Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande

[Haffner]

I have only the Karajan/EMI recording of this work, which I was sent as a wonderfully gracious gift by a GMG forum member. So I have nothing to compare the recording to (being that it's Karajan I'm guessing it's at least one of the best recordings, period). So I'm aiming at commenting mainly on the work itself.

One can see where the advanced harmonic complexities that distinguished Richard Wagner's later works have been both assimilated and turned into something different...for serious lack of a better term, DeBussy-ian. Particularly in the second and third acts, the melodic content can only be identified after one takes a big step back from the piece. DeBussy is quoted as saying that he wrote most of the melody for the orchestra, not voice, but there are subtle juxtapositions throughout the aforementioned acts. At times it seems that the 1st act is the least accessible, and one wonders whether DeBussy was extra concerned over starting things "with a blast", that is, to scare away the "easy listening" crowd of his day. The young Strauss certainly loved that sort of thing, and they were rough contemporaries.

After having checked out the score, I see how relatively few instruments were written for the opera, particularly for one in the late 19th century. This is itself distances the work from Wagner's works. The actual dynamics concerning the orchestra ("tutti" passages, etc.) are overall on a smaller scale, but not entirely abberant in light of the scaled down number of instruments. At times it does feel more intimate between the singers and groups of instruments because of this streamlining technique.

Finally, the motifs showcased throughout this piece are often frustratingly subtle, but after several listens they become apparent...well, mostly. This is one of those pieces that it pays to play it repeatedly, because it can be much like a puzzle. Little bits add up to big bits. It took me five listens to finally "get" this opera at all, and by that I mean the 2nd and 3rd acts. The first act is still beyond me due to its seemingly intentional, obfuscatory layout. It reminds me of the second act of Tristan und Isolde, to this day I end up mystified three-quarters-of-the-way through it, despite enjoying immensely the rest of the opera.

I have been comparing this alot to Wagner, and for good reason. I believe that DeBussy himself was quite the sycophant for Parsifal, and I think that the 2nd and 3rd acts show that influence most obviously. But I'm mostly talking about the more byzantine, complex parts of Parsifal...not the more accessible motifs we are all aware of . In fact, the third act itself brings to mind the second act of Wagner's crowning achievement.

So, I feel a bit impudent in writing this, when I'm still only five listens in. I'd love for anyone to elaborate further, particularly those whom have been listening to the piece longer.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

You probably hear a lot of "Wagnerizing" in Karajan's performance because that's precisely how he spins the music. This is Debussy through a Wagner prism.

I used to have Karajan's recording and while he makes a case for the work as late romantic, others I feel tend to find more modernism in it. Especially the French recordings from the middle of 20th century, starting with Desormière's pioneering account, to Ansermet, to Cluytens, to Baudo.

Each of these have that eminent "French" quality in that they downplay weight and grandeur and emphasize the subtle play of light and shade. Which I think perfectly complements the whispery quality of the libretto.

I think if you're looking for a recording to put on the shelf next to Karajan with a suitably contrasting style you can't do any better than Cluytens. The orchestra, the cast, the execution, all add up to highest quality. The sound is mono, recorded in 1956, but it's amazingly realistic and full.

FWIW, this is a work I love immensely and currently own five recordings of it (Cluytens, Baudo, Dutoit, Abbado, and Haitink). 

[Todd]

Pelleas ideally ought not to sound like Wagner.  It's lighter and more delicate, more beautiful,and more elusive.  And Clarity is crucial.  The Karajan recording actually isn't too bad - but as donwyn points out, it presents the work as more of a late romatic work.  I prefer French conductors here, as well, and above all Desormière and Boulez.  The Desormière set is in superb sound for its age (it's from 1941), with a definite focus on voices.  The Boulez DVD is pistine and slightly cool, and as transparent as one could wish for, and has in Alison Hagley an appealing Melisande  I do have to sample that Cluytens recording, I think.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Todd,

Actually, I would recommend the 1970 Boulez on EMI with Elisabeth Soderstrom, George Shirley and Donald McIntyre before his DVD.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The Desormière set is in superb sound for its age (it's from 1941), with a definite focus on voices. 

Yes, this is essentially how Cluytens approaches the work, too. But the orchestra definitely plays an active role.

[M forever]

I actually have the Abbado recording, but never got around to listening to all of it.

[Haffner]

These are all excellent reccomendations, thanks to all of you. I found Todd's post in particular to be really interesting in regard to the Wagner comparison.

I have thought of DeBussy's work as straddling the late-Romantic-to-"atonal" era. Now I see that he possibly could have been the essential break from the Romantic. Perhaps even morese than Strauss (though Strauss definitely had a big part in it, in my opinion).

[Homo Aestheticus]

These are all excellent reccomendations, thanks to all of you. I found Todd's post in particular to be really interesting in regard to the Wagner comparison.

I have thought of DeBussy's work as straddling the late-Romantic-to-"atonal" era. Now I see that he possibly could have been the essential break from the Romantic. Perhaps even morese than Strauss (though Strauss definitely had a big part in it, in my opinion).

