Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comment

Last edit, which attempts to place Wagner's attack on the Jews in historical context (nothing wrong with that) slips over the line in suppressing information that was in the article, such as the fact that Wagner's "Jewish friend" Levi was forced to convert to Christianity to continue conducting at Bayereuth. Many other examples.

This is why I was justified in removing that sentence; it was false! Levi was not forced to convert to Christianity. Wagner asked it of Levi as a favor; Levi refused. Yet Wagner still had him conduct his operas at Bayreuth for the rest of his life. I wasn't removing anything factual, and that's a fact. --Clutch 23:06 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Also, it is not only Jews who consider Wagner anti-semitic, virtually anyone who actually reads the article would come to the same conclusion. Such as Wagner's statement, in the second paragraph, of the:

involuntary repellence possessed for us by the nature and personality of the Jews

I know nothing about Wagner, nor care, to tell the truth, but I am very suspicious of this last edit. For those who feel the way I do, Wagner's attitudes towards Jews are the most salient points about him. Someone who does know or care needs to step in and keep the NPOV going. Ortolan88

Without putting that quote into the broader context of European civilization as it existed at that time, and without reading the WHOLE article, that quote, on it's own, is a very misleading representation of what the article actually says. Wagner did not justify hatred of Jews; he spoke against it. Acknowleding an existing fact (ie, widespread antipathy to Jews) is not the same as supporting or condoning a fact. If you want facts, read the WHOLE article; Wagner said his goal was better understanding between Jews and Gentiles so they could work together in cooperation, without animosity. --Clutch 23:26 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Please don't worry about the NPOV, Clutch is in charge of it. 62.30.150.99

Well, I wasn't worried about it, but I am now. Tokerboy

Good. You should be. He needs watching. 62.30.150.99 18:24 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Clutch has a long history of trying to change this article to conform to his twisted POV. He also has a history of making outrageous POV statements in other articles. He's fairly slick though and has thus so far avoided a ban (although it was pretty close). Because he viciously and repeatedly attacks everyone who points out his shenanigans, most people don't speak out about him. I can only encourage you to post to the mailing list -- the more people do so, the more Jimbo will eventually be forced to react. --Eloquence 21:16 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I saved him once. Next time, he can sink or swim on his own. (Aside to Clutch: "You hear me, boy?") --Uncle Ed 21:24 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Provided noone acts with undue haste, I will always be able to defend my edits, Ed. --Clutch 23:06 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Clutch's view of how this article should read will probably prevail in the end, because others will get sick of reverting his constant, dripping-tap revisions. That's how he works. He pretends to be reasonable and pretends to be the fount of all NPOV, and what he's actually doing is very slowly converting this article, and others, to his own very special POV. All under a polite cloak of disinterested academic respectability. Resistance is useless. 62.30.150.99 11:03 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't claim to be a particular Wagner expert, not do I have a particular point of view on the controversial matter that has seen so many changes and reverts. And I don't intend to comb through this entry in detail - frankly, I'm not that interested in Wagner.

I changed one para.: Wagner is today perceived as anti-Semitic. Wagner is not alone in this regard, as religious antipathy between Jews and Christians has been an on-going issue for almost 2000 years. During the 20th century, some of his writings were misused by the Nazi party, who took them out of context.

Reverted back to: Wagner promulgated several anti-Semitic statements during his lifetime, in conversation as well as essays such as Das Judenthum in der Musik (1850). Wagner was not alone in this regard, as anti-Semitism was widespread in the European intellectual world of the 19th century. However, some of his comments were extreme enough to draw criticism from his contemporaries. During the 20th century, this anti-Semitism has become a large part of public perception of Wagner and his works, mostly because of the appropriation of his music by Nazi Germany.

Why do this? Because the second para is simply better. It's more informative, it doesn't read like an apology for Wagner, it just sets out the facts and lets the reader draw her own conclusions. In particular, it sets Wagner's views in their proper social context (the first para tries and fails to do that - it sounds like special pleading), and above all it lays stress on the really important thing about Wagner's anti-semitism, which is to say that it became a public perception. It stresses the perception, which is the key point.

