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
Quote from: karlhenning on January 29, 2009, 01:38:10 PM
(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.
Guido,
Quote from: Guido on January 29, 2009, 03:07:47 PM
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"
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 29, 2009, 07:58:41 PM
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.
Quote from: donwyn on January 29, 2009, 08:04:10 PM
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.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 29, 2009, 08:16:44 PM
It doesn't matter what Debussy's intention was.
Sorry, but this just flat out deserves a ::)
QuoteP&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.
Quote from: donwyn on January 29, 2009, 08:56:38 PMThe 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.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 29, 2009, 09:07:58 PM
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.
Quote from: donwyn on January 29, 2009, 09:32:15 PMIt'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.
Quoteand P&M was at the forefront.
Wasn't
Jeux at the forefront ?
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?
Quote from: DavidW on January 31, 2009, 06:22:15 PM
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 !
:)
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.
Quote from: DavidW on January 31, 2009, 06:22:15 PM
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.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ageYjawyL._SS500_.jpg)
Downyn,
Quote from: donwyn on January 31, 2009, 09:10:01 PMDavid, 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... :)
QuoteI 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'.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 31, 2009, 09:46:25 PM
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).
Quote from: G$ on February 01, 2009, 05:56:20 AM
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 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5024.40.html) from the Debussy thread that might help clarify.
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 :D ...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? :)
Luke isn't around so without asking I'll presume to quote this pertinent post of his from the Debussy discussion I mentioned:
Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 21, 2008, 12:38:34 AM
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. ;D
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on February 01, 2009, 08:09:20 AM
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.
Greg,
Quote from: G$ on February 01, 2009, 05:56:20 AM
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.
Donwyn,
Quote from: donwyn on February 01, 2009, 08:07:06 AMMany 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.
There you go again with the modernistic... :-X
Aren't you aware that
P&M was actually a comparatively early work ? Wagner was the single most significant influence on Debussy here... (along with Chopin and Mussorgsky)
The best way to put it is that the harmonic language of
P&M is a late nineteenth-century French language
inflected by Debussy's experience of Wagner.
Hi Wilhelm,
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on February 01, 2009, 08:09:20 AM
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 :D ...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? :)
Please do not worry so much about a general consensus, o.k. ? :)
Besides, don't you think that anyone who loves this music as much as I do has the right (and authority) to silence dissenters.... ;)
My ears tell me that 'Pelleas et Melisande' only works when its taken at a glaciously slow pace while drawing
every last drop of nuance from the orchestra. This is the absolutely essential quality. It comes first.
Like I said before there is no single ideal recording of it.
All of them have their flaws but Karajan (EMI 1978) Ansermet (SRO and George London as Golaud) Boulez (EMI 1970, for a couple scenes and the superb vocalist, George Shirley) and Haitink (EMI 2002) do the best overall jobs.
Good luck.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 01, 2009, 10:00:08 AM
Besides, don't you think that anyone who loves this music as much as I do has the right (and authority) to silence dissenters.... ;)
:D Oh, but of course!
A friend of mine has offered to make me a copy of a radio broadcast he recorded from Theater an der Wien last month with Dessay and Degout...I will start with that.
Quote from: G$ on January 31, 2009, 07:33:55 PM
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.
One further Maher thread and I shall remove your fingers greg, in an extremely painful way.
Mike
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 01, 2009, 09:57:03 AM
Greg,
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.
Ok, fine, it's Symbolist, then. End of story.
Quote from: knight on February 01, 2009, 01:30:13 PM
One further Maher thread and I shall remove your fingers greg, in an extremely painful way.
Mike
I didn't know we had Maher threads on this forum.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 01, 2009, 09:58:53 AM
Aren't you aware that P&M was actually a comparatively early work ? Wagner was the single most significant influence on Debussy here... (along with Chopin and Mussorgsky)
The best way to put it is that the harmonic language of P&M is a late nineteenth-century French language inflected by Debussy's experience of Wagner.
I can't think of anything more disrespectful to Debussy's legacy than to make such arrogant, misguided, and utterly fraudulent claims.
One last point and I'm out.
Once again - for your edification, Pink - I quote DEBUSSY'S OWN WORDS specifically relating to P&M and its mission:
Quote
"I have tried to beat out a path where others can follow by adding their own discoveries and by ridding dramatic music of the heavy constraint from which it has suffered for so long a time".
"The characters of [P&M] endeavor to sing like real persons, and not in an arbitrary language built on antiquated traditions".
Donwyn,
Quote from: donwyn on February 01, 2009, 05:06:33 PM
I can't think of anything more disrespectful to Debussy's legacy than to make such arrogant, misguided, and utterly fraudulent claims.
Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge the romantic side of 'P&M' ?
Quote"I have tried to beat out a path where others can follow by adding their own discoveries and by ridding dramatic music of the heavy constraint from which it has suffered for so long a time. The characters of [P&M] endeavor to sing like real persons, and not in an arbitrary language built on antiquated traditions.."
