文章簡介

? ? ? ?《混亂而非音樂》(Сумбур вместо музыки - Sumbur vmesto muzyki)?是一篇未署名的于1936年1月28日在蘇聯(lián)共產(chǎn)黨中央委員會機(jī)關(guān)報(bào)《真理報(bào)》(Пра?вда - Pravda) 第3版上發(fā)表的專論，批評了蘇聯(lián)作曲家德米特里·肖斯塔科維奇 (Dmitri Shostakovich) 根據(jù)19世紀(jì)俄羅斯作家尼古拉·列斯科夫 (Nikolay Leskov) 的小說《姆岑斯克縣的麥克白夫人》(Леди Макбет Мценского уезда - Ledi?Makbet Mtsenskogo uezda) 所作的同名歌劇 (Op.29)。在這篇專論中《麥克白夫人》被指責(zé)是“形式主義”和“自然主義”，致使該歌劇在蘇聯(lián)被禁演，同時(shí)中止了肖斯塔科維奇創(chuàng)作表現(xiàn)三個(gè)不同時(shí)期的俄羅斯婦女形象的歌劇的計(jì)劃。[1]這一事件標(biāo)志著蘇聯(lián)音樂界的反形式主義運(yùn)動(dòng)的開始。

? ? ? ?

? ? ? ??本篇譯文由筆者從英譯本翻譯成中文，意思或與原文有一定差別；同時(shí)筆者只是業(yè)余翻譯者，無法完全遵循“信達(dá)雅”的原則進(jìn)行翻譯，還請見諒。本文的翻譯原則如下：

1. 盡量保留英譯文中句子的成分和標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號，“漢化”了部分不符合中文表達(dá)習(xí)慣的句子，包括但不限于改變語序、語義，增加或刪除連詞、標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號和定語

2. 對部分有歧義和需要譯者個(gè)人理解的單詞短語進(jìn)行了揣測，均已標(biāo)綠

? ? ? ? 盡管如此，本篇譯文依然是佶屈聱牙的——通篇不符合中文表達(dá)習(xí)慣的長句、復(fù)雜的句子成分以及毫無流暢感——楊燕迪先生是極其排斥這種翻譯方式的。

混亂而非音樂

戴維·扎斯拉夫斯基[2]

? ? ? ? 我國文化的全面發(fā)展促使對于優(yōu)質(zhì)音樂的需求不斷增加。作曲家在其他任何時(shí)候任何地方都不曾擁有比這里更具欣賞力的聽眾。人民期待好聽的歌曲，也同樣期待優(yōu)秀的器樂曲和歌劇。

? ? ? ? 部分劇院將肖斯塔科維奇的歌劇《麥克白夫人》視作一種創(chuàng)新與成就，并正為新一批文化鑒賞上成熟的蘇聯(lián)公民呈上。伺機(jī)而動(dòng)的音樂批評界已將其捧上了天，并給之以巨大的榮耀。這位年輕的作曲家聽見的不是可能幫助其未來創(chuàng)作的嚴(yán)肅批評，而只是熱情的贊美之詞。

? ? ? ? 聽眾從第一分鐘起就被一股混亂的聲音流露出的刻意的不和諧音所震驚。斷斷續(xù)續(xù)的旋律和樂句的萌芽時(shí)沉?xí)r浮，最終消失在一陣刺耳的嘶吼聲里。理解這種“音樂“已經(jīng)異常困難，記住它則是不可能的。

? ? ? ? 這種亂象持續(xù)貫穿了整部歌劇。臺上的歌聲被尖叫聲取而代之。如果作曲家有機(jī)會想出一段簡明清晰的旋律，他便會將自己重新打回充斥著雜亂無章的音樂的荒野中——在那里樂音正變?yōu)樵胍?。聽眾期待的表現(xiàn)力被狂野的節(jié)奏所取代，熱情竟由喧囂來表現(xiàn)。造成這一切的原因并非是這位作曲家天賦不足，也不是他沒有能力表現(xiàn)強(qiáng)烈和樸素的音樂情感。音樂在此處被刻意地徹底扭曲了，誰也不能從這部歌劇中想起古典歌劇，更找不到其與交響樂以及簡樸的、為大眾熟知的音樂語匯有任何共通之處。這種音樂是建立在否定歌劇的基礎(chǔ)之上的——與所謂“左派”藝術(shù)在戲劇中背離樸素性、現(xiàn)實(shí)性、形象清晰以及用語不矯揉造作的基礎(chǔ)如出一轍，它將“梅耶霍爾德主義”中最負(fù)面的特征無限放大并帶入到戲劇和音樂中?，F(xiàn)在我們有了”左派”的混亂而非正常的人類音樂。優(yōu)秀音樂感染大眾的力量已經(jīng)因一位小布爾喬亞而犧牲了，這位“形式主義者”試圖用拙劣的扮丑表演來體現(xiàn)他的獨(dú)特性，而這種表演是一場可能慘淡收場的耍小聰明的智力游戲。[3]

