# Wagner and Nazis (yet again!)



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

So...

The controversy will never end, of course.

Hear is the latest. Discuss as you will, but avoid repetition of points raised in previous debates, if possible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19111188


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KRoad said:


> So...
> 
> The controversy will never end, of course.
> 
> ...


:lol:, is that possible?


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

The article includes this gem...



> They will be much wrestling with the past next year on Wagner's 200th birthday.He was the author of nasty little anti-Semitic tracts and there is an on-going and fiery debate about whether anti-Semitism permeates the operas.
> And if it does (and, to my mind, you cannot avoid it in some) can they still be enjoyed by *right-thinking people*, Jewish or not?


 (my bold)

IMO, there's no such thing as 'right-thinking people' unless you mean those people who aim to think what they believe they are supposed to think, at least in terms of the more complex moral dilemmas. This doesn't apply only to Wagner, surely? I mean, if it's 'wrong' to take pleasure out of something composed by someone who holds unacceptable views, could it also apply to the product of the misery inflicted on others, for example: should I take pleasure in negro spiritual music (and, by extension, blues, and, by extension, rock and roll...etc etc) ?

Or, for that matter, anything produced commercially that is built on the exploitation of cheap labour markets?

Where do we stop?


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

aleazk said:


> :lol:, is that possible?


No it isn't. And we have already seen one comment that has been made dozens of times previously. It's such a tedious, tired old subject here on TC.

I spotted the BBC news item earlier today, read it, and thought it was very vacuous and probably written as a mere space-filler because there's little other non-Olympic news today.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> No it isn't. And we have already seen one comment that has been made dozens of times previously. It's such a tedious, tired old subject here on TC.
> 
> I spotted the BBC news item earlier today, read it, and thought it was very vacuous and probably written as a mere space-filler because there's little other non-Olympic news today.


Thanks for that swipe VSM: here's hoping that another member might nevertheless be interested in the possibilities of the subject. Just because you've worn out your interest, doesn't mean that I've worn out mine - you know what to do if you're not interested...


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

There were no Nazis at the lifetime of Wagner 
and 
Wagner wasn't alive at the time of Nazis.

So what the hell the world is debating about?! The people at the time of Wagner weren't idiots. They could easily understand his points of view and form Nazi ideology if Wagner was the source of it. *Bismark* the greatest German prime minister ever didn't do that...
Nationalism didn't make 3rd reich. It is a mixture of many things mainly Racism and Eugenics forced into a Nationalistic-Socialistic form of government.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

From the article:



> And everybody was very excited about the Russian baritone, Evgeny Nikitin, in the title role of the new production of the Flying Dutchman.
> 
> And then the papers had to go and spoil it.
> 
> They got hold of a picture of the star singer in a previous incarnation - as a heavy-metal drummer in a Russian rock band, with a very large swastika tattooed on his chest.


I do find it rather crass of the article to insinuate that the papers spoiled everything by bringing up a trifling, irrelevant issue. A swastika on the chest of the star singer seems a bit more than trifling to me, even if it was the result of adolescence gone awry. Considering that the Third Reich is still in living memory for many people today, surely it's not such a mystery why these issues would continue to stir controversy? It frankly baffles me when people express puzzlement that the the Wagner/Nazi issue is so sensitive.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> There were no Nazis at the lifetime of Wagner
> and
> Wagner wasn't alive at the time of Nazis.
> 
> So what the hell the world is debating about?!.


Arsakes, I am sorry to have to say this is a simplistic and ahistorical view masquerading as an historically-informed one.

Read up on the Brahms-Wagner feud, for instance, and you will see how much the ostensibly purely aesthetic disagreement between the two was in fact inextricably linked to larger political and ideological disagreements, Brahms's musical conservatism being politically allied to then-prevailing bourgeois liberalism and Wagner's radicalism aligning itself with (and receiving material support from) the most politically reactionary, authoritarian, and extremist nationalist elements of his time & place.

Claiming that Wagner made no contributions to the rise of the Nazis because the Nazi Party did not exist in his lifetime is either silliness or sophistry. The Nazi party did not spring forth Athena-like from the metaphorical forehead of the German Worker's Party in the 1920s. The rise of the Nazi party would not have been possible if its road to ideological legitimacy had not been laid for decades through the overlapping efforts of the Völkisch movement, German nationalism and anti-semitism, all of which Wagner was connected with, indeed central to, as Nietzsche long ago discussed in _The Case of Wagner_ (1888). Nietzsche's study indeed gives the lie to the fanciful notion that asserting that Wagner contributed to the eventual rise to power of the Nazi Party is some kind of contemporary ahistoricism. Quite the reverse, in fact.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> So what the hell the world is debating about?! The people at the time of Wagner weren't idiots. They could easily understand his points of view and form Nazi ideology if Wagner was the source of it. *Bismark* the greatest German prime minister ever didn't do that...
> Nationalism didn't make 3rd reich. It is a mixture of many things mainly Racism and Eugenics forced into a Nationalistic-Socialistic form of government.


I don't think anyone argues that Wagner was the sole source of the Third Reich. As you said, it was a mixture of many things, including but not limited to nationalism. But nationalism was a part of it nonetheless, and there's no way around the fact that Wagner was a central element to that nationalism. Is he the sole source? Of course not. Is he implicated in it? Yes, in my opinion.

Even if Wagner had not authored anti-Semitic tracts that were directly inspirational to the Third Reich, his music was blasted into the ears of prisoners as they were marched into the death camps. Obviously that's not Wagner's fault, any more than James Holmes's actions were Christopher Nolan's fault. But unless we have the gall to ask the survivors and family members of the victims of Aurora, "Just forget about all that other stuff: what did you think of the _movie_?", then I don't think it's inappropriate to show some sensitivity toward an incident that was incalculably more horrific.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Wagner and the Nazis are connected by more than antisemitism. If that were the sole connection, Wagner would be 'one-of-a-million'. It's when antisemitism is combined with a fixation on 'Aryans' that a cosiness is perceived - and was played upon by the Nazis.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

the quandary is whether its okay to enjoy the artistic output of somebody with beliefs you fundamentally disagree with. I personally think it is. However, I think it becomes more difficult when the work itself expresses those beliefs, rather than other things the composer was interested in. For example, I really like reggae and ska music, and there's some Jamaican reggae musicians who are extremely homophobic, and their lyrics explicitly express that hatred and call for violence against LGBT people... but the music itself it beautiful. I don't know how I feel about that. I mean, its not music that impacts me on the level of something by Beethoven or Ives or Chopin, so if I can't reconcile these facts, its not a huge deal, but it does bother me that somebody could unironiclly write something so evil and sick, and then set it to beautiful music. I have a similar opinion regarding some of Norway's black metal (which is more akin to Wagner in views), some of which expresses racist and antisemitic sentiments.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> However, I think it becomes more difficult when the work itself expresses those beliefs


True, and I do think some of Wagner's works fall into this category, though not any one of the ones that were featured in this year's Bayreuth festival. On the other hand, the festival's production of _Flying Dutchman_ had no problem raising issues that Wagner himself had no intention of raising (and for this I applaud them), so it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to discuss works beyond the purview of what the composer was trying to accomplish in them.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> True, and I do think some of Wagner's works fall into this category, though not any one of the ones that were featured in this year's Bayreuth festival. On the other hand, the festival's production of _Flying Dutchman_ had no problem raising issues that Wagner himself had no intention of raising (and for this I applaud them), so it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to discuss works beyond the purview of what the composer was trying to accomplish in them.


That is a good point ^^


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I do find it rather crass of the article to insinuate that the papers spoiled everything by bringing up a trifling, irrelevant issue. A swastika on the chest of the star singer seems a bit more than trifling to me...

Let's get real, here. The swastika... Nazi imagery in general... is just part of the imagery employed by endless heavy metal bands... along with smoke, leather, chains, and Satanic images/texts. How many ignorant adolescents or band members really consider the meanings behind any of this? How many American country bands and Nascar racers consider the implications behind the Confederate flag?

Claiming that Wagner made no contributions to the rise of the Nazis because the Nazi Party did not exist in his lifetime is either silliness or sophistry. The Nazi party did not spring forth Athena-like from the metaphorical forehead of the German Worker's Party in the 1920s. The rise of the Nazi party would not have been possible if its road to ideological legitimacy had not been laid for decades through the overlapping efforts of the Völkisch movement, German nationalism and anti-semitism, all of which Wagner was connected with, indeed central to, as Nietzsche long ago discussed in The Case of Wagner (1888).

Give me a break; Wagner was far from being central to German Nationalism... and German Nationalism was in itself not necessarily something negative. No one speaks of the Italian Nationalism promoted by Verdi or the Czech Nationalism of Dvorak. The reality is that the period was one in which a great many people were pushing for the unification or consolidation of states that had long been under the control of the larger unified Nations such as France and Great Britain. Nor was antisemitism something unique to Germany. We needn't discuss the experiences of the Jews in Spain, Russia, Poland, France, or Britain. As has been noted one more than one occasion the only surprising thing about the Holocaust is that it didn't occur in France.

Wagner unquestionably published antisemitic essays. Much of this was a lashing out at composers far more successful than himself (Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn) who represented an approach to music that he was opposed to. He argued that because Jews had no connection to the German spirit, Jewish musicians were only capable of producing shallow and artificial music. In spite of this, Wagner's actions speak differently that his writings. The composer had any number of close Jewish friends, including Samuel Lehrs, a friend and philospher from his early years, about whom Wagner would continue to write years later and to whom he credited with the inspiration of his first operas. There was Karl Tausig, a young talented Jewish pianist that he befriended. Jacques Halévy, a French composer, was also an admired friend of Wagner. Wagner wrote numerous laudatory comments in praise of Halévy's operas in his journals. Then there were the Lehman women, Marie and her daughters Marie and Lilli who became a talented Wagnerian soprano. The impresario, Angelo Neumann was the man Wagner granted rights to preform the Ring across Europe, while conductor Hermann Levi was personally selected by Wagner to premier Parsifal.

