Wagner's Valhalla

[karlhenning]

Please stop writing! It's overinflated buffoons like yourself who turn the uninitiated off from this music. Anyone who writes such absurd hyperbole and actually believes it needs professional help. If you really think you're so smart and everyone needs to attend the ACD University before being permitted to have an opinion of Wagner, you'll soon be sitting alone in the opera house, in which case I hope you're obscenely wealthy, because otherwise it will be the end of staged productions of his music.

Wagner was human. Not a demigod. What he wrote is not beyond criticism. There is no question that certain of his works are more succinct, dramatically more easily borught off on stage, etc. than others.

And this...

[snip]

... is just certifiable silliness that could only have been penned by a non-native German speaker. Show Wagner's librettos to any native speaker of German and their eyes will glaze over by page 3 at the latest. His is some of the most turgid prose ever penned, even for his period. Wagner, by no stretch of the imagination, was ever as skilled at capturing language with music as Janacek, Richard Strauss or Mozart, for all three of whom it was indeed inseparable from the music they wrote for their texts. Wagner is essential to the Western musical canon and his works need to be heard and will endure without doubt. But let's not give him accolades for things at which he did not particularly excel.

You suffer from delusions of grandeur. You are in no position to "instruct" anyone. If you care at all about Wagner's music, it would do you well to acquire some grasp about how to interact with people in a less condescendingly pompous manner. It accomplishes the opposite of what you seek. ... Unless, of course, what you seek is to caress your precious little ego and convince yourself of your superiority over the rest of the world. Your choice.

BTW, you misspoke. It's not that "Wagner's text can NEVER be assessed apart from its organically linked music". Rather Wagner's text is certifiable crap without the music which elevates it onto spheres it would otherwise never reach. Thankfully the text isn't so bad as to impede the music's success, but your exalting it to something it simply isn't. Get over yourself.

Just basking in the plain sanity of these posts.

[karlhenning]

That's easy! "Kill da wabbit" is without question the most famous and beloved aria in all of opera.

Which fact owes more to Elmer Fudd than to the source, perhaps : )

[Walther von Stolzing]

I'll speak for myself, since I have somewhat similar dissatisfaction with Wagner.  It is not that I want tunes or arias.  I want him to do what he does, but get on with it.  I would say Strauss in Salome did what Wagner did, but he did not let the drama grind to a halt while some character gave a half-hour narration of the previous act.  The characters were doing and the symphonic music was depicting their frame of mind and we could figure out for ourselves what their motivations were.  If Walkure was constructed as a tight bit of drama, we would know what was motivating Wotan better than Wotan did.  Isn't that what makes gripping Drama, when the characters are swept up in forces they don't understand, and we see?  How much more boring can it get than when the character has to stop and lecture you on what is going on?

It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from, because I do. Your position is completely logical. And yet, for many people who love the Ring, Wotan's monologue in Walkure is the crux of the entire cycle, a key turning point, and quite powerful dramatically. So how can this be? I think a large part of it obviously comes from the dramatic method Wagner generally employs, as so many have already pointed out. He adopted his method from the ancient Greek dramatists like Aeschylus, of beginning a scene or act very near to a key event while spending the majority of the drama establishing, developing, and exploring the psychological states of the characters. Mostly through narration. Dropping hints and clues here and there, piecing together the back-story slowly but surely in an effective build-up. There are, believe it or not, people who actually find this dramatic method compelling. If you aren't one of them...it makes complete sense that passages seem to run on and and on and on without end. But it's not that Wagner is a bad dramatist: he is actually quite skilled in the method he deploys most of the time. It just doesn't resonate with everyone.

But I think another part of it is being able to sympathize and identify with the issues Wagner is dealing with as a dramatist. This kind of drama that Wagner writes depicts characters struggling with the world around them, coming to grips with existence, and seeking redemption in a world full of pain and suffering. The important action in the Ring is an internal struggle. So Wotan isn't stopping the "action" to lecture about what is going on at all. He is voicing his frustrations and expressing some gut-wrenching insights that are of major significance. Not only in the scheme of things in the drama, but -- and this is why some of us identify with it so --  in the lives of all of us. Which is a big part of the reason Wagner chose myth as a vehicle for his drama. He believed they expressed core truths about humanity, relevant for all times, encoded in their stories. The make-up of those stories are often silly: dwarves turning into snakes, heroes slaying dragons, etc. But there is a deeper level at which the drama can be read, and Wagner was attempting to bring those deeper levels to the forefront.

I know, I know. This probably sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, especially to those who are unmoved by Wagner's art. I don't expect anyone to feel any differently just by reading about it. I'm simply trying to do my best to make it clear what others like myself get out of it.  There is something deeply moving about the worlds Wagner creates, because there is something of ourselves we can see and feel in the emotions of the characters. And of course, as a music-dramatist, much of this is communicated through music....so for those who don't find his music particularly captivating, that's just another obstacle.

