# Let's talk Parsifal..................



## Itullian

Wagner's last opera.

Is it his masterpiece?

What are your thoughts/feelings about this work?

And it's meanings.

:tiphat:

I find it hypnotic and mysterious.


----------



## Couchie

Act I is overly long and boring. 
Act II is the most supreme achievement in the entirety of Western art. 
Act III I do not speak of.


----------



## anmhe

It's my personal favorite, and the culmination of everything Wagner strived towards in his career (I hear bits and pieces of Parsifal in many of his works, especially Tristan & Isolde).

I'll admit that I did not appreciate it at first, but I've grown to love everything I complained about. Yes, it's VERY long, but the slow emotional build-up and catharsis excuses this in my opinion.


----------



## Albert7

The BESTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTt Wanger opera ever.

It is revolutionary because it merges a ritual with opera and goes beyond a mere staging. It's like entering nirvana every single time I hear it.

I think that the opera isn't all that long (compared to Morton Feldman) and people who get bored by it is to be expected.

It's not about sword and dagger fights. It's about magic and power and forging a righteous path and the dynamics of kingship. All heavy themes.


----------



## anmhe

I'd also add remorse and redemption.

I first saw it when I was 16, and it wasn't what I'd expected from Wagner (I expected something like Der Fliegende Holländer, or Das Rheingold). I didn't appreciate it, and I want to slap my younger self accordingly.


----------



## Albert7

anmhe said:


> I'd also add remorse and redemption.
> 
> I first saw it when I was 16, and it wasn't what I'd expected from Wagner (I expected something like Der Fliegende Holländer, or Das Rheingold). I didn't appreciate it, and I want to slap my younger self accordingly.


Agreed. Let's put it this way. I would not like to confront Klingsor myself.

Also did you guys know about Hesse's novel alluding to the same legend?






Interestingly enough, the Klingsor in Hesse's novella reflects on the same themes.


----------



## anmhe

I have not read that book. I'll make a point of getting a copy of it!


----------



## anmhe

I know I'm not the first one to point this out, but I love how the Spear of Longinus is an instrument of healing, not destruction. It's an odd choice, and I'm continually intrigued by it.


----------



## Albert7

anmhe said:


> I know I'm not the first one to point this out, but I love how the Spear of Longinus is an instrument of healing, not destruction. It's an odd choice, and I'm continually intrigued by it.


Yes, agreed. Wagner subverts the traditional expectations of weaponry. Parsifal is not about tension or war. It's about a journey to inner peace and a higher order of learning.


----------



## Itullian

Couchie said:


> Act I is overly long and boring.
> Act II is the most supreme achievement in the entirety of Western art.
> Act III I do not speak of.


Couchie!!!
The scene in the structure is sublime!!!


----------



## Celloman

If you can get past that bloated and unwieldy libretto, the opera is excellent. I saw it first at a Live from the Met showing a couple years ago. The flower maidens looked like they had walked right out of a low-budget horror film...


----------



## Woodduck

Celloman said:


> If you can get past that bloated and unwieldy libretto, the opera is excellent. I saw it first at a Live from the Met showing a couple years ago. The flower maidens looked like they had walked right out of a low-budget horror film...


I've always thought that the libretto sets forth the situations and characters quite economically and provides the perfect scaffolding for the music. Which parts of it would you trim, and what would you do with the music that now accompanies the parts you've removed?


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> I've always thought that the libretto sets forth the situations and characters quite economically and provides the perfect scaffolding for the music. Which parts of it would you trim, and what would you do with the music that now accompanies the parts you've removed?


Cuts to Parsifal is anathema to me.


----------



## MagneticGhost

I adore Parsifal. When I watched it I was transfixed for the whole 5+ hours. I barely moved. I'm quite surprised I didn't get pressure sores.


----------



## nina foresti

I was not normally a Wagnerian opera lover. It didn't come easy to me. There were too many things that got in the way of my enjoyment of his spectacular music. Things like unpleasant screechy singing and unappealing sounds of a heldentenor type voice that competed too heavily with the divine music. Getting around it was a piece of work for me so that I could more fully enjoy Wagner's stunning music without the sideline annoyances. I succeeded but it wasn't a simple process.
Then along came _Parsifal_ (my last and final attempt at delving into the master's works). And voila! 
Why I kept it for last I will never know. I think it had been drummed into my head that it would be the toughest one for me to handle and that it was overlong. Pish tosh! It had all the ingredients I needed to be able to enjoy it sans screaming sopranos, no heldentenors, fantastic chorale music, and even a religious theme which I always enjoy (can you say _Dialogues des Carmelites _or _Suor Angelica_?) despite being completely non-religious. But the _Vorspiel_ grabbed the hell out of me and wouldn't let go.
And now my head will be spinning today with those opening bars swirling non-stop around my brain.


----------



## Itullian

I had listened to it many years ago, couldn't grasp it and put it aside.

Years later picked it up again and liked it.

Kept on listening and then loved it.


----------



## Celloman

Woodduck said:


> I've always thought that the libretto sets forth the situations and characters quite economically and provides the perfect scaffolding for the music. Which parts of it would you trim, and what would you do with the music that now accompanies the parts you've removed?


If you cut the libretto, you have to cut the music. And you just don't do that with Wagner.


----------



## Becca

Itullian said:


> I had listened to it many years ago, couldn't grasp it and put it aside.
> 
> Years later picked it up again and liked it.
> 
> Kept on listening and then loved it.


I have yet to make it all the way through _Parsifal_. Given my thoughts on_ Lohengrin_, maybe I have Grailophobia


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> I have yet to make it all the way through _Parsifal_. Given my thoughts on_ Lohengrin_, maybe I have Grailophobia


I wouldn't be a-Freud of it, myself.

- Indulge.

_;D_


----------



## Albert7

I would like to get the complete Parsifal with Callas for historical interest. Not sure how it would go but excited!


----------



## Woodduck

Celloman said:


> If you cut the libretto, you have to cut the music. And you just don't do that with Wagner.


If the music shouldn't be cut, then perhaps the libretto is just what it needs to be to support that music, and is not really as "bloated"or "unwieldy" as you think? Wagner always conceived words and music together, unlike most composers who had to find music to set to the words of others. But he also said that in his later operas especially it was the music that provided the key to a work's meaning and guided the process of creation. His librettos arose from his music and were shaped by it, more than the other way around. _Parsifal_'s libretto seems to me quite precise and efficient in performing its function, which I take to be giving explicit, outward meaning to the expressive, dramatic implications of the music.


----------



## Becca

Marschallin Blair said:


> I wouldn't be a-Freud of it, myself.
> 
> - Indulge.
> 
> _;D_


Where is the "Groan at this Post" button when you need it??


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> Where is the "Groan at this Post" button when you need it??


I thought we were all groan ups to begin with.


----------



## Itullian

I'm a one act per listen listener.
I can digest all the nuances that way.


----------



## Albert7

I heard Parsifal all the way through and it was totally transfixing.

I need to listen to another version from the Sinopoli Bayreuth production I viewed.


----------



## Celloman

Woodduck said:


> If the music shouldn't be cut, then perhaps the libretto is just what it needs to be to support that music, and is not really as "bloated"or "unwieldy" as you think? Wagner always conceived words and music together, unlike most composers who had to find music to set to the words of others. But he also said that in his later operas especially it was the music that provided the key to a work's meaning and guided the process of creation. His librettos arose from his music and were shaped by it, more than the other way around. _Parsifal_'s libretto seems to me quite precise and efficient in performing its function, which I take to be giving explicit, outward meaning to the expressive, dramatic implications of the music.


Wagner is first and foremost a composer, not a writer. At face value, his dialogue is often tacky and I find many of his scenarios hard to believe. The music more than makes up for these flaws, as obvious as they are. We learn more of what the characters are thinking and feeling through the music than the libretto could ever accomplish. Wagner simply used his libretti as a "jumping-off point" for his music. If he had been simply content to support the words he had written, the music would not have accomplished what it did.


----------



## silentio

I have been always telling myself to read up about Parsifal seriously, but never had time for that. Apparently this summer will be a bit free of school works, and I hope I will spend more time on good books about this masterpiece.

OK...Now let's talk something within the text and the music itself. So my (first) question is, we all know that Kundry laughed at Jesus at his Crucifixion, but *Who *or *What* actually cursed her?

Let's refer to this clip:






1) At 28:25, she says _"In darkest hour I feel His eyes turn on me, and his gaze rests upon me"_. This phrase is accompanied by that heavenly Holy Grail leimotif. An then _"...the accursed laughter assails me once again..."_

2) However, at 34:50, after Parsifal presses her:_ "Who dared to wound him (Amfortas) with the holy weapon?"_, she replies furiously " _*He, he *! *He* who once punished my laughter: His *curse*, ha, gives me strength."
_

I am a bit puzzled here: from 1) I get the feeling that it was not Jesus who cursed her, but it was her guilt! Yet, from 2), she bluntly states that it was "he" who punished her. So , is it because her own perceptions about what is going on with her fate too complex, or am I misunderstanding anything here? Is there any chance that "he" may refer to Klingsor, who well understands that her guilt and shame are her weakness, and uses that to manipulate her for his vice?


----------



## Belowpar

My introduction to Wagner was this film. I sat through it with a distinctly numb bum and then forgot all about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsifal_(1982_film)

Didn't try another drop for 20 years.

Then Mastersingers, Tristran, The Ring and now perhaps I'm ready for another try at Parsifal.


----------



## Woodduck

silentio said:


> I have been always telling myself to read up about Parsifal seriously, but never had time for that. Apparently this summer will be a bit free of school works, and I hope I will spend more time on good books about this masterpiece.
> 
> OK...Now let's talk something within the text and the music itself. So my (first) question is, we all know that Kundry laughed at Jesus at his Crucifixion, but *Who *or *What* actually cursed her?
> 
> Let's refer to this clip:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) At 28:25, she says _"In darkest hour I feel His eyes turn on me, and his gaze rests upon me"_. This phrase is accompanied by that heavenly Holy Grail leimotif. An then _"...the accursed laughter assails me once again..."_
> 
> 2) However, at 34:50, after Parsifal presses her:_ "Who dared to wound him (Amfortas) with the holy weapon?"_, she replies furiously " _*He, he *! *He* who once punished my laughter: His *curse*, ha, gives me strength."
> _
> 
> I am a bit puzzled here: from 1) I get the feeling that it was not Jesus who cursed her, but it was her guilt! Yet, from 2), she bluntly states that it was "he" who punished her. So , is it because her own perceptions about what is going on with her fate too complex, or am I misunderstanding anything here? Is there any chance that "he" may refer to Klingsor, who well understands that her guilt and shame are her weakness, and uses that to manipulate her for his vice?


In the context, it's pretty clear that she's referring to Klingsor, who seized the spear and used it on Amfortas while the latter was getting it on with Kundry. It's hideously amusing that, the Spear being a symbol of male sexuality (among other things), Amfortas ends up f***ing himself. You can bet that Wagner was conscious of the irony.

How Klingsor gained control of Kundry in order to use her against the knights of the Grail - well, that goes to the secret heart of the tale. If you view Klingsor as the dark underside of Titurel , who (with his son and executor Amfortas) mistakenly believed that being entrusted with the Grail and Spear - symbols of the feminine and the masculine elements in the human personality - entitled him to control and use them, you will see that his domination and use of the Grail, and Klingsor's domination of Kundry, are one and the same. The deepest psychological meaning of this fantastic allegory has precisely to do with the subjugation of the feminine (spirit or life force) by the masculine (ego or will), the destruction of each by the other which this causes, and the eventual healing of the self through the renunciation by the ego of its own dominance, leading to the liberation of the feminine and its reintegration with the masculine: the reunion of the Grail and Spear.


----------



## Woodduck

Celloman said:


> Wagner is first and foremost a composer, not a writer. At face value, his dialogue is often tacky and I find many of his scenarios hard to believe. The music more than makes up for these flaws, as obvious as they are. We learn more of what the characters are thinking and feeling through the music than the libretto could ever accomplish. Wagner simply used his libretti as a "jumping-off point" for his music. If he had been simply content to support the words he had written, the music would not have accomplished what it did.


A libretto isn't a piece of literature. It's an opportunity for musical expression in dramatic form. Is the _Parsifal_ libretto effective in performing this function? I think it is. Most opera librettos would be "tacky" (whatever that means) if read by themselves; as a friend of mine said when I gave him the _Tristan_ libretto, "I'll believe this when I hear it." "Yes, you will, "I said.

You are aware, I'm sure, that Wagner's scenarios in most of his operas, particularly in _Parsifal_, are mythical and allegorical, not realistic. All myths and fairy tales are unbelievable. But Parsifal is particularly mysterious on its face; it undoubtedly gives people more trouble than any other of his works, even the _Ring_. Wagner's been accused of doing every abominable thing in this outwardly simple but baffling tale, especially as he uses symbols and concept drawn from several mythic traditions (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.). It can't be understood in terms of any one source; Wagner sought to uncover underlying meanings common (at least in his thinking) to all of them. If the libretto seems oblique or confusing at times, we should probably suspect that we're looking for the wrong things in it.


----------



## DarkAngel

Woodduck said:


> In the context, it's pretty clear that she's referring to Klingsor, who seized the spear and used it on Amfortas while the latter was getting it on with Kundry. It's hideously amusing that, the Spear being a symbol of male sexuality (among other things), Amfortas ends up f***ing himself. You can bet that Wagner was conscious of the irony.
> 
> How Klingsor gained control of Kundry in order to use her against the knights of the Grail - well, that goes to the secret heart of the tale. If you view Klingsor as the dark underside of Titurel , who (with his son and executor Amfortas) mistakenly believed that being entrusted with the Grail and Spear - symbols of the feminine and the masculine elements in the human personality - entitled him to control and use them, you will see that their domination and use of the Grail, and Klingsor's domination of Kundry, are one and the same. The deepest psychological meaning of this fantastic allegory has precisely to do with the subjugation of the feminine (spirit or life force) by the masculine (ego or will), the destruction of each by the other which this causes, and the eventual healing of the self through the renunciation by the ego of its own dominance,* leading to the liberation of the feminine and its reintegration with the masculine: the reunion of the Grail and Spear*.





Woodduck said:


> You are aware, I'm sure, that Wagner's scenarios in most of his operas, particularly in _Parsifal_, are mythical and allegorical, not realistic. All myths and fairy tales are unbelievable. But Parsifal is particularly mysterious on its face; it undoubtedly gives people more trouble than any other of his works, even the _Ring_. Wagner's been accused of doing every abominable thing in this outwardly simple but baffling tale, especially as he uses symbols and concept drawn from several mythic traditions (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.). It can't be understood in terms of any one source; Wagner sought to uncover underlying meanings common (at least in his thinking) to all of them. If the libretto seems oblique or confusing at times, we should probably suspect that we're looking for the wrong things in it.


There is definitely a mixture of Schopenhauer (philosopher), traditional Christian themes and symbols, and grail mythology - *almost an inverse of Tristan und Isolde* story because Parsifal (the pure fool) employs some key virtues extoled by Schopenhauer (compassion and sexual chasity) to rise above the negative consequences of pursuing ones ego and sexual desires ........ Gurnemanz's vision specifically said that Amfortas will be healed and order of the grail saved by "*pure fool, enlightened by compassion" s*o we end up with a story that combines traditional religious, philosophical, mythological elements Wagner was interested in at the time
*
That is an interesting point about the male/female symbolism of the spear/grail*, I specifically noticed in the recent MET Parsifal video with Kaufmann that during the final grail ceremony the crowd is separated into male/female groups until the grail is revealed together with the holy spear....then the crowds mix together, now I understand


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> There is definitely a mixture of Schopenhauer (philosopher), traditional Christian themes and symbols, and grail mythology - *almost an inverse of Tristan und Isolde* story because Parsifal (the pure fool) employs some key virtues extoled by Schopenhauer (compassion and sexual chasity) to rise above the negative consequences of pursuing ones ego and sexual desires ........ Gurnemanz's vision specifically said that Amfortas will be healed and order of the grail saved by "*pure fool, enlightened by compassion" s*o we end up with a story that combines traditional religious, philosophical, mythological elements Wagner was interested in at the time
> *
> That is an interesting point about the male/female symbolism of the spear/grail*, I specifically noticed in the recent MET Parsifal video with Kaufmann that during the final grail ceremony the crowd is separated into male/female groups until the grail is revealed together with the holy spear....then the crowds mix together, now I understand


Right. The key to _Parsifal_ is that the "chastity" it appears to advocate is not a renunciation of sexuality as such. This is the most amazing subversion of surface appearances in all Wagner's work. The story appears, on the surface, to be a simple tale of a divinely appointed brotherhood who, banning women from their midst, take divinely commanded vows of chastity and fail to keep them because of an evil sorcerer and his captive seductress, into which situation wanders an uncorrupted innocent who realizes at the crucial moment the error of Amfortas and so can desroy the sorcerer's power and restore the brotherhood to its sex-free state of righteousness. Read thus, he story would seem to justify the accusations of being anti-sex, anti-female, and even homoerotic which have been leveled at it. But if the original banning of sex by Titurel, and his simultaneous fetishization of the Grail, are seen as the dichotomous abuse and misapprehension of the feminine in male consciousness, then the evil in the story is seen to originate with Titurel himself, Klingsor appears not as an alien enemy of the brotherhood but as its alter ego undisguised by the trappings of holiness, and the repressed and abused feminine principle avenges itself on the presumptuous masculine ego in the form of Kundry, who is both a miserable slave and a dangerous seductress, those being the roles woman assumes in the consciousness of man cut off from his feminine side. Far from being a denigration of femininity and sexuality, _Parsifal_ honors them by showing what happens to both man and woman when the feminine is denied in the human personality - when the rigid and rationalizing "male" ego tries to control and suppress the spontaneous and nourishing "female" forces of life. It doesn't celebrate chastity; it exposes it. And it does so through a superficially religious allegory which similarly does not celebrate religion but exposes its errors.


----------



## DarkAngel

Woodduck said:


> Right. The key to _Parsifal_ is that the "chastity" it appears to advocate is not a renunciation of sexuality as such. This is the most amazing subversion of surface appearances in all Wagner's work. The story appears, on the surface, to be a simple tale of a divinely appointed brotherhood who, banning women from their midst, take divinely commanded vows of chastity and fail to keep them because of an evil sorcerer and his captive seductress, into which situation wanders an uncorrupted innocent who realizes at the crucial moment the error of Amfortas and so can desroy the sorcerer's power and restore the brotherhood to its sex-free state of righteousness. Read thus, he story would seem to justify the accusations of being anti-sex, anti-female, and even homoerotic which have been leveled at it. But if the original banning of sex by Titurel, and his simultaneous fetishization of the Grail, are seen as the dichotomous abuse and misapprehension of the feminine in male consciousness, then the evil in the story is seen to originate with Titurel himself, Klingsor appears not as an alien enemy of the brotherhood but as its alter ego undisguised by the trappings of holiness, *and the repressed and abused feminine principle avenges itself on the presumptuous masculine ego in the form of Kundry, who is both a miserable slave and a dangerous seductress, those being the roles woman assumes in the consciousness of man cut off from his feminine side.* Far from being a denigration of femininity and sexuality, _Parsifal_ honors them by showing what happens to both man and woman when the feminine is denied in the human personality - when the rigid and rationalizing "male" ego tries to control and suppress the spontaneous and nourishing "female" forces of life. It doesn't celebrate chastity; it exposes it. And it does so through a superficially religious allegory which similarly does not celebrate religion but exposes its errors.


This is getting very deep...........:lol:

Once the spear/grail (male/female) forces are again brought together at final ceremony and balance is restored to order of the grail *why does Kundry die*........is she purely a symbol of imbalance conscious and therefore vanquished when balance is restored?

Perhaps she should been seen as now complete and in balance, redeemed and glorified at the end? I have seen a video like this when she is exaulted and assists Parsifal in raising the grail

Example final of Sinopoli starting at 4:30


----------



## hpowders

Parsifal as somehow being a "Christian" story is simply blasphemy. I love the music, however, especially the long monologs of Gurnemanz.

I have the Karajan performance and I find it completely satisfying, since it features my favorite Gurnemanz, the great Kurt Moll.


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> This is getting very deep...........:lol:
> 
> Once the spear/grail (male/female) forces are again brought together at final ceremony and balance is restored to order of the grail *why does Kundry die*........is she purely a symbol of imbalance conscious and therefore vanquished when balance is restored?
> 
> Perhaps she should been seen as now complete and in balance, redeemed and glorified at the end? I have seen a video like this when she is exaulted and assists Parsifal in raising the grail
> 
> Example final of Sinopoli starting at 4:30


Yes, some have felt that she should live at the end. Maybe even marry Parsifal and raise little Lohengrin! But I think Wagner's choice was right, and for the reason you suggest. The characters in this opera are really symbols rather than individuals; they don't have separate lives, but are part of each other, parts of a larger whole which is the soul in search of redemption and healing. Kundry never was anything but the distorted image of woman in the eyes of ego-bound man: neither of her sides, neither the seductress nor the servant-messenger, represent healthy femininity, but both represent roles into which woman has been cast. Parsifal comes to understand and reject both of these roles: first, in his youth, woman as temptress (who appears to him as his mother - another symbol of male immaturity), and then, in his maturity, woman as servant, when he ministers to her with a gesture of baptism. This blessing of the woman is a powerful symbol of Parsifal's manhood. But Kundry, being essentially a projection of how corrupted men have misunderstood femininity - fearing it and seeking to subjugate and make it "safe," however mysterious it remains - has no independent life; indeed she has always yearned for rest, for death. She can finally die when the Grail - the ultimate repository of the Feminine, finally reunited with the Spear, the Masculine ego no longer afraid of union - is freed from its enclosure and borne aloft by Parsifal. Note that Parsifal's last words are "never more let it [the Grail] be confined." The Grail will from now on be free; it is the redemption of Man through the freeing of Woman, the healing of the fractured soul through the sacred marriage of opposites. Note too that Titurel, founder and symbol of the Order of the Grail, has to die; his son has ceased to perform the magical ritual wherein the Grail was used to keep him alive, and this is precisely parallel to Parsifal's rejection of woman's false roles: woman, finally represented by the Grail itself, is no longer "on call," and ceases to be a slave to man's needs. Titurel's death is the end of the Order as it had been - the collapse of the church, the death of institutional religion. Parsifal does not replace Amfortas as priest, king, "keeper" of the Grail, or minister of occult ritual. He frees the Grail from imprisonment and servitude and renders kings, priests and ministers obsolete.


----------



## anmhe

Isn't Kundry the mother of Parsifal? Or is that implied, and not explicitly stated? If Kundry is Parsifal's mother, her death would make sense as Parsifal has taken control of his own destiny. Her plans for him have been discarded.

Also, thank you Woodduck, I was hesitant to bring up the sexual nature of Amortas' wound. I don't know how to bring it up without sounding uncouth.


----------



## DarkAngel

anmhe said:


> Isn't Kundry the mother of Parsifal? Or is that implied, and not explicitly stated? If Kundry is Parsifal's mother, her death would make sense as Parsifal has taken control of his own destiny. Her plans for him have been discarded.
> 
> Also, thank you Woodduck, I was hesitant to bring up the sexual nature of Amortas' wound. I don't know how to bring it up without sounding uncouth.


The identity of Parsifal's mother is mentioned in act one after he shoots swan with arrow and is scolded by Gurnemanz, when asked about his parents Parsifal says his mother's name was Herzeleide (heart's sorrow)

Kundry nearby hears this and mentions that after the "pure fool" left home his mother died of grief causing Parsifal to grow angry at Kundry.......


----------



## Woodduck

Herzeleide, Parsifal's mother, is the "third person of the female trinity"- the mother, the seductress, and the slave - which constitute the immature male's view of woman. In the narrative, Kundry isn't Herzeleide, but she can approach him as a reincarnation of his mother, knowing that his unresoved feelings toward the mother he thoughtlessly left behind weeping for him were exactly his point of vulnerability. Here is the complex meaning of sexual seduction in this story concentrated into one intense and frightening moment of decision: will Parsifal yield to his regressive, infantile mother-attachment and cripple his ability to grow into a functioning adult, as Amfortas' did, or will he, remembering Amfortas' hopeless agony, see that that way lies his own destruction, renew and validate his choice to leave his mother and his childhood behind, and embark upon the unknowable and arduous path into manhood?

I think Wagner's ability to merge Parsifal's infantile guilt and mother-attachment into his nascent sexuality, and to make Kundry a figure possessing the feminine power and guile to play on both aspects of an immature man's nature at once in order to keep him from growing up - and to express this with virtually clinical precision in music that's both beautiful and disturbing - is something truly astounding.


----------



## anmhe

What is the consensus on Syberberg's Paraifal movie? I only saw bits of it on YouTube, but I really want to see the whole thing. It reminds me of a Teutonic Jodorowsky production.


----------



## Woodduck

anmhe said:


> What is the consensus on Syberberg's Paraifal movie? I only saw bits of it on YouTube, but I really want to see the whole thing. It reminds me of a Teutonic Jodorowsky movie.


I've never seen the Syberberg film. Knowing that's it's very strange in some ways has made me not over-eager to see it. Things like showing Parsifal as both a man and a woman... What does that have to do with Wagner? I get the feeling that _Parsifal_ inspires more sheer kookiness in directors than any other work of Wagner, including the _Ring_. As far as I'm concerned, Wagner's symbolism is simple and precisely thought-out, and needs no help from anyone. But I may try to see the Syberberg some day. I gather the Kundry is very good. If you see it give us a report!


----------



## Woodduck

Another thought about Parsifal's relationship to his mother Herzeleide which just now occurs to me is that Wagner's presentation of the boy's abandonment of her and his feelings of guilt are part of the trick of inversion the composer plays upon our moral perspective. Parsifal's desertion of his mother is presented as an example of his mindlessness and callousness, as is his shooting of the innocent swan in the precincts of the Grail, as if the guilt he is made to feel were deserved. When he first appears in Act 1 with bow in hand he is chastised by the outraged Grail knights, who are presented as images of righteousness. But Wagner is playing sleight of hand with our conventional sense of right and wrong. Subsequent events lead us to realize that Titurel's apparently holy order is perverted by a basic error - while Parsifal, the apparent fool, must reaffirm in the arms of Kundry the wisdom of leaving his clinging mother behind. Yet an even more startling realization is that even the shooting of the swan, however mindless an act, and however peripheral it might seem to the story, is the right and necessary thing for Parsifal to do. The swan, snow-white in its purity, dwelling in the unruffled waters of a lake - symbol of the unconscious - represents innocent nature, as Gurnemanz tries to impress on Parsifal. But at the very center of this whole allegory of the soul's quest is the crucial necessity of leaving innocent unconsciousness behind: the "innocent fool" must lose his innocence, and innocence cannot be lost except foolishly. Killing the swan is thus akin to abandoning the mother, who would keep Parsifal an unknowing child, in another form; both acts represent the sin that must be committed, the _felix culpa_, the discovery of the knowledge of good and evil, the defiant "no" which falls from the lips of the child who has heretofore lived in the state of ignorance and innocence and looked to the mother for everything. Leaving his mother is no more than what every child must do, and killing the swan is a further step in the series of steps toward autonomy the growing soul must take. Guilt is a part of the price of autonomy, but it is a price that must be paid and will be worth paying when it is dispelled by the adult's consciousness of its necessity and its ultimate unimportance on the journey to maturity.

"Good" knights, confident in their wisdom and piety? "Bad" boy Parsifal, breaking his bow out of guilt? Look again! Titurel's garden of Eden turns into Klingsor's poisoned flowers right before our eyes; Parsifal - resisting the serpent in the garden and, in another Wagnerian inversion, refusing the fruit which is offered him - sets out across the desert to found a new Eden free from Adam's illusion of bliss.

Nietzsche, condemning Wagner for apparently prostrating his former extroverted heroism "at the foot of the cross," never comprehended Wagner's own final "transvaluation of values," and his discovery of the hero within.


----------



## Itullian

Amazing stuff Woodduck. :tiphat:


----------



## DarkAngel

Woodduck you are on a roll.......one more item to ponder, what made Parsifal leave his mother

*Kundry provides this information also*, his father was Gamuret a knight killed in battle, his mother had forbidden Parsifal to use a sword fearing that he would meet the same fate as his father. Parsifal saw knights pass through the forest one day and left his home and mother to follow them

Seems the "pure fool's" destiny even as a young man was to follow his fathers example, and unfortunately his mother's name (heart of sorrow) is fullfilled


----------



## Itullian

DarkAngel said:


> Woodduck you are on a roll.......one more item to ponder, what made Parsifal leave his mother
> 
> *Kundry provides this information also*, his father was Gamuret a knight killed in battle, his mother had forbidden Parsifal to use a sword fearing that he would meet the same fate as his father. Parsifal saw knights pass through the forest one day and left his home and mother to follow them
> 
> Seems the "pure fool's" destiny was even as a young man was to follow his fathers example


You're rolling too DA.


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> Woodduck you are on a roll.......one more item to ponder, what made Parsifal leave his mother
> 
> *Kundry provides this information also*, his father was Gamuret a knight killed in battle, his mother had forbidden Parsifal to use a sword fearing that he would meet the same fate as his father. Parsifal saw knights pass through the forest one day and left his home and mother to follow them
> 
> Seems the "pure fool's" destiny even as a young man was to follow his fathers example, and unfortunately his mother's name (heart of sorrow) is fullfilled


Parsifal, among all he characters in the opera, is that part of the self that pushes toward maturity no matter what. He saw knights in shining armor, and they were the most beautiful thing he'd ever seen. His mother had tried to shelter him, to keep him innocent, but something in him had to defy her and follow them out of the dark forest of ignorance where she had hidden him. Knights simply represent manhood; the boy felt the compelling power of the longing to join them, and it was stronger than the pull of mother love - just as, later, the compelling power of his vision of the Grail would be stronger than the pull of Kundry's promise of a return to mother love. Parsifal had to repeat, again and again as we all do, the decision to leave childhood behind and become an adult. And unlike Amfortas, he had no hubris or illusions of righteousness to make him think he had already achieved it.

The knights of the Grail see Parsifal as a "fool" because he understands nothing of their conventional pieties. But Klingsor, because he alone has not pretended to be righteous and wise, knows that Parsifal's "foolishness" is his secret strength and wisdom, and recognizes that he is dangerous. He is Klingsor's ultimate challenge, because he is not just another macho emissary from Titurel's vulnerable society of the self-righteous but is the deepest, vital core of the self who, if he cannot be vanquished, will destroy them. What neither Klingsor nor the knights of the Grail realize is that if Parsifal wins he will destroy not only the overtly evil realm of Klingsor but the rigid, misogynist domain of Titurel as well (Klingsor and Titurel being mirror images in their attempt at self-suppression and in their desire to control the Grail). I find it poetically just to imagine that at the very moment Klingsor dies, Titurel dies too.

Parsifal is the core of every living human being, the deepest Self which is the seat of unconscious wisdom and which, by its very nature, never ceases to strive for fulfillment and wholeness. For the first time in Wagner's works, fulfillment and wholeness are attained. I don't know how much I believe in it. But the music is sublime!


----------



## anmhe

One more question:
When Parsifal asked who wounded Amfortas with his weapon, she respond that it was he who cursed [her] for [her] laughter. Please excuse me for being dense, but does this mean Klingsor didn't do it? Who cursed Kundry?

I know that Klingsor wounded Amfortas (that's what we are supposed to understand) but the text seems to say something different.


----------



## Couchie

Kundry is presumably the biblical Herodias, and cursed by God with immortality for laughing at Christ on his way to Calvary. She would about be 500 years old assuming the story takes place in the Arthurian period.

Kundry is likely attributing Amfortas' wound to God's punishment for succumbing to Kundry's seduction.


----------



## anmhe

Oh, so Jesus forgives everybody while he's on the cross, and God cuts in with "Everybody EXCEPT that lady over there"? Wow, God sure is a vindictive SOB. 

I do find it strange that God is being blamed for the wound, too. I'm glad I wasn't just misreading the libretto, or got a bad translation.


----------



## Couchie

Kundry is probably Wagner's most complex character, a synthesis of several different literary sources. One of these is the legend of the Wandering Jew, which is from where this particular story comes.

Wagner's boy Schopenhauer considered such _schadenfreude _the most evil sin in existence, the diabolical inverse of compassion.


----------



## Albert7

Couchie said:


> Kundry is probably Wagner's most complex character, a synthesis of several different literary sources. One of these is the legend of the Wandering Jew, which is from where this particular story comes.
> 
> Wagner's boy Schopenhauer considered such _schadenfreude _the most evil sin in existence, the diabolical inverse of compassion.


Kundry is also one of the most developed female characters in the whole operatic world too. She mirrors the plight of the modern woman...

Lulu is a comparable character to her as well.

Both evil but not a straightforward way.


----------



## Itullian

Amfortas' fall causes his wound indirectly. Klingsor inflicts the wound.

Kundry is under her own curse by what she had done and in disfavor with God.

I believe she is redeemed in the end.


----------



## Albert7

Itullian said:


> Amfortas' fall causes his wound indirectly. Klingsor inflicts the wound.
> 
> Kundry is under her own curse by what she had done and in disfavor with God.
> 
> I believe she is redeemed in the end.


I believe the same too... the question is whether Kundry is a sexual temptress willingly or not?


----------



## Itullian

Albert7 said:


> I believe the same too... the question is whether Kundry is a sexual temptress willingly or not?


maybe 50/50 .............................


----------



## Albert7

Itullian said:


> maybe 50/50 .............................


For me that is a key point... and I am unfit because sorry I'm a human being with normal sexual desires... And I believe strongly that Wagner is not suggesting in Parsifal that sex is a blockade to redemption. In fact, I think that he is promoting the opposite view that sexuality for a woman can lead to greater things and artistic inspiration.

And that flies in the face of a lot of medieval history there.


----------



## DarkAngel

Itullian said:


> Amfortas' fall causes his wound indirectly. Klingsor inflicts the wound.
> 
> Kundry is under her own curse by what she had done and in disfavor with God.
> 
> I believe she is redeemed in the end.


Without doubt in the Good Friday scence when Gurnemanz and Kundry first meet Parsifal after his long journeys and prior defeat of Klingsor there are powerful Christian symbols of redemption for Kundry.

First Kundry washes Parsifals feet in the holy spring........a direct reference to Mary Magdalene a famous sinner forgiven by Christ who washed his feet and used her hair to dry them, she followed him to the cross and was the first person to see the resurrected Christ after his cruxcifiction.

In return the "compassionate" Parsifal forgives Kundry and baptizes her with water from the holy spring, a clear symbolic gesture that Kundry has received traditional Christian redemption


----------



## Itullian

DarkAngel said:


> Without doubt in the Good Friday scence when Gurnemanz and Kundry first meet Parsifal after his long journeys and prior defeat of Klingsor there are powerful Christian symbols of redemption for Kundry.
> 
> First Kundry washes Parsifals feet in the holy spring........a direct reference to Mary Magdalene a famous sinner forgiven by Christ who washed his feet and used her hair to dry them, she followed him to the cross and was the first person to see the resurrected Christ after his cruxcifiction. In return the "compassionate" Parsifal forgives Kundry and baptizes her with water from the holy spring, there can be no doubt that Kundry has received traditional Christian redemption


Agree with all you said DA.

Why do you think Wagner has her die at the end?


----------



## Albert7

Itullian said:


> Agree with all you said DA.
> 
> Why do you think Wagner has her die at the end?


Could we read "death" as a form of sexual fulfillment? That's my guess.


----------



## DarkAngel

Albert7 said:


> Could we read "death" as a form of sexual fulfillment? That's my guess.





> Agree with all you said DA.
> Why do you think Wagner has her die at the end?


In post 35 woodduck has some very good observations about the male/female sexual symbolism of the spear/grail, and what the final grail lifting ceremony is meant to convey......

Itullian I would much prefer that Kundry not only lives, but is exaulted in final grail ceremony, much like the forgiven and redeemed Mary Magdalene character in the bible referred to in Good Friday scence, seems a cruel fate to have lived a tortured life so long then at greatest moment of redemption and glorious rapture to be have it all end


----------



## Itullian

DarkAngel said:


> In post 35 woodduck has some very good observations about the male/female sexual symbolism of the spear/grail, and what the final grail lifting ceremony is meant to convey......
> 
> Itullian* I would much prefer that Kundry not only lives*, but is exaulted in final grail ceremony, much like the forgiven and redeemed Mary Magdalene character in the bible referred to in Good Friday scence


I think I would too. I don't know about exalted, but redeemed would be nice.

A lot of the sexual symbolism is hard for me to understand i'm afraid.


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> In post 35 woodduck has some very good observations about the male/female sexual symbolism of the spear/grail, and what the final grail lifting ceremony is meant to convey......
> 
> Itullian I would much prefer that Kundry not only lives, but is exaulted in final grail ceremony, much like the forgiven and redeemed Mary Magdalene character in the bible referred to in Good Friday scence, seems a cruel fate to have lived a tortured life so long then at greatest moment of redemption and glorious rapture to be have it all end


I understand your feeling, Dark Angel. If we were to regard all the characters in _Parsifal_ as fully constituted, separate individuals with independent lives, then it would be suitable and lovely for Kundry to live, marry, bear children, etc. We can look at the characters in the work this way, but if we do we are confronted with a very weird story about some very strange people whose lives are filled with impossible occurrences. If we don't go beyond the literal and view these characters allegorically, as embodiments of particular human traits, rather than as whole people, they are going to look awfully abnormal and be very hard to identify with. I think that taking the characters and events literally, when they obviously inhabit a literally inpossible world, is what leads people to think that this opera is basically incomprehensible, or even perhaps reprehensible. Charges that it advocates sexism, or denigrates sexuality, or that it's sacrilegious, or too Christian, or not Christian enough, etc., come from trying to read it at too literal a level of reality.

Kundry, viewed as an individual, is really impossible to make sense of in her origins, her emotions, and her death. But viewed as an embodiment of aspects of woman as experienced by a repressive, anti-sexual, patriarchal order of male knights, and as the concentration into one feminine character of all the sufferings of woman forced into alienness and enslavement by men unable to accept and integrate - and hence needing to control - woman, femininity, and their own feminine nature, Kundry emerges as a magnificently powerful image of a perversion of humanity, the perversion which the "fool" Parsifal - the irrepressible soul striving for wholeness - will wisely reject and ultimately heal. Kundry is not the whole of woman, much less an individual woman, but rather the embodied suffering of what is left of woman deprived of will by man who rejects and tries to control her in a fearful and arrogant assertion of his own will. The knights try to use the Grail (the nurturing Feminine) and force it to serve their needs, and the Spear (the Masculine will) to battle and conquer; but both uses are perverse - we may even imagine them as forms of rape - and Parsifal consciously rejects them both. And Kundry, who is never anything but a reflection, in both her service and her seductions, of masculine fears and desires, yearns only for non-existence; when she dies, she is not a person being released from a difficult life, but a no-longer-existing embodiment of a perverted femininity, exactly as the dead Titurel and Klingsor are no-longer-existing embodiments of a perverted masculinity. In the healed, redeemed soul, masculine and feminine - Spear and Grail - have been reunited, the Spear never again to be used in battle, the Grail never again to be confined and kept as a slave to male desire. In short, masculine will and feminine love - the yang and yin of the soul - coexist now in harmony.

On a literal level, Parsifal's return of the Spear to the precincts of the Grail and his healing of the heretofore incurable wound of Amfortas might appear to effect the restoration of the Order of the Grail, with Parsifal as its new high priest. In that scenario, Kundry's death might even look like a crude attempt to get feminine temptations out of the way so that the knights can live happily celibate ever after. Based on such simplistic readings, the story has been called anti-female and even homoerotic. But such interpretations must overlook the archetypal masculine and feminine imagery which pervades the opera from start to finish, most crucially the Spear and Grail themselves, and ignores as well the powerful sensuality of the music, which speaks of anything but life-denying asceticism. Wagner was profoundly in touch with these archetypes - all his mature works deal with them in some way - both as a creative artist and as a person. The idea of killing off woman at the end of the opera so that man can live a life of blissfull celibacy is about as un-Wagnerian a notion as I can think of!

In Wagnerian mythology, death is not an end but a transformation, a moment of transition to a higher state. It's an ancient religious idea which Wagner uses in its psychological meaning. Kundry's death is not woman's end, but her fulfillment: no longer man's mother, servant, or seducer, but the other half of his soul. The Grail, freed from ritual servitude, never more to be confined, embodies liberated femininity within itself, in full partnership with the equally free Spear.

Wagner neglects to tell us, in his stage directions, what Parsifal does with the Spear between the healing of Amfortas and the lifting of the Grail. I think it would be appropriate if Parsifal lifted them together, or placed them together on a pedestal and stepped back into the shadows, allowing them to glow, alone together, beneath the descent of the dove in the light from the temple dome.


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> I understand your feeling, Dark Angel. If we were to regard all the characters in _Parsifal_ as fully constituted, separate individuals with independent lives, then it would be suitable and lovely for Kundry to live, marry, bear children, etc. We can look at the characters in the work this way, but if we do we are confronted with a very weird story about some very strange people whose lives are filled with impossible occurrences. If we don't go beyond the literal and view these characters allegorically, as embodiments of particular human traits, rather than as whole people, they are going to look awfully abnormal and be very hard to identify with. I think that taking the characters and events literally, when they obviously inhabit a literally inpossible world, is what leads people to think that this opera is basically incomprehensible, or even perhaps reprehensible. Charges that it advocates sexism, or denigrates sexuality, or that it's sacrilegious, or too Christian, or not Christian enough, etc., come from trying to read it at too literal a level of reality.
> 
> Kundry, viewed as an individual, is really impossible to make sense of in her origins, her emotions, and her death. But viewed as an embodiment of aspects of woman as experienced by a repressive, anti-sexual, patriarchal order of male knights, and as the concentration into one feminine character of all the sufferings of woman forced into alienness and enslavement by men unable to accept and integrate - and hence needing to control - woman, femininity, and their own feminine nature, Kundry emerges as a magnificently powerful image of a perversion of humanity, the perversion which the "fool" Parsifal - the irrepressible soul striving for wholeness - will wisely reject and ultimately heal. Kundry is not the whole of woman, much less an individual woman, but rather the embodied suffering of what is left of woman deprived of will by man who rejects and tries to control her in a fearful and arrogant assertion of his own will. The knights try to use the Grail (the nurturing Feminine) and force it to serve their needs, and the Spear (the Masculine will) to battle and conquer; but both uses are perverse - we may even imagine them as forms of rape - and Parsifal consciously rejects them both. And Kundry, who is never anything but a reflection, in both her service and her seductions, of masculine fears and desires, yearns only for non-existence; when she dies, she is not a person being released from a difficult life, but a no-longer-existing embodiment of a perverted femininity, exactly as the dead Titurel and Klingsor are no-longer-existing embodiments of a perverted masculinity. In the healed, redeemed soul, masculine and feminine - Spear and Grail - have been reunited, the Spear never again to be used in battle, the Grail never again to be confined and kept as a slave to male desire. In short, masculine will and feminine love - the yang and yin of the soul - coexist now in harmony.
> 
> On a literal level, Parsifal's return of the Spear to the precincts of the Grail and his healing of the heretofore incurable wound of Amfortas might appear to effect the restoration of the Order of the Grail, with Parsifal as its new high priest. In that scenario, Kundry's death might even look like a crude attempt to get feminine temptations out of the way so that the knights can live happily celibate ever after. Based on such simplistic readings, the story has been called anti-female and even homoerotic. But such interpretations must overlook the archetypal masculine and feminine imagery which pervades the opera from start to finish, most crucially the Spear and Grail themselves, and ignores as well the powerful sensuality of the music, which speaks of anything but life-denying asceticism. Wagner was profoundly in touch with these archetypes - all his mature works deal with them in some way - both as a creative artist and as a person. The idea of killing off woman at the end of the opera so that man can live a life of blissfull celibacy is about as un-Wagnerian a notion as I can think of!
> 
> In Wagnerian mythology, death is not an end but a transformation, a moment of transition to a higher state. It's an ancient religious idea which Wagner uses in its psychological meaning. Kundry's death is not woman's end, but her fulfillment: no longer man's mother, servant, or seducer, but the other half of his soul. The Grail, freed from ritual servitude, never more to be confined, embodies liberated femininity within itself, in full partnership with the equally free Spear.
> 
> Wagner neglects to tell us, in his stage directions, what Parsifal does with the Spear between the healing of Amfortas and the lifting of the Grail. I think it would be appropriate if Parsifal lifted them together, or placed them together on a pedestal and stepped back into the shadows, allowing them to glow, alone together, beneath the descent of the dove in the light from the temple dome.


It makes total sense Woodduck, Thank you so much.
Ol' RW was quite a guy, ay? :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> It makes total sense Woodduck, Thank you so much.
> Ol' RW was quite a guy, ay? :tiphat:


Well...Sometimes I have to spin my own head around a few times and hope that when it stops the opera will still make total sense to me! I think after knowing it for about 50 years it's at least beginning to add up.

I do think there's more than one way to look at this opera (and W's other operas), simply because they do synthesize a lot of archetypal images from an eclectic and personalized mix of traditions. For example, the Christian stuff in _Parsifal_ ("is _Parsifal_ a Christian opera?") can really be a problem for some. Maybe I'll try to deal with that sometime in this thread.

I'm very interested in how other people see this work. I'm even interested in why people don't like it. It's been criticized more than any other work of Wagner, and a lot of stupid and repugnant things have been seen in it by ignorant people or people with hangups or axes to grind. The only thing I'm not interested in is people dismissing it or condemning it because of what they've heard or read without showing any personal interest in coming to terms with it.


