Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hitler and Wagner

64K views 513 replies 51 participants last post by  mmsbls 
#1 · (Edited)
I found this film fascinating. I don't know whether anyone has posted it before but here it is.
This German documentary by Michael Kloft was originally broadcast in 2002. It explores the complex relationship between National Socialism and the work of Richard Wagner, Hitler's favourite composer. It also examines the personal contacts between Hitler and the Wagner family at the time.

 
#224 ·
Woodduck seems to insist that we separate the art from its cultural context, but this thread is evidence of all the baggage he would have us ignore. I think that the only aspect of Wagner which can be 'separated' like that is the pure music itself: the harmonic progressions, the chords, the sound. The rest of it cannot be, since it deals with story, plot, character, psychology, myth, nationalism, and all the extra-musical elements. A pity that he wrote operas. I suggest the "Wagner without words" which is available out there, and it is fine music indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluteman
#225 · (Edited)
Woodduck seems to insist that we separate the art from its cultural context, but this thread is evidence of all the baggage he would have us ignore. I think that the only aspect of Wagner which can be 'separated' like that is the pure music itself: the harmonic progressions, the chords, the sound. The rest of it cannot be, since it deals with story, plot, character, psychology, myth, nationalism, and all the extra-musical elements. A pity that he wrote operas. I suggest the "Wagner without words" which is available out there, and it is fine music indeed.
Not at all, my dear rainbows. I know not "seems."

What I do insist is that links between art and culture not be hastlly and carelessly drawn on the basis of received notions, stereotypes, oversimplifications, ideological fashions, and popular culture. Such "baggage" - you've chosen the right word - accumulates easily when an artist has been so swamped with history. The only responsible approach, given the garbage heap we have to plow through, is to know the art as intimately as we can and to determine first and foremost what must be said about it. Without that, our inclinations to further interpretation are on shaky ground.
 
#255 ·
Well, I'm sure that many white Southerners feel the same exhilaration when the walk by a confederate monument; but the black Southerners who have to walk by it every day do not feel the same.
 
#234 · (Edited)
Coming back I was somewhat amused to see a poster denounces those who disagree with him of being guilty of 'aggressive ignorance, evasiveness, illogic, distortion, and sheer stubbornness.' No it is none of these. Just that some people have a different opinion on these matters. The accusation comes from a certain personality type who cannot see that some people may have a different view on things and who then get very threatened by their view being disturbed. No doubt I shall be accused of the same things but it's interesting when I shared these thoughts in a group of educationalists and academics they came to the same conclusions as I did. Guys, please, let's learn to share opinions and not worry too much if others don't. No doubt I'll get another broadside for saying the things (which will go some way to prove my point) but it seems to be that the essence of TC should be that we should be able to disagree without resorting to accusing others because we feel threatened.
 
#235 ·
Coming back I was somewhat amused to see a poster denounces those who disagree with him of being guilty of 'aggressive ignorance, evasiveness, illogic, distortion, and sheer stubbornness.' No it is none of these. Just that some people have a different opinion on these matters.
Fair enough, but if this is truly a discussion forum, it seems legitimate to inquire into--and perhaps challenge--the basis for that opinion. That way, those of us with less settled views may actually learn something. :)
 
#257 ·


These are all "Wagner without baggage," and are a good way to appreciate Wagner's music, while leaving the operatic content to the experts. Don't let the over-the -top cover photos repel you.
 
#320 · (Edited)
The article is superficial but not too bad until we get to the last two paragraphs:

"Nietzsche (a former admirer himself) shrilly denounced Wagner's art as diseased, narcotic, morbid, hysterical and brutal. His scathing portrait of Wagner as a master of hypnotic trickery, a neurotic tyrant with an actor's genius, an incomparable histrionic personality - seems at some points to uncannily prefigure Hitler."

Pretty "loaded" stuff. "Seems at some points..."? Language is slippery, and Nietzsche was a master of linguistic legerdemain. We can't know how to take such (rather characteristic) hyperbole without knowing about the philosopher's earlier relationship to Wagner and the resulting emotional scars and ambivalence that remained with him all his life. Then there's this final thought:

"The manipulation of Wagner's legacy in the Third Reich really had solid roots in the art and ideology of the 'master of Bayreuth'."

