# Wagner: Means and end



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

How do experience the roles of music and drama in Wagner’s operas, particularly in the later ones (Tristan, Ring, Meistersinger, Parsifal)?


----------



## Volve (Apr 14, 2013)

To me, regarding the Ring, the whole thing spins around the story and the drama, and his way of telling the story is through music, in a way such that if one learns all the motifs involved, a libretto in unecessary, because the music is there to tell it. I won't say nothing about his other works because I've only enough experience with the Ring, but that's how I see it. And this is why I think the Ring, and other works of similar nature, by Wagner or otherwise, should be produced the way the composer intended them to be. Everything he envisioned has a reason, and setting the Ring in the 22th century featuring punk bikers as Valkyries and an outer-space vegetable as Brunnhilde (I'm looking at you, Bayreuth...), will do nothing but destroy the experience as a whole.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Wagner saw it his works as 'music dramas' of course. For him the drama was the end, the music the means to telling the drama. One problem we have is that he was a vastly greater composer than he was a dramatist. Hence often when I listen I just listen to the music rather than Wagner's often rather irritating and trite way with words. The works for me are music dramas but most of the drama is in the music.


----------



## Rachmanijohn (Jan 2, 2014)

For me it's all about Wagner's concept of _Gesamtkunstwerk_: the total work of art. His Ring Cycle was a perfect synthesis of this. It's about all of it all at once, therefore for me the music serves the drama at the same time the drama is serving the music. They are one.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Rachmanijohn said:


> For me it's all about Wagner's concept of _Gesamtkunstwerk_


This is reverse to my case.

I've grown to reject all that Wagner philosophy which I find to be conception of misconceptions. Enjoying his work is, for me, largely a struggle to take out of it all the good that is not spoiled by his many ideas that I find conceited and heavily incompatible with my views and preferences.

The drama is first to embody these flawed ideas, music follows later and is affected indirectly - it's the spoiled element, not the spoiling one. That is why I have more sympathy for the music and most of my reluctance goes towards the drama. While listening to Wagner from recordings, I often skip through the "rotten" fragments, such as the long, rambling Tristan monologue from the last act. This, in effect, affects my perception of the drama which is, again, a struggle to take out of it as much good as I can. I think I'm a little bit like re-writing, revising the drama for my own needs.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Thank you all for your votes and germane comments so far, much appreciated.



Rachmanijohn said:


> For me it's all about Wagner's concept of _Gesamtkunstwerk_: the total work of art. [...] It's about all of it all at once, therefore for me the music serves the drama at the same time the drama is serving the music. They are one.


Just a quick note at this point: As Wagner laid out in his extensive essay "Oper und Drama" (1851), he considered music as a means, the drama as the end. So if you experience the drama as serving the music, that would be _at odds_ with Wagner's integral concept (later often being referred to as _Gesamtkunstwerk)._ 

(Makes some sense to me, too: The drama wouldn't be serving the _words_, would it, so why would it serve the music?)

That's the theory of course; whether his actual work _followed_ the principle, or whether he _succeeded_ in what he set out to try ‒ our actual experience ‒ is another story and prompted my question.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Ebab said:


> As Wagner laid out in his extensive essay "Oper und Drama" (1851), he considered music as a means, the drama as the end. So if you experience the drama as serving the music, that would be _at odds_ with Wagner's integral concept (later often being referred to as _Gesamtkunstwerk)._


One of the things that makes discussing Wagner's philosophy so difficult is that Wagner was not consistent in his philosophy throughout his career. (Who is, really?) The notion that the drama should serve the music might be at odds with the Wagner of 1851, but it would be consistent with the Wagner of 1872, the year of his essay "On the Name 'Musikdrama'." Despite what he had claimed in the 1850s about music serving the drama, in the 1870s he was writing quite the opposite: that music is a genuine art while drama is merely an act or instantiation of art (the difference, as I read it, being roughly equivalent to that between cuisine [music] and a cake [drama]), and that rather than calling them "music dramas," Wagner's operas would more accurately be described as "acts of music made visible"--i.e. music is the essence and the drama is simply the visual form that this essence takes. So those who hear the drama as serving the music can claim with equal validity to be following Wagner, since Wagner himself seems to have changed his mind on the matter.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Very interesting discussion so far. I'm more unsure than ever. 

