# SS 10.05.14 - Messiaen "Turangalîla-Symphonie"



## realdealblues

A continuation of the Saturday Symphonies Tradition:

Welcome to another weekend of symphonic listening!

For your listening pleasure this weekend:

*Olivier Messiaen (1908 - 1992)*

Turangalîla-Symphonie

1. Introduction
2. Chant d'amour 1
3. Turangalîla 1
4. Chant d'amour 2
5. Joie du Sang des Étoiles
6. Jardin du Sommeil d'amour
7. Turangalîla 2
8. Développement d'amour
9. Turangalîla 3
10. Final

---------------------

Post what recording you are going to listen to giving details of Orchestra / Conductor / Chorus / Soloists etc - Enjoy!


----------



## realdealblues

Well, several weeks ago I bought this recordings specifically for this occasion. I've never heard it so we'll see how it goes.

View attachment 41563


Riccardo Chailly/Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra
Pianist: Jean-Yves Thibaudet
Ondes Martenot: Takashi Harada


----------



## Cheyenne

I'll join in this time! Last time I tried to listen to it my mom got angry. "What are you gonna put on?" "Oh, it's a symphony about love." "Really, how quaint!" She wasn't impressed, unfortunately.


----------



## Ukko

Cheyenne said:


> I'll join in this time! Last time I tried to listen to it my mom got angry. "What are you gonna put on?" "Oh, it's a symphony about love." "Really, how quaint!" She wasn't impressed, unfortunately.
> 
> View attachment 41564




I had no idea. There's so much stuff in there though, I don't feel dumb for missing a little love.


----------



## Cheyenne

I showed her the program, featuring the 'Chant d'amour' 1 and 2; that's why :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

Messiaen himself also said "it's a love song" when asked about the Symphony.

I'm going for Beroff/Loriod/Previn/London Symphony:


----------



## schigolch

_Olivier MESSIAEN (1908-1992) 
Turangalîla (1946-8) [75:55] 
Paul Crossley(piano); Tristan Murail (ondas martenot); 
Philarmonia Orchestra/Esa-Pekka Salonen 
Enero 2003 DDD _


----------



## GioCar

I will go for










Loriod sisters, Orchestre de l'Opéra Bastille, Myung-Whun Chung

I think it's the same of the wonderful DG box set above.


----------



## maestro267

Royal Concergebouw Orchestra/Chailly

Really looking forward to tackling this immense, complex work.


----------



## Vaneyes

YT: Goodyear/Millar/Frankfurt RSO/Paavo Jarvi (January 13, 2013). :tiphat:


----------



## Cheyenne

GioCar said:


> Loriod sisters, Orchestre de l'Opéra Bastille, Myung-Whun Chung
> 
> I think it's the same of the wonderful DG box set above.


Indeed, and it had Messiaen's backing:

"How to describe my feelings having just heard two performances and the recording of the Turangalîla-Symphonie, conducted by the inspired Myung-Whun Chung?
At the moment, in association with the music publishing house of Durand, I am preparing an ew edition of the Turangalîla-Symphonie to include some small changes that have been suggest to me by my hearing around two hundred performances of the work, in different cities and different countries. The magnificent version of the Turangalîla-Symphonie that has now been achieved by Myung-Whun Chung, by the two soloists Yvonne Loriod and Jeanne Loriod, and by the Bastille Opera Orchestra, takes account of these modifications, and answers perfectly to all my desires. These are the correct tempos, the correct dynamics, the right feelings and the right joy! Coming after them any excellent interpretations that we already know, this new version, superb from every point of view, can be considered henceforth the definitive account."​
Messiaen's notes on the work are very interesting.


----------



## Haydn man

This is something I have never heard before so I will look at Spotify and select one of the above choices and give it a go


----------



## Ukko

Sure am glad I didn't know the story line. Now I need to forget I read about it. Damn program music anyway.


----------



## Cheyenne

Hmm, you're right -- I better remove them.


----------



## Mahlerian

It's not program music, per se, but Messiaen often provided fanciful and somewhat outwardly naive program notes for his works. In one sense, his music _is_ straightforward and naive, especially from a formal point of view, though the harmony and rhythm are certainly anything but!


