# Debussy: Pelleas et Melisande



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I have heard/watched the following Operas:

Fidelio 
Figaro 
Don Giovanni
The Magic Flute
Pelleas et Melisande


I must say Debussy's had my favorite music thus far, and I liked the story as well. All of Mozart's sounded the same to me, lots of the same ideas used over and over again. There are some works by Mozart (non-opera) I love, but so far his Operas have come off as uninspired to me, unlike this one by Debussy, which I loved very much!


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I have heard/watched the following Operas:
> 
> Fidelio
> Figaro
> ...


Well, I certainly like Pelleas a lot more than any opera by Mozart as well, but I don't know if that's the majority view


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

howlingfantods said:


> Well, I certainly like Pelleas a lot more than any opera by Mozart as well, but I don't know if that's the majority view


Most likely it isn't, but Debussy blew me away with his subtlety, Mozart annoyed me with his directness. My favorite work by Mozart as a whole work is Symphony No. 40 (so far).

I also enjoy the second movement of Piano Concerto No. 21, but not really the entire work. I'll have to see what else I enjoy by him, if anything!


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

I must guiltily admit that Pelleas et Melisande is one opera that I've had in my collection for quite some time and never gotten around to listening to properly. I really must rectify that.

The Wiener Staatsoper have it on their schedule for October, but I think I'd rather see it with a French cast. And besides, I think my budget for the forthcoming season is already stretched thin enough without adding Vienna.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I have heard/watched the following Operas:
> 
> Fidelio
> Figaro
> ...


Now I've heard everything! Does Bach's St Matthew Passion appear 'uninspired' to you too?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Most likely it isn't, but Debussy blew me away with his subtlety, Mozart annoyed me with his directness.


it's wonderful that you have found an opera that you love! _Pelléas et Mélisande_ is an amazing work, and I love it too. What recordings or performances have you seen/heard?

If you're wondering where to go next, similar works include Paul Dukas's _Ariane et Barbe-Bleue_ and Gabriel Fauré's _Pénélope_. Or looking slightly further afield you might enjoy works by composers such as Bartók, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Massenent, Saint-Saëns, and Wagner (especially his _Parsifal_).

Though, of course, I do find your comparison of Debussy and Mozart quite curious. The first operas I loved were late-19th and 20th-century works that made operas from the Classical era sound very old-fashioned. It took me a while to really appreciate Mozart's operas. I believe, as it turns out, his works also have a lot of subtlety, but it is hidden under layers. That is, in Debussy's symbolist drama, the plot is slow and deliberate, and the tone more steady. The drama has been stripped, leaving the emotional journey more vivid.

In Mozart's operas there is a lot more going on that can hold your attention. But once you work your way through that, and understand what is going on, you may find a lot of subtlety to Mozart's characterizations and telling details in the score. But, of course, you may not, or even if you do you may never prefer Mozart. There are enough operas out there that you can ignore large swaths of its 400+ year history and still find much to enjoy.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Now I've heard everything! Does Bach's St Matthew Passion appear 'uninspired' to you too?


That's a bizarre reach. Did Mozart write Bach's St Matthew Passion? Specifically as an opera, since capttainnumber is specifically saying he doesn't like Mozart's opera but he likes other works by Mozart? If so, that is truly music history news, it turns out I do love a work by Mozart after all!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> That's a bizarre reach. Did Mozart write Bach's St Matthew Passion? Specifically as an opera, since capttainnumber is specifically saying he doesn't like Mozart's opera but he likes other works by Mozart? If so, that is truly music history news, it turns out I do love a work by Mozart after all!


Sorry I should have said, 'Bach's St Matthew Passion', to make it clear. I thought the intention of comparison might have been obvious though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry I should have said, 'Bach's St Matthew Passion', to make it clear. I thought the intention of comparison might have been obvious though.