Thanks for bringing up the "Musikdrama" article. It seems somewhat hastily produced, some of the quips are stale, and I simply can't agree with some of Wagner's linguistic deductions, but you're quite right, it speaks of the music in larger terms - as the "mother's womb" for drama, as "der Theil, der Anfang Alles war" - "the part being the beginning of everything" (a reference to God in Goethe's "Faust"). "In that dignity, [music] plans neither to stand in front of nor behind drama; [music] is not the rival of drama, but its mother." Whatever that helps.

So what remains of "Oper und Drama", or the supposed Gesamtkunstwerk? _"A note to myself: more drama!" _- is that all?


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

No. I've cast my vote. I had confused myself (not a bad thing), but just for a while.

Wagner's not about absolute music. Wagner's about persons on the stage, with a history, talking to each other, acting out conflicts, speaking of their love, coming to conclusions, breaking down worlds. That is _drama_, and the _music_ helps me understand what's going on.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I have managed to screw up and vote for the wrong option. Please count me in the "drama is the end" camp.

Now, I admire both. Great music supports great drama. And when I listen to it, 99 percent of the time I find myself most sincerely agreeing in my mind with whatever Wagner is saying to me through the music and the words (there are some things that I used to find disagreeable, like Isolde falling in love with the murderer of her betrothed, but I think I have worked them out in my mind and can accept them now) . But without the drama, the stories and the images, music would have lost some of its appeal. The leitmotiv of Valhalla in the Ring is wonderful, but it would not be the same without the image of the fortress above the Rhine attached to it. The glorious unfolding of Siegfried's theme in its full orchestral power in Act III of Siegfried would not be the same without the image of the young dragon-slaying, goddess-wooing hero. So, the drama, the act of story-telling takes a slightly more important role. I have heard it said about Wagner, that he was the very first cinematic sound track composer. In this sense it is true.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't bother with the dramas per se, particularly in view of some of their repetitiveness and self-indulgence, and some of the less sympathetic characters (Siegfried is no hero in my book), without the music. So I'm going with later Wagner, who I'm sure was following his gut feeling, rather than early intellectualising Gesamtkunstwerk Wagner.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aramis said:


> This is reverse to my case.
> 
> I've grown to reject all that Wagner philosophy which I find to be conception of misconceptions. Enjoying his work is, for me, largely a struggle to take out of it all the good that is not spoiled by his many ideas that I find conceited and heavily incompatible with my views and preferences.
> 
> The drama is first to embody these flawed ideas, music follows later and is affected indirectly - it's the spoiled element, not the spoiling one. That is why I have more sympathy for the music and most of my reluctance goes towards the drama. While listening to Wagner from recordings, I often skip through the "rotten" fragments, such as the long, rambling Tristan monologue from the last act. This, in effect, affects my perception of the drama which is, again, a struggle to take out of it as much good as I can. I think I'm a little bit like re-writing, revising the drama for my own needs.


Wagner should have employed an editor - all writers need one!

Why I tend to listen to Wagner in bits. Skip the boring parts.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't bother with the dramas per se, particularly in view of some of their repetitiveness and self-indulgence, and some of the less sympathetic characters (Siegfried is no hero in my book), without the music.


The point is _not_ "without the music". Wagner wrote his libretti first, (often) published them first, read them with great enthusiasm to his friends and total strangers if they cared, and often had great success. But they were never meant without prospective music and the whole shebang that really makes an opera. To this day, I very much recommend reading them as text alone for once, but they were meant as a piece of a "work in progress", never to ultimately stand alone.

Repetiveness and self-indulgence; I guess there's some of that in many Wagner operas (and you know them better than I do); no contest here. Only nobody ever seemed to manage to find the right cuts (and many tried) that would not compromise the whole.

And regarding Siegfried, I guess my view is well documented on this forum that I regard him as a "hero" in Wotan's sense, with precisely that amount of success and failure. Just regarding Siegfried's first entrance, don't you think that Wagner _meant_ his audience to have conflicted thoughts about the "hero"?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Ebab said:


> And regarding Siegfried, I guess my view is well documented on this forum that I regard him as a "hero" in Wotan's sense, with precisely that amount of success and failure. Just regarding Siegfried's first entrance, don't you think that Wagner _meant_ his audience to have conflicted thoughts about the "hero"?