Even if we accept the fact that Wagner was antisemitic... and he surely had worse character flaws than this... he was not alone in this; nearly every composer before Beethoven... raised with a profound belief in the teachings of the Christian churches... would have been antisemitic. Other composers, such as Chopin, have been known to have been far more openly antisemitic than Wagner ever was. But the problem is that Wagner's music (and his antisemitic writings) were adopted and employed by the Nazis toward ends Wagner could never have imagined.

But ultimately we are discussing Wagner's music and not the man. Wagner, however, is continually plagued by the modern obsession with the cult of personality... the notion that the work of art is little more than some journal in which we can uncover the inner thinking of the artist. But does the music itself reveal Wagner's antisemitic thinking? I have yet to be convinced of such. Not once in Wagner's journals does he speak of any intention to characterize the Jews through his operas. All the suggested examples made by critics are a real stretch of the imagination and unconvincing to say the least. It may also be somewhat telling that the imagined antisemitic message of Wagner's operas hasn't seemed to bother many of his strongest supporters, including Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism and Wagner lover, as well as Jewish conductors and Wagnerians, including the above-mentioned Hermann Levi, George Solti, and Daniel Barenboim.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I do think some of Wagner's works fall into this category

Please do illuminate us because you obviously have stumbled upon an element in Wagner's music that conductors such as George Solti and Daniel Barenboim seemingly failed to recognize. But perhaps you have a far greater grasp of Wagner's intentions than they.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The swastika... Nazi imagery in general... is just part of the imagery employed by endless heavy metal bands


Quite right, and it's pretty tasteless when they do it too.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> How many ignorant adolescents or band members really consider the meanings behind any of this? How many American country bands and Nascar racers consider the implications behind the Confederate flag?


Very few, I would imagine, which is why I find them as repugnant as the young Nikitin.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Please do illuminate us because you obviously have stumbled upon an element in Wagner's music that conductors such as George Solti and Daniel Barenboim seemingly failed to recognize. But perhaps you have a far greater grasp of Wagner's intentions than they.


What a puerile response.

I would put _Die Meistersinger_ in this category, primarily (but not solely) for Hans Sach's exhortation, in the opera's final scene, to honor the German tradition and distrust those who are not part of it, lest (as he puts it) "princes no longer understand the language of theirs subjects." I would also include the parts of the Ring cycle that revolve around Siegfried, the hero of the saga and the one character who happens to be born of pure blood. Many would consider these only coincidentally parallel with Wagner's politics. I don't.

Despite your Appeal to Celebrity reasoning, I make no claims about what Solti or Barenboim "failed" to recognize. Would they agree with me? Surely not. But I'm not asking them to.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> the quandary is whether its okay to enjoy the artistic output of somebody with beliefs you fundamentally disagree with. I personally think it is. However, I think it becomes more difficult when the work itself expresses those beliefs, rather than other things the composer was interested in. For example, I really like reggae and ska music, and there's some Jamaican reggae musicians who are extremely homophobic, and their lyrics explicitly express that hatred and call for violence against LGBT people... but the music itself it beautiful. I don't know how I feel about that. I mean, its not music that impacts me on the level of something by Beethoven or Ives or Chopin, so if I can't reconcile these facts, its not a huge deal, but it does bother me that somebody could unironiclly write something so evil and sick, and then set it to beautiful music. I have a similar opinion regarding some of Norway's black metal (which is more akin to Wagner in views), some of which expresses racist and antisemitic sentiments.


There's plenty of other beautiful music to listen to. I don't need to support these a-holes. Different religious or political views/beliefs is one thing, but hatred and violence is entirely something else.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_SLG (quoted)-The swastika... Nazi imagery in general... is just part of the imagery employed by endless heavy metal bands..._

Eschbeg- Quite right, and it's pretty tasteless when they do it too.

Yes... so are many things that people do. Is that enough reason to penalize someone years later... after he or she has learned from his/her mistake and moved on? But it didn't have anything whatsoever to do with teaching the singer a lesson or punishing him, did it? It was really about pandering to political correctness.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

St. Luke, if only your reply to my post were as consequential & substantive as it is lengthy. The more extreme Wagner apologists always implicitly grant the reasonableness of the actual views of Wagner's critics by predictably choosing to spend their energy "refuting" distorted, straw-man versions of our arguments. If our actual views were so fallacious, you'd attack them rather than fanciful distortions of them.

1) I spoke of Wagner as being central to three overlapping movements--"the Völkisch movement, German nationalism and anti-semitism"--that together were essential to laying the ideological groundwork for Nazism. You pretend to refute this by saying that German nationalism was "in itself" not necessarily something negative. It is quite explicit in my post that I was _not _writing about German nationalism "in itself" but in conjunction with these two other phenomena. Your "refutation" is therefore empty and irrelevant, and possibly in bad faith. (I won't even address your absurd claim that Wagner was not even central to German nationalism, a claim for which you offer no proof and could not withstand the most superficial scrutiny.)

2) You then accuse me of succumbing to "the modern obsession with the cult of personality." I suppose Nietzsche was also succumbing to that "modern" failing when he explored the links between Wagner's art and his ideology in 1888. The fact is, like Nietzsche, I am speaking not of Wagner's "personality" but of his work as an artist and public intellectual. Linking his work as a public intellectual to his music is not fixating on personality; to describe it as such is a specious misrepresentation.

3) Your point about Solti and Barenboim is a ludicrous and desperate red herring, one that arises with boring and reflexive frequency in discussions of this sort. If you are trying to argue that this question will be decided based upon whether or not Jews have chosen to conduct Wagner, surely you realize I can assemble an equally long list of Jews (and non-Jews) who at some point or another in their professional careers chose NOT to conduct Wagner? But of course this is all beside the point anyway, because the issue here is not whether or not Wagner's music ought to be performed (and who is arguing that it shouldn't? I am not opposed to Wagner being performed, any more than Solti was) but whether he helped pave the ideological road that led to Nazi Germany. Barenboim's and Solti's choices can tell us about nothing but their own choices; they do not decide the question of Wagner's relation to the rise of Nazism; indeed, they have no relevance at all, any more than the fact that Frederick Douglass praised _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ means it was an absurdity for James Baldwin to complain of the racist caricatures in that book. This is such a basic argumentative fallacy that I am a bit embarrassed to see you stoop to it.

4) Worst of all is your silly and dull rejoinder that Wagner had "Jewish friends"! What you are trying to refute with that assertion I can hardly imagine, since you have already conceded Wagner was an anti-semite. It is quite obvious, I think, to anyone with any knowledge of human nature, that one can have Jewish friends and hold anti-semitic views, have gay friends and harbor anti-gay prejudices, etc. It is _you_, with this ridiculous comment, who are attempting to divert the discussion away from Wagner's art, criticism, and his public pronouncements, into dull gossipy chat about his personality and private life.

I really expected more from you, St. Luke, then the tired misrepresentations and red herrings of the stereotypical Wagner apologist.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would put Die Meistersinger in this category, primarily (but not solely) for Hans Sach's exhortation, in the opera's final scene, to honor the German tradition and distrust those who are not part of it, lest (as he puts it) "princes no longer understand the language of theirs subjects."

And that is clearly antisemitic? Seems rather a stretch to me. I'm surprised you didn't cite the character of Beckmesser, often put forth as a Jewish caricature. Of course he almost certainly was a caricature of Eduard Hanslick, who was of Jewish ancestry. Of course Wagner didn't need antisemitism to have a dislike of Hanslick.

I would also include the parts of the Ring cycle that revolve around Siegfried, the hero of the saga and the one character who happens to be born of pure blood. Many would consider these only coincidentally parallel with Wagner's politics. I don't.

Utter nonsense. Of course you are free to think what you wish... however absurd and unfounded it may be.

I make no claims about what Solti or Barenboim "failed" to recognize. Would they agree with me? Surely not. But I'm not asking them to.

Of course. I wouldn't expect you to give the least credence to any opinion different from your own... no matter how much more knowledgeable that opinion may be.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

starthrower said:


> There's plenty of other beautiful music to listen to. I don't need to support these a-holes. Different religious or political views/beliefs is one thing, but hatred and violence is entirely something else.


I know, but it just makes me sad, that somebody would do that.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Once one begins to trace Wagner's preoccupations as an artist, and his unique anti-Semitic, anti-French, and nationalistic views are understood a little better and put in their proper context, it becomes a lot more apparent that they have no real bearing on the operas.



Eschbeg said:


> What a puerile response.
> 
> I would put _Die Meistersinger_ in this category, primarily (but not solely) for Hans Sach's exhortation, in the opera's final scene, to honor the German tradition and distrust those who are not part of it, lest (as he puts it) "princes no longer understand the language of theirs subjects."


The passage is not a call to arms but an affirmation that even foreign domination cannot obliterate the german spirit so long as it resides in the art of the old masters and they are respected. Wagner is saying the German spirit will survive so long as the nation's cultural heritage is honored. Moreover, the idea is far from an individual quirk of Wagner's: it was common currency in ninteenth century Germany. Wagner was not responsible for German nationalism, but he reflected it focused it and gave it such resonant expression that it sparked the imagination of future generations.



> I would also include the parts of the Ring cycle that revolve around Siegfried, the hero of the saga and the one character who happens to be born of pure blood.


This of course ignores the real preoccupations of the opera and the Siegfried character; the struggle between power and love; the metaphoric depiction of the emergence of consciousness and it's destruction; the conflict between personal morality and social morality; the attempts to overthrow a corrupt world order. Siegfried having or not having "pure blood" is completely irrelevant. I'm not even sure what that means in the context of the drama. And even if one did want to make a huge stretch and interpret Siegfried as some pure blood Aryan savior, in the end his mission, whatever it may be, fails. He is murdered, reenacting the continuing cycle of love being destroyed by the quest of others's will to power. It's Brunnhilde, not Siegfried, who is made wise through her suffering and realizes the true path to redemption.

The gulf between the themes in The Ring and the ideology of the Nazi party are absolutely huge, and most of the time flat out contradictory.

