add to wish list | library


5 of 7 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the paid links below. As an Amazon Associate SA-CD.net earns from qualifying purchases.
 
amazon.ca
amazon.co.uk
amazon.com
amazon.de
 
amazon.fr
amazon.it
 
jpc

Discussion: Bernstein: Symphony No. 3, Chichester Psalms - Slatkin

Posts: 7

Post by wehecht December 21, 2009 (1 of 7)
I have no particular quarrel with the concerns Mr Miller raises in his review, including his reservations about Jamie Bernstein's text. Where we part company is with his appreciation of Leonard Bernstein's original text. The original text is one of the most embarrassing extravagances of its author's career. A witches brew of maudlin sentimentality, radical chic outrage, and caricature of an honorable Jewish tradition of a righteous man's confrontation with God, the text is the primary reason the work has never achieved more than a marginal place in the repertoire. I may not think much of Jamie Bernstein's text, but it's not nearly as bad as her father's.

In any event I was never able to stand the piece until a live performance here in Philadelphia last season when a new text by Bernstein's friend Samuel Pisar was spoken by its author. Mr Pisar spent his 12th through 16th years in various Nazi death camps, including Auschwitz. While his text is highly personal, reflecting the awful memories of his youth and the concerns of his late maturity, at last here is a text that compliments Bernstein's music and does honor to Kaddish as an expression of religious truth. Mr Pisar has recorded the piece on the Nimbus label with John Axelrod conducting. Unfortunately the recording (NI 5807) is rbcd only, but if you have any interest in what Bernstein's Symphony #3 can mean, this is the version to hear.

Post by Geohominid December 21, 2009 (2 of 7)
Thanks for your interesting comments. I agree to some extent about the nature of Bernstein's original Narrator's text, but in the context of its time, around the assassination of Kenedy, like the not dissimilar argument with God and other text in Bernstein's Mass it was a heartfelt expression of his feeling and very much part of his whole composition process. With hindsight it is easy to critically declare Symphony 3 to be a very flawed work on the text alone. However, my job in this review was to evaluate the SACD performance, not necessarily to fully approve the work as a masterpiece. I did find that the wonderfully dramatic declamation by Willard White made the work have a much greater impact for me personally. Bernstein's own recordings also have their invaluable insights on what was always going to be a controversial piece.

I'm very interested to hear that Mr Pisar produced another text based on his own highly personal and meaningful experiences, and having listened already to the composer's version I will try to hear the Nimbus RBCD. As a general point though, should we not be primarily concerned to appraise performances of the work as the composer wrote them, while still enjoying and respecting other musically valid arrangements? To take an extreme but not irrelevant thought experiment, If Mozart's son had taken it upon himself to radically rewrite and modernise the libretto of Don Giovanni, would we begin to forsake the original version? It's a moot point at best, and as so much in the Arts, comes down to personal preferences.

Post by TerraEpon December 21, 2009 (3 of 7)
I never liked the text much either -- and I was raised Jewish mind you (Reform, granted, though I went to various religious schools). Honestly it's my least faovrite large scale Bernstein work, though I'd love to hear a recording without the narration at all...

(And incidently, Mass on the other hand, is one of my all time favorite pieces of music, text and all)

Post by wehecht December 22, 2009 (4 of 7)
Geohominid said:

With hindsight it is easy to critically declare Symphony 3 to be a very flawed work on the text alone. However, my job in this review was to evaluate the SACD performance, not necessarily to fully approve the work as a masterpiece.

As a general point though, should we not be primarily concerned to appraise performances of the work as the composer wrote them, while still enjoying and respecting other musically valid arrangements?

I absolutely agree. Any reviewer's task is to review the performance (and/or work) that is before him, not the piece as it exists on paper or the ideal performance he's heard in the past or hopes to hear someday. Clearly the problem becomes more acute when, as here, we're dealing with something that is partly the work product of someone other than the composer. How a reviewer should treat a recording of the Mozart edition of "Messiah" might be an apt comparison. Some discussion of the departure from the composer's intent is clearly required which inevitably raises the issue of whether the "revisions" improve the work. The answer to that question is obviously subjective and much of what I write from this point on is intensely personal and unlikely to be relevant to anyone else. I include it only to help explain my comments. As I indicated in my original post, I think your review was right on target in its criticism of Jamie Bernstein's substitute text. More specifically her text, and narrative style, simply soften the work too much, even if she is truer to Kaddish as a religious ritual and personal expression of grief.

In discussing whether a revision such as this improves things or not one must have some standard for measuring improvement. In respect to Bernstein's Kaddish the standard I propose is based on my belief that the music is worthwhile but goes substantially unheard because the original text is so off-putting even to many of Bernstein's advocates. Accordingly I judge the revised text based on its potential to gain the piece a following while remaining true to the composer's intent to offer something of a universal Kaddish at a time when the world has turned its back on God. Jamie Bernstein's text might accomplish the former, but rather at the expense of the latter. Pisar's text has the potential to accomplish both objectives.