The ancient authors of Wagner's sources: the Völsungasaga and the Nibelungenlied, did not care very much about showing the humanity or the inner world of their heroes. I think Wagner made them more fallible in an attempt to bring those ancient archetypes closer to the contemporary reader as well as to get his own ideas across.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not really concerned with how Wagner saw his operas but rather with how I enjoy them. I do consider them primarily as music with dramatic content. I quite like the phrase "acts of music made visible." The music dominates for me, but I don't ignore the drama. Also there is some considerable variation between operas. The 3rd act of Die Walküre contains one of the most powerful dramatic scenes I've ever witnessed in opera or in normal drama. The music is wonderful, but the drama is powerful as well. On the other hand, Tristan, for me, is completely useless as drama. The plot is ridiculous and there is almost no action. Couchie summed up the plot in about 15 hilarious lines. The first time I saw it, I had no idea that Isolde was dead at the end. The music, however, is sublime.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> The ancient authors of Wagner's sources: the Völsungasaga and the Nibelungenlied, did not care very much about showing the humanity or the inner world of their heroes. I think Wagner made them more fallible in an attempt to bring those ancient archetypes closer to the contemporary reader as well as to get his own ideas across.


I couldn't agree more. Wagner read, studied, contemplated the old lore. He picked, stripped, re-combined, whatever he thought he could use, but you never get the impression that he'd distance himself, feel embarrassed of, or lose faith in the dramatic or emotional power of his sources.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> On the other hand, Tristan, for me, is completely useless as drama. The plot is ridiculous and there is almost no action.


There's so much essential information bombarding, one may shut down. In so far I agree.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

DavidA said:


> One problem we have is that he was a vastly greater composer than he was a dramatist.


Yes- no doubt... the music is superior to the drama.

Welcome to the world of virtually ALL repertory operas. This is not to say that there are not operas where the drama is superior to the music. Absolutely, they exist. Typically, they can be referred to as "non-repertory operas."


Ebab said:


> He picked, *stripped* [emphasis mine], re-combined, whatever he thought he could use, but you never get the impression that he'd distance himself, feel embarrassed of, or lose faith in the dramatic or emotional power of his sources.


I highlighted "stripped" in the above excellent post because no discussion of Wagner the librettist ever goes without a waggish mention of his need for an editor. In fact, if one knew the dense tangle of the tree of 'Tristan und Isolde' source material (including a version with two different women who both have the name-equivalent of 'Isolde'), the _Nibelungenlied_ and other mythic material (including a Donner who simply bops the giant dead, rather than having his hand stayed by Wotan as it is in _Das Rheingold_), and the meanders of the 'Parsifal' legends, then one would recognize that Wagner was _already_ an editor... and that which he culled pretty much figured to the advantage of the artworks.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

This is an interesting thread. But now I have a headache.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Yes- no doubt... the music is superior to the drama.
> 
> Welcome to the world of virtually ALL repertory operas. This is not to say that there are not operas where the drama is superior to the music. Absolutely, they exist. Typically, they can be referred to as "non-repertory operas."I /COLOR]




Agreed! But RW did make a great thing of creating a total work of art. I don't think he succeeded in this because the music is so much greater than the libretti.

There are very few operas where the libretti comes near to matching the stature of the composer. We might think of da Ponte in the three great Mozart operas. Boito in our Otello and Falstaff. Piave in Rigoletto. Not much else.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

What this thread also once again documents: Different people seek and find (or miss) different things in Wagner's operas.

I feel very excited by this interaction of music, plot and dialog. I find it's the key to the real treasure, and absolutely worth the trouble. I feel the need to _tell_ (and I apologize if that sometimes comes out with too much of a missionary fervor).

(Also, I'm the kind who always took their toys apart, to see how they worked. That's not everybody's enjoyment either.)

But other people seek and experience other things, possibly in the music alone, for which I don't have the sense, so that is my loss.

(And I've also come to think that maybe there is more of a language barrier than I'd thought, with too much lost in translations; maybe somewhat different mentalities also.)

