Orfeo (1607), favola pastorale in due parti... by Claudio Monteverdi; Bruno Maderna; L'Orfeo,favola in musica. For Soloists, Chorus, and Orchestra by Claudio Monteverdi; Denis StevensReview by: Robert DoningtonNotes, Second Series, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Sep., 1968), pp. 112-114Published by: Music Library AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/894173 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 05:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Music Library Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:39:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MUSIC REVIEWS Compiled and edited by HowARD E. SMITHER

4.

Claudio Monteverdi: Orfeo (1607), favola pastorale in due parti.. .nuova realizzazione ed elaborazione a cura di Bruno Maderna. Milan: Edizioni Suvini Zerboni; U.S.A.: MCA Music, New York, 1967. [Score, 206 p.]

Idem: L'Orfeo, favola in musica. For soloists, chorus, and orchestra. Ed. by Denis Stevens. London: Novello and Co.; U.S.A.: H. W. Gray Co., New York, 1967. [Score, viii, 150 p., 21/-]

Bruno Maderna has made his reputation as an avant-garde composer; but he is too old-fashioned for Monteverdi. In this cen- tury of genuine Monteverdi performances (I still remember with vivid pleasure J. A. Westrup's in Oxford just forty years ago), Maderna's re-working seems quaintly of the nineteenth century, naive, sincere, but in no other way genuine.

Maderna neither prints nor regards Monteverdi's opening (nor his subsequent) instructions: "Toccata which they play before the raising of the curtain three times, and they make it a tone higher wishing to play the trumpets with mutes." Finding it, therefore, too short, he com- poses some more of it; and using it mis- takenly at written C instead of concert D, he is led to transpose the first verse of the following scene from D minor to G minor for a smoother key-transition. That puts him out for the second verse, which he does not transpose; so he tampers with the ritornello in between. The third verse he does transpose, perhaps trying to re- store a balance; and the fourth verse, since one may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. The fifth verse he leaves at Monteverdi's pitch-which, however, is no

longer the pitch at which the first verse has been sung.

The structure of this exquisite scene is normal strophic variation, of which the whole point is the powerful symmetry supporting the delicate variation. From mere ignorance, this structure and this

symmetry are destroyed; and Maderna's musicianship did not save him from the blunder, presumably because his tacit assumption is the old-fashioned one that

early music, however wonderful, needs helping out by modern improvements.

Further transpositions continue to wreck Monteverdi's inspired key relation- ships. Soon Monteverdi's bass line gets one or two improvements, and with it Monte- verdi's harmonies. Does Maderna, then, make them more bold and modern for our twentieth-century ears? Not at all. He makes them less bold and modern than Monteverdi made them in the early seven- teenth century. He waters them down.

Much re-barring, some of it intelligent; many note values altered without indica- tion, sometimes desirably as in the triple- time choruses which are meant so much quicker than their original notation looks to us. Some ornamental figuration added to the voices, not badly and quite legiti- mately if the original had also been dis- closed. Vastly over-elaborate realization, not without imagination but getting cat- astrophically in the way of the voices.

And now here comes Euridice, before her time, to sing the top line of an ensem- ble which Maderna has contrived out of portions of Monteverdi's danced chorus, other portions being made to answer off-

stage from the orchestra until quite a big scene has been built up. True, Monte- verdi did not give Euridice very much to sing; but he did give her a wonderful first entry (based on the most eloquent of

tritones) a little later on; and it is Monte- verdi who was the better man of the theatre.

Orfeo, too, has somehow slipped down from tenor (as shown by the original clef) to baritone, and has got encumbered with a most strictly measured and incongru- ous violin obbligato on the way. How can he sing his recitative against it in that free, flexible speech-rhythm which Caccini called "a certain liberty (sprezzatura)...

112

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:39:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

through which one could almost speak in harmony" (Nuove musiche, Florence, 1602), and which was still described by Berardi (Ragionamenti, Bologna, 1681, p. 136) as consisting "in this alone, that sing- ing one speaks, and speaking one sings"?

Monteverdi's shepherds (with their con- sistently tenor clefs) now have to leap up an octave to become part-time nymphs and down again, or even lower to become part-time basses, with one particularly unfortunate consequence at which I leave Maderna and review him no further. And it is not the musicologist, but the musi- cian in me that rebels. For in the most famous scene of all this famous opera, Monteverdi's (tenor) shepherd sings hap- pily in C major immediately (and ironi- cally) before the messenger breaks in with the fatal news of Euridice's death; and the bass note C twists unforgettably to C-sharp at the messenger's first words of terror. Maderna substitutes a bass shep- herd in F major, and does not even notice that he has brushed aside one of the most breathtaking modulations in all music-drama.

Bruno Maderna claims in his preface: "the initial 'Toccata' and the closing 'Moresca' have been enlarged. All the rest adheres scrupulously to the original." If that is what Bruno Maderna calls scrupu- lous, what would he have come up with if he decided to be unscrupulous?

Denis Stevens' editing is entirely mod- ern, admirably adventurous, and essential- ly sound. One of the hardest of good reso- lutions to keep in editing is, having done what you think is right, to make it known just what you have done and to what. Hard not necessarily from lack of scruples, but because distinguishing original from editorial matter requires more or less cumbersome devices which may all too easily obscure the clarity of the perform- ing text. I have thought once or twice recently that Denis Stevens, like other edi- tors of the adventurous kind, may some- times need to remind himself of his own good resolutions; here, for example, he might have found a way to reveal the plain original notes underlying his own ornamental variations of them as printed. One mistake of substance is that some of this ornamentation is set on the last note of phrases (where it never was habitual) rather than on the last note but one

(where it was always habitual). But to supply such ornamental variation is itself part of what I mean by adventurous edit- ing, and it is very much to be approved. In a performing edition, we ought to help the performer. If we do not, we may put a more or less original text in front of him; but he will have little idea how to approach an original manner of per- formance.

This is, in essentials, a scholarly as well as a practical edition; with new Orfeo editions from many rival editors, this is certainly my choice, finding, as I think it does, just the right balance for a com- bined-purpose edition in nearly all re- spects. The scholar needs reliable informa- tion on the originals, the performer needs intelligent assistance on performance, and no attempt at combining them can be quite ideal. But the advantages of a working compromise are very great. Un- scholarly editions have always been a nuisance, and continue to be so. Scholar's editions remain indispensable, something to be immensely grateful for when the editor has undertaken his laborious re- sponsibilities acceptably. But scholarly per- forming editions best meet that general clamour and insatiable demand for early music which is so remarkable a feature of our times. The combined-purpose edi- tion looks like being very largely the edi- tion of the future.

Preface and score both include a quanti- ty of compact advice and instruction on the main problems of performance. Pro- fessor Stevens here shows himself the ex- cellent musician, the experienced director of many Baroque performances, that we know him for; it is all very practical and all very scrupulously based on Monteverdi and Monteverdi's performance practices, so much more musically effective than the sincerest of Madernisations. Not that modern substitutions can altogether be avoided. For example, the cornettos promi- nent in Orfeo are in course of revival as the wonderful virtuoso instruments they used to be; but it is still extremely unusual to have wonderful virtuoso performers on them available, and an ill-played cornetto is no sound for the gods, not even for the gods of the underworld with whom the cornettos were (like the trombones) tra- ditionally associated. It is perfectly reason- able to substitute another instrument. It

113

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:39:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is not so good, but it will do; and it simply remains to make a musicianly choice. Stevens chooses oboes. I prefer B-flat or C trumpets, as having more of the ring which I regard as especially characteristic of the cornetto's tone. But there is no difference of principle.

A special word of thanks to Professor Stevens for translating Striggio's libretto with such literal fidelity. Poetical exacti-

is not so good, but it will do; and it simply remains to make a musicianly choice. Stevens chooses oboes. I prefer B-flat or C trumpets, as having more of the ring which I regard as especially characteristic of the cornetto's tone. But there is no difference of principle.

A special word of thanks to Professor Stevens for translating Striggio's libretto with such literal fidelity. Poetical exacti-

tude matters as well as musical exactitude: both deal in images which on their own symbolical terms are definite and not (as is so commonly thought of librettos) un- harmed by arbitrary alterations. Maderna's Orfeo is sincere but arbitrary. Stevens' is sincere and comprehending. That is the difference.

ROBERT DONINGTON

University of Iowa

tude matters as well as musical exactitude: both deal in images which on their own symbolical terms are definite and not (as is so commonly thought of librettos) un- harmed by arbitrary alterations. Maderna's Orfeo is sincere but arbitrary. Stevens' is sincere and comprehending. That is the difference.

ROBERT DONINGTON

University of Iowa

Heinrich Schiitz: Symphoniae sacrae II (1647), Nr. 1-12: Deutsche Kon- zerte fiir drei Stimmen und Basso continuo. Hrsg. Werner Bittinger. (Neu Ausgabe samtlicher Werke, Bd. 15.) Kassel: Barenreiter, 1964. [158 p., cloth, DM 35.-]

Heinrich Schiitz: Symphoniae sacrae II (1647), Nr. 1-12: Deutsche Kon- zerte fiir drei Stimmen und Basso continuo. Hrsg. Werner Bittinger. (Neu Ausgabe samtlicher Werke, Bd. 15.) Kassel: Barenreiter, 1964. [158 p., cloth, DM 35.-]

The present volume contains twelve of the twenty-seven "German Concertos" that constitute Part II of Schiitz' Symphoniae Sacrae. Included also are the early ver- sions of Nos. 1, 6, 8, and 12, not published in the earlier Complete Edition. Each of the concertos or cantatas will also be published separately, presumably with the vocal and instrumental parts needed for performance. (Other practical editions have existed for some time, e. g., in Nagel's Musikarchiv.) Volume 15 is both a scholar-

ly and performing edition. Modern clefs and time signatures are provided, and the continuo has been realized. An English translation of the editor's preface, by Edward Olleson, is included. There are

photographic reproductions of pages from the original print (1647) and from the earlier manuscript sources for two con- certos. The part books of the 1647 print form the principal source for this edition. Manuscript parts, partly autograph, in the Kassel Landesbibliothek are the basis for the above-mentioned earlier versions.

