Eric's thread on Pelléas et Mélisande

[Que]

RULES:

1. This thread is for discussions with Eric aka The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande aka P&M.

2. If you're NOT interested in either this topic or discussing with Eric: DO NOT visit this thread, DO NOT post. Any posts to the contrary will be deleted...

3. Any discussion with Eric or posts by him on P&M is to be confined to this thread - anything to that effect posted outside this thread will be deleted.

Q

[Guido]

(Gotta love Eric's threads, too, for the opportunity they always afford for stating the obvious.)

Like Pelleas et Melisande being a work of exquisite delicacy and ravishing beauty.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Guido,

Like Pelleas et Melisande being a work of exquisite delicacy and ravishing beauty.

Ah, but the problem is that over the past 30 years or so there has been some strong lobbying in both academic (e.g. Paul Griffiths) and compositional (e.g. Pierre Boulez) circles for the 'Debussy-as-Modernist' view which has always included 'Pelleas et Melisande'... They are always attempting to link it with Wozzeck or Bluebeard's Castle when in fact it is RADICALLY different from those, in both aesthetic and technique.

It is a lush and romantic 'goodbye' to Wagner. Or as Bernard Holland put it...  "the final exquisite rendering of the Wagnerian age"

   

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Guido,

Ah, but the problem is that over the past 30 years or so there has been some strong lobbying in both academic (e.g. Paul Griffiths) and compositional (e.g. Pierre Boulez) circles for the 'Debussy-as-Modernist' view which has always included 'Pelleas et Melisande'... They are always attempting to link it with Wozeck or Bluebeard's Castle when in fact it is RADICALLY different from those, in both aesthetic and technique.

It is a lush and romantic 'goodbye' to Wagner. Or as Bernard Holland put it...  "the final exquisite rendering of the Wagnerian age"

No. And Griffiths and Boulez have nothing to do with it. Debussy himself pointed to P&M's modernism. We've already been through all this.

[Homo Aestheticus]

No. And Griffiths and Boulez have nothing to do with it. Debussy himself pointed to P&M's modernism. We've already been through all this.

It doesn't matter what Debussy's intention was.  P&M cannot be described as a 'modern' work. Its harmonic innovations remain rooted in the tonal system. He deepened and extended its scope. Its soundworld is still very 'romantic'

Holland said it best.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

It doesn't matter what Debussy's intention was. 

Sorry, but this just flat out deserves a

P&M cannot be described as a 'modern' work. Its harmonic innovations remain rooted in the tonal system. He deepened and extended its scope. Its soundworld is still very 'romantic'

Holland said it best.

Oh, P&M certainly can be described as a modern work. Debussy himself described it thus. I recommend you go back to the Debussy thread and reread that whole episode on P&M. 

The short of it is is P&M is an "anti-Wagner" work. Case closed.

[Homo Aestheticus]

The short of it is is P&M is an "anti-Wagner" work.

Just because the certain Wagnerism in the score never penetrates much below the surface does not make it a modern work. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Just because the certain Wagnerism in the score never penetrates much below the surface does not make it a modern work. 

No, Pink, please try to understand. This simply isn't a debatable point.

I don't know what it is you're trying to convey in the above quote but this isn't about how much (or how little) Wagner is in P&M.

It's all about curbing Wagnerian (romantic) excesses with subtlety and "intelligence". Hence the quote in my signature. Intelligence ISN'T a dirty word. Debussy EMBRACED it and put his own particular stamp on it. Nothing "academic" about it at all. And so the fruits of all this is his great music.

What it boils down to is this: SOMEBODY had to come along and turn the tide of Wagnerian excesses. Debussy felt qualified to do so. This is why (collectively) Debussy's works have long been considered the watershed moment in modernism - and P&M was at the forefront.

These are simply the facts.

[Homo Aestheticus]

It's all about curbing Wagnerian (romantic) excesses with subtlety and "intelligence". Hence the quote in my signature. Intelligence ISN'T a dirty word. Debussy EMBRACED it and put his own particular stamp on it. Nothing "academic" about it at all. And so the fruits of all this is his great music.

What it boils down to is this: SOMEBODY had to come along and turn the tide of Wagnerian excesses. Debussy felt qualified to do so.

Yes, he did curb excesses in such a wonderful way but how does that automatically place  P&M  near the forefront of modernism ?

P&M  has not only Wagnerian but Monteverdian roots as well.

and P&M was at the forefront.

Wasn't  Jeux  at the forefront ? 

[DavidW]

I have to admit that I have not heard the work.   Does it stand up to his piano music?  I favor the intimacy of his piano music over his orchestral works.  But maybe his opera might change my mind?

[Homo Aestheticus]

I have to admit that I have not heard the work.   Does it stand up to his piano music?  I favor the intimacy of his piano music over his orchestral works.  But maybe his opera might change my mind?

Oh David, what are you saying ?       How could you ?     

Drop me a PM and I will gladly send you an unwrapped recording since I have so many on my shelf !

 

[greg]

Excellent idea, Que.
Dm has his own Economic doom thread where he gets to post as much as he wants without starting separate threads. I should probably make my own Mahler 9th thread or something.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I have to admit that I have not heard the work.   Does it stand up to his piano music?  I favor the intimacy of his piano music over his orchestral works.  But maybe his opera might change my mind?

David, without doubt P&M is full of intimacy - but only in the right hands. Karajan's EMI recording (which is the apple of Eric's eye) emphatically ISN'T the way to get to know the work. It's bloated all out of 'intimate' proportions and sounds like Parsifal's first born. Which is expressly not what Debussy wanted (although it works for what it is).

