 斯特拉文斯基与拉赫玛尼诺夫（四） 往期回顾 《春之祭》 The view taken here by Stravinsky is quite interesting. First , he conveys his lack of appreciation for dancers. He lightly states , “they had their own method of counting,” as if they should have yielded to the “usual”method of counting used by musicians. He did not like the idea that dancers were following a different paradigm than the one assigned by him in his score, he goes on to say that he had to keep Nijinsky from running onto the stage and thus “creating a scandal”. 斯特拉文斯基的观点则相当有趣。首先他表达他难以欣赏舞者。他说，“他们有自己的数拍方式，”似乎他们应该服从于音乐家常用数拍方式。他似乎不喜欢那种，与他标记上安排不同的，他们舞者独有的范式，接着他说道，他不得不阻止尼金斯基跑上舞台继而导致丑闻。 The statement is quite hilarious! Stravinsky says this without even taking into consideration the “scandal” that was already caused by his music. He did not even consider the notion that his music may have contributed to the pandemoniurm, which was underway in the audience. Both these acts by Stravinsky go on to further prove his mindset toward the music. He thought of the music as an absolutely autonomous art form, which could not be criticized. Thus , the entire fault was to be laid upon the dancers and the choreographer(Nijinsky). 这样的陈述相当滑稽！斯特拉文斯基这样说的时候并未考虑到“丑闻”很大一部分来自于他的音乐。他甚至没有考虑到他的音乐本来就导致了喧嚣，而这正是观众席正在做的。这些表现表明了他对于音乐的态度。他认为音乐是绝对权威的艺术形式，而这不可被批驳。因此，所有错误都被归结于舞者和编舞家尼金斯基。  尼金斯基 Later performances of the rite of spring gave Stravinsky even more reason to blame Nijinsky for the failure of performance. A concert performance of the piece was given on april 5 ,1914, with pierre Monteux conducting again. This performance went quite well. The audience loved the piece and they applauded Stravinsky for such a marvelous composition(routh 12) . The lack of a ballet accompaniment in this successful performance gave Stravinsky a great deal of reason for believing that Nijinsky was indeed responsible for the disasterous debacle of the premiere. 后期《春之祭》的演出让斯特拉文斯基更有理由将首演的失败归咎于尼金斯基。1914年4月5日这部依旧由蒙特勒指挥的作品音乐会获得了不错的反响，观众喜爱这部作品并为这部非凡作品对斯特拉文斯基大加赞赏。失去了芭蕾舞陪衬而大获成功的演出让斯特拉文斯基有底气坚信尼金斯基的确应为首演的灾难性失败负责。 Rachmaninoff’s first symphony was met with a similar attitude when compared with Stravinsky’s the rite of spring. The premiere, however, was not a pronounced demonstration. As was the case with the Stravinsky premiere. Rachmaninoff began work on his first symphony(symphony in d minor)in 1895. Rachmaninoff chose to use motifs, which were reminiscent of his childhood in Novgorod at his grandmother’s estate. There were church bells in Novgorod, and Rachmaninoff paid tribute to them in his first symphony. In the symphony, Rachmaninoff manages to convey “power , tenderness, passion, sorrow, and at times even epic grandeur”(Piggott 32). 与斯特拉文斯基的《春之祭》相比，拉赫玛尼诺夫的第一部交响曲在面世时也有着同样的遭遇。但这场首演并不是斯拉文斯基首演那样的公开讨论。他于1895年开始创作他的《第一首交响曲》（d小调交响曲，作品13）。拉赫玛尼诺夫选用动机来表达他童年时期在诺夫哥罗德（前苏联城市名）的祖母家的怀念。在那儿有教堂的钟声，拉赫玛尼诺夫试图在这部作品中为之称颂。作品中，拉赫玛尼诺夫试图传达“有力且柔和，热情洋溢与悲伤懊悔并存的，有时甚至是史诗般的宏伟”。  