My Musical Life III: The Greatest Music

This is an essay.  A gold star to everyone who manages a complete reading

"He who wants to understand National Socialism, must first know Wagner"--Adolph Hitler

"Every time I hear Wagner, I get the urge to invade Poland"--Woody Allen

(Sigh... )
Writing about Richard Wagner (b. Leipzig 1813; d. Venice 1883--and, pronounce the name right, pleeeze:  VAHG-ner) for an audience consisting largely of Weezer mavens and Tolkienites seems a daunting task.  Perhaps it helps to be old.  Except...except, I started listening at 18 (am I correct here?  I do not think of 18 as old) when competitors for my ear included the young-and-in-their-prime Beatles, Doors, Stones, Dead, Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc.

Instead of Lennon and McCartney or Simon and Garfunkel, here I was turning my attention to...Tristan and Isolde.


The cheeky authoritarian quotes at the top are, to put it frankly, a ruse; nothing but a cheap literary trick to grab the interest of readers unfamiliar with the greatest music.  The quotes are there simply because, for some, Wagner becomes...more worthy of respect (or, is 'disrespect' the proper term?); not a simple dead white composer cloaked in a wig; a man whose notoriety ranges far beyond music.

Still, it is his music--the greatest music.  At least, that's what I implied at the end of my previous journal.  And, thus, that will be my approach to this greatest of all...  

Actually, of late, I've been entertaining--in my head--an argument which suggests that while J.S. Bach is the greatest composer of music, Richard Wagner is the greatest of ALL creative artists.  

This idea is not as contradictory as one might think.  In general, the oldest music most anyone might listen to is by Bach or Handel (both born in 1685, just one month and 30 miles/50 km apart).  Certainly, there is older music which comes down to us.  The Christmas carol (actually it's  for Advent) 'O Come, O Come, Emanuel' is such an example; so is 'Greensleeves'.  But, little of this music is ascribed to anyone.  Its composers are mostly annonymus; and the works are not of large scale.   Neither does this mean I assign 16th/17th century composers such as Henry Purcell, Giovanni da Palestrina or Orlando di Lassus to the trashbin.  Though their music is still performed--and with good reason--few would claim that any of these early composers were the equals of Bach or Handel.

However, the nature of music in medieval and Renaissance times was that it was composed essentially for one time use...and then scrapped.  A musical composition was not looked upon as an enduring item, something worthy of posterity.  

Changes in these attitudes were well under way prior to Bach(1685-1750).  Yet, there was still no great urgency to compose music for a place in history.  Little of Bach's music was ever published.  Indeed, many Bach compositions are known only through copies.  An original manuscript is often missing.

The bulk of Sebastian Bach's compositions were for:
1) the entertainment of nobility (Brandenberg Concertos)
2) secular entertainment of Leipzig sophisticates (Coffee Cantata)
3) the church (St. Matthew Passion)
4) musical education (Well-tempered Clavier--I remember the C-major Prelude as an early piano assignment)
  
Consequently, when Bach composed, he did so because music was required to fill a specific need.  He, however, did not seem to consider the concept of creating works of art which would endure for centuries.  

(Though, in truth, during the final years of his life, he apparently realized the importance of a legacy.  Thus,  great 'summation' works such as "The Art of the Fugue" and "Mass in B-minor" came into being--not necessarily as freshly composed music, but rather music which was a compilation or reworkings of older compositions.)

When Bach died in 1750, then, most of his worldly fame died with him.  He was known throughout Germany as a master organist--the greatest of all.  But, as a composer...Handel was famous; Bach was not.  

Yet, embers of his music were kept aglow.  His sons eventually came to embrace his greatness.  He was known and admired by other composers.  Mozart, for example, born six years after Bach's death, speaks of him in letters; and his ebulliant outburst upon hearing Bach's choral music for the first time is well documented.  Haydn, Beethoven and, especially, Mendelssohn (who, in 1829, led the first performance of the St. Matthew Passion in almost 90 years) all gained inspiration from Bach.

