Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1931-01)

124 Debussy Debussy: La Mer, played by a Symphony Orchestra con- ducted by Piero Coppola. Victor Masterpiece Set M-89 (3 D12s, Alb., $5.00.) _ C\i It is a generally conceded fact that after the composition of La Mer in 1905 a gradual decline took place in the music of Debussy. Although that decline became hardly percep- tible until 1912, nevertheless it was there. In La Mer, Debussy achieved one of the supreme color canvases of his orchestral art—one of the most Jertilely poetic tonal paintings expres- sing his unique and curiously unreal, yet seemingly real, sense of imaginative beauty. It may not be the greatest of his tone-poems—because Iberia by reason of its superla- tively enchanting nocturnal second section eclipses that great- ness, and because, if too closely analyzed, it proves a rather tired version of ideas more freshly expressed in the Nocturnes, still, assuredly it is one of the most gratifying works of its kind. Begun in 1903 a year after the completion of his great masterpiece Pelleas and Melisande, it was not completed until 1905. Lawrence Gilman tells us that it “stands with L Ayres Midi d’un Faun, Iberia, and Rondes de Printemys as one oi that small but incomparable group of orchestral tone-poems in which Debussy said new and enchanting things in an un- forgettable way.” And we may also add the Nocturnes. La Mer is an achievement in the mosaic art which is essen- tially Debussy. It is composed of fragments which in no way pursue the paths of traditional design. The unity ol the whole however is an amazing alembication of the tonal- poet’s creative genius. It has been pointed out that Debussy in inventing a harmonic style of striking originality, was thereafter content to develop “it in works that were either small in themselves or which involved, as it were, a panorama of impressions rather than an architecture of form. 1ms is true of La Mer, for here we realize a “panorama of lmpres- sions.” “The three divisions of the work are bound together, musically,” Lawrence Gilman tells us, “by partial community of theme. The characteristic portion of the chief subject of the first piece—the phrase declaimed by muted trumpet and English horn in the twelfth measure, after the vague and mysterious opening—recurs in the test movement; and the solemn and nobly beautiful theme for the brass that seems to lift the sun into the blue just before the dazzling close of De Vaube a midi sur la mer, is heard again in the magnificent finale.” It is good to realize that Debussy’s La Mer is available on records, and that it is performed, for the most part, in a sympathetic manner to permit a better acquaintance with it., colourful lights and shades, its mystic poetry and its rhapsodic beauties. Piero Coppolo, the Italian composer and conductor, now residing in France, achieves much in his reading by wisely eschewing undue climaxes in the various sections, a prevalent fault with many conductors which completely destroys the unity of the work. Yet, on the whole, the recording is a disappointing one. The clarity of instrumenta- tion and line found in the recent Iberia recording is not apparent here. Debussy’s incantative writing for the wood- winds and the horns is mostly blurred and veiled, and the strings are given too much prominence, hence the balance considered in its entirety is not good and much is rendered ineffective. The timpani at the opening is too full to convey the mystic undulations of the sea as we believe Debussy undoubtedly wished it to do. Stranger still, however is the almost muffled thunder of the ’cellos at the entry of the chief theme which is played in pianissimo by the cor anglais and the muted trumpet. The recording of the second movement realizes its beauties more fully than that of the first, or for *at matter anywhere else in the score, particularly from the middle of the “ 0 ^ e " ment on, for here, as if by common consent, Coppolo and the recording director achieve the most exquisite creative projection. One almost sees the sunbeams dancing on the waters veering and gliding here and there, as the waves toss themselves about in that happy carefree play J^ ich , see ^ to belong only to childhood’s irresponsibility and to the sea in its moments of gentler sportiveness. In the third move- ment we find a monotony of tonal colour for that elusive beauty that mysterious opening of the Dialogue between the Wind and the Sea, is played too loudly. Even the climax Sward the end of the first side of the recording-where The Phonograph Monthly Review Coppolo realizes his effects so splendidly—never reaches the fullness of its crescendo. Apparently the recording director has indulged in his favorite sublimation of the conductors ideas. Side twc( of the final section brings us a mood of ethereal loveliness with the sustained harmonic or pedal point in the first violins and the lacework of the harps with the melody given to the flutes and oboes. The recording here is successful in conveying the unearthly beauty of this section, the superb climax of the finale however is not fully realized, although one senses by the energy of the violins that Coppolo intended to convey a fuller tonal beauty—but here again the recording expert puts in too much resistance. The fact however that Debussy’s La Mer is recorded is a major achievement. And the fact that it has been given to a conductor of Mr. Coppolo’s sensibilities is to be praised. His reading makes us wish that he had a better orchestra, a better concert hall perhaps—for the acoustics of the re- cording are not of the best, and of course a better recording. Yet—considered on the whole—this recording does not deserve to be neglected or momentarily dismissed—it still gives us much of the rare colouring and much of the poetic beauty. And above all, it permits us to become acquainted with a great work of a great genius. Someday, when a Toscanini makes a recording of this composition, those of us who have been wise enough to own the present set will find our ap- preciation considerably enhanced and our perceptions more keenly alive to its poetic beauties. Peter Hugh Reed Tchaikowsky — Elman TcHAtKOWSKY : Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 35, played by Mischa Elman, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra, under the direction of John Barbirolli. Victor Masterpiece Set 79 (4 D12s, Alb., $10.00). Tchaikowsky wrote Madame von Meek the third of March, 1878, from Clarens to tell her among other things that he had just ’heard the Symyhonie Esyagnole of Lalo and two days later she was informed that he had started on a concert of his own. Jergenson, his publisher was written on the fifteenth that it was nearly completed and Madame von Meek a day later it was completed. Later in the year, m May, to be exact, he wrote her asking her honest opinion of the work. The original score bore a dedication to Leopold Auer, at that time a famous touring virtuoso, whose fame was long established on the continent. The composer naturally ex- pected him to play the work and introduce it to the public. It seems that the violinist was rather bewildered by the manuscript and after careful consideration failed to wax enthusiastic over it. Tchaikowsky misunderstood the silence, took back his music and re-dedicated it to Adolf Brodsky who played it for the first time at Vienna, where the con- certo was not successful. The leading critics disliked it and Hanslick actually hated it, calling it by many far from com- plimentary terms. Later this critical distaste died down and the concerto has, of course, won a permanent place. Some years later, Professor Auer gave out some interesting facts in connection with the dedication of the work. seems that he felt the work inferior in all except the first movement. He considered the violin solo work not suitable for the instrument, misunderstanding the resources of the violin and therefore set about revising many of the cadenzas for his own use. He laughed at the idea that Tchaikowsky had mentioned, that they were too difficult for him and went on to say that it was with the utmost difficulty that he was able to overcome his dislike for the whole work. The present day listener may judge for himself whether or not the esteemed professor was justified “his opinion As it seems to one listener, he was, indeed. The only real melodious part of the work is the first movement. The rest is the emptiest of display music with no particularly dis- tinctive quality to recommend it. The slow movement is especi y any disappointing and the final movement is even more dissatisfying than the same movement in the piano concerto. At least that starts off magnificently. One of the greatest of the 'Auer pupils, Mischa Elman, is the soloist of the occasion. The tone that he brings from Ms instrument is one of unparalleled beauty. His bowing and execution are that of a genius. The trouble with his perfmm- ance in this work is that in seeming too sure of himself