Re: And why. . .? (long)

Elizabeth Hubbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]
> 
> I have noticed, both here and offline, that the men posting on Wagner
> here are more prone to delve into the philosophical aspects of the works
> while postings on the works purely as works are more evenly split
> between men and women although still not 50/50, unfortunately.
> 
> It may be that this "manly" hangup that Rick highlights entails, to a
> degree, the philosophical angle in Wagner as a counterpoint to "all that
> silly/beautiful music stuff";-)
> 
> In the offline group that was so much a part of our life for ten years,
> Liz and I found that men like, for instance, one Marxist, one Eastern
> Orthodox monarchist, and one of the two hazers of the woman Baroque
> specialist (who got dumped on) engaged to a fascinating and, indeed,
> enlightening degree in exchanges on the philosophical aspects in all the
> works.
> 
> OTOH, another man who happened to be quite an extraordinary pianist and
> musician was occasionally joined in his discussions on the works as
> works by the woman botanist/linguist among us who had managed to study
> up on the Ring as a work with such intensity, rapidity and thoroughness.
> 
> The works as works may have been regarded as open to all, while the
> philosophical aspects may have been unconsciously regarded as the men's
> preserve.  Unfortunately, the Baroque specialist whom Liz and I had
> invited may have been perceived as poaching on the men's preserve,
> since, unlike the woman botanist, she concentrated to a great extent on
> the philosophical area -- possibly outraging the immature sensibilities
> of those amongst us who were destructively (unconsciously) uncomfortable
> with "discussionists" other than men tackling such matters.
> 
> Here, in this online forum, it would be wonderful if we had more women
> who were as thoroughly involved with the philosophical background as a
> Derrick Everett is, for instance.  Instead, though -- and this is hardly
> less enlightening, although it does reflect the (unconscious?)
> segregation seen in the mortifying enforcement and hazing that Liz and I
> saw in the Baroque specialist's case --  what few postings we have seen
> from women in humanities.music.composers.wagner have concentrated
> primarily on the experiential aspects in all these works as pieces
> designed for the craft of performers and musicians, not as works
> intended to stimulate reflection and philosophical inquiry.
> 
> Both aspects are legitimate.  It just strikes me as unfortunate that
> there may be a de facto segregation entailed here in the more
> predominantly male contributions that we see on the latter.

Speaking as a musicology student (and long-time lurker; I haven't
processed my thoughts sufficiently to be happy putting them out in a
printed format...but in a nutshell, I've been thinking about Greek
tragedy and the Ring in a fairly idiosyncratic way...) there's an
interesting divide in the more high-level academic work on Wagner.

Almost all of the high-level, serious, and complicated analysis of the
music has been done by men--partially because music theorists are
overwhelmingly male.  That's a literature that doesn't get discussed
much here, partially because it requires a fairly high level of
technical knowledge, and partially because it's less accessible; how
many of us here have ready access to 19th Century Music?  It's a pity,
though; anyone interested in the Ring really *should* read Robert
Bailey's seminal article 'The Structure of the Ring and Its
Evolution', and David Lewin's two articles are essential reading as
well.  (I think the one on Parsifal is one of the hardest things I've
ever read, though).

But some of the most interesting work of a more musicological bent on
Wagner in recent years has been done by women; I'm thinking especially
of Carolyn Abbate, who has two chapters on Wagner in 'Unsung Voices',
and also some in 'In Search of Opera'.  Sandra Corse has also written
on Wagner, a book specifically about the Ring, and another book on the
ideas of subjectivity in opera.  There are notably more women doing
history/musicology, and this is also where people from other fields
(literature, Germanic studies, etc.) come into play.

It's awfully hard to write about and analyze Wagner fitting together
both the purely musical issues (especially with real theoretical
sophistication), the more general dramatic/structural ideas, and then
throwing the philosophical background and questions of interpretation
into it, it becomes very difficult to balance.  I'm having a lot of
fun with it right now, as we're almost to the end of Parsifal in
class...

I do consider myself engaged with the philosophical issues, although I
certainly would not claim to know them as well as many of the people
here--I benefit greatly from reading posts with everyone's expertise. 
(Besides, Richard Strauss is my true love...)  But who knows when the
urge to emerge from true lurkerdom will strike?

Thank you all; I very much enjoy the discussions on this group.

-Nora