In
June 2005 I reviewed the
première recording of this work by the primarily Australian
forces for whom it was written (see review).
What we have here, however, is not simply a second recording
of the
piece.
Instead
it’s a recording of a version incorporating a reduced orchestral
scoring. Tavener made this version in 2004 specifically
for The Choir of London (see website). They and their orchestra
aired it at their inaugural concert together in London
in December
2004 and in that same month they took the piece with them
and performed it at concerts in the Holy Land. Hence, this
reduced version is referred to in the booklet as the ‘Jerusalem
Version’ of the piece.
In
my previous review I quoted the composer’s own comment
about the work, which I think bears repeating here. “Jerusalem
is a universal symbol which signifies the changeless and
celestial synthesis of the Cosmos, and the primordial longing
of man for God. The Lament is a sign, therefore,
and a lament for the lost paradise that is universal.” He
goes on to explain that “[Lament for Jerusalem is]
a love song, lamenting our banishment from home, and the
temporary loss of our beatific vision.”
I’m
sure that it’s not without symbolic significance that Lament combines
elements from three distinct religious traditions, all
of which have close associations with the earthly city
of Jerusalem. There is the Christic tradition (Christ’s
lament for the city of Jerusalem, as recounted in St. Matthew’s
Gospel, chapter 23); then there is the Judaic tradition,
represented by words from Psalm 137 (“By the waters of
Babylon”); finally, there is the Islamic tradition, represented
here by words from an Islamic mystical poem, Masnavi. Tavener
allots the Christic text, in Greek, to the choir; the Judaic
words are sung by both the chorus and the soprano soloist;
the countertenor declaims the Islamic verses.
Lament is constructed in seven Stanzas, though
on this Naxos disc these are further sub-divided into a
Stanza, which is the opening choral section, followed by
a Cosmic Lament, which contains the remaining music of
the stanza. Each stanza begins with the chorus singing
in unison. With the exception of the final stanza their
words are always taken from Psalm 137. At each of these
appearances of the choir the music has increasing power.
The Cosmic Laments are always introduced by the countertenor,
who sings a passage from the Islamic text. Fittingly, his
music suggests the ornate vocalizing of a muezzin. He’s
always followed by the soprano soloist and each time her
text concludes with a touchingly simple “Alleluia”, in
Greek. Then the choir, this time singing homophonically,
gradually unfolds the Christic text in Greek. With each
succeeding stanza the amount of text that is sung is gradually
expanded and also the music grows in power and majesty.
Finally, each stanza concludes with a short refrain sung
very quietly by an unaccompanied semi chorus.
There
are two absolutely crucial differences between this Naxos
release and the earlier ABC disc, and I wonder if the two
are related. One is the size of the respective forces employed.
The other is to do with pacing and timings. Jeremy Summerly
takes 54:35 for the whole work, while Thomas Woods (ABC)
requires just 49:16. That’s quite a significant difference
and a comparison of the timings for each of the seven stanzas
shows that Summerly is consistently slower than his colleague.
It may be that this difference is “simply” a matter of
interpretation but I wonder if the smaller forces enabled
Summerly to dare to be broader? It’s possible that had
Woods wished to adopt similar tempi his larger forces might
have sounded too heavy. Actually, I think both approaches
work equally well and, to my ears at least, are validated
by the size of the respective performing forces. In a nutshell,
the greater intimacy afforded by Summerly’s smaller choir
and orchestra both allows and vindicates broader tempi.
How
do the two performances compare? Both pairs of soloists
are good. Christopher Josey, the ABC countertenor, has
a rounder, more sensuous and overtly expressive tone than
Peter Crawford (Naxos). In terms of sound Crawford is firmly
in the English cathedral countertenor tradition, which
some may prefer to Josey’s more exotic sound. Crawford
sings very well and with fine feeling but I think that
perhaps Josey’s more refulgent tone is slightly more appropriate
for the style of the music. Let me hasten to add, however,
that no one buying this Naxos release should feel short
changed by Crawford.
Soprano
Angharad Gruffydd Jones, a new name to me, is up against
fearsome competition for the soloist on the ABC disc is
none other than Patricia Rozario. Miss Rozario is perhaps
more closely identified with Tavener’s music than any other
singer and he has written several parts with her voice
specifically in mind. Lament for Jerusalem is a
case in point, I believe and her distinctive timbre suits
the music admirably. However, Miss Gruffydd Jones is by
no means put in the shade by her illustrious rival. She
sings very well indeed, projecting the music with conviction
and with lovely purity of tone. I enjoyed her performance
very much.
The
choral singing is first rate on both releases. Of course,
we are dealing with two very different approaches here
for the sound of a small choir of thirty one (Naxos) is
very different to that made by a full sized choir (ABC)
I very much like the Naxos disc in terms of the ambience
and clarity imparted by the smaller choir. That said, there’s
inevitably more grandeur and sheer weight of tone from
the larger choral - and orchestral - forces on the ABC
disc, and this tells for Lament grows in cumulative
power as each stanza unfolds. But it’s important to realise
that we are addressing here two completely different conceptions
of the same music, each of which is completely valid, not
least because the composer has specifically sanctioned,
and indeed encouraged them. One advantage that I did feel
the ABC disc has is that the semi chorus is more clearly
differentiated from the main choir as compared with the
Naxos release, where I believe that just three singers
form the semi chorus.
I’m
not entirely sure what modifications Tavener has made to
the orchestral scoring for this ‘Jerusalem’ version of
the score but so far as I’m aware the original score calls
for a full symphony orchestra. The precise forces are helpfully
listed in the Naxos booklet and, for example, it seems
that Tavener has eliminated horns and heavy brass from
the full scoring, retaining just the three trumpets. I
find that the reduced scoring works perfectly well and
none of the important colouristic effects called for, not
least in terms of exotic percussion, appear to have been
sacrificed..
Finally,
I can report that the documentation on the Naxos release
is comprehensive, including the text, and that the recorded
sound is first rate. Those comments apply to the ABC release
too, by the way.
So,
which version should collectors buy? Both releases are
eminently recommendable and, frankly, I’d advise anyone
with a keen interest in Tavener’s music to invest in both
for the two differ in so many important respects, are equally
valid, and shed complementary light upon one of Tavener’s
most eloquent and important recent scores. The Naxos version
enjoys a significant price advantage, of course, and it
may be easier to locate in certain parts of the world.
Pressed to put my head on the block and declare a preference
I’d opt for the Naxos by a short head. I pass up the ABC
soloists with particular regret but right now I have a
marginal preference for the intimacy of the ‘Jerusalem
Version’ of this score and for the greater breadth of Jeremy
Summerly’s interpretation - and on this occasion I feel
that with greater breadth also comes greater depth.
So
this Naxos release of a very fine work by John Tavener
is warmly welcomed. However, if, having got to know the
work through this admirable release, you get the chance
to acquire the ABC version I’d encourage you to do so.
I’m very glad to have both on my shelves.
John
Quinn
BUY NOW
AmazonUK AmazonUS
Angharad
Gruffydd Jones (soprano); Peter Crawford (counter-tenor) 
