Jabotinsky at one point tried to argue that modern Jews are really Aryans. However, those who did grow up being deafened by that tripe will all be dead in a few years and none of it will matter one little bit. Also, you are trying to read Parsifal from the outside. Parsifal is quasi-Buddhist. Kundry looks for self fulfillment in the impulse of sexual love.
Klingsor looks for redemption through power. The grail knights look for it in fading tradition, Amfortas looks for it in death. Only Parsifal renounces self gratification and power and observance of religious tradition and denies in submission to the transcendental. If Kundry was supposed to be a wandering Jew than why is she the character that is meant to evoke the most compassion?
This is not a theory or a myth, and anyone who has read more than a few biographies of him, including his own essay on the subject which he went to great lengths to make public, will know for a fact that Wagner was a devoted anti-Semite. Was he musical genius of the first order, unquestionably, but he was also an awful human being whose views on politics and race had quite a bit of influence among those German nationalists of his own time who also saw the Jews as a threat to the body politic.
Richard Strauss extracted a promise from the Nazi Party that his daughter and son-in-law would be spared during the War and thereafter. Leaving his politics aside entriely I find most oh his music cacophonous and unlistenable, and the singing as if written by a mad man, which come to think of it is true. Felton What can I say? David, do you have any data on that? Had WWII and the holocaust never happened, W would have been considered a great artist with a stupid idea, not more. For W, antisemitism was just an instrument to wake-up people to all kinds of real-existing social and cultural ills, the wrong instrument indeed, but it was not so much a personal thing.
That he tried to undermine the careers of Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn was an attempt to make himself seem more original than he really was — he felt vulnerable in the age when originality was the Great Thing. W felt he had a great mission, and was ridden with anxiety that he might not achieve his ends, and this anxiety was well-founded. A last word upon Barenboim: he belongs to the sort of musicians who identify themselves with the music for their own ego: not love but annexation.
It is some sort of totalitarian mentality….. I would like to ask how it is possible for an individual who wrote that anti-Semitism was as vital to his character as bile is to blood to find it so so easy to separate his nasty prejudices from his art? Of course, music itself commits no crimes.
But Wagner was not merely a composer. He was a polemicist and provocateur, as well as an artist. At the same time, we also find it difficult to look away from the truth of who Wagner was or how he thought. After all, as the author of his own opera libretti, there are instances where it can be argued that aspects of his noxious world view found their way into the plots and characters of some of his operas certainly not all , particularly The Ring and Parsifal, but also in Die Meistersinger.
Of course, it can also be argued that such things are in the eye of the beholder: fair enough. But to dismiss it out of hand without perusing the supporting materials themselves strikes me as willful blindness. While for many artists, the man and the music can be easily separated — Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Chopin — this is not true of Wagner, whose ideas on race permeate his music. That said, it is still music of genius and genuine innovation — which cannot be dismissed as a mere conjuring act — and should not be banned anywhere.
Schopenhauer too was a notorious antisemite. Schopenhauer for your information cancelled suicide as a solution to human problems. Is this an example of his compassion? In fact, the Merchant is less antisemitic than many other plays of the period, for example The Jew of Malta. The problem with our view of the play is that the two main characters Shylock and Portia have become mythic figures who have taken on a life of their own.
Its portrayal of Jews is clearly more nuanced than, say, Jew Suss. The same is true of Wagner. Perhaps Wagner was no more or less an anti-Semite than Bach but the issue of public performances of Wagner is Israel is related to the sensitivities of Holocaust survivors. That generation is leaving us and the issue along with ban as well. The problem is that often that sentiment is just a cover for the reintroduction of anti-Jewish sentiment. You are probably referring to the film. The novel was written by Lion Feuchtwanger it was a protest against antisemitism. That novel was itself based on a novella by the early 19c German Romantic writer Wilhelm Hauff who was not Jewish and in his novella the main character thinks he is a Jew but discovers when sentenced to death that he is not Jewish but decides to go to his death as a Jew.
It is interesting that antisemites were able to turn a novel of protest against antisemitism into an antisemitic film. This in itself in instructive in how we fight against antisemitic prejudice. To me the difference is that Wagner aims at creating a state of reverie in the auditor.
I find the aesthetic aim objectionable. Finally, the law has no reason to occupy itself with art. The problem with some people is that they feel self-conscious when attending a Wagner concert. Many concert goers would like other Israelis to approve of their taste in the arts. To me their stance is a form of bullying the public into acquiescence. When listening to some of his music you can hear his religious sentiment. In other pieces I hear a love of creativity. These are positive messages. When I search for something positive in Wagner, something he believed in I come up with his notion that art should be substitute for life.