Maybe uninspired is too harsh and not exactly articulating what I mean properly. I think a better way to put it is that it does not inspire me, though it is an inspired work.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mountmccabe said:


> it's wonderful that you have found an opera that you love! _Pelléas et Mélisande_ is an amazing work, and I love it too. What recordings or performances have you seen/heard?
> 
> If you're wondering where to go next, similar works include Paul Dukas's _Ariane et Barbe-Bleue_ and Gabriel Fauré's _Pénélope_. Or looking slightly further afield you might enjoy works by composers such as Bartók, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Massenent, Saint-Saëns, and Wagner (especially his _Parsifal_).
> 
> ...


I watched a version on youtube; I also have an audio recording of it. I'll look up the performer info later for you!

I don't know, I'm starting to hear things with my own ears and taste for the first time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I have heard/watched the following Operas:
> 
> Fidelio
> Figaro
> ...


Perhaps Mozart is not uninspired, but simply uninspiring to you!*

The impression that Mozart's music, and Classical period music in general, "all sounds the same" is, I suspect, common among those of us who grew up musically on the colorful sounds and diverse styles of Romantic music. I do think there's some truth to that impression - Charles Rosen could title a book "The Classical Style," while the idea of a "Romantic style" or a "Modern style" is really inconceivable - but Mozart's resourcefulness, creativity, and ability to surprise us even while utilizing common musical conventions of his time will become more and more evident and impressive with closer acquaintance.

The witty social observation of Mozart and Da Ponte may be about as far from the poignant dreamscape of Debussy and Maeterlinck as you can get, and it may never appeal to you as much (as it doesn't to me), but it's inspired enough to have kept audiences captivated for more than two centuries. You might try some Handel and Gluck operas too, which will place Mozart's in the larger context of opera's evolution.

*(While I was writing this you beat me to this very thought.)


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I've never been able to "get" Pelleas.
Any suggestions?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I've never been able to "get" Pelleas.
> Any suggestions?


It was a play before it was an opera, and I believe Debussy set it to music without modifying it. You might try reading it without the music to see how it affects you, and then go back and listen to how Debussy imagined it. It's also interesting to hear the incidental music Faure and Sibelius wrote for performances of the play, as well as Schoenberg's tone poem. If you like _Parsifal_ (and I know you do), you'll enjoy noticing how reminiscences of it found their way into the orchestral interludes of _Pelleas,_ much to Debussy's consternation. It reminds us that despite Debussy's turn against Wagner, he wouldn't have existed without him. I sometimes think of _Pelleas_ as a sort of French _Tristan._


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Itullian said:


> I've never been able to "get" Pelleas.
> Any suggestions?


You could try different recordings. I always found it pretty boring when I listened to the Cluytens and the Karajan, but it clicked for me when I listened to the Gui and the Desormiere.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Try the Abbado. José van Dam as Golaud, Maria Ewing as Mélisande, and François Le Roux as Pelléas.

It does help if you speak French; it's a very _text_-based opera (as French opera, with its declamatory tradition, can be).


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> but so far his Operas have come off as uninspired to me