----------



## Itullian

Well, there really are no arias per se.
And the music is subtle much of the time,
And religion puts some off.
It's a different kind of listening I think.


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> Well, there really are no arias per se.
> And the music is subtle much of the time,
> And religion puts some off.
> It's a different kind of listening I think.


I'd say it requires stillness and receptiveness (as well as a comfortable seat and maybe a little caffeine beforehand if you're as old as I am) and not too much thinking until after the spell has subsided. A friend of mine called it a "dream." It's good not to wake up too abruptly.


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> I'd say it requires stillness and receptiveness (as well as a comfortable seat and maybe a little caffeine beforehand if you're as old as I am) and not too much thinking until after the spell has subsided. A friend of mine called it a "dream." It's good not to wake up too abruptly.


I guess Wagner took it pretty seriously if he called it a work to
' consecrate the stage' huh? :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> I guess Wagner took it pretty seriously if he called it a work to
> ' consecrate the stage' huh? :tiphat:


He took _all_ his works very seriously, of course. How could he not? There never was a more serious artist, or one who set himself more difficult tasks. His operas are enormous achievements of the imagination that required years, even decades, to create. _Parsifal_ was the first work he wrote specifically for Bayreuth, hence it was to "consecrate (or dedicate) the stage."


----------



## Woodduck

To all those who may be preparing cogent arguments, it's 1:00 AM on the west coast of the USA. I shall expect them in the morning. Good night.


----------



## Couac Addict

I liked the part when Parsifal tried to tempt Crocodile-Kundry to join the Dark Side.


----------



## Itullian

Why do you think Wagner liked the idea of naïve heroes?

To me, to be a hero you must know good and evil, not be naïve
and have quick wits.
If u don't know fear then you're not overcoming anything, no?


----------



## anmhe

That's why I dislike Siegfried, Itullian. He knows no fear. He is, to use coarse terms, a dick. Parsifal may be naive in the beginning, but he gains knowledge, he becomes worthy through acts of moral as well as physical courage. He knows danger and he faces it. Siegfried is blind to peril, and everything is for his glory because he knows he's awesome.


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> To all those who may be preparing cogent arguments, it's 1:00 AM on the west coast of the USA. I shall expect them in the morning. Good night.


I went to bed last night around 4 AM and I am pretty sure that I still would have difficulty trying to summarize my thoughts on Parsifal... what is cool is that I learned that Humperdinck did a short interlude for scene changes in this opera... one which isn't retained in today's productions.


----------



## Albert7

I just started to drink my Blue Moon Belgian White ale so hopefully I will remain coherent as I elucidate each of the points concerned:

Kundry here is a goddess of sorts one who straddles between physical and spiritual desire and Wagner's point in the opera is to combine and forge a new archetype from this.

--Act II libretto

Kundry being described by Klingsor as a bride of the devil for me which I interpret as a sexual temptress here.

Klingsor sings:

Ungebändigten Sehnens Pein,
schrecklichster Triebe Höllendrang,
den ich zum Todesschweigen mir zwang,
lacht und höhnt er nun laut
durch dich, des Teufels Braut?

(bride of the devil) = succubus

contrast that with:

in Act III

PARSIFAL
(nimmt Kundry sanft das Fläschchen ab
und reicht es Gurnemanz)

Du salbtest mir die Füsse,
das Haupt nun salbe Titurels Genoss,
dass heute noch als König er mich grüsse.

where Kundry anionts the feet of Parsifal as a holy woman... a spiritual source of artistic inspiration.

(My reading: Kundry is like a poetess who inspires the combination of "base" sexual desire and the highest utmost spiritual poetry.)

Now here later in Act III, Kundry has reached the apotheosis of goddess status:

(Kundry hat langsam wieder das Haupt erhoben und blickt feuchten Auges, ernst und ruhig bittend zu Parsifal auf) (Kundry has slowly raised her head again and looks up at Parsifal with teaful eyes in calm and earnest enteaty)
PARSIFAL

Ich sah sie welken, die einst mir lachten:
ob heut sie nach Erlösung schmachten? -
Auch deine Träne ward zum Segenstaue:
du weinest - sieh! es lacht die Aue.

(Er küsst sie sanft auf die Stirne)

That kiss of deliverance for me is Kundry in goddess form blessing Parsifal who is a poet of the highest order. I read the spear as equal to a man's phallus which is equivalent to an author's pen.

Next post to address next issue.


----------



## Albert7

Next point: Kundry represents that type of goddess, the one that inspires poetry and magic together.

Okay I got the goddess away in that Act III in previous post so please read that accordingly... Now to the magic part. Returning back to Act II part of libretto here.

Obviously Klingsor refers to Kundry as a witch.

KLINGSOR
(wütend)

Was frägst du das, verfluchtes Weib? -

(Er versinkt in finstres Brüten)

So Kingsor of the basest desires is the lowest form of life... a man of black magic who is caught in his lust for Kundry... he is bewitched by her power because she is a woman.

Kundry is later transformed into a goddess in Act III in my opinion when she kisses Parsifal. A kiss is holy here, imbued with meaning.


----------



## Albert7

Last point here: It extends Wagner's concern for the poet's place in society that was alluded to strongly in Meistersinger earlier.

The point I hope to make is that Kingsor is a man of black magic, equivalent to the failed poet within Beckmesser of Meistersinger while Parsifal is simiar to that Hans Sachs... the bringer of light or top notch poetry... the radiant lines that Parsifal sings in Act III should point this out.

Meistersinger is about human rivalry between the base and elevated forms of poetry; Parsifal is about poetry too but about the poetry of living... the conflict between the basest form of living versus the high-mindedness of living that Parsifal exemplifies.

Hope that this explanation was helpful and not too incoherent.


----------



## Woodduck

Well, I must admit I find your interpretations somewhat fanciful. I can't see that Kundry at any point inspires anyone. None of the female figures from which Wagner derives her, of the names by which Klingsor calls her, or of her descriptions of herself, suggest a goddess of any sort, much less an inspiring one. Kundry's washing of Parsifal's feet hardly makes her a "holy woman"; it only represents her aspect as servant now that she is free of Klingsor's power. You are incorrect about her kissing Parsifal: it is he who kisses her ("Er kusst sie..."), showing the freedom of both of them from the destructive relationship in which, in Act 2, _she_ had kissed _him_. His ability to turn the act of kissing back upon her, now transformed from regressive lust into enlightened love, is one of the most powerful representations of his maturation, and a real inspiration on Wagner's part.

As far as Parsifal being a poet in that he practices "the poetry of living," that is no more than metaphorical, and it stretches the metaphor beyond the breaking point. I find no meaningful comparison between Klingsor and Beckmesser. Beckmesser is not evil; he is merely a literal-minded, hidebound traditionalist with nothing to say as an artist and an uncomprehending suspicion of a young rival who does have something to say. Nor do I see Sachs as truly parallel to Parsifal; each brings about a happy ending, but Parsifal does it by growing up himself, while Sachs counsels wisdom to others.


----------



## Woodduck

I'd like to consider for another moment this kiss which Parsifal gives to Kundry. 

Think of that earlier kiss in the garden: the kiss of temptation, the kiss of the serpent, of the devouring mouth - the mouth of Kundry, the mouth of Herzeleide, the boy's forsaken mother, the mother he had loved, yet left weeping and dying for her thoughtless son, the mother now filling him with unspeakable guilt, calling him back, back to her hungry arms, back to the womb, the tomb, the death of never having been born... And Parsifal - in that instant, as in a flash of blinding light, seeing before him Amfortas and the bleeding wound which will not heal - gazing in awful horror and sudden realization straight into the darkness of the serpent mother's mouth/womb/tomb, and crying: No!...

When that "No!" breaks the spell of childhood, of the magic of temptation, of the longing for irresponsible bliss in the eternal darkness of the unawakened mind, Parsifal - holding the Sacred Spear always at his side, never using it in battle, not falling into the error of Amfortas who had sought to make it an instrument of his will - now sets out to wander through the wilderness, through years of seeking, years of adversity and learning about life, until he finally finds once more, as a grown man, the precincts of the Grail. The Kundry he finds there is not the serpent in the garden, not a being of treacherous power, but a broken shell of a woman now emptied of any capacity but to attend and to wait - to wait for him, the redeemed redeemer, who will in the end grant her her final freedom. Does she recognize him? We must surmise so; she does not speak. She knows enough to wash his tired feet. But he knows her well - and when he kisses her it is not simple compassion that we see, but something we have never seen in this story since Titurel first received the Grail and the Spear as the gifts of life which he misused: we see the possibility of love between Man and Woman, a love not at base sexual but purely human, a love which refuses to regard Woman as mother, servant, or seducer, a love uncontaminated by need, fear, hatred, lust, or the desire for power. Parsifal's kiss is a premonition of the kiss of the Spear and the Grail, whose reunion he is about to enact. And when the Man gives the Woman the first kiss of pure love she has ever received, she weeps: Kundry, who could not weep but only laugh in mockery at Man who would enslave her yet himself fell enslaved in her arms, now weeps, for the first time since she came into existence at the beginning of time. She weeps tears of deliverance, the deliverance of Woman from the agony of alienation and servitude; tears which wash clean the corruption wrought upon the gifts of life by Man, who in his newfound wisdom will now proceed at last to free the Grail, the Eternal Feminine, from the tomb in which he has confined her.

Parsifal's kiss and Kundry's tears are the last actions in the drama before Parsifal proceeds to the temple, accompanied by Kundry and Gurnemanz. He arrives at the moment of uttermost crisis, when Amfortas, having sent his father to death, cries out for death himself. Parsifal, according to Wagner, slips in unnoticed, and with a mere touch of the Spear heals it. His action is so quick and gentle, it's almost as if the healing had already been accomplished and needed only to be identified - as if the desperate knights and their suicidal leader had simply failed to notice what was already upon them. A transformation so abrupt, so unexpected and unprepared, would seem almost impossible to express, dramatically and musically, and to invest with the profound meaning it must hold. Yet Wagner works a subtle miracle here, and we feel as if darkness has dissolved instantly into light, with only a delicate memory of suffering, now dissolved in compassion, to remind us of all that we've been through. 

I like to think that the healing of Amfortas and the transformation of despair into exaltation could happen so easily because, in essence, it had already occurred at the moment when the Man kissed the Woman and she shed her first tears.


----------



## undifelice

Hi all, 
Wading into my first discussion and making my first post. 
Really, really interesting conversation about "Parsifal". 
It was my first Wagner opera, and has remained my favourite. It truly is like awaking from a spell when you come to the end. Not sure if any of you have seen the Verdi vs. Wagner debate chaired by Stephen Fry, but Wagner's defender, Phillip Hensher, likened the opera to "watching a flower blossom", a metaphor I find apt. (OT but; Verdi deserved a better advocate than Norman Lebrecht...)
Happy to be joining the conversation!


----------



## Woodduck

undifelice said:


> Hi all,
> Wading into my first discussion and making my first post.
> Really, really interesting conversation about "Parsifal".
> It was my first Wagner opera, and has remained my favourite. It truly is like awaking from a spell when you come to the end. Not sure if any of you have seen the Verdi vs. Wagner debate chaired by Stephen Fry, but Wagner's defender, Phillip Hensher, likened the opera to "watching a flower blossom", a metaphor I find apt. (OT but; Verdi deserved a better advocate than Norman Lebrecht...)
> Happy to be joining the conversation!


Welcome to TC, undifelice.

I agree with you about that debate between Henscher and Lebrecht. The latter was so hung up on Wagner's personal faults that he never really told us what makes Verdi a great composer of opera.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> Welcome to TC, undifelice.
> 
> I agree with you about that debate between Henscher and Lebrecht. The latter was so hung up on Wagner's personal faults that he never really told us what makes Verdi a great composer of opera.


And having some familiarity with Lebrecht's Slippedisc blog, that comes as no surprise.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Welcome to TC, undifelice.
> 
> I agree with you about that debate between Henscher and Lebrecht. The latter was so hung up on Wagner's personal faults that he never really told us what makes Verdi a great composer of opera.


I love Verdi, myself- but I wouldn't even call Lebrecht a straw man in that debate; in fact, I'm not sure he even showed up for it.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> And having some familiarity with Lebrecht's Slippedisc blog, that comes as no surprise.


for those not familiar with that, what should we know about it?


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> for those not familiar with that, what should we know about it?


Let's just say that he spends so much time beating horses that he doesn't like, that there isn't a lot of substantial content. Reading it is somewhat analogous to sitting at a dangerous intersection, waiting for the next accident to happen. Also someone has started a parody site of it - and that says a lot.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> Let's just say that he spends so much time beating horses that he doesn't like, that there isn't a lot of substantial content. Reading it is somewhat analogous to sitting at a dangerous intersection, waiting for the next accident to happen. Also someone has started a parody site of it - and that says a lot.


Thanks. I shall avoid the old grouch. Of course I already do.


----------



## undifelice

Being a big Verdi fan myself, watching that debate was indeed like watching a car crash. I felt very, very, very embarrassed for Lebrecht, particularly because he was talking out of his **** in front of Fry and Hensher who were much more knowledgeable. I couldn't take my eyes away from Fry's benign, quietly amused expressions every time Lebrecht made another superficial claim. Thanks for the welcome, Woodduck


----------



## Itullian

On the flipside Tomlinson's singing was horrendous :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> On the flipside Tomlinson's singing was horrendous :lol:


You said it. He should have been embalmed years before. It was the only thing that provided balance in the conversation.


----------



## anmhe

In fairness to the Wagner detractors on this board, I can see a bit of potential antisemitism in Parsifal. Kundry was present at the crucifixion, so she was most likely local to that area. Being a local lady, she was probably Jewish. Considering Wagner's bigotry towards people of the Jewish faith, it easy for one to assume the worst. The problem with the argument against the depiction of Kundry comes with her being forgiven. Every character in this opera is flawed, and every character acts poorly in reaction to their own pain. That's why Parsifal's struggle for enlightenment and righteousness and compassion is so compelling. Defeating Klingsor was only a small part of his journey. In order to save the order he had to keep his animal nature in check (he never uses the spear in battle and is wounded several times because of that). Wagner was a bigot, but Parsifal's greater message conflicts greatly with his personal prejudices.


----------



## Woodduck

anmhe said:


> In fairness to the Wagner detractors on this board, I can see a bit of potential antisemitism in Parsifal. Kundry was present at the crucifixion, so she was most likely local to that area. Being a local lady, she was probably Jewish. Considering Wagner's bigotry towards people of the Jewish faith, it easy for one to assume the worst. The problem with the argument against the depiction of Kundry comes with her being forgiven. Every character in this opera is flawed, and every character acts poorly in reaction to their own pain. That's why Parsifal's struggle for enlightenment and righteousness and compassion is so compelling. Defeating Klingsor was only a small part of his journey. In order to save the order he had to keep his animal nature in check (he never uses the spear in battle and is wounded several times because of that). Wagner was a bigot, but Parsifal's greater message conflicts greatly with his personal prejudices.


It would require a very literalistic view of _Parsifal_ to think of Kundry as a "local lady" from anywhere. Wagner uses a variety of characters from several traditions to create her complex character; Herodias, who mocked Christ, is only one of them.

Here's a web site devoted to the study of this opera. It's a treasury of information and insight.

The home page: http://www.monsalvat.no/index.htm
Stuff about Kundry: http://www.monsalvat.no/kundry.htm

It would really diminish the scope and meaning of Kundry's many-faceted nature to think of her as Jewish, or as any sort of statement about Jews or Judaism.


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> It would require a very literalistic view of _Parsifal_ to think of Kundry as a "local lady" from anywhere. Wagner uses a variety of characters from several traditions to create her complex character; Herodias, who mocked Christ, is only one of them.
> 
> Here's a web site devoted to the study of this opera. It's a treasury of information and insight.
> 
> The home page: http://www.monsalvat.no/index.htm
> Stuff about Kundry: http://www.monsalvat.no/kundry.htm
> 
> It would really diminish the scope and meaning of Kundry's many-faceted nature to think of her as Jewish, or as any sort of statement about Jews or Judaism.


I can't seem to wrap my head around Kundry being Jewish. I know in my heart that Wagner was composing an allegory and not a political treatise... Parsifal is working with the barest of prototypes of myth which are the basis for his libretto in question.

In fact, the version of Christianity that Wagner presents is not that of traditional Christianity... it's his own version that he is trying to elucidate... a pagan Christianity with parallels to the age of King Arthur... and plus as I elucidated earlier in this thread... elements from Robert Graves with the white goddess concept which I see Kundry as exemplifying.

Parsifal for me is a anthropological opera and nothing else to me. Political reading are possible but that would in line for a postmodern deconstruction of the opera's sexual politics.


----------



## anmhe

Slight change in subject:

Did anyone notice Gary Lehman's lisping in the Gergiev recording? If you don't believe me, check out Act II's pivotal moment:

"Amfortath! Die Wunde!"

I know the setting is supposedly Spain, but adding a dash of Castilian flavor might have been overdoing it.


----------



## Albert7

Speaking of Parsifal on a more positive note, which CD recordings are your favorites guys?


----------



## Itullian

Knap 62
Solti
................


----------



## Itullian

The last 2 Parsifals I watched, Stein and Sinopoli on youtube, had Kundry living at the end.
I guess that's the trend.


----------



## Itullian

I like the fact that you can view it as a simple story, or delve in deeper if you wish.

I see it as other worldly, a dream almost.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I still find it hard to believe that many people don't find the music as deep *and* pleasurable as I do (and for the sake of reason please get a modern recording with the full and clear spectre of up to the most distant overtones!, not some old black and white Hollywood sound). From the highly developed harmonic embellishment and ambiguity of Parsifal it requires no step at all to foresee the lyrical beauty of Mahler's lieder or early Shoenberg (the free atonal period, on the other hand, I think has more to do with Tristan) and only a little distance to arrive at the non-functinality of Debussy.

Outside that, sorry but I only really care for Klingsor. It touches me little the feminine-masculine symbolism, all that kind of culturally constructed beliefs about human nature and the like I think we would be better without.


----------



## anmhe

Klingsor is a strange character, but I find it hard to feel much sympathy for him. Sure, he made a great physical sacrifice in an attempt to show himself worthy to be a Grail Knight, but he employed a brutal, ineffective shortcut. He is a troubled soul, but he revels in the sorrow of others and seeks to inflict pain. I have a hard time sticking up for a character that goes out of his way to bring misery.


----------



## Figleaf

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I still find it hard to believe that many people don't find the music as deep *and* pleasurable as I do (and* for the sake of reason please get a modern recording with the full and clear spectre of up to the most distant overtones!, not some old black and white Hollywood sound*). From the highly developed harmonic embellishment and ambiguity of Parsifal it requires no step at all to foresee the lyrical beauty of Mahler's lieder or early Shoenberg (the free atonal period, on the other hand, I think has more to do with Tristan) and only a little distance to arrive at the non-functinality of Debussy.
> 
> Outside that, sorry but I only really care for Klingsor. It touches me little the feminine-masculine symbolism, all that kind of culturally constructed beliefs about human nature and the like I think we would be better without.


This thread has whetted my appetite for Parsifal, and I have been thinking of ordering the 1938 Met broadcast recording conducted by Artur Bodanzky, with Friedrich Schorr as Amfortas. It's probably pretty 'black and white Hollywood sound', but singers of Schorr's calibre don't grow on trees and I would rather compromise on the sound quality than on the singing. As far as the orchestral music goes, a modern recording might well work better, yet I have the Karl Muck recording on Naxos Historical (one act plus excerpts from other recordings) and although I listen to it infrequently, I'm always struck by how good the orchestral bits sound, by the standard of vintage recordings. Has anyone else heard the Bodanzky, and if so, what do you think?


----------



## Woodduck

Figleaf said:


> This thread has whetted my appetite for Parsifal, and I have been thinking of ordering the 1938 Met broadcast recording conducted by Artur Bodanzky, with Friedrich Schorr as Amfortas. It's probably pretty 'black and white Hollywood sound', but singers of Schorr's calibre don't grow on trees and I would rather compromise on the sound quality than on the singing. As far as the orchestral music goes, a modern recording might well work better, yet I have the Karl Muck recording on Naxos Historical (one act plus excerpts from other recordings) and although I listen to it infrequently, I'm always struck by how good the orchestral bits sound, by the standard of vintage recordings. Has anyone else heard the Bodanzky, and if so, what do you think?


I haven't heard it myself, but reviews say the singers (Flagstad, Melchior, Schorr, List, Gabor) are impressive. The conducting has Bodansky in acts 1 and 3 and Leinsdorf in Act 2 (Bodansky was getting old and needed the break). It's complete on three discs, so the tempos are fast. The sound is said to be rather poor, with noticeable side breaks every seven minutes or so from the acetate discs which were the source for the Myto CDs. The Guild label later came out with Act 2 only, which doesn't have that problem and sounds better in general. My feeling is that the Myto set would be a great supplement but not the best way to experience the opera. My favorite recording is the 1962 Philips recording from Bayreuth under Knappertsbusch. Once you get past some coughers during the prelude you'll be enjoying the unique acoustics of the Festspielhaus for which the opera was written, and the performance is a dedicated, insightful one by a conductor and cast who realize to the full the humanity of the work. Hans Hotter, the Gurnemanz, is not the purest vocally, but makes the character into something truly noble and touching, and all the other singers are fine. The Bayreuth chorus too is outstanding. There are other good _Parsifals_ and other people will have other recommendations,but lots of us feel the 1962 Kna is one of the classic Wagner performances on disc. I think fine sound is important in this work, as the orchestration is so ethereally beautiful.

By the way, where have you found the Myto at a reasonable price? On Amazon it's $999.99 right now!


----------



## Figleaf

Woodduck said:


> I haven't heard it myself, but reviews say the singers (Flagstad, Melchior, Schorr, List, Gabor) are impressive. The conducting has Bodansky in acts 1 and 3 and Leinsdorf in Act 2 (Bodansky was getting old and needed the break). It's complete on three discs, so the tempos are fast. The sound is said to be rather poor, with noticeable side breaks every seven minutes or so from the acetate discs which were the source for the Myto CDs. The Guild label later came out with Act 2 only, which doesn't have that problem and sounds better in general. My feeling is that the Myto set would be a great supplement but not the best way to experience the opera. My favorite recording is the 1962 Philips recording from Bayreuth under Knappertsbusch. Once you get past some coughers during the prelude you'll be enjoying the unique acoustics of the Festspielhaus for which the opera was written, and the performance is a dedicated, insightful one by a conductor and cast who realize to the full the humanity of the work. Hans Hotter, the Gurnemanz, is not the purest vocally, but makes the character into something truly noble and touching, and all the other singers are fine. The Bayreuth chorus too is outstanding. There are other good _Parsifals_ and other people will have other recommendations,but lots of us feel the 1962 Kna is one of the classic Wagner performances on disc. I think fine sound is important in this work, as the orchestration is so ethereally beautiful.
> 
> By the way, where have you found the Myto at a reasonable price? On Amazon it's $999.99 right now!


Here it is:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wagner-Pars...ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2EY4DQ23IRCL9

I just bought it for £27.99, but there was another copy available at a higher price, vastly cheaper than on the US site though. The one customer review said the sound was awful, but it's hard to know whether to set much store by the opinion of one stranger who, for all I know, might only listen to digital era recordings and expect everything to sound perfect. I await the delivery with interest...


----------



## Itullian

No need to compromise sound.
The Knap 62 is a classic.


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> No need to compromise sound.
> The Knap 62 is a classic.


I have the Kna 51 and it is terribly slow. Maybe he speeded up a bit by 62. I have read that when Levi was rehearsing the premiere Wagner told him not to drag it out. Kna appears to even though it is a live performance. The live Karajan version from Vienna is far more dramatic with a superb Act 2 Kundry from Ludwig. Unfortunately the recorded sound is not that good.


----------



## Becca

This ongoing discussion of Wagner and his anti-semitic views has made me consider other composers whose works demonstrate a clear discriminatory pattern. In particular I am thinking about Rossini where two of his comic operas_ Il Turco in Italia_ and _L'Italiana in Algeri_ make fun of Muslim culture. I need to do a literature search and, assuming that I don't find anything, I will write my own scholarly treatise on the subject. I might also want to extend it by adding a consideration of his thoughts on music masters as exemplified by Don Basilio in _Il Barbiere di Siviglia_.


----------



## Taggart

This discussion has got off topic. The tone of some posts was far from civil. Some posts have been removed.

Please do not let this thread degenerate into a heated discussion about Wagner and anti-Semitism which is liable to get the thread closed. Keep it as a discussion of Parsifal.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Itullian said:


> Wagner's last opera.
> 
> Is it his masterpiece?
> 
> What are your thoughts/feelings about this work?
> 
> And it's meanings.
> 
> :tiphat:
> 
> I find it hypnotic and mysterious.


It looks like this thread is about to get locked, so I will be short.

I love Parsifal. I don't listen to it that often, so it is a sort of a "holy Grail" for me, where I anticipate every encounter. The music in Acts I and III is especially sublime. The first half an hour before the appearance of Parsifal, which many find overdrawn and boring, I find wonderful, especially when Gurnemanz is sung by Kurt Moll. The ceremony in the Grail Castle is even more wonderful, as is the entire third act. My favorite moment in Act II is the finale when the castle comes crashing down, leaving an empty desert with withering flowers, revealing the fact that it had never been anything but an illusion, a magic trick.

I also think that, as with the rest of Wagner's work, you don't really need books written about it, or other people's interpretations of it, in order to understand what Parsifal is about. A little Bible knowledge might be handy. Wagner was not trying to create incomprehensible art, he wanted to be understood clearly. Just listen, read and think, and you will have understanding.


----------



## Itullian

Don't let it be closed.
Be cool every one.


----------



## hpowders

I love the music of Parsifal. The story is blasphemous but I can live with that.

I believe it is Wagner's second greatest opera after Götterdämmerung.

I envy the Wagner basses. They get to sing Gurnemanz, Hans Sachs and Wotan. It doesn't get much better than that!

The "unwritten" tradition at many opera houses not to applaud after Act One of Parsifal is absurd.


----------



## anmhe

@hpowders:
"They" get to sing Gurnemanz as long "they" are named "René Pape."


----------



## anmhe

I just found this clip from the Stuttgart production a few years back. The setting: I like it. A post-apocalyptic wasteland works for this. The execution: I'm not a fan. Mostly it has to do with how our hero defeats Klingsor. My opinion is that it's wrong and way too brutal. It doesn't ring true to the work. The Met production with Jonas Kaufman did a better job.

Now if only we could get a "Wild West" Parsifal! I keep thinking that Klingsor as a saloon keeper (a la Al Swearengen) would work incredibly well.


----------



## Woodduck

anmhe said:


> I just found this clip from the Stuttgart production a few years back. The setting: I like it. A post-apocalyptic wasteland works for this. The execution: I'm not a fan. Mostly it has to do with how our hero defeats Klingsor. My opinion is that it's wrong and way too brutal. It doesn't ring true to the work. The Met production with Jonas Kaufman did a better job.
> 
> Now if only we could get a "Wild West" Parsifal! I keep thinking that Klingsor as a saloon keeper (a la Al Swearengen) would work incredibly well.


I don't recognize this opera. The music sounds like _Parsifal_...

I'm racking my brain. Help me out here! What is it?


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> I don't recognize this opera. The music sounds like _Parsifal_...
> 
> I'm racking my brain. Help me out here! What is it?


It seems that the guy on the left has an eye patch so I presume it is Wotan who has apparently been doing more wandering than we realized!


----------



## anmhe

Woodduck said:


> I don't recognize this opera. The music sounds like _Parsifal_...
> 
> I'm racking my brain. Help me out here! What is it?


It's either "Mad Parsifal: Beyond Kligsordome," or "Parsifal After Dark." It's bad either way.


----------



## Woodduck

I'm 65 years old and very likely to spend my later years here in southern Oregon where it is rarely possible to attend live productions of opera. There is plenty of straight theater, thanks to the long-established Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the other theatrical venues which have grown up around that. But there is no real opera company, and the occasional opera must be performed in theaters not specifically designed for it. Large-scale works like Wagner's are not practical here.

Given contemporary artistic trends in opera production, and especially the treatment of Wagner, I feel little regret about being confined to recordings for my experience of opera. Listening to a recording in the comfort of my own home environment allows me to visualize it as I please and as the music and text suggest that it should look. The excitement and surprise of watching live actors may be missing, but I never need to be afraid that what meets my eye will be a presumptuous and vicious attempt to undermine and destroy the opera that I'm listening to.

I think it may be that no opera is more favored as a target for vandalism than _Parsifal_. My reading also indicates to me that it is also the opera most likely to be viewed as morally and politically questionable, and therefore unable to be taken for what it appears to be. Perhaps this has been the case since its first performance, which aroused no small amount of controversy over its use of sacred ritual on the secular stage. _Parsifal_ has always fractured critical opinion, with those at one extreme considering it an embodiment of the worst evils of the modern age and those at the other finding in it one of the highest expressions in art of human spiritual aspirations. Views tending to the latter sort have always been happily admitted to by music lovers, but are anathema to spiritually deconstructed postmodern academics and their technicians in the contemporary art world, who have by and large decided that _Parsifal_ cannot be trusted to convey its "real" (politically correct) meaning through sincere realization of its composer's wishes. The result, for many years now, has been that we have been forced to regard some of the most exquisite and moving music ever written as an incongruous accompaniment to stage spectacles which do everything their directorial Klingsors can think of to contradict and negate its splendor.

I would love nothing more than to attend, before I die, a performance of _Parsifal_ as beautiful, magical, and inspiring to look at as its music is to hear. I suspect it will be just another of those things about which an old guy can only dream.


----------



## anmhe

@Woodduck: I got the Syberberg Parsifal on DVD the other day. I'm not in agreement with all the visual choices, but the music is beautiful. In other recordings I've had great issues with many of the transitions in Act II, but not in this particular version. "Komm, Komm, holde Knabe" sounds as seductive as it should.


----------



## Itullian

^^^^^Maybe if the Met does it.

There are 3 pretty respectful DVDs of it.

The Stein and Levine ones which are totally traditional.
And a Sinopoli which is a little abstract, but the sound is great.


----------



## anmhe

Woodduck said:


> I'm 65 years old and very likely to spend my later years here in southern Oregon where it is rarely possible to attend live productions of opera. There is plenty of straight theater, thanks to the long-established Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the other theatrical venues which have grown up around that. But there is no real opera company, and the occasional opera must be performed in theaters not specifically designed for it. Large-scale works like Wagner's are not practical here.
> 
> Given contemporary artistic trends in opera production, and especially the treatment of Wagner, I feel little regret about being confined to recordings for my experience of opera. Listening to a recording in the comfort of my own home environment allows me to visualize it as I please and as the music and text suggest that it should look. The excitement and surprise of watching live actors may be missing, but I never need to be afraid that what meets my eye will be a presumptuous and vicious attempt to undermine and destroy the opera that I'm listening to.
> 
> I think it may be that no opera is more favored as a target for vandalism than _Parsifal_. My reading also indicates to me that it is also the opera most likely to be viewed as morally and politically questionable, and therefore unable to be taken for what it appears to be. Perhaps this has been the case since its first performance, which aroused no small amount of controversy over its use of sacred ritual on the secular stage. _Parsifal_ has always fractured critical opinion, with those at one extreme considering it an embodiment of the worst evils of the modern age and those at the other finding in it one of the highest expressions in art of human spiritual aspirations. Views tending to the latter sort have always been happily admitted to by music lovers, but are anathema to spiritually deconstructed postmodern academics and their technicians in the contemporary art world, who have by and large decided that _Parsifal_ cannot be trusted to convey its "real" (politically correct) meaning through sincere realization of its composer's wishes. The result, for many years now, has been that we have been forced to regard some of the most exquisite and moving music ever written as an incongruous accompaniment to stage spectacles which do everything their directorial Klingsors can think of to contradict and negate its splendor.
> 
> I would love nothing more than to attend, before I die, a performance of _Parsifal_ as beautiful, magical, and inspiring to look at as its music is to hear. I suspect it will be just another of those things about which an old guy can only dream.


I've got a Google alert for "Parsifal, live, 2016." My fingers are crossed for something nearby. I know the WNO is doing the whole Ring Cycle next year, but that doesn't get the same emotional response from me.


----------



## anmhe

Itullian said:


> ^^^^^Maybe if the Met does it.
> 
> There are 3 pretty respectful DVDs of it.
> 
> The Stein and Levine ones which are totally traditional.
> And a Sinopoli which is a little abstract, but the sound is great.


The Jonas Kaufman Met BD is no slouch! I loved the presentation!


----------



## Figleaf

anmhe said:


> I've got a Google alert for "Parsifal, live, 2016." My fingers are crossed for something nearby. I know the WNO is doing the whole Ring Cycle next year, but that doesn't get the same emotional response from me.


Maybe not worth crossing an ocean for unless you're a fan of prerecorded choruses and miming principal singers (see 'Is opera the preserve of the rich?' thread.)


----------



## Woodduck

anmhe said:


> @Woodduck: I got the Syberberg Parsifal on DVD the other day. I'm not in agreement with all the visual choices, but the music is beautiful. In other recordings I've had great issues with many of the transitions in Act II, but not in this particular version. "Komm, Komm, holde Knabe" sounds as seductive as it should.


It's the visual that's the problem. Nobody tampers with the score - at least not yet. But give 'em a few years; they'll find some way to make Wagner _sound_ pc too.

Wagner's operas need to be filmed, using all the resources of modern filmmaking to realize Wagner's visions beyond his wildest dreams. His every direction for staging needs to be respected, modified only for best effect in the new medium. People who know nothing about opera would be overwhelmed by the beauty and power of it.

How can we raise the money for this? Girl Scout Cookies?


----------



## anmhe

We need a new King Ludwig to fund it!


----------



## Itullian

anmhe said:


> The Jonas Kaufman Met BD is no slouch! I loved the presentation!


Didn't like what I saw.


----------



## Woodduck

anmhe said:


> The Jonas Kaufman Met BD is no slouch! I loved the presentation!


Levine is static and boring. _Totally_ traditional isn't the point. Respect for the meaning of the work is.

Kundry and Parsifal wallowing in six inches of blood is ridiculous. A Good Friday meadow that looks like Mars is abominable. Wagner asks for spring flowers as symbols of the renewal of life. Gurnemanz sings about them. They aren't optional. In Wagner everything is there for a reason - and a lot of things are absent for a reason. He was smarter than we are.


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> It's the visual that's the problem. Nobody tampers with the score - at least not yet. But give 'em a few years; they'll find some way to make Wagner _sound_ pc too.
> 
> Wagner's operas need to be filmed, using all the resources of modern filmmaking to realize Wagner's visions beyond his wildest dreams. His every direction for staging needs to be respected, modified only for best effect in the new medium. People who know nothing about opera would be overwhelmed by the beauty and power of it.
> 
> How can we raise the money for this? Girl Scout Cookies?


Do u mean a movie with special effects?


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> Levine is static and boring. _Totally_ traditional isn't the point. Respect for the meaning of the work is.
> 
> Kundry and Parsifal wallowing in six inches of blood is ridiculous. A Good Friday meadow that looks like Mars is abominable. Wagner asks for spring flowers as symbols of the renewal of life. Gurnemanz sings about them. They aren't optional. In Wagner everything is there for a reason - and a lot of things are absent for a reason. He was smarter than we are.


Stein then?...........................


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> Do u mean a movie with special effects?


Absolutely! Visual magic all the way! Lord of the Rings move over!


----------



## anmhe

Itullian said:


> Didn't like what I saw.


Was it the presentation or the vocal performances? Both?

I'll tell you what I liked:

-The spring dividing the men from the women.
-The wasteland looking set that very simply showed how dire the situation was (even if that was not the original intention of RW).
-Klingsor bathing in blood. It's provocative, yes, but it was an effective way of illustrating his rejoicing in draining the life out of the world.

Kaufman was passable (a little too cocky in act I with the swan), but I liked him.


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely! Visual magic all the way! Lord of the Rings move over!


And overdubbed singing?

btw, I hate LOTR.


----------



## Woodduck

I should mention, just in case anyone's thinking that I'm advocating purely traditional productions of Wagner (I'm not), that I would love to see some of Wieland Wagner's stripped down Bayreuth productions from the '50s. There was no monkeying around with grandpa; they just focused on essentials and inner meaning. People said that the luminous, austere _Parsifal_, with Knappertsbusch in the covered pit, was one of the most profound spiritual experiences of their lives.


----------



## anmhe

Woodduck said:


> Levine is static and boring. _Totally_ traditional isn't the point. Respect for the meaning of the work is.
> 
> Kundry and Parsifal wallowing in six inches of blood is ridiculous. A Good Friday meadow that looks like Mars is abominable. Wagner asks for spring flowers as symbols of the renewal of life. Gurnemanz sings about them. They aren't optional. In Wagner everything is there for a reason - and a lot of things are absent for a reason. He was smarter than we are.


Fair enough. I accept your critique (especially the mentioning of the flowers), but it worked for me. The simplicity was effective.


----------



## Woodduck

anmhe said:


> Fair enough. I accept your critique (especially the mentioning of the flowers), but it worked for me. The simplicity was effective.


I think, from what I've seen of it, that I'd have had mixed feelings about it. No mixed feelings about Kaufmann though. He seems like the ideal Parsifal. I heard the broadcast and was very moved by the conducting of Gatti as well.


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> I should mention, just in case anyone's thinking that I'm advocating purely traditional productions of Wagner (I'm not), that I would love to see some of Wieland Wagner's stripped down Bayreuth productions from the '50s. There was no monkeying around with grandpa; they just focused on essentials and inner meaning. People said that the luminous, austere _Parsifal_, with Knappertsbusch in the covered pit, was one of the most profound spiritual experiences of their lives.


Yup, to many cartoonish and things to shock going on.
And the productions today seem so cold to me.


----------



## anmhe

It wasn't his voice that I had issues with, it was his look of "Whatev's, dude." When Gurnemanz was explaining why killing the swan was such a bad idea. It was a jarring choice to me.


----------



## silentio

Woodduck said:


> It's the visual that's the problem. Nobody tampers with the score - at least not yet. But give 'em a few years; they'll find some way to make Wagner _sound_ pc too.
> 
> Wagner's operas need to be filmed, using all the resources of modern filmmaking to realize Wagner's visions beyond his wildest dreams. His every direction for staging needs to be respected, modified only for best effect in the new medium. People who know nothing about opera would be overwhelmed by the beauty and power of it.
> 
> How can we raise the money for this? Girl Scout Cookies?


This is exactly the reason I didn't want to invest in any DVD of Wagner operas. Why? Because there are just too many visual elements suggested _within_ the music that even the best (traditional) staging -one can ever dreamed of- can never convey. A sketchy stage direction in Wagner that does not keep up with the music is already off-putting, let alone the massacre by regietheater.

The same may go for Berlioz, Strauss or Korngold, whose "music paintings" are incredibly rich.


----------



## Itullian

But Wagner wanted his operas staged and seen.
We should do the best we can with them.


----------



## Becca

silentio said:


> This is exactly the reason I didn't want to invest in any DVD of Wagner operas. Why? Because there are just too many visual elements suggested _within_ the music that even the best (traditional) staging -one can ever dreamed of- can never convey. A sketchy stage direction in Wagner that does not keep up with the music is already off-putting, let alone the massacre by regietheater.
> 
> The same may go for Berlioz, Strauss or Korngold, whose "music paintings" are incredibly rich.


When I think about bringing in an outsider, I only have to look at what the Cirque Soleil guy did with the Ring


----------



## Woodduck

silentio said:


> This is exactly the reason I didn't want to invest in any DVD of Wagner operas. Why? Because there are just too many visual elements suggested _within_ the music that even the best (traditional) staging -one can ever dreamed of- can never convey. A sketchy stage direction in Wagner that does not keep up with the music is already off-putting, let alone the massacre by regietheater.
> 
> The same may go for Berlioz, Strauss or Korngold, whose "music paintings" are incredibly rich.


In a way it might be thought a mistake on Wagner's part, give the limitations of the stage, to make the music contain and depict almost everything in itself - scenery, weather, action, emotion. Wieland Wagner was very conscious of this, and asked why his actors often stood still when the music seems to indicate action, he said "it isn't ballet music." It has to be tricky, coordinating the visual elements with their musical equivalents, and perhaps it's often wisest just to get out of the way of the music. Wagner is very satisfying and feels amazingly complete listened to at home, since his music conjures up so many images on its own. Have you ever noticed that he knows better than any other composer how to set a question to music? He almost makes you see the gestures and raised eyebrows of the questioner.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely! Visual magic all the way! Lord of the Rings move over!


All of Wagner _begs_ a cinematic-CGI-ILM makeover. I can only _imagine _the possibilities.

King Richard's dream of Rhinemaidens swimming underwater, frollicking, surfacing, and plashing in the Rhine?- once a daydream- can now be a reality with a Peter Jackson (the director of the_ Lord of the Rings_) and John Howe (conceptual designer for the sets) treatment.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> It's the visual that's the problem. Nobody tampers with the score - at least not yet. But give 'em a few years; they'll find some way to make Wagner _sound_ pc too.
> 
> Wagner's operas need to be filmed, using all the resources of modern filmmaking to realize Wagner's visions beyond his wildest dreams. His every direction for staging needs to be respected, modified only for best effect in the new medium. People who know nothing about opera would be overwhelmed by the beauty and power of it.
> 
> How can we raise the money for this? Girl Scout Cookies?


I couldn't agree more.

The possibilities are endless with the type of versimilitude which can be implemented with today's computer generated imagery.

Tolkien's_ Lord of the Rings_ trilogy reads arid and dry- kind of like large swaths of the _Old Testament_- but director Peter Jackson changed all that with his captivating set design and exquisite cinematography.

I can only imagine what can be synaesthetically possible with something as thrilling as Wagner.


----------



## Taggart

The topic is Parsifal. If you wish to discuss Wagner's attitudes to people or his politics or the politics of any composer please start a thread in* Politics and Religion in Classical Music* or find one there. Posts have been removed. Please stay on topic.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Taggart said:


> The topic is Parsifal. If you wish to discuss Wagner's attitudes to people or his politics or the politics of any composer please start a thread in* Politics and Religion in Classical Music* or find one there. Posts have been removed. Please stay on topic.


^^^ Will this same criterion be meted out to Wagner's political detractors as well?


----------



## Taggart

Taggart said:


> The topic is Parsifal. If you wish to discuss Wagner's attitudes to people or his politics or the politics of any composer please start a thread in* Politics and Religion in Classical Music* or find one there. Posts have been removed. Please stay on topic.





Marschallin Blair said:


> ^^^ Will this same criterion be meted out to Wagner's political detractors as well?


Yup. Pro or con politics about music goes in * Politics and Religion in Classical Music*.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Taggart said:


> Yup. Pro or con politics about music goes in * Politics and Religion in Classical Music*.


Splendid- _thank you_, Taggart.

I can look forward to a humane, germane, and informed exegesis of _Parsifal_ in this thread- and not some compulsively neurotic 'red herring' ax to grind about Wagner's inexcusable bigotry in his personal life.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Marschallin Blair said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> The possibilities are endless with the type of versimilitude which can be implemented with today's computer generated imagery.
> 
> *Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy reads arid and dry*- kind of like large swaths of the _Old Testament_- but director Peter Jackson changed all that with his captivating set design and exquisite cinematography.
> 
> I can only imagine what can be synaesthetically possible with something as thrilling as Wagner.


Gasp!  some of us enjoyed Tolkein before a movie was made and didn't need Jackson's immagination (although I enjoyed *his* interpretation of the work).

Of course, opera is different from a book in that it is meant to be seen by the audience, but I am saddened by the idea that cinema is needed to bring imagination to life in literature


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I should mention, just in case anyone's thinking that I'm advocating purely traditional productions of Wagner (I'm not), that I would love to see some of Wieland Wagner's stripped down Bayreuth productions from the '50s. There was no monkeying around with grandpa; they just focused on essentials and inner meaning. People said that the luminous, austere _Parsifal_, with Knappertsbusch in the covered pit, was one of the most profound spiritual experiences of their lives.


You should have heard the outcry from traditional Wagnerites of the day when Wieland's productions were first staged. Just read Culshaw's Ring Resounding to get a flavour. Kna eventually gave up conducting the Ring as he disagreed with Wieland's production. As for Parsifal, when Kna was asked by a traditional Wagnerite how he could have conducted such an abomination, Kna replied that during the stage rehearsals he assumed that the scenery had yet to arrive!


----------



## Taggart

Marschallin Blair said:


> Splendid- _thank you_, Taggart.
> 
> I can look forward to a humane, germane, and informed exegesis of _Parsifal_ in this thread- and not some compulsively neurotic 'red herring' ax to grind about Wagner's inexcusable bigotry in his personal life.




If you see the thread going off in that direction, report it.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> You should have heard the outcry from traditional Wagnerites of the day when Wieland's productions were first staged. Just read Culshaw's Ring Resounding to get a flavour. Kna eventually gave up conducting the Ring as he disagreed with Wieland's production. As for Parsifal, when Kna was asked by a traditional Wagnerite how he could have conducted such an abomination, Kna replied that during the stage rehearsals he assumed that the scenery had yet to arrive!


