# Everything you wanted to know about the Ring Cycle but were afraid to ask



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Don't be afraid. There's no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to the Ring Cycle. Whether we're looking for facts, opinions or suppositions, let's ask and respond to questions about our favourite operatic tetralogy.

I'll kick off with this one: Why does the whole four opera work contain only one choral section? And that being in the penultimate act of the last of the four operas. Was this deliberate? An oversight? Do you think Wagner would have regretted not having another choral section? For example Das Rhinegold is all set up for the Nibelheim workers to do more than let out a scream.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> I'll kick off with this one: Why does the whole four opera work contain only one choral section? And that being in the penultimate act of the last of the four operas. Was this deliberate? An oversight? Do you think Wagner would have regretted not having another choral section? For example Das Rhinegold is all set up for the Nibelheim workers to do more than let out a scream.


I'm afraid there's only one person who could answer that and he's long gone from this world!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Although Wagner set the libretti of the Ring to music in roughly chronological order, he wrote the actual libretti themselves in reverse order. Perhaps as he was writing the libretti he realised that his plot was more about he interaction of individuals rather than the interaction between different races (which was his starting point for writing the opera in the first place) and so he didn't include a part for the chorus in the libretti after the one he wrote for Goetterdaemerung.

N.


----------



## anmhe (Feb 10, 2015)

I love the Ring Cycle, but I've always found that most all of the characters are VERY hard to like. Was this a conscious choice on Wagner's part, or just my modern POV?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> Why does the whole four opera work contain only one choral section? And that being in the penultimate act of the last of the four operas. Was this deliberate? An oversight? Do you think Wagner would have regretted not having another choral section? For example Das Rhinegold is all set up for the Nibelheim workers to do more than let out a scream.


The _Ring_ was to be Wagner's "demonstration model" for the theories he laid out in his treatise "Opera and Drama," in which he sought to define a new kind of opera in which the "artificial" conventions of the older operatic entertainment would be discarded in favor of a greater naturalism. Wagner wasn't the first composer to try to bring a greater dramatic integrity to opera, but he was no doubt the most radical in his theories and methods.

It's been a long time since I've read any of "Opera and Drama," but I seem to remember Wagner discussing the artificiality of the chorus and, in fact, of voices singing together for almost any reason. His last opera before the _Ring_, _Lohengrin_, uses the chorus at several junctures, and very effectively from a dramatic standpoint. But the _Ring_ was to represent a departure, and in the first two-and-two-thirds of the _Ring_ operas only the Rhinemaidens and the Valkyries get to sing together, with even Siegmiund and Sieglinde not allowed to join voices in a love duet. After Act Two of _Siegfried_, however, came _Tristan und Isolde_, and with the composition of that opera Wagner began to rethink his ideas about what kinds of music were acceptable in opera, with its sailor's chorus and extended love duet. _Die Meistersinger_ saw the full reintegration of the chorus into music drama, and in Act Three of _Siegfried_ and _Gotterdammerung_ we have two splendid love duets, an oath of brotherhood duet, a vengeance trio, another Rhinemaidens' trio, and the exciting gathering of the vassals. And, of course, the choral writing in _Parsifal_ is magnificent. Needless to say, Wagner never goes back to the use of the chorus merely for its entertainment value, but always makes it contribute in essential ways to the progress and meaning of the drama.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

anmhe said:


> I love the Ring Cycle, but I've always found that most all of the characters are VERY hard to like. Was this a conscious choice on Wagner's part, or just my modern POV?


I think that if you were to read much in world mythology (which perhaps you have) you would have the same reaction. Wagner's mythological characters are personifications of archetypal emotions, ideas, and motivations, common to all of humanity, more than they are individual people. Wagner actually does humanize these fantastical or legendary figures considerably, but generally we are meant to experience them as focused embodiments of various human qualities, not as people we might encounter in life. Wagner's mature operas all portray some process of intellectual, emotional, or spiritual evolution, and each character in them has distinct a role to play in that process which defines that character's nature. The process is a struggle, and so most of the characters represent some incomplete or defective perspective on life as it evolves in the course of the work. This is as true of Wagner's "heroes" as it is of his "villains."

Whether the characters are likable is really beside the point in this kind of drama, and I must say that in all the time I've known Wagner's work it has never occurred to me to wonder about their likability. In fact, I find Alberich, in his own proudly magnificent wickedness, very likable indeed!


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Although Wagner set the libretti of the Ring to music in roughly chronological order, he wrote the actual libretti themselves in reverse order. Perhaps as he was writing the libretti he realised that his plot was more about he interaction of individuals rather than the interaction between different races (which was his starting point for writing the opera in the first place) and so he didn't include a part for the chorus in the libretti after the one he wrote for Goetterdaemerung.
> 
> N.


Interesting thought. But there were still opportunities with groups of characters, particularly in Rheingold with the Nibelungs, to write choruses if he had been so inclined. I think Woodduck is correct in that it had more to do with his compositional ideas and style changing in the 21 years between the time he composed Rheingold to the time he composed Gotterdammerung.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Faustian said:


> Interesting thought. But there were still opportunities with groups of characters, particularly in Rheingold with the Nibelungs, to write choruses if he had been so inclined. I think Woodduck is correct in that it had more to do with his compositional ideas and style changing in the 21 years between the time he composed Rheingold to the time he composed Gotterdammerung.


G. B. Shaw and others have noted the return of operatic conventions in _Gotterdammerung_ (the love duet, the oath of loyalty, the vengeance trio, the gathering of the vassals) and considered it a sort of selling out, a compromising of the austere ideals of "Opera and Drama." It's true that the libretto of _Gotterdammerung_ was written first, and so the intention of using these conventions probably dates back to Wagner's _Lohengrin_-period style. The fourth opera of the _Ring_ does in consequence have a slightly different flavor. But I think this is not inappropriate given that it's the only one of the four set mainly in the context of human society, as opposed to mythical landscapes filled with gods, giants, dwarves and dragons. Wotan has withdrawn himself as an active agent at the center of events, and has left things for humans to screw up, which they do magnificently to the accompaniment of duets, trios, choruses and funeral marches. And, contrary to Wagner's theories about ensembles and choruses, these things as used in this opera are in fact realistic in the deepest sense, the sense in which humans work their greatest mischief when they submerge themselves in groups and institutions. Note that when nature does return to wash away the destruction, the opportunity for a final ensemble is not taken: when the Rhinemaidens sweep in on the flood to reclaim the ring, they are no longer singing. For now we have heard more than enough of the clamor of voices, and the orchestra offers only a promise, nothing more.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> After Act Two of _Siegfried_, however, came _Tristan und Isolde_, and with the composition of that opera Wagner began to rethink his ideas about what kinds of music were acceptable in opera, with its sailor's chorus and extended love duet. _Die Meistersinger_ saw the full reintegration of the chorus into music drama, and in Act Three of _Siegfried_ and _Gotterdammerung_ we have two splendid love duets, an oath of brotherhood duet, a vengeance trio, another Rhinemaidens' trio, and the exciting gathering of the vassals. And, of course, the choral writing in _Parsifal_ is magnificent. Needless to say, Wagner never goes back to the use of the chorus merely for its entertainment value, but always makes it contribute in essential ways to the progress and meaning of the drama.


Yes, the fervant Wagnerian must guard against any notion that Wagner's artistic decisions are infallible and Wagner's rethinking illustrates that. I'm glad he did rethink his ideas as his choral scenes are amongst his crowning achievements. Certainly, the vassals' scene.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

anmhe said:


> I love the Ring Cycle, but I've always found that most all of the characters are VERY hard to like. Was this a conscious choice on Wagner's part, or just my modern POV?


Brunnhilde marrying the offspring of her incestuous twin half-siblings seems rather willful, as does the impression that the characters aren't generally likeable, although Freia doesn't seem so bad. I'm not sure how much of this incest is derived from the source material but I'm guessing that Wagner wouldn't have gone with the family tree setup if he weren't happy with it.

A further related question: Is it in any way a commentary on the general inbreeding of European royal families at the time?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> Interesting thought. But there were still opportunities with groups of characters, particularly in Rheingold with the Nibelungs, to write choruses if he had been so inclined. I think Woodduck is correct in that it had more to do with his compositional ideas and style changing in the 21 years between the time he composed Rheingold to the time he composed Gotterdammerung.


Why can't it be both?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Brunnhilde marrying the offspring of her incestuous twin half-siblings seems rather willful, as does the impression that the characters aren't generally likeable, although Freia doesn't seem so bad. I'm not sure how much of this incest is derived from the source material but I'm guessing that Wagner wouldn't have gone with the family tree setup if he weren't happy with it.
> 
> A further related question: Is it in any way a commentary on the general inbreeding of European royal families at the time?


Are we not free to interpret it in any way we please or as comes naturally to us?

I see it as a provocative manifesto of free love. :tiphat:

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

anmhe said:


> I love the Ring Cycle, but I've always found that most all of the characters are VERY hard to like. Was this a conscious choice on Wagner's part, or just my modern POV?


I have the same problem. I must confess I have a huge problem with Wagner's idea of a hero in Siegfried, with his pride, his strength, his arrogance, his ruthlessness first to Mime and then to Wotan. When we first meet him he is acting as a bully by bringing a bear to terrorise the dwarf. "Go for him! Gobble him up,that ugly old smith!" Then, "The two of us came, the better to torment you." Not the sort of thing I'd want to teach my children to do. In fact we try to teach our kids to have compassion on those who are ugly and misshapen. But then the dwarf is contemptible too, as he has ulterior motives in fostering Siegfried. However, Siegfried as yet does not know this and apparently simply hates the dwarf because he is ugly. Come to think of it the Rhinemaidens despised Alberich and tormented him because he was ugly too!
Oh well, maybe we're not supposed to like any of the characters in the Ring!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> Brunnhilde marrying the offspring of her incestuous twin half-siblings seems rather willful, as does the impression that the characters aren't generally likeable, although Freia doesn't seem so bad. I'm not sure how much of this incest is derived from the source material but I'm guessing that Wagner wouldn't have gone with the family tree setup if he weren't happy with it.
> 
> A further related question: Is it in any way a commentary on the general inbreeding of European royal families at the time?


No I don't think so. More likely a reflection of Wagner's own position, especially when he wrote Walkure. When Wagner, in the early eighteen-fifties, set about writing the Ring, he, too, was caught in a dying marriage. Minna Wagner, not unlike Fricka, regularly upbraided her husband for his profligacy and inconstancy. In Act II of Walkure, when Wotan and Frika are arguing over the adulterous, incestuous love of Siegmund and Sieglinde, Wagner's sympathies plainly lie with Wotan, who becomes a mouthpiece for the composer when he says, "Age-old custom is all you can grasp: but my thoughts seek to encompass what's never yet come to pass." Whereas Fricka upholds traditional morality Wotan looks ahead to a bohemian utopia where desire makes its own laws.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Why can't it be both?
> 
> N.


It kind of goes hand in hand, doesn't it? There just aren't a lot of _opportunities_ for choruses that would really make sense because of the way librettos for Rheingold, Walkure and Siegfried are constructed. Like I said though, it seems to me the opportunity _was_ still there if he had really wanted to do compose a chorus or two.

Interesting side note: although the librettos were written in reverse order because he had initially only planned on writing one opera (Siegfried's Tod), in 1848 Wagner had actually written a summary of all the dramatic material starting with the events of Rheingold before he began any of the libretti, which shows he had conceived the drama more or less the way it is from the beginning. A copy of that summary can be read here:

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagnibe.htm

I think Wagner's decision to reduce the Giants from being depicted as an entire race to there just being two of them, or for the Volsungs to be depicted as a brother and sister rather than as two in a long lineage of heroes stemming from Wotan was because he wanted to streamline the material so that it was more dramatically effective.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> No I don't think so. More likely a reflection of Wagner's own position, especially when he wrote Walkure. When Wagner, in the early eighteen-fifties, set about writing the Ring, he, too, was caught in a dying marriage. Minna Wagner, not unlike Fricka, regularly upbraided her husband for his profligacy and inconstancy. In Act II of Walkure, when Wotan and Frika are arguing over the adulterous, incestuous love of Siegmund and Sieglinde, Wagner's sympathies plainly lie with Wotan, who becomes a mouthpiece for the composer when he says, "Age-old custom is all you can grasp: but my thoughts seek to encompass what's never yet come to pass." Whereas Fricka upholds traditional morality Wotan looks ahead to a bohemian utopia where desire makes its own laws.


Well if it's supposed to be autobiographical, Minna wouldn't have made for a very good model as an upholder of traditional morality, considering she left Wagner for another man not long after they first got married. 

As for the discussion of the characters being likable, it seems to me that all the characters in the Ring have both their flaws and their strengths, which is pretty much how human beings work.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Alberich survives, doesn't he? I wonder if he would consider pinching the Rheingold again seeing the gods are no longer around to hinder him. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

elgars ghost said:


> Alberich survives, doesn't he? I wonder if he would consider pinching the Rheingold again seeing the gods are no longer around to hinder him. :lol:


Don't the Rhnemaidens drown him in Wagner's text?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Don't the Rhnemaidens drown him in Wagner's text?


They drown Hagen but as I recall Alberich's last appearance is at the beginning of Act II when he urges Hagen to eliminate Siegfried.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

elgars ghost said:


> They drown Hagen but as I recall Alberich's last appearance is at the beginning of Act II when he urges Hagen to eliminate Siegfried.


Sorry it was Hagen!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Sorry it was Hagen!


It would be completely characteristic for Alberich to be lurking somewhere safe and unseen even when his son is about to die - whatever paternal instinct Alberich may have had for Hagen was eclipsed by his greed and the instinct he had for getting others to do his dirty work. Had Hagen got the ring he may well have been in danger from his father after that as I'm guessing Alberich had renounced love of all kinds in order to enjoy the ring's power. All hypothesis, of course...


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Brunnhilde marrying the offspring of her incestuous twin half-siblings seems rather willful, as does the impression that the characters aren't generally likeable, although Freia doesn't seem so bad. I'm not sure how much of this incest is derived from the source material but I'm guessing that Wagner wouldn't have gone with the family tree setup if he weren't happy with it.
> 
> A further related question: Is it in any way a commentary on the general inbreeding of European royal families at the time?


There's incest in the source material, the Volsunga saga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völsunga_saga. But it's not so direct--Sigmund does have a son with his twin sister, but it's a different son than the one who kills Fafner and finds Brynhild. And Sigmund is descended from someone fathered by Odin but isn't directly Odin's son, and there's nothing indicating that Brynhild is descended from Odin.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> Alberich survives, doesn't he? I wonder if he would consider pinching the Rheingold again seeing the gods are no longer around to hinder him. :lol:


You should read Tom Holt's _Expecting Someone Taller - "Malcolm Fisher, a nerdish Englishman, runs over a badger who just happens to be a disguised Giant who possesses the Ring of the Nibelung, as well as the magical Tarnhelm, allowing him to change his shape. Before Malcolm has time to do more than make a few experiments with his new possessions, he finds himself pursued by gods, dwarves, and amorous Rhinemaidens and Valkyries, and finds himself locked in a power stuggle with chief god Wotan. Can Malcolm overcome his retiring nature and the gods?"_


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> I'll kick off with this one: Why does the whole four opera work contain only one choral section? And that being in the penultimate act of the last of the four operas. Was this deliberate? An oversight? Do you think Wagner would have regretted not having another choral section? For example Das Rhinegold is all set up for the Nibelheim workers to do more than let out a scream.





Woodduck said:


> G. B. Shaw and others have noted the return of operatic conventions in Gotterdammerung (the love duet, the oath of loyalty, the vengeance trio, the gathering of the vassals) and considered it a sort of selling out, a compromising of the austere ideals of "Opera and Drama." It's true that the libretto of Gotterdammerung was written first, and so the intention of using these conventions probably dates back to Wagner's Lohengrin-period style. The fourth opera of the Ring does in consequence have a slightly different flavor. But I think this is not inappropriate given that it's the only one of the four set mainly in the context of human society, as opposed to mythical landscapes filled with gods, giants, dwarves and dragons. Wotan has withdrawn himself as an active agent at the center of events, and has left things for humans to screw up, which they do magnificently to the accompaniment of duets, trios, choruses and funeral marches.


This is how I have always considered it; the change in operatic conventions, as it were, really makes Götterdämmerung stand out. It reinforces the overall arc of the cycle; it is about change. There are no (human) mortals in Das Rheingold; and after the Norns in the prologue there are no gods in Götterdämmerung.

I think any earlier choral sections - the Nibelheim workers, the Neidings on a hunting party, perhaps the dead heroes gathered by the Valkyries - would detract from the drama of those works and from the overall plan.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> Alberich survives, doesn't he? I wonder if he would consider pinching the Rheingold again seeing the gods are no longer around to hinder him. :lol:


Does he? I've always thought that he dies in that end of the world thing.

BUT, it is, of course, possible that he survives, what will the new world that survives the Goetterdaemerung do for/with/in reaction to him?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I have the same problem. I must confess I have a huge problem with Wagner's idea of a hero in Siegfried, with his pride, his strength, his arrogance, his ruthlessness first to Mime and then to Wotan. When we first meet him he is acting as a bully by bringing a bear to terrorise the dwarf. "Go for him! Gobble him up,that ugly old smith!" Then, "The two of us came, the better to torment you." Not the sort of thing I'd want to teach my children to do. In fact we try to teach our kids to have compassion on those who are ugly and misshapen. But then the dwarf is contemptible too, as he has ulterior motives in fostering Siegfried. However, Siegfried as yet does not know this and apparently simply hates the dwarf because he is ugly. Come to think of it the Rhinemaidens despised Alberich and tormented him because he was ugly too!
> Oh well, maybe we're not supposed to like any of the characters in the Ring!


Siegfried didn't grow up in a nice neighborhood in Surrey, going to church on Sunday, helping little old ladies across the street, and taking tea with properly raised pinkie. Siegfried is a creature of the forest. He has the instincts of an animal, and he knows from watching the other animals that Mime cannot be his parent and has no goodness in him. The boy isn't ruthless; he doesn't actually let the bear hurt Mime, he is playing rough as children play rough, and neither is he ruthless to Wotan, who is for some incomprehensible reason blocking his way. He kills Mime when the dwarf expresses the desire to murder him while pretending to be kindly; the dragon's blood enables Siegfried to read Mime's real thoughts. Mime's death is simple justice in this mythological world before civilization, and shows Siegfried's natural intuition, symbolized by the dragon's blood.

We're not in the Countess Almaviva's boudoir, David. We're in a world of primal instincts not one whit less human, where you and your insistence on niceness and "likability" wouldn't last five minutes (watch out for those dragons!). If you really want to understand the world of the _Ring_, and Wagner's brilliant use of mythical archetypes, I recommend the book by Robert Donington, "The Ring and its Symbols."


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Siegfried didn't grow up in a nice neighborhood in Surrey, going to church on Sunday, helping little old ladies across the street, and taking tea with properly raised pinkie. Siegfried is a creature of the forest. He has the instincts of an animal, and he knows from watching the other animals that Mime cannot be his parent and has no goodness in him. The boy isn't ruthless; he doesn't actually let the bear hurt Mime, he is playing rough as children play rough, and neither is he ruthless to Wotan, who is for some incomprehensible reason blocking his way. He kills Mime when the dwarf expresses the desire to murder him while pretending to be kindly; the dragon's blood enables Siegfried to read Mime's real thoughts. Mime's death is simple justice in this mythological world before civilization, and shows Siegfried's natural intuition, symbolized by the dragon's blood.
> 
> We're not in the Countess Almaviva's boudoir, David. We're in a world of primal instincts not one whit less human, where you and your insistence on niceness and "likability" wouldn't last five minutes (watch out for those dragons!). If you really want to understand the world of the _Ring_, and Wagner's brilliant use of mythical archetypes, I recommend the book by Robert Donington, "the Ring and its Symbols."


Great post. Furthermore does a hero have to be all good, or even likable? By all accounts Oskar Schindler was an arrogant rogue, but was he also a hero? The thing I love about the Ring is that the characters have weaknesses (and sometimes many of them) just like people do in real life. Or is it just me who is imperfect and we are in the presence of the Gods themselves on TC?

N.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Great post. Furthermore does a hero have to be all good, or even likable? By all accounts Oskar Schindler was an arrogant rogue, but was he also a hero? The thing I love about the Ring is that the characters have weaknesses (and sometimes many of them) just like people do in real life. Or is it just me who is imperfect and we are in the presence of the Gods themselves on TC?
> 
> N.


Humans are imperfect, the gods are imperfect, everyone and everything is imperfect.

- That's why we have drama and myths to make sense of it all. _;D_


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I like Siegfried and always choke up at his murder and funeral music.
I like Brunhilde too and feel heartbroken about her situation.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Itullian said:


> I like Siegfried and always choke up at his murder and funeral music.
> I like Brunhilde too.


Brunhilde's a doll!

I even have a soft spot for Wotan.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Brunhilde's a doll!
> 
> I even have a soft spot for Wotan.
> 
> N.


Wotan is an amazing character. Look at how he evolves from his youthful ambitions at the dawn of the world to his graceful, if tragic, relinquishment of it. Does any figure in literature or drama make a longer journey? I have a very soft spot for him.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Siegfried didn't grow up in a nice neighborhood in Surrey, going to church on Sunday, helping little old ladies across the street, and taking tea with properly raised pinkie. Siegfried is a creature of the forest. He has the instincts of an animal, and he knows from watching the other animals that Mime cannot be his parent and has no goodness in him. The boy isn't ruthless; he doesn't actually let the bear hurt Mime, he is playing rough as children play rough, and neither is he ruthless to Wotan, who is for some incomprehensible reason blocking his way. He kills Mime when the dwarf expresses the desire to murder him while pretending to be kindly; the dragon's blood enables Siegfried to read Mime's real thoughts. Mime's death is simple justice in this mythological world before civilization, and shows Siegfried's natural intuition, symbolized by the dragon's blood.
> 
> We're not in the Countess Almaviva's boudoir, David. We're in a world of primal instincts not one whit less human, where you and your insistence on niceness and "likability" wouldn't last five minutes (watch out for those dragons!). If you really want to understand the world of the _Ring_, and Wagner's brilliant use of mythical archetypes, I recommend the book by Robert Donington, "The Ring and its Symbols."


Thanks Woodduck but I did know all that. But I don't have to like the resulting character, do I, still less think he is a hero? I mean, what hero kills an unarmed dwarf in cold blood? Oh yes, I know the dwarf was going to murder him but what hero would do that? A hero is someone we want to emulate. I think the problem is that Wagner makes him a hero and holds him up as the sorta noble savage type. Would you want your children to grow up like that? Maybe not! But then the Ring is just fantasy.
Interestingly Siegfried may have had an ambivalent relationship with his adopted father and even more so with women as he was ripped from his mother at birth. Psychology is only now realising the full e tent of how children can be damaged by that process. But we don't have to like the results.

BTW I think we learn far more of the human condition in Countess Almaviva's boudoir than we do in the whole of the Ring!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Surely Siegmund and Sieglinde deserve some sympathy too.
When Wotan lets Hunding kill him


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Surely Siegmund and Sieglinde deserve some sympathy too.
> When Wotan lets Hunding kill him


I wouldn't appreciate my brother-in-law running off with my wife, that's for sure!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

What a wonderful scene when the woodbird tells Siegfried about Brunhilde and he runs around in excitement. So touching to me.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I wouldn't appreciate my brother-in-law running off with my wife, that's for sure!


I wouldn't care, just as long as it is all happening accompanied by some of the most gorgeous music ever written!

But then I'm just a bit bohemian like that.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Wotan is an amazing character. Look at how he evolves from his youthful ambitions at the dawn of the world to his graceful, if tragic, relinquishment of it. Does any figure in literature or drama make a longer journey? I have a very soft spot for him.


Exactly! One can blame Wagner for many things, but dull, two dimensional characterisations in his later operas isn't one of them.

N.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

The Conte said:


> Exactly! One can blame Wagner for many things, but dull, two dimensional characterisations in his later operas isn't one of them.
> 
> N.


I love the psychological complexity of his characters.
It's endlessly fascinating.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The single most important thing to remember in understanding Wagner's dramatic methods - and this is true even in his early works - is that, all his theorizing notwithstanding, his characters and their natures and symbolic meanings must be understood primarily by listening to their music. He actually needed a bit of time to understand this himself. Schopenhauer had held up music as the highest of the arts, and when Wagner came under that philosopher's spell and, concurrently, found himself flooded with the unprecedented music of _Tristan und Isolde_, he realized that music must indeed be the principal locus of operatic drama and not merely one element of many in the "total art work" he had thought and written about previously.

As we discuss the characters in the _Ring, _ or any Wagner opera, and find that there are things that baffle us or make us uncomfortable, we can look to many sources of possible understanding. But the music - music which, in the penetrating specificity of its expression has, in my estimation, no equal in that of any other composer - must be our ultimate guide and court of appeal. Alberich and Wotan may appear to be virtually equivalent in their lust for power, but they are still very different beings. Without their music, that difference might not seem so clear to us - and, in fact, a lot of modern regietheater productions, ignoring the score as they so often do, try to portray Wotan in a very negative way. But the way he's introduced musically, with that gloriously serene motif of Valhalla undergirding his words, immediately gives us a perspective from which to view his subsequent actions, and by the time we see him bidding Erda to sink back into her eternal sleep in _Siegfried_ we cannot help but be deeply moved by the nobility which he and his music - _through_ his music - have attained.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Alberich survives, doesn't he? I wonder if he would consider pinching the Rheingold again seeing the gods are no longer around to hinder him. :lol:


I have interpreted Alberich as not alive during _Götterdämmerung_.

He only appears to a sleeping Hagen and disappears right after the morning dawns. Just before we see Alberich in the libretto Wagner mentions the alter-stones to Wotan, Fricka, and Donner in the hall of the Gibichungs. The beings of _Das Rheingold_ are now nothing but memory, myth, dreams.

In _Siegfried_ both Alberich and Wotan (as the Wanderer) are reduced to watching the drama; they are powerless. We see Wotan defeated by Siegfried; Alberich is not important enough that we need to see him die, specifically. In _Götterdämmerung_ we have Siegfried and Brünnhilde, descendants of Wotan. And Hagen, son of Alberich. And we have the Gibichungs, who worship the gods. The story has moved on.

It no more makes sense for Alberich to swoop in after Valhalla burns than for Donnor, Freia, or Loge to have survived.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> BTW I think we learn far more of the human condition in Countess Almaviva's boudoir than we do in the whole of the Ring!


To which there is obviously no possible response that would mean anything to you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I have interpreted Alberich as not alive during _Götterdämmerung_.
> 
> He only appears to a sleeping Hagen and disappears right after the morning dawns. Just before we see Alberich in the libretto Wagner mentions the alter-stones to Wotan, Fricka, and Donner in the hall of the Gibichungs. The beings of _Das Rheingold_ are now nothing but memory, myth, dreams.
> 
> ...


I like that, though whether or not it's literally true really doesn't matter. Time moves forward, nothing is as it was, and Alberich is not a danger. Note: the Rhinemaidens do not reclaim the Rhinegold, but the ring that was made from it. A ring - a circle - is a symbol of completeness. The world is made, it doesn't need remaking. Now that the gods and the other beings of the heavens and the underworld have retired, its all up to us to get it right.

How're we doing?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I also find a lot of the characters relatively unlikable. I find Siegmund much more likable than his son Siegfried who seems more like a dim witted strongman than a hero. Perhaps his upbringing can explain that. Wotan I find kind of in the middle, not totally unlikable or likable. But on the other hand, I really love Brunhilde as a character, and she may be my favorite opera character of all time. I recently watched Fidelio for the first time and Leanore might tie with Brunhilde as my favorite, now.

Anyway, here's my possibly stupid question. In the production I watched on youtube, during the immolation scene, Brunhilde simply throws a torch at the bottom of the castle of the gods, and this is all it takes to burn it all down. Just a torch? Is that all it takes? Is that really what happens or am I confused? I still really love the scene, it's an amazing climax to a great cycle of operas, I just always thought this one aspect was kind of weird.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Dedalus said:


> I also find a lot of the characters relatively unlikable. I find Siegmund much more likable than his son Siegfried who seems more like a dim witted strongman than a hero. Perhaps his upbringing can explain that. Wotan I find kind of in the middle, not totally unlikable or likable. But on the other hand, I really love Brunhilde as a character, and she may be my favorite opera character of all time. I recently watched Fidelio for the first time and Leanore might tie with Brunhilde as my favorite, now.
> 
> Anyway, here's my possibly stupid question. In the production I watched on youtube, during the immolation scene, Brunhilde simply throws a torch at the bottom of the castle of the gods, and this is all it takes to burn it all down. Just a torch? Is that all it takes? Is that really what happens or am I confused? I still really love the scene, it's an amazing climax to a great cycle of operas, I just always thought this one aspect was kind of weird.


Wagners operas are hard to stage and many productions are bizarre.
Just symbolic I would guess............


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

It case it helps, this is the immolation scene from the production I watched. A Boulez Bayreuth one, best (or only) one on youtube with english subs.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> To which there is obviously no possible response that would mean anything to you.


Or you! Actually it means we look at life from entirely different perspectives.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I wouldn't care, just as long as it is all happening accompanied by some of the most gorgeous music ever written!
> 
> But then I'm just a bit bohemian like that.
> 
> N.


