Customer Reviews

Gershwin / Heyward: Porgy & Bess (1935)

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

 

 

Q: What do Pogy & Bess and Verdi's Don Carlos have in common?
A: Both fell victim to 'Last Train Syndrome'.
How interesting to learn that both these scores, so full of glories, so rich in human character and emotion, arrived at the rehearsal room as huge, rambling structures, only to have drastic cuts forced on them before opening night in order that audiences wouldn't miss the last trains back to the suburbs!
Gershwin, unlike Verdi, never got to revise his score following its first stages production, so we'll never know what his final thoughts may have been had he lived a normal lifespan. This new recording, the fruit of meticulous research into the original pit parts and production notes, reproduces what the first New York audiences heard in the theatre. Approximately 25 minutes of music was cut from the original, published score. The result was an admittedly more focused narrative, with a stronger through-line for all the main characters.
But, musically, the losses are hard borne. Most sadly missed are the evocative Jasbo Brown blues, the quasi-religious prelude to the crap game, I Ain't Got No Shame, Maria's tirade against Spotin' Life and...oh, what's the point of going on?
In addition, the singing {with the welcome exceptions of Crown and Mingo) is competent rather than distinguished, and Mauceri's conducting safe, rather than inspired.
I enjoyed the dramatic integrity of this set, but it will never replace John de Main and Houston Grand Opera.

If I were to have only one recording of Porgy and Bess, it would definately be the Houston Grand Opera recording on RCA. It is COMPLETE and wonderfully cast and conducted. The cuts, albeit sanctioned by George Gershwin are very bothersome. While the main characters are a bit more focused, they lose depth because they are no longer an integral part of a rich tapestry of community life. Other reviewers mentioned specific cuts that they regretted. I will second that opinion, I miss what was cut as well. The casting would be fine for a performance in a regional opera house, but not the stuff of great recordings. Even though the principals in Houston's recording did not have major careers in major American Opera Houses, they all rose to levels of greatness. Simon Rattle's Glynbourne recording is cast with singers who had and have major careers and next to this recording, it shows. With all that said, I prefer John Mauceri's conducting over Rattle's which can be a bit idiosyncratic. American Popular music is not mother's milk to Sir Simon Rattle, and while he conducts decently in all the major moments, he does not make transitions as well as he might. This is Mauceri's strength, he knows how this music should go and how to make it flow because it is part of him and has been for many years. Oh what he could have done with a complete recording and a first rate cast. First choice among Porgy and Bess Recordings is definately Houston Grand on RCA, second choice for me is Lehman Engle in a 1950s mono performance for Columbia, which although badly cut is brilliantly sung and conducted. Simon Rattle is for those for whom Porgy is a singer's opera, which is not me. It is the most gloriously sung and has much to recommend it. Beyond these three recordings, the rest are major disappointments.

Following in the line of his recordings of STREET SCENE and REGINA, the John Mauceri recording of PORGY AND BESS, alas, underwhelms. The people involved state this as the PORGY Gershwin wanted. I would rather say that it's the PORGY Gershwin realistically settled for.

The use of subsequent changes in the libretto and lyrics for certain offensive words alone calls into question the historical accuracy of this "1935 version". One has to wonder what other unspoken compromises have been made. Further statements in the notes for this recording have a scent of self-congratulation and self-justification rather than musical scholarship, at the expense of Gershwin's full, original version. One glaring statement involves Act III's "Occupational Humoresque", stating this recording captures its first performance since 1938, ignoring the fact that the effect was heard in the 1959 film and its soundtrack album.

As for the recording itself, no one will accuse it of mimicking Maazel's "conservatory" approach. Mauceri isn't that careful. He allows his soloists a wide berth, to the point where at times they're not with the orchestra at all. At times, its just sloppy. The one good thing this abridged version does is bring into proper perspective the musical and dramatic cohesiveness and magnitude of Gershwin's full score as we have thankfully known it for the last thirty years.

In short, this recording is not recommended- a wasted opportunity for an American masterwork. For the original complete score that Gershwin composed and orchestrated, I would go with the Houston Grand Opera recording, not the Glyndebourne. And a better two-disc (slightly abridged) recording on Sony or Naxos(UK) conducted by Lehman Engel in 1951 is a personal favorite.

New versions of Porgy and Bess are rare on CD, and for almost two decades the ultra-complete set under Simon Rattle (EMI) has dominated the field. It's been waiting for an American production to challenge it, but Mauceri's new set isn't it. For one thing, the conductor is woefully flat and foursquare in his rhythms--it's embarrassing to hear the jazz drained out of every number.

