Works That Never Seem To Work (No. 5: The Berlioz Requiem)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2023
- With its four brass bands positioned around the performance space and vast choral and orchestral forces, the Berlioz Requiem seems doomed to failure more often than not, and so it turns out, both live and on recordings.
The Bernstein DVD provides the visual element, plus a sense of occasion with the French president in attendance and the gargantuan French flags draped beside the altar (plus Napoleon himself rest just a few meters behind it all).
Munch Boston performance is legendary. I had the privilege of seeing this work performed live. Amazing. The Philadelphia Orchestra, Dutoit, and a tenor soloist whose name escapes me. A stunning work!
I love the Berlioz Requiem. Colin David I is the recording that nails it for me - he brings out the melancholy really well (more than Munch's wonderful recording). What I think is special about the Berlioz Requiem is that somehow Berlioz managed to write a piece of fervent music setting a religious text that somehow manages to convey a lack of faith. Berlioz as a boy was devout, but he lost his faith. He still hankered after it. He succeeded in conveying that. Yes, it's bombasitic in places, but often deeply personal and even delicate in places.
The 1969 Colin Davis recording is the only one I’ve heard & own.
My first exposure to the work was Münch/BSO on RCA Soria Series LPs courtesy of my high school music library. The big moments were actually frightening in their sound intensity. Subsequent recordings I’ve heard didn’t measure up, even quadraphonic ones released in the 70s.
The best live performance for me was again with the BSO, at Tanglewood under Ozawa. In addition to the full complement of the BSO, they had the Berkshire Music Center Orchestra, thereby approximating Berlioz‘s instrumental intentions. I still vividly recall the effect of the massed trombones with their quiet low pedal tones against all those flutes on top.
Yep, you need a genius conductor, and someone who really gets Berlioz to make it work. It is an incredible piece, totally unique in music history as far as I know, and extremely beautiful. A massive challenge to perform - like Benvenuto Cellini, even for today's orchestras. And I totally agree: Münch/Boston reigns supreme!
Speaking as a choral singer who's done the Berlioz Requiem (and a tenor who particularly loves the Sanctus), I think it feels like a grand journey that needed to reach a destination, but doesn't succeed because it ends up right back where it started.
Incidentally, I was surprised to find that, for all its grandiosity, the tenor part works perfectly, from beginning to end, in Anglican head voice.
Never heard the Berlioz Requiem until I got to my recently purchased Louis Fremaux City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and the first thing was the Requiem and I really like the piece a lot. Will definitely have to get the Munch. Thanks for the recommendation and another great video series.
I think that you are right about Munch's Boston recording being the best. It sure is better than Munch's remake(s), which are nice, but rather let-downs after the splendour of Boston. Of other recordings, Ormandy's is one that I've enjoyed quite a bit. However, I've never done immediate side-by-side comparison of it with Munch-Boston. Have you? I wonder what you think of Ormandy's recording.
Sad that he left out multiple pipe organs and a dozen ophicliedes.
Munch does bring it off the best, although a live performance I heard with Previn and the Pittsburgh was amazing, actually positioning the four brass bands around Heinz Hall. The Mendselssohn Choir of Pittsburgh was joined by the Penn State University Chorus. A veritable wall of sound in the big moments.
What you say is quite true. Like the Mahler 8th, in which the 2nd movement has a lot of very quiet moments, audiences want to hear the loud parts.
I like hearing the pizzicato of the bass strings in the kyrie just before the tuba mirum.... this adds in my opinion a more dramatic effect. in certain recordings we hear them very well (colin davis, phillips etc) in other on the other hand, they are barely perceptible (previn emi etc)....and the ''spatialization'' of the brass at the beginning of the tuba mirum is also important (berlioz wanted it that way) and bernstein in paris for cbs has it understood.....which means that, in short, for this work we need excellent sound recording.
Havergal Brian's crazy quilt Gothic Symphony could fall into this subject, though some may argue, "Why bother?"
Honestly, I feel this way about this requiem as well. I've heard the Munch version and several others and always wondered if it was worth "getting right".
Why bother?
Well, for one thing, I like the Gothic Symphony.
For another, the Guinness Book of World Records's Longest Symphony has to at minimum be an interesting curiosity.
