# Most Embarrassing Passage In The Whole Wagnerian Canon



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Although I am a longtime Wagner nut (my first operatic love really) this does not mean I bow and scrape with reverence at everything he wrote. For me there is one invariably cringe-inducing scene: the whole noisy passage in Act 2, exactly when Tristan and Isolde rush in:

TRISTAN: Isolde! Beloved!

ISOLDE: Tristan Beloved! Are you mine?

TRISTAN: Do I hold you again?

ISOLDE: Dare I embrace you?

TRISTAN: Can I believe it?

ISOLDE: At last! At last!

TRISTAN: Here on my breast!

ISOLDE: Is it really you I feel?

TRISTAN: Do I really see you?

and so on..

You can listen to it beginning at precisely 16:32 until 18:13






I've always found the instrumental and vocal writing here to be.... 'superficial'. Thankfully it only lasts a couple minutes and then following it we have that wonderful 15 minute chunk all the way through the 'Liebesnacht'.

I've been listening to _Tristan_ for 29 years now and I honestly think the above 2 minute segment is the most embarrassing passage in all of mature Wagner..... Appallingly vulgar music.

Does anybody else feel this way?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "the whole noisy passage". The passage typed out above begins "precisely" at 16:10 and the Liebesnacht begins around 22:45. That is 6:35 minutes of music, most of it noisy (winding down towards the start of the Liebesnacht). Not sure where your "until 18:13" cutoff comes from.

However, you have linked to the cut (abominable) version. The authentic version runs a good 10 minutes longer from 15:45 to 32:15 as in this video: 



. That is 16:30 minutes of "noisy" music before you get to the Liebesnacht. You take issue with this whole segment?

The (sloppy and horrific) cut occurs at 18:50 in your video and excludes 18:42 to 27:53 of the music in my post.

I am inclined to agree that when they first reunite in Act II in the passage you typed out, that's a bit hammy, although not altogether above the baseline of hamminess established in _Siegfried_.

If you are taking issue however with the entire "noisy" exchange between Tristan and Isolde prior to the Liebesnacht, then you are out to lunch. That is some of the most effortlessly perfect "endless melody" that Wagner serves up. You can practically reach out in front of you and feel the resistance as your palms move through the thick, rich orchestration of the aural ocean.

Perhaps its most important function is to somewhat exhaust the listener so they are properly prepared to submit to the Liebesnacht. I wouldn't be without it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

You really forced me to go back and listen to this from a fresh standpoint. Sure, the dialogue, read without music, is a little, well, silly. But you know what? Hopeless romantic passion is a little silly - sometimes more than a little. Remember, Tristan and Isolde are young people. Young people in love are insane. This music is insane, and the dialogue fits it perfectly. It's also danged brilliant in its structure and pacing, beginning at a pitch of frenzy and then slowly descending into the depths of _Liebesnacht_, after which, if the performance is any good, we are barely breathing.

Vulgar, maybe. Appalling, absolutely. The whole opera is appalling, appalling like an erupting volcano, or a tsunami, or Fenrir swallowing the sun. The greatest moment in Wagner? No. I'm inclined to go against the popular notion that Wagner is best when he's most violent. I feel that his greatest moments tend to be quiet ones, when the hush lets us hear voices from other worlds. But for what it is and where it is, this passage works for me.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Yay, a Wagner thread that talks about the music. :tiphat:


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Hi,



> However, you have linked to the cut (abominable) version. The authentic version runs a good 10 minutes longer from 15:45 to 32:15 as in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> . That is 16:30 minutes of "noisy" music before you get to the Liebesnacht




Yes, thanks for the correction! I was focusing so much on the entrance and looking for a Vickers recording that I didn't continue listening to hear those awful cuts.



> You take issue with this whole segment?



Oh no, no, no!.... I am referring *only* to the segment when Tristan rushes in, when they embrace and onwards for about 2 minutes. It doesn't matter who is singing or conducting -- I find this scene so disappointing on a _purely musical level_.

When does the score immediately improve for me? Exactly at Tristan's words: *Das Licht! Das Licht! O dieses Licht, wie lang verlosch es nicht!*.

From this point forward I have no complaints at all and can 'get back' into the opera.



> I am inclined to agree that when they first reunite in Act II in the passage you typed out, that's a bit hammy, although not altogether above the baseline of hamminess established in _Siegfried_.



Hmm.... No, I think the love music in _Siegfried_ is superb and without a trace of the 'hysteria'.



> If you are taking issue however with the entire "noisy" exchange between Tristan and Isolde prior to the Liebesnacht, then you are out to lunch.
> 
> That is some of the most effortlessly perfect "endless melody" that Wagner serves up. You can practically reach out in front of you and feel the resistance as your palms move through the thick, rich orchestration of the aural ocean.



