The PBS Telecast Of The Lepage Staging Of _Siegfried_

[A.C. Douglas]

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2012/09/the-pbs-telecast-of-the-lepage-staging-of-siegfried.html

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Richard Partridge]

On 9/14/12 1:55 PM, A.C. Douglas, at acdo...@acdouglas.com, wrote the
following:

> http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2012/09/the-pbs-telecast-of-the-lep
> age-staging-of-siegfried.html
>
> --
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/

> " The dragon looked a bit silly but we've seen worse. "


More seriously, the sword looked silly. Much too large, crude, and
unrealistic, it looked like something out of a comic book.


Dick Partridge

[A.C. Douglas]

"Richard Partridge" wrote:

>A.C. Douglas wrote:
>
>> "The dragon looked a bit silly but we've seen worse."
>
>More seriously, the sword looked silly. Much too large, crude, and
>unrealistic, it looked like something out of a comic book.

It looked crude and unrealistic because it didn't gleam like steel (although
steel didn't exist then), but I don't think it was too large at all. It
struck me (NPI) as just the right size for a hero of Siegfried's (and his
papa's) stature. What bothered me about that sword was that, before
Siegfried re-forged it, it was broken into only two pieces when it should
have been shattered.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[A.C. Douglas]

"A.C. Douglas" wrote:

>It [Notung] looked crude and unrealistic because it didn't gleam like
>steel....

On rereading, the above is incomplete. It should have read: "It [Notung]
looked crude and unrealistic because it didn't gleam like steel and appeared
to be weightless...."

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Richard Partridge]

On 9/15/12 11:52 AM, A.C. Douglas, at acdo...@acdouglas.com, wrote the
following:

Siegfried, of course, was uncommonly strong -- without seeming to exert
himself he could paddle a boat rapidly against the Rhine's current -- and if
the sword seemed like a feather in his hand that would further the illusion
of his strength.


Dick Partridge

[Richard Partridge]

On 9/14/12 4:17 PM, A.C. Douglas, at acdo...@acdouglas.com, wrote the
following:

I guess "too large" is a matter of opinion, but I also think it was crude.
Too simple in its design. It looked like an oversized child's toy.

I think the sword is usually shown as having been broken into two pieces by
Wotan's spear, although it's described as "shattered." I don't think
"shatter" necessarily means break into many pieces. The sword struck the
spear in one place, so it's natural to think it would be broken in one
place.

Br�nnhilde, and later Sieglinde, had to carry the pieces of the broken sword
without, apparently, the convenience of a bag to put them in. So a lot of
small fragments would have been a problem.

The three main operas of the "Ring" were set in early Germany, probably
around the time of Christ, give or take a few centuries. Steel did exist
then, although perhaps not in that place. It existed in Africa and the Near
East, and of course the Chinese had it.


Dick Partridge

[wagnerfan]

Now thats really an issue - the sword was in two pieces rather than
5 or 20 - thats really something to be concerned about isn't it. I
swear some people just look for something to complain about. What a
way to go through opera. or life. Wagner fan

[A.C. Douglas]

"Richard Partridge" wrote:

>Br�nnhilde, and later Sieglinde, had to carry the pieces of the broken
>sword without, apparently, the convenience of a bag to put them in. So a
>lot of small fragments would have been a problem.

Nah. No problem at all for those girls. Let's say, shattered into several
fragments.

>The three main operas of the "Ring" were set in early Germany, probably
>around the time of Christ, give or take a few centuries.

Oh jeez! Do you really want to reopen that can of worms here?

The _Ring_ was NOT "set in early Germany, probably around the time of
Christ." The _Ring_ was set somewhere in the Rhine Valley (and we know that
simply because of the river) at some prehistoric (i.e., literally,
pre-historic) mythical time.

Period. Full stop.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[@zonnet.nl Herman van der Woude]

A.C. Douglas schreef op 15-9-2012 het volgende:
A.C. Douglas wrote on 15-9-2012 as follows:
> "Richard Partridge" wrote:
>
>>Brï¿œnnhilde, and later Sieglinde, had to carry the pieces of the broken

>>sword without, apparently, the convenience of a bag to put them in. So a
>>lot of small fragments would have been a problem.
>
> Nah. No problem at all for those girls. Let's say, shattered into several
> fragments.