Well the music of Cosi fan Tutte is even better imo but it doesn't mean I have to approve of what happens. I'd certainly care if it happened to me no matter what music was playing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> I also find a lot of the characters relatively unlikable. I find Siegmund much more likable than his son Siegfried who seems more like a dim witted strongman than a hero. Perhaps his upbringing can explain that. Wotan I find kind of in the middle, not totally unlikable or likable. But on the other hand, I really love Brunhilde as a character, and she may be my favorite opera character of all time. I recently watched Fidelio for the first time and Leanore might tie with Brunhilde as my favorite, now.
> 
> Anyway, here's my possibly stupid question. In the production I watched on youtube, during the immolation scene, Brunhilde simply throws a torch at the bottom of the castle of the gods, and this is all it takes to burn it all down. Just a torch? Is that all it takes? Is that really what happens or am I confused? I still really love the scene, it's an amazing climax to a great cycle of operas, I just always thought this one aspect was kind of weird.


The fire which begins in Brunnhilde's hand and finally consumes Valhalla obviously can't be explained, or staged, literally. Wagner's directions are as follows:

(She hurls the torch into the pile of wood,
which quickly bursts into flame. Two ravens
fly up from the rock by the shore
and disappear into the background.)
(Brünnhilde catches sight of her horse,
which two young men lead in. She runs
towards it, takes hold of it and quickly
unbridles it: then leans towards it
confidentially)

(She has jumped on to the horse and with one bound leaps into the burning pyre. The flames immediately crackle and flare up high, so that the fire fills the whole space in front of the hall and seems to seize on this too. Terrified, the men and women press to the extreme foreground.)
(When the entire stage appears to be completely filled with flame, the glare suddenly dies down, soon leaving only a cloud of smoke which drifts towards the background and lies on the horizon like a dark pall of cloud. At the same time the Rhine greatly overflows its banks, and its waters inundate the area of the fire. The three Rhinemaidens swim past on the waves and appear above the pyre. Hagen, who since the incident of the ring has been watching Brünnhilde's behaviour with growing anxiety, is filled with the utmost terror at the sight of the Rhinemaidens. He hastily throws aside his spear, shield and helmet and plunges, as if insane, into the flood.)

(Woglinde and Wellgunde twine their arms round his neck and, swimming backwards, drag him with them into the depths. Flosshilde, swimming in front of the others towards the background, exultantly holds high the recovered ring. Through the cloud bank that lies on the horizon breaks an increasingly bright red glow. In its light the three Rhinemaidens are seen happily playing with the ring and swimming in circles in the calmer waves of the Rhine, which is gradually subsiding into its bed. From the ruins of the place, which has collapsed, the men and women, in the utmost apprehension, watch the growing firelight in the sky. When this finally reaches its brightest there becomes visible the palace of Valhalla, in which the gods and heroes sit assembled, exactly as Waltraute described them in Act One. Bright flames seem to set fire to the hall of the gods. As the gods become completely hidden from view by flames, the curtain falls)

All clear now? Good luck staging it! :lol:

Too bad film didn't exist in 1875, and really too bad that no one has yet made the film that this most monumental of all artworks deserves.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> I also find a lot of the characters relatively unlikable. I find Siegmund much more likable than his son Siegfried who seems more like a dim witted strongman than a hero. Perhaps his upbringing can explain that. Wotan I find kind of in the middle, not totally unlikable or likable. But on the other hand, I really love Brunhilde as a character, and she may be my favorite opera character of all time. I recently watched Fidelio for the first time and Leanore might tie with Brunhilde as my favorite, now.
> 
> Anyway, here's my possibly stupid question. In the production I watched on youtube, during the immolation scene, Brunhilde simply throws a torch at the bottom of the castle of the gods, and this is all it takes to burn it all down. Just a torch? Is that all it takes? Is that really what happens or am I confused? I still really love the scene, it's an amazing climax to a great cycle of operas, I just always thought this one aspect was kind of weird.


According to Wagner (not necessarily the producer) 
Brünnhilde makes her entrance and takes charge of events (the Immolation Scene). Brünnhilde issues orders for a huge funeral pyre to be assembled by the river. She takes the ring and tells the Rhinemaidens to claim it from her ashes, once fire has cleansed it of its curse. Lighting the pyre with a firebrand, she sends Wotan's ravens home with "anxiously longed-for tidings"; they fly off. After an apostrophe to the dead hero, Brünnhilde mounts her horse Grane and rides into the flames.
The fire flares up, and the hall of the Gibichungs catches fire and collapses. The Rhine overflows its banks, quenching the fire, and the Rhinemaidens swim in to claim the ring. Hagen tries to stop them but they drag him into the depths and drown him. As they celebrate the return of the ring and its gold to the river, a red glow is seen in the sky. As the people watch, deeply moved, the interior of Valhalla is finally seen, with gods and heroes visible as described by Waltraute in Act 1. Flames flare up in the Hall of the Gods, hiding it and them from sight completely. As the gods are consumed in the flames, the curtain falls.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Well the music of Cosi fan Tutte is even better imo but it doesn't mean I have to approve of what happens. I'd certainly care if it happened to me no matter what music was playing.


It was a joke, I believe. 

And so are your constant references to your preference for Mozart, which you feel compelled to insert in every thread about Wagner (and possibly about everything else, though I haven't the time or tolerance to check).

The difference is that The Conte's joke was intentional and amusing.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It was a joke, I believe.
> 
> And so are your constant refernces to your preference for Mozart, which you feel compelled to insert in every thread about Wagner (and possibly about everything else, though I haven't the time or tolerance to check).
> 
> The difference is that Il Conte's joke was intentional and amusing.


Thank you Woodduck.

N.

P.S. I too have always thought a film of the Ring would be able to solve many of the directorial conundrums.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Wow I had no idea that much was suppose to be going on. Some of it was clear, but a lot of it was very much not clear to me. Thanks for the answers!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> It was a joke, I believe.
> 
> And so are your constant refernces to your preference for Mozart, which you feel compelled to insert in every thread about Wagner (and possibly about everything else, though I haven't the time or tolerance to check).
> 
> The difference is that The Conte's joke was intentional and amusing.


I can assure you my preferences for Mozart is no joke! But you have obviously not discerned the meaning of what I actually said. No matter! As I say we look at life from entirely different perspectives.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> Wow I had no idea that much was suppose to be going on. Some of it was clear, but a lot of it was very much not clear to me. Thanks for the answers!


Straight off of Wiki. Go there not the director! :lol:


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> Anyway, here's my possibly stupid question. In the production I watched on youtube, during the immolation scene, Brunhilde simply throws a torch at the bottom of the castle of the gods, and this is all it takes to burn it all down. Just a torch? Is that all it takes? Is that really what happens or am I confused? I still really love the scene, it's an amazing climax to a great cycle of operas, I just always thought this one aspect was kind of weird.


Wotan cut down the world-ash tree and piled the logs around Valhalla in anticipation of this fire. In the prologue the third Norn sings:



> Des zerschlagnen Speeres stechende Splitter taucht einst Wotan dem Brünstigen tief in die Brust: zehrender Brand zündet da auf; den wirft der Gott in der Welt-Esche zuhauf geschichtete Scheite.
> 
> The shattered spear's sharp splinters Wotan will one day plunge deep into the heart of the glow: ravaging flame will flare up from it; and this the god will fling at the world-ash's piled-up logs.


In act one Waltraute visits Brünnhilde and describes the scene at Valhalla



> Jüngst kehrte er heim; in der Hand hielt er seines Speeres Splitter: ie hatte ein Held ihm geschlagen. Mit stummem Wink Walhalls Edle wies er zum Forst, die Weltesche zu fällen.
> 
> Des Stammes Scheite hiess er sie schichten zu ragendem Hauf rings um der Seligen Saal. Der Götter Rat liess er berufen;
> den Hochsitz nahm heilig er ein:
> ...


Then in act three, the funeral pyre for Siegfried grows:



> Als dieser endlich in lichtester Helligkeit leuchtet, erblickt man darin den Saal Walhalls, in welchem die Götter und Helden, ganz nach der Schilderung Waltrautes im ersten Aufzuge, versammelt sitzen. Helle Flammen scheinen in dem Saal der Götter aufzuschlagen. Als die Götter von den Flammen gänzlich verhüllt sind, fällt der Vorhang
> 
> When this finally reaches its brightest there becomes visible the palace of Valhalla, in which the gods and heroes sit assembled, exactly as Waltraute described them in Act One. Bright flames seem to set fire to the hall of the gods. As the gods become completely hidden from view by flames, the curtain falls


Brünnhilde knew Valhalla was set to be burnt; she mirrored that with Siefried's funeral pyre ("Starke Scheite schichtet mir dort" (Stack stout logs for me in piles)). So it is not that far from what is written for her to actively throw a torch up. She knew what she was doing, she knew what was going to happen, that's part of why she did it.

[EDIT: Oops, this is what I get for getting ready to go and writing about the Ring at the same time. Others have beat me to it!]

EDIT 2: Oh, and this is specifically what she says she is doing:



> Fliegt heim, ihr Raben! Raunt es eurem Herren, was hier am Rhein ihr gehört! An Brünnhildes Felsen fahrt vorbei! - Der dort noch lodert, weiset Loge nach Walhall! Denn der Götter Ende dämmert nun auf. *So - werf' ich den Brand in Walhalls prangende Burg.*
> 
> Fly home, you ravens! Recount to your master what you have heard here by the Rhine! Pass by Brünnhilde's rock: direct Loge, who still blazes there, to Valhalla; for the end of the gods is nigh. *Thus do I throw this torch at Valhalla's vaulting towers.*


The directions, however, suggest that we should take her statement symbolically, for what it directs her to literally do is different:



> Sie schleudert den Brand in den Holzstoss, der sich schnell hell entzündet.
> 
> She hurls the torch into the pile of wood, which quickly bursts into flame.


and Valhalla doesn't burn until a bit later, as quoted above.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Great post. Furthermore does a hero have to be all good, or even likable? By all accounts Oskar Schindler was an arrogant rogue, but was he also a hero? The thing I love about the Ring is that the characters have weaknesses (and sometimes many of them) just like people do in real life. Or is it just me who is imperfect and we are in the presence of the Gods themselves on TC?
> 
> N.


Yeah, people seem to get hung up on some conception of who these characters _should_ be because of their titles as "gods" and "heroes", and act like its some sort failure that these characters have faults. As if they were designed to be infallible.

Either way, I don't really find Siegfried all that _unlikable_, truth be told. He might not be the easiest character to identify with, but I can sympathize with him to an extent. He grew up in a loveless environment where the only creatures he could befriend were the animals in the forest. It makes sense that he doesn't have a lot of patience for Mimi, who he instinctively understands is only using him. In the end he lives his life and makes decisions based solely on his instincts and intuitions, he is loving and trusting (too trusting it turns out), but firm and direct when he senses someone as standing in his way.



DavidA said:


> I wouldn't appreciate my brother-in-law running off with my wife, that's for sure!


Then maybe you shouldn't have forced her to marry you against her will and held her in a state of bondage.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I can assure you my preferences for Mozart is no joke! But you have obviously not discerned the meaning of what I actually said. No matter! As I say we look at life from entirely different perspectives.


No, we do not look at life from "entirely" different perspectives. We are both human. If you actually thought that, and believed your own perspective on life to be correct, then you would logically have to believe that my perspective was entirely wrong. I trust that you are not as arrogant as that. Or is my trust misplaced?

Consider: if I were to seek out every discussion of Mozart's operas and make disparaging or unhelpful remarks about them - and the very same remarks, over and over, month after month, year after year - would you, or anyone else, enjoy or appreciate it?

The fact is that there _are_ things I don't care for about Mozart, and that I don't enjoy his operas as much as Wagner's or Verdi's or Mussorgsky's or Debussy's or a number of others. There are a few reasons for this:

1.) I have little interest in the amorous intrigues and infidelities and class conflicts of the upstairs-downstairs world of Mozart and Da Ponte (much less the fantastic pseudo-mythical potpourri of Schikaneder). The characters in the "social comedies" simply don't appeal to my imagination or carry me beyond the mundane, and the characters in _Zauberflote_, though charming, are flat fairy tale types, albeit given more depth (sometimes) by Mozart's delightful music.

2.) I am bored by opera seria as a genre, including Mozart's.

3.) I have an aversion to recitativo secco. It's acceptable to me in the theater, but not for listening on a recording.

4.) I am annoyed by some of the formal devices of Mozart's musical style, particularly passages and figures that are repeated, along with their words, over and over before the music can move on (a device peculiar to his operas, I think, not found in his instrumental works).

I could go into detail about my tastes and the ways in which Mozart does not satisfy them, but no purpose would be served. I'll just summarily say that, in general, without the staging to entertain me, I have little interest in simply listening to a Mozart opera from start to finish, as I've often done with other operas. With Wagner, on the contrary, the score itself is so evocative, and transports me to such unimagined worlds, that I have no need of the stage, and can in fact find its limitations an inhibition on my imagination, to which Wagner's uniquely penetrating music and highly suggestive symbolism make an appeal that no other composer can come close to matching. Mozart's 18th-century world, by contrast, is far too literal, too fundamentally ordinary and in a certain sense superficial, for me to care about it much.

People who appreciate the musical and dramatic genius of Mozart have my full respect, and I would never dream of going onto a Mozart thread, picking over Mozart's operas for things that don't appeal to me, and ranting interminably about what I think Wagner does better and how Mozart could never dream of approaching him.

Frankly, people would be quite justified in calling that [email protected]#$%&@t and in thinking me an obnoxious
[email protected]#$%&e.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Thanks Woodduck but I did know all that. But I don't have to like the resulting character, do I, still less think he is a hero? I mean, what hero kills an unarmed dwarf in cold blood? Oh yes, I know the dwarf was going to murder him but what hero would do that? A hero is someone we want to emulate.


Siegfried is a hero, in short, because he is not afraid to stand up to the leading figures of a corrupt world order that is ruled by greed and a thirst for power without any regard for others. He loves unequivocally and doesn't fear of the consequences of his actions.

That may not be your concept of what a hero is, but we're not dealing with a modern conception of heroism here.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> No, we do not look at life from "entirely" different perspectives. We are both human. If you actually thought that, and believed your own perspective on life to be correct, then you would logically have to believe that my perspective was entirely wrong. I trust that you are not as arrogant as that. Or is my trust misplaced?
> 
> Consider: if I were to seek out every discussion of Mozart's operas and make disparaging or unhelpful remarks about them - and the very same remarks, over and over, month after month, year after year - would you, or anyone else, enjoy or appreciate it?
> 
> ...


Fine mate! That's your opinion! I don't consider you obnoxious (or swear at you) for saying it because I believe people have a right to express opinions different from my own! Even about Mozart!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> Siegfried is a hero, in short, because *he is not afraid to stand up to the leading figures of a corrupt world* order that is ruled by greed and a thirst for power without any regard for others. He loves unequivocally and doesn't fear of the consequences of his actions.
> 
> That may not be your concept of what a hero is, but we're not dealing with a modern conception of heroism here.


But does he? OK he kills a dragon and defeats the already powerless God. But then he he doesn't stand up to Hagen and co rather gets misled by them. I'm always puzzled to see in Gotterdamerung what he actually does that may be termed heroic.

And btw don't forget the conception of heroism is already present in mediaeval literature.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> But does he? OK he kills a dragon and defeats the already powerless God. But then he he doesn't stand up to Hagen and co rather gets misled by them. I'm always puzzled to see in Gotterdamerung what he actually does that may be termed heroic.
> 
> And btw don't forget the conception of heroism is already present in mediaeval literature.


Wotan isn't powerless, although he senses his own demise and has gone into disguise as the Wanderer. And yes, he kills Fafner the giant in his dragon form. Gunther and Hagen aren't leaders of the old world order, but they are products of that world order. Perhaps Siegfried doesn't do much heroic in Gotterdammerung because this is the depiction of the downfall of a hero. Or perhaps you would have preferred Wagner to ad on another hour or two to the length of the opera in order to dramatize enough heroic deeds of Siegfried to meet your satisfaction for his standing as a hero?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

He crosses the ring of fire witch only the bravest hero can do

He GIVES Brunhilde the all powerful Ring.

He is not afraid of death when the Rheinmaidens ask for the Ring.

Defeats Wotan and slays a dragon.

In mythology, if someone slays a dragon, they're a hero, flat out.

AND his back is left unprotected because he will never turn his back in a battle.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Itullian said:


> He crosses the ring of fire witch only the bravest hero can do
> 
> He GIVES Brunhilde the all powerful Ring.
> 
> He is not afraid of death when the Rheinmaidens ask for the Ring.


I would have thought that the slaying of one dragon would have been enough to designate someone as a hero, let alone standing up to a god and crossing a wall of fire. Tough crowd!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Faustian said:


> I would have thought that the slaying of one dragon would have been enough to designate someone as a hero, let alone standing up to a god and crossing a wall of fire. Tough crowd!


It is!........................


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> I would have thought that the slaying of one dragon would have been enough to designate someone as a hero, let alone standing up to a god and crossing a wall of fire. Tough crowd!


Maybe, but can he really be called a hero until he's got past an encounter with DavidA?

N.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

AND his back is left unprotected because he will never turn his back in a battle.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Fine mate! That's your opinion! I don't consider you obnoxious (or swear at you) for saying it because I believe people have a right to express opinions different from my own! Even about Mozart!


I see you didn't actually read what I said. I said:

_People who appreciate the musical and dramatic genius of Mozart have my full respect, and I would never dream of going onto a Mozart thread, picking over Mozart's operas for things that don't appeal to me, and ranting interminably about what I think Wagner does better and how Mozart could never dream of approaching him. If I were to seek out every discussion of Mozart's operas and make disparaging or unhelpful remarks about them - and the very same remarks, over and over, month after month, year after year - would you, or anyone else, enjoy or appreciate it? Frankly, people would be quite justified in calling that [email protected]#$%&@t and in thinking me an obnoxious [email protected]#$%&e._

No one could possibly misunderstand the point I'm making. It isn't about expressing your opinion. It's about not having consideration for other people in choosing to thrust your opinion in their faces whenever you see the name "Wagner" in a thread, and then having absolutely no interest in listening to their responses and considering the merits of your opinion. You know what others think of this behavior, and so it's clear that you are not looking for discussion of anything, but only seeking to make an effect.

For you to ignore what I'm going to some trouble in telling you here is just perverse. Frankly, I believe you are being intentionally annoying. I'm not the only one here who believes this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ultimately, Siegfried's heroic nature isn't enough to save him, his love for Brunnhilde, or the "new world order" which Wotan hoped the Volsung line would bring about. Wotan himself had a premonition of this when, in despair, he said "I find only myself in all I create." Remember that the survival of Siegfried was not something he planned or expected: when he gave the order for Siegmund's death, he thought he was bringing down the curtain on his whole scheme. It was only after Brunnhilde's disobedient intervention in saving Sieglinde, carrying out Wotan's truest desire and expressing the loving spirit he had taught her, that he conceived the idea of giving her to Siegmund's son as his last-ditch effort to see a better world into being. But Siegfried too was Wotan's creation and a victim of the ring's curse, and so he was doomed to fail.

The funeral music in _Gotterdammerung_ is not for Siegfried alone, but for the whole Volsung line and, beyond that, the whole world order which was passing away. It remained only for Brunnhilde, enlightened and restored to herself, to deliver a loving and forgiving eulogy to what might have been, and to clear the road to an unknown future.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Was she still just human at the end?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Was she still just human at the end?


Sure - but, to quote somebody, you can take a girl out of Valhalla, but you can't take the Valhalla out of the girl.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Time for another question. And this one vexes me all the time.

Should we really be treating the Ring Cycle as deep and meaningful? A worthwhile allegory for something. Was Wagner trying to explain something about the world, or did he just consider the subject a suitable yarn on which to attach some of the greatest music ever composed?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Time for another question. And this one vexes me all the time.
> 
> Should we really be treating the Ring Cycle as deep and meaningful? A worthwhile allegory for something. Was Wagner trying to explain something about the world, or did he just consider the subject a suitable yarn on which to attach some of the greatest music ever composed?


Great Question on a great thread, I look forward to the discussion. Thanks to all who have contributed.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

Hi all, great discussion so far. Quick question - does anyone know what the leitmotif at 6:36 in this video (



) is meant to represent? Assuming it is a leitmotif, of course, it may not be. Naturally, it's not the easiest thing in the world to listen through the entire ring cycle to find its origin! It always struck as such a beautiful and relieving end to the series, and if it has any extra symbollism I'd be grateful to know.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I see you didn't actually read what I said. I said:
> 
> _People who appreciate the musical and dramatic genius of Mozart have my full respect, and I would never dream of going onto a Mozart thread, picking over Mozart's operas for things that don't appeal to me, and ranting interminably about what I think Wagner does better and how Mozart could never dream of approaching him. If I were to seek out every discussion of Mozart's operas and make disparaging or unhelpful remarks about them - and the very same remarks, over and over, month after month, year after year - would you, or anyone else, enjoy or appreciate it? Frankly, people would be quite justified in calling that [email protected]#$%&@t and in thinking me an obnoxious [email protected]#$%&e._
> 
> ...


Sorry but as I've said I don't want to go into this sort of name calling in a public forum.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> Wotan isn't powerless, although he senses his own demise and has gone into disguise as the Wanderer. And yes, he kills Fafner the giant in his dragon form. Gunther and Hagen aren't leaders of the old world order, but they are products of that world order. Perhaps Siegfried doesn't do much heroic in Gotterdammerung because this is the depiction of the downfall of a hero. Or perhaps you would have preferred Wagner to ad on another hour or two to the length of the opera in order to dramatize enough heroic deeds of Siegfried to meet your satisfaction for his standing as a hero?


Of course Wagner originally wrote 'Siegfried's Death' but then added the other parts to explain the first. So that might the reason for the 'gap' between Siegfried and Gotterdamerung. Maybe it needed another opera called 'Siegfried's exploits' but as you imply that would have added about another four hours to the Ring!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Interesting quote from the mezzo-soprano Stephanie Blythe, “Whenever somebody asks me what I’m doing next, and I say that I’m doing Fricka, the first thing out of their mouth, ninety per cent of the time, is ‘God, what a harpy. What a horrible woman.’ I have never had to defend a character as much as I’ve had to defend Fricka. And I am very keen to defend her, because I think she is an extraordinary character. Like all of Wagner’s people, she is so beautifully delineated.”

Any thoughts?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Interesting quote from the mezzo-soprano Stephanie Blythe, "Whenever somebody asks me what I'm doing next, and I say that I'm doing Fricka, the first thing out of their mouth, ninety per cent of the time, is 'God, what a harpy. What a horrible woman.' I have never had to defend a character as much as I've had to defend Fricka. And I am very keen to defend her, because I think she is an extraordinary character. Like all of Wagner's people, she is so beautifully delineated."
> 
> Any thoughts?


Well, as with Hera/Juno, she had to put up with her husband's infidelities and whatever other caprices/flaws while (presumably) staying faithful and level-headed herself. She's sufficiently strong-willed to stand up to Wotan, which helps to give him some 'grounding' but that doesn't make her a hen-pecking harridan in my book. In terms of contrasting characters within the story's setting she is Wotan's ideal counterbalance, I would say.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Time for another question. And this one vexes me all the time.
> 
> Should we really be treating the Ring Cycle as deep and meaningful? A worthwhile allegory for something. Was Wagner trying to explain something about the world, or did he just consider the subject a suitable yarn on which to attach some of the greatest music ever composed?


Whether we consider the Ring to be deep and meaningful has more to do with our reaction to it than what Wagner thought of it. Some are going to consider it more meaningful than others. I happen to be a person who finds it powerful and moving and relish every opportunity I have to experience it to discover new meanings.

I think we know enough about Wagner to know that he definitely wasn't just trying to come up with an entertaining story to hang some music on! All we have to do is read some of his letters to his friend August Rockel to see that he definitely thought his drama was trying to explain something about the world. Here is some nice excerpts quoting Wagner's thoughts on his Ring:

http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2012/01/richard-wagner-on-meaning-of-ring.html


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Interesting quote from the mezzo-soprano Stephanie Blythe, "Whenever somebody asks me what I'm doing next, and I say that I'm doing Fricka, the first thing out of their mouth, ninety per cent of the time, is 'God, what a harpy. What a horrible woman.' I have never had to defend a character as much as I've had to defend Fricka. And I am very keen to defend her, because I think she is an extraordinary character. Like all of Wagner's people, she is so beautifully delineated."
> Any thoughts?


My first initial thought is that I'm a little surprised that she gets that reaction on a regular basis. She must be talking to a lot of crabby old men. :lol:

But I absolutely agree with her. In Rheingold she's kind of just _there_ really, and I don't feel much for her either way. But her one scene in Die Walkure is great in the way she totally tears down all the illusions Wotan had created for himself and makes him see the error in his logic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Interesting quote from the mezzo-soprano Stephanie Blythe, "Whenever somebody asks me what I'm doing next, and I say that I'm doing Fricka, the first thing out of their mouth, ninety per cent of the time, is 'God, what a harpy. What a horrible woman.' I have never had to defend a character as much as I've had to defend Fricka. And I am very keen to defend her, because I think she is an extraordinary character. Like all of Wagner's people, she is so beautifully delineated."
> 
> Any thoughts?


People do look at things superficially, don't they? Calling Fricka a "harpy" is about as insightful as saying that one wouldn't want one's children to grow up like Siegfried.

The gods rule by sanction of law. Wotan's power is symbolized by the runes cut into his spear, embodying the order without which things break down and the universe flies apart. Wotan knows this very well - and yet he also knows that law can oppress and kill the spirit. His conflicting impulses get him into trouble from the beginning when he lusts after the power of the ring, and his schemes to extricate himself and save the world from disaster land him in yet further transgressions of law (incest between his offspring).

The pros and cons of this dilemma are beautifully delineated in the debate between Wotan and Fricka. The thing is, she has to defend the law of the gods, and he knows it well. The way she knocks down one argument after another, and the way his spirit collapses into dejection and despair, is superbly portrayed in both the dialogue and the music. I find Fricka, far from being horrible, rather magnificent in her proud upholding of law and order, even while my heart goes out to Wotan. And Wagner, as he always does, allows us to feel in his music all sides of the situation, and lets us experience each character from his or her own point of view as well as the viewpoint of the other. One of the great moments in _Die Walkure_, for me, comes at the end of the debate when Wotan finally crumbles under the onslaught of Fricka's logic and swears to uphold the law. Out of the orchestra rises a theme of great, majestic calm, as Fricka on her way out passes Brunnhilde on her way in and says, "The father of hosts is waiting for you. Let him tell you what plans he has made." Immediately this music of godlike radiance gives way to music of anxiety and darkness, and we are plunged into the existential crisis which resides in the heart of Wotan and lies at the very heart of the _Ring._

Was someone here asking whether the Ring is supposed to have any depth of meaning?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> My first initial thought is that I'm a little surprised that she gets that reaction on a regular basis. She must be talking to a lot of crabby old men. :lol:
> 
> But I absolutely agree with her. In Rheingold she's kind of just _there_ really, and I don't feel much for her either way. But her one scene in Die Walkure is great in the way *she totally tears down all the illusions Wotan had created for himself and makes him see the error in his logic*.


Yes!
"The old storm,
the old trouble!"
(Wotan)


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

But at the same time, she has come to understand him and what he's trying to do in Walküre in a way she hadn't understood before. She still gets the better of it, but she has come to understand that he's not just doing these things haphazardly and licentiously---he has a plan that she hasn't understood till now, even if it's not the best plan ever.

Similarly, in the fourth opera, we find that Siegfried isn't really that much of a hero after all; he has feet of clay and not only is the age of Gods in twilight, but so is the age of heroes. It's probably not Wagner's intention, but my reaction to it is that it's a very nihilistic opera. Even though the Rhinemaidens get their gold back, we're stuck in a world of Hagens.

My biggest problem is with Brünnhilde in the second act of Götterdämmerung; once she finds Siegfried has been unfaithful her immediate reaction is to conspire to murder him. Really? If you're that mad, kill him yourself. You're a fricking Valkyrie. But making nice with a sleazeball dwarf like Hagen to get him to kill Siegfried for you just seems weird and wrong--totally out of character.

I do like the notion that Alberich is a ghost or a dream talking to Hagen. I feel sure I've seen a staging on TV once that took that approach, but I can't place it. OTOH, he was alive and well in Siegfried, which takes place just days earlier, so there's no reason why he would be dead. So dream it is.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

gardibolt said:


> My biggest problem is with Brünnhilde in the second act of Götterdämmerung; once she finds Siegfried has been unfaithful her immediate reaction is to conspire to murder him. Really? If you're that mad, kill him yourself. You're a fricking Valkyrie. But making nice with a sleazeball dwarf like Hagen to get him to kill Siegfried for you just seems weird and wrong--totally out of character.


It comes from the sources the Ring is based on so it is just how it is. Wagner could have changed if we wanted to but do we really want Brünnhilde to be Siegfried´s murderer. 
Günther could have given forget drink to Brünnhilde too then everyone could have survived.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

gardibolt said:


> Similarly, in the fourth opera, we find that Siegfried isn't really that much of a hero after all; he has feet of clay and not only is the age of Gods in twilight, but so is the age of heroes. It's probably not Wagner's intention, but my reaction to it is that it's a very nihilistic opera. Even though the Rhinemaidens get their gold back, we're stuck in a world of Hagens.


I don't think there are any more Hagens. We've got a world of regular humans. The only named characters that survive are the Rheinmaidens, and Gutrune, who turns out to be rather reasonable, capable of understanding that Brünnhilde was the more wronged.



gardibolt said:


> My biggest problem is with Brünnhilde in the second act of Götterdämmerung; once she finds Siegfried has been unfaithful her immediate reaction is to conspire to murder him. Really? If you're that mad, kill him yourself. You're a fricking Valkyrie. But making nice with a sleazeball dwarf like Hagen to get him to kill Siegfried for you just seems weird and wrong--totally out of character.