Of course, the _really_ ironic thing is that when Wagner first created Siegfried in 1848, he envisioned him as a revolutionary figure, based on Rousseau's idea of a pure human untainted by society. At the time, Wagner was a left wing radical and played an active part in the Dresden uprising in 1849. He befriended the anarchist Bakunin, and was influenced by the ideas of philosophers like Feuerbach and Proudhon, believing that all government is based on force and therefore corrupt. You can't get much more of a striking antithesis to Nazi fascism than that.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Eschbeg said:


> Even if Wagner had not authored anti-Semitic tracts that were directly inspirational to the Third Reich, his music was blasted into the ears of prisoners as they were marched into the death camps. Obviously that's not Wagner's fault, any more than James Holmes's actions were Christopher Nolan's fault. But unless we have the gall to ask the survivors and family members of the victims of Aurora, "Just forget about all that other stuff: what did you think of the _movie_?", then I don't think it's inappropriate to show some sensitivity toward an incident that was incalculably more horrific.


There is actually an excellent essay in The Cambridge Companion to Wagner that addresses this. I think it's worth quoting from it at length:

"Was Wagner's music, then, in any way actively applied to the promulgation of anti-semitism during the years of the Third Reich? Despite the gruesome allegations of its use to accompany the murder of inmates of the death camps, any anti-semitic policies linked to Wagner's music were generally limited to assuring that it not be "tainted" by Jewish hands. For example, with the founding of the Jewish Culture League (a joint effort by the Jewish community and the Nazi government to forestall the economic side effects of throwing Jews out of work, while still isolating them from German cultural life), Nazi officials overseeing the music programs were so vague in outlining their prohibitions on Jews performing "German" works that Jewish leaders took it upon themselves to advise playing Wagner, Weber, or Lortzing in an act of self-censorship. The idea of Jews "defiling" Wagner was reinforced in the 1938 "Degenerate Music" exhibit, which cited Otto Klemperer's controversial Flying Dutchman production at the Kroll Opera in 1929 (whose provocative element was really Ewald Dulberg's modernistic stage designs) and his Tannhauser at the Berlin State Opera as incidents of "Jews against Wagner." *We also know from testimonies that concentration camp orchestras played music from operettas, symphonic classics, popular tunes, and even Yiddish folk melodies but that Wagner was explicitly off-limits.* However, after the war, unsubstantiated claims that Wagner's music accompanied Jews to their death took on momentum, probably as a response to a new, broader public awareness of Wagner's anti-semitic writings, of the Wagner family's relationship to Hitler, and of the exploitation of Wagner's legacy in the Third Reich. The disintegration of German-Israeli relations in the 1970s contributed to a raging controversy from the 1980s on about whether or not to play Wagner's music in Israel."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

St. Luke, if only your reply to my post were as consequential as it is lengthy. I spoke of Wagner as being central to three overlapping movements--"the Völkisch movement, German nationalism and anti-semitism"--that together were essential to laying the ideological groundwork for Nazism. You pretend to refute this by saying that German nationalism was "in itself" not necessarily something negative. Obviously, I was not writing about it "in itself" but in conjunction with these other phenomena. So your refutation is empty, irrelevant, and in bad faith.

I can only assume that your interest in this debate has little to do with objective facts or a concern with the music itself, and more with a desire to appear politically correct at all expenses. To suggest that Wagner is central to German Nationalism is an absurd assertion. Wagner was no more central to German Nationalism than Martin Luther, Goethe, Schiller, Johann Gottfried Herder, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Ernst Moritz Arndt, or any number of other artists/theorists. A movement such as German Nationalism is not the result of the populace embracing the rather "elite" theoretical tracts or art works of figures such as Wagner.

You then accuse me of succumbing to "the modern obsession with the cult of personality." I suppose Nietzsche was also succumbing to that "modern" failing when he explored the links between Wagner's art and his ideology in 1888. The fact is, I am speaking not Wagner's personality but of his work as an artist and public intellectual. Linking his work as a public intellectual to his music is not fixating on personality. Claiming description of this as personality-obsession is totally specious.

Nietzsche's thoughts on the matter are not exactly un-biased. By 1888 he was on the verge of total madness and had become disillusioned with Wagner for any number of reasons... including his conversion to Christianity and his perceived pandering to what he felt were Christian and/or bourgeois ideas... including Nationalism... that Nietzsche imagined as a sign of weakness. But neither Nietzsche or Wagner were of *"central"* importance to the spread of antisemitic and/or nationalist ideas among the mass population. As an artist Wagner mirrored the thoughts common to his era and the culture in which he lived.

Your point about Solti and Barenboim is a ludicrous and desperate red herring, one that arises with boring and reflexive frequency in discussions of this sort. If you are trying to argue that this question will be decided based upon whether or not Jews have chosen to conduct Wagner, surely you realize I can assemble am equally long list of Jews (and non-Jews) who at some point or another in their professional careers chose NOT to conduct Wagner. But of course the larger issue is that one may not be opposed to Wagner being performed (I am not, any more than Solti was) and still believe he helped pave the ideological road that led to Nazi Germany.

Did Wagner "help" to pave the way toward National Socialism? Certainly. But there is a far cry between suggesting that Wagner "helped" and suggesting that he played some *"central"* role. Wagner helped. But so did Martin Luther, Goethe, Schiller, Johann Gottfried Herder, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (especially his _Address to the German Nation_), Ernst Moritz Arndt, Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna, the Revolutions of 1848, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, France, Britain, Social Darwinism, World War I, the Treaty of Versailles, the post-war depression and hyperinflation, etc... But are we to hold all of these persons/places/events responsible for the actions of the Nazis? Are we to suggest that Borodin or Glinka or even Tchaikovsky are equally "tainted" as a result of the actions of Stalin and the Soviets that certainly arose out of Russian Nationalism? How the we to hold Wagner responsible for events that occurred well after his death and without any direct intention? It seems to me that the continued attempts to lay blame upon Wagner diverts attention away from where it truly lies: with the Nazis and their collaborators. I also suspect it has more to do with an attempt, by any means possible, to undermine the achievements of a composer that some dislike.

Worst of all is your silly and dull rejoinder that Wagner had "Jewish friends" as though that is some kind of refutation---though of what, I can hardly imagine, since you have already conceded Wagner was an anti-semite. It is quite obvious, I think, to anyone with any knowledge of human nature, that one can have Jewish friends and hold anti-semitic views.

I really expected more from you, St. Luke, then the tired misrepresentations and red herrings of the stereotypical Wagner hagiographer.

Seriously, if there is anything to be embarrassed at, it is the fact that we must once again address this absurd issue which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the relative aesthetic merits of the composer, and far more to do with the survival of a politically correct ideology that places concern for the personal thoughts (real or imagined/invented) relative to politics, gender, race, nationality, religion, (or nearly any highly contentious subject) above the actual art work. The embarrassment is the continued inability to differentiate the artist from the art work.

I also like Gesualdo (in spite of his far more egregious actions).


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Poppin', thanks for transcribing that interesting passage.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Poppin' Fresh- The gulf between the themes in The Ring and the ideology of the Nazi party are absolutely huge, and most of the time flat out contradictory.

Yes... one must wonder if the realization of the message of the _Götterdämmerung_ finally became clear to Hitler as he sat in the bunker awaiting the arrival of the Soviets?


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As an artist Wagner merely mirrored the thoughts common to his era.


Not only Nietzsche, as has already been discussed, but Brahms, too, as I mentioned in my post, publicly differentiated themselves from views of Wagner's that you falsely identify as "common to his era." They may have been widely shared, but not universal, and not all artists endorsed or subscribed to them. It is flat-out false to act as though one "had" to subscribe to a single, monolithic ideology, as well as to suggest that Wagner was only in the position of passively "accepting" German nationalism, the glorification of the folk, etc. etc. when in fact he actively promoted them and wrote their very myths.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Not only Nietzsche, as has already been discussed, but Brahms, too, as I mentioned in my post, publicly differentiated themselves from views of Wagner's that you falsely identify as "common to his era." They may have been widely shared, but not universal, and not all artists endorsed or subscribed to them. It is flat-out false to act as though one "had" to subscribe to a single, monolithic ideology, as well as to suggest that Wagner was only in the position of passively "accepting" German nationalism, the glorification of the folk, etc. etc. when in fact he actively promoted them and wrote their very myths.

This would strike me as something of a rather holier-than-thou position to take: to criticize someone from another time and place for having been the product of his time and place... and for not recognizing the future ramifications of such thoughts. It assumes that you would have been above such thoughts under similar circumstances, and equally ignores the very real possibility that some of the ideas you currently hold may not be seen as an absolute moral/ethical abomination by future generations.

There is no question that Wagner sought to establish a uniquely German mythology... much in the same way that Goethe sought to establish a German poetry/literature and Tchaikovsky and Borodin sought to establish a uniquely Russian music. German nationalism in itself is not inherently something evil any more than British or French or American nationalism. The problem is that it was been tainted by as a result of the manner in which it was adopted, exploited, and defiled by the Nazis.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

So, to the 'innocent' who only hears Wagner's pieces in adverts and Marx brothers films (or recycled in film scores by Hans Zimmer) and has watched Stephen Fry's personal documentary about the composer, would you say I should try harder and listen to more than just Tannhauser (overture) /Ride of the Valkyrie...or I should leave well alone because it's been written by an anti-semite?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Wagner absolutely should be held accountable for his published writings and antagonism towards the Jews. The national socialists made every effort to legitimize themselves by finding forerunners in Germany's past and they were able to claim themselves torchbearers of an anti-Semitic tradition that ran through Wagner. Of course Wagner tried to shrink from the consequences, and when an anti-Semitic movement started in the 1870s and tried to recruit Wagner as a spokesperson, the fact that he refused made little difference. He was already a model that could be pointed to.

The sad fact is that in his egocentricity Wagner never thought about the practical application of his racist diatribes in the real world. His anti-Semitism wasn't inborn or based on prejudice, as Stlukes pointed out. The predominating focus of Wagner's mind was art: it's cultural significance, it's spiritual significance, and his unfaltering mission was to create the works of art that he felt were his destiny. He judged every human being on their willingness to support him in his mission, Jewish or not. So he gladly befriended Jews and had many of his closest friendships with Jews throughout his life. To top that, he spent the first 35 years of his life without making any anti-Semitic declarations whatsoever. All that changed when he began to feel disheartened by the public's lack of interest in his artworks, and focused in on the perpetrator who was leading the public astray with shallow works: Giacomo Meyerbeer. Meyerbeer's operas were antithesis of everything Wagner believed about the nature of art and his vision of opera. Pure entertainment with very little depth or artistic unity. And even more, Meyerbeer was hugely _popular_. So he wrote a thorough condemnation of Meyerbeer, and in the process portrayed Jewishness as completely antithetical to everything he valued in culture. Why? Because Meyerbeer was Jewish of course. From that point things just spun out of control. After writing his essay he became paranoid that the poor critical response to his operas was because of the anti-Semitic tract contained within that essay. A kind of Jewish conspiracy against his art. So he makes a fool out of himself by proclaiming every critic who dislikes his work a Jew. The irrationality and lashing out on Wagner's part is sad if anything. A clear indicator of his insecurities that are often not even acknowledged.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

So long as folks are aware that listening to Richard Wagner's music does not turn one into a neo-Nazi today, nor an anti-semite, then these types of discussion may go on until the last cup of tea has finished brewing. 

