Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra – Manfred Honeck, conductor; Augustin Hadelich, violin. September 25, 2015.

Heinz Hall, Pittsburgh, PA.  Orchestra Center (Seat L108, $79.)

Program

Chaconne from the Partita No. 2 for Unaccompanied Violin in D minor, BWV 1004 (1720) by Bach (1685-1750), arranged for String Orchestra by Hideo Saito.

Symphony No. 8 in F major, Op. 93 (1811-12) by Beethoven (1770-1827).

Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D major, Op. 77 (1878) by Brahms (1833-1897).

This is the second day of our 3-day concert trip.  We ate a dinner at an India restaurant near our downtown Pittsburgh hotel, and were able to attend the 7 pm pre-concert talk, by the young assistant conductor of the orchestra, Francesco Lecce-Chong.

He pointed out the obvious, which was that this concert is an often-talked-about-but-seldom-programmed BBB concert: Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms.  The purist would say the first B is somewhat adulterated, the original was for a solo violin, but tonight we would hear an arrangement made for a string orchestra.  We had heard a couple of times the arrangement made for one piano, left hand, and Lecce-Chong pointed out a couple of other arrangements, including one for a violin with piano accompaniment.  He played some excerpts from the different “versions,” and they sounded very different.

Many people consider Beethoven’s Eighth to be somewhat out of place.  The fifth has its well-known “victory” theme, the sixth is the first symphony as “program music,” the seventh is revered as the apotheosis of the dance by none other than Richard Wagner, and we all know the seminal ninth as the Choral Symphony.  Lecce-Chong used a few points to illustrate the uniqueness of the Eighth, including the fact that Beethoven threw tradition progression in the face, sometimes by repeating a chord (or “dischord”) several times.  Indeed, I can hum the melodies of many movements of the 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, and 9^th readily from memory, but I have some trouble recalling those from the 8^th, although I am not unfamiliar with the work.  The four movements are Allegro vivace e con brio, Allegretto scherzando, Tempo di minuetto, and Allegro vivace.  Beethoven did away with the slow movement and put in both a scherzo and a minuet.

Lecce-Chong also had a slightly different take on Brahms’ compulsion for needing his work to be perfect.  Most would attribute that partially to Beethoven’s huge shadow, and Lecce-Chong posited that Brahms felt confident after completing his first symphony that he in quick succession finished Piano concerto No. 2, the violin concerto, and Symphony No. 2.  He describes the violin’s part as virtuoso not for virtuoso’s sake, so a conductor never feels he/she is there simply to keep time during some of the flourisher moments, and thus there is a great partnership between the soloist and the orchestra.  He also noted that both Brahms’ and Beethoven’s Violin Concertos are in the same key.  I am in awe of how Beethoven managed to compose such a memorable work using such basic ingredients as scales and arpeggios.  In that sense Brahms had nothing over Beethoven.  Reasonable points, and of some interest.

Too bad only about 40 or 50 people sat through the 30-minute talk; and this was in the main auditorium, seating 2676 per Wikipedia.  Anne felt the building gives a feeling of intimacy.  I just thought there is a lot of elbow room – unlike Avery Fisher (now David Geffen) or Carnegie Hall.

As it got close to the start time of 8 pm, I was wondering where the people were.  The center row we were in, 11^th from the front, has about 16 seats.  Six were occupied.  There was a large swath of empty seats in front of us.  The two rows behind us were quite empty also, although things were better in the back.  The balcony holds many seats, I couldn’t see up from where I was.  All I can say is I felt bad, but I also had the nagging feeling that this was not unusual.

I was surprised when the first piece was performed by a full orchestra, woodwind, brass, and percussion included.  It sounded like Bach’s Chaconne, but I at times doubted it.  I double checked the Program Notes, it kept on telling me the orchestration was for strings.  In any case, it was a nice piece of music that would be a good test of an orchestra’s range, as diverse tempo, volume, and degrees of difficulty are called for.  If I were to give out a grade, this would be a good but not exceptional performance.  There were quite a few rapid runs in various parts of the orchestra that sounded quite muddled.

The orchestra did much better with the Beethoven symphony.  Technically it may be a little easier than the arranged Bach Chaconne, it was still not an easy feat to keep it all together with the many starts and stops that are typical in Beethoven’s work – may be more than usual, per Lecce-Chong.  The current orchestra roster has no one as the concertmaster, and for this series the “guest” is Noah Geller, the concertmaster at Kansas City Symphony.  Auditioning, no doubt.  His instrument was quite prominent during this piece, which to me is a no-no for any section player.  However, he played very well, and didn’t “stand out” as much during the next piece.  Perhaps someone dropped a hint during the intermission?

I had heard Hadelich a couple of times before.  I recall I was not blown away with his New York Philharmonic performance, but really liked what he did with New Jersey Symphony in Princeton.  I called his encore (Paganini’s Caprice No. 24) perfect (or some words to that effect.)

He was a bit shaky at the beginning, not that he got any notes wrong, or he was visibly nervous.  But the sound was harsh and somewhat distant (remember, we were in row 11.)  A few minutes in, things improved greatly, the same instrument (the 1723 “Ex-Kiesewetter” Stradivarius) sounded smooth and intimate. Overall it was an excellent performance.  The first movement – Allegro non troppo - was so brilliantly done that I was sure people would applaud (they didn’t,) the second movement – Adagio -with its well-known oboe introduction, showcased a dialog between the orchestra and the soloist, and the third movement – Allegro giocoso, ma non troppo vivace – had the soloist and orchestra challenging each other to great heights.  Many have described this concerto as one where the soloist works against the orchestra; Lecce-Chong would disagree with that assessment, and I agree with him.  While the violin is not the instrument that carries the bulk of the melody, the movement would not be close to complete without the plaintive voice of the instrument.

The applause was thunderous.  As encore Hadelich played Caprice No. 5 of Paganini.  It was impressive, although I wouldn’t use the term “perfect” in this instance.

While there are a few things to quibble with the concert, I actually enjoyed it, not only at the direct level, but also at a more intellectual level.  “Intellectual” is perhaps too strong a word, but the experience gave me new insight into several issues.

We had seen Honeck a couple of times before, most recently last summer during the Salzburg Festival.  He, and the orchestra, deserve a better audience that tonight’s attendance would indicate.  Pittsburgh is supposedly going through a revival, let’s hope the arts scene improves as well.

It will be a five hour drive to Cincinnati tomorrow.