by Shuo Zhang
Although originally composed within 24 days, Handel's Messiah has enjoyed its popularity in performance in the past few hundred years and also in recordings in the past few decades. Recently, when the two new recordings of Messiah, released by Naxos and DHM came out, the inevitable question appeared to be, "what is special about them and do we need two more recordings of the Messiah?"
As I immersed myself in the two CDs for the whole evening, it becomes clear that the two interpretations adopt radically different approaches to the work, each gives it something new in the contemporary context, while both root themselves on a historically informed performance.
In contrast to Bach, who was considered old school and remained largely unknown in his time, Handel enjoyed a flourishing "international" career with his new musical styles. Messiah, a rather atypical work of Handel--as it is almost exclusively concerned with prophecy and meditation-- on the other hand, among all of his works, received much opposition in its early days due to many people's disapproval of biblical words being sung in a common theatre, where most of Handel's oratorios were performed.
The fact that Handel did continue to revise his manuscript for the Messiah after the first 24 days to suit different occasions and performers results in the many surviving versions of the work, also giving rise to the different possible interpretations heard today.
In this respect, the DHM recording of Messiah, featuring Nikolaus Harnoncourt as the Music Director, includes in the program notes a "comments on this performance" by Harnoncourt, in which he traced the many renditions of the current recording to the result of the a careful study of the Handel's manuscripts while taking into account the difference in versions.
The Naxos recording, on the other hand, gives a strong reason why we should listen to this CD--as it claims to provide the only modern account of Handel's unique London performances in April and May 1751, when he used treble voices for choruses and arias.
Why is this important, that we want to hear this 1751 version? Well, turns out, that the configuration of different voice settings do make a big difference in these two recordings, and one may have a unforgettable experience listening to the loft voices of the all-male singing in the 1751 version, as reproduced by the Academy of Ancient Music and Choir of New College Oxford under the direction of Edward Higginbottom in this recording.
As all other "regular" arrangements, the Harnoncourt Messiah features all voices, with the all-star soloists Schafer as soprano, Larsson as alto, Schade as tenor, and Finley as bass. Despite the early instruments, the use of a larger instrumental ensemble, with its acoustics similar to modern day symphony orchestra, coupled with the four soloists, gives the work a fuller sound that I find more relatable as of today.
The Higginbottom version of the 1751 manuscript, on the other hand, gives a distinctively "early music" sound with its all-male choir (many of which are boys), male countertenor and tenor and bass, as well as three boys on the treble voice, and the use of lighter instrumental ensemble of Renaissance and Baroque style. It reminds one of the different aesthetics of musical sounds projected by a early music ensemble and a modern day symphony orchestra.
In general, the treble voices produced by young boys are comparable to the voice range of that of a soprano, while the countertenor, an adult male with a incredibly high voice range than average, often act as the counterpart of a female alto. Different than one may assumed, however, in this case, Handel did not simply substitute the two female voices with the two male ones, instead he made radically different arrangements for many arias with the countertenor and the treble voices in place of all sorts of voice settings in other manuscripts, such as tenor, giving the entire work a new design in terms of voice.
The tone color delivered by the two versions are also different, with the 1751 version distinctively having a more unified and clean tone, as comparing to the more diverse blend of the SATB in the Harnoncourt version. This is also reflected in the instrumental music heard in the two CDs: while the former has a more clean, unified color, the latter, a bigger orchestra, seemed to be more sensitive to deliver the change of color in the different mood of the music.
One other unexpected character of the 1751 version in the Naxos CD turned out to be the clear diction of the words by the treble voice boys, whereas the soprano in the DHM CD singing the same passage is harder to understand. On the boys part, whether this is intended or not is hard to say, but I have indeed met church choir directors who emphasize the significance of diction over music for the religious purposes---music must not cover the words as delivered in the Bible.
All being said, it is interesting to note that Handel's Messiah is not, in the accepted sense, a sacred work, despite of its subject and text. Once being called a "fine entertainment", which Handel himself was not exactly happy about, Messiah is indeed a probably too beautiful a musical work that even it is played in church, it tends to diverge people away from the worship aspect and inclined to just enjoy the music, especially when they encounter fresh interpretations such as these.
No comments:
Post a Comment