We now have smartphones, we fly, we live longer, more comfortably then ever before. But are we really becoming more enlightened than our ancestors? Generations after generations making "modern versions" of the same mistakes, again and again. Religious extremism, racism, financial crises, propaganda, manipulation etc. appear regularly in history, with disastrous consequences. But do we learn?
NO! We remain a species of largely uneducated amnesics! And then we are shocked by Bin Ladens - when they are actually modern symptoms of our perpetual stupidity!
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bruckner in the UK
It's interesting to see how the music of certain composers can become very popular in some countries and not at all popular somewhere else! It is the case for the music of Bruckner, Sibelius, Elgar, even Mahler for a while, and many others.
You want to maximize your chances of a standing ovation in sold out concert halls? Don't schedule for example Sibelius in Austria, Elgar in Moscow or ... Bruckner in the UK! Strange! I was talking to Lucica about this and she said that she thought in the 12 years she spent working in Spain she probably played Bruckner's 5th Symphony maybe even 10 times! And only 1 Sibelius symphony in all 12 years! It's a pitty, of course, that the music of Sibelius isn't played more frequently in Spain - but going back to Bruckner, that's how much his music is played elsewhere in Europe! In some places maybe EVEN MORE than Mahler, or at least as much - which is quite something these days! And that's why many of us European foreigners, are so puzzled by the attitude to Bruckner here in the UK, when in many, many other countries his music fills concert halls and is absolutely standard repertoire!
Laurence suggested it might have something to do with the largely "godless" society in the UK that cannot cope with the scale and scope of Bruckner's music ... I don't know, I read somewhere an article claiming that to fully, fully embrace and appreciate Bruckner's music you must be religious - but I don't agree ... I am not religious and I love Bruckner but... who knows, maybe I don't "fully appreciate" it! I think you can understand the "sacred", you can understand devotion, the awe of Bruckner for example for the "greatness of God" - without being a believer. I don't know ...
As we played it recently, I'll refer to Bruckner's 5th Symphony frequently throughout this note. This symphony is I think the hardest to "like" if you don't particularly enjoy Bruckner, because is the most "clever" but the least "sentimental" the least seductive.
One of the things that people often complain about when listening or playing Bruckner's music is its length. But why? Why are his symphonies so long? I hear people say, couldn't he finished it 15 minutes earlier?
But the answer is, of course no he couldn't! Why? Ha! It was a different world living at a different pace! Blame Beethoven 9, Blame Wagner, blame God, blame romanticism, etc.
Because even before finishing writing the first subject, it is already fairly clear how long the piece is going to be and shortening it would cancel exactly what Bruckner is trying to achieve!
In the classical times, the first subject would be announced, a short transition used mainly to modulate would follow, sometimes not even that and that's it, you are already in the second subject. Same thing with the second subject. The development was almost by rule a third of the exposition. But with Beethoven especially in the later symphonies all this started to change. The thematic subjects were becoming more and more like micro-universes. The transition longer, the contrast between the 2 subjects greater, development was more like 2/3 of the exposition now, etc. Add to that the fact that for fun he would "falsely" sometimes in sonata forms or rondo-sonatas bring the recapitulation in the wrong key at the end of the development, and only afterwards would get back to the real key and recapitulate "properly"! All kind of "clever tricks"! :) And here we get to "the clever" thing. Writing "intellectual" music, "clever" music was almost like a challenge, even "obligation" for any "serious" Germanic composer throughout the ages, from before Bach and till the 2nd Viennese school and beyond! Music had to be not only expressive and beautiful but developed masterfully.
Beethoven 9 as everyone knows, cast an absolutely huge shadow on all symphonists afterwards. For some like Brahms it felt almost "traumatic". He didn't dare to write a symphony after Beethoven 9 even under "pressure" from friends and supporters for many years, and when he started it took him something like 15 years to complete it. (He finished it in fact pretty much at the same time as Bruckner was finishing his 5th!). But, generally it was hard for composers, especially those in the Austro-German school to write symphonies following Beethoven 9. Not only for Brahms. For most.