I'm familiar with those remarks by Debussy and I agree completely. However the word 'heavy constraint' is NOT a reference to how
P&M should be interpreted (i.e tempi, phrasing). He is expressing his opinion that the huge, complicated and often plangent orchestral apparatuses of his time were antithetical to his musical philosophy. (i.e. much of Wagner, Bruckner, etc)
O.k. everyone, let's switch gears for a moment... :)
This review always makes me chuckle:
"The opera was hardly in rehearsal before one professor of the Paris Conservatory denounced it as a "filthy score" perverted by "errors of harmony." Members of the press rejected the score, and it's often delicate nature, by branding Debussy's followers "Pelleastres" -- and describing them in highly-effeminate terms. Their implication was clear: anyone who actually liked this "unnatural" music must also be living an "unnatural" life..."
****
;D
Quote from: G$ on February 01, 2009, 04:54:42 PM
Ok, fine, it's Symbolist, then. End of story.
Eric the revisionist invents a 'musical symbolism'.
Symbolism is a literary movement, and the term applies to Maeterlinck's play.
Don said it best Quoted for truth:
Quote from: donwyn on February 01, 2009, 05:06:33 PM
I can't think of anything more disrespectful to Debussy's legacy than to make such arrogant, misguided, and utterly fraudulent claims.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 31, 2009, 09:46:25 PM
Seminal ABSOLUTELY, but not modernist. Yes, it has a some 'forward-looking' elements but one can't simply label it that way.
Well, but that's funny, Eric. You capriciously decide that you can adopt the literary term Symbolist, and (to borrow your phrase) 'simply label' the opera with it. What is at work here, of course, is a very basic conflict involving, not the piece, but your own baggage. You have too much time invested in hand-wringing over the
modern, and because of your "love" for the opera, you cannot bear that this hated, hated adjective should apply to the piece you "love"!!!
It isn't merely a matter of "some 'forward-looking' elements";
Debussy designed the piece as a sort of repudiation of opera tradition (viz. his famous remark to the singers at an early rehearsal, enjoining them to forget what they've learnt about singing opera). Only the most obvious way in which he turned his back on centuries of opera tradition, was in skipping the idea of adapting the drama into an 'intermediate' libretto, and instead leaving the stage-play largely intact.
QuoteJeux or La Mer or 'Etudes' are obvious modernist works... P&M, no. Its overall sound is still very much 'exquisite, romantic, late 19th century'.
We've said this a hundred time before, and no doubt you'll ignore it again; but
Jeux and
La mer are every bit as exquisite as
Pelléas. And all three works are of a piece in
Debussy's sound-world; you make yourself comic with pretending that there's this yawning gulf between the opera and
La mer, and that on one side
Debussy wrote 'exquisite, romanticism', but on the other he was a modernist.
(I will preface this by pointing out that I am NOT an expert (or even that informed) when it comes to Pelleas et Melisande or Debussy at this time, but am very curious).
Why does it seem as though we/some can't accept that a composer can/did write both Romantic and Modern works (and works influenced by both movements)? Richard Strauss is an example that leaps to my mind...the romanticism of his early tone poems versus the gnashing of teeth of Salome (beautiful in its own way) are quite different from each other. Composers like Strauss (and, I believe, Debussy) lived in a time a friend of mine (who speaks much more poetically than I) described as the "twilight" between Romantic (day in this metaphor) and Modern (night) music...who is to say EXACTLY when day ends and night begins? It is difficult/impossible to place all of these composers' works in one or the other camp, but there is definitely some on either side, and some that is defined by the overlap. (I will admit that I prefer my "twilight" performed a little closer to the "day" side...enter passionate readings a la Karajan :) )
Another thought: I also do not believe a piece's subject matter can define whether or not it is Modern. If Richard Wagner himself came down (or up, if you like) and wrote an opera in the same style as Lohengrin but with a text by Arthur Miller, it would still be a Romantic piece of music (in my opinion). I do not believe we can turn to the source of Debussy's text to confirm or deny the music's Romanticism or Modernity (if that is what we are debating).
But in the end, if somebody hears a piece of music and feels it is Romantic, how can that be disputed? How can something that can only be defined emotionally be fought with words and pseudo-scientific analysis?
Now, if somebody comes up to me and declares that some white noise with a beat to it is Romantic, I would question their sanity, but I do not believe that is the case in this case.
(Pardon any typing slip ups -- this was written pressed for time)
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on February 02, 2009, 05:55:45 AM
(Pardon any typing slip ups -- this was written pressed for time)
Very enjoyable post, thank you.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 02, 2009, 03:54:07 AMYou cannot bear that this hated, hated adjective should apply to the piece you "love"!!!
The word 'modern' cannot in any way, shape or form be applied to it... True, it is on the cusp of the concerns of two centuries but the most that one can say is that it merely
looks both backwards and forwards.
QuoteDesigned the piece as a sort of repudiation of opera tradition (viz. his famous remark to the singers at an early rehearsal, enjoining them to forget what they've learnt about singing opera)
Yes, his exact words to the vocalists before the premiere was...
"I beg you, I implore you to forget that you are singers". But that is a part of its Monteverdian roots. :)
QuoteWe've said this a hundred time before, and no doubt you'll ignore it again; but Jeux and La mer are every bit as exquisite as Pelléas.
Yes,
La Mer is exquisite and breathtaking but
Jeux is most definitely NOT. It is, as, we've discussed before, austere, rigorously formed and hard-edged.
(A very nice contribution by Wilhelm Richard, yes)
:)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 02, 2009, 07:13:32 AM
The word 'modern' cannot in any way, shape or form be applied to it.
QuoteYes, La Mer is exquisite and breathtaking but Jeux is most definitely NOT.
