Wagner's Valhalla

[knight66]

It was clear from your writing that you had not seen Rheingold; still rather less so the 'Walkure'.

Knight

[A.C. Douglas]

It was clear from your writing that you had not seen Rheingold; still rather less so the 'Walkure'.

Knight

No one has seen or heard the Walkure yet. That's why I called it a "crap shoot."

ACD

[knight66]

Yes, I know....so basically you pronounce on something that you not only have not seen; Rheingold, but that no one has seen because it has not taken place, Walkure.

I know you like to be taken seriously in your opinions, so this kind of approach helps us to understand your aspiration to being a reliable critic.

Knight

[MishaK]

Don't be presumptuous, my boy. I'd wager I'm at least as well versed in literature as you, and way, WAY more well versed in matters Freudian. Your totally non sequitur,

If you are out to provoke me through your unbelievably arrogant tone, I'm afraid I won't humor you.

We're going in circles. You keep insisting that Wagner's characterization of certain human psychological drama, which isn't all that special in the world of literature, prefigures the intellectual concepts of Freud, even though Wagner, *like all those who preceded him*, never articulates any of Freud's actual thought or theories, but *like all the others* merely provides an - albeit compelling - re-staging of common human psychological contexts, which *like all the others* were the subject of Freud's study. Fine. Logic bypasses you and you claim to be well versed in literature, but evidently are so blinded by your faith in the uniqueness of Wagner to see what that knowledge of literature should teach you. It is evident that talking to you is like talking about evolution to a fundamentalist Christian = it's completely pointless. I have done my work here. My arguments stand above in this thread for all those with functioning grey matter to process. I won't engage in further useless debate on this issue.

This, however:

As to my alleged (by you) "glorification of [Wagner] by trying to attribute some sort of superhuman genius to him in other spheres beyond the musical," don't be preposterous. I never engage in such idiocy and nothing I've ever written about Wagner and his works, here or elsewhere, has ever attempted anything even approaching "glorification" of the man or the music-dramatist. I leave that sort of thing to the noxious race of Wagnerites among which I'm not numbered.

... is just riotously funny. You, ACD, the internet's Wagnerian one-trick-pony, claim not to be a Wagnerite! Oh if only you indeed were so well-versed in literature as to know irony!

[A.C. Douglas]

Yes, I know....so basically you pronounce on something that you not only have not seen; Rheingold, but that no one has seen because it has not taken place, Walkure.

I know you like to be taken seriously in your opinions, so this kind of approach helps us to understand your aspiration to being a reliable critic.

Knight

Ah! I see now. You really do think that someone is disqualified from pronouncing anything about an opera production unless one has seen it either in the house or on DVD.

Interesting.

ACD

[A.C. Douglas]

[It's] just riotously funny. You, ACD, the internet's Wagnerian one-trick-pony, claim not to be a Wagnerite! Oh if only you indeed were so well-versed in literature as to know irony!

And if only you were so well versed in matters Wagnerian as to know the difference between a Wagnerite and a Wagnerian.

And you're quite right. No point in continuing this, um, discussion. You don't want to engage in discourse or learn. Like a callow adolescent, you merely want to win an argument.

Do take care.

ACD

[Scarpia]

And you're quite right. No point in continuing this, um, discussion. You don't want to engage in discourse or learn. Like a callow adolescent, you merely want to win an argument.

A stunning irony to see you accuse another of this.  "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"   

[DavidRoss]

Goodness.  I see that Newman Douglas is still here, as charming, gracious, and teachable as ever. 

Elsewhere, Mensch, you questioned the existence of personality disorders.  Do you still doubt?

[knight66]

Ah! I see now. You really do think that someone is disqualified from pronouncing anything about an opera production unless one has seen it either in the house or on DVD.

Interesting.

ACD

I know, I know, it is frightfully old fashioned of me to imagine that to hold respect, ones opinions might be ones own, not second hand. Additionally that they be based on experience rather than prejudice reinforced through consulting your crystal ball. But there we are.

I see you aspire to a kind of post modern criticism. An attitude that means you pronounce, with seeming authority, on events that have not yet happened and that you would not dream of attending even when they do occur.

I find this a refreshing method of proving your reliability as an observer and commentator of the artform. Any cast iron prognostications on this week's lottery numbers?

