Unity is an ironic subject to address during the Enlightenment time, as Subotnik has done in her article "Whose Magic Flute", when individualism and personal thinking reign supreme. The characters of Papageno, 'The Queen of the Night', and Tamino were diagnosed in an attempt to convince the reader that these three seemingly unrelated characters were in fact unified by a common theme, exemplifying the Enlightenment thought that "social rank does not equal human worth" (20). The bridges that connect these three seemingly unrelated characters, one, a working-class bird catcher, another, the impassioned and wronged Queen, and yet another still, a noble prince that is unexpectedly taken up in the affairs of these people after a freak encounter with a snake. These bridges are not made of wood or steel, but of text and musical key. Subotnik is not lacking in her musical analysis, in fact she pursues this facet of her argument ad nauseam. Her discussion, though articulate, seems rather verbose and pretentious at times, dulling the reader with her whimsical and sometimes exaggerate claims.
The article did, however, raise some interesting questions about Enlightenment thought:
1) What are some of the unifying themes that Subotnik puts forth for connecting this cast of characters? Is it safe to relate them in the way that she did? Or are the similarities just the result of a composer who as run out of material?
2) Soren Kierkegaard's concepts of individualism and "interpreting the meaning for yourself" are exactly what Subotnik is expressing in her article, a unique view on an popular opera that has certainly been taken apart by scholars in the many years since its creation. How else does Kierkegaard's philosophy, or the philosophy of the Enlightenment, have a home in "The Magic Flute"?
3) What aspects of "The Magic Flute" make it appeal to a "unusually diversified audience" (1)? Is it the style? The showcasing of virtuosic vocalists? The reuse of traditional melodies? Expand on Subotnik's claim that its success is because it "draws upon such a wide range of musical and theatrical traditions that it presents a basis of appeal to everyone" (2). If it is indeed so diverse, how can it be unified?
-----
...and for those of you wondering about the title, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ8lto5ljhQ
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Valid Observation, but a bit of a stretch in argumentation (Simon)
I'd apologize for doing this late, but I bet you're reading this Thursday morning, so I don't feel too bad.
Rosengard believes that the long-lasting popularity of The Magic Flute was caused primarily by its accessibility across a wide range of audience members; more specifically, across social classes. It accomplishes this not by including pleasurable material for each class, but rather by telling the audience that class doesn't actually matter. It is unlikely that Mozart, at his writing desk, was thinking to himself, "Aha, I will write an opera that appeals to as many classes as possible and tells them that class doesn't actually matter!" But it is entirely feasible that the pervasiveness of the Enlightenment was great enough to insert social equity into every artists' consciousness, and Mozart was simply the soul expressive enough to get the point out.
Rosengard believes that the long-lasting popularity of The Magic Flute was caused primarily by its accessibility across a wide range of audience members; more specifically, across social classes. It accomplishes this not by including pleasurable material for each class, but rather by telling the audience that class doesn't actually matter. It is unlikely that Mozart, at his writing desk, was thinking to himself, "Aha, I will write an opera that appeals to as many classes as possible and tells them that class doesn't actually matter!" But it is entirely feasible that the pervasiveness of the Enlightenment was great enough to insert social equity into every artists' consciousness, and Mozart was simply the soul expressive enough to get the point out.
She presents Papageno, Tamino, and the Queen as three entities on the gradient of social independence; Papageno natural but chaotic, the Queen controlled but deceptive, and Tamino the best of both. Her argument is based not off the characters' dialogue, but their arias, and the form of the music within, and this strategy makes debating her points a bit difficult. After all, who is to say that "a sudden, convulsive, and stylized conventional rush up and down the strings," (mm. 31-35) does not indicate base deception and melodrama from the Queen? Rosengard's talking points are similarly subjective across the board.
However, the conclusion concerning the Queen, in particular, seems a bit hazy. The writer states that by "reasserting the privileges of caste, the Queen loses all connection to the rest of humanity['s]... natural aspect." Yes, the Queen separates herself from nature, but she does this by reasserting the privileges of caste and class. She entreats Tamino for help as a Queen, as nobility, and she is spoken of as a Queen long before she first appears on stage.
