Boulez's Ring Des Nibelungen

[Haffner]

All apologies if this topic has been done to death. Listening/watching Wagner's Gotterdammerung (Boulez) dvd for the first time. I started with this opera out of the Boulez set/quadrilogy for personal reasons.

I found Gwyneth's Brunnhilde to be far better than her other roles.  Musically this rendition seemed to be faster than the usual, and often quite striking and good. I also greatly prefer the picture quality over the Levine (when is that video getting the remaster treatment?).

I had trouble with the suits and ties.

I'm really curious to hear other opinions on this set from all the different perspectives. Since I haven't checked out the other three yet, I'm wondering about the Walkure, Siegfried. I'm not thrilled about seeing the Rhinemaidens as prostitutes, but if any of it is as interesting musically as the Gotterdammerung, I'll want to check it out as well.

[PSmith08]

Musically, it's unidiomatic. Dramatically, it's interesting, but it introduces a political content that may or may not be present in Wagner's conception of the Ring.

Boulez flies through the cycle and clarifies the orchestral architecture to the point where every sinew and nerve, so to speak, of the piece is visible. Let me put it this way, imagine putting a magician or an illusionist in a white room, surrounded by bright lights and cameras, and then asking him to show you his tricks. There would be no illusion to it, because you can see every nuance of every move. Clarifying and simplifying Wagner's orchestration does just that. The illusion to be created by Wagner's orchestration is lost. Also, I might note that Richard Wagner was a composer of no mean talent: if he wanted skeletal renderings, then he would have arranged for them.

The cast is about as good as one could expect for 1976-1980. That's not saying a whole lot, though. Gwyneth Jones was in her Wagnerian best for Karl Böhm in the 1968 Bayreuth Meistersinger.

Chéreau's staging is unabashedly Marxist, though it doesn't go for Stalinist socialist realism. Indeed, the allegory to be found in Chéreau's Konzept is trivially obvious. If one takes a teleological view of the Ring, then the pursuit of wealth and capitalist excess, in Chéreau's view, will lead to the end of the world. Only the labors of proletarian heroes like Siegmund and Siegfried, despite their divine lineage, will bring things back to order. I'm sure that there are far better explanations offered by Chéreau and others, but the symbolism is so trivially obvious that it forces similarly obvious interpretations. Now, an astute student of Wagner would realize that the problems begin when Alberich renounces love to gain the Rheingold. Now, there are some problems with Götterdämmerung, which others have examined elsewhere, but it is clear that Brünnhilde's act of love restores balance by wiping away the corrupt and debased world of the gods. Indeed, the theme of love is apparent throughout the Tetralogy in a way that silly Marxist screed is not. George Bernard Shaw was an intelligent and perceptive critic, but I don't think he should be taken as the final authority on Wagner. In any event, assuming Wagner regressed to 1848 (which isn't impossible for Rheingold, done in 1853-1854, though it's unlikely) and wrote a socialist parable, why make the allegory obvious? That's not dramatically clever.

Chéreau's staging wasn't all bad, and it's downright reactionary in the light of productions like Harry Kupfer's or Alfred Kirchner's 1997 show. It does do some clever things moment to moment, even if it's a little obvious in the long run. It would, however, be more appropriate to a Zeitoper revival than Wagner's supreme artistic achievement. Jonny spielt auf is not Siegfried, hard as that may be to believe in our time.

I do like the set, though Philips' recorded sound is a little anemic. Boulez' interpretation requires some close-miking, otherwise it sounds weak. It's unidiomatic and dramatically sort of obvious, but it's enjoyable. Boulez has a different take on Wagner, and his approach deserves attention, even if it is ultimately rebuked. Chéreau's production is important for the history of Wagnerian performance and for theater generally. Whether or not that approach was the right one, or even well done in its scope, is a lingering question, but it deserves attention. It's not a first recommendation, like Solti or Keilberth, but it deserves a listening/viewing -- like Karajan or Böhm.

[Haffner]

This is an excellent, thought provoking post.

