La newyorkese milanesizzata blogger di Operachic ha intervistato di recente il maestro James Conlon (che ha diretto – per me assai bene – l'ultimo Rigoletto alla scala).
Un passo topico dell'intervista è questa considerazione di Conlon:
Our job as performers is to surrender our own egos and to completely open ourselves to the work itself and to transmit that work as if we're not there. This is on the one hand a very easy and simple thing to do. On the other hand, we're all crippled by our own egos. To me, I'm not interested in knowing what my interpretation is. When I was studying at The Juilliard School, the big movement was objectivism vs. subjectivism and the popular methodology was, "You have to find your own feelings, your own voice, and you have to find yourself. What's your take on this piece of music?" Well, I had an allergy to that type of conversation. I thought, "I know what my feelings are and I couldn't care less what my own feelings are. I want to know what the object is." Is that objectivism? Well, yes, that's objectivism. I want to know who Haydn is. I want to know who Beethoven is. I want to know how their music works. How does it fit? Why is it this? And why is it that? And to me, the beauty of that method is that you can devote yourself to the other, and a byproduct of that is that you find yourself. However if you go from the other point of view -- the "find yourself" subjectivism -- you don't find the other.
In sostanza, il Maestro sembra dire: io vorrei poter trasmettervi la quinta di Beethoven, non la Quinta di Conlon, da paragonare con quella di Abbado, di Furtwängler, di Kleiber o di HvK.
Personalmente: parole sante!
