Gossec: Grande Messe des Morts / Symphonie à 17 parties

Francois-Joseph Gossec (Composer), Diego Fasolis (Conductor), Wolf-Dieter Hauschild (Conductor), Maite Arruabarrena (Performer), Lugano Radio Orchestra (Orchestra), Roberta Invernizzi (Performer), Howard Crook (Performer) | Format: Audio CD

Product Details

• Performer: Maite Arruabarrena, Roberta Invernizzi, Howard Crook
• Orchestra: Lugano Radio Orchestra
• Conductor: Diego Fasolis, Wolf-Dieter Hauschild
• Composer: Francois-Joseph Gossec
• Audio CD (March 20, 2001)
• SPARS Code: DDD
• Number of Discs: 2
• Label: Naxos
• ASIN: B000058UU0
• In-Print Editions: MP3 Download
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #225,719 in Music (See Top 100 in Music)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Ear-Opener, May 15, 2002

By A Customer

This review is from: Gossec: Grande Messe des Morts / Symphonie à 17 parties (Audio CD)

This disc is remarkable by any standards. First of all, the music. Francois-Joseph Gossec is hardly a household name, even among lovers of the Classical Era in music, and yet his symphonies established the French symphonic tradition. Along with Mehul, he was the leading composer of Revolutionary France, and his incredible Requiem, written in 1760 and published 20 years later, was aptly chosen to commemorate French citizens killed in the storming of the Bastille in 1789.

Keith Anderson, Naxos' astute note writer, is unusually circumspect is saying that this great work "probably influenced" Mozart and Berlioz. I would say instead "almost certainly" did, and Cherubini in the bargain. Like the celebrated requiems of those composers, Gossec's Requiem is a Janus-like work, recalling in its grand fugues and in the French overture that introduces the Dies Irae the traditions of Baroque music. But the high drama of the Tuba Mirum, with its brass choirs that must have served as a model for Berlioz's spectacular movement, and of the Mors Stupebit are "romantic" and literary in the manner of the Sturm and Drang movement and lift us clearly out of the Baroque. So does the operatic treatment of the solo numbers in the Sequentia and Offertorium. Mozart must have had these in mind as he penned his Requiem. But even more remarkable is the spooky orchestral opening of the Offertorium. I'm convinced that Berlioz heard this in his head as he wrote what Schumann considered the most effective section of his Requiem. And listen closely to the stately Introduzione of Gossec's Requiem. In its plangent, open-air writing for the woodwinds and strings, it's not only a model for sections of Berlioz's Requiem, it is an entirely new sound, different from any that a German or Italian composer of the day would coax from an orchestra, and can be seen as establishing a uniquely French orchestral pallet.

Gossec's "Symphonie a 17 parties" is not in the same league with his great Requiem but is nonetheless an interesting musical document and a thoroughly enjoyable piece. In that some of the string writing in the first movement recalls Mehul, it can be asked who influenced whom, especially since Gossec's work was sketched in the 1790s, only to be completed in 1809, around the time of Mehul's first two symphonies. But clearly Gossec's piece has the grandeur that marks the work of both Revolutionary composers. The first movement and Menuetto are especially memorable, and while the overly chatty last movement lets the piece down somewhat, this is still a very attractive symphony.

The playing by the Orchestra della Svizzera Italiana is admirable throughout the Symphonie and the Requiem. The Orchestra is obviously a small, lean body of players, which is all to the good. In their capable hands and that of director Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, the orchestral music has the virtues we ascribe to period-instrument performances: a properly Classical balance between strings and winds, brass and percussion that aren't immersed in an orchestral glue but cut thrillingly through the fabric of the orchestra. The chorus is equally fine, fired by the drama and pathos of Gossec's writing. And the soloists, especially the two men, are superb. Just listen to the thrilling and beautiful singing in the Offertorium. Excellent work as well by the sound engineers.

