Wagner's Valhalla

[A.C. Douglas]

One aspect of Wagner's greatness - apart from the astonishing music - is, indeed, his penetrating insight into human nature....

To which David Ross replied:

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.

The characterizations in Le Nozze are not da Ponte's but Mozart's. They're in the music, NOT the text, just as are the characterizations in all of Wagner's music-dramas. The text in the mature works of both composers is but the armature about which both the drama and the characterizations are built which text provides those concrete details which music alone is incapable of expressing.

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.

You will never understand no matter how many examples are supplied as you are a textbook case of the classic Wagner-hater; a hatred grounded in ignorance which ignorant state causes you no discomfort whatsoever.

ACD

[Scarpia]

[getting my popcorn and waiting for inevitable retribution   ]

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I must say, If Ring would be symphony, Siegfried would definitely be it's scherzo.

But yes, listening to Wagner without singing is like watching Godfather 3 and ignoring Godfather 1 & 2.

[Scarpia]

I must say, If Ring would be symphony, Siegfried would definitely be it's scherzo.

But yes, listening to Wagner without singing is like watching Godfather 3 and ignoring Godfather 1 & 2.

I nominate this as worst simile ever posted on this forum.  (And why would anyone ever watch Godfather 3 of their own free will?)

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Why would anyone ever listen Wagner without singing of their own free will?

[Scarpia]

Why would anyone ever listen Wagner withour singing of their own free will?

That, I don't know.   

[bigshot]

Only five? You're still a baby when it comes to Wagner!

[jlaurson]

This may be nitpicking but because this is about Wagner drama... yeah, I remember when Fasolt went to Nibelheim with Loge and Wotan and confessed his love to Alberich in scene 3. His desire for Freia in scene 2 was just a cover for his homosexuality...

Scene 4, actually. If you listen to the music, it shows you that there's only one person in the whole Ring that loves without reservation, without holding back, without alterior motives... without the specter of incest in the background... and that's Fasolt loving Freia.

[knight66]

Are you certain there? How about Act 1 of Walkure?

Mike

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Oh yeah, I thought you meant Fasolt's "Ein Weib zu gewinnen, das wonnig und mild" etc. from scene 2. Yes, he clearly was disgusted in scene 4 when Freia is bartered for gold. Ironically, Fasolt is first character who bites the dust. Thought it is appropriate when considering subject: love vs greed/lust for power. Such idealistic character (at least compared to many others) has no chance to succeed in corrupted world.

[jlaurson]

Scene 4, actually. If you listen to the music, it shows you that there's only one person in the whole Ring that loves without reservation, without holding back, without alterior motives... without the specter of incest in the background... and that's Fasolt loving Freia.

Actually, I was wrong... I didn't mean "Freia, die Schöne...", I did mean Scene 2, after all ("ein Weib zu gewinnen, das wonnig und mild / bei uns Armen wohne"). I call it Fasolt's Shylock Moment...  "Hath not a [Giant]... senses, affections, passions; fed with / the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject / to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means...?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?"

But scene 4 underscores that he was the only earnest character on stage.

[Walther von Stolzing]

Note that Wagner's ridiculously long, self-indulgent, turgid and tuneless "music dramas" present special challenges even for the subset of classical music lovers who appreciate opera.  If he weren't such a special case, he wouldn't attract so many fans who feel that overcoming the challenges and loving him unreservedly makes them superior to everyone else.

It's posts like this that make me feel it's not even worth the time and effort to share and explain my aesthetic response to Wagner with you. I mean I have no qualms with discussing my passion for his music dramas and offering pointers to people who don't quite get the same experience, don't know what they're missing, but genuinely want to understand the appeal for others. I'm just not sure that's the case with you. You go out of your way to blame your disconnect with Wagner's art on the composition and make-up of the works themselves, the composer, and most ridiculously the listener's and viewers that are truly moved by them. You've made it clear you enjoy baiting people on to see what kind of response you can get out of them. I suppose for humor. Although it doesn't strike me as all that funny: anytime you make disparaging and contemptuous remarks about a topic that people hold dear to their hearts you're bound to get angry responses in return. If you actually believe that Wagner fans have to "overcome" anything, or only want to feel "special" than I feel even sorrier for you. Believe it or not, getting to know Wagner's music dramas forwards and backwards, discovering all of the little nuances and their many layers, was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. It's not an act, and I don't heap praise on these works to set myself apart. I'm sure it's the same for others. We heap praise because the works stir up emotions in us that very few other works of art are able to. I don't love him unreservedly -- although I have many fewer reservations than you -- and acknowledge not all of his work, at all times, is equally inspired. But on the whole, by and large, they strike me as momentous works of art, boundless in their creativity and astounding in their sheer beauty. I guess it's too much to consider that great art will not always resonate with everyone, and their can be a wide array of responses to it -- all of which are valid.