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> I had no idea. There's so much stuff in there though, I don't feel dumb for missing a little love.


2. Chant d'amour 1
4. Chant d'amour 2
5. Joie du Sang des Étoiles
6. Jardin du Sommeil d'amour
8. Développement d'amour

Half of its ten movements directly labeled "_d'amour_," with No. 5 '_Joy of / in the blood_' -- more than a little clue this piece is one big "love song."


----------



## samurai

Haydn man said:


> This is something I have never heard before so I will look at Spotify and select one of the above choices and give it a go


Same goes for me.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> 2. Chant d'amour 1
> 4. Chant d'amour 2
> 5. Joie du Sang des Étoiles
> 6. Jardin du Sommeil d'amour
> 8. Développement d'amour
> 
> Half of its ten movements directly labeled "d'amour" and No. 5 'Joy of / in the blood' -- more than a little clue this piece is one big "love song."


There's a reason I pay no attention to movement labels...


----------



## samurai

realdealblues said:


> Well, several weeks ago I bought this recordings specifically for this occasion. I've never heard it so we'll see how it goes.
> 
> View attachment 41563
> 
> 
> Riccardo Chailly/Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra
> Pianist: Jean-Yves Thibaudet
> Ondes Martenot: Takashi Harada


I'm going with the same one, on *Spotify.*
* *


----------



## maestro267

The movements of Turangalila can be divided into four groups:

The "love" movements: II, IV, VI, VIII
The "time" movements, focused on rhythm and with untuned percussion prominent: III, VII, IX
Two wild scherzos that conclude each half of the symphony: V, X
The first movement stands alone.

Another point is the connection with Tristan and Isolde. This is the middle panel of a trilogy of works based on that legend. The other two are Harawi (soprano and piano) and Cinq rechants (unaccompanied chorus).

Will post more observations when I listen to the work in a few hours.


----------



## Guest

Wait a minute...I've not finished with SS Prokofiev's 6th!


----------



## maestro267

This is definitely one of the most remarkable 20th-century works. First of all, its size is enormous, both in length and forces. Notable is the percussion section, which includes 3 different types of suspended cymbal, vibraphone, both keyed and mallet glockenspiels, tam-tam, and maracas. The tuned percussion often aligns itself with the solo piano in an evocation of the Indonesian gamelan.

Then you have the ethereal sound of the Ondes Martenot, which, in both its high and low ranges, can pierce through the full might of the orchestral texture.

For me, the climactic moments are in the 8th movement, Développement de l'amour. You get these huge "chorales" for full brass, followed immediately by statements of the "flower theme" on just two or three woodwinds. And then they build up to statements of the love theme (first heard in full in the sixth movement), in C, D, and finally at the highest point, F sharp, the main key of the symphony (if it has one).


----------



## DrKilroy

I'll join you tomorrow with:

Paul Crossley, piano
Tristan Murail, ondes martenot
Philharmonia Orchestra
Esa-Pekka Salonen


Best regards, Dr


----------



## ptr

Love a well rounded TS! One work I lament that Pierre Boulez (AFAIK) has not put to disc!
Unfortunately I work gruesome hours this weekend so I won't be able to join in other the "Im Spiritum", my choice would probably be:

Tristan Murail, ondes; Paul Crossley, piano; Philharmonia Orchestra u. Esa-Pekka Salonen (Sony)

Cuz its been a good while since I listened to it! (Chung or Chailliy are my staples!)

/ptr


----------



## techniquest

It might have to wait 'til Monday, but I'm going with these two recordings


----------



## Guest

Now part way through...

Orchestre Philharmonique de Radio France, Myung-Whun Chung, 2008

It's not exactly an easy listen is it? Nevertheless, I am enjoying it.


----------



## Mika

Have to wait until tomorrow. This will be choice:








Btw. There will be a new recording of Turangalila soon. Finnish radio symphony orchestra together with Angela Hewitt recorded this in the beginning of this year. I am in the audience .


----------



## DrKilroy

I wonder what do the first-listeners think about the symphony.