What is your opinion on Maurice Abravanel's recording of the Réquiem?
That's a huge score. Wow, I'd be scared getting lost reading into it and not being able to climb my way out.
Interesting talk. I made the same experience: It works better live. I saw it three times, with reduced forces, of course, but it was every time an event. I must add that I like better the strange soft sounds, which seem rather experimental to me than the overscored four- or five-part-harmony of the brass bands.
Having said that, the work, which for me never works, are the "Gurrelieder" for very much of the same reasons you mention in connection with the Berlioz. I saw it before I got a recording. I was overwhelmed by the gigantic forces which entered. And then... One song (or aria) after the other, not even a single duet - and that within a love story. Happy me, Tove is dead - but the result? One more solo song. And one more. Then the chorus - but only the male. And after that - more soli. Well, one beautiful male chorus,the speaker, and then, at last the whole chorus and orchestra for less than five minutes, which made a great impression, of course, but as a whole, it was one of the biggest disappointments in concert. Meanwhile, I like the "Gurrelieder" better, but I cannot love them.
I heard Thierry Fischer conduct the Requiem at the Proms, which had full instrumentation; it was ugly, overblown. The best performance I've heard is with Seiji Ozawa, Tanglewood Music Center Orchestra, Tanglewood Festival Churus, August 8, 1995. Wonderful.
I was dragged kicking and screaming by my then girlfriend to see an amateur performance of this live, in around 1976. Looking back on it, I don't know what I was worried about: I loved Berlioz, after all. But maybe back then I was even more arrogant about "knowing what I liked" than I am now.
I was totally unprepared for what I saw, and heard, and felt physically. In retrospect, it was a relatively small-forces job, but, boy, did it work its magic on me.
That key change in the Lacrymosa. Wow.
I actually have the Maazel, but nothing [unsurprisingly] matches the effect of my own initial gut experience of the work.
So, in that sense, it totally acheved what it set out to achieve.
Interesting you mention Bertini. I just came across his love recording with the NDR on EMI. I listened to it on not the best sound system and wasn’t impressed but I’ll have to give it another try on better equipment, but no one ever mentions that this recording even exists.
I purchased the Shaw set and had high expectations. However, I have tried several times but cannot get into it, not least b/c of the miking.
I am not sure why the Scherchen recording never gets more love. It is in fine early stereo; the orchestra captures that scrappy Berliozian sharp-woodwinds-and-blaring-brass sound like no other; the chorus is actual French people (unlike the horrible Boston chorus); and the cathedral ambience of the venue is well-captured and serves the piece. Berlioz is my favourite composer, and Scherchen's is my go-to for this work. If you find a copy, grab it!
Amen! The chorus may sound weird, but it's unique.
What are your thoughts on the newer Pappano recording with the Concertgebouw? It's the recording I chose when I was exploring a bunch of repertoire I hadn't heard before (largely because I usually prefer modern audio quality), I enjoyed it thoroughly but I'm wondering how you think it compares to Munch + Boston.
I found it very disappointing compared to Munch.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I appreciate the response. Munch + Boston will be on my next round of purchases.
Both of Berlioz’s big architectural works (the Te Deum is also similarly prone to not quite coming off) have issues with proportions of orchestra, choir, and the performance space, and even though HB provided metronome marks for each work more than one performance I’ve heard live (or performed in) has been ruined by conductors departing from HB’s tempi - the Lacrymosa of the Requiem and the Judex crederis of the Te Deum each have a loping 9/8 metre that gains power and weight from not being rushed. In the Te Deum the organ is supposed to be at the opposite end of the performance space from the orchestra, but more often than not they are located together; however one concert I attended had Judex’s climactic cadences completely out of time between orchestra and the directly adjacent organ!
I've sung this more than once, and I've never seen anywhere near that many musicians on stage. Does anyone know how they cut down Berlioz's "minimum?"
The 38 brass parts of the 4 brass bands specified by HB consist of doublings for each instrumental part, so all of their music can be played by 19 players. For example, each of the four bands has 4 tenor trombones for a total of 16, but each part played is doubled by 2 players.
