on the money about his beginnings too. The introductions and preludes are immediately arresting, powerful and atmospheric, and always prepare us emotionally for what follows. I think that's why he preferred the term "prelude" to the designation "overture."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> No
> We don't know who he loved and who he didn't do we?
> And I thought we were talking about the opera.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's very plausible from what we know of RW. But please let's agree to differ and not get upset.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I don't think it's very plausible from what we know of RW. But please let's agree to differ and not get upset.


That one can father a child without love?
Very plausible.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I once gave a non-Wagner-loving friend the final duet from Siegfried to listen to (Nilsson/Windgassen/Solti recording), and his comment was "He really knows how to end 'em, doesn't he?" Some writer (whose name I've forgotten) remarked that with Wagner, unlike with many composers, you can always look forward to an ending that is not inferior to anything that came before. But you're on the money about his beginnings too. The introductions and preludes are immediately arresting, powerful and atmospheric, and always prepare us emotionally for what follows. I think that's why he preferred the term "prelude" to the designation "overture."


Yes, just think of the opening to Rheingold or Walkure or Siegfried.
Tristan, Lohengrin Pasifal.
They can even stand alone.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Yes, just think of the opening to Rheingold or Walkure or Siegfried.
> Tristan, Lohengrin Pasifal.
> They can even stand alone.


The _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ preludes are especially wonderful, almost paradoxical in that they are such complete, intense dramas in themselves, able to stand alone - and yet each of them ends with an unresolved "question" which leads us into an opera that will tell the full story the prelude merely adumbrated, with neither prelude nor opera seeming redundant. That's remarkable when you think of the troubles Beethoven had with his several preparatory mini-dramas for _Fidelio_. Of course no Wagner opera opens with someone onstage ironing laundry!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

And whats better than Lohengrin's pelude. Talk about transporting us!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> And whats better than Lohengrin's pelude. Talk about transporting us!


I find the prelude to _Lohengrin_ an interesting anomaly. Unlike most of W's other introductions, it doesn't set us up for the dramatic situation that follows it, but rather unfolds a self-sufficient vision whose relationship to the story is merely implicit at best. We have to surmise that it represents the realm of spiritual purity in which Lohengrin dwells before we ever see him, and to which he ultimately returns. I seem to recall Wagner describing it as a vision of the Holy Grail, but the Grail plays no part in the story of the opera. I think it succeeds in establishing a mood of serene exaltation, tinged at the end with sorrow and resignation, which summarizes Lohengrin's aspiration to earthly love and the human betrayal of that aspiration which necessitates his return, saddened but uncorrupted, to the ethereal, impersonal realm from which he came. Needless to say, whatever it says to us, it is a supremely beautiful piece of music, one of the finest independent pieces in all Wagner's output, and a lesson to every composer thereafter (listen to La Traviata) in what could be done with divided strings! I will never forget a morning, nearly fifty years ago, when, standing on the front porch of a cabin in Maine, I looked out at the mountains of New Hampshire glowing in the sun, and heard this sublime music soaring out from the phonograph inside. I understood then where Lohengrin came from and why he had to return, leaving the sordid and faithless world of humanity behind.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> I appreciate this more detailed critique. Others have touched on Das Rheingold already, so I'll focus on Die Walküre.
> 
> It's true, we do have an incestuous relationship between twins. This is partly Wagner being true to his mythological sources, partly an intentional flouting of convention. In the subsequent scene, he gives full voice (through the character Fricka) to the conventional view that such a relationship is shocking and repulsive. But he also indicates (through Wotan) that this departure from the norm is part of a larger, unprecedented plan. And at a more individual level, it's worth remembering that these twins were separated in early childhood, and have lived painful, lonely lives ever since. Perhaps it's not surprising that such kindred spirits, rediscovering one another after all this time, might develop a more than casual attraction to one another.
> 
> ...


This is beautifully and movingly expressed. Thank you. I would like to add only one comment about the theme of incest in the story, and that is to say that, in addition to giving Fricka something unlawful to be outraged about (something officially worse, though perhaps not more personally offensive, than Wotan's "wolfisch" ways), it symbolizes nicely the "incestuous" nature of Wotan's thoughts, introverted children of his brain as evasive of reason and reality as Siegmund and Sieglinde are alienated from the society around them - and similarly doomed.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I will never forget a morning, nearly fifty years ago, when, standing on the front porch of a cabin in Maine, I looked out at the mountains of New Hampshire glowing in the sun, and heard this sublime music soaring out from the phonograph inside. I understood then where Lohengrin came from and why he had to return, leaving the sordid and faithless world of humanity behind.


I have had my most Wagnerian moment standing on a hilltop in _Siebengebirge_ near the city of Bonn, watching the sun rise over the Rhine and hearing the prelude to Das Rheingold playing in my imagination. Looking out over this scene, I could well imagine it to be the very place where the Wagnerian drama played out, in the distant mythical past, and just now I would see the Rhinemaidens playing in the river and the magic gold glowing in the depth. And the ruins of the old fortress on the hill could well have been the remains of Walhalla, the fortress of the gods over the Rhine.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> I would like to add only one comment about the theme of incest in the story, and that is to say that, in addition to giving Fricka something unlawful to be outraged about (something officially worse, though perhaps not more personally offensive, than Wotan's "wolfisch" ways), it symbolizes nicely the "incestuous" nature of Wotan's thoughts, introverted children of his brain as evasive of reason and reality as Siegmund and Sieglinde are alienated from the society around them - and similarly doomed.


Thank you Herr Doktor Freud-Marcuse-Erich-Fromm-Wood-Duck.


----------



## Ysolt (Jun 26, 2014)

I had never listened to Wagner - except for the overplayed Ride of the Valkyries which is cut before the singers enter. It was the Summer holidays and I'd come home after my 1st year at university (studying music). For some reason I watched Stephen Fry's Wagner and Me documentary and heard the Liebestod....and rather loved it. I immediately bought a last minute ticket along with a friend to see a concert performance of Tristan und Isolde at the Edinburgh International Festival. She'd had enough after Act 1...and I was hooked for life. If there is such a thing as falling in love at first *hearing*, that was it - my life changed for ever. After that performance I discovered Nilsson, Vickers, George London, Windgassen....I'm an official Wagnerian.

Truth be told, I don't really know what happened. The music seemed to go through my entire being - and I loved that experience. Every time I hear Tristan it obliterates me, no other opera does that although I relate to Wagner's operas far more strongly than Verdi's (my no. 2 composer). Anyway, I get to spend the following year writing a dissertation of Wagner and I'm seeing Tannhäuser at Bayreuth in August - life doesn't get any better!


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Ysolt said:


> [...snip...]
> 
> ....I'm an official Wagnerian.
> 
> *Truth be told, I don't really know what happened.* The music seemed to go through my entire being - and I loved that experience. Every time I hear Tristan it obliterates me, no other opera does that although I relate to Wagner's operas far more strongly than Verdi's (my no. 2 composer). [...snip...]


I can only speak for myself, but I dare say that none of the rest of us Wagnerians really know how it happened. We can only describe the circumstances. :tiphat:


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I just recently (like a week ago) started getting into Wagner and it's because of Nietzsche. I recently read Birth of Tragedy, and Nietzsche exhibits such a clear love of art and music, especially Wagnerian music that it inspired me to check it out. I had never really experienced opera, thinking of it as silly and old fashioned, but I thought what the heck and watched the first act of Tristan Und Isolde. I was very impressed! As soon as the story actually started, it had me quite entertained. I had english subtitles on, so I could follow the story. Watching the subtitles _might_ have distracted me from the music a bit, but I really wanted to know what the opera was actually about. Regardless, I enjoyed it, and I'll have to watch act two and three.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Quick Wagner question:

Rewatching the Ring cycle, in Siegfried Act III, wtf is Brunnhilde going on about? Does Wagner hate his audience, we're all, like Siegfried, burning for a bit of romance and she's droning on about her having lost her armour. Its frustrating!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Jobis said:


> Quick Wagner question:
> 
> Rewatching the Ring cycle, in Siegfried Act III, wtf is Brunnhilde going on about? Does Wagner hate his audience, we're all, like Siegfried, burning for a bit of romance and she's droning on about her having lost her armour. Its frustrating!


She is a divine virgin that all men used to fear and none dared to touch, and now she is stripped of all her defences and about to know a man's love for the first time. Of course she is afraid!


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> She is a divine virgin that all men used to fear and none dared to touch, and now she is stripped of all her defences and about to know a man's love for the first time. Of course she is afraid!


So its like a turandot moment?

I just felt by the time they actually get it on my excitement had waned and it felt like an anticlimax.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Jobis said:


> I just felt by the time they actually get it on my excitement had waned and it felt like an anticlimax.


I agree, Wagner once again chooses to prolong the scene for the sake of his motto "never be brief or go straight to the point without rambling around for no reason long enough" and in effects lets the tension and excitement brought in with Siegfried's And Brunhilde's encounter fall down to zero before finally giving us the duet which always comes in when I'm already tired and in the middle of another yawn.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Aramis said:


> I agree, Wagner once again chooses to prolong the scene for the sake of his motto "never be brief or go straight to the point without rambling around for no reason long enough" and in effects lets the tension and excitement brought in with Siegfried's And Brunhilde's encounter fall down to zero before finally giving us the duet which always comes in when I'm already tired and in the middle of another yawn.


We do get Brünnhilde's lovely "Ewig war ich" (as close to a self-contained aria as Wagner allowed himself in the Ring). Even here, though, things get a bit awkward, as he adapted his Starnberg string quartet in a way that fits neither the words nor the rest the opera's music very well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aramis said:


> I agree, Wagner once again chooses to prolong the scene for the sake of his motto "never be brief or go straight to the point without rambling around for no reason long enough" and in effects lets the tension and excitement brought in with Siegfried's And Brunhilde's encounter fall down to zero before finally giving us the duet which always comes in when I'm already tired and in the middle of another yawn.


I find that in most cases where someone says that Wagner is not going "straight to the point," the person is either missing the point or simply doesn't care for the music in which the point is being made. We could argue that Tristan and Isolde should get "straight to the point" and omit the entire second act between Tristan's entrance and King Marke's. I mean really! Why are they in the garden at night if not just to ... you know.

SiegendesLicht has it right about the "point" of this passage. If one is bored by the music in which Brunnhilde vents, then overcomes, her fear of becoming a mortal woman, one should simply say so. Me, I find the music quite eloquent and directly to the point, and the drop in tension not at all bothersome.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Woodduck: I find that in most cases where someone says that Wagner is not going "straight to the point," the person is either missing the point or simply doesn't care for the music in which the point is being made.


To be sure.

-- and if that A.D.D. histrionic-capacity is so lacking for every scene, one can always indulge Marvel Comics superheroes.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> I find that in most cases where someone says that Wagner is not going "straight to the point," the person is either missing the point or simply doesn't care for the music in which the point is being made. (...) If one is bored by the music in which Brunnhilde vents, then overcomes, her fear of becoming a mortal woman, one should simply say so.


It sounds to me very much like "if you dislike something about Wagner, you're allowed to humbly admit your disability to connect with it, but do not dare to put forth anything in form of criticism". I dislike that fragment of music along with libretto and the dramatic conceptions behind it, as a whole, and I prefer to give my reasons than just say what you suggest I should be restricted to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> She is a divine virgin that all men used to fear and none dared to touch, and now she is stripped of all her defences and about to know a man's love for the first time. Of course she is afraid!


Where Siegfried exclaims, "This is no man" is the nearest to comedy that Wagner came. A real LOL moment!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Where Siegfried exclaims, "This is no man" is the nearest to comedy that Wagner came. A real LOL moment!


I never agreed with that.
I don't think so. Someone that grew up never seeing a girl would be expecting to see a man there.
That's what u would say upon first seeing her.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Itullian said:


> I never agreed with that.
> I don't think so. Someone that grew up never seeing a girl would be expecting to see a man there.
> That's what u would say upon first seeing her.


I agree, but that doesn't prevent the moment from being comic. We're not necessarily laughing at "stupid" Siegfried, but at a moment of complete shock and dismay--something we've all experienced in romantic matters, one way or another. And I think the humor quickly gives over to poignance, as Siegfried struggles to come to grips with his newly awakened awareness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aramis said:


> It sounds to me very much like "if you dislike something about Wagner, you're allowed to humbly admit your disability to connect with it, but do not dare to put forth anything in form of criticism". I dislike that fragment of music along with libretto and the dramatic conceptions behind it, as a whole, and _I prefer to give my reasons_ than just say what you suggest I should be restricted to.


But you _didn't_ give any reasons or put forth anything in the form of criticism! If you have actual reasons for thinking this passage is dramatically objectionable, I'd genuinely enjoy engaging with them. Reasons can be discussed; word-bombs such as "his motto, never go straight to the point," "rambling around for no reason," "down to zero," "in the middle of another yawn," do not apply to this episode (which goes directly to the point Wagner wishes to make) and are really just expressions of a generalized disdain, intended to make an effect or get a reaction.

Well, they got one.

I would aver that the only part of what you said that's really relevant here is the part about the yawn. I have no reason to doubt that Brunnhilde's anxiety attack bores you senseless, and I respect that completely.

Enjoy your nap.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I never agreed with that.
> I don't think so. Someone that grew up never seeing a girl would be expecting to see a man there.
> That's what u would say upon first seeing her.


No sense of irony? What is usually a well endowed female lying there and he says:"this is no man!" I've even heard audiences laugh out loud at that point. Now I don't think RW intended it to be comic but dead serious. But it is a bit Pythonesque.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Siegfried's reaction on discovering Brunnhilde's feminine endowments is both serious _and_ amusing. Children are terribly serious, yet hilarious, in their ignorance and naivete. Siegfried is a big, wild kid - "kids say the darndest things" - and given his exclusively wildlife-based acquaintance with femaleness he utters the only words he can think of. Perfectly reasonable - and funny.

If Siegfried were brought up to date he would probably say "What the [email protected]#%!?!" and we'd all have a great laugh. So let's have one anyway.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Where Siegfried exclaims, "This is no man" is the nearest to comedy that Wagner came.


There was also that little _Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ bit as well.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

amfortas said:


> There was also that little _Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ bit as well.


I never get what is supposed to be funny in Meistersinger. I mean, it's not tragedy, and Beckmesser is a bit of a prat, but for me that's as far as it goes.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> No sense of irony? What is usually a well endowed female lying there and he says:"this is no man!" I've even heard audiences laugh out loud at that point. Now I don't think RW intended it to be comic but dead serious. But it is a bit Pythonesque.


What I do find funny and Pythonesque are those operas where the girl is supposed to be dying at the end and sings for 15 minutes about it.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

You mean like _Tristan und Isolde_?.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> What I do find funny and Pythonesque are those operas where the girl is supposed to be dying at the end and sings for 15 minutes about it.


Well, Siegfried also sings before dying, but then he is supposed to be so strong and mighty that whatever is impossible for an ordinary human, is possible for him.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mamascarlatti said:


> I never get what is supposed to be funny in Meistersinger. I mean, it's not tragedy, and Beckmesser is a bit of a prat, but for me that's as far as it goes.


How funny do you think _Meistersinger_ ought to be? Is "comedy," as a genre, mainly about being funny? How about "amusing," or "charming," or "heart-warming," or "provoking gentle reflection on the follies of humanity"? Does a piece fail as a comedy if we don't laugh out loud? I don't know for certain whether I've ever laughed at _Meistersinger_ either, but many things in it make me smile. And I could say the same about _Figaro_, _Rosenkavalier_, or _Falstaff_. I have to admit that it's hard to hold it in when a 300-pound pompous *** is stuffed into a laundry basket and thrown out the window, but if comedy had to mean schtick like that we'd all be artistically poorer.

Meistersinger may be the most "serious" comedy among operas by major composers. That it and _The Barber of Seville_ can both truly be comedies speaks to the breadth and depth of the genre.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2014)

schigolch said:


> You mean like _Tristan und Isolde_?.


Good Lord, IF ONLY she only rattled on for 15 minutes. Never in my life have I endured so many words used to say the same damned thing, "I love you so much I could die!!!!!"

Here is T & I in a nutshell:
First, I hate you and wish you would die.
Then, I love you so much I think I will die.
And finally, I love you immensely. And they die.

The music may be wonderful, but the story line sounds like the musings of a pre-teen girl at the dawn of puberty who thinks that the end of Romeo and Juliet is how all love truly is, and wishes she could die with Justin Bieber in her arms.

But otherwise I have come to like the Ring and Die Meistersinger and Tannhauser.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Don't get me wrong here. I *love* _Tristan und Isolde _and the Liebestod. 

It's only that, in Opera, the main tool for the composer, for any composer, to express anything is, of course, through singing. That's why Isolde is singing while dying, and many other operatic heroines, and heroes, too. Standard operatic stuff. If someone is not attuned to this fact, it will find probably difficult to enjoy a lot of operas out there... :cheers:


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

schigolch said:


> Don't get me wrong here. I *love* _Tristan und Isolde _and the Liebestod.
> 
> It's only that, in Opera, the main tool for the composer, for any composer, to express anything is, of course, through singing. That's why Isolde is singing while dying, and many other operatic heroines, and heroes, too. Standard operatic stuff. If someone is not attuned to this fact, it will find probably difficult to enjoy a lot of operas out there... :cheers:


Exactly. If you accept the convention of characters who sing at every moment of their lives, why is it suddenly disconcerting at their deaths?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Tristan is different. The liebestod is the musical climax of the opera.
And the music is great, not booooorrrrriiinnng.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

What's great for one guy can be boring for another, and viceversa. And the death of the heroine is arguably the musical climax of a lot of operas. 

So, Tristan is not different, at this respect. It could make a world of a difference to you, of course, but this is personal taste. Singing while dying is another thing, one of the oldest tricks in the world of Opera.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> How funny do you think _Meistersinger_ ought to be? Is "comedy," as a genre, mainly about being funny? How about "amusing," or "charming," or "heart-warming," or "provoking gentle reflection on the follies of humanity"? Does a piece fail as a comedy if we don't laugh out loud? I don't know for certain whether I've ever laughed at _Meistersinger_ either, but many things in it make me smile. And I could say the same about _Figaro_, _Rosenkavalier_, or _Falstaff_. I have to admit that it's hard to hold it in when a 300-pound pompous *** is stuffed into a laundry basket and thrown out the window, but if comedy had to mean schtick like that we'd all be artistically poorer.
> 
> Meistersinger may be the most "serious" comedy among operas by major composers. That it and _The Barber of Seville_ can both truly be comedies speaks to the breadth and depth of the genre.


Well, it is moderately heartwarming, very occasionally. It doesn't ever make me smile.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well, it is moderately heartwarming, very occasionally. It doesn't ever make me smile.


That's all right. I still think you're nice.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

The finale of Die Meistersinger always makes me smile thinking of other people who it makes cringe


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Isolde does not sing because she's dying. She's dies because she sings. Same for Tristan, who only dies after tearing off his bandages and exhausting himself from ecstasy. 

Compare that to Desdemona, who sings after succumbing to hypoxia. Verdi was an idiot.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Compare that to Desdemona, who sings after succumbing to hypoxia. Verdi was an idiot.


Only if Shakespeare was too. 

