 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: dionk
Date: 2011-11-17 14:40
Hello Fellow Clarinetists!
I’m Kari Dion – a master’s student at the University of Michigan, and I have a question for all of you!
I am currently researching and compiling a record of experiences surrounding Messiaen’s Quartet for the End of Time. The title itself is no exaggeration and meant to be taken literally by both the audience and performers. Messiaen draws inspiration from the Angel of the Apocalypse cursing at the heavens, “there should be time no longer.” This coupled with the eerily beautiful work taunts the listener into a leap of faith, forward into the unknown.
I am writing all of you because I have found that listening live to Messiaen’s Quartet, let alone tempting the fates by performing it results in a deep emotional experience. I have heard stories of chandeliers crashing to the ground and lights flickering on and off after this piece was played. I heard players tell about how they fell strangely silent afterward, as if not to upset the restoration of balance needed after the piece finishes. I have also heard from players and listeners that have felt no emotional reaction at all, and found it more interesting to listen to the piece from an appreciative standpoint.
I am asking anyone out there that would like to share their experience, reaction, attachment, detachment, or anything else surrounding Messiaen’s Quartet for the End of Time. You do not have to be open with who you are or what you do. If you would like to remain anonymous, please just let me know. You can be as brief as you would like, or share a complex story. I am very interested in everything you have to say about the piece. Nothing you send me about The Quartet for the End of Time will be considered irrelevant. I am looking to compile all experiences, no matter how big or small.
Never before has their been a compilation of the extra weight that comes with undertaking this piece. I am hoping you are all willing to share your stories.
Thank You,
Kari Dion
dionk@umich.edu
Kari Dion
MM Clarinet Performance
University of Michigan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-11-17 16:07
Great topic Kari, and well articulated.
I'm neither a theologian nor a Messiaen scholar, but I think a little clarification might be helpful. Messiaen was a devout Roman Catholic and therefore his understanding of the inspirational passage you mention from the Book of Revelation would not have been that of the angel "cursing at the heavens" announcing the end of time, but rather that time itself was finite, just as sin, pain and all the influence of evil is also finite: the ending of time by God therefore represents the liberation of creation, not a curse.
This intellectual framework helps us understand what Messiaen was driving at symbolically. To approach an even deeper understanding of this in regards to his work is quite an interesting study. Messiaen described himself as a musical theologian, and drew parallels between his work and St Thomas Aquinas. Interestingly, though his music has been labeled mystical, he denied this personally, emphasizing his intellectual theological side rather than any mystical approach. Finally, he asked that all of his pieces be interpreted in accordance with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church--a unique statement among famous composers.
Having said this and to answer your excellent question (the sort of which rarely comes up, and should probably come up more often):
My first experience of the Quatour was in a chamber music lit class in undergrad. We were given an overview of the piece, and then the professor played the final mvt--"In Praise of the Immortality of Jesus" for violin and piano. I had never heard music like it before, and have never really since. The entire class was in rapt silence for the ten minutes or so that this ecstatic music played, and somehow it seemed to change the very light in the room.
Several years back, when Messiaen's St Francois d'Assise was performed at the San Francisco Opera, a review (I forget who) wrote that if music could make us good as people, this would be it. St Francois is a challenging piece in almost every way, making this quite a striking comment.
Personally, I do think music can make us better people, if we are open to it, and open to the right sort of things. I think the Quatour, with it's adorational intensity, is a good place to start.
Pax Christi,
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-11-17 17:55
I've performed the Quartet several times in a few different venues and I've heard it performed live a couple of times. Aside from enjoying the beauty and emotion of the work and been moved by the playing of the other members of the quartet I can't say I felt any difference from when I've performed the Brahms Quintet or a similar master work. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2011-11-17 19:09
I'm at best supeficially familiar with QFTEOT. Perhaps this discussion will inspire me to get to know it better. What recordings are recommended, or are to be avoided?
"Finally, he asked that all of his pieces be interpreted in accordance with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church--a unique statement among famous composers."
What does this mean operationally? How should phrasing, tempo, dynamics, articulation, balance, pacing, etc. be handled in ways that might not be readily apparent to non-Catholic musicians?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-11-17 20:04
davyd,
Messiaen didn't mean this in terms of performance practice, nor in terms of who could play his music, but in terms of the underlying meaning of it. I think he was guarding against future scholarly misinterpretations contrary to his beliefs (a constant problem in academia). Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner, and others have been appropriated by totalitarians--Messiaen saw much of this in his lifetime. Perhaps he wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen to his legacy, and provided the clear hermeneutic for understanding his inspiration and work.
