Other Links
<Editorial Board
- Editor - Bill Kenny
- London Editor-Melanie Eskenazi
- Founder - Len Mullenger
Google Site Search
SEEN
AND HEARD CONCERT REVIEW
Mahler, Sixth Symphony:
London Symphony Orchestra/Valery Gergiev, The Sage Concert Hall,
Gateshead/Newcastle upon Tyne, 21.11.2007 (JL)
John Leeman
One of the projects with which Valery Gergiev is celebrating his
recent appointment as Principal Conductor of the London Symphony
Orchestra is to build a new cycle of the Mahler symphonies. This
concert was the unveiling of his interpretation of the Sixth prior
to a London performance the following day.
Having been brought up on recordings associated with the
post war Mahler revival, I suspected I would have to readjust to a
very different reading to that from, for example, Barbirolli in
his famous recording with the New Philharmonia in the sixties.
Barbirolli's incredibly slow tempo in the march music of the first
movement suggests he saw the work in Brucknerian terms as, in the
words of the cliché, a cathedral in sound. When I first heard the
recording I did not know that Mahler's instructions were " Allegro
energico" and “vehement with plenty of vigour”. Barbirolli chose
to ignore the composer’s intention but nevertheless produced a
powerful and persuasive account.
Gergiev's way with the first movement was surely closer to what
Mahler meant, launching into the march with spectacular “energico”.
Energy is one of the hallmarks of Gergiev’s style and as you might
expect it suffused the whole movement which gave the music a sense
of disturbing agitation that contrasts so tellingly with the brief
moments of peaceful reflection represented by the tinkling
cowbells, which, by the way, sounded disappointingly like the
distant rattle of pots and pans in this performance. His tempo
might be over 25% faster than Barbirolli’s but it was close
to current common practice.
As a whole, the Sixth Symphony has little opportunity for repose,
so when such moments occur they can have a profound and what some
people might think of as a mystical effect. Gergiev tends to
maintain a sense of continuing momentum and dynamic through such
passages that some would find inappropriate. For example, the
monumental last movement, which is probably the spiritual heart of
the work, opens with rising glissandi on celeste and
harp that launch a soaring motive in the violins. It is a passage
that recurs and Mahlerians such as Barbirolli, Rattle and Abbado
invest it with a sense of magic and mysticism that Gergiev does
not seem to attempt in the same way, not taking much heed, in my
opinion, of Mahler’s “Sostenuto” marking. What he did provide,
especially in that last movement, was an unmatched savagery - crescendi
were devastating, the famous hammer blows shattering.
Interpretation may depend on what the conductor thinks the
symphony is 'about.' Otto Klemperer, a Mahler enthusiast, made a
revealing confession. He thought it a - “great work. The last
movement is a cosmos in itself; it’s a tragic synthesis of life
and death. But I must honestly say I don’t understand it”. Maybe
this was why Klemperer, a musician of great integrity, never
conducted the work. Schoenberg, a composing protégé of Mahler,
was less reticent. He referred to the first movement as a -
“frightful struggle. But then, it’s sorrow-torn upheaval
automatically generates its opposite, the unearthly passage with
the cowbells, whose cool, icy comfort from a height which is
reached only by one who soars to resignation; only he can hear it
who understands what heavenly voices whisper without animal
warmth”. There will be those who could do with more of the
“heavenly” and “unearthly” in Gergiev’s interpretation but
what he does serve up though is the “struggle”, with a degree of
frightening visceral energy that I have never heard before in this
work.
The quality of the performance could not have been achieved
without the magnificent tool at Gergiev’s disposal - the London
Symphony Orchestra. The ensemble played magnificently, and
Mahler’s extraordinary textures were heard to superb effect in the
splendid acoustic of The Sage concert Hall – something that
Londoners would be denied in the less flattering Barbican Hall the
next day. Responding to every nuance with impeccable accuracy,
the orchestra’s sound is bright, slick and up front, qualities
that Gergiev has built up with his Kirov orchestra over many
years. The strings may not produce the indulgent, lush, blended
romantic sound that some may like to hear in the Andante, but
that’s the way it is. Incidentally, Gergiev played the Andante
after the first movement. Mahler originally put the Scherzo there,
later changed his mind, then changed it again. I must say that I
much prefer Gergiev’s solution to this thorny problem.
The Gergiev/LSO Mahler cycle is due to be completed by Summer next
year. No doubt there will be plans to record and market the cycle
in its entirety. When this happens it will deserve to be regarded
as a major recording event.
The London Barbican Hall performance of this concert
together with