|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A TALE OF TWO HALVES, 1 Nov 2005
It's possible to get a strong sense that this opera improves as it goes along. That's been my own experience with it, but it's not so easy to account for why. The best I can come up with is that it's not the performance that gives me this feeling but partly the music itself and above all the libretto. The story seems to me to break cleanly into two distinct parts, the second part starting at act IV. From this point on we have abandoned Damascus and Christian armies and been spirited away to an enchanted island. Apart from the two principals Armide and Renaud (Rinaldo) acts IV and V have an almost completely new cast from the previous acts, and Armide has changed roles from being a powerful sorceress to being just another heroine spurned in love, a kind of downmarket Dido who finally just magicks herself away leaving the rest of them to their own devices, the Christian armies that the earlier acts were supposed to have been about literally nowhere. This in turn highlights two separate sides of the composer's personality - the dramatist and the composer of tableaux. He excelled in both capacities, but it may have been a bit much to expect him to switch from the former role (in the earlier acts) to the latter within the limits of a single work. Gluck was a musical rationalist and reformer, but also a musical politician and in-fighter, and I suspect that in Armide the two sides to his musical personality come into conflict to a certain extent, with the tableau-composer coming out on top. Keen to establish himself in Paris, he took over the traditional libretto used by Lully, involving a lot in the way of ballet-music and set-pieces in the later acts. Whether he would have done this given a freer hand and fewer entrenched interests to placate, I rather doubt. On the other hand, he was very good at that sort of thing, and I feel simply that his best inspiration belongs in these later acts, the gem of the whole work being a long aria for Renaud. This is not to say that there is not a lot of fine stuff in acts I-III as well, the jewel of those being another aria for Renaud, just that these acts are not, by and large, quite the greatest Gluck. The challenge for the interpreters, on this view, is how to handle the first three acts. The excellent liner-essay tells us about a performance from Toscanini that failed, seemingly because the performers tried to ham up the music as if it were Verdi. If so, that was asking for disaster - this music is not at that kind of voltage, and Minkowski knows better than to treat it as if it were. Taking it for what it is, I would say they all do a first-class job. The cast are largely francophone, and the two Americans sing their French very convincingly too, which is particularly important in the case of Workman as Renaud as he seems to me to get the best music in the entire opera. The direction throughout shows admirable taste and sense of proportion - the demons for instance are very urbane and well-behaved demons, the kind of demons you could safely invite to dinner, and I am astonished that Gluck doesn't try to make any kind of effect out of the diamond shield. Brahms is not known as a musical dramatist and his Rinaldo is one of his less-performed works, but his treatment of the moment in Goethe's text when the diamond shield is displayed is simply awesome. We are in safe hands with Minkowski in music of this period. Period instruments are of course used, and the scale of the performance is judged exactly. If the earlier acts seem less dramatic than they might have been, my feeling is that that is down to the music not to the performers, who know what to avoid. Armide is not Gluck's greatest work, but it's very fine one and this is a set I wouldn't have wanted to miss. To what extent it will suit other listeners I have no way of knowing, but I have tried to make coherent sense of how it all comes across to me.
|