Gustavo Gimeno and the Orquestra de la Comunitat Valenciana in Sibelius and Mahler

Gustavo Gimeno conducted the Orquestra de la Comunitat Valenciana in the latest concert of ADDA’s Pasions season. The program juxtaposed two symphonies that were premiered about thirty years apart by composers who were both born in the 1860s. The contrast, however, was immense.

Composed almost at the end of Jean Sibelius’s creative life, the Seventh Symphony is much more revolutionary than it might appear at first sight. Its compressed form is perhaps more reminiscent of a tone poem than a symphony, but at twenty minutes duration, its single movement is longer than many eighteenth century symphonies that advertise multiple sections. And here there is a sense of development, even evolution as motifs come and go, resurface and transform in this seemingly organic form. The whole takes on the feeling of a valediction, with the trombones effectively waving goodbye, hardly animated, but certainly determined, to a creative life that was soon to be retired.

Sibelius’s Seventh Symphony is a very moving work, full of wonderful, slow textures, where sounds seem to melt at the edges as they brush past one another. The Orquestra de la Comunitat Valenciana under Gustavo Gimeno’s direction, played the work sympathetically, always keen to bring these textures to the fore.

Gustav Mahler’s First Symphony, by contrast, came at the start of his composing career. Its gestation was protracted, and the composer revised the score almost each time it was played during its first five years.

The result, however, is an often-played masterpiece. Only two of Mahler’s symphonies, the first and fourth, are of half concert length, and the fourth needs a soloist. This makes the first symphony the easiest of the composer’s output to programme, and so one feels that its presence might sometimes be perfunctory. An orchestra wants Mahler on its curriculum vitae, and the first offers the least resistance.

But there was no such pragmatism on show for Gustavo Gimeno and the Orquestra de la Comunitat Valenciana, who had clearly rehearsed the piece at length. Here we had a reading and performance that stressed detail and contrast. Mahler’s juxtaposition of light and heavy, light and shade, loud and soft, fast and slow were perfectly communicated and played. But this was no mannerist display of the possible for possibility’s sake. Here all the lines were well drawn, and the overall shapes made sense, musically at least, which is often not the case with this intentionally episodic work.

It was so detailed that the musical allusions came to the fore. The funeral march’s juxtaposition of popular song alongside Jewish celebration was clear and also stark, and it seemed to be delivered with the wry smile that no doubt the composer wore while writing it. Also evident was the similarity at one point to the Fifth Symphony’s Adagietto. Also notable in the scherzo, just before the contrasting slow trio, there stood out of figure in the cellos, just a series of repeated notes, that were lifted verbatim by Shostakovich into his fourth symphony. No perfunctory presence for this symphony for that great composer.

Mahler’s rousing finale was delivered by standing brass and horns, but it was the whole orchestra that shone. Gustavo Gimeno was careful to present each section of the band for acclaim at the end. They had all deserved the applause.

 

It’s all in the detail – Madama Butterfly in Valencia, December 2021

Puccini’s Madame Butterfly is a very well-known, much loved, and indeed popular opera. The genre is replete with femmes fatales, Butterfly, Tosca, Manon, Carmen, Lucía, Violetta and Katya, just for example, who get it in the end, so one might think there is nothing much to see in terms of new perspectives when such a familiar work with such a well-worked theme is staged. Opera lovers, however, will confirm that there most definitely is!

Audiences tend to fall into two distinct groups, those for whom any diversion from their own preconceptions signifies the end of civilization, and those for whom radical interpretation is a welcome challenge to the establishment. There is another perspective, however, in which directors, via minor changes to staging, can completely transform the way we understand these often rigidly interpreted stories. Such was the success of Emilio Lopez, the director of the recent production in Valencia. His 2021 staging of Butterfly will be broadcast on Opera Vision on Sunday 19 December and will be available through that website for some weeks. It is successful on several levels, one of which is revelatory.