"Yhose girls" wer in a hurry, remember? Two peaces is much mor
convenient to take up and to take with you than a collection of

fragments.

>>The three main operas of the "Ring" were set in early Germany, probably
>>around the time of Christ, give or take a few centuries.
>
> Oh jeez! Do you really want to reopen that can of worms here?
>
> The _Ring_ was NOT "set in early Germany, probably around the time of
> Christ." The _Ring_ was set somewhere in the Rhine Valley (and we know that
> simply because of the river) at some prehistoric (i.e., literally,
> pre-historic) mythical time.

It depends what you define as pre-historic. The Germanic tribes
couldn't write as we do, or as the Romans already did. They knew the
use of runes though, so they weren't entirely illiterate. There are
quite a few indications at runes in The Ring, even in the meaning of
written texts, think of Wotans spear.
I can agree with your definition of "early Germany", as there was no
Germany some 2000 years ago (the time of the Romans and the use of
runes by the Germanics), just a vast area of land where mainly Germanic
tribes lived. Yes, Wagner's story was set in and somewhere around the
Rhine.

> Period. Full stop.

Ooh, I would agree to that, but I have the feeling that such a thing is
not going to happen.

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Cheers!
Herman van der Woude

[@zonnet.nl Herman van der Woude]

Herman van der Woude schreef op 15-9-2012 het volgende:

Herman van der Woude wrote on 15-9-2012 as follows:
> A.C. Douglas schreef op 15-9-2012 het volgende:
> A.C. Douglas wrote on 15-9-2012 as follows:
>> "Richard Partridge" wrote:
>>
>>>Brï¿œnnhilde, and later Sieglinde, had to carry the pieces of the broken
>>>sword without, apparently, the convenience of a bag to put them in. So a
>>>lot of small fragments would have been a problem.
>>
>> Nah. No problem at all for those girls. Let's say, shattered into several
>> fragments.
>
> "Yhose girls" wer in a hurry, remember?

Sorry, stupid typos again - I meant, "Those girls" were in a hurry,

remember?

> Two peaces is much mor convenient to
> take up and to take with you than a collection of fragments.

mor=more, oops!

>>>The three main operas of the "Ring" were set in early Germany, probably
>>>around the time of Christ, give or take a few centuries.
>>
>> Oh jeez! Do you really want to reopen that can of worms here?
>>
>> The _Ring_ was NOT "set in early Germany, probably around the time of
>> Christ." The _Ring_ was set somewhere in the Rhine Valley (and we know that
>> simply because of the river) at some prehistoric (i.e., literally,
>> pre-historic) mythical time.
>
> It depends what you define as pre-historic. The Germanic tribes couldn't
> write as we do, or as the Romans already did. They knew the use of runes
> though, so they weren't entirely illiterate. There are quite a few
> indications at runes in The Ring, even in the meaning of written texts, think
> of Wotans spear.
> I can agree with your definition of "early Germany", as there was no Germany
> some 2000 years ago (the time of the Romans and the use of runes by the
> Germanics), just a vast area of land where mainly Germanic tribes lived. Yes,
> Wagner's story was set in and somewhere around the Rhine.
>
>> Period. Full stop.
>
> Ooh, I would agree to that, but I have the feeling that such a thing is not
> going to happen.

Sorry for the typos!

[Richard Partridge]

On 9/15/12 2:45 PM, A.C. Douglas, at acdo...@acdouglas.com, wrote the
following:

Well, we know it was set in early Germany because they all spoke German.


Dick Partridge

[A.C. Douglas]

"Richard Partridge" wrote:

>A.C. Douglas wrote:
>

>>The _Ring_ was NOT "set in early Germany, probably around the time of
>>Christ." The _Ring_ was set somewhere in the Rhine Valley (and we know
>>that simply because of the river) at some prehistoric (i.e., literally,
>>pre-historic) mythical time. Period. Full stop.
>

>Well, we know it was set in early Germany because they all spoke German.

