(…) The symphonic production of Charles Gounod is far more modest, and occurred in an environment quite different from that affecting Schumann and Brahms. Schumann’s final symphony, the revision of his original Second that we know as No. 4, dates to 1851, while Brahms’ First did not appear until 1876 – although the composer started working on it in 1855, the same year in which Gounod wrote both of his symphonies. The French had little interest in symphonies at this time, ceding leadership in the form to the Germans and focusing instead on opera. It was not until Saint-Saëns’ “Organ” symphony (1886) that a French symphony again attained the impressive heights of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique (1830). So it is no surprise that Gounod’s works are slighter in scope than those of Schumann and Brahms. Indeed, they are highly indebted to the Classical era as funneled through the music of Mendelssohn – with the result that they sound particularly good when performed by a small ensemble, such as the Netherlands Chamber Orchestra. Gordan Nicolic, concertmaster of the orchestra as well as ist conductor, gets the fleetness and light elegance of the works’ orchestration exactly right in a new recording for Tacet, and his live performance of No. 1 zips along from start to finish with considerable élan and a sure sense of Gounod’s style – in both ist original and derivative elements. In No. 2, a studio recording, Nicolic is a touch more reserved, although he certainly listens to the composer in the final movement, which Gounod marked Allegro, leggiero assai. Indeed, there is an overall lightness to both of Gounod’s symphonies – not one indicating a lack of seriousness of purpose, but one showing that Gounod valued transparency of orchestration and easy accessibility of musical ideas above heaven-storming intensity and strongly dramatic thematic development. These symphonies are not the primary works for which Gounod is known, by any means, but they are an important part of his production and shed considerable light on his approach to operatic clarity and accessibility. They also show just how effective the symphonic form could be even when managed with less tempestuousness and structural erudition than it received from the Germanic composers in the years after the death of Beethoven.
Mark J. Estren, Ph.D.<< zurück