So we should lift this scepticism when we read writing about Wagner by... whom? The implication here is that one should only take seriously Wagner commentary written by those who are, let's say, closer to Wagner himself on the political spectrum. Is this a defensible position? I don't think so. It seems to me that astronomical quantites of hot air are generated by Wagner discussion from all sides, ragardless of their "angle". Let's try not to add to it here.

There's an implicit assumption here that because Wagner's works were later picked-up by the Extremist Right, that he himself was of this political persuasion.  Do you think that's really true?   It seems to me mistaken to attribute to Wagner (or anyone else in the C19th) political beliefs of the late C20th,  when the political landscape of his own times was so enormously different to our own?  For example, medieval serfdom was still flourishing in parts of Europe throughout Wagner's entire working life, and was only abolished (here in Russia) in 1882.  You could legally buy and sell slaves during much of Wagner's lifetime, and there was a fully legal slave-market in Riga, which Wagner would certainly have seen when he made his infamous flit there.  Rather than force political views of our own times upon him, isn't it more feasible to believe that the Nieblungs spring from having seen men bought and sold for cash, families auctioned "jointly or singly"? 

Let's remember that there have been seminal productions of Wagner's work by directors such as the Marxist didakt Gotz Friedrich, or by Peter Stein - neither of whom found any problem in presenting Wagner's operas as socialist parables.  (The productions were, moreover, critically acclaimed).

I would agree with Ian here (gasp!), in that the proof of the worth of Wagner's work is the richness of content and multilayered meaning within it, making it capable of multiple interpretations.

It's not difficult to find an anti-capitalist message in The Ring in particular - after all, a large number of the characters come to grief as a result of their inclination towards greed and covetousness. And against exploitation, as represented by the Nibelungs as slaves/serfs, as Reiner says. Also to do with the decline of a feudal ruling class (the gods). Wagner, as a one-time follower of the anarchist Mikhael Bakunin (arch-rival of Marx), was well aware of the various ideologies of his time. But these aspects do not necessarily imply some socialist or other leftist interpretation (nor that the ideas at play in the cycle are particularly coherent). There are also ideologies to do with race suffused through the cycle (with the Volsungs as a type of superior race, though it's by no means unequivocally clear that these ), and arguably some characters (Alberich, Mime, Hagen) derive from anti-semitic stereotypes of the time (it was by no means uncommon at the time to portray capitalist exploitation specifically as the result of Jewish power and influence - this was why the German Social Democrat August Bebel described anti-semitism as 'the socialism of fools'). And what triumphs in the end? A return to a primordial, idyllic state of union with nature as represented by the Rhinemaidens. To me this reads as a primitivist response to modern civilization, offering up organicist myths of past worlds (drawn from Nordic mythology), free from the complexities of the present. Wagner's own late interest in notions of racial purity are not necessarily clearly implied in the cycle, however, notwithstanding the possible anti-semitic elements. That sort of thinking was developed into a fervently-held ideology after his death. In that respect, I think it is wrong simply to hold up Wagner as a proto-Nazi; however, his thinking, as made manifest in the work, does seem to represent a particular charged form of romantic primitivist ideology which cannot be entirely separated from later developments. Whilst Wagner's critique of capitalist and feudal systems resonates with some socialist thought, I see little to suggest that he foresaw proletarian revolution as a form of redemption and liberation, as would be a necessary belief for a socialist. The only way this would be possible is if one conceives of the Rhinemaidens as representing the proletariat - not out of the question, I suppose, but I find that interpretation pretty hard to swallow (not least because their characters do not seem to have any relationship to industrialised production).

That's certainly true, Ian.  Of course, Marx's own credentials in the sphere of anti-semiticism aren't whiter than white - he made several criticisms in The Jewish Question which identify "jews" and "exploiters" as being interchangeable terms, in exactly the way you have mentioned.

I think your point about the "conclusion" of The Ring as being a withdrawal into an idealised pre-industrialised world of harmony and plenty is well-made...  unlike Marx, Nietzche, Engels, Hess and co, Wagner had the luxury of working in a medium that traditionally told dreams and fables, rather than having to make any sustainable recommendation.   However, I wonder if there is some rather closer philosophical link to Leo Tolstoy?   Tolstoy similarly hymned "honest toil",  and saw no contradiction between his own status as a reactionary autocratic landowner of immense wealth,  and a philosophy which idealised simple crofting,  tilling the land, and even making your own boots (a hobby which the Count practiced with great enthusiasm).   Of course Tolstoy's one-man-stand against urban industrialisation was no more effective than Wagner's,  but he epitomises a whole movement in Russia (the Abramtsevo Group) who agitated - vainly - for a return to a simpler lifestyle, handcrafts instead of factory goods, and other worthy ends of a similar kind.

I think it's an important point - when trying to stage The Ring, or other Wagner works - to take on board that the "failure" of Wagner's vision of a bucolic pre-industrial paradise doesn't devalue the existence of that vision within his works,  nor the inherent contradictions it throws-up.

Actually the verb should be written "practised" with an "s". We do not think the Russian composer Shostacovitz shared this hobby but he certainly wore smart boots in his youth. As for Wagner, he was against not only industry but authority in general. He came from a family of clowns and acrobats and he was not a social animal at all.

Mr. Magee (who writes excellently on the Wagner question) suggests that the key to the understanding of Wagner's special appeal to many people is his successful expression of a universal highly erotic longing for the unattainable, which successful expression provides said erotic longing with a certain degree of satisfaction. Not just in the world of our imagination but in the world of oceanic unbounded feeling that music makes it possible for us to inhabit we are enabled to confound the reality principle, experience the disallowed, and live the impossible. It is a feeling of incredible and incredulous fulfilment, a satisfaction that finds itself unable to believe itself, suggests Mr. Magee strikingly.

No I don't. I wasn't trying to imply that W was a protofascist of some kind, just to contrast him with SK's "leftists" and "liberals". I should perhaps have said "closer to some of Wgner's most notorious admirers on the political spectrum." Sorry for lack of clarity there.

No, but I'd love to get your feedback once you have heard it, Parsifal

Interesting, Parsifal.....I don't know the Meistersinger recording you refer to, but that sounds like a good cast.  I don't know the Callas Parsifal, either...is it any good? I once heard someone scornfully refer to it in MDC with the words, 'Who the hell needs to hear Maria Callas singing Wagner?'

As to Wagner in translation....I imagine he'd adapt to Italian rather better than he does to English. I refuse to listen to Wagner in English translation, as hearing it in English just destroys a large part of the magic for me.