Wieland's productions were of course controversial, not so much for what was on stage as for what wasn't: there were minimal props, simple, almost abstract set designs (Wieland was an abstract painter), striking and flexible use of light and the color of light, costumes evocative of no specific time or place, and minimiztion of stage business. Wieland's objective was to remove the strong taste of Teutonicism inherent in the pictorial sets and costumes of tradition, to "universalize" the dramas, and to create a spiritualized arena in which the richly detailed eloquence of Wagner's music could assume the primary burden of communicating the operas' inner meaning. He apparently inherited his grandpa's acting instincts and knew how to work with singing actors; many of the great Wagnerian performers from the '50s and '60s felt that he got the best out of them. The austerity of his sets was quite a shock to audiences (and old Knappertsbusch!) accustomed to lush backdrops and heavy suits of mail; some found it refreshing and revelatory, others had to get used to it.

The ideas put into effect by Wieland were not particularly original. In 1891 Adolph Appia had written a treatise on the staging of Wagner's operas describing in detail essentially everything that Wieland was the first to realize in practice. Appia is considered the father of modern stagecraft and repays study. Here's a bit from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Appia

Wieland's productions were not uniformly successful; the simplified abstract staging didn't work well in old Nuremberg and his original _Meistersinger_ was quickly abandoned. The 1960s brought a new _Ring_ from him which was a bit less austere and more "symbolic." His _Tristan_ utilized striking phallic imagery in its minimal sets. His _Parsifal_ came to be considered classic and remained in the repertoire at Bayreuth for many years. Wieland might be said to have brought about in actuality the reforms Appia had proposed in theory, and his influence on the subsequent staging of Wagner, for good and ill, was enormous. The fact that his sort of minimalism, in which every detail of setting and action must be carefully worked out, requires a genius of his calibre for its successful execution, remains a permanent challenge, one his brother Wolfgang could only partially meet after Wieland's death, and one that other directors have met with variable success. Wagner productions have taken different directions since his era (as we are too well aware), and Wieland's ideas, controversial in their day, have begun to look rather conservative, but also to exude a kind of integrity and a genuine effort to get to the spiritual core of Wagner's works that more recent directorial conceits so often treat with high-handed contempt. I suspect we would need a designer/director of his artistic instincts to show us the timeless power that his conceptions - which Adolphe Appia would surely have thanked him for - still possess.

It's worthwhile to look at photos of Wieland's productions. They are quite striking and beautiful.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> The ideas put into effect by Wieland were not particularly original. In 1891 Adolph Appia had written a treatise on the staging of Wagner's operas describing in detail essentially everything that Wieland was the first to realize in practice. Appia is considered the father of modern stagecraft and repays study. Here's a bit from Wiki:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Appia


Not the first; Mahler's collaborations in Vienna with Alfred Roller were revolutionary and controversial in their own day for stripping away the traditional backdrops and replacing them with more dynamic stagings that suggested the scene rather than simply depicted it.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Wieland's productions were of course controversial, not so much for what was on stage as for what wasn't: there were minimal props, simple, almost abstract set designs (Wieland was an abstract painter), striking and flexible use of light and the color of light, costumes evocative of no specific time or place, and minimiztion of stage business. Wieland's objective was to remove the strong taste of Teutonicism inherent in the pictorial sets and costumes of tradition, to "universalize" the dramas, and to create a spiritualized arena in which the richly detailed eloquence of Wagner's music could assume the primary burden of communicating the operas' inner meaning. He apparently inherited his grandpa's acting instincts and knew how to work with singing actors; many of the great Wagnerian performers from the '50s and '60s felt that he got the best out of them. The austerity of his sets was quite a shock to audiences (and old Knappertsbusch!) accustomed to lush backdrops and heavy suits of mail; some found it refreshing and revelatory, others had to get used to it.
> 
> The ideas put into effect by Wieland were not particularly original. In 1891 Adolph Appia had written a treatise on the staging of Wagner's operas describing in detail essentially everything that Wieland was the first to realize in practice. Appia is considered the father of modern stagecraft and repays study. Here's a bit from Wiki:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Appia
> 
> Wieland's productions were not uniformly successful; the simplified abstract staging didn't work well in old Nuremberg and his original _Meistersinger_ was quickly abandoned. The 1960s brought a new _Ring_ from him which was a bit less austere and more "symbolic." His _Tristan_ utilized striking phallic imagery in its minimal sets. His _Parsifal_ came to be considered classic and remained in the repertoire at Bayreuth for many years. Wieland might be said to have brought about in actuality the reforms Appia had proposed in theory, and his influence on the subsequent staging of Wagner, for good and ill, was enormous. The fact that his sort of minimalism, in which every detail of setting and action must be carefully worked out, requires a genius of his calibre for its successful execution, remains a permanent challenge, one his brother Wolfgang could only partially meet after Wieland's death, and one that other directors have met with variable success. Wagner productions have taken different directions since his era (as we are too well aware), and Wieland's ideas, controversial in their day, have begun to look rather conservative, but also to exude a kind of integrity and a genuine effort to get to the spiritual core of Wagner's works that more recent directorial conceits so often treat with high-handed contempt. I suspect we would need a designer/director of his artistic instincts to show us the timeless power that his conceptions - which Adolphe Appia would surely have thanked him for - still possess.
> 
> It's worthwhile to look at photos of Wieland's productions. They are quite striking and beautiful.


I think one problem with the snippets of W Wagner's productions that have been filmed is that they are in black and white. As Wieland used lighting and particularly colour to get his effects across much of the effect is lost. One reason Wieland gave for the stripped down productions was that his grandfather's stage directions were unmanageable in practice.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> I think one problem with the snippets of W Wagner's productions that have been filmed is that they are in black and white. As Wieland used lighting and particularly colour to get his effects across much of the effect is lost. One reason Wieland gave for the stripped down productions was that his grandfather's stage directions were unmanageable in practice.


Wagner was ahead of his time.

Peter Jackson needed over a century to catch up with him.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Not the first; Mahler's collaborations in Vienna with Alfred Roller were revolutionary and controversial in their own day for stripping away the traditional backdrops and replacing them with more dynamic stagings that suggested the scene rather than simply depicted it.


Thanks for that reminder.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Wagner was ahead of his time.
> 
> Peter Jackson needed over a century to catch up with him.


Is that the _Lord of the Rings_ director?

[Ed.: Of course it is. All I needed to do was remember back a few posts. Need another coffee this AM. ]


----------



## Itullian

Please, not PJ.
boooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiing


----------



## DavidA

There is a story of Kna having a row with Wieland Wagner over the Wieland's non-inclusion of the specified dove at the end of the opera. Kna threatened a walk out unless the dove appeared so Wieland arrange for the dove to appear high enough so Kna could see it from the pit but the audience could not. When Kna found out how he had been tricked his opinion of 'that scoundrel Wieland' was unprintable!


----------



## Becca

Itullian said:


> Please, not PJ.
> boooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiing


I am in not a Tolkien fan (quite dislike it) but based on what Jackson did with his latest films, after staging _Walkure, Siegried & Gotterdammerung_, he would go back to _Rheingold_ and make it into 3 x 2.5hour long operas. :lol:


----------



## Itullian

I haven't really seen a movie made of an opera that I thought was any good.
They always seem stiff, contrived, unnatural to me.

I like a tastefully directed , live before an audience performance for its spontaneity and live interaction.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> There is a story of Kna having a row with Wieland Wagner over the Wieland's non-inclusion of the specified dove at the end of the opera. Kna threatened a walk out unless the dove appeared so Wieland arrange for the dove to appear high enough so Kna could see it from the pit but the audience could not. When Kna found out how he had been tricked his opinion of 'that scoundrel Wieland' was unprintable!


I've always wondered how a hovering dove could be made convincing (like most other onstage wildlife). I'm inclined to side with Wieland and leave the animals to the imagination. Brunnhilde's horse and Lohengrin's swan get talked about and addressed onstage, which is a bit awkward, but Parsifal's dove? Only a traditionalist would miss it, nowadays I think most of us would find it corny and excessive, and certainly the opera makes its points without it.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> I've always wondered how a hovering dove could be made convincing (like most other onstage wildlife). I'm inclined to side with Wieland and leave the animals to the imagination. Brunnhilde's horse and Lohengrin's swan get talked about and addressed onstage, which is a bit awkward, but Parsifal's dove? Only a traditionalist would miss it, nowadays I think most of us would find it corny and excessive, and certainly the opera makes its points without it.


Two things come to mind ...
- Brunnhilde riding Covent Garden's fire-breathing Trojan Horse onto the funeral pyre
- The well-known anecdote regarding Leo Slezak - _In the closing scene of Wagner's Lohengrin, Slezak had sung his Farewell, and was about to make his departure in the boat drawn by a swan. The boat moved away before Slezak could step on board. He glanced at the audience. 'Tell me,' he said, 'what time is the next swan?'_


----------



## anmhe

And what about Siegfried's bear?


----------



## hpowders

There was a pretty good Parsifal last year, "live from the Met".

I tivo-ed it and was glad to have it and then changed my cable TV from Brighthouse to Verizon Fios and lost it, alas!!


----------



## Woodduck

anmhe said:


> And what about Siegfried's bear?
> View attachment 66433


I think the bear has some comic value and might actually be fun. The other beasts are likely to be unintentionally and inappropriately comical. 19th-century audiences were more accepting of such literalness. Real animals might still work where they aren't just a distraction, e.g. in _Aida_. Bring on the pachyderms, but get 'em off before the big aria.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> Two things come to mind ...
> - Brunnhilde riding Covent Garden's fire-breathing Trojan Horse onto the funeral pyre
> - The well-known anecdote regarding Leo Slezak - _In the closing scene of Wagner's Lohengrin, Slezak had sung his Farewell, and was about to make his departure in the boat drawn by a swan. The boat moved away before Slezak could step on board. He glanced at the audience. 'Tell me,' he said, 'what time is the next swan?'_


Swans only come 3/4 of the time because they have Waltz-timer's Disease.


----------



## Albert7

btw, Peter Jackson is rather overrated.

Honestly I see a good production of Parsifal lying in a collaborative effort with video artists because of the abstract nature of the work. In fact, any Wagner opera deserves a wonderful treatment with say someone like Bill Viola who can bring a lot more to the plate to create an ethereal effect that isn't simplistic.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Itullian said:


> Please, not PJ.
> boooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiing


Why_ is it_ that the Chairman of the Bored is also the President of the Ennui Club?

Are Jethro's tights not getting enough attention?


----------



## Itullian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why_ is it_ that the Chairman of the Bored is also the President of the Ennui Club?
> 
> Are Jethro's tights not getting enough attention?




Interesting that that's what you notice.
hmmmmm


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Itullian said:


> Interesting that that's what you notice.
> hmmmmm


Oh, that's 'Jethro Tull?'

I thought it was a cocktail waitress on an oil rig.


----------



## Itullian

Back to Parsifal please....

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh, unbelievable


----------



## DiesIraeCX

After listening to the '62 Knappertsbusch _Parsifal_ without following the libretto and concentrating on the music and singing, I feel like I need the complete experience to completely appreciate it as Wagner intended, the Gesamtkunstwerk.

Any of you Wagnerians have any thoughts on this recording? Or even better, perhaps you can direct me with a *link* to a performance on YouTube that you like.


----------



## Itullian

For traditional either the Levine or the Horst Stein which is on youtube in parts.

For a more modern one the Sinopoli is very good and on youtube as well.

The Stein is beautiful. Levine too, but at a slower pace.

Sinopoli is modern, but respectful.


----------



## Woodduck

DiesIraeVIX said:


> After listening to the '62 Knappertsbusch _Parsifal_ without following the libretto and concentrating on the music and singing, I feel like I need the complete experience to completely appreciate it as Wagner intended, the Gesamtkunstwerk.
> 
> Any of you Wagnerians have any thoughts on this recording? Or even better, perhaps you can direct me with a *link* to a performance on YouTube that you like.


All I can tell you is that Levine's conducting is soporific. I haven't seen the production, but listening to his _Parsifal_ on CD is like watching paint dry. The production will be respectful; how interesting, I don't know. I did see _Parsifal _at the Met in the 70's and was underwhelmed. Maybe I was just sleepy that day.


----------



## Couchie

My personal favourite is this one. In fact, this is one of my favourite films, period.


----------



## Loge

The music and the end of Parsifal is some of the most sublime that I have ever heard.


----------



## Itullian

Stein, Traditional
Sinopoli, Modern


----------



## Woodduck

Loge said:


> The music and the end of Parsifal is some of the most sublime that I have ever heard.


Was that regietube?


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> Was that regietube?


Looks like ........................


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Was that regietube?


Wagnerian mythography brought to you in Dennis Hopper Vision: Listen to the sound of love. Feel purple. Taste green. Touch the scream that crawls up the wall.


----------



## Sloe

I fell asleep watching Parsifal on TV once woke up at the end and thought it was so beautiful that I could not believe it.


----------



## Pugg

Sloe said:


> I fell asleep watching Parsifal on TV once woke up at the end and thought it was so beautiful that I could not believe it.


You have to start all over again :lol:, I uselessly skip the introduction
( just a bit to much)


----------



## cheftimmyr

Woodduck said:


> Well...Sometimes I have to spin my own head around a few times and hope that when it stops the opera will still make total sense to me! I think after knowing it for about 50 years it's at least beginning to add up.
> 
> I do think there's more than one way to look at this opera (and W's other operas), simply because they do synthesize a lot of archetypal images from an eclectic and personalized mix of traditions. For example, the Christian stuff in _Parsifal_ ("is _Parsifal_ a Christian opera?") can really be a problem for some. Maybe I'll try to deal with that sometime in this thread.
> 
> I'm very interested in how other people see this work. I'm even interested in why people don't like it. It's been criticized more than any other work of Wagner, and a lot of stupid and repugnant things have been seen in it by ignorant people or people with hangups or axes to grind. The only thing I'm not interested in is people dismissing it or condemning it because of what they've heard or read without showing any personal interest in coming to terms with it.


Woodduck, have you (or anyone else reading) gone through the Parsifal book by Lucy Beckett? It's part of the Cambridge Opera Handbooks series. I saw it mentioned on a thread somewhere and ordered it. It's been an interesting read for me, and I was wondering your thoughts. I'm still a Parsifal-rookie and am going through the process of reading different peoples' interpretations..


----------



## Woodduck

cheftimmyr said:


> Woodduck, have you (or anyone else reading) gone through the Parsifal book by Lucy Beckett? It's part of the Cambridge Opera Handbooks series. I saw it mentioned on a thread somewhere and ordered it. It's been an interesting read for me, and I was wondering your thoughts. I'm still a Parsifal-rookie and am going through the process of reading different peoples' interpretations..


I think I read that (or some of it) about 40 years ago. I wish I could remember something about it. :lol:

Have you tracked down any of my own analysis of _Parsifal_ in various threads here on TC?


----------



## cheftimmyr

Woodduck said:


> I think I read that (or some of it) about 40 years ago. I wish I could remember something about it. :lol:
> 
> *Have you tracked down any of my own analysis of Parsifal in various threads here on TC*?


Yes, I've really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the subject. The Beckett interpretation looks at a fair amount of religious symbolism along with the Schopenhauer influence as well... It's such a deep work and I find the analytics intriguing on many levels... I just finished the Krauss and found it superb. Kubelik, '51, '61 & '64 Knap all next in line.

I'm "Parsifal-ized"! :lol:


----------



## dieter

Couchie said:


> My personal favourite is this one. In fact, this is one of my favourite films, period.


Can't help it, I like this opera eve more now...


----------



## dieter

Woodduck said:


> All I can tell you is that Levine's conducting is soporific. I haven't seen the production, but listening to his _Parsifal_ on CD is like watching paint dry. The production will be respectful; how interesting, I don't know. I did see _Parsifal _at the Met in the 70's and was underwhelmed. Maybe I was just sleepy that day.


Too many late nights perhaps, listening to the Ring, no bout adout it.


----------



## jflatter

I read a tribute in the UK Wagner Society magazine on Pierre Boulez a couple of weeks ago which I found interesting. The tribute said that Wagner thought the greatest work for orchestra and voices was Beethoven's 9th, whilst Boulez thought the greatest work for orchestra and voices was Parsifal.


----------



## Woodduck

I suspect that Boulez was drawn to _Parsifal_ as Debussy was, fascinated by the harmonic subtlety and orchestral translucency of its sound world yet repelled by its weighty Teutonic mysticism. Debussy found the music "incomparable and bewildering, splendid and strong... one of the loveliest monuments of sound ever raised to the serene glory of music," and lamented his inability to expunge its influence from the score of _Pelleas et Melisande._ I've always felt that the influence of _Parsifal_ on impressionism and subsequent music - perhaps even, through Debussy, on Boulez - deserves study.

We can hear the evidence of Boulez's take on _Parsifal_ in his performances of it at Bayreuth, which are notable for their light, transparent textures and lack of interest in probing the emotional depths and mysteries revealed by the old German conductors such as Muck, Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch. His brisk and bright approach is appealing to many for whom the traditional approach seems ponderous, but for me it lacks something essential.


----------



## jflatter

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that Boulez was drawn to _Parsifal_ as Debussy was, fascinated by the harmonic subtlety and orchestral translucency of its sound world yet repelled by its weighty Teutonic mysticism. Debussy found the music "incomparable and bewildering, splendid and strong... one of the loveliest monuments of sound ever raised to the serene glory of music," and lamented his inability to expunge its influence from the score of _Pelleas et Melisande._ I've always felt that the influence of _Parsifal_ on impressionism and subsequent music - perhaps even, through Debussy, on Boulez - deserves study.
> 
> We can hear the evidence of Boulez's take on _Parsifal_ in his performances of it at Bayreuth, which are notable for their light, transparent textures and lack of interest in probing the emotional depths and mysteries revealed by the old German conductors such as Muck, Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch. His brisk and bright approach is appealing to many for whom the traditional approach seems ponderous, but for me it lacks something essential.


I agree that Boulez's approach was interesting but by no means my favoured way. Saying that, his recording of Pelleas is my favourite...


----------



## DavidA

jflatter said:


> I read a tribute in the UK Wagner Society magazine on Pierre Boulez a couple of weeks ago which I found interesting. The tribute said that Wagner thought the greatest work for orchestra and voices was Beethoven's 9th, whilst Boulez thought the greatest work for orchestra and voices was Parsifal.


I agree with Wagner on this one! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

jflatter said:


> I agree that Boulez's approach was interesting but by no means my favoured way. Saying that, his recording of Pelleas is my favourite...


I don't know Boulez's _Pelleas_ but do have him in Debussy's orchestral works. I love his surgical precision and clarity of texture in Debussy, though I'm not sure whether Debussy would have wanted everything so defined and exposed. It definitely isn't what Wagner had in mind; in _Parsifal_, I think, we aren't even supposed to know what instruments are playing much of the time, much as we can't distinguish the blended stops on an organ. Years ago I played some of the love duet from _Tristan_ for a friend and he thought there was an organ playing.


----------



## Pugg

jflatter said:


> I agree that Boulez's approach was interesting but by no means my favoured way. Saying that, his recording of Pelleas is my favourite...


High on my list also :tiphat:


----------



## Barbebleu

I've just started Moralt's Parsifal from 1949. First impressions are very favourable. Ludwig Weber is glorious as Gurnemanz and Moralt has confirmed himself as an exceptionally fine Wagner conductor. I shall report back at the end of Act 1.


----------



## Barbebleu

Latest acquisition is Parsifal, Bayreuth 1971 conducted by Jochum with Thomas Stewart (Amfortas), Sandor Konya (Parsifal), Franz Crass (Gurnemanz), Karl Riddersbusch (Titurel), Gerd Nienstedt (Klingsor) and Janis Martin (Kundry)


----------



## cheftimmyr

Anyone want to weigh-in on the '54 Knap Parsifal... Intriguing cast wih Greindl & Hotter... It's $$$$ on Amazon right now but interested to hear feedback from those who own or have listened... :tiphat:


----------



## Barbebleu

cheftimmyr said:


> Anyone want to weigh-in on the '54 Knap Parsifal... Intriguing cast wih Greindl & Hotter... It's $$$$ on Amazon right now but interested to hear feedback from those who own or have listened... :tiphat:


It's been so long since I heard this particular Kna version I can't really comment. I'll have a dip into it to refresh my memory and get back unless someone beats me to it. I'm listening to the Jochum '71 Bayreuth Parsifal at the moment so I might finish it first.


----------



## hustlefan

All 12 of the Knappertsbusch Parsifals are available in one box of 48 cds from Japan









http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/artist_Wagn...yreuther-Festspielhaus-1951-1964-48CD_7076604


----------



## DarkAngel

hustlefan said:


> All 12 of the Knappertsbusch Parsifals are available in one box of 48 cds from Japan
> 
> View attachment 86106
> 
> 
> http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/artist_Wagn...yreuther-Festspielhaus-1951-1964-48CD_7076604


Great find HF, wonder what the sound quality is like for boxset.....most of those previous Walhall, Myto, and Orefeo sets were sourced from Bavarian radio tapes and sound really good


----------



## Barbebleu

hustlefan said:


> All 12 of the Knappertsbusch Parsifals are available in one box of 48 cds from Japan
> 
> View attachment 86106
> 
> 
> http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/artist_Wagn...yreuther-Festspielhaus-1951-1964-48CD_7076604


Does it include Bayreuth 1955? My Japanese is a bit rusty.


----------



## Mahlerian

Barbebleu said:


> Does it include Bayreuth 1955? My Japanese is a bit rusty.


Not that it really requires a knowledge of Japanese, but the table doesn't show a 1955.


----------



## Barbebleu

Mahlerian said:


> Not that it really requires a knowledge of Japanese, but the table doesn't show a 1955.


Drat. Didn't notice the table but it is as I expected. I half hoped that somebody had recorded it off the radio. Ah well, I live in hope, which is just a few miles down the road from expectancy!!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

hustlefan said:


> All 12 of the Knappertsbusch Parsifals are available in one box of 48 cds from Japan
> 
> View attachment 86106
> 
> 
> http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/artist_Wagn...yreuther-Festspielhaus-1951-1964-48CD_7076604


I understand the collector's passion, but twelve recording of the same opera by the same conductor?... isn't it a bit overboard?


----------



## Barbebleu

SiegendesLicht said:


> I understand the collector's passion, but twelve recording of the same opera by the same conductor?... isn't it a bit overboard?


You are absolutely right but there are a lot of us out there!


----------



## Pugg

Barbebleu said:


> You are absolutely right but there are a lot of us out there!


And you are harming no one, only your own bank accounts.


----------



## Woodduck

Too many _Parsifals_? Pshawwww! The fanaticism of Parsifalians is unique. Wagner's "stage-dedicating festival play" is more than an opera (or, for those who dislike it, less than an opera). Old Kna was its high priest till he was called away to the realm of the Grail, where he's now engaged in happy fellowship with Titurel. Someone wrote that for true believers, _Parsifal_ is virtually their reason to live.

We don't know any of those people, of course.


----------



## Guest

I sometimes think of buying another recording of Parsifal the one with Kubelik.These I have in my collection,my favourite is Solti.


----------



## Woodduck

That cover art on the Solti is pure kitsch.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> That cover art on the Solti is pure kitsch.


No it is not (please feel free to report me now for addressing you directly, Sir). I think it is a moment how Wagner envisioned it. 
And the cover art on the Barenboim one also features on the walls of Castle Neuschwanstein, so Wagner would have probably approved of it too.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> No it is not (please feel free to report me now for addressing you directly, Sir). I think it is a moment how Wagner envisioned it.
> And the cover art on the Barenboim one also features on the walls of Castle Neuschwanstein, so Wagner would have probably approved of it too.


Why, Madame! You may address me directly any time, so long as you are nice, which we can tell from your avatar that you invariably are.

I do wonder how you know what Wagner would have approved of. We do know that his taste in visual art was not particularly sophisticated. But some people really like kitsch. I'm just grateful that his taste in music was fine.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

The Meister himself did not always deal in niceties... but whatever.

As regards the dove, Wagner did after all describe the dove in his stage remarks. Granted, the dove does not appear in many stagings nowadays, and it may seem kitschy, but Wagner nevertheless wanted it to appear.

As regards the rider in the forest on the Barenboim cover, Wagner probably never saw that painting, but his best friend the King did. And the King knew him much closer than anyone today could, and he was intent on fulfilling Wagner's artistic visions.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> The Meister himself did not always deal in niceties... but whatever.
> 
> As regards the dove, Wagner did after all describe the dove in his stage remarks. Granted, the dove does not appear in many stagings nowadays, and it may seem kitschy, but Wagner nevertheless wanted it to appear.


I think you misunderstood my initial remark. I wasn't referring to the subject matter - grail, dove, and temple - but to the artist's style, which I think quite cheap and shallow. As an artist myself, I can imagine much more serious and powerful treatments of the theme.

As to the dove, Wieland Wagner eliminated it, possibly in part because it's hard to make it look suitably dignified. He was probably not the first, and I doubt that it's commonly used now even in the opera's rare non-regie stagings. A stuffed bird on a string would be awful, a live bird would be both uncooperative and awful, a plastic model of a bird... Well, if we must have a dove at all, some sort of projected image would probably work best.

I personally find the whole idea of it a lapse in taste on Wagner's part, a bit of pious posturing, a very Victorian evocation of religious associations which may have warmed people's hearts in 1882 but isn't likely to now (which I suspect was Wieland Wagner's view as well). _Parsifal_ is not a sectarian religious work, and I think it's quite comprehensible and complete, and more universally resonant, without such quasi-Christian trappings.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> As regards the rider in the forest on the Barenboim cover, Wagner probably never saw that painting, but his best friend the King did. And the King knew him much closer than anyone today could, and he was intent on fulfilling Wagner's artistic visions.


We have to wonder how Ludwig understood Wagner, or for that matter how he understood anything. Wagner's music and legendary imagery certainly appealed to his grandiose fantasies, and Wagner himself certainly did his utmost to ingratiate himself with the young man, for obvious reasons. But Ludwig's understanding of Wagner's art doesn't seem to have been very profound.


----------



## Couchie

Itullian said:


> I haven't really seen a movie made of an opera that I thought was any good.
> They always seem stiff, contrived, unnatural to me.
> 
> I like a tastefully directed , live before an audience performance for its spontaneity and live interaction.


I assume you haven't seen the Elektra with Rysanek??? The Salome with Stratas is also pretty good.


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> I sometimes think of buying another recording of Parsifal the one with Kubelik.These I have in my collection,my favourite is Solti.


My favourites also and _I do _like the art work :tiphat:


----------



## Itullian

Magnificent recording.
And remastered.


----------



## Itullian

Couchie said:


> I assume you haven't seen the Elektra with Rysanek??? The Salome with Stratas is also pretty good.


No, don't care for movies at all. In fact, I hate them.


----------



## Couchie

Itullian said:


> No, don't care for movies at all. In fact, I hate them.


Hating something without first seeking out its exemplary best is mere ignorance. Forget about opera, that Elektra is one of the greatest pictures ever committed to film.


----------



## Itullian

Nice of you to say.
I guess i'll stay ignorant.
I DONT LIKE opera movies. ok?
sheeesh
I don't like the form.

Go ahead and enjoy it couchie.


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> Magnificent recording.
> And remastered.


Much better cover art too. :angel:


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> Much better cover art too. :angel:


Is this not the original cover art? I'm sure that's the same as my vinyl set that I bought when it was first released.  I went and had a look. Of course it's not the same. This is the original.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> We have to wonder how Ludwig understood Wagner, or for that matter how he understood anything. Wagner's music and legendary imagery certainly appealed to his grandiose fantasies, and Wagner himself certainly did his utmost to ingratiate himself with the young man, for obvious reasons. *But Ludwig's understanding of Wagner's art doesn't seem to have been very profound*.


May I ask how you came to this conclusion?


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> May I ask how you came to this conclusion?


In the usual way. Reading, accompanied by thinking. 

On the whole, I don't think it was possible to understand Wagner's art very profoundly in his own time, although it was of course possible to be entranced and overwhelmed by it. Ludwig was, first, not a musician, and would not have understood what Wagner was doing that would prove so revolutionary in the language of music and the development of musical drama. Then, he had not the benefit of the late 19th- and early 20th-century surge in studies of mythology, religion, psychology, philology, political philosophy, etc. which allow us to see how large Wagner's vision was, and how deep and futuristic his intuition. Wagner's works - especially _Lohengrin_, which is thematically the most uncharacteristic of his operas, and the most fairy-tale-like in its atmosphere - represented primarily an alternate world, a fairy-tale world of the imagination which for Ludwig was an escape from practical realities he had never found agreeable. I think his understanding of Wagner was limited by both the culture of his time and his own personal needs and predilections. I've seen nothing in his correspondence with Wagner that would lead me to think otherwise.


----------



## Pugg

Couchie said:


> Hating something without first seeking out its exemplary best is mere ignorance. Forget about opera, that Elektra is one of the greatest pictures ever committed to film.


Just beaten by La Traviata by Franco Zeffirelli 
Stratas/ Domingo :tiphat:


----------



## cheftimmyr

Parsifal is becoming the Wagner at the top of my list to keep exploring and hearing more of... Since there are others in this thread with much more listening time in Parsifal than myself, I thought I'd throw out a survey-type question...

While the "perfect" Parsifal might not exist I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts on specific artists who captured the individual roles and have stood out to you, (please reference the specific opera so I can track it down to buy/listen). 

(Don't feel like you need to address every role, unless you have recommendations for all of them, and you're so inclined.)

Gurnemanz:

Parsifal:

Amfortas:

Kundry:

Klingsor:

Titurel:

Thanks in advance for the feedback and I look forward to hearing everyones thoughts...


----------



## Pugg

Barbebleu said:


> Is this not the original cover art? I'm sure that's the same as my vinyl set that I bought when it was first released.  I went and had a look. Of course it's not the same. This is the original.
> 
> View attachment 86156


You are right, that's' the original cover.:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

cheftimmyr said:


> Parsifal is becoming the Wagner at the top of my list to keep exploring and hearing more of... Since there are others in this thread with much more listening time in Parsifal than myself, I thought I'd throw out a survey-type question...
> 
> While the "perfect" Parsifal might not exist I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts on specific artists who captured the individual roles and have stood out to you, (please reference the specific opera so I can track it down to buy/listen).
> 
> (Don't feel like you need to address every role, unless you have recommendations for all of them, and you're so inclined.)
> 
> Gurnemanz:
> 
> Parsifal:
> 
> Amfortas:
> 
> Kundry:
> 
> Klingsor:
> 
> Titurel:
> 
> Thanks in advance for the feedback and I look forward to hearing everyones thoughts...


An irresistible challenge!

I should begin by saying that I will never keep up with all the available recordings of Parsifal, but have heard enough to know who most of the leading exponents of its roles are and to have definite preferences. The singers who have most fully cut to the heart of their roles for me are:

*Gurnemanz:* Hans Hotter. As a bass-baritone he may not have as deep a tone as Ludwig Weber, and since he assumed the role late in his career his voice isn't as smooth as Kurt Moll's (those are two other favorites), but no one surpasses or even maches his nobility and eloquence, with his Lieder-singer's ability to find meaning in every utterance. He makes the talkative old knight a real person. We're lucky to have him on the later Bayreuth recordings and on the interesting Vienna performance under Karajan.

*Parsifal:* Lauritz Melchior. I suppose I should pick a favorite among postwar artists, and if pushed to it I'd probably opt for Jess Thomas, who has a warm, rock-steady voice, sings the part most beautifully, and gets the essential character. But once you've heard Melchior's agonized intensity in act two, the heady exaltation of his final pages, and the sheer command of his vocalism, it's hard to be satisfied with anyone else. We can hear him both live in a complete performance and in studio excerpts.

*Amfortas:* I love the dark, powerful bass-baritone of George London; he projects the bearing of royalty, and suffers with both intensity and dignity. But others are excellent too: Thomas Stewart impresses me greatly. London is in his youthful prime on the 1951 Bayreuth recording, but still fine in 1962.

*Kundry:* I like a rich, dark timbre in this role; a mezzo can do more justice than a soprano to Kundry's awesome quasi-maternal power over Parsifal. Martha Modl's Kundry is classic and must have been superbly acted, but Irene Dalis at Bayreuth is interpretively quite similar and vocally superior, smokily sensual in act two. Christa Ludwig is on that high level too, vocally and dramatically (hear her best under Solti), making this a toss-up between her and Dalis.

*Klingsor:* This is the easiest pick: Hermann Uhde is a maniacal, neurotic, fundamentally impotent Klingsor, whose febrile intensity represents evil not as an elemental force but as a sickness of soul, a distortion of personality. Woundedness is at the heart of this drama, and all the characters, beginning with Titurel, partake of responsibility for it and need redemption.

*Titurel:* He should sound both imperious and old. The aging Hans Hotter, on the Solti set, projects both qualities.

You didn't ask for a conductor, but Knappertsbusch is my favorite in the LP era. His understanding of the work is complete. I'd love to have heard Muck in his time, as well as that famously slow but reportedly great performance by Toscanini, whose excellence in Wagner is not mentioned often enough.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> An irresistible challenge!
> 
> I should begin by saying that I will never keep up with all the available recordings of Parsifal, but have heard enough to know who most of the leading exponents of its roles are and to have definite preferences. The singers who have most fully cut to the heart of their roles for me are:
> 
> *Gurnemanz:* Hans Hotter. As a bass-baritone he may not have as deep a tone as Ludwig Weber, and since he assumed the role late in his career his voice isn't as smooth as Kurt Moll's (those are two other favorites), but no one surpasses or even maches his nobility and eloquence, with his Lieder-singer's ability to find meaning in every utterance. He makes the talkative old knight a real person. We're lucky to have him on the later Bayreuth recordings and on the interesting Vienna performance under Karajan.
> 
> *Parsifal:* Lauritz Melchior. I suppose I should pick a favorite among postwar artists, and if pushed to it I'd probably opt for Jess Thomas, who has a warm, rock-steady voice, sings the part most beautifully, and gets the essential character. But once you've heard Melchior's agonized intensity in act two, the heady exaltation of his final pages, and the sheer command of his vocalism, it's hard to be satisfied with anyone else. We can hear him both live in a complete performance and in studio excerpts.
> 
> *Amfortas:* I love the dark, powerful bass-baritone of George London; he projects the bearing of royalty, and suffers with both intensity and dignity. But others are excellent too: Thomas Stewart impresses me greatly. London is in his youthful prime on the 1951 Bayreuth recording, but still fine in 1962.
> 
> *Kundry:* I like a rich, dark timbre in this role; a mezzo can do more justice than a soprano to Kundry's awesome quasi-maternal power over Parsifal. Martha Modl's Kundry is classic and must have been superbly acted, but Irene Dalis at Bayreuth is interpretively quite similar and vocally superior, smokily sensual in act two. Christa Ludwig is on that high level too, vocally and dramatically (hear her best under Solti), making this a toss-up between her and Dalis.
> 
> *Klingsor:* This is the easiest pick: Hermann Uhde is a maniacal, neurotic, fundamentally impotent Klingsor, whose febrile intensity represents evil not as an elemental force but as a sickness of soul, a distortion of personality. Woundedness is at the heart of this drama, and all the characters, beginning with Titurel, partake of responsibility for it and need redemption.
> 
> *Titurel:* He should sound both imperious and old. The aging Hans Hotter, on the Solti set, projects both qualities.
> 
> You didn't ask for a conductor, but Knappertsbusch is my favorite in the LP era. His understanding of the work is complete. I'd love to have heard Muck in his time, as well as that famously slow but reportedly great performance by Toscanini, whose excellence in Wagner is not mentioned often enough.


Can't argue with any of those choices. I would maybe add Franz Crass to the Gurnemanzes, James King to the Parsifals and I would say that Thomas Stewart is one of the finest Amfortas exponents I have heard. I personally would give him the edge over London because I find him too bass heavy compared to Stewart. But that's my taste. Hearing anyone today who could hold a candle to any of these singers would be a rare treat indeed. Of the latter day choices, of which there are few, I would single out Pape as Gurnemanz, Kaufmann as Parsifal and that's about it.


----------



## DarkAngel

Woodduck said:


> An irresistible challenge!
> 
> I should begin by saying that I will never keep up with all the available recordings of Parsifal, but have heard enough to know who most of the leading exponents of its roles are and to have definite preferences. The singers who have most fully cut to the heart of their roles for me are:
> 
> *Gurnemanz:* Hans Hotter. As a bass-baritone he may not have as deep a tone as Ludwig Weber, and since he assumed the role late in his career his voice isn't as smooth as Kurt Moll's (those are two other favorites), but no one surpasses or even maches his nobility and eloquence, with his Lieder-singer's ability to find meaning in every utterance. He makes the talkative old knight a real person. We're lucky to have him on the later Bayreuth recordings and on the interesting Vienna performance under Karajan.
> 
> *Parsifal:* Lauritz Melchior. I suppose I should pick a favorite among postwar artists, and if pushed to it I'd probably opt for Jess Thomas, who has a warm, rock-steady voice, sings the part most beautifully, and gets the essential character. But once you've heard Melchior's agonized intensity in act two, the heady exaltation of his final pages, and the sheer command of his vocalism, it's hard to be satisfied with anyone else. We can hear him both live in a complete performance and in studio excerpts.
> 
> *Amfortas:* I love the dark, powerful bass-baritone of George London; he projects the bearing of royalty, and suffers with both intensity and dignity. But others are excellent too: Thomas Stewart impresses me greatly. London is in his youthful prime on the 1951 Bayreuth recording, but still fine in 1962.
> 
> *Kundry:* I like a rich, dark timbre in this role; a mezzo can do more justice than a soprano to Kundry's awesome quasi-maternal power over Parsifal. Martha Modl's Kundry is classic and must have been superbly acted, but Irene Dalis at Bayreuth is interpretively quite similar and vocally superior, smokily sensual in act two. Christa Ludwig is on that high level too, vocally and dramatically (hear her best under Solti), making this a toss-up between her and Dalis.
> 
> *Klingsor:* This is the easiest pick: Hermann Uhde is a maniacal, neurotic, fundamentally impotent Klingsor, whose febrile intensity represents evil not as an elemental force but as a sickness of soul, a distortion of personality. Woundedness is at the heart of this drama, and all the characters, beginning with Titurel, partake of responsibility for it and need redemption.


Nice picks by Duck naturally............

*Gurnemanz *- Hans Hotter for the same reason that he is the reference wotan/wander of the new Bayreuth era (post 1951) the vocal characterization has never been surpassed, so expressive and imaginative in his portrayal, also he is always experimenting with different takes here and there.....every performance reveals new facets of the work
*
Parsifal *- Jess Thomas, for me even better than Melchior because I love his beautiful soft voice during the 1958-68 golden era for him, his diction is crystal clear and can be smooth as silk or commanding as the role requires, full spectrum of emotional nuances rendered skillfully, love this "American" wagner singer (so does Frida Leider Duck knows the story)

*Kundry *- Overall I must go with Modl or Varnay here, powerful dramatic voices both ideal in portraying the complex dark tortured soul of Kundry to devastating effect......I hear what Duck is saying about Ludwig, but she was best as Ortrud (from Lohengrin) me thinks

*Klingsor* - Gustav Neidlinger was so great in this role (and alberich from ring) that is hard to imagine anyone else, he ruled the great Bayreuth stage in this part for almost 20 years (I think) which is a testament to his greatness, like Hotter so vivid in his fully formed vocal characterizations

*Amfortas* - George London comes to mind first since he sings in many of the great 1950s Rings, I haven't given this role a great deal of thought but London sound wonderfully animated and emotionally tortured in the role.....










Hans Hotter, Jess Thomas, Astrid Varnay..........


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> *Klingsor* - Gustav Neidlinger was so great in this role (and alberich from ring) that is hard to imagine anyone else, he ruled the great Bayreuth stage in this part for almost 20 years (I think) which is a testament to his greatness, like Hotter so vivid in his fully formed vocal characterizations.


Neidlinger was my second choice after Uhde. His voice was made for evil. He's more _conventionally_ evil than Uhde, more in control. Uhde sounds paranoid and unhinged.

Klingsor's weakness, the thing that makes him fascinating, emerges at the moment Kundry mocks the source of his power, his self-castration: _Haha! - Bist du keusch? _("Are you chaste?"). He responds furiously and bitterly:

"Why do you ask this, accursed witch?

Dire distress!
So now the fiend mocks me
that once I strove after holiness?
Dire distress!
The pain of untamed desire,
most horrible, hell-inspired impulse
which I had throttled to deathly silence -
does it now laugh aloud and mock
through you, bride of the devil? -
Beware!
One man [Titurel] already repents his contempt and scorn,
that proud man, strong in holiness,
who once drove me out.
His race I ruined;
undredeemed shall the guardian
of the holy treasure languish;
and soon - I know it -
I myself will guard the Grail -
Ha ha!"

Klingsor's control over Kundry exists only as a consequence of Titurel's assumption of control over the Grail, is the dark side of it, and is sustained by it. Klingsor is therefore fundamentally impotent - his castration the symbol of it - and he knows it. Only in Uhde's portrayal do I sense the sorcerer's underlying weakness and brittle bravado.


----------



## DarkAngel

^^^ I need to study the Parsifal libretto more, such rich symbolism and story line to go with these complex characters, especially the mysterious Kundry who is gradually transformed and freed by the enlightenment of our perfect fool...........


----------



## Barbebleu

I have found that I get more out of the various interpretations by following the score. I have an Eulenburg miniature score which has a very good singing translation in English and French. I feel that I can better understand if the singers are really conveying the meaning of the text using this method. Plus the added bonus of seeing if they are actually singing the correct notes! My eyes are usually wrecked though, by the time I get to the end!


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> ^^^ I need to study the Parsifal libretto more, such rich symbolism and story line to go with these complex characters, especially the mysterious Kundry who is gradually transformed and freed by the enlightenment of our perfect fool...........


Kundry...What a character! The most fascinating in all of opera, I think. Leonie Rysanek, who took on the role late in her career (I'll bet she was superb in it) said that Kundry represented every aspect of woman. I would amend that to say that she represents every distorted aspect of woman when Woman (the Holy Grail, the nurturing Eternal Feminine) is presumptuously dominated by Man (Titurel, the high priest of religion, the controlling Male Ego), who in his immaturity fears woman's power and therefore believes that manhood requires subduing the feminine.

Titurel, in his hubris, makes of the Grail, gift of the angels, a possession and a fetish, forcing it to service him and his tightly controlled community of knights. This causes a fracture in himself, his craving for power and false purity manifesting its unholy aspect as the self-castrated Klingsor, and simultaneously causes the Feminine to splinter, becoming both his abject servant and, when under Klingsor's control, Titurel's nemesis.

Kundry is woman unliberated - all the things woman becomes when the man-child, not having attained true masculine strength, counterfeits it and seeks to dominate woman and the feminine in himself. The eternal grace of the feminine remains in the Grail; Kundry's servile aspect is the caricature of that. The Grail is the Divine Mother; Kundry's sexual seductiveness is the clinging, Devouring Mother (Herzeleide) who will not let the child separate from her and become a man. The man can only mature when he can recognize the deadly seductiveness of mother-love (which he confuses with sex), can resist the temptation to yield to the mother's tears, and can accept and overcome his guilt at leaving her behind, even to die. Amfortas failed the test because he lacked insight; true son of Titurel, he sought to conquer by the force of his egotistical will, using the the Sacred Spear as a weapon. Ego could not succeed where insight was needed, and the power of will (the Spear) passed over into Klingsor's hands. Parsifal, profiting by the experience and suffering of Amfortas, not only sees that he must reject the pleas of Kundry/Herzeleide but realizes that the Spear is not his to use. His ultimate mission, which he can fulfill only after long wandering and suffering - never succumbing to the ego's temptation to use the Spear - is to liberate the Grail as well from the Oedipal, teat-sucking rape-ritual that Titurel has imposed on it. Rejecting the feminine as mother/seducer and refusing to assert masculinity as a weapon represent the liberation of the Man, and is the necessary preparation for the liberation of the Woman. When that is finally achieved, Kundry's suffering will end and she will die back into the Grail from which she was torn.

Grail and Spear, the Feminine and the Masculine, were given by the grace of Heaven to man for safekeeping, not for exploitation. "No more let the Grail be confined," Parsifal proclaims, placing the Spear, its point glowing with the same holy blood contained in the vessel, beside its companion in Sacred Marriage.


----------



## DarkAngel

> Grail and Spear, the Feminine and the Masculine, were given by the grace of Heaven to man for safekeeping, not for exploitation. "No more let the Grail be confined," Parsifal proclaims, placing the Spear, its point glowing with the same holy blood contained in the vessel, beside its companion in Sacred Marriage.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> Kundry...What a character! The most fascinating in all of opera, I think. Leonie Rysanek, who took on the role late in her career (I'll bet she was superb in it) said that Kundry represented every aspect of woman. I would amend that to say that she represents every distorted aspect of woman when Woman (the Holy Grail, the nurturing Eternal Feminine) is presumptuously dominated by Man (Titurel, the high priest of religion, the controlling Male Ego), who in his immaturity fears woman's power and therefore believes that manhood requires subduing the feminine.
> 
> Titurel, in his hubris makes of the Grail, gift of the angels, a possession and a fetish, forcing it to service him and his tightly controlled community of knights. This causes a fracture in himself, his craving for power and false purity manifesting its unholy aspect as the self-castrated Klingsor, and simultaneously causes the Feminine to splinter, becoming both his abject servant and, when under Klingsor's control, Titurel's nemesis.
> 
> Kundry is woman unliberated - all the things woman becomes when the man-child, not having attained true masculine strength, counterfeits it and seeks to dominate woman and the feminine in himself. The eternal grace of the feminine remains in the Grail; Kundry's servile aspect is the caricature of that. The Grail is the Divine Mother; Kundry's sexual seductiveness is the clinging, Devouring Mother (Herzeleide) who will not let the child separate from her and become a man. The man can only mature when he can recognize the deadly seductiveness of mother-love (which he confuses with sex), can resist the temptation to yield to the mother's tears, and can accept and overcome his guilt at leaving her behind, even to die. Amfortas failed the test because he lacked insight; true son of Titurel, he sought to conquer by the force of his egotistical will, using the the Sacred Spear as a weapon. Ego could not succeed where insight was needed, and the power of will (the Spear) passed over into Klingsor's hands. Parsifal, profiting by the experience and suffering of Amfortas, not only sees that he must reject the pleas of Kundry/Herzeleide but realizes that the Spear is not his to use. His ultimate mission, which he can fulfill only after long wandering and suffering - never succumbing to the ego's temptation to use the Spear - is to liberate the Grail as well from the Oedipal, teat-sucking rape-ritual that Titurel has imposed on it. Rejecting the feminine as mother/seducer and refusing to assert masculinity as a weapon represent the liberation of the Man which is the necessary preparation for the liberation of the Woman. When that is finally achieved, Kundry's suffering will end and she will die back into the Grail from which she was torn.
> 
> Grail and Spear, the Feminine and the Masculine, were given by the grace of Heaven to man for safekeeping, not for exploitation. "No more let the Grail be confined," Parsifal proclaims, placing the Spear, its point glowing with the same holy blood contained in the vessel, beside its companion in Sacred Marriage.