(Yes, I know Desdemona doesn't *sing* her final words in the original play, but she does speak them in blank verse, Shakespeare's musical medium of choice).


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Compare that to Desdemona, who sings after succumbing to hypoxia. Verdi was an idiot.


No, he knew about singing, that there are resonance zones. Desdemona died because she was out of air in her head, but she used her chest resonanse to sing the last phrase while being all dead up there already. Hence it's stupidity ("no, I've strangled myself!"), it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aramis said:


> No, he knew about singing, that there are resonance zones. Desdemona died because she was out of air in her head, but she used her chest resonanse to sing the last phrase while being all dead up there already. Hence it's stupidity ("no, I've strangled myself!"), it makes perfect sense.


Is this akin, biologically, to the jumping reflex of a dead frog, or the sting of a dead wasp?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Isolde does not sing because she's dying. She's dies because she sings. Same for Tristan, who only dies after tearing off his bandages and exhausting himself from ecstasy.
> 
> Compare that to Desdemona, who sings after succumbing to hypoxia. Verdi was an idiot.


Hmm. Tristan teats off the bandages when he hears his love is coming. Sounds as if he was somewhat of an idiot too!

Also, riding one's horse into a bonfire does not seem to be terribly sensible.

Nor does singing a long-winded soliloquy to Holy German Art when everyone in the audience has numb backsides through sitting too long and half of them are busting to go to the loo!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Hmm. Tristan teats off the bandages when he hears his love is coming. Sounds as if he was somewhat of an idiot too!
> 
> Also, riding one's horse into a bonfire does not seem to be terribly sensible.
> 
> Nor does singing a long-winded soliloquy to Holy German Art when everyone in the audience has numb backsides through sitting too long and half of them are busting to go to the loo!


It's not sensible only to people who think about their backsides more than about art!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Hmm. Tristan teats off the bandages when he hears his love is coming. Sounds as if he was somewhat of an idiot too!
> 
> Also, riding one's horse into a bonfire does not seem to be terribly sensible.


Excellent points - if being terribly sensible were the standard. Hold everything to that standard, and there would be no opera, very few artists, and very little art.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's not sensible only to people who think about their backsides more than about art!


Please remember that abuse is an attitude not an argument!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Excellent points - if being terribly sensible were the standard. Hold everything to that standard, and there would be no opera, very few artists, and very little art.


Along with a greatly restricted range of human behavior.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Excellent points - if being terribly sensible were the standard. Hold everything to that standard, and there would be no opera, very few artists, and very little art.


The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead. Give me drama or give me death.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Excellent points - if being terribly sensible were the standard. Hold everything to that standard, and there would be no opera, very few artists, and very little art.


My wife does not think it very sensible that they sing rather than talk. And why on earth does a heroine dying of TB sing her lungs out? But as you have to suspend belief at the start of an opera perhaps one can go the whole hog!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)




----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's not sensible only to people who think about their backsides more than about art!


You underestimate the backsides, when they want to shout "forget the art, I'm getting veeeery uncomfortable here", their cries will reach even the most elevated mind and never fail to disturb it from it's elevated priorities in sharing attention.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> My wife does not think it very sensible that they sing rather than talk. And why on earth does a heroine dying of TB sing her lungs out? But as you have to suspend belief at the start of an opera perhaps one can go the whole hog!


"Go half the hog, and all thou hast is ham."

[_Exit stage left, pursued by a pig_]


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Siegfried's reaction on discovering Brunnhilde's feminine endowments is both serious _and_ amusing. Children are terribly serious, yet hilarious, in their ignorance and naivete. Siegfried is a big, wild kid - "kids say the darndest things" - and given his exclusively wildlife-based acquaintance with femaleness he utters the only words he can think of. Perfectly reasonable - and funny.
> 
> If Siegfried were brought up to date he would probably say "What the [email protected]#%!?!" and we'd all have a great laugh. So let's have one anyway.


Ummmm.....wait a freakin' minute!! Das ist kein Mann!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Ummmm.....wait a freakin' minute!! Das ist kein Mann!!!


 This is not relevant, but your avatar and mine appear to be engaged in some sort of contest.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> This is not relevant, but your avatar and mine appear to be engaged in some sort of contest.


Amazing! Neither one has blinked yet!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> This is not relevant, but your avatar and mine appear to be engaged in some sort of contest.


Ambidextrously speaking, you are right!!!

I may have to change mine if Lenny doesn't stop staring at me.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Aramis said:


> You underestimate the backsides, when they want to shout "forget the art, I'm getting veeeery uncomfortable here", their cries will reach even the most elevated mind and never fail to disturb it from it's elevated priorities in sharing attention.


And if those cries from the backside are let loose in a crowded auditorium, the precinct would be cleared instantly by an urge for air that would become more urgent than relief from boredom.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead. Give me drama or give me death.


I dunno. There would be quite a few cemetery residents who might disagree!


----------



## Naccio (Jul 16, 2014)

I was caught at first with all the mythology and magic and worlds created in the musical dramas, started with tristan, then went to the ring and was blown away! Yet im still startled with no rightful heir to his work


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

This may seem lame, but I went to see _The New World_ in the theaters (2005). The music at the beginning was the prelude to _Das Rheingold_, which I didn't know at the time. I saw James Horner's name during the beginning credits but I absolutely knew beyond a doubt that the music I was hearing wasn't by him. I don't remember how exactly I found out (stayed for the credits, perhaps, or saw it on an IMDb thread) but once identified it started a growing love for his music that I still haven't quite settled into.


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

Reingold with Solti in my 40s. It then grew on me and still surprises.


----------



## Reedmeadow (Sep 2, 2014)

18th December 2013 : The ROH broadcasted Parsifal, the first time I've ever seen a Wagner opera. I was completely engrossed by it. The words, the story and the music by Wagner are perfect examples of grand and epic opera. My favourite bit was the flower maidens. That's what I enjoy most of Wagner operas, that and heldentenors.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

yesterday I attended Alexander Gavrylyuk's piano concert with Liszt pieces. Liebestod was performed by a soprano with piano arrangement. it was a demanding piece for the singer.

this was the first time I heard an aria from Tristan und Isolde, I really enjoyed it.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)




----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't believe I ever responded to this thread. If so, I apologize for the (inevitable) duplication.

In the mid-'70s, a good friend got into Wagner big time. He nearly lived the Ring des Nibelungen, or so it seemed. I think it was 19 LPs long, or close, in four boxed sets from Deutsche Grammophon, one for each of the constituent operas.

It was forced on me, one might say, but I got into it enough that I made myself a cassette copy of the entire set. While I have never owned a copy (the cassettes were discarded decades ago), it made a powerful enough impression on me that I explored some of Wagner's other operas (after the advent of the CD age) and even purchased Parsifal.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

My father was taught the Ring by his old boss. A couple of years back my father wanted to see the Ring at a cinema (the newish Met production) and asked me if I would accompany him. I said yes, and after two weekends of the Cycle I was hooked. I thought it the most amazing thing I had ever listened to. That experience has got me into classical music in general, and I now regularly attend live concerts. 

But still Wagner is better than any drug that I know, his music gets under your skin.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

echo said:


>


Watched this. Must confess I find Mr Fry one of the most annoying people on the planet!


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

When I was around 14 years old with Tannhäuser, Lohengrin and Götterdammerung.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Watched this. Must confess I find Mr Fry one of the most annoying people on the planet!


Something we can agree on! Although I bet you don't think he's a smug apologist for the most destructive excesses of marginalising expertise with his snide ways and undermining ethical governance and capitalism in general - Oxbridge toff. No, probably not

Anyway, bought a Ring highlights LP as a callow teen, not much longer later found myself in the pit for a Rheingold. Endless possibility for score study brought me back to them in the last coupla years. Seldom better enjoyed than studying the dots, for mine


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I quite like Stephen Fry, but he's strayed a long way from his original speciality of mildly erudite humour, and this documentary, which I'm afraid I had rather looked forward to, was rather grating. OnIy the choice of Fry as presenter over, say, Mr Tumble gave it away as being on BBC4 and not Cbeebies- I can't imagine how much more patronising it must be to viewers who actually know about Wagner. I think it comes down to the anti intellectualism of British culture- there's a resistance to having arts documentaries written and narrated by experts as opposed to all purpose celebrity presenters who probably know about as much about the subject as most educated laymen. No doubt there are counter examples but they must be quite rare. We need the musicologist equivalent of Mary Beard for this sort of programme.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Firstly, How did General Melchett become a leading musicologist on Wagner?
Secondly, when did Dr. House stop being such a fashionista?

The Brits are a strange lot. Why is being named Brian and playing in a rock band, a requisite for being a physicist?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

The Melchetts of this world think they are experts on everything! I don't get Brian Cox's appeal as a presenter- we can only hope he doesn't belatedly discover a love of opera or we'll have to put up with his musical insights as well as Fry's.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Watched this. Must confess I find Mr Fry one of the most annoying people on the planet!


I quite enjoyed it. Loved his enthusiasm.

Loved the Tristan chord part.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I quite like Stephen Fry, but he's strayed a long way from his original speciality of mildly erudite humour, and this documentary, which I'm afraid I had rather looked forward to, was rather grating. OnIy the choice of Fry as presenter over, say, Mr Tumble gave it away as being on BBC4 and not Cbeebies- I can't imagine how much more patronising it must be to viewers who actually know about Wagner.* I think it comes down to the anti intellectualism of British culture- there's a resistance to having arts documentaries written and narrated by experts as opposed to all purpose celebrity presenters who probably know about as much about the subject as most educated laymen.* No doubt there are counter examples but they must be quite rare. We need the musicologist equivalent of Mary Beard for this sort of programme.


You think it's bad over there? Americans think your celebrity presenters _are_ experts.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I like Steven Fry's books a lot. I've read several and always enjoy them. What I like most, is his love of, and his wonderful use of the English language. His book on poetry, 'The Ode Less Travelled', I found completely delightful and it got me into poetry in a way I had never been. 

The Wagner documentary I found unconvincing and a little too enthusiastic coming from someone (Fry) who professes to be tone-deaf! But hey, no big deal. If I didn't already know Wagner's music well, it may have turned me on to it, I don't know.

As for Wagner. When I was at school doing Music A-level ( UK exams for 16 year olds), I was browsing through the music department's record and score library thinking to myself, "I don't know any of this Wagner guy's stuff, better check it out". I took home the box set and score of Parsifal and spent the next week listening a side at a time to it. By the time I'd finished it, I was a huge fan! Still am. I've seen most of The Ring, Tristan, Meistersingers, and Parsifal twice at Covent Garden and ENO. I don't always like the staging or production but the music is always breathtaking.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Petwhac said:


> I like Steven Fry's books a lot. I've read several and always enjoy them. What I like most, is his love of, and his wonderful use of the English language. His book on poetry, 'The Ode Less Travelled', I found completely delightful and it got me into poetry in a way I had never been.
> 
> The Wagner documentary I found unconvincing and a little too enthusiastic coming from someone (Fry) who professes to be tone-deaf! But hey, no big deal. If I didn't already know Wagner's music well, it may have turned me on to it, I don't know.
> 
> .


I don't want to sound like I'm all anti Stephen Fry, because I ran into him once and he was really nice. I mean I literally ran into him: hurrying through the passage between the New Building and Cloisters at Magdalen, late for something as usual, I rounded the corner a little too fast and went smack into the chest of a really tall man. I looked up to apologise and lo and behold! It was Stephen Fry! I can't remember what he said but he was very affable and charming, just as you might imagine from his TV persona.

You know who else off the telly is really tall in real life? Jeremy Paxman. Also, Will Self.

Back to Wagner: I know how Thomas Beecham got into his music. His dad had a collection of music boxes, one of which played O du, mein holder Abendstern. The young Thomas was enraptured, and the rest is history. I'm still stuck at the stage of the infant Beecham, enjoying some of the loveliest tunes for their own sake, but that's about it. I have listened to Tannhäuser all the way through and really enjoyed it, parts of Parsifal, and I have Lohengrin on CD but have never played it. I think that's because- and this will sound really silly- some of my favourite recordings of excerpts from the opera are in Italian and French language versions from the early days of recording, and I'm afraid that if I listen to a more musically orthodox German language version I won't like it as much! I doubt I will ever make it to the more connoisseur-ish Wagner operas like Tristan and the Ring. That's the crux of the problem of 'getting into' Wagner really: he wrote some of the most beautiful and accessible music in existence, but also some that is not conventionally beautiful nor as accessible to the casual listener, and he's still such a polarising figure that people feel they must accept or reject his body of work in its entirety. I may keep the pick n mix approach for a little longer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I quite enjoyed it. Loved his enthusiasm.
> 
> Loved the Tristan chord part.


Must say all his simpering as if Bayreuth was some sort of holy place was sickening. It's just a theatre, Mr Fry, get over it!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Must say all his simpering as if Bayreuth was some sort of holy place was sickening. It's just a theatre, Mr Fry, get over it!


It's Valhalla.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I don't want to sound like I'm all anti Stephen Fry, because I ran into him once and he was really nice. I mean I literally ran into him: hurrying through the passage between the New Building and Cloisters at Magdalen, late for something as usual, I rounded the corner a little too fast and went smack into the chest of a really tall man. I looked up to apologise and lo and behold! It was Stephen Fry! I can't remember what he said but he was very affable and charming, just as you might imagine from his TV persona.
> 
> You know who else off the telly is really tall in real life? Jeremy Paxman. Also, Will Self.
> 
> Back to Wagner: I know how Thomas Beecham got into his music. His dad had a collection of music boxes, one of which played O du, mein holder Abendstern. The young Thomas was enraptured, and the rest is history. I'm still stuck at the stage of the infant Beecham, enjoying some of the loveliest tunes for their own sake, but that's about it. I have listened to Tannhäuser all the way through and really enjoyed it, parts of Parsifal, and I have Lohengrin on CD but have never played it. I think that's because- and this will sound really silly- some of my favourite recordings of excerpts from the opera are in Italian and French language versions from the early days of recording, and I'm afraid that if I listen to a more musically orthodox German language version I won't like it as much! *I doubt I will ever make it to the more connoisseur-ish Wagner operas like Tristan and the Ring. That's the crux of the problem of 'getting into' Wagner really: he wrote some of the most beautiful and accessible music in existence, but also some that is not conventionally beautiful nor as accessible to the casual listener, and he's still such a polarising figure that people feel they must accept or reject his body of work in its entirety. I may keep the pick n mix approach for a little longer.*


It may (or may not) surprise you to find that many died-in-the-silk (Wagner couldn't abide wool; it made him itch) Wagnerians are capable of being objective, critical, and selective in their admiration. My first exposure to Wagner, via the "Liebestod" from _Tristan,_ gave me harmonic vertigo and I wasn't sure what to think. A few _Ring_ excerpts later I was a goner and swallowed Wagner whole as quickly as I could get hold of recordings and vocal scores, which I played through hungrily at the piano.

That was half a century ago. I remain a lover of Wagner, but find that like every great genius (and everyone else too) he didn't live continuously on the heights he constantly reached for and frequently attained, and I don't find every moment of his operas equally rewarding. The stylistic inconsistencies in his early attempts are well-known; there are good reasons why _Rienzi_ is rarely done (one of them unfortunately being the lack of tenors with both heroic timbre and bel canto technique), and _Der_ _Fliegende Hollander_ and _Tannhauser_ both flip maddeningly back and forth between high inspiration and foursquare tedium (the latter work being greatly improved by the Paris revision of the Venusberg scene; would that he had done something about that dreary song contest as well). Save for some lingering squareness in its rhythms, _Lohengrin_ hits a new level of mastery and contains, to my ears, much of Wagner's most sheerly lovely music. Do hear it; I strongly recommend the EMI recording from the 1960s with Thomas, Grummer, Ludwig and Fischer-Dieskau under Kempe as the most consistently satisfactory version.

After _Lohengrin_, Wagner moves into a new artistic phase in which the Romantic influences (especially Weber) conspicuous in his music until then are thoroughly transformed, and his own freer, more fluid style, with greater emphasis on orchestral textures dominated by the leitmotiv and a less foursquare treatment of melody and rhythm, emerges. From the inception of _Der Ring_, on through _Tristan und Isolde_, _Die Meistersinger_, and _Parsifal_, I find few major lapses in inspiration, though of course there are bound to be higher points and lower ones. _The Ring_, filled with amazing music as it is, can be quite a project to take on; if you enjoy myth and fairy tale, it's greater meanings can be allowed to unfold in time. The other works, being single operas (though long ones), ought not to cause much concern. _Meistersinger_ sometimes seems the Wagner opera for people who don't care for Wagner; it's tuneful and warmhearted, doesn't require supersized voices, and has people dressed in pantaloons and waistcoats rather than bearskins (or whatever directors are wrapping gods and goddesses in these days). But _Tristan_ is really quite a simple work too; all you really need to know is that it's about passion, and all you need to do is sit back, listen, and be mowed down by the matchless intensity of music often beautiful, sometimes horrifying, but always powerful. _Parsifal_ is for some a tough nut to crack, with it's Christian-derived symbolism, subtle orchestration, deliberate pace, and dreamlike atmosphere. Some Wagnerians (myself included) find it the most beautifully wrought and deeply moving of all the operas; others find it baffling or, at least in parts, boring. But, as with the _Ring_, there's no harm in just taking it as a sort of fairy tale and listening to the wonders of the music and, if that enchants, inquiring into its layers of symbolism later if you so desire.

Wagner's operas do ultimately emerge, if we get deeply enough into them, as something of a world unto themselves. He certainly intended them to be something more than an evening's entertainment; we may enjoy them as just that, but it isn't necessary to assent to all of the composer's sometimes irrational and contradictory philosophical and artistic theories to recognize how different his works are from those of his contemporaries - how much more ambitious and original, musically and dramatically - and how challenging it can be to get to the bottom of them. But I would encourage anyone who finds Wagner's music at all appealing not to let the distance to be traveled prevent setting out on the journey. The scenery along the way - from the stormy coast of Norway through the legendary Rhineland and medieval Cornwall to the rarefied precincts of Montsalvat - is fascinating.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> The Melchetts of this world think they are experts on everything! I don't get Brian Cox's appeal as a presenter- we can only hope he doesn't belatedly discover a love of opera or we'll have to put up with his musical insights as well as Fry's.


The other Brian the Physicist...


----------



## Dupamplont (Nov 2, 2014)

Hearing Wagner as a kid in both the Beatles' _Help_ and _Apocalypse Now_ made me seek him out.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

Only been a couple of years for me. I've always liked Wagners music, only if I listened on the radio it would take an entire afternoon to listen to. Most of the time I don't like to spend that much time with anything. Then I saw that they released the Solti Wagner. I decided that I'd give it a go since I like Solti's other opera stuff. The first one that really blew me away was Lohengrin. I actually spent an afternoon just on that.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2014)

I was on holiday in Cornwall (UK) last week and had the intention of showing my young daughter *Tintagel Castle*, which is linked to the myths surrounding King Arthur. To help me teach her about all these legends, I bought a DVD film to show her called *Excalibur* - it makes great use of the music of *Wagner* (notably _Götterdämmerung_, Siegfried's death and funeral march) and *Orff* (_O Fortuna_ from Carmina Burana). 
I had kind of drifted away from Wagner over the years, but this film has perhaps rekindled my heart a little. There's a moment in the film when Sir Percival throws _Excalibur_ back into the lake (after Arthur, mortally wounded, bids him to do so) and an arm shoots up out of the water (the _Lady of the Lake_) and seizes it; the scene matches the music perfectly : the sword flying through the air in slow motion accompanied by the building passage (in the *YouTube extract linked below*, starting at the 2:01 mark), then the "hammer blows" as the hand grasps the sword (2:28) - this left me breathless and made me choke up!

