Unbetitelt

[fidelio84]

“Der Freischütz” (1821) by Carl Maria von Weber More details ...

In my last post, I talked about the Freischütz recording by R. Jacobs and interesting details I found in it. In this post, I would like to discuss another detail.

After the conversation between Caspar and Samiel in the Wolf’s Glen, the latter disappears with a dull thunder. There is a brief pause, then the strings begin Allegro with a new motif. In the printed score, it looks like this:

Violins, violas, cellos, and double basses play together here, and that’s how it is performed in all other recordings I know. However, in the Jacobs recording, I noticed that the double bass is missing. What does the autograph say?

Weber specifies that the double basses rest for the next nine bars, returning only in the tenth. (I only show the first two bars). Even Harnoncourt, who points out the differences between the autograph and the printed scores in the booklet of his 1995 recording, has the double basses play.

[fidelio84]

“Der Freischütz” (1821) by Carl Maria von Weber Interesting details ...

A few years ago, a new historically informed recording of Carl Maria von Weber’s opera Der Freischütz (1821), conducted by René Jacobs, was released using period instruments. It is wonderful to rediscover well-known works through such recordings, as one often notices interesting details. This posting will focus on one such detail.

After Caspar casts the third bullet in the Wolf’s Glen, a storm rises, snapping treetops, etc. In the printed score, the strings play this (omitting the other instruments):

Notice the legato bows that group the sixteenth notes into eighth-note pairs; according to this phrasing, the first and ninth notes (on beat 1 and 3) are emphasized, while the subsequent notes fade in volume. Leopold Mozart discusses this in his violin school:

The first of such united notes must be somewhat more strongly stressed, but the remainder slurred on to it quite smoothly and more and more quietly (Mozart, 1985, p. 123–124)

And this is how it is played in the recordings I know.

But how does this passage look in the autograph?

The composer places the bows quite differently, creating four emphases on beat 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Jacobs has evidently not oriented himself to the flawed printed score, but to the autograph, as his strings play it correctly. The gentler wind heard in other recordings (also due to the excessive number of string players that make the sound softer) becomes a fierce storm in this version, coming from all directions.

The crescendo begins in the autograph already in the first measure, but my main focus right now is on the legato slurs.

Bibliography: Mozart, L. (1985) A treatise on the fundamental principles of violin playing. (Translated by Editha Knocker). Early Music.

[fidelio84]

“Hansel and Gretel” (1893) by Engelbert Humperdinck FINALLY!!

At last, I found a recording of Engelbert Humperdinck’s opera Hansel and Gretel (Hänsel und Gretel) where the antiphonal seating is correctly observed (1st violins on the left, 2nd violins on the right)! I have numerous recordings of this opera, and none of them have the violins in the correct positions, as I mentioned in a previous post. Even orchestras from Germany and Austria perform this work with this modern seating arrangement (also known as the American Seating), which was originally designed for mono recordings in 1945. But now I found this record from 2013:

While I don’t think the singers are particularly impressive (and I’m not a fan of a man singing the role of the witch), I’m glad that you can finally hear this music with all the spatial effects as written in the score. Just listen to the forest scenes in the second act, where the eerie motifs suddenly emanate from all directions (instead of just one); it’s almost as if the music is surrounding Hansel and Gretel. It’s not just the “stereo effects” that are noticeable; the music sounds much more transparent overall, and it’s particularly fascinating to follow the interplay between the first and second violins, which becomes more audible due to the spatial separation.

[fidelio84]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s “Le nozze di Figaro”