I thought Shaw's "...Wagnerite" was mostly garbage, not just the "you're really reaching dude" political musings, but his hilarious denunciation of the whole of Gotterdammerung. I did notice some over the top musical violence in the first act of Boulez's Gotterdammerung, but often I was moved by the interpretation. Maybe it's because it seemed so different sounding musically.

Halfway through reading your post, I was considering taking off the rest of the Boulez cycle from my Netflix queue. But the excellent way that you rounded the post off has me hot to listen to the rest now.

I thought Karajan's classic studio interpretation of Act 1 of Die Walkure was the best ever, and I've heard and enjoyed the Solti (not as good), mono Krauss, Furtwangler, and Levine. Perhaps I should wait until I've checked out the Keilberth before I make any final decision on that one.

[karlhenning]

A most interesting discussion, lads; thank you both.

[marvinbrown]

Musically, it's unidiomatic. Dramatically, it's interesting, but it introduces a political content that may or may not be present in Wagner's conception of the Ring.

Boulez flies through the cycle and clarifies the orchestral architecture to the point where every sinew and nerve, so to speak, of the piece is visible. Let me put it this way, imagine putting a magician or an illusionist in a white room, surrounded by bright lights and cameras, and then asking him to show you his tricks. There would be no illusion to it, because you can see every nuance of every move. Clarifying and simplifying Wagner's orchestration does just that. The illusion to be created by Wagner's orchestration is lost. Also, I might note that Richard Wagner was a composer of no mean talent: if he wanted skeletal renderings, then he would have arranged for them.

The cast is about as good as one could expect for 1976-1980. That's not saying a whole lot, though. Gwyneth Jones was in her Wagnerian best for Karl Böhm in the 1968 Bayreuth Meistersinger.

Chéreau's staging is unabashedly Marxist, though it doesn't go for Stalinist socialist realism. Indeed, the allegory to be found in Chéreau's Konzept is trivially obvious. If one takes a teleological view of the Ring, then the pursuit of wealth and capitalist excess, in Chéreau's view, will lead to the end of the world. Only the labors of proletarian heroes like Siegmund and Siegfried, despite their divine lineage, will bring things back to order. I'm sure that there are far better explanations offered by Chéreau and others, but the symbolism is so trivially obvious that it forces similarly obvious interpretations. Now, an astute student of Wagner would realize that the problems begin when Alberich renounces love to gain the Rheingold. Now, there are some problems with Götterdämmerung, which others have examined elsewhere, but it is clear that Brünnhilde's act of love restores balance by wiping away the corrupt and debased world of the gods. Indeed, the theme of love is apparent throughout the Tetralogy in a way that silly Marxist screed is not. George Bernard Shaw was an intelligent and perceptive critic, but I don't think he should be taken as the final authority on Wagner. In any event, assuming Wagner regressed to 1848 (which isn't impossible for Rheingold, done in 1853-1854, though it's unlikely) and wrote a socialist parable, why make the allegory obvious? That's not dramatically clever.

Chéreau's staging wasn't all bad, and it's downright reactionary in the light of productions like Harry Kupfer's or Alfred Kirchner's 1997 show. It does do some clever things moment to moment, even if it's a little obvious in the long run. It would, however, be more appropriate to a Zeitoper revival than Wagner's supreme artistic achievement. Jonny spielt auf is not Siegfried, hard as that may be to believe in our time.

I do like the set, though Philips' recorded sound is a little anemic. Boulez' interpretation requires some close-miking, otherwise it sounds weak. It's unidiomatic and dramatically sort of obvious, but it's enjoyable. Boulez has a different take on Wagner, and his approach deserves attention, even if it is ultimately rebuked. Chéreau's production is important for the history of Wagnerian performance and for theater generally. Whether or not that approach was the right one, or even well done in its scope, is a lingering question, but it deserves attention. It's not a first recommendation, like Solti or Keilberth, but it deserves a listening/viewing -- like Karajan or Böhm.

