Customer Reviews

Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique /ORR * Gardiner

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a revised version of my earlier review, and I hve to rewrite it because I was in a hurry to submit it and did not put enough thought into that one.

With Gardiner's period-instrument recording of the Berlioz Fantastique, we find ourselves a part of the music's interesting world that fascinated the Parisian audience at its premiere. Recorded in the original venue of its 1830 world premiere, it proves, along with Gardiner's companion Polygram recording of the complete Beethoven symphonies, that period performances need not be anaemic and boring, including this one, especially when this performance has a high voltage and bings the cork cohesively. The suspenseful, spellbinding and peerless playing of the Orchestre Revolutionaire et Romantique is enough to give Roger Norrington's London Classical Players a run for their money, and every small detail shines through perfectly. The admittedly dry accoustic, which seems like a menace to some, shows its positive side here by allowing this to happen, and the Philips engineers have risen to the challenge of producing perfect srecorded sound within such accoustics.

Gardiner sets the romantic tone of the piece with his opening Reveries, showing the wide range of emotions in the artist in relation to his unattainable beloved. When he reaches the main Allegro section, he gives the movement ample forward thrust and impetus, and brings out both the hysteria and the sweet innocence of the idee fixe at the same time. The Ball sequence that follows sways with a lyrical edge and, though the period violing may lack the full sweetness of modern-day instruments today, it is still an enjoyable listen, especially when it contains the cornet obligato. For the next part of the work, the performance quietens down with the onset of the Scene in the Country. The wind players bring out the dream-like quality of the movement, aided by the shimmering strings that still sound beautiful despite their age. But in the lsat two movements, including the climax, Gardiner gets the blood racing again with a menacing and ferocious March to the Scaffold (replete with blazing brass) and a macabre Dream of a Sabbath Night (replete with a ludicrous Dies Irae parody, a witches' round dance, and added special effects from the use of the ophicleide and serpent) that increase the blood pulse sharply and work its way up to a devastating climax and eventual big finish.

To sum everything up, this digital Fantastique is certain to be counted among the top recommendations of this much-loved work, and Gardiner proves himself to be the period-instrument Sir Colin Davis. This recording also makes a valuable companion piece to the Beethoven. Thank you VERY MUCH John Eliot, and well done to everybody who have helped Gardiner make this successful recording. And let us hope that Philips will record more, including period-instrument Brahms and Mendelssohn symphonies.

Why not imagine that today is December 5, 1830, rather than December 5, 2003? And that you are a Parisian concertgoer, more or less knowledgeable about the music of the time, including that of Ludwig van Beethoven, whose symphonies were just in the process of "being discovered" by Parisians of the time? Place yourself, if you will, in the concert hall of the Paris Conservatoire on this date, to hear the first public performance of any work by a young French composer - still six days shy of his 27th birthday - who, in the previous two years, had been dramatically affected by hearing Beethoven's symphonies.

That Frenchman was of course Hector Berlioz, and his work that received its premiere on December 5, 1830 was his Symphonie fantastique. And, if you had been one of the concertgoers at this premiere, as you proceeded to your seat, you would take in the vista of an orchestra whose likes (and size) you had never seen before, one with four harps across the front, a battery of timpani arrayed across the rear, and, as well, a number of woodwind and brass instruments never before seen in such an ensemble. An unusually young man with an unruly mop of red hair would take the podium, thence to lead the orchestra in a near-hour-long work that would affect the course of musical history for a century to come. The work would be an instant success, and young Berlioz, unruly red mop and all, would become an overnight celebrity as a result.

What John Eliot Gardiner and his Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique have endeavored to do in this recording is nothing less than to recapture the excitement of that premiere, right down to details such as the actual performance venue and the incorporation of period instruments used by Berlioz then but seldom since. This is as close as one could possibly come to recreating that evening, and the recreation is a splendid, even smashing, success.

Listening to this recording is - for me, anyway - almost like hearing the work for the first time. Certainly, it is the first time the work has sounded so fresh, and not the battered old war horse that we're used to hearing, both in concert and on recordings. While the freshness (and the clarity) are there from the get-go, the real differences begin to show up in the second movement, "Un bal," where four harps (for which Berlioz wrote in a new style not heard before) are arrayed across the front of the orchestra, with the recording perfectly capturing the horizontal space they occupy. Later in this movement, it is easy to pick out the unique timbre of the cornet a piston as being readily distinct from the valveless trumpets also in the Berlioz orchestra. (This is somewhat of an anomaly, but an excusable one, since the instrument only became available sometime before Berlioz revised the work after this premiere performance.)

