Wagner's Valhalla

[MishaK]

The profound and significant insights in Wagner's stageworks are largely of the psychological sort. He in fact foreshadowed Freud in these insights into human nature and almost the whole of the underlying Freudian analysis of human nature can be reconstructed by an analysis of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of Wagner's characters in his music-dramas (as opposed to his operas). For just one astonishing example on a meta-scale, the tripartite structure of the world of Das Rheingold is a spot-on metaphoric foreshadowing of Freud's tripartite model of the human psyche made up of Id, Ego, and Superego represented in Das Rheingold's tripartite world of Nibelungs, Giants, and Gods, respectively.

Wagner was not only a master (music-)dramatist, but a master psychologist as well.

Sorry, but that's total BS. A fair number of literary greats wrote of those same psychological conflicts (indeed, the mere fact that Freud named some of his psychological theories after classical Greek tragic characters, tells you how far back that goes - Wagner is not at all special in that respect). Yet, none of them "foreshadowed" Freud in the sense that none of them formed a cogent, abstract psychological theory the way Freud did. It is one thing to recreate a psychological conflict in a form of art. It is something else entirely to abstract this into a comprehensive theory which in effect founded the modern science of psychology. Again, your praise of Wagner would be far more credible to the non-believers if you'd "stay on the carpet", as we say in Germany.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Nope.  None of these fellows, nor any other composer but Wagner has his own juggalos.  Wagner worship is an industry, like Scientology.

I am fully aware of wagnerism. I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough but I meant that composers mentioned before were wagnerians (even "worshipping fan boys") at least in some point of their life. Even almost completely rational persons may show fanaticism every now and then. Even (for a composer) surprisingly rational Brahms called himself Wagnerian often, although he wasn't really a fanatic.

[kaergaard]

Almost OT:

The folks in SF sent me a four disc CD collection as an introduction to The Ring. It has a narration by Terence McEwen, retired General Director of the opera, and musical excerpts from the Solti recordings.

And I don't want, don't need it, and will mail to anybody who wants it! It's free. Message your street address and it's on the way, 1st Class postage.

It's gone!!

[MishaK]

I am fully aware of wagnerism. I guess I didn't express myself clear enough but I meant that composers mentioned before were wagnerians (even "worshipping fan boys") at least in some point of their life. Even almost completely rational persons may show fanaticism every now and then. Even (for a composer) surprisingly rational Brahms called himself Wagnerian often, although he wasn't really a fanatic.

Now, you're right about Debussy, Bruckner, Sibelius, Wolf (one could add Vaughan Williams as well, for example). But Brahms? What's your source on that? The only piece of Wagner I'm aware he not just appreciated but truly loved was his Meistersinger overture, going so far as to acquire the manuscript himself. But a Wagnerian Brahms never was by any stretch of the imagination.

[A.C. Douglas]

Sorry, but that's total BS. A fair number of literary greats wrote of those same psychological conflicts (indeed, the mere fact that Freud named some of his psychological theories after classical Greek tragic characters, tells you how far back that goes - Wagner is not at all special in that respect). Yet, none of them "foreshadowed" Freud in the sense that none of them formed a cogent, abstract psychological theory the way Freud did. It is one thing to recreate a psychological conflict in a form of art. It is something else entirely to abstract this into a comprehensive theory which in effect founded the modern science of psychology. Again, your praise of Wagner would be far more credible to the non-believers if you'd "stay on the carpet", as we say in Germany.

I suggest you take your own advice and "stay on the carpet" in these matters, m'boy, and don't impute to me things I never said. I never even so much as implied that Wagner foreshadowed Freud in "form[ing] a cogent, abstract psychological theory," and your introducing that matter here is nothing but a lame and transparent straw man. And all you've managed to "prove" or demonstrate by saying, "indeed, the mere fact that Freud named some of his psychological theories after classical Greek tragic characters, tells you how far back that goes - Wagner is not at all special in that respect," is that human nature hasn't changed in millennia.

Read again what I actually wrote and respond to that if you have anything that resembles pertinent and cogent comment to make; something I've yet to see from you in anything you've had to say concerning Wagner and his works.

ACD

[MishaK]

I suggest you take your own advice and "stay on the carpet" in these matters, m'boy, and don't impute to me things I never said. I never even so much as implied that Wagner foreshadowed Freud in "form[ing] a cogent, abstract psychological theory," and your introducing that matter here is nothing but a lame and transparent straw man.