The main orchestra similarly has the woodwinds and French horns implicitly doubled. Also, the editors of the Old Berlioz Edition (the one published in the 1900s by Malherbe and Weingartner) reduced the number of timpani from 16 to 12, played by 6 instead of 10 timpanists, who have to retune their drums during some movements. (IMSLP has a part available for Berlioz's original timpani parts edited by me, if this set of parts are being used.)
Once you‘ve reduced wind and brass, the size of the strings, choir, and other percussion can be reduced in proportion irrespective of what Berlioz would have wanted!
@@Xanthe_Cat Wow! Thanks!
I wonder if its ever been performed with a chorus of 800
I bought the Pappano/RCO Live recording recently but find it disappointing. After his marvellous Verdi Requiem I was expecting it to be much better. The Munch/BSO remains a classic, and still sounds amazing for its age, while I agree the earlier Colin Davis recording is very good.
Ormandy for me in a version that is consistently convincing and imposing (it should be remastered in the upcoming stereo boxes).
Except the choral singing is awful, yeesh
I thought Davis' use of trebles instead of sopranos in his first recording added an ethereal quality, even though it wasn't specified in the score.
The scale of this work also brings Mahler's Eighth Symphony to mind. Does that sound like a work that almost never seems to work to anyone?
I agree, Mahler's 8th is one of my favorite pieces of music but the only recording I can listen to is that legendary Solti + Chicago recording. I listen to it far less often than some of his other symphonies, but it really hits the spot when that's what I'm in the mood to hear.
Actually, the 8th works pretty well, as often as not.
I have tried and tried... Except for the loud parts, it's a snoozefest.
I agree unfortunately. Somebody should do a suite that is just variations on the loud moments.
Au contraire. Ever since I first heard it (Munch BSO), it's been one of my all-time favorite pieces. The big parts are exciting, to be sure, but the quiet ones are magical, like the closing moments of the Offertorium, where the woodwinds descend one after the other, the Hostias, with the inspired pairing of flute and trombone, and the closing moments of the entire piece. But then again, you probably like pieces that I would find a snoozefest. Chacun a son gout.
A performance problem that you don't mention is: keeping the whole ensemble together. I've heard the Requiem live four or five times, and almost always the triplet fanfares in the Tuba Mirum get out of sync between the four brass choirs. Getting this right is going to be hard under any circumstances (your average choral conductor, trained to do Messiah with a choir of 20, is completely at sea), but conductors make things worse by misunderstanding/ignoring Berlioz's instructions about the placement of the auxiliary brass. He asks that the brass be placed at the four corners of the performing forces -- that is, close in to the main orchestra and choir. Instead, the brass gets placed at the four corners of the hall, because the conductor is so in love with the antiphonal effects. This simply dooms the enterprise -- the bands are too far away to see the conductor's beat with sufficient clarity, and if the hall is really big, as in a cathedral, there start to be audible sound delay effects.
The worst I ever heard was a performance at the Hollywood Bowl, where two of the bands were placed on the far sides of the stage, left and right, and two on top of the light towers that are halfway back in the Bowl seating. Not only were there sound delay problems, but they were different depending on where you were seated. Another example was an otherwise terrific performance in the San Francisco Opera House, conducted by John Nelson, where he put one of the bands at the back of the second balcony (the Dress Circle): this band was muted in most of the house, while in the Dress Circle and Grand Tier, it drowned out everything else.
People read Berlioz's instructions, not only in this piece, and think, "He's crazy, he can't mean that," but he knows what he's doing. In The Trojans, the Trojan March calls for three off-stage bands at different distances from the stage, with the instrumentation appropriate to each group's position (brass for the most distant band, harps and winds for the instruments in the wings). The instructions for the Royal Hunt and Storm take up about a page. Directors think they know better, and the stagings never work.
I have both the Colin Davis recordings No.l in Westminster Cathedral London and the 2nd in St.Paul's cathedral in London recorded in public performance which I think was his last concert,OK I agree with Dave about his choice,but I fined is less constricted in a bigger church
I have the second Davis performance. Everything is really distant and low impact except the very loudest parts. As a recording, it's a snoozer.
Schonberg "Moses und Aron"
Moses und Aron is a good choice for a "work that never works".
Tried listening to a Charles Munch version today - gave up on it.
That's not Munch's fault.
I love the Requiem. There’s also McCreesh…
A terrible version. Hugely disappointing.