This disc contains the premičre recording of yet another version of
Janáček's
Glagolitic Mass. Like Fauré's
Requiem,
the published version of the work that was the standard edition
performed worldwide has now been challenged by a third. When I wrote
my
comparative review article on the
Glagolitic Mass for
this website, little did I suspect there would be another "original"
version of this masterpiece to contemplate.
As in the reconstructed 1889 version of the Fauré, recently recorded
and reviewed, this September 1927 version of the
Glagolitic Mass
is a reconstruction of that prepared for the first performance in
December 1927. This version was edited by Czech scholar Jiří
Zahrádka and published in the Complete Critical Edition of the Works
of Leoš Janáček. There is a detailed discussion of this version by
Zahrádka in a 2011 article in Das Bärenreiter-Magazin [t]akte and
references to what is undoubtedly the Paul Wingfield edition,
heretofore called the "original", though Zahrádka does not mention
Wingfield by name. Zahrádka claims that the so-called "original
version" was based on "several inaccurately interpreted sources and
unfounded suppositions." ["September 1927". About the critical
edition of Janáček's "Glagolitic Mass"] Be that as it may, Paul
Wingfield's research for his "original edition" seems to me
painstaking and convincing, as published in his monograph in the
Cambridge Music Handbooks series. Both of these editions of the mass
were based on manuscripts before the first performance in December
1927. Zahrádka intended the September 1927 version mainly for study
and as a supplement to the standard version. Zahrádka also included
the standard published version of 1928 in the Complete Critical
Edition, correcting some mistakes and "pointless editorial changes,"
and reinstating the fourteen bars of the
Svet that were
removed after the first performance because of the choir's technical
limitations. After hearing the September 1927 version in
performance, however, he became "genuinely enthusiastic", according
to his conversation with Tomáš Netopil in the CD booklet, finding it
"rawer and more spontaneous". What are the differences, though,
between this version and Wingfield's?
What is most apparent is the absence of the
Intrada with its
fierce brass and timpani at the very beginning of the work. Although
the mass was performed with the
Intrada as its beginning at
the premičre and subsequent performances during Janáček's lifetime,
the composer later supposedly decided against its use there and kept
it only as the mass's last movement. Zahrádka believes that it is
the conductor's decision whether or not to include the
Intrada
at the beginning; he prefers it only at the end. Obviously Netopil
agrees with him, as it would spoil the surprise of such an exciting
conclusion to the mass if it were also played at the beginning. The
argument to include the
Intrada at the start is for the
sake of symmetry with two instrumental movements at the beginning
and at the conclusion of the work and with the largest movement, the
Veruju, in the centre. The work's Introduction (
Úvod)
with its brass and timpani leaves a powerful impression on its own,
even with the faster tempo and changed meter of both "original"
versions.
The other major difference between the Wingfield and Zahrádka editions
comes in the middle of the
Veruju movement, the depiction
of the crucifixion (
raspet). Zahrádka has the timpani come
in a few measures earlier than Wingfield, starting about 5:30 on
Netopil's recording. Also at the beginning of that instrumental
section at 3:33, commencing with the solo flute, the clarinet trio
is on-stage as in the familiar, published version, whereas Wingfield
has them offstage. There are other differences, too, such as the use
of solo timpani in the final bars of the
Slava movement,
where Wingfield and the published edition have the organ
accompanying the timpani. Those final bars are very incisive in
Zahrádka's edition with the notes being clipped. Nonetheless, I
don't think any of these differences make one edition preferable to
the others. They are all valid and can only add to one's
appreciation of the mass.
None of this would matter if Netopil's new recording were not as good
as it is. Even if he were using a different score, I would rank this
new recording near the top of preferred versions. First of all, he
has a wonderfully idiomatic choir and orchestra to work with and
they are recorded in spacious, clear sound. The recording is a bit
more distant than some others, especially the classic
Ančerl, and needs the volume to be raised to achieve the maximum
effect. The soloists are all good, particularly the soprano in the
Slava and
Svet movements. The tenor, who has the other
important role, is fine, if rather rough at times, compared to
Ančerl's Beno Blachut or Leoš Svárovský's Vladimir Doležal. The
contralto and bass are more than satisfactory, even if the bass
becomes blustery in the
Agneče Božij. Aleš Bárta does
yeoman work in the difficult organ parts. His solo movement is as
clear and powerful as I've heard it. Sometimes it comes over as a
blur, but not here. That exciting
Intrada is taken at a
perfect tempo, not as fast as some, but with tremendous bite. The
brass and timpani bring the work to its rousing conclusion. In fact
the brass playing throughout may have just set a new standard for
the
Glagolitic Mass. There is one place in the
Slava
movement that is puzzling, however. This concerns the timpani solo
from 2:22-2:30. As the part descends, the timpani sound either like
they are playing different notes from the other versions of the work
with which I am familiar or that the timpani are going out of tune.
There is no mention of this change in any discussion of the 1927
edition of the mass I have read. In any case, it sounds wrong to me.
If it was a case of tuning, it should have been retaken. That's the
only cavil I have with this new account and it is not fatal by any
means.
What makes this disc even more attractive is the inclusion of the more
rarely performed cantata,
The Eternal Gospel. The cantata
belongs to the period of Janáček's maturity that produced such works
as the tone poem,
The Fiddler's Child, and the opera,
The Excursions of Mr. Brouček. In other words, it is
characteristic of the composer but without quite the degree of
originality of his final years. Like the
Glagolitic Mass,
the soprano and tenor have major roles here and in fact are the only
vocal soloists in this work. The orchestra and chorus also play a
crucial part, but the soloists in many respects carry the work. The
text of
The Eternal Gospel is based on a poem by Jaroslav
Vrchlický, describing the medieval monk Joachim de Fiore's vision of
an angel bringing the eternal gospel to foretell the coming of a
kingdom of love. The soprano portrays the angel, and the tenor the
monk. The angel is also represented by the solo violin, which
Janáček employs memorably as he does in the
Svet of the
mass. Again like the mass, the brass and timpani have significant
parts to play in the cantata. The work is divided into four
movements, the first three played without breaks while the last acts
as an epilogue. There are three recordings of this piece that I have
heard and this new one trumps the other two. One is Svárovský's
account, accompanying his
Glagolitic Mass (originally
Ultraphon, now
Arco Diva); the other is Ilan Volkov's with the BBC Scottish
Symphony (
Hyperion).
Svárovský's is idiomatic and very good, but Netopil is even better.
Volkov, whose orchestra and chorus are fine, is let down by his
vibrato-laden soloists. The soprano and tenor soloists on Netopil's
recording are, if anything, better than their counterparts in the
Glagolitic Mass on his disc. They leave little to be desired,
and the orchestra and chorus perform superbly.
While the pairing of these choral works makes this disc inviting, it
is this new version of the
Glagolitic Mass that makes it
mandatory for anyone who loves Janáček. For the standard, published
version there is always Ančerl's
Supraphon account, which is showing its age both as to sound and
orchestral execution, or Svárovský's more recent one, which is very
well played and recorded. If one is in the market for the standard
version, as amended by Zahrádka, then Sir Charles Mackerras's 1984
recording with the Czech Philharmonic (
Supraphon)
likely comes closest. He reinstates the fourteen bars missing near
the end of the
Svet, but otherwise follows the standard
score. His account stands the test of time in the vibrancy of the
performance. For the Wingfield edition, I would go for Mackerras
either in his opulent
Chandos recording with the Danish orchestra and chorus - it
adheres to the Wingfield score in the minutest detail - or the later
DVD with the Czech Philharmonic that remains my favourite of that
version. Interestingly, Netopil in the disc's booklet conversation
finds his approach to Janáček closest to Mackerras's by not watering
down or refining the musical language. His interpretations here of
both the mass and cantata bear this out.
Leslie Wright
Comparative Review of Glagolitic Mass Recordings
