{"title":"他们还恨霍洛维茨吗?重温“最后的浪漫”","authors":"K. Hamilton","doi":"10.1080/01411896.2020.1774755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Few pianists have been as acclaimed or as abominated as Vladimir Horowitz. Long ago the subject of a notorious hatchet-job by Michael Steinberg in the New Grove Dictionary of Music, and of an equally trenchant, if undeniably wittier, defense by Richard Taruskin in the New York Times, Horowitz’s playing polarized critical opinion in a manner clearly unattainable by polished mediocrity. But now, nearly thirty years after his death, the time is finally ripe for a reassessment of his artistry and public persona, not least because of the recent release of dozens of live recordings from the later decades of his career. These recordings not only allow a hitherto unattainable overview of Horowitz’s pianism, but prompt a reevaluation of his earlier discography. Moreover, they provide evidence for an analysis of the myths surrounding the art of interpretation in general. Horowitz was routinely castigated by critics for alleged crimes against acceptable practice, while idolized by audiences for many of the same reasons. A reappraisal of Horowitz’s legacy serves to evaluate its place in the history of pianism and seeks to illuminate competing esthetic perspectives on the art of interpretation itself, arguing that for nearly two centuries many pianists and critics have been missing the point: some supposedly purely musical issues in performance practice have as much to do with concepts of ethics and ownership, authority and morality, as with art.","PeriodicalId":42616,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do They Still Hate Horowitz? The “Last Romantic” Revisited\",\"authors\":\"K. Hamilton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01411896.2020.1774755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Few pianists have been as acclaimed or as abominated as Vladimir Horowitz. Long ago the subject of a notorious hatchet-job by Michael Steinberg in the New Grove Dictionary of Music, and of an equally trenchant, if undeniably wittier, defense by Richard Taruskin in the New York Times, Horowitz’s playing polarized critical opinion in a manner clearly unattainable by polished mediocrity. But now, nearly thirty years after his death, the time is finally ripe for a reassessment of his artistry and public persona, not least because of the recent release of dozens of live recordings from the later decades of his career. These recordings not only allow a hitherto unattainable overview of Horowitz’s pianism, but prompt a reevaluation of his earlier discography. Moreover, they provide evidence for an analysis of the myths surrounding the art of interpretation in general. Horowitz was routinely castigated by critics for alleged crimes against acceptable practice, while idolized by audiences for many of the same reasons. A reappraisal of Horowitz’s legacy serves to evaluate its place in the history of pianism and seeks to illuminate competing esthetic perspectives on the art of interpretation itself, arguing that for nearly two centuries many pianists and critics have been missing the point: some supposedly purely musical issues in performance practice have as much to do with concepts of ethics and ownership, authority and morality, as with art.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01411896.2020.1774755\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"MUSIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01411896.2020.1774755","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
很少有钢琴家像弗拉基米尔•霍洛维茨那样受到赞誉,也很少有人像他那样令人厌恶。很久以前,迈克尔·斯坦伯格(Michael Steinberg)在《新格罗夫音乐词典》(New Grove Dictionary of Music)中发表了一篇臭名昭著的诽谤文章,理查德·塔鲁斯金(Richard Taruskin)在《纽约时报》上发表了一篇同样尖锐(如果不可否认更诙谐)的辩护文章。霍洛维茨以一种圆滑的平庸者显然无法达到的方式,演奏了两极分化的批评意见。但现在,在他去世近30年后,重新评估他的艺术和公众形象的时机终于成熟了,尤其是因为最近发布了数十张他职业生涯后期的现场录音。这些录音不仅让人们对霍洛维茨的钢琴演奏有了一个前所未有的了解,而且促使人们对他早期的专辑进行重新评价。此外,它们为分析围绕阐释艺术的神话提供了证据。霍洛维茨经常因为所谓的违反可接受的行为而受到评论家的严厉批评,同时也因为许多同样的原因而受到观众的崇拜。重新评价霍洛维茨的遗产有助于评估其在钢琴史上的地位,并试图阐明对诠释艺术本身的竞争美学观点,认为近两个世纪以来,许多钢琴家和评论家都错过了一点:在表演实践中,一些被认为纯粹的音乐问题与伦理、所有权、权威和道德的概念一样多,就像艺术一样。
Do They Still Hate Horowitz? The “Last Romantic” Revisited
ABSTRACT Few pianists have been as acclaimed or as abominated as Vladimir Horowitz. Long ago the subject of a notorious hatchet-job by Michael Steinberg in the New Grove Dictionary of Music, and of an equally trenchant, if undeniably wittier, defense by Richard Taruskin in the New York Times, Horowitz’s playing polarized critical opinion in a manner clearly unattainable by polished mediocrity. But now, nearly thirty years after his death, the time is finally ripe for a reassessment of his artistry and public persona, not least because of the recent release of dozens of live recordings from the later decades of his career. These recordings not only allow a hitherto unattainable overview of Horowitz’s pianism, but prompt a reevaluation of his earlier discography. Moreover, they provide evidence for an analysis of the myths surrounding the art of interpretation in general. Horowitz was routinely castigated by critics for alleged crimes against acceptable practice, while idolized by audiences for many of the same reasons. A reappraisal of Horowitz’s legacy serves to evaluate its place in the history of pianism and seeks to illuminate competing esthetic perspectives on the art of interpretation itself, arguing that for nearly two centuries many pianists and critics have been missing the point: some supposedly purely musical issues in performance practice have as much to do with concepts of ethics and ownership, authority and morality, as with art.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Musicological Research publishes original articles on all aspects of the discipline of music: historical musicology, style and repertory studies, music theory, ethnomusicology, music education, organology, and interdisciplinary studies. Because contemporary music scholarship addresses critical and analytical issues from a multiplicity of viewpoints, the Journal of Musicological Research seeks to present studies from all perspectives, using the full spectrum of methodologies. This variety makes the Journal a place where scholarly approaches can coexist, in all their harmony and occasional discord, and one that is not allied with any particular school or viewpoint.