[Walther von Stolzing]

... is just certifiable silliness that could only have been penned by a non-native German speaker. Show Wagner's librettos to any native speaker of German and their eyes will glaze over by page 3 at the latest. His is some of the most turgid prose ever penned, even for his period. Wagner, by no stretch of the imagination, was ever as skilled at capturing language with music as Janacek, Richard Strauss or Mozart, for all three of whom it was indeed inseparable from the music they wrote for their texts. Wagner is essential to the Western musical canon and his works need to be heard and will endure without doubt. But let's not give him accolades for things at which he did not particularly excel.

I think the point that ACD was trying to make is that the librettos are turgid, awkward, and convoluted as prose, but actually quite effective as framework for the music. I personally think it's amazing the way he basically re-invented his literary method for each one of his dramas to fit their mood, the style of the music, and the "period" they take place in: reviving Stabreim from ancient Teutonic poetry for the Ring, creating a poetic language based on Lutherian German for Die Meistersinger, etc.

In the words of Deryck Cooke, regarding the Ring's libretto:

"For all its purely literary faults -- the worst of which are a tendency to overuse superlatives ('Holiest love's deepest need') and a too-eay reliance on well-worn euphoric adjectives such as selig (blessed), wonnig (delightful), and herrlich (splendid) -- the verbal language of The Ring has a kind of raw poetry about it which convey's Wagner's overt meaning vividly throughout. Also, while giving strength to the music through its sound, it gains back from the music an enormous strengthening of its own meaning; and it thus fuses with the music's full symbolic expression, without any incongruity. No other medium could have served Wagner's purpose."

As an aside, I notice that a lot of the invective against Wagner seems to be aimed towards the Ring. I wished that more people who find the Ring as a whole (or even only aspects of it) off putting would give works like Die Meistersinger and Lohengrin more of a chance. If you find the fantastical story of the Ring to be silly, you might like the down-to-earth human relations of Die Meistersinger. It's amazing the way he is able to conjure up a different atmosphere, a different sound-world in each of his works, and if you don't respond to one it doesn't necessarily mean you won't respond to any of the others.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Walther von Stolzing deserves a prize for his two calm and lucid songs, er, posts, I mean. Thanks for taking the trouble!

[Luke]

...I see what you did there, Johan. Cunning.... 

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Indeed!

Herr Walther von Stolzing, singt das Lied!
ihr Meister, lest, ob's ihm geriet.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Walther von Stolzing deserves a prize for his two calm and lucid songs, er, posts, I mean. Thanks for taking the trouble!

I want an Abgesang!

[MishaK]

I think the point that ACD was trying to make is that the librettos are turgid, awkward, and convoluted as prose, but actually quite effective as framework for the music. I personally think it's amazing the way he basically re-invented his literary method for each one of his dramas to fit their mood, the style of the music, and the "period" they take place in: reviving Stabreim from ancient Teutonic poetry for the Ring, creating a poetic language based on Lutherian German for Die Meistersinger, etc.

In the words of Deryck Cooke, regarding the Ring's libretto:

"For all its purely literary faults -- the worst of which are a tendency to overuse superlatives ('Holiest love's deepest need') and a too-easy reliance on well-worn euphoric adjectives such as selig (blessed), wonnig (delightful), and herrlich (splendid) -- the verbal language of The Ring has a kind of raw poetry about it which convey's Wagner's overt meaning vividly throughout. Also, while giving strength to the music through its sound, it gains back from the music an enormous strengthening of its own meaning; and it thus fuses with the music's full symbolic expression, without any incongruity. No other medium could have served Wagner's purpose."

All very fine points I don't disagree with, though Cooke is over the top. What I was saying is that, even taking all of the above into account, Wagner's own librettos are indeed one of the reasons he is still inaccessible to some. The stage drama, due to its often physically static nature, often only makes sense if you understand the words, even the partial projected translations in opera houses won't really do. And the words, even if you are German, are archaic and not very elegantly put together. To top it off, they are hard to sing and articulate sometimes, because consonants often collide in ways that are difficult to articulate and project while singing. The libretto often reads as if Wagner already had a musical idea in mind and was looking for the right words to fill up the right number of syllables to match up with his musical idea and make a rhyme on top of that. The result is clunky poetry. In that sense, as I said above, he simply isn't a Mozart, Janacek or Strauss. All those composers knew how to make the music inextricably linked to the melody of the language, to help the music articulate the words and vice versa to have the natural meter of the language make it obvious how the music should be phrased. Look, I love Wagner dearly, but this still is a criticism that is hard to get around, and one that one has to acknowlege in order to persuade the reluctant to give Wagner a try, instead of blaming the listener, the way ACD does, and pretending that even his flaws are in essence part of Wagner's greatness.

