SEEN AND HEARD INTERNATIONAL

SEEN AND HEARD UK CONCERT  REVIEW
 

Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev: Denis Matsuev (piano) Philharmonia Orchestra, Yuri Temirkanov (conductor) Royal Festival Hall, London, 24.6.2010 (GD)

Tchaikovsky: Polonaise from Eugene Onegin
Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No 3 in C, Op. 26
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5 in E minor, Op. 64

This was the first in a series of three concerts for the 2009 - 2010 Philharmonia season devoted to Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky, all conducted by the eminent Russian conductor Yuri Temirkanov. The concert opened with a rather perfunctory and  slack reading of the exuberant 'Polonaise' from Act II of 'Eugene Onegin'. I can't really imagine that Tatyana, on her name-day, would have been inspired or enchanted here. The whole performance lacked the élan and rhythmic (balletic) swagger so necessary. All this was not helped by opening trumpet fanfares that were initially tonally flat.

Denis Matsuev gave the kind of virtuoso performance that left one staggered by his pianistic wizardry: those quasi-glissandi trills at the coda of the C major third movement had to be seen to be believed. And sitting in a central position in the front stalls I could see his dazzling pianistic brilliance very well . But Prokofiev's most frequently played piano concerto, with its many tonal/ harmonic contrasts, also needs plenty of lyrical finesse, which I found somewhat lacking tonight. It was not so much that Matsuev was incapable of playing lyrically or sotto voce, rather it was more a question here of being able to  sustain it. Also, especially in the second movement first variation, the piano needs to blend more with the mood of understated but resilient melodic ambiguity in the orchestra.  Here it seemed that Matsuev certainly had his own ideas about interpretation which did not always correspond to the conductor’s view. Matsuev came into his own in the brilliant march-like 5th and last variation where every accent and rhythmic nuance was crystal clear, and as in the brilliant last movement, exhilarating in effect. In general terms, Temirkanov conducted well enough, but I did have the impression that more orchestral rehearsal would not have gone amiss. I had difficulty in differentiating between celli and basses and throughout the concert I wanted more tone and rhythmic thrust especially from the bass section. At times, especially in the first movement, Prokofiev's many orchestral nuances degenerated into a wash of sound. Things did pick up in the quasi- canonic first variation of the second movement, with some distinctive woodwind playing but the problems of orchestral balance still persisted.

Among active conductors today it is fairly hard to point to one who is so steeped in the 'Russian' tradition as Temirkanov. By this I mean the Russian tradition that Tchaikovsky knew revolving around St Petersburg and Moscow, the composer conducting the first performance of his Symphony No. 5 in 1888 in St Petersburg. Temirkanov has been the chief conductor of the St Petersburg Philharmonic since 1988 and first conducted the orchestra in 1967, before becoming assistant to the great Mravinsky in 1968.  With all these excellent credentials, I was expecting great things but, alas, tonight’s performance failed to live up to such hopes. The opening Andante, which prefigures the work’s 'motto' theme, and at crotchet=80 denoting sustained movement, was taken at a debilitating and dragging tempo, making little sense when the 'Allegro con anima' made its initial statement. Throughout this movement and the whole symphony, it was apparent that Temirkanov had spent more time in rehearsal on this work, the orchestral balance sounding more clear and delineated than in the first half of the concert. But much of the first movement was spoiled for me by the conductor’s decision to make a large ritenuto at the start of the 'molto piu tranquillo' lyrical second subject. I thought this kind 'pulling Tchaikovsky around' was an agogic mannerism  of the past since the movement sounds so much more symphonically/dramatically convincing when played as the composer instructed. This seems all the more frustrating when Tchaikovsky goes to the trouble of giving this section a distinct metronome marking, which is very slightly slower but still 'with movement', and writes a restless syncopation of 3/4 on a basic 6/8 meter to ram the point home. Temirkanov's predecessor and mentor Mravinsky, judges this tempo transition to perfection. So why had Temirkanov not learned from Tchaikovsky and  his great  teacher?

The second movement Andante sounded more convincing with a sustained tempo throughout, but, again, I had the impression that this 'andante' should have had more movement. The middle episode 'moderato con anima' in F sharp minor, leading to a tutti statement of the motto theme in the home key sounded more loud than dramatically well contrasted.

The A major 'Valse' had the appropriate light touch, with some fine woodwind playing and nice 'spiccato' runs in the balletic trio. Temirkanov judged the transition from the Andante maestoso to the Allegro vivace in the finale well however and most of the finale, with all its contrast and variation,  was well contoured. Perhaps a slightly more measured, but still fast tempo, as with Mravinsky, would have payed off, because at times the chosen faster tempo seemed to run away with itself.  Towards the D major climax there were also ensemble problems in the brass, which seemed to have been rectified by the time we reached the finale peroration of the motto theme, slightly held back as instructed. Throughout, as already noted, I would have welcomed  more thrust and delineation in the double basses, especially their interplay with the celli. This lack was particularly apparent in the recitative-like passage, just before the D major climax for basses with elaborate descending figures in the woodwind: a marvellous passage inexplicably cut in some older performances, notably from Mengelberg. The triumphant  coda itself, now modulated in D major, was exciting, even if it glared somewhat in its loudness. Additionally, throughout the movement the timpanist’s zeal, and occasionally his tuning, should have been better checked: at times the timpani were so loud as to obliterate other important textures, notably in the woodwind.

Geoff Diggines