  Oh dear  after reading this I have lost interest in ever exploring the Boulez Ring DVD.  Wagner is already "politically" controversial,and needlessly so.  The last thing I need is to see a Ring production built on Cold War "economic" idealogies...the Cold War was bad enough as it was (thank God it's over).......I think I'll stick to the Levine MET recording instead!

  marvin 

[PSmith08]

  Oh dear  after reading this I have lost interest in ever exploring the Boulez Ring DVD.  Wagner is already "politically" controversial,and needlessly so.  The last thing I need is to see a Ring production built on Cold War "economic" idealogies...the Cold War was bad enough as it was (thank God it's over).......I think I'll stick to the Levine MET recording instead!

  marvin 

You're depriving yourself of a valuable Wagnerian experience if you don't give the Boulez/Chéreau Ring a view. It is simply impossible to understand Wagnerian staging in the second half of the twentieth century without seeing Chéreau's production. I might go so far to say that the 1976-1980 cycle was the last really interesting one at Bayreuth. Peter Hall's production was a failure even at the time, and Georg Solti couldn't save it (for a lot of reasons, not least because of casting holdovers like the odious Manfred Jung). Harry Kupfer's production is even weirder than Chéreau's, though Barenboim turns in a musical contribution that is more idiomatic and full-throated, so to speak, than Boulez' (and Tomlinson simply embarrasses McIntyre, as do some other singers to their counterparts). Kirchner's has been, more or less, forgotten (though it has its moments of being reminiscent of Wieland Wagner's Neu Bayreuth). I can't be bothered to remember the last couple of directors, though it was a shame when Lars Von Trier pulled out of the Ring. You see, then, that the very heart of Wagnerian performance has Chéreau's Ring as a major artery. You can say what you will about the trend of Wagnerian staging post-1976, but make no mistake: the most recent epoch (excepting really offensive productions like Schlingensief's Parsifal) is most assuredly denoted "post-1976." It is, of course, fairly easy to punt on the Boulez/Chéreau Ring, though -- in my opinion -- Levine's DVD set is dull as dishwater, even by traditional standards, and I understand that. Siegfried is the weak link, with Rheingold and Götterdämmerung (sans the "epilogue," which I can discuss separately) coming out strongest. The thing is, musically and dramatically, it's unidiomatic. It's also a little obvious in places, which isn't good for effective theater outside the mystery or morality play genres. It is however both important and instructive. The benefits, in my mind, of a traditional approach are not clearly shown by excessive productions like Kupfer or Kirchner, but by productions like Chéreau's, which are not so apparently revolutionary with a few decades' worth of hindsight. The latter sorts of productions force consideration beyond a visceral reaction. Wagner's music-dramas deserve at least serious consideration, if not serious study.

[knight66]

Very good posts PS. I have little fondness for the Boulez Ring; but I thought it was an interesting production and though I think the ideas are pushed too far; it hangs together within the confines of its own world.

For sure, I would rather watch it again, despite my misgivings and some singing I disliked, as against the double duck feather pillows that Levine produces. It feels somehow inert and although grand sounds are produced, together with the production, it is just plain boring as an encounter with Wagner.

The 'French' performance is at least never boring, even if the soundworld is spartan and the production has its gimmicks. As with PS, I liked the sets, also the lighting which were often very poetic.

Not sure why Karajan was sidelined as a listening experience; his Gotterdammerung is one of my favourite versions.

Mike

[PSmith08]

Not sure why Karajan was sidelined as a listening experience; his Gotterdammerung is one of my favourite versions.

I have two primary reasons from disliking the Karajan set. First, for a production at the tail end of the "Golden Age," the cast is not all that great. There are bright spots, to be sure, but there were too many great singers still active in the late 60s and early 70s to call the cast anything special.

