BaL 26.05.12/25.02.23 - Messiaen: Turangalila Symphony

[Bryn]

Quite. You don't have to look far in English music criticism at that time to find the assumption that modern music from the Continent (including Mahler of course) was all very well for Johnny Foreigner but it won't do around here, an attitude which still echoes in those innumerable reviews by Andrew Clements that begin something like "Composer X is regularly played on the Continent but his/her music is almost unknown in the UK".

Yes, but it was by no means only English critics who dismissed the work, though at least Poulenc later came round (much later, admittedly).

[Master Jacques]

Quite. You don't have to look far in English music criticism at that time to find the assumption that modern music from the Continent (including Mahler of course) was all very well for Johnny Foreigner but it won't do around here, an attitude which still echoes in those innumerable reviews by Andrew Clements that begin something like "Composer X is regularly played on the Continent but his/her music is almost unknown in the UK".

I disagree. Doubtless there was prejudice in all directions, from most newspaper critics all of the time, and from the best some of the time. But as a rule English composers were not especially favoured by writers such as Blom or Cardus, against "foreigners". And Eric Blom was Swiss!

From my Baxian studies, I can tell you that it was very difficult for him to establish himself, and be taken seriously, because he wasn't a "Johnny Foreigner". It had been the same, and worse, for Elgar and Sullivan before him; and the feeling has never gone away. And of course Cardus, in particular, was in the Mahlerian vanguard, so it's certainly not true of him. You'd find more 'modern' English composers - neglected by him at the time, as being not worth bothering about - complaining about his leaning towards foreign music, than the other way round.

Personally, I think they had - and still have - a point about Turangalila. It was the first Messiaen work I heard live, and I fell for it immediately. Yet now I am tired of its technicolour garishness, sugary patina and easy rewards, and I never turn to it when I'm in Messiaen mood. It is certainly overlong, and by his later standards the structuring of the second half (after 5 and 6) leaves questions, at least for me.

We don't have to gush in harmony about every work, even by composers we love, and I think Cardus and Blom had a right - and some reason - to their views. They certainly do not deserve to have their world views - or their "Englishness" - caricatured.

[RichardB]

Yes, but it was by no means only English critics who dismissed the work

Indeed Boulez was highly disparaging about it!

English music critics of the 20th century may have been largely rather insular, but this is a quality they share with very many English composers of the 20th century...

[Master Jacques]

English music critics of the 20th century may have been largely rather insular, but this is a quality they share with very many English composers of the 20th century...

Name one.

[jayne lee wilson]

I disagree. Doubtless there was prejudice in all directions, from most newspaper critics all of the time, and from the best some of the time. But as a rule English composers were not especially favoured by writers such as Blom or Cardus, against "foreigners". And Eric Blom was Swiss!

From my Baxian studies, I can tell you that it was very difficult for him to establish himself, and be taken seriously, because he wasn't a "Johnny Foreigner". It had been the same, and worse, for Elgar and Sullivan before him; and the feeling has never gone away. And of course Cardus, in particular, was in the Mahlerian vanguard, so it's certainly not true of him. You'd find more 'modern' English composers - neglected by him at the time, as being not worth bothering about - complaining about his leaning towards foreign music, than the other way round.

Personally, I think they had - and still have - a point about Turangalila. It was the first Messiaen work I heard live, and I fell for it immediately. Yet now I am tired of its technicolour garishness, sugary patina and easy rewards, and I never turn to it when I'm in Messiaen mood. It is certainly overlong, and by his later standards the structuring of the second half (after 5 and 6) leaves questions, at least for me.

We don't have to gush in harmony about every work, even by composers we love, and I think Cardus and Blom had a right - and some reason - to their views. They certainly do not deserve to have their world views - or their "Englishness" - caricatured.

This brings a famous film dialogue to mind....

EMPEROR: Well, I mean occasionally it seems to have, how shall one say? [he stops in difficulty; turning to Orsini-Rosenberg] How shall one say, Director?

ORSINI-ROSENBERG: Too many notes, Your Majesty?

EMPEROR: Exactly. Very well put. Too many notes.

MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less.

EMPEROR: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that, aren't I, Court Composer?

SALIERI: Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty.

MOZART: But this is absurd!

EMPEROR: My dear, young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.

MOZART: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

*****

Describing a work as "overlong" does beg that obvious question....perhaps you'd care to tell us where you would cut (or restructure) the Turangalîla?
After 5, (the finale to Part One), then the long dreamy interlude at the heart of the piece, those last four movements seem perfectly conceived and placed to me.

I think it's important to note the close structural parallels between Turangalîla and that last, late masterpiece, the Éclairs sur l'au delà, which has a similarly ecstatic, thematically cyclical climax in the 8th movement. Even some themes and movement titles echo each other. These connections can't have been accidental (across half a century); both works seem to have meant a lot to him, at the end of his creative, and his mortal life.

Beyond it, Éclairs sur l'au delà has lent Turangalîla another level of meaning...

[RichardB]

Name one.

Are you serious? I could name off the top of my head a dozen English composers of the first two thirds or so of the 20th century who paid little or no attention to new developments in music elsewhere in the world. But maybe you wouldn't call that "insular".

[Master Jacques]

Are you serious? I could name off the top of my head a dozen English composers of the first two thirds or so of the 20th century who paid little or no attention to new developments in music elsewhere in the world. But maybe you wouldn't call that "insular".

Never mind a dozen. I'll be satisfied with one.

Just because (e.g.) Bax didn't write like a Viennese second-schooler (or copy them) doesn't mean he wasn't interested in their music. Quite the reverse. In fact Bax gave the first public performance of Op.11 in England, at an all-Schoenberg concert at Conway Hall: and the composer approved his performance mightily. The British composers, from Ethel Smyth down to Bliss and Britten, were regulars at "avant-garde" ICM gatherings in the 1920s, and they were not considered stuck in a time-bubble - quite the reverse.