Let’s start with the term verismo. That certainly applied to the way Puccini approached his work and it implies that the setting should not be palatial and that characters might be depicted as everyday folk. We may assume that the composer never experienced the mid-19 century Japan of the opera’s setting, so if verismo applies to Butterfly, then it applies principally on an ideological level. That said, the opera’s potential for costume drama usually so overcomes designers and directors that even recognition of verismo in the result is obscured. In other words, everything gets pretty before it can become credible. And it is verismo that suffers.

In act one, Cio-Cio-san describes how she is from a poor home and became a geisha because of lack of opportunity. The ceremonial dagger which she eventually uses to take her own life was presented to her father by the Mikado with request that he use it on himself. We must assume that Butterfly’s family were thus already in disgrace. She then compounds this disgrace by rejecting her cultural and religious traditions, an act that uncle Bonze condemns, prompting her friends and community to reject her, all except Suzuki of course. The fact that Puccini then takes us into the love scene of the wedding night often obscures this rejection. In the Valencia production, a backdrop that had featured cherry blossom becomes the starry night of the couple’s ecstasy, but it does so by melting like celluloid in an overheated projector, implying that the comforting blossoms of the past have been destroyed. The starry night persists into acts two and three, but thus becomes a symbol of continued isolation and of Butterfly’s insistence, nay imperative to live in the past.

Cio-Cio-san often comes across as a meek and thus stereotypical Asian woman, who has never even practiced the word “boo” with geese nearby. As a result, she often becomes the single-, even simple-minded naïve devotee of Pinkerton, despite the fact that, as a geisha, she must have had experience of the fly-by-night sailor. The supplicant image endears her to audiences, perhaps, but strips her of the identity and individuality she certainly has, otherwise she would never have pursued her own, private wishes so single-mindedly.

The point is she does not have a great deal of choice. She is poor. She is a geisha. She has done her job. Pinkerton offers her a way out, which she, perhaps naïvely accepts. But once she has made the commitment, she cannot go back. She wants to please him, but by doing so she suffers the rejection of her own community. But she has to go through with the risk.

In Valencia, Emilio Lopez recognizes that Cio-Cio-san is living in poverty. Ignored by Pinkerton for three years and still rejected by her own community, she and Suzuki live amidst decay and grime. The temptation to portray Butterfly still in full, opulent geisha regalia makes no sense and is avoided convincingly in this production. Suzuki confirms this poverty in the libretto. What too often comes across as blind faith on Butterfly’s part now becomes necessity, imposed by her community because of her rejection by and of them. She can’t go back. She has no other option. This is an element of verismo in the opera which directors often tend to overlook.

But in this Valencia production, the real surprise comes at the end. Pinkerton has returned but has refused to see Butterfly. He storms off because he cannot take it anymore... He does want the child, however. His new American wife and Sharpless are told by Butterfly to come back in half an hour to take the child. Note that Pinkerton has not heard her request.

Butterfly has her own plans, however, plans that involve using that ceremonial weapon her father used to kill himself. The elements are clear. Butterfly kills herself, the voice of Pinkerton returning is heard. Or perhaps not…

The usual way to treat this is to have Butterfly stab herself on the orchestral tutti and then for the sound of Pinkerton’s voice to be heard as she dies. If Pinkerton is not seen, it could be argued that he really was nasty all along and that Cio-Cio-san is imagining the voice, still therefore deceiving herself. If he does appear, then his character is rather let off the hook. If only Butterfly had delayed, then the ecstasy of the starry night might just have returned. But then she had already waited three years…

Sometimes Cio-Cio-san hears the voice and then stabs herself. Again, we have her imagining the sound as a possibility, but we then also have the possibility that she is suffering a form of self-loathing the result of the rejection. Again, this approach internalizes Butterfly’s suffering.

In the Valencia production, the orchestral tutti arrives with dagger drawn, but Butterfly turns to face the entrance to her house when she hears Pinkerton’s call. She waits for him to appear and recognize her and then she kills herself.

The effect is to transform her suicide into an act of defiance. She knows the child will be cared for. She has been rejected by her society and by Pinkerton. She is alone and has no future. But she is now also determined that he will not possess her, and she wants to demonstrate her contempt. You will not possess me as chattel, she thinks. And thus, her character is transformed from the meek and mild recipient of tragedy into a defiant individualist, albeit a dead one. At least she has asserted her own position. It’s different and surprising, which illustrates beautifully that sometimes the most radical transformations are achieved via detail.

