PAUL PARAY The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra Schumann - Symphonies 2 & 3 "Rhenish" PAUL PARAY Robert Schumann (1810-1856) The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra Symphony no.2 in C major, op.61 1. І. Sostenuto assai - Allegro ma non troppo 10:45 2. ІІ. Scherzo. Allegro vivace 6:32 Schumann 3. ІІІ. Adagio espressivo 8:26 Symphonies 2 & 3 "Rhenish" 4. ІV. Allegro molto vivace 7:54 Symphony no.3 in E flat major, op.97 "Rhenish" Recorded at the Mann Auditorium, Tel-Aviv 5. І. Lebhaft 10:34 18.11.1976 (Symphony 2) 6. ІІ. Scherzo: Sehr mäßig 5:55 29.11.1971 (Symphony 3) 7. ІІІ. Nicht Schnell 4:56 8. ІV. Feierlich - (quasi attacca:) 5:48 9. V. Lebhaft 5:57 2 From: The history of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra Researched and Remembered by Uri Toeplitz Paul Paray joined the orchestra at the right time and immediately enjoyed tremendous success with both the Orchestra and the audience. At his first concert, he conducted Berlioz’ “Symphonie Fantastique” and “Pictures at an Exhibition” by Mussorgsky- Ravel. For the second series, he brought in the French pianist Eliane Richepin who played Ravel’s Concerto and impressed with her performances of Schumann’s 4th Symphony and the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, by Paul Dukas. Paray was not Jewish. In 1940, when Jewish players were forced to leave the “Concerts Colonne” in Paris, he too left. He uprooted and joined the Free French Forces (Forces Françaises Libres) only returning to Paris after its liberation in 1944. Paray’s wife came from a Jewish family in the Alsace region. She spoke German and often served as her husband’s spokesperson. They quickly made contact and formed friendships with people in Israel. Paray’s immediate influence as a conductor meant that his relationship with the orchestra developed quickly. The Management Committee, which was still disappointed by Bernstein’s hesitation and subsequent refusal to accept the commitment offered to him, was now ready to solve the problem of musical director. This was also in line with the thinking of Rosen during his short career with the Orchestra. 3 He was convinced that only a musical director would be able to guarantee the proper functioning and success of the Orchestra, but had doubts as to whether the Committee was really willing to appoint a strong musical director. Haftel now began to work at speed. Although Bernstein was the “musical consultant”, Paray was invited to accept the appointment of musical director. For Rosen, this was certainly a pleasant surprise. It would seem that it distracted him from the Bernstein complications, or that Haftel simply silenced his pangs of conscience on the matter. Later on, he would have to deal with the situation. Initially, Paray turned down the invitation. One of the reasons he gave was that the Orchestra’s wind section was not good enough, a point with which Haftel was quick to agree. He was also of the opinion that the string players, though excellent, were insufficient in number. To ensure Paray’s appointment, the Orchestra acceded to his demands: seven top-notch wind instrumentalists, meaning all the front line players, would be engaged by Paray in France and brought to Israel, and the string section would also be expanded. This set the scene for Paray’s appointment as the musical director of the Orchestra starting on October 1, 1949. He was also to have been responsible for preparations for the Orchestra’s planned trip to the States in 1950-51 and serve as its senior conductor on that trip. Paray returned to Paris and began the search for seven top- notch wind instrumentalists as promised. As an example, he 4 tried to engage none other than [flautist] Jean-Pierre Rampal. Many years later, Rampal confirmed that he had, indeed, been approached. On June 20 (1950), Paray wrote to the Orchestra that he was beginning to realize the difficulties associated with the assignment he had taken upon himself: “this is a much more complex assignment than you might have thought, recruiting soloists… meaning to bring outstanding musicians who already have very good positions in France. Several of them are very reluctant to leave.” On July 30 (1950), Paray was forced to admit defeat. He wrote than no artist of really true caliber would agree to come to Israel, adding that regarding the flute, bassoon and especially the trumpet, he had no idea what to do. On August 9 (1950) the public management meeting discussed the matter. One committee member suggested that Paray bring just a clarinetist and trombonist. This was not acceptable. It would seem that Haftel knew how to correctly evaluate the situation and its dangers. He was supposed to persuade the others but he was pushed aside and no longer had any responsibility for the process that he, personally, had initiated. The public management committee decided to push Paray to bring all seven musicians and in the end, he brought six out of seven, omitting only the bassoon. He was forced to compromise on quality and that almost led to an explosion. 