Record Review: non-BaL discs reviewed, etc.

[jayne lee wilson]

This week’s record of the week, an orchestral suite of Debussy’s Pelleas et Melisande caught my ear. Having listened to the recording a few times, it’s a skifully constructed version by Jonathan Nott that is both a longer and linear selection of the opera’s material that incorporates orchestration of some vocal lines that are not contained in (say) the beautiful version conducted by Abbado. The playing of the L'orchestre de la Suisse Romande is up with the BPO in this music, and now has to be the principal recommendation for experiencing Debussy’s sublime creation in this non-operatic setting. It contains many fidelities, the way the sustained flute connects scenes 2 and 3, the cor anglais substituting Melisande’s vocal line in the St Daniel and St Michael solo, … . It’s coupled with Schoenberg’s symphonic poem based on the same material, which although played well, makes a rather jarring contrast. Whereas Debussy gives an evanescence and subtlety that matches Maeterlinck’s oblique symbolism, Schoenberg’s take is more German Expressionism. Perhaps the Faure or Sibelius would have been a more complementary coupling. A lovely release worth listening to nevertheless.

I posted about this (enthusiastically!) on the listening thread the other day.....

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?16961-What-Classical-Music-Are-You-listening-to-Now-III&p=866182#post866182

(It should have been here, I guess...)
The Debussy is marvellous, yes, but one should also mention Nott's very helpful track listing for the Schoenberg, guiding the listener through the fluid 4-movement structure....

Are the two works as different as they might seem?
We recall the influence of Parsifal on Debussy, and subjectively I always hear that sense, or sound, of ominousness, of (agonised) love and passion and intimacy under threat (from jealousy, convention etc) in both works. Romeo and Juliet, but much darker. The fade into regret and remorse of those left behind.

But yes - I've always found the Schoenberg the most difficult of his works to get through. Despite the orchestral forces, it tends to remain curiously elusive (apt to the storyline). Far more texturally-varied than one tends to recall.
One reason I bought the gorgeous-sounding SACD was - that Nott-designed programmed tracklisting...

When they arrived, the discs were in the wrong order. I thought I was playing the Debussy, but when the music started.... I was nonplussed for a moment which I was listening to...

The ominous atmosphere at the start of each is quite similar.....

[Serial_Apologist]

I posted about this (enthusiastically!) on the listening thread the other day.....

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?16961-What-Classical-Music-Are-You-listening-to-Now-III&p=866182#post866182

(It should have been here, I guess...)
The Debussy is marvellous, yes, but one should also mention Nott's very helpful track listing for the Schoenberg, guiding the listener through the fluid 4-movement structure....

Are the two works as different as they might seem?
We recall the influence of Parsifal on Debussy, and subjectively I always hear that sense, or sound, of ominousness, of (agonised) love and passion and intimacy under threat (from jealousy, convention etc) in both works. Romeo and Juliet, but much darker. The fade into regret and remorse of those left behind.

But yes - I've always found the Schoenberg the most difficult of his works to get through. Despite the orchestral forces, it tends to remain curiously elusive (apt to the storyline). Far more texturally-varied than one tends to recall.
One reason I bought the gorgeous-sounding SACD was - that Nott-designed programmed tracklisting...

When they arrived, the discs were in the wrong order. I thought I was playing the Debussy, but when the music started.... I was nonplussed for a moment which I was listening to...

The ominous atmosphere at the start of each is quite similar.....

That thought had never occurred to me, but yes jayne, you are right about the two beginnings!

I still have the vinyl CBS Pelleas und Melisande, the CBCSO under Craft, with its stark Kokoshka portrait of the composer on the front, and a quote from Schoenberg, whose outlinings of the work's leitmotifs comprises the rest of the liner notes:

"I had planned to convert Pelleas and Melisande into an opera, but I gave up this plan, though I did not know that Debussy was working on his opera at the same time, I still regret that I did not carry out my initial intention. It would have differed from Debussy's. I might have missed the wonderful perfume of the poem; but I might have made my characters more singing..."

That's quote an admission when one thinks about it!

"On the other hand, the symphonic poem helped me, in that it taught me to express moods and characters in precisely formulated units, a technique which an opera would perhaps not have promoted so well. Thus my fate evidently guided me with great foresight".

That is dated Feb 17 1950, and one can't help surmising that AS was rationalising post factum, as I don't imagine he would have seen what he was doing at the time as intentionally creating precisely formulated units!