It's gratifying to see an acknowledgment that Wagner's legacy was "manipulated" by Hitler, but the term "solid roots" really does require examination; as a conclusion it isn't well-supported by what came before.

This is fairly typical of popular journalistic attempts to discuss Wagner. It's a bit more even-handed and temperate, and less sensational, than many, but still doesn't give itself the necessary space to examine some common and inchoate assumptions.
 
#330 ·
Woodduck;1419383 The use of the word "mystical" to describe Christianity isn't especially helpful; it's one of those words said:
almah[/I], 'young woman'" - NOT a betulah, 'virgin' - "shall conceive and bear a son").

I'm not here to argue the validity of any religion, but only to point out that Christianity's departure from traditionally Jewish ways of viewing human and divine natures and the path to salvation began early. It's a fond illusion to think that St. Paul's creative synthesis of Judaism with concepts essentially pagan is predicted by, and compatible with, the Jewish scriptures or a Jewish world view.
I would really have hoped people would have realized what should not be discussed on the main forum. I really hate having to be the one to say this. Woodduck, what ever you say about not wanting to argue about the validity of any religion, you are making statements that you think represent true "definitions" of what is meant by elements of the Christian faith. You have not made accurate statements. You grossly misrepresent and simplify complex beliefs.

I am sick and tired about hearing about Hiitler, how Wagner's music is crap because people think he was anti-Semitic or a completely deranged induvidual... so I have read nothing in this thread previously, but you have now (I have no idea about before) crossed the line.
 
#334 · (Edited)
The subject here is Wagner and Hitler, and Wagner's views of Judaism and Christianity were under discussion as a way of understanding their differences/similarities to Nazi ideology. This quite naturally entailed mentioning pertinent ideas current in Germany during and before Wagner's day, specifically on the part of German theologians such as Feuerbach, who influenced Wagner. There was an effort by them to cleanse Christianity of its Jewish elements, and I was pointing out that this was nothing new, and that anti- or non-Jewish ideas were present in Christianity from the beginning, and were given their first great validation in the thinking of Paul. I don't see any "line" here that shouldn't be crossed, and I did say that it wasn't my purpose to debate the validity or value of religion. I merely find the subject interesting, and not at all peripheral to the complex and profound subject at hand.
 
#338 ·
I didn't see your sarcastic remark about "crossing the line" before I wrote Post 336. I find that very insulting. I apologized for responding to your post as the first digression; if you cannot accept my apology, that is your right, but you do not have to turn and make a spiteful remark.
 
#340 ·
Isn't going around policing people's conversations and deciding unilaterally that lines are being crossed a form of line-crossing? If not, it should be. Me, I enter threads only if I have something to contribute.

Would you like to contribute something to the discussion of the topic? It could use a few fresh voices.
 
#339 ·
DavidA you ARE prolonging an off-topic digression. This is part of why the reason we agree to follow the rules, so that each person does not have to correct or clarify the other's remarks. You both have to agree to stop and it doesn't help to click "LIKES" on a post that does not belong in this section of the forum. I should not be the one to come in here and say this.
 
#341 ·
I HATE reporting posts. With the exceptions of any members new to the forum, we know what the rules are regarding discussing religion and theology. No one had to call in a moderator because we can moderate ourselves, You, DavidA, and Txllt, at least did not do it. So who was going to do it?!!

Are you being facetious with that invitation? You did not respond back to my remark about spitefulness. I don't need an apology, but I don't need continued insults either. I really tried to be very respectful and courteous to you (and DavidA).
 
#344 ·
So who was going to do it?!!
Why does anyone have to do it? Or, to expand the question, why does anyone have to drop into a thread they claim they're not interested in, not bother to read the discussion for context, and assume the authority to police other people's behavior?

My invitation was completely sincere. You're an intelligent person who's made good contributions to the forum. Far better if you'd do that here and not beat others over the head with righteous pseudo-moderation.
 
G
#351 · (Edited)
I have been following this thread, on and off, and even making the odd contribution, but I can't claim to know all that has been covered, so apologies in advance if the question I'm going to raise has already been raised and dispensed with.