So I thank everybody for their experiences - remarkably diverse and valuable.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Neither the music or the storylines have ever been enough to engage me much at all (others are rapt, I know: I am not, despite really trying it again and again over the years.)

That leaves me with thinking the music far more interesting than the drama: while I think the writing is fine, then the overall musical aesthetic -- or Wagner's taste itself -- just turns me away.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Neither the music or the storylines have ever been enough to engage me much at all (others are rapt, I know: I am not, despite really trying it again and again over the years.)
> 
> That leaves me with thinking the music far more interesting than the drama: while I think the writing is fine, then the overall musical aesthetic -- or Wagner's taste itself -- just turns me away.


Which operas have music and storylines that engage you?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Agreed! But RW did make a great thing of creating a total work of art. I don't think he succeeded in this because the music is so much greater than the libretti.
> 
> There are very few operas where the libretti comes near to matching the stature of the composer. We might think of da Ponte in the three great Mozart operas. Boito in our Otello and Falstaff. Piave in Rigoletto. Not much else.


Dialogues des carmélites can be read successfully as the play which it is.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

There has almost certainly been more study and writings on Wagner's late libretti than any other libretti by any professional librettists save for Don Giovanni. Why are they so poor again?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Couchie said:


> There has almost certainly been more study and writings on Wagner's late libretti than any other libretti by any professional librettists save for Don Giovanni. Why are they so poor again?


These studies are part of research concerning Wagner as a whole. Without the whole, that is: music set to these libretti, one can't be even certain they would be subject to any study at all.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Aramis said:


> These studies are part of research concerning Wagner as a whole. Without the whole, that is: music set to these libretti, one can't be even certain they would be subject to any study at all.


There is a misunderstanding in this discussion that seems almost impossible to overcome.

_Of course_, these libretti wouldn't be studied without being a part of a whole. But that doesn't mean they are a negligible by-product. They are an integral part of the package and interact with the music in the most astonishing ways.

A great many clever and learned minds, admirers _and_ detractors of Wagner's (and everything in between) have studied and described these interactions. They came to the most different conclusions, but they wouldn't dismiss these libretti so easily.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I do not understand either, how someone can consider Wagner's libretti poor, especiallly as compared to the libretti of your average Italian opera.

I wrote about it earlier in Ebab's introduction thread, but I will just repeat myself here. The first time I was ever confronted with the text of the Ring, I experienced a feeling akin to the feeling of one who stands before a majestic ancient castle, being transported in his mind back to its glory days and to all the ages that castle had witnessed: a feeling of awe and admiration. There is something magical about the very sound of these texts, like in these lines from Die Walküre, Act I, Scene III:

_Nächtiges Dunkel
deckte mein Aug',
ihres Blickes Strahl
streifte mich da:
Wärme gewann ich und Tag.
Selig schien mir
der Sonne Licht;
den Scheitel umgliss mir
ihr wonniger Glanz -
bis hinter Bergen sie sank.

Noch einmal, da sie schied,
traf mich abends ihr Schein;
selbst der alten Esche Stamm
erglänzte in goldner Glut:
da bleicht die Blüte,
das Licht verlischt;
nächtiges Dunkel
deckt mir das Auge:
tief in des Busens Berge
glimmt nur noch lichtlose Glut. _
When he sings about the warmth of the sun that Sieglinde was like to him, I can _feel_ that warmth! Every line brings out living, natural, beautiful images. I wrote earlier in the same introduction thread that I would like to know how native speakers of German perceive Wagner's texts - now I think that maybe I have already reached the same degree of perception after all.

As for the problem of different mentalities you mention, there sems to be more of a historical problem. Modern readers/listeners tend to judge the operas on the basis of their modern sensibilities. However, Wagner himself wrote in the 1800s, and his sources date back to as far as the 12th century. Just one example of this. Not long ago I read an interview of one of my favorite opera singers, Kurt Moll. In this interview he says that his least favorite Wagnerian role, out of all he ever peformed, is that of Veit Pogner from Die Meistersinger, because Veit decided to give his daughter in marriage to the best singer, thus depriving her of a freedom of choice, and this made him rather a negative character, according to Moll. But in the 16th century that Die Meistersinger supposedly plays out in, one would not expect it any different. People gave their daughters in marriage to the wealthiest or the noble-born men, but Pogner based his choice on the potential husband's artistic giftedness, that is all.