Richard, go to your room this instant! :-)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Mike Scott Rohan]

On Friday, 14 September 2012 21:18:10 UTC+1, A.C. Douglas wrote:

>
> It looked crude and unrealistic because it didn't gleam like steel (although
>
> steel didn't exist then), but I don't think it was too large at all.

You had me in hysterics with this one, but I see others have got there first. I don't think there's any danger of the can of worms being re-opened, though (was that where they got the Diet of Worms?) because you've shifted your stance entirely in the meantime. You originally said that the Ring was set in no actual era at all; the prehistoric Rhineland was *my* chosen setting, not yours -- as witness the instruction of Wagner's I cited, referring the designer to Tacitus's account in Germania. So either I achieved a conversion on a Pauline level, or (rather like that old bugger Paul, I suspect) you've simply decided it was what you believed all along.

But don't bother claiming I advanced the fifth century, because that also counts as prehistoric; only the barest accounts exist, and they are based entirely on the view from south of the Rhine. What was actually going on in the Ur-Wald is pretty much unknown except to archaeology.

However, you really are up the creek in insisting steel was unknown then. This is something of a specialist area for me. Various kinds of steel were well known outside Europe, in the East for example, but even in primitive Northern Europe they had considerable knowledge of it, principally because their methods of working iron, especially from the bog-iron nodules much used in southern Scandinavia, actually created various grades of carbon steel. They learned to vary this both in the smelting and in the working, by combining various grades, especially for the so-called "pattern-welded" swords. It's true that in the original designs Notung is modelled largely on a Bronze-age leaf-blade, but names like Stone, Bronze and Iron ages are merely broad definitions. Steel was already being worked in the Bronze Age, just less commonly, while bronze remained very common into the Iron Age. And since Notung was originally the work of the gods (or just possibly the Nibelungs) it would surely use the highest tech available, which was steel (and remained so until the 20th century!).

And finally, since you insist so much on the self-suffiency of the text, you ought to remember that it's several times referred to as being made of "Stahl" -- which is unambiguous.

Cheers,

Mike

[A.C. Douglas]

"Mike Scott Rohan" wrote:

>You had me in hysterics with this one, but I see others have got there
>first. I don't think there's any danger of the can of worms being
>re-opened, though (was that where they got the Diet of Worms?) because
>you've shifted your stance entirely in the meantime. You originally said
>that the Ring was set in no actual era at all; the prehistoric Rhineland
>was *my* chosen setting, not yours -- as witness the instruction of
>Wagner's I cited, referring the designer to Tacitus's account in Germania.
>So either I achieved a conversion on a Pauline level, or (rather like that
>old bugger Paul, I suspect) you've simply decided it was what you believed
>all along. But don't bother claiming I advanced the fifth century, because

>that also counts as prehistoric....

Rubbish (surprise!). The fifth century counts as no such thing. The fifth
century is well into the historical era. And it was *I* who insisted from
the get-go that the _Ring_ was set in a prehistoric (literally,
pre-historic) mythical era, and you countered by insisting it was set in
*historical* fifth-century Germania (look at the costumes!, you cried) and
quoted some arcane historical facts that you suggested might have influenced
Wagner.

>However, you really are up the creek in insisting steel was unknown then.

But I didn't insist steel was unknown in fifth-century Germania. I declared
it was unknown in pre-historic mythic times.

>And finally, since you insist so much on the self-suffiency of the text,

>you ought to remember that [Notung is] several times referred to as being

>made of "Stahl" -- which is unambiguous.

Wagner's poetic use of the term, clearly.

Nice try, though.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Mike Scott Rohan]

A time can be prehistoric or it can be mythic -- not both. A mythic view will have origins in the prehistoric times which gave it birth, of course, but then it has to stick to what little is known about them, or it isn't mythic, it's purely imaginary and connected with nothing, which the Ring most certainly is not; it even features one real person. Steel was known in prehistoric times, so in any mythic reflection of them it must be, also.