Knight

[MishaK]

Goodness.  I see that Newman Douglas is still here, as charming, gracious, and teachable as ever. 

Elsewhere, Mensch, you questioned the existence of personality disorders.  Do you still doubt?

Oh, I didn't question their existence. I just questioned whether a) truly everything that is classified as a personality disorder these days is indeed a personality disorder or rather an excuse for the pharma industry to market psychopharmaceuticals; and b) whether that proportion, even if it is as high as you say, is the cause of the divorce rate we were discussing in the other thread. It seems rather that people with severe personality disorders rarely find themselves in the position to have someone to divorce. 

But this is waaay OT.

[knight66]

Goodness.  I see that Newman Douglas is still here, as charming, gracious, and teachable as ever. 

Oh....are they one and the same person? I fell for it hook, line etc. I did not know the entire persona was a leg-pull.....very well sustained.

Mike

[Walther von Stolzing]

Yes, but some claim that Wagner's work expresses "profound" or "significant" insights.  Things known and expressed in literature for thousands of years, or even hundreds or a dozen or two, aren't insights, so surely there must be something else, something that I'm missing in Wagner...unless those who credit him with such insights may have encountered them first in Wagner and not been aware that they  did not originate with him...?

And, heavens, no, let's not dismiss Wagner.  His achievement was remarkable and he wrote some gorgeous music.  But let's temper our admiration with a rational and realistic appraisal of his accomplishment and not credit him with creating the Earth in seven days or inventing sliced bread.

You seem to be flipping the issue in order to make a different point. I did in fact claim that Wagner's work expresses profound and significant insights. I believe they do. I made an effort to illustrate how and why they do so. I never claimed that his insights were original, or that he was the only artist in the history of the world to have them! But the fact that they are not necessarily original does not preclude them from being profound. The reason I respond to Wagner's art is that he strikes me as being exceptionally good at expressing certain insights, at showing the audience the nature of something from a particular point of view, of mirroring aspects of ourselves in the works and thereby expanding our consciousness. And like all great dramatists, he had an intuitive grasp of human psychology, which is how he could express a wide array of emotions and vividly depict the motivations behind the actions of his characters. If there is anything original in his insights, it most certainly comes in the way he delivered them. Even his detractors admit there is something singular about his music dramas. For me it's the insights he expresses and the way in which he expresses them, through his unique blend of music and drama, that make him so special. I encountered the ancient Greek dramatists before Wagner, I encountered Virgil and Homer and Shakespeare before Wagner, and many more. Yet Wagner still holds a special place in my heart.

[Chaszz]

A few responses with the quotes they refer to unreproduced, as those are from different posters and I don't have the technical skill to gather them all here:

Opera was not unprecedented. It was an attempt to revive ancient Greek drama, which contained music and dance. In linking tragedy with music, opera was probably more like Greek drama than any playmaking before or since.

I would appreciate knowing the source for the assertion that Brahms disliked Tristan. Brahms highly desired to have a manuscript of Tristan, and wrote Wagner asking for one. One was unavailable so Wagner sent him a manuscript of Rheingold instead. I have always assumed Brahms wanted to delve in detail into the new harmony which Tristan pioneered, but I could be wrong. He was also an assiduous collector of music manuscripts, and maybe he wanted one of Tristan mostly for his collection. Even if that is true, it is significant that Tristan is what he wanted. Could he have recognized its significance and disliked it also? Perhaps he disliked what he could not yet understand, and hoped to learn to appreciate it by reading the score closely.

Brahms held onto the Rheingold manuscript, perhaps wanting to add it to his collection, until Wagner finally wrote asking for it back.

Brahms wanted to go to the Ring premiere, but stayed away fearing he would be verbally abused by Wagner partisans.

When Wagner died, Brahms dismissed his chorus rehearsal, saying "We will not work today, a master has died."

One's heart sinks at seeing AC Douglas back in these precincts. Having encountered him before in several forums, one hoped when he stormed furiously out of here (I think it was here, though I might be wrong) a few years ago he was gone for good. Here he comes back again when least expected like Alberich in Gotterdammerung. His arguments may be wrong but they are at least defensible; however his debating style is not. It seems he cannot disagree with someone without sooner or later calling his interlocutor an idiot. As he descends further and further into insulting people, perhaps this time he will be banned.