Add to this the knowledge that he was a racial chauvinist and I get turned off to his work. Tali Makell: If anyone here is willfully blind it is you. You quote from a Wagner letter to Franz Liszt yet you persistently ignore evidence that goes contrary to your thesis or rather to the sacrosant truth you accepted that can be found in other primary sources. No hard facts support that theory, so it is based on circumstantial evidence, hearsay, personal impressions and extrapolations. Those elegant patriotic verses from exile, tinged with humour and nostalgia, never leave my head.
Once again, I ask how it is possible for someone to express the centrality of anti-Semitism to his character and yet completely avoid including any trace of this prejudice in his art, a question which you and others have failed to answer. I concede that my point of view is based upon my own interpretation of the materials I have read, including his vile essay, Judaism in Music, which he wrote in and submitted twice, once under a pseudonym and once under his own name. As well, I have noted the similarities between certain characters in certain of the operas, i.
He wrote an essay where he clearly states his anti-Semitism in lurid detail, speaks of its centrality to his character in his letter to Liszt, and then constructs characters and situations in his libretti which can be viewed as mirroring aspects of that essay.
Perhaps Wagner had by that time opted to follow his own advice. Tali Makell: You are asking me and others to succeed where sages of various cultures throughout millenia have failed, namely to explain how a human mind and soul work. Dostoyevsky was an antisemite , yet there is no stretch of imagination that has or ever will find a trace of antisemitism in his novels.
Yet, it was. And these are just on top of my head, picks of a very large bunch. Wagner is held up to scrutiny and standards no other artist has been. In his art every stretch of imagination is used to artificially support portrayals of him as a cultural founder of the Third Reich. Even death is no defense for Richard Wagner, so what chance have the facts got? Look especially at the ending; the same with The Possessed. Wagner did not believe in individual creative freedom.
He has a deterministic point of view which is something that many composers rebelled against. Parsifal is a good example. Even Anton Bruckner who was a Wagner devotee in his fifth symphony portrays a dialogue between himself the weaker voice and the domineering Wagner. Now Bruckner too was no friend of the Jews as Mahler knew, but his music reflects a beleaguered creative spirit and his private prejudices should be viewed in that light. I also like the music of Shostakovich. Wagner dabbled in far more areas than the level of his expertise in those areas justified.
He thought of himself as a major thinker and philosopher, as well an artist, and rarely kept his ideas or opinions private, but trumpeted them in essays which were published in his lifetime, and remain in print. So that alone opens him up to scrutiny and criticism. His anti-Semitism, while loathsome, was quite different from that of the Nazis , and he was far less interested in German nationalism than he was in the position he thought that he and his music should occuoy within a unified Germany.
But first he had to denigrate and discredit the competition. He believed that Germans had valued Mendelssohn talents above his own. So he resolved to get a little of his own back by railing against Jews in his writings. This made him popular among certain right-leaning nationalist types in Germany and elsewhere, who wished to banish what they considered Jewish influence from their culture, and, of course, this links in with the banking interests of the Rothschilds, which had helped to finance the existing political order.
Put simply, Wagner is a special case which demands attention because of the extent of his ambition and the high level of his talents. But I do not regard him as the cultural founder of the Third Reich. Rather, he placed his talents at the service of those parties whose ideas influenced the thinking of the founders of the Third Reich. I dislike his aesthetic as much as I abhor his politics.
So, regardless of my problems with him, I am unable to dismiss him altogether. Nietzsche and Debussy felt similarly, and I fully understand why they thought as they did. I think the music should be performed even as I believe the man and his thinking should be condemned. His is that rare example of the heights and the depths to which an individual and his art can rise and sink simultaneously.
It was Nietzsche who espoused celebrating the narcissistic impulse. What you say are obviously racist elements in Parsifal and the Ring is you projecting your interpretation onto it — the non-racist symbolism and meaning becomes obvious once you understand Schoepenhauer and it becomes plain that Alberich and Kundry are not meant to represent Jews at all.
That defenders of Wagner have to resort to lies and misrepresentation is another argument against them. One of the arguments Nietzsche marshals against Wagner is his antisemitism which he said he hated. Nietzsche hated antisemitism not to be confused with a love of Jews because he associated it with the herd.
He thought that antisemitism was what the common man; especially socialists in his day took refuge in. Though today many socialists have made common cause again with some antisemitic parties. This has been known for a while and I am surprised that the Wagnerite Vacuous should not have known it. Umm, show me where I said that Nietzsche was an antisemite? I specifically said he was not but that his philosophy was Nazi. You have just agreed with me in your last post so where is my misrepresentation?
While all other religions endeavor to explain to the people by symbols the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations. You can learn from the former two in spite of their prejudices, but unless you are a musician you can only admire him.
Fascist anti-semitism was based in Nietzchian will to power and an idea of asserting the will not in denying it out of compassion. Life is complex. Things are not black and white. It is possible to be a jew-adoring fascist just like it is possible to be an anti-semite whose beliefs are the polar opposite of a Nazi. Nietzsche and Wagner are good examples of this. It is, unfortunately, a very common falsehood that Nietzsche was the philosopher of the Nazis.