,

But Captain, you've lover the Don Giovannni when you went to seeing it as far as I recall.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I learned this opera from the recording by Karajan made in 1978. It has quite a genesis. Karajan conducted the opera in Rome in 1954 upsetting Toscanini because Karajan insisted that it should be sung in the original French. In 1962 he had conducted a legendary production at the Vienna State Opera. Commenting on this performance, Joseph Wechsberg writing in Opera magazine said, "For the first time in my experience, I was shaken by the power of Debussy's music; previously I had only been moved by its beauty. This is a lyrical and a dramatic interpretation and when the inexorable climax comes towards the end one sits spellbound. Karajan opens the delicate texture of the score, lovingly displaying its beauty ...and always painting, painting with music." These eloquent comments equally apply to this recording as do the words of Neville Cardus, describing the same Vienna production, "Pelléas et Mélisande is a drama of the inner, the really "real" world, a drama of implications, of psychological conflicts too secret to concentrate into the obvious attitudes of life, exhibitory and active...Arkel is old age poignantly particularised. The music by which Debussy gives him grief and wisdom is bowed in its sombre-moving phrases and harmonies, so pathetically in contrast to the golden throated lyricism of Pelléas; the innocent youngness - but older in herself than she knows - of Mélisande; and the simple manliness of Golaud, that unfortunate horseman. All these people are pulsating themselves, but we see them from a distance: they move in a permanent timeless dimension. It is ourselves, watching and overhearing from our clock-measured, active, merely phenomenal world, who are unreal. Debussy does not describe, he evokes. His orchestra, unlike Wagner's does not point. It covers everything, a veiled, unheard, yet heard, presence - omnipresent. I can think of no better compliment to Karajan...and the singers than to say that all these intrinsic qualities of the work were brought home."
I know HvK's approach doesn't please all francophiles but my view is rather akin to the comments above.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I've never been able to "get" Pelleas.
> Any suggestions?


I was in this camp as well for the longest time despite Debussy being close to the top of my list of favorite composers. (In fact, at the time I first worked my way through _Pelléas_, Debussy was at the very top.) I did come eventually come around, and I think what did it was that I stopped trying to hear _Pelléas_ as an opera and started hearing it as an anti-opera. It was a revelation.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> ,
> 
> But Captain, you've lover the Don Giovannni when you went to seeing it as far as I recall.


Looking back with a more critical mind, the last scene was the best of Don Giovanni. The music got very interestsing and intense as far as I recall, and that was my favorite part of it, no doubt!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The heroine from this story seems mystified from the start, I love that quality and how it's never really explained. Leaves much for interpretation!

This is the version I watched:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't know, while watching Mozart's operas (my first exposure to Opera) I always felt the stories/music were too predictable but I really wanted to like it. 

Then I watched Pelleas et Melisande and it blew me away with it's depth. The Melisande in the version I posted above was fantastic!


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I learned this opera from the recording by Karajan made in 1978. It has quite a genesis. Karajan conducted the opera in Rome in 1954 upsetting Toscanini because Karajan insisted that it should be sung in the original French. In 1962 he had conducted a legendary production at the Vienna State Opera. Commenting on this performance, Joseph Wechsberg writing in Opera magazine said, "For the first time in my experience, I was shaken by the power of Debussy's music; previously I had only been moved by its beauty. This is a lyrical and a dramatic interpretation and when the inexorable climax comes towards the end one sits spellbound. Karajan opens the delicate texture of the score, lovingly displaying its beauty ...and always painting, painting with music." These eloquent comments equally apply to this recording as do the words of Neville Cardus, describing the same Vienna production, "Pelléas et Mélisande is a drama of the inner, the really "real" world, a drama of implications, of psychological conflicts too secret to concentrate into the obvious attitudes of life, exhibitory and active...Arkel is old age poignantly particularised. The music by which Debussy gives him grief and wisdom is bowed in its sombre-moving phrases and harmonies, so pathetically in contrast to the golden throated lyricism of Pelléas; the innocent youngness - but older in herself than she knows - of Mélisande; and the simple manliness of Golaud, that unfortunate horseman. All these people are pulsating themselves, but we see them from a distance: they move in a permanent timeless dimension. It is ourselves, watching and overhearing from our clock-measured, active, merely phenomenal world, who are unreal. Debussy does not describe, he evokes. His orchestra, unlike Wagner's does not point. It covers everything, a veiled, unheard, yet heard, presence - omnipresent. I can think of no better compliment to Karajan...and the singers than to say that all these intrinsic qualities of the work were brought home."
> I know HvK's approach doesn't please all francophiles but my view is rather akin to the comments above.