Best regards, Dr


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> There's a reason I pay no attention to movement labels...


I agree, whether it is "d'amour" or "La Mer" or "Eroica," it is far better to think of the labels as "alleged." or to not think of them at all.


----------



## Guest

Why is it 'better'? If Messiaen composed in the active belief that he was conveying ideas like 'love' then it's just as valid to listen with the intent in mind.


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> Why is it 'better'? If Messiaen composed in the active belief that he was conveying ideas like 'love' then it's just as valid to listen with the intent in mind.


It is 'better' to give the music a chance to work as music. If that fails, then perhaps it is worthwhile to learn if the composer provided crutches.


----------



## brotagonist

Shoot! I missed yesterday's SS. I will make it a Sunday Symphony this time  My CD is Simon Rattle/Birmingham, but I think I'll try a You Tube video to hear something else:

Chung has really established himself as a Messiaenist, but this version is not the CD one with the Opéra Bastille, but rather with the OP Radio-France.

Gasp! This version is really something :trp:

There really are quite a few to choose from. Maybe I can work in another one, too?


----------



## senza sordino

I listened to this
View attachment 41801

I'm not sure what to make of this symphony. It is certainly interesting and listenable. But I don't quite know what to make of it.

The ondes martenot makes the piece kind of quirky in my humble opinion.


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> It is 'better' to give the music a chance to work as music.


With respect, I disagree. The music doesn't need to be "given a chance" as if it's some wobbly infant struggling to walk for the first time. Nor must I listen to it without titles so I can first try and guess "what it is about".

But even if you did think the contrary of either of those things, they would not be 'better', just 'different' approaches.

Of course, we've been here before...and if it seems tedious, we can always avoid it by desisting on insisting on that 'better'!


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> [...]
> But even if you did think the contrary of either of those things, they would not be 'better', just 'different' approaches.
> 
> Of course, we've been here before...and if it seems tedious, we can always avoid it by desisting on insisting on that 'better'!


Hah. I put the 'better' in quotes because it's _your_ better, not mine. There are indeed 'different strokes for different folks'. I _personally_ much prefer to find my own paths through the music I listen to, and deliberately avoid _reading before listening_. I admit not understanding why anyone would rob themselves of the opportunity to hear the music without the baggage. The baggage is always there if you want or need it.

[Not so long ago I might have had more to say. Studying the words of a few moderators I respect, I have mellowed some. Or perhaps given up on some; the external result is the same.]

:tiphat:


----------



## realdealblues

DrKilroy said:


> I wonder what do the first-listeners think about the symphony.
> 
> Best regards, Dr


Well, I'd have to say it was different.

I felt like I was listening to the Soundtrack of a 1950's Sci-Fi/Horror movie about Aliens who take over a Carnival...lol.

The Ondes Martenot and it's use in old Sci-Fi/Horror movies was obviously the reason why. But it almost sounded like some sort of demented Circus or Carnival music at certain times which made it feel like I was listening to a movie.

It's an interesting work. It seemed to go on a bit too long for me and I started losing a little bit of interest around the 50 minute mark, but I did continue on through the whole work.

I'll have to go back and relisten to it again in a month or 2 and give it another try. I think it's maybe a little hard to digest the whole thing on one listen, especially if it's the first listen as this was for me.

Overall it was certainly unique and worth hearing and I can say I was entertained throughout most of it.


----------



## Couac Addict

This was our performance. Apologies for the shameless self-promotion but how often does Turangalila pop up where there's a drinking game included? You take a drink every time there's a close-up of Magali, our flautist. You'll know her when you see her and you may want to call an ambulance in advance. The rest of us, apparently, have a face for radio. :lol:


----------



## Couac Addict

Did someone say Turanga Leela?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leela_%28Futurama%29


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> Hah. I put the 'better' in quotes because it's _your_ better, not mine.


The 'better' was PetrB's, not mine! (Ha!)


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> The 'better' was PetrB's, not mine! (Ha!)


Hah! So why did you lay the 'better' on me? Let PetrB take responsibility for his 'better'! And he is right BTW, it is _better_ to listen first and read later, if only because the other way around doesn't work.