Utter nonsense.
Karl said it best Quoted for truth:
Quote from: karlhenning on February 02, 2009, 03:54:07 AM
We've said this a hundred time before, and no doubt you'll ignore it again; but Jeux and La mer are every bit as exquisite as Pelléas. And all three works are of a piece in Debussy's sound-world;
;D
Paul Henry Lang, a great musicologist of the 20th century made one of the oddest comments on P&M I've come across.
On page 1023 in his book Music in Western Civilization he writes:
"Pelleas et Melisande belongs among those rare works of art in which music dissolves in a synthesis of poetic and plastic beauty, always sought and seldom attained by poets and composers. But it also belongs to those works which show most clearly the fragility of such any art. Pre-Raphaelitism couls create a perfect illusion -- for the moment; today it is dated. Maeterlinck's dramas will be dated soon, if they are not already. Music which is so faithfully adapted to a poetic work of essentially transitory character may perish in the adventure..."
****
Is he saying that because Maeterlinck's plays were close to becoming dated (Lang wrote this circa 1941) that it almost guarantees that Debussy's music would as well ?
This is puzzling to me since most people would acknowledge that in many beloved operas the music often is superior to the libretto. Why should the weakened status of the symbolist literary movement make the music of P&M more vulnerable to 'perish' ?
Any thoughts on what he was saying here ?
With your passion for P&M Eric, have you ever thought of working for PETPAM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Pelleas and Melisande)? ;)
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 04, 2009, 10:12:36 AM
With your passion for P&M Eric, have you ever thought of working for PETPAM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Pelleas and Melisande)? ;)
;D
I'm still waiting for Eric's reaction to this review on Lafolia.com:
http://www.lafolia.com/archive/silverton/silverton199808archdig.html
Langen Mandra Wanara, a Javanese gamelan dance-opera, was written by Prince Danuredjo VII in the 1890s. A 1975 recording, performed by elderly musicians who had last staged the work in the 1920s, was made for the Ocora label. Ethnomusicologist Jacques Brunet supervised the recording and also wrote the liner notes. Mike Silverton reviewed it for La Folia.
Money quote: "As Jacques Brunet observes, Langen Mandra Wanara's conception parallels that of Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande, in what sounds, as does Debussy's great masterpiece, like music from another, dreamier world."
As someone who has listened with pleasure to recordings of both works, I can offer this: An ardent/unrepentant Pelleastre might well come to treasure Langen Mandra Wanara.
Hola Alejandro,
Thank you for bringing it to my attention... Looks most interesting.
:)
I never thought I'd say this, but I feel compelled to defend Eric regarding one (and only one) point: many (including Debussy himself, as I understand it) have contended that "Symbolism"—not "Impressionism"—is the most appropriate "ism" term to characterize the Frenchman's musical aesthetic and philosophy.
Hi,
Quote from: aquariuswb on February 05, 2009, 02:56:30 PM
I never thought I'd say this, but I feel compelled to defend Eric regarding one (and only one) point: many (including Debussy himself, as I understand it) have contended that "Symbolism"—not "Impressionism"—is the most appropriate "ism" term to characterize the Frenchman's musical aesthetic and philosophy.
On which points relating to
P&M do you disagree with me ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 05, 2009, 03:00:24 PM
Hi,
On which points relating to P&M do you disagree with me ?
You claim that it is
in no way a "modern" work. Things are not black and white, as you make them out to be. I don't see anybody else denying that P&M is, in many ways, a work of late Romanticism, but why would you deny that it was, in other ways, quite progressive and "modern" in its time?
Hi,
Quote from: aquariuswb on February 05, 2009, 03:11:07 PMYou claim that it is in no way a "modern" work.
That is correct, I do not believe there is anything 'modern' about
the music... the harmonic, melodic and rhythmic structure. But never am I referring to any interpretations of the Maeterlinck libretto. That's a separate issue.
Quotebut why would you deny that it was, in other ways, quite progressive and "modern" in its time?
O.k. so the vocal writing is closely tied to particular speech rhythms and inflexions but Monteverdi did something very similar centuries before... HOWEVER, it must be said that in no other opera is this almost unbroken recitative as expressive as it is here.
Is that what makes it somewhat modern ?
Next, the harmonies. Much of them are ultra-refined. And there is barely a trace of astringency throughout its 2 hours and 45 minutes...
What in your opinion are its progressive features. I'm curious... :)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 05, 2009, 06:21:09 PM
O.k. so the vocal writing is closely tied to particular speech rhythms and inflexions but Monteverdi did something very similar centuries before...
To say that something is "modern" or "progressive" doesn't necessarily mean that nothing
like it has
ever been attempted. I think you're thinking more of Caccini and Peri, by the way, rather than Monteverdi so much (Caccini's and Peri's overuse of recitative is presumably part of why their early attempts at opera were not very successful; compared to theirs, Monteverdi's operas were chock-full of aria!). But either way, when we talk about something being cutting-edge or "modern" or "progressive," we mean innovation and/or departure from current trends (although I guess "modern" is a bit more ambiguous). Sure, early 17th century attempts at opera had an awful lot of recitative, but Debussy's insistence on giving the main melodies to the orchestra is in an altogether different time and place and musical tradition, with a totally different harmonic, orchestral, and textural language. P&M is not a "throw-back" (even if its instrumentation kind of is).