A peculiar comment, mostly copy/pasted from a Musicweb review of the recording (with no attribution or link) but most of the copy/pasted content relating to Karajan's 1962 performance and not his 1978 recording. It's such a truism that it's hardly worth mentioning that Karajan was very much a different musician in 1962 versus 1978 so the relevance of the quoted material above is pretty questionable.

I also find it amusing that you cape so hard for Karajan when you're also the one who always brings up antisemitism when we're talking Wagner. I mean only one of these two volunteered to join the Nazi party, and it's always been a little notable how he and his band resisted Mahler for so long.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> A peculiar comment, mostly copy/pasted from a Musicweb review of the recording (with no attribution or link) but most of the copy/pasted content relating to Karajan's 1962 performance and not his 1978 recording. It's such a truism that it's hardly worth mentioning that Karajan was very much a different musician in 1962 versus 1978 so the relevance of the quoted material above is pretty questionable.
> 
> I also find it amusing that you cape so hard for Karajan when you're also the one who always brings up antisemitism when we're talking Wagner. I mean only one of these two volunteered to join the Nazi party, and it's always been a little notable how he and his band resisted Mahler for so long.


Sorry but I didn't think we were writing a Masters thesis on TC where attributions would be appropriate.

Yes of course Karajan was a member of the Nazi party but he never (as far as I can tell) espoused antisemitism, at least publicly. My research reveals he most likely joined the party to further his career as a musician. Of course, this is no excuse but it is a fact that in the 1930s many people (including many in UK and America) thought Hitler to be a very good idea! A man can be a member of a party without espousing the worst features of it. Oistrakh was a member of the communist party in Stalin's day but I don't hold him responsible for the Gulags. 
As for antisemitism, can you give an instance of any antisemitic statements by Karajan? I have searched high and low and I've no doubt if he had made any they would have been paraded around the press and the internet. His leader of the BPO, Schwalbe, was a Jew - the appointment was seen as one of the many steps in Germany's postwar reconciliation. Glotz, the man who became Karajan's record producer was also Jewish. Interestingly, Karajan also kept clandestine copies of Mendelssohn symphonies during the Nazi period when such music was banned in Germany. I wonder what Wagner would have said?
Your statement that 'it's always been a little notable how he and his band resisted Mahler for so long' (presumably you surmise because Mahler was Jewish) is not entirely accurate. Karajan learned about Mahler from his teachers and mentor, Paumgartner, who knew the composer-conductor. Interestingly Paumgartner reckoned that Karajan resembled Mahler in his music making, sounded although (of course) there is no way of proving this. It would appear that if there was any resistance to Mahler's music it came from the BPO. Ahead of the Mahler Centenary in July 1960, Karajan tried Das Lied von der Erde but the orchestra was not ready for Mahler and Rossl-Majdan made heavy weather of the Mezzo part. He also began at the same time preparing another Jewish work, Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra. So as he had been conducting Mendelssohn for years, it does seem to me rather ludicrous to assume Karajan to have been reluctant to take up Mahler just because the composer was a Jew. He actually invested his own money in the recordings of Schoenberg's music with the BPO! 
I'm not interested in white washing Karajan - his membership of the Nazi party was a black mark against his name. However, he was not as involved with the Nazis (especially after he displeased Hitler in a performance of Mastersingers) as, say, the Wagner grandsons who looked upon 'Uncle Wolf' as a sort of adopted father. He wasn't as involved as Schwartzkopf, but the British gave her the title of Dame Elizabeth! Karajan was (in the words of John Culshaw) 'ruthless and unpredictable'. He was certainly single-minded in his ambition and was certainly not the man to get the wrong side of! Probably why many of the poisonous articles about him didn't come out until after his death! But then his character traits were certainly shared by many other great conductors. In fact if we are only going to consider conductors who were 'nice' men then very few are left on the list!
What I am saying is that in spite of his membership of the Nazi party and his sometimes questionable character there is no evidence that Karajan (at least publicly) was anti-Semitic. There is a great deal of evidence that Wagner was!

