Janáček’s
Glagolitic Mass
Part One
Leoš
Janáček (1854-1928) composed his
Glagolitic Mass (Mša glagolskaja)
in 1926-1927 at the end of his life
and during the most productive period
of his compositional career. It is rightly
considered one of the supreme choral
masterpieces of the twentieth century
and has been very lucky in recordings.
However, it was not until 1994 that
the whole work was actually recorded.
Prior to then it was heard in its published
form of 1930, which was shortened and
simplified from the original composition
— largely due to the perceived inability
of its first performers to execute the
difficulties of the score. Thanks to
Janáček
scholar Paul Wingfield, whose edition
restores the Glagolitic Mass to its
original form, it can now be heard in
all its glory. It is important to remember
that the standard version, even with
cuts and simplified scoring, is still
a very powerful work although,
for obvious reasons, the original has
steadily gained adherents and is now
being performed throughout the world.
The main differences
between the two versions are as follows:
the original reinstates the Intrada
movement at the beginning of the
mass as well as in its usual place at
the end. This gives the Mass a perfect
arch form with Věruju
(Credo) as its centerpiece. There
are meter changes in both the Úvod
(Introduction) and especially
in the Gospodi, pomiluj (Kyrie)
where 5/4 meter was originally conceived
and then switched to easier 4/4. The
Věruju
movement contains the largest
changes, with the orchestral middle
section, the "Raspet" (an
orchestral commentary on the Crucifixion),
longer and more complex in the original
version and containing a wild section
with three sets of timpani omitted in
the revised version, as well as off-stage
clarinets. Finally, the Svet
(Sanctus) movement is extended thrillingly
near the end, reaching ever higher and
higher. For a detailed analysis of the
Glagolitic Mass and its versions, please
see Paul Wingfield’s study, Janáček:
Glagolitic Mass, Cambridge
University Press, 1992..
In
1953 Janáček pupil Břetislav
Bakala with his native Brno forces first
recorded the Glagolitic Mass in its
published edition. Even though it is
a powerful account of the score performed
by someone who was close to the
composer, its outdated sound prevents
it from consideration in this comparative
review. The recordings to be considered
here go back to the early 1960s when
the work finally received the universal
acclaim that it always deserved. First,
recordings of the standard version as
published in 1930 will be compared;
then the three that restore the original
score (Wingfield ed.).
Timing (Standard version
of Mass)
Ančerl,
Czech Phil (1963) Supraphon (SU 3667-2
911) 39:59
Kubelík, Bavarian
Radio Sym (1965) DG Originals (463 672-2)
38:13
Rattle, City of Birmingham
Sym (1982) EMI GROC (CDM5 66980 2) 39:03
Mackerras, Czech Phil
(1984) Supraphon (33C37-7448) 39:55
Shaw, Atlanta Sym (1990)
Telarc (CD-80287) 38:35
Tilson Thomas, London
Sym (1990) Sony (SK 47182) 41:07
The timings given above
for the six recordings being compared
indicate that most performances come
in under 40 minutes, with Kubelík’s
being the fastest and Tilson Thomas’s
the slowest. This is relevant as will
be seen below.
The recording from
which I learned the Mass was Rafael
Kubelík’s. I first heard it in
1966 and it was a mind-blowing experience.
I decided then and there that I didn’t
need any other! How time has changed
my opinion. Of the six recordings, I
can easily eliminate Simon Rattle’s
from the start due primarily to the
muffled, even mushy recorded sound.
Everything sounds in a blur and the
soloists are not particularly good,
either. Felicity Palmer is operatic,
in the wrong sort of way: too heavy
with a pronounced vibrato and screechy
at the same time, particularly in Slava
(Gloria) movement. John Mitchinson,
the tenor, is okay, but also too "operatic"
for my taste. If I were to describe
Rattle’s interpretation in one word,
it would be "stolid." But
the real culprit is the recorded sound.
The chorus is often indistinct and the
important timpani parts are all but
buried in the murk.
Going back to the Kubelík.
It has two things going for it, wonderful
soloists and clear recorded sound. I
would place Evelyn Lear and Ernst Haefliger
near or even at the top of the competition.
Lear soars in the Slava, as does Haefliger
in the Věruju
movement. All four vocalists shine in
the Svet and Agneče
Božij (Agnus Dei) movements.
The recording, itself, is very good
for its age. Here the timpani are crisp
and clear. However, the very clarity
of the sound exposes for me what ruins
this recording: sub par brass, especially
in both the Úvod and Intrada
movements. It is terribly out of tune
and in the Intrada the musicians can
barely hit the notes. A comparison with
either Ančerl or Mackerras will
soon reveal the difference! Kubelík’s
chorus is fine, if not as idiomatic
as the Czechs for Ančerl and Mackerras.
As a whole, I find his faster tempos
to be detrimental to the ceremonial
nature of the music. The Intrada
is downright perfunctory, but then I
imagine he wanted to get it over as
soon as possible given the state of
his brass players.
I don’t want to dismiss
Robert Shaw’s or Michael Tilson Thomas’s
recordings out of hand, because both
contain some wonderful things. Shaw’s
has the advantages and disadvantages
of Telarc’s sound. His soloists are
also good, with Christine Brewer especially
fine. The main problem is in the interpretation,
or lack of one. Everything seems rather
matter of fact and metrical. He starts
the Věruju
faster than any of the others and makes
it seem perfunctory. On the other hand,
he has what might be the best of all
organ solos in the seventh movement.
This was "piped in" separately
from a church and that could explain
why the sound is somewhat clearer
and better than elsewhere in the recording.
Overall, the sound is big with a full
bass response, but at times the chorus
disappears in it when it should be heard.
Comparison with the much older Ančerl
recording will demonstrate this. What
makes Shaw’s
recording indispensable is the Mass’s
disc-mate: one the best recordings I’ve
ever heard of Dvořák’s infrequently
performed Te Deum. It
blazes where the Mass should but does
not. A real pity.
Tilson Thomas’s is
in many ways a frustrating account.
For me,
it has the best soprano soloist of the
lot in Gabriela Beňačková
and the worst tenor in Gary Lakes. Just
listen to the Slava,
for instance. Beňačková is
perfect in every way — not too heavy
or operatic, but with a real Slavic
tone. Lakes, on the other hand, sounds
as though he would rather be singing
Puccini or some romantic ballad — totally
unidiomatic. You don’t want crooning
in Janáček! Thomas’s interpretation
tends to be more romantic than the others
and drags things out, such as the ending
of the Gospodi pomiluj movement.
Then he is too smooth in the Svet
and rather featureless. The chorus and
orchestra, however, are exemplary. The
recorded sound is a little too "live,"
and the important timpani parts — especially
in the Intrada — get swallowed
up in a roar of sound.
As you may have guessed,
I am saving the best for last. In this
case I have to choose two, both with
the venerable Czech Philharmonic and
Prague Philharmonic Chorus. It is not
only because the Czechs have the music
in their blood, but also
because of their recordings as recordings.
While the recordings made by Karel Ančerl
and Charles Mackerras have much in common
- the timings - there are enough important
differences between them that collectors
should have both. Ančerl’s comes
from 1963
and the one from Mackerras from twenty
years later, yet the sound of the earlier
recording is in no way inferior to the
later one. Ančerl is recorded up
close, with the chorus and soloists
practically in your face; Mackerras
at a greater distance and at a
lower volume level. In fact to make
the Mackerras recording sound as full
as the Ančerl requires an upper
adjustment on the volume control and
a slight reduction in the treble and
increase in the bass. Once this is done,
the performance comes across just
as powerfully
as Ančerl’s.
The
chorus and orchestra perform their hearts
out for both conductors. You can understand
every word and the orchestral interjections
are thrilling. I marginally prefer Ančerl’s
soloists, but the soloists in both recordings
are fine. Ančerl’s soprano, Libuše
Domanínská, and legendary tenor, Beno
Blachut are very idiomatic; Mackerras’s
Elisabeth Söderström is very good, too,
but better in the Svet
than in the Slava where her voice tends
to shrillness at times. František Livora,
while certainly
doing a creditable job, is not in the
Blachut class. Neither soprano eclipses
Beňačková in the Tilson Thomas
recording, though. The alto and bass,
with their less important roles, are
fine in both recordings. The important
organ solos, however,
come across much better in the Mackerras.
This is largely due to the sound of
the organs, rather than the organists’
performances. Both organs have a reedy
quality that is attractive in this score,
but Ančerl’s also has “theatre”
organ quality that is not present
in the Mackerras and detracts from the
performance. I don’t know if this due
to the recording or the actual sound
of the organ, but it is the reason I
have strong preference here for the
Mackerras. That said, both recordings
project the organs powerfully if without
quite the presence of Shaw’s.
Now to specific differences
in the individual movements:
Úvod:
Both open the great mass with fervor.
Ančerl’s tempos are slightly broader
than Mackerras’s but the overall effect
is similar. The orchestral brass is
splendid in both, but the timpani register
better in the Mackerras and are especially
telling later in the movement.
Gospodi pomiluj:
Here it is Ančerl who is slightly
faster, but again there’s very little
in it. I prefer Domanínská to Söderström
here, because of her more idiomatic,
Slavic timbre, but both sopranos are
excellent. Ančerl’s chorus seems
to have more bite at times, perhaps
because of the closer recording.
Slava:
Ančerl is powerful, but arguably
too slow — especially at the end where
his timpani are heavy and mushy and
tempos really drag; Mackerras’s slightly
faster tempos seem perfect to me and
the timpani and organ at the end have
real bite. As I noted above, I prefer
Domanínská to Söderström
in this movement, too.
Věruju:
Ančerl’s tempos are spot-on - not
as fast as Kubelík’s nor as slow as
Rattle’s - and his tenor solo is wonderful.
The chorus is terrific, clear and incisive;
characterful woodwinds, but that “theatre”
organ sound again! Mackerras’s tempos
are also fine as is his tenor, but his
chorus is not as clear as in the Ančerl
where the close-up sound allows for
better diction. Woodwinds
are again special and the orchestral
interlude is terrific with a better
organ than Ančerl’s.
Svet: Both conductors
set ideal tempos, if Mackerras’s seem
slightly slower in the beginning but
faster from the "plna sut nebesa
…" dance section. The soloists
in both are excellent; I like Söderström
better here than I did in the Slava
movement. Mackerras keeps the performance
exciting up to the end with blazing
brass and timpani. Note that he includes
fourteen bars near the end that were
cut from the standard published score.
Ančerl,
who of course used the only available
version, sticks to the standard score.
His is also tremendously exciting, even
though his timpani make less impact
at the end — due in part to the age
of the recording.
Agneče
Božij: While both are excellent
in this
movement, Mackerras has the advantage
of a more modern recording and greater
dynamic range. This is especially important
the last time “pomiluj nas” is sung
much more softly than before. Ančerl’s
closer sound and louder dynamics rob
this ending of some of its mystery.
Organ Solo:
As noted above, I have a preference
for Mackerras. Ančerl’s is still
very powerful — a big, clear sound where
you can hear everything that’s being
played. It’s just the tone of the organ
that bothers me. Mackerras is also powerful
and exciting, and clear. You just have
to make sure you have the volume turned
up, as mentioned above.
Intrada:
Ančerl’s tempo at the beginning
seems somewhat slower than the others
— certainly a far cry from the Kubelík
speed demon! However, Ančerl brings
out the ceremonial majesty better than
anyone else, with really blazing brass.
You can actually hear all of the trumpets’
notes. Only the timpani are a bit too
distant. Mackerras chooses slightly
faster tempos than Ančerl and his
performance loses
something of the majesty of the other.
However, it makes up for this in its
excitement. While the trumpet parts
do not come out as clearly and powerfully
as for Ančerl, the brass as a whole
is superb. And the important timpani
really excel. In the end, it’s
a toss up.
Thus,
overall, both Ančerl and Mackerras
have a great deal to recommend them,
and I cannot see being without either.
Of the other recordings I have not considered
here, I have only a distant memory of
Bernstein, Jílek (also with Beňačková)
and Kempe, and haven’t heard
Chailly, Dutoit, Košler, Masur, Neumann.
