BaL 26.05.18 - Stravinsky: Oedipus Rex

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Pretty obvious from the start that Gardiner would be top choice. And quite right too, from the excerpts I heard.

Hmmm. If only there were some way of separating the chorus and orchestral performance from the vile solo singing.

It's clear that KM considers the work with the emphasis weighted on the "Opera" of the "Opera-Oratorio" description - and quite a hammy idea of opera, too, somewhat at odds with the composer and librettists' conception of the work. But I was hooked on the way Gardiner and his chorus and orchestra nailed the score exactly, and found myself continually agreeing with her enthusiastic comments about this playing - but there's just no way that I could live with that Oedipus and/or Jocasta.

[Nick Armstrong]

Totally agree. Talk about signalled from the mountain top within the first six minutes. Blimey.
Poor review IMO. Cosy voice avoiding issues. Very disappointing.

I was never going to be listening to this BAL - I've tried and tried with this piece over the years and I'm afraid it's gone firmly into the 'life's too short' pile... in addition to which, for some no doubt absurd subjective reason I just can't listen to this particular R3 voice.

[Richard Barrett]

Hmmm. If only there were some way of separating the chorus and orchestral performance from the vile solo singing.

It's clear that KM considers the work with the emphasis weighted on the "Opera" of the "Opera-Oratorio" description - and quite a hammy idea of opera, too, somewhat at odds with the composer and librettists' conception of the work. But I was hooked on the way Gardiner and his chorus and orchestra nailed the score exactly, and found myself continually agreeing with her enthusiastic comments about this playing - but there's just no way that I could live with that Oedipus and/or Jocasta.

Yes. I had high hopes for that recording when it came out but they were soon dashed. Craft on Naxos would remain my principal recommendation; Stravinsky's Washington recording is worth hearing but for the crude recorded sound.

[Alison]

I so agree about the voice Cali. For example I like to hear the tt in ‘written’.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The Karajan recording with Gedda ... mainly for those interested in Stravinsky performance history, and sound quality varying from the execrable to the tolerable. Karajan's performance is ... interesting: in the same mould as his Philharmonia recording of the Jeu de Cartes (also in this box - badly transferred). It would have been interesting if he'd returned to these works with an orchestra that wasn't so obviously unfamiliar with the Music. Not a serious contender (and it won't be mentioned, of course) but worth picking up if you see it in a Charity Shop, or suchlike.

Replaying that after this morning's broadcast, I'm astonished at how much I underrated both this performance (and its recording; boxy MONO sound, but also clear and well-balanced) - incisive conducting completely contradicting Karajan's later reputation (with all those "over-smooth", "chromium-plated" clichés), far better solo singing than this morning's winner, and the RAI orchestra sounds fully in the idiom of the work. For a "single-take", Live performance, (at a time when the work was far less well-known as it is today) this is remarkably well played: a powerful experience, in which the absurdities aren't overlooked, but still the culmination is as devastating as KM could wish.

(Narration in Italian, no repeat of the Gloria)

[Serial_Apologist]

Replaying that after this morning's broadcast, I'm astonished at how much I underrated both this performance (and its recording; boxy MONO sound, but also clear and well-balanced) - incisive conducting completely contradicting Karajan's later reputation (with all those "over-smooth", "chromium-plated" clichés), far better solo singing than this morning's winner, and the RAI orchestra sounds fully in the idiom of the work. For a "single-take", Live performance, (at a time when the work was far less well-known as it is today) this is remarkably well played: a powerful experience, in which the absurdities aren't overlooked, but still the culmination is as devastating as KM could wish.

(Narration in Italian, no repeat of the Gloria)

"Boxiness" seems to suit recordings of certain types of music, to my way of thinking - this work being one of them. To me there is something stifled and stifling about Oedipus Rex - there is a Freudian term but I won't mention it here - and the feeling of emotional confinement that comes across, (and not just in this particular work of the composer's neo-classical period), itself an interesting comment on its maker, is augmented by it. It still amazes me that the man who composed "L'oiseau", "Petruschka", "Le Sacre" and "Les Noces" could change so radically in terms of temperament in such a short period of time. I would hate to hear a performance of, say, Vaughan Williams's Fifth Symphony rendered in a boxy recording, which would deprive the work of its airy sense of warmth-conveying open landscapes.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

To me there is something stifled and stifling about Oedipus Rex - there is a Freudian term but I won't mention it here - and the feeling of emotional confinement that comes across, (and not just in this particular work of the composer's neo-classical period), itself an interesting comment on its maker, is augmented by it. It still amazes me that the man who composed "L'oiseau", "Petruschka", "Le Sacre" and "Les Noces" could change so radically in terms of temperament in such a short period of time.

Well, of course, you're not the only one to respond in this way. But the "stifling" nature you sense isn't universal - I find Oedipus Rex powerful, exciting, lyrical, funny, and cheeky - and provocative, baffling and infuriating, too - in ways that delight me and that couldn't be expressed in the language of the earlier masterpieces that you mention. I would also use the description "amazing" to describe this transformation, but probably from very different motives!

But I think that the fact that the "stifling" aspect that you experience isn't universal - and, therefore, can't be an "inherent" aspect of the Music itself - calls the validity of any "comments on its maker" into question. Our responses to Art provide interesting comments more (or, at least, "as much") on us than/as the maker.

[Master Jacques]

Totally agree. Talk about signalled from the mountain top within the first six minutes. Blimey.
Poor review IMO. Cosy voice avoiding issues. Very disappointing.