? ? ? ? 此等趨勢對于蘇聯(lián)音樂的危害是不言而喻的。左派在歌劇中的扭曲與在繪畫、詩歌、教學(xué)、科學(xué)中的扭曲同根同源。小布爾喬亞的“創(chuàng)新”帶來的是其與真正的藝術(shù)、科學(xué)和文學(xué)的決裂。

? ? ? ?《麥克白夫人》的作曲家為賦予劇中人物“激情”，強(qiáng)行挪用了爵士樂中緊張、抽搐而痙攣的元素。當(dāng)包括的樂評家在內(nèi)的蘇聯(lián)評論家都以社會主義現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的名義起誓時(shí)，肖斯塔科維奇創(chuàng)作下的舞臺音樂卻向我們展現(xiàn)了最粗俗的自然主義。他單調(diào)而殘忍地揭露了商人與人民的粗陋面貌。通過謀殺攫取財(cái)富的敲骨吸髓的商婦竟被描繪成資產(chǎn)階級社會下的某種“受害者”。列斯科夫的故事已經(jīng)被加諸了其所無法承受的重?fù)?dān)。

? ? ? ? 而這一切都是粗俗鄙陋的。音樂怪叫著，咕噥又咆哮著，最后使自己窒息以盡可能地表現(xiàn)自然主義下的愛情場景。“愛情”則在整出歌劇中被最下流的行為所褻瀆。商人的雙人床占據(jù)了舞臺的最中心。所有的“問題”都在這張床上得到了解決。在同樣粗俗的自然主義下，下毒和鞭笞致死都被切實(shí)地展現(xiàn)在臺上。

? ? ? ? 這位作曲家顯然從未考慮過蘇聯(lián)聽眾對音樂的期望。他仿佛是刻意地將他的音樂亂寫一氣，攪亂了所有聲音，以至于他的音樂只會傳到那些失去了一切健康品味的、貧瘠的"形式主義者”耳中。他無視蘇聯(lián)文化中摒奔生活中一切粗俗與野蠻的要求。一些批評家稱對商人欲望的美化是一種諷刺，但這種諷刺并無問題。作曲家企圖用他掌握的一切音樂和戲劇手法來喚起觀眾對商婦卡捷琳娜·伊茲梅洛娃 (Катерина Измайлова)?俗不可耐的行為的同情。

? ? ? ?《麥克白夫人》在海外的資產(chǎn)階級觀眾中取得了巨大成功。他們稱贊這部歌劇難道是因?yàn)樗靵y且不具政治含義嗎 ？難道不是因?yàn)樗脽┰?、神?jīng)質(zhì)的音樂迎合了資產(chǎn)階級病態(tài)的品味嗎？

? ? ? ? 我們的劇院已經(jīng)花費(fèi)了大量精力來全面展現(xiàn)肖斯塔科維奇的歌劇。演員們表現(xiàn)出了對掌控音樂中的噪音、尖叫和咆哮的過人才能。他們力圖用夸張的動(dòng)作遮蓋旋律內(nèi)容上的不足。不幸的是，這只能更加生動(dòng)形象地凸顯出該歌劇粗俗的特征。才華橫溢的表演值得被感激，而在這部歌劇的表演上枉費(fèi)的力氣只能用“遺憾”來形容。

Chaos Instead of Music[4]

David Zaslavsky (trans. by ?)

With the general cultural development of our country there grew also the necessity for good music. At no time and in no other place has the composer had a more appreciative audience. The people expect good songs, but also good instrumental works, and good operas.

Certain theatres are presenting to the new culturally mature Soviet public Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth as an innovation and achievement. Musical criticism, always ready to serve, has praised the opera to the skies, and given it resounding glory. The young composer, instead of hearing serious criticism, which could have helped him in his future work, hears only enthusiastic compliments.