Anyway, here's the link. There are *two curious moments* in this performance (Klaus Tennstedt and the London Philharmonic) : First, do I hear fluffed entries / poor tuning by the horns at the 2:08 mark, and secondly, is that someone dropping Siegfried's coffin at 5:50?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

^ Believe it or not, my own acquaintance with Wagner started with this video (I wrote about it way back in the thread). And the sound - I think it is some music student shooting himself after realizing there is no music to be written more beautiful and grand than that.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ Believe it or not, my own acquaintance with Wagner started with this video (I wrote about it way back in the thread). *And the sound - I think it is some music student shooting himself after realizing there is no music to be written more beautiful and grand than that*.


Hah ! [Was probably Bruckner !]


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> I was on holiday in Cornwall (UK) last week and had the intention of showing my young daughter *Tintagel Castle*, which is linked to the myths surrounding King Arthur. To help me teach her about all these legends, I bought a DVD film to show her called *Excalibur* - it makes great use of the music of *Wagner* (notably _Götterdämmerung_, Siegfried's death and funeral march) and *Orff* (_O Fortuna_ from Carmina Burana).
> I had kind of drifted away from Wagner over the years, but this film has perhaps rekindled my heart a little. There's a moment in the film when Sir Percival throws _Excalibur_ back into the lake (after Arthur, mortally wounded, bids him to do so) and an arm shoots up out of the water (the _Lady of the Lake_) and seizes it; the scene matches the music perfectly : the sword flying through the air in slow motion accompanied by the building passage (in the *YouTube extract linked below*, starting at the 2:01 mark), then the "hammer blows" as the hand grasps the sword (2:28) - this left me breathless and made me choke up!
> 
> Anyway, here's the link. There are *two curious moments* in this performance (Klaus Tennstedt and the London Philharmonic) : First, do I hear fluffed entries / poor tuning by the horns at the 2:08 mark, and secondly, is that someone dropping Siegfried's coffin at 5:50?


Sigfrieds death and funeral march brings tears to my eyes.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

This is not the death of Siegfried only, but of Wotan's whole ill-fated line of heroes, who were supposed to save the world from the god's transgression. The love and sorrow of the Walsung twins, the tragedy of great aspirations seemingly at their moment of triumph collapsing into impotence, the dissolution of everything into mist and darkness and quiet fear, waiting for the woman who will give back the cursed ring and bring the old order to a fiery end - they're all there, moment by moment, in this music. I am forever amazed at Wagner's ability to make tones seem as articulate as language, to tell us with the clarity of dreams the stories that still reside in the deep recesses of our minds, forgotten since childhood. 

Somehow the mind of this little madman remembered those stories and found the music in which to bring them back and make us children again.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Sigfrieds death and funeral march brings tears to my eyes.


Hmm! That a muscle bound, thick-headed braggart has been bumped off? Now if it's Butterfly that's a different matter!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Hmm! That a muscle bound, thick-headed braggart has been bumped off? Now if it's Butterfly that's a different matter!


If you are killing dragons and rides through flames on mountain tops it is necessary to have muscles.
Yes Sigfried is thick-headed he is still the protagonist and he still doesn't deserve to die.

And considering Butterfly I don´t get that kind of physical reactions from that opera. My reactions from Madama Butterfly are on the inside in my mind.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Sloe said:


> If you are killing dragons and rides through flames on mountain tops it is necessary to have muscles.
> Yes Sigfried is thick-headed he is still the protagonist and he still doesn't deserve to die.
> 
> And considering Butterfly I don´t get that kind of physical reactions from that opera. My reactions from Madama Butterfly are on the inside in my mind.


And booooring!..............


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Hmm! That a muscle bound, thick-headed braggart has been bumped off? Now if it's Butterfly that's a different matter!


Its deeper than that.
That much more than just Siegfried has died.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> If you are killing dragons and rides through flames on mountain tops it is necessary to have muscles.
> Yes Sigfried is thick-headed he is still the protagonist and he still doesn't deserve to die.
> 
> And considering Butterfly I don´t get that kind of physical reactions from that opera. My reactions from Madama Butterfly are on the inside in my mind.


Whether he deserves to die or not he's just not a sympathetic character. One cannot feel sorry as one has no empathy with him.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Its deeper than that.
> That much more than just Siegfried has died.


Oh yes, there is supposed to be great meaning. But I wonder even if Wagner worked out what was supposed to be the meaning behind it?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Oh yes, there is supposed to be great meaning. But I wonder even if Wagner worked out what was supposed to be the meaning behind it?


Wagner and 'meaning': One may tempt an Italian with a baited hook-- but the eventuality is such that one is just going to step into a Russian bear trap set by a Duck.

-- If the experiential record is any guide.

Just trying to be Good-Diva helpful._ ;D_


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Oh yes, there is supposed to be great meaning. But I wonder even if Wagner worked out what was supposed to be the meaning behind it?


Yes...................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Its deeper than that.
> That much more than just Siegfried has died.


Much more indeed.

What has died (for those who may have forgotten the story) is Wotan's grand scheme to redeem himself and to cleanse the world of the curse of the ring which he himself, "Licht-Alberich," brought upon it when he yielded to ambition and was ready, like his alter-ego "Schwarz-Alberich," to sacrifice love for power. Siegfried, a "pure fool" like Parsifal, was Wotan's last hope for an independent agent who would gain the gold from Fafner and return it to its origin. But unlike Parsifal, who saw through the seduction of false promises and understood his mission, Siegfried succumbed to deception. He was a hero in the making, but completely naive about the dark powers arrayed against him and the task Wotan had assigned him but was not permitted to help him understand or accomplish. The tragedy of _Gotterdammerung_, as the title tells us, is that of Wotan and, symbolically, of all innocence and greatness gone awry; the funeral music recalls the sorrows and strivings of Wotan's progeny, Siegmund, Sieglinde, and Siegfried, in whose uncorrupted spirit he had lodged his hopes, and it leaves us with a gloomy echo of Brunnhilde's love and a dark, ironic reminiscence of the exultant song the Rhinedaughters sang to their pure gold when the world was still unspoiled.

Much more than Siegfried has died. Power, fame, sexual love - all these paths to success, happiness and salvation on which humanity stakes its hopes are shown to be insufficient and to lead to tragedy. Wagner originally intended the message of the _Ring_ to be a variant on the "redemption through a woman's love" theme which had dominated his thinking since _Der__ Fliegende Hollander_; but the tragedy of _Tristan und Isolde_, which so clearly revealed the futility of that ideal, was a turning point in his conception of the _Ring_ as well. In the end, the love of women was Siegfried's undoing; even Brunnhilde's love could not survive the ring of deceit into which it was drawn, and it was only her insight into that deceit, and into the whole vast drama in which she and Siegfried had been pawns, that enabled her to break the curse of the gold, consign the gods to obsolescence, and give the world another chance.

Wagner's own illusions about love having died - this music may be heard as their threnody too - he had now only one assignment to complete before his death; to show those illusions in their clearest light and to create a hero whose innocence culminates in enlightenment rather than deception. Parsifal is a Siegfried who succeeds.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Much more indeed.
> 
> What has died (for those who may have forgotten the story) is Wotan's grand scheme to redeem himself and to cleanse the world of the curse of the ring which he himself, "Licht-Alberich," brought upon it when he yielded to ambition and was ready, like his alter-ego "Schwarz-Alberich," to sacrifice love for power. Siegfried, a "pure fool" like Parsifal, was Wotan's last hope for an independent agent who would gain the gold from Fafner and return it to its origin. But unlike Parsifal, who saw through the seduction of false promises and understood his mission, Siegfried succumbed to deception. He was a hero in the making, but completely naive about the dark powers arrayed against him and the task Wotan had assigned him but was not permitted to help him understand or accomplish. The tragedy of _Gotterdammerung_, as the title tells us, is that of Wotan and, symbolically, of all innocence and greatness gone awry; the funeral music recalls the sorrows and strivings of Wotan's progeny, Siegmund, Sieglinde, and Siegfried, in whose uncorrupted spirit he had lodged his hopes, and it leaves us with a gloomy echo of Brunnhilde's love and a dark, ironic reminiscence of the exultant song the Rhinedaughters sang to their pure gold when the world was still unspoiled.
> 
> ...


Beautiful post.

'Oxbridgean.'

Thanks for the enlightenment.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

the funeral music hits me on many levels and can draw chills as well as tears at a given moment.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> the funeral music hits me on many levels and can draw chills as well as tears at a given moment.


When I saw the film _Excalibur_ as a kid and heard "Siegfried's Funeral March" (of course, I had no knowledge of Wagner at the time) tracked to Arthur's ignited boat funeral pyre going out to sea--- I got chills watching it. Verklempt all the way.

-- I completely understand.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

And that it wasn't his fault because of the potion and then getting stabbed in the back. ugghh

no hope......


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Much more indeed.
> 
> What has died (for those who may have forgotten the story) is Wotan's grand scheme to redeem himself and to cleanse the world of the curse of the ring which he himself, "Licht-Alberich," brought upon it when he yielded to ambition and was ready, like his alter-ego "Schwarz-Alberich," to sacrifice love for power. Siegfried, a "pure fool" like Parsifal, was Wotan's last hope for an independent agent who would gain the gold from Fafner and return it to its origin. But unlike Parsifal, who saw through the seduction of false promises and understood his mission, Siegfried succumbed to deception. He was a hero in the making, but completely naive about the dark powers arrayed against him and the task Wotan had assigned him but was not permitted to help him understand or accomplish. The tragedy of _Gotterdammerung_, as the title tells us, is that of Wotan and, symbolically, of all innocence and greatness gone awry; the funeral music recalls the sorrows and strivings of Wotan's progeny, Siegmund, Sieglinde, and Siegfried, in whose uncorrupted spirit he had lodged his hopes, and it leaves us with a gloomy echo of Brunnhilde's love and a dark, ironic reminiscence of the exultant song the Rhinedaughters sang to their pure gold when the world was still unspoiled.
> 
> ...


Hm An uncorrupted spirit indeed! He bullies the funny old dwarf who has brought him up in a way that would qualify him for the Hitler Youth. He then ends up by murdering the dwarf who is completely unarmed on the word of a talking bird. In the mean time he'd killed a dear old dragon who had long gone into retirement. He then discovers his aunt asleep on a rock and has an affair with her from whence he goes pretty pointlessly to meet Hagen and his motley crew. He then kidnaps his own wife so another man can have her and takes off with another woman.
Uncorrupted spirit? Maybe in Wagner's eyes. But I think not!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> the funeral music hits me on many levels and can draw chills as well as tears at a given moment.


The music is fantastic. Pity the libretto is the work opt a hack. Wagner really deserves a better librettist than Wagner!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> The music is fantastic. Pity the libretto is the work opt a hack. Wagner really deserves a better librettist than Wagner!


OH PLEASE. The libretto is brilliant.
It inspired the music
Wouldn't change a thing

Read Woodducks post.
That comes from the libretti!!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Hm An uncorrupted spirit indeed! He bullies the funny old dwarf who has brought him up in a way that would qualify him for the Hitler Youth. He then ends up by murdering the dwarf who is completely unarmed on the word of a talking bird. In the mean time he'd killed a dear old dragon who had long gone into retirement. He then discovers his aunt asleep on a rock and has an affair with her from whence he goes pretty pointlessly to meet Hagen and his motley crew. He then kidnaps his own wife so another man can have her and takes off with another woman.
> Uncorrupted spirit? Maybe in Wagner's eyes. But I think not!


Good points all.

Too bad the _Ring_ doesn't have morally-edifying scenes like Lot sleeping with his daughters, or Genocidal General Joshua putting man, woman, and child to the sword. . . and <ahem!> of course making the beautiful_ young _women into odalisques.

One must have standards, afterall.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> OH PLEASE. The libretto is brilliant.
> It inspired the music
> Wouldn't change a thing


I totally agree, however, with this particular opponent in debate you are wasting your time. He has an agenda of his own, and whatever you say will not convince him.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Good points all.
> 
> Too bad the _Ring_ doesn't have morally-edifying scenes like Lot sleeping with his daughters, or Genocidal General Joshua putting man, woman, and child to the sword. . . and <ahem!> of course making the beautiful_ young _women into odalisques.
> 
> One must have standards, afterall.


No Bible please. Go to religious discussion please if you want that.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> No Bible please. Go to religious discussion please if you want that.


I didn't mention the word 'Bible,' you did.

I merely compared and contrasted mythological narratives.

--- and don't tell me what to do.

_;D_


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I didn't mention the word 'Bible,' you did.
> 
> I merely compared and contrasted mythological narratives.
> 
> ...


Come on MB. its obvious, as you well know.

just directing you to the proper forum. ;D


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I totally agree, however, with this particular opponent in debate you are wasting your time. He has an agenda of his own, and whatever you say will not convince him.


It's so much pun.

I've tried with the 'punderstruck.'

But if there's no pulse there's no pulse.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Come on MB. its obvious, as you well know.
> 
> just directing you to the proper forum. ;D


'Obvious?'--- Diva's don't take dictation-- 'that's' obvious.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Obvious?'--- Diva's don't take dictation-- 'that's' obvious.


I know. ...................


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I know. ...................


_;DD_

('Big smile.')


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Much more indeed.
> 
> What has died (for those who may have forgotten the story) is Wotan's grand scheme to redeem himself and to cleanse the world of the curse of the ring which he himself, "Licht-Alberich," brought upon it when he yielded to ambition and was ready, like his alter-ego "Schwarz-Alberich," to sacrifice love for power. Siegfried, a "pure fool" like Parsifal, was Wotan's last hope for an independent agent who would gain the gold from Fafner and return it to its origin. But unlike Parsifal, who saw through the seduction of false promises and understood his mission, Siegfried succumbed to deception. He was a hero in the making, but completely naive about the dark powers arrayed against him and the task Wotan had assigned him but was not permitted to help him understand or accomplish. The tragedy of _Gotterdammerung_, as the title tells us, is that of Wotan and, symbolically, of all innocence and greatness gone awry; the funeral music recalls the sorrows and strivings of Wotan's progeny, Siegmund, Sieglinde, and Siegfried, in whose uncorrupted spirit he had lodged his hopes, and it leaves us with a gloomy echo of Brunnhilde's love and a dark, ironic reminiscence of the exultant song the Rhinedaughters sang to their pure gold when the world was still unspoiled.
> 
> ...


To remember where we were............................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Hm An uncorrupted spirit indeed! He bullies the funny old dwarf who has brought him up in a way that would qualify him for the Hitler Youth. He then ends up by murdering the dwarf who is completely unarmed on the word of a talking bird. In the mean time he'd killed a dear old dragon who had long gone into retirement. He then discovers his aunt asleep on a rock and has an affair with her from whence he goes pretty pointlessly to meet Hagen and his motley crew. He then kidnaps his own wife so another man can have her and takes off with another woman.
> Uncorrupted spirit? Maybe in Wagner's eyes. But *I think not*!


Precisely. But do try it sometime. It's actually enjoyable.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

"How did you get into Wagner?"

I'm still in the process of getting into Wagner, thanks to some wonderful advice and recording recommendations from TC's Woodduck. :kiss:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> "How did you get into Wagner?"
> 
> I'm still in the process of getting into Wagner, thanks to some wonderful advice and recording recommendations from TC's Woodduck. :kiss:


Awwwwwwwwwwwww!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Itullian said:


> OH PLEASE. The libretto is brilliant.
> It inspired the music
> Wouldn't change a thing
> 
> ...


I prefer the original sources.
Like The first lay of Gudrun describing Gudruns sorrow over Sigurds death:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Poetic_Edda/Guðrúnarkviða_I


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2014)

Oh dear, further to my posting above, I believe I am beginning to cross over to the dark side ... I have those "hammer chords" from Sigfried's Death and Funeral March ringing in my head ... I am beyond hope, resistance is futile ... all is clear now ... My God! It's full of stars ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> *I prefer the original sources.*
> Like The first lay of Gudrun describing Gudruns sorrow over Sigurds death:
> 
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Poetic_Edda/Guðrúnarkviða_I


Wagner's use of mythical and literary sources was always very free and original. The plot of the _Ring_ and many of its details were his own invention. In what sense do you "prefer" the original sources? Not as libretto material, I presume. The Eddas and the _Nibelungenlied_ stand alone as literature. The _Ring_ is musical theater.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> Oh dear, further to my posting above, I believe I am beginning to cross over to the dark side ... I have those "hammer chords" from Sigfried's Death and Funeral March ringing in my head ... I am beyond hope, resistance is futile ... all is clear now ... My God! It's full of stars ...


From das Wunderreich der Nacht, many do not return. But take comfort! Few desire to.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's use .


You are right I really don´t want any discussion.
I should have expressed myself differently. My post was directed at DavidA to make him to have at least some sad feelings over the death of Sigfried and also to show that the death of Siegfried/Sigurd have been described as a profoundly sad event long before Wagner even if it was for different reasons. Then Wagner was not the only one using legends and historical events freely the real Don Carlo was not like in Verdis opera for example. I think it is worth to say that most of what DavidA comes up with against Siegfried is not what Wagner invented. Reading what DavidA writes one is given the imperssion that Wagner was a disgusting man with a sick fantasy. Siegfried was already like that. Still he has fascinated people for over 1000 years and this despite that he killed the dwarf that brought him up and did other things.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Funny to read some of the feelings expressed. I just listening to Gotterdamerung. I always listen without the libretto so I can enjoy the music without having to put up with Wagner's tedious drivel.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Funny to read some of the feelings expressed. I just listening to Gotterdamerung. I always listen without the libretto so I can enjoy the music without having to put up with Wagner's tedious drivel.


What?
Half the reason to listen to Wagner is that I actually understand at least some of what is sung.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> What?
> Half the reason to listen to Wagner is that I actually understand at least some of what is sung.


I have a rough idea. I know the operas quite well. But the words are so tedious that I prefer just to listen to the music. Especially Karajan conducting the BPO.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I totally agree, however, with this particular opponent in debate you are wasting your time. He has an agenda of his own, and whatever you say will not convince him.


What agenda could I possibly have? Come on, this is a forum where people give their opinions.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Sloe said:


> What?
> Half the reason to listen to Wagner is that I actually understand at least some of what is sung.


Wagner without text.

Puccini without words.

Next will be Shakespeare without Olivier.

Who wants to live in a monochromatic world or half-understandings and minimal enjoyments?-- evidently those with no right brain or even left foot.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> You are right I really don´t want any discussion.
> I should have expressed myself differently. My post was directed at DavidA to make him to have at least some sad feelings over the death of Sigfried and also to show that the death of Siegfried/Sigurd have been described as a profoundly sad event long before Wagner even if it was for different reasons. Then Wagner was not the only one using legends and historical events freely the real Don Carlo was not like in Verdis opera for example. I think it is worth to say that most of what DavidA comes up with against Siegfried is not Wagners what Wagner invented. Reading what DavidA writes one is given the imperssion that Wagner was a disgusting man with a sick fantasy. Siegfried was already like that. Still he has fascinated people for over 1000 years and this despite that he killed the dwarf that brought him up and did other things.


