Other Links

Editorial Board

Google Site Search

Prokofiev, Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky: Simon Trpčeski (piano), Philharmonia Orchestra, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Royal Festival Hall, London, 30.11.2008 (GD).

Prokofiev:  Autumnal, Symphonic Sketch, op.8
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 3 in D minor, op.30
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 4 in F minor, op.36


Ashkenazy opened this all Russian concert with a little played and little known orchestral piece ‘Autumnal’ (‘Symphonic Sketch’) by Prokofiev. It is a relatively early work, written in 1916, and it incorporates elements from the earlier (turn of century) symbolist movement in music and the arts in general: I heard some traces of Scriabin in the opening shimmering sounds of tremolo strings and muted ‘mysterious’ woodwind figurations. Prokofiev himself acknowledged the influence of such pieces as Rachmaninov’s ‘The Isle of the Dead’, although it is possible to argue that ‘Autumnal’ is more economic in form and content than Rachmaninov’s lugubrious piece (‘Autumnal runs at just over seven minutes in duration).  Prokofiev thought the latter too long (‘Isle of the Dead’ which takes over twenty minutes)! I was even reminded of some of the veiled orchestral sound-scape of Debussy’s ‘Pelleas et Melisande’, first performed in 1902. Ashkenazy had obviously rehearsed the piece scrupulously and he producing a wonderful translucency in the orchestral textures. The important parts for trumpet and harp (no percussion) were beautifully blended into the surrounding web of orchestral texture demonstrating the magical diversity Prokofiev could achieve with a small orchestra.
 
The young Macedonian pianist Simon Trpčeski gave a most musical performance of Rachmaninov’s Third Piano Concerto. The performance was virtuosic in the best sense of the word, never succumbing to any kind of rhetorical indulgence, which is part of the interpretive tradition of this, and other, Rachmaninov concertos. Ashkenazy understands this work in a way given to few other conductors - surely to do with his legacy of playing, as well as conducting, the work - which makes for the most sensitive accompaniment. He judged the first movement’s Allegro ma non tanto perfectly, holding back very slightly for the ‘non tanto’. The ‘Intermezzo: Adagio’ never dragged and here Trpčeski was sensitive to every harmonic nuance. Both soloist and conductor phrased the basic two in the bar of the final ‘Alla breve’ with just the right degree of rhythmic lilt. There were a few tentative entries from Trpčeski which actually added to the sense of anticipation gained in ‘live’ performances. Throughout, soloist and conductor were in total accord. The Philharmonia responded with playing of mercurial lucidity, tonal depth and sensitivity; the woodwind section in especially responsive form. 

The excellence in orchestral playing, and Ashkenazy’s sensitive and perceptive conducting, also characterised the performance of Tchaikovsky’s Fourth Symphony. Especially notable were the wonderful lilt Ashkenazy achieved in the first movement waltz theme with its gentle rocking dotted rhythm (beautiful woodwind ensemble as in the preceding concerto); the contrast between the mercurial pizzicato and the contrasting  peasant sounds (particularly in a finely articulated piccolo solo) of the central section of the third movement; the beautifully played oboe melody in ‘Andantino’ second movement; and the finely contoured (especially in terms of ryhthmic contrast) finale, never sounding loud or bombastic as it sometimes can. But on another level I felt there was something lacking, especially in the two outer movements, in terms of dramatic projection. The fate motive in the first movement lacked the sense of lugubrious dread one still hears in the Mravinsky (Leningrad) recording. Also in the same movements development section (one of the composer’s most successful purely ‘symphonic’ inspirations) lacked that rhythmic thrust, that almost panic-stricken drive one hears with conductors like Mravinsky and Markevich. Also the finale, and the coda in particular, although finely contoured, didn’t manage to take my breath away, in the sense of accumulation of tension and sheer excitement, as the Mravinksky recording never fails to do. But the performance, in terms of its own merit, was, as I said, as sensitive, perceptive, and as finely played as one is likely to hear today. My only quibble was Askkenazy’s non-antiphonal placing of the violin section throughout the concert.

Geoff Diggines


Back to Top                                                    Cumulative Index Page