My favorite recordings of the Quatour:
George Pieterson (my favorite for sheer clarinetistry)
David Shifrin with Chamber Music Northwest (great to have in the collection)
Tashi (coached by Messiaen himself--my favorite for 'ensemble')
Other Messiaen favs:
Vingt Regards sur l'enfant Jesus, Peter Serkin recording
St Francois d'Assise--the complete opera on DG
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-11-17 20:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2011-11-27 05:47
When I performed just the clarinet movement of this piece I did so with the hall and stage lights off, with a single blue spotlight overtop of me. It was one of the most incredible performance experiences I've had.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2011-11-28 14:54
Hi Kari--
thank you for raising this issue here, or at ALL. I won't be of much help, except to say I was observing a Yehuda Gilad master class not long ago, and one of the student players attempted the Abime Des Oiseaux. After she played, Mr. Gilad questioned her gently about the background and circumstances of the piece, how it was written, where, and so on. When it became clear the student had little idea of any of this, Mr. Gilad suggested (again gently and diplomatically) that the piece required--I can't quite remember the exact words he used, but something connoting a personal sense of struggle, and certainly an awareness of the enormity of the piece's context (my words, not Mr. Gilad's), without which, he suggested, the piece perhaps shouldn't be attempted.
You might contact Mr. Gilad directly? I think he's e-mailable through USC, where he teaches. I'm sure he could add a great deal to your query.
I would be very interested in how your work progresses.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-28 19:46
For those lacking some knowledge of the background, Messiaen composed the work while imprisoned in a German concentration camp during WWII. The instrumentation was mandated pragmatically by the musicians that were at hand.
The name of the clarinetist Messiaen was imprisoned with, Henri Akoka (spelling?), was Jewish, not a devout Catholic like Messiaen himself. That being said, it is up to the reader to place Messiaen's request that his music be played in strict accordance to Catholic Doctrine in what they believe is the proper context. I would not presume to interpret that in any abstract discussion.
(It may be apocryphal, but I do remember reading that the first "read-through" of "Abime....." was in a field with Messiaen, Akoka and a third prisoner serving as the music stand.- I do wish I could properly cite this but I don't have the resources at hand.)
Further research I will leave up to you.
-----------------------------------
Discussions, and arguments, over how the context surrounding the composition of any piece should effect the realization are quite abundant. Some will say it is essential to know what emotionally/environmentally was present at the time of conception- if it is possible to know. Others will claim to know what the authorial intent was, and thus how a piece must be performed. Still others follow the precept that any composition should stand on its' own merit without any contextual background.
I do not wish to debate those points, lest I inadvertently influence what "path" any reader wishes to follow. ........And I cannot tell you that what you think is inherently "right or wrong." But that does not free anyone from taking all things into account when realizing any said work.
------------------------------------
When approaching "Quatour......", the background is known to a greater extent than other compositions. That it is known this piece was conceived in a place, or state, of great emotional hardship perhaps makes many place a greater claim of knowledge of intent...... but unless you were there can you truly know? Or can you truly re-create it? Is it even necessary? Does the affect of the composition actually even mirror the environment in which it was conceived? How can an abstract situation influence your real-world realization? Those are the questions that each must personally grapple with, and then "answer" in performance.
Perhaps that is where the actually beauty lies.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-11-28 20:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-11-28 20:12
Jason wrote:
"it is up to the reader to place Messiaen's request that his music be played in strict accordance to Catholic Doctrine in what they believe is the proper context."
This is not what Messiaen said, nor what he meant. What Messiaen was talking about was the underlying symbolism of his music, NOT performance practice. In other words, he didn't want musicologists interpretting his works as subversive in meaning, like saying his "St Francois d'Assise" was filled with secret anti-Papal symbolism or that "La Transfiguration", because of its Latin text, was a criticism of Vatican II. His statement was to guard against slanders of his intent, not to make demands on the beliefs of his performers.
There is no such thing as playing music in accordance with Catholic doctrine. There are no secret Catholic phrasing guides. Staccato is staccato--for Catholics and everyone else. Messiaen was talking about something QUITE different.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-11-28 21:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-28 21:54
Eric,
I wish not to attack so please do not misinterpret....
And I would like to begin by stating the bulk of my previous post was not meant to venture far into the realm of religion. Rather I wished to address the deep abstract emotional meaning some place on "Quatour....." (, and music in general.)
--------------------------------------------------------
I was taking a statement from your earlier post that, perhaps inadvertently, was attributed to Messiaen himself-- that you did not place quotation marks surrounding the statement should have been taken into account.
