# Wagner / Favorite act of each opera.



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

I would like to know which acts of the following Wagner operas are the most popular compared only to other acts of the same opera.

I do *not* mean comparing acts of one opera to acts of another opera. So please vote once for every opera. 

Edit: For the poll which is limited to 15 answers I simply took my favorite operas.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Let's see...

Der fliegende Holländer - Act I
Tannhäuser - Act III
Lohengrin - Act I
Tristan und Isolde - Act II 
Die Meistersinger - Act III
Parsifal - Act I 
Das Rheingold - all of it!
Die Walküre - Act I
Siegfried - Act III
Götterdämmerung - Act I. 

That's it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fliegende Hollander: I
Tannhauser (Dresden version): III
Tannhauser (Paris version): I
Lohengrin: II
Tristan: III
Meistersinger: III
Rheingold: Scene 1
Walkure: III
Siegfried: III
Gotterdammerung: III
Parsifal: III

Starting with _Tristan_ (or actually with _Walkure_, which was written first), Wagner mastered the art of the finale like no other opera composer. As great as what comes before might be, you can count on him to wrap up the whole thing with something at least as fine.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Starting with _Tristan_ (or actually with _Walkure_, which was written first), Wagner mastered the art of the finale like no other opera composer. As great as what comes before might be, you can count on him to wrap up the whole thing with something at least as fine.


Looking at my answers, they're almost always the finale:

Der fliegende Holländer - Act 3
Tannhäuser - no answer
Lohengrin - Act 1
Tristan und Isolde - Act 3 
Die Meistersinger - Act 3
Parsifal - Act 3
Das Rheingold - Scene 4
Die Walküre - Act 2
Siegfried - Act 3
Götterdämmerung - Act 3

I don't really care for the finale of Lohengrin, though "In fernem land" is a great monologue. With Walküre I think the drama is stronger in Act 2 than in Act 3.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's interesting and probably natural that Act II of _Tristan_ has robbed many votes from Act III. But, magnificent as the "Liebesnacht" is, I find Act III to be not only the greatest single act in any Wagner opera but possibly the most incredible uninterrupted stretch of music of comparable length ever composed. I feel that the mournful plaint of King Marke in Act II, essential as it is as a dramatic idea, could not hope to be, and is not, at a level of inspiration comparable to what preceded it, and seems longer than necessary with all but the most sensitive and eloquent bass in the role. Act III permits no such letdown, and builds, wave upon wave, to a pitch of intensity unequaled in any other work of music, finally achieving not anticlimax but release and resolution - of itself and of the whole work's emotional trajectory - in Isolde's "Liebestod."

It was with reference to Act III that Wagner wrote to Mathilde Wesendonck:

_"Child! This Tristan is turning into something dreadful! That last act!!! - - - - - - -
I'm afraid the opera will be forbidden-unless the whole thing is turned into a parody by bad production-: only mediocre performances can save me! Completely good ones are bound to drive
people crazy, -I can't imagine what else could happen. To such a state have things come!!! Alas!" _


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

very provisional and constantly changing preferences for me, but for now:

Lohengrin Act 1
Hollander Act 1
Tannhauser Act 3
Rheingold Scene 4
Walkure Act 1 - most consistently great, although my favorite moments are from Act 2, especially the Announcement of Death scene
Siegfried Act 3
Gotterdammerung Act 3
Tristan Act 3 - my favorite overture, Tristan's delirium, the Liebestod. Act 2 is great but has some less essential connective tissue.
Meistersinger Act 2 - Just pure joy, I can't stop grinning when Sachs is teasing Ewa and then trolling Beckmesser
Parsifal Act 1 - from "von Bade kehrt der Konig heim" to the end of Act 1 is the greatest music Wagner wrote


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Der fliegende Holländer - Act I
Tannhäuser - Act II
Lohengrin - Act II
Tristan und Isolde - Act II
Die Meistersinger - Act III
Parsifal - Act II
Das Rheingold - Scene I
Die Walküre - Act II
Siegfried - Act III
Götterdämmerung - Act III

Parsifal is the only tough pick. Act I is sublime. Act III is sacred. But wherever Act II is performed, the audience gets to witness an actual miracle unfolding on stage.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> It's interesting and probably natural that Act II of _Tristan_ has robbed many votes from Act III. But, magnificent as the "Liebesnacht" is, I find Act III to be not only the greatest single act in any Wagner opera but possibly the most incredible uninterrupted stretch of music of comparable length ever composed. I feel that the mournful plaint of King Marke in Act II, essential as it is as a dramatic idea, could not hope to be, and is not, at a level of inspiration comparable to what preceded it, and seems longer than necessary with all but the most sensitive and eloquent bass in the role. Act III permits no such letdown, and builds, wave upon wave, to a pitch of intensity unequaled in any other work of music, finally achieving not anticlimax but release and resolution - of itself and of the whole work's emotional trajectory - in Isolde's "Liebestod."


