Wagner's Valhalla

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I don't doubt that the characters in the Ring are complex creations.  My problem with Wagner is the mode of story-telling.  First we watch the action, then time stops and the characters explain their exact motivations to us at great length.

A lot of the story-telling goes on in the orchestra. In the music is much of the emotion, of time, of the personal history of the characters.

[Scarpia]

A lot of the story-telling goes on in the orchestra. In the music is much of the emotion, of time, of the personal history of the characters.

Do you honestly think I am not aware of that?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Do you honestly think I am not aware of that?

No, certainly not. But neither does it seem to help you. Wagner, though he idolised Shakespeare, was certainly as much influenced by neo-Classical theatre, where things also are more talked-about than shown. I personally have no trouble with the static nature of Wagner's story-telling.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Wagner's dramas are very psychological, that's why characters have so many monologues. In Parsifal, without Gurnemanz's tale in act I we wouldn't know almost anything about Klingsor's motives for revenge and how Amfortas got his wound. In Tristan und Isolde: Isolde's monologue tells about her personal grudge against Tristan. And about things we already know: in Valkyrie's act II Wotan's long monologue (with only few lines by Brünnhilde) is indeed about things we know... but also about how he personally feels about them now, it is about character development (and because orchestra also comments about Wotan's story or in some parts even says the opposite, therefore it is also thematic process). Wotan has become more mature during the years and let's not forget that between Rhinegold and Valkyrie there might have gone really long time, maybe even centuries. However, I can see that everyone doesn't appreciate Wagner's style.

[DavidRoss]

I just don't get the "penetrating insight" bit.  Wagner's broad strokes seem more superficial to me than, say, da Ponte's characterizations in Le Nozze, and not even close to well-established literature, such as Shakespeare noted above.

I keep trying to understand why so many heap so much praise on Wagner.  Examples that illustrate the claim would help a slow learner like me.

[Scarpia]

No, certainly not. But neither does it seem to help you. Wagner, though he idolised Shakespeare, was certainly as much influenced by neo-Classical theatre, where things also are more talked-about than shown. I personally have no trouble with the static nature of Wagner's story-telling.

I'm not a big fan of "theater" and various schools of theater are lost on me.  However, what I find interesting is when characters in a theater piece talk to each other and allow us to learn about their motivations by their interactions with each other.  A brief interjection in which the character talks to himself or makes an aside may be a necessary device, in Wagner this interminable rehashing of action goes on for longer than my attention span can suffer.   

[DavidRoss]

I'm not a big fan of "theater" and various schools of theater are lost on me.  However, what I find interesting is when characters in a theater piece talk to each other and allow us to learn about their motivations by their interactions with each other.  A brief interjection in which the character talks to himself or makes an aside may be a necessary device, in Wagner this interminable rehashing of action goes on for longer than my attention span can suffer.   

Only one of the reasons I think his music dramas are dramatically weak.  Ambition alone is neither necessary nor sufficient for accomplishment.

[Scarpia]

Wagner's dramas are very psychological, that's why characters have so many monologues. In Parsifal, without Gurnemanz's tale in act I we wouldn't know almost anything about Klingsor's motives for revenge and how Amfortas got his wound. In Tristan und Isolde: Isolde's monologue tells about her personal grudge against Tristan. And about things we already know: in Valkyrie's act II Wotan's long monologue (with only few lines by Brünnhilde) is indeed about things we know... but also about how he personally feels about them now, it is about character development (and because orchestra also comments about Wotan's story or in some parts even says the opposite, therefore it is also thematic process). Wotan has become more mature during the years and let's not forget that between Rhinegold and Valkyrie there might have gone really long time, maybe even centuries. However, I can see that everyone doesn't appreciate Wagner's style.

I don't have any problem with Rhinegold, it is Die Walkure where I get lost, particularly in that act II monologue.  My feeling is Wagner could have portrayed Wotan's feelings about himself and the action is a more implicit way, in his actions or in how he deals with others.  But Wagner was so in love his symbolism that he felt he had to hit us over the head with it. 

But Wagner does an admirable job of creating the impression that Walkure itself may take centuries.   

[Leon]

Speaking of Shakespeare, of course, he was a fan of the soliloquy, so I can't fault Wagner for using that theatrical device.  But there are plenty of other things I can fault him with.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I don't have any problem with Rhinegold, it is Die Walkure where I get lost, particularly in that act II monologue.  My feeling is Wagner could have portrayed Wotan's feelings about himself and the action is a more implicit way, in his actions or in how he deals with others.  But Wagner was so in love his symbolism that he felt he had to hit us over the head with it.

