Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

pre-Dutchman

I think it should be explicitly noted Wagner himself disowned everything prior to Flying Dutchman; that Wagner only counted 11 works as his ouvre, which he considered his contribution, and disavowed, divorced, or abandoned all the rest. While Die Feen, Das Liebesverbot & Rienzi are curious novelties, references to them alongside his recognized complete ouvre diminishes Wagner's influence and impact. nobs 02:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I hardly think they diminish his achievements, any more than including A Comedy of Errors in the works of Shakespeare diminishes his achievements. Artists are recognised by their best works, not their worst. Anyway, the article currently states that these works were considered to be juvenilia by Wagner. They still have to be mentioned, or the article would be incomplete. Paul B 08:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My point is they should be separated from the other 11 works, as they are in any authoritive book or website about Wagner & Wagner's works. To place them alongside Wagner's major works, gives the appearance that the article is not very well researched. nobs 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The last sentence is a non-sequituer. -- CYD

I attempted to address nobs's points in several edits of the Operas section. Finell (Talk) 19:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, what I'm refering to is this subhead Richard_Wagner#Early-stage; anyone who knows anything about Wagner, would recognize immediately that an article about Wagner that places these works here, does not understand anything about Wagner, or his influence. And elevating these works, diminishes the infleunce of the major works. nobs 19:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Case in point: Let's go to the Bayreuth Festspiel site [1], you can see nothing before Dutchman is counted. It lists 7 works plus Der Ring, 11 total. nobs 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Duh, I can't count, 10 total. (duh). nobs 19:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you can't. 7 + Ring = 11. I think that the text as edited adequately clarifies that the early works are not what made W's place in history, are not in the style for which he became know, and that he later did not consider then part of his ouvre. The early works are separated from W's great works by putting them in a section called "early". But they were his early works. I tried to accommodate your ligitimate concerns through editing (even though I didn't write any of the list or text), but without censoring history. Also, Wagner himself gave his original Die Feen manuscript to King Leopold II; later, that manuscript burned with Hitler in his bunker. Further, I do "understand [something] about Wagner, [and] his influence", although I do not claim to be an expert. Sheesh! Finell (Talk) 23:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledging the existence of Wagner's earliest works does not "diminish" his later works, especially since it is clearly stated in the article that these works are not representative. The goal of this article is to present facts, not suppress them. Next... -- CYD

How clearly is this stated in the text, though? There has been serious discussions, for example, in Bayreuth in recent years to perform Rienzi, yet the foundation now that runs the festivals has rejected the idea. So Wagner, and the Wagner Festivals as the survive today, have absolutely disowned those works. This matter is not without some controversy. nobs 00:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any controversy here: regardless of the composer's opinions, the existence of these works is a fact. Disowning them doesn't make them go away.--SarekOfVulcan 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it goes something like this: Wagner did not want his name associated woith something that did not reflect Wagner's style, or the revolutionary contributions to t he art form. The Bayreuth Foundation, which is very much dependent of funding from the Federal Government and few private sources, likewise is intent upon maintaining Wagner's wishes, and what Wagner designated as his art form, which he gave as a gift to the ages. The earlier works are just crap. nobs 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wagner's early works are "just crap"? Gosh. Who's diminishing his achievements now?! I've been looking at Wagner's autobiography, Mein Leben. Wagner discusses all his early works in detail, and indeed devoted quite a large number of pages to Rienzi, which is also mentioned without any sign of embarrassment in the later parts of the book. I can't see anywhere in the text any desire on his part to disown them – certainly not to the extent that he does not want them mentioned at all. Indeed I can't see any sign that he disowned them in any real sense at all. Of course he considers his later work to be more important. So do we all. You seem to be more embarrassed about these works than he was. Paul B 16:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to consult Gesammelte Schriften; yes, Rienzi was a success & brought Wagner early recognition as a composer, not just as a performer. Some of the structural elements of a Gesamtkunstwerk are there. And amazingly, it still is performed today, a fact Wagner discounted. However, Wagner expressly stated that all works prior to Dutchman did not fit the standard to be included in the Bayreuth repetoire. It may take awhile to get the exact language. Meantime, you could consult Daphne Wagner's (one of Wieland's daughters) very recent book, The Wagners, where she discusses the subject and her proposal to stage Rienzi in Bayreuth.

