Wagner as Propaganda

There seems to be a mounting concern and a prevailing prejudice in the
list member's presumptions that Wagner is to be the object of ridicule as
a symbol of German nationalism and archaic 19th century pompous arrogance
raised to the level of a religion.  Even the rich complexity of his highly
elaborate late 19 th century academic German literary style it seems is
being scrutinised as evidence of this.  It has even been insinuated that
Wagner must remain under suspicion of propagandistic sermonising on the
behalf of grossly anti-democratic ideologies.

Robert Peters writes:

>[Wagner] certainly tries to influence, to transports messages.  And I do
>not want to buy them without examining them.  And all his exaggerated
>belief in his mission awakens my mistrust.

I doubt that this is to say that any artist who touches on history,
the metaphysical question of human freedom and the question of the nature
of the human mind, its Will and the destiny of the human race is to be
automatically to be made suspect of vile propagandist motivations.  It that
were the case nearly all writers Shakespeare and Goethe included are also
equally suspect.  So this quote is significant only in that he also writes:

>The problem is that the Wagner cult (especially of Bayreuth) is
>dangerously near to a religion and this is a concept I (and many
>others) dislike a lot.  I am a German and I know from my countries
>past that no man (and no woman) deserves god-like worshipping.

And religion, its seems it is being argued, aims to use music as a means of
propaganda:

>Music has been used as propaganda for ages, that is: mostly
>propaganda for the Roman Catholic Church

I in turn wonder if this isn't a case of throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.  Once again I do not think it a case of convenient sanitisation
when I argue that the real problem has been the way Wagner has hitherto
been interpreted.  Mats is quite right in picking the quotation of my post
as the crux of my argument.

>There is such a vast amount of material in the text to deal with without
>having to resort of innuendo or subtext to interpret Wagner.  Wagner
>interpretation based on subtexual innuendo is nothing but a free ticket
>to distort him in whatever perverse fashion should capture one's fancy.
>Wagner interpretation has been however traditionally rife with this sort
>of nonsense.  I am bitterly critical of this tradition, which I believe
>to be the product of the widespread acceptance of the National Socialist
>perversion of Wagner which can only be achieved by such subtextual
>expansion.  This methodology seems to have gained widespread acceptance.
>'If the National Socialist do it why shouldn't I' is how the thought
>process runs, only to end up sinking to their base level.  This is not to
>deny that there is a subtext in Wagner - as with ANY writer.  Rather it is
>an insistence that such overblown interpretation of subtext at the expense
>of the TEXT will no longer be tolerated as the dominant mode of Wagner
>interpretation.  Let us read the TEXT first in order to properly understand
>any subtext.  We have not even begun to do this.  We have, after all this
>time, scarcely even begun to understand Wagner.

The really sad thing is that we have to pay so much deep respect to
the official National Socialist perversion of Wagner to serve as their
propaganda.  It strikes me that in doing so people end up uncritically
swallowing National Socialist propaganda in the process.  It seems this
colours most peoples stereotyped perceptions of Wagner's art to the point
that they can see nothing else.  Take Sterling Newberry's post on this
subject which admittedly predates my lengthy critique of interpretations
of Wagner based on National Socialist "Rassentheorie".  Even someone as
perceptive and intelligent as he seems to base his Wagner interpretation
on such cliched presumptions:

>the entire plot of the ring hinges on the question of purification of the
>taint of blood *and the impossibility of doing so*.

I say it is sad that this is the case because it grants to Hitler the
right to claim Wagner as his very own.  Wagner was of course Hitler's
favourite composer.  However I think I have already shown that whoever
tries to properly understand Wagner, especially the Ring will find a
message profoundly anti-Hitlerian.  To be able to reach the point of this
realisation is the ultimate insult and sweetest ideological victory against
National Socialism in the history of music.  It is to brandish a sharp
ideological sword against all tyranny:

   Notung, Notung trusty sword!
   You lay there dead in fragments,
   now you gleam glorious and defiant.
   Now show felons how you shine!
   Smite the false, fell all knaves!
   See Mime you smith,
   how sharp is Siegfried's sword!

It is an interpretation of Wagner as befits a democratic world.

But why I ask will we not bury all such attempts to appropriate Wagner (or
for that matter any composer, especially as we all seemed to be agreed that
Wagner does not represent some 'special case') for the purpose of dubious
propaganda? Why do we grant Hitler in death this final sweet victory? I
have made my stand - I will not stand for this.  Will you?

Satoshi Akima
Sydney, Australia
[log in to unmask]