Prom 57: Mozart, ‘Meistermusik, K477, ‘Symphony in E flat’, K543, ‘Requiem’ in D minor, K 626. Orchestre des Champs-Elysees, Collegium Vocale Gent, Carolyn Sampson (soprano), Ingeborg Danz (mezzo), Mark Padmore, (tenor), Alfred Reiter (bass). Conductor Philippe Herreweghe. 27.08.2006 (GD)

 

 

This was an excellently programmed concert, as one has come to expect from Herreweghe. The  ‘Meistermusik’ is very seldom performed and is in fact an earlier version of the ‘Maurerische Trauermusik’ (also K 477)  which Mozart composed and dedicated to the initiation of a ‘master’ at the main Vienna lodge. When Mozart reworked the piece for orchestra alone he slightly altered the woodwind intonation of the plainsong ‘tonus peregrinus’, which in the earlier work is sung by a male choir. This work abounds in masonic symbols (three flats, three sections, C major denoting the resurrection etc). There are also important links between this work and the other two works on the programme; the orchestral register of basset horns, bass clarinets, muted horns etc, pre-figures the ‘Requiem’, and the allusion to the three flats (implicit in the tonal structure of E flat, actually referred to by some as Mozart’s ‘Masonic key’) permeate the E flat symphony K 543. Herreweghe and his excellent orchestra seem to understand and articulate the unique textures and contours of these works in a way which links them to other of Mozart’s works, both masonic and non-masonic (although many of Mozart’s works, while not officially masonic, are full of masonic, symbolic allusions)…I am thinking in particular of the Gran partita K 361, the String quartet in E flat, K 482, the Clarinet concerto K 622, and of course Die Zauberflöte.

These unique cross-references and tonal/textural registers Herreweghe and his orchestra articulated in the E flat symphony K 543 in a way I have seldom heard equalled. Herreweghe, on several occasions, has argued most convincingly the case for ‘period’ style performance, particularly of Mozart. With Herreweghe, as with Harnoncourt, Bruggen, Koopman, we are made aware of the enormous importance of particular textural registers in Mozart. Herreweghe’s gut strings perfectly compliment the darker and exultant sounding ‘period’ trumpets, horns and woodwind in a way that modern, larger orchestras rarely convey. And of course Herreweghe understands that the ‘Adagio’ marking for the symphony’s opening in no way corresponds to the bad old nineteenth century habit of making the music drag in the most ponderous way. Mozart’s ‘Adagio’, as we know from his  marking, should sound direct, arresting, in the style of the French overture, corresponding to the elegant thrust of the Allegro. All this was delivered with staggering conviction.

 

The ‘Andante con moto’ sounded just like that, ‘with movement’…did some of the older conductors of traditional (teutonic) grandiosity have a distinct ignorance of Italian? Mozart’s perfect blend of serenity, nobility (redolent in places of ‘Idomeneo’), with exquisite woodwind cadences in canon, were all realised beautifully. The ‘Menuetto’ was taken at a crisp pace, no irritating lumpen, ländler inflections here! And the trio was notable for some almost improvisatory sounding clarinet configurations with the rest of the woodwind. The final ‘Allegro’ was taken at a staggeringly fast tempo. But Herreweghe always maintained a firm underlying pulse so as not to let the music sound merely an exercise in speed. It was quite amazing to hear the strings and woodwind negotiate their rapid cross-over exchanges in the brief development section with perfect clarity. As with all real musicians it was fascinating to watch Herreweghe’s subtle gestures, the right hand (batonless) articulating the tonal/harmonic shifts and configurations, the left hand the rhythmic structure. All the time Herreweghe referred to the score, which he brought on to the podium for each work. The whole time I had a sense of conductor (perhaps director is a better term) and orchestra in perfect accord with each other.

We will never know what Mozart’s final intentions for his ‘Requiem’ would have sounded like. We know that he composed fairly thoroughly up to the ‘Lacrymosa’. For other sections like the ‘Sanctus’ and ‘Benedictus’ he provided just the bass line with virtually no orchestration. Mozart knew that at that time, in Vienna, many performances would have been used in an ecclesiastical context with just organ and chorus. Herreweghe, rightly in my estimation, stuck to the Süssmayr version. The Mozarts had known Franz Xavier Süssmayr for most of the Vienna period. Towards the end Süssmayr became a kind of amanuensis for Mozart and, as a friend, was most conversant with Mozart’s composing practices and intentions. Although the Süssmayr ‘version’ has a certain level of authority issues are made more complex by another hand in the autograph manuscript, that of an F. J. Freystadtler, who knew and worked with both Mozart and Süssmayr. After Mozart’s death in December 1791, both Süssmayr and Freystadtler added parts for trombones, trumpets and timpani particularly in the ‘Kyrie’ and the ‘Dies Irae’ It has been speculated that had Mozart lived he would not have included these festive instruments in a requiem. Mozart very likely would have viewed the requiem as having a very special place in the liturgical canon. It would have had, for Mozart, a reflective function viewing death as a very significant part of life, but also, in the Catholic faith, having a judgmental register, an important and decisive significance in terms of redemption etc. Mozart certainly did not view the requiem as laden with melancholy or angst, as some of the older German performances emphasise. We do know that Constanze did increasingly turn to Süssmayr after Mozart’s death, particularly for the completion of the ‘Requiem’, which for Constanze meant a payment.

Herreweghe, wisely in my view, made some slight orchestral modifications, particularly in the woodwind, brass choral accompaniment in the fugal sections of the ‘Offertorium’, Domine Jesu’, also in the ‘Sanctus’ and ‘Benedictus’, Süssmayr orchestral writing, particularly as choral accompaniment can sound a little clumsy. The brilliant timpani part in the ‘Dies Irae’ (probably Süssmayr) was retained. In Herreweghe’s interpretation special emphasis was given to the trombones ( tenor, alto and bass), trumpets and timpani with hard baroque sticks, superbly played by Marie-Ange-Petit. The vocal quartet came into their own in the ‘Tuba mirum’ with particularly resonant intonation from Alfred Reiter, Herreweghe treating the beautifully haunting solo trombone as very much part of the ensemble. Overall the vocal team worked well, although in the exquisite ‘Recordare’ Miss Sampson, and Miss Danz were not always together; Sybylla Rubens and Annette Markert, featured in Herreweghe's recording of the work, are in much finer accord here. Herreweghe’s magnificent Collegium Vocale Gent were particularly compelling in the ‘graduale’ of the ‘Lacrymosa’, as they were in the baroque sounding contrapuntal strands of the ‘Rex tremendae’.  Herreweghe gave just the right amount of operatic inflection to the very operatic sounding ‘Benedictus’, probably just an idea that Mozart wrote down.

Sadly we will never know what Mozart finally intended. But we do have Süssmayr to be thankful to, for his idiomatic re-working of this masterpiece. And I have to admit a real fondness for his additional brass and timpani parts which give the work a distinctly ritual, ceremonial feeling, even touches of the last scene of ‘Don Giovanni’. Overall I can’t imagine a more musically and compelling interpretation of this ‘enigmatic’ work than the one provided tonight by Herreweghe. I would love to hear (see) him direct ‘Idomeneo’.

 

Geoff Diggines