Do carry on, folks. It's been quite engaging.


----------



## SAKO (Jul 27, 2012)

Wagner, or sticking sharp needles in one's flesh?

Off to find my wife's sewing kit. 

Listening to Bach. A great German before a bunch of *****, a long time dead, fuelled the crux of this thread.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

I wrote: "Not only *Nietzsche*, as has already been discussed, but* Brahms,* too. . .*publicly differentiated themselves* from *views of Wagner's that you falsely identify as "common to his era*." [His views] may have been widely shared, but [they were] * not universal*, and *not all artists endorsed or subscribed to them.*"

And St. Luke replied:



StlukesguildOhio said:


> This would strike me as something of a rather holier-than-thou position to take: to criticize someone from another time and place for having been* the product of his time and place*...


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> > Eschbeg- Quite right, and it's pretty tasteless when they do it too.
> 
> 
> Yes... so are many things that people do. Is that enough reason to penalize someone years later... after he or she has learned from his/her mistake and moved on?


In my opinion, no. That's why I said I found the _young_ Nikitin repugnant. I applaud the mature one for recognizing that swastikas, no matter how innocently intended, still have the power to hurt people. I'm not defending those who were calling for his head; I'm just pointing out how disingenuous and juvenile it was for the newspaper to treat a swastika as a trivial matter and to put on an air of surprise that some people still care about such a thing.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> > I would put Die Meistersinger in this category, primarily (but not solely) for Hans Sach's exhortation, in the opera's final scene, to honor the German tradition and distrust those who are not part of it, lest (as he puts it) "princes no longer understand the language of theirs subjects."
> 
> 
> And that is clearly antisemitic?


Of course it's not. Who would expect it to be? Wagner apologists are always asking, triumphantly, why there is no Wagnerian aria stating, "I hate Jews." Does anyone really expect it to be that simple, besides those who want to use it as a straw man argument? What Hans Sachs's aria is, however, is xenophonic, and the question is whether a xenophobic aria from the pen of an anti-Semite is coincidence, or not. If you or anyone else wants to think so, fine. Others are not that naive.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I wouldn't expect you to give the least credence to any opinion different from your own... no matter how much more knowledgeable that opinion may be.


The irony meter just exploded.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> I would also include the parts of the Ring cycle that revolve around Siegfried, the hero of the saga and the one character who happens to be born of pure blood. Many would consider these only coincidentally parallel with Wagner's politics. I don't.


I always considered Siegfried to be a monster only capable of destruction - a perfect anti-hero - and that this was a direct result of his incestuous origins. If what you believe is true, then Wagner would have painted Siegfried to be victorious at the end, not a doomed figure of tragedy. I don't think the public of Wagner's day would have been sympathetic to incest or see that good could come of it. Siegfried is also quite clearly cruel, not something associated with any traditional hero in fiction or opera.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> I wrote: "Not only *Nietzsche*, as has already been discussed, but* Brahms,* too. . .*publicly differentiated themselves* from *views of Wagner's that you falsely identify as "common to his era*." [His views] may have been widely shared, but [they were] * not universal*, and *not all artists endorsed or subscribed to them.*"


Isn't there a difference between common and universal? I don't think that there is a single time or place in history where even supposedly well-educated and intelligent people had universal political views. You assert that Brahms had different views, but that doesn't really prove that Brahm's views were common either. I don't understand how you can believe that antisemitism, racism, homphobia, xenophobia and sexism were not more common or more acceptable in the early 19th century than they are today or were even 50 years ago.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> You assert that Brahms had different views, but that doesn't really prove that Brahm's views were common either. I don't understand how you can believe that antisemitism, racism, homphobia, xenophobia and sexism were not more common or more acceptable in the early 19th century than they are today or were even 50 years ago.


Huh?

I cannot believe you got that from my post. Because you did not bother to read with care you are demanding I defend statements I never made and beliefs I do not hold. I find such willful misunderstanding of the other side is a chronic problem with Wagner apologists.

St. Luke suggests Wagner must be forgiven because it was impossible not to be an antisemitic German nationalist in Wagner's day and place. I say: that is crap;as in every era there were differences of opinion as exemplfied by the wellknown public disagreements between Brahms and Wagner (Brahms went on record excoriating W's antisemitism) and Nietzsche. It is total crap to say Wagner did not have available to him the option not to have antisemitic vews because he was a man of the 19th c. The dominant views of Wagner's time and place may have set a limit to the. range of possibilities for belief but they did not dictate how Wagner chose within that range. Do you disagree?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


> The rise of the Nazi party would not have been possible if its road to ideological legitimacy had not been laid for decades through the overlapping efforts of the Völkisch movement, German nationalism and anti-semitism, all of which Wagner was connected with, indeed central to, as Nietzsche long ago discussed in _The Case of Wagner_ (1888).


No doubt Wagner was highly nationalistic and xenophobic. Hardly uncommon. In America they call them "Republicans". Even the Jews now have their own nationalistic, xenophobic state. Holocaust is not the inextricable result of holding such an ideology.

It is ironic that the rampant nationalism in Wagner's works could have contributed to founding both the Third Reich through Hitler and Israel through Herzl, but look at what flexibility of "ideological legitimacy" people manage to get out of Wagner.

There are key differences between Nazi ideology and Wagnerism. Most notably, Wagner was not racialist and his "Final Solution" was a call for either integration or deportation, not murder.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I read the article and the first page of this thread. That's it. I agree with some people here. Others I don't, and it seems to be peopled by some people on this forum who though I may have had some respect for in the past, now I basically don't.

Anyway, this is what I basically agree with, but I'll leave it at that -



Hilltroll72 said:


> Wagner and the Nazis are connected by more than antisemitism. If that were the sole connection, Wagner would be 'one-of-a-million'. It's when antisemitism is combined with a fixation on 'Aryans' that a cosiness is perceived - and was played upon by the Nazis.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

What *StlukesguildOhio* said.

Still three points to consider:
- Antisemitism existed in Europe since Middle Ages
- Bismark the pragmatist prime minister of Prussia and Germany wasn't Nazi.
- First Nazi thought (as extreme as Hitler's) is created 40 years after the Death of Wagner


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Couchie, You seem to be comparing the state of Israel to the Third Reich.If this be the case, then I am really stunned at how anyone could conceivably come up with such an odious comparision. And btw, the reason why "the Jews have their own state" is the lesson we learned during WW 2 when we were being shoved into ovens: Nobody wanted us in their own countries; in fact, many thousands were turned around and sent right back to the death camps. I understand how one can like Wagner and not be an anti-semite {many Jews like him} and I've never maintained that he was the major pillar in the loathsome and murderous policies of Hitler and his minions, but it can't be denied--in all fairness--that he was one of their cultural touchstones which they used. Again, not his fault, as he obviously wasn't alive at the time. But, saying all that, how can one possibly come up with the moral equation that somehow Israel and Nazi Germany are somehow equivalent. Do you include any other countries {after all, Israel is only about the size of Vermont or New Hampshire} in your calculus. Please tell me I've misunderstood what you were getting at. I f I have so misunderstood you, then please forgive me.
One more point, please. Israel, like your country, my country--and every other sovereign nation on this planet--is nationalist. the difference being between the Third Reich and all these other countries is that its nationalism led directly and deliberately to the attempted willful, mass extermination of one particular group of people based on their religion and ethnicity alone. Of course, the monster threw other "undesirables" into the fire as well, such as gypsies and anybody who dared to oppose him, but the focus from the very beginning was always {starting with and articulated quite clearly in Mein Kampf} on the Jews.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

samurai said:


> ...You seem to be comparing the state of Israel to the Third Reich.If this be the case, then I am really stunned at how anyone could conceivably come up with such an odious comparision. ...how can one possibly come up with the moral equation that somehow Israel and Nazi Germany are somehow equivalent. ...


I am not surprised that hoary ol' chestnut has been raised. I have studied history and let me tell you there is nothing comparable to the likes of the HOlocaust. 11 million people murdered in a systematic way in total, about 6 million of them Jews, the rest where people opposed to the Nazis of all kinds - esp. Communists, Christians - also disabled of all kinds, homosexuals, gypsies and so on.

The only thing comparable is Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, also Pol Pot murdering 2 million Cambodians. These dictators killed in the millions. I am not going to comment on Israeli politics but making comparison between that country and these other dictators is just tasteless and not a good comparison.

It seems to me some people have an agenda, and I think I expect more from intelligent people. But I've given up and as I said, I no longer have respect for such people on this forum. Its quite sad.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> The fact is, like Nietzsche, I am speaking not of Wagner's "personality" but of his work as an artist and public intellectual.


It's funny because Nietzsche, after all his rejection of views of nationalism, tyranny, and anti-semitism, was still exploited by Hitler and his cronies to provide philosophical foundation to his movement.

The point is, no matter who you were or what you believed in, whether you were Beethoven or Schubert or Wagner, the Nazi Party would use you as a tool to support their distorted ideology. Everyone loves to use Wagner as a precursor to Nazi ideology, and they do the same thing with Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, ideas that Hitler also distorted to support his ideology but really had nothing to do with Nazi ideology. The problem here isn't Wagner or Nietzsche or Hegel; the problem here is Hitler who used these ideas for his own selfish purposes. Wagner's ideas were of a man who had no intention on acting on his actions but who had the arrogance to say things common to his era that many people would criticize in later years - arrogance is of course not a pleasant thing to have for a person, but it is also not evil.

