[ArtMusic]

I am keeping the thread open because I have stated my views of whatever we discuss, the reality of Wagner's music continues as stated in my post. And the thousands who attend a Wagner opera this year in 2021 around the world would agree.

 

[adriesba]

Honestly, I have no idea what the current topic of discussion is here. It seems that the conversation is randomly bouncing around several oft-discussed ideas, none of which directly relate to the original question. Perhaps we should just move on.

 

[ArtMusic]

Honestly, I have no idea what the current topic of discussion is here. It seems that the conversation is randomly bouncing around several oft-discussed ideas, none of which directly relate to the original question. Perhaps we should just move on.

I agree. Wagner's long dead but his music is much alive for us here and today to enjoy. His views and how his operas were originally received are important from a musicology viewpoint only.

 

[millionrainbows]

Originally Posted by 1996D
"Well yes, if I see a pretty girl winking at me I'll very likely not move on it. If that's not maturity in the face of a cheap thrill then what is?

Even if its at a party and there's talk and and I know for a certainty that it's a done deal, I'll still know that it's a fruitless activity in every way. It's maturity to know yourself and the situation and that relationships are not built that way, and experience helps but hopefully you don't have to do what Wagner did and write a melodramatic 4 hour opera about your lust and then go have a handful of affairs.

The hope is that you have enough experience under your belt early on so that by your mid or late 20s you're ready to find a wife and have the previous experience not to want to cheat."

:lol: Nothing better than a banned member previously writing sanctimonious posts. I'm glad the individual got banned.

Could we revert back to the topic or simply avoid chiding other members if there is no more to say? It would be desirable to keep this thread open.

 

[Woodduck]

No, it's not, since anti-Judaism is a form of antisemitism, according to the definition.

Not at all. Many people think and feel pretty much the same as Wagner said he did about the West's religious traditions, particularly about the Judeo-Islamo-Christian omnipotent deity and things related thereto. That is not antisemitism. Parsifal presents a symbolic picture of an authoritarian religious sect corrupted and nearly destroyed by its denial of human nature. This is not specifically or solely a critique of Judaism, but the aged patriarch Titurel, who lives "in his tomb" and dies when the "natural man" or "innocent fool" Parsifal returns to uncover the Grail, can symbolize both an authoritarian deity and, many years before Nietzsche's formulation, the death of God. Titurel's death is also a reiteration of the end of the gods in the Ring, which is similarly brought about by the ascendence of love in the form of Brunnhilde.

...the controversy surrounding the premier of Parsifal...Wagner's desire to have Levi convert to Christianity.

That's a mischaracterization of a private exchange between Wagner and Levi.

Do you actually condone this? Making Jews convert to Christianity & be baptised, as both Mahler and Schoenberg did.

Of course not. It was a silly request. Levi must have been offended, but Wagner didn't press it - his respect for Levi as a musician was great - and it blew over.

The thread topic, "Was Wagner Religious?", and I think the answer is yes.

I suppose he was, in his way. It's a slippery term, isn't it? We can at least say that he held some religious ideas. But I think his most important statement on religion was this, from his essay "Religion and Art":

"One might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal representation."

 

[millionrainbows]

Honestly, I have no idea what the current topic of discussion is here. It seems that the conversation is randomly bouncing around several oft-discussed ideas, none of which directly relate to the original question. Perhaps we should just move on.

I explained MY ideas in my post #198:
Woodduck said Wagner was not antisemitic but "anti-Judaic," and anti-Judaism is a form of antisemitism, according to the definition, which he disagrees with.
This is a form of religious bias (see thread title Was Wagner Religious?). This bias certainly agreed with Hitler's attitudes toward "the Jewish problem." If readers don't know what I mean when I said that Wagner emerged from a 'flawed Germanic cultural matrix, then perhaps this will give them food for thought.

I agree that many other posts have been off-topic.

 

[millionrainbows]

I agree. Wagner's long dead but his music is much alive for us here and today to enjoy. His views and how his operas were originally received are important from a musicology viewpoint only.

The old context is now relevant in a new era.

 

[ArtMusic]

Both of Wagner's weddings took place in churches before God, so that probably indicates he was religious to some degree.

Q.E.D.

 

[millionrainbows]

Both of Wagner's weddings took place in churches before God, so that probably indicates he was religious to some degree.

Q.E.D.

R.I.P.?===============

 

[Woodduck]

Woodduck said Wagner was not antisemitic but "anti-Judaic," and anti-Judaism is a form of antisemitism, according to the definition.

