La mer trumpets
David7Gable
Larry Rinkel tried to entice me with:
> Can you provide
>a Gablesque dissertation on the history and authenticity of these eight
>bars?
How about a short comment from dim and possibly faulty memory? My
understanding is that Debussy cut the little trumpet flouishes because whoever
was supposed to play them at the first performance thought they were too hard.
Then the score got engraved without them. Why some people--Ansermet--know
about 'em and others don't, I couldn't tell you. Will make enquiries.
-david gable
Clovis Lark
> -david gable
Are people here aware that there is an urtext critical edition out there?
Nicolas Hodges
>Are people here aware that there is an urtext critical edition out there?
Of La Mer? Surely not. I thought they'd only got round to Jeux in
orchestral works.
I'm afraid that judging from the piano volumes so far, it's very much a
mixed bag. The Etudes volume in particular has some glaring errors. A
missed opportunity. And of course vol 1 of the piano works has no
accents in it, and they refuse to reprint. Grr.
--
Nic
I reserve the right to use irony and obscure forms of humour without warning
Raymond Hall
news:9qlgvk$t5h$5...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
No doubt there is, but I believe Debussy himself removed the trumpet
fanfares from the score, which Ansermet apparently decided to restore.
Haitink in his 1976 reading decided to give the fanfares to the
Concertgebouw horns.
I am not sure what the urtext critical edition (fwiw) of the score
indicates. The fanfares sound good to me, and I like them anyway, regardless
of what Debussy thought.
I am going to check Baudo's EMI performance later, and from the EMI Eminence
notes there are some interesting thoughts by the early critics on the piece,
now generally recognised as a great masterpiece.
(i) Louis Elson of the Boston Daily Advertiser in 1907 claimed that
"Frenchmen are notoriously bad sailors and a Gallic picture of the sea is
apt to run more to stewards and basins and lemons than to the wild majesty
of Poseidon."
(ii) Pierre Lalo, writing after the first performance in Paris, wrote "I
neither hear, nor see, nor feel the sea".
(iii) The title Debussy chose for the first movement, De l'aube à midi sur
la mer (from dawn to midday at sea) caused Erik Satie to tell Debussy that
"he liked the work, but especially the bit at a quarter to eleven".
(iv) The title also caused the sharp-tongued Louis Elson, see (i) above, to
remark that "he feared that we were to have a movement seven hours long. It
was not so long," he admitted, "but it was terrible while it lasted."
Well, I suppose Debussy can't complain too much, because I believe Beethoven
copped a fair bit of flak too in his time.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/01
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>>Are people here aware that there is an urtext critical edition out there?
> Of La Mer? Surely not. I thought they'd only got round to Jeux in
> orchestral works.
Nocturnes is published. Pelleas exists, but not in print! I'm sure that
the La Mer is probably finished and lying in limbo. Boulez expressed some
frustration over the progress of the publication process. However, had
anyone checked the 1910 revision?
Nicolas Hodges
>Nicolas Hodges <n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>>>Are people here aware that there is an urtext critical edition out there?
>
>> Of La Mer? Surely not. I thought they'd only got round to Jeux in
>> orchestral works.
>
>Nocturnes is published.
Ah yes - that's why there's already an article about the differences
(and one about Jeux's text in the same volume).
>Pelleas exists, but not in print!
Really? That's a start...
>I'm sure that the La Mer is probably finished and lying in limbo.
Quite possibly.
>Boulez expressed some frustration over the progress of the publication
>process.
Not surprising: the publishers are behaving like complete idiots, IMHO.
If PB can't shake a stick at them, who can?
>However, had
>anyone checked the 1910 revision?
No, I don't have it.
Sol L. Siegel
>I am going to check Baudo's EMI performance later, and from the EMI Eminence
>notes there are some interesting thoughts by the early critics on the piece,
>now generally recognised as a great masterpiece.
>
>(i) Louis Elson of the Boston Daily Advertiser in 1907 claimed that
>"Frenchmen are notoriously bad sailors and a Gallic picture of the sea is
>apt to run more to stewards and basins and lemons than to the wild majesty
>of Poseidon."