If you really wished to understand Wagner on a deeper level I wonder why instead of antagonizing fans on message boards you don't spend the time reading the thoughts of the many critics, philosophers, and musicologists who have spent the time analyzing the works and explaining (in a much more thorough and profound way then you are likely to get from random posters on a message board) exactly what it is that makes Wagner's art so effective. Exactly what makes him a great dramatist, a great composer, etc. Writers like Thomas May, Bryan Magee, Deryck Cooke, and M. Owen Lee. They really do take the time to address the concerns you have about Wagner. So check them out.

[MishaK]

If any of you are in or near Chicago and care, you should go hear the new Lohengrin playing at the Lyric Opera. I just went for opening night last Friday. Johan Botha is absolutely teriffic in the title role. Must be heard. Effortlessly projecting voice with wonderful control. Georg Zeppenfeld is an excellent King Heinrich, Emily McGee, well-known from Barenboim's recording, is Elsa - a little past her peak perhaps, she took a little while to get into gear in the first act, but was superb in acts 2 & 3. Michaela Schuster sings Ortrud and Telramund is Greer Grimsley. Andrew Davis does a fine enough job in the pit. Staging is rather traditional but minimal in terms of sets. Works quite effectively.

[DavidRoss]

Howdy, Walther.  Like most folks, you sure can read a lot into what others say.  And--as usual in such cases--you make a lot of unfounded assumptions that are wrong.  I actually like Wagner and have enjoyed much of his music and some aspects of his theatre for more than thirty years, and I have read some of the critics you mention and others.  Enjoying him, however, does not require blindness to his substantial flaws.  And they ARE substantial--i.e. "ridiculously long, self-indulgent, turgid, and tuneless."  These are not qualities generally associated with successful drama or opera.

I do get a kick out of baiting fanboys of the sort I described.  Note that I made no statement remotely suggesting that all Wagner fans qualify as such fanboys.  It's deliciously ironic, however, that a notoriously pompous and fatuous fanboy of the sort I had in mind appeared soon afterward for the sake of attacking me personally. 

My purpose, however, is not to taunt the unreachable, but rather to provoke some dialogue:  What makes Wagner "such a special case" that he's satisfying IN SPITE of the obvious flaws, which I am hardly the first to decry?  What in his characterizations demonstrates the penetrating insight into human nature that some claim to find in them?  And there are some interested in such discussions, but they are relatively few compared to the number of those who respond with personal attacks, as if heaping scorn on a apostate somehow validates their inflated opinions of both little Dickie and themselves. 

And, BTW, if you like Wagner so much then I hope you'll find time for the current Met production of The Ring.  Das Rheingold, broadcast internationally in live HD, was so compelling that even my wife enjoyed it and is looking forward to Die Walküre.

[jlaurson]

Howdy, Walther.  Like most folks, you sure can read a lot into what others say. ... I do get a kick out of baiting fanboys of the sort I described.  Note that I made no statement remotely suggesting that all Wagner fans qualify as such fanboys....

Although it should be said {and I sense agreement on this}, that given his {very easy-to-understand} mis-reading of your post, W.von S's. statement was actually a very carefully considered and reasonable response. Precisely the opposite of the hysterical fan-boy ad hominems that you were half expecting (and half getting).
I, for one, enjoyed reading it, even knowing that he was preaching to the [associate] choir [member] much more than he could have been aware of. 