Rachmaninoff spent a great amount of time on inputting his personal feelings into his piece. He truly made this piece to be a manifestation of his self. A particular event justifies this fact. His former teacher sergei taneyev advised him to change a few pages of the piece, which were in need of “drastic revision”. Rachmaninoff ignored taneyev’s opinion, and allowed the piece to be performed as written(piggott33). He did not feel that it would be appropriate to change something so personal. He could not imagine altering something, which signified so many ideals to him. The rehearsal and the performance were both lead by alexander Glazunov. The rehearsal(attended by rimsky-korsakov)did not go well. 他花了大量时间倾注于将个人感受灌输进作品中，而他的前任老师塔涅耶夫建议他改掉其中的几页，因为它需要“被大幅修改”。但拉赫玛尼诺夫忽视了塔涅耶夫的意见，让作品直接这样上演了。他觉得修改掉如此个性化的内容是不合适的。他无法想象改掉任何彰显他理想的东西。排演与演出都由格拉祖诺夫进行。他应当为糟糕的排练承担大部分指责。然而，年轻的拉赫玛尼诺夫却最终将其失败归咎于出席人员。 Glazunov should have garnered most of the blame for the bad rehearsal. However , the young Rachmaninoff was ultimately responsible for the piece’s failure to impress the attendants. Rimsky-korsakov “blatantly” admitted to Rachmaninoff that he did not like the piece. At this point Rachmaninoff realized that he should have taken the advice offered by taneyev. However the time had passed for modificaitons. The premiere(15 march 1897)of the piece was also a disaster. Again ,glazunov’s poor conducting should have been blamed for the failure ,but again Rachmaninoff was chided for the “innumerable muddles and consequent earsplitting cacophony”(piggott33). 科萨科夫公然向他承认他不喜欢这部作品。基于这一点拉赫玛尼诺夫认识到他本该听从塔涅耶夫的建议。而修改的时机已经错过。这部作品于1897年3月15日的首演也是一场灾难。格拉祖诺夫那差劲的指挥仍旧应当因演出失败备受指责，但拉赫玛尼诺夫也仍旧为“数不清的混乱与刺耳杂音”骂骂咧咧。  This debacle destroyed Rachmaninoff. Since he invested so much of himself in this piece, he felt that its failure signaled his failure as a composer.in the period immediately following the symphony’s premiere, he tried composting other significant works, but he was not able to accomplish much. This just added to his previously developed sense of “frustration”. Rachmaninoff did not begin to compose another major piece until 1900. 这次溃败摧毁了拉赫玛尼诺夫。由于在这部作品中倾注了大量心血，他感到这部作品的失败昭示着他作为作曲家的失败。在首演之后的那段时期里，他试图创作其他重要作品却都未能完成——这增加了他之前的“挫败感”。直到1900年，他不再开始创作其他主要作品。 Rachmaninoff wrote a letter to alexander zataevitch(composer and music critic)on 6 may 1897. In it , he declares a very subjective view of the performance of his symphony:I am not at all affected by its lack of success, nor am I dismayed by the disparaging critiques _ I am deeply upset and most depressed that my symphony, though I loved it very much ,and still do, did not please me after its first rehearsal. This means, you’ll say that it’s poorly orchestrated. But I am convinced , in reply , that good music can “shine through” poor orchestration, nor do I think that the instrumentation is totally unsuccessful. (cannata 19) 他在给作曲家兼音乐批评家扎塔维奇的信件中以非常主观的视角提及他的交响曲演出：我完全没有受到失败的影响，也没有因轻蔑批评而沮丧- 我对我的交响曲感到深深的失望与压抑，尽管我过去深爱着它。我仍会爱它，但不是在排练过后，我的意思是，你会说这是糟糕透顶的配器；但是我相信，作为回报，好的音乐能暴露出差劲的配器，所以我认为这也不是完全不成功的。  Rachmaninoff goes on to blame “the performance “ for the failure of his piece. In this quote, the subjective nature , with which this work was completed could be observed clearly. Rachmaninoff states clearly that he loved the piece very much. He had taken this failure as a heartbreak caused by an unfaithful lover. He personified the piece such a great extent that any foul comment about the piece would have staunchly stabbed him. 