You have sung very different roles, but the focus has always been on the German repertoire.
Yes, my voice is a very German voice. Of course I sang many Italian operas, but at a time when they were still sung in German. That was acceptable then. In the international opera circus I would never dare to sing an Italian opera. At most "Macbeth" and "Turandot," which are outside the realm of bel canto. Besides, there are plenty of German operas that I can sing. And I just feel more comfortable there. I can also sing French music, and especially Slavic music.
You have always chosen roles that gave you a lot of opportunities also in the acting arena.
But even there I always have to point out: We can all talk, but it's all about how we emphasize a word. If you can sing, as I can, then it also depends on what you do with the singing. To me, the whole act of singing is completely meaningless if the language and the interpretation are not put in the foreground. That's why I find singing for the record, for example, completely boring. It's the words that count! Opera only becomes interesting when the singing, that is, the music, is intensified with the expression of the word and with the portrayal. This is the only way to do the composer justice, if at all possible.
Expression and rendition. Do you see that as a technical calculation, a calculated effect or an expression of inwardness?
It is both. Of course, after so much experience, you know what you are doing and how it works. But of course it also comes from within. You basically have to be able to sing all evening with your back to the audience, and the audience has to be able to see from your back what is normally seen in your face in terms of expression. Astrid Varnay or Martha Mödl were two such artists. And that is also my ideal. The posture determines the portrayal of a character. And that keeps the audience captivated. Of course there are roles where just standing is not enough, not every role is so rewarding.
Posture was one of the principles of Wieland Wagner's directing. The role reduced to a single attitude as the essence of a role conception, that was certainly the decisive thing you learned from him.
That's absolutely right, only this attitude allows for variations, of course. But taking a stance, a stance in tension, that was something you could learn from Wieland, if you were able to do so. Not everyone could go along with him. He was interested in paying attention to little things. Small changes in the body bring out the big differences in expression. And I can still take that to heart today in any role, with any director, which is, if you will, the great gift Wieland gave me in the six years we lived and worked together.
If you look at the Bayreuth of today, it is something different from the Bayreuth of then ...
I am not looking at the Bayreuth of today! Since Wieland's death I have never been to Bayreuth. I cannot and will not say anything about today's Bayreuth. I distance myself from it. Nor do I want to concern myself with today's Bayreuth, if only because of the festival management. Although these days I get along well with Wolfgang Wagner, but it was different for 30 years. There was always hostility. Thank God, that's resolved now. But it's a totally different world, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen. But Bayreuth died for me with Wieland Wagner.
What was it that distinguished the Wieland era?
You cannot describe it in one word. It's like with all great personalities. You step into a room and don't really know why you're looking at this person and not another. How should one define genius? Deeds are decisive. But unfortunately there is hardly anything to see of Wielands work today, almost nothing has been documented. On the one hand, I think this is a great pity, because ridiculously, there are so many documents of much less important people, just not of Wieland. On the other hand, maybe it's just as well, because the idea of something special is more exciting than the canned version of it. When you listen to a record by Schaljapin, you are also disappointed. What do you imagine when you hear that name! As for Wieland, his magic is indescribable. Of course, his era also lived on many outstanding singer personalities. There are no more of those either. Of course, there are technically much better singers than then, but the personalities on stage cannot be replaced, and they are lacking today.
Is there anything that distinguishes Wagner singing from other singing ? What is so special about Wagner, from the point of view of a Wagner singer ?
There is one very decisive difference from other kinds of singing, the importance of language ! Where else is it so important ? One pays attention only to the sound quality, to the cantilenes, the bel canto line, so that it sounds beautiful and has CD quality. But with Wagner, the word is elementary. It is the word that counts. Who dares to sing it like that? Wieland always cast a role according to the standard that the style of the word was understood and performed, very unpretentiously, without boasting with the voice.
What was it like to work with Wieland ? How did he rehearse? Did he show how to move, or did he try to clarify a character, an attitude, an interpretation with words ?
Unfortunately, he regularly pre-played. That was always a disaster ! He was a terrible actor. But he always enjoyed doing it and it was always very embarrassing. However, he was an excellent interpreter and translator of Wagner's language, which a normal person does not necessarily understand. He was able to translate Wagner's staff rhymes into natural, modern German and make the characters perfectly plausible so that we could immediately translate them into scenic form. That was quite unusual. What ultimately made him so outstanding, I cannot explain. There are directors who can predict better. But I think that's dangerous, because one imitates easily.
You are also a strong personality on stage. Didn't you often have problems with helpless or inexperienced directors or with those who wanted to force you into a corset ?
I never had problems with great directors, with talented directors. Not with important ones at least. But what is problematic are those middle-class directors who always know everything better or who just cling to what the actor brings, under the motto: Do something, show me! I hate that. I've always adhered strictly to what the director said, whether his name was Noelte or Luc Bondy or Klaus Michael Gruber or Bob Wilson. Of course, sometimes I do such a rehearsal work for three weeks completely contre coeur and say to myself, what is all this nonsense, but then suddenly enlightenment comes and I can live with it and translate it by my own means.
Do you regret not having had a great recording career, like so many young singers today ?
No, I am an enemy of the gramophone record. I don't own any, not even my own. I don't listen to tapes or watch videos. I listen to the radio in the car sometimes. But I don't like canned music, especially studio recordings. There's nothing spontaneous about it anymore. I'm really not sad that I didn't have a recording career. What I am sad about, however, is that in the prime of my years, as they say, I have no desires left because I have been able to do everything I have dreamed of. That's a big problem for me, at this age anyway, always being in crisis of having to ask myself the question: Is that all there is? Is there something coming up next? There is really almost nothing left that I would like to do in the theater.
It sounds like you could suddenly stop singing without looking back with a tear in your eye.
I can only look back, because my theater life actually stopped being real with the death of Wieland Wagner! But without a tear in my eye! I still do many things, and with pleasure, also with great people, but I still draw from this time with Wieland. That was my life. Unfortunately, it was over by the time I was twenty-six. That's the tragedy of my life. I have to come to terms with that. It was mostly the artistic symbiosis we entered into that I cherish. Not so much the private life, because the age difference between us was twenty-six years. I don't know if that would have lasted forever. But the six years we were together were very happy. But we needed each other and complemented each other artistically. That was the decisive thing. He saw in me the ideal that Richard Wagner might also have had in mind, this young girl in these roles. It had never happened before nor later, that someone sang an Isolde at twenty and a Senta at nineteen, as I did. That was the fulfillment for Wieland. And for me it was the satisfaction that someone looked me up for that and entrusted it to me. We both needed each other, and that is something unique in a life. That's why these years were so formative, in a way they might not have been privately.