[DavidRoss]

Although it should be said {and I sense agreement on this}, that given his {very easy-to-understand} mis-reading of your post, W.von S's. statement was actually a very carefully considered and reasonable response. Precisely the opposite of the hysterical fan-boy ad hominems that you were half expecting (and half getting).
I, for one, enjoyed reading it, even knowing that he was preaching to the [associate] choir [member] much more than he could have been aware of. 

Yes.   

And in the interim I had forgotten what Walther seemed not to notice--that the statements he quoted were made in helpful response to another poster's question, taking it at face value and attempting to explain, as he put it, "why Wagner and only Wagner has to be 'deconstructed' in order to be accessible."  Unfortuanately the response rubbed him the wrong way and he spurned it, suggesting that he might not have meant his question in earnest.

[bigshot]

You know, there are plenty of people who would say that ALL opera is "ridiculously long, self-indulgent, turgid, and tuneless."

Personally, I find that in the case of Wagner, the same things that might be called substantial flaws could also be listed among his chief virtues. Long or epic? Self-indulgent or intensely personal on a deep emotional level? Turgid or broad structural architecture? Tuneless or the unique musical expressiveness of the leitmotif? It's all a matter of the criteria you select to judge by.

[DavidRoss]

You know, there are plenty of people who would say that ALL opera is "ridiculously long, self-indulgent, turgid, and tuneless."

Yep.  That's why my answer to Marvin began by qualifying Wagner appreciation as a subset of opera fans, themselves a subset of classical music fans, themselves a subset of music fans, themselves a subset (though I suspect a large one) of all persons.  However, even in the context of opera, Wagner's music dramas (not really operas, are they?) are long and dramatically inert--due to their creator's extraordinary self-indulgence--and quite lacking in the sort of tunefulness that contributes to the appeal of Verdi, Mozart, Rossini, and Puccini.

Personally, I find that in the case of Wagner, the same things that might be called substantial flaws could also be listed among his chief virtues. Long or epic? Self-indulgent or intensely personal on a deep emotional level? Turgid or broad structural architecture? Tuneless or the unique musical expressiveness of the leitmotif? It's all a matter of the criteria you select to judge by.

The limited appeal of Wagner's music dramas even among that small element of the public predisposed to enjoy such stuff suggests that those who regard such things as virtues are the special cases.  Hence my response to Marvin's question wondering why so many don't "get" Wagner and require special assistance to understand why some love him in spite of what most folks recognize as grave flaws.  And surely you understand why the superior attitude of Wagnerites toward those who don't share their infatuation is more off-putting than helpful?

[A.C. Douglas]

I do get a kick out of baiting fanboys of the sort I described.  Note that I made no statement remotely suggesting that all Wagner fans qualify as such fanboys.  It's deliciously ironic, however, that a notoriously pompous and fatuous fanboy of the sort I had in mind appeared soon afterward for the sake of attacking me personally.

You get a kick out of baiting Wagner fanboys, do you? No, you don't. What you get a kick out of is baiting Wagner fanboys who play your game by your terms, and are either incompetent or too nonconfrontational to hoist you with your own petard. Well, I'm neither as you're well aware. So let's see how you handle this Wagner fanboy —  you know, the one you labeled "notoriously pompous and fatuous." What's that? How do I know you're referring to me? Simple, my boy. It's your favorite insult wherever and whenever I'm concerned.

But on to things of substance.

I called you a textbook case of the classic Wagner-hater; a hatred born of ignorance. Well, golly gosh. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Let's see.

You accused Wagner of being "ridiculously long, self-indulgent, turgid, and tuneless." As you've asked others to explain what makes Wagner such a special case, and what in his characterizations demonstrates the penetrating insight into human nature that some claim to find in them, and called for examples, in that same spirit I ask you to explain your above apparently imbecile remark (and please note, I said "apparently"), give specific examples to support your assertion and, of course, be prepared to defend both your explanation and your examples.

I await with bated breath that explanation and those supporting examples.

ACD

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Das Rheingold, broadcast internationally in live HD, was so compelling that even my wife enjoyed it and is looking forward to Die Walküre.

What did she like about it? And you enjoyed it, too?