I have previously addressed the conflicts as well as the separation between the genders – both in the music and in the libretto. A director who staged this opera in Vienna a few years ago pointed out in an interview Figaro’s aria at the beginning of Act 4, in which he portrays a generalized negative image of women, and that his political rebellion is limited only to the world of men. He also refers to the fact that during the French Revolution it became evident that with the Fraternité, the “brotherhood,” only the brothers were actually meant, and emancipated women were beheaded. I find this interpretation very interesting in light of the abovementioned gender separation. Let’s take another look at the final chorus in Act 4: Mozart separates the chorus into two distinct groups: women and men. He gives them different entries and, as can be seen from the vocal lines, has them sing separately. Both groups remain separated, with no interaction between them. If the quoted interpretation holds true, the separation might not only be based on personal differences between the characters, but could also be understood as a hidden critique by Mozart of the revolutionaries’ attitudes towards women and women’s rights. A critique that suggests that the revolutionaries hardly differ from the aristocratic men in this regard – which is why the “revolutionary” Figaro sings together with the Count. (And if Mozart assembled the groups based on these criteria and viewed Figaro as sharing the same characteristics and ideologies as the Count, leading to them singing together, then the decision to include Cherubino in the women’s group further supports the idea that the boy is not a “young Count”/”young Don Giovanni”/etc., and was not perceived as such by the composer.)

[fidelio84]

Visit Original Link

Visit Original Link

American Seating and European Seating in Orchestras (Please read this first!)

I recently shared a video featuring conductor Herbert Blomstedt discussing the distinctions between the American and European seating for violins in an orchestra. There is a lot to say on this topic, but for now, I want to focus on a specific aspect. Initially, the 1st violins were positioned to the left of the conductor (and the audience), while the 2nd violins were placed to the right. Composers used this arrangement of the violins to create distinct sound effects, such as moving a motif from one side to the other or ensuring the clarity of call and response passages. This technique is reminiscent of the use of modern stereo loudspeakers, which are used for similar effects, like the sound of a car moving from left to right. In 1945, a conductor sought to enhance the quality of sound for the mono recordings prevalent at the time, leading to a departure from the conventional opposing seating arrangement of the violins. Instead, he advocated for a side-by-side placement of the violins on the left-hand side. Unfortunately, this seating arrangement was gradually adopted by almost all major orchestras, even when stereo recordings had long been available. Even today many orchestras continue to adhere to this seating. Imagine placing your right stereo speaker right next to the left speaker – the car no longer travels from left to right, but stays on the left side. The sound effects of your favourite film lose the intended effect of the director/sound designer. Numerous books address this problem, e.g. The Encyclopedia of Classical Music, which states:

“First and second violins are (usually) identical instruments: they are divided so that answering and echo effects may be obtained. Sadly, the division is often nominal, with all violins to the conductor’s left, thus depriving the listener of such effects.” (Ainsley 1999: 176)

I have created two audio samples so that you can hear the difference for yourself. In this segment from Engelbert Humperdinck’s opera Hansel and Gretel (1893), only the first and second violins are audible. The first violins perform an ascending pizzicato figure, while the second violins execute a descending pizzicato figure. Please begin by listening to the audio sample labeled “European Seating.” The first violins are positioned on the left, and the second violins on the right. Can you perceive the motif’s apparent movement from right to left? (This effect is a result of our auditory system’s tendency to combine high notes from instruments with similar timbres, perceiving them as a unified melody. In this instance, the high notes are initially played by the second violins on the right, followed by the first violins on the left.) Now, listen to “American Seating,” in which both violins are positioned on the left. The effect is entirely lost.

Bibliography: Ainsley, Robert (1999): The Encyclopedia of Classical Music, Carlton Publishing Group.

[fidelio84]

“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” A few thoughts on Dracula’s motivations ...

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) has often been criticised for the love story, which does not appear in the novel, and for the prologue, which explains why Dracula became a vampire. There is a passage in the novel where Dracula is surprised in his house by the hunters. He manages to escape and calls out to them as follows:

“You think to baffle me, you – with your pale faces all in a row, like sheep in a butcher’s. You shall be sorry yet, each one of you! You think you have left me without a place to rest; but I have more. My revenge is just begun! I spread it over centuries, and time is on my side. Your girls that you all love are mine already, and through them you and others shall yet be mine – my creatures, to do my bidding and to be my jackals when I want to feed. Bah!”

