他们是否依然讨厌弗拉基米尔·霍洛维茨?(上)--“最后的浪漫派大师”再议  

Do They Still Hate Horowitz?The“Last Romantic”Revisited

作　　者： 古晓梅(译) 洪丁(审校) Kenneth Hamilton;Gu Xiaomei

机构地区：[1]英国卡迪夫大学艺术、人文与社会科学院(国际) [2]英国卡迪夫大学音乐学校 [3]厦门大学艺术学院音乐系,厦门361005 [4]上海音乐学院,上海200031

出　　处：《音乐文化研究》2022年第1期81-91,M0004,共12页Music Culture Studies

摘　　要：很少有钢琴家像霍洛维茨那样受到几乎等同的毁谤和赞誉。斯坦伯格在《新格罗夫音乐及音乐家辞典》以及塔鲁斯金在《纽约时报》上的隔空对战即为一例。在霍洛维茨去世三十余年后,通过分析几十张霍洛维茨职业生涯后期的现场录音,文章重新评估了这位钢琴家的艺术才能、公众形象以及他在钢琴史上的地位。文章也试图阐明对于诠释的艺术而言相悖的两种美学观点;并指出,某些在演奏实践中看似纯粹的音乐问题,实则与伦理与拥有权、权威性与道德密切相关。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,defence by Richard Taruskin in the New York Times,Horowitz’s playing polarized critical opinion in a manner clearly unattainable by polished mediocrity.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.Moreover,they provide evidence for an analysis of the myths surrounding the art of interpretation in general.A reappraisal of Horowitz’s legacy serves to evaluate its place in the history of pianism and seeks to illuminate competing aesthetic perspectives on the art of interpretation itself.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.

关 键 词：霍洛维茨 钢琴 李斯特 克拉拉·舒曼 浪漫主义钢琴学派 

分 类 号：J603[艺术—音乐]