Ibsen is above Wagner. Wagner failed to capture Schopenhauer’s interpretation of the new Kantian laws, he failed to totalize that new modernity of pleasure and ego and retreated from it. In his retreat he attached Christianity to his own type of traditionalism that lost its coherence. Ibsen perfectly mirrored Kant’s moral law with the priest character ‘Brand’, and the significance of Brand’s ‘naught or all’. Ibsen is Kant in artform without ever having read him. That alone makes him an irrefutable proof of the truth in those pietist Lutheran codes, not Wagner, who became a heroic symbol for social purpose outside of art and philosophy. We’ve seen many larpers of Parsifal or Siegfried, but no one can imitate Brand. No one could try without putting significant danger into their life
To make the connection to Kant between them clear and make a point about the cultural environment they’re all working in, ‘new Kantian laws’ signifies the rising vanity of the mind, self and the growing clash between morality and the moral law
The average person today finds Shakespeare unreadable. Yet Wagner, just like Shakespeare, was easily understandable and appreciable by the people of his time. Appealing to the flippant tastes of the herd is no argument.
Most people today don't find Shakespeare accessible either you know.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Every person is at least exposed to a filmed version of his plays through television and cinema at some point. His stories and characters are universally known. At least one of his plays or sonnets are taught in schools around the world. His name is recognized in every household. But Wagner is downright unknown.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Where are you even getting the idea that Wagner is unknown? Everyone has heard Ride of the Valkyries, everyone gets married to his Bridal Procession. If someone has the slightest interest in classical music, they know him. His literary, or dramatic, fame has only dwindled since the second world war because of the systematic opposition to him as an antisemite and proto-nazi. Compare that with the total dominance of Anglo culture, it's no surprise their most famous writer is more well known than Wagner. But if you went back to the year 1920, I sincerely doubt if you could say Wagner's characters were any less well known than Shakespeare's. Among any cultured individual today Wagner is considered just as significant as he has always been. If the common person knows of Shakespeare or Leonardi da Vinci today, but has forgotten Wagner, no one would assume they ever possessed any real understanding of their art.
2 months ago
Anonymous
That Wagner has not survived the complete cultural reconfiguration after WW2 is proof that he's not the greatest playwright. If he was truly universal and spoke to every person then people would revere him and long for him as they do with Shakespeare. Instead his name is obscure even if some of his compositions are known.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>not survived the complete cultural reconfiguration after WW2
Are you legitimately moronic? You have no business in this thread, you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. Most people treat Shakespeare like a duty, and even with that more attention is fixated on Marvel movies than on Shakespeare. This superficial glorification means nothing. Yet it still patently ridiculous to say Wagner has 'not survived' into modern times.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>18 Richard Wagner >20 Nietzsche
kek, still winning.
How do I watch his operas? I adore his music, he's my favourite composer. I don't want to shiel out lots of money to go to an opera and pray that the specific one I want comes to my town. Is there some place online I can watch the Ring Cycle?
Sadly very few good performances have been filmed. The best that I've seen for each opera are Boulez Ring, 78 Bayreuth Tannhauser, Syberberg Parsifal, 63 Bayreuth Meistersinger (partial) and the 1970 Tristan film with Claude Heater. These all range in quality, whether in the singing, conducting, set design or acting, but they're the best any person can SEE, not to say hear, in our times. But there are also many filmed excerpts to check out, even a very rare snippet from 1930s Bayreuth that I have not been able to find the origin of:
If you have a good enough imagination, and patience, you can just read the libretto to the music, it's actually quite easy to follow along. It's also worth it to see his operas live, depending where you live; I'm in Sydney and for the beginning of The Ring last year they turned off all the lights in the concert hall so it was pitch black, the orchestra started playing, and they slowly brought the lights back as the Rheinmaidens started singing, and even though they did away with the costumes and staging (mostly for budget/space purposes) it was still an extremely memorable performance.
Your only real option is to buy DVDs or Blurays from productions that you like. There will always be a tradeoff though. Levine did a Ring for the Met in the 80s that's as close to traditional Wagner as you'll get. But for the best music you'll have to look at audio-only recordings. No reason you can't enjoy both, although I do recommend people watch the operas with subtitles and a traditional production first.
Don't listen to that anon. Levine's production is 'traditional' in the same way Thor comics are traditional mythology. Everything looks tacky and artificial, and the acting and choreography is downright atrocious. Even the most mediocre Ring performance from the first quarter of the last century would have looked better. Watching Levine will only bring the music and drama down to the prosaic world of 90s America. Ideally your first experience with a Wagner drama should be with a recording and your imagination.
Where the frick can I even find this homie's works online? His wikipedia page is like three paragraphs and searching on AA just brings up some black woman named Audre Lorde.
I can't. He's superior to Sophocles, Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Ibsen, Miller, etc.
>Aeschylus
>Shakespeare
Not a chance.
It's true.
Pish posh.
Ibsen is above Wagner. Wagner failed to capture Schopenhauer’s interpretation of the new Kantian laws, he failed to totalize that new modernity of pleasure and ego and retreated from it. In his retreat he attached Christianity to his own type of traditionalism that lost its coherence. Ibsen perfectly mirrored Kant’s moral law with the priest character ‘Brand’, and the significance of Brand’s ‘naught or all’. Ibsen is Kant in artform without ever having read him. That alone makes him an irrefutable proof of the truth in those pietist Lutheran codes, not Wagner, who became a heroic symbol for social purpose outside of art and philosophy. We’ve seen many larpers of Parsifal or Siegfried, but no one can imitate Brand. No one could try without putting significant danger into their life
>Schopenhauer’s interpretation of the new Kantian laws,
Why is that necessary?