In The New Annotated Dracula, Dracula’s mention of a revenge is commented on as follows:

“Leatherdale (Dracula Unearthed) finds this speech enlightening. Dracula is not seeking revenge against the hunters; rather, he is seeking revenge for some act that occurred earlier in his life.” (Stoker, 2008, pp. 418–419)

I think it is a very plausible theory. We don’t know what happened in Dracula’s past, but I think it’s perfectly legitimate, not only because of artistic freedom but also because of this passage, for a film to try to invent a reason for Dracula’s “revenge” or desire for revenge. I even find the idea that something happened to Dracula’s wife before his transformation logical, given that Dracula only bites girls in the novel. (As I wrote in an earlier post, there is no evidence that he ever bit anyone on the crew of the Demeter). Perhaps something happened to Dracula’s wife and his revenge is to “steal” other men’s wives by turning them into vampires?

Personally, I also find the love story rather irritating because there are too many logical gaps in the way it is presented.  I think it would have been better to show his backstory, in order to understand his motives better, but to leave out the story of the reincarnated Elisabeta. In my opinion, this would have kept the plot closer to the novel. Bibliography: Stoker, B. (2008) The new annotated Dracula. W. W. Norton & Company. Stoker, B. (1998) Bram Stoker’s Dracula Unearthed. Desert Island Books, Westcliff-on-Sea, England.

[fidelio84]

A wonderful video in which the conductor Herbert Blomstedt explains how important the German (or antiphonal) seating of an orchestra, in which the first violins sit to the left and the second violins to the right of the conductor, is for the correct reproduction of classical works. Leopold Stokowski changed this seating and placed the 1st and 2nd violins next to each other in order to achieve a supposedly better sound for his mono recordings. Unfortunately, this seating has been adopted by all sorts of orchestras around the world, even for stereo recordings and live concerts.

One of my favourite operas is Hansel and Gretel by Engelbert Humperdinck, and although I own numerous recordings, there is none(!) that is played in the German seating. Only on a CD from the 1990s with overtures by Humperdinck, played by the Bamberg Symphony Orchestra conducted by Karl Anton Rickenbacher, can the overture of this opera be heard in the correct seating.

[fidelio84]

Cherubino vs. Chérubin

To my previous comparisons, which show that Da Ponte’s and Mozart’s Cherubino is much kinder than Beaumarchais’ Chérubin, I would like to add another. Just before Chérubin jumps out of the window in Beaumarchais, he says to Susanna:

“Dans un gouffre allumé, Suzon ! oui, je m’y jetterais, plutôt que de lui nuire... Et ce baiser va me porter bonheur.” (Il l’embrasse et court sauter par la fenêtre.) “Into a flaming abyss, Suzon! Yes, I’d rather throw myself into it than harm her ... And this kiss will bring me luck.” (He kisses her and jumps out of the window.)

In the opera, however, he says:

“Pria di nuocerle nel fuoco volerei. Abbraccio te per lei – Addio: così si fa.” “Before I harm her, I’ll jump into the fire. I embrace you in her place. Farewell: that’s how you do it!”

Two changes stand out in particular.

1) In Beaumarchais he kisses Susanna, in Mozart he embraces her. The intimate and intrusive kiss has been replaced with a more harmless embrace. While this embrace still brings Cherubino close to Susanna, it seems that Da Ponte intended to portray Cherubino as more respectful and amiable, rather than a pushy little version of the Count. He enjoys the company of women, but unlike the Count, he respects them and has no desire to be overbearing. 2) In Beaumarchais’ play, he kisses Susanna solely for self-serving reasons, viewing the kiss as a lucky charm. This selfishness is absent in the opera adaptation. In the opera, he only thinks of the Countess, and the embrace is no longer seen as a means of obtaining luck. Rather, it reflects Cherubino’s more innocent and childlike desire to embrace and hold the Countess. Naturally, Cherubino could have said, “I’ll kiss you instead of her,” but that would have conveyed a completely different message. It would have indicated that his primary interest was in kissing, rather than in other, more “innocent” gestures like hugging.

[fidelio84]

Some thoughts about trouser roles

In interviews with various opera singers, I have often read sentences like “I’m saying goodbye to the trouser roles because I want to show my feminine side in the future”.

I find it hard to understand this opinion, as I believe that the singer’s masculine clothing and tomboyish look highlight her femininity better than dresses with plunging necklines, corsets, or high heels. Female curves are more noticeable when they are occasionally visible under a male costume that is supposed to hide them.