In time a few found their personal and original answer to the question: "how to follow Beethoven 9". For Bruckner that answer (no doubt also inspired by the new progressive music at the time, Wagner in particular) came with these "colossal" symphonies, the symphonies for God! He was of course a devout Catholic, very, very religious. And his faith was not at all "tormented"! It was almost child-like unshakable, unquestionable, absolute - no existential questions a la Mahler! (Mahler who deeply admired Bruckner called Bruckner "half simpleton, half God"!) I believe they represented not only Bruckner's "answer" to Beethoven 9, but were tributes to the glory and majesty of God - as Bruckner saw God. They are Bruckner at the organ in St. Florian, playing for God! Bruckner suffered throughout his life from a complex of inferiority - but never more so than in front of his God!
But how were his symphonies "colossal"? Well, one could argue that all he does is continuing what Beethoven had already started. The first subject often preceded by an introduction, sometimes quite ample, bringing "previews", motives from the main themes to come. Each subject would become a world in itself. It would be developed even before the development (look at the first subject of the last movement of Bruckner 5 for example, it's a 4 part fugue). Often the first subject and the second would be much greater in contrast than in the past (think of the high contrast between the 2 subjects in the first movement of the 5th symphony), sometimes even in a completely different tempo much slower or faster, in remote keys, etc. hence an elaborate transition would sometimes be needed to prepare for it. And from here on everything follows similarly - everything is more substantial, more elaborated than "in the classical past". Obviously to keep a good structure, a convincing musical form, the development now would also be of course bigger and more "clever" since each subject that is meant to develop is larger and there is more contrast between subjects - more material to work with (in the case of the last movement of the 5th for example, the development starts with a brass chorale which turns then into the theme for the second fugue, and as the recapitulation "approaches" it continues as a big 4 part fugue on top of another big 4 part fugue - a double fugue, in which Bruckner "proves" his mastery of counterpoint, maybe even more impressive being in such a tonally sophisticated language (if you think about it none of the 2 fugal subjects stays in the same key for their short duration, they both "wander" around). "Clever". In the good spirit of Germanic music!
You could think of this symphony as Bruckner's homage to the great tradition of Germanic polyphonic music, to Bach even maybe - Bruckner was, like Bach, one of the best organists in Austria/Germany for many, many years, after all! Like a fusion of Bach, Beethoven & Wagner turned into "Bruckner"!
Why in the great tradition of the Austro-German music, composers when writing music they intend somehow "sacred", write often the most rational, "clever" polyphony? Because complex polyphonic music that fits perfectly, "harmoniously" it's almost like an artistic mirror of "God's perfection and complexity beyond us" and ... awesome and frightening almost! And also because traditionally the music for God, in church was not infused with “cheap sentiment”! And by their nature, thematic subjects in complex polyphonic music are short, motivic almost, and not prone to over-sentimentality.
What about the orchestration? For example, think about the high clarinet (which seems to make some in this country think of "carry on" movies - not by any fault of Bruckner's!) - Isn't that very much like "proto-Mahler"?! Especially as it is then doubled, just before the fugue starts! How often Mahler uses that raw sounding almost burlesque high clarinet colour! What about the violin yodeling in the scherzo? Almost like taking Mahler by the hand and pointing him in the direction of his landlers to come! But is no wonder, Mahler knew Bruckner's symphonies well and he attended Bruckner's classes at the Vienna Conservatory - and is not for nothing that he called him "my fore-runner"! What about the organ-like apocalyptic unisons over the whole big orchestra - typical Bruckner sound, crawling from key to key in the transitions passages in the last movement. (They are in fact, inverted versions of the second subject motive - contrapunctal "development", again)
I'll stop here as this is already too long - but combine all of the above with the fascination romantic composers had for the delights (and almost unaware of the dangers) of Ambiguity, as Bernstein said, creating more and more ambiguities in terms of tonality and rhythm (see 2nd movement, for example, with its "ambiguous" time signature; are we in 4? are we in 6?!), add to that the thematic unity "needed" - for example using theme elements form the 2nd movement in the scherzo (a bit like a reverse of what Elgar does in his first Symphony) , bringing the main theme of the first movement over the coda of the last movement and so on, etc. etc; and you get to what Bruckner's 5th symphony is: more cerebral, more "clever", with more masterful counterpoint and as a result also yes, less sentimental and seductive, with less easily detectable "tunes", as some complain (not that they are not there!), than any other of his symphonies: "Bruckner filling his Cathedral with a sound offering for his God ..."!