First off, Nietzsche never advocated a complete philosophical idea that can be so easily boiled down into a system; he fought against systems. His writing influenced a large and varied group of people, including Freud, Isadora Duncan, Alexander Scriabin, Thomas Mann, the Surrealists, the Existentialists, and post-modern philosophers, among many others.
- Climb that Fence and take that Leap.
- Oil and Water!
- Past Events.
- Harry Houdini #4: Prince of Air (The Treasure Chest);
It was only after the Second World War that scholars finally got their hands on the original texts and saw that there was absolutely no connection between Nietzsche and the Nazis. It is long past time that this canard be retired once and for all. While Nietzsche may have despised the herd mentality of nationalism, the ultimate expression of the power of the will in a narcissistic dictator at the top of his bent and untrammelled by inhibitions is when that will is used to subjugate and dominate those wills inferior to it and the ultimate subjugation is enslaving an entire people to one will.
Btw: Antisemitism was the basis of nazi ideology. This is obvious to anyone who has read Mein Kampf. Also Fascism and Nazism have many political ideals in common but are not the same ideology. Also Fascists for the most part were antisemitic. The exception was due to some Fascists not willing to attack Jews in their country, though when the chips were down they all, like Mussolini, turned on the Jews. They therefore composed music to achieve popularity and, thereby, financial success, as opposed to creating genuine works of art.
This is such crap. There is no such thing as the self realization of power in Nietzsche and the above sound more like a Dale Carnegie saying. People who embrace him distort history in order to justify their taste. I get along just fine without his music. Music appreciation is a totally subjective pursuit.
To me, Wagner sounds like a ridiculous relic of a bygone era of European grandeur. Is there an actual demand to hear Wagner performed in Israel, or is this more about classical musicians wishing to perform it? Israel seems like it will somehow survive even without Wagner being celebrated by its symphonies. Jacob, I know that Wagner was an anti-semite. I said as much. But what Wagner was not was a fascist. Schoepenhauer saw all expressions of the will as tragic and the source of all conflict and espoused renouncing it in favour of compassion.
My point is that anti-semitism and fascism are not always one and the same. Nietzsche took the repudiation of Schoepenhauers denial of the will as his departure point for his philosophical contribution. He asserted the will and advocated that assertion to be without restraint. Whether what the will wishes for is primitive or not is moot. Schoepenhauer [and Wagner] believed that expressing the will was the source of all conflict.
Parisfal gives up the will, so does Wotan [etc]. Schoepenhauer [and Wagner] also believed in the transcendental and so values are still based in a realm higher than man. Nietzsche espouses that the phenomenal realm is all there is and values are self-determined. When he uses Nietzsche as an example he is ironically wrong.
Well, as I think I have made clear, this is not what I have been advocating. I link Wagner to the political thinking of his own times, though elements of that thinking led to National Socialism. Wagner made the effort to connect himself with the aspirations of German nationalists who were also anti-Semites.
forbidden knowledge Manual
The final speech that Sachs makes at the conclusion of Meistersinger makes that much clear:. I beg you; honor your German masters, thus will you ban disasters! And if you have their work at heart, though the Holy Roman domain fall apart, there would still remain holy German art! Their choice was either to assimilate completely and lose their Jewishness, or be thrown out of Germany. So, as I see it, there is a distinct difference between 19th century German nationalism and what followed in the 20th century, though who could deny the influence the earlier form had on the latter form?
I believe that everyone has made his or her point at great length and I doubt any minds will be changed by prolonged discussion. We are beginning to repeat ourselves. Chopin and Schumann make you think; your reflection on what they are doing, your double-take, as it were, is written into the score. You can analyze them to death and still enjoy them. Koehler shows that you can claim as much influence for Schelling or Feuerbach as for Schopenhauer.
Its funny, the jews have genocided countless peoples they come across, just ask a philistine or a caananite, oh thats right, you cant, they are all dead yet cry the loudest if anyone calls them on their self righteous to the point of self destructive behaviour. I have a question for jews, if say god reanimates the phillistines and caananites and they move to America does that mean we can remove all jewish influeced movie, books and media from our lives?
History is a funny thing, you can try to erase it, twist it or ignore it but it has a way of popping up in a way that you cannot deny or decieve. I find jews to be the most racist and violent of all humanity, they know better yet justify the most outlandish actions by bringing up the past, the fact you got kicked out of Egypt for not participating in the countries mass building projects when your mercenary services where no longer required comes to mind, even after they let you leave you stole everything not nailed down and then concoted some bullcaca story to cover up YOUR crimes.
