Richard Todd wrote:

>I've just opened a 4-CD DG recording of Messiaen's Saint Francoise d'Assise
>and am about to listen to it.  Have any other list members heard it? Until
>recently I wasn't even aware that M.  had written any operas.  Shows you
>how much I know!

O no, not again Jos on Messiaen...  Sorry folks, I'll bite, but will try
not to get carried away too much.

In my humble opinion, Messiaen stands out as the leading composer of
the second half of the twentieth century.  Secondly, in my opinion, St.
Francois offers a stunning catalogue of all of Messiaen's techniques and
therefore provides a perfect testimony to his greatness.

Let me try and give some arguments for these two statements:

   1.  A lot of, not to say most of the music composed since the second
   world war suffers IMHO from a lack of what I would call "spirituality".
   It's what I call "meta-music", i.e.  music about music.  Far be it from
   me to state that music "must" have an extra-musical component (be it
   religious, humanist, descriptive or any other "affect"), but a lot of
   music for me seemed to concentrate on "making a point" in musical
   language rather than speaking to the heart.  In the fifties it may have
   seemed healthy and necessary to rip music language loose from some
   premonitions which were no longer fruitful at the time, but we ought to
   have come a long way from there.  Also, even further be it from me to
   deny that compositions can be just simply great WITHOUT having to refer
   to a syllabus of meanings and descriptions.  Some of the greatest music
   is just "sheer fun".  But that's just my point:  much of the music in
   the later part of the 20 th century WASN'T just fun, in fact it was not
   funny at all.  In the end I think it just comes down to a willingness on
   the composer's part to communicate to his listener without selling his
   soul to the devil.  Coming to Messiaen:  I think he was one of the
   composers who realised that music must at all times communicate to
   people and not only just "shock" them.  I invariably find myself drawn
   to this class of composers.  Britten, Lutoslavski, Lygeti, Tippett, de
   Leeuw, Oestvolskaya, to name a few (oops, I forgot Takemitsu).  Just
   note how all the en-vogue lot in the fifties came to Paris to study with
   Messiaen because he was considered an avant-gardist and how he himself
   regarded that as a passing moment in his career.  Just note how people
   like Boulez now speak of Messiaen, how he learned them that "everything
   can be music".  One may or may not go along with Messiaen's
   religiousness, but I practically cannot imagine people not being
   "moved".

   2.  In Messiaen's music, it's really all there:  from the unshameful E
   major pointing back to Berlioz to the harsh 4th mode, which sounds like
   two millstones scraping against each other.  From swinging to the jazz
   rythm to polyrythmic structures.  And from the stern moving procession
   to the multilayer structure.  And somehow it all fits together, it's
   deeply personal and unique.  That's why he stands out.  Coming to Saint
   Francois:  from the early seventies on, Messiaen sought to synthesize
   and sum up his musical heritage in a handful of big major works in all
   genres:  an oratorio (The Transfiguration), an orchestral work (Des
   canyons aux etoiles) an organ cycle (Meditations sur le Mystere de la
   Trinite).  In that context, it may seem less surprising that he was
   eventually to produce a four hour long opera.  Guess what, even after
   that, in his late seventies, early eighties he had more up his sleeve:
   a major organ cycle (Livre du Saint Sacrement) which even surpasses the
   previous cycle and a big orchestral work (Eclairs sur lau-dela).

As Dan Scmhidt puts it:

>The vocal writing is quite interesting -- whenever there's singing, the
>orchestra plays in rhythmic unison with the voice.  Then there will be a
>little pause setting that off from an orchestral response.  I find it a
>very effective way of emphasizing the text.

Excellently put.  From the late sixties on Messiaen was much intrigued by
the Wagnerian use of "Leitmotivs".  Messiaen's use is different inasmuch
that there is little or no "development" in these motifs, they are not
exposing some "monologue interieur", but rather they serve as "motto's".
Also, they refer to extra-musical ideas like love, horror, shame, extasy
and so on.  Also, Messiaen had a life long regard for monodies, ranging
from the Gregorian chant to the Asian, Arabian music.  As Dan observes,
the monodies serve greatly to underline the essentials in the score.  This
approach to the setting of the words to music gives them a sense of ritual,
of inevitability.

The instrumentation is quite extraordinary, Messiaen here employs the
biggest orchestra, he's ever used, but brilliantly:  the instruments are
seldomly heard all together, thus bringing an immense refinement and
variety.  Just try scene three for instance.

The Ondes Martenots (there are 6 of them in the score; you may want to
refer to an earlier thread to find out about this instrument) add an almost
voluptous touch to the whole.  But Messiaen never was ashamed to paint his
feelings of love in the sweetest possible ways.

Messiaen does not really show any new musical techniques in this piece.
In the prayer to the birds, however, there is a kind of polyrythmic
organisation:  all the birds sing together, each in his different pace
and rythm.  Played correctly (as it is here) it is really more than chaos.
It's like a huge melting ice-block glittering in the sun, different from
all sides looked on it, essentially static yet giving an impression of
endless change.  Astonishing to think how Messiaen must have been polishing
and repolishing this score until he had precisely what he wanted.

To take in the piece as a whole (four hours) may seem a bit to much for a
first time.  You may want to concentrate on the parts where the Angel comes
in.  They rank amongst the finest moments in the whole work.

It is quite an achievement for Kent Nagano and his Halle forces to have
mastered this score so brilliantly.  Technically speaking, I find only very
small flaws in the playing.  This so often severely critisized orchestra
has really set a standard for this work.  As to the singing:  Jose van Dam
has found even more depth in the title role which has come to be associated
with him.  Dawn Upshaw is just glorious as the Angel.  As far as I am aware
there are two other recordings of the COMPLETE work, one by the forces that
premiered the work (Ozawa and the Paris Opera company, including again Jose
van Dam in the title role) and one by Dutch radio forces conducted by...
Kent Nagano.  Allthough both these others have their points, just go for
this new one.  It surpasses the others by far.

Speaking of Dutch Radio forces:  On March 25th, Reinbert de Leeuw and
the Dutch Radio Symphony Orchestra will give a concertanto performance of
the total piece in the Amsterdam Concertgebouw (and also in Brussels a few
days later; I forgot which exact date).  Should you spot an overwhelmed
fair-haired guy in his late thirties there, just say "hello Jos".

greetings,
jos janssen
[log in to unmask]