>
>(ii) Pierre Lalo, writing after the first performance in Paris, wrote "I
>neither hear, nor see, nor feel the sea".
>
>(iii) The title Debussy chose for the first movement, De l'aube à midi sur
>la mer (from dawn to midday at sea) caused Erik Satie to tell Debussy that
>"he liked the work, but especially the bit at a quarter to eleven".
>
>(iv) The title also caused the sharp-tongued Louis Elson, see (i) above, to
>remark that "he feared that we were to have a movement seven hours long. It
>was not so long," he admitted, "but it was terrible while it lasted."
>
>Well, I suppose Debussy can't complain too much, because I believe Beethoven
>copped a fair bit of flak too in his time.
>
At least some of the above are included in Nicholas Slonimsky's
"Lexicon of Musical Invective". (I don't have my copy at hand.)
In this witty work, Boston critics seem to get the worst of it, at
least as far as posterity is concerned.
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
--------------------
"To every complicated question, there is an answer that is simple, satisfying
and wrong." - Winston Churchill
--------------------
(Remove "junkfree" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>>Nicolas Hodges <n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>>>>Are people here aware that there is an urtext critical edition out there?
>>
>>> Of La Mer? Surely not. I thought they'd only got round to Jeux in
>>> orchestral works.
>>
>>Nocturnes is published.
> Ah yes - that's why there's already an article about the differences
> (and one about Jeux's text in the same volume).
>>Pelleas exists, but not in print!
> Really? That's a start...
>>I'm sure that the La Mer is probably finished and lying in limbo.
> Quite possibly.
>>Boulez expressed some frustration over the progress of the publication
>>process.
> Not surprising: the publishers are behaving like complete idiots, IMHO.
> If PB can't shake a stick at them, who can?
>>However, had
>>anyone checked the 1910 revision?
> No, I don't have it.
OK, here's the scoop. I have the 1905 and 1910 editions in front of me as
well as a photo of the passage from debussy's autograph. Debussy's
autograph has the passage complete with horns and trumpets, as does Durand
in their 1905 edition. The revised edition in 1910 has the passage
removed. That's part 1.
Part Deux: The Critical Edition is out and I spoke with my colleague in
the Cleveland Orchestra who has it. He states that the passage is printed
without the horns and trumpets since a copy of the first edition exists
with Debussy's own hand crossing out these instruments (the passage
appears in the appendix). HOWEVER, the rationale given by Debussy is
pretty vague and centers around the section being unrelated to other
thematic materials in the movement. A more convincing reason comes as a
possible copyright dispute with a similar passage in Manon Lescaut by
Puccini.
Parte tre: Monteux and Toscanini both knew Claude D. and they returned
the excised music to the passage when they performed the piece. Certainly
Toscanini was a pretty careful man when it came to observing composers'
wishes. Today, the passage remains in dispute, one conductor insisting on
maintaining the passage, the next removing it. Boulez removes it (he is
very unhappy with this volume in the critical ed., he is a sponsor).
I hope this helps
Marcus Maroney
The motion suddenly stops--not a common occurence in Debussy's music
and certainly not a common happening in the texture of 'the sea'
itself. It is not only a jarring change but totally causes these
measures to sacrifice all the tension that has been built up thusfar.
I personally am disappointed by any recording that leaves this passage
out.
Unfortunately, Szell and Boulez both do--recordings that are otherwise
fantastic. Boulez frustrates me to no end with this decision, as much
as if not more than his decision not to repeat the last movement of
Berg's chamber concerto.
The argument that the trumpet passage was left out due to technical
difficulty seems fallacious, given that there are many other brass
passages in the work that are just as difficult, albeit less exposed.
The reinsertion by Monteux and Toscanini, conductors who knew Debussy
personally, seems reason enough to let the trumpets play.
Fortunately, two excellent recordings, by Reiner and Geoffrey Simon on
Cala, have the passage in tact.
