Talk:Richard Wagner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Richard Wagner is related to WikiProject Composers which has been provided as a place for editors of biographical articles of Music Composers and Songwriters to discuss common issues, discover neglected composer articles and exchange ideas. All who are interested are invited to comment and contribute.

This article is a part of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers, librettists and singers, directors and managers, companies and houses, and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Wagner article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Contents 1 Wagner's music in Israel 2003 2 Bayreuth circle 3 Flame Organ 4 Suggestion of three corrections 5 Biography heading 6 Last words 7 'appropriation of his music by Nazi Germany' 8 Anti-Semitism and Nazi appropriation revisited 9 Translation of "Das Judenthum in der Musik" 10 Translation of "Wahnfried" 11 Wagner the German Jewish composer 12 pre-Dutchman 13 Aspects of Wagner 14 Perhaps 15 I added more about his influences on recent art forms... 16 Category:Wagnerites 17 Waitasec 18 Richard Wagner category proliferation, or was RW an opera manager? 19 Early life, Dresden 20 Bayreuth circle 21 Dispute over terms 22 Socialist ? 23 Nietzsche 24 Merkel & Wagner 25 Gobineau and the Grail 26 Re-ordered article 27 Hitler? 28 Clear meaning 29 Original inspiration 30 Split Article? 31 Controversies section 32 Other Composers on Germanic Mythology 33 Authentic Music of Wagner 34 Translation of "Judentum" 35 B-grade article 36 Holy crap his neckbeard is EPIC.

[edit] Wagner's music in Israel 2003

Note from Tel Aviv, Israel, August 2003 -- the unofficial "ban" on performances of Wagner's music is still very much in force. The performance of Act I of Die Walkure that was supposed to take place in 2001 (referred to in the text) never occurred, Daniel Barenboim backed down at the last moment. He did, however, conduct a snippet -- I think the Siegfried Rhine Journey music, but I can't remember -- as an encore in a concert, but only after a long and heated argument, in hebrew, with the audience. This caused so much trouble that no one has attempted to repeat it since. It is now apparent that for the moment, the anti-Wagnerites have won and the ban will stay in force, if only out of respect for the remnant of holocaust survivors in the society, who are felt to have suffered enough. In the meantime the economic situation here has become so dire that the question is now more whether there will still be orchestras, operas, public venues at all, rather than what in particular they will be performing.

Please note that government-owned radio and television stations broadcast Wagner's works frequently, it is only public performances that are problematic. And Richard Strauss's music-- he really WAS a Nazi -- is performed here, though not perhaps with the regularity seen elsewhere.

---

I found this article on Barenboim conducting Wagner in Israel. [1]

--Chicken45 21:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bayreuth circle

An article (or non-article) exists entitled 'Bayreuth circle'. I have posted it for deletion. Do take a look and contribute votes (for deletion I hope, but otherwise if you really must!)--Smerus 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

he fell victim to erysipelas -> If I am not mistaken it was actually shingles which left him with pains for much of his later life. Who can confirm? Bart van Herk.

Isn't the sentence "Due to the Nazi association, Wagner's works have not been publicly performed in the modern state of Israel." false if this BBC web page is correct? Even if the performances were interrupted. - The Merciful

Indeed; [2] states, On Oct. 26 [2003], Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel gave the green light for the first Israeli concert featuring music by Wagner, upholding an Oct. 24 decision by a Tel Aviv District Court judge.

perhaps language like Wagner's works have not been pperformed without controversy in the modern state of Israel.Nobs01 16:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flame Organ

From this URL: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/08/195236

"About 15 years ago, I attended a very weird lecture sponsored by the "Visual Music Alliance" in Los Angeles. The presenter was a very eccentric UCLA professor who studied the history of "visual music." He traced the history back as far as the ancient Greeks, who had concerts accompanied by a "light organ" which had little candles behind colored pieces of glass with a shutter, to project colors on a screen. But the one thing of this lecture that most impressed me was his tales about the Flame Organ. Apparently, back in the 19th century, in the heyday of pipe organs, there were quite a few flame organs. These were usually made with transparent glass tubes, and flammable gasses would be fed into the tubes, ignited by a sparking electrode under the organist's control. Different gasses that burned in different colors would be used in different tubes, the effect was as much visual as musical, and the colors were said to be quite vivid. He says that Wagner was particularly enamored by the flame organ, and there is still one remaining vintage flame organ, Wagner's personal machine, in the Wagner museum (wherever the hell that is). Considering the long history of this device, I'm not impressed with the new "hot pipe organ." Stuff like this has been done before, and better, by groups like Survival Research Labs. Its just another huge emitter of greenhouse gasses."

[edit] Suggestion of three corrections

Hi. First, I'd like to commend the Wikipedia project, and the method of refining texts by debate. And in particular, though I'm going to suggest three corrections to the Wagner entry, I'd like to commend the work of the people who put it together.

Also, I can see from these pages that the Wagner debate can get heated. I hope not to add to the heat, but I do have three corrections.

This is going to take more words than I'd like. But that's because I'm not just going to claim things based on authority, but cite the relevant evidence and indicate where you people can check things for themselves.

• First correction

First, the words claiming, "Wagner consistently argued for the expulsion of Jews", contain an error. To correct, simply delete the word "consistently" and substitute the word "never".

More seriously, to preserve the sort of balance you're after while being accurate, I'd suggest the following re-working.

[Begin] Despite Wagner's many offensive antisemitic remarks, he consistently called for Jews and Germans to assimilate. In his antisemitic essay _Das Judenthum in Musik_ (1850), he described that assimilation in terms of Jews abandoning their cultural, linguistic and religious heritage, which he said was an act of great self-sacrifice, indeed, a kind of self-destruction. That was the meaning of the conclusion of _Das Judenthum_: "Without a backward glance, take part in this work of redemption through self-denial, for then we shall be one and indivisible! But remember, only one thing can redeem you from the burden of your curse: the redemption of Ahasuerus – going under!"

People who claim that Wagner meant physical annihilation generally only quote the last sentence, though the immediately preceding words, "for then we [Jews and Germans] shall be one and indivisible", make it plain that Wagner meant coexistence. Wagner's allusion to Ahasuerus was a reference to the legend of the Wandering Jew, cursed forever to wander among other peoples and cultures and never to belong; the proposed redemption was for Jews to abandon their separate culture, language and religion ("going under") and become "one and indivisible" with the mainstream culture in which they lived.

Later, in a 1878 conversation with Cosima, he mentioned that "if I wrote about the Jews again, I would say that there is nothing to be held against them, only they came to us Germans too soon; we were not stable enough to absorb this element." [end: back to existing text]

First correction: background information

In "Das Judenthum in Musik", probably best translated as "The Jews in Music", Wagner said that Jews should abandon their separate culture, religion, speech (the phrase "the cold indifference of its peculiar blabber" was an offensive reference to Yiddish), and merge with the mainstream of the cultures in which they lived. He said this assimilation involved self-sacrifice, even a form of self-destruction, but great rewards: if Jews assimilated into German culture and life, "we shall then be one and indivisible."

This is to clarify what Wagner's point of view was, not defend it. Wagner's attitude in 1850 was the rough equivalent of people in the US, Europe or Australia today who get annoyed when they see signs in Arabic, and object when Muslim immigrants seek planning permission to build a mosque, and who sound off in newspapers or talk-back radio that Muslims should dress the same as everyone else, learn to speak "proper English", and give up their weird religion. Wagner was in this respect a bigot, as many people are today. But "bigot" is a long way from being a Nazi or proto-Nazi: those people, like Wagner, are wrong but they are not monsters.

Wagner was certainly consistent about assimilation. He called for Jews to assimilate into German culture in 1850 with the first publication of "The Jews in Music", then again in 1869 with the reprint, and then again in 1881 with "Know Thyself". That would be consistent.

So where does the claim that Wagner "consistently called for expulsion" come from?

I'd guess two places. First, Cosima Wagner's _Diary_ entry for 11 October 1878 begins: "I read a very good speech by the preacher Stoecker about the Jews. R.[ichard] is in favour of expelling them entirely." That's an ugly thing for Wagner to have said, but there are three things that need to be noted about that.

First, it's not a "call", which is by definition a public statement, but a man sounding off in private to his wife, who happened to write it in her diary.

Second, at that moment, Wagner was not just a husband in private, he was also to some extent a husband on the spot. Cosima Wagner was far more antisemitic than Richard, and she had just read him a speech by a leading antisemitic agitator, which she thought was "very good". In response Wagner, who was due to disappear into his room to work, could have an argument, or he could say, "Quite right, chuck 'em out."

That's not just making excuses. We know that Wagner actually thought Stoecker was a clown. He described Stoecker's political projects as "sad and comical" (_Diaries_, 28 September, 1881), and "absurdity" (_Diaries_, 7 October 1881). And the next time Wagner encountered an antisemitic speech by Stoecker, attacking "the Jews" over recent stock market scandals, Wagner's response was to defend Jews, not antisemites: 'Another speech by the preacher Stoecker provokes from R.[ichard] the exclamation, "Oh, it is not the Jews – everybody tries to further his own interests – it is we ourselves who are to blame; we, the nation, for allowing such things to happen."' (_Diaries_, 13 November 1879.)

Third, we know that Wagner didn't support expulsion. That's partly because of his extensive network of Jewish friends, colleagues, also lovers, and partly because his public calls for assimilation were echoed by his private remarks.

In short, the 11 October 1878 remark should be acknowledged as an ugly thing for Wagner to be capable of saying, regardless of circumstances, but it should not be pulled from context and put up as if it represented Wagner's actual considered opinion, let alone something that he had advocated in public.

But I suspect that the claim that "Wagner consistently called for the expulsion of Jews" is mainly the product of an interesting series of steps, arising from the following passage from Wagner's introduction to the 1869 reprint of "The Jews in Music":

"One thing is clear to me: the influence that the Jews have gained on our mental life - which you can see in the way our highest cultural directions have been diverted and falsified - this influence is no mere physiological accident, and we must admit that it is real and indisputable. I cannot decide whether our cultural decadence could be halted by vigorously jettisoning that destructive foreign element, since I do not know that any powers exist that would be capable of doing that. If, instead, this element is assimilated with us in such a way that, together with us, it ripens toward a higher development of our nobler human qualities, then clearly the only thing that will help is not to veil the difficulties of this assimilation, but to clearly reveal them."