As to the "purely poetic", that's only your assertion, not even a genuine opinion, entirely arbitrary and founded on nothing more than your own immediate need. The context makes it entirely clear that stahl means steel -- if Siegfried had been apostrophising bronze, he'd have said so.

Mike

[A.C. Douglas]

"Mike Scott Rohan" wrote:

>A time can be prehistoric or it can be mythic -- not both. A mythic view
>will have origins in the prehistoric times which gave it birth, of course,
>but then it has to stick to what little is known about them, or it isn't
>mythic, it's purely imaginary and connected with nothing, which the Ring
>most certainly is not; it even features one real person. Steel was known in
>prehistoric times, so in any mythic reflection of them it must be, also.
>
>As to the "purely poetic", that's only your assertion, not even a genuine
>opinion, entirely arbitrary and founded on nothing more than your own
>immediate need. The context makes it entirely clear that stahl means
>steel -- if Siegfried had been apostrophising bronze, he'd have said so.

I refuse to waste my time responding to your idiot arguments again. I've
previously proved your declared 5th-century Germania claims entirely false —
incontrovertibly and irrefutably, including links to the relevant posts in
the years-ago original thread — and my pre-historic means exactly that —
viz., before the beginning of the period of the recording of actual
historical events; roughly, before the beginnings of Egyptian civilization
and, of course, before steel was known. Preach your nonsense ideas to the
more gullible or to those who are your fans and cheerleaders here. I'm done
exposing your rubbish for what it is beyond declaring it rubbish.

See how that's going to work?

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Mike Scott Rohan]

ACD, everybody at the time laughed at your claims to have won. If they're all my cheerleaders etc, then that would effectively be the whole group. In which case why would you bother to go on posting here? Yet here you are.

As you of course know, there are plenty of people who disagree with me when they think it's called for, and sometimes, no doubt, they're right. Some of them are also among your most vocal opponents. But in this case your original claims -- the *actual ones*, not the ones you're trying to rewrite -- were shown up by the evidence. The coup de grace was that instruction of Wagner's I cited re the costumes, which you'd previously denied outright. After that all you had was bluster. What you don't realize is that people would take you a great deal more seriously if you were capable of admitting you were wrong, ever. But you aren't. As Goldsmith said of Johnson "There's no arguing with him. If his pistol misfires he simply turns it round and knocks you down with the butt end of it." The difference being that Johnson was a lot better at it than you are.

Mike

[A.C. Douglas]

"Mike Scott Rohan" wrote:

>ACD, everybody at the time laughed at your claims to have won. If they're
>all my cheerleaders etc, then that would effectively be the whole group. In
>which case why would you bother to go on posting here? Yet here you are.
>
>As you of course know, there are plenty of people who disagree with me when
>they think it's called for, and sometimes, no doubt, they're right. Some of
>them are also among your most vocal opponents. But in this case your
>original claims -- the *actual ones*, not the ones you're trying to
>rewrite -- were shown up by the evidence. The coup de grace was that
>instruction of Wagner's I cited re the costumes, which you'd previously
>denied outright. After that all you had was bluster. What you don't realize
>is that people would take you a great deal more seriously if you were
>capable of admitting you were wrong, ever. But you aren't. As Goldsmith
>said of Johnson "There's no arguing with him. If his pistol misfires he
>simply turns it round and knocks you down with the butt end of it." The
>difference being that Johnson was a lot better at it than you are.

More Mike Scott Rohan rubbish, but this time cum a textbook case of
projection and utterly delusional.

I suggest you take your own advice, m'boy. It will be less embarrassing for
you that way.

Trust me.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[REP]

What are you two on about? As far as I can tell, you agree on the matter. Haven't you realized that yet?

A.C. seems to think that Mike believes the Ring can be dated to a certain time: perhaps Monday, August 5, 414 AD, because the Rhine flooded on that date, or some such nonsense. But Mike doesn't really believe that, nor does he believe that the pagan gods literally died on a specific date in history. Wouldn't that be a whopper?