The other side of Leopold Mozart, Norrington and vibrato (what the fundamentalists don't want you to know!)
Fundamentalists like Norrington & Co often distort what people such as L. Mozart, Spohr, etc actually wrote, by taking passages out of context and absolutely ignoring anything else they don't like, "the other side" - because it doesn't support their agenda!
For example speaking about tone production , L. Mozart suggests that the violinist should aim to imitate the human voice, the singer and adds:
"...the finger of the left hand which is placed on the string should, in the soft tone, relax the pressure somewhat, and that the bow should be placed a little farther from the bridge or saddle; whereas in loud tone the fingers of the left hand should be pressed down strongly and the bow be placed nearer to the bridge. In this first division in particular, as also in the following, the finger of the left hand should make a small, slow movement which must not be sideways but forward and backward. That is, the finger must move forward towards the bridge and backward again towards the scroll: in soft tone quite slowly, but in the loud rather faster...”
OMG, "HERESY!" I hear "pseudo-authenticists" shout! L. Mozart suggesting use vibrato not as ornament but as a normal tool in tone production?!
In another chapter he writes "a closing note or any other sustained
note may be decorated with tremolo" Vibrato was called by many names at the time, frequently tremolo - L. Mozart clearly refers to vibrato when he writes "tremolo". He explains:
"The Tremolo is an ornamentation which arises from Nature herself and which can be used charmingly on a long note, not only by good instrumentalists, but also by clever singers. Nature herself is the instructress thereof. For if we strike a slack string or a ball sharply, we hear after the stroke a certain wave-like undulation (ondeggiamento) of the struck note. And this trembling, after-sound is called tremolo, also tremulant [or tremoleto].
Take pains to imitate this natural quivering on the violin, when the finger is pressed strongly down on the string, and one makes a small movement with the whole hand; which however must not move sideways but forwards toward the bridge and backwards toward the scroll; of which some mention has already been made in Chapter V. For as, when the remaining trembling sound of a struck string or bell is not pure and continues to sound not on one note only but always first too high, then too low, just so by the movement of the hand forward and backward must you endeavor to imitate exactly the swaying of these intermediate tones."
Of course fundamentalists like Norrington, apply only SOME of L. Mozart's principles - and that to EVERYTHING, even to Mahler and Richard Strauss as if they were all cousins, claiming they never heard orchestras play vibrato in their lifetime (of course claims unsupported by any real proof), as if music never changed and evolved at all throughout time as if Brahms and Pergolesi studied with the same teacher! Even we had last year some rehearsals when a certain conductor claimed R. Strauss never heard vibrato!
Why would then R. Strauss write in his music, sometimes even in earlier compositions indications like:
"vibrato, poco a poco senza vibrato" followed by "molto espressivo" - R. Strauss, Ein Heldenleben
"espressivo/molto espressivo, vibrato" - R. Strauss, McBeth
"alle Streicher sehr seelenvoll, mit sehr viel vibrato, daher keine leeren Saiten benutzen!" (All strings very soulfully, with very much vibrato, thus using no open strings!”) - R. Strauss, Elektra
What does Norrington think of Mahler's - “vibrato, mit innigster Empfindung” (“vibrato, with the most inward feeling”) - Mahler 5 ?
Norrington's Mahler recordings are in my opinion absolute aberrations!