But that's more the opposite of what happened. Hagen set up Brünnhilde, approached her freshly angry, and got her to give away something about Siegfried's weakness.

She is driven very much by the idea that Siegfried broke his oath, ignored his ring-pledge. Waltraute encouraged _her_ to give up the ring earlier to save the gods but Brünnhilde would not consider giving away what was essentially her wedding ring. It was that important to her.

Being abducted by who she thought was Gunther she must've held out hope that Siegfried would rescue her. But then, in front of a huge crowd of humans, to find that not only was Siegfried not going to rescue her but that he was the one that abducted her, would not acknowledge this, and was married to another woman... that shattered everything.

If she had more time or if she had known Hagen better I'm sure Brünnhilde would have figured things out. But that's exactly why Hagen approached immediately when she was still furious.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The second act of Gotterdammerung is just about the only part of the Ring where a chorus is required . The Gibichung vassals are gathering to await the arrival of Brunnhilde and celebrate the (unknown to them ) fateful wedding . I see no dramatic or credibility problem here .
There is simply no need for a chorus elsewhere in the Ring , although I suppose Wagner could have
used the downtrodden Nibelungs as a chorus in Das Rheingold .


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

JoeSaunders said:


> Hi all, great discussion so far. Quick question - does anyone know what the leitmotif at 6:36 in this video (
> 
> 
> 
> ) is meant to represent? Assuming it is a leitmotif, of course, it may not be. Naturally, it's not the easiest thing in the world to listen through the entire ring cycle to find its origin! It always struck as such a beautiful and relieving end to the series, and if it has any extra symbollism I'd be grateful to know.


That's the Redemption through Love Leitmotif, heard only when Sieglinde first discovers she's pregnant in Act 3 of Walkure ("O hehrstes Wunder") and here, at the end of Gotterdammerung. It's arguably the most important Leitmotif in the entire cycle since the whole cycle (and in fact many if not all of Wagner's mature operas) is all about redemption through love.

O hehrstes Wunder by Rysanek, one of my favorite Sieglindes, about a minute into this clip - I love how Bohm presents this as a sensual eruption of strings, a sudden and rushing realization.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

howlingfantods said:


> That's the Redemption through Love Leitmotif, heard only when Sieglinde first discovers she's pregnant in Act 3 of Walkure ("O hehrstes Wunder") and here, at the end of Gotterdammerung. It's arguably the most important Leitmotif in the entire cycle since the whole cycle (and in fact many if not all of Wagner's mature operas) is all about redemption through love.
> O hehrstes Wunder by Rysanek, one of my favorite Sieglindes, about a minute into this clip - I love how Bohm presents this as a sensual eruption of strings, a sudden and rushing realization.


If we're permitted to have a favourite leitmotif then this is mine, and what better than to represent Redemption. Incidentally, one of the pleasures of getting to know the Ring Cycle is listening out for the motifs, particularly their first appearances, which are often teasing previews for what is to come.

For those just embarking on this journey, the Deryck Cooke Wagner: An Introduction to Der Ring des Nibelungen (2CDs) is an essential guide for leitmotif spotters.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It should be pointed out that Wagner didn't give names to his leitmotivs - in fact he expressed annoyance when other people did - and that the idea of "redemption by love" was someone else's interpretation of the theme in question. My objection to it lies in the fact that the _Ring_ doesn't achieve much of a "redemption," though I wouldn't go so far as to call it "nihilistic," as gardibolt does in his post above. Brunnhilde's enlightenment brings about the destruction of the old order, but what lies in store for the world after that is anyone's guess. Despite the cataclysm we've just witnessed, the quality of the motiv tells us that there's reason for hope - and, as always with Wagner, the music tells us what we, as well as the characters onstage, might not otherwise know. The twilight of the gods and the destruction of the world by fire and flood may be a tragedy, but the music tells us it is something more.

I think the most we can say that that theme represents is the hope and potential for renewal, first represented by Sieglinde's pregnancy with Siegfried, and then, when the hoped-for hero has fallen, by Brunnhilde clearing away the corrupt old order and so allowing for the possibility of a better one. Wagner, however, was not naive, and when he wrote his next and final work he approached the question of redemption differently and created a new Siegfried whose heroism lay not in deeds of renown but in a conversion of the spirit.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It should be pointed out that Wagner didn't give names to his leitmotivs - in fact he expressed annoyance when other people did - and that the idea of "redemption by love was" someone else's interpretation of the theme in question. My objection to it lies in the fact that the _Ring_ doesn't achieve much of a "redemption," though I wouldn't go so far as to call it "nihilistic," as gardibolt does in his post above. Brunnhilde's enlightenment brings about the destruction of the old order, but what lies in store for the world after that is anyone's guess. Despite the cataclysm we've just witnessed, the quality of the motiv tells us that there's reason for hope - and, as always with Wagner, the music tells us what we, as well as the characters onstage, might not otherwise know. The twilight of the gods and the destruction of the world by fire and flood may be a tragedy, but the music tells us it is something more.
> 
> I think the most we can say that that theme represents is the hope and potential for renewal, first represented by Sieglinde's preganancy with Siegfried, and then, when the hoped-for hero has fallen, by Brunnhilde clearing away of the corrupt old order and so allowing for the possibility of a better one. Wagner, however, was not naive, and when he wrote his next and final work he approached the question of redemption differently and created a new Siegfried whose heroism lay not in deeds of renown but in a conversion of the spirit.


Wagner did however refer to this at the end of Gotterdammerung as "the glorification of Brunnhilde". I assume whoever coined the "redemption by love" name was trying to coin a general sounding term for what Wagner was being very specific about -- Brunnhilde takes Sieglinde's suicidal despair at the end of Die Walkure and through her self-sacrifice in saving Sieglinde and transforming despair over the tragedy of Siegmund's death to hope via birth of the hero, she prefigures her ultimate sacrifice at the end of Gotterdammerung transforming the death of Siegfried and the downfall of the gods to a rebirth of the age of man. So the redemption is via a Schopenhauerian cycle of despair into rebirth by the generous and self-sacrificing love that Brunnhilde demonstrates.

Or you could take Adorno's side and just believe that Wagner stuck this bit at the end of Gotterdammerung because it was the prettiest music in the Ring.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> Wagner did however refer to this at the end of Gotterdammerung as "the glorification of Brunnhilde". I assume whoever coined the "redemption by love" name was trying to coin a general sounding term for what Wagner was being very specific about -- Brunnhilde takes Sieglinde's suicidal despair at the end of Die Walkure and through her self-sacrifice in saving Sieglinde and transforming despair over the tragedy of Siegmund's death to hope via birth of the hero, she prefigures her ultimate sacrifice at the end of Gotterdammerung transforming the death of Siegfried and the downfall of the gods to a rebirth of the age of man. So the redemption is via a Schopenhauerian cycle of despair into rebirth by the generous and self-sacrificing love that Brunnhilde demonstrates.
> 
> Or you could take Adorno's side and just believe that Wagner stuck this bit at the end of Gotterdammerung because it was the prettiest music in the Ring.


All these interpretations express facets of Wagner's meaning, don't they? How can anyone not be impressed by Wagner's richly evocative symbolism and its expression in music of such expressive power?

Apparently Adorno was not impressed. :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> All these interpretations express facets of Wagner's meaning, don't they? How can anyone not be impressed by Wagner's richly evocative symbolism and its expression in music of such expressive power?
> 
> Apparently Adorno was not impressed. :lol:


. . . and some people attending one of his lectures on Bruckner's _Fourth _weren't either.

Some people started to laugh at his pompous, elliptical, Frankfurt-School nonsense applied to Bruckner- and he abruptly left the lectern and started to cry.

- He's lucky 'I' wasn't there. _;D_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Another thing about this "redemption" or "glorification" idea: Wagner's conception of the _Ring_ evolved over a quarter of a century, and his general outlook on life also evolved, with the most decisive change occurring during the early phases of his composition of the _Ring_ with his discovery of the philosophy of Schopenhauer. This is an immense subject beautifully treated in Bryan Magee's book "The Tristan Chord," which I recommend to everyone interested in Wagner (cheap on Amazon). http://www.amazon.com/Tristan-Chord...1441743924&sr=1-1&keywords=the+tristan+chordr

To put it briefly and simplistically, Wagner's Romantic notion of the redemption of man by the love of woman (a personal yearning of his, undoubtedly) dramatized in his pre-_Ring_ operas (even where that redemption is ultimately frustrated in _Lohengrin_) and brought to its ecstatically ambivalent apex in _Tristan und Isolde_, lost its tenability for him in mid-life and mid-_Ring_, and he found himself with a half-finished tetralogy which no longer presented itself to his mind as a celebration of heroic optimism. He now saw the central focus of the work not in Siegfried and Brunnhilde but in Wotan's tragic precipitation of his own downfall and eventual achievement of nobility through his renunciation of wordly ambition. Wagner rightly saw this as a problem for the ultimate shape and meaning of the _Ring_, and some ambivalences and inconsistencies remain in it to provoke discussion. To what degree it portrays any sort of "redemption," or suggests the possibility of it, will remain its ultimate enigma.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . and some people attending one of his lectures on Bruckner's _Fourth _weren't either.
> 
> Some people started to laugh at his pompous, elliptical, Frankfurt-School nonsense applied to Bruckner- and he abruptly left the lectern and started to cry.
> 
> - He's lucky 'I' wasn't there. _;D_


Pompous and elliptical indeed. But apparently hypersensitive as well. Poor fellow. Maybe that's why his writing seems to consist of one long, gigantic, all-encompassing tirade against practically everything, not least against Wagner.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Pompous and elliptical indeed. But apparently hypersensitive as well. Poor fellow. Maybe that's why his writing seems to consist of one long, gigantic, all-encompassing tirade against practically everything, not least against Wagner.


Adorno was dismissive of Sibelius as well as Wagner.

He said something to the effect that if Sibelius' music was valid- then all music from Bach to the twentieth century had no meaning.

Can you say, 'non-sequo'?


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Pompous and elliptical indeed. But apparently hypersensitive as well. Poor fellow. Maybe that's why his writing seems to consist of one long, gigantic, all-encompassing tirade against practically everything, not least against Wagner.


Well, the problem with Adorno is the problem with a lot of ideologues who are 100% committed to a particular position (second Viennese school good, everything else bad, retrograde, kitsch, enemy of true expression). Taking that public position essentially requires you into absurd and hyperbolic judgments that are not only without merit but tedious and repetitive. Sound like anyone you know from around these boards?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Personally I am of the opinion that one would understand more about the Ring and Wagner's world by reading the Elder and Younger Edda, the Nibelungenlied or any serious work regarding ancient/medieval Germanic culture and faith than a 20th-century cynic like Adorno. Wagner of course did some editing and shifted the elements of old myths around like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, but in many things he remains true to the original. His Wotan is the same stormy restless Wanderer who ever seeks wisdom and bravely faces his doom as he does in the Edda.

For the same reason there could not be a real "happy end" in the Ring, even if Wagner planned it in the beginning. The world of the Germanic myths was destined to die a fiery death together with its gods - and to be renewed again. The Ring ends with the same death, and the same promise of renewal.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Personally I am of the opinion that one would understand more about the Ring and Wagner's world by reading the Elder and Younger Edda, the Nibelungenlied or any serious work regarding ancient/medieval Germanic culture and faith than a 20th-century cynic like Adorno. Wagner of course did some editing and shifted the elements of old myths around like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, but in many things he remains true to the original. His Wotan is the same stormy restless Wanderer who ever seeks wisdom and bravely faces his doom as he does in the Edda.
> 
> For the same reason there could not be a real "happy end" in the Ring, even if Wagner planned it in the beginning. The world of the Germanic myths was destined to die a fiery death together with its gods - and to be renewed again. The Ring ends with the same death, and the same promise of renewal.


Yes, by making the decision to link the Siegfried tragedy with the myths of the gods and their cycle of destruction, he gave myth of Siegfrieds Tod a profoundly more significant context and resonance, making it feel even more tragic. But as you say, I don't feel the ending is bleak or depressing. Actually it is that wonderful indescribable feeling of a hope of renewal, of wiping the slate clean and starting fresh.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Is *Siegfried* a comedy?

It's often called (perhaps conveniently) the scherzo of the Ring Cycle. Wagner would have known enough about symphonies to register as much. It seems to me it has as at least as many laughs as Meistersinger, a work with only a couple of comedic scenes, both of which involve Beckmesser's singing.

In Seigfried the first act is like Steptoe (Sanford) and Son, open to as many laughs as a director cares to give it. The second act has the dragon slaying, and woodbird scene and Seigfried's attempts at a tune on the pipe. Act three has the famous 'This is no man' moment, and a funny monologue just after.

The modern image of Wagner is as a serious, intellectual and bombastic composer, but his actual personality was rather more mercurial. Did he just have a bad sense of humour? Was he perhaps disappointed that the audience didn't get some of his jokes?

Feel free to provide facts or simply to speculate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> Is *Siegfried* a comedy?
> 
> It's often called (perhaps conveniently) the scherzo of the Ring Cycle. Wagner would have known enough about symphonies to register as much. It seems to me it has as at least as many laughs as Meistersinger, a work with only a couple of comedic scenes, both of which involve Beckmesser's singing.
> 
> ...


Though I don't think _all_ those examples were intended to be comical (after all, what would _you_ say if you'd never seen a woman?), Wagner certainly didn't lack humor. The _Ring_ is a very serious work on the whole, but it contains elements of irony (Loge), grotesquerie (Mime), lightness and high spirits which should surely be brought out, to an appropriate degree, in performance.

I am fully in agreement that the popular image of Wagner the man is distorted, both by the seriousness of his work on the whole and by the entanglement of his name with unsavory ideologies and politics. He was an emotionally volatile and charismatic individual, quite capable of doing spontaneous and wacky things (like climbing trees and standing on his head) that the serious-demeanored, robe-and-beret daguerrotypes don't reveal.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Though I don't think _all_ those examples were intended to be comical (after all, what would _you_ say if you'd never seen a woman?), Wagner certainly didn't lack humor. The _Ring_ is a very serious work on the whole, but it contains elements of irony (Loge), grotesquerie (Mime), lightness and high spirits which should surely be brought out, to an appropriate degree, in performance.
> 
> I am fully in agreement that the popular image of Wagner the man is distorted, both by the seriousness of his work on the whole and by the entanglement of his name with unsavory ideologies and politics*. He was an emotionally volatile and charismatic individual, quite capable of doing spontaneous and wacky things (like climbing trees and standing on his head) that the serious-demeanored, robe-and-beret daguerrotypes don't reveal.*


Nietzsche's Zarathustra refused to believe in a God who couldn't dance- and neither could_ Der Meister_ Wagner in his sometimes zany self.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The _Ring_ was to be Wagner's "demonstration model" for the theories he laid out in his treatise "Opera and Drama," in which he sought to define a new kind of opera in which the "artificial" conventions of the older operatic entertainment would be discarded in favor of a greater naturalism. Wagner wasn't the first composer to try to bring a greater dramatic integrity to opera, but he was no doubt the most radical in his theories and methods.
> 
> It's been a long time since I've read any of "Opera and Drama," but I seem to remember Wagner discussing the artificiality of the chorus and, in fact, of voices singing together for almost any reason. His last opera before the _Ring_, _Lohengrin_, uses the chorus at several junctures, and very effectively from a dramatic standpoint. But the _Ring_ was to represent a departure, and in the first two-and-two-thirds of the _Ring_ operas only the Rhinemaidens and the Valkyries get to sing together, with even Siegmiund and Sieglinde not allowed to join voices in a love duet. After Act Two of _Siegfried_, however, came _Tristan und Isolde_, and with the composition of that opera Wagner began to rethink his ideas about what kinds of music were acceptable in opera, with its sailor's chorus and extended love duet. _Die Meistersinger_ saw the full reintegration of the chorus into music drama, and in Act Three of _Siegfried_ and _Gotterdammerung_ we have two splendid love duets, an oath of brotherhood duet, a vengeance trio, another Rhinemaidens' trio, and the exciting gathering of the vassals. And, of course, the choral writing in _Parsifal_ is magnificent. Needless to say, Wagner never goes back to the use of the chorus merely for its entertainment value, but always makes it contribute in essential ways to the progress and meaning of the drama.


As far as I understand from the written score Wagner doesn't have the Vassals coming in en masse. He starts with two voices, then four, then eight until the full chorus is singing. I don't think this practice is strictly adhered to by most conductors. I might be in error here so feel free to contradict me.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> He was an emotionally volatile and charismatic individual, quite capable of doing spontaneous and wacky things (like climbing trees and standing on his head) that the serious-demeanored, robe-and-beret daguerrotypes don't reveal.


Behind Wagner's house in Bayreuth there is a small park with some trees that have branches low and thick enough to make them very comfortable for climbing. I don't know how old these trees are, but they could well be standing there at the time the Meister occupied that house. The author of this post could not resist, either


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> As far as I understand from the written score Wagner doesn't have the Vassals coming in en masse. He starts with two voices, then four, then eight until the full chorus is singing. I don't think this practice is strictly adhered to by most conductors. I might be in error here so feel free to contradict me.


I don't know how many voices Wagner specifies for each of the vassals' utterances, but I don't think he asks for solo voices anywhere. Small groups, rather, variously questioning and exclaiming:

Why does the horn blast?
Why are we called to arms?
We come with our weapons,
we come armed!
Hagen! Hagen!
Hoiho! Hoiho!
What is the danger?
What foe is near?
Who wages war on us?
Is Gunther in need?
We come armed
with sharp weapons.
Hoiho! Ho! Hagen!


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Is *Siegfried* a comedy?


I wouldn't say comedy. But it was originally intended to be a lighter companion piece to Gotterdammerung, and it has traces of dark comedy in it I believe.

I also find it interesting that Wagner is perceived to be largely humorless, both as a man and in his works. In his book The Lives of the Great Composers Schonberg makes a remark that Bach's music has the least amount of humor of all the great composers because at least Wagner had Die Meistersinger. I find this perception fascinating. Because yes Wagner's operas are largely very serious. But they are just fantastic stage works, and Wagner had a wonderful dramatic sense, and I think most of his operas have little moments of humor. I know I usually find myself chuckling here and there, and when I have seen his operas live there are murmurs of laughter.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know how many voices Wagner specifies for each of the vassals' utterances, but I don't think he asks for solo voices anywhere. Small groups, rather, variously questioning and exclaiming:
> 
> Why does the horn blast?
> Why are we called to arms?
> ...


I'll need to go back and look at the score and see what was written. I'll be back!!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know how many voices Wagner specifies for each of the vassals' utterances, but I don't think he asks for solo voices anywhere. Small groups, rather, variously questioning and exclaiming:
> 
> Why does the horn blast?
> Why are we called to arms?
> ...


Further to my examining the full score, Wagner, at Fig.70 where the rhythm changes to 2/4, asks for Eine Manne who starts with Was tos't das horn then another single voice says Was ruft es zu heer. Next Zwei Mannen with Was ruft etc. then Ein Andrer Manne with Was ruft etc. Then Zwei then Drei with Wir Kommen mit wehr then Wir kommen mit waffen. then a variety of ones, twos and threes carry on with Hagen, Hagen until the whole Vassal's chorus sings Hagen, Hagen, Hoi Ho etc. At no point do the various voices overlap except for maybe the last/first note in a phrase. When one group finishes another starts, except when all the chorus sing in unison. 
Now I'll be spending time listening to a lot of Act 2 Scene threes to see if this happens regularly or whether the voices are doubled up. It may just have been a matter of practicality for Wagner. I don't know what choral resources he had for the initial performances. He was also trying to steer clear of Verdian choral interludes so in all probability it was deliberate.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

I'd be interested to have a discussion about the contradictions and dramatic inconsistencies present in the Ring. Not that they detract from the work's greatness in any way of course. In fact they almost add to its enigmatic nature. But why do you think Wagner left them in? It seems hard to believe that he simply overlooked or didn't notice them.

One question of the work I see posed often is "why do they gods perish since Wotan heeds Erda's warning and relinquishes the ring?", and at first this does seem like a dramatic inconsistency. But I don't believe it is; the Erda episode holds dramatic significance because she makes Wotan conscious of his own mortality. He, along with everything that lives, is destined to pass away. So her warning isn't about sparing him physical destruction (which he learns to accept and ultimately embrace), but giving up the ring will afford him spiritual salvation. And the process is completed by Brunnhilde at the end of Gotterdammerung who has replaced Siegfried as the gods' redeemer because her sacrifice finally releases them from the burden of Alberich's curse. Wotan and the gods are redeemed and purged of their guilt and fear, even as Valhalla goes up in flames.

But what of something like the episode in Act 2 of Gotterdammerunng when Brunnhilde confronts Siegfried about the ring on his finger. He claims, seemingly naively, that he won this Ring when he slayed the dragon -- _even though he had just ripped it off Brunnhilde's finger the night before when disguised as Gunther!_ Was this just Wagner's dramatic instinct getting the better of him, and in his desire to ramp up the drama and excitement in act 2 he was simply skating over the details? Or is there some kind of significance that Wagner saw in Siegfried telling what amounts to a boldfaced lie?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Faustian said:


> I'd be interested to have a discussion about the contradictions and dramatic inconsistencies present in the Ring. Not that they detract from the work's greatness in any way of course. In fact they almost add to its enigmatic nature. But why do you think Wagner left them in? It seems hard to believe that he simply overlooked or didn't notice them.
> 
> One question of the work I see posed often is "why do they gods perish since Wotan heeds Erda's warning and relinquishes the ring?", and at first this does seem like a dramatic inconsistency. But I don't believe it is; the Erda episode holds dramatic significance because she makes Wotan conscious of his own mortality. He, along with everything that lives, is destined to pass away. So her warning isn't about sparing him physical destruction (which he learns to accept and ultimately embrace), but giving up the ring will afford him spiritual salvation. And the process is completed by Brunnhilde at the end of Gotterdammerung who has replaced Siegfried as the gods' redeemer because her sacrifice finally releases them from the burden of Alberich's curse. Wotan and the gods are redeemed and purged of their guilt and fear, even as Valhalla goes up in flames.
> 
> But what of something like the episode in Act 2 of Gotterdammerunng when Brunnhilde confronts Siegfried about the ring on his finger. He claims, seemingly naively, that he won this Ring when he slayed the dragon -- _even though he had just ripped it off Brunnhilde's finger the night before when disguised as Gunther!_ Was this just Wagner's dramatic instinct getting the better of him, and in his desire to ramp up the drama and excitement in act 2 he was simply skating over the details? Or is there some kind of significance that Wagner saw in Siegfried telling what amounts to a boldfaced lie?


I agree with you about Erda's warning to Wotan and the inevitability of the _Gotterdammerung_.

I suppose Siegfried lies about taking the ring from Brunnhilde to protect Gunther's honor and sustain the illusion that Gunther captured Brunnhilde. Gunther, of course, reacts with confusion, since he knows nothing about a ring.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

In looking at the 'dramatic inconsistencies' we must remember that:
(i) this is fiction
(ii) this is opera
If we go through the whole of opera looking for dramatic inconsistencies we soon have a collection to fill the Albert Hall. One reason my wife doesn't watch opera is that they bother and irritate her. For me I just don't take it too seriously. Just enjoy the music and the drama. i mean, the whole thing - peopke singing when they should be speaking - is totally implausible anyway and requires suspension of our disbelief - so the dramatic inconsistencies don't bother me. It's opera! As Bugs Bunny said, "What do you expect in opera?" 
What does bother me more is to see elderly or overweight singers in roles intended for people much younger and better looking. But then I know that doesn't bother some here. Another of my pet hates is directors fittng the opera to their vision rather than the composer's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> In looking at the 'dramatic inconsistencies' we must remember that:
> (i) this is fiction
> (ii) this is opera
> If we go through the whole of opera looking for dramatic inconsistencies we soon have a collection to fill the Albert Hall. One reason my wife doesn't watch opera is that they bother and irritate her. For me I just don't take it too seriously. Just enjoy the music and the drama. i mean, the whole thing - peopke singing when they should be speaking - is totally implausible anyway and requires suspension of our disbelief - so the dramatic inconsistencies don't bother me. It's opera! As Bugs Bunny said, "What do you expect in opera?"
> What does bother me more is to see elderly or overweight singers in roles intended for people much younger and better looking. But then I know that doesn't bother some here. Another of my pet hates is directors fittng the opera to their vision rather than the composer's.


So you're saying that the subject we're trying to discuss here isn't really worth our time? And yet it's worth yours just to come here and tell us how ridiculous it all is and how your wife is irritated by opera and how you can't stand old fat singers?

Here you are, disrupting yet another Wagner thread just as you've done for years now, insulting not only the subject but the people who actually do care about it. Would you be doing this if the thread were about Mozart? Of course not. There you would be telling us that a silly farce like _Cosi fan tutte_ was the most sublime of all operas and that you could really identify with Mozart's characters, and then you would find some way of sneaking in a snide remark about Wagner, as if derailing Wagner threads with direct insults to the composer and his appreciators were not enough.

If you have nothing to contribute to a subject I suggest you avoid it. That is what polite, civilized people do. I would also suggest you apologize to Faustian for telling him that his inquiry is pointless and foolish. Because the only thing pointless and foolish here is your inane and insulting remarks.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

I guess I had always thought of the story of the Ring coming from the dragon not as being a willful lie but the influence of the potion of forgetfulness. But that doesn't really bear close examination, I suppose. Hard to say. Götterdämmerung doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in a number of ways--whereas the first three operas are pretty straightforward, it seems like a 90 degree turn off into another story altogether. Which might be a remnant of Wagner having written the libretto for it first.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Faustian said:


> But what of something like the episode in Act 2 of Gotterdammerunng when Brunnhilde confronts Siegfried about the ring on his finger. He claims, seemingly naively, that he won this Ring when he slayed the dragon -- _even though he had just ripped it off Brunnhilde's finger the night before when disguised as Gunther!_ Was this just Wagner's dramatic instinct getting the better of him, and in his desire to ramp up the drama and excitement in act 2 he was simply skating over the details? Or is there some kind of significance that Wagner saw in Siegfried telling what amounts to a boldfaced lie?


There was some truth to what he said. Siegfried did win the ring when he slayed Fafner. That's where he got it so that he could give it to Brünnhilde as a pledge of love (that he forgot).

But, yes. I think there is great significance in Siegfried actually lying. Siegfried is free. This ties in with the first question.



Faustian said:


> One question of the work I see posed often is "why do they gods perish since Wotan heeds Erda's warning and relinquishes the ring?", and at first this does seem like a dramatic inconsistency. But I don't believe it is; the Erda episode holds dramatic significance because she makes Wotan conscious of his own mortality. He, along with everything that lives, is destined to pass away. So her warning isn't about sparing him physical destruction (which he learns to accept and ultimately embrace), but giving up the ring will afford him spiritual salvation. And the process is completed by Brunnhilde at the end of Gotterdammerung who has replaced Siegfried as the gods' redeemer because her sacrifice finally releases them from the burden of Alberich's curse. Wotan and the gods are redeemed and purged of their guilt and fear, even as Valhalla goes up in flames.


The gods die because Wotan lights Valhalla on fire. They did not have to die, but Wotan is shown the limits of their power, and that these humans are actually free and not under his control. The time of the gods as the unquestioned most powerful beings is done and he does not want to go on.

In _Das Rheingold_ Wotan is after power and glory; he has his great castle built and tries to trick his way out of paying for it. One cost of this was that the gods started aging when they lost Freia and her apples. But despite his tricks he has to pay for the construction of Valhalla; he is bound by his treaties. He stole the ring, but was cursed for it. He arranged to get Sieglinde and Siegmund together, but he had to follow the rules explained by Fricka and support Hunding over Siegmund.

But Brünnhilde has more freedom; she was able to make a choice and supported Siegmund. For this Wotan was forced to change her from a demigod - as they are supposed to be bound by laws - to a mortal.

After this Wotan becomes the Wanderer, only a passive observer. Siegfried is a free hero; he is not bound by any laws. He does what cannot be done: forge Nothung, slay Fafner, talk to birds, free Brünnhilde from the magic fire.

He is able to lie, he is able to break the rules. His downfall only comes due to following of the rituals based on the gods.

Hagen having Siegfried and Brünnhilde swear on the spear point is an amazing bit of world-building; it makes perfect sense that in the world of the humans they swear on a spear. They tell myths about the god Wotan and Gungnir (though Wagner doesn't use the name). And Gunther and Brünnhilde call on the old god when deciding to kill Siegfried: "Allrauner, rächender Gott! Schwurwissender Eideshort! Wotan! Wende dich her! (Omniscent god of vengeance! Wotan, witness of oaths and guardian of vows, look upon us!)"

Brünnhilde won't return the ring to the Rhinemaidens despite Waltraute's pleading because she is unwilling to give up her pledge of love (recalling Fricka) from Siegfried. Similarly. Siegfried refuses to return it when the Rhinemaidens ask because (among other reasons) "des zürnte mir wohl mein Weib (my wife would certainly scold me)." Alberich was able to make and wield the ring successfully because he renounced love, Brünnhilde and Siegfried must die because they have not.

The rituals of the gods bind the gods themselves entirely. Mortals are free, except when they bind themselves by the rituals from the gods.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gardibolt said:


> I guess I had always thought of the story of the Ring coming from the dragon not as being a willful lie but the influence of the potion of forgetfulness. But that doesn't really bear close examination, I suppose. Hard to say. Götterdämmerung doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in a number of ways--whereas the first three operas are pretty straightforward, it seems like a 90 degree turn off into another story altogether. Which might be a remnant of Wagner having written the libretto for it first.