I have to agree with you, DracoM. Leaving aside that Mollison spent about half the time talking discursively about the Jocasta scene (and with technical inaccuracy - her aria is absolutely not a "habanera" either in rhythm or feeling) and was clearly going to choose the one performance with a female narrator from about five minutes into her piece, she contradicted her own initial premise by going for the Gardiner. Having rightly recognised that Oedipus Rex needs a monumental, non-emotional and detached performance to work truly, she chose one which is notable for its quasi-romantic emotional straining.

As you will gather, I don't happen to think that Stuart Skelton et al. do Stravinsky much justice, but that's beside the point. The least one can expect of any reviewer is some internal consistency of approach. Mollison - good broadcaster though she is - worked in glib sound bites rather than anything more connected. It was not (I think) a trustworthy BAL, and her chummy dismissal of "Igor's" conducting was superciliously annoying.

[Richard Barrett]

To me there is something stifled and stifling about Oedipus Rex - there is a Freudian term but I won't mention it here

I do think it's a problematic piece of work, but my feeling is it could do with being a bit more retentive rather than less - there's a spoken narration that doesn't really fulfil its apparent function of linking the scenes together; there's a text in Latin which has little to do with either the original language of Sophocles or that of the audiences; the musical scenes are static and monumental but romantic opera is never far away, albeit highly distorted; and so on - the whole thing is going in so many directions at once that it's hard to discern the outlines of a coherent aesthetic, which isn't really the case in any of Stravinsky's other works. I don't think he was really at all sure of what he was trying to do; whereas immediately afterwards in Apollo everything comes (back) into focus. I've never been much impressed by Kate Molleson's writing in the Guardian and the inconsistencies mentioned by Master Jacques and others seem to me typical of the sloppy and superficial approach taken by many British classical music critics these days. I admire JEG's work as much as anyone but he really doesn't always hit the target, and when I first listened to his recording I didn't get far part Oedipus's first entry before giving up on it.

[DracoM]

Hammer > nail > Smack.

[Master Jacques]

I do think it's a problematic piece of work, but my feeling is it could do with being a bit more retentive rather than less - there's a spoken narration that doesn't really fulfil its apparent function of linking the scenes together; there's a text in Latin which has little to do with either the original language of Sophocles or that of the audiences; the musical scenes are static and monumental but romantic opera is never far away, albeit highly distorted; and so on - the whole thing is going in so many directions at once that it's hard to discern the outlines of a coherent aesthetic, which isn't really the case in any of Stravinsky's other works. I don't think he was really at all sure of what he was trying to do ... [snip]

You describe the piece's diverse aesthetic nicely, though my own feeling is that Oedipus Rex is quite intentionally "problematic" and I find that one of its most potent charms. I cannot think of a more arresting opening to a work of music, and it grips and challenges us from that moment on. The wonderful simplicity of "Lux facta est" (provided you don't have a Skelton emoting over it!) is profoundly moving after the stylistic mash-up.

Stravinsky wrote (when in positive mood about the work) that his intention was to create one of those broken, half-ruined classical statues which needs the beholder's imagination to complete the experience. The fact that the narration, for example, does not describe what happens in the musical scenes, rather going its own way and commenting on what we don't hear, is part of this fracturing process.

As you'll gather, I love every bar of the work! I'm happy with Stravinsky with Pears and Mödl, Stravinsky with Shirley and Verrett (and the incomparably granite-like John Westbrook as narrator) and the old Sadler's Wells Colin Davis version on Classics for Pleasure. They all hit the spot in a different - and to my mind more effective - way from Gardiner's patently ordinary effort.

[LeMartinPecheur]

One thing this BaL and the discussions here have persuaded me to do is to order up a libretto and translation c/o the ENO Opera Guide, my two versions - Stravinsky in the Sony big box and Davis on CFP - being lacking in this respect.

My O-level Latin needs a bit of exercise and re-energising!

[Bryn]

Very poor Bal. Ancerl completely ignored and the repeated insultingly ignorant mispronunciation of Bryn Jones's stage name. How can an experienced commentator on music not know how to pronounce "Terfel"? She spent the whole review effectively promoting the very oposite of the composer's interntions regarding performers emoting, and what about the Ozawa DVD with narration in Japanese (from the same pair of performances in 1992 as the CD with French narration), and Langridge in place of Schreier.

[visualnickmos]

Very poor Bal. Ancerl completely ignored and the repeated insultingly ignorant mispronunciation of Bryn Jones's stage name. How can an experienced commentator on music not know how to pronounce "Terfel"? She spent the whole review effectively promoting the very oposite of the composer's interntions regarding performers emoting, and what about the Ozawa DVD with narration in Japanese (from the same pair of performances in 1992 as the CD with French narration), and Langridge in place of Schreier.

First point - yes - always slightly dampening when a reviewer completely ignores, what is often a* real benchmark recording. *I say 'a' deliberately, as opposed to 'the'

Second point - I am highly irritated by reviewers and presenters and that ilk, who mispronounce names. there is no excuse at all for incorrect or lazy pronunciation. It is actually quite rude.

Third point - you have put into a few words my thoughts exactly on this subject; it also ties in with the way she (in my view) was somewhat dismissive of Stravinsky's conducting! Come on!

[Master Jacques]

Very poor Bal. Ancerl completely ignored

Goodness me, yes, and accidentally by me too! The Ancerl is so much part of the work's classic discography that Mollison's complete failure to mention it is a major gaff.

I thought it might be because the Supraphon recording was temporarily out of the catalogue, but of course that's nonsense - the Ancerl Gold edition is absolutely in print, as it should be. Perhaps we were spared some predictable snideness from the reviewer about "wobbly Slav voices" (they aren't), but it's very frustrating that newcomers weren't given any chance to hear this huge contender.