Second, the traditional complaint against Karajan's contribution is that it's "chamber Wagner." I don't know that I'd go that far, but I would say that he's on the lighter side of things. That begins to run into one of my issues with Boulez (at least on the "idiomatic or not" front): you begin to compromise Wagner's sound-world -- which is really a part of the stage and, often, an omniscient participant in the drama -- when you begin to smooth things over and clarify textures and structures too much. That's a subjective judgment, to a certain point though there are some objective limits, and, for me, Karajan falls on the other side of the line.

[Tsaraslondon]

That's a subjective judgment, to a certain point though there are some objective limits, and, for me, Karajan falls on the other side of the line.

Maybe it's because I'm not a huge Wagnerite, that I do like Karajan's way with the music, and certainly prefer it to Solti's "orgasm in every bar" approach. But then Solti is a conductor I rarely enjoy. In my opinion, he hadn't the slightest clue how to conduct Verdi. Somebody once bought me a set of Solti conducting Mahler 5, 6 and 7. It was my first experience of these symphonies, but I soon replaced the recordings with performances by other conductors.

I might add that I always rather enjoyed the Boulez/Chereau Ring, but this may have more to do with feelings of nostalgia. I remember it being televised by the BBC back in the early 80s. We all thought we were watching a piece of seminal theatre, which I suppose we were in a way. One can't imagine the BBC doing such a thing nowadays, more's the pity.

[knight66]

I am not so sure about this concept of chamber-music Wagner from Karajan. It is the orthodox way to describe his approach. He had a tendency to use lighter voices, often too light, he clarifies textures, but I don't feel the sound is starved. Certainly in the orchestral areas of the Ring, he allows a very full bodied sound. It is not muddy or dark brown or clotted; but it does not sound like Wagner-light to me. I am aware of the ADC preoccupation with the 'authentic' Wagner sound and as you suggest it also excluded Bohm. No doubt the argument will rumble on every so often. But if Levine is providing the right soundworld, it is a great pity he makes it so dull in the pacing and in the failure to spring rhythms.

Mike

[karlhenning]

Maybe it's because I'm not a huge Wagnerite, that I do like Karajan's way with the music, and certainly prefer it to Solti's "orgasm in every bar" approach.

Don't know just why I thought of old Times Square just now.

[knight66]

Karl, Is there something you want to tell us about your misspent youth?

Mike

[karlhenning]

Well, I was fairly busy creating the universe in those heady days.

[knight66]

Yes, they do say that for many, their best work is done before they are 35 or so. But I am glad those visits to bars were so fecund in their protean outcome.

Mike

[Homo Aestheticus]

Patrick,

Wagner's music-dramas deserve at least serious consideration, if not serious study.

But what in your view is the problem with the following opinion on Wagner ?

"Wagner's libretti are not worthy of their music. The music is far deeper and more profound than the literary, political and philosophical ideas the composer was trying to express. Wagner DOES express his views and ideas, and he DOES tell his stories, and he DOES use myths interestingly, but in general the music far surpasses these stories, plots and ideas. As a literary artist he would have sunk out of sight long ago. I am grateful to his literary imagination for stimulating the musical ideas of the operas. There is ample evidence he could not write great music without literary ideas to fuel it. But I would no more highly honor the finished literary aspects of these works than I would eat the frying pan along with the omelette..."

[Haffner]

From my understanding and study, Wagner's libretti and music complement each other. According to one of his best profilers, Bryan Magee, Wagner deliberately left big holes in his libretti as "literature", in order to let the music fill in the gaps. From my fanatical, extended listening to the music and watching the operas, this seems to me to be at least very close to the truth.

I'm awaiting Acts II and III of the Boulez Gotterdammerung fro Netflix tomorrow. I'm excited, because I often love the "bang-y" Wagner (it says alot that I adore the Solti/Decca interpretation). I mean, hey, I'm a heavy metal type 'o dude. And I'm starting back with the Rheingold, Walkure, etc. after that.

Anyhoo, it's nice (for me at least) to watch a different interpretation of the Ring. I've only seen the Levine. And the "Manifesto" involved in the production is easy for me to look past.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andy,

I mean, hey, I'm a heavy metal type 'o dude.