Wagner himself was aware of the fact that the monologue is disproportionally long and that it hampers an otherwise dramatically very exciting act (the confrontation Fricka-Wotan, the later one between Brünnhilde and Siegmund). But, as he wrote to Liszt or his friend Roeckel, on this monologue, in which Wotan bares his soul, hinges the whole edifice of the Ring. So he had to do it this way. In performance a good Wotan can make the monologue full of suspense. But it can also be a big yawn...

[Scarpia]

Speaking of Shakespeare, of course, he was a fan of the soliloquy, so I can't fault Wagner for using that theatrical device.  But there are plenty of other things I can fault him with.

Am I the only one who would hesitate to put Little Dickie's prose on the same level as Shakespeare?

[Jaakko Keskinen]

My next words are not in any way meant as insult to those who enjoy quick action (actually, I love it also, as well as slow action).

Wagner was well aware of criticism about apparent "lack of action" in his operas. That is one of the reasons why he called Tristan, his most psychological music drama by term "Handlung" (action), by which he meant action that happens inside persons, because inner conflicts can be even more dramatic than outside ones. Kind of clever from him, and slap across the face to all those narrow-minded critics who couldn't read between the lines 

[Leon]

Am I the only one who would hesitate to put Little Dickie's prose on the same level as Shakespeare?

No; but it was the idea of a character stopping the action to perform a monolog describing his feelings that some were objecting to in Wagner's operas. 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Am I the only one who would hesitate to put Little Dickie's prose on the same level as Shakespeare?

As a poet Wagner is inferior to Shakespeare, or Goethe, or a great playwright like Heinrich von Kleist. But a greater poet like Hugo von Hofmannsthal, who collaborated with Strauss, was envious of the perfect synthesis of words and music which Wagner had achieved. For many people here, German is not a language they know. If you do, there is more colour and nuance in Wagner's texts than you think.

[DavidRoss]

Am I the only one who would hesitate to put Little Dickie's prose on the same level as Shakespeare?

Hardly.

[Scarpia]

No; but it was the idea of a character stopping the action to perform a monolog describing his feelings that some were objecting to in Wagner's operas.

Fair enough, but do they go on for 45 minutes in Shakespeare?  Violetta has her soliloquies in La Traviata, but they are brief and serve to propel the action forward.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Fair enough, but do they go on for 45 minutes in Shakespeare?  Violetta has her soliloquies in La Traviata, but they are brief and serve to propel the action forward.

Wagner's dramas are not mainly concerned with action and most of his characters live in a legendary, mythological world. Only the Meistersinger is set in historic Nuremberg. One way to approach his operas is by seeing them as big dreams with symbolic yet very human figures, dramas of the mind. The operas create their own sense of time.

[jlaurson]

@jlaurson I think we're in agreement here... 'Extras'? By Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant? I love it!

Of course, "Extras". Ben Stiller brilliantly pokes fun at himself... but as they say: in every joke there's a bit of a joke [sic].

[snyprrr]

The 'point' of the Prelude, snyprrr, is exactly the absence of  the 'big moment'. It expresses unresolved yearning, a longing that can find no fulfilment. So you couldn't, either... Only at the end of the opera, with 'Isolde's Transfiguration' (better known as her 'Liebestod'), we get that 'big moment'.

As for Tchaikovsky uniting with Wagner in a perfect union for your benefit, heaven forbid! Let them both be 'romantic' in their very separate ways...

I knew that wouldn't go well.

ok, I understand your point.



Are Tchai and Wag then the two poles of the same impulse?

[Guido]

As a poet Wagner is inferior to Shakespeare, or Goethe, or a great playwright like Heinrich von Kleist. But a greater poet like Hugo von Hofmannsthal, who collaborated with Strauss, was envious of the perfect synthesis of words and music which Wagner had achieved. For many people here, German is not a language they know. If you do, there is more colour and nuance in Wagner's texts than you think.

With Wagner though, the words and music came from the same mind, so it's not surprising that the synthesis is so effortless! In Hofmannsthal's letters to Struass one sometimes wonders whether he would have preferred to compose the operas himself! The abuse, the constant disparagement, telling him he composed it in the wrong way... of course it's not all negative, but the haughty tone strongly suggests Hoffmansthal's compositional frustrations to me! Not sure if this is how he would have seen it.

Strauss and Hoffmansthal achieve the synthesis much more rarely, and even within works, it's not consistent, but when it does work, for me there is really nothing more moving, even if less Profound in the Teutonic sense than Wagner. (The Marschallin's Monologue being the most sublime example from both parties)