Heidi Stober as Daphne
Photo: Sunny Martini / Courtesy of Seattle Opera
No photos available of her in the outfit she changed into for
the transformation scene: yes, it was green.
I reviewed Seattle Opera's concert performances of Richard Strauss's Daphne for Parterre Box. I've got a couple of things to add, mostly about Heidi Stober.
I first saw her in 2008, at Santa Fe Opera, where she sang Tigrane in Handel's Radamisto. My vague recollection is that she was a last-minute substitute, but it's been many years, so take that with a grain of salt.
She wasn't a newcomer at that point; her professional opera debut was in 2001. She is now 48, and lemme say, in Daphne she sounded about 25, by which I mean her voice is completely fresh, vibrant, glowingly beautiful, utterly mobile. I don't know what combination of nature, training, and ongoing care it takes to sound that good when you've been singing professionally for 25 years, but she has it.
Back in 2022, San Francisco Opera produced Poulenc's great opera Dialogues of the Carmelites as part of its centenary season, the work's first staging at SFO in forty years. Dialogues had its U.S. premiere at SF in 1957, one of many prescient U.S. premieres under Kurt Herbert Adler. Of Stober's performance in Dialogues, Joshua Kosman wrote:
Soprano Heidi Stober’s appearances with the company have been reliable sources of joy ever since her 2010 debut in Massenet’s “Werther.” But her performance as Blanche added a new and even deeper level of psychological specificity to her expected vocal brilliance.
I felt much the same in 2022, and her vocal splendor in Daphne just reinforced my sense that Stober has entered a new phase of musical and vocal magnificence. There are interviews in the program with her and David Butt Philip (the astonishingly good Apollo) and she mentions hoping to sing the Marschallin. Fine by me and SFO hasn't performed it since the 2006-07 season. Regardless, I'm looking forward so much to hearing her in the future, in Strauss or anything else.
I could not squeeze into my review a couple of points that weren't even visible to most of the audience for Daphne. I attended both performances, first on a cheap seat in the second tier, second on press tickets in the orchestra.
From the second tier, I could see the alphorn that plays a role in the opening of the opera very clearly. It must have been about eight feet long and was very impressive indeed. And from up there I could see that Miles Mykkanen, playing Leukippos, had some green dye in his hair.
Thomas May was there too, on the 16th, and reviewed for Bachtrack.
17 comments:
Thank you Lisa for the update. I am the one who provided the alphorn for the Daphne performances at Seattle Opera. There were actually 3 different lengths of the alphorn. Strauss wrote the alphorn calls for Alphorn in G, A-flat, and A! These different tunings were accomplished by changing the top tube (hand tube) of the alphorn (which is made with 3 tubes). The overall length of the alphorn in G is a little under 11 ft (~3.3 m), the alphorn in A-flat just over 10 ft (~3.1 m), the alphorn in A about 9-1/2 ft (~2.9 m). I assisted the alphornist Mark Robbins in changing the hand tubes at the appropriate places in the score. I think the was the first time in the history of Daphne productions that all of the alphorn calls in the score were played on a real alphorn.
Thanks so much, and for the addition detail you provided in email!
"I have a full description on my web site: https://alphorns.com/ with links at the bottom to details for alphorn tuning tubes :)"
Hello, Mr. Martin - thanks for the interesting information about the alphorns. In looking at the score for Daphne and taking into account the lengths of the alphorns, did Mark play the part an octave higher than it is in the score? To get the notated partials, for example, the G alphorn would have to be twice the length that you specify in your comment above. Just wondering. Thanks.
Reply to The Bobbler
Yes, Mark played the parts an octave higher than in the score. To play the parts as written, you would need alphorns in all 3 tunings twice as long. A friend of mine brings a 24-foot alphorn in F (twice as long as our 12-foot F alphorns) to workshops. It is impressive, but not practical :) My French Horn playing friends informed me that the score is in "old notation" - to be played on a horn an octave higher than written. Alphorns are closely related to French Horns - in the same tuning they have the same lengths. So I assume the "old notation" explanation makes sense. There are good articles on "old notation" at hornmatters dot com. When a trombone or Wagner tuba plays these parts, as is typically done when an alphorn is not available, the parts are played in the lower octave as written. So, YouTube videos almost always have these alphorn calls played in the lower octave. Mark found one video where the alphorn parts are played in the higher octave, perhaps by an alphorn?
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that alphorns were notated like natural French horns, as transposing instruments in treble clef (so alphorn in G would sound a fourth lower than written, alphorn in A-flat a major third lower, and alphorn in A a minor third lower). Since alphorns are typically played by French horn players like Mark Robbins, this would make sense. So I wonder if Strauss was confused, and this in turn confused those playing the part on a trombone or Wagner tuba. Sounds like Seattle did the right thing!
Thanks Bryan. Yes, alphorn music today, at least for individual alphorn players or alphorn clubs, is always set in C with no key signature, no accidentals, and with a score part label like "For Alphorn in F" (outside Switzerland) or "For Alphorn in F# (Fis)" (within Switzerland). The written notes simply give the partials. The actual note values depend on the tuning of the instrument. (An exception to "no accidentals" is that the ekmelic 11th partial - the "alphorn fa" - is sometimes played and written as F# - lying 51 cents sharper than F, 49 cents flatter than F#). I am guessing Strauss wanted to give the actual note values (i. e. on a C instrument). Mark had no problem playing the different alphorn tunings using the original score. In my own setting of the Alphorn calls, I have them all in C and specify "Alphorn in G" for calls 1-3, "Alphorn in A-Flat" for call 4, and "Alphorn in A" for call 5.
But as you pointed out, Strauss wrote it an octave too low, unless you think he wrote for 24-foot alphorns, which seems unlikely. Strauss isn't the only one confused about notation for unusual instruments. Stravinsky wrote some Wagner tuba parts in the Rite of Spring an octave too low. You hear it on recordings both ways, but Stravinsky's own recording has them play in the higher octave (meaning he wrote it an octave too low), which settles the matter.
Hello Gary :) Tony Halstead recommended that I join in this conversation: he wrote the Foreword to my book 'The Alphorn through the Eyes of the Classical Composer' in which I discuss this very issue. You're absolutely right, of course, that these notes to be played as written require 3 alphorns, in G, A flat and A, with instruments nearly double the length of normal alphorns. However, notes written for Horn in C (which this must surely be) are always meant to sound an octave above the written pitch, so doesn't that just mean that he intends them to sound an octave above? i.e. within the more normal alphorn range? But yes, as you rightly say, you still need the three different lengths. Happy blowing - Frances www.AmazingAlphorn.co.uk
Hello Frances! Great to hear from you. I will send more information to you via email. When I first heard about interest in using my alphorn, the first source I consulted was your book :) I have added more information to my story at alphorns.com. Check it out and email me for continuing the conversation if you wish.
Hello Frances, Bryan and Gary - this is Bob Ward, retired Principal Horn of the San Francisco Symphony writing. Thanks for all the various pieces of information that you have dropped into this discussion. You may think me overly picky, but I wanted to provide a bit more context to some of these posts.
First, it is not true that bass clef horn parts are always written an octave too low. What you are referring to is "old" vs "new" notation, which is how horn players talk about it. In the classical era, what you say is true -- horn parts in all keys are written an octave too low for reasons of legibility. However, at a certain point, composers realized that this was illogical, and decided to use to new notation, where the octaves are correct.
Strauss exists in the boundary area between these two practices. During his lifetime this tradition was being changed, but, as far as I have been able to find out, Strauss always used "old" notation, writing the notes an octave too low. So, for Daphne, the choice to play the part an octave higher than written is a completely defensible one.
Still, Strauss, throughout his life also wrote his horn parts in different keys, so it is a mystery why he did not do that in this case, treating the alphorn as, essentially, a natural horn in these 3 keys. His father was a hornist, so he undoubtedly knew about this. This is the only thing that gives me pause about the octave higher approach, but, all things considered (especially practicality of performance) it's probably the right choice. We'll probably never know for sure.
OK, now Rite of Spring Wagner tuba parts: If you carefully look at the score for the Rite, you will see that they are written for tenor tubas in Bb. The issue is not, as Bryan states, that Stravinsky wrote the parts an octave too low, but that horn players misinterpret the transposition. If you are a horn player, you can play a part in Bb either as "alto," sounding a step lower than written, or "basso," sounding a major ninth lower than written. This choice is rooted in the context of the music being played -- there are plenty of examples of each key in the classical repertoire. There are still arguments about Haydn Symphonies, for example.
But for the Rite, the choice is clear: the upper octave is correct. Playing it in the lower octave, in unison with the big tubas is a common mistake, and it has been recorded that way. The last 6 bars of the First Part at reh. 78 tells us what is correct: For 2 bars, the bass tubas play in octaves, then in the 3rd bar, the final ascending whole tone scale restarts at the bottom of the staff, with the tenor tubas joining to provide the upper octave. So, in horn player terms, the correct transposition is Bb *alto*.
Hope this has been helpful. Horn Nerd World is a strange and complex place, best not visited too often. But sometimes it's the only place to find the real answers.
Cheers and all best,
Bob
Welcome, Frances, and thank you, Bob.
Thanks so much Bob for your insights into this indeed strange and complex "Horn Nerd World" :)
Bob, thanks for the info! I agree with your reasoning as to how the Bb tenor tuba in the Rite of Spring must be alto.This guy claims that Strauss and Bruckner wrote for Bb tenor tuba in "major 9th" transposition, so in that sense Stravinsky did write it an octave too low. (That URL contains a discussion of tuben in the Rite of Spring specifically, which I don't find totally convincing.) Having to sometimes guess at alto or basso transposition and old or new bass clef notation in horn parts is unfortunate, but that's the way it is!
One (hopefully final) word on the Wagner tuba -- for more information than you could ever want, I recommend William Melton's book, "The Wagner Tuba." (pub. Edition Ebenos) It gives much information, including an exploration of who made the first ones, a subject on which the standard answer is apparently wrong. In looking at the section about the Rite, he is much more ambivalent about the correct performance practice, based on interviews and recordings. Still, I think my explanation is the correct one, because it is internally consistent within the score.
Melton's book also discusses the various notation choices by different composers, including Wagner himself, who was not consistent about this in the Ring Operas. He also advances historical documentation that Strauss wrote Don Quixote for the Wagner Tuba, and was convinced that a baritone would work better when the WT player at the premiere had too much trouble with the part. I always wanted to play this on the WT! I think there are European orchestras who do use the WT. I would be very interested to hear a recording.
And then there is the Janacek Sinfonietta -- are the tenor tubas in the fanfares baritones or Wagner tubas? Melton thinks WT, but I have only done it that way a couple of times.
Anyway, looks like your mileage may vary, and that scholars will always have subjects to argue about.
Cheers,
B
It is for me a privilege to have such expertise weigh in on all this! This is all new and interesting to me. I got into the alphorn world in 2021, especially when I translated two books (from German to English) on the history of, and connections between, the alphorn and Swiss yodeling :) I continue to learn so much from my musicology friend Yannick Wey in Switzerland (co-author of the books I translated). But musicology is not my area of expertise. So thank you! Here are a couple disconnected thoughts I’d like to share.
If anyone knows when, where, and by whom an alphorn has been used to play any of the alphorn calls in "Daphne," I would love to hear about it. Besides Mark Robbins, I know only of Chad Yarbrough (2023) and Carlo Torlontano.
Since "old notation" was so common in the past, it is probably merely interesting what I recently "discovered" while browsing through the Leopold-Mozart-Werkverzeichnis (LMV, Cliff Eisen, 2010). There is a long discussion of VII:X2 "Pastoral"-Sinfonie, probably lost, but referenced in 2 letters from L. Mozart to Johann Jakob Lotter (15. & 18. Dec 1755). There is mention of the "Hirten Horn" in one letter, "Corno Pastoritio" in the 2nd letter with this comment: "NB die tiefen Aushaltungen auf dem Corno Pastoritio müssen um eine Octav höher genommen werden.” (Buaer/Deutsch I, 25-26). ["N.B. the low held notes in the corno pastoriccio must be taken an octave higher." / From an English translation accessed through the Online Edition of Leopold Mozart's Letters and Documents, Stiftung Mozarteum Salzburg.] I take it that “must be taken an octave higher” is an example of applying the principal of “old notation” – in this case for an alphorn-like instrument?
Argh! When I said above "This guy claims that Strauss and Bruckner wrote for Bb tenor tuba in "major 9th" transposition..." I gave a URL which the blog software apparently removed without warning, making "This guy" sound like I was referring to myself. If anyone's interested, you can Google "wagner tuba notation" and look at the Éditions Plamondon result.
That's weird - I have not known Blogger to remove URLs.
Post a Comment