The third movement - "Scene aux champs" - adds an aspect of three-dimensional depth, with its English horn in the foreground echoed by the oboe nicely placed in the background. At the end of this movement, so obviously a tribute to Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony which Berlioz had heard for the first time just the previous year, the battery of timpani arrayed across the full rear of the orchestra give a splendid sense of distant thunder.

But it is in the last two movements where the original Berlioz intentions, as recreated by Gardiner, are best realized, particularly with the snarl and buzz coming from the ophicleide and serpent (later replaced by the bass tuba, but not with nearly as exciting an effect), and the slimey , penetrating bite of the E-flat sopranino clarinet. As well, the bells that Gardiner has at hand for the "Dies Irae" section of the final movement are appropriately ominous in their sonority. The performance ends in a glorious rush, resplendent in its brass textures owing to Gardiner's choice of period instruments.

In point of fact, much of the instrumental texture heard in these two movements, as well as Berlioz's use of the cornet in the second movement, is owed to his willingness to "borrow" instruments commonly used in military bands of the time but not in symphony orchestras. In the main, this was a practice not picked up by subsequent composers, but Gustav Mahler for one had a similar approach to instrumentation (and in fact was an ardent admirer of this Berlioz work).

We hear the work differently these days. Modern instrument construction provides a wider dynamic range, brighter timbres and more certain intonation (although Gardiner's musicians have no intonation problems whatsoever). The newcomer to Gardiner's recreation might at first think this approach to be on the subdued side, on account of the smaller absolute range of dynamic possibilities with period instruments. But the range of instrumental textures these period instruments achieve comes across as wider and more distinctive, rather than the more homogenized and "standardized" timbres we've become acclimated to: the timbral range more than makes up for any - and mostly inconsequential - reduction in dynamic range.

Heard in this freshly-reconstructed period-instrument light, the Symphonie fantastique is a marvel of clarity and originality, in my opinion superior in its dramatic and poetic impact over the later-revised version that Berlioz was to produce, mainly to deal with the exigencies and economics of performance practice and period instrument availability. If you are to have as few as two recordings of this work, this needs to be one of those two.

Happy anniversary, Louis-Hector Berlioz, for this breakthrough work!

Bob Zeidler

Well, Gardiner's "Fantastique" could be the best "authentic" recording of this orchestral masterpiece if not the poor recorded sound. It is simply thin and does not caress the ear as it could if another venue for the recording has been chosen. Instead, the recording was made in the old Paris Conservatory, where the symphony was first performed in 1830. I don't really care for this kind of "historical reconstruction" - it is a wonderful experience when you are in the concert hall, but recording is a different matter. I still say that this is a "Fantastique" to reckon with, but Gardiner should try to record it once again (he shouldn't have any troubles with convincing his record companies how "urgent" a new recording of Berlioz's masterpiece is since they all seem to invite his ideas - both good and bad - with open arms!), this time in a good recording studio. This way he could not only produce excitement (which, I agree, is very important with Berlioz), but also a lush orchestral sound with all the nuances of the marvellous score (as in his recording of "Harold in Italy"). But the CD is worth exploring for the ophicleides, which - judging from the Belioz's autobiography - were quite special to the composer.

Sir John Eliot Gardiner's rousing interpretation of Berlioz's "Symphonie Fantastique" ranks alongside those of Sir Colin Davis (Davis' recordings with the Concertgebouw and London Symphony orchestras) as among the finest available. Unfortunately, the sound quality isn't as ambient as those from Davis, since it was recorded in the Paris concert hall where the work had its world premiere in 1830 (The acoustics tend to be a bit dry and washed out.). Still, Gardiner manages to lead his orchestra in an illuminating performance noted for the lush, warm playing of its string section and vibrant brass; the latter sounds delightfully wicked in the 4th "March to the Scaffold" movement. Having also heard Norrington's interpretation with his period-instrument London Classical Players, I must say that Gardiner's interpretation is far more dramatic. Anyone interested in a well-played, exciting rendition of "Symphonie Fantastique" will certainly want to acquire this CD, despite its sound quality problems.