The same goes for the movements: One would expect a male character to move a certain way. Therefore, the noticeably “softer” movements of the young “man” on stage (such as his gait, running, and the way he embraces someone) are even more striking.

I believe that the femininity accentuated by deliberately feminine movements and clothing is less noticeable than the femininity that occasionally peeks through despite efforts to conceal it with masculine attire and gestures.

The graceful hand movement of a trouser role emphasizes the singer’s femininity more than a low neckline dress ever could.

[fidelio84]

„Bram Stoker’s Dracula“ (1992) A new theory ...

Some time ago I wrote a post titled “Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) – A little detail …” about a melody played by a harp at the beginning of the track “The Storm”. I wrote:

While Lucy and Mina are seated in the garden, the rain starts to fall, and as the first droplets descend and the two girls giggle, a harp can be heard playing a tune. (On the soundtrack, you can hear the melody right at the beginning of the track “The Storm”.) This tune resurfaces later: Vampirized Lucy sings it to the young child in the crypt. (On the Expanded Soundtrack, the track is called “Lucy’s Lullaby.”) I wonder why the melody of Lucy’s Lullaby is heard during the “raindrop scene”. It seems that the composer or those responsible for arranging the music felt that these two scenes (the raindrop scene and the crypt scene) were related in some way and should be connected by this melody. But why?

After listening to the soundtrack again, paying special attention to the use of motifs, I now have a theory: I believe that the harp “foretells” Lucy’s soon-to-be vampire existence.

First, let’s listen to the start of the track “Lucy’s Party”. A harp plays a cheerful glissando before the music (harp and glockenspiel) begins. I think the harp is clearly associated with Lucy, as it is played (as we see in the movie) at her estate, during her party.

“The Storm” starts similarly with a harp playing, then we hear the music from Lucy’s party again. Instead of the glissando, however, the harp plays the theme that the vampirized Lucy will later sing, and the glockenspiel sounds more dissonant and sinister.

Through this comparison, the beginning of “The Storm” seems to me as if the music wants to convey that Lucy is on her way to her new vampire existence; she is not yet a vampire (which is why we still hear echoes of the party music), but she is also not the “old Lucy” anymore (which is why the harp plays not a happy glissando as before, but her later lullaby theme).

[fidelio84]

“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) Something I noticed ...

While studying the movie’s soundtrack, I noticed another detail that I can’t explain.

There is a so-called love theme (“Love Remembered” on the soundtrack) that is obviously assigned to Dracula and Mina and is played on various occasions, such as when the two are talking and dancing in the café or when Mina is bitten by Dracula.

I also observed that this theme is used in a strange context: During Mina and Jonathan’s wedding, Lucy is being killed by Dracula – and you hear this love theme in that scene as well! How does this theme fit into a scene where Dracula and Mina have nothing to do with each other?

[fidelio84]

“Le nozze di Figaro” An interesting difference between the play and Mozart’s opera

The Countess in Beaumarchais’ play differs in many ways from the Countess in Mozart’s opera. Even the stage directions show striking differences, and I would like to highlight one of them here.

In both versions, Cherubino hides in the Countess’s closet, and the angry, jealous Count approaches the door and shouts.

Beaumarchais’ stage direction reads:

LA COMTESSE (La comtesse le prend à bras-le-corps, en l’éloignant.) THE COUNTESS (takes him by the arm and pulls him away.)

In Mozart’s opera, however, this stage direction was changed:

LA CONTESSA (ritirandolo a forza dal gabinetto) THE COUNTESS (forcefully pulls him away from the cabinet)

Now she pulls him away from the door with force(!). I think this extra detail is important for several reasons.

First, it demonstrates to the audience that the Countess’s marriage is far from harmonious, as her husband’s anger reaches a point where she has to resort to physical force in order to calm him. Especially in view of the ostensible happy ending of the opera, scenes such as this were intended to remain in the memory.

On the other hand, in contrast to the Countess in the play, the character of the Countess was to appear stronger and more self-confident.