It hasnt changed in all these millenia and you expect equality from people you dont even consider human. Ignorance may be excusable but anyone a trifle conversant with the beliefs and rituals of Christianity cannot but be impressed by the insidious plagiarism of Holy Communion into a snarky racist blood rite as well as other examples of perversions. Nazism set out to replace Christianity and what better way to promote its ideology than to subvert the symbols and rituals of its hated enemy and turn them upsidedown in the name of blood purity? This is the famous bait and switch of advertising.
By appearances, you think you are getting one product but in this case religion and ritual have been morphed into horrible caricatures instead. But caricature can be turned on itself as when bad comedians actually are funny because they are ridiculous. The science of blood purity that the Third Reich prided itself on is a sick joke.
So it is doubtful now that Parsifal will usher in a new cult. Sorry, Richard! Perhaps someone should do a camp version of Parsifal in the manner of Prince Poppycock to dispel its faux seriousness. Cults and dictatorships usually suffer from a default of humor — likewise Wagnerian opera. Call it funny, laugh at it and its power is gone. Kundry is a lot like Tannhauser , torn between self-abandonment to sexual gratification and dutifully contributing to an ordered society.
Parsifal is like Siegfried — ignorant and fearless. Klingsor is a lot like Alberich who sacrifices love for power losing his special member to do so. Gurnemanz is similar to Wotan at the end of the Ring — all understanding but unable to act. Amfortas is like Tristan — dying endlessly of a wound acquired by making love, his longing both killing and keeping him alive his needing redemption from his act of love refutes the idea that Wagner saw cosmic redemption in love death. It is through compassion that Parsifal comes to a deep understanding of all things as under Schoepenhauer in the ultimate depth of the noumenal non-empirical being, we are all one so to hurt one is to hurt all.
Parsifal is a type of Christian who masters the empirical out of his ethics of compassion founded in the metaphysical. Wagner could not have been more clear about trying to represent Jews on stage. He simply did not. Only the Jews survived that exile. There is no evidence from an historical point of view that the Israelite and Canaanites merged. Moreover people like Jeff who consider the Bible myth tend to use it as if it were historical fact if the can use to attack Jews.
The only people the Israelites made total war on were the Amalekites and that was because the latter attacked them intending to wipe them out after they left Egypt. History has not verified this as an actual event. It is a fact though that most wars fought in the ancient world were what we could call genocidal wars. Killing off the enemy and taking their women as slaves was how people fought in those days.
I know of no other ancient epic were the writers question the morality of such wars. The Bible is unique in that it does so. Does any Jew identify with say Fagin of Oliver Twist? Yet here too we get an antisemitic portrayal.
We are discussing Wagner and no one else. And you have not shown that he was not an antisemite, or that he did not influence the Nazis. The problem with Jewish Wagnerites is that they have to deny reality and therefore have to blame Jews when they realize that their hero was indeed an antisemite. Wagner is cocking a snook at Christianity this time in Parsifal. Seeking out anti-Semitic prototypes here is getting sidetracked.
Anyone steeped in Christian ritual can recognize the symbolism and their perversions here. But Wagner was not so delicate about it.
He even said that art is to rescue or at least revive religion. The weird resurrection of Titurel and the healing of the ever bleeding wound menstruation? The not so subtle implication is that brains are not important or the rule of law, the sum total of human knowledge transmitted through generations. With regard to the statement that Wagner did not want to represent Jews because of their alleged appearance, well, a few remaining photos of Cosima shows what a horse he was living with and perhaps a good reason to escape into the world of his imagination and extra-marital affairs.
Subtlety is lost on you.
taylor.evolt.org/lizeg-dating-english-en.php Go back and find me where I said Wagner was not anti-semitic. Anyways, why would you want to insist on a racial and anti-semitic interpretation of his opera against all logic when there are more feasible alternatives? I refuse to admit that the characteristics of Alberich, Mime and Kundry are meant to be Jewish: show me one bit of hard evidence apart from internalized stereotypes in support of your paranoid assertion?
Jeff is wrong — it seems that not all the Philistines are extinct in Israel. As for Kundry, the reason for her wandering has to do with the fact that she mocked Christ on his way to his crucifixion. Once again, I quote Wagner himself:. But bethink ye, that only one thing can redeem you from your curse; the redemption of Ahasuerus — Going under! That was my point. With all due respect, this confuses the issue and gives aid and comfort to those who wish to let Wagner completely off the hook.
Once again, Wagner allowed himself and his art to be used by those German nationalists who came before the Nazis and may have influenced them. It is for that alone that Israel may want to approach the man and his music gingerly. But, as the old saying goes, sunlight is the best antiseptic, and coming to grips with Wagner in a special way that may be necessary in a Jewish state strikes me as a far better option than an outright ban.
And there is a reasonable argument that public examination rather than an outright ban of Wagner is preferable. At the end of the day I support the ban. I agree that Wagner not only was but also contributed to the culture of antisemitism in Germany during his life time and after. However, I would oppose a ban on his music in Israel if there were one in place.