All in all, this is one of Naxos' best choral recordings. I'd say "landmark" is not too strong a word for it.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Devos' version is better - and I haven't yet heard Malgoire, September 8, 2011

By 

Discophage (France) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: Gossec: Grande Messe des Morts / Symphonie à 17 parties (Audio CD)

I first heard Gossec's extraordinary Requiem off the French radio, in the 1980s, and bought the pioneering recording of Jacques Houtman in the LP days (published then by Auvidis. It's been reissued on CD by Koch/Schwann, Gossec: Grande Messe des Morts (Grand Requiem Mass for the Dead); Symphonie a Dix-Sept Parties, but is offered at steep prices), but it is really the recording of Louis Devos, with period instruments (recorded in April 1986 and published by Erato in 1988) that became my reference for the piece (Gossec:Requiem). I later purchased the Capriccio version by Herbert Schernus conducting the Cologne period-instrument ensemble Cappella Coloniensis (recorded in 1980 but published on CD only in 1992, Gossec: Messe des Morts) but didn't do any comparative listening then. Since then, this version by Diego Fasolis at the helm of the (modern, and playing at modern pitch) Orchestra della Svizzera Italiana, recorded live in 1998, was published by Naxos in 2001, and the French label K617 released in 2003 another live version, again on period instruments, conducted by Jean-Claude Malgoire, Gossec - Missa Pro Defunctis.

Five recordings make the Requiem Gossec's most popular piece, and it is easy to understand why. It's a masterpiece. Composed in 1760 when the composer was only 26, it signaled his breakthrough to public success. The influence of Gossec's Requiem on Mozart's has often been noted (just compare the Dies Irae, track 7, and Mozart's Rex Tremendae), but listen to the Tuba Mirum, track 8, with its ominous antiphonal trombones placed at a distance: now I know where Berlioz got the idea from in his own Tuba Mirum from the Requiem: it is tantamount to plagiarism! The melismata of the "Te Decet Hymnus" (track 3) recall Mozart's Mass in C, and the violence of "Mors stupebit et natura" (track 9) falls somewhere between Haydn's Nelson-Mass, Beethoven's Glückliches Fahrt and again Berlioz' Requiem. And, why not? I hear adumbrations of Verdi's Requiem in the lyricism of the Recordare (track 11), and of Fauré in the appeased and, respectively, ethereal and pastoral quality of the "Requiem Aeternam" (rack 2) or "Pie Jesu Domine" (track 22).

The - literally - tremulating voices on "Quantus tremor" is a masterstroke ("What trembling there will be / When the Judge shall come", at 1:46 into the Dies Irae, track 7). The plangent Recordare (with - normally - a trio of soprano, tenor and baritone, track 11, but more about that anon), with its ostinato, chaconne-like basso depicting (my interpretation) tears dropping, is the kind of music that can draw tears from me: if you know Marin Marais' extraordinary Sonnerie de Sainte Geneviève du Mont de Paris - this is exactly the same. The soprano duet on Lacrimosa, track 15, is as beautiful as those of Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, or any written by Mozart in his C-major mass, many years before he composed it, and the touching tenor-baritone duet with chorus "Pie Jesu Domine" (CD 2 track 5) is another one of those sublime moments. The two tenor-baritone duets (the other is the "Cedant hostes", CD 2 track 3), to which the Recordare trio with soprano can be added, are indeed one of the originalities of Gossec's Requiem. I can't describe all the beauties and wonderful touches of imagination of the music. This Requiem is an extraordinary work, worthy of standing on the same plane as Mozart's Requiem and Mass in C or Haydn's Nelson-Mass.

Given its worth, Gossec's Requiem remains one of the most unjustly neglected masterpieces of music: what are five recordings in more than 30 years, compared to the inumerable quantity that Mozart's own Requiem has received? And the score is not even available as a study score. Anyway, I've done a thorough comparative listening on the versions of Devos/Erato, Schernus/Capriccio and this one here, Fasolis (I have the Houtman in LP form only, and my turntable is broken anyway).

First thing to note: the differences in the editions performed are striking. The liner notes to the Devos (authored by himself) and Schernus CDs mention using Gossec's autograph - obviously the same copy in both cases: it is kept at the Royal Library in Brussels - beside the one known printed score (from 1780, say all the scholarly sources; Devos however dates it from 1774), noting (according to Capriccio) that it is "in many respects far more plain than the version known hitherto, and also that the instruments are used more consistently in their timbres". It seems, but is not entirely clear, that it is Gossec's original version, later revised for publication, but Devos doesn't clarify the issue by calling it "a new version of the Requiem itself, revised, abridged and reorchestrated by Gossec's own hand". In fact I am very puzzled when Devos further writes that "every bar was different and the final fugue completely crossed-out and re-written" ("complètement rayée et réécrite", my own translation, the one provided in the booklet is ambiguous), which seems to indicate either that Gossec re-wrote a pre-existing version (itself in manuscript form, making that autograph a palimpsest?), which seems contradictory with the notion that this would be the original version, or that Gossec had second thoughts after jotting down a first version of the final fugue - a more likely interpretation. We are not told which edition Fasolis uses - presumably the printed score.