Just one other point on the Debussy. I cannot see why my comment is 'peculiar in quoting a Musicweb review which reviews his 1978 performance with quotes from the 1962 reviews. To say 'Karajan was a very different musician' is a pretty sweeping statement! Looking at the reviews, the one from Robert Levine is fairly typical:
Debussy's only opera has fared very well on recordings, and this set stands tall even within that framework. As you might expect, Herbert von Karajan looks backward, to Wagner, for his approach to the score, and indeed, makes a good case for it. The voices and orchestra tell the story equally, and Karajan makes the music surge forward inevitably, with never a let-up in concentration. He brings out the emotion as Boulez does not, for instance, but he also never sentimentalizes, as Abbado occasionally does. His cast is wonderful: Richard Stillwell's handsome baritone and forthright delivery make us like him at once-if he happens to fall for his brother's wife, well, nobody's perfect. And Frederica von Stade's Melisande is an ideal foil-not as insubstantial as some, she nonetheless makes us feel the character's inherent mystery and sadness. Jose van Dam's Golaud is towering-deeply troubled and moved to violence, but heroic. The rest of the cast is splendid, as is the sound. The Berlin Philharmonic plays the score as shiny satin; Debussy's orchestration comes through at every turn.
OK I know about the reviews of the likes of Lionel Salter, but even he had to admire the beauty of the conception. Even a francophile like Felix Abrahamian praised the recording, so your remark about my 'peculiar comment' appears a little peculiar itself!


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I didn't think we were writing a Masters thesis on TC where attributions would be appropriate.
> 
> Yes of course Karajan was a member of the Nazi party but he never (as far as I can tell) espoused antisemitism, at least publicly.


Ohhh I see, he was the non-antisemitic type of Nazi. Yes, it is historical fact that anti-semitism was rarely discussed feature of the Nazi party that he enthusiastically joined.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163206

Scratch a Nazi joiner skin deep and you'll see ultranationalism and antisemitism.



DavidA said:


> My research reveals he most likely joined the party to further his career as a musician.


Your independent "research" meaning reading the book by Osborne, his court biographer? Please.



DavidA said:


> His leader of the BPO, Schwalbe, was a Jew - the appointment was seen as one of the many steps in Germany's postwar reconciliation. Glotz, the man who became Karajan's record producer was also Jewish.


"But he had Jewish friends!"

Same could be said of Wagner, of course. And the same can be said for many historical and contemporary antisemites and racists.

eta--yes, this is a discussion forum, but it's always been considered bad form to pass off someone else's words as your own. Especially when you leave out the opening quotation mark, a casual reader could certainly understand your post as your own work and thoughts in pulling those quotes.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> Ohhh I see, he was the non-antisemitic type of Nazi. Yes, it is historical fact that anti-semitism was rarely discussed feature of the Nazi party that he enthusiastically joined.
> 
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163206
> 
> ...


You are of course just going round in circles. So we are saying that David Oistrakh approved of the gulags because he was a member of the Soviet communist party? Scratch a communist party joiner skin deep and you'll find a supporter of gulags and mass murder? If we go on that way it gets ludicrous!

Oh yes, I have read about Oliver Rathkolb and his supposed findings. But even if they were proved, aren't you being somewhat inconsistent? You surely should then ashore Wagner far more than you apparently do Karajan for Wagner still emerges as a vastly more virulent anti-semite. As for me, Wagner's anti-Semitism does not stop me listening to the music and Karajan's wartime activities do not stop me listening to his conducting of Debussy. I assume though, with the views you express, you listen to neither?


