Contrary to popular belief, France has produced symphonic César Franck, Saint-Saëns, d'Indy, Charles Tournemire, the great forgotten (eight symphonies), * Alberich Magnard, Albert Roussel, Paul Le Flem (each four symphonies not least), not forgetting the great neglected what Maurice Emmanuel.
I confess that at first listen of this complete symphonies of Camille Saint-Saëns, I felt a similar disappointment to that expressed by one commentator: besides the famous 3rd or 5th (it depends on how you count, since 'There are indeed five, but three of officially numbered), nothing that seemed to me to deserve attention: Quality works, but of little weight, between redundancies and prettiness, which touched the conventional academicism. No wonder, since besides the first four symphonies were composed by Saint-Saëns between his 15th and 24th year. Only the symphony with organ dates of full maturity.
And -mea culpa - I took the time to listen!; not to hear, to be listening! As we take the trouble to read! As we stop a little longer before a picture, to "see" what he had to say beyond its appearance ... And it requires no effort, just availability. Then yes! Saint-Saëns spoke, following the detestable expression of amateur shrink, but I use on purpose because it expresses my feeling. I heard, because I listened to what he had to say. Oh, fooled! I heard the music of a gifted young musician, gifted even, surprisingly already mastered his craft, but nothing that rivals Beethoven, and Brahms; no, but the beautiful book, very French, clear, fresh, playful sometimes, often solemn magnet to open up wide horizons ... It's not bad!
And I saw Camille Saint-Saëns, a kind of Anatole France music. This kind of comparison or rather assimilation worth what they are worth, I know, not much in absolute terms, but will help to put the artist in a different perspective while keeping it in its time; these almost perfect contemporaries, Saint-Saëns (1835-1921) and Anatole France (1844-1924), also known and honored in their lifetime as one can be, having had both right, if I mistake not, to state funeral, were not geniuses; they did not upset the history of art, or even did extremely rich, and it seems that we could do without them. But once you know them, these artists, corseted less than believed by their antiquated art, affect the mind and the heart, become intimate, kind of fellow; we see in them the jewels, the latest gem of an aesthetic, a culture that according to them will be lost permanently. No doubt she had lost, by the law of the "place the young", of "doing something new!", The "This is it! More fathers, nothing but son!" as Saint-Saëns himself threw it to one of his students said: "We want no more masters!" What happened elsewhere. There was no more, no more, masters, and no one knows where is art, this art which was given the capital majestative!
Then have them gratitude -it my case- of keeping the torch of tradition (like the delicious Delibes, as Gerome painting, architecture Girault, Antonin Mercie sculpture among many others ... ), until the final tidal wave, inevitable, just and profitable, without any doubt, but also temporary, as "fire artist" find their place in the history of music, of painting, of the architecture, sculpture, after decades of condescension, not at the forefront, since it is not theirs ... But what would the history of art without masters or small ways?
So if you do not know the first four symphonies by Saint-Saëns, take the trouble to discover the wonderful profession of a young craftsman who deserves top honors French art, his taste as much as his need clarity, freshness, elegance, flame ... and mind, a beautifully served by Jean Martinon and the Orchestra of the ORTF art.
* There are still some of the symphonies of Tournemire recorded masterfully moreover, by Antonio de Almeida in the collection "Heritage Naxos" (avoid versions of Peter Bartholomew Valois, so wise and own that they become tasteless). It is found in the same collection Naxos, Le Flem, Emmanuel Aubert, Roger-Ducasse and others neglected.