On the other hand, the points for Papageno and Tamino are a bit more solid, and there is no denying that class indifference is a prevalent idea in the opera. So my questions are:
Is the distribution of the three characters across a gradient of social equity an apt one?
Did Mozart intend for his opera to be as laden with Enlightenment ideals as it is? For that matter, is it?
Do the themes we have discussed still "pop out" if we choose to only look at the text and dialogue of the characters, ignoring the more subjective musical analysis?
Papageno, Tamino, and the Queen all as "natural" = identity crisis
In this article Subotnik posits that The Magic Flute achieved such wide appeal to all echelons of society through its degree of “large-scale unity” derived from classical principles that ultimately profess the maxim “so social rank does not equal human worth” (2-3). This is made clear by the musics of Papageno, the Queen, and Tamino, which embody this maxim through the portrayal of what enlightenment thinkers consider to be “natural.”
Papageno’s existence adheres to natural order: his repetitive musical gestures signal a natural cyclicality, and he exists in a world that makes no social distinctions; he does not question his existence or sense of self as he is part of a larger natural order that doesn’t employ reason in drawing distinctions and classifications. The Queen embodies “natural” characteristics through her loss of emotional control which ignores her social rank and duties of which she is completely aware, enforcing the maxim of human worth based outside of social order. Tamino, on the other hand, signifies human worth through his employment of reasonable decisions and creative capacity in his aria that confirms he is a man of culture, an artist. This relates to the enlightenment perspective that “the man who is truest to nature is the man of culture; for it is civilized man who is truest to his own distinctively human nature, which is based on reason” (20).
While Tamino’s use of reason supports the maxim, it reveals a contradiction that is either this author’s folly or a contradiction of enlightenment thought: Papageno is natural due to the lack of reasonable discretion as a man outside of normal culture – for in his world it is unnecessary - whereas Tamino is natural by embodying those very concepts that Papageno autonomously defies. The contradiction is a definition of the “natural” through the non-cultured as well as the extremely cultured. How can this contradiction be reconciled? What is “natural” to enlightenment thinkers, if what occurs in nature (Papageno) does not match what occurs in culture (Tamino)?
Does the queen’s momentary emotional abandonment of social rank justify her “naturalness” even though she’s an evil queen that exploits said rank for personal gain? Her insincerity is as opposite to nature as Tamino’s employment of reason supposedly is. So there is another contradiction in enlightenment thought: How can the opposites of emotion and reason embody the natural?
Papageno’s existence adheres to natural order: his repetitive musical gestures signal a natural cyclicality, and he exists in a world that makes no social distinctions; he does not question his existence or sense of self as he is part of a larger natural order that doesn’t employ reason in drawing distinctions and classifications. The Queen embodies “natural” characteristics through her loss of emotional control which ignores her social rank and duties of which she is completely aware, enforcing the maxim of human worth based outside of social order. Tamino, on the other hand, signifies human worth through his employment of reasonable decisions and creative capacity in his aria that confirms he is a man of culture, an artist. This relates to the enlightenment perspective that “the man who is truest to nature is the man of culture; for it is civilized man who is truest to his own distinctively human nature, which is based on reason” (20).
While Tamino’s use of reason supports the maxim, it reveals a contradiction that is either this author’s folly or a contradiction of enlightenment thought: Papageno is natural due to the lack of reasonable discretion as a man outside of normal culture – for in his world it is unnecessary - whereas Tamino is natural by embodying those very concepts that Papageno autonomously defies. The contradiction is a definition of the “natural” through the non-cultured as well as the extremely cultured. How can this contradiction be reconciled? What is “natural” to enlightenment thinkers, if what occurs in nature (Papageno) does not match what occurs in culture (Tamino)?
Does the queen’s momentary emotional abandonment of social rank justify her “naturalness” even though she’s an evil queen that exploits said rank for personal gain? Her insincerity is as opposite to nature as Tamino’s employment of reason supposedly is. So there is another contradiction in enlightenment thought: How can the opposites of emotion and reason embody the natural?
