Other Links
Editorial Board
- Editor - Bill Kenny
- London Editor-Melanie Eskenazi
- Founder - Len Mullenger
Google Site Search
SEEN
AND HEARD CONCERT REVIEW
Roussel and Prokofiev:
Evgeny Kissin (piano) Philharmonia Orchestra, Vladimir Ashkenazy
(conductor) Royal Festival Hall, 24.1.2008 (MB)
Roussel – Bacchus et Ariane: Suite no.1
Prokofiev – Piano Concerto no.3 in C major, Op.26
Prokofiev – Symphony no.6 in E flat minor, Op.111
Prokofiev greatly admired the music of Albert Roussel, and one
could hear why in this first suite from the ballet Bacchus et
Ariane. Roussel exhibits a splendid command of the orchestra,
a sharp ear for rhythm, and a typically Gallic lack of
sentimentality. Indeed, there were passages that one might
have been forgiven for attributing to the Parisian Prokofiev of
the 1920s; The Fiery Angel and Le pas d’acier sprang
to mind. Ashkenazy and the Philharmonia gave a good account of
this suite. There was always a clear sense of the music’s
direction and the dances were well characterised. The Stravinskian
influence from The Rite of Spring was apparent at the
moment when Theseus’s men rush at Bacchus, although Roussel never
sounds quite so primitivist. A greater variety of orchestral
colour would have benefited the performance; this is not Ravel,
but there is some gorgeous orchestration nevertheless. However,
the audience would still have had a good sense of the music and
its character.
Evgeny Kissin joined the orchestra for Prokofiev’s Third Piano
Concerto. His was a towering reading of what is probably the most
popular of Prokofiev’s five concertos for the instrument.
The music suits Kissin perfectly, providing a great opportunity
not only to showcase his phenomenal technique, but also for the
various aspects of his individual sonority to shine through. His
tone can melt as well as stab, and never loses its strikingly
mature roundedness. Especially noteworthy was the careful
weighting of each chord, however frenetic the context, so that
even when Prokofiev is at his most percussive, every note is still
made to tell. This is a far rarer gift than one might imagine and
it clearly helped to have a conductor with intimate knowledge of
the score under his fingers: Ashkenazy’s direction was always sure
and was estimably synchronised with the soloist. An especially
noteworthy instance was the third movement’s perfect alignment
between the piano, percussion, and con legno strings.
Elsewhere, the strings sometimes sounded a little thin,
overshadowed by the fine contributions of the duly grotesque –
where necessary – woodwind and the powerful brass.
Prokofiev’s Sixth Symphony is a more sombre work than its
immediate predecessor, the Fifth, and arguably the greater of
these two great ‘war symphonies’. Ashkenazy however, made it
sound closer to the more triumphal Fifth than I can previously
recall. The strange combination of darkness and other-worldliness
that characterises the first movement was never made quite to tell
as it should, nor was the driving sense of purpose that should
once and for all give the lie to claims that Prokofiev was not a
true symphonist. Songfulness replaced threnody in the second
movement
Largo:
not unattractive in itself, but by the same token mistaking what
seems to me to be the predominant quality of the movement.
Ashkenazy’s direction here sometimes had a tendency to meander,
where clarity and implacability of purpose should be all. Indeed,
the brooding quality of dark tragedy was short-changed throughout,
with the consequence that the masterly handled – at least in
isolation – final explosion at the end of the otherwise almost
carefree third movement seemed to come almost from nowhere, and
lost its cyclical sense. Ashkenazy’s reading sounded oddly like a
work very much in progress, as if the symphony were new to him,
which of course it is not. Once again, the woodwind and brass –
trumpets and horns with wonderfully ‘Russian’ vibrato on occasion
– outshone the strings. The ‘cellos in particular sounded
surprisingly thin, worlds apart from Mravinsky’s Leningrad
Philharmonic, who premiered the work in 1947. Such weakness was
not evenly spread throughout the section, for the violins on
occasion at least captured an authentic Prokofiev
bitter-sweetness, and the double basses impressed throughout. The
latter, however, only served to highlight what was lacking above.
Mark Berry
Back
to Top
Cumulative Index Page