The new edition of Bizet’s “Carmen” from Bärenreiter-Verlag follows the approach that scholarship shouldn’t decide which version is the right one or the real one – and instead presents an edition containing all the surviving original versions of the opéra-comique.

It was after the publication Fritz Oeser’s edition of “Carmen” (Bärenreiter/Alkor, 1964), that interest in the sources of the famous opéra-comique grew, both amongst scholars and in musical practice. This gave rise to the myth of a “real Carmen”, as Bizet would have wanted, and the idea that the state in which the composer finally left the work represented the complete form of a masterpiece. A distinction was made between the purists, who were stubbornly attached to this view, and the more accommodating publishers, who created their own “Carmen” in a more or less happy mixture of versions, a mixture that was difficult to justify from a philological point of view. However, it would be ambitious to try to fathom Bizet’s thoughts, confronted as he was by all sorts of difficulties and the pressure of having to make alterations during the rehearsals of his work at the Opéra Comique in Paris, before the premiere took place. His early death of course meant that he could no longer express his opinion about this! The new edition of Carmen just published is limited to the versions as an opéra-comique with spoken dialogues, that is, before Ernest Guiraud’s interventions for its publication as a printed orchestral score in 1877 (addition of recitatives, cuts and modifications in the orchestration).


The 1874 version

Bizet wrote the music to “Carmen” in fair copy in the form of a large orchestral score. This preliminary version (1st version) can be reconstructed in the new edition thanks to the critical comments. Even before Bizet handed this manuscript over to the Opéra Comique for copying, he made corrections which possibly date from the first rehearsals with the soloists (without orchestra). For example, he added introductory bars at the beginning of several numbers, or here and there he revised the vocal text. These alterations in Bizet’s hand are few in number and ultimately superficial. This version was preserved by the copying department at the Opéra Comique for copying the conductor’s score and the orchestral material. The new edition presents this 2nd version under the heading “1874 Version”. At this point the first act still included the opening number – and not the Habanera – as well as the numbers that use the same thematic motif. There were no cuts yet, and the work contains several melodramas. This version is the result of Bizet’s compositional work before interventions by others, and the test of rehearsals and staging altered his work and his thinking. It is therefore absolutely valid, no more and no less so than with the later versions. The new edition is the only one to offer the 1874 version in its entirety, including Carmen’s complete original entrance aria.


1874–1875 version

The Opéra Comique had the orchestral score and the parts copied. This was followed by an almost endless series of reworkings during the course of the rehearsals, the precise chronology of which has yet to be established. The reworkings are of three kinds:

– changes in detail (melody, text, prose)
– cuts, initially just a few bars, then more and more
– additions, replacements of numbers or alterations in the sequence of numbers or parts of numbers#

This version naturally does not form a coherent whole, and there is no evidence about e.g. whether a number from the 1874–1875 version is exactly contemporary with another number from the same version; it can, however, be assumed that these reworkings were made in the short period between the beginning of rehearsals and the premiere. In Act I, which was the most heavily reworked, it seemed appropriate to include this “1874–1875 version” in the main part of the edition. Performers can therefore choose a number from this version – where one exists – to replace the 1874 or 1875 version for a number.


1875 version

This version is the one contained in the piano reduction published by Choudens in 1875, the first edition of the work conceived and revised by the composer himself.  This version was never published as an orchestral score during Bizet’s lifetime. It is considerably simplified and the melodramas have disappeared.

From a superficial review of this chronology, it can be deduced that the 1875 version it preferable to the 1874 version, as it is more developed and the composer himself corrected it, or shaped it better. It has also been widely stated that the 1875 version was more effective scenically than the 1874 version, which would have been “too long”; the 1875 version better embodies the “genuine” Carmen as the composer completed it. But this opinion is highly debatable.

The value of the 1874 version lies in the fact that it is the fruit of Bizet’s imagination, before outside intervention from the performers, the director, the audience or the critics. It is worth noting that the composer was no novice in the theatre. This version is very rich musically, but was evidently difficult to accept by the Opéra Comique in 1875; difficult for the orchestra, difficult for the choruses, who repeatedly demanded simplifications. “Carmen” was not created in a typical city theatre, but in an institution which had its own traditions and its own audience – which is why the composer felt he was under a great deal of pressure. Doubts about the value of the opera grew after the premiere, probably because of the subject matter. The publisher was also cautious, asking for as many cuts and simplifications as possible, so characteristic of the famous voice/piano reduction revised by Bizet in 1875. In this score, he corrected or modified the tempi; he (or Choudens?) rewrote the stage directions. Naturally, he included the Habanera, which triggered the drama at the end of the first act, and the Couplets de Moralès.