I think it's ridiculous to associate him to a movement he had no idea of, and to judge him on a pedestal where there are many views that we might have that are scrutinized 150 years in the future.* I haven't found one historical figure that didn't say something uncomfortable to read in the present day,* and it's just all about being human, with all it's frailties and missteps. Hitler was a delusional man who had the audacity to act on his terrible, construed thoughts.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Sid, Like yourself, I've given it a shot to try and argue for some "even-handedness" in these debates, but I have basically very little hope that this shall be attained. I have never maintained that Israel "right or wrong" just as I have never subscribed to the sentiment in my own country, which says. "America, love it or leave it". These to me are self-defeating and stagnating philosophies, which if carried out, virtually guarantee a nation becoming a third-rate dictatorship. I just can't easily tolerate Israel being somehow put on the same scale of justice as a monstrosity like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or China under Mao. It just doesn't compute, as from the very beginning of its birth in 1948, Israel was willing to have a two state solution with the Palestinians. However, they--at least their leaders--do not even want Israel to exist, and have continuously tried to push them into the sea, which they are only too happy to admit. To those people who are so rabidly anti-Israel, just look at a map, for Christ's sake, and compare its size aginst those of its "peace-loving"Arab neighbors. I'm done and have nothing left to say on this topic. Shalom to all.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

samurai said:


> ... I'm done and have nothing left to say on this topic. Shalom to all.[/COLOR]


Well so am I, with this thread, and I find the 'censorship' by various members on this thread - spreading as far as I can see to the vibe of the whole forum - as not a good thing. I've joked about it but now I'm deadly serious.

In any case, if they want to talk Wagner - DO IT. But I think in advocating anything I would hesitate before bringing to mind one of the darkest chapters of all humanity's history and then using that for some sort of 'agenda.' Let's respect those 11 million dead, basically HANDS OFF.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

samurai said:


> @ Couchie, You seem to be comparing the state of Israel to the Third Reich.If this be the case, then I am really stunned at how anyone could conceivably come up with such an odious comparision. And btw, the reason why "the Jews have their own state" is the lesson we learned during WW 2 when we were being shoved into ovens: Nobody wanted us in their own countries; in fact, many thousands were turned around and sent right back to the death camps. I understand how one can like Wagner and not be an anti-semite {many Jews like him} and I've never maintained that he was the major pillar in the loathsome and murderous policies of Hitler and his minions, but it can't be denied--in all fairness--that he was one of their cultural touchstones which they used. Again, not his fault, as he obviously wasn't alive at the time. But, saying all that, how can one possibly come up with the moral equation that somehow Israel and Nazi Germany are somehow equivalent. Do you include any other countries {after all, Israel is only about the size of Vermont or New Hampshire} in your calculus. Please tell me I've misunderstood what you were getting at. I f I have so misunderstood you, then please forgive me.
> One more point, please. Israel, like your country, my country--and every other sovereign nation on this planet--is nationalist. the difference being between the Third Reich and all these other countries is that its nationalism led directly and deliberately to the attempted willful, mass extermination of one particular group of people based on their religion and ethnicity alone. Of course, the monster threw other "undesirables" into the fire as well, such as gypsies and anybody who dared to oppose him, but the focus from the very beginning was always {starting with and articulated quite clearly in Mein Kampf} on the Jews.


My point was that holocaust is not a natural consequence of being nationalistic and even xenophobic. That Israel is nationalistic you agree with. That it is xenophobic is apparent from its immigration policy. There is no moral equivalence of Israel and Nazi Germany in my post just because the former was also nationalistic and xenophobic. I think you severely misunderstood.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Undoubtedly a good deal of the reason for the aggressive defense of Wagner lies within the very title of this thread:

Yet again! Once again we are confronted with this issue. And is it not indeed somewhat telling that the original poster who started a thread that he clearly recognized would provoke has not since been seen or heard from? Many would consider such to be little more than "trollish" behavior. But "Yet Again!" It seems as if we cannot get over this issue. It seems as if no one can admit to liking Wagner or discuss his music without the topic repeatedly turning to the Nazis and the Holocaust. No one can suggest that perhaps Hitler, and the Nazis, and the Holocaust are not the central issues to Wagner's achievements without being deemed antisemitic or an apologist.

Yes antisemitism is egregious. Yes, Wagner most certainly entertained antisemitic ideas and stupidly put these into print as he lashed out at those he imagined were responsible for his lack of recognition. Do these ideas show up in his music? That's debatable. Undoubtedly his music mirrors some of his ideas of German Nationalism. Did Hitler employ Wagner's music to his own twisted end? Undoubtedly, he did. But one wonders how long will this issue continue to be raised... as if nothing else in relationship to Wagner mattered.

It has been 70+ years since the end of the war and yet we still cannot talk of Wagner without the spectre of the Nazis and the Holocaust being raised... Yet Again!... events that occurred 50 years after Wagner's death... Yet Again! And ultimately the debate comes down to those who enjoy Wagner's achievements as a composer... those who are able to separate the art from the artist... vs those entrenched in an ideology that has little or nothing whatsoever to do with the music.

No... we must not forget the millions of dead. But must we always link it to music... one of humanities noblest achievements... and to Wagner's music... some of the greatest ever composed?


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Couchie said:


> My point was that holocaust is not a natural consequence of being nationalistic and even xenophobic. That Israel is nationalistic you agree with. That it is xenophobic is apparent from its immigration policy. There is no moral equivalence of Israel and Nazi Germany in my post just because the former was also nationalistic and xenophobic. I think you severely misunderstood.


Perhaps, I did, and if I have, I apologize. How is Israel's immigration policy different from that of any other sovereign nation? In what way is it xenophobic--as compared, say--with that of your country or the United States? Don't all countries have some kind of restrictions or quotas applicable to the people woho want to become citizens?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Well so am I, with this thread, and I find the 'censorship' by various members on this thread - spreading as far as I can see to the vibe of the whole forum - as not a good thing. I've joked about it but now I'm deadly serious.
> 
> In any case, if they want to talk Wagner - DO IT. But I think in advocating anything I would hesitate before bringing to mind one of the darkest chapters of all humanity's history and then using that for some sort of 'agenda.' Let's respect those 11 million dead, basically HANDS OFF.


It boils down to either being willing to discuss with other people a controversial issue in good faith and be willing to hear their side vs assuming irrevocably the other side is inherently wrong and to say different is to be disrespectful, an apologist, or furthering an agenda. I would suggest a HANDS OFF approach to these threads to the latter because shutting down the thread with a moralizing "how dare you" post is unearned before you've actually established what you've assumed to be true to the rest of us.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It's funny because Nietzsche, after all his rejection of views of nationalism, tyranny, and anti-semitism, was still exploited by Hitler and his cronies to provide philosophical foundation to his movement. 

Yes... there is indeed a degree of irony involved in citing Nietzsche contra Wagner when Nietzsche's writings... especially those concerning the _Übermensch_ was equally twisted and tainted by the Nazis and may have ultimately been of even greater impact upon Nazi ideology.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It boils down to either being willing to discuss with other people a controversial issue in good faith and be willing to hear their side vs assuming irrevocably the other side is inherently wrong and to say different is to be disrespectful, an apologist, or furthering an agenda.

Exactly!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

samurai said:


> Perhaps, I did, and if I have, I apologize. How is Israel's immigration policy different from that of any other sovereign nation? In what way is it xenophobic--as compared, say--with that of your country or the United States? Don't all countries have some kind of restrictions or quotas applicable to the people woho want to become citizens?


You can't move to Israel if you're not a Jew. Surely that restrictive, race-based policy is a form of xenophobia (whether or not it's warranted is a separate issue). Sure other countries are xenophobic in addition to Germany, and Israel that's precisely my point. We see a huge issue with xenophobia in Europe concerning the integration of Muslims into western society. Xenophobia is a common reaction to the uneasiness of cultural clashes within a society, Wagner and most Germans felt this way, and so did many Jews (Zionism was birthed at the end of the 19th century decades before the holocaust for this reason). To say Wagner's xenophobia contributed to holocaust is invalid.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> I always considered Siegfried to be a monster only capable of destruction - a perfect anti-hero - and that this was a direct result of his incestuous origins. If what you believe is true, then Wagner would have painted Siegfried to be victorious at the end, not a doomed figure of tragedy. I don't think the public of Wagner's day would have been sympathetic to incest or see that good could come of it. Siegfried is also quite clearly cruel, not something associated with any traditional hero in fiction or opera.


Wagner was attempting to create a modern fusion of music and drama in imitation of ancient greek drama. So in fact Siegfried follows the model of the tragic hero, similar to Oedipus, more closely than many 19th or 20th century heroes. His incestuous origins can be seen as his hamartia or fatal flaw, although as he was not responsible for his parentage this is really Wotan's flaw, as he caused it. I see Siegfried, as depicted by Wagner, as a sympathetic character not a monster. He is an arrogant fool like many youths and his origins and upbringing only make it worse. His inability to know fear is more reasonably his fatal flaw as it leads him into error and helps doom him. One interpretation of Siegfried I have read equates him with the German people, brave but naive and led astray by malign influences. This may have been a conscious or unconscious subtext of Wagner or even a much later interpretation that Wagner would have disputed but Siegfried as a one-dimensional monster doesn't seem a very adequate reading.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2012)

In my first post on this thread, http://www.talkclassical.com/20660-wagner-nazis-yet-again.html#post337450 I asked a couple of questions which were only semi-rhetorical. In my second post, I asked a question which was not rhetorical at all.

http://www.talkclassical.com/20660-wagner-nazis-yet-again-2.html#post337713

In between, I chided VSM for suggesting that this was a worn out topic, and I asserted that anyone who wants to discuss it is entitled to. I made clear my initial interest, but I've not returned to join in the debate for two reasons. First, because I don't know anything like enough about the man or his music - as some members here clearly do - to be able to contribute to such a theme. I also hadn't appreciated the fierceness that would emerge in attacking and defending the composer. Second, because my questions remain unanswered. The particular aspect that interested me has not surfaced again, except by implication. Since KRoad did not set any parameters to the thread, I see no reason why my generic question - should we take pleasure in (even pay money for) artistic output which comes from someone holding unacceptable ideas, or which has been used by some for unacceptable ends?