For myself, Act III is incredible, in building to the highlight that is the Liebestod. But Act II is literally a series of highlights. The incredible instrumental interlude with the winding of the horns and murmur of the streams, Brangane whipping up Isolde into a frenzy, Tristan and Isolde madly declaring their love on top of an orchestra roaring with passion and colour, the Liebesnacht of course, King Marke's lament, and the end where Tristan and Isolde become resigned to their fate, which never fails to raise every hair on the back of my neck. I've dabbled in drugs a little, Act II of Tristan is the most powerful and dangerous that I've encountered.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> For myself, Act III is incredible, in building to the highlight that is the Liebestod. But Act II is literally a series of highlights. The incredible instrumental interlude with the winding of the horns and murmur of the streams, Brangane whipping up Isolde into a frenzy, Tristan and Isolde madly declaring their love on top of an orchestra roaring with passion and colour, the Liebesnacht of course, King Marke's lament, and the end where Tristan and Isolde become resigned to their fate, which never fails to raise every hair on the back of my neck. *I've dabbled in drugs a little, Act II of Tristan is the most powerful and dangerous that I've encountered.*


A persuasive testimonial, but I trust you did careful research before combining drugs. Obviously it didn't kill you - this time.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I have never quite understood why T&I didn't just elope to Gretna Green and save everyone a lot of emotional hassle. :wave:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> I have never quite understood why T&I didn't just elope to Gretna Green and save everyone a lot of emotional hassle. :wave:












But without tragedy, how could I laugh?

Or even be a narcissistic Drama Queen?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A persuasive testimonial, but I trust you did careful research before combining drugs. Obviously it didn't kill you - this time.












Reality might be for people who can't handle drugs.

But drugs are for people who can't handle WAGNER.

It doesn't get much more ultimate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> I have never quite understood why T&I didn't just elope to Gretna Green and save everyone a lot of emotional hassle. :wave:


Harrumph! A very postmodern interpretation, I must say!

As I'm sure you're aware, the distance from Cornwall to Gretna Green by modern highway is over 350 miles, a not uncomfortable drive by automobile. But in medieval times Britain was covered with dense forests, and such roads as existed were rutted, muddy, subject to blockage by fallen timber, and often included treacherous fords. The forests were teeming with big, hungry beasts such as wolves, boars, bears, and wild cats and dogs. Travelers could expect to be ambushed and robbed of their money and provisions by outlaws, or asked to pay exorbitant tolls by greedy landowners. Roadside accommodations were infrequent, necessitating forest encampments and the occasional hunting and cooking of wildfowl. A journey of 350 miles for a young couple and their two faithful attendants was a dangerous proposition, and no responsible travel agent in the Middle Ages would have recommended it. Tristan and Isolde wanted to die together in the Wonderland of Night, but I'm guessing that the interior of the stomach of a wolf is not the darkness they had in mind.

American feminist notions such as yours are clearly to blame for the rise of regietheater and the decline of German culture. Tsk tsk tsk!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I am sure that those notions are indeed responsible for the decline of German culture, that I can deal with however the idea that it is also responsible for the rise of regietheater is more than I am emotionally able to handle.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> I am sure that those notions are indeed responsible for the decline of German culture, that I can deal with however the idea that it is also responsible for the rise of regietheater is more than I am emotionally able to handle.


I'm sorry, dear. It was too much all at once. I should have realized. Next time I'll distribute my criticisms among separate posts.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Harrumph! A very postmodern interpretation, I must say!
> 
> As I'm sure you're aware, the distance from Cornwall to Gretna Green by modern highway is over 350 miles, a not uncomfortable drive by automobile. But in medieval times Britain was covered with dense forests, and such roads as existed were rutted, muddy, subject to blockage by fallen timber, and often included treacherous fords. The forests were teeming with big, hungry beasts such as wolves, boars, bears, and wild cats and dogs. Travelers could expect to be ambushed and robbed of their money and provisions by outlaws, or asked to pay exorbitant tolls by greedy landowners. Roadside accommodations were infrequent, necessitating forest encampments and the occasional hunting and cooking of wildfowl. A journey of 350 miles for a young couple and their two faithful attendants was a dangerous proposition, and no responsible travel agent in the Middle Ages would have recommended it. Tristan and Isolde wanted to die together in the Wonderland of Night, but I'm guessing that the interior of the stomach of a wolf is not the darkness they had in mind.


I think those that would travel from Cornwall to Gretna Green in the middle ages sailed.
Tristan und Isolde begins on a ship after all.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Becca said:


> I have never quite understood why T&I didn't just elope to Gretna Green and save everyone a lot of emotional hassle. :wave:


Do you remember what Isolde says about Tristan in Act I?

_Todgeweihtes Haupt,
Todgeweihtes Herz!_

Head and heart dedicated to death... It seems she already saw his destiny spelled out for him in one way or another - and her own with him. A woman ready to follow her man all the way to the realm of death, how reactionary and un-feminist


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I think those that would travel from Cornwall to Gretna Green in the middle ages sailed.
> Tristan und Isolde begins on a ship after all.


A progressive medieval travel agent! You are hired to do the next staging of the alternative version. The only question is what to do for a third act. Could anything Wagnerian possibly happen in Gretna Green?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Do you remember what Isolde says about Tristan in Act I?
> 
> _Todgeweihtes Haupt,
> Todgeweihtes Herz!_
> ...


You have a point. But remember that Isolde was the one who mixed the cocktail while Tristan was dutifully upholding the patriarchal order. So who was following whom? She got the last word too!

