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.

 
#7 · (Edited)
This film is worth seeing for a bit of history. But don't expect to learn anything about Wagner or his works, or even Hitler's thoughts about them. It deals almost purely with Hitler's relationship with the Bayreuth festival and the Wagner family, and a little with the politicking among the Wagners over leadership of the festival during the war years.

The film is decidedly not, as DavidA claims, about "the complex relationship between National Socialism and the work [my emphasis] of Richard Wagner." In truth, there is no such "complex relationship," and Wagner's work is not examined at all here. Hitler liked Wagner's music, made Bayreuth his artistic shrine, and had a close relationship with Winifred, Wagner's daughter-in-law. The deeper aspects of the composer's operas, particularly their anti-totalitarian and even anti-political implications, were apparently beyond Hitler's comprehension and definitely antithetical to his political aspirations.

The strangest thing about this film is the constant use of the prelude to Lohengrin in the soundtrack, no matter what is going on in the film. I found the effect of this beautiful and highly unsuitable music incongruous, jarring, and quite insensitive to Wagner's work. Obviously respect for that work was not among the filmmakers' considerations.
 
#11 ·
Woodduck- Hitler liked Wagner's music, made Bayreuth his artistic shrine, and had a close relationship with Winifred, Wagner's daughter-in-law. The deeper aspects of the composer's operas, particularly their anti-totalitarian and even anti-political implications, were apparently beyond Hitler's comprehension and definitely antithetical to his political aspirations.

You have to wonder if during those last days and hours sitting in his Bunker in Berlin the true implications of Götterdämmerung sunk in?

 
#16 ·
Important remark: this will be my only post here.

There is a special part of this interview about the proposed subject: Wagner x Hitler.
And I think, despite the opinions about the pianist and the conductor, that Barenboim has a really interesting theory about it all.
This video was sent by a fellow forum member of head-fi. A really nice interview imho.
Enjoy:
 
#17 · (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.

They should make a Hitler documentary on Karl May cowboy-and-Indian stories and operetta, since he cherished both more than he did Wagner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pip and Sloe
#25 ·
In his admiration for Karl May's novel's Hitler ignored May's Christian and humanitarian approach and views completely, not mentioning his - in some novels - relatively sympathetic description of Jews and other persons of non Northern European ancestry.
 
G
#21 ·
I saw an interesting documentary on PBS by Simon Schama about the history of the Jews. He addressed the late 19th and early 20th century history of Jews in Europe, and discussed the issue of Wagner's treatise on Jewishness in music. He didn't specifically point to it as an inspiration for Hitler - as if Hitler needed any more. But he also did not discount the impact of that document. His point was that, for quite some time, many Jews believed that if they could just go along, and succeed in their European countries, and demonstrate a national pride, they could eventually be accepted. The Rothschild family in France contributed a great deal to building up the nation. People like Schoenberg even converted to Christianity. But in spite of all that, incidents like the Dreyfuss affair in France, and the anti-semitic writings of Wagner, convinced many that it was a hopeless cause, and that no matter what effort they made, they would never be accepted. This led to the rise of the Zionist movement - Jews realizing that they would never become accepted, and so wanting their own country where they could live in peace. Schoenberg returned to his Jewish faith. This is the larger legacy of Wagner's rantings regarding the Jews - not whatever influence he may or may not have had on Hitler.
 
#23 ·
Depending on 'where you stand', you may well be right. There was/is an alternative tack, called 'assimilation'. It has worked pretty well in the US - voluntarily. The half-heated attempt at assimilation in the USSR probably didn't stand a chance. In the US though, the assimilation requires the abandonment of exclusionary Judaism; in the USSR abandonment of 'Jewishness' altogether.

"Jews realizing that they would never become accepted, and so wanting their own country where they could live in peace."

That is as 'sadifying' a sentence as I have read in awhile.
 
G
#24 ·
Yes, in the U.S. there was much greater acceptance. Still, nowhere has been perfect. Not all Jews in Europe took that perspective - Zionism was not universal among European Jews. Many rejected the notion of re-establishing a Jewish homeland. But some became extremely disillusioned with ever fully being accepted. And they viewed the writing of Wagner, the Dreyfuss affair, and ultimately the Holocaust as vindication of that perspective. In many places, it didn't even matter if they converted to Christianity - they would always be viewed as outsiders. They would always be the scapegoats. People like Wagner couldn't see them as being capable of being both Jewish AND German, and thus at a time with music with strongly nationalist undertones was becoming the rage, Wagner refused to believe that any Jew could write properly German music because they could never be properly German.
 
#33 · (Edited)
So tired of these ridiculous discussions about whether or not one dead guy that hated jews liked the music of another dead guy who hated jews

Do you like the dead guy's music? I do. A lot. Wagner was an artistic genius. Will people still be talking about Wagner's bigotry when they analyze the importance of T&I on the history of music in 300 years? Ridiculous.


I'm of jewish origin too btw
 
#35 · (Edited)
I'm not tired of these discussions at all (except when they get too personal and heated). I think it's fascinating to both enjoy the music and understand the historical context behind it. CM isn't computer generated. There are human events, circumstances, emotions, and motives behind most of it.

Historical events have very much to do with composition motivation, and to ignore the former is not fully appreciating the music to the fullest in my opinion.
 
