Afstanddoening Van Werksgetrouheid in Richard Taruskin Se Essay “Setting Limits”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LitNet Akademies Jaargang 15, Nommer 3, 2018, ISSN 1995-5928 Afstanddoening van werksgetrouheid in Richard Taruskin se essay “Setting limits” Etienne Viviers Etienne Viviers, MASARA Nisentiteit, Skool vir Musiek, Noordwes-Universiteit (Potchefstroomkampus) Opsomming In twee resensies van die musikoloog Richard Taruskin se skrywes ondersoek die regsgeleerdes Sanford Levinson en J.M. Balkin sy gedagtes oor histories-ingegewe uitvoeringspraktyk van Westerse kunsmusiek. Hulle stel veral belang in ’n konseptuele verband wat getrek kan word tussen histories-ingegewe uitvoering in Westerse kunsmusiek en originalisme in die regte. In hulle resensie van Taruskin se boek Text and act vra Levinson en Balkin onder andere waar en hoe hy die grense van toelaatbaarheid sou vasstel met die vertolking van byvoorbeeld Beethoven se musikale werke. Hulle is van mening dat die sukses van regterlike en musikale tekste se uitvoerings aan die standaarde van interpretatiewe gemeenskappe – ’n begrip aan Stanley Fish (1980) ontleen – gemeet kan word. In hierdie konteks vra hulle Taruskin ook oor grensverstellings in uitdagende hedendaagse operaproduksies. Hierdie artikel ondersoek Taruskin se antwoorde op daardie vrae, wat in sy programrede-essay ―Setting limits‖ gepubliseer is, in twee afsonderlike dele. Eerstens word gekyk na hoe Taruskin op die begrip interpretatiewe gemeenskappe reageer wanneer hy weier om voorafgestelde standaarde (grense) vas te maak waarvolgens musikale uitvoerings se sukses aan komponiste se partiture gemeet moet word. Hierdie deel van die ondersoek behels ’n verdere uitpluising van wat Levinson en Balkin moontlik met interpretatiewe gemeenskappe bedoel wanneer hulle laasgenoemde met ’n pragmatiese benadering tot die evaluering van uitvoerings assosieer. Met Taruskin se oënskynlike radikale verwerping van getrouheid aan musikale werke se tekste, word dit noodsaaklik om eers ’n deeglike bespreking van die filosoof Lydia Goehr se opvatting van musikale Werktreue (werksgetrouheid) te loods wat met interpretatiewe gemeenskappe se vermeende pragmatisme in gedagte gelees moet word. Daarna word aanbeweeg na die tweede deel van Taruskin se antwoorde op Levinson en Balkin se resensievrae. Dit sit uiteen hoe Taruskin ’n radikale verwerping van getrouheid aan musikale werke, oftewel werksgetrouheid, vir sogenaamde Regieoper voorstel. Sy benadering, wat toelaat dat operakomponiste se oorspronklike musiek gerus op uitdagende maniere verander mag word, word vergelyk met Roger Parker se soortgelyke, maar meer konserwatiewe uitkyk op die verandering van komponiste se musiek. Daarna word gekyk na wat die begrip werksgetrouheid histories in die konteks van Regieoper beteken het. Dit lei tot ’n bespreking van die kreatiewe moontlikhede 200 LitNet Akademies Jaargang 15, Nommer 3, 2018, ISSN 1995-5928 wat Taruskin se afstanddoening van werksgetrouheid vir eietydse operaproduksie inhou. Hierdie moontlikhede sluit improvisasie, herkomponering en aanpassing, insetsel-arias, musiekstilistiese vertaling en variasie in. Die Suid-Afrikaanse opera Impempe Yomlingo (’n verwerking van Mozart se ―Singspiel‖ Die Zauberflöte), word as toepaslike voorbeeld van hierdie kreatiewe moontlikhede aangebied en kortliks bespreek. Trefwoorde: aanpassing; Balkin, J.M.; Beethoven; Die Zauberflöte; Goehr, Lydia; herkomponering; histories-ingegewe uitvoeringspraktyk; Impempe Yomlingo; improvisasie; interpretatiewe gemeenskappe; insetsel-arias; Levinson, Sanford; musiekstilistiese vertaling; Parker, Roger; opera; originalisme; outentisiteit; Taruskin, Richard; variasie; werkbegrip; werksgetrouheid; Werktreue Abstract Relinquishment of Werktreue in Richard Taruskin’s essay “Setting limits” It is acceptable practice in the rehearsal and performance of Western art music to play the notes and other textual instructions of a music score in a faithful manner. Unlike in the case of jazz, for example, performers of Western art music do not readily improvise, or at least not in music of the so-called classical and romantic style periods. Apart from melodic and harmonic improvisation, other elements in the structural design of Western art music pieces are also not changed at the performers’ discretion. Moreover, precomposed changes and adaptations of composers’ musical texts are not tolerated. In Western art music communities an approach of loyalty to composers and their musical works exists (especially to the texts of these works), according to which performances need to be authentically correct – a performance approach that is usually referred to as Werktreue (fidelity to a work and the instructions in its text) in the literature. This article examines the relevant opinions about Werktreue with a thorough