Agree completely.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Thanks for the clarification. I can sleep now.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

The most embarrassing moment for me was not in the opera itself, but in a passage of the subtitled translation in a video I have. In Act III after Tristan has been raving maniacally for about an hour, he is made to say "Here I lie, silent and dying."


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Revenant said:


> The most embarrassing moment for me was not in the opera itself, but in a passage of the subtitled translation in a video I have. In Act III after Tristan has been raving maniacally for about an hour, he is made to say "Here I lie, silent and dying."


Only in opera!!:lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm always baffled by Tristan, with the girl of his dreams in his arms, saying, "Let me die!"
Now when I fell wildly in love with a girl (who became my wife) and knew she loved me, all I wanted to do was to live and enjoy the relationship I had with her!
I know Tristan's response is the product of a daft philosophy that Wagner had read but didn't believe himself (at least in practice), but it strikes one as decidedly laughable!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I'm always baffled by Tristan, with the girl of his dreams in his arms, saying, "Let me die!"
> Now when I fell wildly in love with a girl (who became my wife) and knew she loved me, all I wanted to do was to live and enjoy the relationship I had with her!
> I know Tristan's response is the product of a daft philosophy that Wagner had read but didn't believe himself (at least in practice), but it strikes one as decidedly laughable!


You're much too practical. 
This is high emotional mythology. He faces an all consuming love with a woman he knows he can't be with.
Except, he believes, in death.
Many suicides occur in similar circumstances.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

I have to agree with Couchie and Woodduck in their assessment; but this thread has gotten me thinking about what I _would_ consider the most embarrassing passage in Wagner's canon. Leaving aside the operas before _Der fliegende Holländer_, I'm having trouble thinking of a passage that fits that description. Possibly Tannhäuser's rapturous outburst in the song contest and the reaction of shock, dismay and horror from the audience at the Wartburg?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I have to agree with Couchie and Woodduck in their assessment; but this thread has gotten me thinking about what I _would_ consider the most embarrassing passage in Wagner's canon. Leaving aside the operas before _Der fliegende Holländer_, I'm having trouble thinking of a passage that fits that description. Possibly Tannhäuser's rapturous outburst in the song contest and the reaction of shock, dismay and horror from the audience at the Wartburg?


I've been working on this too, and the best I can really come up with is Brunnhilde's horse, for which there simply is no effective stage representation. It's silly if you have a Grane and silly (though less silly) if you don't. The _Ring_ is fraught with problems of stagecraft, most of which, in our era, can be worked out reasonably well, but must have driven Wagner bananas. But _musical_ embarrassments? The original Venusberg is a bit weak - the revised version is far superior - but I wouldn't call it embarrassing. Maybe King Marke drones on a bit too long, and I really don't welcome him holding up the _Liebestod_ in Act 3, but he's not embarrassing, just a tad tiresome. Hans Sachs walks a fine line with his final speech on German art; it feels a bit gratuitous, and I'm glad it's reasonably short and we still get to go home exhilarated. But I don't think anyone not hung up on a "Wagner as proto-Nazi" narrative is going to consider it embarrassing.

I have to conclude that the main risk of embarrassment in Wagner is in the staging: he asks for the (literally) supernatural, and bungling his special effects can be as giggle-inducing as farting in church.

What time _does_ the next swan leave?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Woodduck said:
> 
> 
> > I've been working on this too, and the best I can really come up with is Brunnhilde's horse, for which there simply is no effective stage representation. It's silly if you have a Grane and silly (though less silly) if you don't. The _Ring_ is fraught with problems of stagecraft, most of which, in our era, can be worked out reasonably well, but must have driven Wagner bananas. But _musical_ embarrassments? The original Venusberg is a bit weak - the revised version is far superior - but I wouldn't call it embarrassing. Maybe King Marke drones on a bit too long, and I really don't welcome him holding up the _Liebestod_ in Act 3, but he's not embarrassing, just a tad tiresome. Hans Sachs walks a fine line with his final speech on German art; it feels a bit gratuitous, and I'm glad it's reasonably short and we still get to go home exhilarated. But I don't think anyone not hung up on a "Wagner as proto-Nazi" narrative is going to consider it embarrassing.
> ...


Hey, better never than late. Wagner had the genius to think up "_Mein lieber Schwan_." It's the director's job to implement it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> You're much too practical.
> This is high emotional mythology. He faces an all consuming love with a woman he knows he can't be with.
> Except, he believes, in death.
> Many suicides occur in similar circumstances.