Can anyone let us know what Richter's beloved Desormiere does with it?
How about Inghelbrecht? Koussevitzky (I think there's a 1938
recording...)? Are there any conductors who have done it both ways?
Cheers,
Marcus
Clovis Lark
> Such a huge textural change occurs if the flourishes are left out.
> The motion suddenly stops--not a common occurence in Debussy's music
> and certainly not a common happening in the texture of 'the sea'
> itself. It is not only a jarring change but totally causes these
> measures to sacrifice all the tension that has been built up thusfar.
> I personally am disappointed by any recording that leaves this passage
> out.
> Unfortunately, Szell and Boulez both do--recordings that are otherwise
> fantastic. Boulez frustrates me to no end with this decision, as much
> as if not more than his decision not to repeat the last movement of
> Berg's chamber concerto.
> The argument that the trumpet passage was left out due to technical
> difficulty seems fallacious, given that there are many other brass
> passages in the work that are just as difficult, albeit less exposed.
It is fallacious as I reported yesterday.
> The reinsertion by Monteux and Toscanini, conductors who knew Debussy
> personally, seems reason enough to let the trumpets play.
Because they knew the reason for the ellision.
Donald Drewecki
Here's my opinion: The trumpet fanfares are CORNY. Get rid of 'em.
Minority opinion: Toscanini/NBC SO, 1950 -- an outstanding performance,
with SLOWER tempi than many of AT's other performances of this work.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Nicolas Hodges
>OK, here's the scoop.
Thanks for the summary. I think PB is right to do so: this sort of
revision is consistent with all Debussy's other works that I know about
the revisions of.
Marcus Maroney
> Marcus Maroney <newhav...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The argument that the trumpet passage was left out due to technical
> > difficulty seems fallacious, given that there are many other brass
> > passages in the work that are just as difficult, albeit less exposed.
>
> It is fallacious as I reported yesterday.
Actually, you didn't report anything regarding the passage's technical
difficulty.
> > The reinsertion by Monteux and Toscanini, conductors who knew Debussy
> > personally, seems reason enough to let the trumpets play.
>
> Because they knew the reason for the ellision.
Which was...? Sorry if I couldn't infer it from your previous
'report'. I'm apt to believe that the confusion over the issue is all
but cleared up by your 'report'--for some reason I think musicians of
Boulez's or Szell's natures probably have good reasons for omitting
the passage.
The only thing that your report confirmed was that Debussy did,
indeed, strike the passage out in at least one edition of the score.
This edit was then printed Debussy's lifetime (1910 edition, as you
report), and, in the final eight years of his life, during which La
Mer was undoubtedly performed on numerous occasions, there is no
evidence ('vague' or otherwise) that indicates Debussy's
dissatisfaction with this edition of the score. Could it be that
during this period, orchestras were using the earlier, 1905 edition?
Could this be the edition that Monteux and Toscanini used during their
entire careers (i.e., were they aware of the 1910 changes?)? From
when does the copy that includes Debussy's strike-through date?
There are still many questions, and I think you should hesitate to
purport that your 'report' offers a clear answer to any of them. I
was not attempting to give a clear answer, but an opinion as to why I
think the passages should be included in musical terms, essentially
based on a superficial observation of Debussy's rhetoric during the
period in his life when La Mer was composed, especially in terms of
texture.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
David7Gable
You've left out Rimsky warning Stravinsky not to listen to Debussy or he might
learn to like it.
-david gable
Larry Rinkel
<How about a short comment from dim and possibly faulty memory? My
understanding is that Debussy cut the little trumpet flouishes because
whoever
was supposed to play them at the first performance thought they were too
hard.
Then the score got engraved without them. Why some people--Ansermet--know
about 'em and others don't, I couldn't tell you. Will make enquiries.>
Thank you, David. I've been busy the last two evenings with concerts in NY -
Carter cello concerto on Thursday and a stunning all-Xenakis program at
Columbia University yesterday - and so I just saw this.
Clovis Lark:
<A more convincing reason comes as a possible copyright dispute with a
similar passage in Manon Lescaut by Puccini.>
Which passage is that? I don't know ML well enough to recognize it.
