David Geffen Hall at Lincoln Center. Orchestra (Seat W103, $75).
After the performance of Prokofiev's Piano Concerto.
Program
Selections from Moscow, Cheryomushki Suite (1957-58; arr. 1997) by Shostakovich (1906-75), arr. A. Cornall.
Piano Concerto No. 2 in G minor, Op. 16 (1912-13/1924) by Prokofiev (1891-1953).
Symphony No. 15 in A major, Op. 141 (1971) by Shostakovich.
Today's program was all-Russian. The conductor is from Finland, the pianist from Korea (and now lives in Germany). It could be dark and heavy with Finns and Russians, but it wasn't so today.
Up until today I had see only two of Shostakovich's operas: The Nose, and Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (the latter in concert). The Nose to me was surreal and inscrutable, and I enjoyed Lady Macbeth when I first saw it about a year ago in Carnegie Hall. "Moscow, Cheryomushki," which simply means "Moscow, Bird Cherry Tree District," was a "satirical operetta [telling] the story of a group of prospective young tenants seeking places in the newly subsidized housing and of their skirmishes with corrupt bureaucrats." (Quoting from the Program Notes.) The Program Notes also contains a description of each of the three movements: A Spin through Moscow; Waltz; and Dances.
Indeed it was a rather comical composition. On the other hand, the humor somewhat wore off after a while, and I was glad only three movements of the four-movement suite was played. (The suite was extracted from the original music by Andrew Cornall in 1997.)
The fifteenth was Shostakovich's last symphony. While I heard it back in 2011, in Hong Kong, I frankly don't remember any of it. The Program Notes contains a reasonable description of how the work is structured, and the performance followed that "recipe" quite closely. A few aspects worth noting. First is the liberal use of the William Tell overture in the first movement (Allegretto): it was repeated multiple times. The Program Notes describes the second movement (Adagio) as "another of the composer's many pieces haunted by death, beginning with a brass chorale ... and continuing with a series of 12-note melodies for solo cello, juxtaposing the tonal and atonal." The real thing sounded even more complicated, and I had trouble marking out the different 12-note melodies in the cello, beautifully played by (most probably) the new Associate Principal Christakos. While the brass chorale had a good sound, it could have sounded a bit more precise. The third movement (allegretto) contains both the DSCH and BACH themes, I didn't catch either. It is a rather short scherzo, with the Concertmaster tackling a "devilish violin solo." The last movement (Adagio: Allegretto) started with the timpani pounding out a line reminiscent of Gotterdammerung, and later the strings played the first three notes of Tristan und Isolde (we caught that); it also referenced other works that we couldn't catch. The coda of percussion against strings is also supposed to be a reminder of Shostakovich's fourth symphony, suppressed by the Soviet authorities.
All well and good, and the analysis makes listening to the music interesting. But what is the symphony trying to tell us? In the past I enjoyed how Shostakovich used these different techniques to bring images to his music, for today I felt he just enjoyed showing off his techniques. Perhaps I need to get more familiar with this particular composition. I do have to say while quoting William Tell may compare with Mahler quoting Frere Jacques, the latter did it in his first symphony. If Mahler continued to quote other tunes in his later symphonies, he did it much more subtly. And this was Shostakovich's last symphony.
After selections from Shostakovich's suite.
End of concert. There was no need for the two harps in the symphony.
Prokofiev's second piano concerto was rewritten after the original one was lost in a fire, and there is much speculation how much the reworked version differs from the original. Prokofiev premiered both, so he was fine with calling them both by the same designation; he did remark that he incorporated a lot of what he learned in the intervening years. The piece is difficult enough that Prokofiev complained about the need to practice, and thought he botched several passages during a 1927 performance. I suspect only he could tell the performance was not up to his standards, and I felt the same way with Cho's performance tonight.
I did jot down a few notes right after the performance, which I will describe. First, the four movements are (1) Andantino - Allegretto - Andantino; (2) Scherzo: Vivace; (3) Intermezzo: Allegro moderato; and (4) Finale: Allegro tempestoso. The first movement lasts about 10 minutes, and half way into it the soloist had to launch into this difficult cadenza, the second movement is clearly a scherzo, and I had a hard time thinking the third movement is an intermezzo (at least in the Brahms sense). The fourth movement consists of many different segments of different characters, and with a couple of cadenza-like passages thrown in for good measure.
For encore he played "A la maniere de Chabrier, M. 63 No. 2" by Ravel (per Google); there is a YouTube video with Cho playing the same piece.
This is the third time I saw Cho in concert. I called his Chopin No. 2 with NJ Symphony (in 2018) respectable but not inspiring. Today I thought of Trifonov during the performance. The piece is complicated, yet the audience is not at the edge of their seats because they worry, but in admiration. Was it my perception, or has Cho improved a lot over the last several years.
I am finishing this writeup on the 25th, and had gone to a NJ Symphony concert on Saturday. (And I will have some thing to say about how the two concerts compare.) We took the train in.
No comments:
Post a Comment