investigation of a keynote address essay (―Setting limits‖) by the American musicologist Richard Taruskin. First, I examine two interdisciplinary reviews of Taruskin’s previous writing by the legal scholars Sanford Levinson and J.M. Balkin, which influenced Taruskin then to write the essay ―Setting limits‖. In these reviews, Levinson and Balkin are especially interested in a conceptual association that can be made between historically informed performance practice in Western art music and originalism in the law. Although Levinson and Balkin write in an interdisciplinary context, I concentrate more on what their interdisciplinary theorisation ultimately means for performances in music than for performances in the law. Consequently, Taruskin’s participation in this interdisciplinary conversation interests me more. I am particularly interested in questions that Levinson and Balkin put to Taruskin regarding what to do when authenticity cannot be the touchstone of textual interpretation in music and the law. They want to know whether anything is permissible, then, with the interpretation of texts and their instructions, and they also immediately answer ―no‖ to their own question. According to them, certain interpretations of texts will surely always be preposterous, while others will easily fall within the limits of possible interpretative solutions. What interests them the most, therefore, is to try to understand what determines people’s competence either to construct plausible limits for interpretation possibilities or otherwise to adjudge certain 201 LitNet Akademies Jaargang 15, Nommer 3, 2018, ISSN 1995-5928 musical and legal ―performances‖ fraudulent. Levinson and Balkin believe that so-called interpretive communities (a concept that they borrow from Stanley Fish, 1980) enable people to construct sensible (pragmatic) limits where the evaluation of textual interpretations is concerned. In this context they finally ask Taruskin about setting limits in provocative contemporaneous opera production, and they especially want to know at what point Taruskin would invoke the authority of the score to evaluate the credibility of certain musical performances. These are therefore the main issues that Taruskin investigates in his essay ―Setting limits‖. This article demonstrates how Taruskin’s essay probably does not satisfy Levinson and Balkin’s intellectual expectations, first because Taruskin has nothing to say about Western art music’s interpretive communities, but also because he is unwilling to set pragmatic limits of interpretive permissibility before the evaluation of musical performances. He implicitly rejects their theory of pragmatic performance evaluation, and instead argues that they are clinging to authoritarian standards of evaluation that will lead to tyranny. Taruskin’s answers demonstrate a radical rejection of the ideal of fidelity to musical works and their texts (Werktreue), because there is no point at which he would invoke the authority of the musical score to evaluate a performance. Instead he advocates that performers may take as many liberties as they want. He also argues that there are obviously fundamental differences and ethical consequences with regard to setting limits between music and the law. In their review of Taruskin’s Text and act, Levinson and Balkin make an important distinction between algorithms, formal criteria and determinate procedures on the one hand and the supposed pragmatism of interpretive communities on the other, as regards the evaluation of textual performances in music and the law. Here their research relies heavily on ideas formulated by Stanley Fish. It is nevertheless difficult to understand exactly what they mean by this opposition of evaluation procedures, and I therefore question what precisely they aim to communicate with their idea of pragmatic interpretive communities. The article thus examines Fish’s all too brief and inadequate description of interpretive communities, before arguing that Levinson and Balkin use Fish’s concept to outline an instinctive and pre- theoretical community of legal and musical experts whose ―often inchoate standards‖ of evaluation can only involve pragmatism. I then demonstrate how Taruskin and Levinson and Balkin are at odds because Taruskin simply doesn’t see any difference between Levinson and Balkin’s use of algorithms, formal criteria and determinate procedures and the purported pragmatism of interpretive communities. Contrary to their possible expectations, Taruskin also does not offer his own explanations of these opposing concepts in the context of Western art music. This article therefore offers an explanation in Taruskin’s stead, which revolves around the important concept of Werktreue. This concept is highlighted as a significant lacuna in the discursive interactions between Levinson and