Since there is no such ban the question is moot. And it is appalling such an article find its way into this liberal publication. Point is, no amount of listening to Wagner will ever make you an anti-semite. No amount of listening to Wagner will cause you to distrust Jews. What I have enjoyed about this sorry article is the informed comments by people who appear to be truly knowledgeable about Wagner and take his art form at face value. To demean his music by calling his compositional technique a bag of tricks is to demean your own judgement. It was radical, new and refreshing for its time.
Do you want to call Mahler prestidigitationist too? Be careful of how you use big words! Anyway, compositionally Wagner and Mahler are virtually identical. First of all, Mahler, for most his his career, was pretty diatonic and only got into the dicier stuff later on, especially in the later symphonies and Das Lied von der Erde. While Wagner had dispensed with the symphonic form perfected by Beethoven, Mahler still utilizes sonata-allegro, Rondos, Scherzos and all the other classical forms, however much he expanded them, which Wagner had declared obsolete. But I tend to agree with your comments about banning music or any art, especially within a free society.
Though I do think that sensitivity towards those who survived the Holocaust should be observed.
Gabriel ben Avarham, no one is talking about banning Wagner and you assumptions are a red herring. I would guess by your argument which is a red herring and that show a low level of understanding that you are not ready to seriously engage the issues. Finally is your name really Gabriel ben Abraham?
You have chosen such a fancy medieval name that I had to ask. Even without the added virus of anti-semitism,it was a shock assault on both rules-based ethical and musical traditionalism and on the optimistic liberalism of the nineteenth century and was, hence, part of the aesthetic background that made Fascism including the initially non antisemitic Italian variety possible.
And, in addition, of course, Wagner was an obsessive and committed antisemite. But Wagner was different. Not only was his art a conscious expression of his aesthetic theories. These theories were themselves part of his broader ideological Weltanschauung. To some extent, the same was true of his father-in-law , Liszt, who similarly claimed the right to break all the rules, both aesthetic and ethical.
Full marks to Schumann for throwing Liszt out of his house for insulting his friend Mendelssohn. After all, outright racism and anti-religion would not have passed so well in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He himself would have clearly been regarded as perfidious rather than morally ambiguous, the way he is being excused now. His backup writings though leave no doubt as to the extent of his anarchic worldview and opera was his intended medium to propagandize the masses.
They would bask in the perfumed ecstasy of his harmonies while being led like sheep to his libertine philosophy. Kundry in Parsifal indeed is a case in point. Wagner consulted many medieval texts to arrive at a composite for many of his operatic characters. His contempt and hatred existed on many levels not confined to anti-Semitism alone. The real Magdalena was forgiven. Mahler may have used some artifice in his music like any artist but they were not a front for a revolution.
Wagner would not have applauded the Third Reich? The play cannot be separated from the playright here. He was dead serious about the crash and burn of civilized society based on Judeo-Christian ethics. If Barenboim would actually move to the Palestinian territories or some other Muslim hell-hole perhaps someone who takes anti-Semitism and the deaths of Israeli citizens seriously would emerge to make a real case for Wagner.
In the arts, every generation is looking for new modes of expression, and the early and late Romantic musicians were no exception. As far as breaking rules, as Beethoven proved, rules are meant to be broken. The question is what replaces the status quo. Wagner, Liszt, Berlioz and others believed that music should connect itself to the other arts and that the older forms, based on the old baroque dance forms, should be superseded by quasi-literary ones. But they still wanted to ensure formal cohesion and comprehensibility, which is why Liszt and Berlioz used recurring musical motifs, which are transformed or expanded to conform to extra-musical ideas or events.
Yet Liszt especially retains aspects of sonata form in most of his larger tone poems, or the portmanteau approach to form in works such as his B-minor Sonata, which has a four movement set up contained within a single movement format. It was adaptations such as these which Wagner used in his own ways, and this is where leitmotifs come in. They are not mere signature tunes for characters and events. They change through expansion, contraction or through other subtle variation techniques to accommodate dramatic development in the operas. Brahms was not the old fogey some historians insist that he was.
The real revolution was the use of chromaticism, the twelve equal half-steps which divide the octave instead of the usual eight note mixture of whole and half-steps which made up the diatonic scale. Now, it was used to express unfulfilled yearning, as well. The use of the chromatic scale was what was new about the music of Wagner and Liszt, and it had the effect of weakening the sense of key, which had been the basis of musical composition since the baroque era.
This is the sort of pablum fed to undergraduates in music appreciation classes. Classical composition uses all the techniques that one finds in Wagner or Liszt or Richard Strauss, but it subordinates them to goal-oriented tonal motion. It is teleological in character which is why classical music had such a close relationship with Christianity. Different aesthetic, different purpose. But there is no question that even if there are similar progressions in earlier music, there are clear differences in application.
