I'm laid up with a chest infection & didn't make it to the Albert Hall. Reactions to the Foulds from those who were there, or heard it on the radio as I did, are welcome in the comments box. I'll leave mine aside for now due to effect of medication on brain.
Update the morning after, with Lemsip
Tragic but true: after all that fuss, the piece didn't float my boat. It wouldn't, of course - I am allergic to much of the English choral tradition and to most concert requiems, and it possessed the qualities I'm least comfortable with in both. Still, it seemed worth giving the poor thing a chance. Perhaps it was bound to disappoint after the massive build-up we all gave it (except for Pliable, who saw this coming a mile off. Chapeau, mon ami. I stand by my insistence that it should be heard before being slagged off, but now it's fair game). (And thanks for the link today.)
Interesting that Brendan should write in this morning mentioning it reminded him of Paul McCartney (see comments). To me the piece felt as if it could have been composed this year: it fitted bang into the 'spiritual minimalism' mindset. The closest thing to it that I could think of was indeed McCartney's latest, 'Ecce cor meum', which has better tunes.
I wouldn't want, however, to judge Foulds's output as a whole by this one piece. The other works I've heard are utterly different. That's one of the bizarre things about his music: he never repeats himself and it can be hard to believe you're listening to the same composer. I have a CD of Kathryn Stott playing the piano music, which is beautiful, original and fascinating.
Let's see what everyone else has to say...I'll update this further with the various reviews as they arrive.
(To hear the work on BBC Radio 3 for the rest of the week, anywhere in the world, go to this page, scroll to Classical, call up the list of programmes and click on 'The Choir'.)
Ivan Hewitt in The Telegraph: "In the loveliest movement, "Elysium", we heard a kind of spiritualised and "orientalised" late Wagner, as if the Flower Maidens in Parsifal had been spirited off to a Hindu ashram."
Barry Millington in The Evening Standard: "All credit to the BBC for putting on a work that demanded to be heard. Let's not make it an annual event, however."
Geoff Brown in The Times: "A jumble, then: of its time and out of time; conventional and modernist; often thrilling, occasionally blank. And a justified revival."
Tim Ashley in The Guardian: "The burning sincerity of the performance eclipsed any qualms about stylistic disunity."
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Yes I am up at 5am - in the hope of getting on top of the week ahaead.
Jessica...I do hope you get better soon! This is a very important week as you know!!!
Ref the FOULDS piece. Well I persevered to the very end and I must say I was hugely disapppointed. I found not one trace of originality - just empty overblown gestures. If, as Aled Jones claimed, Foulds knew Mahler & Strauss and attended the premiere of Mahler 8, it barely registered on him. The harmonic language was so dull and uninteresting, the melodic lines so journeyman. At an hour and three quarters it was way too long and drawn out. I kept hoping for profundity and inspiration, but neither came.
In a way, it reminded me of the "Liverpool Oratorio" by McCartney where a hopelessly long-winded text was set, bar by bar, without any possibility of cuts. 100 minutes of pseudo-Straussian hyperbole resulted. With Foulds, we didn't even get pseudo Strauss -more like pseudo Sterndale-Bennett.
Am I being too harsh?
I entirely agree: a total absence of any harmonic, melodic or contrapuntal interest and no structural cohesion.
And the soloists sounded stretched - especially the soprano who had a very unhappy evening.
I think I can wait another 81 years before hearing it again.
(Best wishes for a speedy recovery)
Please also see the comment about the performance received today from Malcolm MacDonald, on on the Genius of John Foulds post (comment no.15).
...and also Paul Foulds's message, comment no.16 on that post.
Really interesting to see the verdicts on the World Requiem. Sakari Oramo performed and recorded Foulds' Three Mantras and Dynamic Triptych not long ago - but has said that, having seen the score, he wasn't interested in conducting the "World Requiem". I've heard it said that he was initially approached to conduct this performance - but declined because he did not have sufficient faith in the work.
Still, it's worth bearing in mind that a composer's output may be uneven in quality and still contain masterpieces. Foulds shouldn't be written off on the strength of the "Requiem" alone - the "Three Mantras" are still, in my view, one of the great lost masterpieces of 20th century British music. Nothing conventional or McCartney-like about them. Heard live, they knock you backwards!
I have had a copy of the vocal score of the World Requiem (Paxton, 1923) on my shelves for over thirty years - I bought it in a second-hand bookshop, but rather lost interest in it once I realised the huge scale of the work – way out of range for my amateur group. But last night the score and I were both present at the Albert Hall. There were some substantial differences between my score and what was performed – presumably later revisions by the composer.
I thought the performance was very fine, a squally soprano soloist apart. The baritone in particular coped manfully with a huge range of two octaves and some cruelly (and I thought unnecessarily) sustained high tessitura. There was some magical playing from the BBCSO and fine singing from the chorus.
First impressions can often be wrong, but regrettably my feeling was that Sir Adrian was probably right about the work itself. The musical substance seemed desperately thin in places, and apart from a couple of chord progressions which recurred at intervals, I couldn’t detect much on the way of structure. In particular, the fanfares from the four compass points were a disappointment – it was almost as though the composer had decided that the mere fact of having four off-stage bands was enough, and it didn’t matter much what they were playing. This was one of the passages where my vocal score diverged from what was played, though what is in the score appears even more banal than what was played. I will however buy the CD’s when they are available, to see if my view changes with repeated hearing.
There was one oddity about the performance: although the work is very clearly in two parts, the Beeb, presumably for scheduling reasons, gave it without an interval, which was tough on those of us with dodgy bladders. A man in the row behind me had flown in from Holland specially for the concert, and only just made the start because of delays. After the first part, he simply couldn’t wait and rushed out to find a loo. Fortunately the break between the parts was quite lengthy, because the boys’ choir and sundry instrumentalists had to make their way from the heights of the RAH down to the platform, so he was able to get back for the second half. But he never managed to get a programme.
NICK said: I too was at the RAH last night and at the pre-concert talk. Your comment about the sheer diversity of Foulds' style is very true. I remember playing in a concert some 20 years ago and more which featured (as I recall) a suite of Greek Dances for Strings by Foulds. They were quite baffling in their "plainness" with a Satie-like quality quite unlike anything else of that period I have ever heard or played. There was a comment by Malcolm MacDonald at the talk which I feel was very significant. It was to the effect that the Requiem had been written in an idiom to be accessible to as broad an audience as possible. My first reaction to hearing the piece is that by simplifying(?) the music Foulds abandoned one of his great strengths which is the complexity of his musical argument. I thought the opening was quite stunning but that much of the rest disappointed. Another writer's comment about the extra brass is quite true - a spurious (expensive!)effect. The offstage boys were magnificent as were all of the choirs. Quite the worst soprano I have heard live in some time. NOT one word was decipherable from where I sat relatively close to her. The Baritone was excellent - singing with a firmness and physical presence that was most impressive.
I too will probably buy the CD's simply because I can't believe that this piece will not repay greater study. Foulds is a far greater composer than the likes of Bantock (thinking of the other recent Blockbuster from Chandos) and to even mention McCartney is frankly absurd - remember that Sir Paul can't even orchestrate his own works. Also, one thing the music last night was NOT like was Strauss so by all means be harsh just don't be inaccurate in the comparisons. A pair of last thoughts - the hall last night was far from full so thankyou as ever to the BBC for promoting this concert - I dread to think what the net loss would be but without them we would probably never have heard the piece again. Finally, the applause at the end of the concert was really rather muted - a fact I report with some sadness as I think it reflected a feeling of gratitude to have heard the piece and congratulations to all concerned but it was not the cathartic emotional experience many of us hoped it would be.
One more review, from Geoff Brown in The Times here. Well, I guess my expectations are suitably diminished for when the CD does appear in 2008. The consensus seems to be a very fine performance on music not up to that standard. Hopefully Paul Foulds isn't too dispirited to see some of the comments here.
OK, yet one more review, here from Michael Church in The Independent. The general tenor of the reviews with regard to Foulds overall is right; even if this work does prove one of his misses, it doesn't negate the good stuff.
I would just like to assure NickBD that I am fully aware that Paul McCartney cannot read music ...or orchestrate his way out of a paper bag!
My good friend Carl Davis had to perform the role of amanuensis and, I might add, about 75% of the actual composition in my opinion.
The comparison with Fould's World Requiem and McCartney's oratorio is their turgid, elephantine texts that meander onwards for 100 minutes or more. In McCartney's case, he wrote his own text and believe me, NOT ONE WORD could be cut.
Poor Mr Davis scored the thing for a Straussian size orchestra with pages of busy counterpoint in a vain attempt to bring musical life and integrity to the overall banality of the material.
That is what reminded me of the Foulds. The phrase 'making much of little' still resonates when I think of this work..and also the McCartney.
I wonder whether part of the problem with this piece is that Foulds was perhaps trying too hard to be accessible. As far as I understand, he deliberately modified his writing in this piece so that it would suit the capabilities of amateur choirs and be understood by as many people as possible. The Foulds pieces that have impressed me the most have, so far, been his more complex works, ones which brook no compromise.
Thank you George for your sensitive comments, but no - I am not at all dispirited by the lack of enthusiasm from the experts. My own feeling is that it was probably the most memorable experiances of my lifetime (naturally) and of course the general feeling from myself (and the chorus genearlly) was that were either entering the Ring Cycle or experiancing a new Disney moment with the soprano soloist - very dissapointing - you nead a clear honest and pure soprano to blend with the excellent Trinity Choir.
I think I will reserve any future opinions until after the Chandos recording has been out a few months that may give avid critics and music enthusiasts generally, the chance to re-listen and judge it - not, perhaps as a masterpiece, but of an honest invocation to remember the fallen and to pray for peace. Jessica - I hope you are well now - I've got some nasty thing so send me your spare Lemsips!!!
Paul.
It's interesting to note how much of the way we judge a rare or new work must rest on how it's performed. So often unfamiliar works are simply under-rehearsed and come out sounding terrible simply because the performers can't get around them for one reason or another. Most of the time in the World Requiem I couldn't tell what note that soprano was actually trying to sing - each could have been any one of about four possibilities. Whereas even I have rarely heard the Korngold Violin Concerto come out sounding quite as glorious as it did in Znaider's performance the other night. I too look forward to hearing the Foulds CD and reassessing the piece. Paul, I hope you feel better soon! I am still trying to get rid of my cough before Wednesday...
Random comments:
(1) For Mr. Foulds, obviously the act of tribute to your grandfather in preparing for this performance is the most important aspect of the event, and you have every right to feel pride in the achievement.
(2) Re Sir Paul: true, his "classical" stuff doesn't have near the freshness of his achievements with the Beatles, not even close. But by the same token, many a classical composer now could use that Beatle-era gift for melody. Didn't William Mann call him and John Lennon the "most original composers of 1963", or something like that?
(3) For neglected choral works, maybe now Roger Wright will get Constant Lambert's Summer's Last Will and Testament on the Proms programs? Of course, this is someone tossing out the suggestion who's never been to the Proms, for geographical reasons.
Post a Comment