American Premiere of Sibelius's only opera | Jungfrun i tornet (The Maiden in the Tower) скачать в хорошем качестве

American Premiere of Sibelius's only opera | Jungfrun i tornet (The Maiden in the Tower)

Joseph Bozich conducts the U.S. premiere of Sibelius's only opera, Jungfrun i tornet (The Maiden in the Tower) in Jordan Hall in April. Thanks to: The Finlandia Foundation, 2025 grant Henry Hadley 150 Kathleen Roland-Silverstein, language coaching From the program notes: That any work of a composer of Jean Sibelius’ stature can be given its American Premiere in 2025 is a fact almost unbelievable. Yet it was Sibelius himself who ensured the limited performance history of this beautiful one-act chamber opera for four singers, small orchestra, and chorus. Immediately after the premiere in 1896, Sibelius withdrew the work to engage in a number of planned revisions to both text and music (mostly, the text). However, for no one definite reason, these planned revisions never took place. Despite several contemporaries attempting to revive the work at various points in his life, Sibelius himself declared with characteristic self- deprecating wit that “the Maiden would remain in her tower.” It was not until Sibelius’ son-in-law, Jussi Jalas, revived the work in the 1980s that the work was heard again, and despite two recordings since the initial run has had few additional performances. Revisiting the work, one can understand Sibelius’ reticence for its revival, but also disagree with his decision to shelve it entirely. The text, written in Sibelius’ native Finland-Swedish by Rafael Herzberg, leaves much to be desired in either poetic or dramatic conceit. Sibelius was in agreement with most of his critics from the premiere that, despite some beautiful musical moments, the text was the weakest link in the composition (in this he follows the operatic (mis)steps of Schubert and Schumann). The principal roles, all given descriptive titles (“The Maiden,” “The Lover,” “The Bailiff” and “The Chatelaine”), act as archetypically as their labels would suggest, rendering a straightforward Rescue-Opera libretto that could equally be described equally as symbolist or juvenile. It has been suggested that, in the swell of late-19th century Finnish nationalism, the work is meant to represent an appeal to Freedom in the face of Russian imperialism. This is possible; certainly, the chorus’ lauds of the Chatelaine as the defender of the innocent and protector of the people smack of some collective political fervor. Possibly, too, is a tale of religious salvation—the first aria invoking Saint Mary and the intercession of the Chatelaine leading to the chorus’ description of her as their motherly protector. Perhaps the most compelling roots, however, often overlooked in the limited scholarship of the piece, comes from ethnological notes by the librettist himself. A traditional Karelian singing game features participants taking on the roles of captured maiden and rescuer, and in Herzberg’s view, by telling a story through song, this game could be considered Finland’s “first opera”. Jungfrun i tornet, then, could be seen as the “elevation” of folk activity for “high-art” consumption, a frequent tool of nationalistic artists in the late 19th-century to help manufacture a shared sense of artistic heritage. How Sibelius thought of the libretto we can only guess based on his musical treatment. It is certain there was a folk association, music of rustic modality saturating right from the overture. So, too, did he clearly latch on to the religious angle--the Maiden’s aria invoking Saint Mary is perhaps one of the most effective scenes of the whole composition. Certainly, the arrival of the Chatelaine and the accompanying chorus has more than a hint of patriotic enthusiasm. All this said, what stands is music neither so elusive as the symbolism of Debussy nor so literal as the realism of Puccini. In any case, Sibelius’ view of text and music was certainly biased heavily towards the latter, describing himself that an instrument could take the vocal parts in his songs without harm, and that the words were not so important. Given perhaps a less-than-inspiring springboard by the libretto, it’s perhaps little wonder that, as a piece of theater, the experience of seeing Jungfrun i tornet could lead something to be desired. As a piece of concert music, however, the composition survives quite well. The music transcends the lackluster poetry it may carry, and while in the opera house its long orchestral interludes may seem out-of-scale with the dramatic action, on the symphonic stage they exhibit balance and beauty in the realm of program music. With its barebones libretto, perhaps it’s little wonder that theater-of-the-mind would serve the work better than literal representation. Whether one decides to view it as political action or children’s game, the music is serious and compelling, and worth hearing and enjoying live. -Joseph Bozich