Actually Wagner WAS quite a disgusting man with a sick fantasy! Just that he was a musical genius. the real Don Carlo was apparently a psychopath from what I read. But it has little to do with Verdi's opera.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I have a rough idea. I know the operas quite well. But the words are so tedious that I prefer just to listen to the music. Especially Karajan conducting the BPO.


If you only have a rough idea of what's being sung, how can you possibly know it's drivel? My German was moderately good when I was younger, now it isn't- but I'm not sure whether even then I would have known whether a given example of verse in that language was any good or not. It takes a while to really get your ear in- a bit like some music. Words and music together are much easier to 'get'- which is why it seems strange to revere the latter and despise the former, especially when they are the products of the same mind.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> What agenda could I possibly have? Come on, this is a forum where people give their opinions.


You seem to have a personal vendetta against Wagner because of his dislike of your ethnicity (or your wife's or both). That is why you insist on coming into every single Wagner thread and trying to derail it with the same few arguments over and over again, or to provoke other people so as to get heated reactions from them until the thread gets closed.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Actually Wagner WAS quite a disgusting man with a sick fantasy! Just that he was a musical genius. the real Don Carlo was apparently a psychopath from what I read. But it has little to do with Verdi's opera.





















These vitriolic attacks on Wagner's genius remind me of the time an envious, anonymous, envy-ridden attacker threw acid in the face of British model Katie Piper.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/slideshow?id=9477095&imageid=9476963

Beauty and genius psychologically disturb some people.

John Stewart Mill, rightly, called it the most anti-social of all the passions.

It should never be encouraged let alone placated.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> These vitriolic attacks on Wagner's genius remind me of the time an envious, anonymous, envy-ridden attacker threw acid in the face of British model Katie Piper.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/slideshow?id=9477095&imageid=9476963
> 
> ...


Oh you do make me laugh! Try using some logic in your arguments please before you confuse someone talking about a historical character on a forum with an acid-throwing maniac! You really derail your own arguments at source! I am not at all envious of Wagner. Why should I be? I wouldn't swap his life for mine in any way whatsoever! Please use some logic!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Oh you do make me laugh! Try using some logic in your arguments please before you confuse someone talking about a historical character on a forum with an acid-throwing maniac! You really derail your own arguments at source! I am not at all envious of Wagner. Why should I be? I wouldn't swap his life for mine in any way whatsoever! Please use some logic!


You can keep your acid. I can keep my looks. And Duck can keep his logic.

We're all Best In Show at what we do best.

_;D_

Did I mention to the Forum how incomparable Woodduck's Wagner posts are? Really. His vintages pale to nothing.

<Clink.>

Cheers.

"Ho jo to ho! Ho jo ho to!"


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Actually Wagner WAS quite a disgusting man with a sick fantasy! Just that he was a musical genius. the real Don Carlo was apparently a psychopath from what I read. But it has little to do with Verdi's opera.


So what you say is that if there is anything according to you non pleasant with the protagonist like killing dwarfs that are going to kill you it should be removed?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> You can keep your acid. I can keep my looks. And Duck can keep his logic.
> 
> We're all Best In Show at what we do best.
> 
> ...


With which she rises her steed into the fire in an act of self-immolation! Hmmm! Logic!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Wagner with out text.
> 
> Who wants to live in a monochromatic world or half-understandings and minimal enjoyments?-- evidently those with no right brain or even left foot.


You describe the secularist very accurately!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You seem to have a personal vendetta against Wagner because of his dislike of your ethnicity (or your wife's or both). That is why *you insist on coming into every single Wagner thread and trying to derail it with the same few arguments over and over again, or to provoke other people so as to get heated reactions from them until the thread gets closed.*


That's the essence of it, isn't it? Wherever and whenever on this forum Wagner's work is discussed appreciatively, the troll crawls out of the ditch, throws mudballs at the passersby who are having a pleasant outing, and titters at the consternation he causes. I've been watching this little game ever since I first came on TC: someone mentions something, anything, that indicates an enjoyment and an understanding of Wagner's work, and the troll pops up with a pronouncement to the effect that Wagner was a completely despicable person whose work is antisemitic and shallow and who did and said nothing of value except for turning out some inexplicably good music now and then.

The message never changes, never becomes any more trenchant or useful or less wearisome, regardless of anything that's been said in the meantime that might lead a normally receptive human being to consider expanding and deepening his understanding of the accomplishments and significance of one of western culture's most potent and influential individuals. Sadly, there's nothing anyone can do about this. Trolls are possibly ineducable, and there is no law against them hanging about in ditches, mudballs in hand. All that we, who are _not_ blinded to an artist's greatness by his faults, can do is to go on sharing our feelings about, and insights into, the multifarious wonders of Wagner's works - wonders which only grow more wonderful the more we look into them - knowing that they will forever occupy a place far above the trajectory of any dirt which any small-minded, mean-spirited clodmaker can throw at them or at us.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> You are right I really don´t want any discussion.
> I should have expressed myself differently. My post was directed at DavidA to make him to have at least some sad feelings over the death of Sigfried and also to show that the death of Siegfried/Sigurd have been described as a profoundly sad event long before Wagner even if it was for different reasons. Then Wagner was not the only one using legends and historical events freely the real Don Carlo was not like in Verdis opera for example. I think it is worth to say that most of what DavidA comes up with against Siegfried is not what Wagner invented. Reading what DavidA writes one is given the imperssion that Wagner was a disgusting man with a sick fantasy. Siegfried was already like that. Still he has fascinated people for over 1000 years and this despite that he killed the dwarf that brought him up and did other things.


Thanks for clarifying, Sloe.

And for DavidA and anyone else who's missed the point, Mime was not a cuddly little fellow with warm paternal instincts knocked off by an ungrateful son. He was a mean, conniving little beast who brought up Siegfried solely for the purpose of obtaining the ring of power and avenging himself against his equally despicable brother Alberich.

That was "Nibelung Psych 101."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> That's the essence of it, isn't it? Wherever and whenever on this forum Wagner's work is discussed appreciatively, the troll crawls out of the ditch, throws mudballs at the passersby who are having a pleasant outing, and titters at the consternation he causes. I've been watching this little game ever since I first came on TC: someone mentions something, anything, that indicates an enjoyment and an understanding of Wagner's work, and the troll pops up with a pronouncement to the effect that Wagner was a completely despicable person whose work is antisemitic and shallow and who did and said nothing of value except for turning out some inexplicably good music now and then.
> 
> The message never changes, never becomes any more trenchant or useful or less wearisome, regardless of anything that's been said in the meantime that might lead a normally receptive human being to consider expanding and deepening his understanding of the accomplishments and significance of one of western culture's most potent and influential individuals. Sadly, there's nothing anyone can do about this. Trolls are possibly ineducable, and there is no law against them hanging about in ditches, mudballs in hand. All that we, who are _not_ blinded to an artist's greatness by his faults, can do is to go on sharing our feelings about, and insights into, the multifarious wonders of Wagner's works - wonders which only grow more wonderful the more we look into them - knowing that they will forever occupy a place far above the trajectory of any dirt which any small-minded, mean-spirited clodmaker can throw at them or at us.


I apologise Sir, that my opinions about someone neither of us know have caused you to resort to personal abuse to defend him!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I apologise Sir, that my opinions about someone neither of us know have caused you to resort to personal abuse to defend him!


Dead composers and their works can also be abused, by trivialization and the propagation of nonsense, innuendo, and outright falsehoods, as can a forum in which the activity known as trolling is not appreciated by anyone. I know it when I see it, and I will not hesitate to call it out, whether the subject is Wagner or anything else. If you continue cavalierly to throw stupid and provocative remarks into the midst of serious and responsible discussions, you can expect to have them pointed out to you by me and others. And if a description of what you're doing makes you feel abused, you might consider participating in conversations here instead of distracting from them. You might even find people enjoying what you have to say.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> With which she rises her steed into the fire in an act of self-immolation! Hmmm! Logic!


I cannoli do so much with indulging you, since I'm so full with such exquisite Italian take out from my favorite Italian restaurant in San Diego, _Arrividerci._

Anyway, Brunnhilde pasta way. Her heroic stance against the gods will become pizza history. I never sausage a tragic thing as her love for Siegfried. . . except of course for a soul which isn't consumed with the beauty of Wagner's poetry and music.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

I really got into Wagner since I discovered the thrilling performances of true artists who breathed life into their roles and respected the musical lines, not by the ones who barked and screamed with their so-called gigantic voices.

To me, it was:



1) *Waltraud Meier* singing the electrifying Act 2 of *Parsifal: *






2) *Jon Vickers* lamenting in Act 3 of *Tristan und Isolde*, the studio recording with Karajan:






3) *Elizabeth Schwarzkopf* and *Christa Ludwig* in *Lohengrin * excerpts released by EMI:






4) *Astrid Varnay* and her unsurpassed Liebestod, where every single detail is treated with dignity:






5) ... and when his Lieder are sung with perfect legato lines and the warmth of Italian style, like this:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I cannoli do so much with indulging you, since I'm so full with such exquisite Italian take out from my favorite Italian restaurant in San Diego, _Arrividerci._
> 
> Anyway, Brunnhilde pasta way. Her heroic stance against the gods will become pizza history. I never sausage a tragic thing as her love for Siegfried. . . except of course for a soul which isn't consumed with the beauty of Wagner's poetry and music.


You sausage and pizza? How did they come into it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Dead composers and their works can also be abused, by trivialization and the propagation of nonsense, innuendo, and outright falsehoods, as can a forum in which the activity known as trolling is not appreciated by anyone. I know it when I see it, and I will not hesitate to call it out, whether the subject is Wagner or anything else. If you continue cavalierly to throw stupid and provocative remarks into the midst of serious and responsible discussions, you can expect to have them pointed out to you by me and others. And if a description of what you're doing makes you feel abused, you might consider participating in conversations here instead of distracting from them. You might even find people enjoying what you have to say.


Instead of this personal abuse, I wish that you would point out the flaws in my opinions, opinions which are shared by many music lovers. I mean, even the worshipful Stephen Fry in his programme on Wagner had to admit that Wagner was. 'Nasty little man' although he wrote great music. I feel sometimes sad that people can take these works so seriously, as if there is some sort of way of life in them. Rather like a James Bond fan looking for a number plate of James Bond's car! It's the same with many of the great composers. Beethoven wrote great music but he was a pretty terrible man, by all accounts. Or do we have to have a moralisation of high art like the books of the composers I read as a child. Sorry, but I've grown out of this! Or the Victorian image of Shakespeare as some sort of noble being, which he probably wasn't! Isn't it time we came to a reality about some of these things not worship them?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You sausage and pizza? How did they come into it?


By being the only acceptable thing on the Sunday night menu:

They didn't have the shrimp scampi-- so pizza and pasta and sausage and antipasto salad it was.

(Lucky for me too, I don't think I could have punned 'shrimp scampi.') _;D_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for clarifying, Sloe.
> 
> And for DavidA and anyone else who's missed the point, Mime was not a cuddly little fellow with warm paternal instincts knocked off by an ungrateful son. He was a mean, conniving little beast who brought up Siegfried solely for the purpose of obtaining the ring of power and avenging himself against his equally despicable brother Alberich.
> 
> That was "Nibelung Psych 101."


My original post was a partly paraphrase of a satirical review which appeared in the first (LP) edition of the notes of the Solti Siegfried which I once possessed. Which shows that even Wagnerians can have a sense of humour. I'm sorry, I thought you would have caught the irony!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> By being the only acceptable thing on the Sunday night menu:
> 
> They didn't have the shrimp scampi-- so pizza and pasta and sausage and antipasto salad it was.
> 
> (Lucky for me too, I don't think I could have punned 'shrimp scampi.') _;D_


My apologies. It's early in the morning (7am) here and I missed the wit in your statement! Excellent semantics!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Instead of this personal abuse, I wish that you would point out the flaws in my opinions, opinions which are shared by many music lovers. I mean, even the worshipful Stephen Fry in his programme on Wagner had to admit that Wagner was. 'Nasty little man' although he wrote great music. I feel sometimes sad that people can take these works so seriously, as if there is some sort of way of life in them. Rather like a James Bond fan looking for a number plate of James Bond's car! It's the same with many of the great composers. Beethoven wrote great music but he was a pretty terrible man, by all accounts. Or do we have to have a moralisation of high art like the books of the composers I read as a child. Sorry, but I've grown out of this! Or the Victorian image of Shakespeare as some sort of noble being, which he probably wasn't! Isn't it time we came to a reality about some of these things not worship them?


Wagner had his faults as a man, but as an _artist_ he's one of the highest ridges in the aesthetic Alps.

Its often hard for me to hear his _ad hominid_ detractors because I'm at his summit, not unlike in Strauss' _Alpine Symphony_, looking_ downwards._ . . for _miles_.

Do forgive me for sticking to the art and to the view.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Wagner had his faults as a man, but as an _artist_ he's one of the highest ridges in the aesthetic Alps.
> 
> Its often hard for me to hear his _ad hominid_ detractors because I'm at his summit, not unlike in Strauss' _Alpine Symphony_, looking_ downwards._ . . for _miles_.
> 
> Do forgive me for sticking to the art and to the view.


I'm the same with Beethoven. But does sticking to the art mean worshipping the man? And even bring uncritical of the art? I think not!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> My apologies. It's early in the morning (7am) here and I missed the wit in your statement! Excellent semantics!


The most important thing is where to eat-- so my apologies for not taking disparate time zones into consideration.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'm the same with Beethoven. But does sticking to the art mean worshipping the man?


Absolutely not.

But it does mean worshiping his _art_.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> But it does mean worshiping his _art_.


Art is something to be enjoyed and appreciated - not worshipped!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> The most important thing is where to eat-- so my apologies for not taking disparate time zones into consideration.


No problem! I'm just pouring out my breakfast cereal!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Art is something to be enjoyed and appreciated - not worshipped!


Well, we can vigorously disagree on that one. _;D_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, we can vigorously disagree on that one. _;D_


Very interesting! You read her life history? I think she was a great diva but certainly wouldn't worship her!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Instead of this personal abuse, I wish that you would point out the flaws in my opinions, opinions which are shared by many music lovers. I mean, even the worshipful Stephen Fry in his programme on Wagner had to admit that Wagner was. 'Nasty little man' although he wrote great music. *I feel sometimes sad that people can take these works so seriously, as if there is some sort of way of life in them*. Rather like a James Bond fan looking for a number plate of James Bond's car! It's the same with many of the great composers. Beethoven wrote great music but he was a pretty terrible man, by all accounts. Or do we have to have a moralisation of high art like the books of the composers I read as a child. Sorry, but I've grown out of this! Or the Victorian image of Shakespeare as some sort of noble being, which he probably wasn't! Isn't it time we came to a reality about some of these things not worship them?


You feel sad that someone else dares to appreciate works that are not approved by you? And why would anybody look for a "way of life" in Wagner's operas? I think most people around here live as they see fit, without conforming to any religion or ideology. There are things in Wagner's operas and Wagner's characters that are admirable, but a way of life? Hardly.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You feel sad that someone else dares to appreciate works that are not approved by you? And why would anybody look for a "way of life" in Wagner's operas? I think most people around here live as they see fit, without conforming to any religion or ideology. There are things in Wagner's operas and Wagner's characters that are admirable, but a way of life? Hardly.


You appear to once again be attributing words to me that I never said. However, if you look at some of the posts it will become apparent that some people do see a 'way of life' in them. If not they need to choose their words more carefully. As to not approving of them - I didn't say that. When I'm in the mood, Wagner's music offers great entertainment value!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'm the same with Beethoven. But does sticking to the art mean *worshipping the man?* And even bring uncritical of the art? I think not!


This is a perfect example of why your comments are not respected here.

_Nothing anyone has ever written on this forum showing a love for Wagner's work indicates worship of the man._ To whom, exactly, are you attributing this "worship"? Can you cite an example? Of course you can't, because _no one here worships the man_.

Such irresponsible attributions of actions and motives are not going to be much appreciated by any individual to whom they may refer.

Now please consider this: I wrote the following about the Funeral March from _Gotterdammerung:_

*"What has died (for those who may have forgotten the story) is Wotan's grand scheme to redeem himself and to cleanse the world of the curse of the ring which he himself, "Licht-Alberich," brought upon it when he yielded to ambition and was ready, like his alter-ego "Schwarz-Alberich," to sacrifice love for power. Siegfried, a "pure fool" like Parsifal, was Wotan's last hope for an independent agent who would gain the gold from Fafner and return it to its origin. But unlike Parsifal, who saw through the seduction of false promises and understood his mission, Siegfried succumbed to deception. He was a hero in the making, but completely naive about the dark powers arrayed against him and the task Wotan had assigned him but was not permitted to help him understand or accomplish. The tragedy of Gotterdammerung, as the title tells us, is that of Wotan and, symbolically, of all innocence and greatness gone awry; the funeral music recalls the sorrows and strivings of Wotan's progeny, Siegmund, Sieglinde, and Siegfried, in whose uncorrupted spirit he had lodged his hopes, and it leaves us with a gloomy echo of Brunnhilde's love and a dark, ironic reminiscence of the exultant song the Rhinedaughters sang to their pure gold when the world was still unspoiled.

Much more than Siegfried has died. Power, fame, sexual love - all these paths to success, happiness and salvation on which humanity stakes its hopes are shown to be insufficient and to lead to tragedy. Wagner originally intended the message of the Ring to be a variant on the "redemption through a woman's love" theme which had dominated his thinking since Der Fliegende Hollander; but the tragedy of Tristan und Isolde, which so clearly revealed the futility of that ideal, was a turning point in his conception of the Ring as well. In the end, the love of women was Siegfried's undoing; even Brunnhilde's love could not survive the ring of deceit into which it was drawn, and it was only her insight into that deceit, and into the whole vast drama in which she and Siegfried had been pawns, that enabled her to break the curse of the gold, consign the gods to obsolescence, and give the world another chance.

Wagner's own illusions about love having died - this music may be heard as their threnody too - he had now only one assignment to complete before his death; to show those illusions in their clearest light and to create a hero whose innocence culminates in enlightenment rather than deception. Parsifal is a Siegfried who succeeds."
*
This was your response:

*"Hm An uncorrupted spirit indeed! He bullies the funny old dwarf who has brought him up in a way that would qualify him for the Hitler Youth. He then ends up by murdering the dwarf who is completely unarmed on the word of a talking bird. In the mean time he'd killed a dear old dragon who had long gone into retirement. He then discovers his aunt asleep on a rock and has an affair with her from whence he goes pretty pointlessly to meet Hagen and his motley crew. He then kidnaps his own wife so another man can have her and takes off with another woman.
Uncorrupted spirit? Maybe in Wagner's eyes. But I think not!"
*
Would you mind explaining to all of us in what way this is an appropriate or constructive response to a very thoughtful, informed, carefully written essay, and how it contributes to a meaningful conversation?