Last but not least, this stage direction shows that she has feelings for Cherubino when she defends or protects him in this way.

[fidelio84]

“Maleficent” (2014) My problem with some scenes …

In my previous posts I have praised various scenes in the movie Maleficent, but there are also scenes and moments that I don’t understand and that I think could be improved. For example, I have always had a problem with Maleficent saying “Hello, Beastie” to Aurora after she saves her by kissing her. I know “beastie” is meant affectionately, and the tone is tender. Nevertheless, I find the word somewhat inappropriate at this point, for three reasons: 1) Maleficent thought she had lost Aurora forever. Then she’s surprised when Aurora wakes up again ... why doesn’t she say “Hello Aurora” here? In her speech earlier, she called the girl “sweet Aurora”. 2) The word “beastie” refers to the time when Maleficent sneeringly called Aurora “beast”. Like I said, I know “beastie” is meant affectionately, but I find it odd that in such an emotional scene where she is happy to have Aurora back, she uses the word “beastie” to refer to that time. Or in short, Maleficent saves Aurora’s life and the first thing she says to her is a variation of a mean word she used to insult Aurora earlier? Aurora knows that Maleficent cursed her back then, then she wakes up, and the first thing Maleficent says to her is “beastie”. 3) In the phrase “Hello, Beastie” you can clearly hear Maleficent’s uncertainty if Aurora is still angry with her. When Aurora smiles at her, Maleficent smiles back in relief. But if she is unsure whether Aurora is angry with her, why is she calling her “Beastie” at that moment? What also bothers me a bit is the scene where Maleficent puts her hand on Aurora’s hand. I find this gesture too distant for this moment, and in the script, which you can read on ScriptsOnScreen, the stage direction says “[Maleficent] pulls her into her arms.” I would have liked at least a hug at this point, if only for the joy of having Aurora back. What is going on in Maleficent’s head? “Oh my God, you are saved! You are not dead! I am so happy to have you back! Let me express my infinite joy by standing quietly here and placing my hand on your hand as if on cue.”

[fidelio84]

Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) One interesting difference between the book and the movie.

Although the movie is known (and sometimes criticized) for its revealing scenes, Mina is one of the few women in the movie whose breasts are not shown. The vampire brides, Lucy, and even the girls shown on the cinematograph screen are topless. Interestingly, in Stoker’s novel it is the other way around: Mina is (as far as I know) the only woman “shown” topless in a scene, which is, of course, phrased in “Victorian” terms.

“For a few seconds she lay in her helpless attitude and disarray.” “Van Helsing stepped forward and drew the coverlet gently over her body (…)” “His wife was aroused by the quick movement, and turned to him with her arms stretched out, as though to embrace him; instantly, however, she drew them in again, and putting her elbows together, held her hands before her face, and shuddered till the bed beneath her shook.”

Here are three quotes that describe Mina’s semi-naked state. First the (self-explanatory) word “disarray”. Then Van Helsing pulls the coverlet over her body. Note the wording here: it does not say that Van Helsing covered Mina up or anything like that; no, Seward writes that he pulled the coverlet over her body, indicating that the action was related to her body for a specific reason. Finally, Mina puts her elbows together seemingly without any reason. This detail is significant as she is, of course, covering her breasts. As she extends her arms towards Jonathan, she suddenly becomes aware of her nakedness and quickly puts her elbows together. We don’t know everything that happened in that room. The New Annotated Dracula points out not only the many sexual insinuations, but also a contradiction in Dr. Seward’s description. Seward mentions that Dracula's face was averted, yet he was able to observe the scar on his forehead. The annotated edition notes this:

“This suggests that the scene is a constructed one, a fictionalised version of the true events, which may in fact have been sexual.” (Stoker, 2008, pp. 389)

Bibliography: Stoker, B. (2008) The new annotated Dracula. W. W. Norton & Company.

[fidelio84]

“Maleficent” (2014) And another theory ...

It’s always worth thinking about works of art, but it’s also worth hearing other opinions and theories!

In a previous post, I wrote about the scene where Maleficent rescues little Aurora who has fallen off a cliff.