In part two, I will consider the available
recordings of the "original"
version of the Mass as edited by Paul
Wingfield. To my knowledge there are
three, all excellent in their own way:
Mackerras, Danish RSO (Chandos), Boulez,
Chicago SO (www.cso.org), and Mackerras,
Czech Phil on DVD (Supraphon). I have
not heard the Svárovský
(Ultraphon) recording reviewed here
in November 2000, which according to
Marc Bridle incorporated some of the
Wingfield revisions (unspecified) [This
recording is coupled with The Eternal
Gospel - see review].
Part Two
It was with great anticipation
and no little excitement that I read
that the original version of the Glagolitic
Mass had been recorded. The fact that
Sir Charles Mackerras was the conductor
was not surprising; what was unexpected
was that he recorded the work not with
Czech or even Vienna forces, but with
the Danish National Radio Symphony for
Chandos. As it turned out, this landmark
recording was a revelation. It still
stands as a safe recommendation for
this version of the work, even if two
live recordings have appeared since
— both of which are even more exciting.
The latter recordings are by Pierre
Boulez and the Chicago Symphony (www.cso.org)
and Mackerras again, on DVD with the
Czech Philharmonic (Supraphon).
Timing
Mackerras, Danish National
RSO (1994) Chandos (CHAN 9310) 40:29
Boulez, Chicago Sym
(2000) www.cso.org
(CSO CD05-2) 42:58
Mackerras, Czech Phil
(2005)* Supraphon DVD (SU 7009-9) 43:03
*The actual performance
took place on 21 March 1996
The timings given here
are somewhat misleading because of longer
pauses between movements in the live
recordings, and the timing on the back
of the Mackerras DVD is actually 45:27
which includes more than two minutes
of applause.
All three of these
recordings have a lot to offer, and
I wouldn’t want to be without any of
them. As I noted above, the Mackerras/Chandos
recording, which was recorded in the
concert hall but apparently not as a
live recording, is a fine performance.
It is well played and sung, even if
the soloists are not as good as those
in the other recordings. Moreover, it
follows the original text to the letter,
e.g., in the Svet movement the
soloists sing "Blagoslovl’en gredyj
v ime Gospodn’e," rather
than the more usual "vo ime,"
of the revised version (which both Boulez
and Mackerras/Supraphon follow). However,
"safe" is not what one necessarily
wants when it comes to the Glagolitic
Mass. Boulez and Mackerras/Supraphon
offer more exciting renditions of the
Mass, even with a few missed notes (Boulez)
and some suspect intonation (Mackerras)
at times.
One
does not associate Boulez with the music
of Janáček and, indeed, the concerts
from which this recording was made were
the first time that he had ever conducted
the work. The excitement of presenting
a work he had not conducted before comes
across in the recording, even if the
interpretation is not as idiomatic as
that of a Czech conductor or Mackerras.
It is splendidly performed, with superb
soloists and outstanding recorded sound.
As one would expect, the Chicago brass
blazes throughout. This might not be
a first choice, but it is a necessary
supplement.
Mackerras,
of course, as one of the greatest Janáček
interpreters, does not disappoint. One
would think that after all the performances
he has conducted of this work in both
editions he might be bored by it. Not
at all. The Supraphon DVD gives us what
is arguably his greatest performance
of the work, though it is rumored that
he has also recorded it in Brno. That
account, to my knowledge, has yet to
be released. Listening to the soundtrack
of this Czech Philharmonic account without
the video is thrilling enough. The visuals,
with excellent camerawork, only add
to one’s pleasure. Where this recording
especially outshines the others is in
the glorious singing of the Prague Philharmonic
Choir. For me, the highlight of the
whole performance is the final choral
entry in the Agneče
Božij. The singing is incredibly
soft, yet with firm underpinning by
the basses, which takes the breath away.
Now to specific differences
in the individual movements: (Mackerras/Chandos
will be referred to Mackerras 1; Mackerras/Supraphon
DVD as Mackerras 2)
Intrada: Mackerras
2 is lighter and faster than either
Boulez or Mackerras 1, if not quite
as imposing as either. All three are
very well played.
Úvod:
All versions are notably faster in the
original scoring with its more complex
meters than in the revised version.
Boulez is somewhat smoother than either
Mackerras recording, and Chicago’s low
brass really projects here.
Gospodi pomiluj:
The superiority of the Czech choir shows
here with its diction especially clear.
Again the Boulez brass is very imposing,
and he adopts a slightly slower tempo.
His oboe and that of Mackerras 2 are
really beautiful. As for the soloists,
both here (soprano only) and elsewhere,
Boulez and Mackerras 2 are superior
to those in Mackerras 1.
Slava: Mackerras
sets perfect tempos in both versions,
while Boulez is much slower and smoother.
Yet his tempo still works, especially
with the radiant singing of soprano
Elzbieta Szmytka. Mackerras 2’s Eva
Urbanová is also wonderful here;
both are considerably better than
Mackerras 1’s Tina Kiberg, whose singing
can be overwrought at times. The same
is true for the tenors, with Leo Marian
Vodička (Mackerras 2) and Stuart
Neill (Boulez) superior to Mackerras
1’s Peter Svensson, who tends to strain
at higher levels. Orchestrally,
Mackerras 2 excels with his very incisive
timpani, whereas Boulez overwhelms with
his stupendous brass and thundering
organ. Some of the differences here
are due to the closer, drier recording
on Mackerras 2. The Boulez recording
is fuller and more reverberant, but
still clearer than Mackerras 1.
Věruju:
All three begin this movement very well
and the tenor soloists are more evenly
matched here. The big differences come
in the Raspet (Crucifixion) orchestral
section. The flute solo is exquisite
in both Boulez and Mackerras 2; not
quite at that level in Mackerras 1 but
still very good. Mackerras 2’s clarinet
is reedier, typically Czech, than the
others. However, in both Mackerras recordings
the clarinet trio is played "offstage"
as requested in the original score;
the Boulez sounds upfront and as loud
as his solo clarinet. The wild section
with the three sets of timpani is presented
variously in the three recordings. In
Mackerras 1, one is not as aware of
the overlaying string melody as in Boulez
where the strings seem to predominate,
and Boulez takes this section at a slower
tempo than Mackerras in either version.
In Mackerras 2, the strings definitely
take a back seat to the timpani, which
are very powerful, and there is a cymbal
clash near the end that is not audible
in the other recordings. All three impress,
but perhaps Mackerras 1 achieves the
best balance. Still both Mackerras 2
and Boulez in their own ways are mightily
impressive here. As is true elsewhere,
the organ makes a greater impact in
the Boulez recording than in the Mackerras
where the organs have a more distant
presence. As to the bass soloist, first
heard in this movement, Mackerras 1’s
Ulrik Cold sings with a pronounced and
rather unsteady vibrato compared to
Peter Mikuláš (Mackerras 2) and
Nathan Berg (Boulez), both of whom are
superior.
Svet: Boulez
takes this movement at a slower tempo
than Mackerras in either version, but,
as in the Raspet section of Věruju,
it works. The solo violin, however,
is best in Mackerras 2, much more of
a presence than in the other recordings.
The superiority of the soloists in both
Mackerras 2 and Boulez once again makes
itself known here. Peter Mikuláš
is especially good in his solo. The
"Plna sut" dance section is
also taken at a faster clip in the Mackerras
versions, but Boulez compensates with
outstanding brass playing. One can really
appreciate the tuba in his performance.
As noted above, only Mackerras 1 follows
the textual changes of the original
version.
Agneče
Božij: The choral entrance
in all three versions is warm yet clear,
beautifully sung, but Mackerras 2 is
far superior to the others on the choir’s
last, extremely quiet appearance. This
is a world apart from the other performances
and a highlight of the Mackerras 2 version.
The soloists in their turn all do themselves
proud; Ulrik Cold in Mackerras 1 is
better here than he was elsewhere, if
not as good as the other basses. The
alto, who made a brief appearance in
the Svet, is more of a presence
here. Randi Stene in Mackerras 1, Nancy
Maultsby (a mezzo) in Boulez, and Bernarda
Fink in Mackerras 2 are all excellent
in the solo and duet with the soprano.
The horn, which accompanies the tenor
in this movement, is especially noteworthy
in Mackerras 2.