The two principals, Alvy Powell and Marquita Lister, are decent, but both have wobbly voices under pressure and a tendency to tip-toe through their most famous numbers, as if passion is too vulgar ('Bess, you is my woman now' is especially lifeless). The performers in general seem uncertain about how to play the dated Catfish Row denizens, so we hear every kind of accent from Sportin' Life's blackface caricature to Bess's hoity-toity opera vowels. The selling point that this is "how Gershwin himself would have done it" might carry more weight if the performance itself wasn't so lackluster.

The other "Porgy"s are recordings of the first draft. This version plays as theater first and foremost. The revisions to the orchestrations and the vocal backings are sometimes subtle but wonderful. The cast isn't the greatest ever assembled unfortunately. The "Buzzard Song" was cut because the original Porgy Duncan's voice would have given out; it should have been recorded here. Which leaves it up to someone else to take this and build the definitive version. Any new version should use these orchestrations - they are definitively improvements. And the cut songs put back in in the latest orchestrations that exist (Gershwin like Weill did his own orchestrations). Gershwin had always been assumed to have bitten off more than he could chew and lost his theater instincts in the process - this version proves that isn't true. Making "Porgy" like "Candide" - a masterpiece puzzle with the pieces never yet properly put together. But as musical drama this is the best recording, entirely because Gershwin solved the problems it was assumed he hadn't listening to the other recordings. It is a shame Gershwin died so suddenly and so young - undoubtably he intended to return and finish polishing this score, his greatest work.

The big hype on this recording is that it is the Porgy and Bess that Gershwin really wanted. Well here's a strange problem to consider. In 1936 Gershwin recorded excerpts from Porgy and Bess, and Lawrence Tibbett sang "The Buzzard Song" with Gershwin conducting. (This is a must for anyone loving this opera: Helen Jepson, Lawrence Tibbett and Gershwin conducting. Wow.) Now if Gershwin didn't want it in the score, why did he record it? BECAUSE THE 1935 VERSION IS WHAT HE HAD TO SETTLE FOR. Some of the reworked sections are nothing more than rewrites to facilitate cuts. Reorchestrations are another matter. They should be studied. But to claim this is Porgy as it should be performed is erroneous.

The performances are not bad. I wouldn't walk out of a performance sung in this fashion. But frankly, most of these singers would never be hired to sing other opera. The voices spread, the top notes are iffy, and the diction is spotty. Mauceri is also rather boring. I bought it hoping that at least the performances would be good. Sorry, but they aren't. This is a pity, since no other operas are getting studio recordings. This one is up against the Houston Grand, Sir Simon Rattle's account and even Maazel, all of whom have performance stars above this meager effort.

OK. Here's the deal, at least as I see it.

We have an embarrassment of riches here: Depending on your definition of the word "complete", there are now as many as four complete recordings of George Gershwin's astounding masterpiece, "Porgy and Bess", for us to choose from, or, for that matter, to pick and choose from.

Why "as many as"? Well, because the eminent conductor/musicologist in charge of this newest recording took the scholarly position of wanting to present a "Porgy and Bess" which adhere's to Gershwin's final intentions. Admirable, of course, but a treacherous road to take, full of pot holes and worse.

I'm not going to get into which of the four complete recordings (Lorin Maazel's beautifully recorded and performed `70s version on Decca has just been reissued) is best, because it is simply an unanswerable question. Each version has its' definite pluses and minuses. But laudable though this newest version may be, I am forced to conclude it has the largest number of minuses. So many and so serious, in fact, that I fear it does not survive them.

First and foremost are the cuts. They are substantial and noticeable. Featured characters fade into insignificance. But principal characters lose music as well. The problem is, after all these years, we are finally getting to know "Porgy and Bess." We are becoming emotionally attached, as we would to any piece of music we happen to like, to certain elements of the score that others might find unimportant, or, worse yet, unauthentic. When we hear this new recording, for all its' merits, and there are many, we find something missing. Literally, unfortunately. Although the trims help move the action along at a brisker clip, I'm not convinced this is always a desired result. And that's even taking into account that Gershwin the performer, was not known to twaddlle. Have you heard any of his recordings? Another problem here are the singers. Now any stage production would be proud to have put together this cast. But we're not in the theater here. We're listening on our CD players, our iPods, our phones, for God sake. Vocal weaknesses become more and more noticeable upon the repeated hearings the stage performance isn't exposed to.

Not everything is negative here. Maestro Mauceri's conducting is, as always, first rate. He obviously knows this score forward and backward, and probably upside down as well. The recorded sound is excellent. The orchestra, somewhat thinned down when compared to the other recordings, performs transparently and with a wonderful sense of spirit. They should be proud of their work. And, due to the cuts and the somewhat brisker performance in general, the whole thing has been squeezed onto two CDs rather than three. Economics are always important, no less so in these.....uh......"troubled" times.

My preferred "Porgy"? I'm afraid the answer is "no". Worth a listen or two? Oh, yes. Please do. Absolutely.

So, what about the other three? Well, I think they should be reviewed on their own, not here. It must be said I have a personal involvement with the Maazel recording that may influence my objectivity., I love it a great deal and find it to be invariably moving. However, and giving credit to all, especially Maestro Maazel, for wonderful work, I think some might find it just a tad too serious. Maazel tends to slightly de-emphasize the tin-pan alley heritage from which this score comes. But it will always hold pride of place as the first "complete" recording. And the sound, always a knockout, is even better in this CD release. That leaves Glyndebourne and Houston. And that's where it leaves me, too. I find both recordings to be outstanding. And I find it impossible to pick between them.

So, pick and choose? Sorry, I can't do it. I have to have both of them. And, well, of course the Maazel, for my own reasons. And now that I think about it, there were some things in the Mauceri version that I might want to hear again when the dust settles. Better hang onto it to. Oh, God. I'm right back where I began.

Well, that's "Porgy and Bess' for you!

I've heard many versions of Porgy & Bess during my search for a more modern medium to replace my old Decca LP's.

I do not understand what others find so wonderful about the grand opera versions of this, the only American opera, to date, that will stand the test of time, because Porgy & Bess is not grand opera; it is folk opera.

For this masterpiece to be taken to the most powerful of voices, both high and low, is to misunderstand Gershwin's musical attraction to the Colored Folks of the poor South. Porgy & Bess is a musical painting that is unique, and the words are just as important for its authenticity. "Take the sky," not is not the same as "take to the sky." "Mama's good lookin'," is not the same as "ma is good lookin'."

I have heard famous and great African-American singers "whiten" this emotional salute from the composer's and librettist's hearts by "fixing" the words which were created for the music by Dubose and Dorothy Heyward and by Ira Gershwin. Those words comprise historically authentic expressions that the characters would likely have used. Those pronunciations have their own beat which is so much fun to sing and hear AS WRITTEN. The language is a vivid part of American history which cannot be changed or denied.

This Decca release is the first CD version of Porgy & Bess that I was almost completely comfortable buying. While it's true that I would have loved to hear the buzzard song and others, we did get the strawberry girl and the crab man that other recordings have omitted. The sound is large and crisp, though you might hear tiny "bups" now and then which should not lessen your enjoyment of this CD set.
Gershwin / Heyward: Porgy & Bess (1935)

At the outset let me say that I'm one of those who much prefer the published version of PORGY AND BESS to the "opening night" text; but that aside, recording the original performance text is a worthy endeavor. Unfortunately the recording has been sabotaged by poor singing. The two leads heard here have performed PORGY AND BESS in opera houses on many occasions and inside a theater it's possible to overlook their vocal deficiencies and concentrate on their finely honed characterizations; on a recording, however, what we're left with are ragged voices that don't do justice to the music. While not quite the same text as presented here, Goddard Lieberson's wonderful 1951 recording is much more satisfying and presents the opera in a very similar format (without the "Occupational Humoresque" that opens Act III, Scene 3 on this set--but with "The Buzzard Song," eliminated here). The 1951 recording also boasts the best recorded Porgy in Lawrence Winters. My "desert island" PORGY AND BESS remains the 1977 Houston Grand Opera set capturing the full published version of the score (and the best recorded Bess, Clamma Dale).

This is a brilliant reproduction of the actual PORGY AND BESS that George Gershwin presented in 1935. With his premature death in 1939,
Gershwin's cuts for Porgy were never codified. Gershwin was, of all things a man of the theatre, and he realized better than anyone that the "complete' PORGY AND BESS as staged in Houston is longer than even the most ardent Gershwin supporters can bear. Mauceri has a done a great service to present us with the show that Gershwin ended up actually presenting to his public. In this form the opera actually has a chance of succeeding dramatically at a running time under 3 hours. In this version one also hears for the first time in over 50 year, the ground breaking "Symphony of Sounds". Bravo to Decca
the brilliant performers and Maestro Mauceri.