That's my translation, not the better-known version by WA Ellis, the notoriously incompetent translator of Wagner's prose. Unlike Ellis, I've tried to produce reasonably natural English while keeping Wagner's sense. I've given Wagner's word "gewaltsam" as "vigorous[ly]". Ellis chose "violent", which is not one of the first meanings given in most German dictionaries. Similarly, Ellis translated "Auswerfung" as "ejection", which has in turn been interpreted to mean "expulsion", in the sense of "expulsion of people from a country". But the German word for that sort of expulsion is "Ausweisung", or "Vertreibung". Wagner's word, "Auswerfung", has a cluster of meanings related to throwing things away, also casting nets, fishing lines and other boat-y things, though it can also refer to vomiting, volcanic eruption, or coughing up fur balls, etc. I've chosen "jettisoning" as an English word with a reasonably close set of nuances.

The passage is not a call for the expulsion of the Jews from Germany.

First, the topic of Wagner's paragraph is "the influence that the Jews have gained on our mental life", not "Jews". Wagner was writing about what he thought were Jewish approaches to composing and consuming music. For example, a few paragraphs earlier Wagner had accused Robert Schumann, who was not Jewish (Schumann was in fact antisemitic), of being influenced by supposed Jewish modes of thought. The phrase "vigorous jettisoning" refers to a supposed cultural influence, not people. In fact Wagner would argue that Jews could and should "vigorously jettison" that influence, just as Germans should.

This is the most natural reading of what Wagner wrote, taking the whole passage into consideration and not just hauling a few words out of context and putting the worst possible spin on them.

Second, regardless of what you take "jettisoning" to mean, it is clear that Wagner did not call for it. In the single sentence he devoted to the topic he said he didn't know if it could be done, and he wasn't aware of any power that could do it. He then moved on to the alternative, assimilation, which he described it in glowing terms: for Jews and Germans together assimilation can lead to "a higher development of our nobler human qualities."

So: Wagner spent one sentence on the topic of jettisoning Jewish influence on our mental life, said he didn't know if it could even be done and couldn't think of anything that could do it. He immediately moved on to an alternative that he described in enthusiastic terms. It's fair to say that this amounts to "dismissing" the idea.

How did we get from Wagner briefly mentioning but not supporting the idea of jettisoning "Jewish influence on mental life", to a claim that Wagner not only called for expulsion of Jews but did so all the time, "consistently"?

My guess is that the first steps in this process can be found in Paul Rose's book, _Wagner, Race and Revolution_. Rose started by using Ellis's translation, "violent ejection", and simply assuming that this meant physical expulsion of the Jews from Germany, though Wagner's word choice and the context suggest otherwise. Rose's next step was to note that, in mentioning and dismissing the topic in a single sentence, Wagner said only that it seemed impracticable, and did not discuss the morality of it. Therefore Wagner didn't explicitly say expulsion would be an evil thing, and so it follows, Rose concluded, that Wagner must have really secretly supported it. That's an interestingly athletic series of logical leaps, not based on what Wagner said but on things that he didn't say. Rose's book is full of that sort of thing.

The next steps involve someone reading Rose's book, and finding Rose's slightly stretched version of what Wagner said. That person added more stretching, so that Rose's idea that Wagner secretly supported expulsion was expanded into a claim that Wagner had actually called for expulsion. And then that got expanded a little further, into a claim that Wagner called for expulsion over and over again, "consistently".

So a single sentence about cultural influence, not Jews per se, that dismissed the idea that people could jettison that influence, is morphed by stages into a sustained public campaign for Jews to be expelled from Germany. That's how these things work; it can be a fascinating process.

• Second correction

The second correction concerns these words:

"Hitler himself was a fan of Wagner, drawn to Wagner's anti-Semitism as well as the German themes in his works."

This claim (except for the bit about Hitler being a Wagner fan) is not developed or stretched from any source. It's pure invention, made up by someone who thought it ought to be true. Such evidence as there is goes the other way.

An accurate passage would go like this:

[begin] "Hitler himself was a fan of Wagner's music, and probably found Wagner's imaginary worlds of gods, dragons and lonely outsiders who did great deeds an attractive place to daydream, like his other favourite fantasy-world, the westerns of Karl May. However Hitler never even mentioned any of Wagner's ideas, let alone showed interest in them, not even Wagner's antisemitism. Certainly key Wagnerian ideas like Wagner's pacifism and opposition to military expenditure, Wagner's denial that there was such a thing as a German race, Wagner's stated opposition to "the rule of one race by another", Wagner's calls for assimilation under a Christian worldview, and Wagner's strong pro-Americanism, could hardly have appealed to Hitler, if he had ever been aware of them." [end]

Second correction: background

Note that the proposed replacement paragraph doesn't refer to "the German themes in Wagner's works". You can keep those words if you like, but it's worth noting that of the mature Wagner operas, _Fliegende Holländer_ involves a Dutchman landing in Norway, _Tannhäuser_ is set before such a place or even idea as Germany existed, _Lohengrin_ involves a Spaniard arriving in what is now Belgium, the _Ring_ is based on Scandinavian myths, _Tristan und Isolde_ is about an Irishwoman and a Cornishman, and _Parsifal_ is set in Spain. Only _Meistersinger_ has what you could reasonably call German cultural content, though it too was set before Germany existed.

But that's a side-issue. My main point is that Hitler showed no interest at all in Wagner's ideas, not even his antisemitism.

Hitler's complete disinterest in Wagner's ideas is demonstrated by the primary Hitler sources: _Mein Kampf_, including the posthumously published volume, collected Hitler speeches, _Hitler's Tabletalk_, etc, plus his remarks recorded in diaries or reminiscences by approximately reliable sources (eg Goebbels, Speer, or Ludecke with a grain of salt, say, but not, say, Rauschning or Kubizek). Check "Wagner, Richard" in the indexes, or skim through those books without indexes, and you will find Hitler praising Wagner's music, saying Wagner had to overcome huge obstacles to achieve his vision, saying that Wagner was modest (!), saying that Wagner had a taste for silks and satins, saying that Wagner was a pederast but that's no reason not to listen to his music, and so on. But you will not find Hitler ever mentioning an idea of Wagner's, not even his antisemitism.

People who have read claims, in secondary and tertiary sources, that Wagner influenced Hitler's ideas may find the evidence of the primary sources surprising. But it's not really surprising that Hitler never talked about Wagner's attitude towards Jews. Wagner made nasty antisemitic remarks, but he also surrounded himself with Jewish friends and colleagues, had Jewish lovers, and called for German and Jewish people to become "one and indivisible". It seems likely that Hitler would have found this something of an embarrassment. But whether or not Hitler's failure to mention Wagner's ideas about Jews is an embarrassed silence, it is most certainly a silence.

It may be worth pointing out that Hitler really did nominate a great German cultural figure as a precursor and example for his antisemitism. In the passage in _Mein Kampf_ where Hitler explained the origins of his antisemitism, he cited Goethe as the example of German greatness that he claimed to have contrasted with the Jews he met in Vienna. In a later passage in _Mein Kampf_ Hitler directly cited Goethe as an antisemitic predecessor who, like Hitler, had opposed intermarriage between Jews and Germans. However while Hitler's words have been obsessively scoured for references to Wagner, Hitler's perfectly plain statements point, rather embarrassingly, at the wrong long-dead German. So they have been ignored.

I am absolutely not suggesting that people should now begin reviling Goethe and searching his works, diaries and notebooks, and the memoirs of his friends, to find antisemitic remarks (they are there, including in _Faust_). I'm only suggesting that there's an element of inconsistency, which could be ascribed to scapegoating, hypocrisy, or simply ignorance, in the singling out of Wagner in this context.

• Third correction

The third correction is to these words: He once stated that "there is only one legitimate predecessor to national socialism: Wagner".

Or not. The quote marks indicate a direct citation of Hitler's own words, but Hitler never said this. This "quotation" has an interesting history, as it's not merely a fake, but actually a fake of a fake, as I'll discuss below.

The best approach would be to take out the faked quotation, and to say something like this:

"The Nazis liked to lay claim to the great German cultural tradition, and to associate themselves with the poetry of Goethe and Schiller, the philosophy of Kant and Nietzsche, the music of Bruckner, Beethoven and Wagner, and so on. The music of all three composers, was played at rallies, while Liszt's "Les Preludes" was a sort of signature tune for Nazi radio broadcasts. However it should be remembered that the great bulk of the music played at Nazi rallies and other events, and on the Nazi-controlled radio networks, was not great music of any kind, but kitsch: sentimental songs, dance music, and brass bands. That was the true soundtrack of Nazism."

Third correction: background

The origin of this faked Hitler quote appears to be a phrase that occurred in the book _Hitler Speaks_, attributed to Hermann Rauschning but wholly or partially ghostwritten by Emery Reeves. Rauschning/Reeves' 1939 book claimed to be verbatim records of Rauschning's supposed many conversations with Hitler in the early 1930s, and was a best seller that was cited by many historians in the 1950s and 1960s. The book was later revealed to be a hoax, a compendium of text copied from Hitler's speeches, plus bits and pieces cut and pasted from other sources (Nietzsche, not surprisingly, but also ideas taken from stories by Dostoevsky and Maupassant, etc, which is more surprising), plus free invention, all stuffed into Hitler's mouth. This was necessary because Rauschning, as it turned out, had not actually been a confidant of Hitler's.

However _Hitler Speaks_ was an entertaining and quotable work of fiction, and certain bits and pieces from it still get quoted at second and third hand, thus living on despite the discrediting of the original source. One of these bits is the alleged Hitlerian remark, "I acknowledge only one forerunner: Richard Wagner."

Now, Rauschning/Reeves were not making their Hitler figure claim Wagner as an ideological ancestor of Nazism. Instead their Hitler character was saying that he thought that Wagner had had an original vision and the strength of character to struggle against obstacles and win through, and that Hitler thought he was the same sort of person. (Rauschning/Reeves adapted this idea from a passage in _Mein Kampf_, in which the real Hitler said something of the sort about Martin Luther, Wagner, and Frederick the Great. The Rauschning/Reeves version left out Luther and Frederick, and added greater emphasis on the supposed resemblance to Hitler.)

So the starting point is a faked Hitler quote from 1939, actually about Hitler's supposed belief that he had the same kind of vision and determination that Wagner had. Sixty-odd years later, the original fake was no longer strong enough, so it became further improved into a quote in which Hitler claimed Wagner as a precursor of the Nazi Party.

Again, this is an interesting example of how myth-making processes work.

