-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Dec 13, 2003 4:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: A Note on Kathleen Ferrier (was Re: Minimalists...)
Mark:
<snip>
It's difficult to talk about music with anyone who hates Kathleen Ferrier. I
have no idea what she represents for you, but I'd suggest you listen to her
performance of Mahler's "Ich bin der welt..."
<snip>
To put it mildly, there's a lot of biographical baggage associated with that
recording, as you know. (Rather as with Charlie Parker's second version of
*Lover Man*, which I find very strong.) My problem is a general one, with
the quality of her voice. My prejudice is that, along with Virgil Thomson, I
consider her 'third rate'. But it _is_ a prejudice: I know I am not open;
and that, I think, is a pity.
For a start, I associate Ferrier, as I suspect do many British people of my
age, with endless schools broadcasts booming out of poor equipment into a
cold gymnasium during my early childhood. That's a first cause of prejudice:
I can taste the cod liver oil. Secondly, the specific timbre of her voice,
the masking of the sound, not just that it's a relatively low contralto, and
some of its rhythmic tics (English aspirational, I would call it) have class
associations which I very greatly dislike. (Her *Orfeo* is spectacularly
dreadful in this respect, as though sung by Mrs Proudie.) Thirdly, although
her voice is too like a collared dove's (an owl's according to Beecham) it
is insufficiently feral for my taste: I find it mannered and suburban. (For
many British listeners reasons two and three are actually positive, BTW:
privet has a particular meaning for the British.)
You can tell I do not like her very much.
And she auditioned once, unsuccessfully, to become the (British) Speaking
Clock.
And yet (to emphasise the point) my point of view doesn't have to be your or
anyone else's point of view. And voices are, I think, peculiarly personal.
The Marathi khayal singer Hirabai Barodekar was once recommended to me by
one of her erstwhile pupils. I couldn't (and still can't) hear what's meant
to be so good about her work. Girija Devi, on the other hand, a Varanasi
khayal singer whose quite harsh and grainy voice (it resembles a shehnai in
some respects) I'm listening to as I write this, is exquisite to my ear.
<snip>
Do you really think that if you point out my inconsistencies I'll feel
obliged to sit through still more of the music you like?
<snip>
There's a difference (as I hope the above makes clear) between vapid
proscription and/or prescription and _describing_ what you like or dislike
about something: 'concert music' excludes both Young's environments and
Glass's film music, and *Coming Together* does have an instrumental score,
your comments notwithstanding.
One can't in good faith declare 'chacun à son
gout' (a tiresome phrase) whilst holding onto the only bottle.
CW
__________________________________________
'I might have known you'd choose the easy way'
(Franz Kline's mother)
Interesting. I played a recording of Ferrier to an American composer friend, a student, as it happens, of Elliot Carter, and he fell instantly and madly in love. For a great many listeners her Das Lied and Brahms serious songs are incomparable. I do know what you mean about what you call a tic, but it's the way art songs in English (and artified folk songs) were sung back then. The same is true on this side as well--listen to Paul Robeson recordings. Magnificent, but dated. Or for that matter Marian Anderson doing spirituals or Lotte Lehmann doing Schubert. The trick, I think, is to listen historicallyto singing as one listens historically to music or reads historically. Mozart and Sterne are solving 18th century problems of their genres.
But anything forced down our throats in grade school tends to cause a gag reflex.
As to the rest, I'm simply too vapid to answer. I would suggest, tho, that you try to develop an ear for tone.
Mark
|