拉赫玛尼诺夫继而为作品的失败而指责“演出”。在他的原话中，这些在作品中被完成的主观特质清晰可见。他清楚地表述“他热爱这部作品”。他将这次的失败看作是由“负心汉”们导致的“心碎”。他如此之广地人格化这部作品以至于任何关于它的愚蠢的评论都回毫不犹豫地刺伤他。 Finally , in 1900, Rachmaninoff decided to seek help for his lack of creativity. He met with leo Tolstoy for encouraging words.(cannata 19). Rachmaninoff considered Tolstoy as a great thinker, and thus thought of their conversations as quite helpful to his recovery. However , the main catalyst for change in his gloomy creative sense was doctor nikolai dahl. 最终，在1900年，拉赫玛尼诺夫决定为他匮乏的创造力寻求帮助。他与列夫·托尔斯泰见面寻求鼓励。拉赫玛尼诺夫认为托尔斯泰是一位杰出的思想家，与之交谈会有助于他的康复。然而，为他灰暗的创造力带来主要助推力的人是医生尼古拉·达尔。
 Dr. dahl was a hypnotist, who helped inspire Rachmaninoff into writing his second piano concerto. It is common belief that dr. dahl did not achieve any measurable change in Rachmaninoff. He simply provided him with the assurance needed to compose (cannata 20) . the drastic measures taken by Rachmaninoff were not of any use for Stravinsky. 他是位催眠师，且启发了拉赫玛尼诺夫第二钢琴协奏曲的创作灵感。大家公认他并未对拉赫玛尼诺夫造成任何重大变化，他仅仅简单地使他确信他艺术创作的需要。而这些拉赫玛尼诺夫采取的重大举措对斯特拉文斯基毫无用处。 Stravinsky’s attitude toward failure of the premiere should be discussed here. Stravinsky did not give up hope after the failure. He knew that his music was a sound composition. He never once doubted the integrity of the music. Instead he chose to blame elements , on which he had no control(i.e. the choreography)this is to be expected with stravinsky’s mindset. He viewed his music as objectively as possible. To Stravinsky, the rite of spring was a concrete object. It could not have been altered. However the peripherals of the music (the dance) were not so objective, as choreographed by Nijinsky. 斯特拉文斯基对于首演失败的态度值得一提——他在这之后从未放弃希望。他深知他的音乐是声的艺术。他从未怀疑过作品音乐的完整性。不是责备那些他不曾控制的部分，尽量客观地看待他的音乐才是斯特拉文斯基的态度。对他斯特拉文斯基本人而言，《春之祭》是一部混合作品，它不应被改动。然而音乐周边的因素并不是那么客观，比如尼金斯基的编舞。
春之祭剧照 The music could not have been at fault here. The only thing that lacked stringent objectivity was nijinksy’s choreography. Therefore ,the fault laid entirely on the dance , and not the music. This attitude prevented Stravinsky from being affected by public opinion toward his work. His works were completely autonomous, and thus stood firm. No one had to approve of them ,and no one could criticize their existence. This point of attitude toward a composition will be of great constrast in the case of Rachmaninoff. 音乐不曾在这儿出错。唯一欠缺高度客观性的就是尼金斯基的编舞。因此，错误完全赖在了舞蹈上，而非音乐。这一认知阻碍了斯特拉文斯基从公众角度看待他的作品。他的作品由此完全自主且立场坚固。既无人认可他们，也没人能批判他们的存在。在态度这一点上，斯特拉文斯基与拉赫玛尼诺夫简直是天壤之别。 Rachmaninoff’s works contained a piece of his being. If they were criticized, he felt that the very core of his being was shaken. Rachmaninoff’s pieces were not autonomous pieces of composition. They were always dependent on some element of rachmaninoff’s life. For instance, the close association of the first symphony with the church bells of Novgorod was a significant link. The failure of the first symphony’s premiere managed to taint a part of his past. That tainted past took some time to clear. 拉赫玛尼诺夫的作品总是包含着他人生的一部分。如果作品被批判，他感到人生的核心部分也被动摇。他的作品并不是纯粹的作曲，而总是依赖于一些他生活中的元素。例如，他的《第一交响曲》与诺夫哥罗德教堂钟声有着重大关联。第一交响曲的首演失败实则玷污了他的过去——这需要时间去净化。 未完待续
|
|
|