Not sure whether or not I "like" this post as I'm not really sure I understand where you are approaching this from. I can't decide whether or not you are speaking from a judeo/christian perspective or a non religious dramatic one. Maybe I should not have had that last Glen Moray! Care to elaborate, and for us non-academics, in a simplified form.


----------



## cheftimmyr

Barbebleu said:


> Not sure whether or not I "like" this post as I'm not really sure I understand where you are approaching this from. I can't decide whether or not you are speaking from a judeo/christian perspective or a non religious dramatic one. Maybe I should not have had that last Glen Moray! Care to elaborate, and for us non-academics, in a simplified form.


Don't blame the Glen Moray, Barbie! Methinks Sir Duck is approaching from a non-religious dramatic point of view, although I'm not speaking for him; just what I inferred. I myself have appreciated perspectives from both sides of the proverbial aisle in regards to Parsifal interpretation, however I do understand the polarizing quality of it.

As an aside, can I get some specific Melchior Parsifal recommendations? I'm seeing multiple labels and compilations. Which should I be looking at for best sound quality? Many thanks!


----------



## Woodduck

_Parsifal_ is the subtlest and cleverest work Wagner penned, and therefore the most controversial. It's been interpreted as everything from a neo-medieval exaltation of Christian asceticism (which Nietzsche imagined it was) to an allegory of antisemitism and a master race (a somewhat trendy modern view promulgated by some postwar, particularly Jewish, opinionators). Those are just two of the more superficial - and I believe mistaken - ways of looking at it. It has spawned quite a literature, and there is value in many perspectives.

The first thing I think we need to do in approaching _Parsifal_ is to forget any associations and ideas about it we may have picked up along the way - definitely including religious ones - and take it in as a fantasy, allowing the music to speak to us in as unfiltered a way as possible. Wagner always contended that his works were to be understood emotionally, and anyone who knows how his music is able to reveal currents of meaning which flow beneath the surface of his dramatic situations will know why he was so insistent about that. The story of _Parsifal_ may be fantastic and baffling, but its music tells of things profound and poignant, and may ask us at times to consider that the things we're seeing on the stage are not what they appear to be.

The elements of _Parsifal_ that first leap out at most of us are its references to Christianity. It's reasonable to ask just how Christian a work it is, and in what sense, and to what purpose. This is a complex subject; beyond looking at the libretto and listening to the music, we need to consider Wagner's own statements about his intentions, his general views on religion, and his ways of using the legendary and literary sources upon which he drew. Some scholars like to lay emphasis on his supposed didacticism (a perspective popular among those who read political or antisemitic messages into his stories), but in fact he was, in general, opposed to obvious moralizing and once remarked that a certain line of Parsifal's was more didactic than he normally dared to be. We might be led by the religious references in _Parsifal_ to read Christian messages into it, but Wagner had made references to Christianity in earlier works with no such intention, and it's surely unlikely that anyone regards his use of the Eddas and Nibelungenlied as advocating belief in pagan gods or a return to the lifeways of the Vikings. Add to this the fact that the legendary materials upon which the Parsifal story is based were originally of pagan origin and were "Christianized" to varying extents in the Middle Ages, and it's not hard to see that, as with _Tristan_ and the _Ring_, Wagner in _Parsifal _ is telling a story the meaning of which is more archetypal and more universal than the world-view or doctrines of any specific religion.

Since my purpose here is to respond to Barbebleu and cheftimmyr, I'll let the above stand as a partial explanation of my way of coming at the opera. Basically, I come at _Parsifal_ the same way I come at the _Ring_: as an attempt to express the inner, psychological meaning of mythical archetypes, and not as an ideologically motivated allegory. I think attempts to take the latter view of Wagner's works always land us in unresolvable contradictions, and always slight the importance and complexity of the music which is, after all, the composer's primary expressive medium. We may legitimately point out inconsistencies or uncertainties in the _Ring_, an immense creation of prolonged gestation and execution which in fact meant something different to Wagner by the time he finished it than it had when he began. But _Parsifal_, like _Tristan_, is a sharply focused work in which Wagner's method of paring material down to essentials was operating at full bore. If our approach to understanding it is correct, we will find no detail misplaced or without purpose and meaning. The story of _Parsifal_, in its bare outline, is a simple, if mysterious, fantasy with vaguely religious overtones. The music, however, is deeply disturbing in its emotional resonance. And if we are to credit Wagner with the full extent of his achievement, any interpretation we make of the story must account for the depth and intensity - the uncanny blend of agony, sensuality, horror, poignancy, and sublime beauty - of that music.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

cheftimmyr said:


> Don't blame the Glen Moray, Barbie! *Methinks Sir Duck is approaching from a non-religious dramatic point of view,* although I'm not speaking for him; just what I inferred. I myself have appreciated perspectives from both sides of the proverbial aisle in regards to Parsifal interpretation, however I do understand the polarizing quality of it.
> 
> As an aside, can I get some specific Melchior Parsifal recommendations? I'm seeing multiple labels and compilations. Which should I be looking at for best sound quality? Many thanks!


Methinks Herr Duck speaks from a perspective of Sigmund Freud. Am I mistaken?


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Methinks Herr Duck speaks from a perspective of Sigmund Freud. Am I mistaken?


It would be more accurate to say that Freud spoke from a Wagnerian perspective.

I'll venture a guess that what you're implying is that because I perceive _Parsifal_ as presenting sex as a crucially important theme, and specifically refer to the Oedipal situation in act 2, I must be approaching the work from a standpoint of Freudian theory. That's not the case.

Freud didn't invent the Oedipal phenomenon. He merely identified it as a stage in the life of man, and gave it a name drawn from Greek drama. Wagner, with his uncanny artistic insight, got there first.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> Rejecting the feminine as mother/seducer and refusing to assert masculinity as a weapon represent the liberation of the Man, and is the necessary preparation for the liberation of the Woman. When that is finally achieved, Kundry's suffering will end and she will die back into the Grail from which she was torn.


A fascinating post, though one might wish (along with some modern stage directors) that the liberation of the Woman didn't require the death of Kundry.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> It would be more accurate to say that Freud spoke from a Wagnerian perspective.
> 
> *I'll venture a guess that what you're implying is that because I perceive Parsifal as presenting sex as a crucially important theme, and specifically refer to the Oedipal situation in act 2*, I must be approaching the work from a standpoint of Freudian theory. That's not the case.
> 
> Freud didn't invent the Oedipal phenomenon. He merely identified it as a stage in the life of man, and gave it a name drawn from Greek drama. Wagner, with his uncanny artistic insight, got there first.


Only because of the second, not the first, and also because you mentioned in another post that a profound understanding of Wagner is not possible without a knowledge of 20th-century psychology. Wagner celebrates sexuality in each one of his operas (he also celebrates the sexes being joined together in love which is exactly the opposite to the modern American feminist notions of one sex "dominating" the other, but that has nothing to do with Freud). But equating Kundry's sexual seduction with Herzeleide's motherly love and one as a continuation of the other - I really do not believe this is what Wagner had in view.

I think in the character of Kundry Wagner tried to show a darker side of womanhood. Elsewhere he brings forth Woman the redeemer, woman the liberator, the Valkyrie who gives strength to a hero, or the all-wise Erda, but here it is woman the seductress, the deceiver that can cause a man unbearable pain (who knows, maybe after many decades and many loves of his life Wagner grew somewhat disappointed in love and sexuality as the means to redemption of humanity and decided to tell about it?) In Act 2 Kundry uses what she knows about Parsifal, that is his love and sorrow for his mother, as a means to further entangle him. He resists the purely physical seduction of the flower maidens, so Kundry finds his weak spot to get at him. But her feelings for Parsifal are just the opposite of his mother's.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> In the usual way. Reading, accompanied by thinking.
> 
> On the whole, I don't think it was possible to understand Wagner's art very profoundly in his own time, although it was of course possible to be entranced and overwhelmed by it. Ludwig was, first, not a musician, and would not have understood what Wagner was doing that would prove so revolutionary in the language of music and the development of musical drama. *Then, he had not the benefit of the late 19th- and early 20th-century surge in studies of mythology, religion, psychology, philology, political philosophy, etc. which allow us to see how large Wagner's vision was, and how deep and futuristic his intuition.* Wagner's works - especially _Lohengrin_, which is thematically the most uncharacteristic of his operas, and the most fairy-tale-like in its atmosphere - represented primarily an alternate world, a fairy-tale world of the imagination which for Ludwig was an escape from practical realities he had never found agreeable. I think his understanding of Wagner was limited by both the culture of his time and his own personal needs and predilections. I've seen nothing in his correspondence with Wagner that would lead me to think otherwise.


In other words, the King could not have possibly truly understood Wagner because he happened to have lived in the wrong century. Allow me to disagree.

And one absolutely does not have to know a lot about psychology or political philosophy in order to understand Wagner. One must have a good recording, a libretto, functioning ears and a heart that has not been completely calloused by the modern world, and that is enough. All other things might be of some help, but they are not _necessary_. Some modern composers are like that - in order to understand what it is they are doing, one should be well-versed in musical theory or history of music. Wagner's music speaks powerfully enough on its own. It's not Wagner-and-Freud, or Wagner-and-Deryck-Cooke, it's Wagner alone that should suffice.


----------



## DarkAngel

amfortas said:


> A fascinating post, though one might wish (along with some modern stage directors) that the liberation of the Woman didn't require the death of Kundry.


The symbolic "death" of Kundry is a glorious release from the curse that enslaved and tormented her not a punishment. Through her encounter with Parsifal over time and final baptism during good Friday scence she is at last redeemed symbolically, during the final grail ceremony when all are enlightened she has fulfilled her destiny and can finally be free and have peace..........

She showed signs of compassion when she tried to help Amrfotas with balm etc but before meeting Parsifal could not escape the dark power that controlled her destiny.......so we are happy that she finally has found peace at the glorious conclusion


----------



## DavidA

One of my recordings of Parsifal seems to have disappeared. Most annoying!


----------



## howlingfantods

cheftimmyr said:


> Parsifal is becoming the Wagner at the top of my list to keep exploring and hearing more of... Since there are others in this thread with much more listening time in Parsifal than myself, I thought I'd throw out a survey-type question...
> 
> While the "perfect" Parsifal might not exist I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts on specific artists who captured the individual roles and have stood out to you, (please reference the specific opera so I can track it down to buy/listen).
> 
> (Don't feel like you need to address every role, unless you have recommendations for all of them, and you're so inclined.)
> 
> Gurnemanz:
> 
> Parsifal:
> 
> Amfortas:
> 
> Kundry:
> 
> Klingsor:
> 
> Titurel:
> 
> Thanks in advance for the feedback and I look forward to hearing everyones thoughts...


Gurnemanz: To me, the most important role, but with some of the most unfortunate and inapt performances on tape. Numerous otherwise terrific recordings marred by overly stern or villainous or ungainly performances from the likes of Weber or Greindl.

Kurt Moll is my ideal Gurnemanz, better in the Kubelik than in Karajan II. Moll wouldn't be my choice for most of the more prominent bass or bass/baritone Wagnerian roles but he absolutely fits this like a glove--a true infra bass, large but restrained and noble. Just beautifully sung.

Hotter is wonderful but as a bass/baritone, the role simply sits too low for him and he fudges many low notes. By the time he started singing the role, he was well past his peak. I like him better as Amfortas than Gurnemanz.

Robert Lloyd has a great voice for the role, captured probably too early in his career in the Armin Jordan and in horrible bootleg recording in the 1997 Simon Rattle. I would dearly love a better recording of the latter.

Parsifal: I don't really have any one favorite. I can't think of one performer who excels at all the different phases of the role--the callow youth of act 1, the lustful and then remorseful young man of act 2, and the weary then transfigured hero of act 3. My three favorites are probably these: James King doesn't have the greatest voice but I like how much he tries to embody all of the role on the Kubelik (although most definitely not on the Boulez); Jess Thomas (1962 Kna) sings beautifully but his Parsifal doesn't evolve; Vickers (1964 Kna) might hit some of the highest highs but I never buy him as anything than absolutely echt-heroic, but he is thrilling.

Amfortas: I prefer this role sung by a true baritone over bass baritones, especially granitic bass-baritones like George London. My absolute favorite is Peter Mattei on the Gatti video recording at the Met from a few years ago. Astonishingly beautiful. Second is Jose Van Dam in Karajan II--for many years, I thought I would never hear a version I liked better until the Gatti came out. And then Hotter, as I alluded to before, who sings a wonderful Amfortas in the 1954 Bayreuth recording.

Kundry: This role has been very fortunate on recordings, with a number of excellent interpreters, but my favorite remains Christa Ludwig (better recorded on the Solti, but I prefer the overall performance in Karajan I), who is also my favorite Fricka, Ortrud, Brangane, etc etc. She does everything well, but villainy and sexy especially well. But Irene Dalis (1962 Kna), Martha Modl (I probably like her best in the 1954 Kna), Yvonne Minton (Kubelik and Jordan) and Waltraud Meier (Levine Bayreuth--but I don't recommend this recording) are all terrific as well.

Klingsor: I honestly stop being picky with the casting around here--a substantial number of my recordings have Neidlinger, Mazura and Uhde in the role and they're all excellent here.

Titurel: I don't think I've ever given the casting of this role a second's thought.


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> The symbolic "death" of Kundry is a glorious release from the curse that enslaved and tormented her not a punishment. Through her encounter with Parsifal over time and final baptism during good Friday scene she is at last redeemed symbolically, during the final grail ceremony when all are enlightened she has fulfilled her destiny and can finally be free and have peace..........
> 
> She showed signs of compassion when she tried to help Amrfotas with balm etc but before meeting Parsifal could not escape the dark power that controlled her destiny.......so we are happy that she finally has found peace at the glorious conclusion


In _Parsifal_ certain characters live on, while others die. It's worth considering why this is. What might distinguish the two sets of personages, and suggest a different destiny for each?

On a literal level, it's clear that Titurel dies of old age when he is no longer able to behold Grail and draw life from it. It's less clear that Klingsor has to die merely because his power is broken. And Kundry presents the greatest problem, if we try to be literal. Why should she die at all? Isn't the destruction of Klingsor's magic sufficient to give her the relief she craves, and to free her to serve the Grail?

Speculation on this should make it clear - in case we had any doubts (and it appears that some do) - that literal thinking is not adequate to an understanding of this strange tale. I've been asserting in these discussions that Wagner never worked more indirectly and symbolically, yet at the same time more precisely and purposefully, than in his last opera. _Parsifal_ is a myth, but a myth created not by cultural accretion but through the creative imagination of an individual - and that individual, I feel quite sure, knew what he was doing. There are no accidents in _Parsifal,_ and no detail of plot or music that isn't designed to tell us something.

I want to postulate that each of the characters in the story represents a man's experience of himself and his spiritual state from certain perspectives, that some of those perspectives are truthful, healthy, and conducive to more abundant life, while others are distorted, sick, and destructive. And I think those characters who represent the former sort of perceptions, attitudes and behaviors are the ones who live on at the end, and those who embody the latter sort are the ones who die. It isn't that this latter group are "bad" people who get their just deserts; that's looking at them too literally, as if they were real individuals in a real world. This is a world of myth and dreams, and characters here are not individuals but embodiments of different qualities who have been personified in order to make the journey of the spirit into a story with the power of sensuous reality.

I could continue with analyses of the individual characters, but I think I'll leave off and see whether anyone else finds this a fruitful line of inquiry. The reasons for Kundry's death have been argued about, but I don't think the larger question of who lives and who dies - and why - has been discussed, here or anywhere that I can recall.


----------



## cheftimmyr

Duck, thank you for so openly sharing your thoughts on this multi-faceted, deep work. I for one would look forward to reading more of your analyses on the individual characters. To second what you said, I've not seen any specific discussion as to "who lives, who dies and why".


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> In other words, the King could not have possibly truly understood Wagner because he happened to have lived in the wrong century. Allow me to disagree.
> 
> And *one absolutely does not have to know a lot about psychology or political philosophy in order to understand Wagner.* One must have *a good recording, a libretto, functioning ears and a heart that has not been completely calloused by the modern world, and that is enough*. All other things might be of some help, but they are not _necessary_. Some modern composers are like that - in order to understand what it is they are doing, one should be well-versed in musical theory or history of music. *Wagner's music speaks powerfully enough on its own.** It's not Wagner-and-Freud, or Wagner-and-Deryck-Cooke, it's Wagner alone that should suffice.*
> 
> [...]*you mentioned in another post that a profound understanding of Wagner is not possible without a knowledge of 20th-century psychology.* *Wagner celebrates sexuality in each one of his operas*[...]*equating Kundry's sexual seduction with Herzeleide's motherly love and one as a continuation of the other - I really do not believe this is what Wagner had in view*[...] here it is woman the seductress, the deceiver that can cause a man unbearable pain[...]Kundry finds his weak spot to get at him. But her feelings for Parsifal are just the opposite of his mother's.


I've put two of your posts together here because they both seem based on a couple of assumptions which I think need to be made explicit.

The first assumption I'm intuiting is that of "fundamentalism." I'm using the term in exactly the popular religious sense of the word: the assumption that a text - here, Wagner's fantastic and mythological stories - can, like the stories of supernatural occurrences in the Bible, be taken at face value, that their meaning is apparent on the surface, and that we only need beware of clever modern prejudices (or the false wisdom of Satan) in order to understand them fully.

The second assumption is implicit in fundamentalism: if the meaning of a work of art is obvious to any properly receptive observer, then people's understanding of that work should be complete from the start, and anything that pretends to be a deeper insight acquired and advanced in the light of continued learning and thinking must be _a priori _presumed invalid.

If I'm not reading too much into your statements and these really are your beliefs, I trust you are prepared to tell us exactly what the plain and simple meaning of _Parsifal_ is and save us all the trouble of thinking and arguing about it. You could render irrelevant a century and a half of Wagner studies by numerous erudite and distinguished musicologists, scholars, philosophers, and psychologists who, inflamed by the power of Wagner's musical and dramatic imagination, have devoted substantial portions of their lives to attaining a deeper understanding of his achievements.

But, seriously, I don't think that you, or any one of us here, is prepared to make a definitive statement on the meaning of _Parsifal_, or to claim that we have understood all its implications while sitting on our couches listening, librettos in hand. For some of us, that is just what's unique about Wagner among composers of opera, and just what fills us with continuing astonishment as the years go by. Many years have gone by for me, and yet, now and again, the symbols in Wagner's mystery play still throw up new realizations in my mind. The greatest art grows with us, and becomes in some ways new as we become old. I hope to continue asking new questions about Wagner, and positing answers - tentative answers, perhaps, but satisfying as mileposts along the way.

Whether others share my endless curiosity about Wagner or not, I would just ask them to consider that it's in the fundamental nature of his works that different interpretations do not necessarily exclude one another. It's the essence of archetypes - great, universal symbols of the sort represented by grails, spears, knights, sorcerers, femmes fatales, and temples that can never be found until they call us to them - that they can tap into the deepest and least understood elements of our psyches and, if we are receptive, open up new vistas of knowledge, most especially self-knowledge. Mythic symbols can take us to a place where the interconnectedness of things becomes clear, where spiritual and material dimensions are seen as expressions of each other, where time and causality are not unidirectional, and where meanings ripple outward like waves of sweet harmony. We are fools to believe that we know where, or whether, those ripples end.

_"Du siehst, mein Sohn,
zum Raum wird hier die Zeit."_ - Gurnemanz to Parsifal


----------



## DarkAngel

> In _Parsifal_ certain characters live on, while others die. It's worth considering why this is. What might distinguish the two sets of personages, and suggest a different destiny for each?
> 
> On a literal level, it's clear that Titurel dies of old age when he is no longer able to behold Grail and draw life from it. It's less clear that Klingsor has to die merely because his power is broken. And Kundry presents the greatest problem, if we try to be literal. Why should she die at all? Isn't the destruction of Klingsor's magic sufficient to give her the relief she craves, and to free her to serve the Grail?


The death of Klingsor freed Kundry from servitude to the dark master but did not provide her with clarity, enlightenment or forgiveness, she was haunted by her past actions remember she was angry with Parsifal for rejecting her and caused him to become lost for many years trying to find his way back to castle montsalvat. Meeting Kundry was the key for Parsifal to begin his journey of enlightenment and discovering his purpose in life, to learn of his mothers love and his connection to Amfortas (during kiss from Kundry), to eventually learn the great power of compassion.

Later when Parsifal finally finds his way back to Gurnemanz with Kundry present she washes his feet and Parsifal "baptizes" her with water from the holy spring literally washing away all her past sins through the centuries, *Parsifal can now fulfill Amfortas vision of being saved by "a pure fool, enlightened by compassion" *Kundry has come full circle from being cursed for laughing at the crucified Christ and at the final grail ceremony has fulfilled her destiny with Parsifal and received forgiveness and enlightenment, she is fully set free from the curse in a symbolic spiritual manner.......we are happy for her final glorious release (symbolic death), a grand redemption........


----------



## amfortas

Much that has been said of Kundry's "glorious release" can apply equally to Amfortas. Yet she dies, he doesn't (even though he is the one who explicitly *wants* to die). 

Not a problem, necessarily, but it does leave me intrigued by productions that explore different outcomes.


----------



## Itullian

I like when she lives.


----------



## Barbebleu

50% off on Operadepot so went mad and ordered Parsifals for Munich 1977, Rome 1970 and Milan 1960. Klingsor alone knows when I'll get around to listening to them!!


----------



## amfortas

Barbebleu said:


> Klingsor alone knows when I'll get around to listening to them!!


"Die Zeit ist da!"


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> Much that has been said of Kundry's "glorious release" can apply equally to Amfortas. Yet she dies, he doesn't (even though he is the one who explicitly *wants* to die).
> 
> Not a problem, necessarily, but it does leave me intrigued by productions that explore different outcomes.


I puzzled over that too, and I think a pausible answer might be that insofar as Amfortas' wish to die is born of a desperate situation which seems to have no end, he basically wants relief from suffering, not from life. Kundry, who does in fact express (twice, I think) a wish for death, seeks release not from what she suffers but from what she _is._ That's the strange thing about her: she has many identities, even many incarnations, but no identity which is actually her _self_. I've noted that she embodies, in her alternating identities, the things that women are to men when they are not viewed and treated as full, autonomous human beings: women are excluded from the Order of the Grail, the knights are forbidden sexual relationships, there are no women in sight around Montsalvat, Titurel's whole world is the very image of rigid patriarchy, and the only woman who figures into the lives of the Grail knights appears alternately as a wretched serving wench (for which she is rewarded by a pat on the head and sarcastic taunts), a dangerous femme fatale, and, as we see with the seduction of Parsifal, a mother-image. She is, in short, a perfect, historically dead-on caricature of femaleness as created, defined, and dominated by the immature male ego, carried to its logical and horrifying extreme. Compared to Kundry's experience, Lulu's life is a soap opera (but then Lulu might be an actual person, a nice example of the difference between symbolism and realism in art).

Kundry is not a person - she has no known origin, and seems to have always existed - but a personification, an unsparing projection of men's fears and prejudices, which go back deep into the forgotten history of the souls of boys as they struggle to separate themselves from their mothers (from woman!) and become men. That struggle is a fundamental of the male experience, fraught with peril, and has determined much of the tragic history of the world. And I believe that the story of _Parsifal_ presents, at its most fundamental level, that very story of Man in stumbling pursuit of his full humanity - of the healing of his fractured soul through recovery of the balance between masculine and feminine in himself, over all the stages of his lifetime: the story of how, at his beginning, Man (represented by Titurel and his religious power structure, a microcosm of society), in seeking to define his masculine identity, overreaches in differentiating himself from Woman (mother Herzeleide), suppresses the feminine in himself by seeking control over manifestations of the feminine (celibacy, the ritualization of the Grail, and the servitude of Kundry), and pays the terrible price of seeing the rejected part of his nature come back to haunt him, undisguised by the pretense of righteousness (Klingsor) and in the incarnation of Woman, now a frightening mystery and deadly threat (Kundry as femme fatale) with the power to rob him of his overconfident will (the loss of the Spear in Kundry's embrace) and his masculine pride (the kingship of Amfortas). Man, in short, creates a world flawed even in its holiest ideals because he has cut off half of his own nature: his controlling masculine ego, fearing and repressing the gentleness, grace and vulnerability of the feminine, finds himself trapped and corrupted by his own misconceived identity, and he will find salvation only by an access of understanding uncorrupted by his ideologies of power. That understanding comes with Parsifal, whose life recapitulates the masculine journey, but in whom the experience of vicarious suffering engenders a compassion which overrides ego and allows him to see that neither Woman as Mother (Herzeleide) nor Woman as sexual seducer (Kundry) are of fundamental importance or will divert him from his true calling: to achieve the fullness of an integrated human being, a mature Man.

Titurel, the patriarch revered by all except his own repressed alter ego (Klingsor, who knows that the craving for power is the thing that unites them), is clearly doomed by Parsifal's insight in the garden, and Titurel/Klingsor must die as the corrupt old order is destroyed. Kundry dies because she has never lived as a being in her own right, but only as a projected object - both dominated and dominatrix - of male illusion, and an emblem of the suffering of the feminine in a hypermasculine world. Amfortas, healed by Parsifal, lives on because he never represented anything that did not deserve to live or was incapable of life; he was merely misguided in trying to subdue the consequences of Titurel's error by sheer will (his misuse of the Holy Spear). In psychological terms, he represents the overconfident ego who, accepting unquestioningly the moral authority of the superego (the father, Titurel), brings inevitable humiliation on himself, even the hostility of his father, and having paid the price in pain and guilt must finally be seen to yield humbly and gladly to the higher, enlightened self embodied by Parsifal. The ego never dies, but it learns that it cannot rule.

Gurnemanz, the only remaining character and one who survives, occupies a special position in this story. He is the rational observer. He watches the soul's struggles and its progress, trying to understand, sharing his knowledge, offering gentle guidance when he can. His role in the unfolding of events and the evolution of moral consciousness seems to me very true to the function of reason in the process of human maturation: it evaluates and guides, but does not create or, ultimately, control the forces in human nature which determine our outcomes, much as we might wish it otherwise. It's powers are limited, but essential: the benign voice of reason, in clarity or confusion, must and does live on, serving best when it intuits the soul's highest calling.

PARSIFAL:

Who is the Grail?

GURNEMANZ:

That cannot be said;
but if you yourself are called to its service
that knowledge will not remain withheld. -
And see!
I think I know you aright;
no earthly path leads to it,
and none could tread it
whom the Grail itself had not guided.


----------



## Becca

On a different topic but still related to _Parsifal_, Andris Nelsons was scheduled to conduct the _Parsifal_ on opening day of this year's Bayreuth Festival but has abruptly canceled his contract and left Bayreuth in the middle of rehearsals. His press release only states "_Owing to a differing approach in various matters, the atmosphere at this year's Bayreuth Festival did not develop in a mutually comfortable way for all parties."_ Various unofficial reports indicates that the problem is Christian Thielemann who is the music director at Bayreuth and, apparently, has been interfering in the preparations.

Nelson's departure is the second major exit from Bayreuth with Kirill Petrenko having indicated that he has no intention of continuing to work there. No replacement has yet been announced.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> On a different topic but still related to _Parsifal_, Andris Nelsons was scheduled to conduct the _Parsifal_ on opening day of this year's Bayreuth Festival but has abruptly canceled his contract and left Bayreuth in the middle of rehearsals. His press release only states "_Owing to a differing approach in various matters, the atmosphere at this year's Bayreuth Festival did not develop in a mutually comfortable way for all parties."_ Various unofficial reports indicates that the problem is Christian Thielemann who is the music director at Bayreuth and, apparently, has been interfering in the preparations.
> 
> Nelson's departure is the second major exit from Bayreuth with Kirill Petrenko having indicated that he has no intention of continuing to work there. No replacement has yet been announced.


Poor Bayreuth. If all else fails they might try facing their fears and presenting Wagner's operas as he conceived them. I'd recommend opening every rehearsal with a prayer for the Grail's guidance. I can almost guarantee that everyone would be lining up to conduct there, thrilled with the prospect of participating in the redemption.

_Höchsten Heiles Wunder!
Erlösung dem Erlöser! _


----------



## DarkAngel

> And I believe that the story of _Parsifal_ presents, at its most fundamental level, that very story of Man in stumbling pursuit of his full humanity - of the healing of his fractured soul through recovery of the balance between masculine and feminine in himself, over all the stages of his lifetime: the story of how, at his beginning, Man (represented by Titurel and his religious power structure, a microcosm of society), in seeking to define his masculine identity, overreaches in differentiating himself from Woman (mother Herzeleide), suppresses the feminine in himself by seeking control over manifestations of the feminine (celibacy,


All those ideals and concepts are hinted at but to me the main theme is much more direct, it is the learning of the power of compassion by Parsifal. We know that Wagner followed Schopenhauer very closely and in his world the greatest most noble trait was compassion the highest form of human ethics, this is Parsifal's goal, his enlightenment

Amfortas early on gave us the story in one brief phrase when describing his recurring vision, he would be saved by "*a pure fool, enlightened by compassion" *The main teacher for Parsifal turned out to be Kundry, their encounter in Klingsor's garden provided many seeds of thought that overtime would later fully develop Parsifal's enlightenment, the proof of which came with his forgiveness of Kundry with her baptism at the holy spring......the manifest act of Parsifal's compassion

No accident that this event occurs on "good friday" when jesus dies on the cross to forgive the sins of man the ultimate sacrifice of compassion


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> All those ideals and concepts are hinted at but to me the main theme is much more direct, it is the learning of the power of compassion by Parsifal. We know that Wagner followed Schopenhauer very closely and in his world the greatest most noble trait was compassion the highest form of human ethics, this is Parsifal's goal, his enlightenment
> 
> Amfortas early on gave us the story in one brief phrase when describing his recurring vision, he would be saved by "*a pure fool, enlightened by compassion" *The main teacher for Parsifal turned out to be Kundry, their encounter in Klingsor's garden provided many seeds of thought that overtime would later fully develop Parsifal's enlightenment, the proof of which came with the his forgiveness of Kundry with her baptism at the holy spring......the manifest act of Parsifal's compassion
> 
> No accident that this event occurs on "good friday" when jesus dies on the cross to forgive the sins of man the ultimate sacrifice of compassion


There's certainly no conflict between these views. I like to delve into the archetypal symbolism of Wagner's operas, and I find that only by doing so can I make consistent sense of the characters, the events onstage, and the peculiar emotional overtones of the music. _Parsifal_ is, let's face it, a strange tale, which on the surface has aspects that many people have found offensive or repellent. The same may be said of the stories in many religions, including Christianity, which have been interpreted quite differently by different people in different eras, but which, like _Parsifal_ and the _Ring_, owe their power over the human imagination as much to their mythical symbology as to their ideological statements.

Wagner did have definite ideas in mind which he wanted to dramatize, and in Parsifal the redemptive power of compassion, experienced by an uncorrupted consciousness, is evidently the explicit moral of the story. But to me that idea is only a start on understanding this work. Difficult questions present themselves: Redemption from what? What is the sin - the original sin - which is so profound that not even the penitence of Amfortas can heal it? Why do the knights of a seemingly holy order fall, one by one, to the power of a sorcerer, expressed in nothing more threatening than the sexual allurements of a woman? Can the original sin really be something as tawdry as illicit sex? Who is the woman at the center of this strange story? Why is her identity known to no one, even herself? Why does she know details of Parsifal's childhood that she could not have been present to see? Why are there no other women in this story? Why is the sole woman presented as a miserable wretch who only gets killed off in the end? And - getting back to the moral of the tale - why is compassion not present in the realm of the Grail before the arrival, or the return, of Parsifal? Isn't Gurnemanz compassionate? Shouldn't we expect all servants of the Grail to possess this basic virtue? Are they all - including Titurel - hopeless moral degenerates? Why can only a naive boy resist the power of Kundry? Wouldn't we expect those who know more to have more self-awareness and thus more self-control? And the music itself raises questions. Why is the music we hear when the Grail is being uncovered for the ceremony so dark and creepy? Why does the voice of Titurel sound so threatening? Why is the music of Parsifal's seduction so disturbing? Why does Wagner give us, in the transformation music in act 3, the leitmotif to which Parsifal wailed in act 2 that he killed his mother, here wringing from it the ultimate agony? Is Parsifal fixated upon this memory at this late stage of his journey (unlikely), or does that motif have deeper implications? Does it perhaps speak for the entire Order of the Grail in their guilt, or might it be a lament rising from the throat of the Mother Grail itself?

Everything you say about _Parsifal_ is true, but I don't feel it gets me far in answering these and many other questions. Wagner himself found that in the act of creating his works he was constantly surprised by what bubbled up from his unconscious mind, and he knew he was expressing things that even he could not explain. His debt to Schopenhauer, his studies in Buddhism, his embrace of a rather unorthodox Christianity during the years of _Parsifal_'s composition - these will tell us much about his conscious intentions, but will not necessarily get at either the most personal meanings his work had for him, or the most universal meanings it embodies in its symbols, symbols which are found in many cultures down through the ages and which express aspects of human nature which transcend religions and ideologies.

I will suggest that the most profound meanings to be found in a work of art are the meanings that explain the most about it. To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo, when we look at _Parsifal_ we've "got a lotta splainin' to do."


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> The second assumption is implicit in fundamentalism: if the meaning of a work of art is obvious to any properly receptive observer, then people's understanding of that work should be complete from the start, and anything that pretends to be a deeper insight acquired and advanced in the light of continued learning and thinking must be _a priori _presumed invalid.
> 
> *If I'm not reading too much into your statements and these really are your beliefs, I trust you are prepared to tell us exactly what the plain and simple meaning of Parsifal is* and save us all the trouble of thinking and arguing about it. You could render irrelevant a century and a half of Wagner studies by numerous erudite and distinguished musicologists, scholars, philosophers, and psychologists who, inflamed by the power of Wagner's musical and dramatic imagination, have devoted substantial portions of their lives to attaining a deeper understanding of his achievements.
> 
> But, seriously, I don't think that you, or any one of us here, is prepared to make a definitive statement on the meaning of _Parsifal_, or to claim that we have understood all its implications while sitting on our couches listening, librettos in hand.


Frankly, I feel that explaining my thoughts on the meaning of Parsifal in great detail the way you do it, would be a worthess undertaking, since you have explicitly stated that you do not care a bit (to put it more politely) about my opinions of Parsifal or any other subject. But I greatly enjoy talking about Wagner and his work whenever I can, so I will just put it in few words. I believe it is the story of Parsifal's personal growth, from a "pure fool" (but a fool nevertheless, and with a propensity to violence) to a Man and a worthy King, "enlightened through compassion". It is Kundry's temptation that allows him to learn the latter, and so he not only remains impervious to what other knights and Amfortas have succumbed to, but also becomes a blessing and a redemption to others: to Amfortas, to the grail knights and to Kundry herself, releasing her from her curse. Spiritual strength coupled with understanding for other men's struggles are what make him a worthy king to the grail knights. DarkAngel has already said that much.

And I do not think this interpretation is more valid than yours or any other, much less that it is a definitive statement on the meaning of Parsifal. You are right, neither you or I or anyone here is really can make such a statement, although you certainly have much more Wagnerian learning under your belt than I do, and I appreciate that. And I don't think having lived in the 21st century rather than in the 19th century like King Ludwig makes one more qualified to make such definitive statements.

Furthermore, you are mistaken if you think that having a certain opinion or view of this most wonderful work somehow prevents one from intellectual curiosity or from seeking further answers from it. I've been listening to it for about six years (not much, granted) and every time I approach it with a new sense of wonder. My contempt for modernity and its Zeitgeist (which I believe, is not conducive to either creation or understanding of great art) has nothing to do with it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> Wagner did have definite ideas in mind which he wanted to dramatize, and in Parsifal the redemptive power of compassion, experienced by an uncorrupted consciousness, is evidently the explicit moral of the story. But to me that idea is only a start on understanding this work. Difficult questions present themselves...


I wil try to offer a few answers to your questions, take them or leave them as you see fit.



> Redemption from what? What is the sin - the original sin - which is so profound that not even the penitence of Amfortas can heal it?


The greater part of Amfortas' torment comes not from his physical wound or from his sense of guilt in having succumbed to Kundry, but from his duty as the one who unveils the Grail in order to nourish the knights with its spiritual power. The Grail and the Spear are symbols of holiness, artefacts that have been received from heaven,and the entire brotherhood is built around these artefacts. Thus to those that are fully devoted to the brotherhood they are a source of nourishment. But to those who like Amfortas, understand themselves as "impure", as having transgressed against the brotherhood they are an instrument of torture. Likewise Klingsor was only able to wound Amfortas with the Spear after he had lain in Kundry's arms, but not before. And now Amfortas must come in the presence of the Grail again and again, and every time that presence increases the pain of his guilt. He prays for this duty to be removed from him, it is also part of redempton performed by Parsifal, as he takes that duty upon himself.



> Why do the knights of a seemingly holy order fall, one by one, to the power of a sorcerer, expressed in nothing more threatening than the sexual allurements of a woman?


Because love and sex are the most powerful things in existence, isn't that a leitmotif of Wagner's entire output? 



> Can the original sin really be something as tawdry as illicit sex?


It is not merely sex, it is sex used as an instrument for enslavement, for the loss of one's personality. Remember the other knights in Klingsor's castle who fight Parsifal when he comes? Klingsor used Kundry's seductiveness in order to tear them away from the brotherhood and make them into sex slaves of a sort, incapable of leaving the castle with its flower maidens, who really seem to be nothing but illusion.



> Who is the woman at the center of this strange story? Why is her identity known to no one, even herself?


She is the woman who was cursed (by God, I guess, although Wagner never mentiones it) for laughing at dying Christ on the cross. As she showed an utter lack of compassion at that moment, so the curse would only be lifted by someone who had the deepest compassion with her. Except that compassion means precisely the opposite that she wants from Parsifal: not giving in to her demands, but resisting all the way. Klingsor says this much ("wer dich trotzte, löste dich frei") at the beginning of Act II thus setting the stage for the coming spiritual battle.



> Why does she know details of Parsifal's childhood that she could not have been present to see?


In Act I she is roaming the world on her winged mare, she might very well have observed Parsifal's childhood.



> Why are there no other women in this story? Why is the sole woman presented as a miserable wretch who only gets killed off in the end?


You forget the flower maidens. Although since they vanish when Klingsor's castle falls, they may not have been human at all.

And Kundry is not merely killed off in the end. She is released from the curse of forever wandering the earth since the time of Christ. Opinions vary on whether she was reincarnated and experienced many lives, or a single unusually long one under many different names. But in any case she was always aware of her curse. And the memory of her own heartlessness at the cross also continually hounded her. One would suppose death was a welcome release to her by now.



> And - getting back to the moral of the tale - why is compassion not present in the realm of the Grail before the arrival, or the return, of Parsifal? Isn't Gurnemanz compassionate? Shouldn't we expect all servants of the Grail to possess this basic virtue?


Of course it is present in many ways: in the scene with the swan, in the moment when Gurnemanz admonishes a boy for talking badly of Kundry, and the knights' care for Amfortas. It is just so that every opera has a hero, and in this particular one only Parsifal is up to the task cut out for him.



> Are they all - including Titurel - hopeless moral degenerates? Why can only a naive boy resist the power of Kundry? Wouldn't we expect those who know more to have more self-awareness and thus more self-control?


No, they are not. Those who know more also find themselves more exposed to the temptations and dark sides of the world. Amfortas admonishes another knight for departing without permission precisely because he knows all-too-much about how easy it is to become entrapped by Klingsor's magic. But Parsifal has just escaped from his sheltered existence and begun to understand these dark sides. In his first conversation with Gurnemanz he only first asks questions about what is good and evil (or rather who is good and who is evil). In a way he is akin to innocent Siegfried who beholding Brünnhilde for the first time, says in wonder "Das ist kein Mann!" Except that Sigfried becomes entrapped and destroyed because of his naivete, but Parsifal wins his victory in part because of it.



> And the music itself raises questions. Why is the music we hear when the Grail is being uncovered for the ceremony so dark and creepy?


Which exactly music, the one that follows the words "Oh heilige Wonne/ wie hell grüßt uns heute der Herr"? It does not seem creepy at all to me, more solemn, majestic and demonstrating that atmosphere of awe and wonder.



> Why does the voice of Titurel sound so threatening?


First, because he is speaking from a grave  Second, because he calls Amfortas to a duty that causes him a world of pain every time he performs it, but that must nevertheless be performed.



> Why is the music of Parsifal's seduction so disturbing?


It's the high point of the story, an many destinies hang on that moment, that is why, I guess.



> Why does Wagner give us, in the transformation music in act 3, the leitmotif to which Parsifal wailed in act 2 that he killed his mother, here wringing from it the ultimate agony? Is Parsifal fixated upon this memory at this late stage of his journey (unlikely), or does that motif have deeper implications? Does it perhaps speak for the entire Order of the Grail in their guilt, or might it be a lament rising from the throat of the Mother Grail itself


I will try to come up with an answer after I listen to that part one more time tonight


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DarkAngel said:


> All those ideals and concepts are hinted at but to me the main theme is much more direct, it is the learning of the power of compassion by Parsifal. We know that Wagner followed Schopenhauer very closely and in his world the greatest most noble trait was compassion the highest form of human ethics, this is Parsifal's goal, his enlightenment
> 
> Amfortas early on gave us the story in one brief phrase when describing his recurring vision, he would be saved by "*a pure fool, enlightened by compassion" *The main teacher for Parsifal turned out to be Kundry, their encounter in Klingsor's garden provided many seeds of thought that overtime would later fully develop Parsifal's enlightenment, the proof of which came with his forgiveness of Kundry with her baptism at the holy spring......the manifest act of Parsifal's compassion
> 
> No accident that this event occurs on "good friday" when jesus dies on the cross to forgive the sins of man the ultimate sacrifice of compassion


I think the seed of Parsifal's enlightenment was planted even earlier, during the ceremony at the Grail castle. While observing the ceremony Parsifal does not really understand what is going on yet, or the reason for Amfortas' anguish. But at the moment he is subjected to the very same temptation as Amfortas earlier, that memory comes to him in a flash. He understands what the Grail is, how Amfortas had been hurt and how Kundry was setting up a trap for him. The music right after Kundry's kiss ("Amfortas! Die Wunde!") also suggests the same thing.


----------



## DarkAngel

^^^^ No doubt SL that Gurnemanz provided the background and tried to spark some interest from our fool at the initial grail ceremony, but it went right over his head, Kundry caused such an intense emotional response that permanently lit the fuse of mental awareness (the kiss a pivotal event) which would eventually see the fool transform to the "compassionate" Parsifal


----------



## Itullian

The posts on this thread are truly amazing. :tiphat:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> Why does Wagner give us, in the transformation music in act 3, the leitmotif to which Parsifal wailed in act 2 that he killed his mother, here wringing from it the ultimate agony? Is Parsifal fixated upon this memory at this late stage of his journey (unlikely), or does that motif have deeper implications? Does it perhaps speak for the entire Order of the Grail in their guilt, or might it be a lament rising from the throat of the Mother Grail itself?


Or maybe it is a musical theme of death and loss, a funeral music of sorts? In act II Parsifal laments the loss of his mother, in act III the brotherhood laments the loss of Titurel - that is what the two episodes seem to have in common.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Itullian said:


> The posts on this thread are truly amazing. :tiphat:


The very subject of this thread is truly amazing 

I have just finished listening to Solti/Wiener Philarmoniker recording of Parsifal. If there is anything at all created by the human mind that possesses the attribute of _perfection_, this is it.

And the last two lines:

_Höchsten Heiles Wunder!
Erlösung dem Erlöser! _

remind me, just how beautiful the German language can be when sung properly and to such divine music


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Or maybe it is a musical theme of death and loss, a funeral music of sorts? In act II Parsifal laments the loss of his mother, in act III the brotherhood laments the loss of Titurel - that is what the two episodes seem to have in common.


I think Wagner's instincts were more specific. Death, loss, lamentation - these are abstract, general concepts for which he would be unlikely to create a leitmotif. Perhaps the loss specifically of a _parent_ - Herzeleide, mother of Parsifal, Titurel, father of Amfortas - would be a more a more likely theme, but there's really no parallel: Amfortas' feelings for his father are qualitatively different from Parsifal's for his mother, and the motif is not used at all when Amfortas is present and speaking specifically of Titurel. Anyone familiar with the score, hearing this music in this most extreme and indeed terrifying incarnation - surely this transformation music, with its disturbing, shifting tonal clashes and ambiguities, is one of Wagner's most striking inventions - will recall the boy Parsifal, sunk down at Kundry's feet, moaning:

"Woe is me! Alas! What have I done? Where was I?
Mother! Sweet, dear mother!
Your son, your son it was who killed you!
Fool! Blind, blundering fool,
where did you wander, forgetting her -
forgetting yourself too?
O dearest, beloved mother!"

