Other Links
Editorial Board
- Editor - Bill Kenny
Founder - Len Mullenger
Google Site Search
SEEN
AND HEARD BBC PROMENADE CONCERT REVIEW
Prom 15, Beethoven and Carter: Nicholas Daniel (oboe), BBC Symphony Orchestra, David Robertson (conductor). Royal Albert Hall, London, 28.7.2008 (MB)
Beethoven –
Grosse Fuge, Op.133
Carter – Oboe Concerto
Beethoven – Symphony no.5 in C minor, Op.67
There are doubtless all sorts of connections to be made between
Beethoven and Elliott Carter, to my mind the greatest American
composer to date. However, I am not so sure that they were really
made in this programme, notwithstanding the presence of that most
ultra-modernist of Beethoven’s work, the Grosse Fuge.
Instead, we had a well balanced if relatively short programme:
nothing wrong with that, but it felt like a bit of a missed
opportunity when one thinks what one might have chosen to follow the
first two items. Perhaps the Fifth Symphony was there to boost the
audience; if so, the ploy seemed to have worked, for there were few
empty seats.
‘Though intended for string quartet,’ Barry Cooper wrote in his note
for the Grosse Fuge, ‘the work can have an even more
overwhelming effect when played, as tonight, by orchestral strings.’
I hesitate to disagree with so distinguished a Beethoven scholar,
but disagree I do and strongly too. For me, some – though by no
means all – of Beethoven’s radicalism is lost when the piece is
transferred from a quartet, audibly and visibly straining at the
bounds of what is possible, to the plusher sound of an orchestral
string section. It is similar to the problem I have with the
transcription of Verklärte Nacht; whilst I am happy to hear
alternative versions, the real bite remains with the original. A
Klemperer perhaps can make me change my mind momentarily when it
comes to the Beethoven. However, despite this performance’s virtues,
David Robertson is no Klemperer when it comes to Beethoven. The
signs were promising: no half-hearted compromise with a chamber-size
section, but full Romantic strings; if one is going to do this, one
might as well do it properly. Violins were split, which paid off in
conveying the echoes, imitations, and contrasts between the two
violin parts. There was some beautifully hushed playing in the
second of the three principal sections of the work: mysterious yet,
unfortunately, also a little mushy. The double basses made a
treasurable impact when they were included. And there was, in the
final, compound duple section, an encouraging sense of
fragmentation, of Beethoven bringing us to the very modern
problematic of the unity of the work of art itself. The syncopations
were well handled here, which added to the instability. And yet, the
performance could have done with more of this throughout. It was
good, yet it suffered a little from understatement. Whatever the
Grosse Fuge may or should be, understated does not spring to
mind.
Carter’s Oboe Concerto was written in 1986-7, shortly before he was
eighty, so doubtless qualifies as relatively ‘early’, given the
composer’s extraordinary late fecundity. It is written for solo
oboe, a concertino group of four violas and percussionist, and
orchestra, actually more of a chamber ensemble, comprising flute,
clarinet, horn, trombone, two percussionists, and viola-less
strings. Written in one continuous stretch, its twenty minutes or so
nevertheless comprise something akin to the classical fast-slow-fast
three-movement-structure of a concerto. The performers, all of them,
did Carter proud. Indeed, it sounded as if this were a repertory
piece, in which the players were as much at home as the composer
with its modernity: just what a performance of new(-ish) music
should be. Nicholas Daniel drew upon considerable twin reserves of
musicality and virtuosity and blended them. He did not mask the
sometimes extreme demands – the concerto was written for and
inspired by Heinz Holliger, no less – but nor did he allow them to
become his principal concern. Throughout, as with all of the
players, there was sense to be made of the ever-changing and yet
ever-present compositional line. Carter’s polyrhythms came across,
as they should, although this is no mean feat, as the equivalent of
melody in rhythm. Time played its tricks and kept its command, for
which Robertson must be apportioned a great deal of credit. Carter’s
skills as a colourist were not denied, the percussionist from the
concertino group deserving especial mention in this respect. The
sense of temporal progress and sonorous transformation as he
switched from vibraphone to glockenspiel was an object lesson in
rescuing his orchestral section from the charge of being mere
purveyors of ‘effects’. But it was with the oboe alone that the
concerto so memorably faded into nothingness.
What is one to do with Beethoven’s Fifth, given that most of us will
have performances from Furtwängler, Klemperer, the Kleibers,
Karajan, Böhm, etc., etc., burned into our memories? Robertson was
quoted in the programme as saying, quite correctly, that we have
‘lost all sense of how radical Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony really
is’. I wish that he had made it sound more so, for what I heard was
a perfectly decent account, better than many of the merely perverse
treatments it would receive today, yet never shocking and never
truly inspiring. Once again, we had a good-sized orchestra, with
sixteen first violins and other strings in proportion. Perhaps this
should be partly attributed to the hall’s acoustic, but it rarely
sounded as if we had so many. There was once again, I felt, a
certain understatement to the performance, which is certainly not a
quality for which I seek in this work. The first movement hurried
along reasonably eventfully, but the splendidly implacable coda did
not really seem to arise from what had gone before. Its true
vehemence ought to have been unrelentingly present from the outset.
And by vehemence I do not mean the unpleasant blaring we sometimes
had to endure, here and during the scherzo, from the horns. The
Andante was unquestionably con moto, perhaps a little
much so, but there is plenty of room for different interpretations
here. When it occasionally sounded too driven, I thought that
Robertson overstepped the boundaries, but I suspect that many would
have felt differently. He was successful in eliciting a sense of
mystery from the orchestra and eventually a fine sense of momentum
was built up. The scherzo followed immediately and at quite a
breakneck tempo. This just about worked but the same tempo was
simply too fast for the trio, in which the ’cellos and double basses
sounded breathless. (A certain pay off, arguably, was the sense of
connection with the Grosse Fuge.) Second – and rightly, final
– time round, the scherzo purveyed an excellent sense of the
ghostly, forcing one to listen closely to Beethoven’s still-wondrous
scoring.
Unfortunately, mystery was quite absent from the humdrum transition
to the finale, when this should sounds as one of the most
extraordinary passages in all music. Day broke forth effectively
enough, if a little on the fast side once again. However, the
orchestra soon sounded somewhat tired. This was less so when
repeated. There were some exultant moments in the finale and the
piccolo shone as it should, yet there were equally some moments that
were faltering or merely nondescript. I speak deliberately of
‘moments’, since the whole never quite added up, nor did it speak of
the metaphysical. Karajan once advised Simon Rattle to ‘throw away’
his first hundred Beethoven Fifths, testament to what a difficult
work this is to bring off. I have heard worse, much worse, but I
have also heard much better, if mostly from great recordings of the
past. Sometimes I wonder whether we really know Beethoven at all,
although there is always
Daniel Barenboim to put me right on that score.
Mark Berry
Back to Top Cumulative Index Page