I've seen you quote and praise Lawrence Gilman before. Why don't you take his word for it? Forgive the length of this quote, but I think it addresses precisely the issue at hand. In bold are some of his particularly pertinent phrases—Gilman's thoughts on the matter are anything but ambiguous.
Quote
In calling this a "revolutionary" score one is being simply and baldly literal. To realize the justness of the epithet, one has only to speculate upon what Wagner would have said, or what Richard Strauss may think, of an opera (let us adhere, for convenience, to an accommodating if inaccurate term) written for the voices, from beginning to end, in a kind of recitative which is virtually a chant; an opera in which there is no vocal melody whatsoever, and comparatively little symphonie development of themes in the orchestra; in which an enigmatic and wholly eccentric system of harmony is exploited; in which there are scarcely more than a dozen fortissimo passages in the course of five acts; in which, for the greater part of the time, the orchestra employed is the orchestra of Mozart,—surely, this is something new in modern musico-dramatic art; surely, it requires some courage, or an indifference amounting to courage, to write thus in a day when the plangent and complex orchestra of the Ring is considered inadequate, and the 113 instrumentalists of Salome, like the trumpeters of an elder time, are storming the operatic ramparts of two continents.
The radicalism of the music was fully appreciated at the time of the first performances in Paris. To the dissenters, Debussy's musical personages were mere "stammering phantoms," and he was regaled with the age-worn charge of having "ignored melody altogether." Debussy has defended his methods with point and directness. "I have been reproached," he says, "because in my score the melodic phrase is always in the orchestra, never in the voice. I tried, with all my strength and all my sincerity, to identify my music with the poetical essence of the drama. Before all things, I respected the characters, the lives of my personages; I wished them to express themselves independently of me, of themselves. I let them sing in me. I tried to listen to them and to interpret them faithfully. I wished—intended, in fact—that the action should never be arrested; that it should be continuous, uninterrupted. I wished to dispense with parasitic musical phrases. When listening to a work, the spectator is wont to experience two kinds of emotions which are quite distinct: the musical emotion, on the one hand; the emotion of the character [in the drama], on the other; generally they are felt successively. I have tried to blend these two emotions, and make them simultaneous. Melody is, if I may say so, almost anti-lyric, and powerless to express the constant change of emotion or life. Melody is suitable only for the song (chanson), which confirms a fixed sentiment. I have never been willing that my music should hinder, through technical exigencies, the changes of sentiment and passion felt by my characters. It is effaced as soon as it is necessary that these should have perfect liberty in their gestures as in their cries, in their joy as in their sorrow." However much one may hesitate to subscribe to Debussy's generalities, the final justification for his procedure is in the fact that it is ideally suited to its especial purpose,—the tonal utterance of Maeterlinck's rhymeless, metreless, and broken phrases. To have set them in the sustained arioso style of Tristan und Isolde would have been as impossible as it would have been inept. As it is, the writing for the voices in Pelléas never, as one might reasonably suppose, becomes monotonous. The achievement—an astonishing tour de force, at the least—is as artistically successful as it is unprecedented in modern music.
In his treatment of the orchestra, Debussy makes a scarcely less resolute departure from tradition. There is little symphonic development in the Wagnerian sense. His orchestra reflects the emotional implications of the text and action with absolute and scrupulous fidelity, but suggestively rather than with detailed emphasis. The drama is far less heavily underscored than with Wagner; the note of passion or of conflict or of tragedy is never forced. His personages love and desire, exult and hate and die, with a surprising economy of vehemence and insistence. Yet, unrhetorical as the music is, it is never pallid; and in such truly climacteric moments as that of Golaud's agonized outbreak in the scene with Mélisande, in the fourth act, and the ecstatic culmination of the final love-scene, the music supports the dramatic and emotional crisis with superb competency and vigor.
He follows Wagner to the extent of using the inescapable device of representative themes, though he has, with his usual airy inconsistency, characterized the Wagnerian Leitmotiv system as "rather coarse." It is true, however, that his typical phrases are employed far more sparingly and subtly than modern precedent would have led one to expect. They are seldom set in sharp and vividly dramatic contrast, as with Wagner; nor are they polyphonically deployed. Often they are mere sound-wraiths, intended to denote moods and nuances of emotion so impalpable and evanescent, so vague and interior, that it is more than a little difficult to mark their precise significance. Often they are mere fragments of themes, mere patches of harmonic color, evasive and intangible, designed almost wholly to translate phases of that psychic penumbra in which the characters and the action of the drama are enwrapped. They have a common kinship in their dim and muted loveliness, their grave reticence, the deep and immitigable sadness with which, even at their most rapturous, they are penetrated. This is a score rich in beauty and strangeness, yet the music has often a deceptive naïveté, a naïveté that is so extreme that it reveals itself, finally, as the quintessence of subtlety and reticence—in which respect, again, we are reminded of its perfect, its well-nigh uncanny, correspondence with the quality of Maeterlinck's drama.