Jenufa by Leos Janacek in Valencia – simple triumph for Corinne Winters

Of all operas, there are a couple by Leos Janacek that I would profess to ‘know’, in that I have seen multiple productions, read and studied the libretti, listened to the music literally hundreds of times and read around the creation and setting. Jenufa would be one of them, all the way from an early 1970s production at Covent Garden in London, where it was sung in a clumsy English translation, through to last night’s offering in Valencia, where the Dutch National Opera’s production took the story out of rural, nineteenth century Moravia, and gave it a contemporary setting, more like a movie than a staging.

To start with the staging is perhaps an injustice to the performances, but that is where we are. This production, in order, perhaps, to emphasize the cinematic concept, featured an elevated space that was set back from the front of the stage. It was a lit rectangle, just like a movie screen. It provided a space that could be subdivided to provide multi-roomed interiors, complete with ceilings. It was a production where everything happened ‘inside’, even in act one, a factor that concentrated attention on the internal conflicts of the characters. Visually, it also concentrated attention on the characters’ actions. Everyone had to enter the space via a door and the rooms’ walls and ceilings seemed to focus attention on the psychological drama that unfolded. A drawback with this design, however, was the enclosure it created, a closure that rather deadened any sound that did not come from the very front of the set. In act one of Jenufa, there are movements in an out, on and off stage, and this set meant that there were moments when the singers fought to make themselves heard from within the rather insulated space.

In acts two and three, of course, there is a much greater concentration on the psychological drama than the introduction of protagonists, and it was here that the set came in to its own. In act two, for instance, when Jenufa is given a sleeping draught by the Kostelnicka, she has to retire to her bed, and this is often offstage, out of view. Here, as part of her concealment from public gaze, the room she occupied was set below the stairs amid gas pipes, drainpipes, and electricity meters. But this staging allowed her to remain centre stage, and, although asleep, in full view of the audience. And thus, while ever she remained centre stage, she still seemed to figure in the dialogue the other characters shared. And far from diverting attention from the interactions between Kostelnicka, Steva and Laca, the continued presence of Jenufa kept her character of the centre of the argument. This single design element allowed Jenufa’s solo, after Kostelnicka had already taken her baby away, to flow with the same psychological force of what had gone before, rather than become a new episode.

Act one of Jenufa is written in a different musical language from acts two and three. Nine years intervened between act one and the opera’s completion. Changes in compositional style are mirrored in how folksong is treated. In act one, the folk song is exactly that, literal, rooted harmonically, and very much a partygoers’ sing-along. By the time he had written the folk song melody that forms the choral passage in act three, where the girls celebrate Jenufa’s wedding, the musical language has been transformed. Yes, it’s celebratory, but there are question marks everywhere, because the song doesn’t easily find a key. Yes, it’s modal, but now not sweetly so.

In this staging, the toilet plays a central role, at least, in act one. Placed centre stage, it was used at the start of the action by Jenufa, who has a bout of sickness, emphasizing from the start that her pregnancy is the main issue. In a beautiful moment, during Kostelnicka’s diatribe about Steva’s drunkenness, when she relates her own experience of an abusive husband, one of the previously partying women retires to the toilet and silently grieves at her own circumstances as the words outside describe domestic troubles. This stresses the ongoing issue, the past for Kostelnicka, perhaps the avoidable future for Jenufa, but also the present for the silent partygoer.

And toilets figure elsewhere. Steva, unable to stomach the criticism in act one, retires, like a spoiled child to the washroom at the side to avoid having to listen. When things get tense in act three, a character retires to the toilet on the edge of the set for a moment of privacy. All of this adds to the internal nature of the drama, the fact that we are always dealing with how individuals cope psychologically with pressure, with challenge, with opportunity, with options. They have to think things through, and even still might come to the wrong conclusion.