Wolfgang Wagner is now over 80, and there is competition within the Wagner Family as to who will become the next Bayreuth Artisitc Director. Wolf-Siegfried, Daphne, and Gottfried (son of Wolfgang) are the only direct descendants who have expressed interest in the position. Gottfried is all but eliminated. Right now, it appears Gudrun, Wolfgang's second wife, and Gudrun's daughter, may be the next heirs. And the direct line of descent within the Wagner Family may be eliminated. (Similiar situations occured when Cosima Wagner and Winifred Wagner took over the helm, however the grandchildren got it back when Wieland Wagner & Wolfgang Wagner took over). Daphne's proposal to stage Rienzi, she cites, may be a factor as to why the Trustee's may deny her the Artistic Directorship, because she openly declared a desire & intent to defy Wagner's instuctions for the maintainance and survival of his art. nobs 17:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

(<--) Here's some stuff:

• "I just wanted to shed some light on this work which Wagner later declared a sin of his youth. The reason the pieces is always cut is not necessarily because it is so long (God knows, he wrote other long operas) but because most of what is cut is simply repeats. These repeats interrupt the flow of the drama, something that the mature Wagner despised. He wrote this opera for one reason alone, to achieve recognition in French opera houses; therefore, it is written in the French grand opera style, which means it is full of superfluities of every sort. Nothing about this opera is "authentic Wagner," but rather his filling out pre-disposed formulas for success. This is why in the 130 years it has been standing, the Bayreuth festival has never once performed this, or his other two early operas. Yes, there is some interesting, even possibly wonderful music in this opera, but it does not fulfill Wagner's ideals of the genre. Review of Rienzi

• "Artistically Rienzi was a sin. Remembering that Die Feen had been written years before, it is useless to contend that Wagner did not know he was aiming at something lower than the best he could produce.

"...when we come to the beginning of Wagner's riper work, the Dutchman: time and space would only be wasted if we examined Rienzi very closely. Project Gutenberg EBook of Richard Wagner, by John F. Runciman

• A Communication to my Friends By Richard Wagner, 1851.

"In that period of my life when I conceived Rienzi, it might perhaps have struck me to regard the Rothbart, also, as an opera subject: now, when it was no longer my purpose to write operas, but above all to give forth my poetic thoughts (Anschauungen) in the most living of artistic forms, to wit, in Drama, I had not the remotest idea of handling an historico-political subject otherwise than as a spoken play. Yet when I put aside this 'stuff,' it was nowise from any scruple that might perchance have come to me as opera-poet and composer, and forbidden me to leave the trade that I was versed in: no, it came about— as I have shown—simply because I learnt to see the general unfitness of the Stuff for drama; and this, again, grew clear to me, not merely from any scruple as to the artistic form, but from dissatisfaction of that same sheer human feeling that in actual life was set on edge by the political formalism of our era. I felt that the highest of what I had seen from the purely human standpoint, and longed to show to others, could not be imparted in the treatment of an historico-political subject; that the mere intellectual exposition of relations made impossible to me the presentment of the purely human Individuality; that I should therefore have had to leave to be unriddled the only and essential thing I was concerned with, and not to bring it actually and sensibly before the Feeling. For these reasons, together with the historico-political subject I necessarily also cast aside that dramatic art-form with which alone it could have been invested: for I recognised that this form had issued only from that subject, and by it alone was justifiable, but that it was altogether incapable of convincingly imparting to the Feeling the purely-human subject on which alone my gaze was henceforth bent; and thus that, with the disappearance of the historico-political subject, there must also necessarily vanish, in the future, the spoken form of play (die Schauspielform), as inadequate to meet the novel subject, incongruous and halting."

