Prom 67: Sakari Oramo conducts Sibelius

[Master Jacques]

Andriessen note....
https://www.boosey.com/cr/music/Loui...nly-one/103082

Thank you Jayne, for the useful link.

I enjoyed the piece, though there was nothing here perhaps that we've not had from Andriessen before, and Nora Fischer strikes me as one of the least compelling of his "muses". The work's lightness of touch, energy and inner horrors were compelling, though - I am very glad to have caught it, and rather sorry not to have been there for real (especially preceded by such a muscular performance of the Rimsky Night on Bare Mountain, so sensibly preferred by Oramo!)

[Once Was 4]

And before anyone comes up with the riposte that those originals are "what the composer wanted", they are not. There is plenty of written evidence to prove that he himself was frustrated by his own inability to clothe his visions in decent orchestral garb, and was profoundly grateful to his friend and colleague for making them performable.[/QUOTE]

Yup - "what the composer wanted" is never a good argument for bad performances; and it's used as an excuse far too often.

But I stick to my guns about 'stark and spare' (I will give in on the 'fat free') As a matter of fact I learned Boris from the inside in the original 'incompetent' orchestration (including performances at the Proms and at the Royal Opera House); one or two colleagues said that what they thought of as a 'boring' opera finally made sense.

[johnn10]

Thank you Jayne, for the useful link.

I enjoyed the piece, though there was nothing here perhaps that we've not had from Andriessen before, and Nora Fischer strikes me as one of the least compelling of his "muses". The work's lightness of touch, energy and inner horrors were compelling, though - I am very glad to have caught it, and rather sorry not to have been there for real (especially preceded by such a muscular performance of the Rimsky Night on Bare Mountain, so sensibly preferred by Oramo!)

I wonder what the story is behind the composer not being in the RAH?

[Master Jacques]

I wonder what the story is behind the composer not being in the RAH?

This wasn't the European premiere (which was with the same forces as tonight, in Berlin quite recently) and given his age, I don't suppose tonight's repeat was a special priority for him. I hear rumours there may be another opera in the offing, as well.

[Master Jacques]

But I stick to my guns about 'stark and spare' (I will give in on the 'fat free') As a matter of fact I learned Boris from the inside in the original 'incompetent' orchestration (including performances at the Proms and at the Royal Opera House); one or two colleagues said that what they thought of as a 'boring' opera finally made sense.

Anyone who could ever find Boris Godunov "boring" (in any of the many, extant versions by the composer or Rimsky himself) is rather beyond my comprehension - though doubtless the almost unplayably hard orchestral parts gave you and your colleagues some interesting problems!

What we have to remember, is that the work is never actually played in a completely original "urtext" - it certainly hasn't been at the Royal Opera - as Mussorgsky's original, short version had already had its worst howlers (writing notes that instruments couldn't play for example) corrected or improved by his friend Rimsky before the piecemeal premieres of 1873 and 1874, by which time it had extra material added and other scenes cut out. Only when Rimsky's more radical editions appeared did the opera become a staple of the repertoire, in or out of Russia.

I totally agree, though - "stark and spare" the Mussorgsky score certainly is: it lacks the grandeur, sweep and dramatic detail of Rimsky's versions and sounds plain dull if you're sitting in the theatre, trying to hear the singers over the band - Rimsky really improved the singability no end! For a good compromise, keeping that spareness without the two-dimensional, grey orchestral sound, the Shostakovich version is probably the one to have.

[Master Jacques]

Anyone who could ever find Boris Godunov "boring" (in any of the many, extant versions by the composer or Rimsky himself) is rather beyond my comprehension!

What we have to remember, is that the work is never actually played in a completely original "urtext" - it certainly hasn't been at the Royal Opera - as Mussorgsky's original, short version had already had its worst howlers (writing notes that instruments couldn't play for example) corrected or improved by his friend Rimsky before the piecemeal premieres of 1873 and 1874, by which time it had extra material added and other scenes cut out. Only when Rimsky's more radical editions appeared did the opera become a staple of the repertoire, in or out of Russia.

I totally agree, though - "stark and spare" the Mussorgsky score certainly is: it lacks the grandeur, sweep and dramatic detail of Rimsky's versions and sounds plain dull if you're sitting in the theatre, trying to hear the singers over the band - Rimsky really improved the singability no end! For a good compromise, keeping that spareness without the two-dimensional, grey orchestral sound, the Shostakovich version is probably the one to have.

I sometimes think that we're apt to think of Mussorgsky as some sort of "Holy Fool", conflating his extraordinary radicalism with his frustratingly limiting, technical incompetence and worshipping both. This does the man no service whatsoever. Rimsky, far from being the villain of the piece, was his friend's greatest and most stalwart champion, in life and death, and the prime reason we remember Mussorgsky at all.

[jayne lee wilson]

A magnificent Sibelius 5th, fully sounding out the extremes of dynamics, space and expression which makes the piece so distinctive.
Nothing in the least Romantic about it either - the timbres could be icy cool (the episode with the hushed bassoon before the transition to i/(ii) was marvellously evocative, inhabiting a vast empty spaciousness), but with great strength of attack and a full sonority into climaxes.

Conductor and orchestra truly served the music here, to us and to the composer's vision. The AAC BBC Sounds live balance was wonderful too, very faithful to the orchestral timbres, the sheer power and the space it was surrounded by.

