BaL 15.10.11 - Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique

[Alf-Prufrock]

DVDs were not part of SJ's remit, it seems, but I like Gardiner's one very much. And you can also see the ophicleide and the serpent and hear the sounds they make. Rather gruff and impressive. You can't see any bells, but they sound impressive too; whether they were added afterwards by electronic trickery or were played elsewhere in the building at the time of the recording, I cannot say.

Moreover the work was recorded in its original location, the hall of the Paris Conservatoire, and with the orchestra in something like Berlioz's preferred formation, I believe. The musicians (the ORR) appear rather crowded but do not allow circumstances to dampen their playing. The symphony is coupled with the Messe Solennelle.

[Biffo]

Which autograph score? The 1830 version was played once and then extensively revised; the third movement was almost completely rewritten. This was the version played in 1832. Berlioz continued to revise the work until the first published edition in 1845; I may be wrong but I would think this would have needed a new autograph score. This is also after some of his travels in Germany (1841-2) where he encountered difficulties finding bells. Berlioz made yet more revisions for a new published edition in 1855 so I don't think we can talk of 'autograph manuscript' as if there was only one; you need to be specific and say which version contains the alternative pianos.

I have some archive footage of Beecham conducting and he is sitting down most of the time; it comes from near the end of his life (1958). In another film clip he is standing and does quite a bit of swaying but nothing that would count as cavorting.

[mercia]

You can't see any bells, but they sound impressive too; whether they were added afterwards by electronic trickery or were played elsewhere in the building at the time of the recording, I cannot say.

apologies if this has already been mentioned, I think the reviewer on Saturday gave two examples of bells that he didn't care for, one was of large cathedral bells (Notre Dame? - I can't remember) "superimposed" on the recording and the other was of a piano or pianos playing the relevant notes.

double apologies - the bells (and pianos) have been mentioned several times

[Tony Halstead]

He didn't like
1) the Notre Dame bells on the Karajan recording

2) The allegedly 'Cathedral' bells used by Gardiner. I have a bit of 'insider knowledge' and can reveal that those bells were recorded in a Suffolk (UK) church.

[makropulos]

Which autograph score? The 1830 version was played once and then extensively revised; the third movement was almost completely rewritten. This was the version played in 1832. Berlioz continued to revise the work until the first published edition in 1845; I may be wrong but I would think this would have needed a new autograph score. This is also after some of his travels in Germany (1841-2) where he encountered difficulties finding bells. Berlioz made yet more revisions for a new published edition in 1855 so I don't think we can talk of 'autograph manuscript' as if there was only one; you need to be specific and say which version contains the alternative pianos.
.

You may think that we can't talk of only one autograph manuscript, but that's all there is, and all there ever has been. We can indeed talk of *an* autograph manuscript (it's in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, F-Pc ms 1188), and it incorporates a lot of revisions, includes many deleted bars (quite clear to see what was removed), paste-overs, and so on –iso it shows a good deal of the work in progress, as it were, up to the time of first publication. It's also the score from which Berlioz conducted early performances and there are neatly written notes to himself to check mistakes in orchestral parts. Incidentally there are two title pages for the fourth movement, since he didn't trouble to write the music out again but deleted and added things as necessary, and wrote a new title. The whole thing is a marvellous document.

[Nick Armstrong]

He didn't like
1) the Notre Dame bells on the Karajan recording

2) The allegedly 'Cathedral' bells used by Gardiner. I have a bit of 'insider knowledge' and can reveal that those bells were recorded in a Suffolk (UK) church.

I just caught up with this BAL listening to my recording of it thanks to a day off More later but re: The Bells, Esmeralda... We didn't hear JEG's I think, Herbie's were indeed a bit ludicrous I thought: it's supposed to be a churchyard, not the garden on the Ile de la Cité. No, I imagine that movement in some little spooky French churchyard, and the Davis/LSO bells, and even the Nezet-Seguin ones sounded closer to that, with the tone of those little French provincial churches. Very atmospheric I thought

[Nick Armstrong]

I agree... I mean - what no reference at all to ophicleides?!! (tho', to be fair he did just touch on the issue of the bells... )

Why no reference at all to the elsewhere-much-praised Roth/Siècles version??

I like the abrasive and particularised quality of the van Immerseel - may well have to invest...

The jolly ophicleides did get a mention, vin rosé - in relation to the Immerseel, SJ referred to the "gorgeous grunting ophicleides".

But do beware that version - I love the idea of grainy grunty original woodwind in this piece, but was extremely disappointed when this came out and large extracts were played on CD Review - the final movements were very lacklustre. A musical colleague used the phrase "limp and pathetic".

I think the F-X Roth/ Les Siècles version sounds a better bet though I haven't got it - but as mentioned before it ran Sir Thos. Beecham a close second on the France-Musique CD review programme.

And yes, why on earth was it not even mentioned on BAL?

