Already a subscriber? Log in
Frankly, I’m not sure which side of this debate I am on. It rather depends on the work. As far as Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony is concerned, I’d suggest that we do not hear the symphony at all but instead, perhaps, a sentimental, regretful comment on its unfinished state. With Bach’s The Art of Fugue, however, I feel completely differently. It’s touching when that last great fugue tails off to nothing, but in some strange way the mind provides its own resolution (and not in imagined sounds). Equally, other men’s completions have proved satisfying.
And what about that Requiem mostly by Mozart? Constanze made sure that it was finished by someone, choosing Joseph von Eybler and Franz Süssmayr for the job, and with contributions also, maybe, from Maximilian Stadler. But a number of present-day scholars — Franz Beyer, Duncan Druce, Richard Maunder, the Haydn expert H.C. Robbins Landon, and Robert Levin — have presumed to do better, to get closer to the spirit and substance of Mozartian than Süssmayr and company did, reorchestrating this, discarding that, rewriting the other. I have a problem with this. While Süssmayr’s orchestration might not be on the same level as Mozart’s, he at least had the advantage of living and working alongside the great man. That gives him a head start over his late-20th-century colleagues, which in my view he maintains.
Yet living in a different epoch does not necessarily mean disqualification from filling in the missing parts if nobody has done it before and if you are honest about what you are doing. Two outstanding examples are Deryck Cooke’s magnificent, utterly convincing realisation of Mahler’s Tenth Symphony, a triumph of insight and deduction, and, more recently, the composer Anthony Payne’s similarly brilliant work on the sketches of Elgar’s Third Symphony. Enough of both works survives to tell us that both were looking to break new ground for their composers. Even so, there’s no pretending by Cooke and Payne that their work represents what Mahler and Elgar would have done. The Mahler is described as ‘a performing version of the draft’, the Elgar as ‘an elaboration on the sketches’.
Luciano Berio’s completion of Schubert’s extremely fragmentary Tenth Symphony goes a stage further, at least partly because it has to. Rather than ape Schubert’s language, Berio uses ideas from the sketches and from other Schubert in a work whose structure, manner and language is pure Berio, drawing together original Schubert with his own ‘connective tissue’. It is his analysis of and comment on Schubert rather than a speculative reconstruction. Hence its title, Rendering. It’s honest, affectionate and creative in a way that completions ‘in the style of’ cannot be.
Schubert’s Seventh Symphony is a different matter, since its outlines are complete, though it’s mostly unorchestrated and there are passages with just melodies or just bass lines with the odd bit of counterpoint added. We know basically what the music was supposed to do, where it was supposed to go. But we don’t know the colours Schubert envisaged, and neither do we know how much or how little Schubert might have changed things had he advanced to the ‘filling out’ stage. Another countermelody here? No countermelody there? What about a different harmonisation second time round? Decisions, decisions for those who attempt to finish it, among whom have been the conductor-composer Felix Weingartner in 1934 and the Schubert scholar Brian Newbould — an inveterate finisher of unfinished Schubert symphonies — in 1981.
And what about the Unfinished? There is, in fact, a third movement for the work, a Scherzo (with an incomplete trio) of which Schubert orchestrated only a few bars. So half of the restoration process is largely a matter of orchestration, a task attempted by many. And it turns out that there’s a candidate movement for fulfilling the role of finale, the entr’acte from Schubert’s incidental music for the play Rosamunde. It happens to be in the right key — B minor, an unusual key for this composer — and shares the same instrumentation as the movements Schubert completed. Even more helpfully it’s also in sonata form, and its mood fits well. The obvious possibility is that this movement began life as the symphony’s finale but when Schubert abandoned the work he recycled it, perhaps modifying it on the way. Both Newbould and Gerald Abraham assumed this to be the case in their completions. But again the question must be asked: is conjectural restoration better or worse than no restoration at all?
As it happens Safronov has chosen to ignore the Rosamunde theory, instead composing a completely new finale based on a number of Schubert keyboard works. He’s commendably honest about his intentions. It is, he says, simply ‘an attempt to move into the mind of a 19th-century composer. It is an experiment.’ Not, note well, an attempt to recreate that which cannot be recreated. We shall see just how well or otherwise it props up, fits in with or thrillingly contrasts with Schubert’s broken architecture.
Also in Arts Reviews
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in