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> You are of course just going round in circles. So we are saying that David Oistrakh approved of the gulags because he was a member of the Soviet communist party? Scratch a communist party joiner skin deep and you'll find a supporter of gulags and mass murder? If we go on that way it gets ludicrous!
> 
> Oh yes, I have read about Oliver Rathkolb and his supposed findings. But even if they were proved, aren't you being somewhat inconsistent? You surely should then ashore Wagner far more than you apparently do Karajan for Wagner still emerges as a vastly more virulent anti-semite. As for me, Wagner's anti-Semitism does not stop me listening to the music and Karajan's wartime activities do not stop me listening to his conducting of Debussy. I assume though, with the views you express, you listen to neither?


Not sure what you mean by saying I should "ashore Wagner". I do think he sounds like a terrible person in real life, but I greatly enjoy his art and have no problems separating the artist from the art, as I do with many artists I admire for their work but not their life. Unlike some, I don't selectively use biographical shortcomings to criticize some and whitewash others based on my personal tastes, while trying to posture at some kind of universal ethics.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

And so it begins. Can we stay on topic fans? Is this thread not headed Debussy: Pelleas et Melisande?


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> And so it begins. Can we stay on topic fans? Is this thread not headed Debussy: Pelleas et Melisande?


Ah, but it's haunted by the ghost of old Klingsor!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm not much of an opera fan, but I have not one but two recordings of Pelleas. That's saying something. I haven't plumbed the depths of the piece yet, but I enjoy listening to it.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> And so it begins. Can we stay on topic fans? Is this thread not headed Debussy: Pelleas et Melisande?


Sorry! as I was saying, I find the Karajan's and Cluyten's Pelleas wicked boring. Gui's and Desormiere's don't sound nearly as good (Gui is from a live Glyndebourne performance from 1963, and Desormiere's is from 1941) but they're both more mysterious _and_ more dramatic.

This has little to do with being a Francophile, which I am the farthest thing from--my shelves are filled with German philosophers and writers--and everything to do with just my personal history of always thinking Pelleas was kind of a dud when I only owned the Karajan and Cluyten until I bought the Gui, then the Desormiere.

ETA: But I'm not even saying that's Tully's problem--maybe he has the Gui and thinks it's boring. My advice is just to try different recordings. I think more than many other operas, P et M can vary drastically depending on interpreter.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> Not sure what you mean by saying I should "ashore Wagner". I do think he sounds like a terrible person in real life, but I greatly enjoy his art and have no problems separating the artist from the art, as I do with many artists I admire for their work but not their life. Unlike some, I don't selectively use biographical shortcomings to criticize some and whitewash others based on my personal tastes, while trying to posture at some kind of universal ethics.


The ashore bit was a misprint due to auto print. I thought you might of realised that looking at the context of my post. I too have no problems in separating the artist from the art only in certain cases it is the extent to which the art is influenced by the artists personal philosophies which is under question and which is endlessly debated in literature. You appear to have a black-and-white thinking on this matter in that if criticise a certain artist at some points - whether his philosophy or length - I must reject all his art. To say I 'try to posture at some kind of universal ethics' is laughable. Let's get it in perspective. We are discussing opera here - I listen for pleasure and entertainment - just as I go to the movies and the theatre! We are not discussing some great deep philosophical thesis. Opera is enjoyed by only a tiny minority of the population so how on earth can I be trying to posture at some kind of universal ethics?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> Sorry! as I was saying, I find the Karajan's and Cluyten's Pelleas wicked boring. Gui's and Desormiere's don't sound nearly as good (Gui is from a live Glyndebourne performance from 1963, and Desormiere's is from 1941) but they're both more mysterious _and_ more dramatic.
> 
> This has little to do with being a Francophile, which I am the farthest thing from--my shelves are filled with German philosophers and writers--and everything to do with just my personal history of always thinking Pelleas was kind of a dud when I only owned the Karajan and Cluyten until I bought the Gui, then the Desormiere.
> 
> ETA: But I'm not even saying that's Tully's problem--maybe he has the Gui and thinks it's boring. My advice is just to try different recordings. I think more than many other operas, P et M can vary drastically depending on interpreter.