The Magic Flute is considered a masterpiece as by Subotnik's definition, it is widely accepted by everyone from every class, whether high aristocrat or a low class individual(1). Although one of the reasons lie in its usage of many different styles that is incorporated in the piece, the character development and its usage is considered the main factor in Subotnik's perception of it being a masterpiece as they help to reiterate the maxim "Social rank does not equal human worth" (3).
Here the characters Papageno, the Queen, and Tamino are each different and represent different aspects of society. Papageno is a character that represents the "natural" state of humans in general. He is lacking "culture"; the inability to form social relations or "social contracts" by his inability to see "differences" between himself and them; and his lack of "desires" which causes one to "use signs in order to communicate" (4). He in many instances is much more like an animal than an actual human, yet his value as a human being is still valuable even though it seems he has not social status.
Where Papageno is on the one extreme of true "naturalism", the queen is on the opposite as being "insincere" and following "authenticity". In her Aria, she is initially thought to be sincere and emotional about her daughter being kidnapped, but it is all a ploy to gain the attention of Tamino. Here the "sincerity, is undertaken for reasons of social advancement (12). The queen doesn't act sincere for the sake of sincerity but for an alternative motive to help gain Tamino's help. It is afterwards that she displays her "real" nature and the music changes accordingly. Trilling describes the concept of "authenticity" (14) when one focuses on keeping a facade of sincerity for the sole purpose of maintain a social status that one eventually is deprived of all forms of genuine sincerity(13). The Queen herself is reflective of this change as she herself cannot display any genuine sincerity anymore because of her strong focus on her social standing as a queen. In this case, her value as a human is not high, even though she has such a high social standing reiterating the fact that "social rank does not equal human worth".
Tamino on the other hand is somewhere inbetween both Papageno and the Queen. He is able to express genuine and real emotions unrelated to his social rank, unlike the Queen. He is also characterized with "an active faculty of reason"(19), in which is reflective of Papageno's nature, yet does not have the limitation of being uncultured like Papageno. In this case he is the best of both worlds with none of the flaws. He is a man of culture, of reason, and of true human emotions. He is the reflection of the ideals of the enlightenment.
In what ways does the piece not a reflection of aspects of the enlightenment period? Isn't it interesting to note that although "social rank does not equal human value" that the main characters Tamino is still a prince and the princess is still a princess?
Although the point of the play is that "social rank does not equal human value", can one not see that social rank does indeed play a role in the human value of a person? Would the queen naturally be a sincere person deep down if she wasn't focused on her social rank or is she just naturally a cruel person?
Here the characters Papageno, the Queen, and Tamino are each different and represent different aspects of society. Papageno is a character that represents the "natural" state of humans in general. He is lacking "culture"; the inability to form social relations or "social contracts" by his inability to see "differences" between himself and them; and his lack of "desires" which causes one to "use signs in order to communicate" (4). He in many instances is much more like an animal than an actual human, yet his value as a human being is still valuable even though it seems he has not social status.
Where Papageno is on the one extreme of true "naturalism", the queen is on the opposite as being "insincere" and following "authenticity". In her Aria, she is initially thought to be sincere and emotional about her daughter being kidnapped, but it is all a ploy to gain the attention of Tamino. Here the "sincerity, is undertaken for reasons of social advancement (12). The queen doesn't act sincere for the sake of sincerity but for an alternative motive to help gain Tamino's help. It is afterwards that she displays her "real" nature and the music changes accordingly. Trilling describes the concept of "authenticity" (14) when one focuses on keeping a facade of sincerity for the sole purpose of maintain a social status that one eventually is deprived of all forms of genuine sincerity(13). The Queen herself is reflective of this change as she herself cannot display any genuine sincerity anymore because of her strong focus on her social standing as a queen. In this case, her value as a human is not high, even though she has such a high social standing reiterating the fact that "social rank does not equal human worth".
Tamino on the other hand is somewhere inbetween both Papageno and the Queen. He is able to express genuine and real emotions unrelated to his social rank, unlike the Queen. He is also characterized with "an active faculty of reason"(19), in which is reflective of Papageno's nature, yet does not have the limitation of being uncultured like Papageno. In this case he is the best of both worlds with none of the flaws. He is a man of culture, of reason, and of true human emotions. He is the reflection of the ideals of the enlightenment.