[knight66]

Chazz,

Thanks for that, it makes its points well and is interesting; as are the contributions of several posters who have managed to do this whilst stepping around the passive/aggressive Mr D.

As you will gather from my contributions, I am not an admirer. I would give Mr D more credence if he was to arrive simply to tell us something interesting. However his norm is to swoop in and belittle someone because they have seemingly denigrated his idol and take all possible opportunity to trash all modern productions of Wagner's works. Anything interesting that he provides is incidental to his real reason for appearing: to attack.

At least two posters here have countered the less than adulatory posts on the subject of Wagner's music with interesting and able posts, Mr D may now conclude that his presence in defence of Wagner is simply not needed. There are others who can do that job without insulting those holding a differing opinion.

Knight

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I would appreciate knowing the source for the assertion that Brahms disliked Tristan. Brahms highly desired to have a manuscript of Tristan, and wrote Wagner asking for one.

Actually, he asked for Meistersinger's manuscript. But, the link I gave in my previous post shows that Brahms indeed may have shown admiration towards Tristan, although maybe more reserved than with other dramas.

[A.C. Douglas]

Brahms highly desired to have a manuscript of Tristan, and wrote Wagner asking for one. One was unavailable so Wagner sent him a manuscript of Rheingold instead. I have always assumed Brahms wanted to delve in detail into the new harmony which Tristan pioneered, but I could be wrong. He was also an assiduous collector of music manuscripts, and maybe he wanted one of Tristan mostly for his collection. Even if that is true, it is significant that Tristan is what he wanted. Could he have recognized its significance and disliked it also? Perhaps he disliked what he could not yet understand, and hoped to learn to appreciate it by reading the score closely. Brahms held onto the Rheingold manuscript, perhaps wanting to add it to his collection, until Wagner finally wrote asking for it back.

As I instructed you on this matter many years ago, that is quite incorrect on a number of points. The score of Tristan played no part in this particular incident. As I informed you then, the incident began when Wagner's friend, one Carl Tausig by name, without authorization, lent Brahms the score for the Venusberg section of the Paris Tannhäuser. Later, when W desperately needed the score back and requested its return, B refused, insisting, falsely, that it was given him as a gift. B then proposed to W that he would return the score if W would send him in its place the score of Meistersinger. W, in desperation, agreed but couldn't get his hands on an unattached copy and so proposed that he send B a copy of the score of Rheingold instead, and B accepted.

One's heart sinks at seeing AC Douglas back in these precincts. Having encountered him before in several forums, one hoped when he stormed furiously out of here (I think it was here, though I might be wrong) a few years ago he was gone for good. Here he comes back again when least expected like Alberich in Gotterdammerung. His arguments may be wrong but they are at least defensible; however his debating style is not. It seems he cannot disagree with someone without sooner or later calling his interlocutor an idiot. As he descends further and further into insulting people, perhaps this time he will be banned.

Oh dear. How unkind — and unfair, too.

First, I call my "interlocutors" idiots only when they're, you know, idiots. And second, I'm almost never wrong which is why my arguments are almost always "defensible".

See how that works?

ACD

[A.C. Douglas]

Chazz,

Thanks for that, it makes its points well and is interesting; as are the contributions of several posters who have managed to do this whilst stepping around the passive/aggressive Mr D[ouglas].

As you will gather from my contributions, I am not an admirer. I would give Mr D more credence if he was to arrive simply to tell us something interesting. However his norm is to swoop in and belittle someone because they have seemingly denigrated his idol and take all possible opportunity to trash all modern productions of Wagner's works. Anything interesting that he provides is incidental to his real reason for appearing: to attack.

At least two posters here have countered the less than adulatory posts on the subject of Wagner's music with interesting and able posts, Mr D may now conclude that his presence in defence of Wagner is simply not needed. There are others who can do that job without insulting those holding a differing opinion.