Anyway, mentioning that Schernus and Devos used the autograph for their performance only obscures the issue, since we are not told how exactly they used it and what exactly are the differences: did they perform the autograph or did they freely choose between autograph and printed score? And, when they performed from the autograph, are the differences only details not audible without the score, or more substantial? Those questions wouldn't be raised if Devos and Schernus performed the same or a very similar version. But in fact, the differences are far more pronounced between them than between Devos and Fasolis, and I suspect that the sections missing in Schernus' version (the Exaudi aria for soprano, track 3, the two big choral fugues on "Et lux perpetua", tracks 6 and CD 2 track 7) are so not because of any observance of the manuscript, but simply as a result of the producers' decision in order to fit the work on a single CD. Silly thinking, since, with a TT of 66 minutes, the CD could have easily fit 10 more minutes (indeed Devos' is 74). On the other hand Schernus plays one number that neither Fasolis nor Devos perform: the penultimate and extended trio on "Lux aeterna".

On the other hand, some of the differences involve not cuts, but Schernus (not Devos or Fasolis) performing entirely different, and much simpler settings (which may then indeed derive from the autograph), and thus seem to indicate that, in these numbers, Devos (like Fasolis) did perform the final and more elaborate printed version. If so, he made the right choice, since the simpler alternatives played by Schernus are far less interesting. Only on one occasion, in the orchestral introduction, it is Devos who plays a drastically shorter version, where Schernus and Fasolis play an extended one. And here again my hint is that he does so not out of any manuscript, but to fit the Requiem on a single CD. I've spotted a few more minor and almost imperceptible cuts in the Devos version (in "Te Decet Hymnus" track 3, "Et Lux Perpetua" track 6, "Cedant hostes" Devso' track 20 at 2:20), and I suspect that they were motivated by the same consideration. More regrettable is Devos' omission of the orchestral introduction to "Vado et non revertar" ("I go and shall not return"), the first number of the Offertorium (track 18). Its weeping strings are a beautiful effect. They return inside the movement, but it isn't the same thing. Strangely, only Fasolis' chorus sings the quasi a-cappella line "voca me cum benedictis" on the two introductory chords of "Oro supplex" (track 14): it is very short, a single phrase. As announced by Devos' presentation, it is not exactly the same fugue on "Et lux perpetua" as Fasolis that he plays at the end (Devos' track 24, Fasolis' CD 2 track 7), although it is comprised of the same building blocks.

Another difference between the three versions is their choice of soloists, and here, all three have taken different options, based on what authority I don't know: printed score, autograph, or personal decision? To make matters even more complicated, I looked at my Auvidis LP of the Houtman recording (this one clearly based on the printed score) - and it adopts yet another combination, with five soloists: soprano and mezzo, contralto, tenor and bass. Schernus does without tenor and mezzo, attributing the part of mezzo to his alto (in the Lacrimosa duet) and everything that is sung by tenor with both Devos and Fasolis - even in the solo arias "Quid sum miser", track 10 and "Spera in deo", CD 2 track 2 - either to alto, to soprano or even, in the "Pie Jesu domine" duet (CD 2 track 5), to a section of the male chorus. It changes entirely the color wanted by Gossec, the relation of timbres in the duets (alto-baritone instead of tenor-baritone, to say nothing of chorus vs soloists), deprives Gossec's scoring of its originality (how many soprano arias were written in the 18th century?) and lends it an unwelcome operatic color. But then, the very detailed liner notes to the Auvidis LP do call "Quid sum miser" an aria for contralto (why then does Fasolis, who had an alto, give it, like Devos, to the tenor?), and also say that "Cedant hostes" - sung as a duet for tenor and baritone by Fasolis and... Read more ›