From the first minute, the listener is shocked by deliberate dissonance, by a confused stream of sound. Snatches of melody, the beginnings of a musical phrase, are drowned, emerge again, and disappear in a grinding and squealing roar. To follow this ‘music’ is most difficult; to remember it, impossible.

Thus it goes, practically throughout the entire opera. The singing on the stage is replaced by shrieks. If the composer chances to come upon the path of a clear and simple melody, he throws himself back into a wilderness of musical chaos – in places becoming cacophony. The expression which the listener expects is supplanted by wild rhythm. Passion is here supposed to be expressed by noise.?All this is not due to lack of talent, or lack of ability to depict strong and simple emotions in music. Here is music turned deliberately inside out in order that nothing will be reminiscent of classical opera, or have anything in common with symphonic music or with simple and popular musical language accessible to all. This music is built on the basis of rejecting opera – the same basis on which ‘Leftist’ art rejects in the theatre simplicity, realism, clarity of image, and the unaffected spoken word – which carries into the theatre and into music the most negative features of ‘Meyerholdism’ infinitely multiplied. Here we have ‘leftist’ confusion instead of natural human music. The power of good music to infect the masses has been sacrificed to a petty-bourgeois, ‘formalist’ attempt to create originality through cheap clowning. It is a game of clever ingenuity that may end very badly.

The danger of this trend to Soviet music is clear. Leftist distortion in opera stems from the same source as Leftist distortion in painting, poetry, teaching, and science. Petty-bourgeois ‘innovations’ lead to a break with real art, real science and real literature.

The composer of Lady Macbeth was forced to borrow from jazz its nervous, convulsive, and spasmodic music in order to lend ‘passion’ to his characters. While our critics, including music critics, swear by the name of socialist realism, the stage serves us, in Shostakovich’s creation, the coarsest kind of naturalism. He reveals the merchants and the people monotonously and bestially. The predatory merchant woman who scrambles into the possession of wealth through murder is pictured as some kind of ‘victim’ of bourgeois society. Leskov’s story has been given a significance which it does not possess.

And all this is coarse, primitive and vulgar. The music quacks, grunts, and growls, and suffocates itself in order to express the love scenes as naturalistically as possible. And ‘love’ is smeared all over the opera in the most vulgar manner. The merchant’s double bed occupies the central position on the stage. On this bed all ‘problems’ are solved. In the same coarse, naturalistic style is shown the death from poisoning and the flogging – both practically on stage.

The composer apparently never considered the problem of what the Soviet audience looks for and expects in music. As though deliberately, he scribbles down his music, confusing all the sounds in such a way that his music would reach only the effete ‘formalists’ who had lost all their wholesome taste. He ignored the demand of Soviet culture that all coarseness and savagery be abolished from every corner of Soviet life. Some critics call the glorification of the merchants’ lust a satire. But there is no question of satire here. The composer has tried, with all the musical and dramatic means at his command, to arouse the sympathy of the spectators for the coarse and vulgar inclinations and behaviour of the merchant woman Katerina Izmailova.

Lady Macbeth is having great success with bourgeois audiences abroad. Is it not because the opera is non-political and confusing that they praise it? Is it not explained by the fact that it tickles the perverted taste of the bourgeois with its fidgety, neurotic music?

Our theatres have expended a great deal of energy on giving Shostakovich’s opera a thorough presentation. The actors have shown exceptional talent in dominating the noise, the screaming, and the roar of the orchestra. With their dramatic action, they have tried to reinforce the weakness of the melodic content. Unfortunately, this has served only to bring out the opera’s vulgar features more vividly. The talented acting deserves gratitude, the wasted efforts – regret.

參考文獻(xiàn)

[1]李妍. 斯大林文藝政策的變化對蘇聯(lián)音樂精英的影響[D]. 西安: 陜西師范大學(xué), 2016: 24.

[2]所羅門,伏爾科夫. 見證——肖斯塔科維奇回憶錄[M]. 葉瓊芳,譯. 北京: 作家出版社, 2015: 136.

[3]沈旋, 谷文嫻, 陶辛. 西方音樂史簡編[M]. 上海:?上海音樂出版社, 2010: 59-60.

[4]Victor Seroff.?Dimitri Shostakovich: the Life and Background of a Soviet Composer[M]. New York: Alfred A. Knopf (Publishers) Inc, 1943: 204-207.

完