5 Paray opened the new season with the new musicians. This caused disappointment since they were not the same kind of perfectionists that he had promised, who would serve as “leaders” for the local musicians. Objectively, it could be said that only a few of the replacements were truly accomplished and of the appropriate standard. However, not everyone was objective. This made the rift within the Orchestra even greater, giving rise to unpleasant exchanges and a negative atmosphere. It destroyed the unity and cooperation that is required to make an orchestra successful and also dimmed Paray’s glow as someone who was supposed to take the Orchestra to the highest levels. After the first month of the season, the public committee held a meeting at which Surowicz declared that only four of the guest players were any good and Yakobovsky really brought it home when he said that the Orchestra was very disappointing because the new musicians were far from what had been expected. The reason the meeting was held was that the crisis had become public business. Paray called a rehearsal for November 8 and said that from then on, everyone would be required to attend rehearsals, meaning that the Israeli wind section would have to sit in the wings while their French counterparts played. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The first Israeli wind players decided that they would not turn up to rehearsals. Paray was extremely annoyed and management and the committee decided to give him unconditional support. The baddies, who 6 demanded intermediary intervention, were to be fired unless they made an unconditional apology to Paray. Since their friends on the committee had deserted than and they were faced with being fired, they apologized - but were left feeling that they were in an insufferable position. For the good of the Orchestra, they asked for an open discussion to clear the air. Their request was turned down - but the new seating arrangement, which was the source of their discontent, was rescinded. The rift within the Orchestra widened, reaching critical dimensions while Paray’s status was weakened because of the players he had imported from abroad. He departed after three months and left specific instructions regarding the seating arrangements during his absence. The planned visit to the US and Canada became an ever more focal point of the Orchestra’s day-to-day agenda. Paray, even though he was happy with the performance of the Orchestra in Israel, presented new demands in October, on the eve of the trip, and effectively demanded a new wind section, this time, of the highest caliber. The Orchestra members were not aware of this, but the matter was raised at the meeting of the public management committee. As things continued, it became clear that the trip was intended to give Paray, who had not at that time appeared in the US, an opportunity to appear in all the major cities. This made for an argument between him and the Orchestra, and the fund and local organizations that had 7 provided guarantees concerning the takings from the concerts in every city. They needed famous names, and were adamant about Koussevitzky and Bernstein conducting. The discussion now turned to how many concerts Paray would conduct. They offered him 35, but he insisted on 40, and also that they be in the major cities. Since he was conducting at the same time in Petersburg and saw an opportunity to return there if he did not participate in the trip, he issued an ultimatum to which he demanded a response by March 15. He believed that he would receive the backing of the Orchestra. At the same time, Koussevitzky started conducting the Orchestra and, on February 17, Mahler-Klickstein told the public committee that Koussevitzky was favorably impressed with the Orchestra and viewed it as an orchestra of the first order. At that time, the sympathies lay with Koussevitzky and the needs of the fund. This left management in a complex situation. There was another possible way out: postpone the trip and end the year with Paray, as they were committed to do. However, that was a “for the sake of appearances” solution, since Paray very much wanted the trip to go ahead. Management therefore decided on the easier solution: it left the decision to the Americans - and since Paray’s ultimatum was left unanswered, the result was a foregone conclusion. Koussevitzky, who had been free of his commitments in Boston for a short while prior to then, was cooperative and enthusiastic.