|
瓦格纳对勃拉姆斯的评价非常重要，怎么强调也不过分：很多评论家附和了瓦格纳的看法，有些人认为作品有不足之处，并且非常关注对那些不足之处的分析，其他人则继续对作曲家进行情绪化的语焉不详的攻击，攻击作曲家的信仰以及他对音乐的“专业”态度。 After the fifth movement had been added and performed in a special private performance in September of 1868, the Requiem began to be performed in nearly all the major cities of Germany. Cologne and Leipzig were the first to experience the entire seven-movement work in its final form: Cologne on February 16, 1869 under the conducting of Ferdinand Hiller, and Leipzig two days later, on the 18th of February, under Karl Reinecke. 在1868年9月的一次特别的私人演出中增加和上演了第五乐章之后，《安魂曲》开始在德国几乎所有的主要城市上演。包括所有七个乐章的最终版本首先在科隆和莱比锡上演：1869年2月16日，科隆的演出由费迪南德.希勒出任指挥，两天后的2月18日，莱比锡的的演出由卡尔.赖内克指挥。Cologne, like Bremen, was overwhelmingly supportive and immediately accepted the work into its regular repertoire -- another performance occurred there in 1870, yet another the next year, and several in the following decade. Leipzig, however, proved harder to conquer. As in Vienna and later Munich, the greatest stumbling block appeared to be not the musical qualities of the Requiem, but its Protestant religious text. 和不来梅一样，科隆也大力支持《安魂曲》的演出，并且立即把它放在经常的演出曲目之中，1870年进行了另外一场演出，接下来的一年又演出了一场，随后的十年中还有几次演出。但是，《安魂曲》在莱比锡的遭遇却完全不同。就像在维也纳和后来的慕尼黑一样，最大的绊脚石似乎不是《安魂曲》的音乐性质，而是因为它的歌词来自新教的内容。Although the region was primarily Protestant, many critics objected to the Requiem's 'mystical' and 'contemplative' tone, which they found at odds with the straightforward Protestantism of Bach, Schütz, and other composers of religious music. This seeming contradiction in reception.尽管这个地区的新教徒占多数，但许多评论家都反对《安魂曲》的“神秘”和“沉思”的音调，他们认为这和巴赫、舒茨和其他宗教音乐作曲家的简单直接的新教不一致。这好像有些自相矛盾，我们还记得，维也纳和不来梅的评论家都认为这部作品缺少情感和感性，而不是充满了热情和迷人的力量 。As we recall, critics in both Vienna and Bremen had found the work to be lacking in emotion and sensuality, not overflowing with fervent appeal -- may perhaps, however, be explained by the earlier resistance of Leipzig to Brahms' works: his first performances there, a few years earlier, had been met with marked hostility, and the Leipzig premiere of his first major orchestral work, the D minor piano concerto, had been disastrous. 但是，也许可以用勃拉姆斯早期的作品在莱比锡不受欢迎来解释：勃拉姆斯几年前在当地的首次演出受到了明显的冷遇，他的第一部大型管弦乐作品《D小调钢琴协奏曲》在莱比锡的首演简直是场灾难。 The critical reception of the Requiem, however, seemed, at least in comparison to earlier voices, to consist of much less serious complaints: the work was seen to be weak because of its 'lengths' and 'empty passages,' rather than because of any inherent compositional offense.然而，比较以前的评论，至少对《安魂曲》的批评似乎不是那么严重：由于它的“长度”和“空洞的说教”，整部作品被认为是软弱无力，而不是因为任何先天的作曲方面的失误。Even the editor of the local music paper found these complaints to be superficial, and by the time of the Requiem's second performance in Leipzig in 1878, Brahms' standing had improved immeasurably; he had been accepted, if grudgingly, into the musical canon, and even his 'mystical' Requiem had reached the status of a classic in the repertoire.
即使是当地音出版的编辑也发现这些抱怨非常肤浅，到1878年莱比锡第二次上演《安魂曲》时，勃拉姆斯的地位得到难以估量的提升，人们已经把他作为经典，即便不那么情愿，甚至他的“神秘”的《安魂曲》也成为演出曲目中的经典。Indeed, the reactions of Leipzig and Bremen seem to mark the two possible paths which the Requiem was to follow throughout Germany. In many cities, nearly all of them Protestant and/or northern towns, reception was immediately positive, and the work encountered little, if any resistance. 事实上，《安魂曲》在莱比锡和不来梅的遭遇似乎代表了它在德国各地遵循的两条可能路径。 在许多城市，几乎所有的新教和/或者北部城镇，对待《安魂曲》的态度都是立即和正面的，《安魂曲》即使遇到任何阻力，也是微乎其微。In Catholic and southern towns, however, the initial performances of the Requiem were more often than not met with critical scorn: opposition was expressed both in terms of textual and emotional issues -- the foreign Protestant fervour being quite untenable -- or in rather vague resistance to the heavy-handed, academic nature of Brahms' composition.然而，在天主教和南方城镇，评论家通常不把《安魂曲》的最初的演出当回事儿：他们反对作品的歌词和情感方面的表达,外来的新教徒的热情是非常靠不住的，或者对勃拉姆斯的严肃的、具有学究气质的作曲的无谓的抵制。Generally critics recognized the craftsmanship involved in writing such a monumental and interconnected work; what they objected to was the constructed nature of the counterpoint and fugal passages, which stood at odds with their conception of `modern' music.一般来说，评论家都理解谱写如此具有纪念意义而且相互关联的作品所需的技巧；他们反对的是作品中出现的对位和赋格部分，这与他们的“现代”音乐的概念相抵触。Both friend and foe alike devoted extensive attention to the use of older traditions in the Requiem; in addition, nearly everyone was able to recognize its importance as a new or reinvented model for religious orchestral music. 支持和反对的双方都非常欣赏安魂曲对传统的沿袭；此外，几乎所有的人都认识到它在宗教音乐的创新或改革方面的重要意义。The `modern' qualities of the work -- the harmonic ambivalences and certain nearly untonal passages -- became the foci of either praise or attack, depending on the particular critic's affinities. One reviewer, Adolf Schubring in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, unfailingly praised the Requiem's 'organic melody' and structural subtleties, while at the same time despairing over the 'ascetic modern colouring' of the instrumentation. [18]由于评论家的不同立场，这部作品的“现代”特性 – 难以辨认的和声和某些近乎无调性的片段 – 成为赞美或攻击的焦点。有位《大众音乐时报》（Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung）的评论家阿道夫.舒宾，不遗余力地称颂《安魂曲》的“生动的旋律”和结构上的精妙之处的同时，却对它具有“严格的现代色彩” 的配器感到不可思议。Despite or even because of the critical attention paid to the Requiem, it continued to enjoy great success in the concert hall. In the year 1869 alone there were at least eleven performances besides Leipzig and Cologne: Basel, Hamburg, Karlsruhe, Münster, Zürich, Dessau, and Weimar all produced the work for public concerts. 1870 saw several additions to this list, as well as many repeat performances, particularly in Hamburg, Bremen, and Cologne, the strongest Brahms supporters. 批评也罢，赞美也罢，评论家的重视使《安魂曲》在音乐厅的演出取得了巨大的成功。就在1869的一年之中，除了莱比锡和科隆，至少还进行了11场演出：巴塞尔、汉堡、卡尔斯鲁厄、明斯特、苏黎世、德绍和魏玛都为这部作品举行了公开音乐会。1870年这个名单又得到了补充，有些城市还在重复上演，尤其是勃拉姆斯的坚强后盾，汉堡，不来梅和科隆。1871, besides encores in the northern towns, brought the return of the Requiem to Vienna; reviews were certainly better than for the premiere four years earlier, but still fairly cool and reserved. 1871年，除了继续在北部城镇的演出之外，《安魂曲》再次回到了到维也纳；尽管评论家的反应仍然相当冷静和保留，但比起四年前在这里的首演还是要好了很多。