The Wagner-Dippers

[Lisztianwagner]

He means by 'dipping', Ilaria, listening to the Ring in relatively small selected samples (eg one Act or in even smaller chunks), rather than listening to it in its entirety.

Thank you, Alan; 'dipping' has different meanings in italian, but I had guessed the correct one

I can't call myself a Wagner dipper at all; even when I start listening to his operas with the intention of restricting myself to just few scenes, I always end up listening to a whole act, going on more and more till I have to turn off the CD player. Wagner's music moves me too much with its deep beauty and haunting power!

[Karl Henning]

Ah, those haunted dips!

[nico1616]

In the case of Wagner, it might be useful to think of (drama/music). There are passages of Wagner where it mightn't matter in the slightest to me what was going on dramatically, because the music alone is so electrifying. (I don't say I can justify this in any critical sense; merely that sometimes I just react like that.) There are other times when the drama is so compelling that I almost miss what's going on in the music. And of course there are all sorts of in-between situations.

I'd maybe observe that when listening to the Wotan monologue in Valkyrie Act 2, it's absolutely crucial to keep a grip on what is unfolding dramatically. That doesn't mean the music is unimportant, but I don't think I'd be able to sustain an interest in it, separate from the drama. So it's a situation where the appropriate mind-set is pretty much essential.

You just made clear to me what my problem with Wagner is: I don't relate to the drama. I could not care less for Wotan's fate, since I keep on seeing him as a constructed opera character. And that is a problem with all of Wagner characters: Tristan and Lohengrin may have the most exquisite music, but I am never moved by them beyond a musical point.

That is why I love Puccini and Verdi so much more. When Butterfly is waiting for her Pinkerton to return, my heart breaks. When Aida sings her 'Ritorna Vincitor', I feel the dilemma she faces. When Otello humiliates his Desdemona, I see jealousy impersonated. Even Handel can tear your soul apart with his lamentos or can create portraits, especially of women (Agrippina, Semele), that are so easy to relate with.

So I guess drama and heart are quite related to me...

[Elgarian]

You just made clear to me what my problem with Wagner is: I don't relate to the drama. I could not care less for Wotan's fate, since I keep on seeing him as a constructed opera character. And that is a problem with all of Wagner characters: Tristan and Lohengrin may have the most exquisite music, but I am never moved by them beyond a musical point.

That is why I love Puccini and Verdi so much more. When Butterfly is waiting for her Pinkerton to return, my heart breaks. When Aida sings her 'Ritorna Vincitor', I feel the dilemma she faces. When Otello humiliates his Desdemona, I see jealousy impersonated. Even Handel can tear your soul apart with his lamentos or can create portraits, especially of women (Agrippina, Semele), that are so easy to relate with.

I suppose, reading this, that I ought to ask whether I listen to Wagner in a different way (in a different frame of mind perhaps?) to when I listen to Puccini, Handel etc. I think the answer must be at least partly yes, on at least two grounds:

1. For many years, when I was in my twenties, Wagner was the only 'opera' I could tolerate. I couldn't understand how anyone could be satisfied with (what I then thought of) as so much less. What appealed to me was the sense of inhabiting a great myth; of experiencing the unfolding of a tale of profound consequence. When I listened to the Ring, I was being put in touch with a whole range of archetypes, as well as being immersed in the most amazing music I'd ever heard. Now that very fact - that I wanted the Ring or nothing - suggests that I was approaching Wagner in a completely different way.

2. Fortunately I climbed down from this rather austere pinnacle and began to enjoy Puccini, first and most obviously, gradually taking in the range of operas that I frequently listen to, and love, now.

But there really is (I think I see) a difference in the way I listen in these two cases. In the case of all my favourite operas, I'm perfectly happy to pull out favourite arias and listen to them without any need to concern myself with the opera as a whole (except where I can't help but remember the basics of the plot). I have listened dozens and dozens of times, to 'Dopo Notte' (punching the air with exhilaration) and 'Scherza Infida' (on the edge of tears) without any reference to the plot of Ariodante at all. I'm not saying that I don't want to listen to Cosi Fan Tutte all the way through - of course I do; but if I listen to 'Soave sia il vento' separately, I listen to it as an exquisitely moving aria regardless of where it came from.

I'm completely incapable of doing this with Wagner. No matter what bleeding chunk I listen to, I'm straight into Siegmund and Sieglinde's passion, or Wotan and Brunnhilde on the rock. I can't separate any of it from the whole. So for me, there really is a different mode of listening. It's not a difference in degrees of excellence (I don't say one is better than the other, and if you try to take my recordings of La Rondine, I'll fight no less fiercely than if you have eyes for my Ring box sets); it's a fundamental difference of type. I'm talking about about chalk and cheese, not stilton and cheddar.