It's interesting that your reaction is to Karajan's recording being boring are not shared by most people, even the critics who didn't like it. Lionel Salter was one who resisted but said, "To the extent that it opened everyone's eyes and ears and forced them to think about the true nature of Debussy's idiosyncratic score it unquestionably made a very deep impression." He quotes John Steane as calling it 'a distinctive and unforgettable experience ... the opera has never moved me so much ... one of the classics of the gramophone'; and Felix Aprahamian being almost equally enthusiastic. Interesting that for all the controversy the last word the critics ever used was the one you used and that was 'boring'. In fact Salter ended his review with the words, "this is a very characteristically Karajan performance, deeply committed and for the beautiful gift controversial things. The casting is excellent and the sound, often ravishing, as a rich glowing warmth."
So controversial? Yes. Boring? Most people don't seem to have found it so.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Itullian said:


> I've never been able to "get" Pelleas.
> Any suggestions?


This is an opera whose appeal was a bit allusive to me at first as well, and only gradually was I able to warm up to it's strange and unique atmosphere of mystery and sadness. And not only is this quality present in the drama, which at times strikes me as a giant puzzle where the characters seem to be stumbling around in a daze, groping and grasping, trying to find meaning in the riddles that surround them and which dominate their destinies; but the music itself is a full of intimation and is a sort of realization of enigma in sound.

I would only second Woodduck's recommendations, and encourage you to explore various recordings like howlingfantods suggest because this is an opera that really does seem to transform itself in the hands of different conductors and singers who often take vastly different approaches. The Desormière recording is indeed a revelation when compared to the Karajan, and one of my favorite recordings of the opera that I haven't seen mentioned is Ernest Ansermet's 1964 stereo recording. Although I think George London's gruff and ugly sounding Golaud is an unfortunate blemish, Ansermet's dramatic pacing is superb, and under his direction the orchestra is wonderfully evocative and expressive.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> It's interesting that your reaction is to Karajan's recording being boring are not shared by most people, even the critics who didn't like it. Lionel Salter was one who resisted but said, "To the extent that it opened everyone's eyes and ears and forced them to think about the true nature of Debussy's idiosyncratic score it unquestionably made a very deep impression." He quotes John Steane as calling it 'a distinctive and unforgettable experience ... the opera has never moved me so much ... one of the classics of the gramophone'; and Felix Aprahamian being almost equally enthusiastic. Interesting that for all the controversy the last word the critics ever used was the one you used and that was 'boring'. In fact Salter ended his review with the words, "this is a very characteristically Karajan performance, deeply committed and for the beautiful gift controversial things. The casting is excellent and the sound, often ravishing, as a rich glowing warmth."
> So controversial? Yes. Boring? Most people don't seem to have found it so.


Before I got the Karajan, I was unfamiliar with the piece. Unlike these critics, I didn't already know and appreciate or love the work, so I was listening to the piece cold. And when I would listen to the Karajan, not having heard Pelleas before, it sounded like a pretty boring opera.

It's not that the performance itself was boring (there's lots of lovely playing and singing, and beautiful lush sounds), but that the way Karajan interprets and presents the opera is like it's something like a pretty uneventful Strauss. All lush sonorities, lively and precise rhythms, no mystery or drama. I found it pretty to listen to but uneventful enough that I would always drift off and lose focus and attention. I probably listened to it complete a half dozen times over several years and it never clicked for me.

Whereas when I got the Gui, even though the sound and performances aren't nearly so pretty moment to moment, I was completely spellbound. I was almost obsessed with the recording, and probably listened to it over twenty times over the few weeks after I got it. Since then, I've also gotten the Desormiere and also find it captivating and beautiful, in some ways better and more musical than the Gui, but the Gui is still the one that's most in my regular listening rotation, and I listen to it all the time.

