A loom of one’s own
We all know and love Fauré, but how many of us can say we’ve seen his opera Pénélope live and in person? As of last night, I number myself among the few.
Maybe it was my expectations, but I purposely avoided the two recordings of this opera so I could come into the premiere performance at Manhattan School of Music with an open mind, hearing the entire opera for the first time in its entirety. I also avoided the recordings so I could do justice to the singers and not be thinking “Oh, well, Crespin did it better” the whole time.
Musically the show was very hard for me to place in my ear. It certainly wasn’t early “pretty” Fauré. It wasn’t impressionist Debussy or Ravel. It wasn’t grand Wagner, or dramatic Strauss. Pénélope to me sounded like if one took the worst parts of all those composers and bundled them all together into a show.
The opera was composed over six summers as Fauré was busy teaching at the Paris Conservatoire. René Fauchois was given the task of cutting his original libretto down from five acts to three due to Faure’s time constraints, resulting in the omission of the entire character of Telemachus from the opera. The lengthy and sporadic composition process could be part of the reason for the range in styles used in the piece: just imagine what was going on in the world from 1907-1913! I still feel like I need a day with the score to try and figure this beast out.
Based on what I heard last night, Lori Guilbeau is a young dramatic soprano to watch. I’m not saying she’s going to be the next Eva Marton, but neither am I ruling that possibility out. At 24 she has the power and control over her massive instrument that makes one look for good things in the future. Though she is quite a large lady by current operatic standards, she has the pipes to be a great Wagnerian or Verdi soprano.
She portrays nobility easily and fully, and sings with the power and sadness to truly inhabit the perpetually mourning queen of Ithaca. The role is long and grand, with no real time to relax, and the fact that Ms. Guilbeau was still sounding fresh after 130 minutes is another sign of great potential. She also deserves kudos for daring to follow in the footsteps of Crespin and Norman, quite daunting indeed!
Other notables from the cast include young, green, raw (how many other ways can I say “needs work?”) tenor Cooper Nolan. His Ulysse was at best heartfelt and gripping, and at worst shallow and throaty, but I will say that there is talent in there.
Laurent Pillot did his best conducting a clearly uninterested orchestra, but the dynamics were mostly in the mezzo forte range. Lawrence Edelson’s highly choreographed direction was obvious and distracting and did nothing to set the mood. Also less than successful was the unit set designed by Martin T. Lopez. Three scrims of roses (somehow a theme in the opera despite a single mention in the libretto), a small platform to the right, and a door and loom on the left. Above the platform was an odd painting of a starry scene and the outline of a Trojan soldier, and the head of a large statue of Ulysse.
To experience a work by a master that isn’t performed often — even one that, in my opinion, should stay that way — is well worth the 20 bucks the Manhattan School is asking. A major revival of Pénélope would require both great artists and a lavish production to pull in an audience, as the work itself is not of the caliber of standard repertory. In the meantime, Pénélope is worthy of adding to your CD collection, especially for Crespin and Norman completists.
I have the Norman recording. Pretty boring stuff, but not terrible.
“We all know and love Fauré.”
I don’t love Fauré. Who is this “we” that you’re referring to?
Very good review. Thanks for explaining why Penelope is that diffuse; I have the Crespin performance and it always seemed elusive…just one more play through and it will fall into place…but it never did and it’s consigned to the interesting historical curiosities shelf next to some Mayr and Spontini, though Faure himself was a greater composer.
I was there too, and aside from agreeing about the awful sets and the impressive soprano, I couldn’t agree with you less. We heard a very different composition, you and me. I heard an extremely cohesive piece of dramatic music of a complexity that your review is almost a parody of.
And I thought the conductor and orchestra did very well. Where did you get your information that the players were “uninterested”? It happens that I was told that the students were enchanted with the piece, and I thought it showed.
It is painful for me to see another work of genius, presented with care by an educational institution, dismissed in this manner. I can see why such sublime music is not universally popular — especially since the story is unavoidably rather static (see “Sad is Bad,” on another thread); there are certainly no chase scenes or their attendant music — but I’m disappointed to see it treated as you have treated it.