As it has been remarked, Debussy's orchestra is here, with few exceptions, the orchestra of Mozart's day. On page after page he writes for strings alone, or for strings with wood-wind and horns. He uses the full modern orchestra only upon the rarest occasions, and then more often for color than for volume. He has an especial affection for the strings, particularly in the lower registers; and he is exceedingly fond of subdividing and muting them. It is rare to find him using the wood-wind choir alone, or the wood and brass without the strings. His orchestra contains the usual modern equipment—3 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, an English horn, 3 bassoons, 4 horns, 3 trumpets, 3 trombones, bass tuba, kettledrums, glockenspiel, cymbals, 2 harps, and strings; yet one may count on but little more than the fingers of both hands the pages in which this apparatus is employed in its full strength. And in spite of this curious and unpopular reticence, we listen here, as M. Bruneau has observed, to "a magic orchestra"—an orchestra of indescribable richness, delicacy, and suppleness—an orchestra that melts and shimmers with opalescent hues—an orchestra that has substance without density, sonority without blatancy, refinement without thinness.
The music, as a whole, is as insinuating as it is unparalleled. Many passages are of an hypnotic and abiding fascination. There is something necromantic in the art which can so swiftly and so surely cast an ineluctable spell upon the heart and the imagination: such a spell as is cast in the scene at the Fontaine des Aveugles, in the second act; or when, from the window in the castle tower, Mélisande's unbound hair falls and envelops Pelléas—an unforgettable page; or when the lovers meet for the last time at the Fountain of the Blind; or in the scene of Mélisande's death—one of the most pathetic and affecting pages in all music. One must wonder at the elasticity and richness of the harmonic texture—which, while it is incurably "irregular," is never crude or inchoate; at the distinction of the melodic line; at the rhythmical variety; at the masterly and individual orchestration. No faculty of trained perception is required justly to value the excellences of Debussy's score. There is great beauty, great eloquence, in this music. It has sincerity, dignity, and reserve, yet it is both deeply impassioned and enamoringly tender; and it is as absolutely personal, as underived, as was Tristan forty years ago.
Generally speaking, by the way, if one wishes to be taken seriously when making a claim that goes directly against the grain of virtually all scholarship on a subject—surely a brave thing to do!—the usual process is to acknowledge said scholarship and carefully make one's case using the available evidence, showing specifically how the others "have it wrong." For a convincing argument, the evidence would typically have to be something more substantial than one's emotional response (although that may be part of the evidence, in certain cases).
Yes Mr. Gilman does put it in better perspective now... :)
What I don't understand are those who wish to place it firmly within the scope of Modernism. They want to see it as a modernist drama par excellence that should be linked closely to Bartok's 'Bluebeard's Castle' and Berg's 'Wozzeck'
Now, strip away the librettos and what do they have in common ? Nothing.... They are radically different in aesthetic and technique (i.e. musical vocabulary)
Re Debussy and Symbolism - I must disagree with Karl on this point. Just as literary Symbolism was heavily involved with music (Wagner's in particular), so Debussy was heavily involved with literary Symbolism (Mallarmé, Maeterlinck et al)). Boulez, too, stands in that tradition. For one excellent study of this subject - Stefan Jarocinski, Debussy - Impressionism & Symbolism.
And by the way - the whole literary Modernist movement was imbued by (Wagnerian) music (and this has influenced even my own writing). To mention only a few authors: Proust wanted his novel to be printed without any chapters, as a flood of prose, an equivalent of Wagner's unending melody; Thomas Mann and James Joyce use leitmotifs, and so does the Russian Symbolist/Modernist Andrey Bely. And these are only the major instances.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 05, 2009, 08:27:48 PM
Yes Mr. Gilman does put it in better perspective now... :)
What I don't understand are those who wish to place it firmly within the scope of Modernism. They want to see it as a modernist drama par excellence that should be linked closely to Bartok's 'Bluebeard's Castle' and Berg's 'Wozzeck'
Now, strip away the librettos and what do they have in common ? Nothing.... They are radically different in aesthetic and technique (i.e. musical vocabulary)
Yes, they
are radically different, but don't you see how Debussy's departure from Wagnerism (and flirtations with atonality) influenced virtually a whole new generation (or two or three) of composers?
Hi,
Quote from: aquariuswb on February 06, 2009, 04:50:04 AMYes, they are radically different, but don't you see how Debussy's departure from Wagnerism influenced virtually a whole new generation (or two or three) of composers?
That is true but what would have happened if
P&M had been his last work ?
I do wonder how many composers truly revered it since I can't think of another opera that
sounds like it.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 07, 2009, 06:34:20 AM
I do wonder how many composers truly revered it since I can't think of another opera that sounds like it.
Must reverence come in the form of imitation?
I want to ask Eric if the CD below is the Karajan that he is referring to as a recommendation. Also, I was wondering about what recordings others might prefer of this... (my trigger fingers' itchy!!) ;D
Thanks.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61KHARTN8EL._SS500_.jpg)
Hi Bax, :)
No, it's this one:
(http://www.vinylparadise.com/goodlp/1/7odbkae1.jpg)
which was then re-issued:
(http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/nov99/pelleas.jpg)
*********
By the way, stay far away from Karajan's earlier one: it's light and fleet, similar to those French wartime recordings.
Quote from: BaxMan on February 07, 2009, 08:32:02 AM
Also, I was wondering about what recordings others might prefer of this... (my trigger fingers' itchy!!) ;D
I have only Boulez, 1970, and like it just fine.
Quote from: aquariuswb on February 07, 2009, 09:04:05 AMI have only Boulez, 1970, and like it just fine.
Yes... :) What I love about Boulez (EMI 1970) are the vocalists: I've ALWAYS greatly preferred Donald Mcintyre (Golaud), Elisabeth Soderstrom (Melisande) and George Shirley (Pelleas) over Jose van Dam, Frederica von Stade and Richard Stillwell.