No, don't bother. Because a constructive response is not what it is or what it was intended to be. It was not intended as part of a meaningful conversation. It was intended to derail a meaningful conversation. It was posted at the expense of that meaningful conversation. It was disrespectful of me personally, of the thought and time and effort I put into what I wrote. It was _trolling_ - and _it is the sort of thing you do again and again, whenever the subject is Wagner._ And when people object to your outrageous trivializations, jejune opinions (such as calling the libretto to _Gotterdammerung_ "drivel," or saying that there is "more drama in _Carmen_ than in all of Wagner's works put together"), and other such attempts to be outrageous and annoying, you accuse them of "worshipping the man." Apparently you feel that anything less severe than complete condemnation of a deceased person you never met, which seems to be something you enjoy engaging in, constitutes "worship."

You've said that you sometimes feel "sad" for those who take Wagner's work "so seriously" because, you've said ad nauseam, opera is "just entertainment." Well, quite frankly, the level of arrogance and disrespect in that statement is stunning. Who, exactly, do you think you are to judge how "seriously" anyone takes anything, or ought to take the music they enjoy? And do you have any idea how utterly ludicrous it is, in light of the fact that Wagner has been one of the artists taken most seriously by generations of intelligent and knowledgeable people, for you to be telling people who may right now be making the thrilling discovery of his extraordinary art, how "sad" you would be if they took it seriously and, God forbid, felt that it meant something more to them than "just entertainment?"

If I had heard an adult say that when I was a young person discovering Wagner and feeling vast horizons of the imagination opening before me, I would have looked at that person as if he were a complete lunatic, and would have lost a measure of respect for my elders.

Here is the bottom line: If you perceive that other people here are enthusiastic in their love for Wagner or any other composer, the appropriate response is to respect their enthusiasm and to show that you respect it even if you don't share it. You needn't do anything extraordinary to show such respect. Most people actually know how and when to express a contrary opinion without insulting and offending those they disagree with. You seem confused about both the "how" and the "when."

Those of us who care for Wagner's art and have been here awhile are more than tired of your constant dismissals of what we love. You've made it clear over and over that you think Wagner has nothing worthwhile to offer beyond some attractive music. You could stop denigrating everything else about him right now, we would all still know (and still not care) just what you think, and you would not be missed.

And _Talk Classical_ would be the better for it.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

DavidA said:


> Very interesting! You read her life history? I think she was a great diva but certainly wouldn't worship her!


I believe this post belongs in the PHILISTINE thread! 

Apropos the subject in hand. Wagner came through listening to his Orchestral music first. Often there would be singing on the next track of the LP and eventually, after about ten years, I stopped taking the needle off the record at that point. Now there are some Wagner works I couldnt do without.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> This is a perfect example of why your comments are not respected here.
> 
> _Nothing anyone has ever written on this forum showing a love for Wagner's work indicates worship of the man._ To whom, exactly, are you attributing this "worship"? Can you cite an example? Of course you can't, because _no one here worships the man_.
> 
> ...


I just cannot believe you have taken the trouble to write all this. But I'm afraid it is typical of a certain 'type'! This 'type' also I'm afraid calls people names when a contrary opinion is offered! And if my comments are so worthless then why take the time and trouble writing all this? And where is any sense of humour? Oh dear! I am sorry!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

By all means discuss Wagner, his operas. his music, but please refrain from discussing each other unless you use words that are unmistakably positive.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ok moderator. 

Fiorst may I apologise if I have upset anyone. It was not my intention. Just to give my opinion.

Secondly, as a penance I've been listening to the last act of Gotterdamerung. The immolation scene with Karajan and Dernesche is surely the best on record. Radiant singing!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It's the same with many of the great composers. Beethoven wrote great music but he was a pretty terrible man, by all accounts.


DavidA, I say this with the utmost sincerity. In addition to attributing something to people that don't deserve the attribute in the first place (i.e. Wagner "worship"), it's also that type of blanket-statement that is the issue as well. You should read some of Woodduck's informative posts about Wagner, the person. Furthermore, Beethoven was not "a pretty terrible man, by all accounts". He had a nasty temper, yes, he also had an absolutely abhorrent episode with his sister-in-law and nephew, but these flaws don't make someone "terrible, by all accounts". Read a Beethoven biography and then make an *informed* assessment. Appreciate the nuances of life. Perhaps going stone-deaf as a composer had something to do with that temper. Perhaps his wonderful and "jolly" side, his immense love of nature, for human rights and freedom, his stance against governmental tyranny and oppression, his particular sense of humor, etc. could be taken into account.

He was a decent man who did some regrettable things. I can assure you, if that makes him a "pretty terrible man, by all accounts", then most people on this earth are "terrible people, by all accounts"!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

When I was 14, a neighbor had 2 orchestra seats to Die Walküre she couldn't use at the Met, with Birgit Nielsen, James Morris, etc; in their primes. So my brother and I went. When Siegmund pulled Notung out of the tree at the end of Act One, that did it. I was hooked. My first Wagner opera.

Within a few years from then, I had witnessed the entire Wagner Ring at the Met.

Unfortunately at this time Wagner does not hold the same grip on me as he did that magical wintry day in New York in 19...., well, never you mind!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

hpowders said:


> When I was 14, a neighbor had 2 orchestra seats to Die Walküre she couldn't use at the Met, with Birgit Nielsen, James Morris, etc; in their primes. So my brother and I went. When Siegmund pulled Notung out of the tree at the end of Act One, that did it. I was hooked. My first Wagner opera.
> 
> Within a few years from then, I had witnessed the entire Wagner Ring at the Met.
> 
> Unfortunately at this time Wagner does not hold the same grip on me as he did that magical wintry day in New York in 19...., well, never you mind!


Yes Birgit Nilsson was a great singer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> DavidA, I say this with the utmost sincerity. In addition to attributing something to people that don't deserve the attribute in the first place (i.e. Wagner "worship"), it's also that type of blanket-statement that is the issue as well. You should read some of Woodduck's informative posts about Wagner, the person. Furthermore, Beethoven was not "a pretty terrible man, by all accounts". He had a nasty temper, yes, he also had an absolutely abhorrent episode with his sister-in-law and nephew, but these flaws don't make someone "terrible, by all accounts". Read a Beethoven biography and then make an *informed* assessment. Appreciate the nuances of life. Perhaps going stone-deaf as a composer had something to do with that temper. Perhaps his wonderful and "jolly" side, his immense love of nature, for human rights and freedom, his stance against governmental tyranny and oppression, his particular sense of humor, etc. could be taken into account.
> 
> He was a decent man who did some regrettable things. I can assure you, if that makes him a "pretty terrible man, by all accounts", then most people on this earth are "terrible people, by all accounts"!


Sorry, but if you read an objective biography, Beethoven was a pretty awful man on a personal level who believed his behaviour was justified by his art. He treated his friends abominably at times. His works have a high philosophy that was not often translated into his personal life. He is my favourite composer btw! As a historian myself, I just cannot think why we must turn a blind eye to history in these matters.

As to Wagner, I would honestly go by the informed biographies I have on my shelves on the subject. Unfortunately, history reveals that, despite the protestations of those who will not see the faults, my assessment of Wagner the man reflects history as it was rather than imagined.

As to the works, of course, that is a far more subjective matter. But it should be said that they are are also a matter of intense debate among music lovers and those who write about music. Just read someone like Sir John Elliot Gardiner's assessment of Wagner. But does that automatically make Gardiner a Philistine and a troll?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but if you read an objective biography, Beethoven was a pretty awful man who believed his behaviour was justified by his art. He treated his friends abominably at times. I just cannot think why we must turn a blind eye to history in these matters.


The two best recent "objective" biographies are Cooper and Swafford. They show Beethoven as a mix of good and bad, like most of us, but probably with bigger-than-life reactions to things. Certainly not an "awful man," he had good friends through his life that stuck with him gladly despite his faults. He certainly was too quick to abuse his friends, but he was also capable of considerable generosity and kindness. I believe your view is somewhat distorted and simplistic.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

So, it's Wagner, Beethoven, Romantic love poetry (that you admitted the other day you cannot appreciate)... who/what else do you find awful?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The two best recent "objective" biographies are Cooper and Swafford. They show Beethoven as a mix of good and bad, like most of us, but probably with bigger-than-life reactions to things. Certainly not an "awful man," he had good friends through his life that stuck with him gladly despite his faults. He certainly was too quick to abuse his friends, but he was also capable of considerable generosity and kindness. I believe your view is somewhat distorted and simplistic.


Sorry, but it was the immense patience of his friends, in respect for Beethoven's art, that caused them to stick with him. I have no doubt like any genius he could be immensely good company. But he's not a man I'd have liked to have got close to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> So, it's Wagner, Beethoven, Romantic love poetry (that you admitted the other day you cannot appreciate)... who/what else do you find awful?


Do you actually read what I say? I did not say I didn't appreciate them or find the music (at least) awful! Please read what I actually put! It depends on what view you taken history. You can either take the romantic Victorian view of history where all artists are great men. Or you can take an objective view of history in that many of the men who produced such incredible music were actually pretty flawed themselves. This fact does not detract me in the slightest from appreciating the music because I have come to terms with this fact.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but it was the immense patience of his friends, in respect for Beethoven's art, that caused them to stick with him. I have no doubt like any genius he could be immensely good company. But he's not a man I'd have liked to have got close to.


I'm not sure I would have been terribly fond of Ludwig either. But that's a very long way from saying he was a "pretty awful man." I truly find your comment to be poorly founded and intemperate.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'm not sure I would have been terribly fond of Ludwig either. But that's a very long way from saying he was a "pretty awful man." I truly find your comment to be poorly founded and intemperate.


No. Just factual and not tinged with romance. Of course the poor guy had to deal with this terrible onset of deafness and may even have suffered lead poisoning as he may have been alcoholic like his father. We can only be grateful for the loyal friends who did stick by him allowing him to produce the works of immense genius we now have.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Do you actually read what I say? I did not say I didn't appreciate them or find the music (at least) awful! Please read what I actually put! It depends on what view you taken history. You can either take the romantic Victorian view of history where all artists are great men. Or you can take an objective view of history in that many of the men who produced such incredible music were actually pretty flawed themselves. This fact does not detract me in the slightest from appreciating the music because I have come to terms with this fact.


If you have come to terms with this fact and it does not detract you from appreciating the music, then why do you make a point of going around the forums repeating this over and over again?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> If you have come to terms with this fact and it does not detract you from appreciating the music, then why do you make a point of going around the forums repeating this over and over again?


I might ask you why you keep on about certain things! It's a forum!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but if you read an objective biography, *Beethoven was a pretty awful man* on a personal level who believed his behaviour was justified by his art. He treated his friends abominably at times. His works have a high philosophy that was not often translated into his personal life. He is my favourite composer btw! As a historian myself, I just cannot think why we must turn a blind eye to history in these matters.
> 
> As to Wagner, I would honestly go by the informed biographies I have on my shelves on the subject. Unfortunately, history reveals that, despite the protestations of those who will not see the faults, my assessment of Wagner the man reflects history as it was rather than imagined.
> 
> As to the works, of course, that is a far more subjective matter. But it should be said that they are are also a matter of intense debate among music lovers and those who write about music. Just read someone like Sir John Elliot Gardiner's assessment of Wagner. But does that automatically make Gardiner a Philistine and a troll?


Yes. You can add the fact that Beethoven attempted to cheat his publishers. Some "moral compass". He was a man not to be trusted. Add the abhorrent way he treated his brother, sister-in-law and nephew and you have a good case classifying Beethoven as "a pretty awful" human being.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

It's a pretty weak case, but then again, I'm guessing we all disagree on what constitutes a "_pretty awful human being, by all accounts_".


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> So, it's Wagner, Beethoven, Romantic love poetry (that you admitted the other day you cannot appreciate)... who/what else do you find awful?


Historical vocal recordings- he hates those. Apparently they all just sound like somebody singing out of tune. 

(Not that I have a long memory for such remarks or would dream of holding a grudge against anyone who utters them.) :angel:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> Historical vocal recordings- he hates those. Apparently they all just sound like somebody singing out of tune.
> 
> (Not that I have a long memory for such remarks or would dream of holding a grudge against anyone who utters them.) :angel:


You are not quite correct! I do not listen to such recordings as they often sound like someone singing out of tune, probably because of the primitive technology. In any caae, why hold a grudge against someone for that? Please listen all you like to such things!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

My tribulations with Wagner continue! I recently saw a set (I thought) of Karajan's Parsifal advertised on Amazon from Japan for just £10-50 which seemed a huge bargain. I checked to see that it was a complete set and it said it was and so I bought it. Just come it's a disc of highlights with Japanese notes! Wagner and I don't get on very well. Would warn everyone else though that this his a (conscious or unconscious) scam. I'm demanding my money back.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> My tribulations with Wagner continue! I recently saw a set (I thought) of Karajan's Parsifal advertised on Amazon from Japan for just £10-50 which seemed a huge bargain. I checked to see that it was a complete set and it said it was and so I bought it. Just come it's a disc of highlights with Japanese notes! Wagner and I don't get on very well. Would warn everyone else though that this his a (conscious or unconscious) scam. I'm demanding my money back.


I take it you don't want me to recommend recordings of Wagner highlights from the acoustic era, then?

It's a shame. You're missing out.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I take it you don't want me to recommend recordings of Wagner highlights from the acoustic era, then?
> 
> It's a shame. You're missing out.


Think I might have been better off!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA-

OK- but you know there is also a thread for people who DON'T like Wagner? Just a suggestion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> DavidA-
> 
> OK- but you know there is also a thread for people who DON'T like Wagner? Just a suggestion.


I do like Wagner! It's just when people make it into a religion almost. I like the music despite the man.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Blame "Bayreuth" for that.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> DavidA-
> 
> OK- but you know there is also a thread for people who DON'T like Wagner? Just a suggestion.


*Oh yes??* *Give me their names please!!!*


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

hpowders said:


> *Oh yes??* *Give me their names please!!!*


For their own personal safety on TC they wish to remain anonymous!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

DavidA said:


> My tribulations with Wagner continue! I recently saw a set (I thought) of Karajan's Parsifal advertised on Amazon from Japan for just £10-50 which seemed a huge bargain. I checked to see that it was a complete set and it said it was and so I bought it. Just come it's a disc of highlights with Japanese notes! Wagner and I don't get on very well. Would warn everyone else though that this his a (conscious or unconscious) scam. I'm demanding my money back.


Just say I got my money back!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Just say I got my money back!


Someone else here had the same thing happen.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Someone else here had the same thing happen.


In all fairness someone admitted the error - that the disc of highlights had been advertised with the complete opera.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I got into Wagner's music as a young kid (around 8-10 years) through watching that Richard Burton's Wagner as well as Peter Hofmann's Lohengrin.

Hardcore watching of Boulez's Phillips Bayreuth Ring on VHS at a friend's place didn't help either (irony).


----------



## Speranza (Nov 22, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> I got into Wagner's music as a young kid (around 8-10 years) through watching that Richard Burton's Wagner


I just watched Burton's Wagner! I knew Wagner was bad but I really didn't know how bad, that show was a revelation.

When I was about 17 I was on a DVD rental scheme thought I would try some opera and fell in love with it (obviously) I had heard of the Ring cycle so tried it and liked the first two operas not so much the last two the productions were awful ( I couldn't get a complete set so each opera was from a different theatre, not a great idea retrospectively). So that was my first encounter with Wagner I liked him but didn't love him but over the years trying out more of his operas and with another better Ring Cycle I have grown to appreciate him a lot more


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm going to Tannhäuser on Tuesday after Der fliegende Holländer & Parsifal. can't wait to see it.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

perempe said:


> I'm going to Tannhäuser on Tuesday after Der fliegende Holländer & Parsifal. can't wait to see it.


Where at? I would like to know.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

Budapest. I got tickets for 3 performances. (i missed the 1st.)


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

I enjoyed all the 3 performances of Tannhäuser. Robert Dean Smith was awesome in the title role, but the male choir was weak for the finale.

I loved Parsifal, but it wasn't as good as Tannhäuser for the 2nd time. (I saw 2 performances last season.) am I the only one?


----------



## xpangaeax (Oct 1, 2013)

As I was going to my first Met HD Broadcast in December 2012, I looked at what else the Met had that season, and it included something called "the complete Ring cycle." I was turned on by the idea of 4 Operas that work together to tell an even larger story, so I blindly downloaded a complete Ring and let it sit on my iPod, waiting to be played. I poked around with much enjoyment, I may have listened to Die Walkure all the way through sometime last year (or maybe it was just Acts I-II) since devoting several hours at a time to listening wasn't always convenient. It was actually just in October when I went to see Magic Flute at the Met proper that I decided "I'm in." The next night I consumed Don Giovanni on an eternal subway ride around NY, and on the bus home from New York, I listened to Gotterdammerung in full, and was completely enthralled. Go big or go home, right?


----------



## Jathon Delsy (Dec 14, 2014)

Wagner's Ring, conducted by Bohm, Bayreuth 1967, and the classic Solti Decca set. I'd recently discovered opera, and was recovering from a giddy intoxication with the wonders of Mozart's miracles, and I wanted more, so I borrowed Bohm's Rhiengold from the library. Straight away I was impressed, but a bit perplexed by this music. Deciding to investigate more, I gave the opera a concentrated listen while following the libretto in the little booklet provided, having to flick between the German for the timing and the English translation as I don't understand German. Suddenly a whole wonderful world of musical drama opened out in my mind. When the Rheinmaiden greeted the sun and sung the praises of the Rheingold, I veritably had a pseudo spiritual experience, a vivid vision, deeply moving. Then it dropped into place, then I understood the vast power of Wagner, one of the greatest artists ever. I then purchased the Solti set, which was much listened too. This was highly entertaining due to the sumptuous orchestral presence and the stellar cast of star singers. However I still thought of the Bohm Rheingold, which I felt had a deeper penetration, more psychological depth than Solti, so I purchased the full set, and despite it's slightly ropey sound engineering, this straight away became my favourite ring, with Bohm's sweeping overall vision and slick timing. 
Had a similar spiritual visionary experience following the libretto to Parsifal, the part where you first see the Grail. Wow!!
Been obsessed with Wagner ever since!!


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I forget exactly how to be honest, but I've been listening for ~9 years or so. Wagner's anti-semitism has never bothered me, if something is the 8th wonder of the world, it's the 8th wonder of the world, even if it was built with slave labor or workers who were conscripted or coerced (which, I might add, is not true of the pyramids). I find it difficult to see any anti-semitism in his operas, people talk about the Nibelung, Beckmesser, and Kundry, but these are all hypotheses and not facts. Wagner wrote down almost everything he thought, and if he wanted his works to be anti-semetic allegories, we would know it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Wagner wrote down almost everything he thought, and if he wanted his works to be anti-semetic allegories, we would know it.


That is a good point.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I forget exactly how to be honest, but I've been listening for ~9 years or so. Wagner's anti-semitism has never bothered me, if something is the 8th wonder of the world, it's the 8th wonder of the world, even if it was built with slave labor or workers who were conscripted or coerced (which, I might add, is not true of the pyramids). I find it difficult to see any anti-semitism in his operas, people talk about the Nibelung, Beckmesser, and Kundry, but these are all hypotheses and not facts. Wagner wrote down almost everything he thought, and if he wanted his works to be anti-semetic allegories, we would know it.