On the other hand, Mike seems to think that A.C. believes the Ring is so mythological or prehistorical or whatever that it is completely divorced from time and place, such that Wagner's decision to reference ancient German culture (as opposed to, say, modern Chinese or American) for costuming was an arbitrary decision necessitated only by the fact that the singers had to wear something rather than nothing.

But A.C. obviously knows that the Ring takes place in a real location (q.v. the Rhine) and that it's tied to a remote, German period (q.v. German gods, swords, spears, etc.).

So you agree: the Ring cannot be dated. It uses historical cues and references only to approximate a mythic (and yes, prehistoric) setting.

So what are you actually arguing about? Semantics? The difference between mythological and prehistorical? Fine, but you can leave the Ring out of it!

REP

P.S. If you continue this argument, I suggest framing it around Tannhauser instead.

[A.C. Douglas]

"REP" wrote:

>What are you two [ACD and Mike Scott Rohan] on about? As far as I can tell,

>you agree on the matter. Haven't you realized that yet?

No, REP, Mike and I do NOT agree in this matter. Mike insists that Wagner
wanted the _Ring_ set in an idealized (or mythologized) 5th century
Germania, while I insist that Wagner wanted the _Ring_ set in a non-specific
prehistoric (literally pre-historic) time and place along the Rhine Valley.
After I thoroughly trashed Mike's argument for his wrongheaded notion, Mike,
in desperation, then latched onto Wagner's letter of commission and
instruction to C. E. Doepler, a theatrical costume designer famous for his
recreation of historical costumes, and then — like Doepler himself —
proceeded to IGNORE Wagner's clear instruction as it worked against his
argument and confirmed mine and instead picked up on what is just as clearly
a mere sidebar observation by Wagner later on in the letter and used THAT as
"proof" of his argument just as Doepler himself picked up on it as it made
his commission a piece of cake whereas having to follow Wagner's clear
instruction would have caused him a world of difficulty.

Here (for at least the third time on this newsgroup) is Wagner's full
letter:

=== Begin Quote ===
Dear Sir,

I should like to ask you whether you would agree to supervise the design and
creation of the costumes for the Festival performances of my four-part stage
play _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, scheduled for the summer of 1876.

For your provisional acquaintance with the nature of the task, I am
forwarding you the copy of the dramatic poem, as well several leaflets
regarding its realization. You will immediately recognize that it was the
difficulty of the matter that made it necessary for me to look for an
especially experienced and distinguished artist in the respective field. It
is my belief that the task I have set has to be seen as a rich field for the
imagination. Fundamentally, I ask for nothing less than a vivid and
characteristic portrayal which will present us with appropriate liveliness,
personal incidents from a cultural period that is remote from any experience
or reference to an experience. You will soon discover the picture that has
attempted to achieve validity after the model of Cornelius, Schnorr, and
others, for the representation of the figures of the medieval Nibelung
[i.e., in the _Nibelungenlied_], will here have to be abandoned. If one has
been recently occupied with representations from specifically Nordic
mythology, it would become apparent that there one has sought to be
contented only with a characteristically formulated modification of the
classic antiquity. Suggestions from those few Roman authors and composers
who had any contact at all with the Teutonic peoples and their dress have
not yet been given successful attention. So, I believe that the artist who
will accept my ideas would have a wide field for his own spirited
compilation and interpretation, and I could wish nothing more than to know,
dear sir, that your are suited for this task.

I ask you to let me know your thoughts. I greet you with greatest of regard,

Your devoted servant,
Richard Wagner.
=== End Quote ===

In his letter, Wagner is crystal clear in stating that he wants the costumes
to be "a vivid and characteristic portrayal which will present us with
appropriate liveliness, personal incidents from a cultural period that is
remote from any experience or reference to an experience." Wagner's later
comment in the letter that "suggestions from those few Roman authors and
composers who had any contact at all with the Teutonic peoples and their
dress have not yet been given successful attention" is nothing more than a
sidebar — a mere toss-off — observation by Wagner on his brief survey in the
letter of the representations of the characters of the Nibelung legends in
art which prior representations Wagner most emphatically wants Doepler to
dismiss entirely from consideration.

