Received: by 10.224.193.72 with SMTP id dt8mr5970413qab.7.1350558721515;
        Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.93.229 with SMTP id cx5mr3464889vdb.19.1350558721477; Thu,
 18 Oct 2012 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: r17ni36921179qap.0!nntp.google.com!l8no4107953qao.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: humanities.music.composers.wagner
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c5f6633c-a205-4dc6-aae8-e6832194ee05@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=87.115.92.139;
 posting-account=jQpE-QoAAAAEr8VhKNJSeU9Hc68oimGi
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.115.92.139
References: <lK-dna-zqvR68s7NnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <CC78F69A.2695E%r.partridge@verizon.net> <KOGdnaGEn4WcDM7NnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <82b61910-784b-4233-88f2-607782919e21@googlegroups.com> <ZqWdneFgS-gBiMvNnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <fa5e6193-5c71-4db1-b170-d65e90c2a898@googlegroups.com> <Vt6dnarmUel58cHNnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <589c88aa-72e6-44c7-8cfc-49d4b7be5b0d@googlegroups.com> <2r6dnek81dozjeLNnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <c5f6633c-a205-4dc6-aae8-e6832194ee05@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4c6616c5-3590-41f5-935a-0d2ac90775ac@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The PBS Telecast Of The Lepage Staging Of _Siegfried_
From: Mike Scott Rohan <mike.scott.ro...@asgardpublishing.co.uk>
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:12:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

=20
> 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 m=
ight think we largely agree, from what's being said here; but that wasn't w=
hat 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 fan=
tasy.

I pointed out, first, that the mythology had a definite -- and quite short =
-- period, as Wagner undoubtedly knew from Grimm; and that Wagner also assi=
gned the action to a very specific part of that period, which happened to b=
e the date of the historic events which inspired it, the growth of the Germ=
anic tribes of the Rhineland and the destruction of the historical Burgundi=
ans under King Gundaharius. This was finally established beyond question, a=
fter much frothing to the contrary by ACD, by a specific instruction of Wag=
ner's to his costume designer (who'd been chosen partly because he speciali=
zed in historic and genre costume). ACD, after a period of silence, reappea=
red claiming, as he does, that he'd meant something else altogether. This i=
s why there seems to be such an overlap now.

>=20
>=20
> 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 fr=
om 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 cos=
tumes to the pagan Germany described by Tacitus in Germania. That was what =
ACD was originally claiming.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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 go=
ds, swords, spears, etc.).

Yet, that, originally, is what he denied, with considerable venom.=20
>=20
> So you agree: the Ring cannot be dated. It uses historical cues and refer=
ences only to approximate a mythic (and yes, prehistoric) setting.
>=20
=20
> So what are you actually arguing about? Semantics? The difference between=
 mythological and prehistorical? Fine, but you can leave the Ring out of it=
!
>=20
No, we're arguing over what he originally said, was thoroughly stuffed over=
, and now claims he always meant.=20
>=20
>=20
> P.S. If you continue this argument, I suggest framing it around Tannhause=
r instead.

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

Cheers,

Mike