I recently led an orchestration seminar at Durham University, and the piece I began with was Claude Debussy’s Prélude to the Afternoon of a Faun. If you don’t know the piece or haven’t listened to it in some time, please do yourself a favour and seek it out. It’s incredibly beautiful music, more sturdily constructed than it may seem to be on first listen, and it’s full of orchestral colour. Debussy was one of the great orchestrators, able to pull a stunning array of timbres out of a group of instruments, and always in the service of a greater compositional vision. He was a true original. But Debussy didn’t just write for orchestra. He also wrote some wonderful chamber works, including a string quartet and a stunning piece for solo flute, and an impressive body of solo piano music. His Préludes for piano are a masterwork, full of imagination and creative genius, and there are numerous recordings available. (My favourite is by the late Paul Jacobs.) Again, do yourself a favour and seek them out. Here’s my point: Debussy could have written his Préludes for orchestra, but he chose not to. He certainly had the technique and imagination to turn them into a set of orchestral pieces, full of the instrumental colour that he was a master at, but he decided to write them for piano. For whatever reason, he felt the piano, not the orchestra, was the best way to express what he was going for with these pieces. And yet, several composers and orchestrators have seen fit to adapt Debussy’s Préludes for orchestra. I’m only familiar with this version, orchestrated by Peter Breiner, and performed by the Royal Scottish National Orchestra under the baton of Jun Märkl. If it’s possible, the end result is both impressive and unnecessary, showing that Breiner is very capable of orchestrating music that never needed to be played by an orchestra. The funny thing is that this is a fine recording, and I recommend it—sort of. The orchestra sounds very good, and the music is lovely. Peter Breiner’s orchestrations are generally quite good, and they avoid sounding overly ‘blocky’—the curse of orchestrating piano music—while perhaps being overly reliant on certain sonorities. But you know what? I just did a side-by-side comparison between recordings of one of the greatest and most famous of the Préludes, “La cathédrale engloutie”, or “The Sunken Cathedral”. Compared to the piano rendition (by the aforementioned Paul Jacobs), the orchestral version sounds curiously stilted and muted, never quite achieving the extremes of subtlety and grandeur that is called for. Details get lost in the orchestral textures, and the whole thing comes off as being kind of lifeless. Some of the orchestrations certainly work better than others, but there isn’t a single one that I’d recommend over, or even compare all that favourably to, the original. I don’t blame Breiner, the orchestra, or the conductor. I blame the project as a whole. It’s probably as good as it could have been, but the problem is that it never had to be.
0 Comments
There are at least two problems someone encounters when they try to write about John Coltrane’s A Love Supreme. The first is that so much has already been written on it, everything from a brilliant making-of book by Ashley Kahn to academic articles comparing it to speaking in tongues. Before putting pen to paper—or rather, text to screen—one needs to ask if there’s anything more to be said. The second problem is a question of text vs. subtext. When writing about certain pieces of art or culture, it can be easy to get bogged down in behind-the-scenes gossip, to talk more about the story behind something than the thing itself. For an example, look up reviews of the film Ishtar written at the time of its release, and notice how many talk about how much it cost, and how its out-of-control budget contributes to it being a bad movie. (Ishtar is a terrific movie, by the way. Don’t listen to the critics. But I digress.) When it comes to A Love Supreme, the text and subtext aren’t so easy to separate. Miles Davis’s Kind of Blue can easily be discussed on the grounds of pure music—it’s gorgeous music that swings, and it’s a joy to listen to. But it’s hard to do the same with A Love Supreme, in part because Coltrane didn’t seem to want to leave space for such a dialogue. For the first and only time, he wrote the liner notes himself—a letter addressed to the listener, and a psalm addressed to the Divine—and he chanted the theme of the suite, also the title of the album, in the opening track. Clearly, for him, the subtext was inseparable from the text. The result is one of jazz history's most heralded, acclaimed, influential, and best-selling recordings. At a time when so many are cynical of religion and religious expression, here is a recording that oozes sincerity, that wears its heart and soul on its