Finally, their innovations, both formal and harmonic, influenced any number of composers who followed, from Debussy to Schoenberg, Bartok, Scriabin, Richard Strauss, Mahler and many others. And they too perceived the differences between earlier uses of chromaticism and the way in which Liszt and Wagner used it. He owned scores of several operas which he admired and kept to his dying day. But Brahms was much more of a musicologist than most other Romantic composers and felt it his mission to preserve tradition intact rather than subverting it.
Nevertheless, he too was an innovator. Wagner was always a well-known anti-semite and some people use that as a stick to beat his opera with. Her circumstantial situation as a component of the myth of the wandering jew is periphery to the meaning of her role. I and many others enjoy Ws opera without seeing a connection to his anti-semitism which is now supposed to be self-evident. A typical example of the retrospective type casting I mentioned earlier occurs with characters such as Mime and Alberich.
If this is the truth then the communists and socialists that emerged at the time must be seen to be anti-semitic as well. I cannot believe that this considered to be a valid form of argument — especially coming from a Jew! It is the allegation that smacks of anti-semitism! That said, I appreciate your general stance on this topic Tali — you are less psycho-emotive in your interpretation than many others on here.
As for Alberich, he is meant to be the dark side of Wotan and is even called Licht-Alberich. What is Jewish about Wotan? This sort of thing is done all the time, particularly in political circles. Of course, there is deniability here, as there usually is. But given the sensitivities in the US and considering its long history of racial injustice, the fact that such language was used in this context strikes me and others as an indication of the audience this candidate is trying to appeal to. This is the sort of thing in which I and others feel that Wagner indulged.
He produces an evil son, Hagen, to recover the gold he has lost to Wotan. But his motivation is money and power. Again, a common stereotype of Jews at the time and one which Wagner invoked in his essay. Wotan is a god, a superior being despite his character flaws. Clearly, he is not intended to be a stand-in for Jews, even if he too sought power. He is noble regardless of his many errors which is not the case with either Alberich or Hagen, who leaps into the Rhine to catch hold of the Ring even as the world around him is being destroyed.
Of course these elements did not lead directly to Treblinka. But they were symptomatic of a shift in European sensibilities that made possible the visceral political irrationalism of the early twentieth century. Yes, Beethoven too was a conscious iconoclast and was similarly influenced by the non-musical Zeitgeist. But it was a different epoch in which different and, to my mind, less hateful, ideas were bubbling to the surface. And forgive my mischievousness over Brahms. A thread about Wagner without a Hanslickian voice is a bit lacking. Recent scholarship has thrown doubt on that claim, although the rumor persists.
I can certainly see your point. I find his racism far more difficult to stomach than his use of chromatic progressions which, however much they lacked novelty, were nonetheless revolutionary simply because no one had used them in quite the same way before. Anyway, not everyone will find any music to his or her liking, and that is fine.
I just find it a bit problematic that there is some equivalency being proposed in this article between musico-aesthetic values and racism, something which I find difficult to swallow. Nor do I personally have a huge problem with the nature of his musical innovations, although they are not to my taste. It is his pretentious and self-glorifying stance as iconoclast, poet of hitherto unfathomed profundity and harbinger of elemental and essentially amoral change, as reflected in his music, that troubles me.
To put it another way, the fact that Wagner develops a new musical language is of little significance in this context. Similarly significant are the attitudes, themes and overall Weltanschauung, to which Wagner with some justification finds his musical language appropriate. He is symptomatic in the extreme of a dangerous but seductive mindset that became all too common amongst European intellectuals in the second half of the nineteenth century and which helped create the aesthetic backcloth of Fascism, whether or not you throw Antisemitism into the already toxic mix.
- List of No Such Thing as a Fish Episodes · andrew-t/fish Wiki · GitHub.
- Music - Best books online;
- Performances of Wagner’s music are effectively banned in Israel. Should they be??
- Site Navigation.
- Performances of Wagner’s music are effectively banned in Israel. Should they be?.
- Why Recover Suppressed Music?.
Koehler is the Hermann Rauschning of Wagner studies. To quote Ian Kershaw, he has so little authenticity it is best to disregard him altogehter. No offense, but you had me fooled at first. The fact that Wagner ventured into other areas is irrelevant. It was more a result of his character traits compulsive outspokenness, occasional delusions of grandeur then anything else. And if Hitler and nazism had never happened those ventures would have been treated as a footnote, just like music composed by Friedrich the Great is a footnote of his historical persona.
But this just proves my point about Wanger scrutinized more then others. Nobody when he or she writes of T. Truer words were never spoken and Mr. According to your logic, Gollum is also an anti-Jewish stereotype. And Scrooge McDuck. And Lex Luthor. And scores of other characters in classic literature and pop-culture that are both physically unattractive and obsessed with power and money.