Organ Solo:
While all the organ soloists impress,
Boulez’s David Schrader seems at first
to be the obvious choice due to the
upfront recording of the organ. It is
very present with a great deal of bass.
However, on repeated listening, I have
come to prefer the Mackerras versions’
more distant, yet full organ sound.
My favorite at the moment is Per Salo
on Mackerras 1 largely because I prefer
the sound of the organ there to the
reedier one as played by Jan Hora on
Mackerras 2. However, none of these
surpass that by the unnamed organist
in Robert Shaw’s recording of the revised
version.
Intrada: The
second appearance of this movement is
no mere copy of its appearance at the
beginning of the Mass. Especially in
the Mackerras versions, it is much more
emphatic this time round. Mackerras
1 seems slightly slower and heavier
than Mackerras 2, but still very good.
Mackerras 2 makes a terrific impact,
with its blazing trumpets and incisive
timpani. In both performances he ends
the work with a tremendous thwack, but
in the later one he has a slight pause
before the timpani’s final notes. Boulez
is also excellent, with great trumpets
and lower brass as usual, even if his
timpani are neither as present nor his
ending as emphatic as that of Mackerras.
To sum up, if I were
to choose just one recording of the
Glagolitic Mass to take to my desert
island it would have to be the Mackerras
DVD — even if I had only audio capability
there! Having said that, however, I
would really miss the 1963 Ančerl
and 1984 Mackerras Czech Philharmonic
recordings of the revised version. To
these I would want to supplement at
least the Boulez and for individual
sections or soloists some of the others
as noted above.
John L. Wright
Addendum to Glagolitic
Mass Comparative Review
When
I wrote my comparative review of recordings
of Janáček’s Glagolitic Mass, I
referred to the recording by Leos Svárovský
with the Czech Philharmonic Chorus of
Brno and the Czech Symphony Orchestra
of Brno (Ultraphon UP 0011 2
231) by way of an earlier MusicWeb review
by Marc Bridle. Because I had not heard
that recording I could not use it in
my comparison, but it was very favorably
reviewed. Thanks to your founder, I
have now heard that performance and
must conclude that it is in the same
class with Ančerl
and Mackerras. According to Bridle,
some of the revisions of the reconstructed
original score by Paul Wingfield were
included in this performance. After
listening closely to the performance
several times, I have not been able
to detect any of these revisions.
Nonetheless, this recording is clearly
one of the very best of the published
version, right up there with Ančerl
and Mackerras. The singing and playing
is marvelously idiomatic and the soloists
are all superb. Overall, I prefer them
to Mackerras’s
and, with the possible exception of
the tenor, to Ančerl’s. Ančerl’s
Beno Blachut is indeed hard to beat.
The sound, moreover, is for the most
part the best of the three. The work
is vividly recorded with a good perspective
(not too close as Ančerl
sometimes is, or as distant as Mackerras
sounds--requiring some knob twiddling).
The organ could have greater presence
at times, but the important timpani
are very powerful especially in the
earlier movements. For example, in the
Slava section they are really
incisive; and later in the movement
there are two instances of timpani crescendi
that are not audible in other recordings.
Did the conductor add them? If so, they
are effective, if not necessary. I noticed
in the later movements and especially
in the final Intrada
(which is nearly as majestic as Ančerl’s)
that the timpani sound more muffled.
I assume this is due to the recording
and not the performance. This is a minor
cavil in what may possibly be my current
favorite recording of this version of
the Mass. It in no way replaces those
of the longer, Wingfield version, however.
The overall timing for the Svárovský
recording is 41:23, 1˝ minutes longer
than Ančerl or Mackerras, but not
enough to make a notable difference.
John L.Wright
JANACEK-MSA
GLAGOLSKAJA
Leos Janacek Glagolitic Mass;
The Eternal Gospel/Vecne Evangelium
E. Drizgova - Soprano, H. Stolfova-Bandova
- Contra-Alto, V. Dolezal - Tenor, J.
Sulzenko - Bass, M. Jakubicek - Organ,
Czech Philharmonic Chorus of Brno and
Czech Symphony Orchestra of Brno, conductor
Leos Svarovsky
UP 0011 2231 FP DDD £10.50 postage
paid