Musik-Interpretation als "tour de force" Diskursformationen und "aufführungsästhetische" Positionen nach Adorno

阿多诺将音乐解释为“杰作”话语形式和“表演美学”立场

• 批准号: 230529661
• 负责人: Privatdozent Dr. Hartmut Hein
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Musikwissenschaftliches Institut
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Publication Grants
• 财政年份: 2012
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2011-12-31 至 2014-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/230529661?language=en
• 关键词: Musik; Interpretation; als; tour; de

Experts’ and popular discourses about musical performances are highly divergent. Scholarly interest in the subject has been on the rise for some time. To discuss performances of music, especially per-formances of canonized “classical works” notated and historically conveyed as scores, has become a substantial part of musicology today. Diagnostics of different aesthetical and analytical positions and beliefs belonging to the musical execution or “Interpretation” are now ‘state of the art’. In many cases they go along with claims to historiographically (re-)construct profound changes in perfor-mance concepts during the 20th century. Such diagnostics often start from divergent soundscapes presented in selected (canonized) recordings and/or from (descriptions of) live performances, using polarizing terms to create typologies: Confrontations between analytical, objective executions and subjective, auratic embodiments of “paper music” – which are documented in so called “Vortragsleh-ren” since the 18th century – have formed a tradition of discourse reflected during the 1920ies by the opposition of espressivo style and new objectivity (cf. Detlef Gieses „Espressivo“ versus „(Neue) Sachlichkeit“ and, accordingly, Jürg Stenzl). Lydia Goehr has sharpened this contrast speaking of two conflicting conceptions of musical performance: She discusses an ideal of “perfect performances of music” in which the personality of the performer vanishes into something invisible “behind the work”, and the event of a “perfect musical performance of music” in which the performance as a ritualistic spectacle tends to become itself a (social) work of its own right. Hermann Danuser’s three-part classi-fication of performative modes (“traditional”, “actualizing”, and “historistically reconstructive”) as well as Christoph Hubig’s perspective of “repotentializations” of music in every performance allow to speak of battle fields of musical execution as a criss-cross of discourses in permanent competition. In correlation to their status as executions of a fixed “text”, concerts as well as recorded sound seem to be “res factae”. Seeing them as historical documents, we could compare pregnant historical and actual differences directly. Quite often, this is done without reflecting specific horizons and genealo-gies of historically connected discourses. In my study I attempt to uncover pertinent discursive pat-terns that are bound up with musical reflections about the status of musical scores, perceptions of the term “work” (cf. Goehr et al.), social aspects connected to performance institutions as well as to individual capacities of diverse types of performers and listeners. For some works and times surely there may be specific topics or ideals of musical expression and sound which can change and have changed – but how and why?The point of adequate musical expression expected by great parts of the public audience is best explored through Adorno’s notion of “gestic mimesis”. That notion in turn must be seen within the social and epistemological contexts drawn out in Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie (especially its ty-pology of listeners), in Adorno’s fragments of a „Reproduktionstheorie“ and in his late Aesthetic Theo-ry. Adorno’s arguments – including his postulate that great works of art permanently need actualiza-tion – shine through many debates concerning performance practice in the 20th century, sometimes founding the historical expert discourses of “musical interpretation” in musicology and critics, some-times counterfactual as the competing practices itself stand in criticism. Examples, including exam-ples of ‘historically informed performance practice’ (cf. Peter Kivy’s Authenticities) are discussed in the study’s third part. A lot of the work is done by an examination of the central but very problemati-cal term “Werktreue” and its changing horizons in different performative concepts: performances of music are proven to be settled in an open space of alternative verbal and musical discourses as “re-potentializations” of ancient texts and present sound textures. The “work” then turns out to oscillate precisely between tradition, histori(sti)cal remembrance and actuality, between analysis and mimesis, between score and spectacular executions.

专家和大众对音乐表演的论述存在很大分歧。一段时间以来，学术界对这一主题的兴趣一直在上升。讨论音乐的表演，特别是作为乐谱记录和历史传达的经典化的“古典作品”的表演，已成为当今音乐学的重要组成部分。对属于音乐执行或“解释”的不同审美和分析立场和信念的诊断学现在是“最先进的”。在许多情况下，他们赞同从历史学的角度(重新)构建20世纪表演观念的深刻变化的主张。这种诊断通常从选定的(经典化的)录音和/或现场表演(描述)中呈现的不同音景开始，使用两极分化的术语来创建类型学：分析性的、客观的处决与主观的、光感的“纸质音乐”--自18世纪以来一直被记录在所谓的“Vorgangsleh-ren”中--之间的对抗形成了一种话语传统，反映在20世纪20年代，由espressivo风格和新的客观性的对立反映出来(参看。Detlef Gieses“Espressivo”与“(Neue)Sachlichkeit”，以及相应的Jürg Stenzl)。莉迪亚·戈尔在谈到两种相互冲突的音乐表演概念时，加强了这种对比：她讨论了一种理想的音乐表演，在这种理想中，表演者的个性消失在作品背后看不见的东西中，以及一种事件，在这种事件中，作为一种仪式奇观的表演，往往本身就变成了一种(社会)作品。赫尔曼·丹尼瑟对表演模式的三部分分类(“传统”、“实现”和“历史重建”)，以及克里斯托夫·胡比格在每一场表演中对音乐的“再增强”的观点，都允许将音乐执行的战场说成是永久竞争中的交错话语。与他们作为固定“文本”的执行者的地位相关，音乐会以及录制的声音似乎是“事实”。将它们视为历史文献，我们可以直接比较孕育的历史与现实的差异。通常情况下，这样做并没有反映出特定的视野和历史关联话语的谱系。在我的研究中，我试图揭示与音乐有关的话语模式，这些模式与音乐对乐谱地位的反思有关，也是对“工作”一词的看法(参见。Goehr等人)，与表演机构以及不同类型表演者和听众的个人能力有关的社会方面。对于某些作品和时间，音乐表达和声音的特定主题或理想肯定会改变，也可能已经改变--但如何改变以及为什么改变？大部分公众观众期望的充分音乐表现的观点，最好通过阿多诺的“GestIC模仿”概念来探索。这一概念反过来必须在《爱因莱东》的社会和认识论语境中(特别是它的听众类型学)、在阿多诺的《复制理论》的片段中以及在他晚期的美学理论中看到。阿多诺的论点--包括他关于伟大的艺术作品永远需要现实化的假设--在20世纪的许多关于表演实践的辩论中闪耀着光芒，有时在音乐学和批评家中创立了历史专家的“音乐解释”话语，有时因为相互竞争的实践本身站在批评的立场上而与事实背道而驰。例子，包括“了解历史情况的表演实践”的例子(参看彼得·基维的真实性)在研究的第三部分进行了讨论。许多工作是通过考察中心但非常有问题的文学术语“Werktreue”及其在不同表演概念中不断变化的视野来完成的：音乐的表演被证明是建立在另一种语言和音乐话语的开放空间中，作为古代文本和现在的声音纹理的“重新潜能化”。于是，《作品》恰好在传统、历史记忆和现实、分析和模仿、配乐和精彩表演之间摇摆。