But what about all the cuts, of the deletion of all the melodramas (which were difficult to stage)? What of the many harmonic simplifications in the choruses, which were rewritten in unison, as the counterpoint was too complex? Was Bizet really happy with the result? Is the version of the piano reduction which almost represents the minimum work really credible? If ever a work slipped away from its composer, then it would probably be Bizet and his “Carmen”. The score was ultimately the result of negotiations between the various protagonists at the premiere – Célestine Galli-Marié, the singer of the title role, the management, the chorus and even the critics; Guiraud and the publisher Choudens then reworked the opera once more.

Therefore, there is no “genuine” “Carmen”. Rather, there are genuine “Carmen(s)”. The 1874 and 1875 versions are no less original or correct than the others; and Guiraud’s version is also valid, for in this form the work came to be performed all over the world and came to epitomise French opera. “Carmen” may have escaped Bizet, who died far too young, but we now owe it to the composer to rehabilitate his masterpiece in the form in which his creative imagination first conceived the opera. From a historical point of view, it is also worth presenting the 1875 version. Finally, from the point of view of dissemination, it is also important to recognise Guiraud’s version of the opera, for Guiraud simply replaced Bizet, who before his death had planned an entirely sung version with recitatives; this “opera version” will be published later.

Paul Prévost
(from “[t]akte” 2023 / translation: Elizabeth Robinson)

René Jacobs on “Carmen 1874”

These are the versions with the spoken dialogues which show the tragi-comic character of ‘Carmen’ to its best advantage. The pair of Frasquita (down-to-earth) and Mercédès (sentimental), the two female friends of the heroine, that of Dancaïre (pretentious macho) and Remendado (effeminate coward), the two smugglers who are reminiscent of Laurel and Hardy, and Zuniga (common brawler) – these are all openly comic characters, but their joviality disappears when their sparkling dialogue is cut. When this happens, the contrast between comic and serious scenes which belongs to the genre of opéra comique is obscured. Bizet can compose for an angel (Micaëla) like Gounod, and for a demon (Carmen in the eyes of Don José) like Berlioz. Like Mozart, he is an absolute master in the stylistic clash of vulnerable characters with others who are harmless (Micaëla versus Moralès), frivolous (Carmen versus Frasquita and Mercédès in the card scene), or violent (Carmen and José versus the invisible audience, unleashed by the bullfight). These are the great moments, the scenes in which the “tragi-comedy of Carmen” reaches its high points. [...]

The second great advantage of the 1874 version: the psychology of the characters is more clearly delineated here than in the two other versions. Meilhac did not want to economise on his dialogues, not even for the die-hard lovers of belcanto who, it was feared, might get bored during the spoken texts. He started out from the (utopian?) idea of an ideal audience, which first and foremost regarded opera as a work of theatre. Many of his dialogues were directly inspired by the novella ‘Carmen’ by Prosper Mérimée (1845), the main source for the libretto of the eponymous opera.

The genre of opéra comique with its sometimes tragic subjects – not to be confused with opera buffa – frequently uses a musical process in which particular passages of the spoken text are underlaid with an orchestral background. This is called “mélodrame”. In the very first version of ‘Carmen’, Bizet used this trick extensively and with great imagination, allowing the singer to really speak the dialogue, freeing them from their singing voice, without the music coming to a stop as a result. The singer can ‘speak in music’, as Claudio Monteverdi would have said. But during the final rehearsals for the original premiere, several of these dialogues with accompanying music, which are dramatically indispensable but difficult to realise (the delicate balance between spoken voice and orchestra is not easy to maintain), were unfortunately shortened or cut immediately. The new edition by Paul Prévost allows us to reinstate these. [...]

© René Jacobs, excerpt from programme note, translation: Elizabeth Robinson, photo R. Jacobs: Philippe Matsas

Link to the Hamburg video stream of 25 March