The major problem is that for me the orchestra comes first and Boulez' reading is just way too brisk, often dry and not 'contemplative' enough. There are exceptions though:
The Fountain (Act II, scene 1) and a few passages in
The Tower (Act III, scene 1)
Overall, I would say that Karajan excels in Acts 1, 4 and 5. There is still room for improvement in Act 2 and 3 in my book. But since his is generally the most lush and relaxed, I recommend it first.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 07, 2009, 09:31:19 AM
Overall, I would say that Karajan excels in Acts 1, 4 and 5. There is still room for improvement in Act 2 and 3 in my book. But since his is generally the most lush and relaxed, I recommend it first.
I will keep that in mind!
Thanks for the info, Mr. Pelleastrian. :)
I will stick my toe in the water with your recommendation. 8)
On a separate note, here is a little story from when it was released in 1979:
"Pélleas was a personal passion of Karajan, and because of this he agreed to make a very rare personal appearance to promote the release of the recording when he was in London in 1979 on a Berlin Philharmonic tour..."
http://www.overgrownpath.com/search?q=pelleas
****
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 10, 2009, 12:17:20 PM
This is unbelievable..... They've shelved Pelleas et Melisande....
Why unbelievable? There's less demand for it, I expect.
Quote from: EricThe tradition has been to produce it every 5 years and now..... nothing.
Well, were you going to buy a ticket? Opera is for audiences.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2009, 12:38:38 PMWhy unbelievable? There's less demand for it, I expect.
And that is truly a great pity.
QuoteWell, were you going to buy a ticket?
Gosh, as many as I could ! Back in February 2005 when it was last produced I was able to buy tickets for all 5 performances. There were also front row seats available at every one, except for the Saturday matinee.
For those wondering where this came from, Karl and I are referring to this thread:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,11019.0.html
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on February 10, 2009, 12:17:20 PM
Considering that it is one of the least expensive to put on makes this doubly sad.
Well, you
do get what you pay for.
Quote from: bricon on February 10, 2009, 01:46:57 PMWell, you do get what you pay for.
O.k. Bricon sarcasm aside, :) ... aren't you a fan of
P&M ?
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Why unbelievable? There's less demand for it, I expect.
Well, were you going to buy a ticket? Opera is for audiences.
As I recall, Eric's mentioned that the last time they revived the opera, he went to all four performances.
In any case, as I mention in the Met 2009-10 thread, the opera will be revived in 2010-11, just 5 years and 10 months after the last Met performances.
Hi
I know this isn't really a recordings thread but I wanted to say that I've just discovered this DVD and I love it.
It's conducted by Gardiner, with Colette Alliot-Lugaz, François Le Roux, José van Dam, and Roger Soyer.
It's a strange production -- much of the action seems to take place as fantasies in the heads of the singers.
Whetever you might think of that as concept, one thing it does do is make the singers act. And I found the result riveting.
Well, about 2 months ago I sent both DavidW and Thomas (Wilhelm Richard) a recording of Pelleas et Melisande as a gift and am somewhat disappointed that they haven't shared their thoughts/feelings on it...
:'(
C'mon guys what do you think so far of Debussy's great opera ??
:)
Quote from: Mandryka on February 15, 2009, 12:14:28 PM
Hi
I know this isn't really a recordings thread but I wanted to say that I've just discovered this DVD and I love it.
It's conducted by Gardiner, with Colette Alliot-Lugaz, François Le Roux, José van Dam, and Roger Soyer.
It's a strange production -- much of the action seems to take place as fantasies in the heads of the singers.
Whetever you might think of that as concept, one thing it does do is make the singers act. And I found the result riveting.
Was this the first time you found yourself liking this opera? The idea of fantasies might be a big help to me.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 05, 2009, 06:50:58 PM
Well, about 2 months ago I sent both DavidW and Thomas (Wilhelm Richard) a recording of Pelleas et Melisande as a gift and am somewhat disappointed that they haven't shared their thoughts/feelings on it...
:'(
C'mon guys what do you think so far of Debussy's great opera ??
:)
Many apologies! Though I made sure to let you know my initial thoughts through a PM, it slipped my mind to return to this thread. If nothing else, I wanted to acknowledge publicly that I know very few who are so committed to informing/enlightening others of things musical that they are willing to be so generous, and for that I thank you again.
Pelléas et Mélisande contains some of the most beautiful and calming music I have ever heard. The perpetual lushness of the strings is probably what I enjoy the most about it (though I am sure Herr Karajan and that ol' Berlin Philharmonic had a little something to do with that ;)) The entire work flows very naturally, from a form perspective and in the way that the voices and the orchestra interact.
Now that I have heard it, I am not sure why some may be so opposed to saying it is in the "Romantic" vein...my disinclination to use such broad and generic descriptions in describing these great works of art has only continued to grow in the time after I was briefly involved with this debate, but I do see
Pelléas as quite Romantic, though definitely not without elements of the Modern (not surprisingly as its harmonies were written by Debussy).
Is it in my top ten? No (because Wagner wrote more than 10 operas! :)) but it is now established in my repertory (thanks to Eric) and I would recommend that anyone who has not give it an objective listen.