What perhaps none of us rationalizes are the emotions that give rise to physical attraction and sex. Here we are driven by feelings that often control us and take us over before we are even conscious of them. Jenufa is clearly besotted with Steva and continues to be so until, very late on, she is won over by Laca’s albeit flawed devotion. The irrational passion that is in all of us thus explains how the responsible, sensible, caring, competent Jenufa got pregnant in the first place. It also justifies how this particular staging ends, with Jenufa and Laca, rather than walking hopefully towards a better future, get down to having sex the minute the guests have left their tragic wedding. The sensuality, after all, is there in the music.

And, at last, I can turn to praising the Jenufa of Corinne Winters. A more convincing, complete portrayal of the role has perhaps never existed. Roberta Alexander was superb, if a little too suffering. Asmik Gregorian has recently claimed the role for herself with a unique blend of vulnerability and steadfastness. But this evening’s performance by Corinne Winters adds much to this role. Corinne Winters’ Jenufa is a complete and credible modern woman, professional, competent, caring, needing love and affection, passionate, responsible, vulnerable, realistic… the list could be endless. Let’s say human. This, after all, is a complete person, with all the contradictions and qualities that implies.

In act one, Jenufa is in her office, the young competent professional, though abused, perhaps as much by her own passion as by Steva’s insistence. In act two, she is in a jumpsuit for lounging around the house. The elegance has gone, the work-a-day requirements of being a mother having taken over. In act three, she is in white, hardly the ‘dressed like a window’ of the libretto, but the white becomes a statement in itself, a determination to look to the future, however, limited its boundaries may appear. Perhaps the most moving moment of the story happens when Kostelnicka, having just drowned the baby in act two, tells Jenufa that she has been in a fever, and that the baby has died. How easy would it be to revert to paroxysms of pain, histrionics of emotion? Here, Corinne Winters, merely sinks to her knees in her jumpsuit, and stays there, devastated, visibly emotionally destroyed.

Petra Lane, this production’s Kostelnicka, gave a moving and convincing performance of this truly demanding role. One was never in any doubt she was convinced that she was doing the right thing. The guilt of the third act was perhaps a little under-played, but this was probably as directed.

The two men in the principal roles often do not often figure significantly in reviews of Jenufa. They can all too easily become stereotypes. But here they too were rounded human beings, if that term can be applied to the selfish, self-interested, self-obsessed character of Steva. Norman Rheinhardt’s portrayal made the character’s flaws apparent, however, and though never excusable, they became understandable.

Brandon Jovanovich’s Laca, however, was nothing less than revelatory. Here we have a character complex enough to be in love with a woman he physically abuses. But he is ultimately trustworthy and dependable, and here, also, passionate. Brandon Jovanovich’s voice is a perfect match for the part. I never thought I would hear a more convincing Laca than Philip Langridge, but Brandon Jovanovic has indeed made this character his own.

And finally - finally? - the music. Janacek’s score, especially in the final two acts is a masterpiece. The music never dominates, but always contributes. It adds subtle pictures to illustrate and define the psychological drama, often creating that drama via the juxtaposition of small cubist planes and perspectives, so that emotions flutter around an idea that can be seen from multiple viewpoints. Janacek’s musical language is so subtle and so communicative that it cannot be described in words. And like all languages, it does take time to learn, but once familiar, it says so much that is different, and that is original, inexpressible in any other way, or perhaps by any other composer.

Gustavo Gimeno‘s reading of the score emphasized the subtlety and sheer physical beauty of the sound, rather than the composer’s characteristic spikiness. But this reading of the score did emphasize the normality of the people depicted and the universality of their dilemmas. The production proved to be an emotional roller coaster, but overall, it’s gentle contours stressed its everyday significance. It will live long in the mind, and, hopefully, long on the stage.

 

 

Costa Blanca Arts Update – Orquesta de Valencia under Trigueros and guitarists in Alicante

Two concerts in five days might sound quite a lot, but we achieved that by skipping the others on offer. But could one imagine two more different musical events? How many times across two concerts have you been presented with orchestral music and solo guitar comprising ten works, seven of which you have never hear before and featuring no less than four composers who are completely new to you? And this comment comes from someone who has a personal library of recordings that feature almost five thousand different composers… 

The Orquesta de Valencia under José Trigueros gave their concert in La Rambleta Arts Centre in Valencia. The acoustic of the hall might be a little too dry for music, but it must have served the orchestra’s purposes well for their recording session.

