BaL 11.03.17 - Schoenberg: Gurrelieder

[BBMmk2]

I have Ed Gardner and James Levine. Any other takers?

[Richard Barrett]

In what sense a "waste" do you mean here, Richard? I can't imagine the final chorus being as effective without the women's choir, but nor can I imagine the women being employed anywhere else in the work without spoiling what is already there. It's certainly an extravagance to have a performing group waiting around for most of the evening, but - and I speak as someone who used to be regularly employed as a Timpanist for performances of Messiah - hanging around listening to a masterpiece is no great hardship!

There is that of course. I guess I'm not so keen on the male chorus parts either, they're a bit too derivative of Götterdämmerung for my liking; so what would be less of a waste for me would be to leave the chorus out altogether. It's a minor point though.

Having listened through the Sinopoli recording to the end yesterday evening, I remembered one of the things that puts the Boulez recording ahead of all the others in my opinion. Klaus Maria Brandauer as the Speaker for Sinopoli is as you'd imagine impressive in his own way, but I prefer my Sprechgesang with a little less sprechen and more singen, given that if Schoenberg wanted speaking he'd have asked for it - Günter Reich, for Boulez, has not only for me the optimal balance (as also in his performance as Moses in Boulez's first recording of that work, which IMO also hasn't been equalled), but breaks into actual song for the last phrase, which I find very moving.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I prefer my Sprechgesang with a little less sprechen and more singen, given that if Schoenberg wanted speaking he'd have asked for it

But he does, doesn't he? The score calls for "sprecher" - rather than "sprechgesang". (But then s/he's given very specific pitches to speak - and needs quite a wide compass: up to top A above the treble clef. Hmm. You may be right - but shouldn't it be a tenor or even a female voice rather than the Bass/Baritone usually performing the role?)

- Günter Reich, for Boulez, has not only for me the optimal balance (as also in his performance as Moses in Boulez's first recording of that work, which IMO also hasn't been equalled), but breaks into actual song for the last phrase, which I find very moving.

It is, isn't it? I think Hotter did the same at the Proms - and it's difficult to know how those extended top "notes" can be "spoken".

The Speaker's part is contestably the most extravagant/"wasteful" part of the set-up. The choir (amateurs who not only don't require payment, but who who actually pay membership subscriptions) financially costs nothing - but the payment for a professional actor - or "singer in the twilight of his/her career" - really does add to the expense!

[Richard Barrett]

s/he's given very specific pitches to speak (...) and it's difficult to know how those extended top "notes" can be "spoken".

Exactly. I'm reminded (not for the first time) of a lecture on the subject of Sprechgesang given by Jane Manning where she recalled asking a composer "if you don't want me to produce the pitches you've written, which ones do you want?" Recall Schoenberg's instructions in the score of Pierrot lunaire: "The goal is certainly not at all a realistic, natural speech. On the contrary, the difference between ordinary speech and speech that collaborates in a musical form must be made plain. But it should not call singing to mind, either." Which would indicate that Reich's (and Hotter's) ending the Speaker's part by singing is not what Schoenberg expected or wanted. I still like it though.

Oh, and regarding "waste", just to be clear: I'm not talking about financial waste, since after all it's microscopic potatoes compared to a lot of things that money is wasted on, it's more to do with the way a composer uses the resources they or their circumstances choose for a work, as in for example all those modern pieces where a truckload of percussion instruments is required but some of them might be used only once (or, in an example I could name but won't because the composer is a friend, not at all!).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Exactly. I'm reminded (not for the first time) of a lecture on the subject of Sprechgesang given by Jane Manning where she recalled asking a composer "if you don't want me to produce the pitches you've written, which ones do you want?" Recall Schoenberg's instructions in the score of Pierrot lunaire: "The goal is certainly not at all a realistic, natural speech. On the contrary, the difference between ordinary speech and speech that collaborates in a musical form must be made plain. But it should not call singing to mind, either." Which would indicate that Reich's (and Hotter's) ending the Speaker's part by singing is not what Schoenberg expected or wanted. I still like it though.