I think Wagner was a bit of a feminist.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

I voted the third act of Tristan because of the lovely _Liebestod_ and the final resolution. Sure, it's a parlor trick, but it's a well executed parlor trick.

I voted the final act of the others because of the overwhelming sense of relief one feels when the pantomime finally ends.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> I voted the third act of Tristan because of the lovely _Liebestod_ and the final resolution. Sure, it's a parlor trick, but it's a well executed parlor trick.
> 
> I voted the final act of the others because of the overwhelming sense of relief one feels when the pantomime finally ends.


I quote you on the _Cosi fan tutte_ thread: "I query whether those who would call this 'masquerading as high art' or 'too dumb' aren't telling us more about themselves than Mozart's opera."

In this case no query is even necessary. You are telling us _only_ about yourself, and _nothing_ about Wagner.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Balthazar said:


> I voted the third act of Tristan because of the lovely _Liebestod_ and the final resolution. Sure, it's a parlor trick, but it's a well executed parlor trick.
> 
> I voted the final act of the others because of the overwhelming sense of relief one feels when the pantomime finally ends.


In terms of quips trashing Wagner we have quite great ones from the likes of Rossini, Clara Schumann, and Mark Twain. Debussy dedicated one of his most famous pieces to the mocking of Tristan. A good deal of Nietzsche's output is preoccupied with trashing Wagner. You? You're a day late and a dollar short.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Balthazar said:


> I voted the third act of Tristan because of the lovely _Liebestod_ and the final resolution. Sure, it's a parlor trick, but it's a well executed parlor trick.
> 
> I voted the final act of the others because of the overwhelming sense of relief one feels when the pantomime finally ends.





Couchie said:


> In terms of quips trashing Wagner we have quite great ones from the likes of Rossini, Clara Schumann, and Mark Twain. Debussy dedicated one of his most famous pieces to the mocking of Tristan. A good deal of Nietzsche's output is preoccupied with trashing Wagner. You? You're a day late and a dollar short.


Actually, the criticism itself is a quintessentially Nietzsche-nean one. I recently picked up Michael Tanner's book on Wagner, and its a claim that he investigates. Forgive me for the use of such extensive quotes, but he discusses the issue at greater length and depth than I could, or than otherwise would most likely take place in this thread.

*Becoming a Wagnerian is, at least incipiently, becoming like Wagner. That was once again, Nietzsche's claim.

...by a variety of means Wagner conveys the impression of an earnest orator. But what he really is is a brilliant demagogue, whose rhetoric is so resourceful that we naturally find it suspect. Anyone who genuinely believes what he says - this is our prejudice, unexamined and even sacrosanct - can communicate it without going into constant overdrive. Nietzsche, the incomparable and tireless exposer of our prejudices in all fields, subscribed uncritically to this one. Contrasting Mozart to Wagner, he cleverly takes the music that Mozart gives the Commendatore when he appears in the Supper Scene of Don Giovanni, a passage of most atypical violence and emphasis, and writes: 'Apparently you think that all music is like the music of the "Stone Guest" - all music must leap out of the wall and shake the listener to his very intestines. Only then you consider music "effective". But on whom are such effects achieved? On those whom a noble artist should never impress: on the mass, on the immature, on the blasé, on the sick, on the idiots, on the Wagnerians!" (Nietzsche contra Wagner). Once more, as so often with Nietzsche's sweeping charges,, this contains illuminating truth as well as outrageously unfair falsehood. But it does rely on the view that genuineness of a conviction can be assessed by its mode of communication, and that the extreme nature of Wagner's art, 'expressivo at all costs', as Nietzsche puts it elsewhere, betrays an uncertainty. Either that, or it hides something. Wagner's surface of nobility conceals his underlying insecurity and egoism, not to mention his pusillanimity.

It is almost impossible to find out whether these things would be said about Wagner if his well-advertised personality defects weren't known about, because the advertisement has been so successful that no one has escaped hearing about it.

...

It is the cunning interpretation of his art and his prosily expressed Weltanschauung which makes him unavoidable, together with his immense influence in so many disparate spheres. No wonder that those who resist take refuge in unrestrained polemic - they want to obliterate him, so that he can simply cease to exist as the object of endless discussion. But their polemics only fuel counterblasts, and achieve just the opposite effect from the 'marginalising' which they had hoped for. In his own last, splenetic writings on Wagner, Nietzsche acknowledged that too. There is, and will remain, a 'case of Wagner' so long as we are stuck in the cultural crisis which Nietzsche diagnosed, because Wagner embodies it to an extent which no other artist approaches.