I suggest you read Barry Millington's Sorcerer of Bayreuth on this point


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I suggest you read Barry Millington's Sorcerer of Bayreuth on this point


I've read enough biographies of Wagner to know what is usually pointed to as indicators of anti-semitism in Wagner's operas, they're usually very speculative and anecdotal.....but if Millington's work is so convincing, why don't you tell me what his incriminating evidence is?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I've read enough biographies of Wagner to know what is usually pointed to as indicators of anti-semitism in Wagner's operas, *they're usually very speculative and anecdotal*.....but if Millington's work is so convincing, why don't you tell me what his incriminating evidence is?


They're always speculative and anecdotal.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I've read enough biographies of Wagner to know what is usually pointed to as indicators of anti-semitism in Wagner's operas, they're usually very speculative and anecdotal.....but if Millington's work is so convincing, why don't you tell me what his incriminating evidence is?


I don't want to enrage those to whom Wagner is untouchable! Read the chapter 'The Grit in the Oyster'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> They're always speculative and anecdotal.


Hmm it's pretty convincing!


----------



## atmplayspiano (Apr 12, 2014)

My mom bought two tickets to see The Flying Dutchman, which I wanted to see because it had the Spinning Chorus. From the first notes of the overture, I was enchanted.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I find it difficult to see any anti-semitism in his operas, people talk about the Nibelung, Beckmesser, and Kundry, but these are all hypotheses and not facts. Wagner wrote down almost everything he thought, and if he wanted his works to be anti-semetic allegories, we would know it. I've read enough biographies of Wagner to know what is usually pointed to as indicators of anti-semitism in Wagner's operas, they're usually very speculative and anecdotal.....but if Millington's work is so convincing, why don't you tell me what his incriminating evidence is?


Speculative and anecdotal? Yes: _very_ speculative, and scarcely even anecdotal.

I do _not_ recommend Millington as an introduction to, or an analysis of, Wagner's works. His efforts to read the composer's well-established personal anti-semitism into the operas are, like all such efforts, strained, and clearly the result of a determined effort to inject ideas which cannot be found by examining - or, most importantly, experiencing - the works themselves.

Look at these statements about _Parsifal_: "There is no denying that the light of compassion burns brightly throughout this work. Compassion and an obsession with racial purity are its twin poles." Millington gives textual references from the opera to show the former "pole," but apparently cannot find any such references to show the latter - because there _are_ none. And this: "Just as the notions of compassion and fellow suffering are common to both Christianity and Buddhism, so hatred -- in this case of other races -- may be seen as the obverse of love. Two sides of the same coin, love and hate, add up to a world view formulated on the concepts of racial purity and regeneration of the species." Again, there are no textual supports for the "hatred" side of the coin, much less "racial" hatred. Really, the statement is nonsensical: the interjection of the _opposites of the elements actually identifiable in the work_ as proof of his theory clearly exposes Millington's agenda. That he apparently failed to notice the fallaciousness of his procedure should be an embarrassment to him.

_Wagner was perfectly and notoriously explicit about his anti-semitic views._ The fact that he left us much commentary on the meaning of his operas in articles, diaries and letters, but not a single statement indicating the presence of an anti-semitic theme in any of them, is the clearest indication that such themes are not present. In order to believe that they are, we must believe either that he was unaware of them himself - an untenable notion, given his intensely philosophical nature, his breadth and clarity of focus in matters of his art, and his voluble writings and conversations - or that he meant them to be esoteric in nature, well-enough disguised that only a handful of initiates or zealots would perceive them - an approach completely alien to an artist who sought to make his points as emphatically as possible.

There have been numerous purportedly scholarly offerings by academics and critics whose anti-Wagnerian fanaticism, race-conscious self-righteousness, and, we might surmise, desire for prestige and the money it might bring (the lives of academics and critics are typically humdrum) have led them into bizarre and contorted misrepresentations of Wagner's work. Reinterpreting the operas as anti-semitic tracts is something of a cottage industry, and there are unfortunately enough people seemingly burdened with the painful legacy of anti-semitism, with the political fashionableness that requires a pretense of it, or with the simple cynical desire to make a splash and make a buck, to keep the industry going. We don't need to share in their burdens. Wagner's operas speak quite potently for themselves, and they present rich enough artistic experiences, weighted with a sufficient complexity of meaning and symbolic suggestiveness, to keep us busy for a long time. And the knowledge we derive from a first-hand experience of them is, finally, the best tool we have for putting Mr. Millington's and other such theories into perspective.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Speculative and anecdotal? Yes: _very_ speculative, and scarcely even anecdotal.
> 
> I do _not_ recommend Millington as an introduction to, or an analysis of, Wagner's works. His efforts to read the composer's well-established personal anti-semitism into the operas are, like all such efforts, strained, and clearly the result of a determined effort to inject ideas which cannot be found by examining - or, most importantly, experiencing - the works themselves.
> 
> ...


I really think you actually need to read the whole of Millington's chapter other than quoting pieces out of context. He is of course not unsympathetic to the composer. But as he points out the anti-semitism was the grit in the oyster. I do realise that nothing can convince Wagner devotees that the operas are anything less than whiter than white, but as Millington shows, this less savoury element has to be taken into account. I'm not going to bang on about it as I know it upsets people like you, dear friend. But I couldn't help noticing it when I saw Mastersingers the other day. Of course it's not blatant - Wagner was too subtle an artist - but it's there. I would just say the whole of Millington's chapter and hence argument needs attention not just a quote.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Well, I didn't actually go into Wagner, but I lifted the trapdoor and looked. Listened to the strains of an overture that were drifting out. Dropped the door and went away.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> *I really think you actually need to read the whole of Millington's chapter other than quoting pieces out of context.* He is of course not unsympathetic to the composer. But as he points out the anti-semitism was the grit in the oyster. *I do realise that nothing can convince Wagner devotees* that the operas are anything less than whiter than white, but as Millington shows, this less savoury element has to be taken into account. I'm not going to bang on about it as I know it upsets people like you, dear friend. But* I couldn't help noticing it when I saw Mastersingers the other day. Of course it's not blatant - Wagner was too subtle an artist *- but it's there. I would just say the whole of Millington's chapter and hence argument needs attention not just a quote.


It is not for me or anyone else to _disprove_ your allegation that Wagner's operas are anti-semitic. It is for _you_ to _prove_ it.

If you are going to throw this allegation repeatedly into discussions on this forum, you need show your credentials and come up with the goods. You need to do more than gossip. You need to do more than cite bogus theories and authors who are trying to impress their academic peers and sell books to the gullible.

What, precisely, was the "it" that you noticed in _Die Meistersinger_ the other day? Were there Jewish characters walking around the streets of Nuremberg? Were there conversations in Yiddish in the village square? Someone wearing spitcurls and a yarmulke? A menorah in one of the good burgers' windows? A cantor in the song contest? Banners bearing swastikas on Johannestag? Did Shylock wander in from Venice? Did Joseph Goebbels time-travel back to the sixteenth century?

Be concrete. Sly evasions such as "of course it's not blatant - Wagner was too subtle an artist" will not cut the mustard. Yes, Wagner is subtle, but he was never coy as you have been coy on this subject, and he was never the least bit shy about saying what he meant. If there are Jews in hiding in Wagner's Nuremberg we all need to know who they are, what are the signs of their ethnic and cultural identity, and who is providing them with shelter and disguises so that we can be sure not to share in Wagner's prejudice and mistreatment of them.

And after you've done that, you might begin to sort out for us who are the Jews and the gentiles in _Parsifal_ and the _Ring_.

You declined to answer Gaspard de la Nuit's request for examples of Millington's "evidence" on grounds that you didn't want to "enrage those to whom Wagner is untouchable." Well, Wagner is not untouchable and no one is enraged. The road is clear. Kindly put your money where your mouth is and give us the clear evidence you claim to be privy to.

Please don't keep us "Wagner devotees" forever in suspense.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

*Woodduck*, I don't think you will ever see any clear evidence coming. All you will get is more beating about the bush.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> It is not for me or anyone else to _disprove_ your allegation that Wagner's operas are anti-semitic. It is for _you_ to _prove_ it.
> 
> If you are going to throw this allegation repeatedly into discussions on this forum, you need show your credentials and come up with the goods. You need to do more than gossip. You need to do more than cite bogus theories and authors who are trying to impress their academic peers and sell books to the gullible.
> 
> ...


I won't bother. If it's not there at all why do so many people say that it is? People with vastly more qualifications than thee or me? I don't want to upset you Wagner devotees as I know whatever evidence is presented you will rise in defence. So I don't see the point. I'll just say I believe it's there. Millington is actually one of the best balanced treaties I have read on the subject. He doesn't paint Wagner as a proto-type Nazi neither does he whitewash him or the operas as his devotees want to do. it appears to me that our problem is that your devotion to Wagner appears to be such that any opinion of him or his works that doesn't show him in the best light is almost tantamount to heresy. I am not being a heretic. I am just giving my opinion, one shared by people of far greater knowledge than myself. It is not an opinion about a god-man but an extremely fallible human being who wrote music which provides great entertainment. I can enjoy the operas while living with his failings just as I can appreciate (e.g.) John Lennon's songs while realising Lennon was (IMO) in some ways a pretty obnoxious individual. That is the level we operate on - opinion. Sorry if mine offends you. But I just don't see why we have to go over all this again when there are dozens of learned tomes - for and against - on the subject. I mean, what on earth has Goebbels and swastikas got to do with Mastersingers? You put that in not me!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA;780924[B said:


> ]*I won't bother.[/B] If it's not there at all why do so many people say that it is?** People with vastly more qualifications than thee or me?* I don't want to upset you Wagner devotees as I know whatever evidence is presented you will rise in defence. *So I don't see the point. I'll just say I believe it's there.* Millington is actually one of the best balanced treaties I have read on the subject. He doesn't paint Wagner as a proto-type Nazi neither does he whitewash him or the operas as his devotees want to do. it appears to me that our problem is that your devotion to Wagner appears to be such that any opinion of him or his works that doesn't show him in the best light is almost tantamount to heresy. I am not being a heretic. *I am just giving my opinion*, one shared by people of far greater knowledge than myself. It is not an opinion about a god-man but an extremely fallible human being who wrote music which provides great entertainment. I can enjoy the operas while living with his failings just as I can appreciate (e.g.) John Lennon's songs while realising Lennon was (IMO) in some ways a pretty obnoxious individual. That is the level we operate on - opinion. Sorry if mine offends you. But *I just don't see why we have to go over all this again when there are dozens of learned tomes - for and against - on the subject.* I mean, what on earth has Goebbels and swastikas got to do with Mastersingers? You put that in not me!


Well. So there it is. You accuse an artist of embedding anti-semitic messages in his work, and when asked for proof you appeal to so-called authorities - the ones you imagine to be "vastly more qualified" than those of us who dispute their perverse theories - and then you turn tail and run from your own argument.

That Wagner held anti-semitic views is a fact. That his works contain anti-semitic messages is not a fact. It is an allegation based on the interpretations of some people. You are apparently one of those people.

But you cannot pretend to take anti-semitism seriously if, when you claim it, you refuse to back up your claim with evidence. And you do realize that it's a rather serious claim, don't you? A claim of this nature made without solid evidence would strike most people as offensive. No, not offensive to Wagner the man - God knows he deserved, and has received, censure for some of his personal behavior - but offensive to reason and truth. Wagner has inspired many such offenses, just as he committed them himself. That is not a valid excuse for adding to them.

You are correct in saying that it would be much better if we did not "go over all this again," and the way to not go over it all again is for you to either take responsibility for the things you say or just quit repeating them. If you do insist on repeating them you will not go unchallenged. That is a promise.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2014)

It's not difficult to find _some _evidence, though not proof, that there is a degree of anti-semitism in Die Meistersingers - if we take the spartan summary in wikipedia to be a reliable source.

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


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Scholars Dieter Borchmeyer, Udo Bermbach (de) and Hermann Danuser (de) support the thesis that with the character of Beckmesser, Wagner did not intend to allude to Jewish stereotypes, but rather to criticize (academic) pedantism in general. They point out similarities to the figure of Malvolio in Shakespeare's comedy Twelfth Night.[19]


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Not following the 28 pages here and going back to the first post, I got into Wagner in my late teens/early 20s. I only got into the overtures and that because I was used to hard rock music at the time. Never listened to any other Wagner until recently when I got Meistersinger, which I like a lot. I probably will not get into any other Wagner and don't listen to the overtures any more.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> It's not difficult to find _some _evidence, though not proof, that there is a degree of anti-semitism in Die Meistersingers - if we take the spartan summary in wikipedia to be a reliable source.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Meistersinger_von_Nurnberg


The allegation about _Meistersinger_ is that the comic villain Beckmesser somehow exemplifies Jewish stereotypes. The problem is that these things are very much in the eye of the beholder, that the pedantic and ultraconservative town clerk and guild member need not be seen as Jewish in any way, and that there is no external support in any statements by Wagner for this interpretation. The only possible connection to Jewishness is that Wagner apparently once considered naming the character Hanslich, after the conservative anti-Wagnerian music critic Eduard Hanslick, who was part Jewish. But the traits wagner lampoons in Beckmesser are pedantry and extreme conservatism, characteristics of Hanslick as a critic and defender of tradition in music, but not stereotypically Jewish traits. Given this, the view that Beckmesser is a portrait of a Jewish type is tenuous at best and completely irrelevant to the themes of the opera.

Attempts to find Jewish stereotypes in Wagner's other operas are on at least equally shaky ground. If a composer/dramatist with Wagner's powers of characterization had actually wanted to depict Jewish stereotypes, he could have done a very convincing job of it. But it was not one of his artistic goals.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well. So there it is. You accuse an artist of embedding anti-semitic messages in his work, and when asked for proof you appeal to so-called authorities - the ones you imagine to be "vastly more qualified" than those of us who dispute their perverse theories - and then you turn tail and run from your own argument.
> 
> That Wagner held anti-semitic views is a fact. That his works contain anti-semitic messages is not a fact. It is an allegation based on the interpretations of some people. You are apparently one of those people.
> 
> ...


There again you say I said things I don't! It is not possible to discuss with someone who misquotes you all the time. You have said I believed Mastersingers was synonymous with Goebbels and swastikas or something like that. Now you're at it again. I did not say there are 'antisemitic messages' in the works. I said 'antisemitic elements! That is rather different. I note you are quite happy to admit the man to be an obnoxious racist (a fact of history) while imagining the works come up smelling of roses! The notion of such a firewall between the man and his works is nonsense as few comporser's works have been so ideologically motivated as Wagner's. You might just as well say that the theme of freedom is absent from Beethoven's works! Just take Beckmesser. Of course, in the opera, he's not a Jew in the opera as a Jew in those days would never have been town clerk. But certain of the way Wagner portrays him in the opera in his mangled speech patterns evoke Mausheln, the bizarre travesty language attributed by Germans to Jews. Of course, Wagner also puts into Beckmesser the satire of self-important, pompous critics, reactionary cultural philistines, etc.. But hidden in there are anti-semitic elements.
Same with Mime really. Mahler was in no doubt about it: "I am convinced that this figure is the true embodiment of a Jew, intended by Wagner, with the spirit of persiflage (in every trait with which he has imbued him: the petty cleverness, the greed, the whole _Jargon_ so perfectly suggest by music and text". 
Of course you will say that this is all wrong. That Mahler was wrong. But sorry, I believe it's there. Something we have to come to terms with when we listen to the works.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm late to the party here, but I can't see how you can acknowledge Wagner's antisemitism on the one hand (it's uncontestable, of course) while denying it exists in the operas on the other! Even if you could "prove" that Mime, Alberich, Hagen, and Beckmesser (not that I know Meistersinger well) are not intended to be antisemitic parodies, surely the "coincidence" that they're so strikingly similar (understatement) to contemporary antisemitic parody and imagery means that Wagner's personal views could not help bleeding into the operas? 

I've also wondered if Klingsor is a nasty Jewish parody? I guess I'll be told by the esteemed members here


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dgee said:


> I'm late to the party here, but I can't see how you can acknowledge Wagner's antisemitism on the one hand (it's uncontestable, of course) while denying it exists in the operas on the other! Even if you could "prove" that Mime, Alberich, Hagen, and Beckmesser (not that I know Meistersinger well) are not intended to be antisemitic parodies, surely the "coincidence" that they're so strikingly similar (understatement) to contemporary antisemitic parody and imagery means that Wagner's personal views could not help bleeding into the operas?
> 
> I've also wondered if Klingsor is a nasty Jewish parody? I guess I'll be told by the esteemed members here


You miss my point: Beckmesser is not an antisemitic parody. But his parody contains antisemitic elements.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

DavidA said:


> You miss my point: Beckmesser is not an antisemitic parody. But his parody contains antisemitic elements.


Agreed - but I still think Wagner uses the characteristics of antisemitic imagery in all these baddies


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Scholars Dieter Borchmeyer, Udo Bermbach (de) and Hermann Danuser (de) support the thesis that with the character of Beckmesser, Wagner did not intend to allude to Jewish stereotypes, but rather to criticize (academic) pedantism in general. They point out similarities to the figure of Malvolio in Shakespeare's comedy Twelfth Night.[19]


You missed this quote out:

In a 2009 interview Katharina Wagner, the composer's great-granddaughter and co-director of the Bayreuth Festival, was asked whether she believed Wagner relied on Jewish stereotypes in his operas. Her response was, "With Beckmesser he probably did."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There will alway be a contingent of people who want very much, for reaons of their own, to find Semitic stereotypes in Wagner's operatic villains. And there is a subcontingent - Paul Laurence Rose, Robert Gutman, Barry Millington - who go beyond even this and twist themselves into pretzels to reinterpret the stories of the operas as allegories of racial purity - and even to try to prove that the music itself is somehow an expression of "hatred" (Rose's word) - in order to tie Wagner as closely as possible to the atrocities of Nazism and the intimate relations between Hitler and Bayreuth decades after Wagner's death. The fixations and obsessions of these people are certainly variously motivated.

I have known Wagner's works intimately for fifty years. I spent about a decade and a half, from my late teens to my early thirties, avidly listening to them, studying them and analyzing them, from the standponts of their musical structure, literary origins, and symbology, and reading everything about their composer I could get my hands on. I went on to share my knowledge with others by conducting classes in which a group of people of various musical and other backgrounds would gather, read the librettos, discuss them, and listen to the operas one by one, followed by further discussion. I still have copious quantities of notes from those times and those sessions. And one of the nicest results of that time spent immersed in Wagner's world was that a good friend, a cultural anthroplogist and a non-musician, became an enthusiast of great perceptiveness with whom, through subsequent years extending to the present day, I have been able to discuss not only Wagner but other musical topics from points of view which differ from and complement my own.

