Orphee et Eurydice (review)

Orphée: Ewa Podles	Capella Brugensis
Eurydice: Raphaëlle Farman	Patrick Peire, conductor
Amour: Marie-Noëlle de Callatay	Forlane ucd 16720/21 (2 CDs)
Collegium Instrumentale Brugense
Orphée: Jennifer Larmore	Donald Runnicles, conductor
Eurydice: Dawn Upshaw	Teldec (distributed by Atlantic) 4509-98418-2
Amour: Alison Hagley	(2 CDs)
Orchestra and Chorus of San Francisco Opera

These are, to my knowledge, the third and fourth recordings of Gluck's opera in the version prepared by Berlioz in 1859. In a sense, the first such recording doesn't really count: the 1935 version conducted by Henri Tomasi, with Alice Raveau as Orphée, is abridged, and the edition of the score used is not pure Berlioz, even so far as it goes. Currently available as either Pearl GEMM 9169 or Music Memoria 30325 (in each case, as a single CD), this performance may be of interest to specialists, but it is not directly competitive with the three complete recordings of the Gluck/Berlioz score that have appeared subsequently. (One of these recordings is in fact "more than complete," as we shall see.)

In 1989 EMI released a set conducted by John Eliot Gardiner, with Anne Sofie von Otter and Barbara Hendricks in the title roles, and Brigitte Fournier as Amour. Eventually deleted from the catalogue, the set was recently reissued as EMI Classics Special Import 556885 (2 CDs). Interested parties are advised to acquire a copy now, before it disappears again. (Incidentally, since recordings of Gluck's opera utilizing period instruments are now fairly common, it is worth pointing out that Gardiner's orchestra—that of L'Opéra de Lyon—employs modern instruments, with the exception of a few period and reproduction brasses borrowed for the occasion.)

We are accustomed to hearing Gluck's opera on records either in its original 1762 Vienna (i.e., Italian) version or in the 1774 rewrite for Paris—or in various hybrid versions that conflate the two scores. Some of these hybrid versions in fact incorporate material from the Berlioz edition (often without identifying the borrowings as such), and of course his score has a certain historical curiosity value. The success (unexpected, in many quarters) of the 1859 Paris production helped to re-establish Gluck's opera as a repertory piece; it also created the work's reputation as a vehicle for star mezzo-sopranos. (Gluck's Orpheus was sung by women, as well as by castratos, in the eighteenth century; but the excitement generated by the 1859 performances was almost without precedent, and had a lasting influence on the public's impression of the work.)

Unfortunately, the Berlioz edition, when heard and judged on its own merits, is not very interesting as an opera. It is, in effect, a diminishment of Gluck's 1774 score, calculated to "sell" the latter to mid-nineteenth-century audiences. (In fairness to Berlioz, it must be pointed out that a lot of people did not think Gluck's opera was worth reviving in the first place. Léon Carvalho, the director of the Théâtre-Lyrique, was willing to take a chance by mounting the work, but Berlioz had to talk him out of "improving" the score by adding the overture to Iphigénie enAulide, a chorus from Armide, and other potential crowd-pleasers. Alphonse Royer, director of the Opéra, predicted that Carvalho would have a flop on his hands. Royer had to eat his words: the success of the Gluck/Berlioz Orphée et Eurydice led directly to an Opéra revival of Alceste in 1861.) Berlioz respected Gluck too much to rewrite his music extensively or to insert much material of his own composition. (When Wagner turned his attention to Iphigénie en Aulide, he exercised no such restraint.) Berlioz cut out the dances, except for those at the beginning of act 2, scene 2 (i.e., the scene set in the Elysian Fields). Even the Dance of the Furies fell by the wayside: Berlioz ends act 2...