I'm three parts tempted to read over the three or four para which follow and see if there is any reason to keep any of the rest of this section. There is a very good argument to be made that Wagner was a musician. He was not a politician or a statesman or a sociologist or a philosopher - he was a musician. No-one has heard of Wagner because of what he happened to think about Jews or universal suffrage, or the case for government intervention in the ironmaking industry. The only reason anyone is interested in Wagner today is because of the music he wrote. Now in writing a biography, we are entitled, and indeed required, to make mention of various side-issues. It is appropriate to mention that Mozart was a Freemason, it is appropriate to explain that Handel was a speculative promoter as well as a composer and performer, it is appropriate to mention Wagner's views on Jews. We need to mention these things in passing, just as we mention birth and death dates and sometimes mention families of famous people. But the political views of a composer are peripheral to the things that make him famous enough to deserve an entry in Wikipedia. It is equally as absurd to wallow around for para after para debating Wagner's political views as it would be to waste half a page writing about Einstein's flute lessons or Winston Churchill's butterfly collection.

It is tempting to do that - take out the rest of the extended discussion of this all but irrelevant issue - but in the interests of keeping the peace, I won't. Which is perhaps a mistake. Musician's biographies should be about the music, with only the minimum necessary extraneous information. Tannin 10:24 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

PS: Disclaimer for the record: I find a good deal of Wagner difficult to listen to and, frankly, tedious. But from time to time I stumble across a work that leaves me almost breathless with admiration. Oh? What's that? I didn't make my views on his political opinions plain? Exactly. I don't have any. I don't have a view on John F Kennedy's taste in wallpaper either. Tannin

Clutch: in what way is the para you replaced POV? Please explain this to me (and indeed to all of us), as it seems to me to be both more informative and very much neutral. Tannin

If you remove the paragraphs following it, I will be satisfied with the paragraph under discussion as you have left it. Otherwise, saying that "Wagner promulgated anti-Semitic statements", as well as characterising them as "extreme" is definately POV. Also I have never seen a source for the statement that he drew criticism from his contemporaries; it is an unverified assumption that someone put in. --Clutch 11:13 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I think we are making progress, Clutch.

I had my own doubts about the "drew criticism" sentence - not from any particular knowledge (I'm no Wagner expert), just that the sentence seemed to have that indefinable hollow ring to it that always sets my antennae quivering. So I checked with the resources I have at hand. The Oxford dictionary of music, in a fairly lengthy entry, does not mention Wagner's anti-semetisim (or lack thereof) at all. Schonberg's The lives of the great composers, however, does mention it in a little detail, quoting Wagner's description of the Jews as "former cannibals, educated to be business leaders of society." Schonberg also includes the following quote from the contemporary Viennese critic Eduard Hanslick:

Wagner is lucky in all things. At first he raves against all monarchs; and a magnanimous King meets him with flattering love and prepares for him an existence free from care and even lavish. Then he writes a phamphlet against the Jews; and all Jewry, both in and outside of music, pays him all the more zealous homage. (p. 244)

I think that counts as a criticism from a contemporary, though I would rather see, say, three or four seperate instances before regarding the point as proven. However, we should carefully note that Schonberg does not seem to see these views as a particularly important aspect of Wagner's life: his racial opinions are simply one part of the overall ecentricity fading into madness that overtook Wagner, especially later in his life, and are mentioned in the same breath as Wagner's sudden vegetarianism, his "writing reams of prose on every concievable subject", his dressing in violently clashing colors, only allowing the softest silk to touch his skin, his writing of Beethoven that it was lucky his skull was so thick as otherwise, given "his inner world of such conspicuous delicacy", his brain "would have gently dissolved". (Schonberg, p. 247) (I've quoted a little out of context in that last bit - Wagner's passage is not quite as bizarre as I've made it seem - but it's still weird enough to raise your eyebrows quite a distance.)

There were a few protests held at early performances of "Die Meistersinger", over Wagner's republication of "Judaism". However, I don't have any references handy at the moment. -- CYD

I do think that the reluctance of Israelis to perform Wagner is important enough to mention - particularly given that there seems to be (if I read the last para aright) a softening of attitude gradually taking place.