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 05, 2009, 08:56:52 PM
Now that I have heard it, I am not sure why some may be so opposed to saying it is in the "Romantic" vein...
Opposition comes from Debussy himself.
And what you've heard is simply one man's (Karajan's) conception of the work - a conception which is as far removed from the aim of the piece as you can get.
Quote from: O'Richter, son of "Kidney Sam" on May 05, 2009, 10:12:01 PM
Opposition comes from Debussy himself.
Debussy didn't want to be called an Impressionist either, but we see how much that was heeded.
Quote from: O'Richter, son of "Kidney Sam" on May 05, 2009, 10:12:01 PM
And what you've heard is simply one man's (Karajan's) conception of the work - a conception which is as far removed from the aim of the piece as you can get.
I am not saying that it is not possible for a conductor to misinterpret a work (as it has occurred frequently in performing history) but, just out of curiosity, says who? Debussy?
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 06, 2009, 04:47:27 AM
Debussy didn't want to be called an Impressionist either, but we see how much that was heeded.
This has nothing to do with public-generated labels. What I'm talking about is a specific work with a specified aim.
QuoteI am not saying that it is not possible for a conductor to misinterpret a work (as it has occurred frequently in performing history) but, just out of curiosity, says who? Debussy?
Well,
of course Debussy. Haven't you taken the time to read this thread? Did you take a look at the link I provided? 0:)
Quote from: O'Richter, son of "Kidney Sam" on May 06, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
This has nothing to do with public-generated labels. What I'm talking about is a specific work with a specified aim.
With the specific aim being to "beat out a path where others can follow by adding their own discoveries and by ridding dramatic music of the heavy constraint from which it has suffered for so long a time"? I would not say that Karajan's recording stands in contrast to this rather vague statement.
Quote from: O'Richter, son of "Kidney Sam" on May 06, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
Well, of course Debussy. Haven't you taken the time to read this thread? Did you take a look at the link I provided? 0:)
I was unable to find the link where Debussy commented on Karajan's recording...could you provide it again please?
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 06, 2009, 10:11:10 AM
With the specific aim being to "beat out a path where others can follow by adding their own discoveries and by ridding dramatic music of the heavy constraint from which it has suffered for so long a time"? I would not say that Karajan's recording stands in contrast to this rather vague statement.
Nothing vague about that quote at all. In fact, it's quite obviously a scathing rebuke of the music that preceded Debussy's own!
Besides, you're not doing anybody any favors by cherry-picking quotes. ;) BOTH quotes - and Debussy's simple chapter in Schonberg's
The Lives Of The Great Composers - do much to shed light on this fascinating subject.
QuoteI was unable to find the link where Debussy commented on Karajan's recording...could you provide it again please?
Nobody said anything about "Debussy commenting on Karajan's recording". I merely pointed out that Debussy's EXPRESSED desire was to curb Wagnerian excesses. And that Karajan's recording sets these desires back forty years! ;D ;D ;D
Anyway, PLEASE don't misunderstand me. My smilies should be indication enough that my intentions are not dictated by hostility, here. I am genuinely NOT trying to twist anyone's arm as regards to this subject. How you - or anybody - listens to P&M is completely up to you. But the fog created by Eric's fetish is such that I feel it necessary to bring at least a morsel of balance to the table. That's all. 0:)
Did anybody notice the quote from Khovanshchina in P&M?
Error corrected in my next post.
Sorry.
But to me P&M is one terrific soporific.
In fact it has taken the place of several sleeping pills that I have used in the past.
And MUCH less habit forming than pills. I can easily do WITHOUT that opera for decades at a time. And in fact, I have done without it for the last 50 years. Don't miss it at all.
I should have said Boris Godunov. In the orchestra as Pimen writes the history of Boris' being responsible for the death of the child who would have been the legitimate successor to the Tsar, Moussorgsky writes music that sounds like a pen scratching/writing on paper.
That same allusion is repeated in the orchestra in P & M. It is heard in the 1st orchestral section of the opera where there is no singing.
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 05, 2009, 08:56:52 PM
Many apologies! Though I made sure to let you know my initial thoughts through a PM, it slipped my mind to return to this thread. If nothing else, I wanted to acknowledge publicly that I know very few who are so committed to informing/enlightening others of things musical that they are willing to be so generous, and for that I thank you again.
Pelléas et Mélisande contains some of the most beautiful and calming music I have ever heard. The perpetual lushness of the strings is probably what I enjoy the most about it (though I am sure Herr Karajan and that ol' Berlin Philharmonic had a little something to do with that ;)) The entire work flows very naturally, from a form perspective and in the way that the voices and the orchestra interact.
Now that I have heard it, I am not sure why some may be so opposed to saying it is in the "Romantic" vein...my disinclination to use such broad and generic descriptions in describing these great works of art has only continued to grow in the time after I was briefly involved with this debate, but I do see Pelléas as quite Romantic, though definitely not without elements of the Modern (not surprisingly as its harmonies were written by Debussy).
:)
QuoteIs it in my top ten? No. Because Wagner wrote more than 10 operas! :)
Give it some time and you'll see...
0:)
Quote from: Iago on May 11, 2009, 12:34:28 AMSorry.
But to me P&M is one terrific soporific.
In fact it has taken the place of several sleeping pills that I have used in the past.
And MUCH less habit forming than pills. I can easily do WITHOUT that opera for decades at a time. And in fact, I have done without it for the last 50 years. Don't miss it at all.
:'(
But Mel, you are a man of fine tastes and a lifelong Wagnerian to boot.
Give Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic one more chance.
:)
Anne,
Quote from: Anne on May 11, 2009, 08:52:42 PMI should have said Boris Godunov. In the orchestra as Pimen writes the history of Boris' being responsible for the death of the child who would have been the legitimate successor to the Tsar, Moussorgsky writes music that sounds like a pen scratching/writing on paper.That same allusion is repeated in the orchestra in P & M. It is heard in the 1st orchestral section of the opera where there is no singing.
Actually, I don't know
Boris well at all... We all have repertoire gaps and it's one of my major ones in opera.... :-[
I suppose I should return to it soon since Debussy adored it, apparently.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on May 06, 2009, 10:41:51 AM
Anyway, PLEASE don't misunderstand me. My smilies should be indication enough that my intentions are not dictated by hostility, here. I am genuinely NOT trying to twist anyone's arm as regards to this subject. How you - or anybody - listens to P&M is completely up to you. But the fog created by Eric's fetish is such that I feel it necessary to bring at least a morsel of balance to the table. That's all. 0:)
No offense taken (or intended)! :)
I only hope to serve as a sort of devil's advocate in this thread where so many seem to be so determined to maintain a hardline position come what may, rain or shine.
Continued discussion of the opera along the lines of Anne's posts would be much more interesting than continued bikering about the opera's place in music's timeline...until one of us meets Debussy and can ask him, I think everything that can be said about the issue (pending further discoveries by musicologists) has been said.
Thomas,
Have you come across any P&M fanatics in your classes ?
Continued discussion of the opera along the lines of Anne's posts would be much more interesting than continued bikering about the opera's place in music's timeline
Thank you, Wilhelm. That was nice of you to say that.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 18, 2009, 07:01:09 PM
Have you come across any P&M fanatics in your classes ?
Pianists who, with wistful looks in their eyes, could spend hours describing the images and stories conjured up by the particular Debussy piano work they are studying at the moment yes, but
Pelléas et Mélisande fanatics, no.
Quote from: Anne on May 18, 2009, 08:37:27 PM
Thank you, Wilhelm. That was nice of you to say that.
:)
Quote from: Anne on May 18, 2009, 08:37:27 PM
Continued discussion of the opera along the lines of Anne's posts would be much more interesting than continued bikering about the opera's place in music's timeline
Thank you, Wilhelm. That was nice of you to say that.
Well earned,
Anne; entirely well earned.
Thanks, Karl. It was nice of you too.
You folks are right..... This question of P&M as dawn or twilight is basically a poetic one really. Let's just be grateful that no other opera packs in so many delicate beauties.
One thing I'm sure of is that when he was putting the final touches on it the last thing he was worried about were 'categories'.
Who was it that said that in the creative heavens, the sun always stands still, even if it is night ?
Original EMI recording by Herbert von Karajan ...
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 05, 2009, 06:50:58 PM
Well, about 2 months ago I sent both DavidW and Thomas (Wilhelm Richard) a recording of Pelleas et Melisande as a gift and am somewhat disappointed that they haven't shared their thoughts/feelings on it...
:'(
C'mon guys what do you think so far of Debussy's great opera ??
:)
Oops, I did not know of this thread. I'll also defend myself by saying that I was just wrapping up teaching at the time and my hands were full. Anyway, I apologize for dropping the ball.:-X
Anyway, the Karajan cd set has a very Romantic sound, and the dvd I got is really cool because I get to actually see the opera, and enjoy surround sound and Boulez' interpretation.
So the Gilman book was an interesting read. I was not aware of how significant P&M was for Debussy's rejection of traditional Romantic era chromaticism for the Medieval era chant. Debussy had made that decision to emancipate the vocal parts from melody in an attempt to sync the emotional reaction of the acting with the music. He felt that in other operas the two are not in step with each other. That was the main thing I got from the book, and it did indeed improve my appreciation for this opera. 0:)
David,
Any favorite scenes so far ?
And isn't Act II just pure gold ?.... 0:)
Quote from: DavidW on July 19, 2009, 05:43:17 PM
I was not aware of how significant P&M was for Debussy's rejection of traditional Romantic era chromaticism for the Medieval era chant. Debussy had made that decision to emancipate the vocal parts from melody in an attempt to sync the emotional reaction of the acting with the music. He felt that in other operas the two are not in step with each other. That was the main thing I got from the book, and it did indeed improve my appreciation for this opera. 0:)
Yes, quite an adventurous leap for Debussy. And successful. Music in general certainly benefited.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on July 19, 2009, 06:58:15 PM
David,
Any favorite scenes so far ?
And isn't Act II just pure gold ?.... 0:)
Musically my favorite part is the second interlude in Act 2. Dramatically, I'll have to think about it. :)
Quote from: DavidW on July 19, 2009, 07:32:31 PM
Musically my favorite part is the second interlude in Act 2. Dramatically, I'll have to think about it. :)
Ah, yes just before the grotto scene... :)
By the way, originally the orchestral interludes were
much shorter but Debussy had to re-compose and lengthen them only a few nights before the premiere so the stagehands would have sufficient time to do their job. According to letters, Debussy did so very reluctantly...
Amazing when you consider that all 7 orchestral interludes are just breathtaking... 0:)