Our own Mamascarlatti seems to have a problem with the fact that Siegfried took Brünnhilde as a wife for Gunther by force, but in a prehistoric mythical Germanic world could it really be different? This was not even the chivalrous Middle Ages with its ideal of _hohe Minne_ (courtly love).

Side note: maybe it is only my problem of poor language understanding, but one thing I don't really appreciate is Wagner's use of the word _Minne_. It is usually used to convey the idea of chivalrous, platonic, noble love, but Wagner uses it for the purely physical rapacious lust of Alberich for the Rhinemaidens. I feel something is not quite right here.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I do not understand either, how someone can consider Wagner's libretti poor, especiallly as compared to the libretti of your average Italian opera.


Funny. I wonder what could you possibly mean by "average Italian opera", having just recently confessed that you hardly know any opera outside Wagner. Talk about something you do know, please?

The difference is that faulty bel canto librettos (which are quite many, indeed) are just faulty bel canto librettos and you can largely ignore the uninspired texts and focus on the music which doesn't rely on them that much. The poor and often pretentious ramblings of Wagner shape his music in far too large extent for listener to ignore them when he would like to. That is my problem with it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Never mind, such cheap insults are not even worth an answer.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Wagners libretti dwarf anything else.
The fact they do inform his music is a positive, not a negative.
And remember, he wrote the words AND the music to his masterpieces.

The text of Meistersinger is a wonder in itself. And how the music meshes is amazing.
I am in awe of his operas and his talent.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Never mind, such cheap insults are not even worth an answer.


Absolutely. I had no right to relate to state of your familiarity with subject which you were attempting to bring into discussion in a way that seemed contradicted to your own words. This is nothing else than cheap insult. I apologize and repent.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Never mind, such cheap insults are not even worth an answer.


Surprised at how many cheap insults I have already seen in my 3 weeks or so on this forum. I don't know what I was expecting, but it certainly wasn't "that"!


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not really concerned with how Wagner saw his operas but rather with how I enjoy them.


You've noticed that the question in this poll was: "What is *your *[emphasis added] experience of music and drama in Wagner's later operas?".



> [...] Tristan, for me, is completely useless as drama. The plot is ridiculous and there is almost no action. Couchie summed up the plot in about 15 hilarious lines. The first time I saw it, I had no idea that Isolde was dead at the end. The music, however, is sublime.


You've really pushed _all_ of my Tristan-related buttons here. Congratulations, nice work! :devil:


In Wagner's times, it was _expected_ to read the libretto _thoroughly_ before visiting the performance of an opera, certainly if one planned on issuing one's critical opinion and not being ripped apart on the spot (and I'm not even touching the issue of foreign languages). So, mishaps like the one you've described ("... Isolde dead ... er?") simply wouldn't have happened; _had_ they happened, the person affected would have been _extremely_ eager to keep his/her mouth shut. 
 
The plot is anything _but_ ridiculous; I've humbly tried to make some of my points on TC here myself, but really, some of the greatest minds of the 19th and 20th century have most eloquently put down their thoughts, on the _plot_ and on the _language_, so why would I try. 
'The music is sublime' - it is, and some think it's the portal to modernity, but it's nothing unless one understands what it _means_. 
I couldn't, or wouldn't, speak for Couchie at all, but I've experienced the most dyed-in-the-wool Wagner fans to make the most sarcastic/loose of Wagner jokes. I'd guess all of us know the effect: The things that were are most involved in, sometimes prompt us to the most coarse of jokes. I think that's a very human and healthy response. 

I realize I'm advertising Tristan too much, and it's probably backfiring.

I can only say: _read it_, in your own time. You may not regret it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ebab said:


> In Wagner's times, it was _expected_ to read the libretto _thoroughly_ before visiting the performance of an opera, certainly if one planned on issuing one's critical opinion and not being ripped apart on the spot (and I'm not even touching the issue of foreign languages). *So, mishaps like the one you've described ("... Isolde dead ... er?") simply wouldn't have happened*; _had_ they happened, the person affected would have been _extremely_ eager to keep his/her mouth shut.