Aspects of Wagner

I have added a reference in the article to Aspects of Wagner by Bryan Magee, an excellent set of six essays dealing with, as the title suggests, various Wagnerian issues, including his theory of opera, anti-semitism, the way he influenced music and literature etc. This modest book has enormously increased my understanding of Wagner, and I commend it to everyone who loves his music, and seeks to try and understand better both the music and the man. Peter Maggs

Sounds interesting; what year was it published? nobs 18:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a very good book - short and sharp. It was published around the mid 70s I think. Magee later wrote 'Wagner and Philosophy'. Paul B 23:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my spelling - now corrected (and failing to sign my first post). The book was first published in 1968 with five essays - this was the version I first came across. I recently purchased the book in the 1988 version, now expanded to six essays: Wagner's Theory of Opera, Jews - Not Least in Music, Wagnerolatory, The Influence of Wagner, Wagner in Performance and Wagner as Music. Peter Maggs 05:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps

Perhaps a note that his name is pronouced "Vagner" instead of "Wagner" because W in German sounds like V? -- WB 11:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I added more about his influences on recent art forms...

...especially his popularization of emotional leitmotifs. I have drawn a triangle of links between this article, as well as the articles Star Wars and Final Fantasy, in order to help new generations understand the contributions of Wagner to the emotional power of an "epic" or "romantic" story. Please add comments/criticism, or post on my talk.--Zaorish 08:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wagnerites

I have started the above category for 'People notable for their attachment to the music of Richard Wagner.' Do please populate this with appropriate candidates (and help keep it non-trivial). On a slightly less elevated level I have also created Category:Wikipedian Wagnerites and will be interested to see how many (if any) sign on, apart from myself. --Smerus 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Category:Wagnerites has now attracted a number of entries (and not only from myself) but it has now been put up for deletion on what I consider to be rather aggressively inaccurate grounds - Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_25 - please consider voting for its retention as it serves (imho) a serious purpose in terms of musicology, music history and opera . Thanks - --Smerus 06:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Waitasec

Uno momento. I read this:

"Despite his very public anti-Semitic views, Wagner maintained an extensive network of Jewish friends and colleagues. The most notable of these was Hermann Levi, a practicing Jew whom Wagner chose to conduct the premiere of Parsifal, his last opera."

This statement is puzzling. I've read several biograpies of Wagner. Who wrote this line?

Good King Ludwig forced Wagner to accept Levi's conducting of Parsifal despite Wagner's vehement objections - specifically because of Wagner hated all Jews. (I am not Jewish - I'm an athiest - thank God.) But this line seems to say Wagner and Levi were bosom buddies. This is not the truth. If we learn anything from Wagner, it is that the most beautiful art can come from the most fallable humanity. Let's not poopoo that fact, even if we have to put Wagner in the context of his times.

PS: Rienzi was NOT an artistic "sin." I am tired of hearing this kind of thing about this opera. Let's refrain from repeating fashionable judgments handed down by others who know nothing. Rienzi as a whole may not be perfect, but it contains beautiful themes. Listen to the Overture. Listen to Rienzi's Prayer.

This article is basically pretty good. But the above line is questionable.

