Satoshi Akima writes:

>I however seek something deeper, although darker and profounder from
>music.  That is what makes me a committed Wagnerian.  That is why
>Christopher Webber is not a true Wagnerian.

"Deeper... darker ... profounder." This is precisely the kind of thing
that is most troubling about this sort of dogma.  Would Satoshi Akima
really disallow profound experience to anyone who doesn't go along with his
own pecking order? Would he find anyone who discovered in, say, Handel's
"Tamerlano" or Poulenc's "Dialogues of the Carmelites" depths darker and
more troubling than "The Ring" lacking in spiritual marbles?

Apparently, he would.  If depth and profundity are valued, the uninitiated
- those of us, perhaps, who prize Apollonian Light as highly as Dionysiac
Dark - are clearly not quite making the grade.

This attitude is oppressive, or worse.  Luckily, it is also demonstrably
wrong.  Not because his High Priests see things in Wagner that are not
there, but because they miss so many things that are.  Because the great
arch-mage and trickster was wilier than his priestly followers.  Because
as a good artist he knew the value of ambiguity, of half-lights, hints and
suggestions.

He also knew (like Michael Tippett) how to write words for music, words
which do not bear much analysis in the Apollonian light of day - simply
because they were never meant to.  The main virtue of the gallumping,
coarse and often ludicrous diction of his well-structured librettos is
that it provides a robust vehicles for his musical style.

These ambiguities have allowed many stimulating - and coherent -
interpretations of the operas, written from the point of view of just
about every psycho-social-sexual-political "ism" and "ology" we care to
name (plus a few we don't!) None are completely wrong, just as none are
completely right.  We cannot pin a great work of art down to one truth.
It is not possible - even if it were desirable - to "understand the Ring
in its totality", musically or otherwise.  If it were, the undoubted
fascination of the piece would cease forthwith, and we wouldn't need it
any more.

Wagnerism which doesn't allow the composer his own shape-shifting Tarnhelm
is ultimately as fruitless a waste of ingenuity as, say, the obsessive
quest for the identity of Jack the Ripper.

>I think come Act 3 of das Rheingold he had already reached his maturity.
>There is nothing even remotely cheap about his Leitmotiv technique after
>that.

I once had the privilege of directing "The Valkyrie", and can only say
that I wish this were true.  The moment in Act 1 where the Sword Motif
pops back to remind Siegmund what's in the tree-stump has all the subtlety
of the cries of "Behind you!" in traditional English pantomime.  It gets a
laugh in more productions than it doesn't.  And as for Wotan's narration ...
even in the most skilled interpretative hands it's prone to be the operatic
equivalent of passing round the Holiday Snapshots.  Let me hasten to add,
that its undoubted flaws do not stop "The Valkyrie" being a masterpiece.

>You seem to take the view that Wagner's works are just giant potpourris of
>delightfully entertaining numbers.

Hardly!  I do take the view that they are best understood not in the
dissecting room, but from moment to moment, in the theatre.  That is how
the composer wanted them experienced, and of course does not preclude the
sensitive listener connecting those moments with what he or she has heard
previously.

>Boulez ...  argues that the Ring demonstrates absolute structural music
>integrity from the opening of das Rheingold through to the concluding
>passages of die Goetterdaemmerung.  It is a unity which is musical - pure
>and absolute.

"Gotterdammerung" (query:  is the article optional?) certainly has a
sophisticated and majestic unity, trios, choruses, duets and all, very
far removed from the single-minded musical purity of Rhinegold and most
of Valkyrie ...

>Anyone who sees in the singing of the Rheintoechter only 'delightfulness'
>misunderstands the whole Ring cycle.

... which is why, pardon me, the appearance of the Rhinemaidens in Act 3
is so poignant and - yes - delightful a reminiscence.  How we ache for that
lost musical innocence!

More crucially, the huge stylistic gulf between Act 2 and Act 3 of
"Siegfred" cannot be missed by anyone with half an ear.  And of course,
Perfect Wagnerites often shift uneasily in their seats during such
delightful - nay, plain funny - musical moments as Siegfried making
quacking noises with a reed and Alberich doing his toad hops.  Such moments
- there are more - effectively reduce pompous, hieratic statements about
"absolute music" (I'm sure it will have read differently in Boulez's
context) to platitudes.

>I fail to see anything delightful in Mime's evil and Hitlerian
>plans to murder Siegfried and to gain absolute power over the world.

Oh, spare us.  How can anyone fail to see that Mime provides the comic
relief, amongst other things? If we've not been amused and delighted by
his gleeful cauldron-capers with the wholesome soup I fear we've missed
at least half the point.  It's great panto-mime (sorry!).

Of the poor quality of Wagner As Literature:
>If this is so why did he influence Thomas Mann so deeply?

As a writer he didn't.  "The Vacuous Sublime" is how Mann (in "Magic
Mountain") appropriately characterised the opera librettos.  His attitude
to Wagner's music was
...
ambiguous, naturally.

>In fact a whole generation of German literary writers after him
>were completely under Wagner's spell.

Luckily none of the decent ones let him affect their literary style (or
content) for one moment.  A lot talked about his music of course -
endlessly - but that's a different point.

>English translations also struggle to convey the philosophical
>complexities inherent in the text, but in doing so make the work more
>accessible for those who just want to enjoy the potpourri of 'rollicking
>good numbers' removed of superfluous philosophical impediments.  In other
>words it helps turns Wagner into opera.

A depressingly glib conclusion, and impercipient.  What Porter's
translation did well was to render the infamous "longeurs" (e.g.  the
dreaded aforementioned Narration) vital and necessary parts of the drama.
The "rollicking" numbers didn't need this help.  Who cares awfully what
the Valkyries are screaming about in their thrilling, primal Ride?

>I see you have yet to see the world end.  As I say, here we will eternally
>fail to see eye to eye.  Let us agree to disagree.

What happiness - and relief - to be able to accept that.  If only Satoshi
Akima did not remind me of the Catholic Cardinal's generous agreement to
differ with the Lutheran Bishop:  "You serve God in your way, and I'll
serve him in his".

A last - truly a last - summary.  There are worlds of ambiguity in Wagner's
operas which makes them richer, musically and dramatically, than any of the
Perfect Wagnerites seem to comprehend.  In particular, "The Ring" is not a
solemn rite, but a huge tragi-comedy bursting at the seams with farce,
pathos, romance, wit and many other recognisable elements of life.  It is,
in other words, great music theatre.

For Satoshi Akima and his ilk, Wagner's magical bran-tub has become more
than just music.  Its embarrassing theatrical trappings in particular are
to be swept under the carpet.  It is to be enshrined as a superior
philosophic way of life, an end in itself.

However satisfying such meditations may be to the worshipper, they tend to
numb rather than illuminate the works themselves.  And, with great respect,
there's much more to Wagner's delightful operas than such solemn dunciads
allow.

Christopher Webber,  Blackheath, London,  UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"