I also have a suggestion, but I'm aware of having sent far too many words already, so I'll let that lie for now. Sorry about the length, but the motivation is to provide references, as well as just claims.

Hope this is helpful. I'll be happy to provide further references and so on, as required.

Regards,

Laon

I have recently been doing some reading in preparation for some work on Wagner related articles, so I'm glad to see someone else interested. I would suggest that you be bold and go ahead with the changes - and any others that you might have. I would be interested in hearing the suggestion you mentioned. On the specific points: (1) I am not sufficiently familiar with Wagner's oeuvre to vouch for the statement that he never called for the expulsion of Jews, but you are certainly correct about Das Judenthum in der Musik. I would also suggest that the relevant entry in Cosima's diary be mentioned in the article text. (2) I can't comment on all the details, but in general what you say fits with what I have read. I would be interested in specific references. One question: I have repeatedly read, but have not seen a citation for, the assertion that Wagner's music was played in concentration camps, in particular while sending Jews to gas chambers. Is this true, and where can I read more about the Nazi's use of music? (3) This I am not familiar with at all. Again, I would be interested in references. Thanks for all your comments, and I hope you stick around. Dan Gardner 03:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Leon, good research, and fascinating; I am trying to locate the recent book about Hitler in Vienna by a female author who claims most all Wagner performances Hitler attended then were conducted by Gustav Mahler. Hitler is never known to have uttered any criticism of Mahler's handling of the works, on the contrary all reports are how enrapt Hitler was by Mahler's renditions. Thanks again. nobs

_______________________________________________________________

Leon, your erudition is impressive, but you are wrong on a couple of counts:

"Gewaltsam" means "violent" and can never be rendered as 'vigorous'. The closest you are likely to get to a cognate/synonym for vigorous is "gewaltig", as in "gewaltiger Stoß = enormous thrust".

"Auswerfen" means to throw out (Aus=out, werfen=throw). "Auswerfen" is not the same as "Ausweisen = deport", ie the legal removal of (an) individual(s). Your other suggestion, "Vertreibung", is more to the point and could be rendered as "force out". "Vertreibung" is done by one group to another and is typically motivated by a wish to take control of resources (ie the expansion of Europeans in North America, the expansion of Bantus in Africa). Just like the english pair "transfer/chuck out", "Verdrängen/Auswerfen" are typically used by different levels of society. Whereas an educated person speaks of "Verdrängen", "Auswerfen" would typically be something said by a worker.

Another important difference is that "Vertreibung" treats the engendered suffering as a side effect. "Vertreibung" lacks any emotional flavour, neither of regret nor of eagerness to commit harm. "Gewaltsame Auswerfung", on the other hand, is emotionally charged. For someone to speak of "gewaltsame Auswerfung" he has to be very angry. Not only does he accept the cost of suffering in order to effect the removal of the group, but he presupposes the use of violence to effect the removal.

Philopedia

Using Wagner's text to interpret, Gurnemaz says to Parsifal,

"Verrücketer Knabe! Wieder Gewalt?" ussually translated "Insane youth! Violent again?",

hence Gewaltsam meaning violence is probably accurate. Nobs01 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the passage Laon translated, Wagner uses "gewaltsam" as an adverb. While the adjective "gewaltsam" has only one meaning, which is "violent", the more commonly heard meaning of the adverb is something else than violent. That there is no exact word for it in English, and that the word "gewaltsam" is, on the whole, very different from any word in English, are nothing exceptional. Languages are different, not just in appearance and syntax. "Vigorously" is indeed a better translation than "violent". I wouldn't trust German-to-English dictionaries too much. Nor are translations in general, even of classics of world literature, ever without mistakes of this sort, or of worse sort.

I would also like to comment on this: "For someone to speak of 'gewaltsame Auswerfung' he has to be very angry. Not only does he accept the cost of suffering in order to effect the removal of the group, but he presupposes the use of violence to effect the removal."

You are saying that Wagner had to be angry to use this and that, and would have accepted this and that... However, did not Wagner mention the whole thing in passing, in order to get it out of his way and advance onto his actual point, which was the need for the assimilation of the Jews into the German 'mainstream culture'? He did. He did so in the same way as any ontologist would have to mention solipsism, before advancing on to something more reasonable and interesting. Did you not get this? By the way, that there was a need for such an assimilation, subsequent history has extravagantly and violently proved.

Also, why hasn't Laon's contribution to this discussion had any effect on the content of the article? That the man has been gone for almost two years now should not mean that the mistakes in the article should remain there.88.148.199.123 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrases that Laon objected to have now gone, so I'm not sure to which "mistakes" you refer. The detailed discussion of Wagner's antisemitism has been moved to a separate article: Wagner Controversies.--Dogbertd 08:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography heading

Would anyone mind if I wrote a condensed version of the Wagner's biography section? It's quite a bit long now. While interesting, perhaps it doesn't provide the emphasis in the key events for the more casual encyclopedia reader? Maybe the fuller version could be a sub article as with Beethoven: "Richard Wagner Biography" or similar? :)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers for discussion on different ideas on presenting composer articles. --Sketchee 05:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last words

His last words were recorded as: "I am fond of them, of the inferior beings of the abyss, of those who are full of longing".

Okay, this I have never heard before. Any references? And what the heck does "inferior beings of the abyss" refer to? -- CYD

I got this info from a book called "Famous Last Words" by Jonathan Green. After you raised the query I checked on the web and found a site giving the same info. Of course that doesn't make it true necessarily. And as to what "the inferior beings of the abyss" means, search me. JackofOz 23:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'appropriation of his music by Nazi Germany'

Text reads:

Anti-Semitism and Nazi appropriation

During the 20th century, the public perception of Wagner increasingly centered on his anti-semitism, largely due to the appropriation of his music by Nazi Germany.

• (a) this is an ambiguous referance. Does this refer to the Nazi regime, or to German society and culture in the Nazi era.

• (b) In either case it will be hard to support with evidence.

Wagner and Wagner's music was long out of popular style by the 1930's when radio and film were catering to then modern tastes. Daphne Wagner, in her book The Wagner's maintains that Hitler's open support for the Bayreuth Festival was largely due to his own personal tastes for Wagner and to protect the theatre and festival from the violent mauraders of Nazi SA which were encouraged by the regime to vigilantism. Hitler's high profile support of Bayreuth served notice to the erratic and uncontrollable Stormtroopers 'hands off' this bastion of high-brow & bourgeouis tastes that the Party otherwise was encouraging youth to harrass.

Adolf Hitler 'appropriated' Wagner & Bayreuth, and perhaps a handful of other Nazi higherups. The vast majority of the population's tastes where in other areas, particularly South American Tango's were prevelant at the time; also American jazz was making inroads.--nobs

• I am not certain the use of the term 'fan' of Wagner or 'fan' of Wagner's music captures the esence of Wagnerians. nobs

• Three questions regarding the following sentence:

After Wagner's death in 1883, Bayreuth became a meeting place for a group of extreme right-wing Wagner fans that came to be known as the Bayreuth circle

1. What is the source? 2. What is the evidence this alleged group was political in nature, that it can be described as 'right wing' 3. Was Arturo Tosconini, et. al. members of this group?

Certainly a 'circle' of friends had been gathering at Bayreuth since its inception, performers, Wagner Verein benefactors, and audiences; that was the purpose of Bayreuth. This predates the date given in the text.nobs

I'm not sure who the 'et al' in 'Toscanini et al' are, but Toscanini was not a member of Bayreuth circle. Indeed, he was a well known anti-fascist. As for the source for this info, it's pretty well known. There are many sources. See the film "The Confessions of Winifrid Wagner." The evidence is from the writings of Wagner's relatives, notably his son-in-law, from Wagner's own known cultivation of Gobineau and others and from Cosima's recorded opinions. What evidence do you have that the SA were encouraged to 'harass' 'high brow and bourgeois taste'? I've never heard of any such encouragement. Some Nazi leaders were thuggish, others were highly cultivated individuals - Goebbels and Rosenberg, for example. Hitler certainly saw himself as a man of taste. Paul B 11:21 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Daphne Wagner, daughter of Wieland Wagner and granddaughter of Winifred Wagner is my source. The Wagner's is the title of her book. .nobs

[edit] Anti-Semitism and Nazi appropriation revisited

This section is fairly well thought out, listing several direct sources of Wagner's anti-Semitic beliefs and writings. However, the last paragraph begins That said, it is difficult to criticise someone for the views someone later in history had upon them. Hitler's admiration for Wagner was not returned, considering that Wagner died six years and two months before Hitler was even born.

I have an issue with this. It may not have occurred to the author that one reason Wagner is disliked in Israel could be based on his anti-Semitism, as evidenced by his writings. Nazis, when they looked up to Wagner, did not have to invent much. Wagner is taken to have suggested that Jews were disgusting in their voices, in their mannerisms, and such like. It should follow that converting a Jew to Christianity would still leave said Jew with the same voice and movements. Nazis had no difficulty in changing history to suit their own retelling of it. Wagner was a favorite of theirs, and whatever character flaws they thought he had were likely made up for by his extensive hate-filled writings.