I do not need to be informed about the opinions of others on the subject of Wagner's anti-semitism or its supposed presence in his operas. I know their opinions. And I know that their theories do not bear close examination. It really is not enough to say that because Wagner was in some general sense "ideologically motivated" that it "would be surprising" if his antisemitism did not "bleed into" his operas. I realize that for those intent on finding it there, any coincidence of the slightest magnitude will be sufficient proof. I have discovered that rational argument and objective evidence do not prevail against the prejudices of the ideologically determined. But for those who are not so determined, I can only suggest a deeper acquaintance with the operas themselves - with their librettos and their music - with what the composer himself had to say about them - which was a great deal - and with the wide range of interpretations by people who have studied and performed them. Of course this is an ambitious project which most people are not going to undertake, and so we are always going to have superficially informed people of varying dispositions easily swayed by the fanatical, eccentric, and ideologically motivated theories of academics and critics who publish glossy volumes with catchy titles for popular consumption.

It is not necessary to point out that antisemitism was an issue of intense and growing seriousness in Europe (and in America) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and that a Jew such as Mahler would naturally have been deeply sensitive about his ethnicity. He expressed concern with regard to a performance of _Siegfried_ that the role of the dwarf Mime should not be acted in such a way as to suggest Jewish stereotypes. That such a physically deformed, calculating creature could be viewed as suggestive of such stereotypes is perfectly understandable, given the times, and that Mahler should have such sensitivities is equally understandable. None of these factors constitutes the slightest evidence that Wagner intended for his Nibelungs to be seen as representatives of Jewishness. The dramatis personae of the _Ring _ represent the full gamut of imaginary beings, from those of the underworld to those of the the heavens, and his characterizations run the full gamut from the hideous to the beautiful. This is the world of fairy tale and myth; this is the way that that world is, and always has been, constituted. The motivations of the characters tell a story which, whatever its cultural resonances for its own or any other time, deals with timeless human motivations of good and evil, to the understanding of which an issue such as racial and cultural purity is simply irrelevant. Wagner was, as dramatist, a genius at paring his themes and situations down to essentials; the materials from which he drew were copious and full of random detail from which he had to cull just those features which would convey his themes. He was very clear about these themes, and what he wanted above all was to get at what he considered the central human meaning of every character, situation, and symbol he chose to include. His art is an art of sharply defined essences - essences which often have enough resonances to keep people busy analyzing his meanings from the standpoints of philosophy, psychology, religion, politics, what have you - but essences from which all detail that might distract from his central dramatic purposes has been stripped and purged. The length and musical lavishness of his operas, their epic scale, should not distract us from their dramatic concision.

Antisemitism was certainly an issue for Wagner (as it was for vast numbers of people in his place and time). But what it was not was an issue for dramatic treatment. And it cannot be shown to have "bled into" his dramatic conceptions in any demonstrable way. If some people cannot look at a swarthy, dwarfish, power-driven creature of the underworld, or a tight-lipped, pedantic town clerk, or a self-abused sorcerer trying to destroy the knights of the Grail, without thinking "Wagner's sense of reality was so dominated by a hatred of Jews that these villainous characters in his operas must be projections of that hatred," I can only suggest that their own personal obsessions have got the better of them, and that the antisemitism in question is not a projection of Wagner's state of mind but of their own.

One last observation about Beckmesser: Wagner does not describe this character's appearance or mannerisms in the libretto of _Meistersinger_. There are no instructions from the composer which would lead any producer or performer to try to project any "Jewish" qualities in his characterization. An attempt has also been made to tie certain qualities of his music to Jewish cantorial music. Let me assure anyone in doubt that this is completely spurious: I know cantorial music well, I treasure the recorded work of some of the greatest cantors, and it's quite obvious to me that Beckmesser's _Meisterlied_ does not resemble it in any way.

Those convinced by their own need to believe that a villainous or comical character conceived by an anti-semitic composer must be an ugly symbol of Jewishness are probably impervious to reason on the issue. That matters of racial prejudice breed irrational conviction, as much among the discriminated against and their self-styled defenders as among the discriminators, is obvious and perennially tragic. I realize that asking such people to prove their case cannot produce any such proof. I ask them to do so only so that those not so convinced can see the flimsiness or nonexistence of the case they are trying to foist on us by constantly raising the issue in so irresponsible a fashion. If they can't see their own intellectual carelessness and the speciousness of their arguments, they may at least be pressed into making these things clear to the rest of us.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> There will alway be a contingent of people who want very much, for reaons of their own, to find Semitic stereotypes in Wagner's operatic villains. And there is a subcontingent - Paul Laurence Rose, Robert Gutman, Barry Millington - who go beyond even this and twist themselves into pretzels to reinterpret the stories of the operas as allegories of racial purity - and even to try to prove that the music itself is somehow an expression of "hatred" (Rose's word) - in order to tie Wagner as closely as possible to the atrocities of Nazism and the intimate relations between Hitler and Bayreuth decades after Wagner's death. The fixations and obsessions of these people are certainly variously motivated.


I find this sort of reasoning incredible. People who find anti-semitism in the operas of a man who was known to be by his own writings a pretty vicious anti-semite, have 'fixations and obsessions'. I would say the opposite may also be said: people who fail to see it has bled from the man into his music dramas are fixated and obsessed with clearing the operas of all trace of what their creator, on his own admission, passionately believed. Sorry, but the arguments come over to be as denial. To accuse people who take a different view to you of the "flimsiness or nonexistence of the case they are trying to foist on us by constantly raising the issue in so irresponsible a fashion" is not an intellectual argument but an emotional one. You have done research, which I respect. I have also done research and so do others who take a different view to you. We've come to different conclusions. To accuse those who disagree with you of "intellectual carelessness" is to protest too much in defence of your hero. The very fact that this argument still rages in books and articles - written by people of far greater intellectual and musical qualification than us here - shows at least there are two sides to the story. I just cannot see why you must make these accusations about those who disagree with you. Please at least respect someone else's argument even if it differs from your own conclusions. Let's just agree to differ on this and enjoy the music!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> You missed this quote out:
> 
> In a 2009 interview Katharina Wagner, the composer's great-granddaughter and co-director of the Bayreuth Festival, was asked whether she believed Wagner relied on Jewish stereotypes in his operas. Her response was, "With Beckmesser he* probably did*."


Pretty weak testimony.
What's her proof?
Why'd she say probably?
Speculation.
The scholars are correct.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Pretty weak testimony.
> What's her proof?
> Why'd she say probably?
> Speculation.
> The scholars are correct.


Note that there are other scholars who say differently!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Katharina probably said it just to be "politically correct". I think if questioned more closely, she would not bring out any proof either.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I find this sort of reasoning incredible. People who find anti-semitism in the operas of a man who was known to be by his own writings a pretty vicious anti-semite, have 'fixations and obsessions'. I would say the opposite may also be said: people who fail to see it has bled from the man into his music dramas are fixated and obsessed with clearing the operas of all trace of what their creator, on his own admission, passionately believed. Sorry, but the arguments come over to be as denial. To accuse people who take a different view to you of the *"flimsiness or nonexistence of the case they are trying to foist on us by constantly raising the issue in so irresponsible a fashion" *is not an intellectual argument but an emotional one. You have done research, which I respect. I have also done research and so do others who take a different view to you. We've come to different conclusions. To accuse those who disagree with you of *"intellectual carelessness"* is to protest too much in defence of your hero. *The very fact that this argument still rages in books and articles - written by people of far greater intellectual and musical qualification than us here - shows at least there are two sides to the story.* I just cannot see why you must make these accusations about those who disagree with you. Please at least respect someone else's argument even if it differs from your own conclusions. Let's just agree to differ on this and enjoy the music!


I'm sorry that the concept of _evidence_ means so little to you.

It is your "opinion" that there is antisemitism in Wagner's operas. You have been reiterating that opinion since - and no doubt since before - I entered this forum. I have asked you for clear evidence. You have cited as "evidence" the opinions of others. That may be sufficient for you. Some of us require more.

I say: Find the antisemitism. Find the words and actions and music _in the operas_ which are antisemitic. Find a single word of Wagner, in his writings or in his recorded conversations, in which he said he intended an antisemitic meaning in those operas. Find them and tell us what they are so that we will all see the light. Can't find them? Then your opinion is nothing but an opinion. My Aunt Edna has an opinion too.

I'll give you a little credit here. You did attempt to cite Beckmesser's "mangled speech patterns" in _Meistersinger_, which you think are supposed to be reminiscent of Mausheln, a "bizarre travesty language attributed by Germans to Jews." But there is a problem with this assertion. Beckmesser does not have mangled speech patterns. He does not speak a "travesty language." He speaks perfectly good German, just like everyone else in the opera. The only time his "speech patterns" break up is when, nervous and flustered by Walther's prize song as written in Sachs's hand, he is unable to understand what's on the paper and misreads, while attempting to sing, the words of the song. But maybe I shouldn't blame you for choosing a non-example of what you're trying to prove. You may simply have been repeating someone else's "opinion," as you did when you quoted Mahler's opinion of Mime. And Mahler, as I've said before, had his own intensely personal sensitivities to deal with, having experienced antisemitic opposition first-hand.

The evidence for antisemitic characterizations is not in the operas. Neither is it in Wagner's writings. _All we have _are "opinions" - and if you are unaware of the extent of the fixations, obsessions, ideologies and agendas behind the numerous bizarre and hostile interpretations of Wagner's operas which continue to proliferate, I suggest you begin by reading Robert Gutman's _Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music_ (quite an old book by now, but still a classic of intellectual dishonesty, especially with respect to _Parsifal_) and Paul Laurence Rose's _Wagner: Race __and Revolution_. Or maybe I shouldn't recommend them. They might just give you ideas.

[The remainder of his post somehow got deleted rather than saved during the editing process. New conclusion below.]

I am asking for some intellectual responsibility in the discussion of this subject. I have given reasons in several posts why Wagner is unlikely to have inserted representations of Jewishness in his operas, reasons based on the nature of his dramatic concerns and methods. The only reasons anyone has given for believing he did so are the presumption that he was so possessed by antisemitism that it couldn't help influencing his operas, and the opinion of some people that it is present in them. But neither of these assertions will hold up to logic or evidence. The first is a mere supposition about Wagner's artistic goals and methods and about how his personal prejudices influenced them, a supposition to which we are not entitled. And the second is merely opinion. Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are better than others. Which ones? The ones backed by genuine evidence.

Aunt Edna's opinion doesn't make the cut. And Katharina Wagner's doesn't either - until she gives solid evidence for it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'm sorry that the concept of _evidence_ means so little to you.
> 
> for it.


As a historian evidence means a lot to me! However I can see that what ever evidence we present you would be unconvinced by such is your regard for Wagner's operas as some form of holy grail. That's fine! But please note it is your opinion. I have mine which is shared by many other people who are far more versed in the arts than me! It is not a case of ignoring evidence - we all have it - but interpreting it historically. But I still cannot see why we take these things so seriously. After all we are dealing with opera - entertainment! I Revere Mozart operas but I do know (eg) that Mozarts views and prejudices leaked over into some of his his operas some of which we might find distasteful today. It doesn't worry me as I view them as entertainment not a way of life! Anyway, there is no point in keeping this argument going as we're not going to agree!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> As a historian evidence means a lot to me! However I can see that what ever evidence we present you would be unconvinced by such is your regard for Wagner's operas as some form of holy grail. That's fine! But please note it is your opinion. I have mine which is shared by many other people who are far more versed in the arts than me! It is not a case of ignoring evidence - we all have it - but interpreting it historically. But I still cannot see why we take these things so seriously. After all we are dealing with opera - entertainment! I Revere Mozart operas but I do know (eg) that Mozarts views and prejudices leaked over into some of his his operas some of which we might find distasteful today. It doesn't worry me as I view them as entertainment not a way of life! Anyway, there is no point in keeping this argument going as we're not going to agree!


Yes, we disagree. And I really don't care what notions you have inside your head. But here, on a thread called "How did you get into Wagner and when?", there are likely to be people new to Wagner who are trying to understand his work. Wagner is a unique, complex, and controversial artist, and for many people, coming to grips with him can be a complex undertaking. My hope is that people such as yourself, who seem eager to publicize your negative views of Wagner on any thread with his name attached, will be willing to allow such beginners to have an opportunity to confront the operas on those operas' own explicit musical and dramatic terms.

I was only 17 when I read Robert Gutman's absurd attempt to turn _Parsifal_ into a proto-Nazi, antisemitic tract, but fortunately I had already known the opera, read a good deal about it, been overwhelmed by the beauty of its music, and formed very distinct impressions of my own. I therefore had little difficulty seeing Gutman's hatchet job for the tendentious piece of rubbish it is. I don't know how beginners with less of a feel for Wagner's music would react to being advised to look for antisemitic themes and stereotypes in Wagner's work even before they know the composer's stated intentions for his works, or know what the works themselves, unmediated by "interpretations," are saying to them. But I would hope that no one's first encounter with Wagner's brilliantly drawn characters would be colored by the thought that they are supposed to be caricatures of Jews, and that the key to Wagner's underlying dramatic meanings is to be found in his antisemitism. That would be a very serious misconception, unjust to Wagner and unfair to those exploring his work.

I think honesty should compel even those committed to a view of Wagner's work as antisemitic to admit that theirs is not even close to being a majority view. Most listeners to Wagner's operas are either unconvinced by the notion or unconcerned with it. And my experience - as well as the experience of friends to whom I have introduced the operas - tells me very clearly that without being told to look for them, people do not think "Jewish caricature" when they listen to _Meistersinger_, _Parsifal_, and the _Ring_, and that even once they are told that some people think they ought to look for them they are most likely not to see them. You may hypothesize that these initiates are just ignorant and in need of an intensive course in antisemitism. But if I were you I would think twice about throwing around allegations which cannot be definitively shown to be anything more than that. People will, one hopes, make up their own minds about these things. But works of art should be allowed to speak for themselves, and those engaged in the wonderful process of discovering those works do not need to be preached to about lurking artistic demons for the sole apparent purpose of saving them from excessive pleasure.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> *I don't know how beginners with less of a feel for Wagner's music would react to being advised to look for antisemitic themes and stereotypes in Wagner's work even before they know the composer's stated intentions for his works, or know what the works themselves, unmediated by "interpretations," are saying to them.* But I would hope that no one's first encounter with Wagner's brilliantly drawn characters would be colored by the thought that they are supposed to be caricatures of Jews, and that the key to Wagner's underlying dramatic meanings is to be found in his antisemitism. That would be a very serious misconception, unjust to Wagner and unfair to those exploring his work.


I think beginners should be adviced to listen to Wagner, not to read books about Wagner. It is not like the operas are inaccessible without some book on how they should be interpreted. Their meaning and their beauty is very direct, and all you need to understand them is a CD, a listening device, a libretto and a receptive heart. What a beginner definitely does not need is a book author with some kind of agenda to tell him how to interpret them and what to look for in them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> And I really don't care what notions you have inside your head.
> 
> People will, one hopes, make up their own minds about these things. .


When you say, "And I really don't care what notions you have inside your head," does that mean you have no respect for another person's viewpoint if it doesn't happen to coincide with your own on this subject? I find this puzzling as I see it hotly debated on the internet and in just about every book I have on Wagner - yes I have a few as I find him a fascinating character. Just what is the majority view is difficult to say as there seem plenty of people with a lot to say each way! My view is the quite reasonable one that you cannot divorce the works from the views held by the man. I mean, you would not deny the influence of Schopenhauer in the works so why deny that anti-semitism (a view strongly held by Wagner) has also found its way in too? It's no big intellectual leap! You say that people have to make up their own minds on the works. OK I have! As I don't think we'll get any further I'll rest my case! Please don't be offended!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There has always been debate about the meaning of Wagner's work and about his cultural significance, and it seems there always will be. About the only thing that isn't seriously debated is that he was a genius of major proportions - loved or hated, but indisputably a genius. I think it's quite a tribute to him that our culture is still trying to figure out where to place him in its history, books are still being published trying to tell us what his work is really about, stage directors view him as an open invitation to parade their most bizarre conceptions, and meanwhile listeners just go on thinking that he wrote some of the most powerful and amazing music they've ever heard.

Both as an artist and as a human being, Wagner transgressed accepted boundaries and went to extremes. It makes him fascinating, but it also tends to inspire extreme reactions and extreme viewpoints. Anyone who has more than scratched the surface of the literature about him has encountered efforts, beginning in his own lifetime, to use his work as propaganda for all manner of causes, and as evidence for intellectual positions which may or may not have a real or demonstrable basis in the work itself. A large part of the difficulty lies in the simple fact that, when he wasn't composing, Wagner wrote and talked a great deal; and while his art in itself is sufficiently complex and suggestive to keep scholars and critics busy, the sheer volume of his often obscure and contradictory views on every sort of issue - musical, cultural, religious, political, sexual, dietary - can easily muddy the waters for anyone wanting to relate the man's work to his life. It is easy to caricature Wagner the man as something almost inhuman, taking his most outrageous behaviors and ideas as representing the whole of him; and it is consequently tempting for many to expect these same traits and ideas to be expressed, overtly or surreptitiously, in his music dramas. 

The notion that an artist's work is somehow a portrait of the artist himself - that we can reliably understand the work by looking at the man, and the man by looking at the work - is a virtual cliche of our culture, but it is not an eternal verity; it is in fact a creation of the Romantic era and is part of that era's view of art as self-expression, as opposed to an expression of wider social or religious values. It might seem reasonable to assume that the work of a composer so widely regarded as a climactic figure of musical Romanticism would be particularly amenable to this approach. But we are far from safe in assuming that our views of Wagner's art, if we attempt to see it through the filter of his life and his extra-musical ideas, are likely to correspond either to his own artistic aims or to their results as embodied in his finished works. The sheer diversity of interpretations of those works, the provocativeness, tendentiousness, and outright bizarreness of many of these interpretations, and the continuing insistence of scholars and critics on churning them out year after year, suggest quite eloquently the need for caution and humility on the part of anyone presuming to speak for the composer's meanings and intentions.

I don't intend here to offer any specific views of Wagner's work. If I did it would be just one more such effort among thousands. But I am trying to urge caution upon anyone attempting to do so, by pointing out that any critical view of Wagner's art ought to be regarded circumspectly, and the more so the more it attempts to explain the content of his operas in terms of ideologies and cultural movements surrounding them, whether derived from the composer's thinking or from other's views and uses of them. It is partly the fault of Wagner's flawed ideologies that he came to be associated with the evils of the single worst political horror of modern European history. But if it is a mistake to assume that Wagner's own thinking and motivation would have been sympathetic to that horror, it is doubly a mistake to read his association with it, created by others after his death, back into the operas themselves, or to assume that Wagner in creating them was trying to embody any of the specific ideas which his exploiters have claimed to find there. 

In trying to understand any artist's work, the first and final court of appeal must be the work itself.
Artists may say much, or little, or nothing at all, about their creations and about what they are trying to achieve or convey. Some of what they say may be interesting or useful; but on the whole it is of little more use in coming to grips with the work than the opinions of anyone else. Art has a life independent of its creator; and every artist realizes at some point - usually, I think, with a certain amazement - that that life begins during the act of creation itself. A painting, a novel, a musical work, once an artist has set down the initial ideas which have inspired him, will proceed according to its own internal logic, and quite possibly in ways the artist could not have predicted. Wagner understood this very well when he wrote to August Roeckel, "How can an artist expect that what he has felt intuitively should be perfectly realized by others, seeing that he himself feels in the presence of his work, if it is true Art, that he is confronted by a riddle, about which he, too, might have illusions, just as another might?"

