BaL 26.05.12/25.02.23 - Messiaen: Turangalila Symphony

[Opinionated Knowall]

In Roger Nichol's largely positive review of the Rattle in Gramophone, he points out that:

'More controversially, Rattle believes that the metronome mark for movement six, semi-quaver=84, is a mistake for quaver=84 (though it is around semiquaver=108 here). While I prefer the slower speed for the seven angels with seven trumpets as being more solemn and hieratic, the faster speed certainly has a character of its own.'

So Metzmacher is probably more accurate (although Sir Simon could be right about the mistake!)

Continuing offtopically, I listened to mvt 6 this morning in both Rattle's and Metzmacher's versions. The latter is much slower and the percussion much more resonant. I remember thinking that Rattle was a major improvement on Chung (I haven't yet heard Wit or Porcelijn, and don't have a clear memory of Cambreling).

(edit: I meant to say that for the cited reasons I preferred Metzmacher to Rattle in this movement)

[RichardB]

Metzmacher is probably more accurate (although Sir Simon could be right about the mistake!)

That's a bit weird though, because if SR really thinks it should be quaver=84 why does he then still play it not much faster than half of the speed he thinks Messiaen wanted? Did Messiaen really make mistakes like that with his tempo indications? Member Makropulos, we need an expert opinion here.

Looking at Nichols' review makes me want to go back to the Chung recording, which I thought at the time would be fairly easy for other conductors and orchestras to improve on, although others seem to think that it's still the best one so far.

[RichardB]

Looking at Nichols' review makes me want to go back to the Chung recording, which I thought at the time would be fairly easy for other conductors and orchestras to improve on, although others seem to think that it's still the best one so far.

Having listened again yesterday evening: it's pretty good actually, although I would like to have heard something of the percussion tremolo accompaniment in the last movement.

Back on topic: I've been listening to Lintu's recording. The orchestra plays well enough although maybe a bit more carefully then others, but the main problem is the soloists: the ondes Martenot is much too loud and separated from the orchestra, and Angela Hewitt doesn't seem to have found a natural-sounding way with Messiaen's rhythms.

[RichardB]

I seem to be talking to myself here today!

Having listened again yesterday evening: it's pretty good actually, although I would like to have heard something of the percussion tremolo accompaniment in the last movement.

Having now listened to the last movement of all six available recordings I can confirm that (to me at least) the percussion is completely inaudible in ALL of them. What's going on?

[jayne lee wilson]

I seem to be talking to myself here today!



Having now listened to the last movement of all six available recordings I can confirm that (to me at least) the percussion is completely inaudible in ALL of them. What's going on?

The triangles in Éclairs?
Try the Metzmacher after 1'46 of Track 11; clearly audible at this point (here at least); but I do hear them most of the time against the strings (intermittently rather than continuously, yet the inner ear is subconsciously aware once they've been heard). Surely that was the intention; they just add that subtle halo ("a soft and distant vibration" - Yvonne Loriod-Messiaen).

The VPO strings are quite closely balanced. With Rattle's Berlin Phil, the strings are softer and I picked up the triangles from the start; they remain audible almost continuously, (greater presence than with the VPO though still subtle of course) except where the strings' level rises to its peaks. When the strings fall silent, they are clearly audible as with the VPO.

I'll try more later if you like, though I do recall hearing them well with the Antoni Wit last night.....OK, just checked the Polish one again: clearest of all the aforementioned, continuously, from the very start.
(All from Qobuz rather than CD today. (Watch out for some intrusive spuriae from 5'15 on the Qobuz Tr.11, not on the CD).).

[Master Jacques]

I seem to be talking to myself here today!

You may be talking, but some of us are listening. What you say is always of interest.

[RichardB]

I can more or less believe I'm hearing them in between phrases in the Metzmacher and Cambreling recordings, although this points to another issue with performances of this music: there are no silences at all in the string parts and hardly any phrase marks, so the exaggerated phrasing that occurs in every recording to a greater or lesser extent isn't really what Messiaen wrote. It may be that "the inner ear is subconsciously aware once they've been heard", but I think that conductors have misunderstood the score.The triangles are marked "ppp" throughout, and the strings sometimes go down to "pp" which would imply that the triangles should be quite clearly audible to the "outer ear" as a background texture, which they aren't, in any of the available recordings, with the best will in the world.