The issue is complicated by a further one which makes Wagner's music-dramas very different from almost everything else in the operatic tradition, Schoenberg being the only notable exception. Wagner was intensely concerned that we should feel rather than think in the presence of his works. Here at least his hope has been fulfilled. But for many people, whom for convenience's sake we may call Brechtians, that in itself renders him suspect. However, it is worth noticing that they attack Wagner not so much for saying that he wanted emotional rather than cognitive responses to his art, but for the works themselves, which seem to demand an incessantly high-level emotional response more insistently than any others. But the Brechtians don't attack Verdi, for instance, in the same way, or so far as I know at all, despite the fact that his operas provide stimulus for feeling rather than thought - indeed the idea of thinking in relation to Verdi is odd. Who could reflect for long, and relevantly, on Il Trovatore, a masterpiece of its kind, but one which can only excite and move us in presenting with such vigour a succession of situations each of which is stirring? Wagner is the most intellectual of music dramatists, (Schoenberg again excepted, and up to a point Pfitzner in his explicitly Wagnerian masterpiece Palestrina); not by dint of the prodigious theological writings and continuous musings, in correspondence and conversation, about everything under the sun, if not indeed the sun itself; but by virtue of the subject-matter of his works and the kinds of issue which his characters are involved in and articulate about...And in fact the feeling which the sympathetic spectator or listener has, in the face of Wagner's works, is remarkably caught by it. They do typically work at an extremely high emotional pitch, which is resolved in the final minutes of the dramas. Therein lies much of their enormous appeal...But the progression of feeling which they induce is also precisely what makes them suspect for many people. For it involves a huge measure of trust in the artist, the more so when he pitches things at so intense a level. As we are swept through his works, mesmerised through the means which Wagner to a unique extent commands, critical distance is made impossible (so the argument goes), and we could be persuaded by him of anything.

...The easy way out, where Wagner is concerned, is the one which Nietzsche finally took, and Adorno after him, in his polemic In Search of Wagner. Both writers point to the pervasive idiom of Wagner's music, and ask, rhetorically, whether you think you can trust a man who employs those means in order to get his message across; as one might point to a politician and ask why someone who meant what he said and had something worth saying should indulge in that particular mode of speech. They have every right, indeed duty, to ask the question, but not to make it into a rhetorical one - the asking of rhetorical questions being itself an activity which needs scrutinising. Wager is, par excellence, an artist who has designs on us, and who therefore leads us to examine anew the Keatsian view, winning because of the very innocence of its dogmatism, that we should mistrust all such artists. The innocence - one which is shared by both Nietzsche and Adorno, but they go to inordinate lengths to establish their sophistication - is in imagining that there is any art which does not have designs on us, palpable or otherwise. No doubt we want, in the presence of art, to feel a peculiar freedom, and the more so the less we feel it elsewhere...But whatever the content of 'freedom' in our responses to art, it seems that the more palpable the designs an artist has on us, the freer in one way we are, since there is then no question of our thinking that he is merely presenting us with 'the facts' if he is making it perfectly clear what attitude he wants us to adopt to them.*


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I quote you on the _Cosi fan tutte_ thread: "I query whether those who would call this 'masquerading as high art' or 'too dumb' aren't telling us more about themselves than Mozart's opera."
> 
> In this case no query is even necessary. You are telling us _only_ about yourself, and _nothing_ about Wagner.


I don't see how referencing your own disparaging comments regarding _Così fan tutte_ is relevant to this thread.

The question posed here, to which I responded, is what is one's favorite act in each of the listed operas.

If you want to start a new thread to discuss aspects of Wagner and his works, go right ahead. But don't expect me to participate.

I have no interest in engaging you further on this topic.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Couchie said:


> In terms of quips trashing Wagner we have quite great ones from the likes of Rossini, Clara Schumann, and Mark Twain. Debussy dedicated one of his most famous pieces to the mocking of Tristan. A good deal of Nietzsche's output is preoccupied with trashing Wagner. You? You're a day late and a dollar short.


If you had done your homework, you would know that, unlike Wagner, I have never been a dollar short! :lol:

So I find some of his operas a bit long. Big deal. Let it go.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You have a point. But remember that Isolde was the one who mixed the cocktail while Tristan was dutifully upholding the patriarchal order. So who was following whom? She got the last word too!
> 
> I think Wagner was a bit of a feminist.


I think Wagner's message to both sexes was "Make love not war". Whether that is feminist or anti-feminist is left for everyone to decide, I don't want to argue it here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Faustian said:


> Actually, the criticism itself is a quintessentially Nietzsche-nean one. I recently picked up Michael Tanner's book on Wagner, and its a claim that he investigates. Forgive me for the use of such extensive quotes, but he discusses the issue at greater length and depth than I could, or than otherwise would most likely take place in this thread.
> 
> *Becoming a Wagnerian is, at least incipiently, becoming like Wagner. That was once again, Nietzsche's claim.
> 
> ...


Nietzsche accused Wagner of being suspect and "insincere" in his art because Wagner's musical rhetoric is more intense than it needs to be (according to Nietzsche) and thus overwhelms the listener's critical faculties.

I find that extremely revealing of Nietsche's personal relationship with Wagner. He began as a worshipful young disciple, so overwhelmed by _Tristan und Isolde_ that he wrote _The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music_ in tribute (thus kick-starting his own academic and philosophical career), but eventually needed, predictably, to establish his emotional and intellectual autonomy by directing his critical faculties at the former object of his reverence. Nietzsche's later writings could be quite mocking and vituperative toward the man and the art before which he had formerly bowed down, but he never got over his Wagnerism: he confessed to being overwhelmed by the music of _Parsifal_ even as he denounced the work, and in his final insanity he called Cosima Wagner's name, recalling his years as an adopted member of Wagner's household. I give Nietzsche's thoughts on Wagner due consideration and find some of them worth considering amid all the clever rhetoric, always aware that his love/hate toward Wagner was a projection of the internal struggle between his own emotions and intellect.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> If you had done your homework, you would know that, unlike Wagner, I have never been a dollar short! :lol:
> 
> So I find some of his operas a bit long. Big deal. Let it go.


