Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
THE MAN IS A GREAT MASTER, 3 Sep 2006
Thus spake Shaw, writing about Gluck towards the end of the 19th century. Shaw went on to allege that the musical culture of his time had not fully caught up with this great master and reformer of opera, and the very thoughtful and instructive essay that Gardiner contributes here suggests to me that there may still, in the third millennium, be a little catching up to do. Whatever one thinks of Gluck, either as a composer or as a musical dramatist or as an operatic rationalist and reformer, it seems to me that he was very clear-headed in one basic respect - he knew the difference between musical drama and musical tableau. Classical drama has an inherent tendency towards tableau, with its statues, white-robed women, prophets, deities and heroes. This still tempts producers of Gluck's operas into statuesque stagings with a certain immobility about them. I don't necessarily find fault with this, what I do suggest is that Gluck's operas can't all be viewed in the same way. Even when the libretto is, like that of Armide, an uneasy combination of the dramatic with the statuesque, Gluck is always clear in his mind which mode he is operating in. When it comes to Alceste, the book of the opera is clearly dramatic all the way through. Gluck can see this, and Gardiner's remarks as well as his direction suggest to me that he sees it this way too.
This basic view underlies the way I hear this performance. Gardiner's approach seems to me thoroughly considered and consistent, and one of the things that I like best about it is that I seem to be listening to not just Gluck the composer but Gluck the reformer. There is a great sense of dramatic pace about it all. Speeds are never allowed to drag, but the sense of pace is not a sense of rush either. It is more a sense of continuity, with no long silences between the numbers but overture leading to recitative leading to chorus leading to aria with a fluency that Wagner himself might have admired. Inevitably, there is a price to be paid for this, and how each of us responds to this approach will depend, I'd say, on whether we think the price worth it. The price is that the big set pieces (for which read arias to all intents here) are less highlighted than in other types of production. No doubt Jessye Norman and Nicolai Gedda 'make more' of their big solos, and that is partly because they are given more of the 'tableau' treatment. Whether one can have it both ways I would not like to try to say. What I will say is that I know Anne Sofie von Otter from her fine and spirited recitals of Schumann, Grieg and Chaminade. She is a powerful singer and a powerful personality, and if she doesn't attempt to be particularly dominant in this instance that makes perfect sense to me considering the role she is given to sing, which is not Clytemnestra or Medea but the devoted and submissive Alcestis. Furthermore, arias are not even particularly frequent in this opera until the third act, where they fit naturally into place as Alcestis and Admetus confront each other at the gates of Hades. In the earlier acts too many arias would have interrupted the dramatic flow, and I hear the way von Otter interprets her role as being part and parcel of Gardiner's overall concept.
Whether or not this is the way one likes it, it would be hard to accuse this production of inconsistency. Paul Groves is a lightish tenor rather than a Heldentenor, and that, I suppose, is likely another reason for the way von Otter goes about her contribution. One would know he was not French, but he handles that aspect of the matter not badly. In general the singing is extremely distinct and professional, and this is particularly important in the case of the chorus, whose part is easily as big as that of either of the principals. There are some very effective 'whispers' from the chorus of citizens at one point, and the divinities of the Styx are as effective as Gluck allows them to be. I certainly feel he should have made more effort here - to argue, as apparently he did, that nobody knows what the gods of the underworld sound like is just flannel: they are totally imaginary beings anyway, and Gluck might have exerted his own imagination.
Editorially, I think the production is excellent. Patricia Howard contributes a scholarly but readable preface, and Gardiner himself is absolutely fascinating as he takes us through the practical and conceptual issues surrounding the performance. Gluck was emphatically better at the vision-thing than he was at the fine detail. His autograph scores are a frightful mess, an absolute dog's dinner, and I appreciate Gardiner's candour in letting us into his decision processes for dealing with the ambiguities and other shortcomings. In particular he gives proper recognition to the loving and tactful editorial suggestions made by Berlioz all that time ago. The French text is given both in full and in summary and translated into both English and German, and there is a synopsis of the plot. I did not read the English version in full, but as much of it as I did look at gave me no problems.