In addition, had I been a survivor of the death camps of a country who extolled Wagnerian music, I would take offense at it, just as I would take offense at a swastika being displayed. The original may be older than Nazism, but has become forever tainted by it. In sports, we retire numbers of players who were especially great, even if someone else wore the number previously. In life, we should retire those things which were especially evil, regardless of their origins.

egthegreat

Let me just add, Hitler was probably the only Nazi who looked up to Wagner (one could find a handful of other Party-functionaries who did, a few)— Wagner's music was long out of style & public appetites then, as now, particularly among impressionable young people, were for other tastes like jazz, and tangos, and popular music of the 1930s. Secondly, as has always been the case and particularly today, most of the greatest Wagnerian performers are Jewish. nobs 05:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this section of the article is far too long compared to the rest of the article. Wagner's principle influence was as a composer, and his anti-semitic pamphlets would have had little impact. In fact, those beliefs were fairly common in his time, and so his anti-semitic views would not have been that unusual. I think Hitler's affinity for Wagnerian operas unfairly taint the composer as a proto-Nazi, which he clearly was not. If this section could be condensed, I think it would help the overall balance of the article. However, I am not sufficiently expert in these matters to undertake the task myself. Dtaw2001 02:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think it is important to make due note of Wagner's anti-Semitic beliefs, but how can it be justifiable to make the section which discusses the appropriation of Wanger's music by the Nazis almost the same length as that which provides an overview of his operatic works, and even longer than the section discussing Wagner's non-anti-Semitic-related legacy (which is undoubtedly massive)! My central concern here is that, insofar as this Wikipedia article is meant to be providing informaton on Wagner for musically-related purposes (as Wagner was, above all else, a composer), the article seems disproportionately politicised. Again, I do not advocate a historical 'whitewash' by any means, but I think much of the information in this particular section would be better suited in an article discussing the various literary sources which were used to inspire and inform the ideologies of both fin-de-siecle nationalist movements and some years later the NSDAP. I don't have any major objections to what is written in the section, nor do I wish to ignite a huge Wagner-Racism-Anti-Semitism debate, but to the casual observer the balance of the article does seem rather odd. ~Matt

My own two-cents worth on the subject: I agree with Matt and Dtaw2001 above. Wagner's anti-semitism certainly shouldn't be white-washed or ignored, but it shouldn't overshadow a discussion of his music either. The section is currently far too long. Maybe a sentence or two on Wagner's anti-semitism, a sentence on Nazi appropriation, and a sentence on his music being banned in Israel would suffice. Rizzleboffin 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Rizzleboffin that Wagner's antisemitism shouldn't be white-washed or ignored, and that it shouldn't overshadow the discussion of his music. I strongly disagree however, that a brief mention is sufficient, especially in light of how completely associated Wagner is with naziism in the US at least. Perhaps the solution to the undue weight problem is to spin it off to a new article. That said, I have slapped a {{NPOV-sect}} stub on the section because it has some particularly strong pontification instead of neutral presentation and third-party analysis. What made me finally go with the tag instead of attempting a rewrite of the entire section (which would take hours to properly sort out and source), was finding this discussion... I came here when I got so disgusted by this paragraph, that I just had to see whether anyone had bothered to comment on it...

It is not reasonable to criticise Wagner solely on the basis of views expressed about him by a later generation: Hitler's admiration for Wagner could not have been returned because Wagner died six years before Hitler was born (on April 20, 1889). The political philosopher Leo Strauss has written about the absurdity of feeling that one should dislike something just because Hitler liked it (or vice versa) — what he called the Reductio ad Hitlerum. This would entail, for example, despising vegetarianism just because Hitler practiced it.

My objections are numerous. First off, it is not the place of WP to say what is or is not reasonable. Wagner's culpability or contribution to German antisemitism or hypothetical admiration he might have had for Hitler had they been contemporaries is pointless. Hitler chose Wagner because of Wagner's strongly-stated views--Hitler didn't misattribute them to Wagner, Wagner made his views quite clear on numerous occasions. The bit about Leo Strauss is fine, because it's not pontification by WP editors. (viz. WP:NOR) The sentence on vegetarianism, however, has no place here, not only because Hitler's vegetarianism is far from an accepted "fact" (while his admiration of Wagner is well documented), not because it's a false analogy (one should despise antisemitism because Hitler practiced it, would be more accurate, as would "one should despise Uma Pemmaraju because Hitler was a vegetarian [sic]"), but because it's a blatant violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I could have slapped {{fact}} tags all over the section, but multiple [citation needed] tags in every sentence goes a little bit beyond "obnoxious"... I don't want to fix the section up if everyone wants to just reduce it to a couple of sentences, but if the decision is made to spin it off to something like Perception of Wagner as an anti-Semite or whatever, let me know and I'll put a few hours into cleaning it up properly. Tomer^talk 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Two issues here:

1) I don't see there is any decision or consensus to 'spin this section off'. There is already an article Das Judenthum in der Musik which analyses W's essay in detail. This section places W's attitudes to Jews in a wider context. Wagner is a big subject, and if the sections on his operas and other legacy are not large enough by comparison with this (and I personally agree with you on that), then make them bigger, not this smaller! But determining the relative importance of different issues in W's life and how much space they should take up is also a POV consideration. for better or worse, probably more people know about W's anti-Jewish sentiments than know about his music, and the former may be a bigger reason for consulting WP on Wagner than the latter.

2)I have dealt with the specific POV issue ("it is not reasonable") by simply removing the offending sentence. The rest of the paragraph I think stands OK--Smerus 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also now shortened the section by making the paragraph about Wagner's religion, rather misplaced here, into a separate section. It would be a good idea if someone could exapnd this to deal with Wagner's attitude to philosophy as well......--Smerus 08:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Intending no offence at all; but I truly find this section redundant. Anti-semitism is a 1940+ creation, the concept didn't exist in a labelled form prior. Anti-anything was a viable political stance and if one didn't randomly bitch and moan in social cliques about some group or rather they would not suit the scene of the social clique in question in the era in question. Whilst editors seem to enjoy in depth discussion in hindsight of political philosophies, we should not truly write off or rail against historical figures based on their views that were perfectly acceptable in society at their time. This does not justify nor make the matter right, however it outlines a general limitation on how in depth we should go with such matters.

One thing that comes to mind is the 'list of white supremacists' article that was ditched due to the fact that pre-1950's the concept of 'white supremacist' didn't exist, it was a well touted and accepted doctrine (or 'truth') that 'whites' were 'supreme' and above all other ethnicities. This, we know, has changed, however we can't go listing every single person who lived pre-1950 as 'white supremacists' nor in depth on their white supremacy nature. It's all too redundant, as I said, I believe hindsight should apply to their in situ socio-cultural extensions only and not be used as a soliloquy into a political stanse. Jachin 13:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The term anti-semitism does not date from 1940+, but was invented by Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s, which is within Wagner's lifetime, though admittedly towards the end of it. Still, the idea had been forming throughout the nineteenth century as a result of the growth of ethno-linguistic and racial theory on the one hand and skepticism towards the Bible on the other. It's true that the term is also often used for anti-Jewish attitudes before that, attitudes that were not based on racial and ethno-linguistic theory, but on Christian condemnation of "Christ killers". But in practice pre-racialist attitudes simply mereged with the new theories. Wagner was a significant figure in the development of these ideas, not because he actually contributed much to anti-semitic theory, but because his views were known, he was a major cultural figure, and his work attracted German nationalists. Paul B 13:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of "Das Judenthum in der Musik"

1. You translate the Title of Wagner's Book "Das Judenthum in der Musik" as "Judaism in Music". This is misleading.

The word "Judenthum" (modern german: Judentum) could refer to either religio or natio. In this case the second meaning is clearly intended. Your translation "Judaism in Music" carries the sense of 'Jewish religious elements in Music'. In contrast, Wagner was referring to Jewish cultural elements in music, i.e. some collection of characteristics Wagner believed to have identified as commonly applied by Jewish performers, conductors, composers, etc.

An alternative translation to convey this meaning might be 'Jewish Elements in Music'. That title, however, still misses the faint note of derision inherent in the German title. To capture this element as well my final suggestion would be "Jewishness in Music".

[The above message was posted by anon IP 84.167.219.160 @ 03:26 (UTC) on 11 Jun 2005]

I disagree. "Judaism in Music" is a far more commonly found translation than "Jewry in Music," which seems to me in any case to be hardly an improvement. I'm for restoring the original title. (68.198.181.134 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Judaeism in Music is wrong, as above - he meant it in the context of Jewish cultural elements and not religion - Jewry in Music is more appropriate but I do not like that. What can be done? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 07:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of "Wahnfried"

2. Further down you translate the name of Wagner's house in Bayreuth (Wahnfried) as "Freedom from Illusions". This is badly amiss. 'Fried' refers to peace, not freedom; and 'Wahn' has various relations. One thinks first of 'Wahnsinn = madness' then of 'Wahnvorstellungen = illusions'.

Coming up with a better translation is harder than uncovering the fault. Understood in context, the name conveys Wagner's expression of relief (it could also be sour grapes!) at having escaped the sycophancy and intrigues of the Ludwig's court in Munich for the remote backwater of Bayreuth. A modern day comparison would be an powerful politician leaving Washington, or a much sought after entertainer departing from Los Angeles to live in Montana.

You can get that idea across by translating "Wahnfried" as "Peace from Hypocracy and Clamour" or, if you don't object to the faint touch of englishness, I'd prefer "Away from All That".

[The above message was posted by anon IP 84.167.219.160 @ 03:26 (UTC) on 11 Jun 2005]

---

I've read [3] the villa's complete inscription is:

Hier wo mein Wähnen

Frieden fand

WAHNFRIED

sei dieses Haus

von mir bennant

which would roughly translate to:

Here where my delusions/madnesses

have found peace

WAHNFRIED

be this house

by me named

And I've read the word "Wahn" should be compared to the Hans Sachs opening monologue of The Mastersingers of Nuremberg, Act III:

Wahn! Wahn! überall Wahn! Wohin ich forschend blick in Stadt- und Weltchronik, den Grund mir aufzufinden, warun gar bis aufs Blut die Leut' sich quälen und schinden in unnütz toller Wut!

that is:

Madness! Madness! Everywhere madness! ...

or less flat and literal:

Illusion! Delusion! Madness everywhere! ...

Actually, I was looking into that for the Richard Wahnfried article – on my side, I'm going to translate:

Wahnfried ("Peace from delusion and/or madness", in German)

One thing amuses me: the stereotypical French name for a villa is "Mon Repos", that is "My Rest" or "My Peace". Is there a similar stereotypical English name? "Wahnfried" seems like an exalted Romantic, or a pompously grandiose, version of it ;-)

←^#6  _{talk 07:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

P.S.: Last food for thought: when you're a 60+ year-old man, the villa is peace from the madness and insanity of the previous life; and once dead and buried into its garden, the inscription becomes an epitaph and the villa is peace from the delusions and vanity of life at all ;-)

←^#6  _{talk 07:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

I enjoyed your comments very much. In English I've usually seen "Wanderers Rest". The meaning of "wahn" meaning "madness" is on the mark. Daphne Warner's book from a few years ago has an entire chapter on this. Also, it relates to the theory of Wagner's semitic origins. One doesn't here so much about "wandering Jews" today since the creation of modern Isreal, but the meaning of the word "wahn" has a Yiddish origin, relating to the madness of Isreal's rebellion in the wilderness and that generation being cursed to wonder 40 years in the desert. The theme of a curse, followed by a wondering, is prevelent in Dutchman, Ring of the Nibelugen, Parsifal, and other works. Thanks again. Nobs01 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Nobs, for your kind remarks about my submission (above) regarding translation of 'Wahnfried'.