I think it's a strange and extraordinary thing that Wagner would choose to recall that moment at this juncture. Parsifal himself would not be feeling, at this point, what he felt then, or even thinking about it. Besides, this is not music of sorrowful reminiscence, but of acute agony. Something led Wagner, in this crucial moment of the drama when the situation of the Grail has reached a point of absolute despair, to associate the present situation with the earlier one, and my instincts tell me that the answer would take us deep into Wagner's psyche.


----------



## amfortas

DarkAngel said:


> ^^^^ No doubt SL that Gurnemanz provided the background and tried to spark some interest from our fool at the initial grail ceremony, but it went right over his head, Kundry caused such an intense emotional response that permanently lit the fuse of mental awareness (the kiss a pivotal event) which would eventually see the fool transform to the "compassionate" Parsifal


After the Grail ceremony, when Gurnemanz asks Parsifal, "Do you know what you have seen," the music accompanying Parsifal's silence makes it clear he has been emotionally stirred--even though he is unable to comprehend or articulate his reaction. Gurnemanz angrily dismisses him, but I think we are to see the old man as having misread the boy's response--as the mysterious voice from on high seems to suggest. (Such an interpretation is in keeping with the original legends, where Parzival/Perceval is struck by what he sees--usually the spear and/or the grail--but afraid to ask about it.)

Later, with Kundry's kiss, Parsifal undoubtedly has a major epiphany, comes to a much fuller understanding of Amfortas and the wound. But only because the Grail ceremony didn't go "right over his head" in the first place.


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


>


_"Where religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for art to save the core of religion by recognizing the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in a literal sense, and by revealing the deep truth hidden in them through ideal representation."_

[Wagner's essay Religion and Art, 1880, tr. William Ashton Ellis]

Looking at this painting of the crucifixion of Christ, I can't help thinking of Nietzsche's reaction to _Parsifal_, in which he thought he saw Wagner abandoning the heroic stance of the _Ring_ and capitulating to the "slave religion" of Christianity, "prostrating himself at the foot of the cross." The Christianity of _Parsifal_ and of its author was a topic of debate from the very start, with responses ranging from sermons condemning Wagner for defiling the Christian sacraments of baptism and holy communion by representing them onstage to attempts to explain the story in terms of Christian theology.

Is _Parsifal_ a Christian opera in any sense? Is its use of Christian symbols and ideas consistent with Christian theology and belief? Where in its story, if anywhere, are the central characters of the Christian religion, God and Jesus? Are the knights of the Grail Christians? Is Parsifal a Christian - or is he Christ in disguise? Where is the Christian message of salvation through Christ's sacrifice? What is the meaning of the opera's final line, "Redemption to the Redeemer?" Who is the Redeemer, from what is he redeemed, and how or by whom?


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> Man, in short, creates a world flawed even in its holiest ideals because he has cut off half of his own nature: his controlling masculine ego, fearing and repressing the gentleness, grace and vulnerability of the feminine, finds himself trapped and corrupted by his own misconceived identity, and he will find salvation only by an access of understanding uncorrupted by his ideologies of power. That understanding comes with Parsifal, whose life recapitulates the masculine journey, but in whom the experience of vicarious suffering engenders a compassion which overrides ego and allows him to see that neither Woman as Mother (Herzeleide) nor Woman as sexual seducer (Kundry) are of fundamental importance or will divert him from his true calling: to achieve the fullness of an integrated human being, a mature Man.


This is all very well put, but I can't escape the nagging sense that the Grail knights overcome their fixation on deceptive feminine archetypes, achieve integrated fullness and become mature Men, only through the elimination of the closest thing to a real woman among them.

As Nietzsche quipped, "One fact, finally, which leaves us dumbfounded: Parsifal is the father of Lohengrin. How did he do it? - Must one remember at this point that 'chastity works miracles'?"

EDIT: I've just learned, in a completely different forum, what MGTOW means. Surprisingly pertinent to this topic!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> Is _Parsifal_ a Christian opera in any sense? Is its use of Christian symbols and ideas consistent with Christian theology and belief? Where in its story, if anywhere, are the central characters of the Christian religion, God and Jesus? Are the knights of the Grail Christians? Is Parsifal a Christian - or is he Christ in disguise? Where is the Christian message of salvation through Christ's sacrifice? *What is the meaning of the opera's final line, "Redemption to the Redeemer?" Who is the Redeemer, from what is he redeemed, and how or by whom?*


I have been wondering about that too. I think two variants are possible here:

1. The Redeemer is the Grail, or more exactly Christ as symbolically represented by the Grail. The Grail is after all, supposed to contain the blood of Christ and some of his spiritual power. Redemption to the Redeemer means that the Grail is once again revealed, and this spiritual power is allowed to flow free, whereas before Parsifal's coming Amfortas had refused to unveil it any more.

2. The Redeemer is Parsifal. Redemption to the Redeemer means that he has been set free from all his suffering: from the hardships of his wandering in an attempt to find the brotherhood of the Grail again, but also from the guilt he feels at finding it in such a shattered state. After coming back to Gurnemanz and learning about the death of Titurel and the near-dissolution of the brotherhood, Parsifal exclaims: "And it is I, I,who caused all this woe!" Now he has restored to the brotherhood its lost sacred relic, and thus is redeemed from his guilt.

I also think in the first interpretation this scene is somewhat heretical: since Christ is supposed to be almighty, he would most definitely need no other "redeemer" for his spiritual power to be released.


----------



## amfortas

SiegendesLicht said:


> I also think in the first interpretation this scene is somewhat heretical . . .


That's kind of why I'd opt for that one.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

As for whether Parsifal is a Christian opera and the knights of the Grail are Christians - that question every listener should answer for himself, there is no definite yes or no here. I think this opera would make the very fundamentalist/hard-core types on both ends of the spectrum uncomfortable. Apart from that, it depends on what one's individual interpretation of Christianity is.


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> This is all very well put, but *I can't escape the nagging sense that the Grail knights overcome their fixation on deceptive feminine archetypes, achieve integrated fullness and become mature Men, only through the elimination of the closest thing to a real woman among them.*
> 
> As Nietzsche quipped, "One fact, finally, which leaves us dumbfounded: Parsifal is the father of Lohengrin. How did he do it? - Must one remember at this point that 'chastity works miracles'?"
> 
> EDIT: I've just learned, in a completely different forum, what MGTOW means. Surprisingly pertinent to this topic!


MGTOW is new to me. Live and learn, I guess.

This post made me laugh. _Parsifal_ has been called misogynist because of its portrayal of woman, and even homoerotic in its apparent rejection of female sexuality. After all, when Kundry embraces and kisses Parsifal he cries "Amfortas!" - every woman's nightmare.

But seriously, now... If there's anything we know about Wagner, we know that he was ragingly heterosexual. It's also pretty clear that he respected women, got along well with them (no, I'm not being funny), and did not regard them as inferior beings, and his greatest loves - Mathilde Wesendonck and Cosima Liszt von Bulow - were women of exceptional intelligence with whom he enjoyed sophisticated conversation. In the stories of his operas before _Parsifal_, female characters are often stronger than the male protagonists, taking the initiative and propelling events forward: think of Elisabeth, Isolde and Brunnhilde, or even of Ortrud and Fricka. In that company Kundry does seem to be an anomaly, an un-Wagnerian woman, a total victim of men and capable only of corrupting them. How do we account for this new sort of female? Can we take her as evidence of a changed attitude toward women? Or does Kundry represent something that was in Wagner's relationship to women all along? Or are all such questions beside the point, the point being that it's "just a story," has no meaning, and tells us nothing about Wagner? (Answer to the last question: not a chance!).


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> In that company Kundry does seem to be an anomaly, an un-Wagnerian woman, a total victim of men and capable only of corrupting them.


But is it that straightforward? I find Kundry conflicted and ambivalent throughout the opera--simultaneously serving and resisting both the Grail knights and Klingsor; desperately wanting to seduce Parsifal, and yet on another level wanting nothing more than for him to be the one who finally stands up to her temptations. Her efforts to find some kind of redemption are constantly undone by her own self-tormenting, mocking laughter.

Yes, Wagner draws on one-dimensional fantasies of Woman to create Kundry. But he juxtaposes these archetypes in such an agonized collision, she emerges as perhaps the most compelling, harrowing female character in all his operas.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Just a thought I'd like to throw out there: Wagner, as we know, was greatly interested in the writings of Schopenhauer who in turn, had an interest for Buddhist philosophy. The latter teaches that the material world with its passions, including sex, is a mere illusion that causes suffering, and Schopenhauer also expressed similar ideas in his writings (I must confess I never came around to reading The World as Will and Representation in its entirety). Now, in act II of Parsifal, when the hero catches the spear thrown at him and makes a sign of the cross with it, the entire castle comes crashing down. Both it and the flower girls are revealed to be an illusion (Kundry is the one who is truly human, and thus she remains). Maybe this is the direction that Wagner was pointing in: that he no longer believed love and sexuality to be the pinnacle of human experience, but merely part of the illusory material world that causes suffering? And the domain of the Grail - the sacred forest and the castle - can they be understood as a place of refuge from that illusion, an earthly nirvana of sorts?


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> But is it that straightforward? I find Kundry conflicted and ambivalent throughout the opera--simultaneously serving and resisting both the Grail knights and Klingsor; desperately wanting to seduce Parsifal, and yet on another level wanting nothing more than for him to be the one who finally stands up to her temptations. Her efforts to find some kind of redemption are constantly undone by her own self-tormenting, mocking laughter.
> 
> Yes, Wagner draws on one-dimensional fantasies of Woman to create Kundry. But he juxtaposes these archetypes in such an agonized collision, she emerges as perhaps the most compelling, harrowing female character in all his operas.


I agree with everything you say. I really don't find anything about Kundry straightforward, and my statement was a bit simplistic. She brings balm for Amfortas all the way from Arabia - and yet when she is thanked, she says "I never do good," and expresses only a yearning for sleep and death. She can find no virtue in herself. That is heartbreaking.

I think the explanation for Kundry's uniqueness among Wagner's female protagonists/antagonists may be that by the time he wrote _Parsifal_ he had learned the lesson of _Tristan_: that sexual love is not man's salvation. If Wagner-as-hero sought "redemption by love" in _Tannhauser,_ _Lohengrin_, and the _Ring_ (at least until Siegfried left Brunnhilde's cave for the real world), the glorious catastrophe of Tristan and Isolde dispelled the illusion, and for Wagner exploring the issue in _Parsifal_ was a kind of exorcism of the demon of passion's false promises. It isn't a condemnation of either sex or of woman, but it reveals Wagner's changing, no doubt still ambivalent, attitude toward sexual love and its place and value in human life.

I find that ambivalence not only in the conflicted nature of Kundry, but in the double-edged nature of the anti-feminine order of the Grail and its grim patriarch Titurel. It was as much out of character for Wagner actually to advocate sexual abstinence as to denigrate women, and I find any view of _Parsifal_ which has him doing either to be missing the point that even noble values and good intentions may be pernicious in their consequences. High-minded Titurel's church of celibate heroes is both right and wrong, like every attempt to own the dispensation of spirituality, and the wrong in this case is to try to separate soul from body. As I've explained, I believe that error to lie at the very heart of what goes wrong in Montsalvat. We need to remember that Wagner despised institutional religion, and Titurel's decadent half-life in his tomb, from which he orders his suffering son to do what's necessary to keep his rotting bones alive, is a brilliant symbol of what Wagner regarded as the moribund state of Christianity, with its rigid dogmas and oppressive hierarchies of power.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Just a thought I'd like to throw out there: Wagner, as we know, was greatly interested in the writings of Schopenhauer who in turn, had an interest for Buddhist philosophy. The latter teaches that the material world with its passions, including sex, is a mere illusion that causes suffering, and Schopenhauer also expressed similar ideas in his writings (I must confess I never came around to reading The World as Will and Representation in its entirety). Now, in act II of Parsifal, when the hero catches the spear thrown at him and makes a sign of the cross with it, the entire castle comes crashing down. Both it and the flower girls are revealed to be an illusion (Kundry is the one who is truly human, and thus she remains). Maybe this is the direction that Wagner was pointing in: that he no longer believed love and sexuality to be the pinnacle of human experience, but merely part of the illusory material world that causes suffering? And the domain of the Grail - the sacred forest and the castle - can they be understood as a place of refuge from that illusion, an earthly nirvana of sorts?


I wrote the post above before reading yours. I should have read yours first. In any case they sit together very well.

Wagner's personal blend of Schopenhauer, Buddhism and Christianity is a big subject which I haven't studied enough, but it is definitely the ideological matrix in which _Parsifal_ came to be. The opera is full of all three of them: in its symbols, in the events of its story (Parsifal's life draws on the Buddha's), and in its libretto. Despite that, it doesn't strike me as didactic, a matter to which Wagner was apparently very sensitive: he had eliminated from _Gotterdammerung_ the speech he had originally planned for Brunnhilde to deliver to the assembled Gibichungs before her immolation, and despite the rich moral implications of _Parsifal _we are never treated to sermons or sutras or metaphysical essays to help us decipher the meaning of it all.

I don't see Montsalvat as nirvana. It may have begun as a vision of that, but, as you'll be able to deduce from my views on Titurel, the vision was corrupted in its institutional incarnation. Titurel was given the Grail and Spear, together representing spiritual wholeness (of which male and female are age-old symbols), for safekeeping, not for exploitation. There was never any reason to regard the Grail as a possession to be stashed away in darkness and brought out ritually. The need to control the dispensation of grace is religion's deadly error, and it spawns dogma, exclusivity, a priesthood and a hierarchy of power. Wagner detested all that. The Grail needed to be saved, released from bondage, allowed to shed its grace upon the whole world unhindered, and Parsifal puts an end to its enslavement when he says, "Nicht soll der mehr verschlossen sein" ("No more shall it be hidden").

Now _that's_ nirvana!


----------



## JosefinaHW

Comment made by someone else later on in the thread.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> We need to remember that Wagner despised institutional religion, and Titurel's decadent half-life in his tomb, from which he orders his suffering son to do what's necessary to keep his rotting bones alive, is a brilliant symbol of what Wagner regarded as the moribund state of Christianity, with its rigid dogmas and oppressive hierarchies of power.


As usual, an eloquent and insightful post, Woodduck (I always say that when you agree with me).

Yes, Titurel is a striking, horrific figure, clinging to a parasitical life-in-death only through the ongoing agony of his son. I've always seen him, in the Freudian/Lacanian sense, as one of the three great Dead Fathers in opera--along with Mozart's Commendatore in _Don Giovanni_ and Verdi's Carlo V in _Don Carlo_: unwilling to accept their own demise and persisting--in a shadowy, undead existence--to exert their oppressive sway on the living.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> I don't see Montsalvat as nirvana. It may have begun as a vision of that, but, as you'll be able to deduce from my views on Titurel, the vision was corrupted in its institutional incarnation. Titurel was given the Grail and Spear, together representing spiritual wholeness (of which male and female are age-old symbols), for safekeeping, not for exploitation. There was never any reason to regard the Grail as a possession to be stashed away in darkness and brought out ritually. The need to control the dispensation of grace is religion's deadly error, and it spawns dogma, exclusivity, a priesthood and a hierarchy of power. Wagner detested all that. *The Grail needed to be saved, released from bondage, allowed to shed its grace upon the whole world unhindered, and Parsifal puts an end to its enslavement when he says, "Nicht soll der mehr verschlossen sein" ("No more shall it be hidden").*


Maybe that is how Lohengrin became possible? With the grace of the Grail shining on the knights continually, they did not have to practice strictly ascetic self-control any more, but could live more natural lives, including having children?


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> Yes, Titurel is a striking, horrific figure, clinging to a parasitical life-in-death only through the ongoing agony of his son. I've always seen him, in the Freudian/Lacanian sense, as one of the three great Dead Fathers in opera--along with Mozart's Commendatore in _Don Giovanni_ and Verdi's Carlo V in _Don Carlo_: unwilling to accept their own demise and persisting, in a shadowy, undead existence, to exert their oppressive sway on the living.


Nice observation. It gives me shudders and chills.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Maybe that is how Lohengrin became possible? With the grace of the Grail shining on the knights continually, they did not have to practice strictly ascetic self-control any more, but could live more natural lives, including having children?


That's a pleasant, healthy thought.

Obviously the "royal succession" in the Order of the Grail had to enlist women's help in order to keep going. We can only wonder who Amfortas' mother was, and what happened to her. Somehow I can't imagine life at home with Titurel.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> Nice observation. It gives me shudders and chills.


As you do me, my friend . . . as you do me.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> We can only wonder who Amfortas' mother was, and what happened to her. Somehow I can't imagine life at home with Titurel.


I can see him constantly urging his wife to perform the service.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> That's a pleasant, healthy thought.
> 
> Obviously the "royal succession" in the Order of the Grail had to enlist women's help in order to keep going. We can only wonder who Amfortas' mother was, and what happened to her. Somehow I can't imagine life at home with Titurel.


Amfortas was probably one of those orphaned Wagnerian heroes. Siegfried, Siegmund, Tristan, Parsifal .. and probably Amfortas - they all experienced the loss of parents at an early age. Another leitmotif that pierces the entire Wagnerian work.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

amfortas said:


> I can see him constantly urging his wife to perform the service.


I can see Titurel losing his wife, maybe in the act of giving birth to Amfortas, and being so shattered by this loss that he decides to devote his life to asceticism and selfless service. But this is only a guess, of course.


----------



## Woodduck

We hear very little from Titurel in _Parsifal_, but his unaccompanied basso utterances, alternating with ominous drum taps, and featuring the interval of a tritone ("Bist du am amt?"), are indescribably creepy. He describes himself as living in his tomb, and we can almost see his gray, sunken flesh and hollow, sightless eyes. Brrrrrr!

I think it was Titurel's music, including his very dark and weird funeral music, that first began to clue me in to the fact that not everything in this opera is what it appears to be. Wagner always said that the deepest meaning of his work was to be found in the music, and the music of _Parsifal_ has always suggested to me more complex understandings than its mere plot could ever do. Wagner's stories are like outlines for a pictorial image which his music fills in with rich and vibrant colors.


----------



## amfortas

SiegendesLicht said:


> Amfortas was probably one of those orphaned Wagnerian heroes. Siegfried, Siegmund, Tristan, Parsifal .. and probably Amfortas - they all experienced the loss of parents at an early age. Another letimotif that pierces the entire Wagnerian work.


Even, to an extent, Walther in _Die Meistersinger_. He is described as the "last of his line," and has abandoned the estate and castle of his noble heritage to find new life as a humble burgher. In that sense he resembles Wagner's other displaced, wandering heroes.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> I can see Titurel losing his wife, maybe in the act of giving birth to Amfortas, and being so shattered by this loss that he decides to devote his life to asceticism and selfless service. But this is only a guess, of course.


Wolfram von Eschenbach, on whose _Parzival_ Wagner drew for his version of the story, began a prequel called _Titurel_, which was continued by a later poet. I'm sorry to say I've never read it, so I don't know whether it deals with his marriage or his fathering of Amfortas.

Wagner was very critical of Wolfram's _Parzival_ and doesn't stay very close to it. I don't know whether he had access to the prequel.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Amfortas was probably one of those orphaned Wagnerian heroes. Siegfried, Siegmund, Tristan, Parsifal .. and probably Amfortas - they all experienced the loss of parents at an early age. Another letimotif that pierces the entire Wagnerian work.


I wonder about Wagner's fascination with dead or abandoned parents. His own natural father died before he even knew him, and he was raised by his mother and a stepfather with whom he evidently had a fine relationship. Of course heroes/demigods of obscure or lowly origin - orphaned, raised by wolves, born of virgins, etc. - are standard fare in myth and legend.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> Of course heroes/demigods of obscure or lowly origin - orphaned, raised by wolves, born of virgins, etc. - are standard fare in myth and legend.


Born of wolves, raised by virgins - less so.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> I wonder about Wagner's fascination with dead or abandoned parents. His own natural father died before he even knew him, and he was raised by his mother and a stepfather with whom he evidently had a fine relationship. Of course heroes/demigods of obscure or lowly origin - orphaned, raised by wolves, born of virgins, etc. - are standard fare in myth and legend.


Yes, I am sure Wagner also spoke of his own life, his own relationships and struggles through his operas. Another example of this is Tristan und Isolde, where Wagner portrayed a love so portentous and so mighty that it could only be likened to an intoxicating drug - a reflection of the inescapable attraction he must have experienced himself. It is one of the facets of Wagner's genius that while speaking of his own personal experience he at the same time says things that are universally understood, that relate to all of humanity.


----------



## amfortas

SiegendesLicht said:


> Yes, I am sure Wagner also spoke of his own life, his own relationships and struggles through his operas. Another example of this is Tristan und Isolde, where Wagner portrayed a love so portentous and so mighty that it could only be likened to an intoxicating drug - a reflection of the inescapable attraction he must have experienced himself. It is one of the facets of Wagner's genius that while speaking of his own personal experience he at the same time says things that are universally understood, that relate to all of humanity.


"Since I have never in my life felt the real bliss of love, I must erect a monument to the most beautiful of all my dreams, in which, from beginning to end, that love shall by thoroughly satiated. I have in my head a _Tristan und Isolde_, the simplest, but most full-blooded, musical conception."
-Richard Wagner, letter to Franz Liszt, December 16, 1854


----------



## SiegendesLicht

amfortas said:


> Even, to an extent, Walther in _Die Meistersinger_. He is described as the "last of his line," and has abandoned the estate and castle of his noble heritage to find new life as a humble burgher. In that sense he resembles Wagner's other displaced, wandering heroes.


I think after Walther won Eva, he was not the last of his line for much longer 

A question somewhat related to our subject: does anybody else think that Lohengrin is just about the most spiritually healthy, complete, unhurt one of Wagner's characters? He helps Elsa in her struggle, but has no struggles of his own, no doubts, nothing that he desperately yearns for. He is almost too perfect. It is Elsa who fails to live up to the standard of his perfection. Maybe this is because Lohengrin _did_ have a father, a wise, compassionate king for a father?


----------



## amfortas

SiegendesLicht said:


> A question somewhat related to our subject: does anybody else think that Lohengrin is just about the most spiritually healthy, complete, unhurt one of Wagner's characters? He helps Elsa in her struggle, but has no struggles of his own, no doubts, nothing that he desperately yearns for. He is almost too perfect. It is Elsa who fails to live up to the standard of his perfection. Maybe this is because Lohengrin _did_ have a father, a wise, compassionate king for a father?


That's a possible interpretation. But one could also note that, despite coming from a realm of pious purity, Lohengrin is nonetheless driven to seek something else, to find a wholly different kind of salvation in a mundane, worldly married life. And just like the more obviously tormented Holländer and Tannhäuser before him, he pins all his hopes on the precarious faithfulness of a woman. Finally, it's worth pointing out that, despite his shining, heroic appearance, his entire foray into the human realm is predicated on keeping his very identity a secret.

All of which, for me, calls into question the notion of a "spiritually healthy, complete, unhurt" character.


----------



## Barbebleu

So basically all of Wagner's principal characters are flawed in some way. How very Wagnerian.


----------



## amfortas

Barbebleu said:


> So basically all of Wagner's principal characters are flawed in some way. How very Wagnerian.


Or just good storytelling.


----------



## Woodduck

All Wagner's heroes express some aspect of himself. If there's one theme that dominates his works from _Hollander_ to _Tristan_, it's the idea that man finds his fulfillment - or salvation - in the ideal love of a woman. Lohengrin's story is an unusual variant on this theme with links to Greek mythology and Christianity.

It was the fate of Wagner the artist to yearn for understanding and love while knowing that he lived in a visionary world that others could never fully comprehend or accept - to live in the knowledge that ordinary people could never participate in, or bear the burden of, his genius. Like Wagner, Lohengrin is a being who lives in an ideal world, literally a world of great and sublime ideas which are beyond the capacity of mere humans to comprehend. Yet, more than anything he yearns to be comprehended, and to find a way to realize his ideals in terms of earthly existence: the spirit needs to fulfill its ideals in the flesh. At the same time, he suffers from the knowledge that the essence of his soul can never be seen by another, and would be overwhelming and intolerable to others if it were. So he must descend into the material world in material form, in a form which can be accepted by others, and hope to be loved for it. He must live in the knowledge that if his true nature - his name and origin - were known to mere mortals, the knowledge would destroy their own lesser reality and bring about either their transformation or their death, which in the life of the soul and in mythology are often one and the same.

In preparing to compose Lohengrin, Wagner invoked the myth of Zeus and Semele:

_Who doesn't know "Zeus and Semele?" The god is in love with a human woman and approaches her in human form. The lover finds that she cannot recognize the god in this form, and demands that he should make the real sensual form of his being known. Zeus knows that she would be destroyed by the sight of his real self. He suffers in this awareness, suffers knowing that he must fulfill this demand and in doing so ruin their love. He will seal his own doom when the gleam of his godly form destroys his lover. Is the man who craves for God not destroyed?_

It isn't hard to recognize the theme of the descent of the ideal into an uncomprehending world in the story of the incarnation of the Judeo-Christian God in the form of an earthly son, Jesus Christ, who presents God to man in a form which he hopes will be loved utterly and unconditionally. God as he is in himself cannot be approached; the danger of looking directly on the face of divinity, or uttering his name, is a common theme in religion; the Jews would not pronounce the name of Jahweh, and Jesus is reputed to have said "No man comes to the father except through me." Man must live by faith in that which he can never fully comprehend, and he must accept and be content with that. That's what Lohengrin demands, and what Elsa, lured into doubt by Ortrud (who represents the material, earthly realm represented by the pagan deities upon whom she calls), cannot give him.

_Lohengrin_ presents a singular take on the Wagnerian theme of redemption by love, in that Lohengrin is not, like the Dutchman, Tannhauser, or Tristan, a suffering mortal in pursuit of transfiguration, but an ideal being longing for humanity. These are two sides of Wagner, the man and the artist - and of all of us paradoxical humans, with our heads in the stars and our feet in the mud.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck, you are my hero, my redeemer. Will you . . . tell me your name?


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> Woodduck, you are my hero, my redeemer. Will you . . . tell me your name?


What? And have you fall dead on the spot?


----------



## cheftimmyr

Woodduck said:


> All Wagner's heroes express some aspect of himself. If there's one theme that dominates his works from _Hollander_ to _Tristan_, it's the idea that man finds his fulfillment - or salvation - in the ideal love of a woman. Lohengrin's story is an unusual variant on this theme with links to Greek mythology and Christianity.
> 
> It was the fate of Wagner the artist to yearn for understanding and love while knowing that he lived in a visionary world that others could never fully comprehend or accept - to live in the knowledge that ordinary people could never participate in, or bear the burden of, his genius. Like Wagner, Lohengrin is a being who lives in an ideal world, literally a world of great and sublime ideas which are beyond the capacity of mere humans to comprehend. *Yet, more than anything he yearns to be comprehended, and to find a way to realize his ideals in terms of earthly existence*: the spirit needs to fulfill its ideals in the flesh. At the same time, he suffers from the knowledge that the essence of his soul can never be seen by another, and would be overwhelming and intolerable to others if it were. So he must descend into the material world in material form, in a form which can be accepted by others, and hope to be loved for it. He must live in the knowledge that if his true nature - his name and origin - were known to mere mortals, the knowledge would destroy their own lesser reality and bring about either their transformation or their death, which in the life of the soul and in mythology are often one and the same.
> 
> In preparing to compose Lohengrin, Wagner invoked the myth of Zeus and Semele:
> 
> _Who doesn't know "Zeus and Semele?" The god is in love with a human woman and approaches her in human form. The lover finds that she cannot recognize the god in this form, and demands that he should make the real sensual form of his being known. Zeus knows that she would be destroyed by the sight of his real self. He suffers in this awareness, suffers knowing that he must fulfill this demand and in doing so ruin their love. He will seal his own doom when the gleam of his godly form destroys his lover. Is the man who craves for God not destroyed?_
> 
> It isn't hard to recognize the theme of the descent of the ideal into an uncomprehending world in the story of the incarnation of the Judeo-Christian God in the form of an earthly son, Jesus Christ, who presents God to man in a form which he hopes will be loved utterly and unconditionally. God as he is in himself cannot be approached; the danger of looking directly on the face of divinity, or uttering his name, is a common theme in religion; the Jews would not pronounce the name of Jahweh, and Jesus is reputed to have said "No man comes to the father except through me." Man must live by faith in that which he can never fully comprehend, and he must accept and be content with that. That's what Lohengrin demands, and what Elsa, lured into doubt by Ortrud (who represents the material, earthly realm represented by the pagan deities upon whom she calls), cannot give him.
> 
> _Lohengrin_ presents a singular take on the Wagnerian theme of redemption by love, in that Lohengrin is not, like the Dutchman, Tannhauser, or Tristan, a suffering mortal in pursuit of transfiguration, but an ideal being longing for humanity. These are two sides of Wagner, the man and the artist - and of all of us paradoxical humans, with our heads in the stars and our feet in the mud.


Great post; I don't have the libretto in front of me, but I thought Lohengrin's appearance was in response to Elsa's need to be rescued and advocated for; he was sent to her from Montsalvat based on her need. That brings a slightly different angle to his motivations, for me.

Side note, I'm really enjoying all the activity and discussion on the Wagner threads lately!


----------



## Woodduck

cheftimmyr said:


> I don't have the libretto in front of me, but I thought Lohengrin's appearance was in response to Elsa's need to be rescued and advocated for; he was sent to her from Montsalvat based on her need. That brings a slightly different angle to his motivations, for me.
> 
> Side note, I'm really enjoying all the activity and discussion on the Wagner threads lately!


The gods can only come to man when called.

Lohengrin isn't like the Dutchman, desperate to find love to release him from his cursed wanderings. He's really a symbol of an ideal, and Wagner, being Wagner, makes a character out of him, one who can experience love and loss. But this is what mankind does with its gods - he gives them human characteristics, and fancies that they need him and love him. In one possible interpretation, Lohengrin is a creation of Elsa's imagination, and must disappear when she doubts his reality. He is the ultimate knight in shining armor, and Elsa has about as much luck with that project as most women do in real life.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

cheftimmyr said:


> Great post; I don't have the libretto in front of me, but I thought Lohengrin's appearance was in response to Elsa's need to be rescued and advocated for; he was sent to her from Montsalvat based on her need. That brings a slightly different angle to his motivations, for me.
> 
> *Side note, I'm really enjoying all the activity and discussion on the Wagner threads lately!*


So am I! I got so wrapped up in thinking about Parsifal that on coming into my office this morning, I asked "Did Klingsor call?" 

And Woodduck, thanks for your thoughtful analysis of Lohengrin. Personally, I believe one of its messages is the necessity of trusting your loved ones. Had Elsa thought over this matter on her own, instead of letting herself be so easily swayed by Ortrude's whisperings, she would have understood she had no reason whatsoever to doubt Lohengrin's faithfulness. He had come at the hour of her greatest need, saved her, loved her, was willing to marry her on the spot for goodness' sake! Sometimes the right thing to do is not to overthink or keep looking for a trap where none are, but simply trust that the person whose actions demonstrated nothing but love for you in the past, really indeed does love you and is not secretly intent on betraying you. That is a lesson from Wagner I have found useful for my own life as well.


----------



## mountmccabe

I would side with Ortrud on this one. I mean, I realize that she was manipulating Elsa for her own benefit (and she's up to no good, but let's judge her where she's wrong), but Ortrud's whispering only worked because the whole "what is your name" thing is a reasonable question.

And I think it is revealed that Elsa had every reason to doubt that the mysterious shining knight would be there for her, as he abruptly abandoned her after the tiniest of offenses. If this were anything but an idealized fantasy situation, any number of insignificant/reasonable things could have set Lohengrin off, and walking on eggshells to please the unknowable is no life.

And yes, I understand the allegory, and I'd side with the snake, too (on that particular point).


----------



## Woodduck

mountmccabe said:


> I would side with Ortrud on this one. I mean, I realize that she was manipulating Elsa for her own benefit (and she's up to no good, but let's judge her where she's wrong), but Ortrud's whispering only worked because the whole "what is your name" thing is a reasonable question.
> 
> And I think it is revealed that Elsa had every reason to doubt that the mysterious shining knight would be there for her, as he abruptly abandoned her after the tiniest of offenses. If this were anything but an idealized fantasy situation, any number of insignificant/reasonable things could have set Lohengrin off, and walking on eggshells to please the unknowable is no life.
> 
> And yes, I understand the allegory, and I'd side with the snake, too (on that particular point).


Awww, give him some credit. Do you really think he'd have dumped her for squeezing the toothpaste from the middle?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I see it just the other way around. Lohengrin went into deadly combat for this woman. He did not kill Friedrich von Telramund, but the latter would not hesitate to kill him if he could. And in return he only asked that she fulfill a single requirement of his - one that did not cost her anything except for some mental steadfastness and willingness to release control. In real life, that is, unwillingness to trust one's partner is mostly a control issue. And Elsa could not bring out enough mental strength to do even a single little thing for him. If there is an un-Wagnerian woman in Wagner's operas, it's her.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

SiegendesLicht said:


> So am I! I got so wrapped up in thinking about Parsifal that on coming into my office this morning, I asked "Did Klingsor call?"


I actually think that Lohengrin called me today. The phone rang and I answered it, but when I asked "Who's speaking?" he hung up on me.


----------



## jflatter

On a totally different point, here is how Parsifal is influencing music in modern genres. Although this may not be for everyone, it shows that Wagner's work still has an impact on contemporary culture. I have not seen the whole film so cannot comment, but at least some musicians from the younger generation are influenced by his musical power.

http://www.electronicbeats.net/feed/stream-peaches-nina-kravizs-theater-production-now/


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

jflatter said:


> On a totally different point, here is how Parsifal is influencing music in modern genres.
> http://www.electronicbeats.net/feed/stream-peaches-nina-kravizs-theater-production-now/


Fascinating! Thanks


----------



## Woodduck

jflatter said:


> On a totally different point, here is how Parsifal is influencing music in modern genres. Although this may not be for everyone, it shows that Wagner's work still has an impact on contemporary culture. I have not seen the whole film so cannot comment, but at least some musicians from the younger generation are influenced by his musical power.
> 
> http://www.electronicbeats.net/feed/stream-peaches-nina-kravizs-theater-production-now/


Huh.................?


----------



## gardibolt

For Parsifal obsessors, Opera Depot's current free download is a 1942 Act III of Parsifal conducted by Knappertsbusch.


----------



## mountmccabe

gardibolt said:


> For Parsifal obsessors, Opera Depot's current free download is a 1942 Act III of Parsifal conducted by Knappertsbusch.


Since they have their sale going on, which of the available recordings are most highly recommended?


----------



## howlingfantods

mountmccabe said:


> Since they have their sale going on, which of the available recordings are most highly recommended?


I haven't heard the operadepot versions so I can't speak to recording quality, so I would definitely listen to the samples before buying.

For me, Knappertsbusch got better and better with this opera, and I prefer his 1960s performances over his performances from the 50s. The 1962 is justly the most famous but is not available here and you should probably pick up the Decca/Phillips version if you ever feel so inclined--that was recorded in very good vivid stereo albeit with some crowd and stage noise. The 1964 is also excellent, with great performances from Vickers, Hotter and Stewart. The 1961 is a good bet with most of the same principals as the famous 1962, Jess Thomas, Irene Dalis, Hans Hotter, George London.

The 1963 which I haven't heard seems worth a listen, with the same principals as 1961 except with Windgassen instead of Thomas--I prefer Thomas in this role but Windgassen was also a very fine Parsifal. I'd stay away from the recordings from the late 50s with Beirer as Parsifal or Greindl as Gurnemanz.


----------



## mountmccabe

Thank you! I am listening to audio clips and reading reviews on the site. Right now I'm leaning towards the 1954 and/or the 1964.



howlingfantods said:


> The 1962 is justly the most famous but is not available here and you should probably pick up the Decca/Phillips version if you ever feel so inclined--that was recorded in very good vivid stereo albeit with some crowd and stage noise.


This one I have and I agree that it is wonderful. One reason I am considering getting another!


----------



## bz3

I realize there's countless other threads that probably address this, but what if one is looking for a studio Parsifal - what are some I should consider?

I own the 1962 Knappertbusch and have enjoyed it as far as getting into the work, but that coughing...


----------



## howlingfantods

bz3 said:


> I realize there's countless other threads that probably address this, but what if one is looking for a studio Parsifal - what are some I should consider?
> 
> I own the 1962 Knappertbusch and have enjoyed it as far as getting into the work, but that coughing...


For studio Parsifals, the Kubelik with King, Moll, and Minton would be my top recommendation by a pretty comfortable margin. Great rapt conducting, my favorite Gurnemanz, one of the finer Parsifals and an excellent Kundry. The only recording I think that really competes with the Knappertsbusch.

Other good studio recordings but with significant flaws: the Karajan is wonderfully conducted but the Parsifal and the Kundry are pretty poor; the Barenboim has a wonderful Kundry and a good Parsifal but a forgettable Gurnemanz, the Armin Jordan has some poor singing for the secondary characters but the principals are pretty strong, and the Monte Carlo band isn't the best, but it is well paced and conducted.

Recordings I affirmatively don't like--the Met Levine is dull, the Solti is well sung but the interpretation is all wrong, the Boulez is all wrong plus only intermittently well sung, Gergiev doesn't really get Wagner, and the Thielemann is well conducted but not well sung.

One recording which I like but wouldn't necessarily recommend is the Kegel--it's as fast as the Boulez but the tempi work better. The performances are a little hit and miss.


----------



## bz3

Thanks! I held out on Parsifal for a while but now I think that was a mistake (I could have died, after all). This is great stuff and I haven't even seen a staging of it yet. Strange his swan song has developed such a mixed reputation (at least in relation to the Ring and Tristan).


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> For studio Parsifals, the Kubelik with King, Moll, and Minton would be my top recommendation by a pretty comfortable margin. Great rapt conducting, my favorite Gurnemanz, one of the finer Parsifals and an excellent Kundry. The only recording I think that really competes with the Knappertsbusch.
> 
> Other good studio recordings but with significant flaws: the Karajan is wonderfully conducted but the Parsifal and the Kundry are pretty poor; the Barenboim has a wonderful Kundry and a good Parsifal but a forgettable Gurnemanz, the Armin Jordan has some poor singing for the secondary characters but the principals are pretty strong, and the Monte Carlo band isn't the best, but it is well paced and conducted.
> 
> Recordings I affirmatively don't like--the Met Levine is dull, the Solti is well sung but the interpretation is all wrong, the Boulez is all wrong plus only intermittently well sung, Gergiev doesn't really get Wagner, and the Thielemann is well conducted but not well sung.
> 
> One recording which I like but wouldn't necessarily recommend is the Kegel--it's as fast as the Boulez but the tempi work better. The performances are a little hit and miss.


I want to express my surprise that I'm in nearly complete agreement with someone about recordings of this work.

You are one smart fella. :tiphat: (I assume you're a fella. No woman would ever come up with a name like that - at least no woman I'd ever want to meet. But then I'm an old geezer from a different world.)


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> Thanks! I held out on Parsifal for a while but now I think that was a mistake (I could have died, after all). This is great stuff and I haven't even seen a staging of it yet. Strange his swan song has developed such a mixed reputation (at least in relation to the Ring and Tristan).


Happy to hear that you've lived long enough to discover _Parsifal._ You do anticipate having a little more time, don't you? 

Why the mixed reputation? I'd say it's because _Parsifal_ is dramatically mysterious and musically subtle. Its subject matter has less appeal than _Tristan_ (doomed romance and heartbreaking tragedy) or the _Ring_ (romantic love, parent-child love, incestuous love, greed, murder, apocalypse), and not much actually happens onstage. It lacks enormous climaxes, technicolor tone-painting, and heldensopranos setting fire to everything. Its strange story gives rise to even stranger interpretations. Many find it baffling, some repugnant.

I think it shows Wagner at his ultimate stage of dramatic and musical wisdom. _Tristan_ may be greater, but _Parsifal_ is finer.


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> Happy to hear that you've lived long enough to discover _Parsifal._ You do anticipate having a little more time, don't you?
> 
> Why the mixed reputation? I'd say it's because _Parsifal_ is dramatically mysterious and musically subtle. Its subject matter has less appeal than _Tristan_ (doomed romance and heartbreaking tragedy) or the _Ring_ (romantic love, parent-child love, incestuous love, greed, murder, apocalypse), and not much actually happens onstage. It lacks enormous climaxes, technicolor tone-painting, and heldensopranos setting fire to everything. Its strange story gives rise to even stranger interpretations. Many find it baffling, some repugnant.
> 
> I think it shows Wagner at his ultimate stage of dramatic and musical wisdom. _Tristan_ may be greater, but _Parsifal_ is finer.


Interesting, perhaps it will register even more with me than I would have thought. The stridency of opera as a form (and I include more than Wagner in that description) is what keeps me from returning to it more often than I do - and recently I've been into smaller scale operas likely for that reason. Wagner doing subtlety could be the Shakespearean Macbeth or King Lear salve that I yearn for.

As to myself, I anticipate many more years of listening as I'm a relatively young man in my early 30s with no health problems. But like anyone similarly situated at any time in history, I exist by the grace the great deity of chance or fortune and with each year behind me I take that fact for granted less and less by the day.


----------



## Barbebleu

howlingfantods said:


> For studio Parsifals, the Kubelik with King, Moll, and Minton would be my top recommendation by a pretty comfortable margin. Great rapt conducting, my favorite Gurnemanz, one of the finer Parsifals and an excellent Kundry. The only recording I think that really competes with the Knappertsbusch.
> 
> Other good studio recordings but with significant flaws: the Karajan is wonderfully conducted but the Parsifal and the Kundry are pretty poor; the Barenboim has a wonderful Kundry and a good Parsifal but a forgettable Gurnemanz, the Armin Jordan has some poor singing for the secondary characters but the principals are pretty strong, and the Monte Carlo band isn't the best, but it is well paced and conducted.
> 
> Recordings I affirmatively don't like--the Met Levine is dull, the Solti is well sung but the interpretation is all wrong, the Boulez is all wrong plus only intermittently well sung, Gergiev doesn't really get Wagner, and the Thielemann is well conducted but not well sung.
> 
> One recording which I like but wouldn't necessarily recommend is the Kegel--it's as fast as the Boulez but the tempi work better. The performances are a little hit and miss.


Like Woodduck I am in agreement with your comments. The only thing I would add is that the Kegel is worth getting just to hear Kollo in probably his best voice.


----------



## mountmccabe

howlingfantods said:


> For studio Parsifals, the Kubelik with King, Moll, and Minton would be my top recommendation by a pretty comfortable margin. Great rapt conducting, my favorite Gurnemanz, one of the finer Parsifals and an excellent Kundry. The only recording I think that really competes with the Knappertsbusch.
> 
> Other good studio recordings but with significant flaws: the Karajan is wonderfully conducted but the Parsifal and the Kundry are pretty poor; the Barenboim has a wonderful Kundry and a good Parsifal but a forgettable Gurnemanz, the Armin Jordan has some poor singing for the secondary characters but the principals are pretty strong, and the Monte Carlo band isn't the best, but it is well paced and conducted.
> 
> Recordings I affirmatively don't like--the Met Levine is dull, the Solti is well sung but the interpretation is all wrong, the Boulez is all wrong plus only intermittently well sung, Gergiev doesn't really get Wagner, and the Thielemann is well conducted but not well sung.
> 
> One recording which I like but wouldn't necessarily recommend is the Kegel--it's as fast as the Boulez but the tempi work better. The performances are a little hit and miss.


Would you - or anyone else - mind expanding on thoughts on Gergiev and Wagner? His Parsifal is probably my preferred of recent recordings. I also really love the two available installments of the Ring.

Or perhaps I do get it. They're all rather muscular in their approach. I would not want these to be my only recordings of these operas... but that's not what anyone here is talking about.


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> I want to express my surprise that I'm in nearly complete agreement with someone about recordings of this work.
> 
> You are one smart fella. :tiphat: (I assume you're a fella. No woman would ever come up with a name like that - at least no woman I'd ever want to meet. But then I'm an old geezer from a different world.)


I like to think that's a consequence of these opinions being objectively correct :lol:



mountmccabe said:


> Would you - or anyone else - mind expanding on thoughts on Gergiev and Wagner? His Parsifal is probably my preferred of recent recordings. I also really love the two available installments of the Ring.
> 
> Or perhaps I do get it. They're all rather muscular in their approach. I would not want these to be my only recordings of these operas... but that's not what anyone here is talking about.


It's hard to really describe--it's things like when Amfortas is describing his agonizing and unending pain and shame, Gergiev's recording is unique in making it the music paced and sound sprightly and pretty; or the way the Transformation scene sounds like a grand promenade, like The Great Gate of Kiev or something, instead of otherworldly and sublime and divine. His outer acts are missing the spiritual intensity, his middle act missing the eroticism and decadence. He often sounds like he's just marking time in many long passages. That said, he's better here than in his Walkure, which is one of the most disappointing records I've ever heard, just extremely dull despite the outstanding cast he unfortunately wasted on an extremely earth-bound performance.

He's not a bad conductor though, his Rite of Spring/Poeme d' l'extase disk is excellent. I think he just doesn't really get Wagner.