And Richard Wagner, born in Bach's Leipzig and baptised in his church, the Thomaskirche, grew up in the midst of the great Bach rediscovery.  Though never a member of the Thomanerchor (Bach's famous boychoir), in 1831, at the age of 18, he studied music under Theodor Weinlig, the Cantor of the Thomaskirche (Bach's old job).  Thus, a connection of spirit, if not influence, between the two readily exists.


But, of course, they were each very much a part of different eras, Wagner's birth having been over a century and a quarter after Bach's.  The Lutheran Bach, for example, was a firm believer:  Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone), he would pen at the end of his compositions.  Wagner, however, had little use for religion.  Though noted for his anti-Jewish ravings and writings ("Jewishness in Music" was the title of one), he also held Christianity in low regard.  He felt it to be a divisive religion; a religion which heaped guilt upon people for responding to wholly human instincts.  

The greatest difference between them, however, is one of worldliness.  Bach never left Germany, and, in fact, spent most of his life within an even smaller area (Thuringia and Saxony).  It is thought that in a city such as Leipzig--home to a prestigious university--Bach may have been looked down upon by his superiors as somewhat provincial, especially since he had never achieved a university degree.  

Wagner was far less confined in his travels and intellect--especially his intellect.  Among the great artists of any medium, he stands virtually alone as THE intellectual.  (For example, Wagner's involvement with noted philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer and Friederich Nietzsche, is worthy of deep study)  And, it seemed not possible to ever look down upon Wagner.  It was quite the opposite.  Wagner considered himself to be a clear superior, the most German of all men.  Even worse, he pretty much let anyone within earshot know it.

(Wagner's raging anti-semitism and its effect--if any--on his works is deserving of a much larger discussion than I can offer here.  This is an aspect of Wagner which is quite ugly--all the moreso once the Nazis turned Wagner into a Reich hero.  Indeed, a defacto ban on public performance of Wagner's music exists in Israel to this day.)

Still, he must have had his engaging side.  How else could he convince wealthy patrons to fork over huge amounts of money so that he could pursue an opulent lifestyle?

Well, of course, there was the music.  And Wagner--charmingly--convinced people that he couldn't write this great music unless he lived in villas with the most elegant drapes and furnishings; drank the finest of vintage wines; wore well-tailored clothes allowing only silk to touch his skin.  (In fairness, it should be noted that Wagner suffered from a skin condition which was eased by silk).

Wagner always promised to repay these "loans"--but never did.  Earlier in his life there had been instances where he was on his way out the back door of his lodgings, while debt collectors were banging on the front.  But, as a mature artist--and one who continually produced greatness...people of wealth did not resort to such crass tactics.  Still, over and over, he would request 'subsidies' and rarely be denied.


What, then, allows Wagner to surge past the likes of Leonardo and Shakespeare and Beethoven--and Bach--to become the greatest of all creative artists?

First of all, Wagner composed music.  The earlier mention of the philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, was not casual.  He, for one, extolled music as the finest of all the arts.  Music had a quality lacking in other artistic forms.  

(Bryan Magee, "The Tristan Chord":  chapter 9: The Philosophy of Schopenhauer):
"Music alone among the arts is not representational, and therefore cannot represent platonic forms [REAL objects--the Phenomenal world].  It is, according to Schopenhauer, the self-expression of something that cannot be represented at all, namely the noumenon.  It is the voice of metaphysical will.  That is why it seems to speak to us from the most ultimate depths, deeper by far than those accessible to other arts, while remaining itself something wholly unamenable to language, or to understanding by the intellect.

"...The great composers are the great metaphysicians, penetrating to the centre of things and giving expression to truths about existence in a language our intellects are unable to even comprehend, let alone translate into concepts or words."


Wagner, as a composer, eagerly embraced Schopenhauerian philosophy.  He read Schopenhauer's great work, "The World as Will and Representation" numerous times (four in the first year, alone, after discovering the 1000+ page book).  The Schopenhauerian philosophy--some say it contains elements of Buddhism--is not particularly optimistic.  It finds its way into Wagner both in music and text:  

1) Tristan und Isolde (is this possibly the single greatest work of art ever created?) explores Schopenhauer's nether world of sexual passion and yearning, and ends--after four hours--with the senusous orgasm of Isolde's Liebestod (Love-death--as I understand it, Wagner, himself, never called it such).