- We agree that Wahnfried means peace from madness, but who's madness? Extrapolating from Wagner's recent experiences, I thought it might be the madness of political machinations (seen from Wagner's, ie the loser's, point of view). Hence my whimsical suggestions. Your poem citation shows that Wagner was referring to himself, in which case I'd tip for the colloquial interpretion 'aggravation' instead of 'mental illness'. In which case, 'Wahnfried' could be simply translated as 'Retreat'.

- I am unable to identify a Yiddish origin for 'Wahn'. My Duden's Herkunftswörterbuch (Etymological dictionary) shows 'Wahn' to have very old German origins. Until fairly recently, 'Wahn' meant 'hope' or 'opinion' and is etymologically related to english 'win' (I doubt Wagner intended a double meaning). My (slim) Yiddish and Rotwelsch dictionary doesn't show 'Wahn'. Neither does it appear in my Hebrew dictionary. If 'Wahn' does occur in Yiddish, it is likely to be the result of German -> Yiddish and not the other way around. Further, 'Wahn' is a an everyday german word, so the idea that the name 'Wahnfried' has (anti-)semitic overtones seems tenuous.

[Note to Nobs: judging by your remark, I have hope that this discussion holds interest for you, as they do for me. However, some of the discussion may be on the edge of drifting off topic. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I wonder whether there could be a way I could address you at a private Nob Wikipedia page?]

If you click on my name that will take you to my talk page & feel free to make an entry at the bottom. By semitic origins, I was referring to the long standing rumor that Wagner himself was Jewish. Historian Will Durant flatly says so, as do others. Meyerbeer, when he met him, thought Wagner to be Jewish. Personally I think Wagner himself thought so. And I draw that from numerous contexts from his works. Virtually all of them have a pattern of a curse, followed by wondering, and ultimately redemption. And this is drawn from Christian Dispensationalism. The entire bible is a story of the curse (fall of Adam), followed by a "wandering" (Isreal in the wilderness), or the madness of being lost in ones sin, to finally redemption through Christ (Christian conversion). Wagner, it appears, may have been a Jew who was a closet Christian, and his rejection of Judaism was mirrored by the treatment Messianic Jews get from thier own community. Just a theory perhaps. But I think there may be much to it.Nobs01 02:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wow! Fascinating, and if you feel its drifting off-topic i'd as soon have you keep it here labelled as "==Off-Topic: the Mind of Wagner==", and hope that any wet-blanket who moves it elsewhere leaves a lk here saying where!

--Jerzy·t 21:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it should be clear to anyone familiar with Wagner. After the extensive discussion on Wagner's anti-Semitism (still being debated by knowledgeable people above), I am reintroducing the idea that Wagner was himself Jewish (supported by historian Will Durant, and making a distinction between pre-1948 anti-Semitism and post-1948 anti-Semitism, in otherwords, the idea is different today than what is was in Wagner's day, especially toward Jews who embraced Christianity). Than I am also reintroducing the idea, supported by Friedrich Nietzsche, that Wagner in his old age, fully embraced Christian doctrine (despite all his sins, and without an outward display, essentially the same doctrines Holy Rollers embrace). Christian doctrine is evident as being uppermost in his mind throughout all his works. None of this is new; any serious student of Wagner is familiar with all of it. Yet this article, the 4 archive pages, and this talk page there is little mention of it. Instead, we have much the same discussion prevelent in most English language articles about Wagner. Another thing lacking is the Bayreuth Festival page, which has virtually nothing about the current controvesy going on in Bayreuth over successorship. One would presume, there should be some reference to it here also. Thanks. Nobs01 22:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In a culture saturated in Christian doctrine, many emotionally charged works would suffer some degree of impoverishment by their authors' forswearing Christian images. (Note the Walden Two passage where the secularist B.F. Skinner-mouthpiece character is described in a Christ-on-the-Cross posture!) Parsifal can also be read as pushing what Christians call central to Christianity into positions subordinate to other elements, as Islam does in its use of Judeo-Christian material; Kundry's recitation of all her names breaks down any dichotomy between paganism and Parsifal's Christianity-derived elements.

The role of Bayreuth and other Wagneria in the Third Reich (where cleansing true Aryan paganism of its Christian accretions seems to have been an agenda) makes Wagner-as-Christian far from the slam-dunk you are suggesting, so be careful to thoroughly NPoV what you add in this regard.

--Jerzy·t 18:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The idea the Parsifal expresses a "Pentecostalist" Christianity seems to me to be rather unlikely. Wagner was deep into racialism and religious-synchretism when it was written, ideas that were commonplace among the European intelligensia at the time. Don't forget he was planning an opera about the Buddha at the same time! He also tried to prove the the name "Parsifal" derived from "Parsi" (i.e. Persian - meaning 'Aryan'). I don't think this means that he wanted to cleanse Aryan paganism of Christianity (as some Nazis did), but rather, as Jerzy suggests, that he wanted to show that Christianity was consistent with the concepts of renunciation and purification central to the major Aryan (Indo-European) religions - Zoroastrianism, Vedicism and Buddhism. This involved marginalising more distinctively Christian concepts.

As for the suggestion that Wagner was actually Jewish - there's no evidence for that, and Will Durant is not a Wagner scholar. There is however some reason to think that Wagner may have been highly sensitised to the suggestion that he was Jewish because of doubts about his parenthood. I've indicated that in some additions to the text. Paul B 14:58, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wagner the German Jewish composer

The wagner scholar Robert Gutman, gave evidence in his 600 pages treatise on Richard Wagner, showing most conclusively that Wagner was Jewish, Robert W. Gutman, Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind and His Music (1968). In fact the treatise of Robert Gutman gives a photograph of a document of a Leipzig Synagogue which registered wagner into the synagogue as a boy under the name "Richard Geyer". Moreover the paternity of wagner, which apperas controversial, as gutman pointed out is because the nazis tried successfully to cover up a lot of these documents. However Wagner's jewishness is no longer controversial in terms of certainty. But it is controversial in terms of implications. For nationalistic germans it is unconceivable that the most monumental german was jewish and for Jews it is terribly hard to accept that the foundations of nazism were laid by a Jew.

Wagner himself was not confused about his paternity, but tried his best to conceal it. However, on the front cover of the first publication of his autobiography Mein Leben he showed the picture of an eagle, which he described to close associates including the later adversary Nietzsche as representing "geyer". geyer like adler was common german Jewish surname and stood for eagle like the surname adler.

Besides wagner himself had confided about his jewishness through his father geyer, to nietzsche and his wife cosima wagner. But cosima wagner tried her best to conceal it even after wagner's death. However nietzsche wrote about wagner's knowledge about his own jewishness. Robin klein 09:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Geyer (geier) means "vulture" in German, not "eagle". Secondly, Gutman's speculations were disproved by German researchers in the 1970s. John Chancellor's Wagner biography summarises their findings: "He [Geyer] could claim the same sturdy descent as the Wagners. His pedigree also went back to the middle of the seventeenth century and his forefathers were also, for the most part, organists in small Thuringian towns and villages". Even if Geyer had been Jewish, Judaism is passed through the female line, so afaik Wagner would not have been accepted into a synagogue, unless perhaps his mother converted, for which there would be ample evidence that is nowhere to be found. Paul B 11:05 20 June 2005 (UTC)

True, Jewishness is inherited through the mother, or rather it is matrilineal. But it does not mean that the jewish community does not accept a person into the synagogue if he is not a first degree jew (or the direct offspring of a jewish mother). Infact according to rabbinical laws a person is jewish until the seventh degree. or in other words, till the seventh descendant of the last jewish mother in the lineage. Richard Wagner for that matter was / is considered as fourth or fifth degree Jewish. Robin klein 12:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not what it says here Who is a Jew? nor on the sites they reference. Anyway, as I say, there is no evidence at all that Geyer was Jewish or part-Jewish. That's not to say Wagner didn't think he might have been. There's reason to believe he may well have thought so. Paul B 12:30, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

There is evidence that Geyer was Jewish, the geyer family including Richard Geyer a.k.a Richard Wagner was listed in a leipzig synagogue. Robin klein 12:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Robin all I can say is that I can find no reference anywhere in any book on Wagner (or even website) to these records in a Leipzig synagogue. Do you have a source for it? It seems very unlikely. Even writers who have claimed that Geyer was of Jewish descent do not say he was a practicing Jew. Wagner was baptised and confirmed without any indication that his family had at any point practiced Judaism. However, I did make a mistake when I said Gutman's speculations were disproved. It seems that it was others who had speculated. Gutman's "600 page treatise" says no such thing. This is what he wrote: "research has so far failed to produce a single demonstrably Jewish ancestor on the Geyer family tree." Likewise, Hans Gal's later biography says "there is no documentary proof whatsoever for Nietszche's surmise that Geyer was of Jewish origin". R. Taylor's biography states, "For the record, let us observe that there is not a single Jew to be found among Geyer's ancestors." Paul B 16:45, 20 June 2005 (utc)

I had seen a picture of the document of richard geyer registered in a synagogue. which I have been talking about. I read gutman over 12 years ago. I think I saw the document in that book. If not in that book then I dont know remember which else. But I stand to lose as I cannot remember the exact book. Though my best bet is gutman. please check it. I am not able to access the same library that I read gutman several years ago. Yes in fact I was shocked and surprised to see the document because it should lay to rest all wagner controversy at least regarding his parentage. But since I cannot produce the exact page number I should say clear that I stand to lose this conversation, in earnest. Robin klein 17:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brief comment: this article seems to draw heavily on Gutman's book (which is very, very good). Keep in mind, there are ten's of thousands of other also good sources. Also a credit to the editors of this article is, that much of the writing by authors who really know nothing of Wagner's works, yet purport to know "facts", has been kept to a minimum. Nobs01 17:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geyer wasn't Wagner's biological father; his mother remarried the man Geyer after her husband (Richard Wagner's biological father) died, which was when Richard was very very young. --gikar, 4-13-06

---

Question: Anybody know if there is a German or English language link to Wagner's tract on Vivisectionism, given the current wiki debate going on at that page?Nobs01 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here it is in English [4] Paul B 10:50 21 June 2005 (UTC)

What are some of the best biographies on Wager? Also, wasn't Conrad Glasenapp the 'offical' Wagner biographer of the time? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [5], 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Early life, Dresden

First of all, "In 1822, at age 11, Richard was enrolled in the Kreuzschule, Dresden" is false because Wagner would have been 8 or 9 in 1822 (born May 22, 1813). I would edit it, but I'm not certain whether it should read "In 1822, at age 8...", "In 1822, at age 9...", or "In 1824, at age 11...". Furthermore, I read on this website that he moved to Dresden at age seven, but I don't have anything to confirm if this is correct. Anyone have some more reliable sources?