Chuck Yokohama

Dear Chuck - wait another second. I have read the passage you quote several times and cannot see anything which implies Wagner and Levi were bosom buddies. It actually makes no comment at all about Levi's feelings. Wagner did indeed have 'an extensive network of Jewish friends and colleagues' and Levi was one of the latter. Levi in fact had a (to me rather sickening) devotion to Wagner despite the latter's boorish behaviour. Now let me quote to you the words of Robert Gutman, a highly critical biographer of Wagner. 'With many Jews - Tausig, Rubinstein, Levi, Lilli Lehmann and her mother, and Neumann (....) (Wagner) could never disentangle genuine affection from a general consuming hate' ('Richard Wagner' (1990), p. 413). No one could ever accuse of Wagner of consistency, a fact which makes it dangerous to jump to immediate judgement on his many failings (and on the failings of those who write about him). And by the way, the bit of the article you complain about was written I think by me.--Smerus 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

a third second - I discover that I did not write the passage in question. Nevertheless I have rewritten it in a way which I hope clarifies and is factually accurate.--Smerus 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does the article say that Rienzi was an "artistic sin"? I can find no such passage. Paul B 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr nobs seems to have an almost evangelical distaste for Rienzi, as evidenced in the discussions above, which is the only point at which the term "sin" is used. But his POV is not expressed in the article. As regards Levi, he wrote to his father (who was a rabbi) as follows regarding Wagner's antisemitism: "His fight against what he calls 'Jewishness', in music and in modern literature springs from the noblest of motives, and the fact that he does not harbour any petty risches...is clearly demonstrated by his relationship with me and with Joseph Rubenstein, and by his earlier intimate friendship with Tausig whom he loved dearly." This may be thought a rather too generous assessment, but it does indicate that there were paradoxes in Wagner's attitudes to Jews. We shouldn't make excuses for him, but we should draw attention to the real complexities of the issue. Paul B 15:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard Wagner category proliferation, or was RW an opera manager?

I see User:Paul Barlow has reverted my deletion of Wagner from the 'opera manager' category. No big deal, however while Wagner did indeed 'manage opera' he was considerably more than the other professional managers like Bing, Christie etc. who are in this category. In his younger days, Wagner's role in the opera house was that of a conductor not a manager.

If you are going to list composers, why stop at Wagner? You can list Verdi, Richard Strauss and probably dozens of others. Almost all composers are involved in the productions of their operas, the selection of singers.

Kleinzach 10:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow writes: "Wagner had huge influence on the staging of opera because of what he did at Bayreuth. Bayreuth is one of the most influential "events" in the history of the management of opera, so to exclude Wagner seems to me to be rather perverse."

'Management is the job that Joe Volpe and co. do. It is the day to day running of the business of an opera house. Wagner did not start Bayreuth for commercial reasons, nor did he attempt to set up an opera company as such. Bayreuth was established to provide an improved musical/aesthetic environment for Wagner's operas. Calling this 'opera management' is inappropriate.

Wagner already has double the number of categories of any other composer. This is an odd kind of way to emphasize his importance.

Kleinzach 16:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Placido Domingo and Jean-Baptiste Lully, who appear in the category, were "also considerably more than the other professional managers like Bing, Christie etc. who are in this category." I don't see what the problem is here. Wagner ran Bayreuth and can also reasonably be described as an opear manager in his earlier work at Dresden, though the concept of an "opera manager" as such did not exist at that time. Paul B 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

additional point: Wagner has "double the number of categories of any other composer" because he did double the number of things that other composers did, for good and ill. Few other composers were also theorists, librettists, racialists, designers etc. Paul B 16:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Wagner did "double the number of things that other composers did" is NOT true. Other composers have conducted, written their own libretti, established festivals and had opinions about production and design. On the other hand few composers, Wagner included, have been directly involved with box office receipts, seat occupancy rates, singer pay scales, union negotiations, programme printing, set building and warehousing. Wagner, as we know, was bankrolled by Ludwig II. Perhaps you would like to list Wagner as an accountant! That at least would be amusing!

Describing an 18th century court official composer (Jean-Baptiste Lully) as an opera manager is anachronistic. Placido Domingo is the General Director of the Washington and Los Angeles Opera which is a management post, separate from his singing.

Enough! I leave it to other contributors to decide whether Wagner-category-mania is useful here.

Kleinzach 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what you are getting worked up about. As far as I know he had no accountancy qualifications.Paul B 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)