I'm with you too on experiencing difficulties in listening to the Schoenberg which I don't with the Debussy, notwithstanding the fact that P&M was a useful bridge in my appreciation from the early songs and "Verklaerte Nacht" to the transition works of 1906-9. Schoenberg later admitted that he was not yet impressed with Mahler's music, and, apart from "Tristan" (obviously) the overwhelming influence I now hear on Pelleas is that of Richard Strauss - about which Schoenberg was later very much in two minds. Particularly in the orchestral department, he had much yet to learn from Mahler (and from Debussy!)

[Belgrove]

Are the two works as different as they might seem?

I do believe they are very different Jayne. Although the superficial elements of the story of Pelleas et Melisande are similar to those in Tristan, what lies beneath the surface of the two works addresses very different issues. Melisande is supremely enigmatic and there is enough room in the text to portray her as everything between a naive victim to teasing manipulator. That’s what makes the work endlessly fascinating.

One can see the connections of Debussy’s musical take on the Maeterlinck text as being influenced by Parsifal whereas Schoenberg makes more overt connections with Tristan (on steroids, or maybe viagra). The ‘did they or didn’t they’ ambiguity of the play that Debussy captures so effectively in the opera is absent in the Schoenberg; and for all his faults, I’ve never seen Golaud as a Max Schreck ghoul. Schoenberg’s late romantic works have a tendency to bloat and congest, but Nott delivers a welcome dose of statins to the orchestration. By contrast Debussy’s orchestration is always subtle and miraculous.

[edashtav]

I do believe they are very different Jayne. Although the superficial elements of the story of Pelleas et Melisande are similar to those in Tristan, what lies beneath the surface of the two works addresses very different issues. Melisande is supremely enigmatic and there is enough room in the text to portray her as everything between a naive victim to teasing manipulator. That’s what makes the work endlessly fascinating.

One can see the connections of Debussy’s musical take on the Maeterlinck text as being influenced by Parsifal whereas Schoenberg makes more overt connections with Tristan (on steroids, or maybe viagra). The ‘did they or didn’t they’ ambiguity of the play that Debussy captures so effectively in the opera is absent in the Schoenberg; and for all his faults, I’ve never seen Golaud as a Max Schreck ghoul. Schoenberg’s late romantic works have a tendency to bloat and congest, but Nott delivers a welcome dose of statins to the orchestration. By contrast Debussy’s orchestration is always subtle and miraculous.

[jayne lee wilson]

I do believe they are very different Jayne. Although the superficial elements of the story of Pelleas et Melisande are similar to those in Tristan, what lies beneath the surface of the two works addresses very different issues. Melisande is supremely enigmatic and there is enough room in the text to portray her as everything between a naive victim to teasing manipulator. That’s what makes the work endlessly fascinating.

One can see the connections of Debussy’s musical take on the Maeterlinck text as being influenced by Parsifal whereas Schoenberg makes more overt connections with Tristan (on steroids, or maybe viagra). The ‘did they or didn’t they’ ambiguity of the play that Debussy captures so effectively in the opera is absent in the Schoenberg; and for all his faults, I’ve never seen Golaud as a Max Schreck ghoul. Schoenberg’s late romantic works have a tendency to bloat and congest, but Nott delivers a welcome dose of statins to the orchestration. By contrast Debussy’s orchestration is always subtle and miraculous.

I do think Schoenberg's orchestration (and characterisation, which is symphonic, rather than narrative) is subtler than you suggest. (Several passages for Golaud are more emotionally ambiguous, expressing a self-consuming jealousy and remorse).

Take Track 1 (the intro) on this disc: the audibility of the (double-)basslines against winds both solo and in chorus, delicate divisi and massed strings; the continuously flowing dovetailing of motifs and themes that will run and develop throughout the work. It is a remarkable stylistically-all-embracing passage only Schoenberg could have composed, mirrored in the epilogue. But these qualities and epic/intimate contrasts run throughout the piece. The start of the scherzo (Track 4 here) is just as startlingly original, with its jump-cutting surges of power falling back instantaneously into delicacy.
The snarling glissando brasses and flutter-tongued winds in The Castle Vaults (10) are very clearly sounded against each other in another complex weave; and what about the Death of Melisande (19), with its strange descending winds against harps and strings, the weirdly murmurous backdrop........then all pared back to a chamber-group. This is worlds away from Tristan und Isolde.