Such a debate would not require a toing and froing over _whether _Wagner was antisemitic, or _whether _he might have approved of the use to which his music and musical ideas were put (a fruitless question if ever there was one).

Surely, there are other composers whose attitudes, behaviour, values might also be deemed unacceptable and whose music should also be pariah? At what point (after 100 years? 500? 25?) can we legitimately stand back and say, "Those values were the values of the time, and s/he should not be condemned for it"?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

samurai said:


> Perhaps, I did, and if I have, I apologize. How is Israel's immigration policy different from that of any other sovereign nation? In what way is it xenophobic--as compared, say--with that of your country or the United States? Don't all countries have some kind of restrictions or quotas applicable to the people woho want to become citizens?


Look, it basically boils down to ideology. This targeting of various countries. & agendas.

Australia in the 1990's was labelled 'the white trash of Asia' by then leader of Malaysia, Dr. Mahattir Mohamad. There was a colourful tit-for-tat exchange then between him and then Aussie PM Paul Keating (who was no blushing flower - he could mix it with the best of them, he even said 'scumbag' in parliament once, which caused a bit of minor scandal).

But to get to the point, Australia has had issues with racism and its immigration policies change it seems with every new Federal government we get. But let's be honest, why didn't Mahattir target some of his fellow Asian countries, many of whom have apalling human rights records? Or restrictive 'xenophobic' immigration policies. Eg. Japan is very restrictive in who gets citizenship there, although foreigners can work there and live there (but not settle permanently, that's hard to impossible), and this is despite Japan having very low birth rate and ageing population.

So what I'm saying its another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Hypocrisy.

So don't apologise, you had a right to say what you did. Anybody does. I'm sick of this need to apologise just cos someone around here has an opinion that doesn't fit some 'agenda.' Well ******** to that basically. A FORUM IS FOR DISCUSSION PEOPLE, NOT SOME ******* AGENDA.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Couchie said:


> ...I would suggest a HANDS OFF approach to these threads to the latter because shutting down the thread with a moralizing "how dare you" post is unearned before you've actually established what you've assumed to be true to the rest of us.


No, I ask you to do HANDS OFF to kind of censoring what people say. & you're not the only one around here. We all get emotional, thats okay.

But forget it. This is in good faith because this thread is about Wagner's ideology and also links to things after him up to the present time. So that's what we're discussing. In other words, I don't pollute threads devoted solely to Wagner's music, you understand? If there's a thread on say Wagner's 'The Ring' or 'Parsifal' which are by far my least of the least favourite works by him, I don't go there for fun and games to pollute it with my negativity or agenda.

That's what I'm saying but I'm not going to go into the merry go round of Wagner and ideology related to him. I've said enough on that already, its boring.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

quack said:


> Wagner was attempting to create a modern fusion of music and drama in imitation of ancient greek drama. So in fact Siegfried follows the model of the tragic hero, similar to Oedipus, more closely than many 19th or 20th century heroes. His incestuous origins can be seen as his hamartia or fatal flaw, although as he was not responsible for his parentage this is really Wotan's flaw, as he caused it. I see Siegfried, as depicted by Wagner, as a sympathetic character not a monster. He is an arrogant fool like many youths and his origins and upbringing only make it worse. His inability to know fear is more reasonably his fatal flaw as it leads him into error and helps doom him. One interpretation of Siegfried I have read equates him with the German people, brave but naive and led astray by malign influences. This may have been a conscious or unconscious subtext of Wagner or even a much later interpretation that Wagner would have disputed but Siegfried as a one-dimensional monster doesn't seem a very adequate reading.


I don't mean to imply that I think he is a 'one-dimensional monster'. That would imply that I think he is a villian and he is clearly not. The point put forward, however, was that Siegfried represented the heroic German. I can't see him as a very positive representation of this role, but that is my opinion. I also don't see Oedipus as a sympathetic character. Siegfried's character is taken more or less exactly from Germanic legend, the same legends that Tolkein used when writing the story of Turin Turambar (another tragic story). I think that there is way too much overanalysis of the character, but I am not very well read in what others have written about the Ring or what Wagner himself has said. What did Wagner himself say about the character of Siegfried and what he represents? Given that Wagner wrote so extensively, he must have written something of interest concerning such a central character.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I don't mean to imply that I think he is a 'one-dimensional monster'. That would imply that I think he is a villian and he is clearly not.


Are you saying that villains are one-dimensional?


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

I know this thread moved way past this ages ago, but can we just set one thing straight?
Evgeni Nitkin's chest tattoo was NOT A SWASTIKA! It was an 8-point star. It might look like a swastika in the picture of him from his heavy metal days, but that is simply because it hadn't been filled in due to complications when he got the tattoo.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And is it not indeed somewhat telling that the original poster who started a thread that he clearly recognized would provoke has not since been seen or heard from? Many would consider such to be little more than "trollish" behavior.
> 
> Well, here I am! BTW: I find it hardly charitable to label me a Troll, thank you very much.
> 
> ...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

KRoad said:


> ... There can be no hard and fast, or even comfortable solution/answer to this issue. But conscience (mine at least) is served by raising the issue and - as evidenced by the OP article, it remains current. ...


Why should any listener of Wagner's music today who is in it just for the sake of enjoying the music have a guilty conscience? And similarly goes for arguments above about making "Wagner accountable". What exactly does that mean? Ban the music, burn down the Bayreuth Festspielhaus? No, that would be an exaggeration as much as suggesting a "guilty conscience" everytime one listens to Wagner.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

KRoad said:


> There can be no hard and fast, or even comfortable solution/answer to this issue. But conscience (mine at least) is served by raising the issue and - as evidenced by the OP article, it remains current. *Certainly, it should not be dismissed as "Trollism".* No one demands that you respond, but I think we all sooner or later need to give serious consideration to the matter and the implications it has for art in a broader cultural context.


It was SLG who made this suggestion in a previous post. I rather agree with him that this thread does have appear to possess such properties, knowing that it is bound to create a lot of harshly conflicting opinions and that you haven't added anything to what you had to say on the subject in your earlier thread.

Your previous thread was all about your personal worries about listening to a Wagner recording made under the wartime Nazi Germany regime. From that thread I rather gained the impression that your primary motive was political, and not to discuss any aspects of Wagner's music from a musical perspective. Are you perchance a member of some anti-Nazi group in Germany? I ask because you do seem to have a big bee in your bonnet about modern-day Nazism in that country.

Nothing new has emerged in this thread, just as I expected. It's amusing that some people here now have expressed their surprise at the degree of hostility that it has generated, despite the warnings. Raising threads of this nature in the Music Forum seem like a way to avoid placing them where they perhaps more properly belong, in the Comminity Forum, but where there is a prior approval restriction.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Are you saying that villains are one-dimensional?


Don't nitpick. I never used the term 'one-dimensional', merely quoted it. I said that I found him a monstrous and tragic protagonist/hero. I think that I used the usual acceptance of the term 'villain' as per this definition. There are no totally good or bad characters in the Ring that I can think of. I still think it valid to have the opinion that Siegfried is as contemptible as Alberich in many ways. Not in all ways, just that they are both majorly flawed and that it doesn't quite tally with the idea that somehow Siegfried is meant to represent a positive representation of Germanic hero that people might look up to. His bloodline muddies his heritage, not underlines its goodness as has been claimed.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Why should any listener of Wagner's music today who is in it just for the sake of enjoying the music have a guilty conscience? And similarly goes for arguments above about making "Wagner accountable". What exactly does that mean? Ban the music, burn down the Bayreuth Festspielhaus? No, that would be an exaggeration as much as suggesting a "guilty conscience" everytime one listens to Wagner.


I think making him accountable means not just sweeping this fact under the rug because he wrote brilliant music. We need to acknowledge and remember that he wrote and said pretty despicable things, in addition to writing beautiful music. Not that that means people should feel guilty listening to it. It just shows he was an ordinary, flawed person, as are all great artists. I doubt anybody here would desire any music to be banned, especially Wagner's.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Such a debate would not require a toing and froing over _whether _Wagner was antisemitic, or _whether _he might have approved of the use to which his music and musical ideas were put (a fruitless question if ever there was one).
> 
> Surely, there are other composers whose attitudes, behaviour, values might also be deemed unacceptable and whose music should also be pariah? At what point (after 100 years? 500? 25?) can we legitimately stand back and say, "Those values were the values of the time, and s/he should not be condemned for it"?


This is the crux of the problem. The people who pit themselves against "Wagner apologists" are ultimately the ones that say that we can NEVER legitimately stand back and accept the values of the times. As if the social and political climate are entirely irrelevant in how these views are formed. As I have pointed out before, there are many disagreeable views that composers may or may not have had concerning other religions, the equality of the sexes, homosexuality, other nations etc etc That Wagner wrote about his own views is unsurprising. He wrote about everything and was often quite vitriolic about it. We could infer that Bach was against Muslims, believing that they all went to hell. As a devout Christian of the 18th century, he probably did, although the counter-argument would be that Wagner made the knowledge public and Bach didn't. At the end of the day, I see that as splitting hairs. Damn them all for their views or realise that we cannot judge using modern day standards of acceptability. I can find the views and actions of Wagner contemptible, as I find many of Berlioz', and still accept their music as being a more important and relevant part of them just as I don't give a fig about the personal lives of movie stars but can enjoy their movies. But this has been said before.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*I'll be brief*



MacLeod said:


> So, to the 'innocent' who only hears Wagner's pieces in adverts and Marx brothers films (or recycled in film scores by Hans Zimmer) and has watched Stephen Fry's personal documentary about the composer, would you say I should try harder and listen to more than just Tannhauser (overture) /Ride of the Valkyrie...or I should leave well alone because it's been written by an anti-semite?


I think further exposure to a composer's music can only help someone in the process of garnering a more informed perspective concerning that music. I hope this isn't viewed personally- it applies to all of us (me, too)- and to any composer of reknown.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I think making him accountable means not just sweeping this fact under the rug because he wrote brilliant music. We need to *acknowledge and remember* that he wrote and said pretty despicable things, in addition to writing beautiful music. Not that that means people should feel guilty listening to it. It just shows he was an ordinary, flawed person, as are all great artists. I doubt anybody here would desire any music to be banned, especially Wagner's.