When we consider the manner of the _Ring_'s conception - beginning with the end and working backwards to the beginning - the quarter-century it took to write it, and the interruptions along the way (little side trips like _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger_), it's amazing that it coheres as well as it does. How many humans could sustain that kind of effort on a single project over that long a time without losing interest, or come back in middle age to an old project after the radically different works mentioned and adapt a much-developed musical language and a changed outlook on life to a work begun in his young manhood? It's amazing to me that with _Parsifal_ gestating in his head he could get interested again in the music of the _Ring_, though of course he brought to it expanded musical powers. _Gotterdammerung_ is thus an odd hybrid between the young and the old Wagner. A pretty good piece of work, considering!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

How did he come up with all those melodies and music?!!!


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> In looking at the 'dramatic inconsistencies' we must remember that:
> (i) this is fiction
> (ii) this is opera
> If we go through the whole of opera looking for dramatic inconsistencies we soon have a collection to fill the Albert Hall. One reason my wife doesn't watch opera is that they bother and irritate her. For me I just don't take it too seriously. Just enjoy the music and the drama. i mean, the whole thing - peopke singing when they should be speaking - is totally implausible anyway and requires suspension of our disbelief - so the dramatic inconsistencies don't bother me. It's opera! As Bugs Bunny said, "What do you expect in opera?"
> What does bother me more is to see elderly or overweight singers in roles intended for people much younger and better looking. But then I know that doesn't bother some here. Another of my pet hates is directors fittng the opera to their vision rather than the composer's.


I guess I view it somewhat differently. Works of art, though they may be fictional, are still able to impart important truths to us and offer valuable insights about our lives. In that way I find them meaningful. So while I willingly suspend disbelief when engaging with a work of art, and accept the conventions of the given art form (like the fact characters are singing their lines in opera) I still expect it to follow its _own inner logic_. On the whole, the the more consistent and coherent a story is, the more enjoyment I will get out of it. And that goes for novels, movies, or any other narrative art form as well as opera.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> There was some truth to what he said. Siegfried did win the ring when he slayed Fafner. That's where he got it so that he could give it to Brünnhilde as a pledge of love (that he forgot).
> 
> But, yes. I think there is great significance in Siegfried actually lying. Siegfried is free. This ties in with the first question.


I see what you're saying and largely agree with you. I think this is likely the significance of the episode, and why Wagner left it in, even though as gardibolt mentioned the details don't quite hold up on closer scrutiny. Siegfried remembers getting the ring from the dragon, but not giving it to Brunnhilde, so how does he explain in his own mind the fact that this woman he never met before has his ring and he had to take it off her? Unless we interpret the encounter as Siegfried being left in a highly confused state in the aftermath of being drugged, and when he's questioned by Brunnhilde about the ring and replies "the ring?", he is trying his best to work out an answer from what he can remember and convince himself even.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

When Siegfried first goes (as Gunther) to woo Brünnhilde he does not recognize it as his ring. He merely sees it as a marriage pledge that stands in his way.

When Brünnhilde confronts him before everybody he does not mention that he took the ring from her because that would break his blood-oath with Gunther. And Brünnhilde does not ask Siegfried if he took it from her, she first asks how he got it from Gunther. She later claims that Siegfried stole it from her, but by then Siegfried has remembered (correctly!) that he got it when he slew the dragon. Siegfried of course also remembers that he was the one that won Brünnhilde (the second time), but, again, he isn't going to admit to that.

The misunderstanding from Gunther's side is similar; he thinks Siegfried "wrung gratification and love" (Er zwang mir Lust
und Liebe ab) from Brünnhilde on _this_ trip, while Brünnhilde is talking about when Siegfried woke her from the fire.

This is a series of simple misunderstandings that could have been cleared up if everybody was being open and honest (and hadn't taken forgetfulness potions). This is certainly a change in drama styles from the earlier operas, but as discussed previously, to me this makes a lot of sense as _Götterdämmerung_ is about the human world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> When Siegfried first goes (as Gunther) to woo Brünnhilde he does not recognize it as his ring. He merely sees it as a marriage pledge that stands in his way.
> 
> When Brünnhilde confronts him before everybody he does not mention that he took the ring from her because that would break his blood-oath with Gunther. And Brünnhilde does not ask Siegfried if he took it from her, she first asks how he got it from Gunther. She later claims that Siegfried stole it from her, but by then Siegfried has remembered (correctly!) that he got it when he slew the dragon. Siegfried of course also remembers that he was the one that won Brünnhilde (the second time), but, again, he isn't going to admit to that.
> 
> ...


:lol: Life in the forest is so much cleaner, even if you're raised by a greedy little Nibelung. Humans lie and scheme, but the birds always tell the truth.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> How did he come up with all those melodies and music?!!!


Same way as other composers did! Have you listened t Derek Cooke's commentary on the Ring which he recorded for Decca? It is amazing the way Wagner uses the leitmotifs. It is his use of them that is so original.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> I guess I view it somewhat differently. Works of art, though they may be fictional, are still able to impart important truths to us and offer valuable insights about our lives. In that way I find them meaningful. So while I willingly suspend disbelief when engaging with a work of art, and accept the conventions of the given art form (like the fact characters are singing their lines in opera) I still expect it to follow its _own inner logic_. On the whole, the the more consistent and coherent a story is, the more enjoyment I will get out of it. And that goes for novels, movies, or any other narrative art form as well as opera.


Yes I agree. However I do feel opera as an art form does tend to expect us to suspend disbelief more than other art forms. I mean, where but in opera (ie Cosi) would you get two people disguised as Albanians wooing each other's girlfriend? It is logically ridiculous. However under influence of Mozart's miraculous score we come to accept the situation. It's just that we have to yield ourselves to the unreal situation. For myself I don't look to opera as a great imparted of meaning - I don't think opera offers us thngs we don't already know. What it does is to move us in those situations with the incredible power of the music.hence we feel pity for poor Butterfly and empathy for the malicious, deformed Rigoletto in a way we could never do without the power of the music. That's my take on it anyway!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> So you're saying that the subject we're trying to discuss here isn't really worth our time? And yet it's worth yours just to come here and tell us how ridiculous it all is and how your wife is irritated by opera and how you can't stand old fat singers?
> 
> Here you are, disrupting yet another Wagner thread just as you've done for years now, insulting not only the subject but the people who actually do care about it. Would you be doing this if the thread were about Mozart? Of course not. There you would be telling us that a silly farce like _Cosi fan tutte_ was the most sublime of all operas and that you could really identify with Mozart's characters, and then you would find some way of sneaking in a snide remark about Wagner, as if derailing Wagner threads with direct insults to the composer and his appreciators were not enough.
> 
> If you have nothing to contribute to a subject I suggest you avoid it. That is what polite, civilized people do. I would also suggest you apologize to Faustian for telling him that his inquiry is pointless and foolish. Because the only thing pointless and foolish here is your inane and insulting remarks.






























Wagner writes myths to live by.

Dragon-slayers with a penchant for the sublime.

- I'm there. _;D_

No wonder the young Fritz idolized him.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> How did he come up with all those melodies and music?!!!


The power of Wotan, of that great Teutonic spirit who sanctifies all wisdom, knowledge and inspiration, the Lord of poets and thinkers who has traversed all the worlds and all ages in search for greater wisdom, and who inspires his disciples to do the same.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> The power of Wotan, of that great Teutonic spirit who sanctifies all wisdom, knowledge and inspiration, the one who has traversed all the worlds and all ages in search for greater wisdom, and who inspires his disciples to do the same.












That's the spirit!

Don't even get me 'started'!

_Today I put on
the strength of Thor,
the wisdom of Odin
and the might of Tyr.

I believe in the Gods, in the shining Aesir and Vanir
I believe in Thor, friend of mankind, protector of Midgard
I believe in Freya, sensual beauty and falcon of battle
I believe in Odin, ecstasy bringer, many-masked fury_

- Prayers I can 'believe in.'

Wagner just put the sentiments to music. _;D_


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I love the ending of Rheingold. How the irony of what's happening is in the music


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I love the ending of Rheingold. How the irony of what's happening is in the music


Not even Shostakovitch expressed empty pretense so perfectly, and certainly not so concisely.

And have you noticed that the ending is a prolongation of a single major triad - just as the prelude to the opera was? Yet we've come a long way from the bottom of the Rhine.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Not even Shostakovitch expressed empty pretense so perfectly, and certainly not so concisely.
> 
> And have you noticed that the ending is a prolongation of a single major triad - just as the prelude to the opera was? Yet we've come a long way from the bottom of the Rhine.


And even some distance from Mendelssohn.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> And even some distance from Mendelssohn.


...who would have been startled at the transformation of his little mermaid into the Andrews Sisters.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> ...who would have been startled at the transformation of his little mermaid into the Andrews Sisters.












Well sure: Ariel wears seashells because D-shells are too big.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well sure: Ariel wears seashells because D-shells are too big.


Whoooo-eee! The _Ring_ is richer in meaning than even _I_ suspected.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Whoooo-eee! The _Ring_ is richer in meaning than even _I_ suspected.


Sometimes you need an Ariel bombardment to blow away the _Regietheater._

"Beauty trumps bitterness."

Rule number forty-three in the _Book of Blair. _


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

DavidA said:


> But then the dwarf is contemptible too, as he has ulterior motives in fostering Siegfried. However, Siegfried as yet does not know this and apparently simply hates the dwarf because he is ugly. Come to think of it the Rhinemaidens despised Alberich and tormented him because he was ugly too!
> Oh well, maybe we're not supposed to like any of the characters in the Ring!


No you are wrong. He abhors him because of his base character. He senses his underlying wickedness. He mistrusts him and suspects him of lying when Mime asserts that he is Siegried's "Vater und Mutter zugleich". Birds have a father and mother who are not the same. Don't humans?

What's more, "ugliness" is by Wagner seen as the visible sign of baseness, an ignoble character. There's also a racial theme here: Siegfried doesn't recognize anything of himself in Mime. He feels that Mime belongs to an alien and inferior race. A wicked and cunning race.


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Here's my question: Does the Ring dramatize the struggle of noble aryans against the Masters of Gold, the Lord of the Ring, jewish bankers and jewish capitalism?


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

solkorset said:


> Here's my question: Does the Ring dramatize the struggle of noble aryans against the Masters of Gold, the Lord of the Ring, jewish bankers and jewish capitalism?


Sure, if you want it to. For others it means something different.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Sure, if you want it to. For others it means something different.


Exactly right. And if the question is, is this what Wagner intended it to dramatize, I think the best answer would be "no, or at least nothing we know about the genesis of the Ring would lead us to believe so."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

solkorset said:


> Here's my question: Does the Ring dramatize the struggle of noble aryans against the Masters of Gold, the Lord of the Ring, jewish bankers and jewish capitalism?


There is no evidence for it. In all his writings, correspondence, and recorded conversations (which are voluminous, as he wrote and talked incessantly) Wagner never mentions Aryan vs. Semitic personifications such as later analysts have tried to read into the _Ring_ (and others of his operas). The very dramatic structure of the work argues against it. Who are the Aryans and who are the Jews? What is the relationship between them? And who wins in the end? The first crime - the destruction of the World Ash Tree, the tree of eternal wisdom, and its fashioning into a weapon of power - is Wotan's, not Alberich's, and it is Wotan himself, not Alberich, who brings about his own downfall. The struggle is not against a bunch of dwarfish smiths from the lower regions, but within the gods and their human spawn who are ultimately their victims, destined to be sacrificed to their lust for power.

Attempts to make Wagner's works into racial allegories are superficial and misguided, leaving out the most important themes which are actually present and denying the complexity of his characters' motivations.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

It's well known that Wagner wrote the libretti many years in advance of the music (and that they were written in reverse order.)

My question is when Wagner wrote the music, did he use those original libretti verbatim or were they revised at the time of writing the music? If so, to what degree?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> It's well known that Wagner wrote the libretti many years in advance of the music (and that they were written in reverse order.)
> 
> My question is when Wagner wrote the music, did he use those original libretti verbatim or were they revised at the time of writing the music? If so, to what degree?


In the case of the _Ring_, there were revisions to the libretto of _Gotterdammerung_, mainly to the final scene. When the opera was conceived as a stand-alone piece, it was called _Siegfried's Tod_, and Brunnhilde was originally to give a little speech about the redeeming power of love. Wagner also excised some passages relating backstory which he decided to dramatize in separate operas. I think changes to the other libretti were pretty insignificant (maybe someone else knows the details here), and I believe the libretti were published before the music was composed.

Wagner conceived much of his music while writing his libretti, so the time gap between the two was not as great as it appears. In some cases the music probably preceded the words. Finding music that expresses perfectly the sound and sense of words was both his goal and his gift; I'd say no one does it better. His words and music are literally made for each other.


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> There is no evidence for it. In all his writings, correspondence, and recorded conversations (which are voluminous, as he wrote and talked incessantly) Wagner never mentions Aryan vs. Semitic personifications such as later analysts have tried to read into the _Ring_ (and others of his operas).


This is a bit narrowminded, isn't it? All his writings? He was an antisemite, an anticapitalist revolutionary, a folkish german nationalist. This is abundantly clear from his life and writings. Is it plausible to suppose that it hasn't influenced his works? We should look for how he has encoded his convictions, not whether they are present or not.



> The very dramatic structure of the work argues against it. Who are the Aryans and who are the Jews? What is the relationship between them? And who wins in the end? The first crime - the destruction of the World Ash Tree, the tree of eternal wisdom, and its fashioning into a weapon of power - is Wotan's, not Alberich's, and it is Wotan himself, not Alberich, who brings about his own downfall. The struggle is not against a bunch of dwarfish smiths from the lower regions, but within the gods and their human spawn who are ultimately their victims, destined to be sacrificed to their lust for power.


He is tied down by the myths as they have been passed down to us. The interesting question, however, is: How does he try to interpret them? Is there a tendency? Do we recognize Wagner's beliefs and attitudes here and there? He hated being obvious, that much is clear. But of course he molded the Ring in his own image. Isn't it a struggle between love and greed? Between innocence and cruel design? Isn't the pervading theme the sacrifice of love to gold?

What, Wotan destroying Yggdrasil? That's not according to myth and I can't remember Wagner putting it like that. The Gods are not subject to lust for power, they are above that. But they are caught within the web of destiny.



> Attempts to make Wagner's works into racial allegories are superficial and misguided, leaving out the most important themes which are actually present and denying the complexity of his characters' motivations.


Alberich's, Mime's and Hagen's motivations can hardly be called complex. Nor Fafner's. Nor Hunding's. I haven't proposed that it's racial allegory. It's a struggle between good and evil as Wagner saw it. What's interesting is WHAT he considers good and what evil and where he has put it in the Ring and how he depicts it. It's not hard to find what Wagner considered typical jewish qualities versus typical aryan qualities.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

solkorset said:


> This is a bit narrowminded, isn't it? All his writings? He was an antisemite, an anticapitalist revolutionary, a folkish german nationalist. This is abundantly clear from his life and writings. Is it plausible to suppose that it hasn't influenced his works? We should look for how he has encoded his convictions, not whether they are present or not.
> 
> He is tied down by the myths as they have been passed down to us. The interesting question, however, is: How does he try to interpret them? Is there a tendency? Do we recognize Wagner's beliefs and attitudes here and there? He hated being obvious, that much is clear. But of course he molded the Ring in his own image. Isn't it a struggle between love and greed? Between innocence and cruel design? Isn't the pervading theme the sacrifice of love to gold?
> 
> ...


At first I thought that the obsessive racialism of this post was a joke right out of the pages of _Der Stürmer_ until I realized that it was the more serious fare of DC Comics.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

solkorset said:


> *This is a bit narrowminded*, isn't it? *All his writings?* He was an antisemite, an anticapitalist revolutionary, a folkish german nationalist. This is abundantly clear from his life and writings. Is it plausible to suppose that it hasn't influenced his works? *We should look for how he has encoded his convictions, not whether they are present or not.
> *
> 
> He is *tied down by the myths* as they have been passed down to us. The interesting question, however, is: How does he try to interpret them? Is there *a tendency?* Do we recognize Wagner's beliefs and attitudes here and there? *He hated being obvious, that much is clear. *But of course he molded the Ring in his own image. Isn't it a struggle between *love and greed?* Between innocence and cruel design? *Isn't the pervading theme the sacrifice of love to gold?
> ...


Narrowminded? Thank you. I shall remember and treasure the compliment.

When I said that in all Wagner's writings, correspondence, and recorded conversations about the _Ring_ the idea of anything in it representing "Jewishness" does not occur, I meant exactly that. People have looked for it. They haven't found it. Look for it yourself.

You claim that Wagner hated being "obvious." If by that you mean that there are symbolic meanings in his work that are not on the surface, I will agree with you. But Wagner was voluble and not at all shy. He couldn't help saying what he thought. When he wasn't composing he was expounding in words, to the point of driving people crazy. Search his words. See if you can find what you seem eager to find.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that Wagner was "tied down by the myths." His adaptations of the raw materials are quite free and personal. "A tendency" in his interpretations? Certainly. A number of them. The _Ring_'s mythical saga contains a great many themes, as it rises up from the dark primordial womb of cruelly innocent nature and traverses the human spirit's path through the dawning of consciousness and desire, the emergence of the rebellious ego, the birth of moral consciousness in the duality of good and evil ambition, the establishment of power and oppressive institutions of power, the maturing of moral consciousness in the experience of compassionate love, the corruption of the spirit which the infatuation with power brings and the betrayal of love which results, the illusion of love's sufficiency, the realization of self-created tragedy and the need for acceptance, going under, cleansing by fire and flood, and rebirth...

The "sacrifice of love to gold," the symbolic expression of Alberich's decisive crime, which resounds through the whole work, is ambivalent. It is, in its deepest meaning, the equivalent of the Fall of Adam - the _felix culpa_, a symbol of the escape from the womb, the rejection of the passive bliss of nature's embrace, the awakening of the autonomous self through rebellion which every human consciousness must enact. It contains the seeds of both tragedy and redeeming awareness - the ambivalence of life. The struggle, over four operas, is broader and deeper than love versus greed, and Wotan, the central character in the drama, comes to represent all of that ambivalence, to recognize it in himself, and to yield his very existence to the next stage in the evolution of humanness.

Wagner's works deal fundamentally with universals of human feeling, consciousness, and morality, and if there is a principal theme which runs through his life work it is the search for redemption within the human soul. That search cannot, in the _Ring_ or in any other of his work, be reduced to a battle between "good" and "evil," heroes versus villains, Gods versus dwarves, "pure" races versus "impure" ones, or any other simplistic dualism. Narrow ideological readings - political, racial, whatever - may have some superficial justification in specific symbols or characterizations, but attempts to make such interpretations stand in for Wagner's much larger vision run into anomalies and contradictions very quickly. It takes a lot of work, determination, and evasion to make the _Ring_ into a socialist manifesto or a parable of racial purity. Present-day regietheater directors try that sort of thing routinely, and in the process half of Wagner's vision goes down the drain. I'm afraid the fact that Wagner was antisemitic does not make the power-hungry, goldsmithing Nibelung Alberich into a Jewish banker, and any production that attempts to portray him that way is a cartoon and a travesty. Alberich is the dark side of Wotan, as the Wanderer (the Wandering Jew? Heck, why not!) acknowledges, calling himself "Licht-Alberich" when the two of them meet in _Siegfried_. But above all, Alberich/Wotan is us.

You will find the account of the World Ash Tree and the Sacred Spring of Wisdom related by the Norns in the prologue to _Gotterdammerung._ What magnificent symbolism, penetrating to the heart of the _Ring_, that it is the shattered fragments of the World Ash, killed by Wotan's act of prideful ambition, which, piled around Valhalla, are the tinder that sends the gods to their fiery end!

On a final note, I believe it was not until after the completion of all his operas, including _Parsifal,_ that Wagner gave much thought to the "Aryan race." His thoughts about it have been misunderstood - but that's a subject for another time.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Narrowminded? Thank you. I shall remember and treasure the compliment.


Narrow waters run swift and deep. Just sayin'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Narrow waters run swift and deep. Just sayin'.


I suspect I just got a pat on the head.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

All I know is the music is AMAZING, it's endlessly fascinating and I never tire of it.


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> When I said that in all Wagner's writings, correspondence, and recorded conversations about the _Ring_ the idea of anything in it representing "Jewishness" does not occur, I meant exactly that. People have looked for it. They haven't found it. Look for it yourself.


[reply snipped]



> You claim that Wagner hated being "obvious." If by that you mean that there are symbolic meanings in his work that are not on the surface, I will agree with you. But Wagner was voluble and not at all shy. He couldn't help saying what he thought. When he wasn't composing he was expounding in words, to the point of driving people crazy. Search his words. See if you can find what you seem eager to find.


I mean in his music dramas. I know that he wrote treatises on many subjects.



> I have no idea what you mean when you say that Wagner was "tied down by the myths."


He was a romantic and desired to connect to Germany's remote past, it's origins. Therefore he could not permit himself to change freely in the cultural heritage. He could not change anything, but he could claim to know better than anyone what the ancestors meant.



> His adaptations of the raw materials are quite free and personal.


In detail yes, but he would dispute having changed anything essential.



> "A tendency" in his interpretations? Certainly. A number of them. The _Ring_'s mythical saga contains a great many themes, as it rises up from the dark primordial womb of cruelly innocent nature and traverses the human spirit's path through the dawning of consciousness and desire, the emergence of the rebellious ego, the birth of moral consciousness in the duality of good and evil ambition, the establishment of power and oppressive institutions of power, the maturing of moral consciousness in the experience of compassionate love, the corruption of the spirit which the infatuation with power brings and the betrayal of love which results, the illusion of love's sufficiency, the realization of self-created tragedy and the need for acceptance, going under, cleansing by fire and flood, and rebirth...


Whence have you got this interpretation of Wagner's work? It seems to encompass almost everything. So in effect you're saying that there is no message for us, he's just scatterbrained.



> The "sacrifice of love to gold," the symbolic expression of Alberich's decisive crime, which resounds through the whole work, is ambivalent. It is, in its deepest meaning, the equivalent of the Fall of Adam - the _felix culpa_, a symbol of the escape from the womb, the rejection of the passive bliss of nature's embrace, the awakening of the autonomous self through rebellion which every human consciousness must enact. It contains the seeds of both tragedy and redeeming awareness - the ambivalence of life. The struggle, over four operas, is broader and deeper than love versus greed, and Wotan, the central character in the drama, comes to represent all of that ambivalence, to recognize it in himself, and to yield his very existence to the next stage in the evolution of humanness.


Sorry, but you're straying into your own imagination and imposing your doctrine on him.



> Wagner's works deal fundamentally with universals of human feeling, consciousness, and morality,


Universal? If so his works would have been loved by everybody. We know they aren't. Only an elect circle of soulmates adore them. Many hate them, still more find them preposterous, and the by far greater part of humanity ignore them.



> and if there is a principal theme which runs through his life work it is the search for redemption within the human soul.


Gratuitous selfindulgence again. Any proof?



> That search cannot, in the _Ring_ or in any other of his work, be reduced to a battle between "good" and "evil," heroes versus villains, Gods versus dwarves, "pure" races versus "impure" ones, or any other simplistic dualism. Narrow ideological readings - political, racial, whatever - may have some superficial justification in specific symbols or characterizations, but attempts to make such interpretations stand in for Wagner's much larger vision run into anomalies and contradictions very quickly.


You abound in theories but care nothing for proof. You could just as well have written something totally different. What can I do but shrug?



> It takes a lot of work, determination, and evasion to make the _Ring_ into a socialist manifesto or a parable of racial purity.


Unlike your intellectual wanderings those elements are provably there.



> I'm afraid the fact that Wagner was antisemitic does not make the power-hungry, goldsmithing Nibelung Alberich into a Jewish banker, and any production that attempts to portray him that way is a cartoon and a travesty.


It's not about jewish banking, but it's about the greed for gold and its curse, which Wagner saw at the root of jewish banking. If we are tempted by it, darkness befalls us.



> Alberich is the dark side of Wotan, as the Wanderer (the Wandering Jew? Heck, why not!) acknowledges, calling himself "Licht-Alberich" when the two of them meet in _Siegfried_. But above all, Alberich/Wotan is us.


What you're saying is actually: The Ring is anything I want it to be.

The good has always been associated with light and evil with darkness. You don't accomplish anything by calling the Devil the dark side of God.

Haha, so now Wotan and Alberich are just you and me! This is the kind of line that draws applause from sentimental teenage girls.



> You will find the account of the World Ash Tree and the Sacred Spring of Wisdom related by the Norns in the prologue to _Gotterdammerung._ What magnificent symbolism, penetrating to the heart of the _Ring_, that it is the shattered fragments of the World Ash, killed by Wotan's act of prideful ambition, which, piled around Valhalla, are the tinder that sends the gods to their fiery end!


There's nothing in Wagner's work about "prideful ambition" on Wotan's part, or? What he's describing is Ragnarok (Götterdämmerung), and it doesn't come about by the free choice and will of Wotan. One fateful event leads to the other, and Wotan is powerless to stop the destruction. He must play his part and fulfill his destiny.



> On a final note, I believe it was not until after the completion of all his operas, including _Parsifal,_ that Wagner gave much thought to the "Aryan race." His thoughts about it have been misunderstood - but that's a subject for another time.


Wagner's political, philosophical and religious struggle started in his youth, as is most common. He was deeply impressed by Schopenhauer. He was a revolutionary in 1848. He published "das Judentum in der Musik" in 1850. His spiritual life and work soon came to focus on the origin and essence of the german nation, as preserved in old myth and lore. He struggled against jewish music critics, journalists, bankers and creditors etc throughout his life. He complained about having been persecuted by them.

Most importantly, he composed a kind of music that can only be appreciated by the aryan soul. Or at least that's what he intended.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

As the starter of this thread, and for the benefit of those who visit this thread to learn about the Ring Cycle, I'd like to ask posters to refrain from topics not explicitly concerning the Ring Cycle. 

There are plenty of other threads concerning these other matters. Frankly, the subject matter in the previous post has been done to death on this forum in the last few years. Feel free to resurrect one of those threads if you'd like to continue discussion in that area. I may join you there.

Thanks.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Originally Posted by Woodduck:

When I said that in all Wagner's writings, correspondence, and recorded conversations about the Ring the idea of anything in it representing "Jewishness" does not occur, I meant exactly that. People have looked for it. They haven't found it. Look for it yourself.

Solkorset responded:

[snipped]

The theme of Aryan superiority is not "all over the work itself." That is an interpretation by others, not attributed by Wagner to his own work. What did Wagner have to say about the _Ring_? Many things on many occasions, but you might begin with his long letter to his friend August Roeckel from 1854, which expresses his thoughts and intentions at that seminal stage of the work's creation.

You claim that Wagner hated being "obvious." If by that you mean that there are symbolic meanings in his work that are not on the surface, I will agree with you. But Wagner was voluble and not at all shy. He couldn't help saying what he thought. When he wasn't composing he was expounding in words, to the point of driving people crazy.

I mean in his music dramas. I know that he wrote treatises on many subjects.

A great deal in his music dramas is obvious; a great deal is implicit, and his mythical symbols and archetypes evoke many possible, and not necessarily incompatible, interpretations. His "treatises" - along with letters, conversations, and stray remarks - can help us by what they say and do not say. With respect to the _Ring_, they do not say anything about Aryan or Semitic races. You're free to read racism into his work, but it is not "all over" it.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that Wagner was "tied down by the myths." 

He was a romantic and desired to connect to Germany's remote past, it's origins. Therefore he could not permit himself to change freely in the cultural heritage. He could not change anything, but he could claim to know better than anyone what the ancestors meant.

Wagner changed many things, and the story of the _Ring_ is his own creation, not found in the Eddas or the Nibelungenlied. He was a modern man, not a neo-primitive. He was interested in his mythic heritage, but his use of it would have been incomprehensible to "the ancestors." This is true of all his works, regardless of his particular sources.

The Ring's mythical saga contains a great many themes, as it rises up from the dark primordial womb of cruelly innocent nature and traverses the human spirit's path through the dawning of consciousness and desire, the emergence of the rebellious ego, the birth of moral consciousness in the duality of good and evil ambition, the establishment of power and oppressive institutions of power, the maturing of moral consciousness in the experience of compassionate love, the corruption of the spirit which the infatuation with power brings and the betrayal of love which results, the illusion of love's sufficiency, the realization of self-created tragedy and the need for acceptance, going under, cleansing by fire and flood, and rebirth...The "sacrifice of love to gold," the symbolic expression of Alberich's decisive crime, which resounds through the whole work, is ambivalent. It is, in its deepest meaning, the equivalent of the Fall of Adam - the felix culpa, a symbol of the escape from the womb, the rejection of the passive bliss of nature's embrace, the awakening of the autonomous self through rebellion which every human consciousness must enact. It contains the seeds of both tragedy and redeeming awareness - the ambivalence of life. The struggle, over four operas, is broader and deeper than love versus greed, and Wotan, the central character in the drama, comes to represent all of that ambivalence, to recognize it in himself, and to yield his very existence to the next stage in the evolution of humanness. 

Whence have you got this interpretation of Wagner's work? It seems to encompass almost everything. So in effect you're saying that there is no message for us, he's just scatterbrained. Sorry, but you're straying into your own imagination and imposing your doctrine on him. 

No, Wagner was not scatterbrained. He used very basic and common mythical archetypes, and these have resonances both broad and deep. Have you read much in mythology studies? Wagner was ahead of Jung, Freud, and Joseph Campbell. Archetypal symbols and situations abound in his works. I don't claim that my exact take on them is definitive, or that anyone's can be. I have no doctrine.

