Could the New York Philharmonic be to blame for North Korea’s latest nuclear test? Perhaps not, but the Phil’s Pyongyang performance provided provoking metaphors and subtly veiled symbolism — and maybe an argument for letting artists, not diplomats, do the talking.
If former US Attorney General John Ashcroft’s “Let the Eagle Soar” is any indication, maybe we shouldn’t be in the business of mixing music and policy.
However, the New York Philharmonic begs to differ. In February 2008, the world-renowned symphony orchestra traveled to the Asian headquarters of the Axis of Evil, Pyongyang, North Korea, to perform one of the most inspiring acts of musical diplomacy the world stage has ever seen. The DVD of this concert has just recently been released and is available through the New York Philharmonic’s website.
With the help of Musical Director Lorin Maazel, the Philharmonic carefully crafted a performance filled with undertones — some diplomatic, some patriotic, some empathetic — all contributing to the historic nature of the event and the ability of the arts to distill anything, even the negotiations of two nations that are, at least in theory, at war with each other. With top North Korean officials present and an estimated 200 million people around the world (including many North Koreans) watching the performance on live television, the Phil began with something unthinkable to a Bush State of the Union speechwriter — the side-by-side performance of North Korea’s national anthem, “Aegukka,” and “The Star Spangled Banner.”
After that, the Phil wasted no time in pouring on the symbolism. First up was the Prelude from Act III of Wagner’s classic opera “Lohengrin,” a work most famous in popular culture for its Bridal Chorus, most commonly know as “Here Comes the Bride.” However, look just below the surface to find a thinly veiled message (not bride) for the North Korean people. “Lohengrin” follows the plot line of the “Knight of the Swan,” a medieval folklore about a knight who comes in a swan-drawn boat to rescue a damsel in distress under one condition: that she never ask his name. Translate this into modern diplomacy, and this could very easily be seen as an outstretched hand to the leaders of a failing, unsustainable state, paired with a reminder of the consequences for not heeding the conditions laid out by negotiators.