Calling Isolde's "Liebestod" a "parlor trick" and Wagner's works "pantomimes," the ending which affords you an "overwhelming sense of relief," is a very odd way of saying that you "find some of his operas a bit long."

Why not just say that you find some of his operas a bit long - and even perhaps say which ones, and why? Does it really surprise you that others may misunderstand your real point - or understand it too well?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

People criticize Wagner because his music dramas are unbelievably, mind bogglingly, superhumanly great.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You have a point. But remember that *Isolde was the one who mixed the cocktail while Tristan was dutifully upholding the patriarchal order. So who was following whom? She got the last word too!
> 
> I think Wagner was a bit of a feminist.*












Isolde could never be a pain in the Greer- but she's certainly a fierce _princesse_ when she wants to be.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


SiegendesLicht said:



I think Wagner's message to both sexes was "Make love not war". Whether that is feminist or anti-feminist is left for everyone to decide, I don't want to argue it here.

Click to expand...

*



























There's certainly room for 'both' in Wagner's _oeuvre_. _;D_

I like my maxim:

_"Thou shalt love peace and beauty sleep as a means to the new fierce- and the short peace more than the long."_

- _Thus Spake Blair-a-thustra_

But Nietzsche's original is undeniably good too:

"Ye shall love peace as a means to new wars- and the short peace more than the long."

-Nietzsche, _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Nietzsche accused Wagner of being suspect and "insincere" in his art because Wagner's musical rhetoric is more intense than it needs to be (according to Nietzsche) and thus overwhelms the listener's critical faculties.
> 
> I find that extremely revealing of Nietsche's personal relationship with Wagner. He began as a worshipful young disciple, so overwhelmed by _Tristan und Isolde_ that he wrote _The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music_ in tribute (thus kick-starting his own academic and philosophical career), but eventually needed, predictably, to establish his emotional and intellectual autonomy by directing his critical faculties at the former object of his reverence. Nietzsche's later writings could be quite mocking and vituperative toward the man and the art before which he had formerly bowed down, but he never got over his Wagnerism: he confessed to being overwhelmed by the music of _Parsifal_ even as he denounced the work, and in his final insanity he called Cosima Wagner's name, recalling his years as an adopted member of Wagner's household. *I give Nietzsche's thoughts on Wagner due consideration and find some of them worth considering amid all the clever rhetoric, always aware that his love/hate toward Wagner was a projection of the internal struggle between his own emotions and intellect.*


Yeah, Nietzsche's _obiter dicta_ on Wagner are certainly a mixed bag- and frankly his later musings on Wagner don't interest me.

But his searing autopsy of _ressentiment _ in the _Genealogy of Morals_ is something that perhaps some people should consult for a better understanding of themselves.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Itullian said:


> People criticize Wagner because his music dramas are unbelievably, mind bogglingly, superhumanly great.


Wagners critics can never seem to agree on whether he is ceaselessly boring or dangerously saturating. The truth is he is both extremes, as well as everything in between. He is the summation and demonstration of the possibilities of tonal music. After Wagner, there was no other option for progression than atonal music.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Faustian said:


> Actually, the criticism itself is a quintessentially Nietzsche-nean one. I recently picked up Michael Tanner's book on Wagner, and its a claim that he investigates. Forgive me for the use of such extensive quotes, but he discusses the issue at greater length and depth than I could, or than otherwise would most likely take place in this thread.
> 
> *Becoming a Wagnerian is, at least incipiently, becoming like Wagner. That was once again, Nietzsche's claim.....*


I have not read Tanner's book, so I am basing my remarks on the excerpt you have quoted.

Implicit in Tanner's remarks is that Wagner's art is an art of advocacy, an art of polemics, an art of didacticism. In short, an art that trumpets to its audience, "You should think 'X'." Insofar as this holds, Wagner can be seen as an aesthetic _confrère_ of the Marquis de Sade whose_ Philosophy in the Bedroo_m is one of the great polemical masterpieces of revolutionary France.

Any art of this type will generally be divisive on two fronts:

First, there will be many in the audience who do _not_ think 'X.' They are likely to find the art unappealing on those grounds alone. As an example, I would not expect many Texas ranchers to have The Smiths' _Meat is Murder_ on their iPods. Likewise, I expect few non-Christians (or Christians for that matter) care to listen to Lisa Whelchel's _Cover Me Lord_:






Second, even among those who do think 'X' there will be many who find such didacticism aesthetically anathema. Ambiguity, or openness to a variety of interpretations, has long been a hallmark of the greatest works of art, particularly in literature.

And so freethinkers, _whether they agree with 'X' or not,_ may respond as Nietzsche did in _The Case of Wagner_ (emphasis Nietzsche's):

"_The artist of decadence._ That is the word. And here I begin to be serious. I could not think of looking on approvingly while this _décadent_ spoils our health-and music into the bargain. Is Wagner a man at all? Is he not rather a disease? Everything he touches he contaminates. _He has made music sick_."

