September 14th – 17th 2017
The Rotterdam Philharmonic Gergiev Festival in a nutshell. When Valery Gergiev became Principal Conductor in 1995 he and the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra decided to hold an ambitious multi-day musical event. One year later, they presented the Rotterdam Philharmonic Gergiev Festival.
What began in 1996 as a themed concert series grew into a large-scale music festival. The 2001 edition was a major milestone, because it adopted a multi-disciplinary format to spotlight Shostakovich and his War Symphonies. In 2003 the Festival chose a ‘difficult composer’ in Prokofiev, but thanks to the wide range of programmes it managed to attract a record number of visitors. Further successes were achieved in the festival featuring Tchaikovsky (2004) and the edition entitled Fin-de-siècle Icons (2005) with music including works by Wagner and Strauss.
In 2006 the Festival entered its second decade, with Freedom as its motto. There was now no focus on a particular composer or musical period, but a theme that gives every opportunity to place the music in a wider context. That course was pursued in the editions Night of Love, Heaven and Earth, Eternal Youth and a festival triptych about Rotterdam: Resurrection (2010), Sea & the City (2011) en Sea & You (2012). And in 2013, exactly 25 years after his debut with the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra the festival marked Valery Gergiev’s ‘silver’ affiliation with the city.
This years theme of the Rotterdam Philharmonic Gergiev Festival is Russian avant-garde. Exactly 100 years after year of the revolution 1917, the festival highlights the most adventurous time in Russian music with composers such as Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. With four symphonic concerts, two chamber music programs and one family concert, the festival focuses on the experimental period of Russian avant-garde.
For full information, visit the Rotterdam Philharmonic Gergiev Festival website.
Notes and Editorial Reviews
This is a hybrid Super Audio CD playable on both regular and Super Audio CD players.
DONIZETTI Lucia di Lammermoor Valery Gergiev, cond; Natalie Dessay (Lucia); Piotr Beczala (Edgardo); Vladislav Sulimsky (Enrico); Mariinsky Th O & Ch Read more MARIINSKY MAR0512 (2 SACDs: 130:05 Text and Translation)
There is a great deal to admire in this new Lucia. Natalie Dessay is one of the foremost interpreters of the title role today. She has already recorded the opera in its French version (reviewed by both George Jellinek and Bob Rose in Fanfare 26: 5), and sung it in the worlds leading opera houses, so it is logical for her to record the standard version. And there is no question that she is up to the demands of the role. There is a strong vibrato on sustained notes that is emphasized by the recording process (I doubt it would be as troublesome in the opera house, where the listener is much farther away from the voice than the microphone), and I do find that disturbing. Set against that is her agility (ornamenting all repeat verses with appropriate flair and imagination), her ability to inflect phrases in a way that is musically natural, and the basic attractiveness of her bright, focused, but never hard-edged timbre.
As much as I enjoyed her Lucia, for the collector the issue is how it stands up to competitive alternatives, and Im not sure that the answer is in Dessays favor. There is an old maxim about not letting the great become the enemy of the good-enough. However, in art, that is not applicable, particularly if the great is within reach. Artists hate being compared to their predecessors. They naturally want to be taken on their own meritsand in the opera house during a performance, that is appropriate and right. But unless Im willing to spend limitless amounts of money collecting Lucia recordings (and my wife would argue that, in fact, I am), it comes down to this: Does Dessay offer something to add to a picture of this role already drawn by Callas, Sills, and Sutherland? For me, the answer is no.
Reviewing this recording led me to reappraise the Sills and Sutherland sets (I know Callass well). Each of those ladies brought something highly personal and unique to the role. You might argue that Sutherlands lack of dramatic specificity and limited palette of colors is a defect, and I suppose it is, but no one actually sings the role better. Her rich, plush voice paired with astonishing flexibility and control is a once-in-a-lifetime combination, and her partners (Pavarotti, Milnes, and Ghiaurov) make this a memorable studio recordingand it is uncut as well. Additionally, while Sutherland certainly did not have the dramatic imagination of Sills, Scotto, or Callas, she did make a more serious attempt at characterization than she is often given credit for. And to hear a voice of that amplitude in this music is virtually without precedent, in particular notes above high C with the fullness of tone that Sutherland produces. Callas is, of course, sui generis, coloring and inflecting the role as no other singer has. I like her first EMI studio recording with Serafin and the 1955 Karajan-led Scala performance in Berlin; in both cases, di Stefano is another huge asset. Scottos best work is found in a number of live performance recordings, one with di Stefano (on Myto) and one with Pavarotti (Opera dOro). Sillss recording, originally made for Westminster and reissued first by DG and now by Universal Editions, with the glorious Edgardo of Bergonzi, brilliantly led by Schippers, is another important set. Cappuccilli adds value, and it too is uncut. Sills and Scotto both found ways to manage to combine the sheer pleasure of vocal display with dramatically meaningful and insightful portrayals. Listening again to Sills, one is first impressed by the variety of color she does apply to the voice to reflect the dramatic moment. It is not as rich a range, nor as thorough, as Callas, but it is quite effective and specific. Then there is the techniquea perfect trill, astonishing passagework, and the wonderful ornamentation written for her by Roland Gagnon. Add to that Sillss remarkable diction, far more clearly enunciated than Dessay (let alone Sutherland). I found myself falling in love with her recording all over again. When one speaks of the Sills Lucia, the Callas Lucia, or the Sutherland Lucia, a knowledgeable and experienced listener will immediately get a picture of the performance. I dont feel that is the case with Dessay; one will get a generalized picture of a well-sung performance, but not of a role brought vividly to life in an individual portrayal that will remain in the memory. There is a sense that the vocal gestures are applied from the outside, rather than being deeply felt in the gut. There is a monochromatic aspect to her performance that becomes more evident on repeated hearing.
I wonder if the problem is less Dessay than the overall atmosphere of this recording, which I would describe as highly accomplished but rarely causing a thrill. A colleague of mine once said, after a very competently conducted symphonic concert, My feet never left the ground, and that would be my reaction here. Gergiev does not infuse the score with too much Russian weight; things move along at a reasonable clip and phrases are well shaped. But the rhythmic pulse is often slack, the line sags in places, and the whole thing has about it the feel of too much care and not enough abandon. This feeling is everywhere, and is evident from the opening chorus, which doesnt have the swing or thrust inherent in the music. Beczalas curse of Lucia after being shown her signed marriage contract sounds like a moderately annoyed scolding rather than a cry of pain from the gut. The Wolfs Crag scene, thankfully included here, doesnt ignite the sparks of anger that it should. What is missing throughout the entire opera is the smell of the theaterthe sense of fire and momentum that a truly involving performance manages to convey. Even the best studio recordings do manage that (Sills/Bergonzi/Schippers is a fine example). There is nothing fussy or wrong-headed about the conducting, but it seems to me too controlled, or perhaps controlling. I wanted to like it more than I did, because of my admiration for Gergievs work in such a wide range of music, and because of the smart editorial decisions here (opening all cuts, using the glass harmonica in the mad scene).
It is easy to focus on the soprano in this opera, but in fact Donizetti did not, at least not when all the traditional cuts are opened and we hear his whole work. (Many of the cuts that started coming into practice even in his time were made at the insistence of sopranos who wished to aggrandize themselves, and the result was the elimination of much of the music for the men.) It is important to remember that, unlike most bel canto operas, the sopranos mad scene is not the operas finale. The final scene is given over to the tenor in a huge double aria. I was fortunate enough to attend Joan Sutherlands Met debut, and as you might imagine, the ovation after the mad scene was a good 10 minutes (even including one wag who, as the applause was finally dying down, shouted bravo flutist, igniting another minute or two of enthusiastic outburst). Richard Tucker was the Edgardoand he was not going to play second fiddle to Sutherland. He sang the final scene as if his life depended on it, and managed almost as long an ovation. The fact is that the role of Edgardo is central to a performance of Lucia, and for me the much-praised Beczala just doesnt have the vocal goods. He sings very well, shapes the music nicely, and has all the notes and even the style. But the timbre is wrong, lacking a liquid quality; the legato is not a genuine Italianate legato (and one doesnt have to be Italian to have that down; Bjoerling would be a prime example); and he refuses to let loose when Edgardo must. The collector has the options of di Stefano, Bergonzi, Pavarotti, Carreras, Kraus, and Domingo. It may seem unfair to compare Beczala to these stars of a bygone era, but there they are, a fact of life for the collector and for anyone who would record the role today. As with the ladies referred to above, each of these tenors makes something special of the role of Edgardo.
Vladislav Sulimsky is a rather rough-voiced Enrico, lacking the richness of vocal texture one hears from Milnes or Cappuccilli, or the snarling nastiness and elegance of a Gobbi. The Arturo and Raimondo are actually a bit unpleasant on the ear; the Normanno is adequate. The chorus sings with all the glory we associate with great Russian choruses, and frankly it sounds a bit more idiomatic and into the score than many of the other participants. The orchestral playing is a bit rough-edged at times, but overall fine. This is not a live performance recording, and was recorded in the Mariinsky concert hall, not the opera house. The sonic results, as heard in two-channel stereo, are excellent. The voices have a natural perspective about them, and the voice-orchestra balance is perfect. An illuminating essay by Jeremy Commons enhances the production.
So there you have ita new Lucia that I find easier to admire than to love. In Fanfare 34:4, Bob Rose reviewed the Naxos reissue of a 2007 Dynamic set. It is clear that if Bob Rose and I were stranded on a desert island, wed have very little to argue about. His recommendations for Lucia recordings? Sutherland/Pavarotti; Sills/Bergonzi; Callas/di Stefano/Karajan! Same as mine.
FANFARE: Henry Fogel
Works on This Recording
Be the first to review this titleReview This Title
Lucia di Lammermoorby Gaetano Donizetti
Performer: Zhanna Dombrovskaya (Soprano), Dmitry Voropaev (Tenor), Ilya Bannik (Bass),
Natalie Dessay (Soprano), Vladislav Sulimsky (Baritone), Piotr Beczala (Tenor),
Sergei Skorokhodov (Tenor)
Conductor: Valery Gergiev
Orchestra/Ensemble: St. Petersburg Mariinsky Theater Orchestra, St. Petersburg Mariinsky Theater Chorus
Written: 1835; Italy
Date of Recording: 09/2010
Venue: Mariinsky Concert Hall, St. Petersburg,