One of the most obvious counter-arguments to the crude idea that "Wagner was a Nazi" is that, of course, he was dead well before the rise of the National Socialist party.

However, since Nazism didn't spring up fully-formed without any precedent, it seems a valid rejection of that counter-argument to say that some of the most significant components of Nazism - such as an aggressive nationalism and anti-semitism - certainly existed during Wagner's lifetime. So, whilst the charge of being a Nazi can't stick, what about the charge of sympathy with some of the philosophies of what later became Nazism?

I'm interested in the extraordinary fascination this topic has for some - not just here at TC. The roots of Nazism, never mind Wagner's connection to it, is clearly still controversial, judging by what can be turned up by a Google search.

For example, from http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/the-origins-of-nazism/

The origins of Nazi ideas are complex and more deeply rooted in German history. Core elements of Nazi ideology, such as militarism and pan-German nationalism, can be traced back to the mid-1800s.
but from https://mises.org/library/origins-nazism

It is a fundamental mistake to believe that Nazism is a revival or a continuation of the policies and mentalities of the ancien régime or a display of the "Prussian spirit." Nothing in Nazism takes up the thread of the ideas and institutions of older German history.
[Just to be clear. I am no fan of Wagner, but I do not hold to the idea that one can't be a consumer of the art of those whose ideas or acts might be regarded as reprehensible.]
 
#353 ·
I have been following this thread, on and off, and even making the odd contribution, but I can't claim to know all that has been covered, so apologies in advance if the question I'm going to raise has already been raised and dispensed with.

One of the most obvious counter-arguments to the crude idea that "Wagner was a Nazi" is that, of course, he was dead well before the rise of the National Socialist party.

However, since Nazism didn't spring up fully-formed without any precedent, it seems a valid rejection of that counter-argument to say that some of the most significant components of Nazism - such as an aggressive nationalism and anti-semitism - certainly existed during Wagner's lifetime. So, whilst the charge of being a Nazi can't stick, what about the charge of sympathy with some of the philosophies of what later became Nazism?

I'm interested in the extraordinary fascination this topic has for some - not just here at TC. The roots of Nazism, never mind Wagner's connection to it, is clearly still controversial, judging by what can be turned up by a Google search.

For example, from http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/the-origins-of-nazism/

but from https://mises.org/library/origins-nazism
Briefly (because it's past my bedtime here in Oregon, thanks to Bill Maher and my lack of discipline), we'd need to identify the philosophical roots of Nazism to see how sympathetic Wagner was with them. That, as you've shown, is difficult, and I certainly couldn't get far with it before I fell asleep sitting up. One of the major difficulties is that ideas that go by the same name aren't necessarily the same ideas, and we have to decide what distinctions are relevant. For some it's enough to say that both Wagner and Nazism were anti-semitic and nationalistic, as if the mere use of the terms explained everything and would have made Wagner sympathetic with the murder of millions of human beings and the military conquest of Europe.

I think the likelihood of either of these things being true is vanishingly small, but right now I'll have to leave the question in the hands of people on your side of the Atlantic, which, knowing some of those hands, I may regret in the morning.

:sleep:
 
G
#352 ·
Can I add that watching Solti rehearsing Wagner in the 'Great Conductors in Rehearsal' thread is a bit of a revelation. Absorbing to watch the overture being taken to pieces, and how the power of the music emerges despite the dissection. I could get to like it!
 
#363 ·
I would like to learn more about Wagner's art & thought. Questions: Did Richard Wagner ever think in a political manner, did he aspire for political power or is it possible to understand his art as a kind of undercover operation for gaining political power? I incline to answer "no" on these questions. Did Richard Wagner think in a 'l'Art pour l'Art' manner? I incline to answer this with a hesitant "yes". I guess that Richard Wagner in his youth (around the revolution of 1848) may have shouted political slogans, but when he grew older that he understood Art to be the heir of Religion.
 
#368 · (Edited)
No, he never aspired to political power. His youthful flirtation with revolutionary anarchism turned him into a fugitive from the law, self-exiled to Switzerland, where he got busy putting some of his thoughts about the destructive nature of power (political, economic, marital, et al.) into the Ring. The oppressiveness of political and social structures remained a subject on his mind and in his writings and work; it's an important theme in his operas.