I have corrected and edited this section so as to deal with these queries. --Smerus 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayreuth circle

An article (or non-article) exists entitled Bayreuth circle. I have posted it for deletion. Do please take a look - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bayreuth_Circle - and vote (I hope for deletion, but against if you feel you have to!!). --Smerus 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over terms

I suppose this request would call for some fairly drastic (albeit necessary) reconsiderations on a number of Wikipedia articles (perhaps most importantly, its relationship to categorization), but I must strenuously oppose the affixation of the term "opera" to Wagner's music dramas. Indeed, there is an acute difference between the contemporaneously prevailing trends in Italian and French styles of opera and those of Wagner's music dramas (also, several of Richard Strauss' works), so much that it rather stifles comparison. Placing the music dramas of the Ring Cycle under the category of "Operas" is not only a misconstruction of its artistic integrity, but also a false predicate. The distinction is not nearly so arbitrary as one might think, and it is not singularly standard to respect the categoric designations of, take for instance, Gustav Mahler's Eighth Symphony (which adheres to a scarcely traditional symphonic structure) as "symphony" and deny Wagner's discrimination between opera and music drama. The abandonment of this intelligible boundary between opera and music drama bodes ill for the categorization of mid-20th Century musicals as well. I would be hesitant to advance any re-categorisation without the mutual devotion from those competent on the subject, so I will wait before editng the relevant articles. A.G. Pinkwater 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an general encyclopaedia, rather than a debating forum for musicologists or those interested in Wagner's theory of drama. Whilst the general reader certianly needs to made aware of the debate opera/music drama, people in general (and many of those who enjoy Wagner's music) think of Wagner's works as operas and it would be confusing and perhaps detrimental to 'detach' them from the category of opera unless you can demonstrate wide-scale support for such a move. Why not, for example, create an article Music drama in which you can cover Wagner's ideas on this issue, and link it to other relevant WP articles?

Smerus 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist ?

Wasn't Wagner a Marxist Socialist in his younger days? Can anyone confirm that? --Donnald 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He was never a Marxist - Marx himself was little-known at the time. He was associated with Michael Bakunin and with the general Left-Hegelian thinking of the era, which often mixed socialist with semi-mystical nationalist ideas. Paul B 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So apart from his anti-semitic views , was Wagner ever right-wing? --Donnald 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

His politics probably shifted to a more conservative line after reading Schopenhauer, because S. attributes the problems of life not to changeable social conditions but to unchangeable metaphysical ones. The failures of the the 1848 revolutions probably had some effect too, since they had that effect on an awful lot of people. Wagner also appears to have gone for a more nationalistic line around the time of the Franco-Prussian War, but to be fair, having one's own country win a war tends to have that effect on people. The sense that the left had failed to achieve unification in 1848, but the right delivered it in the 1870s was widely shared.--Agent Cooper 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche

"his pacifism and anti-Semitism, and with Wagner's uncritical followers. In Der Fall Wagner ("The Case of Wagner", 1888) and Nietzsche Contra Wagner ("Nietzsche vs. Wagner", 1889), he conceded the power of Wagner's music but condemned Wagner as decadent and corrupt, even criticizing his earlier adulatory views of the composer."

This is not literally wrong, but for the reference to pacifism, for which I can find no supporting reference and which doesn't tally with my knowledge of Nietzsche. But the whole passage is seriously misleading--the first sentence suggests that Nietzsche was primarily concerned with Wagner's followers, whereas all the evidence suggests that he was earliest concerned with Wagner's personality, which he was coming to regard as histrionic and inauthentic. Second, it is misleading to suggest that he conceded the power of Wagner's music when a great deal of his late writing on Wagner is concerned with understanding what is wrong with the music qua music; there is nothing much "conceded" in these critical discussions other than the danger of its seductiveness. I know of three places where Nietzsche says something positive about Wagner's music in his late (post 1876, the date of "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth") writings (1) in Beyond Good and Evil he praises the overture to Meistersinger, (2) there's a passage, I don't recall the location but could find it, where he says that Wagner wants to make grand music but that his real gift is as a "miniaturist" and depictor of sad moods [I think this is in NCW, which begins with positive comments], and a letter in which he says that musically, Parsifal is the best thing Wagner has done.

Nietzsche objected to Wagner's lack of rhythm, his histrionic aesthetic, his overbearing personality and inauthenticity, his antisemitism, his nationalism, his reactionary appropriation of Christianity in Parsifal, and much else besides. Whether these objections are fair is not my or Wikipedia's concern, but it is worth noting that in the Wagner secondary literature, it is common to distort the character of Nietzsche's objections the better to minimize them, and making the lead objection to Wagner his "pacifism" (something I don't think he ever discusses, and something that is often thought to be praiseworthy, thus playing the tar someone by alluding to a connection to Germal imperialism game in reverse) while tagging on the end that Nietzsche seems not to have had a problem with Wagner's music of course, who could? is to completely misrepresent the relationship between these two unusual men. Nietzsche's personal objection to Wagner was that he couldn't bear to stand in his shadow. Nietzsche's main public objection to Wagner was that his music was bad and bad for us in the same way that opiate addiction was--it dulled our pain without solving our problems.--Agent Cooper 16:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche grew disgusted with what Wagner's music represented to him, but still conceded that Wagner was a masterful musician. He wrote of Wagner, "His last work is in this respect his greatest masterpiece. In the art of seduction, Parsifal  will always retain its rank, as the stroke of genius in seduction... I admire this work, I wish I had produced it myself; failing that, I understand it." He also writes that Wagner is the most "eloquent prophet of the soul" of modernity and that "I understand perfectly when a musician says today: 'I hate Wagner, but I can no longer endure any other music.'"[6] I wouldn't say Nietzsche was questioning Wagner's talent as a musician so much as attacking what he stood for and what he had done to music.Shield2 10:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He also called Wagner a "genious" in Beyond Good and Evil

"With all profound and comprehensive men of this century the real overall direction in the mysterious work of their souls has been to prepare the way to this new synthesis and to anticipate, as an experiment, the Europe of the future.  Only in their foregrounds or in their weaker hours, as in old age, did they belong to the 'fatherland.”' They were only taking a rest from themselves when they became 'patriots.'

I’m thinking of men like Napoleon, Goethe, Beethoven, Stendhal, Heinrich Heine, Schopenhauer.  Don’t get angry with me if I also count Richard Wagner among them.  About him people should not let themselves be seduced by his own misunderstandings—geniuses of his kind rarely have the right to understandthemselves.   Even less, of course, by the uncivilized noise with which people these days in France close themselves off from and resist Richard Wagner.  Nonetheless, the fact remains that the late French Romanticism of the forties and Richard Wagner belong together in the closest and most inner relation. "[7]Shield2 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merkel & Wagner

Angela Merkel is a big Wagner fan. She seems to disassociate Wagner's anti-semitism from his so-called music. Is this possible, were one to understand the connection between classical art and science? and then the link between degenerate music and degenerate beliefs? please write me a note, should you comment here, that I come check this out. --Ibykus prometheus 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"So-called music"? What else do you call it? The claim that there is a link between "degnerate music and degenerate beliefs" makes you sound like the Nazi here. Paul B 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gobineau and the Grail

I've not looked at this article in a couple of months, but this section on the influence of Gobineau on Wagner has been added which is poorly written, very sweeping in its statements and backs them up only with secondary or even tertiary sources.

• "The influence of Gobineau in Wagner's mature period, even extending esoterically into his art-work, is very strong." - well personally I don't see any influence on Wagner's operas at all, probably because he wrote the stories for most of them well before he ever met or read Gobineau.
• ""On the Womanly in the Human Race" (1883), a recently composed essay found in Wagner's papers after his death" - a recently composed essay?
• The reference to Waite's book does not consititue a reliable source for what Wagner actually thought. You would in any case have to ask why (if the Grail knights are the Supreme Race) are the Grail knights not the ones who find the Holy Spear? Why do they waste their time in meaningless ritual, waiting for miracles? The opera shows clearly that the person who can win the Spear is an outsider whose prime virtue is that of compassion. I have to say that I think this section should be removed until something better (ie. more accurate) can be written.--Dogbertd 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-ordered article

I've changed the order of items in the article. I thought that, as this is an encyclopedia article and not a polemic, it would be more appropriate to focus on his life and works before plunging the article into the murky depths of Wagnerian controversy: Antisemitism, Racism, Religion and the like. I hope this is OK. --Dogbertd 09:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dogbertd, I will assume you had good intentions, but what you have taken out rather irresponsibly is actually truthful and creditable information. The section should remain as it was with slight modifications. The relationship between Wagner and Gobineau and Gobineau's influence on Wagner's philosophy should be honestly and forthrightly presented, not whitewashed or prettified to fit modern tastes--this is poor scholarship. Wagner more agreed with Gobineau's main lines of thought than disagreed--this is simply a fact. Wagner also responded to Gobineau intellectually in more than two essays--see his Introduction to a work of Count Gobineau's (1881), where Wagner indicates explicitly his agreement with Gobineau's main line of contention:

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wlpr0155.htm

"We, on the contrary, can but be grateful to that work of one of the shrewdest of ethnologists for an explanation why our truly lofty minds stand lonelier every day, and—perhaps in consequence—grow ever rarer; so that we can imagine the greatest artists and poets surrounded by a world to which they have naught to say."

This prose work and its contents you have *very questionably* removed from the article. It is also FLATLY UNTRUE Wagner was not particularly supportive of Gobineau in his essays--this statement reeks of unbalanced propaganda. Have you actually personally read these essays in question? Wagner agrees in all the essentials with Gobineau; he only disputes minor points. So, I merely propose that this section should be ruthlessly honest, scholarly, less nervous and quibblingly defensive from a modern perspective, and incorporate more of the previously supplied and unreasonably edited out information.