To make the connection to Kant between them clear and make a point about the cultural environment they’re all working in, ‘new Kantian laws’ signifies the rising vanity of the mind, self and the growing clash between morality and the moral law
Nothing in the entire history of drama tops the third act of Tristan.
His librettos are unreadable for 99% of people, his operas are difficult to encounter irl. In no way is Wagner the best at anything.
The average person today finds Shakespeare unreadable. Yet Wagner, just like Shakespeare, was easily understandable and appreciable by the people of his time. Appealing to the flippant tastes of the herd is no argument.
why is availability or difficulty even relevant here?
moronic redditor
How is it not? Am I supposed to believe that the greatest artist is the one who barely any human being can even access?
Most people today don't find Shakespeare accessible either you know.
Every person is at least exposed to a filmed version of his plays through television and cinema at some point. His stories and characters are universally known. At least one of his plays or sonnets are taught in schools around the world. His name is recognized in every household. But Wagner is downright unknown.
Where are you even getting the idea that Wagner is unknown? Everyone has heard Ride of the Valkyries, everyone gets married to his Bridal Procession. If someone has the slightest interest in classical music, they know him. His literary, or dramatic, fame has only dwindled since the second world war because of the systematic opposition to him as an antisemite and proto-nazi. Compare that with the total dominance of Anglo culture, it's no surprise their most famous writer is more well known than Wagner. But if you went back to the year 1920, I sincerely doubt if you could say Wagner's characters were any less well known than Shakespeare's. Among any cultured individual today Wagner is considered just as significant as he has always been. If the common person knows of Shakespeare or Leonardi da Vinci today, but has forgotten Wagner, no one would assume they ever possessed any real understanding of their art.
That Wagner has not survived the complete cultural reconfiguration after WW2 is proof that he's not the greatest playwright. If he was truly universal and spoke to every person then people would revere him and long for him as they do with Shakespeare. Instead his name is obscure even if some of his compositions are known.
>not survived the complete cultural reconfiguration after WW2
Are you legitimately moronic? You have no business in this thread, you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. Most people treat Shakespeare like a duty, and even with that more attention is fixated on Marvel movies than on Shakespeare. This superficial glorification means nothing. Yet it still patently ridiculous to say Wagner has 'not survived' into modern times.
>18 Richard Wagner
>20 Nietzsche
kek, still winning.
Normalgays are apes, they can't appreciate kino
Yes. Artistic greatness and popularity are different metrics.
In literature, they usually are not. The greatest writers are always renown and famous. And the greatest ever in anything is always well-known.
No, they're different metrics. By that logic Stephen King is greater than Cormac McCarthy and R. L. Stein is better than László Krasznahorkai.
Shakespeare but he's the only one better.
How do I watch his operas? I adore his music, he's my favourite composer. I don't want to shiel out lots of money to go to an opera and pray that the specific one I want comes to my town. Is there some place online I can watch the Ring Cycle?
Sadly very few good performances have been filmed. The best that I've seen for each opera are Boulez Ring, 78 Bayreuth Tannhauser, Syberberg Parsifal, 63 Bayreuth Meistersinger (partial) and the 1970 Tristan film with Claude Heater. These all range in quality, whether in the singing, conducting, set design or acting, but they're the best any person can SEE, not to say hear, in our times. But there are also many filmed excerpts to check out, even a very rare snippet from 1930s Bayreuth that I have not been able to find the origin of:
?t=2418
If you have a good enough imagination, and patience, you can just read the libretto to the music, it's actually quite easy to follow along. It's also worth it to see his operas live, depending where you live; I'm in Sydney and for the beginning of The Ring last year they turned off all the lights in the concert hall so it was pitch black, the orchestra started playing, and they slowly brought the lights back as the Rheinmaidens started singing, and even though they did away with the costumes and staging (mostly for budget/space purposes) it was still an extremely memorable performance.
Your only real option is to buy DVDs or Blurays from productions that you like. There will always be a tradeoff though. Levine did a Ring for the Met in the 80s that's as close to traditional Wagner as you'll get. But for the best music you'll have to look at audio-only recordings. No reason you can't enjoy both, although I do recommend people watch the operas with subtitles and a traditional production first.
What productions do you recommend? I’m not familiar with operatic organizations. Is your Levine one good enough for a first viewing?
Don't listen to that anon. Levine's production is 'traditional' in the same way Thor comics are traditional mythology. Everything looks tacky and artificial, and the acting and choreography is downright atrocious. Even the most mediocre Ring performance from the first quarter of the last century would have looked better. Watching Levine will only bring the music and drama down to the prosaic world of 90s America. Ideally your first experience with a Wagner drama should be with a recording and your imagination.
Molière.
what a terrible neckbeard he has
If he was that good at writing he wouldn't need to put music on top
>what is a Gesamtkunstwerk
>twerk
Gesamt (total). Kunst (art). Werk (work)
THE PRINCE OF FEAR
Where the frick can I even find this homie's works online? His wikipedia page is like three paragraphs and searching on AA just brings up some black woman named Audre Lorde.
You have to learn French to find anything of him.
I already speak it on an intermediate level.
I tried Ebooks libres et gratuits but I found nothing by searching his plays or his name.
matthew gasda
Shaw
Shaw probably wouldn't agree, considering his Wagnerism.
To tell you the truth, Father, I've never read either Shaw or Wagner.
Molière is funnier
Enoch Powell explains Gotterdammerung: