Good and bad and music

[ricardienne]

Yesterday, the voice teacher who is in charge of the opera came up to me in the hall and told me that he had just been talking with one of his students -- a fried of mine -- about me, and that it was very impressive that I had "managed to pick up Greek in no time at all" and that he was a classicist at University, although he's forgotten his Greek by now. Compliments are so much more rewarding when given with a British accent. He also assured me that I was definitely on for bass continuo in Dido and Aeneas. YAY!!!!!!!

We started the St. John Passion in Bach seminar today. I was surprisingly disturbed, hearing all of the "and then the high priest of the JEWS" &c. (No, I don't know German, but having been given a translation, I can pick out a few words as it goes by.) I mean, I know that it's there, and that it was a standard part of the story as it was understood in that time, and so forth. I know I've encountered lots of works containing "historical anti-Semitism." And it doesn't usually make me uncomfortable. I do think that the fact that it's a big authoritative German work -- and this makes it sound as though I have a very personal family connection to the Holocaust, which is not, thankfully the case -- makes the reaction different than if it were in just about any other medium.
I started to try to explain it to J. -- but I got into an argument with him last year when Handel's Messiah was in the news because someone had determined that large portions of the libretto came out of a strongly anti-Semitic tract. He was righteously indignant that anyone could complain about Great Works of Art and, today, too, he made one of those "well, I guess Bach isn't so politically correct these days" remarks that I find so annoying. Because I am conflicted on how to approach Great Works of Art whose ideologies are Not Okay -- and you can't excuse the problems, even if they do come from modern history, as "political incorrectness" as if oversensitivity to prejudice is the only issue. On the other hand, I don't support changing the text, or not performing them, because they are great musical works -- the opening chorus of the St. John Passion is one of the most wonderful concerted chorales I've heard. And, sometimes editors' notes/conductor's notes/program notes that try to explain or apologize for the bigoted content are embarrassing to read. But somehow you do have to face it, and I think there is a responsibility to make clear the limitations of a work in view of more enlightened (and I do, I hope, use that word advisedly) ideas and inescapable historical fact. /my thoughts on art and ideology

Comments

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

Handel's Messiah was in the news because someone had determined that large portions of the libretto came out of a strongly anti-Semitic tract.

Wait, what?

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

This was the original article, I think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/arts/music/08mari.html

Reading again, I think he does stretch some things. On the other hand, seeing as it is an Easter Oratorio, it's bound to be a little problematic in that respect.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I found it. And now I feel all qualmish and upset because I'm going to be performing in Messiah in a month, and I've loved the oratorio for years and that's the sort of thing you can't unsee.

I guess that some of it is predicated on the notion that interpreting passages in the Hebrew scriptures as prefiguring Jesus Christ is inherently anti-Semitic, which is a notion that I'm also uncomfortable with. Possibly this is because I am Catholic and of German descent so I am always afraid that I am secretly an anti-Semite. I don't think I actually am one, but. *flail* see, this is me being neurotic.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

I guess that some of it is predicated on the notion that interpreting passages in the Hebrew scriptures as prefiguring Jesus Christ is inherently anti-Semitic, which is a notion that I'm also uncomfortable with.

Yeah. It starts to come close to "Christianity (or at least, Christian theology) is anti-Semitic." Which I don't like, and I'm neither a Christian nor strongly Jewish.

[existentialgoat.livejournal.com]

Because I am conflicted on how to approach Great Works of Art whose ideologies are Not Okay -- and you can't excuse the problems, even if they do come from modern history, as "political incorrectness" as if oversensitivity to prejudice is the only issue. On the other hand, I don't support changing the text, or not performing them, because they are great musical works -- the opening chorus of the St. John Passion is one of the most wonderful concerted chorales I've heard.

It's a hard one to solve. I hate the "you're just too politically correct" argument, because stuff like this really is appalling and unacceptable if you're a halfway decent person (IMO). But then, as you said, the artistic aspects are beautiful. When the question is just about the author's personal feelings and/or actions, but none of the objectionable beliefs appear in the art work, I can separate the art from the artist. But when it's so ingrained, it is problematic and there's no good way to deal with it. Changing the text inherently changes the entire work, even if you're just engaging in some creative cutting, like they did in the Al Pacino Merchant of Venice.

Of course, the question of how to deal with Merchant of Venice is especially interesting to me because I'm in theatre, and spent a while studying it in a purely literary context freshman year. After watching the Pacino film again shortly after studying the play, I came to the conclusion that you can't just cut most of Shylock's most vicious speeches without compromising the whole play and sapping Shylock of a lot of his strength...but at the same time, they're so blatantly anti-Semitic that it's hard--if not impossible--to stage them and feel okay with that decision. (Well, unless you're Mel Gibson or something. But thankfully, most people are not Mel Gibson.)

On a(n almost) completely unrelated tangent, what else are studying in the Bach Seminar? Do you get to do any of his Masses?

[existentialgoat.livejournal.com]

God, I sound pretentious up there. Sorry. Somehow intellectual debates do that to me.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Of course, the question of how to deal with Merchant of Venice is especially interesting to me because I'm in theatre, and spent a while studying it in a purely literary context freshman year. After watching the Pacino film again shortly after studying the play, I came to the conclusion that you can't just cut most of Shylock's most vicious speeches without compromising the whole play and sapping Shylock of a lot of his strength...but at the same time, they're so blatantly anti-Semitic that it's hard--if not impossible--to stage them and feel okay with that decision.

I was thinking actually, about Merchant of Venice and all this. And with that play in particular, there is some conflictedness built into the play -- even if you don't cut the really uncomfortable bits -- (at least, I think there is some conflictedness) -- Shylock is given some measure of sympathy/humanity/a semi-legitimate axe to grind. He's not just a passive evil Jew. Although, I haven't read the play in while, and haven't actually ever seen it (other than the Al Pacino version), I also tend to wonder if it is possible to play it "straight." But as I said, even in a "straight," complete reading, I think there is something to work with.

Also, a Shakespeare comedy doesn't (to me) have the same sense of representing cultural authority that a sacred Cantata comissioned for civic performance does. Which may be more of a problem -- it's not just about "a different cultural opinion" but (to some extent) about an individual artist's choice -- or less of problem: the problem-part doesn't seem to be so institutionalized and unconscious.

Part of the issue with Bach is also, for me, that as music, even music with words, it isn't as open to discussion, or simply isn't discussed as much as a play, where language is fundamental, and so is talked about. With Merchant of Venice, it's out in the open, and people deal with it (or don't deal with it) and express what the problem is, and try to rationalize, or reconcile or salvage or remake or something. But with music, it almost seems hidden, first by the fact that we are supposed to take the work primarily as music, and second (this is a local problem, not an inherent one) by the foreign langage obscuring the meaning/the music obscuring the clarity of the meaning. So there's a danger that people are reproducing the prejudice without realizing it, and without facing it.

I think that this is even more the case with Handel's Messiah, where the anti-Semitism is (reputed to be) not apparent without an understanding of the way the libretto is put together, and what the contemporary implications of its construction and choice of texts was. To take it to the extreme point, we have choirs all over happily singing their hearts out in unwitting anti-Semitic propoganda. (I do not actually think this is the case, and I do think that performance is more complicated; we recognize that you can't reproduce "authentic" musical conditions perfectly, and even that it might not be productive if one could -- so the idea that subliminal ideology can stick around and be influential doesn't seem very strong. On the other hand, the text is there, and the historical context is there, and that can't be changed.)

So all this is but to say, that 1)You're complaining about being pretentious? and 2)Problematic works in my field are obviously more problematic than problematic works in your field!

[existentialgoat.livejournal.com]

You're right--there is some conflictedness built into Merchant of Venice--that whole "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech. And even though most of the stuff Shylock says to Antonio to get him to agree to the bound of flesh bargain is complete bullshit, he *does* mention that Antonio has spat at him and is generally not Mr. Nice Guy where Venice's jews are concerned--and neither Antonio nor Bassanio denies it.

I haven't read MoV in about two years, so I can't remember precisely how bad the anti-Semitism gets, but I suspect that you're right, and that someone could conceivably come up with a way to present a complete text version of MoV without necessarily accepting the play's worldview, but rather discussing it. It would be hard, but I think it could be done.

And you're right again about the Bach/Handel issue being slightly different, because of the language barrier, the context, and the staging. I hadn't realized that the St. John Passion was commissioned for civic performance, although probably I should have. (Clearly, I did not pay enough attention when we were forced to watch the Composer Classics Series in middle school orchestra--Bach's Fight for Freedom, after all.) It is possible to stage a play or shoot a film in such a way that problematic subject matter can be presented and dealt with--except that most people don't bother, since it's hard and audiences seem to prefer a depressing story about a Venetian Jew getting a little carried away and getting slammed by the Powers That Be to watching the actual MoV and dealing with the issue head-on. (Not that the Pacino version makes Shylock all rainbows and sunshine either...he's just rather watered down.) But it's much more difficult to perform a piece of music in such a way that it calls into question the very ideology embedded within it, especially if most people don't realize that ideology is there in the first place. I suppose you could do something with juxtaposition of specific pieces in a concert program or something, but beyond that, I'm not really sure how you could do it, especially since you're supposed to take the pieces primarily as music.

Music takes it to a whole different level--we can deal with Shylock more openly, and the prejudice in The Jew of Malta is right there on the surface, in the primary vehicle of expression--whereas with something like the Messiah, it's much more veiled.

I suppose another part of the issue is that we read plays as literary texts as well, so there is much more of an opportunity for discussion and commentary on the problematic aspects of the text, so the audience is already familiar with the moral dilemma before they go to see a production of MoV, whereas with a piece of music, most of the critical commentary has to do with the music itself and the performance thereof, at least as I understand it. (Correct me if I'm wrong--I've never actually taken a formal music history course or anything.) Historical contexts do enter into it, of course, as far as they shape the composer and the style of music, but people rarely (if ever) sit down and read the text of an opera or an oratorio for its own sake. Things like Goethe's Faust don't count, since it was written as a play before Gounod used the text as the basis for his opera. And because people don't read these texts for their own sake, there is less knowledge of the prejudices inherent in them, and thus performing them becomes even more problematic.

I think the issue of reading is interesting, too. For the most part, it's perfectly acceptable to read and study MoV, or Oliver Twist, or even Mein Kampf, but once you perform a piece of music or a play, you are taking the work and making the decision to put it out into the world again. You take ownership of whatever you stage and are responsible for the way in which the content is presented. And if people are performing the Messiah or the St John Passion without acknowledging (or even realizing) the anti-Semitism, then that is a problem. Albeit one without an easy solution.

(I think I get automatic pretension points for "albeit".)