Well, unless they were a rural schoolteacher who really only cared about the music...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Ebab said:


> In Wagner's times, it was _expected_ to read the libretto _thoroughly_ before visiting the performance of an opera.


Do you remember the famous incident when Tannhauser was staged in Paris? I doubt that these Jockey-Club people took their time to read the lenghty libretto when they didn't even care to be present at the whole performance. Perhaps devoted Wagnerians did read them, as part of the new approach, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't any common practice of the era.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

As far as Wagner's libretti go, I've only read the one to T&I and I found it to be sort of boring  I wanted them to stop telling each other to what fantastic degree they loved each other so much and get on with it already.

Am I immature or something? Or did I not get it?


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Do you remember the famous incident when Tannhauser was staged in Paris? I doubt that these Jockey-Club people took their time to read the lenghty libretto when they didn't even care to be present at the whole performance. Perhaps devoted Wagnerians did read them, as part of the new approach, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't any common practice of the era.


You're right; certainly on parts of the audience in Paris (no wonder Wagner came to hate the cultural scene of Paris - it was not his kind of place).

I was rather thinking of the German-speaking countries, and possibly I've exaggerated a bit there, too. I still believe that it was quite customary for wide opera audiences (and they were typically better educated to begin with) to get familiar with the libretto a couple of days before the performance. I think many really enjoyed it too, in anticipation of the event.

And when would one get to know the words anyway? It's hard to understand the words at the performance, even in one's mother tongue. And no projected overtitles for foreign languages either.

Musical and literary education was seriously expected from the bourgeoisie up, so people tried not to look too stupid. And if their opinion was to be taken seriously in public, reading the libretto was a must.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

violadude said:


> As far as Wagner's libretti go, I've only read the one to T&I and I found it to be sort of boring  I wanted them to stop telling each other to what fantastic degree they loved each other so much and get on with it already.
> 
> Am I immature or something? Or did I not get it?


It's OK. Not everybody likes a love story, especially guys. Try reading other ones, I think the Ring will appeal to you better.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Ebab said:


> You've noticed that the question in this poll was: "What is *your *[emphasis added] experience of music and drama in Wagner's later operas?".


Yes, I did give my experience. I was just responding to several posters who had discussed Wagner's view of his operas.



Ebab said:


> In Wagner's times, it was _expected_ to read the libretto _thoroughly_ before visiting the performance of an opera, certainly if one planned on issuing one's critical opinion and not being ripped apart on the spot (and I'm not even touching the issue of foreign languages). So, mishaps like the one you've described ("... Isolde dead ... er?") simply wouldn't have happened; _had_ they happened, the person affected would have been _extremely_ eager to keep his/her mouth shut.
> 
> The plot is anything _but_ ridiculous; I've humbly tried to make some of my points on TC here myself, but really, some of the greatest minds of the 19th and 20th century have most eloquently put down their thoughts, on the _plot_ and on the _language_, so why would I try.
> 'The music is sublime' - it is, and some think it's the portal to modernity, but it's nothing unless one understands what it _means_.
> ...


Just like Couchie I was mostly joking about the plot of Tristan. I don't think the plot compares favorably with his other operas, but that's OK. If you think I don't like the opera, you'd be wrong. I consider it certainly one of my top 5 operas (if The Ring counts as 1). I should not have included the line "Tristan, for me, is completely useless as drama." That was over the top and made it impossible to tell I might be joking (hard enough as it is on the internet).

My only real issue with your post is your 3rd point - the music is "nothing unless one understands what it means." The music is infinitely better than that whether one understands anything at all about it's meaning.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> My only real issue with your post is your 3rd point - the music is "nothing unless one understands what it means." The music is infinitely better than that whether one understands anything at all about it's meaning.


Sure, abstract, non-programmatic music can be as great as opera, but in case of Wagner he meant his music to be closely connected to words and images and for the audience to understand, what exactly it means. That is the whole idea of _Gesamtkunstwerk_.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> My only real issue with your post is your 3rd point - the music is "nothing unless one understands what it means." The music is infinitely better than that whether one understands anything at all about it's meaning.


First, I apologize for going over the top in the tone of my posting - I'm really happy for a Wagner thread that largely works, for once, and would be very sorry to jeopardize that.

