Prom 20: 30.07.16 - Berlioz: Romeo and Juliet

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

19:30 Saturday 30 Jul 2016 ON TV
Royal Albert Hall

Hector Berlioz: Romeo and Juliet Symphony
(sung in French)

Julie Boulianne (mezzo-soprano),
Jean-Paul Fouchecourt (tenor),
Laurent Naouri (bass),
Monteverdi Choir,
National Youth Choir of Scotland,
Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique,
Sir John Eliot Gardiner (conductor).

When Hector Berlioz got his first taste of Shakespeare in 1827, he not only fell for "he whole heaven of art" in the Bard's verse, he also fell madly in love with the actress Harriet Smithson. Shakespeare inspired a string of works from this most literary and dramatic of composers, including the ardent choral symphony Romeo and Juliet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m4bch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m5f8j

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Does anyone, apart from me, have a slight problem in thinking of this work as a symphony?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Does anyone, apart from me, have a slight problem in thinking of this work as a symphony?

A slight problem, yes. It is an awe-inspiring work - and this is an unmissable concert for me - but which doesn't "fit" into any of the "models" of what a "Symphony" can be. I think that's more to do with the performance/reception history of the work (as so often with Berlioz) - had it been taken up by more performers in the Nineteenth Century, and had other composers actually heard it more often in good performances, I feel that the subsequent historic course of the genre would have been completely different, and we'd be marvelling at how Berlioz transformed The Symphony, and idly pondering what it would have been if he hadn't written his eleven (or however many he'd've got round to if he'd had more sympathetic performances and reception) symphonies. Berlioz is the greatest "miscarriage of justice" in Music History, IMO.

[richardfinegold]

I always regard it as an Oratorio

[Bryn]

I think "Dramatic Symphony" suits well as its description.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I always regard it as an Oratorio

But what about the non-vocal movements, rfg? Voices only appear in about a third of the work - that's not yer average Oratorio (any more than the rest of it's yer average Symphony).

Bryn (and Hector, of course) gets it right.

[Richard Tarleton]

A slight problem, yes. It is an awe-inspiring work - and this is an unmissable concert for me - but which doesn't "fit" into any of the "models" of what a "Symphony" can be. I think that's more to do with the performance/reception history of the work (as so often with Berlioz) - had it been taken up by more performers in the Nineteenth Century, and had other composers actually heard it more often in good performances, I feel that the subsequent historic course of the genre would have been completely transformed, and we'd be marvelling at how Berlioz transformed The Symphony, and idly pondering what it would have been if he hadn't written his eleven (or however many he'd've got round to if he'd had more sympathetic performances and reception) symphonies. Berlioz is the greatest "miscarriage of justice" in Music History, IMO.

See Alan Walker's biog of Liszt, Vol ll, The Weimar Years, Liszt the Conductor (p. 270, n.), enlarging on this point - Liszt, who championed Berlioz, urged conductors not to perform his works unless they were sure they could do them well.

[Liszt] was one of the first to understand that the technique of orchestral performance itself would have to be advanced if the modern music of his time was ever to make headway. When Liszt heard that Gustav Schmidt, Kapellmeister at Frankfurt-am-Main, was interested in putting on a Berlioz concert, he offered him some cautionary advice:

'It will be necessary for you to have several rehearsals - and indeed separate rehearsals for the quartet [of Roméo et Juliette] and separate rehearsals for the wind instruments. The effect of Berlioz's works can be uncommonly good only when the performance of them is satisfactory. They are equally unsuited to the ordinary worthy theatre and concert maker because they require a higher artistic standpoint from the musician's side' (Feb 27, 1853)

These words of warning, born of Liszt's long practical acquaintance with Berlioz and his music, seem so obvious to the modern listener as to be hardly worth uttering. But it is worth reflecting that there are some composers and some works which depend far less than others on a perfect performance for their full effect. Bad performances, after all, did not prevent Beethoven's genius from declaring itself, but they held back the full recognition of Berlioz for half a century. His music, like Liszt's, is not performer-proof. This distinction between good music whose gooness reveals bad players, and bad players whose badness obscures good music, was recognised early by Liszt....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

[LeMartinPecheur]

But what about the non-vocal movements, rfg? Voices only appear in about a third of the work - that's not yer average Oratorio (any more than the rest of it's yer average Symphony).

fhg: your description sounds a bit like one or two Mahler symphonies, a Nielsen, an RVW (Pastoral not Sea), the one Langaard that I've heard, and no doubt others I've forgotten or haven't yet encountered

And maybe a bit like the 9th of that chap Ludwig van somebody

I guess we are getting perilously close to trying to define exactly what is and isn't a post-1827 symphony. I'm off abroad tomorrow and won't see the first attempts, but will mark submissions out of ten on my return. I look forward to reading the absolutely definitive answer

[Richard Tarleton]

no doubt others I've forgotten or haven't yet encountered

Liszt Faust Symphony (with choral ending)

I guess we are getting perilously close to trying to define exactly what is and isn't a post-1827 symphony. I'm off abroad tomorrow and won't see the first attempts, but will mark submissions out of ten on my return. I look forward to reading the absolutely definitive answer

Perhaps there isn't a satisfactory definition - the likes of Berlioz, Liszt and others were either pushing the boundaries of existing forms or experimenting with altogether new ones which as yet lacked satisfactory nomenclature, and the extent to which these fitted the confines of a historical format is a largely academic one? Clearly all this experimentation annoyed the hell out of the likes of Brahms and Hanslick

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

fhg: your description sounds a bit like one or two Mahler symphonies, a Nielsen, an RVW (Pastoral not Sea), the one Langaard that I've heard, and no doubt others I've forgotten or haven't yet encountered

And maybe a bit like the 9th of that chap Ludwig van somebody

Exactly my point that it doesn't fit the "Oratorio" label.

I guess we are getting perilously close to trying to define exactly what is and isn't a post-1827 symphony. I'm off abroad tomorrow and won't see the first attempts, but will mark submissions out of ten on my return. I look forward to reading the absolutely definitive answer

If your travels take you to a handy parallel universe in which Berlioz was successful and completed those eleven symphonies, that'll help the discussion here (In exchange, you can tell them what happened in a universe where Wagner was the successful one!)

[Richard Tarleton]

I just hope Martin isn't travelling via Dover

[LeMartinPecheur]

I just hope Martin isn't travelling via Dover

We're well-trained Eurostars <smug>

[richardfinegold]

An Oratorio for me has always seemed to me to be the telling of a Dramatic story combining instrumental passages and voices, and minus the accoutrement of Opera, such as costumes, stage sets, and people moving on the stage. Berlioz was of course an innovator, and so one would not expect an Oratorio from his pen to resemble one by, say , J.S. Bach.

Berlioz near contemporary Felix Mendelsohn, otoh, was clearly following the traditional Oratorio model in his works, such as Elijah, but FM was much more interested in paying homage to his Musical forbears than HB, who was more concerned with innovation for it's own sake.

[Richard Tarleton]

HB, who was more concerned with innovation for it's own sake.

I don't think that's right richard - he wasn't an innovator for the sake of being an innovator (any more than Liszt, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, etc. etc.....), he was a creative artist who happened to be highly original.

He called R&J a symphony (in his Memoirs) - what right have we to call it an oratorio, cramming it into an antiquated box into which it doesn't fit?