Even Rossini asks for vibrato in Mosè in Egitto (1818) a number of times; once he writes:
“vibrato con molta forza”.
And why would such composers ask in the middle of a piece suddenly for "senza vibrato", "senza espressione", if players normally didn't vibrate?!
It is also clear from the way most composers interchanged often for the same passages indications like "espressivo", "cantabile", "dolce" with "vibrato" - and "senza espressione" with "senza vibrato" that they expected singing expressive passages to be played as if sung by a singer, WITH vibrato! The ultimate goal for instrumental music was to imitate the human voice.
This is not my research - I recommend every serious musician read and think and judge for himself:
http://www.classicstoday.com/features/vibratocomposite.asp
It exposes the "fanatical-pseudo-authenticists" agenda for what it is: SHABBY SCHOLARSHIP!
For example speaking about tone production , L. Mozart suggests that the violinist should aim to imitate the human voice, the singer and adds:
"...the finger of the left hand which is placed on the string should, in the soft tone, relax the pressure somewhat, and that the bow should be placed a little farther from the bridge or saddle; whereas in loud tone the fingers of the left hand should be pressed down strongly and the bow be placed nearer to the bridge. In this first division in particular, as also in the following, the finger of the left hand should make a small, slow movement which must not be sideways but forward and backward. That is, the finger must move forward towards the bridge and backward again towards the scroll: in soft tone quite slowly, but in the loud rather faster...”
OMG, "HERESY!" I hear "pseudo-authenticists" shout! L. Mozart suggesting use vibrato not as ornament but as a normal tool in tone production?!
In another chapter he writes "a closing note or any other sustained
note may be decorated with tremolo" Vibrato was called by many names at the time, frequently tremolo - L. Mozart clearly refers to vibrato when he writes "tremolo". He explains:
"The Tremolo is an ornamentation which arises from Nature herself and which can be used charmingly on a long note, not only by good instrumentalists, but also by clever singers. Nature herself is the instructress thereof. For if we strike a slack string or a ball sharply, we hear after the stroke a certain wave-like undulation (ondeggiamento) of the struck note. And this trembling, after-sound is called tremolo, also tremulant [or tremoleto].
Take pains to imitate this natural quivering on the violin, when the finger is pressed strongly down on the string, and one makes a small movement with the whole hand; which however must not move sideways but forwards toward the bridge and backwards toward the scroll; of which some mention has already been made in Chapter V. For as, when the remaining trembling sound of a struck string or bell is not pure and continues to sound not on one note only but always first too high, then too low, just so by the movement of the hand forward and backward must you endeavor to imitate exactly the swaying of these intermediate tones."
Of course fundamentalists like Norrington, apply only SOME of L. Mozart's principles - and that to EVERYTHING, even to Mahler and Richard Strauss as if they were all cousins, claiming they never heard orchestras play vibrato in their lifetime (of course claims unsupported by any real proof), as if music never changed and evolved at all throughout time as if Brahms and Pergolesi studied with the same teacher! Even we had last year some rehearsals when a certain conductor claimed R. Strauss never heard vibrato!
Why would then R. Strauss write in his music, sometimes even in earlier compositions indications like:
"vibrato, poco a poco senza vibrato" followed by "molto espressivo" - R. Strauss, Ein Heldenleben
"espressivo/molto espressivo, vibrato" - R. Strauss, McBeth
"alle Streicher sehr seelenvoll, mit sehr viel vibrato, daher keine leeren Saiten benutzen!" (All strings very soulfully, with very much vibrato, thus using no open strings!”) - R. Strauss, Elektra
What does Norrington think of Mahler's - “vibrato, mit innigster Empfindung” (“vibrato, with the most inward feeling”) - Mahler 5 ?
Norrington's Mahler recordings are in my opinion absolute aberrations!
Even Rossini asks for vibrato in Mosè in Egitto (1818) a number of times; once he writes:
“vibrato con molta forza”.
And why would such composers ask in the middle of a piece suddenly for "senza vibrato", "senza espressione", if players normally didn't vibrate?!