I did not dismiss the production as a whole, I do recommend seeing it. I just felt that hearing the piece once, and without seeing a score or studying the piece beforehand, I was rather lost. It was hard for me to find any kind of structure in the piece, and yes there are themes that are developed and intertwined, but that alone to me does not make a piece genius. I do intent to study the score as I was left interested by some of the different forms and sonorities I heard, but at first listen, it didn’t pass the ‘hum’ test (finding yourself humming a bit of the show after it has finished).
As to the orchestra, I thought that Mr. Pillot was trying very hard to elicit some sort of elegant phrase or interesting dynamic, but everything seemed to be lacking emotion orchestrally. I guessed that they were uninterested because they all but ignored Mr. Pillot’s conducting. I could be mistaking ‘uninterested’ for ‘under-rehearsed’, as I know there is usually very little rehearsal time for the overworked students at conservatories, but the accuracy to the page made me think that they knew the notes. Everything was played accurately, but not emotionally.
” … it didn’t pass the ‘hum’ test (finding yourself humming a bit of the show after it has finished).”
Well, if THAT’s your test of “genius,” you would do well to state that at the beginning of your comments on the music so we could skip them.
My belief is if there is no memorable moment in the music, it certainly isn’t genius level work.
And you equate *memorable* with *hummable* — and that by your own personal ability to remember and hum? And you presume to judge a Fauré by that standard?
Trust me, I hum. Everything, and constantly. Berg, Messian, Reich, Glass, Schrecker, Zemlinsky, Adams, etc… I’m not just a fan of catchy tunes, but memorable music. Something that sticks with you, makes an impression on you. I was left without this, even with the wonderful performances by Ms. Guilbeau and Mr. Nolan.
Again, I am not saying it’s a complete failure and not worth experiencing, and maybe with further listening it will grow on me, but after my first Penelope experience I felt that it is not a strong enough piece to earn a spot in the standard repertory. In my opinion if one is going to choose a Penelope and Ulysses story for the standard repertory, Il ritorno d’Ulisse in patria is the better piece by far.
I dunno, Valmont, I find the clip attached at Donald Collup’s site to be pretty memorable, though it’s true I haven’t given the entire opera a listen.
Blah. I meant to link it: http://www.collup.com/Raised4th/ThePage/thepcopy.html
On a personal note, Laurent Pillot is a delight – in multiple languages. He’s spent years with Nagano in Los Angeles and Munich, and ran, I believe, the young artists program in Munich. He has video clips on his website of how to audition, which are quite amusing…
I googled Mr. Pillot but couldn’t find a link. Can you either post it or email me at sschimel@hotmail.com? Thanks.
Well *I* love Faure, especially the chamber works and some of the songs. I heard PENELOPE at Wexford and enjoyed it well enough to be planning on MSM this weekend. Quite an interesting score though it’s never going to be greatly popular.
I was there too. Ms. Guilbeau is simply sensational for a 24 year old – or a 34 year old. Big, gleaming sounds all night, with no strain and a terrific young actress to boot. Big, but also rather an old opera school kind of beauty to her – and moves terrificly. I loved the production – found it simple and a terrific use of space.
Cooper Nolan was fine, a voice student with talent, but not quite in Guilbeau’s league (few are).
I have a (probably too long for most) review of the entire show over on my blog:
http://sharkonarts.blogspot.com/
I adore this opera (and have from the first hearing 20+ years ago. Krunoslav – If you love Faure, you should enjoy this! I’m still riding the high from last night!
p.
Very true about Ms. Guilbeau’s beauty, she photographs very well and has that regal, austere look about her. Perfect for a role like this, or many of the Princesses and Queens that she will sing in her career.
I agree about Ms. Guilbeau – quite an arresting stage presence. She’s a beautiful woman and very affecting on stage. Her technique seems to be shockingly together for one so young – here high notes certainly are strong, secure, and as sharky said, “gleaming”.