I guess Nietzsche, for one, did not want to be force-fed an artist's worldview.

I have never considered Wagner in this light, but it is interesting food for thought. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> I have not read Tanner's book, so I am basing my remarks on the excerpt you have quoted.
> 
> *Implicit in Tanner's remarks is that Wagner's art is an art of advocacy, an art of polemics, an art of didacticism. In short, an art that trumpets to its audience, "You should think 'X'." * Insofar as this holds, *Wagner can be seen as an aesthetic confrère of the Marquis de Sade *whose_ Philosophy in the Bedroo_m is one of the great polemical masterpieces of revolutionary France.
> 
> ...


You quite misunderstand Wagner, Nietzsche, and Tanner.

When Tanner calls Wagner (perhaps quoting Nietzsche) a "brilliant demagogue" and speaks of his "rhetoric," he is speaking analogically, of a manner of musical expression. Wagner's is not an art of advocacy. It isn't basically didactic or polemical. True, it does contain, or suggest, ideas, and does so abundantly, in a degree exceptional for a composer of opera. For example, there is implicit cultural criticism: in _Tannhauser,_ of repressive attitudes toward sexuality and of religious intolerance; in the _Ring_, of the desire for power and the institutions of power, and what they do to corrupt human nature and make love impossible; in _Die Meistersinger_, of rigid tradition and the alienation of the misunderstood artist; in _Parsifal_, of the decadence of institutional religion, its destruction of authentic spirituality, the distortion of human sexuality and gender which results from its repressive practices, and the impossibility of maturing as a person until the temptation of the repressed is overcome through the full acceptance of the pain it has caused. These ideas, complex as they are, are not the only ones we can glean from these works; I cite them only as examples. But the real point to be made here is that Wagner is not fundamentally concerned that we come away from his works thinking about these ideas, or any others. He did not create operas in order to teach us things. He created, and said unambiguously that he created, in order to make us _feel_. His works are fundamentally concerned with human nature and human feeling, every bit as much as the works of any other composer of opera, and what distinguishes him is the way in which he expresses that goal, not in terms of naturalistic portrayals of characters from history or contemporary society, but in terms of archetypal figures from legend or myth who are meant to embody in concentrated forms certain aspects of the human experience, sometimes reaching into the unconscious to bring us into contact with feelings and perceptions which the portrayal of ordinary reality could not accomplish. The thoughts such portrayals may arouse in us are potentially endless, as the endless literature on Wagner attests. But conveying those thoughts was not Wagner's goal. It is in fact remarkable how little he ever said about what he wanted us to _think_ about his works, and for a man who so compulsively expressed his views in print, that is significant.

I do believe that the idea that Wagner's works are didactic is a common misconception. He is the most talked and written about of composers, he himself talked and wrote a great deal, and where he is the subject of discussion, ideas - and controversies - fly. Wagner is always an "issue." That certainly adds to his interest, but it also burdens both him and us with tons of ideological baggage which have come to be considered part and parcel of his work. If I were to make the distinction as sharp as possible, I would say that Wagner is not a polemicist but a _symbolist_ - and symbols give off rays of meaning in all directions. Wagner's operas "mean" all sorts of things, and they will not be pinned down easily to any "message."

So what was Nietzsche talking about? Not about polemics and ideologies, but about _expression._ For Nietzsche, Wagner's art demonstrated a need to overwhelm the emotions - to make everything as intense as possible, in a manner which Nietzsche diagnosed as the expression of a fundamentally insecure and overbearing personality, who sought to coerce us and to submerge and corrupt our rational faculties, in the process corrupting art itself. Whatever we may think of this "diagnosis," Nietzsche's rather bitter break with the man he had lived with and venerated, and who remained even after the break the greatest inspiration of his life, goes a long way toward explaining the volume and stridency of the words he spent "Contra Wagner." Nietzsche did object to _Parsifal_ because of what he thought it "meant" - but his view of it had more to do with his own philosophical preoccupations (and his need to denounce Wagner) than with the actual content of the work whose music he was sadly happy to admit overwhelmed him in spite of himself. (His writings are, as always, entertaining to read, and not without insight despite their obvious polemicism - that very practice in which Wagner's operas do not indulge!)

If you'll reread that passage from Tanner's book, I think you'll see that it supports what I'm getting at here.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> There's certainly room for 'both' in Wagner's _oeuvre_.


Sure. I was talking specifically about the war of the sexes _against each other_.

Brünnhilde appears to Siegmund to tell him that she had chosen him for death - and ends up trying to protect him. Isolde prepares a poison in order to kill Tristan and herself - but her anger turns to unrestrained passion. That's the sort of thing I mean.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You quite misunderstand Wagner, Nietzsche, and Tanner....[tl;dr ]


Lol. :lol: I don't misunderstand at all. I suggest you read more carefully.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Sure. I was talking specifically about the war of the sexes _against each other_.
> 
> Brünnhilde appears to Siegmund to tell him that she had chosen him for death - and ends up trying to protect him. Isolde prepares a poison in order to kill Tristan and herself - but her anger turns to unrestrained passion. That's the sort of thing I mean.


Marschallin intentions, blonde realities.