The nearest Wagner got to political activity in later life was during his time in Munich as the darling and beneficiary of Ludwig II, whose generosity to him threatened to bankrupt the treasury, and the city fathers had to take matters in hand and get him run out of town. I'd hesitate to call Wagner's activity there "political." Let's just say that he didn't mind benefiting from the monarchy and offering the king some fairly expensive suggestions on how best to contribute to the arts!

"Art for arts sake?" If that means that art aspires to no wider function than the personal self-expression of the artist, then that wasn't Wagner's outlook. His art aspires to social, moral, and finally even spiritual significance - he wanted to affect the culture - but except in showing the power struggles of gods and dwarves in the Ring it doesn't deal with politics except insofar as it criticizes the forces in society that constrain the individual's free expression of his nature, whether that free expression is emotional, sexual, intellectual, or artistic.

It rather goes without saying that in Wagner's personal life the forms his free expression took were not always agreeable to others or even to himself!
 
#402 ·
Wagner wanted to keep the festival house simple.
The interior to resemble a Greek amphitheater. With everyone having a clear
line of site to the stage.
He disliked the ostentatiousness of the opera houses he had conducted in.
When the architect, in his plans, showed the usual elaborate
decorations,
Wagner wrote on the architects blueprint, "Away with the ornaments!"
Very practical.
 
#405 ·
DavidA: I'm rather late to this discussion, but I have read all of your posts (and many others). I'm not sure I understand the point you are making regarding Wagner's operas and antisemitism. I think you agree that most people either see no antisemitism in his operas or believe the evidence is rather subtle (as you said in one post "the argument is vastly more subtle"). Given the absence of obvious antisemitism, I see five possibilities:

1) Wagner intended to display clear antisemitism in his operas but failed to make the antisemitism obvious.

2) Wagner intended to display clear antisemitism in his operas but only during his time would the antisemitism be obvious.

3) Wagner intended to display antisemitism in his operas but wanted the antisemitism to remain invisible to all but a small knowledgeable or "in" group

4) Wagner unconsciously placed antisemitism in his operas in a manner that is not clear.

5) Wagner neither consciously nor unconsciously put antisemitism in his operas.

The first two don't seem likely, and you clearly don't believe 5. I think you are arguing #4, but I don't know. Argument 4 is essentially the statement that we know Wagner expressed antisemitic sentiments and people's unconscious mind can effect their behavior even if very subtly. Are you basically saying, "We can't see clear evidence of antisemitism in Wagner's operas, but it's probably there just as any artist who is a racist or a misogynist will likely create work that is racist or misogynistic in subtle ways"?
 
#406 · (Edited)
If interested you can see Wagner's actual writing of this in Stephen Fry's film, 'Wagner and Me' at 54:20.
 
#412 ·
I never think of the "Hitler connection" (an unfortunate way of putting it that I probably shouldn't have chosen in my earlier post) either, but I respect the opinions, or sensibilities, of those who do, even if I don't agree with them or share them. One's relationship with music is a profoundly personal thing and can never be fully analysed in an objective sense.
 
#419 · (Edited)
Funny how many performances of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony were given by the Berlin Philharmonic under Furtwängler before the Nazi elite, and yet there is none of the negative "Nazi" revulsion attached to the Beethoven, as is/was to the Wagner Ring operas. Hitler obviously loved the Beethoven Ninth Symphony...who knows how Beethoven felt about other ethnic groups....the concept of "Brotherhood" can be considered as an exclusionary term, as in "all men are created equal" from the US Constitution.
 
#420 ·
Of course not. What causes the revulsion is the fact that Wagner and Hitler's racial views were remarkably similar. I know some will try and argue they weren't but that is the perception. Perhaps if Beethoven had been stupid enough to publish anti-semitic rants as Wagner did, his music would be treated with equal suspicion. It wasn't just the fact that Hitler liked Wagner - Hitler also enjoyed the Merry Widow. Just that other composers he enjoyed hadn't published racial views that remarkably coincided with his own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top