Yes, he uses a huge orchestra in Pelleas as in the Gurrelieder, but the full-on moments are balanced by many passages of highly original textural and dynamic subtlety creating striking extremes of balance and power. (Mahler did similar things in the 6th and 7th Symphonies, but even the 8th is sometimes chamber-musical).
After Transfigured Night (a very audible miracle of phrasal and rythmical subtlety itself), he could pretty much create any texture he chose; adapt and reinvent any musical style. He was so gifted and overflowing with ideas it was natural for him to have chamber-musical sounds alongside massive tuttis (which are in any case very carefully balanced internally as good recordings like the Nott demonstrate. This Pentatone SACD is both very full and very lucid - it has huge breadth, depth and warmth in climactic passages, but takes it all down to an ear-seducing whisper elsewhere...).

Those Red Giants had to collapse into Neutron Stars, so we got the 1st Chamber Symphony, the Op.16….
Webern Op.5 and Op.6...

A very natural evolution, really….

[mathias broucek]

The Nott is excellent and good value on the BIS website. The Schoenberg is indeed a tough work to navigate and the track listings are extremely helpful

[jayne lee wilson]

The Nott is excellent and good value on the BIS website. The Schoenberg is indeed a tough work to navigate and the track listings are extremely helpful

Yes, and with excellent notes by Nigel Simeone, which emphasise the remarkable, essentially symphonic achievement in the Schoenberg here. ....

Whereas the Debussy/Nott is a sort-of Pelleas-without-words...

[mathias broucek]

Whereas the Debussy/Nott is a sort-of Pelleas-without-words...

I’m looking forward to trying that. I’ve always found the Leinsdorf suite a bit lacking in coherence

But right now, I’m getting to know Gallagher 2 on Naxos with Falletta and the LSO no less. A 63 minute symphony by a not-that-famous living composer is a brave thing but on a first hearing I’m impressed.

[Bryn]

I missed the item on Staier's Book 2 of the WTK this morning but am curious about the tuning system in use. The booklet notes only indicate that the tuning was carried out by Rainer Sprung. No mention is made of what tuning regime was employed, this despite the notes also referring to the fact that Bach would not have used equal temoerament. Has anyone here found a reference to which particular unequal temperament tuning regime this recording used? Was it mentioned during the review? I am unable to immediately access it via Sounds but will try once I have finished streaming the Staier recording from QOBUZ.

[Bryn]

The Teunis van der Zwart/Alexander Melnikov Beethoven Horn Sonata just featured on Record Review sent me rushing to QOBUZ to import this new release. Outstanding natural horn playing with similarly fine contribution from Melnikov.

[Nick Armstrong]

Does anyone know which conductor-less ensemble David Owen Norris was referring to as having produced a “flaccid” recording of the Elgar Serenade for Strings (in the Elgar discussion in the 16/7/22 edition of Summer Record Review)?

[Pianoman]

Does anyone know which conductor-less ensemble David Owen Norris was referring to as having produced a “flaccid” recording of the Elgar Serenade for Strings (in the Elgar discussion in the 16/7/22 edition of Summer Record Review)?

Didn't hear that but off the top of my head there's the Orpheus CO disc and an older one from I Musici, but sampling them they don't sound particularly 'flaccid'...

[Nick Armstrong]

Didn't hear that but off the top of my head there's the Orpheus CO disc and an older one from I Musici, but sampling them they don't sound particularly 'flaccid'...

Ah yes, good suggestions. I wondered if it was some trendy new one I hadn’t heard of…

[HighlandDougie]

Ah yes, good suggestions. I wondered if it was some trendy new one I hadn’t heard of…

No, in my utterly prejudiced view, a predictably throw-away comment from DON. Why make such a reference without then specifying the performance to which he was alluding? Or was he assuming that we are all so hip-to-hop on conductor-less performances of the Serenade for Strings that we would be thick not to know what he was talking about? So, so slappable ....

[Nick Armstrong]

No, in my utterly prejudiced view, a predictably throw-away comment from DON. Why make such a reference without then specifying the performance to which he was alluding? Or was he assuming that we are all so hip-to-hop on conductor-less performances of the Serenade for Strings that we would be thick not to know what he was talking about? So, so slappable ....

… it was very much a throw-away remark, coupled with a dark “yes, that one..” …

I must say I like DON, but this was a bit pointlessly cryptic