I'm unsure what your position is here. Wagner is so intrinsically associated with Hitler that I doubt anyone is in danger of forgetting this. In that sense, he has not just been made accountable, but a scapegoat for many of the actions of the Nazi regime. I find this strange and unjustified. Making someone accountable generally means more that simply acknowledging a crime, but punishing it also. I know you haven't used this term, I just mean to say that it goes beyond what you suggest. The accountability of Richard Strauss and Carl Orff is also an interesting topic for discussion.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I'm unsure what your position is here. Wagner is so intrinsically associated with Hitler that I doubt anyone is in danger of forgetting this. In that sense, he has not just been made accountable, but a scapegoat for many of the actions of the Nazi regime. I find this strange and unjustified. Making someone accountable generally means more that simply acknowledging a crime, but punishing it also. I know you haven't used this term, I just mean to say that it goes beyond what you suggest. The accountability of Richard Strauss and Carl Orff is also an interesting topic for discussion.


I know most people are aware of these things, I was just saying that I think the people criticizing Wagner for that just don't want that to be swept under the rug and forgotten. It is ridiculous that Wagner is scapegoated and blamed for Nazism (antisemitism was pretty common in Germany, and you shouldn't hold a person accountable for what insane people might do after hearing or reading what they say). I'm just talking about the things he himself said, which at times were quite terrible, and I can understand the difficulty especially if you are Jewish of reconciling beautiful music and the man who wrote it saying and thinking horrible things about you because of something you had no control over.

What do you mean by the accountability of Richard Strauss?


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> The people who pit themselves against "Wagner apologists" are ultimately the ones that say that we can NEVER legitimately stand back and accept the values of the times.


Complete misrepresentation. What I said, in language quite clear for anyone not intent on deliberate misunderstanding, is that it is *specious* to identify Wagner's beliefs _as_ "the values of [his] times. To quote:

*"It is total crap to say Wagner did not have available to him the option not to have antisemitic views because he was a man of the 19th c. The dominant views of Wagner's time and place may have set a limit to the range of possibilities for belief but they did not dictate how Wagner chose within that range."*

To elaborate: It shows ignorance of history to claim all of Wagner's contemporaries shared exactly the same views. As I said, I grant that one's cultural context determines "the range of possibilities for belief" but they do not dictate one's beliefs in full. It appears, for example, that Brahms, in line with the dominant ideas of his time, harbored some stereotypical beliefs about Jews. However, he did not write an anti-semitic screed entitled "On Jewishness in Music," and moreover Brahms went on record castigating Wagner for his extreme anti-semitic views (this is a matter of the historical record, and you can read about it in Swafford's Brahms biography). So Brahms serves as one example how a 19th c. German-speaking non-Jew could think with respect to Jews otherwise than Wagner did. To claim that Wagner was constrained by the straight-jacket of his cultural context to harbor extreme anti-semitic views and to promote them in print is not only ignorant nonsense, but moreover seeks to rehabilitate Wagner only by painting all the members of the society in which he lived as virulent anti-semites robotically enacting a culturally-prescribed script.

I am not asking that we judge Wagner by the standards of our age. By the standards of his own age, he looks bad enough, and he did not want for sharp critics among his contemporaries. The best that can be said for Wagner on the subject of his antisemitism, is that he lacked the intellectual fortitude and independence to reject the most virulent forms of anti-Jewish prejudice of his time.

Finally, I think it is pretty unconscionable that some are trying to establish moral equivalence between the virulent anti-semitism of Wagner's essays and "uncomfortable" politically-incorrect views that are par for the course when studying the past. When SottoVoce writes "I haven't found one historical figure that didn't say something *uncomfortable *to read in the present day," I find that a shocking attempt to put up a smokescreen of false moral equivalence. Anyone who finds the views expressed in "On Jewishness in Music" to be merely "uncomfortable" frankly disturbs me, and I can only hope that SottoVoce is writing out of ignorance.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think making him accountable means not just sweeping this fact under the rug because he wrote brilliant music. We need to acknowledge and remember that he wrote and said pretty despicable things, in addition to writing beautiful music.

I don't think anyone who knows the least bit about Wagner would suggest that he didn't have some thoughts that were quite deplorable. His antisemitism quite likely was nowhere near the worst of his character traits. The question is why do we... who simply wish to enjoy his music... need to continually revisit his personal flaws? As you suggest, Wagner's flaws merely go to illustrate that he was an ordinary flawed human being... like all composers. But how often does something similar arise concerning any other composer? Are we prodded repeatedly to consider Beethoven's personality flaws? Chopin was perhaps more antisemitic than Wagner... and antiGerman. His letters are laden with the words "Jew" and "Jewish" and "Hun" employed in a derogatory manner. Yet how often are we prodded that conscience demands we revisit Chopin's antisemitism? But of course Chopin didn't have the "bad luck" to have been probably the most important composer since Beethoven and the composer whose antisemitic writings and music were promoted and twisted by the Nazi propagandists.

MacLeod states clearly that the debate boils down to the generic question: _Should we take pleasure in (even pay money for) artistic output which comes from someone holding unacceptable ideas?_ The answer seems more than obvious. Which artists in history did not hold some ideas that we might find unacceptable? Who among us does not entertain ideas that others would not find disagreeable... if not offensive? Yet repeatedly who enjoy Wagners music are prodded: "Yes! But the Nazis" We are told "conscience is served by raising the issue", which would seem to imply that those wishing to be done with the question... those able to differentiate the man from the music... have no sense of conscious... just as those who would challenge the exaggerated of antisemitism in Wagner's music are dismissed as "apologists".


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

I think there should be a rule that you cannot post in this thread unless you have read Wagner's "On Jewishness in Music":
http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagjuda.htm

Reading this, you might notice that Wagner is not just writing against Jews in this essay but _*against Liberals who were advocating for Jewish emancipation*_, expressing the belief that these liberal efforts were naive, based upon absurd principles, and so on. So much for the ignorant hypothesis that Wagner's views were shared by all or nearly all of his contemporaries.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> If what you believe is true, then Wagner would have painted Siegfried to be victorious at the end, not a doomed figure of tragedy.


Siegfried's actions lead to the liberation of mankind from the rule of the gods. That sounds pretty victorious to me, even if it required Siegfried's death. That is how his legacy is rendered in the various Norse myths from which Wagner constructed the libretto. Besides, it's not like the concept of martyrs and tragic heroes would have been outlandish to Wagner, obsessed as he was with Greek drama.



> I don't think the public of Wagner's day would have been sympathetic to incest or see that good could come of it.


Neither do I. I don't think Wagner's goal was to make incest look like a good thing. His goal was to put the Norse myth of Sigurd, which Germans have been claiming as their cultural origin for centuries, to music. Sigfried's purity of blood suited the allegorical purposes of the opera cycle. Interestingly, in the principal sources of the North myth, Sigurd is _not_ the product of incest, so depending on one's stance in this debate, Wagner's choice to tweak the saga so is either quite significant or just another thing he did for the fun of it.

In any event, as several people here have already noted, whether or not Wagner intended antisemitic codes in his music, the fact is that for generations of people (not just Jews) his music was indelibly linked with unspeakable horrors, and what I find offensive about the article that sparked this thread is that the article's author cannot seem to understand why these people haven't gotten over it yet. Is it really that hard to fathom? It is a pity that the debate is so heated that people see no difference between showing some respect for wounds that are still in living memory, and censorship. Is the former stance overly sentimental? Maybe. But in this matter I see nothing to lose and everything to gain by erring on the side of sentimentality.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Chopin was perhaps more antisemitic than Wagner... and antiGerman. His letters are laden with the words "Jew" and "Jewish" and "Hun" employed in a derogatory manner. Yet how often are we prodded that conscience demands we revisit Chopin's antisemitism?


St. Luke, surely you can see what a flawed analogy this is? Chopin's antisemitic beliefs are not defensible. I think we can agree, however, that the private sentiments of a composer, however racist, are a different matter from writings (polemical essays, mythopoeic music dramas, etc.) _intended _as public, and which promote racialist ideologies, stoke hatred of a minority population, etc.

Can you cite an example of a single anti-semitic essay or other public writing authored by Chopin comparable to "On Jewishness in Music"?

Holding Wagner responsible for views he wrote about publicly and openly endorsed is quite different from holding Chopin responsible for prejudiced views he expressed in private letters. The latter may be an example of the "obsession" with "personalities" you falsely accused me of before; the former is not; it's holding Wagner accountable for the _public _ends and uses to which he put his considerable talents as a writer, critic, thinker, and composer.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> just as I don't give a fig about the personal lives of movie stars but can enjoy their movies


Flawed analogy. A more apt analogy would be between Wagner and an _auteur_ film-maker, not a movie star.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Holding Wagner responsible for views he wrote about publicly and openly endorsed is quite different from holding Chopin responsible for prejudiced views he expressed in private letters. The latter may be an example of the "obsession" with "personalities" you falsely accused me of before; the former is not; it's holding Wagner accountable for the public ends and uses to which he put his considerable talents as a writer, critic, thinker, and composer.

And that's fine. We hold Wagner, the man, responsible for his published antisemitic rants. What do you propose we do? Censure him? "Bad Wagner... bad, bad." Of course he's been dead 150 years so I don't think that will be all that effective. So what is the alternative? Censorship? We ban his music? Or every time a discussion of Wagner's music is raised we make certain that we bring up this issue? Nazis? What about the Nazis? I guess that I am of the point of view that I am not interested in judging the art based upon non-art issues. Caravaggio produced homoerotic paintings of underage boys for high-ranking clergy with such tastes. He was a violent, brutal man who eventually was charged with murder. But his paintings are brilliant. Many other Renaissance artists labored for some of the most brutal and violent men of the age. Their artworks often promoted a false image of these tyrants. But I still admire the paintings. Carlos Gesualdo... well:

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

Some might even presume that acts such as murder committed by Caravaggio or Gesualdo are ultimately greater "personality flaws" than Wagner's antisemitism and his stupidity in publishing these deplorable thoughts. And certainly I am aware of these "failings" ... and they raise intriguing questions with regard to the ability of an individual to aspire to both achievements of the highest artistic level... and yet still be able to stoop to the most base of thoughts and actions. I am aware of this with regard to any number of artists... including Wagner... without having the issue forever shoved down my throat. But then should we be the least bit surprised that Art and Morality are strange bedfellows? Many of the high-ranking Nazis themselves were known for there impeccable good taste.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And that's fine. We hold Wagner, the man, responsible for his published antisemitic rants. What do you propose we do? Censure him? "Bad Wagner... bad, bad." Of course he's been dead 150 years so I don't think that will be all that effective. So what is the alternative? Censorship? We ban his music?