In what ways does the piece not a reflection of aspects of the enlightenment period? Isn't it interesting to note that although "social rank does not equal human value" that the main characters Tamino is still a prince and the princess is still a princess?
Although the point of the play is that "social rank does not equal human value", can one not see that social rank does indeed play a role in the human value of a person? Would the queen naturally be a sincere person deep down if she wasn't focused on her social rank or is she just naturally a cruel person?
A Bird-Catcher, a Queen, and a Prince walk into a bar...
In her analysis of the "unity" displayed in Mozart's The Magic Flute, Rose Rosengard Subotnik (what a name!) argues that the Enlightenment-era maxim, "Social rank does not equal human worth" can be applied to the characters of Papageno, the Queen of the Night, and Tamino. Each of these characters, through musical and textual elements evident in their respective introductory solo numbers, reflect certain levels of nature and society to create a social commentary based on the importance of social unity. This commentary stems from the depiction in the music of "a standard of human worth based on the relation of the character[s] to some conception of nature" (3).
Through this analytical lens, we can see that Papageno represents the most natural of men, completely devoid of an awareness of social constructs of any kind. At the other end of the spectrum, the Queen of the Night utilizes her social power and cultural awareness in a way that is so contrived and artificial as to alienate her from anything natural or human. Tamino, then, is the best of both worlds: "the man of ultimate worth" (20). His character combines nature and culture with reason, which is the main goal of the Enlightenment.
So what, then, are we to take away from this article? I will admit I found her close analysis of the music very illuminating, but her overall analysis lacking. She does not, in my opinion, effectively tie her musical analyis back to her thesis in a way that let's me know what she wanted me to gain from the article as a whole. It seems to me as if she merely provided more evidence to an assertion about the opera's meaning that is fairly straightforward. On the one hand, she astutely ties her analysis into the ideas of the Enlightenment; however, she fails to expand upon her mention of the concept of unity from a nineteenth-century perspective. I would have been interested in reading about how a nineteenth-century critic would analyze the same pieces she did and come up with a different interpretation of Mozart's message to society.
Therefore, I will turn that question over to you guys: in what ways would someone from the nineteenth century view the message of this opera differently? What factors would lead to those differences?
Thinking back to Lowe's article on social context and understanding of meaning and symbolism in music, would you say that Subotnik's Enlightenment-centered analysis is more valid than one from the nineteenth-century?
What are your thoughts on Subotnik's analysis of the Queen's aria with regards to trickery, authenticity/sincerity, and manipulation? Do these things imply an absence or loss of an individual, natural self?
Through this analytical lens, we can see that Papageno represents the most natural of men, completely devoid of an awareness of social constructs of any kind. At the other end of the spectrum, the Queen of the Night utilizes her social power and cultural awareness in a way that is so contrived and artificial as to alienate her from anything natural or human. Tamino, then, is the best of both worlds: "the man of ultimate worth" (20). His character combines nature and culture with reason, which is the main goal of the Enlightenment.
So what, then, are we to take away from this article? I will admit I found her close analysis of the music very illuminating, but her overall analysis lacking. She does not, in my opinion, effectively tie her musical analyis back to her thesis in a way that let's me know what she wanted me to gain from the article as a whole. It seems to me as if she merely provided more evidence to an assertion about the opera's meaning that is fairly straightforward. On the one hand, she astutely ties her analysis into the ideas of the Enlightenment; however, she fails to expand upon her mention of the concept of unity from a nineteenth-century perspective. I would have been interested in reading about how a nineteenth-century critic would analyze the same pieces she did and come up with a different interpretation of Mozart's message to society.
Therefore, I will turn that question over to you guys: in what ways would someone from the nineteenth century view the message of this opera differently? What factors would lead to those differences?
Thinking back to Lowe's article on social context and understanding of meaning and symbolism in music, would you say that Subotnik's Enlightenment-centered analysis is more valid than one from the nineteenth-century?
What are your thoughts on Subotnik's analysis of the Queen's aria with regards to trickery, authenticity/sincerity, and manipulation? Do these things imply an absence or loss of an individual, natural self?
