New York Philharmonic – Lorin Maazel, Conductor; Lang Lang, Piano. 9/24/2005.

Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center, Second Tier Center, Seat AA110.

Program

Piano Concerto in E minor, Op. 11 (1829-30) by Chopin (1810-49).
Symphony No. 1 in D major (1888; rev. 1893-1906) by Mahler (1860-1911).

We planned our vacation so we could be back for this concert, in large part due to the performance by Lang Lang. My expectations for Lang Lang’s performance was met, but, unfortunately, not exceeded.

The Chopin concerto began with a long orchestral introduction. The program notes referred to the 138 measures deleted in many of the performances as the “cruelest cut”. The introduction was pleasant enough, but the subjects were going to be repeated several times in the movement anyway, so I wouldn’t have minded as much.

When Lang Lang launched into the piece, one could feel the expectation fill the concert hall. And this was a well attended concert. Chopin’s concertos often sound like nocturnes and polonaises juxtaposed together, this movement was no exception. Musicologists can do their endless analyses of the music, but to me (and I suspect to most listeners) Chopin concertos are virtuoso pieces with orchestral accompaniment. Every now and then there is more of a dialog – like the duet with the bassoons – but there is no doubt that the piano is the showcased instrument here. Which is perfectly okay … People think of Paganini’s concertos the same way.

During the first part of the second movement, I had trouble staying awake. After all, I flew back the previous day from Hong Kong, and was quite jet-lagged. And it was a slow movement.

The third movement was in classical rondo form. I wonder what kind of a career Lang Lang would have. He is now in his early 20s, and can play for another 50 or more years. Would he continue to improve? Would he experiment with different kinds of music? The possibilities are endless. To piano students, Lang Lang must be an inspiration. However, to struggling piano players, it must be very discouraging to have someone burst on to the scene apparently so effortlessly. (Not to take away the hard work Lang Lang has done ever since he was a kid.) In any case, the coda of the third movement was brilliantly done.

Make no mistake about it, Lang Lang is impressive, and makes difficult pieces look simple. And this was a great performance. However, I saw him playing Tchaikovsky’s concerto in October, 2004, and I remember that as a more exciting performance.

Mahler’s first symphony is quite different from his later ones. He already started using huge orchestras (especially the brass sections), and his symphonies are all quite long. This one lasted over 50 minutes. I am not that familiar with Mahler, but it would be an interesting exercise to see how his composition techniques changed as he got older.

To my ears this symphony is quite tonal, and contains many “hummable” melodies. In this symphony, Mahler was also more repetitions of his themes in different parts of the orchestra. There are some very classical passages in the first movement that would remind one of Beethoven (Pastoral Symphony) or Schubert (Unfinished Symphony.) The melodies have a hint of Dvorak also.

The program notes said Mahler originally annotated an earlier version of this symphony and later discarded the “program” as the piece got revised. I don’t see how the revisions or even the withdrawal of the notes would change the original images the composer had in mind. In any case, I couldn’t help associating the stormy passage in the first movement with spring.

The second movement began with a march like passage with well-accented beats. The theme was repeated multiple times in different parts of the orchestra – dare I say perhaps more than necessary? A quiet passage lulls the listener into thinking this was to be a short movement, but the orchestra then launches into the original theme before speeding to the conclusion.

The third movement began with the “Frere Jacques” theme in the double bass, repeated in turn by the bassoons, cellos, and then the clarinets. The polka-like and gypsy passages make the movement sound comical at times. The pizzicatos in the double basses combine with the timpani to bring the movement to a pleasant end.

The loud cymbal started the fourth movement with a jolt. Here I thought the orchestra was a little out of control and played too violently. Perhaps it was an unexpected storm (although this movement is to be an “advance towards spiritual victory”). A series of decrescendos brought the music to a slower, quieter passage. The tremolos in the violins presaged a buildup followed by several crescendos and decrescendos. Here we see the full range of Mahler techniques at work. An apparent end became the beginning of yet another passage. At the end, all the French horns (my wife counted eight, the program says seven) stood up, and everyone joined in the chaotic end.

I like Mahler’s symphonies. Most of them, however, are acquired tastes in that I had to listen to them several times before I started to appreciate them. I believe this is the first time I listened to the entire first symphony, and I like it. I can also appreciate how difficult it is to interpret his music well. Despite the sometimes over-the-top passages, Maazel has a well-deserved reputation as a Mahler specialist.

Despite some of my misgivings, this was a very enjoyable evening. I am glad I came back in time for it.

See also the New York Times review of the concert. It had surprisingly little to say about the Mahler symphony.