Wagner's works deal fundamentally with universals of human feeling, consciousness, and morality, and if there is a principal theme which runs through his life work it is the search for redemption within the human soul. 

Universal? If so his works would have been loved by everybody. 

I didn't say that his works have universal appeal. No art has universal appeal. I said that he deals with universal human themes.

You abound in theories but care nothing for proof. You could just as well have written something totally different. What can I do but shrug?

I don't know what else you can do. Anything you wish, I suppose.

It takes a lot of work, determination, and evasion to make the Ring into a socialist manifesto or a parable of racial purity.

Unlike your intellectual wanderings those elements are provably there.

Then do please prove that the _Ring_ is a parable of racial purity, and don't accuse people who dispute that of willful ignorance.

I'm afraid the fact that Wagner was antisemitic does not make the power-hungry, goldsmithing Nibelung Alberich into a Jewish banker, and any production that attempts to portray him that way is a cartoon and a travesty. 

It's not about jewish banking, but it's about the greed for gold and its curse, which Wagner saw at the root of jewish banking.

Do you see the logical fallacy here? You're saying, essentially, that if A exhibits qualities attributed to B, then A is a representation of B. Wagner's attribution of greed to Jews does not make a greedy character in an opera a representative of Jewishness. Besides, Alberich is not "greedy"; he wants power (of which gold, transformed from its primal state, is symbolic) as a substitute for love, which he couldn't get - quite a common motivation having nothing to do with Jewishness or banking.

Alberich is the dark side of Wotan, as the Wanderer (the Wandering Jew? Heck, why not!) acknowledges, calling himself "Licht-Alberich" when the two of them meet in Siegfried. But above all, Alberich/Wotan is us.

The good has always been associated with light and evil with darkness. You don't accomplish anything by calling the Devil the dark side of God. Haha, so now Wotan and Alberich are just you and me! This is the kind of line that draws applause from sentimental teenage girls. 

Wagner's protagonists are not God and the Devil. But, quite arguably, neither are God and the Devil. Radical metaphysical moral dualism doesn't hold up theologically or psychologically. Motivation is shot through with ambivalence; things contain their opposites and are often destroyed by them. The tragedy of that is one of Wagner's deepest and most characteristic themes, in every work from _Der Fliegende Hollander_ to _Parsifal_. He didn't write fairy tales or Sunday school lessons.

The rest of your post is too sketchy to discuss succinctly, and I'm tired of this by now anyway. But your statement

Most importantly, he composed a kind of music that can only be appreciated by the aryan soul. Or at least that's what he intended

is simply wrong in every respect. It is neither true that his music can only be appreciated by an "Aryan soul" (whatever that is) - in fact the notion is bizarre - nor did he intend that. Remember, in a moment of irritation with his countrymen, he contemplated moving to America, where he thought his work would be better appreciated! :lol:

(ONE LAST THING: I need to point out that in this discussion so far your posts have been peppered with insulting language. Since you're fairly new here, you may not realize that standards of civility are - at least we hope they are - a bit higher here than on YouTube. You may privately "shrug" at my "willful" "intellectual wanderings" and decline to applaud me along with those "sentimental teenage girls," but, however contemptuously you may regard me, at least the appearance of respect would be appreciated.)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Originally Posted by Woodduck:
> 
> When I said that in all Wagner's writings, correspondence, and recorded conversations about the Ring the idea of anything in it representing "Jewishness" does not occur, I meant exactly that. People have looked for it. They haven't found it. Look for it yourself.
> 
> ...


^ "_This is the 'cute' teacher. He knows what he's talking about. I'll take copious notes rights now- get his attention- and then flirt with him later._"

Yeah, those irritating prom queens need to go. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

- Outstanding answers for sophistical objections.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> (ONE LAST THING: I need to point out that in this discussion so far your posts have been peppered with insulting language. Since you're fairly new here, you may not realize that standards of civility are - at least we hope they are - a bit higher here than on YouTube. You may privately "shrug" at my "willful" "intellectual wanderings" and decline to applaud me along with those "sentimental teenage girls," but, however contemptuously you may regard me, at least the appearance of respect would be appreciated.)


I perceive this feeling of self-righteousness or holding of some sort of grudge as well, which is why I refuse to engage in a discussion with this particular poster. I will however point out that there is either a basic misunderstanding or willful contortion of Wagner's views taking place, and that for Wagner the issue was not so much a racial one as cultural. And your earlier observation that "I believe it was not until after the completion of all his operas, including Parsifal, that Wagner gave much thought to the "Aryan race." His thoughts about it have been misunderstood - but that's a subject for another time." seems to have been a point that was completely lost. Of course so much of this could be cleared up if more people read Wagner's own words directly, but since so few have, misinterpretations like this are bound to occur I suppose.

I however agree with Don Fatale; I think this is a fascinating thread and would hate to see it derailed but such a tedious topic. Doing a quick search, I too see it has been dealt with numerous times elsewhere, and the other side to the argument that Wagner's operas must contain a racial element by necessity is really given an excellent showing in this thread, which is now closed (probably for the best), and ironically another one of Don Fatale's threads that seems was hijacked.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

I don't want to wade into this much, but so far as the Ring goes, I don't see any "Aryan superiority"--at best, the Aryan "heroes" are downright creepy when they aren't malevolent or idiots. Happily engaging in incest? Being told they possess stolen property and obstinately refusing to return it? These heroes have feet of clay just as much as do the gods. There's no superiority here, but varying degrees of shabbiness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

OperaChic said:


> I perceive this feeling of self-righteousness or holding of some sort of grudge as well, which is why I refuse to engage in a discussion with this particular poster. I will however point out that *there is either a basic misunderstanding or willful contortion of Wagner's views taking place*, and that for Wagner the issue was not so much a racial one as cultural. And your earlier observation that "I believe it was not until after the completion of all his operas, including Parsifal, that Wagner gave much thought to the "Aryan race." His thoughts about it have been misunderstood - but that's a subject for another time." seems to have been a point that was completely lost. Of course *so much of this could be cleared up if more people read Wagner's own words directly, but since so few have, misinterpretations like this are bound to occur* I suppose.
> 
> I however agree with Don Fatale; *I think this is a fascinating thread and would hate to see it derailed but such a tedious topic.* Doing a quick search, I too see it has been dealt with numerous times elsewhere, and the other side to the argument that Wagner's operas must contain a racial element by necessity is really given an excellent showing in this thread, which is now closed (probably for the best), and ironically another one of Don Fatale's threads that seems was hijacked.


I cannot help but agree with OperaChic and Don Fatale that the continuing attempt to read racial themes into Wagner's operas must be a "tedious" topic for those who simply love, or are fascinated by, the works themselves, and that it tends to bog down threads in which it appears. The preoccupation with this subject is an unfortunate product of our history, but it's a phase of history in which many people seem to be trapped for a variety of reasons, and Wagner studies, as well as popular images of the composer, are still rehashing old misconceptions. The more unsavory aspects of Wagner's life and thought provide an apparent rationale for some of these misconceptions, but just as popular conceptions of Wagner the man are oversimplified caricatures of a complex and extraordinary figure, theories about his artistic intentions oversimplify and distort the meaning of his work and miss its depth and scope.

By now the subject of the supposed "racism" of the _Ring_ has become a cultural cliche that goes on feeding upon itself, rather like a celebrity whose actual occupation is forgotten and who has simply become famous for being famous. Since joining this forum, I, along with a few others, have asked those who trot out this clicheed perspective to show solid evidence for its validity, and have directed them to Wagner's own writings and to the works themselves as evidence to the contrary. I fear this does little good in most cases, and I've been accused of trying to "whitewash" the composer and deny his personal faults, as if these were not obvious and a matter of history in a way that misinterpretations of his work are not. But, on the up side, the perennial raising of this topic can give us an added motivation to explore the actual richness of Wagner's achievement and get a fuller and truer perspective on it.

People are clearly going to keep making these contentions. We have to deal with them somehow. I enjoy thinking and writing about my favorite opera composer, and I do hope that things I say here hold some interest for someone. But countering the same shallow and distorted views again and again does become tiresome. If anyone can think of a better approach to handling these inevitable situations, I for one would be glad to hear it.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

gardibolt said:


> I don't want to wade into this much, but so far as the Ring goes, I don't see any "Aryan superiority"--at best, the Aryan "heroes" are downright creepy when they aren't malevolent or idiots. Happily engaging in incest? Being told they possess stolen property and obstinately refusing to return it? These heroes have feet of clay just as much as do the gods. There's no superiority here, but varying degrees of shabbiness.


Yeah. And not to mention, last time I checked the gold is sought after by almost _everyone_ in the operas.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Faustian said:


> Yeah. And not to mention, last time I checked the gold is sought after by almost _everyone_ in the operas.


Siegfried and Brünnhilde generally do not care for the gold one bit, and it is them who are the heroes.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> All I know is the music is AMAZING, it's endlessly fascinating and I never tire of it.


Yes! I honestly wonder what motivation makes people tirelessly repeat all these old tired arguments when they can simply listen, and let themselves be carried by the mighty stream of music to a place where they will forget all about Jews, Aryans, racial theories and all suchlike nonsense. Just listen...


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Siegfried and Brünnhilde generally do not care for the gold one bit, and it is them who are the heroes.


Brunnhilde does of course prize the ring, but as a symbol of Siegfried's love, and rebukes Waltraute's pleas to give it up. In any case, they are both related to Wotan but technically belong to different "races". For the most part the only characters who don't cherish or lust after the gold are those who are ignorant of its existence, like Hunding.

I guess this just goes to show that when you really start to dissect the characters and their motivations, it becomes obvious that there aren't any cohesive messages or clear incentives that are tied in with the characters' races.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

In Götterdämmerung, the Rhinemaidens plead with Siegfried to give the Ring back. He could, but he doesn't just to be a complete dick. Some hero.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

gardibolt said:


> In Götterdämmerung, the Rhinemaidens plead with Siegfried to give the Ring back. He could, but he doesn't just to be a complete dick. Some hero.


He crosses the ring of fire witch only the bravest hero can do

He GIVES Brunhilde the all powerful Ring.

He is not afraid of death when the Rheinmaidens ask for the Ring.

Defeats Wotan and slays a dragon.

In mythology, if someone slays a dragon, they're a hero, flat out.

AND his back is left unprotected because he will never turn his back in a battle.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

gardibolt said:


> In Götterdämmerung, the Rhinemaidens plead with Siegfried to give the Ring back. He could, but he doesn't just to be a complete dick. Some hero.


He almost did, but then the Rhinemaidens started threatening him with the curse of the ring. He felt it beneath his dignity to give in to threats.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

No, they warned him. He interpreted that as a threat, and withheld the ring from them, making fun of women. Dick move, Siegfried.

Siegfried! Siegfried! Siegfried!
Schlimmes wissen wir dir.
Zu deinem Unheil
wahrst du den Ring!
Aus des Rheines Gold
ist der Reif geglüht.
der ihn listig geschmiedet
und schmählich verlor
der verfluchte ihn,
in fernster Zeit
zu zeugen den Tod
dem, der ihn trüg'.
Wie den Wurm du fälltest
so fällst auch du,
und heute noch:
So heissen wir's dir,
tauschest den Ring du uns nicht,
im tiefen Rhein ihn zu bergen:
Nur seine Flut
sühnet den Fluch!
...
Siegfried! Siegfried!
Wir weisen dich wahr.
Weiche, weiche dem Fluch!

His answer?

Im Wasser, wie am Lande
lernte nun ich Weiberart:
wer nicht ihrem Schmeicheln traut,
den schrecken sie mit Drohen;
wer dem kühnlich trotzt,
dem kommt dann ihr Keifen dran.


----------



## solkorset (May 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner changed many things, and the story of the _Ring_ is his own creation, not found in the Eddas or the Nibelungenlied.


This simply isn't true. If somebody today had written Edda/Nibelungenlied and you had come along with the Ring, you would have been condemned as a plagiarizer. Wagner changed details and provided some of his own but the plot and spirit are very true to the original, methinks.



> He was a modern man, not a neo-primitive.


Today's prejudice par excellence! Our ancestors in the middle ages were no more primitive than we are. Compare them to the primitive tribes of the tropics living today and you realize that. Germany's ancestors 2000 years ago defeated the roman legions in war. Being primitive is a genetic condition, not a stage of cultural development. Even if all our cultural heritage was suddenly wiped out we would not become primitive.



> He was interested in his mythic heritage, but his use of it would have been incomprehensible to "the ancestors." This is true of all his works, regardless of his particular sources.


I disagree, and so would Wagner.



> I didn't say that his works have universal appeal. No art has universal appeal. I said that he deals with universal human themes.


Now you're contradicting yourself. If his work is universal it must have universal appeal. By an act of abstraction you can make anything seem universal. But that's universality by arbitrary fiat. What you have to ask is: If you seat a random human being in the hall of Bayreuth and let him follow the performance of one of Wagner's works, what does he feel, how does he respond? Universality requires that he probably be deeply moved. But that is not so. He would likely start laughing or become bored and leave. Maybe he would start playing with his smartphone.



> Then do please prove that the _Ring_ is a parable of racial purity, and don't accuse people who dispute that of willful ignorance.


I haven't said that it be a parable of racial purity. I view it as a drama of opposing forces in the world, and they are surely rooted in different races. This is clear in the original as well as in Wagner's version. Siegmund is a godman, while Hunding belongs to an inferior race, a very human, all too human character. For instance. Then there is the difference between Hagen and Gunther f.ex. The story makes it clear that these are not just individual differences; they are traced to their descent, their kin.



> Besides, Alberich is not "greedy"; he wants power (of which gold, transformed from its primal state, is symbolic) as a substitute for love, which he couldn't get - quite a common motivation having nothing to do with Jewishness or banking.


That gold is desired because of the power it brings goes without saying. Wagner speaks of "endlose Macht". It isn't just Alberich. Have you forgotten Fafner? He kills his brother and accepts gold in exchange for Freya, i.e. for love. That's the curse of gold. The point is that everybody is tempted by this gold and hence susceptible to its curse. Even Siegfried. If you read Wagner's views on jews and consider his lifelong preoccupation with them you cannot brush it away that easily. He saw them as loveless, soulless, creatures obsessed with material concerns. Gold! Money! Career! Popularity! Success! Influence! Fame! Power!



> Wagner's protagonists are not God and the Devil. But, quite arguably, neither are God and the Devil. Radical metaphysical moral dualism doesn't hold up theologically or psychologically. Motivation is shot through with ambivalence; things contain their opposites and are often destroyed by them. The tragedy of that is one of Wagner's deepest and most characteristic themes, in every work from _Der Fliegende Hollander_ to _Parsifal_. He didn't write fairy tales or Sunday school lessons.


This is a bit too extravagant. It's not hard to see where Wagner's sympathies lie. And that's what he considers good. The opposing force he considers evil. Siegfried versus Alberich?



> is simply wrong in every respect. It is neither true that his music can only be appreciated by an "Aryan soul" (whatever that is) - in fact the notion is bizarre - nor did he intend that. Remember, in a moment of irritation with his countrymen, he contemplated moving to America, where he thought his work would be better appreciated! :lol:


He deliberately composed his music in the spirit of the myths that he dramatized. Those myths harbour the racial character of germans, or at least aryans. If you don't feel the unity of the music and the dramas you just don't get it. Tristan? Parsifal? And Wagner certainly intended that unity. That's why he made everything himself. He wanted noone to understand his music who didn't also understand the myths and tragedies: People who carry the secret of the myths in their hearts.

[snipped]


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Another good thread that's starting to go down to Helheim....


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Another good thread that's starting to go down to Helheim....


Just another one that can't stand RW's incomparable greatness SL.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> He crosses the ring of fire witch only the bravest hero can do
> 
> He GIVES Brunhilde the all powerful Ring.
> 
> ...


The argument that Siegfried is an unheroic hero is wrong in that it arises from a misconception - actually an anachronistic, modern conception - of what a hero is. But it is also, in a way, correct.

Wagner's thinking about the _Ring_ - about life in general, actually - underwent a major change in the course of creating the work, and it was this that caused him to set it aside towards the end of act two of _Siegfried_ in order to create two works which expressed directly his new and pressing realities, _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger._ His discovery of the philosophy of Schopenhauer, with its more pessimistic view of human life, was truly earth-shaking for him, and when he returned to the _Ring_ he could not maintain his original conception, in which the major focus had been the redemptive power of love, and the central protagonists had been Siegfried and Brunnhilde as hero and heroine. He saw that the real meaning of his drama lay in the struggle and fate of Wotan, and that Wotan's tragedy would render the hoped-for redeeming hero impotent to prevent the fulfillment of the ring's curse which Wotan's own bid for power had helped bring down on gods and men.

In the _Ring_ as we have it, the naive hero Siegfried, starting out as the fearless son of nature intended by Wotan to cut with Nothung's bright blade the knot in which the god had tied himself and so release the world from its curse, ends up a pawn in the hands of the forces of evil which Wotan came to realize he had helped unleash. With his hero destined for destruction, all Wotan can do is retire to his throne in Valhalla and await with resignation the moment when the gold will be returned to the primal waters and he will at last be freed, willing his own end and a new beginning for a world in which a higher wisdom might reign.

Wagner's original title for his work was "Siegfried's Death," and it was meant as a celebration of a hero. That opera became "The Twilight of the Gods," and the great funeral march at the death of Siegfried became a threnody, not for a naive and hopeless hero, but for a grand scheme gone awry and for an old world, ruled by primitive passions, passing away. It was given to Brunnhilde to understand this - "All has become clear to me; rest now, O god!" - to return the ring to its bed, and to set the old world ablaze in cleansing fire.

In the new world, "hero" would have to acquire meanings the fearless son of the forest could never have imagined, meanings which perhaps only Brunnhilde intuited in her final hour. Wagner himself took Siegfried out of the forest of the Rhineland, led him to Montsalvat, called him "Innocent Fool," and taught him compassion. The glorious motif we hear at the end of _Gotterdammerung_ only promises "redemption by love." It's fulfillment must await Parsifal.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner changed many things, and the story of the _Ring_ is his own creation, not found in the Eddas or the Nibelungenlied. He was a modern man, not a neo-primitive. He was interested in his mythic heritage, but his use of it would have been incomprehensible to "the ancestors." This is true of all his works, regardless of his particular sources.


I have to rather agree with your opponent here. The Edda which was Wagner's primary source, is a sort of mosaic. It consists of many different poems some of which are themselves quite fragmentary. Wagner rearranged these pieces of the mosaic in his own way, adding some things, removing some things, so that the end result was something quite different, but not unrecognizable. If the authors of the Edda came along, they would quite certainly be able to recognize their creation.

Compare for example the lines from the _Sigrdrifumol_ (The Ballad of the Victory-Bringer):

"Hail, day! | Hail, sons of day!
And night and her daughter now!
Look on us here | with loving eyes,
That waiting we victory win.

Hail to the gods! | Ye goddesses, hail,
And all the generous earth!
Give to us wisdom | and goodly speech,
And healing hands, life-long.

"Long did I sleep, | my slumber was long,
And long are the griefs of life;
Othin decreed | that I could not break
The heavy spells of sleep."

with the scene of Brünnhilde's awakening. Sounds familiar?

Ah yes, and I don't think the ancient Teutons and Scandinavians who first created the myths were primitive either. They did not have fancy palaces and Colosseums, sure, but they had hardihood and quick minds to make up for it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I have to rather agree with your opponent here. The Edda which was Wagner's primary source, is a sort of mosaic. It consists of many different poems some of which are themselves quite fragmentary. Wagner rearranged these pieces of the mosaic in his own way, adding some things, removing some things, so that the end result was something quite different, but not unrecognizable. If the authors of the Edda came along, they would quite certainly be able to recognize their creation.
> 
> Compare for example the lines from the _Sigrdrifumol_ (The Ballad of the Victory-Bringer):
> 
> ...


Of course most of the the _elements_ of the _Ring_ are drawn from Scandinavian myth and Germanic epic. The story Wagner tells with them is his own creation. You yourself just said that he ended up with something "quite different, but not unrecognizable." That is not what "my opponent" said. He said that Wagner was trying to express the meaning of the original stories - as if the diverse tales had a particular meaning in the aggregate - and that Wagner didn't dare to change anything of importance. This is very far from what he actually did. If we look only at the central character of Wotan, who shapes and bestrides Wagner's tale from his days of godly youth and ambition at the dawn of the world to the _Gotterdammerung_, we find a story with no equivalent in mythology. The primal theft of the gold and its transformation through the renunciation of love into a token of power, setting the world on its disastrous course, is fundamental to the _Ring_ but nonexistent in the myths, and the mythological end of the gods - the Ragnarok - is not Wagner's _Gotterdammerung_ in any sense. Detail after detail of his sources is imbued by Wagner with fresh meaning, and the integration of all his sources into a single coherent story is an achievement of great originality.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

No, you said that Wagner's use of the myths would have been incomprehensible to the ancestors, and I believe the ancestors would have understood that the gods and heroes of the Ring are none other than their own gods and heroes, even if the spiritual/moral meaning of their adventures has been altered.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, you said that Wagner's use of the myths would have been incomprehensible to the ancestors, and I believe the ancestors would have understood that the gods and heroes of the Ring are none other than their own gods and heroes, even if the spiritual/moral meaning of their adventures has been altered.


I suppose this is really a matter of degree? How close is Wagner to his sources? How close is close? I said that Wagner's _*use*_ of the myths would have been unrecognizable. Characters are transformed, actions and situations given fresh meaning. Would a tenth-century Norwegian have recognized Alberich as the dwarf Andvari, who lived under a waterfall, had the power to become a fish at will, and owned (not created out of lovelessness from stolen gold) a magic ring which brought him wealth? According to Wiki, "Using a net provided by Ran, Loki catches him as a pike and forces him to give up his gold and Andvaranaut (his ring). Andvari cursed the stolen gold which would destroy anyone who possessed it. After the deaths of Brynhild and Sigurd, Gunnar left Andvari's gold in a cave. Years later, Andvari discovered the cave and his lost gold, although his ring was lost forever."

Some familiar elements here, but given a new context and purpose. But how new is new? I think Wagner was pretty original in finding ways to tell a new story and create a myth for modern man.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

^ I think yes, he would have recognized Andvari, but of course this is pure speculation and pretty pointless anyway.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

A simple question:

How tall are the giants, Fasolt and Fafner?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

In my mind about nine to ten feet tall, with Fafner slightly taller and bulkier than Fasolt.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> A simple question:
> 
> How tall are the giants, Fasolt and Fafner?


We don't know, because the Wanderer forgot to ask Mime that question the day they played Trivial Pursuit.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Alberich survives, doesn't he? I wonder if he would consider pinching the Rheingold again seeing the gods are no longer around to hinder him. :lol:


He's last seen alive in Siegfried, and in a dream in Gotterdammerung. I like to say his whereabouts are unknown. I've always believed Alberich survived - the whole point being the whole thing could begin again (heaven forbid). Furthermore, it makes sense that the first 4 characters we meet are only ones who survive.

My question is - does Loge survive?


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

gardibolt said:


> In Götterdämmerung, the Rhinemaidens plead with Siegfried to give the Ring back. He could, but he doesn't just to be a complete dick. Some hero.


Everyone who has the Ring is warned by someone at one point or another to give the Ring back to the Rheinmaidens, and no one does. That's the whole point - it's a cursed ring and no one is willing to part with it. It's a ring of power - it has the power over its holders.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> Everyone who has the Ring is warned by someone at one point or another to give the Ring back to the Rheinmaidens, and no one does. That's the whole point - it's a cursed ring and no one is willing to part with it. It's a ring of power - *it has the power over its holders*.


One of the _Ring'_s moral lessons. We think we have power over others - but the craving for power over them is paradoxically an enslavement to them. Only in love is there freedom from enslavement.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

gellio said:


> My question is - does Loge survive?


Yes, he does - albeit confined to a mountain-top, condemned to orbit a rusty breastplate and a pile of ever-hardening horse dung for eternity.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

gellio said:


> He's last seen alive in Siegfried, and in a dream in Gotterdammerung. I like to say his whereabouts are unknown. I've always believed Alberich survived - the whole point being the whole thing could begin again (heaven forbid). Furthermore, it makes sense that the first 4 characters we meet are only ones who survive.
> 
> *My question is - does Loge survive?*


Have you lit a fire recently? :lol:


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

gellio said:


> He's last seen alive in Siegfried, and in a dream in Gotterdammerung. I like to say his whereabouts are unknown. I've always believed Alberich survived - the whole point being the whole thing could begin again (heaven forbid). Furthermore, it makes sense that the first 4 characters we meet are only ones who survive.


I am convinced that Alberich is dead by Götterdämmerung, as I explained a few pages back. I won't go into that again, but I don't think the idea is that this cycle could happen again. That would mean Brünnhilde's sacrifice was for nothing, or perhaps just a temporary redemption. I don't think Wagner was trying to undercut his ending or his cycle in that way.

Though it seems unlikely Alberich (if alive) would have learned his lesson, perhaps the Rhinemaidens have.

It makes sense to me that the first three characters we meet survive; I don't see what adding Alberich to that does.



gellio said:


> My question is - does Loge survive?


I don't think it makes sense to consider him to have survived. The gods don't survive, that's the whole point. They've become myth, their remnants are all in what mortals think of them. That boar for Froh doesn't matter, neither does the goat for Donner. And the sheep for Fricka doesn't do anything for the marriages. The gods are powerless.

That's even how Götterdämmerung opens; the Norns are talking about how the gods are losing their grip and then they themselves lose their power. That's precisely why the gods immolate themselves in Valhalla; because Wotan can't deal with not being all-powerful.

We don't see Loge or hear from him in the opera, but Brünnhilde does mention him:



> Fliegt heim, ihr Raben!
> Raunt es eurem Herren, was hier am Rhein ihr gehört!
> An Brünnhildes Felsen fahrt vorbei! -
> Der dort noch lodert, weiset Loge nach Walhall!
> ...


If Loge were a powerful being with control over himself, he could have moved on from the rock on his own, but he's still burning there because no one said to do anything different.

And now Brünnhilde sends him to Valhalla, because it is time for the end of the gods. If he was meant to survive he was the only god to do so; shouldn't that be important enough that Wagner would have explained why?

We don't see Erda die, we don't see the Norns die (they vanish, but that could be considered to be different), but I can only imagine them - or at least their personifications, their independence - going up in flames with Loge and everyone else at Valhalla.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The gods die, but Loge, Erda, the Norns, and the Rhinemaidens are not gods, strictly speaking. They are not among the _Aesir _ or the _Vanir_, the two categories of gods in Norse mythology. They are elemental beings: Loge is the spirit of fire, Erda is the Earth Mother, the Rhinemaidens are water spirits, and they are more primitive than the gods. (Loge is sometimes considered one of the Aesir, but probably only by adoption). The gods are not eternal, but I think the elemental spirits are. They existed before the gods, they exist today, and we can still find them if we know how to look for them. Most of us are too civilized and have lost the ability to see them directly, but we can still see their manifestations in nature. The gods, though, are gone forever.

The Nibelungs are not gods either, and Alberich's relatives might still be living under the earth. There's no chance of the cycle starting again, though, since the gold is no longer in its primal shape; it has already been forged into a ring, and the circle is complete. Alberich's descendents will just have to be content with their lot. Any further crimes against nature and love will be up to humans to devise.

That's my take on it, anyway.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> One of the _Ring'_s moral lessons. We think we have power over others - but the craving for power over them is paradoxically an enslavement to them. Only in love is there freedom from enslavement.


Exactly. Ole Richie knew what he was doing.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Have you lit a fire recently? :lol:


Haha. Good one. I always hear people say the Rheinmaidens are alive, and Alberich's alive, but no one ever seems to mention Loge. You have to assume he has survived since he's the one who consumes Walhall.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The gods die, but Loge, Erda, the Norns, and the Rhinemaidens are not gods, strictly speaking. They are not among the _Aesir _ or the _Vanir_, the two categories of gods in Norse mythology. They are elemental beings: Loge is the spirit of fire, Erda is the Earth Mother, the Rhinemaidens are water spirits, and they are more primitive than the gods. (Loge is sometimes considered one of the Aesir, but probably only by adoption). The gods are not eternal, but I think the elemental spirits are. They existed before the gods, they exist today, and we can still find them if we know how to look for them. Most of us are too civilized and have lost the ability to see them directly, but we can still see their manifestations in nature. The gods, though, are gone forever.
> 
> The Nibelungs are not gods either, and Alberich's relatives might still be living under the earth. There's no chance of the cycle starting again, though, since the gold is no longer in its primal shape; it has already been forged into a ring, and the circle is complete. Alberich's descendents will just have to be content with their lot. Any further crimes against nature and love will be up to humans to devise.
> 
> That's my take on it, anyway.


Good take. Although the ring has been forged, couldn't the ring be stolen again? You point on Loge is exactly what I think. It's so interesting all around. I freaking love the Ring!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

No, I don't think so, for three reasons. 1. If the Rhinemaidens have the ring, they aren't going to let it be taken again. It will rest forever in the depths, never to be seen again. It's story is over. 2. A ring is a circle. The circle is a symbol of completeness. This cycle of history (or pre-history) is finished. 3. The end of the gods represents the ushering in of the modern age of secular society: everything is up to humanity now, and humanity needs to find a rational world order, one not based on supernatural edicts and divinely ordained privileges. Gods and nature spirits no longer have the power to control the mind of man or the world's destiny. 

