Other Links
Editorial Board
- Editor - Bill Kenny
- London Editor-Melanie Eskenazi
- Founder - Len Mullenger
Google Site Search
SEEN AND HEARD CONCERT REVIEW
Schubert and Bruckner:
London
Symphony Orchestra, Sir Colin Davis (conductor). Barbican Hall,
London, 23.5.2008 (MB)
Schubert – Symphony no.5 in B-flat major, D.485
Bruckner – Symphony no.7 in E major (ed. Nowak)
A surprisingly small London Symphony Orchestra – ten first violins
and so on – assembled on the stage for Schubert’s Fifth Symphony.
Had Sir Colin Davis finally succumbed to the ‘authenticity’ bug?
That is scarcely more likely than Daniel Barenboim or Riccardo Muti
doing so, and the answer remained no, yet there was something a
little – and I do not wish to exaggerate – perfunctory about this
performance. The tempo of each movement was swifter than one might
have expected, the outer movements fast by any standards and all the
music more urgently driven than Davis’s Mozart. Schubert marked the
second movement as a flowing Andante con moto and this was
certainly what we heard. If not quite hard-driven, I thought that
Davis might profitably have yielded a little more. The ‘minuet’ (Allegro
molto) was taken one beat to a bar, although there was –
thankfully – a considerable relaxation for the rustic, rather
Haydnesque trio. This was recalled in a slight relaxation for the
second subject of the finale, which worked well, but otherwise there
was little variation of tempo. There were numerous instances of
finely-etched instrumental detail, for instance carefully-projected
bass lines, beautiful horn arpeggios at the close of the second
movement, and a telling bassoon underlay in the third movement’s
trio. It was all very stylish, not least in its unerring
articulation, and was without exception most beautifully performed,
but ultimately something was missing. Although I can appreciate the
retort that Teutonic profundity would be out of place in this work
and should agree that an attempt to transform it into late Bruckner
would be misguided, I am far from convinced that an attempt to
penetrate deeper beneath the surface would have been in vain. Karl
Böhm in his Vienna recording of the work provides an object lesson
in this respect, as indeed do many of Davis’s own Schubert
recordings with the Staatskapelle Dresden.
The orchestra reverted to full-size for Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony.
It opened most promisingly, with a beautifully – yet never
self-consciously – moulded ’cello line, surrounded by shimmering
upper strings. How glorious the full orchestra now sounded, the
brass soon making us realise just how ‘full’ it was. There were in
this first movement slight yet telling hints of rubato, which
would not have gone amiss later on. For this was as about far from a
Furtwänglerian reading as one might travel, not that anyone – even
Barenboim – conducts Bruckner like Furtwängler any more. There was
an implacability that perhaps recalled Klemperer, although the sheer
beauty of orchestral sound had more in common, rather to my
surprise, with Karajan. Davis’s care with articulation and phrasing
were once again worthy of note.
Then, however, something truly extraordinary happened. Instead of
the expected Adagio we heard the Scherzo. It appears
that this has been Davis’s practice in the past; it is certainly the
order to which he adheres in his Orfeo recording with the Bavarian
Radio Symphony Orchestra. But why? It is, I freely admit, refreshing
to experience a performance that stands for itself rather than being
prefaced by lengthy ‘justifications’, but in this case, I do think
that at least some reference in the programme to this unusual – to
put it mildly – practice would have been welcome. This is not a
disputed case, such as the movement order of Mahler’s Sixth
Symphony, but a unilateral reorganisation, all the more surprising
given that it hails from a conductor with a far from radical
reputation. As it happens, it worked better than I should have
expected, at least until the finale, which, coming after the
Adagio, sounded more lightweight than ever and simply seemed
incapable of taking the emotional and musico-dramatic strain.
Much of what we heard, however, was once again extremely beautiful.
There was a sense of the apocalyptic to the Scherzo, not in
an overriding metaphysical (Furtwänglerian) manner, but it was
nevertheless present. The care taken to spring the movement’s
rhythms was much appreciated by this listener. Silences were
observed, though never milked; both here and in the Adagio,
Davis displayed a commendable ability to incorporate Bruckner’s
silences into an overarching phrasal structure. The ending of the
trio sounded oddly dissipated, but this was very much an exception.
Depth of tone was wonderfully apparent in much of the Adagio,
although there were lighter moments too, perhaps a few too many. The
depth of the strings did not preclude a full appreciation of
woodwind soli, especially that of Gareth Davies’s truly magical
flute. Again, the conductor’s moulding of phrases was exquisite,
without sounding appliqué. This being the Nowak edition, we
heard the cymbal clash suggested to the composer by Arthur Nikisch.
The finale’s opening sounded more than usually jaunty, which, as I
suggested above, was exacerbated by the reordering of the inner
movements. This opening phrase was, however, surrounded once again
by ravishingly shimmering strings. The LSO’s brass section soon
reached volume-levels very close to its fabled Chicago Symphony
counterpart, albeit without the slightest hint of brashness. An
unfortunate horn slip toward the end highlighted the otherwise
extremely high level of orchestral execution, which produced a most
impressive weight to the symphony’s conclusion. However, some
flexibility in tempo would have made this movement seem less of a
race and more viable as a solution to the ‘finale problem’ that had
dogged symphonists since Beethoven. I suspect that this would not
have been enough, given the reordering, but it would have helped. As
for the latter aspect, I can only ask again: why?
Mark Berry
Back
to Top
Cumulative Index Page