Gary Funk is at it again. Two years ago, the University of Montana voice professor raised eyebrows while opening ears with a theatrically re-imagined production of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's "Requiem." This weekend, Funk will add a bold new coat of paint to yet another sacrosanct pillar of the classical repertoire - yet again begging the question: Is it right or good to mess with the classics?It is a question that left a minor wake of disagreement following Funk's production of Mozart's "Requiem" in 2005. In that performance, Funk and his student performers cast Mozart's music as a stage drama about a funeral for a soldier killed in the war in the Middle East, even incorporating a casket and real battle fatigues.
I personally found the performance to be revelatory, not only in terms of opening my mind to elements of drama within Mozart's concert piece, but also by blessing my ears with the finest student performance I've heard in Missoula. It was obvious that Funk and his students had bought into this vision of the music, and they gave it their all.
"I thought it was inappropriate," one professor complained in an e-mail to me. "Mozart doesn't have anything to do with the Iraq war."
For folks who felt that way, Funk's new fantasia probably won't be any more of a pleaser.
The music, this time around, is J.S. Bach's "Magnificat," one of the 18th century composer's most venerated works. Premiered on Christmas day in 1723, the "Magnificat" has come to be a traditional staple of the season, even after Bach himself removed some of the more specific Christmas-related sections of the piece. Written for five-voice choir and orchestra, the piece is large in scale and reverent in tone, taking its text directly (and in Latin) from the canticle of Mary, as told in the Book of Luke.
Needless to say, there are no cell phones in Bach's original version of the music. But there will be one in the rendition that Funk conducts this Sunday at the University Theatre. That's because Funk has chosen to reframe the music and text as the story of a modern family celebrating the birth of a child.
"The piece begins with the new father announcing in front of the curtain via cell phone, 'It's a boy,' " explained Funk in an e-mail interview about the upcoming performance. "The orchestra plays the introductory music as the curtain opens to find the choir huddled around several cell phones and discussing the news of the new birth."
The theatrical narrative goes on from there, at times paralleling the original text's message, at other times moving beyond it, incorporating dance and minor props and other elements that will likely seem quite alien to classical music purists accustomed to this kind of music being performed by straight-backed, tux-clad musicians on risers.
Funk said his goal in altering Bach's masterpiece was to broaden its message and bring it closer to present-day reality.
The production "takes great liberty with a sacred text and music by modernizing and secularizing it," he said. "It is mainly intended to remind us all that it is in the celebration of the simple things in life that we must take our greatest joy. It is the renaissance of human life that unites us all."
Whether Funk's revisionist treatment is a turn-on or tune-out ultimately comes down to the question: Should concert halls be more like museums, or laboratories? That's a time-worn debate among classical music lovers, one that probably will never be satisfactorily resolved.
Perhaps it shouldn't be. There's a place in this world for both co-creation and reproduction, for reverence and irreverence. As in art generally, the evolving history of re-imagined classics will be marked by spectacular successes and bizarre mistakes. At the same time, performances of great works that seek nothing beyond adherence to the artist's original vision will continue to range between transcendent insights into the minds of the great composers, and snoozer run-throughs.
In the case of Funk's efforts, it's hard not to applaud them, at least on educational grounds. Speaking with student musicians involved in that previous production of Mozart's "Requiem," I heard more than one say that the experience of engaging with the work in a theatrical fashion led them to their first truly deep encounter with classical music. The audience's experience of the performance, then, may not even be the best way to judge the significance of such endeavors.
Find out yourself when the UM Chamber Chorale performs Bach's "Magnificat" at the University Theatre on Sunday, Dec. 2, at 7:30 p.m. Ludwig Van Beethoven's "Mass in C," featuring the University Choir in a traditional performance, will round out the program.
LEAVE YOUR TOOLS AT HOME
Take a good, loving look at the picture on this page. Cut it out, and tape it to your fridge. Take a photo of it with your cell phone, save it to your hard-drive, send it to your friends. It's the only picture of metal mega-band Tool that you're going to get, presuming you play by the rules next Monday.Early this week, UM Productions released a list of rules (dictated by the band's management) related to Monday's sold-out Adams Center concert by Tool.
Top of the list, Numero Uno: Cameras and audio/video recorders are prohibited; and any audio or video "materials" will be confiscated and not returned.
I asked UM Productions marketing coordinator Dan Torti whether that prohibition extended to cell phones.
"The deal is, obviously we can't prohibit people from bringing in their cell (phones)," said Torti. "But photography is strictly prohibited. So if they're caught doing it with their cell phone, they'll definitely be taken aside and talked to about it."
Of course, this policy is nothing new for major concerts at the Adams Center or elsewhere. And to be sure, venues don't set those policies - even though they are expected to provide the security to enforce them, in accordance with the wishes of the band or its management.
But anybody who attended recent concerts at the Adams Center by Elton John or James Taylor can surely attest that no-photos policies are becoming all but unenforceable in the age of cell phone cameras. As those cameras inevitably improve in quality, the problem will likely only get worse - that is, if it's really a problem in the first place.
Band managers will tell you (or at least, they've told me) that the problem with allowing fans at concerts to take photos is one of unauthorized commercial appropriation. The theory goes that fans will turn around and sell their photos, thus diluting the commercial opportunities of the bands themselves to make money.
If that sounds just plain silly - well, it is. After all, if everybody was allowed to shoot photos at concerts, why would anyone buy anybody else's photos? And realistically, how big a commercial market is there for photos of Tool on stage in Missoula? If it were such a big market, wouldn't the band itself be selling those photos?
Nevertheless, the rules against shooting photos at concerts will likely remain, an artifact of the bygone era of film and tape. More and more people will likely break the rules, with the most innocent of intent. Maybe it's a good thing: We get to feel like rock 'n' roll rebels, without having to resort to such heinous lawlessness as smoking pot or double-parking at the UC.
Entertainer editor Joe Nickell can be reached at 523-5358 or at jnickell@missoulian.com
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)