Let me refresh your memory:

He in fact foreshadowed Freud in these insights into human nature

Recreating psychological drama is not the same as actually formulating what insights are to be gained from that. He did not "foreshadow Freud" in any way shape or form. Indeed, the parallels you see are what you, with hinsight knowledge of Freud, interpret into Wagner's dramas.

E.g.:

For just one astonishing example on a meta-scale, the tripartite structure of the world of Das Rheingold is a spot-on metaphoric foreshadowing of Freud's tripartite model of the human psyche made up of Id, Ego, and Superego represented in Das Rheingold's tripartite world of Nibelungs, Giants, and Gods, respectively.

If you could find primary evidence that Wagner actually devised this tripartite world as a representation of something similar to Freud's model of the human psyche (a stretch in any case, since we're comparing an individual to a universe, which in its division into middle earth, divine sphere and netherworld, is neither new, unique nor special in art and literary history), only then might your claim actually have some merit. Otherwise, all this is, is you reading something into Wagner while wearing Freudian glasses.

This:

and almost the whole of the underlying Freudian analysis of human nature can be reconstructed by an analysis of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of Wagner's characters in his music-dramas

...is true of any number of works of dozens of major writers from Euripides to Shakespeare and beyond, all long predating Wagner, because:

human nature hasn't changed in millennia.

Many others long before Wagner were perfectly capable of showing the psychology of human nature on stage and in fiction. Hence why Freud speaks of Oedipal complexes and other characters from Greek tragedy, and not of "Wotan complexes". The prototypes existed well before Wagner. It's wonderful that you love Wagner so much, but your universe is a little to narrow to sustain the claims you make.

[karlhenning]

Well, yes. That was Wagner's aim. To bring it all back together.

And the aim of opera reformers before Wagner, and indeed of the Florentine camerata among whom the genre of opera originated. That fandom for Wagner is in part to sign on to the assertion that his reform was ne plus ultra, we take as a given.  The assertion itself, open for discussion.

[karlhenning]

Wagner was [...] a master psychologist as well.

ROFL

[DavidRoss]

I am fully aware of wagnerism. I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough but I meant that composers mentioned before were wagnerians (even "worshipping fan boys") at least in some point of their life. Even almost completely rational persons may show fanaticism every now and then. Even (for a composer) surprisingly rational Brahms called himself Wagnerian often, although he wasn't really a fanatic.

Yes, I thought you might have meant that, but except for Bruckner (whom we all know was a few fries short of a happy meal) I don't think they were such fan boys.  Certainly every composer who came of age in the late 19th Century came under his spell (don't forget Mahler and Strauss!), but I question whether any succumbed to the sort of idolatry common among the Wagner fan boys we encounter from time to time.  There's a significant chasm between admiration and worship.

[Florestan]

Last I checked, Euripides, Sophocles & Co. didn't write opera.

It was not a question of opera but of insights about human reality.

[Florestan]

And the aim of opera reformers before Wagner, and indeed of the Florentine camerata among whom the genre of opera originated.

Exactly. Monteverdi knew a thing or two about "musical drama" --- actually, dramma per musica. In terms of the theory underlying the concept, Wagner invented the wheel.   

[Bulldog]

Wagner was not only a master (music-)dramatist, but a master psychologist as well.

That's all I need to hear.  If it was possible, I'd make an appointment with Wagner for a counseling session.  Of course, I wouldn't tell him I was Jewish - he might hike the price on me.

[A.C. Douglas]

Recreating psychological drama is not the same as actually formulating what insights are to be gained from that. [Wagner] did not "foreshadow Freud" in any way shape or form.

He most certainly did, and in just the way I suggested which has nothing whatsoever to do with your straw-man BS above about "actually formulating what insights are to be gained from [it]."

This [my comment that "almost the whole of the underlying Freudian analysis of human nature can be reconstructed by an analysis of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of Wagner's characters in his music-dramas"] is true of any number of works of dozens of major writers from Euripides to Shakespeare and beyond, all long predating Wagner..."

Shakespeare most assuredly, but I can think of no others in the world of letters before Wagner, and none in the world of opera. In any case, I never claimed for Wagner precedence or exclusivity in this foreshadowing of Freudian thought. Nietzsche foreshadowed Freudian thought as well, for instance.

If you could find primary evidence that Wagner actually devised this tripartite world [of Das Rheingold] as a representation of something similar to Freud's model of the human psyche ... only then might your claim actually have some merit. Otherwise, all this is, is you reading something into Wagner while wearing Freudian glasses.

