por Leandro Oliveira
Esta semana, com um programa dedicado à música Romântica Russa - imaginando que a Balatta op. 108 de Glazunov possa ser entendida como romantismo em todo seu adiantado no tempo (é de 1931) - a Osesp me deu a oportunidade de retornar à obra deste que é talvez o mais importante musicólogo da tradição Clássica Russa da atualidade, o americano Richard Taruskin.
Dele, uma passagem extraordinária - uma tese efervescente, para quem se excita com teses musicológicas, é claro:
I hold that discussions of authentistic performance typically proceed from false premises. The split that is usually drawn between "modern performance" on the one hand and "historical performance" on the other is quite topsy-turvy. It is the latter that is truly modern performance — or rather, if you like, the avant-garde wing or cutting edge of modern performance — while the style, inherited from the nineteenth century, one that is fast becoming historical. The difference between the two, as far as I can see, is best couched in terms borrowed from T. E. Hulme: nineteenth-century ‘vital’ versus twentieth-century ‘geometrical.’ In light of this definition, modern performance, in the sense I use the term, can be seen as modernist performance, and its conceptual and aesthetic congruence with other manifestations of musical modernism stand revealed. What Carl Dahlhaus calls the ‘postulate of originality’ and defines as ‘the dominant esthetic of [Wagner’s] day’ is still with us even if Wagner is not, and still decrees that music, both as to the style of its composition and the style of its performance ‘should be novel in order to rank as authentic.’ When this is understood, it will appear no longer paradoxical but, on the contrary, very much in the nature of things that the same critics who can be counted upon predictably to tout the latterday representatives of High Modernism in music — Carter, Xenakis, Boulez — and who stand ready zealously to define them against the vulgarian incursions of various so-called postmodernist trends, are the very ones most intransigently committed, as we have already observed, to the use of ‘original instruments’ and all the rest of the ‘historical’ paraphernalia. For we have become prevaricators and no longer call novelty by its right name.
In "Text and Act: Essays on Music and Performance", p. 140.
Esta semana, com um programa dedicado à música Romântica Russa - imaginando que a Balatta op. 108 de Glazunov possa ser entendida como romantismo em todo seu adiantado no tempo (é de 1931) - a Osesp me deu a oportunidade de retornar à obra deste que é talvez o mais importante musicólogo da tradição Clássica Russa da atualidade, o americano Richard Taruskin.
Dele, uma passagem extraordinária - uma tese efervescente, para quem se excita com teses musicológicas, é claro:
I hold that discussions of authentistic performance typically proceed from false premises. The split that is usually drawn between "modern performance" on the one hand and "historical performance" on the other is quite topsy-turvy. It is the latter that is truly modern performance — or rather, if you like, the avant-garde wing or cutting edge of modern performance — while the style, inherited from the nineteenth century, one that is fast becoming historical. The difference between the two, as far as I can see, is best couched in terms borrowed from T. E. Hulme: nineteenth-century ‘vital’ versus twentieth-century ‘geometrical.’ In light of this definition, modern performance, in the sense I use the term, can be seen as modernist performance, and its conceptual and aesthetic congruence with other manifestations of musical modernism stand revealed. What Carl Dahlhaus calls the ‘postulate of originality’ and defines as ‘the dominant esthetic of [Wagner’s] day’ is still with us even if Wagner is not, and still decrees that music, both as to the style of its composition and the style of its performance ‘should be novel in order to rank as authentic.’ When this is understood, it will appear no longer paradoxical but, on the contrary, very much in the nature of things that the same critics who can be counted upon predictably to tout the latterday representatives of High Modernism in music — Carter, Xenakis, Boulez — and who stand ready zealously to define them against the vulgarian incursions of various so-called postmodernist trends, are the very ones most intransigently committed, as we have already observed, to the use of ‘original instruments’ and all the rest of the ‘historical’ paraphernalia. For we have become prevaricators and no longer call novelty by its right name.
In "Text and Act: Essays on Music and Performance", p. 140.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário