Concert review: San Francisco Symphony
Jun. 24th, 2004 08:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I never had to learn to appreciate classical music. From the time I was old enough to understand it at all I took to it immediately. This was the stuff for me. Still, there are some composers who remain opaque to me, and foremost among them is Gustav Mahler.* I like his First Symphony well enough, but his later works seem to me to be manic-depressive: meandering, incoherent, pompous and self-obsessed, full of emotions that come from nowhere and lead nowhere: music that's literally "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
What Mahler desperately needs is a conductor who can find in his music the large-scale coherent structure that for me is the goal a classical performance should strive for. It's a tough job. Judging by his recordings, Leonard Bernstein couldn't do it. Gilbert Kaplan, self-proclaimed maven of Mahler's Second Symphony, can't do it. I have his recording of the Second, the work of last night's concert. The last time I listened to it, a couple months ago, by the end my exasperation at the work had built to a pitch Mahler's musical climaxes couldn't outdo.
But I'm glad I had that listening, because it gave me a recent benchmark. If anyone can make Mahler speak to me, MTT can. I've attended his performances of some later Mahler works with no breakthroughs, but I thought, "Well, the Second, it's close enough to the First in time and style that maybe ..." And to a large extent last night's concert was what I had hoped for. For the first four of the five movements, particularly the intermezzi second and third, MTT and the SFS made the music entirely convincing. Coherent, logically structured, moments of excitement and of beauty making sense as they succeeded each other ... I was completely won over, and for once felt I really understood what Mahler was saying. The alto Lorraine Hunt Lieberson had full command of the solo song that forms the fourth movement.
The finale is a tougher nut. MTT and crew showed no lessening of their skill and understanding, but that wasn't enough for this lumpen, slapdash movement. It was an extraordinary performance, but even so the sheer badness of the music eventually won out. At least there were some stunning moments on the way, especially in the vocal parts: MTT bringing out the early instrumental appearances of the Resurrection theme ... the solo soprano's voice slowly melting out of the chorus on her first appearance ... the great choral cry of "Was vergangen, auferstehen" (although it goes nowhere: that's Mahler's fault). But by the end of the anticlimactic coda I was tepid again.
Still, when the CD comes out (this performance was one of the series MTT and the orchestra are recording for their Mahler cycle) I intend to buy it. And into the trash with Gilbert Kaplan.
*The other concert repertoire composers I'm most likely to run away from are Richard Strauss and Scriabin, with runners-up for Debussy and the most boring composer in classical history, Max Reger. I haven't failed to notice they're all about the same age and wrote in the same period.
What Mahler desperately needs is a conductor who can find in his music the large-scale coherent structure that for me is the goal a classical performance should strive for. It's a tough job. Judging by his recordings, Leonard Bernstein couldn't do it. Gilbert Kaplan, self-proclaimed maven of Mahler's Second Symphony, can't do it. I have his recording of the Second, the work of last night's concert. The last time I listened to it, a couple months ago, by the end my exasperation at the work had built to a pitch Mahler's musical climaxes couldn't outdo.
But I'm glad I had that listening, because it gave me a recent benchmark. If anyone can make Mahler speak to me, MTT can. I've attended his performances of some later Mahler works with no breakthroughs, but I thought, "Well, the Second, it's close enough to the First in time and style that maybe ..." And to a large extent last night's concert was what I had hoped for. For the first four of the five movements, particularly the intermezzi second and third, MTT and the SFS made the music entirely convincing. Coherent, logically structured, moments of excitement and of beauty making sense as they succeeded each other ... I was completely won over, and for once felt I really understood what Mahler was saying. The alto Lorraine Hunt Lieberson had full command of the solo song that forms the fourth movement.
The finale is a tougher nut. MTT and crew showed no lessening of their skill and understanding, but that wasn't enough for this lumpen, slapdash movement. It was an extraordinary performance, but even so the sheer badness of the music eventually won out. At least there were some stunning moments on the way, especially in the vocal parts: MTT bringing out the early instrumental appearances of the Resurrection theme ... the solo soprano's voice slowly melting out of the chorus on her first appearance ... the great choral cry of "Was vergangen, auferstehen" (although it goes nowhere: that's Mahler's fault). But by the end of the anticlimactic coda I was tepid again.
Still, when the CD comes out (this performance was one of the series MTT and the orchestra are recording for their Mahler cycle) I intend to buy it. And into the trash with Gilbert Kaplan.
*The other concert repertoire composers I'm most likely to run away from are Richard Strauss and Scriabin, with runners-up for Debussy and the most boring composer in classical history, Max Reger. I haven't failed to notice they're all about the same age and wrote in the same period.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-24 04:08 pm (UTC)http://www.musicabona.com/macal_zdenek/cd/index.html.en
no subject
Date: 2004-06-24 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-24 09:18 pm (UTC)Mahler concert
Date: 2004-06-25 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-26 04:13 pm (UTC)