Thanks for the Blairification on that, SiegendesLicht.

Now I understand.

Or at least I 'think' I do.

_;D_

Wagner forever!- all the same.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Wagners critics can never seem to agree on whether he is ceaselessly boring or dangerously saturating. The truth is he is both extremes, as well as everything in between. He is the summation and demonstration of the possibilities of tonal music. After Wagner, there was no other option for progression than atonal music.


Agree with the first half of that. If by "tonal music" you mean only common practice, I largely agree with the second as well. He didn't explore other tonal systems, of course, and the music of many composers "progressed" by doing so.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Wagners critics can never seem to agree on whether he is ceaselessly boring or dangerously saturating. The truth is he is both extremes, as well as everything in between. *He is the summation and demonstration of the possibilities of tonal music. *


I didn't express in my last post how much I appreciate this statement.

I recall reading a statement somewhere that the score of _Parsifal_ recapitulates the history of Western tonal music. This is so nearly true that we might almost suspect that this was his conscious intention. In this last work Wagner pits against each other, musically and symbolically, the extreme poles of diatonic and chromatic harmony from Palestrina to _Tristan_ and beyond, and moves between them with a subtlety and an expressive specificity that never loses its power to astonish. In pushing tonality to the limit while affirming its simplest foundations, he pays it its highest tribute.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Stop talking about each other and discuss Wagner's operas instead.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I once had a go at Michael Tanner's book. To quote Groucho Marx "From the moment I picked up your book, until the moment I put it down I couldn't stop laughing. Someday I intend to read it." Heavy duty but I'd rather listen to Wagner than read this sort of stuff. Life is way too short. :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Stop talking about each other and discuss Wagner's operas instead.


What might help is if moderators took a firmer line when posters go way off topic or when posters comment on threads about topics they clearly dislike or have minimal interest in and do nothing but criticise, and not in a constructive way. We have a like button. Wouldn't it be useful to have a dislike button?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Balthazar said:


> This is an interesting idea that has been bandied about more than once (perhaps better discussed in Area 51).
> 
> How do you feel such a rule would apply to these posts from the _Così fan tutte_ thread posted prior to my participation in this thread (emphasis added)?


I'll let you make the call, Balthazar. But I would remind you that I did say on the Cosi thread that my comments were made as my poor attempt to highlight the fact that all too often people hijack threads for their own purposes when they clearly have little or no interest in the subject of that particular thread. I suppose we are all guilty of that to some extent but I try not to do it too often and only if I read something that really winds my wool. Rational discussion rarely takes place anywhere anyway, witness the EU's attempts to get some sort of policy in place regarding the thorny issue of immigration and this forum is no different. It's too difficult to get your point across when you can't see the expressions on your, I nearly said antagonist here, co-respondents face. Ah well, it would be a dull place if we all sang off the same hymn sheet.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Parsifal Act One. The Gurnemanz monolog is glorious. Some of Wagner's most beautiful and inspired music are found right here in this act.

Die Walküre. Act One is so popular, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the great Wotan farewell to his beloved, though disobedient daughter Brünnhilde. So Act Three is my choice. It really lights my fire.

Götterdämmerung is so damn glorious from the opening notes of the Prologue with the 3 Norns to the last note of Brünnhilde's Immolation Scene, I can't choose an individual act. This is simply the greatest opera Wagner ever composed, in my opinion. A hauntingly beautiful opera. Give me the whole thing or give me nothing!

I notice that Die Meistersinger, Wagner's second greatest opera is missing from the poll. I will comment on it. My favorite act is Act Two, from the effervescent, bubbly prelude right through the tumultuous crowd scene, protesting the late night din created by Sachs and Beckmesser, ultimately dissipating into a beautifully tender ending, spoiled by a ffff chord at the end. It is one of the funniest AND most tender acts in all opera.

As far as Siegfried is concerned, Act Three must be the choice for the glorious Brünnhilde awakening scene AND the funniest line in all opera given to Siegfried, "Das ist kein Mann"!
Kein Mann, indeed! 

Tristan doesn't do it for me, so no acts here for me.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I once had a go at Michael Tanner's book. To quote Grouch Marx "From the moment I picked up your book, until the moment I put it down I couldn't stop laughing. Someday I intend to read it." Heavy duty but I'd rather listen to Wagner than read this sort of stuff. Life is way too short. :lol:


I find time for both. 

For me, Wagner's operas are endlessly fascinating and thought provoking, and I find a thoughtful and intelligent discussion on them valuable.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Some posts were deleted since they were off-topic and focused on other members.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Some posts were deleted since they were off-topic and focused on other members.


Thank you. Back to Wagner, and not a moment too soon!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Barbebleu said:


> What might help is if moderators took a firmer line when posters go way off topic or when posters comment on threads about topics they clearly dislike or have minimal interest in and do nothing but criticise, and not in a constructive way.


Depending on the details we sometimes do take further actions than deleting posts.



Barbebleu said:


> We have a like button. Wouldn't it be useful to have a dislike button?