I suppose we should end this conversation with an agreement that we disagree on this…. I am referring to Wagner here, not to every other writer of fiction or comedy who ever created a physically unattractive character. Context is everything here and it strikes me that one must remain focused on the issue at hand. But you asked for some solid proof and I offered it, which you can either consider rationally or object to, as you wish. It was more a result of his character traits compulsive outspokenness, occasional delusions of grandeur.
I think the one follows from the other. He ventured into areas where he was not as expert as he was as a composer and often came up with outrageous suggestions or ideas as well as consciously stepping on the toes or sensibilities of others. Again, I am not thinking here in general terms, but in terms specific to Wagner. Preparing for a performance requires one to recreate in ones mind the thinking processes of the composer at work. The fact that there are so many differing ideas of individual works by different performers is a clear indication that this process is not an exact science, but it beats the alternatives.
I agree that it is disgraceful of him to basically ask of Jews to stop being Jews but great European powers of the era had more or less such policies towards minorities and what they percieved as alien cultures. Again, our subject is Wagner. That is the individual whose thought and its possible effect upon his work I am referring to. Anti-Semitism is a rather old prejudice and any number of artists subscribed to it throughout history. But few spelled it out in as much detail as Wagner did, and that is the reason I believe as I do.
But it is true that he associated himself and his work with the aspirations of 19th century German nationalists, among whom there were many anti-Semites. He very consciously allowed it to take him over hook, line and sinker. I think that any serious Wagnerian must keep this in mind in order to avoid being swept up in all the sound and fury his music dramas use to make their points. In short, great composer, deeply flawed individual. Rarely has this level of genius resided in such a shoddy vessel.
We do not agree as to whether there are antisemitic elements in his works. I believe there are none, you think otherwise, you presented some evidence to support your claim, I found it unconvincing…If this is a correct assesment of the situation I think we can end our discussion with the conclusion that we agree to disagree on the last issue.
To end it on a lighter note and just out of curiosity, what is your favourite Wagner piece? Lots of sublime moments in Parsifal too. That bit is terribly beautiful to me. Both excellent choices. I love the Prize Song from Meistersinger do you know the Brahms Violin Sonata which begins with a brief reference to it?
It is the Second violin Sonata in A major ; the Kurfreitag music from Parsifal, along with all of act 2 of the same opera. I love the Procession of the Knights music in Act 1. The Siegfried Idyll, the opening of Siegfried. Well, that is a bit extreme. Goldman neglected to include in his list of artists that Wagner imitated a non-Jewish composer, i.
Franz Schubert. But composers borrow either consciously or subconsciously from other composers. It is often difficult to prove which is the case. Did you know that the Tristan Prelude has things in common with the opening of the Balcony scene from the Berlioz Romeo et Juliette? As well, Ravel borrowed from Debussy in his String Quartet. It is a common practice. I think the world would be a far better place. And by that I do mean his music, not his libretto or the person.
Goldman wants to ban Wagner and in a liberal society, that is the definition of a dangerous idea. But to actually ban the music would be an unconscionable discredit to the generosity and enlightenment of a great people. I think we can. I think silencing a worthy intellectual contribution because the contributor held repugnant views minimally related to the work is gauche at best and repugnant in itself at worst.
Should Jewish scientists in Israel and elsewhere refuse to discuss his uncertainty principle because he supported the Nazi party? Any scientist studying relevant topics would find himself left in the dust if he tried this. In the same way, one who ignores a valuable non-scientific contribution for reasons mostly or completely irrelevant to the work is doing themselves and the quality of their own contributions a grave disservice.
Your article is a bit disingenuous in that it makes it seem that Wagner has been the only composer silenced. You completely fail to mention how Israel also silences or silenced? Heifetz could never play the violin the same again after his arm was injured on his Israeli tour by a crowbar-wielding young Jew angry about his choice to play pieces by Strauss.
This omerta encompasses a number of intellectuals with suspect views unrelated to their works, not just Wagner. Theodosius alone. The Roman empire divided. On July 25, , marshal Soult was defeated by the British entering France. The largest in the world is said to be that over a riding-school at Moscow, erected in , being feet in span. The proposed width of the roof of the London station of the Slidland railway is feet One was patented by Richard March in , and by Edmd.
Cartwright, in Many improvements have been made since. Rosamond was daughter of lord Clifford, and mistress of Henry II. A conspiracy was formed by the queen, prince Henry, and his other sons, against the king, on account of his attachment to her. Henry kept her in a labyrinth at Woodstock, where his queen, Eleanor, it is said, discovered her apartments by the clueof a silk thread, and poisoned her. She was buried at Godstow church, from whence Hugh, bishop of Lincoln, had her ashes removed, Tailour, which ended in the capture or destruction of eleven armed vessels in the bay.