!


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> Hah! So why did you lay the 'better' on me? Let PetrB take responsibility for his 'better'! And he is right BTW, it is _better_ to listen first and read later, if only because the other way around doesn't work.
> 
> !


I didn't. You replied to my post aimed at PetrB ( I just failed to quote him, but my post #30 immediately followed his) so I replied to you.

And no, it isn't better...the other way round "works" (whatever that may mean!?)


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> I didn't. You replied to my post aimed at PetrB ( I just failed to quote him, but my post #30 immediately followed his) so I replied to you.
> 
> And no, it isn't better...the other way round "works" (whatever that may mean!?)


Hah! Of course your way - reading then listening - is not better. Doing it that way robs you - ROBS you I say - of the opportunity to hear the music your way, without interference from the 'literature'. That literature will push you toward thinking about the 'program' _while_ listening; that is a form of _robbery_.

I am willing to accept the premise that there are people so deficient in receptiveness to music that creator-provided 'suggestions' are necessary for enjoyment. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't try listening _first_; who knows, a door could open, eh?


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> Hah! Of course your way - reading then listening - is not better. Doing it that way robs you - ROBS you I say - of the opportunity to hear the music your way, without interference from the 'literature'. That literature will push you toward thinking about the 'program' _while_ listening; that is a form of _robbery_.
> 
> I am willing to accept the premise that there are people so deficient in receptiveness to music that creator-provided 'suggestions' are necessary for enjoyment. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't try listening _first_; who knows, a door could open, eh?


Ok, let's cut the theatrical "Hah!" and just say that your deficiencies in listening and receptiveness to the additionality brought by the juxtaposition of sound and 'literature' are a marvel to behold. You are just missing SOOOOO much!!

:devil:


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> Ok, let's cut the theatrical "Hah!" and just say that your deficiencies in listening and receptiveness to the additionality brought by the juxtaposition of sound and 'literature' are a marvel to behold. You are just missing SOOOOO much!!
> 
> :devil:


"Additionality"?


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> Hah! So why did you lay the 'better' on me? Let PetrB take responsibility for his 'better'! And he is right BTW, it is _better_ to listen first and read later, if only because the other way around doesn't work.
> 
> !


Of course I'm right; any sane individual knows that  
Mwah-ha haaaa haaaaa haaaaaaaaa.

I'll say it again, my analogy of needing to read about it first is like expecting to raise your children, send them out in the world, but with their forever wearing a note of explanation pinned to their clothing whenever they present themselves anywhere. I.e. they really should be able to stand on their own and be perceived as complete without needing to present their 'back story.'


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> Ok. let's....say that your deficiencies in listening and receptiveness to the additionality brought by the juxtaposition of sound and 'literature' are a marvel to behold. You are just missing SOOOOO much!!:devil:


Let us just say that the additionality brought by the juxtapositioning of literature onto sound is a completely unnatural graft which does not have a capacity to make any organic connection on its own, but needs the artifice of some projected thought to allow for an "illusion" that it sticks. There is no possible 'literature' in a bunch of notes, regardless of what title that bunch of notes has been given -- all a title can do is impose a color on the listener's perception, and knowing artists, that title could be as much a red herring as a direct clue as to what the composer intended. There are 'narrative literal analogies' which can be used, _as analogy_, to describe the lay of the land, the musical syntax and the occurrence of musical events, be an _analogy_ for the overall structure of a piece, etc.

But those analogies are for those who can not think in the more wholly abstract musical terms -- that thinking and terminology of course not being expected of the average listener any more than they are expected to know much if anything about music theory. It is completely understandable that a majority of listeners will latch on to those analogies and likely even make something of them they believe to be more literal than as analogy, and then begin to believe there really is a connection between that symbiosis, while that does not in any way make of that symbiosis a hard-core musical reality.

There can really be no resolvable argument between two people each of whom believe their approach is meaningful, because for each it is 'meaningful.'