Exactly! Mythology! 
Many suicides? Can you name any outside of fiction?
Wagner had many all-consuming love affairs with women he knew he couldn't be with but it didn't drive into suicide!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

To me Wagner is always a composer whose imagination far outstripped what could be managed in the theatre. His grandson gave up realistic staging of the opera is as he knew they could look ridiculous. For all its posturing as high art, the actual visual effect of much of Wagner has a ridiculous effect when seen, especially as the singers are often far larger or older than they should be. 
That's why I far prefer to listen to Wagner rather than watch it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> To me Wagner is always a composer whose imagination far outstripped what could be managed in the theatre. His grandson gave up realistic staging of the opera is as he knew they could look ridiculous. For all its posturing as high art, the actual visual effect of much of Wagner has a ridiculous effect when seen, especially as the singers are often far larger or older than they should be.
> That's why I far prefer to listen to Wagner rather than watch it.


I sympathize with this, except the bit about "posturing" (it's all right, I can catch your Molotov cocktails in one hand! :devil. Wagner's art is high indeed, but it far overtaxed the theater of his day and is still a challenge to the technology of ours. If I ran things the film industry would come to RW's rescue and finally give us the visual realization of his visions. I've talked for decades with a friend and fellow enthusiast about the potential of Wagner on film, but, sadly, we have no money and no one listens to us.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I sympathize with this, except the bit about "posturing" (it's all right, I can catch your Molotov cocktails in one hand! :devil. Wagner's art is high indeed, but it far overtaxed the theater of his day and is still a challenge to the technology of ours. If I ran things the film industry would come to RW's rescue and finally give us the visual realization of his visions. I've talked for decades with a friend and fellow enthusiast about the potential of Wagner on film, but, sadly, we have no money and no one listens to us.


There are animated movies, like the one they did years ago of Beowulf, in which the animation is based closely on the acting of live actors, then scrupulously transferred and turned into animated graphics. The best possible product makes you believe that you are watching something very close to live actors, without the hindrance of physical limitations. The CGI action would morph seamlessly with the live-based figures - again, if done well and state of the art all the way. Imagine a Ring where such filmmakers would have the technique, inspiration, taste and discernment to pull this off. And they use singers in the soundtrack that are fine enough that no one would need to mike them. But... nah... ain't going to happen. Not in my lifetime, or ever, I think. But, to paraphrase Kafka, I sit by my window when evening falls and dream about it.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I've been working on this too, and the best I can really come up with is Brunnhilde's horse, for which there simply is no effective stage representation. It's silly if you have a Grane and silly (though less silly) if you don't.


There's nothing silly about it if Grane is a real horse as intended. Marjorie Lawrence famously rode a real horse into the pyre in the 30's. You can see the hollywood representation of that here:






Albeit with the actor's over-the-top theatrics and the audience applauding far before the end of the opera, the horse is about the only the only thing in that scene _not _embarrassing.

I guess the expense and difficult logistics of using real horses keeps them off the stage. And the poop.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Couchie said:


> There's nothing silly about it if Grane is a real horse as intended. Marjorie Lawrence famously rode a real horse into the pyre in the 30's. You can see the hollywood representation of that here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't realize that the late Eleanor Parker had such a credible singing voice. I wonder why they didn't give her any numbers in The Sound of Music.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Revenant said:


> I didn't realize that the late Eleanor Parker had such a credible singing voice. I wonder why they didn't give her any numbers in The Sound of Music.


She is lip-syncing. The voice is that of Eileen Farrell.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> There are animated movies, like the one they did years ago of Beowulf, in which the animation is based closely on the acting of live actors, then scrupulously transferred and turned into animated graphics. The best possible product makes you believe that you are watching something very close to live actors, without the hindrance of physical limitations. The CGI action would morph seamlessly with the live-based figures - again, if done well and state of the art all the way. Imagine a Ring where such filmmakers would have the technique, inspiration, taste and discernment to pull this off. And they use singers in the soundtrack that are fine enough that no one would need to mike them. But... nah... ain't going to happen. Not in my lifetime, or ever, I think. But, to paraphrase Kafka, I sit by my window when evening falls and dream about it.


In the next world, Revenant, in the next world. Hope to see you in the _Filmspielhaus_ to come.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Couchie said:


> She is lip-syncing. The voice is that of Eileen Farrell.


Oh I see now what they did there.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Hans Sachs walks a fine line with his final speech on German art; it feels a bit gratuitous, and I'm glad it's reasonably short and we still get to go home exhilarated.


Ah yes, that's a contender; though I agree with you, superfluous is a better description for it than embarrassing. One wishes that Wagner had gone with his instincts to strike the passage out and not let Cosima talk him into not only keeping it but expanding it. It's the only case that I can think of that Wagner made any kind of concession in regards to his art; and unfortunately it has the effect of protracting the end of the opera without adding anything of great worth.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

There was a scene in the Wagner miniseries with the two principle singers rehearsing this exact section of Tristan with the composer, and struggling to make it work. I think it is just so technically demanding that the words don't always come out with the full effect.






It makes sense to me that you find it vulgar, but in the sense that their love is a little hysterical at that particular moment in time, it seems justified.


----------

