Wagner's Valhalla

[Parsifal]

Yes, it very much looks as though these differences of approach are at the root of the differences in what we can tolerate. I think right from the start the mythology was vying for equal weight with the music, for me - in the sense that the two coming together make for a uniquely satisfying whole. I had one of those perception shifts the moment I encountered CS Lewis's observation that the primary need is not  to understand a myth, but to taste it; immerse oneself in it. That profoundly affected my attitude to myth and folk legend in general, and Wagner in particular. On this approach, it becomes far more important to experience Brunnhilde riding into the funeral pyre than to figure out, rationally, what it might mean. So the trick (at least, for me) is to go for the ride without really thinking too much about 'meaning' or about what I might think of as acceptable normal dramatic activity. I try to surrender to the composite entity of 'myth and music'; and I find I can only do that intermittently in the Copenhagen Ring.

Granted, but we must distinguish between Myth and what, for lack of a better term, I'll call pseudo-Myth.  Myth may not make physical sense but it make psychological sense because it has spent hundreds or thousands of years being filtered through the collective consciousness of a civilization.  Wagner has made up his own Mythology (based on various primary sources) and I'm not entirely comfortable with what he's come up with.  It's hard to come up with a mythology that seems real (like Lord of the Dance Rings) and I tend to think Wagner's made a hash of it.   

[Karl Henning]

. . .  Wagner has made up his own Mythology (based on various primary sources) and I'm not entirely comfortable with what he's come up with.

I affirm your right to discomfort, there (so to speak). I'm no great admirer of RW as a mythographer, either. It may run counter to the composer's wishes, but I admit that I enjoy the Ring partly because I feel at liberty to "discount" the librettist.

[jlaurson]

I affirm your right to discomfort, there (so to speak). I'm no great admirer of RW as a mythographer, either. It may run counter to the composer's wishes, but I admit that I enjoy the Ring partly because I feel at liberty to "discount" the librettist.

We are aware that talking about "real Myths" is a bit, err... ironic (at the very least).

[Cato]

I affirm your right to discomfort, there (so to speak). I'm no great admirer of RW as a mythographer, either. It may run counter to the composer's wishes, but I admit that I enjoy the Ring partly because I feel at liberty to "discount" the librettist.

That brings back a Bruckner anecdote: supposedly he sat through (I believe) Götterdämmerung and at the end asked a fellow member of the audience exactly why Brünnhilde jumped into the fire at the end!

The music, not the drama, apparently held his attention.

[Parsifal]

We are aware that talking about "real Myths" is a bit, err... ironic (at the very least).

From Webster:

a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

There is a difference between an authentic tradition and a "tradition" that was created as a literary device.

[Elgarian]

Granted, but we must distinguish between Myth and what, for lack of a better term, I'll call pseudo-Myth.  Myth may not make physical sense but it make psychological sense because it has spent hundreds or thousands of years being filtered through the collective consciousness of a civilization.  Wagner has made up his own Mythology (based on various primary sources) and I'm not entirely comfortable with what he's come up with.  It's hard to come up with a mythology that seems real (like Lord of the Dance Rings) and I tend to think Wagner's made a hash of it.   

Yes I see how that distinguishing process might be a necessity for you.  But the issue for me is not so much a matter of distinguishing between traditional myth, literary myth, or pseudo-myth - rather, it's a matter of attitude. It's an approach I choose to adopt because I've found it's worked pretty well for a very long time, so I'm in no hurry to change it. The matter isn't about one of us being right about the nature of Wagnerian myth (I don't care whether I'm right about that, or not), but about what enables the most enriching engagement with the music-drama for us, individually; and I think what we're doing here is identifying (partly) why we respond differently to the Copenhagen Ring.

Incidentally, I think I may now understand something that's puzzled me for a while: there's a common notion that certain kinds of Wagnerite are too uncritical; that they deliberately close their eyes to obvious flaws, and so on. I could be 'accused' of being like that myself, but it isn't in fact what I do. It's not wilful blindness (as it may seem), but deliberate acceptance; and the difference is crucial I think (though I may not have expressed it clearly enough).

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

That brings back a Bruckner anecdote: supposedly he sat through (I believe) Götterdämmerung and at the end asked a fellow member of the audience exactly why Brünnhilde jumped into the fire at the end!

The music, not the drama, apparently held his attention.

If I'm correct Bruckner was at a performance of Die Walküre. After the curtain fell, he asked: 'Why did they burn that lady?'

[Karl Henning]

Unrecorded was the doleful reply: Burning was far and away the best thing for her, all considered....

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Unrecorded was the doleful reply: Burning was far and away the best thing for her, all considered....

And two operas later it happened.

[Cato]

Unrecorded was the doleful reply: Burning was far and away the best thing for her, all considered....

Which sounds like my mother's opinion, any time I had any kind of opera emanating from my room: "When will they put that woman out of her misery?"  0:)

[Karl Henning]

"90 motives from the Ring." Collect 'em all!

[Karl Henning]

"Only Jesus, Napoleon and Hitler have had more written about them," said Manuel Brug, cultural commentator with Die Welt, in an appraisal of the mountain of books published to mark the event.

Well, he sounds awfully sure that not nearly so much has been written about, say, Shakespeare . . . .

Wagner anniversary revives German debate over controversial composer

[Karl Henning]

I pity even the Wagners. Like the plot of The Ring, there are really no good choices to make.

[Karl Henning]

Well, he sounds awfully sure that not nearly so much has been written about, say, Shakespeare . . . .

Wagner anniversary revives German debate over controversial composer

I think I get it, though. Comparing Wagner to Shakespeare would be to reduce him to a fellow artist.

Naturally, one compares him instead to God (Jesus) and two egomaniacs who threw the world into turmoil (Napoleon and Hitler).

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Happy 200th anniversary Richard! Greatest genius of all time, both in musical and literary sense, if you ask me!

And yes, I am one of those that thinks Wagner's librettos are among the greatest prose of 19th century. Deal with it.

[Karl Henning]

And yes, I am one of those that thinks Wagner's librettos are among the greatest prose of 19th century. Deal with it.

Easily. You're obviously an eccentric.

I wish you joy of the "greatest prose of the 19^th century." (I find it incomparably funny just to type that. Deal with it.)

[Beorn]

He's no Emily Brontë!

[Karl Henning]

He's no Emily Brontë!

:-)

I think it was a subtle dig. Wagner fancied he was writing poetry, but Alby here considers it the greatest prose . . . .

[Beorn]

He's no Elizabeth Browning!

[Karl Henning]

I love seeing a photo of Harpo "saying" that!