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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe flute is mine!
ReplyDeleteYou now have me as well wondering whether or not music can lie. I think something that would help in looking at this idea would be to take a look again at why some of these ideas in music can be conveyed.
ReplyDeleteHaydn produced jokes and humor in his music in a number of ways. He might break a rule in an unexpected way and produce a passage that doesn't give you what you were expecting. He might also include a strange passage like the wobble in the string quartet we listened to in class. Finally, comedy might be had by ending a piece a number of times, extending the time before beginning to play again each time (also seen in the Haydn quartet).
For the natural (in the 18th century), this essay points to staying within the key with easily singable melodies that get tossed back and forth between the orchestra and the singer. So in the case of the 18th century, natural is following the rules (which is rather circular since the rules were persuing the natural).
On the other hand, we see someone standing on culture and position (again in the 18th century), relies on the baroque style which is highly calculated, more dissonant, and steeped in older traditions.
As for lying in music, I have some ideas as to how it may be done in accompanied vocal music but instrumental music seems to be much more difficult to write lies into. In vocal music, I could see implied lies in something like dire or angry text written in major keys with pleasing melodies or vice versa. Lieing in instrumental music seems to be more difficult since lieing implies that there are two parts to the situation. There is the truth and the lie. That is why it is easier to see a lie in vocal music because you can set up the truth in the words and lie through the music. In instrumental music this kind of opposition is harder, maybe if there was antiphonal writing going on, a sort of chori spetzati. One may also employ misleading modulations, but that is becoming quite esoteric. In any case, it does seem to be quite hard to pin down exactly what one would have to do in order to lie in music.
I don't know how much I care to elaborate on this, but I don't really think music can lie. I think lying would imply that music holds some sort of its own intelligence, don't you? What I do think can happen, is that composers have the ability to deceive though musical terms (which you stated). Interesting question, though.
ReplyDeleteAs to your question of, "so what?" I wanted to tell you that I found myself asking the same thing. I do believe much of what Subotnik is saying to be quite fascinating. Her analysis is thorough and convening and each point she draws on could be connected to her maxim, but I defaulted at the same conclusion as you. Mozart was a genius who wrote good operas. Maybe we were spoiled with so many articles in the past which forced us to think of an array of social issues in new and interesting ways in correspondence to the enlightenment, but this article didn't seem to reach beyond the boundaries of simple enlightenment philosophy. There also runs the very realistic risk that I am missing the big picture in this reading.
I am particularly interested in your question asking about our contemporary attitudes toward human worth. Obviously, we live in a very different world today than we did in the 18th century. We have made huge strides in issues concerning equal rights and I think human equality is on a much more level playing feel than in that time. However, I question whether or not the aspects of enlightenment thinking are more progressive in the 18th century than the way people in modern culture think. Much of the population has developed a stagnant vision of how people are to be treated, and we are no longer seeking the ideals which people were developing in the 18th century. For example, music of the 18th century was beginning to include women more, as keyboardists for piano trios and accompanied works. While we have reached a point in society of women being able to attain virtually any goal a man can reach (although not necessarily as easily), the lyrics in a hip hop song might still be discriminatory toward women and include stereotypes which could be considered medieval to modern perception. Does anyone think that our ideals of the 21st century are actually less equal than ideals embodied in the enlightenment?
How hypocritical of me. I talk about how this article does not inspire thought on social issues, then I write a summary of a social issue that this article inspired me to think of.
ReplyDelete