----------



## Barbebleu

Opera Depot have a little known gem of a Parsifal in a very good quality recording from Cologne in 1949.

Aldenhoff as Parsifal, Greindl as Gurnemanz, Heinrich Nillius as Amfortas, Robert Blasius as Klingsor and singing the best I have ever heard her - Martha Modl as Kundry. The conductor is Richard Kraus and the whole performance is excellent and for the experience of hearing Modl at her not inconsiderable best I have no hesitation in recommending it.


----------



## damianjb1

I saw that production at the cinema and it was one of the most profoundly moving experiences I've ever had.



Celloman said:


> If you can get past that bloated and unwieldy libretto, the opera is excellent. I saw it first at a Live from the Met showing a couple years ago. The flower maidens looked like they had walked right out of a low-budget horror film...


----------



## mountmccabe

Per The Wagnerian you can watch the premiere of _Parsifal_ from Bayreuth on BR-Klassik.

This starts in just over 22 hours. I think that means 7 AM PDT.

Conducted by Hartmut Haenchen, production by Uwe Eric Laufenberg. With Klaus Florian Vogt, Georg Zeppenfeld, and Elena Pankratova.


----------



## Barbebleu

mountmccabe said:


> Per The Wagnerian you can watch the premiere of _Parsifal_ from Bayreuth on BR-Klassik.
> 
> This starts in just over 22 hours. I think that means 7 AM PDT.
> 
> Conducted by Hartmut Haenchen, production by Uwe Eric Laufenberg. With Klaus Florian Vogt, Georg Zeppenfeld, and Elena Pankratova.


Thanks for the heads-up. Not sure about Vogt as Parsifal though. I just feel he doesn't have the gravitas for the part. I'll record it though and maybe he'll surprise me.


----------



## Barbebleu

Is anyone watching Parsifal from Bayreuth? Weirdly watchable but mainly a bonkers production. The multi-faith aspect will infuriate a few but I rather enjoyed it and the audience certainly do as they are cheering to the rafters as I write. George Zeppenfeld is a pretty excellent Gurnemanz and Vogt is not as bad as I had feared but too light for the part. Ryan McKinny is not bad as Amfortas. The chorus and orchestra are excellent and Haenchen does a good job. All in all - different! It must be baking in the theatre because half the orchestra are in shorts and short-sleeved shirts!! One or two boos for the production team but it is being pretty well received overall.


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> Is anyone watching Parsifal from Bayreuth? Weirdly watchable but mainly a *bonkers* production. The multi-faith aspect will infuriate a few but I rather enjoyed it and the audience certainly do as they are cheering to the rafters as I write. George Zeppenfeld is a pretty excellent Gurnemanz and Vogt is not as bad as I had feared but too light for the part. Ryan McKinny is not bad as Amfortas. The chorus and orchestra are excellent and Haenchen does a good job. All in all - different!


What do you expect from Bayreuth these days - Wagner?


----------



## mountmccabe

I ended up not being able to watch, but I listened to the third act. Really liked what I heard from Zeppenfeld and Vogt.


----------



## Couchie

Barbebleu said:


> Is anyone watching Parsifal from Bayreuth? Weirdly watchable but mainly a bonkers production. The multi-faith aspect will infuriate a few but I rather enjoyed it and the audience certainly do as they are cheering to the rafters as I write. George Zeppenfeld is a pretty excellent Gurnemanz and Vogt is not as bad as I had feared but too light for the part. Ryan McKinny is not bad as Amfortas. The chorus and orchestra are excellent and Haenchen does a good job. All in all - different! It must be baking in the theatre because half the orchestra are in shorts and short-sleeved shirts!! One or two boos for the production team but it is being pretty well received overall.


The Bayreuth orchestra does not typically dress up because they are not visible to the audience and the theatre is hot and muggy!


----------



## gardibolt

Explain the multifaith thing for those of who didn't see it, please.


----------



## Barbebleu

The chorus in the last act represent all faiths as they call for the grail to be revealed putting items related to their faith in the coffin with Titurel. They are all dressed in clothes representing Judaism, Islam, Christianity, et al. carrying articles that have meaning within those religions. It was thought provoking in these uncertain times and will have some resonance given what has happened in Munich and Ansbach in Bavaria in the last few days.


----------



## cheftimmyr

Some chatter on a different Parsifal thread prompts this question, I felt it more appropriate here...

I've listened numerous times now to Parsifal and want to watch a performance. Thus far it's been the libretto, music and my imagination. Any recs for a first-timer-watching? I'd like to see something "traditional" for a first viewing, methinks.


----------



## Barbebleu

cheftimmyr said:


> Some chatter on a different Parsifal thread prompts this question, I felt it more appropriate here...
> 
> I've listened numerous times now to Parsifal and want to watch a performance. Thus far it's been the libretto, music and my imagination. Any recs for a first-timer-watching? I'd like to see something "traditional" for a first viewing, methinks.


Good luck with that Chef. Probably the 1981 Bayreuth with Siegfried Jerusalem is near enough traditional although the recent Met with Kaufmann is modern but watchable and pretty well sung too.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Barbebleu said:


> The chorus in the last act represent all faiths as they call for the grail to be revealed *putting items related to their faith in the coffin with Titurel.* They are all dressed in clothes representing Judaism, Islam, Christianity, et al. carrying articles that have meaning within those religions. It was thought provoking in these uncertain times and will have some resonance given what has happened in Munich and Ansbach in Bavaria in the last few days.


So, they are symbolically letting their old-world, violent religions go down to the grave? That sounds interesting.


----------



## Woodduck

Some impressions of the latest Bayreuth Parsifal:

http://www.talkclassical.com/44588-parsifal-streaming-today-2.html


----------



## kineno

Or, for a very traditional one, Levine/Met, with Jerusalem/Meier, early 90s on DG.


----------



## Pugg

kineno said:


> Or, for a very traditional one, Levine/Met, with Jerusalem/Meier, early 90s on DG.


Very good suggestion .


----------



## Azol

For a traditional one I would say 1981 Jerusalem/Randova. Randova is brilliant actress, even though I prefer Meier vocally. Plus, Jerusalem is in fresher voice. Sotin is unbelievably great Gurnemanz.
For almost-traditional one, 1989 Elming/Watson. Watson makes the crazy Seduction scene sound logical... flowing... natural. I was very impressed with her Kundry. Struggling, yes, but for Parsifal, not against the orchestra


----------



## Itullian

I like the Stein myself.


----------



## kineno

Azol said:


> For a traditional one I would say 1981 Jerusalem/Randova. Randova is brilliant actress, even though I prefer Meier vocally. Plus, Jerusalem is in fresher voice. Sotin is unbelievably great Gurnemanz.
> For almost-traditional one, 1989 Elming/Watson. Watson makes the crazy Seduction scene sound logical... flowing... natural. I was very impressed with her Kundry. Struggling, yes, but for Parsifal, not against the orchestra


And that 1989 video is now available on blu-ray.


----------



## DavidA

Opera historian Sarah Lenton on Parsifal


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Opera historian Sarah Lenton on Parsifal


What a load of horsepuckey.

Sorry. I should be more compassionate. After all, according to her, that's all that matters here.

But it isn't. If she'd do some real studying and thinking, she'd discover how much is contained in Parsifal's "dodgy theology." (Hint: it's anti-theological. God is absent.)


----------



## cheftimmyr

Woodduck said:


> What a load of horsepuckey.
> 
> Sorry. I should be more compassionate. After all, according to her, that's all that matters here.
> 
> But it isn't. If she'd do some real studying and thinking, she'd discover how much is contained in Parsifal's "dodgy theology." (Hint: it's anti-theological. God is absent.)


I knew Duck would get riled up as soon as I saw that earlier today... Was awaiting his response... like a time-bomb... :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

cheftimmyr said:


> I knew Duck would get riled up as soon as I saw that earlier today... Was awaiting his response... like a time-bomb... :lol:


Glad I didn't disappoint. :tiphat: But allow me to elaborate just a bit.

Wagner ended the _Ring_ saga with a "Gotterdammerung." This was more than the end of a bunch of pagan deities. I don't know whether he ever had any personal belief in supernatural beings, but I believe the evidence is that he didn't. He discovered and read Feuerbach pretty early on, and that philosopher analyzed religion as a purely human phenomenon and gods (including "God") as projections of human nature. Wagner, to my knowledge, never held any other view, and expressed in manifold ways his contempt for the Judeo-Christian "war-god," whom he regarded as a projection of mankind's propensity toward power, domination, and violence. Wotan was in this respect the pagan equivalent of Jehovah, and Wotan's downfall, brought about by the sacrifice of Brunnhilde, was Wagner's expression of the need for the "death of God" (prefiguring Nietzsche) and the coming of man into his own through the full embrace of his natural, material, mortal being. This was symbolized, for both Feuerbach and Wagner, by the transformation (incarnation or re-incarnation) of the God of War into the Man of Sorrows, Christ, whose redeeming power comes through his symbolizing man's full embrace of the pains of mortality and the compassion which both inspires it and arises from it.

_Parsifal_ takes up this theme - the end of the delusional reign of religion and the reclamation of the natural man - where the _Ring_ leaves off, with Wotan reincarnated as Titurel/Amfortas, Alberich as Klingsor, Siegfried as Parsifal, Brunnhilde as Kundry, and the Rhine gold/ring of power as the Holy Grail. Of course the correspondences are not exact, nor could they be given the further development of Wagner's thought. But _Parsifal_ had been in gestation for decades, and Wagner knew that it would represent his last testament. It's important to understand what he is, and is not, saying in it. And the first thing to understand about it is that the symbols of Christianity used in it do not signify anything fundamentally different than do the symbols of Teutonic mythology in the _Ring,_ but are in fact further manifestations of them, and further - and deeper and more consistent - representations of Wagner's most basic beliefs about the gods and their creator and destroyer, man.

Nietzsche could not have been more wrong when he saw _Parsifal_ as a negation of the _Ring_, and chastised Wagner for "prostrating himself at the foot of the cross." Surely Nietzsche, of all people, knew that Wagner was not inclined to prostrate himself! Wagner's Christ was not the God of Judgment in human form, nor the son sacrificed by a supernatural father, but Man in the divine state of having mastered the fear of death through the self-forgetfulness of compassion for all living beings. That is the full, esoteric meaning of the Good Friday Spell, in which, the gods at last having gone to their death (Titurel's funeral is just about to begin!), all Nature looks up to Man redeemed. It's also (probably) the meaning of the final line in the libretto, "Redemption to the Redeemer": "Christ" - symbol of the human ideal - has been liberated from religion, as represented by Titurel, and the container of Christ's blood, the symbol of the Ideal, the Grail, will never again be the possession of a self-castrated priesthood, to be hidden away in the shadows of ritual and mystery.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ And once the gods are dead, there remains nothing but little naked human souls, cowering in fear beneath hostile skies - something that Wagner with his idealism did not foresee.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> What a load of horsepuckey.
> 
> Sorry. I should be more compassionate. After all, according to her, that's all that matters here.
> 
> But it isn't. If she'd do some real studying and thinking, she'd discover how much is contained in Parsifal's "dodgy theology." (Hint: it's anti-theological. God is absent.)


As you are aware Duck, we have a one word expression in Scotland that neatly sums up this load of pants - mince!


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> As you are aware Duck, we have a one word expression in Scotland that neatly sums up this load of pants - mince!


I wasn't acquainted with that appetizing expression. I will now prepare for my next pie-throwing episode.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't acquainted with that appetizing expression. I will now prepare for my next pie-throwing episode.


I think I used it alliteratively in a post in another thread about Cosi where I referred to it as misogynistic mince.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Glad I didn't disappoint. :tiphat: But allow me to elaborate just a bit.
> 
> but Man in the divine state of having mastered the fear of death through the self-forgetfulness of compassion for all living beings. That is the full, esoteric meaning of the Good Friday Spell, in which, the gods at last having gone to their death (Titurel's funeral is just about to begin!), all Nature looks up to Man redeemed. It's also (probably) the meaning of the final line in the libretto, "Redemption to the Redeemer": "Christ" - symbol of the human ideal - has been liberated from religion, as represented by Titurel, and the container of Christ's blood, the symbol of the Ideal, the Grail, will never again be the possession of a self-castrated priesthood, to be hidden away in the shadows of ritual and mystery.


As allways very illuminating.:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ And once the gods are dead, there remains nothing but little naked human souls, cowering in fear beneath hostile skies - something that Wagner with his idealism did not foresee.


Whose soul is little? Who is cowering in fear? Are the skies hostile? Are the stars more terrible than the whims of the gods? Is eternal rest more to be feared than the fires of hell? Is rational acceptance of the natural more dangerous to man than faith in supernatural revelations? Wagner would have answered "no" to all of that, and so do I. Do you disagree?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Until very recently I would have most definitely *not* disagreed. However, having been granted a glimpse of the frailty of human life and how everything I love and have invested my soul into can be taken from me in a single moment, I am not so sure anymore. And if the latter does happen, of what use will the rational acceptance of the natural be? The gods may be whimsical - but the stars and the skies are merely coldly indifferent.


----------



## Barbebleu

SiegendesLicht said:


> Until very recently I would have most definitely *not* disagreed. However, having been granted a glimpse of the frailty of human life and how everything I love and have invested my soul into can be taken from me in a single moment, I am not so sure anymore. And if the latter does happen, of what use will the rational acceptance of the natural be? The gods may be whimsical - but the stars and the skies are merely coldly indifferent.


I hope that you can recover from whatever misfortune has recently overtaken your life and you find that human nature is extremely resilient and that eventually you can accept it, if not ever forget it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ Do not worry about me. Sometimes I feel like Gollum of Tolkien's legendarium: my spirit split in half, one striving towards the light, goodness and beauty, one consumed by darkness and anticipation of doom. But the good side always wins  

And now back to Parsifal 

As I have been listening to it lately, the Karfreitagszauber in Act III came across to me as one of the questionable Wagnerian moments - of which there are very few. Musically it is wonderful, no question. But there is this notion that Nature can only be redeemed and "receive its day of innocence" when Man is redeemed. That is, the non-human natural world is worthless apart from humanity - a very Christian thought, but decidedly un-Wagnerian. As far as I know, Wagner loved the natural world and believed in its worth on its own, apart from humanity. Nature exists for its own sake, not for human use. 

Now, is there anything about this line of thought where I am mistaken? What do you all think about the Karfreitagszauber?


----------



## anmhe

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ Do not worry about me. Sometimes I feel like Gollum of Tolkien's legendarium: my spirit split in half, one striving towards the light, goodness and beauty, one consumed by darkness and anticipation of doom. But the good side always wins
> 
> And now back to Parsifal
> 
> As I have been listening to it lately, the Karfreitagszauber in Act III came across to me as one of the questionable Wagnerian moments - of which there are very few. Musically it is wonderful, no question. But there is this notion that Nature can only be redeemed and "receive its day of innocence" when Man is redeemed. That is, the non-human natural world is worthless apart from humanity - a very Christian thought, but decidedly un-Wagnerian. As far as I know, Wagner loved the natural world and believed in its worth on its own, apart from humanity. Nature exists for its own sake, not for human use.
> 
> Now, is there anything about this line of thought where I am mistaken? What do you all think about the Karfreitagszauber?


I don't get that at all. Rather it's only through our redemption can we truly appreciate nature.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^
> 
> Nature exists for its own sake, not for human use.
> 
> Its an illusision to think otherwise.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Traverso said:


> SiegendesLicht said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> Nature exists for its own sake, not for human use.
> 
> Its an illusision to think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. But why does Nature have to look up to man for redemption and salvation? Or is it that Nature rejoices together with man in his new-won innocence, and man in turn has compassion with Nature?
Click to expand...


----------



## DavidA

Traverso said:


> SiegendesLicht said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> Nature exists for its own sake, not for human use.
> 
> Its an illusision to think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> We'd all better stop growing crops then!
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

You are dividing nature from man.
Stephen Gould said that life as we know it is "a a splendid accident ".Is there a central force in nature or is there just nature.So many questions and so few answers.We are undivided part of it.


----------



## Woodduck

In many ancient myths, dislocations and disasters in the human realm are symbolized by natural disasters, and nature is only restored to its pristine, fertile state when man's state is restored to health and happiness. This is not specifically Christian, but we do see it in the Bible as early as the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and as late as Revelation, when the universe is convulsed by the catastrophic end of the world. In early versions of the Parsifal story, the wounding of Amfortas (who is called the "Fisher King," probably because of a linguistic error) actually transforms the land over which he rules, turning it into a barren wasteland, and it's significant that his wound is not in his side, as in Wagner, but in his groin. This is obviously a fertility myth in its origins, onto which the Christian legend of the holy cup was grafted. Wagner was aware of some of this, and it's both true to mythic tradition and thoroughly Wagnerian for him to portray nature as symbolizing the spiritual adventures of his characters. After all, the _Ring_, too, is a psychological journey; it's in the waters of the Rhine - the womb of the world, symbol of consciousness - that life begins its struggle with the knowledge of good and evil, and it's to those waters that life returns, to await its next incarnation. That incarnation is _Parsifal_, and Wagner fishes the golden ring out of the Rhine, refashions it into the Grail, and resurrects Siegfried who, this time around, does not remain the innocent fool.

_Parsifal_ contains superb nature imagery, all of it meaningful. The killing of the swan represents Parsifal's loss of innocence. Amfortas bathes in the sacred spring, hoping for relief. Klingsor's flowery garden offers the deadly illusion of a return to innocence, and Parsifal's rejection of that illusion leaves the garden a desolate wasteland. Wagner's profound prelude to the third act shows us how bleak a wasteland Parsifal must traverse in search of Amfortas, and Kundry awakens from near-death on a frosty morning. It is wonderful that the meadows bloom in their true second innocence when Parsifal returns at last, and, Titurel and his alter ego Klingsor gone, the healing of Amfortas is assured.

I am forever amazed at the depth and rightness of Wagner's mythic imagination. _Parsifal_ baffles people more than any other opera, but the longer we live with it the more we understand how clear and precise a work of art it is.


----------



## Guest

I deeply appreciate the way you expres your insights ,to write so eloquently,meaningful and most of all it is heartfelt and sincere.:tiphat

Life is a discovery after all and a spiritual adventure.


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> I deeply appreciate the way you expres your insights ,to write so eloquently,meaningful and most of all it is heartfelt and sincere.:tiphat
> 
> Life is a discovery after all and a spiritual adventure.


And we never stop learning


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ Being a classical afficionado, and particularly a Wagnerian, is a most wonderful and awe-inspiring adventure indeed


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> _Parsifal_ contains superb nature imagery, all of it meaningful. The killing of the swan represents Parsifal's loss of innocence. Amfortas bathes in the sacred spring, hoping for relief. Klingsor's flowery garden offers the deadly illusion of a return to innocence, and Parsifal's rejection of that illusion leaves the garden a desolate wasteland. Wagner's profound prelude to the third act shows us how bleak a wasteland Parsifal must traverse in search of Amfortas, and Kundry awakens from near-death on a frosty morning. It is wonderful that the meadows bloom in their true second innocence when Parsifal returns at last, and, Titurel and his alter ego Klingsor gone, the healing of Amfortas is assured.
> 
> I am forever amazed at the depth and rightness of Wagner's mythic imagination. _Parsifal_ baffles people more than any other opera, but the longer we live with it the more we understand how clear and precise a work of art it is.


I agree, Wagner's use of nature imagery is wonderful. One of my favorites, apart from the ones you mentioned, is the imagery of the warm May night in the woods in Act I of Die Walküre. I can almost smell the trees and feel the breeze rustling through the fresh green leaves whenever I listen to it. And one reason that most of other, non-Wagnerian opera unfortunately does not appeal to me very much (with a few exceptions) is that it does not have the same compelling imagery. I guess I must learn to separate the music from the story and the setting, to treat non-Wagnerian opera as pure music, not as drama, if I want to appreciate it.

And something else: I remember the very first trip I made to Germany, as a newly-baked and pretty awestruck Wagnerian. Standing on the hills overlooking the Rhine, watching the sun rise over the mighty river, I was thinking: "I have found what is left of Wagner's world!.." I almost expected the Valkyries to appear in the sky in stormy clouds any moment


----------



## Woodduck

The sense of nature as a metaphor for human concepts and emotions is one of the distinctive elements of the Romantic movement in the Germanic and Nordic countries. In opera, Wagner epitomizes it; it's in all his operas from _The Flying Dutchman_ on. Romanticism in the Latin countries has less of this element, I think because of the difference in cultural and religious heritage: Greece, Rome and Catholicism versus Germanic tribes, Vikings and Protestantism.


----------



## cheftimmyr

While not a "Historic" recording, I've had this in my listen-to pile and after 2 Ring Cycles and a Tristan in 2 weeks, I needed some Parsifal in my life. When I started my Wagner journey this work intimidated me the most, mainly due to what I had read scholarly, and otherwise, about how deep and mysterious Wagner's last work remains. However, this is the work I continue to be intrigued and enthralled with.

The Kubelik Meistersinger was my introduction to that work, and a good one at that, so I was looking forward to hearing him conduct Parsifal. The orchestration in this recording is beautiful. Since most of my listening has been with recordings from the 40's-60s, having a newer recording (1980 I believe) reminded me of the immense improvements in audio/recording technology that we are fortunate to enjoy. The balance of brass and strings is just right, with the brass having a clear and crisp yet luscious quality. The Vorspiel to open the opera was a joy; it felt a tad quicker than the Knap '62 but I didn't compare timings so it may just have been my perception. With numerous places in this opera where just the orchestra is carrying the action, Kubelik never disappointed.

As for the cast, this is where I might tick some people off. I found, overall, the cast to be unengaging. Minton, as Kundry, didn't have me once believing in her. It wasn't her voice, it was that it seemed to me I was listening to a singer at a recital performing a piece, not a role. My intention isn't to insult, but rather to say I just couldn't connect with her portrayal of Kundry. The same with James King as the innocent fool; there were times I took issue with his diction. Some of his phrasing sounded slurred at times and indistinct. Maybe he was trying to emote an "innocent fool" but I wasn't able to connect. With Weikl as Amfortas, I was hard pressed to feel his pain, and not even close to the extent of a London or Stewart performance. Even Titurel (Salminen) was missing some of the haunting depth, vocally, that I've come to expect from that role. Moll did a fair job as Gurnemanz so that was a saving grace. If I remember correctly, this was a studio recording and maybe that had an impact on how I received the opera since all but one Parsifal I have heard was a live stage recording.

As I was listening to this recording, I was struck by the possibility of being spoiled by the performances of the "Golden Age" Wagner artists. Also, maybe I'm developing my own personal tastes in certain opera roles and works as a whole, and that is encouraging to me.

I will go back and re-listen to this at some point; possibly my issues with the cast won't be as bothersome to me when I do. Kubelik conducts a beautiful Parsifal, the music is other-worldly so you can't ever really "lose" in the end!


----------



## Woodduck

cheftimmyr said:


> View attachment 87646
> 
> 
> While not a "Historic" recording, I've had this in my listen-to pile and after 2 Ring Cycles and a Tristan in 2 weeks, I needed some Parsifal in my life. When I started my Wagner journey this work intimidated me the most, mainly due to what I had read scholarly, and otherwise, about how deep and mysterious Wagner's last work remains. However, this is the work I continue to be intrigued and enthralled with.
> 
> The Kubelik Meistersinger was my introduction to that work, and a good one at that, so I was looking forward to hearing him conduct Parsifal. The orchestration in this recording is beautiful. Since most of my listening has been with recordings from the 40's-60s, having a newer recording (1980 I believe) reminded me of the immense improvements in audio/recording technology that we are fortunate to enjoy. The balance of brass and strings is just right, with the brass having a clear and crisp yet luscious quality. The Vorspiel to open the opera was a joy; it felt a tad quicker than the Knap '62 but I didn't compare timings so it may just have been my perception. With numerous places in this opera where just the orchestra is carrying the action, Kubelik never disappointed.
> 
> As for the cast, this is where I might tick some people off. I found, overall, the cast to be unengaging. Minton, as Kundry, didn't have me once believing in her. It wasn't her voice, it was that it seemed to me I was listening to a singer at a recital performing a piece, not a role. My intention isn't to insult, but rather to say I just couldn't connect with her portrayal of Kundry. The same with James King as the innocent fool; there were times I took issue with his diction. Some of his phrasing sounded slurred at times and indistinct. Maybe he was trying to emote an "innocent fool" but I wasn't able to connect. With Weikl as Amfortas, I was hard pressed to feel his pain, and not even close to the extent of a London or Stewart performance. Even Titurel (Salminen) was missing some of the haunting depth, vocally, that I've come to expect from that role. Moll did a fair job as Gurnemanz so that was a saving grace. If I remember correctly, this was a studio recording and maybe that had an impact on how I received the opera since all but one Parsifal I have heard was a live stage recording.
> 
> As I was listening to this recording, I was struck by the possibility of being spoiled by the performances of the "Golden Age" Wagner artists. Also, maybe I'm developing my own personal tastes in certain opera roles and works as a whole, and that is encouraging to me.
> 
> I will go back and re-listen to this at some point; possibly my issues with the cast won't be as bothersome to me when I do. Kubelik conducts a beautiful Parsifal, the music is other-worldly so you can't ever really "lose" in the end!


Interesting remarks, a bit of a different take on a recording some swear by. Having heard only excerpts from it, I'm not decidedly on one side or another, but knowing the singers well from other assignments I suspect that Moll is the best of the cast, as you say. I think he was the best Gurnemanz of his generation (he's also one of the best elements of Karajan's disappointingly cast stereo _Parsifal_). I found James King stiff in the 1970 Boulez/Bayreuth production, and Weikl a bit lightweight for Wagner's heldenbariton roles (as was Fischer-Dieskau for Solti, but he was interesting as usual). The consensus seems to be that this Kubelik is possibly the best modern-sound, non-Bayreuth alternative to the classic Kna performances. Someday I'll hear the whole thing, but there's a sample of the temple scene on YouTube:






My impression of this is that Kubelik is holding the reins too tight: it's beautifully executed, but it sounds constrained, calculated - not natural, spontaneous and flowing like Kna's. Each musical event seems somehow separate; I don't get the sense of an awesome event playing itself out. Near the very start of the excerpt, at the mysterious unison passages when the Grail is uncovered, the transition from strings to bass clarinet is too clearly marked under Kubelik, where Kna lets the clarinet emerge subtly from the strings. Then, when the Grail glows in that magical aureole of throbbing winds and strings, Kubelik makes the strings almost imperceptible and so drains the moment of its sonorous impact. Kna lets the passage sing in its ecstasy and pain, and the voice of Titurel soars in at the crest of the wave. Kubelik takes a quicker tempo for the knights' choruses; it sounds vigorous and fine, but doesn't build inevitably to the majestic and noble climax that Kna (and all those old Wagnerians) knew so well how to achieve.

I suspect I would find similar comparisons to make elsewhere in the performance. I'll buy the Kubelik if I ever find a cheap copy.


----------



## cheftimmyr

Woodduck said:


> Interesting remarks, a bit of a different take on a recording some swear by. Having heard only excerpts from it, I'm not decidedly on one side or another, but knowing the singers well from other assignments I suspect that Moll is the best of the cast, as you say. I think he was the best Gurnemanz of his generation (he's also one of the best elements of Karajan's disappointingly cast stereo _Parsifal_). I found James King stiff in the 1970 Boulez/Bayreuth production, and Weikl a bit lightweight for Wagner's heldenbariton roles (as was Fischer-Dieskau for Solti, but he was interesting as usual). The consensus seems to be that this Kubelik is possibly the best modern-sound, non-Bayreuth alternative to the classic Kna performances. Someday I'll hear the whole thing, but there's a sample of the temple scene on YouTube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My impression of this is that Kubelik is holding the reins too tight: it's beautifully executed, *but it sounds constrained, calculated *- not natural, spontaneous and flowing like Kna's. Each musical event seems somehow separate; I don't get the sense of an awesome event playing itself out. Near the very start of the excerpt, at the mysterious unison passages when the Grail is uncovered, the transition from strings to bass clarinet is too clearly marked under Kubelik, where Kna lets the clarinet emerge subtly from the strings. Then, when the Grail glows in that magical aureole of throbbing winds and strings, Kubelik makes the strings almost imperceptible and so drains the moment of its sonorous impact. Kna lets the passage sing in its ecstasy and pain, and the voice of Titurel soars in at the crest of the wave. Kubelik takes a quicker tempo for the knights' choruses; it sounds vigorous and fine, but doesn't build inevitably to the majestic and noble climax that Kna (and all those old Wagnerians) knew so well how to achieve.
> 
> I suspect I would find similar comparisons to make elsewhere in the performance. *I'll buy the Kubelik if I ever find a cheap copy*.


Yes, its not cheap; almost twice the price of '62 Knap (Philips)! I agree with your assessment of the style in which it is conducted. Reading some reviews and blogs etc (since I wrote my above thoughts), Kube's restraint is what was praised so much and made it "the performance" by said reviewers. I definitely lean more to favoring Knap's natural, swelling and wondrously impactful style; perhaps I'll throw in the '62 or '64 to get my "fix" :lol:


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> Interesting remarks, a bit of a different take on a recording some swear by. Having heard only excerpts from it, I'm not decidedly on one side or another, but knowing the singers well from other assignments I suspect that Moll is the best of the cast, as you say. I think he was the best Gurnemanz of his generation (he's also one of the best elements of Karajan's disappointingly cast stereo _Parsifal_). I found James King stiff in the 1970 Boulez/Bayreuth production, and Weikl a bit lightweight for Wagner's heldenbariton roles (as was Fischer-Dieskau for Solti, but he was interesting as usual). The consensus seems to be that this Kubelik is possibly the best modern-sound, non-Bayreuth alternative to the classic Kna performances. Someday I'll hear the whole thing, but there's a sample of the temple scene on YouTube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My impression of this is that Kubelik is holding the reins too tight: it's beautifully executed, but it sounds constrained, calculated - not natural, spontaneous and flowing like Kna's. Each musical event seems somehow separate; I don't get the sense of an awesome event playing itself out. Near the very start of the excerpt, at the mysterious unison passages when the Grail is uncovered, the transition from strings to bass clarinet is too clearly marked under Kubelik, where Kna lets the clarinet emerge subtly from the strings. Then, when the Grail glows in that magical aureole of throbbing winds and strings, Kubelik makes the strings almost imperceptible and so drains the moment of its sonorous impact. Kna lets the passage sing in its ecstasy and pain, and the voice of Titurel soars in at the crest of the wave. Kubelik takes a quicker tempo for the knights' choruses; it sounds vigorous and fine, but doesn't build inevitably to the majestic and noble climax that Kna (and all those old Wagnerians) knew so well how to achieve.
> 
> I suspect I would find similar comparisons to make elsewhere in the performance. I'll buy the Kubelik if I ever find a cheap copy.


I think you're making a stylistic observation rather than a qualitative one. You're right that Kubelik doesn't conduct the piece like Knappertsbusch--he's not a capital R romantic so he doesn't conduct the pieces like romantics do. There's much less rubati and he follows the score much more rigorously than Knappertsbusch does. If you personally prefer Wagner played in echt-romantic style and think that's the best way of making Wagner music, that's a totally valid perspective of course--I kind of think so myself. But I still think this is an astonishingly great recording.

As far as the cast goes, yes, Moll is easily the best cast member, but since I think the Gurnemanz casting is the most important, that hardly strikes me as a problem. My biggest criticism of the Knappertsbusch 1962 is largely that I don't think Hotter is close to as good as Moll--he's audibly well past his peak and just doesn't sing the written notes much of the time. There's a woofiness that became prominent in his singing towards the latter days of his career, and he misses too many of the lower notes.

To me, the Parsifal and the Amfortas are the two next most important roles, about equally important. To me, Jess Thomas is a more beautiful Parsifal but King is more convincingly heroic. When Jess is singing Nur eine Waffe taugt or Amfortas Die Wunde, I always want more oomph, which I never feel when King is singing. Weikl doesn't give my favorite version of Amfortas but I think he gives a good one--London by 1962 was just bad. He was pretty hammy and unlovely in 1951 but is far worse by the 1962 recording.

Dalis is definitely better than Minton, though. I do think Minton's performance is a good one, although probably at best fifth or sixth on my personal list behind Ludwig, Dalis, Meier, Modl.

Where Kubelik's recording excels is in having so many strong points and so few weak ones. Almost all other contenders have glaring flaws--although I know it's a minority of us who view Hotter and London as significant flaws in the 1962 Knappertsbusch.

ETA: wanted to also not shortchange how terrific Kubelik's music making is. I've always been a Kubelik fan since I first got into classical music through Mahler and consider Kubelik to be one of the finest Mahler conductors. He's a hard one to sum up in a sentence in the way one can sum up Knappertsbusch's epic sweep, or Karajan's lush beauty. There's a balance and a reserve to Kubelik that can feel like a balm after the excessive emotionalism of interpreters like Bernstein or bombast like Solti. But he's not reserved to the point of bloodlessness the way Boulez for instance can sometimes be, or calculated in the way Rattle often sounds. His music making is natural, musical, and just right for what is called for in the score. I think you get that in spades here.


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> I think you're making a stylistic observation rather than a qualitative one. You're right that Kubelik doesn't conduct the piece like Knappertsbusch--he's not a capital R romantic so he doesn't conduct the pieces like romantics do. There's much less rubati and he follows the score much more rigorously than Knappertsbusch does. If you personally prefer Wagner played in echt-romantic style and think that's the best way of making Wagner music, that's a totally valid perspective of course--I kind of think so myself. But I still think this is an astonishingly great recording.
> 
> As far as the cast goes, yes, Moll is easily the best cast member, but since I think the Gurnemanz casting is the most important, that hardly strikes me as a problem. My biggest criticism of the Knappertsbusch 1962 is largely that I don't think Hotter is close to as good as Moll--he's audibly well past his peak and just doesn't sing the written notes much of the time. There's a woofiness that became prominent in his singing towards the latter days of his career, and he misses too many of the lower notes.
> 
> To me, the Parsifal and the Amfortas are the two next most important roles, about equally important. To me, Jess Thomas is a more beautiful Parsifal but King is more convincingly heroic. When Jess is singing Nur eine Waffe taugt or Amfortas Die Wunde, I always want more oomph, which I never feel when King is singing. Weikl doesn't give my favorite version of Amfortas but I think he gives a good one--London by 1962 was just bad. He was pretty hammy and unlovely in 1951 but is far worse by the 1962 recording.
> 
> Dalis is definitely better than Minton, though. I do think Minton's performance is a good one, although probably at best fifth or sixth on my personal list behind Ludwig, Dalis, Meier, Modl.
> 
> Where Kubelik's recording excels is in having so many strong points and so few weak ones. Almost all other contenders have glaring flaws--although I know it's a minority of us who view Hotter and London as significant flaws in the 1962 Knappertsbusch.
> 
> ETA: wanted to also not shortchange how terrific Kubelik's music making is. I've always been a Kubelik fan since I first got into classical music through Mahler and consider Kubelik to be one of the finest Mahler conductors. He's a hard one to sum up in a sentence in the way one can sum up Knappertsbusch's epic sweep, or Karajan's lush beauty. There's a balance and a reserve to Kubelik that can feel like a balm after the excessive emotionalism of interpreters like Bernstein or bombast like Solti. But he's not reserved to the point of bloodlessness the way Boulez for instance can sometimes be, or calculated in the way Rattle often sounds. His music making is natural, musical, and just right for what is called for in the score. I think you get that in spades here.


It's always good to have disagreements of this kind. We're apt to notice things we wouldn't otherwise.

I know that not everyone likes the sound of the aging Hans Hotter; I sometimes wish for more vocal smoothness myself, especially in the Good Friday music. That doesn't stop me from loving his characterization though, and even his singing when he isn't especially taxed. For me he simply _becomes_ Gurnemanz, capturing with a Lieder-singer's art the character's state of mind at every moment and leaving an indelible impression of nobility. He so lives the role that I actually feel I know the old knight personally.

George London _hammy?_ Just _bad?_ I don't understand that even a little, but there's no arguing with subjective impressions. I love his power and his dark, incisive, slightly wooly timbre - qualities made for Wagner, I feel - and find his king strong and intense, his biting enunciation of the text superbly evoking the pain of a noble soul at war with itself. That doesn't keep me from appreciating other singers in the role; I also like Thomas Stewart and Jose van Dam.

I agree that Thomas lacks that ultimate edge of intensity for the climactic moments. Maybe King has improved since his rather wooden earlier portrayal, which one reviewer at the time described as "a Sunday school teacher in a bordello." I find his Siegmund lacking in much the same way, rather stiff and lacking pathos - partly, perhaps, because of a hard, metallic quality in the voice, less warm and sympathetic than Thomas's. But then, after Melchior, we all have to decide whose shortcomings we find most acceptable.

As to Kubelik, my "stylistic" observation was fully intended to be a qualitative one. I'll agree that his conducting, as heard here, can be described as less "Romantic" in style than Kna's or Furtwangler's, but what does that mean? What is Romantic style? Is it optional? One thing it certainly entails is sensitivity to music's inner rhythms, as opposed to its obvious meter; Wagner discusses this at length in his essay on conducting. It's the inner pulse, the subtly changing urgencies of each moment and the cumulative force released by relating part to whole (think Furtwangler), that brings music to life. I find Kubelik's conducting of the temple scene audibly calculated, straightlaced, and obvious, and those are things a performance - especially an opera performance, and especially Wagner - should never be. The details I mentioned were telling, and I could have mentioned others. Any score allows for differences in tempo and orchestral balances, but whatever one's choices, music has to breathe (compare the vital early opera recordings, some of them live, of Karajan with his later studio concoctions for another example of what I mean). Conductors like Knappertsbusch, Furtwangler, and De Sabata (whom we can hear in some amazing excerpts from _Tristan_) were indeed stylistically different from conductors today. They understood that vital music-making isn't about carefully guaged sonorities and perfect ensemble, they knew that what's asked for in the score is only what can be rendered mechanically, and they were able to guide and inspire an orchestra to play its heart out in pursuit of a transcendent meaning. In Wagner's music that pursuit is essential.

As I said, I haven't heard the whole recording. Perhaps my present impressions will be modified by Kubelik's handling of the rest of the score. But I can't imagine it making me forget, the way Kna and company can, that I'm listening to a performance on a recording.


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> As I said, I haven't heard the whole recording. Perhaps my present impressions will be modified by Kubelik's handling of the rest of the score. But I can't imagine it making me forget, the way Kna and company can, that I'm listening to a performance on a recording.


Probably not. It sounds like you're firmly committed to how you think this music should be played. Again, I'm pretty sympathetic--Furtwangler is my favorite conductor for this repertoire and it's not close. But I try to also appreciate other approaches, and unlike Furtwangler, Kna does occasionally go wrong and wayward. And while his recordings have a lot of magic, there's also a lot of sloppy playing, singers out of sync with the orchestra, etc. Things I can live with but they're there.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

howlingfantods said:


> f you personally prefer Wagner played in echt-romantic style and think that's the best way of making Wagner music, that's a totally valid perspective of course--I kind of think so myself


What is an echt-romantic style?



> As far as the cast goes, yes, Moll is easily the best cast member, but since I think the Gurnemanz casting is the most important, that hardly strikes me as a problem. My biggest criticism of the Knappertsbusch 1962 is largely that I don't think Hotter is close to as good as Moll--he's audibly well past his peak and just doesn't sing the written notes much of the time.


For me also Kurt Moll makes the highlight of this recording: I love the old knight as well as Kurt Moll, and I love this recording because he sings this particular role in it.


----------



## howlingfantods

SiegendesLicht said:


> What is an echt-romantic style?


Heh, sorry, it's not a formal thing, it's just the slangy way I talk about classical music. Someone who's an authentic representative of the late 19th century Romantic tradition like Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch. That performance practice was characterized as highly expressive, emotional, less concerned with the literal notes and directions on the score. Lots of rubato, portamento, unmarked ritardendo, etc. Much of the mid to late 20th century performance practice with much more rigorous focus on accuracy of the scores, composer's intent and on transparent sonic textures is largely a reaction to some of the worst excesses of Romantic performance practice.


----------



## Barbebleu

howlingfantods said:


> Heh, sorry, it's not a formal thing, it's just the slangy way I talk about classical music. Someone who's an authentic representative of the late 19th century Romantic tradition like Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch. That performance practice was characterized as highly expressive, emotional, less concerned with the literal notes and directions on the score. Lots of rubato, portamento, unmarked ritardendo, etc. Much of the mid to late 20th century performance practice with much more rigorous focus on accuracy of the scores, composer's intent and on transparent sonic textures is largely a reaction to some of the worst excesses of Romantic performance practice.


I think Thielemann, for all his faults, is a good example of the modern practice.


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> Probably not. It sounds like you're firmly committed to how you think this music should be played. Again, I'm pretty sympathetic--Furtwangler is my favorite conductor for this repertoire and it's not close. But I try to also appreciate other approaches, and unlike Furtwangler, Kna does occasionally go wrong and wayward. And while his recordings have a lot of magic, there's also a lot of sloppy playing, singers out of sync with the orchestra, etc. Things I can live with but they're there.


Actually I've been hoping for years that someone would make another great _Parsifal_ recording, and my requirements for what that would sound like are not narrow. A flexible and intense responsiveness to Wagner's _melos_ (his term) can accommodate any number of conductors' individualities; in fact that's the point, or part of it. Furtwangler and Mengelberg were both inheritors of the Wagner/Mahler school of conducting, but quite distinctive otherwise. I can easily imagine many things in _Parsifal_ being done differently from Kna's way. I found Gatti's performance at the Met not entirely satisfying, but full of beautiful, fresh ideas. I also find Karajan's live recording from Vienna extremely good, and his later studio version intermittently interesting (though ultimately annoying, as I usually find his late Wagner).

It's true that Kna's freedom could result in technical imperfections and occasionally a loss of momentum (in his earlier, slower performances), though he never fell into near-stasis the way Levine did. I'd love to have heard Toscanini. His _Parsifal_ at Bayreuth was the slowest on record for the house, which certainly contradicts his reputation for speed and drivenness, but then he was young at the time. The critic Huneker found it sublime.

My ears are always open to the unexpected. But given the reputation of the Kubelik, I expected to be more captivated.


----------



## interestedin

Does anyone of you have a good opinion on a Parsifal recording which is in truly modern sound (and which is not the MET with Kaufmann)?

For instance Thielemann? Or Gergiev? Or Janowski?


----------



## howlingfantods

interestedin said:


> Does anyone of you have a good opinion on a Parsifal recording which is in truly modern sound (and which is not the MET with Kaufmann)?
> 
> For instance Thielemann? Oder Gergiev? Or Janowski?


I certainly think the Kubelik and Karajan count as modern sound, and are significantly better than the three options you listed. Domingo is great in the Thielemann but the rest of the cast are at best decent but unremarkable, but Meier is sounding much past her peak and Thielemann's take is a little uninspired. Gergiev just doesn't get this opera at all. It's not the disaster that his Walkure was but it's still pretty bad, wasting a fine (but puzzlingly not much better than fine) performance by Pape.

The Janowski is the best of the three you suggested--Janowski's take is light and fleet but still has some impact. His cast fits the recording--good, but not reaching the heights of many earlier recordings.


----------



## interestedin

howlingfantods said:


> I certainly think the Kubelik and Karajan count as modern sound, and are significantly better than the three options you listed. Domingo is great in the Thielemann but the rest of the cast are at best decent but unremarkable, but Meier is sounding much past her peak and Thielemann's take is a little uninspired. Gergiev just doesn't get this opera at all. It's not the disaster that his Walkure was but it's still pretty bad, wasting a fine (but puzzlingly not much better than fine) performance by Pape.
> 
> The Janowski is the best of the three you suggested--Janowski's take is light and fleet but still has some impact. His cast fits the recording--good, but not reaching the heights of many earlier recordings.


........Thank you!


----------



## jflatter

interestedin said:


> Does anyone of you have a good opinion on a Parsifal recording which is in truly modern sound (and which is not the MET with Kaufmann)?
> 
> For instance Thielemann? Or Gergiev? Or Janowski?


If you are watching DVD's then the Thielemann from Salzburg is a better bet than his Vienna CD. Barenboim also has a DVD coming out which received positive reviews when it was at the Staatsoper Berlin and his CD recording in very good sound should not be dismissed.

Saying that, I think Gatti is currently the best interpreter of Parsifal around and Kubelik's recording is the best studio version of Parsifal. Although, I know Gatti does divide people and there are one or two less than perfect contributions in the Kubelik set. I agree with other members in that I think Moll is a wonderful Gurnemanz with a beautiful baritone voice. As much as I love Hotter as Wotan, I don't think he was a great Gurnemanz.


----------



## howlingfantods

jflatter said:


> If you are watching DVD's then the Thielemann from Salzburg is a better bet than his Vienna CD. Barenboim also has a DVD coming out which received positive reviews when it was at the Staatsoper Berlin and his CD recording in very good sound should not be dismissed.


The one with Pape, Kampe and Schager? With the murderous Gurnemanz and Parsifal? You're stepping into a pit of vipers recommending that video around these parts :lol:

I found the Gatti recording with the Met a little static and lifeless myself. Maybe I should give it another go, just listening instead of watching the parched wasteland. I do love that video just for the all time great Amfortas from Peter Mattei.


----------



## jflatter

howlingfantods said:


> The one with Pape, Kampe and Schager? With the murderous Gurnemanz and Parsifal? You're stepping into a pit of vipers recommending that video around these parts :lol:
> 
> I found the Gatti recording with the Met a little static and lifeless myself. Maybe I should give it another go, just listening instead of watching the parched wasteland. I do love that video just for the all time great Amfortas from Peter Mattei.


