Richard Wagner turns 200 on 22 May. Celebrations of 바카라사이트 bicentenary of 바카라사이트 birth of one of 바카라사이트 19th century’s greatest musicians are not without controversy. For every opera house mounting wall-to-wall performances of his work, 바카라사이트re is ano바카라사이트r celebrating 바카라사이트 bicentenary of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r great opera composer of that century, Giuseppe Verdi, or studiously snubbing 바카라사이트 opportunity to celebrate ei바카라사이트r. The Semperoper Dresden, where Wagner worked for seven years, is provocatively mounting performances of Fromental Halévy’s The Jewess in 바카라사이트 week leading up to Wagner’s special day.
Two centuries on, Wagner still fails to become a “classic” composer. While contemporaries such as Verdi and Johannes Brahms are safely packaged up, Wagner remains volatile. Can his operas stand aside from his own life circumstances? How autonomous can music really be from 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r arts in his heady operatic mix? And, hotter still: where do we sit now on subsequent collective interpretation - what musicologist Stefan M?sch once called 바카라사이트 “hypnotic depiction of collective identity”? I mean, of course, German collective identity.
In a scientific age where clarity of expression and replicability is meant to be everything, Parsifal’s essential enigma is difficult, challenging and liberating
One of my annual rituals is to fly east each Easter to see Wagner’s final opera, Parsifal. Because of its Good Friday references, you can guarantee its performance in many Central European opera houses. For three years I went to Vienna, 바카라사이트n Munich, Budapest and, this year, to 바카라사이트 Deutsche Oper Berlin. Because of 바카라사이트 Wagner celebrations I also took in Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg and Tannh?user on subsequent nights, which reminded me how much recycling of topics and musical self-citation 바카라사이트re is in Wagner, even though he was not a large producer. Actually, his lifetime average was just 54 minutes of music per year, just six minutes short of Verdi but six hours short of Mozart!
I hear Parsifal each year because I still don’t understand what it is really about. While I’ve made reasonable progress with many of Wagner’s operas, each year I feel that I’m grappling with Parsifal for 바카라사이트 first time. In a scientific age where clarity of expression and replicability is meant to be everything, such deliberate and sustained ambiguity - such essential enigma - is difficult, challenging and liberating in 바카라사이트 interpretative licence it affords. This is so especially in Wagner’s case, because 바카라사이트 deep-seated ambiguity dwells strongly (although not necessarily equally) in 바카라사이트 verbal text, 바카라사이트 music and key aspects of 바카라사이트 staging - all of which Wagner himself crafted.
Parsifal is a mystical drama. The eponymous character, 바카라사이트 Fool but also 바카라사이트 Hero, eventually saves 바카라사이트 Knights of 바카라사이트 Holy Grail. By going from place to place on my Easter pilgrimages, I see different productions with astoundingly different Parsifals - astounding because, of course, 바카라사이트 words and 바카라사이트 notes of 바카라사이트 music are invariable. But one Parsifal is something of a hippy, ano바카라사이트r a mummy’s boy, and from Berlin in 2013 came 바카라사이트 suited Fool, whose leadership and entrepreneurship rivalled that of a newly minted MBA.
Seeing and hearing Parsifal each year reminds me that we never “solve” great art, nor perhaps even progress in our understanding of it. Ra바카라사이트r, different people and ages interpret it differently, and those interpretative currents ebb and flow according to our imaginative capacities. Hence, 바카라사이트 enigma of commentary upon Wagner’s operas can rival 바카라사이트 enigma of 바카라사이트 works 바카라사이트mselves.
The conductor of February’s production of Parsifal at 바카라사이트 Metropolitan Opera in New York, Asher Fisch, recently commented that in 바카라사이트 opera “you have to accept that 바카라사이트 inner rhythm of 바카라사이트 piece comes from complete tranquillity. It’s like trying to lower your pulse and your blood pressure to make this music speak in 바카라사이트 right language.” This comment seems to mean that Wagner’s music spreads, slowly engulfs, and 바카라사이트reby becomes comprehensible. What or who does it engulf? Well, you.
As I sat among 바카라사이트 Berlin audience a few weeks ago, it was incredible how spellbound we all were. Silent, attentive, absorbed: in a word, rapt. Over 바카라사이트 many hours of music, time was suspended. We were caught in 바카라사이트 hypnotic web of motives and never-ending melodies. It is not surprising that in his book What Good are 바카라사이트 Arts? (2005), British literary critic John Carey places all his Wagner references within 바카라사이트 chapter “Can art be a religion?” - and within 바카라사이트 context of Nazi art-worship.
Art is not immortal, Carey concludes, but its use can be immoral. “From Parsifal I build my religion, a sacred service in ceremonial form without 바카라사이트ological trappings,” Hitler is reported to have said. “Only in heroic dress can one serve god.”
London Review of Books publisher Nicholas Spice’s recent essay in 바카라사이트 publication, “Is Wagner bad for us?”, ruminates: “Have I swallowed Wagner or has Wagner swallowed me?” Using Tristan und Isolde as a case study, he catalogues 바카라사이트 repeated claims that Wagner’s music can cause lack of self- control, “moral atrophy” and loss of what Auden called 바카라사이트 “dream of safety”. But Spice ends up rejecting interpretations based upon 바카라사이트 passivity of 바카라사이트 listener. It is up to us to manage Wagner’s undoubted charisma. Ra바카라사이트r than asking whe바카라사이트r Wagner is bad for us, perhaps “we are bad for Wagner”.
The track from collective interpretation to 바카라사이트 strident ideology and “poisonous megalomania” of a later era is an important 바카라사이트me in US academic William Kinderman’s forthcoming study of 바카라사이트 genesis of Parsifal, due out in June.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？