First of all, I said that PARSIFAL, the opera - not Wagner, the man - was "anti-Judaic" rather than anti-semitic. Second, would you mind stopping your self-echoing rant long enough to pay attention when people respond to you? Please read post #205.

This is a form of religious bias (see thread title Was Wagner Religious). This bias certainly agreed with Hitler's attitudes toward "the Jewish problem."

So a dislike for Judaism as a religion constitutes agreement with "Hitler's attitudes toward the Jewish problem"? What an idiotic statement.

If readers don't know what I mean when I said that Wagner emerged from a 'flawed Germanic cultural matrix, then perhaps this will give them food for thought.

Oh God! That flawed German cultural matrix thing seems to have more heads than the Hydra.

 

[millionrainbows]

First of all, I said that PARSIFAL, the opera - not Wagner, the man - was "anti-Judaic" rather than anti-semitic.

No you didn't. you said: A propos of Parsifal as a representation of Wagner's religious views, I think it's correct to call it anti-Judaic, but not anti-semitic.

So a dislike for Judaism as a religion constitutes agreement with "Hitler's attitudes toward the Jewish problem"? What an idiotic statement. Oh God! That flawed German cultural matrix thing seems to have more heads than the Hydra.

Could we revert back to the topic or simply avoid chiding other members if there is no more to say? It would be desirable to keep this thread open.

 

[adriesba]

Could we revert back to the topic or simply avoid chiding other members if there is no more to say? It would be desirable to keep this thread open.

Why do you keep repeating this in almost the exact same wording I used?

 

[ArtMusic]

R.I.P.?===============

Yes, Wagner and his wives. R.I.P.

 

[millionrainbows]

Why do you keep repeating this in almost the exact same wording I used?

You may have said something similar, as others here have, but I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Is it the phrase "revert back"? I'm just trying to keep the thread open. I have said whatever applies to the response. Not all of it is "chiding."
I have also said "...could we revert back to the topic or simply avoid vapid comments on the possible intent of the members' postings if there is no more to say? It would be desirable to keep this thread open."

 

[adriesba]

^^^

Could we revert back to that topic or simply avoid rabbit holes if there is no more to say? It would be desirable to keep this thread open.

Could we revert back to the topic or simply avoid chiding other members if there is no more to say? It would be desirable to keep this thread open.

They're nearly identical. It just seems odd.

 

[millionrainbows]

^^^

They're nearly identical. It just seems odd.

I've got several "stock responses" that have nothing to do with you. :tiphat:

 

[Woodduck]

No you didn't. you said: A propos of Parsifal as a representation of Wagner's religious views, I think it's correct to call it anti-Judaic, but not anti-semitic.

That is a statement about Parsifal, not about the whole of Wagner's ideas on Jews.

This is a form of religious bias (see thread title Was Wagner Religious?). This bias certainly agreed with Hitler's attitudes toward "the Jewish problem."

You cannot make the same absurd and inflammatory statements over and over and over and over, week after week, year after year, ignoring all objections, and expect everyone to smile sweetly at you.

To equate Wagner's criticisms of a religion, and particularly those suggested by (but not explicitly stated in) an opera, with "Hitler's attitudes toward the Jewish problem" is indeed idiotic, and at this point in the ongoing discussions on the forum it's something worse than that. It's profoundly irresponsible, slanderous, and borderline immoral.

Could we revert back to the topic or simply avoid chiding other members if there is no more to say? It would be desirable to keep this thread open.

Closed-minded ideologues like you, convinced of your own superior insight, incapable of learning or humbling yourself before facts, and perpetually branding others and condescending to them, should stay away from internet forum discussions. Wherever you go on this forum, destruction ensues.

 

[hammeredklavier]

Why do you keep repeating this in almost the exact same wording I used?

That's just his style; you have to get used to it.

You are receiving a warning at TalkClassical for chiding and mocking other members. Please refrain from this and keep your posts polite and civil.

 

[Woodduck]

I've got several "stock responses" that have nothing to do with you. :tiphat:

This is your disingenuous and disrespectful response when adriesba points out that you've parroted his/her words exactly without crediting their source? And then used them over and over as a refrain in several threads? Try this thread: https://www.talkclassical.com/68626-music-theory-biased-3.html#post2009169

It would indeed be "desirable to keep this thread open." It would also be desirable to keep it free of dishonest posting and mind games.

 

[Woodduck]

That's just his style; you have to get used to it.

It isn't a style. It's a choice, and not one that responsible grownups make - or make excuses for.