It is also clear from the way most composers interchanged often for the same passages indications like "espressivo", "cantabile", "dolce" with "vibrato" - and "senza espressione" with "senza vibrato" that they expected singing expressive passages to be played as if sung by a singer, WITH vibrato! The ultimate goal for instrumental music was to imitate the human voice.
This is not my research - I recommend every serious musician read and think and judge for himself:
http://www.classicstoday.com/features/vibratocomposite.asp
It exposes the "fanatical-pseudo-authenticists" agenda for what it is: SHABBY SCHOLARSHIP!
Berlioz, Berlioz, Berlioz!
"In a certain opera house of northern Europe, it is the custom among the members of the orchestra, several of whom are cultivated men, to spend their time reading books - or even discussing matters literary and musical - whenever they perform any second-rate operas. This is to say that they read and talk a good deal. Next to the score on every music-stand, some book or other is generally to be found, and a performer apparently most absorbed in scanning his part, or most earnestly counting his rests while watching for his cue, may actually be giving all his attention to Balzac's marvelous scenes, to Dickens's enchanting pictures of social life, or even to the study of one of the sciences. I know one who, during the first fifteen performances of a well-known opera, read, re-read, pondered, and mastered the three volumes of Humboldt's Cosmos. Another, during the long run of a silly score now forgotten, managed to learn English; while a third, thanks to his exceptional memory, retailed to his neighbours the substance of some ten volumes of tales, romances, anecdotes and risqué stories.
One man only in this orchestra does not allow himself any such diversion. Wholly intent upon his task, all energy, indefatigable, his eye glued to his notes and his arm in perpetual motion, he would feel dishonored if he were to miss an eighth note or incur censure for his tone quality. By the end of each act he is flushed, perspiring, exhausted; he can hardly breathe, yet he does not dare take advantage of the respite offered by the cessation of musical hostilities to go for a glass of beer at the nearest bar. The fear of missing the first measures of the next act keeps him rooted at his post. Touched by so much zeal, the manager of the opera house once sent him six bottles of wine, "by way of encouragement." But the artist, "conscious of his responsibilities," was so far from grateful for the gift that he returned it with the proud words: 'I have no need of encouragement.' The reader will have guessed that I am speaking of the man who plays the bass drum." :D
It's great fun reading this! (Even more so if you are a musician and play in an orchestra!)
Here is the beginning of the "First Evening":
'"A very dull modern French opera is being given.
The musicians take their seats with obvious disgust and ill-temper. They do not condescend to tune up, a detail to which the conductor seems not to pay any attention. But when the oboe plays its first A, the violins cannot miss the fact that they are a good quarter tone above the woodwind.
“My!” says one of them, “the orchestra is delightfully dissonant! Let’s play the overture just as we are, it will be fun!”
And so the musicians stoutly play their parts, not sparing the audience a single note. I mean to say, not depriving, for the audience, enraptured by this dreary rhythmic cacophony, shouts for an encore and the conductor has to begin again. Only, as a matter of policy, he insists that the strings be good enough to take the pitch from the woodwinds. He’s a busy body.
The men are in tune; the overture is repeated, but this time it makes no impression. The opera begins, and little by little the instruments stop playing..."'
Read this book, is fantastic stuff! ("Evenings with the orchestra" By Hector Berlioz)
One man only in this orchestra does not allow himself any such diversion. Wholly intent upon his task, all energy, indefatigable, his eye glued to his notes and his arm in perpetual motion, he would feel dishonored if he were to miss an eighth note or incur censure for his tone quality. By the end of each act he is flushed, perspiring, exhausted; he can hardly breathe, yet he does not dare take advantage of the respite offered by the cessation of musical hostilities to go for a glass of beer at the nearest bar. The fear of missing the first measures of the next act keeps him rooted at his post. Touched by so much zeal, the manager of the opera house once sent him six bottles of wine, "by way of encouragement." But the artist, "conscious of his responsibilities," was so far from grateful for the gift that he returned it with the proud words: 'I have no need of encouragement.' The reader will have guessed that I am speaking of the man who plays the bass drum." :D
It's great fun reading this! (Even more so if you are a musician and play in an orchestra!)
Here is the beginning of the "First Evening":
'"A very dull modern French opera is being given.
The musicians take their seats with obvious disgust and ill-temper. They do not condescend to tune up, a detail to which the conductor seems not to pay any attention. But when the oboe plays its first A, the violins cannot miss the fact that they are a good quarter tone above the woodwind.
“My!” says one of them, “the orchestra is delightfully dissonant! Let’s play the overture just as we are, it will be fun!”
And so the musicians stoutly play their parts, not sparing the audience a single note. I mean to say, not depriving, for the audience, enraptured by this dreary rhythmic cacophony, shouts for an encore and the conductor has to begin again. Only, as a matter of policy, he insists that the strings be good enough to take the pitch from the woodwinds. He’s a busy body.
The men are in tune; the overture is repeated, but this time it makes no impression. The opera begins, and little by little the instruments stop playing..."'
Read this book, is fantastic stuff! ("Evenings with the orchestra" By Hector Berlioz)
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Bowing and ... Richard Strauss
This is what Richard Strauss wrote in his edition of Berlioz’s orchestration treatise:
“To curb the different temperaments in bowing means to destroy the soulful expression in the rendering of a melody. One violinist, in accordance with his feelings and technical skill, may need four strokes of the bow to play a melody expressively; another violinist, only two. If the first one is forced to play this melody also with two strokes, his performance will obviously lose its intensity and become poor and dull…. In such cases it is my principle to follow strictly the composer’s phrase-marks (breathing-marks) ONLY at the beginning and end of a phrase; within the phrase I let each violinist change the bow as he wishes.”
“To curb the different temperaments in bowing means to destroy the soulful expression in the rendering of a melody. One violinist, in accordance with his feelings and technical skill, may need four strokes of the bow to play a melody expressively; another violinist, only two. If the first one is forced to play this melody also with two strokes, his performance will obviously lose its intensity and become poor and dull…. In such cases it is my principle to follow strictly the composer’s phrase-marks (breathing-marks) ONLY at the beginning and end of a phrase; within the phrase I let each violinist change the bow as he wishes.”
Handel's "Messiah" ... & me ...
For some strange reason, when that time of the season comes and we play Handel's Messiah here, I always feel a little "alien"! I end up thinking about the very contrasting Christmases of my childhood, growing up, etc! Sometimes I wish I TOO had the Messiah embedded in my Christmas memories! But I grew up in a communist country - "the Messiah" was not really on the menu! In fact Christmas itself didn't officially exist as far as the party was concerned. (people of course continued to celebrate it - but mostly in their homes, privately)
There were no bright shiny street lights reminding people of Christmas; and most definitely no public celebrations with "the Messiah" or anything similar! And if the regime didn't manage to extirpate Christmas, at least they tried to remove any religious associations. So having “the Messiah” played, especially around Christmas time, would have seemed worse than Christmas itself from the party point of view.
The shops wouldn't display any Christmas messages - and to diminish the importance of Christmas even further, New Year's Eve was promoted as the main celebration of the winter holidays instead of Christmas. December 31, January 1 and some of January 2 were generally the days off work, not Christmas - and were also the only days when the one and only state TV channel would broadcast for longer than the usual 2 hours a day in the evening - and it wouldn't be all party propaganda! (actually I think at weekends we would also get some afternoon broadcasts, 2 hours or so - I definitely remember that we used to get 5 minutes of cartoons on Saturday & 5 minutes on Sunday - but it wasn't always clear at exactly what time of the afternoon that would be. So if we were playing outside when the cartoons started, by the time my mom would shout for us and by the time we would hear that and make it home inside, the 5 minutes of cartoons would be finished! So ... wait for another week! I remember for example watching stuff like "the Aristocats", that way - in weekly episodes of 2 x 5 minutes! :) But I digress!)
So "the Messiah" was definitely not a tradition for Christmas! In fact any performances or exhibitions of any art works with religious themes weren't encouraged in general - and if they had to happen, the interest had to be carefully focused exclusively on their aesthetic qualities and not at all on any religious symbolism. The artists biographies were carefully altered so as to show they never had any real interest in the church or the religion (and if possible that on the contrary they hadn't) and the reasons for creating something somehow "religious" would have been entirely financial, social, etc. Definitely not devotion! A great artist couldn't have sincerely believed in any of that backward superstition, could they? OK, maybe the regime would forgive someone like Handel, as the poor guy lived so long ago and must have been influenced by all the cretins that surrounded him! But just in case, no "Messiah" at Christmas, who knows, it may give some dangerous ideas to the masses!
Now I'm not trying to defend religion! I am not religious. I find for example Franco's enforced Catholicism and nationalism equally as disturbing and disgusting as the communists enforced denial. But sometimes I envy those who had the CHOICE of a concert with something like "the Messiah" at Christmas!
However, I shouldn't blame only the communists! The Orthodox Church considers instrumental music "incompatible with the pure, solemn, spiritual character of the religion of Christ." (almost as narrow minded as the communists) So while the "kapellmeisters" of the western churches were encouraged to write great music for services and other church events and given a relative freedom to do it, the Orthodox Church with its ultra-conservative ways sterilized musicians ("music shouldn't be too important or it may distract attention from God" mentality).
Thus even despite the foreign language, I wouldn't have instantly recognized "the Messiah" as "sacred" or "religious" music anyway, especially as a child, as it sounds very different from the Byzantine chant type music which was for me "church music".
But I'm not complaining, like most I remember all those Christmases of the past as "magical"! In fact I wouldn't change my childhood Christmases for anything! Not even the one from 89 with the Revolution and the Christmas Day execution that we were all waiting for so many hours to watch ... That early January at school, my classmates were not showing off their Christmas presents - they were exchanging the bullets they collected instead. I was envious because I didn't have any!
Maybe I didn't get to hear Handel's "Messiah", I didn't see bright Christmas street lights, not even on TV, I didn't see Christmas trees in shops in October - in fact I almost didn't feel it was Christmas until the day before when we would put up our Christmas tree which once or twice we cut ourselves from the forest. But I would hear and sing Christmas Carols instead which felt maybe even more special to many of us because we couldn't hear them on the radio or the TV or sung in schools (until after the Revolution), as they were "religious". (and I mean ancient Romanian carols, I don't mean "White Christmas"! - in fact I wasn't familiar with most American or other "foreign" Christmas carols until some time after the Revolution). We would have groups of children come and sing carols from house to house, go with the "star" (a traditional custom), etc. And of course Santa would bring us presents! (despite the fact that the communists tried to replace him with a "communist” version!)
Then would be all the other many customs and traditions related to Christmas and the New Year which I can't even start to translate or describe! And of course we would spend literally the whole day everyday playing not in front of the computer, not even inside, sometimes far from home, in the forest, in the snow, fighting, on crazy slopes skiing and sledging, etc. in large groups for hours and hours; and then come home dirty, wet, frozen, exhausted... I am sorry my son can no longer experience that!
Still, when we play the Messiah at Christmas each year it somehow reminds me the different world I come from.
There were no bright shiny street lights reminding people of Christmas; and most definitely no public celebrations with "the Messiah" or anything similar! And if the regime didn't manage to extirpate Christmas, at least they tried to remove any religious associations. So having “the Messiah” played, especially around Christmas time, would have seemed worse than Christmas itself from the party point of view.