sleeve. It both epitomises and transcends a certain type of music, and it exudes the sort of genuine expression that can’t be faked. It’s psalm and proverb, sermon and prayer. At its most basic level, A Love Supreme is music—a record of a specific date and time when a group of musicians gathered in a studio—and on that level, it succeeds brilliantly. Coltrane had already asserted himself as one of the great improvisers, and here he was at the peak of his powers. He had been going more and more toward a version of free jazz, but his work here manages to be both edgy and melodic, prickly and full of warmth. The rhythm section of McCoy Tyner, Jimmy Garrison, and Elvin Jones meets him at every turn, playing with both sensitivity and ferocity in a way that is truly awe-inspiring. In terms of recorded sound, it deserves to be ranked as one of the all-time best. It’s a classic for a reason. My only complaint with the sound is the mix. I’m not sure if it was the decision of Coltrane or his engineer, the legendary Rudy Van Gelder—I suspect Coltrane, simply because very few of Van Gelder’s other projects sound like this—but the saxophone is mixed hard to the left channel throughout, with the other instruments mostly occupying the right channel. The sound isn’t unbalanced, exactly, but it is a striking use of stereo separation, especially when listened to with headphones. I can’t help but wonder if the album wound sound slightly better with a more blended mix, something closer to mono. But this is a small issue. Where A Love Supreme crosses from the classic into the sublime is in the subtext. To realise the spiritual roots of what Coltrane and his collaborators are doing, to engage with them on their terms, is an experience like none other. For religiously minded artists—particularly those, like myself, who are sincere in our beliefs but actively avoid labels like ‘Christian music’—it’s difficult to know how much of our faith to put into our work. It’s all too easy to leave it on the sidelines or pull a kind of bait-and-switch with the listener. I’ve tended to put my faith front and centre, to unapologetically write from my own experience and convictions, and Coltrane is an artist whose work has inspired me to do so. Jazz and faith may seem to be odd bedfellows, and they certainly did at the time as well, but what Coltrane did with A Love Supreme proves that they don’t need to be. And the same is true for other artistic expressions that don’t neatly fit into the boxes of Sunday services, corporate worship, or Christian radio. Art, music, faith, hope… and the greatest of these is love. To quote Coltrane, it is so beautiful. Humour me for a moment, okay? You decide, for whatever reason, that you want to purchase a recording of Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons. You find the only record store in existence, and you start perusing the selection. The Four Seasons is one of the most frequently recorded pieces in the classical repertoire, so there are lots of options to choose from. Which one do you go for? Put another way, why do you choose one particular recording over another? I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d look for one of two things: First, I’d be drawn to a recording made by a soloist, orchestra, or conductor I’m familiar with. For example, Joshua Bell made one with the Academy of St Martin in the Fields. I haven’t heard it, but I’m kind of curious to based on my knowledge of those involved. Second, I’d seek out a somewhat out-of-the-ordinary recording: one based on historically informed performance practice, or one with some other distinguishing characteristic. This recording, made in the earlier days of the Naxos recording label, is neither of these. It’s perfectly fine, maybe even good, but there’s nothing remarkable about it, and in my opinion, when it comes to this piece, ‘good enough’ is simply not good enough. The soloist, Takako Nishizaki, is perfectly competent, but doesn’t do anything surprising. The orchestra and conductor, Capella Istropolitana and Stephen Gunzenhauser, do a fine job, but again, there’s nothing that makes their performance distinctive. This is a perfectly acceptable, middle-of-the-road interpretation of some extremely familiar music. If that’s what you’re looking for, this will work, but if you want something more than that, you’ll want to look elsewhere. I have a total of four recordings of The Four Seasons—five, if you count Max Richter’s ‘recomposed’ version—and this is probably my least favourite, not because it’s bad, but because it’s so generic. I’ll say it again: This is a fine recording, but I prefer my Vivaldi with a little more personality than what we get here. |
AuthorChris Massa is a US-born musician based in Durham, England. You are on his site right now. Archives
June 2024
Categories
All
|