In hindsight, I do see that I re-worded your statement in a way which skewed what I can only interpret the original meaning of your post to have been. This was unintentional and do I apologize.
Yet, another could take what was previously written as a truth in an incorrect manner, and I merely wished to spur a bit of thought about the state of things amongst other readers. Making your words into a spurious statement was, again, not my intent.
Certainly, I did not mean to imply that there are "Catholic" or "Jewish" articulations, nor phrase guides. Neither the Apocrypha, the "Gospel of Judas", The Torah, Summa Theologica, nor the Dead-Sea Scrolls clearly guide us to any concrete musical rule-book anymore than does The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
However, without more clearly defining the statement: "Finally, he asked that all of his pieces be interpreted in accordance with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church--a unique statement among famous composers.", some less acquainted may be led astray; or slightly confused at the least: How do his intense intellectual religious beliefs guide us to any greater enlightenment of how his works be realized outside of the abstract realm?
-------------------------------------------------------
Messiaen certainly did shun the "mystic" label; yet in forming parallels between himself and St. Thomas Aquinas he kindles some confusion for myself at least. Aquinas was not only an intellectual theologian, but during his life, a philosopher. -As Aquinas' written works have been somewhat taken into the canon of Catholicism has slightly obscured the fact that he was also a philosopher.- I wish not to philosophize over music as the two disciplines don't "mesh" for me.
We can somewhat take Messiaen at his word that he wished to place a blanket statement over his catalog: avoiding the sort of "Beethovian", "Wagnerian", and "Mozartian" dogmatists that do claim true knowledge of their works. But, claiming that we understand the true meaning of Messiaen's words forces us to invoke a knowledge of authorial intent ourselves. We cannot claim to truly know it unless we go directly to the source, which is now not possible. Or do we take the recording coached by Messiaen to be the truth?
------------------------------------------------------------
*But to pull this post back on course and address "Quatour......" directly as it is the genesis of this thread, we can see in the preface what words drawn from the The Book of Revelation inspired Messiaen.
For me, this does not illuminate how one can realize the piece. Perhaps this comes from the fact I am not what most would consider a "religious" person; or perhaps from the knowledge The Book of Revelation was written using much symbolic language, themes and has been attributed to have come from the pen of several differing authors over the centuries. (This is not a defamation of anybody's faith; but the interpretation of the text is somewhat open ended in my mind.)
The fact that the work was composed in a concentration camp merely eludes to the state Messiaen was in at the time of conception. -Not having been interred I cannot fathom what it emotionally would spur. Having visited a death-camp in Austria I perhaps have a bit more of a hint than some, but certainly that is inconsequential. In fact, my grandfather liberated several camps during the war, and was also responsible for the "disposal" of deceased prisoners. The fact he would not speak of it certainly illuminates more what a prisoner could have felt- yet even he could not have claimed to truly know.
The words in the preface of the piece, coupled with some knowledge of what a prisoner could have felt, are things to consider. Yet, this piece seems to have an aura of "magic" placed around it with what seems to me to be an often mis-educated approach. Being told that I need "feel" these things to perform the piece insults me on some level, just as stating I need this knowledge to be able to be moved by the work. (Please know I cast no aspersions on any names aforementioned here.) These are merely things that can be taken into account.
No one can tell anybody what must constitute a proper performance; or proper emotional response as an audience.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-11-29 00:04
Good points, intelligently presented as always, Jason---my sole intent was to make sure my comments didn't lead down a very silly path--especially since I used that dangerous word "interpreted"--which can either mean "informing a performance" or "understanding the premise" of a piece, among others.
Your post brings up some very interesting considerations. All music, unless it is performed by the composer alone, is essentially collaborative. The intent of Messiaen or Bach or Corigliano in writing the music they have constitutes, in a sense, the 'primary meaning' behind the works in question. Each additional performer brings their own goals which may or not perfectly coincide with the composer. After this complex process, whether the composer's intent is communicated or not to the audience in any exact sense depends upon many factors (not least of which is the audience's receptivity and capacity for understanding or accepting the intent).
If I'm reading you correctly, we're in agreement that 'primary meaning' or 'primary intent' of a composer is important for performers to consider, but does not constitute the final word on performance. One need not be a devout Lutheran to perform Bach, nor a devout Catholic to perform Messiaen, nor an agnostic to perform Brahms. It helps to know what a composer meant to express--and often, a performer can throw himself into performance in agreement. But there are alternative readings of every text, in some instances different from or beyond 'primary intent'.
As for Messiaen and St Thomas Aquinas, it would probably help to dig into Messiaen's actual writings or interviews for the context. Certainly St Thomas was a philosopher, theologian, poet, and mystic. I'm no longer sure what context Messiaen mentioned him, and I'd best not speculate too heavily (I've published serious research in other areas, but not Messiaen.) It is a fascinating topic though.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-29 04:07
Eric,
You do bring up many valid points. I am perhaps becoming "notorious" for de-railing threads, but I do believe what you've brought to light is of importance. I would ask others follow to abide my dramatic aside.
As for speaking of the direct relationship between Messiaen's writings, his referencing of the works of Aquinas, and the writings of Aquinas himself, I am myself not completely comfortable. Much of my reference material is not at hand (including my score of "Quatour....") to specifically cite Messiaen, and I cannot claim to have read much of the works of Aquinas: I know more of him as an historical figure but far less of his actual offerings. ...And relying on Wikipedia would perhaps be suspect at best.
I can generally state that I have read some writings of Messiaen dismissing a type of 'false mysticism' attributed to his works- due to his devout Catholic faith. It is an unfortunate side-effect when a "scholar" latches onto an aspect of a composers' personal life and falsely attributes all the "beauty" to that one narrow morsel.
As you've stated, Messiaen was guarding against false accusations of some feint "heresy", and false mutations of his (possibly subjective) personal background by current and future "academics." Also, and I do not attribute this to any type of Egoism, an over-emphasis of religious themes disregards the actual brilliant compositional skill contained in his work. Beyond that I would prefer not continue speaking in that vein as I cannot actually cite his words.
I'll end this portion here (and continue to prattle on in the next) simply for the sake of peoples eyes.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-29 06:01
........To continue... and I should re-state that I can only voice things from my view point- I cannot claim to be correct.
I do agree that knowledge of 'primary intent/meaning' as a performer can be important but certainly not the sole guiding factor, just as you've stated.
The notion of 'primary intent/meaning' is very complex, and perhaps a bit dangerous if claimed to be completely known. (Knowledge of 'primary intent' does not even ensure that one will "like" a composition.) It lies in an abstract realm in the way I think; and it does bear differing meanings and weight. Sometimes it is even not important!
...And while it could help to know what the composer "meant", I often feel quite uncomfortable claiming that I actually can know- even when working directly with the composer.
Or to quote Richard Feynman:
"Any time you find yourself in a conversation at a cocktail party in which you do not feel uncomfortable that the hostess might come around and say, 'Why are you fellows talking shop?' or that your wife will come around and say, 'Why are you flirting again?'--- then you can be sure you are talking about something about which nobody knows anything."
---------------------------------------------------
*Now to begin weeding: A composer should know the 'primary intent' of their works. (Or we at least must assume that much if we want to try and get closer to the heart of certain matters!) And it is important to begin from the viewpoint of the listener.
***If a composer is performing their own composition, a solo work with no accompaniment, then they are the only one responsible for realizing it. Yet, even that is a collaboration as the composer and audience are "working together"- a weak verbal term I freely admit: I wish I could express it more clearly. If I may use your term, the "audience's receptivity" in collaboration with the performers realization.
The 'primary intent' is known by the performer/composer, and it can be known by the audience. It could be explicitly told or explained, be it purely compositional, programmatic, or having arisen from a blurry subtext. Armed with that knowledge, the listener can experience that 'primary intent', or not, depending on the state created. But the listeners' inevitably subjective digestion of that clearly stated 'intent' may still vary from the composers. (Most of us can see the color red, but I could not describe what red is to someone who is color-blind.) ...Or even further, the listener may experience something beyond the known 'primary intent'; and how can anyone say that is incorrect. (I care not that I thought of Mozart the first time I saw Seurat's ....La Grande Jatte, though some would tell me I am wrong.)
Conversely the solo composer/performer may choose to withhold the 'primary intent' from the listener. Perhaps it is desired the listener take what they may; or the work may have been generated by a deeply personal experience that the composer wishes not to share.
***The next logical step my mind can take is to view a composition as a performer in which I am actively working with the composer. They can openly share what their "primary intent" is and how to convey it. They are able to describe what the aesthetic is and how it is to be transmitted. Compositional techniques may be discussed, "phrases" para-phrased, dynamics tinkered with etc... I may ultimately be able to have a better grasp on the 'primary intent', but it is still on some level subjective. Yet out of this subjectivity, the composer and I must collaborate to realize the work, and also set-up the collaborative environment with the audience.
Several years back I had the fortune to play in a group that brought in active composers to conduct their works. Some times the 'primary intent' was clearly discussed: I distinctly remember one composition- Sunday Morning Trepanation- (you can probably imagine that composer's take on organized religion) that quite starkly stated its' goal. I knew the background, the compositional technique and the way the composer wished to have it expressed; yet I can say with certainty that my experience of the 'primary intent' still differed from the composer's. That did not free me from collaboratively realizing the work however, even with my skewed knowledge of intent. ...But viewing the audience after our performances it sure looked like we got the point across ;-)
It can be quite refreshing when the composer/conductor can clearly show in person what the 'primary intent' is (both compositionally and subjectively), and guide the realization with the audience. I may not fully understand the true genesis, or completely fathom a piece's complex structure without great study, but that is the beauty of art. The audience may or may not be informed of this 'intent', but I believe I've stated as best I can what that could lead to above.
(Occasionally composers would come in with no clear way to express what their 'intent' was; or at the very least they seemed disinterested in sharing it with us. We were left to glean to score, apply our personal knowledge of "phrasing" and transmit what we could. I know not what the audience always was able to experience, but at times viewing their faces they seemed to have been left cold. Other times they appeared to have been moved. Perhaps the fault was ours in both cases........)
***Moving further on, as a performer we take a piece where we have the writings of the composer to serve as a guide, and all of our personal skills and resources to use. ("Quatour...." may fall into this category.) As a group, perhaps with a conductor, an informed consensus should be reached about what we can surmise the 'primary intent' to be, how to express it instrumentally, and most importantly how to realize it for the audience. It cannot be said that we are correct in any way, and our realization is offered to be "judged" by the audience. It may be hoped the listener is open and "educated", but it could also be said that our burden is to show the lay-person what can be shown. That is where the true collaboration lies. And we may "educate" what the 'primary intent' is (it keeps Peter Laki well-paid I imagine), or not.
***As we move further back in time, our access to 'primary intent' often becomes increasingly difficult. We should still seek it in so much as we can claim to understand it, but never claim to truly know it.
It is quite late and I see myself writing in circles. .....I will finish and edit this mess this tomorrow. ( And actually bring my rambling back to "Quatour...")
I think that I can't think any more right now.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-11-29 12:57
Well, now I'll probably have to dig into Messiaen a little deeper. The questions are very interesting and, thanks to Messiaen providing a general hermenuetic for his works, it's possible to dig very deeply. This is not the case with every composer. Ralph Vaughan Williams, for instance, was notorious for obscuring his inspirations and 'primary meaning', sometimes making it difficult for audiences to understand exactly what he was driving at, and chastising critics for trying to assign any meaning to his works (even if they had texts!)
Here are at least a couple of quotes with context from Messiaen. They are taken from an interview in 1992, and can be found in the DG/Nagano/Halle/van Dam recording of Saint Francois.
"...I must admit that I've always set out from a theological idea -- mostly a mystery in the life of Christ -- as the basis of my great cycles: La Nativite, Les Corps glorieux, the Vingt Regards sur l'enfant Jesus, the Vision de l'amen, and, most recently, Le Livre du Saint Sacrament for organ. I've written a piece for each aspect of the mystery."
"I've read lots of theologians, but I always come back to St Thomas Aquinas, who is the most modern and most rewarding of them all. I'm also interested in the joint contributions of science and theology..."
The notion of mysticism itself and its relation to his music is of interest. I think Messiaen was probably just being honest, saying that he was no mystic. The history of Catholic mysticism is very rich and varied, and Messiaen even sets mystical texts and accounts of mystical events (such as the inspiration for the Quatour, the Transfiguration of Christ, the stigmata of St Francis). But there is a difference between learning from the mystics, setting mystical texts, and being one--I don't think Messiaen wanted to mislead anyone as to the nature of his art or its inspiration. There are many potential reasons, therefore, that he might clarify his position. One might have been to protect against false symbolisms being suggested, but another might very well have been to avoid anyone treating his scores as divine revelations. There could be more.
Aside from all of this, the above quoted interview is of interest in a musical sense, for Messiaen's thumbnail ideas on tonality, modality, and atonality. The interview covers a vaste range very quickly, and is all very good food for thought.
Beyond this, here seems to be serious book well worth looking into for more detail, entitled Messiaen the Theologian, edited by Dr. Andrew Shenton :
http://www.andrewshenton.com/publications/messiaen-theologian/
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-30 03:04
Eric,
Just wanted to let you know I have this bookmarked; I do want to write a bit more, but as I just got home and am exhausted I would be of little worth tonight.
but tomorrow is only a day away!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