I enjoyed listening to the programme, like amateur51, as far as it went - but like others was aware of avoidable shortcomings (even given the compressed time frame of the format). Nezet-Séguin seemed ok but ... bof bof as the French would say. A number of interesting versions were not even acknowledged (though the comments about the Boulez version were intriguing - anyone heard that in full?). A few words of explanation would have been welcome as to why the LSO Live Davis is "the best" of his three (?four), supposedly better than the Concertgebouw (on which like Mahlerei I 'imprinted')... but which objectively seems to me to be 'fantastique'.

And like makropoulos, I was surprised by no mention of the optional cornet

So yes rather slipshod in a number of ways, I thought. Seemed a bit of a lazy BAL to me, all things considered, fun though it was to listen to.

[vinteuil]

The jolly ophicleides did get a mention, vin rosé - in relation to the Immerseel, SJ referred to the "gorgeous grunting ophicleides".

But do beware that version - I love the idea of grainy grunty original woodwind in this piece, but was extremely disappointed when this came out and large extracts were played on CD Review - the final movements were very lacklustre. A musical colleague used the phrase "limp and pathetic".

I think the F-X Roth/ Les Siècles version sounds a better bet though I haven't got it - but as mentioned before it ran Sir Thos. Beecham a close second on the France-Musique CD review programme.

And yes, why on earth was it not even mentioned on BAL?

Kalamazoo - sorry that I missed the reference to the offy-klides - I was distracted for 25 seconds dismissing some Jehovah's Witnesses from my doorstep and that must have been the crucial ophicleide moment

On the strength of recommendations on this board (rather than anything on the programme) I have now acquired the Roth/Siècles and the Beecham/ORTF...

Yes, I agree with Caliban - why did he assert (without examples as evidence) that the Davis/LSO 'live' version was clearly 'better' than the other Davis versions?? We need to be persuaded of this, not just told

[HighlandDougie]

Excellent post, Caliban, which pretty much sums up my views as well. I bought the Nezet-Séguin in a fit of enthusiasm at his LPO concert this year. It's a bit of a disappointment by comparison with that excellent live performance but I think that Mahlerei's "dire" is a bit hard on it. It is very well recorded, unlike the Davis/LSO, which, great performance as it undoubtedly is, is for me let down by the unflattering Barbican sound. The Immerseel, an unfortunate impulse buy in FNAC gets nearer the "dire": unexciting and, to quote Caliban, "lacklustre". The pianos, first hearing shock-value aside, become a bit of a joke on repeated listening. If there was a local charity shop near me in France, my copy would have headed there before now (and if anyone really would like it, message me your address and I'll send it to you free, gratis and for nothing next week when I return to the French hovel). The Roth is in almost every way preferable. My loyalty to Davis and the Concertgebouw remains unshaken.

[Mahlerei]

Speaking of grunts, Sir Colin's contributions to the LSO Live SF are very audible. :( The range and sophistication of the Philips/Concertgebouw version is hard to beat, IMO; it's certainly more atmospheric than the Barbican account.

[Nick Armstrong]

On the strength of recommendations on this board (rather than anything on the programme) I have now acquired the Roth/Siècles and the Beecham/ORTF...

Thanks for the reactions, all. The life-draining acoustic on those LSO Live recordings did occur to me as a possible downside to the recommended version though it wasn't mentioned by SJ. If I want a modern orchestra performance (and as mentioned elsewhere I don't turn to this piece much to listen to, it turns up so often in concerts and on the radio ) I heard no reason to abandon the Concertgebouw, my favourite band

Verredevin, please would you be sure to favour us with some detailed reactions to your two new acquisitions once you've had a chance to give them some good listens?

[Biffo]

HighlandDougie: One of your fellow countrymen shares your view of the Immerseel. This must be the most negative review I have ever read.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts-ents/music-reviews/anima-eterna-brugge-van-immerseel-berlioz-symphonie-fantastique-zig-zag-territoires-1.1015203

[HighlandDougie]

I sometimes find Michael Tumelty (the Herald's long-standing Music person) a bit over-the-top but he's got it about right in this instance. I should have known from the earlier Anima Aeterna Ravel disc (dull - another duff purchase), although their more recent Poulenc I like very much.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I recall one reviewer (it may have been Richard Osborne) who once turned the format on its head by declaring his chosen version at the start then used the review to show why.

RO might have done this, Pet, but I think the first such example was John Steane reviewing Tristan & Isolde back in the late '70s (it was even included in a book of Record Review - as it then was - "scripts".) He chose Karajan and went through the half-dozen versions then available to illustrate why, overall, this "scored most points": chiefly, IIRC, the fragility of Behrens' Isolde.

Mind you, about twelve years later he reviewed the work again, was lukewarm about his earlier choice (and apologized for his inconsistency) and recommended Fürtwängler!

[reinerfan]

I find the Immerseel pretty boring and, after the novelty of first hearing, the two pianos laughable. All the positive comments regarding the Davis/Concertgebouw are well justified, but I have a sneaking liking for the Barbirolli/Hallé from 1959 which is a really exciting performance, probably because I have nostalgic recollections of his live performances.