The last Part of the Proms season has been a little patchy, but this was the fourth outstanding symphonic performance in a week, after the Bruckner 7, Brahms 2, Beethoven 7, all very distinctive in their orchestral character and musical style.

So I feel my enthusiasm will now extend to Wagner Night and Bach Night too...!

***
I found the Andriessen very entertaining, and it helped that the words were so audible; a pleasant musical divertissement, at the very least. But distracted by those Cats and Hedgehogs again, my interval became somewhat extended, so I missed most of Judith Weir's Forest.....

[edashtav]

Like Jayne, I found the Andriessen fun. Yes, it had roots in minimalism but the composer knew when to overlay that with the simplicity of pseudo-Nursery rhymes. The work travelled over a deal of genres with a light, wry touch. There was a genuine growth from the naivety of childhood fo the pseudo sophistication of a louche, jazz-inflected 'maturity'. Twenty minutes were filled with witty allusions and nonchalance. Not a heavyweight piece but it knew its limitations and settled for entertainment. Nora Fischer, singer, seemed as fluid and versatile across musical styles as she was, we're told, adept at changing her clothes. Altogether, a fine performance of a chip off an old Andriessen block.

Hearing Sibelius's 5th in an idiomatic performance by Sakari Oramo with his BBC SO meant a lot to me in the year in which my Uncle, Henry, died at a very good age. Henry took me to hear the work for the first time in the open air of the Kenwood Bowl on a hot, still Summer Evening almost 50 years ago. I did not know at that time about the inspiration that JS had derived from a flight of swans, but, in retrospect, this evening's performance evoked 'false' memories of swans rising from the white acoustic shell and heading over the lake and sailing over a rapt audience.

What did I enjoy most about tonight's wonderful performance? Sakari's shaping of paragraphs, his deep knowledge of the score which was shown by his control of foreground and background, and his ability to demand and receive, urgency and sustained energy during scurrying string passages.

I'm sorry that cooking and eating dinner means I must catch up on the other two works.

[Once Was 4]

[QUOTE=Master Jacques;754890]Anyone who could ever find Boris Godunov "boring" (in any of the many, extant versions by the composer or Rimsky himself) is rather beyond my comprehension - though doubtless the almost unplayably hard orchestral parts gave you and your colleagues some interesting problems!

Sorry, my 72-year-old brain was playing tricks - it was not Boris that we did at the ROH (actually Troilus and Cressida on one visit and Gloriana on the other) but we did do it at the Proms (I still have a copy of the programme).

I do not remember any particular problems with getting to grips with the orchestral parts of Boris but that may be because my particular part was not too difficult!

I know that I have got into trouble in this forum before by raising objections to two orchestras playing, at the Proms, original versions of Bruckners 4 & 8 respectively which - in my opinion - did Bruckner no service so it may seem that I am being a bit inconsistent here. For the record I have also played (with Roy Goodman conducting) the original verson of Schumann's 4th Symphony which, stripped of all the doublings added apparently because of weaknesses in the orchestras which first played it, came over as a much more lithe and dramatic work. Each case on its merits!

[Master Jacques]

Each case on its merits!

Wise words! In the case of Boris Godunov, I rather feel that the scholars have taken control of the opera house, which is a mere variant on the lunatics taking over the asylum. Especially when the case is such a deeply grey area as this, theatrical expertise must be paramount, not some sort of highly dubious claim of musical "purity".

[jayne lee wilson]

[QUOTE=Once Was 4;754934]

Anyone who could ever find Boris Godunov "boring" (in any of the many, extant versions by the composer or Rimsky himself) is rather beyond my comprehension - though doubtless the almost unplayably hard orchestral parts gave you and your colleagues some interesting problems!

Sorry, my 72-year-old brain was playing tricks - it was not Boris that we did at the ROH (actually Troilus and Cressida on one visit and Gloriana on the other) but we did do it at the Proms (I still have a copy of the programme).

I do not remember any particular problems with getting to grips with the orchestral parts of Boris but that may be because my particular part was not too difficult!

I know that I have got into trouble in this forum before by raising objections to two orchestras playing, at the Proms, original versions of Bruckners 4 & 8 respectively which - in my opinion - did Bruckner no service so it may seem that I am being a bit inconsistent here. For the record I have also played (with Roy Goodman conducting) the original verson of Schumann's 4th Symphony which, stripped of all the doublings added apparently because of weaknesses in the orchestras which first played it, came over as a much more lithe and dramatic work. Each case on its merits!

I take both Schumann 4ths as equally valid and wonderful. Personal preference? 1841.

But I feel that the 1891 Vienna revision of the 1st Symphony (exceptionally inspired late recording (2012) from Abbado just out) does Bruckner far more harm than the wildly inventive & original 1874 4th (remarkable scherzo!) and 1887 8th (the isle is full of wonders...). The Vienna 1st always sounds fussy and often (literally) overwritten to me; early Bruckner in the style of late Bruckner and to neither’s advantage. Try comparing 1st movement recap to to its end in 1890 and 1866 Linz.

But my least favourite edition of any Bruckner Symphony is the 1890 3rd - its last, heavily truncated and spatchcocked "revision". I can take it from Knappertsbusch..... not many others....