I still want to know whose flute it is...
I must admit, Subotnik's article "Whose Magic Flute?" struck me as an interesting series of thoughts that expressed a very simple concept in very extensive and detailed language. The central thought of the article was a basic maxim which Subotnik repeated after each individual example: that "social rank does not equal human worth". She argues that this maxim is expressed through multiple characters and arias in "The Magic Flute", and connects this fact with the universal popularity of the opera. Thus, "The Magic Flute" becomes an opera eloquently expressing Enlightenment ideals: the equality of man, the value of the individual, the supremacy of the natural, the natural as "cultured", etc.
Although I would not dispute this conclusion, and I greatly admire the detailed analysis of the various arias, I found myself wondering "so what?" The opera is a tremendous product of Enlightenment philosophy and Mozart is a genius. Tell me something I don't know. Even in the opening few paragraphs when Subotnik was supposedly telling us what she was going to argue in the article, I ended the introduction with a question mark floating six inches above my head. I know she said something about the "unity" of the opera, but my mind was too dense to get much else. My confusion aside, I did find her interpretations of the various arias and characters fascinating.
Papageno is described as the epitome of the "natural" man, autonomous from society and completely self-sufficient. The Queen of the Night initially expresses very natural maternal instincts in the sorrow she supposedly feels for her daughter, but resorts back to traditional heirarchy and societal structure in her reversion back to aristocratic stylings. Subotnik describes Tamino as the perfect blend between the two; a cohesion rather than collision of the "natural" and the "cultured".
With this tension in mind, what is the relationship between the natural and the cultured in our contemporary society? What are our attitudes concerning human worth, and are those reflected in our music as strongly as in Mozart's? How?
Subotnik brings up an interesting discussion of sincerity and authenticity. This concept seems to relate back to our consideration of music as conversation. With LeGuin, we were introduced to the idea of music as discourse. With Haydn, we saw music was capable of making jokes, serving as comedy. In light of the concept of sincerity (as discussed in association with the Queen of the Night), it appears that music can also deceive or lead astray. But this got me to wondering, can music actually lie? I'm not sure that question is helpful, but it made me think.
Although I would not dispute this conclusion, and I greatly admire the detailed analysis of the various arias, I found myself wondering "so what?" The opera is a tremendous product of Enlightenment philosophy and Mozart is a genius. Tell me something I don't know. Even in the opening few paragraphs when Subotnik was supposedly telling us what she was going to argue in the article, I ended the introduction with a question mark floating six inches above my head. I know she said something about the "unity" of the opera, but my mind was too dense to get much else. My confusion aside, I did find her interpretations of the various arias and characters fascinating.
Papageno is described as the epitome of the "natural" man, autonomous from society and completely self-sufficient. The Queen of the Night initially expresses very natural maternal instincts in the sorrow she supposedly feels for her daughter, but resorts back to traditional heirarchy and societal structure in her reversion back to aristocratic stylings. Subotnik describes Tamino as the perfect blend between the two; a cohesion rather than collision of the "natural" and the "cultured".
With this tension in mind, what is the relationship between the natural and the cultured in our contemporary society? What are our attitudes concerning human worth, and are those reflected in our music as strongly as in Mozart's? How?
Subotnik brings up an interesting discussion of sincerity and authenticity. This concept seems to relate back to our consideration of music as conversation. With LeGuin, we were introduced to the idea of music as discourse. With Haydn, we saw music was capable of making jokes, serving as comedy. In light of the concept of sincerity (as discussed in association with the Queen of the Night), it appears that music can also deceive or lead astray. But this got me to wondering, can music actually lie? I'm not sure that question is helpful, but it made me think.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Please check this out!!!
I know it is late and most of you are not in the mood to have your minds blow, but WATCH THIS!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/john_walker_re_creates_great_performances.html
I accidentally ran across this while surfing the web and it very closely corresponds to what we read. It is also VERY interesting.
Enjoy!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/john_walker_re_creates_great_performances.html
I accidentally ran across this while surfing the web and it very closely corresponds to what we read. It is also VERY interesting.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)