As a native New Yorker of a certain age I grew up on Bernstein. Looking back over almost 50 years I think he was a brilliant conductor when his sympathies were engaged but maddeningly inconsistent otherwise. His greatest gift was as a composer for the theater, and perhaps Kaddish would have worked better as a theater piece (though based on the even more appalling "Mass" I rather doubt it). Around the time that these pieces were appearing I was in seminary preparing for ministry in the Lutheran church (something that I abandoned then but have returned to in recent years). I am also of Jewish heritage. Both Kaddish and Mass had enormous potential importance to me but my reaction to them was essentially the same: that they mark the beginning of Bernstein's extended slide into self caricature. Pisar's text has rescued one of the two pieces for me. The other is beyond redemption.

Post by rammiepie December 25, 2009 (5 of 7)
wehecht said:

I have no particular quarrel with the concerns Mr Miller raises in his review, including his reservations about Jamie Bernstein's text. Where we part company is with his appreciation of Leonard Bernstein's original text. The original text is one of the most embarrassing extravagances of its author's career. A witches brew of maudlin sentimentality, radical chic outrage, and caricature of an honorable Jewish tradition of a righteous man's confrontation with God, the text is the primary reason the work has never achieved more than a marginal place in the repertoire. I may not think much of Jamie Bernstein's text, but it's not nearly as bad as her father's.

It's interesting you decry Bernstein's text. I recently saw an interview with Stephen Soundheim who of course did the lyrics to West Side Story and the story goes that he was embarrased by his maudlin lyrics but insisted that it was at the behest of Maestro Bernstein who was a gifted composer but gravitated toward "corny" lyrics and kept pushing Sondheim towards the mundane. Of course on his own, Soundheim proved to be a master of composition and brilliantly witty lyrics and collaborating with Bernstein rewarded Soundheim with a career spanning fifty years.

Post by emaidel February 12, 2011 (6 of 7)
The Spartanburg Festival Chorus (in which I sing) is performing Bernstein's "Chichester Psalms," along with Benjamin Britten's "Saint Nicholas" this April. Each time we perform a choral work which which I'm not too familiar, I immediately do an online search, and try to buy an SACD of that work.

This Chandos/Slatkin SACD is, as far as I can tell, the only SACD availalble of "Chichester Psalms," and so I snapped it up. Frankly, I find it one of the biggest disappointments ever, both musically, and in particular, sonically.

Let me first state that I simply don't like "Kaddish," and am not too much a fan of "Missa Brevis," and so my comments here are exclusively for the Psalms, as my obvious bias against those other two works, discredits me as being a valid critic one way or another regarding either.

I find Slatkin's perormance, at best, merely OK. There's no real feeling or emotion in the Psalms, and I also find the boy soprano just plain awful. That which I find most inexcusable is the dreadful sound of the recording, either on the CD or the SACD layers. It's flat, thin, edgy and harsh - everything an SACD should NOT sound like. Worst of all, for some reason, the engineers recorded the disc at a ridiculously low level, requiring me to significantly boost the volume on my preamp. Ordinarily, with a symphonic SACD, a setting just past 11:00 o'clock yields very loud results, and genuinely slam-bam dynmaics if the piece has such material on it. In order to approximate that volume level, this Chandos SACD required me to set the volume closer to 2:00 o'clock. That, in and of itself, isn't any real problem, except if I should forget that I left it there after playing this disc, and then started to play another one: I would likely cause serious damage to my speakers, or at least, blow a few fuses. I find this especially disappointing, since the Chandos SACD of Bernstein's "Mass" is simply extraordinary, in all respects. Whey then should this recording sound so lousy?

Marin Alsop, on the other hand, was a Bernstein protege, and has a genuine feel for his music. Having seen here live conducting the "Symphonic Dances from West Side Story," as well as a truly stunning performance of "Mass," left no doubt that she knows just the right way to perform Bernstein. Fortunately, Alsop has a CD (alas, not an SACD) on Naxos of the "Chichester Psalms," sandwiched between the "On the Waterfront" suite, and "Three Dance Episodes" from "On the Town."

While all of the material on Alsop's recording is stuff I like, her performance of the Psalms, and the fine boy soprano, provide a flat-out glorious rendition of this deeply spiritual work. It's hard to listen to the third movement of the Psalms and not be reduced to tears - the music is THAT beautiful, and beautifully played.

So, shame on Chandos for their flop with Slatkin. That a CD, and a much older CD at that should blow away the sound (and performance) of an SACD just shouldn't be. But it is here.

Post by Peter February 12, 2011 (7 of 7)
I've heard several Kaddishes - the only recording I have kept is Gerard Schwarz's on Naxos coupled with a fine Chichester Psalms from Liverpool.

Closed