yourself? Maybe, maybe not. This is all speculative, of course, just as Michael Tanner rightly notes Nietzsche's theory of Wagner as artist of decadence is also speculative. But I think the possible ethical reason I consider for why people have problems with Wagner are a bit less tenuous than the psychoanalytic fields Nietzsche and Tanner ponder. Anyway, I don't think my own reservations are rooted in any ethical issues probably because I haven't really done a vast amount of study into Wagner's works. There are times when I'm faced with a supposed masterpiece of art, be it pictorial musical cinematic or literary, and I'll automatically respond to it, and there are times when someone has to explain to me why it is a masterpiece before I'll necessarily agree. Wagner fits the latter case. I feel instinctively that yes, something great is indeed going on here, but until I know what it is I don't think I fully appreciate it. Obviously I understand Wagner's historical importance, and I do appreciate the skill needed to write a piece of music lasting 15 hours yet remaining coherent all the way through. But I think I'd appreciate it more if I knew more about all what's going on for those 15 hours. Still, I don't know if I'd actually enjoy Wagner then or not. In smaller doses he doesn't pose a vast problem. I've enjoyed a record of piano transcriptions made by Glenn Gould which also features his orchestral Siegfried-Idyll, and have given serious consideration to buying a collection of historic performances of "bleeding chunks". Smaller doses are fine (remember Nietzsche's characterisation of him as a miniaturist). It's just the big slabs of raw meat from which the bleeding chunks are ripped that pose problems for me. Thus far of all the operas I've heard Siegfried is probably the only one I could say I somewhat enjoyed. This is interesting, given that Michael Tanner says that's probably the least popular member of the Ring family. Die Walkre us...
