CARMINA BURANA

ductor who formatted the recording with
only four tracks (1. Introduction - Fortuna
Imperatrix Mundi; 2. Part 1, Primo vere and
Uf dem Anger; 3. Part II - In taberna; 4. Part
III - Cour d’amours, Blanzifl or et Helena and
the return of Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi). It is
also important to consider that it might have
been the decision of a recording engineer
or other technical factors that prevented a
scenic continuity, rather than the conductor’s
musical decisions.
Within the surveyed recordings, the
greatest discrepancy in attacca recognition
came between movements 5 (Ecce gratum)
and 6 (Tanz). These two movements
occur in the middle of the scene labeled
Primo vere. Movement 6 is the beginning of
Primo vere’s “internal scene” Uf dem anger.
There is no attacca marking between the
two movements. Several conductors did
perform what appears to be an attacca
between these two movements (Jochum,
Penderecki, and Thielemann). Perhaps this
was done in order to maintain the structure
of the overall Primo vere scene.
Musical Decisions Other Than
Those Marked in the Score
In any piece of music, whether it be by
Mozart or Bartok, conductors will take
liberties outside of what the composer
has indicated in the score. Such liberties
include ritardandi, accelerandi, grand pauses,
or fermati, to name only a few. However,
taking into account how specifi c Orff was
in marking his score, such liberties are even
more evident than usual.
The conductor who went farthest from
Orff’s indications was Leopold Stokowski
in his 1957 recording with the Houston
Symphony Orchestra. In this age of studied
performance practice, Leopold Stokowski
is now infamous for his romanticizing of
Bach and other tremendous liberties taken
with established repertoire. In Stokowski’s
rendition of Orff’s work, he actually cuts
the fi rst twelve bars as well as measures
53 and 54 marked feroce from Movement
14. There is no indication in Orff’s score
that these cuts are acceptable. In some
cases, conductors will cut portions of the
text to accommodate the performance
abilities of the ensemble. However, bearing
in mind that these cuts are small and, in the
case of movement 14, the material that was
cut is repeated later, it is questionable as to
whether this was Stokowski’s motive. The
cuts may also have been made due to time
limitations on the recording medium available.
Another decision made by Stokowski
comes in the baritone solo, movement
16 (Dies, nox et omnies). In this recording,
a baritone and tenor are used. The tenor
sings the sections usually performed by the
baritone in falsetto. Although this decision
may have been made due to vocal limitations
of the baritone soloist, artistically it pays no
attention to the text or Orff’s conception
of characters playing a role. Throughout this
performance, Stokowski takes numerous
liberties with tempo and articulation that are
not indicated in the score and are not heard
in any other recording.
One other conductor who took extreme
liberties with the score was Penderecki in his
1994 recording of the “Karol Szymanowski”
State Cracow Philharmony Orchestra
and Choirs. For example, in the fi rst four
measures of the piece, Penderecki makes
extremely large pauses at each Luftpause,
interpreting the marking as a fermata over a
rest, rather than a slight pause. This luftpause
interpretation is also taken at measure 31
(Figure 3) and each subsequent strophe
throughout movement 5.
There also seems to be very little, if any,
recognition of scenic unity on the Penderecki
recording. Attacca markings are sporadically
recognized, creating no cohesion between
each scene.
The single movement in which most
conductors took some sort of artistic license
was in movement 14 (In taberna). Orff’s
By
Paul Brandvik
Author of
The Compleet
Madrigal Dinner
Booke
THIRTY SCRIPTS, each containing All
DIALOGUE (including greeting, toasts, festivities,
and humorous Renaissance play) necessary
for A SUCCESSFUL MADRIGAL DINNER!
For complete info: VISIT OUR WEB SITE:
www.madrigaldinner.com
knight-shtick press
Box 814, Bemidji, MN 56619-0814
218-586-2270
madrigaldinner@madrigaldinner.com
CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 51 Number 4 59