2) Some contend Parsifal to be even better:  the ultimate Wagner; his swansong; the story of the lone man wandering the world looking for salvation, and finding it among the Knights of the Grail--or, is this not it, at all?

3) Götterdämmerung (Twilight of the Gods): the conclusion of the vast  "Der Ring des Nibelungen" (The Ring of the Nibelung) originally climaxed with what is known as the Schopenhauer ending:

Deepest suffering
of grieving love
opened my eyes:
I saw the world end.

Though ultimately rejected when the music was composed, these lines remained in the printed text.  Wagner claimed they became extraneous as the music, itself, spoke the words.


And, beyond music, there is a fusing of art forms--Gesamtkunstwerk (TOTAL/COMPLETE artwork)--which ultimately lifts Wagner above all others--including Bach.  Bach certainly believed he was composing very fine music (and, perhaps, he did, indeed, compose the finest music; I might grant Bach that), but he had only an inkling of how that music might carry him into the future.  

Wagner, though...  He believed heartily in Greek drama.  He saw it as an all-encompassing form of art, consisting of the various artistic disciplines.  It had a sense of community which allowed everyone to participate.  He lamented that after Greek civilization faded, each branch of art went its separate way.  Music, painting, sculpture, poetry, drama became entities unto themselves.  It was part of Wagner's vision that he should become the great reunifier of these arts; that he should be the creator of monumental Gesamtkunstwerke.

It can be argued that his success on this point was somewhat variable.  Still, it is the massive scope of his works which separates him from all others before or since.  Scope alone, however, does not make for greatness.  Greatness comes because Wagner was able to overflow that scope with creations far beyond the realm of, even, the extraordinary.  

Wagner supremely believed he was creating the greatest masterpieces.  Anything less would have been an afront to the man's nature.


So, where is a good place for one to meet Wagner? (note:  "Apocalypse Now" is NOT a good place)  Why not do what I did then?  (Remember, I was only 18)  Go to Götterdämmerung.  GD--as it's sometimes called in the biz--contains the ending of all endings:  Brünnhilde's Immolation (this is hardcore Wagner).  Not only does the Immolation--it runs about 20 minutes--bring an end to GD, but it closes the entire Ring Cycle.  By all means, listen to this.

But, perhaps, even before that, let me also recommend a complete Act 2 (of 3) of GD.  Understand, first of all, that you are not coming in at the middle; you are coming in at the end.  Act 2 has not been merely preceded by Act 1 of GD (2+ hours of music-drama), but also by the entire of "Das Rheingold" (The Rhinegold), "Die Walküre" (The Valkyrie), and "Siegfried"--another 11 hours of music-drama!  

Nonetheless, Wagner benefits greatly from hearing extended sections.  With Wagner, once the music starts there is no stopping until an act is brought to a close.  One cannot pull up short sections with distinct beginnings and ends.  One must listen to a greater whole.  Act 2 of GD lasts around 65 minutes (short by Wagnerian standards).  It contains hugely powerful music:  the summoning of the vassals, Brünnhilde's oath, the Vengeance Trio.  It opens with what is considered a great test of speakers to reproduce bass sounds:  a dreamlike sequence between the Nibelungen dwarf, Alberich, and his evil half-human son, Hagen.  

Once begun, you will know immediately that you have entered a very different world.

I would also recommend seeking out a very specific GD:  the 1965 recording with Birgit Nilsson's thrilling Brünnhilde and Sir Georg Solti conducting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra.  The impact of this first stereo GD remains overwhelming in the extreme four-plus decades after its creation.  The sound is incredible.  Until you hear this, you've never heard MUSIC!

And this "Götterdämmerung" is the recording bought by a musically näive 18 year-old in 1967 (6 vinyl disks /12 sides--now remastered onto four CDs); a purchase which drew me into music that, as a 58 yearold, still fills me with unbridled passion.



Clubs Worth a Check