A decision on the right Alceste for each of us is thus not any straightforward matter. So far as I can tell, there is no getting away from taking some kind of intellectual view as to how the work should be performed. Gardiner has not shirked this, and I have tried not to misrepresent his intentions. This is not the kind of Gluck production I learned to love when I was younger, but our understanding of what made him the great master he is continues to develop and advance, and I appreciate what Gardiner has done for us in this regard.
|
|
|
25 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Alceste brought back from the dead, 27 Oct 2002
The Gluck revival continues to gain in strength with this striking new recording of his tragic opera "Alceste" from John Eliot Gardiner. Gluck wrote the original, Italian version of "Alceste" in 1767 after his first and most famous reform opera, "Orfeo ed Euridice". He later revised it in a version for the French stage in 1776. The result - the score recorded here- is a distinct improvement all round. Gluck cut much of the repetition that made the original version so static (it was accused of being like 'a funeral in three acts') and generally sharpened up the musical drama. Yet "Alceste", even in this superior version, has never achieved the popularity of "Orfeo", despite the fact it was allegedly the favourite opera of Berlioz, Gluck's greatest admirer. As Gardiner says in the booklet: " 'Alceste' belongs to the category of operas that are famous but hardly known."
The plots of "Orfeo" and "Alceste" are in fact strikingly similar. Both involve the protagonists risking their lives to save their spouses from death. In "Orfeo", Orpheus loses his wife and has to descend the Underworld to rescue her. In "Alceste", Admetus, King of Thessaly is dying. The gods promise to save his life if anyone is willing to take his place. His courageous wife, Alcestis, volunteers. But the story ends happily as she is snatched from the jaws of death by the hero Hercules. The Alcestis myth has been nowhere near as popular with composers as the Orpheus story. This is mainly due to the fact that Orpheus, as the god of music, provided composers ample opportunity to show off their skills. In fact I can only think of two other Alcestis operas: Lully's "Alceste" (1674) and Handel's "Admeto" (1727). Those two operas, as was the fashion in the Baroque, severely complicated the basic story by the addition of extra characters and subplots. Gluck's drama is astonishingly simple and direct. Though it has plot similarities with "Orfeo", the form and mood are totally different. "Alceste" is very French with its chorus and dance ensembles. The drama is more compact than "Orfeo", the orchestration more sombre. There are no beautiful Elysian fields for Alcestis. The scene when she waits to be sacrificed to the gods of the underworld in the growing twilight is both terrifying and moving in a way that prefigures early Romanticism.Nevertheless, perhaps partly because of its generally dark scoring and dramatic concentration, "Alceste" does run the risk of monotony in the wrong hands. The problem with its lack of popularity might have been the fact that previous recordings have done little to dispel the idea, as the Penguin Guide puts it, that in Gluck 'beautiful' means 'boring'. Gluck is seen as Neo-Classical so his operas are often performed as if they were as cold as lifeless as Neo-Classical statues. As Gardiner realizes, the secret of Gluck's reforms was simple: he wanted to make opera dramatic once more. Gardiner's conducting is anything but tame. He pays great attention to every orchestral detail to prevent the merest hint of monotony. You certainly won't fall asleep during this performance. Some reviewers, such as the 'Gramophone' critic Stanley Sadie, used to the more sedate Gluck performing tradition, have blanched at this, but I love it. It is certainly far superior to the overpraised Naxos recording of the Italian version under Arnold Oestman. But perhaps the true test of this opera is Alceste herself. Teresa Ringholtz is by far the best thing about the Oestman recording. She has a fine, delicate voice but she is no competition for Anne Sofie von Otter on Gardiner. Just compare them in the famous aria "Ombre,Larve"/"Ombres, Larves". Admittedly Ringholtz isn't helped by the lack of presence in the Naxos recording which sounds pallid and scratchy, almost mono. By contrast Gardiner's orchestra is blazingly present and von Otter matches his interpretation in power. She sounds almost like Beethoven's Leonore (and indeed the role of Alceste is a clear predecessor of the heroine of "Fidelio" who saves her husband from the living death of prison). Again compare the arias "Non, vi tormenti" (Italian version) with "Ah, divinites" (its French counterpart). Ringholtz is fragile and touching, von Otter is noble and utterly heartbreaking. As for the other roles, Paul Groves makes a fine Admete in spite of his often uncertain French. He manages to make his character sound noble, rather than spineless, as is so often the case. Dieter Henschel sings both the High Priest and Hercules. He is rather more successful in the former role since his Hercules is good but not vocally muscular enough. But it is the heroine and the conductor who really count in this opera and von Otter and Gardiner are unbeatable. They have managed to transform this opera from one I left to gather dust on my shelves into one I listen to again and again.(Brys)
|
|
|
|
~ Christoph Willibald Gluck
~ Thomas Allen
~ Christoph Willibald Gluck
~ Anna Netrebko
~ Christoph Willibald Gluck
![John Eliot Gardiner - Gluck - Alceste [DVD] [2000]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41c3wjgRvfL._SL75_SS50_.jpg)
With an Amazon.co.uk Gift Certificate, you can get them what they want (even if you don't know what that is). 
Amazon Home