Yes-I've not seen it but I am one of those modern production lovers. I regard Pape as the best Gurnemanz since Moll. However give the Barenboim CD recording a try. I think it was digitally recorded and has some great singers on it.

If you don't like the Giroud production of Parsifal then you maybe able to trace the audio recording somewhere as it was recorded on radio. I thought Pape, Kaufmann and Mattei were all outstanding. Gatti's conducting was slow but he drew an absolutely sumptuous sound from the orchestra.


----------



## howlingfantods

jflatter said:


> Yes-I've not seen it but I am one of those modern production lovers. I regard Pape as the best Gurnemanz since Moll. However give the Barenboim CD recording a try. I think it was digitally recorded and has some great singers on it.


Oh yeah, I have that one. I agree, it's very good, it's firmly in my second tier of Parsifal recording. Meier and Van Dam are particularly good, but I'm less enamored of Jerusalem and Holle, and I like some of Barenboim's conducting but not all of it. Still a very good one though.

ETA: The Berlin Staatsoper one was on Youtube for a while shortly after the performance although it's gone now--that's the only reason I've seen it. I actually liked it overall, but I thought the Kundry and Klingsor murders were a little random and unsupported. Good performances though, from what I recall. But people around here will loathe it.


----------



## interestedin

jflatter said:


> If you are watching DVD's then the Thielemann from Salzburg is a better bet than his Vienna CD. Barenboim also has a DVD coming out which received positive reviews when it was at the Staatsoper Berlin and his CD recording in very good sound should not be dismissed.
> 
> Saying that, I think Gatti is currently the best interpreter of Parsifal around and Kubelik's recording is the best studio version of Parsifal. Although, I know Gatti does divide people and there are one or two less than perfect contributions in the Kubelik set. I agree with other members in that I think Moll is a wonderful Gurnemanz with a beautiful baritone voice. As much as I love Hotter as Wotan, I don't think he was a great Gurnemanz.


Thank you.. Didn't know about the new Barenboim!

I have the Gatti but for whatever reason I don't like it that much. I find it too..smooth, edgeless.


----------



## Azol

interestedin said:


> Does anyone of you have a good opinion on a Parsifal recording which is in truly modern sound (and which is not the MET with Kaufmann)?
> 
> For instance Thielemann? Or Gergiev? Or Janowski?


I see no one has mentioned beautiful 1998 Bayreuth Parsifal with Elming, Watson and Sotin (conducted by Sinopoli). Modern sound, very interesting (almost conventional) staging and no flaws that I can remember anyway.


----------



## Woodduck

Azol said:


> I see no one has mentioned beautiful 1998 Bayreuth Parsifal with Elming, Watson and Sotin (conducted by Sinopoli). Modern sound, very interesting (almost conventional) staging and no flaws that I can remember anyway.


It was the last of the "New Bayreuth"-style productions of the Wagner brothers, with stripped down staging, abstract set designs, and action more or less as specified by the composer. This one had sets designed (or at least overseen) by Wolfgang, whose visual artistry wasn't the equal of Wieland's and whose designs tended to look less fluid and elegant. I find these sets a bit clunky and cold and more suggestive of an old Star Trek episode than of the magical realm of the Grail. That said, once you accept their presence they do stay in the background and let the characters and the music bear the burden. There's no distracting stage business, a refreshing change from more recent _Parsifals_. The production is pretty well-cast, the singing is good though not great, and the acting variable: the Amfortas is powerfully moving, but the Kundry makes little of her seduction scene. Sinopoli does well by the score.

I enjoyed the performance, but felt that it was probably a respectful but somewhat pale reflection of the Bayreuth of the '50s and '60s, when Wieland Wagner brought together his combined skills as visual artist and director, and worked with some great old-school Wagner singers who were inspired by his vision to give the performances of their lives. Wolfgang's version may at least come as a relief to those fed up with regietheater craziness, but much more is possible.

Too bad Wieland's famous and long-running production isn't on film. It had an ethereal, dreamlike atmosphere that seemed to translate into visual terms the rarefied luminosity of Wagner's orchestration. We can see photos of it though:

https://www.google.com/search?q=par...9MTOAhVQ5GMKHfXrAYUQ_AUICSgC&biw=1366&bih=659

There were people who said that production gave them one of the deepest spiritual experiences of their lives.


----------



## Woodduck

A couple of people awhile back mentioned the Herbert Kegel recording of Parsifal, and as I was cruising YouTube today listening to different performances of the act one transformation music, I came upon this:






Whew! What other conductor has managed to whip us through this majestic, excruciatingly intense piece of music at such a clip that we can't even hear what's in it? Parsifal and Gurnemanz must be traveling on horseback (as jockeys). Kegel's act three prelude is rushed too, though less detrimentally:






I went on to listen to the sound bites from the recording on the Arkivmusic site. It all sounds lively and the cast seems competent but nothing to write home about. Maybe the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?


----------



## Azol

Has anyone heard this Parsifal, performed on "period instruments"?






Amfortas: Matthias Goerne
Titurel: Victor von Halem
Gurnemanz: Frank van Hove
Parsifal: Simon O'Neill
Klingsor: Johannes Martin Kränzle
Kundry: Angela Denoke

Balthasar-Neumann-Chor
Knabenchor der Chorakademie am Konzerthaus Dortmund
Balthasar-Neumann-Ensemble
Leitung: Thomas Hengelbrock

Konzerthaus Dortmund, Januar 2013


----------



## Woodduck

Azol said:


> Has anyone heard this Parsifal, performed on "period instruments"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amfortas: Matthias Goerne
> Titurel: Victor von Halem
> Gurnemanz: Frank van Hove
> Parsifal: Simon O'Neill
> Klingsor: Johannes Martin Kränzle
> Kundry: Angela Denoke
> 
> Balthasar-Neumann-Chor
> Knabenchor der Chorakademie am Konzerthaus Dortmund
> Balthasar-Neumann-Ensemble
> Leitung: Thomas Hengelbrock
> 
> Konzerthaus Dortmund, Januar 2013


Just listened to the prelude. Hengelbrock whips us through it in 9 minutes and 18 seconds. To my knowledge this is the fastest performance ever recorded; that record was previously held by Herbert Kegel, whose recording takes 10:12. Compare this to Pierre Boulez, who is fairly fast at 10:27, Hans Knappertsbusch in 1962 at 11:57, Wagner himself in 1978 at 13:00 and in 1880 at 14:30 (these were private performances of the prelude preceding the premiere), Karl Muck at 15:53, and James Levine at 16:23. A fascinating list of various conductors' timings of the prelude and of the whole opera can be seen here:

http://www.wagneropera.net/bayreuth/conductors-bayreuth-parsifal.htm


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> Just listened to the prelude. Hengelbrock whips us through it in 9 minutes and 18 seconds. To my knowledge this is the fastest performance ever recorded; that record was previously held by Herbert Kegel, whose recording takes 10:12. Compare this to Pierre Boulez, who is fairly fast at 10:27, Hans Knappertsbusch in 1962 at 11:57, Wagner himself in 1978 at 13:00 and in 1880 at 14:30 (these were private performances of the prelude preceding the premiere), Karl Muck at 15:53, and James Levine at 16:23. A fascinating list of various conductors' timings of the prelude and of the whole opera can be seen here:
> 
> http://www.wagneropera.net/bayreuth/conductors-bayreuth-parsifal.htm


Always wonder whether those timings are accurate. Muck for instance was closer to 14:30 in his recording of the prelude, and I have trouble believing the overall timing of 4hrs27mins for his performances, given the spring and lively rhythms of the fragments he recorded. Perhaps his 1901 was on the slow end and he sped up his tempos over the decades he owned the Parsifal performances at Bayreuth.

The reason I find this question interesting is that Bohm always acknowledged indebtedness in his Wagner interpretation to the coaching he received from Muck, and Bohm is of course famously on the speedier side of performance practice in the mid-century.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ Yeah. me too. I also wonder who decided to start timing performances as far back as Wagner's own concert performances in 1878 and 1880. Interesting that Wagner's own conducting of the prelude was on the slower side, and, if the timings are accurate, varied by a full minute and a half. I also read somewhere years ago that when he took the baton from Levi for the final scene at the premiere, his tempo was slower than Levi's, of which he presumably approved. Maybe he just couldn't bear for it to end!

The recent trend toward "rethinking" or "deconstructing" art works of the past, concurrent with - but sometimes in contradiction to - a pretense of "authenticity," seems to have moved from the stage into the orchestra pit, and a number of conductors seem bent on demonstrating that our inherited ideas of Wagner performance, especially as exemplified by such celebrated German Wagnerians as Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch, represent a "false tradition" that actually distorts Wagner's "original" intent. In the case of _Parsifal_ the demonstrations have taken the form of quick tempos, sharp articulation, light textures, and now, as in the Hengelbrock, period instruments and the elimination of vibrato from string playing (which had been done by Roger Norrington in his lickety-split recording of Wagner overtures). It may have been Pierre Boulez who, after Kna's death, began providing the rationale (since everything in modern art requires a rationale, and no one rationalized better than Boulez ) for stripping Wagner of his "false solemnity." Of course that leaves open the question of how we decide whether solemnity is false or real, or whether anyone any longer cares. Whatever the case, we have now in Hengelbrock a performance of _Parsifal_ which lasts barely over three and a half hours - half an hour less than Levi's at the premiere - and leaves, I dare say, little time for the concept of solemnity to arise in anyone's mind. I would also suggest, based on its brevity and on the performance of the first act which I've now heard entire, that it also makes impossible, or sharply diminishes, that experience of "time becoming space," that magic spell which for many of us has always seemed essential to the _Parsifal_ experience.

I'll report back when I've heard acts two and three. Obviously, I won't be gone long!


----------



## mountmccabe

I wanted a little more information on what was going on and found a review of the performance. The writer didn't have much to say that was wholly positive, other than about Kwangchul Youn.

Also of note was that while they tried to use instruments as they were in 1882, they used a much smaller chorus.


----------



## Woodduck

mountmccabe said:


> I wanted a little more information on what was going on and found a review of the performance. The writer didn't have much to say that was wholly positive, other than about Kwangchul Youn.
> 
> Also of note was that while they tried to use instruments as they were in 1882, they used a much smaller chorus.


Well, some of the reviews were good. But having heard the whole thing now, I have to say that I'm no more convinced that _Parsifal _sounded this way under Wagner and Levi in 1883 than I'm convinced that Cecilia Bartoli's Norma resembles the one Pasta sang for Bellini.

Far from the importance they have for our understanding of the sound and execution of Baroque music, period instruments make little difference in music from the late Romantic era, and considering the fact that _Parsifal_'s orchestration was intended for Bayreuth's covered pit, which alters the orchestra's timbres and blend, the difference is even less significant. But this concert performance was not even held at Bayreuth, so any claim to an "authentic" sound is bogus. The sonorities we get here often evince a nice transparency as a consequence of the strings playing without vibrato, but I don't know that we're even sure to what extent that was the practice for a German orchestra in the 1880s.

This business about "authentic" instruments is interesting, but superficial. It has the effect of distracting us from the essential matter of how the music is interpreted and executed, and I feel quite sure that Hengelbrock's swift and sanitized _Parsifal_ would fall strangely on 19th-century ears. For one thing, there isn't a trace of portamento anywhere, either in the playing or the singing. Neither is there any flexibility of tempo, except where a change is specifically marked in the score, and very occasionally where Hengelbrock gets into trouble by setting a basic tempo which doesn't quite work for certain details. And occasionally we hear a singer lagging slightly where the tempo makes a vocal phrase awkward to articulate. I have never heard Wagner's vocal lines sound so unmelodic and talky, and the reason is simply the rapid tempos that forbid the singers to create the kind of legato line that we know Wagner wanted. The tempos also rob the orchestral preludes and interludes of expression and sometimes create the wrong feeling altogether: the act one transformation goose-steps along mercilessly, trampling its agony and ecstasy into the pavement, and its act three counterpart and the following funeral procession is fiercely driven, contrary to Wagner's instructions in the score, _Immer sehr feierlich, das Zeitmass zuruckhaltend_ - "always very solemnly, the tempo held back."

The singers in this performance don't impress me much. This is more a matter of sheer vocal distinction than of characterization. Gurnemanz is sung by the sort of shallow, high bass we tend to get in period performances of Bach cantatas; there's a reason why singers become "early music specialists," and that's what this guy sounds like. An intelligent performer, but no Gurnemanz. Too bad the Titurel wasn't cast in the part. The Parsifal and Kundry are competent but unmemorable. Mathias Goerne, well-known as a Lieder singer, has a fine dark baritone, perhaps a little small for Amfortas in the theater, but he makes something touching out of his act three monologue; the act one monologue is so rushed by the conductor that Goerne can't do much with it. Best of the lot is the Klingsor, who projects both notes and words strongly and makes his scene a highlight of the performance.

These stabs at "authenticity" always send up red flags for me before I even hear them, and I'm rarely surprised when they misfire. It's my belief that we know less about performance practice in the Romantic era than in the Baroque - or, if we do know about it, we no longer have the feel for it; in essence, we "ain't got that swing." It may be true that Wagner's own tempos tended to be a bit faster than those taken by some of his later interpreters, yet there has always been considerable variation in approaches to his operas: _Parsifal_ can come alive under a Clemens Krauss, who did it in less than four hours, or under a Knappertsbusch, whose performances varied, according to his mood, from a little over four hours to four and a half. But the controversies over tempo, like those of period instruments, can distract from more subtle and profound aspects of performance style. If the evidence of early recordings, and even of later recordings by old men like Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch, is any indication (and I think it is), attempts like Hengelbrock's at historical recreation fall far short of recreating Wagner's works as the composer and his contemporary musicians would have understood and performed them.


----------



## mountmccabe

mountmccabe said:


> I wanted a little more information on what was going on and found a review of the performance. The writer didn't have much to say that was wholly positive, other than about Kwangchul Youn.
> 
> Also of note was that while they tried to use instruments as they were in 1882, they used a much smaller chorus.


Oops. I did not compare casts carefully enough; this review is of another performance in January 2013, but clearly a different performance since there is a different Gurnemanz. So I should have ended my comment with "other than about Kwangchul Youn, who was not even there for this recording."


----------



## schigolch

mountmccabe said:


> Oops. I did not compare casts carefully enough; this review is of another performance in January 2013, but clearly a different performance since there is a different Gurnemanz. So I should have ended my comment with "other than about Kwangchul Youn, who was not even there for this recording."


In fact, I attended the concert performance of "Parsifal" in Madrid that you were linking above, conducted by Thomas Hengelbrock, that pretended to explore the sound universe of the piece, by trying to recreate the original instruments used in 1882. The final result was indeed kind of surprising, more different than I personally expected from the traditional Bayreuth's sound of the 1950s or the current practice. The speed alone was sometimes dizzying, as if you were on a short ride in a fast machine , but not only the speed, also the sound produced was not what you normally expect when listening "Parsifal".

I remember there was also a rather heated debate on this performance at a meeting of the Wagner Society chapter in Madrid. My own personal feeling was basically that the performance was missing all the Romantic overtones that are needed to really do justice to the score. But that all in all, it was an interesting experiment. Other people were much more negative, and they were also adamant that "Parsifal" should never be offered in concert format.

You know, in Madrid there is a long tradition with "Parsifal". There was a performance at Teatro Real the very first day that the opera can be staged outside of Bayreuth. And this same year, there were some performances conducted by Semyon Bychkov, with a production by Claus Guth, that were ok, indeed better in almost any respect than the concert performance of 2013. But, somehow, I enjoyed more the former, just for the novelty.


----------



## Woodduck

schigolch said:


> In fact, I attended the concert performance of "Parsifal" in Madrid that you were linking above, conducted by Thomas Hengelbrock, that pretended to explore the sound universe of the piece, by trying to recreate the original instruments used in 1882. The final result was indeed kind of surprising, more different than I personally expected from the traditional Bayreuth's sound of the 1950s or the current practice. The speed alone was sometimes dizzying, as if you were on a short ride in a fast machine , but not only the speed, also the sound produced was not what you normally expect when listening "Parsifal".
> 
> I remember there was also a rather heated debate on this performance at a meeting of the Wagner Society chapter in Madrid. My own personal feeling was basically that the performance was missing all the Romantic overtones that are needed to really do justice to the score. But that all in all, it was an interesting experiment. Other people were much more negative, and they were also adamant that "Parsifal" should never be offered in concert format.
> 
> You know, in Madrid there is a long tradition with "Parsifal". There was a performance at Teatro Real the very first day that the opera can be staged outside of Bayreuth. And this same year, there were some performances conducted by Semyon Bychkov, with a production by Claus Guth, that were ok, indeed better in almost any respect than the concert performance of 2013. But, somehow, I enjoyed more the former, just for the novelty.


This particular experiment aside, I wonder why people dislike the idea of _Parsifal_ in concert. Would they dislike listening to a recording as well?


----------



## schigolch

I feel the same as you. But other people think that giving a concert performance of "Parsifal" (indeed, of any Wagner's opera, but "Parsifal" the most) is a kind of betrayal of Wagner's gesamtkunstwerk concept.


----------



## Woodduck

schigolch said:


> I feel the same as you. But other people think that giving a concert performance of "Parsifal" (indeed, of any Wagner's opera, but "Parsifal" the most) is a kind of betrayal of Wagner's gesamtkunstwerk concept.


What they don't realize is that Wagner "betrayed" his own Gesamtkunstwerk concept when he discovered Schopenhauer's idea that music was the queen of the arts, composed _Tristan_, and spoke of his stage works as "deeds of music made visible."

But if those folks would rather just stay home...


----------



## howlingfantods

I mean, strictly speaking, even seeing Parsifal outside of Bayreuth is a "betrayal" of Wagner's intentions. In fact, after his death, Wagner's family allowed concert performances of Parsifal outside Bayreuth but not staged performances, so concert performances outside Bayreuth seems more in line with at least his loved ones' intent.

All pretty academic of course--I'm happy to listen to Parsifal on my magic portable music player and watch it in my magic light box.


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> I mean, strictly speaking, even seeing Parsifal outside of Bayreuth is a "betrayal" of Wagner's intentions. In fact, after his death, Wagner's family allowed concert performances of Parsifal outside Bayreuth but not staged performances, so concert performances outside Bayreuth seems more in line with at least his loved ones' intent.
> 
> All pretty academic of course--I'm happy to listen to Parsifal on my magic portable music player and watch it in my magic light box.


...and hack away at it at my piano. You needn't listen.


----------



## kineno

I can't help taking pleasure in the fact that my first live Parsifal was at Bayreuth!


----------



## damianjb1

I saw that presentation and it was one of the most profoundly moving experiences I've ever had.



Celloman said:


> If you can get past that bloated and unwieldy libretto, the opera is excellent. I saw it first at a Live from the Met showing a couple years ago. The flower maidens looked like they had walked right out of a low-budget horror film...


----------



## Sonata

Going through my first full Parsifal listening experience with the Boulez version. 
I plan to own the full Karajan eventually, I have his highlights disc.

What versions do you find to be the best-sung performances of Parsifal? And by best I mean the best balanced, taken as a whole for all the singers, without a weak link? If such a one exists. I should add, one with fair to good sound. No audiophile-quality mind you. But I shy away from "historic sound" I'm not a snob, but my ears literally cannot discern high quality singing when sound quality is poor, so the artistry would be lost on me. 

From my perusal of the thread, it seems like Knap, Solti, and Kubelik would be the other names that pop up, so I wonder if there is a clear winner on the strength of the singing there.


----------



## Sonata

kineno said:


> I can't help taking pleasure in the fact that my first live Parsifal was at Bayreuth!


I bet that was exciting!


----------



## Woodduck

Sonata said:


> Going through my first full Parsifal listening experience with the Boulez version.
> I plan to own the full Karajan eventually, I have his highlights disc.
> 
> What versions do you find to be the best-sung performances of Parsifal? And by best I mean the best balanced, taken as a whole for all the singers, without a weak link? If such a one exists. I should add, one with fair to good sound. No audiophile-quality mind you. But I shy away from "historic sound" I'm not a snob, but my ears literally cannot discern high quality singing when sound quality is poor, so the artistry would be lost on me.


As a fine representation of _Parsifal_ that really gets to the heart of the work, with excellent singing and conducting and good stereo sound, the live 1962 Bayreuth performance under Knappertsbusch has long been considered a classic. Hans Hotter (Gurnemanz), Jess Thomas (Parsifal), Irene Dalis (Kundry), George London (Amfortas), and Gustav Neidlinger (Klingsor) all portray their characters with dedication, and Knappertsbusch unites them in a reading of flawless cohesion, strong narrative flow, emotional warmth and fervor, and deep spirituality. You'll hear a little audience noise, but it's really not annoying except at the beginning of the prelude as the audience settles in (once you know where the coughs occur you can ignore them, or just pretend you're part of the crowd at the Festspielhaus). The live performance has the genuine feel of real life happening.

Among studio recordings, Kubelik's tends to get highest marks for its strong conducting, excellent cast, and superior sound. Barenboim's is also a solid choice. Opinions divide on Solti, most people finding the cast very good (Christa Ludwig is superb as Kundry) and the conducting less than ideal. Karajan also divides opinion; I find his Kundry very weak vocally and his Parsifal mediocre. Goodall's slow tempos make his recordings a matter of taste. Avoid Levine; he's lethargic and dull. I'm told that the live 1964 Bayreuth recording, Knappertsbusch's last, with Jon Vickers as Parsifal, is a powerful performance in decent mono sound. There are some impressive excerpts on YouTube. It should be heard for Vickers at least.


----------



## Chordalrock

Sonata said:


> Going through my first full Parsifal listening experience with the Boulez version.
> I plan to own the full Karajan eventually, I have his highlights disc.
> 
> What versions do you find to be the best-sung performances of Parsifal? And by best I mean the best balanced, taken as a whole for all the singers, without a weak link? If such a one exists. I should add, one with fair to good sound. No audiophile-quality mind you. But I shy away from "historic sound" I'm not a snob, but my ears literally cannot discern high quality singing when sound quality is poor, so the artistry would be lost on me.
> 
> From my perusal of the thread, it seems like Knap, Solti, and Kubelik would be the other names that pop up, so I wonder if there is a clear winner on the strength of the singing there.


You should care about the orchestra too and about the balance between the orchestra and the singers. It's hard for me to understand people who want to listen to late Wagner for the singers. Wagner isn't about singers singing tunes like in Italian opera but about some of the most unique and powerful music that you can hear, all aspects of the texture being important.


----------



## Sonata

Where did I say I didn't care about the orchestra? I do, and that's what I really like about the Karajan recording. I ask about the singing because I can be happy with multiple variations of the orchestral interpretation, but the singers can BREAK a recording for me. Precisely because I find Wagnerian singing generally difficult to swallow. It makes sense then, doesn't it, that I don't want low quality singing detracting from the orchestral music. I almost gave up on Wagner outside of his orchestral highlights until hearing Jonas Kaufmann's Wagner album and I realized maybe the singing could work together with the other music after all

Besides, I was discussing the "top flight" Parsifals in general (though I welcome other suggestions). so presumably I'm already including fairly good orchestral work in the discussion and the singing is the gravy.

Interesting concept, what I "should" care about. Not to be pedantic and I understand your point, in order to fully appreciate the music. But I really only "should" care about my family, my patients, generally being a decent person. I try to leave "shoulds" out of my hobbies and just allow myself to, well, enjoy!


----------



## Chordalrock

Good for you. I'm just tired of Wagner recordings where you can barely hear the orchestra especially when it matters the most. In fact, I couldn't tell you which recordings to seek out because I haven't found anything truly satisfying.


----------



## howlingfantods

Sonata said:


> Going through my first full Parsifal listening experience with the Boulez version.
> I plan to own the full Karajan eventually, I have his highlights disc.
> 
> What versions do you find to be the best-sung performances of Parsifal? And by best I mean the best balanced, taken as a whole for all the singers, without a weak link? If such a one exists. I should add, one with fair to good sound. No audiophile-quality mind you. But I shy away from "historic sound" I'm not a snob, but my ears literally cannot discern high quality singing when sound quality is poor, so the artistry would be lost on me.
> 
> From my perusal of the thread, it seems like Knap, Solti, and Kubelik would be the other names that pop up, so I wonder if there is a clear winner on the strength of the singing there.


Best sung from top to bottom for me is the Kubelik--the best and most beautifully sung Gurnemanz, one of the top 2 or 3 Parsifals, very good Kundry, Klingsor and Amfortas. You even get to hear Lucia Popp's lovely flower maiden. Intelligently and beautifully conducted by Kubelik, with the gravity and the mystery that the piece demands (and that the Boulez, sorry to say, is a little short of). Beautifully recorded in the studio in 1980, this was criminally stuck in a vault for over 20 years.

The Solti is pretty close as far as the singing goes, although I think a significant step behind. Ludwig is a notch above Minton as Kundry, but I do think Kundry is a pretty secondary role, and every other major role is sung better in the Kubelik. Worse, Solti just doesn't have a grip on the music, whether because he had no experience with the opera before he recorded it or because he's simply temperamentally unsuited to the piece. I put this one pretty low on my personal rankings.

Karajan is beautifully conducted, although I still like the Kubelik a little better. But the singing is a very mixed bag--Kurt Moll repeats his outstanding Gurnemanz, and Karajan also has Van Dam as Amfortas, my favorite on record. But the Parsifal and the Kundry are both very subpar, with pitch problems, wobbles, and screechy top notes. Still a very good recording and worth having.

The 1962 Knappertsbusch--I'm not sure where this recording will fall for you on the "historic sound" spectrum. It's in stereo and the sound is rich and full, but it is a live recording with a lot of surface noise, audience and stage noise. I find it great to listen to but it sounds like my personal crappy-recording tolerance might be higher than yours. I also find it less well sung than the Kubelik, although it is very close. The biggest culprit here is Hotter as Gurnemanz--Hotter actually was a more natural Amfortas, a role preserved luckily on the 1954 Knappertsbusch, but he moved into the Gurnemanz role as he aged. It's a deeply felt performance, but he fudges a lot of the low notes and the wobble is so wide that you can't even really tell what notes he's singing much of the time. London as Amfortas is a mixed bag--a lot of people seem to love it but to me, he's too dark and hammy, and I really didn't realize how incredibly beautiful Wagner's writing for Amfortas is until I heard someone else in the role.

Personal listening biography time--the 1962 Kna was my first recording, and for a long time, I couldn't imagine how any recording could match it. Like, I never bothered listening to other recordings because it seemed like such an incredible artistic statement that I couldn't see the point. And all the books and magazines always sticks this recording at the top. Then I heard the Kubelik and was blown away by how much more musically interesting and beautiful Wagner's vocal writing for the Gurnemanz and Amfortas parts were than I realized from listening to the Kna.

There's really no contenders to the 1962 Kna and the Kubelik, as far as I'm concerned. Karajan is a great but wounded duck, the Barenboim is a good second tier with a wonderful Kundry and Amfortas but Barenboim's performance is hit or miss, the 1964 Kna has a caffeinated and intense Parsifal in Vickers but it's almost too spicy for the role and the Kundry is not a contender, both Levines are dull, etc etc.


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> The 1962 Knappertsbusch--I'm not sure where this recording will fall for you on the "historic sound" spectrum. It's in stereo and the sound is rich and full, but it is a live recording with *a lot of surface noise, audience and stage noise.* I find it great to listen to but it sounds like my personal *crappy-recording tolerance* might be higher than yours. I also find it less well sung than the Kubelik, although it is very close. The biggest *culprit* here is Hotter as Gurnemanz--Hotter actually was a more natural Amfortas, a role preserved luckily on the 1954 Knappertsbusch, but he moved into the Gurnemanz role as he aged. It's a deeply felt performance, but *he fudges a lot of the low notes and the wobble is so wide that you can't even really tell what notes he's singing much of the time.* London as Amfortas is a mixed bag--a lot of people seem to love it but to me, he's too dark and hammy, and I really didn't realize how incredibly beautiful Wagner's writing for Amfortas is until I heard someone else in the role.
> 
> Personal listening biography time--the 1962 Kna was my first recording, and for a long time, I couldn't imagine how any recording could match it. Like, I never bothered listening to other recordings because it seemed like such an incredible artistic statement that I couldn't see the point. And all the books and magazines always sticks this recording at the top. Then I heard the Kubelik and was blown away by *how much more musically interesting and beautiful Wagner's vocal writing for the Gurnemanz and Amfortas parts were than I realized from listening to the Kna.
> *
> There's really no contenders to the 1962 Kna and the Kubelik, as far as I'm concerned. Karajan is a great but wounded duck, the Barenboim is a good second tier with a wonderful Kundry and Amfortas but Barenboim's performance is hit or miss, the 1964 Kna has a caffeinated and intense Parsifal in Vickers but it's almost too spicy for the role and the Kundry is not a contender, both Levines are dull, etc etc.


You and I seem to agree on most of the available performances, but we will never agree about Hans Hotter's Gurnemanz. For me it's one of the most fully-realized assumptions of a Wagner role on recordings - an intelligent, delicate, complex, noble portrayal that illuminates every aspect of the character - and one of the things that makes that 1962 Parsifal special. Statements such as "he fudges a lot of the low notes and the wobble is so wide that you can't even really tell what notes he's singing much of the time" are certainly exaggerated. Of course I can't speak for your ears, but mine haven't missed any of those "fudged" low notes, and I've never had any doubt about what note he's singing except in a few moments of intense declamation, when his Shakespearian eloquence nevertheless carries me through transient blemishes. I do certainly appreciate the purling smoothness of a voice like Kurt Moll's in certain passages, especially the Good Friday music. But even there Hotter's fervor makes me forgive some roughness. Hotter's vocal production was never the cleanest, at least since his very early years, and he was not a deep bass, but his dark and resonant bass-baritone encompasses all the notes Gurnemanz is required to sing, the wobble is only very occasionally uncomfortable for me, and his musicality is profound (he was of course noted as a Lieder singer). His ability to illuminate the words he sings, as if they were the words of a play by Aeschylus and he were singing-declaiming them for an amphitheater of ancient Athenians, remains unequaled, and, for many listeners, the effect is powerful and moving to the point where his vocal frailties often seem but marks of his humanity. I think Hotter is the only singer who has ever made me really love the character of Gurnemanz.

Singing aside, I can't understand a reference to "crappy recording tolerance" with reference to this _Parsifal._ This is quite a good, clear stereo recording as live recordings go, with perfect balances between singers and orchestra and the special Bayreuth acoustic nicely captured. And if you think there's "a lot" of stage and audience noise, you haven't listened to many live opera recordings. I bought this recording fifty years ago when I was sixteen years old and was blissfully ignorant of the potential problems of live recordings. Its few instances of extraneous noise didn't interfere with my enjoyment then, and they're a matter of complete indifference to me now. In the face of a performance of such fervor and dedication - and in Wagner's own theater, the special ambience of which is a part of the experience - a few coughs and bumps seem hardly worth mentioning, and can even contribute to a sense of "being there." I only wish I _had_ been there.

I understand that you'd like to offer an alternative to the mostly glowing reviews this recording receives. It is assuredly not perfect, no performance is the last word on the subject, and other recordings do of course surpass it in one respect or another; I might mention a less-than-mature characterization of Parsifal by Jess Thomas (which is nonetheless one of the most vocally attractive we have, and certainly sincerely felt), or the remarkable, unhinged portrayal of Klingsor by Hermann Uhde on earlier Bayreuth recordings. But if we're recommending recordings to someone, it seems best not to let our personal dislike of certain voices give the impression that we're dealing with poor singers, which your description of Hotter certainly suggests.


----------



## jflatter

Sonata said:


> Where did I say I didn't care about the orchestra? I do, and that's what I really like about the Karajan recording. I ask about the singing because I can be happy with multiple variations of the orchestral interpretation, but the singers can BREAK a recording for me. Precisely because I find Wagnerian singing generally difficult to swallow. It makes sense then, doesn't it, that I don't want low quality singing detracting from the orchestral music. I almost gave up on Wagner outside of his orchestral highlights until hearing Jonas Kaufmann's Wagner album and I realized maybe the singing could work together with the other music after all
> 
> Besides, I was discussing the "top flight" Parsifals in general (though I welcome other suggestions). so presumably I'm already including fairly good orchestral work in the discussion and the singing is the gravy.
> 
> Interesting concept, what I "should" care about. Not to be pedantic and I understand your point, in order to fully appreciate the music. But I really only "should" care about my family, my patients, generally being a decent person. I try to leave "shoulds" out of my hobbies and just allow myself to, well, enjoy!


I think the quality of singers is important in this opera. For the role of Gurnemanz you need to have a beautiful lyrical bass voice like Moll or Rene Pape, who were/are both great lieder singers. Amfortas needs a top bass-baritone. Kundry is probably the most complex character to portray in any of Wagner's operas and you certainly need to be a good singer in Act 2. Although the title role is less taxing than other Wagner tenor roles it still needs a great singer. I saw Klaus Florian Vogt whose voice divides opinion at the best of times in a production in Madrid. Whilst he was perfectly suitable for the fool in the first act and to a lesser degree in the second act, he really did not come across well in the third act.

Whilst I think that this piece has possibly the most sublime orchestration in operatic history, I also think that the singers are just as important.


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> But if we're recommending recordings to someone, it seems best not to let our personal dislike of certain voices give the impression that we're dealing with poor singers, which your description of Hotter certainly suggests.


Good god, no. I consider Hotter one of the greatest singers of the past century, and I own three of his Winterreises and consider all three leagues better than Fish's, his Walkure Wotan is completely without even competition much less an equal, and he's one of the best Hollanders and a terrific Sachs. I bought that 1954 Kna Parsifal knowing full well I wouldn't like it overall other than for Hotter's Amfortas just because I was so keen to listen to just his performance. His Deutsches Requiem is one of my favorites, I can't listen to anyone else's Ich Habe Genug. At last count, I have something like 50 recordings with Hotter on it. I'm a *FAN*.

I do enjoy listening to his Gurnemanz, but I do so thinking that it's not quite his role, and noticing the signs of his vocal decline. Which is no criticism! He was in his early 50s by then and had a long career of thundering Wagner roles on stage.

As far as recording quality, I think the 1962 Kna sounds great, but Sonata did say he/she shies away from "historic sound" recordings. I don't know where Sonata's personal line is as far as sound quality. I collect wartime Furtwanglers and scratchy on the wing recordings from the 40s and 50s from Bayreuth and the Met, so of course the '62 Kna sounds great to me by comparison, but it might not sound great to Sonata.


----------



## Sonata

Spotified Half of the first act of the Knap in question. I am content with the recording quality  I appreciate all the thorough discussion from all sides. Thanks all!


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> Good god, no. I consider Hotter one of the greatest singers of the past century, and I own three of his Winterreises and consider all three leagues better than Fish's, his Walkure Wotan is completely without even competition much less an equal, and he's one of the best Hollanders and a terrific Sachs. I bought that 1954 Kna Parsifal knowing full well I wouldn't like it overall other than for Hotter's Amfortas just because I was so keen to listen to just his performance. His Deutsches Requiem is one of my favorites, I can't listen to anyone else's Ich Habe Genug. At last count, I have something like 50 recordings with Hotter on it. I'm a *FAN*.
> 
> I do enjoy listening to his Gurnemanz, but I do so thinking that it's not quite his role, and noticing the signs of his vocal decline. Which is no criticism! He was in his early 50s by then and had a long career of thundering Wagner roles on stage.
> 
> As far as recording quality, I think the 1962 Kna sounds great, but Sonata did say he/she shies away from "historic sound" recordings. I don't know where Sonata's personal line is as far as sound quality. I collect wartime Furtwanglers and scratchy on the wing recordings from the 40s and 50s from Bayreuth and the Met, so of course the '62 Kna sounds great to me by comparison, but it might not sound great to Sonata.


Whew. I'm reassured. 

My ideal Gurnemanz would have the chocolatey smoothness of Moll combined with Hotter's Shakespearean eloquence. I'm not holding my breath though - and Rene Pape doesn't fill that bill.


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> Whew. I'm reassured.
> 
> My ideal Gurnemanz would have the chocolatey smoothness of Moll combined with Hotter's Shakespearean eloquence. I'm not holding my breath though - and Rene Pape doesn't fill that bill.


I always feel a bit disappointed by Pape in the role, good though he always is. It feels like he ought to be a *great* Gurnemanz, not just a really good one and I can't quite figure out why he isn't--maybe it's that he doesn't have the legato singing that Moll did or that Hotter did for the notes he had.

By the way, I don't think Hotter himself would have disagreed with my point that he didn't quite have the low notes for Gurnemanz--I recall he freely admitted he didn't even have some of the low notes for Wotan and he'd fake it by opening his mouth wide, smashing his spear on the stage, and letting the orchestra do the work. Gurnemanz is a true bass role, not a bass/baritone like Wotan, and the voice is much more exposed/less supported by the orchestra in a lot of the long monologues, so you can really hear when he doesn't quite have the notes. That's why Moll is so special for this role--he's such a low bass, he sings these parts so easily and with such beautiful legato, and he really sings instead of declaims like a lot of basses do.


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> Gurnemanz is a true bass role, not a bass/baritone like Wotan, and the voice is much more exposed/less supported by the orchestra in a lot of the long monologues, so you can really hear when he doesn't quite have the notes. That's why Moll is so special for this role--he's such a low bass, he sings these parts so easily and with such beautiful legato, and he really sings instead of declaims like a lot of basses do.


I'd like to have heard Ludwig Weber in his prime. He was a bit past it at Bayreuth in 1951, but he had the right deep voice and stylistic sense, and his portrayal is very intelligent and sympathetic.


----------



## Sonata

My goal is to eventually obtain the Kubelik. Perhaps a Christmas gift. 
I've really like what I've heard of the Knapperbush, as promised it's beautiful. What I've heard so far didn't move me the way Karajan's did. But of course that may have been due to my own circumstances at the time rather the circumstances of the music. 
So ultimately, I'll buy Kubelik/Karajan or Kubelik, Karajan, AND Knapperbusch.

I tend to not like having several versions, and it's weird because I have multiple versions of Wagner and don't for other composers. It almost LOOKs like I prefer Wagner which is not the case. But with the behemoth's of his works, it kind of makes sense I guess to have a couple of different versions needed to see the "big" picture. On the flip side, his relatively smaller works I'm usually satisfied right off with the one I have.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> My ideal Gurnemanz would have the chocolatey smoothness of Moll combined with Hotter's Shakespearean eloquence.


I never knew this existed until I took a random dive into YouTube, but here's Cesare Siepi as Gurnemanz, albeit singing a cut narrative:






Stupendous singing.


----------



## Woodduck

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I never knew this existed until I took a random dive into YouTube, but here's Cesare Siepi as Gurnemanz, albeit singing a cut narrative:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupendous singing.


Thanks. I actually don't like this. Maybe it's just my preconceptions at work, but I can't help thinking that he'd rather be singing "Ella giammai m'amo" from _Don Carlo__! _Siepi has a very Italianate basso quality, strongly vibrated, full of "mask" resonance with "wooly" overtones, very unlike the clean, deep Germanic basses of, say, Frick or Weber. His German sounds "correct" but merely phonetic, and he tells this miraculous story as if he's half asleep. The vocal consistency and legato are admirable, but I don't hear and see Gurnemanz.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> I can't help thinking that he'd rather be singing "Ella giammai m'amo"


Well, that might be one of the reasons why Gurnemanz became a forest-dwelling hermit


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> I'd like to have heard Ludwig Weber in his prime. He was a bit past it at Bayreuth in 1951, but he had the right deep voice and stylistic sense, and his portrayal is very intelligent and sympathetic.


Have you ever heard the 1942 Knappertsbusch Act 3? Weber at his peak, quite excellent. Kind of a forgettable Parsifal though.

You might also like Robert Lloyd on the Armin Jordan, the soundtrack from the Syberberg film. Sounds way crappier on this youtube than it does on my cd version but here's an idea of what his performance is like.


----------



## Woodduck

Nice. LLoyd has a very sympathetic timbre. I suppose I should force myself to watch the Syberberg film.


----------



## howlingfantods

Woodduck said:


> Nice. LLoyd has a very sympathetic timbre. I suppose I should force myself to watch the Syberberg film.


Hm, I'm not sure if I'd recommend that exactly--worth watching but I never really feel that taken by the overall concept.

The CD version is the one I'd recommend--it can be had on amazon for around 15 bucks nowadays. It's quite good with Lloyd's Gurnemanz, Yvonne Minton repeating her very fine Kundry and one of Goldberg's better performances as Parsifal. Pretty unremarkable Amfortas and Kligsor, and a second tier band and choruses but Armin Jordan is a real musician. In the battle of also rans behind the 1962 Kna and the Kubelik, this one and the Barenboim and the Karajan take turns in my affections


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

^^^

A spot-on summary of the Jordan recording.

Robert Lloyd was (and still is, I'll bet) a great singer and his Gurnemanz is worth hearing. Reason enough to get this _Parsifal_ recording, especially at such a low price. As howlingfantods says, Jordan, Minton and Goldberg make fine contributions as well.

PS: I've always loved the Syberberg film, despite the transgender title-character, and some decidedly dodgy lip-synching.


----------



## anmhe

howlingfantods said:


> Have you ever heard the 1942 Knappertsbusch Act 3? Weber at his peak, quite excellent. Kind of a forgettable Parsifal though.
> 
> You might also like Robert Lloyd on the Armin Jordan, the soundtrack from the Syberberg film. Sounds way crappier on this youtube than it does on my cd version but here's an idea of what his performance is like.


I love the Armin Jordan recoding! The flower maiden scene alone is worth listening to the whole thing. As a whole it is the most underrated recordings of Parsifal ever.


----------



## anmhe

What follows is purposely vague to avoid spoilers:


Is anyone here watching Westworld? If so, is anyone noticing the similarities between Robert Ford (played by Anthony Hopkins) and Klingsor?

Granted we're only on ep 2, but I'm interested to see if the parallels between Westworld and Parsifal persist.


----------



## Itullian

Bump ............


----------



## Woodduck

Itullian said:


> Bump ............


And grind? ..........


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> And grind? ..........




I love Parsifal, but then I have seen two wonderful performances since this thread last came round.

N.


----------



## Woodduck

The Conte said:


> I love Parsifal, but then I have seen two wonderful performances since this thread last came round.
> 
> N.


Lucky you. Parsifal is treated (if that's the word) to a lot of weird productions, one of which had Kundry wearing a crocodile head. Now how could a boy scout possibly resist a first date like that? Boys love reptiles. I had a pet alligator until my mother got out of bed one morning and almost stepped on it. Herzeleide would never have understood if Parsifal had brought one home.


----------



## mountmccabe

Quoting from another thread on _Parsifal_. That thread was about the Lombardo production for Teatro Colón, and also includes some analysis of the recent production for the Met by Girard. At any rate:



Woodduck said:


> Wagner said that his works could only be understood through their music, and the music (along with the libretto) here makes clear that the sin which Parsifal must avoid is not sex but psychological regression: yielding to the temptation of infantile irresponsibility and mindless bliss. Amfortas, true son of Titurel, who could not deal with the feminine in himself (Wagner's implied reinterpretation of the vow of chastity), failed the test, and so his use of his male energy (the Spear) to defeat the lure of woman turned back on him as a wound from the very Spear he thought he could use as a weapon - a wound which could only be healed by one who could resist the lure of the Devouring Mother and claim true manhood. Parsifal succeeds where Titurel's son and knights have failed, resists the temptress, and thus acquires the power of responsible masculinity, symbolized by the reclaimed Spear which he knows he must not use for aggressive purposes and keeps always by his side.
> 
> The Spear, as Parsifal tells us in the final scene, glows with "holy blood, yearning for that kindred fount which flows and wells within the Grail." The Grail is the Mother Goddess, the matrix and fountain of life, and the holy blood within it is the wine of life. But when that fluid flows from the Spear it can also be identified with semen, and the yearning of the Spear for the Grail is the desire of the Holy Bridegroom for his spouse, the anticipation of the Sacred Marriage of Male and Female, the unification of the fractured soul. When the Grail and Spear find fulfillment in each other, neither Titurel's anti-feminine cult of chastity nor its tortured caricature of femininity, Kundry, has reality any longer, and this is symbolized by their deaths.


I use this as an introduction to my comments on Dmitri Tcherniakov's production for Staatsoper Unter den Linden. The production has been playing in Berlin at their Easter festival since 2015; I will be seeing it live in 2018.

THe DVD has Andreas Schager, René Pape, Anja Kampe, Wolfgang Koch, Tómas Tómasson, and Daniel Barenboim conducting the Staatskapelle Berlin. Schager is fantastic as Parsifal, and Pape as commanding as from the Met. Daniel Barenboim brings this score forth from the orchestra beautifully. It was really of high musical quality.

The production is on some superficial levels similar to the one at Teatro Colón and the Uwe Eric Laufenberg one at Bayreuth, but it predates both of them, so it is more correct to say they are like the Tcherniakov. The Tcherniakov staging is also far more deft. The aesthetic is modern and run-down, though unlike those others, not particularly militaristic.

Andreas Schager's Parsifal starts out nervous and shifty. He is uncomfortable, though he is able to sit mostly still during the grail ceremony, with an appropriately blank look on his face, on the benches encircling the leads. Titurel comes out for the ceremony, and climbs into a coffin to berate Amfortas. There is an actual cup, used to collect blood from Amfortas' wound, which is then distributed to the attending throng.