Or so wagner hoped. Yet savage hordes from the east once again batter at the doors of civilization and seek glorification through martyrdom, calling out the name of a god who seems to have survived the conflagration. Apparently the Gotterdammerung was a mite optimistic.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

One thing I've always wonder is why in _Siegfried_ when Siegfried asks Mime the name of his mother, Mime tells him her name was Sieglinde, yet when Siegfried asks him the name of his father, he says he never knew it. Why would he not tell Siegfried the name of his father (I assume just to be a dick). He clearly knows it based on his exchange with Der Wanderer!


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

And when Mime and the Wanderer are having their exchange, does Mime realizes the Wanderer is Wotan when the Wanderer is signing about the spear?


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

Anyone watch Stephen Fry's Wagner and Me? It's on Netflix now. Wondering what Wagnerites think of it...

Also, I've thought about reading Shaw's Perfect Wagnerite for a long time, but have always put it off. Anyone read that?


----------



## MosmanViolinist (Nov 10, 2015)

I really like the Beyreuth pit layout, first violins to right of conductor will seconds to the left, harps and double basses divided into two groups to the left and right of centre too. Parsifal was composed with this pit in mind.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Lyricus said:


> Anyone watch Stephen Fry's Wagner and Me? It's on Netflix now. Wondering what Wagnerites think of it...
> 
> Also, I've thought about reading Shaw's Perfect Wagnerite for a long time, but have always put it off. Anyone read that?


I watched it. It is mostly a story of Fry's own personal struggle with Wagner and his (perceived) heritage. While I respect his desire to engage in this struggle, it has no bearing whatsoever on my personal enjoyment of him. To put it even more plainly, I strictly do not care what Stephen Fry, Hitler, Shaw, the nation of Israel or anyone else think about Wagner as long as I love him


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

MosmanViolinist said:


> I really like the Beyreuth pit layout, first violins to right of conductor will seconds to the left, harps and double basses divided into two groups to the left and right of centre too. Parsifal was composed with this pit in mind.


I liked Bayreuth in general: the theatre, the town, the garden behind Villa Wahnfried... Too bad I will probably never get to hear that orchestra live, because as long as I would have to sit through a performance with closed eyes, I am not going there.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

gellio said:


> One thing I've always wonder is why in _Siegfried_ when Siegfried asks Mime the name of his mother, Mime tells him her name was Sieglinde, yet when Siegfried asks him the name of his father, he says he never knew it. Why would he not tell Siegfried the name of his father (I assume just to be a dick). He clearly knows it based on his exchange with Der Wanderer!


Mime evades Siegfried's questioning - as he had been doing all conversation - by saying he never saw Siegfried's father. It's possible that it's true that Sieglinde never told Mime the name of the father. It's also possible that much of this is a lie anyway; it seems unlikely that Sieglinde would have chosen Mime as a mid-wife or foster parent.

At any rate I would think Mime wants to tell Siegfried as little as possible. If he knew who his parents were Siegfried may have wanted to venture out and find those who knew them, to find any relatives he may have. Until this point Siegfried had not even realized where he came from at all. He starts the conversation by asking about Mime's wife, assuming that he is Mime's child!

We've come into the story at a critical juncture; Siegfried is strong, and starting to question the world around him. Mime is running out of time before he loses control over Siegfried. The more ignorant he can keep Siegfried, the better.



gellio said:


> And when Mime and the Wanderer are having their exchange, does Mime realizes the Wanderer is Wotan when the Wanderer is signing about the spear?


I'd say that he does not recognize Wotan. He certainly gives no indication that he does, such as bringing up their past meeting (in _Das Rheingold_). He also refers to him as Wanderer later on, thinking he might have spoken to Siegfried.

In the next act Alberich recognizes Wotan right off, and this is made clear. Alberich is more perceptive than his brother.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Lyricus said:


> Anyone watch Stephen Fry's Wagner and Me? It's on Netflix now. Wondering what Wagnerites think of it...


I really enjoyed the documentary, in part because I have not yet been to Germany. It was fascinating to see Bayreuth, including backstage rehearsals, Christian Thielemann in a polo shirt, etc.

It's also amazing to watch how giddy Stephen Fry is at all of this. His energy is infectious.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> One thing I've always wonder is why in _Siegfried_ when Siegfried asks Mime the name of his mother, Mime tells him her name was Sieglinde, yet when Siegfried asks him the name of his father, he says he never knew it. Why would he not tell Siegfried the name of his father (I assume just to be a dick). He clearly knows it based on his exchange with Der Wanderer!


Remember that the _Ring_'s libretti were written in reverse order, since only one opera was originally planned. They originally contained more material explaining the background of the events currently on stage, but as Wagner realized he needed to dramatize that background rather than have characters merely relate it to one another, he removed or modified some of that material. I think the whole Mime/Wanderer question-and-answer game was originally devised for the sole purpose of presenting background information before the libretto of _Die Walkure_ existed, and that Mime's telling of the Volsung twins, Siegmund and Sieglinde, was designed to explain to us, the audience, who Siegfried is. I wouldn't be surprised if the inconsistency of Mime not telling Siegfried who his father was simply represents a slip-up on Wagner's part - that he simply forgot to rectify the inconsistency while trying to edit and juggle the various parts of his complicated material. He may have noticed it once the music was finished and thought, "Well, Mime's a dishonest little grinch anyway and really doesn't want to volunteer any information, and I'd rather not bother recomposing the music at this point, so I'll just let it look like a lie."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> And when Mime and the Wanderer are having their exchange, does Mime realizes the Wanderer is Wotan when the Wanderer is signing about the spear?


I've always wondered about this too. Mime says at one point:

"Long ago I left
my native land,
long ago I emerged
from my mother's womb;
Wotan's eyes fell on me,
peered into my cave:
before him my mother-wit
melts away.
But now I must show myself wise.
Wanderer, ask on!"

It sounds as if he's saying he knows Wotan is visiting him at that moment, though the use of the past tense, "fell," is odd. The only other visit would have been in _Rheingold_ when Wotan and Loge descended into Nibelheim to get the ring from Alberich, but in his brief encounter with them there he didn't know who they were. I guess this will have to remain a mystery.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

Lyricus said:


> Anyone watch Stephen Fry's Wagner and Me? It's on Netflix now. Wondering what Wagnerites think of it...
> 
> Also, I've thought about reading Shaw's Perfect Wagnerite for a long time, but have always put it off. Anyone read that?


If you have seen the Patrice Chereau Ring then that is the Perfect Wagnerite. Except Shaw keep trying to sell his other books on the glories of Socialism in every other paragraph. Quite off putting.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> In the next act Alberich recognizes Wotan right off, and this is made clear. Alberich is more perceptive than his brother.


Alberich spent a good deal more time with Wotan, and would have far more cause to remember him, than Mime had.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Loge said:


> If you have seen the Patrice Chereau Ring then that is the Perfect Wagnerite. Except Shaw keep trying to sell his other books on the glories of Socialism in every other paragraph. Quite off putting.


I agree that Shaw's interpretation of the _Ring_ as a socialist tract is annoyingly narrow. I think "The Perfect Wagnerite" is still an enjoyable read, though. Wagner's early devotion to revolutionary socialist anarchism was formative in his conception of the _Ring_'s view of the evils of power, but Wagner's ultimate vision is far less specifically political than the topical allegory Shaw (or Chereau, apparently) wants to make of it. By the time the _Ring_ was finished Wagner had left his naive political views far behind.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'd say that the final _Ring_ is much larger than a socialist fairy tale, but the socialist fairy tale remains inside it, completely intact. There's just more layers on top of it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Duplicate post.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

gardibolt said:


> Alberich spent a good deal more time with Wotan, and would have far more cause to remember him, than Mime had.


Fair point. I still think that Mime is less observant.

The whole point of the scene is that Mime is doing very poorly at both raising Siegfried and fixing Notung. Mime still thinks he can forge Notung and kill Fafner himself. Mime wants Wotan to wander away, but Wotan insists on chatting because he wants his plan to work. He is trying to avoid telling Mime directly that Siegfried must forge Notung because he's not supposed to meddle.

But Mime is stubborn and thinks he's smart enough on his own and wants to be left alone, so he's trying to ask question to stump the Wanderer. If Mime recognized this person as Wotan, he would not have asked him such easy questions. He should have known that Wotan would know about the Nibelungs, the giants, and about the gods. You don't ask a god



> welches Geschlecht wohnt auf wolkigen Höh'n?
> 
> which race lives in the cloudy heights?


But since Mime's questions were so pointless, Wotan has to ask his own, more pointed questions. He tries to lead Mime directly to the answer, but Mime does not understand. Wotan, despite trying to avoid it, tells Mime what must happen next. He doesn't bother killing Mime because he knows Mime will be outwitted by Siegfried.

But does Mime directly ask Siegfried to forge the sword? No, Mime does not accept that Siegfried could accomplish this.



> Hättest du fleissig die Kunst gepflegt,
> jetzt käm' dir's wahrlich zugut;
> doch lässig warst du stets in der Lehr':
> was willst du Rechtes nun rüsten?
> ...


It's not until Mime sees Siegfried re-forging Notung that he accepts that its possible.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I've always wondered about this too. Mime says at one point:
> 
> "Long ago I left
> my native land,
> ...


There is a lot that is odd about this section. I am mostly reading the "But" as a time shift, everything else discussed was long ago, but _now_ he needs to be smart.

I should like to see different English translations of the original; Google translate puts up a bit of a mess that isn't illuminating.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

There's some talk in critical literature about Wotan's missing eye; it seems that it is related to the Sun. The Sun sees everything in the world, so it's related to Wotan's problem of subject-object relationship... everything is to Wotan an aspect of himself and bound by the same limitations of him, so he tries to get "outside himself", to find a relationship to the world that's not complete domination (like magic...) or complete submission (like science...). Love, of course, is the answer. Siegfried is also an aspect of the Sun-god so he's Wotan's ultimate answer to this dilemma.

I think this passage may also refer to that tale in the Eddas where Odin bested the dwarf in riddles; he bought time until the Sun rose up and turned the dwarf to stone. A more famous author later stole this tale, you may remember. Wotan ultimately defeats Mime with Siegfried, so the Sun-god remains the bane of the dwarf in the end. Mime thrives on lies, he can only work them in the dark. Wotan is of course also a schemer but his dream is that he would not have to be; he would like the world to be such that he could realize his innermost wishes and be open about them. The Sun may refer to this dream, this wish to combine love and power.


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

To date I have only heard CDs that contain the abbreviated "highlights" of the Ring cycle and, as a result, know very little about the greater work as a whole, either from a musical or a topical standpoint. The work seems massive and I must admit is, for me, a bit intimidating. Is it true that the entire work takes four or so hours to perform? And are there any opinions as to whether it would be preferable to first see a live performance of it first before listening to the entire work on record? Or does it really matter? It would be a lot easier for me to acquire a copy of the complete recording than to see the opera itself performed for a number of likely obvious reasons so... 

Thoughts?


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

More like 15 hours.


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

Lyricus said:


> More like 15 hours.


_15 hours???_ Was Wagner totally _deranged?!_ Lol.

How does an opera company even present a 15 hour performance to an audience from a logistical standpoint? Not to mention without completely exhausting both audience and performers alike? Is it spread across two or three days or something?

Forgive my obvious ignorance but where it comes to the opera format as a whole I am... well, admittedly pretty ignorant.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

Well, it's not just one opera. It's four.


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

Ah! Hence the term "cycle".


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

EDaddy said:


> _15 hours???_ Was Wagner totally _deranged?!_ Lol.
> 
> Forgive my obvious ignorance but where it comes to the opera format as a whole I am... well, admittedly pretty ignorant.


Hence the title of this thread!

I'm pleased to observe over these pages that even the most basic questions here are given helpful responses. I hope you enjoy your explorations of the Ring. It's surely the most fascinating work of art.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

EDaddy said:


> Ah! Hence the term "cycle".


Exactly, and that goes back to mythical traditions.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

EDaddy said:


> _15 hours???_ Was Wagner totally _deranged?!_ Lol.
> 
> How does an opera company even present a 15 hour performance to an audience from a logistical standpoint? Not to mention without completely exhausting both audience and performers alike? Is it spread across two or three days or something?
> 
> Forgive my obvious ignorance but where it comes to the opera format as a whole I am... well, admittedly pretty ignorant.


No, Wagner was not deranged, he was a genius. The Ring is absolutely magnificent. I had started getting into opera back in 1996 or 1997. I had seen Amadeus (I know, I was late to the game) and that got me going with Mozart, which led to Verdi, Rossini, Bizet, etc... I didn't really think German opera was for me. I really liked Mozart's German operas, but did not like Strauss (still struggling there), so I avoided Wagner. Well, in 1999, I thought I had to give it a go, so I bought The Ring. It was not love at first listen, not even close, as I tried Rheingold and Walkure, but quickly dismissed them. Siegfried, was love at first listen. For a long time, I only listened to Siegfried, then finally Gotterdammerung and Rheingold, then Walkure. Walkure was the toughest one for me. I still like the other three better, but am starting to love Walkure more.

Check your local library, they may have a DVD. It's enthralling. I love it more than anything.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

All good points on the Mime/Wanderer confrontation. Mime does mention Siegmund by name during the question and answer period. He knew Siegmund was Siegfried's father. I always thought Mime was just trying to avoid Siegfried's questions too, to avoid giving him information. It's an interesting scene - one of my favorites. The whole of Siegfried is honestly my favorite.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

gellio said:


> And when Mime and the Wanderer are having their exchange, does Mime realizes the Wanderer is Wotan when the Wanderer is signing about the spear?


I think he does. At least at the end when the Wanderer strikes the ground with his spear, and a peal of thunder sounds, there can be no doubt about who he is. That is why Mime is so afraid when the Wanderer makes his prophecy about Mime losing his life to someone who does not know fear. Wotan knows the future, if he says something will happen, it will surely happen.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Hence the title of this thread!
> 
> I'm pleased to observe over these pages that even the most basic questions here are given helpful responses. I hope you enjoy your explorations of the Ring. It's surely the most fascinating work of art.


I may be being a bit cynical but I think that eDaddy is having a bit of a joke at the expense of us fanatical Wagnerians. 
One - even the cheapest highlights disc would show which opera in the cycle the highlight was from.
Two - five minutes on Google would answer most of your questions. 
Three - looking at all the other posts on the thread would answer most of the questions. 
Four - putting Ring Cycle into the search engine for Talkclassical would reveal all the threads that address the Ring. 
But if I'm wrong, eDaddy, then by all means fire away!


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> Fair point. I still think that Mime is less observant.
> *snip*


I have no problem with the proposition that Mime is not the sharpest tool in the shed.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> There's some talk in critical literature about Wotan's missing eye; it seems that it is related to the Sun. The Sun sees everything in the world, so it's related to Wotan's problem of subject-object relationship... everything is to Wotan an aspect of himself and bound by the same limitations of him, so he tries to get "outside himself", to find a relationship to the world that's not complete domination (like magic...) or complete submission (like science...). Love, of course, is the answer. Siegfried is also an aspect of the Sun-god so he's Wotan's ultimate answer to this dilemma.


As I contemplate your description of Wotan here, trying and failing to find in it a description of Wagner's very finite and fallible chief god, it occurs to me that the being you are actually describing is not a human-like pagan god but the God of Christianity, the Judeo-Chistian sun/sky-god Jehovah. Substitute Jehovah for Wotan in your first paragraph, and here is what you get:

["Jehovah] sees everything in the world, so it's related to [his] problem of subject-object relationship...everything is to [him} an aspect of himself...so he tries to get 'outside himself', to find a relationship to the world...Love, of course, is the answer... [Adam, or Jesus] is also an aspect of [God] so he's [Jehovah's] ultimate answer to this dilemma."

It's a classic theological question: how can Jehovah, the creator of the universe, who is by definition perfect, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient and immortal, have any needs or desires, and therefore any motivation to act - to _do_ anything? Logically, if such a being could exist at all, he would rest eternally in perfect, unchanging stillness. In order to provide this being with motivation, we have to limit his infinitude, to attribute to him needs and desires - in fact to anthropomorphize him. But in order to do this, we have to posit something he can need and desire, something which is not already a part of himself. If he is said to have created man (Adam), he must have had some need for the existence of humanity, and of all the needs one being might have for another the only one that makes Jehovah look humane and worthy of worship is "love": he needed a relationship with someone he could love, and who had the independent will to freely choose to love him in return.

We can see that Wotan's inner conflict between the opposing desires for power and for love echoes somewhat the "dilemma" of Jehovah, but there's a fundamental difference: Jehovah's "problem" is that he is infinite - that "everything is an aspect of himself" - whereas Wotan is a finite being in a universe with other finite beings. His problem - a real problem and not a theological artifact, the problem at the heart of Wagner's tale - is not that he is all-powerful, like Jehovah, but that he _aspires_ to be. And in the _Ring_, that is the crime for which he must die.

In Christianity, Jehovah, the One God, perfect, infinite and all-powerful, defies logic and takes on finitude and humanity while retaining his intrinsic perfection and living eternally, consigning most of humanity to a fiery death. Wotan, chief of many gods and all-too-human, imperfect, finite, torn between the desire for power and the need for love, succumbs to the desire to be all-powerful like Jehovah and comes to realize that he must finally give up the world to the human race and go to his own Gotterdammerung.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

^ I don't think he ever wanted to become all-powerful. He wanted to increase his power, but not to infinity. Throughout the Ring he repeatedly takes advice from others: from Loge, Fricka, Brünnhilde, Erda - thus recognizing that he is not all-wise or all-powerful. And he is not a transcendent being beyond and above the world like Jehova. He is part of the world, and when the world changes, he is doomed.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ I don't think he ever wanted to become all-powerful. He wanted to increase his power, but not to infinity. Throughout the Ring he repeatedly takes advice from others: from Loge, Fricka, Brünnhilde, Erda - thus recognizing that he is not all-wise or all-powerful. And he is not a transcendent being beyond and above the world like Jehova. He is part of the world, and when the world changes, he is doomed.


Wotan doesn't speak of limits to his power. Read the libretto of _Das Rheingold_. He's aware of the what the ring can do, and he covets it. He says: "I have heard talk of the Rhine's gold: its glittering glow hides runes of riches; a ring would give unbounded power and wealth...To control this ring seems wise to me."

As for the rest, you're restating my point: he _isn't_ all-powerful - but the dream of it leads him into envy, deception, and theft. For Wotan, who rules by the power of law engraved on his spear-shaft, this is the ultimate self-negation, and his death-sentence. Siegfried ultimately shatters the spear whose runes Wotan has already betrayed.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Barbebleu said:


> I may be being a bit cynical but I think that eDaddy is having a bit of a joke at the expense of us fanatical Wagnerians.
> ...
> But if I'm wrong, eDaddy, then by all means fire away!


If that's so, let's all go round to his favourite composer's thread and joke back at him! He's gotta learn not to mess with Wagnerites.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Oh, Woodduck, we should have a lengthy discussion about Wotan... only I'm not very good in forum discussions... maybe you'll learn Finnish and I'll send you my master's thesis that's largely about him?

Wotan has a humane aspect, sure, but there's more to him than that. Wagner himself wrote in some letter that "Wotan is the sum of our knowledge here". Wotan is not omnipotent or omniscient, but he's the greatest there is. He's the spearhead of the world-spirit, the Hegelian consciousness that aspires to the absolute. I have to mention ol' Hegel here because my interpretation of the _Ring_ has a lot of Hegel in it. Wagner had read Hegel, too, and more: he was heavily into Feuerbach, and Feuerbach remained, for all his rebellion, a Hegelian.

I love your comparison of the Judeo-Christian God and my interpretation of Wotan! It's brilliant! Hegel is the link here, and _he_ had been a theology student before turning to philosophy. His philosophy remains influenced by Christianity, namely, God trying to get outside Himself and starting world history in the process, culminating in the apocalypse of the absolute where there is nowhere to get outside anymore, because everything and its cat has been colonized by consciousness. In the meanwhile, everything is _becoming._ Wotan is _becoming,_ too. He has a vision of perfect society, Law being the instrument of his Love, and if _he_ doesn't succeed with it, nobody else will. If the world is to be ruled by love manifested through reason and logic, everything depends on Wotan. The gods are the only beings with the capacity to rule under reason, and Wotan is the only one of them who wants to love - wants to get outside of himself. The other gods may have no need for this, as they all have their place under Wotan. Wotan occupies the highest seat, so he tries to look for a principle above him, a rock that he can build his fortress upon - but there is no rock, there is no principle, except the Ring of the Nibelung itself, a principle of lie, illusion, creating something out of nothing (which is really: nothing. In the cosmos of the _Ring_, where ethics stem from nature, there is no true _ex nihilo_ creation).

When I say gods, I'm not talking about Erda (or Loge); they're different... very different.

I mix Freud and Lacan in this, too. Everyone starts in solipsism and narcissism; then the outside world interferes and we have to go through the Oedipus complex to diminish and become actual human beings. Wotan has no father, so his power remains unquestioned, and he has to learn to be social through the battles caused by the rebellions of his children... but maybe no more of that for now.

My problem is that I give much credit to Wotan's dream. It's the old European dream: achieve the highest good through highest reason and keep everybody happy. Wotan's failing is that he doesn't get Hegelian dialectics: the wheel of history will run over him, if he keeps his dream. If he keeps himself intact, the wheel of history stops moving: as the highest consciousness, he's the prime mover. Wotan doesn't trust for the system to work if he's not the head honcho himself, but at the same time, his system is in search of principles that, if set in motion, will develop and form into a fullness that will replace any finite being. In a way, he succeeds; Brünnhilde's torch sets up a fire that replaces _all_ finiteness in the end, matter having been judged and found wanting to contain _any_ spirit, reason or love whatsoever.

In the end, both Wotan and Alberich crave power; but Alberich never cares about any object, any otherness, any being other than himself. Objects are for him tools in the vain search of gratifying the wishes of his unconscious, but, as Lacan says, the whole point of desire is to renew itself. Desire cannot be quenched by indulgence. Wotan wishes absolute power, but he desires more: communication. He wishes to know objects (=other people) rather than just use them. He's aware that otherness exists; his thinking does not stop with the limits of his own person. Thus, he longs for love (=ideal self-other relationship). Even his spear actually gives other people rights. It's a rigid way of trying to reach others, but it's more than Alberich ever had.

I don't think the _Ring_ condemns craving for power. The _Ring_ condemns lovelessness, selfishness, solipsism; also fear (of death), and especially objectifying things - caring about tools instead of purposes. Craving for power can be a substitute for love, in which case it is condemned, but love has a power all of it's own - power of mythical leadership based on instinctive communication between the hero-artist and the _Volk_. When refined in actual history, basic drives (such as love) can take more complex forms, and I'm sure Wagner agreed. He wasn't advocating a full-on Venusberg. And I'm sure he agreed that we can't go back to square one, the beginning of the _Rheingold_, unless, well, everything is burned. I'm sure he meant that as history moves on, objectifying can be resisted by remembering the lost waters, having some child-like virtues. But that doesn't turn us into Rhinedaughters.

As the spear shatters and Law turns into Love, what happens to Wotan? He suffers. Some branches of Christianity (like Roman Catholic Jansenism) speak of patripassianism, the Father suffering with the Son on the Cross. The age of Law turns into the age of Faith, but was the Law wrong? At least Paul interprets it so that Law was a thing of its time. Its time passes, and a more refined mode of reaching the object takes its place. Faith requires us to be more conscious. Also Love, with Wagner, does not come easily. It requires true dialogue, reaching out to the other (Feuerbach wrote a lot about this and Wagner agreed). Alberich curses Love quite easily, though. The new and improved way is more difficult for everyone, but luckily, knowledge accumulates in history. Old concepts and modes are destroyed, or maybe rather reborn in new forms. The vengeful God becomes the Father in Heaven, and Wotan... Wotan becomes something else through his children, who would not be what they are without his having been involved. Maybe one central question here is this: what happens after _Götterdämmerung?_ If we answer: a world that is better for human beings, a world without gods, takes place, then Wotan's project wasn't much. But if a new cycle takes place, again starting from the natural and the unconscious, then we could say that his project was heroic, but doomed to failure. Same thing if it was really the end of linear history (unless we take a nihilist position). Thing is, as you well know, Woodduck, we don't know. The ending remains super ambiguous and elusive.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> Oh, Woodduck, we should have a lengthy discussion about Wotan... only I'm not very good in forum discussions... maybe you'll learn Finnish and I'll send you my master's thesis that's largely about him?
> 
> Wotan has a humane aspect, sure, but there's more to him than that. Wagner himself wrote in some letter that "Wotan is the sum of our knowledge here". Wotan is not omnipotent or omniscient, but he's the greatest there is. He's the spearhead of the world-spirit, the Hegelian consciousness that aspires to the absolute. I have to mention ol' Hegel here because my interpretation of the _Ring_ has a lot of Hegel in it. Wagner had read Hegel, too, and more: he was heavily into Feuerbach, and Feuerbach remained, for all his rebellion, a Hegelian.
> 
> ...


Hail, Xaltotun! Your splendid essay reads like what I think it is: a compact summation that needs a great deal of unpacking. Insofar as I can unpack it, I'm in considerable agreement with it and I admire your perceptiveness. There are points I'd like explained, including some linkages which you've omitted for brevity's sake, but this seems a hard assignment under the circumstances. Where is my Finnish when I need it? Nowhere, alas. But let me express what pleasure I feel in encountering here the thoughts of someone who can bring to things Wagnerian such a broad frame of reference and argue so compellingly from it. I owe you a better response than I'm prepared to give.

I don't want to try to add anything to your ideas, or for that matter contradict anything, but I'm compelled to think, as I read your explication of Wotan's essentially noble quest and his noble failure, about how Wagner couldn't leave Wotan's contradictory project of enlightened despotism behind with the _Ring_'s apocalypse, but took it up in a new form with Titurel. That godly hero who, like Wotan, lived by a vision of love (the Grail) and ruled by laws he believed (mistakenly) that love required, was also "the greatest there was," but he had to give way in the end to Parsifal, the "pure fool" who, embodying a "faith" beyond Titurel's capacity, proved the Grail's (love's) true avatar and executor. But Wagner works a variant in the story, for Titurel is a Wotan who fails to attain the wisdom to will his own inevitable demise, while Parsifal is a Siegfried who, like him seeing a woman and hearing the call of his dead mother, has also heard the cry of Amfortas and realizes that to love is not to return to passive, narcissistic bliss (young Oedipus in the Venusberg again).

It's interesting that the _Ring_ was originally projected to center on Siegfried, not on Wotan. But as Wagner's insight into his own symbols deepened, Siegfried was destined to prove a failure as a hero because for Wagner the old idea of a hero itself failed. After concluding his vision of world-destruction with a musical promise of hope (or at least wishful thinking), Wagner needed another opera, once again to center on a hero, once again a naive child of the forest, but one who could actually grow to consciousness and adulthood where Siegfried could not. That melody that ends the Ring has been wrongly labeled "Redemption by Love," as the end of the _Ring_ is more ambiguous than that. But if it points ahead to _Parsifal_, the label takes on new meaning.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I want to throw some thoughts out there concerning Alberich. Of course, he is the ultimate villain of the story, he sets events in motion that lead to the final catastrophe. But maybe he is also in some way a victim - that of the Rhinemaidens' lovelessness? I mean, all he wanted at the beginning was a little bit of love from a beautiful woman. If one of the Rhinemaidens gave it to him, maybe he would not have devoted himself to vengeance on the world and the gods thereof? And wasn't it Wagner's view that the cause of much of human evil and suffering is lovelessness (_Lieblosigkeit_)? What do you think?

There was a real person like that a while ago: Elliot Rodger, who resented the fact that pretty girls did not give him the time of day so much that he decided to kill as many of them as possible, thus exacting his revenge on the world. The spirit of Alberich seems to be still alive and well.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

That was always how I read Alberich. He's definitely not a one-dimensional character.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I want to throw some thoughts out there concerning Alberich. Of course, he is the ultimate villain of the story, he sets events in motion that lead to the final catastrophe. But maybe he is also in some way a victim - that of the Rhinemaidens' lovelessness? I mean, all he wanted at the beginning was a little bit of love from a beautiful woman. If one of the Rhinemaidens gave it to him, maybe he would not have devoted himself to vengeance on the world and the gods thereof? And wasn't it Wagner's view that the cause of much of human evil and suffering is lovelessness (_Lieblosigkeit_)? What do you think?
> 
> There was a real person like that a while ago: Elliot Rodger, who resented the fact that pretty girls did not give him the time of day so much that he decided to kill as many of them as possible, thus exacting his revenge on the world. The spirit of Alberich seems to be still alive and well.


Whew! I don't think I want to look for the spirit of Alberich in a psychopathic serial killer.  Alberich isn't that abnormal; in fact I think he's perfectly normal. If we assume that the mythical characters of the _Ring_ embody, not individuals, but aspects of universal human experience - aspects of all of us - we can, as you say, find Alberich quite understandable and even sympathize with him.

To me, the opening of the _Ring_ in the depths of the Rhine represents the dawning of consciousness, with the dark waters representing the womb, the Rhinemaidens representing the amoral innocence of Nature, and Alberich, the little black dwarf, representing the premoral darkness of the infant mind that wants only the bliss of Mother Nature's embrace. We see the rejection of his advances from the child's perspective as a cruel thing which inspires in him an act of rebellion, the first assertion of the child's ego which can only express itself as a "No!" hurled at a universe which refuses to grant his infantile wishes, and which, angered by rejection, he seeks to control. Every human being goes through this: we must all be weaned, and wean ourselves, from the effortless gratification of infantile desire in order to achieve empowerment, and in our childish state of consciousness we have not yet the moral sense to know what the limits of our power should be. In the _Ring,_ moral consciousness awakens in the next scene, in Wotan and the gods - and what a struggle morality has in finding its way in the world!