Wagner synthesized that tripartite world from his Nordic and Germanic sources, but imbued the essential "species" character of the inhabitants of each part with almost the exact metaphorical equivalents of Freud's parts of the human psyche, respectively.

Did Wagner intend his tripartite world as a metaphorical model of the human psyche? Most assuredly not. It was an unconscious, intuitive stroke on Wagner's part. But that makes it no less an astonishing foreshadowing of Freudian thought on a meta-scale, as I've said.

ACD

[MishaK]

He most certainly did, and in just the way I suggested which has nothing whatsoever to do with your straw-man BS above about "actually formulating what insights are to be gained from [it]."

Shakespeare most assuredly, but I can think of no others in the world of letters before Wagner, and none in the world of opera. In any case, I never claimed for Wagner precedence or exclusivity in this foreshadowing of Freudian thought. Nietzsche foreshadowed Freudian thought as well, for instance.

Wagner synthesized that tripartite world from his Nordic and Germanic sources, but imbued the essential "species" character of the inhabitants of each part with almost the exact metaphorical equivalents of Freud's parts of the human psyche, respectively.

Did Wagner intend his tripartite world as a metaphorical model of the human psyche? Most assuredly not. It was an unconscious, intuitive stroke on Wagner's part. But that makes it no less an astonishing foreshadowing of Freudian thought on a meta-scale, as I've said.

ACD

Your're going in circles (Rings, perhaps?). Not surprising, really. You clearly aren't well-versed enough in literatrure to even acknowledge that all the psychological drama that exists in Wagner has existed for centuries in literature since at least the golden age of Greek theater, and indeed in at least more stylized form in opera as well since Monteverdi. Wagner no more "foreshadowed Freud" than any of the others who came before. You now go even beyond your already unsustainable original claim by claiming that "Wagner [...] foreshadow[ed] Freudian thought." This claim is simply unsupportable. Freudian thought consists not simply of recreating the subject of analysis, namely the psychological conflict, but of actually *analyzing* and *explaning* it. What makes Freud special is the analysis, and that analysis is absent in Wagner. The "Freudian thought", hence, is completely absent. He merely recreates a prototypical subject for Freudian analysis, perhaps even a particularly interesting one and exceptionally rich one in the history of opera, but that in and of itself doesn't render any of that precociously Freudian avant le mot. Freud's intellectual contribution to the world is the analysis, not the stage setting. Anyone can do that, and indeed playwrights and authors did so repeatedly long before him and completely independently of him since. Wagner is immensely special and important to the development of Western music. But this glorification of the man, by trying to attribute some sort of superhuman genius to him in other spheres beyond the musical, is simply pathetically absurd in its complete lack of any necessity, since the man is already deservedly famous and has enough accolades to uphold his pedestal.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Now, you're right about Debussy, Bruckner, Sibelius, Wolf (one could add Vaughan Williams as well, for example). But Brahms? What's your source on that? The only piece of Wagner I'm aware he not just appreciated but truly loved was his Meistersinger overture, going so far as to acquire the manuscript himself. But a Wagnerian Brahms never was by any stretch of the imagination.

"Johannes Brahms, Begegnung mit dem Menschen" by Karla Höcker. I don't remember the exact page but it mentions how annoyed Brahms was of the Brahms vs Wagner debate and that he often called himself Wagnerian: he loved Ring, although he was somewhat irritated by some monologues and endless modulations. He never went to Bayreuth so he didn't hear Parsifal (since first authorized performances outside Bayreuth took place after 30 years of premiere), and I am not sure if full score was available during his lifetime. And he considered Meistersinger as one of the best operas of all time. However, he didn't like Tristan.

[MishaK]

Thanks for clarifying, Alberich.

I don't remember the exact page but it mentions how annoyed Brahms was of the Brahms vs Wagner debate and that he often called himself Wagnerian: he loved Ring, although he was somewhat irritated by some monologues and endless modulations. He never went to Bayreuth so he didn't hear Parsifal (since first authorized performances outside Bayreuth took place after 30 years of premiere), and I am not sure if full score was available during his lifetime.

His comments in opposition of the anti-Wagnerian diatribes of his friend Hanslick do not really make him a "Wagnerian" in any meaningful sense, I don't think.

And he considered Meistersinger as one of the best operas of all time.