[Sergeant Rock]

I don't relate to the drama.....I could not care less for Wotan's fate, since I keep on seeing him as a constructed opera character.

I see him as a hen-pecked husband, torn hopelessly between his moral duty to uphold the human status quo (Traditional Family Values, to put it into a late 20th century American context) and his pragmatic need to preserve the power of the Gods, using whatever means necessary to justify his ends. A constructed charater? No, I definitely don't see him that way. He's a god, but a character we can relate to. His dilemma is shared by many human males. He begins as a god (like every father) and ends a pitiful has-been, forced to sacrifice the very ones he loves the most, and finally discarded by the one he thought would save him.

That is why I love Puccini and Verdi so much more. When Butterfly is waiting for her Pinkerton to return, my heart breaks.

And what about Brünnhilde, tricked into betraying of the man she loves? Her predicament moves you not at all? A goddess who lost everything, was redeemed through love, and loses everything once again? Butterfly breaks my heart too....but Brünnhilde's suicide no less so.

Sarge

[nico1616]

I see him as a hen-pecked husband, torn hopelessly between his moral duty to uphold the human status quo (Traditional Family Values, to put it into a late 20th century American context) and his pragmatic need to preserve the power of the Gods, using whatever means necessary to justify his ends. A constructed charater? No, I definitely don't see him that way. He's a god, but a character we can relate to. His dilemma is shared by many human males. He begins as a god (like every father) and ends a pitiful has-been, forced to sacrifice the very ones he loves the most, and finally discarded by the one he thought would save him.


And what about Brünnhilde, tricked into betraying of the man she loves? Her predicament moves you not at all? A goddess who lost everything, was redeemed through love, and loses everything once again? Butterfly breaks my heart too....but Brünnhilde's suicide no less so.

Sarge

When I read your interpretation, I immediately think of stage directors, who try to relate Wagner characters and their feelings to archetypes and actual situations. I just don't get it, and I am always distracted by things like the endurance of the singer or the beauty of the orchestral sound. I feel miles away from the emotional feelings they are supposed to project. Maybe it is also because good Wagner singers are so hard to find, so you almost never see a good actor on stage who can sing the part (I remember one: Nina Stemme as Senta).

Stage directors have to make lots of effort to 'translate' Wagner to recognisable situations, and it feels artificial most of the times.
With Puccini or Verdi, it is all there immediately. The characters have flesh and blood and come to life, even within one aria, separated from the rest. When Tosca sings Visse d'arte, she relates to all the suffering in the world despite all the good one does within a 3 minute span.

When Brünnhilde finally commits suicide, her story has been told and retold for hours and hours and meanwhile I just lost it. I have been entertained by dwarfs and giants, have seen a Wanderer who used to be a God, have heard mother Earth predict the end of times and so on...
What is it all about, I ask myself? So I just enjoy the beauty of the soundscape...

[eyeresist]

Well, it's just not modern if you don't have Nazis and lewd behaviour and giant contraptions on stage. To hell with the story!

[kaergaard]

For me, the one significant bit of Wagner that makes me hit the fast forward button is King Mark's monologue in Tristan after he discovers the lovers. Of course it's important we understand Mark's conflicted feelings at this point, but, heavens, the music is so boring and, dramatically, the scene just comes to a complete standstill.

Sarge

If you want to see action in this great scene, get the DVD of the performance directed by Patrice Chéreau! He has Matti Salminen's König Marke all over the stage, including knocking down Will Hartmann's Melot with a wide swing. When Matti hauls off, he means business! - Salminen also sings spendidly! -

[nico1616]

But there really is (I think I see) a difference in the way I listen in these two cases. In the case of all my favourite operas, I'm perfectly happy to pull out favourite arias and listen to them without any need to concern myself with the opera as a whole (except where I can't help but remember the basics of the plot). I have listened dozens and dozens of times, to 'Dopo Notte' (punching the air with exhilaration) and 'Scherza Infida' (on the edge of tears) without any reference to the plot of Ariodante at all. I'm not saying that I don't want to listen to Cosi Fan Tutte all the way through - of course I do; but if I listen to 'Soave sia il vento' separately, I listen to it as an exquisitely moving aria regardless of where it came from.

I'm completely incapable of doing this with Wagner. No matter what bleeding chunk I listen to, I'm straight into Siegmund and Sieglinde's passion, or Wotan and Brunnhilde on the rock. I can't separate any of it from the whole. So for me, there really is a different mode of listening. It's not a difference in degrees of excellence (I don't say one is better than the other, and if you try to take my recordings of La Rondine, I'll fight no less fiercely than if you have eyes for my Ring box sets); it's a fundamental difference of type. I'm talking about about chalk and cheese, not stilton and cheddar.