A dislike button has been discussed at times. We feel that a dislike button could be quite detrimental to the forum. People tend to feel good when receiving likes, and similarly, they would feel bad when receiving a dislike. Receiving dislikes would cause some to feel inhibited posting, and they might post less often. Some would feel uncomfortable posting at all and maybe leave the forum. People could dislike posts simply to punish others. The overall effect would likely decrease membership and posting significantly so we will not add a dislike button.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

So far nobody has chosen the first act one Tristan. Heh, I guess I'm not alone. I've always found acts 2 and 3 to be much better.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Depending on the details we sometimes do take further actions than deleting posts.
> 
> A dislike button has been discussed at times. We feel that a dislike button could be quite detrimental to the forum. People tend to feel good when receiving likes, and similarly, they would feel bad when receiving a dislike. Receiving dislikes would cause some to feel inhibited posting, and they might post less often. Some would feel uncomfortable posting at all and maybe leave the forum. People could dislike posts simply to punish others. The overall effect would likely decrease membership and posting significantly so we will not add a dislike button.


Seems fair enough. Although I'm a little disappointed that we seem to be afflicted with the worldwide need to not make people feel bad. It's the Alice in Wonderland syndrome - all shall have prizes. Heaven forfend that you should ever be disappointed in life. Rest assured, it is pretty inevitable.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Barbebleu said:


> Seems fair enough. Although I'm a little disappointed that we seem to be afflicted with the worldwide need to not make people feel bad. It's the Alice in Wonderland syndrome - all shall have prizes. Heaven forfend that you should ever be disappointed in life. Rest assured, it is pretty inevitable.


It's not so much that a dislike button would make some people feel bad. It's more that a dislike button could have devastating negative effects on the forum posting and membership.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> It's not so much that a dislike button would make some people feel bad. It's more that a dislike button could have devastating negative effects on the forum posting and membership.


I appreciate that Mmsbis. No judgement intended, merely an observation.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

EarthBoundRules said:


> So far nobody has chosen the first act one Tristan. Heh, I guess I'm not alone. I've always found acts 2 and 3 to be much better.


Act 1 does kind of get lost in the hindsight of the soaring emotions of the second act and the great catharsis of the third act. But it's still tremendous in its own right. The way that Wagner sets the stage of the psychological drama and paints the picture of Isolde's searing jealousy is extraordinary. Plus the the overall arch of the act, ending with Tristan and Isolde lost in a daze while the outside world comes crashing down on them with King Marke's arrival always leaves me on the edge of my seat.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just listening to the Immolation scene in Gotterdamerung. If one puts aside the implausibility the libretto - of a woman riding a horse into a fire, etc, it certainly contains some glorious music. One of the highlights of the Ring for me, especially with the BPO playing rapturously and Denersch singng like an angel!


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Thank you everyone for your votes & opinions. 

Confirmed my feeling about the Walküre not having a universally accepted "best" act. Surprised Tristan III is so popular. But Woodduck's explanation makes a lot of sense.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

^^^Marjorie Lawrence actually rode a horse in the Immolation Scene.

This short clip from the movie _"Interrupted Melody"_ reenacted the deed.

_



_
This is actually quite dangerous: the horse may feel disturbed by the light and loud music, and it may be out of control.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Terrific! Yes, Marjorie Lawrence actually rode Grane into the flames. That woman had pluck, and her story is worth reading, or watching.

That was Eileen Farrell singing, by the way (but obviously not riding, for which I'm sure the horse was grateful).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Terrific! Yes, Marjorie Lawrence actually rode Grane into the flames. That woman had pluck, and her story is worth reading, or watching.
> 
> *That was Eileen Farrell singing, by the way (but obviously not riding, for which I'm sure the horse was grateful).*


Neigh sayer.

Noble steeds with horse sense and stable thinking can take on any hippobottomus.


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Real Granes seem to have been more common in the past. In this interview Martha Mödl tells how she performed next to an old military horse which did not at all like it when she sang the high note at "sei mir gegr*ü*ßt":


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

You have to wonder how any horse could just stand there placidly for twenty minutes alongside a screaming ex-valkyrie. Do opera horses go to equine finishing schools, or do they just get extra treats for good behavior?


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

^^^^ In the new MET Ring just need a couple squirts of oil to behave (like the squeaky tin man in wizard of oz) 










As an added benefit the brilliant minds at the MET have also eliminated the "animal waste" problem.....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DarkAngel said:


> ^^^^ In the new MET Ring just need a couple squirts of oil to behave (like the squeaky tin man in wizard of oz)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you (?) for bringing that brilliant coup de theatre to my attention. I'll try not to remember it next time I listen to _Gotterdammerung._


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> You have to wonder how any horse could just stand there placidly for twenty minutes alongside a screaming ex-valkyrie. Do opera horses go to equine finishing schools, or do they just get extra treats for good behavior?


 Mödl says she always gave her horse at the MET sugar cubes. But despite that it had to wear shoes because it used to paw (?) the ground, especially during the quiet passages of the immolation scene.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ah. Necessity is the mother of tin horses.

But really, invisible horses are probably best.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Woodduck said:



You have to wonder how any horse could just stand there placidly for twenty minutes alongside a screaming ex-valkyrie. Do opera horses go to equine finishing schools, or do they just get extra treats for good behavior?

Click to expand...

*










They go to prep school, of course.

Horses which go lame early don't attend equine finishing schools are always the first out of their gait.


----------

