Скачать книгу

und Dichtungen. Volksausgabe. 16 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, [1911].SLRichard Wagner, Selected Letters of Richard Wagner. Translated and edited by Stewart Spencer and Barry Millington. London: Dent, 1987.SearchTheodor Adorno, In Search of Wagner, with a foreword by Slavoj Žižek. Translated by Rodney Livingstone. London: Verso, 2005.SpencerStewart Spencer’s translation of Der Ring des Nibelungen. In Stewart Spencer and Barry Millington, eds., Wagner’s “Ring of the Nibelung”: A Companion, 57–351. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1993.SWRichard Wagner, Sämtliche Werke. Edited by Egon Voss. Mainz: Schott, 1970–ongoing.US-NNCColumbia University, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Anton Seidl Collection, New York.VersuchTheodor W. Adorno, “Versuch über Wagner.” In Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Rolf Tiedemann, 13: Die musikalischen Monographien, 7–148. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998.VorwortRichard Wagner, “Vorwort zur Herausgabe der Dichtung des Bühnenfestspieles Der Ring des Nibelungen” (1862), SD 6:273–81.vsvocal scoreWGVThe Works of Giuseppe Verdi, Series 1: Opera. Edited by Philip Gossett. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Milan: Ricordi, 1983–ongoing.

      All translations into English are my own unless a translated edition is referenced (sometimes alongside the original source) in the notes. Original-language citations are included only where a phrasing is particularly distinctive or the source text is not easily available in published literature or online.

       Opera, Staging, Technologies

      New York, 2010. Like many opera houses around the world, the Metropolitan Opera prepares for the 2013 bicentenary of Richard Wagner by launching a new production of Der Ring des Nibelungen. Boasts the Met’s general manager, Peter Gelb, “Since Wagner was way ahead of his time, I believe he would be pleased by what we are attempting.”1 Indeed, according to the season book, “this new Ring is faithful to the libretto and to Wagner’s vision. . . . Yet it is also strikingly contemporary. The production uses modern stage techniques and state-of-the-art technology.”2 In a truly Wagnerian paradox, the new Ring cycle is being heralded as both inviolate and innovative, as completing an “authentic” vision with hypermodern means. The gist is clear: the Met purports to show “the Ring that Wagner would have wanted all along” if only he had known the latest technologies that director Robert Lepage now introduces.3 Here, in twenty-first-century New York, not in Wagner’s own theater in nineteenth-century Bayreuth, we are to experience the fullest realization of Wagner’s complex illusionist music drama.

      To be sure, much of this rhetoric may be attributable to marketing tactics. Given today’s increasingly Wagner-saturated operascape, Gelb needed to emphasize something novel about his production, but he wanted to avoid radical innovation on the level of direction. For years, Gelb had been trying to placate fears among more conservative opera patrons that his company might be invaded by what has become known as Regietheater, or director’s opera—stagings with a strong interpretive concept that are often slanted toward updated sociopolitical or psychological readings and therefore frequently depart from the scenery and settings described in the score. Regarding the Ring, Gelb instead appealed to an “audience that is more visually astute than ever before, thanks to its exposure to a widening range of media”:4 he shifted the terms of innovation from conceptual revisionism to the staging’s optical surface and its pioneering technology. Even so, he faced opposition for discontinuing the Met’s previous Ring in the first place, a purposely “Romantic,” traditionalist staging created in 1986–88 by Otto Schenk that was partly based on Wagner’s original designs. Amid such conflicting demands, Gelb opted to veil the modern—the mere shock of a new production, or of up-to-the-minute stage devices—with a veneer of fidelity, selling his expensive technological enterprise and artistic compromise as the real(ist) deal.

      Such a chameleon-like PR campaign was understandable in the post-2008 economy, not least for such a costly work as Wagner’s Ring cycle. But Gelb’s particular recourse to authenticity in his sales pitch could seem surprising. For musicologists, any claim to an authentic production might appear both stale and problematic following the heated discussions of the 1980s and 1990s over historically informed performance practice (dubbed “HIP”) in the early music scene. As several scholars have argued, HIP is based on questionable claims about our knowledge (and the knowability) of composers’ intentions and “original” yet irrevocably lost sound worlds, performance traditions, and listening habits. Instead, in Richard Taruskin’s oft-cited analysis, it is driven by a very contemporary quest for the always new under a banner of authenticity that is merely “commercial propaganda,” and thus HIP stands as the truly modern performance style of today.5

      Beyond such general skepticism, the Met’s rhetorical coupling of authenticity with technology raises a more specific set of issues. Unlike HIP or those historicist opera stagings of recent decades that employ “original” (often reconstructed) hardware—whether Baroque instruments, “period” costumes, or eighteenth-century stage machines—in a claim to historical accuracy, Lepage displays ultramodern gadgets, including such novel features as interactive videos and 3D projections. Ironically, his means are entirely of our time—which is also to say that they are decidedly not authentic. It is their end that is supposedly HIP. The Met’s reasoning is that Wagner himself was dissatisfied with his original production since his demands far exceeded the possibilities of even the most advanced nineteenth-century stages. But in the early twenty-first century, technology has at long last caught up with Wagner, and Lepage professes to be realizing the composer’s utopian vision.6 In so doing, however, he highlights precisely the element of operatic production—its mechanical conditioning—that Wagner had been most eager to downplay in both theory and practice. Furthermore, Lepage’s equipment partially malfunctioned and (arguably worse for his cause) partly developed further even during the initial run of his production. The latter’s asserted authenticity proved tenuous at best, its finality fleeting.

      Although I leave a more detailed discussion of Lepage’s endeavor for the epilogue, its focus on enabling technologies and their historicity provides a useful starting point for my book. In the most general terms, Curtain, Gong, Steam examines the relationship between opera and technology from the dual yet entwined perspectives of production and preservation. Its conceptual frame is the question of how composers since the late eighteenth century increasingly embraced select audiovisual details as integral to their creative efforts, inscribing certain facets of staging into their operas and thus expanding the notion of what constitutes the operatic work. These attempts involved technics both in their inclusion of evermore-specific stage technologies to facilitate the envisioned effects and in their quest to “fix” the latter for future productions. I suggest that it is precisely at the intersections of both technological processes—at operatic moments when composers required idiosyncratic mechanical procedures or audiovisual results—that we can clearly observe the importance of technology for the overall conception and efficacy of opera onstage. Curtain, Gong, Steam, then, explores select composer-prescribed stage technologies in view of their dramatic, musical, aesthetic, and cultural meanings; their material functioning and sensorial effects; their absorption (at least temporarily) into a widely shared vision of the respective operas; and the gradual transformation of all these aspects in later productions or works.

      Although the study of opera has traditionally focused on text and music while committing the history of stage technology to specialist treatises, scholars over the last several decades have moved decidedly toward a concept of opera as existing on three signifying levels, frequently summarized as verbal, musical, and visual.7 Such a triangulation, however, risks obscuring the microcosm of agents and media involved in each of these levels. In particular, the visual component does not simply provide music and text with a pictorial surface or directorial playground: it comprises a host of media and materialities. Not all of these operate purely on the optical level, and each carries its own tradition,

Скачать книгу