Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique;
Alternative version of “Un bal” with cornet obbligato; Le corsaire—Overture.
Orchestre National de Lyon conducted by Leonard Slatkin. Naxos. $9.99.
Mahler: Symphony No. 1.
Baltimore Symphony Orchestra conducted by Marin Alsop. Naxos. $9.99.
Tchaikovsky: Symphonies Nos. 4
and 5. London Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Vladimir Jurowski. LPO.
$17.99 (2 CDs).
It is generally expected nowadays that top-flight
conductors can handle any music equally well – unlike the situation in the
past, when conductors tended to specialize in particular composers, eras, or
musical forms (symphonies or operas, for example). The result of the modern expectation is that
conductors still do better with music to which their interests and emotions
gravitate, but spend just as much time delivering serviceable but scarcely
scintillating performances of works with which they are not, for whatever
reason, equally comfortable. This seems
particularly true with American conductors who are well-known champions of
newer music and music by American composers: they can handle the standard
European repertoire well enough to get by, but they have little of interest to
say about it and seem to program well-known works primarily to draw audiences
to the concert hall to hear less-known, often more-modern pieces to which the
conductors have a stronger commitment.
This explains the
rather pedestrian readings of Berlioz and Mahler works led by Leonard Slatkin and
Marin Alsop, respectively. There is
nothing particularly wrong with the performances of these justly famed first
symphonies, but nothing particularly outstanding about them, either, and
certainly no reason to select these recordings rather than the many better ones
available. Berlioz is not usually
thought of as a symphonist, but in fact he wrote four works in the form –
albeit a form that he so stretched and modified that it is sometimes close to
unrecognizable. The four are the Symphonie Fantastique of 1830, Harold in Italy (essentially a symphony
with viola obbligato) of 1834, the choral Roméo
et Juliette of 1839, and the ceremonial and rather backward-looking Grande
symphonie funèbre et triomphale of
1840 (written originally for 200 winds!).
Each of these works is interesting and musically distinctive, but the Symphonie Fantastique is the one most
often performed and the one that most influenced later composers – being, for
example, the first work utilizing a kind of leitmotif
in the manner that Wagner would later develop and elevate. Slatkin’s performance of the symphony is
rather plodding: he favors slower tempos that seem to stretch the “Scène aux champs” interminably and hold
back the excesses of the finale to such a degree that the witches seem rather
too well-behaved. “Un bal” has a nice
lilt, but the waltz is slower and a bit heavier than it should be – although it
is a nice touch to include on the CD the later version of the movement with
cornet solo (which, however, adds nothing to the texture of the music). The Orchestra National de Lyon plays the
music well but is capable of greater intensity than Slatkin requires – as is
shown in Le corsaire, in which the
conductor lets the orchestra cut loose, resulting in a very upbeat and attractively
scurrying overture. There is nothing
particularly problematic in Slatkin’s Symphonie
Fantastique, but nothing particularly revelatory either.
Nor does Alsop bring
much to bear on Mahler’s Symphony No. 1 – another trailblazing first
symphony. Alsop has won numerous awards
and accolades for her commitment to classical-music accessibility, her
championing of modern American works, her outreach programs, and her incorrect
identification as the first woman to head a major American orchestra (an
assertion that needlessly denigrates JoAnn Falletta and the Buffalo
Philharmonic). But Alsop seems to have
little patience for more-standard repertoire, and no great liking for it. Mahler has certainly become “standard” in the
last 50 years, but good conductors continue to find ways to highlight his music’s
very distinctive and forward-looking elements.
Alsop, though, seems mostly interested in getting the symphony over
with. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra
here lacks the richness and sumptuous tone that are so important in Mahler, and
there is nothing idiomatic at all in Alsop’s handling of the music’s gorgeous
flow – it is hard to believe she even knows what a ländler is. The third
and fourth movements are better than the first two, although the funeral march
is played without piquancy or irony and the finale’s excitement does not carry
the emotional weight that Mahler intended it to have. This live performance from September 2008 moves
along smartly but ultimately without soul: Alsop does not seem to have much
feeling for this music – which is ironic, since she often cites Leonard
Bernstein as a mentor, and it was Bernstein more than any other conductor who
brought Mahler’s music into the mainstream.
Unlike Berlioz and
Mahler, Tchaikovsky did not make a big splash with his first symphony – indeed,
the joke used to be that Tchaikovsky wrote only three symphonies: the Fourth,
Fifth and Sixth. All six of his
symphonies are better known today, but certainly the last three remain the most
popular. And Vladimir Jurowski,
thankfully, does a much better job with Nos. 4 and 5 than he did in his
previous LPO recording of Nos. 1 and 6.
Some of Jurowski’s tendency to tinker with the music remains, notably in
slowdowns and speedups in the first movement of No. 4. But this vast movement, essentially a
self-contained tone poem, seems to invite conductors to find ways to bring out
its flow and emotions, and Jurowski’s tempo changes are not too extreme. The second movement here flows well, and the
third is very well played indeed – the London Philharmonic strings really shine
in their extended pizzicato
sections. The most impressive movement,
though, is the finale, which feels even more fast-paced than it is because of
the tremendous verve that Jurowski draws from the orchestra. The excitement builds to an absolutely
smashing climax that must surely have had the audience at this March 2011
performance on its feet – although the live recording, thankfully, includes no
applause and, for that matter, no audible audience noise.
Symphony No. 5 was
also recorded live, in May 2011, and this too is a worthy performance. The very opening is not quite as deeply
emotional as it could be, but the main theme of the first movement strides
forth boldly, and the orchestra’s full and elegant sound fits the movement
well. The horn theme in the second
movement is especially beautiful, although the movement as a whole is on the cool
side, as if Jurowski is so determined to avoid wallowing in Tchaikovskian
excess that he dials way back on the symphony’s emotive intensity. The gentleness of the movement’s ending,
though, is deeply affecting. Gentleness
is also the watchword in the third movement, which flows smoothly and just a
touch wistfully. The finale opens
strongly, after which its main theme is taken quickly and powerfully, producing
a propulsive movement that, if lacking in subtlety, certainly is not short on
activity. Unfortunately, Jurowski slows
down so much just before the coda that the full-orchestra rest sounds as if it
is the symphony’s conclusion; then, when the actual major-key coda appears, it
seems less well integrated than usual into what has come before, almost like an
afterthought. But it is undeniably
exciting – here as in the Fourth, Jurowski pushes the orchestra at a bang-up
pace. But then, for some reason, he
slows down the final chords significantly and quite unnecessarily, vitiating
the power of what has come before. And
in a production oddity, the engineers for this performance (who are not the
same ones as for the Fourth) do
include the audience’s applause, which in truth is less deserved here than at
the end of Symphony No. 4. Both these
performances are certainly creditable, and both are very well played, but
neither shows significant sensitivity to Tchaikovsky or offers any new insights
into his music.
No comments:
Post a Comment