Wagner’s boundaries and Bach’s aspirations

Wagner’s Boundaries (The Null Set)

The London Review of Books features in its 11 April 2013 issue a musing by Nicholas Spice titled “Is Wagner bad for us?”  The breadth of Spice’s inquiries prohibits useful capsulization here, but an early passage of the article is so trenchant that I hoped readers would find it stimulating. 

The question posed was “about the boundary that lies between Wagner’s works and his listeners, and about the experience, apparently not uncommon, of that boundary becoming blurred or even disappearing….”  That is to say, does Wagner talk about things one is not supposed to, write about stuff that is meant to be personal and private?  Does he touch us where he ought not? Read More


“Hee for God onely, shee for God in him”

One of the several Wagnerian whimsies that I have collected on my bookshelf is a 1931 translation by Hannah Waller of a 1912 book by Julius Kapp originally titled Richard Wagner Und Die Frauen: Eine Erotische Biographie (tempered in the American translation to The Women in Wagner’s Life).  It’s one of those confident admixtures of myth, devotion, scholarship and popular literature that


Works of Music Made Visible

It is only by the most indirect link to the Meister that I can possibly justify this post, but those who follow its link will not regret it, I am sure. We are of course aware of Wagner’s self-imposed challenge to make visible on the stage the action of music.  Many have remarked that it was


Francois Girard’s Parsifal at the Met

Readers of this blog will know that the broad condemnations of Peter Gelb’s leadership at the Metropolitan Opera seem to me like warnings of falling asteroids — they simply don’t conform to my personal experience.  And the just-closed run of Parsifal is in keeping with this record.  It was impeccably cast, ravishingly played, movingly conducted, thrillingly