concert review: Symphony Silicon Valley

[calimac]

San Jose's California Theatre started life as a 1920s movie theatre, with a 1920s movie theatre Wurlitzer organ. Performers have been annoying entertaining concertgoers in the lobby before concerts and at intermission with pop tunes on this thing for most of this season; now was the chance to haul the console on stage and play something classical with it.

Even people who know the great French organ composers Vierne and Widor aren't necessarily familiar with Felix Alexandre Guilmant, and now we know why. His "Organ Symphony No. 1" (a confusing title: Vierne and Widor wrote multi-movement works for unaccompanied organ that they called symphonies; this one is for organ and orchestra) is a show-off piece for the organ with little heft or interest, with the orchestra superfluously (but more agreeably) chiming in. Soloist Jonas Nordwall demonstrated where the metaphor "pulling out all the stops" comes from, playing heavily and extravagantly. Oh well, good taste is a commodity that would have been out of place in this work anyway.

His encore was a throbbing, goopy rendition of "that song" from Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera, intercut with excerpts from the organ part of the slow movement from Saint-Saëns's Symphony No. 3, which jostled together with it most painfully. What I actually liked was the second encore, "The Stars and Stripes Forever" played with energy and wit.

How ironic, then, that the rest of the program should consist of two of the most tasteful works in the repertoire: Barber's Adagio for Strings and Schubert's Great C Major Symphony. Guest conductor Paul Haas is young and was new to me. He'd clearly given both these chestnuts considerable thought. The Barber was slow and flowing; the Schubert (no repeats: it's long enough without them) fast and chipper. Despite a tendency to be one of those conductors who likes to change gears abruptly, Haas has command over more subtle things as well, being particularly concerned with tone color - even in the strings, though the winds piping away in Schubert's third movement, like a superior organ, was a highlight.

As usual under good hands, the orchestra responded well. The strings have been re-seated, with the cellos buried on the middle left, which is probably a good place for them. The number of players has beefed up a bit since the orchestra's earlier lean days, which is good. If the sound lacks anything, it's richness, because it's plenty full and supple enough.

Pre-concert lecturer had to guess (wrongly) why it's called "The Great", but the program notes knew the answer (actually it isn't; it's called "The Great C Major", because Schubert had already written "The Little C Major" Symphony some years earlier; ask a silly question, get a ...). Also the true story of its composition, still denied in some quarters (the manuscript has the wrong date, which confuses a lot of people). However, a typo in the program listing gave a much wronger date, 1878, fifty years after the composer's death, a neat trick.

Comments

[asimovberlioz.livejournal.com]

The program typo is nothing compared with something I once experienced. A friend was singing in a community chorus performing Brahms' "Liebeslieder Walzer" Op. 52, so as a show of support (and also because I love this work, partly due to having sung in it myself) I attended. The conductor spoke to the audience at too-great length about Brahms, and stated that Brahms 1) was interested in Scott Joplin's rags and 2) had, before his death, made plans to visit the USA.

I considered correcting him in front of the entire audience, but my agoraphobia would have kicked in, so I just sat there in astonishment.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Once I corrected a pre-concert lecturer who kept saying "Tchaikowsky", i.e. with the syllable "cow". She'd evidently read the German spelling but pronounced it as if it were English. Drove me buggy.

The other time was with a lecturer predisposed to sneer at Carl Orff, who oddly claimed, in support of this, that Orff was obscure, pointing out that he did not appear in the "prestigious" (that's what he said it was) St. James Dictionary of Contemporary Composers. Being familiar with that book, I was able to point out that its coverage was limited to composers still living at the time of its compilation in 1992, so Orff wasn't omitted, he wasn't eligible, any more than Stravinsky or Bartok, who also aren't in it.

[pattyoboe.livejournal.com]

Gee, who was doing the pre-concert talk? (I actually would have been able to answer that question! For once.)

I could have done without the organ concerto. I really could have done without the organ, though; I'm not a fan of that kind of organ.

Oh ... but we did actually take a couple of repeats! ;-)

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Janet Sims, I think. She's been doing a lot of the talks and is actually pretty good on the music itself. But the history might be a weak spot. She also called it Schubert's Seventh when the program said it was the Ninth, which also confused people. (It's been both on different lists; Schubert didn't number his own symphonies.)

Well, let me clarify: you didn't take any of the optional repeats. You want a really long piece, repeat the first movement exposition on this one.

[pattyoboe.livejournal.com]

Janet is a good speaker. I've not heard her at these, but I've heard her in other situations. Sorry about the confusion with the #s and the title, though.

I didn't even KNOW all those repeats were optional! Did Schubert make them so? They are only marked as repeats, with no notations about the options. But I don't know that we've ever done them all. (George Cleve did the symphony a number of times, and Grin did it once at least.) Some copies I've seen number it seven and some number it nine. I just try to call it The Great or The Great C Major to keep it clear.

PS At Sunday's concert you missed (?) "Mama Mia" and "Cats" as encores.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Nobody really knows what the composers thought. In earlier 18th century symphonies the exposition repeats help with the overall balance of the work. Towards the end of the century, and certainly in the early 19th century, when symphonies were much larger and differently structured, taking the repeats can make the work start to sound top-heavy. So, many scholars and performers believe that the standard repeats - they can be found in scores as late as Mendelssohn that I know of - are merely a conventional sign that the composer didn't intend performers to follow. (Sometimes there are even other more dubious repeats, like ones of the entire development/recap. This could make sense in the Baroque period, but in music written after about 1770 they sound ridiculous, yet they're often marked.) Scherzo repeats, however, are usually taken. It's a complex topic.

[pattyoboe.livejournal.com]

We took the first Scherzo repeat, and of course the DC, but skipped the second. I'm okay with that ... it's a long piece!

I wonder, too, if these orchestras used two on a part with the winds sometimes. Some of these works are just killers for the chops ... having an AP is handy, but even the second book can be killer in some instances. Maybe you have info on that as well? (Yeah, I really didn't study this sort of thing much when I was in school. But then I barely remember studying anything at school. Figures. Too busy making reeds.)

[(Anonymous)]

PS I *think* the organ in the foyer (is that what they call it there?) is different from the (really ugly) one that was played in the hall.

I really enjoyed working with Mr. Haas. He really worked on getting us to (try and) play softly. We have no problem with loud, but soft is so much more difficult ... but so darn powerful. (All my opinion, of course!)

[pattyoboe.livejournal.com]

Sorry, David ... that one about the two organs was mine. I'm guessing you figured that out, but still ....