...from last fall, in the throes of a disappointing performance of Elgar's 1st Symphony:
"Dear Friends,
Alas, the laws of performance were not broken during last night's performance at CCM. While the Alborada del Gracioso sparkled under the baton of Rebecca Tong and the 1st act duet from Madama Butterfly was lovingly played by the CCM Philharmonia and sung exquisitely by Nicolette Book and Rob Stahley, the Elgar 1 simply proved too tall a challenge for us on this night. It is, under the best conditions, dauntingly difficult. First of all, why on earth would he write it in A-Flat Major? Not that much of the piece actually sounds in that key. Nonetheless, name another symphonic work in A-Flat Major, go ahead…
2ndly, why did he make it so hard to play? The cello part goes up to high G in the treble clef (4 leger lines above the staff, in tono, not an octave down); Del Mar even comments on it being the highest passage in the standard rep. The extreme chromaticism occasionally out-Ravels Daphnis and the phrase structure is elusive at best. It is just hard to know where one is, after the opening material. And then it just keeps on going! After the sublime 3rd movement, the 4th is just page after page of notes. Simply brutal. The closest thing I know to it is Copland 3, in its relentless virtuosity and physical demands.
And yet, that is our job. One of our jobs - learn and master the notes. Elgar 1 is not the only difficult, note-y, obscure piece in the repertoire. Rachmaninoff 2 ends with a slew of notes in the last movement, and no one ever accused Heldenleben of being anything less than heroic to execute. The first decade of the 20th-century is replete with scores that demand the nearly superhuman from an orchestra. And then there is Hindemith; I recall Mathis der Maler with the Philharmonia a few years ago - when we got to the ending, the 1st violins just laughed, as if to say, "You've got to be kidding."
Still, Elgar 1. Here we are. Or rather, there we were. No place to hide. There were lessons learned, among them:
1) Sometimes you guess wrong. Well, I already knew that; it is one of my "eternal truths." In this case, it was a misjudgment in programming.
2) Elgar 1 may be a great symphony, but it is not one for our time in our place. The cultural equation is more complicated than that, given the makeup of the CCM Philharmonia. Elgar- apart perhaps from the Enigma Variations - is simply not a musical language that is well understood or intuited by many ofour students.
3) It joins a select list of works I probably won't program again, including Copland 3, Dvorak 7, Hindemith Mathis der Maler, Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht and Dvorak String Serenade. Not because I don't love and cherish them dearly, but because of our circumstances at CCM, they cannot be effectively rehearsed in the amount of time I could allot to them.
4) Not every performance will be magical, brilliant, well-executed and fulfilling. It happens, then you go on to the next concert.
5) You can't make people CARE. This is a tough one, friends. If your orchestra has no "lust"(in the German sense of the word) for a given piece, there is not much you can do.
And yet, friends, we have to keep these works alive. How and under what conditions, I'm not quite sure, but we must at least try, else we lose large hunks of repertoire. Are we really that ready to let the entire 2nd Viennese School die because it doesn't sound "good"and it is hard to play? Are we going to stick with Beethoven and Brahms because we already know they are great? This fall, we begin with more unexplored territory - masterworks of Polish composers: Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Gorecki, Szymanowski, Skrowaczewski, Moniuszko and more. Why? Because that is our job. We must speak for the composer. We are not only the composer's advocate, in Leinsdorf's memorable phrase, we are the composer's voice. Without us, the composer's voice dies, goes extinct, and if we care even about the survival of a spotted owl as a species, we must care about the survival of a Webern, a Szymanowski, or even a Ponchielli. Because it is our JOB.
OK, off to the airport. Thanks for indulging me in a little preaching tonight. Take a look at the Elgar 1; we may have guessed wrong in programming it, but we weren't wrong in trying.
- MG
"Dear Friends,
Alas, the laws of performance were not broken during last night's performance at CCM. While the Alborada del Gracioso sparkled under the baton of Rebecca Tong and the 1st act duet from Madama Butterfly was lovingly played by the CCM Philharmonia and sung exquisitely by Nicolette Book and Rob Stahley, the Elgar 1 simply proved too tall a challenge for us on this night. It is, under the best conditions, dauntingly difficult. First of all, why on earth would he write it in A-Flat Major? Not that much of the piece actually sounds in that key. Nonetheless, name another symphonic work in A-Flat Major, go ahead…
2ndly, why did he make it so hard to play? The cello part goes up to high G in the treble clef (4 leger lines above the staff, in tono, not an octave down); Del Mar even comments on it being the highest passage in the standard rep. The extreme chromaticism occasionally out-Ravels Daphnis and the phrase structure is elusive at best. It is just hard to know where one is, after the opening material. And then it just keeps on going! After the sublime 3rd movement, the 4th is just page after page of notes. Simply brutal. The closest thing I know to it is Copland 3, in its relentless virtuosity and physical demands.
And yet, that is our job. One of our jobs - learn and master the notes. Elgar 1 is not the only difficult, note-y, obscure piece in the repertoire. Rachmaninoff 2 ends with a slew of notes in the last movement, and no one ever accused Heldenleben of being anything less than heroic to execute. The first decade of the 20th-century is replete with scores that demand the nearly superhuman from an orchestra. And then there is Hindemith; I recall Mathis der Maler with the Philharmonia a few years ago - when we got to the ending, the 1st violins just laughed, as if to say, "You've got to be kidding."
Still, Elgar 1. Here we are. Or rather, there we were. No place to hide. There were lessons learned, among them:
1) Sometimes you guess wrong. Well, I already knew that; it is one of my "eternal truths." In this case, it was a misjudgment in programming.
2) Elgar 1 may be a great symphony, but it is not one for our time in our place. The cultural equation is more complicated than that, given the makeup of the CCM Philharmonia. Elgar- apart perhaps from the Enigma Variations - is simply not a musical language that is well understood or intuited by many ofour students.
3) It joins a select list of works I probably won't program again, including Copland 3, Dvorak 7, Hindemith Mathis der Maler, Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht and Dvorak String Serenade. Not because I don't love and cherish them dearly, but because of our circumstances at CCM, they cannot be effectively rehearsed in the amount of time I could allot to them.
4) Not every performance will be magical, brilliant, well-executed and fulfilling. It happens, then you go on to the next concert.
5) You can't make people CARE. This is a tough one, friends. If your orchestra has no "lust"(in the German sense of the word) for a given piece, there is not much you can do.
And yet, friends, we have to keep these works alive. How and under what conditions, I'm not quite sure, but we must at least try, else we lose large hunks of repertoire. Are we really that ready to let the entire 2nd Viennese School die because it doesn't sound "good"and it is hard to play? Are we going to stick with Beethoven and Brahms because we already know they are great? This fall, we begin with more unexplored territory - masterworks of Polish composers: Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Gorecki, Szymanowski, Skrowaczewski, Moniuszko and more. Why? Because that is our job. We must speak for the composer. We are not only the composer's advocate, in Leinsdorf's memorable phrase, we are the composer's voice. Without us, the composer's voice dies, goes extinct, and if we care even about the survival of a spotted owl as a species, we must care about the survival of a Webern, a Szymanowski, or even a Ponchielli. Because it is our JOB.
OK, off to the airport. Thanks for indulging me in a little preaching tonight. Take a look at the Elgar 1; we may have guessed wrong in programming it, but we weren't wrong in trying.
- MG
No comments:
Post a Comment