Near the end of this heavyweight, densely written comparison of the two greatest opera composers of the 19th century, Peter Conrad discusses the place of Die Walkure in Apocalypse Now, and of La Traviata in Pretty Woman. He concludes that “Hollywood of course adheres to the customary division between the two composers: Wagner is a terrorist, Verdi a therapist.” Despite the slightly curled lip implied by “customary,” Conrad doesn’t much disagree with the Tinseltown summing-up of his subjects.
Both composers were born in 1813, felt deep nationalist sentiments about countries that did not then even exist, and each shaped the musical life of people well beyond their borders. From the perspective of the eternal, they were both geniuses; they most differed in their ambitions for their music. Verdi saw art as a source of comfort for the human spirit. Wagner thought — hoped — that his music might drive men mad. He succeeded in making his listeners feel that they were letting themselves go in a great, warm sea, drowning in music, willing themselves to die like Isolde.
Writing at Wagnerian length, Conrad tries hard to give Verdi as much space on the page, and his drama and music as much exposition and analysis, as he gives to Wagner. But of course there’s something that makes this impossible: Unlike Verdi, Wagner was his own librettist, so comparing the dramatic elements of their operas has an intrinsic apples and oranges incompatibility. The German’s pretensions to creating a Gesamtkunstwerk were simply not shared by the Italian, and Conrad’s learned riffs upon the plots of Verdi’s operas do not seem to go to the heart of the same matter as when he does this for Wagner’s work. He stands on much firmer ground when elaborating the music, which he does so elegantly that you find yourself able to call to mind the melodies he refers to.
For its first half, the book darts about like a gaudy dragonfly, alighting here on Stendhal and there on Auden, Darwin, Richard Strauss, Shakespeare, Marx and Mazzini. We get a couple of pages on Wagner’s slinky, satiny wardrobe, and how he “would not have understood why Verdi, whether at the opera or on his farm, wore clothes more suitable for a prosperous businessman.” Conrad displays some of his startlingly wide reading when he compares Wagner’s boy hero Siegfried to science fiction aliens: “HG Wells’s Martians who consist of brain-boxes with metallic pincers attached, or his invertebrate lunar Selenites who are blue-skinned brainless heads.” Even his comments on the composers’ pet dogs, birds and horses are erudite and witty — Wagner compared his Newfoundland’s puppies to human infants, “whose squalling demand for milk is ‘the most drastic expression of the will to live.’” As soon as the hungry urgency is sated, he noted, the live things tumble into a stupor tantamount to death: “Here, in both the kennel and the nursery,” writes Conrad, “the self-defeating coital action of Tristan und Isolde was re-enacted.”
His account of the composition of Verdi’s Requiem, though it does not disturb our view of the Italian’s indifference to religion, “comes close,” Conrad says, “to exemplifying Wagner’s theory about music as Christianity purged of dogma and doctrine.” Lucid about Wagner’s ambition to create a new religion, he addresses the question of whether he was “inventing a new religion or reinventing mythology.” In any case he succeeds, for me, in describing Wagner’s grip on opera lovers, that makes us return, for example, to spend yet another 15 to 16 hours watching the Ring: his “capacity to engross our time and take over our lives.”
In the final section, Conrad romps through the 20th century and present-day views of Wagner and Verdi and productions of their operas, including some close analysis of the Marx brothers’ A Night at the Opera and a wonderful rapid tour of Hollywood and Broadway’s treatment of the pair. He’s first-rate on the Bayreuth phenomenon: “In 1870 [Wagner] complacently announced that ‘the whole German empire is only created to aid me in attaining my object.’” Of Stefan Herheim’s 2008 production of Parsifal, he remarks: “Horrors were purgatively re-enacted, and the hours spent in the Bayreuth auditorium counted almost as community service.”
Of course it is not Wagner’s fault that he was lauded by Hitler and listened to surreptitiously by Speer, Hess and von Schirach in their Spandau prison, but “Germans are troubled by Wagner because they feel disgraced by him,” Conrad writes. “Italians are troubled by Verdi,” though, because “they feel unworthy of him.” Wagner’s second wife, Cosima, praised “the complete absence of animality in his nature.” Wrong, says Conrad, “but if he had been a better man — less erotically obsessive, less titanically selfish — he might not have been such a superlative artist.” Yet as Verdi’s second wife, Giuseppina, often said, he “was a great artist whose only faults were minor.” We need both composers, Conrad concludes, because they “represent two sides of our nature that are usually not on speaking terms — the virtue of charity or caritas as opposed to the rage of the egotistical will, a need for human connection as opposed to the mind’s proud solitude.”
May 6 to May 12 Those who follow the Chinese-language news may have noticed the usage of the term zhuge (豬哥, literally ‘pig brother,’ a male pig raised for breeding purposes) in reports concerning the ongoing #Metoo scandal in the entertainment industry. The term’s modern connotations can range from womanizer or lecher to sexual predator, but it once referred to an important rural trade. Until the 1970s, it was a common sight to see a breeder herding a single “zhuge” down a rustic path with a bamboo whip, often traveling large distances over rugged terrain to service local families. Not only
Ahead of incoming president William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20 there appear to be signs that he is signaling to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that the Chinese side is also signaling to the Taiwan side. This raises a lot of questions, including what is the CCP up to, who are they signaling to, what are they signaling, how with the various actors in Taiwan respond and where this could ultimately go. In the last column, published on May 2, we examined the curious case of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — currently vice premier
The last time Mrs Hsieh came to Cihu Park in Taoyuan was almost 50 years ago, on a school trip to the grave of Taiwan’s recently deceased dictator. Busloads of children were brought in to pay their respects to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), known as Generalissimo, who had died at 87, after decades ruling Taiwan under brutal martial law. “There were a lot of buses, and there was a long queue,” Hsieh recalled. “It was a school rule. We had to bow, and then we went home.” Chiang’s body is still there, under guard in a mausoleum at the end of a path
Last week the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released a set of very strange numbers on Taiwan’s wealth distribution. Duly quoted in the Taipei Times, the report said that “The Gini coefficient for Taiwanese households… was 0.606 at the end of 2021, lower than Australia’s 0.611, the UK’s 0.620, Japan’s 0.678, France’s 0.676 and Germany’s 0.727, the agency said in a report.” The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative inequality, usually of wealth or income, though it can be used to evaluate other forms of inequality. However, for most nations it is a number from .25 to .50