Oh dear, what is it I'm supposed to say?

Am in a rather somnolent state.* Have just arrived home, fresh (no, that's not the word) from the dreaded 23:30 National Express.

And for starters I'll throw the cat among the pigeons by saying that the concert was, for me, a huge disappointment. No raw edges, no fire, nothing. But I'll have to elaborate on that later when I'm more awake. The best bit of the evening was the pre-concert talk (broadcast, I believe, during the interval), and meeting IGI afterwards -- at long last!  (Sorry couldn't hang around to meet others afterwards: was in serious need of food!)

As to the Wingfield edition ... well, that's a real can of worms. Tinners has summed up the general situation pretty well. I really think that things like the three-part timpani chords (can anyone hear the pitches clearly?) and -- more importantly -- the polyrhythms in the Úvod don't actually work. The latter can just sound like a mushed-up gloop (as they did this evening). I reckon Janáček knew exactly what he was doing in those revisions. The revised Úvod may be 'simpler' (though that's a moot point), but it has much greater rhythmic focus and vitality.

No-one forced those (or any other) changes on Janáček, and they're of a quite different order from the posthumous changes made by his pupils to From the House of the Dead.  By the time he wrote the Glagolitic Mass he was an assured and highly regarded composer.  And a good enough one to know what worked and what didn't.

Concerning Wingfield's actual edition, I believe that Jiří Zahrádka (of the Janáček Archive in Brno) has made a much more detailed study of sources that Wingfield didn't seem to take account of in his survey. Unfortunately, Zahrádka's edition of the original version will only appear as an appendix to the Mass in the Complete Critical Edition. But I feel sure that Zahrádka's edition will present a far more nuanced and accurate view of both the pre- and post-revision versions. And I hope there'll be a chance to hear the results some time soon.

More anon. Now I'm going to collapse slowly behind a pillar ...

PS The broadcast I'd really like to hear is the one of the first performance in Decemebre 1927 ... but I don't think a recording survives. Now that would be interesting!

*Wyoming? Ed.

I can't work up any enthusiasm for the Glagolitic Mass. I always think I'm going to like Janacek, but when it comes to the point I don't. The performance seemed quite ordinary, with some remarkably bad solo singing. Simon Preston did that horrible organ solo well, I thought. I was watching on BBC so may have the wrong impression - have to be in the hall to know what it was really like.

Am I imagining this, or was the television presentation better this time than it has been?

I'm going to have a listen later on if I have a chance.

Opilec, not having access to any of the notated materials in question, may I ask: what do you mean by polyrhythms "not working"? It has always seemed to me that whether something "works" is really a matter of opinion.

So I'm in the minority in enjoying it all? 

Oh well, I suppose the good news is that when I hear good versions of these pieces I'll be completely bowled over! 

Don't like to just jump on a negative but I'm glad it wasn't just me appalled by the soprano ( from New Orleans not France Reiner ) She also destroyed the performance last year of the Foulds Rememberance Day oratorio too I think ? ( that's a poor work anyway but I just wonder why professionals don't see what is almost the universal opinion. Two such occasions would suggest it wasn't simply an off night )

Absolutely, Richard. I can only give my opinion. But in all the performances I've heard of the revised version (and they date back quite away: I was involved with preparing the original performing material for UE), those simultaneous layers never seem to have projected an immediacy that admittedly looks intriguing and exciting on paper. I think that maybe it's to do with the fact that the only possible pulse for those prime-number metres together is a rather ponderous one-in-a-bar - something that was emphasised all too clearly in last night's performance. Whereas I greatly prefer the rhythmic drive of the rather faster three-in-a-bar of the revision. Yes, Janacek can do slow as well; but the first version Uvod seems a bad example - to me!

There's a comparable issue in Act 1 of Jenufa. Not polyrhythms, but a passage where Janacek originally wrote an extended solo for Jenufa herself in 5/8, and a succession of rather balnd quaver rhythms. The revision's in 4/8, and introduces semiquavers on the second beat, which gives the passage a much sharper rhythmic profile.  And again, it was a revision made before the premiere. I'll try to post it sometime so you can see what I'm going on about.

It seemed a misjudgement to programme the Capriccio in that space, too. It needs some punch, I think, but all the energy and humour of the piece disappeared in the vast area of the RAH. This wasn't helped by the fact that I was effectively on the wrong side of the piano. It sounded like it was being played somewhere else - e.g. the municipal baths.

I'd like to say something positive about these performances, I really would. I have a lot of time for both Boulez and Janacek.  But not, on this occasion, together! The solo team seemed poor, and there were moments of very poor ensemble in the Mass. There seemed to be a big difference of opinion in the Agnus Dei as to whether people were performing on the beat or a little afterwards: near disaster!

The happy exception is that I agree with other comments about Simon Preston's organ solo. The slight problem was that it sounded so overwhelming on that instrument that the final Intrada came as an anti-climax - not helped by the fact that we'd already heard it at the beginning. Once again, I think Janacek's revision is well-judged: the possibility of that crazy music sounding like an anti-climax after the organ solo is substantially lessened if it's not already been heard!

And the choral singing was good, too. It raised the scond half from the rather smooth, urbane level of the first half of the concert. It's just a shame I still didn't like the vision of the Mass as a whole! My loss, no doubt.

 Sorry if I was too strident with my comments earlier but I was really looking forward to the Capriccio performance and that added to my disappointment.
 May I ask if any members who attend the concerts listen to the afternoon repeats, if so have they ever had cause to radically alter their opinion of a performance?

Of the two I've attended over the past couple of years (last year's Abbado Mahler 3 and the previous year's Sinaisky Shostakovich , the latter seemed weak at the time, though I may well have been in a seat with poor acoustics. What came over on the radio seemed like a completely different performance: much more engrossing.