[jayne lee wilson]

I can more or less believe I'm hearing them in between phrases in the Metzmacher and Cambreling recordings, although this points to another issue with performances of this music: there are no silences at all in the string parts and hardly any phrase marks, so the exaggerated phrasing that occurs in every recording to a greater or lesser extent isn't really what Messiaen wrote. It may be that "the inner ear is subconsciously aware once they've been heard", but I think that conductors have misunderstood the score.The triangles are marked "ppp" throughout, and the strings sometimes go down to "pp" which would imply that the triangles should be quite clearly audible to the "outer ear" as a background texture, which they aren't, in any of the available recordings, with the best will in the world.

Forgive my insistence, but if you re-read paras 2 and 3 of my post #170 you'll see that in those recordings tried, the triangles are indeed clearly audible "as a background texture"; and I think Yvonne Loriod-Messiaen's description (quoted) is a better guide to the desired effect than the dynamic markings.
The comment about "subconscious awareness" applies (as described) to the Metzmacher, where the strings are noticeably louder than on the other recordings I've tried today, with the results noted. But in any case, as I said, after 1'46 on Track 11 (and elsewhere), they are, again, clearly audible on my own usual playback system, as compared on Qobuz, on this day.

Off of CD they are often clearer again, due to system differences/playback quality, dependent on source and choice of DAC filter. Clearest of all on the Polish Radio/Wit recording on the Jade CD. No ambiguity or "more or less believe" about it.
If you are using Qobuz/Audirvana for this, check the integer setting: integer mode 2 (which I usually prefer) is warmer and may be slightly less transparent to fine detail, depending as usual on the given system context.

[RichardB]

system differences/playback quality, dependent on source and choice of DAC filter. Clearest of all on the Polish Radio/Wit recording on the Jade CD. No ambiguity or "more or less believe" about it. If you are using Qobuz/Audirvana for this, check the integer setting: integer mode 2 (which I usually prefer) is warmer and may be slightly less transparent to fine detail, depending as usual on the given system context.

Here's the thing though: if you need sophisticated high quality equipment to hear something that a composer wrote into a score (I was listening on headphones connected directly to the audio output of a laptop), either the conductor or the recording engineer or both is not really doing their job properly.

[Bryn]

The triangles in Éclairs?
Try the Metzmacher after 1'46 of Track 11; clearly audible at this point (here at least); but I do hear them most of the time against the strings (intermittently rather than continuously, yet the inner ear is subconsciously aware once they've been heard). Surely that was the intention; they just add that subtle halo ("a soft and distant vibration" - Yvonne Loriod-Messiaen).

The VPO strings are quite closely balanced. With Rattle's Berlin Phil, the strings are softer and I picked up the triangles from the start; they remain audible almost continuously, (greater presence than with the VPO though still subtle of course) except where the strings' level rises to its peaks. When the strings fall silent, they are clearly audible as with the VPO.

I'll try more later if you like, though I do recall hearing them well with the Antoni Wit last night.....OK, just checked the Polish one again: clearest of all the aforementioned, continuously, from the very start.
(All from Qobuz rather than CD today. (Watch out for some intrusive spuriae from 5'15 on the Qobuz Tr.11, not on the CD).).

I don't think the triangles in the final movement were intended to be heard too clearly as other than a subtle colouring of the texture, much as he would often use the Ondes Martenot which were specifically excluded in the commission.

.

[Dave2002]

Am I listening to a reworking of Musssorgsky's Picture at an exhibition - hens etc. Well no - actually seems it's a reworking of Carnival of the Animals?

[Dave2002]

Finally tracked it down ... Building a Library seems to have moved to 10.30am. Came to the website expecting BAL to be at 9.30am. Obviously I don't visit here often enough!

[RichardB]

I don't think the triangles in the final movement were intended to be heard too clearly as other than a subtle colouring of the texture

There is however a difference between not being heard too clearly and not being heard at all except when the strings have their (unmarked) pauses. But I can see I'm in a minority with this thought. I shall await a recording of the piece which does something more like what the composer wrote, as opposed to what others think he meant.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

...what the composer wrote, as opposed to what others think he meant.

I'm with you on this, RB. I'm not greatly interested in this BAL, having at least two recordings of the work already and feeling that two are already one too many, but it will be interesting to see whether we get "the one I like" or "the one that reflects what is in the score". (As for my belief that a reviewer should actually i. be able and ii. be bothered to understand what's in the score, maybe I'm an outlier...)

[Master Jacques]

There is however a difference between not being heard too clearly and not being heard at all except when the strings have their (unmarked) pauses. But I can see I'm in a minority with this thought. I shall await a recording of the piece which does something more like what the composer wrote, as opposed to what others think he meant.

Your thought seems to me very reasonable. I'm not sure we should have to rely on our subconscious imagining of what might (or might not) be going on in our inner ears, to hear what the composer very clearly indicates in his score.