Thank you for your wise analysis, I can see a lot of things more clearly now

Nico

[zamyrabyrd]

Are there any other composers or works that listeners dip into, in installments, as it were?
I can imagine listening to patches of the B minor Mass of Bach or the Missa Solemnis of Beethoven - heck, even parts of the Messiah by Handel or the Creation by Haydn...

ZB

[Sergeant Rock]

Are there any other composers or works that listeners dip into, in installments, as it were?

Havergal Brian's "Gothic" Symphony. At two hours in length, it's not often I listen to it straight through. The concluding Te Deum is a monster but the first three movements, purely instrumental and about 35 minutes long, make a satisfying whole. I also listen often just to the Vivace third movement.

Mahler and Bruckner symphonies are also dipped into, especially their slow movements. The first movement of M2 makes a great stand-alone piece (it was conceived that way).

Sarge

[Leo K.]

I found I have been finally able to grasp the Ring by just listening to the music, with a synopsis on my iPhone nearby. I have no emotion about the story, with only the music carrying the meaning, alone. I am just tired of translations and languages I don't understand. But to hear language as an instrument is a whole other bag, and wonderful!

[Karl Henning]

Mahler and Bruckner symphonies are also dipped into, especially their slow movements.

Lovely timing, Sarge; I listened to the fourth movement of the Bruckner Fifth just last night.

I do need to carve me out more Bruckner time.

[nico1616]

And Handel operas are also great for dipping. I have a lot of them on my iPod, and when I meet them in the shuffle, it is always a pleasure 

[Sergeant Rock]

Lovely timing, Sarge; I listened to the fourth movement of the Bruckner Fifth just last night.

Ha! When I was younger (considerably younger) I used to listen to the last movement of the Fifth all the time: Knappertsbusch playing the cropped and bombasticized (is that a word? it is now  ) Schalk version. A travesty for sure but such good fun.

Sarge

[knight66]

There are times when I feel I just need to hear some Bruckner and one movement will do it. I often listen to just one act of a Mozart opera, that can be satisfying and not feel truncated, whereas in Verdi, if I don't listen to a complete opera, I put on a disc of arias....no idea. Why this discrimination.

Mike

[Tsaraslondon]

Haven't we all dipped at one time or another? The fact that I may not have enough time to listen to a whole symphony or concerto, let alone a whole opera, is not going to stop me listening to a favourite movement, a couple of arias, or a particular scene. The slow movement of Mozart's clarinet concerto, for instance, may benefit from being juxtasposed with the two outer movements, but there are times when all I want to listen to is those few minutes of calm and beauty. Is that so wrong?

I doubt I'd listen to any Wagner at all, if I had to restrict myself to those occasions when I had time to listen to a whole opera. Mostly I do try to get through at least an act at one sitting, but there are times where I might just want to listen to such glorious moments as Wotan's Farewell, Siegfried's Death, Brunnhilde's Immolation, the Love Duet from Tristan und islode et al, and I have to confess there are occasions when I've just skipped the boring bits. I mean, King Mark does drone on a bit. I find it very hard not to press the skip button on the remote.

[knight66]

I used to think Marke was a black hole interrupting Act 2 and maundering on. But I have long since grown to love this threnody, full of such sadness, betrayal and self blame. A good bass can make it a compelling and touching interlude after all the high passion.

Mike

[marvinbrown]

But when you come down to it, T&I is (dramatically) an opera based on a series of complete standstills interrupted by spurts of action.   Think of how little actually happens in that act .  The lovers meet and sing an extended duet which springs out of the idea that the night should go on forever, with some interruptions from Brangane reminding them that's not a real possibility;  then the action involved in Mark's discovery of the lovers together;  then Mark's monologue.    And the majority of Act III is devoted to Tristan singing himself to death;  the melee accompanying the arrival of Mark;  and the Isolde singing herself to death.   And Act I is not really anything more dramatic, except there we have the hero and heroine arguing and sneering at each other until they drink the potion.

It helps of course that I'm not particularly down on the musical aspect of Mark's monologue.

  But think of all the emotional turbulence and drama that Wagner is able to create without the need for much physical activity on stage.  To me T&I is the most emotionally dramatic work I have ever heard.   


  NB: Dipping into Wagner is not really an option for me.  If you are not drowning in listening sessions that extend for hours you are missing out on a lot. But I do respect the fact that Wagner is not to most people's taste, to that I say better little than nothing at all.

  marvin