Klingsor's space is essentially identical to that used for act one, except that everything is clean white (rather than grungy wood/grey). The benches are there, too, and eventually filled with flower maidens (and their dolls). The lead flower maidens (that have solo parts) are adults but some of the others are younger, including some young children. The idea of sexual stagnation or regression is also brought out in the mime play of teenage Parsifal and a young lady friend being walked in on by his mother. Eventually Klingsor comes back, with an actual spear.

For the third act we're of course back to the space representing Monsalvat, now darker. The lighting makes for some quite dynamic moments, such as the arrival of Parsifal (some of this is captured on the DVD cover). The whole act is really stunning on all fronts, and really the reason I'm relaying any of this.

Amfortas throws away the grail, still covered its unopened box. Parsifal carried the spear in, but places it on the ground in front of Amfortas and it is forgotten. Those symbols are left behind and as Parsifal takes control we see Amfortas and Kundry cautiously recognizing each other, and embracing, warmly, joyously. The transference from the spear and grail to Amfortas and Kundry was seamless. It was beautiful. I didn't trust the staging enough to see it coming, though now thinking back it was all there.

The ending is as ecstatic and joyous as it is peaceful. This is one of the best videos of _Parsifal_ I have seen.


----------



## Woodduck

mountmccabe said:


> Quoting from another thread on _Parsifal_. That thread was about the Lombardo production for Teatro Colón, and also includes some analysis of the recent production for the Met by Girard. At any rate:
> 
> I use this as an introduction to my comments on Dmitri Tcherniakov's production for Staatsoper Unter den Linden. The production has been playing in Berlin at their Easter festival since 2015; I will be seeing it live in 2018.
> 
> THe DVD has Andreas Schager, René Pape, Anja Kampe, Wolfgang Koch, Tómas Tómasson, and Daniel Barenboim conducting the Staatskapelle Berlin. Schager is fantastic as Parsifal, and Pape as commanding as from the Met. Daniel Barenboim brings this score forth from the orchestra beautifully. It was really of high musical quality.
> 
> The production is on some superficial levels similar to the one at Teatro Colón and the Uwe Eric Laufenberg one at Bayreuth, but it predates both of them, so it is more correct to say they are like the Tcherniakov. The Tcherniakov staging is also far more deft. The aesthetic is modern and run-down, though unlike those others, not particularly militaristic.
> 
> Andreas Schager's Parsifal starts out nervous and shifty. He is uncomfortable, though he is able to sit mostly still during the grail ceremony, with an appropriately blank look on his face, on the benches encircling the leads. Titurel comes out for the ceremony, and climbs into a coffin to berate Amfortas. There is an actual cup, used to collect blood from Amfortas' wound, which is then distributed to the attending throng.
> 
> Klingsor's space is essentially identical to that used for act one, except that everything is clean white (rather than grungy wood/grey). The benches are there, too, and eventually filled with flower maidens (and their dolls). The lead flower maidens (that have solo parts) are adults but some of the others are younger, including some young children. The idea of sexual stagnation or regression is also brought out in the mime play of teenage Parsifal and a young lady friend being walked in on by his mother. Eventually Klingsor comes back, with an actual spear.
> 
> For the third act we're of course back to the space representing Monsalvat, now darker. The lighting makes for some quite dynamic moments, such as the arrival of Parsifal (some of this is captured on the DVD cover). The whole act is really stunning on all fronts, and really the reason I'm relaying any of this.
> 
> Amfortas throws away the grail, still covered its unopened box. Parsifal carried the spear in, but places it on the ground in front of Amfortas and it is forgotten. Those symbols are left behind and as Parsifal takes control we see Amfortas and Kundry cautiously recognizing each other, and embracing, warmly, joyously. The transference from the spear and grail to Amfortas and Kundry was seamless. It was beautiful. I didn't trust the staging enough to see it coming, though now thinking back it was all there.
> 
> The ending is as ecstatic and joyous as it is peaceful. This is one of the best videos of _Parsifal_ I have seen.


I need to raise an objection here. I don't want your use of my words to imply that I consider Tcherniakov's staging true to the deepest meaning of _Parsifal_.

I've seen this production on video, and although it properly shows the religious cult of Titurel as fundamentally mistaken and depraved in its denial of sexuality, I cannot accept Tcherniakov's decision to substitute, in the final scene, the passionate physical groping of Kundry and Amfortas for the sacred marriage of Grail and Spear. The blatant carnality of this not only contradicts the spirit of the music, but seems to me to reduce the opera's central theme of spiritual maturation to that of sexual passion, stripping the male/female duality of its larger mythical and psychological resonance and its moral sublimity. Parsifal is not a sequel to _Tristan und Isolde_ - in which Wagner drained the subject of passion dry - but a repudiation of Wagner's youthful, Romantic view of erotic love as spiritually redemptive. To recast the climax of _Parsifal_ as an erotic embrace is to miss the evolution of Wagner's psychological and ethical concerns.

Perhaps mythical resonance is something modern society, with its literal and utilitarian view of sexuality and gender, is something Tcherniakov doesn't trust audiences to feel when it's embodied in Wagner's own archetypal symbolism: the Spear, symbol of male energy, is returned to the Grail, the nurturing feminine, thus transcending and destroying both the torturing male (Titurel/Klingsor) and the tortured female (Kundry), that awful dichotomy who could exist only when male and female energies were alienated from each other. Maybe Tcherniakov is right; maybe people can't understand such things in an age when sex is used to sell blue jeans to teenagers. If so, I guess it's fine that in his retelling, an unenlightened Gurnemanz can't tolerate Amfortas' and Kundry's "sinful" reunion and runs them through with a sword, leaving Wagner's sublime music of enlightenment and reconciliation to accompany a murder and the desperate groping of the knights at a baffled Parsifal who has, in the end, accomplished nothing to benefit suffering humanity for whose sake the feminine Grail taught him compassion and brought him home to manhood.

I've written a lot about this opera on this forum. Nothing I've said gives sanction to Tcherniakov's interpretation. Once again we have a director whose vision is smaller than Wagner's own.


----------



## mountmccabe

Woodduck said:


> I need to raise an objection here. I don't want your use of my words to imply that I consider Tcherniakov's staging true to the deepest meaning of _Parsifal_.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I've written a lot about this opera on this forum. Nothing I've said gives sanction to Tcherniakov's interpretation. Once again we have a director whose vision is smaller than Wagner's own.


It was not my intention to suggest that this production was Woodduck-approved. But I can see how my post could be read that way and for that I appologize.

My idea was to loop back in your words and that discussion as context for how I understood this DVD which I recently watched. It certainly helped me understand what Tcherniakov was doing, though of course this does not mean that you or anyone else would like what he has put on stage or even agree with my interpretation of it. I should have made that clear. I am glad that you have, and I am sorry that I gave call to.


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> I need to raise an objection here. I don't want your use of my words to imply that I consider Tcherniakov's staging true to the deepest meaning of _Parsifal_.
> 
> I've seen this production on video, and although it properly shows the religious cult of Titurel as fundamentally mistaken and depraved in its denial of sexuality, I cannot accept Tcherniakov's decision to substitute, in the final scene, the passionate physical groping of Kundry and Amfortas for the sacred marriage of Grail and Spear. The blatant carnality of this not only contradicts the spirit of the music, but seems to me to reduce the opera's central theme of spiritual maturation to that of sexual passion, stripping the male/female duality of its larger mythical and psychological resonance and its moral sublimity. Parsifal is not a sequel to _Tristan und Isolde_ - in which Wagner drained the subject of passion dry - but a repudiation of Wagner's youthful, Romantic view of erotic love as spiritually redemptive. To recast the climax of _Parsifal_ as an erotic embrace is to miss the evolution of Wagner's psychological and ethical concerns.
> 
> Perhaps mythical resonance is something modern society, with its literal and utilitarian view of sexuality and gender, is something Tcherniakov doesn't trust audiences to feel when it's embodied in Wagner's own archetypal symbolism: the Spear, symbol of male energy, is returned to the Grail, the nurturing feminine, thus transcending and destroying both the torturing male (Titurel/Klingsor) and the tortured female (Kundry), that awful dichotomy who could exist only when male and female energies were alienated from each other. Maybe Tcherniakov is right; maybe people can't understand such things in an age when sex is used to sell blue jeans to teenagers. If so, I guess it's fine that in his retelling, an unenlightened Gurnemanz can't tolerate Amfortas' and Kundry's "sinful" reunion and runs them through with a sword, leaving Wagner's sublime music of enlightenment and reconciliation to accompany a murder and the desperate groping of the knights at a baffled Parsifal who has, in the end, accomplished nothing to benefit suffering humanity for whose sake the feminine Grail taught him compassion and brought him home to manhood.
> 
> I've written a lot about this opera on this forum. Nothing I've said gives sanction to Tcherniakov's interpretation. Once again we have a director whose vision is smaller than Wagner's own.


I agree that the ending to the Tcherniakov production provides a visual discord, both to Wagner's music and to the preceding parts of his production, however I saw the production last year (with the upgrade of Waltraud Meier's Kundry) and it was the most amazing performance of Parsifal I have ever experienced. This was mostly due to the musical values of the performance (after act two I was a wet rag!), however the production (which overall I found an intelligent approach to the piece) played its part. I don't think it fair to take the final moments and see the production in those terms alone.

N.


----------



## Woodduck

mountmccabe said:


> It was not my intention to suggest that this production was Woodduck-approved. But I can see how my post could be read that way and for that I appologize.
> 
> My idea was to loop back in your words and that discussion as context for how I understood this DVD which I recently watched. It certainly helped me understand what Tcherniakov was doing, though of course this does not mean that you or anyone else would like what he has put on stage or even agree with my interpretation of it. I should have made that clear. I am glad that you have, and I am sorry that I gave call to.


No offense taken. I just felt the need to make things clear.


----------



## Woodduck

The Conte said:


> I agree that the ending to the Tcherniakov production provides a visual discord, both to Wagner's music and to the preceding parts of his production, however I saw the production last year (with the upgrade of Waltraud Meier's Kundry) and it was the most amazing performance of Parsifal I have ever experienced. This was mostly due to the musical values of the performance (after act two I was a wet rag!), however the production (which overall I found an intelligent approach to the piece) played its part. I don't think it fair to take the final moments and see the production in those terms alone.
> 
> N.


I saw the entire performance on YouTube maybe a year ago, and I do remember it having some interesting ideas, but now I find only a few snippets. I wonder why it vanished.


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> I saw the entire performance on YouTube maybe a year ago, and I do remember it having some interesting ideas, but now I find only a few snippets. I wonder why it vanished.


Copyright restrictions?



N.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I just read that Wagner once considered transposing the role of Klingsor for castrato. Curious if anyone has ever recorded it that way. It might work since Klingsor is a creep.


----------



## Barbebleu

Fritz Kobus said:


> I just read that Wagner once considered transposing the role of Klingsor for castrato. Curious if anyone has ever recorded it that way. It might work since Klingsor is a creep.


I hope it wasn't recorded that way. I pity the fool that sang Klingsor, I pity the fool!


----------



## DavidA

Fritz Kobus said:


> I just read that Wagner once considered transposing the role of Klingsor for castrato. Curious if anyone has ever recorded it that way. It might work since Klingsor is a creep.


I would certainly question this as the castrato was no longer used in opera (or at least no new music was being written for them) when Parsifal was written.


----------



## Woodduck

Fritz Kobus said:


> I just read that Wagner once considered transposing the role of Klingsor for castrato. Curious if anyone has ever recorded it that way. It might work since Klingsor is a creep.


I'm not sure when Wagner had that idea, but of course he would have written the role differently for a higher voice. We should leave well enough alone and not set a precedent of screwing around with Wagner's music. What's done with his staging is already intolerable.

It's interesting that there were still castrati in the Catholic church in the late 19th century.


----------



## Barbebleu

Klingsor is certainly a jealous, unfulfilled person but a creep? In what sense?


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> Klingsor is certainly a jealous, unfulfilled person but a creep? In what sense?


Self-mutilation is a bit creepy, no? Or is that creepiness as opposed to creepitude?


----------



## Faustian

Barbebleu said:


> Klingsor is certainly a jealous, unfulfilled person but a creep? In what sense?


The manner in which his hatred for women manifests itself in his enslavement, subjugation and domination of Kundry probably qualifies him as a "creep".

Not that I'm trying to defend the Klingsor as castrato thing here. :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl

Barbebleu said:


> Klingsor is certainly a jealous, unfulfilled person but a creep? In what sense?


Well, one definition of creep is "a detestable person." I think it fits in that sense.

My thought is that a counter tenor worked quite well in Julius Caesar with James Bowman playing a creep, so maybe it would work here too. But I am not that familiar with Parsifal, having watched the DVD once and listened on CD a few times. It is definitely an opera I need to get more familar with.


----------



## Itullian

Fritz Kobus said:


> Well, one definition of creep is "a detestable person." I think it fits in that sense.
> 
> My thought is that a counter tenor worked quite well in Julius Caesar with James Bowman playing a creep, so maybe it would work here too. But I am not that familiar with Parsifal, having watched the DVD once and listened on CD a few times. It is definitely an opera I need to get more familar with.


No countertenors!!!!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Itullian said:


> No countertenors!!!!


Well, I guess Wagner is our safe haven from counter tenors!


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> Self-mutilation is a bit creepy, no? Or is that creepiness as opposed to creepitude?


Self-mutilation is certainly a bit sad and shows a person with low self-esteem but that doesn't necessarily make them creepy. I think that the term is a bit demeaning in this instance towards a character who plays a vital part before, and of course during, the action that takes place in Act 2.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> Self-mutilation is certainly a bit sad and shows a person with low self-esteem but that doesn't necessarily make them creepy. I think that the term is a bit demeaning in this instance towards a character who plays a vital part before, and of course during, the action that takes place in Act 2.


Such a pity that there was no one in medieval Spain to tell Klingsor that his problem was low self-esteem. It must have felt just awful to have Kundry laugh at him for being a eunuch. I think I want to give him a big hug.


----------



## Polyphemus

Woodduck said:


> Such a pity that there was no one in medieval Spain to tell Klingsor that his problem was low self-esteem.


Might have been a risky proposition, I suspect that Magicians with psychological problems might react badly.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> Such a pity that there was no one in medieval Spain to tell Klingsor that his problem was low self-esteem. It must have felt just awful to have Kundry laugh at him for being a eunuch. I think I want to give him a big hug.


This conversation is now completely nuts and we are all just talking cobblers. As for the hug, be careful what you wish for:lol:


----------



## Barbebleu

I am listening to the Thielemann Vienna Parsifal with Domingo and Meier. Contrary to my expectations it is actually rather excellent. I shall report further on completion.


----------



## Oreb

There are currently 666 likes for this topic. Given that Aleister Crowley called Wagner a 'saint' of his church, that's pretty creepy.

Just saying...


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> *This conversation is now completely nuts and we are all just talking cobblers.* As for the hug, be careful what you wish for:lol:


Well this is Parsifal!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Well this is Parsifal!


No, this is your inability to understand _Parsifal._


----------



## Oreb

Woodduck said:


> Such a pity that there was no one in medieval Spain to tell Klingsor that his problem was low self-esteem. It must have felt just awful to have Kundry laugh at him for being a eunuch. I think I want to give him a big hug.


It's not beyond the realms of possibility that some European director has done a 'Beckmesser' with Ol' Dickless and had him joining in with the knights at the end. Dumb, but possible.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> No, this is your inability to understand _Parsifal._


Everyone appears to have that difficulty as everyone says something different about it! :lol:


----------



## Granate

I finally finished reading (except some recordings posts) this massive, endless thread. How could an opera be so mind-blowing?

I also find myself unable to understand Parsifal, or to put it in other way, I identify myself as Parsifal at the end of Act I, unable to answer Gurnemanz final question and getting kicked by him. Probably I'm too young, and a big fool. :lol:

The well-sung, often non-sensical staging of the Metropolitan 2012, reccomended in the TC DVD's winners thread, was my first video experience. As I have explained in the Tristan thread, my first Parsifal listen was Karajan for DG (without libretto or plot knowledge) and I was baffled.

My second, before the Parsifal stereo challenge I'm currently undertaking (Levine BFO is slow and unsatisfying but far from trash concerning cast and sound), was the Stein 1981 in Bayreuth, produced by Wolfgang Wagner with a weary Sotin (already in 1981!) a dull Weikl and rapturing Randová. Jerusalem was ok. The best part is the colourful, minimalistic production despite my unsatisfaction with Act II (I prefer Met way too much here).

For the meanings of this opera... I would love to be satisfied with SL and DarkAngel's posts, since they are way less dense than the deeply informed Woodduck "essays" (nothing wrong with them, much more helpful than a "go read a book"). I'm very confused. It's like a subject we have to study for a Phylosophy exam in high school and none of us classmates are enthusiastic about the book.

I cannot ask for anything else here. I feel too overwhelmed and for now I'll listen to audio recordings. Tristan will still be my favourite but maybe because I'm too young. I surely have many more decades to live so one year I may understand the ritual of the holy grail.


----------



## Oreb

Don't trust anyone who claims for themselves a final or definitive 'understanding' of _Parsifal_ (or any great art, really, but _Parsifal_ in particular).

It needs to be lived with and grown with - its meaning changes as we do. The best that can be achieved is a 'progress report', but even that is profoundly misleading because the sense of _Parsifal_ is non-verbal.


----------



## Granate

Well, I cannot express how transfixing are the Overture and the music in the two scene-changes in Act I and III (1st is "Transformation music", I don't know the other).

Listening to my second Levine recording in the challenge. Musically I do not have trouble with the Levine dynamics (in Bayreuth he "does" feel too slow) but the casts are problematic.

How hard is it to get the music wrong in Parsifal? Woodduck said something similar. I can find recordings with cast issues, but not really orchestral issues (having listened to Gergiev, Kegel and the two Levines)...

Coming back to production-Wagner land. Is there any point on listening to the Bayreuth original bells in Parsifal, when R. Wagner, according to Cosima, was not satisfied with them in the first production?


----------



## gardibolt

Even if he wasn't entirely happy with them, I find it interesting to hear the bells that Wagner heard. They are quite distinctive on the Muck recording, and don't really sound like church bells to me--much darker and ominous. It's too bad Wagner wasn't clearer on what he wanted or what the sound he was going for was, but they are at least what he considered acceptable to use if not perfect.


----------



## Byron

DavidA said:


> Everyone appears to have that difficulty as everyone says something different about it! :lol:


Your condescending non sequiturs aren't appreciated in this otherwise interesting conversation. Please follow the signs to the nearest exit. Thanks.


----------



## Woodduck

Oreb said:


> Don't trust anyone who claims for themselves a final or definitive 'understanding' of _Parsifal_ (or any great art, really, but _Parsifal_ in particular).
> 
> It needs to be lived with and grown with - its meaning changes as we do. The best that can be achieved is a 'progress report', but even that is profoundly misleading because the sense of _Parsifal_ is non-verbal.


To expand on this: mythical archetypes don't have single, fixed, "definitive" meanings, and neither does music. But both can bring us into deeper relationship with ourselves. That is their purpose. Literal-minded people balk at this; the world is too much with these folk, they have forgotten where they came from, they have become aliens to the realm of the Grail, the _gnosis_ has become for them only an unrecoverable memory or a superstition to be feared or mocked or clung to, the idea of looking within to understand what is without is nonsense to them, they want to be told _what it all means_. The literal-minded either turn away from myth, regarding it as a primitive attempt to explain nature or a fairy tale for children, or they accept it as a factual description of the universe and embrace fundamentalist religion's big sky daddy or its seventy-two virgins.

Wagner's mythical dramas transport us to a place where, if we are able, we can relax our hypervigilant everyday consciousness and forget the dichotomies spawned by literalism: outer/inner, body/soul, matter/spirit, science/religion. But although Wagner is a powerful guide, he can't guarantee our safety; we are taken outside of our familiar surroundings, and out of our familiar selves, to a place where nothing is merely what it appears to be, where meanings are turned inside out and values upside down, and where we are invited to participate in the sufferings, quests and transformations of characters who are often the selves we have lost or preferred to forget. It's in the discoveries, or rediscoveries, that we make as we watch and listen to these symbolic journeys that their meaning resides.

There are meanings Wagner's operas cannot have; open-ended meaning is not arbitrary or nonsensical. But there's no end to the meanings they can have, once we've let them inside ourselves.


----------



## Granate

*First timer Parsifal*

I'd like to draw the thread to something brighter...

I had a conversation with a junior friend who studies in the same media and film faculty that I was in. When I posted in a whatsapp group about my purchase of the Böhm Ring set, he asked me about opera in general. I gave him advice about opera recordings and linked him to the 2015 Winners thread. But also I prevented him from visiting Wagner, because for me it was a difficult artist to get in without experience in the opera genre (like accepting word-driven plots or knowing about Italian precedents).

However, because I saw _Parsifal_ as a very visual and mysthical work, and because he wants to go into the film industry and watches independent and blockbuster films, I thought that watching a subtitled _Parsifal_ would make an impression on him, and then have many further questions.

I was thinking about reccommending him to watch the first beautifully choreographed Wolfgang Wagner production in the Stein 1981 DVD, but also the second WW production in the Sinopoli DVD could be useful (I personally saw the film excerpts as a bit kitsch).

















*What would be your choice for this situation?* Film and sound quality is welcomed, as good singing, but *I would please ask for "orthodox" productions that don't confuse newbies...*

*What should I tell him when he gets to the video?* "Don't take anything literally"? "The characters are symbols"? "Listen to the music"?

I have faith on him because he is more enthusiastic for his eyes than I usually am (I seriously was falling asleep 40 minutes in act I).


----------



## Itullian

I've seen both and they are both beautifully done.
The Stein is a traditional production.

The Sinopoli is given a futuristic look. Almost like it's on another planet.
Well done though.
Both are very well conducted with the Stein being slightly faster in timing.

The sound is better on the Sinopoli, digital I believe, but the Stein is very good too.

Don't tell him anything. Have him read a synopsis maybe.
Just tell him to watch and give his impressions.

Parsifal is a tough one to start off with. I always recommend Dutchman
or Lohengrin, but who knows, he may like it.


----------



## Granate

Itullian said:


> Parsifal is a tough one to start off with. I always recommend Dutchman
> or Lohengrin, but who knows, he may like it.


I know, but I'm not directing this towards the opera genre and Wagner himself. I want to show him something that goes further than opera, *something visual,* musical, breathtaking that he could learn about to bring to script writing, to the use of music score in drama... Outside of our classical music world.

Who knows, probably he ends up becoming a stage director and brings the balance to the grail with a traditional production in Bayreuth...

I would give him Stein, but what strikes me about that production is that I don't see Kundry's death in Act III. And how do the spear and the grail join? Is the spear put vertical right through the big red grail? Because the video quality in YouTube was quite poor.


----------



## DarkAngel

> I know, but I'm not directing this towards the opera genre and Wagner himself. I want to show him something that goes further than opera, *something visual, musical, breathtaking that he could learn about to bring to script writing, to the use of music score in drama... Outside of our classical music world.
> *


For visual pleasures go right for the new MET blu ray version with Kaufmann as the perfect fool, some bold abstract visuals that attempt to connect with some of the underlying themes and motifs duck often discusses....will raise many questions and seem puzzling to novice but might spur further investigation for the curious.....


----------



## Granate

DarkAngel said:


>


Sorry DA. Definetely not that one. I see it right in singing and dramatic interpretation by the actors, plus the choreography, and the "filming" is sublime, but It's so distracting on the blood symbolism, the exorcist girls instead of flowermaidens and the non-sensical space backgrounds in Act I that he would get a totally wrong story. Plus, it's really slow!

But Peter Mattei! Oh my my!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Granate said:


> Sorry DA. Definetely not that one. I see it right in singing and dramatic interpretation by the actors, plus the choreography, and the "filming" is sublime, but It's so distracting on the blood symbolism, the exorcist girls instead of flowermaidens and the non-sensical space backgrounds in Act I that he would get a totally wrong story. Plus, it's really slow!
> 
> But Peter Mattei! Oh my my!


I definitely don't like the bloodiness of this one. I am in the market for a second Parsifal DVD though. I have Horst Stein video and like it a lot.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Granate said:


> *I was thinking about reccommending him to watch the first beautifully choreographed Wolfgang Wagner production in the Stein 1981 DVD*....


Definitely that is the one to recommend to someone new to the work. However if this person is new to Wagner, I would be inclined to recommend the Sawallisch Hollander DVD. It is excellent!


----------



## malvinrisan

Ofc all the acts are different, but imo:
Act 1: Really Great. (Great ending)
Act 2: Really Great.
Act 3: Incredible. (Incredible ending)

Anyone who thinks late Wagner works are too long and boring just has the wrong opinion.


----------



## DavidA

malvinrisan said:


> Ofc all the acts are different, but imo:
> Act 1: Really Great. (Great ending)
> Act 2: Really Great.
> Act 3: Incredible. (Incredible ending)
> 
> Anyone who thinks late Wagner works are too long and boring just has the wrong opinion.


No they have their own opinion about them. And they actually have a right to it! That its what 'opinion' means! :tiphat:


----------



## rw181383

Bump!—what at a great thread! Many thanks to all posters especially Woodduck, Granate, Itullian, and DarkAngel.

I don’t want to take much of your time, but just a bit of background. When I really started to study music and begin collecting, and for some reason that I don’t remember (1996-I was 24), Parsifal was one of the first operas I bought (Kna ‘62). I have been hooked ever since. It is without a doubt my favorite opera of all time (and I love all Wagner). I can’t seem to get enough of it. And because of this thread, I’m back in the rabbit hole. 

My Parsifal collection:

1949 - R. Kraus (Gebhardt)
1951 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Teldec/Naxos/Documents-Wagnermania & Wagner’s Vision)
1952 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Archipel)
1953 - Krauss (Bayreuth-Archipel)
1954 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Archipel)
1956 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Walhall)
1957 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Walhall)
1958 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Andromeda)
1959 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Walhall)
1960 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Myto)
1961 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Myto)
1962 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Philips)
1963 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Opera Depot)
1964 - Knappertsbusch (Bayreuth-Orfeo)
1972 - Solti (Decca)
1975 - Kegel (Berlin Classics)
1976 - Stein (Bayreuth-Opera Depot)
1976 - Stein (Paris-Opera Depot)
1980 - Kubelik (Arts Music)
1981 - A. Jordan (Erato)
1985 - Levine (Decca-Bayreuth Box)
1991 - Barenboim (Teldec)
1992 - Levine (DG-DVD)
2001 - Conlon (House of Opera)
2005 - Thielemann (DG)
2009 - Gergiev (Mariinsky)
2013 - Gatti (Sony-DVD)

And yes, I need to add more. Besides the elusive Kna ‘55, my two biggest holes are the Karajan 1979-80 (DG) and Boulez (1980). I’ve streamed them, but would still like to add them to my collection. Any other suggestions? Premiereopera.net has the July 2018 Munich performance conducted by Kirill Petrenko with Kaufmann, Pape, and Gerhaher that I’ll be getting soon. 

An aside–I’ve always wondered (or imagined) if Parsifal had been a trilogy, how incredible that would have been! (I’m going with a trilogy since we have already have the Ring).

For example:

Opera 1 - More background on Kundry, Gurnemanz, Amfortas’s fall, Klingsor, etc. 

Opera 2 - All about young Parsifal and his journey to the domain of the grail. 

Opera 3 - Similar to Parsifal in its present form, but with further development of Act 3’s grail Hall scene. 

What would your Parsifal trilogy look like?

Thanks again for your passion for Parsifal, positive and negative!

Paul


----------



## Woodduck

rw181383 said:


> Bump!-what at a great thread! Many thanks to all posters especially Woodduck, Granate, Itullian, and DarkAngel.
> 
> I don't want to take much of your time, but just a bit of background. When I really started to study music and begin collecting, and for some reason that I don't remember (1996-I was 24), Parsifal was one of the first operas I bought (Kna '62). I have been hooked ever since. It is without a doubt my favorite opera of all time (and I love all Wagner). I can't seem to get enough of it. And because of this thread, I'm back in the rabbit hole.
> 
> I've always wondered (or imagined) if Parsifal had been a trilogy, how incredible that would have been! (I'm going with a trilogy since we have already have the Ring).
> 
> For example:
> 
> Opera 1 - More background on Kundry, Gurnemanz, Amfortas's fall, Klingsor, etc.
> 
> Opera 2 - All about young Parsifal and his journey to the domain of the grail.
> 
> Opera 3 - Similar to Parsifal in its present form, but with further development of Act 3's grail Hall scene.
> 
> What would your Parsifal trilogy look like?
> 
> Thanks again for your passion for Parsifal, positive and negative!
> 
> Paul


A _Parsifal_ trilogy! Leave it to Wagner to set your imagination to turning wide gyres in deep space! His operas are so rich in backstories: think of all the people and events that lie behind the crisis in which Tristan and isolde find themselves as the curtain rises on the journey to Cornwall. And we all know how the _Ring_ grew, its librettos written in reverse order as the backstory demanded to be unfolded, opera by opera.

In _Parsifal_ we're told by Gurnemanz of the angels' gift of the holy chalice and the spear to Titurel, his building of the temple and founding of the order of knights, the attempt by Klingsor to join the order by illegitimate means, his expulsion by Titurel and his turning to black magic, his enchantment of Kundry and use of her to destroy the knights, Amfortas' attempt to use the holy spear to defeat Klingsor only to succumb to Kundry, lose the spear to Klingsor, receive from it a terrible wound, and await the fulfillment of a prophecy of a pure fool who could resist Kundry, recover the spear, and bring it home to heal Amfortas' wound and rejoin the Grail. Those narrated events could be ample material for the first opera of a trilogy.

The second opera could give us the story of Parsifal's parents, Gamuret and Herzeleide, relating the death of Gamuret and Parsifal's boyhood in the forest, showing his desertion of his mother, her death from grief, his following the shining knights in armor to the Grail kingdom, his observation of the Grail ceremony and the awakening of his compassion at the sight of Amfortas' suffering.

The third opera could simply consist of Wagner's second and third acts, although it might be extended to three acts, with the second showing Parsifal's wanderings and his struggle to find his way back to the Grail.

That was really fun! Thanks for the idea. But of course there would be losses involved in stretching Wagner's tightly constructed plot over three operas. Certain of the characters in the story exist for us only as invisible presences, and gain a mysterious power thereby; parental figures, in particular - Titurel and Herzeleide - do not appear in the flesh but rather haunt the characters who do, just as our parents live in us and determine much of our fate even after they are gone, often threatening to hold us back from developing into our true selves. Amfortas's father Titurel maintains his grip from his tomb, condemning to suffering his son who cannot heal because he cannot grow into more than his father's image. And Parsifal's mother, unwilling to let go of him and bathing him in guilt with her tears, returns as Kundry to entwine her arms about him, plant her blood-red lips on his crying mouth, and hold him in eternal childhood.

There are other reasons, too, for _Parsifal_ to be made the way it is. Its simple but pregnant symbols waste not a moment or a note in penetrating the human unconscious in its most primal and vulnerable states, unfolding a compact tale of the human struggle for autonomy. Wagner gives us a primal dream that takes us nearly back to the womb, back to what we were before we knew we were anything, leads us through the vulnerability of the child struggling to be a person distinct from its parents, and finally through the valley of the shadow of death into the light of maturity where we are at last worthy of the Grail's blessing.

And he does it in one miraculous opera. It's my favorite opera too, and has been for over fifty years. The score sits permanently on my piano (where, I gather, Puccini kept his own copy).


----------



## DarkAngel

^^^^ In progress

I can see a Parsifal trilogy with current Parsifal as middle opera that ushered in a golden age for Monsalvat and Parsifal, but like many dynasties or religious organizations that involve human interaction (even if divinely inspired) a cycle of growth/decline can manifest over time.....RW fascinated by religion and philosophy explanations for human history, pursuit of happiness

*Opera 1*
-As duck mentioned the origins of many characters whose past is hinted at in Parsifal, but not fully explained.
-How was Monsalvat started with the acquisition of the grail and spear and founding of the knightly order, 
-Did the original knights have stories to tell of the crusades, what brought this group together,
-Parsifal's parents, childhood and death of mother Herzeleide, father Gamuret
-Klingsors tragic tail of rejection from Monsalvat and subsequent embrace of the dark arts, 
-Mysterious Kundry (who could command an entire opera herself) her origins, was she present at Christ's cruxifiction, her enslavement and service for Klingsor, the seduction of Amfortus and other deeds
-Subsequent moral downfall of knights of monsalvat and dark period of decline and moral confusion

*Opera 2*
Current opera Parsifal as our perfect fool in adulthood discovers Gurnemanz and the knights of monsalvat in moral decline, begins his long journey of enlightenment to understand compassion, to defeat corrupt forces and restore, awaken the spiritual values and former glory of monsalvat, brings them to maturity entering a golden age for the knightly order divinely inspired

*Opera 3*
Monsalvat in a golden age, the knights like Lohengrin embark on quests to protect the innocent while protected in battle by the spiritual power of the grail, but as in gotterdammerung seeds of future demise lie waiting below the surafce...........TBC

When used to help others and protect the innocent the grail divinty is a righteous powerful force that displays humanities best features, however when turned inward and used for personal enrichment it becomes corrupted and causes pain and turmoil, this conclusion chronicles the human struggle to use the grail for benefit of mankind by enlightened leaders despite great challenges and persuasive non belivers (following the example of Parsifal before)










Sienna Cathedral Italy, inspiration for RW's stageset of Monsalvat Bayreuth......


----------



## starthrower

Bought the Karajan set. I finished listening to my library copy yesterday, and I need a copy of this. I'd like to get the Solti CD/blu-ray set as well as soon as I spot a good deal on a used copy.


----------



## mountmccabe

If I were to devise a cycle with _Parsifal_, I think my first step would be to tell the story of Galahad and how he found the grail. Or, rather, to express what it meant that he he found the grail.

*Galahad*

Act 1, scene 1: It is Pentecost. Arthur speaks of great battles, and we learn that many of the knights have lost their homelands, their families, and there is still no peace. Galahad arrives at Camelot and I think we have some combination - or more likely a conflation - of the Siege Perilous chair test and the sword in the stone test. We end with Arthur declaring Galahad the greatest of all the knights, and that Galahad will bring peace to the realm.

Act 1, scene 2: Days later, perhaps at Galahad's first meeting at the Round Table. There is a vision of the grail. Galahad declares that they must search for the grail and the knights march out, energized by this. They leave Arthur behind, and he expresses his fear that this is the end of the Round Table and his sadness at losing this earthly power. He does not quest.

Act 2. After many years of questing, Galahad and Bors the Younger, further isolated from Arthur and their homelands pass their final tests and are led to the grail. [This will be different from the sources in that it will not include Parsifal, since he figures in the story later; he does not find the grail but rather rediscovers its purpose].

Act 3. Galahad and Bors have the grail and approach Camelot, but we see that this secular, earthly kingdom of war is not the place for the grail. A young knight named Titurel suggests a hidden castle in Spain where they can focus on the grail rather than defending their lands and they set off for this new land.

Part of me would want to precede this _Galahad_ with _Arthur_, telling a story of Arthur. Even skipping the Uther and Merlin complications, directly telling the tale of Arthur feels too overwhelming. So instead we shall have two operas wherein we see Arthur, his grasping for earthly power and his failure at building anything lasting. The recurring Lady of the Lake here works a little like Erda in the Ring, but is mostly here to show how the supernatural world/gods have tried to help/guide Arthur and then turns against him.

The entire cycle begins with the tale of two brothers, _*Bors und Ban*_

Act 1
Scene 1: Bors and Ban are in a command tent near the field of battle. They were inspired to fight for Arthur after he received Excalibur from the Lady in the Lake. But while they were away, their own lands have come under attack. They returned home and seeing that their situation was desperate, sent to Arthur for help.

Scene 2: Bors the Younger enters (with Lionel, his brother (if used), and the child Lancelot, Ban's son) and says that Arthur has been unable to convince other knights to come to their aid. He begins to disparage Arthur, but he is silenced when Claudas (and his son Dorin) and their knights break in and capture him. Bors attacks, and is killed. Ban attacks and is also killed.

Despite being a child, Lancelot prepares to attack as well, but before he can Claudas and Dorin turn and flee, terrified at something coming from the lake. Lancelot moves to pursue them, but then he also notices the glow of the lake behind them. His first thought is that it is Arthur arriving after all, but then he falls silent, dumbfounded and the glow overtakes him.

Act 2
Arthur hears of the defeat of Bors and Ban, the capture of Bors the Younger, and the disappearance of Lancelot.
He realizes that he cannot be everywhere, and cannot support his growing network of knights and local leaders without knights that are not only loyal to him, but have their own lands under control. That is, he needs a surplus of knights.
And he, himself, needs to rule from a central location. At the celebration of Pentecost he creates Camelot and his Round Table, though he has no knights.

Act 3
Scene 1: Arthur leads a band of knights against Claudas. They are able to free Bors the Younger (and Lionel, if used), and other prisoners. As their lands are still held by Claudas, Bors the Younger and the other knights agree to fight with Arthur

Scene 2: The lake glows again the Lady of the Lake emerges with a grown man. [We are conflating the two Ladies, so Arthur recognizes her as the one who gave him Excalibur solidifying his authority]. She reveals that the powerful grown man with her is Lancelot; she has raised him (and aged him rapidly) and prepared him to help bring Arthur. Lancelot offers his service to Arthur and he accepts. They declare him the greatest of all the knights.

Second in the cycle is _*Lancelot und Guinevere*_. This is just _Tristan und Isolde_ with the names a few other things changed.
A couple references to the Round Table are made. References to Lancelot's childhood are changed to refer to Ban and/or his time with the Lady of the Lake.

Act 2 happens a year after act 1. We learn that Guinevere has been pregnant. Arthur believes the child was stillborn, but this is a lie. The child was Lancelot's, so Guinevere had him hidden away.

In act 3 as Lancelot is dying he feverishly comes to the realization that the shepherd is his son with Guinevere, going by the name Galahad. It is not explicitly stated but Galahad was raised/aged magically by the Lady of the Lake, so that at the death of his parents he would be a young boy of 13 rather than a babe of a few months. Again, Lancelot is considered to be barely coherent here. Guinevere makes an oblique reference to Galahad in her closing narration.

And that leads us to _Galahad_, the third opera, and _Parsifal_, the conclusion of the cycle.


----------



## amfortas

rw181383 said:


> And yes, I need to add more. Besides the elusive Kna '55, my two biggest holes are the Karajan 1979-80 (DG) and Boulez (1980). I've streamed them, but would still like to add them to my collection. Any other suggestions?


If you haven't seen it already, and are feeling adventurous, you might check out the DVD of Hans-Jürgen Syberberg's 1982 _Parsifal_ film (featuring the Armin Jordan recording.) Far from traditional, but certainly provocative.


----------



## mountmccabe

I mean, I realize the dramatic sketches need some work, but I think in actually realizing the full storylines it will become clear what is missing (probably four more operas).

And if that is the case, then I might look to Chrétien de Troyes and his _Cligès_ and _Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart_. Both are more or less variations on the Tristan story, so perhaps Tristan could be left as is and these two operas could be slipped in to help work some of the other themes. Though really ONE love story seems fine, but three seem overwhelming.

It is also possible that the best route is to start over with (the first part of) Erec and Enide instead of _Tristan und Isolde_. But, honestly, are we sure Schreker, Chausson, Korngold, or even Strauss hasn't already done this? This summary is from Wikipedia:



> An unarmored Erec is keeping Guinevere company while other knights participate in a stag hunt ... when a strange knight and his dwarf approach the queen and treat her servant roughly. At the Queen's orders, Erec follows the knight, Yder, to a far off town where he meets and falls in love with Enide. Erec defeats Yder, in a contest to win a falcon for the most beautiful lady in the town. Erec defends Enide's beauty and she steps forward to take the bird. They return to Enide's father, who gives permission for the two to marry. Erec refuses to accept gifts of new clothes for Enide, and takes her to Arthur's court in her ragged chemise. In spite of her appearance, the courtiers recognise Enide's inherent nobility and Queen Guinevere dresses her in one of her own richly embroidered gowns.


In a good world this opera would already exist.


----------



## Woodduck

mountmccabe said:


> In a good world this opera would already exist.


In a good world there'd be somebody capable of writing a great opera. 

Your stories from medieval romances bring to mind not Wagner's operas but his son Siegfried's. According to Wiki he wrote eighteen operas, and they're modelled closely on legendary material and are more complex and eventful in narrative than his father's very condensed adaptations. Has anyone here ever heard any of them complete? There are recordings, and based on excerpts there seems to be some attractive music in them. I think I recall Schoenberg saying something complimentary.


----------



## Kollwitz

As a neophyte Wagnerian, I'd appreciate some advice about Parsifal recordings, namely whether the Kubelik recording is worth the £20 premium over the Knappertsbusch '62. 

Having fallen completely for Tristan und Isolde this summer (mainly Furtwangler's '52 recording which I bought a while ago) I bought the Solti Ring Cycle and have been enjoying Das Rheingold tremendously. I'd planned to work my way through the Ring Cycle, but found myself browsing Amazon Prime music waiting for my daughter's ballet class to finish and decided to listen to the prelude to Parsifal as it has the '51 Knappertsbusch recording. Wow! Few first listens have had such an impact. I've listened to it a lot now and would like to purchase a recording, as the best stereo at home just has a CD player and I like listening to CDs in my low-tech car.

I'm generally keen on historical recordings (I like the 36 Reiner Tristan) and value performance above sound quality but would like good sound and a relatively prominent orchestra. The '51 Knappertsbusch, whilst very fine, leaves me wondering if there's something better for me out there. Kubelik and Knappertsbusch '62, from browsing here and doing a bit of research, seem to be the best bets for a first Parsifal. Is Kubelik worth the cost? (I'm probably just looking for reassurance that it is).


----------



## Granate

Read this thread: *Wagner on CD - Parsifal...*

It has all the answers.


----------



## Woodduck

Kollwitz said:


> As a neophyte Wagnerian, I'd appreciate some advice about Parsifal recordings, namely whether the Kubelik recording is worth the £20 premium over the Knappertsbusch '62.
> 
> Having fallen completely for Tristan und Isolde this summer (mainly Furtwangler's '52 recording which I bought a while ago) I bought the Solti Ring Cycle and have been enjoying Das Rheingold tremendously. I'd planned to work my way through the Ring Cycle, but found myself browsing Amazon Prime music waiting for my daughter's ballet class to finish and decided to listen to the prelude to Parsifal as it has the '51 Knappertsbusch recording. Wow! Few first listens have had such an impact. I've listened to it a lot now and would like to purchase a recording, as the best stereo at home just has a CD player and I like listening to CDs in my low-tech car.
> 
> I'm generally keen on historical recordings (I like the 36 Reiner Tristan) and value performance above sound quality but would like good sound and a relatively prominent orchestra. The '51 Knappertsbusch, whilst very fine, leaves me wondering if there's something better for me out there. Kubelik and Knappertsbusch '62, from browsing here and doing a bit of research, seem to be the best bets for a first Parsifal. Is Kubelik worth the cost? (I'm probably just looking for reassurance that it is).


The '62 Kna will remain a classic, strongly cast, atmospheric, and in fine sound that captures the unique Bayreuth acoustic. It's a real, vivid performance that transcends its minor flaws through deep understanding and conviction. I find the Kubelik slightly less compelling (others may disagree), but it's one of the best studio recordings, with first-rate sound. I'd say save your money for now and start with Kna.


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> The '62 Kna will remain a classic, strongly cast, atmospheric, and in fine sound that captures the unique Bayreuth acoustic. It's a real, vivid performance that transcends its minor flaws through deep understanding and conviction. I find the Kubelik slightly less compelling (others may disagree), but it's one of the best studio recordings, with first-rate sound. I'd say save your money for now and start with Kna.


While I mostly agree with this, the Kna 62 is likely to be available for a very long time - it's been in print virtually continuously, in every format, for more than 50 years. The Kubelik is on a relatively small label - if this goes OOP, or the label goes belly-up, there's no guarantee that this Parsifal will continue to be available.


----------



## mountmccabe

Woodduck said:


> Your stories from medieval romances bring to mind not Wagner's operas but his son Siegfried's. According to Wiki he wrote eighteen operas, and they're modelled closely on legendary material and are more complex and eventful in narrative than his father's very condensed adaptations. Has anyone here ever heard any of them complete? There are recordings, and based on excerpts there seems to be some attractive music in them. I think I recall Schoenberg saying something complimentary.


Truth be told I don't really like my conception of _Bors and Ban_, and the _Lancelot & Guinevere_ was mostly a joke. I like _Galahad_ more, though I have no real conception for how the second act could unfold. Turns out plotting opera for meaning is difficult! Who knew! 

I don't think I have heard anything by Siegfried Wagner, but looking at Spotify I see recordings of 10 of his operas from the 90s and 2000s, most of them on Marco Polo. I don't recognize any of the artists, and the orchestras are not big names either (one is with the WDR Sinfonieorchester Köln that I'm sure I've heard some of their orchestral recordings).

There are also recordings of the overtures (and his Symphony in C) so maybe I'll start there.


----------



## Kollwitz

Thanks for the advice. Given the price fluctuation on the Kubelik, and its potential disappearance, I thought I'd order it now. Will pick up the '62 Kna soon too, they seem like a good pair to start with.


----------



## The Conte

Kollwitz said:


> Thanks for the advice. Given the price fluctuation on the Kubelik, and its potential disappearance, I thought I'd order it now. Will pick up the '62 Kna soon too, they seem like a good pair to start with.


Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but this Kna 64 is even better than the 62 IMO:









N.


----------



## starthrower

I talked to a classical pianist after his performance Saturday night and I told him I was listening to Parsifal. I got this expression.


----------