I can say (and do), since I know a lot of music, its history, composer biographies, some 'literature' and have been in music up to my eyebrows since early childhood, that none of it is truly pertinent or 'bound' to the understanding of the music; ergo, from my perspective you don't know how much your are missing by way of your cluttering up a very direct form of communication (music) with your 'juxtaposition of 'literature' and sound.

See, there is no winning here, only different approaches, of course the approach which works for an individual is the one they are most likely to advocate


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Let us just say that the additionality brought by the juxtapositioning of literature onto sound is a completely unnatural graft which does not have a capacity to make any organic connection on its own, but needs the artifice of some projected thought to allow for an "illusion" that it sticks. There is no possible 'literature' in a bunch of notes, regardless of what title that bunch of notes has been given -- all a title can do is impose a color on the listener's perception, and knowing artists, that title could be as much a red herring as a direct clue as to what the composer intended. There are 'narrative literal analogies' which can be used, _as analogy_, to describe the lay of the land, the musical syntax and the occurrence of musical events, be an _analogy_ for the overall structure of a piece, etc.
> 
> But those analogies are for those who can not think in the more wholly abstract musical terms -- that thinking and terminology of course not being expected of the average listener any more than they are expected to know much if anything about music theory. It is completely understandable that a majority of listeners will latch on to those analogies and likely even make something of them they believe to be more literal than as analogy, and then they will begin to believe there really is a connection between that symbiosis, while that does in any way make of that symbiosis a hard-core musical reality.
> 
> There can really be no resolvable argument between two people each of whom believe their approach is meaningful, because for each it is 'meaningful.'
> 
> I can say (and do), since I know a lot of music, its history, composer biographies, some 'literature' and have been in music up to my eyebrows since early childhood, that none of it is truly pertinent or 'bound' to the understanding of the music; ergo, from my perspective you don't know how much your are missing by way of your cluttering up a very direct form of communication (music) with your 'juxtaposition of 'literature' and sound.
> 
> See, there is no winning here, only different approaches, of course the approach which works for an individual is the one they are most likely to advocate


I don't claim that there is a literature 'in the notes', but there is an interest for me (not for you or Ukko, I get that) in considering whether the composer has, by the musical arrangement, conveyed anything suggested by the words. If _he _thinks he has, why shouldn't I listen for what he thinks he has conveyed?

You are also too ready to divide listeners into groups, as if they are exclusively of one or other type. (I'll ignore the tone of snobbery that is conveyed by your "only for those who can't"). I'm perfectly capable of appreciating music without the 'literature', but when Messiaen provides so many accompanying words, it seems churlish to ignore them, nay, obstinate to reject them as 'unnatural graft'.

But back to the music...I'm still only half way through it, for the first time!


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> I don't claim that there is a literature 'in the notes', but there is an interest for me (not for you or Ukko, I get that) in considering whether the composer has, by the musical arrangement, conveyed anything suggested by the words. If _he _thinks he has, why shouldn't I listen for what he thinks he has conveyed?
> 
> You are also too ready to divide listeners into groups, as if they are exclusively of one or other type. (I'll ignore the tone of snobbery that is conveyed by your "only for those who can't"). I'm perfectly capable of appreciating music without the 'literature', but when Messiaen provides so many accompanying words, it seems churlish to ignore them, nay, obstinate to reject them as 'unnatural graft'.
> 
> But back to the music...I'm still only half way through it, for the first time!


Messiaen had many associations with music, literal, pictorial -- he was a synesthete. Pay attention if you want, but just as there is no agreement between those with synesthesia as to what specific color a key or harmony is, I would recommend taking all of what the composer says with less than a grain of salt. Monet was asked why he chose waterlilies, and not being disingenuous, he said, "I chose water lilies, but it could have been anything." I.e. what the inspiration is as trigger for a musical idea does not at all necessarily directly connect to the musical results.