<Parte tre: Monteux and Toscanini both knew Claude D. and they returned
the excised music to the passage when they performed the piece. Certainly
Toscanini was a pretty careful man when it came to observing composers'
wishes. Today, the passage remains in dispute, one conductor insisting on
maintaining the passage, the next removing it. Boulez removes it (he is
very unhappy with this volume in the critical ed., he is a sponsor).>
I'm sure no one's memory is as dim and faulty as mine, but I *thought*
Toscanini omitted the flourishes from his NBC recording; unfortunately I no
longer have it to check. But for all Toscanini's carefulness, I do
distinctly remember seeing a photograph of his rescoring the last page of
the first movement of La Mer - though I can't remember where I saw it!
Marcus Maroney:
<Such a huge textural change occurs if the flourishes are left out.
The motion suddenly stops--not a common occurence in Debussy's music
and certainly not a common happening in the texture of 'the sea'
itself. It is not only a jarring change but totally causes these
measures to sacrifice all the tension that has been built up thusfar.
I personally am disappointed by any recording that leaves this passage
out.>
I agree entirely. The last two live performances I heard of the work -
Litton/Dallas and Ashkenazy/Philadelphia - both included the trumpets, and I
thought the gain was considerable.
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011020020459...@mb-ce.aol.com...
Edward A. Cowan
> The last two live performances I heard of the work -
> Litton/Dallas and Ashkenazy/Philadelphia - both included the trumpets, and I
> thought the gain was considerable.
I was at Jun Märkl's performance of "La Mer" in Dallas last night. The
performance was exemplary, and the trumpets were very much in evidence.
Indeed, this was one of the finest concerts I have ever heard from the
Dallas Symphony Orchestra.
The program:
MOZART: Sym. no.40 in G-min., K.550
MOZART: Violin con. no.2 in D, K.211
Emanuel Borok, violin (who also conducted this item)
MENDELSSOHN: "Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage," Op.27
DEBUSSY: "La Mer"
--
E.A.C.
Marcus Maroney
semi-accurate) bothered me over the weekend, so I did a little
research and came up with the following:
The most concise and informative summing-up comes from Simon Trezise's
1994 book, _Debussy: La Mer_ (Cambridge University Press, p. 16-17):
"The most noticeable change of mind is the deletion of the
trumpet/horn fanfares in the finale (III/237-44). An unsubstantiated
rumour has it that Debussy was told they sounded like part of
Puccini's Manon Lescaut, an opera by a composer he fervently disliked;
so he simply struck them out of the score. In fact there was an
intervening stage that can be seen in at least tow copies of the 1905
score with Debussy's hand-written amendments, dating presumably from
the years between the editions [the 1905 and 1909 Durand editions]: he
has deleted just the first two fanfares (bars 237-40), leaving the
first four notes of the third and all of the fourth.
Perhaps Debussy was unhappy with the compositional effect of the
fanfares here and was seeking alternative, less drastic solutions
before removing them altogether (this evidence tends to contradict the
Puccini story--what little of Manon Lescaut there was in the fanfares
is hardly reduced in the first revision). By the time we get to the
1909 score all trace of them has gone, and Debussy made no attempt to
emulate their effect by other means. This change has always been
controversial. [Marie] Rolf laments their excision, arguing that the
Puccini reference is barely discernible and that it was a great shame
Debussy should have acted so rashly. This was also the view of Ernest
Ansermet, who wrote: 'The reason for their suppression...remains a
mystery. I believe these measures are necessary for the dynamic of the
passage and for the contrast with the following episode.' He too had
heard of the Puccini story, though he cites a Rome performance as the
occasion when the resemblance was pointed out to Debussy, a claim that
is not supported by the chronology of the changes. Ansermet, like many
conductors, consequently reinstated the fanfares whilst leaving the
other 1909 changes intact. Toscanini, who worked from a score
apparently amended in consultation with Debussy, left them out, though
he made his own modifications elsewhere. Rolf makes the helpful
suggestion that the trumpets and horns, instead of playing the
fanfares, could double the woodwind and cello line after the manner
indicated in the Sibely manuscript [i.e., the autograph short score,
now in the Sibley collection at Eastman]."