It began with the Serenata Española by Miguel Asins Arbó, who was known for writing music for film and television. This was an atmospheric piece that made its point by understatement, which is not a word that would apply to Keiko Abe’s Prism Rhapsody No2. This is a highly virtuoso concerto for two marimbas and orchestra. The solo parts were played by Josep Furió and Luis Osca with the kind of expertise that leaves an audience breathless both from exhaustion and admiration. There is a lot to do for the musicians in this piece, which is roller-coaster excitement from beginning to end. But it is also highly crafted music, skilfully constructed to do more than merely shimmer in the light. It was a piece of contemporary music that was rapturously received by the audience, prompting the players to offer an encore that allowed them to show off a more reflective side of their instruments.

After the interval, we were treated to a superb reading of the Symphony No10 by Shostakovich. Now this is a work that I have personally been listening to for more than fifty years. And still, it never fails to make its point. In live performance, it’s a work that comes alive beyond the pyrotechnics of its presence. It has a humanity and depicts a world that is a great deal more personal than many analyses might suggest. Particularly impressive was Trigueros’s reading of the scherzo, which he conducted from memory. Hearing such a work again is like meeting an old friend who always surprises.

The next trip was to Alicante to hear students from the Esplá conservatory. They were all on a master’s course in performance, so they ought to be nearing professional standard. The three of them were superb, but the last, Juan José Rodriguez, was outstanding. It was not what he played, it was how he played it. The pieces were shaped, communicative and faultless all at the same time.

Before him, Xuan Lien Liu gave a very clear and evenly paced account of the Sor Sonata. I feel that Sor was less at home with sonata form than with other ways of expressing himself, though I hesitate to belittle the towering achievement of this work. The form, however, appears to dominate the writing, but in this performance, there was a little hint of “going through the motions”. The playing was superb, if a little unspectacular, though this is no criticism because the music itself demands this kind of approach.

Miguel Verdu Andreu chose a much more ambitious programme. He started with the first movement of a sonata for guitar. The Amando Blanquer that followed was industrial in conception. The music was not composed using serial techniques, but it did employ atonality. The form was always clear, and it owed much to classical structures, but the material was like hardened steel. Again, the playing was completely convincing.

The last performer also started with an off-programme piece and continued with two works by a Valencian composer, Vicente Asenio. Who also had good connections with Alicante. The music was superb. The playing better.

This was completely modern guitar music, but there was more than a hint of the vernacular style about the compositional technique, hardly surprising when paying homage to Lorca. The Collectici Intim was a five-movement suite that had the clear structure of a five-movement single work. There was a musical sense to the overall shape, a sense that was admirably conveyed by the expert, Juan José Rodriguez

It’s all in the detail – Madama Butterfly in Valencia

Puccini’s Madame Butterfly is a very well-known, much loved, and indeed popular opera. The genre is replete with femmes fatales, Butterfly, Tosca, Manon, Carmen, Lucía, Violetta and Katya, just for example, who get it in the end, so one might think there is nothing much to see in terms of new perspectives when such a familiar work with such a well-worked theme is staged. Opera lovers, however, will confirm that there most definitely is!

Audiences tend to fall into two distinct groups, those for whom any diversion from their own preconceptions signifies the end of civilization, and those for whom radical interpretation is a welcome challenge to the establishment. There is another perspective, however, in which directors, via minor changes to staging, can completely transform the way we understand these often rigidly interpreted stories. Such was the success of Emilio Lopez, the director of the recent production in Valencia. His 2021 staging of Butterfly will be broadcast on Opera Vision on Sunday 19 December and will be available through that website for some weeks. It is successful on several levels, one of which is revelatory.

Let’s start with the term verismo. That certainly applied to the way Puccini approached his work and it implies that the setting should not be palatial and that characters might be depicted as everyday folk. We may assume that the composer never experienced the mid-19 century Japan of the opera’s setting, so if verismo applies to Butterfly, then it applies principally on an ideological level. That said, the opera’s potential for costume drama usually so overcomes designers and directors that even recognition of verismo in the result is obscured. In other words, everything gets pretty before it can become credible. And it is verismo that suffers.