Knight

I'm well aware of your dislike (dare I say, hatred) of my good self, but as you're a moderator here you really ought to exercise more caution and discretion when throwing about such nasty and insupportable charges publicly. As I informed your fellow moderator, Gurnatron5500, the infrequent times I pass through this forum and pause to engage in argument it's because of the appalling Wagner-ignorance of a number of your regular members. And it's not merely that they're Wagner-ignorant, but that they're arrogantly Wagner-ignorant and at least in the case of one of them, a crypto-Wagner-hater into the bargain. (You've another certified Wagner-ignorant Wagner-hater here to my knowledge, but so far he's contributed only a couple lame potshots to this thread during my time here.) Had you exercised due caution and discretion as a moderator you would have seen that the ugly insults began NOT with me, but with one of your regular members (well, actually two of your regular members, but the other one didn't mention me by name although the wording of his very ugly insult made it perfectly clear to just about everyone to whom he was referring). I merely responded in kind and with admirable restraint as I've already noted in my exchange with Gurnatron5500.

All the above notwithstanding, you've nothing further to fear from my presence here. As I've already noted, I'm just passing through and have no intention whatsoever of hanging out. Believe what you will but I've little appetite for this sort of argument and little time for it, and so will retire from active participation in this series of arguments as it's clear my input is neither appreciated nor wanted here.

Just one last closing remark: You really ought to consult a psychiatric dictionary and look up the term "passive[-]aggressive" before using it again. You really ought to, you know.

ACD

[Scarpia]

I'm well aware of your dislike (dare I say, hatred) of my good self, but as you're a moderator here you really ought to exercise more caution and discretion when throwing about such nasty and insupportable charges publicly. As I informed your fellow moderator, Gurnatron5500, the infrequent times I pass through this forum and pause to engage in argument it's because of the appalling Wagner-ignorance of a number of your regular members. And it's not merely that they're Wagner-ignorant, but that they're arrogantly Wagner-ignorant and at least in the case of one of them, a crypto-Wagner-hater into the bargain. (You've another certified Wagner-ignorant Wagner-hater here to my knowledge, but so far he's contributed only a couple lame potshots to this thread during my time here.) Had you exercised due caution and discretion as a moderator you would have seen that the ugly insults began NOT with me, but with one of your regular members (well, actually two of your regular members, but the other one didn't mention me by name although the wording of his very ugly insult made it perfectly clear to just about everyone to whom he was referring). I merely responded in kind and with admirable restraint as I've already noted in my exchange with Gurnatron5500.

All the above notwithstanding, you've nothing further to fear from my presence here. As I've already noted, I'm just passing through and have no intention whatsoever of hanging out. Believe what you will but I've little appetite for this sort of argument and little time for it, and so will retire from active participation in this series of arguments as it's clear my input is neither appreciated nor wanted here.

Just one last closing remark: You really ought to consult a psychiatric dictionary and look up the term "passive[-]aggressive" before using it again. You really ought to, you know.

ACD

Excellent!!!!!

[MishaK]

This sounds correct:

As I instructed you on this matter many years ago, that is quite incorrect on a number of points. The score of Tristan played no part in this particular incident. As I informed you then, the incident began when Wagner's friend, one Carl Tausig by name, without authorization, lent Brahms the score for the Venusberg section of the Paris Tannhäuser. Later, when W desperately needed the score back and requested its return, B refused, insisting, falsely, that it was given him as a gift. B then proposed to W that he would return the score if W would send him in its place the score of Meistersinger. W, in desperation, agreed but couldn't get his hands on an unattached copy and so proposed that he send B a copy of the score of Rheingold instead, and B accepted.

That matches what I recall reading about Brahms. I do think Brahms did end up acquiring the manuscript to the Meistersinger Prelude after Wagner's death at some point, but I'd have to double check my sources.

ACD, has it ever occurred to you that, if your objective is to counter and correct this:

the appalling Wagner-ignorance of a number of your regular members.

... but the result you repeatedly achieve, both here an elswhere on the interwebz, is this:

I'm well aware of your dislike (dare I say, hatred) of my good self

.... maybe you ought to, shall we say, 'fine-tune', or even wholesale discard and replace, your current, shall we call them, 'pedagocic methods'?

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm well aware of your dislike (dare I say, hatred) of my good self . . .

"If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am:
I'm a genuine philanthropist — all other kinds are sham.
Each little fault of temper and each social defect
In my erring fellow-creatures, I endeavour to correct.
To all their little weaknesses I open people's eyes;
And little plans to snub the self-sufficient I devise;
I love my fellow creatures — I do all the good I can —
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!"