I wasn't aware of that... Could this possibly explain your 'lukewarm' response to  Pelleas et Melisande ?   

[PSmith08]

I am not so sure about this concept of chamber-music Wagner from Karajan. It is the orthodox way to describe his approach. He had a tendency to use lighter voices, often too light, he clarifies textures, but I don't feel the sound is starved. Certainly in the orchestral areas of the Ring, he allows a very full bodied sound. It is not muddy or dark brown or clotted; but it does not sound like Wagner-light to me. I am aware of the ADC preoccupation with the 'authentic' Wagner sound and as you suggest it also excluded Bohm. No doubt the argument will rumble on every so often. But if Levine is providing the right soundworld, it is a great pity he makes it so dull in the pacing and in the failure to spring rhythms.

Mike

Here's the thing: I don't think Levine, at least in most of his recorded output, manages to create the right sound-world, either. His 1985 Bayreuth Parsifal, for example, doesn't work because it is too stretched and what I have called self-consciously grand. It's "Wagnerian," not Wagnerian, if that makes sense. His Ring is better, but I feel like he wrecked Rheingold with his leaden tempos. Indeed, of that whole DG set, Götterdämmerung is the only one I like and listen to with any frequency. I would point to Wilhelm Furtwängler (1950, particularly, and the excerpts) and Hans Knappertsbusch (1956) as examples of conductors who take broader tempos and manage to preserve the sort of style necessary. Joseph Keilberth (Bayreuth 1955) is a good example of someone who takes the inside of the curve, so to speak, and does just fine with it. It's a fine line to walk; indeed, it is, in all honesty, probably unfair to call it much of a line, as a Ron Popeil Showtime Rotisserie ("set it and forget it") approach to the tempo will wreck any of Wagner's mature music-dramas. Some folks think Solti's Decca set nailed it down the line; I incline more to Joseph Keilberth's 1955 set.

My big problem with the Böhm set is more speed than textural transparency. As I recall from the last time I did the numbers, Böhm outpaced Boulez in every entry save Götterdämmerung. This approach has been called "nervous" or "restless," which is fine, but for the fact that it introduces psychological elements that may or may not be present in the texts as written by Wagner. Take, for example, the act 3 prelude from Tristan. That's going to be nervous and restless if you take it as slow as Bernstein or as fast as Böhm. Wagner knew what he wanted as far as all that goes, and there's no sense in doing a whole lot to it one way or the other. Böhm was fully capable of leisurely interpretations, viz., the 1981 Beethoven 9th, so I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that his Mozartean background led him to approach Wagner one way or the other. His 1968 Bayreuth Meistersinger is faster than Barenboim or Furtwängler (even with the lacunae in the latter's recording), but it's pretty much in the main overall. I get the sense that the Ring was a reaction to the Knappertsbusch-style way with Wagner. The problem, of course, is that Knappertsbusch's performance tradition goes back to Wagner by way of Hans Richter and Siegfried Wagner. I'm not sure what the deal was with Tristan.

Karajan doesn't have the speed problem as I recall, though he does have serious casting issues. I'm not sure what the deal is, to be entirely honest, with Karajan, either. The EMI Walküre act 3 from the 1951 Festspiele doesn't necessarily remind me of the later DG Walküre. That could be partially the doing of different recording teams, though there definitely were eras to Karajan's style. I just find his DG Ring to be light, though that complaint is directed less at the brass than at other sections. I guess it's a matter of degree and I draw my line on the other side. I think that position can be supported, though I can see how some might disagree. I'm not sure that I find the arguments in favor of Karajan as the arguments against, or at least toward a neutrality of the second-rank. YMMV, of course.

[karlhenning]

(Still need to listen to that Levine Parsifal.)

[Haffner]

Andy,

I wasn't aware of that... Could this possibly explain your 'lukewarm' response to  Pelleas et Melisande ?   

Lukewarm ? That's a fantastic piece! You must be joking.

Yes, I love heavy metal, the more epic the better. Shoot, I play heavy metal, just check out the site.