As an aside, I notice that a lot of the invective against Wagner seems to be aimed towards the Ring. I wished that more people who find the Ring as a whole (or even only aspects of it) off putting would give works like Die Meistersinger and Lohengrin more of a chance. If you find the fantastical story of the Ring to be silly, you might like the down-to-earth human relations of Die Meistersinger. It's amazing the way he is able to conjure up a different atmosphere, a different sound-world in each of his works, and if you don't respond to one it doesn't necessarily mean you won't respond to any of the others.

That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I want an Abgesang!

I think we're heading there, Herr Sforzando, surveying the battlefield at the moment...

[A.C. Douglas]

I think the point that ACD was trying to make is that the librettos are turgid, awkward, and convoluted as prose, but actually quite effective as framework for the music.

Yes, that's quite correct and I should have been more specific concerning why Wagner's texts ("poems") will not -- were never intended to -- stand on their own. I was, however, quite specific and emphatic in asserting that those texts must be understood verbatim by a listener as they're being sung (as opposed to being understood in a general sense the way it's possible to do in conventional opera) in order for them to make the sense Wagner intended as those texts are, in effect, dialogue, not mere narration or poetic expressions of emotions and the like.

You're doing a fine job, Herr von Stolzing, in elucidating and getting across important Wagnerian points and so, to the relief of most if not all here, I'll be bowing out of this discussion, for the nonce at least, and leave things in your clearly capable hands.

ACD

[MishaK]

Yes, that's quite correct and I should have been more specific concerning why Wagner's texts ("poems") will not -- were never intended to -- stand on their own.

Neither do most other librettos, even Da Ponte's, stand very well on their own. Hoffmannsthal maybe, but he's rather the exception.

I was, however, quite specific and emphatic in asserting that those texts must be understood verbatim by a listener as they're being sung (as opposed to being understood in a general sense the way it's possible to do in conventional opera) in order for them to make the sense Wagner intended as those texts are, in effect, dialogue, not mere narration or poetic expressions of emotions and the like.

Completely correct. Yet, the problem is that the inelegant poetry makes it hard to articulate the words correctly while singing. One either makes allowances for the musical phrasing, or allowances for articulation of the words. There simply are some spots that almost never are properly articulated. That is what I meant with my comparisons to e.g. Janacek where that hardly ever happens.

[DavidRoss]

Walther von Stolzing deserves a prize for his two calm and lucid songs, er, posts, I mean. Thanks for taking the trouble!

Yes.
 

I notice that a lot of the invective against Wagner seems to be aimed towards the Ring. I wished that more people who find the Ring as a whole (or even only aspects of it) off putting would give works like Die Meistersinger and Lohengrin more of a chance. If you find the fantastical story of the Ring to be silly, you might like the down-to-earth human relations of Die Meistersinger. It's amazing the way he is able to conjure up a different atmosphere, a different sound-world in each of his works, and if you don't respond to one it doesn't necessarily mean you won't respond to any of the others.

To me the Ring story isn't silly and Wagner's version of it is not off-putting, merely tedious in places.  What's off-putting are the inflated claims made by Wagner-worshipping fan boys and their irrational nastiness toward those whose response to the work falls short of sheer idolatry. 

I suspect the same flaws mar Lohengrin and Die Meistersinger, since they appear to be functions of Wagner's character as both man and artist, but I know these works only from recordings.  Since they are theatrical works and I've never seen a performance of either, I cannot form an opinion.

...gut-wrenching insights that are of major significance. Not only in the scheme of things in the drama, but -- and this is why some of us identify with it so --  in the lives of all of us.

I've seen similar claims here and elsewhere but have yet to find an answer to the obvious question: What are these significant insights?  Craftsmanship aside (after all, craftsmanship is a vehicle, and no matter how elegantly wrapped the package may be, if it contains a cowpie then we may find the offering uninspiring), what makes the great poets, dramatists, and novelists resonate so deeply with so many through the ages is their insight into the human condition.

It's one thing to say, "I love Wagner's music and drama and for me it's the bee's knees!"  It's quite something else to say that The Ring offers staggering insights into human nature.  If the latter is a true statement, then it shouldn't prove difficult to describe those insights, should it?

[jlaurson]

It's one thing to say, "I love Wagner's music and drama and for me it's the bee's knees!"  It's quite something else to say that The Ring offers staggering insights into human nature.  If the latter is a true statement, then it shouldn't prove difficult to describe those insights, should it?

Not impossible... but not easy, either. There are so many things involved... Music, text, an emotive response to either or both on the part of the listener, the level of detail and subtlety, the complexities... I'm not sure it can be explained with much less effort than it would be to learn it by repeat exposure. There's a bit of faith involved, too... if you just *believe* there's all that, and the bee's knees on top, then you're in an easier position just to try and try again until you have an epiphany (or not).