• Hi! Please rearrange the article as you see fit, however I would remind you that Wikipedia requires verification (see Wikipedia: verification) of material in its articles: it's not sufficient for you to assert that "Wagner more agreed with Gobineau's main lines of thought than disagreed--this is simply a fact" - you must show that it is a fact (in actuality you must show that others believe it to be a fact, since original research is not permitted in Wikipedia). I have tried to put Gobineau's influence into context: he stayed with Wagner only the once (for 5 weeks in 1881), Cosima's Diaries and Wagner's own "Mein Leben" do not suggest that Gobineau was important to Wagner prior to this event. As Wagner had written the libretto and the score for the first two acts of Parsifal by this time, one cannot argue that Parsifal was influenced by Gobineau. Cosima Wagner's diaries do certainly record the details of conversations where they disagreed,and I have added this to the article. In addition you say that "It is also FLATLY UNTRUE Wagner was not particularly supportive of Gobineau in his essays" - please back this statement up with verifiable information. I agree that Wagner speaks warmly of M. Gobineau in his introduction, but the quote you use does not in any way suggest that he agreed strongly with the Count's notion of Aryan races being superior, although I think that Wagner accepted the idea that the people of the world could be grouped into the black, white and yellow (an idea which did not originate with Gobineau). I removed a lot of stuff which was more about Hitler than Wagner, material that I considered to be very biased (see Wikipedia:NPOV) and have tried to replace it with more modest, neutral text - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a polemic. Please add more if you think that you can back up your claims, but let's not blow this out of proportion: Gobineau only really came into Wagner's life 2 years before Wagner died, and after he composed all his major works. I guess it would also be nice if you would identify yourself. --Dogbertd 12:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I've added some more references to the article (thanks for the link to the originals, BTW) and re-inserted some notes on Wagner's "Introduction to a work of Count Gobineau". I still think this section is much too big and over-emphasises something that did not influence Wagner's stage works. --Dogbertd 08:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dogbert, your honesty and good will is appreciated. Unbalanced polemicism in the article has been largely avoided. Now that the articles by Wagner dealing with Gobineau are nicely listed and linked to, people will have the chance to impartially study his words for themselves. The issues of 1) the presence of an anti-modernist, 'organic' ethnic nationalist ideology of ethnocultural purity and renaissance in Wagner's art (Gobineau need not even be an influence--such ideologies were widespread--yet Gobineau's Inequality of the Human Races was published in 1853--Wagner need not meet him Gobineau personally to imbibe his ideas) and 2) Wagner's ideological and cultural influence over the young absorbent mind of Hitler and his incipient movement remain to be dealt with at a high objective level.

--The recent supplementations make the article very close to perfect, with an admirable standard of impartial scholarship.

[edit] Hitler?

"Hitler's admiration for Wagner could not have been returned because Wagner died six years before Hitler was born (on April 20, 1889). The political philosopher Leo Strauss has written about the absurdity of feeling that one should dislike something just because Hitler liked it (or vice versa) — what he called the Reductio ad Hitlerum."

For some reason this was in there, all but the first sentence is irrelevant but I really don't have enough time to go in there and delete it. It's somewhere around the end, sorry if I'm kinda vague about where it is.

-User:Jim Bart (sorry I'm not signed in)

[edit] Clear meaning

Smerus altered the discussion of Judaism in Music with the following edit summary " I don't think the original text of Wagner is in fact 'clear' as to his meaning - that is why there has been controversy; I hope this rewrite is aporpriately NPOV". I don't have any problem with the rewrite itself, but I think we should be clear about what is and isn't clear. It's difficult to see any ambiguity about what Wagner means in the last two paras of his article, even despite his horribly turgid prose. He says quite explicitly that Jews should follow the example of Börne. Since Börne converted to Christianity, but did not kill himself, it's difficult to see how anyone can interpret this to suggest that "self-anihilation" could possibly imply that Jews should somehow literally murder themselves. No-one would ever have interpreted his comments this way were it not for a tendency to seek prefigurations of the Final Solution a la Goldhagen. However, the fact that Wagner was not telling Jews to literally commit suicide does not make Judaism in Music some sort of unimpeachable liberal text. It's full of gratuitous vulgar insults and derogatory remarks about Judaism, along with more evasive sub-Hegelian comments equating Judaism with alienation and moral corruption. We don't have to pretend that someone is proposing the Holocaust to convict him of anti-Semitic abuse. Paul B 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is impossible to know what Wagner really meant, but I agree that a Holocaust is not implied in his article Judaism in Music. It is significant that he ends the article with the example of Börne and that he finishes with the exhortation to Jews that they suffer the fate of Ahasuerus - the Wandering Jew. The only way for Ahasuerus to achieve redemption and release from his curse is by accepting Christianity (ie. by converting, as Börne did). My opinion is that this is why Wagner re-published this article later on in his life, when he was very preoccupied with redemption of mankind and proposed a kind of buddhist Christianity as the route to salvation. Personally I think these sections are too big and unwieldy for the main article, and would like to see them spun out into a separate article where the endless bunfights about what Wagner really thought could be kept separate from the very concrete stuff about his musical achievements.--Dogbertd 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original inspiration

No mention of Wilhelmine Schröder-Dervient? In his autobiography My life, Wagner stated that he decided to became a musician after seeing Schröder-Dervient perform in theatre. Coral reef 6.11.2006.

Millington doubts that the performance of Fidelio by S-D (which Wagner claimed was a huge inspiration) ever happened, and thinks that Wagner made this event up retrospectively. Though he certainly saw her a lot, later in life, and she gave importance performances of his works which helped his career. Allansteel 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that W had presented a fantasised version of his past to the reader of Mein Leben (and who was it written for? - that greatest fantasist of all, Ludwig.) I think Millington's argument is that W did not see Mme Schroder-Devrient in Fidelio, but that it must have been some other opera he saw her in. Nevetheless Coral Reef has a point - it would be worth including Mme S-D and her influence - which was real, regardless of the exact circumstances - in the article.--Dogbertd 08:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Millington thinks that Wagner used a supposed performance of Fidelio to help his "heir to Beethoven" image. So I just meant that as usual you have to be careful about Wagner's claims for his inspiration, etc., but S-D was certainly very significant in his career, so worth including. Allansteel 12:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article?

This article is now becoming quite large and for a general reader includes much material that is quite detailed and probably of little interest, particularly in the Controversies section. Someone who finds the Richard Wagner article may well want to know something about the man and his works, but is probably not really going to want the minutiae of his thinking on racial degeneration, for example. I propose splitting out the controversies section and having a more condensed controversy section in the main article with a redirect. I've begun work on a new article Wagner Controversies, and provided there isn't a huge chorus of disapproval, will redirect those interested in Wagnerian disagreements to this new article.--Dogbertd 09:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion of his Antisemitism should remain as it is an important part of his reputation. As for the Aryanism section, I agree it's rather marginal. Paul B 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that these issues are removed completely from the main article, simply condensed.--Dogbertd 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies section

It is ludicriously repetitive to have a long section on "Wagner controversies" and then an entire other article on the subject not much longer than the original. Somewhat ungracefully, I'm afraid, I've deleted the "controversies" portion of this article, replacing them with a brief mention of the issue and a link to the other page. A paragraph on Wagner's well-known antisemitism could feasibly be included here with a brief mention of other controversies and a link to the other article, but anything more than that is probably over-kill, especially since compared to the truly disturbing nature of Wagner's antisemitic views questions like the orthodoxy of his religious beliefs seem to be quite unrelated and secondary, truly sharing in common little beyond the fact that both are controversial. Also, if such a paragraph were to be written, it should probably come before the final legacy portion of the article, which functions as an obvious conclusion. (68.198.181.134 08:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

I agree, but your edits have already been reverted (not by me). Would other editors of Richard Wagner agree to a more condensed form of the Controversies section (ie a paragraph at most)? Personally I don't think the religious views bit adds much and the parts on antisemitism, racism and nazism are now much more fully explored in the Wagner Controversies article. Wagner's antisemitism is already mentioned in Richard Wagner, and links are provided to both Judaism in Music and the Wagner Controversies article, so it's not as if anyone is trying to whitewash this aspect of his personality.--Dogbertd 11:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dogbertd's proposal sounds OK to me --Smerus 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There short be a shortish section on his ideas. Perhaps "Controversies" is not the best title, since not all of his ideas are controversial. Since he wrote the texts of his operas as well as the music, their meaning is importrant. After all, numerous books have been written interpreting their significance, symbolism etc. His religio-philosophical ideas are therefore important. Paul B 11:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A change of title in this section might encourage more input. I don't even like the title of the Wagner Controversies article, even though i started it! There still needs to be some description of Wagner's ambivalent position on the unification of Germany, his dislike of Bismark, vegetarianism, anti-vivisectionism etc. I also think theree should be a separate article on his contributions to conducting, stagecraft, theatre design and so on.--Dogbertd 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Composers on Germanic Mythology

What other composers (before, during or after) Wagner's lifetime romanticised and glorified the Germanic myths? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authentic Music of Wagner

Is their a composer/orchestra most respected for performing Wager music and on CD? I have read that the best is Sir Simon Rattle as he "led the first-ever modern performance of Wagner's Ring cycle, featuring the instruments the piece was written for." [8]. Can you get his Wagner stuff? Is their anyone else respected for their performance of Wagners music that can be found on CD? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 09:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest you look at the Wikipedia pages for the individual Wagner operas? These almost always have a section on recordings, and this will give you some idea of the great Wagner conductors (I think it would be impossible to say that there is a "best".) Rattle has not recorded any Wagner AFAIK, but he has performed Parsifal and Rheingold, the latter, as you say, was done with instruments representative of the sound Wagner might have heard. A similar approach was taken by Roger Norrington who issued a CD on EMI of Wagner played using the period style.--Dogbertd 10:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE PUT THE AUTHOR ON THE PAGE!!! it would make things a lot easier for kids like me to do citation for a project if we had the author in it. I can't put the author in it because I have no idea who did this wonderful article, but can someone out there please use some common sense and just put the author on the page? (User: marlena P.)February 5, 2007)

If you mean the Wagner article, then it is written by hundreds of people from all over the world. For specific parts of the article citations are given. If they are not then Wikipedia is the source. Robert C Prenic 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of "Judentum"

I strongly feel that the German word "Judentum" should generally be translated in to "Judaism," as is traditional, and not into "Jewry." The truth is that the word generally refers in German to Judaism as a whole, not just to the "Jewry" with its much more restricted sense in English, which I believe is quite misleading. The proposition that "Judaismus" is the German word for "Judaism" not "Judentum" must be some error or a ludicrous attempt at being PC - the word is in comparison almost never used and may not have even existed during Wagner's lifetime for all I know - and you can take as proof of this the fact that the wikipedia article on Judaism in German is titled "Judentum" not "Judaismus." Furthermore, if the word "Judaismus" is used at all it refers very specifically to the religious practices of the Jewish people, which is certainly NOT what Wagner was concerned with. All the translators of Das Judentum in der Musik into English have used the word "Judaism" not "Jewry," and while some PC-ifying maniac has desperately re-tranlated even the link to that translation according to his own whims, I propose that this was both unnecessary and misleading and that all such translations should be reverted. (Eeesh 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