#36 ·
I remember a documentary about the Israel Philharmonic that dealt with their decision to lift their ban on playing the music of Richard Strauss. (Strauss was admired by Hitler and accepted the position as President of the State Music Institute under the Nazi regime. But the apolitical Strauss needed to protect his Jewish daughter-in-law and grandchildren, and he ultimately lost that position when the Nazis intercepted a letter in which he described it as a joke.) In this documentary, the principal clarinet player, who by the way had all sorts of trouble in rehearsal under Zubin Mehta with his solo in Til Eulenspiegel, said it was time to lift the Strauss ban, but they would never lift the ban on Wagner's music (though they eventually did a few years ago).
I've never understood this attitude. I'm interested in the art, not the artist's ethics, moral character or personal life. And as bad as Wagner may have been, he died 37 years before the Nazi party existed, making him just another anti-semitic b@stard, of whom there have been many in the history of music, art and literature. It wasn't his fault that Hitler liked his music and used it for his political purposes.
For me, Strauss is a vastly more interesting composer than Wagner, and that is all that matters.
 
#38 · (Edited)
I agree with just about everything you've said here (outside of Strauss being a vastly more interesting composer than Wagner ;) ).

The problem with these discussions is that they rarely lead to any kind of enlightened discussion. I think many of us enjoy learning about the historical context of classical music, and about the societal influences that bring works of art into being. However it's rather dubious when we start doing the inverse of that: claiming that works of art have some sort of large scale socio-political influence. This is usually propagated by those who seem to imagine that works of art are exhaustively social products, and that their primary influence lies in their social influence. However, it seems rather apparent that the social influence of art is very minimal. Certainly, art is often a reflection of the society and historical circumstances surrounding the artist and their response to it. But even in a close symbiotic relationship between an artist and their society, for example The Beatles and 1960s counterculture, to say that the music of The Beatles was a reflection of the times and fed into the events taking place around them is one thing; to say it was a driving influence behind those events or directly caused any sort of social change seems pretty silly.

Which just makes the connections people usually try to imply between Wagner's art and it's influence on the Nazi Party or Hitler that much more preposterous. These two do not share any sort of historical ties, and outside of Hitler's personal enjoyment of Wagner's artworks (much as he enjoyed other German and non-German works of art), there is not any kind of "influence" that took place, let alone the often read implications that Wagner's art was somehow responsible for, or linked, to Hitler's policies or social outlooks or Nazism.
 
#39 ·
I shouldn't have written "vastly". Both are interesting composers, obviously. But the idea of sitting in the pit and playing an entire performance of Die Meistersinger was more than enough to dissuade me from a career in music. Even playing the overtures, which I have done, is excruciatingly boring. Of course, the whole is much more than the sum of the parts with Wagner's orchestral music.
 
#40 · (Edited)
This discussion highlights the difference between two kinds of art consumers. On the one hand, there are those who wish to separate art from its social context, seeing it as a "pure" art.

I think certain types of art can be "abstracted" from their origins, such as instrumental music, which is much easier to do than with opera.

Opera deals with people and singers, and as such will always have a social dimension which reflects its origins as ethnic flavor, or national flavor.

My guess is that Wagner "bypassed" this social relevance by cloaking it in myth. Wagner's opera is more universally popular than opera which preceded it because it deals with myth, and myth seems to escape the normally-imposed bounds of "reality." Thus, it becomes this great, pure, otherworldly thing.

Myth also has religious resonances, which also increased the fervor of Wagnerians.

Ultimately, any secular moral system, or secular 'delivery mechanism' of mythology, ethics, morality tales, good and evil, will be a reflection of religious values, or will be based on the same premises as religion, so the net result is the same.

Since Wagner was German, I think we have to look at him as embodying German ideals and morality. What came after was an aberration from the ideal, of course.

There are three classes of action: Intent, speech, and action. Wagner's art is of course a highly sophisticated "speech" which is not a real "action." It can depict a murder without actually committing the act. It is therefore a lesser class of action, and always will be.

Hitler's actions were real; the problem remains, is there a connection between Wagner's "speech" and real action?

Is what Wagner depicted in any way connected to the real actions of the Nazis? Woodduck says no, the myths are not a "blueprint" of later actions, or metaphors for real attitudes.

It seems that an effective defense of Wagner would carefully analyze the actual content of these myths, and place them in social context. What is "Germanic" about these stories? How would this possibly translate, metaphorically, into real action? Like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, speech can incite action. Has Wagner done this in some way?
 
#43 · (Edited)
It seems that an effective defense of Wagner would carefully analyze the actual content of these myths, and place them in social context. What is "Germanic" about these stories?
Of course this has been done by numerous scholars, many times over. But I'm not sure what the defense would be against.

How would this possibly translate, metaphorically, into real action? Like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, speech can incite action. Has Wagner done this in some way?
I'm definitely excited to hear a coherent and logical argument that would support a comparison between Wagner's art and yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. :lol:
 
#48 · (Edited)
Yes. There is nothing like returning from a nice evening hike through Hamburg and the Elbphilharmonie and finding someone on here trying to extract "the dark side of the German psyche"... hmm...

Oh heck, now I have posted in this thread too...
 
#60 ·
Nationalism, like Wagner celebrated, just doesn't work in today's diverse world. Germanic culture just has too much baggage from WWII and the holocaust for it to ever be freely celebrated, ever again, without some liberal stepping in and reminding us of all the evil that it produced. Perhaps this is as it should be; after all, "diversity" has almost ruined America.
 
#66 · (Edited)
"Diversity" works when it is an adjunct to being an American citizen. It doesn't work when it creates subcultures and fringe lifestyles which exist and function as "outsider" ways of being. We all should pay taxes and vote, and not leave the scene of accidents if we live in fear of being arrested for not being legal.
 
#67 ·
Boy, it took a few minutes to get that last post edit to show up; long enough that it was probably read & scrutinized for content by somebody, who knows who? Some scowling wizard of Oz behind a curtain?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top