By Prof. Colin Lawson in The Independent
The world of music has much to contribute to debate around the nexus
between discovery and invention. Igor Stravinsky memorably once wrote of
his ballet The Rite of Spring; ‘I heard and I wrote what I heard. I am the vessel through which the Rite
passed’. He felt that he had in effect ‘discovered’ rather than
invented it. These days we’re all too eager to accept such an
explanation. The Rite’s achievement seems indeed to be that it
just exists, a gargantuan presence, arousing the same feelings of wonder
as the most remarkable works of nature. However much one seeks to
explain it, the Rite seems inexplicable. Yet it’s important to note that Stravinsky’s rationale for the Rite’s
composition appeared in print almost half a century after its riotous
première in May 1913. At the time of its gestation Stravinsky had
described composing the Rite as ‘a long and difficult task’, a claim supported by the surviving sketchbooks. It’s not altogether unexpected that the Rite has also been remade by successive generations of performers. It wasn’t
composed as a cornerstone of twentieth century music comprising a
series of tableaux, but as a piece of theatre. Innovation and revolution
go hand in hand with techniques in which Stravinsky was brought up and
trained.
Our own desire to seek explanation, even of subject matter that is
fundamentally ‘beyond text’, has become inflected by a cult of celebrity
that was unknown in earlier times. Our vocabulary carries a new set of
overtones, with words such as classical, serious, musical, genius and
masterpiece that would have meant little at a time when music was more
closely woven into the fabric of society. When we encounter exceptional
achievement we rapidly reach for that vocabulary.
Important evidence for the relationship of creativity and curiosity
is provided by the life and posthumous reception history of Mozart.
These days an over-exploited and over-exposed Mozart has almost come to
represent western classical music itself. The great man is invoked to
sell confectionery, cheese, spirits and tobacco. You can have a Mozart
ski holiday or attend a ‘meet Amadeus’ event. Mozart’s credentials as a
timeless genius were established immediately after his death. He was
soon transformed from mere composer to inspired artist to meet the needs
of the age that followed him. In the first biography just six years
after his death Mozart was made to observe from his deathbed: ‘Now I
must leave my Art just as I had freed myself from the slavery of
fashion, had broken the bonds of speculators, and won the privilege of
following my own feelings and composing freely and independently
whatever my heart prompted.’ During Mozart’s recent 250th
anniversary, Nicholas Kenyon remarked that this apocryphal statement
sums up everything the Romantics wanted a composer to be and Mozart was
not. Whether or not Mozart would have understood the concept of
‘composing freely’, he wanted to be needed and appreciated and to make
the most of performing opportunities; whilst he was conscious of the
musical value of his compositions, there’s no evidence that he ever
wrote for some far-distant future. Further recent research into Mozart’s
compositional method has conclusively exposed as a myth the notion that
Mozart carried all his music in his head, awaiting only space in his
schedule to scribble it all down.
The usage of words such as ‘creative’ in connection with the
production of musical works of art illustrates our tendency to
mythologize. The idea of composers as creators or musical artists in a
categorical sense is really a feature of the modern era; as Kenyon
observes, Mozart doesn’t indicate anywhere that he regards himself as a
genius or creator, whilst recognizing that he has genius, a
superior talent for making music. In reality, Mozart’s pragmatism is
evident in many facets of his professional life, since he worked within
the conventions of his time, stretching them to their limits. It’s clear
that Mozart’s principal focus was to address specific situations, such
as commissions, concerts and dedications. At the same time he contrived
to produce a stream of sublime music. But the situations and people
directly influenced both his completed compositions and the many
fragments that somehow never came to fruition. Perhaps in the case of
both Stravinsky and Mozart, it’s the distinction between making stuff up and finding it out that is problematic.
No comments:
Post a Comment