Next time you think about the wonderful opening of Bartók's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste (1936), you might want to note how shamelessly it cribs the opening of Bax's 3rd Symphony (1929), which Bartók heard and admired in London, a couple of years before he wrote his own piece.

No. Their European colleagues did not regard the British composers as insular hicks, and nor should we, a hundred years on.

[Master Jacques]

Describing a work as "overlong" does beg that obvious question....perhaps you'd care to tell us where you would cut (or restructure) the Turangalîla?

I should do no such thing. Turangalila came out that way, just as Rossini's William Tell did; and cutting would not help the matter, in either case. It is what it is, for better and worse. A bold, monumental, and thoroughly excessive piece of orchestral theatre. The excess is rather the point, actually.

[RichardB]

Their European colleagues did not regard the British composers as insular hicks, and nor should we, a hundred years on.

I was actually thinking of a slightly later period, but never mind: I wasn't commenting on how British composers were regarded by their European colleagues, but giving an opinion of my own. Take it or leave it! As for Bax and Schoenberg, Bax did express himself as follows: "I believe that there is little probability that the twelve-note scale will ever produce anything more than morbid or entirely cerebral growths. It might deal successfully with neuroses of various kinds, but I cannot imagine it associated with any healthy and happy concept such as young love or the coming of spring."

[Bryn]

I should do no such thing. Turangalila came out that way, just as Rossini's William Tell did; and cutting would not help the matter, in either case. It is what it is, for better and worse. A bold, monumental, and thoroughly excessive piece of orchestral theatre. The excess is rather the point, actually.

Though Messiaen was happy enough to authorise an attend performances of selections from the work, specifically Movements III, IV and V (in that order) or I, II, VI, IX, X (again in that order).

[Master Jacques]

I was actually thinking of a slightly later period, but never mind: I wasn't commenting on how British composers were regarded by their European colleagues, but giving an opinion of my own. Take it or leave it! As for Bax and Schoenberg, Bax did express himself as follows: "I believe that there is little probability that the twelve-note scale will ever produce anything more than morbid or entirely cerebral growths. It might deal successfully with neuroses of various kinds, but I cannot imagine it associated with any healthy and happy concept such as young love or the coming of spring."

That was in Farewell, My Youth, that bitter memoir written in his final years. These are the words of an older man, set in his ways. The point is, that in his youth, then after World War I and into the early 1920s he was interested in Schoenberg, and put his great gifts as a performer at Schoenberg's service, to help get that music before the public. The idea I question is the "insular" nature of British composers, either before or after World War II. I haven't seen any evidence to support that view.

As the twelve-tone works of Schoenberg are (sadly) still rarely found on concert programmes - even compared with Bax, whose chamber music is much loved by today's music students! - perhaps the listening public tends to agree with Old Arnold's later grumpiness about him.

[Master Jacques]

Though Messiaen was happy enough to authorise an attend performances of selections from the work, specifically Movements III, IV and V (in that order) or I, II, VI, IX, X (again in that order).

Thank you Bryn. I'd no idea that Messiaen was happy to allow performances of selections from the piece. Perhaps he'd been reading Blom and Cardus!

Interestingly, the same was true for Rossini, who was happy to allow and attend standalone performances of Act 2 of his monumental William Tell opera.

[vinteuil]

Thank you Bryn. I'd no idea that Messiaen was happy to allow performances of selections from the piece. Perhaps he'd been reading Blom and Cardus!

Interestingly, the same was true for Rossini, who was happy to allow and attend standalone performances of Act 2 of his monumental William Tell opera.

... I'm not sure Rossini was 'happy' about this - his riposte in the anecdote seems to me evidence of his dry humour :

(The story of him attending a gala performance and being told by an excited impresario that "tonight, in your honour we will perform the second act of Guillaume Tell!", to which he replied "What? All of it?" )

.

[Bryn]

Thank you Bryn. I'd no idea that Messiaen was happy to allow performances of selections from the piece. Perhaps he'd been reading Blom and Cardus!

Interestingly, the same was true for Rossini, who was happy to allow and attend standalone performances of Act 2 of his monumental William Tell opera.

Unfortunately, while the large glossy booklet that came with the Vega LPs cites dates for the full performances Messiaen was directly involved with up to 1961, no such dates are offered for the six performances of the selections which he attended up to that time. However, |I very much doubt that Blom and Cardus's comments would have had much impact on this issue. After all, Boulez, Poulenc, Stravinsky et al had already made their disdain regarding the work clear in the period following its initial performances. By the way, the first European performance on 25th July 1950 in Aix-en -Provence was broadcast, having been relayed via telephone lines, and had been made available on CD with one unfortunate drop-out in the 8th movement.

[Master Jacques]

... I'm not sure Rossini was 'happy' about this - his riposte in the anecdote seems to me evidence of his dry humour :

(The story of him attending a gala performance and being told by an excited impresario that "tonight, in your honour we will perform the second act of Guillaume Tell!", to which he replied "What? All of it?" ).

"Happy" was certainly not quite the right word - "accepting", rather. I expect he knew as well as anyone that the other acts of this very long opera were ... well, patchy. And he would never reject the fees, or the slap-up dinners attending on such gala performances!

Given the big battalions lined up against Turangalila, Messiaen seems to have greeted its occasional dismemberment with equanimity. At least initially, to get the music better known: later I think he stood out against the practice. To the extent that the work is always (?) performed these days in full, his confidence in it - warts and all - was justified. But to pretend Turangalila is a flawless masterpiece does it no service.