We will see this struggle for autonomy and moral consciousness play out in the _Ring_ in many forms, and we will see it again in the story of Parsifal, whose rejection of Kundry is the rejection of infantile irresponsibility and the embrace of mature, moral manhood which Alberich, at the very dawn of human consciousness, was not ready to accomplish.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I want to throw some thoughts out there concerning Alberich. Of course, he is the ultimate villain of the story, he sets events in motion that lead to the final catastrophe. But maybe he is also in some way a victim - that of the Rhinemaidens' lovelessness? I mean, all he wanted at the beginning was a little bit of love from a beautiful woman. If one of the Rhinemaidens gave it to him, maybe he would not have devoted himself to vengeance on the world and the gods thereof? And wasn't it Wagner's view that the cause of much of human evil and suffering is lovelessness (_Lieblosigkeit_)? What do you think?
> 
> There was a real person like that a while ago: Elliot Rodger, who resented the fact that pretty girls did not give him the time of day so much that he decided to kill as many of them as possible, thus exacting his revenge on the world. The spirit of Alberich seems to be still alive and well.


I have no problem considering Rodger a villain, and do not consider him to have been in any significant way a victim. His crimes are his own.

I have, at times, thought of Alberich in these terms, but that does not make me view him more sympathetically.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

But thanks for bumping this thread; I was recently reminded of a question I have about _Das Rheingold_.

In the final scene, what does Wotan mean in his response to Fricka?



> WOTAN
> Folge mir, Frau: in Walhall wohne mit mir!
> 
> FRICKA
> ...


Or, in an English translation


> WOTAN
> Wife, follow me and dwell with me in Valhalla!
> 
> FRICKA
> ...


Alternate English translation of the final line:


> What my spirit has found to master my dread, when triumph is won, maketh the meaning clear.


To my understanding "Valhalla" translates as something like "hall of fallen heroes," was this clear to Fricka, and if so, what else/why was she asking?

Is this simply about the heroes as gathered by the Valkyries? Or was Wotan, this early, already feeling that this was where he and the gods were doomed to die? Though it seems like Wotan does not give up until Fricka makes him rule against Siegmund (and that is more devastating if Wotan has not already lost all hope).

An alternate explanation is that this exchange is here in a sort of post-modern wink (or so it would be called were it written say a hundred years later); Wagner wants us to think about how it will all end.

At any rate, this is not something I have ever seen as clear.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> To my understanding "Valhalla" translates as something like "hall of fallen heroes," was this clear to Fricka, and if so, what else/why was she asking?
> 
> Is this simply about the heroes as gathered by the Valkyries? Or was Wotan, this early, already feeling that this was where he and the gods were doomed to die? Though it seems like Wotan does not give up until Fricka makes him rule against Siegmund (and that is more devastating if Wotan has not already lost all hope).
> 
> ...


He first comes up with the name already after Alberich becomes his enemy, before that it was simply a hall. I think by that time he knows he would have to fight Alberich's hatred some day, and for this purpose he also gathers the fallen heroes. He sees danger ahead, but still hopes for victory. In Die Walküre he also explains:

_Durch Alberichs Heer
droht uns das Ende:
mit neidischem Grimm
grollt mir der Niblung: -
doch scheu' ich nun nicht
seine nächtigen Scharen,
meine Helden schüfen mir Sieg.
Nur wenn je den Ring
zurück er gewänne,
dann wäre Walhall verloren.._

Through Alberich's army
our end is looming.
With baleful rage
the Nibelung nurses his grudge.
But now I do not fear
his forces of darkness:
my heroes would bring me victory.
But if ever the ring
were won back to him,
then Valhalla would be lost.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

I know we have some other TC members in the Chicago area....any interest in a group buy for tickets to Rheingold in October? We'd need a minimum of 10 tickets, but group tickets get priority right behind subscribers and ahead of single tickets, and there's 10% discount if we have at least 15 in a group. I'll organize it if we have at least 8 other folks (preferably 13) and we can agree on a date. Since we live in Wisconsin, it pretty much needs to be a Saturday or Sunday for us, so the choices are Saturday Oct 1 at 6 PM, Sunday Oct 9 at 2 PM, Sunday Oct 16 at 2 PM or Saturday Oct 22 at 7:30 PM.

If you're interested post here or PM me and we'll see if we can't get something together.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

BBC Radio 3's live broadcast of Opera North's Ring Cycle begins shortly.

The other operas will follow over the next week. They are to be available on demand afterward for 30 days.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Did J. R. R. Tolkien know about the Ring cycle? Or is it just a case of them both drawing on a similar mythos? Or having a similar idea? Not sure if the answer to this is even known.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> Did J. R. R. Tolkien know about the Ring cycle? Or is it just a case of them both drawing on a similar mythos? Or having a similar idea? Not sure if the answer to this is even known.


Yes, he did, and he did not like it. When presented with these questions, his reply was "Both Rings are round, and here all similarities end". He pretty much regarded it as an aberration of the original myths.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Yes, [Tolkien] did, and he did not like it. When presented with these questions, his reply was "Both Rings are round, and here all similarities end".


I often think that Tolkien's irascibility about Wagner's _Ring_ betrayed a certain defensiveness, and the "here all similarities end" comment disingenuous. There are more similarities than Tolkien might have been prepared to concede, not because Tolkien based his work on the operas, but because he and Wagner drew inspiration from similar sources. To that extent, _Lord of the Rings_ is as much of an "aberration" as _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ - i.e. no aberration at all. Both are the works of geniuses, who transmuted ancient sagas and folk-tales into enduring pieces of art.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

^ Totally agree. And I am glad we have both of these works of art - LOTR and Wagner's Ring.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I often think that Tolkien's irascibility about Wagner's _Ring_ betrayed a certain defensiveness, and the "here all similarities end" comment disingenuous. There are more similarities than Tolkien might have been prepared to concede, not because Tolkien based his work on the operas, but because he and Wagner drew inspiration from similar sources. To that extent, _Lord of the Rings_ is as much of an "aberration" as _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ - i.e. no aberration at all. Both are the works of geniuses, who transmuted ancient sagas and folk-tales into enduring pieces of art.


Raising the question does serve to remind us of how original Wagner's treatment of the myths was. The story he tells takes often loosely connected characters and events from the old stories, integrates them into a plot, and gives them a philosophical and moral focus with relevance for the civilization of his, and future, time.

Maybe Tolkien does something like this too, but I've never read beyond _The Hobbitt_. My intuition is that he was less interested in reinterpreting ancient literature than in immersing himself in its language and customs and spinning tales with a sort of idealized medieval atmosphere. He may have found Wagner's proto-Freudian/Jungian psychological probings and sexual preoccupations too strong for his Oxfordian sensibilities. However, it's been pointed out that the character of Tolkien's One Ring - specifically its corrupting power upon minds and wills - is not present in the mythical sources but was Wagner's idea and crucial to _Der Ring des Nibelungen._ So draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> However, it's been pointed out that the character of Tolkien's One Ring - specifically its corrupting power upon minds and wills - is not present in the mythical sources but was Wagner's idea and crucial to _Der Ring des Nibelungen._


I tend to agree - for example, there's perhaps a hint of Alberich and Mime to be discerned in Sauron and Gollum.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

For what it's worth, whatever Tolkien may have said about the Ring, his close friend C.S. Lewis (noted Christian apologist and author of the Narnia series) was a huge fan of Wagner. So the operas had a definite influence on Tolkien's circle.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Tolkien certainly didn't like Wagner, but yes, he was just as clearly influenced by his operas. He saw a Ring cycle at Covent Garden in the 1930s (even if he was dragged there by C.S. Lewis).

Both of the books consciously, purposefully draw from a wide variety of mythic sources, including medieval English legends and folks and fairy tales in addition to Norse legends. _The Hobbit_ is a juvenile fantasy story, _The Lord of the Rings_ a deeper, darker work (though, again, it starts off light). It is only really in the latter that the One Ring becomes a central focus and takes on its dark, corrupting power.

Tolkien loved his languages, but one could just as easily get caught up in Wagner's poetics, and in both cases these were integrated, and done to serve the greater work.

Though, honestly, I admire Tolkien's work more than I appreciate or enjoy it.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

mountmccabe said:


> BBC Radio 3's live broadcast of Opera North's Ring Cycle begins shortly.
> 
> The other operas will follow over the next week. They are to be available on demand afterward for 30 days.


I wasn't blown away by this yesterday, in part because I wasn't sold on Michael Druiett's Wotan. For _Die Walküre_ today there's a new Wotan, Robert Hayward, who I like more. I'm also really thrilled by with the Siegmund, Michael Weinius. Kelly Cae Hogan is also a surprising Brünnhilde (she's trying to take him to Valhalla right now), and I'm really looking to hearing her through the rest of the cycle.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

mountmccabe said:


> For _Die Walküre_ today there's a new Wotan, Robert Hayward, who I like more.


He's a very fine singer. Hayward's Kurwenal for Welsh National Opera's _Tristan_ a few years back* was simply outstanding.

* Edit: I just looked this up, and it was in 2006! Where on earth did that decade go?


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Just scored my tickets for Das Rheingold in Chicago; opening night main floor. Wheeeee!:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> Both of the books consciously, purposefully draw from a wide variety of mythic sources, including medieval English legends and folks and fairy tales in addition to Norse legends. _The Hobbit_ is a juvenile fantasy story, _The Lord of the Rings_ a deeper, darker work (though, again, it starts off light). It is only really in the latter that the One Ring becomes a central focus and takes on its dark, corrupting power.


Tolkien wrote yet another book, "The Children of Hurin", whose protagonist Turin has something of Siegfried in him (since he also fights a dragon), but even more of Siegmund. Both are lonely and outcasts, largely because of their moral notions being different from the rest of society. The destinies of both are influenced by powerful beings: Siegmund's by his father Wotan (who admits to creating his suffering intentionally), Turin's by the curse Morgoth had laid on his father and his entire family. Both take on a new name: Siegmund - Wehwalt ("Woeful"), and Turin - Turambar ("Master of Doom"). Both enter into an unlawful relationship with their sisters, and both couples die because of it. Except that in Wagner's work this relationship also leads to the birth of "the world's noblest hero", but in Tolkien's book it only brings ruin.

Now, this is pure speculation on my side, but I do believe Tolkien's dislike of Wagner's work was caused at least partly by Wagner's treatment of sexual themes, like the abovementioned incest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Tolkien wrote yet another book, "The Children of Hurin", whose protagonist Turin has something of Siegfried in him (since he also fights a dragon), but even more of Siegmund. Both are lonely and outcasts, largely because of their moral notions being different from the rest of society. The destinies of both are influenced by powerful beings: Siegmund's by his father Wotan (who admits to creating his suffering intentionally), Turin's by the curse Morgoth had laid on his father and his entire family. Both take on a new name: Siegmund - Wehwalt ("Woeful"), and Turin - Turambar ("Master of Doom"). Both enter into an unlawful relationship with their sisters, and both couples die because of it. Except that in Wagner's work this relationship also leads to the birth of "the world's noblest hero", but in Tolkien's book it only brings ruin.
> 
> Now, this is pure speculation on my side, but I do believe Tolkien's dislike of Wagner's work was caused at least partly by Wagner's treatment of sexual themes, like the abovementioned incest.


It sounds as if Tolkien got his revenge on Wagner with Turin. 

The incestuous love of Siegmund and Sieglinde really was controversial. People found it more objectionable than her miserable marriage to a brute like Hunding, and Fricka - upholder of the "sacred institution of marriage" - agreed. But as a friend of mine says, "Who wants to live in an institution?"


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Fortunately, in real life people usually have more options than either incest or a miserable marriage. 

And sure it is controversial. I must admit it made me somewhat uncomfortable too, when I first started listening to the Ring. But then this relationship is not Wagner's own invention. Such relationships are mentioned in the Norse myths he used as his sources, both between humans and between deities (Freyr and Freija). Indeed, it seems incestual themes come up in many mythologies all over the world, including the Arthurian legends and the Bible. And the love duet between Siegmund and Sieglinde is one of the most lyrical, tender moments in the entire Ring. It more than makes up for an "uncomfortable" bit of mythology. 

As for Fricka, I like to call her Control-Freaka


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> As for Fricka, I like to call her Control-Freaka


Anyone wielding a whip whilst being pulled by rams clearly has some sexual issues as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Anyone wielding a whip whilst being pulled by rams clearly has some sexual issues as well.


Oh...

Tell us more.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Such relationships are mentioned in the Norse myths he used as his sources, both between humans and between deities (Freyr and Freija). Indeed, it seems incestual themes come up in many mythologies all over the world, including the Arthurian legends and the Bible. And the love duet between Siegmund and Sieglinde is one of the most lyrical, tender moments in the entire Ring. It more than makes up for an "uncomfortable" bit of mythology.


I was very young when I first encountered the _Ring_, and the concept of incest had never entered my mind, so Siegmund and Sieglinde seemed perfectly normal to me. Having read lots of myths and fairy tales, I felt that people in wonder-filled stories like those could do all sorts of things the neighbors couldn't. In fact all of Wagner's characters seemed perfectly normal to me. The neighbors, on the other hand, still don't.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Oh... Tell us more.


I'm a lapsed psychologist, and not as Jung as I used to be.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I'm a lapsed psychologist, and not as Jung as I used to be.


How do I know you're not just freudulent?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I Kinsey what you did there.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I Lacan . . . 

No, I got nothing.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

mountmccabe said:


> I Kinsey what you did there.


I'm inkleined to agree.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

This is making me Horney.

There!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> How do I know you're not just freudulent?


You're free to believe what you like, it's no Skinner fmynose.

Sorry! That was excruciatingly bad


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Sorry! That was excruciatingly bad


Yeah, now you're just Zizek-ing off.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What an adlerbrained lot.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I was very young when I first encountered the _Ring_, and the concept of incest had never entered my mind, so Siegmund and Sieglinde seemed perfectly normal to me. Having read lots of myths and fairy tales, I felt that people in wonder-filled stories like those could do all sorts of things the neighbors couldn't. In fact all of Wagner's characters seemed perfectly normal to me. The neighbors, on the other hand, still don't.


I have been a Tolkien admirer for just about as long as I remember myself. The Hobbit and some of his short stories were among the first books I read as soon as I learned to read on my own. So, when I first got to know Wagner's Ring at the ripe age of 23, I was overjoyed to encounter the long-loved stories, themes and characters again, but in a new, briliant rendition. Besides, this rendition was in a language and belonged to a culture that I was already feeling strongly drawn towards. And the music in its power and beauty was such, the likes of which I could not even imagine, especially under the label of classical music. The operatic singing took some time to get accustomed to, but pretty soon I was converted. By now I believe I am even more of a Wagner admirer than a Tolkien admirer - inasmuch as words combined with music speak more powerfully than words alone.


----------



## Ginger (Jul 14, 2016)

anmhe said:


> I love the Ring Cycle, but I've always found that most all of the characters are VERY hard to like. Was this a conscious choice on Wagner's part, or just my modern POV?


I have always asked myself the same question! But I would like to diversify it a little bit...  In "Walküre" I think it´s very easy to like or at least to understand almost all the characters. Compared to this part of the Ring the other three parts are so different. There I can´t like them most of the time... Probably Brünnhilde at the very end but that´s all.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I agree about _Die Walküre_! I consider it the most human of the Ring operas, the most grounded. The conflicts are, by and large, between people/gods trying to do what they think is right. The drama is largely played out on a family scale.

Hunding is perhaps the only villain in the opera, and he mostly acts with honor. Hunding allows the man he has been hunting to stay in his home. And Hunding has been pursuing Siegmund out of duty, not malice or a thirst for blood. The only real issue is that he mistreats Sieglinde. That's a dealbreaker and I'm happy to call him a horrible person, but his dealings with everyone other than his wife are understandable, contextually.

All of the other operas have more of the fantasy elements (beyond the gods themselves) driving their plots. I also think Mime, Hagen, and Alberich are less understandable, relate-able villains. In Siegfried we have a main character who is essentially designed to ruffle feathers. And _Götterdämmerung_ is a difficult combination of the mystical and the conventional (the love potion plot, the tragic misunderstands due to lack of communication).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I agree about _Die Walküre_! I consider it the most human of the Ring operas, the most grounded. The conflicts are, by and large, between people/gods trying to do what they think is right. The drama is largely played out on a family scale.
> 
> Hunding is perhaps the only villain in the opera, and he mostly acts with honor. Hunding allows the man he has been hunting to stay in his home. And Hunding has been pursuing Siegmund out of duty, not malice or a thirst for blood. The only real issue is that he mistreats Sieglinde. That's a dealbreaker and I'm happy to call him a horrible person, but his dealings with everyone other than his wife are understandable, contextually.
> 
> All of the other operas have more of the fantasy elements (beyond the gods themselves) driving their plots. I also think Mime, Hagen, and Alberich are less understandable, relate-able villains. In Siegfried we have a main character who is essentially designed to ruffle feathers. And _Götterdämmerung_ is a difficult combination of the mystical and the conventional (the love potion plot, the tragic misunderstands due to lack of communication).


Great point about Hunding. _Walkure_ has always been the most popular of the _Ring_ operas, and I think you've expressed the reasons very well. I think, though, that "relatability" has to be viewed in relation to the mythical nature of the work. We shouldn't expect the figures in mythical tales to be and act like people we know, even though they act out of motives we can recognize. The feelings such fantastic stories evoke in us pertain to the overall meanings being conveyed, in the accomplishment of which individual characters are meant to embody various aspects of that meaning. Wagner's ability to present us with archetypal figures and still engage our emotions, if not necessarily our sympathy, is always impressive to me. Even his villains have their moments of dignity which can move us. But it's the overall vision which sweeps the characters along in spite of themselves, penetrates us in ways we don't quite understand, and overwhelms us in the end.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

That is a good thing to remember, that Wagner's operas were generally not naturalistic; both were a little later but Wagner's operas are more proto-Symbolist than proto-Verismo (like, say, _Carmen_ was).

I don't think I had ever really considered that Hunding was written that way to be a more direct contrast to Wotan. The god's powers come from his treaties, from law and order, but he's ever trying to twist things to his advantage. And in this opera, Fricka calls him on it and he has to reverse course.

If Wotan had been in Hunding's place, he may well have killed Siegmund as soon as the latter revealed who he was. Or perhaps he would have ignored the call for revenge and not have been chasing after Siegmund in the first place.

This isn't to say that Hunding would have done better had he been chief of the gods. He would not have gotten himself into this fix like Wotan did, but he also would not have been able to build his Valhalla and I expect he would eventually have been overrun by an unchallenged, ring-wielding Alberich.

Hunding as Hunding still manages to kill Siegmund - who took advantage of Hunding's hospitality - but only because Wotan intervenes. The honorable path is a good one, as long as it is supported by the gods. Of course, after the events of _Götterdämmerung_, there are no more gods around to watch over those who strictly play by the rules.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> Hunding is perhaps the only villain in the opera, and he mostly acts with honor. Hunding allows the man he has been hunting to stay in his home. And Hunding has been pursuing Siegmund out of duty, not malice or a thirst for blood. The only real issue is that he mistreats Sieglinde. That's a dealbreaker and I'm happy to call him a horrible person, but his dealings with everyone other than his wife are understandable, contextually.


Hunding pursued Siegmund because the latter had tried to rescue a certain girl which her brothers wanted to give in a loveless marriage. Hunding apparently sided with the brothers. This episode, as related by Siegmund, somewhat offers a glimpse into the values of both characters. Hunding believes in sanctity of marriage, even if it is a loveless marriage. Siegmund believes in absolute freedom of love. Hunding is Fricka's man (later he invokes Fricka while trying to kill Siegmund), Siegmund is Wotan's man - except that Wotan himself is forced to betray him.

It is quite amazing, how much meaning and how many layers thereof Wagner can put into a single scene or a single act.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

The "right wing" philosopher Roger Scruton has penned a new book on The Ring. He introduces it here

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/a-valhalla-state-of-mind


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Photos from dress rehearsal of Chicago Lyric Opera's Das Rheingold, the start of their cycle as directed by David Pountney.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

mountmccabe said:


> But thanks for bumping this thread; I was recently reminded of a question I have about _Das Rheingold_.
> 
> In the final scene, what does Wotan mean in his response to Fricka?
> 
> ...


I have been thinking about this some, and I think I have answers for myself.

Yes, Fricka understood the meaning of the words. The idea of bringing in heroes to defend them was new to Wotan at the time. I think the statement could be rephrased as "What I just dreamed up (about gathering heroes to protect us) shall become clear as the place starts to fill up with strongmen." Which is pretty straightforward. This idea clears the metaphorical fog out of Wotan's head and we see Donner's wind and thunder clear the literal fog off the stage; it should be no surprise that Donner's leitmotif is related to that of the Valkyries.

Wotan's other big idea at the time was Nothung, and we first hear that leitmotif. He will help Siegmund indirectly so Siegmund will be free to retrieve the ring. He has, of course, forgotten about Fricka, and how every step in this plan will fly in her face, which is why it fails. But at this time Wotan does not realize this. He thinks he will be successful.

But he only was able to take the ring by being unlawful, which is why he cannot retrieve it himself. His plans continue to flaunt the law, which he cannot do. The ring represents the limits of Wotan's law-based power, which is why the gods wither away and then burn.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Unless I missed something, there is no character who is in all four Ring operas. Wotan is in three, and Alberich makes at least a token appearance in Gotterdamerung, so that gives him three. (I suppose some productions might technically show Wotan at the end, among the gods, but I don't think it counts unless the character has a speaking, er, singing part, even a small one. And I don't think I would go so far as to suggest that the ring is a character in any meaningful sense. It isn't even suggested that it has a will or personality, as does the ring in Tolkien.) Am I mistaken, and if not, is there anything significant about that fact?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> Unless I missed something, there is no character who is in all four Ring operas. Wotan is in three, and Alberich makes at least a token appearance in Gotterdamerung, so that gives him three. (I suppose some productions might technically show Wotan at the end, among the gods, but I don't think it counts unless the character has a speaking, er, singing part, even a small one. And I don't think I would go so far as to suggest that the ring is a character in any meaningful sense. It isn't even suggested that it has a will or personality, as does the ring in Tolkien.) Am I mistaken, and if not, is there anything significant about that fact?


Wotan retires to Walhall after Siegfried shatters his spear, to await the end. He doesn't participate actively in _Gotterdammerung,_ but he's evoked in three crucial scenes: the norns relate his backstory in events that transpired before _Das Rheingold_, imaging the crucial event of his fashioning his spear from the World-Ash Tree and causing the Sacred Spring to dry up (the parallel to Alberich's theft of the Rhine Gold); Waltraute describes the god sitting on his throne, surrounded by the logs of the felled World-Ash, remembering Brunnhilde, the best part of himself whom his own law compelled him to renounce; and Brunnhilde addresses him (and his ravens) directly at the end, bidding him rest at last before setting Walhall alight. Wagner does ask that the gods be seen, arrayed in Walhall as it is consumed by the flames.

The fourth opera is called _Gotterdammerung_, not "Siegfried's Death," which was Wagner's original title for it. Wotan is present in its grandeur and its gathering gloom, and in a real sense he is its central character.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The fourth opera is called _Gotterdammerung_, not "Siegfried's Death," which was Wagner's original title for it. Wotan is present in its grandeur and its gathering gloom, and in a real sense he is its central character.


But it is also not called "Wotan's Death." (I am not saying that you are wrong, but I wonder if there is still some vestige here of the fact that the last story was written first. Assuming that Wagner did not complete revise his original conception, which is certainly possible unless there is some record that gives us a clearer sense of what the early form was, can we really say that the central character would have been someone who didn't even really appear directly in the story?)

And the whole cycle is called The Ring of the Nibelungen, not Wotan's Ring (which wouldn't really make sense as he never actually possesses it does he?) but also not something like Wotan's Journey or Wotan's Quest. Why name the cycle after the ring if the theme is not centrally connected to it?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> But it is also not called "Wotan's Death." (I am not saying that you are wrong, but I wonder if there is still some vestige here of the fact that the last story was written first. Assuming that Wagner did not complete revise his original conception, which is certainly possible unless there is some record that gives us a clearer sense of what the early form was, can we really say that the central character would have been someone who didn't even really appear directly in the story?)


Well, I _did_ say it - prefaced by "in a real sense." As the _Ring_ developed, Wotan became more and more important as an embodiment of Wagner's own philosophical attitudes, and more central to the story. The younger Wagner was occupied primarily with Siegfried as hero, but after _Tristan_ and _Die Meistersinger_, and under the influence of Schopenhauer, it was the tragedy of Wotan, and the god's renunciation of worldly ambition, that he saw as central to the work's meaning. As a listener, I find the scenes in _Gotterdammerung_ in which Wotan is described to be especially haunting, and the events they relate bookend the opera and provide the grand, cosmic context in which the rather sordid human events of the plot should be understood. The music of _Gotterdammerung_ is deeply shadowed by the impending catastrophe, over the accomplishment of which Wotan has presided, actively in the previous operas and now in spirit. It's impossible for me not to feel him watching and waiting in awesome stillness, while the deluded humans in the drama scurry about enacting their foreordained roles in the game he and his alter ego Alberich created when their dying world was being born.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

A more "academic" question (in the more generic sense because I am not sure that there really is "an" answer): does The Ring need a "core" or central theme? Is it sufficient that it is musically cohesive and takes place in a consistent set of related places and with a consistent set of related characters (and, boy, are many of them really related) in a contiguous period of time connected by interrelated events? The Ring itself is the one connecting element, and I suppose it embodies an asserted conflict between power and love. (This is not a unique theme in literature. Edgar Allan Poe's youthful long poem "Tamerlane," first published in 1827, also examines a conflict of the ambition for power costing Tamerlane a simple life with the woman he loved, a loss he comes to regret at the end, and is essentially confessing in the poem.) Does the focus on a central theme distract from other ideas that are introduced in the series, the value of law and oaths (even when given under misleading circumstances), transience, obsession, jealousy, betrayal, heroism, honor, etc. It seems to me that 17 hours is quite a lot of time to deal with just one literary theme.

(Also, is there another series of operas that are so explicitly interrelated?)


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Wotan does possess the ring, but not even for a full scene. He wrenches it from Alberich, but then after Erda arrives, he gives it to the pile of gold that is Freia's ransom. Fafner has it the longest, holding it for two generations of humans (so 40ish years, if we're looking at it naturalistically).


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

JAS said:


> (This is not a unique theme in literature. Edgar Allan Poe's youthful long poem "Tamerlane," first published in 1827, also examines a conflict of the ambition for power costing Tamerlane a simple life with the woman he loved, a loss he comes to regret at the end, and is essentially confessing in the poem.)


So Handel's _Tamerlano_ (based on an earlier play on the subject) is the 19th opera of the Ring!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> Wotan does possess the ring, but not even for a full scene. He wrenches it from Alberich, but then after Erda arrives, he gives it to the pile of gold that is Freia's ransom. Fafner has it the longest, holding it for two generations of humans (so *40ish years, if we're looking at it naturalistically*).


That would likely make Fafner at least 60 years old. I don't know the life span of dragons, but Siegfried obviously had an unfair advantage in youth and vigor.

It's fun to look at Wagner naturalistically. Just ask Anna Russell.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> That would likely make Fafner at least 60 years old. I don't know the life span of dragons, but Siegfried obviously had an unfair advantage in youth and vigor.
> 
> It's fun to look at Wagner naturalistically. Just ask Anna Russell.


You would have to drag-in Fafner's age!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Is it said anywhere in the Ring or in the mythology that Fricka is unable to bear children? Wotan is knocking other women up, why not Fricka? Could that be part of why he is unfaithful? (I'm guessing there is an obvious answer to this & I'm too dumb to realize)


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Itullian said:


> I like Siegfried and always choke up at his murder and funeral music.
> I like Brunhilde too and feel heartbroken about her situation.


These two are the heroes of the opera IMO.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

> Originally Posted by Itullian View Post
> Surely Siegmund and Sieglinde deserve some sympathy too.
> When Wotan lets Hunding kill him





DavidA said:


> I wouldn't appreciate my brother-in-law running off with my wife, that's for sure!


Don't forget that Sieglinde never wanted to be wed to Hunding. It was a forced marriage and Siegmund was rescuing her from that.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Bonetan said:


> Is it said anywhere in the Ring or in the mythology that Fricka is unable to bear children? Wotan is knocking other women up, why not Fricka? Could that be part of why he is unfaithful? (I'm guessing there is an obvious answer to this & I'm too dumb to realize)


In the mythology Fricka (or Frigg) does have children. In the Poetic Edda she weeps at the death of her son Baldr (he is elsewhere named as Odin's son). There are many different sources, and the genealogies varies.

I can't remember anything in the Ring that mentions her having children. Wagner, of course, changed things as he liked; in the Eddas, Thor is a son of Odin (but not by Frigg), but Wagner's Donner is not his child but instead the brother of Fricka (and Freia and Froh).

Wotan is unfaithful to the goddess of marriage because what he wants is outside the bounds of the law, which is his contradiction and undoing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> In the mythology Fricka (or Frigg) does have children. In the Poetic Edda she weeps at the death of her son Baldr (he is elsewhere named as Odin's son). There are many different sources, and the genealogies varies.
> 
> I can't remember anything in the Ring that mentions her having children. Wagner, of course, changed things as he liked; in the Eddas, Thor is a son of Odin (but not by Frigg), but Wagner's Donner is not his child but instead the brother of Fricka (and Freia and Froh).
> 
> Wotan is unfaithful to the goddess of marriage because what he wants is outside the bounds of the law, which is his contradiction and undoing.