In act one, Cio-Cio-san describes how she is from a poor home and became a geisha because of lack of opportunity. The ceremonial dagger which she eventually uses to take her own life was presented to her father by the Mikado with request that he use it on himself. We must assume that Butterfly’s family were thus already in disgrace. She then compounds this disgrace by rejecting her cultural and religious traditions, an act that uncle Bonze condemns, prompting her friends and community to reject her, all except Suzuki of course. The fact that Puccini then takes us into the love scene of the wedding night often obscures this rejection. In the Valencia production, a backdrop that had featured cherry blossom becomes the starry night of the couple’s ecstasy, but it does so by melting like celluloid in an overheated projector, implying that the comforting blossoms of the past have been destroyed. The starry night persists into acts two and three, but thus becomes a symbol of continued isolation and of Butterfly’s insistence, nay imperative to live in the past.

Cio-Cio-san often comes across as a meek and thus stereotypical Asian woman, who has never even practiced the word “boo” with geese nearby. As a result, she often becomes the single-, even simple-minded naïve devotee of Pinkerton, despite the fact that, as a geisha, she must have had experience of the fly-by-night sailor. The supplicant image endears her to audiences, perhaps, but strips her of the identity and individuality she certainly has, otherwise she would never have pursued her own, private wishes so single-mindedly.

The point is she does not have a great deal of choice. She is poor. She is a geisha. She has done her job. Pinkerton offers her a way out, which she, perhaps naïvely accepts. But once she has made the commitment, she cannot go back. She wants to please him, but by doing so she suffers the rejection of her own community. But she has to go through with the risk.

In Valencia, Emilio Lopez recognizes that Cio-Cio-san is living in poverty. Ignored by Pinkerton for three years and still rejected by her own community, she and Suzuki live amidst decay and grime. The temptation to portray Butterfly still in full, opulent geisha regalia makes no sense and is avoided convincingly in this production. Suzuki confirms this poverty in the libretto. What too often comes across as blind faith on Butterfly’s part now becomes necessity, imposed by her community because of her rejection by and of them. She can’t go back. She has no other option. This is an element of verismo in the opera which directors often tend to overlook.

But in this Valencia production, the real surprise comes at the end. Pinkerton has returned but has refused to see Butterfly. He storms off because he cannot take it anymore... He does want the child, however. His new American wife and Sharpless are told by Butterfly to come back in half an hour to take the child. Note that Pinkerton has not heard her request.

Butterfly has her own plans, however, plans that involve using that ceremonial weapon her father used to kill himself. The elements are clear. Butterfly kills herself, the voice of Pinkerton returning is heard. Or perhaps not…

The usual way to treat this is to have Butterfly stab herself on the orchestral tutti and then for the sound of Pinkerton’s voice to be heard as she dies. If Pinkerton is not seen, it could be argued that he really was nasty all along and that Cio-Cio-san is imagining the voice, still therefore deceiving herself. If he does appear, then his character is rather let off the hook. If only Butterfly had delayed, then the ecstasy of the starry night might just have returned. But then she had already waited three years…

Sometimes Cio-Cio-san hears the voice and then stabs herself. Again, we have her imagining the sound as a possibility, but we then also have the possibility that she is suffering a form of self-loathing the result of the rejection. Again, this approach internalizes Butterfly’s suffering.

In the Valencia production, the orchestral tutti arrives with dagger drawn, but Butterfly turns to face the entrance to her house when she hears Pinkerton’s call. She waits for him to appear and recognize her and then she kills herself.

The effect is to transform her suicide into an act of defiance. She knows the child will be cared for. She has been rejected by her society and by Pinkerton. She is alone and has no future. But she is now also determined that he will not possess her, and she wants to demonstrate her contempt. You will not possess me as chattel, she thinks. And thus, her character is transformed from the meek and mild recipient of tragedy into a defiant individualist, albeit a dead one. At least she has asserted her own position. It’s different and surprising, which illustrates beautifully that sometimes the most radical transformations are achieved via detail.