What I appreciate in Wagner over most other opera composers, is the complexity of each character; the wealth of emotion that he can express musically. Rather than getting "excited" (fast tremolo, which also signifies: storm coming), "love" (soaring upward string phrases,preferably fortissimo), and other emotional-musical stock phrases, Wagner can get you scathing irony expressed at the turn of a chord from major to minor. Emotional ambiguity in music also seems an invention of Wagner... none of that had been had before... with a few exceptions in Mozart/DaPonte where, but only in the very, very best of performances, you can hear a hint of that.

None of which is to say that it's not OK to not like Wagner... just that there *is* reason to adore and love and repeatedly expose oneself to his work. [Though there is, of course, no reason to become an insufferable a#*hole in the course of this transformation.]

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I'd like to add to the above - an aesthetic experience can't be 'proven'. Art isn't a science. You can give reasons why you find something good or even great. And if enough people come to the same conclusion, the artist earns himself a reputation. But you'll never convince everyone as an artist.

[DavidRoss]

Cogent and civil, as usual, Jens.

All narrative art requires a willing suspension of disbelief.  The "faith" you speak of is a measure of that willingness.  It distinguishes the open mind from the closed one.

That emotive response of which you speak--willing participation in otherworldly transport--is what my wife described in her response to Lepage/Levine's Rheingold quoted above.  I think Wagner would have smiled in satisfaction reading it, for I believe that's what he was aiming at and hoping for with his Gesamtkunstwerk.  I will be very interested to see if she responds similarly to Die Walküre, or if the dull quarter hours and dramatic stasis breaks the spell.

Speaking of adoring and loving the work reminds me of one telling difference between love and infatuation:  Infatuation is an obsession with an idealized vision projected onto the object of obsession; love requires knowing and accepting the beloved as she really is, warts and all.  Beauty and perfection are not the same; many would argue that it's the flaw that makes for beauty.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Wagner was not a mere dramatist such as, say, Shakespeare.

Now that statement cracked me up.

No charge.

Nothing offered.

[bigshot]

Yet, the problem is that the inelegant poetry makes it hard to articulate the words correctly while singing. One either makes allowances for the musical phrasing, or allowances for articulation of the words. There simply are some spots that almost never are properly articulated.

I can speak to that point, having seen the Ring in Andrew Porter's English translation in Seattle with Rita Hunter and Alberto Remedios.

When the libretto is sung in one's own language, the parts where understanding is crucial (the narratives and dialogue between characters) the words are clearly articulated and perfectly understandable to the audience. The parts where the words are not clearly articulated are generally places where the music and stage action are doing the communicating rather than the words (ie: Hail the sun! etc.) In Seattle, they had the words projected above the proscenium, even though it was in English. But I rarely needed to refer to it.

Wagner's German is stilted and might not be immediately clear to a German speaker, but a perusal of the libretto in advance of seeing a performance will clear that up. On video with subtitles, it doesn't matter if it's sung in Mandarin Chinese... It's simple to follow along.

[Walther von Stolzing]

Completely correct. Yet, the problem is that the inelegant poetry makes it hard to articulate the words correctly while singing. One either makes allowances for the musical phrasing, or allowances for articulation of the words. There simply are some spots that almost never are properly articulated. That is what I meant with my comparisons to e.g. Janacek where that hardly ever happens.

Ok, I see what you're saying. Yeah absolutely. I don't disagree. At times, the points characters are trying to make can be difficult to comprehend because of the murkiness of the language they use. One of the greatest virtues of Wagner's art in my mind is it's ambiguity, both musically and dramatically, as jlaurson points out. A good portion of the time motivations are not clear cut, characters aren't black-and-white and are difficult to pin down, the music often merely suggests and implies rather than declaring anything concrete. But this can also deteriorate into just plain obscurity at times, and requires quite a bit of reflection to try to understand what Wagner is trying to get across.

[Scarpia]

Ok, I see what you're saying. Yeah absolutely. I don't disagree. At times, the points characters are trying to make can be difficult to comprehend because of the murkiness of the language they use. One of the greatest virtues of Wagner's art in my mind is it's ambiguity, both musically and dramatically, as jlaurson points out. A good portion of the time motivations are not clear cut, characters aren't black-and-white and are difficult to pin down, the music often merely suggests and implies rather than declaring anything concrete. But this can also deteriorate into just plain obscurity at times, and requires quite a bit of reflection to try to understand what Wagner is trying to get across.

It astonishes me that Wagner nuts seem to think that complex characters and ambiguous motivations are unique to Wagner.  I can see complex characters and ambiguous motivations in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (wow, I've mentioned that show twice today).