Besides, who wouldn't find a mysterious earth mama or a nubile lass from Midgard more attractive than a nagging Guardian of Marriage Vows who rides behind a pair of rams?

Hmmm...It occurs to me that we still have Frickas running around trying to get the Supreme Court to "defend the institution of marriage." Well, as a gay friend of mine says, "Who wants to live in an institution?"


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Itullian said:


> All I know is the music is AMAZING, it's endlessly fascinating and I never tire of it.


Agree 100+ percent! The whole Ring is absolutely amazing!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It sounds as if Tolkien got his revenge on Wagner with Turin.
> 
> The incestuous love of Siegmund and Sieglinde really was controversial. People found it more objectionable than her miserable marriage to a brute like Hunding, and Fricka - upholder of the "sacred institution of marriage" - agreed. But as a friend of mine says, "Who wants to live in an institution?"


I have more of an issue with Wotan's adultery than with brother and sister marriage. Here is a good summary of how I see it,



> It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6-18) and incest that occurred after God's commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed "incest" in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.


Source of quote (I did not read the rest of the linked page and so do not necessarily endorse it or the web site, just the quote above)

But it is an opera and I don't see the opera being about promoting adultery or incest, so it is just part of the story. This is a make believe world, so our moral codes do not necessarily apply. On the other hand, if immorality were the focal point of the story I would be inclined to leave the story on the shelf.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Oh great, are we now going to get a poll on preferred infringement on marital traditions? (Just kidding . . . at least I hope I am just kidding.)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Agree 100+ percent! The whole Ring is absolutely amazing!


Wagner really got you I see.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> Oh great, are we now going to get a poll on preferred infringement on marital traditions? (Just kidding . . . at least I hope *I am just kidding*.)


Glad for your just kidding. No, we don't need such a poll. There is no preferred on that.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Besides, who wouldn't find a mysterious earth mama or a nubile lass from Midgard more attractive than *a nagging Guardian of Marriage Vows who rides behind a pair of rams?*


She is even described as being quite cruel towards those same rams:

_Hei! Wie die goldene
Geissel sie schwingt!
Die armen Tiere
ächzen vor Angst.._

Hey! How the golden
whip cracks in her hand!
The poor animals
are bleating with terror.

Wagner very much opposed every form of cruelty to animals (such as vivisection or even consumption of meat). I do not believe he added these lines to the libretto "just so". This is another feature in a portrayal of a cold and ruthless female deity.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> She is even described as being quite cruel towards those same rams:
> 
> _Hei! Wie die goldene
> Geissel sie schwingt!
> ...


It occurs to me that Wagner's first marriage, to Minna Planer, was unhappy and often acrimonious. I wonder if poor Minna, never up to the task of coping with a wild man like Richard, recognized herself in Fricka?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It occurs to me that Wagner's first marriage, to Minna Planer, was unhappy and often acrimonious. I wonder if poor Minna, never up to the task of coping with a wild man like Richard, recognized herself in Fricka?


I can't watch the Wotan-Fricka scene in Act II of Die Walküre without thinking, "this guy knew a thing or two about marriage."


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Particularly when he refers to her as "the old trouble and strife."


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Barbebleu said:


> Particularly when he refers to her as "the old trouble and strife."


For me, it's the moment when she's exacting a promise from him, he's trying to hedge, and she says, "Look me in the eye." Reduces the king of the gods to a three year old without breaking a sweat.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

amfortas said:


> For me, it's the moment when she's exacting a promise from him, he's trying to hedge, and she says, "Look me in the eye." Reduces the king of the gods to a three year old without breaking a sweat.


But Wotan finally relents because shes's right. This isn't any old husband and wife argument, and it fundamentally isn't about what they want. That's the point. It isn't that Fricka is mean, it's that she wasn't corrupted by the ring and can still understand that their power is based on following laws. Wagner set this discussion about their rules-lawyering as a marital spat, but that isn't the nature of the argument, and it isn't the level on which it is won.

If Wotan has Brünnhilde support Siegmund against Hunding, he loses everything. Sure, they eventually lose power anyway, but they fade out in such a way that the mortals are still venerating them, still worshiping them.

Frigga in the mythological sources is not a paragon of marital virtue; she has affairs, too. She's a more rounded character. If Wagner wanted her to be unreasonable, a hypocrite, he could have left that in. But Wagner needed a symbol more than a character (not that he didn't put a lot into Fricka in the few scenes she gets) for this double act. He needed someone to contrast with Wotan, someone that could stand upright and pull on his reins.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mountmccabe said:


> But Wotan finally relents because shes's right.


Isn't that the outcome of pretty much every old husband and wife argument? (My father used to say that the wedding ceremony should be revised so that the husband, instead of "I do," says "Yes dear" because he might as well get accustomed to it from the beginning.)


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

mountmccabe said:


> But Wotan finally relents because shes's right. This isn't any old husband and wife argument, and it fundamentally isn't about what they want. That's the point. It isn't that Fricka is mean, it's that she wasn't corrupted by the ring and can still understand that their power is based on following laws. Wagner set this discussion about their rules-lawyering as a marital spat, but that isn't the nature of the argument, and it isn't the level on which it is won.


She's right, but she's wrong. Wagner doesn't make it simple.

Fricka upholds the law, which in principle is a good thing. But it's repeatedly emphasized that the laws themselves are corrupt. Wotan describes how in first formulating them, he "practiced unfaithfulness" and "made treaties where evil lay"; later he subjected mortal men through "shady treaties deceitfully binding," producing nothing but "blind obedience."

We see the law's cruel limitations in Fricka's defense of marriage contracts--more specifically, the loveless, forced marriage of Hunding and Sieglinde. In denying the claims of love in order to hold onto power, Fricka is not far removed from Alberich.



mountmccabe said:


> If Wotan has Brünnhilde support Siegmund against Hunding, he loses everything. Sure, they eventually lose power anyway, but they fade out in such a way that the mortals are still venerating them, still worshiping them.


Wotan's plan is fatally flawed, but Fricka's plan--maintaining the status quo--is just as much of a dead end. As it happens, neither of them gets what they want: through Brünnhilde's disobedience and the appearance of Siegfried, events take a turn no one could have anticipated. And if the gods nevertheless meet their end, there is at least the hope of some greater redemption for the world--from both the naked power of the ring and the corrupt laws of the gods.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I don't mean to say that Fricka has a moral position here, or that sticking to the rules and contracts will solve everything. She doesn't, and it won't. But I still think she has the only position that doesn't result in immediate chaos.

It might be different if Wotan was actually arguing morality, like Brünnhilde eventually does. But Wotan isn't at all interested in morality. He dismissed outright the idea of returning the ring to the Rhine. His goal here is to regain the ring, not support true love against marriage contracts. He had tried to arrange things such that he could get the ring back without being involved in taking it from Fafner, but as Fricka points out, he has failed.

Furthermore, Fricka's position in this argument is that if Wotan defends Siegmund it will have immediate, disastrous consequences. Now if they were talking about a fight between Siegmund and Fafner for the ring, Wotan could come back and say that even though his entire power structure will crumble due to this betrayal, upon winning his human son will have the ring and be able to defend them (now that would make for a world-destroying conflict). But Siegmund and Sieglinde getting away from Hunding is just one step in the scheme to regain the ring.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

mountmccabe said:


> It might be different if Wotan was actually arguing morality, like Brünnhilde eventually does. But Wotan isn't at all interested in morality.


Very true: both Wotan and Fricka, in their different ways, pursue their own self-interests, with little regard for morality.

The difference being that Wotan, as a major character, is capable of change. He undergoes a painful process of awakening that leads him, if not to complete enlightenment, at least to a hard-won understanding and acceptance of a destiny greater than himself.

In that respect, though he may not be the Ring's "hero," he is clearly its protagonist.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

After Siegmund died, did he go to Valhalla?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I don't think I have already asked this, and I was not sure how to search for the answer. Is Wagner the only composer who wrote his own librettos?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

JAS said:


> I don't think I have already asked this, and I was not sure how to search for the answer. Is Wagner the only composer who wrote his own librettos?


He is by far the most prominent. Richard Strauss wrote his own libretto for his first (and apparently quite Wagnerian) opera, Guntram. I know Arrigo Boito also wrote the librettos for his own operas, besides the ones he wrote for Verdi. For Pelleas et Melisande and Wozzeck, rather than working with librettists, Debussy and Berg simply adapted the stories and set the music to the original texts. There may be other examples of this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

silentio said:


> After Siegmund died, did he go to Valhalla?


I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, but I won't know for sure until I die in battle and a valkyrie comes for me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, but I won't know for sure until I die in battle and a valkyrie comes for me.


Yeah but what if the valkyrie thing is just a myth like christianity, invented by ordinary mortals in order to prevent mass panic from setting in, if people became aware that we will all die into eternal nothingness?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Yeah but what if the valkyrie thing is just *a myth like christianity*, invented by ordinary mortals in order to prevent mass panic from setting in, if people became aware that we will all die into eternal nothingness?


For your information, the Apostle Peter says, "...we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." 
2 Peter 1:16 ESV

We can get mass panic with Black Friday deals at chain stores. Oh wait, that probably *is* the result of many people believing they will die into eternal nothingness.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I'd say no. He refused Brünnhilde's offer of Valhalla, and she fled with Sieglinde instead. I can't imagine any of the other Valkyries would have gathered him up.

Though Wagner isn't very complete in his description of afterlife options. In the Eddas the answer may have been Fólkvangr, ruled by Freia. But in the Wagner's telling, she's is Valhalla.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Imagine if he did go to Valhalla... Wagner can re-use Siegmund in Götterdämmerung: Siegmund will descend from Valhalla (to make it symmetrical to the earlier visit of Waltraute) and join the Rhinemaidens to warn Siegfried about the curse briefly before his death (similar to how the ghosts of Hector, Priam and Cassandra appear to remind Aeneas about his _Italie_ mission in _Les Troyens_). We should have some epic heldentenor duets over there


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I don't think this influenced my answer, but I have remembered reading this short fan fiction story about Sieglinde in the afterlife, searching for Siegmund: https://archiveofourown.org/works/1025958


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Wotan doesn't mention Siegmund coming to Valhalla at any point so far as I recollect, so I doubt that he made it there.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

gardibolt said:


> Wotan doesn't mention Siegmund coming to Valhalla at any point so far as I recollect, so I doubt that he made it there.


If we could resurrect Wagner and get him to write a sequel to Gotterdammerung, then we would find out. But leving Siegmund to that speculation, how about Siegfried? Did he get resurrected to be the holy fool in Parsifal? At least my DVDs of the Ring and Parsifal have Siegfried Jerusalem as Siegfried and as Parsifal, and he even looks like he is wearing the same leather suit in both.


----------



## Bill H. (Dec 23, 2010)

mountmccabe said:


> I don't think this influenced my answer, but I have remembered reading this short fan fiction story about Sieglinde in the afterlife, searching for Siegmund: https://archiveofourown.org/works/1025958


I enjoyed reading this, thank you for the link!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Florestan said:


> If we could resurrect Wagner and get him to write a sequel to Gotterdammerung, then we would find out. But leving Siegmund to that speculation, how about Siegfried? Did he get resurrected to be the holy fool in Parsifal? At least my DVDs of the Ring and Parsifal have Siegfried Jerusalem as Siegfried and as Parsifal, and he even looks like he is wearing the same leather suit in both.


Valhalla is gone, and even if Siegmund was there he's gone too. _Parsifal_ is indeed the sequel to the_ Ring_ - Parsifal is a Siegfried who survives to grow up and to redefine heroism as spiritual attainment in a civilized context - but then Wagner's works are in some very fundamental ways sequels to each other.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Valhalla is gone, and even if Siegmund was there he's gone too. _Parsifal_ is indeed the sequel to the_ Ring_ - Parsifal is a Siegfried who survives to grow up and to redefine heroism as spiritual attainment in a civilized context - but then Wagner's works are in some very fundamental ways sequels to each other.


Well if we add Parsifal as the 5th part of the Ring we total out to 19 hours (22 with Goodall , but not sure he did a Parsifal).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Well if we add Parsifal as the 5th part of the Ring we total out to 19 hours (22 with Goodall , but not sure he did a Parsifal).


There are two Goodall _Parsifal_s, one live, one studio. They're slow (surprise, surprise). Someday I may find time to listen to them entire.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> There are two Goodall _Parsifal_s, one live, one studio. They're slow (surprise, surprise). Someday I may find time to listen to them entire.


Perchance one is sung in English?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

So, I am watching an old Richard Burton movie "Prince of Players," ostensibly about Edwin Booth (but with striking touches of Burton himself). Anyway, at one point, he is playing Richard III in a mining camp, and he gives the lines:

And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days

So, the question is, is there perhaps a bit of Richard III in Alberich?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> So, I am watching an old Richard Burton movie "Prince of Players," ostensibly about Edwin Booth (but with striking touches of Burton himself). Anyway, at one point, he is playing Richard III in a mining camp, and he gives the lines:
> 
> And descant on mine own deformity:
> And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
> ...


I'm not sure whether Alberich considers himself deformed - I presume he looks like a normal Nibelung - but the Rhinemaidens find him unappealing.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

amfortas said:


> I can't watch the Wotan-Fricka scene in Act II of Die Walküre without thinking, "this guy knew a thing or two about marriage."


I used to think this too, but a couple months into my own marriage I doubt Wagner really knew how to do it. But then, I am the one who gets to play Fricka


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure whether Alberich considers himself deformed - I presume he looks like a normal Nibelung - but the Rhinemaidens find him unappealing.


He may not see himself as deformed (although the general interpretation of him seems to do so), but he is not just renouncing love of the Rhinemaidens, but all love. That presumably suggests that he is not exactly a hot commodity even among the Nibelung. On the other hand, are there any Nibelung women? (Presumably there are some among the unspecified groupings of enslaved Nibelung, but perhaps they are as unappealing to Alberich as he is to the Rhinemaidens.)

This reminds me somewhat of a humorous cartoon I saw at one point that showed a "typical" woman, with perhaps a few pounds beyond her high-school weight, walking past a standing mirror and deeply worrying that she was hugely fat, well beyond a reasonable concern. A male, in the same cartoon, with a belly that was much more than a little bit pudgy, walks past the same mirror, and says to himself, about himself, "yeah, babe."


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> On the other hand, are there any Nibelung women?


If there are, they apparently are not very desireable since Alberich threatens Wotan that he will take power and come after their women. Or maybe Nibelungs reproduce by parthenogenesis? After all, it is a mythological story, so anything is possible.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I liked Bayreuth in general: the theatre, the town, the garden behind Villa Wahnfried... Too bad I will probably never get to hear that orchestra live, because as long as I would have to sit through a performance with closed eyes, I am not going there.


Just dug up this two-year-old post of mine - by virtue of it recently having been liked. Since writing it, I have been to Bayreuth again and got to hear that fabulous orchestra live. And I did not even have to sit through the performance with closed eyes. How things change!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

The Bayreuth orchestra is always amazing.
I have the fairly recent Thielemann cycle from there and the playing is AMAZING!


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

*Finished watching Chereau's Ring*

Today, back from the city, I watched Götterdämmerung and put an end to all my watchings of the Bayreuth Canon.

Woah, so many questions...

Why does Wotan want to build Walhalla with nothing to pay for it than the very daughter that grants them eternal life?

Is it me or Brünhilde should feel touched by Siegmund's plea of love to Sieglinde? I read that in wikipedia but Gwyneth Jones looked more like she was stunned by the events, and then she let go her duty in the same way a doctor chose not to put me vaccines because I couldn't stop crying from fear.

Why does Siegfried never believe or trust in Mime's "fatherhood" but drinks the first cup Gutrune offers him in the Gibichung? Is the love potion from Tristan und Isolde better justified than the oblivion potion in Götter? Is there any sense I didn't get?

Isn't Waltraute trying to save the lives of her sisters and hers by taking the ring to the Rhinemaidens? Isn't that a more sensible motivation than Alberich's curse (whosoever does not have the Ring will covet it)?

What does really happen to the three norns to know that they can no longer see past, present and future? Was tangling one rope Chereau's idea?

Is it right to say that the sentimental states of Brünhilde in Götterdämmerung are: raptured in love - horrified - betrayed/vengeful - enlightened.

One of the first lines in Act I of Götterdämmerung is when Gunther says to his half-brother Hagen that he was born wealthy and pretty, but it was only Hagen who got wisdom from their mother. Was the Shakespeare Jago villain a trend in late 19th century (my definition, a villain that achieves its goals by his audacity and mostly the naivety of the ones in chief)?

If the Gods are dead, what is Ortrud complaining about in Lohengrin's finale? (Irony)

I hope Wooduck doesn't take badly these questions. I am fascinated by the knowledge spread in this forum but I'm with DavidA with the right to not to take many opera librettos, with their plot-holes, seriously. I'm sure you'll guess what questions I expect an answer from and what others are just for nonsense laughter.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Are these questions for Woodduck only, or is input from others welcome as well?  I mean, if you really believe only one person on this forum ever thought about Wagner's libretti and answers to all these questions, you can always just send a PM.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Are these questions for Woodduck only, or is input from others welcome as well?  I mean, if you really believe only one person on this forum ever thought about Wagner's libretti and answers to all these questions, you can always just send a PM.


No. Just reminding some beef between one and another in this thread. Feel yourself free to answer.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Granate said:


> Today, back from the city, I watched Götterdämmerung and put an end to all my watchings of the Bayreuth Canon.
> 
> Woah, so many questions...


I will offer a few answers.



Granate said:


> Why does Wotan want to build Walhalla with nothing to pay for it than the very daughter that grants them eternal life?


He fully did not expect to have to give up Freia to get Valhalla.

That's one of the points of the story of when he wagered he remaining eye to win Fricka: he managed to get both. Wotan's power over other people is getting them to believe his contracts (in effect convincing people to give up their power to him) and then wheeling and dealing and swindling and stealing to get more.

Wotan expected Loge to bring back something to satisfy the giants and/or to get out of giving up Freia.



Granate said:


> Why does Siegfried never believe or trust in Mime's "fatherhood" but drinks the first cup Gutrune offers him in the Gibichung? Is the love potion from Tristan und Isolde better justified than the oblivion potion in Götter? Is there any sense I didn't get?


I really believe _Götterdämmerung_ was written to follow other, more traditional operatic models and conventions. It's supposed to stick out from the rest of the cycle: the gods are gone, things work differently now. So, yes, the love potion bit is treated more simply and is a little ridiculous, but that's purposeful.



Granate said:


> Isn't Waltraute trying to save the lives of her sisters and hers by taking the ring to the Rhinemaidens? Isn't that a more sensible motivation than Alberich's curse (whosoever does not have the Ring will covet it)?


Well, yes, I think Waltraute is trying to save herself (and others). I don't know of any suggestion that Waltraute is trying to get the ring to enjoy it's power. She mentions that Wotan mentioned returning the ring to the Rhinemaidens to cancel out the curse, and that more or less follows.



Granate said:


> What does really happen to the three norns to know that they can no longer see past, present and future? Was tangling one rope Chereau's idea?


No, the libretto calls for one rope, and having it wrapped around everything, tossed back and forth, until it snaps.

And what is happening is that the gods have lost their powers. Erda has chosen slumber, and Wotan has chosen destruction. The Norns will no longer be able to know the future.



Granate said:


> One of the first lines in Act I of Götterdämmerung is when Gunther says to his half-brother Hagen that he was born wealthy and pretty, but it was only Hagen who got wisdom from their mother. Was the Shakespeare Jago villain a trend in late 19th century (my definition, a villain that achieves its goals by his audacity and mostly the naivety of the ones in chief)?


That does seem like



Granate said:


> If the Gods are dead, what is Ortrud complaining about in Lohengrin's finale? (Irony)


I recognize that this is a joke, but even in _Götterdämmerung_, the people invoke the gods. Hagen calls for a sacrifice to Fricka (not that he is devout, or has good wishes for the couples, but that's another story) and numerous characters call upon the gods, including even Brünnhilde!

People can call upon gods that are dead or otherwise will not help them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Are these questions for Woodduck only, or is input from others welcome as well?  I mean, if you really believe only one person on this forum ever thought about Wagner's libretti and answers to all these questions, you can always just send a PM.


Don't be jealous, Sieg. Maybe Granate's just nervous about what I might do to him if he gets on my bad side.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

100% true................


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Granate said:


> Why does Wotan want to build Walhalla with nothing to pay for it than the very daughter that grants them eternal life?


Loge has tricked him; there's some discussion in scene 2 about how Loge told Wotan to promise them whatever they want and that Loge will get him out of it. Then when push comes to shove, Loge pretty much denies ever having said that, but comes up with the Nibelung treasure as something that will probably satisfy the giants.


When as the builders did crave
from us Freia as guerdon,
thou know' st, I only yielded my word
when, on thy faith, thou didst promise
to ransom the hallowed pledge?



Granate said:


> Why does Siegfried never believe or trust in Mime's "fatherhood" but drinks the first cup Gutrune offers him in the Gibichung? Is the love potion from Tristan und Isolde better justified than the oblivion potion in Götter? Is there any sense I didn't get?


Siegfried's Rhine Journey between the Prologue and the start of Act I proper is much longer than the music would suggest; I've read suggestions that he may be off adventuring as long as 20 years there. I don't think Wagner is specific at all--but he's clearly been doing something because he never would have even heard of the Gibichungs had he come directly from Brünnhilde's mountain. So the poor fellow is thirsty, if nothing else. Given how he has been looking for the Gibichungs as he says, it would be exceedingly rude to refuse Gutrune's hospitality.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

gardibolt said:


> Loge has tricked him; there's some discussion in scene 2 about how Loge told Wotan to promise them whatever they want and that Loge will get him out of it. Then when push comes to shove, Loge pretty much denies ever having said that, but comes up with the Nibelung treasure as something that will probably satisfy the giants.
> 
> 
> When as the builders did crave
> ...


Now that I finished my Rheingold challenge an I'm with Die Walküre, I'd like to discuss about Loge, both the character and the element. Loge only sings in human form in Rheingold, but Fire is summoned in Die Walküre, extinguished in Siegfried Act III and summoned again by Brünhilde to burn the Walhalla out of Siegfried's death pile in Götterdämmerung. I am a bit raptured by the concept. How the plot comes round when the demi-god that rejects to enter in the Walhalla after saving Wotan's butt, a rather cynical character as I have read, then burns the same building and wipes out the gods existence.

What's your take in Loge's and his fire's role in the ring? Can it be considered the only concept (instead of character) to be present in the four operas?

Edit: sorry for the Chéreau ring interpretation. Theoretically Siegfried never extinguishes Brünhilde's ring of fire and he's the only one able fo pass through it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ Loge, representing fire, is an elemental being, like the Rhinedaughters, representing water. Both are amoral and, being neither gods nor demigods, eternal.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I have not made much progress on my prequel to _Das Rheingold_ wherein the air elemental comes into being as Wotan, god of air and wind, by giving up an eye and breaking off a branch from Yggdrasil.

As with many prequels, the main issue is allowing it to be a standalone story, rather than just fan service. Also I'm a terrible writer!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I recently watched season of _American Gods_. This show runs on Starz, and is based on the novel by Neil Gaiman (so what I'm referring to may well be part of that novel, as well. I haven't read it, so I can't say).

I'm going to be purposefully vague to avoid serious spoilers (for the TV series, to be clear), but it may be of interest to people who enjoy Wagner's Ring cycle.

We follow Shadow Moon, a person who has had a bad run of luck. At his lowest he is approached by a Mr. Wednesday, who hires Shadow to be his driver/bodyguard. They travel around, meeting up with various gods and magical creatures. The show gives us backstories for various other gods. Mr. Wednesday, it seems, has some competition, in this changing world.

I was pleasantly surprised at realizing how familiar various aspects of Mr. Wednesday and his scheming were.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

It's a fantastic book, definitely worth reading. And the show is mostly really well cast.

*

For Ring stuff, though: I always wondered if the Siegfried/Gunther Bros For Life Duet(TM) was meant to poke fun at all those passionate tenor/baritone duets in Verdi.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> I recently watched season of _American Gods_. This show runs on Starz, and is based on the novel by Neil Gaiman (so what I'm referring to may well be part of that novel, as well. I haven't read it, so I can't say).
> 
> I'm going to be purposefully vague to avoid serious spoilers (for the TV series, to be clear), but it may be of interest to people who enjoy Wagner's Ring cycle.
> 
> ...


The book is excellent. A nice look at mythology in general. If you like your ancient gods look no further than Gaiman's take.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I started listening to Wagner's operas very recently, but I enjoy them immensely! My question might sound very 'basic', but I still haven't found an answer - was the destruction of gods truly unavoidable? For example, could it have been avoided if Wotan had returned the ring to the Rhinedaughters as Loge advised him in the end of Das Rheingold? 

When I was reading about different philosophical interpretations of Ring, I found that actually many of them interpret the final destruction of gods as Wotan's sacrifice, but it couldn't have been a sacrifice if it was unavoidable...
I find Wotan's character one the most dramatic and difficult characters, but I have an extremely soft spot for him.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

When we start off, Wotan is trying to pull yet another scam, this time to get a new fortress (Valhalla) without really paying for it (he didn't actually mean to give up Freia). His position is precarious, but he's managed to get where he is (and maintain that position for some time) via schemes and tricking people. It's not surprising that we see him bite off more than he can chew.

If he gave the ring to the Rhinedaughters, then they would be happy, but the gods would lose Freia, and without youth and beauty, they would wither away and die. They would quickly be overrun by someone or something, even with Valhalla.

But with what happens, Valhalla burns because Wotan has given up. He loses the ring, then he loses Siegmund (and Sieglinde), and he can't take any more than that. In _Siegfried_ we don't see him as Wotan, we see him as the Wanderer. And he doesn't really do anything! The best he can manage is defending Brünnhilde from Siegfried, and this is only because he's bound to stick by the punishment he laid down. This ends in Siegfried breaking Wotan's spear, which is the source of Wotan's power.

And Wotan doesn't deal well with losing his power. I don't think I'd really call it a sacrifice; he wasn't giving up much of anything (in his mind, at least). He goes out sulking, which isn't quite dignity, but it's better than him going around ruining everyone else's fun. The gods still have some powers and the have their army of heroes; they could have kept preparing for the eventual apocalyptic war, or they could have started it, but the end result is that they'd be destroyed.

That is, my short answer is that in the Ring we see how the downfall of the gods played out. With the set-up, it could have gone other ways; most of them less interesting (well maybe that giant final battle would have been interesting, but not for an opera stage). But I think their downfall was inevitable; they (and the philosophical concepts they represent) are not compatible with modern life.


----------



## McCall3 (Nov 18, 2020)

I just finished Siegfried and have a question. Mime tells Siegfried that Sieglinde gave birth to him, gave him to Mime to raise and then died. Are we the audience to assume that Mime is lying here? Do we know how baby Siegfried actually ended up with Mime?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

McCall3 said:


> I just finished Siegfried and have a question. Mime tells Siegfried that Sieglinde gave birth to him, gave him to Mime to raise and then died. Are we the audience to assume that Mime is lying here? Do we know how baby Siegfried actually ended up with Mime?


Mime doesn't want to tell Siegfried anything about his origin because he wants Siegfried to consider him his father. Siegfried isn't buying it and forces Mime to tell the truth. Sieglinde fled to Fafner's forest, where Brunnhilde sent her to avoid Wotan's fury. She took shelter in the cave where Mime lived, and gave the dwarf the fragments of Nothung to give to Siegfried. Mime would have no reason to lie about this, and I think the sober poignancy of the music attests to the narrative's authenticity. When Mime is lying Wagner gives him quite different music, unctuous and fawning.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Yes, I never thought that this story was not true. We can also assume that Mime lives close to the dragon's lair to keep a bit of a watch on him and possible challengers as he eventually hopes to get the ring and hoard.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

What about the wood bird? Who told the wood bird what messages to convey to Siegfried? Was that Wotan's doing?


----------



## McCall3 (Nov 18, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Mime doesn't want to tell Siegfried anything about his origin because he wants Siegfried to consider him his father. Siegfried isn't buying it and forces Mime to tell the truth. Sieglinde fled to Fafner's forest, where Brunnhilde sent her to avoid Wotan's fury. She took shelter in the cave where Mime lived, and gave the dwarf the fragments of Nothung to give to Siegfried. Mime would have no reason to lie about this, and I think the sober poignancy of the music attests to the narrative's authenticity. When Mime is lying Wagner gives him quite different music, unctuous and fawning.


Thanks. What Mime says seemed suspicious to me, but I hadn't considered that about the music when he's speaking.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

SixFootScowl said:


> What about the wood bird? Who told the wood bird what messages to convey to Siegfried? Was that Wotan's doing?


Already in the traditional tale, the external effect of the dragon's blood is invulnerability and licking/drinking it (I think there is also a version with Siegfried cooking and eating the dragon's heart) lets one understand the languages of birds and other animals. I don't think it is implied that Wotan used the woodbird. The bird stands for the unviolated nature (like the Rhinemaidens) and the young Siegfried is probably closest of all other characters to nature (before he gets drawn into the Gibichung cabals) and the beasts and birds just like him  Or at least like him much more than the Dragon and Mime etc. with their dark satanic mills.


----------



## McCall3 (Nov 18, 2020)

Is there any indication of how much time passes and what happens between Siegfried and Gotterdammerung?


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

I've just the one question. I love this gesamtkunstwerk but what on earth is going on?


----------