Now that I've clicked on the piece, when I listen to the Karajan, I can appreciate it more and find it less boring to listen to, but I also dislike it more, because I'm super attuned to what it's lacking. But I can also see why the critics thought it was an interesting take and a fresh listen for them, but I think the different take he brings is ultimately one that doesn't present Pelleas in the strongest light, my criteria for how I value recordings.

But all that said, that's my personal history with this opera, and I don't expect that everyone will have the same reaction. But I do think it's a good thing for others who haven't clicked on the piece yet to know that the conductor matters _a lot_ for this opera, more so than most.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

My introduction to this great work was Pierre Boulez conducting the Welsh National Opera in Cardiff, which totally captivated me. I'd love to have had a CD of it, but I don't think one was ever made. There is, however, a television recording available on YouTube:






Of the versions I have on CD, my top vote goes to Abbado, although the Désormière recording, remastered by Pristine Classical, is wonderful.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Listened to the complete Abbado last night.
I guess this just isn't my opera.
But I'll try once more tonight.

I do hear the Parsifal influence in it.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

It has moments of great beauty, but so far isn't among my favorite Debussy works. Maybe it will grow on me.

So much Yin and not enough Yang.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> All of Mozart's sounded the same to me, lots of the same ideas used over and over again. There are some works by Mozart (non-opera) I love, but so far his Operas have come off as uninspired to me, unlike this one by Debussy, which I loved very much!


I would recommend that you really immerse yourself in those Mozart operas you have. I have always loved classical music. I got curious about opera in my early 20s. I knew the names Verdi and Puccini, so I bought _La boheme_ and _La Traviata_. I listened to them every now and then, but when I saw Amadeus (in 1996 - was late to the game), I was enthralled by the music of the operas in that movie.

I ran out and bought _Le nozze di Figaro_. It was love at first hear, and has been my favorite opera ever since. I have probably listened to it thousands of times and I still hear new things. Sometimes, it is fun to listen to what's behind the main melody - there is a whole world of fantastic music underneath it. Of course, all the music works together, but what a magnificent piece of work. I think Alfred Einstein once called it, "the single greatest artistic creation by mankind." I can't argue with him on that point.

Mozart turned a mild interest into a full blown passion, and actually helped me appreciate the works of other composers. I'm mad for Verdi, Wagner and the Russians.

Now, back on topic - can someone recommend a good recording of the opera at hand?

Opera is the best....so glad it came into my life.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry I should have said, 'Bach's St Matthew Passion', to make it clear. I thought the intention of comparison might have been obvious though.


I'm glad you clarified. I, myself, wasn't sure if you meant Bach's St. Matthew Passion, Puccini's St. Matthew Passion, or Andrew Lloyd Webber's St. Matthew Passion (which is Puccini's).


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> A peculiar comment, mostly copy/pasted from a Musicweb review of the recording (with no attribution or link) but most of the copy/pasted content relating to Karajan's 1962 performance and not his 1978 recording. It's such a truism that it's hardly worth mentioning that Karajan was very much a different musician in 1962 versus 1978 so the relevance of the quoted material above is pretty questionable.
> 
> I also find it amusing that you cape so hard for Karajan when you're also the one who always brings up antisemitism when we're talking Wagner. I mean only one of these two volunteered to join the Nazi party, and it's always been a little notable how he and his band resisted Mahler for so long.


You know, I actually struggled with this when I started getting into Wagner, exploring (and falling in love with) his music, and learning what a wretched little man he was. I actually asked a Jewish friend I was living with what his thoughts were - could I support a man who held those beliefs. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here):

"Wagner's been long dead. You should look at it that you are supporting the record label and the artists. You can and should separate the man from his art."

I thought that was great advice.

On to Karajan, I am just starting to really appreciate him. My first foray into Karajan was his _Don Giovanni_ and _Ring_ recordings, which I loathed. I've come full circle on his _Ring_ - it's magnificent, even though I like Solti's better. His _Fidelio_ completely knocks my socks off. Now when looking for recordings I look for his name to be attached to it.


----------