In the _Ouvres completes de Claude Debussy vol.5: La mer_, appendix B,
it is written:
"The prominent fanfare figures in the horns and trumpets eight measure
before rehearsal figure 60 are present in A2 [the autograph full
orchestral score] as well as all [sic] EP and E1 [Durand first
edition, 1905].
The fanfare figures are crossed out in Debussy's hand already in EA1
and EA2 [EA2 is a copy of the score with Debussy's corrections given
to Edgard Varese in 1908] (bars 237-240 and bar 242 only, without
deleting any dynamics), and they do not appear in E2 [Durand second
edition, 1909]. They were purported to have been excised because of
their striking resemblance to a passage in Puccini's Manon Lescaut
(premiered in 1893); although this claim has never been substantiated,
the music leading to rehearsal figure 64 near the end of the first act
does employ a similar motive. Whether or not some borrowing occurred,
Debussy's decision to omit the figures in E2 was probably based on
musical reasons, such as the disparity between them and other thematic
material presented in the movement.
Interestingly enough, the fanfare figures are not in A1 [the autograph
short score]. Instead, the dotted figure eventually given to the
woodwinds was originally scored for horns and trumpets. Were the horns
and trumpets to play the dotted figures in bars 237-244 as notated in
A1, one might not sense so keenly the gap in the orchestral texture
created by their removal from E2."
Debussy conducted the work himself several times, first on January 15,
1908 (at the "Concerts Colonne"). The work was premiered in the U.S.
by the Boston Symphony Orchestra, led by Karl Muck, on March 2, 1907.
Henry Wood led it in London in January 1908 ("Durand...made him
[Debussy]...buy his own score of La mer (15 francs) to send to Henry
Wood in January 1908..."). We can assume that these Boston and London
performances came from the 1905 Durand edition, which included the
fanfares, and thus led to a rather wide dissemination of this version.
There were many performances in Paris in the late 1910s and early
1920s.
From Trezise again (page 29):
"Conductors who otherwise follow the 1909 score often reinstate the
fanfares in the finale; whereas many early conductors, including
Toscanini and Coppola, omitted them, this [to include them] has now
become standard practice. Szell's recording is curious: he follows the
1909 in deleting the fanfares, but retains the high cornet parts in
the closing pages, producing a strange mixture that suggests he was
following the 1938 edition (a recent recording by Yan Pascal Tortelier
also has the 1905 cornet parts)."
There is then a chart of selected recordings in the book, citing which
versions of the score are used in which sections of the piece.
Recordings that omit the fanfares are:
Coppola 1932, Toscanini 1935, Szell 1960, Inghelbrecht 1962, Boulez
1968.
Those that reinstate the fanfares:
Munch 1956 (who uses the 1905 score completely), Karajan 1964,
Ansermet 1964, Ashkenazy 1986, and Solti 1991.
I have yet to look at the 4-hand arrangement Debussy himself made in
1905 or Andre Caplet's two piano arrangement (apparently produced
under Debussy's supervision) of 1909 to see if the material is there.
It seems that if these two versions correspond with the 1909 Durand
edition, the fanfares, should, in fact, be left out.
Marie Rolf perhaps offers the best reasoning: "In any case, the 1909
edition of La Mer is the last printed version known to have been
sanctioned by Debussy. A number of editions have been printed
subsequently by Duran and others, but Debussy never saw any of them."
That's the scoop as far as I can tell.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Lehobe
Supposedly, Debussy removed them because they sounded like something in "Manon
Lescaut." This opens many more cans of worms that it closes. I've never heard
the trumpet flourishes, the better to find out what in "Manon Lescaut" they
resemble. I also understand that in the closing bars of the last movement, the
trumpet and cornet parts have been changed as well. I'm afraid I've muddied
the waters even more. Les