It's not necessarily helpful to think of the speaker's part in Gurrelieder with the sprechstimme of Pierrot Lunaire (which was commissioned by and tailored for the vocal qualities of a specific artist) - or with that of the Ode to Napoleon (where Arnie makes it clear that the notation is not supposed to be performed as it should be in Pierrot - The recitation in ‘Pierrot lunaire’ is so as if the voice would be an instrument like the other five. But in contrast to that, here the recitation must be as realistically natural as if there were no music at all ) - and whilst I think it's clear that he knew himself what he wanted, it's not so sure that he communicated these expectations precisely in the prefaces to the scores. (I like the way Reich & Boulez mark the continuity between Moses and Gurrelieder - the singing of the last few bars of the speaker's part in the latter so similar to the - optional - singing of Moses' phrase "Purify your thinking" in Act 1 scene 2.

(There's nothing to prevent the Speaker's part in Gurrelieder from being performed by the singer of the Wood Dove, it occurs to me.)

Oh, and regarding "waste", just to be clear: I'm not talking about financial waste, since after all it's microscopic potatoes compared to a lot of things that money is wasted on, it's more to do with the way a composer uses the resources they or their circumstances choose for a work, as in for example all those modern pieces where a truckload of percussion instruments is required but some of them might be used only once (or, in an example I could name but won't because the composer is a friend, not at all!).

On the other hand, Schönberg's use of his resources isn't so unlike those Renaissance paintings, where a single touch of one colour affects the whole painting - the lips of Vermeer's "Girl with Pearl Earring", for example. And this at a time when painters didn't just pop down to the Art shop and buy a tube of rose: they had to buy the mineral, grind it down with a mortar and pestle, add the right amount of linseed oil, and only then mix it with other colours to get the exact tone. He could have given her a scarf using the same basic pigment - but the effect of the single dab of paint, nowhere else on the canvas, is what's needed to add to the total effect of the painting. I think with the only sound of massed women's voices to be heard in the whole work gives the final bars a special, and "final", timbral quality.

[Richard Barrett]

whilst I think it's clear that he knew himself what he wanted, it's not so sure that he communicated these expectations precisely in the prefaces to the scores

Agreed.

Speaking of Vermeer, anyone who happens to be visiting Paris in the coming months really ought to get to the exhibition of his work (plus several relevant contemporaries) at the Louvre. You almost certainly won't get another chance to see so many of them together in the same place, even if the crowds are a bit onerous. Ahem. As you were.

[BBMmk2]

Agreed.

Speaking of Vermeer, anyone who happens to be visiting Paris in the coming months really ought to get to the exhibition of his work (plus several relevant contemporaries) at the Louvre. You almost certainly won't get another chance to see so many of them together in the same place, even if the crowds are a bit onerous. Ahem. As you were.

What an exhibition not to miss. Unfortunately, I won't be able to. But at Richard's suggestion, make an opportunity!

[mahlerei]

My first Gurre-Lieder was the Ozawa/Boston one, with Jessye Norman at the top of her game. It still sounds pretty good - the sunrise is truly spectacular - but a remastering would be most welcome. Among subsequent versions I think Chailly's is one of the best all-rounders (Fassbaender is also in very good voice). Then there's the Gielen set, which probably has the best engineering of all.

Of the most recent recordings the Stenz and Gardner have way too many flaws to warrant a recommendation, IMO. Gardner's Wood Dove, Anna Larsson, is a particualr disappointment, but Alwyn Mellor is a lovely Tove. The Chandos engineering is not to my liking either, with a final chorus that - to my ears at least - seems grossly overinflated. It sounds all the mre so after a comparatively weak, undercharacterised second part.

My most memorable Gurre-Lieder performances were at the Proms: with Runnicles and, further back, Boulez and the European Youth Orchestra. Maybe this really is one of those pieces that works best in the concert hall.

In the meantime, Gielen is my go-to version, though Stoki's 1961 recording has just appeared on my hard drive. A mystery, that :)

[Richard Barrett]

Maybe this really is one of those pieces that works best in the concert hall.

Like almost everything else you mean?!?

[ahinton]

Like almost everything else you mean?!?

YES!!!

[Beef Oven!]

Couldn’t find my Rattle recording for some reason. It will be irritating if they discuss this recording much.

[antongould]

Couldn’t find my Rattle recording for some reason. It will be irritating if they discuss this recording much.

Irritated Beefo .... ????

[Beef Oven!]

Irritated Beefo .... ????

Unusual, I know.

[teamsaint]

Unusual, I know.

£4 used to replace it.
If it wins, the price will rocket.
No lose.

[Bryn]

Couldn’t find my Rattle recording for some reason. It will be irritating if they discuss this recording much.

Get over to amazon.co.uk quickly. It's dead cheap there at the moment, Used: Very Good for as little as £3.18 + £1.26 p&p.