I’ve always wondered why she would save the girl if she actually cursed her and has no interest in undoing her curse at that point. Now I’ve read the theory that Maleficent isn’t doing this out of pity, but because she’s distracted the three fairies with her magic, so they’re fighting with each other and not looking out for Aurora. Maleficent wants her curse to be fulfilled, and realizes that by distracting the fairies from their task of protecting the child, she has interfered with the "proper course" of her curse. So she "corrects" her mistake and saves Aurora.

I hadn’t thought of the scene that way before! I think this theory is very convincing, and that Maleficent only realizes she has feelings for the child later, in the scene where she picks up little Aurora. (Note her harsher tone when she sees Aurora standing behind her, and her much softer tone when she puts the child down and sends her away, and of course Maleficent’s expression as she looks after the girl).

[fidelio84]

“Nosferatu” (1921) Interesting details

In his essay “Dracula: The King Vampire,” included in the book “Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Film and the Legend,” Leonard Wolf writes the following about the silent film Nosferatu (1921):

“Near the conclusion of that still compelling film its heroine, Nina, flings open her bedroom window and welcomes the vampire. While the camera work that follows is remarkably unspecific, it clearly suggests a couple – one of whom is engrossed in while the other is enduring an act of love.” (Coppola et al., 1992, p. 167)

I don’t know why he calls Ellen (the character’s name in the original German) “Nina”, but I would like to respond to the comment that the camera work in this scene is “remarkably unspecific”. Interestingly, it was not in the original script!

In Lotte H. Eisner’s book Murnau the complete script of Nosferatu is printed, including the scenes that were not shot. The scene where Ellen sacrifices herself to Nosferatu was much longer:

Scene 172 Ellen’s Room. Nosferatu raises his head. He looks drunk with pleasure. Ellen’s eyes are full of terrible fear. She must not allow Nosferatu just to go. She puts her arms round him; he cannot resist and bends his head over her again. Scene 174 Ellen’s room. Ellen’s last moment of apprehension. There, isn’t that a flicker of sunlight on the wall over the bed? Her eyes light up hope fully and remain fixed on this first sign of the new day. She stretches her hand for it. And look: it is moving; it is moving downwards. (Eisner, 1973, p. 269)

For some reason, this and other scenes that show Ellen up close and make the scene more suspenseful were completely cut. Bibliography: Coppola, F.F. et al. (1992) Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Film and the Legend. Newmarket Press, New York Eisner, L.H. (1973) Murnau: By Lotte H. Eisner. Secker & Warburg, London.

[fidelio84]

“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) My problem with the storm sequence ...

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is one of my favorite movies, and I especially love Wojciech Kilar’s soundtrack, but I always had an issue with the storm sequence, specifically the editing of that scene. The storm sequence commences with Mina and Lucy in the garden as the rain starts. As the sequence unfolds, we are shown Dr. Seward’s asylum, the zoo, and the voyage of the Demeter. The sequence concludes with Dracula leaping off the ship, calling out to Lucy, biting her, and being surprised by Mina. The editing and music make the whole sequence seem as if everything happens one after the other, which is not the case. According to the captain’s log, the Demeter sets sail on June 27 and runs into a storm. On July 3, he reports that some crew members are missing. According to a newspaper report, which is also shown in the movie, the ship arrives in England on July 7, perhaps as early as July 6. This is a 10-day trip, and the storm started when the ship left. Does the storm last for 10 days? And assuming that the biting scene is indeed part of the storm sequence – why does Dracula, who is no longer on board the ship, still need the storm? He is already in England. When the two girls are playing in the rain, Dracula is still on the ship and we hear the log entry for July 3. Since the ship arrives in England 3–4 days later, there must be at least 3–4 days between the garden scene with Lucy and Mina and the scene where Lucy is bitten. I wonder why the biting scene in the garden is part of the storm sequence. As I mentioned, in the movie, it appears that Lucy is bitten by Dracula immediately after playing in the garden, but in truth, there are several days between these events. In my view, the storm sequence should conclude with Dracula leaping off the ship, and the part where he bites Lucy should be a distinct scene.