This is puerile. Once again, because you can't admit you are defeated on the merits of your position, you resort to attacking a distorted caricature of what is actually being argued. I am through.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> This is puerile. Once again, because you can't admit you are defeated on the merits of your position, you resort to attacking a distorted caricature of what is actually being argued. I am through.


This isn't about "winning" or "be defeated" in a debate, Hausmusik. We're just trying to have a discussion. Relax.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

SAKO said:


> Wagner, or sticking sharp needles in one's flesh?
> 
> Off to find my wife's sewing kit.
> 
> Listening to Bach. A great German before a bunch of *****, a long time dead, fuelled the crux of this thread.


You realize the Nazis also revered Bach, who more-so than Wagner and Bruckner was praised as the height of German music, for his clean and prosperous German bloodline, and Goebbels was a fan of broadcasting his voice with the accompaniment of the Brandenburg Concertos. Not to mention _St. Matthew Passion_ has more blatant anti-Semitism than any of Wagner's works.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


> St. Luke, surely you can see what a flawed analogy this is? Chopin's antisemitic beliefs are not defensible. I think we can agree, however, that the private sentiments of a composer, however racist, are a different matter from writings (polemical essays, mythopoeic music dramas, etc.) _intended _as public, and which promote racialist ideologies, stoke hatred of a minority population, etc.
> 
> Can you cite an example of a single anti-semitic essay or other public writing authored by Chopin comparable to "On Jewishness in Music"?
> 
> Holding Wagner responsible for views he wrote about publicly and openly endorsed is quite different from holding Chopin responsible for prejudiced views he expressed in private letters. The latter may be an example of the "obsession" with "personalities" you falsely accused me of before; the former is not; it's holding Wagner accountable for the _public _ends and uses to which he put his considerable talents as a writer, critic, thinker, and composer.


Unlike Chopin, Wagner was a music theorist, and probably the most influential in history at that. He published over 40 written works, one of which was "Jewishness in Music".

I have read "Jewishness in Music" and while disgusting it is not racially motivated, misconstructions that it is Wagner's call for the holocaust are academically impoverished and as disgusting as the work itself.

Personally I'm more disgusted by Wagner's off-colour jokes captured in Cosima's diaries than "Jewishness in Music", the importance of which is overplayed. There's no evidence Hitler was even aware of it. If you really want to find Hitler's influences I suggest you look at the writings of Henry Ford, not Wagner's.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> Your previous thread was all about your personal worries about listening to a Wagner recording made under the wartime Nazi Germany regime. From that thread I rather gained the impression that your primary motive was political, and not to discuss any aspects of Wagner's music from a musical perspective. Are you perchance a member of some anti-Nazi group in Germany? I ask because you do seem to have a big bee in your bonnet about modern-day Nazism in that country.


Yes, I do have a concern about Neo-Nazi's in this country, but no, I am not an anti-Nazi activist nor have I the intention of becoming one.

Since renewing my interest in classical music, the reading I have done highlights the connection that exists between the music itself and the historical socioeconomic, cultural and political circumstances in which it was composed. The link between the music and prevailing _Weltanschauung_, it seems, is very close. Can we separate the music from the time and place in which it was created? It depends on each individuals way of approaching the listening experience I suppose. But just as our appreciation of say, a symphonic poem, can be enhanced by our knowledge of what inspired the composer to write it, so also can an awareness of a composer's sociocultural miliue add the our understanding and appreciation of the piece. Now, in the case of Wagner, where it is coming from (to use the expression figuratively) and where it found particular favour in the 20th C. is, to my way of thinking at least, unfortunate. However, will I not enjoy the music and rather expensive DVDs of his Ring Cycle as a consequence of this knowledge? I'll let you know. Does it matter? Well, that's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Couchie said:


> I have read "Jewishness in Music" and while disgusting it is not racially motivated, misconstructions that it is Wagner's call for the holocaust are academically impoverished and as disgusting as the work itself.


A far better case could be made against Martin Luther (one of the chief architects of Protestantism) for denouncing the Jewish people and arguing for their harsh persecution (see his book _On the Jews and Their Lies_).

I just thought I'd drop that one in, not that I'm in any way anti-religion or anti Protestant.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Couchie said:


> There's no evidence Hitler was even aware of it.


Who cares if Hitler was aware of it? Who is arguing that he was? Who on earth are you debating with? I invite you to reread my posts.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


> Who cares if Hitler was aware of it? Who is arguing that he was? Who on earth are you debating with? I invite you to reread my posts.


_"Holding Wagner responsible for views he wrote about publicly"_

What are you holding him responsible _for_ if "Jewishness on Music" was irrelevant?


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> Don't nitpick. I never used the term 'one-dimensional', merely quoted it. I said that I found him a monstrous and tragic protagonist/hero. I think that I used the usual acceptance of the term 'villain' as per this definition. There are no totally good or bad characters in the Ring that I can think of. I still think it valid to have the opinion that Siegfried is as contemptible as Alberich in many ways. Not in all ways, just that they are both majorly flawed and that it doesn't quite tally with the idea that somehow Siegfried is meant to represent a positive representation of Germanic hero that people might look up to. His bloodline muddies his heritage, not underlines its goodness as has been claimed.


I'm not saying _you_ used the term 'one-dimensional', but in rejecting that description, you implied that if you _were _to use the description, you would be saying he is a villain. Ergo, you were saying that villains are one-dimensional. If that's not what you meant, that's fine. It's the only point I was querying.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not saying _you_ used the term 'one-dimensional', but in rejecting that description, you implied that if you _were _to use the description, you would be saying he is a villain. Ergo, you were saying that villains are one-dimensional. If that's not what you meant, that's fine. It's the only point I was querying.


Apologies if I was a little hasty there.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

RW was a complete and almost archetipical soab. One of the nasties personalities in music history. Nothing to do with his music, which a deeply dislike. But that too has no relation with his personality. Just don't like his music and can't stand his operas.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Aksel said:


> I know this thread moved way past this ages ago, but can we just set one thing straight?
> Evgeni Nitkin's chest tattoo was NOT A SWASTIKA! It was an 8-point star. It might look like a swastika in the picture of him from his heavy metal days, but that is simply because it hadn't been filled in due to complications when he got the tattoo.


It looks rather like a swastika to me http://parterre.com/2012/07/21/murder-ink/ which has then been cunningly concealed behind something else, perhaps lettuce?, and then eventually completely blacked out and replaced with the star and shield. His claims about how it was a work in progress are rather undercut by the rune he wears on the other side which was particularly popular with nazis and later neo-nazis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ᛉ#Modern_usage

It seems like a particularly unfortunate bit of youthful stupidity by Nitkin who wished to be shocking and had a fascination with the most forbidden of ideologies. He had the double misfortune of Bayreuth being rather sensitive to their own mistakes in the past and their past friends.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> A far better case could be made against Martin Luther (one of the chief architects of Protestantism) for denouncing the Jewish people and arguing for their harsh persecution (see his book _On the Jews and Their Lies_).
> 
> I just thought I'd drop that one in, not that I'm in any way anti-religion or anti Protestant.


Yes indeed---and of course, if Martin Luther was an anti-semite, then nobody else, including Wagner, was!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

quack said:


> ...
> It seems like a particularly unfortunate bit of youthful stupidity by Nitkin who wished to be shocking and had a fascination with the most forbidden of ideologies. He had the double misfortune of Bayreuth being rather sensitive to their own mistakes in the past and their past friends.


What this whole swastika tatoo speaks to is the disturbing rise of the far right in Europe in recent decades. Well its been happening for like 30 years or more. I mean even before that you had various groups of one ideology or another doing horrible things like the Baader Meinhof or Italy's Red Brigades, who kidnapped and killed Italy's Prime Minister Aldo Moro. But now they're 'nicer' than that, they've toned down their ideology and are now sitting in parliaments across Europe.

How 'nice' (not).

Frankly, this has less to do with Wagner but more to do with how Europe, despite its high culture and civilisation, has basically gone to the dogs. You have most of continental Europe as an economic basket case bailed out by Germany, basically. That brings premonitions of...you know what.

So I don't care about Wagner, he's dead. But these elements are here now and you know, this is a worrying issue. But its another issue, I'm just saying that the Wagner thing relates to wider issues, ultimately more to do with today than in his time or in eg. Nazi Germany.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

This is puerile. Once again, because you can't admit you are defeated on the merits of your position, you resort to attacking a distorted caricature of what is actually being argued. I am through.

Are you still in high-school? Do you imagine this is the debate team? This isn't about winning points. This is about the question as to whether one can appreciate the art created by an individual guilty of deplorable thoughts and/or acts. If your goal is to ruin Wagner's image... well you're a pathetic loser there; he already beat you to the punch. If your goal is to tarnish his music, well once again you lose. Those who love his music will continue to listen to it while you continue to sputter and rant on any online forum that will take you seriously... without the slightest little impact.

Having said that, I am finished here. There is nothing else to add. If there is a thread discussing the merits of Wagner's music... the Ring, Parsifal, Tristan... that is where I'll expend my efforts.

:tiphat:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Wagner makes everybody crazy.... CRAZY hehehehehehe! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! MUAHAHAHAHAHA WAGNER WAGNER WAGNER WAGNER


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2012)

quack said:


> It looks rather like a swastika to me http://parterre.com/2012/07/21/murder-ink/ which has then been cunningly concealed behind something else, perhaps lettuce?


Lettuce? :lol: Come on, are we playing cloud shapes here? Is a lettuce a well-known cure for bad tattoos, or does it ward off anti-semitism, like garlic wards off vampires?


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Well kids, you misbehave too much. It's enough. You won't see anymore TV, nor play any more games. Now, go to bed.


----------