There's an interesting discussion between Luke, Eric, and myself towards the end of the Debussy thread (on the composer's board) that deals specifically with the issue of intimacy in P&M. It's an eye-opening discussion which delineates the differences between objective analysis of the work (Luke and I) and how a fetish can distort one's view on the work (Eric).

I don't say this to berate Eric but perspective is of the utmost importance when dealing with such a seminal modernist work as P&M.

My first recommendation in this work is Cluytens on Testament. An eminently French performance filled with subtlety and charm. It's mono but in extremely clear and wide mono. Luke recommends Desormière as a prime recommendation which is a wartime French recording that I haven't yet heard in its entirety. The mono sound there, however, may be a drawback as it's on the constricted side.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Downyn,

David, without doubt P&M is full of intimacy - but only in the right hands. Karajan's EMI recording (which is the apple of Eric's eye) emphatically ISN'T the way to get to know the work.

Look, there is no single flawless recording of 'P&M' but if I had to pick just one it would be Karajan 1978 EMI.  Why ?  Because he does the best overall job of luxuriating in the score's physical sound. It also flows languidly and heavily  for the most part  which is crucial in this work. This is how I feel. And lest you think this a fetish on my part... I attended all 4 performances of P&M at the Met several years ago under James Levine.

And you know what it ? It was practically IDENTICAL to the Karajan (1978); heavy, lush and languid.  Don't believe me ? Here is a review from  NYT  back then:

"It flowed extra-gorgeously and extra-heavily at the Metropolitan Opera on Saturday under the baton of James Levine..."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E2D8153BF932A05752C0A9639C8B63&fta=y

So, that's why I recommend Karajan first, I want the beginner of P&M to 'see' the orchestra first so to speak... 

I don't say this to berate Eric but perspective is of the utmost importance when dealing with such a seminal modernist work as P&M.

Seminal ABSOLUTELY, but not modernist. Yes, it has a some 'forward-looking' elements but one can't simply label it that way.

Jeux  or  La Mer  or  'Etudes'  are obvious modernist works... P&M, no.  Its overall sound is still very much 'exquisite, romantic, late 19th century'.

[greg]

Jeux  or  La Mer  or  'Etudes'  are obvious modernist works... P&M, no.  Its overall sound is still very much 'exquisite, romantic, late 19th century'.

What do you think about it being called Impressionist? To me, that's the only label that makes sense. Neither modern, nor late Romantic (although closer to late Romantic in overall mood, maybe).

[Dancing Divertimentian]

What do you think about it being called Impressionist? To me, that's the only label that makes sense. Neither modern, nor late Romantic (although closer to late Romantic in overall mood, maybe).

If you hear late romantic tendencies in the work it's most likely a result of the trend away from a nationalistic (French) style to an international style (Karajan, Abbado, etc).   

Many of the early French recordings (Desormière, Fournet, Cluytens, on into Inghelbrecht, Baudo, and even Dutoit's 1993 recording) reflect fervently the modernistic tendencies in the work. Not so much "impressionistic" (a term Debussy hated) but modernistic.

If you've ever heard any of Mary Garden's (the original Melisande) recordings you'll also hear a passion for modernism.

André (Lilas) has written extensively on GMG about this shift away from a nationalistic French style. Many of the endearing characteristics of this style have simply faded away as the world becomes ever smaller and influences from abroad are absorbed. It's a style that's largely lost today but thankfully has been preserved for posterity on recordings.

Here's the related discussion from the Debussy thread that might help clarify.

[Wilhelm Richard]

If I haven't been convinced of anything else in my brief time at this forum, it is that I must sit down and listen to this Pelléas et Mélisande and find out what all the fuss is about  ...the library only has it "highlighted" so my judgment will come after some saving and time.
Is there any recording that has somewhat of a general consensus?   

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Luke isn't around so without asking I'll presume to quote this pertinent post of his from the Debussy discussion I mentioned:

Eric will be disappointed, I meant to say, to hear how Debussy accompanies without the longeurs and unnecessary slow pace that the self-proclaimed Ardent Pelleastrean claims are necessary to the interpretation of the piece.

But actually I don't think Eric will care - he's always maintained his distinct indifference to the question of the type of performance that Debussy might have intended, just as he's always been only too happy to discard the vast majority of the rest of Debussy's output. It's always stuck me as odd that at one and the same time Eric implies two contradictory positions: 1) that Debussy wrote the most sublime music ever composed; and 2) that Debussy didn't know how this piece should be performed and, what's more, that most of the rest of his output isn't worth listening to.

Why, it's almost as if Eric is suggesting that the act of Debussy composing P+M was a mere monkeys-writing-Shakespeare fluke, and that really it is Eric himself, and especially his infamous nobody-can-love-a-piece-as-I-love-this-one Appreciation of the piece, which is the true artwork. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Is there any recording that has somewhat of a general consensus?   

Any of the French recordings I mentioned above are recommended, and each carry the weight of consensus.

BTW, as far as recordings, I should have said Ansermet in my earlier post, not Fournet.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Greg,

What do you think about it being called Impressionist? To me, that's the only label that makes sense. Neither modern, nor late Romantic (although closer to late Romantic in overall mood, maybe).

Yes, actually the best term would be 'symbolist', the French literary movement Debussy admired and which Maeterlinck represented. Symbolism was basically Wagnerism disguised by refined Frenchmen who wanted to do what Wagner did but less hyperbolically and more subtly.... That's it in a nutshell.