Similarly, when the Requiem finally came to Munich in Catholic Bavaria -- not until 1872 -- reviews were decidedly negative: Brahms was described as 'scarcely more than a name' by one critic, and his Requiem was seen on a par with Franz Lachner's [19] -- hardly the same critical acclaim as he had won in Hamburg or Bremen.同样，当《安魂曲》终于在1872年到达天主教统治的巴伐利亚首府慕尼黑时，受到了非常负面的评论：勃拉姆斯被一位评论家说成“几乎就是一个名字而已”，他的《安魂曲》和弗兰兹.拉克纳的同名作品相提并论。As with Leipzig and Vienna, however, the critics softened with time, and by the 1880's the protests and polemicism to be heard against the Requiem came almost entirely from the Wagnerian school; among the greater concert-going public, the Requiem had been embraced, and was to remain, as a `standard' and `classic' masterpiece.这和他在汉堡或不来梅受到的好评简直是天壤之别。但是，就像莱比锡和维也纳，批评的声音随着时间的推移销声匿迹，到了1880年，对《安魂曲》的反对和抗议几乎全部来自瓦格纳那帮人。《安魂曲》已经被广大音乐爱好者接受，并且成为“标准”和“经典”的杰作。 Wagner's reception of and attitude toward Brahms is well-documented, and can only be touched on here. Clearly, he had nothing positive to say about the Requiem: not only did he abhor the Protestant-bourgeois musical ethics which the piece embodied, but he was also outraged by Brahms' claim to have written a piece for all of Germany, a truly German work .瓦格纳对勃拉姆斯的看法和态度虽然被完整地记录下来，但是在这里只是稍微提一下。显而易见，他对《安魂曲》没有任何积极的评价：他不仅厌恶新教和中产阶级的音乐伦理，而且还为勃拉姆斯声称为所有德国人写了一部真正的德国音乐作品感到愤怒不已。A claim reflected only, as far as I can determine, in the title Ein deutsches Requiem. (The historical moment of the Requiem's conception, shortly before German unity in 1871, surely played a role in this view as well.) Wagner's contempt for the piece extended to sarcastic comments in letters and essays; in one, he scornfully remarks that when the present generation (his own) dies, 'we will want no German Requiem to be played to our ashes.' [20]根据我的判断，《德意志安魂曲》的标题本 身就表达了这个意思。瓦格纳在他的信件和文章中讽刺挖苦，表达对这部作品的蔑视；他在一篇文章中轻蔑地评论说，当这一代人（自己这一代）去世之后，“我们的骨灰再也不要听到《德国安魂曲》。” The importance of Wagner's stance toward Brahms cannot be overemphasized: many critics echoed Wagner's sentiments, and while some devoted serious attention to an analysis of what they considered to be the work's particular flaws, others continued with vague polemicisms and ad hominem attacks against the composer, his beliefs and religion, and above all his `academic' attitude toward music.瓦格纳对勃拉姆斯的评价非常重要，怎么强调也不过分：很多评论家附和了瓦格纳的看法，有些人认为作品有不足之处，并且非常关注对那些不足之处的分析，其他人则继续对作曲家进行情绪化的语焉不详的攻击，攻击作曲家的信仰以及他对音乐的“专业”态度。Not all analysts, however, found Brahms to be the conservative schoolmaster he was made out to be: Kleinert, for example, in a direct reference to Wagner's own claims, calmly declared that 'the music of the future, for others a vogue, is for Brahms already a music of the past.' [21]然而，并非所有的分析都认为勃拉姆斯是保守派的旗杆：例如，莱内特从瓦格纳的说法得出来这样的结论“这部作品的音乐标志着未来，对某些人而言则是时尚，对勃拉姆斯自己来说已经成为过去。” As Kross and others have documented, critical opposition to the Requiem, mostly on dogmatic grounds, continued through the end of the 19th century; by 1900 however, it had mostly disappeared, and the work had been accepted not only into the concert-hall repertoire, but was receiving increased favorable critical and analytical attention, both within Germany and abroad.正如克罗斯和其他人所记录的那样，一直到19世纪末，不断有评论家对安魂曲做出非常独断的负面的评价；但是，从1900年开始，反对的声音逐渐消失了，这部作品不仅成为音乐厅的演奏曲目，并且在德国和其它国家都得到了越来越多的赞誉。
|
