Szepts-Znaider greeting Huang after performing Bruch's violin concerto.
Program
Violin Concerto No. 1 in G minor, Op. 26 (1864-66; rev. 1867) by Bruch (1838-1920).
Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche (Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks), Op. 28 (1894-95) by R. Strauss (1864-1949).
Variations on an Original Theme, Enigma, Op. 36 (1898-99) by Elgar (1857-1934).
On the program tonight were three semi-popular pieces for the concert repertoire. I "arrived" at this concert after having changed the original "Thursday D" subscription twice. At $136 this was also the most expensive of the New York Phil concerts I have for the season. (I just renewed for next season, tickets average about $110 for next year.)
First about Nicholaj Szepts-Znaider. Per this blog I had encountered him three times before tonight, all as solo violinists with New York Phil, performing the Sibelius (twice) and Beethoven violin concertos. Per my website, the experiences were all positive. He was called Znaider then, and I will refer to him as such to save on typing (no disrespect intended). When we were visiting Lyon, France a couple of years ago, I found out he was the music director of the Lyon Orchestra. We did go to a concert in Lyon, but it was to hear a visiting orchestra (Avignon).
While Bruch's list of compositions runs over three pages on Wikipedia, the Program Notes (fairly or not) claims "Still, if Bruch's production were reduced to the single piece ... his reputation would change hardly at all." There is much truth to this sentiment, for me anyway, as I cannot name one other piece he wrote that I have heard. Nonetheless, the famous violinist Joachim called this concerto "the richest and the most seductive" of the four German concertos in his repertoire. (In case there is any doubt, the others are Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Brahms.)
Indeed the concerto was "rich and seductive," and Znaider did a great job. As I had remarked in an earlier blog entry, his Guarneri violin sounded exceptionally bright, and its sound carried well into the auditorium. There was no pause after the relatively short first movement. Some have observed similarities between this concerto's second movement and that of Brahms's. While Brahms was five years older, he didn't compose his violin concerto, with its famous oboe solo, until 1878, a decade later.
I don't know how conducting works in a situation where the soloist also doubles as the conductor. Unlike with Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, where there are no conductors, in this instance Znaider doubled as the conductor, for passages where the soloist wasn't playing. Frank Huang, the concertmaster, seemed to do more pronounced gestures with his bow when the soloist was otherwise occupied. As Huang usually doesn't do that, I assume it was to help keep the ensemble in sync. Most "proper" conductors conduct with the score, but evidently the score can be memorized. Indeed Znaider conducted all three pieces without score.
Znaider at first joked he would play the Brahms concerto as an encore, but did play "Estrellita" transcribed by Heifetz. Google didn't recognize it, I managed to find it by typing in the search term "Heifetz Mexican melody 100 years old," words I caught when Znaider announced the piece.
The complete title for Strauss's piece is Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks, After the Old Rogue's Tale, Set in Rondo Form for Large Orchestra, which is about as long as the piece itself (well, 15 minutes). In my view - and as Strauss describes it - it is a tone poem with no plot other than Eulenspiel's pranks eventually catch up with him, and he is executed by hanging. One can simply listen to the piece as an abstract yet humorous composition, chuckle at Strauss's composition techniques, and attempt to catch the motifs scattered throughout. Eulenspiegel's sentence is the diminished seventh interval F-G flat, which Strauss calls a "motif" despite its being used only once as far as I could tell. I expected the ending to be macabre, but it isn't at all.
The Program Notes has a passage describing how Eulenspiegel was both praised and panned by contemporary critics when it premiered.
After performance of Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel.
If the Enigma variations is Elgar's only composition, then I suspect he would not enjoy the reputation he does today. (My attempt at an inverse of Bruch and his violin concerto.) The composition was "interesting" only because people had to decipher which of Elgar's friends and acquaintances were being depicted in the various variations. That could be a worthwhile exercise for his contemporaries who ran in the same professional and social circles, but for an audience listening to it 100 years later, that WN (VIII) refers to Winifred Norbury, a gracious arts patron, is of no particular importance (with all due respect to Mr. Norbury). Elgar claims there is a larger enigma which many believe is subterfuge as no such enigma exists. As a theme and variations, the connections are not particular clear.
Well, Znaider put on a different outfit to conduct Elgar.
The organ is listed as an instrument - indeed one could see the organ console on stage. One would naturally think it would be used in GRS (XI) as George Robertson Sinclair was an organist. I frankly didn't catch the organ at all - neither did Anne. I would at least like to hear what the "fake" organ inside the auditorium sounds like. (Per Wikipedia, the organ is used in the last movement.)
We missed the 9:38 pm train back to NJ by a couple of minutes; that gave us an excuse to have a slice of pizza before the next train.
No comments:
Post a Comment