Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center, First Tier Center
(Seat BB104, $70.)
Program
Symphony No. 96 in D major, Hob. I:96 (1791) by Haydn
(1732-1809).
Symphony No. 7 in E major (1881-83, rev. 1885; ed. L.
Nowak, 1954) by Bruckner (1824-96).
The last time Haitink’s name came up was last week: he was listed as Boston Symphony’s Conductor
Emeritus. Today was the first time we
saw him in a live performance. Somehow I
knew he was about 80 years old, so I was expecting someone in the “mode” of a Maazel,
Masur, Previn, or (Colin) Davis. Let me say at the outset that proved to be wrong,
for a while I thought I had to be mistaken because he conducted like a much
younger person (well, someone in his 60s, maybe). I checked my iPhone during intermission,
indeed he was born in March, 1929, making him 82 years old. The other surprise is he was greeted like a
rock star (by New York Philharmonic audience standards, that is). In addition to enthusiastic applause, there was
quite a bit of hollering. And some of
that came when he first stepped onto the stage, before the first note was
played. I have been going to New York
Philharmonic concerts for quite a few years, and had never heard him until
today; I can’t imagine the rest of the audience has (have?) heard him much
either. While the accolades turned out
to be well deserved, it was still a bit puzzling.
Haydn of course was a prolific composer, in part due to
his appointment at the court of Prince Esterhazy, which required him to produce
new music in great frequency. When the
court finally cut back on its arts programs, Haydn had the chance to visit
London, once in the years 1791 and 1792, once in 1794 and 1795. During each of the stays Haydn produced six
symphonies which are collectively called his London Symphonies (No. 93-98,
99-104; evidently he didn’t write any symphonies between the two visits.) This symphony also carries the designation “Miracle,”
supposedly because a chandelier fell down during its first performance and no
one was hurt. Historians seem to agree a
chandelier did fall during a Haydn symphony, but it wasn’t this one. I suppose people just associate the work with
“miracle,” just like the 12 symphonies probably have limited “London” sound to
them.
This symphony’s four movements are (i) Adagio – Allegro;
(ii) Andante; (iii) Menuetto and Trio – Allegretto; and (iv) Finale: Vivace
(assai); they add up to about 20 minutes. Compared to other Haydn symphonies I heard, this
one is relatively complex, with solo lines by various instruments including the
oboe, bassoon, and duets by violins. It
was an excellent performance, crispy, loud and heavy, and soft and light where
it should be. And the dynamic range was
just excellent. The last movement was
especially enjoyable. While it is
technically relatively simple, I was still impressed with how precise the
orchestra sounded.
On paper the Bruckner symphony would provide great
contrast to the Haydn one. It is much
longer at 65 or so minutes, it was written about 100 years later, and Bruckner’s
music tends to be long and (my words) more narrative. While all that is true, the difference is not
as great as one would expect.
The orchestration is on the traditional side with a few
notable exceptions. Four Wagner tubas (two
tenors, two basses) were used; these are devised by Wagner for his Ring Cycle
operas and not used much outside of those operas. There was also a large brass contingent: four
French horns, three trumpets, three trombones, and one tuba. I actually counted 5 French horns and 4
trumpets, putting the total number of brasses at 17. They never sounded too loud, though,
indicating a good conductor can find the right balance among the different
orchestra sections. I do wonder whether
they got the extra brass players (especially Wagner tubas) from the Met. Come to think of it, this is one of the
better performances by the brass section, despite the occasional sloppy note. The strings were out in full force also: I
counted 16 first violins, 13 second violins, 12 violas, 10 cellos, and 8 basses. In terms of percussion, there is of course
the timpani. In the edition used for
this performance, there is also the cymbal and the triangle. There is a lot of discussion in the Program
Notes about how Bruckner got talked into putting these two instruments in a
revision to the original, but eventually declared them invalid (or did
he?). They only appeared once (I think
the cymbal clanged only once) towards the end of the second movement. Since the notes are played at the same time,
you actually have two percussionists sitting through a 65 minute symphony
feverishly hoping they got the timing right; or were they just listening to
their iPods?
I do think “narrative” is a good way to describe Bruckner’s
symphonies (as opposed to Mahler’s wanderings).
While the development of a movement may not be traditional, you always
feel the composer is trying to lead you somewhere, and willingly go along. There is a lot of structure to his music that
is readily discernable. For example, the
first movement (Allegro moderato, about 20 minutes) was started by cellos
playing a melody, when that melody reappears after 20 minutes, you know the
movement is about to end. Interestingly,
the movement didn’t end on a loud chord, in a way it just stopped. The second movement (Adagio: Very solemn and
very slow – Moderato, about 25 minutes) is called the “Wagner tribute” as
Bruckner had imagined Wagner (whom he called the Master) was about to die –
which happened about a month afterwards.
The use of horns and the Wagner tubas make it sound quite Wagnerian, at
times evoking the Valhalla motif from the Ring Cycle.
For reasons unclear to us, the tuba moved from the middle
of the brass section to the end between the second and the third movement. It may or may not have something to do with
the Wagner tubas being quiet during the third movement; but the tuba didn’t
move back for the fourth movement where the Wagner tubas were used again. And it was an obvious move: the tuba is a
huge (and shiny) instrument. With this
movement (Scherzo: Very fast – Trio: A little slower; 12 minutes) we are back
to the sunny disposition of the symphony.
The contrast between the scherzo and the trio is more pronounced than
the tempo marking would indicate, though.
The relatively short fourth movement (Finale: Moving, yet not fast; 8
minutes) concluded the piece.
The applause at the end was enthusiastic, and Haitink
came out multiple times to acknowledge the audience.
The uncharacteristically short New York Times review was
very positive. It also states the
opening Bruckner theme was played by violas and cellos.
No comments:
Post a Comment