The shops wouldn't display any Christmas messages - and to diminish the importance of Christmas even further, New Year's Eve was promoted as the main celebration of the winter holidays instead of Christmas. December 31, January 1 and some of January 2 were generally the days off work, not Christmas - and were also the only days when the one and only state TV channel would broadcast for longer than the usual 2 hours a day in the evening - and it wouldn't be all party propaganda! (actually I think at weekends we would also get some afternoon broadcasts, 2 hours or so - I definitely remember that we used to get 5 minutes of cartoons on Saturday & 5 minutes on Sunday - but it wasn't always clear at exactly what time of the afternoon that would be. So if we were playing outside when the cartoons started, by the time my mom would shout for us and by the time we would hear that and make it home inside, the 5 minutes of cartoons would be finished! So ... wait for another week! I remember for example watching stuff like "the Aristocats", that way - in weekly episodes of 2 x 5 minutes! :) But I digress!)
So "the Messiah" was definitely not a tradition for Christmas! In fact any performances or exhibitions of any art works with religious themes weren't encouraged in general - and if they had to happen, the interest had to be carefully focused exclusively on their aesthetic qualities and not at all on any religious symbolism. The artists biographies were carefully altered so as to show they never had any real interest in the church or the religion (and if possible that on the contrary they hadn't) and the reasons for creating something somehow "religious" would have been entirely financial, social, etc. Definitely not devotion! A great artist couldn't have sincerely believed in any of that backward superstition, could they? OK, maybe the regime would forgive someone like Handel, as the poor guy lived so long ago and must have been influenced by all the cretins that surrounded him! But just in case, no "Messiah" at Christmas, who knows, it may give some dangerous ideas to the masses!
Now I'm not trying to defend religion! I am not religious. I find for example Franco's enforced Catholicism and nationalism equally as disturbing and disgusting as the communists enforced denial. But sometimes I envy those who had the CHOICE of a concert with something like "the Messiah" at Christmas!
However, I shouldn't blame only the communists! The Orthodox Church considers instrumental music "incompatible with the pure, solemn, spiritual character of the religion of Christ." (almost as narrow minded as the communists) So while the "kapellmeisters" of the western churches were encouraged to write great music for services and other church events and given a relative freedom to do it, the Orthodox Church with its ultra-conservative ways sterilized musicians ("music shouldn't be too important or it may distract attention from God" mentality).
Thus even despite the foreign language, I wouldn't have instantly recognized "the Messiah" as "sacred" or "religious" music anyway, especially as a child, as it sounds very different from the Byzantine chant type music which was for me "church music".
But I'm not complaining, like most I remember all those Christmases of the past as "magical"! In fact I wouldn't change my childhood Christmases for anything! Not even the one from 89 with the Revolution and the Christmas Day execution that we were all waiting for so many hours to watch ... That early January at school, my classmates were not showing off their Christmas presents - they were exchanging the bullets they collected instead. I was envious because I didn't have any!
Maybe I didn't get to hear Handel's "Messiah", I didn't see bright Christmas street lights, not even on TV, I didn't see Christmas trees in shops in October - in fact I almost didn't feel it was Christmas until the day before when we would put up our Christmas tree which once or twice we cut ourselves from the forest. But I would hear and sing Christmas Carols instead which felt maybe even more special to many of us because we couldn't hear them on the radio or the TV or sung in schools (until after the Revolution), as they were "religious". (and I mean ancient Romanian carols, I don't mean "White Christmas"! - in fact I wasn't familiar with most American or other "foreign" Christmas carols until some time after the Revolution). We would have groups of children come and sing carols from house to house, go with the "star" (a traditional custom), etc. And of course Santa would bring us presents! (despite the fact that the communists tried to replace him with a "communist” version!)
Then would be all the other many customs and traditions related to Christmas and the New Year which I can't even start to translate or describe! And of course we would spend literally the whole day everyday playing not in front of the computer, not even inside, sometimes far from home, in the forest, in the snow, fighting, on crazy slopes skiing and sledging, etc. in large groups for hours and hours; and then come home dirty, wet, frozen, exhausted... I am sorry my son can no longer experience that!
Still, when we play the Messiah at Christmas each year it somehow reminds me the different world I come from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)