I, Here Charles YI. At Rosbach, in Prussia, a great battle was fomghbetween the Prussians, commanded by Frederick the Great, and the combined army d French and Austrians, in which the latter sustained a complete defeat and severe "loc Nov. S, The union of the roses was effected in the marriage c4 Henry VII. April 19, The Turks repulsed the British here, May 21, Near Kosetta, at the mouth of the Nile, was fought the memorable battle of Aug.
I, , between the fieoU France and England, the latter commanded by Nelson. See Nik. Ali Pacha rendered gra; service to his country by constructing a canal between Rosetta and Alexandria. Magi of Persia, and GymnOsophists of tho Indies, taught the same doctrine. Ireland , a bishopric founded, it is supposed, by St. Faclman, in tik beginning of the 6th century. See Bislwps; New Boss. A society who met at Miles's Coffee-house in New Palace-yard, 'Westminster, during the administration of Oliver Cromwell: their plan was that all the great officers of state should be chosen by ballot: and that a certain number of members of parliament should be changed annually by rotation, from whence they took their title.
Sir William Petty was one of tho members in Meyer Amschel, or Anselm, was born at No. In he began business as a money-lender anii dealer in old coins, in the same house, over which he placed the sign of the Red Shield in German, Roth Schild. Roger's grandson, Richard duke of York, first openly claimed the crown in Attempts at compromise failed, and the war began in The Lancastrians were dofoatcd at St. Albans, May 23, The protector Somerset was slain; a truce was made, and Richard became his successor.
The war was renewed, and the Yorkists defeated the Lancastrians at Bluroheath, Sept. In , he defeated bis opponents at Northampton, took Henry prisoner, and was declared heir to the crown ; but fell into an ambuscade near Wakefield, and was put to duath, Dec. His son Edward continued the struggle. The struggle ended with tho defeat and death of Richard III. Hamilton, who deposited it in the British Museum.
In 1S41, Mr. Lctronne published the text and a translation of the Greek inscription. It is a piece of black basalt, about 3 feet long, and 2i feet wide, with an inscription in three languages, viz, hieroglyphics, modified hieroglyphics enchorial , and Greek, setting forth the praises of Ptolemy Epiphanes about ac. It has been investigated by Dr. Young and Cbampollion. At his death his sons continued the business as u-tners.
His son, Nathan, began at Manchester in , removed to Loudon in ; and ed immensely rich, July 28, Its importance dates from the 13th century. It suffered much from the French volutionary wars, aud from inundations in and Desiderius Erasmus was born 3re in The museum and picture-gallery of Rotterdam were destroyed at the fire of le Schieland palace, Feb.
France , an archbishopric, , became the capital of Normandy in the 10th 3ntnry. It was held by the English king till ; and was retaken by Henry V. Joan of Arc, the maid of Orleans, was burnt here, May 30, It was subdued by :ie king of France in ; and was besieged and Iu the civil war which began in , the adherents of Charles I.
The term, it is aid. Sec i'. Here the royalists defeated the parliamentarians with great slaughter, July 13, A society of artists met in St. Peter's-court, St. From this sprang the Royal Academy, in consequence of a dispute between the directors and the fellows. On Dec. The first exhibition of the Academicians at Pall-Mali was in In the king granted them apartments in old Somerset-house, and afterwards, in , in new Somerset-house, where they remained till , when they removed to the National Gallery.
Turner, the painter, gave funds to the academy for the award of a medal triennially for landscape painting, which was awarded to Mr. Lupton in A commission of inquiry into the affairs of the academy, appointed in , recommended various changes in July, I Sir Thomas Lawrence.
Benjamin West Sir Charles Eastlake, died Doc. Tho first concert took place Dec. Its re-construction is proposed See Wrecks, , If the king assent to a public bill, the clerk of tho parliament declares the Norman French, " Lc roy le veut," the king wills it so to be. If the king refuses his assent, it is in the gentle language of " Le roy s'avisera," the king will advise upon it This is the language usually adopted to the present day.
By the statute 33 Hen. Blackslont's Com. The foundation of the original edifice was laid by sir Thomas Gresham, June 7, , on the site of the ancient Tun prison. Queen Elizabeth opened it in Jan. It was totally destroyed by the great fire, Sept. Charles II. Hawkesmore, a pupil of sir Christopher Wren's, in about three years; it was repaired and beautified in This also was burnt, Jan. Tho new Royal Exchange, commenced iu under the direction of Mr. Tite, was opened by the queen, Oct. See Humane Society.
The House in Albemarle-street, Piccadilly was purchased in Juno, ; and ttao present front was added by subscription in The Lecture theatre was erected in , under the superintendence of Mr.
The Library was commenced in , by the munificent subscriptions of the proprietors of the institution. It now comprises aboutss. Classified catalogues by W. Harris were published in md ; a new one by B. Vincent in The first Lecture was delivered March, 4, , by Dr. Garnett, he being the first professor of natural philosophy and chemistry. In he was succeeded by Dr.