Humility is not a characteristic we associate with Wagner. But every great artist has experienced the kind of humility before his art - the sense that it is somehow greater than he is - which Wagner expressed in that letter. The understanding that an art work has to stand ultimately on its own, and must be approached first and last in terms of what it visibly or audibly contains, not in terms of what anyone, including the artist, says about it - that is the understanding with which we should approach the immense achievement of the composer/dramatist Wagner. It is up against the intrinsic qualities of that achievement that any interpretation of Wagner's works, coming from the standpoint of any ideology or agenda, must be measured. And it is in offering interpretations of our own that we should be at least as humble before those works as the composer himself.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

The thing I like about Wagner, the man, is that he made it, he beat the system. Mozart had to eat with the servants, when invited to to the houses of the great and good. Beethoven did one better, he demanded a top place at dinner when he played for the great and good. But it is only with Wagner that the great and the good came to his table where he could bore them with German philosophy.

There is a great line in the Wagner TV series. Where Wagner at the opening at Bayreuth sees an invited German Prince and says "There is the man who tried to execute me". 


The Master was the greatest genius of the 19thC. He invented the concept of the music festival, the kids at Glastonbury should see him as their spiritual godfather. He also turned conducting into an art and just look at his pupils....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

"There has always been debate about the meaning of Wagner's work and about his cultural significance, and it seems there always will be. About the only thing that isn't seriously debated is that he was a genius of major proportions - loved or hated, but indisputably a genius."

We can agree on that!


----------



## Admiral (Dec 27, 2014)

I first came to Wagner when I came across the Karajan Ring highlights LP at my college music library. I liked Nothung (James King?) but didn't listen to much else, and I was more of a Verdian then, soaking up Leonard Warren, Milnes, and Gobbi. 

Fast-forward 20 years and when SACD came out I became an early adapter, and bought everything I could get my hands, one of which was the Szell Wagner orchestral highlights disc. I loved that disc, but it was quite a stretch to get into the actual operas. I think Reingold (Solti) started me off perhaps 5 years ago but I was still take-it-or-leave-it at that point.

Then last winter came brutally cold, and with months spent indoors I just started buying different sets and comparing different interpretations. An article in Stereophile recommended the Keilbarth cycle and that's the one that really locked it in for me. Then came the 1953 cycle, Furtwangler,etc. Went to NYC for Parsifal. Fully hooked now.

So I'd love to say that I knew Wagner represented the highest integrated art from the start, but I became hooked by the stunning singing of the 1950s casts of Hotter, Modl, and especially Varnay. I'm still in the throes of discovery of the high art of the integrated nature of the orchestral writing, the drama itself, and the various productions. A rewarding journey of fits and starts over 30 years, with miles to go.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

there were some very loud choir parts in our Hollander today. (it was awesome.) does it have to be real loud?

I think the male choir at the finale of Tannhäuser wasn't loud enough in our opera house. (the female choir was already loud, but the male choir was weak compared to the recordings. they need energy when they start singing.)


----------



## Il Pirata 98 (Jan 31, 2016)

I was ten years old and listening to Test Match Special on BBC Radio 3. That ended and a piece of music started which I turned up rather loudly. It was the overture from Tannhauser (although I didn't know it at the time), then I went off opera and got in to it once again via Inspector Morse. That led to visiting ENO, and the rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I came in to Wagner because I thought I had to buy the Ring Cycle. On my first several attempts to listen to it, I thought it was deplorable. Rheingold - boring, Walkure - dull as dishwater. Then I listened to Siegfried and liked it. For a long time, I only really listened to Siegfried. Fast forward 16 years and I'm down right obsessed and madly in love with the whole damn thing. Of course our tastes change and mature over time. I'm so glad I didn't give up on this sucker. It's truly amazing. I love Tristan and Parsifal too. The one I struggle with most today is Meistersinger.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> "There has always been debate about the meaning of Wagner's work and about his cultural significance, and it seems there always will be. About the only thing that isn't seriously debated is that he was a genius of major proportions - loved or hated, but indisputably a genius."
> 
> We can agree on that!


Well said! I questioned his anti-semitism when I started listening to his works. I lived with a Jewish friend at the time and he was well aware of Wagner's anti-semitism. I asked him his thoughts. He said, "You have to separate men from their art." I think that's a good attitude. I don't see the anti-semitism in his works. I see love and goodness reigning over all, and evil losing every time. Then again, I am no scholar. No doubt he was an anti-Semite, but many a European were back then. It's disgusting, of course, but I don't like Wagner as a human being, I love his works. That's it.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

gellio said:


> The one I struggle with most today is Meistersinger.


There's an easy cure for that; just think of the Beckmesser/Sachs duel in Act II as the Forging Scene from _Siegfried_ and it'll all start to make sense... the rest of both shows are pretty much the same


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> There's an easy cure for that; just think of the Beckmesser/Sachs duel in Act II as the Forging Scene from _Siegfried_ and it'll all start to make sense... the rest of both shows are pretty much the same


I have no idea what this means but for some reason it made me laugh.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Some descents into Sillyville are expected in Wagner threads, no? I got into Wagner thru 2 things. Buying his operas and watching them with Libretto, translation, and zero distractions. I'm not saying it's not music you can't come back to. I'm saying it's a world you either want to be a part of or don't. And i felt warmth and gratification within minutes. I think Bruckner is the only other composer I wanted very badly to love. The rest I was rather openminded about. But with Bruckner and Wagner, I was on a mission. Although this mentality can lead to extreme disappointment, it can also lead to wonder, as in my case.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

gellio said:


> Well said! I questioned his anti-semitism when I started listening to his works. I lived with a Jewish friend at the time and he was well aware of Wagner's anti-semitism. I asked him his thoughts. He said, "You have to separate men from their art." I think that's a good attitude. I don't see the anti-semitism in his works. I see love and goodness reigning over all, and evil losing every time. Then again, I am no scholar. No doubt he was an anti-Semite, but many a European were back then. It's disgusting, of course, but I don't like Wagner as a human being, I love his works. That's it.


I take everything about Wagner, aside from music, with a grain of salt. Our lives would all be drastically different were we born a Kardashian, a Hilton, or a bedouin. I refuse to judge anyone, and I have no idea what it was like to be him. Or what he went through. I have a very difficult time separating artist from work, and thats a ME problem. I wouldn't shop at a bakery if I knew the owner was racist or anything offensive really. But it's a business and I'd be giving business to a vile person. If any of my money has snuck it's way into Wagner's grave, I apologize profusely. Perhaps, THAT'S how you get into Wagner. Literally. My money goes to support music, musicians, and the future of music.


----------



## Jeffrey Smith (Jan 2, 2016)

gellio said:


> Well said! I questioned his anti-semitism when I started listening to his works. I lived with a Jewish friend at the time and he was well aware of Wagner's anti-semitism. I asked him his thoughts. He said, "You have to separate men from their art." I think that's a good attitude. I don't see the anti-semitism in his works. I see love and goodness reigning over all, and evil losing every time. Then again, I am no scholar. No doubt he was an anti-Semite, but many a European were back then. It's disgusting, of course, but I don't like Wagner as a human being, I love his works. That's it.


The best attitude is summed up in a quote attributed to Leonard Bernstein: "I despise Wagner on bended knee." (Quote from memory, the precise wording may be wrong".

There is also a line from Swan Song by Edmund Crispin (pen name of musician Bruce Montgomery) which is set amidst an Oxford production of Meistersinger. One character notes that it was odd how the Nazis loved the Ring, when the whole point of the cycle revolved around the fact that not even the gods could break their promises without disastrous consequences.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jeffrey Smith said:


> The best attitude is summed up in a quote attributed to Leonard Bernstein: "I despise Wagner on bended knee." (Quote from memory, the precise wording may be wrong".
> 
> There is also a line from Swan Song by Edmund Crispin (pen name of musician Bruce Montgomery) which is set amidst an Oxford production of Meistersinger. One character notes that it was odd how the Nazis loved the Ring, when the whole point of the cycle revolved around the fact that not even the gods could break their promises without disastrous consequences.


Of course it wasn't the Nazis who loved the _Ring_, but Hitler. If we can believe the accounts, most of his underlings were bored stiff having to sit through their Fuehrer's interminable operatic entertainments.

Not only the _Ring_, but all Wagner's operas, deal at least subtextually and often explicitly with the hollowness, hypocrisy, and oppressiveness of society and its institutions and official spokesmen - political, economic, religious, or artistic - and with the struggle of the individual to find liberty, love, and salvation in a world that enforces conformity to customs and ideologies. Although Wagner left behind the utopian socialist-anarchist fervor of his youth (which got him branded as a criminal and forced his exile to Switzerland), he never lost his contempt for the forces in society which hamper the free pursuit of the individual's happiness and fulfillment. It's telling that however bitter his personal antisemitism could be, he distanced himself emphatically, when approached by antisemitic activists in his late years, from any proposals to abridge the civil liberties of Jews.

If Hitler had actually understood how profoundly anti-ideological, anti-establishment, and anti-totalitarian Wagner was, he would have banned his works, not venerated them.


----------



## Dawood (Oct 11, 2015)

kangxi said:


> How old were you when you started listening to Wagner, and what was your route into the music?


Seeing as I've just emerged from Die Walkure's Third Act, I was reflecting upon the very same questions.

For years I associated Wagner with anti-Semitism and 'cheesy' music. To be honest I didn't have much to go on. Sure I'd heard the Ride of the Valkyries but only in snippets. And Siegfried's funeral march, which I did think was pretty awesome. But I guess, last year when I started listening to opera again I find myself wondering about the Ring Cycle. I'd heard about the complexity and over the years some folk who I've admired I knew to be fans (the Russian director Eisenstein). So at the age of 41 I sat down and listened to the third act of the Die Walkure (I can't remember who was the conductor now maybe Solti? Gergiev?) and it's pretty much been an experience that I am truly relishing.

My plan is next to turn to Siegfried. And then the Twilight. But I'm patient.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I don't know how, but never...sorry


----------



## rspader (May 14, 2014)

How? Met Opera on Demand. When? Yesterday. Das Rheingold. Blew me away!


----------



## Jeffrey Smith (Jan 2, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Of course it wasn't the Nazis who loved the _Ring_, but Hitler. If we can believe the accounts, most of his underlings were bored stiff having to sit through their Fuehrer's interminable operatic entertainments.
> 
> Not only the _Ring_, but all Wagner's operas, deal at least subtextually and often explicitly with the hollowness, hypocrisy, and oppressiveness of society and its institutions and official spokesmen - political, economic, religious, or artistic - and with the struggle of the individual to find liberty, love, and salvation in a world that enforces conformity to customs and ideologies. Although Wagner left behind the utopian socialist-anarchist fervor of his youth (which got him branded as a criminal and forced his exile to Switzerland), he never lost his contempt for the forces in society which hamper the free pursuit of the individual's happiness and fulfillment. It's telling that however bitter his personal antisemitism could be, he distanced himself emphatically, when approached by antisemitic activists in his late years, from any proposals to abridge the civil liberties of Jews.
> 
> If Hitler had actually understood how profoundly anti-ideological, anti-establishment, and anti-totalitarian Wagner was, he would have banned his works, not venerated them.


The final passage of Rheingold is a very apt and cynical portrayal of politics. I am referring to the dialogue that immediately precedes and accompanies the passage known in orchestral form as _Entrance of the Gods into Valhalla_.
In very summary paraphrase:

Rhinemaidens: We want the Ring back!
Wotan: Who is disrupting my grand occassion with their whining!
Loge: The Rhinemaidens want their treasure back.
Wotan: Tell them to shut up!
Loge: You nixies! Quiet down! Don't interrupt! You are supposed to admire this grand affair! 
Rhinemaidens: Fair but false these people are.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Jeffrey Smith said:


> Loge: You nixies! Quiet down! Don't interrupt! You are supposed to admire this grand affair!
> Rhinemaidens: Fair but false these people are.


"False and cowardly" - "falsch und feig" - an even more cynical portrayal of politics, perhaps.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I think honesty should compel even those committed to a view of Wagner's work as antisemitic to admit that theirs is not even close to being a majority view. Most listeners to Wagner's operas are either unconvinced by the notion or unconcerned with it. And my experience - as well as the experience of friends to whom I have introduced the operas - tells me very clearly that without being told to look for them, people do not think "Jewish caricature" when they listen to _Meistersinger_, _Parsifal_, and the _Ring_, and that even once they are told that some people think they ought to look for them they are most likely not to see them..


I have to admit that just for pure curiosity I have introduced his operas to people I know who know NOTHING about Wagner -- nothing about his life, his art, his antisemitism, Hitler's love of his music the Nazis appropriation of it, or any of the other controversies, to kind of probe and question them to see if I could get some insights into this "antisemitism in the operas" debate. Trust me when I say that such people really do exist!! So I have started out by playing them some of his music, reading them synopses of the plots and talking deeper meanings of the operas. Then I will go into some about his reputation as being a pretty awful human being, his antisemitism and his notorious essay, and explain the posthumous ties with Hitler. At this point there is some puzzlement and needed clarification that Wagner died a half century before the Nazis came to power. But when finally I talk about the debate over the alleged antisemtism in the works themselves, there is nothing but bewilderment over how stories that don't portray or reference Jews could possibly contain any kind of racist messages.

I think that when one immerses oneself in thinking about these issues, and in learning about Wagner's life and his opinions and philosophies, and trying to figure out how they are all tied into the works he created, it is so easy to lose sight of what's obvious. And sometime difficult to engage with his operas in a pure, unburdened way.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

4 years old - The Flying Dutchman.


----------



## cdavid (Feb 2, 2016)

I actually haven't really gotten into Wagner yet. But, a week ago I was searching YouTube for Lorin Maazel videos, and found a recording of him conduction 'The Ring Without Words' with a Japanese orchestra. Something of a "greatest hits" compilation, I suppose? I really enjoyed it. It made the task of getting to know Wagner just a little less daunting.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Faustian said:


> I have to admit that just for pure curiosity I have introduced his operas to people I know who know NOTHING about Wagner -- nothing about his life, his art, his antisemitism, Hitler's love of his music the Nazis appropriation of it, or any of the other controversies, to kind of probe and question them to see if I could get some insights into this "antisemitism in the operas" debate. Trust me when I say that such people really do exist!! So I have started out by playing them some of his music, reading them synopses of the plots and talking deeper meanings of the operas. Then I will go into some about his reputation as being a pretty awful human being, his antisemitism and his notorious essay, and explain the posthumous ties with Hitler. At this point there is some puzzlement and needed clarification that Wagner died a half century before the Nazis came to power. But when finally I talk about the debate over the alleged antisemtism in the works themselves, there is nothing but bewilderment over how stories that don't portray or reference Jews could possibly contain any kind of racist messages.
> 
> I think that when one immerses oneself in thinking about these issues, and in learning about Wagner's life and his opinions and philosophies, and trying to figure out how they are all tied into the works he created, it is so easy to lose sight of what's obvious. And sometime difficult to engage with his operas in a pure, unburdened way.


I love this post but must warn you. Common sense is rarely rewarded here.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Ever since I got into classical music, Wagner was one of those imposing peaks that intimidated me as much as he intrigued me. I intentionally held off listening to his music until I made may way through more the of the musical and operatic repertoire before him. It was mostly a good friend of mine who was a huge Wagner fan, huge enough that he's at work on a 1000+ page that analyzes The Ring's music ind epth, that inspired me to finally take the plunge. At the time I think I bought the Solti/Wagner box set that contained all his work post-Dutchman. I listened, instantly became obsessed, and have never looked back. Tristan and Isolde, especially, is one of those works that owned my life for a time. For a time I was listening to it everyday, breaking down in trembling tears after every performance. The Ring was almost as powerful, Parsifal as well.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Faustian said:


> I think that when one immerses oneself in thinking about these issues, and in learning about Wagner's life and his opinions and philosophies, and trying to figure out how they are all tied into the works he created, it is so easy to lose sight of what's obvious. And sometime difficult to engage with his operas in a pure, unburdened way.


I think the only way to read antisemitism in the operas if you go into them knowing Wagner was an antisemite. However, once you know that it is possible to read certain characters as Jewish caricatures, but only once you know that. I've always said that that artists, being multi-faceted human beings, do not necessarily include every aspect of their lives, beliefs, etc. in their art. In fact, before the age of romanticism, art that focused on the self was quite rare. Authors like Shakespeare and Chaucer would've balked at the idea (the closest the former got was the sonnets, initially meant for private audiences; the closest the latter got was usually brief caricatures of himself). For Wagner, I think he was extremely concerned with abstract philosophies, things like Schopenhauer and the will to power VS the relinquishing of that willful drive. In that respect, Wagner may have seen the Jews as being representative of that will to power/money, but in his work he was more interested in condemning the philosophy itself, rather than those he saw that he thought practiced it. That's why we have gods and dwarves rather than monks and Jews.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Back in the early 1970s I got the Solti Ring on interlibrary loan. I have no recollection of exactly why I did that, but it was a good move. I must have played those LPs several dozen times before my time was up on them, and shortly thereafter I borrowed them again. 

I wonder why I did that....I must have read something about the leitmotifs, which I found fascinating. But what that may have been, at this point I have no memory whatsoever.


----------



## Scopitone (Nov 22, 2015)

Still making my way through the thread. But one thing I noticed: A lot of people's stories here seem to fit the concept frequently quoted by those of us into the Grateful Dead: "You don't find the Dead; the Dead find you." It's all about timing. 

Certainly, that was my experience with the music of the Dead. And it's also been my experience with Wagner. I have been exposed to it throughout the years, even seeing and enjoying a performance of Rheingold 10 or 11 years ago. But the day it HOOKED me was when I heard the Tannhäuser opening for the first time. 

And that was simply someone's mentioning it in another forum. But when I listened to that piece, I got it.

I didn't find Wagner; Wagner found me.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

My parents use to play Wagner quiet a lot , so.....the apple and the tree .


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2016)

> How did you get into Wagner, and when?


I didn't, yet. I suspect that I will continue to explore other composers before I get to Wagner who holds no immediate attractions for me. But then, I've grown familiar with only a handful of the greats, and with so many to choose from, who can say where my caprice will take me next?

Now, perhaps if he'd written a symphony.


----------



## Ginger (Jul 14, 2016)

Pugg said:


> My parents use to play Wagner quiet a lot , so.....the apple and the tree .


The same works for me. Being exposed to Wagner all the time doesn't leave you a chance...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ginger said:


> The same works for me. Being exposed to Wagner all the time doesn't leave you a chance...


My mother grew up in a Wagner-loving household. It didn't rub off on her much. Perhaps it can skip a generation? I loved Wagner's operas the first time I heard them.


----------



## Ginger (Jul 14, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> My mother grew up in a Wagner-loving household. It didn't rub off on her much. Perhaps it can skip a generation? I loved Wagner's operas the first time I heard them.


 Probably it does. The mysterious gene of Wagner-love. My mother took me to the opera to see 'Holländer' when I was seven. I loved it, but only when I was a few years older and when I discovered Lohengrin and the other Wagner operas on my own, I thought 'What??? THIS is all Wagner???' I had heard most of it before at home. Simply not thinking about what it was and who composed it. As a child I had always thought Wagner must sound horribly complicated and impossible to listen to. But obviously I had already beginning to love his music without realising it.


----------

