New York Philharmonic - Herbert Blomstedt, conductor; Garrick Ohlsson, piano. April 20, 2012.

Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center, Orchestra 1 (Seat T106, $70).

Program

Piano Concerto in E-flat major, K.271 (1777) by Mozart (1756-91).

Symphony No. 5 in E minor, Op. 64 (1888) by Tchaikovsky (1840-93).

For various reasons I didn't have time to read up on the program, so all I knew about the concert before we left for New York was the pieces to be performed.  We left our car at the train station for Joe and Jess to pick up from their trip to Puerto Rico and we took the train in.  Dinner at China Fun.  Same fare, but they seemed to have had a recent price increase.

The concerto by Mozart was his ninth, and - according to the Program Notes - his first masterpiece.  Evidently Mozart's genius as a composer wasn't evident until this year when he turned 21.  I am somewhat dismayed to find out all five of his violin concertos belong in the "lightweight" category.

The movement markings of the piece are ordinary enough: Allegro, Andantino,and Rondeau: Presto.  However, there are at least a couple of extraordinary things about it.  First is how soon the piano would make a statement.  It was short, and the orchestra then goes on to play a rather traditional introduction.  The second surprise is the insertion of a minuet in the otherwise (again) traditional Rondo movement. To me, listening to them for the first time in 2012, neither was particularly radical.  Actually I wished the piano had gotten more into the dialog (as some of Mozart's later concertos do), and I am not sure how well the minuet works in the third movement: it sounded incongruent without providing am interesting contrast. Some of the lightweight violin concerto movements also have grafted sections but still manage to sound very coherent.

My point is one can overanalyze these things.  The piece itself is enjoyable enough.  Not technically challenging, but with enough flourish to make it sound interesting.  Ohlsson is called a Chopin expert in the Program Notes, so I am sure he found no technical challenges in the music.  The balance with the orchestra was great: at no point did one party overwhelm the other.  And I definitely enjoy the crispness and lightness of the piano part. The orchestra generally did very well, although every now and then some sloppiness crept in - probably because Mozart was easy picking for them.

This Tchaikovsky symphony was last performed by the New York Philharmonic in April, 2009, conducted by Charles Dutoit.  We were at that series.  I reread my blog and actually share the same sentiments as I did then.  At least that gives me some confidence in myself as a critic!  This time around I really appreciated how Tchaikovsky reworked the "fate" theme.  Despite the Program Notes claim that at some point it turned positive for a while, what I heard was mostly gloom and doom.

This symphony is one of those emotional tear-jerkers and one may claim the interpretation can be overdone.  Not me.  I enjoyed tonight's somewhat over-the-top performance.  I only recall vaguely the 2009 performance but I am sure it was more measured and controlled.  Tonight's performance was barely under control, but well done.

A few words about the American-born Swedish conductor.  He will turn 85 this year but must be the most energetic 80+ year old conductor we have seen - and we have seen a few.  He chose not to use a podium for the more intimate Mozart concerto.  Given his small stature I could only see his hand every now and then, my view of his body blocked by the massive piano.  With a more traditional podium for the Tchaikovsky, I could see "economy of movement" is not in his conducting vocabulary. The orchestra probably doesn't need that kind of "detailed instructions" but responded with equal enthusiasm.  He did this without the score.

The audience showed their approval and I think there were four curtain calls.  And one could see the orchestra members smiling in appreciation.

Perhaps not the most nuanced interpretation of this symphony, but a most enjoyable one no doubt. I do have a question of how the two pieces for the evening fit together.

Our return trip worked out okay also.  Joe picked us up at the South Amboy station.

The New York Times reviewer is high on both pieces, but describes the Tchaikovsky performance as "without ever succumbing to sentimentality."  Either he heard a different concert, or we have different ideas on what constitutes sentimentality.