I do believe he was only referring to the Prelude, not the entire opera. That's at least what I recall reading here:

[asin]0679745823[/asin]

Höcker, while a fine writer for a younger audience, does tend to simplify a bit. I recall having some books on Mozart and Schubert by her when I was a kid.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Yes, it is quite simplified biography, and it's certainly not the greatest. And to be fair, some of the biography details tend to be different, sometimes even conflicting, because not everything about Brahms is 100 % accurate. Yes, Brahms wasn't Wagnerian in traditional sense, the sentence in biography where he called himself one just kind of caught my attention. He was well aware of the flaws in other composers (and let's not get even started how self-critical he was) and Wagner was no exception.

This quote is almost identical to one in Karla Höcker's book:

"Brahms had always venerated Wagner as a musical dramatist, going so far as to quote Opera and Drama in his literary diary. And though he found Rheingold and Götterdämmerung ponderous, he gushed at the mention of Meistersinger.

Proclaiming himself the "best of Wagnerians," he defended Wagner against hasty criticism. Chiding his biographer Richard Specht in this regard, he asked, "Do you take me to be too dull to have been enchanted as anyone else by the joyousness and sublimity of Die Meister-singer? Or dishonest enough to conceal my view that I consider a few bars of this work more valuable than all the operas written since?" Indeed, the opening bars of Brahms's Violin Sonata, op. 100, echo those of Walther's "Preislied." "

Source: http://web.me.com/tmskwei/BWS/Shuddering.html

And what do you know, he actually called Rheingold and Götterdämmerung ponderous. It seems he admired Walküre and Siegfried more (although when Walküre had it's premiere, it was 1870, Franco-Prussian war knocking the door, so the valkyries may have boosted his nationalism).

[A.C. Douglas]

Your're going in circles (Rings, perhaps?). Not surprising, really. You clearly aren't well-versed enough in literatrure to even acknowledge that all the psychological drama that exists in Wagner has existed for centuries in literature since at least the golden age of Greek theater, and indeed in at least more stylized form in opera as well since Monteverdi. Wagner no more "foreshadowed Freud" than any of the others who came before. You now go even beyond your already unsustainable original claim by claiming that "Wagner [...] foreshadow[ed] Freudian thought." This claim is simply unsupportable. Freudian thought consists not simply of recreating the subject of analysis, namely the psychological conflict, but of actually *analyzing* and *explaning* it. What makes Freud special is the analysis, and that analysis is absent in Wagner. The "Freudian thought" is completely absent. He merely recreates a prototypical subject for Freudian analysis, perhaps even a particularly interesting one and exceptionally rich one in the history of opera, but that in and of itself doesn't render any of that Freudian. Freud's intellectual contribution to the world is the analysis, not the stage setting. Anyone can do that, and indeed playwrights and authors did so repeatedly long before him and completely independently of him since. Wagner is immensely special and important to the development of Western music. But this glorification of the man, by trying to attribute some sort of superhuman genius to him in other spheres beyond the musical, is simply pathetically absurd in its complete lack of any necessity, since the man is already deservedly famous and has enough accolades to uphold his pedestal.

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,

You now go even beyond your already unsustainable original claim by claiming that "Wagner [...] foreshadow[ed] Freudian thought." This claim is simply unsupportable. Freudian thought consists not simply of recreating the subject of analysis, namely the psychological conflict, but of actually *analyzing* and *explaining* it. What makes Freud special is the analysis, and that analysis is absent in Wagner.

is not only confused but misses the point. Freudian thought concerns itself with the unconscious determinants of human behavior, the analyzing and explaining with the clinical aspects of that thought. Wagner was no clinician, and therefore the analyzing and explaining no part of Wagner's foreshadowing of Freudian thinking.

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.

ACD

[knight66]

Musically, you didn't miss much with the Met's new Rheingold, and the Lepage staging got pretty much of a drubbing from the more knowledgeable and discriminating MSM critics (Alex Ross, Martin Bernheimer, and Anne Midgette). As for Die Walküre, I'm afraid it's a crap shoot as is the rest of the cycle vis-à-vis the staging unless Lepage gets his act together, and musically, well, I guess that's a crap shoot as well.

Damn shame.

ACD

Did you or did you not see these productions in any format? Or are you merely relaying the opinions of others? I just like to know where we are when you make this kind of pronouncement.

Knight

[A.C. Douglas]

Did you or did you not see these productions in any format? Or are you merely relaying the opinions of others? I just like to know where we are when you make this kind of pronouncement.

Knight

Which productions? I was speaking above of the new Met Rheingold the premiere of which I auditioned through the Met's simulcast (the audio was splendid), but for the staging of which I depended upon the reports of what I've called my "three surrogate eyes and ears" (Alex Ross, Martin Berhheimer, and Anne Midgette) as I thought I made perfectly clear.

ACD