Anyway, I've taken, more or less, that first para and most of the last one, and cut out the stuff in-between. I'm not completely happy with my wording, but I think it's gettting close. What do you think?

Tannin 12:17 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I really liked your edit and think it was a great improvement over what was there before. I have done some more edits, and I hope they meet your approval. --Clutch 12:51 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Alas, only partially so. "He made chauvinistic remarks about many things", yes. However saying "but the comments that were critical of Judaism have been used to tar him as an anti-Semite" is misleading. One cannot "tar" as an anti-semite a man who wrote that Jews were educated "former cannibals". To say that Wagner's comments "were used to tar him", in the light of that particular comment, is like saying that "Richard Nixon's membership of the Republican Party was used to tar him as a Republican".

The problem with including the bit about Wagner's essay calling for greater understanding and cooperation, and explicitly condeming violence and bigotry is that (given the assumption that it is in fact true - which I don't know from my own reading but accept your word for) we then need to include a balancing statement showing why the essay was nevertheless anti-semetic. And that will probably call for a counter-balancing statement, followed by a counter-counter-balancing statement, and so on - and we wind up right back where we started, with an entry that is supposed to be about a musical composer called Wagner, but winds up being about the political views of a man who played no role in politics. Einstein's flute lessons again. Just the same, I'll leave it to others to deal with that para - I don't want to get bogged down in this topic which is of only peripheral interest to me. But I will change the last para to a form that reads better and avoids expressing an opinion but, as is proper here, simply lays out the facts and lets the reader draw his own conclusions. Tannin

Wagner said a lot of stupid and hateful things, about a lot of different people. Even a cursory reading of his life is sufficient to show that he was seriously disturbed - I mean, how seriously are we supposed to take the comments of a man who thought Beethoven's brain would have leaked out if his skull hadn't been nice and thick? Picking out just one particular obsession of his amongst so many others (even though it is no doubt his single worst feature) removes balance from the entry, and distorts history. Either tell all, or just summarise. Tannin

Just some thoughts for all the people involved in this article and the ensuing edit war.

1. Wagner had many bizarre ideas, as Tannin points out,
2. However, he was somewhat excessively hung up on Jews and the dangers they posed, given that Jews constituted just 1 percent of the total German population.
3. In contrast, on a personal level, he usually was quite civil with his Jewish acquaintances.
4. So were so many other intellectuals in his era (hung up on Jews, that is): Wilhelm Marr wrote Victory of Judaism over Germanism; Fritsch wrote the Antisemitic Catechism; von Treitschke wrote negatively about Jews too, etc.
5. This was all part of a larger debate over whether to rescind Emancipation.
6. In his conclusion to Judentum Wagner wrote--"There is only one way of redeeming the Jews from the terrible curse that hangs over them--annihilation."
7. While it is pretty clear that he meant the eradication of the Jewish religion, many people misinterpreted this as meaning actual physical annihilation.
8. One of those people was Hitler, who frequently cited Wagner as an inspiration (I don't have my Mein Kampf here but I can look it up).
9. Of all the people involved in the debate in the mid-nineteenth century, Wagner is probably the best-known today.
10. Anti-Semitism was only a secondary feature of Wagner's greater legacy and contribution to European culture (my POV).
11. History is not something that can be painted black or white. People are far too complex for that.

Cheers. Danny 14:06 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Danny and Tannin's recent comments, and will work to incorporate them into the main article. RK

Excellent. I was going to pop a note onto Danny's user talk page just now saying "good summary", but seeing it was 48k already I changed my mind. :) Go to it RK. Tannin

A couple of questions:

1. Wesendonck or Wesendonk?
2. Should 'fliegende' in 'Der fliegende Holländer' be capitalised? Twice it is, twice it isn't. What did Wagner write?

-- Miciah 20030208 1539

---

I German, nouns are capitalised. The English custom of capitalising (almost) all words in book titles, etc., is foreign to German.

In German, consequently: Der fliegende Holländer.

S.

---