• Unfortunately you are quite incorrect. The German word for Judaism is indeed 'Judaismus'- see any dictionary - (I have just consulted the Collins dictionary, but others will tell you the same). You actually make the relevant point, that 'Judaismus' refers to the practice of Judaism, which is not dealt with at all in Wagner's essay. 'Judentum' (Jewdom/Jewry) - menaning the Jewish people collectively - however also carried in the 19th century the secondary meaning of 'Jewishness/commercialism/haggling' - and was thus used by Karl Marx amongst others. That was also the intention of Wagner. The translation normally reprinted is that by W. Ashton Ellis, the first translator, whose mistake is thus perpetuated. The more recent translation by Charles Osborne uses 'Jewry'. There is nothing 'PC' about this - it is a matter of academic consensus and accuracy. I think even you must concede that, whatever 'Judaismus' may mean in German, 'Judaism' in English means Jewish practice - and that is far removed from Wagner's essay. It is simply not the right word in the circumstances. --Smerus 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Excuse me but I speak German, and I can tell you that just about any normal person (and I've checked in dictionaries too just to make sure; several smaller ones don't even have the word "Judaismus") would translate the English word "Judaism" into German as "Judentum" rather than "Judaismus," and this was absolutely the case in the 19th century when Wagner was writing. In other words, the word has a very broad meaning in German as it can refer to the religion of the Jewish people, the Jewish people collectively, their real or imagined traits, etc; the English word "Jewry" is far less common in English (not to mention, far less commonly used to translate the title of Wagner's essay), and has a much more restrictive sense than the German in that it really only refers to the Jewish people collectively, merely one of the several senses suggested by the German word, and not really the sense of Wagner's meaning (he would have said "Die Juden in der Musik"). Perhaps a better alternative translation would actually be, ludicrous though it may sound, "Jewishness in Music," but I strongly feel that the more common translation of "Judaism in Music" remains the best one for the purposes of this site, since it is far more common, broader, and doesn't in any way distort the broad sense of Wagner's meaning, and is thus less likely to lead readers astray.

I'll have to apologize if this post was repetitive but I honestly found much of yours to be slightly incoherent. You claim that translating "Judentum" as "Judaism" is a point-blank a mistake; I assure you that it is not, and is in fact, in the great majority of cases, the preferable translation of the word into English. I can't really cite a better source on this issue than the German wikipedia article "Judentum," which begins by stating clearly, "Unter Judentum versteht man die Gesamtheit aus Kultur, Geschichte, Religion und Tradition des sich selbst als Volk Israel (he. am jisrael, bnei jisrael) bezeichnenden jüdischen Volkes. Mit dem Begriff können auch gezielt die jüdische Religion oder, als Gruppe, die sowohl ein Volk als auch eine Glaubensgemeinschaft darstellenden Juden (he. jehudim) angesprochen werden," and goes on to once again call "Das Judentum" a major world religion, etc. etc.. One would never claim that the word "jewry" refers to the culture, history, and religious beliefs of the Jewish people, or to claim that "Jewry" is a world religion. (Eeesh 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

OK let's start again. Whatever 'Judentum' and 'Judaismus' means in German, 'Judaism' in English means the religious practices of the Jews - and as I speak English I offer my authority for that. But if you don't accept my authority, look up the Oxford English Dictionary (1991) (ISBN 0198612206); 'the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews'. Wagner's essay is not about the religious practices of the Jews - it is about 'Judentum' which in 19th century German carried the double meaning of 'Jews in general' and 'cheap haggling'. Whether or not it carried any meaning about religious practice is in fact irrelevant. The question is, what is the most appropriate translation for 'Judentum' into English in these circumstances. We have three alternatives before us: 'Jewry', your suggestion of 'Jewishness', and Ellis's 'Judaism'. Of these three, the one alternative that does not encompass both 'Jews in general' and 'haggling' (Wagner's implicit pun) is 'Judaism'. Therefore - out it goes, whatever your - or my - dictionaries say. I agree with you that 'Jewishness' would also be acceptable, but as there is nothing to choose between it and 'Jewry' (except perhaps the snappiness of the latter), then let it stay. After all, who forbids it? By the way, amongst those who do claim (in contrast to your assertion that it is never claimed) that the word 'jewry' refers both to the Jewish religion and to 'the Jews collectively', is the Oxford English Dictionary (look it up). I would rest my case if I weren't somehow convinced that you would return to the attack. Regards, --Smerus 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, I may speak German as well but I am a native speaker of English. Simply put, I see three reasons at the moment why the word "Judaism" is preferable to "Jewry": 1. "Judaism" has a broader meaning in English and thus is closer to the German word "Judentum" and makes for a better translation. Let's assume that Wikipedia is, in general, a good source for standard English usage; you'll notice that if you search for "Judaism" the article encompasses not only religion, but a good deal of information about the cultural practices and history of the Jewish people; it is, again, the article to which the German article "Judentum" is linked. In contrast, if you search for "Jewry" you're linked to a far more limited discussion of Jewish population. It is absolutely clear to me which English word comes closer to approximating the German; the only shortcoming is that the German "Judentum" is in fact even broader in its implications than the English word "Judaism," and thus even farther away from the very limited English word "Jewry," which suggests an idea of the Jewish people as a collective, and would lead English-speakers to believe that the German article is titled something like "Jews in Music;" no one is going to be mislead to think that in "Judaism in Music" Wagner is talking about Jewish religious practices in music - they will of course understand the broader implications of the word and realize that he is attacking not only Jews in music, but Jewish cultural practices, conceptions of "Jewishness" in music, and so on and so forth. 2. "Judaism in Music" is far more commonly used as the English title of Wagner's essay, and since, as discussed above, there is no inherent advantage to the translation of "Jewry," it will be far more convenient for English speakers to maintain the standard convention, rather than complicate things unnecessarily (and misleadingly, see above). 3. "Judaism" is simply a far more commonly word in English than "Jewry" (as is, again, the German "Judentum" rather than "Judaismus") - isn't it a bit affected to pretend that the simpler word is somehow "inferior" in this case? What is particularly annoying and hypocritical is that it is, in my opinion, clearly NOT the "inferior" word. As further evidence of all of this, I cite the fact that the THIRD internet page that comes up under a search for "Jewry" on google is about YOUR thesis. Are you really in a position to consider this issue disinterestedly? (Eeesh 12:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

I must admit I've never been happy with the clumsy "Jewry in Music". "Jewry" is a very uncommon word in modern English. I don't think the phrase "Judaism in Music" would lead anyone to understand that Wagner was talking about religious beliefs in music (whatever that would be). However, the notion that "Jewishness" in this context means more than just Jews is important, so I suggest that it be changed to "Jewishness in Music". Paul B 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eeesh, you may be happy to "assume that Wikipedia is, in general, a good source for standard English usage"; I would prefer to rely upon the authority of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which is unequivocal, and which I quote in full:

1. The profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religion of the Jews, with a belief in one God and a basis in Mosaic and rabbinical teachings. LME.

Conservative Judaism: see CONSERVATIVE adjective. Liberal Judaism: see LIBERAL adjective.

2. Adoption of Jewish practices on the part of Christians; a practice or cast of thought associated with Jews. M17.

3. Hist. = JEWRY 2. Also, in official documents, the revenue derived by the Crown from Jews; the treasury which received this money. M19.

• Judaist noun a person who follows Jewish practice or ritual; esp. (in Ecclesiastical History) a Jewish Christian of the apostolic age: M19.

• Juda"istic adjective of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Judaists M19.

As for "no one is going to be mislead to think that in "Judaism in Music" Wagner is talking about Jewish religious practices in music", it is not the reader 's job to indulge in detective work to decipher what, other than its strict definition, may be implied by the title; it is the translator's job to use words which serve to make the meaning clear. I am not persuaded by your argument that native English speakers should redefine their understanding of an English word to mean what you would like it to mean, in order to preserve a bad translation.

--Stephen Burnett 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I could offer another way forward here? On the basis of the Wikipedia principle of Verifiability perhaps we should use a translation which can be verified. While many older works on Wagner use "Judaism", I notice that Millington in the Wagner Compendium has "Jewishness", which personally I think is a good compromise.--Dogbertd 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot object.--Smerus 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-grade article

I've asked for a regrading of this article. Currently we languish with a B-grade, and I think the work that's been done recently makes it better than that. If not, I'd like to have some clear pointers for ways to improve it.--Dogbertd 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Who did you ask to grade it? It's been rated B by Wikiproject Germany and Wikiproject Biography, but I don't see that we have been rated by Wikiproject Opera. Or should we put in for all of them. I think the article is very good and would like more pointers as well.Jvbishop 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I asked Wikiproject Germany. Perhaps we should also ask Opera. I was really hoping for some independent input into what needs to be improved, since I can't find who previously rated it and why it got a "B". As you say, I think this is now a good, well-balanced piece worthy of an "A", but if others don't then I'd like to understand why.--Dogbertd 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I put in a request at the Wikiproject Opera so hopefull we can get some feedback from them. Jvbishop 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's see. Opera project review :) Well, this is certainly better than B: I'd rank it an A-grade. I'm not going to be pedantic and say you should put this through WP:GA review: for longer articles, such as this, that just doesn't work. If the plan is for further improvement, I'd go straight for WP:FA.

Some more specific comments: most of the necessary content is there, but the referencing needs to be more thorough. We could do with some more inline citations: compare the amount here to the far greater number at Agrippina (opera), or Orfeo ed Euridice, or W.S. Gilbert, or Concerto delle donne. As a general rule of thumb one inline citation per paragraph works well, as does the citation - with page numbers, of course - of opinions or more controversial material. I also think that some more discussion of the origins of Wagner's operatic aesthetics would be better. At some stage this could do with a copy-edit to fix up any wonky prose. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is useful. Hope this helps. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ta very much. This gives us some concrete suggestions for improving the article.--Dogbertd 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to get rid of the References section and either add the things listed there to further reading of add them to the notes section as citations. Having both sections makes it feel cluttered. We should also make sure that all of the notes are standardized. I took care of the further reading like this already. Jvbishop 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy crap his neckbeard is EPIC.

Add some information on that neckbeard to the article! Xizer 04:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)