I bought this disk mainly because of my admiration for Gardiner and the Orchestre's recording of the Beethoven symphonies. I had the opportunity to play this piece in college and am always ready to hear another interpretation.
I am a period performance fan and I prefer the clarity of the period orchestra. Some complain of a lack of lushness, but I find that for me, 'lushness' often translates as 'muddiness' in the playing precision of the orchestra. I think that Berlioz' music is intrinsicly lush and doesnt necessarily need the oversized forces often employed in its performance, which this performance admirabley demonstrates. Remember, this piece was debuted in 1830, a mere 3 years after Beethoven's death, which is a tribute to its composer's novelty and foresight. Anyway, the performance is enjoyable throughout especially with the inclusion of the trumpet obbligato in the Bal.

My only wish is that the acoustics were a litte 'wetter'. I know that it was recorded in the original hall that it was debuted in, but a little more reverb would only serve to enhance the performance.

I won't repeat a lot of the comments of the other reviewers (except to agree with them), but Gardiner gets into the "story" of this music better than anyone. This isn't just a symphony; this is an somewhat psychotic experience - a dream both bad and good. And the music is propelled in a dizzying manner. Other versions seem to smooth over the various instrumental combinations and weirdness; this one accentuates them. The sonics are tubby but who cares...

There are a lot of thoughtful reviews examining this recording's aural and artistic merits. The main points of criticism reference the "close" acoustic and direct overall approach. The main points of approval reference the clarity of detail and surprises in the orchestration.

To me, it all adds up to the recommendation that this should not be anyone's first or only recording of Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. To me, this is a somewhat close acoustic of a performance that tries to let the music speak for itself. Read on to see why I recommend this recording.

When I had my first glass of dry Bordeaux wine, I thought "how could anyone really like this stuff? Anyone who says they do is posturing!" But my more experienced friends urged me to "try it a few more times and you'll develop a taste for it". There are some people who are used to very sweet wines and beverages. Should they *have* to "try it a few more times"? Those of us who know what it's like to develop a taste for dry, tannic, oaky red wines would heartily answer "yes!". We're never happy with "I know what I like, and I like what I know".

I don't mean to imply that the negative reviewers here are inexperienced or closed minded. Clearly that is not the case.

I worked in record stores while in college in the early 70s. At that time the "authentic" or "original instruments" movement was nascent, with people like Nikolaus Harnoncourt and his Concentus Musicus, and Gustav Leonhardt and others screeching away at old violins, blatting it out on sacbutts, and coaxing tinny cembalos or pianofortes. But, in the 40 years since, techniques and experience with these instruments, as well as my ears, have all improved with time, and I find the latest HIP (historically informed performances) recordings are enjoyable for their own merits - not merely as curiosities or academic pursuits.

The "authentic" recordings are not rich and lush like full modern orchestra performances. In the early 70's I was used to the more lush sounds, sometimes wall of sounds that you'd hear in Berlin Philharmonic and Chicago Symphony recordings. Conductors of Beethoven and Mahler, and even Mozart and Bach, had developed approaches to music that would lay it on heavy as if the music wasn't dramatic enough already, or as if the composer would have done it differently today.... But others stepped back to assess some of the approaches that had become taken for granted (doubling instruments, modifying the scores), and breathed new life into them. I have "tried them again a few more times".

So, I do enjoy a dry red bordeaux at times, and I like a Piesporter with more sweet body at other times. They are both totally valid on their own merits and for their own distinctive styles.

I do find this recording exciting. I can hear the fingering action on the wind instruments racing through the fast moments in the March to the Gallows and Witches Sabbath movements. The sound is "closer", unlike a large resonant concert hall, but it also sounds like I am in that smaller hall with them. The ensemble is tight, which makes me hold my breath. I do wish there was a little more freedom in the Ball movement to make it feel more like dancing, but that is not a big distraction. The middle movement is excellent, totally involving unlike any other recording save perhaps Colin Davis' with Concertgebouw (from the 70's).

All in all, this is an excellent performance of a piece of music which, like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, deserves reappraisal from time to time. Although my favorite recording of this piece is Colin Davis with the Concertgebouw, I return to this performance for its own strengths, not just to listen to an academic lecture.

This is simply the best Berlioz Symphony Fantastique I have ever heard, recorded in 1991 at the same location and with the
same instruments of its premiere in Paris in 1871. But apart from the authenticity and the incredible sound, Gardiner's interpretation is
absolutely overwhelming and totally convincing. I doubt whether ever there was a better version of this much-recorded piece.-
A "must buy".

Reading David Cairns's magnificent Berlioz biography got me listening to a lot of his music of late, including the several recordings of the Fantastique that I own. There are many very good versions of this work around: multiple incarnations under Colin Davis; a much praised account on DG by Myung Whun Chung; a classic by Muti; an excellent and sumptuously recorded version by Dutoit (now at bargain price); and this version by Gardiner, too, has won critical acclaim. Yet I never managed to enthuse about it, and a rehearing confirmed my earlier impressions. In its zeal to recreate the actual sound of the premiere, in December 1830, the music and its atmosphere are eclipsed by the documentary purpose. Though few tourists seem to be aware of it, the Conservatoire hall in Paris, where Berlioz heard many of his works played and which he considered the only decent concert hall in France, still exists, and that is where Gardiner and his band repaired to record this disc. Unfortunately, the Conservatoire hall is very small and has an unforgiving, dry acoustic which does no favours to the players. The sounds at times verge on ugliness. On the plus side, the recording is very transparant and detailed, and of course Gardiner's players are experts who need not fear being audible throughout (assuming, of course, that the listener is willing to accept the coarser sounds of authentic instruments, which in this work can make for some uncomfortable listening). The first three movements come off quite nicely, in fact, though musically speaking I don't feel they stand out in any way. Gardiner includes the cornet in 'Un Bal', a not too happy afterthought by Berlioz. The slow movement is the only one that manages to engender some sense of atmosphere and carry the listener out of that cramped little hall for a while. But in the final two movements, where most of the 'grand guignol' thrills are, the thing falls completely flat. There is neither menace nor grandeur in the Marche au Supplice; instead, there is a light-headed jauntiness that is quite out of place. The woodwind glissandi at the start of the Witches Sabbath are marvellous and promising, but the Dies Irae following them is perfunctory to put it mildly - even the uncouth (and underrecorded) rasp of the ophicleide does nothing to change this (though the deep bells are very well chosen). Afterwards, the Witches Round Dance hangs fire, and the end is reached without producing a single goose bump. To be sure, it is all very INTERESTING, and dedicated Berliozians will want this disc for that reason alone. But I cannot imagine that if Berlioz could have his pick from the many recordings now available, he would go for this one. When it comes to getting the gothic fancy and romantic ardour of this music across, Dutoit is a much safer choice. If it is authenticism you want, the Norrington (which, incidentally, appeared long before this Gardiner, yet was sadly elbowed out by it) is much to be preferred.

Much has been made of the effect period instruments make in performance. According to the advocates of so-called "Historically Informed Performances" (HIP), music sounds best when performed with instruments that are exactly like those available when the music was written. A trumpet isn't enough. It has to be a valveless trumpet. Woodwinds have to be made of wood. Timpani must use animal skins and be struck with "hard sticks," or whatever. The catch-phrase is, "If you like [Mozart, Bach or some other composer], period instruments are the way to go." The advocates seem to have won the day, as most recordings of baroque music, and many recordings of classical era music (ca 1750 - ca 1830) utilize period instruments. Even Mahler and Bruckner have been recorded using period instruments.

Count me as one of the skeptics. The so-called HIP performances are never as effective as performances on modern instruments, something I have felt since I first became aware of the trend in the late 1970's. The dim sounding period instruments produce a washed-out sound that remind me of a recording played back with treble and bass turned all the way down. Comparing period instruments to modern instruments is like comparing a candle to an electric light.

John Eliot Gardiner's recording of the Symphonie Fantastique used period instruments, and was recorded in the same small room in which the premiere took place. The goal was to reproduce the sound and excitement of the original performance. It is an interesting historical exercise, in the same way a Civil War re-enactors convention would re-create the Battle of Gettysburg. When listening to Gardiner's performance, you hear, as best as can be determined by modern scholarship, what the audience heard when the work was premiered in 1830 or thereabout.

But is it better music making? Does the use of period instruments automatically make a performance better, as HIP advocates claim? No. In this performance, the music gained nothing from the historical practices and period instruments. The hall in which the performance was recorded was small, and the acoustics were dry. The recording sounds like late 1940's mono. Others have complained that it was a good performance marred by poor recorded sound. I disagree. I believe it sounds exactly as Gardiner intended. It sounds like a poor recording, but that's what period instruments sound like. The natural sound of period instruments in their original environment will sound like a poor job by the recording engineers. It doesn't sound good because period instruments don't sound good. This recording demonstrates all that is wrong with "historically informed performance" practices.

Gardiner is a talented musician, and his performance could have been a good one. Unfortunately, all of his work, and the work of his orchestra, is wasted in his misguided quest for historical purity.