It is a fact some have no theory knowledge and still are canny listeners... if you want to take some insult there, you are welcome to do so, but I am giving none.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Messiaen had many associations with music, literal, pictorial -- he was a synesthete. Pay attention if you want, but just as there is no agreement between those with synesthesia as to what specific color a key or harmony is, I would recommend taking all of what the composer says with less than a grain of salt. Monet was asked why he chose waterlilies, and not being disingenuous, he said, "I chose water lilies, but it could have been anything." I.e. what the inspiration is as trigger for a musical idea does not at all necessarily directly connect to the musical results.
> 
> It is a fact some have no theory knowledge and still are canny listeners... if you want to take some insult there, you are welcome to do so, but I am giving none.


None taken.

Monet is not Messiaen. My wife is not Picasso. When she calls her abstract textile art 'river' or 'fellview', it is to a purpose. No, it does not 'show' a piece of landscape, but it shows what the landscape means to her.

I've just listened to pieces 4 and 5. I really like them, though I find the ondes-martenot at times too intrusive. It seems to me that it sometimes detracts from the soundscapes and textures, sticking out too prominently. My earlier comment that it was not an easy listen did not apply to these sections. They were very accessible.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> None taken.
> 
> Monet is not Messiaen. My wife is not Picasso. When she calls her abstract textile art 'river' or 'fellview', it is to a purpose. No, it does not 'show' a piece of landscape, but it shows what the landscape means to her.
> 
> I've just listened to pieces 4 and 5. I really like them, though I find the ondes-martenot at times too intrusive. It seems to me that it sometimes detracts from the soundscapes and textures, sticking out too prominently. My earlier comment that it was not an easy listen did not apply to these sections. They were very accessible.


"but it shows what the landscape means to her." My point is often enough, the artist is a sort of medium, and what they think or say of a work _is not at all necessarily the truth about the meaning of that work._ Beware what the artists 'say' and regard only what they make!

Different performances will more or less emphasize the Ondes Martenot. The piece is unusually long, though I find a lot of it a very playful sounding romp, or those alternating with the slower lyric segments. It is rather dense, some later Messaien using a large orchestra more in varied size of instrumental groups than here.

There are sooo many recordings of this, if one had both time and money, it could become a secondary occupation comparing them over months


----------



## Couac Addict

PetrB said:


> the artist is a sort of medium, and what they think or say of a work _is not at all necessarily the truth about the meaning of that work. Beware what the artists 'say' and regard only what they make!
> 
> _


_

Quite right. How much are we meant to read into a Sanskrit title of a piece that was was inspired by the American landscape and Yvonne Loriad?_


----------



## BRHiler

Just listened to the Chung recording and getting ready to listen to my brand new (well, it's new to me!) Salonen recording


----------



## Couac Addict

Nagano/Berlin Philharmonic is worth a listen as well.


----------



## PetrB

Couac Addict said:


> Quite right. How much are we meant to read into a Sanskrit title of a piece that was was inspired by the American landscape and Yvonne Loriod?


Uh..... hmmmmm..... well........ but........ 
Yeah


----------



## Guest

This symphony is really something else. Probably my favorite symphony of the 20th century, to tell you the truth. Anyway, I have the Chung/Loriod/Loriod recording.


----------



## Guest

So, what did everyone make of it? I now need to know which one to buy!


----------



## DrKilroy

The recording with Myun-Whun Chung and Loriod sisters on DG is the safe option. I see you didn't really enjoy the sound of ondes (which is a shame  ), and in this recording it is less prominent and covered by strings at times, so it should not be too intrusive.


Best regards, Dr


----------



## Guest

DrKilroy said:


> I wonder what do the first-listeners think about the symphony.
> 
> Best regards, Dr


This first listener hasn't stopped listening since he bought the Previn/LSO a couple of weeks ago. He loves it!

All my reservations about the Ondes-Martenot have vanished. It's music to drown in, so dense, so intricate, at times inducing irritability because of the sheer intensity of the noise.

I'm currently listening to Paarvo Jarvi and the Frankfurt Radio, but have sampled Petrenko with the NYO of GB, and Dutoit with Thibaudet.

I posted elsewhere that in one of the movements, I'm reminded of Copland, but with all the wrong notes played.
For anyone wanting to know more, I found this website interesting http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/sites/messiaen/index.html . You can hear Serge Koussevitsky, and who I presumed was the continuity announcer, talking about the premiere.


----------