In the preface Werner Bittinger de- scribes the original print and quotes from Schiitz's own preface, Ad Benevolum Lec- torem. Schiitz explains that he was en-

couraged to write these works since his earlier Symphoniae Sacrae, being Latin concertos, had met with success both in

Italy and Germany and were being per- formed widely in German translations. Publication, he says, was delayed because of the "pitiable circumstances, disadvan-

tageous to music, which still prevail in our dear fatherland" (i.e., the Thirty Years War), but also by the general igno- rance in Germany of the modern Italian

The present volume contains twelve of the twenty-seven "German Concertos" that constitute Part II of Schiitz' Symphoniae Sacrae. Included also are the early ver- sions of Nos. 1, 6, 8, and 12, not published in the earlier Complete Edition. Each of the concertos or cantatas will also be published separately, presumably with the vocal and instrumental parts needed for performance. (Other practical editions have existed for some time, e. g., in Nagel's Musikarchiv.) Volume 15 is both a scholar-

ly and performing edition. Modern clefs and time signatures are provided, and the continuo has been realized. An English translation of the editor's preface, by Edward Olleson, is included. There are

photographic reproductions of pages from the original print (1647) and from the earlier manuscript sources for two con- certos. The part books of the 1647 print form the principal source for this edition. Manuscript parts, partly autograph, in the Kassel Landesbibliothek are the basis for the above-mentioned earlier versions.

In the preface Werner Bittinger de- scribes the original print and quotes from Schiitz's own preface, Ad Benevolum Lec- torem. Schiitz explains that he was en-

couraged to write these works since his earlier Symphoniae Sacrae, being Latin concertos, had met with success both in

Italy and Germany and were being per- formed widely in German translations. Publication, he says, was delayed because of the "pitiable circumstances, disadvan-

tageous to music, which still prevail in our dear fatherland" (i.e., the Thirty Years War), but also by the general igno- rance in Germany of the modern Italian

style. In this preface Schiitz repeatedly refers to Monteverdi, saying that he had followed "in some small degree" the style of two of Monteverdi's works. That the style of some of these concertos does in- deed show Monteverdi models, notably a closeness to his stile concitato, is pointed out elsewhere by Bittinger.

In the original print these "German concertos" or cantatas were arranged ac- cording to the number of parts, and the same procedure is followed in the present edition. Volume 15 contains works for one solo voice and two instruments, plus basso continuo. With the exception of No. 8, for alto solo, the scoring is for soprano or tenor. Two violins provide the ac- companiment, but Schiitz's title page merely refers to "two instrumental parts, such as violins or like instruments," and suggests some specific substitutions for the several sections of Concerto 4. In the case of No. 10 the text itself, "Praise the Lord with the sound of trumpets," invites the participation of other instruments.

For this edition, Concertos 6-8 and 11 have been "suitably transposed for mod- ern performance," i.e., up a whole tone, the others being in the original key. Bar lines have been added in conformity with principles explained briefly in Bittinger's preface. This explanation of barring and tempo changes presumably takes the place of indications like o. = o in the music, though in performing editions such re- minders even today are not superfluous. Bass realizations are extremely simple, in conformity with performance practices of the mid-seventeenth century. Schiitz's own realization for parts of Concerto 10 pro-

style. In this preface Schiitz repeatedly refers to Monteverdi, saying that he had followed "in some small degree" the style of two of Monteverdi's works. That the style of some of these concertos does in- deed show Monteverdi models, notably a closeness to his stile concitato, is pointed out elsewhere by Bittinger.

In the original print these "German concertos" or cantatas were arranged ac- cording to the number of parts, and the same procedure is followed in the present edition. Volume 15 contains works for one solo voice and two instruments, plus basso continuo. With the exception of No. 8, for alto solo, the scoring is for soprano or tenor. Two violins provide the ac- companiment, but Schiitz's title page merely refers to "two instrumental parts, such as violins or like instruments," and suggests some specific substitutions for the several sections of Concerto 4. In the case of No. 10 the text itself, "Praise the Lord with the sound of trumpets," invites the participation of other instruments.

For this edition, Concertos 6-8 and 11 have been "suitably transposed for mod- ern performance," i.e., up a whole tone, the others being in the original key. Bar lines have been added in conformity with principles explained briefly in Bittinger's preface. This explanation of barring and tempo changes presumably takes the place of indications like o. = o in the music, though in performing editions such re- minders even today are not superfluous. Bass realizations are extremely simple, in conformity with performance practices of the mid-seventeenth century. Schiitz's own realization for parts of Concerto 10 pro-

114 114

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:39:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions