The publication of a new score of Mendelssohn’s “Italian” symphony seems to have revived the interest of conductors wishing to record this music. It is mainly musicians from the baroque sphere that we come across in the latest releases, not without some surprises as to the sound framework in which this music now fits.
Three versions of famous Mendelssohn symphonies — noto 3 “Scottish”, noto 4 “Italian” and noto 5 “Reformation” — have appeared in recent months. Alexis Kossenko, with Les Ambassadeurs–La Grande Écurie, recorded a coupling “Italian” and “Reformation”, Maxim Emelyanychev chose the Scottish Chamber Orchestra for a combination “Scottish” and “Reformation”, while Jordi Savall recorded two different versions of the “Italian” symphony on the same disc .
Savall’s project takes us directly to the heart of the matter. Why record the same symphony twice on the same disc? This is because a new score has been edited. Curiously, it was published in 1997 and did not interest many people until recently. Riccardo Chailly recorded it on a CD entitled Italian Musa which we commented on in June 2022. He then firmly defended this unknown version which enhanced, according to him, “the dramatic side of the work”.
Unlike many resurrections of the genre, this is not a draft of a score that we know in its final form, but retouches made a year after the 1833 creation on the 2e3e and 4e movements. If, according to Chailly, the revision “reinforces and clarifies the characteristics of the extra-musical allusions of the work”, in our opinion it dilutes the effectiveness and musical impact by adding measures.
Three heads
When Savall, on his recent recording, first interprets the “final version of 1834”, it is therefore this “new “Italian”” that he plays. This score justifies the publication of the record by Alexis Kossenko, who joined his ensemble, Les Ambassadeurs, and La Grande Écurie, the former orchestra of Jean-Claude Malgoire which he took over.
Beyond the choice of scores, pitch (different in both cases) and interpretations, the records of Savall and Kossenko mark the return of the “baroque” in the universe of Mendelssohn, with not only instruments of era, but this related game whose main stigma is the absence of vibrato which gives an emaciated sound to the violins. For example, in 2e movement, the lines of the high strings oppose the pulsing staccato of the bass strings. As in many places of the 1er part, we wonder who can, naturally, want to hear these sounds or, by analogy, who can proclaim their desire to drink verjuice rather than a good wine.
Certainly not everything is sour and unpleasant. The 3e Kossenko’s movement is even jovially rural. Because Kossenko and engineer Nicolas Bartholomée succeed in what Savall completely misses: placing the orchestra in a sound framework of good size and resonance (the abbey sound at Alia Vox is irrelevant).
Basically, Kossenko’s record, the best of the two in the genre, raises the question of taste and the sound ideal. There is perhaps now a generational gap between what former music lovers may seek and music lovers born with the baroque movement, who will apply these sounds to various repertoires. The concept of “beautiful” could then have different meanings for audiences of different ages.
But maybe not… By choosing to play a “classical” chamber orchestra with historical awareness, Maxim Emelyanychev brings together the best of both worlds. He hasn’t yet looked into the “Italian”, but its coupling “Écossaise” and “Réformation” are spectacular in their energy, the intelligence of the phrasing, the depth of the dynamics. Even if the vibrato remains limited, the use of the Scottish Chamber Orchestra gives a certain warmth and relaxation to the whole without thickening the textures or weighing down the subject. The distance of the microphones gives a concert perspective, while in Kossenko’s exciting “Reformation”, very physical, we have the impression of being at the heart of the action. A matter of tastes and colors this time?