Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra
Claude Debussy (1862-1918)
Prélude à l’aprés-midi d’un faune 1894
(Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun; inspired by the poem of the same name by Stèhane Mallarmè
Esquisses Symphoniques “La Mer” 1905
(Three Orchetral Sketches "The Sea")
De L’aube ・midi sur la mer (From Dawn to Noon on the Sea)
Jeux de vagues (Wave Play)
Dialogue du vent et de la mer (Dialogue of Wind and Sea)
Maurice Ravel (1875-1937)
Poème chorégraphique pour Orchestre (Choreographic poem for orchestra) “La Valse” 1920
Léo Delibes (1836-1891)
Mazurka et Valse du Ballet “Coppélia” 1876
Prélude / Bȁrenreiter Urtext TP841
“La Mer” / Breitkopf & Hȁrtel Urtext Nr. 5516
“La Valse” / Breitkopf & Hȁrtel Urtext Nr. 5523
“Coppélia” / unknown
recorded source ： Recorded by Mr. Teruo Murakami with the most up-to-date tool （1bit recorder of KORG）
Comment of Conductor
I aimed to come up to composer’s intention as possible. That is a present standard recognition and I was conscious about former recording of Beethoven.
The concept of this recording is to record the performance that comes up to composer’s intension, without adding alterations by individual interpretations as French music old-performances. (Correctly, not only using URTEXT trendy. Writing later.)
Fortunately, these URTEXTs are published by Breitkopf and B舐enreiter recently and I could use these scores.
However, there are doubts on these URTEXTs. To clear
them, it’s the best way to read the composer’s handwriting score. We can get
only “La Mer” by IMSLP. http://imslp.org/wiki/La_mer_(Debussy,_Claude)
I could correct two points by this way.
1: Cor. and Timp. have ＜ on bars 84-85, two bars just before no.9. I movement.
Handwriting score has every ＞. There is no ＜.
It’s easy to infer that the editor changed them. He might
judge it’s unable to play so. But the composer is more thoughtful than him, I
As we imagine the way of wave, there is no question. Oppositely, this correction is difficult and players are at a loss.
Me, too. I felt discomfort in this old-performance. All is cleared up by this handwriting score.
2: Upper notes of tr. of Vc. on bars 31-35, five bars before no. 19, II movement.
Every upper note has # in printed score. Handwriting score has only two H# on a#
of bars 31 and 33. Others have no #.
I see the editor’s thought, too. He considered pentatonic
that is popular Debussy’s individual style.
Indeed I was lost, too. I decide to have H# on only A# as this handwriting score, because Debussy surely wrote such cases exactly.
It is better that other notes have no # for moving from A#-G#-F# to E of no. 19.
Hp. does, too.
There are two (or more) URTEXT’s interpretations. One is the first ver. and another is the last ver. by the composer himself.
My principle is the former. I think it is better to cherish his technique and feeling at that point in time. I believe his idea afterwards is the same of others’.
There is one more issue for long.
Bars 237-244, eight bars before no. 60, III movement.
There was passage
for cor. and Trp. The composer is said to delete it afterwards.
I performed without it as usual, because I have no evidence.
There is no correction about “Préude à l’aprés-midi d’un faune” and “La Valse”.
Especially, I mention about the difference from other
performances. I made strings play tremolo as exact-notes.
Purposes are to make the moving of notes clear and to prevent no-written Agogic as the tempo is uneasy to change so that in-tempo is kept.
That was very effective. Especially, I could express delicate melody by in-tempo in “Préude à l’aprés-midi d’un faune”. I think it is important thing in performance of French music.
I could not catch “destructive apotheosis of Vienna Waltz”
in “La Valse” as the commentator wrote. I rather recognize as “homage”.
Because I think music must be expressed only positive but negative as “ironically” or “contemptly”.
However, the players of this orchestra seem to know such common notice and then several parts were performed in a little overdone tempo-changing.
of this orchestra seem to have great effusion with Mazurka than Valse in “Coppéia”.
I thought each player has slight difference of it. This maybe divides taste.
Anyway, Mazurka became exciting.
I write about my own interpretation above-mentioned.
Remarkably, we are inexperienced to performance as score exactly. Such an idea is established in just recent years.
Actually, URTEXT of Beethoven and Mozart that are the most famous and are performance frequently were published around 2000.
We could not obtain only the score that no other people edited before then. Indeed, many orchestras’ archives have part score of such type yet.
In fact, we must wait for the modern technique, because we could not obtain handwriting score or we could not judge whether it’s true. And mostly, the players believed that to perform exactly as composed is not individual. Many players still believe so. It’s actual.
Postwar, URTEXT-ism and one tendency were born. It was to be exact for the score. Those came through the New-existentialism well-known as conductor Otto Klemperer.
Nowadays, performance by Period-method became
popular. Not only restoration of custom for performance and playing-method, but
also renovation and use of instruments in these days became done.
There are many opinions for propriety to restore the old style. I think it is proper to define performance as function that realizes the composer’s music.
It is my policy for performance.
I want to thank the members of Warsaw
Philharmonic Orchestra, Director Mr. Wojciech Nowak,
Personal Manager Mr. Tadeusz Boniecki and Ms. Beata M. Kowalczyk as our
And I deeply thank Mr. Andrzej Sasin and Ms. Aleksandra Nagko from CD Accord that helped recording. http://www.cdaccord.com.pl/
Especially, I thank Mr. Teruo Murakami that accompanied with me from Japan. Besides, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to people that support this project and Director of NKB Ms. Hiromi Kitagawa that takes charge of general finance, English translation and negotiation with Warsaw Philharmonic.
Conductor Noriaki Kitamura