And so, no, REP. Mike and I are by no means in agreement in this matter.

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Bert Coules]

REP wrote:

> So what are you actually arguing about? Semantics?

Say what you like about this group, but we certainly do get up to semantics.

Bert

[Mike Scott Rohan]

On Wednesday, 17 October 2012 23:19:33 UTC+1, REP wrote:


> What are you two on about? As far as I can tell, you agree on the matter. Haven't you realized that yet?

Actually I'm mostly needling ACD, to enjoy his perpetual turnarounds. You might think we largely agree, from what's being said here; but that wasn't what he said before. Of course I don't believe the Ring can be specifically dated, but ACD originally -- some years ago -- pronounced that it couldn't be related to any period at all, and remained totally in the realms of fantasy.

I pointed out, first, that the mythology had a definite -- and quite short -- period, as Wagner undoubtedly knew from Grimm; and that Wagner also assigned the action to a very specific part of that period, which happened to be the date of the historic events which inspired it, the growth of the Germanic tribes of the Rhineland and the destruction of the historical Burgundians under King Gundaharius. This was finally established beyond question, after much frothing to the contrary by ACD, by a specific instruction of Wagner's to his costume designer (who'd been chosen partly because he specialized in historic and genre costume). ACD, after a period of silence, reappeared claiming, as he does, that he'd meant something else altogether. This is why there seems to be such an overlap now.

>
>
> On the other hand, Mike seems to think that A.C. believes the Ring is so mythological or prehistorical or whatever that it is completely divorced from time and place, such that Wagner's decision to reference ancient German culture (as opposed to, say, modern Chinese or American) for costuming was an arbitrary decision necessitated only by the fact that the singers had to wear something rather than nothing.

Not at all, as witness that instruction by Wagner I cited, relating the costumes to the pagan Germany described by Tacitus in Germania. That was what ACD was originally claiming.

>
>
>
> But A.C. obviously knows that the Ring takes place in a real location (q.v. the Rhine) and that it's tied to a remote, German period (q.v. German gods, swords, spears, etc.).

Yet, that, originally, is what he denied, with considerable venom.

>
> So you agree: the Ring cannot be dated. It uses historical cues and references only to approximate a mythic (and yes, prehistoric) setting.
>

> So what are you actually arguing about? Semantics? The difference between mythological and prehistorical? Fine, but you can leave the Ring out of it!
>

No, we're arguing over what he originally said, was thoroughly stuffed over, and now claims he always meant.

>
>
> P.S. If you continue this argument, I suggest framing it around Tannhauser instead.

Since Tannhauser was a very real person, whose verse and apologia still survive, that's even easier to settle!

Cheers,

Mike

[Bert Coules]

Mike Scott Rohan wrote:

> Since Tannhäuser was a very real person...

Well yes, and ditto Hans Sachs. But that doesn't mean that the characters
in the respective works are necessarily the same people as their real-life
namesakes. And the same goes for the Ring: just because it's set along the
Rhine doesn't mean that it's *our* Rhine, at whatever historical period.
I'm far from convinced that the Ring even takes place in our universe.

Bert

[A.C. Douglas]

"Mike Scott Rohan" wrote:

>Actually I'm mostly needling ACD, to enjoy his perpetual turnarounds. You
>might think we largely agree, from what's being said here; but that wasn't
>what he said before. Of course I don't believe the Ring can be specifically
>dated, but ACD originally -- some years ago -- pronounced that it couldn't
>be related to any period at all, and remained totally in the realms of
>fantasy.

More Rohan Rubbish, this time "totally in the real[m] of fantasy." ACD has
never even so much as *thought* what is above claimed he "pronounced" and I
challenge Mr. Rohan to produce evidence to substantiate his delusional
claim. ACD pronounced that the setting of the _Ring_ could not be assigned
to any *historical* period but was set in the prehistoric (i.e., literally
pre-historic) and therefore could not be related to any historical period --
you know, such as "the destruction of the historical Burgundians under King
Gundaharius."

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[REP]

I suspect that's a very old joke, but it's new to me. Thank you, sir.

REP