I agree, the music is not "nothing" without the meaning - that's a nonsensical exaggeration I made.

But for me, music and words work together like lock and key. The door has opened, and I like what I see.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Ebab said:


> First, I apologize for going over the top in the tone of my posting - I'm really happy for a Wagner thread that largely works, for once, and would be very sorry to jeopardize that.


No need to apologize for your enthusiasm for something as spectacular as Wagner opera. The internet isn't a great medium for communication, and if you and I had this discussion face to face, we'd quickly be enjoying each other's love of his works.

My daughter adores Wagner and has taken a year long class on The Ring. She loves the interplay between the musical language (leitmotifs) and the plot. In fact, we watched Parsifal together, and she didn't have time to learn the leitmotifs. I loved the music and greatly enjoyed the opera, but she was quite disappointed since she could not connect the music and the plot as well as she wished.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

violadude said:


> As far as Wagner's libretti go, I've only read the one to T&I and I found it to be sort of boring  I wanted them to stop telling each other to what fantastic degree they loved each other so much and get on with it already.


 That would apply to Act II, Scene 2, where their emotions seem to run over, and they express their love in ways that are both poetic and very specific to the particular themes in "Tristan" - probably a point where a lot gets lost in translation, too. Which other scenes do you have in mind?

Subjectively, I had a similar feeling like the one you described after I'd _seen_ "Tristan" first, having read the book only cursorily. It took me a second performance and Waltraud Meier's acting until it hit me. Only then I re-read the text more thoroughly, and had a couple of "aha" experiences.



> Am I immature or something? Or did I not get it?


One thing that I sometimes read from apparent Tristan beginners: "they drink the potion and fall in love". Should you happen to agree with that statement, then there are in fact essential things that you did miss. For the plot to work, you need to be absolutely clear on the backstory and the protagonists' background, which is being revealed over all three acts, but as rapid-fire "blink and you'll miss it" in Act I.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Ebab said:


> I still believe that it was quite customary for wide opera audiences (and they were typically better educated to begin with) to get familiar with the libretto a couple of days before the performance.


To illustrate my point, these are a couple of libretti that I inherited from my great-aunt (1920-2013). The oldest of these is from 1901 but the kind is of course much older.

I'm quite sure that in my family, each household of the last 150 years had a couple of dozens of those, of the operas they preferred. Those below are mostly Wagner only because I picked them from the estate. They do look used. A lot.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just to note: Latest news has the Target data breach operated by Russian and Ukrainian hackers, led by a person with the user name "Wagner Richard."

http://tinyurl.com/k35ryxk


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Ebab said:


> To illustrate my point, these are a couple of libretti that I inherited from my great-aunt (1920-2013). The oldest of these is from 1901 but the kind is of course much older.
> 
> I'm quite sure that in my family, each household of the last 150 years had a couple of dozens of those, of the operas they preferred. Those below are mostly Wagner only because I picked them from the estate. They do look used. A lot.


Love of great music seems to run in your family


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Love of great music seems to run in your family


 I think it does, thank you!

But I don't think my family is very exceptional. We were largely a part of what was called "Bildungsbürgertum", a bourgeois middle-class which, to a degree, did define itself through education and art. Some members were of course more of music lovers than others, but going to the opera was a thing that you just _did_.

And I'm telling you, my great-aunt being the Wagnerian in our family was _way_ more of an obstacle between me and Wagner than it was a path. She did a lot for me; I loved and respected her. But in a way, she stood for a lot that I wanted (still want) _not ever_ to be, and her love for Wagner just seemed to fit the picture.

But how stupid I was. - With the help of time, my nagging Wagner-loving husband, and the convincing power of a certain performer, I've ultimately found my very own access.

Wagner's hip, emotionally astute, has this artistically focused vision on a wealth of mythology. He knows how to tell of human experiences, and he knows how to use _music_ for that.

I think I see some different things than my great-aunt did but ultimately, Wagner turned out to be a bond that combined us. There were phases when she had forgotten almost everything about her own life, but somehow, she knew who the current Wagnerian singers were, what happened at Bayreuth, and it was something that we could talk about. If anything, I thank Wagner for _that_.

Er … - what was the topic again?


----------