Andy,

I have always found it very puzzling how many commentators like to situate Debussy's 'Pelleas et Melisande' firmly within the scope of Modernism. They see it as a modernist drama par excellence that should be linked closely to say, Bartok's 'Bluebeard's Castle' or Berg's 'Wozzeck'. They also refer to 'Pelleas' as a 20th century opera. But it was composed between September 1893 and August 1898! 

Yes, Debussy cared a lot about creating a kind of music that sounded uniquely French (i.e. that wasn't too much in the thrall of Wagner and other 19th century Germans) and he was interested in creating a musical language that reflected the subtle, elusive meanings of symbolist poetry. But 'Pelleas' predates a lot of the techniques found in early 20th century music by quite a bit. I suppose the only thing one can say is that Bartok's opera is as Hungarian as 'Pelleas' is French. 'Wozzeck' too is strikingly dissimilar to me, it is truly modern. To my ears it has nothing in common with either Bartok's 'Bluebeard's Castle' or Berg's 'Wozzeck'. 

I have always viewed  P&M as the most sophisticated of all operas... A uniquely beautiful and exquisite work of late 19th century romanticism.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I have always found it very puzzling how many commentators like to situate Debussy's 'Pelleas et Melisande' firmly within the scope of Modernism. They see it as a modernist drama par excellence that should be linked closely to say, Bartok's 'Bluebeard's Castle' or Berg's 'Wozzeck'. They also refer to 'Pelleas' as a 20th century opera. But it was composed between September 1893 and August 1898! 

Well, Pink, if many commentators see Pelleas as modernist then they are simply acknowledging the work for what it is.

Debussy sought to move away from the Wagnerian ethos in the theater - something you acknowledge. And most French recordings echo this shift.

Like it or not by the 1890's modernism was sprouting up everywhere, and it's long been established Debussy was at the forefront of this movement. Pelleas fell naturally into place.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Downyn,

Well, those commentators/critics should then also acknowledge that 'Pelleas', 'Wozzeck' and 'Bluebeard' are radically different works - in  both aesthetic and technique.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Downyn,

Well, those commentators/critics should then also acknowledge that 'Pelleas', 'Wozzeck' and 'Bluebeard' are radically different works - in  both aesthetic and technique.

Yes, because those other works aren't "sophisticated" enough. I get it.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Yes, because those other works aren't "sophisticated" enough. I get it.

Downyn,

I was not implying that.

Yes, the term Modernism refers to a vast range of styles : French Symbolism, Surrealism, and German Expressionism (Dada, Futurism, etc.) but do you seriously think that those 3 operas are similar in aesthetic and technique ? 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Pelleas ideally ought not to sound like Wagner.  It's lighter and more delicate, more beautiful,and more elusive.  And Clarity is crucial.  The Karajan recording actually isn't too bad - but as donwyn points out, it presents the work as more of a late romatic work.  I prefer French conductors here, as well, and above all Desormière and Boulez.  The Desormière set is in superb sound for its age (it's from 1941), with a definite focus on voices.  The Boulez DVD is pistine and slightly cool, and as transparent as one could wish for, and has in Alison Hagley an appealing Melisande  I do have to sample that Cluytens recording, I think.

Todd,

Karajan's version is the best as far as the orchestra goes... Dark, heavy, ominous, superheated and gorgeous.

No one luxuriates in the score's physical sound as he does.... He makes this music sound so different as if some treasure had remained undiscovered for years and years.

I read an interview in which he said that the 1978 recording was his finest achievement.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I actually have the Abbado recording, but never got around to listening to all of it.

M,

Just a suggestion:

You really ought to put aside whatever it is you are listening to right now and make the exploration of  Pelleas et Melisande  your first priority because, my friend, Debussy's opera is one of the absolute wonders of Western music...

(Just make sure that your first exposure to it is with Karajan EMI (1978)

[Homo Aestheticus]

Yes, because those other works aren't "sophisticated" enough. I get it.

Downyn,

Pelleas, Bluebeard and Wozzeck are similar in aesthetic and technique... Is that what you're saying ?

[PerfectWagnerite]

I actually have the Abbado recording, but never got around to listening to all of it.

Same here. I have had it for as long as I remember but never gotten around to listening to it. I sampled it here and there but nothing really attracted me.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Same here. I have had it for as long as I remember but never gotten around to listening to it. I sampled it here and there but nothing really attracted me.

PW,

Well that's understandable for 2 reasons:

1) Abbado should never have tried his hand with this opera; he doesn't understand it.... There is no lushness, no  Parsifalian  reminisces... nothing.

2) Pelleas here (Le Roux) has the most annoying voice.

Btw, I am very surprised to hear an ardent Wagnerian such as yourself say that nothing in this most exquisite of operas attracted you. That is very sad.

[M forever]

Thanks to whoever it was who unmasked the "Pink Harp" behind this new username. At least that way we won't be tempted to waste any time corresponding with him.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I want to see  Pelleas et Melisande  performed at Bayreuth every summer. The Germans need to make just one exception and lift the ban to include this most sincere, sensitive, subtle, sophisticated, eloquent and exquisite of all operas. 

[Haffner]

I want to see  Pelleas et Melisande  performed at Bayreuth every summer.

(Envy)