I think the memorability tests that are posited above are very subjective and related to the operatic mainstream. Puccini and Strauss this ain’t. Faure’s musical language changed greatly towards the end of his life, to the extent that his older contemporary Saint-Saens, who was so vitriolic about the ‘new wave’ Debussy and Ravel, found it necessary to try and backtrack and make allowances for how bizarre some late Faure sounds. It is a very hermetic language, perhaps not best suited for the operatic stage. It meanders, the harmonies lead down twisted paths that turn into mazes were bearings get easily lost. It’s also known that Faure, never comfortable with being an orchestral composer at the best of times, delegated much of the orchestration to a pupil. Faure’s contemporaries found it rather amazing that he wrote a work for the stage – and it sounds much more of a generation with Pelleas et Melisande, than with Massenet, his more exact contemporary.
If you know the late chamber music, the 2nd piano quintet, the string quartet, and the late piano nocturnes and song cycles then you’ll want to explore this piece. On a personal note, I discovered this world through a 1980’s film ‘Un dimanche a la campagne’ by Bernard Tavernier – a fin de (last) siecle story of a family – one of those French films where almost nothing happens, and it happens exquisitely – and I was blown away by this strange peculiar sounding music that the director used and which I couldn’t place: it was late Faure. I’ve never experienced the piece onstage so it may be the most colossal bore, but personally I love the sounds it makes, cogent, pungent, muted and mysterious.
It may well be one of those works best suited for the theatre of ones mind – I’d love to be proven wrong by a professional production. I do think Faure was a wonderful composer, and I prefer the elusive later works, of which Penelope is one, to the more obviously attractive earlier pieces on which his popularity resides.
Saint-Saëns was a good deal more than “his older contemporary,” since he was also his teacher and patron throughout life. Got him all his jobs, including the Madeleine and the directorship of the Conservatoire. He was also devotedly in love with the very heterosexual Fauré, without any doubt.
And it’s such a pleasure to find someone else who knows and “gets” that marvelous Tavernier movie. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched it. It’s a kind of vacation for me.
“It is a very hermetic language, perhaps not best suited for the operatic stage. It meanders, the harmonies lead down twisted paths that turn into mazes were bearings get easily lost.”
This is very much what I was trying to say, albeit much more clearly and more eloquent. I LOVE the l’horizon chimerique, I’ve sung and studied them in depth, they are wonderful and very harmonically advanced compared to his earlier songs, but the structure is still there.
This though makes me really want to sit and check out the score, because I’m sure that it is brilliant on paper, with very well thought out and intricate compositional techniques. All this work and love left me lost as an audience member unfortunately.
I’ve never, unfortunately, experienced it live, and I think that’s the acid test. I think the Jessye recording from Monte Carlo with Dutoit is problematic – has a horribly shallow recording quality which irons out dynamics, and the orchestra is not up to much and plays out of tune in crucial places – like the magical texture which depicts the loom. It does seem like a mezzo-forte piece, but probably isn’t – I bet the final outburst at end of the 2nd act, when Ulysse reveals his disguise, is supposed to be shattering. I seem to remember that Jessye was very magisterial, but haven’t heard it for so long. I don’t remember much about the Crespin recording, except that the quality is awful.
Agree with you, Valmont about Horizon Chimerique, and the other late cycles, Le jardin clos and La chanson d’Eve. Maybe a really nuanced performance of Penelope would reinstate it: John Eliot Gardiner can have a way with half-tint French music, or maybe another of the guys more associated with early music – how about William Christie – if you play it like conventional romantic music it doesn’t work – the idiom is more particular than that.
Chère Reine, you are so cultivée.
Looked him up myself earlier today:
http://www.laurentpillot.com/
Does anyone know if Ms. Guilbeau is in all three performances? (Tonight plus tomorrow afternoon seems unlikely…?)
She is singing all 3 performances. I’d love to hear from someone how she does on short rest Saturday afternoon.
I believe it’s Friday night/SUNDAY afternoon … gives her a little more time to rest! And yes, she’s doing all three.
Manhattan School of Music Opera Theater
Dona D. Vaughn, Artistic Director
Gabriel Fauré’s Pénélope
Libretto by Rene Fauchois
Laurent Pillot, Conductor
Lawrence Edelson, Director
Three performances:
Wednesday and Friday, December 9 & 11, at 7:30 PM
Saturday, December 12, at 2:30 PM
It is usually wednesday, friday, sunday, but for some reason this year they’re doing Saturday instead of Sunday.